RESALE POLICY CHANGE!

[Disney Dad ADL]

It appears someone in theat piror post confused that the unit's being declared to be a commercial unit in the BLT condominium meant the unit was part of the common elements. That is not correct. Any commercial unit that is part of the condominium is, by definition of a "commercial unit," not a common element.

It thus does not resolve the issue of whether Disney can treat TOTWL as a incidental benefit that it can exclude resale purchasers from using. Resale purchasers can be excluded from the use of an incidental benefit, while other members can use it, only if the annual dues to which the resale purchasers contribute are not used to maintain, repair, or operate the applicable incidental benefit. The documents declare that the owner of a commercial unit (which was DVD unless it sold or transfered it to another Disney entity) covers all of ithe operations, repair, and maintenance costs of a commercial unit. However, there could be things in the commercial unit, such as bathrooms, declared to be common elements, or more particularly "limited common elements" usable when using a commercial unit, and the association (and thus owners dues) is responsible for the maintenance of those common elements. Thus, you get into a more complex analysis to determine whether, and the extent to which, resale purchasers can be excluded.

Yes, that is my interpretation of things as well, unless somewhere along the way TOTWL was converted from a Commercial Unit to a Common Element (which is legal, but to my knowledge hasn't been done). Assuming DVD still owns TOTWL, they can allow and exclude whomever they like.

The bathrooms, BTW, are in fact Common Elements (they are labelled as such on the plans). I guess in theory, DVD can't block resale BLT owners from using the bathrooms, LOL.

 

[sndral]

I am not an expert - but I thought if you had a different UY on your contracts you got two different member numbers? Is that incorrect? You didn't specify that both contracts mentioned had the same UY.

Yes, I believe that is correct, and maybe that's it, or the deed is titled differently, but I got the impression that it was the same use year which is why I was checking to see the experience of other existing members adding on same use year/names on deed after 4/4.
Hopefully it's something like a different use year or different names on the deed.

 

[sndral]

...

If it's a separate master there are potential limits including on transferring. Historically DVCMC has been very lenient on multiple contracts of a single owner including allowing multiple transfers and transfers of banked/borrowed points (case by case) but there's no reason they have to be and for non qualified points I could see them being far less lenient. The reality is you might go into it with one set of rules and come out with another. Plus there's never been a guarantee they'd combine them unless one both bought retail and met the other criteria. There have been a handful of examples over the years where they were not combined and should have been. Some have reported DVC refused to combine them after the fact and I haven't seen anyone post they were able to get them combined later. The other issue I see is they could tie the perks to the points used and deny them if a given stay isn't on qualified points. I don't think this is likely but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were to do so.

Thanks for the info. Dean. I guess if they are giving post 4/4 contracts purchased by owners w/ existing member numbers additional member numbers we'll read about it fairly soon.

 

[DebbieB]

Yes, that is my interpretation of things as well, unless somewhere along the way TOTWL was converted from a Commercial Unit to a Common Element (which is legal, but to my knowledge hasn't been done). Assuming DVD still owns TOTWL, they can allow and exclude whomever they like.

The bathrooms, BTW, are in fact Common Elements (they are labelled as such on the plans). I guess in theory, DVD can't block resale BLT owners from using the bathrooms, LOL.

I thought around the time BLT sold out, they did declare TOWL into the timeshare.

Edit - they did. http://dvcnews.com/index.php/resort...lt-declared-including-top-fo-the-world-lounge

 

[sndral]

Thanks for the info. Dean. I guess if they are giving post 4/4 contracts purchased by owners w/ existing member numbers additional member numbers we'll read about it fairly soon.

Ok, it appears it was a one off glitch - so I can continue stalking the perfect use year contract

 

[ziravan]

I thought around the time BLT sold out, they did declare TOWL into the timeshare.

Edit - they did. http://dvcnews.com/index.php/resort...lt-declared-including-top-fo-the-world-lounge

So. They cannot exclude any BLT owner from access to TOTWL because it's being subsidized by dues as a common area.

Good find.

They could exclude other members but that starts to be a headache trying to limit access in such specific ways for so little net benefit (DVC has made its point with or without TOTWL thrown in).

 

[Disney Dad ADL]

I thought around the time BLT sold out, they did declare TOWL into the timeshare.

Edit - they did. http://dvcnews.com/index.php/resort...lt-declared-including-top-fo-the-world-lounge

Yes, that is the same article we were discussing above. I think that the authors of that article misinterpreted what actually happened, or just didn't explain clearly.

TOTWL has indeed been declared as part of the timeshare, but what is important is how it is designated, since the designation determines who pays for the upkeep and who can use it. An area can be designated as one of the following (which is described in the BLT Master Condo Declaration that I linked previously):

1. Residential Unit - These are basically the rooms that you stay in. These are owned by BLT owners, except 2% is owned by DVD for it's own use.
2. Commercial Unit - These are areas which are meant to act as a commercial area (restaurants, stores, bars, etc). A Commercial Unit is NOT owned by BLT owners, but is in fact owned by a separate owner (Presumably Disney or one if it's subsidiaries). Maintenance of commercial units are the responsibility of the owner of the Commercial Unit and is not paid for by regular BLT owners annual dues. In fact, owners of Commercial Units are also responsible for paying for maintenance of Common Elements. Because of this, a Commercial Unit may have it's own rules as to who has access, although the Condo Declaration does state that it must "serve its Owner,the Owner's lessees,guests,invitees, licensees and such other persons who may lawfully be entitled to come on the Condominium Property."
3. Common Element - These are areas that are shared by everyone at BLT. Pools, tennis courts, bathrooms, hallways, the lobby, etc. are all Common Elements. Maintenance of Common Elements are paid for by BLT owner's annual dues. As I mentioned previously, the TOTWL bathrooms are also labelled as Common Elements.
4. Limited Common Element - I think the definition of these can vary, but my understanding is that it usually refers to outside structures that serve a specific unit, such as balconies, parking spaces (for condos that have assigned parking), patios, etc.

If you look at the paperwork filed with the Orange County Comptroller, TOTWL was indeed "declared", but it was designated as a "Commercial Unit". If you look at the article that you mentioned, you see they included the floorplan of TOTWL in the article. Notice that TOTWL is labelled "CU-2", which stands for "Commercial Unit 2". If you look at the bathrooms on the far left and far right of the drawing, you might notice dots on the floors. Those actually say "CE", which stands for "Common Element", however it does not say "CE" anywhere within the actual lounge.

If you read the actual Condominium Declaration for Phase 93 (TOTWL), it states that Phase 93 contains "one COMMERCIAL UNIT". This was recorded 8-18-2011, the very same day that DVCNews article came out (see link below).

Edit for clarification: TOTWL is a "Commercial Unit" and not a "Common Element" and therefore maintenance of TOTWL is not paid for by annual dues. Disney has more control over it's use because of this fact, including potentially restricting access to certain people (assuming they still own it).

Links to documents:

BLT Master Condominium Declaration
http://or.occompt.com/recorder/eagl...532599&id=DOC293S21987.A0&parent=DOC293S21987

Plans for TOTWL (the drawings are more clear here)
http://or.occompt.com/recorder/eagl...42.pdf?id=DOC827S33240.A1&parent=DOC827S33240

Declaration for "Phase 93" which includes TOTWL, recorded 8-18-2011 (same day as that DVCNew article)
http://or.occompt.com/recorder/eagl...43.pdf?id=DOC827S33241.A2&parent=DOC827S33241

 

[Disney Dad ADL]

So. They cannot exclude any BLT owner from access to TOTWL because it's being subsidized by dues as a common area.

Good find.

They could exclude other members but that starts to be a headache trying to limit access in such specific ways for so little net benefit (DVC has made its point with or without TOTWL thrown in).

I believe this is incorrect, please see my post above. TOTWL appears to be a Commercial Unit, although supposedly Commercial Units are supposed to "serve its Owner,the Owner's lessees,guests,invitees, licensees and such other persons who may lawfully be entitled to come on the Condominium Property." One could argue that locking out resale BLT owners would violate this, although technically speaking locking out BLT renters would also violate this (though I believe this is currently the case)

 

[ziravan]

The 25 points isn't gonna work, do you honestly think DVC didn't think of that? Lmbo,

Just want to toot my own horn to say that the 25 point add on DID work, for almost 2 years.

 

[Wakey]

Really interesting analysis of TOTWL. I believe the exact status is obfuscated from even BLT owners, but these are the best posts I've seen on an its' status. Looks like DVD may be paying for upkeep but they've got to let owners in. Once they do that they may as well let all owners in from other resorts to make the cash on the sales?