Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

[Dean]

Quoted from skier_pete:
She did take the time towards the end to take a little shot at me for being a resale owner - she re-iterated that they want to keep ALL owners satisfied regardless of whether DVC had seen a financial benefit from their membership or not - pointing out that in my case they did not. I

But TWDC did see a financial benefit from your contract. The first owner purchased it from them. That is where it should end for Disney, they no,longer own the contract.
When you sell your car does the dealership think they should get a piece of the sale?

Every single resale is a potential lost sale in their eyes. Their ideal would be no one could ever sell but would think they could going in.

 

[crvetter]

Ok, here is why I don't think they can change the total number of points required for a year's worth of a stay in any given unit.

According to my tax documents, I own interest in 0.9150% of Unit 9B at the Villas at Disney's Grand Californian, according to my contract I own 206 vacation points, which means that for the unit I own interest in, to stay an entire year would take 22,514 points. Now, if that total number of points for the year changes, then my percentage interest changes and the deed is wrong or they would have to adjust the number of vacation points I get every year and the contract is wrong, this is why they cannot change the total number of points for a year for any specific room type, as it would change percentages and yearly point totals for everyone that owns at that resort.

For example, let's say they did indeed change the number of points and it now takes 25,000 points for an entire year, that would mean my 206 points now only represents 0.824% or in order to retain the correct percentage, my points would have to be increased to 229 points per year.

I would be interested to know how the Yvonne person would respond to this point.

Actually this language was cleared up by Yvonne when I spoke with her because while I wasn’t arguing this point I was curious. Our ownership interest for legal purposes is 100% tied to that unit (but not usage as previously stated). For instance if there is a total loss and there is an insurances payout you’ll get it based on that legal ownership. However, the explanation she gave for why it says point chart changes can’t change the number of points in a unit was related to phasing of a resort (and removal of units from a resort). She explained it as if a resort is being actively sold they can’t adjust the point charts up and start declaring more points in the subsequent units. She also said if a unit is removed from the association for some reason it removes the amount of points it declared. She did stated this could result in a point chart change to keep the new total amount of points in the resort in balance. She said each unit is predetermined how many points it contains but that doesn’t map to the cost per night as that is governed by other language.

If you take the point chart from day one of a resort and determine the number of points to reserve a Unit (which may have multiple vacation home types) for an entire you that number doesn’t agree with what was declared.

 

[TexasChick123]

Actually this language was cleared up by Yvonne when I spoke with her because while I wasn’t arguing this point I was curious. Our ownership interest for legal purposes is 100% tied to that unit. For instance if there is a total loss and there is an insurances payout you’ll get it based on that legal ownership. However, the explanation she gave for why it says point chart changes can’t change the number of points in a unit was related to phasing of a resort (and removal of units from a resort). She explained it as if a resort is being actively sold they can’t adjust the point charts up and start declaring more points in the subsequent units. She also said if a unit is removed from the association for some reason it removes the amount of points it declared. She did stated this could result in a point chart change to keep the new total amount of points in the resort in balance. She said each unit is predetermined how many points it contains but that doesn’t map to the cost per night as that is governed by other language.

Thanks again to everyone for taking the time to contact them and discuss on these threads.

This is how I feel today after reading all of this: And I’m used to this stuff.

DVD’s/DVCM’s self-interest, the whole “We can do whatever we want” attitude, twisting just about everything they can in their favor, and hating on resale buyers repeatedly at every turn really bothers me. No, I don’t expect a corporation to act any differently than they are, but I don’t have to like it. No need for anyone to argue with me. I am allowed to be bothered by it just as others are allowed to be ok with it or see it differently and not be bothered.

 

[ziravan]

Thanks again to everyone for taking the time to contact them and discuss on these threads.

This is how I feel today after reading all of this: And I’m used to this stuff.

DVD’s/DVCM’s self-interest, the whole “We can do whatever we want” attitude, twisting just about everything they can in their favor, and hating on resale buyers repeatedly at every turn really bothers me. No, I don’t expect a corporation to act any differently than they are, but I don’t have to like it. No need for anyone to argue with me. I am allowed to be bothered by it just as others are allowed to be ok with or see at it differently and not be bothered.

What bothers me about it is just how unnecessary and even antithetical it is to their bottom line.

They’re selling points as fast as they can make resorts.

In the meantime, resale replaces blasé owners with invigorated ones, ready to hit the parks and spend some money.

WDW should be happy about resales. The idea that an owner is going to own for 50 years is short sided to the bottom line. It’s much better for the bottom line to keep churning new owners excited to spend.

IF those new buyers were crimping new sales, that’s one thing. Where’s the evidence of that?

VGF sold out shortly after Poly was ready to sell. Poly sold out shortly after CCV was ready to sell. CCV will sell out shortly after Riviera goes on sale.

Where’s the fire to go after resales?

 

[ziravan]

We bought BCV resale in 2014. We went to WDW 5 times, from Texas, in that first rolling year.

We were so excited about it, we bought a guaranteed Poly direct contract 6 months later.

Our resale contract sold us on a direct contract.

And I know from being a regular on these boards that that’s not an unusual experience.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

We bought BCV resale in 2014. We went to WDW 5 times, from Texas, in that first rolling year.

We were so excited about it, we bought a guaranteed Poly direct contract 6 months later.

Our resale contract sold us on a direct contract.

And I know from being a regular on these boards that that’s not an unusual experience.

We also bought resale first and added on direct....more than once at the new resorts. It might not be that strange of an occurrence. That was back when there was no difference between the two. I considered that a selling point and differentiator to many other timeshares.

 

[skier_pete]

I want to defend Yvonne on this one. I called it a "dig" but I don't completely think she meant it that way. I think what she was trying to say is that they try and treat owners the same, regardless of whether they are resale or direct - like they are valuable members. (And yes I know the perks are different.) And though I took it as a bit of a "yes, we know you are a resale member"poke - I think she mostly intended it as reassurance that they do value me.

And I have to say, I have never once felt treated poorly by DVC as a resale buyer - beyond the loss of benefits, which I was lucky enough to get in mostly before they were pulled away.

And I would NEVER have bought in at direct prices. I don't see the price point as a reasonable value to me - heck I can't even see the current resale prices as value. So the fact I could buy in at resale and they still get my money for staying on property. That was the only bit that really annoyed me when she mentioned that they didn't derive any income from me as resale member where I had to say "Maybe DVC didn't, but Disney sure did!"

 

[Bing Showei]

I think she mostly intended it as reassurance that they do value me.

Then why point it out at all?

It’s like meeting a person in an interview and having then say, “We don’t care about race at our organization. So even though you’re, well, you know; we would, of course, welcome working with your kind.”

Well duh. I came in assuming as much until you said that!

She made a point to say the same thing to zavandor, she made a point to say the same thing to me, so I trust this wasn’t as innocuous as you are suggesting it is.

 

[skier_pete]

Then why point it out at all?

It’s like meeting a person in an interview and having then say, “We don’t care about race at our organization. So even though you’re, well, you know; we would, of course, welcome working with your kind.”

Well duh. I came in assuming as much until you said that!

She made a point to say the same thing to zavandor, she made a point to say the same thing to me, so I trust this wasn’t as innocuous as you are suggesting it is.

No, not innocuous, you are right, and definitely purposefully said. Just saying some people implied I was treated worse by it, and I don't think that was the case.

In the end, it's such a weird situation. She doesn't really say much that makes us feel better, yet takes the time out of clearly busy schedule to address our concerns. I just feel like if they were going to just do it all over again in a year they wouldn't do this.

 

[Mumof4mice]

Well, I didn't receive a call from Yvonne at the time scheduled by her assistant today.

I had low expectations of what the call would accomplish. But not quite that low!

 

[crvetter]

Well, I didn't receive a call from Yvonne at the time scheduled by her assistant today.

I had low expectations of what the call would accomplish. But not quite that low!

That is unusual. With my calls if running late I was always given a call asking if I wanted to wait or reschedule. Hopefully she reaches out tomorrow.

 

[Mumof4mice]

That is unusual. With my calls if running late I was always given a call asking if I wanted to wait or reschedule. Hopefully she reaches out tomorrow.

I emailed her assistant 15 minutes into the scheduled window. Followed up with a call to the assistant's number (got voicemail).

Luckily I had scheduled the time with her assistant in via email. Not interested to have the missed appointment blamed on my confusion.

ETA:

She admitted that in the past and in this case - they have done a very poor job in communicating with the membership the reason for the changes - which can leave members confused. That in the future they intend to be more forthcoming with the reasons for the changes to the allocation charts. She did NOT (of course) indicate that they would not make these (or similar) changes in the future. She also specified (and maybe the first time I've heard this) that what they are saying in their sales materials can also be confusing to the members. I also at this point said that I didn't think I personally had any confusion about what they could do - I just did not think that increases to the lock-off premium would occur since they would never be beneficial to the membership. She said that changes need to take into consideration all 65,000 members - not just myself

I don't like this explanation she gave @skier_pete . If I had 100% legal right, and a tiny minority of members object because they are "confused" and misguided, would I be so quick to revise the charts?

 

[mustinjourney]

Can resorting to blowing up Twitter be enough?

 

[zavandor]

Actually this language was cleared up by Yvonne when I spoke with her because while I wasn’t arguing this point I was curious. Our ownership interest for legal purposes is 100% tied to that unit (but not usage as previously stated). For instance if there is a total loss and there is an insurances payout you’ll get it based on that legal ownership. However, the explanation she gave for why it says point chart changes can’t change the number of points in a unit was related to phasing of a resort (and removal of units from a resort). She explained it as if a resort is being actively sold they can’t adjust the point charts up and start declaring more points in the subsequent units. She also said if a unit is removed from the association for some reason it removes the amount of points it declared. She did stated this could result in a point chart change to keep the new total amount of points in the resort in balance. She said each unit is predetermined how many points it contains but that doesn’t map to the cost per night as that is governed by other language.

If you take the point chart from day one of a resort and determine the number of points to reserve a Unit (which may have multiple vacation home types) for an entire you that number doesn’t agree with what was declared.

This is Magical Law: sprinkle a contract with enough pixie dust and it can tell whatever you want. Not much different from saying the maximum reallocation is valid only the first year: the contract says explicitly something else.
When I spoke with Yvonne 2 days before the Big Rollback this was one of the two questions I left her with (the other being how they could increase the lockoff premium without balancing it anywhere else, when the contract says any increase must be balanced). I pointed to her paragraph 10.6.3 of the condominium declaration where it says what happens if a unit is damaged so it cannot be rebuilt and it is removed from the system.
This is what the contract says:

In this regard any insurance proceeding resulting from the failure to reconstruct or replace a Unit will be disboursed to affect Owners for their share of the non-reconstructed or replaced Unit resulting in their withdrawal from partecipation in the Home Resort Reservation Component and the DVC reservation component so that members of the Club will not be attempting to make reservations for available DVC Resort Vacation Homes on a greater than "one-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio", as that term is defined in Section 721.05(23), Florida Statues
(my emphasis)

Nowhere in the POS a reallocation is allowed to rebalance the resort because of the removal of a Unit. A reallocation is allowed only to balance demand. What this paragraph says is that if a Unit and all its owners are removed from the system, then the rest of the resort must be in balance. This is coherent with the one-to-one rule in the Florida laws which applies to each Timeshare Unit, not to the whole resort. I haven't yet found and no one pointed an addendum to the law that for point timeshares it is different.

When she asked me what I wanted, I said they should rollback the reallocation to the 2019 charts (adjusted for floating holidays) and she replied that would not happen because everything had been done in accordance to the law and approved by the relevant authorities. But she promised to call me back in a week and answer to my questions. Well, two days later they rolled back the point charts and I haven't heard from her yet.

 

[hcortesis]

Every single resale is a potential lost sale in their eyes. Their ideal would be no one could ever sell but would think they could going in.

This is exactly why in my mind there doesn't need to be posts on "why doesn't Disney like resales". Or "why does Disney treat resale buyers as second class citizens". Or "what is Disney's problem, resale buyers still spend money in the parks and in restaurants and on merchandise". Disney wants every purchase to come from them. And why not? I am the same in my business. I don't want a potential customer to buy what I sell from someone else. I want to make that sale. Those quotes above weren't taken from any poster directly, just me putting together roughly what has been said here over time.

I get it. Re-sale is a money saver usually. But Disney wants it all. They want to sell points direct. They don't want a customer not to buy from them.

 

[carolina_yankee]

She said that changes need to take into consideration all 65,000 members - not just myself. I agreed that I understood that a change may impact me negatively and I am OK with that, but want to be able to see where the change impacts members overall favorably.

Thank you for sharing your call and thoughts on it. Is the quoted membership number accurate? I seem to recall DVC celebrating 100,000 members several years ago. Maybe a digit is missing, either garbled in the call or dropped when you typed the report? I ask because if membership is 65,000 that indicates a drop and would be curious.

Dirk

 

[drusba]

This is exactly why in my mind there doesn't need to be posts on "why doesn't Disney like resales". Or "why does Disney treat resale buyers as second class citizens". Or "what is Disney's problem, resale buyers still spend money in the parks and in restaurants and on merchandise". Disney wants every purchase to come from them. And why not? I am the same in my business. I don't want a potential customer to buy what I sell from someone else. I want to make that sale. Those quotes above weren't taken from any poster directly, just me putting together roughly what has been said here over time.

I get it. Re-sale is a money saver usually. But Disney wants it all. They want to sell points direct. They don't want a customer not to buy from them.

But that is not actually correct. DVD has a right of first refusal on all resales. Resales generally sell for amounts significantly lower than a new sale price. If DVD buys a resale, it gets to break the purchased points down into different sizes for sale and then sell those points again to new or add-on purchasers and make another significant profit. So the resale market allows Disney to sell again for profit what it has already sold before.

In other words, DVD can sell a resort new until it sells out, then it gets to sell a lot of what it has already sold again via ROFR and new sales of the same product it has already sold. Think of it as large new and use car dealer. It sells all the new cars, then buys them backed used, then sells them again, except in Disney's position, unlike that car dealer, it gets to sell that used product again for a higher price than it sold it for in the first go around because it has raised new sale prices in the interim. So the resale market is actually DVD's friend not enemy.

DVD is not really trying to protect its sales of new resorts. Those would occur regardless of the resale market. It has instead embarked on a plan to basically destroy the resale market under the belief it can ROFR at an even lower price as a result and still resell at its high price. In other words, it is greed personified, but it also creates a possible huge risk in that the resale restrictions created may eventually result in much slower sales of a new resort and then also affect sales of that resort's points the second time after exercising ROFR.

 

[crvetter]

This is Magical Law: sprinkle a contract with enough pixie dust and it can tell whatever you want. Not much different from saying the maximum reallocation is valid only the first year: the contract says explicitly something else.
When I spoke with Yvonne 2 days before the Big Rollback this was one of the two questions I left her with (the other being how they could increase the lockoff premium without balancing it anywhere else, when the contract says any increase must be balanced). I pointed to her paragraph 10.6.3 of the condominium declaration where it says what happens if a unit is damaged so it cannot be rebuilt and it is removed from the system.
This is what the contract says:

In this regard any insurance proceeding resulting from the failure to reconstruct or replace a Unit will be disboursed to affect Owners for their share of the non-reconstructed or replaced Unit resulting in their withdrawal from partecipation in the Home Resort Reservation Component and the DVC reservation component so that members of the Club will not be attempting to make reservations for available DVC Resort Vacation Homes on a greater than "one-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio", as that term is defined in Section 721.05(23), Florida Statues
(my emphasis)

Nowhere in the POS a reallocation is allowed to rebalance the resort because of the removal of a Unit. A reallocation is allowed only to balance demand. What this paragraph says is that if a Unit and all its owners are removed from the system, then the rest of the resort must be in balance. This is coherent with the one-to-one rule in the Florida laws which applies to each Timeshare Unit, not to the whole resort. I haven't yet found and no one pointed an addendum to the law that for point timeshares it is different.

When she asked me what I wanted, I said they should rollback the reallocation to the 2019 charts (adjusted for floating holidays) and she replied that would not happen because everything had been done in accordance to the law and approved by the relevant authorities. But she promised to call me back in a week and answer to my questions. Well, two days later they rolled back the point charts and I haven't heard from her yet.

I agree it seemed like an answer that didn’t pass the sniff test to me. But in reality the Points in a unit when declared weren’t equal to the number of points that would be needed to reserve the unit for an entire year. So in the end if that unit needed to be removed I suppose they would need to change the point charts to be one to one again.

Though I had the same experience that it wouldn’t roll back either and in a couple days it was rolled back. My main point was the maximum reallocation where I was told it applied the first year only.

 

[Bing Showei]

This is exactly why in my mind there doesn't need to be posts on "why doesn't Disney like resales". Or "why does Disney treat resale buyers as second class citizens". Or "what is Disney's problem, resale buyers still spend money in the parks and in restaurants and on merchandise". Disney wants every purchase to come from them. And why not? I am the same in my business. I don't want a potential customer to buy what I sell from someone else. I want to make that sale. Those quotes above weren't taken from any poster directly, just me putting together roughly what has been said here over time.

I get it. Re-sale is a money saver usually. But Disney wants it all. They want to sell points direct. They don't want a customer not to buy from them.

You're conflating Disney and DVD. If Disney was indeed of this mindset, it's very shortsighted.

Suppose you are the only mechanic in town. That is the bulk of your business. You hire your brother to sell cars on the lot adjacent to your shop. You service every single one of those sold cars, because hey, you're the only show in town.

What your brother is starting to do is say to every person who brings their used car, a car who's original buyer bought at your lot, to be serviced, "Hey used car guy, you'll need wait out back instead. The lobby is for our customers only." And out back there's a smiling plastic headed mouse who is gladly taking your money... ok, so that analogy starts to fall apart.

But the point is: if your business sells a singular good that people buy and keep forever (like jewelry?) yeah, that mindset might work. But if you sell a product with a revolving door, where owners will not hold onto the product for it's lifetime, or if you're Disney and your idiot brother DVD starts shooting himself in the foot (How many owners, resale or otherwise, were considering buying Riviera direct before the restrictions were announced?), you need to take stock and ask yourself if your brother's business practices are good for your business.

 

[hcortesis]

But that is not actually correct. DVD has a right of first refusal on all resales. Resales generally sell for amounts significantly lower than a new sale price. If DVD buys a resale, it gets to break the purchased points down into different sizes for sale and then sell those points again to new or add-on purchasers and make another significant profit. So the resale market allows Disney to sell again for profit what it has already sold before.

In other words, DVD can sell a resort new until it sells out, then it gets to sell a lot of what it has already sold again via ROFR and new sales of the same product it has already sold. Think of it as large new and use car dealer. It sells all the new cars, then buys them backed used, then sells them again, except in Disney's position, unlike that car dealer, it gets to sell that used product again for a higher price than it sold it for in the first go around because it has raised new sale prices in the interim. So the resale market is actually DVD's friend not enemy.

DVD is not really trying to protect its sales of new resorts. Those would occur regardless of the resale market. It has instead embarked on a plan to basically destroy the resale market under the belief it can ROFR at an even lower price as a result and still resell at its high price. In other words, it is greed personified, but it also creates a possible huge risk in that the resale restrictions created may eventually result in much slower sales of a new resort and then also affect sales of that resort's points the second time after exercising ROFR.

You're conflating Disney and DVD. If Disney was indeed of this mindset, it's very shortsighted.

Suppose you are the only mechanic in town. That is the bulk of your business. You hire your brother to sell cars on the lot adjacent to your shop. You service every single one of those sold cars, because hey, you're the only show in town.

What your brother is starting to do is say to every person who brings their used car, a car who's original buyer bought at your lot, to be serviced, "Hey used car guy, you'll need wait out back instead. The lobby is for our customers only." And out back there's a smiling plastic headed mouse who is gladly taking your money... ok, so that analogy starts to fall apart.

But the point is: if your business sells a singular good that people buy and keep forever (like jewelry?) yeah, that mindset might work. But if you sell a product with a revolving door, where owners will not hold onto the product for it's lifetime, or if you're Disney and your idiot brother DVD starts shooting himself in the foot (How many owners, resale or otherwise, were considering buying Riviera direct before the restrictions were announced?), you need to take stock and ask yourself if your brother's business practices are good for your business.

Ok, got it.