2020 Point Charts

[crvetter]

I disagree, the lock-off premium is a big disadvantage for owners of the resort as it allows DVC to increase the point cost of studios and 1 bedrooms that are in a lock-off without making a corresponding decrease in point cost elsewhere. Thus if units were booked in the order of studios, 1 bedrooms, everything else, that the owners of that resort would need longer be able to book 100% of the resort.

It is much safe to owner at at resort that has no lock-offs at all. My personal preference would be a resort that had only studios and 1 bedrooms, or a resort that included the lock-off but stated there will never be a lock-off premium. I absolutely hate resorts that have bungalows/cabins/point sinks in them that will never get booked, thereby screwing over all the owners of that resort.

The thing I believe is that each resort that consists of only lockoffs has language that dictates the maximum average nightly point cost for all Vacation Home Type (even those that aren’t dedicated). I personally believe this value to be required to be maintained, I believe Disney on some resorts went above that value and they need to correct the charts. I personally have a call Wednesday scheduled with DVCMC to go over this. I looked at all the previous charts and all prior reallocations stayed within that requirement. This time some resorts and only some want outside the limits. The maximum average nightly point cost is phrased as the maximum reallocation. As I stated many of the other DVC news sites always interpreted the language that way.

So essentially they can only increase the Lockoff premium so much before they break the limit allowed. Which for OKW I know for sure they didn’t. I haven’t done the calculations for SSR yet.

Also increasing the Lockoff premium,if a upper limit does exist, is beneficial for everyone as it burns points (at a marginal rate) Making more inventory. I’m only okay with this if the upper limit does exist as I’ve interpreted the POS to imply.

 

[skier_pete]

It is much safe to owner at at resort that has no lock-offs at all. My personal preference would be a resort that had only studios and 1 bedrooms, or a resort that included the lock-off but stated there will never be a lock-off premium. I absolutely hate resorts that have bungalows/cabins/point sinks in them that will never get booked, thereby screwing over all the owners of that resort.

Unfortunately there are no resorts without lockoffs. And most of them are dominated by lock offs. The safest bet might be BWV which has a lot of dedicated studios and one bedrooms - but it certainly didn't stop them from making the moves there as well.

 

[Dean]

I disagree, the lock-off premium is a big disadvantage for owners of the resort as it allows DVC to increase the point cost of studios and 1 bedrooms that are in a lock-off without making a corresponding decrease in point cost elsewhere. Thus if units were booked in the order of studios, 1 bedrooms, everything else, that the owners of that resort would need longer be able to book 100% of the resort.

It is much safe to owner at at resort that has no lock-offs at all. My personal preference would be a resort that had only studios and 1 bedrooms, or a resort that included the lock-off but stated there will never be a lock-off premium. I absolutely hate resorts that have bungalows/cabins/point sinks in them that will never get booked, thereby screwing over all the owners of that resort.

It's only a disadvantage to some owners. It's an advantage to those that book larger units though it might increase demand somewhat and it can be an advantage to those booking 1 BR but likely should book 2BR units. While I prefer the options, I own at several resorts that don't have lockoffs and only have 2 BR or 2 & 3 BR units. I'd be OK with that for DVC as well.

 

[drusba]

The thing I believe is that each resort that consists of only lockoffs has language that dictates the maximum average nightly point cost for all Vacation Home Type (even those that aren’t dedicated). I personally believe this value to be required to be maintained, I believe Disney on some resorts went above that value and they need to correct the charts. I personally have a call Wednesday scheduled with DVCMC to go over this. I looked at all the previous charts and all prior reallocations stayed within that requirement. This time some resorts and only some want outside the limits. The maximum average nightly point cost is phrased as the maximum reallocation. As I stated many of the other DVC news sites always interpreted the language that way.

So essentially they can only increase the Lockoff premium so much before they break the limit allowed. Which for OKW I know for sure they didn’t. I haven’t done the calculations for SSR yet.

Also increasing the Lockoff premium,if a upper limit does exist, is beneficial for everyone as it burns points (at a marginal rate) Making more inventory. I’m only okay with this if the upper limit does exist as I’ve interpreted the POS to imply.

I believe you may be referring to the reallocation clauses in the DVC Membership Agreement and the portion that speaks about the member always being able to get a day at a certain point level (e.g., 36 points for 1BR at BRV) despite any reallocation, which clause then goes on to say that there could be a maximum reallocation where the seasons could eventually become level and all the use days could be evened out. That clause goes on to say that for a trade-out you need to have a certain number of points if that maximum reallocation occurs. That part of the reallocation clause is in every DVC Membership Agreement. The sense of the clause, obviously, is that DVC could take the current total points for the year applicable to a room, such as a 1BR, and make them the same for every day of the year and the result would be that every day would have or be just below that guaranteed point level (such as that 36 for a 1BR at BRV).

I have added up the total points needed for the year for a 1BR in BRV under the current point chart and the new 2020 point chart which raises the the 1BR points for every day and season. Using the current total points the maximum reallocation would result in just a fraction below the 36 point guarantee for each day of the year. Using the new total points to do a maximum reallocation results in the total per day being a fraction above 37 points per day, meaning DVC has violated the 36 point guarantee that would occur with a maximum reallocation. Moreover, the clause states that for a 1BR trade out, a maximum reallocation would require you to have 252 points for any given week in the year for a trade out. That is a figure that is based on that 36 per day maximum reallocation. Under the new total points, you would need at least 259 points for any week if there a maximum reallocation and thus the new point totals violate that part of the clause also.

Based on my calculations it also appears that the BCV studios met the 18 point maximum per day reallocation under the 2019 total points applicable to the year and are now, under the new point total, a fraction above 19 points per day.

Bottom line: the reallocation clause must mean what we assert it means -- that any increase in the points needed for a use day in a vacation home must be met with a like decrease in other use days for the same vacation home. DVC's claiming any right to shift points from one vacation home to another type of vacation home means it is asserting the right to also violate that maximum reallocation portion of the clause by the 2020 and future changes.

 

[crvetter]

I believe you may be referring to the reallocation clauses in the DVC Membership Agreement and the portion that speaks about the member always being able to get a day at a certain point level (e.g., 36 points for 1BR at BRV) despite any reallocation, which clause then goes on to say that there could be a maximum reallocation where the seasons could eventually become level and all the use days could be evened out. That clause goes on to say that for a trade-out you need to have a certain number of points if that maximum reallocation occurs. That part of the reallocation clause is in every DVC Membership Agreement. The sense of the clause, obviously, is that DVC could take the current total points for the year applicable to a room, such as a 1BR, and make them the same for every day of the year and the result would be that every day would have or be just below that guaranteed point level (such as that 36 for a 1BR at BRV).

I have added up the total points needed for the year for a 1BR in BRV under the current point chart and the new 2020 point chart which raises the the 1BR points for every day and season. Using the current total points the maximum reallocation would result in just a fraction below the 36 point guarantee for each day of the year. Using the new total points to do a maximum reallocation results in the total per day being a fraction above 37 points per day, meaning DVC has violated the 36 point guarantee that would occur with a maximum reallocation. Moreover, the clause states that for a 1BR trade out, a maximum reallocation would require you to have 252 points for any given week in the year for a trade out. That is a figure that is based on that 36 per day maximum reallocation. Under the new total points, you would need at least 259 points for any week if there a maximum reallocation and thus the new point totals violate that part of the clause also.

Based on my calculations it also appears that the BCV studios met the 18 point maximum per day reallocation under the 2019 total points applicable to the year and are now, under the new point total, a fraction above 19 points per day.

Bottom line: the reallocation clause must mean what we assert it means -- that any increase in the points needed for a use day in a vacation home must be met with a like decrease in other use days for the same vacation home. DVC's claiming any right to shift points from one vacation home to another type of vacation home means it is asserting the right to also violate that maximum reallocation portion of the clause by the 2020 and future changes.

I'm currently awaiting for "leadership" to get back in after the holidays to address this issue with me. When I brought up the maximum reallocation over the phone they said they didn't know how to interpretive it and that it was a question for the higher ups. They did however say they indeed can take points from one vacation home type and apply it to another. I would agree that is possible but it needs to still keep the average nightly rate below what is dictated in the maximum reallocation scenario (some Home Types at some resorts were well below the maximum reallocation limit). Else the RCI trades (which RCI member can trade into DVC not just DVC trading out) would fall apart, fixed week ownerships would become super valuable for the resorts that have them, and other implications.

I just found it odd everyone I talked to said 100% certainty that they can trade points from Studio to 1 Bedroom or vice versa and any combination. However, the maximum reallocation is they immediately say they don't know (they said they didn't want to misquote a legal issue incorrectly). Hopefully next week when they get back they are able to get answers to my questions. With their comments makes me believe it is something that wasn't given serious thought by management (else they would have had the canned responses better prepared for Member Relations and Quality Assurance).

If there is an upper limit to where they can go, I'm perfectly fine with them stating that and letting us know for sure where that might be. I bought with the assumption of the maximum reallocation as that limit.

 

[drusba]

They did however say they indeed can take points from one vacation home type and apply it to another. I would agree that is possible but it needs to still keep the average nightly rate below what is dictated in the maximum reallocation scenario (some Home Types at some resorts were well below the maximum reallocation limit). Else the RCI trades (which RCI member can trade into DVC not just DVC trading out) would fall apart, fixed week ownerships would become super valuable for the resorts that have them, and other implications.

'
I would not concede that DVC has any "possible" right at all to reallocate points from one vacation home to another even if they might stay within the maximum reallocation language. As I have noted before the applicable language says, "DVCMC may, in its sole discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year…. Any increase or decrease of the Home Resort Vacation Point Reservation requirement for a given Use Day pursuant to DVCMC’s right to make this Home Resort Vacation Point adjustment must be offset by a corresponding decrease or increase for another Use Day or Use Days."

That language is talking about the same vacation home for an offsetting decrease, otherwise it would not say "another" use day or use days. Nothing in that clause or anything in the entire reallocation section indicates that DVC has a right to move points from one vacation home to another. The whole reallocation section, including the maximum allocation provisions, talks about changing points for use days or seasons not moving points from one vacation home to another, and it particularly cannot allow DVC to do what it has done here at every resort -- increase points for the studios year round and then try to offset that increase with a decrease in 2BR points for the exact same (not "another") use days. DVC is the drafter of the membership agreement and is also a fiduciary of the members. In Florida that means any ambiguities in the reallocation section of the membership agreement will be construed by a court agains DVC, meaning if the members' position that the clause limits DVC to reallocating within the same vacation home is considered reasonable, the members will most likely win even if DVC argues the clause could reasonably be construed to allow it to reallocate between vacation homes.

In other words, anyone talking to DVC should not in any way concede it has any right to reallocate between vacation homes. From your conversation, it sounds like all the underlings have been instructed to claim the right to reallocate among vacation homes but should avoid saying why they believe that is correct. It also appears that no one even bothered to consider the impact of the reallocation clause. That is a possible indication that DVC may have made this change without first going to the lawyers who are supposed to know everything about the documents.

 

[crvetter]

'
I would not concede that DVC has any "possible" right at all to reallocate points from one vacation home to another even if they might stay within the maximum reallocation language. As I have noted before the applicable language says, "DVCMC may, in its sole discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year…. Any increase or decrease of the Home Resort Vacation Point Reservation requirement for a given Use Day pursuant to DVCMC’s right to make this Home Resort Vacation Point adjustment must be offset by a corresponding decrease or increase for another Use Day or Use Days."

That language is talking about the same vacation home for an offsetting decrease, otherwise it would not say "another" use day or use days. Nothing in that clause or anything in the entire reallocation section indicates that DVC has a right to move points from one vacation home to another. The whole reallocation section, including the maximum allocation provisions, talks about changing points for use days or seasons not moving points from one vacation home to another, and it particularly cannot allow DVC to do what it has done here at every resort -- increase points for the studios year round and then try to offset that increase with a decrease in 2BR points for the exact same (not "another") use days. DVC is the drafter of the membership agreement and is also a fiduciary of the members. In Florida that means any ambiguities in the reallocation section of the membership agreement will be construed by a court agains DVC, meaning if the members' position that the clause limits DVC to reallocating within the same vacation home is considered reasonable, the members will most likely win even if DVC argues the clause could reasonably be construed to allow it to reallocate between vacation homes.

In other words, anyone talking to DVC should not in any way concede it has any right to reallocate between vacation homes. From your conversation, it sounds like all the underlings have been instructed to claim the right to reallocate among vacation homes but should avoid saying why they believe that is correct. It also appears that no one even bothered to consider the impact of the reallocation clause. That is a possible indication that DVC may have made this change without first going to the lawyers who are supposed to know everything about the documents.

Looking at the quote below present in Post #139 in the POS attached it does explicitly say everything exactly the same as our POS but it goes one step further to highlight it means that it can move between vacation home types. https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...p-revert-the-2020-reallocation.3726101/page-7

Thanks Rob, I'm not sure how it'll come through.

 

[Steve G]

We have been this owner many times - 2 bed Magic but it still aggravates me. After reading "Disney War", the whole place didn't seem quite the same. I laugh inwardly when a poster gushes about what would Walt want. It hasn't been about that in decades. The parks are a cash cow. DVC is a money making machine.

For every one person complaining I can find whole threads of people jockeying for the most 'club level' rooms or obsessing over how many dessert parties can be fit in a week vacation. (What happens after they try the first crappy dessert?)

We took our DD and DSIL for two weeks in September. Looking back, I think they were embarrassed at the the $$$$ of everything (we paid for all of it). A few times they prompted us to eat offsite - it was always better and always less $$. Two weeks was too much - too mush Disney food; too much planning; too many lines; too much sun; too many broken attractions; too much $$$$.

The updated villa was lovely. The bill for the dues not so much. Many friends rent beautiful homes for a fraction of my $2,300 cost.

Too much randomness - sorry. I am less disappointed because I don't expect as much from the company as a whole. Read the book. It's an excellent eye opener.

We have been this owner many times - 2 bed Magic but it still aggravates me. After reading "Disney War", the whole place didn't seem quite the same. I laugh inwardly when a poster gushes about what would Walt want. It hasn't been about that in decades. The parks are a cash cow. DVC is a money making machine.

For every one person complaining I can find whole threads of people jockeying for the most 'club level' rooms or obsessing over how many dessert parties can be fit in a week vacation. (What happens after they try the first crappy dessert?)

We took our DD and DSIL for two weeks in September. Looking back, I think they were embarrassed at the the $$$$ of everything (we paid for all of it). A few times they prompted us to eat offsite - it was always better and always less $$. Two weeks was too much - too mush Disney food; too much planning; too many lines; too much sun; too many broken attractions; too much $$$$.

The updated villa was lovely. The bill for the dues not so much. Many friends rent beautiful homes for a fraction of my $2,300 cost.

Too much randomness - sorry. I am less disappointed because I don't expect as much from the company as a whole. Read the book. It's an excellent eye opener.

GREAT POST! I AGREE WHOLE-HEARTEDLY!

 

[hlhlaw07]

"DVCMC may, in its sole discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year…. Any increase or decrease of the Home Resort Vacation Point Reservation requirement for a given Use Day pursuant to DVCMC’s right to make this Home Resort Vacation Point adjustment must be offset by a corresponding decrease or increase for another Use Day or Use Days."

Everybody keeps quoting this language to state as a matter of fact that the POS probibits reallocating across units. I would interject that the interpretation that keeps being asserted isn’t that clear. This provision includes the words “within a given vacation home” during the first part of the clause, but omits those words in the second part of the clause which refers to “offset[ing] by a corresponding decrease or increase for another use day or use days.” Generally the express inclusion in one part of a clause is the exclusion in another if it is also not included. One could argue that it is ambiguous, and of course ambiguities are generally resolved against the drafter, but I don’t think a court would get that far as courts are not quick to read ambiguity into documents. If the POS required the offset to occur within the same vacation home or unit, it would have included the words “within the given vacation home,” just as it did in the beginning of the clause. If you want to find some illegality I would focus more on timeshare law in the state of Florida and not on this clause of the POS (I am not a timeshare attorney nor am I licensed in FL or practice FL law). I have made my fair share of statutory/contractual interpretation arguments in court and you never want to be the party arguing for something that the plain language doesn’t expressly say. It’s not impossible to win, but it’s definitely an uphill battle.

I also agree with @Dean that demand is not necessarily demonstrated by what is ultimately utilized. While we can see patterns in what is booked and when it is booked, we are not privy to all the information that Disney has at its disposal. We can see who wins the 8am contest at 11 months, but we can’t see who all was competing and what the losers were looking for. Or really how many times someone searches for inventory that is not there. If a studio or a 1br take a 2br out of inventory and there are people wanting 2br that didn’t secure them, then the way to fix that is to up the cost of the components so the components don’t fly off the shelf and even the supply to balance the demand among all units.

I’ve been reading and following all the relevant threads on this topic and I guess I just can’t get too worked up about any of this, but maybe that’s just the attorney in me. Prior to the reallocation news everyone kept lamenting that it was getting harder and harder to book, even at 11 months in some instances, and that Disney was going to need to do a reallocation. Most of those people even made the argument that Disney should up the cost of studios and lessen 1brs across the board. Well it seems that Disney, with this reallocation, is attempting to do something. Just because it wasn’t exactly what everyone thought would happen doesn’t make it illegal.

 

[crvetter]

Everybody keeps quoting this language to state as a matter of fact that the POS probibits reallocating across units. I would interject that the interpretation that keeps being asserted isn’t that clear. This provision includes the words “within a given vacation home” during the first part of the clause, but omits those words in the second part of the clause which refers to “offset[ing] by a corresponding decrease or increase for another use day or use days.” Generally the express inclusion in one part of a clause is the exclusion in another if it is also not included. One could argue that it is ambiguous, and of course ambiguities are generally resolved against the drafter, but I don’t think a court would get that far as courts are not quick to read ambiguity into documents. If the POS required the offset to occur within the same vacation home or unit, it would have included the words “within the given vacation home,” just as it did in the beginning of the clause. If you want to find some illegality I would focus more on timeshare law in the state of Florida and not on this clause of the POS (I am not a timeshare attorney nor am I licensed in FL or practice FL law). I have made my fair share of statutory/contractual interpretation arguments in court and you never want to be the party arguing for something that the plain language doesn’t expressly say. It’s not impossible to win, but it’s definitely an uphill battle.

I also agree with @Dean that demand is not necessarily demonstrated by what is ultimately utilized. While we can see patterns in what is booked and when it is booked, we are not privy to all the information that Disney has at its disposal. We can see who wins the 8am contest at 11 months, but we can’t see who all was competing and what the losers were looking for. Or really how many times someone searches for inventory that is not there. If a studio or a 1br take a 2br out of inventory and there are people wanting 2br that didn’t secure them, then the way to fix that is to up the cost of the components so the components don’t fly off the shelf and even the supply to balance the demand among all units.

I’ve been reading and following all the relevant threads on this topic and I guess I just can’t get too worked up about any of this, but maybe that’s just the attorney in me. Prior to the reallocation news everyone kept lamenting that it was getting harder and harder to book, even at 11 months in some instances, and that Disney was going to need to do a reallocation. Most of those people even made the argument that Disney should up the cost of studios and lessen 1brs across the board. Well it seems that Disney, with this reallocation, is attempting to do something. Just because it wasn’t exactly what everyone thought would happen doesn’t make it illegal.

A question I have is on the maximum reallocation sections of the POS that occurs right after the right to allocate. Each time I was told by Disney they have a right to move points among vacation homes types. However they always tell me when I ask about the maximum reallocation language they say they don’t have an idea what it means and I’m waiting until after the holiday to speak with higher ups about it. I know Disney’s promotional material for some resorts specifically referred to it it as the maximum normalized nightly point cost for vacation home type. Which to me implies the maximum average nightly rate they can move the home types too.

 

[DVC92]

Everybody keeps quoting this language to state as a matter of fact that the POS probibits reallocating across units. I would interject that the interpretation that keeps being asserted isn’t that clear. This provision includes the words “within a given vacation home” during the first part of the clause, but omits those words in the second part of the clause which refers to “offset[ing] by a corresponding decrease or increase for another use day or use days.” Generally the express inclusion in one part of a clause is the exclusion in another if it is also not included. One could argue that it is ambiguous, and of course ambiguities are generally resolved against the drafter, but I don’t think a court would get that far as courts are not quick to read ambiguity into documents. If the POS required the offset to occur within the same vacation home or unit, it would have included the words “within the given vacation home,” just as it did in the beginning of the clause. If you want to find some illegality I would focus more on timeshare law in the state of Florida and not on this clause of the POS (I am not a timeshare attorney nor am I licensed in FL or practice FL law). I have made my fair share of statutory/contractual interpretation arguments in court and you never want to be the party arguing for something that the plain language doesn’t expressly say. It’s not impossible to win, but it’s definitely an uphill battle.

I also agree with @Dean that demand is not necessarily demonstrated by what is ultimately utilized. While we can see patterns in what is booked and when it is booked, we are not privy to all the information that Disney has at its disposal. We can see who wins the 8am contest at 11 months, but we can’t see who all was competing and what the losers were looking for. Or really how many times someone searches for inventory that is not there. If a studio or a 1br take a 2br out of inventory and there are people wanting 2br that didn’t secure them, then the way to fix that is to up the cost of the components so the components don’t fly off the shelf and even the supply to balance the demand among all units.

I’ve been reading and following all the relevant threads on this topic and I guess I just can’t get too worked up about any of this, but maybe that’s just the attorney in me. Prior to the reallocation news everyone kept lamenting that it was getting harder and harder to book, even at 11 months in some instances, and that Disney was going to need to do a reallocation. Most of those people even made the argument that Disney should up the cost of studios and lessen 1brs across the board. Well it seems that Disney, with this reallocation, is attempting to do something. Just because it wasn’t exactly what everyone thought would happen doesn’t make it illegal.

Also being an attorney, I agree with you and previously advised that complaints be filed with the Florida Timeshare Bureau to at least get Disney to put their interpretation on record. However, I just posted this on another thread - "Therein lies the problem. Disney allowed so many people, not myself, to buy small contracts so they could book studios. Now, Disney raises the cost of points for the smaller units making these people out to be fools and forcing them to buy more points, if available, just to make the ressie they had desired when they were led down the yellow brick road to purchase. New purchasers, even if they read all the fine print, don't really expect points to increase for units they think they purchased." I believe this is the real issue, and Disney should have certainly brought the point reallocation up at the annual meeting instead of just leaving a brick of coal in people's stockings.

 

[zavandor]

Looking at the quote below present in Post #139 in the POS attached it does explicitly say everything exactly the same as our POS but it goes one step further to highlight it means that it can move between vacation home types. https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...p-revert-the-2020-reallocation.3726101/page-7

Thanks for pointing this out, I completely missed that post when reading the thread. Thanks to @Dean for taking the time to take a picture and upload that page.

The paragraph starting at the end of page two explains what the Vacation Points are (a representation of the underlying ownership interest possessed by members, used to book accommodations). At the end of that paragraph there is the basic requirement, as stated by Florida Laws, that "the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points available to use to reserve all Vacation Homes during all Use Days in the Club Member's Home Resort must always equal, and be symbolic of, the total number of Ownership Interest owned by Club Members in the Home Resort".

This is the highest priority requirement in the Florida Law governing point based timeshares. No other rule can violate this and if a new rule introduced in a POS is in contradiction it, then the new rule would be void.
For example if a developer would write that every year the point needed to book the resort would increase 5% to balance increasing costs, that would be void. But a rule saying that a reallocation must follow some constraint and still keep the total number of points available at the resort constant, then the second rule would be valid.

After stating the "obvious", i.e. that the point system must abide to Florida Law, DVC has added more rules for reallocations starting the following paragraph.
Those rules are:
- points can be moved within a Vacation home to balance demand for each Use Day over the Use Year
- the total vacation points existing in a unit must not change
- a reallocation requiring an increase bigger than 20% for each Use Day must be approved with a Members vote
- moving the seasons around floating holidays and events allows to go over the 20% limit without a Members vote
All of those are spelled exactly like in the copy of the original SSR POS I have.

One rule is spelled differently:
- any increase in the Vacation points reservation requirement for a given Use Day in any vacation home […] must be offset by a corresponding decrease for another Use Day in any other Vacation Home.

The parts in bold are different from the SSR POS I have. It would be interesting if anyone could check the POS they have for other resorts and see if that words were added to the Resorts POSs as well.

My opinion (for what is worth, I'm not a lawyer): this rule contradicts the previous rules and contradicts the resort POS (which has higher priority than the Multi Site POS), so I think it is void in that form.

 

[Dean]

My opinion (for what is worth, I'm not a lawyer): this rule contradicts the previous rules and contradicts the resort POS (which has higher priority than the Multi Site POS), so I think it is void in that form.

There have been many changes to the POS over the years. You can bet they changed to resort POS at the time they changed the multi site POS for the portions that are repetitive. There are some things that would require a vote of the actual membership but very few. Certainly where reallocation and reservations options are concerned, they've given themselves almost complete power to make changes or even implement many things without changing the POs. They are not limited to the version that was in effect when you or I bought.

 

[crvetter]

There have been many changes to the POS over the years. You can bet they changed to resort POS at the time they changed the multi site POS for the portions that are repetitive. There are some things that would require a vote of the actual membership but very few. Certainly where reallocation and reservations options are concerned, they've given themselves almost complete power to make changes or even implement many things without changing the POs. They are not limited to the version that was in effect when you or I bought.

I would like to state while I’m not sure what is or isn’t allowed with transferring points between vacation home types (but believe there is an upper limit at the very least) my resort POS for copper creek doesnt include the bolded phrasing.

 

[DizDaD7]

Saratoga: Studios, 1BR and Treehouses went up ... with points shaved from standard-view 2BR and GV units.

I just noticed this thread.. And from everything I'm looking at EVERYTHING has gone up.. Forgive me if I missed something because I havent read through this whole thread..

 

[cruisin5]

So after a few days of reading the entire thread I am so thankful for those who can analyze and summarize what DVC is doing.

 

[drusba]

Does anyone have a copy of the modern SSR Disney Vacation Club Membership Agreement, which has all the provisions about reallocation, the relevant portions of which could be posted in this thread? The one I have is from 2004 and covers only studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, and grand villas and says nothing about any right to reallocate the Treehouses (or any 3BR other than GV's), and all its terms assume only one category of room, not both standard and preferred.

I assume there were likely amendments made to provide for DVCMC to be able reallocate the points for treehouses, and provide maximum reallocation provisions for the treehouses and distinguishing between standard rooms and preferred rooms, because otherwise the provisions would make little sense as to treehouses or preferred or standard view. For example, the new point charts appear to definitely put total points for preferred studios and 1BRs well over the guaranteed 16 points for a studio and 32 for a 1BR if there is a maximum reallocation, but that may simply be because the section in the old agreement assumes all studios and 1BRs are treated the same and does not divide them into standard and preferred like they should be now. Also, the treehouses are not even covered in the old agreement and thus it has no reallocation or maximum reallocation provisions applicable to the treehouses.

Thus, if someone has a copy of the newer agreement from a sale last year or possibly the year before, that covers both treehouses and preferred and standard view, I would appreciate having the applicabe reallocation provisions and maximum reallocation provisions posted here..

 

[zavandor]

I asked a copy via email and they replied:

I have checked with our compliance department and they informed me that these documents and information has to be obtained by your broker. This is not something we can provide. Please reach out to your broker to receive more information regarding your request.

So I have replied quoting your post about how the Florida law assigns to DVCMC the task of granting access to members to all public acts of the MC. The reply was the same:

I have confirmed again with our Compliance Office that the Public Offering Statement is provided by the Seller and/or Seller's Agent.


They also should communicate to all members when they update the POS via direct communication or via any of the official DVC channell like a newsletter. This is in the POS itself.

I plan on asking about this on Saturday to the CM with whom I have an appointment for a phone call.

 

[freediverdude]

Wow. Is that normal for POS to be a document only given out by a seller or at time of sale by DVC? I would think that would be something given out even to prospective buyers if asked for it, that sounds odd.

 

[Mumof4mice]

I asked a copy via email and they replied:

I have checked with our compliance department and they informed me that these documents and information has to be obtained by your broker. This is not something we can provide. Please reach out to your broker to receive more information regarding your request.

So I have replied quoting your post about how the Florida law assigns to DVCMC the task of granting access to members to all public acts of the MC. The reply was the same:

I have confirmed again with our Compliance Office that the Public Offering Statement is provided by the Seller and/or Seller's Agent.


They also should communicate to all members when they update the POS via direct communication or via any of the official DVC channell like a newsletter. This is in the POS itself.

I plan on asking about this on Saturday to the CM with whom I have an appointment for a phone call.

No difference to purchasing a house and ringing Miele to ask for an instructional booklet of the oven, which the seller didn't furnish you with. The standard line is going to be: ask your broker/the seller.

It's far simpler to ask for a full information packet including the POS, posing as a prospective buyer. One was provided for us on request without hesitation, at a dvc tour.