Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[CanadaDisney05]

Incorrect. We have leased the land from Disney for 50 years. Our lease hold improvements (buildings, pools, landscaping, driveways, parking lots, etc...) revert to the land owner at the expiration of the lease. There is no agreement to sell anything back to Disney at the end. In addition, if the property becomes unusable (burns down or the state of Florida goes underwater), we as DVC members holding that lease would be the beneficiaries of any insurance settlement. In the event the lease hold improvements need to be removed (for example, if there is a fire), the cost of doing so falls on the DVC members holding the lease.

I mentioned the "lease" of the land in a subsequent post, but everything else you are suggesting is basically the same thing as I said. It may not be a buy/sell transaction on paper, but it is essentially that. We are leasing the land and building (owning) the buildings/amenities, and at the end of the ground lease, our ownership of the buildings and amenities transfers to Disney with no compensation. During the ground lease, we own all the "leasehold improvements" and take on the full risk. If the building burns down and it is decided not to be rebuilt, we are compensated through insurance proceeds, not a proportionate refund of our purchase by Disney.

Edit: To be clear, if we were leasing the buildings, we wouldn't be compensated through insurance proceeds. Disney would be compensated through insurance proceeds, and we would be entitled to a prorated refund of our lease payment (the original buy in).

 

[CanadaDisney05]

They might be renting a reservation from David’s, but David’s is renting points from the owner

That could be the case. I've never been involved in a transaction with this particular company. My point is that I don't think the renter should be liable here at all to absorb the losses from resort closure. Whether the owner or David's absorbs the loss should be based on the contract between them.

 

[Sandisw]

I dont think you are correct about DVC members sharing an insurance payout. I believe any payment in these circumstances would come from Disney. DVC rights are temporary and therefore it's a lease.

The POS is clear that if a resort is damaged and not repaired, all owners will be given their share of the insurance proceeds,

This may or may not be the same as what was paid, Our lease with Disney is the ground lease...not the building. We own that so any insurance payouts go to us.

 

[lovethesun12]

I was answering your specific question as to why I rented points. Yes, it is obvious that one rents points they wouldn't be able use in order to obtain funds that could be used. Frankly, I see no other motivation for owners to rent points.

On the reverse side of the equation, renters are renting either to get accommodations not offered by CRO, or to get a "deal". They accept that they don't get cancellation privileges like a CRO reservation, no daily housekeeping, and no "free dining" or other promotional offers. From the renters point of view, these trade offs are factored into the price they pay.

It's completely ridiculous to argue that renters should get something for which they have not paid, and which they expressly knew was a fundamental difference between a DVC rental and a CRO reservation.

The renter did pay for *something* though.

If a person buys a bathing suit online, it’s non-refundable. The person who purchases must realize if it’s too large, too small, poor fit they are out of money.

But if the person who took the money wasn’t able to deliver the suit they have a responsibility to make it right. The understanding of the agreement was that a suit would be delivered.

They are not necessarily entitled to a refund. But you can’t just take money from people, deliver nothing and walk away. If that’s what a person wants to do they shouldn’t enter into agreements with others at all.

 

[Madame]

That could be the case. I've never been involved in a transaction with this particular company. My point is that I don't think the renter should be liable here at all to absorb the losses from resort closure. Whether the owner or David's absorbs the loss should be based on the contract between them.

Ok, but David’s is literally the topic of this thread.

 

[MIDisFan]

The renter did pay for *something* though.

If a person buys a bathing suit online, it’s non-refundable. The person who purchases must realize if it’s too large, too small, poor fit they are out of money.

But if the person who took the money wasn’t able to deliver the suit they have a responsibility to make it right. The understanding of the agreement was that a suit would be delivered.

They are not necessarily entitled to a refund. But you can’t just take money from people, deliver nothing and walk away. If that’s what a person wants to do they shouldn’t enter into agreements with others at all.

Completely agree with you on this. The problem is what if you buy that bathing suit on Amazon from one of their 3rd party sellers? Who handles the dispute? Amazon does because they value your business and they take care of you first then go to the 3rd party to handle it. The brokers should take care of the renters first. Seems like they and their contracts were not prepared to handle a situation like this. I think the contract stated the rental was non refundable for anything except a cancelation through the fault of an owner. I may be wrong on that, I'm sure someone can correct that if so

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Completely agree with you on this. The problem is what if you buy that bathing suit on Amazon from one of their 3rd party sellers? Who handles the dispute? Amazon does because they value your business and they take care of you first then go to the 3rd party to handle it. The brokers should take care of the renters first. Seems like they and their contracts were not prepared to handle a situation like this. I think the contract stated the rental was non refundable for anything except a cancelation through the fault of an owner. I may be wrong on that, I'm sure someone can correct that if so

The resorts closing is a "fault" of the owner. The owner is the one responsible for the resort being open. DVCM works on behalf of the owner.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Ok, but David’s is literally the topic of this thread.

I get it, but there have been many posts in this 139 paged thread that indicated the renter should bare some of the loss. My post was in response to those posts.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

I will point out that what seems like a life time ago I brought up the idea of the renters getting money back due to the contract(s) becoming impossible. Not a popular idea at the time. It is close to what you are saying, that the decision was made by our hired managers in our best interest. In fact the hired managers were not hired by the owners. If the owners change managers there are serious consequences to the owners. The vote needed to change and the consequences are in the documents. Management is wholly owned by Disney, run by Disney and there is literally no information about what was exchanged between Disney (various aspects) and management. Management could have well been ordered to close.

You are also accepting as fact the 'conclusion' that management acted in the owner's best interest. I don't recall any information that supports that conclusion. It is an open question. There is a fiduciary responsibility here, that means something. It is not a 'business decision' as the standard typically required in corporations and shared ownership.

Think of it more like a condo rather than a freehold. It's common ownership. As a condo owner, you own 100% of your unit plus a portion of the common areas. You hold 100% of the risk of your unit, but share the proportionate risk of the common areas. Because it is unrealistic to have everyone agree on everything, and equally take part in decision making, condo owners collectively pay a management company to run the day to day and make decisions based on the best interest of the condo owners.

When buying into the condo, you accept the fact that you are not going to be able to make decisions autonomously for the property that you own. You are bound to a certain set of rules that could change at anytime by the management company. In exchange, you are getting access to common areas, and sharing the operating costs and risks amongst the other owners. When the elevator breaks in the condo, the owners don't go back to the builder and ask them to fix it because it's outside of their individual unit. The owner's collectively pay for it through their condo fees. If you want to have a bbq on your deck , but the agreed upon rules state you are not allowed to, you cannot just change the rules because you are an owner. Depending on the specific condo association, you would need the owners collectively request that the rules be changed.

DVC is very similar. I don't know the exact legalities, but I'm sure if enough owners made a formal protest that they didn't believe DVCM was acting faithfully in our best interest, we could have them removed and pay another management company to do the work. But this would have to be a collective decision. Not an individual decision.

 

[MIDisFan]

The resorts closing is a "fault" of the owner. The owner is the one responsible for the resort being open. DVCM works on behalf of the owner.

Interesting viewpoint. I disagree

 

[CanadaDisney05]

I will point out that what seems like a life time ago I brought up the idea of the renters getting money back due to the contract(s) becoming impossible. Not a popular idea at the time. It is close to what you are saying, that the decision was made by our hired managers in our best interest. In fact the hired managers were not hired by the owners. If the owners change managers there are serious consequences to the owners. The vote needed to change and the consequences are in the documents. Management is wholly owned by Disney, run by Disney and there is literally no information about what was exchanged between Disney (various aspects) and management. Management could have well been ordered to close.

You are also accepting as fact the 'conclusion' that management acted in the owner's best interest. I don't recall any information that supports that conclusion. It is an open question. There is a fiduciary responsibility here, that means something. It is not a 'business decision' as the standard typically required in corporations and shared ownership.

I think these are two separate issues.

1) What is the outlined responsibility of "Management".
2) What our collective opinion about the job they are doing.

I'm pretty comfortable in saying that DVCM has a legal responsibility to act in our best interest. They "should" not be operating in a manner that puts Disney's bottom line ahead of the owner's best interest. Whether or not they are acting responsible is personal opinion and up for debate. It's similar to a politician. In a democracy, we have an election to elect a representative of our interests. Whether or not they end up acting in our best interest is debatable. Whether or not they should be putting our own interest ahead of their personal interests is not up for debate.

I'm not suggesting one way or another whether I think DVCM is acting in our best interest. I'm just illustrating that they are responsible to. Maybe the accountability system is not setup in a manner that best limits conflicts of interest, but it is the system that we agreed to when we purchased our contracts. Owning DVC is not a requirement, it is a choice.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Interesting viewpoint. I disagree

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Which is fine.

 

[lovethesun12]

Completely agree with you on this. The problem is what if you buy that bathing suit on Amazon from one of their 3rd party sellers? Who handles the dispute? Amazon does because they value your business and they take care of you first then go to the 3rd party to handle it. The brokers should take care of the renters first. Seems like they and their contracts were not prepared to handle a situation like this. I think the contract stated the rental was non refundable for anything except a cancelation through the fault of an owner. I may be wrong on that, I'm sure someone can correct that if so

You’re not wrong. But the non-refundable part was based on renters actually getting what they paid for, a reservation during that time frame, which owners did not deliver.

But my post was in response to owners painting renters as entitled for wanting a reservation they paid thousands for, not to how David’s handled it. I think a credit is a fair option.

 

[Bowen Family]

I recall reading (maybe on another thread, I’ve lost track!) that a DVC member received a recent email from David’s with an interpretation that as “owners” who have delegated their decision-making authority to DVC, David’s could technically insist on receiving the 70% back, since the members were by proxy responsible for the closure. And at the time that was a pretty dramatic change in tone from David’s first communications to members, which initially sought refunds from members on a strictly voluntary basis. Am I remembering that correctly? Anybody here have that email?

As for the outcome of chargebacks, in preparation for possibly filing one of our own, I spoke with my CC company about the process. The very first thing they asked me is what I’ve done to work this out with the vendor; and second, whether the vendor offered any sort of voucher. So I suspect that results of chargebacks will vary depending on the claimant’s ability to convince the CC company of meaningful attempts to find a resolution, and also to identify critical flaws with the voucher as offered. Personally, I’m ready to put in the work to get my money back, but others might not have the stomach for it, which I totally get. Vacation planning isn’t supposed to be like this for anyone.

We’re also weighing whether Small Claims Court isn’t a better route (at least for those of us that live in Ontario where David’s is located). I have more faith in impartial mediation through Ontario’s legal system, and relying on our Consumer Protection Act in my defence, than inviting yet another self-interested party (Visa) into this mess. I could live with a ruling not in my favour from the courts. Less so from an underpaid 20-year old call centre worker/claims investigator from Visa.

And just for the record, I immediately reached out to David’s in March when this all went down. I sought permission to deal directly with the DVC member to lessen David’s load, and to hopefully negotiate a solution that worked out equitably for all of us. But I was denied that request. So here we are.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

I think these are two separate issues.

1) What is the outlined responsibility of "Management".
2) What our collective opinion about the job they are doing.

I'm pretty comfortable in saying that DVCM has a legal responsibility to act in our best interest. They "should" not be operating in a manner that puts Disney's bottom line ahead of the owner's best interest. Whether or not they are acting responsible is personal opinion and up for debate. It's similar to a politician. In a democracy, we have an election to elect a representative of our interests. Whether or not they end up acting in our best interest is debatable. Whether or not they should be putting our own interest ahead of their personal interests is not up for debate.

I'm not suggesting one way or another whether I think DVCM is acting in our best interest. I'm just illustrating that they are responsible to. Maybe the accountability system is not setup in a manner that best limits conflicts of interest, but it is the system that we agreed to when we purchased our contracts. Owning DVC is not a requirement, it is a choice.

It is not just a matter of opinion. It is not similar to a politician.

It subject to judicial review. If enough owners decided to challenge management it would make a substantial impact on the Disney bottom line, leaving aside PR. I will restate that I believe Disney has gone more than half way on this and the current issues. Paying people when there is no obligation, providing health coverage, actually minimizing damage to both owners and renters all underline to me that Disney is a far cry from the robber barrons of the past. That said avoiding attorney and class actions is a powerful motivator. the difference between asking a court to review a 'business decision' is totally and completely different from a review of a possible breach of a fiduciary duty. IMO and certainly not legal advice but I think a good case can be made that the decision to close was so material that it needed to be given to the owners. A good case is not the same as easy case.

In terms of the well you choose to buy idea....if the documents required you to vote the way management instructed would you have to vote that way? It is the same principle. Law controls contracts not the other way around.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

I recall reading (maybe on another thread, I’ve lost track!) that a DVC member received a recent email from David’s with an interpretation that as “owners” who have delegated their decision-making authority to DVC, David’s could technically insist on receiving the 70% back, since the members were by proxy responsible for the closure. And at the time that was a pretty dramatic change in tone from David’s first communications to members, which initially sought refunds from members on a strictly voluntary basis. Am I remembering that correctly? Anybody here have that email?

As for the outcome of chargebacks, in preparation for possibly filing one of our own, I spoke with my CC company about the process. The very first thing they asked me is what I’ve done to work this out with the vendor; and second, whether the vendor offered any sort of voucher. So I suspect that results of chargebacks will vary depending on the claimant’s ability to convince the CC company of meaningful attempts to find a resolution, and also to identify critical flaws with the voucher as offered. Personally, I’m ready to put in the work to get my money back, but others might not have the stomach for it, which I totally get. Vacation planning isn’t supposed to be like this for anyone.

We’re also weighing whether Small Claims Court isn’t a better route (at least for those of us that live in Ontario where David’s is located). I have more faith in impartial mediation through Ontario’s legal system, and relying on our Consumer Protection Act in my defence, than inviting yet another self-interested party (Visa) into this mess. I could live with a ruling not in my favour from the courts. Less so from an underpaid 20-year old call centre worker/claims investigator from Visa.

And just for the record, I immediately reached out to David’s in March when this all went down. I sought permission to deal directly with the DVC member to lessen David’s load, and to hopefully negotiate a solution that worked out equitably for all of us. But I was denied that request. So here we are.

Yes this happened to me. In fact it was the first time that argument was attributable to David that I had seen and some posting speculated it was a result of david reading these threads. I don't see you attempting a CC would stop a small claims if you were unsuccessful in the CC.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

It is not just a matter of opinion. It is not similar to a politician.

It subject to judicial review. If enough owners decided to challenge management it would make a substantial impact on the Disney bottom line, leaving aside PR. I will restate that I believe Disney has gone more than half way on this and the current issues. Paying people when there is no obligation, providing health coverage, actually minimizing damage to both owners and renters all underline to me that Disney is a far cry from the robber barrons of the past. That said avoiding attorney and class actions is a powerful motivator. the difference between asking a court to review a 'business decision' is totally and completely different from a review of a possible breach of a fiduciary duty. IMO and certainly not legal advice but I think a good case can be made that the decision to close was so material that it needed to be given to the owners. A good case is not the same as easy case.

In terms of the well you choose to buy idea....if the documents required you to vote the way management instructed would you have to vote that way? It is the same principle. Law controls contracts not the other way around.

I think your misinterpreting what I'm saying. I believe we are actually saying the same thing, in different words.

DVCM has the legal obligation to act on our behalf.

There are arguments whether or not you believe they are fulfilling that obligation or not.

I am 100% NOT suggesting that DVCM has the right to put our need's to the side in order to maximize profits of Disney. Those are not the terms we signed up for in our purchase agreement. The terms we agreed to were the controls put in place to deter DVCM from acting in the best interest of Disney.

 

[Bowen Family]

I don't see you attempting a CC would stop a small claims if you were unsuccessful in the CC.

Agreed. Visa also told me we couldn’t start a claim until after our check-in date, which for us was this coming weekend .

I’ve left the door open to David’s to work with me on changes to the credit terms, which IMHO no renter should ever accept as offered, but haven’t had a response back. So come Monday next week, we’ll probably start both processes.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

I know this is WAY but all the talk of what we own vs. lease, etc. got me thinking again about precisely which unit I own. When I first purchased, I dug up the drawings showing where my unit was... it's room 7666 at Kidani Village. Here's the view from "my" unit:



Then, I estimated how much of the room I "own" based on the square footage and my % interest in it.

Turns out, here's what I actually own:

 

[Kevin_W]

I know this is WAY but all the talk of what we own vs. lease, etc. got me thinking again about precisely which unit I own. When I first purchased, I dug up the drawings showing where my unit was... it's room 7666 at Kidani Village. Here's the view from "my" unit:

View attachment 493119

Then, I estimated how much of the room I "own" based on the square footage and my % interest in it.

Turns out, here's what I actually own:

View attachment 493120

Well, on an average day, the toilet is probably more useful than the giraffe.