DVC Club Level and Home Resort Survey

[WilsonFlyer]

I think there's been way too much reading between the lines trying to see something that simply wasn't there.

 

[walt34]

I think there's been way too much reading between the lines trying to see something that simply wasn't there.

I think what can't be disputed is that the trust is set up in a way that allows Disney to change some things more easily in the future.
What remains speculation is if and when they'll make use of this.

 

[Sandisw]

But that seems very misleading, if they market this exactly the same as previous/legacy DVC, then have some different language that potentially leads to different owner rights - as fine print in the contract.

That would be almost like a bait-and-switch.

I don't see DVD getting that sleazy. At least not yet.

EDIT: Unless this trust is only for their own use, as has been previously proposed because the cabins might not last 50 years. That type of trust would essentially not affected owners in any way. That's the only way I can see this happening now with the wording of this email.

I think we need to see how it is actually sold to buyers. As I said, the term “deeded ownership interest” could be used for both products.

That is what I am trying to find out in the statute. We know the cabins are being sold as a trust use plan so they are different.

The question is whether the words used in the email can umbrella both.

Regardless, as long as buyers are given the correct info when buying, no bait and switch.

If they are told this is no different then previous resorts when it comes to ownership? Then that is misleading

I’d be surprised if it goes that way.

 

[J-Dog]

I think we need to see how it is actually sold to buyers. As I said, the term “deeded ownership interest” could be used for both products.

That is what I am trying to find out in the statute. We know the cabins are being sold as a trust use plan so they are different.

The question is whether the words used in the email can umbrella both.

Regardless, as long as buyers are given the correct info when buying, no bait and switch.

If they are told this is no different then previous resorts when it comes to ownership? Then that is misleading

I’d be surprised if it goes that way.

I guess we'll agree to disagree, and have to wait and see.

If you are correct, I wouldn't envy the guide who has to tell someone interested in buying "Okay, so I'm sending you the contract for 150 points to sign....and oh by the way, the email you got didn't tell you this, but you're actually not getting a deed to the property, you're getting a deed into a trust product, which is actually a totally different thing. Do you still want it?"

 

[Sandisw]

I guess we'll agree to disagree, and have to wait and see.

If you are correct, I wouldn't envy the guide who has to tell someone interested in buying "Okay, so I'm sending you the contract for 150 points to sign....and oh by the way, the email you got didn't tell you this, but you're actually not getting a deed to the property, you're getting a deed into a trust product, which is actually a totally different thing. Do you still want it?"

I wouldn't either but I can't believe that they won't be explaining it to owners....maybe someone who is interested in potentially adding on can contact their guide and see what is said and explained.

But I agree with one thing...they should have taken that out, even if it can be used to describe both....just leads to too much confusion since we know this is being sold differently..at least for those who understand how it is different.

And, the definition is definitely not the same between the trust document for ownership interest and that in the RIV POS that I checked.....

 

[J-Dog]

I wouldn't either but I can't believe that they won't be explaining it to owners....maybe someone who is interested in potentially adding on can contact their guide and see what is said and explained.

But I agree with one thing...they should have taken that out, even if it can be used to describe both....just leads to too much confusion since we know this is being sold differently..at least for those who understand how it is different.

I totally agree.

IMO, I think that that the use of previously-similar wording in the email with a different product can be justified only if the new product is different only in the documentation and currently will have zero impact on the use of the product by owners.

 

[dioxide45]

But that seems very misleading, if they market this exactly the same as previous/legacy DVC, then have some different language that potentially leads to different owner rights - as fine print in the contract.

That will all be disclosed in the POS. Which nobody, except those here, actually read.

 

[dioxide45]

I agree with this. Even if there are some rights reserved in the ownership docs, I'd be shocked if they implement a multi-site trust at a later date that involves already-sold CFW points or inventory unless they are discussing that front-and-center when it initially goes on sale Feb. 1. They could, of course, do it with units that they declare later and keep separate from the offering that is going on sale now, but I doubt they'll do it.

Yeah, I simply don't see a multi site trust happening with Palmetto Trust. Yeah, they have all that legalese in the documentation, but that is to cover for every eventual possibility so their butts are covered. They even state you can't bring an avatar onto the property. If I bought CFW today and then 10 years from now they are going to sell a resort in south Texas and put it into the trust and those people who buy in can also book CFW, I would be real upset. Sure they can legally do just about anything, but that wouldn't be very good optics.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I don’t see all of this work to create a Trust to only include CFW. Poly2 will be the indicator if any other DVC resorts get added to the Trust. No reason they would exclude Poly2 if the Trust is to include other deluxe resorts.

 

[walt34]

I don’t see all of this work to create a Trust to only include CFW. Poly2 will be the indicator if any other DVC resorts get added to the Trust. No reason they would exclude Poly2 if the Trust is to include other deluxe resorts.

The trust structure might serve an additional (and unique) purpose für CFW because of the cabins. But the provisions are there for a multi-site trust, which is not necessary for CFW - they are there either for the near future or to keep options open for later.

I agree with you on Poly2 being the indicator: this will be the most appealing DVD product launch for a long time. Either we will see the multi-site trust launched with Poly2 or we won't see it for a long time.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

If the cabins prove to be popular, the trust would allow for the expansion of similar park model offerings in the undeveloped, but cleared, site of the former Reflections Lakeside Lodge.

 

[KimMcGowan]

It is possible that the trust is a long-term play intended for 2042.

 

[drusba]

I have seen in various places, including in this thread, mention that the new cabins are actually mobile homes and some mention manufactured homes. Does anyone actually know whether they are mobile homes or manufactured homes under the distinction created by Florida laws (and not federal laws or rules). Under Florida law, the distinction is fairly simple. If the home has a chassis and wheels it is a mobile home. If it does not, then even if it was brought in as a whole, it is a manufactured home. Thus, I guess what I am asking is whether anyone has seen any new cabin being brought into Ft. Wilderness, and, if so, whether it had its own wheels like a trailer.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I don’t see all of this work to create a Trust to only include CFW. Poly2 will be the indicator if any other DVC resorts get added to the Trust. No reason they would exclude Poly2 if the Trust is to include other deluxe resorts.

But it just doesn’t make sense to me that a trust clearly created for CFW will have anything at all to do with Poly2, especially if it is not mentioned in any substantive way during the CFW sales process. The two resorts don’t even appeal to the same demographic, and I doubt that buyers of either one would be at all interested in staying at the other.
I also find it hard to believe that potential Poly2 buyers would want to pay extra to get an 11 month booking window at other resorts, considering that the per point cost of Poly2 is no doubt going to be pricey, and it’s not too difficult to get into the other resorts that might be part of said trust at 7 months anyway.

 

[Sandisw]

But it just doesn’t make sense to me that a trust clearly created for CFW will have anything at all to do with Poly2, especially if it is not mentioned in any substantive way during the CFW sales process. The two resorts don’t even appeal to the same demographic, and I doubt that buyers of either one would be at all interested in staying at the other.
I also find it hard to believe that potential Poly2 buyers would want to pay extra to get an 11 month booking window at other resorts, considering that the per point cost of Poly2 is no doubt going to be pricey, and it’s not too difficult to get into the other resorts that might be part of said trust at 7 months anyway.

But they can still sell both under the trust use plan model without it being just considered one use plan.

Maybe they could decide thst they don’t want leasehold condos to sell anymore and will add resort property to a trust and sell as a RTU plans?

The speculation about home resort windows being the same is just that because the documents allow for it. Doesn’t mean they will.

And, no, they don’t have to announce there could be new property down the line to sell the cabins.

I look at it this way. Right now, you get home resort and trading at 7 months.

The trust could give people home resort, trust property home resort and trading

It could give people more than one home resort for booking purposes if things go into the same vacation plan.

The documents will explain it all to buyers in terms of what property is currently part of it.

Even if Poly tower doesn’t become part of this…I still think this is for resorts beyond CFW and that they could be shifting what and how they sell DVC.

We will see something in a few months.

 

[dioxide45]

But they can still sell both under the trust use plan model without it being just considered one use plan.

Maybe they could decide thst they don’t want leasehold condos to sell anymore and will add resort property to a trust and sell as a RTU plans?

The speculation about home resort windows being the same is just that because the documents allow for it. Doesn’t mean they will.

And, no, they don’t have to announce there could be new property down the line to sell the cabins.

I look at it this way. Right now, you get home resort and trading at 7 months.

The trust could give people home resort, trust property home resort and trading

It could give people more than one home resort for booking purposes if things go into the same vacation plan.

The documents will explain it all to buyers in terms of what property is currently part of it.

Even if Poly tower doesn’t become part of this…I still think this is for resorts beyond CFW and that they could be shifting what and how they sell DVC.

We will see something in a few months.

If they have different use plans within the trust and they still protect a home resort (not multiple resorts) at 11 months, then the manner of ownership really doesn't matter. It means nothing to buyers and owners. the system would work just as it does today. DVD would just be doing it for whatever internal reasons they have determined makes the trust ownership structure attractive to them. The big question is, will there or won't there be a multisite trust that allows for 11 month booking at multiple resorts. I think there could and perhaps will be, but I just don't think it be with Palmetto Trust.

 

[J-Dog]

But they can still sell both under the trust use plan model without it being just considered one use plan.

Maybe they could decide thst they don’t want leasehold condos to sell anymore and will add resort property to a trust and sell as a RTU plans?

The speculation about home resort windows being the same is just that because the documents allow for it. Doesn’t mean they will.

And, no, they don’t have to announce there could be new property down the line to sell the cabins.

I look at it this way. Right now, you get home resort and trading at 7 months.

The trust could give people home resort, trust property home resort and trading

It could give people more than one home resort for booking purposes if things go into the same vacation plan.

The documents will explain it all to buyers in terms of what property is currently part of it.

Even if Poly tower doesn’t become part of this…I still think this is for resorts beyond CFW and that they could be shifting what and how they sell DVC.

We will see something in a few months.

But I see 2 problems with adding more properties down the road without telling anyone now (and there are probably more):

1) Won't that potentially cause major financial issues for resale values for someone buying CFW now vs. someone buying CFW in X-number of years when DVD suddenly decides to add another resort to their home priority? It would certainly change the product very suddenly and without owner's consent.

2) Assuming that dues would be calculated as how they've been suggested on here, i.e. essentially the total of all the trust resort's costs, then averaged - how would that work? Would dues have potential to have a significant upward (or downward) adjustment for owners each time a new resort is added to the Trust?

And maybe solutions to these are all included in the contract legalese, but then that goes back to my comment a few posts ago - if DVD is marketing CFW with the same wording that they have for all previous resorts, but now adding a bunch of weasel-words to the fine print of the contract, then I would worry that DVD is going the way of the sleazy used-car-salesmen.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Ya'll are gonna beat this whole trust thing into submission when most of us don't even want it anyway. LOL.

The short term ship has sailed folks, Nothing about how DVC is sold is going to change. Certainly not in the near future. I'd find the 'beat a dead horse' EMOJI but I'm too lazy to try to find it.

 

[Sandisw]

But I see 2 problems with adding more properties down the road without telling anyone now (and there are probably more):

1) Won't that potentially cause major financial issues for resale values for someone buying CFW now vs. someone buying CFW in X-number of years when DVD suddenly decides to add another resort to their home priority? It would certainly change the product very suddenly and without owner's consent.

2) Assuming that dues would be calculated as how they've been suggested on here, i.e. essentially the total of all the trust resort's costs, then averaged - how would that work? Would dues have potential to have a significant upward (or downward) adjustment for owners each time a new resort is added to the Trust?

And maybe solutions to these are all included in the contract legalese, but then that goes back to my comment a few posts ago - if DVD is marketing CFW with the same wording that they have for all previous resorts, but now adding a bunch of weasel-words to the fine print of the contract, then I would worry that DVD is going the way of the sleazy used-car-salesmen.

No matter what they do, trust or stay the same for the future projects, they will find ways that resale restrictions stay and resale value will be what it will be.

That is why I have now shifted that each property in the trust, will be its own and have priority for one month and that dues will stay by property.

 

[Sandisw]

Ya'll are gonna beat this whole trust thing into submission when most of us don't even want it anyway. LOL.

The short term ship has sailed folks, Nothing about how DVC is sold is going to change. Certainly not in the near future. I'd find the 'beat a dead horse' EMOJI but I'm too lazy to try to find it.

Except it has. CFW is not being sold the same way as other properties. It is being sold as part of a trust and owners of it have a completely different product in terms of what they own and what potential changes can happen

Even the rental language is so much stronger than before.