Multi-Site POS Revision Dated 01/19/19

Yvonne made it very clear that they felt their biggest misstep was not what many see as a cash grab in the increase in the lockoff premium, but rather the “confusion” it caused the membership. Messaging, they feel, would address most of the concern. :sad2:
I am confused by her comment. What was the 'official' reason for the points change, if it was not a cash grab?
 
"I don't think that there is any easy way to block access to the reservation component"

They own the reservation system. They decide who they want to favor and not favor. They simply asked their attorneys to change the terms to the 225,000+ existing valid customer contracts. Doesn't seem too difficult to me.
 
They own the reservation system. They decide who they want to favor and not favor. They simply asked their attorneys to change the terms to the 225,000+ existing valid customer contracts. Doesn't seem too difficult to me.
Well technically speaking they didn’t strictly change any of the existing contracts. All the prior resort contracts only guaranteed access to the resorts at the time that resort signed on to the DVC reservation component through its resort agreement and operation further clarified in the BVTC Disclosure Document. What they did was Admit a resort with its own terms and conditions, which our Resort Agreements did say they could do and had some language regarding the impacts it might have, for Riviera to be admitted. Questions on that being allowed or not is different but the existing contracts weren’t changed, the only modifications to the Resort specific POSs were to allow for the flexible use years. In my opinion, it all stems from one sentence in the Resort Agreements is Riviera’s Resort Agreement substantially similar. I believe DVC is claiming it was per posts on here from those that spoke with DVC leadership. But that is the question only a court would definitively answer I guess.
 
Last edited:
I had an appointment with Yvonne several weeks ago. However, Yvonne did not make the appointment, and instead I spoke with Karen about the changes. I specifically asked if they were going to provide restitution for 1) Direct owners as of 1/19 since they effectively diverted some of the value of the resale contracts from the current owner to Disney and 2) Pro-rata MF reduction for new non-direct owners based on the fact that Riviera and future resort owners will have use to their resorts without reciprocation, thus effectively having to provide services for direct owners that resale owners are not entitled. She indicated that there would be no restitution, which of course, is not a surprise.

What was surprising to me, though, was that she indicated that Riviera is NOT part of the Club. She specifically told me that they have the right to not include new resorts in the club and that is what they have chosen to do with Riviera. They can, if they wish, decide to include Riviera in the Club at any point in the future.

Further, I spoke with my guide about a month ago. He told me that the reason for the differentiation is because direct purchases and resales purchases are two separate products. The logic is that since the price is different, they have to be two separate products and the higher-priced product gets more benefits.

Just some insights as to what DVC is thinking and communicating.
 


What was surprising to me, though, was that she indicated that Riviera is NOT part of the Club. She specifically told me that they have the right to not include new resorts in the club and that is what they have chosen to do with Riviera. They can, if they wish, decide to include Riviera in the Club at any point in the future.
Yeah this was 100% incorrect on Karen's part. It is in the club, what Yvonne said, to me, is Riviera is a part of the club by club membership does not guarantee access to the DVC Reservation Component for Riviera Resale Owners (this is also what the new Multi-Site POS says too). Karen was right they don't have to include new resorts into the club or they can associate new resorts with it's own Terms and Conditions. They chose the latter approach, which the question is what does "Terms and Conditions" mean and how far they can deviate from the current resorts. But it absolutely is apart of the club.
Further, I spoke with my guide about a month ago. He told me that the reason for the differentiation is because direct purchases and resales purchases are two separate products. The logic is that since the price is different, they have to be two separate products and the higher-priced product gets more benefits.
This doesn't surprise me, guides would most definitely use the change this way, but absolutely DVC was finding a way to make their higher prices justifiable to buyers so from a sales perspective he was right.
I had an appointment with Yvonne several weeks ago. However, Yvonne did not make the appointment, and instead I spoke with Karen about the changes. I specifically asked if they were going to provide restitution for 1) Direct owners as of 1/19 since they effectively diverted some of the value of the resale contracts from the current owner to Disney and 2) Pro-rata MF reduction for new non-direct owners based on the fact that Riviera and future resort owners will have use to their resorts without reciprocation, thus effectively having to provide services for direct owners that resale owners are not entitled. She indicated that there would be no restitution, which of course, is not a surprise.
I am not surprised on the answers for this. As for #1, I'll leave that for another discussion, as for #2 I don't think we would deserve anything, because you as an owner (resale or direct) always are guaranteed 1 month minimum between the Home Resort Reservation Period beginning and the DVC Reservation Component beginning, right now obviously set to 4 months. So any owner will always have an opportunity to book their home resort, but just isn't guaranteed the dates or accommodation type desired, which has always been the case. The dues have little to do with the DVC Reservation Component, which is mostly paid for out of breakage income.
 
Yeah this was 100% incorrect on Karen's part. It is in the club, what Yvonne said, to me, is Riviera is a part of the club by club membership does not guarantee access to the DVC Reservation Component for Riviera Resale Owners (this is also what the new Multi-Site POS says too). Karen was right they don't have to include new resorts into the club or they can associate new resorts with it's own Terms and Conditions. They chose the latter approach, which the question is what does "Terms and Conditions" mean and how far they can deviate from the current resorts. But it absolutely is apart of the club.

This doesn't surprise me, guides would most definitely use the change this way, but absolutely DVC was finding a way to make their higher prices justifiable to buyers so from a sales perspective he was right.

I am not surprised on the answers for this. As for #1, I'll leave that for another discussion, as for #2 I don't think we would deserve anything, because you as an owner (resale or direct) always are guaranteed 1 month minimum between the Home Resort Reservation Period beginning and the DVC Reservation Component beginning, right now obviously set to 4 months. So any owner will always have an opportunity to book their home resort, but just isn't guaranteed the dates or accommodation type desired, which has always been the case. The dues have little to do with the DVC Reservation Component, which is mostly paid for out of breakage income.
I did agree with Karen that Disney did have the right to include/exclude any resort at any time. I further shared my opinion that in this case, that is not what they are doing here, but rather they were including Riviera in the Club and excluding some of the Club owners from accessing it. She did not share my opinion.
 
I did agree with Karen that Disney did have the right to include/exclude any resort at any time. I further shared my opinion that in this case, that is not what they are doing here, but rather they were including Riviera in the Club and excluding some of the Club owners from accessing it. She did not share my opinion.
I have no idea why she decided to say it wasn't a part of the club since it very much is. You could do a follow-up letter to your call to Yvonne expressing any disconnect. I'm sure it would be gotten back to her, I know it was explicitly made clear to me it is apart of the club with Riviera, the resort, mandating the restrictions as its conditions to join the club..
 


What was surprising to me, though, was that she indicated that Riviera is NOT part of the Club. She specifically told me that they have the right to not include new resorts in the club and that is what they have chosen to do with Riviera. They can, if they wish, decide to include Riviera in the Club at any point in the future.


That is very interesting. As I posted before I also had to speak with Karen because Yvonne was unavailable. She explicitly said that Riviera was part of DVC (I obviously knew the answer but wanted to hear it from her). I asked why they didn't go the route of DVC2 and keep any new resorts separate and she said they had considered it but ultimately decided to not go that route. I told her that would have been so much easier for them I was surprised they didn't. So did she misspeak to one of us or are they trying to alter their stance......hmmm.

She was also very adamant that the Riviera agreement did meet the definition of "similar". I argued that it was not similar, but also granted that may be up to a court to decided someday. I have been busy with work last week or so but have been communicating with an attorney about this. He agreed the C&D letter was a good first step and is doing some background research on the rules and filings now. Will be curious to hear what his legal opinion is after reviewing.
 
That is very interesting. As I posted before I also had to speak with Karen because Yvonne was unavailable. She explicitly said that Riviera was part of DVC (I obviously knew the answer but wanted to hear it from her). I asked why they didn't go the route of DVC2 and keep any new resorts separate and she said they had considered it but ultimately decided to not go that route. I told her that would have been so much easier for them I was surprised they didn't. So did she misspeak to one of us or are they trying to alter their stance......hmmm.

She was also very adamant that the Riviera agreement did meet the definition of "similar". I argued that it was not similar, but also granted that may be up to a court to decided someday. I have been busy with work last week or so but have been communicating with an attorney about this. He agreed the C&D letter was a good first step and is doing some background research on the rules and filings now. Will be curious to hear what his legal opinion is after reviewing.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to get legal advice. I'd be happy to participate in a group action and contribute to the legal expenses if you decide to go that route.
 
I provided before reasons why I believe both purchasers from DVD and resale purchasers must all have a right to use the DVC Reservation Component to reserve any DVC Resort, including one added to that component operated by BVTC, and thus Disney either has to remove Riviera from the Disney Vacation Club entirely or drop the stated resale restrictions. I am adding now another reason. It appears the restrictions violate Fl Stats §718.110(4).

Summarizing what I have noted before based on the BWV documents: the declarations provide: (a) that every owner and Club Member, which includes all resale purchasers, shall be entitled to use the services and benefits provided by the Disney Vacation Club; (b) the two main services and benefits provided by the Club are the Home Resort Reservation Component and the DVC Reservation Component; (c) the members have a right, after the home resort reservation priority period ends, to use the DVC Reservation Component to reserve, on a first come, first served basis, any rooms at any DVC Resort other than the one they own; (d) a DVC Resort is defined as any resort that is given the right to access the DVC Reservation Component. Club Membership is deemed an “appurtenance” to the ownership interest in the unit that is part of the real property which automatically transfers to any resale purchaser via deed. The multi-site POS also provides that all Club Members, which includes resale purchasers, have a right to use the DVC Reservation Component to reserve any DVC Resort. Finally, the DVC Resort Agreement has the association transferring to BVTC the obligation to run the DVC Reservation Component to take reservations for any DVC resort from Club Members (which includes resale purchasers) and to act in the best interests of such members when adding any new DVC Resort.

Despite the above, DVD has added Riviera to the DVC Reservation Component as a DVC Resort with the resale restrictions via a supposed DVC Resort Agreement for Riviera with BVTC that contains the new resale restrictions, even though BVTC, under the BWV (and other) DVC Resort Agreements, can add a new DVC resort only via a DVC Resort Agreement whose terms are substantially similar in all material respects to the BWV DVC Resort Agreement.

So now for a new point. It results from the appurtenance requirement. An appurtenance is, by definition in the real estate world, either a tangible real property right , e.g., ownership of a parking space, or intangible right, e.g., such as an easement, right of way, or right to use something considered part of the real property. Fl Stats §718.110(4), which deals with amendments to declarations for any condominium development (which includes the DVC resorts), provides:

“Unless otherwise provided in the declarations as originally recorded, no amendment may change the configuration or size of any unit in any material fashion, materially alter or modify the appurtenances to the unit, or change the proportion or percentage by which the unit owner shares the common expenses of the condominium and owns the common surplus of the condominium unless the record owner of the unit and all record owners of liens on the unit join in the execution of the amendment and unless all the record owners of all other units in the same condominium approve the amendment. The acquisition of property by the association and material alterations or substantial additions to such property or the common elements by the association in accordance with s. 718.111 (7) or s. 718.113, and amendments providing for the transfer of use rights in limited common elements pursuant to s. 718.106 (2)(b) shall not be deemed to constitute a material alteration or modification of the appurtenances to the units. A declaration recorded after April 1, 1992, may not require the approval of less than a majority of total voting interests of the condominium for amendments under this subsection, unless otherwise required by a governmental entity.”

Thus, it provides that there can be no amendment to the declarations that materially alters or modifies an appurtenance absent a unanimous vote of all the owners of the condominium resort.

Case law on this section has also determined some issues. The statute means no material alterations to appurtenances can be done except as provided in this section, i.e., it requires an amendment to the declarations and a unaminous vote of the owners to change any appurtenance rights, and the association cannot claim it can rely on some other modification provision in a different document to make the change, see Tower House Condo. Assoc. v. Millman, 410 So. 2d 926 (3d Dis.1981)(association could not use appropriations provisions in by-laws to determine that purchase of an appurtenance addition could be made). Moreover, the “unless otherwise provided in the declarations” language does not include having a general right to modify the declarations. The specific right to modify the appurtenances must be stated in the declarations to permit anything less than that unanimous vote. Wellington Property Management, Inc. v. Parc Corniche Condominium Assoc., 755 So. 2d 824 (5th Dist.2000). Also, an appurtenance can include the right to use facilities not owned by the association or its members. And when the declarations made membership in a recreational facility an appurtenance to the real estate interest, the recreational facilities could not be materially changed absent compliance with this statute’s unaminous vote requirement. Downey v. Jungle Den Villas Recreation Assoc., 525 So.2d 438 (5th Dist. 1988).

In other words, DVD may have some real statutory problems with what it has done. (Note that the other statutes noted in this statute are not relevant to the DVC appurtenance issue -- §§718.111(7), and 718.113, deals with an exception for the association’s purchase of real property and dealing with condemned property;§718.113 deals with alterations of common elements if the association has specific provisions in the declarations allowing it to modify common elements, and 718.106(2) (b) deals with transferring limited common elements (those used only by specified owners).

Thank you for looking into the law on this. My question to you is what should we all do about it? I, and many others, have called and expressed concerns in one way or another. I admit that I did not take this avenue with researching the pertinent case law because I don't have a LexisNexis or Westlaw subscription anymore (criminal law problems). They seem so closed off from actually listening to us even when we have valid arguments. They have a mightier than thou attitude. It seems like the only thing they will listen to is a lawsuit. I really do appreciate your research into it.

Me, too. Maybe a first step is to file complaint with appropriate regulatory agency and see how far that goes (I think I read that some where on here)? I think DVD is counting on individual owners being unwilling to "fight" against its deep-pocket.

LAX

I think that is a reasonable first step. I did ask about the regulatory agencies in my conversation and I would describe the response as almost over the top about how the regulators are fully aware of this and it was all approved (aka "move along nothing to see here"). Does anyone know if this filing would have been approved by them?

I would be glad to contact them and express some of the concerns outlined here. My guess is the regulators have a cozy relationship with DVC so doubt it will lead anywhere, but at least puts them on notice too that people are watching. If it comes out later in a lawsuit that the regulators were made aware and did nothing it will definitely look bad for them.

You could always send DVD a cease and desist letter telling them to stop sales of RVA due to their infractions. This may turn some heads but it may need to be done by a lawyer on their letter head. This would prove to DVD that you came to play ball. Legally the would respond to some extent...

I'm not a lawyer, but I do have extensive training and experience in several fields where exact terminology and usage of words is essential. And, it looks to me like Disney's position on all of this is simply a House of Cards. One burst of wind, or one card removed and the whole thing will come tumbling down. I hate to have to 'go against Disney.' It doesn't bother me so much that they are the 800 pound gorilla. It does bother me that I have always loved Disney and that I STILL expect the best from them, and compelling them to do the right thing just goes against the grain. But it must be done. Again, I say, IT MUST BE DONE. UNLESS Disney wakes up, sees the light and starts to do the right thing. So, what will it be, Disney? This is your chance to get ahead of the curve and start doing the right thing, before legal action is started.
 
I'm not a lawyer, but I do have extensive training and experience in several fields where exact terminology and usage of words is essential. And, it looks to me like Disney's position on all of this is simply a House of Cards. One burst of wind, or one card removed and the whole thing will come tumbling down. I hate to have to 'go against Disney.' It doesn't bother me so much that they are the 800 pound gorilla. It does bother me that I have always loved Disney and that I STILL expect the best from them, and compelling them to do the right thing just goes against the grain. But it must be done. Again, I say, IT MUST BE DONE. UNLESS Disney wakes up, sees the light and starts to do the right thing. So, what will it be, Disney? This is your chance to get ahead of the curve and start doing the right thing, before legal action is started.

I think the current management has a "I dare you to challenge us" mentality and I don't think it will change course unless it's forced to.

LAX
 
Yeah but BVTC isn’t a part of either [DVD or DVCMC] it’s its own for profit legal entity, at least that’s how it seems to me. We pay a negligible fee for being apart of it to get the service of exchanging between resorts...(and other posts)
My apologies for quoting an older post but I've been rereading this thread as 5/16/19 approaches.

I'm curious why you think the management of DVCMC has a fiduciary duty but BVTC doesn't. BVTC is a corporation under Fl Ch 527 just like DVCMC and (as near as I can tell from skimming the statute) its management has fiduciary duties as well.

Also, (at least since Aulani) the Disclosure Document has text along the lines of...

BVTC, in its discretion, may change the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Disclosure Document. These changes may affect a Club Member's right to access the DVC Reservation Component and impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of the Ownership Interest and the appurtenant Club membership. Such changes may be made by BVTC without the consent of any Club Member and may adversely affect a Club Member's rights and benefits and increase or decrease the Club Member's costs of ownership. Further, although BVTC generally is required to make such changes in a manner which, in its reasonable business judgement, improves upon the quality and operation of the DVC Reservation Component and furthers the collective enjoyment of its benefits by the Club Members taken as a whole, such changes under some circumstances may not be to the advantage of some Club Members and could adversely affect their ability to secure reservations when and where they want them.

As I read this paragraph it seems to be an attempt by BVTC to claw back some of the Club Members rights that would otherwise exist.
 
My apologies for quoting an older post but I've been rereading this thread as 5/16/19 approaches.

I'm curious why you think the management of DVCMC has a fiduciary duty but BVTC doesn't. BVTC is a corporation under Fl Ch 527 just like DVCMC and (as near as I can tell from skimming the statute) its management has fiduciary duties as well.

Also, (at least since Aulani) the Disclosure Document has text along the lines of...

BVTC, in its discretion, may change the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Disclosure Document. These changes may affect a Club Member's right to access the DVC Reservation Component and impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of the Ownership Interest and the appurtenant Club membership. Such changes may be made by BVTC without the consent of any Club Member and may adversely affect a Club Member's rights and benefits and increase or decrease the Club Member's costs of ownership. Further, although BVTC generally is required to make such changes in a manner which, in its reasonable business judgement, improves upon the quality and operation of the DVC Reservation Component and furthers the collective enjoyment of its benefits by the Club Members taken as a whole, such changes under some circumstances may not be to the advantage of some Club Members and could adversely affect their ability to secure reservations when and where they want them.

As I read this paragraph it seems to be an attempt by BVTC to claw back some of the Club Members rights that would otherwise exist.

Yes. To me, it is OBVIOUS that Disney has been making changes in some contracts, at some different resorts as they go along, and then acting like those changed, new contract terms affect EVERYONE, including previous resort contracts that had no such terminology. It is time that someone stands up to Disney and puts a stop to this. This behaviour is fraudulent.
 
I'm in the mood for a long read. Is there somewhere I'm missing where I can access the Public Offering Statements for the different resorts? And/or the actual contracts?

I can see the amendments filed with the Florida DBPR...but not the actual amendments. And all I can find on the DVC site is the Home Resort Rules and Regulations for DRR from 06/27/18. TIA...I think ;-)
 
I think for the Multi-Site POS you have to go with the one they sent you in booklet form. You can find the resort master declarations on OCC. Search using Disney as grantor, in the pull down menu choose “condo related”, on the advanced tab in legal remarks you can put “boardwalk” or similar. On the results page if you further sort by “recording date” and “ascending” the first document will likely be the original declaration and will contain the resort POS and all related agreements, unit drawings etc.
 
I'm in the mood for a long read. Is there somewhere I'm missing where I can access the Public Offering Statements for the different resorts? And/or the actual contracts?

I can see the amendments filed with the Florida DBPR...but not the actual amendments. And all I can find on the DVC site is the Home Resort Rules and Regulations for DRR from 06/27/18. TIA...I think ;-)

You can get part of the POS's for the Florida sites online at the Orange County Comptroller's site. That site has the declarations with some of the exhibits including the DVC Membership Agreement and DVC Resort Agreement for each site and also has the deeds for every sale. However, you cannot find on that site the Multi-Site POS, the definitions that apply to the entire POS, the opening summary (POS statement) of the public offering statement, the purchase agreements, or the Product Understanding document DVD gives to every purchaser (in which document Disney summarizes what it believes the important terms of the POS and contractual documents mean, but which document Disney now expressly denies means anything, including because it contradicts some of the anti-member actions it has taken in the last four months, i.e., current management expressly disclaims being bound by representations made in writing by prior management). For how to search for the declarations of each site, see my post here: https://www.disboards.com/threads/ownership-interest.3733127/

THe DBPR also has POS documents and thus you can get the POS definitions and summary, and multi-site POS's filed for each site from it. However, it does not make such documents easily accessible. You have to make a specific written request to the DBPR for the particular documents you want. It will then locate them and make a copy for you available online. However, it will also charge a per page amount for doing that and to get all those extra documents for every site would likely cost well into the hundreds of dollars. Moreover, I did that for the new Riviera documents and it took DBPR over a month to produce them.
 
I have just read all 33 pages of this. I am totally new to DVC and was ready to sign on Riviera even knowing the resale restrictions. HOWEVER, I got all the paperwork and it all seemed too fishy. Too vague in areas and it also made me skeptical of how they could have a "Club" and take away rights guaranteed in the original 14 contracts. It was sketchy enough for me to find and look up disboards on my own, unprompted and with no prior knowledge. If it stood out as problematic to me as a first time uninformed buyer, it will absolutely stand out to other first time buyers as well.

I now have concerns on what I could be buying into with Riviera and what they may or may not decide to change at any time within the "Club" and for all members. Will Riviera stay part of this "Club"? Will they decide they have to move Riviera to a new "Club" in order to uphold the terms of the original 14 resort contracts? As a potential direct Riviera buyer, I wouldn't plan to resell but it's always nice to have a backup knowing you could get part of the money back. With the new resales restrictions though, Riviera resales are penalized even more than resales of the original 14. People will not want to buy direct into the only resort that states resale is restricted to home resort. In my eyes, the new resale restrictions have hurt their credibility and have made me decide not to buy into Riviera at this time. Many new buyers will be concerned of the same. If they lifted the resale restrictions tomorrow and showed good faith toward the original 14 resort contracts terms, I would absolutely buy into Riviera.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!




Latest posts










facebook twitter
Top