OKW Extension Papers & Lockout Mentioned

[BobH]

I mailed my card in stating that I did not wish to extend my contract in February. DVC mailed me the paperwork that deeds the extra 15 years back to them. I received it the 3rd week in April. I wondered how long I had to act on the paperwork and get it notarized. My paperwork indicated that I should contact the "Quality Assurance Managers" at 1-800-782-6767 if I had any questions so I called them and the Disney representative was very nice, but she stated that if the paperwork was not returned by October that Disney would be implementing a "lockout" and I would be billed at that time for the balance owed. It was evident to me that Disney was doing its best
not to seem heavy handed, but they have every intention of putting a timeline on the OKW extension offer. They are just not willing to spell out the consequences to vacation club members because they do not want bad press. I have since returned my notarized paperwork declining their offer. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

[Dean]

I'm hoping someone takes them to task on this issue as I don't think this is a legal battle DVC can win.

 

[BobH]

Dean,
Do you think Disney's motivation for the extension is to be able to add the 15 year extension to 2042 contracts that they already have in inventory so they can sell them as more expensive 2057 contracts? Do you have any opinion on why Disney is getting owners of 2042 contracts involved in this paperwork mess? Why didn't they just make an offer to extend without the need for current owners to legally decline and amend their deeds? I can understand why some younger people might extend ownership, but in my opinion Disney is doing unnecesary damage to its reputation by the way they are handling this. What do you think?

 

[tjkraz]

I suspect it has something to do with sales limitations that exist. Even today there are many states, countries and provinces in which DVC cannot market its products due to local laws--not even to folks who are current customers. For instance, if DVC had attempted to sell the extra 15 years as a stand-alone product, they couldn't even contact owners living in Nebraska and Hawaii.

By unilaterally extending all of the contracts, DVC was able to reach-out to all owners with what is effectively a buy-back offer. The entire process does seem to skirt some legal boundaries, but at least they have structured it such that declining members are not forced to endure any sort of financial hardship.

While some people have expressed disappointment in having to go to the trouble of declining, I bet there would have been others upset that they could not extend if DVC had marketed these as separate contracts.

 

[disneynutz]

I thought that I read somewhere that there is a issue with the DVD land lease from The Disney Company or one of it's affiliates? The problem was with Florida Real Estate/Timeshare law. I remember that it is going to be a big mess.

 

[BobH]

I think it would have been nice if Disney offered some type of explanantion for the way things were handled. If they were complying with some Florida timeshare law or conducting business in a manner that was necessary to comply with timeshare reulations in many states, I think they could have at least given current owners an explanation that this is they way they were comnpelled to do business - instead they offer people who have a "contract" no explanation whatsoever.

 

[Dean]

Dean,
Do you think Disney's motivation for the extension is to be able to add the 15 year extension to 2042 contracts that they already have in inventory so they can sell them as more expensive 2057 contracts? Do you have any opinion on why Disney is getting owners of 2042 contracts involved in this paperwork mess? Why didn't they just make an offer to extend without the need for current owners to legally decline and amend their deeds? I can understand why some younger people might extend ownership, but in my opinion Disney is doing unnecesary damage to its reputation by the way they are handling this. What do you think?

I suspect the decision to extend was an additive thing including making it easier to sell the ROFR points at a higher price, keeping the entire system running until the possible end in 2057 and a trial balloon for the other resorts. Can you imagine DVC trying to cut the infrastructure back in 2042 to just enough to handle the remaining few resorts and how much dues are likely to be if they do.

My feeling on the method of the extension is this. DVC was stuck with a dilemma in making this happen. They need enough participation to make it work and need to not have it drag out. However, the threat of a special assessment for this purpose is not allowed in the POS, IMO. That's why I'm hoping someone puts them to the task on this issue. If I still owned OKW points you can bet I would. My feeling in reading the state statues and POS is that once they extend the ground lease, they automatically extend the ownership of all, which is likely why they went this route. And lest anyone asks, I'm not going through all the paperwork and pull it out again, just take it as my opinion.

I feel they should have approached it differently and could have been successful. IMO, the two best options would have been a much lower cost or buy a min number of points (OKW or elsewhere) and get the extension automatically. I feel that $10 pp was the upper limit of what the market would bear and get enough participation to make it a worthwhile venture.

You asked.

 

[BobH]

Thanks for the reply, Dean. I asked, and your explanation makes sense. I was not aware of the impact of the extension of the ground lease on the 2042 contracts. With all the class action suits that happen, it would be interesting to see what would happen with this issue - if DVC was challenged legally they would probably just assess the owners for the cost since we have all given up our voting rights to the DVC.

 

[Dean]

Thanks for the reply, Dean. I asked, and your explanation makes sense. I was not aware of the impact of the extension of the ground lease on the 2042 contracts. With all the class action suits that happen, it would be interesting to see what would happen with this issue - if DVC was challenged legally they would probably just assess the owners for the cost since we have all given up our voting rights to the DVC.

Owners have not given up their voting rights in areas that affect the owners as a whole in a negative way. There is a provision for having the owners themselves vote in certain situations and IMO, this would be one of them. I'm not a big fan of litigation overall but I doubt it would come to that if one addressed it appropriately. The best parallel I can think of is the one about the free OKW/VB park passes. DVC's original approach was that you could only use 1999 points to get free passes and not borrowed 2000 points. A lawyer and a good letter pointing out the lack of such a rule and authority in the POS corrected that situation.

 

[DisneyBB]

I live in the UK and it will cost me a lot more to get these papers signed than the $25 they gave us. I phoned them last night and asked what would happen if I don't sign. They said that I would be barred from using my DVC! I was shocked that they could or would do this. Surley they have no power to stop us using our points! I did ask them to stop telling people in the UK to use a notery, as these are few and far between in this country. Also we were there last Christmas and they contacted me about extending and encouraged me to go home and think about it. If I had known that I would have to take a day off work and pay out for a Soliciter, then I would have signed at Christmas time. We don't visit until Dec 2009 next time so they will not wait until then!

I am really disgusted how Disney have treated us and would love to find out if they can stop us using our DVC.

 

[BobH]

I called Disney yesterday to inquire if they had received my paperwork and to ask if they really planned to lock current owners out of their points if the paperwork was not returned at some time. The Disney representative gave me the same answer that DisneyBB received and stated that they would probably send out another communication to warn owners at some future date that they were in danger of losing the use of their points. The Disney representative told me that no definite dates for any of these actions had been established, but gave me the "understanding" that this could all happen by the end of 2008. When I inquired as to the reason for all of this inconvenient paperwork being forced on current owners the Disney representative replied that this was all happening because the ground lease was being extended and this was the method that the Disney management had chosen to handle things. It turns out that Dean was absolutely correct about the reason for the extension in his post above. It appears that Disney is hoping the whole issue will take care of itself quietly and go away. I told the rrepresentative that I was speaking to that it was poor advertisement for the Disney product and that it would not help their sales. I told her at the very least Disney should have provided a better written explanation with the paperwork instead of attempting to keep it all secret. The Disney representative was very conciliatory and basically acknowledged that they were basically overwhelmed with this issue. As Dean stated before, it would be interesting to see someone with suffiicent finances take them to task on this. Maybe enough dissatisified OKW owners will cause DVC President JIm Lewis to realize there was absolutely no Disney "magic" in the way this issue was handled. Best of luck with your paperwork - DisneyBB.

 

[flechette]

Hmm I haven't received any paperwork yet - nada- not even the decline card. I wonder if I should call my guide again or the number at top and see what our status is. I have a vacation planned for this Oct and it would be inconvienent to get locked out LOL`

Michelle

 

[PBB]

This is weird. I have not received my documentation either. I would not be pleased if Disney did a lock out on my account or even threaten it. My loan is paid off and my dues are current. I expect to be able to use my account per the terms of the agreement I signed 10 years ago.

Just because Disney is trying to extend ownership and wants a legal document signed does not mean they can deny me something that I have paid for. Sounds like extortion to me and I can't imagine a judge looking kindly on that.

It would be very similar to me leasing a condo for a year and the owner wanting to sell to someone after my lease is up. They cant chain the doors to my condo until I signed the document.

I hope this is just a rumor........

 

[LIFERBABE]

Sad to say this is all true.

So many people say, "just sign the papers and move on" but what DVC is doing sets a precedence that I thought we would never see as owners. Everyone talks about how DVC values its reputation and they would never pull slimey moves, but this is the slimiest.

When we first got word of the extensions, they were denying that liens would be used against owners that did not opt out legally. But yet in their propaganda to us, it was clearly stated that liens would be used. No one wants to use the "L" word but it is prevalent in the documents.

When people start getting locked out and accruing fees on their accounts, that's when there will be an outcry.

Right now, I am in a hold pattern with DVC. I dont care what they offer in terms of new resorts, Im not interested in increasing my exposure to them when they can pull moves like this and then try to sugarcoat it.

 

[BobH]

I have had 2 conversations with Disney Administration stating that I would be billed for value of the 15 year extension and that I would be prevented form using points if I did not act on the paperwork declining their offer. They would not put a timeline on any of these actions but I was told it would probably be some time in the fall of 2008. I received a card to eother acept or decline the extension in l;ate November of 2007 and I believe it said I should return it by the end of February 2008 - which I did. I was then sent paperwork from Disney that I had to have notarized at the end of April and I just returned it last week. This is the phone number for questions regarding the matter if anyone needs it to call and inquire why they did not receive a notice: 1-800-782-6767 or 1-407-827-4743. In my opinion I do not believe anyone should just sit and do nothing. Good luck.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Okay, I'm not an OKW owner so this doesn't affect me (yet).

Anyway, I do understand about the few European difficulties, but overall isn't a little too much being made about this??
I mean, you sign a piece of paper. Yes you need to get it notarized, but really how hard is that??
Oh yes, you must also mail it.

I'm under the impression DVC compensates you for the notary cost, is that correct?

I think earlier posters are correct... DVC is doing it this way for legal reasons, and are NOT trying to snooker anyone.

I may be alone, but I think there is too much fuss being made about this.
Am I missing something??

MG

 

[tjkraz]

I may be alone, but I think there is too much fuss being made about this.

48 hours ago I would have agreed with you. But I do have to admit some posters are making a great deal of sense here. It's a little disconcerting to think that Disney could start penalizing people who have otherwise complied with all of the rules and regulations. Based upon the feedback here, it sounds like DVC has been pretty spotty in its communications with owners over this issue. I sure hop that doesn't lead to people being penalized when Disney is the party at fault.

I do not think that this is setting any sort of precedent of general abuse toward members. For years people here were clamoring about extensions and I think Disney chose the path of least resistance. But I think it's apparent that they were unable to predict or plan for some of the fallout.

I wonder what this says about the possibility of extensions at other resorts. If Disney were to market BWV or BCV extensions as separate contracts, that means there will be a lot of current members they cannot approach for legal reasons. They'll take just as big a hit in the PR department as they did here. Darned if you do....darned if you don't.

 

[5forDiz]

Wondering if anyone here bought OKW resale around same time & what their experience is with extension ( or not ) and documents, etc. ?

We closed on OKW resale on Feb. 7 ( started process/deposit mid-December 2007). Broker/agent told us previous owners did not pay price per point to extend contract to 2057 and all paperwork, etc. indicates 2042 as expiration date of contract.

After closing Feb. 7 we phoned DVC (administration) to inquire if as new owners of this contract we could extend the contract to 2057 if we wanted to pay the prevailing price per point to extend. We were told yes and as the new owners we would be receiving paperwork in next few weeks to either accept offer to extend or decline.

We then noticed in April OKW owners were beginning to post here that they were receiving their " official decline document " which needs to be signed, notarized and returned to DVC. We still had not received anything from DVC concerning extending or not extending (like we had been told when we phoned) so we called again and asked if it was possible that perhaps "official decline document" that OKW owners seem to be receiving in past month perhaps has been mailed to the previous owners of our OKW contract and if they sign, notarized and returned this document (say this week for example) can that or would that somehow impact this contract in someway that we are the owners of since Feb. 7 ? like our ability to pay prevailing price per point and chosing extended expiration to 2057 or perhaps in some other regard ?

We are not legal experts and our thinking on this may be a stretch but we have our concerns about this because DVC seems too vague on what exactly the story is on this contract . . .got more of " you'll be receiving all the information you need to either accept or decline extension, etc."

We plan to call DVC again and really try to get someone on the phone who can pin down details for us.

We were told we can even call at any time to say we do want extension and pay with credit card, etc.

But still we have not received what DVC keeps telling us is coming by mail ...

 

[BobH]

In general I have been pleased with the Disney Vacation Club experience. Due to my age I have chosen not to extend my OKW membership for 15 years. Notarization of the paperwork declining the offer was inconvenient, but not a major matter. However, when one party to a 16 year old contract notifies the other party to a real estate contract that they are changing the terms of the original contract that has been in existence for 16 years, and that you will lose the use of the original real estate interest (be locked out) if you do not agree to amend your deed - that is a major matter - and it is a little suprising when you have been "welcomed home" for years. I just think that if all this was legally necessary to extend the ground lease and keep DVC going, owners should have been given a more complete explanation that this was the only way DVC could handle the matter under Florida timeshare laws. A meaningful explanation would have been worth more to me than a token $30 credit on my 2008 annual statement to cover costs of notarizing papers and an offer of an OKW photo that I have no use for. Allowing the owners to find out in an informal telephone conversation that the managment intend to lock them out of their ownership interest is just bad business and bad advertising on the part of DVC. Disney has aways been a master at public relations and buyer incentives. I hope the architect of the OKW extension offer does not rise any further up the Disney chain of command.
I do know other vacation club members in my area that are equally dissatisfied with the way this has been handled and I have been intersted in learning what the thoughtful members of this board have to say. I don't want to rain on any other DVC members' parade, but sometimes it does rain.

 

[StregaNona]

I do know other vacation club members in my area that are equally dissatisfied with the way this has been handled and I have been interested in learning what the thoughtful members of this board have to say. I don't want to rain on any other DVC members' parade, but sometimes it does rain.

My spouse & I along with several other DVC families (all members since the early 1990s & people we know fairly well) are "equally dissatisfied" with the way DVC dealt with this issue of the extension. We have expressed our concerns to members of the DVC management, including Jim Lewis, but we told not to negatively influence other DVC members.

Due to our ages & other factors, most of us are not extending.