Poll: Your Riviera Resale price

[DisFanDad]

DVC Shop was the agency.

Ah yes, well, there is indeed some shadyness there ...

There are no grounds for a lawsuit as the contract explicitly provides for the restrictions. If DVC would like to roll back the restrictions, they are in their full right to do so. However, this will only happen if it benefits their pocket.

You actually contradict yourself. You are correct, the restrictions are perfectly legal because they are in the contract, the same existence in the contract also means Disney can't remove the restrictions (unless the contract explicitly gives them the option to do so) even if owners would benefit/enjoy such a change. Remember removing such a restriction would "harm" anyone who bought at any of the other resorts ...

 

[Katie2]

Ah yes, well, there is indeed some shadyness there ...


You actually contradict yourself. You are correct, the restrictions are perfectly legal because they are in the contract, the same existence in the contract also means Disney can't remove the restrictions (unless the contract explicitly gives them the option to do so) even if owners would benefit/enjoy such a change. Remember removing such a restriction would "harm" anyone who bought at any of the other resorts ...

The restrictions, and their removal, are provided for in the agreement. In short, the agreement makes it crystal clear that DVC can do as they wish at anytime. Therefore, the claim of “harm” is at best tenuous. While anyone can bring a lawsuit for anything, it doesn’t make it right and it will easily be disposed of by Disney's lawyers.

 

[Ryan C Peyman]

The restrictions, and their removal, are provided for in the agreement. In short, the agreement makes it crystal clear that DVC can do as they wish at anytime. Therefore, the claim of “harm” is at best tenuous. While anyone can bring a lawsuit for anything, it doesn’t make it right and it will easily be disposed of by Disney's lawyers.

Yes. There is also something called privity of contract; those buying other contracts have no rights under the riviera contract. Even if there was no right for disney to change the restriction in the contract the two parties can amend the contract if they both so wish; it would not be hard to accomplish this.

I personally would not buy riviera because of the resale restriction and it is as much a point of principle as it is due to the likely decrease in value; I do not like what it signals about dvc and I would not support it.

 

[DisFanDad]

Yes. There is also something called privity of contract; those buying other contracts have no rights under the riviera contract. Even if there was no right for disney to change the restriction in the contract the two parties can amend the contract if they both so wish; it would not be hard to accomplish this.

I personally would not buy riviera because of the resale restriction and it is as much a point of principle as it is due to the likely decrease in value; I do not like what it signals about dvc and I would not support it.

The restrictions, and their removal, are provided for in the agreement. In short, the agreement makes it crystal clear that DVC can do as they wish at anytime. Therefore, the claim of “harm” is at best tenuous. While anyone can bring a lawsuit for anything, it doesn’t make it right and it will easily be disposed of by Disney's lawyers.

This depends on whether the other DVC property contracts have been altered, which I assume they have, to say that resale Riviera points will NOT be usable at those resorts. And while DVC certainly has flexibility on MANY things in their contracts built in, they DON"T have flexibility on many things, including on the allocation and use of points. Ie: they can change how many points are needed for a specific room, but can't change total number of points. I don't know how the restriction is worded in the contract, but I don't have any confidence either way that it would allow Disney to change this restriction or not. Much like they CAN"T change the fact that I can use my old contracts at any resort I want, resale or not. They can ONLY change those restrictions or permissions going forward. I would imagine the same would be true for Riviera. Could remove the restrictions on a go forward basis, but couldn't do anything about the contracts already sold and resold.

 

[lmhall2000]

Just wanting to see at what you would personally pay for a resale contract for Riviera.

We would never buy there- that should be an option. We are first time buyers- the restrictions completely tanked it as an option. If there were no restrictions- I would only buy it at $95 or less..just not appealing at all to us.

 

[Soap_1984]

This depends on whether the other DVC property contracts have been altered, which I assume they have, to say that resale Riviera points will NOT be usable at those resorts. And while DVC certainly has flexibility on MANY things in their contracts built in, they DON"T have flexibility on many things, including on the allocation and use of points. Ie: they can change how many points are needed for a specific room, but can't change total number of points. I don't know how the restriction is worded in the contract, but I don't have any confidence either way that it would allow Disney to change this restriction or not. Much like they CAN"T change the fact that I can use my old contracts at any resort I want, resale or not. They can ONLY change those restrictions or permissions going forward. I would imagine the same would be true for Riviera. Could remove the restrictions on a go forward basis, but couldn't do anything about the contracts already sold and resold.

This brings up a question I have always wondered; since it is simply a contract between two people what is stopping me from asking them to remove the section on resale restrictions? Obviously they would likely say no but is there anything stopping disney from agreeing? Say I wanted 1000 points (hypothetical ) but said I need that section removed and I'll hand them a briefcase full of $188k, could there be one contract floating out there with different conditions?

 

[1SickPupe]

It would have to be stupid cheap for me to consider buying! We bought BWV resale in 2003 and have been happy with that purchase but since then they have created a two class system which I think hurts the brand.
Disney has eroded the membership for resale purchasers to the point I feel many would feel consider themselves second class members. These members still pay maintenance fees which are no different to what the unrestricted members pay. Now with the new restrictions on Riviera they have created a third class membership.

 

[crvetter]

This brings up a question I have always wondered; since it is simply a contract between two people what is stopping me from asking them to remove the section on resale restrictions? Obviously they would likely say no but is there anything stopping disney from agreeing? Say I wanted 1000 points (hypothetical ) but said I need that section removed and I'll hand them a briefcase full of $188k, could there be one contract floating out there with different conditions?

The restrictions aren’t on your contract. The restrictions are actually on a different contract between Riviera Resort and Buena Vista Trading (which is the official way you trade points between the resorts). So they wouldn’t even be able to do this if they wanted to as it’s a contract between to corporate entities. Sure the individual contract with DVC might reference the the restrictions (and by contract it’s actually just a deed, and not sure it even explicitly does) but that isn’t where they are enforced or defined.

 

[Soap_1984]

Ah that makes sense thank you for the clarification.

 

[EYL]

I'm not sure if I can post the link, but it seems like there is a Riviera resale that just got recorded. 175 points. Recorded on 8/7/19. Sale price is stated on deed, and it seems to confirm the $100/point resale price.

Not to dig up an old topic, but this same Riviera contract above was resold for $140/point. Deed was recorded today, 10/30/19, on the occompt website... Unbelievable! A $7000 profit in less than 3 months. Some would call that "business," but I call it something else...

 

[crvetter]

Not to dig up an old topic, but this same Riviera contract above was resold for $140/point. Deed was recorded today, 10/30/19, on the occompt website... Unbelievable! A $7000 profit in less than 3 months. Some would call that "business," but I call it something else...

Especially when the seller sold to the listing company, who worked in their “best interest” to offer about 30% below what they deemed to be fair market value.

This was either a ploy by a new company or shady sales. Either way I would never sell with them and will be super careful if I ever buy from them.

 

[sethschroeder]

Especially when the seller sold to the listing company, who worked in their “best interest” to offer about 30% below what they deemed to be fair market value.

This was either a ploy by a new company or shady sales. Either way I would never sell with them and will be super careful if I ever buy from them.

I wonder if some state board would be interested in investigating this. This would be similar to a realtor telling you the house is worth $200k sell it to me for $190k for a quick sale and then turning around and selling it for $260k 3 months later.

Also do we know who the company was?

Found this: https://www2.floridarealtors.org/law-ethics/library/complaints

 

[Hjs33]

I wonder if some state board would be interested in investigating this. This would be similar to a realtor telling you the house is worth $200k sell it to me for $190k for a quick sale and then turning around and selling it for $260k 3 months later.

Also do we know who the company was?

Found this: https://www2.floridarealtors.org/law-ethics/library/complaints

In your example, if the person needed the 190k now and could not wait 3-4months, then there is nothing wrong with the transactions in your example.

 

[Sandisw]

The only piece we do not know is whether or not this broker who bought informed the seller and the seller opted to sell cheap for a reason,

Now, if they were lead to believe that $100/pt was a good deal, then that is just not right. But, while a $7k loss is a lot, to someone who needed cash quick, and was already taking a bath on it, maybe they didn’t care,

Maybe it was a divorce situation and they both wanted out quick? I could see that happening. I know someone who recently just did this with an assper. Agreed to sell way under market value just to be done

 

[TexasChick123]

The only piece we do not know is whether or not this broker who bought informed the seller and the seller opted to sell cheap for a reason,

Now, if they were lead to believe that $100/pt was a good deal, then that is just not right. But, while a $7k loss is a lot, to someone who needed cash quick, and was already taking a bath on it, maybe they didn’t care,

Maybe it was a divorce situation and they both wanted out quick? I could see that happening. I know someone who recently just did this with an assper. Agreed to sell way under market value just to be done

What is an assper?

 

[EYL]

The only piece we do not know is whether or not this broker who bought informed the seller and the seller opted to sell cheap for a reason,

Now, if they were lead to believe that $100/pt was a good deal, then that is just not right. But, while a $7k loss is a lot, to someone who needed cash quick, and was already taking a bath on it, maybe they didn’t care,

Maybe it was a divorce situation and they both wanted out quick? I could see that happening. I know someone who recently just did this with an assper. Agreed to sell way under market value just to be done

You're absolutely right. But the perception just isn't good. Everything in Orange County is public, and if you search enough, you'll find that the previous owners had a mortgage about $10K more than the $100/pt that they sold it to the broker for. I'm assuming that if they had that much disposable income, a mortgage would not be needed. And if a mortgage was needed, the goal to recover as much as possible would be a priority. Yes, I admittedly am assuming a lot and I don't know the exact situation. But for a broker to step in and flip it makes people wonder (as we are now) of the entire ethics of the situation.

 

[Sandisw]

You're absolutely right. But the perception just isn't good. Everything in Orange County is public, and if you search enough, you'll find that the previous owners had a mortgage about $10K more than the $100/pt that they sold it to the broker for. I'm assuming that if they had that much disposable income, a mortgage would not be needed. And if a mortgage was needed, the goal to recover as much as possible would be a priority. Yes, I admittedly am assuming a lot and I don't know the exact situation. But for a broker to step in and flip it makes people wonder (as we are now) of the entire ethics of the situation.

I completely agree and if I was the broker, I’d probably not do it because of that. As you say, the optics are bad and without specifics, the common sense argument appears that this broker took advantage of the seller..IMO, not a good thing for your business, even if it was done with the sellers approval.

 

[Brianstl]

You're absolutely right. But the perception just isn't good. Everything in Orange County is public, and if you search enough, you'll find that the previous owners had a mortgage about $10K more than the $100/pt that they sold it to the broker for. I'm assuming that if they had that much disposable income, a mortgage would not be needed. And if a mortgage was needed, the goal to recover as much as possible would be a priority. Yes, I admittedly am assuming a lot and I don't know the exact situation. But for a broker to step in and flip it makes people wonder (as we are now) of the entire ethics of the situation.

If there was a bankruptcy the trustee night have set a deadline for the broker to sell it by.

 

[jerseyduke]

This depends on whether the other DVC property contracts have been altered, which I assume they have, to say that resale Riviera points will NOT be usable at those resorts. And while DVC certainly has flexibility on MANY things in their contracts built in, they DON"T have flexibility on many things, including on the allocation and use of points. Ie: they can change how many points are needed for a specific room, but can't change total number of points. I don't know how the restriction is worded in the contract, but I don't have any confidence either way that it would allow Disney to change this restriction or not. Much like they CAN"T change the fact that I can use my old contracts at any resort I want, resale or not. They can ONLY change those restrictions or permissions going forward. I would imagine the same would be true for Riviera. Could remove the restrictions on a go forward basis, but couldn't do anything about the contracts already sold and resold.

I am not a lawyer, and I did not stay at a holiday in express last night.

as an owner at resorts other than Riviera, why would I have any legal grounds to stand on if the removed the restriction at riviera?

With the restrictions there will be a set of owners that CAN NOT switch out. This, by definition, will make it harder to switch in as there are fewer people with whom I can swap stays. Technically this hurts me. Why could I not take legal action for this, but would be able to if they lifted the restriction?

 

[Drewferin]

It looks like Fidelity no longer has that RIV 325 point contract listed... I'm guessing the seller wasnt happy with no real offer and took it down. I believe we could see the contract as Sale Pending if they had an accepted offer... This was a huge RIV contract so that also didnt help.