Poll: Your Riviera Resale price

[E2ME2]

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?

Very interesting supposition - you're saying that even though we (Orig14 DVC Owners) can book at RIV, because resale owners from RIV cannot book elsewhere, there will less RIV available for us ??
Do you think that violates the "intent of the law" within our existing contracts language?

 

[jerseyduke]

Very interesting supposition - you're saying that even though we (Orig14 DVC Owners) can book at RIV, because resale owners from RIV cannot book elsewhere, there will less RIV available for us ??
Do you think that violates the "intent of the law" within our existing contracts language?

I actually have no idea. Its not something I every thought about prior to reading that post. Its not like I am upset, or even really care, but i thought it was an interesting question, and was curious about it (having no legal experience)
I do not see why disney can not lift the restriction based on the claim that it hurts owners at other resorts, Do other owners even have a voice there? I have no idea, but since I do not own at the Riviera, I dont see what rights I could possibly have. However, maybe I do have some...no idea.

There will certainly be less opportunity to book DRR as a non owner because of the restriction once resales have been in process for a while. When you book a non home resort at 7 months, you are basically taking an owners spot for that time (and in turn they take yours at your home resort, or more indirectly, take something else, and that person takes yours)
But when you book non home resort, in essence a trade is being made, just with a lot of parties in a very round robin way.

If every DRR contract were to be resold and no owner there could 'trade out' then it would be very difficult to trade in. So yes, in theory there will be less DRR for non owners. If it is even a noticeable thing is questionable, but in theory its an absolute.

 

[ELMC]

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...

Thanks for digging up this information and for sharing it. Bigger picture, this is actually one fewer RIV owner selling than we thought, because this "new" contract that showed up on the resale market was actually a previously resold contract. Not sure it means much other than the fact that there are fewer people selling their contracts already than we thought.

That said, the story behind this contract is not a good one, any way you slice it.

 

[sethschroeder]

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.

There is when it was not actually listed for sale for even a single day. They possibly could have gotten 200k same day from a cash buyer who would have flipped it themselves. My point is a realtor should not be acting like a pawn shop owner (which in my mind is how they acted here).

 

[crvetter]

There is when it was not actually listed for sale for even a single day. They possibly could have gotten 200k same day from a cash buyer who would have flipped it themselves. My point is a realtor should not be acting like a pawn shop owner (which in my mind is how they acted here).

My bigger concerning items was the social media posts about the sale. Saying it went way below asking, they couldn't reveal how much but could say that (basically they argued hard that was the resale value but they bought it and immediately sold it close to the original list in days). The entire thing smelled of a gimmick or bad faith by the resale company.

Some of the other resale companies offer instant offers, but they don't list the contract for sale with the instant buys nor do they act unprofessionally blasting it on social media. So if it was the distressed situation they still were absolutely unprofessional in their process (but really was the buyer so distressed they listed for 1-2 days and expected an offer in that window, if so the resale company still didn't set expectations appropriately).

 

[Sandisw]

Very interesting supposition - you're saying that even though we (Orig14 DVC Owners) can book at RIV, because resale owners from RIV cannot book elsewhere, there will less RIV available for us ??
Do you think that violates the "intent of the law" within our existing contracts language?

I would say no because the language is clear. Everything, including home resort bookings, are first come/first serve. The fact that one can’t get a room at a different resort doesn’t violate that.

 

[Sandisw]

I actually have no idea. Its not something I every thought about prior to reading that post. Its not like I am upset, or even really care, but i thought it was an interesting question, and was curious about it (having no legal experience)
I do not see why disney can not lift the restriction based on the claim that it hurts owners at other resorts, Do other owners even have a voice there? I have no idea, but since I do not own at the Riviera, I dont see what rights I could possibly have. However, maybe I do have some...no idea.

There will certainly be less opportunity to book DRR as a non owner because of the restriction once resales have been in process for a while. When you book a non home resort at 7 months, you are basically taking an owners spot for that time (and in turn they take yours at your home resort, or more indirectly, take something else, and that person takes yours)
But when you book non home resort, in essence a trade is being made, just with a lot of parties in a very round robin way.

If every DRR contract were to be resold and no owner there could 'trade out' then it would be very difficult to trade in. So yes, in theory there will be less DRR for non owners. If it is even a noticeable thing is questionable, but in theory its an absolute.

IIRC, most of the language in the POS, indicates that an owner had not right to expect future resorts. Or something to that effect,

I think whatever rights one has is based on the POS at time of purchase and limited to that. It is one of the reasons why I believe that all resale restrictions grandfathered current owners. I think had it not, it would have been a mess legally with people saying the terms have been changed.

What I am still not sure I completely understand is how RIV can be part Of BVTC for some and not others. I don’t hsve all my documents yet for my purchase, but hope that when I get them I can see how things are written.

 

[crvetter]

What I am still not sure I completely understand is how RIV can be part Of BVTC for some and not others. I don’t hsve all my documents yet for my purchase, but hope that when I get them I can see how things are written.

It is in the DVC Resort Agreement and the BVTC Disclosure Document. Those are the two documents you need to pay attention to in order to understand how the restrictions work. Basically the DVC Resort Agreements have always allowed a resort to enter on their own terms and conditions. So for RIV they basically stated their condition needed to be resale owners (post 1/19) could only book the L14 or RIV (depending on what they owned). So the restrictions live on in RIV's Resort Agreement (contract for entering BVTC) and the Disclosure Document (on how the trading works) was always allowed to be amended at any point in time (and it was to enforce the restrictions). The reason the L14 can continually trade among each other is because the L14's Resort Agreements were already set in stone and would have been extremely difficult to amend them (if even possible). Plus it would have done what you suggested taken away something already given whereas RIV's restrictions didn't take anything away (in terms of resort access).

 

[Sandisw]

It is in the DVC Resort Agreement and the BVTC Disclosure Document. Those are the two documents you need to pay attention to in order to understand how the restrictions work. Basically the DVC Resort Agreements have always allowed a resort to enter on their own terms and conditions. So for RIV they basically stated their condition needed to be resale owners (post 1/19) could only book the L14 or RIV (depending on what they owned). So the restrictions live on in RIV's Resort Agreement (contract for entering BVTC) and the Disclosure Document (on how the trading works) was always allowed to be amended at any point in time (and it was to enforce the restrictions). The reason the L14 can continually trade among each other is because the L14's Resort Agreements were already set in stone and would have been extremely difficult to amend them (if even possible). Plus it would have done what you suggested taken away something already given whereas RIV's restrictions didn't take anything away (in terms of resort access).

I was hoping you’d see this because I knew you’d be able to explain it! That makes sense and it will be interesting then when Reflections comes on board what, if any, types of trading rules they decide to include that are the same or different from RIV.

 

[zavandor]

Basically the DVC Resort Agreements have always allowed a resort to enter on their own terms and conditions.

Really?
This has been discussed multiple times and I was under the impression the POS stated that if a resort joined the club, it had to join under the same conditions.
The conclusion of this thread:
https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...t-to-revert-dvcs-resale-restrictions.3747861/was that what DVC did was probably illegal, but being a pre-restriction owner, doing a lawsuit wouldn.t be convenient, even if it had good chances of winning, because:
1) we were grandfathered in so restrictions don't affect us
2) it's possible our contracts will be worth less on resale market in 10 or 20 years, but spending money now to avoid a loss of value in 20 years doesn't seem smart
3) DVC might invoke the nuclear option and remove Riviera from DVC and start a DVC2 with it being the only resort (that would be a severe act of self harm for DVC, but you never know)

 

[anomamatt]

My bigger concerning items was the social media posts about the sale. Saying it went way below asking, they couldn't reveal how much but could say that (basically they argued hard that was the resale value but they bought it and immediately sold it close to the original list in days). The entire thing smelled of a gimmick or bad faith by the resale company.

Some of the other resale companies offer instant offers, but they don't list the contract for sale with the instant buys nor do they act unprofessionally blasting it on social media. So if it was the distressed situation they still were absolutely unprofessional in their process (but really was the buyer so distressed they listed for 1-2 days and expected an offer in that window, if so the resale company still didn't set expectations appropriately).

I agree 100%.

As I stated previously, I didn't see the contract when it was first listed. But I would have offered $125/point for it, at that time. And I would have been quite happy doing so. If the contract was listed more than a day or two, they could have made a good deal more money for the sellers. (I've been since offering $100/point on RVA contracts because one sold for that).

I do understand people saying the sellers might have needed money right away. But waiting even just one week would have been so much better for the sellers.

If this was an orchestrated gimmick, I guess they got some press, but I'll never bother doing business with them (under any circumstances). I assume others feel the same way. Not a good move either way.

 

[Madame]

Really?
This has been discussed multiple times and I was under the impression the POS stated that if a resort joined the club, it had to join under the same conditions.
The conclusion of this thread:
https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...t-to-revert-dvcs-resale-restrictions.3747861/was that what DVC did was probably illegal, but being a pre-restriction owner, doing a lawsuit wouldn.t be convenient, even if it had good chances of winning, because:
1) we were grandfathered in so restrictions don't affect us
2) it's possible our contracts will be worth less on resale market in 10 or 20 years, but spending money now to avoid a loss of value in 20 years doesn't seem smart
3) DVC might invoke the nuclear option and remove Riviera from DVC and start a DVC2 with it being the only resort (that would be a severe act of self harm for DVC, but you never know)

Yes. I believe this could be a point of challenge for the restrictions as well. Not for the new resorts, but L14. The new resorts are being included into the L14 system with different conditions concerning trading which will eventually affect trading between L14 and future resorts. The questions is, legally, what does "similar conditions" mean...

 

[crvetter]

This has been discussed multiple times and I was under the impression the POS stated that if a resort joined the club, it had to join under the same conditions.

Well there was a section that said a resort could enter on its own Terms and Conditions but also stated that the Resort Agreements had to be "substantially similar" so it depends on those two conflicting items what they mean. In the thread you posted I'm fairly certain I highlighted the conflict and stated that IMO the restrictions have likely been vetted legally more rigorous than the original 2020 point charts.

I will say they did eventually drop the "substantially similar" line eventually in the POS's. But also "substantially similar" is very different than saying the same conditions.

 

[zavandor]

Well there was a section that said a resort could enter on its own Terms and Conditions but also stated that the Resort Agreements had to be "substantially similar" so it depends on those two conflicting items what they mean. In the thread you posted I'm fairly certain I highlighted the conflict and stated that IMO the restrictions have likely been vetted legally more rigorous than the original 2020 point charts.

I will say they did eventually drop the "substantially similar" line eventually in the POS's. But also "substantially similar" is very different than saying the same conditions.

Would you say Riviera conditions are substantially similar to those of the L14 resorts?
Because they seem pretty different to me.

 

[Sandisw]

Would you say Riviera conditions are substantially similar to those of the L14 resorts?
Because they seem pretty different to me.

Well, for those that own direct they are the same, I’d say the resale restriction requirement could be the piece that falls under “substantially the same”..meaning it’s only different for a small portion of owners.

Especially now that all resorts, whether they are L14 or RIV, have two sets of owners for trading..either eligible for all or eligible with restrictions.. So, in that regard, is see them fitting that definition..at least from Disney’s and maybe legal perspective.

 

[crvetter]

Would you say Riviera conditions are substantially similar to those of the L14 resorts?
Because they seem pretty different to me.

I guess I look at it and say don't I think it's similar (in spirit). Would the courts think it similar, that's the question and I think likely. Specifically because our contracts have always allowed for a resort to be admitted on its own terms and conditions thus a resort just took that position in having itself admitted. So I don't think the courts would view it in violation of the substantially similar clause because we agreed to the prior clause. Now this hasn't stopped me from talking to Y about this on a couple calls to which she didn't even get into the legal defense more tried to spin it as good for the membership. Which I mostly dismantled those claims (and expressed some of her "issues" could be resolved in less destructive terms).

 

[zavandor]

Well, for those that own direct they are the same, I’d say the resale restriction requirement could be the piece that falls under “substantially the same”..meaning it’s only different for a small portion of owners.

Especially now that all resorts, whether they are L14 or RIV, have two sets of owners for trading..either eligible for all or eligible with restrictions.. So, in that regard, is see them fitting that definition..at least from Disney’s and maybe legal perspective.

If I understand, you are saying that rules that create a new category of owners with different booking rules are substantially similar to the original rules because they initially apply only to a few people.

 

[Sandisw]

If I understand, you are saying that rules that create a new category of owners with different booking rules are substantially similar to the original rules because they initially apply only to a few people.

Sort of. I am now a RIV owner and my trading rules for those points are not different than my grandfathered points. The rules under the RIV trading agreement includes the same rules as it did for original L14 for most owners, Since the bulk of the rules are the same, I could see how that would allow it to fit under the definition that they have to be substantially similar. If 80% of all points stay with original owners,,just a guess..then the trading difference doesn’t affect very many people.

 

[zavandor]

Sort of. I am now a RIV owner and my trading rules for those points are not different than my grandfathered points. The rules under the RIV trading agreement includes the same rules as it did for original L14 for most owners, Since the bulk of the rules are the same, I could see how that would allow it to fit under the definition that they have to be substantially similar. If 80% of all points stay with original owners,,just a guess..then the trading difference doesn’t affect very many people.

Probably that's how DVC sees it. They think they can get away with it because they grandfathered everyone in.
However, as time passes, more and more people will be affected. There are already 2 contracts sold on the resale market and the resort has not opened yet. There are already 2 families who cannot trade into all the L14 resorts and thousands of resale buyers who cannot book Riviera. Ask them if they feel for them the rules are substantially similar.

This said, this is not an hill I intend to die on. I'll be egoistic here and since it doesn't personally affect me, I'm not going to create a thread like for the points reallocation or do anything to change things. But I still think that if people affected by the resale restrictions do a legal action they'd have good chances to win.

 

[RivShore]

My bigger concerning items was the social media posts about the sale. Saying it went way below asking, they couldn't reveal how much but could say that (basically they argued hard that was the resale value but they bought it and immediately sold it close to the original list in days). The entire thing smelled of a gimmick or bad faith by the resale company.

Some of the other resale companies offer instant offers, but they don't list the contract for sale with the instant buys nor do they act unprofessionally blasting it on social media. So if it was the distressed situation they still were absolutely unprofessional in their process (but really was the buyer so distressed they listed for 1-2 days and expected an offer in that window, if so the resale company still didn't set expectations appropriately).

What social media posts are your referring to? Did the broker who flipped it actually post about it?