Rejected Offers Thread

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

If everyone that didn’t want to extend would have signed the quit claim deed and acknowledged that their claim ends at the date they originally signed up for then this wouldn’t be an issue.

But a large number of people are trying to free ride on the extension and it ruined it for all of the other resorts.

I agree they aren’t going to do try a complimentary extension again. I can’t speak for @BuzzLightyr, but IF they can extend for 10 years only to guests who pay another $40-$60/pt, I could see them doing that during a major downturn to raise capital for one or two of the 2042 properties. For instance, say they decide to fully flip BCV first—maybe they give everyone who currently owns at BWV 90 day head start on a 5/10/15 year extension at $50/pt and then offer it to all other direct purchasers until it (quickly, I would imagine) sells out. This would allow them to take the capital upfront and ensure dues keep coming in continuously for one (or two or three) properties while they rehab/divest others.

 

[AstroBlasters]

I agree they aren’t going to do try a complimentary extension again. I can’t speak for @BuzzLightyr, but IF they can extend for 10 years only to guests who pay another $40-$60/pt, I could see them doing that during a major downturn to raise capital for one or two of the 2042 properties. For instance, say they decide to fully flip BCV first—maybe they give everyone who currently owns at BWV 90 day head start on a 5/10/15 year extension at $50/pt and then offer it to all other direct purchasers until it (quickly, I would imagine) sells out. This would allow them to take the capital upfront and ensure dues keep coming in continuously for one (or two or three) properties while they rehab/divest others.

I’m sure you already know this, but just to clarify for others that it wasn’t complimentary for OKW, DVC offered to extend the lease for 15 years at $15-$25pp….a bargain price…. and some members believe that legally Disney can’t only extended it for some owners who pay more and refused to sign a quit claim deed.

So, IMO there is no chance they extend the other resorts.

They are more likely to let resale owners pay a one time fee to “wash” points than they are to extend the 2042 resorts, IMO.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I’m sure you already know this, but just to clarify for others that it wasn’t complimentary for OKW, DVC offered to extend the lease for 15 years at $15-$25pp….a bargain price…. and some members believe that legally Disney can’t only extended it for some owners who pay more and refused to sign a quit claim deed.

So, IMO there is no chance they extend the other resorts.

They are more likely to let resale owners pay a one time fee to “wash” points than they are to extend the 2042 resorts, IMO.

I actually did not know that. I thought it was just an attempt to stretch out the expiration separately from all the other resorts.

I’m not a FL lawyer or a real estate lawyer but it seems crazy to me.

 

[Sandisw]

No chance after the cluster at OKW. They’ll let them expire, rent out the rooms for cash while they raise the point chart 40%+ and put the points up for sale again.

I agree…and with the way the trust model works, they can conceivably sell them immediately in sections as RTU as part of that as they do a hard good refurb.

Since they retain ownership, and the units exist, they may end up with rooms that enter the system before they are completely redone. They just negotiate with Disney for a new ground lease

So, not sure why they would offer current owners any special deal because once expired, they are not really any different than any other current owner.

Now, they certainly could offer a special for all owners to buy in.

 

[Chili327]

If everyone that didn’t want to extend would have signed the quit claim deed and acknowledged that their claim ends at the date they originally signed up for then this wouldn’t be an issue.

But a large number of people are trying to free ride on the extension and it ruined it for all of the other resorts.

Exactly. Unfortunately, some people are just garbage like that.

 

[AstroBlasters]

Exactly. Unfortunately, some people are just garbage like that.

They were most likely within their legal rights and acted in their own best interest…. which is how most humans operate in Western culture….so I would not use that particular term…. but IMO by not signing a quit claim deed that their ownership interest would end when they originally agreed that it would end they harmed the rest of the membership by guaranteeing that no other resort will receive such an extension offer.

 

[Chili327]

Garbage might be a little harsh, but it sucks when people can’t just do what’s right instead of what works best for them. Maybe Disney should sweeten the deal a little to give people more incentive, and maybe that’s their plan when it’s down to 5 years or less?

 

[chazas]

I'm a little flabbergasted that folks think that acting in accordance with express contractual rights - rights that Disney set - is viewed as "garbage."

 

[AstroBlasters]

I'm a little flabbergasted that folks think that acting in accordance with express contractual rights - rights that Disney set - is viewed as "garbage."

Well… How do you expect people to feel when some choose to use a loophole to get more years out of their contract than they knowingly signed up for to the detriment of others?

 

[tom1944]

I would not be surprised that come January 2042 Disney has figured out a way that those that did not extend do not get access to reserve the rooms past that date.

 

[Chuck S]

Well, I did sign the quit claim, because I'll be 83 upon expiration. I just hope I live long enough, and I'm healthy enough to enjoy it until then, since males generally tend to have health issuus or die off before then. Now, if I had descendents and family that I know would've wanted it, I probably would have extended and willed it to them.

And while extending the Right-to-Use lease between DVC and Disney may have advantages, like not having EVERY DVC resort that expires in 2042 needing to be closed for rehab all at the same time, and then then having all those resorts go back on sale at the same time.
it cleasrly has it's disadvantages, also, that the legal team clearly didn't think through completely

 

[AstroBlasters]

Well, I did sign the quit claim, because I'll be 83 upon expiration. I just hope I live long enough, and I'm healthy enough to enjoy it until then, since males generally tend to have health issuus or die off before then. Now, if I had descendents and family that I know would've wanted it, I probably would have extended and willed it to them.

And while extending the Right-to-Use lease between DVC and Disney may have advantages, like not having EVERY DVC resort that expires in 2042 needing to be closed for rehab all at the same time, and then then having all those resorts go back on sale at the same time.
it cleasrly has it's disadvantages, also, that the legal team clearly didn't think through completely

They don’t really need to close the resorts at the same time, they can just switch to cash bookings and then rehab in phases as they declare new units into whatever structure they are using at that point.

 

[chazas]

Well… How do you expect people to feel when some choose to use a loophole to get more years out of their contract than they knowingly signed up for to the detriment of others?

I don't think that standing on the terms Disney set and declining to give something back free is at all selfish - or unexpected.

I work in a different scenario where we acknowledge that you are never ever going to get 100 percent consent from a wide group of unrelated folks and the deal structures acknowledge and deal with that. I'm not sure what Disney was thinking when they tried this.

Sounds like some others may have been wanting folks to give up something for free because they perceived it would be good for them personally. It's not personal to me since I don't own an old OKW contract but seems to me that the pejoratives here regarding other DVC members (and probably posters) are a bit out of line.

 

[AstroBlasters]

I don't think that standing on the terms Disney set and declining to give something back free is at all selfish - or unexpected.

I work in a different scenario where we acknowledge that you are never ever going to get 100 percent consent from a wide group of unrelated folks and the deal structures acknowledge and deal with that. I'm not sure what Disney was thinking when they tried this.

Sounds like some others may have been wanting folks to give up something for free because they perceived it would be good for them personally. It's not personal to me since I don't own an old OKW contract but seems to me that the pejoratives here regarding other DVC members (and probably posters) are a bit out of line.

“Give up something for free” vs “take something that they didn’t originally pay to receive via a legal loophole”.

Either way, it negatively impacted all BRV, BCV, BWV, VB, and HH owners.

 

[Sandisw]

Garbage might be a little harsh, but it sucks when people can’t just do what’s right instead of what works best for them. Maybe Disney should sweeten the deal a little to give people more incentive, and maybe that’s their plan when it’s down to 5 years or less?

DVD should not have taken upon themselves to make the Move to change the contract without owners approval either.

So, no, I don’t blame anyone who decided they should not have to do either. If I was selling, signing is no big deal, but if I wanted to hold it, I would not be signing or paying either.

 

[Sandisw]

“Give up something for free” vs “take something that they didn’t originally pay to receive via a legal loophole”.

Either way, it negatively impacted all BRV, BCV, BWV, VB, and HH owners.

Except, as I posted, DVD changed the contracts on their own to benefit them without the approval of owners.

If DVD wanted an extended product, they should have put it to an owners vote….but they didn’t. So, it’s not owners who have done neither that are at fault. It is DVD who tried to use a work around to force people into a choice.

 

[AstroBlasters]

Except, as I posted, DVD changed the contracts on their own to benefit them without the approval of owners.

If DVD wanted an extended product, they should have put it to an owners vote….but they didn’t. So, it’s not owners who have done neither that are at fault. It is DVD who tried to use a work around to force people into a choice.

They gave them an option. Either give us back the deed when you agreed or pay to extend…. “No, I’m not going to pay and I’m going to take the extension because you didn’t file the paperwork correctly.”

 

[chazas]

They gave them an option. Either give us back the deed when you agreed or pay to extend…. “No, I’m not going to pay and I’m going to take the extension because you didn’t file the paperwork correctly.”

• Nothing outside the four corners of the contract generally counts in interpreting it.
• Contracts are construed against the drafter, particularly when there is a significant negotiating disaparity

What people bought was the four corners of the contract, and Disney can't change it unilaterally. No one currently knows how that language will shake out in 2042 for those who have not waived, but the language probably should be construed against Disney. Also BRV, BCV, BWV, VB, and HH owners were not adversely affected unless you believe that they are entitled to cheap extensions like OKW. Using your own logic they got what they paid for.

 

[Sandisw]

They gave them an option. Either give us back the deed when you agreed or pay to extend…. “No, I’m not going to pay and I’m going to take the extension because you didn’t file the paperwork correctly.”

So your opinion is that because DVD changed the contract on their own, without the owners approval, which is what the contract required, the owners should Have been forced into a choice? That option came after it was a done deal, not before.

Sorry, but DVD doesn’t get to do that. How would people like it if DVD decided on their own to add resale restrictions to contracts now and say, “either sign a new addendum now or when you sell”?

Changes in a contract is a change in the contract. And DvD should have not done it they way they did.

 

[AstroBlasters]

So your opinion is that because DVD changed the contract on their own, without the owners approval, which is what the contract required, the owners should Have been forced into a choice? That option came after it was a done deal, not before.

Sorry, but DVD doesn’t get to do that. How would people like it if DVD decided on their own to add resale restrictions to contracts now and say, “either sign a new addendum now or when you sell”?

Changes in a contract is a change in the contract. And DvD should have not done it they way they did.

I’m willing to die on this hill.

Disney tried to do something nice for its members and they showed them what happens when you act in good faith without having all of your legal ducks in a row.

The ones who actively didn’t extend are trying to get something more than they originally agreed to for nothing.

I don’t think it’s ethical even if legally they are entitled to it. Others don’t have to agree with me about it.