Rejected Offers Thread

[Sandisw]

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.

If they wanted to do something nice, then they would not have asked for payment, it wasn’t for owners, it was for them.

Plus, if it was about members, they could have put it to a vote, which is what they were legally required to do, per the contract people signed,

Had they done that, then I would agree with you. But, they didn’t because they didn’t want owners to have a say. With that, we can agree to disagree.

 

[ClaraOswald]

Where can I read about what happened with OKW and the extended contracts? I know next to nothing and I'm curious now.

 

[Sandisw]

Good place to start

Thread 'OKW Extension Papers & Lockout Mentioned'
https://www.disboards.com/threads/okw-extension-papers-lockout-mentioned.1828679/

 

[Chili327]

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

First off, my apologies i didn't mean to start such a crap storm... more explanation below.

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.

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.

If they wanted to do something nice, then they would not have asked for payment, it wasn’t for owners, it was for them.

Plus, if it was about members, they could have put it to a vote, which is what they were legally required to do, per the contract people signed,

Had they done that, then I would agree with you. But, they didn’t because they didn’t want owners to have a say. With that, we can agree to disagree.

Maybe i don't understand the situation correctly.? (so if that is the case, please correct me)

I am under the belief that Disney did something that they should have (& could have) handled better (which makes them the bad guy as well), but if people chose not to sign up or sign off, what is there to complain about, except now Disney has to figure out how to deal with it since there are 2 camps... or at least there should be only 2 camps, one that signed up for the extension & one that didn't so their contracts should end at end of term. Anything else is exactly as Astro posted, trying to ride for free after the original due date, so if not trying to get free years, why not just sign off on it?

 

[Sandisw]

First off, my apologies i didn't mean to start such a crap storm... more explanation below.




Maybe i don't understand the situation correctly.? (so if that is the case, please correct me)

I am under the belief that Disney did something that they should have (& could have) handled better (which makes them the bad guy as well), but if people chose not to sign up or sign off, what is there to complain about, except now Disney has to figure out how to deal with it since there are 2 camps... or at least there should be only 2 camps, one that signed up for the extension & one that didn't so their contracts should end at end of term. Anything else is exactly as Astro posted, trying to ride for free after the original due date, so if not trying to get free years, why not just sign off on it?

DVD did something they were not really allowed to do without an owners vote. They extended the ground lease for the OKW contracts to 2057, which changed the OKW POS..

After they did that…which means they unilaterally decided to change the contract…they told owners they now had to either pay for the extra years or sign a quit claim giving their contract to DVD…and DVD would now become the owner until 2057.

That is the reason people went after them and the settlement happened in which those that own can’t be forced to pay beyond 2042 or for expenses beyond 2042 since technically, once the contract was changed…it applied all owners and owners didn’t want to be forced to have to pay since the terms of their. O tract was now different

As I said, it would be no different than DVD deciding to add resale restrictions after the fact and telling owners to lump it if they didn’t like it. Material changes to our contracts require owners approval…in this case, DVD chose not to do that…and that is why it’s an issue.

Basically, they changed the terms of the POS for their benefit, and then wanted owners to agree to their change by paying, or giving up their rights to the new terms.

And, regardless of what owners did, if DVd felt they were on solid legal standing with being able to change the contract and offer extensions like they did, they would do it for the others. IMO, the reason they have not is that they know there is going to be issues because maybe, just maybe, they realize they can’t force people to give up their use in 2042 since the timeshare doesn’t end until 2057

 

[AstroBlasters]

Where can I read about what happened with OKW and the extended contracts? I know next to nothing and I'm curious now.

https://www.dvchelp.com/page/old-key-west-resort-information-page

“In 2007, Disney trialed extending the contracts at Old Key West. At the time, Disney offered 15-year extensions (to Jan 31, 2057) for a price of $25 per point, though they offered a $10 per point reduction to $15 per point if owners signed up for it by the end of February 28, 2008.

Editor: While I usually refrain from opinion on this site, this was an incredible deal, and every owner SHOULD have chosen to do it - this was only $1 per point per year - even at the time contracts were being offered at around $95 a point which was almost $2 per point per year. I understand that many felt they would never use it, but the extended contracts maintain a value of about $15 per point more, which will expand as that date approaches closer.) This was a one-time offer that was eventually closed off to members.”

 

[Chili327]

pay for the extra years or sign a quit claim giving their contract to DVD…and DVD would now become the owner until 2057

If you didn't sign, you'd lose ownership? (that is something i wasn't aware of) Maybe that is a good enough reason for people not to sign, but that got overturned in court/settlement?
And now neither side can talk about a new scenario?

 

[DonMacGregor]

If you didn't sign, you'd lose ownership? (that is something i wasn't aware of) Maybe that is a good enough reason for people not to sign, but that got overturned in court/settlement?
And now neither side can talk about a new scenario?

No, if you signed the quit claim, you "lose" ownership on the exact same day and time that you would have if nothing had been done at all (January 31, 2042). The day you accepted that your contract would end when you purchased it.

If you accepted the extension offer, you paid $25 per point ($15 if you accepted the offer before a specific date), and your contract now expires on January 31, 2057.

Some people didn't accept the offer to extend, refused to sign the quit claim, and now want to enjoy the use of the resort until 2057, when the terms of their original contract state 2042. Regardless of the Wikipedia lawyering, those are the facts. It has NOT been challenged in court, and absolutely no one on here has the slightest idea what will happen. I'll leave that to the courts.

(The argument is that, while the original contracts very clearly and unambiguously define the end of the contract as January 31, 20242, the POS (Public Offering Statement) which is also referenced in the contract, references the termination of the ground lease, which is now January 31, 2057 for OKW. Some people think the POS is the prevailing document, while others (including Disney apparently) believe the contract termination date prevails.)

 

[Chili327]

people didn't accept the offer to extend, refused to sign the quit claim, and now want to enjoy the use of the resort until 2057, when the terms of their original contract state 2042

Ok, yea that's what I thought.
I can understand not wanting to be forced to pay for the extension (since that's not what you signed up for), but not signing or agreeing one way or the other seems like just trying to get something extra for free. So i stand by my original statement, people are greedy (and that most certainly CAN include a corporation like Disney )

 

[ClaraOswald]

Yeah...if people wanted more beyond the 2042, which is what they purchased from the start....they need to pay to extend. This seems like a fairly black and white issue to me. Sketchy if people wanted 15 extra years without paying for them.

 

[ClaraOswald]

https://www.dvchelp.com/page/old-key-west-resort-information-page

“In 2007, Disney trialed extending the contracts at Old Key West. At the time, Disney offered 15-year extensions (to Jan 31, 2057) for a price of $25 per point, though they offered a $10 per point reduction to $15 per point if owners signed up for it by the end of February 28, 2008.

Editor: While I usually refrain from opinion on this site, this was an incredible deal, and every owner SHOULD have chosen to do it - this was only $1 per point per year - even at the time contracts were being offered at around $95 a point which was almost $2 per point per year. I understand that many felt they would never use it, but the extended contracts maintain a value of about $15 per point more, which will expand as that date approaches closer.) This was a one-time offer that was eventually closed off to members.”

When you say $15 pp....so someone who wanted to extend their 200 point contract to 2057, they only had to pay $3000?!

 

[AstroBlasters]

When you say $15 pp....do someone who wanted to extend their 200 point contract to 2057, they only had to pay $3000?!

It was an absolute bargain…. so remember that when all of the other 2042 resorts have no chance of getting extended….

 

[AstroBlasters]

DVD did something they were not really allowed to do without an owners vote. They extended the ground lease for the OKW contracts to 2057, which changed the OKW POS..

After they did that…which means they unilaterally decided to change the contract…they told owners they now had to either pay for the extra years or sign a quit claim giving their contract to DVD…and DVD would now become the owner until 2057.

That is the reason people went after them and the settlement happened in which those that own can’t be forced to pay beyond 2042 or for expenses beyond 2042 since technically, once the contract was changed…it applied all owners and owners didn’t want to be forced to have to pay since the terms of their. O tract was now different

As I said, it would be no different than DVD deciding to add resale restrictions after the fact and telling owners to lump it if they didn’t like it. Material changes to our contracts require owners approval…in this case, DVD chose not to do that…and that is why it’s an issue.

Basically, they changed the terms of the POS for their benefit, and then wanted owners to agree to their change by paying, or giving up their rights to the new terms.

And, regardless of what owners did, if DVd felt they were on solid legal standing with being able to change the contract and offer extensions like they did, they would do it for the others. IMO, the reason they have not is that they know there is going to be issues because maybe, just maybe, they realize they can’t force people to give up their use in 2042 since the timeshare doesn’t end until 2057

How on earth is it anything like putting resale restrictions on a resort that was not restricted? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

That would materially harm the current owners, the OKW extension did nothing to harm the current owners (carve out for making sure that 2042 owner dues for go towards 2042 to 2057 capital improvements).

 

[ClaraOswald]

It was an absolute bargain…. so remember that when all of the other 2042 resorts have no chance of getting extended….

Yeah...kind of wish I had never learned about this because now I'm quite annoyed that these people essentially ruined it for the rest of us.

 

[lilsonicfan]

Or, we could be mad that DVD did this unilaterally. IDK.

 

[ClaraOswald]

My knowledge on this isn't very extensive. But to me, it sounds like owners were offered a pretty sweet deal. When Disney could have just left it be and let everyone's expire...then sell new OKW contracts (or whatever) starting in 2042 for a heck of a lot more than $15pp.

 

[ShaneDJ]

Yeah...kind of wish I had never learned about this because now I'm quite annoyed that these people essentially ruined it for the rest of us.

Why is there this blanket view of thinking badly of all OKW owners who didn't sign the quit claim? They did not do anything wrong.

What if they simply felt bullied by Disney, or didn't want to extend? Or maybe, they are just wanting to see how things will pan out after 2042 hits?

We should assume the best in people, and not be so judgmental. Our judgment usually is not helpful, and many times it is ill-informed.

And there's no guarantee that if 100% of the OKW owners would have signed the quit claim, that that would have helped any of us with other 2042 resorts (I'm a BWV guy). Disney does what is best for them, not me.

 

[Sandisw]

How on earth is it anything like putting resale restrictions on a resort that was not restricted? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

That would materially harm the current owners, the OKW extension did nothing to harm the current owners (carve out for making sure that 2042 owner dues for go towards 2042 to 2057 capital improvements).

It is the same because it would be DVD changing the contract unilaterally without the consent of owners, which they are not supposed to do.

Why do you think owners took the route of getting that settlement? They knew that once the contract was changed, DVD could come back and tell them they were on the hook now for dues until 2057, because the actual amended POS states it ends in 2057.

. It did potentially harm owners in that it possibly obligated them to a timeshare for longer than they agreed to in the first place

When I bought my contract ending in 2070, I did not agree to allowing DVD to extend it without my approval.

That’s the point of why it is an issue They changed the contract without owners permission.

Not sure why any owner would be okay with DVd taking it upon itself to simply change things because they see it as a benefit.

You can be okay with them changing the terms of the contract as long as it meets your criteria as being a positive thing.

Buts it’s not fair to judge the OKW owners who felt DVD overstepped their rights by making a material change to the contract, without their say.

Again, had they put it up for a vote and owners voted to extend the contract, then it would have been fine.

As I posted, we have no idea what will happen and whether people will challenge that DVDs move or not…but to give DVD a pass for not doing it correctly? Hard for me to do that.

 

[Sandisw]

Yeah...kind of wish I had never learned about this because now I'm quite annoyed that these people essentially ruined it for the rest of us.

If DVD did everything on the up and up, then owners not signing over their rights would not matter.

I just don’t get how people not agreeing to sign something or paying for it ruined a thing.

Nothing is preventing DVd from doing it if they want. The reason they are not, at least IMO, is because they thought they would have no problem getting owners to pay or sign and it didn’t happen.

I believe I read sent letters to owners threatening them that documents would need to be signed at check in, and told owners who had not signed by a certain date, they’d lock them out and bill them the cost of the extension. They had to back off.

So, if it didn’t happen with other resorts, my guess is that it isn’t that some owners didn’t make a choice, it’s because DVD realizes that they may have done something they should not have done and may indeed end up just allowing all to keep it.

But honestly, I think it’s more likely that they realized that they didn’t want to just extend and keep low point charts. They wanted to be able to sell again as new.

 

[Chili327]

If DVd did everything on the up and up, then owners not signing over their rights would not matter.

This is where it sounds like things get muddy… while I understand people being upset or feel bullied, and much easier for me to say it’s an easy choice now, I still think looking back people should either purchase to extend or waive their rights to extend to stick with what they signed up for 2042.

Regardless of who’s fault (I get that Disney started it), can they open it up to offer to extend or is that not an option now?
That is what seems like the biggest bummer, I’m sure many more would have signed off by now and we all could be speculating on how they could extend other 2042 resorts… as an option. Which is maybe why the whole Trust/DVC 2.0 came about?