Resale Resorts Riv eligibility

[disneykim17]

My direct AKV contract explicitly says "Disney's Animal Kingdom Villas - Jambo" on it. It could also be a function of unit numbers, but the contract does state that it in Jambo.

Our initial direct purchase in 2007 says Jambo and our direct add-on in 2009 says Kidani...I sure hope we are grandfathered. We have been looking to add on there again, but are now waiting until the dust settles.

 

[EM Lawrence]

As I noted above, I am still in the mindset that the new waiver language was just someone's mistake; maybe we will be pleasantly surprised otherwise, but I would not count on it in making any purchase decisions at this time:

1. Nothing has changed in the controlling Riviera POS-related documents which declare that post mid-Jan 2019 resale purchasers of the pre-Rivera resorts cannot reserve Riviera, and Rivera resale purchasers are limited to reserving Riviera. Those would have been changed first if a change was intended.

2. It is likely whoever prepared the waiver change was someone inexperienced who just made mistakes. He creates 16 existing DVC Resorts by making Jambo and Kidani separate DVC Resorts, likely because he relied for his count on the reservation system which separates them for reserving. But the AKV POS documents clearly make AKV one DVC Resort, and legally a material change to two DVC Resorts cannot be made absent an actual vote of the members, which will never occur.

3. Though some assert there was no reason to make a change at all unless it was made with the intent to change the Rivera resale rules, there is a simpler answer. The old waiver still referred to Riviera as a "future" DVC Reesort. Most likely, all that occurred is that someone decided that needed to be changed and then the draftsman got it wrong, improperly implying a bigger change.

4. Some have expressed the disbelief that DVD could make such a major error and thus conclude the resale changes are actually intended. However, DVD has made similar errors in the past. For example, in late 2018 and Jan 2019, when the new resale rule eventually became reality, the initial announcements stated that the rule would be as it it eventually became -- that anyone who purchased the pre-Rviera resorts via a resale after mid-Jan 2019 would be prohibited from reserving Riviera. However, when DVD actually made the official change in the language for the Riviera POS-documents, it provided that the bar to resale purchasers of the original DVC Resorts to reserving Rivera applied only to those post mid-Jan 2019 resale purchasers who purchased from an owner who had not purchased from DVD i.e., any post mid-Jan 2019 purchaser who purchased from an owner who had bought from DVD would still have the right to reserve Riviera. That major error was rectified by a another modification to the Riviera POS documents. The waiver error is not even in a POS document.

When this mistake was noticed and brought to the attention of DVC were they quick to announce that it was simply an error in the contract? Or did they take a long time to announce that the wording was incorrect?

I’m assuming the longer it takes DVC to comment on this, the more likely it is to be true, and less likely to be an error. But perhaps they just move slowly. I would think a big mistake in their ROFR waiver that contained legal language they did not intend for it to contain would be corrected pretty quickly and publicly.

 

[zavandor]

When this mistake was noticed and brought to the attention of DVC were they quick to announce that it was simply an error in the contract? Or did they take a long time to announce that the wording was incorrect?

It was almost immediate.

 

[TexasChick123]

It was almost immediate.

From the reading of the article, they told the broker it wasn’t a mistake. Did I read that incorrectly?

 

[Sandisw]

When this mistake was noticed and brought to the attention of DVC were they quick to announce that it was simply an error in the contract? Or did they take a long time to announce that the wording was incorrect?

I’m assuming the longer it takes DVC to comment on this, the more likely it is to be true, and less likely to be an error. But perhaps they just move slowly. I would think a big mistake in their ROFR waiver that contained legal language they did not intend for it to contain would be corrected pretty quickly and publicly.

The key, IMO, that would be in their favor is there are not 16 resorts if it is an error.

So, they can simply bump out RVA and change it to 15, even though AKV is not 2 resorts

As a RIV owner, I really believe this big of a change to our POS would not be subtlety done via the ROF process as it’s a material change to the product and we are entitled to be notified of it.

It is also interesting that we haven’t seen any other comments from other brokers either or buyers here saying their brokers are saying the same.

However, DVD is dealing with so much else, short staffed, etc that maybe they are working through things to correct it or announce it.

ETA: My resale contract from BLT is not there to use today. So no change.

 

[zavandor]

From the reading of the article, they told the broker it wasn’t a mistake. Did I read that incorrectly?

I think the PP was asking about the original text in the Riviera POS which stated that anyone who bought a contract from someone who bought from Disney or was grandfathered would still be grandfathered in. That was immediately corrected shortly after it was pointed out to them in January 2019. They didn't admit a mistake (they never do), just said they wanted to make it clearer. I think at that point sales weren't even open yet, so they didn't have the headache of dealing with signed contracts.

 

[TexasChick123]

I think the PP was asking about the original text in the Riviera POS which stated that anyone who bought a contract from someone who bought from Disney or was grandfathered would still be grandfathered in. That was immediately corrected shortly after it was pointed out to them in January 2019. They didn't admit a mistake (they never do), just said they wanted to make it clearer.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Liquidice]

The key, IMO, that would be in their favor is there are not 16 resorts if it is an error.

So, they can simply bump out RVA and change it to 15, even though AKV is not 2 resorts

As a RIV owner, I really believe this big of a change to our POS would not be subtlety done via the ROF process as it’s a material change to the product and we are entitled to be notified of it.

It is also interesting that we haven’t seen any other comments from other brokers either or buyers here saying their brokers are saying the same.

However, DVD is dealing with so much else, short staffed, etc that maybe they are working through things to correct it or announce it.

My broker had this to say:

"Yes, the verbiage on your current waiver is different than your other purchases. We have reached out to Disney for clarification but, as of yet, not received official insight. Here is the verbiage on this waiver of yours:"

She then followed up:

"I am hoping to have the information soon. It is probably Animal Kingdom put into two resorts and hopefully RIV. "

This was fidelityresales.com - so other brokers ARE confirming it, they just don't know what to make of the new wording.

This news was originally broken by a different broker who we can't talk about on this forum and they said they contacted Disney to ask which resorts made up the 16, and the "new" ones were RVA, AKV and AKV2.

Obviously based on the DVCFan article, Jerry from the DVC Store also confirmed that the wording has changed, but isn't sure what it means.

Its feasible this is just a mistake - but I think its also feasible that someone accidentally jumped the gun with the new ROFR Waiver wording and they are still working through the more complicated POS changes for Riviera and others. Now that they've been caught red handed, they don't want to deny it because the change is happening, they're just not ready to announce it yet.

Doesn't the Riviera contract have verbiage in there that says Disney has the right to rescind or modify the resale restrictions at any time? I seem to recall that there was some wording in there about their ability to remove it.

Who really knows though, we'll just have to keep waiting to see

 

[Sandisw]

My broker had this to say:

"Yes, the verbiage on your current waiver is different than your other purchases. We have reached out to Disney for clarification but, as of yet, not received official insight. Here is the verbiage on this waiver of yours:"

She then followed up:

"I am hoping to have the information soon. It is probably Animal Kingdom put into two resorts and hopefully RIV. "

This was fidelityresales.com - so other brokers ARE confirming it, they just don't know what to make of the new wording.

This news was originally broken by a different broker who we can't talk about on this forum and they said they contacted Disney to ask which resorts made up the 16, and the "new" ones were RVA, AKV and AKV2.

Obviously based on the DVCFan article, Jerry from the DVC Store also confirmed that the wording has changed, but isn't sure what it means.

Its feasible this is just a mistake - but I think its also feasible that someone accidentally jumped the gun with the new ROFR Waiver wording and they are still working through the more complicated POS changes for Riviera and others. Now that they've been caught red handed, they don't want to deny it because the change is happening, they're just not ready to announce it yet.

Doesn't the Riviera contract have verbiage in there that says Disney has the right to rescind or modify the resale restrictions at any time? I seem to recall that there was some wording in there about their ability to remove it.

Who really knows though, we'll just have to keep waiting to see

Thanks for sharing that other brokers are now confirming and questioning
Disney.

Yes, they can definitely change it at anytime...as well as put it back..but we are still supposed to be notified when there is a material change

I can see them saying that the 16 was a mistake and it was supposed to be 15 because the waiver does not include the resorts. That information was a follow up but not in the legal wording of the new waiver.

They can claim that they did that..14 to 15 with the breakdown of AKV to make it clearer since you book each on its own.

I emailed them. I don’t expect to get an answer soon but we will see what they say to me as an owner of RIV!

 

[RoseGold]

Doesn't the Riviera contract have verbiage in there that says Disney has the right to rescind or modify the resale restrictions at any time? I seem to recall that there was some wording in there about their ability to remove it.

Yea, this is where I'm less impressed. If they can walk back RIV's inclusion, because it's in the actual RIV contracts, they probably will someday. If history has shown anything, it's that they eliminate every fringe they legally can (except TOTW).

That would create a situation where maybe 2020-21 resale can book RIV, but RIV resale can only book RIV?

 

[ChipNdale8887]

My broker had this to say:

"Yes, the verbiage on your current waiver is different than your other purchases. We have reached out to Disney for clarification but, as of yet, not received official insight. Here is the verbiage on this waiver of yours:"

She then followed up:

"I am hoping to have the information soon. It is probably Animal Kingdom put into two resorts and hopefully RIV. "

This was fidelityresales.com - so other brokers ARE confirming it, they just don't know what to make of the new wording.

This news was originally broken by a different broker who we can't talk about on this forum and they said they contacted Disney to ask which resorts made up the 16, and the "new" ones were RVA, AKV and AKV2.

Obviously based on the DVCFan article, Jerry from the DVC Store also confirmed that the wording has changed, but isn't sure what it means.

Its feasible this is just a mistake - but I think its also feasible that someone accidentally jumped the gun with the new ROFR Waiver wording and they are still working through the more complicated POS changes for Riviera and others. Now that they've been caught red handed, they don't want to deny it because the change is happening, they're just not ready to announce it yet.

Doesn't the Riviera contract have verbiage in there that says Disney has the right to rescind or modify the resale restrictions at any time? I seem to recall that there was some wording in there about their ability to remove it.

Who really knows though, we'll just have to keep waiting to see

I also think if this was a mistake wouldn't they have caught it sooner? The earliest sighting is back from Aug 11th I think. So almost 2 months this has been going around.

 

[Sandisw]

Yea, this is where I'm less impressed. If they can walk back RIV's inclusion, because it's in the actual RIV contracts, they probably will someday. If history has shown anything, it's that they eliminate every fringe they legally can (except TOTW).

That would create a situation where maybe 2020-21 resale can book RIV, but RIV resale can only book RIV?

Yes, they can change it, put it back, make different members have different rules, and potentially charge fees, etc.

Basically, they gave themselves the option to amend all the Jan 2019 restrictions. But, as I said, it also says they can put it back even if temporarily removed.

So, to me, if including RIV was an error, the POS gives them an out.

 

[Sandisw]

I also think if this was a mistake wouldn't they have caught it sooner? The earliest sighting is back from Aug 11th I think. So almost 2 months this has been going around.

But, the wording does not say RIV..it’s the change from 14 to 16.

Plus brokers are just mentioning it too so you wonder why they didn’t catch it almost 2 months ago either??

 

[ChipNdale8887]

But, the wording does not say RIV..it’s the change from 14 to 16.

Plus brokers are just mentioning it too so you wonder why they didn’t catch it almost 2 months ago either??

Well the broker that must not be named did get a kinda clarification from disney and list of resorts that were the 16 resorts. RVA and AKV and AKV2 were on their list. I think they weren't supposed to reveal this yet and started walking it back.

 

[zavandor]

From a legal perspective, does what's written in the waiver count for anything? They're just reminding the purchaser something they should already know. Since AKV is one unique resort, they don't even have 16 resorts, so I cannot see anyone being able to claim anything against Disney just because of the waiver. The can just say the 16th is SSR Treehouses, that were added later. They're not a different resort as much as AKV Kidani is not a different resort.

 

[CarolMN]

Plus brokers are just mentioning it too so you wonder why they didn’t catch it almost 2 months ago either??

I don't think they caught it until it was brought to their attention by the DIS or one of their clients. I'm quite sure most of the brokers read the DIS, LOL.

 

[Sandisw]

Well the broker that must not be named did get a kinda clarification from disney and list of resorts that were the 16 resorts. RVA and AKV and AKV2 were on their list. I think they weren't supposed to reveal this yet and started walking it back.

I know that but my point was that since the actual waiver does not include the resorts it’s very easy for them to legally say the 16 was a typo and it was supposed to be 15 with AKV being 2.

What a Disney CM sent when asked is outside the legal scope so if it’s an error, it’s easily fixed. As mentioned above, they could easily explain the 16 to not include RIV.

But, it could also be some e jumped the gun. We simply don’t know.

 

[ChipNdale8887]

From a legal perspective, does what's written in the waiver count for anything? They're just reminding the purchaser something they should already know. Since AKV is one unique resort, they don't even have 16 resorts, so I cannot see anyone being able to claim anything against Disney just because of the waiver. The can just say the 16th is SSR Treehouses, that were added later. They're not a different resort as much as AKV Kidani is not a different resort.

Well lets just say AKV wasn't supposed to be broken out. Going from 14 to 16, what other way would make that happen... Adding Riv and the Disneyland Tower? Reflections is canceled so that leaves these 2 as the new ones to make 16. That could be a possibility.

 

[ChipNdale8887]

I know that but my point was that since the actual waiver does not include the resorts it’s very easy for them to legally say the 16 was a typo and it was supposed to be 15 with AKV being 2.

What a Disney CM sent when asked is outside the legal scope so if it’s an error, it’s easily fixed. As mentioned above, they could easily explain the 16 to not include RIV.

But, it could also be some e jumped the gun. We simply don’t know.

But that brings back the point of why even break AKV out into 2 instead of 1? AGH we just want to know DVC! Tell us! so many theories!!

 

[zavandor]

I don't think they caught it until it was brought to their attention by the DIS or one of their clients. I'm quite sure most of the brokers read the DIS, LOL.

After the point charts debacle, I bet someone at DVC is a regular too