Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

[crvetter]

That appears correct since the revisions document does not deal with ability to reserve at future resorts other than Riviera, including because nothing has been filed with applicable government agency as to any resorts other than Riviera, but the sense of the document is that it is something that will continue when other resorts are added.

You mention the clause could itself be an error and we might get another amendment, which is also a possibility, unless you believe, like many, that DVC does not make major errors, including when doing annual point charts.

As one of the 24 I do believe in mistakes. I’m planning on trying to reach out today to ask about this update. Though it will be by email so won’t have an answer for 3-4 days at the earliest. Though I might call quality assurance directly today.

 

[drusba]

As one of the 24 I do believe in mistakes. I’m planning on trying to reach out today to ask about this update. Though it will be by email so won’t have an answer for 3-4 days at the earliest. Though I might call quality assurance directly today.

I have a sense you may even have an issue of getting a proper response, because many who may respond are simply regurgitating what they have been told, rather than determining the actual impact of these revisions. Also, if these revisions are a mistake, DVC may have set itself back a few months in selling Riviera because it will need to first seek another amendment with the agency, which agency seldom does anything fast.

 

[TexasChick123]

I am still reviewing to try to figure it out, but it appears there is a material difference in the document about resale purchasers from what we were told before. We were told all pre-Jan 19, 2019 owners will be able to reserve Riviera using their points; that is true according to the document. We were also told that future resale purchasers of Riviera and other future resorts will be limited to reserving their home resort. That is also true with provisions thrown in to allow DVD to modify that rule in the future, such as by allowing a future Riviera resale purchaser to have broader reservations rights for a fee.

We were also informed that post-Jan 19, 2019 resale purchasers of the existing 12 resorts will be limited to reserving those 12 resorts. That one appears now to be only partly true. Focus is on Exhibit 6, paragraph 2, at the top of page two in the document, which is repeated near the bottom of page three:

"2. Effective January 19, 2019, Club Members at all other DVC Resorts, including any future DVC Resorts, who purchase an ownership interest at any DVC Resort other than Riviera Resort, including at any future DVC Resort, from a third party other than directly from DVD, or other seller approved by DVD, may not convert the Vacation Points related to the Ownership Interest from the other DVC Resort to DVC Vacation Points to reserve Vacation Homes at Riviera Resort through the DVC Reservation Component. Purchasers who purchase an Ownership Interest at any DVC Resort, other than Riviera Resort, including any furture DVC Resorts, from a Club Member who owned the Ownership Interest prior to January 19, 2019, are excluded from the prohibition set forth in this paragraph 2.”

The sentence I have bolded says post-Jan 19, 2019 resale purchasers of the existing 12 resorts can reserve Riviera as long as they purchased from a pre-Jan 19, 2019 owner. In other words, the bar to reserving Riviera and other future resorts applies to resale purchasers of the 12 existing resorts, if, and only if, the resale buyer purchased his interest from an owner that purchased on or after Jan 19, 2019. Thus all existing DVC owners, who purchased new or resale on or before Jan 19, 2019, can sell their interests, and the immediate resale purchasers will have the same rights to reserve all old and new resorts as the seller had.

Where did you find this document detailing the change in resale restrictions? In the notice to members on the website, the language is unchanged, and I see that you are referencing a document. Can you please point me in the direction of this document?

 

[zavandor]

Where did you find this document detailing the change in resale restrictions? In the notice to members on the website, the language is unchanged, and I see that you are referencing a document. Can you please point me in the direction of this document?

A few posts back someone has attached the new Multi Site POS.

 

[CarolMN]

Where did you find this document detailing the change in resale restrictions? In the notice to members on the website, the language is unchanged, and I see that you are referencing a document. Can you please point me in the direction of this document?

Mumof4mice got it from Quality Assurance and scanned it in for us.

https://www.disboards.com/threads/multi-site-pos-revision-dated-01-19-19.3734585/#post-60260883

 

[TexasChick123]

Mumof4mice got it from Quality Assurance and scanned it in for us.

https://www.disboards.com/threads/multi-site-pos-revision-dated-01-19-19.3734585/#post-60260883

Thank you. Time to review...

 

[ScubaCat]

The sentence I have bolded says post-Jan 19, 2019 resale purchasers of the existing 12 resorts can reserve Riviera as long as they purchased from a pre-Jan 19, 2019 owner.

I think it's just a poorly structured sentence, and the date should be after the beginning clause or another comma added. It's obviously meant as the counter to the previous sentence, not as an alternate policy.

 

[crvetter]

I think it's just a poorly structured sentence, and the date should be after the beginning clause or another comma added. It's obviously meant as the counter to the previous sentence, not as an alternate policy.

Could you restructure the sentence for us? I'm having a hard time reading it your way without seeing where the placement of the comma would not being saying what was suggested by @drusba. This also occurs in Exhibit A Paragraph 2, which is on the 3rd page. It has a similar sentence there too.

With that being said I started low (Quality Assurance) to get DVC's interpretation of this sentence. I'll report back what that level says is the reading.

 

[TexasChick123]

I think it's just a poorly structured sentence, and the date should be after the beginning clause or another comma added. It's obviously meant as the counter to the previous sentence, not as an alternate policy.

Maybe, but the interpretation of the ambiguity goes against the more sophisticated party aka DVD. It's definitely ambiguous.

 

[drusba]

I guess we will eventually find out if the revision document is a mistake, but it does unambiguously say what I believe it says, and, if the only rule was going to be that no post-Jan 19, 2019 resale purchasers could reserve Riviera (including resale purchasers of the existing resorts), there was absolutely no need to add any second sentence.

 

[mustinjourney]

I've been keeping an eye on the 60 day availability and it's true that there is rarely a studio or 1 bedroom on that list for any time of the year. It's mostly 2 bedrooms at SSR.

So what you suggest for their rationale does make some sense to me, especially since 2 Bedrooms must be more difficult to rent to the general public when they do go to breakage. My guess is that most of the public would choose a studio or 1 bedroom over a 2 bedroom, just like most of us do. Maybe Disney has to heavily discount the 2 bedrooms that go to breakage to get any revenue from them at all. Since the Members are already getting the max possible from breakage, the discounting means Disney takes the "hit". Interesting.

I know I'm 7 days late in posting -- but if they are indeed looking at 2 BR availability for SSR at 60 days as their "data" that 2BRs are last to book -- then that should only be used to change SSR points. They should not be using that data as "anecdotal" evidence for booking patterns across ALL resorts.

 

[mustinjourney]

I guess we will eventually find out if the revision document is a mistake, but it does unambiguously say what I believe it says, and, if the only rule was going to be that no post-Jan 19, 2019 resale purchasers could reserve Riviera (including resale purchasers of the existing resorts), there was absolutely no need to add any second sentence.

I agree.

I'm almost positive the new language was put in to prevent a potential lawsuit.

Think about how many people complained that even though they were currently grandfathered in, they were worried that when they went to sell, the contract would be worth less to a potential purchaser b/c that person would have less rights than them.

By adding this clause in, people who own prior to January 19th are not harmed in their future use or their future sale, b/c the next person to buy will be grandfathered in. Basically, no one is getting the rug swept out from under them, which eliminates any potential detrimental reliance arguments from current owners.

 

[BcIcemen]

Following for updates on revision

 

[TexasChick123]

I guess we will eventually find out if the revision document is a mistake, but it does unambiguously say what I believe it says, and, if the only rule was going to be that no post-Jan 19, 2019 resale purchasers could reserve Riviera (including resale purchasers of the existing resorts), there was absolutely no need to add any second sentence.

I 100% agree with you that there was no need for that sentence if that was going to be the rule.

I agree.

I'm almost positive the new language was put in to prevent a potential lawsuit.

Think about how many people complained that even though they were currently grandfathered in, they were worried that when they went to sell, the contract would be worth less to a potential purchaser b/c that person would have less rights than them.

By adding this clause in, people who own prior to January 19th are not harmed in their future use or their future sale, b/c the next person to buy will be grandfathered in. Basically, no one is getting the rug swept out from under them, which eliminates any potential detrimental reliance arguments from current owners.

I 100% agree with this too. We, as current owners, cannot claim to be harmed by the new restrictions which was not a "perk" that could be taken away at any time should our resale buyer be able to maintain the ability to trade among all of the resorts both current and future as we are able to do. Trading to other resorts is in a different category than a "perk" or "membership extras" like discounts, membership events, etc. and therefore it is governed by different rules and laws.

 

[love2sail]

This may be a silly question, but I’m asking anyway. If the way this is being interpreted is correct, what happens to all of the contracts that were sent to ROFR before the 1/19 date, but haven’t actually been “purchased” yet? Would those contracts be considered post 1/19/19?

 

[TexasChick123]

This may be a silly question, but I’m asking anyway. If the way this is being interpreted is correct, what happens to all of the contracts that were sent to ROFR before the 1/19 date, but haven’t actually been “purchased” yet? Would those contracts be considered post 1/19/19?

Supposedly, the contracts just had to enter ROFR on 1/19/2019. My best guess is it has to do with that is when they planned on filing the new BVTC and POS docs to put everyone on "notice" of the change. If you weren't put on notice before you sent off the contract by an official filing of the new docs, then they would have a hard time enforcing the new restrictions. It's legal junk.

 

[CarolMN]

I know I'm 7 days late in posting -- but if they are indeed looking at 2 BR availability for SSR at 60 days as their "data" that 2BRs are last to book -- then that should only be used to change SSR points. They should not be using that data as "anecdotal" evidence for booking patterns across ALL resorts.

Unless that 60 day availability exists because members eventually book up the other resorts first, thus forcing most of the breakage to SSR. It wouldn't surprise me if they had data that shows this, especially given that all the DVC resorts show breakage revenue maxed out at the cap.

I don't like what they did and I'm not sure it's permitted by the POS, BUT, I don't believe for even a minute that they don't have data to back up what they did. We're the ones with the anecdotal evidence.

 

[Dean]

I'll want to spend some more time with this but a couple of early thoughts. One is all they have to do for future resorts is amend further. The other is that it would seem Exhibit 6 is important to interpretation, is it there and I missed it?

 

[TexasChick123]

Mumof4mice got it from Quality Assurance and scanned it in for us.

https://www.disboards.com/threads/multi-site-pos-revision-dated-01-19-19.3734585/#post-60260883

Here is all the info that’s been posted.

 

[mustinjourney]

Unless that 60 day availability exists because members eventually book up the other resorts first, thus forcing most of the breakage to SSR. It wouldn't surprise me if they had data that shows this, especially given that all the DVC resorts show breakage revenue maxed out at the cap.

Not following you. It's irrelevant whether or not SSR is less desirable than other resorts for point reallocation purposes. They can only reallocate within each resort based on user demand WITHIN THAT RESORT. For example, they are not allowed to mess with the points at VGF in an attempt to fill SSR rooms.

I don't like what they did and I'm not sure it's permitted by the POS, BUT, I don't believe for even a minute that they don't have data to back up what they did. We're the ones with the anecdotal evidence.

You're free to your own opinion -- but given that they backed off so quickly, I am not giving them the benefit of the doubt. If they had adequate data, I really don't see them backing down.