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

[Mumof4mice]

Late to the party joining the Magnificent 24. But I just received an email from Yvonne Chang's assistant inviting me to a phone conference next week.

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.”

I had to read that part several times when I got the document to make sure my foggy, jetlagged brain wasn't making things up. Wasn't expecting to be pleasantly surprised by anything in the revision!

I will bring this up with Chang to get some clarification and report back.

 

[TexasChick123]

Late to the party joining the Magnificent 24. But I just received an email from Yvonne Chang's assistant inviting me to a phone conference next week.



I had to read that part several times when I got the document to make sure my foggy, jetlagged brain wasn't making things up. Wasn't expecting to be pleasantly surprised by anything in the revision!

I will bring this up with Chang to get some clarification and report back.

Thank you! Let us know how it goes!!! Good luck!

 

[skier_pete]

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.

Exactly. If they didn't mean that sentence to be there - they could've easily left it out - it's there for a good reason...

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.

...and there's the reason, good catch @mustinjourney. In a broader sense - EVERY time Disney makes a change to the membership agreement, they seem to try and do it in such a way that it doesn't affect existing members. BY adding this clause - all us existing owners are essentially unaffected by this change. In fact, our contracts will stay MORE valuable than most contracts. So we can't REALLY complain or sue Disney because they are hurting us.

Another way to put it - I continue to point out that this is all about selling NEW DVC contracts. They really don't want to hurt existing members, they just want to force future resale members to think long and hard before buying.

The more I think about it, the more I realize how important Disney seems to view this "cause no harm to the existing members". Makes me feel more and more confident that they rolled back the "lock-out premium" point charts for this same reason.

 

[Doug Olsen]

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.

Hi, first post so sorry if I'm missing something painfully obvious (not familiar with the documents to begin with let alone changes) just trying to follow the flow of conversation.

We are hoping to become owners with our first contract currently in ROFR. We bought after January 19 knowing and comfortable with the restriction.

Again maybe a dumb question, but even though my resale didn't get submitted until 2/8 we'd still be buying from an owner that had the contract prior to 1/19. Wouldn't the theory above include my contract in the grandfathered category as well then? Seems like it would just be a continuous loop of resales without the restrictions coming into effect.

Thanks for any clarifications to my misunderstandings. Excited to get into understanding this world more.

 

[crvetter]

Hi, first post so sorry if I'm missing something painfully obvious (not familiar with the documents to begin with let alone changes) just trying to follow the flow of conversation.

We are hoping to become owners with our first contract currently in ROFR. We bought after January 19 knowing and comfortable with the restriction.

Again maybe a dumb question, but even though my resale didn't get submitted until 2/8 we'd still be buying from an owner that had the contract prior to 1/19. Wouldn't the theory above include my contract in the grandfathered category as well then? Seems like it would just be a continuous loop of resales without the restrictions coming into effect.

Thanks for any clarifications to my misunderstandings. Excited to get into understanding this world more.

The idea is if the contract owner owned prior to 1/19/19 the buyer of that contract can use at the 14 classic resorts and Riviera. However if that buyer than sells their buyer wouldn’t have access to Riviera because they didn’t own prior to 1/19/19.

I’ve personally reached out to Disney to get an understanding of the meaning of this text. Really their interpretation right now matters.

 

[Doug Olsen]

The idea is if the contract owner owned prior to 1/19/19 the buyer of that contract can use at the 14 classic resorts and Riviera. However if that buyer than sells their buyer wouldn’t have access to Riviera because they didn’t own prior to 1/19/19.

I’ve personally reached out to Disney to get an understanding of the meaning of this text. Really their interpretation right now matters.

Thanks, looking forward to hearing whatever clarifications come from Disney.

So theoretically then, even though my contract wasn't submitted to Disney until February if it happens to be coming form an original owner's direct purchase I could retain the grandfathered benefits even with it being after the deadline. However if it's a resale of a resale I wouldn't?

I understand this is all posters' interpretations at this point regardless. Appreciate the response and will look forward to following along.

 

[TexasChick123]

Thanks, looking forward to hearing whatever clarifications come from Disney.

So theoretically then, even though my contract wasn't submitted to Disney until February if it happens to be coming form an original owner's direct purchase I could retain the grandfathered benefits even with it being after the deadline. However if it's a resale of a resale I wouldn't?

I understand this is all posters' interpretations at this point regardless. Appreciate the response and will look forward to following along.

No. If you purchased from an owner (direct or resale) who purchased prior to 1/19/19, then you’re fine. However, in the event you go to sell, your resale purchaser will be restricted from using points at Riviera or any other future resort. That’s the theory anyway.

I don’t think this was written ambiguously at all. I think they are clearly carving this out. We should all know soon enough hopefully.

 

[Doug Olsen]

No. If you purchased from an owner (direct or resale) who purchased prior to 1/19/19, then you’re fine. However, in the event you go to sell, your resale purchaser will be restricted from using points at Riviera or any other future resort. That’s the theory anyway.

I don’t think this was written ambiguously at all. I think they are clearly carving this out. We should all know soon enough hopefully.

Got it, thanks! If that's how things go it would be a nice little bonus to us as it's a benefit we weren't expecting.

 

[EYL]

Got it, thanks! If that's how things go it would be a nice little bonus to us as it's a benefit we weren't expecting.

Brand new owner at PVB (closed this past week) and first time poster here... Honestly, it took us a long time to do research and pull the trigger to put in an offer on resale. So, we're very informed about the pros and cons of DVC and the previous restrictions in place. When we started the process, and all these new member-unfriendly "things" came out, we had half-hoped that DVC would ROFR our contract. But we're owners now and we hope to enjoy it for as long as we can!

So a quick question: When they said "purchased prior", they still mean the day the contract arrived at DVC for ROFR, right? I don't think I saw a definition in the POS. I'm just thinking that this is way too good to be true and there's some bad news somewhere. We closed after 1/19, but contract went to DVC in December 2018.

 

[crvetter]

Brand new owner at PVB (closed this past week) and first time poster here... Honestly, it took us a long time to do research and pull the trigger to put in an offer on resale. So, we're very informed about the pros and cons of DVC and the previous restrictions in place. When we started the process, and all these new member-unfriendly "things" came out, we had half-hoped that DVC would ROFR our contract. But we're owners now and we hope to enjoy it for as long as we can!

So a quick question: When they said "purchased prior", they still mean the day the contract arrived at DVC for ROFR, right? I don't think I saw a definition in the POS. I'm just thinking that this is way too good to be true and there's some bad news somewhere. We closed after 1/19, but contract went to DVC in December 2018.

The general consensus is if you had it submitted for ROFR before 1/19/19 your points are grandfathered.

 

[skier_pete]

So - I got a call this morning, and apparently my e-mail from last weekend elevated me to be part of the rabble - because I now also have a call with Yvonne Craig scheduled for next week.

I have got to say this for them. They do seem to be being very forthcoming on reaching out to members with concerns over these charts.

I am not really planning to bring up the 1/19/19 POS change because I really don't want to be distracted from my main concern, which is using the lock-off premium to generate revenue. While some of the other issues brought up in this thread have valid points - I consider this to be the really dangerous potential precedent from this aborted 2020 charts.

 

[PaintsWithAllTheColors]

My call with Ms. Chang will be next Friday, March 1. I’ll try and spend some time preparing so I can best articulate the concerns. I understand the gist of the issues but want to be armed with data as best as possible. The lady who scheduled my call was incredibly nice and I agree that they’re being proactive, which is very encouraging.

 

[Frederic Civish]

So - I got a call this morning, and apparently my e-mail from last weekend elevated me to be part of the rabble - because I now also have a call with Yvonne Craig scheduled for next week.

I have got to say this for them. They do seem to be being very forthcoming on reaching out to members with concerns over these charts.

I am not really planning to bring up the 1/19/19 POS change because I really don't want to be distracted from my main concern, which is using the lock-off premium to generate revenue. While some of the other issues brought up in this thread have valid points - I consider this to be the really dangerous potential precedent from this aborted 2020 charts.

My call with Ms. Chang will be next Friday, March 1. I’ll try and spend some time preparing so I can best articulate the concerns. I understand the gist of the issues but want to be armed with data as best as possible. The lady who scheduled my call was incredibly nice and I agree that they’re being proactive, which is very encouraging.

Yes, the increase in the Lock-Off Premium is, far and away, the biggest problem with the Point Reallocation that Disney announced. I could really see the need for an honest rise in the points for Studios. In fact, I think it would be best if this is done. But the same forces which push to raise Studio points are pushing to LOWER the 1-Bedroom points. Which is what should be done, but is the opposite of what Disney did. That would be the best point adjustment to benefit the DVC Members. So, I'd be curious about how Disney really justifies the 'double grab' that they tried to set up. If there are no limits on their ability to raise the Lock-Off Premium, the effects would be very toxic to DVC.

Second thing, while you are at it. I have heard many people say that the rules only allow them to raise fees and balance them with lower fees, IN THE SAME UNIT TYPE AND CATEGORY. In other words, Studio increases must be balanced with Studio decreases. Not with 2-bedroom decreases. Is this true? Could they clarify this for you?

Thanks.

 

[Dean]

YSecond thing, while you are at it. I have heard many people say that the rules only allow them to raise fees and balance them with lower fees, IN THE SAME UNIT TYPE AND CATEGORY. In other words, Studio increases must be balanced with Studio decreases. Not with 2-bedroom decreases. Is this true? Could they clarify this for you?

Thanks.

A unit and a villa are separate discussions but as I read it, they can reallocation across villas or units. And if a given POS hints otherwise (none say that), they can change it.

 

[skier_pete]

Second thing, while you are at it. I have heard many people say that the rules only allow them to raise fees and balance them with lower fees, IN THE SAME UNIT TYPE AND CATEGORY. In other words, Studio increases must be balanced with Studio decreases. Not with 2-bedroom decreases. Is this true? Could they clarify this for you?

Thanks.

There's some differing opinions on this - but I won't be bringing this up because (a) from what I can tell, it is fairly clear that while at one point it may have been questionable to be allowed, the more recent POS seem to indicate it can, (b) even if it's not well spell out, it has become a well established practice across multiple re-allocations in DVC, making it much harder to fight and (c) I want to keep focus on the lock-out premium, which in my view is significantly more dangerous of a change. Re-allocating across units is easier to argue that it is "Member neutral" and even when it isn't, the fact that several changes have passed by without any litigation says there's not much to argue here. (I'm thinking of the THV one that clearly would have violated this yet nothing came of it.)

 

[Mumof4mice]

So - I got a call this morning, and apparently my e-mail from last weekend elevated me to be part of the rabble - because I now also have a call with Yvonne Craig scheduled for next week.

I have got to say this for them. They do seem to be being very forthcoming on reaching out to members with concerns over these charts.

I am not really planning to bring up the 1/19/19 POS change because I really don't want to be distracted from my main concern, which is using the lock-off premium to generate revenue. While some of the other issues brought up in this thread have valid points - I consider this to be the really dangerous potential precedent from this aborted 2020 charts.

I'm confirmed to speak with Yvonne Chang on Monday. Agree, I see the lock-out premium as the biggest concern. While technically legal, when all lock-offs are calculated as 2BRs, I would like an explanation of how they expected the change to benefit the membership.

As far as the new restrictions goes, I'm not questioning it. We bought in accepting the risk that there may never be a new resort built, and existing resorts can be modified to remove most of the amenities that make our contracts valuable. It's in all the documents. I would, however, be giving feedback that they lost my business for future direct sales, and we're the crazy Australian family who bought contracts before having been to WDW.

 

[skier_pete]

I'm confirmed to speak with Yvonne Chang on Monday. Agree, I see the lock-out premium as the biggest concern. While technically legal, when all lock-offs are calculated as 2BRs, I would like an explanation of how they expected the change to benefit the membership.

As far as the new restrictions goes, I'm not questioning it. We bought in accepting the risk that there may never be a new resort built, and existing resorts can be modified to remove most of the amenities that make our contracts valuable. It's in all the documents. I would, however, be giving feedback that they lost my business for future direct sales, and we're the crazy Australian family who bought contracts before having been to WDW.

They moved me to Monday too - 2 PM EST (US). Wondering which of us goes first? You probably have a stronger pitch if you bought direct. I'm a resale buyer. They pretend to like us, but don't really like us that much.

 

[Mumof4mice]

They moved me to Monday too - 2 PM EST (US). Wondering which of us goes first? You probably have a stronger pitch if you bought direct. I'm a resale buyer. They pretend to like us, but don't really like us that much.

5pm EST. Let's make her earn her pay, @skier_pete !

We bought resale(x3) too. I added 75pt at CCV for the AP discount, which I think weakens my case. (I'm so unimpressed with your petty restrictions that I ONLY bought 75 points, Mouse! Take that! )

 

[skier_pete]

5pm EST. Let's make her earn her pay, @skier_pete !

We bought resale(x3) too. I added 75pt at CCV for the AP discount, which I think weakens my case. (I'm so unimpressed with your petty restrictions that I ONLY bought 75 points, Mouse! Take that! )

Well, it's not a lie that I was seriously considering a third contract and am not any longer, and I certainly would consider a direct contract, but probably only in the case of a California property.

 

[PaintsWithAllTheColors]

I’m still on for Friday... anxious to hear how yours go!