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

[Dean]

It is clear that the lockoff units are counted only as the whole unit in DVC calculations. There is a question about the legitimacy of this too.

Not as I read the POS or the 721 statute. The statute clearly says it's counted as one unless the developer puts it in writing otherwise and DVC has not. There are references that suggest it's one in the POS that I've seen and no indiction it's been broken apart by DVD. As I read the statute, unless it's specifically broken out in the POS it's counted as one, it does not have to specify the reverse.

 

[Jerry5788]

Agreed. I honestly believe that Disney probably doesn't know for sure. Perhaps that was why I was suggested to write the letter. Though this is something they should know in my opinion and should be in the manual of canned responses. I'm surprised it isn't

Yes I’d like to believe they didn’t do this on purpose. But think some smart financial guy definitely came up with this. I bet they don’t know if it’s legal but my interpretations is that it is within their rights.

If this was accidental I think their knowledge of it now will give them ability in future to repeat this action again.

 

[PaintsWithAllTheColors]

For those that are calling/writing - what issues are you stressing? I've been trying to follow along with this thread and I feel like the main issues are:

1) Point reallocations - the total amount of points required to book the ENTIRE resort must always stay the same. Many feel that the 2020 point reallocation does not comply with this.
2) Lockoff premium - the dubious difference between the points required to book a Studio + 1 Bed and the points required to book a 2 Bed. Many feel that DVC is manipulating that premium in ways that aren't legal/allowed.

Is this an accurate (high-level) summary of the issues?

I plan on joining in and calling/emailing asking for explanations. I understand that DVC may very well be doing things by the book, but the lack of transparency makes it hard to know. The more people asking for accountability the better. At the very least, it can't hurt.

 

[crvetter]

I think you are misreading the meaning and purpose of the point numbers you cite. They don't represent the number of points allotted to a vacation home type, nor do they represent an "averaging" of costs over a year. Instead, they simply serve as a "guarantee" (that is my word and not in the POS) that each vacation home type will have at least one Use Day that can be booked at the specified point amount.

The Multi-Site Public Offering Statement states "With respect to each DVC resort, each Club Member will always be eligible to reserve least one (1) Use Day in the different Vacation Home types at his or her Home Resort, subject to availability, for the following number of Home Resort Vacation Points:" Following this statement is a chart showing every DVC resort and the number of points required to book each vacation home type at each resort. For example, it shows that OKW will always have at least one Use Day when a studio can be booked for 15 points, a one-bedroom for 30 points, a two-bedroom for 40 nights, and a Grand Villa for 65 points.

What this means is that the OKW point chart will always have at least one Use Day where a studio can be reserved for 15 points. It could have some days higher than that, but at a minimum there must be one Use Day in the year when a studio is available for 15 points or less. Of course, it also means that an OKW point chart is in compliance if it has 364 days at 16 or more points and only one day at 15 points.

If you look at the point charts for each resort, they are all in compliance, They all have at least one Season where each vacation home type can be booked for equal to or less than the number of points specified in the POS. For example, the 2020 OKW point chart shows that a night in a studio can be booked for 15 points or less throughout the Adventure and Choice Seasons, and for weekdays in the Dream and Magic Seasons.

DVC News is the site that references the maximum reallocation with the meaning I took it to be.

https://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/r...2-exclusive-contemporary-points-chart-preview

 

[Erin Martin]

It would be nice if they would scale our points to match the scaling they do with the yearly update. As long as I retain the same value I bought, I'm fine with whatever. 19 points a night, 1000 points a night, as long as it scales, it is fine.

 

[zavandor]

Not as I read the POS or the 721 statute. The statute clearly says it's counted as one unless the developer puts it in writing otherwise and DVC has not. There are references that suggest it's one in the POS that I've seen and no indiction it's been broken apart by DVD. As I read the statute, unless it's specifically broken out in the POS it's counted as one, it does not have to specify the reverse.

We are at a point where we have to agree to disagree. In the SSR POS both the lockoff studios and 1BR are defined as timeshare units (or in Disney Marketing lingo: vacation homes).
It might be by mistake, a copy and paste from previous POS, but it is what it is.

 

[mab2012]

For those that are calling/writing - what issues are you stressing? I've been trying to follow along with this thread and I feel like the main issues are:

1) Point reallocations - the total amount of points required to book the ENTIRE resort must always stay the same. Many feel that the 2020 point reallocation does not comply with this.
2) Lockoff premium - the dubious difference between the points required to book a Studio + 1 Bed and the points required to book a 2 Bed. Many feel that DVC is manipulating that premium in ways that aren't legal/allowed.

Is this an accurate (high-level) summary of the issues?

I plan on joining in and calling/emailing asking for explanations. I understand that DVC may very well be doing things by the book, but the lack of transparency makes it hard to know. The more people asking for accountability the better. At the very least, it can't hurt.

I think point 1 has more-or-less been put to rest. Several people have done the math across multiple resorts (I've done my own for SSR), and when you treat lock-offs as dedicated 2BR units the reallocation does come out basically neutral across the resort (allowing for minor differences in methodology, in particular the fact that we don't know what specific base year is used as the reference). With respect to reallocations, there seem to be two issues that some are still concerned over:

1. That the point reallocation, even if allowed under the terms of the POS, is not in the best interest of most members. That could mean that DVCMC has failed in their fiduciary duty towards members, whom they are contracted to represent.
2. There is disagreement over whether DVCMC's right to reallocate points extends across unit types within a resort, or must be limited to reallocations on a per-unit basis (for example, across seasons or days of the week). If the latter interpretation is correct, then reducing the cost of larger units at the expense of smaller units would be at least a contractual violation, and possibly a legislative violation as well.

And then there's also still plenty of concern over the lockoff premium - both its basic existence and that there doesn't seem to be any clear definition of how far or how fast it can be raised, particularly at resorts that have no dedicated studio or 1BR units.

 

[Dean]

We are at a point where we have to agree to disagree. In the SSR POS both the lockoff studios and 1BR are defined as timeshare units (or in Disney Marketing lingo: vacation homes).
It might be by mistake, a copy and paste from previous POS, but it is what it is.

You agree that FL Statute 721 states it must be specified to be applicable correct? I'd not at home (in Aruba) but I don't recall anything in the BWV POS that specifically states lockoff's are treated individually and in that absence, even with dedicated smaller units, this would have to be the case to be applicable. As I've read it, this would only apply to the individual villas that are dedicated smaller units in this discussion. I think you're grasping at straws on this portion. I understand the uncertainty on the "by resort" application but the reality is they could change it at any point if they wanted as it would still be in the best interest of the membership as a whole to allow them to make changes by resort.

 

[zavandor]

You agree that FL Statute 721 states it must be specified to be applicable correct? I'd not at home (in Aruba) but I don't recall anything in the BWV POS that specifically states lockoff's are treated individually and in that absence, even with dedicated smaller units, this would have to be the case to be applicable. As I've read it, this would only apply to the individual villas that are dedicated smaller units in this discussion. I think you're grasping at straws on this portion. I understand the uncertainty on the "by resort" application but the reality is they could change it at any point if they wanted as it would still be in the best interest of the membership as a whole to allow them to make changes by resort.

I have yet to find the place in the SSR POS (I have only this one) where it says that studios and 1BR do not count as timeshare units/vacation homes according to the Florida law. Everyone seem very sure that exists, but haven't pointed it out yet. I have instead found the opposite.
Also, I couldn't find a Florida Law saying reallocations are allowed across the whole resort for points timeshare. The One-to-one use right to use night requirement ratio law is clearly defined per timeshare unit (which in the DVC definition is a Vacation home), not per resort.
Also, for 20 years DVC didn't do any reallocation across different unit types even when it was justifiable (for BW view and OKW near HH).

I am very concious of the limitations of my interpretation, as I'm not a laywer, so I'd be happy if someone could point me to the missing pieces of the puzzle. There are so many bad smelling parts in this reallocation that it wouldn't change my judgement anyway. What I am not going to accept is: DVC does this so this is the rule.

 

[Jerry5788]

I have yet to find the place in the SSR POS (I have only this one) where it says that studios and 1BR do not count as timeshare units/vacation homes according to the Florida law. Everyone seem very sure that exists, but haven't pointed it out yet. I have instead found the opposite.
Also, I couldn't find a Florida Law saying reallocations are allowed across the whole resort for points timeshare. The One-to-one use right to use night requirement ratio law is clearly defined per timeshare unit (which in the DVC definition is a Vacation home), not per resort.
Also, for 20 years DVC didn't do any reallocation across different unit types even when it was justifiable (for BW view and OKW near HH).

I am very concious of the limitations of my interpretation, as I'm not a laywer, so I'd be happy if someone could point me to the missing pieces of the puzzle. There are so many bad smelling parts in this reallocation that it wouldn't change my judgement anyway. What I am not going to accept is: DVC does this so this is the rule.

I thought they already have done this at AKV in past but it was to member benefits

 

[Dean]

I have yet to find the place in the SSR POS (I have only this one) where it says that studios and 1BR do not count as timeshare units/vacation homes according to the Florida law. Everyone seem very sure that exists, but haven't pointed it out yet. I have instead found the opposite.
Also, I couldn't find a Florida Law saying reallocations are allowed across the whole resort for points timeshare. The One-to-one use right to use night requirement ratio law is clearly defined per timeshare unit (which in the DVC definition is a Vacation home), not per resort.
Also, for 20 years DVC didn't do any reallocation across different unit types even when it was justifiable (for BW view and OKW near HH).

I am very concious of the limitations of my interpretation, as I'm not a laywer, so I'd be happy if someone could point me to the missing pieces of the puzzle. There are so many bad smelling parts in this reallocation that it wouldn't change my judgement anyway. What I am not going to accept is: DVC does this so this is the rule.

You yourself quoted the FL statues that stated that lockout's were counted as the whole unless specified otherwise. You'd have to find a specific reference that specified otherwise. You can't infer it.

4. If ownership or use of the timeshare plan is based on a point system, a statement indicating the circumstances by which the point values may change, the extent of such changes, and the person or entity responsible for the changes.

Circumstances - Their judgement of demand
Extent - 20% per year and average across the resort compared to the base year (as I read it).
Person/Entity responsible - DVCMC

There is no requirement it be spelled out more than that. I think where you're missing is that you're looking for it to be spelled out specifically and this is not how the statutes or contracts work with timeshares. It's intent down then a framework. There has to be wording that allows it but it doesn't have to be spelled out specifically and there has to be no wording that precludes it.

 

[zavandor]

You yourself quoted the FL statues that stated that lockout's were counted as the whole unless specified otherwise. You'd have to find a specific reference that specified otherwise. You can't infer it.

The definition of studio and 1BR is the same as a 2BR. They are all timeshare units.
This is were we have to agree to disagree. I think this is meaningful.

Extent - 20% per year and average across the resort compared to the base year (as I read it).
Person/Entity responsible - DVCMC

The SSR POS I have (which is not the latest) clearly says the reallocation has to be within a Vacation Home.
The multi-site POS has been amended to say the reallocation can be across different units. Was the SSR POS amended? I don't know because DVC refuses to send the latest version.
And in any case, the reallocation must be compliant with the Florida Law, the One-to-one use right to use night requirement ratio in particular.

 

[wdrl]

Florida Statute 721.05(41) “Timeshare unit” means an accommodation of a timeshare plan which is divided into timeshare periods. Any timeshare unit in which a door or doors connecting two or more separate rooms are capable of being locked to create two or more private dwellings shall only constitute one timeshare unit for purposes of this chapter, unless the timeshare instrument provides that timeshare interests may be separately conveyed in such locked-off portions.

Keep in mind that DVC is a variable point timeshare. DVC does not separately convey the one-bedroom portion or the studio portion when it sell points in a DVC resort.

 

[Dean]

The definition of studio and 1BR is the same as a 2BR. They are all timeshare units.
This is were we have to agree to disagree. I think this is meaningful.



The SSR POS I have (which is not the latest) clearly says the reallocation has to be within a Vacation Home.
The multi-site POS has been amended to say the reallocation can be across different units. Was the SSR POS amended? I don't know because DVC refuses to send the latest version.
And in any case, the reallocation must be compliant with the Florida Law, the One-to-one use right to use night requirement ratio in particular.

Everything I have is across the resort including 3 versions of the Multi site POS and 2 different home resort POS. Regardless, all they would have had to do was change it and I'm pretty sure they're smart enough to do so before this if needed. Across the resort is the proper way it should be done. As I and wdrl have noted, unless the POS specifically designates otherwise the lockoffs are counted as a whole. You can't imply it from other wording. So unless you can find where DVC has specifically designated them as separate, I think this is a futile direction.

 

[DougEMG]

Florida Statute 721.05(41) “Timeshare unit” means an accommodation of a timeshare plan which is divided into timeshare periods. Any timeshare unit in which a door or doors connecting two or more separate rooms are capable of being locked to create two or more private dwellings shall only constitute one timeshare unit for purposes of this chapter, unless the timeshare instrument provides that timeshare interests may be separately conveyed in such locked-off portions.

Keep in mind that DVC is a variable point timeshare. DVC does not separately convey the one-bedroom portion or the studio portion when it sell points in a DVC resort.

It sells you a percent of a very specific unit which is what is on your title. That unit is typically made up of a number of rooms. My argument has always been that because I own a percent of a unit, I should always be able to book that percent of the unit in the year. Points can not be reallocated across units otherwise DVC is changing my ownership.

 

[OKW Lover]

My argument has always been that because I own a percent of a unit, I should always be able to book that percent of the unit in the year.

But that's not what was in the documents you signed. You bought x vacation points from DVC. The representation of a percent of a unit is only for purposes of recording the deed.

 

[aoconnor]

But that's not what was in the documents you signed. You bought x vacation points from DVC. The representation of a percent of a unit is only for purposes of recording the deed.

I thought it was the opposite? You buy X% of a unit which is symbolized as X vacation points "for administrative convenience only and for no other purpose. Vacation Points are merely reflective of Purchaser's ownership interest and Vacation Points may not be hypothecated, bought, sold, exchanged, rented or otherwise transferred separate and apart from Purchaser's ownership interest"

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

But that's not what was in the documents you signed. You bought x vacation points from DVC. The representation of a percent of a unit is only for purposes of recording the deed.

It's the opposite. You've bought xx% and that percentage is represented by points.

 

[DougEMG]

But that's not what was in the documents you signed. You bought x vacation points from DVC. The representation of a percent of a unit is only for purposes of recording the deed.

Actually you have it backwards. I bought a percent of a unit which is what my title says and the points are an administrative entity only meant to represent my ownership interest.

 

[wdrl]

It sells you a percent of a very specific unit which is what is on your title. That unit is typically made up of a number of rooms. My argument has always been that because I own a percent of a unit, I should always be able to book that percent of the unit in the year. Points can not be reallocated across units otherwise DVC is changing my ownership.

But that argument makes little sense in the concept of DVC's flexible point system.

In a traditional timeshare with fixed weeks and accommodations, ownership and usage are almost always directly aligned. You buy a fixed week in a partial ocean view two-bedroom timeshare unit and its yours for the life of the deed. You don't have ownership or usage in the studios, one-bedrooms, or the full ocean front two-bedrooms that are part of the timeshare resort. In an over-simplified example, your ownership interest limits your usage to the accommodation in your timeshare unit for the week that you own. If the traditional timeshare did a reallocation, you would still be entitled to book a partial ocean view two-bedroom timeshare unit for your fixed week.

Now, in DVC's system, members aren't buying a fixed interest. Ownership and usage are not tied together to a single timeshare unit. When people buy into DVC their points are drawn from one of the resort's Residential Units, but their usage is not tied to that Residential Unit. Even though I own a 0.4675% real estate interest in BLT Unit 87A, which has one Lake View Grand Villa, my usage is not tied to that Unit; I don't have to use my 160 points for a Lake View Grand Villa. My BLT points allow me to book any villa in any Residential Unit at BLT and any time of the year. I'm only limited by availability and whether I have enough points. In other words, my ownership interest gives me resort-wide usage.

With the DVC system, which Unit your points are drawn from doesn't matter. Its the usage that matters. And the usage translates into access to the entire resort and any of the resort's vacation homes and Residential Units. Thus, when DVC does a reallocation, the reallocation is not done on a Vacation Home level, or a Unit level, but on the resort level.