WOW DVC Prices !!!

[KAT4DISNEY]

It would be really interesting if you could find out what your resale contract sold for originally. I just picked up a small BLT contract and while I think I got a pretty good deal, I wonder what the owners made by selling it.

You can look at the county records and see when the owners purchased to get a decent idea of what the price would be. I've read a calculation can be achieved done as well off the filing but have never paid close enough attention to how it is done.

 

[MrWonderful]

Divide the tax paid by .007, then apply that number to the number of points... My most recent purchase I paid $125 pp. I was able to determine the seller paid $130 pp in 2011.

 

[tom1944]

That's the thing. The POS says both things, and both sides are going to be able to point to language that supports their positions. At that point, you are down to arguing it in court. And, "the owner knew what they were getting all along" plus "they did not agree to the new terms" might be a pretty compelling argument.

Or it might not. But it won't be cheap to find out, and the outcome is far from certain.

Even if it is certified as a class, there aren't going to be enough people involved to make it worth a contingency fee approach; it's going to be hundreds to a few thousand people, tops, and the damages can't possibly be that large if Disney loses--at least not beyond continued use of the property, and you can't siphon that off to the law firm like you can a monetary award.

Disney may not hold the winning hand, but they have a lot of strong cards.

I do think that anyone who is still "live" at that point (i.e.: did not pay for an extension and have no quitclaim tied to the deed) will be offered another bite at the extension apple. Will that be a good deal to get them to cave? Maybe. An interesting game of chicken.

And a large percentage of those owners are probably 75 and older and might not want to battle

 

[Brian Noble]

Also a good point. In a 35-year war of attrition, Disney has a distinct advantage.

 

[RoseGold]

Also a good point. In a 35-year war of attrition, Disney has a distinct advantage.

Trusts don't die, and I'm sure there are some lawyers in the 15ish years of OKW sales this applies to. I have no doubt this will be fought.

 

[tom1944]

Trusts don't die, and I'm sure there are some lawyers in the 15ish years of OKW sales this applies to. I have no doubt this will be fought.

I am sure it will also.

I do not believe by everyone though.

I also feel the odds to win would be more in favor of Disney.


Whoever created the extension offer should have faced some consequences. It was not very well thought out.

 

[Sandisw]

I am sure it will also.

I do not believe by everyone though.

I also feel the odds to win would be more in favor of Disney.


Whoever created the extension offer should have faced some consequences. It was not very well thought out.

It still begs the question as why they require owners to sign the quit claim…plus, as I said, they are on the hook for MFs for all those points in a much different way then they are now when they do the guarantee..which came about from the lawsuit.

So, there could be a benefit to them to not fight it for those that want to keep the contract and use it and pay the MFs.

As I shared earlier, they can’t remove any of the buildings from the association because owners will be still be deeded to them.

I think this is why they won’t, and haven’t done another one because they realize it is going to be a legal mess.

 

[🍀TwinsMom]

I agree, I don't think the owners will prevail. For what I am hearing is that people who agreed received " new" contracts. The people who didn't accept the extension offer have their original contract. DVD does not have to act on this issue until 2042 . I am willing to bet the first thing they will do is cut off the owners with out extensions so they cannot pay MFs or book rooms. If hit with a lawsuit DVD will state that the lawsuit has no merit under the grounds a contract must have three main components met , the offer ( DVD offering an extension for $$) acceptance ( the person who was given the offer accepts the terms and conditions) and consideration ( money or something of value exchanged for the offer). The people who didn't agree to the extension didn't fulfill the required terms of the offer therefor have no "new" contract with an extension regardless of what the land lease states. If this gets rejected by the courts and they get hit with a class action lawsuit, they will attempt to get this thrown out in favor of having people sue individually. If this is unsuccessful and they go to class action trial and lose ( I feel losing is highly unlikely) this will take at least 2 to 3 years before a verdict is reached. The settlement will be cash, and it will be based on the resale value of the 15 year extension of the 2057 contracts in 2043. Sometime around 2039, (or sooner) DVD will stop ROFR OKW and stop selling OKW direct points, this will be a effort to get the bottom to fall out on the value of the contracts since the price per point will be based upon the value of the 15 remining years of the 2057 contacts which maybe as low as $60 pp or less. I am sure if DVD does lose they may try and use the $15 to $25 per point value that they asked for when they offer was made.
If the owners are successful they will get their $15 to $60 pp settlement minus ~ 35% lawyers fees while all this time Disney is renting the rooms out for cash. Disney wins even if they lose.

This is the way.

 

[HIRyeDVC]

It still begs the question as why they require owners to sign the quit claim…plus, as I said, they are on the hook for MFs for all those points in a much different way then they are now when they do the guarantee..which came about from the lawsuit.

So, there could be a benefit to them to not fight it for those that want to keep the contract and use it and pay the MFs.

As I shared earlier, they can’t remove any of the buildings from the association because owners will be still be deeded to them.

I think this is why they won’t, and haven’t done another one because they realize it is going to be a legal mess.

Can we please "quit" claim this discussion!

 

[tom1944]

It still begs the question as why they require owners to sign the quit claim…plus, as I said, they are on the hook for MFs for all those points in a much different way then they are now when they do the guarantee..which came about from the lawsuit.

So, there could be a benefit to them to not fight it for those that want to keep the contract and use it and pay the MFs.

As I shared earlier, they can’t remove any of the buildings from the association because owners will be still be deeded to them.

I think this is why they won’t, and haven’t done another one because they realize it is going to be a legal mess.

But done right it should not have been a legal mess.

 

[Bearval]

The POS clearly states that the resort ceases to exist when the ground lease expires...and that the POS was updated in 2013...once that changed, all owners are now under that new contract....

It also states that per the condominium documents, the ending of the resort can be changed. In essence, DVD changing the POS, with no mention that it only applies to those purchasing from a certain date forward, applies its terms to all buyers.

As I stated earlier, why have owners sign quit claim deeds then? Even now, they ask owners who want to sell to do that? Those would not be needed if they have the ability to just sweep up all the contracts in 2042 from original owners.

That was a material change to the contract that DVD made on its own...they will have to deal with it in 2042...but I just don't think its going to be as simple as DVD being allowed to stop the use of the contract for those owners and that there will be lawsuits if they do....

I also think we may see owners offered a chance to extend again for a fee....of course, we are getting off topic in this thread, but DVD asking owners to sign those deeds giving them back ownership in 2042 would not be needed if they have the legal right to take them back...that, and the updated POS, is going to carry more weight in a court than the sales document

The reason DVD requires people to sign the quit claim deeds is just a good practice from a legal stand point to reduce the number of plaintiffs just in case they lose.

It is simple for DVD to deny access to the resort , they just lock out their accounts . Of course they may get sued for it but it will be expected. The potential number of plaintiffs may not reach a level where a legal firm might not want to take since the potential payout maybe too low for the work involved since they don't get paid unless they win. DVD has lawyers already they are paying so legal fees for them will be low. Also class action suits for consumer products ( DVC is a consumer product) are ALWAYS paid out way under true value (Think Remington 870 barrels, Samsung washers, maytag washers) These were paid out ~1/3 replacement value for the washers with the settlement for Maytag being a voucher for their 1/3 payout to only buy a maytag product. Remington was like 20cents on the dollar (I was part of both a Maytag and Remington class action) These Class action Lawyers want to settle fast since time is money to them. In my opinion they will accept a relatively quick crappy guaranteed settlement over a long drawn out one they could lose and have spent alot of money on they wont recoup. If this goes class action and DVD loses expect the payout to alot lower then the resale value at the time.

 

[tom1944]

Trusts don't die, and I'm sure there are some lawyers in the 15ish years of OKW sales this applies to. I have no doubt this will be fought.

I ran the term “trust” as grantee for OKW and there were over 2,600

 

[DonMacGregor]

Except the POS is the contract...just saying...and if it was that simple, they would never have asked any owner to sign a quit claim deed...no reason to do that if those owners contracts simply stop in 2042.

Trusts don't die, and I'm sure there are some lawyers in the 15ish years of OKW sales this applies to. I have no doubt this will be fought.

No, but they do end when the assets have been either exhausted or distributed. DVC could argue that the asset is exhausted on January 31, 2042.

 

[kboo]

This definitely is coloring your opinion of off-site being as good as on-site. For someone who flies in and doesn't rent a car, Disney's convenient, easy, free, and near-constant transportation is important, and definitely worth more than saving a few hundred bucks to stay offsite.

Even as DME was fading away (we found a reliable airport transportation in the Transportation board sponsor, especially one that didn't have us sitting for 3 hours at MCO waiting for our flight), I kept looking into car rentals and decided - I really like not having to drive anywhere. The buses are the least interesting forms of transportation, but my kids consider all the others to be fun rides. Just getting to the park is part of the fun. (Also allows the grownups to have a drink or two at dinner without neogtiating who is going to drive. We are lightweights.)

If Disney just ROFR'ed two BLT contracts at $120, you'd be silly to offer $120 for a contract. So there's the new floor.

.... If DVD stepped in in the last month to take contracts in the $120s, that is going to impact it going lower than that if they decide to take contracts at those prices.

The thing about ROFR is it only acts as a deterrent for those who are following the prices, and as we used to say when I was buying resale contracts, "they can't take them all". Some buyers were more persistent than I was, and kept sending to ROFR at the same low PPP. I could have maybe gotten $2-5 pp less than what I bought our first BLT contract for. It was 160 points, so it was not worth the hassle for me, since the price we settled on was already lower than some that were being taken. I took the ROFR'd price per point as guidance, not a floor. Others did as well, and eventually we all made it through or decided to adjust the offer up a couple dollars. But I will add that once we had 1 contract under our belts, I was shameless about making lowball offers. We had points we were using to plan our next trip, so there was not immediate pressure to get the next set of points.

Yes, I realize that, I got my $95 SSR off a listing of $110. With that said, the board sponsor listings all say “full cash price offers only,” so I haven’t bothered. Maybe I should try I guess.

re shameless, above - I have had conversations with agents of the board sponsor where I made a lowball offer on a contract to have them say it was not realistic, they weren't bringing it to the seller, etc. Ok. Shrug. Go back to looking for another listing and a seller. I might not lowball a "full cash price offer" listing but then again I might - if it's been on the market for a while, the seller may have changed their view. OTOH, a seller may be in a position where they need cash to close and they cannot go below a certain # otherwise they won't be able to close. So the "why" of a "full cash price offer" listing may matter too.

(I will add that I've also bought a contract listed by the board sponsor and the price was much lower than they wanted, and the agent told me "that will never make it through ROFR" but they brought it to the seller and it was accepted, and it passed ROFR. At that point, though, the seller might even hope it gets ROFR'ed, because it's a faster process.) So I think it depends on the seller and their motivation.

so how many times can you really ride the same rides

CLEARLY WE HAVE NOT DONE THE PARKS TOGETHER BECAUSE MY CHILDREN WOULD SAY, "HOLD MY DOLE WHIP."
Luckily my oldest one can ride things alone if need be. I had to stop riding Everest one day after 3x in a row. We have yet to reach our limit on BTMRR.

 

[Sandisw]

The reason DVD requires people to sign the quit claim deeds is just a good practice from a legal stand point to reduce the number of plaintiffs just in case they lose.

It is simple for DVD to deny access to the resort , they just lock out their accounts . Of course they may get sued for it but it will be expected. The potential number of plaintiffs may not reach a level where a legal firm might not want to take since the potential payout maybe too low for the work involved since they don't get paid unless they win. DVD has lawyers already they are paying so legal fees for them will be low. Also class action suits for consumer products ( DVC is a consumer product) are ALWAYS paid out way under true value (Think Remington 870 barrels, Samsung washers, maytag washers) These were paid out ~1/3 replacement value for the washers with the settlement for Maytag being a voucher for their 1/3 payout to only buy a maytag product. Remington was like 20cents on the dollar (I was part of both a Maytag and Remington class action) These Class action Lawyers want to settle fast since time is money to them. In my opinion they will accept a relatively quick crappy guaranteed settlement over a long drawn out one they could lose and have spent alot of money on they wont recoup. If this goes class action and DVD loses expect the payout to alot lower then the resale value at the time.

Who knows what will happen but the language changes to the POS and the use of the deed would be enough I think for owners to push the issue and given that it could benefit DVD not to fight it, I think there is a good chance that owners are allowed to use until 2057 as long as dues are paid.

But, to get back on topic, the prices are coming down and it’s possible that owners may end up getting out sooner rather than later.

 

[Einstein509]

The irony of the Walt Disney Company: values based entertainment that isn't congruent with their corporate behaviour. We can all sit in cognitive dissonance.

This.

In so many ways recently.

 

[Matty B13]

CLEARLY WE HAVE NOT DONE THE PARKS TOGETHER BECAUSE MY CHILDREN WOULD SAY, "HOLD MY DOLE WHIP."
Luckily my oldest one can ride things alone if need be. I had to stop riding Everest one day after 3x in a row. We have yet to reach our limit on BTMRR.

We once did Barnstormer 5 times during the fireworks while everyone else was staring at the show.

 

[mlayton14]

The POS clearly states that the resort ceases to exist when the ground lease expires...and that the POS was updated in 2013...once that changed, all owners are now under that new contract....

It also states that per the condominium documents, the ending of the resort can be changed. In essence, DVD changing the POS, with no mention that it only applies to those purchasing from a certain date forward, applies its terms to all buyers.

As I stated earlier, why have owners sign quit claim deeds then? Even now, they ask owners who want to sell to do that? Those would not be needed if they have the ability to just sweep up all the contracts in 2042 from original owners.

That was a material change to the contract that DVD made on its own...they will have to deal with it in 2042...but I just don't think its going to be as simple as DVD being allowed to stop the use of the contract for those owners and that there will be lawsuits if they do....

I also think we may see owners offered a chance to extend again for a fee....of course, we are getting off topic in this thread, but DVD asking owners to sign those deeds giving them back ownership in 2042 would not be needed if they have the legal right to take them back...that, and the updated POS, is going to carry more weight in a court than the sales document

I don’t get this - if you paid for 2042 then just exit in 2042. Class action lawsuits etc is a slimy thing to do to game the system on technicalities. Doesn’t our legal system have more legitimate things to litigate than original owners trying to squeeze freebies out of thin air ?

 

[tom1944]

I don’t get this - if you paid for 2042 then just exit in 2042. Class action lawsuits etc is a slimy thing to do to game the system on technicalities. Doesn’t our legal system have more legitimate things to litigate than original owners trying to squeeze freebies out of thin air ?

I believe if it ever goes to trial there will be several jurors with your view in the juror pool

 

[Nabas]

I don’t get this - if you paid for 2042 then just exit in 2042. Class action lawsuits etc is a slimy thing to do to game the system on technicalities. Doesn’t our legal system have more legitimate things to litigate than original owners trying to squeeze freebies out of thin air ?

I agree with you as a practical matter.

However, contract law is very strict. One party cannot modify a contract without the consent of the other party.

I don’t know know the details of the actual contract but at first glance, it appears that Disney was the “slimy” one, trying to strong-arm DVC members to modify the terms of the contract.