2023 Point Charts Released

[Lorana]

The only piece I am struggling with is that the same number of points, can be different % based on the size of the unit, but the usage is the same for booking rooms,

So, your 100 points may be a higher or lower % of your own unit vs mine. But those same 100 points can be used the same way, regardless of what % is actually owned.

For example, I owned 150 BWV points in 2 different contracts..but the % of ownership I had for the exact same points was not the same because my unit sizes were different.

Since we don’t stay only in our own units, not sure I agree that the % owned is ever diluted because of use. My 150 points from each unit could be used exactly the same every year.

Now, if we had a points based system that forced everyone to use their own units, and things were moved around, this % argument would make more sense to me.

That is not saying that I think points can be shifted, I am in the process of doing my research, but not sure % of ownership matters when the POS states that ownership represented in points is a simple way to account because on a % basis, a point is not always equal but it is for booking.

% ownership is written into our contracts ("Purchaser's Ownership Interest shall be symbolized as XXX Home Resort Vacation Points for purposes of administrative convenience only and for no other purpose. Home Resort Vacation Points are merely reflective of Purchaser's Ownership Interest...", where "An “Ownership Interest” is an undivided, real property interest in a unit (a “Unit”) in the Condominium" and "PURCHASER's Ownership Interest is a 'Fixed Ownership Interest'" and defined as "An undivided X.XXXX% interest in Unit XXX of (Your Specific Resort)"), so your # of points is specifically, legally, and contractually bound to your percentage interest.

The challenge you noted is that Units vary in size across various resorts, and so # of points can represent different % ownerships. But Units are rarely a single unit. SSR Treehouse Villas are slightly easier to discuss, and think about, because in this case, my 100-point contract's unit is 2 Treehouses. My 50-point contract unit is 3 2-BRs (2 Lock-Offs and 1 Dedicated). I think the hard thing you're trying to wrap your head around is that the Vacation Home Villas do not equal, one to one, a single unit. So, in that situation, you need to disambiguate your points from what you can do with them in regards to Vacation Home Villas. What you need to do is figure out what the composition of your unit is and then determine the number of points required to book your unit for the year - both when the resort opened, and what the point charts are now - to determine if your number of points still equals your percentage ownership of the unit.

This gets into slightly complicated math, but is the main driver behind why you cannot reallocate points between vacation home types, unless somehow you can do that AND ensure that a unit type remains consistent. Just because my 100 points could book the same # of nights in a studio as your 100 points is irrelevant. Because, technically, what my deed grants me is rights to .3314% of 2 Treehouses in a year. If my points do not allow me to reserve .3314% of those 2 Treehouses in my unit in a given year -- which in 2023, it would not allow me to do -- then my 100 points no longer represents my ownership interest. If you were to throw out Disney's current reservation points system, whatever system is in place should allow you to reserve your % ownership in your unit in the year. I'll try do the math for my other contract when I have time to demonstrate the other side of it: those 50 points now represent a larger percentage of ownership, such that if Disney were to switch it to make it so we could only reserve our units, and every owner tried to reserve for the year, we'd end up with more "days" than are actually available, because points were taken out of the Treehouse Units and into the other Units to change the point charts for the THV.

I'm able to book the same # of studios as your 100 points, even if our units are different, because a studio represents a certain % of the resort, and that % is represented by points; it just a much smaller size than the actual size of the resort. For simplicity sake, let's say that a week in that studio is 1% of the resort and, for the sake of this example, that points are the same across the entire year, and that therefore it requires 100 points to book. Let's say the total points, therefore, is 10,000 for the resort. I own 10% of Unit-2BR-X and you own 20% of Unit-1BR-Y. My Unit is larger than yours, so my 100 is a smaller %. This means that my larger unit represents 1000 points of the annual points, but yours represents 500 points. But those ownerships still equate to 100 points, which would allow either of us to book a studio for a week (100 points).

Hopefully that helps? I know what I'm trying to explain, so I don't know if I'm explaining it well enough here to get the point across as to why # points = % ownership, and why differing % ownerships of units that differ in size / types of home vacation villas still represent the same number of points.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

The only piece I am struggling with is that the same number of points, can be different % based on the size of the unit, but the usage is the same for booking rooms,

So, your 100 points may be a higher or lower % of your own unit vs mine. But those same 100 points can be used the same way, regardless of what % is actually owned.

For example, I owned 150 BWV points in 2 different contracts..but the % of ownership I had for the exact same points was not the same because my unit sizes were different.

Since we don’t stay only in our own units, not sure I agree that the % owned is ever diluted because of use. My 150 points from each unit could be used exactly the same every year.

Now, if we had a points based system that forced everyone to use their own units, and things were moved around, this % argument would make more sense to me.

That is not saying that I think points can be shifted, I am in the process of doing my research, but not sure % of ownership matters when the POS states that ownership represented in points is a simple way to account because on a % basis, a point is not always equal but it is for booking.

Spot on. This is why I asked in my previous comment if they only stayed in Treehouses. If it was a system that required everyone to stay in the unit they "owned" but the point value from certain units were being diluted (by the point chart increasing for those units while the other units decreased) then that would be a real concern. But the fact that every owner has access to stay in all room types makes it a moot point. The 100 points can be used at any of the non Treehouse rooms. Heck, those 100 points can be used during a time of year where the point chart decreased for a certain room type, thus increasing the perceived value of those 100 points. Conversely, any member who "owns" a non-Treehouse unit is in the same boat when trying to stay in a Treehouse room...it requires that owner to use more points to stay in the Treehouse as well because of the Treehouse point increase. In essence, everyone is in the same boat because everyone has access to stay in all room types.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

I'm able to book the same # of studios as your 100 points, even if our units are different, because a studio represents a certain % of the resort, and that % is represented by points; it just a much smaller size than the actual size of the resort. For simplicity sake, let's say that a week in that studio is 1% of the resort and, for the sake of this example, that points are the same across the entire year, and that therefore it requires 100 points to book. Let's say the total points, therefore, is 10,000 for the resort. I own 10% of Unit-2BR-X and you own 20% of Unit-1BR-Y. My Unit is larger than yours, so my 100 is a smaller %. This means that my larger unit represents 1000 points of the annual points, but yours represents 500 points. But those ownerships still equate to 100 points, which would allow either of us to book a studio for a week (100 points).

Except that when you walk into the DVC office to buy into Saratoga Springs, you don't choose which unit you are buying into. You are buying into Saratoga Springs. If they designate your ownership to be in a Treehouse unit, so be it. And then when Sandi walks into the DVC office right after you to buy into Saratoga Springs, they might designate her ownership to be a unit made up of studios. Again, it doesn't matter because both of you are buying into Saratoga Springs. If you both bought 100 point contracts that day, both of your contracts would have the same exact ability to book the same exact rooms. Neither of you would own a larger or smaller percentage of Saratoga Springs. The percentage each of you would own of Saratoga Springs would be the exact same. I think this is critical to remember since, again, you didn't buy into "Treehouse". You bought into Saratoga Springs.

 

[Sandisw]

% ownership is written into our contracts ("Purchaser's Ownership Interest shall be symbolized as XXX Home Resort Vacation Points for purposes of administrative convenience only and for no other purpose. Home Resort Vacation Points are merely reflective of Purchaser's Ownership Interest...", where "An “Ownership Interest” is an undivided, real property interest in a unit (a “Unit”) in the Condominium" and "PURCHASER's Ownership Interest is a 'Fixed Ownership Interest'" and defined as "An undivided X.XXXX% interest in Unit XXX of (Your Specific Resort)"), so your # of points is specifically, legally, and contractually bound to your percentage interest.

The challenge you noted is that Units vary in size across various resorts, and so # of points can represent different % ownerships. But Units are rarely a single unit. SSR Treehouse Villas are slightly easier to discuss, and think about, because in this case, my 100-point contract's unit is 2 Treehouses. My 50-point contract unit is 3 2-BRs (2 Lock-Offs and 1 Dedicated). I think the hard thing you're trying to wrap your head around is that the Vacation Home Villas do not equal, one to one, a single unit. So, in that situation, you need to disambiguate your points from what you can do with them in regards to Vacation Home Villas. What you need to do is figure out what the composition of your unit is and then determine the number of points required to book your unit for the year - both when the resort opened, and what the point charts are now - to determine if your number of points still equals your percentage ownership of the unit.

This gets into slightly complicated math, but is the main driver behind why you cannot reallocate points between vacation home types, unless somehow you can do that AND ensure that a unit type remains consistent. Just because my 100 points could book the same # of nights in a studio as your 100 points is irrelevant. Because, technically, what my deed grants me is rights to .3314% of 2 Treehouses in a year. If my points do not allow me to reserve .3314% of those 2 Treehouses in my unit in a given year -- which in 2023, it would not allow me to do -- then my 100 points no longer represents my ownership interest. If you were to throw out Disney's current reservation points system, whatever system is in place should allow you to reserve your % ownership in your unit in the year. I'll try do the math for my other contract when I have time to demonstrate the other side of it: those 50 points now represent a larger percentage of ownership, such that if Disney were to switch it to make it so we could only reserve our units, and every owner tried to reserve for the year, we'd end up with more "days" than are actually available, because points were taken out of the Treehouse Units and into the other Units to change the point charts for the THV.

I'm able to book the same # of studios as your 100 points, even if our units are different, because a studio represents a certain % of the resort, and that % is represented by points; it just a much smaller size than the actual size of the resort. For simplicity sake, let's say that a week in that studio is 1% of the resort and, for the sake of this example, that points are the same across the entire year, and that therefore it requires 100 points to book. Let's say the total points, therefore, is 10,000 for the resort. I own 10% of Unit-2BR-X and you own 20% of Unit-1BR-Y. My Unit is larger than yours, so my 100 is a smaller %. This means that my larger unit represents 1000 points of the annual points, but yours represents 500 points. But those ownerships still equate to 100 points, which would allow either of us to book a studio for a week (100 points).

Hopefully that helps? I know what I'm trying to explain, so I don't know if I'm explaining it well enough here to get the point across as to why # points = % ownership, and why differing % ownerships of units that differ in size / types of home vacation villas still represent the same number of points.

This is probably why I don’t think I agree . I didn’t buy to only use my unit and it is not sold that way.

My points were for use at the entire resort and the % I own doesn’t impact that. I am deeded to a certain unit and nothing ever changes that, regardless of what the point charts says.

So, in the end, how many nights my points get me in my unit is not something I see as material in all of this. If I own a piece of a studio and you own a piece of a treehouse, neither one of us has a right to use our own unit over the other person.

Remember, they can create a point chart for non home resort owners which will assign more points to that unit being booked. So technically, that unit for the year could have more points book it than is deeded.

Again, I am not saying this means they can add points to the total points needed to book all treehouse villas for a year based on what was sold but I just don’t think it has anything to do with changing ownership interest. However, total resort points must play a role in someway in all of this in terms booking and movement of points.

What I really need is to Find more specific guidelines from FL about use and sales for point based systems. On my list of things to do!

 

[Lorana]

The percentage each of you would own of Saratoga Springs would be the exact same. I think this is critical to remember since, again, you didn't buy into "Treehouse". You bought into Saratoga Springs.

Legally and contractually, that is not true. Per both my deed and my contract, I bought into a Unit within that condominium association.
I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree that usage is effectively the same, but that doesn't actually change the fact that the terms of my contract have been violated, and that it demonstrates that DVC does not actually have the right to reallocate points from 2BRs into THVs (which is the actual point I'm making here; I am just using the actual legal deed and contract to prove why they cannot do it).

I didn’t buy to only use my unit and it is not sold that way.

Actually, legally, you did. It's written in your contract.
You may have purchased with the intention of gaining points to use how you want at a particular resort, and that therefore it has not impact on you, and that you're willing to accept any point reallocation across villa types, but - per your deed and contract - you did in fact buy a unit, and per the contractual terms in that contract and as defined in the POS, DVC could not actually do what they did with the point reallocation.

There is a world of difference between "it all seems to be functionally the same" and "we're okay with reallocating across unit types" and what is actually allowed per the terms of the contract, and that's the distinction I'm bringing. Also, this matters for ALL DVC owners, not just SSR - particularly for resort owners at resorts where there are point-heavy villa types where point reallocations across villa types could have a negative impact.

My points were for use at the entire resort and the % I own doesn’t impact that.

Per the terms of the contract, yes, the reservation system allows you to do so.
The % you own does impact that. The number of points you purchased is represented by your % ownership.

I am deeded to a certain unit and nothing ever changes that, regardless of what the point charts says.

But the reallocation from 2BRs to THVs at SSR did in fact change your % ownership of your unit. What you really mean is that changes to the point charts that are affecting your percentage ownership, are not changing the number of points you own. But that is more because Disney is not reallocating your points based on changes they make to your % ownership. Which goes back to the initial point, of how Disney cannot legally / should not make changes to the point charts that would affect owner's % ownership in a unit. (Just because they did, doesn't mean it should have been allowed). You can't entirely disassociate point charts from ownerships, because by the nature of how points are allocated, the two are correlated.

 

[Sandisw]

Legally and contractually, that is not true. Per both my deed and my contract, I bought into a Unit within that condominium association.
I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree that usage is effectively the same, but that doesn't actually change the fact that the terms of my contract have been violated, and that it demonstrates that DVC does not actually have the right to reallocate points from 2BRs into THVs (which is the actual point I'm making here; I am just using the actual legal deed and contract to prove why they cannot do it).

Actually, legally, you did. It's written in your contract.
You may have purchased with the intention of gaining points to use how you want at a particular resort, and that therefore it has not impact on you, and that you're willing to accept any point reallocation across villa types, but - per your deed and contract - you did in fact buy a unit, and per the contractual terms in that contract and as defined in the POS, DVC could not actually do what they did with the point reallocation.

There is a world of difference between "it all seems to be functionally the same" and "we're okay with reallocating across unit types" and what is actually allowed per the terms of the contract, and that's the distinction I'm bringing. Also, this matters for ALL DVC owners, not just SSR - particularly for resort owners at resorts where there are point-heavy villa types where point reallocations across villa types could have a negative impact.


Per the terms of the contract, yes, the reservation system allows you to do so.
The % you own does impact that. The number of points you purchased is represented by your % ownership.

But the reallocation from 2BRs to THVs at SSR did in fact change your % ownership of your unit. What you really mean is that changes to the point charts that are affecting your percentage ownership, are not changing the number of points you own. But that is more because Disney is not reallocating your points based on changes they make to your % ownership. Which goes back to the initial point, of how Disney cannot legally / should not make changes to the point charts that would affect owner's % ownership in a unit. (Just because they did, doesn't mean it should have been allowed). You can't entirely disassociate point charts from ownerships, because by the nature of how points are allocated, the two are correlated.

But it didn’t because the % deeded doesn’t change, regardless of what the point chart says. If they sold 900,000 points for the treehouses, that never changes as long as they don’t sell more points assigned to the treehouses. And as long as points sold never goes up, the % of ownership remains the same.

I think this is where we differ. I have to find it but I do remember reading in the contract that where I am deeded gives me no priority into using my points at that unit. I am entitled to legally use them at any room in the resort. So I don’t agree I bought something that only gives me right to use the unit I am deeded. My SSR points are guaranteed to get me use every UY at SSR

I think at this point we are not going to agree with this aspect of ownership. But lots of great conversation!!!!!

 

[rubybutt]

% ownership is written into our contracts ("Purchaser's Ownership Interest shall be symbolized as XXX Home Resort Vacation Points for purposes of administrative convenience only and for no other purpose. Home Resort Vacation Points are merely reflective of Purchaser's Ownership Interest...", where "An “Ownership Interest” is an undivided, real property interest in a unit (a “Unit”) in the Condominium" and "PURCHASER's Ownership Interest is a 'Fixed Ownership Interest'" and defined as "An undivided X.XXXX% interest in Unit XXX of (Your Specific Resort)"), so your # of points is specifically, legally, and contractually bound to your percentage interest.

The challenge you noted is that Units vary in size across various resorts, and so # of points can represent different % ownerships. But Units are rarely a single unit. SSR Treehouse Villas are slightly easier to discuss, and think about, because in this case, my 100-point contract's unit is 2 Treehouses. My 50-point contract unit is 3 2-BRs (2 Lock-Offs and 1 Dedicated). I think the hard thing you're trying to wrap your head around is that the Vacation Home Villas do not equal, one to one, a single unit. So, in that situation, you need to disambiguate your points from what you can do with them in regards to Vacation Home Villas. What you need to do is figure out what the composition of your unit is and then determine the number of points required to book your unit for the year - both when the resort opened, and what the point charts are now - to determine if your number of points still equals your percentage ownership of the unit.

This gets into slightly complicated math, but is the main driver behind why you cannot reallocate points between vacation home types, unless somehow you can do that AND ensure that a unit type remains consistent. Just because my 100 points could book the same # of nights in a studio as your 100 points is irrelevant. Because, technically, what my deed grants me is rights to .3314% of 2 Treehouses in a year. If my points do not allow me to reserve .3314% of those 2 Treehouses in my unit in a given year -- which in 2023, it would not allow me to do -- then my 100 points no longer represents my ownership interest. If you were to throw out Disney's current reservation points system, whatever system is in place should allow you to reserve your % ownership in your unit in the year. I'll try do the math for my other contract when I have time to demonstrate the other side of it: those 50 points now represent a larger percentage of ownership, such that if Disney were to switch it to make it so we could only reserve our units, and every owner tried to reserve for the year, we'd end up with more "days" than are actually available, because points were taken out of the Treehouse Units and into the other Units to change the point charts for the THV.

I'm able to book the same # of studios as your 100 points, even if our units are different, because a studio represents a certain % of the resort, and that % is represented by points; it just a much smaller size than the actual size of the resort. For simplicity sake, let's say that a week in that studio is 1% of the resort and, for the sake of this example, that points are the same across the entire year, and that therefore it requires 100 points to book. Let's say the total points, therefore, is 10,000 for the resort. I own 10% of Unit-2BR-X and you own 20% of Unit-1BR-Y. My Unit is larger than yours, so my 100 is a smaller %. This means that my larger unit represents 1000 points of the annual points, but yours represents 500 points. But those ownerships still equate to 100 points, which would allow either of us to book a studio for a week (100 points).

Hopefully that helps? I know what I'm trying to explain, so I don't know if I'm explaining it well enough here to get the point across as to why # points = % ownership, and why differing % ownerships of units that differ in size / types of home vacation villas still represent the same number of points.

I would be careful going down this rabbit hole. The obvious solution for Disney to correct this is to not allow you to transfer to other units without charging a change fee. This could end badly for everyone.

 

[pianomanzano]

Where can one go to look up what rooms are included in the unit listed on the deed?

 

[Sandisw]

Where can one go to look up what rooms are included in the unit listed on the deed?

You have to go to the Orange County Comptroller's site and look up master declarations for them. I have not yet tried to do that but I know @Lorana has!

 

[Lorana]

But it didn’t because the % deeded doesn’t change, regardless of what the point chart says. If they sold 900,000 points for the treehouses, that never changes as long as they don’t sell more points assigned to the treehouses. And as long as points sold never goes up, the % of ownership remains the same.

But that % ownership also represents my ability to use my ownership in the year. The mechanism by which our contract allows that is the points reservation system (which is detailed in our contracts, the POS, and I believe also the master declaration). It’s why the total number of points (via the point charts) cannot exceed the total number of declared points (not sold, because DVC retains ownsership of some of the points). The point chart and the % ownership are intrinsically linked.

I would be careful going down this rabbit hole. The obvious solution for Disney to correct this is to not allow you to transfer to other units without charging a change fee. This could end badly for everyone.

I’d have to go look at the contract and the POS, but I don’t think they could actually do that, per the terms of the contract. They could only implement a system to charge a fee for booking outside my home resort.

I’d argue the obvious solution, actually, is not to move/reallocate points between vacation home villa types.

To be clear, on one level, I’m not actually trying to get them to fix the THV vs 2BR point issue (though I confess I personally would like it if they do), so much as researching the issue to ensure it’s NOT something they do *again.* Particularly as I do own at CCV and PVB, and want to ensure that, say, Cabin or Bungalow points aren’t lowered to raise other villa types (much as I’d love cabins to be cheaper!).

 

[Lorana]

Where can one go to look up what rooms are included in the unit listed on the deed?

You should be able to find them on the DVC site under “Collateral” in your profile.
Otherwise, you can get your unit # from your deed. Then, I used the search tool here: https://or.occompt.com/recorder/eagleweb/docSearch.jsp?searchId=9

I unchecked the box on the right ("Uncheck box to search specific document types") to select "Condo Drawing" and then searched for Grantee = "ResortName" (such as Saratoga Springs) with a Wildcard search type. Then I just clicked a few links until I found my actual unit. They usually appear in order, but not always.

 

[pianomanzano]

You should be able to find them on the DVC site under “Collateral” in your profile.
Otherwise, you can get your unit # from your deed. Then, I used the search tool here: https://or.occompt.com/recorder/eagleweb/docSearch.jsp?searchId=9

I unchecked the box on the right ("Uncheck box to search specific document types") to select "Condo Drawing" and then searched for Grantee = "ResortName" (such as Saratoga Springs) with a Wildcard search type. Then I just clicked a few links until I found my actual unit. They usually appear in order, but not always.

Thanks, that was interesting! My unit is three 2BRs (2 LO and a dedicated).

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I would be careful going down this rabbit hole. The obvious solution for Disney to correct this is to not allow you to transfer to other units without charging a change fee. This could end badly for everyone.

No, that is not possible and not where it could go.

 

[zavandor]

whoa. that's good work. can you do the same for CCV?

As far as I am aware, no reallocation across units has been done at CCV. They tried to do it with the 2020 reallocation, just after the resort sold out, but that was rolled back.

@Lorana you did a great job at explaining the legal issue and I agree with you. That's why, I think, DVC at the end rolled back the infamous 2020 reallocation.
While if we ever to to trial DVC might try to use a line of defence like what others are saying, it is at least an interpretation good enough to make Disney risk a damaging loss. So they prefer not to risk it.

Anyway, I'd go even one step further.
The Florida law uses the term "Timeshare Unit". Our POS has a separate definition for "Unit" and "Vacation home".
I think that the "Timeshare Unit" definition In the law matches the "Vacation Home" definition in the POS. This would be even more protective, because it would safeguard resorts with only lockoff studios against a lockoff premium increase.

 

[Lorana]

As far as I am aware, no reallocation across units has been done at CCV. They tried to do it with the 2020 reallocation, just after the resort sold out, but that was rolled back.

@Lorana you did a great job at explaining the legal issue and I agree with you. That's why, I think, DVC at the end rolled back the infamous 2020 reallocation.
While if we ever to to trial DVC might try to use a line of defence like what others are saying, it is at least an interpretation good enough to make Disney risk a damaging loss. So they prefer not to risk it.

Anyway, I'd go even one step further.
The Florida law uses the term "Timeshare Unit". Our POS has a separate definition for "Unit" and "Vacation home".
I think that the "Timeshare Unit" definition In the law matches the "Vacation Home" definition in the POS. This would be even more protective, because it would safeguard resorts with only lockoff studios against a lockoff premium increase.

Excellent point! For those who wish to know, the FL law definition (statute 721.05 is) “(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.”
Thus, by FL law, as the later statutes indicate that the “one-for-one” rule does imply points therefore cannot be moved across units.

And yes I believe this was also at the heart of the 2020 lock-off fiasco that resulted in DVC rolling back their charts as a result. They got away with it with SSR, but not with lockoff premiums, and it’s important for us to remain diligent if only because they’ve shown a willingness to try things they shouldn’t do.

I agree I don’t think CCV has seen any shift but I’ll do the math for fun to see. But I think the unit point shift is as equally important to watch as the total points in a year.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

Legally and contractually, that is not true. Per both my deed and my contract, I bought into a Unit within that condominium association.
I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree that usage is effectively the same, but that doesn't actually change the fact that the terms of my contract have been violated, and that it demonstrates that DVC does not actually have the right to reallocate points from 2BRs into THVs (which is the actual point I'm making here; I am just using the actual legal deed and contract to prove why they cannot do it).

I see the point you are making, but I am just not sure I see how you have been harmed (which is the basis of my point). If this was ever brought before a court (not saying that is your intention, but you brought up Florida law) you would need to demonstrate how you were harmed, as is the case with any lawsuit. Your contract allows you to use your points at any room type across all resorts, and that didn't change one iota with the reallocation of points. You can still book any room type, just like every other DVC member (regardless of the unit each DVC members "owns" per their individual contract). And your 100 points hold the same value as any other Saratoga Springs member who owns 100 points, even those who "own" 100 points in studio units. Again, if DVC told you that your 100 points are being reduced in value to only 90 points because of the reallocation I would absolutely see your point because you are absolutely being harmed in that instance. As a matter of fact, this reallocation could actually benefit you if you wanted to stay in a room whose points were reduced during a certain time period because of this reallocation.

But I do see the point you are making. I just don't think it is relevant because of how DVC works. Good conversation, though!

 

[Sandisw]

I see the point you are making, but I am just not sure I see how you have been harmed (which is the basis of my point). If this was ever brought before a court (not saying that is your intention, but you brought up Florida law) you would need to demonstrate how you were harmed, as is the case with any lawsuit. Your contract allows you to use your points at any room type across all resorts, and that didn't change one iota with the reallocation of points. You can still book any room type, just like every other DVC member (regardless of the unit each DVC members "owns" per their individual contract). And your 100 points hold the same value as any other Saratoga Springs member who owns 100 points, even those who "own" 100 points in studio units. Again, if DVC told you that your 100 points are being reduced in value to only 90 points because of the reallocation I would absolutely see your point because you are absolutely being harmed in that instance. As a matter of fact, this reallocation could actually benefit you if you wanted to stay in a room whose points were reduced during a certain time period because of this reallocation.

But I do see the point you are making. I just don't think it is relevant because of how DVC works. Good conversation, though!

I was thinking about it more. The value of the points we buy is in relation to the whole resort not the specific unit. Because units are not all the same size so it’s luck as to what % of the unit is yours.

Why? Because if 100 points in unit X gives you 20% of that unit, but then only 10% in unit y, the person with 100 points that represents 20% of the unit should be able to book more nights.

They don’t because the 100 points are also a % of the whole resort and that is why they have the same value for booking.

The only way a persons % of a unit decreases is if DVC adds more points to the unit for sale..

What I hade found is that there are two clauses in the POS membership agreement that seem to contradict each other. So that is where I am going to start.

 

[Bing Showei]

I worry that lost in the back and forth about the SSR THV reallocation and the issue of "personal harm" is that we overlook whether or not the move violates the terms of the POS irrespective of personal impact. Zavandor raised this aptly during the 2020 point reallocation, and when this was raised with DVCMC, many got the sense that the THV reallocation is likely a can of worms Disney would like bury away forever.

One could interpret that the precedent the 2013 reallocation had set was simple: so long as the majority of members remain "unharmed" DVCMC had carte blanche contrary to the terms of the contract they sold to members. Riviera attaining membership to the BVTC exchange despite failure to enter under similar terms as the other association members being the latest move in this same vein. Grandfathering left most members "unharmed", and most were willing to turn a blind eye, and in some instances some even argued grandfathering allowed Riviera to satisfy the "similar" requirement, despite such a move providing zero benefit to the membership.

While the vast majority of owners benefited from the THV reallocation (lower SSR costs), a number of owners who did buy in from the onset of sales in 2009 through 2012, bought in under the explicitly marketed idea that you can get a three bedroom for the cost of a two-bedroom. What Disney did in the reallocation was decrease points across SSR forcing the THV to absorb those savings and those costs went up. The masses were largely silent because most owners would benefit from cheaper two bedrooms (and by extension studios).

Imagine Disney decides that the Bs in PVB are too pricey and to balance demand a clear demand discrepancy, raised the cost of the studios by 1 point per night to reduce the point cost per night of the bungalows by 18 points. In this hypothetical instance, membership point usage would simply increase for studios as most wouldn't suddenly jump to rent bungalows. This would in turn increase breakage by way of point expenditure while Disney continued to rent out the still overpriced bungalows as cash. The THV reallocations imply this is permitted.

What I appreciate about the questions Lorana is exploring is that it asks if this is a historical wrong that needs to be righted. While in the instance of the THV and SSR, most members benefited, allowing Disney to violate terms of the POS in any instance puts membership at the mercy whichever executive is at the helm when the next machination is dreamed up in violation of the POS.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

I worry that lost in the back and forth about the SSR THV reallocation and the issue of "personal harm" is that we overlook whether or not the move violates the terms of the POS irrespective of personal impact. Zavandor raised this aptly during the 2020 point reallocation, and when this was raised with DVCMC, many got the sense that the THV reallocation is likely a can of worms Disney would like bury away forever.

One could interpret that the precedent the 2013 reallocation had set was simple: so long as the majority of members remain "unharmed" DVCMC had carte blanche contrary to the terms of the contract they sold to members. Riviera attaining membership to the BVTC exchange despite failure to enter under similar terms as the other association members being the latest move in this same vein. Grandfathering left most members "unharmed", and most were willing to turn a blind eye, and in some instances some even argued grandfathering allowed Riviera to satisfy the "similar" requirement, despite such a move providing zero benefit to the membership.

While the vast majority of owners benefited from the THV reallocation (lower SSR costs), a number of owners who did buy in from the onset of sales in 2009 through 2012, bought in under the explicitly marketed idea that you can get a three bedroom for the cost of a two-bedroom. What Disney did in the reallocation was decrease points across SSR forcing the THV to absorb those savings and those costs went up. The masses were largely silent because most owners would benefit from cheaper two bedrooms (and by extension studios).

Imagine Disney decides that the Bs in PVB are too pricey and to balance demand a clear demand discrepancy, raised the cost of the studios by 1 point per night to reduce the point cost per night of the bungalows by 18 points. In this hypothetical instance, membership point usage would simply increase for studios as most wouldn't suddenly jump to rent bungalows. This would in turn increase breakage by way of point expenditure while Disney continued to rent out the still overpriced bungalows as cash. The THV reallocations imply this is permitted.

What I appreciate about the questions Lorana is exploring is that it asks if this is a historical wrong that needs to be righted. While in the instance of the THV and SSR, most members benefited, allowing Disney to violate terms of the POS in any instance puts membership at the mercy whichever executive is at the helm when the next machination is dreamed up in violation of the POS.

Good points, but they are totally separate from the question posed by Lorana. Lorana’s claim is that the points associated with their contract are actually worth less because after the point reallocation the points to stay in the THV (the unit “owned” in their contract) increased. What happened in the 2020 point reallocation was a completely different issue, and a valid issue. The 2020 fiasco was DVC trying (it appeared) to create breakage by creating more yearly points to stay in DVC rooms than there were actual points owned. That is not what is happening here. The total yearly points to stay all Saratoga Springs rooms didn’t increase, they were reallocated.

You mentioned “a number of owners who did buy in from the onset of sales in 2009 through 2012, bought in under the explicitly marketed idea that you can get a three bedroom for the cost of a two-bedroom”. “Marketed” is different than “contracted”. Those members you mentioned knew (or should have known) that the points can be reallocated because it states that in the POS.

Now, I do agree that the reallocation of points across different room types could “harm”people if DVC is making studios more expensive by reallocating points from high points rooms that people can’t afford anyway. Your PVB situation is a perfect example of that. But in that situation everyone is harmed, not just those who own a certain unit. Because of the way the DVC point system works, we all rise with the tide (or sink with the tide) when reallocation decisions are made.

 

[Lorana]

I see the point you are making, but I am just not sure I see how you have been harmed (which is the basis of my point). If this was ever brought before a court (not saying that is your intention, but you brought up Florida law) you would need to demonstrate how you were harmed, as is the case with any lawsuit.

I actually think I’ve demonstrated the harm. I have a legal deeded real estate contract that requires my points to represent my percentage ownership, and it no longer does.

To put another way: my points - and ANY owners points - should allow you to book a THV for the same points as a 2BR. The only re-allocation allowed per the POS, the terms of my contract, and the master declaration, is within seasons based on demand, so any changes should only reflect that: all total points to book THVs should equal total points for 2BRs. They no longer do. It is more points to book THVs than 2BRs.

The value of the points we buy is in relation to the whole resort not the specific unit.

That is true in the sense that a unit is part of the larger resort, but legally/contractually, my points are a representation of the percentage ownership of my unit. That is literally what the contract says.

Why? Because if 100 points in unit X gives you 20% of that unit, but then only 10% in unit y, the person with 100 points that represents 20% of the unit should be able to book more nights.

No, it shouldn’t. That is because the way the point value system is structured, the % of points is based on the size of the unit. To present it another way, if my unit is bigger than yours and thus my percentage ownership is smaller, it is like I bought 100 points to use at a 2BR and you bought 100 points to use at a 1BR. The reservation system essentially allows me to “trade out” to use my points at any room in the resort, but if I booked at a 2BR, which I owned, I would be able to book less nights than you could with your 100 points in a 1BR. But if you “traded up” to a 2BR, you’d only be able to book the same number of nights in that 2BR, because your 100 points is still equivalent to the same total size of the resort - and thus a 2BR - as mine is. Does that make sense?

I worry that lost in the back and forth about the SSR THV reallocation and the issue of "personal harm" is that we overlook whether or not the move violates the terms of the POS irrespective of personal impact.

This right here. As I stated, I’m not necessarily arguing we should re-litigate THV so much as show that DVC *did* violate the POS and my contract, and that this is something we should not allow DVC to do. The argument that it’s no big deal because you’ve got 100 points still and can still use it the same as everyone else, ignores the fact that Disney made a change that did have a negative impact on cost to book THVs *and* one that isn’t allowed by the terms of my contract and the POS. @Bing Showei’s point above about Bungalows (or Cabins) is in fact the thing I worry about, and why I’ve said it’s important for people to know this so they don’t do something again, and that owners aren’t so willing to turn a blind eye to it - partly because they benefited from DVC reallocating points to THVs and partly because they didn’t understand what the actual issue is, which is violating the terms of the POS.

Good points, but they are totally separate from the question posed by Lorana. Lorana’s claim is that the points associated with their contract are actually worth less because after the point reallocation the points to stay in the THV (the unit “owned” in their contract) increased.

Actually, if you’ll note in my other posts, I called out that I was trying to illustrate the point that DVC is not allowed to reallocate across units that would affect the % ownership / total points for those units, and that I was using my ownership of a THV deed at SSR to prove why they legally cannot do what they did.

What happened in the 2020 point reallocation was a completely different issue, and a valid issue.

It’s actually the same issue, because LOs are part of many units, and increasing those total points for a LO would increase the total points in those units for a year, thus making it so the % ownership is no longer accurately reflected by the points you have. Because they did it across the board, it was very easy to illustrate by looking across the entire resort because it cause point inflation. In SSRs case, because they kept total resort points the same, but lowered some units at the expense of others, they were able to hide it / many owners didn’t care, and thus “got away with it.” But that doesn’t mean they’re legally allowed to do it.

Those members you mentioned knew (or should have known) that the points can be reallocated because it states that in the POS.

The POS only allows them to reallocate points across seasons to handle demand, but does not allow them to reallocate across units. In this very particular case, because units can be just THVs, they also cannot raise the total cost to book THVs in a year because it violates the contract that says 100 points in this unit must represent .3314% of the unit.

Everyone in this case is harmed. THVs cost more for *everyone.* What you’re arguing is not whether or not harm has occurred - the math is very clear in this case that there is harm as I illustrated above - but whether or not owners *care* that they did so.