Anyone else struggling with the climate of evasiveness?

[CarolynFH]

BPK wasn’t a refurb. It was supposed to be “new” for sale. It’s one thing to not redo the electrical in an elevator. But it is shocking that Disney didn’t even address scuff marks and wear and tear in the elevator. They should have taken the building to the studs before selling it as new. New timeshare owners are not responsible for the upkeep Disney did not do precious to sale. They are responsible for future refurbs.

I agree.

And thinking about these posts, I’ve come to realize that when DVC says “refurb,” they mean “make it pretty,” not necessarily fully functional or brought back to like-new. So I pray they’re fixing the plumbing issues at BWV during this current refurb. I’m paying for it, they’re not!

 

[mkatsy]

I agree.

And thinking about these posts, I’ve come to realize that when DVC says “refurb,” they mean “make it pretty,” not necessarily fully functional or brought back to like-new. So I pray they’re fixing the plumbing issues at BWV during this current refurb. I’m paying for it, they’re not!

What will be very interesting is to see how renovations and capex are handled on the 2042 resorts and they get closer to the turnover. It wouldn't surprise me to see a situation where there is a refurb paid with dues right before expiration. In the commercial real estate world where ground leases are commonplace, the lessee stops putting money into the improvements in anticipation of the expiration.

but doesn't the extension of some of the contracts compound that issue. The 2042 expiration is not unilateral, you have folks on the 2057 OKW carrying on like it's a regular year. That's why I can see them taking the 2042 contracts that opt out of an extension and dumping them in a trust, comingling the points with the shiny fun stuff of the day, and then sticking everyone (trust & 2057 people) with the dues bill to keep the place on life support.

 

[Sandisw]

but doesn't the extension of some of the contracts compound that issue. The 2042 expiration is not unilateral, you have folks on the 2057 OKW carrying on like it's a regular year. That's why I can see them taking the 2042 contracts that opt out of an extension and dumping them in a trust, comingling the points with the shiny fun stuff of the day, and then sticking everyone (trust & 2057 people) with the dues bill to keep the place on life support.

They can’t just add points to the trust. They have to add actual rooms.

Since owners own part of every unit, even with DvD getting them back, there is not necessarily going to be entire units that DVd owns.

As long one other person owns in a unit, that unit can’t go to the trust as trust property.

 

[mkatsy]

They can’t just add points to the trust. They have to add actual rooms.

Since owners own part of every unit, even with DvD getting them back, there is not necessarily going to be entire units that DVd owns.

As long one other person owns in a unit, that unit can’t go to the trust as trust property.

can't they just ROFR 2057 contracts "go fish" style until the fill a until then send it over to the trust

 

[Sandisw]

can't they just ROFR 2057 contracts "go fish" style until the fill a until then send it over to the trust

Each contract is already deeded to a specific unit so every owner of that unit would have to sell…

Since it’s not up to DVD which owners are going to sell, they can only take back contracts via ROFR if someone decides to sell.

If I own part of a unit and don’t want to sell, thst unit can’t go.

Now, they can certainly try to get back ownership of entire units, but just making the point that until they are the only owner, that can’t go into the trust because DVd doesn’t have the right to add it if other owners exist.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

I'm not sure what the legal ramifications would be or even if it would benefit DVC, but if they need to acquire complete units in order to declare them into the trust, could DVC possibly offer an incentive to exchange units with existing owners?

Something like a cash bonus to swap their unit (assuming DVC needs their share of that unit to be able to declare it into the trust) for the same number of points just with ownership interest in a different unit. Owners who agreed to an arrangement like this would not see any change with how their membership works (most people have no idea what unit they own a % of anyway).

 

[Sandisw]

I'm not sure what the legal ramifications would be or even if it would benefit DVC, but if they need to acquire complete units in order to declare them into the trust, could DVC possibly offer an incentive to exchange units with existing owners?

Something like a cash bonus to swap their unit (assuming DVC needs their share of that unit to be able to declare it into the trust) for the same number of points just with ownership interest in a different unit. Owners who agreed to an arrangement like this would not see any change with how their membership works (most people have no idea what unit they own a % of anyway).

I bet that is something that they could try to do.

As you said,which unit you own doesn’t matter.

It could help with them being able to do some creative things.

 

[walt34]

I'm not sure what the legal ramifications would be or even if it would benefit DVC, but if they need to acquire complete units in order to declare them into the trust, could DVC possibly offer an incentive to exchange units with existing owners?

Let's assume a really good offer can get them 80% or 90% or even 95% on several units. But how do you get to 100%? Unless there is a provision in the contracts or timeshare law that enables them to 'move' people who don't want to, I don't see this working out. Wouldn't some people start to gamble? What's the last 0,0001% of a unit worth to DVD?

 

[Sandisw]

Let's assume a really good offer can get them 80% or 90% or even 95% on several units. But how do you get to 100%? Unless there is a provision in the contracts or timeshare law that enables them to 'move' people who don't want to, I don't see this working out. Wouldn't some people start to gamble? What's the last 0,0001% of a unit worth to DVD?

There is nothing that can force an owner to sell and rebuy...which is essentially what has to happen....they sell to DVD and DVD sells them a new ownership interest in another unit.

 

[walt34]

There is nothing that can force an owner to sell and rebuy...which is essentially what has to happen....they sell to DVD and DVD sells them a new ownership interest in another unit.

Then this will probably not work too well. I'd assume there will always be a least a handful of hold-outs/gamblers for each unit.

Depending on the jurisdiction, selling and rebuying could also result in taxes.

 

[Rex1993]

My apologies for getting a bit lost here but what specific statute bars Disney from purchasing undivided interests in existing properties in trust form?

 

[mkatsy]

There is nothing that can force an owner to sell and rebuy...which is essentially what has to happen....they sell to DVD and DVD sells them a new ownership interest in another unit.

wouldn't they just quit claim deed them? the only cost would be the couple hundred bucks to file with the county. I think a certain percentage of people would do it just because they were asked. Look at the people who voluntarily signed the quit claim deed waiving an extension at the end of 2042 at OKW. The people that ignored the request from Disney are now in some legal flux of uncertainly because the ground lease was extended to 2057 but their contract says 2042.

 

[Sandisw]

My apologies for getting a bit lost here but what specific statute bars Disney from purchasing undivided interests in existing properties in trust form?

Here is how I understand it. The way the trust is set up is that DVD has to declare and define the trust property it will add to the trust and that resort property is then activated for them to sell access to the property.

They can only add units that they own in

Units that are already declared into a different association have to follow those rules and fall under those POS document.

So, DVD can’t add a unit to the trust that a non trust owner owns and has to be given access to every day because of the way our POS is written

People mention points but this isn’t about point..is real property that has to become trust property and that is why DVD must make trust property property it actual owns.

 

[Sandisw]

wouldn't they just quit claim deed them? the only cost would be the couple hundred bucks to file with the county. I think a certain percentage of people would do it just because they were asked. Look at the people who voluntarily signed the quit claim deed waiving an extension at the end of 2042 at OKW. The people that ignored the request from Disney are now in some legal flux of uncertainly because the ground lease was extended to 2057 but their contract says 2042.

If I own a deed in Unit 1 and don’t want to sell, DVD can’t force me to quit claim deed it to them in exchange for a different share of a unit.

So, as long as someone other than DVD owns a fractional share of any unit, that unit remains part of the OKw property until 2057

 

[Rex1993]

Units that are already declared into a different association have to follow those rules and fall under those POS document.

So, DVD can’t add a unit to the trust that a non trust owner owns and has to be given access to every day because of the way our POS is written

What specific provisions of the POS dictate this? Are there specific terms in the Master Declaration that prevent DVC or TWDC/Affiliates from pooling points and reselling the beneficial ownership? Is so, where?

 

[Sandisw]

What specific provisions of the POS dictate this? Are there specific terms in the Master Declaration that prevent DVC or TWDC/Affiliates from pooling points and reselling the beneficial ownership? Is so, where?

The units declared into the POS must be available to all owners every day and only owners of those units can book them during the home resort period.


So, they exist as resort property as part of the current condo association.

Thst means they exist in one association and there is language that indicates they can’t exist in another plan. Thst is one piece that I think supports they can’t put a fractional ownership of one unit into another.

In addition , read the terms of the trust documents and how that is set up. The FL statues do discuss selling timeshare estates and trust use plan.

As a developer, they are allowed to add property to the trust and must define the property. Thst property then must be activated for sale as part of a trust use plan, and that is what they are selling…access to units that are there for booking by owners of that specific plan.


An example. if they own .00% of Unit 11 in VGF. Thst unit includes 101 rooms. So, what actual property would get added to to trust?

Those rooms can’t be split since they are part of the VGF condo association and sold that way.

That is why I do not read it that they can add a fractional share of the unit because they can’t pull actual rooms to represent their ownership.

Look at how they activated the current 30 cabins. It said how many points and then tied it to the specific resort maps.

So, it’s all of those pieces that would prevent them from adding a unit from a sold out resort thst they don’t have complete ownership of at this point, at least from how I am reading it all.

ETA: Now, any units at a resort that had not yet been declared into the current vacation plan in a resort can be moved without issue. Bit having the same inventory sold in two different vacation plans doesn’t match the wording of our POS…and the way the leasehold condo was set up.

 

[Cfabar1]

BPK wasn’t a refurb. It was supposed to be “new” for sale. It’s one thing to not redo the electrical in an elevator. But it is shocking that Disney didn’t even address scuff marks and wear and tear in the elevator. They should have taken the building to the studs before selling it as new. New timeshare owners are not responsible for the upkeep Disney did not do previous to sale. They are responsible for future refurbs.

Yet owners (like myself) who went on tours didn't care about this, and bought anyways....

The new timeshare owners (and ones from the original building too) are responsible, because they agreed to purchase the property and become responsible for the associated upkeep.

 

[lowlight]

Yet owners (like myself) who went on tours didn't care about this, and bought anyways....

The new timeshare owners (and ones from the original building too) are responsible, because they agreed to purchase the property and become responsible for the associated upkeep.

That’s the thing, existing owners had no say.

 

[Sandisw]

That’s the thing, existing owners had no say.

Well, when we all buy, we agree to allow DVd to add additional phases to the resort without our approval.

So, in that sense, all VGF owners agreed at time of purchase.

 

[Sammie]

It has nothing to do with narcissism. I bought into deluxe villas, not moderates. You have no standards and that’s ok “for you”. I would have bought one of those timeshares that Eric Estrada pushes on late night TV if I wanted junk. Enjoy your cabins though.

I have standards just because they don't align with yours does not mean mine are wrong and for you to think that only yours are THE standard tells me much. I don't know that I will stay at the cabins often, but I see the advantage of having them. I don't have to like something to see the value of it. I just happen to think that not everything has to be what I like. I personally prefer our stays at the Beach Club Villas and Grand Floridian.