DVC resale changes coming!?!

[Greysword]

Tdisney, I may be wrong as I can not reference our contracts until I get home this evening, but I do not recall anything about the collections nor trading into the other Disney resorts in the actual contract. Instead, this info and the provision of it are in the annual POS, I think.

I will need to check, but I don't think DVD promised anything in the actual signed documents except the resort purchased. If this is the case, then they are covered since they would not have promised anything in the first place.

maybe someone more versed in this can respond, too.

 

[Dean]

Yes you are correct but the difference is it is devaluating what you own as compared to Disney. If Disney said ok as of July 1 2013 any one who buys DVC will not have access to the concierge collection is one thing but to say only if you buy from Disney even though the contract possessed by the seller has access to them is different. Again I am not a lawyer and I think no one would really stick their neck out because it is not cost effective to hire a lawyer to try and gain 5 to 10 thousand dollars back. However if a lawyer saw that because of this, resale contracts were devalued as a whole several millions, then it might be. So could disney say ok every one except for John Do gets access to the concierge collection just because Disney wants it that way ? I am sure they could but would that hold up in a court, I doubt it. As long as he hasn't done anything wrong.

Again, other companies have done this with larger populations and far more drastically than DVC has done without any issues that I am aware of and certainly not enough to backtrack. In some cases they made the contracts essentially worthless with people having to pay others to take them to get out from under it. IMO, the bottom line is that unless they do something that one can see as cross ways to the home resort POS or FL statute 721, there's no issue and essentially no risk. The only things I've seen them do that I personally consider possibly in violation of the POS were the special assessment for OKW extensions and the fact they have no included member input on the BOD.

 

[Tdisney]

Tdisney, I may be wrong as I can not reference our contracts until I get home this evening, but I do not recall anything about the collections nor trading into the other Disney resorts in the actual contract. Instead, this info and the provision of it are in the annual POS, I think.

I will need to check, but I don't think DVD promised anything in the actual signed documents except the resort purchased. If this is the case, then they are covered since they would not have promised anything in the first place.

maybe someone more versed in this can respond, too.

If this is not in the contract as to what "perks" you get as an owner then Dean would be correct in that Disney could take away those any time they wanted.

But back to the OP's original thread; how could they remove the ability to book at a non home resort if you buy resale ?

Great info all.

 

[Dean]

If this is not in the contract as to what "perks" you get as an owner then Dean would be correct in that Disney could take away those any time they wanted.

But back to the OP's original thread; how could they remove the ability to book at a non home resort if you buy resale ?

Great info all.

IMO they can't other than prescribed methods of removing a given resort from the system. I believe this issue has completely grown out of idle speculation and has been picked up by others as a real possibility. They can make changes but I believe those changes would have to pertain to all for current club resorts.

Not only are the perks not listed by name, there is language that say that if there are perks, they could be changed or taken away. I'd refer you to the reallocations times 2, the valet parking removal and the book a full week at a time. There is a very large and heated thread about each of these four topics over the last few years.

 

[nd43]

Tdisney, I may be wrong as I can not reference our contracts until I get home this evening, but I do not recall anything about the collections nor trading into the other Disney resorts in the actual contract. Instead, this info and the provision of it are in the annual POS, I think.

I will need to check, but I don't think DVD promised anything in the actual signed documents except the resort purchased. If this is the case, then they are covered since they would not have promised anything in the first place.

maybe someone more versed in this can respond, too.

Disney advertises this benefit all over the place. They consistently market their product as having the greatest flexibility... over and over... they claim book any room, any size, in any DVC resort. This is the very core of the offering. It is how they created and sold the entire system. You cannot promote your entire offering one way and then claim the fine print of a contract allows you to exclude it. Frankly, the law is not that friendly to large corps who appear to be duping the general public by fine print. Even a change to just resale would be risky here.

They would have to announce such a change very clearly across all channels and grandfather people or face large lawsuits from class action attorneys dying for such cases. Disney is a prime target for lawsuits and they would not make it that easy for class action attorneys. They will tread carefully in this area IMO.

Frankly, if I were them, I would give my sales team an "upgrade" product they could sell to resale buyers to take them to direct status and keep finding new benefits for direct buyers. That way, every resale gives them another selling opportunity vs. the impression they lost a direct sale. They see every resale contract so it is an easy sales / marketing database to manage and they already have a captive customer who just purchased into Disney. It would have to be carefully constructed to still be slightly less favorable to the direct sale method as to not acccidently incent a backdoor. The crazy thing is they could sell this upgrade over and over everytime the same contract is sold. They could end up making 5x the value of the contract over time by cycling it back to full status.

I think it could be done.

 

[tjkraz]

Disney advertises this benefit all over the place. They consistently market their product as having the greatest flexibility... over and over... they claim book any room, any size, in any DVC resort. This is the very core of the offering. It is how they created and sold the entire system. You cannot promote your entire offering one way and then claim the fine print of a contract allows you to exclude it. Frankly, the law is not that friendly to large corps who appear to be duping the general public by fine print. Even a change to just resale would be risky here.

You must be new to timeshares. Most timeshare salespeople will lie to your face about program features, ease of trading, etc. The signed documents supersede every verbal representation made during the sales process.

And future program changes are certainly allowed if permitted by the docs.

I'll give you a very real example in the DVC world. About 4 years ago DVC modified the point charts for the first time in over a decade. When it happened, many posters claimed "my salesperson said the points would never change!"

But the ability to adjust the point charts is clearly outlined in the POS. There have now been changes 3 of the last 4 years.

Even the most forthright salespeople can only sell the product as it exists on a given date. If management makes changes which still fall within the purview of the POS, any verbal commitments made previously are meaningless.

As for attorneys lining up to sue Disney...only if there is a legitimate case. Disney has deep pockets and could drag out proceedings for an extended period.

Changes to the timeshare program wouldn't garner a lot of public sympathy. We aren't talking about a suit involving injury or death of a park guest where a jury could act unpredictably. It would be middle to upper-middle class DVC owners--all of whom had sufficient means to make five-figure financial commitments to Disney--suing over an administrative change.

If the changes were dramatic enough, they could send shockwaves through DVC ownership. And if a group of owners wanted to challenge the changes, they may even win. But it would be a hard-fought battle. And it certainly would not be front page news, nor a major source of embarrassment for the company.

 

[Dean]

Disney advertises this benefit all over the place. They consistently market their product as having the greatest flexibility... over and over... they claim book any room, any size, in any DVC resort. This is the very core of the offering. It is how they created and sold the entire system. You cannot promote your entire offering one way and then claim the fine print of a contract allows you to exclude it. Frankly, the law is not that friendly to large corps who appear to be duping the general public by fine print. Even a change to just resale would be risky here.

They would have to announce such a change very clearly across all channels and grandfather people or face large lawsuits from class action attorneys dying for such cases. Disney is a prime target for lawsuits and they would not make it that easy for class action attorneys. They will tread carefully in this area IMO.

Frankly, if I were them, I would give my sales team an "upgrade" product they could sell to resale buyers to take them to direct status and keep finding new benefits for direct buyers. That way, every resale gives them another selling opportunity vs. the impression they lost a direct sale. They see every resale contract so it is an easy sales / marketing database to manage and they already have a captive customer who just purchased into Disney. It would have to be carefully constructed to still be slightly less favorable to the direct sale method as to not acccidently incent a backdoor. The crazy thing is they could sell this upgrade over and over everytime the same contract is sold. They could end up making 5x the value of the contract over time by cycling it back to full status.

I think it could be done.

People can sue over anything but the paperwork is very clear. Many timeshares over many years who are far more out there than DVC has survived these issues with very little (but some) legal issues and none I can think of related to these type of questions. They tend to protect themselves very well.

More specifically I'm not sure they formally advertise the way you state and even when they do, it's never specific. Saying "we're flexible" and then taking away something that you or I see as making it less flexible is not the same as a clear violation of the written rules. It's not even to the level of he said/she said.

 

[joeandmel]

Now is this for new resale purchases or all resale purchases?

 

[tjkraz]

Now is this for new resale purchases or all resale purchases?

Neither. The thread is four months old and absolutely no new restrictions have been announced. Until proven otherwise, this is just another baseless rumor.

 

[dmoore22]

incidental benefits may not be hypothecated, bought, sold, exchanged, rented or otherwise transferred, except upon written approval of dvd, and are solely for your benefit and not for the benefit of your assigns or successors-in-interest. If you sell your ownership interest, incidental benefits do not automatically transfer to your buyer. The availability of incidental benefits may or may not be renewed or extended to such assigns or successors-in interest. Dvd reserves the right, in its sole, absolute and unfettered discretion, to elect to permit transfer of any one or more incidental benefits, and, if it does so, may require payment of fees and/or charges as a condition to transfer.
do not purchase your ownership interest in reliance on your ability to transfer incidental benefits if you sell your ownership interest.
members who purchase ownership interests in any dvc resort from a person or entity other than directly from dvd shall not be able to use the vacation points associated with that ownership interest for reservations or stays through the incidental benefits known as the adventurer collection, concierge collection or disney collection.

 

[michael61]

We are here at Disney now. We are not currently DVC owners but have considered it for years. I was told today by a DVC sales person at a resort that DVC is getting ready to make some changes to where if you purchase DVC on resale, you will only be able to stay at the resort you purchased at. I was also told that the new President of DVC is not letting as many resales go through ROFR as the prior president did.

Can anyone confirm either of these?

I would love to own DVC, but the resale prices are a stretch... based on what he said the purchase price is directly from DVC, I don't know how it would ever pay for itself.

He said if I wanted to buy resale, I better do it now, so I would be grandfathered in.

Hard for me to Believe if I bought at OKW thinking it does not matter what resort I own because any one would buy it when I want to sell and now when I sell it they only can stay there I may have bought at a better resort to keep my values up,why would we not get together and do a class auction? Disney would know that would happen I don't think it will happen with that risk out there.

 

[michael61]

incidental benefits may not be hypothecated, bought, sold, exchanged, rented or otherwise transferred, except upon written approval of dvd, and are solely for your benefit and not for the benefit of your assigns or successors-in-interest. If you sell your ownership interest, incidental benefits do not automatically transfer to your buyer. The availability of incidental benefits may or may not be renewed or extended to such assigns or successors-in interest. Dvd reserves the right, in its sole, absolute and unfettered discretion, to elect to permit transfer of any one or more incidental benefits, and, if it does so, may require payment of fees and/or charges as a condition to transfer.
do not purchase your ownership interest in reliance on your ability to transfer incidental benefits if you sell your ownership interest.
members who purchase ownership interests in any dvc resort from a person or entity other than directly from dvd shall not be able to use the vacation points associated with that ownership interest for reservations or stays through the incidental benefits known as the adventurer collection, concierge collection or disney collection.

That's not in my 15 year old Agreement and I bought it with the Knowledge I can transfer it or sell it and the next owner and they can use any of the resorts. My value would be worth a lot less on resale and Probably would not have bought them knowing this. I would think an Attorney would jump all over this but I was told by a sales rep that when I sell my DVC that I can transfer or sell it and the next owner and they will also be allowed to use the points at any resort. I will check out my old sales Literature to find it and will post soon.

 

[JimMIA]

Hard for me to Believe if I bought at OKW thinking it does not matter what resort I own because any one would buy it when I want to sell and now when I sell it they only can stay there I may have bought at a better resort to keep my values up,why would we not get together and do a class auction? Disney would know that would happen I don't think it will happen with that risk out there.

Everyone in a timeshare transaction has responsibilities. The consumer's responsibility is to understand what they are buying.

What you were thinking, AND what a timeshare salesman told you, at the time of purchase is irrelevant. The documents you sign specifically warn you NOT to rely on anything other than what the developer gives you in writing. Everything you sign says what you bought is described in the Public Offering Statement and the documents you sign -- AND that nothing else has any legal weight.

Having been specifically warned -- in writing -- any consumer who relies on anything else is responsible for whatever happens to them. You can't ignore written warnings, required by law to protect the consumer, and then claim you were taken advantage of.

If a consumer sued saying "But I thought I bought..." they'd be laughed out of court.

 

[Dean]

That's not in my 15 year old Agreement and I bought it with the Knowledge I can transfer it or sell it and the next owner and they can use any of the resorts. My value would be worth a lot less on resale and Probably would not have bought them knowing this. I would think an Attorney would jump all over this but I was told by a sales rep that when I sell my DVC that I can transfer or sell it and the next owner and they will also be allowed to use the points at any resort. I will check out my old sales Literature to find it and will post soon.

The sales literature means nothing, all that means anything are the contract and resort specific POS and to a lessor degree, the multi site POS. It is my opinion as I've stated, that legally this is not possible but it's not the threat of legal action which really has no impact on the issue one way or another.

 

[AmyB2006]

The sales literature means nothing, all that means anything are the contract and resort specific POS and to a lessor degree, the multi site POS. It is my opinion as I've stated, that legally this is not possible but it's not the threat of legal action which really has no impact on the issue one way or another.

Agreed. Also, this thread is 6 months old, how did it get dredged up again?

 

[BestDadEver]

I'll give you a very real example in the DVC world. About 4 years ago DVC modified the point charts for the first time in over a decade. When it happened, many posters claimed "my salesperson said the points would never change!"

But the ability to adjust the point charts is clearly outlined in the POS. There have now been changes 3 of the last 4 years.

I am sure this happened . I wasn't around . But it doesn't mean they weren't told that it could happen . I think people don't understand this when they are told . I know I was told multiple times by guides . There always seems to be confusion around this , couple that with people not paying full attention , and you get a bunch of people that think they were supposed to get something they thought they were told . Plus add the time that went by 4 years . They didn't get it the then you think they get it 4 years down the road .

I saw this happen on my most recent trip to WDW with my in laws they mis interpreted everything the travel agent said and would get upset about it . Example they didn't know EMH were only one park per day , they were waiting at the bus 1 hour early for a park that did't have EMH . They were unhappy but who's fault is that . Their's .

 

[Dean]

I am sure this happened . I wasn't around . But it doesn't mean they weren't told that it could happen . I think people don't understand this when they are told . I know I was told multiple times by guides . There always seems to be confusion around this , couple that with people not paying full attention , and you get a bunch of people that think they were supposed to get something they thought they were told . Plus add the time that went by 4 years . They didn't get it the then you think they get it 4 years down the road .

I saw this happen on my most recent trip to WDW with my in laws they mis interpreted everything the travel agent said and would get upset about it . Example they didn't know EMH were only one park per day , they were waiting at the bus 1 hour early for a park that did't have EMH . They were unhappy but who's fault is that . Their's .

I'm convinced many were either told it would never happen again, or it was not mentioned although it is in the POS. The reality is that it doesn't matter what they were told, it means nothing if not in the official documentation.

 

[nabi]

Agreed. Also, this thread is 6 months old, how did it get dredged up again?

I was surprised to see this one pop up again!

 

[rmcildw2m]

does anyone have insight on when these restrictions might be put into place ?

 

[Dean]

does anyone have insight on when these restrictions might be put into place ?

No one that can say anything. I think you can assume there will be changes and they will not be the changes of question in the OP. Whether those changes will affect the usage or nature of a given owner depends. IF one buys DVC to use at DVC resorts and is realistic, I don't think it'll ever matter but this is in DVD's lap.