DVDMC files amendments to separate use year from unit #

[ScubaCat]

I've seen this hinted in the Multi-Site POS discussion thread but not the amendments for the L14 resorts specifically. Nevertheless, DVDMC has filed amendments to the existing resort member agreements to separate use year from the unit numbers. Here is the one for BCV. (All are identical.)

http://or.occompt.com/recorder/eagl...45.pdf?id=DOC2592S3335.A0&parent=DOC2592S3335

They also changed one other section to relieve themselves of the obligation to send out advance notice other than posting it when it goes into effect as a notification bullet on dvcmember.com. This should make their ROFR decisions much easier because they can now buy back anything and flip it to the next person on the waitlist without having to match the UY.

Specifically, they filed for the 9 sold out properties in Orange County, FL, which are OKW, BWV, BCV, AKV, SSR, BRV@WL, BLT, VGF, & PVB. I believe the CCV agreement already has the updated language.

EDIT to correct my obvious gaffe above: They filed amendments for the others, but since they are not located in Orange County, they obviously would not be on the Orange County Comptroller web site. (duh)

EDIT 2: I found the one for Vero Beach. I don't really feel like looking for any more, but I'm fairly confident they filed for all 13 (pre-CCV) properties.

 

[Drewferin]

Wow, great find and post. You have to wonder how quick all waitlists will be cleared for those 9 sold out resorts. Maybe their short term ROFR will spike to clear all waitlists...

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

And several people have gotten calls in the past day or two that their points are available. It does make it easier to buy the "sold out" resorts direct. Still at a hefty price though.

 

[Matty B13]

Wonder if they will let current owners change their UY?

 

[kboo]

Wonder if they will let current owners change their UY?

Heh. I bet it might cost you. (Sorry. I just don't expect anything good to trickle down to current owners any more. I think I should feel grateful that our pre-1/19/19 points are grandfathered... )

 

[Matty B13]

Heh. I bet it might cost you. (Sorry. I just don't expect anything good to trickle down to current owners any more. I think I should feel grateful that our pre-1/19/19 points are grandfathered... )

I wouldn't mind paying for a title company to change the deed, and a small fee to DVC to get all my contract UY's in the same month.

But, I'm guessing it won't be a small fee........ But it would probably cut down on their CM's work load, because of all the phone calls they take to "link" or "combine" reservations.

 

[Bing Showei]

I read this to provide flexibility to Disney to alter the currently assigned UY on a deed once it takes possession of it, not unlike how they can now freely break up larger contracts into smaller ones. This is strictly to help Disney. I'm with kboo that there should be zero expectation that this will benefit members beyond Disney being able to more quickly sell you $225 BCV points for your UY. Magic!

 

[ScubaCat]

Wonder if they will let current owners change their UY?

No chance. This is just to make it easier for them to resell contracts.

 

[Katie L]

I've seen this hinted in the Multi-Site POS discussion thread but not the amendments for the L14 resorts specifically. Nevertheless, DVDMC has filed amendments to the existing resort member agreements to separate use year from the unit numbers. Here is the one for BCV. (All are identical.)

http://or.occompt.com/recorder/eagl...45.pdf?id=DOC2592S3335.A0&parent=DOC2592S3335

They also changed one other section to relieve themselves of the obligation to send out advance notice other than posting it when it goes into effect as a notification bullet on dvcmember.com. This should make their ROFR decisions much easier because they can now buy back anything and flip it to the next person on the waitlist without having to match the UY.

Specifically, they filed for the 9 sold out properties in Orange County, FL, which are OKW, BWV, BCV, AKV, SSR, BRV@WL, BLT, VGF, & PVB. I believe the CCV agreement already has the updated language.

EDIT to correct my obvious gaffe above: They filed amendments for the others, but since they are not located in Orange County, they obviously would not be on the Orange County Comptroller web site. (duh)

EDIT 2: I found the one for Vero Beach. I don't really feel like looking for any more, but I'm fairly confident they filed for all 13 (pre-CCV) properties.

They are really intent on completely destroying the brand's integrity. Very sad.

 

[Katie L]

So this went into effect as of the date signed? (March 6.) And they can amend the agreement at any time without any say from membership? What about the group that is supposed to guarantee that changes will be to the good of DVC members?

 

[BillPA]

What ever makes more money for DVC, and bigger bonus checks, is good for DVC. NOT always good for the owners.

 

[drusba]

So via a change to the DVC Membership Agreement, DVD is now asserting that it can change the use years of units and resell ownership interests recovered via ROFR or foreclosure as any use year. One's initial reaction may be that is good because now owners on a wait list may be able to get points in their same use year. But let's consider what is actually occurring here because this is just stage 3 of DVD's declaration that it can do anything it wants to members, good or BAD, despite what is contained in the POS, deeds or prior representations made by the company, including in writing.

Stage 1 was the attempted point chart change to raise studios year round because of excess demand for studios. Prior oral and written representations and the terms of the DVC Membership Agreement should not have allowed what was attempted because of the requirement that changes be seasonal changes and the raising of studio points in any use days have to be met by an equal lowering of studio points in other use days. Moreover, the main cause of excessive demand for studios was DVD. About 10 years ago it decided to lower point requirements for new purchasers to 50 to 100 points, since then it has over the years raised the price of new points about 80% despite that wages were stagnant and the inflation rate for that time period was a total of 17%. Moreover, it added extremely point expensive bungalows and cabins which gave it the ability to "oversell" studios by selling bungalow and cabin points to purchasers getting enough points for studios. In other words, the point change suggested was mainly done to correct the very problem DVD itself created, while DVD would be allowed to continue on its path of excess greed, raising prices and overselling studios. Though that change was withdrawn, DVD/DVC still insist they had the right to do it.

Stage 2 was the new resale restriction to prohibit resale purchasers from reserving Riviera. That is one being done despite that the POS's provide that all owners and Club Members of the existing 14 DVC Resorts have the right to reserve any DVC Resort using the DVC Reservation Component, including any new one added to the DVC Reservation Component. BVTC and DVD also plainly just ignored the prior DVC Resort Agreements, which required any new DVC Resort to have the same material terms as the existing DVC Resort Agreements, by creating a new DVC Resort Agreement for Riviera that was substantially different in material terms from prior agreements.

Now we have stage 3, where in the name of DVD making more profits via add-ons, DVD and DVCMC purport to change the terms of the DVC Membership Agreements to eliminate the rule that all ownership interests in any given "unit" will have the same use year. The problem with that is that DVCMC's right to amend the Membershio Agreement cannot be construed as a right to amend the POS's of the resorts and all the deeds issued to the new purchasers of all the 14 existing resorts. Read the deeds and they expressly provide that the entire unit has a specific use year. Read the Component Site and Multi-Site POS's and they expressly provide that all ownership interests in any given unit shall have the same use year.

In essence, through its activities in the last three months, we now know DVD's position on everything as it relates to the members: in the name of making more excess profits, it can do anything it wants to do to destroy rights of the members, including changing material rights created in the POS's and even changing your deeds, by just declaring it has done so.

 

[Grumpy6264]

They are really intent on completely destroying the brand's integrity. Very sad.

How does this destroy the brand's integrity. I don't see how allowing points that Disney has reacquired to be sold as any use year is a big issue. It will make it ROFR more prevalent (which probably has the impact of buoying resale prices), but it will make direct purchases for sold out resorts somewhat better for those who choose to buy direct.

This is by no means a judgement as to whether buying direct is a good idea or not (we each have our opinions on that), but if it make it easier to match existing contracts with new direct contracts to me that is a good thing.

I am also not going to pass judgement as to whether this is driven by greed (to some extent, everything that Disney does is driven by greed. They are a public company after all) or not. I just don't see this as a negative.

As far as the change to the notice wording, I don't see that as a big deal. If fact, if they post it on the members website, I like that. I can't loose the website, I can loose emails, letters and new letters.

 

[Katie L]

In essence, through its activities in the last three months, we now know DVD'ss position on everything as it relates to the members: in the name of making more excess profits, it can do anything it wants to do to destroy rights of the members, including changing material rights created in the POS's and even changing your deeds, by just declaring it has done so

Very well summed up, drusba. And very sad. We have a contract in ROFR (our first contract). I expect it to get taken. And we won't be attempting for another one. I don't want to do business with this company anymore.

 

[crvetter]

So via a change to the DVC Membership Agreement, DVD is now asserting that it can change the use years of units and resell ownership interests recovered via ROFR or foreclosure as any use year. One's initial reaction may be that is good because now owners on a wait list may be able to get points in their same use year. But let's consider what is actually occurring here because this is just stage 3 of DVD's declaration that it can do anything it wants to members, good or BAD, despite what is contained in the POS, deeds or prior representations made by the company, including in writing.

Stage 1 was the attempted point chart change to raise studios year round because of excess demand for studios. Prior oral and written representations and the terms of the DVC Membership Agreement should not have allowed what was attempted because of the requirement that changes be seasonal changes and the raising of studio points in any use days have to be met by an equal lowering of studio points in other use days. Moreover, the main cause of excessive demand for studios was DVD. About 10 years ago it decided to lower point requirements for new purchasers to 50 to 100 points, since then it has over the years raised the price of new points about 80% despite that wages were stagnant and the inflation rate for that time period was a total of 17%. Moreover, it added extremely point expensive bungalows and cabins which gave it the ability to "oversell" studios by selling this points to purchasers getting enough points for studios. In other words, the point change suggested was mainly done to correct the very problem DVD itself created, while DVD would be allowed to continue on its path of excess greed, raising prices and overselling studios. Though that change was withdrawn, DVD/DVC still insist they had the right to do it.

Stage 2 was the new resale restriction to prohibit resale purchasers from reserving Riviera. That is one being done despite that the POS's provide that all owners and Club Members of the existing 14 DVC Resorts have the right to reserve any DVC Resort using the DVC Reservation Component, including any new one added to the DVC Reservation Component. BVTC and DVD also plainly just ignored the prior DVC Resort Agreements, which required any new DVC Resort to have the same material terms as the existing DVC Resort Agreements, by creating a new DVC Resort Agreement for Riviera that was substantially different in material terms from prior agreements.

Now we have stage 3, where in the name of DVD making more profits via add-ons, DVD and DVCMC purport to change the terms of the DVC Membership Agreements to eliminate the rule that all ownership interests in any given "unit" will have the same use year. The problem with that is that DVCMC's right to amend the Membershio Agreement cannot be construed as a right to amend the POS's of the resorts and all the deeds issued to the new purchasers of all the 14 existing resorts. Read the deeds and they expressly provide that the entire unit has a specific use year. Read the Component Site and Multi-Site POS's and they expressly provide that all ownership interests in any given unit shall have the same use year.

In essence, through its activities in the last three months, we now know DVD's position on everything as it relates to the members: in the name of making more excess profits, it can do anything it wants to do to destroy rights of the members, including changing material rights created in the POS's and even changing your deeds, by just declaring it has done so.

What is interesting is the CCV POS didn't tie Use Year to the Unit. Though I got curious about your comment on the Deeds and my Deed says "The Use Year for this Unit..." same language as the other Association; however, the Unit isn't assigned a Use Year in the POS. In the POS for CCV it says a Unit may contains more than one Use Year.

While I agree Stage 1 and 2 are nefarious, I'm not entirely sure that Stage 3 is/was. However, that is when looking at the actions independently; I agree there is correlation between the 3 stages...though to be fair correlation isn't causation (but I would lean towards it in this case).

 

[Katie L]

How does this destroy the brand's integrity. I don't see how allowing points that Disney has reacquired to be sold as any use year is a big issue. It will make it ROFR more prevalent (which probably has the impact of buoying resale prices), but it will make direct purchases for sold out resorts somewhat better for those who choose to buy direct.

This is by no means a judgement as to whether buying direct is a good idea or not (we each have our opinions on that), but if it make it easier to match existing contracts with new direct contracts to me that is a good thing.

I am also not going to pass judgement as to whether this is driven by greed (to some extent, everything that Disney does is driven by greed. They are a public company after all) or not. I just don't see this as a negative.

As far as the change to the notice wording, I don't see that as a big deal. If fact, if they post it on the members website, I like that. I can't loose the website, I can loose emails, letters and new letters.

It's not this alone. Drusba definitely summed it up better than I could. Were it this alone, it's less disturbing. It's this along with alllllll the other changes in the last 2 years - and especially the last 4 months.

 

[lovin'fl]

I wouldn't mind paying for a title company to change the deed, and a small fee to DVC to get all my contract UY's in the same month.

But, I'm guessing it won't be a small fee........ But it would probably cut down on their CM's work load, because of all the phone calls they take to "link" or "combine" reservations.

I'd LOVE to change my June UY to Aug (we have both). I'd pay for that. Not huge amount but a moderate amount. I really wish DVC would trade in my June UY 200 OKW contract for Aug UY 100 CCV.....really really really wish.

 

[Bing Showei]

I'd LOVE to change my June UY to Aug (we have both). I'd pay for that. Not huge amount but a moderate amount. I really wish DVC would trade in my June UY 200 OKW contract for Aug UY 100 CCV.....really really really wish.

Couldn't you just sell your 200 OKW and then buy 100 CCV direct? Math works out pretty close.

 

[Grumpy6264]

I have only been a member since 2010, and when we bought the minimum was 160 points. Until recently, we have not had any problem getting what we wanted at 7 months out (including Beach Club at Spring Break time). It keeps getting harder and harder to secure some reservations at 7 months. My take is that this is due to the shear number of point that are coming into the system and how those points are distributed. Points representing the bungalows and cabins are being sold to small contracts where the member has no intention of staying in a bungalow or cabin. It isn't their fault, those are the points that they we sold.

Adjustments need to be made somewhere, or eventually the only thing that will truly be available is home resort at 11 months. 6 months ago, the prevailing sentiment was that why would anyone want to buy or stay at Riveria because it is going to be 'moderate'. Now everyone is complaining because Riveria is turning out to be more desirable than expected. As long as DVC continues to grow at the pace it is growing at, issues with availability are going to continue to increase. This is a function of flexibility as much as anything.

 

[aoconnor]

This change in isolation doesn't bother me, but I agree it's just another example of DVCMC's willingness to do whatever is in it's best interest without regard to the existing legal agreements.