I don’t see how this impacts existing owners.
To me this would even allow them to tier trust plans. For example Cabins at fort wilderness and Alunai could be a tier 2 while Riv, Poly2 and VDH could be tier 1 with different booking windowsThis is specifically about the Cabins trust plan., that specific resort plan is what people are currently goi g to buy.
Further in the document it states they can have different trust plans as part of the overall trust assocation which can be different component sites…but with its own set of rules. Here it is…which reads to me that people will be buying into a resort like now, just not deeded…so, those in the trust who buy resale will be limited to only the trust property they have an RTU interest in. Buying direct would be giving you access to other trust properties and will as those part of BVTC…that is what it reads to me.
I don't know what new Marriott contracts are, but I have family members that own weeks at two of the Vistana properties, purchased back when it was Sheraton. They own 1 deeded fixed week and 2 float weeks. When Marriott first took over, they pushed HARD to convert the deeded ownership weeks to a deeded equivalent in points. When we asked if the amount of points needed for a week would increase, they danced around it and offered more incentives. Ultimately, family refused to budge because as long as the deed says they own a week, they have to be given a week, irrespective of point value, so their corresponding point value balance has increased as the points needed for a week in the property increased. It was a good deal for most of the past decade but now they are pretty sure they will soon be priced out by the maintenance fee increases - the increases were apparently pretty drastic this year - and other "fees" that marriott keeps tacking on for various things. fam said marriott's also lessened the owner benefits from what family had with sheraton, such as the owner discounts at the resort, so when they run the math on owning vs just paying for a week when it's needed, the math makes a little less sense each year.I'm also reminded of one of the Big (But Old) Conversations in Timeshare Land that was still going on when OKW first came up for sale: Deeded (perpetual) vs. RTU.
The conventional wisdom at the time was that Deeded ownership was superior, because it was real property, you owned it forever, and it and carried voting rights and could not easily be taken away. There were certainly debates about it, because the limited-time nature of RTU has its advantages as well. But, I remember a few articles on TUG and elsewhere that essentially said: "Deeded wins."
Then, along comes the legal team at DVD, who invent an RTU that is still attached to a deed. Now, the sales prospect that comes on the floor who has some concept of "Deeded is better" can be assured that of course it's real property that is backed by a deed. Nothing to worry about! I remember thinking that this was simply brilliant. I think I even remember a few DVC ecosystem articles that said "Of course deeded is better, but DVC is deeded so it's fine."
Fast forward a few decades, and several other timeshare systems have been selling use plans very successfully: WorldMark may have been the earliest example that has significant scale in teh US market, but there are certainly others.Marriott's pure point product that debuted in 2010 or so is not deeded.Wydnham's trust-based product also debuted around then.Seeing Marriott in particular do this successfully may have been enough to convince DVC that there is no reason not to start going down that route.
Correction: I think Marriott may be deeded as well, but with no particular home resort. I see conflicting statements Out There. But Wyndham's CWA definitely is not.
To me this would even allow them to tier trust plans. For example Cabins at fort wilderness and Alunai could be a tier 2 while Riv, Poly2 and VDH could be tier 1 with different booking windows
TLDR.I'm also reminded of one of the Big (But Old) Conversations in Timeshare Land that was still going on when OKW first came up for sale: Deeded (perpetual) vs. RTU.
The conventional wisdom at the time was that Deeded ownership was superior, because it was real property, you owned it forever, and it and carried voting rights and could not easily be taken away. There were certainly debates about it, because the limited-time nature of RTU has its advantages as well. But, I remember a few articles on TUG and elsewhere that essentially said: "Deeded wins."
Then, along comes the legal team at DVD, who invent an RTU that is still attached to a deed. Now, the sales prospect that comes on the floor who has some concept of "Deeded is better" can be assured that of course it's real property that is backed by a deed. Nothing to worry about! I remember thinking that this was simply brilliant. I think I even remember a few DVC ecosystem articles that said "Of course deeded is better, but DVC is deeded so it's fine."
Fast forward a few decades, and several other timeshare systems have been selling use plans very successfully: WorldMark may have been the earliest example that has significant scale in teh US market, but there are certainly others.Marriott's pure point product that debuted in 2010 or so is not deeded.Wydnham's trust-based product also debuted around then.Seeing Marriott in particular do this successfully may have been enough to convince DVC that there is no reason not to start going down that route.
Correction: I think Marriott may be deeded as well, but with no particular home resort. I see conflicting statements Out There. But Wyndham's CWA definitely is not.
I haven’t read the entire document, but from your snippet it sounds like there will be a Master Trust with separate and distinct sub-trusts (i.e. the CFW sub-trust).The current documents for CFW seem to say that resale purchases will be limited to booking only at CFW.
It does not give you access to any other resorts, Since people are not buying into any home resort, but buying a right to use a property, the owner of the actual inventory..the trust…sets the rules in which owners can access its properties.
So, it appears that this trust may be set up differently once other properties are added, assuming they are….that you might be buying a RTU in one of the trust plan sites, but then have access to the other trust properties before they open up to other DVC owners who would be trading in via BVTC.
Turns out there is no shortage of people with big problems.If you're the guy fighting foreclosure on a timeshare, you've got much bigger problems in life
So, based on what we have seen so far, it would likely function one of two ways:If Poly 2 is a trust system, how meaningful is it being the same association?
It takes 5 minutes of work for said person to force Disney into a judicial process that will cost them hundreds or even thousands of dollars (with minimal chance of recovering that additional investment). Many people would find that to be a worthwhile investment of time even if they feel like they have 0 chance of winning.Most post still stands. If you're the guy fighting foreclosure on a timeshare, you've got much bigger problems in life, and you'd be better off (and have more company) jousting windmills.
I haven’t read the entire document, but from your snippet it sounds like there will be a Master Trust with separate and distinct sub-trusts (i.e. the CFW sub-trust).
If Poly 2 is a trust system, how meaningful is it being the same association?
Right, because that's what every John Doe who's already perfected the art of financial incompetence by forcing Disney to foreclose on them will do. You still end up with a lien and foreclosure as public records, but sure, you can tell your grandkids you made that $170 billion company "spend" an extra 200 bucks while you still can't get a used car loan (spend in quotes because it would be in-house counsel that would likely handle it, or an outside firm on retainer).It takes 5 minutes of work for said person to force Disney into a judicial process that will cost them hundreds or even thousands of dollars (with minimal chance of recovering that additional investment). Many people would find that to be a worthwhile investment of time even if they feel like they have 0 chance of winning.
How could they reside in both places?I think it would all depend on what DVD wants to do if they want to create a new trust use plan with all or some of the rooms at Poly tower.
I think they can declare them to PVB but give the trust association control of them and then create a trust use plan.
What the would do for who can book during home resort or for resale contracts? Not really sure…I only have guesses.
Yep! The old saying "why mess with a good thing" comes to mind. Disney is pushing to produce to quick and have to much control, which in my opinion takes away what made DVC better than other timeshares.
How could they reside in both places?
Is this how they could move existing resorts in as well?
I don’t know much about timeshare legal structures, so I’m conceptualizing this like DVC points are shares of a company:How could they reside in both places?
Is this how they could move existing resorts in as well?