Rejected Offers Thread

[Sandisw]

This is where it sounds like things get muddy… while I understand people being upset or feel bullied, and much easier for me to say it’s an easy choice now, I still think looking back people should either purchase to extend or waive their rights to extend to stick with what they signed up for 2042.

Regardless of who’s fault (I get that Disney started it), can they open it up to offer to extend or is that not an option now?
That is what seems like the biggest bummer, I’m sure many more would have signed off by now and we all could be speculating on how they could extend other 2042 resorts… as an option. Which is maybe why the whole Trust/DVC 2.0 came about?

For OKW owners, since the ground lease was extended already and goes to 2057, I think they can proceed however they want to, which could very well include offering those who own a chance to buy an additional 15 years.

Part of the reason that I have my opinion on it being a potential mess for DVD is the deed…though maybe OKW is different…but when I look at my VGF deed, it says it’s subject to the terms of the ground lease, and mentions amendments as well. What my deed doesn’t have is VGFs end date.



It’s also part of why I don’t think they ever tried it again for the other resorts. I also believe that we will see things shift with this trust and it could be part of the plan for new resorts, but especially the 2042 ones.

 

[chazas]

Yeah...kind of wish I had never learned about this because now I'm quite annoyed that these people essentially ruined it for the rest of us.

Other than that’s not what happened, but whatever. This whole discussion is getting very weird.

 

[AstroBlasters]

It is the same because it would be DVD changing the contract unilaterally without the consent of owners, which they are not supposed to do.

Why do you think owners took the route of getting that settlement? They knew that once the contract was changed, DVD could come back and tell them they were on the hook now for dues until 2057, because the actual amended POS states it ends in 2057.

. It did potentially harm owners in that it possibly obligated them to a timeshare for longer than they agreed to in the first place

When I bought my contract ending in 2070, I did not agree to allowing DVD to extend it without my approval.

That’s the point of why it is an issue They changed the contract without owners permission.

Not sure why any owner would be okay with DVd taking it upon itself to simply change things because they see it as a benefit.

You can be okay with them changing the terms of the contract as long as it meets your criteria as being a positive thing.

Buts it’s not fair to judge the OKW owners who felt DVD overstepped their rights by making a material change to the contract, without their say.

Again, had they put it up for a vote and owners voted to extend the contract, then it would have been fine.

As I posted, we have no idea what will happen and whether people will challenge that DVDs move or not…but to give DVD a pass for not doing it correctly? Hard for me to do that.

Once again, that makes no sense to me. I don’t see how Disney tried to force anyone to own a time share for an extra 15 years. They gave them an OPTION to extend if for an additional buy-in or let it expire with no change to how they would have previously used it. The language is hostile towards Disney and completely gives the owners a pass.

I also don’t think it’s bullying to ask people to sign a document that reaffirms that their deed ends when they originally agreed that it was supposed to end. I’m sure that some did feel Disney got aggressive after they refused to sign. Not ideal.

But to state that Disney made some material change that harmed current OKW owners in any way or impact how they could use the points or the dues they would pay prior to 2042 does not ring true to me at all.

 

[Sandisw]

Once again, that makes no sense to me. I don’t see how Disney tried to force anyone to own a time share for an extra 15 years. They gave them an OPTION to extend if for an additional buy-in or let it expire with no change to how they would have previously used it. The language is hostile towards Disney and completely gives the owners a pass.

I also don’t think it’s bullying to ask people to sign a document that reaffirms that their deed ends when they originally agreed that it was supposed to end. I’m sure that some did feel Disney got aggressive after they refused to sign. Not ideal.

But to state that Disney made some material change that harmed current OKW owners in any way or impact how they could use the points or the dues they would pay prior to 2042 does not ring true to me at all.

That’s not what happened. They sent people information that said the extension happened and the cost was $25/pt, with it being $15/pt if they did it by a certain time.

The reports were that the papers said that anyone who did not want to pay, did have the option to opt out of the charge by signing the quit claim deed. It required people to go to notary signing their right to the extension back to Disney. It was not signing something confirming they recognized their original terms…

At the time, people speculated they did it the way they did because they couldn’t find a way to make it a true special assessment. The POS defines when they can do that.

People were told if they didn’t pay or sign by a certain day, their accounts would be locked and charged for the extension. Disney had to back off. So, DVD was indeed heavy handed with owners during this time.

This was not offered as a special promotion It was we did this and this is what it costs, but if you don’t want to pay it, then you can opt out of it.

If it was truly a choice, then owners would not have to do anything. They would simply have been allowed to say no.

Regardless, the contract was changed without owners approval and that is why DVD had to agree, because a complaint was filed, that they would subsidize the capital reserves for any owner who did not plan to own beyond 2042. Those have not started yet and DVC never would say when it would.

So, IMO, it is on DVD and not owners who didn’t want to do either. If what others believe ends up true, and the quit claim deed isn’t actually required for owners to have contracts end in 2042 without having paid, then DVD had no reason not to do it for other resorts.

Plus, there is nothing that prevented DVD to continue to offer the option to buy with the price going up as time went on. They could offer any OKW owner a chance today if they wanted to…there has to be a reason they don’t and instead make signing the quit claim part of the sale process.

We obviously wont agree because I do not think that it’s okay for DVD to materially change the POS, whenever they feel like it, regardless of the reason. And that is what they did.

Good discussion but we probably should either start a new one or get back to rejected offers!

 

[AstroBlasters]

That’s not what happened. They sent people information that said the extension happened and the cost was $25/pt, with it being $15/pt if they did it by a certain time.

The reports were that the papers said that anyone who did not want to pay, did have the option to opt out of the charge by signing the quit claim deed. It required people to go to notary signing their right to the extension back to Disney. It was not signing something confirming they recognized their original terms…

At the time, people speculated they did it the way they did because they couldn’t find a way to make it a true special assessment. The POS defines when they can do that.

People were told if they didn’t pay or sign by a certain day, their accounts would be locked and charged for the extension. Disney had to back off. So, DVD was indeed heavy handed with owners during this time.

This was not offered as a special promotion It was we did this and this is what it costs, but if you don’t want to pay it, then you can opt out of it.

If it was truly a choice, then owners would not have to do anything. They would simply have been allowed to say no.

Regardless, the contract was changed without owners approval and that is why DVD had to agree, because a complaint was filed, that they would subsidize the capital reserves for any owner who did not plan to own beyond 2042. Those have not started yet and DVC never would say when it would.

So, IMO, it is on DVD and not owners who didn’t want to do either. If what others believe ends up true, and the quit claim deed isn’t actually required for owners to have contracts end in 2042 without having paid, then DVD had no reason not to do it for other resorts.

Plus, there is nothing that prevented DVD to continue to offer the option to buy with the price going up as time went on. They could offer any OKW owner a chance today if they wanted to…there has to be a reason they don’t and instead make signing the quit claim part of the sale process.

We obviously wont agree because I do not think that it’s okay for DVD to materially change the POS, whenever they feel like it, regardless of the reason. And that is what they did.

Good discussion but we probably should either start a new one or get back to rejected offers!

What a mess.

 

[CarolynFH]

I just want to say, remember that when DVC opened, the minimum buyin contract was 230 points, so many of the owners in 2007 had contracts that large or larger. At $25 a point, that’s $5750, not in 2024 dollars but in 2007 dollars. It would be about $8800 today. So can you understand why owners in 2007 might resist being forced to pay for that extension, which was sprung on them without any preliminary information?

 

[aammtt20]

I can't believe I'm reading so many people on this thread being mad at DVC owner's for being put in a position where DVD/DVC wanted them to feel forced into signing a piece of paper because of Disney's own errors and mistakes. Instead of trying to force and strong-arm your customers, which is a terrible strategy, why not try to own up to the mistake and make things right? Sure they were offered a great deal, but just because a great deal is offered to you, doesn't mean you should be forced to do anything. There should have never been FORCE or PRESSURE applied the way it was.

And the idea of that this screwed up things at the other 2042 resorts is silly, extending the contracts in the first place was silly idea that clearly backfired, and it's best to not have any messy extensions going forward, when the ball was clearly dropped so badly on the first one.

 

[Chili327]

I just want to say, remember that when DVC opened, the minimum buyin contract was 230 points, so many of the owners in 2007 had contracts that large or larger. At $25 a point, that’s $5750, not in 2024 dollars but in 2007 dollars. It would be about $8800 today. So can you understand why owners in 2007 might resist being forced to pay for that extension, which was sprung on them without any preliminary information?

Yes there is more to it than i previously understood.
Hopefully both sides have a better idea of what they would do if offered again (buy in or opt out), and maybe that can be an option moving forward.

 

[aammtt20]

But back to the subject of rejected offers, there is 60 pt Copper Creek out there at 160, I offered 130, they went down to 150 as their lowest, but I was looking for something closer to 140, so I moved on.

 

[CarolynFH]

Yes there is more to it than i previously understood.
Hopefully both sides have a better idea of what they would do if offered again (buy in or opt out), and maybe that can be an option moving forward.

i believe there are also legal arguments about whether Disney could extend the ground lease without automatically extending everyone’s ownership without any payment at all. Disney was forced to back down due to a serious threat of legal action, they didn’t back down out of the goodness of their hearts. The whole extension was very poorly thought out - I wouldn’t be surprised if DVC management failed to get their own legal team to study it carefully before implementing it.

 

[tidefan]

People were told if they didn’t pay or sign by a certain day, their accounts would be locked and charged for the extension. Disney had to back off. So, DVD was indeed heavy handed with owners during this time.

I am not an OKW owner, but I was around when all this went on. I seem to remember that this was one of the points that really rubbed people the wrong way in that DVD that threatening to freeze the use of owner's active accounts if they did not take action within a certain amount of time, including, I believe, cancelling existing reservations. Also, if I remember correctly, it wasn't just e-sign some document either. You had to physically get a copy of the quit claim deed publicly notarized (I am sure DVD reimbursed for that, but I can't remember) and perhaps some other steps in order to not take the extension. I also seem to remember that this was particularly an issue with international owners, who may or may not have had access to notary public services.

In general, I remember it was a mess.

That said, the lockoff premium fiasco, the Aulani dues undercount (which got Jim Lewis fired), the addition (and then subsequent point rebalance) of the Treehouses at SSR and the addition of BPK to the existing VGF association weren't exactly member-friendly moves either, and honestly, I am not sure that what they did with the Treehouses is actually allowed under the POS (@Sandisw would know better than I). I am pretty sure the lock-off changes weren't either, which is why they backed off on those when challenged. Ownership over a long period of time does give one perspective...

 

[aammtt20]

That said, the lockoff premium fiasco...

Oooh... I haven't heard of this lockoff premium fiasco before - do you have a thread or a quick explanation you could share? As a new member, I'm trying to collect all the DVC lore, hahaha

 

[AstroBlasters]

I am not an OKW owner, but I was around when all this went on. I seem to remember that this was one of the points that really rubbed people the wrong way in that DVD that threatening to freeze the use of owner's active accounts if they did not take action within a certain amount of time, including, I believe, cancelling existing reservations. Also, if I remember correctly, it wasn't just e-sign some document either. You had to physically get a copy of the quit claim deed publicly notarized (I am sure DVD reimbursed for that, but I can't remember) and perhaps some other steps in order to not take the extension. I also seem to remember that this was particularly an issue with international owners, who may or may not have had access to notary public services.

In general, I remember it was a mess.

That said, the lockoff premium fiasco, the Aulani dues undercount (which got Jim Lewis fired), the addition (and then subsequent point rebalance) of the Treehouses at SSR and the addition of BPK to the existing VGF association weren't exactly member-friendly moves either, and honestly, I am not sure that what they did with the Treehouses is actually allowed under the POS (@Sandisw would know better than I). I am pretty sure the lock-off changes weren't either, which is why they backed off on those when challenged. Ownership over a long period of time does give one perspective...

No, e-notaries weren’t need back then because banks branches were everywhere and had a lot of people on staff who were happy to notarize a form while offering you a cookie and a cup of coffee.

 

[Jimmy Geppetto]

Yeah...kind of wish I had never learned about this because now I'm quite annoyed that these people essentially ruined it for the rest of us.

Huh?

They didn’t ruin anything for you. If you bought a 2042 contract you are getting exactly what was promised to you. No extension promised.

But you are arguing the OKW folks who refuse to sign a quit claim are greedy? But it’s their fault you aren’t being offered an extension on BWV when you bought fully knowing it expires in 2042?

 

[Jimmy Geppetto]

That’s not what happened. They sent people information that said the extension happened and the cost was $25/pt, with it being $15/pt if they did it by a certain time.

The reports were that the papers said that anyone who did not want to pay, did have the option to opt out of the charge by signing the quit claim deed. It required people to go to notary signing their right to the extension back to Disney. It was not signing something confirming they recognized their original terms…

At the time, people speculated they did it the way they did because they couldn’t find a way to make it a true special assessment. The POS defines when they can do that.

People were told if they didn’t pay or sign by a certain day, their accounts would be locked and charged for the extension. Disney had to back off. So, DVD was indeed heavy handed with owners during this time.

This was not offered as a special promotion It was we did this and this is what it costs, but if you don’t want to pay it, then you can opt out of it.

If it was truly a choice, then owners would not have to do anything. They would simply have been allowed to say no.

Regardless, the contract was changed without owners approval and that is why DVD had to agree, because a complaint was filed, that they would subsidize the capital reserves for any owner who did not plan to own beyond 2042. Those have not started yet and DVC never would say when it would.

So, IMO, it is on DVD and not owners who didn’t want to do either. If what others believe ends up true, and the quit claim deed isn’t actually required for owners to have contracts end in 2042 without having paid, then DVD had no reason not to do it for other resorts.

Plus, there is nothing that prevented DVD to continue to offer the option to buy with the price going up as time went on. They could offer any OKW owner a chance today if they wanted to…there has to be a reason they don’t and instead make signing the quit claim part of the sale process.

We obviously wont agree because I do not think that it’s okay for DVD to materially change the POS, whenever they feel like it, regardless of the reason. And that is what they did.

Good discussion but we probably should either start a new one or get back to rejected offers!

One could argue this entire situation was an offer rejected by many OKW owners!

Great discussion indeed. I’m an OKWE owner and always wonder what it would have been like to be in the situation of previous owners when they started offering the extension. Today it seems like a no brainer to extend but back then I doubt the decision was that easy. No one likes their hand being forced especially when the value of their timeshare gets eroded because now 2057 expirations will be in the market.

 

[Sandisw]

One could argue this entire situation was an offer rejected by many OKW owners!

Great discussion indeed. I’m an OKWE owner and always wonder what it would have been like to be in the situation of previous owners when they started offering the extension. Today it seems like a no brainer to extend but back then I doubt the decision was that easy. No one likes their hand being forced especially when the value of their timeshare gets eroded because now 2057 expirations will be in the market.

I remember reading that having to pay for something that didn’t kick in until 35 years later was part of it.

I know..I said we should move on..but since DVD is required to subsidize at some point, it will be interesting to see if they provide if for those who did not sign or pay.

That move would definitely give us some insight into their thinking.

 

[tom1944]

Does Disney grant family ownership changes on OKW without requiring any document establishing the deed expires in 2042?

 

[ClaraOswald]

It is the same because it would be DVD changing the contract unilaterally without the consent of owners, which they are not supposed to do.

Why do you think owners took the route of getting that settlement? They knew that once the contract was changed, DVD could come back and tell them they were on the hook now for dues until 2057, because the actual amended POS states it ends in 2057.

. It did potentially harm owners in that it possibly obligated them to a timeshare for longer than they agreed to in the first place

When I bought my contract ending in 2070, I did not agree to allowing DVD to extend it without my approval.

That’s the point of why it is an issue They changed the contract without owners permission.

Not sure why any owner would be okay with DVd taking it upon itself to simply change things because they see it as a benefit.

You can be okay with them changing the terms of the contract as long as it meets your criteria as being a positive thing.

Buts it’s not fair to judge the OKW owners who felt DVD overstepped their rights by making a material change to the contract, without their say.

Again, had they put it up for a vote and owners voted to extend the contract, then it would have been fine.

As I posted, we have no idea what will happen and whether people will challenge that DVDs move or not…but to give DVD a pass for not doing it correctly? Hard for me to do that.

I just want to say, remember that when DVC opened, the minimum buyin contract was 230 points, so many of the owners in 2007 had contracts that large or larger. At $25 a point, that’s $5750, not in 2024 dollars but in 2007 dollars. It would be about $8800 today. So can you understand why owners in 2007 might resist being forced to pay for that extension, which was sprung on them without any preliminary information?

But by signing saying they want to stick to the original terms, they weren't being forced to buy anything else. I do agree that current owners really shouldn't have had to do anything if they just wanted to keep the 2042 expiration. I think Disney muddled it up, for sure. But I don't know enough about timeshares and the legal stuff to understand why they did it the way they did it.

I get that that they shouldn't change the terms and spring it on people. Personally, I think if DVD wanted to do this, they should have just waited and done it close to the 2042. It's weird that they did it so many years in advance. And threatening to lock their accounts is definitely shady. Though thankfully it doesn't sound like that was the case. They SHOULD lock those accounts in 2042 though. That's my only real issue here.

 

[tidefan]

Oooh... I haven't heard of this lockoff premium fiasco before - do you have a thread or a quick explanation you could share? As a new member, I'm trying to collect all the DVC lore, hahaha

If you have time to burn and really, really want to go down the rabbit hole...

https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...to-stop-revert-the-2020-reallocation.3726101/

 

[CarolynFH]

No, e-notaries weren’t need back then because banks branches were everywhere and had a lot of people on staff who were happy to notarize a form while offering you a cookie and a cup of coffee.

Not necessarily. DVC soon had to tell owners that they’d pay $15 to cover notary fees.

But by signing saying they want to stick to the original terms, they weren't being forced to buy anything else.

Yes they were being forced - DVC did indeed freeze owners’ accounts and cancel reservations if they didn’t either pay up thousands of dollars or sign a quit-claim deed by a certain date. And more than one owner had an attorney point out the laws that made the conditions of the extension illegal. DVC backed down to avoid going to court, not because they got tired of the mess.

And threatening to lock their accounts is definitely shady. Though thankfully it doesn't sound like that was the case.

Again, it was the case. Some owners arrived to check in and were told their reservations had been canceled because they hadn’t complied with DVC’s mandate. It was definitely shady, and if DVC hadn’t backed down they would have landed in court.