Wanting Riviera but not its resale restrictions

[Lee Matthews]

I’m praying Disney offers extensions on more existing resorts like they did for OKW.

AKV of course runs out in 2057 and I’ll be 70 then. I would prefer to extend and last me through 80 rather than having to invest in another resort

 

[Brian Noble]

is it tough to get into Riveria if you don’t have that 11-month home resort window?

I think it is too soon to say, for many reasons. There is the "pandemic point glut" that is making inventory very tight everywhere. It is the "shiny new resort" that a lot of people want to try out for the novelty of it. the resort is still in active sales so it hasn't yet established it's "we love it here" community. Finally, there are a few more units declared into inventory than have been sold, which might also change things vs. what it looks like when it is sold out.

It's also a bit more work to sell if needed, due to Hawaii requirements. It ends up under Hawaii timeshare rules as well, which are considerably more involved than those of Florida.

This is true, but probably only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, based on my experience owning a different Hawaiian timeshare.

I’m praying Disney offers extensions on more existing resorts like they did for OKW.

I think this is very very unlikely. The OKW extension did not go smoothly (to put it charitably) and I suspect that DVD has no interest in trying that again. If the resorts are refurbished and re-sold, I can imagine current owners being given a discount, but I doubt we'll see anything like the OKW extension again. After all, it's not the only resort that was due to expire in 2042, and there's been nary a peep about extending any of the others.

 

[Marionnette]

I think this is very very unlikely. The OKW extension did not go smoothly (to put it charitably) and I suspect that DVD has no interest in trying that again. If the resorts are refurbished and re-sold, I can imagine current owners being given a discount, but I doubt we'll see anything like the OKW extension again. After all, it's not the only resort that was due to expire in 2042, and there's been nary a peep about extending any of the others.

Just to offer a counterpoint:

When the OKW extention was offered in 2007, the resort still had 35 more years before expiration. Not a lot of OKW owners were interested in spending $25/point to add another 15 years on the back end of their contract. Especially when some of them spent as little as $48/point when they bought into the Vacation Club and they owned 230-point contracts.

Fast-forward to today when the 2042 resorts have about 20 years left. I suspect that owners' attitudes might be different when they only have about 5-10 years left. And there are four 2042 resorts at WDW that all expire at the same time. Wouldn't it make sense for DVC to offer extensions of 2 to 7 years on some of those resorts so that they can renovate those resorts in succession, bring in a little additional capital and continue to shift the cost of resort maintenance onto the owners instead of DVD while preparing one site after another for sale as a new resort? Do they really want to be rennovating and selling 3-4 WDW resorts concurrently?

Could they just slap on some fresh paint and hang new artwork and call it a day? Sure! But they still have to SELL those resorts. And until they actually sell, it's DVD that pays the shared maintenance costs of WL, BWI and BC for all of the points that are undeclared. That's a lot of red ink that they could avoid by offering short-term extensions.

Just food for thought. I'm not convinced that DVC will offer extentions but there is a sound argument in favor of them doing it. And if they did, I would probably give it serious consideration, especially if they sweetened the pot by giving blue card status to extended contracts that were originally purchased as resale points.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

It is not just that it went poorly. They made a major legal misstep in how they ran it.

Any "extension" to be offered at a 2042 resort will be a new contract for 15 (or whatever) years, and it will be against a new land lease for the resort. As such they may also tweak point Charts or move the resort to DVC2 (a la Riviera). It won't be $25pp, either.

(When they extend a land lease de facto all contracts are extended. It is why every 2042 resale has to sign quit claims.)

 

[Lorana]

Could they just slap on some fresh paint and hang new artwork and call it a day? Sure! But they still have to SELL those resorts. And until they actually sell, it's DVD that pays the shared maintenance costs of WL, BWI and BC for all of the points that are undeclared. That's a lot of red ink that they could avoid by offering short-term extensions.

I could see them doing it with BRV, because Copper Creek is right there - but instead, sell it as an extension into Copper Creek, sort of like they are with VGF right now.

No way they'll do that with BWV and BCV, though. Those locations are so popular, Disney has to know they are sitting on a gold mine if they follow through closing them in 2042, then refurbish and resell as a new resort with higher point charts and higher price per point.

 

[Marionnette]

I could see them doing it with BRV, because Copper Creek is right there - but instead, sell it as an extension into Copper Creek, sort of like they are with VGF right now.

No way they'll do that with BWV and BCV, though. Those locations are so popular, Disney has to know they are sitting on a gold mine if they follow through closing them in 2042, then refurbish and resell as a new resort with higher point charts and higher price per point.

They would have to close BRV, renovate and sell it as CCV2, similar to what they're doing at VGF, in order to do what you propose. That's a 26-year extension, but it still involves SELLING those extensions.

As does SELLING a new BCV and new BWV. And until those points sell, DVD is on the hook for the maintenance costs that those defunct resorts shared with the hotel side.

I'm not under the delusion that DVC will offer 25-26 year extensions on those resorts. But I don't think it works in their favor to close all 3 at once (no more dues-paying owners to cover maintenance costs), renovate all of them at one time (a large capital investment) and then place them all on the market to compete concurrently for buyers. It would make more sense to offer extensions at all but 1 resort, close that resort, renovate and begin sales. Then close a second resort, and repeat the process until all 2042 resorts have been repackaged and sold as new resorts with inflated points charts and contracts that no longer expire at the same time.

 

[Sandisw]

I could see them doing it with BRV, because Copper Creek is right there - but instead, sell it as an extension into Copper Creek, sort of like they are with VGF right now.

No way they'll do that with BWV and BCV, though. Those locations are so popular, Disney has to know they are sitting on a gold mine if they follow through closing them in 2042, then refurbish and resell as a new resort with higher point charts and higher price per point.

I agree with you regarding BRV. I can see it becoming part of CCV and sold as new.

 

[CraigInPA]

So buying Aulani direct (which seems to be a little cheaper per point?) would get you into Riveria but not within the 11-month booking window — is it tough to get into Riveria if you don’t have that 11-month home resort window?

Aulani is not a good choice for those who aren't planning on going there. Since the Aulani annual dues and Riviera annual dues are within pennies of each other, and the cost of each resort direct is now the same, there's no advantage to buying Aulani if you plan to mostly stay at Riviera. On the resale market, Riviera is a lot more valuable. That should tell you what the market feels about Aulani.

 

[chalee94]

It would make more sense to offer extensions at all but 1 resort, close that resort, renovate and begin sales.

Still not sure which part of "They did not actually have the legal right to extend OKW which is the main reason they are not offering additional extensions for 2042 resorts" you are failing to understand?

I totally get that they would *prefer not to* have BCV, BRV and BWV all expire in 2042 (when they are likely to gain ownership of 50% of OKW points as well) but actually not having the legal right to charge money (levy a special assessment) to extend the ground lease seems to take that option off the table.

BRV is small and could be easily folded into CCV (although that would limit RIV type restrictions if I understand correctly.)

BCV is still small-ish and should sell fairly quickly.

Renting BWV for cash for a few years should be doable despite taking on the costs of maintenance - it's still walking distance to 2 parks and demand would be solid after a quick refresh.

OKW is a headache that they made for themselves. They don't technically have the legal right to shut down half the resort but OKW doesn't have the near-park demand to rent out and if they wind up owning 3.5 million or so OKW points, that would be larger than either BCV or BRV.

 

[macman123]

I’ve today got a direct fixed week studio win week 52. It’s 196 points but I was able to add an extra 4 to round it up.

but it would mean if I sell as a Fw it’s more attractive.

 

[Sandisw]

Still not sure which part of "They did not actually have the legal right to extend OKW which is the main reason they are not offering additional extensions for 2042 resorts" you are failing to understand?

I totally get that they would *prefer not to* have BCV, BRV and BWV all expire in 2042 (when they are likely to gain ownership of 50% of OKW points as well) but actually not having the legal right to charge money (levy a special assessment) to extend the ground lease seems to take that option off the table.

BRV is small and could be easily folded into CCV (although that would limit RIV type restrictions if I understand correctly.)

BCV is still small-ish and should sell fairly quickly.

Renting BWV for cash for a few years should be doable despite taking on the costs of maintenance - it's still walking distance to 2 parks and demand would be solid after a quick refresh.

OKW is a headache that they made for themselves. They don't technically have the legal right to shut down half the resort but OKW doesn't have the near-park demand to rent out and if they wind up owning 3.5 million or so OKW points, that would be larger than either BCV or BRV.

In 2042 it will be interesting to see what happens with the original deeds still owned by owners who chose not to pay and not to quit claim,

By default, when the lease was extended, it extended them. I think must have overestimated the number of owners who would want the extension when it was offered.

IMO, I think you will see more ROFR with OKW down the line to put more deeds in the hands of DVD to limit OKW contracts that end up with a free extension.

For the rest of them, I just don’t see any level of extension because that means current owners could not be forced to sign again.

I think it’s more likely you will see Disney close down cash resorts and use the DVC resorts to absorb those guests while they renovate the current ones that will expire.

 

[Marionnette]

Still not sure which part of "They did not actually have the legal right to extend OKW which is the main reason they are not offering additional extensions for 2042 resorts" you are failing to understand?

I totally get that they would *prefer not to* have BCV, BRV and BWV all expire in 2042 (when they are likely to gain ownership of 50% of OKW points as well) but actually not having the legal right to charge money (levy a special assessment) to extend the ground lease seems to take that option off the table.

BRV is small and could be easily folded into CCV (although that would limit RIV type restrictions if I understand correctly.)

BCV is still small-ish and should sell fairly quickly.

Renting BWV for cash for a few years should be doable despite taking on the costs of maintenance - it's still walking distance to 2 parks and demand would be solid after a quick refresh.

OKW is a headache that they made for themselves. They don't technically have the legal right to shut down half the resort but OKW doesn't have the near-park demand to rent out and if they wind up owning 3.5 million or so OKW points, that would be larger than either BCV or BRV.

Wow! At what point in this discussion did anyone say "They did not actually have the legal right to extend OKW". What I read (in a post after the one you quoted) is that they went about the OKW extension in a legally messy manner. That's not the same as not having a right to extend contracts. If we have learned anything from what DVC has done over the years, it's that they will tiptoe right on the line between legally correct actions and legally suspect actions.

I already stated that I don't think that DVC will extend the 2042s. I'm just putting forth an argument in favor of doing it. Don't treat me like some kind of moron for bringing it up for discussion.

 

[Brett Wyman]

(Commenting on original post): We feel the same way. I'd say Riviera is one of our top three properties, and definitely our current favorite one. But we've been around enough to know that will change as it ages, other remodels occurs, and potential new properties open. This keep us from wanting to purchase(we personally dont buy direct) points for a property that can only be used at that property. Currently we've supplemented with cash stays when Disney has big discounts on the Riviera(which have been pretty frequent actually) to get our fix. We already stayed there a total of 12 nights since it opened.

 

[stlrod]

Keep in mind that as more RIV resale contracts hit the market, there will be less availability at the 7 month mark. Riviera resale purchasers (like me) understand or will learn that in order to guarantee a spot at the only resort at which they are permitted to make reservations, they need to do so more than 7 months in advance. Some of that will be offset by the fact that as resale contracts for legacy resorts increase, there will be less people who own at legacy resorts who will be able to book at Riviera. I'm probably in the minority in that I view Riviera resale as a really good value, perhaps not for the first time DVC owner, but definitely for an owner who has legacy properties they can use at the other resorts. I compare it to buying a brand new car from a new car dealer vs. buying a newish car with a few thousand miles on it from a used car dealer. As the buyer of the used car, you still get that "new car smell" without being the one taking that big financial hit the moment you drive it off the lot. Of course, you can't cross the border with the used car (i.e. stay at other resorts.) For me, that was a fair trade-off for the savings. I saved a little over $17,000 on a 300 point contract off the Spring 2020 direct pricing for existing members with all incentives (including the "act fast" incentive) applied. That amount would buy close to 150 points at OKW or SSR which could then be used at any resort other than Riviera.

 

[Brian Noble]

IMO, I think you will see more ROFR with OKW down the line to put more deeds in the hands of DVD to limit OKW contracts that end up with a free extension.

It was my understanding that owners were required to sign the quit claim as a condition of transferring any unpaid extended ownerships on resale. I suspect they could insist on that for gratuitous transfers as well. What's more interesting is what happens to owners who (a) didn't pay, (b) didn't sign the quit claim deed, and (c) do not try to sell/transfer ownership between now and 2042---and your guess is as good as mine, though I suspect the Mouse's lawyers are coming up with something.

Wow!

I'm not as convinced as the PP that it wasn't allowable. However, I think most people agree that by extending the ground lease they ended up "extending" all of the then-current owners, which is why they insisted that owners who did not pay for the extension sign a quit claim deed to transfer those years back to Disney. I suspect that a substantial fraction of owners neither paid nor signed, and that leaves a big mess. I can't imagine there is any appetite on the part of DVD to open that can of worms again.

 

[chalee94]

What's more interesting is what happens to owners who (a) didn't pay, (b) didn't sign the quit claim deed, and (c) do not try to sell/transfer ownership between now and 2042---and your guess is as good as mine, though I suspect the Mouse's lawyers are coming up with something.

I'm not as convinced as the PP that it wasn't allowable. However, I think most people agree that by extending the ground lease they ended up "extending" all of the then-current owners, which is why they insisted that owners who did not pay for the extension sign a quit claim deed to transfer those years back to Disney. I suspect that a substantial fraction of owners neither paid nor signed, and that leaves a big mess. I can't imagine there is any appetite on the part of DVD to open that can of worms again.

Keep in mind that they originally required payment via a "special assessment" for the owner to receive the benefits of extending the ground lease, and threatened to place a lien against owners who did not pay and did not sign the quitclaim. How would contract law normally view a requirement to sign over your rights via quitclaim without compensation?

This ground has been covered in threads before that OKW was a test case. Most of us - like me - bought in expecting the contract to expire in 2042 and didn't want the extension and therefore, didn't dig into the contracts to see if Disney had the right to do the extension or not. I would bet well over 95% of OKW owners were fine with ending in 2042 or paying up, and had no interest in picking a fight with Disney.

I don't know how large you think "a substantial fraction of owners" would be, but I think it's only a handful at this point who haven't paid or signed the quitclaim. I think Disney can ride it out and allow a few owners to keep a free extension in OKW's case if they are still around in 2042. I do think at this point that if Disney's lawyers had a leg to stand on, they wouldn't have given up as they did.

But for the newbies who have heard about OKW's extension and thought, "Hey, that would be cool if they extended Beach Club..." this is a big reason why it won't happen. The contract language should be the same for BWV and BCV as for OKW...and more BCV and BWV owners have heard about the OKW owners who didn't sign their quitclaim (or would hear via the internet if an extension were announced). So if DVC did try to extend, I really think a substantial fraction of BCV owners (25% to 50%) would dig in and try to keep the extension for free.

(It doesn't help the arguments for extensions that BWV has cheap point charts that can only be reworked through a new ground lease and the new RIV resale restrictions can only be applied to BCV/BWV/BRV with a new ground lease...and with a mention of RIV's resale restrictions, we should be back on the rails for the thread topic in general.)

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Still not sure which part of "They did not actually have the legal right to extend OKW which is the main reason they are not offering additional extensions for 2042 resorts" you are failing to understand?

I think technically it's more that they had the right to extend the land lease and thus OKW but they didn't have the right to place an assessment on owners to pay for it. Thus they had to get into the quit claim deeds when owners weren't lining up at the door to hand them a check.

 

[Sandisw]

Keep in mind that they originally required payment via a "special assessment" for the owner to receive the benefits of extending the ground lease, and threatened to place a lien against owners who did not pay and did not sign the quitclaim. How would contract law normally view a requirement to sign over your rights via quitclaim without compensation?

This ground has been covered in threads before that OKW was a test case. Most of us - like me - bought in expecting the contract to expire in 2042 and didn't want the extension and therefore, didn't dig into the contracts to see if Disney had the right to do the extension or not. I would bet well over 95% of OKW owners were fine with ending in 2042 or paying up, and had no interest in picking a fight with Disney.

I don't know how large you think "a substantial fraction of owners" would be, but I think it's only a handful at this point who haven't paid or signed the quitclaim. I think Disney can ride it out and allow a few owners to keep a free extension in OKW's case if they are still around in 2042. I do think at this point that if Disney's lawyers had a leg to stand on, they wouldn't have given up as they did.

But for the newbies who have heard about OKW's extension and thought, "Hey, that would be cool if they extended Beach Club..." this is a big reason why it won't happen. The contract language should be the same for BWV and BCV as for OKW...and more BCV and BWV owners have heard about the OKW owners who didn't sign their quitclaim (or would hear via the internet if an extension were announced). So if DVC did try to extend, I really think a substantial fraction of BCV owners (25% to 50%) would dig in and try to keep the extension for free.

(It doesn't help the arguments for extensions that BWV has cheap point charts that can only be reworked through a new ground lease and the new RIV resale restrictions can only be applied to BCV/BWV/BRV with a new ground lease...and with a mention of RIV's resale restrictions, we should be back on the rails for the thread topic in general.)

Which is why I think in the long run the resale restrictions won't be such a big deal and right now, proving not to be a huge deal either. It is going to become the new DVC product and as new buyers come on board with restrictions in place, it just won't seem like such a huge deal.

Again, IMO, people should not buy DVC in hopes of it retaining resale value because you can set yourself up for potential disappointment if you can't get your money back out of it at sale time. So, if one loves RIV and its where one wants to be, I think it makes sense to invest in owning it.

I think the great thing is that one can have both...a resale RIV for RIV and a resale at L14 for L14. Or, just buy direct at OKW or SSR and have points that can do it all.

 

[sethschroeder]

signed the quitclaim

Except couldn't the small group who never signed also outline the larger group that did sign did it under threat.

If a person says sign a contract or I will punch you that doesn't seem like it would hold up in court but maybe I wrong.

Also unlike someone saying they will punch you I suspect there are records of Disney trying to force people to sign the quit claim.

 

[princesscinderella]

I’ve today got a direct fixed week studio win week 52. It’s 196 points but I was able to add an extra 4 to round it up.

but it would mean if I sell as a Fw it’s more attractive.

Yay! I have the same week! We plan to use it in 2023. Next year it has Christmas and New Year’s Day so we won’t use it that year as we like Christmas at home.