WOW DVC Prices !!!

[DonMacGregor]

Disney's argument would almost certainly be something along the following lines: "The original agreement was for the owner's use up to and expiring in 2042. Both parties willingly agreed to that expiration date at the effective price. We offered additional years, an offer which this owner did not accept. The fact that the ground lease was the mechanism of extension does not change the fact that the original agreement explicitly articulated the expiration of the owner's use in 2042. We believe the other party is not entitled to more, and ask the court to so order."

This is exactly what I was going to say. Regardless of the date of termination of the ground lease, DVC is holding a fully-enforceable contract that states that the term of use of the facility ends in 2042.

The Dude gets it, man.

 

[Sandisw]

This is exactly what I was going to say. Regardless of the date of termination of the ground lease, DVC is holding a fully-enforceable contract that states that the term of use of the facility ends in 2042.

The Dude gets it, man.

Except the POS is the contract...just saying...and if it was that simple, they would never have asked any owner to sign a quit claim deed...no reason to do that if those owners contracts simply stop in 2042.

Having done that leads at least to the appearance that they felt legally those may be needed and I think that move could be seen as DVD acknowledging they could not just take contracts back without it.

Also, regardless of what happens, they can't do anything with any of the OKW buildings until 2057 and must maintain all of them as part of DVC...they can shutter some for use if they own enough points, but they can't re-do them and offer them for a different reason because there are owners who are extended to 2057 deeded in every building.

Again, I don't know what will happen, but I just don't think its going to be as easy as DVD saying, your contract is no longer valid. And why they lost the lawsuit regarding fees between 2042 and 2057.

 

[Epcot Forever Forever]

A question connected with DVC prices....

I've been really regretting two different use years and considering selling my contract for a while.

Since I'll be a buyer and a seller I'm not sure what to do...is it best to sell now so I can buy a contract with my use year for cheaper? Or wait it out until I can get a better price for my contract and try to find a deal?

What would you do?

If you’re looking to both buy and sell, I don’t think it matters much when you do it. If the market is $20 higher or $20 lower you’ll still be out a similar amount as a result of making the exchange.

 

[Brian Noble]

The Dude gets it, man.

Sometimes, there's a man, well, he's the man for his time and place.

I'm sure DVD would have preferred to have it all simple and clean with everyone either paying up or signing off*. But, that's not what happened, and The Walt Disney Company is not known as a kind and forgiving soul when they think they are entitled to money.

------------
*: There had to be thousands of OKW owners. Anyone who thinks all of those people would even open their mail, let alone respond to the "pay up or sign off" request, was either foolish or high.

 

[lovethesun12]

If you're upgrading to pricier points, say SSR -> VGF, I'd sell and buy now. The hit SSR took isn't as much as the VGF took, so you come out ahead. If you're doing the reverse, I'd wait. If they're about equal, I'd just do it now.

They’re about equal. I’m sticking with poly but some of the recent prices I’ve seen BCV going for is definitely turning my head.

It seems it’s still selling for more than I originally bought in on the contracts I have.

 

[RoseGold]

There had to be thousands of OKW owners. Anyone who thinks all of those people would even open their mail, let alone respond to the "pay up or sign off" request, was either foolish or high.

The stories from then are wild. DVC would mess with you when you checked in, threatened to freeze accounts. I think that's when lawyers got involved and Disney backed off. There was significant follow up at least trying to get all the quitclaims for a while.

And the quitclaim required a notary, so yea, I bet a lot of people didn't comply, because who has time for that?

 

[E2ME2]

If you’re looking to both buy and sell, I don’t think it matters much when you do it. If the market is $20 higher or $20 lower you’ll still be out a similar amount as a result of making the exchange.

I was so close to doing just that - - then I couldn't bring myself to let my contract go for so low!
So I will hold onto my SSR points for awhile (just have to pencil in another trip or a room upgrade)

 

[Royal Consort]

I'm sure DVD would have preferred to have it all simple and clean with everyone either paying up or signing off*. But, that's not what happened, and The Walt Disney Company is not known as a kind and forgiving soul when they think they are entitled to money.

The irony of the Walt Disney Company: values based entertainment that isn't congruent with their corporate behaviour. We can all sit in cognitive dissonance.

 

[Chili327]

A question connected with DVC prices....

I've been really regretting two different use years and considering selling my contract for a while.

Since I'll be a buyer and a seller I'm not sure what to do...is it best to sell now so I can buy a contract with my use year for cheaper? Or wait it out until I can get a better price for my contract and try to find a deal?

What would you do?

Buy Low, Sell High.

But also…

If you’re looking to both buy and sell, I don’t think it matters much when you do it. If the market is $20 higher or $20 lower you’ll still be out a similar amount as a result of making the exchange.

True the difference (and stress) may not be worth it.

 

[Bearval]

I'm not even sure the owner would prevail.

Disney's argument would almost certainly be something along the following lines: "The original agreement was for the owner's use up to and expiring in 2042. Both parties willingly agreed to that expiration date at the effective price. We offered additional years, an offer which this owner did not accept. The fact that the ground lease was the mechanism of extension does not change the fact that the original agreement explicitly articulated the expiration of the owner's use in 2042. We believe the other party is not entitled to more, and ask the court to so order."

IANAL, but I can see that having a chance--and maybe a good one.

The idea that Disney is just going to ignore these owners out of the desire to avoid a messy fight does not seem consistent with how the company generally behaves. But, as Jeff Lebowski would say:

I agree, I don't think the owners will prevail. For what I am hearing is that people who agreed received " new" contracts. The people who didn't accept the extension offer have their original contract. DVD does not have to act on this issue until 2042 . I am willing to bet the first thing they will do is cut off the owners with out extensions so they cannot pay MFs or book rooms. If hit with a lawsuit DVD will state that the lawsuit has no merit under the grounds a contract must have three main components met , the offer ( DVD offering an extension for $$) acceptance ( the person who was given the offer accepts the terms and conditions) and consideration ( money or something of value exchanged for the offer). The people who didn't agree to the extension didn't fulfill the required terms of the offer therefor have no "new" contract with an extension regardless of what the land lease states. If this gets rejected by the courts and they get hit with a class action lawsuit, they will attempt to get this thrown out in favor of having people sue individually. If this is unsuccessful and they go to class action trial and lose ( I feel losing is highly unlikely) this will take at least 2 to 3 years before a verdict is reached. The settlement will be cash, and it will be based on the resale value of the 15 year extension of the 2057 contracts in 2043. Sometime around 2039, (or sooner) DVD will stop ROFR OKW and stop selling OKW direct points, this will be a effort to get the bottom to fall out on the value of the contracts since the price per point will be based upon the value of the 15 remining years of the 2057 contacts which maybe as low as $60 pp or less. I am sure if DVD does lose they may try and use the $15 to $25 per point value that they asked for when they offer was made.
If the owners are successful they will get their $15 to $60 pp settlement minus ~ 35% lawyers fees while all this time Disney is renting the rooms out for cash. Disney wins even if they lose.

 

[E2ME2]

The irony of the Walt Disney Company: values based entertainment that isn't congruent with their corporate behaviour. We can all sit in cognitive dissonance.

CDR - Yes we all suffer from that to some degree

 

[RoseGold]

I agree, I don't think the owners will prevail. For what I am hearing is that people who agreed received " new" contracts. The people who didn't accept the extension offer have their original contract.

Disney changed the POS for all owners. Nobody has the "original" contract, it isn't possible.

 

[Bearval]

Disney changed the POS for all owners. Nobody has the "original" contract, it isn't possible.

You have your "original bill of sale" which states what your paid and what you received, that is what DVD will use in court.

 

[RoseGold]

You have your "original bill of sale" which states what your paid and what you received, that is what DVD will use in court.

Right. That contract just points to the POS, which Disney changed. The original POS does not exist.

 

[Sandisw]

You have your "original bill of sale" which states what your paid and what you received, that is what DVD will use in court.

The POS clearly states that the resort ceases to exist when the ground lease expires...and that the POS was updated in 2013...once that changed, all owners are now under that new contract....

It also states that per the condominium documents, the ending of the resort can be changed. In essence, DVD changing the POS, with no mention that it only applies to those purchasing from a certain date forward, applies its terms to all buyers.

As I stated earlier, why have owners sign quit claim deeds then? Even now, they ask owners who want to sell to do that? Those would not be needed if they have the ability to just sweep up all the contracts in 2042 from original owners.

That was a material change to the contract that DVD made on its own...they will have to deal with it in 2042...but I just don't think its going to be as simple as DVD being allowed to stop the use of the contract for those owners and that there will be lawsuits if they do....

I also think we may see owners offered a chance to extend again for a fee....of course, we are getting off topic in this thread, but DVD asking owners to sign those deeds giving them back ownership in 2042 would not be needed if they have the legal right to take them back...that, and the updated POS, is going to carry more weight in a court than the sales document

 

[Brian Noble]

That's the thing. The POS says both things, and both sides are going to be able to point to language that supports their positions. At that point, you are down to arguing it in court. And, "the owner knew what they were getting all along" plus "they did not agree to the new terms" might be a pretty compelling argument.

Or it might not. But it won't be cheap to find out, and the outcome is far from certain.

Even if it is certified as a class, there aren't going to be enough people involved to make it worth a contingency fee approach; it's going to be hundreds to a few thousand people, tops, and the damages can't possibly be that large if Disney loses--at least not beyond continued use of the property, and you can't siphon that off to the law firm like you can a monetary award.

Disney may not hold the winning hand, but they have a lot of strong cards.

I do think that anyone who is still "live" at that point (i.e.: did not pay for an extension and have no quitclaim tied to the deed) will be offered another bite at the extension apple. Will that be a good deal to get them to cave? Maybe. An interesting game of chicken.

 

[zavandor]

Sometimes, there's a man, well, he's the man for his time and place.

I'm sure DVD would have preferred to have it all simple and clean with everyone either paying up or signing off*. But, that's not what happened, and The Walt Disney Company is not known as a kind and forgiving soul when they think they are entitled to money.

------------
*: There had to be thousands of OKW owners. Anyone who thinks all of those people would even open their mail, let alone respond to the "pay up or sign off" request, was either foolish or high.

They tried to harass people to sign at check in and threatened to stop letting them use the points and that's when people hired lawyers so they stopped. Given the brilliant record of the DVC law dept, I would say they don't have a clue either.

 

[Brian Noble]

Sure. Forbidding use before 2042 with a fully-paid account under the original terms is definitely not a winning strategy. There's nothing in the POS that I can think of that could back that up.

In 2043? That's a whole different ball game.

 

[Genie+]

Alot depends what’s happening as the 2040s approach. What does DVC look like then? Between the issue with the dues lawsuit and a dwindled number of grey area owners, Disney/DVC might find a relatively decent offer for quit claims or paid extensions is the way to go. The smaller the grey area group the easier they are to deal with.

 

[kanerf]

It would be really interesting if you could find out what your resale contract sold for originally. I just picked up a small BLT contract and while I think I got a pretty good deal, I wonder what the owners made by selling it.