Declining the 15 extra years

[dianeschlicht]

I called our guide today and asked to get the paper work started for signing the extra OKW 15 years back to Disney. He tried to talk me into adding the years to at least one of our OKW contracts. I told him we had thought of all the angles, and decided this made more sense for us. He said a lot of early buyers who are no approaching retirement have come to the same decision. I suspect they are not having a lot of luck with the lien generating income from the current owners. It made me wonder if the sales guides get a commission for talking folks into this.

 

[WebmasterDoc]

Did he offer any suggestion about when you can expect to receive the paperwork?

 

[Deb & Bill]

We've sold one OKW contract. Plan to sell another in January. The final OKW contract will not have the 15 yr extension added to it. We don't see the benefit to us at all.

 

[3DisneyKids]

I would think it would make more sense to buy a new contract...if you plan on going to WDW for 15 years past 2042 (which is still a long way from now), then it seems that just purchasing at a new resort would make more sense. Sure, the initial out of pocket will be higher, but your contract will also be worth more if you need to sell. Additionally, there is speculation that the OKW maint. fees may sky-rocket, et.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Did he offer any suggestion about when you can expect to receive the paperwork?

No, he didn't. I asked if we could do it when we are down over Thanksgiving, and he said it didn't work that way. I just wonder if they get a commission for talking folks into extending. I told him we didn't see much point in it, since we will be mid 90's in '42, and even our "kids" will be mid 60's. I told him I saw no point in paying now for something that doesn't go into effect for another 35 years.

3Disneykids, we did discuss selling and buying more AKV points, but decided to hang on to what we have. I'm sure the dues will increase as time passes, but DVC has done a good job of keeping those costs down in the past, and I don't expect they will change that anytime soon. There would be too much of a rush to sell if that happened.

 

[simzac]

I still think that for those of us who said no thank you to the extension, DVC will drag it out as long as possible hoping we change our minds. Not going to happen here.

 

[JimMIA]

I still think that for those of us who said no thank you to the extension, DVC will drag it out as long as possible hoping we change our minds. Not going to happen here.

If they drag it out until 2042, it won't matter to us. We've sent in our card saying "No thanks," and we're done with it. We'll do the legal paperwork whenever they get around to it.

I suspect the real reason why it's taking a long time is they were really not set up to complete the process. I also think they have received a lot more "no's" than they expected and the process will therefore take longer. IMHO, they would only hurt themselves by dragging their feet.

 

[JimMIA]

It made me wonder if the sales guides get a commission for talking folks into this.

They probably are. If it was not originally in the plan, I'm sure the guides will eventually be rewarded for converting accounts to the extended version. The guides wouldn't bother if they weren't being rewarded.

 

[JimMIA]

The other reason for long delays in processing the "no's" would be that the "yes's" put money in their pocket. They are going to handle those first to generate the revenue.

 

[alldiz]

If it is offerered to WLV.....I'm not taking it either....

As an immediate gratification kinda girl.....no way I'm paying for something
that I can't use till 2042....

I'd rather add-on...and use my points now
Kerri

 

[JimMIA]

I asked if we could do it when we are down over Thanksgiving, and he said it didn't work that way.

I think I would call back and speak to a supervisor. The translation of what the guide is telling you is, "I don't want to be bothered."

By using this lein, DVC has placed a financial cost on owners who are forced into a legal transfer to decline something they never asked for in the first place, because we have to get the paperwork notarized. I don't know how much paperwork there would be, but there is some cost associated with that. Not so much in the U.S., but overseas those costs can be substantial.

I think if you pushed them a bit, you could sign the paperwork at the preview center with their notaries verifying everything...as long as you had all owners of the account present. It would take 5 minutes, and I don't think that's much for an owner to ask in this situation.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

I will be 74yo and Dh will be 72yo in January 2042. IF we are still here. (not many on my family have made it much past 70)

We are also going to decline. We have 160 AKV points to keep us going the 50 years. As far as adding value, I can't see a day where we would ever be selling.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

I will be 74yo and Dh will be 72yo in January 2042. IF we are still here. (not many on my family have made it much past 70)

We are also going to decline. We have 160 AKV points to keep us going the 50 years. As far as adding value, I can't see a day where we would ever be selling.

you are not interested because you will already be 74 in 2042, yet you own AKV which will bring you past 2042 anyway, I dont get it are you simply not extending because you have enough points now with AKV and not so much that you dont like the offer

I havent kept on this as I am not an OKW member, but why exactly is everyone so up in arms?

seems like a decent enough deal to me. points are over $2 per point/per year at this point with new contracts--how can you beat the price?

not prepaying for something you cant use for 35 more years--well thats exactly what we are doing with DVC, isnt it? we all bought in knowing we have ponts we cant use for 40-50 years.

when I first got on the boards, there were many threads asking about extensions--now everyone is saying we never asked for it? if they didnt offer it everyone would be asking for it

everyone has their choices, I just dont get why everyone seems so PO'd

 

[sjdisneywedding]

By using this lein, DVC has placed a financial cost on owners who are forced into a legal transfer to decline something they never asked for in the first place, because we have to get the paperwork notarized. I don't know how much paperwork there would be, but there is some cost associated with that. Not so much in the U.S., but overseas those costs can be substantial.

.

maybe this is also been discussed, but what other option would DVC have other than a legal accept/decline?

I dont think you cant just let owners sit around and not decide one way or another. I would think that would cause major legal issues once the original contracts expire. People getting into dipsutes that they wanted the extra 35 years but were never notified, people selling and claiming the extended.

DVC needs proof--legal proof. this isnt something they can screw around with I wouldnt think

Imaybe I am way off but I doubt they want to do all this extra paperwork when someone simply doesnt want the extension

 

[WebmasterDoc]

maybe this is also been discussed, but what other option would DVC have other than a legal accept/decline?

I dont think you cant just let owners sit around and not decide one way or another. I would think that would cause major legal issues once the original contracts expire. People getting into dipsutes that they wanted the extra 35 years but were never notified, people selling and claiming the extended.

DVC needs proof--legal proof. this isnt something they can screw around with I wouldnt think

Imaybe I am way off but I doubt they want to do all this extra paperwork when someone simply doesnt want the extension

The issue here is that they are REQUIRING members to sign, notarize and return documents or have a lien placed on their ownership. Those who have already returned the declination offer have still not received the paperwork to complete the process and those who ask if it can be done while at WDW (where they made their initial purchase) are told it can't be done that way.

"All this extra paperwork" is NOT at the request of the members - it has been made a requirement by DVC to continue to use their membership. They are REQUIRING members to sign their documents but are refusing to send the same documents or allow them to be signed while on site.

As for not letting "owners sit around and not decide one way or another" - that's exactly what is being discussed here. DVC has members who have asked for the paperwork to allow them to make the decision (required by Disney) and yet refuses to provide the very documents they are demanding to be signed.

Why can't DVC have the paperwork available to be signed onsite or already have it prepared to be sent out? They have placed an artificial date (February 29, 2008) for members to accept or decline and yet are placing obstacles in the way of allowing members to comply.

If you are trying to suggest that DVC has no incentive to get the extended deed signed over to them, then why demand it at all? Why the threats to place a lien on ownership?

 

[sjdisneywedding]

If you are trying to suggest that DVC has no incentive to get the extended deed signed over to them, then why demand it at all? Why the threats to place a lien on ownership?

interesting, I am not sure to be honest

theres has to something significant to it from a legal standpoint to have to go through all these hoops

I dont get why you could not show up and sign a noterized doc in person, maybe that was just a mistake by the MS person


I can see the hassle point of view all this has caused, but overall is the extension really such a bad deal

seems many are almost discussing it as a slap in the face type thing--maybe its just the WAY the going about it and not the deal itself

 

[Kruuzin]

I'm not a lawyer, but in instances like this I wish I had more knowledge of the law. I don't get it. I signed a contract with DVC for ownership interest at OKW until 2042. Now they send me an offer to extend. I say no and then I have to incure the cost (and time) to get more documents notorized? That would be like requiring a notorized letter everytime you say no to a telemarketer. Are we all going to have to go through this process again evertime they offer extensions to other DVC resorts? This is going to become a huge inconvenience.

 

[OlderMan]

Didn't I see, hear or read that DVC is giving ALL of us OKW members a credit on our Annual Maintenance/Dues to cover the costs of a notary, time to do so, etc?

For some reason $25 sticks in my mind............

 

[WebmasterDoc]

interesting, I am not sure to be honest

theres has to something significant to it from a legal standpoint to have to go through all these hoops

I dont get why you could not show up and sign a noterized doc in person, maybe that was just a mistake by the MS person


I can see the hassle point of view all this has caused, but overall is the extension really such a bad deal

seems many are almost discussing it as a slap in the face type thing--maybe its just the WAY the going about it and not the deal itself

The extension by itself is fine - it's the dictum that members have 3+ months to make full payment for something unilaterally added to a contract that is my objection and the foot-dragging-making-it-otherwise-impossible-to-decline. Whether or not it's a "good deal" can be viewed in a number of ways and, IMO, is a personal decision to be made by each member. I can think of many situations where it would be attractive and can support those making that decision as long as others can support my decision not to accept the extension. If DVC wanted 100% acceptance, they could have just added the additional years without expecting any additional payment. However, by expecting payment, they are in the position of needing to present their "offer" to members in the best light - just like any other sales offering they've created over the years.

IMO, this "offer" has been presented like someone stepping out of an alley as you walk down the street, opening an overcoat and trying to attract your attention by saying "Psst, have I got a deal for you!". I know just how I respond to those "offers". This one was first presented in the form of a legal notice of the meeting to "vote" on the resolutions. The words "lien" were part of those resolutions as well as the artificial date of February 29, 2008 ( "Psst"). IMO, it came across more as a threat than an offer.

The followup letter also suggested the ease of completing the "requirement" to fullfill the resolution by accepting ... or declining ... the "offer". It appears that accepting the offer is being made very easy but those wanting to decline are being stonewalled. We have been informed that we will need to have documents notarized and returned to DVC - but thus far, no documents are in the hands of those declining and signing/notarizing documents at the DVC office is not an option at all. ("Psst, have I got a deal for you.")

The value of the offer is definitely in the eye of the individual making the decision. How DVC decides to implement the forced legal proceeding can certainly affect the perception of DVC for the members involved.

 

[dianeschlicht]

The extension by itself is fine - it's the dictum that members have 3+ months to make full payment for something unilaterally added to a contract that is my objection and the foot-dragging-making-it-otherwise-impossible-to-decline. Whether or not it's a "good deal" can be viewed in a number of ways and, IMO, is a personal decision to be made by each member. I can think of many situations where it would be attractive and can support those making that decision as long as others can support my decision not to accept the extension. If DVC wanted 100% acceptance, they could have just added the additional years without expecting any additional payment. However, by expecting payment, they are in the position of needing to present their "offer" to members in the best light - just like any other sales offering they've created over the years.

IMO, this "offer" has been presented like someone stepping out of an alley as you walk down the street, opening an overcoat and trying to attract your attention by saying "Psst, have I got a deal for you!". I know just how I respond to those "offers". This one was first presented in the form of a legal notice of the meeting to "vote" on the resolutions. The words "lien" were part of those resolutions as well as the artificial date of February 29, 2008 ( "Psst"). IMO, it came across more as a threat than an offer.

The followup letter also suggested the ease of completing the "requirement" to fullfill the resolution by accepting ... or declining ... the "offer". It appears that accepting the offer is being made very easy but those wanting to decline are being stonewalled. We have been informed that we will need to have documents notarized and returned to DVC - but thus far, no documents are in the hands of those declining and signing/notarizing documents at the DVC office is not an option at all. ("Psst, have I got a deal for you.")

The value of the offer is definitely in the eye of the individual making the decision. How DVC decides to implement the forced legal proceeding can certainly affect the perception of DVC for the members involved.

Very well put, Doc, and my "perception" is leaving a bad taste in my mouth over this whole affair. I'd rather they waited until about 2040 to make this move.