Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

[TexasChick123]

That's what the POS says, collecting might be another matter. But they don't have to collect, only file and suspend the account.

This would be a legal and media nightmare for Disney. They care too much about their reputation. I haven’t read the POS, nor do I plan to. However, there are a lot of restrictions on what Disney would be allowed to do despite what’s in the contract. I don’t want to go into it, but the gist is that we, as consumers, are the less sophisticated party. Certain provisions must be clearly pointed out and not buried in contracts. Courts usually will rule in favor of an individual over a corporation for something like this. I can think of all kinds of arguments against the member being responsible for legal fees, but it would take all night to post.

 

[Dean]

This would be a legal and media nightmare for Disney. They care too much about their reputation. I haven’t read the POS, nor do I plan to. However, there are a lot of restrictions on what Disney would be allowed to do despite what’s in the contract. I don’t want to go into it, but the gist is that we, as consumers, are the less sophisticated party. Certain provisions must be clearly pointed out and not buried in contracts. Courts usually will rule in favor of an individual over a corporation for something like this. I can think of all kinds of arguments against the member being responsible for legal fees, but it would take all night to post.

I'm not sure I agree. I don't see them enforcing the POS for a failed lawsuit as a media nightmare for them. They've got a legal team on staff, and as I said, all they have to do is lock down the account. I understand that courts tend to side with the individual in such matters but technically speaking this is what the POS says. Personally I see it as enforceable at least up to a point. In the absence of a legal challenge, I think we have to go with the written contract here.

 

[miTnosnhoJ]

I think the lawsuit would be over when the Disney Lawyer tells the judge that the plaintiff has already agreed to submit all disputes to arbitration.

 

[TexasChick123]

I think the lawsuit would be over when the Disney Lawyer tells the judge that the plaintiff has already agreed to submit all disputes to arbitration.

Touché.

 

[crvetter]

I think the lawsuit would be over when the Disney Lawyer tells the judge that the plaintiff has already agreed to submit all disputes to arbitration.

Well we actually didn’t waive our rights to trial. It says we will try abutratuon first and if either party doesn’t agree a trial will occur. That’s at least what the document I signed said.

 

[WebmasterDoc]

This isn’t true. I’m an attorney. It is very hard to recover attorney’s fees in a lawsuit especially in a class action suit. Usually each party pays his/her own fees.

So, in your legal opinion, this section of the POS is not valid?

From Exhibit "4" to the Public Offering Statement for the Declaration Of Condominium of the Disney Vacation Club at Walt Disney World Resort, A Leasehold Condominium
Dated 01/06/1992

Article XV
Compliance and Default​

15.1 Costs and Attorneys' Fees. In any proceeding arising because of an alleged failure of an Owner or the Association to comply with the terms of the Condominium Documents, or the Condominium Rules and Regulations adopted pursuant to them, as they may be amended from time to time, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the costs of the proceeding, and recover such reasonable attorneys' fees as may be awarded by the Court, including all appeals and all proceedings to bankruptcy.

 

[DVC92]

If DVC would simply inform the members that the 2019 vs. 2020 point reallocations did not add more points to the system and the reallocations benefited members this could all be put to rest. However, even if they can show the first part, I do not see the changes benefiting the majority of members. Further, as I have been told, the info is proprietary.

 

[TexasChick123]

So, in your legal opinion, this section of the POS is not valid?

From Exhibit "4" to the Public Offering Statement for the Declaration Of Condominium of the Disney Vacation Club at Walt Disney World Resort, A Leasehold Condominium
Dated 01/06/1992

Article XV
Compliance and Default​

15.1 Costs and Attorneys' Fees. In any proceeding arising because of an alleged failure of an Owner or the Association to comply with the terms of the Condominium Documents, or the Condominium Rules and Regulations adopted pursuant to them, as they may be amended from time to time, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the costs of the proceeding, and recover such reasonable attorneys' fees as may be awarded by the Court, including all appeals and all proceedings to bankruptcy.

Full disclosure, I’ve never participated in arbitration or been a part of a class action suit as an attorney or otherwise. I did some corporate law before entering criminal law. I do have some thoughts, but I am going to refrain from giving any more on the matter as criminal law is really my specialty. I’ll let others who practice civil law chime in if they so choose.

 

[DougEMG]

But bear in mind, if you do go to court and lose, you'll not only be responsible for your own legal fees, but likely also DVCs legal fees. It can get VERY expensive.

Which is why large companies can afford to play lose with the rules, they have a lot more resources than us little people.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

So, in your legal opinion, this section of the POS is not valid?

From Exhibit "4" to the Public Offering Statement for the Declaration Of Condominium of the Disney Vacation Club at Walt Disney World Resort, A Leasehold Condominium
Dated 01/06/1992

Article XV
Compliance and Default​

15.1 Costs and Attorneys' Fees. In any proceeding arising because of an alleged failure of an Owner or the Association to comply with the terms of the Condominium Documents, or the Condominium Rules and Regulations adopted pursuant to them, as they may be amended from time to time, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the costs of the proceeding, and recover such reasonable attorneys' fees as may be awarded by the Court, including all appeals and all proceedings to bankruptcy.

Key words "as may be awarded by the Court". Disney doesn't just get to send you a bill if you lose.

DIsclaimer: i'm no lawyer. I work in property management. The following is my opinion only and based on my limited knowledge!

From what I've seen of cases involving leases, it seems it would take a borderline frivolous lawsuit being filed to cause the court to award a corporate giant attorneys fees from a lowly consumer. Unless through the course of the proceedings you've shown yourself to be an unreasonable ****** with evil intentions, they're probably not going to want to rub salt in the wound after your loss and make you pony up.

Our attorneys bill $300-$800 / hr. I can't imagine what Disney's bill.

If you have a reasonable case against another party should you be deterred for fear of being bankrupt?

Should large corporations go "unchecked" simply because they've got all the money?

I don't have any experience / knowledge of class action suits at all.

 

[Dean]

If DVC would simply inform the members that the 2019 vs. 2020 point reallocations did not add more points to the system and the reallocations benefited members this could all be put to rest. However, even if they can show the first part, I do not see the changes benefiting the majority of members. Further, as I have been told, the info is proprietary.

As I've said many times over the last few years, they and we would be far better off if they were proactive rather than reactive and if they were consistent rather than inconsistent. They wouldn't have to give out occupancy numbers to answer the question to the satisfaction of most people, they could give more general statements. Of course not everyone would be satisfied but I think most would be.

I have no doubt it would be difficult to win damages and even more difficult to collect but they could force one to defend the action which would likely be just as costly. IIRC the wording is nonbonding arbitration. That adds another round of legal wrangling increasing the costs further if one goes this route. I don't have access to my POS right now but I don't recall that it states the situations that would force the arbitration, I wonder if one could use that situation to meet with them. It'd be a lot cheaper to get an attorney to look over the POS and attend a meeting rather than a formal lawsuit.

 

[mikebb]

Key words "as may be awarded by the Court". Disney doesn't just get to send you a bill if you lose.

DIsclaimer: i'm no lawyer. I work in property management. The following is my opinion only and based on my limited knowledge!

From what I've seen of cases involving leases, it seems it would take a borderline frivolous lawsuit being filed to cause the court to award a corporate giant attorneys fees from a lowly consumer. Unless through the course of the proceedings you've shown yourself to be an unreasonable ****** with evil intentions, they're probably not going to want to rub salt in the wound after your loss and make you pony up.

Our attorneys bill $300-$800 / hr. I can't imagine what Disney's bill.

If you have a reasonable case against another party should you be deterred for fear of being bankrupt?

Should large corporations go "unchecked" simply because they've got all the money?

I don't have any experience / knowledge of class action suits at all.

I would also ask, as this section of the contract seems to pertain to lawsuits between owners and the association, and since the association is essentially "us", if DVC would essentially just pass any legal fees onto us in the form of higher dues (regardless of win or lose)? A similar scenario came up one time at our HOA meeting, where someone threatened to sue the HOA, and the president merely stated that the costs of all lawsuit would be borne by all homeowners (the person threatening to sue was using the threat as part of a personal beef with the board IIRC, and somehow thought the board would be personally resposible for legal fees. )

That said, I can't see Disney (the Walt Disney Corporation) throwing a blank check at DVC to fight a class action by their owners. Is there a precedent for this? Not single owner/DVC lawsuits, but a class action by a large number of owners?

 

[drusba]

So, in your legal opinion, this section of the POS is not valid?

From Exhibit "4" to the Public Offering Statement for the Declaration Of Condominium of the Disney Vacation Club at Walt Disney World Resort, A Leasehold Condominium
Dated 01/06/1992

Article XV
Compliance and Default​

15.1 Costs and Attorneys' Fees. In any proceeding arising because of an alleged failure of an Owner or the Association to comply with the terms of the Condominium Documents, or the Condominium Rules and Regulations adopted pursuant to them, as they may be amended from time to time, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the costs of the proceeding, and recover such reasonable attorneys' fees as may be awarded by the Court, including all appeals and all proceedings to bankruptcy.

The association, not DVMC, is covered by that award-of-fees clause. The association has done nothing except transfer essentially all of its powers, including all its powers relating to home resort reservations, home resort points, and determining point charts, to DVCMC, the managing company. By statute, DVCMC is deemed a fiduciary of the owners that can be sued by the owners. It is required to comply with the provisions of the declarations and other official documents. The owners are third party beneficiaries of any contract it has with the association including the Membership Agreement. Thus, DVCMC can be sued directly without joining the association, rendering the clause inapplicable.

Also mentioned above is the requirement to submit a dispute to non-binding arbitration "under Florida law." The Florida law that could potentially be applicable is the arbitration statute, Fl Stats §718.1255, covering disputes involving condominiums, conducted by the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. That organization could find the particular dispute is not arbitrable under the applicable statute, and just leave the parties to a court dispute, because the nature of the dispute does not fall within the kinds of disputes it is supposed to hear. The applicable arbitrators are paid by the division not the parties.

The only other non-binding arbitration statute that could potentially apply is the one that a court can order in any civil case after it is filed, even if there is no agreement for non-binding arbitration. Under that law, unless both parties agree at the time otherwise, the arbitrator is to be picked from those who are listed with the court, must be neutral, and the maximum charge is $1500 per full day, payable half by each party, Fl Stats §44.103. What you can often end up getting in those situations are former or retired judges now working part-time as court-appointed arbitrators.

 

[Chuck S]

This would be a legal and media nightmare for Disney. They care too much about their reputation. I haven’t read the POS, nor do I plan to. However, there are a lot of restrictions on what Disney would be allowed to do despite what’s in the contract. I don’t want to go into it, but the gist is that we, as consumers, are the less sophisticated party. Certain provisions must be clearly pointed out and not buried in contracts. Courts usually will rule in favor of an individual over a corporation for something like this. I can think of all kinds of arguments against the member being responsible for legal fees, but it would take all night to post.

We’re talking about the same Disney that made a little daycare center remove a Mickey Mouse drawing from their wall, right?

 

[Chuck S]

If DVC would simply inform the members that the 2019 vs. 2020 point reallocations did not add more points to the system and the reallocations benefited members this could all be put to rest. However, even if they can show the first part, I do not see the changes benefiting the majority of members. Further, as I have been told, the info is proprietary.

Majority of members is open to interpretation. A simple majority of members is not the same as a majority of the points owned. In other words, say you have 3 people that own 50 points and one person that owns 300 points. I can see it benefiting the 300 point owner by reducing competition for room availability. Making point to reserve rooms would benefit the small point owner, but increase room competition for a large point owner.

 

[DVC92]

Majority of members is open to interpretation. A simple majority of members is not the same as a majority of the points owned. In other words, say you have 3 people that own 50 points and one person that owns 300 points. I can see it benefiting the 300 point owner by reducing competition for room availability. Making point to reserve rooms would benefit the small point owner, but increase room competition for a large point owner.

I don't own at the Poly, but I will use it as an example. i believe the points for all seasons, except one for standard, have risen. The Poly is effectively studios only. How can raising all the points benefit members. Members shouldn't have to lose days because DVC dumped a lot of points in the system by building cabins that no one can really afford to stay in and mostly sit empty.

 

[Chuck S]

I don't own at the Poly, but I will use it as an example. i believe the points for all seasons, except one for standard, have risen. The Poly is effectively studios only. How can raising all the points benefit members. Members shouldn't have to lose days because DVC dumped a lot of points in the system by building cabins that no one can really afford to stay in and mostly sit empty.

But, if someone Has enough points for 7 nights and now have 6 nights, it makes studios more available to other members

 

[DVC92]

But, if someone Has enough points for 7 nights and now have 6 nights, it makes studios more available to other members

So DVC creates a problem. People buy enough points to suit their needs for a 7 night stay, Now they can no longer get 7 nights. Further, leaving a night open here and there doesn't really help anyone.

 

[Chuck S]

So DVC creates a problem. People buy enough points to suit their needs for a 7 night stay, Now they can no longer get 7 nights. Further, leaving a night open here and there doesn't really help anyone.

Sure it does. It helps people that want to stay 8 to 10 nights or more, and that have the points to do so.

 

[DVC92]

Sure it does. It helps people that want to stay 8 to 10 nights or more, and that have the points to do so.

Except before they were able to get 10 to 12 nights. It happened to me when the weekends were lowered. I originally went for 12 nights in Magic at OKW, but then i was limited to 10 nights.