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

[zavandor]

For the quote post, which was my response, it doesn't say it must be by vacation home. The key parts are that it says the points may change, the points for a year (base year) can't change and that if the points for a vacation home changes they must be offset SOMEWHERE. It does not say that offset must be in the same villa type/size.

I quoted only the second bullet point.
The full quote is:

11. Each DVC Resort Vacation Home is assigned a nightly Vacation Point value, which varies depending upon the season of use, location and the size of the Vacation Home and other factors. The number of Vacation Points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand.

• The total number of Vacation Points required to use all Vacation Homes during each calendar year through January 31, 2054 can never increase unless more Vacation Homes are added to the plan, except for normal variations which occur in the calendar from year to year.

• If Vacation Points for one specific night increase, it will be offset by a decrease on another night or nights, except for normal variations which occur in the calendar from year to year.

• Reallocation cannot exceed 20% per calendar year, except under limited circumstances.

The context for all the three bullet points is set in the preceding sentence. It clearly says "Vacation Home" and it says "The number of vacation Points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand".
So when in the second bullet points they state that "If Vacation Points for one specific night increase" it is referring to the points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home.

If you ignore the context, the second bullet point in itself doesn't mean anything, not even what you want to read in it.

 

[drusba]

From what I can tell now, changes in the Product Disclosure document began with VGF. The VGF paragraph on adjusting points reads exactly the same as the one in AKV that I provided above, including having the three bullet points, except it changes one, and only one word: "seasonal" is removed and replaced by "relative." In other words, New DVC management considered it critical to eliminate the word "seasonal," so it could work toward its new "misconstruction" of the Membership Agreement, and then later realized it better remove a lot more, starting with CCV, to eliminate the construction that an increase in one vacation home had to be met by a decrease in the same type of vacation home. It is possible that the point change that is being made for 2020 was something first contemplated by DVC when it started selling CCV and thus the radical change made then.

 

[crvetter]

From what I can tell now, changes in the Product Disclosure document began with VGF. The VGF paragraph on adjusting points reads exactly the same as the one in AKV that I provided above, including having the three bullet points, except it changes one, and only one word: "seasonal" is removed and replaced by "relative."

That is an interesting change. I would agree that is a pretty material interpretation change likely. However, if one could prove Disney intended to only change within a given vacation home type, no matter if later management changed their interpretation, they would be held to the original interpretation of those resorts at least.

 

[zavandor]

Even more interesting, while the reallocation is made by DVCMC, the Product Disclosure document is written by DVD.

If the current version of the PDD is the right one, then older owners could sue DVD for misleading them when they bought, making them think the reallocation can only happen within each Vacation Home. And while DVCMC expenses and losses are paid by members, DVD is owned by the Disney Corporation. Am I going too far?

If the old version of the PDD is right, instead, then DVCMC must abide to it and cancel the reallocation.

 

[glamdring269]

If the old version of the PDD is right, instead, then DVCMC must abide to it and cancel the reallocation.

The older version has to be correct, doesn't it? I mean how could someone buy something 20 years ago and then have a new resort come on board that changes the initial agreement without their consent? Unless of course there is some other portion of the original agreement that allows for precisely that type of change.

 

[zavandor]

The older version has to be correct, doesn't it? I mean how could someone buy something 20 years ago and then have a new resort come on board that changes the initial agreement without their consent? Unless of course there is some other portion of the original agreement that allows for precisely that type of change.

That's a thorny issue. DVCMC has the right to modify most parts of the POS at will and owners have signed to grant them that right. The Membership agreement is one of those parts. If compliant with the law, they could modify the POS and make the reallocation compatible with a new version of the POS, but It seems they haven't done it yet (they should notify all members if they do so).
So for the current version of the POS, the old version is clearly the right one.

However, while they can change the POS at will, they cannot violate the Florida law. For example they cannot just change the POS and say that the number of points needed to book the resort can increase, because that is against the Florida Law. It is my opinion that they cannot change the POS in the part saying they can reallocate only within one Vacation Home, because the one-to-one law applies to each Vacation Home in the Florida Law, not just to the whole resort. But it seems I'm the only one to think that.

 

[drusba]

The older version has to be correct, doesn't it? I mean how could someone buy something 20 years ago and then have a new resort come on board that changes the initial agreement without their consent? Unless of course there is some other portion of the original agreement that allows for precisely that type of change.

The issue is what DVC asserted the Membership Agreement meant. The Product Understanding document is one new purchasers are told to rely on in making the purchase from DVD. Under the old one, such purchasers were told "seasonal" changes could occur and an increase in a "particular vacation home" for a "specific night" had to be met by an offsetting decrease in another night or nights. That is a specific, written representation that the purchasers were told by Disney to rely on. Nothing is said anywhere about allowing DVC to make changes based on varying demand among the different sizes of vacation homes. Disney drafted all these documents. DVCMC, the one in control of point changes is a fiduciary. in those situations Florida courts uniformity hold that all ambiguities in a controlling document are construed against the draftsmen/fiduciary. Thus, if the members' claimed interpretation of the Membership Agreement and Product Understanding document is a reasonable interpretation, DVCMC should lose any case even if it can claim its construction is also reasonable.

With more recent resorts, DVC is now changing the wording of the Product Disclosure document to essentially mean whatever it wants is to mean. That new meaning described (or actually not described) in the more recent Product Disclosure document, which I do not believe is even supported by the Membership Agreement, is, at worse, one applicable only to purchasers of the newer resorts.

Important here with the changes in the Product Disclosure document is that the changes obviously show Disney has been trying to change its own belief as to what the Membership Agreement allows, thus recognizing its position was the opposite before.

 

[wdrl]

Florida Statutes 721.13(12)(a) give a timeshare's managing entity a wide range of rights in managing reservations:

721.13(12)(a) In addition to any other rights granted by the rules and regulations of the timeshare plan, the managing entity of a timeshare plan is authorized to manage the reservation and use of accommodations using those processes, analyses, procedures, and methods that are in the best interests of the owners as a whole to efficiently manage the timeshare plan and encourage the maximum use and enjoyment of the accommodations and other benefits made available through the timeshare plan. The managing entity shall have the right to forecast anticipated reservation and use of the accommodations, including the right to take into account current and previous reservation and use of the accommodations, information about events that are scheduled to occur, seasonal use patterns, and other pertinent factors that affect the reservation or use of the accommodations. In furtherance of the provisions of this subsection, the managing entity is authorized to reserve accommodations, in the best interests of the owners as a whole, for the purposes of depositing such reserved use with an affiliated exchange program or renting such reserved accommodations in order to facilitate the use or future use of the accommodations or other benefits made available through the timeshare plan.

I quote this subset of Florida Statute 721 to emphasize, once again, that everything has to be taken in the context the Florida statutes, administrative regulations, and case law, as well as the DVC resort POSs and the DVC Multi-Site POS.

 

[wdrl]

That's a thorny issue. DVCMC has the right to modify most parts of the POS at will and owners have signed to grant them that right. The Membership agreement is one of those parts. If compliant with the law, they could modify the POS and make the reallocation compatible with a new version of the POS, but It seems they haven't done it yet (they should notify all members if they do so).
So for the current version of the POS, the old version is clearly the right one.

However, while they can change the POS at will, they cannot violate the Florida law. For example they cannot just change the POS and say that the number of points needed to book the resort can increase, because that is against the Florida Law. It is my opinion that they cannot change the POS in the part saying they can reallocate only within one Vacation Home, because the one-to-one law applies to each Vacation Home in the Florida Law, not just to the whole resort. But it seems I'm the only one to think that.

FYI: The timeshare license for Beach Club Villas was initially approved by the State of Florida in July 2001. Since that time, the BCV license has been amended about 36 times due to changes in the POS. The BWV license has been amended about 40 times to reflect changes it its POS since its license was initially approved in April 1996.

 

[zavandor]

FYI: The timeshare license for Beach Club Villas was initially approved by the State of Florida in July 2001. Since that time, the BCV license has been amended about 36 times due to changes in the POS. The BWV license has been amended about 40 times to reflect changes it its POS since its license was initially approved in April 1996.

In the Membership Agreement, in paragraph 7.2, where it says DVCMC can change the agreement at will, it also states that any change has to be notified to all members or included in a newsletter sent to everyone. I do not remember reading the POS if similar rules apply to other parts of the POS, so changes like adding a unit to the POS may not require a notification. The Membership Agreement is what counts for reallocations.

However, I have have been tried to get the last version of the Membership Agreement from DVC for weeks now, without success. Isn't it public?

 

[drusba]

In the Membership Agreement, in paragraph 7.2, where it says DVCMC can change the agreement at will, it also states that any change has to be notified to all members or included in a newsletter sent to everyone. I do not remember reading the POS if similar rules apply to other parts of the POS, so changes like adding a unit to the POS may not require a notification. The Membership Agreement is what counts for reallocations.

However, I have have been tried to get the last version of the Membership Agreement from DVC for weeks now, without success. Isn't it public?

I have actually made the same request for a copy of the current Management Agreements if there have been any changes made since the declarations of each resort were first filed with the Orange County assessor, and have been provided nothing so far. The latest one I have is the CCV one which is from 2/21/17. You can get a copy of the CCV Declarations with membership agreement attached by going here http://or.occompt.com/recorder/web/? and then click "Accept" and, on next page, search for Document # 20170096685

 

[Johnny D]

The members have alot of power if we get organized. How would things look for Disney if hundreds of members were holding signs outside their sales center saying “Predatory selling“. This is BS! Just like the predatory lending in the early 2000’s. Yes contracts have to be abided by, however, this seems manipulative to me! I have two contracts, and both agents made a point to say you are locking in your price for the length of the contract, but the overall price/points within room catafory would never go up. Gave me an example of a studio. If one season went up by a few points in the season, it would go down in another season. No idea they could raise points for all studios, but lower points for two bedrooms. I am studio renter and bought enough points to rent a studio for a certain amount of time. Misleading at the least.

 

[Dean]

Let’s say we give you that point. As @drusba pointed out weeks ago, they did NOT decrease points on a DIFFERENT use day between vacation homes. They increased/decreased the SAME days. I think we are right and that was their interpretation from the beginning - increases/decreases must stay within a type of vacation home.

Then someone had the idea for PVB and saw the opportunity to sell studio points against those bungalows barely anyone can afford. So, they changed the wording and the meaning. You are ok with that. I’m not. & I am not such a defeatist that I’m willing to give up and sell. I don’t assume companies are always right and all powerful.

But they have almost all the power in this situation with no input to members. I'm not OK with beating my head against a wall, there's no reason for it. All they have to do is change the POS if needed to match this. IMO holding that they have to change a different day, not the same day in a different size, is not supported when you look at the POS as a whole. This section does not preclude that change as I read it.

The POS stayed the same, but the Product Disclosure has been changed radically, from saying points can be reallocated only within the same vacation home to saying that a reallocation can happen for whatever reason. So the Product Disclosure was either misleading before the change or it is misleading now.
I will raise the point next week.

The product disclosure guide is simply acknowledgement that there are key components in the POS you need to understand. Think of it as a partial outline of the POS and you'd acknowledging you understand those points. It does not supersede the POS and isn't a static document.

I quoted only the second bullet point.
The full quote is:

11. Each DVC Resort Vacation Home is assigned a nightly Vacation Point value, which varies depending upon the season of use, location and the size of the Vacation Home and other factors. The number of Vacation Points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand.

• The total number of Vacation Points required to use all Vacation Homes during each calendar year through January 31, 2054 can never increase unless more Vacation Homes are added to the plan, except for normal variations which occur in the calendar from year to year.

• If Vacation Points for one specific night increase, it will be offset by a decrease on another night or nights, except for normal variations which occur in the calendar from year to year.

• Reallocation cannot exceed 20% per calendar year, except under limited circumstances.

The context for all the three bullet points is set in the preceding sentence. It clearly says "Vacation Home" and it says "The number of vacation Points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand".
So when in the second bullet points they state that "If Vacation Points for one specific night increase" it is referring to the points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home.

If you ignore the context, the second bullet point in itself doesn't mean anything, not even what you want to read in it.

Nothing I have would restrict this to be by a single villa but even if it did as some point, all they have to do is change it. As noted, there have been many changes over the years and there will be many more. Just take the wording of lockoff premium in the VGF as a single example. Regardless you're going to need more specific wording that would preclude this change to make a plausible case and I haven't seen it but even if you could come up with some, they can change it as they like in this context. There is nothing that would preclude them from changing to wording that was across the resort, what I have already basically says that.

 

[Dean]

The members have alot of power if we get organized. How would things look for Disney if hundreds of members were holding signs outside their sales center saying “Predatory selling“. This is BS! Just like the predatory lending in the early 2000’s. Yes contracts have to be abided by, however, this seems manipulative to me! I have two contracts, and both agents made a point to say you are locking in your price for the length of the contract, but the overall price/points within room catafory would never go up. Gave me an example of a studio. If one season went up by a few points in the season, it would go down in another season. No idea they could raise points for all studios, but lower points for two bedrooms. I am studio renter and bought enough points to rent a studio for a certain amount of time. Misleading at the least.

They would lock down your account and escort you off the premises. You'd have to do it on social media or with the news media. You either knew or should have know there could be changes and likely would be changes.

 

[crvetter]

I have actually made the same request for a copy of the current Management Agreements if there have been any changes made since the declarations of each resort were first filed with the Orange County assessor, and have been provided nothing so far. The latest one I have is the CCV one which is from 2/21/17. You can get a copy of the CCV Declarations with membership agreement attached by going here http://or.occompt.com/recorder/web/? and then click "Accept" and on next page search for Document # 20170096685

The management agreement when I bought at Copper Creek in December is still the one recorded. No amendments were provided to me for that section at sale.

 

[drusba]

Adding to my post above, if you want the declarations with attached membership agreement for other resorts other than CCV, go to that same Orange County site, http://or.occompt.com/recorder/web/?, and search for the following:

For OKW: on the search page put in date range 1/1/1992 to 1/31/1992, Book: 4361, Page: 2551
(and click search)

For BWV: on the search page put in date range 8/1/1996 to 8/31/1996 and Book: 5101, Page:147

For all other WDW resorts just put in the following "Document" nos.
BLT: 20080532599
SSR: 20040270179
Poly: 20150007003
VGF: 20130171571
AKV: 20070050562
BRV: 20010015531
BCV: 20020251548

When the search sends you to the particular document click "View Image" on right side and wait; it can take some time for the full document to appear. You can download any of the documents in pdf.

 

[wdrl]

FYI: The latest Home Resort Rules and Regulations document is available to members. Sign in to the DVCmember website and click on "Important Membership Documents."

 

[drusba]

Florida Statutes 721.13(12)(a) give a timeshare's managing entity a wide range of rights in managing reservations:

721.13(12)(a) In addition to any other rights granted by the rules and regulations of the timeshare plan, the managing entity of a timeshare plan is authorized to manage the reservation and use of accommodations using those processes, analyses, procedures, and methods that are in the best interests of the owners as a whole to efficiently manage the timeshare plan and encourage the maximum use and enjoyment of the accommodations and other benefits made available through the timeshare plan. The managing entity shall have the right to forecast anticipated reservation and use of the accommodations, including the right to take into account current and previous reservation and use of the accommodations, information about events that are scheduled to occur, seasonal use patterns, and other pertinent factors that affect the reservation or use of the accommodations. In furtherance of the provisions of this subsection, the managing entity is authorized to reserve accommodations, in the best interests of the owners as a whole, for the purposes of depositing such reserved use with an affiliated exchange program or renting such reserved accommodations in order to facilitate the use or future use of the accommodations or other benefits made available through the timeshare plan.

I quote this subset of Florida Statute 721 to emphasize, once again, that everything has to be taken in the context the Florida statutes, administrative regulations, and case law, as well as the DVC resort POSs and the DVC Multi-Site POS.

You are reading far more into that statutory clause than it actually provides. It describes that the managing agent can use various sophisticated methods to track demand but says nothing about the managing agent's being able to change the requirements needed by a member to use any particular unit or vacation home. The last sentence and, then section (b), which you do not cite and immediately follows section (a), tells you what the managing agent can actually do under the statute based on all the data it acquires: it can reserve, rent or deposit into an exchange program anticipated unused time and accommodations so that maximum use is made of the accommodations. As section (b) sates, the managing entity must inform purchasers in the POS of the things it can actually do under that statute which are:

"The managing entity has the right to forecast anticipated reservation and use of the accommodations of the timeshare plan and is authorized to reasonably reserve, deposit, or rent the accommodations for the purpose of facilitating the use or future use of the accommodations or other benefits made available through the time share Plan."

In essence, that statute has nothing to do with power of the agent to change the reservation requirements of the members. If members leave open time, the agent can use it to rent or exchange, which of course, is the power DVCMC already has under the breakage provisions and other ability to rent rooms.

 

[DVC92]

I just got off the phone with the Club Management and Regulatory Affairs Division. The bottom line was the changes were made for the benefit of members to increase openings in studios and 1BRs since they are in greater demand, and that the points adjustments would somehow get members to book more 2BRs. I pointed out that such would not be the case, and that the increases would only force members to lose nights. Also, I stressed that members who book studios and 1BRs are not going to book 2BRs if they don't even have sufficient points for the studios and 1BRs, and if their number of occupants doesn't require a 2BR. I told them these changes will only increase breakage for their benefit. I also agreed with them that the studios are in greater demand, but I pointed out that at BLT and VGF, 2 of my resorts, that I can still book full week 1BRs May of 2019. There might be more vacancies in the 2BRs, but one can't tell without more data. They also stated that, as we are aware, the reallocation can't change the overall point total.

Obviously, there are a lot of unhappy members because they were making multiple calls. Will they make any changes because of the feedback? Who knows? Hopefully, they will scrap the 2020 changes before they get started., but I doubt it.

 

[crvetter]

I just got off the phone with the Club Management and Regulatory Affairs Division. The bottom line was the changes were made for the benefit of members to increase openings in studios and 1BRs since they are in greater demand, and that the points adjustments would somehow get members to book more 2BRs. I pointed out that such would not be the case, and that the increases would only force members to lose nights. Also, I stressed that members who book studios and 1BRs are not going to book 2BRs if they don't even have sufficient points for the studios and 1BRs, and if their number of occupants doesn't require a 2BR. I told them these changes will only increase breakage for their benefit. I also agreed with them that the studios are in greater demand, but I pointed out that at BLT and VGF, 2 of my resorts, that I can still book full week 1BRs May of 2019. There might be more vacancies in the 2BRs, but one can't tell without more data. They also stated that, as we are aware, the reallocation can't change the overall point total.

Obviously, there are a lot of unhappy members because they were making multiple calls. Will they make any changes because of the feedback? Who knows? Hopefully, they will scrap the 2020 changes before they get started., but I doubt it.

I spoke with them too. However, my question they weren't able to actually answer. So I'm waiting for them to "research" it to get back to me.