DVDMC files amendments to separate use year from unit #

[disneynutz]

All of Disney has changed, not just DVC. Since all of these major changes just happened, it's either Schultz or Vahle or both making their mark in their effort to be recognized by top Disney executives. They are an ARDA Platinum Sponsor and received the ARDA awards for the CCV Multi Media Marketing Campaign and the ACE Project of Excellence for CCV. ARDA is a timeshare trade association in Washington DC.

Bill

 

[Madame]

“Friends, countrymen, DVC members, let us unite in the spirit of our better angels and forget this difficult time. Here, have a magnet. . .”

How soon you forgot magnet-gate. They couldn’t even manage that properly.

 

[disneynutz]

A magnet is nice but food is where it's at. Give us a cookie!

Bill

 

[SL6827]

So this splitting up of these contracts and their use years was something that was not ever supposed to happen? Legally or just in Disney's terms? Or was it actually on the table all along?

In what ways could this benefit DVC members? And how could it hurt DVC members?

 

[CarolynFH]

There's just a very definite feel coming from the DVC management offices that matches up to the way it was under Jim Lewis. Actions and responses are similar.

I keep expecting Dee Vee Cee to show up.

Oh please no Dee Vee Cee again!

 

[hakepb]

So this splitting up of these contracts and their use years was something that was not ever supposed to happen? Legally or just in Disney's terms? Or was it actually on the table all along?

In what ways could this benefit DVC members? And how could it hurt DVC members?

DVC was at the forefront of points based timeshares. Fixed week units needed to be sold attached to a specific week. DVC thought use years were needed to balance resort usage in a similar manner to fixed weeks. I don’t think they ever intended to change a unit’s use year.

Use years used to be more restrictive. I think there was 3 or 4 banking windows. You could bank 100% of points at 6 months from your UY, 75% 5 months out...(something along those lines)
It seems DVC saw balanced use years as a means of balancing member usage, and tried to sell UY in a fairly balanced manner.

But new resorts have been sold with less UY balance in units, and UY doesn’t seem to impact resort booking patterns.

With the current rules, I don’t see any negative impact for members. As mentioned, on the positive side, members wanting a direct add-on would have a faster purchase instead of a purchase wait-list.
There might be a negative impact if booking/banking rules were changed.

 

[Spartan86]

So this splitting up of these contracts and their use years was something that was not ever supposed to happen? Legally or just in Disney's terms? Or was it actually on the table all along?

From OKW through BCV, the language defining Use Year was fairly specific and limiting. But the SSR declaration introduced more fluid Use Year language that largely tracked through the remaining resort’s declarations and is quite similar to the new “boilerplate”. I looked at the language and shared some findings on this thread.

 

[DaveNan]

Thinking about this from DVC's perspective, I think this will help them in two ways from a sold out resort perspective. One of the variables we could never see in passing rofr was how many points in a specific UY DVC was sitting on and what their demand for that specific UY was. This could explain the "drunkin monkey" behavior. Historically, they may have passed on a $100 per point contract on the same day they took a $105 point contract, just because of the UY. With this change, they can optimize which contracts they claim. Additionally, they could of had a buyer on a wait list for Feb UY without any points to sell while they sat on a pile of Sept UY points, so they would have had to sit on that Sept inventory until a buyer came along and possible paid a premium for Feb points to meet that buyers need.

Now they can claim points at the lowest price independent of UY, they only have to hold one inventory pool per resort (not 8?), and they should sell quicker. They have lower cost of goods sold, lower inventory, and faster turns. (Sorry for the business terms, but this is what they accomplished). As far as how this hurts owners? I don't see how it hurts owners, but it may make DVC a little more active in the rofr market and may take away some of the "deals" that buyers got because inefficiencies in the previous model.

 

[drusba]

From OKW through BCV, the language defining Use Year was fairly specific and limiting. But the SSR declaration introduced more fluid Use Year language that largely tracked through the remaining resort’s declarations and is quite similar to the new “boilerplate”. I looked at the language and shared some findings on this thread.

I own at AKV. and both the Component Site and Multi-site POS definitions of Use Year expressly state: "All ownership interests in a given Unit shall have the same Use Year." So the language exists later than SSR and I cannot conceive of any way DVD can argue that unambiguous definition says it can change the use years of ownership interests in a Unit. Thus, I am not sure what you may be referring to. There is language in the AKV DVC Membership Agreement that says that an add-on sale "may" have the same use year that the owner already has, indicating an add-on could have a different use year. But that language at best means DVD can, if it chooses, sell an existing member an additional ownership interest in a different unit with a different use year. That language does not mean DVD can do what it is claiming to do now -- change the use years for ownership interests in units already designated in the past as having only one use year, since that is prohibited by the language in the deeds and by the definition of use year in the Component Site and Multi-Site POS's.

DVD had a method to solve its add-on problems without violating the prior POS's or the deeds of members. As noted, the SSR and forward DVC membership Agreements appear to allow selling add-ons to members in different units with different use years. The BCV and before DVC Membership Agreements required any add-on to be in the same use year, but that specific requirement does not appear in the POS's or the deeds. It is only in the Membership Agreement, and thus DVCMC could assert it can change, under its power to modify the membership agreement, those prior agreements to eliminate that restriction and allow add-ons from different units with different use years, and could clarify the SSR and forward membership agreements to expressly allow such add-ons. That would be stage one of a change that probably would not violate any terms of the deeds and POS's. Stage two would be doing an allowable procedural change to the reservation system. The system could allow a member with ownership interests in different use years to combine the points from those years to make a single reservation, including combining the points for any single night of the reservation. Those two changes would thus allow existing members to buy add-ons in different use years and use the points from the different use years the same way they can now use points from the same use year.

Most likely, in considering its options for making a change, that allowable method was mentioned by someone in the company. So one may ask why the improper method was chosen over the proper one. The probable answer: because DVD despises resale purchasers. If it allowed members to purchase additional ownership interests from different use years and combine the points for making a single reservation, that would allow members to do such purchases in the resale market and combine the points from different use years to make a single reservation. The method DVD chose, to allow it to change use years of units and sell points in the same use year to those seeking add-ons means a member has to purchase his add-on from DVD, and not in the resale market, to get the advantage of combining the points for a single reservation. In other words, the change DVD has made is just another anti-resale purchaser change.

 

[disneynutz]

Seems obvious to me, I brought this up over a year ago, DVC considers resale their enemy.

Bill

 

[Spartan86]

I own at AKV. and both the Component Site and Multi-site POS definitions of Use Year expressly state: "All ownership interests in a given Unit shall have the same Use Year."

Thanks @drusba. I pulled the resort master declarations to view the DVC Membership Agreements and am only quoting and referencing that language as that is what they said they would and did amend. What you add is indeed troubling.

 

[crvetter]

I own at AKV. and both the Component Site and Multi-site POS definitions of Use Year expressly state: "All ownership interests in a given Unit shall have the same Use Year."

That’s odd the Component Site, which is the Resort specific POS and the same as recorded (correct?), says the following on the Comptroller site.

Animal Kingdom


Boardwalk


This only says “may have” vs. the “shall have” in Boardwalk for instance, I understood this is what @Spartan86 was referring to, https://www.disboards.com/threads/d...ible-use-years-page-17.3740198/#post-60404757. Wouldn’t the resort specific membership agreement override the generic Multi-Site Component? Since the amendment just filled is the first amendment for AKV Membership Agreement, I’m assuming the Membership Agreement always read this. What other sections define the Use Year that I might be missing? Since the Membership Agreement dictates the way the Vacation Ownership Plan works wouldnt this be the definition that takes precedence?

 

[SL6827]

There might be a negative impact if booking/banking rules were changed.

Like giving direct purchases the current 11/7 month booking dates and maybe resale buyers a 11/6 or 11/5 month booking date?

 

[SL6827]

Seems obvious to me, I brought this up over a year ago, DVC considers resale their enemy.

Bill

Well of course. They take away a possible sale of a contract from them.

 

[hakepb]

Like giving direct purchases the current 11/7 month booking dates and maybe resale buyers a 11/6 or 11/5 month booking date?

That wouldn’t need a UY change, and isn’t impacted by UY.

They might be able to put resale back to the old banking guidelines.
Or if Riviera+ was a new system, they could give the same “rule of 4” restriction as RCI.

 

[SL6827]

That wouldn’t need a UY change, and isn’t impacted by UY.

They might be able to put resale back to the old banking guidelines.
Or if Riviera+ was a new system, they could give the same “rule of 4” restriction as RCI.

What is the old banking guidelines? Rule of 4?

 

[drusba]

That’s odd the Component Site, which is the Resort specific POS and the same as recorded (correct?), says the following on the Comptroller site.

Animal Kingdom
View attachment 390149

Boardwalk
View attachment 390150

This only says “may have” vs. the “shall have” in Boardwalk for instance, I understood this is what @Spartan86 was referring to, https://www.disboards.com/threads/d...ible-use-years-page-17.3740198/#post-60404757. Wouldn’t the resort specific membership agreement override the generic Multi-Site Component? Since the amendment just filled is the first amendment for AKV Membership Agreement, I’m assuming the Membership Agreement always read this. What other sections define the Use Year that I might be missing? Since the Membership Agreement dictates the way the Vacation Ownership Plan works wouldnt this be the definition that takes precedence?

I believe those sections you are referring to are from membership agreements DVD is now amending. The definitions stated to apply throughout the Component Site POS including the Required Disclosures, Declarations and other parts of the POS, and the Multi-Site POS both define Use Year as:

"Use Year means, for each unit, the twelve-month period beginning on the first day of the month designated by DVD in each purchase agreement selling an Ownership Interest to a Purchaser in that Unit and in each deed conveying an Ownership Interest to an Owner in that Unit. All Ownership Interests in a given Unit shall have the same Use Year. The Use year shall continue for successive twelve-month periods for so long as the Vacation Ownership Plan continues."

And until the recent filing, the definitions in the DVC Membership Agreements did not contradict that POS general definition. What DVD is now essentially claiming is that DVCMC's ability to amend the Membership Agreement means DVD can just eliminate the definitions that apply throughout all the documents that are part of the POS and apply to your deed. And it claims that right because the Membership Agreement allows DVCMC, a fiduciary of the members, but does not allow DVD, to amend the membership agreement. Nowhere in the terms of the membership agreement or anywhere else does it state that DVCMC has any power at all relating to determining use years applicable to units. So what is going on is that DVD is having DVCMC, which lacks any power to determine use years applicable to units, amend its definition of Use Year in the membership agreement, so DVD, which has no right to amend the membership agreement. can now change the use years applicable to any unit even though the POS's and the deeds prohibit it from doing so. That is like asserting that because the DVC Membership Agreement defines a Club Member the same way as the main definitions in the Component Site and Multi-Site documents as an "owner of record of an Ownership Interest," DVCMVC, which itself has no power to determine who a Club Member is, can change the definition of Club Member in the membership agreement to mean only purchasers from DVD, and thus forever prohibit all resale purchasers from ever reserving at their home resorts.That is the kind of power DVD is now claiming it has through DVCMC's power to amend the membership agreement.

On another note, the answer is no, not all of the POS is filed with the comptroller. That complete POS is what is filed with the Department of Business and Professional Relationships. The comptroller only needs and gets portions that define the condominium property and its make-up and how it can be used.

 

[crvetter]

I believe those sections you are referring to are from the amended membership agreements DVD has recently filed; i.e., it is the very change we are discussing and whether it can be made via merely amending the DVC Membership Agreements. The definitions stated to apply throughout the Component Site POS including the Required Disclosures, Declarations and other parts of the POS, and the Multi-Site POS both define Use Year as:

"Use Year means, for each unit, the twelve-month period beginning on the first day of the month designated by DVD in each purchase agreement selling an Ownership Interest to a Purchaser in that Unit and in each deed conveying an Ownership Interest to an Owner in that Unit. All Ownership Interests in a given Unit shall have the same Use Year. The Use year shall continue for successive twelve-month periods for so long as the Vacation Ownership Plan continues."

And until the recent filing, the definitions in the DVC Membership Agreements had the same language. What DVD is now essentially claiming is that DVCMC's ability to amend the Membership Agreement means DVD can just eliminate the definitions that apply throughout all the documents that are part of the POS and apply to your deed. And it claims that right because the Membership Agreement allows DVCMC, a fiduciary of the members and does not allow DVD, to amend the membership agreement. Nowhere in the terms of the membership agreement or anywhere else does it state that DVCMC has any power at all relating to determining use years applicable to units. So what is going on is that DVD is having DVCMC, which lacks any power to determine use years applicable to units, amend its definition of Use Year in the membership agreement, so DVD, which has no right to amend the membership agreement. can now change the use years applicable to any unit even though the POS's and the deeds prohibit from doing so. That is like asserting that because the DVC Membership Agreement defines a Club Member the same way as the main definitions in the Component Site and Multi-Site documents as an "owner of record of an Ownership Interest," DVCMVC, which itself has no power to determine who a Club member is, can change the definition of Club Member in the membership agreement to mean only purchasers from DVD, and thus forever prohibit all resale purchasers from ever reserving at their home resorts. Because that is the power DVD is now claiming it can do through DVCMC's power to amend the membership agreement.

On another note, the answer is no, not all of the POS is filed with the comptroller. That complete POS is what is filed with the Department of Business and Professional Relationships.

No the sections I referenced (and screenshotted and posted) were the original Membership Agreement and not the modified versions.

http://or.occompt.com/recorder/eagl...52.pdf?id=DOCC28657952.A0&parent=DOCC28657952

See page 80 for the screen grab I posted. This was recorded in 2007.

This is a shot of the amendment, http://or.occompt.com/recorder/eagl...41.pdf?id=DOC2592S3331.A0&parent=DOC2592S3331.



Though I see an argument for why this change is beneficial to the Vacation Ownership Plan for the members. I don’t personally think allowing DVD to change the use year associated to points to be detrimental to members. Which the amendment rule in our Agrement doesn’t necessarily guarantee that DVCMC needs to modify to our benefit only. I’m not sure if Florida laws do though. But I think the ease of adding on direct is a benefit to owners and standing on its own (or with the prior changes) doesn’t do anything to harm current owners, IMO. Not sure it ruins resale, if anything it would increase prices because it makes ROFR easier for DVD and they can always take the cheap points driving up the prices making the process seem less sporadic and insensical.



@Spartan86 showed that the definition hasn’t been consistent across all the resorts and the current change makes it consistent. AKV was different than BWV which was different than CCV for instance. The link to the post by @Spartan86 quoted the definitions from each Use Year definition in each Membership Agreement for each Association.

I think the difference is I was using the definition in the Membership Agreement not the POS (which I looked at my CCV does have a few pages not recorded, as you stated) that has a definition.

Though I’m not trying to diminishing your argument, I believe the changes here are setting a precedent and DVC destroyed our trust because of the original 2020 point charts and resale restrictions that the changes in the future will always be beneficial to members. I agree on those points just this change evaluated alone seems to benefit members. I just am trying to get a better understanding so if/when I decide to email DVC I’ve fully thought it out.

Edit: My Multi-Site POS defines Use Year very generically (which would allow the pre-existing conflicts in the definitions across resorts)

"Use Year shall mean the twelve (12) month period beginning on the first day of the month designated by DVD in each purchase agreement selling an Ownership Interest to a purchaser and in each special warranty deed transferring an Ownership Interest to a Purchaser in that Unit. The Use Year shall continue for successive twelve (12) month periods for so long as the Vacation Ownership Plan continues."

Though the bolded part seems somewhat limiting.

 

[hakepb]

What is the old banking guidelines? Rule of 4?

Right now you have (8) months to bank 100% of your points, and banked points can be transferred (I think the transfer rule helps them sell the one time use points)

These were the banking rules before the 2007 change:
“You can bank points at any time prior to the last 2 months of your use year. If you bank by 6 months before your use year date, you can bank 100% of your points. Three months from your use year, you can bank up to 50% of your points, and in the 10th month of your use year, you can bank up to 25% of your total. All points banked must be used in the following year (the year they were banked into)”
Some would point out they changed the banking window from 10 to 8 months.

The rule of 4 only currently applied for non-DVC bookings...but could they apply it to resale type restrictions?
“
The Rule of Four guideline is that you cannot book and travel on the Disney Collection (excluding hotels at Disneyland Resort in California and Tokyo Disney Resort) and Concierge Collection vacations within the last 4 months of your Use Year.

However, you can travel in the last 4 months of your Use Year as long as you've booked your stay more than 4 months before the end of your Use Year.”

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Right now you have (8) months to bank 100% of your points, and banked points can be transferred (I think the transfer rule helps them sell the one time use points)

These were the banking rules before the 2007 change:
“You can bank points at any time prior to the last 2 months of your use year. If you bank by 6 months before your use year date, you can bank 100% of your points. Three months from your use year, you can bank up to 50% of your points, and in the 10th month of your use year, you can bank up to 25% of your total. All points banked must be used in the following year (the year they were banked into)”
Some would point out they changed the banking window from 10 to 8 months.

The rule of 4 only currently applied for non-DVC bookings...but could they apply it to resale type restrictions?
“
The Rule of Four guideline is that you cannot book and travel on the Disney Collection (excluding hotels at Disneyland Resort in California and Tokyo Disney Resort) and Concierge Collection vacations within the last 4 months of your Use Year.

However, you can travel in the last 4 months of your Use Year as long as you've booked your stay more than 4 months before the end of your Use Year.”

And I've been told that initially banking was limited to 50% no matte when it was done. So they've done 2 changes to banking rules.