Ft. Wilderness Cabins becoming DVC?

[tidefan]

?????

(ETA: this is JUST a joke )

 

[Cfabar1]

Very well might be.... If existing owners will have less availability for new properties, that will be a HUGE problem for Disney I think...

At that point, I would only recommend resale to anyone... and buy where you want to stay...

 

[Hubalorian]

I don’t see how this impacts existing owners.

 

[New Mouse]

I don’t see how this impacts existing owners.

If newer properties can be accessed by trust owners first, eventually older properties as they phase out will extremely limit people to staying where they own and even that will get dicey.

 

[Hubalorian]

This is specifically about the Cabins trust plan., that specific resort plan is what people are currently goi g to buy.

Further in the document it states they can have different trust plans as part of the overall trust assocation which can be different component sites…but with its own set of rules. Here it is…which reads to me that people will be buying into a resort like now, just not deeded…so, those in the trust who buy resale will be limited to only the trust property they have an RTU interest in. Buying direct would be giving you access to other trust properties and will as those part of BVTC…that is what it reads to me.

To me this would even allow them to tier trust plans. For example Cabins at fort wilderness and Alunai could be a tier 2 while Riv, Poly2 and VDH could be tier 1 with different booking windows

 

[SuperJ]

I'm also reminded of one of the Big (But Old) Conversations in Timeshare Land that was still going on when OKW first came up for sale: Deeded (perpetual) vs. RTU.

The conventional wisdom at the time was that Deeded ownership was superior, because it was real property, you owned it forever, and it and carried voting rights and could not easily be taken away. There were certainly debates about it, because the limited-time nature of RTU has its advantages as well. But, I remember a few articles on TUG and elsewhere that essentially said: "Deeded wins."

Then, along comes the legal team at DVD, who invent an RTU that is still attached to a deed. Now, the sales prospect that comes on the floor who has some concept of "Deeded is better" can be assured that of course it's real property that is backed by a deed. Nothing to worry about! I remember thinking that this was simply brilliant. I think I even remember a few DVC ecosystem articles that said "Of course deeded is better, but DVC is deeded so it's fine."

Fast forward a few decades, and several other timeshare systems have been selling use plans very successfully: WorldMark may have been the earliest example that has significant scale in teh US market, but there are certainly others. Marriott's pure point product that debuted in 2010 or so is not deeded. Wydnham's trust-based product also debuted around then. Seeing Marriott in particular do this successfully may have been enough to convince DVC that there is no reason not to start going down that route.

Correction: I think Marriott may be deeded as well, but with no particular home resort. I see conflicting statements Out There. But Wyndham's CWA definitely is not.

I don't know what new Marriott contracts are, but I have family members that own weeks at two of the Vistana properties, purchased back when it was Sheraton. They own 1 deeded fixed week and 2 float weeks. When Marriott first took over, they pushed HARD to convert the deeded ownership weeks to a deeded equivalent in points. When we asked if the amount of points needed for a week would increase, they danced around it and offered more incentives. Ultimately, family refused to budge because as long as the deed says they own a week, they have to be given a week, irrespective of point value, so their corresponding point value balance has increased as the points needed for a week in the property increased. It was a good deal for most of the past decade but now they are pretty sure they will soon be priced out by the maintenance fee increases - the increases were apparently pretty drastic this year - and other "fees" that marriott keeps tacking on for various things. fam said marriott's also lessened the owner benefits from what family had with sheraton, such as the owner discounts at the resort, so when they run the math on owning vs just paying for a week when it's needed, the math makes a little less sense each year.

 

[Sandisw]

To me this would even allow them to tier trust plans. For example Cabins at fort wilderness and Alunai could be a tier 2 while Riv, Poly2 and VDH could be tier 1 with different booking windows

They certainly could but tht seems a little complicated. My guess is that if they add new units, it will at least include the resale restriction that prevents people from reserving anything but one resort.

But, I also think this is when we could start seeing the exchange fee that is mentioned get implemented down the line…for those who have resale but want to try something else.

All I know is that this is pretty substantial and a good clue the product is changing.

 

[pkrieger2287]

Disney Vacation Club's New Trust Product CONFIRMED in Fort Wilderness Cabins Filings​

New filings have confirmed plans for a trust-based ownership product for DVC, kicking off with The Cabins at Disney’s Fort Wilderness Resort!
https://dvcfan.com/2024/01/02/disne...-confirmed-in-fort-wilderness-cabins-filings/

#disneyvacation #disneyvacationclub #dvc #disneyparks #disneyworld #disney

 

[DonMacGregor]

I'm also reminded of one of the Big (But Old) Conversations in Timeshare Land that was still going on when OKW first came up for sale: Deeded (perpetual) vs. RTU.

The conventional wisdom at the time was that Deeded ownership was superior, because it was real property, you owned it forever, and it and carried voting rights and could not easily be taken away. There were certainly debates about it, because the limited-time nature of RTU has its advantages as well. But, I remember a few articles on TUG and elsewhere that essentially said: "Deeded wins."

Then, along comes the legal team at DVD, who invent an RTU that is still attached to a deed. Now, the sales prospect that comes on the floor who has some concept of "Deeded is better" can be assured that of course it's real property that is backed by a deed. Nothing to worry about! I remember thinking that this was simply brilliant. I think I even remember a few DVC ecosystem articles that said "Of course deeded is better, but DVC is deeded so it's fine."

Fast forward a few decades, and several other timeshare systems have been selling use plans very successfully: WorldMark may have been the earliest example that has significant scale in teh US market, but there are certainly others. Marriott's pure point product that debuted in 2010 or so is not deeded. Wydnham's trust-based product also debuted around then. Seeing Marriott in particular do this successfully may have been enough to convince DVC that there is no reason not to start going down that route.

Correction: I think Marriott may be deeded as well, but with no particular home resort. I see conflicting statements Out There. But Wyndham's CWA definitely is not.

TLDR.

Most post still stands. If you're the guy fighting foreclosure on a timeshare, you've got much bigger problems in life, and you'd be better off (and have more company) jousting windmills.

 

[MyDogTink]

The current documents for CFW seem to say that resale purchases will be limited to booking only at CFW.

It does not give you access to any other resorts, Since people are not buying into any home resort, but buying a right to use a property, the owner of the actual inventory..the trust…sets the rules in which owners can access its properties.

So, it appears that this trust may be set up differently once other properties are added, assuming they are….that you might be buying a RTU in one of the trust plan sites, but then have access to the other trust properties before they open up to other DVC owners who would be trading in via BVTC.

I haven’t read the entire document, but from your snippet it sounds like there will be a Master Trust with separate and distinct sub-trusts (i.e. the CFW sub-trust).

If Poly 2 is a trust system, how meaningful is it being the same association?

 

[Brian Noble]

If you're the guy fighting foreclosure on a timeshare, you've got much bigger problems in life

Turns out there is no shortage of people with big problems.

 

[Cfabar1]

If Poly 2 is a trust system, how meaningful is it being the same association?

So, based on what we have seen so far, it would likely function one of two ways:

1. Poly2 joins the Poly association (which has more or less been stated to be the case), and will be a deeded ownership.
2. Poly2 creates a new Resort Plan Use.

It is also possible that some units would be in #1, and others in #2, but I am not sure that they could be in both simultaneously.

If @Brian Noble ends up being correct, and this is mostly semantics, we will have dodged a bullet (for now) for existing owners.

 

[RichVIII]

I have already had enough challenges trying to explain to people how DVC works when they ask. This gets even more complicated.

 

[Sykes]

Most post still stands. If you're the guy fighting foreclosure on a timeshare, you've got much bigger problems in life, and you'd be better off (and have more company) jousting windmills.

It takes 5 minutes of work for said person to force Disney into a judicial process that will cost them hundreds or even thousands of dollars (with minimal chance of recovering that additional investment). Many people would find that to be a worthwhile investment of time even if they feel like they have 0 chance of winning.

 

[Sandisw]

I haven’t read the entire document, but from your snippet it sounds like there will be a Master Trust with separate and distinct sub-trusts (i.e. the CFW sub-trust).

If Poly 2 is a trust system, how meaningful is it being the same association?

I think it would all depend on what DVD wants to do if they want to create a new trust use plan with all or some of the rooms at Poly tower.

I think they can declare them to PVB but give the trust association control of them and then create a trust use plan.

What the would do for who can book during home resort or for resale contracts? Not really sure…I only have guesses.

 

[DonMacGregor]

It takes 5 minutes of work for said person to force Disney into a judicial process that will cost them hundreds or even thousands of dollars (with minimal chance of recovering that additional investment). Many people would find that to be a worthwhile investment of time even if they feel like they have 0 chance of winning.

Right, because that's what every John Doe who's already perfected the art of financial incompetence by forcing Disney to foreclose on them will do. You still end up with a lien and foreclosure as public records, but sure, you can tell your grandkids you made that $170 billion company "spend" an extra 200 bucks while you still can't get a used car loan (spend in quotes because it would be in-house counsel that would likely handle it, or an outside firm on retainer).

Or, you go quietly into that good night and possibly Disney offers you a compromise (deed in lieu, etc.) and doesn't file the foreclosure because you didn't piss them off.

 

[Cfabar1]

I think it would all depend on what DVD wants to do if they want to create a new trust use plan with all or some of the rooms at Poly tower.

I think they can declare them to PVB but give the trust association control of them and then create a trust use plan.

What the would do for who can book during home resort or for resale contracts? Not really sure…I only have guesses.

How could they reside in both places?

Is this how they could move existing resorts in as well?

 

[Disney_escape]

View attachment 822445


?????

(ETA: this is JUST a joke )

Yep! The old saying "why mess with a good thing" comes to mind. Disney is pushing to produce to quick and have to much control, which in my opinion takes away what made DVC better than other timeshares.

 

[Sandisw]

How could they reside in both places?

Is this how they could move existing resorts in as well?

I think why it might be able to be done is because the current POS says that future phases or declarations are not guaranteed…

Which means it’s possible to add new units, like the tower, to be sold differently, then the current units were sold.

. I have not seen anything yet..but admit I am still in the middle of reading through the PVB POS again after todays info.

I do think this can only be done though with new units and not with those already declared to be sold as part of a deeded ownership interests. So, I just don’t see them creating a trust use plan for current sold out resorts…

Once I finish reviewing PVB again, maybe something will be there that makes my line of thinking about how the new units can be sold via a trust plan but also be units in PVB be wrong.

 

[Mikey15]

How could they reside in both places?

Is this how they could move existing resorts in as well?

I don’t know much about timeshare legal structures, so I’m conceptualizing this like DVC points are shares of a company:

DVD is (bear with me here) issuing new shares (points) of its Class Poly share class in order to expand, but keeping that new ownership interest in otherwise in that same share class that it issued ~ten years ago.
BUT
At the same time they happen to be establishing a trust, that they will also be selling ownership interest in under a different structure. This trust could buy up and hold a chunk of the Class Poly shares, such that x% of the shares are owned by the trust, which in turn sells trust ownership units to the public under a separate structure.

Without any foreknowledge of their intent, this is possible, right? Poly 2 part of existing association; the trust could just buy & own whatever portion of those points that are not declared?