Would you join a lawsuit to revert DVC's resale restrictions?

[Chuck S]

I don't think there is anything illegal here. I think they mishandled the way they made the announcement of the restrictions. They should have said, from the start, that the Riviera is the flagship of a new DVC2 Club. And that out of courtesy, those that purchased direct contracts in DVC1 (Legacy DVC) will be allowed to trade into DVC2, and vice versa. And that within DVC2 resale contracts would be limited to use within their home resort only, and maybe RCI type trades. There is no reason that BWTC couldn't be the internal trading company for both systems.

 

[DougEMG]

I don't think there is anything illegal here. I think they mishandled the way they made the announcement of the restrictions. They should have said, from the start, that the Riviera is the flagship of a new DVC2 Club. And that out of courtesy, those that purchased direct contracts in DVC1 (Legacy DVC) will be allowed to trade into DVC2, and vice versa. And that within DVC2 resale contracts would be limited to use within their home resort only, and maybe RCI type trades. There is no reason that BWTC couldn't be the internal trading company for both systems.

I wonder if they were worried about the kind of publicity they would have gotten announcing a new DVC2.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I don't think there is anything illegal here. I think they mishandled the way they made the announcement of the restrictions. They should have said, from the start, that the Riviera is the flagship of a new DVC2 Club. And that out of courtesy, those that purchased direct contracts in DVC1 (Legacy DVC) will be allowed to trade into DVC2, and vice versa. And that within DVC2 resale contracts would be limited to use within their home resort only, and maybe RCI type trades. There is no reason that BWTC couldn't be the internal trading company for both systems.

A DVC II is something I would have had no issues with. I actually do believe there is a substantial difference made with Riviera that should exempt it from the current "club" and require it to be handled differently.

 

[ljmiii]

Isn't the loser responsible for the winner's legal cost, or do I have that completely wrong?

Yup...that's in our contracts (at least VB, HHI, BWV, and BCV...I haven't read through all of them yet).

 

[ljmiii]

I'll be honest, in not sure I could support this one, at least financially. To me I don't really think it's clear cut they are doing anything illegal. Other timeshares have done similar things and not been used over it.

(A) Which ones? Neither HGVC nor MVCI treats resale buyers vs direct buyers differently. MVCI *does* treat pre-2010 vs post-2010 week buyers differently...but it doesn't matter if you bought the the week resale or from MVCI.

(B) We and DVD/DVCM/BVTC are governed by our contracts...not those of other timeshare systems.

 

[ljmiii]

I wonder if they were worried about the kind of publicity they would have gotten announcing a new DVC2.

Well...they should have called it DVC+ - better, stronger, faster than that old timey DVC.

 

[ljmiii]

Serious question, not just for you, but anyone who knows because I have no experience with other TSs: do other TSs have similar wording with regards to membership, criteria for adding resorts etc? Dean, when he would talk about these types of restrictions in the past indicated that it would be through a DVC II setup.

MVCI layered a points based system over their existing weeks based system. But they didn't take anything away from weeks owners - they (actually we) can still reserve, use, rent, or trade that week through II as we've always done. And as I said in another post, *any* post-2010 week is treated equally - it doesn't matter if you bought it resale or from MVCI.

 

[ljmiii]

I don't think there is anything illegal here. I think they mishandled the way they made the announcement of the restrictions. They should have said, from the start, that the Riviera is the flagship of a new DVC2 Club. And that out of courtesy, those that purchased direct contracts in DVC1 (Legacy DVC) will be allowed to trade into DVC2, and vice versa. And that within DVC2 resale contracts would be limited to use within their home resort only, and maybe RCI type trades. There is no reason that BWTC couldn't be the internal trading company for both systems.

I completely agree except for the first sentence. For reasons unknown and unknowable DVD/BVTC/DVCM decided to make Riviera a DVC Resort - which given it's DVC Resort Agreement was a violation of our contracts.

 

[stewart715]

I completely agree except for the first sentence. For reasons unknown and unknowable DVD/BVTC/DVCM decided to make Riviera a DVC Resort - which given it's DVC Resort Agreement was a violation of our contracts.

How?

 

[Madame]

How?

If I understand correctly it’s two-fold.

1. L14 resorts transfer membership in the club and all members are contractually equal with regards to the core club abilities - ie trading out to other resorts. Once DRR was admitted as a member, its owners, resale or other, should have those rights.

2. Admission to the club is restricted to resorts which are substantially similar. DRR’s restrictions are not in keeping with that stipulation.

 

[vint43]

Yup...that's in our contracts (at least VB, HHI, BWV, and BCV...I haven't read through all of them yet).

If this is the case, this is one of the exceptions to the American Rule. If the contracts specifies the loser will pay.

If that is the case, this just escalates the risks of any lawsuit that much more.

This means, if you lose, Disney could get a judgement against you for all of their legal fees and expenses.

You would be crazy to be a plaintiff in such a case.

This thread would be better titled:

"Who wants to risk personal bankruptcy and years of constant stress and anxiety to litigate a rule change around their vacation timeshare where the rule change has actually not affected their current contracts?"

Or, instead, perhaps just sell your timeshare interest in DVC and move along. You are not being forced to own DVC.

Why on Earth would you take such a personal financial risk for such a thing?

Hopefully common sense takes over for people here.

It is absolutely ridiculous to risk a lawsuit for such a thing. Absolutely ridiculous for people to do so for an optional purchase they could sell tomorrow and walk away unharmed.

Lawsuits are not fun, are not short, are not easy, are not simple, are not anything you want to be involved in unless you have to be.

I know people are upset. I just hope you do not find an unethical attorney that actually convinces you this was a good idea.

It would be much more prudent to apply direct consumer pressure to Disney and have them change it that way. A lawsuit is just a terrible idea for individuals under these circumstances - sorry - it just is.

Vacation timeshares are not worth it. Especially ones you could sell tomorrow.

Again, just my opinion.

 

[Madame]

If this is the case, this is one of the exceptions to the American Rule. If the contracts specifies the loser will pay.

If that is the case, this just escalates the risks of any lawsuit that much more.

This means, if you lose, Disney could get a judgement against you for all of their legal fees and expenses.

You would be crazy to be a plaintiff in such a case.

This thread would be better titled:

"Who wants to risk personal bankruptcy and years of constant stress and anxiety to litigate a rule change around their vacation timeshare where the rule change has actually not affected their current contracts?"

Or, instead, perhaps just sell your timeshare interest in DVC and move along. You are not being forced to own DVC.

Why on Earth would you take such a personal financial risk for such a thing?

Hopefully common sense takes over for people here.

It is absolutely ridiculous to risk a lawsuit for such a thing. Absolutely ridiculous for people to do so for an optional purchase they could sell tomorrow and walk away unharmed.

Lawsuits are not fun, are not short, are not easy, are not simple, are not anything you want to be involved in unless you have to be.

I know people are upset. I just hope you do not find an unethical attorney that actually convinces you this was a good idea.

It would be much more prudent to apply direct consumer pressure to Disney and have them change it that way. A lawsuit is just a terrible idea for individuals under these circumstances - sorry - it just is.

Vacation timeshares are not worth it. Especially ones you could sell tomorrow.

Again, just my opinion.

Your opinion is very similar to those against questioning the validity of the 2020 points chart debacle. Apparently a dozen or so tenacious members complaining caused a complete reversal (if not an admission of wrongdoing). There's no harm in poking around and questioning DVC. I personally think it would be more advantageous and would produce better results if members sued to have DVCMC removed as the managing company. They no longer seem to be capable of separating themselves from the development arm of DVC.

 

[Chuck S]

Your opinion is very similar to those against questioning the validity of the 2020 points chart debacle. Apparently a dozen or so tenacious members complaining caused a complete reversal (if not an admission of wrongdoing). There's no harm in poking around and questioning DVC. I personally think it would be more advantageous and would produce better results if members sued to have DVCMC removed as the managing company. They no longer seem to be capable of separating themselves from the development arm of DVC.

Members have the right to vote to change management....but that also likely means (if successful) that you'd have to find a new management company. ANd likely DVC would no longer have access to Magical Express, free onsite parking at the parks, discounted AP, or any or perk that sets DVC apart from an offsite timeshare. And then stand back as resales would now be pennies on the dollar.

 

[vint43]

Your opinion is very similar to those against questioning the validity of the 2020 points chart debacle. Apparently a dozen or so tenacious members complaining caused a complete reversal (if not an admission of wrongdoing). There's no harm in poking around and questioning DVC. I personally think it would be more advantageous and would produce better results if members sued to have DVCMC removed as the managing company. They no longer seem to be capable of separating themselves from the development arm of DVC.

Unless they hired an attorney and filed a lawsuit, my opinion supports exactly what they did. They applied direct consumer pressure. I think you need to re-read my post.

I have no issue "questioning Disney" and applying direct consumer pressure. That is miles away from hiring an attorney and being a named plaintiff on a lawsuit where you could end up paying for both sides of the litigation if you lose.

 

[zavandor]

If this is the case, this is one of the exceptions to the American Rule. If the contracts specifies the loser will pay.

If that is the case, this just escalates the risks of any lawsuit that much more.

This means, if you lose, Disney could get a judgement against you for all of their legal fees and expenses.

You would be crazy to be a plaintiff in such a case.

This thread would be better titled:

"Who wants to risk personal bankruptcy and years of constant stress and anxiety to litigate a rule change around their vacation timeshare where the rule change has actually not affected their current contracts?"

Or, instead, perhaps just sell your timeshare interest in DVC and move along. You are not being forced to own DVC.

Why on Earth would you take such a personal financial risk for such a thing?

Hopefully common sense takes over for people here.

It is absolutely ridiculous to risk a lawsuit for such a thing. Absolutely ridiculous for people to do so for an optional purchase they could sell tomorrow and walk away unharmed.

Lawsuits are not fun, are not short, are not easy, are not simple, are not anything you want to be involved in unless you have to be.

I know people are upset. I just hope you do not find an unethical attorney that actually convinces you this was a good idea.

It would be much more prudent to apply direct consumer pressure to Disney and have them change it that way. A lawsuit is just a terrible idea for individuals under these circumstances - sorry - it just is.

Vacation timeshares are not worth it. Especially ones you could sell tomorrow.

Again, just my opinion.

The main goal of this thread is put together the minds of all people who read these boards and are worried about the recent changes DVC is trying to do. The first step is to collect feedback and understand if there are legal basis for a lawsuit. Last time we didn't have to write a cease and desist letter to make DVC change their mind, so you never know...
I don't think anyone would go alone into battle. It's not something a single person could reasonably do. But if thousands of people join together it's wouldn't be impossible. Anyway, you made your point very clear. Thanks. We'll continue to discuss anyway.

 

[stewart715]

If I understand correctly it’s two-fold.

1. L14 resorts transfer membership in the club and all members are contractually equal with regards to the core club abilities - ie trading out to other resorts. Once DRR was admitted as a member, its owners, resale or other, should have those rights.

2. Admission to the club is restricted to resorts which are substantially similar. DRR’s restrictions are not in keeping with that stipulation.

I agree with the sentiment of this, but where is the language in our contracts to support this?

 

[katandmouse]

From BCV Declaration of Condominium:
Section 6.4: “Membership in the Disney Vacation Club, being a Common Element, is an appurtenance to each Ownership Interest, which is conveyed by virtue of the execution and delivery of a deed, in accordance with and subject to the terms of this Declaration, the Membership Agreement, and the DVC Resort Agreement. Upon recording of the deed, the Club Member is automatically entitled to enjoy the services and benefits associated with membership in the Club.”
(It goes on to say terms and conditions of Home Resort Reservation Component are set forth in and governed by the Membership Agreement. Same for the DVC Reservation Component to DVC Resort Agreement.)

Exhibit H DVC Resort Agreement:
1.7 “Club shall mean the Disney Vacation Club. The Club is not a legal entity or association of any kind, but rather is a service name for the services and benefits appurtenant to and the restrictions imposed upon the use and enjoyment of Ownership Interests. These services presently include, among other things, the operation of a central reservation system consisting of the reservation component for the Vacation Ownership Plan and the DVC Reservation Component.”

Also from Exhibit H DVC Resort Agreement:
(Section 6.1 is the “substantially similar” clause)
Section 6.2.c: “In the event other resorts are associated as DVC Resorts, the addition of the DVC Resort will result in new Club Members who will have the opportunity to make reservations for the use of Vacation Homes and related facilities through the DVC Reservation Component under the same terms and conditions as existing Club Members, including the Club Members at Disney’s Beach Club Villas, and may also result in an increase in the Annual Dues assessed against each Ownership Interest. If other DVC resorts are associated, demand for use may vary among the various DVC Resorts and the level of Club Member demand for a particular DVC Resort may increase over the level of use demand that existed at the time of purchase by a particular Club Member such that the ability of a Club Member to reserve use at a high demand DVC Resort at a particular time may be impacted. However, new Club Members’ reservation requests will also be subject to the Home Resort Priority Period for each DVC Resort, and in no event shall the addition of a DVC Resort result in a greater than “one-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio,” as that term is defined in Section 721.05(23), Florida Statutes. In addition, the inclusion of new resorts as DVC Resorts will afford existing Club Members with more DVC Resort Vacation Homes and location reservation opportunities and options.”

Section 6.2.d: “BVTC does not anticipate that the rules and regulations governing reservations among the DVC Resorts will be affected by adding additional resorts as DVC Resorts. However, BVTC has reserved the right to amend the Disclosure Document and DVC Vacation Point schedules to take into account the location and anticipated relative use demand of the added DVC Resort as may be necessary and as it deems necessary or desirable in order to enforce the provisions of this Agreement and the Disclosure Document as permitted under Applicable Law.”
(Bold emphases mine)

Here are my interpretations and concerns:
1. Related to the first bold statement of 6.2.c, new club members who purchase Riviera will not have the same terms and conditions as existing club members. I suspect Disney would say that since they imposed restrictions on post-1/19/19 resale buyers as well as Riviera resale buyers, that is the same. I’m not sure it is though, because that is dependent on Riviera’s Resort Agreement and the BVTC Amendment regarding Riviera Resort specifically, not other Resorts.

2. Related to the second bold statement, this is interesting to me because it seems to say that grandfathering prior resale buyers is not just a courtesy; they had to allow all existing members access to the new resort. I think it also implies that since I’m buying resale post-1/19, I don’t have access to Riviera (per that Resort Agreement and Amendment), but for future resorts I will be an existing member by then and should be entitled to those opportunities.

I’m also curious about the “one-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio” mentioned in 6.2.c, but haven’t had a chance to look up the Florida Statute to see exactly what it means.

3. So 6.2.d is where BVTC reserves the right to amend the Disclosure Document (and within section 6 which refers to adding new DVC Resorts in particular), but I bolded the last part because while BVTC operates under its Disclosure Document, it is also bound by the provisions of our Resort Agreements. I think this places a limit on what types of changes they can make at will.

 

[stewart715]

From BCV Declaration of Condominium:
Section 6.4: “Membership in the Disney Vacation Club, being a Common Element, is an appurtenance to each Ownership Interest, which is conveyed by virtue of the execution and delivery of a deed, in accordance with and subject to the terms of this Declaration, the Membership Agreement, and the DVC Resort Agreement. Upon recording of the deed, the Club Member is automatically entitled to enjoy the services and benefits associated with membership in the Club.”
(It goes on to say terms and conditions of Home Resort Reservation Component are set forth in and governed by the Membership Agreement. Same for the DVC Reservation Component to DVC Resort Agreement.)

Exhibit H DVC Resort Agreement:
1.7 “Club shall mean the Disney Vacation Club. The Club is not a legal entity or association of any kind, but rather is a service name for the services and benefits appurtenant to and the restrictions imposed upon the use and enjoyment of Ownership Interests. These services presently include, among other things, the operation of a central reservation system consisting of the reservation component for the Vacation Ownership Plan and the DVC Reservation Component.”

Also from Exhibit H DVC Resort Agreement:
(Section 6.1 is the “substantially similar” clause)
Section 6.2.c: “In the event other resorts are associated as DVC Resorts, the addition of the DVC Resort will result in new Club Members who will have the opportunity to make reservations for the use of Vacation Homes and related facilities through the DVC Reservation Component under the same terms and conditions as existing Club Members, including the Club Members at Disney’s Beach Club Villas, and may also result in an increase in the Annual Dues assessed against each Ownership Interest. If other DVC resorts are associated, demand for use may vary among the various DVC Resorts and the level of Club Member demand for a particular DVC Resort may increase over the level of use demand that existed at the time of purchase by a particular Club Member such that the ability of a Club Member to reserve use at a high demand DVC Resort at a particular time may be impacted. However, new Club Members’ reservation requests will also be subject to the Home Resort Priority Period for each DVC Resort, and in no event shall the addition of a DVC Resort result in a greater than “one-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio,” as that term is defined in Section 721.05(23), Florida Statutes. In addition, the inclusion of new resorts as DVC Resorts will afford existing Club Members with more DVC Resort Vacation Homes and location reservation opportunities and options.”

Section 6.2.d: “BVTC does not anticipate that the rules and regulations governing reservations among the DVC Resorts will be affected by adding additional resorts as DVC Resorts. However, BVTC has reserved the right to amend the Disclosure Document and DVC Vacation Point schedules to take into account the location and anticipated relative use demand of the added DVC Resort as may be necessary and as it deems necessary or desirable in order to enforce the provisions of this Agreement and the Disclosure Document as permitted under Applicable Law.”
(Bold emphases mine)

Here are my interpretations and concerns:
1. Related to the first bold statement of 6.2.c, new club members who purchase Riviera will not have the same terms and conditions as existing club members. I suspect Disney would say that since they imposed restrictions on post-1/19/19 resale buyers as well as Riviera resale buyers, that is the same. I’m not sure it is though, because that is dependent on Riviera’s Resort Agreement and the BVTC Amendment regarding Riviera Resort specifically, not other Resorts.

2. Related to the second bold statement, this is interesting to me because it seems to say that grandfathering prior resale buyers is not just a courtesy; they had to allow all existing members access to the new resort. I think it also implies that since I’m buying resale post-1/19, I don’t have access to Riviera (per that Resort Agreement and Amendment), but for future resorts I will be an existing member by then and should be entitled to those opportunities.

I’m also curious about the “one-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio” mentioned in 6.2.c, but haven’t had a chance to look up the Florida Statute to see exactly what it means.

3. So 6.2.d is where BVTC reserves the right to amend the Disclosure Document (and within section 6 which refers to adding new DVC Resorts in particular), but I bolded the last part because while BVTC operates under its Disclosure Document, it is also bound by the provisions of our Resort Agreements. I think this places a limit on what types of changes they can make at will.

I think the grandfather dates are what they are arguing. But it does bring an interesting argument: what if you own pre 2019 points and buy more on resale? What makes those points ineligible for booking at future resorts? Perhaps it can be argued that its a MEMBER that is grandfathered in and not each contract.

 

[crvetter]

I think the grandfather dates are what they are arguing. But it does bring an interesting argument: what if you own pre 2019 points and buy more on resale? What makes those points ineligible for booking at future resorts? Perhaps it can be argued that its a MEMBER that is grandfathered in and not each contract.

The way I take it is that your club membership is defined as an appurtenance to each contract/deed (in practice evident by the way BVTC gets paid per Club Member in resorts prior to DRR and that is defined as each deed/contract written). Because of that DVC would argue that you have separate memberships to the club for each contract/deed.

 

[Madame]

Members have the right to vote to change management....but that also likely means (if successful) that you'd have to find a new management company. ANd likely DVC would no longer have access to Magical Express, free onsite parking at the parks, discounted AP, or any or perk that sets DVC apart from an offsite timeshare. And then stand back as resales would now be pennies on the dollar.

You think DVC would let it get that far? I don't. Most are just not willing to call their bluff. I don't really care at this point. I've learned my lesson. This doesn't effect me, so