I hadn't considered the new trust method for CFW was created to bring in new restrictions re: rentals.
I wasn't sure about Florida law, but here in Canada, a mobile home (which is what I assume the cabins in effect are) is not classed as "real property" and is not deeded as such if not permanently affixed to the land. If not, it is registered as personal property and has a document of title the same as your car would. I just assumed these mobile homes weren't permanently affixed to the land and therefore, this was the reason that Disney couldn't create the deeded interest in the same manner they have done on all their condo resorts, thus the need for the trust method. In any event, I'm sure Disney will make sure the language in their new agreements for CFW favours their interpretation for rentals on the secondary market.
What I do not know is whether they are actually mobile homes or just modular homes pre-built and brought in one or more pieces and put on the site. The only difference in Florida is that they would be mobile homes if they have a chassis on the bottom that can have wheels. Modular homes can essentially be anything that looks like a mobile home but does not have a chassis. If a modular home, the cabins would immediately be deemed real property once permanently attached to the land, and for that permanency to be found you need only show the home is sitting on land and hooked up to its services there -- water, electricity, sewage, and gas if needed.
If they are actually mobile homes, then, even if attached to the land, they remain mobile homes, which are deemed personal property, unless two conditions are met. They become real property if, and only if, both the owner of the mobile home and the owner of the land on which the home sits is the same person or entity. If the person has a long-term lease on the mobile home that qualifies as being an owner of the mobile home, but to qualify as the land owner, he must have a fee interest, meaning having a long term lease is not enough.
If they are mobile homes, neither DVD, and now nor the trustee, has a fee interest in the land because the land is theirs via a 50-year lease from the main Disney company at WDW. Thus, the mobile homes would remain personal property.
If that is the case, there appears to be a potential issue as to whether DVD has actually created a Timeshare Estate, i.e. whether the Cabins Use Plan is in fact a Timeshare Estate as DVD has claimed in all the papers DVD has filed with the Division of Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes, to get approval as a Timeshare Estate In Florida.
Florida allows three classes of timeshares. A Timeshare Estate is a class reserved for real property timeshares. You can use the trust method to give the purchasers a direct or indirect interest in a trust but the trust cannot have personal property interests. The second class is personal property timeshares for any personal property timeshare interests that are not attached to land (e.g., rooms on ships). The third class is a timeshare license, which covers any timeshare that does not meet the definition of a timeshare estate or personal property timeshare interest.
It is a Timeshare Estate for which deeds can be issued, and, if done via a trust, the deed recognizes that the purchaser has a direct or indirect beneficial interest in a trust that is deemed to be a real property interest. Neither the personal property timeshare interest nor the timeshare license can be deeded. Instead, those simply have contracts that lay out the ownership interest.
Other than guesses made by many, there appears to be some indication the cabins may actually be personal property mobile homes. The peculiar thing about the trust timeshare estate DVD has set up is that DVD has gone through a lot of maneuvering with all the papers it has created to apparently avoid actually transferring the cabins to the trustee, First American Trust, which transfer has not yet been done, though the statutes applicable to creating a trust Timeshare Estate appear to require that the "accommodations" or all rights to use them must be transferred to the trust and the trustee must accept them before sales can begin. Accommodation is defined in the statutes and it lists both real and personal property items that can be used for overnight stays. One of the items listed is "cabin" as real property but that is most likely referring to a real cabin and not some mobile home the developer calls a cabin.
If DVD actually transferred the "cabins" to the trustee and they are, in fact, mobile homes, that could raise an issue as to whether there is a proper "timeshare estate" trust which appears to exclude having any personal property interest from being the timeshare accommodations transferred to the trust.
What DVD has done instead is transfer the 50-year land lease to the triustee which does not include the cabins themselves. Instead the land lease is designated to include a total number of points that can be used by purchasers to reserve the cabins as part of the Cabins Use Plan. The Cabins Use Plan, which the members purchase, includes those points that are controlled by the association, the Palmetto Trust Association (not a trust that meets the requirements of a timeshare estate trust), and the association has a management entity, DVCM, and a DVC Reservation Component entity, BVTC, that control the reservation systems for the cabins, and as members of the CFW association, the purchasers get to use their points to make reservations for the cabins and other resorts.The cabins themselves actually remain owned by DVD but it dedicates those to be reserved by purchasers.
If I were to simplify what has actually been done, it boils down to the fact that the purchasers are purchasing a Cabin Use Plan that mainly provides them points to make reservations but provides no real estate interest in the cabins themselves.
One might conclude all that manuevering was done to avoid pointing out that the cabins are mobile homes, but that is still not clear. We have not heard yet from DVD as to why it believes it can create a timeshare estate without transferring the accommodations to the trust and having the trustee accept them. But if they are instead modular homes that are real property, then DVD could have easily avoided all that maneuvering and transferred them to the trust and met the requirements for a timeshare estate. In fact, DVD could have just used the condominium form of ownership that exists for all the other resorts and not done a trust.
