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

[mustinjourney]

I do not recall reading this in my purchase documents and I read them all. I guess I missed it or did not understand if I did read it. I thought the way it worked is if they made an increase in one unit or season, they had to rebalance elsewhere so the total points on the resort chart balanced out.

Does anyone have the wording from the disclosures that state they can increase points at studios and 1 BRs due to the 2BR lockoff premium without decreasing elsewhere?

Is there a limit to how much they can increase studios and 1 BRs without a corresponding decrease elsewhere?

Can anyone explain in more detail how this works out from a practical perspective?

Now that they did such a major reallocation and increased studios and 1 BRs, how would this impact us in the future? I am assuming it would now be hard for them to increase points for studios and 1BRs at the WDW resorts since they did such a massive reallocation this year.

There is no limit other than 20% every year. They could theoretically make studios more expensive than 2BRs and not violate the terms of the lock-off premium.

Why do think it would be hard to increase next year?

 

[LindaYoung]

I do not think a lawsuit that DVC members will end up paying for is a good idea. If the lawsuit could be against The parent company, and our dues will not increase, that is fine with me. I would be in favor of supporting whoever is going to meet with DVC and suppport the OP’s position that it is unfair and not clearly disclosed that DVC can increase unit points without a corresponding decrease somewhere else. Even if this is legal, it is unethical for many reasons.

 

[mustinjourney]

I do not think a lawsuit that DVC members will end up paying for is a good idea. If the lawsuit could be against The parent company, and our dues will not increase, that is fine with me. I would be in favor of supporting whoever is going to meet with DVC and suppport the OP’s position that it is unfair and not clearly disclosed that DVC can increase unit points without a corresponding decrease somewhere else. Even if this is legal, it is unethical for many reasons.

Attorney fees for this would not be crazy. Even if it went to trial, I seriously doubt it’d have any chance of exceeding $500,000. With how many points are in the system, you’d be looking at less than a fraction of a penny per point.

 

[glamdring269]

I’m saying the opposite. Those transferred points will retain their second class citizenship rights even if transferred to a first class citizen. I mean direct owner.

Yeah I fully understand your position, I'm just not confident Disney IT can figure out how to manage it. We'll see.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Hands down I haven't read all the pages in this thread, but have anyone which have written to DVC ever gotten a usable respond back? or have it only been like ... bla bla. we are allowed to do it.?

 

[Dean]

Yeah I fully understand your position, I'm just not confident Disney IT can figure out how to manage it. We'll see.

They've figured out how to do this with the other limitations, I suspect they can do so here or they would not have proceeded with the plan.

 

[Chuck S]

A reminder that suggesting or advocating work arounds for Disney/DVC Rules is not permitted on our boards. Several posts have been deleted either because they did so, or quoted the deleted posts.

 

[WebmasterDoc]

Yeah I fully understand your position, I'm just not confident Disney IT can figure out how to manage it. We'll see.

Currently, when DVC points are transferred from one Member into another Member's account, a virtual account is set up in the receiving member's account to 'hold' those transferred points. Notation is maintained in the virtual account to identify the status of those points (Home Resort, Use Year, direct purchase, resale date) so it is not really an IT issue, just some basic spreadsheet-type of record keeping for MS reps to track the use of those points.

The system used by MS is certainly an IT program as it is a component of the current online system allowing DVC members to view/bank/borrow/modify make and modify reservations, but the transferred points cannot be accessed online, thus the reason members need to call MS in order to do anything with those transferred points.

 

[zavandor]

There is little doubt the the original intention of DVC when they wrote the POS was to allow reallocations only within a Vacation home, not to allow to increase one unit and lower another one. Their latest interpretation of the POS is in contradiction with other parts of the POS, not just the membership agreement.
For example, in paragraph 10.6.3 of the Declaration of Condominium, they describe what happens if a Unit is damaged beyond repair (think hurricane damage) and it cannot be rebuilt. Owners of that particular unit share the insurance payment and loose their contract...

...resulting in their withdrawal from participation in the Home Resort Reservation Component and the DVC Reservation Component so that members of the club will not be attempting to make reservations for available DVC Resort Vacation Homes on a greater than "one-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio" as that term is defined in Section 721.05(23), Florida Statutes.

It says that the rest of the resort is automatically in balance according to the one-to-one Florida law. No reallocation is mentioned here and in the Membership agreement reallocations are allowed only to balance demand, not to fix the one-to-one rule.
And there are even more problems even if they try a reallocation. THV are declared as 905,250, in 2020 1,172,340 points will be needed to book them. If they are all destroyed and removed from the system, an excess 250k+ points have to be redistributed over the remaining resort. SSR is big so maybe they can do so without having to increase the cost of any Vacation Home by more than 20%. But what if they reallocate again and increase this number? They wouldn't be able to do that reallocation without a members vote. And what if members vote against it?
It is a mess.
Doing reallocations cross different room types was not in the original intentions and doing so opens a pandora's box of problems and contraddictions in the POS. They would have not just to change the product understanding doc, they would need to rewrite the whole POS.

(thanks to @DaveNan for the calculations)

 

[aoconnor]

Anyone got their hands on the new BVTC Disclosure Guide since it's past 1/19?

 

[zavandor]

Anyone got their hands on the new BVTC Disclosure Guide since it's past 1/19?

I have asked to MS on Saturday and they told me they have no idea what it is (well, they didn't say exactly that) and I have to ask to Members Administration on Tuesday when they'll reopen.

 

[OKW Lover]

There is little doubt the the original intention of DVC when they wrote the POS was to allow reallocations only within a Vacation home, not to allow to increase one unit and lower another one.

How do we know this?

 

[zavandor]

How do we know this?

Because they wrote exactly that for 20 years in the products understanding document and in the POS.

 

[WebmasterDoc]

Because they wrote exactly that for 20 years in the products understanding document and in the POS.

Can you provide the document with that exact language?

That is NOT stated in the Product Understanding Checklist I posted in this thread last week - that document was from 1993.

 

[zavandor]

Can you provide the document with that exact language?

That is NOT stated in the Product Understanding Checklist I posted in this thread last week - that document was from 1993.

https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...20-reallocation.3726101/page-43#post-60151354

 

[Dean]

There is little doubt the the original intention of DVC when they wrote the POS was to allow reallocations only within a Vacation home, not to allow to increase one unit and lower another one. Their latest interpretation of the POS is in contradiction with other parts of the POS, not just the membership agreement.
For example, in paragraph 10.6.3 of the Declaration of Condominium, they describe what happens if a Unit is damaged beyond repair (think hurricane damage) and it cannot be rebuilt. Owners of that particular unit share the insurance payment and loose their contract...

...resulting in their withdrawal from participation in the Home Resort Reservation Component and the DVC Reservation Component so that members of the club will not be attempting to make reservations for available DVC Resort Vacation Homes on a greater than "one-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio" as that term is defined in Section 721.05(23), Florida Statutes.

It says that the rest of the resort is automatically in balance according to the one-to-one Florida law. No reallocation is mentioned here and in the Membership agreement reallocations are allowed only to balance demand, not to fix the one-to-one rule.
And there are even more problems even if they try a reallocation. THV are declared as 905,250, in 2020 1,172,340 points will be needed to book them. If they are all destroyed and removed from the system, an excess 250k+ points have to be redistributed over the remaining resort. SSR is big so maybe they can do so without having to increase the cost of any Vacation Home by more than 20%. But what if they reallocate again and increase this number? They wouldn't be able to do that reallocation without a members vote. And what if members vote against it?
It is a mess.
Doing reallocations cross different room types was not in the original intentions and doing so opens a pandora's box of problems and contraddictions in the POS. They would have not just to change the product understanding doc, they would need to rewrite the whole POS.

(thanks to @DaveNan for the calculations)

The checklist is just an acknowledgment that you understand the information, the POS I have from 1993 I'm pretty sure is not by vacation home. Their obvious goal was to allow changes, limiting by villa or "unit" doesn't allow changes that might be needed. I don't think any of use anticipated the specific change but it goes make sense as one approach if they deem the 2 BR in higher demand enough to act on the issue.

 

[Dean]

https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...20-reallocation.3726101/page-43#post-60151354

That doesn't restrict to by vacation home, it just generically states that changes have to be offset. Reading that those changes have to be in the same vacation home is a far more restrictive interpretation than I think is reasonable based on this post. Still, the POS is going to be the authority, esp if there is any discrepancy. Plus the POS is a fluid document, there is no requirement to change the checklist for a given individual retroactively.

 

[zavandor]

The checklist is just an acknowledgment that you understand the information, the POS I have from 1993 I'm pretty sure is not by vacation home.

Have you had the chance to find in the POS you have the statement saying that for point chart balance only the 2BR counts and not the studios and 1BR? Thanks

 

[zavandor]

That doesn't restrict to by vacation home, it just generically states that changes have to be offset. Reading that those changes have to be in the same vacation home is a far more restrictive interpretation than I think is reasonable based on this post. Still, the POS is going to be the authority, esp if there is any discrepancy. Plus the POS is a fluid document, there is no requirement to change the checklist for a given individual retroactively.

We've already gone through this. I guess they have to write an "understanding the product understanding ack.". We have clearly different opinions on everything, and it's fine since this is a forum and everyone can express theirs.

 

[Dean]

I have asked to MS on Saturday and they told me they have no idea what it is (well, they didn't say exactly that) and I have to ask to Members Administration on Tuesday when they'll reopen.

I believe it's the audit materials they do once a year related to exchange, it's not usually available until early summer historically. Historically they did one for BVTC and one for II/RCI. Since joining with RCI points, they just use the interpretation of statistics from RCI rather than doing their own which is why I haven't updated the information here.