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

[crvetter]

I wasn't on the call so my ability to respond is limited. DVC likely has no intention of exercising the option to flatten the point charts, so that topic is somewhat moot.

But the passage about the minimum nightly cost reads very clearly to me. In no way does it imply that the 18 points per night is an average, rather it explicitly states that only a single night must be priced at that rate (or lower.)

Only the first year. To be clear my interpretation was verified by DVC they just said it only applied the first year. This entire language in that paragraph only applies the first year. I also wouldn't suppose that DVC has no intention of exercising the option to flatten point charts, anything can happen in 50 years. Did you have any indication that DVC would restrict resale buyers from booking at anything but their Home Resort? Without healthy skepticism from consumers they will be taken advantage of.

I only reported what I was told. What I was told was that entire section was moot.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

In no way does it imply that the 18 points per night is an average,

The language of "flattening of the charts" does imply an average. For flattening of nightly costs it implies taking points away from higher cost nights and allocating them to lower cost nights. The flattened number is actually the average of all the nights. When you flatten you take away from the high spots and fill in the low - again you end up with the average or level amount/number.

 

[tjkraz]

I think you are missing my point on this issue. My point is the Maximum Reallocation is to define an upper limit on the worse case across seasons and nights to reserve a room.

You seem to WANT it to be that. Not sure I see that within the language.

If this does not apply then DVC at it's sole discretion can charge anything they want as long as the changes year over year are capped at 20% (and entire resort is in balance). Also if you define 364 days to be say 40 points but 1 day to the X points dictated in the POS you either wrote the POS deliberately misleading or it is violating the spirit of what the original writer intended.

As I read the passage, yes this very much could happen. The chart must still continue to balance--which would be very difficult to do if pricing one night at 18 points and 364 days at 40 points. Member demand will also keep that from happening. Since the charts still have to balance, the need to apply adjustments to other villa sizes will largely keep things in check.

 

[crvetter]

All based on the language in the POS, in particular Paragraph 3.3 of the Membership Agreement for Copper Creek (quoted below)

“However, with respect to the Condominium, each Club Member will always be eligible to reserve at the Condominium, subject to availability: at least one (1) Use Day in a Studio Vacation Home for every eighteen (18) Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a One-Bedroom Vacation Home for every thirty-six (36) Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a Two-Bedroom Vacation Home for every forty-six (46) Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a Grand Villa Vacation Home for every one hundred twenty-two (122) Home Resort Vacation Points; and at least (1) Use Day in a Cabin Vacation Home for every one hundred fifteen (1150 Home Resort Vacation Points. A maximum reallocation of Vacation Point reservation requirements could result in a ‘leveling’ of all seasons, such that Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements would have no variation based upon seasonality or different times of the year. Similarly, a maximum reallocation of Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements could result in a ‘leveling’ of differences in Vacation Point reservation Requirements based upon particular Use Days in the week. Participation in certain External Exchange Programs may be based on a week for week exchange, and require reservation and deposit of seven (7) consecutive Use Day Period in a One Bedroom or Two-Bedroom Vacation Home. Therefore, in the event of maximum reallocation as described in the preceding paragraph, a Club Member would be required (absent Banking and Borrowing) to have annual Home Resort Vacation Points of at least two hundred fifty-two (252) Home Resort Vacation Points (7 Use Days X 36 Home Resort Vacation Points per Use Day) to reserve and deposit a One-Bedroom Vacation for exchange through the External Exchange Program….”

DVC has provided the following explanations to me:

1. The Maximum Reallocation language only applies in the first year a resort opens
   1. I disagree with this and find it strange it took a week for them to come up with this answer when I asked the question on if this was defining an average nightly rate (at maximum) for a given Vacation Home Type. They even admitted some material from marketing may have suggested as such but would need to verify it.
   2. If it was truly intended for only the first year it would be phrased as such more clearly. As when I asked over 25+ years why it never was updated they implied it was for consistency across all resorts
2. In theory every use night, except 1, could go to whatever number they wanted as long as 1 use day is at the number described above. Always with the caveat the resort must be in balance as a whole
   1. Even the 1 use day they would not commit to and suggested that could only be for the first year too. The only thing they would commit to was the total points for a resort couldn't change
3. The Product Understanding Checklist is not legally binding and should not be viewed as prior DVC Management's interpretation of the POS's restrictions on reallocation
   1. This is in my direct question on why some gave reasons for Reallocation based only on seasonal demand, which in their words is very different and not what the 2020 point charts did only. They said going across Vacation Home Types was Accommodation Type Demand.
   2. They said it was removed from the Product Understanding Checklist to streamline the document and to make it more clear their intentions would be to have the ability to adjust across Home Types.
   3. They plan on looking into modifying the Product Understanding Checklist to specifically state that reallocation can occur across Home Types, Seasons, and Days
4. The line about "... that the total number of Home Resort Vaction Points existing in a given Unit.... at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation" is only meant to say they can sell new points or create points into the resort because of a reallocation
   1. Personally I found them to stumble upon this language when I described it back to them above they said they couldn't describe it better than that. Seems odd lawyers couldn't do that
5. All guaranteed week shortages are made up by Disney and not taken from the resort. So if a guaranteed week costs 130 points now but the contract sold was only 110 Disney must take from the Developer Points 20, thus giving them less Developer Points.

Overall I do honestly believe if anyone were to want to get anywhere further they would need to focus on the original Product Understanding Checklist and if that was truly the original interpretation. They would need to prove that in court to uphold it. As for the maximum reallocation I'm still not convinced it applies to only the initial year the resort opens because no language in the POS suggests that.

Overall I appreciate their open and honest feedback but I respectfully disagree with their statements. As for the maximum reallocation language applying only the first year argument leads me to believe I might have been onto something there. Seems like they grasped at straws with their argument as nowhere the POS says or implies that. But a lawyer and arbitrator first would need to determine that, possibly moving onto a judge if arbitration didn't work.

See page 93 of the CCV POS for the section I argued and quoted above.

To provide clarifications on my stance with DVC's right to make the point changes.

1. I believe DVC has a duty to make the point changes to minimize breakage (essentially operate the resort at 100% capacity).
2. I believe DVC can allocate across Vacation Home Types as in prior Multi-Site POS's this was explicitly stated
3. I believe the product understanding checklist is not a legally binding document; however, it was confusing initially by stating seasonal demand making buyers think changes could only occur across seasons

However, my main question to DVC was what was the intent of the Maximum Reallocation and the right to reserve one use type for a given X points. I was specifically told that it came from taking the average nightly cost of the first point chart (giving the right to book for a given X points). They did not deny my point that the two sections defines the average (which is exactly how they defined getting the value); they specifically told me the language in this section applied the first year only.

I'm following up with them again to ask for clarification on where it defines this to be applied in the first year only.

If they could define 364 days to be Y but 1 day to be X that would seem to violate the spirit of the Maximum Reallocation, which is my other point. However, this is all moot if DVC does really believe this language only applies the first year of the resort opening.

 

[crvetter]

As I read the passage, yes this very much could happen. The chart must still continue to balance--which would be very difficult to do if pricing one night at 18 points and 364 days at 40 points. Member demand will also keep that from happening. Since the charts still have to balance, the need to apply adjustments to other villa sizes will largely keep things in check.

Not for resorts without dedicated units. Resorts that have no studios or 1 bedrooms this could easily become a 20% increase year over year without check.

You seem to WANT it to be that. Not sure I see that within the language.

As I said they told me it was exactly this but only applies the first year.

My goal was to define what the worse case scenario for my points are. I found that to be about 50 points a night for Copper Creek.

I also they said your right to reserve a room at X points for one use day didn't apply outside the first year.

I encourage all to email, write DVC with their concerns. I only wanted to share my responses so others would be knowledgeable to previous responses from DVC.

 

[tjkraz]

The language of "flattening of the charts" does imply an average. For flattening of nightly costs it implies taking points away from higher cost nights and allocating them to lower cost nights. The flattened number is actually the average of all the nights. When you flatten you take away from the high spots and fill in the low - again you end up with the average or level amount/number.

Let's look at the exact passage, as quoted in crvetter's previous post:

“However, with respect to the Condominium, each Club Member will always be eligible to reserve at the Condominium, subject to availability: at least one (1) Use Day in a Studio Vacation Home for every eighteen (18) Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a One-Bedroom Vacation Home for every thirty-six (36) Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a Two-Bedroom Vacation Home for every forty-six (46) Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a Grand Villa Vacation Home for every one hundred twenty-two (122) Home Resort Vacation Points; and at least (1) Use Day in a Cabin Vacation Home for every one hundred fifteen (115) Home Resort Vacation Points.

If we stop right there, that section stands on its own. The word "average" is never used. It's a factual commitment to the maximum cost of a single night in each villa type.

The passage then proceeds to address the maximum reallocation...

A maximum reallocation of Vacation Point reservation requirements could result in a ‘leveling’ of all seasons, such that Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements would have no variation based upon seasonality or different times of the year. Similarly, a maximum reallocation of Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements could result in a ‘leveling’ of differences in Vacation Point reservation Requirements based upon particular Use Days in the week.

*IF* a maximum reallocation were to occur, then it would have to be at the rates described in the first part. DVC is saying that you can always book a Studio for 18 points. If the points are the same for every night of the year, it would have to be 18 points.

But these two passages are not intertwined. The first passage isn't presented as only applying in the event of a maximum reallocation. In lieu of such dramatic changes, I see no reason why DVC wouldn't still be held to the concept of allowing members "at least one Use Day" in a Studio for 18 points. But ONLY ONE DAY.

Nowhere in there does it imply or infer that 18 points per night is a calendar year average *EXCEPT* in the event of a maximum reallocation.

 

[crvetter]

Let's look at the exact passage, as quoted in crvetter's previous post:



If we stop right there, that section stands on its own. The word "average" is never used. It's a factual commitment to the maximum cost of a single night in each villa type.

The passage then proceeds to address the maximum reallocation...



*IF* a maximum reallocation were to occur, then it would have to be at the rates described in the first part. DVC is saying that you can always book a Studio for 18 points. If the points are the same for every night of the year, it would have to be 18 points.

But these two passages are not intertwined. The first passage isn't presented as only applying in the event of a maximum reallocation. In lieu of such dramatic changes, I see no reason why DVC wouldn't still be held to the concept of allowing members "at least one Use Day" in a Studio for 18 points. But ONLY ONE DAY.

Nowhere in there does it imply or infer that 18 points per night is a calendar year average *EXCEPT* in the event of a maximum reallocation.

I've only maintained to post what I was told. They told me my interpretation was correct but for the first year only. Also they are intertwined by your very own statement *IF* a maximum reallocation were to occur, then it would have to be at the rates described in the first part. DVC is saying that you can always book a Studio for 18 points. If the points are the same for every night of the year, it would have to be 18 points. That is being intertwined. Also they occur in the paragraph right after each other.

Also as I stated previously at the end of my first post DVC's interpretation is different than mine (the first year comment).

 

[miTnosnhoJ]

I've only maintained to post what I was told. They told me my interpretation was correct but for the first year only. Also they are intertwined by your very own statement *IF* a maximum reallocation were to occur, then it would have to be at the rates described in the first part. DVC is saying that you can always book a Studio for 18 points. If the points are the same for every night of the year, it would have to be 18 points. That is being intertwined. Also they occur in the paragraph right after each other.

I am still befuddled at how the lawyers interpret the word “always” as meaning “just kidding, only the first year.”

 

[crvetter]

Nowhere in there does it imply or infer that 18 points per night is a calendar year average *EXCEPT* in the event of a maximum reallocation.

Which is exactly what I told people. I even said this wouldn't even apply anymore as I was told it was only in the first year Maximum Reallocation can occur.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Let's look at the exact passage, as quoted in crvetter's previous post:



If we stop right there, that section stands on its own. The word "average" is never used. It's a factual commitment to the maximum cost of a single night in each villa type.

The passage then proceeds to address the maximum reallocation...



*IF* a maximum reallocation were to occur, then it would have to be at the rates described in the first part. DVC is saying that you can always book a Studio for 18 points. If the points are the same for every night of the year, it would have to be 18 points.

But these two passages are not intertwined. The first passage isn't presented as only applying in the event of a maximum reallocation. In lieu of such dramatic changes, I see no reason why DVC wouldn't still be held to the concept of allowing members "at least one Use Day" in a Studio for 18 points. But ONLY ONE DAY.

Nowhere in there does it imply or infer that 18 points per night is a calendar year average *EXCEPT* in the event of a maximum reallocation.

As I mentioned I do not have access to my POS documents at the moment although this is a section I have read and reread multiple times as I've never been able to understand the insistence that it means the best you can count on is one single night at those points and everything else is a free for all because it goes on to give the outline of a flattening of the seasons and that the number is exactly what is used in the single night reference. I'd argue it is unreasonable to separate the two. In most legal documents if there is something immediately preceding or following that is not obviously marked as a different section then they are referencing the same subject.

 

[tjkraz]

Not for resorts without dedicated units. Resorts that have no studios or 1 bedrooms this could easily become a 20% increase year over year without check.

Until that happens, it's nothing more than wild speculation. The lockoff premium has always existed, and this is the first time the ratio has been adjusted in 29 years. There are a lot of things that DVC *could* potentially do to harm owners. Right now, this isn't high on my list of concerns.

As I said they told me it was exactly this but only applies the first year.

Again I wasn't on the call so it's difficult for me to respond without being privy to the actual back and forth dialogue. (EDIT: And just to be clear, I'm very much open to the idea that DVC either misunderstood the question or provided a poorly-worded or inaccurate response.)

I will say this: If there comes a time where a Copper Creek studio is no longer bookable for 18 points and DVC's argument is that the values presented in the POS were intended to apply to the first year only, they would have a difficult time selling that position to a state regulator, arbitrator or judge.

 

[tjkraz]

As I mentioned I do not have access to my POS documents at the moment although this is a section I have read and reread multiple times as I've never been able to understand the insistence that it means the best you can count on is one single night at those points and everything else is a free for all because it goes on to give the outline of a flattening of the seasons and that the number is exactly what is used in the single night reference. I'd argue it is unreasonable to separate the two. In most legal documents if there is something immediately preceding or following that is not obviously marked as a different section then they are referencing the same subject.

If this entire passage were preceded by a heading labeled "Maximum Reallocation", then I would agree.

If the two sections were reversed--with the concept of a Maximum Reallocation was defined first followed by the values--then I would agree.

And I also agree that saying a single night will cost "X" provides almost no protection to members.

That said, I think you're going beyond the scope of this language in assuming that the sum total of all Studios can never average more than 18 points per night.

 

[crvetter]

Until that happens, it's nothing more than wild speculation. The lockoff premium has always existed, and this is the first time the ratio has been adjusted in 29 years. There are a lot of things that DVC *could* potentially do to harm owners. Right now, this isn't high on my list of concerns.

I was merely correcting your statement that it couldn't happen easily because the resort would have to be in balance. I'm merely stating that it can happen and the balancing of the resort would not matter for those without dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms.

Again I wasn't on the call so it's difficult for me to respond without being privy to the actual back and forth dialogue.

I will say this: If there comes a time where a Copper Creek studio is no longer bookable for 18 points and DVC's argument is that the values presented in the POS were intended to apply to the first year only, they would have a difficult time selling that position to a state regulator, arbitrator or judge.

Correct you were not on the call and I can appreciate that. So you are only providing your interpretation as I'm providing mine (and throwing in my understanding of what I was told). Neither is right neither is wrong but an interpretation. I've merely had the opportunity to talk to senior leadership because of effort I took on my end to do so before the posting information on any source without actually talking to those making the decision (not based on pure speculation). There is no reason my opinion or any others on this board should be valued any less than anyone else.

I encourage anyone if they have concerns to talk to DVCMC directly to ease their concern.

 

[aoconnor]

Even if they were technically allowed to do the reallocation under their interpretation of the documents, could the requirement for them to act in the best interest of members supersede that? I don't see how increasing breakage could possibly be in the best interest of members.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

If this entire passage were preceded by a heading labeled "Maximum Reallocation", then I would agree.

If the two sections were reversed--with the concept of a Maximum Reallocation was defined first followed by the values--then I would agree.

And I also agree that saying a single night will cost "X" provides almost no protection to members.

That said, I think you're going beyond the scope of this language in assuming that the sum total of all Studios can never average more than 18 points per night.

And I think it's counter intuitive to disassociate the two passages. I find nothing that indicates that should be done. If that were correct then the next assumption would be that it was misleading.

The interesting thing is that what DVC has by all accounts indicated in their conversation on the subject is that it was an average so your continued argument that it wasn't is a little odd to say the least other than not having an ear on the phone to hear it yourself.

 

[crvetter]

And I think it's counter intuitive to disassociate the two passages. I find nothing that indicates that should be done. If that were correct then the next assumption would be that it was misleading.

He didn't disassociate them as he suggested he had. They were directly associated just with a different interpretation.

 

[crvetter]

Even if they were technically allowed to do the reallocation under their interpretation of the documents, could the requirement for them to act in the best interest of members supersede that? I don't see how increasing breakage could possibly be in the best interest of members.

Correct if breakage increases we should see another rebalance if they act in the best interest of members. Now it is hard to determine the breakage income since most of it goes into DVC directly as profit because the max sent back to the associations is often reached.

I don't necessarily think they are not acting in the best interest just that they didn't explain things well and need to work on truly explaining the potential boundary cases to the worth of your points. Every owner should be entitled to know that when making a decision and shouldn't be discouraged from determining that.

 

[tjkraz]

The interesting thing is that what DVC has by all accounts indicated in their conversation on the subject is that it was an average so your continued argument that it wasn't is a little odd to say the least other than not having an ear on the phone to hear it yourself.

Frankly their supposed claim that the maximum reallocation could only occur in year one--when it obviously would not occur--has me questioning the validity of the responses.

If DVC's official position is that a Copper Creek studios should average no more than 18 points per night, but only if a maximum reallocation occurs in Year One, then I'm all on board with a lawsuit. But since the POS places no limits on when this reallocation can occur, I doubt that's a position they will stand by. And it raises doubt on the entire exchange, as related here.

 

[crvetter]

Frankly their supposed claim that the maximum reallocation could only occur in year one--when it obviously would not occur--has me questioning the validity of the responses.

If DVC's official position is that a Copper Creek studios should average no more than 18 points per night, but only if a maximum reallocation occurs in Year One, then I'm all on board with a lawsuit. But since the POS places no limits on when this reallocation can occur, I doubt that's a position they will stand by. And it raises doubt on the entire exchange, as related here.

As I stated previously I've written a letter post phone call with what I was told to see if what I was told was true what I understood them to say. But the exact words were "the maximum reallocation language only applies in the first year"

 

[crvetter]

In the interest of clarifying my observations in all my prior post to summarize my standing that might have gotten lost through a bunch of back and forth.

1. I initially felt that DVC needed to keep points within a given Vacation Home Type constant (per what I was told by Sales and Quality Assurance). However, when reading older multi-site POSs that explicitly stated otherwise I abandoned that view and feel something was lost in communication during the sales process.
2. I initially felt that guaranteed weeks would strain the system because shortage of points would occur when a room costs 150 to book but the guaranteed week was only 110 (after hypothetical reallocations). I've abandoned this view after talking to DVC as I was told Developer points would have to make up the difference so Members points still maintained the 1 to 1 right to use rule. Thus as a members it worked for us.
3. I also felt there was a need to get a further understanding of the Maximum Reallocation language and a right to reserve a room at X points a night
   1. I took this to mean something differently than others on here on this board.
   2. I was sharing this as my main concern so others were aware of efforts being taken to get answers from DVCMC regarding a point reallocation that occurred without explanation.
   3. I got an explanation that Maximum Reallocation and the right to reserve one use night for X points applied in the first year.

With this in mind I've drafted a letter to the individuals I've spoken with to get further clarity, while expressing my points in a written fashion again to limit the loss in translation aspect.