Was closing DVC Resorts Legal?

[Brianstl]

You can’t sue because you have to come into work and others do not. Lots of employees for many business have to come into work right now while others are getting paid while not working. I am considered an existential employee for our company’s continuing operations. There are functions of my job that can only be performed at my work location. I’m cool with that. I would rather have 90% less employees at work because that means there is a much smaller chance that someone will give the virus to me at work.

 

[Sandisw]

I got the automated response to my email and it says those offices are currently closed and that response to any email will take longer than typical,

So, while member services remains open, there are other departments that have been closed

 

[TisBit]

That would violate the contract for sure because point charts can’t be adjusted like that.

My solution is that owners whose points are lost due to the closure...those not returned...ie :banked points that cant be rebanked..receive reimbursements for dues., assuming this can be supported legally.

Then, per contract, suspend banking and borrowing for how many ever years they need to to equalize the system.

While I don’t believe they closed illegally, I certainly don’t think we should be accepting a fix that would definitely violate the contract.

Actually, it may be the only way to not violate the contract. From all the goof ups and discussions over the last 13 years I have been a member about point charts, they cannot increase or decrease the number of points per villa for the year. But, they can adjust between seasons based on their discretion. They cannot move points between 'units', so they have created a season this year where the villas are closed and no points are being used, creating an imbalance of points per unity for the year. So adjusting the remaining seasons would restore that balance.

Again, very hypothetical, in the same sense DVC may have enough points to cover this closure on hand through ROFR, unsold points, etc. There would be a loss to the membership as a whole from the lack of revenue from those villas being rented for cash, we would most likely see an increase to MF's. But, it would again impact the membership as a whole. It still doesn't fix people that will lose points because of banked points near the end of their use year.

 

[Sandisw]

Actually, it may be the only way to not violate the contract. From all the goof ups and discussions over the last 13 years I have been a member about point charts, they cannot increase or decrease the number of points per villa for the year. But, they can adjust between seasons based on their discretion. They cannot move points between 'units', so they have created a season this year where the villas are closed and no points are being used, creating an imbalance of points per unity for the year. So adjusting the remaining seasons would restore that balance.

Again, very hypothetical, in the same sense DVC may have enough points to cover this closure on hand through ROFR, unsold points, etc. There would be a loss to the membership as a whole from the lack of revenue from those villas being rented for cash, we would most likely see an increase to MF's. But, it would again impact the membership as a whole. It still doesn't fix people that will lose points because of banked points near the end of their use year.

They can’t raise more than 20% in any one year the cost of the room I don’t think they can adjust points charts in the middle of the year either.

If we are talking about what is in the contract and legal, we do have to look at what it says, or doesn’t. And there is nothing in the contract that says they can change points charts once published and being in use,

So, it comes back to right now, the only option they have for sure, is the suspension of banking and borrowing and that is the first thing I, as an owner, want to see, IF this closing lasts long enough to overload the system,

Its a good point about the points owned through ROFR and that could definitely impact this in a positive way.

Granted, not going to be easy for me to use up all my points, and in some of my contracts are in borrow mode already so I might have to cut down trips.

 

[Sandisw]

As I have mentioned, I have been reading the POS of RIV. On page 62, it lists the Emergency Powers, the association has in response to a state of emergency. On March 11th, Florida did declare a state of emergency.

It appears they can exercise these rights for the health and safety of those legally allowed to access the property. It does say, though, that is should be as for a time reasonably necessary to protect us,

In my opinion, here is the language that allows them to close the resort because Florida did declare an emergency, the President declared a national emergency and the CDC recommended limited gatherings of 50 or less. They have the right to keep us out.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Wow. I posted this exact question only to be pointed to this thread not knowing it was already going on. Took me a few minutes to catch up.

Elephant in the room warning

So much nobility in this thread defending DVD closing the resorts, and I respect that. To an extent, but hear me out, please.

Here's the thing I don't think anybody's talking about. Closing the resorts was a business decision made by Disney and handed down to DVD.

Nobody's going to stay at DVC resorts with the parks closed. Parks closed = no revenue stream. Only costs. The same goes for the resorts associated with the parks.

You can call it whatever makes you sleep better at night with all the nobility in the world defending doing their part to prevent the wipe-out of the entire human species, but at the end of the day, the resorts being shut down was a business decision based on Disney no longer having a revenue stream from them. That has absolutely nothing to do with the use value to me as an owner at a DVC resort, which is supposed to be their obligation.

Could I prove that? I can guarantee you there's a paper trail somewhere, and given a 20% incentive, I'm sure any corporate lawyer in America could find it. And probably will when all is said and done.

I challenge you to remove whatever emotions you may have from whatever side you may call yourself on and look at it in a rational and logical manner. DVD is libel. They essentially shut the resorts down and made them unavailable to members because keeping them open made no business "sense" to Disney. Plain and simple.

{Bob ducks from all the javelins sure to come immediately.}

 

[Sandisw]

Wow. I posted this exact question only to be pointed to this thread not knowing it was already going on. Took me a few minutes to catch up.

Elephant in the room warning

So much nobility in this thread defending DVD closing the resorts, and I respect that. To an extent, but hear me out, please.

Here's the thing I don't think anybody's talking about. Closing the resorts was a business decision made by Disney and handed down to DVD.

Nobody's going to stay at DVC resorts with the parks closed. Parks closed = no revenue stream. Only costs. The same goes for the resorts associated with the parks.

You can call it whatever makes you sleep better at night with all the nobility in the world defending doing their part to prevent the wipe-out of the entire human species, but at the end of the day, the resorts being shut down was a business decision based on Disney no longer having a revenue stream from them. That has absolutely nothing to do with the use value of me as an owner at a DVC resort.

Could I prove that? I can guarantee you there's a paper trail somewhere, and given a 20% incentive, I'm sure any corporate lawyer in America could find it. And probably will when all is said and done.

I challenge you to remove whatever emotions you may have from whatever side you may call yourself on and look at it in a rational and logical manner. DVD is libel. They essentially shut the resorts down and made them unavailable to members because keeping them open made no business "sense" to Disney. Plain and simple.

{Bob ducks from all the javelins sure to come immediately.}

See my post above. They had the right to close via our contract once a state of emergency was declared for health and safety of members. it state they can keep people out who are entitled to the property, including owners,

Its part of what we all agreed to when we bought, like it or not,

 

[WilsonFlyer]

My wife and I were honestly discussing this just last night. We have a trip (still booked) booked for April 11-18 at AKK. We were discussing that we would probably enjoy going down there just to enjoy the resort and Orlando, even if the parks weren't open. This is something we always "threaten" to do anyway, but the entire family knows this is simply never going to happen. Now a situation presents itself where it could be "forced" upon us and we could finally have that opportunity, but everybody here knows there's no way DVC will ever re-open these resorts without the parks being opened on the same day or just afterwards.

DVC intentionally unlinked from the parks in the POS? My hindparts. More Kool-Aid anyone?

 

[WilsonFlyer]

See my post above. They had the right to close via our contract once a state of emergency was declared for health and safety of members. it state they can keep people out who are entitled to the property, including owners,

Its part of what we all agreed to when we bought, like it or not,

I'm not sure whether you chose to ignore my point or just missed it. My contention is that the closure was about money and that the crutch being used (to be used) as a defense is "health and well-being." That cut and dry enough now?

 

[Sandisw]

I'm not sure whether you chose to ignore my point or just missed it. My contention is that the closure was about money and that the crutch being used (to be used) as a defense is "health and well-being." That cut and dry enough now?

I did see it and it’s not relevant to the discussion for me because I don’t believe it was done for any other reason than what is stated...for the health and safety of the CMs and the owners and guests,

The question was if it’s legal for them to do it.,,I contend this clause further supports they can do it,

Do I think it has to do with money? No.

In terms of parks, they are not part of the contract because you are buying real estate only, not entitled to anything else.

So, providing a response to something I don’t agree with would make no sense because I have nothing to add,

 

[rex420]

I am jumping in late here and have not read all of the posts, but wanted to throw in my 2 cents.

I think Disney does have the right & responsibility to shutdown the resorts if there is a situation that requires it for the safety of everyone. That being said, DVC points have a cash value and I think that people tend to forget that. If Disney canceled a reservation that has borrowed points on it, those points should be returned to the UY that they were from and not be restricted. In the same manner if a resort is shutdown and a reservation cancelled after the Banking deadline I think Disney should give you the option to bank any current year points on the reservation. I think that is just fair and I am only talking about points connected to a reservation cancelled by Disney due to closures. If next year you can’t use the points that you banked then you lose them just like any other year. If you had points that could not be banked then you would lose those too.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Everything has to do with two things in life, my friend. Sex and money, and nobody's dragging sex into this. Agree to disagree fundamentally.

This is 100% a financial decision on Disney's part, under the cover of love and caring for their community. It's no different from anything any government entity has done to this point. This isn't a war against a virus. This is a war against spending money on caring for people. (Edit: That is NOT a political statement. I contend that this is a worldwide apolitical contention.)

Lots of people can't separate this.

 

[Sandisw]

Everything has to do with two things in life, my friend. Sex and money, and nobody's dragging sex into this. Agree to disagree fundamentally.

This is 100% a financial decision on Disney's part, under the cover of love and caring for their community. It's no different from anything any government entity has done to this point. This isn't a war against a virus. This is a war against spending money on caring for people. (Edit: That is NOT a political statement. I contend that this is a worldwide apolitical contention.)

Lots of people can't separate this.

I’ll bite. Tell me how this makes financial sense when CMs are being paid full salaries and benefits

 

[Brianstl]

The place where Disney could find itself in legally jeopardy Is that they are denying people use of the their (DVC owners) property and are not compensating those owners for their loss.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I’ll bite. Tell me how this makes financial sense when CMs are being paid full salaries and benefits

That's easy. That is a PR financial decision. Management made a decision that the financial outlay (for the time being) is an investment against bad PR if they didn't and an investment they were willing to make. It's also an investment to secure the employ of those they may fear losing otherwise. That's the case every time this happens anywhere it happens. Management makes these kinds of investments all the time.

Many CMs were laid off and not paid. It wasn't everybody.

Now my pre-conceived notion is that you probably won't like (agree) with that answer, but likewise; that doesn't change my opinion that is exactly what the answer is.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

The place where Disney could find itself in legally jeopardy Is that they are denying people use of the their (DVC owners) property and are not compensating those owners for their loss.

It really is that simple when it comes right down to it, yet we deviate into tangents all over the place avoiding what really is the elegant simplicity of it all.

 

[Sandisw]

It really is that simple when it comes right down to it, yet we deviate into tangents all over the place avoiding what really is the elegant simplicity of it all.

It’s not that simple when the contract allows for it. It’s called Emergency Powers, You can ignore it, but it’s there in black and white,

 

[Sandisw]

That's easy. That is a PR financial decision. Management made a decision that the financial outlay (for the time being) is an investment against bad PR if they didn't and an investment they were willing to make. It's also an investment to secure the employ of those they may fear losing otherwise. That's the case every time this happens anywhere it happens. Management makes these kinds of investments all the time.

Many CMs were laid off and not paid. It wasn't everybody.

Now my pre-conceived notion is that you probably won't like (agree) with that answer, but likewise; that doesn't change my opinion that is exactly what the answer is.

From the information that is being sent to CMs about the company decisions says differently. And yes, I know some of what is being shared as I’ve mentioned, my DD is a CM in NYC,

I’d love for you to provide more info that it’s misinformation that CMS employed by TWDWC are not,

But we agree that I don’t share your POV.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

From the information that is being sent to CMs about the company decisions says differently. And yes, I know some of what is being shared as I’ve mentioned, my DD is a CM in NYC,

I’d love for you to provide more info that it’s misinformation that CMS employed by TWDWC are not,

But we agree that I don’t share your POV.

I'm sure that's exactly what's being shared. That's what I'd share if I were in their positions. That is my answer.

 

[Sandisw]

I'm sure that's exactly what's being shared. That's what I'd share if I were in their positions. That is my answer.

Then you are right, no sense in discussing when you believe they are lying.