• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Points Reallocation for 2020

GoofGoof

Well-Known Member
Reading more into this, it seems like the reallocation scheme implemented for 2020 was illegal. I think it had more to do with the lawyers and less to do with members being vocal.
Makes sense, so they were moving points between resorts or something? I don’t see why DVC would really care one way or the other. As long as they get their MFs and sell the points they make the same amount of money no matter how the points are allocated across room types and seasons.
 

nickys

Premium Member
Advertisement
Makes sense, so they were moving points between resorts or something? I don’t see why DVC would really care one way or the other. As long as they get their MFs and sell the points they make the same amount of money no matter how the points are allocated across room types and seasons.
Not between resorts. I think there were two issues.

1. Were the lock-off premium increases allowed within the POS as it was written? Because the accounting only had to look at the 2 bed points, the charts did technically balance. However that came at a huge difference between the no. of points needed to book a 2-bed lock-off and the points needed to book the studio and 1-bed, giving DVC a massive no. of points that they could use for cash bookings.

2. Were the increases done in members’ interests, which they are duty bound to do?

I must admit to having been somewhat trusting that what they did was allowed. Simply because of the accounting rules as I understood them. Whether or not that was the case, they clearly realised the backlash was not good PR, and maybe got advice that they could have been embroiled in a legal fight.

Either way, it is sorted for now. I fully expect a revised chart for 2021, but hopefully they will be more transparent in how they do it.
 

GoofGoof

Well-Known Member
Not between resorts. I think there were two issues.

1. Were the lock-off premium increases allowed within the POS as it was written? Because the accounting only had to look at the 2 bed points, the charts did technically balance. However that came at a huge difference between the no. of points needed to book a 2-bed lock-off and the points needed to book the studio and 1-bed, giving DVC a massive no. of points that they could use for cash bookings.

2. Were the increases done in members’ interests, which they are duty bound to do?

I must admit to having been somewhat trusting that what they did was allowed. Simply because of the accounting rules as I understood them. Whether or not that was the case, they clearly realised the backlash was not good PR, and maybe got advice that they could have been embroiled in a legal fight.

Either way, it is sorted for now. I fully expect a revised chart for 2021, but hopefully they will be more transparent in how they do it.
I admit I don’t know the nuances of the rules they have to follow, but don’t the cash bookings for rooms not reserved using points by DVC members go to breakage income, meaning the member’s collective maintenance fees are reduced due to cash coming back into DVC from Disney hotel reservations. It’s a contra expense for the timeshare. The point being Disney doesn’t get to just keep the cash from booking those rooms. I’m not sure of the nuisances of how the exchange works so there may be a difference between what Disney pays DVC for the room and what it ultimately gets rented for to a cash guest but it seems like a lot of people were making it out like there was some massive conspiracy to greatly profit from this. I took it as adjusting up the points for more desirable rooms and down for less desirable. Whether that’s in the members best interest depends on what type of on you book and when. Studios are popular especially during food and wine so I see why a lot of people were angry.
 

monothingie

Mean Girl since 2005
Premium Member
I admit I don’t know the nuances of the rules they have to follow, but don’t the cash bookings for rooms not reserved using points by DVC members go to breakage income, meaning the member’s collective maintenance fees are reduced due to cash coming back into DVC from Disney hotel reservations. It’s a contra expense for the timeshare. The point being Disney doesn’t get to just keep the cash from booking those rooms. I’m not sure of the nuisances of how the exchange works so there may be a difference between what Disney pays DVC for the room and what it ultimately gets rented for to a cash guest but it seems like a lot of people were making it out like there was some massive conspiracy to greatly profit from this. I took it as adjusting up the points for more desirable rooms and down for less desirable. Whether that’s in the members best interest depends on what type of on you book and when. Studios are popular especially during food and wine so I see why a lot of people were angry.
I find it this perspective kinda interesting when coupled with the change in resale policy implemented on 1/19 and the large increase in annual dues. The expectation that new resale restrictions would significantly devalue the resale market which would in turn allow for a large number of foreclosures due to the value of the timeshare being less than what was owed. This would result in an excess of inventory that Disney could use for cash reservations at the 60 day mark. The points reallocations primarily for low-end inventory (studios) would feed into this, further devaluing owners interest.

My observation on this, is that it seems Disney wants to tap the brakes on DVC in favor of boosting available inventory for cash reservations. The expectation being there is at least a short term opportunity with SWGE opening to weed out the less profitable DVC owners and increase available inventory WITHOUT the need to build additional hotels.
 

GoofGoof

Well-Known Member
I find it this perspective kinda interesting when coupled with the change in resale policy implemented on 1/19 and the large increase in annual dues. The expectation that new resale restrictions would significantly devalue the resale market which would in turn allow for a large number of foreclosures due to the value of the timeshare being less than what was owed. This would result in an excess of inventory that Disney could use for cash reservations at the 60 day mark. The points reallocations primarily for low-end inventory (studios) would feed into this, further devaluing owners interest.

My observation on this, is that it seems Disney wants to tap the brakes on DVC in favor of boosting available inventory for cash reservations. The expectation being there is at least a short term opportunity with SWGE opening to weed out the less profitable DVC owners and increase available inventory WITHOUT the need to build additional hotels.
It’s an interesting theory. I think they are more than happy to continue to build and sell new construction points right now. In 2042 they get a bunch of resorts back. That’s 23 years from now or about 7 new DVC resorts assuming a new resort about every 3 years. We already know Riviera is opening now then the next one at River Country and there’s still the EPCOT parking lot project which seems to be off again It could be on at any moment. That means they really only need 4 additional ideas before 2042 when the original 4 resorts come back then there’s a 12 year period to potentially resell those resorts and then a staggering of every 2 to 4 years with SSR, AK, BLT and so on. In theory they could basically just resell existing resorts indefinitely if that’s the plan.
 

YorkshireT

Active Member
I admit I don’t know the nuances of the rules they have to follow, but don’t the cash bookings for rooms not reserved using points by DVC members go to breakage income, meaning the member’s collective maintenance fees are reduced due to cash coming back into DVC from Disney hotel reservations. It’s a contra expense for the timeshare. The point being Disney doesn’t get to just keep the cash from booking those rooms. I’m not sure of the nuisances of how the exchange works so there may be a difference between what Disney pays DVC for the room and what it ultimately gets rented for to a cash guest but it seems like a lot of people were making it out like there was some massive conspiracy to greatly profit from this. I took it as adjusting up the points for more desirable rooms and down for less desirable. Whether that’s in the members best interest depends on what type of on you book and when. Studios are popular especially during food and wine so I see why a lot of people were angry.
Breakage only goes back up to a set amount, which is already exceeded. The rest is profit for Disney.
You need to fully read and understand the issues. DVCMC had created out of thin air large numbers of points via ‘Lockoff premium’. This meant members were short, and extra points could go for cash payments.
No educated member has an issue with points going up, to be met with equal points going down, in order to balance demand. In fact over on the other board they quite readily accept studios could go up 1 or 2 points but only if met with equal drops elsewhere. Similarly October to December is now too popular and so it could be put up a bit, with the now slower summer which is too expensive dropped.
If that had happened, people may have moaned who take studios but members would have seen it was to balance demand.
However they’d put up 1 beds, which everyone knows are last to go. I book 1 beds myself, they are usually always open. They of course also increased studios. Increasing 1 beds made zero sense to anyone with knowledge of how the rooms book up. 1 beds of course form part of lockoff premium, which it now transpires doesn’t count to the rule that points cannot go up in a resort.
They’d only dropped 2 beds, which book out before 1 beds. The drop in 2 beds was nowhere near the amount the points which were increased in studios and 1 beds.
It was nonsensical from a demand perspective but gave DVC hundreds of thousands of extra points which couldn’t be booked by members and could be used for cash reservations without income going back to members.
Now I’m not saying DVDMC did this with the intention of revenue creation, or whether it was all just an error on their part, I simply do not know what happened, but it’s extremely worrying it happened in the first place.
 
Last edited:

helenabear

Well-Known Member
It’s an interesting theory. I think they are more than happy to continue to build and sell new construction points right now. In 2042 they get a bunch of resorts back. That’s 23 years from now or about 7 new DVC resorts assuming a new resort about every 3 years. We already know Riviera is opening now then the next one at River Country and there’s still the EPCOT parking lot project which seems to be off again It could be on at any moment. That means they really only need 4 additional ideas before 2042 when the original 4 resorts come back then there’s a 12 year period to potentially resell those resorts and then a staggering of every 2 to 4 years with SSR, AK, BLT and so on. In theory they could basically just resell existing resorts indefinitely if that’s the plan.
Only 3 WDW resorts are coming back in 2042. BRV, BWV, and BCV. HHI and VB I expect to be sold off honestly.

Breakage only goes back up to a set amount, which is already exceeded. The rest is profit for Disney.
You need to fully read and understand the issues. DVCMC had created out of thin air large numbers of points via ‘Lockoff premium’. This meant members were short, and extra points could go for cash payments.
No educated member has an issue with points going up, to be met with equal points going down, in order to balance demand. In fact over on the other board they quite readily accept studios could go up 1 or 2 points but only if met with equal drops elsewhere. Similarly October to December is now too popular and so it could be put up a bit, with the now slower summer which is too expensive dropped.
If that had happened, people may have moaned who take studios but members would have seen it was to balance demand.
However they’d put up 1 beds, which everyone knows are last to go. I book 1 beds myself, they are usually always open. They of course also increased studios. Increasing 1 beds made zero sense to anyone with knowledge of how the rooms book up. 1 beds of course form part of lockoff premium, which it now transpires doesn’t count to the rule that points cannot go up in a resort.
They’d only dropped 2 beds, which book out before 1 beds. The drop in 2 beds was nowhere near the amount the points which were increased in studios and 1 beds.
It was nonsensical from a demand perspective but gave DVC hundreds of thousands of extra points which couldn’t be booked by members and could be used for cash reservations without income going back to members.
Now I’m not saying DVDMC did this with the intention of revenue creation, or whether it was all just an error on their part, I simply do not know what happened, but it’s extremely worrying it happened in the first place.
They dropped GVs in many cases as well. I suggest you look at the lock off premiums now too. In some cases the added extras were small by comparison. Others about a 2.5% increase. Me home resorts either had 0% increase or like .5% which isn't bad. Hard for me to get worked up over those numbers.

I have seen the numbers discussed a lot and the revenue was based on OTUP cost. Which is not real money.

I do think the increase for 1 beds was out of place. That said I think studio dwellers really need to expect an increase next year. The demand on studios is insane now compared to 5 or 10 years ago.
 

GoofGoof

Well-Known Member
Only 3 WDW resorts are coming back in 2042. BRV, BWV, and BCV. HHI and VB I expect to be sold off honestly.



They dropped GVs in many cases as well. I suggest you look at the lock off premiums now too. In some cases the added extras were small by comparison. Others about a 2.5% increase. Me home resorts either had 0% increase or like .5% which isn't bad. Hard for me to get worked up over those numbers.

I have seen the numbers discussed a lot and the revenue was based on OTUP cost. Which is not real money.

I do think the increase for 1 beds was out of place. That said I think studio dwellers really need to expect an increase next year. The demand on studios is insane now compared to 5 or 10 years ago.
Yeah, 3.5 I guess since OKW has 2 end dates. It’s still a good amount of points to resell. Maybe not 12 years worth so they may need to sprinkle in something new during that period to have enough points to sell. Of course they could decide to just convert the rooms to cash hotel rooms too. No clue what they plan to do, my post was just one possible theory.
 

GoofGoof

Well-Known Member
Breakage only goes back up to a set amount, which is already exceeded. The rest is profit for Disney.
You need to fully read and understand the issues. DVCMC had created out of thin air large numbers of points via ‘Lockoff premium’. This meant members were short, and extra points could go for cash payments.
No educated member has an issue with points going up, to be met with equal points going down, in order to balance demand. In fact over on the other board they quite readily accept studios could go up 1 or 2 points but only if met with equal drops elsewhere. Similarly October to December is now too popular and so it could be put up a bit, with the now slower summer which is too expensive dropped.
If that had happened, people may have moaned who take studios but members would have seen it was to balance demand.
However they’d put up 1 beds, which everyone knows are last to go. I book 1 beds myself, they are usually always open. They of course also increased studios. Increasing 1 beds made zero sense to anyone with knowledge of how the rooms book up. 1 beds of course form part of lockoff premium, which it now transpires doesn’t count to the rule that points cannot go up in a resort.
They’d only dropped 2 beds, which book out before 1 beds. The drop in 2 beds was nowhere near the amount the points which were increased in studios and 1 beds.
It was nonsensical from a demand perspective but gave DVC hundreds of thousands of extra points which couldn’t be booked by members and could be used for cash reservations without income going back to members.
Now I’m not saying DVDMC did this with the intention of revenue creation, or whether it was all just an error on their part, I simply do not know what happened, but it’s extremely worrying it happened in the first place.
I tend to avoid DisBoards most of the time. I did see the thread there with people calling for a lawsuit and all the reasons. I’m with you on the 1BRs going up making no sense. I think the studios going up and especially during fall season makes a ton of sense. I still think that’s where the real angst is coming from.

I’m not saying it’s not possible that Disney tried to pull a fast one on DVC members, but does it really make sense to do that from a business prospective? Lots of DVC owners own multiple contracts. Some of their best sales leads are existing customers adding on. So let’s just assume they artificially create 100K extra points by expanding the lock-off premium. Those points primarily end up with unbooked 1BR villas that go to cash reservations. Assuming an average of 35 points a night for a 1 BR villa that’s roughly 3,000 extra hotel rooms a year. So if Disney rents those rooms for $600 a night after discounts (these are only available within 60 days so most likely sold with a discount most times of year). That’s an extra $1.8M to Disney’s pockets and that’s assuming 100% get booked when we know the average hotel occupancy at WDW is historically closer to 90%. That seems like a lot of money for my bank account, but not for Disney. Now consider that Riviera will likely have at least 6M points to sell so at $200 a point they are projected to make $1.2B selling the points. A chunk of those 6M points will be bought by current owners. If that number was say 25% that’s $300M in sales or roughly $100M a year assuming it takes 3 years to sell. So from a business perspective it makes little sense to alienate customers who could potentially generate $100M is sales to make an extra $1.8M. I’m sure if the conspiracy theories are true and Disney thought they could get away with this without people noticing then that is why they reversed course.

The simple solution is to raise studios and lower 1BRs to keep the lockoff premium about the same or lower. I assume that’s what we will see next year.
 

helenabear

Well-Known Member
Yeah, 3.5 I guess since OKW has 2 end dates. It’s still a good amount of points to resell. Maybe not 12 years worth so they may need to sprinkle in something new during that period to have enough points to sell. Of course they could decide to just convert the rooms to cash hotel rooms too. No clue what they plan to do, my post was just one possible theory.
No, that is a common misunderstanding about OKW. OKW's end date is now 2057 for the resort as a whole. Those whose contracts are ending in 2042 are now because they signed a quitclaim deed. In 2042 DVC gets those points back, which means they are on the hook for the MFs. If you notice as time goes on more and more 2042 quitclaim signed deeds are going to ROFR. They'd rather get the points back now and resell so they aren't on the hook for 15 years.

By law, I am pretty sure they cannot just convert until it hits the 60 day mark unless I am reading things wrong too (I'm no lawyer, but I've read a lot).

So nope, not half the resort, but all the resort in 2057 for OKW.
 

GoofGoof

Well-Known Member
No, that is a common misunderstanding about OKW. OKW's end date is now 2057 for the resort as a whole. Those whose contracts are ending in 2042 are now because they signed a quitclaim deed. In 2042 DVC gets those points back, which means they are on the hook for the MFs. If you notice as time goes on more and more 2042 quitclaim signed deeds are going to ROFR. They'd rather get the points back now and resell so they aren't on the hook for 15 years.

By law, I am pretty sure they cannot just convert until it hits the 60 day mark unless I am reading things wrong too (I'm no lawyer, but I've read a lot).

So nope, not half the resort, but all the resort in 2057 for OKW.
I guess they could resell the points in 2042 under 15 year contracts ending in 2057. I doubt they would want to do that since they couldn’t sell for as much money per point.

Another option would be to offer another extension. Offer the 2057 contract owners an extension to 2092 then resell the 2042 points turned in as full new 50 year contracts. Of course the problem is if the extension isn’t popular again you have the same problem all over again in 2057. The only reason I think it could work is that most of the 2057 owners already went for the extension once so why not again and also it would only be 15 years before the contract expires. I think the closer to expiration the more desirable an extension would be.

Who knows what they will do, but it’s fun to speculate:)
 
Last edited:

helenabear

Well-Known Member
I guess they could resell the points in 2042 under 15 year contracts ending in 2057. I doubt they would want to do that since they couldn’t sell for as much money per point.

Another option would be to offer another extension. Offer the 2057 contract owners an extension to 2092 then resell the 2042 points turned in as full new 50 year contracts. Of course the problem is if the extension isn’t popular again you have the same problem all over again in 2057. The only reason I think it could work is that most of the 2057 owners already went for the extension once so why not again and also it would only be 15 years before the contract expires. I think the closer to expiration the more desirable an extension would be.

Who knows what they will do, but it’s fun to speculate:)
That's what they are doing now by taking so many in ROFR. When it's direct it's automatically 2057. So yes, that's exactly what they have to do though in order to not be on the hook for the MFs. That will likely be more of a reason to want to sell than anything else.

I doubt they'll offer another extension the way they did before. The other flopped miserably and rightfully so. "Hey we're legally extending your OKW contracts until 2057, but now you have to pay us $15-25 a point" Um no, that doesn't fly well.

So I think we are going to see what happens in 2042. They might offer something different. Of course you have people like me who have no extension paid for and no quitclaim on file. Ours was not intentional as paperwork was lost. Some even had their lawyers call saying it wasn't right what they were doing and never signed nor paid intentionally. It's kind of a mess due to extending the resort. I think they assumed more wanted it than not and they assumed wrong. Maybe though had they done it differently it would've been better.
 

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
So I think we are going to see what happens in 2042. They might offer something different. Of course you have people like me who have no extension paid for and no quitclaim on file. Ours was not intentional as paperwork was lost. Some even had their lawyers call saying it wasn't right what they were doing and never signed nor paid intentionally. It's kind of a mess due to extending the resort. I think they assumed more wanted it than not and they assumed wrong. Maybe though had they done it differently it would've been better.
This is so interesting to me.

So, there are members like you out there, who both didn't pay, and don't have their contracts ending in 2042. How on earth does this work? There really should be lawsuits going on behalf of both those who paid and those who signed bogus quitclaims. Using your group as the primary cite, it should be a fairly straightforward lawsuit.
 

helenabear

Well-Known Member
This is so interesting to me.

So, there are members like you out there, who both didn't pay, and don't have their contracts ending in 2042. How on earth does this work? There really should be lawsuits going on behalf of both those who paid and those who signed bogus quitclaims. Using your group as the primary cite, it should be a fairly straightforward lawsuit.
In our personal case, we had just had a baby and decided that spending $3-5K wasn't wise to do at that time. So we went to our bank, got everything notarized, and sent it in. Only for Disney to lose our paperwork. We got a call in 2011 (IIRC) when we were on a big family vacation to come to I think SSR at the time to do the paperwork again. We had no car and no time to do it, so we didn't go. That was the last time I heard from them about it. I've done 3 direct add ons since and nothing.

There were others that just point blank refused to sign. I think I stumbled on another occasion where a resale was going through at the same time and nothing shows up in the OC Comptroller for that contract.

In the end I want to see where we are in 2042. If we are wanting to keep I'll gladly pay the $25/point. If we don't, I'll sign the quitclaim then. About a decade has passed and I am not pressed to do anything about it now.

Not sure why you think there should be a lawsuit though. Nothing they did was illegal.
 

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
In our personal case, we had just had a baby and decided that spending $3-5K wasn't wise to do at that time. So we went to our bank, got everything notarized, and sent it in. Only for Disney to lose our paperwork. We got a call in 2011 (IIRC) when we were on a big family vacation to come to I think SSR at the time to do the paperwork again. We had no car and no time to do it, so we didn't go. That was the last time I heard from them about it. I've done 3 direct add ons since and nothing.

There were others that just point blank refused to sign. I think I stumbled on another occasion where a resale was going through at the same time and nothing shows up in the OC Comptroller for that contract.

In the end I want to see where we are in 2042. If we are wanting to keep I'll gladly pay the $25/point. If we don't, I'll sign the quitclaim then. About a decade has passed and I am not pressed to do anything about it now.

Not sure why you think there should be a lawsuit though. Nothing they did was illegal.
The way you initially put it, was that you, and others, have managed to extend their contracts to 2057 without paying.

That’s not necessarily illegal, but it does bring up some serious questions.
 

helenabear

Well-Known Member
The way you initially put it, was that you, and others, have managed to extend their contracts to 2057 without paying.

That’s not necessarily illegal, but it does bring up some serious questions.
Well that kind of is what is going on right now, but in my case not intentionally. Some fought it and I honestly cannot say what happened on their end and how much they fought or whatever. Like I said they did it in a messy way.

I have no idea technically what will happen in 2042, but there are a number of us who didn't pay (intentionally or not) and no quitclaim on file. The way the resort is written, it ends in 2057. So yeah, no one knows what will happen. Like I said I didn't mean to do it, but at this point I'm just waiting it out. The way it was written I am on the hook for $25/point at this point or I have to sign.

If you look at OKW, every so often a quitclaim does pop up likely for a similar case going through ROFR. For a while too, they were allowing those with quitclaims signed to pay the fee anyway. Lots of stupid gray areas on this one.
 

LAKid53

Official Member of the Mean Girls Cult
Premium Member
I am a little confused about what is concerning. As far as I remember, the two bedroom booking is always this way. Block off or dedicated, the plants have always been the same amount. The amount for a 2-bedroom has not always equaled a studio and a lock off. Example of a week we go to Old Key West in June, the current points would have 99 for a studio, 199 for a one bedroom, and 269 for a two-bedroom. In 2020, it will be 106, 199, and 252 respectively. So a bigger change but it wasn't ever equal before.
I've done both room configurations at my home resorts. Whether it was a 2 bedroom dedicated or a 2 bedroom lockoff, the point were the same.
 

helenabear

Well-Known Member
I've done both room configurations at my home resorts. Whether it was a 2 bedroom dedicated or a 2 bedroom lockoff, the point were the same.
Yes, that's how it always has been. Lock off or dedicated, it's all the same. It's never equaled a 1 bed and 1 studio point amount.
 

pjkdog

Well-Known Member
I find it this perspective kinda interesting when coupled with the change in resale policy implemented on 1/19 and the large increase in annual dues. The expectation that new resale restrictions would significantly devalue the resale market which would in turn allow for a large number of foreclosures due to the value of the timeshare being less than what was owed. This would result in an excess of inventory that Disney could use for cash reservations at the 60 day mark. The points reallocations primarily for low-end inventory (studios) would feed into this, further devaluing owners interest.

My observation on this, is that it seems Disney wants to tap the brakes on DVC in favor of boosting available inventory for cash reservations. The expectation being there is at least a short term opportunity with SWGE opening to weed out the less profitable DVC owners and increase available inventory WITHOUT the need to build additional hotels.
The whole thing smells bad. But does ot surprise anyone? Somewhere a Disney exec is trying to figure out if they csn get people to PAY for the DVC pitches. Hey for 60 bucks a person you get a cupcake dessert, all you can drink pirate punch (helps grease the wallets) and a fast pass for Frozen as well as a nice hour long presentation on how great DVC can be.
 

FCivish3

Member
I guess they could resell the points in 2042 under 15 year contracts ending in 2057. I doubt they would want to do that since they couldn’t sell for as much money per point.

Another option would be to offer another extension. Offer the 2057 contract owners an extension to 2092 then resell the 2042 points turned in as full new 50 year contracts. Of course the problem is if the extension isn’t popular again you have the same problem all over again in 2057. The only reason I think it could work is that most of the 2057 owners already went for the extension once so why not again and also it would only be 15 years before the contract expires. I think the closer to expiration the more desirable an extension would be.

Who knows what they will do, but it’s fun to speculate:)
That's what they are doing now by taking so many in ROFR. When it's direct it's automatically 2057. So yes, that's exactly what they have to do though in order to not be on the hook for the MFs. That will likely be more of a reason to want to sell than anything else.

I doubt they'll offer another extension the way they did before. The other flopped miserably and rightfully so. "Hey we're legally extending your OKW contracts until 2057, but now you have to pay us $15-25 a point" Um no, that doesn't fly well.

So I think we are going to see what happens in 2042. They might offer something different. Of course you have people like me who have no extension paid for and no quitclaim on file. Ours was not intentional as paperwork was lost. Some even had their lawyers call saying it wasn't right what they were doing and never signed nor paid intentionally. It's kind of a mess due to extending the resort. I think they assumed more wanted it than not and they assumed wrong. Maybe though had they done it differently it would've been better.
Disney extended the whole resort until 2057, but people had to pay for the extension. If you didn't then it is SUPPOSED to revert to Disney in 2042. But what about the people who didn't sign the Quit Claim deed? We might see some legal challenges before this is over. Meanwhile, Disney is busy buying up ROFR contracts at a rate of about 8 percent per year, of those that come on the market. If HALF of the contracts are already extended and they keep taking contracts at the current rate, then there will NOT be a lot of contracts remaining that will expire in 2042 for them to worry about.
 
Top Bottom