2020 Point Charts

[Dean]

The POS is the public offering statement. Essentially the prospectus/ consumer information documents , summarising in short form what they can or can't do, taking from the home resort rules and regulations, and more importantly the declaration of condominium and exhibits.
I think we hear too much about the POS, and really any legal challenge would not only require consideration of that, but also the documentation behind it, in detail.
Like many buyers, I am far from happy with this new management.

The POS including it's components (Declaration of Condominium, By-Laws & Rules & regulations, etc) and the state statutes are the legal framework. The way both work is anything that the Management Company and Developer do must fall within that framework. There must be language that allows a given option but it doesn't have to spell out a given option for it to be allowed. There is a hierarchy within the components of the POS if there are contradictions and the state statutes come first above all else. But the POS is the documentation and any contract not only spells that out but also the buyer represents that they understand that and verbal representations that are contractors are not applicable. And it also spells out that future owners come under the same guidelines and essentially assume the risks and acknowledgements of the original owner. There are rules as to how they can be modified which with DVC they can do most things at will since we have legally signed over our voting rights to DVD/DVC. The POS is essentially a contract, one they can modify within limits. There is no other applicable documentation. The only other applicable info is case law and how much of a nuisance a lawyer can make of themselves. I've met with them in person a number of years ago, gotten concessions related to a purchase as well and served on a Council for the state (Same as a state board) writing the rules for a new statute plus I've actually read a POS cover to cover more than once though it's been a while.

Specific to the reallocation there is language that gives them complete power over reallocations and language that directs them to do so if needed to balance demand. Thus as I see it there are only 2 possible challenges, whether the numbers balance (ignoring the smaller lockoff components) and whether it was done appropriately based on demand and that's the valid question IMO. One might add in a third for an individual only if they could prove that representations were made that that person would be able to reserve X with Y points but the contractual language discounting verbal representations make that one very difficult. Remember they did a BLT reallocation after it started selling but very early (? before it even opened) and buyers there were given the option to cancel or add on the points needed even if less than 25 points.

 

[Dean]

I don't think what they are doing is illegal in the strictest sense of the word. I am sure they are keeping the total number of points at the required amount. The act of doing this "lock-off premium" though seems rather iffy to me - with only a few resorts strictly spelling it out, and even thoses not limiting the lock-off premium. As I said, there is a limit to how much they can stretch this - you can't very well make a 1-bedroom cost more than a 2-bedroom - but who knows where the limit is.

While it's only spelled out in more recent POS's (unless they've amended the previous ones), it's always been there from the 1992 points onward.

 

[skier_pete]

While it's only spelled out in more recent POS's (unless they've amended the previous ones), it's always been there from the 1992 points onward.

And in the end...I would feel confident that Disney would've vetted anything they did with independent auditors to be sure they weren't going to get in trouble for it. Which is why I don't think it's worth pursuing.

 

[Dean]

And in the end...I would feel confident that Disney would've vetted anything they did with independent auditors to be sure they weren't going to get in trouble for it. Which is why I don't think it's worth pursuing.

I doubt they use the independent auditors. Personally I don’t see anything to pursue because I don’t see anything that’s not technically appropriate. I do understand the concerns some have however and it would be nice to have some additional information.

 

[WB1971]

Shame on me I guess, but I somehow thought points per year for a given unit couldn’t change. As in a studio was always x points for 365 days. I see now that isn’t the case, so this is the second major hit for the economics of this program for me within the last two months. (10% dues bump and now 10% point increase in many cases). Disappointing, questioning how long I’ll hang with it.

 

[freediverdude]

Boy they created a nice little loophole there didn't they, where they can increase the cost of the studios and 1 bedrooms as much as they want without having to offset in some cases. And as long as one of the seasons remains available at the maximum in the contract (like the 22pt studio or 45 pt 1 bedroom at VGF), the other seasons could be as high as they want.

The point chart for the bungalows at the Poly is now starting to become a lot clearer on why it was started so high. Because there aren't any lockoffs in that resort, they needed someplace to offset points from for the studio point creep that will be going on over the years. Wow talk about shrewd planning.

 

[drusba]

As I mentioned before, the "lock-off premium" language that appears in the VGF declarations does not appear in the declarations of any other resort, and that includes Poly and CCV which came after VGF. I am still struggling with its actual purpose and why DVC thought it necessary to have it for VGF but no other resorts.

In any event, the issue seems to be defined as whether the total points needed to reserve all the rooms for the year in any of the new point charts exceeds the total points that were initially determined as applicable to the resort. If that is in fact the issue then according to many mentions above, that probably has not happened at any resort. My review of the new BWV charts indicates it is unlikely that there has been an increase in total points, but I am not taking any guesses on others.

But I am now wondering if that is really the issue. In fact, there is a possibility that changes made which, for example, raise most standard view rooms and lower most preferred view rooms by an equal amount, or raise studios throughout the year and lower 2BRs, may themselves be improper. In other words, DVC may be getting it wrong because it may be using the wrong assumption that all it needs to do is assure total points applicable to the resort as a whole do not change.

The key is in certain language that appears in the Disney Vacation Club Management Agreement, Exhibit G to the Declarations. I will use BWV's here. That is the same clause that has been noted above that allows DVCMC to do reallocations, so I quote the key language here:

“In order to meet the Club Members’ needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its sole discretion, increase or decrease the Home resort Vacation Point requirements of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve a Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased because of such reallocation. The twenty percent (20%) reallocation limitation shall not apply to increases or decreases of Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements relating to designated periods of high demand which do not occur on the same Use Day each year. Any increase or decrease in the Home Resort Vacation point reservation requirement for a given Use Day pursuant to DVCMC’s right to make this Home resort Vacation Point adjustment must be offset by a corresponding increase or decrease for another Use Day or Use Days.”

The clause does not require just that total points for the resort not change. What it expressly requires is that total points “existing in any given unit” never change. A “unit” is that which you actually have a property interest in. Check your deeds and it will say that you own in some particular unit, e.g., Unit 24 in BWV. A unit is, in fact, one or more contingent Vacation homes. Vacation Homes are the rooms themselves. At OKW each building is a unit. At other resorts it is one, two, three or four rooms, and very often will contain a combination of Vacation Homes such as a lock-off and dedicated 2BR. The units are what gets declared over time into saleable inventory as the resort is being sold and filings with the applicable recorder are done when that happens.


So here is my theory. Take the current BWV changes. What DVCMC mainly did was lower the points for preferred view 2BRs and raise them for all standard views. But the rooms designated as standard view make up their own units which are separate from the units that are preferred view. Thus, the reallocation has, in fact, raised the points existing in those standard view units without any equal lowering of points for the same units, such as in a different season. In other words, the real purpose of the reallocation clause is to do mainly seasonal adjustments for the rooms. A change like lowering all rooms in one season and raising them an equal amount in another would result in an equal decrease and increase in each unit. Likewise, the change DVCMC did to lower weekend points and raise weekday points in 2010-11, likely complied as the actual total points for any given unit likely did not change for the year. However, my analysis raises the question whether the change made to SSR in 2013 to raise the treehouses for the entire year, which treehouses were all part of units separate from any other SSR rooms, or the change at SSR to have both preferred and standard view, with some units becoming entirely preferred and others entirely standard, may have both violated the above clause. And DVCMC may be violating it with the new changes for the WDW resorts.

 

[Wakey]

The POS including it's components (Declaration of Condominium, By-Laws & Rules & regulations, etc) and the state statutes are the legal framework. The way both work is anything that the Management Company and Developer do must fall within that framework. There must be language that allows a given option but it doesn't have to spell out a given option for it to be allowed. There is a hierarchy within the components of the POS if there are contradictions and the state statutes come first above all else. But the POS is the documentation and any contract not only spells that out but also the buyer represents that they understand that and verbal representations that are contractors are not applicable. And it also spells out that future owners come under the same guidelines and essentially assume the risks and acknowledgements of the original owner. There are rules as to how they can be modified which with DVC they can do most things at will since we have legally signed over our voting rights to DVD/DVC. The POS is essentially a contract, one they can modify within limits. There is no other applicable documentation. The only other applicable info is case law and how much of a nuisance a lawyer can make of themselves. I've met with them in person a number of years ago, gotten concessions related to a purchase as well and served on a Council for the state (Same as a state board) writing the rules for a new statute plus I've actually read a POS cover to cover more than once though it's been a while.

Specific to the reallocation there is language that gives them complete power over reallocations and language that directs them to do so if needed to balance demand. Thus as I see it there are only 2 possible challenges, whether the numbers balance (ignoring the smaller lockoff components) and whether it was done appropriately based on demand and that's the valid question IMO. One might add in a third for an individual only if they could prove that representations were made that that person would be able to reserve X with Y points but the contractual language discounting verbal representations make that one very difficult. Remember they did a BLT reallocation after it started selling but very early (? before it even opened) and buyers there were given the option to cancel or add on the points needed even if less than 25 points.

Correct Dean, it’s the exhibits that are the main documents to consider, albeit I agree, if the POS contained contradictory information, there may be a legal case on that alone. However, the POS itself is a fairly basic document, a summary. Really we need to be looking at the declaration of condominium with the exhibits to that and any updates. This technically forms an exhibit to the POS I think, so if you have the POS with the exhibits attached (people when considering and referring to POS tend to just have the POS without exhibits and just refer to that) then yes, you are considering all the documentation. I’ve never been supplied with a full POS with exhibits by DVD, even when buying direct.

However, there will be other things potentially at play. As you say, there’s the statutes albeit I haven’t studied them, and also there will be precedent as well as potential equitable relief issues- generally a member’s club and a management co has a duty to act in the interest of its members- at least in my jurisdiction.

The only way we would ever know is it some timeshare / condo association specialist lawyers get to hear about it, think there is a case, and is prepared to take it on, perhaps on a contingency fee basis. If a lawyer took it in and brought a legal action, it would require disclosure of non privileged internal documentation at DVD/ DVCMC such as internal emails and the like on the motivation behind this. That I would be very interested in seeing.

Every time I’ve read the documentation and considered the inter relationships between the different documents, I’ve found them very complex, probably deliberately so, crafted to give as much ‘wriggle room’ as possible to the ultimate controlling force, DVD.

I for one have been totally blindsided by this lockoff premium issue. I always fully accepted points could go up and down, and thought they would for studios, but not for 1 beds which I anticipated if anything would go down. I should have given less consideration to the name behind the product, believing it would not wish to tarnish its product, and delved into the documentation even deeper than I did.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

As I mentioned before, the "lock-off premium" language that appears in the VGF declarations does not appear in the declarations of any other resort, and that includes Poly and CCV which came after VGF. I am still struggling with its actual purpose and why DVC thought it necessary to have it for VGF but no other resorts.

In any event, the issue seems to be defined as whether the total points needed to reserve all the rooms for the year in any of the new point charts exceeds the total points that were initially determined as applicable to the resort. If that is in fact the issue then according to many mentions above, that probably has not happened at any resort. My review of the new BWV charts indicates it is unlikely that there has been an increase in total points, but I am not taking any guesses on others.

But I am now wondering if that is really the issue. In fact, there is a possibility that changes made which, for example, raise most standard view rooms and lower most preferred view rooms by an equal amount, or raise studios throughout the year and lower 2BRs, may itself be improper. In other words, DVC may be getting it wrong because it may be using the wrong assumption that all it needs to do is assure total points applicable to the resort as a whole do not change.

The key is in certain language that appears in the Disney Vacation Club Management Agreement, Exhibit G to the Declarations. I will use BWV's here. That is the same clause that has been noted above that allows DVCMC to do reallocations, so I quote the key language here:

“In order to meet the Club Members’ needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its sole discretion, increase or decrease the Home resort Vacation Point requirements of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve a Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased because of such reallocation. The twenty percent (20%) reallocation limitation shall not apply to increases or decreases of Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements relating to designated periods of high demand which do not occur on the same Use Day each year. Any increase or decrease in the Home Resort Vacation point reservation requirement for a given Use Day pursuant to DVCMC’s right to make this Home resort Vacation Point adjustment must be offset by a corresponding increase or decrease for another Use Day or Use Days.”

The clause does not require just that total points for the resort not change. What it expressly requires is that total points “existing in any given unit” never change. A “unit” is that which you actually have a property interest in. Check your deeds and it will say that you own in some particular unit, e.g., Unit 24 in BWV. A unit is, in fact, one or more contingent Vacation homes. Vacation Homes are the rooms themselves. At OKW each building is a unit. At other resorts it is one, two, three or four rooms, and very often will contain a combination of Vacation Homes such as a lock-off and dedicated 2BR. The units are what gets declared over time into saleable inventory as the resort is being sold and filings with the applicable recorder are done when that happens.


So here is my theory. Take the current BWV changes. What DVCMC mainly did was lower the points for preferred view 2BRs and raise them for all standard views. But the rooms designated as standard view make up their own units which are separate from the rooms that are preferred view. Thus, the reallocation has, in fact, raised the points existing in those standard view units without any equal lowering of points for the same units, such as in a different season. In other words, the real purpose of the reallocation clause is to do mainly seasonal changes for the same rooms. A change like lowering all rooms in one season and rasing them an equal amount in another would result in an equal decrease and increase in each unit. Likewise, the change DVCMC did to lower weekend points and raise weekday points in 2010-11, likely complied as the actual total points for any given unit likely did not change for the year. However, my analysis raises the question whether the change made to SSR in 2013 to raise the treehouses for the entire year, which treehouses were all part of units separate from any other SSR rooms, or the change at SSR to have both preferred and standard view, with some units becoming entirely preferred and others entirely standard, may have both violated the above clause. And DVCMC may be violating it with the new changes for the WDW resorts.

And just to verify, the standard view units were declared with less points than preferred view units at BWV, correct? That was how I recalled it anyway and part of what was bugging me about the standard views increasing and premium views decreasing.

 

[Cyberc1978]

The clause does not require just that total points for the resort not change. What it expressly requires is that total points “existing in any given unit” never change. A “unit” is that which you actually have a property interest in. Check your deeds and it will say that you own in some particular unit, e.g., Unit 24 in BWV. A unit is, in fact, one or more contingent Vacation homes. Vacation Homes are the rooms themselves. At OKW each building is a unit. At other resorts it is one, two, three or four rooms, and very often will contain a combination of Vacation Homes such as a lock-off and dedicated 2BR. The units are what gets declared over time into saleable inventory as the resort is being sold and filings with the applicable recorder are done when that happens.


So here is my theory. Take the current BWV changes. What DVCMC mainly did was lower the points for preferred view 2BRs and raise them for all standard views. But the rooms designated as standard view make up their own units which are separate from the units that are preferred view. Thus, the reallocation has, in fact, raised the points existing in those standard view units without any equal lowering of points for the same units, such as in a different season. In other words, the real purpose of the reallocation clause is to do mainly seasonal adjustments for the rooms. A change like lowering all rooms in one season and rasing them an equal amount in another would result in an equal decrease and increase in each unit. Likewise, the change DVCMC did to lower weekend points and raise weekday points in 2010-11, likely complied as the actual total points for any given unit likely did not change for the year. However, my analysis raises the question whether the change made to SSR in 2013 to raise the treehouses for the entire year, which treehouses were all part of units separate from any other SSR rooms, or the change at SSR to have both preferred and standard view, with some units becoming entirely preferred and others entirely standard, may have both violated the above clause. And DVCMC may be violating it with the new changes for the WDW resorts.

I just checked my BWV deed and I own a percentage in unit 24A. How do I do the search on the OC comptroller website to see what unit 24A actually is?

The text is:

An undivided x% Interest in Unit 24A of the Disney Vacation Club at Disney's BoardWalk Villas, a leasehold condominium (the "Condominium") according to the Declaration of Condominium thereof as recorded in Official Records Book 5101, Page 147, Public Records of Orange County, Florida, and all amendments thereto (the "Declaration"), subject to that certain Ground Lease by and between Disney Vacation Development, Inc., a Florida Corporation ("DVD") and Walt Disney World Co., a Delaware corporation qualified to do business in Florida, dated April 1, 1994, and any amendments thereto, a short form of which is recorded in Official Records Book 5101, Page 88, Public Records of Orange County, Florida, and any amendments thereto (the "Ground Lease"); and subject to that certain Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions recorded in Official Records Book 5101, Page 33 of the Public Records of Orange County, Florida, and all amendments thereto, and subject to easements and restrictions of record.

 

[zavandor]

SSR has the same text regarding reallocations. Points in a given unit have to remain constant.
This means the treehouses reallocation could be illegal. The recategorization of views could be illegal. And the increase in the lockoff premium could be illegal.

In fact it is significant that the text about the reallocation starts with: “In order to meet the Club Members’ needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year…"
It clearly references to a change in distribution of demand of the Use Days during the year, not the different demand for different unit types.

"...increase or decrease the Home resort Vacation Point requirements of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year..."
This sentence is even more restricting. They can reallocate the points within a given Vacation Home, and a Vacation home is defined as "portion of a unit designed and intended for separate use and occupancy". A studio is a Vacation Home, so points cannot be added to studios to decrease 2BR or 1BR, because the points required to book that specific Vacation home would increase.

Reading those sentences, reallocation can only happen in distribution across seasons, or like they did the first time, between days of the week. They cannot change the distribution across different unit sizes, they cannot change the classification of views.

@drusba you are now officially my hero.

And in the end...I would feel confident that Disney would've vetted anything they did with independent auditors to be sure they weren't going to get in trouble for it. Which is why I don't think it's worth pursuing.

Like they vetted the Aulani MF when it opened?


Edit: on a second thought: when at BWV they noticed a huge demand for BW view, they didn't reallocate the points between garden and BW. They just created a new booking category but with the same points requirements. They did the same with OKW near HH.
It seems this is all they can do to balance demand across rooms in the same declared category. Only later, with SSR, they started to balance points across different sizes or with AKV and BLT they recategorized rooms within declared views. And since no one challenged them, they saw a loophole they could leverage for their profit.

 

[zavandor]

As I mentioned before, the "lock-off premium" language that appears in the VGF declarations does not appear in the declarations of any other resort, and that includes Poly and CCV which came after VGF. I am still struggling with its actual purpose and why DVC thought it necessary to have it for VGF but no other resorts.

My guess: someone second guessed the legality of the lockoff premium or they spotted the opportunity to leverage it for their gain. So they added it.
Then at Poly it was not needed because there are no lockoffs, so it was removed.
And when creating the POS for CCV they took the most recent POS as a template and they forgot VGF have the different text.

This would demonstrate they are way less organized than we credit them to be.

 

[Dean]

Correct Dean, it’s the exhibits that are the main documents to consider, albeit I agree, if the POS contained contradictory information, there may be a legal case on that alone. However, the POS itself is a fairly basic document, a summary. Really we need to be looking at the declaration of condominium with the exhibits to that and any updates. This technically forms an exhibit to the POS I think, so if you have the POS with the exhibits attached (people when considering and referring to POS tend to just have the POS without exhibits and just refer to that) then yes, you are considering all the documentation. I’ve never been supplied with a full POS with exhibits by DVD, even when buying direct.

However, there will be other things potentially at play. As you say, there’s the statutes albeit I haven’t studied them, and also there will be precedent as well as potential equitable relief issues- generally a member’s club and a management co has a duty to act in the interest of its members- at least in my jurisdiction.

The only way we would ever know is it some timeshare / condo association specialist lawyers get to hear about it, think there is a case, and is prepared to take it on, perhaps on a contingency fee basis. If a lawyer took it in and brought a legal action, it would require disclosure of non privileged internal documentation at DVD/ DVCMC such as internal emails and the like on the motivation behind this. That I would be very interested in seeing.

Every time I’ve read the documentation and considered the inter relationships between the different documents, I’ve found them very complex, probably deliberately so, crafted to give as much ‘wriggle room’ as possible to the ultimate controlling force, DVD.

I for one have been totally blindsided by this lockoff premium issue. I always fully accepted points could go up and down, and thought they would for studios, but not for 1 beds which I anticipated if anything would go down. I should have given less consideration to the name behind the product, believing it would not wish to tarnish its product, and delved into the documentation even deeper than I did.

The POS is the collection of documents. You certainly never know what a court will do, maybe someone will give it a try and let the members pay for the defense. I've also read the statutes, their pretty generic for most situations and I don't recall anything that one could hold as a defense in this case. Certainly if there were contradictions, that would be a case but from a legal standpoint they are not all parts equal.

 

[Dean]

We went through the issue of unit vs resort with the 2010/2011 reallocation. But ultimately it has to be legally challenged to matter.

 

[zavandor]

We went through the issue of unit vs resort with the 2010/2011 reallocation. But ultimately it has to be legally challenged to matter.

I am willing to. If anyone with more experience could start this I'd be happy to contribute. Otherwise I'll do it.
Anyone knows a lawyer who I could contact? I'll get a quote and start a GoFundMe campaign.

 

[Dean]

I am willing to. If anyone with more experience could start this I'd be happy to contribute. Otherwise I'll do it.
Anyone knows a lawyer who I could contact? I'll get a quote and start a GoFundMe campaign.

I don't but you might try some of the closing companies and see if they have suggestions for timeshare related lawyers. I might not be too specific it's Disney related but I'm sure that could give you a start. Find 2 or 3 names. You might also search for previous law suites and contact those lawyers.

 

[Wakey]

There's one that advertises called Finn Law Group, that specialises in timeshare they say, albeit I'd like to research and see who has won these before.
You may find that if a case is presented to them and they think it has some legs, they may consider a group litigation action on a contingency basis.

 

[drusba]

I just checked my BWV deed and I own a percentage in unit 24A. How do I do the search on the OC comptroller website to see what unit 24A actually is?

The text is:

An undivided x% Interest in Unit 24A of the Disney Vacation Club at Disney's BoardWalk Villas, a leasehold condominium (the "Condominium") according to the Declaration of Condominium thereof as recorded in Official Records Book 5101, Page 147, Public Records of Orange County, Florida, and all amendments thereto (the "Declaration"), subject to that certain Ground Lease by and between Disney Vacation Development, Inc., a Florida Corporation ("DVD") and Walt Disney World Co., a Delaware corporation qualified to do business in Florida, dated April 1, 1994, and any amendments thereto, a short form of which is recorded in Official Records Book 5101, Page 88, Public Records of Orange County, Florida, and any amendments thereto (the "Ground Lease"); and subject to that certain Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions recorded in Official Records Book 5101, Page 33 of the Public Records of Orange County, Florida, and all amendments thereto, and subject to easements and restrictions of record.

To actually find the designation and drawings for your particular unit, you need to do a search for "Condo Drawing" (uncheck the "Uncheck box to search specific document types" and then click Condo Drawing). The search should be grantor: Disney vacation development, grantee: Disney's Boardwalk Villas (do wildcard not exact search for both). The time period during which BWV units were declared and sold was between about mid-1996 and sometime in 2000 or possibly 2001. Unit "24A" would indicate a somewhat later declared unit, likely sometime in 1999.

 

[Cyberc1978]

To actually find the designation and drawings for your particular unit, you need to do a search for "Condo Drawing" (uncheck the "Uncheck box to search specific document types" and then click Condo Drawing). The search should be grantor: Disney vacation development, grantee: Disney's Boardwalk Villas (do wildcard not exact search for both). The time period during which BWV units were declared and sold was between about mid-1996 and sometime in 2000 or possibly 2001. Unit "24A" would indicate a somewhat later declared unit, likely sometime in 1999.

Thanks.

I found the drawing of unit 24A but from what I can see I don’t own a percentage of a studio or 1Br, seems I own a percentage of an entire floor is that correct?

 

[drusba]

And just to verify, the standard view units were declared with less points than preferred view units at BWV, correct? That was how I recalled it anyway and part of what was bugging me about the standard views increasing and premium views decreasing.

That is true at least for a comparison that I found. For one BWV standard unit that has one 2BR and four 1BRs, the total points applicable to it are about 52,000; for one preferred view unit with a 2BR and only three 1BRs the total points are also about 52,000.