Timeshare law does allow for that, as it would be counted as a year with 366 days, and you can still figure out based on the 365 day what the percentage ownership would entail.
For those curious, I detailed a lot of this in this thread:
Post in thread 'The VGF 2 pricing thread'
https://www.disboards.com/threads/the-vgf-2-pricing-thread.3838921/post-63595629
And here:
https://www.disboards.com/threads/2023-point-charts-released.3862115/post-63597719
But the relevant parts:
SSR actually makes this easy to figure out, from the perspective that the Treehouses were added on later, and thus we know the total number of points declared to the Treehouses: 905,250. And in 2019, the total number of points needed to book all Treehouses in the year is 1,047,840 points, a 15.8% increase. This would mean that my 100 points are, effectively, worth only 84.2 points after their reallocation. I haven't done the math for the 2023 charts, but wanted to share what I found. (Reference here:
https://web.archive.org/web/2021042...t/reallocation-impact-on-the-treehouse-villas ).
Also, I came across this in Florida Statue 721.05 (25): “...No individual timeshare unit may be counted as providing more than 365 use nights per 12-month period or more than 366 use nights per 12-month period that includes February 29. The use rights of each owner shall be counted without regard to whether the owner’s use rights have been suspended for failure to pay assessments or otherwise."
As points are a representation of our % ownership of a unit, then it IS a requirement that total number of points to book a resort for the year equal the total points sold for the resort; further (though you'd really need to ask a lawyer on this), it seems to me this does imply that you cannot re-allocate points across units.
DVC is deeded real estate, and thus falls under "Timeshare Estates" of the Vacation Club statutes (and is not a timeshare license). Its own POS and Declaration documents, as well as the contract you sign at time of purchase, lay out the rules of points: specifically, that points represent the percentage interest of your unit ownership, and that those points were determined at the time of declaration as the points necessary to book all units in the resort for the year. Thus, total
point charts and total declared points of a resort are intrinsically linked. And as DVC is a Timeshare Estate, statute 721.57 (1) says "In addition to meeting all the requirements of part I, timeshare estates offered in a specific multisite timeshare plan must meet the requirements of subsection (2)." Which means that DVC must comply with these statutes.
Any DVC's owners total points must represent the % ownership of their interest in their unit, per our contract (this taken from my CCV FW contract): "Purchaser's Ownership Interest shall be symbolized as 118 Home Resort Vacation Points for purposes of administrative convenience only and for no other purpose. Home Resort Vacation Points are merely reflective of Purchaser's Ownership Interest..."
Points represent two things, and those two things are inexplicably linked:
(1) They represent your % ownership in a unit
(2) They represent points needed in any given season to book a particular Vacation Home Villas
An important consideration is that a unit may compromise more than one Vacation Home Villas.
That consideration is important from a legal standpoint -- and to the question as to whether or not they can move points from one Vacation Villa Type to another - because when Disney balances point charts for the year, they must do two things:
(1) Ensure the total number of points required to book the entire resort remains the same as the total number of points declared in the resort
(2) Points continue to represent the % ownership interest, which means ensuring the total number of points to book a UNIT (not villa) in a given year equals the total number of points that unit represents (based on declaration).
We talk a lot in these boards, and when it comes to point charts, about #1, but #2 must also be true.
So while your 100 points and my 100 points may allow us to book the same number of nights in a specific VILLA TYPE in the year, #2 is *not* the same: their reallocation of 2BR into THVs to raise THVs has made it so that my 100 points no longer represents my ownership interest.
I can understand why it may seem like "why does this matter? We both can do the same thing with 100 points" it matters to settle the question of whether you can take points from high point villas and move them into, say, studios. This is an especially important matter for owners at places like PVB and CCV, where point-hungry Cabins and Bungalows exist, and where it is important that, say, studios don't become a dumping ground to lower the cost of bungalows/cabins. In the case of THV, what they did is illegal, because my points no longer reflect my ownership interest. (And given that I bought into SSR to stay in Treehouse Villas, ensuring that the point chart for THVs represents THVs and not THVs + points used to lower 2BRs does matter to me personally, though I can get why people who may love 2BRs and love that Disney lowered 2BR costs may not be happy if this is addressed).
Now, I believe that all of SSR units are EITHER 2x2 THVs *or* 2-BRs, and that all Studios and 1BRs at SSR are, in fact, lock-offs. If that's true, then it may be possible in SSR to move points between Studios, 1BRs, 2BRs. I would in fact have to go look at the master declaration to see what the unit makeups are, and if all SSR units are 3-2BRs. However, they cannot reallocate points between THVs and 2BRs because of the requirement that points equal % ownership.
But other resorts - say, for example, CCV, where a unit might be a cabin, or in the case of some of my contracts, one unit is 2 Dedicated 2BRs; another is 1 LO 2BR and 2 Studios; and another is a Dedicated-2BR and a LO-2BR (and my % of ownership varies even when the # of points is the same, due to the size differences in units), the point allocation probably requires points to remain within vacation villa types in order to ensure that # of points = unit % ownership
@drubsa lays out the legal arguments very well in two other posts:
https://www.disboards.com/threads/f...the-point-charts.3811362/page-2#post-62278348
https://www.disboards.com/threads/2023-point-charts-released.3862115/post-63603584
the point system represents ownership to a unit (defined in pos, master declaration and your contract), which represents the amount of time you can reserve in your unit for a year. FL statues require 1-for-1, meaning that there cannot be more nights available to book in a year than 365 (nor less); your ownership must represent your ownership. The POS lays out the rules for the guaranteed minimum # of points to book a Villa type and defines that if seasons were flattened, all rooms would cost the same - thus, that guaranteed point cost must represent the flattened per night cost, which therefore represents the points to book all nights in the resort for the year. Points declared literally equals the points required to book all units for 365 days per year, per the terms of the POS, and FL statute therefore also requires that those points must be consistent year over year, as those points represent the 1-for-1 ownership. Some people argue declared points and point charts aren’t the same; legally, however, that’s not true. The POS is very explicit that points represent ownership which represents your ability to book your owned interest in the resort, and that because points represent ownership, the declared points equal the total points to book all rooms in a resort in a year. Thus, declared points must represent total points in point charts, normal calendar variations (such as leap year and number of weekend nights) as an exception.
Note: I’m not a lawyer. I’d also recommend reading drubsa’s posts as he lays it out better than my very quick attempt at replying to explain a complicated subject.
