In a shocking legal move, Disney’s lawyers have gone Game of Thrones on Ron DeSantis’ new board – and it looks like a royal clause will hold up in court.
Walt Disney World has been locked in a heated legal, political, and social battle with Republican Florida governor Ron DeSantis after the company spoke out against the Parental Rights in Education Act. DeSantis and the Florida Legislature passed legislation to dissolve Disney’s Reedy Creek Improvement District, a privilege held by the company since 1967 that allowed it to treat Walt Disney World as a self-governing area. This allowed them easier access to things like firefighter and paramedic response in the Parks, as well as greater ease for building and land permits.
DeSantis appointed a hand-selected board to take over, now known as the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. The board officially took over last month, but news recently broke that its lawyers have discovered a bizarre clause in the Development Agreement signed by the previous Reedy Creek board that severely limits or entirely eliminates the power of the new board.
In the Agreement, which was signed on February 8, 2023, there are several terms that are defined to expire “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England…” The clause also says that the Declaration will terminate “as of the date that none of [Walt Disney Parks & Resorts] owns any real property within 10 miles of the RCID properties.”
This means that the terms of the previous agreement are valid for at least 21 years, if not much longer, and while it does not cover every inch of the RCID, it covers a significant amount. This renders the new board’s power extremely limited until then.
The clause is what’s known as a “royal lives clause,” and is usually set for the lifetime plus 21 years after the death of the current reigning British monarch. While these are somewhat common in contracts in the United Kingdom, it’s rare to see them in the United States. While Presidents’ lives clauses have appeared in American contracts, it seems as though Disney’s lawyers opted for Charles III for political purposes. Royal lives are chosen because of their presumed longevity through affluence and the relative ease of calculating the lifetimes of their descendants.
“We’re going to have to deal with it and correct it,” board member Brian Aungst said of the last-minute agreements on Wednesday, according to the Associated Press. “It’s a subversion of the will of the voters and the legislature and the governor. It completely circumvents the authority of this board to govern.”
While this is an extremely bizarre move, it’s unlikely Disney’s lawyers would have used it unless it would hold up in court. The constraints also forbid the board from using the “Disney” name or any of its characters.
