Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[Sandisw]

This is not exactly true. The lockout portion of the Home Resort Rules and Regulations allows them to cancel reservations (among many other things) of a member who breaks any rules of any of the governing documents. It says (bolded by me for emphasis)

"Pursuant to the governing documents for each DVC Resort and applicable law, DVC Operator is authorized to deny membership privileges to any Club Member who fails to pay Annual Dues with respect to any Ownership Interest that the Club Member owns or fails to adhere to the requirements of any of the governing documents for their Home Resort or another DVC Resort or the Club (“Lock-out”). Reservations associated with a Club membership that is in Lock-out status may be canceled and all cancellation fees or penalties will be the responsibility of the Club Member. Lock-out status will prevent the Club Member from making any reservations with respect to their Club membership either at their Home Resort or at any other DVC Resort through the DVC Reservation Component, checking in at any DVC Resort in the event of an already confirmed reservation, Banking or Borrowing Home Resort Vacation Points, Transferring Home Resort Vacation Resorts, making an External Exchange Program reservation, or accessingor using any other Club Member benefit program"

And then in the POS documents as you mentioned earlier they specifically say that they expressly prohibit "a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy that the Board of each DVC Resort Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or activity"

So as long as you believe that they can establish a pattern in less than 20 reservations per year, then they have indeed expressly given themselves the right to cancel reservations before they get to 20 total reservations in a year. And in fact, they can cancel reservations, or do anything else mentioned if you break any rule or fail to do anything required by any of the governing documents. And there are many small things mentioned in the documents that they could cancel reservations for if they really wished.

IE You can be considered to be doing "commercial activity" even if you don't have enough reservations (Over 20, that include rentals) to meet their secondary definition of a "commercial enterprise"

Again, that is your interpretation of the 2011 commercial use policy and mine is different based on a lot of factors.

That clause states you have to violate the rules, and right now, the only offical policy and definition is the 2011 policy and the rule against transfers being used.

The clause that it’s not an exclusive list to doesn’t not give them authority to enforce a definition that is not yet been adopted in some way into the rules.

It gives them the right to add additional things but as I have said, I contend that other metrics they want to use and enforce must be added to the documents in some way.

If DVC disputes my interpretation with thier answers to me, then I will post it here.

 

[Sandisw]

I hope some of the lawyers here pipe in, but isn't that bound to get them in some legal hot water? Being intentionally deceitful or lying by omission? I have no idea, but it seems like it would be a legal quagmire.

I think what they are saying in most cases is accurate in the sense they are telling owners renting to family and friends is allowed.

But, they are letting owners draw the conclusion that because they are using family and friends when discussing it that it means renting to strangers is prohibited.

And there is nothing in any document provided by DVC the new updated T and C that state that.

So, its misleading people into thinking they can’t do something that the rules don’t prohibit.

When something is a rule or policy, it can be found in the contract, the HRR or the updated T and C.

Renting to people who you do not personally know shows up no where..and as we have seen, the answer by MS has said yes it’s allowed, no it’s not, and can’t answer that.

So, if confusion exists, it’s DVCs job to clarify it for owners and update the rules to reflect that.

 

[Tatebeck]

Again, that is your interpretation of the 2011 commercial use policy and mine is different based on a lot of factors.

That clause states you have to violate the rules, and right now, the only offical policy and definition is the 2011 policy and the rule against transfers being used.

The clause that it’s not an exclusive list to doesn’t not give them authority to enforce a definition that is not yet been adopted in some way into the rules.

It gives them the right to add additional things but as I have said, I contend that other metrics they want to use and enforce must be added to the documents in some way.

If DVC disputes my interpretation with thier answers to me, then I will post it here.

It is my interpretation in a way I suppose, but I am very confident it is correct.

To simplify it down for logic rules, the contract reads something like:
Follow these rules 1 through 99. Also there is rule 100 but you have to ask to see what it says. Then rule 100 specifically states that you still have to follow all the other rules (once you jump through the hoops to see it lol). This I would say matches my interpretation.

Your interpretation simply relies on ignoring specifics (that I quoted) in the other documents after applying the multiple reservation rule, which in the rule itself it specifically tells you not to do.

In the simplified example, you would be ignoring say rule 99 when rule 100 says you still have to follow rules 1-99.

I won't keep going on so we can stop tying up the thread, just wanted to clear it up and have the info out there so people can see both of the possible interpretations.

 

[Sandisw]

It is my interpretation in a way I suppose, but I am very confident it is correct.

To simplify it down for logic rules, the contract reads something like:
Follow these rules 1 through 99. Also there is rule 100 but you have to ask to see what it says. Then rule 100 specifically states that you still have to follow all the other rules (once you jump through the hoops to see it lol). This I would say matches my interpretation.

Your interpretation simply relies on ignoring specifics (that I quoted) in the other documents after applying the multiple reservation rule, which in the rule itself it specifically tells you not to do.

In the simplified example, you would be ignoring say rule 99 when rule 100 says you still have to follow rules 1-99.

I won't keep going on so we can stop tying up the thread, just wanted to clear it up and have the info out there so people can see both of the possible interpretations.

And people should absolutely feel free to share when they have a different take because there are others who view things the same as you and some who see it the way I do.

It’s still going to come down to DVC and what they put out.

I am waiting on responses to additional questions so hopefully they will answer me in the next few weeks and give me permission actually post all the documents I was given!

 

[Cyberc1978]

A friend is the 1000+ people you have on your Facebook friends list! I think I better go on Facebook and make some new friends.

I was merely saying that one reason why we haven’t heard of any enforcement could be the use of the word “friends”

Everyone have friends, how narrow or wide we define them are not anyone’s business except our own.

If we are allowed to send friends why is a Facebook friend any worse than the friend you have know since childhood?

This does not give the LLC the option to rent because they aren’t allowed to but this could give the regular members more leeway to do so.

 

[Sandisw]

I was merely saying that one reason why we haven’t heard of any enforcement could be the use of the word “friends”

Everyone have friends, how narrow or wide we define them are not anyone’s business except our own.

If we are allowed to send friends why is a Facebook friend any worse than the friend you have know since childhood?

This does not give the LLC the option to rent because they aren’t allowed to but this could give the regular members more leeway to do so.

Which is why it may simply be that the purpose of what is happening may be just to remind owners that the main reason for DVC is personal use and vacations.

What they have done though is cause a lot of confusion amongst members.

Like I said, I made a lead guest changes that I said was a rental and did not say it was a family or friend and simply agreed that it fit the terms of the contract, and it processed.

And, as I was told, and even my chat yesterday said, just agree to the terms. Once does not have to lie because right now, nothing says renting is only family and friends.