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.

 

[xdan0920]

Let's be fair...your take would allow DVC to see 5 resservations in the names of others, decide that is commerical and cancel, even though the policy and the POS says "you can make as many reservations as you want"? without actually having to communicate that to owners that counts as commerical?

Regular/Frequent renting has been explicitly said to be in violation. So imo yes they could.

Now, this is all just academic. A fun little mystery to try and unravel with no payoff at the end. DVC isn’t enforcing squat, and even the largest DVC landlords are continuing to go about their business.

 

[Sandisw]

Regular/Frequent renting has been explicitly said to be in violation. So imo yes they could.

Now, this is all just academic. A fun little mystery to try and unravel with no payoff at the end. DVC isn’t enforcing squat, and even the largest DVC landlords are continuing to go about their business.

The point was not that they can’t define it that way…but that if they are going to enforce something that is in conflict with their offical policy that 20 reservations is the threadhold for any enforcement, that new definition should be put into the offical documents.

The clause in the offical policy that it’s not an exhaustive list shouldn’t mean they can do whatever they want in secret. I contend it doesn’t allow them to do whatever they want without an update to offical documents.

So, change the policy, or include what else is part of the policy in the HRR…like they did for transfer points and commercial use…and in the updated T and C.

They did add words frequently or regularly, but didn’t define further, so the only specifics we have as to what those words may mean is the 2011 official policy…

If they want to mean something different than what is in the 2011 document, then simply add it.

Owners have the right to know what the offical definition is because the POS states a policy is on record and we can request it.

If what I was sent is only a partial policy, because of the clause in it, then they did not send me all they are required to send based on what the actual POS states are records of the association.

DVC can define this in whatever way they want, consistent with the contract and the law. but I still contend that in order to enforce things outside the written policy, they need to actually make them part of the offical documents.

So, until we get something different from DVC or we have evidence that DVC does something that supports they don’t have to update written rules to enforce in other ways outside what is written, then people need to interpret this policy, the POS, the HRR, and the updated T and Cs.

There is a reason we have not seen or heard of more yet and only DVC knows the reason why.

 

[Tatebeck]

The point was not that they can’t define it that way…but that if they are going to enforce something that is in conflict with their offical policy that 20 reservations is the threadhold for any enforcement, that new definition should be put into the offical documents.

The clause in the offical policy that it’s not an exhaustive list shouldn’t mean they can do whatever they want in secret. I contend it doesn’t allow them to do whatever they want without an update to offical documents.

So, change the policy, or include what else is part of the policy in the HRR…like they did for transfer points and commercial use…and in the updated T and C.

They did add words frequently or regularly, but didn’t define further, so the only specifics we have as to what those words may mean is the 2011 official policy…

If they want to mean something different than what is in the 2011 document, then simply add it.

Owners have the right to know what the offical definition is because the POS states a policy is on record and we can request it.

If what I was sent is only a partial policy, because of the clause in it, then they did not send me all they are required to send based on what the actual POS states are records of the association.

DVC can define this in whatever way they want, consistent with the contract and the law. but I still contend that in order to enforce things outside the written policy, they need to actually make them part of the offical documents.

So, until we get something different from DVC or we have evidence that DVC does something that supports they don’t have to update written rules to enforce in other ways outside what is written, then people need to interpret this policy, the POS, the HRR, and the updated T and Cs.

There is a reason we have not seen or heard of more yet and only DVC knows the reason why.

Since we are still posting supporting both sides of the possible interpretations, I guess I'll post just a bit more that supports my (and others') interpretation(s) contrary to this one.
_______________
Enforcing something else that is already in the POS or Home Resort Rules and Regulations would in no way conflict with the multiple reservation rule. And it specifically says that in the rule if you read it carefully and completely. The point is not that they can do whatever they want, just that they can still do what they already have listed in the POS and HRR documents. Or add more rules if they wish.

You mention the part (ii) where they say its not an exhaustive list and they can update the documents, but if you read the section just before that (i) it says just what I have said (bolded by me)

"This policy is not intended, and shall not be deemed, either (i) to constitute an exclusive act or statement by the Association regarding any breach of the commercial activity prohibitions set forth in the Declaration of Condominium and Membership Agreement, or (ii) to be an exhaustive list of all activities that shall be deemed to be commercial activity. Accordingly, the Association reserves the right to promulgate such additional rules or to take such additional actions or measures as it deems appropriate with respect to any breach of such prohibitions."

It clearly says that there are already prohibitions set forth in the other documents (IE already there) that you still have to follow. The Multiple reservation rule is clearly there to be used in essence as an emergency stop to stop a runaway train of commercial activity so they can just shut a members ability to make reservations off so they don't have to inspect every single one.
______________
Furthermore, in the way the multiple reservation rule is worded, the rule in itself clues you into the possibility that reservations before hitting the 20 reservation limit in the Multiple Reservation Rule can still be considered to be commercial activity.

From the rule
"If, in any 12-month period in which a DVC Member attempts to make more than 20 reservations but is unable to establish, to the satisfaction of the Board, that all such reservations are for Personal Use and not for commercial purposes"

By looking at the first 20 reservations and categorizing them each into personal or commercial purposes, they have shown us that individual reservations under 21 reservations can each be either personal or commercial activity. As a whole, the Multiple Reservation Rule just tells us that they will check after 20, but then reserves their right later to look at reservations in the first 20 if they wish to, to determine (at DVCs discretion) if they have broken commercial activity rules (or any other rules) and if they want to issue a warning or other punishment as authorized in the POS/HRR.

Nothing changed with the first 20 reservations when the 21st was made, they were always each technically classified as personal or commercial, it just depends on when/if DVC decides to check.

 

[Sandisw]

Since we are still posting supporting both sides of the possible interpretations, I guess I'll post just a bit more that supports my (and others') interpretation(s) contrary to this one.
_______________
Enforcing something else that is already in the POS or Home Resort Rules and Regulations would in no way conflict with the multiple reservation rule. And it specifically says that in the rule if you read it carefully and completely. The point is not that they can do whatever they want, just that they can still do what they already have listed in the POS and HRR documents. Or add more rules if they wish.

You mention the part (ii) where they say its not an exhaustive list and they can update the documents, but if you read the section just before that (i) it says just what I have said (bolded by me)

"This policy is not intended, and shall not be deemed, either (i) to constitute an exclusive act or statement by the Association regarding any breach of the commercial activity prohibitions set forth in the Declaration of Condominium and Membership Agreement, or (ii) to be an exhaustive list of all activities that shall be deemed to be commercial activity. Accordingly, the Association reserves the right to promulgate such additional rules or to take such additional actions or measures as it deems appropriate with respect to any breach of such prohibitions."

It clearly says that there are already prohibitions set forth in the other documents (IE already there) that you still have to follow. The Multiple reservation rule is clearly there to be used in essence as an emergency stop to stop a runaway train of commercial activity so they can just shut a members ability to make reservations off so they don't have to inspect every single one.
______________
Furthermore, in the way the multiple reservation rule is worded, the rule in itself clues you into the possibility that reservations before hitting the 20 reservation limit in the Multiple Reservation Rule can still be considered to be commercial activity.

From the rule
"If, in any 12-month period in which a DVC Member attempts to make more than 20 reservations but is unable to establish, to the satisfaction of the Board, that all such reservations are for Personal Use and not for commercial purposes"

By looking at the first 20 reservations and categorizing them each into personal or commercial purposes, they have shown us that individual reservations under 21 reservations can each be either personal or commercial activity. As a whole, the Multiple Reservation Rule just tells us that they will check after 20, but then reserves their right later to look at reservations in the first 20 if they wish to, to determine (at DVCs discretion) if they have broken commercial activity rules (or any other rules) and if they want to issue a warning or other punishment as authorized in the POS/HRR.

Nothing changed with the first 20 reservations when the 21st was made, they were always each technically classified as personal or commercial, it just depends on when/if DVC decides to check.

Let’s not forget that we know how DVC has interpreted and enforced this policy, when they choose to enforce.

It was leave all 20 alone. There was no distinction and the language says reservations in EXCESS of 20 will be canceled if you can’t prove the first 20 are for upu, family and friends. So, that word is pretty important.

If you had rentals within the first twenty, none were canceled, even if all were in the names of others.

So, my interpretation matches what DVCs has always been.

Until we get something different from DVC that says they believe they can interpret and enforce the way you think they can, without having to ever let owners know, then all we have to go on at this point is what DVC has actually done.

Obviously some believe that the documents don’t have to match…and the clause about it not being an exhaustive list gives them free reign to do what they want, whenever they want.


Still comes down to each individual.

If one believes that DVC can cancel your reservations, or lock you out. at any point in time without needing to actually follow written policies, then one should act accordingly.

Some us…not just me…simply believe that DVC has to make rules before they can enforce them

If you, or anyone else has something they have gotten from DVC that says previous interpretation is no longer in play, please share!

Everything I have been given recently from them, last year, and over the years, backs up why my interpretation is what it is

If asked again by someone to share my opinion. I’ll just point them to previous posts!

We shall see what I get next. Hopefully, you and others are in contact with DVC as well to get answers.

ERA: The ones within 20 were never considered commercial if they were a rental…it only mattered if you wanted more than 20…if you did not, then all were considered appropriate reservations.

The only rulein the HRR I can find related to what can be canceled for commercial are transfer points being used.

 

[Tatebeck]

Sigh. Here we go. There is just so much that is incorrect at worst or murky at best.

Let’s not forget that we know how DVC has interpreted and enforced this policy, when they choose to enforce.

We actually do not. How they enforced, yes. But how they Interpreted, no.

Your example of the past shows how they chose not to enforce any rules on the first 20 reservations , which is their right per the contracts true. But it shows nothing of how they interpreted their rule, which according to you means they "can't" cancel any of a members first 20 reservations regardless of how much they appear to be commercial activity. I highly doubt Disney agrees that they are hamstrung in this way. In fact you have said yourself that they told you they are going to start enforcing rules that they haven't in the past. Meaning that they can choose to start enforcing rules at any point.

So, my interpretation matches what DVCs has always been.

It simply does not seem to match.

Your interpretation: DVC can't cancel any reservations under 20, even if they are found to be commercial activity.
DVC: hasn't chosen to enforce as far as we know, for reservations under 20. But the documents say anything they can determine as a pattern can be used.

Those do not in fact match.

Until we get something different from DVC that says they believe they can interpret and enforce the way you think they can

You already have the documents that say they can do this, the POS and Home Resort Rules and Regs. I already quoted the sepcific sections earlier.

Obviously some believe that the documents don’t have to match…and the clause about it not being an exhaustive list gives them free reign to do what they want, whenever they want.

They are different documents dealing with different things, of course they aren't going to be identical? If they were identical then we wouldn't need multiple documents. It not only says that it's not an exhaustive list but also specifically says that you have to follow the other rules in the other documents.

If one believes that DVC can cancel your reservations, or lock you out. at any point in time without needing to actually follow written policies, then one should act accordingly.

I don't think I have seen anyone say that they can do whatever they want without following written policies. I and others have said that they simply need to be (and would still be) following their written policies if they decided to look at reservations under 20. You are the only one I have seen that has said that you did not think they have to follow some of the written policies because of another policy....

If you, or anyone else has something they have gotten from DVC that says previous interpretation is no longer in play, please share!

I have simply posted the DVC documents with the rules. If you think that some of those rules do not have to be followed or can not be enforced, then I believe it would be up to you to provide the part(s) of the documents/rules that you think overrides the other rules. The only thing you have quoted specifically says otherwise and says that the other rules do need to be followed still.

Again, if/how they have chosen to enforce something in the past (which they are allowed to do) does not matter in the slightest in what they actually could do.

Everything I have been given recently from them, last year, and over the years, backs up why my interpretation is what it is

I haven't seen anything that you or anyone else have posted, or reporting being told or being sent, that backs up the interpretation that DVC has hamstrung themselves and simply cannot enforce any rules on the first 20 reservations. Please share something if you have it that says otherwise, as I may have missed it. But I think I have read the entirety of the multiple threads discussing this up to this point.

 

[Tatebeck]

ERA: The ones within 20 were never considered commercial if they were a rental…it only mattered if you wanted more than 20…if you did not, then all were considered appropriate reservations.

The only rulein the HRR I can find related to what can be canceled for commercial are transfer points being used.

Responding to the additions.

DVC chose not do do anything to the first 20, which is within their right. That doesn't mean that they couldn't. Those are fundamentally very different things

The HRR say that they can cancel reservations if you break any of the rules listed, which includes engaging in a pattern of rental activity.

Ill quote from myself and condense it a bit more:

HRR :
DVC is authorized to deny membership privileges to any Club Member who... 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

POS: 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"
_____
In the simplest form:
The POS requires that you do not engage in a pattern of rental activity (that they decide looks commercial). And then the HRR gives them the right to cancel reservations if you do not follow the POS.

So if they decide that any of your reservations form a pattern that they believe looks commercial, they can now cancel your reservations.

If anyone is still confused, I can try to elaborate more what I mean but I think that is about as simple as I can make it.

 

[Sandisw]

Responding to the additions.

DVC chose not do do anything to the first 20, which is within their right. That doesn't mean that they couldn't. Those are fundamentally very different things

The HRR say that they can cancel reservations if you break any of the rules listed, which includes engaging in a pattern of rental activity.

Ill quote from myself and condense it a bit more:

HRR :
DVC is authorized to deny membership privileges to any Club Member who... 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

POS: 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"
_____
In the simplest form:
The POS requires that you do not engage in a pattern of rental activity (that they decide looks commercial). And then the HRR gives them the right to cancel reservations if you do not follow the POS.

So if they decide that any of your reservations form a pattern that they believe looks commercial, they can now cancel your reservations.

If anyone is still confused, I can try to elaborate more what I mean but I think that is about as simple as I can make it.

You keep saying they could have but yet you haven’t shared anything from DVC that backs it up.

Please let’s move on because I have done all that I can to explain why I think my interpretation matches DVCs and the requirement that to do something outside of the written policies requires new language.

It’s based on lots of factors, including what DVC has said and done.

I have shared specifics and if that is not enough, then as I said, please get your own answers felt DVC and post them.

Warning to us both…it’s become an argument. When or if DVC acts, we can revisit things.

 

[Tatebeck]

You keep saying they could have but didn’t but what evidence do you have that they could, without having to update documents?

The documents that I quoted that already say that they could.... Am I in the twilight zone?

Please let’s move on because I have done all that I can to explain why I think my interpretation matches DVCs and the requirement that to do something outside of the written policies requires new language.

Ok agreed let's just leave it here and let everyone interpret the rules as written for themselves then.
Because I think I have done all I can to explain the opposite and that the policies are already there and posted them.
And I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other at this point lol
So yes lets leave it there

ETR to the Edit ( sorry just saw the edit afterwards)

Warning to us both…it’s become an argument. When or if DVC acts, we can revisit things.

Got it.