Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[BeachClub2014]

The wording you have referenced is under the specific section ‘member benefits and privileges’ and is referring only to whether or not member benefits pass to guests or not. Given that there are no member benefits which do pass to guests that I can think of, it is largely irrelevant.

Not at all irrelevant. Although the language is referencing member benefits that may be transferrable to a guest, it clearly says that the member has the responsibility to notify MS if the guest is a renter.

Nowhere else in the HRR does it say that rentals must be notified to DVC.

The HRR clearly states that it is the member's responsibility to notify MS if the guest is renting.

So I think this is a red herring to be honest.

Okay.

The HRR also says that “club members may make a reservation on behalf of a Guest.” There is no other reference to members be required to qualify whether it is a rental.

Except for the one that I highlighted.

 

[JackosinDIS]

Not at all irrelevant. Although the language is referencing member benefits that may be transferrable to a guest, it clearly says that the member has the responsibility to notify MS if the guest is a renter.

Yes, in the context of whether or not the member benefits transfer to guests.

I see what your are saying, but my view is that the possibility of DVC using this particular clause of the HRR to actually enforce or lock out a member is extremely remote, as it is out of context and is not covered any other section which concerns making reservations for guests.

However, nothing at all would stop them from plastering this wording all over the HRR if they wanted to. Who knows, maybe they could even update the check box when booking to say something useful like ‘is this reservation a rental?’

 

[BeachClub2014]

Yes, in the context of whether or not the member benefits transfer to guests.

That's not the way it is worded, but we can agree to disagree on that point.

I see what your are saying, but my view is that the possibility of DVC using this particular clause of the HRR to actually enforce or lock out a member is extremely remote, as it is out of context and is not covered any other section which concerns making reservations for guests.

It appears that way in the current DVC world. However, the point is that the language is reflected in policy. DVC doesn't seem to put much effort into enforcing its policies, or there wouldn't be a plethora of commercial rentals. There has been a significant level of discussion and debate about established policy, which I found interesting within that context. You'll note that I didn't suggest that DVC would enforce that clause, but I bet they could if they chose to do so.

However, nothing at all would stop them from plastering this wording all over the HRR if they wanted to. Who knows, maybe they could even update the check box when booking to say something useful like ‘is this reservation a rental?’

True. I think they should modify the check box as you suggest. It would sure make things clearer, wouldn't it?

 

[sndral]

I won’t try to predict what DVC’s next steps will be, however I see evidence that things started changing this spring,
1) they announced you could transfer banked & borrowed points - let’s call that the carrot & behind the scenes, unannounced, they ended their practice of allowing members with more than one membership to transfer more than once which was a rule they’d been ignoring in those cases - let’s call that the stick. Allegedly that decision to enforce a long existing but ignored rule was because renters were abusing the loophole. I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that they decided to enforce the one transfer rule just a couple of months before the June changes.
2) In June they updated the online booking language https://cdn1.parksmedia.wdprapps.disney.com/media/dvc/DVC-Terms-and-Conditions-2025-5-15-25.pdf to include a definition of personal use (which makes no reference to the number 20.)
3) also in June they started requiring that you attest to personal use every time you booked or modified a reservation online or over the phone. That’s a new enforcement procedure - if you don’t attest to personal use you can’t make or modify a reservation.
Since the new definition & attestation only started last month I suspect we’ll have to wait until renters/guests start checking in for reservations made by owners who attested to personal use to see whether this new language/requirement is toothless or foreshadowing that DVC intends to follow the model of other timeshare systems & crack down on rentals via cancellations or membership locks.

 

[Brianstl]

I won’t try to predict what DVC’s next steps will be, however I see evidence that things started changing this spring,
1) they announced you could transfer banked & borrowed points - let’s call that the carrot & behind the scenes, unannounced, they ended their practice of allowing members with more than one membership to transfer more than once which was a rule they’d been ignoring in those cases - let’s call that the stick. Allegedly that decision to enforce a long existing but ignored rule was because renters were abusing the loophole. I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that they decided to enforce the one transfer rule just a couple of months before the June changes.
2) In June they updated the online booking language https://cdn1.parksmedia.wdprapps.disney.com/media/dvc/DVC-Terms-and-Conditions-2025-5-15-25.pdf to include a definition of personal use (which makes no reference to the number 20.)
3) also in June they started requiring that you attest to personal use every time you booked or modified a reservation online or over the phone. That’s a new enforcement procedure - if you don’t attest to personal use you can’t make or modify a reservation.
Since the new definition & attestation only started last month I suspect we’ll have to wait until renters/guests start checking in for reservations made by owners who attested to personal use to see whether this new language/requirement is toothless or foreshadowing that DVC intends to follow the model of other timeshare systems & crack down on rentals via cancellations or membership locks.

It does almost feel like they are slowly building to bring the hammer down, but given the history I won’t really believe it until I see it has happened. If they really are building to the hammer, letters threatening further escalation will start going out to members they believe might be violating a policy in August or September.

 

[Mouseforward]

True. I think they should modify the check box as you suggest. It would sure make things clearer, wouldn't it?

Just doing this would’ve saved us 200 pages of posts. Then we would’ve been clear with what their intention is; and it would’ve made it believable that they’re going to do after commercial renting.

 

[Sandisw]

Since then how have you been getting ahold of them? Did it require more certified letters? Or are they now responding with actual answers via email? Or has it just been phone chats again?

They are responding to me via email…the same division that had to issue the documents.

The initial email, was an apology for not having responded sooner…it was about 4 days from receiving my letter because they stated it had to get to the correct department and there was an implication that things needed to be reviewed by legal.

My assumption, though, is to keep everything I am being told in writing since I referenced the law.

Prior to that letter, I was called and told to email a particular division but never got anything or a response.

They have caused more confusion based on reports here and elsewhere and it would be nice for them to clear it up for owners.

But then again, sometimes what they decide to do doesn’t always mesh with what people had hoped they would do.

Even the updated T and C says that frequently or regularly renting does not fall under personal use, which means some level of renting does.

It doesn’t define that so it’s up to each individual owner, if they are booking a rental to decide if the number they have could be considered frequent or regular.

If they don’t believe it rises to commercial, then saying yes when booking is a truthful statement.

Absent something specific from DVC as to how they interpret beyond what is in the 2011 policy, POS, and other documents, that’s all anyone can do.

IMO, that’s what DVC wants…to make your average owner think twice, while potentially going after the commercial renters who are most certainly in violation of the official policy of record.

 

[Sandisw]

The interesting aspect that I never really gave much thought to is that the HRR requires an owner to notify MS when a "guest" is staying at a DVC resort on the points of a member. The HRR says, in part:

"19. Guest shall mean a non-Club Member staying with or on behalf of a Club Member at a DVC Resort."

3. Making Reservations for Guest.
a. Club Members may use their Home Resort Vacation Points to reserve Vacation Homes that will be occupied by Guests.
b. When a Club Member uses Home Resort Vacation Points to reserve Vacation Homes on behalf of a Guest, and the Club Member does not charge any rental or other fees to the Guest for the reservation, then the Guest may be eligible for all or some of the Club Member privileges and benefits that a Club Member would normally receive during the Club Member’s stay in the reserved Vacation Home. If the Guest is renting, it is the responsibility of the Member to notify Member Services when making the reservation. Member privileges and benefits cannot be extended to Guests who rent Vacation Homes from Club Members.

2. Lock-Out. 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 Clubmembership either at their Home Resort or at any other DVC Resort through the DVC Reservation Component, checkingin 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. It will also prohibit the use of any of the accommodations and facilities of the Club Member’s Home Resort or any other DVC Resort unless and until the total amount of the delinquent Annual Dues is satisfied in full with guaranteed funds or the violation of the governing document is remedied, as determined by DVC Operator in its discretion. If a Club Member is prohibited from making a reservation or using accommodations and facilities at their Home Resort, the Club Member will also automatically be prohibited from making a reservation or using accommodations and facilities at any other DVC Resort, except as permitted by DVC Operator in its discretion.

No mention here of the "20 reservation rule," so it looks like DVC can cancel reservations if you violate the rules. In this instance, not notifying MS that your guest paid to rent could put the reservation at risk of cancellation. The scary thing is the last bolded text, which states that if DVC locks you out of your home resort for violating the rules, you will also be prohibited from using any other resort. I wonder how many owners tell MS that their guest has paid to rent?

Interesting stuff. DVC clearly isn't enforcing this little policy codicil, but it sure looks like they could.

The 2011 policy is where you will find the specifics of what DVC has adpoted as to what consitutes commerical enterprise, practice or purpose.. which is where the 20 reservations rule can be found.

It has been adopted by the board and is considered a governing document of the association, just like the HRR is an additional document outside the POS.

The POS documents of many of the resorts state that exists and you can request it if you want it. They do not publish it any longer.

It falls under some of the other documents that are available only by request…such as the property management agreement with Parks and Hotels.

They have confirmed to me that the policy I was sent is indeed still the offical policy for commercial purposes on record and thus what is in play at this time, but of course, stated rules may change in the future.

I posted one of the emails in the thread in which they stated that..

I will post it publicly when or if I have been given legal permission by DVC to do so.

They could have easily updated HRR and T and C with specifics beyond what is in the offical commerical use policy, as that policy says they can add more.

They could have actually updated the 2011 policy that is in place to include what other defintions/actions they want to be considered part of the commericual use policy. So far, they have done none of that.

All they are doing is just reminding owners when they are booking to agree it falls under the definitions of personal use.

ETA: Here is the POS clause that states the board has adpoted a policy for commerical, and that it is a record of the association. This is why the specifics of it are not included elsewhere because it is in its own governing document.

 

[Brianstl]

They are responding to me via email…the same division that had to issue the documents.

The initial email, was an apology for not having responded sooner…it was about 4 days from receiving my letter because they stated it had to get to the correct department and there was an implication that things needed to be reviewed by legal.

My assumption, though, is to keep everything I am being told in writing since I referenced the law.

Prior to that letter, I was called and told to email a particular division but never got anything or a response.

They have caused more confusion based on reports here and elsewhere and it would be nice for them to clear it up for owners.

But then again, sometimes what they decide to do doesn’t always mesh with what people had hoped they would do.

Even the updated T and C says that frequently or regularly renting does not fall under personal use, which means some level of renting does.

It doesn’t define that so it’s up to each individual owner, if they are booking a rental to decide if the number they have could be considered frequent or regular.

If they don’t believe it rises to commercial, then saying yes when booking is a truthful statement.

Absent something specific from DVC as to how they interpret beyond what is in the documents, that’s all anyone can do.

I think any reservation under 20 that Disney doesn’t consider for profit will be fine. My guess is if DVC decides to finally take action as long as they don’t think you are earning more than your dues, you won’t have anything to worry about. In fact the as long as you are under 20 reservations you won’t pop up on their radar unless a rental looks like it could be a spec rental. Anything that looks like a spec rental will get some kind of review to determine if the member is renting for a profit.

Also, I think others might be correct that DVC may want to force the issue on members notifying them at the time the reservation is made that it is a rental. I think Disney could be planning to not allow renters the benefit of early park entry and extended evening hours.

 

[Sandisw]

I think any reservation under 20 that Disney doesn’t consider for profit will be fine. My guess is if DVC decides to finally take action as long as they don’t think you are earning more than your dues, you won’t have anything to worry about. In fact the as long as you are under 20 reservations you won’t pop up on their radar unless a rental looks like it could be a spec rental. Anything that looks like a spec rental will get some kind of review to determine if the member is renting for a profit.

Also, I think others might be correct that DVC mat want to force the issue on members notifying them at the time the reservation is made that it is a rental. I think Disney could be planning to not allow renters the benefit of early park entry and extended evening hours.

I have no idea what DVC will end up doing, but as I have stated, I think whatever actions are taken, it should be supported by the written documents because if an owner is found in violation of using their membership for commerical purposes, an owner has the right to ask DVC to explain what actions they took that got them in trouble.

We shall see if anything more is coming when it comes updated policy, rules or practice when it comes to stopping owners who they feel are violating the commercial use policy...

I know people are still hoping we will see updated booking and modification rules to the HRR that can limit or prevent walking. The next HOA meeting will be in early September.....so maybe someone will go and ask them to make a statement about the topics.

 

[Brianstl]

The 2011 policy is where you will find the specifics of what DVC has adpoted as to what consitutes commerical enterprise, practice or purpose.. which is where the 20 reservations rule can be found.

It has been adopted by the board and is considered a governing document of the association, just like the HRR is an additional document outside the POS.

The POS documents of many of the resorts state that exists and you can request it if you want it. They do not publish it any longer.

It falls under some of the other documents that are available only by request…such as the property management agreement with Parks and Hotels.

They have confirmed to me that the policy I was sent is indeed still the offical policy for commercial purposes on record and thus what is in play at this time, but of course, stated rules may change in the future.

I posted one of the emails in the thread in which they stated that..

I will post it publicly when or if I have been given legal permission by DVC to do so.

They could have easily updated HRR and T and C with specifics beyond what is in the offical commerical use policy, as that policy says they can add more.

They could have actually updated the 2011 policy that is in place to include what other defintions/actions they want to be considered part of the commericual use policy. So far, they have done none of that.

All they are doing is just reminding owners when they are booking to agree it falls under the definitions of personal use.

ETA: Here is the POS clause that states the board has adpoted a policy for commerical, and that it is a record of the association. This is why the specifics of it are not included elsewhere because it is in its own governing document.

View attachment 985346

The way I read what the section below you posted earlier isn’t just a reference to the 20 reservation rule because it specifically gives them the ability to act without a pattern being established.
All that is required is an occupancy that the board has reasonably determined constitutes a commercial activity. DVC doesn’t have to show a pattern and other occupancy that is a for “commercial purposes”. It only needs to determine if one of those has happened. It doesn’t need to be a commercial enterprise and activity. It just needs to be either a commercial enterprise or a commercial activity.

 

[Sandisw]

The way I read what the section below you posted earlier isn’t just a reference to the 20 reservation rule because it specifically gives them the ability to act without a pattern being established. View attachment 985351
All that is required is an occupancy that the board has reasonably determined constitutes a commercial activity. DVC doesn’t have to show a pattern and other occupancy that is a for “commercial purposes”. It only needs to determine if one of those has happened. It doesn’t need to be a commercial enterprise and activity. It just needs to be either a commercial enterprise or a commercial activity.

That quoted clause was simply a definition of commerical activity being prohibited....there is also a clause that says the purpose of DVC is for personal use....both of those are quotes from the POS.

What I was sent is 4 pages in length but #3 in the document is the policy and #4 is the enforcement.

The 2008 document you can find elsewhere is pretty similar to the current one so to see how it is worded, people can read that if they want something more than what I have summarized or shared.

Basically, the policy states you can have reserve as many reservations as you want, but if you want more than 20, in a rolling 12 month period, then this policy comes in to play and goes on to explain what happens if you are trying for your 21st reservation.

It states that if you can't support to DVC's satisfacation that the first 20 are for you, family and friends..they shall presume at that point you are in violation of the multiple reservations rule, which is defined as "all reservations in excess of 20...." (bolded by me)....when attempting that 21st and above reservation.

The enforcement clause also says that if you are found to be trying to make a reservation in violation of the MRR (excess of 20) those will not be confirmed, or they will be canceled....

The debate is really more on whether or not, because this policy, which we know now from DVC it is the official policy on record, if DVC can simply cancel reservations or take action against an owner for other reasons without having to disclose those reasons to owners in any other official document.....because of the clause it not being an exhaustive list of reasons....

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

The debate is really more on whether or not, because this policy does exist, but also says its not an exhaustive list, if DVC can simply cancel reservations or take action against an owner for other reasons without having to include them disclose those reasons to owners in any official document.....

The debate is not whether DVC can take action against an owner for other reasons “without having to…disclose those reasons to owners in any official document” but rather whether Disney has to specifically, narrowly define each and every possible action that could be considered commercial rental activity as opposed to personal use.

I, along with many other lawyers on this thread (and it appears Disney’s lawyers, based on the MS scripts we’ve seen), think because Disney has already made clear that commercial use is prohibited in several documents, that anything that Disney “in its reasonable discretion” (a very lenient standard) believes is commercial renting can be stopped without additional written documentation spelling out every possible type of rental that is or is not commercial.

 

[Brianstl]

That quoted clause was simply a definition of commerical activity being prohibited....there is also a clause that says the purpose of DVC is for personal use....both of those are quotes from the POS.

What I was sent is 4 pages in length but #3 in the document is the policy and #4 is the enforcement.

The 2008 document you can find elsewhere is pretty similar to the current one so to see how it is worded, people can read that if they want something more than what I have summarized or shared.

Basically, the policy states you can have reserve as many reservations as you want, but if you want more than 20, in a rolling 12 month period, then this policy comes in to play and goes on to explain what happens if you are trying for your 21st reservation.

It states that if you can't support to DVC's satisfacation that the first 20 are for you, family and friends..they shall presume at that point you are in violation of the multiple reservations rule, which is defined as "all reservations in excess of 20...." (bolded by me)....when attempting that 21st and above reservation.

The enforcement clause also says that if you are found to be trying to make a reservation in violation of the MRR (excess of 20) those will not be confirmed, or they will be canceled....

The debate is really more on whether or not, because this policy, which we know now from DVC it is the official policy on record, if DVC can simply cancel reservations or take action against an owner for other reasons without having to include them disclose those reasons to owners in any official document.....because of the clause it not being an exhaustive list of reasons....

The way I read what you posted earlier from page 3 and 4 of what you were sent is exclusive to the enforcement of the multiple reservation rule and doesn’t limit them how they decide to enforce any other rental rule/policy. The multiple reservation rule is just one rule a renter could violate.

 

[Sandisw]

The debate is not whether DVC can take action against an owner for other reasons “without having to…disclose those reasons to owners in any official document” but rather whether Disney has to specifically, narrowly define each and every possible action that could be considered commercial rental activity as opposed to personal use.

I, along with many other lawyers on this thread (and it appears Disney’s lawyers, based on the MS scripts we’ve seen), think because Disney has already made clear that commercial use is prohibited in several documents, that anything that Disney “in its reasonable discretion” (a very lenient standard) believes is commercial renting can be stopped without additional written documentation spelling out every possible type of rental that is or is not commercial.

Except the MS scripts DO NOT state that you are not allowed to rent to someone who don't know. They highlight renting to family and friends is allowed, but it doesn't prohibit the other. As I said, I was not given an answer and we already have at least a few resports of MS stating there has been no change to the rules of renting to strangers....plus, we know that they allow it because I did it...

So, I think the reason that we don't see that anywhere but in a script with MS is becaususe DVC laywers told them that they can't stop owners from renting to strangers and thus, can't put that in official documents.

The 2011 document is the offiicial policy and as I have stated, I asked for any other documents to support the clause about it not being an exhaustive list, and as to date, have been told everything I was sent is it along with the updated T & C.

Nothing in either of those backs up the scripts that renting is only allowed to family and friends. So, the debate is about whether or not DVC, when they have already a document that defines commerical purpose, can indeed just do what it wants without updating other aspects of the documents.

I mean...why does the HRR have language that allows them to act on reservations with transfer points if they believe its commerical? That didn't exist before.....but they felt the need to put it there....my contention is they needed it in order to enforce it.

Please stop assuming that because I am not a lawyer personally, that I have not been working directly with lawyers well versed in this.....but my answers are coming directly from DVC and that DVC legal was/is involved with my corresponsdence.

We shall see what comes of the next information but honestly, I wish other people would actually discuss this with DVC directly in the way that I have done to get answers for others.

If people feel that DVC can ignore their own documents, such as 2011 policy, updated T & C and HRR, and they are comfortable allowing DVC to do that, then that is up to them.

 

[JackosinDIS]

I, along with many other lawyers on this thread (and it appears Disney’s lawyers, based on the MS scripts we’ve seen), think because Disney has already made clear that commercial use is prohibited in several documents, that anything that Disney “in its reasonable discretion” (a very lenient standard) believes is commercial renting can be stopped without additional written documentation spelling out every possible type of rental that is or is not commercial.

I’m not sure how many lawyers there are on here, but I’m not sure I would go as far as saying ‘many’ others agree with this statement.

I like your point of view as it always gives some balance to the arguments, but for the record I do not share this view. I do not think Disney can prevent renting unless it exceeds the thresholds in the existing 2011 policy. They know this, which is why they are not enforcing.

I come at this as a real estate lawyer, although always try to keep in mind that my opinion is coloured by my ownership of DVC and how I use my points.

 

[Sandisw]

The way I read what you posted earlier from page 3 and 4 of what you were sent is exclusive to the enforcement of the multiple reservation rule and doesn’t limit them how they decide to enforce any other rental rule/policy. The multiple reservation rule is just one rule a renter could violate.

It is still the offiical policy and DVC has the right to add other things, but the contention is whether those other things can be in direct conflict with what the official policy states, and what level of specifics an owner needs to have in writing if they are going to enforce things outside the written policy.

If you tell an owner this is the policy, but says they can use other things, and when the owner asks if an additional list of things are in play, and are told no, then all one can do is follow the written policy.

There seems to be an assumption that DVC did not update the documents, this policy, or the T & C, with specifics because they didn't need to or want to vs. DVC lawyers having told them that there are legal hurdles in the way to do certian things, especially given the FL 718.111 law that discusses limiting owners rights to rent without a vote.

Again, I have no idea, but for this owner, if DVC can't put into official documents that certain actions are commerical, when they have already defined it for me, there is a strong chance that there is a legal reason they have not.

So, here is what we are left with officially:

1. DVC has an official policy it has adopted to define what consitutues commerical purposes, which includes the policy and enforcement.

2. DVC updated their T & C and released them June 1st which does not define commericial purpose, but states that "frequently or renting" reservations is not pesonal use....and the only current written document that we have that discusses number of reservations in relation to commerical purpose is the 2011 policy.

3. DVC updated the check box language with online booking, and now all owners booking and modifying reservations vis calls or chat must agree to the same T & C that online booking has.

4. We have a wide range of answers from MS about this topic....many that conflict with each other depending on the agent you get.

Beyond that, its all speculation.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I like your point of view as it always gives some balance to the arguments, but for the record I do not share this view. I do not think Disney can prevent renting unless it exceeds the thresholds in the existing 2011 policy. They know this, which is why they are not enforcing.

“they know this, which is why they are not enforcing” is a completely unsubstantiated guess, and I don’t think it’s responsible to state it as a fact. Disney also hasn’t been enforcing the 2011 threshold or LLC provisions for a decade as far as we can tell— are those who feel certain Disney hasn’t taken action because their lawyers (allegedly) told them “just scare people without any real legal basis and never try to enforce because you have no rights” (which, for the record, is unethical legal advice, probably unlawful, and not advice any high end corporate lawyer who could get hired at Disney would sign off on) also confident Disney can’t enforce the 2011 policy simply because they weren’t enforcing for a decade?

I come at this as a real estate lawyer, although always try to keep in mind that my opinion is coloured by my ownership of DVC and how I use my points.

I am not a real estate lawyer and have never claimed to be, but the last few weeks we’ve been discussing contract law, and whether or not Disney can take actions already spelled out in other contract documents. I do appreciate that my own opinion is influenced by my preferred outcome (that owners have a right to rent occasionally but not regularly or with the intent of maximizing profits, because it is increasingly breaking the system and will continue to get worse if not curbed)…but “we know they aren’t going to enforce because they can’t” 6 weeks after the checkbox rolled out is definitely more wishful thinking than legal analysis. Still reminds me of the people certain that accessibility law required them to offer DAS to everybody with IBS plus 8 family members.

Remember, all of the discussion with MS asking if the renter is “friends or family” are by necessity NOT applicable to all reservations— the question is ONLY coming up when members try to modify existing reservations to change lead guests or combine (I also was asked when a waitlist cleared, I guess).

I think Disney would be well within its rights (based on documents discussed above) to say “if you want to modify an already existing reservation, you must attest it is only for a friend/family guest, where no money changes hands”— crushing spec rentals without materially impacting rights to rent for personal use—this is actually not my preferred outcome— I would much prefer to occasionally be able to rent a reservation if I need to cancel a trip last minute—but I would accept such a “no modification for money” rule as within Disney’s rights, as long as they start by enforcing it against the people changing names on reservations 5+ times a year, before even contemplating a crack down on people who don’t change existing reservations’ names more than once or twice a decade.

 

[Mouseforward]

I do appreciate that my own opinion is influenced by my preferred outcome (that owners have a right to rent occasionally but not regularly or with the intent of maximizing profits, because it is increasingly breaking the system and will continue to get worse if not curbed)…but “we know they aren’t going to enforce because they can’t” 6 weeks after the checkbox rolled out is definitely more wishful thinking than legal analysis

You defiantly win my personal award for " most likely to change my mind on a subject with reason" as I have called out in the past.

And I think we have the same feelings on renting both "that owners have a right to rent occasionally but not regularly or with the intent of maximizing profits" and "“we know they aren’t going to enforce because they can’t” 6 weeks after the checkbox rolled out is definitely more wishful thinking than legal analysis"

I also look back an see that my posts are colored by the opposite , my decade of reluctantly being in HOA leadership and getting pulled into court and arbitration has given my a very healthy respect for how much the courts lean on founding documents. In addition how intolerant the courts are of changes that are not done via amendments to the documents ( basically "board decisions" vs formal amendments to the covenants).

So I tend to argue the " Why is DVC not following an written process submitted to the members as outlined in the documents" vs a " DVC can change policy and interpretation at any time" argument. Sometimes I want the change but I dislike how DVC is going about it.

 

[Brianstl]

No doubt everyone’s opinion on this is influenced by their preferred outcome to some extent.

You defiantly win my personal award for " most likely to change my mind on a subject with reason" as I have called out in the past.

And I think we have the same feelings on renting both "that owners have a right to rent occasionally but not regularly or with the intent of maximizing profits" and "“we know they aren’t going to enforce because they can’t” 6 weeks after the checkbox rolled out is definitely more wishful thinking than legal analysis"

I also look back an see that my posts are colored by the opposite , my decade of reluctantly being in HOA leadership and getting pulled into court and arbitration has given my a very healthy respect for how much the courts lean on founding documents. In addition how intolerant the courts are of changes that are not done via amendments to the documents ( basically "board decisions" vs formal amendments to the covenants).

So I tend to argue the " Why is DVC not following a written process submitted to the members as outlined in the documents" vs a " DVC can change policy and interpretation at any time" argument. Sometimes I want the change but I dislike how DVC is going about it.

I tend to agree with this. My opinion is they really have all the things they need in the founding documents to put a huge dent in the rental market without having to even use the 2011 changes. I think people are paying too much attention to the 2008 and 2011 policies and not enough to the founding documents.