Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[Brianstl]

You've made references to where renting covers more than dues being considered commercial too. Why would that be the case if it's not part of the current policy?

Because anything that generates what could be considered a profit fits the legal definition of commercial activity.

 

[lowlight]

Someone got belligerently drunk, who was a DVC owner at beach club. Basically there was a question whether he could be exited from his own resort. About six months later the Florida assembly passed a law that we can be exited from our own resorts for breaking the rules of the hotel.

Oh wow. I'm surprised he wasn't given 3 hots and a cot and banned from Disney World altogether. You can't put your hands on anyone else over seating arrangements...

 

[Sandisw]

You've made references to where renting covers more than dues being considered commercial too. Why would that be the case if it's not part of the current policy?

Something like that wouldn’t be in conflict with the 20 reservations rule if DVC decides to use that in conjunction with it.

Basically, they have said that renting to the degree that is appears to offset dues would not be a violation.

So, if they review an account in which someone has hit the 20, they can then use that to determine if the ones below 20 appear commercial.

But, to be fair, the info I was given about this being the offical policy and all that was in play came after I was given that by MS…so, I posted that I am not sure exactly how that would come in to play.

I know how I reconcile them but no idea if that is how DVC would.

 

[lowlight]

Did anyone else just notice a ton of availability pop up for several months under 7 months? Might be nothing, but I was looking to add on to a rental and there has been nothing available for months until an hour ago, when a bunch popped up at many different resorts.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Did anyone else just notice a ton of availability pop up for several months under 7 months? Might be nothing, but I was looking to add on to a rental and there has been nothing available for months until an hour ago, when a bunch popped up at many different resorts.

Ugh, can’t even get into the site right now. It says service unavailable.

 

[Brianstl]

Did anyone else just notice a ton of availability pop up for several months under 7 months? Might be nothing, but I was looking to add on to a rental and there has been nothing available for months until an hour ago, when a bunch popped up at many different resorts.

Was any of the availability in the hardest to book rooms?

 

[lowlight]

Was any of the availability in the hardest to book rooms?

I don’t want to be specific and run afoul of Sandi, some was and some wasn’t. There were some very hard to get dates and rooms and a lot of easier to get rooms at hard to get times.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I don’t want to be specific and run afoul of Sandi, some was and some wasn’t. There were some very hard to get dates and rooms and a lot of easier to get rooms at hard to get times.

More than one resort? I seen one resort

 

[achinforsomebacon]

Because anything that generates what could be considered a profit fits the legal definition of commercial activity.

Can you point me to where this is outlined in the POS or HRR?

From what I've read, it doesn't matter if it's legally a commercial activity. It matters if it fits the definition of a "commercial enterprise, practice, or purpose" as outlined in the POS. And they could amend the defintion to include something regarding renting for more than dues but I don't think that will ever happen.

If something happens and you have to rent all of your points in year, you'll more than cover dues and make a profit but it shouldn't automatically be considered commercial use.

 

[Sandisw]

I don’t want to be specific and run afoul of Sandi, some was and some wasn’t. There were some very hard to get dates and rooms and a lot of easier to get rooms at hard to get times.

Just to clarify…I don’t make any rules. I simply enforce the ones the owners of this site have made.

But I appreciate you not posting real time availability

 

[Sandisw]

When was the Florida law prohibiting to restrict rights to rent without members vote passed?
Can changing how commercial renting is defined go against that law?

2021…FL718.111 is the official statute.

From info I have gotten, it depends on what they try to change in relation to what constitutes a commercial enterprise, practice or purchase for commercial.

Something like renting for more than dues over a period of time may be an example of a change that wouldn’t need a vote because it applies a level of profit to the definition which could fit with a pattern of rental activity that reasonably could be see as a commercial enterprise. Etc.

However, trying to limit rentals to family and friends could well be something that is further limiting our right to rent since it might be hard for DVC to support legally that the relationship to the renter can change an owner’s use to now being commercial.

I may or may not have already sent this specific question to DVC management.

Speculation - I would not be surprised if that law hasn’t played some role in why the 2011 policy was not updated, nor why the language used in the updated T and C simply said “frequent or regular renting of reservations” falls outside personal use.

Not saying it can’t still happen…

 

[zavandor]

2021…FL718.111 is the official statute.

From info I have gotten, it depends on what they try to change in relation to what constitutes a commercial enterprise, practice or purchase for commercial.

Something like renting for more than dues over a period of time may be an example of a change that wouldn’t need a vote because it applies a level of profit to the definition which could fit with a pattern of rental activity that reasonably could be see as a commercial enterprise. Etc.

However, trying to limit rentals to family and friends could well be something that is further limiting our right to rent since it might be hard for DVC to support legally that the relationship to the renter can change an owner’s use to now being commercial.

I may or may not have already sent this specific question to DVC management.

Speculation - I would not be surprised if that law hasn’t played some role in why the 2011 policy was not updated, nor why the language used in the updated T and C simply said “frequent or regular renting of reservations” falls outside personal use.

Not saying it can’t still happen…

To further elaborate: if I am not mistaken, RIV POS say that using a broker or other Internet site to rent point is forbidden. Could they ban it for older resorts saying it falls into commercial activity? I'd say it restricts rights to rent a bit too much to be considered just a change of the definition of commercial renting.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

To further elaborate: if I am not mistaken, RIV POS say that using a broker or other Internet site to rent point is forbidden. Could they ban it for older resorts saying it falls into commercial activity? I'd say it restricts rights to rent a bit too much to be considered just a change of the definition of commercial renting.

I think it’s a genuine question of state law that could go either way (not a Fl lawyer! Not a time share lawyer! Not your lawyer!) but I would expect state court judges to to give Disney a lot of flexibility when trying to predict outcome. If I was Disney, I would argue that online renting sites didn’t even exist at the time the POS for any resort that predates about… 2005 (genuinely don’t know when they popped up), so it wasn’t a material right in the original documents…even I don’t think that argument is helpful if Disney tried to stop people from renting to strangers they didn’t find through commercial 3rd parties but weren’t previously friends with either (e.g. I think it would be very hard to argue you weren’t previously allowed to rent by putting a note in the school newsletter or on your company’s message board, or even by posting it on your own personal social media accounts that you aren’t advertising listings on regularly/frequently to maximize profit).

 

[zavandor]

If I was Disney, I would argue that online renting sites didn’t even exist at the time the POS for any resort that predates about… 2005 (genuinely don’t know when they popped up), so it wasn’t a material right in the original documents…

But they were invented in 2005 (?) And Disney didn't restrict right to rent through those until the law was passed. So the new law should guarantee that right now, unless a members vote is passed.
Also, we've been allowed to rent points for more than just MFs for decades, restricting it saying renting one dollar more than MF is a commercial enterprise is difficult to argue.

 

[Brianstl]

The board has aways had a right to make a reasonable determination that a specific act of renting is for a commercial purpose. That is why the legal definition of the words in the founding documents matter just as much as or more than anything added later, IMO.

 

[Tatebeck]

To further elaborate: if I am not mistaken, RIV POS say that using a broker or other Internet site to rent point is forbidden. Could they ban it for older resorts saying it falls into commercial activity? I'd say it restricts rights to rent a bit too much to be considered just a change of the definition of commercial renting.

IIRC it doesn't say that it is forbidden, just that it could be used as one of the measures to determine commercial activity. I could be mistaken though.

But that gets me thinking, RIV and the newer resort POS's actually also bring up a really good point IMO.

Some members in this thread supposedly say that the 2011 document that we can request (that they have been using as the document to determine whether a member is acting commercially or not) is the sole determiner that they can use and supersedes any other commercial enterprise/activity wording in the POS/HRR. I have personally disagreed with that interpretation all along (mainly because the Multiple Reservation Rule says it does not supersede anything and to follow all the other rules as well)

But I think these newer POS's actually us some insight what Disney/DVC themselves think (whereas before I felt I had no evidence what they thought about the POS/HRR commercial clauses vs the Multiple Reservation Rule/2011 commercial activity rules). We just had what we were interpreting here in this thread. So...

If the 2011 rule was the end all be all and the other commercial activity clauses didn't matter in the POSs/HRRs and the 2011 rules must be updated to change anything, then why would DVC bother to change/update the commercial clauses in the newer resort POS documents starting with RIV?

If they thought that the request-able commercial enterprise document was the end all be all of commercial rules, then why wouldn't they update that instead? I think that this shows that DVC thinks (like I do) that the POS/HRR documents can be used to determine commercial activity if they wish, even if that looks different than/is in addition to the Multiple Reservation Rule/2011 commercial enterprise rule as it currently exists.

 

[zavandor]

If the 2011 rule was the end all be all and the other commercial activity clauses didn't matter in the POSs/HRRs and the 2011 rules must be updated to change anything, then why would DVC bother to change/update the commercial clauses in the newer resort POS documents starting with RIV?

Because, as DVC found out with the 2020 point charts fail, who wrote the original POS gave owners a lot of rights and guarantees. It was a time when Timeshare was a synonym of Scam and a big brand like Disney put a lot of reputation on the line creating their own timeshare. They're changing that and they're aligning to "industry standards". I may be mistaken, but RIV POS also includes the possibility to reallocate points across Units and the CFW POS explicitly say that points could be reallocated even across different resorts belonging to the same Use Plan (if there'll ever be others). That's why I wouldn't touch CFW with a bargepole, not only it has high MF; it might even have high point charts in the future.

Full disclaimer: I don't have a strong opinion about the 2011 rule and if it's the only relevant or not. I haven't studied all the docs enough.
What I am worried about is that DVC might use the issues with commercial renting to take away rights we currently have. I bet DVC would love if members would stop any form of renting, if anything because it would probably result in more breakage.

 

[Tatebeck]

Because, as DVC found out with the 2020 point charts fail, who wrote the original POS gave owners a lot of rights and guarantees. It was a time when Timeshare was a synonym of Scam and a big brand like Disney put a lot of reputation on the line creating their own timeshare. They're changing that and they're aligning to "industry standards". I may be mistaken, but RIV POS also includes the possibility to reallocate points across Units and the CFW POS explicitly say that points could be reallocated even across different resorts belonging to the same Use Plan (if there'll ever be others). That's why I wouldn't touch CFW with a bargepole, not only it has high MF; it might even have high point charts in the future.

Full disclaimer: I don't have a strong opinion about the 2011 rule and if it's the only relevant or not. I haven't studied all the docs enough.
What I am worried about is that DVC might use the issues with commercial renting to take away rights we currently have. I bet DVC would love if members would stop any form of renting, if anything because it would probably result in more breakage.

Definitely good points as well!

 

[Cyberc1978]

I know that the 2011 policy update says 20 reservations across memberships

However as far as I know we have never heard of enforcement of 20 reservations across memberships, only 20 reservations per membership - even when it was supposed to be across, only per membership was enforced.

What’s not to say that’s how enforcement still works? We keep hearing that nothing has changed policy wise and as far as we know only the checkbox is what have changed including the T&C.

I know we are only roughly 2 months in with the checkbox and T&C update and it might be too early to say but im leaning more and more towards its scare tactics and a hope that some owners will think twice before renting. The LLC’s won’t care a bit, it’s business as usual until further notice (or enforcement)

 

[Mouseforward]

I know that the 2011 policy update says 20 reservations across memberships

However as far as I know we have never heard of enforcement of 20 reservations across memberships, only 20 reservations per membership - even when it was supposed to be across, only per membership was enforced.

What’s not to say that’s how enforcement still works? We keep hearing that nothing has changed policy wise and as far as we know only the checkbox is what have changed including the T&C.

I know we are only roughly 2 months in with the checkbox and T&C update and it might be too early to say but im leaning more and more towards its scare tactics and a hope that some owners will think twice before renting. The LLC’s won’t care a bit, it’s business as usual until further notice (or enforcement)

Every time the website goes down I keep looking to see if we have a second checkbox asking if we are really really sure that it is for personal use.