Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[Cyberc1978]

This relates to an HOA and we are a COA…so honestly, not sure.

from what I can find online for COA the same applies. Rules need to be clear as unclear rules often causes problems.

We remind our clients that selective enforcement or unclear rules often cause more harm than the initial violation. If rules are not applied equally to all residents, legal challenges may follow.

https://www.tampalitigator.com/blog/understanding-the-legal-responsibilities-of-condo-associations/

IMO I don’t think we will see any update to the commercial use policy because as we have spoken about before any limitation to renting requires a vote - DVC knows that it will be pointless asking for a vote. Therefore they will keep the policy as is even if it’s unclear and enforce from there(if they enforce)

I’m pretty sure if the BOD is asked about enforcement they will claim they have done so, regardless of how little or how much enforcement they’ve done. We won’t be able to see any difference but that doesn’t mean enforcement haven’t been done. As members we won’t be able to proof either way - except something has been done.

 

[MICKIMINI]

"With friends" is different than "for friends", and "in villas with friends" is different than "at home" while a friend is in your villa. I think if you look at a timeshare like DVC logically, it's meant to be used as a personal use product for your family and friends who are vacationing with you at the same time. I don't think there's a person in the world who cares that you rent a 3BR grand villa and go with 5 of your family and 6 of your friends, or that you rent three 1 BR villa's and you're in one, and friends are in the other one. It's the people who have a product they almost never personally use, and suddenly their 12 aunts and 45 friends are basically the owners of the timeshare points that's questionable.

After covid, we let our son and DIL use points at Aulani, Poly, BWV and BLT. DH and I were caring for ourselves (a close colleague of DH's and his wife passed of covid so we were one breath away so to speak) as we both were sick though not hospitalized and caring for elderly parents that were sick as well (one went to ER). I don't even remember how many points we gifted them and no one seemed to care that we weren't there with them. If the policy of 2011 sticks, well there it is. We always gift them.

Sandi's point that the CM's are being put in a difficult position is valid. Totally unfair that the upper crust sit back and watch the mayhem as the front line people take the heat!

 

[Tatebeck]

I found this online.

I assume that this applies to DVC, but my legal knowledge in this area is none existent

If it does the rules that we members need to adhere to needs to be easy to understand. At best our updated terms and conditions is anything but easy to understand. We all understand the words but the context the should be understood with is very unclear. I’m referring to “frequent and regularly” renting is not allowed. We all have our own and different understanding what it means - that does not comply with the text below.

It states that HOA rules :To be enforceable, HOA rules should align with the association’s governing documents, comply with state and federal laws, follow the proper approval process, and be written in a way that is easy to understand and apply consistently.

Source: https://www.fsresidential.com/florida/news-events/articles/unenforceable-hoa-rules-in-florida/

Thoughts?

The rules are written in a way that is easy to understand. It is just that the rules themselves give DVC sole subjective control over what constitutes a pattern of commercial rental activity.

The rule boils down to: don't engage in any rental or rental-related activities that DVC thinks/feels is a commercial pattern.

So the rule itself is easy enough to understand. It's just that we don't know at what point DVC will feel a member is acting commercially, which gives them enormous power if they wish to use it. Probably by design and why they don't want to put in writing any hard limits on point number or percentage of points that can be rented.

 

[VGCgroupie]

The rules are written in a way that is easy to understand. It is just that the rules themselves give DVC sole subjective control over what constitutes a pattern of commercial rental activity.

The rule boils down to: don't engage in any rental or rental-related activities that DVC thinks/feels is a commercial pattern.

So the rule itself is easy enough to understand. It's just that we don't know at what point DVC will feel a member is acting commercially, which gives them enormous power if they wish to use it. Probably by design and why they don't want to put in writing any hard limits on point number or percentage of points that can be rented.

I used to think this. But reading the 2008/2011 update the way they define personal use, has me thinking its not as clear cut as it once was, it's as if it was written with two different policies imo. But it's just that, my opinion.

DVC Members may make as many reservations as they desire. However, if, in any 12-month period, a DVC Member desires to make more than 20 reservations, the DVC Member shall be required to establish, to the satisfaction of the Board, that all of the reservations made by the DVC Member in such 12-month period are for the use of accommodations by the DVC Member, the DVC Member’s family and/or the DVC Member’s friends (collectively, “Personal Use”), and not for commercial purposes. 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, all reservations in excess of the first 20 reservations shall be presumed to be the use of Vacation Accommodations for commercial purposes in violation of the Declaration and the Membership Agreement (the “Multiple Reservation Rule”).

 

[Tatebeck]

I used to think this. But reading the 2008/2011 update the way they define personal use, has me thinking its not as clear cut as it once was, it's as if it was written with two different policies imo. But it's just that, my opinion.

DVC Members may make as many reservations as they desire. However, if, in any 12-month period, a DVC Member desires to make more than 20 reservations, the DVC Member shall be required to establish, to the satisfaction of the Board, that all of the reservations made by the DVC Member in such 12-month period are for the use of accommodations by the DVC Member, the DVC Member’s family and/or the DVC Member’s friends (collectively, “Personal Use”), and not for commercial purposes. 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, all reservations in excess of the first 20 reservations shall be presumed to be the use of Vacation Accommodations for commercial purposes in violation of the Declaration and the Membership Agreement (the “Multiple Reservation Rule”).

What exactly about the different wordings do you feel makes them not mesh well together? I've looked at them all before but nothing jumped out at me as being crazy different.

 

[Sandisw]

The rules are written in a way that is easy to understand. It is just that the rules themselves give DVC sole subjective control over what constitutes a pattern of commercial rental activity.

The rule boils down to: don't engage in any rental or rental-related activities that DVC thinks/feels is a commercial pattern.

So the rule itself is easy enough to understand. It's just that we don't know at what point DVC will feel a member is acting commercially, which gives them enormous power if they wish to use it. Probably by design and why they don't want to put in writing any hard limits on point number or percentage of points that can be rented.

The rules that you can’t rent for commercial purposes is clear but if DVC doesn’t let owners know what that is, then how on earth are owners supposed to know what level of renting is and is not okay?

They have sole discretion to define and change it but that is not the same as saying they don’t have to adopt a policy to deal with it.

The only policy we have that defines it is the 2011 one and that really only discusses what happens if you exceed 20 reservations in a rolling 12 months.

I get that DVC may want it to be a moving target but as long as they keep secret from owners how they plan to define and enforce what frequently or regularly or occasionally renting looks like, outside of the official policy, then owners are forced to decide on their own what level of renting is okay.

And as long as individual owners are the ones defining it, then we are going to continue to see people doing all the same things.

I would think most members want DVC to be transparent with the rules so we can use our memberships, which includes being able to rent, appropriately.

ETA: Even owners that may want to see DVC crack down hard and/ or define it really narrowly should be expecting the same thing…be clear to owners if you want behaviors to stop.

 

[Sandisw]

I used to think this. But reading the 2008/2011 update the way they define personal use, has me thinking its not as clear cut as it once was, it's as if it was written with two different policies imo. But it's just that, my opinion.

DVC Members may make as many reservations as they desire. However, if, in any 12-month period, a DVC Member desires to make more than 20 reservations, the DVC Member shall be required to establish, to the satisfaction of the Board, that all of the reservations made by the DVC Member in such 12-month period are for the use of accommodations by the DVC Member, the DVC Member’s family and/or the DVC Member’s friends (collectively, “Personal Use”), and not for commercial purposes. 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, all reservations in excess of the first 20 reservations shall be presumed to be the use of Vacation Accommodations for commercial purposes in violation of the Declaration and the Membership Agreement (the “Multiple Reservation Rule”).

I posted the response earlier they gave me about this…that is there just as an example of what is appropriate under “personal use”. Meaning “family and friends” count as personal use,

The clause is also talking about what an owner needs to prove in order to book more than 20 and to distinguish it against the multiple reservations rule, which are the ones above 20.

But it got me thinking…and reading things again…and the point you brought to light the other day in how they use some of the same terms to mean slightly different things depending on the context it is being used.

For example, they use “commercial purpose” to define both what you can do while staying in the villa and to define what level of renting you are doing with your membership.

Same verbiage, but two different contexts and two different limitations.

 

[VGCgroupie]

What exactly about the different wordings do you feel makes them not mesh well together? I've looked at them all before but nothing jumped out at me as being crazy different.

I have read this before and it didn't really hit me, but when I read it again while comparing the 2008 to 2011 I realized this is the only instance I have seen personal use actually defined in any way. Has it been defined in any other documents that Im not remembering or haven't seen?