Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[Cyberc1978]

So if they were to say any renting is commercial, with the history of no enforcement for 30 plus years - I would not bet that it would hold up.

But if they had some objective, published guidelines, consistently enforced, like less than 20 rentals , not advertised, personal use by owner for the majority of the time... I would bet that it would hold up.

But I have had shocking decisions from arbitration in the past so who knows, and there is no chance this ends in court with the arbitration clause in the contract.

But we don’t have any published guidelines and for all we know little or no enforcement have taken place in those 30 years.

Also inconsistently or selectively enforcement of a rule looks to be illegal. If DVC thought that you rented too much and took action that would be fine, however if I at the same time rented just as much or more but DVC did nothing then it would be illegal.

All owners should be held to the same standard.

 

[Mouseforward]

wait a minute ... what is this " should not be purchased by any purchaser for resale" ... as of now, I've only seen discussion focused on renting your ownership interest but to me this clearly reads that you are not to purchase with the intent to SELL your ownership interest. (presumably for a profit) This would be the "flipping" part of the equation. This is incredibly simple to prove as the Orange County Comptroller provides a "print" button, and you can pull up an LLC's entire buy/sell history. Why isn't this being enforced? Some of these brokers own tens of thousands of their own points. They are NOT just matchmakers for other members. Add it to the list for the September meeting. Better yet ... I'll just bring the print outs with me to the meeting. I have one here on my desk, 428 buy/sell transactions ... in nobody's world is this personal use.

Because the entire section is simply saying, you can’t come after DVC if you didn’t profit off your resale or rentals. It’s making it very clear that there should be no expectation of making a profit off resale or the rental.

This goes back to the 80s and the 90s when timeshares were sold using that as a hook that you could rent it and make tons of money.

Any other use is out of context

 

[Genie+]

I wouldn’t say the contracts are ambiguous. Activity that DVC later allowed is what made them fuzzy and blurred the lines. Consistently throughout the contract it says this product is for personal use only and commercial use prohibited.

The ability to rent is also mentioned but in no way does the ‘ability to rent’ necessitate falling into the realm of commercial. Renting to recoup annual costs one year does not by itself determine whether it was personal or commercial use - the pattern of activity it is among does.

DVC continues being very discreet about what constitutes these patterns of activity.

I think DVC has alot more leeway on how strictly they can choose to enforce the existing contract wording. I’d guess their bigger problem is deciding where that line makes sense today while keeping in mind where they might want it in the future, while not creating legal issues from how they handled things in the past.

The more precise DVC gets, the less maneuverability retained. Management seems timid on where to put the scalpel. The history of DVC career ending mistakes doesn’t help.

I don’t know what to think. Are they just yelling louder threats, with no real plans to act? Then why bother drawing more attention in the first place… when they could’ve just quietly kept kicking the can down the road saying ‘not widespread’?

 

[mkatsy]

Because the entire section is simply saying, you can’t come after DVC if you didn’t profit off your resale or rentals. It’s making it very clear that there should be no expectation of making a profit off resale or the rental.

This goes back to the 80s and the 90s when timeshares were sold using that as a hook that you could rent it and make tons of money.

Any other use is out of context

While this particular verbiage was used out of context, the end result remains the same. Contracts are being purchased in large quantities with the sole intention of marking them up (to obtain a profit) and reselling them. This is a commercial enterprise and is expressly prohibited. This vacation product is for personal use only. If you require a private equity firm to fund your purchases … you are a commercial enterprise.

 

[Mouseforward]

While this particular verbiage was used out of context, the end result remains the same. Contracts are being purchased in large quantities with the sole intention of marking them up (to obtain a profit) and reselling them. This is a commercial enterprise and is expressly prohibited. This vacation product is for personal use only. If you require a private equity firm to fund your purchases … you are a commercial enterprise.

And DVC knows this how? With an LLC your funding is not public - and never mind attempting to prove what is the motivation of the seller.

You’re gonna have a very hard time, going after somebody who buys a cheap contract and sells it higher. Especially when contracts do tend to go up in value in certain circumstances.

 

[mkatsy]

And DVC knows this how? With an LLC your funding is not public - and never mind attempting to prove what is the motivation of the seller.

You’re gonna have a very hard time, going after somebody who buys a cheap contract and sells it higher. Especially when contracts do tend to go up in value in certain circumstances.

have you ever seen a contract go up $10,000 in 60 days … I have ETA: this is all public record, which I believe is highly suggestive that nobody at DVC cares to do anything about it.