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.

 

[Sandisw]

An idea so nice, I wish I could like it twice.

This seems logistically impossible and, unless I am not understanding you, is not how the law works. And honest misunderstanding of the contract is not a defense to breaching it unless it is reasonable, and I’ve seen a lot of unreasonable takes on the commercial renting threads over the past two months.

They have clearly set themselves up to enforce against anyone they believe is regularly and frequently renting as well as LLCs renting to guests— why they haven’t is anybody’s guests— and I agree with you we deserve better than the uncertain (and I would add lax to zero enforcement).

Did you share where they said you can rent to anyone, not just friends and family you know personally? I looked at the attachments you referenced last time and didn’t see it in there. If I missed it, my sincere apologies, hopefully someone will point it out to me. I’m on the member cruise with family and following less closely than usual.

Hopefully we all agree on this, except the people getting rich as DVC landlords.

I posted the exact quote a few times. Here it is again.

“Occasional renting is okay and when you rent occasionally and it’s not a pattern, you can rent to anyone. It’s not just limited to family and friends.”


What I meant by interpretation was that some things quoted in the contract can indeed be seen to mean different things to different people.

For example, my definition of what “frequently and regularly renting looks like in the context of commercial may not be the same as yours or the next owners, or even what and how DVC has interpreted it in the past.

So if one owner thinks that frequently or regularly is every month year after year, and another thinks that it should be a few times ever few years or only in emergencies, both are nothing more than opinions that could be correct until DVC says, through actions or words, that it is not.

As I said, the more vague they are, the better it is for them and honestly for the professional renters because until DVC says something is not allowed or is considered commercial activities that violate the contract, then people have to make their own decisions as to what is reasonable

Take spec renting…some believe there is already language that DVC could use to stop it…but since DVC gets to decide how to define commercial, if they do decide to continue to let owners do it, it certainly implies they have decided it doesn’t meet the standard or that they don’t interpret the contract the same way as those owners.

Which means, only DVCs interpretation of where spec renting falls matters.

So, we come back to ambiguity and vagueness in rules and as an owner, I am never going to be okay with giving DVC a pass to keep things from owners if they are enforcing elements of the contract.

The good news for me is that all the information they have given me lately leads me to believe that whatever happens moving forward in this area will be communicated to owners in some way.