Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

Why not? Do you think there is a higher than 25% chance that the resort will close? Because you are giving up saving $600 to not risk losing $2200.

The only thing that changed was the newly exposed chance of loss with extended resort shut down due to pandemic. Again, company wide resort shutdown happened three times in the history of Disney prior to this, and each time for one day. Last major pandemic was the Spanish flu in 1918. We are talking about hundred year events here.

If contracts stated you'd lose the money if resorts closed, I am not convinced as many renters would view $600 savings as worth it, especially if you add in getting CFAR insurance,

Remember, a hurricane can damage resorts in a Florida ..so could a fire...

My opinion is that this event will make renters take pause, and what might have been an acceptable risk before this, may not going forward.
 
Question about the credit and chargebacks.. is my ultimate goal is to rebook, the credit is fine for me as long as I get to use it. It doesn’t really matter to me which owner I am renting with. Are people just worried that David’s will go out of business and that’s why the credit isn’t a good option for them and they would prefer a chargeback?

In my opinion, that is part of it. But, given all that is happening, those vouchers require David to have enough owners willing to still use him to offer points for the reservation,

Right now, renters will have difficulty getting any reservation before January, simply because of normal DVC availability. Add in lots of owners rescheduling vacations, it’s pretty slim.

I can only speak for myself, but I won’t use hm again to rent points. The fact that he has asked owners not to try to work with the renters to help has made some owners weary.
 
If contracts stated you'd lose the money if resorts closed, I am not convinced as many renters would view $600 savings as worth it, especially if you add in getting CFAR insurance,

Remember, a hurricane can damage resorts in a Florida ..so could a fire...

My opinion is that this event will make renters take pause, and what might have been an acceptable risk before this, may not going forward.
Yes. Most people don’t have the cash reserves to price risk appropriately. They are gun shy. Its quite well researched. Its also well established that people are terrible at estimating the probability of low probability events, particularly when they’ve experienced them once.

This experience would undoubtedly hurt DVC sale, resale, and rental even without the recession due to the perception of significant added risk. The question isn’t if but for how long.
 
If contracts stated you'd lose the money if resorts closed, I am not convinced as many renters would view $600 savings as worth it, especially if you add in getting CFAR insurance,

Remember, a hurricane can damage resorts in a Florida ..so could a fire...

My opinion is that this event will make renters take pause, and what might have been an acceptable risk before this, may not going forward.

Absolutely. The ease of booking and cancelling with Disney is of utmost importance to us now. TBH I don’t really have it in me for a make up trip planned a year out again either with how this one turned out.

As somewhat of an aside, out of all the various companies we had to work with here, Disney was excellent (with tickets), the airline was mediocre but expected, and an unexpected standout was Kingdom Strollers, who made cancelling very easy (maybe it always is, I don’t know) and was really easy to communicate with when a refund issue came up on our end.
 

What do the purchase price of points have to do with anything? With that huge chunk of change they’ve also purchased decades of points on top of this relatively small amount in question. We’re veering towards that weird territory again where it’s implied that owners are doing renters a favour renting their points out, as if they see no benefit too. Mutually beneficial relationship.

I thought we had moved past all this and we all united in our annoyance with the middle man lol.
Because the purchase price of the contract factors into the value of every point.

The owner paid a pretty price for their contracts. There’s a lost cost opportunity for those dollars spent. There may have been loans or mortgages which inflated the original cost per point over the original purchase price. That’s the risk the owner took.

The renter’s share of the risk is when they roll the dice and choose to rent DVC, knowing that they are not entitled to a refund or change if things go upside-down for them.

As @Matty B13 stated, if you don’t like the terms, don’t rent. Buy your own contract instead.
 
Because the purchase price of the contract factors into the value of every point.

The owner paid a pretty price for their contracts. There’s a lost cost opportunity for those dollars spent. There may have been loans or mortgages which inflated the original cost per point over the original purchase price. That’s the risk the owner took.

The renter’s share of the risk is when they roll the dice and choose to rent DVC, knowing that they are not entitled to a refund or change if things go upside-down for them.

As @Matty B13 stated, if you don’t like the terms, don’t rent. Buy your own contract instead.

There’s two sides to this. If you don’t like the position renting out your points has put you in don’t rely on it to cover your costs. Only buy what you will use. Let your points expire. Etc. Putting the blame on the renters and owners in a situation where both protected themselves as best as they could have doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. On both sides many did everything right yet here we are in an unprecedented situation where the usual precautions and protections aren’t enough.

I also think its deceptive to look at the entire purchase price when you’re talking about a relatively small portion of that cost related to the amount of points in question as well as the related dues. And the vibe that owners don’t see benefit from these transactions.

If anything I think this has exposed a lot on both sides of the equation.
 
Because the purchase price of the contract factors into the value of every point.

The owner paid a pretty price for their contracts. There’s a lost cost opportunity for those dollars spent. There may have been loans or mortgages which inflated the original cost per point over the original purchase price. That’s the risk the owner took.

The renter’s share of the risk is when they roll the dice and choose to rent DVC, knowing that they are not entitled to a refund or change if things go upside-down for them.

As @Matty B13 stated, if you don’t like the terms, don’t rent. Buy your own contract instead.
Except as a renter the David's contract stipulates you are entitled to a refund if accommodations are not available on day of check in. The risk the renter was accepting was outside of those parameters
 
/
There’s two sides to this. If you don’t like the position renting out your points has put you in don’t rely on it to cover your costs. Only buy what you will use. Let your points expire. Etc. Putting the blame on the renters and owners in a situation where both protected themselves as best as they could have doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. On both sides many did everything right yet here we are in an unprecedented situation where the usual precautions and protections aren’t enough.

I also think its deceptive to look at the entire purchase price when you’re talking about a relatively small portion of that cost related to the amount of points in question as well as the related dues. And the vibe that owners don’t see benefit from these transactions.

If anything I think this has exposed a lot on both sides of the equation.
It’s not “deceptive” to look at what those points costs the owner. If I buy a ton of bananas and I sell you a pound of bananas, that pound of bananas still has value. I think it’s disingenuous to imply that those points lack any value because they represent only a fraction of what the owner paid for their contracts.
 
Except as a renter the David's contract stipulates you are entitled to a refund if accommodations are not available on day of check in. The risk the renter was accepting was outside of those parameters
That’s on David’s, not the owners. I’m sure that their lawyers are rewriting the terms for future rental agreements. Your issue is with how David’s wrote the agreement you have. It’s not with an owner who is being denied the opportunity to interface with the renter directly. But that’s why both parties went thru a middleman to being with - to distance themselves from each other and to provide a semblance of a guarantee that their money is safe.
 
It’s not “deceptive” to look at what those points costs the owner. If I buy a ton of bananas and I sell you a pound of bananas, that pound of bananas still has value. I think it’s disingenuous to imply that those points lack any value because they represent only a fraction of what the owner paid for their contracts.

Im not denying their value nor am I arguing that owners should be refunding renters no matter the circumstances, but if you buy 50 years (not always 50 as you know, but for the ease of this conversation) worth of bananas and compare your paid price of 50 years of them when you are only selling me one years worth, that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Owners are not taking a financial loss renting their points. Bringing up the entire DVC purchase price instead of the dues related to those points used as well as their portion of the buy in is deceptive. There are 49 years of bananas the owner is still getting. Throughout these threads it has been implied from time to time that owners are doing renters a favour by giving them a sweet deal after shelling out thousands of thousands themselves. It is not done without benefit to both parties.
 
I agree that the contract you signed is between you and David’s, just as the contract that the renter signed is between David’s and the renter. If David’s has accepted that the contract between the owner and him has been completed based on his contract language then I agree that the owner has no further obligation to do anything.

I'm quoting you, other posters have made the same INCORRECT observation.
The rental agreement drafted by David's is between the owner (member) and renter. It is electronically signed by both the renter and member. The member is accepting that contract when they accept payment. A poster doesn't believe the contract was legally executed by the owner. As part of the agreement David's acts as the intermediary with respect to payment.

From David's website
This electronic agreement is made the ?? day of ????, ???? by and between YOU and YOUR OTHER (together “Renter”) and MEMBER and MEMBER (together “Member”) by ME ("Intermediary" ........

Agreed and accepted on the date first shown above.


YOU
Renter


YOUR OTHER
Renter


MEMBER
Member


MEMBER
Member
 
Renters aren't getting what they paid for. Points are going back to owners and they have already received 70% of the value of those points. If points are expiring and are not usable and can't be banked that's one thing, but I am going to guess owners can do something with those points. Hopefully owners are willing to work with renters since they have paid 100% to David's and right now they have nothing to show for it.
I think in the main, owners ARE willing to work with renters to recover their vacations or their money.

I think most owners ARE NOT willing to abrogate the deal they made just to keep David’s out of bankruptcy.

Depending on the time frame of the points, I would certainly refund or rebook my renter (and as a private transaction owner, I did exactly that with the one renter affected by an April trip.)

There’s no way I’d do either (refund or rebook) if all my renter will get is a likely useless voucher. And, there is no way I’d rebook through David’s for anyone without being paid my remaining 30% at the time of the new booking.
 
Last edited:
I'm quoting you, other posters have made the same INCORRECT observation.
The rental agreement drafted by David's is between the owner (member) and renter. It is electronically signed by both the renter and member. The member is accepting that contract when they accept payment. A poster doesn't believe the contract was legally executed by the owner. As part of the agreement David's acts as the intermediary with respect to payment.

From David's website
This electronic agreement is made the ?? day of ????, ???? by and between YOU and YOUR OTHER (together “Renter”) and MEMBER and MEMBER (together “Member”) by ME ("Intermediary" ........

Agreed and accepted on the date first shown above.


YOU
Renter


YOUR OTHER
Renter



MEMBER
Member


MEMBER
Member

The renters do not pay any funds to the individual owners. All payments to the owners come from David’s. Unless cash is paid directly to the owners you don’t have a contract with them. Owners are renting points to David’s. David’s state the contracts they have are with the owners and the owners have no contract with the renters.

David’s are also accepting their contract will owners have been completed to their satisfaction. Renters trying to make a claim against owners have no chance in succeeding. It’s like a customer trying to sue Boeing because a flight has been Cancelled.
 
Last edited:
The renters do not pay any funds to the individual owners. All payments to the owners come from David’s. Unless cash is paid directly to the owners you don’t have a contract with them. Owners are renting points to David’s. David’s state the contracts they have are with the owners and the owners have no contract with the renters.

David’s are also accepting their contract will owners have been completed to their satisfaction. Renters trying to make a claim against owners have no chance in succeeding. It’s like a customer trying to sue Boeing because a flight has been Cancelled.
Read my prior post. I quoted sections from the rental agreement between the owner and renter. The fact that the owner has asked David's to facilitate payment doesn't change the fact that the actual rental agreement is between the owner and renter. By your logic an purchase paid with paypal would become a sale between paypal and the buyer and not the actual seller.
 
Read my prior post. I quoted sections from the rental agreement between the owner and renter. The fact that the owner has asked David's to facilitate payment doesn't change the fact that the actual rental agreement is between the owner and renter. By your logic an purchase paid with paypal would become a sale between paypal and the buyer and not the actual seller.
Which financial institution processes a transfer of cash has nothing to do with the contract. David’s is the party owners have a contract with and the payment comes from him. If the contract was with the renter they would pay the owner directly using PayPal. Renters don’t even have contact details for the owner.

Renters have no chance of making any successful claim against an owner.
 
Owners are not taking a financial loss renting their points.

That is factually incorrect in many cases. Today, you'll pay $225 per point for BLT. It has 40 years to go, making the per year cost $5.63 per point year. Maintenance fees for 2020 are $6.58. Adding these together, you get $12.21. But, that's not all. You also have to factor in lost opportunity cost for the initial investment. If you assume a 5% return each year over 40 years, that adds an additional $39.64 over the 40 years, or $0.99. That brings the total up to $13.20.

David's deposit is $10.15, which represents a loss to the owner if the final payment is not made. If the final payment is made, the owner would gross $1.30. That's considered income in the eyes of the IRS, so you need to pay interest on it. But, you don't get to pay only on the $1.30. You need to pay on the total income ($14.50) minus the maintenance fees ($6.58), or $7.92 gross profit. Assuming you're in a 22% tax rate (AGI under $84k), you'll be paying $1.74 in taxes. Subtracting the $1.74 from your income of $1.30 leaves you paying $0.40 per point for the rental, not making any profit at all.

Of course, not everyone has paid $225 per point for BLT. Some paid as little as $90 per point and got 50 years. But, asserting that all owners are not taking a loss is fallacious.
 
Read my prior post. I quoted sections from the rental agreement between the owner and renter. The fact that the owner has asked David's to facilitate payment doesn't change the fact that the actual rental agreement is between the owner and renter. By your logic an purchase paid with paypal would become a sale between paypal and the buyer and not the actual seller.

Actually, it is a 3 party contract, which you'd see if you looked closely as it includes David's as "intermediary". In addition, there are two additional contracts involved. You need to look at this as a whole, not ignore what doesn't suit your narrative. The other two contracts are clear in what David's role is to be. There is no argument that both of those contracts are still binding. Those contracts require David's to fully pay the owner and procure a reservation for the renter or provide a refund. The 3 party contract David's is saying is "void" because David's chose not to include a force majeure clause which would have covered this issue. But, that's just David's opinion and he has a vested interest in it going away because he drafted that agreement, so any fault in the agreement goes against him. The claim by a renter that the owner is solely responsible ignores the fault of the intermediary, and is not consistent with the language in the contract. Furthermore, the owners have only 53% of the money paid by the renter. So, renters will not win in court going solely after the owner listed on their contract. They need to include David's, and David's will be counter-sued by the owner for the remaining payment. The resulting case will likely establish liability to David's, not the owner.
 
Why not? Do you think there is a higher than 25% chance that the resort will close? Because you are giving up saving $600 to not risk losing $2200.

The only thing that changed was the newly exposed chance of loss with extended resort shut down due to pandemic. Again, company wide resort shutdown happened three times in the history of Disney prior to this, and each time for one day. Last major pandemic was the Spanish flu in 1918. We are talking about hundred year events here.
There are better bio-labs out there creating new viruses all the time. What used to be 100 year event, could be a bit more frequent. The world is changing quickly.
 
Has anyone actually seen anything on the credit we're due to be issued? My check in date for Aulani is 4/18 and while I can log into the Aulani website and see I have a reservation with a confirmation number, they are very clearly closed. I already received refunds for luau, Pearl Harbor, my upgrades for my flight (still working on figuring out what's up on the base ticket), and yet NOTHING came from David's. Originally I thought I would be a jerk if I issued a chargeback on my credit card, but is now the time to go ahead and do that? A week at Aulani is some serious money even on David's and I would like to recoupe my almost 4700 dollars that I paid in advance last September. I am starting to feel like over the next few years booking ahead isn't going to be something that people really will be able to do (I foresee scheduled lock downs on certain areas as cases flare up and need to be contained) so being a planner will be out the window. A business that thrives on people making requests 11-6 months out from check in dates won't be able to handle people saying "I just don't want to risk not having where I want to go be open". Any suggestions?

We had a check-in date of 3/21 for AKL at WDW - and as of yesterday an email from David's said they are still working out details on how the credit will work. They said it will probably be another couple of weeks until they have details. I was informed that it is a one-time credit use and if there are other closures we won't be able to reschedule or transfer the credit again.
 
That is factually incorrect in many cases. Today, you'll pay $225 per point for BLT. It has 40 years to go, making the per year cost $5.63 per point year. Maintenance fees for 2020 are $6.58. Adding these together, you get $12.21. But, that's not all. You also have to factor in lost opportunity cost for the initial investment. If you assume a 5% return each year over 40 years, that adds an additional $39.64 over the 40 years, or $0.99. That brings the total up to $13.20.

David's deposit is $10.15, which represents a loss to the owner if the final payment is not made. If the final payment is made, the owner would gross $1.30. That's considered income in the eyes of the IRS, so you need to pay interest on it. But, you don't get to pay only on the $1.30. You need to pay on the total income ($14.50) minus the maintenance fees ($6.58), or $7.92 gross profit. Assuming you're in a 22% tax rate (AGI under $84k), you'll be paying $1.74 in taxes. Subtracting the $1.74 from your income of $1.30 leaves you paying $0.40 per point for the rental, not making any profit at all.

Of course, not everyone has paid $225 per point for BLT. Some paid as little as $90 per point and got 50 years. But, asserting that all owners are not taking a loss is fallacious.

Even those for whom renting does not cover their costs, they are still financially better off renting than not assuming they would not be using the points. If they do not rent them at all and let them go stale or give them away, they are still paying those same costs.

My point being, this is a beneficial relationship on both sides. Neither is doing the other a favour. Renters don’t really need to be grateful owners take the plunge to be DVC members anymore than owners need to be grateful renters are there to lessen their costs of owning. We’re all benefiting from each other. Off course the owner laid out a lot more financially, if renters are using 1 year of points on a 50 year contract (for example) they are only purchasing 2% of that owners points.
 



















DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top