Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[JBwahoo]

After reading this I'm so glad as an owner I've only ever rented my points through the other broker. All those contracts already specifically stated disease/pandemics in the no cancel clause. I'm a June use year and thankfully had mostly borrowed points for a renter's April reservation and was able to help them out with a re-scheduled reservation in the fall. But I was assured that even if I didn't, I'd still get paid my additional 25% even though the guest couldn't check in.

I think this may be the clause to which you are referring:

"[Broker] or the Member shall not be responsible for any injuries, damages, or losses caused to the Guest or Guest's travel party in connection with terrorist activities, social, or labor unrest, mechanical or construction failures or difficulties, diseases, local laws, climatic conditions, criminal acts or abnormal conditions or developments, or any other actions, omissions, or conditions outside the [Broker]'s or the Member's control."

Not a lawyer, though my read of this passage is that it is general liability re: don't try to sue us if you get sick while on your trip or if the monorail isn't working. This does not appear to be a force majeure clause, and certainly doesn't explicitly cover what happens if the broker is unable to provide the contracted service. Especially considering the next passage begins "Should accommodations not be available on date of arrival due to an action or omission by the Member, including but not limited to negligence on the part of the Member..."

I don't believe this will absolve them from not being able to deliver on the contract in a similar manner being discussed regarding David's and they'll face the same risks on chargebacks. I'd suspect there is less complaining here as this is an owner heavy part of the board, and from what I can tell this broker is still trying to make owners whole.

 

[merry_nbright]

I know one thing...I will never rent points again. We rented points last July with David’s; they are APR 2020 use year, so we’re ok that way. But I don’t like the thought of entering into *another* contract with Davids, since the original one was basically meaningless. The ppl who rented the points want to travel again, but outside our use year, so we can’t really help them with a new ressie, unless I borrowed points. I’ve agonized so much over all of this, I really would like to just forfeit the 30% and walk away. Instead of re-renting the original points to David’s, I’d rather donate them to a nurse who is working in a COVID unit. If anyone deserves some Disney Magic, they do. What a mess.

I’m a nanny for two doctors. One pediatrician, one is working in the ICU. It’s REALLY rough out there. I’ve never seen my boss so worn down. They really DO deserve it.

 

[Galun]

While I usually follow your posts I am lost here.
How does a small claims or other US court 'accept' or 'not accept' a filed case?

So no matter who files you agree that filing in FL - a non exclusive jurisdiction - would replace Canadian and/or Ontario law with US law/

The amounts we are talking about for reservation is probably a couple thousand each. Solidly small claims court territory. My understanding is that small claims in the US is basically a state law, and has to be filed in the county where the defendant reside, generally speaking.

I'd think it's cost prohibitive for David's to file hundreds or thousands of small claims, hire process servers to serve the defendant, and physically appear as plaintiff. Not gonna happen. Best he can do is to hold on to the 30% he has not released yet, then you as the owner has to go sue him to get it back (if he won't volunteer to give it back to you).

I personally don't read his mentioning of lawyer as a threat, but some owners will see it that way and send money back. He is in survival mode. I don't think goodwill matters when you don't know if you are a going concern.

 

[New Mouse]

We just received the same exact letter and are going over it now.

So you give us back cash....and we give the renter a gift certificate? How does that make sense.

 

[Amymouse13]

So you give us back cash....and we give the renter a gift certificate? How does that make sense.

And why renters are like bye Felicia... Chargebacks please. He might as well offer Monopoly money.

Makes great sense for him, get 70% back in cash, keep 30%, give renter empty promises... And when they happily sign the voucher they sign away their rights if Disney is still closed or closes again...

 

[Yinn]

So you give us back cash....and we give the renter a gift certificate? How does that make sense.

Just hear me out. It’s a new business idea.

From here on out, when you’re looking for a DVC rental we’re going to need full payment upfront. If we don’t have a match, we’ll issue you a voucher for when we have the points available.

For owners, on the day of check in, we’ll give you an IOU and a commission free rental on your next rental.

it’ll work. Trust me

 

[DGsAtBLT]

I understand David might be deleting negative posts. But when I see 100% positive posts there and 100% negative posts somewhere else, I wonder if both are deleting what suits them. Remember, the other major rental company is owned by these boards and I'm not seeing anything negative about them. Just saying.

I appreciate a good scandal, but as someone who has been following most rental threads that have popped up very closely and had a vested interest in this, there has occasionally been positive comments made about David’s, they have not been deleted to make DVC store (that’s the sponsor one, right?) look better as you’re implying. They’re just few and far (FAR!) between since there really is not much good to say at this point.

Again as someone with a vested interest I have also closely been watching Davids Facebook page. They have deleted countless “negative” comments. Most are not even negative, just asking the hard questions they don’t want to answer publicly. They also disabled their entire review portion of their page after it was being filled with negative review after negative review. I believe I counted about 10 in a row before they disabled them and this was mid March I believe, so before all this really sunk in.

Okay, now back to my catching up on this thread. I’m a little behind so I may be repeating someone else.

 

[LAX]

I would have bent over backwards to honor such a request. I did honor that same request with my current affected renter. In this case, the broker has asked for help directly related to both the issue at hand and my particular renter.

David’s started out this way asking owners to “listen to their hearts” but he has moved on to using the threat of lawyers as a coercion prop.

By and large most owners want to help out, and most renters I think would be reasonable about finding a solution. Had David’s matched up as many of them as possible, the outliers would have been more manageable and he probably would have been able to save his business.

Now, he’s just encouraged otherwise willing owners to dig in their heels and otherwise willing renters to call their CC companies seeking redress they won’t find at David’s.

IMHO, David's first misstep in handling this situation was unilaterally withholding the 30% of payment from owners on reservations during the initial phase of closure. That happened despite of a prominent claim on his website that "owners get paid regardless of whether the renters check in or not" (paraphrase). Now I understand the difference between not having a reservation for renters to check in vs. renters not checking in voluntarily, but it's immaterial to the owners.

If David's were to make the payment as promised and then followed up with a request to help out those affected by closure, I honestly think the response from most owners would be much different. Instead, there is now so much distrust between the owners and David's that even if the voucher system were to work if enough owners cooperated, it won't play out because owners have been put in such defensive position that all they can think about are either to dig themselves out of this mess and/or try helping out their hapless renters.

LAX

 

[Amymouse13]

IMHO, David's first misstep in handling this situation was unilaterally withholding the 30% of payment from owners on reservations during the initial phase of closure. That happened despite of a prominent claim on his website that "owners get paid regardless of whether the renters check in or not" (paraphrase). Now I understand the difference between not having a reservation for renters to check in vs. renters not checking in voluntarily, but it's immaterial to the owners.

If David's were to make the payment as promised and then followed up with a request to help out those affected by closure, I honestly think the response from most owners would be much different. Instead, there is now so much distrust between the owners and David's that even if the voucher system were to work if enough owners cooperated, it won't play out because owners have been put in such defensive position that all they can think about are either to dig themselves out of this mess and/or try helping out their hapless renters.

LAX

Well yeah, they have seemed to change course over and over, so like maybe they should have consulted with a real lawyer before saying anything...

 

[CarolMN]

I understand David might be deleting negative posts. But when I see 100% positive posts there and 100% negative posts somewhere else, I wonder if both are deleting what suits them. Remember, the other major rental company is owned by these boards and I'm not seeing anything negative about them. Just saying.

No one on the DIS is deleting posts about the DIS DVC Boards sponsor. Your implication is unfounded.

As a DVC Mod, I very much resent the implication! If you ever bothered to read the pinned threads, you'd know that the DIS advertisers have no influence over how the boards are run.

To the best of my recollection, this is the only recent thread that asked about the DVC Store (aka The Timeshare Store):

DVC Rentals through the DVC Store- Anyone Been Impacted?

None of the replies to that thread have been deleted.

The only posts that are ever deleted from the DIS are the ones that violate the Posting Guidelines.

 

[LAX]

Well yeah, they have seemed to change course over and over, so like maybe they should have consulted with a real lawyer before saying anything...

I honestly think a real lawyer would not have made much of a difference other than may be help him avoid sending those bonehead emails to some owners demanding return of payments. What he needed was some goodwill/luck to convince enough owners to bail him out. It may be difficult for owners that would end up getting stuck with expiring points, but there may be just enough salvageable points to make his voucher system work.

If owners knew he/she would be getting the 30% payment, I imagine many would be much more open to adjusting reservations to help out. He first whiffed with the contract. Then, he whiffed on handling of this situation. One more strike and he is out (maybe he is already on his way back to to dugout or perhaps out of the stadium!).

LAX

 

[Sandisw]

No one on the DIS is deleting posts about the DIS DVC Boards sponsor. Your implication is unfounded.

As a DVC Mod, I very much resent the implication! If you ever bothered to read the pinned threads, you'd know that the DIS advertisers have no influence over how the boards are run.

To the best of my recollection, this is the only recent thread that asked about the DVC Store (aka The Timeshare Store):

DVC Rentals through the DVC Store- Anyone Been Impacted?

None of the replies to that thread have been deleted.

The only posts that are ever deleted from the DIS are the ones that violate the Posting Guidelines.

Agree!

 

[CraigInPA]

While I usually follow your posts I am lost here.
How does a small claims or other US court 'accept' or 'not accept' a filed case?

So no matter who files you agree that filing in FL - a non exclusive jurisdiction - would replace Canadian and/or Ontario law with US law/

When one goes to the courthouse to file a case, the clerk of the court will ascertain whether you are filing in the correct venue. For example, in small claims there is a maximum amount of money that can be the basis of the suit. If you go over that, you need to go to common pleas. For international disputes, you need to go to a Federal court. I think it's highly unlikely that the US clerk would accept a case which specifies that the law to be followed is the law of Ontario and Canada, because that is what is specified in the contract. Even if the clerk accepted it, the defendant would merely have to file an objection to venue and choice of law, and the judge would summarily dismiss the case. No US judge is going to hear a case based upon Canadian law, and cannot enforce a contract based upon the supposition that US and Canadian laws are substantively similar and therefore the change of venue is inconsequential. If both parties agree to amend the contract to allow it to be heard in a US court, that changes the situation. However, I don't see any defendant making it easier for the plaintiff to sue him.

No, I do not agree. The contract is specific whose laws are to be followed. The next sentence provides the non-exclusive jurisdiction. They are separate. It's merely a guess, but I believe the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause was put in there to allow David's to file against other Canadians in small claims courts anywhere in Canada.

 

[ziravan]

I only have 3 rentals this year. One was for April that has been rescheduled for Fall. One in the Fall (which I’ve already rescheduled because her child scheduled a wedding during her original booking). And one for early June.

Early June owner reached out and asked to cancel/refund today. Doesn’t believe park will be open and doesn’t want it hanging over her during a bad time. My contract says no refunds. Points are June UY points at the beginning of their year. I told her I’d give her a full refund.

For years, I’ve argued that a private owner with whom you have a good relationship is more secure than a broker because a private owner can afford to be more flexible and flexibility matters, more so when things go sideways. I feel fairly vindicated on that point.

(I’m not looking for new renters, for the record. I have another frequent renter already put dibs on those points if I don’t use them myself, which I probably will.)

 

[Marionnette]

David's DVC is most likely set up as an LLC which means only the company assets are at risk (none of the owners property can be seized or taken to repay debt) , since this company does not manufacture any product and most likely only consists of employees, leased office space and equipment the only real asset of any value would be David's Goodwill. Right now his company is trying to maneuver thru this to save the goodwill since if it declares bankruptcy they will have to start from scratch and build the business back up which has taken them years to get to where they are now.

According to the BBB, David’s Vacation Club Rentals (dvcbyrequest.com) is set up as a sole proprietorship with 26 employees.
https://www.bbb.org/ca/on/london/profile/vacation-rentals/davids-vacation-club-rentals-0187-1049496

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

According to the BBB, David’s Vacation Club Rentals (dvcbyrequest.com) is set up as a sole proprietorship with 26 employees.
https://www.bbb.org/ca/on/london/profile/vacation-rentals/davids-vacation-club-rentals-0187-1049496

So, does that mean all of David's personal assets are at risk if the company goes bankrupt? If so, that goes a long way in explaining the way they've handled this situation (i.e., self-preservation).

 

[Marionnette]

So, does that mean all of David's personal assets are at risk if the company goes bankrupt? If so, that goes a long way in explaining the way they've handled this situation (i.e., self-preservation).

I’m not an attorney and I know nothing about Canadian bankruptcy laws. But I do know that our little 5-employee business was set up as an LLC and not as a sole proprietorship for the exact purpose of protecting our personal assets in the event of a lawsuit.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

I’m not an attorney and I know nothing about Canadian bankruptcy laws. But I do know that our little 5-employee business was set up as an LLC and not as a sole proprietorship for the exact purpose of protecting our personal assets in the event of a lawsuit.

I was familiar with LLCs being created largely for that protection, which is why I assume that NOT being an LLC means they don't have that protection. But just curious if anyone knows for certain.

 

[Dracula]

I was familiar with LLCs being created largely for that protection, which is why I assume that NOT being an LLC means they don't have that protection. But just curious if anyone knows for certain.

The LLC option is not available in Canada. Owners would need to incorporate, setting up a corporation. It is easier to operate as a sole proprietorship - but then the business is considered to be an extension of the owner, and as such the owner is personally responsible for any debts or liabilities incurred by the business. In other words, when you're dealing with David's, you're really dealing with David.

 

[DisneyBB]

Is there anywhere in the contract that says we cannot contact the renters directly? I want to just contact them and say that I am willing to change their reservation but it is time dependent.