Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[VivalaDisney]

He decided that trying to limit the anger of owners by not telling them they were legally obligated to return the money for rentals during the resort closures was best for his business.

I disagree with this statement. Under the signed contracts between David's and the owners, (which was prepared by David's), owners were not legally obligated to return money for rentals during the resort closures.

 

[Dean Marino]

Thanks for all the responses. I called Chase about my Reserve card earlier today and they said I wouldn't get anything back if David's goes under (Chase says they don't cover insolvency of a business or the pandemic). For those who got a chargeback credit, I think it only happened when the the resort is actually closed.

Hopefully, David's stays liquid enough to last through Dec. Otherwise, I may be SOL. And I would definitely NOT take a credit voucher!! I had a Royal Caribbean cancel my cruise in June, and I took the money and ran!

If this is indeed what Chase told you? While I hate to say this.... CANCEL with David's. Immediately do a chargeback BEFORE insolvency is declared .

My dear wife once had to deal with a bankrupt Employer . So much goes WRONG, once a formal declaration is made .

 

[Brianstl]

I disagree with this statement. Under the signed contracts between David's and the owners, (which was prepared by David's), owners were not legally obligated to return money for rentals during the resort closures.

The contract clearly states that you are renting out points that represent accommodations. When the resort was closed by Disney on your behalf (Disney closed the resort on your behalf by the power you sign over to them) those

accommodations were not available.​

The contract clearly states when that happens all funds received have to be returned.

 

[Sandisw]

The contract clearly states that you are renting out points that represent accommodations. When the resort was closed by Disney on your behalf (Disney closed the resort on your behalf by the power you sign over to them) those
accommodations were not available.
The contract clearly states when that happens all funds received have to be returned.

Many have shared that the contract with David's and the renter says that. But, the contract with the owner says that they are to get 70% when the reservation is made and that the rest is there when check in happens...which did not, which is why David's kept it.

Seems to be inconsistent opinions by those with law experience that since David's contract with the owner is vague and it does not clearly state what happens with a resort closure....unless its a fault of the owner. Some might argue that it is also unclear if DVCM, as a third party, can be used to say it was the owner. I started out feeling like you did and through responses from more experience legal minds, I have since changed my mind that I am not sure.

I think David's chose not to go after owners for one reason because I think it would force him to give renters back money vs. voucher. Clearly, the renters were entitled to a cash refund if he wants to claim the owner was at fault...which is what he would have to do to hold them liable for returning the 70%.

 

[VivalaDisney]

The contract clearly states that you are renting out points that represent accommodations. When the resort was closed by Disney on your behalf (Disney closed the resort on your behalf by the power you sign over to them) those
accommodations were not available.
The contract clearly states when that happens all funds received have to be returned.

The pre-COVID contract between David's and the owner does not "clearly state" that when the resorts close, the owners have to return all funds. For contracts of adhesion especially, the rule of contra proferentem should be applied. In other words, ambiguous wording of the contract is construed against the drafter. This contract was written by David's, and offered to owners on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I'm not a Canadian attorney, but I understand this rule applies there too.

 

[Brianstl]

The pre-COVID contract between David's and the owner does not "clearly state" that when the resorts close, the owners have to return all funds. For contracts of adhesion especially, the rule of contra proferentem should be applied. In other words, ambiguous wording of the contract is construed against the drafter. This contract was written by David's, and offered to owners on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I'm not a Canadian attorney, but I understand this rule applies there too.

The person renting out the points is unable to provide the accommodations. When you can’t provide the goods or services promised in the contract you have defaulted. You don’t get to keep the money. Plus the contract that owners signed with David’s clearly states....

"The DVC Owner further agrees with the Intermediary to make full restitution to the Intermediary and a guest with an active reservation for any and all costs related to a cancellation of that reservation caused by or relating to the failure of the DVC Owner to honour the reservation or otherwise not comply with any obligation or responsibility of the DVC Owner under this agreement including, without limitation, any legal fees, costs and expenses associated with the collection of said costs."

Before you state the DVC owner didn’t cancel the reservation resulting in the reservation not being honored, legally the DVC owner did cancel the reservation. Disney was acting legally on your behalf as the property owner when they canceled the reservations through the power you assigned them when you bought your share of the property.

 

[AZMermaid]

I just wonder what percent of David’s customers are onto his games. Obviously we on this thread are, but we are probably a small fraction of his clientele. I‘d bet there are a good number of people out there thrilled (okay, satisfied) with his voucher... until he can’t rebook them. I dont think many people overall are considering charging back because of the voucher.

 

[CraigInPA]

The contract clearly states that you are renting out points that represent accommodations. When the resort was closed by Disney on your behalf (Disney closed the resort on your behalf by the power you sign over to them) those
accommodations were not available.
The contract clearly states when that happens all funds received have to be returned.

This was hammered to death in the first 2000 posts of this thread. The way the contract was written is that you were renting points as expressed in a room reservation. While the room reservation may not have been possible to fulfill on dates when the resort was closed, the underlying points did not disappear.

 

[paddles]

I haven't read the first 2000 posts, but what I'm gathering is that the owner can keep the 70% and also have their points returned back to them if the resort is closed? And the renter gets nothing but a voucher that is worthless if David's goes under. yeah - this sux being on the renting end.

 

[Brianstl]

This was hammered to death in the first 2000 posts of this thread. The way the contract was written is that you were renting points as expressed in a room reservation. While the room reservation may not have been possible to fulfill on dates when the resort was closed, the underlying points did not disappear.

The owner was unable to make the points available. The points were returned to the owner. Florida like every other state has an obligation of good faith and fair dealing expectation that all contracts have to operate under. Florida rental law clearly states that this obligation applies to all rental contracts in the state. If this ever actually goes to court there is no way the owners get to keep the money for canceled reservations.

 

[Marionnette]

I haven't read the first 2000 posts, but what I'm gathering is that the owner can keep the 70% and also have their points returned back to them if the resort is closed? And the renter gets nothing but a voucher that is worthless if David's goes under. yeah - this sux being on the renting end.

You should go back and read the owners’ side to get a balanced perspective. A lot of owners got screwed in the process as well. But while renters had the option to do a chargeback and get all of their money back, a lot of owners did not get their points back, or did not get them back in an useable form. Points have a finite life. Many points ended up expiring as a result of the closure and DVC did not do anything to make it right for quite a few owners.

I was lucky. My “renter” is my niece. I was able to contact her when the writing was on the wall and we made a back up plan that allowed me to cancel her reservation, bank my points forward for a year before that window of opportunity closed, and reschedule her for this fall. I would have done the same for a private rental. But David’s keeps a wall between owners and renter. He kept them from communicating with one another and he refused to allow owners to reschedule for their renters. And while he asked for the return of that 70% payment, he refused to pass the refunded money to the renter.

Yes, it “sux” to be one of his renters thru all of this. But being an owner has been no bed of roses, either.

 

[WDWEPCOT]

Well you must not have any skin in this as the contract clearly states it’s under Canadian law. Again read this thread - this horse has been beaten to death buried burned and then some !!

 

[starry_solo]

So far, it looks like the second of my friend's three DVC reservations with David's has been rented (the first one was a week or two ago, the second one appears to have been within the past day or two since the reservation itself is not on the dedicated reservations site).

No luck with the third reservation (4 nights at VGF) because the owner hasn't contacted David's back. When all is said and done, my friend is recovering about half of what she paid out, which is better than nothing She had to lower the price down to $14/point (so she recovers $11/point and I think paid $18 or $19/point when the reservations were booked at 11 months out). I'm glad she listened to me when I told her to tell David's that she'd lower the price she wanted back cuz, some money is better than no money

 

[WDWEPCOT]

FYI remember David’s kept his commission kept the 30% too and as my rental was Aulani he could have cared less no offer of a voucher here - he was just going to keep the cash! So yes I did a chargeback
Yes Owners were hurt in this and renters but renters had the option of doing a chargeback - Owners didn’t who had points that expired !

 

[Brianstl]

Well you must not have any skin in this as the contract clearly states it’s under Canadian law. Again read this thread - this horse has been beaten to death buried burned and then some !!

The contract can state Canadian law applies but the property being rented is in Florida and if any of this would go to court Florida law would most likely apply. If Canadian law would apply in Canada there is a duty of honest performance implied in all contracts regardless of what the contract states.

 

[WDWEPCOT]

No not all mine was Hawaii - not all DVC is in FL
Glad your all over this 6 months later - I’m sure your expert advise will be most helpful !!

 

[Brianstl]

No not all mine was Hawaii - not all DVC is in FL
Glad your all over this 6 months later - I’m sure your expert advise will be most helpful !!

Hawaii has the same implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing for all contracts no matter what people want to think the contract might say or what it even actually may say. So even if owners are right that the contract says what they want it to say, it would be an unconscionable provision. The question is it worth the cost of actually taking it to court. For most renters it is probably not worth the money litigation would cost.

 

[WDWEPCOT]

Are you renters taking David’s to court ? Why are you wanting to go after Owners you paid David’s - I could understand David wanting time try to go after Owners with his worthless frustrated contracts that he is playing both sides on - but nit sure I see renters going after Owners because you are forgetting it’s a 3 party contract and I won my chargeback against David’s not the Owner - you may want to look into Rental law it’s been discussed to death in this thread

 

[paddles]

This thread has gotten really ugly. Not sure why. I think we can all agree that it's not a good situation for anyone.

I was just saying above that if an owner doesn't have expiring points, AND David's goes under, they have the benefit of keeping 70% and their points. Renters, on the other hand, would have nothing. And absolutely for the owners with expiring points, it would be tough situation as well.

This whole thing has made me learn my lesson. I will happily pay hotel rack rates since I have recourse there - I feel helpless (as we all do) currently. That's what I typically do, and stupidly in 2020, I thought it could be a win-win to rent points. Reading this thread has really made me feel bad about the whole thing.

 

[Brianstl]

Are you renters taking David’s to court ? Why are you wanting to go after Owners you paid David’s - I could understand David wanting time try to go after Owners with his worthless frustrated contracts that he is playing both sides on - but nit sure I see renters going after Owners because you are forgetting it’s a 3 party contract and I won my chargeback against David’s not the Owner - you may want to look into Rental law it’s been discussed to death in this thread

Who said David’s is blameless?

I have looked into the rentals laws of Florida and even had a friend of mine who is a lawyer look at the contracts when I thought my reservation might be canceled to explore my options if that happened. Why don’t you look into Florida’s rental laws and see legally what is supposed to happen to that 70% the owner receives upfront. Hint, the owner isn’t legally allowed to spend the money or commingle the money with their own funds.