Disney to Stop Commercial Bookings?

[Cyberc1978]

So far there haven't been any reports of any widespread action being taken. It's possible they've cancelled some reservations, tapped on some member's shoulders, etc., but those affected haven't spoken out about it. Until DVC starts taking action there isn't really any use in altering your behavior because we have no idea what behavior DVC finds objectionable.

But even if owners aren't talking, then those renting would if they got a reservation cancelled. The renter would not know why, but people online would start talking and a lot of assumptions would emerge.

 

[muppets3d]

But even if owners aren't talking, then those renting would if they got a reservation cancelled. The renter would not know why, but people online would start talking and a lot of assumptions would emerge.

Yeah I really doubt they've done anything at all except add that check-box to the booking engine, and instructed all member services cast members to ask if the reservation is for personal use when calling in.

 

[reddog21]

Also FL statutes says that HOA/COA after July 2021(I think it was) can’t restrict owners right to rent their ownership. I believe that’s the real reason why DVC is not doing more - they simply can’t.

One big thing you’re missing about the statute is that it doesn’t override restrictions that already existed before you bought. This means if the contract has always restricted commercial rental, the statute does nothing. It protects existing owners from new or expanded rental restrictions adopted after they bought.

 

[Sandisw]

If DVC says “commercial renting is prohibited” but never defines what “commercial” means, that creates contractual ambiguity. Contractual ambiguity itself is not illegal however legal problems exists when:
Enforces it selectively or inconsistently
Uses it to justify punitive penalties or forfeiture
Refuses to define the term while still punishing conduct

If contract law rules don’t apply, contracts are still protected by the FTC and state attorneys general. What is the basis for why companies get their hands slapped the most by either of those entities?
Vague terms causing consumer harm

They didn’t update their policy because, at this point, it’s just a scare tactic and it doesn't matter. Disney’s not stupid—they know they can say whatever they want, but actually enforcing it is another story. I’m no contract expert, but most contract disputes are forced through arbitration, so you’d never hear about it unless it turned into a class action lawsuit.

With that being said, if you’re renting thousands of points or renting as an LLC, it would be hard to argue that you’re not renting commercially. IMO these are the things that Disney is looking for.

My curiosity leans more toward places like David’s or the DVC rental store. They’re clearly commercial companies, but they act as rental agents and don’t own any points, so when, if ever, are they held accountable? My guess is that since they’re all still playing the game, they don’t believe they’re accountable.

They have a commercial use policy in play. It states that having more than 20 reservations in a 12 month period can trigger the violation, unless you prove that all reservations within 20 meet the standard.

The FL timeshare state seems to support that owners have the right to use a third party to help them rent their ownership.

So, places like the rental brokers are helping individual owners…which is why they will continue to exist.

But it still has to come down to the owner and their actions…and whether they are renting to the degree that DVCbelieve rises to using the membership for a commercial purpose.

Even th updated examples you have in the RIv and beyond POS, use the words “regular use” of a rental broker implying that using one is not prohibited unless you are renting to a degree that it crosses the line.

I have mentioned before, and from my conversations with them, any additional policies related to this, beyond the official policy, would need to shared with owners.

However, the policy as written gives them the ability to make decisions on a case by case basis and also the ability to not do anything until one surpasses those 20 reservations in a 12 month period.

Now, LLCs is a different situation because they are not supposed to rent.

But there is also a clause in the contract that states DVC/DVD can chose not to enforce all aspects of it…no clue how that would play in the legal world if owners have an issue with DVCMc allowing LLCs to rent.

The hard part of this debate will always be what actions should be considered a patter of rental activity to meet the commercial purpose clause because there is a vast range of opinions.

What we know for sure is that the board has said they are monitoring this and reviewing it and to date, no updates to rules or policy.

IMO, I fully expect them to update policy if they decide to define specific actions no longer allowed.

And, I just believe that DVC will continue to apply common sense rules to this in that the average owner who isn’t in it for a commercial enterprise or purpose will be just fine.

 

[Cyberc1978]

One big thing you’re missing about the statute is that it doesn’t override restrictions that already existed before you bought. This means if the contract has always restricted commercial rental, the statute does nothing. It protects existing owners from new or expanded rental restrictions adopted after they bought.

That’s true.

And we know that the commercial use policy is defined as more than 20 reservation per 12 months.

I cant say for sure that the 20 reservations per year is per membership or for all memberships. From reading the policy it’s not clear. I know some believe it’s for all memberships.

If it is for all then I would expect DVC to have executed some enforcement but to the best of our knowledge they haven’t.

If it’s per membership then members could potentially have hundreds of reservations across all memberships, at least for the LLC’s. That could be another reason why DVC haven’t enforced anything yet.

 

[Sandisw]

One big thing you’re missing about the statute is that it doesn’t override restrictions that already existed before you bought. This means if the contract has always restricted commercial rental, the statute does nothing. It protects existing owners from new or expanded rental restrictions adopted after they bought.

That law prevents new rental rules that further limit the rights you have to rent.

And yes, the contract has always said that if you show a pattern of renting that can be reasonably concluded you are in it for commercial thst is not allowed.

But, the way DVC has always interpreted that, including in their official policy, would play a role in whether or not the decide something now fits or would be considered needing a vote.

That is where I can see DVC having to evaluate specific actions and make a decision on whether it is just a reasonable update to the definition vs something that, when applied in isolation, doesn’t rise to that level.

 

[Cyberc1978]

That law prevents new rental rules that further limit the rights you have to rent.

That is where I can see DVC having to evaluate specific actions and make a decision on whether it is just a reasonable update to the definition vs something that, when applied in isolation, doesn’t rise to that level.

Even if they update their interpretation of the rule then as I understand, it can’t be more restrictive only less.

 

[reddog21]

the policy as written gives them the ability to make decisions on a case by case basis

Contract law is pretty straightforward in that you're not supposed to arbitrarily interpret it in different ways for different situations. people.
Florida law is clear:
An association cannot enforce restrictions inconsistently or selectively.

I say "not supposed to," but unless someone is out there complaining, how is anyone really going to know especially if it goes into arbitration.

Other than that, your points are valid.

 

[Sandisw]

Contract law is pretty straight forward in the fact that your "not supposed to" arbitrarily interpret the law different ways for different people.
Florida law is clear:
An association cannot enforce restrictions inconsistently or selectively.

Let me clarify…what I meant is they gave them the ability to decide if the owners explanations of the reservations in the names of others once you get past 20 meets the personal use standard for appropriate rentals and ones that do not.

And so far, we know they have a standard that is high enough that your average owner who isnt renting for a commercial reason will be accused of it.

To date . they have not chosen to identify actions by owners that in and of themselves would be questionable in terms of meeting a reasonable definition of a pattern of rental that hits the commercial world.

Now, we wait to see if they believe more is needed.

 

[Sandisw]

That’s true.

And we know that the commercial use policy is defined as more than 20 reservation per 12 months.

I cant say for sure that the 20 reservations per year is per membership or for all memberships. From reading the policy it’s not clear. I know some believe it’s for all memberships.

If it is for all then I would expect DVC to have executed some enforcement but to the best of our knowledge they haven’t.

If it’s per membership then members could potentially have hundreds of reservations across all memberships, at least for the LLC’s. That could be another reason why DVC haven’t enforced anything yet.

The updated language is that it can be applied to an owner and I can report that they have told me that they indeed have held owners accountable.

Now, one has to decide whether to believe them because we don’t have reports from anyone.

It also depends on what one expecto g to see as evidence, especially since only DVC knows how many reservations are attached to any owner.

What I think we can conclude, a year later, is that to date, DVC has not chosen to identify certain actions people hoped they would in their definition.

Could it still be coming? It’s always on the table for DVC to update things.

One thing I feel pretty confident in is if they do, they will update the policy and HRR to include those changes. And owners won’t be left guessing if things that have been allowed won’t be moving forward.

And that is why I personally think that the FL 718.111 will be carefully weighed if changes do come in the future.

For example, if DVC has allowed owners to rent both confirmed reservations and on demand reservations under their right to right, and not considered either in isolation as commercial, can they now do that?

Would it be something that could be seen as new restriction to limiting your right to rent and not a simple update to the commercial purpose standard?

 

[CarolynFH]

For example, if DVC has allowed owners to rent both confirmed reservations and on demand reservations under their right to right, and not considered either in isolation as commercial, can they now do that?

Given that owners of other timeshares in Florida (and elsewhere) often rent confirmed reservations, I doubt that DVC could determine that confirmed reservations were commercial and on demand were not.

 

[Sandisw]

Given that owners of other timeshares in Florida (and elsewhere) often rent confirmed reservations, I doubt that DVC could determine that confirmed reservations were commercial and on demand were not.

That is my opinion as well and now that some resorts even have FW, it’s seem it would be even harder.

Those owners, if they decided the weren’t going to use it, would be renting it that way.

Sure, they can cancel and book with points but they paid extra for a specific week and it seems they’d have a good case to support they should be allowed to rent the ownership interest they bought.