Does anyone rent some of their points every year to help offset dues?

[Robbie Cottam]

In the same vein as my prior post: At least one other timeshare operator (Wyndham) has invoked the "no commercial use" clause in cases where the owner wasn't "really making a profit."

This is all in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is Disney. Will they do more than they are doing now? Maybe, maybe not. I can tell you that if I rented DVC points routinely, I would have a ready exit path in mind in case Disney does start paying more attention, and I would use it at the first opportunity. I would not wait around to see if they were serious, because that has the risk of depressing the market.

"Be first, be smarter, or cheat. [...] It sure is a [heck] of a lot easier to be first."

Of course, if this is a once in a while thing---as in once every many years---I wouldn't think twice about it. I might get my hand slapped, but it's not make-or-break.

Since it is very plainly written in to the contract. My personal exit strategy would be the Florida AG office to file a consumer protection. Complaint followed close by a call to the Governors office….

I have a feeling that the state of Florida would champion, another fight against Disney…

Since Disney expressly allows Rental, and Florida law state 5) “Commercial use” means activities associated with the sale, rental, or distribution of products or the performance of services. The term includes, without limitation, such uses or activities as retail sales; wholesale sales; rentals of equipment, goods, or products; offices; restaurants; food service vendors; sports arenas; theaters; and tourist attractions.

It could be argued the contract Is Allows commercial use…. Or is ambiguous at best….

The history of Disney allowing Owners the ability to rent their real property I would argue Disney has the harder time….

And no attorney wants to lose to a Pro se litigant,

Somehow this feels like déjà vu….

Think if Disney forced the issue you could force them to buy back at Fair Market Value…..

I would argue that, that value is what Disney sells direct for not the resale price…

 

[Robbie Cottam]

It’s basically the same; Wyndham was making it up as they went along. Don’t delude yourself into thinking Disney can’t do the same.

I was actually talking with an attorney the other day about something similar…. Some one kept arguing with the phrase “ in California that would never fly”. The attorney finally had enough and said “ Son, this here is Georgia! We don’t care what you do in California”.

Unless Wyndham’s contract are identical to Disney’s they don’t really apply.

 

[robinb]

I didn’t buy into DVC 25 years ago to do this, but now I do. My travel plans have changed and we’re doing WDW only once per year. That leaves a lot of extra points that need to be used. I’ve been renting regularly for the last 4-5 years. Not to pay my dues necessarily, but to not have my points go to waste.

 

[Sandisw]

It’s basically the same; Wyndham was making it up as they went along. Don’t delude yourself into thinking Disney can’t do the same.

Basically or exaclty? I’d still like to see it because sometimes, it doesn’t take much to change things.

I am not saying that DVC could never try but Wyndham is a much larger timeshare system and IIRC, they don’t have a limit on points the way DVC does which helps prevent massive ownerships.

But, we go through this a lot and in the end, I just don’t think DVC has the data to support a fight and is worth trying.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

I didn’t buy into DVC 25 years ago to do this, but now I do. My travel plans have changed and we’re doing WDW only once per year. That leaves a lot of extra points that need to be used. I’ve been renting regularly for the last 4-5 years. Not to pay my dues necessarily, but to not have my points go to waste.

I wouldn’t worry about it…..
actually I don’t

 

[Brian Noble]

The thing is, the exact language doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is (a) the language is not precisely defined in the way that, say, the meaning of a Point is; and (b) the programs are set up in a way that gives the developers freedom to interpret that language pretty broadly.

They might make a determination that is ultimately wrong. But, between making that determination and having a court rule that they are wrong, many (many) months will pass, during which the developer can do all sorts of things to make it difficult or impossible for a particular person to rent. It's not really a fight, because the targeted individuals won't have the resources to put up much of one--Disney has an army of lawyers on staff, and plenty of money to pay them and more. Disney is also somewhat famous for being tenacious about something when they think they are right. See: RCID, Scarlett Johansson, and the Writers/Actors unions generally. Disney also gets pretty persnickety when they think someone is profiting off of their work. As the clearest example, consider that WDW's moat of company-owned land is a direct response to the chaos of cheap hotels that surrounded Disneyland.

Disney tends to be very owner-friendly compared to most other developers, so this probably won't happen. But, that's not the same as it can't.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

The thing is, the exact language doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is (a) the language is not precisely defined in the way that, say, the meaning of a Point is; and (b) the programs are set up in a way that gives the developers freedom to interpret that language pretty broadly.

They might make a determination that is ultimately wrong. But, between making that determination and having a court rule that they are wrong, many (many) months will pass, during which the developer can do all sorts of things to make it difficult or impossible for a particular person to rent. It's not really a fight, because the targeted individuals won't have the resources to put up much of one--Disney has an army of lawyers on staff, and plenty of money to pay them and more. Disney is also somewhat famous for being tenacious about something when they think they are right. See: RCID, Scarlett Johansson, and the Writers/Actors unions generally. Disney also gets pretty persnickety when they think someone is profiting off of their work. As the clearest example, consider that WDW's moat of company-owned land is a direct response to the chaos of cheap hotels that surrounded Disneyland.

Disney tends to be very owner-friendly compared to most other developers, so this probably won't happen. But, that's not the same as it can't.

the exact language always matters.
the contract defines guest,
the contract defines what member benefits free guests and rental guest are untitled to…
normally I would love to debate this until you give up, but im kinda busy so,
until someone gets bored and rehashes this debated in January or early February we can agree to disagree

 

[Sandisw]

The thing is, the exact language doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is (a) the language is not precisely defined in the way that, say, the meaning of a Point is; and (b) the programs are set up in a way that gives the developers freedom to interpret that language pretty broadly.

They might make a determination that is ultimately wrong. But, between making that determination and having a court rule that they are wrong, many (many) months will pass, during which the developer can do all sorts of things to make it difficult or impossible for a particular person to rent. It's not really a fight, because the targeted individuals won't have the resources to put up much of one--Disney has an army of lawyers on staff, and plenty of money to pay them and more. Disney is also somewhat famous for being tenacious about something when they think they are right. See: RCID, Scarlett Johansson, and the Writers/Actors unions generally. Disney also gets pretty persnickety when they think someone is profiting off of their work. As the clearest example, consider that WDW's moat of company-owned land is a direct response to the chaos of cheap hotels that surrounded Disneyland.

Disney tends to be very owner-friendly compared to most other developers, so this probably won't happen. But, that's not the same as it can't.

I guess this is where we disagree because DVC contracts do define "personal use" of the membership to include owners, guests, and renters. It is not vague in anyway.

Did Wyndham specifically define "personal use"? That is what I think is important aspect. What DVD can define is the "for commercial purposes" as that is not specifically defined and how the changes to maximum number of points and how the "more than 20 reservations in the names of others" clause was developed in terms of triggering a review.

It is why I would like to see the specifics of a Wyndham contract and they see what changes they made in relation to that.

Nothing is every impossible but DVD seems to at least, when making changes, follow rules that they believe they can support legally, even if grey.

Obviously, Wyndham felt they could make the changes they did which is why what those contracts say IS important if we are going to use them as an example of what a developer can do.

 

[Brian Noble]

I guess this is where we disagree because DVC contracts do define "personal use" of the membership to include owners, guests, and renters. It is not vague in anyway.

I am not suggesting Disney will forbid (or even try to forbid) renting. Neither has Wyndham, nor has any other developer.

I am suggesting that Disney can take steps that make the profitability of renting much less favorable. For example, what happens to the rental market if Disney decides that "commercial use" includes the use of third-party brokers to match renters and owners--and starts cancelling a handful reservations made through Davids, etc. on that basis? Are they "correct" that that is commercial use? Maybe. Maybe not. It will be expensive to find out. During that time, a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money, and some of them will be forced to sell. Renters will be nervous, and some of them will abandon the market.

DVC owners can still rent--via DISboards, and elsewhere--but they will be chasing a smaller market, because the brokers' existence and reputation provides a lot of confidence for renters who can't really afford to lose thousands of dollars. Without those brokers, how many people still want to rent a DVC studio to save several hundred dollars over a perfectly serviceable Moderate room? My guess: not nearly as many.

This is very similar to what Wyndham did. They did not forbid renting. But, they did selectively cancel some guest reservations at Bonnet Creek and elsewhere by owners who (a) had gotten a cease-and-desis letter after a pattern of suspicious guest reservations but (b) decided not to cease-and-desist. The word got out, and all of a sudden people shied away from even trying to rent there for a good while because what happens if.

As another example, a Hyatt owner was recently told that the only acceptable way to rent was through Hyatt's approved rental site. Is that "right"? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not. But Hyatt is threatening to cancel the existing reservation. The owner is still "allowed to rent" but Hyatt claims only on their terms. Marriott has also been sending "reminders" to owners adding guests that commercial use is forbidden. Just that alone has a chilling effect.

The developer gets to shoot first and ask questions later. The cost to the developer of being proven wrong is low (they may have to pay off a few owners) but the risk of being proven wrong is even lower (who has pockets deep enough to fight a protracted court battle?)

 

[Sandisw]

I am not suggesting Disney will forbid (or even try to forbid) renting. Neither has Wyndham, nor has any other developer.

I am suggesting that Disney can take steps that make the profitability of renting much less favorable. For example, what happens to the rental market if Disney decides that "commercial use" includes the use of third-party brokers to match renters and owners--and starts cancelling a handful reservations made through Davids, etc. on that basis? Are they "correct" that that is commercial use? Maybe. Maybe not. It will be expensive to find out. During that time, a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money, and some of them will be forced to sell.

This is very similar to what Wyndham did. They did not forbid renting. But, they did selectively cancel some guest reservations at Bonnet Creek and elsewhere by owners who (a) had gotten a cease-and-desis letter but (b) decided not to cease-and-desist. The word got out, and all of a sudden people shied away from even trying to rent there for a good while because what happens if.

As another example, a Hyatt owner was recently told that the only acceptable way to rent was through Hyatt's approved rental site. Is that "right"? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not. But Hyatt is threatening to cancel the existing reservation. Marriott has also been sending "reminders" to owners adding guests that commercial use is forbidden. Just that alone has a chilling effect.

The developer gets to shoot first and ask questions later. The cost to the developer of being proven wrong is low (they may have to pay off a few owners) but the risk of being proven wrong is even lower (who has pockets deep enough to fight a protracted court battle?)

It's hard for me to agree because it doesn't say "commercial use", it says that the membership is being used for "commercial purposes" and while it may be semantical, that term is clearly defined out there.

That is why I don't see DVD trying any of the things you suggest because there is also language about the cancellation of reservations and when it might happen.

It's also why I believe that if they want to curb it, and feel its out of hand, they have the power to define "commercial purposes" to be more strict...let's say, 10 reservations in the names of others, across all memberships. Or, be more vigilant in enforcing the clause that says a membership owned by a business can only make reservation for certain people (defined in the contract...can't remember all of them right now).

It still comes back, for me, to the language of the contract of those products because what they have done might be possible because they have language that allows them to believe it doesn't violate the contract.

I still believe that the reason that nothing has changed, is because DVC believes that what is happening is in line with the definition of "personal use".

 

[Brian Noble]

Fine. What happens if Disney says that using a third party broker is using your ownership for "commercial purposes?"

Because they absolutely could say that. They might even be right. But even if they are wrong, it will still be costly in time and money to find out, and that's a bet that Disney might be willing to make in a dark moment.

 

[Brian Noble]

Ultimately, this is why I come back to making a distinction between the owner who rents every-several-years, and the owner who, say, rents a fraction of their points every year to cover dues. The former is not in a lot of risk. Maybe they have to find a way to take an extra vacation, or send family or friends, or something because they have trouble finding a renter. The latter might be in a position where they can't afford to keep their ownership.

Paradoxically, the real businesses in this niche will be fine no matter what, because their business model (buy-strip-flip) includes never keeping any particular deed for very long. Their risk is low.

 

[Sandisw]

Fine. What happens if Disney says that using a third party broker is using your ownership for "commercial purposes?"

Because they absolutely could say that. They might even be right. But even if they are wrong, it will still be costly in time and money to find out, and that's a bet that Disney might be willing to make in a dark moment.

If they did, there would be way too many owners who would be willing to take them on and pay the cost to find out.

 

[Brian Noble]

If they did, there would be way too many owners who would be willing to take them on and pay the cost to find out.

That's a bet I would take. I'd even give you odds.

There might be, what, a few thousand owners in this position? How many of them are willing to eat their rental proceeds plus spend real money on lawyers for months and months while Disney drags this out using every stall tactic they have at their disposal? How many instead cut their losses and sell?

And before anyone says "well, someone would take it as a class-action/on a contingency", no. Just no.

Edited to add: other playgrounds, where the profit margins were much higher and the cost bases much lower, so the carrying cost of fighting is also low, saw a lot of people running for the exits when these things happened. I very much doubt that somehow DVC owners will prove different.

To be fair, there have been a few owners who stuck to their guns over the years, and gotten a settlement. They all include non-disclosure agreements, which makes it impossible for others to learn much about how it happened.

 

[Sandisw]

That's a bet I would take. I'd even give you odds.

There might be, what, a few thousand owners in this position? How many of them are willing to eat their rental proceeds plus spend real money on lawyers for months and months while Disney drags this out using every stall tactic they have at their disposal? How many instead cut their losses and sell?

And before anyone says "well, someone would take it as a class-action/on a contingency", no. Just no.

Again, you don't think those other contracts are important and I do....its why I would love to find one to review...but, we can agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Brian Noble]

Do you really think small differences in specific language would prevent a large company from trying to play bully ball in the court system---and this company in particular?

Again: this is all very hypothetical, and probably won't happen in nearly the dramatic fashion I am painting. Instead, it will be a continued death by a thousand cuts. We've seen this already: only one transfer in/out; limits on Associate Members; 20 reservation caps. What will be next?

 

[Robbie Cottam]

I wanted to bow out of this, but I can’t let that statement go unchallenged.

Contract law comes down to words.
That is why attorneys use so many.
They make terms crystal clear.

A small difference in a few words, makes all the difference in the world!

I have NO IDEA what the Wyhitliott contract says…. And frankly it does not matter….

The DVC contract says you are allowed to rent points.

DVC goes further to say if you allow your points to be used by other for free they have the right to use membership benefits….
If you receive payment for the rental the renter do not get membership benefits….

What you are saying, without proof, is some other time share, one time did something, and Disney might do it…..

No. They won’t, that would be called breach….

It would be a violation of Floridas consumer protection laws, it would open Disney to a class action law suit and triple damages from every DVC member.

The Marriott Wyndham Hilton contracts don’t apply!

The DVC contract does.

That is what Disney is bound by.

That contract allows rental……

The downside is just too great for Disney to mess around here.

End of discussion!

 

[tjkraz]

To me this is a really simple thing. Assuming you have excess cash sitting around that could be used to buy more DVC points than needed, are you earning greater returns now than you would reasonably expect to yield renting?

That's it.

If you DONT have surplus cash for the purchase, it makes zero sense to finance points which will be rented. Also take into consideration whether you'll actually have enough self-control to rent or if they will just become more points that are used for personal travel. And factor in the hassle and tax implications of renting.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

To me this is a really simple thing. Assuming you have excess cash sitting around that could be used to buy more DVC points than needed, are you earning greater returns now than you would reasonably expect to yield renting?

That's it.

If you DONT have surplus cash for the purchase, it makes zero sense to finance points which will be rented. Also take into consideration whether you'll actually have enough self-control to rent or if they will just become more points that are used for personal travel. And factor in the hassle and tax implications of renting.

I might be wrong here,
Wife says I usually am, but
I don’t think the OP was talking about a spec purchase just to rent points, but rather a year where for what ever reason you have extra and don’t want to bank them

 

[Sandisw]

I might be wrong here,
Wife says I usually am, but
I don’t think the OP was talking about a spec purchase just to rent points, but rather a year where for what ever reason you have extra and don’t want to bank them

I do think the OP is asking if anyone bought a few extra so they offset the dues for the ones they want to use,…so yearly renting of some of their points.