DVC plans to target commercial renters

[DonMacGregor]

I was simply trying to address the fact that if I had said back on Page 1 of this thread that "depending on where you own, DVC doesn't have to figure out how many rentals you had last year or who you rented them to, they can define commercial use as simply utilizing the services of a third-party rental site" I would have been laughed off the forum.

As a non-lawyer, I don't have any idea as to what discretion DVC had under any iteration of the POS, or any expansion or limitation of that discretion that may exist. I just wanted to point out that DVC has significantly expanded the published criteria for determining commercial use, regardless of how broad their discretion may actually be legally. I think many on here don't realize the POS language has had significant changes recently, regardless of whether DVC enjoys expansive discretion or not (that's for the lawyers).

That's all.

 

[Sykes]

Thank you for bringing up the RIV POS. I think it does give us pretty significant insight into how Disney is thinking about the commercial rental problem, and I suspect that the criteria that they do end up using to evaluate commercial rentals will look a lot like what is listed there.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

@Sandisw Any chance if/when there is an actual development here (real reports of cancelled reservations, additional information released by DVC), you can just create a new thread? I really want to keep up to date here but this thread is just nuts with so many hundreds of posts. Im posting this only up to page 62 and see there are 74 pages (as of this post), so maybe there has been a development, I dont know. In any event, this thread is legitimately unmanageable and it would be nice to have an “announcements” thread or something that just posts news.

On the disability board the mods there created that when the DAS changes were announced and it was helpful to have a source of actual information without the literal thousands of posts (every few minutes) of people arguing the same points over and over and over….

 

[lowlight]

Please pardon the intrusion, but could somebody give me a brief synopsis of what has changed or is going to change due to these 73+ pages of discussion?

Please and thank you.

Hearts and minds. Or nothing.

 

[TCRAIG]

Here's my proposal to (mostly) eliminate walking.

First, some existing rules to keep in mind:

• Member stays can be up to 30 nights long.
• Members can book at their home resort at 11 months.
• Members can book up to 7 nights at 11 months.
• At 11 months, members can add nights to their original 7-night stays, one night at a time. (This is how longer stays are booked at 11 months.)

Assuming the above rules do not change, I believe the following rules minimize walking:

• Only for a reservation booked at exactly 11 months, the check-in date cannot change by more than 6 nights unless the entire reservation is cancelled and rebooked.
• This restriction no longer applies once at least one night after the check-out date is available to be booked by other DVC members.

I believe this approach limits walking to a maximum of 6 nights.

Example:

I book December 1 to 8 (7 nights) at exactly 11 months. Each day after that, I add one night until I have December 1 to 15 booked (14 nights). I then modify my reservation to drop December 1 to 6 (6 nights), leaving me with a reservation from December 7 to December 15 (8 nights). However, I am not allowed to change the check-in date to later than December 7 (i.e. 6 nights after my original check-in date).

However, starting on December 16 (i.e. the day after my check-out date), I am allowed to make any modification I want to this reservation.

Please pardon the intrusion, but could somebody give me a brief synopsis of what has changed or is going to change due to these 73+ pages of discussion?

Please and thank you.

As I see it - what Disney has formally changed based on these discussions vis-a-vis renting and/or walking are these 3 things:
Zip, Zero and Nada
or if you prefer
Jack, Squat and Diddly

 

[muppets3d]

It would take one competent programmer just a few days to be able to generate a report from a list of spec rentals from a website giving the owners names for the reservations with the same resorts and dates. And if Megaowner LLC turns out to own the points for 40 or 50 of those reservations, then it's fairly simple to focus on that owner, watch for the reservations disappearing from the website as they are rented, and monitoring for the corresponding lead guest name changes that are requested. At which point DVC absolutely has the points owner dead to rights in terms of engaging in a pattern of commercial activity. The problem with simply accusing everyone who has a large number of reservations of commercial activity is that they can respond that all those reservations are for family or friends, and it is very difficult indeed for DVC to prove otherwise.

A well-formulated query to ChatGPT could write the code to generate this report in a few seconds.

 

[Sandisw]

@Sandisw Any chance if/when there is an actual development here (real reports of cancelled reservations, additional information released by DVC), you can just create a new thread? I really want to keep up to date here but this thread is just nuts with so many hundreds of posts. Im posting this only up to page 62 and see there are 74 pages (as of this post), so maybe there has been a development, I dont know. In any event, this thread is legitimately unmanageable and it would be nice to have an “announcements” thread or something that just posts news.

On the disability board the mods there created that when the DAS changes were announced and it was helpful to have a source of actual information without the literal thousands of posts (every few minutes) of people arguing the same points over and over and over….

Yes, I will definitely open a new thread for new information!
And if someone beats me to it, I’ll make sure everything stays in one place for info thst are actual changes if or when they occur.

 

[Genie+]

Please pardon the intrusion, but could somebody give me a brief synopsis of what has changed or is going to change due to these 73+ pages of discussion?

Please and thank you.

Post 1 - DVC shares they’ve assembled a team to look at commercial renting and gave the impression we should see some type of result by the end of 2025.

Post 2 and on - What can they possibly do? That’s about it. Now we wait and see.

 

[Sandisw]

Imagine as a metaphor instead of banning commercial activity Disney was banning birds from the property.

The SSR POS basically says:
All birds are banned. The Board gets to say, within its reasonable discretion, what constitutes a bird, including considering whether or not the animal can fly.

The RIV POS basically says:
All birds are banned. The Association gets complete discretion to determine what constitutes a bird. In doing so, the Association may evaluate whether or not the animal can fly, whether or not it has feathers, whether or not it lays hard eggs, etc ...

In both versions a penguin is banned because it's a bird. At SSR the board isn't required to solely consider whether or not the animal can fly because it's the only criteria listed--they can use all the other criteria too, and criteria that isn't contemplated in either POS--because they have the discretion to do so. The underlying restriction hasn't changed, but the later revisions do help illustrate how Disney might evaluate and enforce that restriction.

Well, others with legal expertise believe that they can’t do what you believe they can in terms of the language differences.

So, only DVC lawyers know for sure what they feel the legally can do.

With any legal question or contract, we both know that not all even in the legal field agree.

But, as I shared, I will see what DVC says when I get a response and if I have to visit their offices to view that record, then I will report back.

I’d still like your opinion on why they wouldn’t amend the other POS dociments to match? Wouldn’t it have made sense if they are materially the same thing?

 

[Sykes]

Well, others with legal expertise believe that they can’t do what you believe they can in terms of the language differences.

I haven't seen any of those individuals address that language directly. (The posts I've seen only address issues that are tangential to this one and different in very important ways.) If someone with more extensive relevant experience disagrees with my analysis, though, I'd love to understand why so I can learn more! You’re absolutely right on the second half of your post—90% of contract disputes are two competent parties, both acting in good faith, reading the same text and coming to different conclusions.

 

[Sandisw]

I haven't seen any of those individuals address that language directly. (The posts I've seen only address issues that are tangential to this one and different in very important ways.) If someone with more extensive relevant experience disagrees with my analysis, though, I'd love to understand why so I can learn more!

You’d have to go back and specifically read @drusba’s post not only in this thread but the one that discussed the CFW language changes.

The other people I have talked to in contract law are not DIS board people. But most of what I have come to understand is typically based on her analysts.

This thread is the one that it was discussed in detail that the new rules can’t apply to older resorts..and when my own opinions shifted.

Thread 'New Definition of Rental Activity?'

The link won’t post from my phone but if you search that title you can see the comments and weigh in

See below…I was able to link to the one post that was very detailed but the thread has a lot of legal insight.

 

[xdan0920]

Well, others with legal expertise believe that they can’t do what you believe they can in terms of the language differences

May be a touch of bias involved there

 

[Sandisw]

May be a touch of bias involved there

Why? I have no relation at all to the poster from the DIS who has posted…I don’t even know them anymore than I know you.

Disagree with me all you want but there is no bias in my posts since I do not rent and never plan to…and being a mod does not influence my opinions.

Read this post…it’s pretty clear they have a strong understanding of the law and how it applies to the DVC contract.

Post in thread 'New Definition of Rental Activity?'
https://www.disboards.com/threads/new-definition-of-rental-activity.3939178/post-65314841

 

[Sykes]

You’d have to go back and specifically read @drusba’s post not only in this thread but the one that discussed the CFW language changes.

I had read their posts earlier and feel like 95% of what I have written is compatible with what they have said as long as we are discussing specific measures that Disney would take with regard to defining and restricting commercial use. I agree that Disney can't arbitrarily introduce rental restrictions outside of that context. The only thing I really don't buy is the relevance of the narrow statutory definition of "commercial enterprise" when "commercial purpose", "commercial practice", "commercial enterprise", and restrictions on any use other than "personal use" are all relevant to determining if a use is allowed. I suspect that is where I think Disney has a fair bit of leeway when determining what to do, and why the RIV POS isn't a significant change here.

 

[Sandisw]

I had read their posts earlier and feel like 95% of what I have written is compatible with what they have said as long as we are discussing specific measures that Disney would take with regard to defining and restricting commercial use. I agree that Disney can't arbitrarily introduce rental restrictions outside of that context. The only thing I really don't buy is the relevance of the narrow statutory definition of "commercial enterprise" when "commercial purpose", "commercial practice", "commercial enterprise", and restrictions on any use other than "personal use" are all relevant to determining if a use is allowed. I suspect that is where I think Disney has a fair bit of leeway when determining what to do, and why the RIV POS isn't a significant change here.

I just wanted to point out that her legal analysis is that the words included in the clause are not just an example, they are material to the clause and that any new restrictions need to meet the declaration as listed…and why DVD can’t change them or add additional restrictions like they can now with RIV and beyond because the language I was changed.

You believe that those words are only an example. Since even you lawyers see it differently, it makes sense that people are on both sides of what can and can not be done!

But, just wanted to give context that my interpretation and opinions are grounded in the information and analysis by someone in the legal realm with extensive knowing of contracts and DVC.

 

[Nabas]

One thing to keep in mind is that if someone has a side hustle renting DVC points, the IRS requires them to file a Schedule SE (Self-Employment Tax) if they have net income of $400 or more.

Something to ponder when considering what might constitute a commercial enterprise.

 

[TinkAgainU]

Yeah scare tactics

When Marriott (or maybe it was another timeshare) turned away some people due to Commercial Renting it made a LOT of renters step back. And renting from Disney directly has the whole "easy to cancel" benefit that renting, or even owning, DVC does not offer.

 

[nalababybear]

I just wanted to point out that her legal analysis is that the words included in the clause are not just an example, they are material to the clause and that any new restrictions need to meet the declaration as listed…and why DVD can’t change them or add additional restrictions like they can now with RIV and beyond because the language I was changed.

You believe that those words are only an example. Since even you lawyers see it differently, it makes sense that people are on both sides of what can and can not be done!

But, just wanted to give context that my interpretation and opinions are grounded in the information and analysis by someone in the legal realm with extensive knowing of contracts and DVC.

74 pages later -- same unknowns. Appreciate that you're actively engaged in this and voice of reason.

Truly people think Disney has nothing better to do than police reservations with their flat management fee.

 

[TinkAgainU]

Another point to consider is what a time consuming project it would have been in the past to track patterns of both ownership and usage. Now if the info is in Disney's database it might be exponentially easier to have AI review and flag possible violators - in seconds - versus months of tedious research by humans.

 

[Sandisw]

74 pages later -- same unknowns. Appreciate that you're actively engaged in this and voice of reason.

Truly people think Disney has nothing better to do than police reservations with their flat management fee.

It think it just goes to show that no matter what any of us think, what we believe the contracts says or doesn’t say and what it means, deciding on what violates commerical purposes clause of the contract is an answer only DVC lawyers can answer

And once the do, then we all get to decide next moves!