DVC plans to target commercial renters

[Tatebeck]

Can you please show me where in the rules it states or even implies that? I have not seen the word profit used anywhere.

Are you really saying you believe that DVC can simply make up rules like that?

It is built into the definition of commercial enterprise. It is literally their main goal. Please don't take the "they never specifically said this word in the contract" route. They cannot put every single version of a word into every contract they make, it would be impossible.

A commercial enterprise is "a business that is legally operated for the purpose of making a profit"

Edit: and even then it is mentioned in the POS anyways
"Owners should not purchase an Ownership Interest based upon any expectation of deriving any rental or other revenue or profit therefrom"

 

[Sandisw]

It is built into the definition of commercial enterprise. It is literally their main goal. Please don't take the "they never specifically said this word in the contract" route. They cannot put every single version of a word into every contract they make, it would be impossible.

A commercial enterprise is "a business that is legally operated for the purpose of making a profit"

Correct…but you said that DVC can say you are one without even needing to show you are making a profit.

And as was posted, in the terms of renting a condo, that business definition has added requirement to it…seems like you are forgetting about that.

So, the mere suggestion that certain rooms should be considered off limits because of potential extra profit just makes no reasonable sense and I contest that doesn have the legal right to say that you can’t reserve these rooms because we think you can get too much money for them.

There is a threshold that needs to be met to be deemed as a commercial enterprise WHEN renting a condo since as has been posted many times, the condo laws of FL gives us that right.

If you want to say that profit is it, even if I don’t agree, DVC would still need to show they have evidence you are indeed making said profit.

 

[Tatebeck]

Actually drusba has said it can’t be that low because the definition of a commercial enterprise and commercial use or purpose in relation to renting your ownership interest in the condo…has a much different meaning and requirement.

So, no, I definitely don’t agree that it can be just 2…the cases she posted yesterday I think are a good example.



Do you really believe that two reservations in the name of others, even in a high demand room can be considered a business?

I get that you are trying to say that DVc has a very wide latitude in setting rules and can take a very strict and narrow approach to what determines a commercial enterprise or purpose.

But from what I have read and has been posted, they can’t because there are standards in place already that support they can’t.

It’s why I used the example earlier about actions the 900 points.

Again, if we want to discuss what situations might be more prevalent for someone who is renting a business, we could but that is a different topic.

It’s whether in the context of DVC is whether high demand rooms, simply because one can earn more, indicates you must be someone who is only doing it because you are a commercial renter

Maybe it’s someone who wants to rent to offset some dues but doesn’t have enough points every year to rent more than just a few reserverations and why they choose the cheapest one?

And that is where I think DVC needs to be a bit blind because one, they have no idea who much you are making, and two there are many reasons that an owner could be renting the rooms they are and as soon as give DVC the discretion to make that level of subjective decisions, you may as well give up your expectation that any renting is safe.

I'll admit I haven't read into the various cases posted beyond what was posted about them in that long post. But I bet that applies to most of us (if not all of us). Those cases aren't really helpful unless you specifically look at the contract in each case and compare it to what they were accused of breaking. Something that I am not going to spend that much time on lol.

Just the fact that it looks like they were litigated in court means they are very different from DVC contracts because we waived our right to court litigation in favor of arbitration per the contracts. And arbitration is usually more in favor of the large corporation who required it as part of the contracts vs the smaller members if they wanted to fight a decision or action. This already suggests that those other contracts were not as careful or airtight as Disney's might be, even without reading further into them.

You seem to be taking parts of someone else's post, with small pieces of what a judge might have thought, about contracts that may have been similar to DVC contracts, and basing all of your logic on that, instead of reading DVC rules as they exist. No one is perfect or infallible so I don't know why you want to take their word so badly over DVC's own contracts or other posters.

For an example, their quote here:

"Moreover, DVD has a further problem in that it has already provided admissions that could be used as evidence against it if it actually tried to claim it could unilaterally make new restrictions that reduced a member’s ability to rent in the pre-Riviera resorts. As previously noted, in 2008, DVD/DVC issued an interpretative rule declaring that a presumption would arise of violation of the commercial restriction rule if the member did more than 20 reservations in a year. The member could overcome that presumption by proving the member was not violating the commercial restriction. In the same time period, DVD also issued two other changes to rules: (a) it did away with the rule at the time that a member could do an unlimited amount of transfers, either in or out but not both, and reverted back to the original one transfer rule that existed in the 1990s; and (b) it set a limit of four to the number of other member files on which a member could become an associate member (and thus have the power to use another member’s points to make reservations). All three of those rules were created because of reservation problems that had arisen for hard to get rooms at hard to get times. None of those changes were made to the POS, and DVD could do away or change them now. But the problem DVD faces is that those rules which it created can be used as evidence in any future case challenging the validity of any more onerous restrictions to rentals created now by DVD without a vote of the members, to prove that DVD itself understood and believed that the right to rent that was provided in the declarations was very broad and allowed a member to do many rentals per year, and thus cannot claim the declarations can now be more narrowly interpreted.."

Leads me to believe that they (like many) were unaware of the last clause of the 20 reservation rule which separated it from all other rules and reserved their right to enforce the rules as written regardless of the 20 reservation rule.

I applaud them for looking up some case law and adding it to the discussion regardless. But I do not think it may apply very well here, though I cannot know for certain without a LOT of reading lol.

If you want to think that any rule from their contracts that Disney decides to enforce can be easily challenged and you will be able to successfully convince the DVC appointed arbiter in the case that you are correct and that DVC is not... Well you are free to do that I guess. But I would put my chips on the other side of that argument.

 

[Tatebeck]

Correct…but you said that DVC can say you are one without even needing to show you are making a profit.

And as was posted, in the terms of renting a condo, that business definition has added requirement to it…seems like you are forgetting about that.

So, the mere suggestion that certain rooms should be considered off limits because of potential extra profit just makes no reasonable sense and I contest that doesn have the legal right to say that you can’t reserve these rooms because we think you can get too much money for them.

There is a threshold that needs to be met to be deemed as a commercial enterprise WHEN renting a condo since as has been posted many times, the condo laws of FL gives us that right.

If you want to say that profit is it, even if I don’t agree, DVC would still need to show they have evidence you are indeed making said profit.

It would be very hard for them to know exact dollar amounts for any member. Does that mean that they cannot ever accuse someone of looking like a commercial enterprise? Of course not. If they see you doing something that they can reasonably think was done in the pursuit of profit, then it may make it seem more likely you are acting as a commercial enterprise, even if they have no exact numbers.

There are plenty of businesses that do not make "profit" every year, for various reasons. But that does not stop them from being businesses or a commercial enterprise that is tryin to make or pursuing that profit. In fact many of them try specifically not to make a profit every year through loopholes, deductions etc.

The contracts do not say that you have to make a profit and that they have to prove it for them to act. As soon as you make a suspicious pattern of rental activities that they can reasonably associate as a commercial enterprise-like pattern, then they already have the right to act according to the contracts that we signed.

So they can reasonably see the pursuit of profit through those patterns, and that can be enough even if they don't have your exact profit numbers.


Please stop changing the words that I am using to try and put words into my mouth.
I have never said that booking or even renting any specific rooms are considered off limits, only you are saying that.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Seems that DVC just changed the Multi site POS to allow transfer of banked and borrowed points between members.

Wonder if that somehow can be related to the upcoming “crack down”

 

[Tatebeck]

Seems that DVC just changed the Multi site POS to allow transfer of banked and borrowed points between members.

Wonder if that somehow can be related to the upcoming “crack down”

That seems like a big win to me personally. I have 2 use years so that will make it easier to never waste or let points expire!

Anyone see any downside to this?

 

[Mouseforward]

If DVC believes the rental market is hampering direct sales, then that’s one potential justification for doing something about it.

Or to put it another way: why did Wyndham and Bluegreen actually spend money going after some renters? They have much less of a retail rental presence, yet they believed the effort to curtail renting was in their best interests.

For DVC the rental market is pushed by sales - the guides all mention that you can " rent the points you can not use " This is critical to DVC sales since they don't have the diversity of Mariott or Hilton locations.

 

[Sykes]

"As previously noted, in 2008, DVD/DVC issued an interpretative rule declaring that a presumption would arise of violation of the commercial restriction rule if the member did more than 20 reservations in a year. The member could overcome that presumption by proving the member was not violating the commercial restriction. In the same time period, DVD also issued two other changes to rules: (a) it did away with the rule at the time that a member could do an unlimited amount of transfers, either in or out but not both, and reverted back to the original one transfer rule that existed in the 1990s; and (b) it set a limit of four to the number of other member files on which a member could become an associate member (and thus have the power to use another member’s points to make reservations). All three of those rules were created because of reservation problems that had arisen for hard to get rooms at hard to get times."
[...]
If you want to think that any rule from their contracts that Disney decides to enforce can be easily challenged and you will be able to successfully convince the DVC appointed arbiter in the case that you are correct and that DVC is not... Well you are free to do that I guess. But I would put my chips on the other side of that argument.

If anything, I'd interpret this as showing that Disney has acted in a way that clearly demonstrates that it believes that it has more tools available to curtail commercial use beyond the extraordinarily restrictive conditions that @Sandisw's interpretation would allow.

 

[Tatebeck]

If anything, I'd interpret this as showing that Disney has acted in a way that clearly demonstrates that it believes that it has more tools available to curtail commercial use beyond the extraordinarily restrictive conditions that @Sandisw's interpretation would allow.

Yeah I can definitely see that angle. They were able to add (and then remove) these extra rules without updating the POS documents and without being challenged, which would make it seem like it was within their right. And they did it while reserving the right to enforce any of the other rules they felt were being broken outside of the new rules(s).

So it seems they can add extra rules, without updating POS documents, to help enforce their rules while still reserving the right to enforce the rules in other ways they wish.

 

[Mouseforward]

Yeah I can definitely see that. They were able to add (and then remove) these extra rules without updating the POS documents and without being challenged, which would make it seem like it was within their right. And they did it while reserving the right to enforce any of the other rules they felt were being broken outside of the new rules(s).

So it seems they can add extra rules, without updating POS documents, to help enforce their rules while still reserving the right to enforce the rules in other ways they wish.

DVC could simply fix the problem using existing rules and point charts - It looks like they made some minor moves this year to make Sept more points at BW. They could do the same to December

 

[Genie+]

One little problem with your examples is how is DVC going to know what price something was rented out at. All they know is that the reservation does not have the owners name on it.

P.S. I own at BWV, please send those $35/point renters my way as the last time I rented BWV points out I did it at around $20/point.

We did $38pp for 2 nights in May last year. The brokers still tacked another $7pp on top! No joke - $45pp. This was a Mon and Tues night when BWV was 9pts/nt.

I booked it about 10 months out and held it until ~4 months out. We had exactly 18pts BWV that might get wasted because they wouldn’t work in our existing trips, some points were borrowed and expiring Aug. Those 2 open nights made perfect use. DH loves surprise WDW visits so I was reluctant to give them up in case we needed them for one of his more ‘spontaneous’ trips. Anyway, they sold before 2 months out at $806 ($403/nt). We got $342/nt out of that. Not bad when dues are $70/nt.

I can see why it’s tempting for people renting on the regular. Why take $18 or $21pp when you can get high $20s and even into the $30s? Unfortunately it means the best value rooms/dates end up on the rental market at a staggeringly higher ratio than the normal ratios for personal/rental. Probably the majority. DVC can clearly see those numbers. Maybe certain room/dates are non-owner bookings 60+% of the time and while overall average is so much lower.

2026 point chart eliminated 9pt nights and that made sense to me. Help spread demand and lessen the target by increasing the total of 10-11pt nights, which are still a great deal by DVC standards! They lowered some of the 12pt nights too. So now there’s a ton of 10 and 11 points to choose instead. Better imho.




Now there’s about 30 weeks where weekdays cost 10 or 11 points. A step in the right direction

 

[Nabas]

Let's look at the previously cited Mason Family Trust v. Devaney.

In summary, the Court found that short-term cabin rentals (by Devaney) were allowed, despite the deed containing language forbidding "business or commercial purposes".

Quoting in part from this ruling:

​

The original warranty deeds to properties in the subdivision stated "that said property and the improvements thereon shall be used for dwelling purposes only and that no part thereof shall at any time be used for business or commercial purposes[.]" [emphasis added]​

​

...​

​

Deed restrictions are to be read reasonably but strictly and, to the extent language is unclear or ambiguous, the issue of enforcement of a restriction will be resolved in favor of the free enjoyment of the property and against limitations. [emphasis added]​

​

...​

​

While Devaney's renting of the property as a dwelling on a short-term basis may have constituted an economic endeavor on Devaney's part, to construe that activity as one forbidden by the language of the deed restrictions is unreasonable and strained. Strictly and reasonably construed, the deed restrictions do not forbid short-term rental for dwelling purposes. [emphasis added]​

​

...​

​

This conclusion is supported by the case of Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or. 358, 937 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1997), which involved a short-term vacation rental in a beach-front subdivision. The restrictive wording differs slightly from the present case. The property in Yogman was restricted to use "exclusively for residential purposes" and not for "commercial enterprise." [emphasis added] Id. After analyzing the meanings of "residential," "commercial," and "commercial enterprise," and looking at the context of the restrictive language [emphasis added], the Oregon Supreme Court determined that the language of the restriction was ambiguous. [emphasis added] Id. at 1021-22. Yogman is similar to the present case. Other than limited evidence in Yogman that other homes were used as vacation rentals, there was no evidence in Yogman of the contracting parties' intent. Id. at 1022. The Oregon court followed the principle of strict construction because the use complained of was not "plainly within the provisions of the covenant."​

The primary consideration in this case is the "unclear or ambiguous" language of the deed, resulting in the "restriction ... be[ing] resolved in favor of the free enjoyment of the property and against limitations." In other words, by failing to specify what was meant by "business or commercial purpose", the defendant (Devaney) was entitled to a favorable interpretation.

The deed in Forshee v. Neuschwander has a similar deficiency as Mason Family Trust v. Devaney. Quoting in part from the Forshee v. Neuschwander decision:

We conclude that the term, "commercial activity," which is undefined in the covenant, is ambiguous. Therefore, we narrowly interpret it and conclude that it does not preclude either short-term or long-term rentals of Neuschwanders' property.​

Disney's POS does not suffer from the same deficiency. The POS states:

Personal Use. Except for Units owned by DVD, which may be utilized as provided in this Declaration, each of the Vacation Homes shall be occupied only as vacation accommodations. Use of the accommodations and recreational facilities of the Condominium is limited solely to the personal use of Owners, their lessees, guests, exchangers and invitees and for recreational uses by corporations and other entities owning Ownership Interests in a Unit. Use of Vacation Homes and recreational facilities for commercial purposes or any purposes other than the personal use described herein is expressly prohibited. "Commercial purpose" shall include a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. [emphasis added]​

Disney specifies that "'Commercial purpose' shall include a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner". Within the context of the POS language, a pattern of renting (reasonably interpreted by Disney) is forbidden. Thus, Mason Family Trust v. Devaney and Forshee v. Neuschwander are not directly applicable. However, both cases raise an important consideration.

Disney's prohibition must be "narrowly interpreted". It must be "strictly and reasonably construed". Therefore, you can rent your DVC points. You even can rent them for some profit. However, you cannot do so in a pattern that Disney reasonably concludes is a commercial enterprise or practice.

 

[JackosinDIS]

Let's look at the previously cited Mason Family Trust v. DeVaney.

In summary, the Court found that short-term cabin rentals (by DeVaney) were allowed, despite the deed containing language forbidding "business or commercial purposes".

Quoting in part from this ruling:

​

The original warranty deeds to properties in the subdivision stated "that said property and the improvements thereon shall be used for dwelling purposes only and that no part thereof shall at any time be used for business or commercial purposes[.]" [emphasis added]​

​

...​

​

Deed restrictions are to be read reasonably but strictly and, to the extent language is unclear or ambiguous, the issue of enforcement of a restriction will be resolved in favor of the free enjoyment of the property and against limitations. ​

​

...​

​

While Devaney's renting of the property as a dwelling on a short-term basis may have constituted an economic endeavor on Devaney's part, to construe that activity as one forbidden by the language of the deed restrictions is unreasonable and strained. Strictly and reasonably construed, the deed restrictions do not forbid short-term rental for dwelling purposes. [emphasis added]​

​

...​

​

This conclusion is supported by the case of Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or. 358, 937 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1997), which involved a short-term vacation rental in a beach-front subdivision. The restrictive wording differs slightly from the present case. The property in Yogman was restricted to use "exclusively for residential purposes" and not for "commercial enterprise." [emphasis added] Id. After analyzing the meanings of "residential," "commercial," and "commercial enterprise," and looking at the context of the restrictive language [emphasis added], the Oregon Supreme Court determined that the language of the restriction was ambiguous. [emphasis added] Id. at 1021-22. Yogman is similar to the present case. Other than limited evidence in Yogman that other homes were used as vacation rentals, there was no evidence in Yogman of the contracting parties' intent. Id. at 1022. The Oregon court followed the principle of strict construction because the use complained of was not "plainly within the provisions of the covenant."​

The primary consideration in this case is the "unclear or ambiguous" language of the deed, resulting in the "restriction ... be[ing] resolved in favor of the free enjoyment of the property and against limitations." In other words, by failing to specify what was meant by "business or commercial purpose", the defendant (DeVaney) was entitled to a favorable interpretation.

The deed in Forshee v. Neuschwander has a similar deficiency as Mason Family Trust v. DeVaney. Quoting in part from the Forshee v. Neuschwander decision:

We conclude that the term, "commercial activity," which is undefined in the covenant, is ambiguous. Therefore, we narrowly interpret it and conclude that it does not preclude either short-term or long-term rentals of Neuschwanders' property.​

Disney's POS does not suffer from this deficiency. The POS states:

Personal Use. Except for Units owned by DVD, which may be utilized as provided in this Declaration, each of the Vacation Homes shall be occupied only as vacation accommodations. Use of the accommodations and recreational facilities of the Condominium is limited solely to the personal use of Owners, their lessees, guests, exchangers and invitees and for recreational uses by corporations and other entities owning Ownership Interests in a Unit. Use of Vacation Homes and recreational facilities for commercial purposes or any purposes other than the personal use described herein is expressly prohibited. "Commercial purpose" shall include a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. [emphasis added]​

Disney specifies that "'Commercial purpose' shall include a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner". Within the context of the POS language, a pattern of renting (reasonably interpreted by Disney) is forbidden. Thus, Mason Family Trust v. DeVaney and Forshee v. Neuschwander are not applicable.

You can rent your DVC points. However, you cannot do so in a pattern that Disney reasonably concludes is a commercial enterprise or practice.

So let me get this right. You are arguing that a term in DVCs contract, which has attracted nearly 1700 comments from people (some of whom are lawyers) arguing over the meaning of that provision, is not ambiguous in any way?

 

[Nabas]

So let me get this right. You are arguing that a term in DVCs contract, which has attracted nearly 1700 comments from people (some of whom are lawyers) arguing over the meaning of that provision, is not ambiguous in any way?

I'm agreeing with what @drusba previously wrote:

My personal view is that the restrictions that exist do prohibit members with access to a lot of points, including via purchase and via partnerships with others, from mainly doing just rentals. However, I do not believe the existing rules prohibit a member from doing multiple rentals to recover dues, to make some profit, to rent when the member knows the member cannot use the points in the applicable year, and even in one year do nothing but multiple rentals if circumstances -- e.g., job change, family illness -- dictate that the member cannot go to Disney that year.​

 

[Sandisw]

Seems that DVC just changed the Multi site POS to allow transfer of banked and borrowed points between members.

Wonder if that somehow can be related to the upcoming “crack down”

I posted in the other thread, its interesting that they updated this and submitted it last month and did not update any other parts of the HRR.....related to either booking changes or rental changes....these normally happen once a year.

With this showing up, however, I'd say that people should be watching regulary to see if anything else is added, because if it is, that is how we will find with.

 

[Genie+]

That seems like a big win to me personally. I have 2 use years so that will make it easier to never waste or let points expire!

Anyone see any downside to this?

No I think anything that makes the membership easier to salvage using their own points is a win. Less reliance on brokers and/or those engaging in commercial type uses, and more of the personal use booking patterns rather than the selling target patterns.

Eta - because it also reduces the amount of arguments why people would end up needing to conduct an excessive amount of rentals.

 

[Sandisw]

No response so far DVC regarding my request to view the documents so I will be putting in a certified letter to them tomorrow to say I want to stop in next week when I am there to view what the POS says I can request to view...

 

[Brian Noble]

For DVC the rental market is pushed by sales - the guides all mention that you can " rent the points you can not use "

So do the sales agents at all of the other developers. It doesn't matter, because you also initial a disclosure that says you understand that verbal representations do not carry any weight, and that the written contract is all that matters.

This ground is well-trod.

 

[Sandisw]

Let's look at the previously cited Mason Family Trust v. DeVaney.

In summary, the Court found that short-term cabin rentals (by DeVaney) were allowed, despite the deed containing language forbidding "business or commercial purposes".

Quoting in part from this ruling:

​

The original warranty deeds to properties in the subdivision stated "that said property and the improvements thereon shall be used for dwelling purposes only and that no part thereof shall at any time be used for business or commercial purposes[.]" [emphasis added]​

​

...​

​

Deed restrictions are to be read reasonably but strictly and, to the extent language is unclear or ambiguous, the issue of enforcement of a restriction will be resolved in favor of the free enjoyment of the property and against limitations. ​

​

...​

​

While Devaney's renting of the property as a dwelling on a short-term basis may have constituted an economic endeavor on Devaney's part, to construe that activity as one forbidden by the language of the deed restrictions is unreasonable and strained. Strictly and reasonably construed, the deed restrictions do not forbid short-term rental for dwelling purposes. [emphasis added]​

​

...​

​

This conclusion is supported by the case of Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or. 358, 937 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1997), which involved a short-term vacation rental in a beach-front subdivision. The restrictive wording differs slightly from the present case. The property in Yogman was restricted to use "exclusively for residential purposes" and not for "commercial enterprise." [emphasis added] Id. After analyzing the meanings of "residential," "commercial," and "commercial enterprise," and looking at the context of the restrictive language [emphasis added], the Oregon Supreme Court determined that the language of the restriction was ambiguous. [emphasis added] Id. at 1021-22. Yogman is similar to the present case. Other than limited evidence in Yogman that other homes were used as vacation rentals, there was no evidence in Yogman of the contracting parties' intent. Id. at 1022. The Oregon court followed the principle of strict construction because the use complained of was not "plainly within the provisions of the covenant."​

The primary consideration in this case is the "unclear or ambiguous" language of the deed, resulting in the "restriction ... be[ing] resolved in favor of the free enjoyment of the property and against limitations." In other words, by failing to specify what was meant by "business or commercial purpose", the defendant (DeVaney) was entitled to a favorable interpretation.

The deed in Forshee v. Neuschwander has a similar deficiency as Mason Family Trust v. DeVaney. Quoting in part from the Forshee v. Neuschwander decision:

We conclude that the term, "commercial activity," which is undefined in the covenant, is ambiguous. Therefore, we narrowly interpret it and conclude that it does not preclude either short-term or long-term rentals of Neuschwanders' property.​

Disney's POS does not suffer from this deficiency. The POS states:

Personal Use. Except for Units owned by DVD, which may be utilized as provided in this Declaration, each of the Vacation Homes shall be occupied only as vacation accommodations. Use of the accommodations and recreational facilities of the Condominium is limited solely to the personal use of Owners, their lessees, guests, exchangers and invitees and for recreational uses by corporations and other entities owning Ownership Interests in a Unit. Use of Vacation Homes and recreational facilities for commercial purposes or any purposes other than the personal use described herein is expressly prohibited. "Commercial purpose" shall include a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. [emphasis added]​

Disney specifies that "'Commercial purpose' shall include a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner". Within the context of the POS language, a pattern of renting (reasonably interpreted by Disney) is forbidden. Thus, Mason Family Trust v. DeVaney and Forshee v. Neuschwander are not applicable.

You can rent your DVC points. However, you cannot do so in a pattern that Disney reasonably concludes is a commercial enterprise or practice.

Pretty sure that all of my stances have said the main reason that I don't think DVC can do what people suggest is because it doesn't past the reasonable test to conclude that its commerical enterprise or practice, unless there is a lot of points in play.

If I have not made that point clear, then I apologize and making it clear here...and will be my "custer's last stand!" Promise...unless i have to put on my mod hat!

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Oh, the irony as we approach 100 pages of how it's all going to get 'better,' and DVC drastically reduces restrictions on between contract transfers just today.