DVC plans to target commercial renters

[ShaneDJ]

...many keep saying that what is prohibited is any "commercial purpose," despite that all the pre-Riviera resorts have a stated restriction which provides that a member is prohibited from engaging in a pattern of rental activity that the association could reasonably find shows that the member is engaging in a "commercial enterprise," a term that has a different meaning than just "commercial purpose"; a commercial enterprise as used in statutes means a person or entity that is in the "business" of doing something.

Doing rentals to offset dues, to use points when you cannot use them (even for a whole year), doing occasional rentals to gain a little profit are not activities that show a member is acting as a business to do rentals.

DVC itself recognized that reality when it adopted a rule in 2008 that said a member would be presumed to be violating the rental rule if he did more than 20 reservations in a year, and even then the member could show the member was, in fact, not violating the applicable rental restriction.

However, the suggestions made by posters above to create new restrictions to rentals have a major problem under condominium law. The condominium statute prohibits adding restrictions that would further reduce the ability of an owner to rent after a resort has actually first been sold, absent having an actual vote of the owners.

So if I understand what @drusba is saying:

• The O14 contracts are governed by the 2008 rental rule of "more than 20 reservations in a year", and
• That rule cannot be changed (to add more restrictions) unless there is a member vote?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[lowlight]

I guess this is bad news for those who want policies that are worse for the entire membership just so they can get their way..

ShaneDJ, it is still my position that the amount of people that want to preserve walking and renting is limited to those that actively walk and rent commercially. They could eliminate all renting tomorrow and the fraction of people that would be bothered by it would be minuscule and almost wholly contained in the thumbs up of your posts.

 

[ShaneDJ]

ShaneDJ, it is still my position that the amount of people that want to preserve walking and renting is limited to those that actively walk and rent commercially. They could eliminate all renting tomorrow and the fraction of people that would be bothered by it would be minuscule and almost wholly contained in the thumbs up of your posts.

Your position is fair and I agree about the walking part. Walking is a pain (I hate it) and that is why I own Fixed Week contracts.

I disagree with the proposal put forward in this thread that renting should be eliminated. DVC itself states that renting is allowed.

The definition of "commercial" renting will have to be confirmed and enforced by DVC.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Your position is fair and I agree about the walking part. Walking is a pain (I hate it) and that is why I own Fixed Week contracts.

I disagree with the proposal put forward in this thread that renting should be eliminated. DVC itself states that renting is allowed.

The definition of "commercial" renting will have to be confirmed and enforced by DVC.

Owning a FW isn't/shouldn't be the cure for walking. I own a FW but it does not help me in any way unless I want the whole week the same week every single year. Not having to stay an entire week the same week each year is what makes Disney shine over most other timeshares. If Disney were a FW only based timeshare I never would have purchased. Using "well you can buy a FW" as a cop out for letting people violate the terms by commercially renting isnt a great argument.

 

[DonMacGregor]

I disagree with the proposal put forward in this thread that renting should be eliminated. DVC itself states that renting is allowed.

Once again, literally no one has suggested that renting should be eliminated.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

I don’t think that’s entirely fair— like probably fair as applied to moi, but I’ve seen @Sandisw on multiple threads say she doesn’t walk or commercially rent or spec rent but doesn’t want to lose flexibility for the membership at large.

Having said that, I do think most owners at least tell ourselves that what we want is also best for the members at large…and at least some of us are right. In this case, it’s pretty clear that stopping sophisticated (large) commercial entities from spec renting would benefit members as a whole — both by increasing room availability at 11mo and by raising the average rental/transfer per point rate.

Tue enough. Though I could argue wanting no change in a system because someone hasn’t been personally negatively affected is also wanting what’s best for themselves.

I’ve never walked and I’ll do exactly what she said she does when it comes to my own Dec 2025 trip: stalk, waitlist and hope for the best, even if I find it a bit exhausting. I’ve made several reservations for family but not actually rented or made money for anything (I don’t even care if you do make some money if you’re staying within the rules!). And truthfully, I haven’t been particularly negatively affected either. But even I can see that this current system that is much less restricted and, more specifically, less regulated is causing some harm to a percentage of the membership. No one knows how big that percentage is except Disney and clearly they’re hearing that it’s becoming more of a problem or they wouldn’t have addressed it during the board meetings, so I think the numbers are skewing slightly towards those that want change.

Even with a bunch of throwaway reservations I currently have (which I’ll cancel once we solidify plans), plus actual planned trips for myself and family, and the 5 or 6 individual reservations I have waiting for MS join together to complete a full reservation, I’m not worried about Disney looking at my account and accusing me of renting (at one point a few weeks ago I definitely had over 20 reservations). If they asked me to show proof that I’m not doing any commercial renting, I wouldn’t mind. I don’t know why that would be a hardship, nor how enforcing their own rules would negatively affect the membership. Renting is allowed. I don’t think I saw anyone arguing against renting in a reasonable capacity, as Disney has stated. So if you’re playing within the rules, why are people pushing back so hard?… Unless you’re not abiding by those rules?

I didn’t buy into DVC because renting and resale made it more preferable to any other time share. It was a consideration, sure, but, I bought primarily because Disney is the one place we knew we’d visit over and over for many years to come and we’d be much happier staying deluxe. I imagine that’s most people’s priorities for buying DVC. You’re buying into a Disney timeshare, that seems logical it would be your first consideration and reason. If Disney enforcing their own rules makes it so the program isn’t as good as you thought, maybe the program wasn’t for you to begin with?

 

[Sandisw]

ShaneDJ, it is still my position that the amount of people that want to preserve walking and renting is limited to those that actively walk and rent commercially. They could eliminate all renting tomorrow and the fraction of people that would be bothered by it would be minuscule and almost wholly contained in the thumbs up of your posts.

Well, it certainly doesn’t apply to me. My take is and always will be what the rules in place are and what the contract was written to provide.

The current rules do not have a limitation in them to prevent walking and per the DVC membership agreement, it must…DVC can change that if they want.

But, if doing that prevents the flexibility we currently enjoy, I am not in favor of that. I’d rather deal with walkers than lose that as an owner.

For renting, again, our contracts allow that but not to turn DVC into a business. And i expect DVc to follow the contract and define that reasonably, even though I don’t rent.

So, while stopping these things wouldn’t really impact me at all, that doesn’t mean I want to see DVC make rules outside what they should be allowed to make.

 

[Sandisw]

Tue enough. Though I could argue wanting no change in a system because someone hasn’t been personally negatively affected is also wanting what’s best for themselves.

I’ve never walked and I’ll do exactly what she said she does when it comes to my own Dec 2025 trip: stalk, waitlist and hope for the best, even if I find it a bit exhausting. I’ve made several reservations for family but not actually rented or made money for anything (I don’t even care if you do make some money if you’re staying within the rules!). And truthfully, I haven’t been particularly negatively affected either. But even I can see that this current system that is much less restricted and, more specifically, less regulated is causing some harm to a percentage of the membership. No one knows how big that percentage is except Disney and clearly they’re hearing that it’s becoming more of a problem or they wouldn’t have addressed it during the board meetings, so I think the numbers are skewing slightly towards those that want change.

Even with a bunch of throwaway reservations I currently have (which I’ll cancel once we solidify plans), plus actual planned trips for myself and family, and the 5 or 6 individual reservations I have waiting for MS join together to complete a full reservation, I’m not worried about Disney looking at my account and accusing me of renting (at one point a few weeks ago I definitely had over 20 reservations). If they asked me to show proof that I’m not doing any commercial renting, I wouldn’t mind. I don’t know why that would be a hardship, nor how enforcing their own rules would negatively affect the membership. Renting is allowed. I don’t think I saw anyone arguing against renting in a reasonable capacity, as Disney has stated. So if you’re playing within the rules, why are people pushing back so hard?… Unless you’re not abiding by those rules?

I didn’t buy into DVC because renting and resale made it more preferable to any other time share. It was a consideration, sure, but, I bought primarily because Disney is the one place we knew we’d visit over and over for many years to come and we’d be much happier staying deluxe. I imagine that’s most people’s priorities for buying DVC. You’re buying into a Disney timeshare, that seems logical it would be your first consideration and reason. If Disney enforcing their own rules makes it so the program isn’t as good as you thought, maybe the program wasn’t for you to begin with?

People aren’t pushing back though against reasonable rules.

People have pushed back against some of the suggestions that we don’t see as reasonable.

Spec renting being one of them. I simply do not agree that a spec rental, by itself, falls under the umbrella of commercial. That does not spell pattern of rental activity to me which are the words of the contract.

So, no, I don’t want to see that level of definition because IMO it does not support commercial in the context of the contract.

If I decided to rent a reservation next year and I book it first, and advertise it as such, but it’s my only one, I simply don’t see how that is different than having a renter waiting in the wings before I book. One is still one.

Same with walking…if they can change the rules to prevent walking without adding penalties to change a trip when needed, I am for it but I have yet to see a solution that isn’t worse for owners who don’t walk.

 

[tx911]

People aren’t pushing back though against reasonable rules.

People have pushed back against some of the suggestions that we don’t see as reasonable.

Spec renting being one of them. I simply do not agree that a spec rental, by itself, falls under the umbrella of commercial. That does not spell pattern of rental activity to me which are the words of the contract.

So, no, I don’t want to see that level of definition because it does not support commercial in the context of the contract.

If I decided to rent a reservation next year and I book it first, and advertise it as such, but it’s my only one, I simply don’t see how that is different than having a renter waiting in the wings before I book. One is still one.

Same with walking…if they can change the rules to prevent walking without adding penalties to change a trip when needed, I am for it but I have yet to see a solution that isn’t worse for owners who don’t walk.

In my mind there are only 3 ways to use points:
1. Use for personal vacations
2. Gift them to friends/family
3. Sell them for money.

We would all agree that categories 1 and 2 should be unlimited as far as your points will allow. I would say that a spec rental can only be in category 3, and therefore is commercial in my mind.

But I would also agree that doing it once in a while is not a pattern of commercial activity.
So if you are doing spec rentals multiple years in a row, let's say, I think DVC would be in the right to ask "what are we doing here?". Doing it once in a while I think should be permitted.

 

[Genie+]

Also, if the issue is that DVC does not have information from which it can determine whether a member is doing multiple rentals (rather than just multiple reservations), it could start enforcing an existing rule contained in the Home Resort Rules and Regulations, which actually requires any member who rents to inform DVC at the time of the reservation that it is a rental, Home Resort Rules and Regulations §V.3.b, which is apparently a rule ignored by almost every renter. Such information is needed to assure other rules are not being violated, such as the prohibition to using banked or borrowed points in a rental reservation, and, if transferred points are being used in the reservation, it could request the member to confirm that he paid no compensation to another member to get such points.. To enforce that rule, DVC could clarify that the failure to provide that a reservation is a rental will result in its cancellation if DVC learns it is a rental, with the member being prohibited from doing any more rentals for some stated period of time, and even thereafter being required in writing to confirm whether any reservation is a rental. Moreover, a member would have to think twice about ignoring the rule, i.e., if the member fails to tell the lessee that he needs to inform DVC of the rental to avoid possible cancellation, and cancellation does later occur, the lessee would have a case for fraud, with the possibility of collecting punitive damages.

I don’t remember coming across that before.

 

[Sandisw]

In my mind there are only 3 ways to use points:
1. Use for personal vacations
2. Gift them to friends/family
3. Sell them for money.

We would all agree that categories 1 and 2 should be unlimited as far as your points will allow. I would say that a spec rental can only be in category 3, and therefore is commercial in my mind.

But I would also agree that doing it once in a while is not a pattern of commercial activity.
So if you are doing spec rentals multiple years in a row, let's say, I think DVC would be in the right to ask "what are we doing here?". Doing it once in a while I think should be permitted.

Which puts all rentals into category 3 and I think we al agree in that.

That is why I keep going back to the point that whatever DVC decides to use as the threshold that turns an owner who is renting into an owner in violation, owners should be on board for that to be reasonable..because that language exists in the pre RIV resorts.

Whether you rent a confirmed reservation or on demand, it should be about those patterns and not the individual reservation itself because IMO, that is not reasonable rule that when the renter was found should matter when it comes to deciding if it’s an allowed rental or not.

It seems that some want DVC to put in rules that restrict renting in such a way that the term commercial is now defined as even just one rental if it’s not the kind of rental someone believes should be allowed…ie: hard to get rooms.

 

[tx911]

Which puts All rentals fall into category 3. But we know that we are allowed to use our points that way.

That is why I keep going back to the point that whatever DVC decides to use as the threshold that turns an owner into an owner in violation needs to be reasonable.

And whether you rent a confirmed reservation or on demand, it should be about those patterns and not the individual reservation itself.

It seems that some want DVC to put in rules that restrict renting in such a way that the term commercial is now defined as even just one rental if it’s not the kind of rental someone believes should be allowed…ie: hard to get rooms.

I think if we want to maintain any kind of flexibility, only going after those with a pattern of the unwanted behavior is key.

 

[lowlight]

DVC has never, will never, and does not currently care about what’s good for the membership as a whole. That may be the legal jargon that they can wield as their ban hammer, but it’s not some idea that can be shaped into a coherent definition.

This issue comes down to 1 question- Does the current landscape of DVC entice me to purchase as a non member or add on as a current member?

I believe it’s better to be a renter right now, unless you are a commercially renting- whether that be a small renter with 3000 points or an LLC with a combined 100k. Some of the people in these Facebook groups have DVC renter as their profession and they are not the big names we know about.

 

[Sandisw]

I think if we want to maintain any kind of flexibility, only going after those with a pattern of the unwanted behavior is key.

Going back to the statements of the board, they talked about the large point owners and I honestly believe that what they want to curb are those owners who have found their way around the current rules

My guess is that they are aware you have owners like @drusba who are well versed in the laws and the contract. And that will play a role in what they do moving forward.

 

[sethschroeder]

Do you know Disney's plans?

I dont need to. Nothing at all in any of these threads including this one has any ability to impact a random person doing a one off rental with an extra 50/100/200 points.

You seemingly are worried about the sky falling. The sky will still be up there tomorrow and the next day.

There is ZERO ability for them to stop me from renting out a few extra points I might have if I want to. Literally nothing they could do would stop me from doing this.

The only people who are possibly going to be stopped are the one excessively renting out or brazenly connecting a DVC rental company with contracts. Thats its those are the people worried.

 

[sethschroeder]

I tend to agree with this, a few stays a year in other people’s name is unlikely to rise eyebrows unless they are spec rentals or exclusively target high value rentals generally.

They also have to prove something.

Disney can't just be like "I am taking your deeded timeshare" or "I am revoking your rights". They will need evidence more than one time you changed a name on a rental.

 

[Sandisw]

So if I understand what @drusba is saying:

• The O14 contracts are governed by the 2008 rental rule of "more than 20 reservations in a year", and
• That rule cannot be changed (to add more restrictions) unless there is a member vote?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

No, I don’t think that is what she is saying. I think she is talking about the language of the declarations in the POS that discuss renting being allowed and that it’s the commercial aspect that is not…and how that language was written.

The 20 reservations rule is not in the POS. Some of the suggestions that DVC could further limit renting that doesn’t mesh with those declarations can’t be done without an owner’s vote

Things like preventing people from renting before 7 months…or not allowing certain room types to be rented…

I think the other point was that because the resorts are leasehold condominiums, they fall under the FL statues related to condominiums as well as Ch 721 that deals with just timeshares..it’s why you see reference in the POS to 718 and 719 as well.

 

[Genie+]

As far as which side I stand… really it has come down to what I thought would make for the healthiest membership because that would help maintain the value of the product I bought. Not altruistic; I see my ‘gain’ as a system that remains functional as it intended to be used - for personal use. That’s probably at the heart of why my take differs from some others.

I rented 18 of our BWV points for $700. The broker charged $800+ for those 2 nights. Points leftover from changing trips with a small contract using orphaned borrowed points that DVC returned for me. I need this ability much less than I need a good personal use timeshare system for the next 40yrs of our VGF contract. ***eta - I should add that this does not mean I think renting should be taken away because I know it’s already in our contracts.

I have not walked yet. I would if we might get shut out otherwise. I don’t think it’s an overall net positive to the membership though because it’s pushing out the lead time we need to decide on our trips. I would prefer having nothing but my equal chance at the actual home priority window.

 

[Sandisw]

I dont need to. Nothing at all in any of these threads including this one has any ability to impact a random person doing a one off rental with an extra 50/100/200 points.

You seemingly are worried about the sky falling. The sky will still be up there tomorrow and the next day.

There is ZERO ability for them to stop me from renting out a few extra points I might have if I want to. Literally nothing they could do would stop me from doing this.

The only people who are possibly going to be stopped are the one excessively renting out or brazenly connecting a DVC rental company with contracts. Thats its those are the people worried.

Some of the suggestions though that have been discssued seem to suggest that they want to see DVC come down hard on owners who rent in ways that some of us don’t see should fall into the commercial zone.

 

[Sandisw]

They also have to prove something.

Disney can't just be like "I am taking your deeded timeshare" or "I am revoking your rights". They will need evidence more than one time you changed a name on a rental.

The problem is they don’t, especially for RiV and beyond. The word reasonable was removed.

I honestly don’t think the average owner has to worry, but if DVC suspends an owners account because they have decided to add unreasonable rules, the owner has to fight them.