DVC Response About Ebay Commercial Sellers

[dianeschlicht]

My goodness, I see the poor old steed is still getting flogged!

 

[greenban]

WOW!

I just read all 41 pages (So much for catching up on two weeks work!).

I'm amazed at the detective abilities displayed by some of our own DISers.

I'm gonna subscribe and enjoy the show for awhile yet.

I enjoy how everyone is comfortable with their personal definition of a commercial renter, and appalled by anyones else's.

I was suprised that one owner had morphed 100,000 points in a single year!

I still believe (BUT ADMIT THAT i MAY BE WRONG) that this is being done to 'protect' the DVC-II, specifically the CRV and VAKL.

I also believe that adding 7,000,000 points of SSR ownership (and folks, I'm not attacking SSR, I own over 400 SSR points myself), probably has more of an effect than point morphing, which I can't imagine exceeded 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 points a year. I think if the CRV (as currently rumored) comes on line, that it will correct alot of the temporary imbalance that SSR may have caused, by it's size, not for any other reason.

Of course, I can be completely wrong, and point morphing could have been greater that 10,000,000 points a year, none of us know for sure.

What I have seen, in my 2 days back, are some signs of mob mentality here, and little room for polite debate. Attacking Beca, Liferbabe, and Rinkwide (especially by low post # members, seems too convienent for me, for these posts to be real, sincere or *NOT* to have been made by an ALIAS ID of another DISer with an axe to grind).

Again, just my opinion.

Finally, I agree with whomever suggested that *ALL* renters have much more to fear from the IRS than the DVC or Disney.

Just my 2 cents!

-Tony

And my vacation was magical, OKW was great as usual (except room cleanliness), Universal was suprisingly nice, and Vero Beach was magical, trip report to follow.

 

[Dean]

Calypso - I was being sarcastic in my earlier note when I stated that I am sure Disney had every intention of DVC members running a "side business". I don't think Disney intended for folks to rent their points out solely to make a profit year after year (profit by the renter that is) and not for their own personal use as family vacation get-aways.

Of course not, they wanted all the profit for themselves.

 

[Dean]

What DVC really needs to crack down on is the prebooking then name-changing. Perhaps the rule ought to be, you either can't change the name on an existing reservation, or if that's too draconian (it probably is), limit it to once per use year, and only for one room. That would immediately and completely solve the problem of these people prebooking blocks of rooms then selling them while not affecting us normal owners in any way.

They couldn't legally do so.

 

[Doctor P]

They couldn't legally do so.

Explain why. BTW, I'm really intrigued by how you apparently found time to go to law school along with all your other training. You have made a lot of statements in these threads about what is legal and what they can and can't do. While your knowledge of timeshares is impeccable, Dean, I think you need to be careful about some of the legal statements you are trying to make. As a very simple example related to this thread, I did a little very shallow legal research last night and was able to find several references in Florida law related to the definition of commercial activity. There also was a fair amount of case law on the point. And I didn't even dig!!!

 

[Deb & Bill]

Good one, Doc!

 

[rigsby25]

Maybe MS should limit reservations to 1 per call. That might even out the playing field for members reserving their own vacations opposed to commercial renters renting out 40 units at a time.

 

[cslittle999]

Maybe MS should limit reservations to 1 per call. That might even out the playing field for members reserving their own vacations opposed to commercial renters renting out 40 units at a time.

It would punish people trying to setup a group trip too where they needed multiple rooms. If trip was for a peak time it would be frustrating to get parts of it booked and not others.

What would work I think is to limit reservations to points from contracts under the same name. The problem with commercial renters seems to be the number of points under their control due to point morphing (which DVC should fix the software to prohibit) and holding more than the maximum number of points by registering the contracts under different names. You should be able to book as many rooms as your contract allows for any time.

What Disney has to do is deal directly with individual contract holders that they feel are breaking the POS. Blanket policy changes hurt as much as they help.

 

[Dean]

Explain why. BTW, I'm really intrigued by how you apparently found time to go to law school along with all your other training. You have made a lot of statements in these threads about what is legal and what they can and can't do. While your knowledge of timeshares is impeccable, Dean, I think you need to be careful about some of the legal statements you are trying to make. As a very simple example related to this thread, I did a little very shallow legal research last night and was able to find several references in Florida law related to the definition of commercial activity. There also was a fair amount of case law on the point. And I didn't even dig!!!

As I've stated before, it is simply my opinion unless I say otherwise. But I did spend almost three (corrected) years on one of the Councils for the State of FL where WHAT we did was interpret an entire statute and write the rules to govern it, so I do have some experience and expertise there. I also have quite a bit of general timeshare experience. I don't think anything I've written could be construed as legal advice to any person other than maybe DVC themselves.

Specific to this question, the POS allows a member to use a reservation any way they want and that specifically includes guests and lea-see. It might be they could work on this in other ways such as a crack down on the use of copywrite material, but there is absolutely no way they could require one to cancel rather than change the name. But even if they could, you just add the other name to the reservation and leave yours on it as well.

 

[Doctor P]

As I've stated before, it is simply my opinion unless I say otherwise. But I did spend almost four years on one of the Councils for the State of FL where WHAT we did was interpret an entire statute and write the rules to govern it, so I do have some experience and expertise there. I also have quite a bit of general timeshare experience. I don't think anything I've written could be construed as legal advice to any person other than maybe DVC themselves.

Specific to this question, the POS allows a member to use a reservation any way they want and that specifically includes guests and lea-see. It might be they could work on this in other ways such as a crack down on the use of copywrite material, but there is absolutely no way they could require one to cancel rather than change the name. But even if they could, you just add the other name to the reservation and leave yours on it as well.

I would ask you to cite the contract clause or the appropriate statute that prohibits them from requiring cancellation of a reservation before a name can be changed. I don't think there is one, but if you can come up with the citation of either I would be very interested and appreciative.

 

[Beca]

WOW!

I just read all 41 pages (So much for catching up on two weeks work!).

I'm amazed at the detective abilities displayed by some of our own DISers.

I'm gonna subscribe and enjoy the show for awhile yet.

I enjoy how everyone is comfortable with their personal definition of a commercial renter, and appalled by anyones else's.

I was suprised that one owner had morphed 100,000 points in a single year!

I still believe (BUT ADMIT THAT i MAY BE WRONG) that this is being done to 'protect' the DVC-II, specifically the CRV and VAKL.

I also believe that adding 7,000,000 points of SSR ownership (and folks, I'm not attacking SSR, I own over 400 SSR points myself), probably has more of an effect than point morphing, which I can't imagine exceeded 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 points a year. I think if the CRV (as currently rumored) comes on line, that it will correct alot of the temporary imbalance that SSR may have caused, by it's size, not for any other reason.

Of course, I can be completely wrong, and point morphing could have been greater that 10,000,000 points a year, none of us know for sure.

What I have seen, in my 2 days back, are some signs of mob mentality here, and little room for polite debate. Attacking Beca, Liferbabe, and Rinkwide (especially by low post # members, seems too convienent for me, for these posts to be real, sincere or *NOT* to have been made by an ALIAS ID of another DISer with an axe to grind).

Again, just my opinion.

Finally, I agree with whomever suggested that *ALL* renters have much more to fear from the IRS than the DVC or Disney.

Just my 2 cents!

-Tony

And my vacation was magical, OKW was great as usual (except room cleanliness), Universal was suprisingly nice, and Vero Beach was magical, trip report to follow.

Tony...

What can I say?? I agree with all you have posted (as usual) ....

and, pretty much....you just melt my heart!!!

I'm glad you had a wonderful trip...and, I am glad to see you back!!!



Beca

 

[OneMoreTry]

WOW!


I also believe that adding 7,000,000 points of SSR ownership (and folks, I'm not attacking SSR, I own over 400 SSR points myself), probably has more of an effect than point morphing, which I can't imagine exceeded 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 points a year. I think if the CRV (as currently rumored) comes on line, that it will correct alot of the temporary imbalance that SSR may have caused, by it's size, not for any other reason.

Of course, I can be completely wrong, and point morphing could have been greater that 10,000,000 points a year, none of us know for sure.

But adding the SSR points also added the rooms to accomodate them. Morphing points to another year does not.

 

[OneMoreTry]

Spirit of DVC? That's a good one.

The "spirit" of DVC is unambiguous and spelled out in the POS - Disney gets an up-front cash windfall out of you by promising 40 years of vacations. After that all bets are off.

Folks, check your idealism at the door.

Ooooo, the magic.

My own philosophy:

DVC is an ecosystem. There are those critters and flowers that are aesthetically pleasing to the senses. And there are those that are not (I won't embellish but you can take the metaphor as far as you'd like.) You can't get rid of 'em without destroying the whole thing -- napalm, fission, etc. And they keep finding ways to sneak back around lesser measures.

MY POINT HERE: And as some have pointed out above, they actually serve a useful purpose for all.

Yeah, they may need pruning if things get out of balance like kudzu or the carp that eat indiginous fish or that algae that threatened the California coast. And we can disagree about how to do that. But if our goal is to entirely and definitively eliminate abuses of the system (by our own standards) I think we will be angry and disappointed until 2042.

Anyway, I'm enjoying my DVC and this thread.

 

[waltfan1957]

But adding the SSR points also added the rooms to accomodate them. Morphing points to another year does not.

yes should be easy to understand, but apparantly not

 

[Sammie]

yes should be easy to understand, but apparantly not

I don't think there is any lack of understanding, a good bit of denial going around though. Or possibly some toes getting pinched by the shoe fitting too tight.

 

[Dean]

I would ask you to cite the contract clause or the appropriate statute that prohibits them from requiring cancellation of a reservation before a name can be changed. I don't think there is one, but if you can come up with the citation of either I would be very interested and appreciative.

In this specific case I was referring to the POS wording. Maybe within the rules would have been a better term, I wasn't using the term legal in it's correct context, I think many of us have done that in these type of discussions over time. But I'd put it back on you. To make that type of change, DVC would have to have statutory and POS language that made it possible and it's not there. There is a lot of terminology describing how a person can use their ownership and nothing I see would ALLOW a change such as this. I don't see it there. This type of change would preclude some of the specific allowances as outlined in the POS. But even if it did, it would still hurt members more than renters if used in the way you'd like to use it. No more guests, family usage, etc unless you knew up front to include them. DVC tried to do this with the Lottery reservations in 1999 and were not able to do so.

But adding the SSR points also added the rooms to accomodate them. Morphing points to another year does not.

Not really. It did add the rooms but not at the same level of demand as some of the other resorts. Banking, borrowing, certain exceptions that DVC may make all can put more points into a use year than any given resort can accommodate or even than the entire system can accommodate. Even morphed points have a home that will be available at some point for members to use. They are not extra points to the system even if they end up being extra points to a given resort. And it's been a while since I've stated that it is my opinion that DVC expects, and even plans, for a certain amount of lost points.

 

[pmcpmc]

Next Year Tonight I Immediately Felt The Change As I Was Left With 5pts In One Account And 9 In Another. .normally When You Have More Than One Contract They Are Quite Relaxed About Transfers But The Cm Was Most Insistant About His Requirement To Keep To The New Rules.
He Said That Disney Was Wathing With Interest The Strong Vote In Favour Of Their Transfer Changes

 

[Doctor P]

In this specific case I was referring to the POS wording. Maybe within the rules would have been a better term, I wasn't using the term legal in it's correct context, I think many of us have done that in these type of discussions over time. But I'd put it back on you. To make that type of change, DVC would have to have statutory and POS language that made it possible and it's not there. There is a lot of terminology describing how a person can use their ownership and nothing I see would ALLOW a change such as this. I don't see it there. This type of change would preclude some of the specific allowances as outlined in the POS. But even if it did, it would still hurt members more than renters if used in the way you'd like to use it. No more guests, family usage, etc unless you knew up front to include them. DVC tried to do this with the Lottery reservations in 1999 and were not able to do so.

I think these statements are incorrect on several dimensions. I may be wrong, but in reading the POS it just guarantees the right to make reservations in someone else's name (i.e., it explicitly allows it). Management of the specifics of the reservation system are for the most part not addressed in the POS. The POS guarantees the right to make a reservation in someone else's name. I don't think there is any language that says you can just change names on a reservation. Keep in mind that ADDING names may not necessarily be the same as CHANGING the names. Furthermore, this is a common requirement with hotels. All that the change would mean is that those on the waiting list could get first crack at the reservation before the member could change it to another party. I'm not sure I would advocate this change, but I don't think Disney would have any problem making it within the terms of the POS since members could still make reservations in another person's name which I think is all that is guaranteed by the POS.

 

[Dean]

I think these statements are incorrect on several dimensions. I may be wrong, but in reading the POS it just guarantees the right to make reservations in someone else's name (i.e., it explicitly allows it). Management of the specifics of the reservation system are for the most part not addressed in the POS. The POS guarantees the right to make a reservation in someone else's name. I don't think there is any language that says you can just change names on a reservation. Keep in mind that ADDING names may not necessarily be the same as CHANGING the names. Furthermore, this is a common requirement with hotels. All that the change would mean is that those on the waiting list could get first crack at the reservation before the member could change it to another party. I'm not sure I would advocate this change, but I don't think Disney would have any problem making it within the terms of the POS since members could still make reservations in another person's name which I think is all that is guaranteed by the POS.

Any action by DVC would have to be within the wording of the POS. In other words, it would have to be allowed by the wording of the POS, not have to be specifically excluded. There are mechanisms to change the rules and that could happen within reason, there is a process to go through for that. And they do have quite a bit of latitude in many areas. I'll likely have more info on that in the next week or two, we shall see. Here's an example. DVC's original stance for 1999 regarding the free passes was that points borrowed from 2000 did not qualify for the free passes. DVC published that and told members that for months when making reservations. But the rules did not specifically support that position and they were FORCED to change their position months down the road to say that any stay at OKW on OKW points would qualify for the free passes if they could have qualified otherwise.

 

[Doctor P]

Any action by DVC would have to be within the wording of the POS. In other words, it would have to be allowed by the wording of the POS, not have to be specifically excluded. There are mechanisms to change the rules and that could happen within reason, there is a process to go through for that. And they do have quite a bit of latitude in many areas. I'll likely have more info on that in the next week or two, we shall see. Here's an example. DVC's original stance for 1999 regarding the free passes was that points borrowed from 2000 did not qualify for the free passes. DVC published that and told members that for months when making reservations. But the rules did not specifically support that position and they were FORCED to change their position months down the road to say that any stay at OKW on OKW points would qualify for the free passes if they could have qualified otherwise.

So, your position is that the POS cannot be silent on any aspect of the reservation system and its operation? Does it specify anything about how the wait list will be conducted? Does it specify that the wait list will be run once a day? Does it specify the hours of MS? Does it specify what is required to be provided by the member in terms of information in order to make a reservation? Does it specify whether the MS number will be a toll free number?

There is nothing in the POS that indicates that a change in name on a reservation can be made. Therefore, the right to do so is not guaranteed by the POS, and it certainly in not guaranteed by statute (many hotels require cancellation rather than a change in names on a reservation, and I doubt that any condominium or timeshare statute has otherwise addressed this point). I believe that DVD is entitled to design any reservation system they choose that is true to what IS promised in the POS. This change, I don't believe, would be outside those parameters.