DVC T &C Personal Use - Only Thread to Discuss! **Check Post #1678 - Walking Language????

[Cyberc1978]

But the rules against commercial activity were all there as well. So they cannot limit the number of rentals specifically or outlaw renting completely, but they, per the original contracts, are still able to determine the point at which renting leaves the "personal" realm and enters the "commercial" realm, which has been in the rules the entire time

That’s correct unless as @Sandisw mentioned as the old 20 reservations rule which ONLY triggered a review if you had more than 20 reservations could be seen as a standard since DVC did not enforce it

 

[Mouseforward]

Who knows!?! I was picking up on the piece regarding any new amendments that apply to owners who take title after the amendment becomes effective. That piece is quite different from the common understanding here on Disboards that DVC cannot, according to this law, change the rules related to renting. IANAL, but it certainly appears to me that they can.

it would stop the strip and sell group. But most mega point renters have old pre restriction contracts from the sub $100 a point days of DVC .

 

[Sandisw]

Could it be that Wyndham and Marriott is a HOA and therefore they can apply the more strict rental policy?

I don't know but I am not even sure what limitations to rentals were made since 2021....because that is when this law went into effect it.

I posted the info I saw about what their commercial use prohibition policy is:
Guest certificates for a large % of your points
Lots of guests certificates year after year,
Speculative rentals...meaning many reservations are canceled close to the 15 day check in.

 

[Tatebeck]

That’s correct unless as @Sandisw mentioned as the old 20 reservations rule which ONLY triggered a review if you had more than 20 reservations could be seen as a standard since DVC did not enforce it

Once again, it did not say that they only can trigger a review after 20 reservations. It just guaranteed that they would do a review after 20 reservations, while not saying that they were restricted in doing reviews in any other cases.

Those are 2 similar sounding yet very different things.

 

[BeachClub2014]

it would stop the strip and sell group. But most mega point renters have old pre restriction contracts from the sub $100 a point days of DVC .

But there's still the prohibition of commercial activity clause to contend with.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I think we have updated rules and consequences to PREVENT WALKING!!!

And, its so simple and yet, it will have no impact on owners who need the flexibilty to make and change reservations!!!!!

Here it is (bold is mine!)

“In addition, Disney reserves the right to cancel or modify a reservation (including after the reservation has been confirmed) if the reservation includes or resulted from a mistake or error of any kind, if Disney confirms that a reservation was made for commercial purpose and not for personal use, or where it appears that a guest has engaged in fraudulent or misleading activity in making the reservation. If a reservation is cancelled by Disney, Disney shall have no responsibility beyond the refund of monies paid to Disney and/or Vacation Points used, for the reservation.

I see that it was subsequently determined this is not actually new, but I think it applies 10x more to spec renting (or booking for non-paid guests you’ll figure out later)— walking is the best defense your average member has against spec renters at popular times, I don’t mind getting rid of walking but if they get rid of it before bots and commercial renters they are going to see the mother of all class action lawsuits.

Take @drusba word for it. She is a lawyer who has extensive knowledge of how the laws apply to the timeshare product (as well as many other contractual issues).

She also said that it’s cool to rent as much as you want as long as you aren’t using your time share points to run a physical business location (despite clear requirement for personal use) so I think her “legal analysis” is worth less than what you paid for it.

I am being nitpicking but you have to stop using the word personal use as though renting doesn't count.....it’s not an accurate statement

Having a guest on a reservation who is a renter IS considered personal use. Personal use is not defined as only the owner....

The contract allows you to book as many reservations as you want. But, if you are booking for dates you think you might go, then its not fraudelant or misleading because you want them.

If you think walking is fraudulent/misleading, booking in your name (suggesting you will be staying there) before selling it to someone else for profit is the same or worse.

I would also say that while Disney has made clear you can rent in a way that is consistent with personal use, it doesn’t mean all renting is necessarily personal use—they have latitude to define it.

Because - how would Disney know I’m not renting them -

If you are traveling with family they will know you are there too. If you book for the same 10-20 people year after year, you are the person Disney is worrying about.

Also, Disney has way more data on you than you likely realize.

Lawyers, they do be wrong sometimes.

Especially when dealing with motivated reasoning.

The same company who spent $2b for MagicBands and MDE to track everything from our fav restrooms to what color socks we buy. I left MDE on by accident after I returned home. They were tracking my phone location 7 times a day for almost a month before I caught it.

Yeah, I’ve heard people made California privacy requests and got like a ream of data showing where they were in several minute intervals. I’m curious to ask but don’t want to put myself on a PITA list unless I really have to.

 

[TCRAIG]

The discussion came up because of a similar policy by Wyndham. I suppose owners who couldn't make it work under the new rules just sell. I feel like your circumstance, especially the 66 cousin part, would be a pretty rare use of DVC points.

Personally I am generous with my points when it comes to family, but I'm always joining them on the trip and it's always the same groups of people. Also every one of them are in my Friends and Family list on the app.

ETA: I'll also add that if you were gifting that many points, I still would feel like you perhaps bought too many. If you want to be generous to your cousins and not use the points yourself, just buy them their own contracts.

I’m not gifting that many points - I’m just giving a real life example of why setting a limit of 50% of the points of a given UY for ‘renting’ is neither simple nor realistic if the intent is to only impact commercial renters.

 

[Sandisw]

I think the FL statute from 2021 doesn’t really apply to the current issues at hand.

Our contracts let us rent. That is not going away.

Our contracts prohibit commercial use. That is not going away.

I’ve not seen anything that suggests a serious attempt to change those (from DVC or owners).

Both are possible at the same time, like owners doing the occasional rental on points that were bought with the intention of personal use and do not develop patterns of use that are hard to defend as personal use.

People engaging in the most questionable activity probably already thought out exit strategies. If playing the game well, likely to still come out ahead in the end.



DVC more strongly enforcing commercial use prohibited, while still allowing rental(s) as already written and allowed in our contracts, and not trying to amend our contracts to outlaw renting… doesn’t not seem at issue with this particular statute.

One way to look at it is they are not changing the allowance of rentals, just tidying up things that are falling well outside personal use.

I think the question is whether the POS document from 2008, which was the last written official policy that detailed something, and what DVC told people would be used to enforce the clause...and appeared that is what they did use (when they did it), would be something that owners could legally use as the base in conjunction with this law?

I don't think people saw that as something DVC could use to end renting....

 

[Sandisw]

I see that it was subsequently determined this is not actually new, but I think it applies 10x more to spec renting (or booking for non-paid guests you’ll figure out later)— walking is the best defense your average member has against spec renters at popular times, I don’t mind getting rid of walking but if they get rid of it before bots and commercial renters they are going to see the mother of all class action lawsuits.

She also said that it’s cool to rent as much as you want as long as you aren’t using your time share points to run a physical business location (despite clear requirement for personal use) so I think her “legal analysis” is worth less than what you paid for it.

If you think walking is fraudulent/misleading, booking in your name (suggesting you will be staying there) before selling it to someone else for profit is the same or worse.

I would also say that while Disney has made clear you can rent in a way that is consistent with personal use, it doesn’t mean all renting is necessarily personal use—they have latitude to define it.


If you are traveling with family they will know you are there too. If you book for the same 10-20 people year after year, you are the person Disney is worrying about.

Also, Disney has way more data on you than you likely realize.

Especially when dealing with motivated reasoning.

Yeah, I’ve heard people made California privacy requests and got like a ream of data showing where they were in several minute intervals. I’m curious to ask but don’t want to put myself on a PITA list unless I really have to.

Well, IMO, this clause could be used to support that making a reservation first for the purposes of renting is allowed:

No Owner may directly rent, exchange, or otherwise use his or her Ownership Interest without making a prior reservation of an available Vacation Home at the Riviera Resort on a first come, first served basis.

We don't agree though so no need to rehash it....because ultimately, only DVC can decide if they think making a reservation in an owners name and changing it later to a renter is fraudulant or misleading....

Please go back read Drusba's post....she did not say that.she said that the first part of the contract that people were quoting was not refering to rentals....that part of the contract was referring to what owners, guests, renters, etc. can use the room for...it can't be commerical.

She then went on to talk about the other part of the contract that does deal with rentals...she said the contract does not specifically limit the number of rentals that you can make and neither does the law.

And, you are absolutely right they have latitude to define it and but no matter what, those who have pre-RIV contracts have language that says the boards definition of what makes the owner appear to be using the membership commercially must be reasonable....

 

[Sandisw]

Who knows!?! I was picking up on the piece regarding any new amendments that apply to owners who take title after the amendment becomes effective. That piece is quite different from the common understanding here on Disboards that DVC cannot, according to this law, change the rules related to renting. IANAL, but it certainly appears to me that they can.

My understanding is that any amendement like that would still have to be voted on and passed by the membership. The board can't amend the DVC contract unilaterly....if that change can be seen as a material change...and any changes to the declaration, which is where rental language exists, states that owners must vote.

So, before it can even apply to anyone, the owners have to vote to adpot it...if the bulk of the owners vote it down, then they can't change them.

But, if the owners at that resort did approve them, then those who take title after the date. Even before this amendement was passed, owners of a DVC resort have always had the right to ask the board to change things and put them up for a vote..that process is also in the Declaration..

Which is why I think it is unlikely for DVC to do this because each resort is its own assocation, which means every resort would ahve to vote and you could have different outcomes!!!

 

[Sandisw]

Once again, it did not say that they only can trigger a review after 20 reservations. It just guaranteed that they would do a review after 20 reservations, while not saying that they were restricted in doing reviews in any other cases.

Those are 2 similar sounding yet very different things.

Just in case anyone who wasn't around and is curious....here is the language....


Commercial Use Policy. The Disney Vacation Club (DVC) Public Offering Statement makes it clear that DVC memberships are intended for personal vacation use. The Declaration of Condominium and the Membership Agreement for the Resort expressly limits the use of Ownership Interests to personal use and prohibits use for “commercial purposes,” – a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the Board of the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or activity.

DVC Members may make as many reservations as they desire. However, if, in any 12-month period, a DVC Member desires to make more than 20 reservations, the DVC Member shall be required to establish, to the satisfaction of the Board, that all of the reservations made by the DVC Member in such 12-month period are for the use of accommodations by the DVC Member, the DVC Member’s family and/or the DVC Member’s friends (collectively, “Personal Use”), and not for commercial purposes. If, in any 12-month period in which a DVC Member attempts to make more than 20 reservations but is unable to establish, to the satisfaction of the Board, that all such reservations are for Personal Use and not for commercial purposes, all reservations in excess of the first 20 reservations shall be presumed to be the use of Vacation Accommodations for commercial purposes in violation of the Declaration and the Membership Agreement (the “Multiple Reservation Rule”).

Enforcement of this policy will be the responsibility of DVC Member Services as follows. For each reservation made by a DVC Member, Member Services shall determine, before confirming the reservation, the number of reservations made by such DVC Member which are occurring or have occurred in any rolling twelve-month period in which the reservation then being made will occur. If, as a result of Member Services’ review of the DVC Member’s reservation history, the reservation the DVC Member is then attempting to make violates the Multiple Reservation Rule and the DVC Member has not established, or cannot then establish that all of the DVC Member’s reservations, including the reservation then being made by the DVC Member, are for Personal Use, DVC Member Services will not honor or confirm the reservation and the DVC Member shall be advised that the reservation violates the Multiple Reservation Rule and the prohibition on use of Vacation Homes for commercial purposes. For reservations canceled for violating this policy, the cancellation shall be deemed to be a cancellation by the DVC Member and the provisions of the Home Resort Rules and Regulations relating to cancellations (including, without limitation, Sections 5(d), 13 and 14) shall apply.

The Association shall have the sole discretion to interpret this policy. Further, pursuant to the DVC Property Management Agreement and the DVC Membership Agreement for the Resort, the Association delegates the authority to interpret and enforce (through the Home Resort Reservation Component and the Home Resort Rules and Regulations) the policy to DVCMC as property manager for the resort.

This policy is not intended, and shall not be deemed, either (i) to constitute an exclusive act or statement by the Association regarding any breach of the commercial activity prohibitions set forth in the Declaration of Condominium and Membership Agreement, or (ii) to be an exhaustive list of all activities that shall be deemed to be commercial activity. Accordingly, the Association reserves the right to promulgate such additional rules or to take such additional actions or measures as it deems appropriate with respect to any breach of such prohibitions.

 

[TheDailyMoo]

I contend that this is all a big nothing burger much like how nothing came of the whole Trust thing. They drag their heels on everything and just like the "Trust" this is all at most to give themselves something to build off of in the distant future if they want to pursue some sort of policy shift. Did they reach out to certain whales? Sure, more than likely. Will we hear of reservations being cancelled or walkers being punished...very very highly doubt it. Anything that's happened to curb commercial rental activity has been behind closed doors and I personally think we don't hear any more on the subject from DVC for quite some time. Just my speculation.

 

[sndral]

Oops - hit the wrong button - my take on the applicability of FL statute 718.110(13) to DVC is still a work in progress .