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

[Tatebeck]

Sugar cakes...I thought it was new...

Many of us always said that walking is allowed and nothing is written to prevent it, and those conversations alwlays revolved around the Home Resort Rules and Regulations and what was written there...

Had I personally actually ever read this document and saw that back in 2023, then my stance that walking was allowed would have been different.

While the act of walking is just making and modifying a reservation unlimited times, and the rules currently allow allow for that, one can't say that when you are making your reservation you are not making it under false pretenses or in a misleading way.

BUT, this should give DVC the authority to cancel or modify reservations that they have evidence have been walked and it is a document that owners should be able to use in conversations with DVC about walking.

Remember, DVC can choose to ignore parts of the contract and not enforce them against owners...ie: transfer for money or the commercial purpose clause....and we don't have recourse as owners.

And, for all we know, they have chosen not to ignore the practice....but, at least know owners have something to specifically use to add context to the word "intent" that is in the HRR.....

Finally you come to the light side lol

Like I have been saying, making a reservation when your actual desired check in date is more than 11 months out is deceptive and arguably technically against the rules.

 

[TCRAIG]

Gotcha. Thanks for defining these terms from your perspective.

I won't argue that commercial renting is likely widespread and has a seemingly significant impact on at least a subset of rooms. I would go a little further and suggest that the general rental landscape has grown to the point of being harmful, much like commercial renting.

I would have no problem if DVC drew the line at 50% of your annual points per contract being eligible for renting. That still accommodates the legal requirement to allow for renting, would account for all of the "what if I (fill in the blank with a reason), and can't use my points people, and encourages personal use, as is stipulated in the POS.

A 50% limit would get a hard HECK FIRE NO from me - and not because I’m renting - as an example: I have 375 points in my Dec UY - all at HH. They are specifically used to rent 1 2Br unit at 145 points and 2 1Br units at 115 points each every year. The 2Br is for my daughter, her husband, their 2 girls and me - the 1 Br rooms are for my niece, her husband and their 2 kids and my nephew, his wife and their 2 kids - and no - I don’t charge anyone for anything. But DVC doesn’t know that - all they see is a 145 point ressie with my name on it and 230 points worth of reservations (more than 50%) that don’t.

 

[BeachClub2014]

A 50% limit would get a hard HECK FIRE NO from me - and not because I’m renting - as an example: I have 375 points in my Dec UY - all at HH. They are specifically used to rent 1 2Br unit at 145 points and 2 1Br units at 115 points each every year. The 2Br is for my daughter, her husband, their 2 girls and me - the 1 Br rooms are for my niece, her husband and their 2 kids and my nephew, his wife and their 2 kids - and no - I don’t charge anyone for anything. But DVC doesn’t know that - all they see is a 145 point ressie with my name on it and 230 points worth of reservations (more than 50%) that don’t.

I'm confused. If you aren't renting your points, then the theoretical 50% wouldn't be applicable and wouldn't impact you at all.

 

[TCRAIG]

I'm confused. If you aren't renting your points, then the theoretical 50% wouldn't be applicable and wouldn't impact you at all.

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

 

[Sandisw]

Pretty much as I figured, it doesn't include DVC. So DVC actually doesn't "have to" allow rentals at all, at least by the law.

DVC are condos and FL 718 expressly give owners the right to rent our condos. What the newest update, 718.110(13) did was say that condo assocations that want to change the restrictions to rentals to be more limiting than what was written in the document when the owner purchased their contract or the date of the new law, whichever is greater.

Those need to be voted on by owners.....plus, our contract gives us the right to rent and DVC can't change the POS unilaterally as it would be a material change and thus needs the vote of owners.

But, as I said @drusba, is a lawyer who deals with this and knows it extensively....if she is saying that this new amendment applies, then it does....

 

[BeachClub2014]

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

How would they know that you are?

 

[Mouseforward]

"misleading" is pretty hard to link to walking , are you taking advantage of the system configuration that allows up to 7 day bookings - yes 100%

When you modify the reservation are you misleading or are you checking each morning if you can get a different set of dates more to your liking?

Are you intending to lead someone astray or to lead into error ( Blacks law definition of misleading) - no, your probably not.

Ambiguity in a contract goes against the author of the contract

Walkers still suck....

 

[TCRAIG]

How would they know that you are?

Because the reservations don’t have my name on them…

 

[Tatebeck]

Been a while since I made this, seems relevant again now...


Serpents and spiders, tail of a rat; show us the rules, wherever they're at.

Rap on a table; it's time to respond. Send us clearer rules from somewhere beyond.

Goblins and ghoulies from last Halloween: are walkers the worst, that you've ever seen?

Creepies and crawlies, toads in a pond; should I buy membership magic beyond?

Wizards and witches, wherever you dwell, do those that walk, have a weird smell?

 

[Sandisw]

Finally you come to the light side lol

Like I have been saying, making a reservation when your actual desired check in date is more than 11 months out is deceptive and arguably technically against the rules.

No one ever could point to the language in the contract that supported that position.....because the word intent alone was not enough....but all it would take was updated language

Turns out, it was already there!!! And, most importantly, it is there with the consequence (cancel or modification) so that there is no question what will happen to you if you are caught by DVC doing something fraudelant and misleading....

ETA: Since this is not new, and DVC has been allowing it, maybe they won't be doing anything...but, given the other updates and desire to take care of rentals, maybe they will enforce this clause against walking.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Because the reservations don’t have my name on them…

That has no bearing on the great rental debate. I routinely make reservations for family members that have different last names. That's not an issue.

 

[Sandisw]

What do you mean the owners right to rent can’t be limited? Leases less than 6 months or units rented 3 times or more (basically short term rentals) in a year are excluded from the rental protection statute.

Can you post the actual link to the statute that states this? I just read FL 718 110.13 and it does not say that anywhere. I know I posted an article but realized its not the law.

 

[Tatebeck]

Can you post the actual link to the statute that states this? I just read FL 718 110.13 and it does not say that anywhere.

Here is an attorney that says it doesn't apply to condo associations, only HOAs
https://ssclawfirm.com/news-events/in-the-news/navigating-leasing-rights-in-homeowners-and-condominium-associations#:~:text=For condominiums, Section 718.110

"Homeowners’ Associations and Leasing Amendments

Chapter 720 of the Florida Statutes is called the Florida Homeowners’ Association Act. This law was amended in 2021 to address amendments that regulate the leasing of “parcels” within a homeowners’ association. Typically, the parcel is the home and the land the home sits on, and usually other improved or unimproved portions of lots.

A new Section 720.306(1)(h) was added, which says that any amendment to the homeowners’ association’s governing documents, adopted after July 1, 2021, that prohibits or regulates rental agreements, only applies to a parcel owner that acquires title to their parcel after the effective date of the amendment, or to a parcel owner who consents to the amendment. However, this restriction does not apply to amendments which regulate or prohibit rental agreements for terms of 6 months or less. Further, amendments that prohibit the rental of parcels for more than 3 times in a calendar year also apply to all parcel owners.

Homeowners’ associations continue to have the ability to adopt amendments that regulate or prohibit leases of 6 months or less, and still have the ability to adopt amendments which prohibit leasing more than 3 times in a calendar year.

Condominium Associations and Leasing Amendments

For condominiums, Section 718.110(13) of the Florida Condominium Act states that any amendment which prohibits a unit owner from leasing their unit, alters the duration of the rental term, or limits the number of times an owner may rent their unit during a specified period, only applies to those owners who take title after the effective date of the amendment, or those owners who consent to the amendment. There is no 6-month/3 times per year exception in the Condominium Act."

 

[TCRAIG]

That has no bearing on the great rental debate. I routinely make reservations for family members that have different last names. That's not an issue.

Maybe I read your post wrong - but my point is - If DVC limits rentals - how will they determine what’s a rental vs friends/family…can’t just make an assumption that any ressie that doesn’t include your name is a rental or vice versa - how would they make the distinction and determine what’s goes into your 50% rental limit and what doesn’t?

 

[lowlight]

But, as I said @drusba, is a lawyer who deals with this and knows it extensively....if she is saying that this new amendment applies, then it does....

Lawyers, they do be wrong sometimes.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Maybe I read your post wrong - but my point is - If DVC limits rentals - how will they determine what’s a rental vs friends/family…can’t just make an assumption that any ressie that doesn’t include your name is a rental or vice versa - how would they make the distinction and determine what’s goes into your 50% rental limit and what doesn’t?

However they do it now, I presume.

 

[Sandisw]

"misleading" is pretty hard to link to walking , are you taking advantage of the system configuration that allows up to 7 day bookings - yes 100%

When you modify the reservation are you misleading or are you checking each morning if you can get a different set of dates more to your liking?

Are you intending to lead someone astray or to lead into error ( Blacks law definition of misleading) - no, your probably not.

Ambiguity in a contract goes against the author of the contract

Walkers still suck....

I think its strong enough to allow DVC to apply it to owners who walk, given the language in the HRR as well. That does say your 'intended" check in.

My stance was always, DVC doesnt can't just unilaterly say my intent was not real without clearly expressing it.....and that nothing in the HRR said that modifying the dates of a reservation could result in DVC canceling or modifying that said reservation.

With this clause, and the intent of the 11 plus 7 booking rule, its hard for any owner to argue, if DVC decides to say that "walking" is a misleading activity....that it wasn't.

Now, DVC still have the power to decide when to cancel a reservation, and they very well could choose to say that "moving a reservation up a few weeks could be legitimate, but an owner who has moved the dates over a month or more? Yeah, that is obvious.

So, as someone who felt the contract language wasn't written in a way to stop it, I know feel that owners have a good case.

 

[Mouseforward]

However they do it now, I presume.

They don't now , kinda the issue.

About 1/2 my reservations are in a sisters or nephews name ( I am usually in my own room as I don't share) With MDE I can't have my name on 2 rooms or it is a freaking nightmare to get a MB to work.

Disney IT for the win again.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Sugar cakes...I thought it was new...

Many of us always said that walking is allowed and nothing is written to prevent it, and those conversations alwlays revolved around the Home Resort Rules and Regulations and what was written there...

Had I personally actually ever read this document and saw that back in 2023, then my stance that walking was allowed would have been different.

While the act of walking is just making and modifying a reservation unlimited times, and the rules currently allow allow for that, one can't say that when you are making your reservation you are not making it under false pretenses or in a misleading way.

BUT, this should give DVC the authority to cancel or modify reservations that they have evidence have been walked and it is a document that owners should be able to use in conversations with DVC about walking.

Remember, DVC can choose to ignore parts of the contract and not enforce them against owners...ie: transfer for money or the commercial purpose clause....and we don't have recourse as owners.

And, for all we know, they have chosen not to ignore the practice....but, at least know owners have something to specifically use to add context to the word "intent" that is in the HRR.....

I just checked the terms and conditions on the Walt Disney booking website. They are not identical with DVC T&C but a lot of the wording are. Could it be as simply as a copy paste from DVC side?

They read:
Disney reserves the right to decline, accept, retain or cancel any reservation or any guest, subject to applicable law, at any time and for any reason, including but not limited to, a mistake or error in price or description of the hotel, 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 related to the cancellation.


Our new T&C read:
Disney reserves the right to decline, accept, or retain any guest as a participant in its packages at any time. 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. The terms and conditions of any transportation services provided by airlines or car rental agencies shall be as represented by those third parties.

 

[Sandisw]

Lawyers, they do be wrong sometimes.

Of course, and unless a court of law rules one way or the other, we can say that about anything....but the point is, that she knows it well enough, has studied it long enough, and has been around to evaluate DVC contracts for a very long time, that her analysis is certainly strong from the legal side than any of us who are not.