DVC T &C Personal Use - Only Thread to Discuss!

[VGCgroupie]

Oh, in general I am against commercial renting and ESPECIALLY commercial SPEC renting.

However, my understanding is that the ability to rent out points occasionally is part a deeded real estate time share program and have seen enough real world examples to believe it needs to be preserved.

I also did not buy timeshare points expecting them to do anything but depreciate in value over time, but I think that management making draconian policies that would crash the resale market to $0 would be detrimental to a large percentage of the membership.

I think most people buy it because they love Disney, want to stay in properties they could not justify paying cash for or to stay in larger accommodations, and like the fact that if something in life changes in the future they can get some money back prior to expiration.

All completely rational points.

Im not sure why people are assuming DVC is making draconian policies, I havent seen that. I have enough faith in Disney/DVD that, that is not their goal. I wouldn't support a company that I thought was out to screw me over for their own benefit. Nobody should.

 

[AstroBlasters]

All completely rational points.

Im not sure why people are assuming DVC is making draconian policies, I havent seen that. I have enough faith in Disney/DVD that, that is not their goal. I wouldn't support a company that I thought was out to screw me over for their own benefit. Nobody should.

I was referencing comments from posters who stated they did not care if resale values went to $0. That would “probably only” happen if some draconian policies were implemented.

 

[tx911]

Oh, not a at all! It's just that there are so. many. responses.

Much better to plead the fifth

 

[mfortis]

we all know that to sell a contract it can't have any upcoming reservations on it. If a commercial renter wanted to sell he would either need to cancel all reservations or not have made any bookings for a while on those contracts.

they could shift he points to another contract

 

[Sandisw]

@Sandisw,

I've seen mentioned more than once about a distinction between pre-RIV and post-RIV contracts. I bought last year into RIV. Can you explain what the difference on the causal renting side would be for me if I wanted to rent sometime in the future?

Thanks!

The word reasonable was removed from the POS for RiV, VDH and CFW.

The expanded examples of what could be used as part of the decision you are in it for commercial purposes.

For CFW, being it is not a leasehold condo vs RTU, the rental language is even stricter and the FL condo law that happened in 2021 wouldn’t necessarily apply to those.

But, pre RiV, owners get to have a say and DVD agreed that any definition they adopt for what causes you to be in violation needs to be defined as reasonable.

Give the explicit right to rent, DVC is supposed to set thresholds that pretty much all would agree are reasonable in that context.

Is it reasonable to to say an owner who rents a few reservations every year ban is reasonable to say that the owner is no longer in it for personal use?

We know that personal use language includes leaseeea…which I think gets forgotten at times…so what number of rentals is unreasonable within that

Now, the RIv gives additional examples and because of that, you buy on notice which means your interpretation may be different.

As I shared, I bought when less than 20 reservations in a rolling 12 month period would not trigger DVC contacting you and questioning your intent.

That’s why I think owners renting yearly, even if it’s a handful, is reasonable because it has been since I bought.
.

 

[tx911]

I was referencing comments from posters who stated they did not care if resale values went to $0. That would only happen if some draconian policies were implemented.

I kind of stand by it though, because all my contracts will in fact be worth nothing if I keep them long enough. I just bought in to have a bunch of fun vacations.

I don't really want DVC to do anything so drastic that they send everything to $0 precipitously though.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Over on the "Purchasing" forum, we've been following this for about nine months, since Oct, I believe. There's been a definite uptick in stripped contracts, particularly for AUL, but also some from SSR and BWV. And it's the same set of players over and over.

that's why I don't think this current uptick has anything to do with the new wording that just came out.

14 showed up today from one broker and a variety of resorts....I think we know why....

No we don't know for sure - you could be right but could also be that this had been planned long ago and now the contract which are being sold have no upcoming reservations on them.

 

[DL1WDW2]

Technically this does not have any relevance except for Disney history with town of Celebration … I assume Disney did not want their property to be used as short term vacation rentals and property owners still are not allowed to rent unless they have a one year rental agreement ..
As far as I know , currently the only property that does allow the owners to rent short term vacation stays would be the nearby Melia Condos that are also a resort property .
I admit I have not kept up to date with current bylaws , etc… just now remembered this was important info from realtor when we first moved here.

 

[VGCgroupie]

that's why I don't think this current uptick has anything to do with the new wording that just came out.

We hypothesize that mega mega renters got letters about Aulani months ago and that is why the contracts showed up.

These contracts now could be the smaller (but not small) commercial renters now starting to exit, maybe a new round of letters went out or they just realize that the writing is in the sand and better start now. Will be interesting to watch if the highly rented resorts go 1st (BWV, AKV)

 

[TheThousandthSoul]

Again, we all bought a deeded real estate property ... and not a subscription to a fidelity program. Every share has tax consequences. Big difference.

The wording was intentionally made unprecise, allowing DVD to take a case by case basis, shifting the power in their hands - just like the IRS and tax laws.

Exciting times!

 

[tx911]

We hypothesize that mega mega renters got letters about Aulani months ago and that is why the contracts showed up.

These contracts now could be the smaller (but not small) commercial renters now starting to exit, maybe a new round of letters went out or they just realize that the writing is in the sand and better start now. Will be interesting to watch if the highly rented resorts go 1st (BWV, AKV)

Maybe you will find a BWV that you like

 

[Sandisw]

I dont believe that is what they are saying . When you see that reservation is from a person who has 10 other reservations up for rent at the same time and they also had 10 reservations for rent last month ( I'm not speaking about Davids or DVCRM). That is what is frustrating. There is a way to determine who is commercially renting and who is not. It's clear as day if you are looking for it.

That is why I wanted clarification. There are some who appear to advocate for owners not being able to rent any reservation in the high demand rooms and that DV, could say just that alone makes you in it for commercial purposes.

For me, volume is the big predictor of being a commercial renter. Which room is really irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

Where you on AKV or SSR, if you are renting 100s of reservations a year, it’s not personal use and DVc should be doing something.

If you are renting one reservation a year, because you can’t use alll your points but it’s less than the contract size you own, and it happens to be a high demand, I don’t think it means you have become a commercial renter for the purposes of our contract.

Sure, you can make more money, and it’s why they are popular with your commercial renter.

But, is banning all owners from renting certain rooms in line with rentals being allowed?

Some think DVC could.

 

[TheThousandthSoul]

I was referencing comments from posters who stated they did not care if resale values went to $0. That would only happen if some draconian policies were implemented.

That's not gonna happen. If resale values go down to $0, Disney won't even be able to sell direct at their current market price.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Maybe you will find a BWV that you like

My hope!

 

[Brian Noble]

resale values went to $0. That would only happen if some draconian policies were implemented.

There are other ways. They aren't necessarily likely, but they are possible.

 

[TheThousandthSoul]

But, is banning all owners from renting certain rooms in line with rentals being allowed?

Some think DVC could.

Had DVC been a subscription/fidelity program, I would have said yes.
I don't see this happening anytime soon.
I think the legal structure of the new property being built with bring more clarity as to where DVDs is headed to.

 

[VGCgroupie]

That is why I wanted clarification. There are some who appear to advocate for owners not being able to rent any reservation in the high demand rooms and that DV, could say just that alone makes you in it for commercial purposes.

For me, volume is the big predictor of being a commercial renter. Which room is really irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

Where you on AKV or SSR, if you are renting 100s of reservations a year, it’s not personal use and DVc should be doing something.

If you are renting one reservation a year, because you can’t use alll your points but it’s less than the contract size you own, and it happens to be a high demand, I don’t think it means you have become a commercial renter for the purposes of our contract.

Sure, you can make more money, and it’s why they are popular with your commercial renter.

But, is banning all owners from renting certain rooms in line with rentals being allowed?

Some think DVC could.

I think they are starting with this commercial use (renting lots of reservations) if the commercial renting persists and commercial renters find another way to skate the rules like in the past its possible they would go this route. So I for one am glad they didnt give out specific numbers or %'s making it harder to figure out how to get around the rules even if that makes some people uncomfortable

 

[Genie+]

It’s obviously makes sense it’s in between.

Yes. I wonder if DVC will ever fully describe where that line is. Probably not.

 

[TheThousandthSoul]

Yes. I wonder if DVC will ever fully describe where that line is. Probably not.

They won't.
Courts might.

 

[Cyberc1978]

@AnnaKristoff2013 & @Brian Noble

Why is it Marriott and Wyndham have so strict rules about renting, when the 2021 FL statutes gives owners the right to rent etc?

Is it because of how the HOA Association is structured or how the ownership is structured like a trust vs a deeded ownership like DVC?

Curious to know what makes DVC different vs the other major players - if there are any differences at all.