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

[JackosinDIS]

You still have to answer the question that it is for personal use. Both chat and phone CMs.

I’m perfectly happy to answer ‘yes’ to the question ‘is it personal use’.

My point was that I don’t see how an owner can be deemed to have agreed to the new rules verbally over the phone. Pretty sure that wouldn’t stand up IF DVC ever try to argue the point that owners have implicitly agreed to a limit on rental restrictions by agreeing the new June 2025 rules.

I have nothing to hide, I just don’t like the way this is being done. Why have they not issued an insert to the POS in the usual manner? Is the checkbox an attempt to get everyone owner to ‘vote’ on the new rules?

 

[mkatsy]

I was also thinking about this— cheap rentals are worse for Disney hotels than expensive rentals (undercutting pricing at hotels), but conversely, the more money that renters milk from their guests, the less money they have left for Disney to extract on F&B, merch, tours, etc. If someone is willing to pay $500, Disney wants them at WVL or AKV or a cabin and not in a privately rented DVC studio. I think in Disney’s perfect world, rentals would be a few hundred and only at OKW and Saratoga?

Good point, it’s totally unreasonable for a contract to be executed before a room is secured, but you could still ask them to fill out a few fields about rental terms, then upload the contract within 72 hours or such.

Having to upload the contract for rentals is “harassing owners”? I can only speak for myself, but I would be happy to be slightly inconvenienced the few times a decade I rent out my points if it meant that owners using for themselves got priority over owners trying to maximize profits for rentals.

The experience wouldn’t change for everyone who is using their points to book for themselves and guests, only those booking on behalf of paying customers.

Earlier in this thread people talked about the only proven way to stop renting for profit is to kill demand, but I think they also need to make it harder for the people abusing the system while making minimal (ideally zero) changes for the people using their points as intended. Slowing down renters just a little bit could dramatically increase the average owner’s chance of getting coveted rooms.

Having to upload the contract to rent is a “thing” here in Florida. It’s one of the ways HOA’s are trying to get a hold on some of the rental issues we face. I live near a major university, people will rent a house and then sublease each bedroom for an overall profit. You end up with a pseudo frat house in a family neighborhood. It can become a nightmare if they like to throw parties. Now the HOA requires the lease to be submitted with all tenants names and if anyone not on the lease is found living there the entire lease is void. Sounds intrusive right? We love it, it has given us our sanity back. It only took one person to “test” the system, and we have had peace and tranquility ever since.

 

[muppets3d]

I’m perfectly happy to answer ‘yes’ to the question ‘is it personal use’.

My point was that I don’t see how an owner can be deemed to have agreed to the new rules verbally over the phone. Pretty sure that wouldn’t stand up IF DVC ever try to argue the point that owners have implicitly agreed to a limit on rental restrictions by agreeing the new June 2025 rules.

I have nothing to hide, I just don’t like the way this is being done. Why have they not issued an insert to the POS in the usual manner? Is the checkbox an attempt to get everyone owner to ‘vote’ on the new rules?

The rules haven't changed...

 

[JackosinDIS]

The rules haven't changed...

Yes they have… quoting from a previous post:

“Another issue is that the June 2025 rules state that “DVCM reserves the right to interpret personal use and determine if reservations are booked for personal or commercial purposes in its discretion.” The rule that actually exists for pre-CCV resorts is that the association or its Board is the determiner on the issue of whether a member has violated the commercial purpose rule using the reasonableness standard, and there is nothing in the DVC Membership Agreements applicable to DVCM that gives it the authority to make such determinations, including one that requires no level of reasonableness.”

 

[muppets3d]

Yes they have… quoting from a previous post:

“Another issue is that the June 2025 rules state that “DVCM reserves the right to interpret personal use and determine if reservations are booked for personal or commercial purposes in its discretion.” The rule that actually exists for pre-CCV resorts is that the association or its Board is the determiner on the issue of whether a member has violated the commercial purpose rule using the reasonableness standard, and there is nothing in the DVC Membership Agreements applicable to DVCM that gives it the authority to make such determinations, including one that requires no level of reasonableness.”

DVC has always been a product intended for people to use to book vacations for themselves and their families for personal use. Anything outside of that has always been against the rules.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m perfectly happy to answer ‘yes’ to the question ‘is it personal use’.

My point was that I don’t see how an owner can be deemed to have agreed to the new rules verbally over the phone. Pretty sure that wouldn’t stand up IF DVC ever try to argue the point that owners have implicitly agreed to a limit on rental restrictions by agreeing the new June 2025 rules.

I have nothing to hide, I just don’t like the way this is being done. Why have they not issued an insert to the POS in the usual manner? Is the checkbox an attempt to get everyone owner to ‘vote’ on the new rules?

I absolutely agree that saying yes to personal use doesn’t mean you have agreed to anyting more than that the reservation is for someone’s vacation.

Even if reservation being rented it is still for personal use We also know that owners can rent.

Until DVC, or the board, determines and notifies an owner that the reservations that were made rise to a level not allowed, using a reasonable standard (which applies to everyone except CFW) owners are being truthful.

Everyone here seems to agree that it would be reasonable for DVC to enforce the clause for thise renting hundreds of reservations, whether they are high profit or not.

What is obviously different is whether or not it would be reasonable for DVC to enforce that clause based on when you made the room…before or after you find a renter…or if you are renting specific rooms and/time periods, absent any other factors.

We do know that frequency will be used and that regularity will be used.

How they define those? Unclear. Whether they will use other factors as well? Unclear.

But we all know now that they will be monitoring for frequency or regularity.

And its hard to imagine that their definition won’t catch the mega point owners, who clearly are the ones violating the contract.

 

[Sandisw]

DVC has always been a product intended for people to use to book vacations for themselves and their families for personal use. Anything outside of that has always been against the rules.

I’m sorry but this is simply not true. The DVC product was intended for people to use for themselves, family and friends AND renters, within reason, for vacations.

The documents explicitly state renters count. The DVC website states renters count. Even the board last year at the condo meeting agreed owners have the right to rent.

Having renters has never been and still isn’t against the rules.

What is against the rules, and always has been is renting to the degree that actions appear that you have turned it into a commercial enterprise.

 

[muppets3d]

I’m sorry but this is simply not true. The DVC product was intended for people to use for themselves, family and friends AND renters, within reason, for vacations.

The documents explicitly state renters count.

Having renters has never been and still isn’t against the rules.

Even the board last year at the condo meeting agreed owners have the right to rent.

What is against the rules, and always has been is renting to the degree that actions appear that you have turned it into a commercial enterprise.

Yes you are correct, I don't have a copy of my Riviera contract handy but it does call out personal use rentals as acceptable as we all know. It specifically says you should not buy DVC with the expectation to make a profit. Profiteering off of DVC is against the rules. Not renting.

 

[DanCali]

Having to upload the contract for rentals is “harassing owners”? I can only speak for myself, but I would be happy to be slightly inconvenienced the few times a decade I rent out my points if it meant that owners using for themselves got priority over owners trying to maximize profits for rentals.

I don't think it's a just matter of inconvenience.

First, if someone already has a signed contract for a rental to upload, then it's likely not part of the spec rental problem. There's no need to slow those bookings down.

Second, maybe I misunderstood you, but I assumed you meant uploading a completed/signed contact. If that's not harassing then I'd definitely find that intrusive, especially for the 99%+ who are non-commercial renters. What's next - paystubs? W2s? 1040s?

Slowing down renters just a little bit could dramatically increase the average owner’s chance of getting coveted rooms.

There've been examples here of people renting out 10K, 15K, 20K points a year. Nobody is arguing that those cases smell like commercial. But, again, that's probably less than 0.1% of renters and accounts for 20%/30%/50%(?) of the rental volume. Why bother and intrude on everyone?

Regardless of what they do on the rental front, nobody will experience a "dramatic" change in booking availability for the coveted rooms like the 5 Club level studios or 18 Value studios at Jambo house. Given the competition for the truly coveted rooms, any change in availability for owners will feel very infinitesimal (even if it's not), and you'll hear roughly the same amount of complains about availability even with zero rentals. That's the nature of something being "coveted".

 

[Sandisw]

Yes you are correct, I don't have a copy of my Riviera contract handy but it does call out personal use rentals as acceptable as we all know. It specifically says you should not buy DVC with the expectation to make a profit. Profiteering off of DVC is against the rules. Not renting.

And I think that is why many of us beleive that DVC will ultimately use common sense enforcement.

 

[JackosinDIS]

DVC has always been a product intended for people to use to book vacations for themselves and their families for personal use. Anything outside of that has always been against the rules.

Ok, but I’m not suggesting that the new rules have changed what is or is not personal use (although I don’t agree with your definition above).

The new rules have changed:
a) which body is empowered to make the decision on whether or not a particular circumstance is deemed to be commercial
b) the standard against which the decision is judged. Previously there was a requirement for the determining party to act reasonably (this is an objective test) versus now a decision based on that ‘sole discretion’, which is a subjective test and can be as unreasonable as they like.

I know it may seem irrelevant (and to me it largely is - I use my DVC points for personal use) but I just don’t like any adverse changes to the contracts without going through the proper process. If they do it once they will do it again.

 

[muppets3d]

Ok, but I’m not suggesting that the new rules have changed what is or is not personal use (although I don’t agree with your definition above).

The new rules have changed:
a) which body is empowered to make the decision on whether or not a particular circumstance is deemed to be commercial
b) the standard against which the decision is judged. Previously there was a requirement for the determining party to act reasonably (this is an objective test) versus now a decision based on that ‘sole discretion’, which is a subjective test and can be as unreasonable as they like.

I know it may seem irrelevant (and to me it largely is - I use my DVC points for personal use) but I just don’t like any adverse changes to the contracts without going through the proper process. If they do it once they will do it again.

(a) doesn't make any sense. If DVC wasn't previously empowered to deem a member a commercial renter, who would be? Unless the contract called for third party arbitration or something, obviously DVC would be the empowered body.

 

[MyDogTink]

Interesting… we all missed this little error in the June 2025 rules!


I may resort to only making reservations by calling member services… thereby never actually agreeing to these new terms and conditions!

I called to modify a reservation on Thursday and was asked to confirm that I was aware of the T&C and that the reservation is for personal use. Sorry if this was answered further on. This thread is moving too fast for me.

 

[J-Dog]

I can give you a different example - the Amex airline lounges that Centurion/Platinum cardholders get to use.

15-20 years ago you could be the sole cardholder, go in there with an entire family of 6, for unlimited time, and use it both for departures and arrivals.

Due to overcrowding (a genuine concern), they imposed the following restrictions over time:

• Bring up to 2 guests
• Use for departures only
• Use for up to 3 hours before flight
• Further decimating guest policy - no guests at all without extra payment per guest

Most cardholders were cheering after each restriction thinking the overcrowding would improve. "Bye Bye big families!". "Bye bye little children!". "Bye bye hungry/greedy arriving passengers!". YAY! But as the restrictions increased, more and more people got affected by them.

Meanwhile the fee for the Platinum card has doubled. Cardholders who want to maintain some prior benefits like family access also now have to pay for family members ($200/person) to get companion cards.

And guess what - the lounges are still overly crowded and frequently exceed capacity... So who gained from all this? Amex!

It's funny that you bring this up, because the Capital One Venture X card just announced last week that they are adding some of these restrictions for the first time ever. As far as I can tell from online chatter, no one is buying the "will help decrease crowding" excuse, though.

 

[Sandisw]

(a) doesn't make any sense. If DVC wasn't previously empowered to deem a member a commercial renter, who would be? Unless the contract called for third party arbitration or something, obviously DVC would be the empowered body.

It is the board of the association and not DVCMC. They are legally two different entities.

It may be semantics since the board members are also DVC employees.

For example, a senior executive at DVCMC can’t make the decision if they are not one of the condo associations board of directors. .

It must be a decision that the board members…all agree…is the rule.

Contract language matters….

 

[muppets3d]

It was the board of the association and not DVCMC. They are legally two different entities.

It may be semantics since the board members are also DVC employees.

For example, a senior executive at DVCMC can’t make the decision. It must be a decision that the board members…all agree…is the rule.

Contract language matters….

So now instead of the board specifically, it is simply DVCMC's discretion. I agree it is probably mostly semantic but still a distinction.

The only question left I suppose is does the contract of the original 14 allow DVC to amend the terms and conditions of membership as they see fit? I can imagine that it does.

 

[lowlight]

People keep bringing up contract language and potential lawsuits, but they are only looking at it from the side of the owners who choose to rent and would sue Disney over more restrictions. The converse is true, also. I am an owner who believes that the management company and board are not upholding the terms of the contract that we both agreed to when I purchased. Nowhere did it say that I would be competing for rooms with large multinational businesses who rent rooms as a business, nor did it say that 1st come 1st served for booking meant that I would have to walk my room from the beginning of my use year to my intended check in date. If renters can say they are in breach of the contract, I can say they are in breach of the contract. I think the resulting lawsuits would both lose, assuming either side even got the money to do it or a firm willing to take it on, which is doubtful, but let us not forget that promises were made on all sides that are not being met.

 

[muppets3d]

People keep bringing up contract language and potential lawsuits, but they are only looking at it from the side of the owners who choose to rent and would sue Disney over more restrictions. The converse is true, also. I am an owner who believes that the management company and board are not upholding the terms of the contract that we both agreed to when I purchased. Nowhere did it say that I would be competing for rooms with large multinational businesses who rent rooms as a business, nor did it say that 1st come 1st served for booking meant that I would have to walk my room from the beginning of my use year to my intended check in date. If renters can say they are in breach of the contract, I can say they are in breach of the contract. I think the resulting lawsuits would both lose, assuming either side even got the money to do it or a firm willing to take it on, which is doubtful, but let us not forget that promises were made on all sides that are not being met.

Maybe us normal members should start a lawsuit against DVCMC for not enforcing the contract against commercial renters.

 

[DanCali]

It's funny that you bring this up, because the Capital One Venture X card just announced last week that they are adding some of these restrictions for the first time ever. As far as I can tell from online chatter, no one is buying the "will help decrease crowding" excuse, though.

I do have that card and am aware of the changes. I don't use their lounges often but I'm not even sure that that they have an overcrowding problem - seems more like greed. It sounds from the chatter you read, that it is an issue sometimes or maybe in some locations.

I actually used both the Amex Centurion Lounge and the Capital One lounge in Vegas recently on the same day. The Amex was packed and had a 15-minute wait, while the Capital One lounge (which was super nice) had no wait and was maybe at 30% capacity when I walked in and 70% capacity when I left. I also used the CO lounge in Denver once and it was busy but had no wait. The Amex lounge in Denver is always packed.

 

[Sandisw]

So now instead of the board specifically, it is simply DVCMC's discretion. I agree it is probably mostly semantic but still a distinction.

The only question left I suppose is does the contract of the original 14 allow DVC to amend the terms and conditions of membership as they see fit? I can imagine that it does.

There are certain things they have the right to amend. If something is not a material change in the contract, then no approval of owners is needed.

Any change to the contract that is deemed a material must be voted on by owners of that resort.

The board can not transfer legally its rights to DVMC, for this decision or any other

When I said it was semantics what I meant is that the board members are also DVCMC employees.

Yvonne Chang can only be part of making the decison when acting in her capacity as a board member, but can’t make it if she is acting in her capacity as a DVC executive.

So, no, they don’t have the right to just changes things at will.

The determination that the board must make for when one is in violation of the personal use clause must be reasonable.

Once the board decides, then they give DVCMC the task for carrying it out…

So, stating the DVCMC gets to be the sole decider is in conflict with the contract…but what covers them is that they did say that any conflict that can be found, the POS document language counts.