Responses to some things raised above:
BVTC's Supposed Power to Affect Rental Rights.
The powers BVTC has are those in the applicable DVC Resort Agreement for a DVC Resort. Prior to CFW, such agreements never gave BVTC any right to even deal with a member's rentals of DVC rooms. That it can make modifications to those DVC Resort Agreements that may affect a member's ability to make reservations or rent does not mean it can do anything to change the rental rights a member has under the declarations. It could make changes that could affect such rights, such as add a new DVC Resort to the existing DVC Resorts and thus add a large number of new members who would be competing for reservations at all resorts at 7-months out, but the pre-CFW DVC Resort Agreements give it no power to deal with any DVC room rental issues.
Mid-2000's Creation of the 20-Reservation Rule.
Beginning about 2003, some serious rental issues developed, particularly as the internet became more popular and allowed members to readily find persons to whom to rent via creating internet sites to do so. Particularly impacted were studios for time in the Fall season -- late Sep to marathon weekend in Jan -- for holidays and for much of that time when nightly point costs were less than other times of year, particularly the first two weeks of Dec whichad the lowest point per night costs of the year. There were members who basically created rental businesses that that did many spec reservations for those popular times and then rented them through the internet. Reservations at the time were done via phone with MS. Also, the booking rule was that one could reserve beginning 11/7 months out from date of departure from a DVC Resort not date of arrival. Walking as we know it today did not develop as a result, but those members would do pseudo-walks by starting to make one-day reservations and then adding another day daily shortly before the desired reservation times and thus, ultimately, accomplis getting a number of reservations for high demand times for such rooms as BWV standard view studios before the usual members would reserve at 11-mopnths out from date of departure.
Members were limited at the time to owning no more than 2,000 points at any one resort and 5,000 total. Nevertheless, there were members who developed rental business that could actually do rentals with a much larger number of points.There were members who acted together as partnerships to raise the number of rentals they could do. Moreover, there were two rules that allowed a number of members to create businesses doing a lot more rentals with a lot more points. First any member could transfer in any use year, either in or out of the member's account but not both, an unlimited number of points. Thus, the professional renters could make deals with many other members, who likely did not even want to do rentals themselves, to transfer points to a professional renter. Second, the rules allowed any member to become an "Associate Member" of other members' accounts. Such associate members had the power to make reservations, and thus also rentals, with another members points.
Beginning in 2007, DVD/DVC, in response to a large number of complaints by members, began to take steps to deal with the problem. At the time, and thereafter continuing through the creation of CCV, the "Personal Use" definition expressly included a member's right to rent to lessees who used the rooms for vacation purposes. Such rentals became an improper "commercial purpose" only if the member was engaging in a pattern of rental activity that the association could reasonably conclude constituted a commercial enterprise or practice. A "commercial enterprise" is a legal terms used in many cases and statutes to mean a person or entity that is actually in the business of doing something to make profits. DVD/DVC created the 20-reservation-per-year rule that prevented the member from making more reservations in the year unless the member showed the reservations already made were not rentals, and the penalty was loss of the 21st and after rentals, not any of the first 20 if a violation were found. DVC then also created the one-transfer-per-year-rule (which had actually been the rule when DVC was created), and a rule that limited a member to being an Associate Member of no more than four other members' accounts.
None of those rules were formerly added to the resorts' declarations They were used to stop a number of the professional renters from doing large numbers of reservations. No one made a legal-case challenge to the new rules and it is thus unknown whether it would have been found to be legally valid. However, what appears from a lot of posts I have seen in this thread, is that many do not realize that the rules created in the mid-2,000's actually show DVD/DVC's own admission, which can later be used against it in any litigation, that DVD/DVC itself believed the "Personal Use" section rules in all the pre-Riviera declarations allowed a member to do a lot of rentals. Moreover, the 20 reservation rule created could actually be considered a higher limit than 20, because a member could become an Associate Member of 4 other members' accounts and do rentals from each, which rentals would be charged to the applicable member's account and not the associate member's account.
And then there is the construction rule that would be applicable in any litigation between a member and DVD/DVC if there were a legal action. Disney and its lawyers prepared and drafted all the terms in the POS, including those defining Personal Use, Commercial Purpose, and what is required for finding a violation by a member who is doing rentals. Member purchasers could not negotiate different terms.The rule followed by courts in that situation, when the terms at issue can be considered ambiguous, is that the little guy (the member) will win if the member's position is considered reasonable even if the big guy (DVD/DVC) has a differing position that is also reasonable, and that rule is particularly followed relating to disputes involving rights that should be favored, as the Florida courts do as to one's right to rent real property that one owns.
Walking
The June 2025 rule does not say anything about walking and to assume that language which says it is improper to commit fraud in doing reservations does away with walking is not correct, including because DVC is not ever going to publicly claim its many thousands of members who do walking are committing fraud.
Condo Ruiles Versus HOA Rules.
It is pointed out that the Homeowners Association Rules in section 720 of the Florida Statutes allow an association to make binding changes to rental rules that all must follow if the change is for 6-month or less rental periods. Arguably that may be true for CFW, which is not a condominium resort, but as to all the other DVC Resorts, the condominium law, §718, and the timeshare law §720, apply, including §718.110(13) that requires member votes on rental right changes that may reduce the number of times a member can rent, and provides that members who vote against the changes are not bound to follow them even if passed.
