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

[AstroBlasters]

“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.”

@Sandisw

 

[Mouseforward]

Our HOA used to send letters about "lawn violations" but once I got on the board I found out that they knew from the attorney that if challenged they may not prevail since there were no landscaping rules in the restrictive covenants only a vague " neat yard".

The warnings and letters were enough to give the community the impression that it was a rule. However they would never assess a fine. A fine would give an owner standing and a reason to challenge it in court.

The HOA was afraid that it would get tossed in court and then the cat would be out of the bag that they had no control over lawns.

Is DVC in the same spot ? The members are demanding enforcement but their attorneys know that for the initial resorts they have a not insignificant a risk of publicly losing in court which would make it much worse. So they use vague language and veiled threats ( checkboxes) to calm everyone down while updating the documents and changing the structure from a condo to a trust for new resorts that are better positioned to prevent this.

 

[lowlight]

Is DVC in the same spot ? The members are demanding enforcement but their attorneys know that for the initial resorts they have a not insignificant a risk of publicly losing in court which would make it much worse. So they use vague language and veiled threats ( checkboxes) to calm everyone down while updating the documents and changing the structure from a condo to a trust for new resorts that are better positioned to prevent this.

There's only one way to know for sure. Rent all of your points this year and write to DVC member satisfaction team, tell them what you did, and say "What are you gonna do about it!". Their response will give us the answer.

 

[Genie+]

And many would say that will always be the case even without walking.

The new owner who has no idea about walking gets a 0% chance.

All the other people get the better than 0% chance.

If there are 100 of a room/date available and 300 people wanting it. If 80 people decide to walk and find an opening, they get their rooms. The other 220 have their chance shot down to under 10%.

If all 300 followed the along with the way contracts describe 11 month First Come First Serve, everybody has a 33% shot. 3 times the chance. Maybe they get that room every 3 or 4 years instead of once a decade.

I don’t like walking because all it ends up doing is extending ALL of our trip lead times. I haven’t bothered yet but I’m also not going to accept my reduced chances forever. Once I start that first walk likely to just do it every time because why not? Maybe just walk all of my points every week and when I decide on a date, stop. Infinite walks for the win

 

[tx911]

The new owner who has no idea about walking gets a 0% chance.

All the other people get the better than 0% chance.

If there are 100 of a room/date available and 300 people wanting it. If 80 people decide to walk and find an opening, they get their rooms. The other 220 have their chance shot down to under 10%.

If all 300 followed the along with the way contracts describe 11 month First Come First Serve, everybody has a 33% shot. 3 times the chance. Maybe they get that room every 3 or 4 years instead of once a decade.

I don’t like walking because all it ends up doing is extending ALL of our trip lead times. I haven’t bothered yet but I’m also not going to accept my reduced chances forever. Once I start that first walk likely to just do it every time because why not? Maybe just walk all of my points every week and when I decide on a date, stop. Infinite walks for the win

I don't know why so many want to argue this point. It's just straight fact that walkers have an advantage over non-walkers. That's why they do it after all.

 

[Mouseforward]

There's only one way to know for sure. Rent all of your points this year and write to DVC member satisfaction team, tell them what you did, and say "What are you gonna do about it!". Their response will give us the answer.

I don’t have to. last year with my sister had a death in the family. I was stuck with a two bedroom boardwalk view 20 days before the vacation. I rented it called member service to change the name for the people who rented it and even asked them if it was OK since it was three years worth of points for me as I only have 100 boardwalk points. Zero issues was made about renting nearly 3 years worth of points.

So I have more than rented a year worth of points with full knowledge of DVC.

 

[Sandisw]

The new owner who has no idea about walking gets a 0% chance.

All the other people get the better than 0% chance.

If there are 100 of a room/date available and 300 people wanting it. If 80 people decide to walk and find an opening, they get their rooms. The other 220 have their chance shot down to under 10%.

If all 300 followed the along with the way contracts describe 11 month First Come First Serve, everybody has a 33% shot. 3 times the chance. Maybe they get that room every 3 or 4 years instead of once a decade.

I don’t like walking because all it ends up doing is extending ALL of our trip lead times. I haven’t bothered yet but I’m also not going to accept my reduced chances forever. Once I start that first walk likely to just do it every time because why not? Maybe just walk all of my points every week and when I decide on a date, stop. Infinite walks for the win

My comment was in relation to new owners being given the advice to not buy with the expectation of getting those hard to get rooms.

Meaning, even if it didn’t exist, it’s still wise to go into it expecting to miss out.

This wasn’t a comment about walking at all. But rather helping new buyers understand the pros and cons of the resort they are considering.

 

[Sandisw]

“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.”

@Sandisw

Yes. I saw and posted a comment after that my excitement got the best of me and my analysis was a leap!

I did add a note to my initial post that it wasn’t new and maybe I jumped the gun.

Didn’t delete it though since it sparked conversation.

I’ve mentioned that I trust that posters legal analysis so definitely her take would be the correct one!!

Didn’t mean to seem like a troll!!! lol

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

If there are 100 of a room/date available and 300 people wanting it. If 80 people decide to walk and find an opening, they get their rooms. The other 220 have their chance shot down to under 10%.

If all 300 followed the along with the way contracts describe 11 month First Come First Serve, everybody has a 33% shot. 3 times the chance. Maybe they get that room every 3 or 4 years instead of once a decade.

I generally agree with you except on this one point, unless bots and spec renting are stopped, even if nobody was walking your particular day of odds would be lower than 25% on the most coveted rooms.

For some room types, I bet it would be less than 5%.

 

[tx911]

I don’t have to. last year with my sister had a death in the family. I was stuck with a two bedroom boardwalk view 20 days before the vacation. I rented it called member service to change the name for the people who rented it and even asked them if it was OK since it was three years worth of points for me as I only have 100 boardwalk points. Zero issues was made about renting nearly 3 years worth of points.

So I have more than rented a year worth of points with full knowledge of DVC.

I'm sorry you had to do that.

These are the emergent situations that we all want occasional renting to be allowed for.

 

[Sandisw]

Our HOA used to send letters about "lawn violations" but once I got on the board I found out that they knew from the attorney that if challenged they may not prevail since there were no landscaping rules in the restrictive covenants only a vague " neat yard".

The warnings and letters were enough to give the community the impression that it was a rule. However they would never assess a fine. A fine would give an owner standing and a reason to challenge it in court.

The HOA was afraid that it would get tossed in court and then the cat would be out of the bag that they had no control over lawns.

Is DVC in the same spot ? The members are demanding enforcement but their attorneys know that for the initial resorts they have a not insignificant a risk of publicly losing in court which would make it much worse. So they use vague language and veiled threats ( checkboxes) to calm everyone down while updating the documents and changing the structure from a condo to a trust for new resorts that are better positioned to prevent this.

I wasn’t even thinking about the aspect of the trust. It certainly gives them the ability to control things differently since it is not a leasehold condo.

 

[Mouseforward]

I generally agree with you except on this one point, unless bots and spec renting are stopped, even if nobody was walking your particular day of odds would be lower than 25% on the most coveted rooms.

For some room types, I bet it would be less than 5%.

Exactly, except I would say, stopping bots would provide the fastest improvement in the member booking experience.

 

[mkatsy]

This was visited in Yogman v. Parrott, the Court deciding that numerous short-term rentals do not constitute a commercial enterprise. This decision looked closely at the definition of a "commercial enterprise":

We next consider whether defendants' rental activity constitutes a “commercial enterprise.”  “Commercial” means, as relevant, “occupied with or engaged in commerce * * * [;]  related to or dealing with commerce.”  Id. at 456.   “Commerce,” in turn, means “the exchange or buying and selling of commodities esp. on a large scale”; but it also can mean “dealings of any kind.”   Ibid.  “Commercial” also can mean “having profit as the primary aim.”   Ibid. “Enterprise” can mean “VENTURE, UNDERTAKING, [OR] PROJECT”; “a business organization:  FIRM [OR] COMPANY”; or, simply, “any systematic purposeful activity.”  Id. at 757.​

​

If a “commercial enterprise” is any undertaking or systematic purposeful activity involving business dealings of any kind, then the covenant covers defendants' use of the property, because the short-term vacation rentals systematically and purposefully generate revenue from arm's-length transactions.   On the other hand, if a “commercial enterprise” requires a business organization that has profit as its primary aim, then the covenant does not cover defendants' use, [emphasis added] because the facts shown do not demonstrate that defendants are a business organization or that they have profit as their primary aim (as would be true, for example, of a bed-and-breakfast business).   Because of the different possible meanings of “commercial enterprise,” this portion of the restrictive covenant also is ambiguous. [emphasis added]​

If a restrictive covenant is ambiguous, then the maxim of "strict construction of restrictive covenants" applies. This means, the restrictive covenant (i.e. no commercial renting) must be interpreted in its least restrictive form.

Based on the least restrictive interpretation of commercial enterprise, DVC members should be able to rent their points as long as they don't form a "business organization that has profit as its primary aim" to do so.

Anyone who goes against Disney might end up facing them in court. Depending on the number of DVC owners willing to fight Disney, it's possible this could turn into a class action lawsuit.

I don’t know what part of the country that is from, but Orlando (as a vacation destination) has a whole policy on short term rentals here: https://www.orlando.gov/files/share...city-planning/factsheets_shorttermrentals.pdf

 

[lowlight]

I don’t have to. last year with my sister had a death in the family. I was stuck with a two bedroom boardwalk view 20 days before the vacation. I rented it called member service to change the name for the people who rented it and even asked them if it was OK since it was three years worth of points for me as I only have 100 boardwalk points. Zero issues was made about renting nearly 3 years worth of points.

So I have more than rented a year worth of points with full knowledge of DVC.

You said you only have 100 "Boardwalk" points, so either 1) you're the most "concerned about renting rules being enforced" person with 100 points that I've ever met or 2) you have a lot more points, and only 100 are Boardwalk points. Like, you are really, really concerned about renting rules being enforced for only having 100 points, I just can't make the motivation work for me in my tiny brain.

 

[Sandisw]

Just when I thought we had hashed out everything under the sun, “what’s this!?” (Asked like Jack Skellington in the song in NBC)

How did we make it this far without anybody pointing out that Disney actually once directly defined their meaning of “personal use” as “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” (pasted directly from Sandi’s text above).

It doesn’t 100% prove that is the position DVC or Disney will take now or to what degree they will enforce it, but anybody who thinks Disney could never take steps to stop them from renting to strangers at $25/pt is taking a major risk.

In the past, Disney defined personal use very narrowly but then decided only to enforce over 20 reservations a year…I don’t know that I think they will come after small fry (which I define as renting under 200 points a year) for now, but I think they can if they want to and I think they eventually will if there is a decline in park interest such that going after “big time renters” (let’s say renting over 1000 points a year) doesn’t do enough to fill their own hotel rooms at favorable rates.

It was used in that document that way for a reason.

It was in relation to the enforcement clause below and one should consider it within the context in which it was used to distinguish against the reservations over 20.

As, I mentioned yesterday, we are on way opposite ends of this issue and we will just have to wait and see what they do.

We have had great debate though!

 

[juliebee]

Is DVC in the same spot ? The members are demanding enforcement but their attorneys know that for the initial resorts they have a not insignificant a risk of publicly losing in court which would make it much worse. So they use vague language and veiled threats ( checkboxes) to calm everyone down while updating the documents and changing the structure from a condo to a trust for new resorts that are better positioned to prevent this.

Does the Palmetto Trust already have documents that prevent commercial renting? How would it be better positioned to prevent commercial renting?

 

[Mouseforward]

Does the Palmetto Trust already have documents that prevent commercial renting? How would it be better positioned to prevent commercial renting?

It is not classified as a condo, therefore the law allowing renting and preventing DVC from changing renting rules without a vote do not apply.

 

[Mouseforward]

This doesn't have to be done with enforcement or sending nasty letters to owners. They can easily shut 11-month walking down with a very simple booking rule change such as:

Unlimited modifications are allowed BUT if you want to modify in the same resort/room/view you can only do that 11 months minus 7 days in advance. If you want to switch resort or room size or view category, nothing changes from current rules.

They can make rules for walking , and they have had decades to do so , and have chosen not to make this addition. That should be telling as to DVC concern about walking.

I as a BW owner would appreciate if they would stop walking

 

[Mouseforward]

You said you only have 100 "Boardwalk" points, so either 1) you're the most "concerned about renting rules being enforced" person with 100 points that I've ever met or 2) you have a lot more points, and only 100 are Boardwalk points. Like, you are really, really concerned about renting rules being enforced for only having 100 points, I just can't make the motivation work for me in my tiny brain.

I own 100 BW , 100 Poly, and 250 RIV direct -

Much much less than most of you on this forum. In fact I am frequently, (and currently) in a borrowed and out of points situation as I go to WDW 2- 3 weeks in a year, then take a year off to maximize my AP.

And yet I have had to rent my points - once for a late cancel as I mentioned, And this year I am renting 25 borrowed points since I forgot that the borrowed poly points would screw me if the waitlist came through (but who though a 7 day BC studio would open up for a week in May)

I just blew a hole in your theory that only people who are commercial renters care about this- It turns out that many of us think beyond themselves are are genuinely concerned for the DVC product as a member. I think that the availability to rent is a positive for the DVC product. Many members have bad years at jobs , change jobs and have no vacation to use the points , have partners get sick and need to stay home... the list goes on. What I don't want is people who are butthurt that they did not get the rare room class ( that is a 1/50 shot on a good day ) mucking up the program.

 

[Sandisw]

Does the Palmetto Trust already have documents that prevent commercial renting? How would it be better positioned to prevent commercial renting?

In addition to what already was posted, the language was more restrictive than previous resorts…

FL allows the renting of timeshares so I don’t think they can’t ever create ban a resort to ban it completely, but they can control it as much as they want.