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

[DougEMG]

If someone that runs a commercial business such as a YouTube channel that books a DVC room to film a video review of said room or doing a live stream out of that room not running a commercial business out of that room. I don’t see Disney actually wanting to stop that.

 

[chicagodisneyguy]

Is someone that runs a commercial business such as a YouTube channel that books a DVC room to film a video review of said room or doing a live stream out of that room not running a commercial business out of that room. I don’t see Disney actually wanting to stop that.

Not really the same as renting out 1000 points a year...year after year. And more than likely said YouTuber is booking that room last minute versus booking 20 BWV standard views at 11 months

But if somehow DVC thought it was harming the membership or DVC/Disney itself they'd probably be within their right to do something about it....although I don't see many scenarios where it would affect the membership.

 

[lowlight]

Agree. There appear to be two possibilities here:

A. DVD (DVC) Has Misread the Original Personal Injury Rules

The DVD personnel or lawyers who created and issued the June 2025 rules, and adopted the policy to require that a member making a reservation confirm that it is or is not solely for "personal use," failed to read or understand the definition of personal use in §12 of the Declarations, at least for all those resorts created before Riviera. That definition defines "personal use" as the use of a room as a vacation accommodation and expressly provides that a member's making such reservations for "lessees" is an allowed "personal use." Thus, a member's renting rooms to anyone for use as a vacation accommodation is, in fact, an allowed "personal use." It becomes an improper "commercial purpose" only if: (a) the rental is for actually using the room for a business purpose (something that can only be done in designated "Commercial Units"); or (b) the member has engaged in a pattern of rental activity that the association can reasonably conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice (a commercial enterprise is a legal term meaning that one is actually regularly engaging in the business for doing something for profit). As a result, most members who do rentals can honestly answer "yes" to the question whether a reservation is solely for personal use even if the particular reservation is a rental.

B. DVD Is Intentionally Being Disingenuous

I doubt the responsible DVD personnel are as uninformed as stated above. As DVD is undoubtedly aware, DVD is allowed to unilaterally make changes to things in the declarations after a resort begins to be sold but, absent a vote of the members, is prohibited from doing so if the change could "prejudice or impair to any material extent the rights of any Owner." E.g., BWV Declarations §16.2. Courts consider the right to rent residential-type property such as timeshares to be a fundamental right of the owners. Thus, DVC Resorts’ declarations do not allow DVD to further restrict the member's ability to rent absent an actual vote of the members. Even then, for condominiums, there is also the statute that prohibits creating further restrictions that could reduce the number of rentals an owner can make absent a member vote, and the members that vote against the change are not required to follow it. §718.110(13).

The new rules are written to appear to be saying renting is something only rarely done or allowed and the term personal use refers only to a member's use of the room or a member's allowing family or friends to use the rooms. But if you read the new rules several times, you may conclude something different: DVC is not really creating new rules. It has just rewritten the existing rules with a much more harsh tone, and likely: (a) its position if challenged will actually be that the new rules can be construed to be the same as the old rules; (b) it will principally pursue the professional renters if they do not cease their activities because they are violating the old rules and have no real defense; and (c) the new rules may themselves cause many members doing some fairly frequent rentals, who perceive that the term personal use does not include rentals, will actually stop renting, or at least decrease their amount of renting, under the belief that new rules require that.

The applicable June 2025 rental rules are, per sentence:

1. "You agree that any reservations made under your membership are solely for personal use and not for commercial purposes, as required by governing documents for each DVC Resort,
including but not limited to the Declaration of Condominium and Membership Agreement."

That sentence actually says nothing more than the actual rule in the declarations. The sentence does not declare personal use excludes rentals or that commercial purposes include anything more than what is actually provided in the declarations.

2. "DVCM reserves the right to interpret personal use and determine if reservations are booked for personal or commercial purposes in its sole discretion."

That is a big "so what" sentence. DVCM has the power to finally determine the issue of personal use and commercial purposes for the Riviera and after resorts, but the sentence does not say it actually has that power for all pre-Riviera resorts. Nothing disallows DVCM from weighing in on the issue as to those resorts but, under those POS’s, only the association can finally determine the issue and the association must apply a reasonableness standard. That rule is not really changed because the sentence does not say DVCM is the entity that finally determines the issue.

C. "Personal use may include enjoying the benefits of a DVC Membership with family or friends or allowing use of any reserved Vacation Home to friends and family on occasion."

That sentence is literally true as to what personal use "may include," but the sentence does not actually exclude rentals or anything else not stated in the sentence that could be personal use.

D. "Additionally, personal use means that the member does not regularly or frequently rent/sell reservations booked using their membership."

Noteworthy is that the sentence appears to be conceding that the term "personal use" expressly includes a member's ability to rent. ”Regularly” or “frequently” are vague terms that could require, as the rules in the declarations of most DVC Resorts, a large number of rentals before a violation of what is stated in the sentence.

If any real legal dispute arises, my sense is DVD/DVC will not take the position that its new rules are more restrictive than those stated in the declarations of the DVC Resorts. To do so would raise the issue that such new rules cannot apply because they were never voted on by the members, and that is an issue DVD/DVC would likely lose in a lawsuit. Its position will instead be that its June 2025 Rules really do not conflict with the DVC Resorts' declarations’ definitions of personal use and commercial purpose. Moreover, it will likely focus on the professional-type renters who are doing a lot of rentals because those can be shown to be acting improperly under the original personal use and commercial purpose definitions.

What stops Disney from taking the Ford Pinto approach? If the bean counters decide that this rental market costs Disney X million a year more than the potential cost of settling any lost litigation? Logic dictates that the only renters with enough funds to litigate in the court system would likely be self admitting to their crimes by suing. Someone said it well in another thread- it’s one thing to say Disney is violating the terms of your contract, it’s another thing to prove it in court. I dislike corporations throwing around their legal power like this, but enemy of my enemy and all.

 

[EatMoreVeg]

Just thought I would share my experience using the online chat to change the lead guest information on one of my reservations this morning!

For what it’s worth, I have rented my points in the past, but this reservation was for friends traveling with us in December. We’re doing a Disney cruise together and are flying in the day before, so I used our points to book us each a studio room. However, I booked these rooms at the 11 month mark since I had to in order to ensure we got studios, but it wasn’t entirely confirmed whether or not this trip would actually happen! Now that we’re much closer to the dates, we’ve decided we will be going so I contacted MS via chat to change the reservation name to our friend’s information.

Firstly, I was asked to confirm that this reservation was for personal use only. I said yes, and provided the name and address of our friends, but I didn’t have the phone number or email or the husband, whose name I used as the lead guest. I have that information for the wife, who I converse more with when we make/arrange plans but she’s not the “techy” one who would manage linking their reservation and such online. I told the cast member I was chatting with they could leave the email/phone as mine, and I would update it later. They refused to leave this information the same. So I gave them my husband’s email/phone number since I figured then at least it’s different. They again refused to do that as my husband is on our contract as well, and they knew it was his contact info. So I ended up having to search my phone for the wife’s email so I could provide that. She had given it to me in our chat several months ago, but I never added it to her contact card nor actually emailed her since I just needed it to register our daughters for something. Just thought it was interesting as I’ve never gotten such push back in the past.

 

[lowlight]

Also, what relationship is there between this contract language and BVTC? If you trade into Riviera under 11 months and rent the reservation, is it based on the resort the points came from or the harsher Riviera renting rules?

 

[GoingSince1990]

Just thought I would share my experience using the online chat to change the lead guest information on one of my reservations this morning!

For what it’s worth, I have rented my points in the past, but this reservation was for friends traveling with us in December. We’re doing a Disney cruise together and are flying in the day before, so I used our points to book us each a studio room. However, I booked these rooms at the 11 month mark since I had to in order to ensure we got studios, but it wasn’t entirely confirmed whether or not this trip would actually happen! Now that we’re much closer to the dates, we’ve decided we will be going so I contacted MS via chat to change the reservation name to our friend’s information.

Firstly, I was asked to confirm that this reservation was for personal use only. I said yes, and provided the name and address of our friends, but I didn’t have the phone number or email or the husband, whose name I used as the lead guest. I have that information for the wife, who I converse more with when we make/arrange plans but she’s not the “techy” one who would manage linking their reservation and such online. I told the cast member I was chatting with they could leave the email/phone as mine, and I would update it later. They refused to leave this information the same. So I gave them my husband’s email/phone number since I figured then at least it’s different. They again refused to do that as my husband is on our contract as well, and they knew it was his contact info. So I ended up having to search my phone for the wife’s email so I could provide that. She had given it to me in our chat several months ago, but I never added it to her contact card nor actually emailed her since I just needed it to register our daughters for something. Just thought it was interesting as I’ve never gotten such push back in the past.

I have been in that situation before and by far the easiest thing to do is for you just to stay on both rooms as the lead guest and add your friends to one of them as additional guests, so no phone call or chat is needed. (This would only not work, of course, if your friends are filling the room to capacity, leaving no space for your name still to be on the room).

 

[Cyberc1978]

….. will largely be left alone, especially if they follow the David’s/DVC Rental Store model as opposed to striving to get absolutely top dollar by making and reselling spec reservations for the most lucrative villas and dates.

if I rent a value room or any other room Disney wouldn’t know which price if any my renters paid.

I could be renter for $35 or gifting it away. Booking a value could also be seen as a way of saving points - or to get top dollar.

Point is Disney wouldn’t know and don’t care.

 

[DougEMG]

Not really the same as renting out 1000 points a year...year after year. And more than likely said YouTuber is booking that room last minute versus booking 20 BWV standard views at 11 months

But if somehow DVC thought it was harming the membership or DVC/Disney itself they'd probably be within their right to do something about it....although I don't see many scenarios where it would affect the membership.

The example was specifically setup to be what the definition of a "commercial enterprise" actually is as per the original POS. Hence why it had nothing to do with renting!

 

[DougEMG]

What stops Disney from taking the Ford Pinto approach? If the bean counters decide that this rental market costs Disney X million a year more than the potential cost of settling any lost litigation? Logic dictates that the only renters with enough funds to litigate in the court system would likely be self admitting to their crimes by suing. Someone said it well in another thread- it’s one thing to say Disney is violating the terms of your contract, it’s another thing to prove it in court. I dislike corporations throwing around their legal power like this, but enemy of my enemy and all.

You either believe in the law or you believe in power!

 

[Sykes]

What stops Disney from taking the Ford Pinto approach? If the bean counters decide that this rental market costs Disney X million a year more than the potential cost of settling any lost litigation? Logic dictates that the only renters with enough funds to litigate in the court system would likely be self admitting to their crimes by suing. Someone said it well in another thread- it’s one thing to say Disney is violating the terms of your contract, it’s another thing to prove it in court. I dislike corporations throwing around their legal power like this, but enemy of my enemy and all.

That's generally my assumption of what will happen. I can't imagine a plaintiff's attorney would take a class action of this nature on contingency, and the only people with individual injury substantial enough to justify the cost of litigation are those who are unquestionably taking part in commercial renting.

 

[lowlight]

The example was specifically setup to be what the definition of a "commercial enterprise" actually is as per the original POS. Hence why it had nothing to do with renting!

Correction- the definition that one lawyer on the Disboards believes to be the interpretation.

 

[EatMoreVeg]

I have been in that situation before and by far the easiest thing to do is for you just to stay on both rooms as the lead guest and add your friends to one of them as additional guests, so no phone call or chat is needed. (This would only not work, of course, if your friends are filling the room to capacity, leaving no space for your name still to be on the room).

I’ve done that before but it caused a lot of issues with being able to open my room.

 

[Tatebeck]

And she also talked about the how a pattern of rental activity can also make it a commercial enterprise from the original documents, so the original commercial enterprise clause definitely can have something to do with renting...

 

[Tatebeck]

if I rent a value room or any other room Disney wouldn’t know which price if any my renters paid.

I could be renter for $35 or gifting it away. Booking a value could also be seen as a way of saving points - or to get top dollar.

Point is Disney wouldn’t know and don’t care.

They may not be able to see how much money you make, but they can definitely tell if your reservations are sketchy and likely used to maximize profits or not.

Member A: Owns 150 AKV points and booked value studios 5 times in the last few years. Some ended up with the owners names on the reservation as the lead guest, some not.

Member B: Owns 4000 points, a large quantity of them at AKV, and has booked 50 value studios over the last few years, and ended up changing the guests on every single one so the member's name was never on a reservation, and has had no repeat guests using the reservations, and not even a single guest shared the same last name as Member B.

I don't know about you guys, but to me Member A seems pretty normal, but Member B is waving a huge red flag.

Member A doesn't have a lot of points, so a value studio makes more sense, and they have actually used some reservations.

Member B has a ton of points, does not need to save points with value studios, and somehow hasn't managed to use a single one of their reservations for themselves in the last few years. It could be reasonable to assume that this member is likely renting them for a huge intended profit.

That is a pattern of rental activity that they could reasonably say becomes a commercial enterprise.

 

[Sandisw]

So 109pgs of commentary and discussion were kinda pointless then…that’s disappointing, though I guess not every surprising…but how is this current statement supporting what was mentioned in December? Seemed like they were gearing up to take a more proactive approach back then, but this just makes it seem like they’re not going to do anything. But perhaps I’m misunderstanding their objective.

Opinion here.

The statement at the meetings really was always about large point owners who were renting thousands of points and who were obviously in it for a business.

Nothing every stated by DVC to this point indicated more than that that but adding the acknowledgement is definitely going to make people think twice?

And, I do think DVC will be taking action against those owners based on my call.

The discussion has been a good one for people to share their own thoughts and what they hope DVC will do.

Again, just sharing what I was directly told when making a reservation.

 

[Sandisw]

Someone else made a post upthread about the loudest individuals who comment about the injustices of this potential change are usually the ones trying to justify why they do the things they do, that are questionable. If you follow enough of the threads or facebook groups, you'll see their justification being that Disney is actually the largest renter of points, along with a lot of whataboutisms regarding Disney. In my opinion, being the most vocal against a change, and resorting to whataboutisms are just further attemps to justify their own mass rentals. It's not about pointing out an injustice Disney is doing to owners, it's about defending their business models.

Many of us here are not renting and that even the situations shared by posters, including me. are not ones we even do.

It’s about making sure that DVcs enforcement of the commercial use policy matches what we bleieve is actually allowed for renting and what is not.

Everyone here has said larger point owners renting thousands of points should be held accountable by DVC for violations.

You don’t have to be a renter of points and want the contract adhered to.

 

[Sandisw]

Also, what relationship is there between this contract language and BVTC? If you trade into Riviera under 11 months and rent the reservation, is it based on the resort the points came from or the harsher Riviera renting rules?

The contract applies to you as an owner and your actions.

Doesn’t matter what resort you book that reservation. So, whether one books at RIV rooms to rent or a SSR room, if they determine your actions appear to be for commercial purposes, they can hold you accountable.

 

[Sandisw]

One can choose to disregard anyone’s opinion. One can respond and ask questions if interested. One can disagree with their post and can respond to them directly

But it is not okay questioning someone’s experience and posting about them in a way deemed personal.

Posts were deleted.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Reposting again as my prior post appears to be caught in the crossfire, though it did not violate the rules set forth above:

While it may be true that DVC rules also prohibit people from running (non-rental) commercial enterprises out of someone’s DVC unit, the majority of lawyers on this thread also read them to place limitations on some level of rental reservations as well (though exactly level that can be prevented is clearly up for debate).

Further, the only opinion that matters is Disney’s (unless someone is willing to sink six figures into challenging it) and the new update to online (and call in) bookings, where you have to agree it’s personal use (which is defined more or less as “for self and family/friends”), makes clear that Disney is focused on commercial renting, not running other non-rental businesses in your time share unit.

 

[Carouselofplanning]

I’ve called twice to modify existing reservations. Each time I was asked to confirm I’m familiar with the T&C and to confirm this reservation is for personal use. The second time, the wording was “solely for personal use”. I have to say, if I haven’t learned so much here and was making the reservation for someone else (including as a rental), I’d be really caught off guard. I was so tempted to ask for a definition of “personal use” but figured I would be told to read the T&C.

Think of someone who is not in DVC reading this mini-interrogation takes place every time you make or modify a reservation. I’m sure they would likely think “where do I sign up to be treated like this? Sounds great!” Not.