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

[mkatsy]

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.

Could it be both and we just aren’t aware of it? I know there are make up artists that do the knock off bibbidi boppidi sessions, and there are chefs that will deliver you an entire Ohana style meal … have they been working out of villas?

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Could it be both and we just aren’t aware of it? I know there are make up artists that do the knock off bibbidi boppidi sessions, and there are chefs that will deliver you an entire Ohana style meal … have they been working out of villas?

I mean, DH and I both do remote work (for our non DVC-headquartered employers, lol) while staying at DVC resorts, but pretty sure cracking open your laptop is not commercial use of the unit as viewed by DVC.

True story: my husband has a hilarious video of me holding my phone over my head with the teams meeting screen clearly displayed as I shoot out of the tube on the Aulani water slide because I cut a meeting time too close and miscalculated the length of the line.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I mean, DH and I both do remote work (for our non DVC-headquartered employers, lol) while staying at DVC resorts, but pretty sure cracking open your laptop is not commercial use of the unit as viewed by DVC.

Should I ever attempt that myself I would be in violation, not to any DVC rules but since I’m a foreigner I guess immigrations laws.
That’s why I never bring anything work related to the U.S. Why should I? I’m on vacation not a work/vacation type of stay.

I respect those that can separate business and pleasure. I just never been the type of person to do that. I’m the type of person who works to be able to live not live to be able to work. The less I work the more vacations I’m able to take, the more vacations the family and I take, the happier I am

Sorry I got sidetracked - will stay on topic now

 

[Kingkonig]

I respect those that can separate business and pleasure. I just never been the type of person to do that. I’m the type of person who works to be able to live not live to be able to work. The less I work the more vacations I’m able to take, the more vacations the family and I take, the happier I am

Sorry I got sidetracked - will stay on topic now

Oh for sure. I think there’s just a different mentality in some people.

For me, if I don’t at least do some work on vacation (scan emails, maybe attend a critical meeting or two), then things are so much worse when I get back. Not that I’d necessarily be in trouble with my boss, but that it would take me 2-3 days to catch up!

 

[Sandisw]

I mean, DH and I both do remote work (for our non DVC-headquartered employers, lol) while staying at DVC resorts, but pretty sure cracking open your laptop is not commercial use of the unit as viewed by DVC.

True story: my husband has a hilarious video of me holding my phone over my head with the teams meeting screen clearly displayed as I shoot out of the tube on the Aulani water slide because I cut a meeting time too close and miscalculated the length of the line.

We know though this is not the type of commercial use of rooms they are talking about….people working on vacation.

I do think though it’s helpful for any owner in understanding the contract what each section is talking about…even if it’s only tangentially relevant,, that DVC has two different types of commercial they address.

Of course, it may have been less confusing if they had use different terms!! lol

 

[drusba]

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.

What you mention is a possibility but there are reasons that potentially make it unlikely to occur.

The association for most of the DVC Resorts is the entity that can pursue members for violation of the DVC rental rules. DVCM, the resort management company, would have that power as to CCV and Riviera as it is given the power to deal with rental issues in the DVC Membership Agreements for those resorts.

Those entities, and BVTC, have fiduciary obligations to the members as a whole. As to any actions they take as to members, they are acting as fiduciaries of the members as a whole and must act for the benefit of the members as a whole, . They may pursue rental claims against some members to protect the members as a whole. However, they cannot pursue such claims for the purpose of helping the rental industry of the Disney companies who deal with the Disney hotel rentals in general. And I do not assume it would be common for the association and its board members (or DVCM or BVTC) to actually pursue doing adverse things to members designed to help the Disney hotel business in general, knowing that such would be a violation of their fiduciary obligations.

In all the years I have been a member since the 1990s, I have not witnessed the DVC entities purposefully doing acts as to existing members designed to help make the Disney hotel side of the business make more money. DVD has taken steps that one can guess are partly designed to make Disney more from the rental of DVC rooms but those have been steps designed into the sale process of resorts, e.g., (a) the creation of many hugely point expensive cabins at CCV and bungalows at Poly for which most of those extra points were sold to members purchasing to get smaller rooms, particularly studios, resulting in the cabins and bungalows being readily avaialble for rent even at many times at 60-days out while the studios are sometimes subject to an 11-month out reservation issue; and (b) the periodic increase of the price per point to purchasers which, over the years, has increased prices well beyond any rate of inflation and have helped to create like increases of rental rates for the rooms.

What DVC is trying to do now is the same thing it attempted in the mid-2000s -- respond and take some action to deal with what has become a lot of complaints about rentals. It is well aware that it has historically construed the rental terms in the declarations to allow a member to do many rentals. It is also well aware that targeting professional renters who do large numbers of rentals, including spec rentals, is its best target because those are likely responsible for the majority of questionable rentals and would have little to no defense to being stopped from doing rentals. To also spend money (none of which is specifically covered by dues) going after small players who do some rentals for legitimate purposes, such as to recover some dues, may be an outside possibility but it could be a disastrous decision. You are correct that a member's pursuing litigation over any such adverse decision would be expensive, but DVC may want to avoid that outside risk because the result could be disastrous, i.e., a specific case finding that the terms of the historical declarations allow any member to do a large number of rentals.

 

[Brian Noble]

I'm super amused by the accounts that were registered for DISboard after this thread started, post primarily on the DVC boards, and have strong opinions about how this is a doomed effort and Disney should just give up thinking about limiting rentals in any way.

Like, super amused.

 

[mkatsy]

I'm super amused by the accounts that were registered for DISboard after this thread started, post primarily on the DVC boards, and have strong opinions about how this is a doomed effort and Disney should just give up thinking about limiting rentals in any way.

Like, super amused.

That’s what I don’t get I spend every point I have myself plus the OTU points that I buy so it’s just morbid curiosity for me at this point BUT I don’t understand such a cavalier attitude. I can think of several ways that the mouse could make life very difficult for anyone that wages an attack on them … like VERY difficult.

 

[Brian Noble]

I don’t understand such a cavalier attitude.

I don't believe it is cavalier at all. I believe it is carefully considered and self-interested.

 

[AstroBlasters]

I don't believe it is cavalier at all. I believe it is carefully considered and self-interested.

Burner DISBoard accounts

 

[Sandisw]

I'm super amused by the accounts that were registered for DISboard after this thread started, post primarily on the DVC boards, and have strong opinions about how this is a doomed effort and Disney should just give up thinking about limiting rentals in any way.

Like, super amused.

On the flip side, though, what has DVC actually said or done that suggests they are going to make decisions that impact more than the large point owners who’s action we all agree reach that level?

We know they can try anything and make owners fight…but most moves by DVC since I have been an owner have always been close to making sense

Sure, a few were stretching their power, and did backtrack but it didn’t take lawsuits to do that.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Burner DISBoard accounts

Mine would be DVCTycoonRent4U

 

[AstroBlasters]

Mine would be DVCTycoonRent4U

I think mine would be NotJoshD'Amaro

 

[lowlight]

As to any actions they take as to members, they are acting as fiduciaries of the members as a whole and must act for the benefit of the members as a whole, .

So if any actions they take to curb renting have to take into consideration their fiduciary responsibility to membership (they can't end renting just so they can profit on the hotel side), are they not conversely liable for any actions not taken to uphold their fiduciary duty to membership if material harm can be shown (not enforcing the commercial renting rules)?

 

[mkatsy]

I think mine would be NotJoshD'Amaro

BigMamaPointQueen

 

[VGCgroupie]

I'm super amused by the accounts that were registered for DISboard after this thread started, post primarily on the DVC boards, and have strong opinions about how this is a doomed effort and Disney should just give up thinking about limiting rentals in any way.

Like, super amused.

Same

 

[drusba]

So if any actions they take to curb renting have to take into consideration their fiduciary responsibility to membership (they can't end renting just so they can profit on the hotel side), are they not conversely liable for any actions not taken to uphold their fiduciary duty to membership if material harm can be shown (not enforcing the commercial renting rules)?

§718.303(1) of the condominium statute in Florida provides that owners can sue the association for harm caused to the them by the association's failure to follow requirements of the declarations or bylaws (the association can also sue owners for the owners failure to do so).

You can recover your attorney's fees in the case if you succeed, but understand that you must think carefully before pursuing such a claim, including because, if the association wins, you will be liable for its attorneys fees.

It would likely be difficult to prove a claim for supposed harm caused by the DVC's association's failure to enforce the personal use/commercial purpose clause in the declarations. Eighteen years ago, DVC adopted the 20-reservation rule as a proper one to comply with the ambiguous language in the Personal Use section of the declarations, and that has apparently been followed and applied over the years. If you were to bring a claim today, you would likely have to prove that the association's 20-reservation was itself an unreasonable one to follow under the the ambiguous language in the Personal use/Commercial purpose clause, and basically you would need to prove that the ambiguous language in the applicable clause could only be construed to mean something else, i.e., simply claiming it does mean something else and a court accepts that your position on the meaning of the language is itself one reasonable possibility as to its meaning will not mean you win. In essence, you would likely need to show the 20-reservation rule was itself an improper interpretation to follow.

Also, you would need to show actual harm due to the failure to enforce the rule. The believed harm is failure to be able to get a desired reservation, but you will likely have difficulty proving the actual cause was the association's failure to enforce the personal use/commercial purpose rule. For example, if the reservation was availble at 11-months out then your failure to get it later will likely be deemed caused by your delay, not by the association's lack of enforcement of the rules. Moreover, even if you could not get the reservation right at 8 a.m. at 11-months out, and, for example, the evidence shows possible professional renters got 2 of 12 reservations actually made at 11-months out, that would likely not be enough to show your harm was actually caused by the failure to enforce the rules.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

§718.303(1) of the condominium statute in Florida provides that owners can sue the association for harm caused to the them by the association's failure to follow requirements of the declarations or bylaws (the association can also sue owners for the owners failure to do so).

You can recover your attorney's fees in the case if you succeed, but understand that you must think carefully before pursuing such a claim, including because, if the association wins, you will be liable for its attorneys fees.

This is actually why I don’t see anyone suing DVC for losing their ability to spec rent. Even if you think there’s a 25% chance you win (which I think is delusionally optimistic) there’s a 75% chance you pay millions to Disney for its outside counsel’s time.

It would likely be difficult to prove a claim for supposed harm caused by the DVC's association's failure to enforce the personal use/commercial purpose clause in the declarations. Eighteen years ago, DVC adopted the 20-reservation rule as a proper one to comply with the ambiguous language in the Personal Use section of the declarations, and that has apparently been followed and applied over the years. If you were to bring a claim today, you would likely have to prove that the association's 20-reservation was itself an unreasonable one to follow under the the ambiguous language in the Personal use/Commercial purpose clause, and basically you would need to prove that the ambiguous language in the applicable clause could only be construed to mean something else, i.e., simply claiming it does mean something else and a court accepts that your position on the meaning of the language is itself one reasonable possibility as to its meaning will not mean you win. In essence, you would likely need to show the 20-reservation rule was itself an improper interpretation to follow.

Keep in mind that “20 reservations” is very (very!) different than 20 rentals. In fact, Disney simply didn’t bother checking for the first 20 reservations after which you had to prove that not a single one of those first 20 reservations was a rental before you could make any more reservations.

I think Disney is within its rights to say that they didn’t have a widespread problem of spec renting before about 2021, that they felt it was a reasonable threshold to apply, but have subsequently found patterns to indicate it became a widespread problem for people with many small contracts owning 500-1000 points a year and renting them all.

Also, you would need to show actual harm due to the failure to enforce the rule. The believed harm is failure to be able to get a desired reservation, but you will likely have difficulty proving the actual cause was the association's failure to enforce the personal use/commercial purpose rule. For example, if the reservation was availble at 11-months out then your failure to get it later will likely be deemed caused by your delay, not by the association's lack of enforcement of the rules. Moreover, even if you could not get the reservation right
at 8 a.m. at 11-months out, and, for example, the evidence shows possible professional renters got 2 of 12 reservations actually made at 11-months out, that would likely not be enough to show your harm was actually caused by the failure to enforce the rules.

I tend to agree with you that it would be very difficult to show significant monetary harm (and I personally would not sue on either side due to the risk of a giant legal bill for Disney)— but I also think if I was a lower down the legal ladder (and not worried about access to Disney parks, let alone my assets they could try to come after), I would consider a contingency case and be screencapping the sheer numbers of rentals you see for the highest value rooms that are often spec rented at 11mo, and recording my attempts to logon on at 8:00:00 with nothing available across the entire standard view category for certain properties, to cross reference with what is listed for sale days/months later.

I think there a far stronger case that Disney allowing commercial renters to use bots to reserve all rooms (or even 90% of rooms) in a category it has advertised as available to members (only to later change the names to total strangers) is an abdication of its responsibility to owners than Disney telling all owners they cannot rent half or more of their points regularly…but the only way to find out is to risk paying Disney $$$ if you’re wrong.

 

[Sandisw]

This is actually why I don’t see anyone suing DVC for losing their ability to spec rent. Even if you think there’s a 25% chance you win (which I think is delusionally optimistic) there’s a 75% chance you pay millions to Disney for its outside counsel’s time.

Keep in mind that “20 reservations” is very (very!) different than 20 rentals. In fact, Disney simply didn’t bother checking for the first 20 reservations after which you had to prove that not a single one of those first 20 reservations was a rental before you could make any more reservations.

I think Disney is within its rights to say that they didn’t have a widespread problem of spec renting before about 2021, that they felt it was a reasonable threshold to apply, but have subsequently found patterns to indicate it became a widespread problem for people with many small contracts owning 500-1000 points a year and renting them all.

I tend to agree with you that it would be very difficult to show significant monetary harm (and I personally would not sue on either side due to the risk of a giant legal bill for Disney)— but I also think if I was a lower down the legal ladder (and not worried about access to Disney parks, let alone my assets they could try to come after), I would consider a contingency case and be screencapping the sheer numbers of rentals you see for the highest value rooms that are often spec rented at 11mo, and recording my attempts to logon on at 8:00:00 with nothing available across the entire standard view category for certain properties, to cross reference with what is listed for sale days/months later.

I think there a far stronger case that Disney allowing commercial renters to use bots to reserve all rooms (or even 90% of rooms) in a category it has advertised as available to members (only to later change the names to total strangers) is an abdication of its responsibility to owners than Disney telling all owners they cannot rent half or more of their points regularly…but the only way to find out is to risk paying Disney $$$ if you’re wrong.

Just to add though, if you read the enforcement clause of the 2008 commercial use policy, it stated that if you called to book a reservation and it was under twenty, it would be confirmed since you were not in violation of the multiple reservation lokit( defined as only those over 20)

If something did get tbeogh, it said that those in excess of 20 would be canceled.

You only had to prove no rentals if you were trying above 20…and that is how it was applied.

Whether those below 20 were rentals or not, the actually policy, as written did not allow them to fail to confirm anything below 20 or cancel anything but those in excess of 20.

So, even if DVC did review the account, nothing could be done, based on that policy, until an owner wanted more than 20 or more than 20 got through.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Just to add though, if you read the enforcement clause of the 2008 commercial use policy, it stated that if you called to book a reservation and it was under twenty, it would be confirmed since you were not in violation of the multiple reservation lokit( defined as only those over 20)

If something did get tbeogh, it said that those in excess of 20 would be canceled.

You only had to prove no rentals if you were trying above 20…and that is how it was applied.

Whether those below 20 were rentals or not, the actually policy, as written did not allow them to fail to confirm anything below 20 or cancel anything but those in excess of 20.

So, even if DVC did review the account, nothing could be done, based on that policy, until an owner wanted more than 20 or more than 20 got through.

Is there a link to the whole 2008 policy? I’ve not seen anyone previously mention they expressly committed not to take action for up to 20 rentals... but I was barely out of school back then so not paying attention to DVC at the time.