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

[Tatebeck]

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.

Here you go
https://dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-p...commercial-renting-limitations-amended-to-pos

tl:dr The extra rule at that time was if you made 20 reservations in a 12 month period they said they WILL for sure check to see if all of the first 20 were personal. If they were all personal, then you can keep making reservations, if any were deemed not to be personal use, they would stop you from making any more reservations.

But they said that they could check for any other reason as seen here. So you could make sketchy reservations and rent them out, be under 20 reservations, but still be breaking the rules.

"This policy is not intended, and shall not be deemed, either (i) to constitute an exclusive act or statement by the Association regarding any breach of the commercial activity prohibitions set forth in the Declaration of Condominium and Membership Agreement, or (ii) to be an exhaustive list of all activities that shall be deemed to be commercial activity. Accordingly, the Association reserves the right to promulgate such additional rules or to take such additional actions or measures as it deems appropriate with respect to any breach of such prohibitions."

 

[IMMkXLVI]

If I have three reservations I later combine into one, is that one or three towards the twenty?

 

[Tatebeck]

If I have three reservations I later combine into one, is that one or three towards the twenty?

It was an old rule and has since been removed from the documents. So it doesn't matter anymore really.

But if it was still active I believe it counted as 3 until you combine it, then it would have only counted as 1

 

[lowlight]

§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.

I had said earlier that I think it's a losing battle for either side to sue DVC (renters or those who feel DVC is lax in upholding the rules), and was told by another lawyer @Jacksonindis that the latter would have no right to sue as the contract isn't "mutually enforceable". Just goes to show how many different interpretations you can find of everything.

 

[Sandisw]

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.

I posted the policy earlier . They didn’t actually differentiate between rentals and guest reservations for under twenty.

At the time, you had to call in….they would check how many total you had and as long as the reservation you were making was under 20, whether a rental or not, it was confirmed.

Only if you wanted more than 20, did you have to satisfy to them none of the 20 were rentals

So, they could review all the want, but per that policy the could only cancel those in excess of 20 if somehow got though.

Of course, when online biking came into play: that is when they set the metric to flag at 20 because people could book above that.

 

[Kingkonig]

Just goes to show how many different interpretations you can find of everything.

Yep! There’s a reason companies spend a lot on lawyers. Litigation is expensive, and often time the result comes down to “what mood is the arbitrator/judge/jury in today?”

I will say Disney seems to be one of the more cautious companies I’ve run into. They won’t make a move until they’ve run scenarios in their head - because not only do they have to prepare to win in court, they often fight in the court of public opinion as well. Which is many times an even harder battlefield. They do lose lawsuits of course, every company their size does. But I can’t recall the last major one they did.

 

[Sandisw]

It was an old rule and has since been removed from the documents. So it doesn't matter anymore really.

But if it was still active I believe it counted as 3 until you combine it, then it would have only counted as 1

Remember, the VGF and other resorts say in the POS that a policy has been adopted and can be revised by request.

At the time thst resort opened, the 2008 !policy was in place.

It is why I am waiting for DVC to give it to me because my POS entitles me to one.

There are a lot of documents one has to request and this happens to be one of them.

 

[Sandisw]

Here you go
https://dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-p...commercial-renting-limitations-amended-to-pos

tl:dr The extra rule at that time was if you made 20 reservations in a 12 month period they said they WILL for sure check to see if all of the first 20 were personal. If they were all personal, then you can keep making reservations, if any were deemed not to be personal use, they would stop you from making any more reservations.

But they said that they could check for any other reason as seen here. So you could make sketchy reservations and rent them out, be under 20 reservations, but still be breaking the rules.

"This policy is not intended, and shall not be deemed, either (i) to constitute an exclusive act or statement by the Association regarding any breach of the commercial activity prohibitions set forth in the Declaration of Condominium and Membership Agreement, or (ii) to be an exhaustive list of all activities that shall be deemed to be commercial activity. Accordingly, the Association reserves the right to promulgate such additional rules or to take such additional actions or measures as it deems appropriate with respect to any breach of such prohibitions."

I know we disagree but I had several conservations about this in 2012 and this was simply not the way it worked.

The policy as it was written required them to confirm reservations under 20, and they could only cancel the ones in excess if 20 if they got through.

Yes, they had the right to make adjustments…but any change to the policy amendment was supposed to be done in a legal way…they werent supposed just do what they want without adding further rules or enforcement to this policy.


Basically, this wasn’t to be construed as an exhaustive list and they could amend it to add other things. But any amendments to this were supposed to be actually added.

They could not just simply ignore this and do what they wanted to do, simple because they said it wasn’t a full list.

I personally can find nothing out there by DVC that states this is no longer the offical policy for those resorts whose POS say there is one in existence that can be reviewed.

People assume it’s gone but does anyone have something official stating it is?

DVC knows this was the last offical policy easily accessible by owners and it did set a standard that DVC will have to deal with if they do decide to adjust it.

No matter what, they will have to explain any new policy should it occur…thought two different calls to MS resulted in the same answer…because as a VGF owner I am entitled to see it.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I know we disagree but I had several conservations about this in 2012 and this was simply not the way it worked.

The policy as it was written required them to confirm reservations under 20, and they could only cancel the ones in excess if 20 if they got through.

Yes, they had the right to make adjustments…but any change to the policy amendment was supposed to be done in a legal way…they werent supposed just do what they want without adding further rules or enforcement to this policy.


Basically, this wasn’t to be construed as an exhaustive list and they could amend it to add other things. But any amendments to this were supposed to be actually added.

They could not just simply ignore this and do what they wanted to do, simple because they said it wasn’t a full list.

The language @Tatebeck is pretty clear that they did NOT have to amend it to have other enforcement mechanism against commercial renting, relevant portion bolded here:

"This policy is not intended, and shall not be deemed, either (i) to constitute an exclusive act or statement by the Association regarding any breach of the commercial activity prohibitions set forth in the Declaration of Condominium and Membership Agreement, or (ii) to be an exhaustive list of all activities that shall be deemed to be commercial activity. Accordingly, the Association reserves the right to promulgate such additional rules or to take such additional actions or measures as it deems appropriate with respect to any breach of such prohibitions."

The made the specific policy you reference re: automatic review at 20 reservations was put in place for their convenience but were very clear in the language above that it’s not an exclusive or exhaustive list of what they consider commercial renting or their ability to take action.

I do hope you are successful in tracking down the POS, but nothing in the 2008 document would stop them from spec renting entirely if they deem it’s a commercial activity.

 

[TheDailyMoo]

112 pages and over 2000 comments arguing about wording and intent of a vacation club's Terms and Conditions is probably the most first world thing to discuss in a sea of first world things to discuss. And I'm here for the next 112 pages!

 

[Mouseforward]

112 pages and over 2000 comments arguing about wording and intent of a vacation club's Terms and Conditions is probably the most first world thing to discuss in a sea of first world things to discuss. And I'm here for the next 112 pages!

Yeah - I have not seen a new angle in a bit , nor have we gotten any word on if it was discussed at the member meeting.

The whole thing could be a huge nothing.

 

[drusba]

erase

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Yeah - I have not seen a new angle in a bit , nor have we gotten any word on if it was discussed at the member meeting.

The whole thing could be a huge nothing.

DISboards should consider setting up its own betting contract service for this type of thing… think how much money they could have made on us gambling on things like:
Will Poly be its own association?
Will Disney start taking actions against commercial renters?
Will MMB make it impossible for ordinary members to access lounges?
Will DAS let me continue to bring my extended family or 12?

For now, the closest we can get to betting on a commercial renting crackdown is to avoid buying resale at the resorts where it’s the biggest problem in the home ownership window, I think.

 

[Mouseforward]

DISboards should consider setting up its own betting contract service for this type of thing… think how much money they could have made on us gambling on things like:
Will Poly be its own association?
Will Disney start taking actions against commercial renters?
Will MMB make it impossible for ordinary members to access lounges?
Will DAS let me continue to bring my extended family or 12?

For now, the closest we can get to betting on a commercial renting crackdown is to avoid buying resale at the resorts where it’s the biggest problem in the home ownership window, I think.

I would have won on Poly , and MMB making lounges worthless.
I would have lost on DAS - I thought it would not improve anything, but I will admit it did seem to make an improvement.

I am going to place my marker on no action on renting but some threats or maybe a high profile website being slapped. - I just don't see the profit in going after individual small scale guys and Disney is beholden to the shareholders before the DVC owners.

It kinda would be fun to have a betting thread where we each staked our position.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I would have won on Poly , and MMB making lounges worthless.
I would have lost on DAS - I thought it would not improve anything, but I will admit it did seem to make an improvement.

I am going to place my marker on no action on renting but some threats or maybe a high profile website being slapped. - I just don't see the profit in going after individual small scale guys and Disney is beholden to the shareholders before the DVC owners.

It kinda would be fun to have a betting thread where we each staked our position.

I don’t think DISboards is going to become a gambling site, but I suppose we could start a poll— though we should wait for Sandi to weigh in because she was clear at the top this is the exclusive thread for talking about the changes in definition and checkbox.

If we were to have a poll, I think it would be hard to agree on an option set, but I think it should include at least:
- Disney does nothing to enforce at all
- Disney does something but not publicly and we don’t learn of it (as many believe already happened with AUL)
- Disney makes clear it has cracked down on 10 or fewer large players
- Disney only goes after people renting thousands of points a year or more
- Disney goes after people renting the majority of their points most years
- Disney goes after most people it can catch spec renting
- Disney stops all rentals to anyone they can catch where more than cost of dues changes hands
- Disney has not determined the extent of the crackdown yet

I would say at least some of these are not mutually exclusive?

 

[Tatebeck]

Remember, the VGF and other resorts say in the POS that a policy has been adopted and can be revised by request.

At the time thst resort opened, the 2008 !policy was in place.

It is why I am waiting for DVC to give it to me because my POS entitles me to one.

There are a lot of documents one has to request and this happens to be one of them.

I know we disagree but I had several conservations about this in 2012 and this was simply not the way it worked.

The policy as it was written required them to confirm reservations under 20, and they could only cancel the ones in excess if 20 if they got through.

Yes, they had the right to make adjustments…but any change to the policy amendment was supposed to be done in a legal way…they werent supposed just do what they want without adding further rules or enforcement to this policy.


Basically, this wasn’t to be construed as an exhaustive list and they could amend it to add other things. But any amendments to this were supposed to be actually added.

They could not just simply ignore this and do what they wanted to do, simple because they said it wasn’t a full list.

I personally can find nothing out there by DVC that states this is no longer the offical policy for those resorts whose POS say there is one in existence that can be reviewed.

People assume it’s gone but does anyone have something official stating it is?

DVC knows this was the last offical policy easily accessible by owners and it did set a standard that DVC will have to deal with if they do decide to adjust it.

No matter what, they will have to explain any new policy should it occur…thought two different calls to MS resulted in the same answer…because as a VGF owner I am entitled to see it.

I hope you do finally get copy of that policy as I am interested in what they use to determine commercial renting, but I fear that you are only going to get a copy of the same language elsewhere that it's a pattern of rentals or frequent rentals that could be construed as commercial renting and that's it. They seem to want to be a vague as possible so they can just say "I know it when I see it" and stop it when they want without anyone skirting around the spirit of the rules once given the letter of the rules.

It could be that they still use this 20 reservation policy to trigger automatic reviews, and maybe that is what you will get from your requests though.

Either way in that policy it explicitly says that it prohibited :

"use for “commercial purposes,” – a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the Board of the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or activity."

This is before talking about the 20 reservation automatic reviews,and then after it says that there are other things you can do that would be considered commercial renting other than making 20+ reservations, and only then does it say that they retain the right to make new rules. There are no other rules needed for them to be able to say that a pattern of rental activity that they don't like that is still nder 20 reservations STILL breaks the rules

In my opinion this is crystal clear in that policy and I don't know how it could be interpreted any other way. Unless you are just saying that they just decided not punish any other rental rule breakers even if they seemed to be commercial as long as they stayed under 20. Which is a choice they could make or may have made, but that doesn't mean that they COULDN'T have if they wanted to. They clearly could have if they wished according to the rules, which is just what I am saying.

Just like there are a ton of other things they are allowed to do in the contracts right now if they wish, they just haven't chosen to. Like special seasons lists/room lotteries for example

 

[Sandisw]

I hope you do finally get copy of that policy as I am interested in what they use to determine commercial renting, but I fear that you are only going to get a copy of the same language elsewhere that it's a pattern of rentals or frequent rentals that could be construed as commercial renting and that's it. They seem to want to be a vague as possible so they can just say "I know it when I see it" and stop it when they want without anyone skirting around the spirit of the rules once given the letter of the rules.

It could be that they still use this 20 reservation policy to trigger automatic reviews, and maybe that is what you will get from your requests though.

Either way in that policy it explicitly says that it prohibited :

"use for “commercial purposes,” – a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the Board of the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or activity."

This is before talking about the 20 reservation automatic reviews,and then after it says that there are other things you can do that would be considered commercial renting other than making 20+ reservations, and only then does it say that they retain the right to make new rules. There are no other rules needed for them to be able to say that a pattern of rental activity that they don't like that is still nder 20 reservations STILL breaks the rules

In my opinion this is crystal clear in that policy and I don't know how it could be interpreted any other way. Unless you are just saying that they just decided not punish any other rental rule breakers even if they seemed to be commercial as long as they stayed under 20. Which is a choice they could make or may have made, but that doesn't mean that they COULDN'T have if they wanted to. They clearly could have if they wished according to the rules, which is just what I am saying.

Just like there are a ton of other things they are allowed to do in the contracts right now if they wish, they just haven't chosen to. Like special seasons lists/room lotteries for example

They absolutely could amend the policy but if they wanted to cancel any reservations under 20, they had to actually change the written policy.

Owners were expressly told that no reservations would be at risk for cancellations..whether they were rentals or not…because DVC chose to make the cancellation policy apply only to reservations “in excess of” 20”

They can always choose not to enforce the contract but they can’t penalize in a more restrictive way without an actual change.

The holding penalty is a good example of this. It currently kicks in at under 31 days. But we know the HRR can be amended at any time.

DVC can change holding to be farther out but I don’t think anyone would say that DVC can simply put points in holding at 60 days without updating the HRR regs first.

That’s what I mean…as long as the written policy was no cancellations under 20, then they could not do that without a written update.

IMO, the reason this 2008 policy is relevant is because it was DVC interpretation as to what pattern of rental activity had to happen in order to cross the line and have reservations canceled.

So, they are not starting from scratch and at the very least, any changes that would appear to be a more restrictive interpretation of commercial purpose will have to be explained to owners as to why the change in interpretation from their view.

We shall see…

 

[mkatsy]

They absolutely could amend this policy but if they wanted to cancel any reservations under 20, they had to actually change the written policy.

Owners were expressly told that no reservations would be at risk for cancellations..whether rhey were rentals or not…because the board chose ti thst to be the rule and make the cancellation policy only apply to reservations “in excess of” 20”

They can always choose not to enforce the contract but they can’t penalize in a more restrictive way without an actual change.

The holding penalty is a good example of this. It currently kicks in at under 31 days. But we know the HRR can be amended dad any time.

DVC can change holding to be farther out but I don’t think anyone would say that DVC can simply put points in holding at 60 days without updating the HRR regs first.

That’s what I mean…as long as the written policy was no cancellations under 20, then they could not do that without a written update.

IMO, the reason this 2008 policy is relevant is because it was DVC interpretation as to what pattern of rental activity had to happen in order to cross the line and have reservations canceled.

So, they are not starting from scratch and at the very least, any changes that would be a more restrictive interpretation of commercial purpose will have to be explained to owners who want to understand why it changed, when asked.

We shall see…

They can’t penalize with a more restrictive way, but they can revert back to the original terms of that policy which was calling in reservations so they can review in real time. It’s was a package deal … they gave a number (20) based on their ability to review in real time, the technology changed and they upgraded to a more efficient system, a consequence of this was that they lost some of their surveillance ability. For anyone to stand and say “you said 20” and the law backs us up, without acknowledging the role technology played in skirting the spirit of the agreement is disingenuous, in my opinion. I think a reasonable person would agree that the change from dialing, waiting for a connection, exchanging pleasantries, reviewing the request, reviewing the history, and finally making the reservation to a bot grabbing a reservation in under one second is so monumental that it makes the number 20 outdated and archaic … it’s clinging to a metric that was built on a different standard.

 

[Sandisw]

They can’t penalize with a more restrictive way, but they can revert back to the original terms of that policy which was calling in reservations so they can review in real time. It’s was a package deal … they gave a number (20) based on their ability to review in real time, the technology changed and they upgraded to a more efficient system, a consequence of this was that they lost some of their surveillance ability. For anyone to stand and say “you said 20” and the law backs us up, without acknowledging the role technology played in skirting the spirit of the agreement is disingenuous, in my opinion. I think a reasonable person would agree that the change from dialing, waiting for a connection, exchanging pleasantries, reviewing the request, reviewing the history, and finally making the reservation to a bot grabbing a reservation in under one second is so monumental that it makes the number 20 outdated and archaic … it’s clinging to a metric that was built on a different standard.

First of all, bots are a completely different issue and while they may be used by high point owners who rent a lot, that isn’t what makes those owners commercial renters.

Even your average owner making thier own reservation should be prohibited from that.

But who here has ever said that 2008 policy can’t be amended? Or the 20 reservations rule can be fought? Reports were shared that owners elsewhere had that stance.

Those of us mentioning are doing it for historical purposes in what DVC has done and how they have interpreted it. Many owners were not arojnd back then and don’t know all that went on when it went into effect or what owners were told directly about it.

We simple believe it very well could play a role especially since that 2021 FL 718.110 law was passed.

DVC can take on the little guy but nothing suggests they would outright violate the contract or the laws. They always have a way to spin it in their favor.


I personally think it will guide what happens to a great degree…pure opinion…but not sure I get the notion that it will be ignored DVC in all of this.

We do know the only offical statements made by DVC have been about going after large point owners who rent a lot of reservation to make money.

So far, that is the only group they have mentioned. Can they cast a wider net? Sure.

Now the updated statement about personal use was added and so was an example of what they say personally use is not…but they have not followed up what that looks like and for who.

What I do know is owners are still allowed to make rental reservations while attesting for personal use and that the few CMs I have talked to directly have all had the similar messaging in reference to what is going on.

We all will have to accept whatever rules and enforcement are put in place.

But commercial purposes in the context of the contract is not meant to mean anything DVC wants as long as they can tangentially tie it to the word commercial, simply because the rental market got to large.

They are not supposed to make rules for this based on owners collectively.

One can not be restricted from doing something in regards to rentals if their personal actions fall within a reasonable level for personal renting.

I personally have discussed things with DVC over the years, beyond just MS, and simply am sharing my experience of those extensive conversations.

Nothing more than that!

 

[Tatebeck]

They absolutely could amend the policy but if they wanted to cancel any reservations under 20, they had to actually change the written policy.

Owners were expressly told that no reservations would be at risk for cancellations..whether they were rentals or not…because DVC chose to make the cancellation policy apply only to reservations “in excess of” 20”

They can always choose not to enforce the contract but they can’t penalize in a more restrictive way without an actual change.

The holding penalty is a good example of this. It currently kicks in at under 31 days. But we know the HRR can be amended at any time.

DVC can change holding to be farther out but I don’t think anyone would say that DVC can simply put points in holding at 60 days without updating the HRR regs first.

That’s what I mean…as long as the written policy was no cancellations under 20, then they could not do that without a written update.

IMO, the reason this 2008 policy is relevant is because it was DVC interpretation as to what pattern of rental activity had to happen in order to cross the line and have reservations canceled.

So, they are not starting from scratch and at the very least, any changes that would appear to be a more restrictive interpretation of commercial purpose will have to be explained to owners as to why the change in interpretation from their view.

We shall see…

I still don't think you get what I am saying. That specific multiple reservation rule said that you could book up to 20, and until then you weren't at risk of breaking the multiple reservation rule at all, yes.

But it also said it was not the only thing you could do to be considered commercially renting (or breaking other rules) and just because you follow that one multiple reservation rule does not mean that you may not be breaking other rules.

If you do/did anything else that made them think you were breaking other rules then they could 100% do something about it without changing the multiple reservation rule specifically.