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

[KAT4DISNEY]

I’ve never actually seen the “20 reservations” policy in writing. Is that something that the CM’s told people over the phone? Did they send a letter? It seems like it was enacted before social media.

I believe I received a letter back then notifying of the new rule. No idea if I stuck it in my DVC stash or not but wouldn't be surprised to run across it sometime. And it was not sent after reaching the 20 reservation limit. I recall it being presented as a clarification to help with understanding the "commercial" rule.

 

[Tatebeck]

POS would have to restrict, anything not restricted would be considered a right of the owner. Where does it say you can’t spec rent?

The language was posted a couple pages ago. It doesn't say that you can't try to spec rent, just that they do not have to allow you to.

“No owner may directly rent, exchange or otherwise use his or her Ownership Interest without making a prior reservation of an available Vacation Home…on a first come, first served basis. DVD’s approval of a rental by an owner is not required after a reservation has been made in the renter’s own name. However, Ownership interests should not be purchased with any expectation that Vacation Homes may be reserved and rented to third parties"

So you can't just rent points and "send" them to someone to use, you have to make an actual reservation for the renters according to normal rules.

Then it importantly says that DVCs approval of a rental is not needed once the reservation is made in the renters name.

A normal rental will have the renters name on it from the first booking, and once that renters name is on it, then DVC does not need to approve that rental, it is blanket approved (unless a different rule was found to be broken)

A spec rental will have the members name on the reservation, and only later will they change the guest names. If approval of a rental is said to not be required after the reservation is in the members name, then it holds that approval may be required before or until the reservation is in the renters name. Since you can't change the lead guest yourself, it member services doesn't want to do it, then you are free to cancel and rebook something for your renter

 

[Mouseforward]

The language was posted a couple pages ago. It doesn't say that you can't try to spec rent, just that they do not have to allow you to.

“No owner may directly rent, exchange or otherwise use his or her Ownership Interest without making a prior reservation of an available Vacation Home…on a first come, first served basis. DVD’s approval of a rental by an owner is not required after a reservation has been made in the renter’s own name. However, Ownership interests should not be purchased with any expectation that Vacation Homes may be reserved and rented to third parties"

So you can't just rent points and "send" them to someone to use, you have to make an actual reservation for the renters according to normal rules.

Then it importantly says that DVCs approval of a rental is not needed once the reservation is made in the renters name.

A normal rental will have the renters name on it from the first booking, and once that renters name is on it, then DVC does not need to approve that rental, it is blanket approved (unless a different rule was found to be broken)

A spec rental will have the members name on the reservation, and only later will they change the guest names. If approval of a rental is said to not be required after the reservation is in the members name, then it holds that approval may be required before or until the reservation is in the renters name. Since you can't change the lead guest yourself, it member services doesn't want to do it, then you are free to cancel and rebook something for your renter

I don’t think this says what you think it does.
The first sentence failed to say, whose name the reservation is to be made in prior to renting.

It could very easily be read to say you must make a reservation first before renting. If anything that supports spec rental.

If it was intended to stop spec renting, it would’ve had to specify that owners cannot make reservations under their own name and then transfer them to a third-party renter.

Remember, any ambiguity in a one-sided contract goes against the author of the contract.

Edit - this is actually the strongest language against spec renting. “Ownership interests should not be purchased with any expectation that Vacation Homes may be reserved and rented to third parties"

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

POS would have to restrict, anything not restricted would be considered a right of the owner. Where does it say you can’t spec rent?

This is why it’s so dangerous for lawyers (and people claiming to be lawyers) to show up here and confidently state their own opinions as law, especially opinions that are in direct opposition to what Disney is saying. You get laypeople reading the posts and thinking that as long as Disney didn’t specifically spell out every single thing an owner might want to do they have some inviolable right to do it.

 

[Tatebeck]

I don’t think this says what you think it does.
The first sentence failed to say, whose name the reservation is to be made in prior to renting.

It could very easily be read to say you must make a reservation first before renting. If anything that supports spec rental.

If it was intended to stop spec renting, it would’ve had to specify that owners cannot make reservations under their own name and then transfer them to a third-party renter.

Remember, any ambiguity in a one-sided contract goes against the author of the contract.

Edit - this is actually the strongest language against spec renting. “Ownership interests should not be purchased with any expectation that Vacation Homes may be reserved and rented to third parties"

No, it definitely says what I think it does.

In the part where it asks who the guests are who will be staying in the room, you are supposed to put... the names of the guests who at that time you think will be staying in the room of course. It's not a tricky answer. If you are using it, put your name, if you have a friend or a renter that will be using it, put it in their name. That is literally what that section of the booking process is for, to put the guests names on the reservation. If you want to change the names later for a rental, you need to get DVC approval to change the lead guest name, that is why you can't do it yourself online.

The very first part isn't just talking about using your points for rentals, it's talking about member using their own points as well. It is just saying that nobody can use their points for a room without making a reservation.

And any ambiguity does not always go against the author of the contract, only sometimes when judges deem that it does and when the contract is too ambiguous. Contract writing is very complex and they cannot account for every single hypothetical when writing them. That is not being ambiguous, it is just literally impossible. There will always be complicated cases that aren't explicitly written in a contract or the rules.

 

[Mouseforward]

This is why it’s so dangerous for lawyers (and people claiming to be lawyers) to show up here and confidently state their own opinions as law, especially opinions that are in direct opposition to what Disney is saying. You get laypeople reading the posts and thinking that as long as Disney didn’t specifically spell out every single thing an owner might want to do they have some inviolable right to do it.

The problem is this is regarding a real property deed. If you buy a house in your covenants don’t restrict you from having chickens, and your township doesn’t object to chickens. Your HOA cannot ban you from having chickens ( without going through the effort and votes to change the covenants.) Your assumed to have any right to use your property that’s not otherwise restricted by the contract.

This is not like Netflix, who could change their contract and just say hey cancel your contract if you don’t like our changes.

 

[mkatsy]

The problem is this is regarding a real property deed. If you buy a house in your covenants don’t restrict you from having chickens, and your township doesn’t object to chickens. Your HOA cannot ban you from having chickens ( without going through the effort and votes to change the covenants.) Your assumed to have any right to use your property that’s not otherwise restricted by the contract.

This is not like Netflix, who could change their contract and just say hey cancel your contract if you don’t like our changes.

Apples and oranges … Florida law differentiates between real property and timeshare estates. While classified as real property, deeded timeshare estates are subject to the regulations of the Florida Timeshare Act (721). You can’t keep comparing your timeshare to a house just because the state, through some bizarre twist of logic, got it classified as real property. (Only a handful of states in the country have done this).

 

[Tatebeck]

The problem is this is regarding a real property deed. If you buy a house in your covenants don’t restrict you from having chickens, and your township doesn’t object to chickens. Your HOA cannot ban you from having chickens ( without going through the effort and votes to change the covenants.) Your assumed to have any right to use your property that’s not otherwise restricted by the contract.

This is not like Netflix, who could change their contract and just say hey cancel your contract if you don’t like our changes.

Again, there is not enough paper in the world to write down the list of things that you "cannot" do.

Instead DVC and other contracts list what you specifically can do in relation to their product, and then some things that they have thought of that you for sure cannot do.
Just because something is not specifically excluded does not mean that it is included

For example, the rules never say that I can't drop a deuce in the middle of the resort lobby, but I don't think that would go down well for me.

 

[Mouseforward]

You can’t keep comparing your timeshare to a house just because the state, through some bizarre twist of logic, got it classified as real property

But they did get it classified as a timeshare condominium. Hence why they had to follow the condominium rules for the structural inspection. They don’t get to have their cake and eat it too. You can’t be deeded real property when you want to sell points. And not deeded property when you want to enforce a new rule that goes against the state law.

 

[Tatebeck]

Also, interpretations of that other rule seem like they may not matter anyway because I found something else in the Home Resort Rules and Regulations that may outlaw spec rentals as well. I knew from a while back that we a are technically supposed to alert DVC when a booking was a rental (they just haven't been enforcing that in the past) so I went back to look at the language again. Not only do they say that we are supposed to alert them that it is a rental but we are supposed to do it at the time the reservation is made. You simply cannot alert members services who your rental guests are and that you are renting if you do not have any rental guests at the time you make the reservation, as is the case in a spec rental.

"Making Reservations for Guest.

a. Club Members may use their Home Resort Vacation Points to reserve Vacation Homes that will be occupied by Guests.

b. When a Club Member uses Home Resort Vacation Points to reserve Vacation Homes on behalf of a Guest, and the Club Member does not charge any rental or other fees to the Guest for the reservation, then the Guest may be eligible for all or some of the Club Member privileges and benefits that a Club Member would normally receive during the Club Member’s stay in the reserved Vacation Home. If the Guest is renting, it is the responsibility of the Member to notify Member Services when making the reservation. Member privileges and benefits cannot be extended to Guests who rent Vacation Homes from Club Members"

 

[mkatsy]

But they did get it classified as a timeshare condominium. Hence why they had to follow the condominium rules for the structural inspection. They don’t get to have their cake and eat it too. You can’t be deeded real property when you want to sell points. And not deeded property when you want to enforce a new rule that goes against the state law.

I’m not sure what the fixation with this condo inspection is there was a tragic collapse and people died. How does being a good member of the community by looking out for the welfare of your employees and guests turn into a “gotcha” moment.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Also, interpretations of that other rule seem like they may not matter anyway because I found something else in the Home Resort Rules and Regulations that may outlaw spec rentals as well. I knew from a while back that we a are technically supposed to alert DVC when a booking was a rental (they just haven't been enforcing that in the past) so I went back to look at the language again. Not only do they say that we are supposed to alert them that it is a rental but we are supposed to do it at the time the reservation is made. You simply cannot alert members services who your rental guests are and that you are renting if you do not have any rental guests at the time you make the reservation, as is the case in a spec rental.

"Making Reservations for Guest.

a. Club Members may use their Home Resort Vacation Points to reserve Vacation Homes that will be occupied by Guests.

b. When a Club Member uses Home Resort Vacation Points to reserve Vacation Homes on behalf of a Guest, and the Club Member does not charge any rental or other fees to the Guest for the reservation, then the Guest may be eligible for all or some of the Club Member privileges and benefits that a Club Member would normally receive during the Club Member’s stay in the reserved Vacation Home. If the Guest is renting, it is the responsibility of the Member to notify Member Services when making the reservation. Member privileges and benefits cannot be extended to Guests who rent Vacation Homes from Club Members"

Great find. Another specific piece of evidence that Disney can treat paid renters differently (and materially worse). Very interesting that renters are not supposed to get privileges and benefits. Stripping early entry, extended hours, and 60+ days bookings would probably be enough to kneecap the rental market at WDW.

 

[lowlight]

The language was posted a couple pages ago. It doesn't say that you can't try to spec rent, just that they do not have to allow you to.

“No owner may directly rent, exchange or otherwise use his or her Ownership Interest without making a prior reservation of an available Vacation Home…on a first come, first served basis. DVD’s approval of a rental by an owner is not required after a reservation has been made in the renter’s own name. However, Ownership interests should not be purchased with any expectation that Vacation Homes may be reserved and rented to third parties"

So you can't just rent points and "send" them to someone to use, you have to make an actual reservation for the renters according to normal rules.

Then it importantly says that DVCs approval of a rental is not needed once the reservation is made in the renters name.

A normal rental will have the renters name on it from the first booking, and once that renters name is on it, then DVC does not need to approve that rental, it is blanket approved (unless a different rule was found to be broken)

A spec rental will have the members name on the reservation, and only later will they change the guest names. If approval of a rental is said to not be required after the reservation is in the members name, then it holds that approval may be required before or until the reservation is in the renters name. Since you can't change the lead guest yourself, it member services doesn't want to do it, then you are free to cancel and rebook something for your renter

So basically, if you're going to rent, the renter's name goes on the reservation when initially booked, and a rental contract needs to be made. If not, it's assumed to not be a rental and thus, no lead guest name changes unless approved by DVD. And now they are denying lead guest name changes? Am I understanding your interpretation correctly?

 

[Mouseforward]

I’m not sure what the fixation with this condo inspection is there was a tragic collapse and people died. How does being a good member of the community by looking out for the welfare of your employees and guests turn into a “gotcha” moment.

Since it was a rule for condos and people were stating that condo rules don't apply to timeshares condominiums. Which this clearly demonstrates that it does.

 

[Tatebeck]

So basically, if you're going to rent, the renter's name goes on the reservation when initially booked, and a rental contract needs to be made. If not, it's assumed to not be a rental and thus, no lead guest name changes unless approved by DVD. And now they are denying lead guest name changes? Am I understanding your interpretation correctly?

I mean I don't know if this is exactly why member services is putting extra scrutiny on the "for personal use" questions and on lead guest changes, but it is just some rules I have found that seem to possibly match up.

 

[disneylandtour]

Sure it could but absent an offical policy threshold, there is a level of understanding owners would have when buying.

If DVC doesn’t want to make the same mistake as 2008 and give specifics, then each owner is left to make decisions on how they interpret the rules of the contract…which, as I shared, is exactly what I was told.

If someone feels renting yearly is outside the contract they shouldn’t do it…but if another owner feels that is within their right to rent, and rents yearly, then they can do it until DVC tells them their actions are out of bounds.

If DVC allows it, then DVC has decided it matches renting under personal use.

I'd say--the rules are too vague to be easily understood by a casual owner. And in the next year or so, likely through repeated examples, we'll figure out what DVD means. And I do think that Disney is going to start with massive commercial renters (probably already happened) then work down through the very large FB and social media renters, and then after that we'll see what happens.

 

[mkatsy]

Since it was a rule for condos and people were stating that condo rules don't apply to timeshares condominiums. Which this clearly demonstrates that it does.

Some do and some may not. Maintaining the structural integrity of your building would be pretty difficult to argue against. Rental rules in a fee- simple traditional condominium where the owner has complete use of the unit all year, may not adequately address the challenges that a timeshare club faces in fractional ownership.