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

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

But what benefits were available when this document was written. Didn’t members used to get park tickets, pool hopping (now suspended), valet parking, etc. There is a definite intention to create a two tier system. Renters receive less.

Yeah, it’s impossible to say what specific benefits they’re referring to… but I don’t think guests of members ever got Y card type perks or free tickets, etc. Disney is making clear in that wording that paying renters can get even less.

Aside from a reluctance to spend on IT, I don’t think anything stops Disney from saying “if you want to rent a timeshare from a 3rd party, we don’t have to give you the same perks as a paying hotel guest or DVC owner.” Similarly, just because you (may) have a right to rent your room in some circumstances, doesn’t mean Disney has to give your renters valuable perks like EEH or early LLMP access, unless it’s in the documents somewhere and I missed it.

 

[Sandisw]

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.

I think it’s important thought that people here are discussing things in the context of the thread.

But, from all my research and discussions, the rental condo laws FL 718 as well as timeshare law FL721 all apply to the DVC resorts…sans CFW because it is not being sold as a leasehold condominium.

 

[Sandisw]

This entire thread is nothing but a bunch of opinions.

Actually there is quite a lot of information about the POS.

The POS and the law give us the right to rent. People have posted the actually language many times.

What is restricted is rising to the level of a commercial enterprise.

 

[Sandisw]

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

But there is also enough to not allow DVc to stop someone from booking and then renting.

Regardless of motive, IMO, it’s a lead guest change that is required and I have a very hard time seeing a policy that is going to outright ban lead guest changes because the impact to the membership is too great

As a pattern of activity that can support someone is renting above limits? Absolutely.

What we know is they are not preventing lead guest changes for both family and friends and rentals.

They are asking questions but as long as one attests it’s following the personal use clause it is being confirmed.

 

[Sandisw]

That same law also says the condo association has to allow you to put an EV charger in if you want to. Try telling Disney you're getting estimates to have an EV charger put in beside your 1 bedroom at Saratoga Springs.

These laws don't apply to timeshare condo associations...

I did some amateur sleuthing. This EV issue doesn’t apply because we are on a ground lease with Disney and don’t have authority to make adjustments to the common elements.

So, it’s already baked into the POS those don’t apply.

Renting is part of the POS so all laws associated with it apply.

 

[Sandisw]

Nothing in the POS requires them to allow spec renting or requires an amendment to change it.

Opinion here.

I’d say a ban spec renting under the commercial purpose clause would be a tough sell because they are still supposed to show a level of renting that makes you a commercial enterprise.

However, as I already posted, they can put in a rule to limit lead guest changes, which has nothing to do with rentals, under the HRR, and that would allow them to stop it in a much cleaner way.

 

[Sandisw]

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.

They are not those kind of privileges. They are membership extras and things given as a DVC owner.

Those elements you mention above are not DVC…they are benefits of staying at WDW resort which all DVC villas are classics to be…

The contract doesn’t allow for this…even for a renter.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Yeah, it’s impossible to say what specific benefits they’re referring to… but I don’t think guests of members ever got Y card type perks or free tickets, etc. Disney is making clear in that wording that paying renters can get even less.

Aside from a reluctance to spend on IT, I don’t think anything stops Disney from saying “if you want to rent a timeshare from a 3rd party, we don’t have to give you the same perks as a paying hotel guest or DVC owner.” Similarly, just because you (may) have a right to rent your room in some circumstances, doesn’t mean Disney has to give your renters valuable perks like EEH or early LLMP access, unless it’s in the documents somewhere and I missed it.

Again EEH and LLMP is not something DVC members are entitled to, because they are members. They are entitled to them because of the DVC resort we book.

Otherwise I could book a stay offsite and still use those perks, but I cant as they are tied to the resort and not the member. if Disney decided to remove the perks for all DVC resorts regardless of who book them, and instead gave DVC the option to give it to their members then DVC could say only eligible members will get the perks.

I wonder how sad all the strictly resale owners would be then? <-- Again be careful what you wish for

 

[mkatsy]

I think it’s important thought that people here are discussing things in the context of the thread.

But, from all my research and discussions, the rental condo laws FL 718 as well as timeshare law FL721 all apply to the DVC resorts…sans CFW because it is not being sold as a leasehold condominium.

Statute 721 unequivocally applies, in fact it is the holy grail that regulates all timeshares. In the case of conflict, 721 supersedes 718 this is directly mentioned in statute 721.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Opinion here.

I’d say a ban spec renting under the commercial purpose clause would be a tough sell because they are still supposed to show a level of renting that makes you a commercial enterprise.

However, as I already posted, they can put in a rule to limit lead guest changes, which has nothing to do with rentals, under the HRR, and that would allow them to stop it in a much cleaner way.

We should be careful what we wish for - DVC could decide that in a number of ways and they aren't all for the benefit of members.

One could be, a name change is considered a cancel and rebook. That would impact the reservations at the high demand resorts and rooms which are used to commercial renting. However it would also affect John Doe who 3 months out now finds himself unable to go as planned.

 

[Sandisw]

Statute 721 unequivocally applies, in fact it is the holy grail that regulates all timeshares. In the case of conflict, 721 supersedes 718 this is directly mentioned in the statute.

Yes, it does…when a conflict arises…the FL 718 being discussed though is not in conflict…at least I can’t find one…with FL 721

The other part is that the Declaration section of the POS discusses renting and that section always says that any change to the POS that can be seen as a material right of the contract must be voted on by owners.

So. It’s not just the law here, it’s also the contract which says what types of changes DVD can and can not make to the POS without owner consent.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Btw dont know if anyone noticed it - but the old (way old) terms and conditions from 2018 are still used and referenced. I had to cancel a booking today, and the T&C you accept before you can cancel are the very same as the June 2023 T&C. Guess they most likely are 100% the same but at least they are not the new 2025 T&C

 

[Sandisw]

We should be careful what we wish for - DVC could decide that in a number of ways and they aren't all for the benefit of members.

One could be, a name change is considered a cancel and rebook. That would impact the reservations at the high demand resorts and rooms which are used to commercial renting. However it would also affect John Doe who 3 months out now finds himself unable to go as planned.

And that is why someone like me who does not rent, wants to ensure that the contract is followed and they are required to keep it reasonable if going after those violating the commercial purpose clause.

And banning lead guest changes will not be seen as a positive move by your average owner because now, making a reservation means you have to know all guests at 11 months and that loss of flexibility would be huge.

But, the board stated last year, as this was part of my question to them, that theh recognize changes need to happen and I feel confident in the answer they gave me that it won’t get that far.

 

[mkatsy]

Yes, it does…when a conflict arises…the FL 718 being discussed though is not in conflict…at least I can’t find one…with FL 721

The other part is that the Declaration section of the POS discusses renting and that section always says that any change to the POS that can be seen as a material right of the contract must be voted on by owners.

So. It’s not just the law here, it’s also the contract which says what types of changes DVD can and can not make to the POS without owner consent.

I know absolutely nothing about contract law. I’ll show you the conflict between 721 and 718 this afternoon, I can’t do it on my phone it’s too much text I need my laptop.

 

[Mouseforward]

Statute 721 unequivocally applies, in fact it is the holy grail that regulates all timeshares. In the case of conflict, 721 supersedes 718 this is directly mentioned in statute 721.

No one‘s arguing at 721 does not also apply along with 718. However, 721 is silent on renting. Where do you see where they are in conflict?

 

[Sandisw]

I know absolutely nothing about contract law. I’ll show you the conflict between 721 and 718 this afternoon, I can’t do it on my phone it’s too much text I need my laptop.

That would be great. Just to clarify though in relation to rentals is all I am referring to as conflict. FL 721 does not include info on renting.

But, if you have not, you really should read the POS because there is a lot in there that explains owners rights.

 

[Cyberc1978]

And that is why someone like me who does not rent, wants to ensure that the contract is followed and they are required to keep it reasonable if going after those violating the commercial purpose clause.

And banning lead guest changes will not be seen as a positive move by your average owner because now, making a reservation means you have to know all guests at 11 months and that loss of flexibility would be huge.

But, the board stated last year, as this was part of my question to them, that theh recognize changes need to happen and I feel confident in the answer they gave me that it won’t get that far.

My hope is that they dont fiddle with that part, the impact would be too severe for the regular member.

 

[Tatebeck]

But there is also enough to not allow DVc to stop someone from booking and then renting.

Regardless of motive, IMO, it’s a lead guest change that is required and I have a very hard time seeing a policy that is going to outright ban lead guest changes because the impact to the membership is too great

As a pattern of activity that can support someone is renting above limits? Absolutely.

What we know is they are not preventing lead guest changes for both family and friends and rentals.

They are asking questions but as long as one attests it’s following the personal use clause it is being confirmed.

Yes, this is what I was getting at. I don't think they will stop all lead guest changes.

The documents say that approval is needed (or technically that approval is not needed for a non-rental) for a rental if the reservation is not already booked in the renters name. But do not say that it is needed for personal/family/friend usage without fees.

So they can allow lead guest changes for strictly personal/family/friend use and ask if it is a rental and deny a lead guest change on a possible rental on an already booked or spec reservation if they wanted to

 

[Sandisw]

We have all been doing great so let’s keep it going!

Just a few things…please remember to assume that we all know DVD can do what they want, even if it would take a legal challenge to fight them.

Also, we don’t need to debate the right to rent. Its expressly allowed in the contract.

Please take others comments about what they believe or hope should and should not be allowed is in the context of the commercial purpose clause of the contract!

The last thing, is to please remember no one here has bad intentions and I appreciate that people have not gone into personal attacks!

 

[Mouseforward]

From Section 721 - the only mention of renting

(p)1. If there are any restrictions upon the sale, transfer, conveyance, or leasing of a timeshare interest, a statement in conspicuous type in substantially the following form: The sale, lease, or transfer of timeshare interests is restricted or controlled. Immediately following this statement, a description of the nature of the restriction, limitation, or control on the sale, lease, or transfer of timeshare interests shall be included.

So Section 721 requires specific language to restrict leasing - which does not exist as far as I can tell in our POS