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

[mkatsy]

Meaning, no guarantee that one will be able to find a renter.....because they are competing with Disney....but FL 718 for condos give owners the right to rent, the contract gives us the right to rent....DVC just gets to decide how much renting one does shifts one into the commerical enterprise arena.

Now, the RIV and beyond POS documents are a little more direct and include examples of what DVC can use, which puts those owners on notice for things that the pre RIV POS does not...

Not that I expect DVC to come up with different thresholds and enforcments for pre and post RIV...but they definitely have taken steps, especially with the trust document and CFW, to tighten the rules and restrictions when it comes to limiting renting....plus, for CFW, because its not a leashold condo, IIRC, it doesn't even fall under FL 718...

Aulani, Hilton head, and the California properties can be exempted from 718 because it only protects property within the state. It’s an option, but the final decision is up to the state of Florida.

 

[Mouseforward]

on

The contract gives you the ability to rent but removes the expectation to rent. That means they can take they can take that ability away at the Management's discretion without a vote and they explicitly later state as much in POS when it comes to reservations.

Remember the POS is different for each resort , RIV has many changes where BW does not have some of the clauses you mentiond

 

[Sandisw]

on

The contract gives you the ability to rent but removes the expectation to rent. That means they can take they can take that ability away at the Management's discretion without a vote and they explicitly later state as much in POS when it comes to reservations.

They can't because as I said, the areas of the contract that include those rights are NOT removable by DVD....its would be considered a material change to the contract and the elements of the Declaration (and the Condo Rules and Regulations I posed above) can't be changed without a vote of owners.

You have to read the Declaration part of the contract which explains that that document can not be materially changed without a vote. But, based on the boards statements last year, they acknowledged that owners have the right to rent and I am extremely confident that the board does not intend to define the commerical purpose clause as "all renting".....

ETA: the Voting Rights section also gives insight on what they can’t change without owners input.

 

[Sandisw]

Aulani, Hilton head, and the California properties can be exempted from 718 because it only protects property within the state. It’s an option, but the final decision is up to the state of Florida.

You are right...when we are discussing this, I am always focused on WDW.

 

[Brianstl]

Timeshare contracts and laws are gamed to almost always benefit management and to allow them to change almost everything people think they have an ability to do. Disney has previously decided not to use many of the things available to them, but made sure those contracts gave them that ability if they decided they wanted to use them later on.

 

[Brianstl]

They can't because as I said, the areas of the contract that include those rights are NOT removable by DVD....its considered a material change to the contract and the elements of the Declaration (and the Condo Rules and Regulations I posed above) can't be changed without a vote of owners.

You have to read the Declaration part of the contract which explains that that document can not be materially changed without a vote.

It would only be a material change if the expectation wasn’t explicitly excluded in the required disclosure. The required disclosure clearly states that the owner should have no expectation to be able to rent their points.

 

[Brianstl]

Remember the POS is different for each resort , RIV has many changes where BW does not have some of the clauses you mentiond

That could be the case.

 

[Sandisw]

It would only be a material change if the expectation wasn’t explicitly excluded in the required disclosure. The required disclosure clearly states that the owner should have no expectation to be able to rent their points.

We can agree to disagree because that statement is in relation to the context of that paragraph....as I said, I went over this last year in depth with DVC and that is not what that clause means. So, for now, I am sticking with the information they gave me (and yes, it was high enough up the chain that I was confident in their information).....

Great debate though...

 

[Sandisw]

I don’t want to do that, no. I agree it’ll be pretty annoying. But I think I’d accept it if it meant slowing or stopping commercial renters. We can agree to disagree that there would be a difference if all commercial renting, especially spec renting, is stopped. No way to know until it’s done. And maybe it’s not a crazy difference but I’d be happy to go back to what I heard it was like 10-15yrs ago where some rooms were hard but not impossible or walked all year round.

And of course, those who want to profit from renting will also try at 8am but they’ll be severely limited unless they also spend tons of money on Human Resources to call in and book rooms everyday and each call would take time and allow others to jump in in front of them. Right now they are practically limitless.

And to yours and Sandi’s point about how much it would cost to hire MS cast members, something they wanted to get rid of by implementing the online booking system…you’re right. I’m sure it’s something DVC would actively try to avoid doing because it would be expensive and a pain.

But their fix of an online system (amongst other less easily fixable things, ie point charts) is also an expensive pain for them now that they’re losing money to commercial renters who are choosing to not book cash hotel rooms or even buying DVC when you don’t need to, you can just rent!

How much do they gain by doing something like this? I have no idea but we can’t say that Disney isn’t leaving money on the table right now by not curbing the flourishing business that has become DVC rentals in the last few years. And I think they’re definitely noticing.

All this aside, I’m not saying they’ll do this, in fact, I’m sure they won’t. But it’s not the worst idea I’ve heard. It doesn’t really limit owners, it doesn’t go against HRR or the POS. It doesn’t take away renting but it does make it more difficult for those who have made a business out of this.

I think I’d be ok with a special season list, too. The only issue with a lottery is these commercial businesses likely have the ability to generate multiple spots in the random queue, and so still have a much better chance than the average owner. But it’s better than nothing.

At some point something has to give cause we can’t all be against commercial renting in principle but not willing to do something about it.

Whatever rules DVC makes to define the commercial purpose clause, and enforce it is only supposed to be based on owners violating the contract....they are not supposed to make decisions because the hotel division may be suffering with lower occupancy...especially since the hotel division has all the power to add incentives that will put those renters back to cash..

Having said that, I still believe that they can easily accomplish getting the big time players out of there (which is who they mentioned) by tweaking the 2008 policy and making it harder for LLC's to rent without having to support that the guests are indeed employees/members of the company....set the threshold and tell the corporation it looks suspcious and stop them from booking more until the prove to the boards satisfacation that they are all indeed guests that qualify.

When you I look at some of the hard to get rooms being offered as confirmed, there are so many of them that are just one or two nights....and that would be a lot of reservations and name changes.....so, setting those limits for all memberships associated with an owenr instead of one, including monitoring above average lead guest name changes, it should, IMO, prevent those large point owners from continuing to do what they have been doing.

That is what I am hoping we see....that they find a way to take care of the ones who are doing most of the stuff that they shouldn't be and then reevaluate the point charts and potentially demand for specific room types and see if they can come up with a way to even that out for those owners who are being impacted by it.

But, I have to add....the fact we have really seen no movement since December in terms of reports of enforcement and no operational changes....makes me wonder if there isn't some level of legal hurdles in their way..

 

[Sandisw]

Your making up a definition of Regular and/or frequent renting of your points to mean yearly- this was not defined by DVC. Regular and/or frequent renting of your points could mean 3 times a year or more than 20 times.

edit - I do agree that making a living is not a criteria , you can be a business and not make a profit

To add, we know that over the years, DVC has always had a reasonablly higher threshold for the commerical purposes clause and nothing they have actually stated contridicts they intend to make it unreasonably low.

 

[Sandisw]

Since we know that owners can have reservations for family and friends, anyor want to share ideas on what they feel would be a fair way for DVC to evaluate that when reviewing a membership?

Figure it might be nice to discuss a different aspect of enforcement.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

That’s another one of those “say it so many times it becomes true” things.

I also am skeptical that any agent of Disney has ever bound the company to the statement that it’s permissible to rent half your points each year—but my guess is that people who rent half or less of their points are unlikely to be swept up in whatever enforcement Disney is going to start with, with the possible exception of people who are disproportionately renting the most desirable rooms. Again, I don’t think “I rent half my points” is necessarily in the crosshairs now, but most would agree it falls within the definition of regularly and frequently, so I would certainly not advise anybody to buy so many point they needed to rent a material percentage each year.

I was under the impression DVC could make some adjustments "for the benefit of the Members" without jumping thru hoops, like they did when returns after Covid caused challenges?

I've always thought there should be a 7 month, 11 month, and an 11.5 month priority - with the 11.5 month going to reservations where the Lead guest was a Deeded owner with a credit card in their name linked to the reservation. No modifications allowed (would have to cancel and rebook). Just my two cents worth.

I love the ideal of an initial priority window that is only for owners in the name of the person on the deed and I do not think it’s a material change, but if it was, I think they could absolutely institute a similar rule that would stop spec renting, specifically that no name changes can be made for reservations made in the first week of the home resort window or the first week of the SAP window. I don’t see any court holding that the right to spec rent is a material right of a timeshare owner. I think it would be much better for the general membership than no right to rent at all.

No, the owners can vote to amend the POS and it would be a change for all.

The only law that says owners who don’t vote for a change would be the specific one passed in 2021 FL 718.111 which specially related to making limitations to renting beyond what already exists.

ETA: and that is only for owners who owned before the change occurred.


This could be done outside of the idea of renting. Honestly, though, I doubt you’d get enough owners for each unit to even be willing to ask for the vote.

See, I think it wouldn’t be too hard to get the vast majority of owners to vote to ban lead guest name changes for bookings made in the home resort window—assuming that it isn’t a widespread problem and fewer than 10% of the people are doing it. All it would take is Disney explaining to the membership of certain resorts what’s happening and why they are seeing almost zero availability with certain room categories and request a vote to stop anyone from spec renting the rooms before say the 3 month mark, if at all.

I can find some references ( mostly related to accommodation taxes articles ) that have the guideline of making 3 rentals (duration of less than 30 days) in one year qualifies you as requiring registration as a rental business. Funny thing is it references "regular and frequent renting" and uses the 3 per year standard. Makes me wonder if DVC will opt for that.

I assume 85-95% of membership would be happy with a result that limits you to 3 rentals a year on average— if you have two reservations it turns out you can’t use or bank, you’re safe to rent them…if you know you can’t use your points at all for a year or two, you can rent longer blocks in high value rooms (that usually less competitive)— but it makes it very hard to squeeze $40/pt out of hundreds of points.

 

[JackosinDIS]

Since we know that owners can have reservations for family and friends, anyor want to share ideas on what they feel would be a fair way for DVC to evaluate that when reviewing a membership?

Figure it might be nice to discuss a different aspect of enforcement.

Well, it gets even more difficult here doesn’t it!

I’m of an age where my ‘friends’ are people that I meet occasionally on a social basis. However, a few generations below me, I’m not sure you need to actually have ever met someone to be considered a friend. They don’t talk on the phone any more and I suspect most kids have plenty of friends who they exclusively know through Fortnite (is that still a thing… I don’t know, I’m too old!)

Point being, the definition of friend is extremely wide and there is really no way for Disney to evaluate this.

I think the only ‘fair’ way would be for Disney to ask the owner if the guest staying in the room is a friend, and they would have to take your word for it… but I’m pretty sure I know how that would turn out if you asked a commercial renter!

 

[zavandor]

See, I think it wouldn’t be too hard to get the vast majority of owners to vote to ban lead guest name changes for bookings made in the home resort window—assuming that it isn’t a widespread problem and fewer than 10% of the people are doing it.

I think with bots it's easy to stalk the website and catch all cancellations too. This change wouldn't block that.
Also, any member who votes no wouldn't be affected by the new rule, so it would stop future purchases, but it would do nothing for current commercial renters.

 

[mkatsy]

I understand that but the earlier post said that FL law states that renting of timeshare points is considered a commerical activity and I wanted to read the statute that says that....I can't find that statement anywhere...

At this point I feel like I’ve read everything, and as far as I can tell, the word “points” does not exist outside of 721. Every other statute uses the word “timeshare” to encompass all forms of timeshare plans.

 

[Sandisw]

At this point I feel like I’ve read everything, and as far as I can tell, the word “points” does not exist outside of 721. Every other statute uses the word “timeshare” to encompass all forms of timeshare plans.

Thank you for combing though it with me!

 

[Mouseforward]

At least one reservation a year of mine is made in my name and changed to a sister or nephew. And 100% of my reservations are booked at 11 months.. It’s simply too hard at 11 months for my family to commit.
I don’t think this is unusual or uncommon. Frankly when registering at 8 AM who wants to have to fill out lots of names. I think the majority of us just put ourselves on the reservation and worry about that later. This change would not be desirable at all.

 

[Sandisw]

I also am skeptical that any agent of Disney has ever bound the company to the statement that it’s permissible to rent half your points each year—but my guess is that people who rent half or less of their points are unlikely to be swept up in whatever enforcement Disney is going to start with, with the possible exception of people who are disproportionately renting the most desirable rooms. Again, I don’t think “I rent half my points” is necessarily in the crosshairs now, but most would agree it falls within the definition of regularly and frequently, so I would certainly not advise anybody to buy so many point they needed to rent a material percentage each year.

I love the ideal of an initial priority window that is only for owners in the name of the person on the deed and I do not think it’s a material change, but if it was, I think they could absolutely institute a similar rule that would stop spec renting, specifically that no name changes can be made for reservations made in the first week of the home resort window or the first week of the SAP window. I don’t see any court holding that the right to spec rent is a material right of a timeshare owner. I think it would be much better for the general membership than no right to rent at all.

See, I think it wouldn’t be too hard to get the vast majority of owners to vote to ban lead guest name changes for bookings made in the home resort window—assuming that it isn’t a widespread problem and fewer than 10% of the people are doing it. All it would take is Disney explaining to the membership of certain resorts what’s happening and why they are seeing almost zero availability with certain room categories and request a vote to stop anyone from spec renting the rooms before say the 3 month mark, if at all.

I assume 85-95% of membership would be happy with a result that limits you to 3 rentals a year on average— if you have two reservations it turns out you can’t use or bank, you’re safe to rent them…if you know you can’t use your points at all for a year or two, you can rent longer blocks in high value rooms (that usually less competitive)— but it makes it very hard to squeeze $40/pt out of hundreds of points.

Just to clarify…no one who has said that because DVC reps have said renting half your points is okay has said it can’t be changed by the board.

I am not convinced that giving some owners priority over others for certain rooms isn’t a direct violation of the contract nor mesh with the regs of FL 721 and would represent a material change that adversely would impact owners so vote needed.

I’d be shocked to see owners of that resort call for a vote to limit their rights to use the membership in that way…and even more shocked to see the majority of owners say yes.

But, things like lead name changes and modifications are part of the HRR and DVC can amend them at will, as long as it doesnt conflict with the contract.

DVC can simply say everything is a cancel and rebook for all reservations. Simple to do, simple to implement and stops everything people would like to see stopped.

While I have no clue what it is, there is a reason why no changes to the HRR happened with the newest update with the check box language.

There really is no reason for DVC to do all these complicated changes.

ETA: And, I think the 3 rental reservations a year would be seen as reasonable by many owner as long as DVC can find a way to account for family and friends that is also seen as reasonable.

 

[Sandisw]

At least one reservation a year of mine is made in my name and changed to a sister or nephew. And 100% of my reservations are booked at 11 months.. It’s simply too hard at 11 months for my family to commit.
I don’t think this is unusual or uncommon. Frankly when registering at 8 AM who wants to have to fill out lots of names. I think the majority of us just put ourselves on the reservation and worry about that later. This change would not be desirable at all.

It’s not and if one goes back and reads the DVC News article about the December meeting, this is exactly what I discussed with the board and it includes the direct answer I was given.

They were pretty clear at both meetings that operational changes to the program would need to be seen as a better way that doesn’t have unintended consequences that change the flexibility of the program as a whole.

 

[Sandisw]

Well, it gets even more difficult here doesn’t it!

I’m of an age where my ‘friends’ are people that I meet occasionally on a social basis. However, a few generations below me, I’m not sure you need to actually have ever met someone to be considered a friend. They don’t talk on the phone any more and I suspect most kids have plenty of friends who they exclusively know through Fortnite (is that still a thing… I don’t know, I’m too old!)

Point being, the definition of friend is extremely wide and there is really no way for Disney to evaluate this.

I think the only ‘fair’ way would be for Disney to ask the owner if the guest staying in the room is a friend, and they would have to take your word for it… but I’m pretty sure I know how that would turn out if you asked a commercial renter!

I think they could add a simple check box to online check in and if one doesn’t do that, have guests check it at the front desk.

Owners, guest of owner, or leasee who has paid the owner for this reservation.

And, DVC can simply ask for owners to send rental contracts to them…and while sure, you might have some renters who might be willing to lie they didn’t pay, I’d bet that there would be a good majority who would not.

Thst still wouldn’t stop DVC from monitoring…but like all rules, sometimes its about keeping honest people honest as no rule will keep those bent on working around it from finding a way.