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

[Brianstl]

They do, and the POS documents say that a written policy exists and that owners have the right to review it....that is what my certified letter asked for and the FL statute says I need a response in 10 days or they would be seen as ignoring and then could end up owing me $50/day for being late.

However, based on my conversation last night, on a recorded line, the threshold that will be used is offsetting dues....if it looks like that is all you are doing, you will be considered having 'no profit" which means, not a owner in it for commerical reasons.

At this point, I have talked to them enough, and will have further confirmation to my letter, that I am confident this is accurate.....and it fits with the policies that have been in place prior to the June 1st updated language....which, as I have said, I have been told multiple times there is no new policy but rather an enhanced level of enforement by DVC.

Nothing you are told verbally has any legal standing. The documents state that several times. When it comes to “commercial purposes” they don’t need to provide a definition or how they will determine it. It already has an accepted legal definition.

Now I think they will use the determination you were told verbally, but they would being making a huge mistake legally if they put that in writing because it could really box themselves in legally if if they get sued in the future.

 

[IMMkXLVI]

I'd have to rent for approximately $7/point..

I'd take a piece of that action!

 

[tx911]

I'd take a piece of that action!

Get in line buddy.

 

[Sandisw]

Nothing you are told verbally has any legal standing. The documents state that several times. When it comes to “commercial purposes” they don’t need to provide a definition or how they will determine it. It already has an accepted legal definition.

Now I think they will use the determination you were told verbally, but they would being making a huge mistake legally if they put that in writing because it could really box themselves legally in legally if if they get sued in the future.

As I said, the POS states there is a written document on record and owners have the right to review it....and whether you agree or not, DVC does need to disclose to owners, what that defintion is at the time of the violation.

DVC always has the right to amend their definition but we know that they did indeed put an offiicial policy in writing in 2008....which, when this happened, I have read rumblings that some owners want to go after DVC for changing that 2008 written policy.

I am not going to debate with you the legal standing of what I was verbally told....because I have confidence that they are not having the MS supervisors lie to owners on a recorded line.

Offsetting dues has been in place now for years as an acceptable level of renting...and based on the information that this is not new policy...which I have now been told several times....it matches that this is enhanced enforcement.

 

[JackosinDIS]

Nothing you are told verbally has any legal standing. The documents state that several times. When it comes to “commercial purposes” they don’t need to provide a definition or how they will determine it. It already has an accepted legal definition.

Now I think they will use the determination you were told verbally, but they would being making a huge mistake legally if they put that in writing because it could really box themselves in legally if if they get sued in the future.

They do need to provide a definition, because the POS specifically says that DVC has a policy on what constitutes a ‘commercial enterprise’ in their eyes, and that definition is a record of the association which is available to view on request.

 

[kilik64]

This will have the effect of lowering the cost to rent. Will also have the effect of cutting out a ton of people who even want to rent, but essentially if you cant rent for more than what your dues are per point, then the cost to rent should be lower overall. Large point owners will be negated from that if they are not renting them all, but take me, say I need to rent my 160 points one year, SSR so I cant rent it for more than my dues cost, so for 2025 the most I could rent per point would be $8.54 per point.

So while some renters like a Sandi (just using you as an example since you noted the following numbers) who has 900 points could rent up to $7k in value and get more per point if not renting them all, if there are enough small point renters in the market, points values will have to drop from what I am thinking.

 

[Sandisw]

I'd take a piece of that action!

Get in line buddy.

Ill add you both to my friends and family list...it is funny because when I have accepted money from friends who were going without me, I have never ever taken more than $7/point and that is only because they insisted!

But, its why I personally think this is a very reasonable and fair way to attack this because it balances the needs of owners who may have a need/want to rent to offset their dues, but at the same time, take away the reason that those who got in it for commerical purposes...and that is to profit above the cost of dues.

Technically, this definition doesn't even allow anyone to recoup buy in cost. But, let's be honest, the average owners out there even renting enough points to cover all their dues yearly is probably pretty small in the scheme of things.

So, in practice, I really have to speculate that this will get the large point owners whose purpose was to make money out of the game and that whatever the rental market looks like it will look that way because its owners renting to follow the rules.

 

[IMMkXLVI]

Get in line buddy.

Ha! YOU get in line, I was here first!

 

[JackosinDIS]

Yes, that is how it was explained.....basically, if it looks like what owners are doing is offsetting the cost of dues, then the owner will be okay...but, if they think that there is a chance it is more than that, then it sounds like the system will flag it and the business division gets involed.

I just posted that owners are required to have rental contracts, which would include the rates being charged...

OPINION HERE: If I am an owner who needs or wants to rent, I'd be making sure that the income I am getting never exceeds my annual dues for that year.

But, this definition seems very reasonable to me, allows owners to rent in a way that matches the contract and the law, and will definitely stop those who bought DVC to make money because they will be capped to renting only to a level that covers the dues for the contracts they are part of.

And, for those who are attached to lots of LLCs, but also have personal memberships? This will make a big dent to them because it sounds like this goes to the owner....across all memberships, based on the way it was answered when I shared my own situation.

Thanks for sharing this. Agree it seems like a sensible approach to things by DVC.

My OPINION, on this:

DVC will not be looking at actual rental amounts for any owner, but they will take a high level view based on the average amount for point rentals. I suspect somewhere between $16-20.

If the amount of points used in the names of others multipled by the notional cost per point is more than an owner’s total dues across all memberships, then it may be flagged for review.

So yes, I agree with the advice to ensure that income stays below dues, but can’t imagine a world where DVC are actually looking at the detail of each rental agreement.

 

[Mouseforward]

This will have the effect of lowering the cost to rent. Will also have the effect of cutting out a ton of people who even want to rent, but essentially if you cant rent for more than what your dues are per point, then the cost to rent should be lower overall. Large point owners will be negated from that if they are not renting them all, but take me, say I need to rent my 160 points one year, SSR so I cant rent it for more than my dues cost, so for 2025 the most I could rent per point would be $8.54 per point.

So while some renters like a Sandi (just using you as an example since you noted the following numbers) who has 900 points could rent up to $7k in value and get more per point if not renting them all, if there are enough small point renters in the market, points values will have to drop from what I am thinking.

They did not say that it was per point, so you can still rent 68 points at $20 a point as long as you are not renting enough points for a total more than your dues.

 

[IMMkXLVI]

Ill add you both to my friends and family list...it is funny because when I have accepted money from friends who were going without me, I have never ever taken more than $7/point and that is only because they insisted!

But, its why I personally think this is a very reasonable and fair way to attack this because it balances the needs of owners who may have a need/want to rent to offset their dues, but at the same time, take away the reason that those who got in it for commerical purposes...and that is to profit above the cost of dues.

Technically, this definition doesn't even allow anyone to recoup buy in cost. But, let's be honest, the average owners out there even renting enough points to cover all their dues yearly is probably pretty small in the scheme of things.

So, in practice, I really have to speculate that this will get the large point owners whose purpose was to make money out of the game and that whatever the rental market looks like it will look that way because its owners renting to follow the rules.

It will for certain change the renting landscape.


I'd love to see an expansion of the banking period, either in total number of years points can be pushed ahead or some grace period for points released after a banking deadline. I haven't had any personal experience with points in holding but it sounds like an enema.

 

[Sandisw]

This will have the effect of lowering the cost to rent. Will also have the effect of cutting out a ton of people who even want to rent, but essentially if you cant rent for more than what your dues are per point, then the cost to rent should be lower overall. Large point owners will be negated from that if they are not renting them all, but take me, say I need to rent my 160 points one year, SSR so I cant rent it for more than my dues cost, so for 2025 the most I could rent per point would be $8.54 per point.

So while some renters like a Sandi (just using you as an example since you noted the following numbers) who has 900 points could rent up to $7k in value and get more per point if not renting them all, if there are enough small point renters in the market, points values will have to drop from what I am thinking.

It is very possible that will be the impact....and, let's look at it from the other side....OPINION here why I think this is another brillant move by DVC...

What is the biggest reason that people who are eligible to trade for cruises, AP, etc. don't do it....because the value isn't there.....you can rent for more.

Now, if an owner knows the most they can get is the cost of annual dues, they may simply choose not to rent extra points out because they'd have to charge less, and instead use them for larger rooms, etc. or even those trades.

This alone may deincentivise owners from renting. When MMB came out and trading for AP was discussed, the one big question was why not rent instead because DVC isn't giving you much value.....well, now, they have found a way to potentially influence the rental market.

Of course, this doesn't prevent an owner from renting fewer points for higher price per point...but, it definitely provides a cap to the income and if one gets flagged, then it will be on the owner to make their case that they haven't exceed the cost of dues.

I can definitely see owners deciding against the renting of points if they have to accept a lot less for them because of the # of points they want to rent....

 

[lowlight]

Very true, but LLC's are also not allowed to rent to people other than the owners, board of directors, or employees. So, DVC can look at those situations differently, even using the same metric.

But, for those owners out there who have created multiple LLCs, many also have personal accounts....so, now, if one has both, the amount of dues would be pooled.

Again, people bent on finding ways around the rules, will try to find them, but IMO, this is a pretty reasonable way to stop who should be stopped...owners who bought with the pure intent to make money....and if profit will be be seen as anything above your annual dues for the year, then it makes owning DVC for anything other than vacations, useless.

IMO, it is a pretty brillant way to do it and those of us who wanted to ensure that our right to rent was protected, I think this does that....and its impact on owners who truly need or want to rent to make owning DVC more affordable, won't really be there.

I agree, it’s a pretty smart way to do it IF:

1) rental contracts are required and enforced
2) there is no way to beat the system and say 9 of my 10 reservations were for my 9 cousins and I only rented the 10th.

 

[kilik64]

So yes, I agree with the advice to ensure that income stays below dues, but can’t imagine a world where DVC are actually looking at the detail of each rental agreement.

AI is a thing now.

Just make it mandatory you have to upload your rental agreement, ai can scan it for amounts etc, and then flag if the total exceeds dues amount for contract, or if its someone doing more than 1 rental, can scan and track to see if going over threshold for membership dues amount. Flags over the amount can be set to send a letter to the member for a first violation, second gets kicked to a human and you get a letter and a call suspending your membership for rules violation.

Question is do they want to pay for it? They cant charge us for that as it would have to come from their fee which is limited to a certain percent I'm pretty sure.

They did not say that it was per point, so you can still rent 68 points at $20 a point as long as you are not renting enough points for a total more than your dues.

But if I am renting points and its all of mine I cant rent for more which is why I included Sandi, sure she CAN rent for $20 a point, but say you want a rental at whatever res comes out to 160 points, you gonna pay $8.54 to rent mine or $20 to rent hers? If there are enough small point renters, it'll drop the cost of renting in theory.

 

[Mouseforward]

So, in practice, I really have to speculate that this will get the large point owners whose purpose was to make money out of the game and that whatever the rental market looks like it will look that way because its owners renting to follow the rules.

I can not think of a legitimate way to make a profit if you are restricted to the amount of dues. Lots of contacts will be for sale . ....

Save up your pennies folks , going to be some resale fire sales soon

 

[Sandisw]

It will for certain change the renting landscape.


I'd love to see an expansion of the banking period, either in total number of years points can be pushed ahead or some grace period for points released after a banking deadline. I haven't had any personal experience with points in holding but it sounds like an enema.

DVC has the power to adjust the banking rules and years ago, they were even stricter than now...it was a sliding scale....

I don't ever see them making banking rules more generous and if anything, I can see them increasing the holding period not reducing it.

There is something that prevents DVC from ever allowing owners to bank more than into the next UY and IIRC, it is because of the imbalance it could cause. We know this based on COVID....they made expections for those who were using points that were banked and would expire during the closure or sometime shortly there after.

What DVC did, once that owners points actually were gone, was transfer into them some of their own points for the owner to use for X months.....which, they absolutely did not need to do!

 

[Brianstl]

As I said, the POS states there is a written document on record and owners have the right to review it....and whether you agree or not, DVC does need to disclose to owners, what that defintion is at the time of the violation.

DVC always has the right to amend their definition but we know that they did indeed put an offiicial policy in writing in 2008....which, when this happened, I have read rumblings that some owners want to go after DVC for changing that 2008 written policy.

I am not going to debate with you the legal standing of what I was verbally told....because I have confidence that they are not having the MS supervisors lie to owners on a recorded line.

Offsetting dues has been in place now for years as an acceptable level of renting...and based on the information that this is not new policy...which I have now been told several times....it matches that this is enhanced enforcement.

The definition already exist in the documents. Just using the term “commercial purposes” is definition. The term has an accepted legal definition that you are agreeing you already understand when you sign the documents. Here is a explanation of what the term means in a contract:
https://www.cobrief.app/resources/l...ial-purposes-overview-definition-and-example/

 

[xdan0920]

Well, if this is really the road we are going down, and DVC enforces this policy, I am on board. This should have a hugely positive effect on the rank and file members of DVC.

I wonder how long before we see some posts disappearing from the rental board?

 

[Mouseforward]

I agree, it’s a pretty smart way to do it IF:

1) rental contracts are required and enforced
2) there is no way to beat the system and say 9 of my 10 reservations were for my 9 cousins and I only rented the 10th.

#1 has always been in the rules since OKW -- I agree they need to enforce it.

 

[Mouseforward]

DVC has the power to adjust the banking rules and years ago, they were even stricter than now...it was a sliding scale....

I don't ever see them making banking rules more generous and if anything, I can see them increasing the holding period not reducing it.

There is something that prevents DVC from ever allowing owners to bank more than into the next UY and IIRC, it is because of the imbalance it could cause. We know this based on COVID....they made expections for those who were using points that were banked and would expire during the closure or sometime shortly there after.

What DVC did, once that owners points actually were gone, was transfer into them some of their own points for the owner to use for X months.....which, they absolutely did not need to do!

I expect banking to end in 2040 for the 2042 resorts .