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

[Mouseforward]

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/

What are commercial purposes?​

Commercial purposes refer to activities or actions that are undertaken with the goal of generating profit or benefiting a business.

The very first sentence of your link supports how DVC is enforcing this.

 

[Huskerpal]

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

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.

How will DVC Management know that the reservation in a name other than an owner's isn't a friend or family?
Will there be a friends and family list for each ownership? How many names on this list? When can you add a name to this list?

 

[Brianstl]

What are commercial purposes?​

Commercial purposes refer to activities or actions that are undertaken with the goal of generating profit or benefiting a business.

The very first sentence of your link supports how DVC is enforcing this.

Exactly and that is why you are going to get nothing more in writing from them. Just using the term already supplies the definition. Anything else that they would put in writing only risk putting them at legal risk.

 

[Sandisw]

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.

My theory is they will use averages and that it will be on the owner to support they didn't exceed dues if flagged...no idea if this will be true, but I will be surprised if rental contracts will be required. Again, they don't need to go there.

Drawing a conclusion here..... The ball remains fully in their court still . They can say to an owner that the # of reservations in the names of others appears you could be in violation of the commerical purpose clause, and so we enforce the policy unless you can prove to use that these reservations in names other didn't produce a rental income above dues...

The owner would then be forced to provide proof to the satisfaction of DVC that the ones they are claiming are "gifts" for family and friends, and if they can't, then just like the 2008 policy, enforcement can happen....

That is why I personally think this was well done becaue owners can rent up to the cost of dues and even if you look at average cost of dues, and average rental cost, it would work out, at most, for many membersihps to be close to 50% of the points maximum that can be in the names of others...meaning the rest would need to be in reservations in the owners names.

I still believe that the bulk of owners out there renting who are not renting for commericial reasons, do so based on the rules in place and will continue to do so....

 

[lowlight]

How will DVC Management know that the reservation in a name other than an owner's isn't a friend or family?
Will there be a friends and family list for each ownership? How many names on this list? When can you add a name to this list?

Yes, this is my concern. The only way to fix this is to disallow any usage of points in excess of what would be more than annual dues worth for anyone other than deeded owners. It breaks down to roughly 30-35 percent of points depending on annual dues costs.

 

[tx911]

My theory is they will use averages and that it will be on the owner to support they didn't exceed dues if flagged...no idea if this will be true, but I will be surprised if rental contracts will be required. Again, they don't need to go there.

Drawing a conclusion here..... The ball remains fully in their court still . They can say to an owner that the # of reservations in the names of others appears you could be in violation of the commerical purpose clause, and so we enforce the policy unless you can prove to use that these reservations in names other didn't produce a rental income above dues...

The owner would then be forced to provide proof to the satisfaction of DVC that the ones they are claiming are "gifts" for family and friends, and if they can't, then just like the 2008 policy, enforcement can happen....

That is why I personally think this was well done becaue owners can rent up to the cost of dues and even if you look at average cost of dues, and average rental cost, it would work out, at most, for many membersihps to be close to 50% of the points maximum that can be in the names of others...meaning the rest would need to be in reservations in the owners names.

I still believe that the bulk of owners out there renting who are not renting for commericial reasons, do so based on the rules in place and will continue to do so....

Do we expect them to make a big proclamation about this rule sometime soon?

 

[Sandisw]

Exactly and that is why you are going to get nothing more in writing from them. Just using the term already supplies the definition. Anything else that they would put in writing only risk putting them at legal risk.

I will repeat myself....the POS requires them to give me that in writing, and the FL 721 requires that all records of the association are made available to owners at their request. No different than requesting to reivew the records of the association for budgets, etc.

Failure to give an owner a requested document in 10 days is seen as an attempt by the association to subvert (or whatever the official word is) the law and that they can be chartged $50/day for every day that is late.

The only way they can remove that clause regarding having an official policy in place for commerical purpose, enterprise and actiivty for an owner to review is to file an amendement to the state to have it removed, which the state would approve. All this is explained in FL 721 that governs timeshares.

I have requested it and expect to get it and if not, I will be filing a complaint to say my request to review records has been ignored.

Here is the clause that says there is a written record of the policy and can be reviewed. Not sure why you appear to be arguing against something that the contract states exists.....

 

[Mouseforward]

Do we expect them to make a big proclamation about this rule sometime soon?

It didn’t sound like it, but if you rent or ever want to rent, I would definitely call MS to speak to a supervisor and get it firsthand. They were very willing to discuss my specific example because it related to my account. For Hypotheticals she kept repeating it is at their soul discretion and your entire pattern will be reviewed.

 

[mkatsy]

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

Bwahaha … gathering my pennies now Let’s go shopping

 

[Sandisw]

How will DVC Management know that the reservation in a name other than an owner's isn't a friend or family?
Will there be a friends and family list for each ownership? How many names on this list? When can you add a name to this list?

Speculation here:

Just like the previous policies, they will set up some level of metric to flag an account that appear to have too many reservations that could be rentals.

Once the account is flagged and reviewed, it will be up to the owner to support to the satisfaction of DVC that those reservations were not rentals, and if they were, that the rental income didn't exceed dues.

If an owner can't do that, then the decision is that the activity is not allowed.....and enforcement will take place. It puts the owner on the hook, just like it did with the old policy.

They don't need to jump through hoops here....the owner will have to if they are coming close to what looks suspcious... If an owner is trying to find ways around the rules, and gets flagged, and can't produce rental agreements showing the rate was lower than what ever rate DVC would be using, then enforcement would happen, and if I had to guess, it will involve cancellations.

 

[Sandisw]

Do we expect them to make a big proclamation about this rule sometime soon?

No, because as I have been told, this is not new policy....it is the same policy as has always existed....and that for several years we know that DVC has allowed owners to rent reservations to offset the cost of dues and this is just enhanced enforcement.

 

[Sandisw]

What are commercial purposes?​

Commercial purposes refer to activities or actions that are undertaken with the goal of generating profit or benefiting a business.

The very first sentence of your link supports how DVC is enforcing this.

Correct.....DVC will consider owners who have rented to offest the cost of their annual dues as being in a "no profit" situation and that is all that matters....their defintion of profit at this point.

 

[lowlight]

Speculation here:

Just like the previous policies, they will set up some level of metric to flag an account that appear to have too many reservations that could be rentals.

Once the account is flagged and reviewed, it will be up to the owner to support to the satisfaction of DVC that those reservations were not rentals, and if they were, that the rental income didn't exceed dues.

If an owner can't do that, then the decision is that the activity is not allowed.....and enforcement will take place. It puts the owner on the hook, just like it did with the old policy.

They don't need to jump through hoops here....the owner will have to if they are coming close to what looks suspcious... If an owner is trying to find ways around the rules, and gets flagged, and can't produce rental agreements showing the rate was lower than what ever rate DVC would be using, then enforcement would happen, and if I had to guess, it will involve cancellations.

But that is no different than the 20 reservations a year rule. If someone gets flagged now, they can say "it wasn't a rental, it was my cousin, I don't have a rental agreement". Now what? How does one prove or disprove that? The 20 reservation limit basically said if you're over, it doesn't matter if it was your cousin, it's canceled. It needs to be the value of the points that aren't used by a deeded owner as lead guest can't exceed the cost of dues for the year. So if it works out to be about 30-35 percent of your points, you can rent those, give them to family, etc., but once you've hit that cap, it's for you and you alone. Otherwise it's a losing proposition on enforcement, IMO.

 

[JackosinDIS]

But that is no different than the 20 reservations a year rule. If someone gets flagged now, they can say "it wasn't a rental, it was my cousin, I don't have a rental agreement". Now what? How does one prove or disprove that? The 20 reservation limit basically said if you're over, it doesn't matter if it was your cousin, it's canceled. It needs to be the value of the points that aren't used by a deeded owner as lead guest can't exceed the cost of dues for the year. So if it works out to be about 30-35 percent of your points, you can rent those, give them to family, etc., but once you've hit that cap, it's for you and you alone. Otherwise it's a losing proposition on enforcement, IMO.

The thing is, we are allowed as owners to use 100% of our points for friends and family. So they can’t restrict that.

I get what you are saying, but wouldn’t support a restriction like this.

 

[IMMkXLVI]

Correct.....DVC will consider owners who have rented to offest the cost of their annual dues as being in a "no profit" situation and that is all that matters....their defintion of profit at this point.

I wonder if it will be property specific or a totality of dues for all properties. If I have 3k in one and 2k at another, can I rent one property for the full 5k in dues or would I have to split it.

This and using points for annual passes will enable us not to have to waste any points or see them forfeit.

 

[lowlight]

The thing is, we are allowed as owners to use 100% of our points for friends and family. So they can’t restrict that.

I get what you are saying, but wouldn’t support a restriction like this.

I know, but without that restriction, you've basically made renting worse. You're now defining that people can rent upwards of 50% of their points with your blessing, plus whatever they can sneak through as "family and friends". That's a much worse situation than we have now.

 

[Mouseforward]

But that is no different than the 20 reservations a year rule. If someone gets flagged now, they can say "it wasn't a rental, it was my cousin, I don't have a rental agreement". Now what? How does one prove or disprove that? The 20 reservation limit basically said if you're over, it doesn't matter if it was your cousin, it's canceled. It needs to be the value of the points that aren't used by a deeded owner as lead guest can't exceed the cost of dues for the year. So if it works out to be about 30-35 percent of your points, you can rent those, give them to family, etc., but once you've hit that cap, it's for you and you alone. Otherwise it's a losing proposition on enforcement, IMO.

I really think it’s gonna come down to if you choose to skirt the line , or claim 23 cousins. Be prepared to hire an attorney and spend a ton of money because you’re gonna have to challenge Disney in their interpretation.

 

[tx911]

I really think it’s gonna come down to if you choose to skirt the line , or claim 23 cousins. Be prepared to hire an attorney and spend a ton of money because you’re gonna have to challenge Disney in their interpretation.

But it's family and friends right? A friend could be literally anybody.

 

[Sandisw]

Yes, this is my concern. The only way to fix this is to disallow any usage of points in excess of what would be more than annual dues worth for anyone other than deeded owners. It breaks down to roughly 30-35 percent of points depending on annual dues costs.

Its on the owner to make sure they follow the rules and if they are flagged, support to DVC's satisfaction that they didn't earn income beyond dues....

This also allows for owners to continue to "gift" reservations to others because those will not be in the owners names.....so, (making this up % for an example), lets say that DVC has set the metric that 50% of the points are tied up in reservations that are not in the names of others.

The system flags the account...the business division reviews and determines it looks like its in violation...they contact the owner and tell them that.....now, its on the owner to plead with DVC that they are not and provide proof....and approve that the actions are appropriate.

If they can't then DVC enforces the clause....the policy, as explained to me is you can't rent for more than the cost of your dues and if you do, then its an issue, and if DVC puts in appropriate metrics, and I expect they will be, then owners in it for commerical purposes have no reason to be in it.

Using me again....$7K in dues with an average rental rate of $18/point, I can have up to 388 points worth of reservations yearly that would have the potential rental income of my annual dues...that I can put in the names of others. If I also want to have additional reservations to "gift" to family and friends? Then I better make sure I have solid proof to give to DVC that they are indeed gifts or risk having reservations canceled.....in case I am flagged.

I can tell you that anyone I would ever "gift" points to would have no problem filling out a gift contract if I felt I needed it to prove I am not earning money above by dues.

 

[Mouseforward]

But it's family and friends right? A friend could be literally anybody.

The clear meaning of that phrase is it that is at zero dollars. When they say family and friends, they are assuming zero dollars anything else is a rental.