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

[Sandisw]

I agree that income below dues is probably the minimum you need to avoid being at risk of some sort of enforcement action. I would be surprised if Disney is going to take any sort of claim (even with a purported contract) that you rented your points at a studio at $15/pt on a marathon weekend—even in the very unlikely event it’s true!

I think Sandi is correct here, and is why I would not want to get anywhere close to the line. Assuming Sandi’s intel is correct, my rule of thumb is that the owner should be on the reservation (and actually show up, lol) at least 70% of the time—though if you’re renting very low profitability rooms, it’s probably easier to prove that you’re not in it for profit even if you rent half (or more) of your points. Keep in mind, Disney will see where you used your points and they have a very good idea of the rack rate for the rooms, so, for example, you’d probably need compelling evidence to explain to Disney why you spec rented a BW studio for $90 a night.

I think you might be surprised to see all the ways Disney can prove you weren’t where you said you were…but more likely, it would be on you to prove you were there first.

This seems like a real risk to me, and I suspect Disney has considered it as well, and we will learn more details over time designed to stop this practice (or its fraudulent cousin— writing a contract for $5/pt but actually renting it at $25/pt).

Agree with everything you said. I was just telling a friend that I thought the policy Sandi announced was pretty generous but I would not skirt the line too closely or assume that Disney will take my word for it on rental valuations. I also think the last thing Disney wants is for DVCRM to have even more points to offer for prime studio reservations more cheaply, and the “no more income than dues” would potentially increase the rental market—unless Disney believes/knows that an enormous percentage of total DVC points are owned by exclusively commercial renters—in which case we should expect to see a lot more contracts coming on the market.

My "intel" came directly from DVC and I have called several times and didn't report until I heard it a few times, and when I got it as detailed as I did from the MS supervisor, and confirmed with her this was a recorded line so I can believe what she is saying is 100% accurate, she said yes.

I have now seen other reports of people having been shared similar informaton.... if you are .renting to offset your dues, DVC considers it a "no profit" situation...rent above that, and you are violating the rules.

I get people may be disappointed....and are certainly free to not believe it or believe more is coming...but, that is what DVC has landed on.

The statements last year at the meeting were very clear....they would be extremely cautious to making any operatonal changes that they don't see as a better way to do things because of unintended consequences.

In terms of brokers, sorry, people can say what they want and make wild assumptions, but DVC has never indicated they will make things hard for owners to stop brokers.....and continuing to put out the notion that is the reason is misleading because DVC doesn't have the right to do that and as an owner, no one should want them to make decisions other than for the benefit of owners....and I don't expect DVC to hit the average owner with rules that clearly are not better just to put brokers out of business....

This decision allows DVC to enforce the commercial purpose clause in a reasonable way (the standard) and using metrics that many would agree with are "fair" in terms of balancing the rights of owners to rent and preventing those from owning for the sole purpose of becoming a commerical enterprise/practice...

I just don't agree and have never seen any evidence that DVC want's to catch up the average owner in this, nor make such complicated rules that have them try to micromanage every membership to the level that they are "discounting' rental contracts if there is no further behaviors by the part of that owner that they are fake.

I have been clear that we do not know exactly how an account will be flagged for review, but common sense tells us that it will be computerized metric based on something happening in the account...and the only thing that indicates something is a rental is a reservation in the name of others.....which, has been rumored that is what they have done...

It took DVC 6 months to roll out the check back language and I am confident it is because they took that time to review things from a legal standpoint, and to put in place policies of enforcement that will catch the big time players who they are after.

Nothing is going to be 100% full proof against those who try to cheat, but this owner is happy that they appear to have done things that stop those doing what they should not and allowing owners to enjoy the product as intended with the ability to rent to offset the cost of ownership when/if the need arises.

ETA: The good news is that I will be in discussions with someone directly at DVC who is authorized to provide me with the written policy, so I am sure that I will be able to support things with more information when that happens in the next few weeks...

 

[lowlight]

My "intel" came directly from DVC and I have called several times and didn't report until I heard it a few times, and when I got it as detailed as I did from the MS supervisor, and confirmed with her this was a recorded line so I can believe what she is saying is 100% accurate, she said yes.

I have now seen other reports of people having been shared similar informaton.... if you are .renting to offset your dues, DVC considers it a "no profit" situation...rent above that, and you are violating the rules.

I get people may be disappointed....and are certainly free to not believe it or beieve more is coming...but, that is what DVC has landed on,

The statements last year at the meeting were very clear....they would be extremely cautious to making any operatonal changes that they don't see as a better way to do things because of unintended consequences.

In terms of brokers, sorry, people can say what they want and make wild assumptions, but DVC has never indicated they will make things hard for owners to stop brokers.....and continuing to put out the notion that is the reason is misleading because DVC doesn't have the right to do that and as an owner, no one should want them to make decisions other than for the benefit of owners....and I don't expect DVC to hit the average owner with rules that clearly are not better just to put brokers out of business....

This decision allows DVC to enforce the commercial purpose clause in a reasonable way (the standard) and using metrics that many would agree with are "fair" in terms of balancing the rights of owners to rent and preventing those from owning for the sole purpose of becoming a commerical enterprise/practice...

I just don't agree and have never seen any evidence that DVC want's to catch up the average owner in this, nor make such complicated rules that have them try to micromanage every membership to the level that they are "discounting' rental contracts if there is no further behaviors by the part of that owner that they are fake.

I have been clear that we do not know exactly how an account will be flagged for review, but common sense tells us that it will be computerized metric based on something happening in the account...and the only thing that indicates something is a rental is a reservation in the name of others.....which, has been rumored that is what they have done...

It took DVC 6 months to roll out the check back language and I am confident it is because they took that time to review things from a legal standpoint, and to put in place policies of enforcement that will catch the big time players who they are after.

Nothing is going to be 100% full proof against those who try to cheat, but this owner is happy that they appear to have done things that stop those doing what they should not and allowing owners to enjoy the product as intended with the ability to rent to offset the cost of ownership when/if the need arises.

ETA: The good news is that I will be in discussions with someone directly at DVC who is authorized to provide me with the written policy, so I am sure that I will be able to support things with more information when that happens in the next few weeks...

Do you have a screenshot of the correspondence? You can blank out whatever personal info is on there, just curious how they phrased it exactly.

 

[Sandisw]

Do you have a screenshot of the correspondence? You can blank out whatever personal info is on there, just curious how they phrased it exactly.

It was a phone call, on a recorded line...but I have the name of the MS supervisor, date and time of call, so if it was ever questioned, they can find it. Lasted about 15 minutes..

I did try to summarize it for everyone as well as include specifics....this is one thing I typed out as she was talking.

MS: Owners are allowed to rent their points to offset the cost of their annual dues. DVC considers this a "no profit" situation"

ME: The cost of the dues attached the points that were rented, or all dues?

MS: The total amount of annual dues an owner pays.

ME: So, I have 900 points and my dues are approximiately $7K a year....if I want to rent, as long as I don't rent for more than $7K, I am fine.

MS: Yes....but if an owner has $1K in dues, and rents for $1500, then that is not allowed.

As I mentioned, she added the reason they are now enforcing...based membership feedback...but that there is no new policy in place, just enforcing it more strictly...


Me: So, just to confirm, this call is recorded, and is on record?

MS: Yes

ME: Okay, great, so you can confirm then that everything you told me is accurate?

MS: Yes

If there anything else you'd like me to try to detail out? I'd be more than happy to.

I posted that the initial CM who took my call tried to mislead me in his answer because when I mentioned I was calling to get clarification on renting, given the new check box language, he said its for personal use and then only read the first two sentences of the T & C...

He completely left out the last sentence of that paragraph about 'Personal use is not frequently or regularly renting/selling...." until I questioned him.

ME: It also says "Personal use is not..." so why did you not read me that?

MS: Let me get you to a supervisor to discuss this with you.

ETA: This was not my first time hearing it....but I didn't report it here until I had been given the information on more than one occassion with different MS team members...

ETA2: There is no way that this MS supervisor completely made up the information she was saying to me and it was too specific to be misinterpreted...but, I do completely get that until someone sees something in writing from DVC, or has been told it first hand, they will have doubts...

 

[cruisehopeful]

That sounds completely reasonable to me. If a member can't use their points, they can rent for the cost of their overall annual dues.

It seems like it would be a huge burden on DVC to figure out how much anyone earned, though. How will they know how much a mega renter earned. People lie. I can see it now, "If anyone asks you how much you paid for this reservation, tell them $x."

 

[Genie+]

Agree with @donmcgregor

I'm going to wager there's more brewing on the back end.

I doubt the entire ‘enhanced enforcement’ strategy is just this checkbox and clarification around gross proceeds not being able to exceed annual dues. Why bother with any of this when people can still claim some of their activity is not rentals? DVC needs something to help prove that part.

Taxes matter in the sense of how much money an owner can clear, in direct relation to what percentage of their points are rented yearly. Paying for the 1099, dues and buy-in, the math is not going to work unless staying well under 50% of total points yearly.

Who knows about DVC/Disney’s motivation involving hotel occupancy or not, or to what degree, or what they’re looking at, etc. The best any of us can do is guess. I’d guess it does come up at minimum for the planning of future DVC management, which would have happened previously for the present.

 

[Sandisw]

That sounds completely reasonable to me. If a member can't use their points, they can rent for the cost of their overall annual dues.

It seems like it would be a huge burden on DVC to figure out how much anyone earned, though. How will they know how much a mega renter earned. People lie. I can see it now, "If anyone asks you how much you paid for this reservation, tell them $x."

This is pure speculation but what would make logical sense to me, based on how they have always enforced the commercial use policy in place.

They could set up a metric to flag accounts that appear to have more points in the names of others who might be above what renting, using an average cost of rentals, would be.

Once that is identified, the business division will review the account and make a determiniation if it appears to be a violation or not.....in the past, if this was the case, they contacted the owner, either by phone call or letter, letting them know.

My guess is that contracts and rental terms will only come into play if the owner wants to try to prove to DVC not to take action.....just like the 2008 policy that said that owners would be capped at 20 reservation, unless an owner proved to the boards satisfaction that all 20 reservations were only for themselves, family and friends...

Given average rental rates and the cost of dues, let's assume that for most owners, that is about 50% of the points...which gives a little wiggle room to DVC to consider that some of the names of others are "gifts" to family and friends.

Owners whose accounts seem to have more than 50% of their points tied up in reservations in other names, could get flagged and reviewed and then a decision made as to what enforcement would look like.

It could be the first time as a warning, or, if it looks they are constantly skirting the line, DVC takes a harder stance. My guess is that DVC will be reasonable and look across multiple years to see how often reservations in the names of others has happened, because emergencies happen, and you have to rent all your points one year, but your history shows this is an anamoly....

Will people try to cheat? I am sure they will but it sounds to me that what DVC did is set standards that will keep the majority of owners renting within the rules, and closed many of the previous loopholes that owners found their way around.

Nothing will be foolproof but again, DVC has the power to evaluate owners actions and I am sure they have considered some of the ways that people will try to cheat and have put in some plans to go after those people.

My stance is and has always been that I want DVC to set reasonable standards and rules for using the DVC product and not rules that are so restrictive that the average owner is impacted, simply so they can stop a handful of cheats.

DVC always retains control of enforcement against each owner and even with the standard that renting to offset dues will be seen as something not rising to the level to be seen as doing it for commercial purposes, they can still go after owners who clearly appear to be getting around the rules on grounds of technicalities or false documents.

 

[Genie+]

I mean I would still consider renting out enough points to cover all your dues frequently and regularly renting, but I didn't write the documents.

I can understand the rationalization that members can at least cover their dues. It’s a bit of insurance for buyers and helps sell the product. If things come up in life, we have options so we’re not out the dues paid that year.

In essence, this boils down to owners needing to keep personally using over half their ownership interests. The problem is people are going to lie about what is and is not personal use.

Say I own 1,000pts with $9pp dues. That means I can rent out up to $9,000 worth, and at $20pp that would be 450pts. Well, I only want to use 250 points each year. So I just make sure to lie about the additional 300pts I want to rent, to get that additional $6,000. So the lead guest on those 300pts just happen to be… *wink wink* my friends/family.

 

[Sandisw]

Agree with @donmcgregor


I doubt the entire ‘enhanced enforcement’ strategy is just this checkbox and clarification around gross proceeds not being able to exceed annual dues. Why bother with any of this when people can still claim some of their activity is not rentals? DVC needs something to help prove that part.

Taxes matter in the sense of how much money an owner can clear, in direct relation to what percentage of their points are rented yearly. Paying for the 1099, dues and buy-in, the math is not going to work unless staying well under 50% of total points yearly.

Who knows about DVC/Disney’s motivation involving hotel occupancy or not, or to what degree, or what they’re looking at, etc. The best any of us can do is guess. I’d guess it does come up at minimum for the planning of future DVC management, which would have happened previously for the present.

To clarify, I said that the check box is not the enforcement rule....the check box is there so that owners are acknowleding each time they make or change a reservation, they are clear on the rules.

The enforcement will come when an owner's accounts are flagged for activity that appears to show they may be renting in a way that would be for more than the cost of annual dues.

Once flagged, and reviewed, DVC will take action against that owner....we do not know what that will look like and until someone gets caught renting to a degree that looks like it would produce income over the cost of dues, then we do have to speculate.

But, if owners need to rent and do so with the understanding to be sure that rental income received from renting doesn't exceed the dues, then they will be fine.

If I was renting, I'd be sure to have all my ducks in a row (with rental contracts) to support my cause if I did get contacted....if owners actions on their account don't appear to rise to the level to be questioned, then they won't be.

Basically, if I have 900 points, and I want to use them for rentals or family/friends, I will be sure to not exceed 400 points in any one year because that level of renting would keep me below dues.

As someone who does gift points, I intend to actually put in writing with them that I am gifting them the room and that they are not paying for it, and have them acknowledge as such.

I think you point about all those figures is why, IMO, this was a very smart move....because who is going to buy DVC for a commerical reason if they know that DVC now considers anything above the cost of dues to be renting outside of personal use.

I can say, based on the examples and specifics shared, what I inferred, was that DVC isn't going to get to tecnical in this in terms of trying to calcuate it.....an owners dues are $1000 and it looks like the potential here was $1500....they would be reviewed for review.

 

[Genie+]

To clarify, I said that the check box is not the enforcement rule....the check box is there so that owners are acknowleding each time they make or change a reservation, they are clear on the rules.

The enforcement will come when an owner's accounts are flagged for activity that appears to show they may be renting in a way that would be for more than the cost of annual dues.

Once flagged, and reviewed, DVC will take action against that owner....we do not know what that will look like and until someone gets caught renting to a degree that looks like it would produce income over the cost of dues, then we do have to speculate.

But, if owners need to rent and do so with the understanding to be sure that rental income received from renting doesn't exceed the dues, then they will be fine.

If I was renting, I'd be sure to have all my ducks in a row (with rental contracts) to support my cause if I did get contacted....if owners actions on their account don't appear to rise to the level to be questioned, then they won't be.

Basically, if I have 900 points, and I want to use them for rentals or family/friends, I will be sure to not exceed 400 points in any one year because that level of renting would keep me below dues.

As someone who does gift points, I intend to actually put in writing with them that I am gifting them the room and that they are not paying for it, and have them acknowledge as such.

I think you point about all those figures is why, IMO, this was a very smart move....because who is going to buy DVC for a commerical reason if they know that DVC now considers anything above the cost of dues to be renting outside of personal use.

I can say, based on the examples and specifics shared, what I inferred, was that DVC isn't going to get to tecnical in this in terms of trying to calcuate it.....an owners dues are $1000 and it looks like the potential here was $1500....they would be reviewed for review.

Ahh, that all makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

For that last paragraph, I’m guessing DVC isn’t going to rely on whether an owner checked the box for personal use or not? Instead they’ll be looking at the names on the reservations to help make determinations? Owners will still have the opportunity to explain, but risk getting flagged when a high portion of their points don’t include owner’s family or people they’ve traveled with. Something along those lines maybe?

 

[Sandisw]

I mean I would still consider renting out enough points to cover all your dues frequently and regularly renting, but I didn't write the documents.

I understand where you are coming from but the standard in the contract is not just "frequently or regularly" in isolation, it is whether the level of frequently or regularly rises to the level that one is doing it for a commericial purpose.

If you are renting to cover dues, then per DVC, they consider that to be a "no profit" situation, which means that is not "frequently or regularly" renting enough to be considered commericial vs. the right to rent under personal use.

But, we have always known that DVC gets to define what actions rise to the level of "frequent or regular" and now we have some clarification on that.

So, what I think they have done is find a balance between what they know they have to allow owners to do within their right to rent and the law, but at the same time, stop someone from using their membership for commercial purpose.

This stance is stricter than the 2008 policy, which is the last known official document used and enforced....because that did allow owners to rent for more than the cost of dues, and allowed owners to set up multiple memberships because they only enforced at the membership level.

Now, its based on a owners...across all points...in which they are attached....which has the potential to really hit those owning thousands of points hard.

I used the example earlier but any account that has joint owners, those same dues will count equally for both....for example, I have 475 points in my August UY, that is owned by me, DH and our three adult kids....but 425 in just my name and DH's name.

No matter what happens, every account that has points with my name, and the dues attached to them, count....so, let's say I decided to rent out all 425 points on my June and Dec UY, which is just DH and I....I'm done, and my kids, who might want to rent out points on the membership they own, are capped, becaue I am also a joint owner with them.....

That is why I think this has the potential to have a strong impact those LLC's and owners who have found ways around hiding who the owners are.

 

[Sandisw]

I can understand the rationalization that members can at least cover their dues. It’s a bit of insurance for buyers and helps sell the product. If things come up in life, we have options so we’re not out the dues paid that year.

In essence, this boils down to owners needing to keep personally using over half their ownership interests. The problem is people are going to lie about what is and is not personal use.

Say I own 1,000pts with $9pp dues. That means I can rent out up to $9,000 worth, and at $20pp that would be 450pts. Well, I only want to use 250 points each year. So I just make sure to lie about the additional 300pts I want to rent, to get that additional $6,000. So the lead guest on those 300pts just happen to be… *wink wink* my friends/family.

You are assuming though that if you get caught, that DVC is just going to say, no problem....sure, maybe they do the first time with the warning, but keep trying it year after year, and they may decide that what you are doing looks like you are trying to work around the system, and they freeze your account.

As I said, we can go to the fringes of people trying to cheat, but anyone who would be attempting to try to rent in excess of dues is then, IMO, doing it for commerical reasons, and I am confident DVC will have a way to prevent that in many cases.

Reminds me of the saying that locks on your house are to keep honest people honest. Criminals who are sophisticated enough will be able to get around them..

 

[Genie+]

Reminds me of the saying that locks on your house are to keep honest people honest. Criminals who are sophisticated enough will be able to get around them..

On the flipside, people who think nothing of bending the rules or sticking it to the rules, those are the people who are least likely to see the locks as a problem

 

[Wakey]

Funnily enough I’m not getting any ‘personal use’ check box on reservations. It seems to be the same as before.
Oh I am now, it wasn’t appearing earlier.

 

[Tatebeck]

Since they have stated that they have NOT changed any rules and are simply enforcing them, couldn't they also look back at your history from the past few years to help determine if they think they should give you the benefit of the doubt or not?

2 members both with 4000 points, renting out 2000 points this year after this new possible clarification, and say they both get reviewed using the average rental price calculated by DVC.

1 member has done 1 or a few rentals a year for a few hundred points per year average over the last 3 or 5 years and looks like they have used the rest.

The 2nd member looks like they were renting close to 100% of their points out for the last 3-5 years with lead guest changes on almost all of them after the fact and for very popular rooms/times and just now decreased to around half of their points.

I personally would be more likely to tell member 1 to keep on and tell member 2 they still appear to be a possible commercial renter and need to stop renting points for at least a few years to get their average income from it to be under their average dues cost over the past few years.

 

[Genie+]

Funnily enough I’m not getting any ‘personal use’ check box on reservations. It seems to be the same as before.
Oh I am now, it wasn’t appearing earlier.

Try clicking the link ‘terms and conditions’ in the wording next to the checkbox.

 

[Sandisw]

Ahh, that all makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

For that last paragraph, I’m guessing DVC isn’t going to rely on whether an owner checked the box for personal use or not? Instead they’ll be looking at the names on the reservations to help make determinations? Owners will still have the opportunity to explain, but risk getting flagged when a high portion of their points don’t include owner’s family or people they’ve traveled with. Something along those lines maybe?

You can not make or change a reservation without checking that box, or acknowledging that the reservation is for "personal use" based on the T & C.

Its why she reiterated with me when I asked about lead guest name changes being stopped, that is not changing, but each time someone makes any sort of change to a reservation, you are reaffiriming that you understand and agree to the T & C.

While the MS supervisor could not answer what metric would be used to actually flag the accounts, I inferred that yes, it will be based on # of points or reservations in the names of others, because she did say that if I am giving reservations to family and friends and taking no money, those are considered "gifts".

Once flagged, we do not have any specific information as to how a review will go and what kind of opportunities an owner will have to support they are not renting outside the rules.....but, I really do think, just like they have always done, that DVC will continue to be reasonable in deciding things.

But, as I posted above, as someone who does gift yearly, when I can't use them, I plan to have documentation from my guests that they are indeed guest, even though the most that typically amounts to is about 100 to 200 points, and most times, its a group trip so I am there in my own room.

What I am taking away from this is that DVC has decided that owners who need or want to rent to offset the cost of ownership in the amount of dues, still own DVC for the primary purpose of vacations, and not for reasons that are commerical....

 

[DL1WDW2]

168 pages and just for the record, I think 900 points is a lot if you book Value Studios only at 11 month priority window . Doesn’t matter to me if they are friends or family or strangers !
If it harms my DVC vacation for my use as a single guest in a studio or Cabin
I am going to tell my Guide with phone conversation and appointment to waste their paid salaried / commissioned valuable time to complete their job description

Also , If I print this and have it published as a Book and then sell film rights for my personal successful mini business venture…
I don’t have to get your permission and do not have to pay anything from my profit to every poster.
Is that what we are Discussing ?
I think I could make a great soap opera live stream too .
So technically and legally you have just argued for me to profit from your words and innocent explanations ..
Thank you

I do not believe DVC /DVD has included in any contract with any original dated purchase whether direct or resale That they guarantee I can Open for Business
To pay dues / maintenance fees. On Disney property income.
Does this mean I can watch for the guests that talk to the DVC associates inside theme parks or resorts Offering information and to make appointment for guest … I can wait for them to walk away and approach them to offer a better deal ?

 

[Sandisw]

Since they have stated that they have NOT changed any rules and are simply enforcing them, couldn't they also look back at your history from the past few years to help determine if they think they should give you the benefit of the doubt or not?

2 members both with 4000 points, renting out 2000 points this year after this new possible clarification, and say they both get reviewed using the average rental price calculated by DVC.

1 member has done 1 or a few rentals a year for a few hundred points per year average over the last 3 or 5 years and looks like they have used the rest.

The 2nd member looks like they were renting close to 100% of their points out for the last 3-5 years with lead guest changes on almost all of them after the fact and for very popular rooms/times and just now decreased to around half of their points.

I personally would be more likely to tell member 1 to keep on and tell member 2 they still appear to be a possible commercial renter and need to stop renting points for at least a few years to get their average income from it to be under their average dues cost over the past few years.

There is nothing that was conveyed to me that if an owner gets flagged, that prior history won't be used. I would bet that for those who were already on DVC's radar, it will be there if they think an owner is trying to cheat their way around income above dues.

Its why I think it will make it hard for owners who own individually but jointly, which includes a lot of the big time players out there who obviously found a way around DVC's old policies.

From the way it was explained to me is that I can not exceed the total dues owed on the points that I own...if I own a contract jointly, I am still responsible for the entire amount and that entire amount would apply to both owners..

It is possible that DVC has decided to start fresh with flagging memberships when this went into effect, but that doesn't mean that those who already appear to have exceeded this won't be or have not been already flagged for enforcement.

What I can say, personally, if I was renting points, I would look at what I have booked right now, and see where I stand and if it looks close, and I was concerned, I'd be sure not to rent more....but, that is me, because honestly, we don't know, and I doubt we will, how often they will flag....

The last policy used a rollling 12 month period, and it would make sense to me that DVC would continue to use that, but that would be guess.

I will go out on a limb here and with the exception of the big time players who they may have already identified, I think that they will give owners fair warning the first time, and ask them to change tactics, before that owner might see cancellations happening....

It will always remain on the owner to decide how far to push limits if they truly want to skirt them....and I still hope and expect DVC to allow for owners to rent all their points in emergencies situations, especially, as you say, they can see history...

But, having said that, I would not assume that DVC is going to let you claim "emergency" situations to rent all your points, several years in a row...

 

[Sandisw]

168 pages
If I print this and have it published as a Book and then sell film rights for my personal successful mini business venture…
I don’t have to get your permission and do not have to pay anything from my profit to every poster.
Is that what we are Discussing ?
I think I could make a great soap opera live stream too .
So technically and legally you have just argued for me to profit from your words and innocent explanations ..
Thank you

I do not believe DVC /DVD has included in any contract with any original dated purchase whether direct or resale That they guarantee I can Open for Business
To pay dues / maintenance fees. On Disney property income.
Does this mean I can watch for the guests that talk to the DVC associates inside theme parks or resorts Offering an information and to make appointment for guest … I can wait for them to walk away and approach them to offer a better deal ?

I am not sure I fully understand your post, but yes, what we are discussing is what level of renting an owner can do legally, within the terms of the law and contract, that does not bring them to the level of being a business.

That has never been allowed by DVC and never will be....now, we seem to have clarification from DVC that owners who need/want to rent to offset dues will not be seen as a "business" or renting for "commerical purposes"....

Owners have been told before this was allowed, and owners have been allowed to do it...and it appears DVC will continue to allow this.

But, as an owner, if your rental income exceeds your dues, then that is not allowed, and you can be found to be in violation of the commerical use purpose clause...

 

[Mouseforward]

I feel like everyone is severely overthinking this.

They’re not gonna care what you got for your points. They’re gonna assume a number like 18 to 20 and use that per resort to assume a percentage. Probably somewhere between 33 and 50% depending on WDW resort. May be higher for vero or HH. Then they use a simple AI job to filter out false positives like (three reservations for the same time with one of them having the owners name). after that, they simply kick all the ones that rent more than the percentage to the review department.

Once it gets to a human review they can toss the ones that look kosher , and the owner will never know. Anything that looks like a commercial account they send a demand letter for more details.

The simplest process is usually the most effective.

I don’t think they’re gonna worry to the dollar. I think they’re using it as a guideline to say anything that Might Be in excess is commercial. Especially if it happens multiple years in a row.