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

[kilik64]

I always assumed the LLC target foreclosure mainly for the skipping of ROFR and it being a quicker overall process, points load within a couple weeks vs a normal resale that can take a lot longer. They don't really end up paying any less typically then they could buying a normal resale contract, but it's a much faster overall process.

Time is money as they say.

 

[mkatsy]

This alone would be a reason why DVC would go after the LLC. Going to court, spending all of this time chasing additional money, etc is what defines a commercial enterprise to me.

Even if some of those LLC already left the party and sold of their contracts it gotta hurt them and their wallets. They are going from a fat paycheck to null. If I made 6 or even 7 figures a year my lifestyle would somehow reflect it, I’d save some but I’d definitely use a chunk of it.

I was aware about the LLC buying and flipping but I wasn’t aware that they bought the foreclosure contracts and went through all of that trouble to get extra cash. I’m starting to think that DVC wont go after anyone else except the LLC’s. Even if they are in breach of the new policy. The regular DVC members like everyone here is not hurting DVC pockets like the LLC’s. Sure some members are renting for more than dues but at least until the LLC have been dealt with I’m not seeing them going after the regular members.

With the new T&C and CM’s asking members to agree to them will make some regular members think twice about renting.

I think we will see a crack down(yeah now I used the wording myself) on LLC’s but only on them.

If DVC goes after the LLC’s then they can say that they went after some of the mega renters - regardless of the LLC’s are renting not - however they most likely are.

I can see how this process does hurt Disney (the buying foreclosure and reselling- it’s impossible to know the status of the points) because Palm financial is the lender, they took the risk, their customer defaulted, and now companies funded by private equity firms swoop in and out bid them to secure the contract, then later they circle back and seek a refund from the court … then the private equity firms have the audacity to brag about a greater than 10% return in their prospectus.

 

[mkatsy]

I always assumed the LLC target foreclosure mainly for the skipping of ROFR and it being a quicker overall process, points load within a couple weeks vs a normal resale that can take a lot longer. They don't really end up paying any less typically then they could buying a normal resale contract, but it's a much faster overall process.

Time is money as they say.

As of last month they were picking up Poly for $104 a point, that will resale at what? $160 maybe each c-suite executive has their own LLC and that’s where all the contracts are held.

 

[kilik64]

As of last month they were picking up Poly for $104 a point, that will resale at what? $160 maybe

That including the judgement (or whatever its called) owed too? Remember there the cost of buying the contract but then you have to settle up with DVC after too which adds to the cost as well. Probably still below the $160 but I don't think the $104 was all they had to pay for it either.

And that's a pretty big rub with em too, you have incomplete info on what you will owe to DVC after getting the contract where as DVC knows exactly how much is owed. I think there are ways to kinda figure it out fairly close but it can still be a pretty decent chunk per point you have to pay.

Oh and poly might be outlier right now since its active sales, DVC might not be bidding on them as its not like they need the points currently.

 

[Sandisw]

It’s the cool kids version of Disboards


Quoting from the report I mentioned, just so everyone can make their own judgement on how it is being approached by MS:

“I just called MS to amend the booking and was asked to confirm it was for personal use - which I can’t because it isn’t.

I wasn’t aware of the rule change they informed me about (I’ve had no email or other communication) and the update to the reservation was refused.”

Apparently the CM was ‘adamant’ that one cannot rent reservations.

While those who view renting as a negative may be pleased that DVC is preventing lead guest changes in this manner, my own view is that is is entirely inappropriate, and DVC have a responsibility to provide the full and correct information to CMs and also ensure it is passed on to owners - not deliberately mislead.

What they are doing here is lying by omission.

And when the owner gives them pushback that it is indeed allowed and confirms it’s for personal use under the guidelines, the name change is processed.

I will definitely be expressing my concern about this when DVC contacts me after reviewing my letter…which should be no later than July 15th, given 10 working days from when it got to the right division.

 

[kilik64]

And when the owner gives them pushback that it is indeed allowed and confirms it’s for personal use under the guidelines, the name change is processed.

If they even KNOW to pushback...

 

[mkatsy]

That including the judgement (or whatever its called) owed too? Remember there the cost of buying the contract but then you have to settle up with DVC after too which adds to the cost as well. Probably still below the $160 but I don't think the $104 was all they had to pay for it either.

And that's a pretty big rub with em too, you have incomplete info on what you will owe to DVC after getting the contract where as DVC knows exactly how much is owed. I think there are ways to kinda figure it out fairly close but it can still be a pretty decent chunk per point you have to pay.

Oh and poly might be outlier right now since its active sales, DVC might not be bidding on them right now as its not like they need the points currently.

The trustees deed is public record. The final cost paid is on that document. So is the name of the individual that defaulted. I went to the comptroller and found the document from the original purchase from Disney to the defaulted owner and of course, as always, the UY and points are printed on there. Just divide the purchase price by the points. The clerk of the court has a summary of all of the “stuff” that gets paid from the purchase price. The auction website also lists the grand total of debt owed by this contract.

 

[kilik64]

The trustees deed is public record. The final cost paid is on that document. So is the name of the individual that defaulted. I went to the comptroller and found the document from the original purchase from Disney to the defaulted owner and of course, as always, the UY and points are printed on there. Just divide the purchase price by the points.

Correct, that's how much they paid for the deed, but I am pretty sure there is still going to be back dues and stuff they have to pay directly to DVC even after winning the bid to buy the contract. They might owe say 2 years worth of dues and other fees and interest, that could add like $20-$30 per point (assuming $8 per point, for 2 years plus some interest). Obviously if the reason for default is a lower amount to pay then they got off better, but the amount paid for the contract is not the full cost to obtain it.

 

[Sandisw]

I haven't followed all 170 pages, just checking in periodically. What's this about rental income can't exceed annual dues? I checked the first few posts and couldn't find the verbiage or if there was a recent update somewhere? How would disney even know this? Yikes, I def rent for much more when I do. Otherwise, I don't see how it falls under commercial renting if one only breaks even?

The MS supervisor had no specifics to give me in how accounts will be flagged for review.

But, once they are, the business division will review the activity and take it from there.

Where DVC has landed on this, based in my conversation with the supervisor, on a recorded line, so on the record, was that owners who are renting to the degree it offsets their yearly dues for all points, DVC will consider this a “no profit” situation.

Meaning, in line with your right to rent. But renting for more shifts you into the commercial purse lane.

How will they know? My guess is that they will use some metric that flags accounts when the number of reservations or points are used for reservations in the names of others.

If you have $2k in dues, then you can rent as many points as you want to offset that. You still can set your rental rate, but your total rental income for the year can not exceed that.

Now, I would expect that DVC is going to be sensible in the approach in that if one does get flagged, they will have a process to determine some things case by case.

DVC has always been allowed to determine where the personal use vs commercial use line lies when it comes to renting.

Obviously some wlll see it as reasonable, and some will not.

 

[Cyberc1978]

But, once they are, the business division will review the activity and take it from there.

wasn’t it up to the board to decide if you ran a commercial enterprise?

 

[Sandisw]

Yesterday I needed help modifying a reservation and the CM used the exact same wording as yours.

“By modifying this reservation, you are agreeing to the Disney Vacation Club's Terms and Conditions. Do you confirm that this reservation is for your personal use only?”

I didn’t think any of it until I saw your comments and I checked, my chat transcript.

And IIRC, that word “your” is not used online when booking.

So, again, too many reports that CMs giving misleading information or outright false information to owners.

And that is extremely disappointing.

 

[mkatsy]

Correct, that's how much they paid for the deed, but I am pretty sure there is still going to be back dues and stuff they have to pay directly to DVC even after winning the bid to buy the contract. They might owe say 2 years worth of dues and other fees and interest, that could add like $20-$30 per point (assuming $8 per point, for 2 years plus some interest). Obviously if the reason for default is a lower amount to pay then they got off better, but the amount paid for the contract is not the full cost to obtain it.

IDK because this part is getting over my head, but there is a lawsuit from an LLC to the foreclosure trustee because on one contract she didn’t pay the dues and they got a bill from Disney and they were seeking relief from the court. again, way out of my league. Later I’ll pull one of the upcoming auction listings, they have the docket number on them, and go look in the clerks website and see what fees are included in that price.

 

[Sandisw]

wasn’t it up to the board to decide if you ran a commercial enterprise?

Yes, the board sets the policy. They assign enforcement to DVCMC.

It gets all comingled here because we tend to use DVC as a reference to every aspect vs separate.

Given that the board of directors are the same executives at DVCMC it’s all the same people, just doing different roles.

But, ultimately, this was obviously where the board landed and now leaves it up to DVC to enforce.

Yvonne Changs offical title with DVCMC is Executive Director, Business Operations.

So, I assume the business division that the MS supervisor referenced was her department and team.

Thst would make sense with the statement from the December meeting that they have given her department resources to tackle this.

 

[Sandisw]

That including the judgement (or whatever its called) owed too? Remember there the cost of buying the contract but then you have to settle up with DVC after too which adds to the cost as well. Probably still below the $160 but I don't think the $104 was all they had to pay for it either.

And that's a pretty big rub with em too, you have incomplete info on what you will owe to DVC after getting the contract where as DVC knows exactly how much is owed. I think there are ways to kinda figure it out fairly close but it can still be a pretty decent chunk per point you have to pay.

Oh and poly might be outlier right now since its active sales, DVC might not be bidding on them as its not like they need the points currently.

What I thought was the motive behind the strip and flip was to transfer points for rentals and not for the increase they’d get in selling.

Now, that is no longer going to work if an owner can’t have rental income beyond dues

Since this is all happening to stop large points owners rent lots of points, they are watching.

Before the December meeting, I guarantee they already had certain owners and LLCs on their list.

The other thing I thought about is that during the 6 months, I am sure the board had the lawyers involved in this and making sure they did indeed land on a policy and enforcement they could easily stand up against.

And, I have to wonder if that 6 months was also spent adding software updates and metrics to flag things?

 

[Cyberc1978]

And, I have to wonder if that 6 months was also spent adding software updates and metrics to flag things?

We had the big cluster…. Software update in March or April and from what I learned that software update gave DVC more “features”

One of them would most likely be the option to automatically flag accounts when certain metrics has been met.

Also one visible change any of us can see is that at least for U.S members they are RECORDING everything we do online with the option to play-back afterwards.
I’ve checked they don’t do it for Europeans that is most likely because of our privacy act which is so strict and does not allow companies to monitor us only the government is allowed

They can use the recording part to go after bots or others they expect of unnormal behavior.

 

[Sandisw]

We had the big cluster…. Software update in March or April and from what I learned that software update gave DVC more “features”

One of them would most likely be the option to automatically flag accounts when certain metrics has been met.

Also one visible change any of us can see is that at least for U.S members they are RECORDING everything we do online with the option to play-back afterwards.
I’ve checked they don’t do it for Europeans that is most likely because of our privacy act which is so strict and does not allow companies to monitor us only the government is allowed

They can use the recording part to go after bots or others they expect of unnormal behavior.

Which is very good to hear because bots should be something that should be prevented no matter who is booking! As I said, it does seem like they have increased the note taking during reservations on the phone if people share information.....so it does seem like they have increased the monitoring they are doing for owners, at least for those in the US!!!

 

[IMMkXLVI]

This alone would be a reason why DVC would go after the LLC. Going to court, spending all of this time chasing additional money, etc is what defines a commercial enterprise to me.

Even if some of those LLC already left the party and sold of their contracts it gotta hurt them and their wallets. They are going from a fat paycheck to null. If I made 6 or even 7 figures a year my lifestyle would somehow reflect it, I’d save some but I’d definitely use a chunk of it.

I was aware about the LLC buying and flipping but I wasn’t aware that they bought the foreclosure contracts and went through all of that trouble to get extra cash. I’m starting to think that DVC wont go after anyone else except the LLC’s. Even if they are in breach of the new policy. The regular DVC members like everyone here is not hurting DVC pockets like the LLC’s. Sure some members are renting for more than dues but at least until the LLC have been dealt with I’m not seeing them going after the regular members.

With the new T&C and CM’s asking members to agree to them will make some regular members think twice about renting.

I think we will see a crack down(yeah now I used the wording myself) on LLC’s but only on them.

If DVC goes after the LLC’s then they can say that they went after some of the mega renters - regardless of the LLC’s are renting not - however they most likely are.

I'll flip the script.

DVC might only go after the family DVC member. It is after all, that very same group of members complaining to DVC. That group is fragmented and less likely to fight a DVC decision. By going after a few from that group, the others within it are likely to "back off" and stop pushing back against DVC decisions and almost certainly going to stop complaining to DVC about commercial owners.

Whereas the commercial owner group is not fragmented. They are organized into LLC entities with attorneys on retainer. They are far more versed in the laws, rules and nuances than the family owner. They are far more likely to engage legal means to halt DVC from taking action. They probably have deeper pockets to dedicate to a protracted battle with DVC. Sure, not as deep as DVC but deeper than the fragmented family group.

DVC might just pick a fight with the weaker opponent knowing it will kill two birds with a single stone.

Just playing devils advocate for a moment.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I'll flip the script.

DVC might only go after the family DVC member. It is after all, that very same group of members complaining to DVC. That group is fragmented and less likely to fight a DVC decision. By going after a few from that group, the others within it are likely to "back off" and stop pushing back against DVC decisions and almost certainly going to stop complaining to DVC about commercial owners.

Whereas the commercial owner group is not fragmented. They are organized into LLC entities with attorneys on retainer. They are far more versed in the laws, rules and nuances than the family owner. They are far more likely to engage legal means to halt DVC from taking action. They probably have deeper pockets to dedicate to a protracted battle with DVC. Sure, not as deep as DVC but deeper than the fragmented family group.

DVC might just pick a fight with the weaker opponent knowing it will kill two birds with a single stone.

Just playing devils advocate for a moment.

That’s of course impossible to know….. yet.

My money is however still on DVC doing the “right” thing for the membership as a whole. The board themselves mentioned the large points owners which to me at least means the LLC’s and others with many many points.

 

[Sandisw]

I'll flip the script.

DVC might only go after the family DVC member. It is after all, that very same group of members complaining to DVC. That group is fragmented and less likely to fight a DVC decision. By going after a few from that group, the others within it are likely to "back off" and stop pushing back against DVC decisions and almost certainly going to stop complaining to DVC about commercial owners.

Whereas the commercial owner group is not fragmented. They are organized into LLC entities with attorneys on retainer. They are far more versed in the laws, rules and nuances than the family owner. They are far more likely to engage legal means to halt DVC from taking action. They probably have deeper pockets to dedicate to a protracted battle with DVC. Sure, not as deep as DVC but deeper than the fragmented family group.

DVC might just pick a fight with the weaker opponent knowing it will kill two birds with a single stone.

Just playing devils advocate for a moment.

DVC has a responsibility to do things in the best interest of the membership as a whole.

DVC has never done or said anything to indicate this is about anyone other than those who are clearly in conflict with the contract in terms of commercial purpose.

Now, that doesn’t mean that you won’t see owners who have been renting regularly at rates at would appear to be for more than the cost of dues get caught up in this

It’s very possibly they will…but, I’d be surprised if they are, it won’t start with a warning to change practices before anything happens like canceling reservations or locking owners out.

And, that does happen when DVC makes decisions because they don’t always do what some hope they will.

While there may be some who don’t like this stance or won’t believe it’s the stance until an offical document is published by DVC, but in the end, it’s DVCs playground.

But, if you analyze this from the rights we have, it all seems to match what we are and are not allowed to do as owners.

We can still rent. We can still have guests and renters. We can book any room at our home resort or at others regardless of who is staying there

We still don’t need DVCs approval to rent or to set our contract terms.

We simply can not rent for commercial purposes like always….the only difference is that they have clarified what they will consider actions that rise to that level.

Obviously, some will think it’s too strict and some will think it didn’t go far enough, and others will see it is a reasonable threshold for shifting.

We have always said in this thread that no ones definition of what makes an owner cross the line matters but the boards

It will be very interesting to see moving forward if owners caught up in it share that they did!!

 

[Mouseforward]

I'll flip the script.

DVC might only go after the family DVC member. It is after all, that very same group of members complaining to DVC. That group is fragmented and less likely to fight a DVC decision. By going after a few from that group, the others within it are likely to "back off" and stop pushing back against DVC decisions and almost certainly going to stop complaining to DVC about commercial owners.

Whereas the commercial owner group is not fragmented. They are organized into LLC entities with attorneys on retainer. They are far more versed in the laws, rules and nuances than the family owner. They are far more likely to engage legal means to halt DVC from taking action. They probably have deeper pockets to dedicate to a protracted battle with DVC. Sure, not as deep as DVC but deeper than the fragmented family group.

DVC might just pick a fight with the weaker opponent knowing it will kill two birds with a single stone.

Just playing devils advocate for a moment.

I think most LLCs are not big guys, they are little guys with the $100 / $125 each to file their LLCs

More likely to fold and move on to the next easy money project