Hypotheticals

[Girlstar30]

Good morning

I was just wondering if it was possible that Disney could prevent people that have contracts from selling their points in the future to third party companies like DVC Rental Store or Davids? I know commercial renting is prohibited, but would they be allowed to say that any form renting for current members is not allowed in the future?

Also, can a resort go from restricted to unrestricted? I'm not saying this will ever happen, but let's say that Lakeshore Lodge, for example, was being sold as restricted and they weren't getting enough sales, could they change it to unrestricted to make it more appealing to potential buyers even though it was being sold as restricted at first? Or once a resort is sold out could they unrestrict it and let all members book there for whatever reason? Thanks and Happy Friday

 

[Brian Noble]

1: I'm not sure how they could do it directly. But, they could make a stab at it indirectly by defining commercial activity to include "advertising via a third party to previously unknown guests."

2: Yes. The documents are very clear they can change restrictions whenever and however they want. But you can bet such changes, if any, will benefit Disney first and foremost. If they happen to benefit some group of owners, that will be entirely by happenstance.

In general: This is Disney's playground, they set the rules, and they let us play in it. The documents give them surprising latitude to do more or less whatever they want---for example, individual owners sign away their Board of Directors voting rights to DVC, which votes in Board "elections" on our behalf.

 

[Girlstar30]

1: I'm not sure how they could do it directly. But, they could make a stab at it indirectly by defining commercial activity to include "advertising via a third party to previously unknown guests."

2: Yes. The documents are very clear they can change restrictions whenever and however they want. But you can bet such changes, if any, will benefit Disney first and foremost. If they happen to benefit some group of owners, that will be entirely by happenstance.

In general: This is Disney's playground, they set the rules, and they let us play in it. The documents give them surprising latitude to do more or less whatever they want---for example, individual owners sign away their Board of Directors voting rights to DVC, which votes in Board "elections" on our behalf.

But they can't restrict us to just being able to stay at our home resort if we bought it with the intention that we can stay at other resorts too right or could they do that too?

 

[Brian Noble]

Well, if you buy resale at a restricted resort, then it doesn't matter what your intention is. You are only using those points at that resort.

But even setting that aside, yes they can---in the limit, they can remove an entire resort from the DVC exchange system, restricting all owners at that resort to only that resort. I think that is extremely unlikely, but it is possible.

Again: Disney has all the cards. We get to watch the game being played.

 

[bakerworld]

IMO, DVC can do whatever they want that isn't covered in the contracts. So far the only stopper I've seen is the total points per resort venue.

 

[Brian Noble]

...and even that can change for non-home resort reservations. Technically, Home Resort points (used for Home Resort bookings) and Non-Home Resort points are different currencies.

 

[Girlstar30]

...and even that can change for non-home resort reservations. Technically, Home Resort points (used for Home Resort bookings) and Non-Home Resort points are different currencies.

This is all good to know. Good thing I bought two home resorts that i love, you never know what can happen

 

[Brian Noble]

It's worth remembering that just because something can change, that doesn't mean it will. But, it is better to be informed than surprised. In other words: read the governing documents!

DVC Field Guide has current copies of all of them:
https://dvcfieldguide.com/public

 

[Girlstar30]

It's worth remembering that just because something can change, that doesn't mean it will. But, it is better to be informed than surprised. In other words: read the governing documents!

DVC Field Guide has current copies of all of them:
https://dvcfieldguide.com/public

Thanks you gave me something to do this weekend that doesnt involve spending money

 

[Sandisw]

But they can't restrict us to just being able to stay at our home resort if we bought it with the intention that we can stay at other resorts too right or could they do that too?

Technically, yes…but there are only certain things that can happen to make this true.

If your home resort is removed from BVTC, then its home resort only.

But the DVC resort agreement gives very specific situations that have to happen in order for the to occur.

They can’t just decide to remove a resort “just because”.

 

[Sandisw]

To add, you can find all your POS documents in your membership account too…go to Profile, Collateral Documents.

I tend to use the site posted above since it has l resorts and not just the ones I own.

 

[Girlstar30]

To add, you can find all your POS documents in your membership account too…go to Profile, Collateral Documents.

I tend to use the site posted above since it has l resorts and not just the ones I own.

Thank you! I am really interested to read it

 

[houseofduck]

1: I'm not sure how they could do it directly. But, they could make a stab at it indirectly by defining commercial activity to include "advertising via a third party to previously unknown guests."

2: Yes. The documents are very clear they can change restrictions whenever and however they want. But you can bet such changes, if any, will benefit Disney first and foremost. If they happen to benefit some group of owners, that will be entirely by happenstance.

In general: This is Disney's playground, they set the rules, and they let us play in it. The documents give them surprising latitude to do more or less whatever they want---for example, individual owners sign away their Board of Directors voting rights to DVC, which votes in Board "elections" on our behalf.

While this is all true, Disney also has to stay within the regulations for timeshares in Florida (or Hawaii or South Carolina). I'm not an expert in these regulations, but I thought it has been mentioned in the past that the reason that we are allowed to rent is due to these regulations and that Disney couldn't take away that option completely.

 

[Brian Noble]

There is plenty of room between "you are legally allowed to rent" and "you cannot rent commercially," especially when Disney gets first-mover rights to define what "commercially" means.

 

[Sandisw]

While this is all true, Disney also has to stay within the regulations for timeshares in Florida (or Hawaii or South Carolina). I'm not an expert in these regulations, but I thought it has been mentioned in the past that the reason that we are allowed to rent is due to these regulations and that Disney couldn't take away that option completely.

With the exception of CFW, the statues related to condos in FL, which I think is 718, is what gives us that right.

But, as mentioned above, they still can define what makes someone using a membership as a commercial enterprise and there in lies the rub.

So far, DVC has applied a pretty liberal and pro owner approach to crossing the line.

However, starting with RIV, they did add some specific things in there to put owners on notice as to what might be used…regular advertising with a third party…IIRC…or something to that effect is in there.

CFW is different because it’s not a leasehold condo situation, but RTU in a trust and that language is much stricter.