Official Thread - New commercial use policy published 03/31

[Cyberc1978]

I think they are aware of that and were quite brilliant actually!

IMO they were/are still able to define what they consider commercial renting. And if you read carefully they never give an exact number of times you are allowed to rent, which is what that law says they cannot do. They smartly made it a sliding scale, where the more reservations and points you use, the more reservations and points you can technically rent out, as long as it is still a minority of your total points and reservations.

All along it has said that commercial renting is not allowed, and then the previous 20 reservation rule was specifically NOT all encompassing, and there still could be other things they could "at their discretion" use to determine you were breaking commercial renting rules. The only thing they can't do really is ban renting all together at this point as that is allowed both in their original rules and the florida laws.

TLDR: They aren't technically adding any rules, just clarifying previous ones. and even then they do not limit the exact number of times you can rent which is what would not be allowed.

According to the FL stat they can’t limit how many times I’m allowed to rent. That’s for any limitation after 2021(IIRC)
Before and way back in 2011 members were allowed to rent and make 20 reservations per 12 months per UY. Those numbers have been in force up until now.
They can’t limit that number. If you go above it’s a different matter.
Commercial use was defined as more than 20 reservations per rolling 12 months unless you could satisfy to the board that all 20 wasn’t.

I agree they can change what they consider commercial use but they can’t limit the number of reservations we can make and rent.

 

[VGCgroupie]

How so? Renting is not forbidden. And what if points are gifted? My aunt gifted my sister a reservation at the GF as a wedding present. Is my aunt supposed to travel 1500 miles and go on the honeymoon with my sister and her husband? That's ridiculous.

Yeah I think this is if you have been caught keeping your name as the lead guest to skate the renting rules. Yes people are doing this.

 

[Tatebeck]

According to the FL stat they can’t limit how many times I’m allowed to rent. That’s for any limitation after 2021(IIRC)
Before and way back in 2011 members were allowed to rent and make 20 reservations per 12 months per UY. Those numbers have been in force up until now.
They can’t limit that number. If you go above it’s a different matter.
Commercial use was defined as more than 20 reservations per rolling 12 months unless you could satisfy to the board that all 20 wasn’t.

I agree they can change what they consider commercial use but they can’t limit the number of reservations we can make and rent.

There isn't actually a limit, that is why it is brilliant. If you want to rent another reservation but are right at 50% already, you could buy more points, use more for yourself, AND then be allowed to rent more too. ETA or wait until you have used more points (since there is no specific period listed) then rent more as well.

There was the 20 reservation limit, but that was in addition to the commercial use clauses. It actually didn't have anything to do with renting, just who was using the reservations. IMO it's totally irrelevant

 

[Genie+]

I’d say there’s a difference between ability to rent and using a membership for profit.

Do the Florida statutes protect owners using timeshares as a commercial enterprise when from day one those contracts said for personal use only? I’m not sure.

If DVC is not stopping rentals from owners who otherwise show patterns of personal use, and DVC is only stopping rentals stemming from memberships showing high levels and patterns of commercial activity, what prevents DVC from enforcing the original contracts that say ‘for personal use only’ and ‘commercial use prohibited’ throughout?

 

[peder]

I have to think this'll have a pretty big impact on the resale market if DVC shows they're serious about enforcement

 

[VGCgroupie]

I have to think this'll have a pretty big impact on the resale market if DVC shows they're serious about enforcement

Yeah it's possible. But then again, maybe renters will buy resale if it's harder to find confirmed reservations.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I’d say there’s a difference between ability to rent and using a membership for profit.

Do the Florida statutes protect owners using timeshares as a commercial enterprise when from day one those contracts said for personal use only? I’m not sure.

If DVC is not stopping rentals from owners who otherwise show patterns of personal use, and DVC is only stopping rentals stemming from memberships showing high levels and patterns of commercial activity, what prevents DVC from enforcing the original contracts that say ‘for personal use only’ and ‘commercial use prohibited’ throughout?

The FL stat protect owners in the sense that the condominium can limit their right to rent.

Previously we have been allowed to make 20 reservations per 12 months. Anything above was considered commercial use. The same 20 reservations we could rent without it being considered commercial use.

My understanding is that even with a redefined commercial use policy we are allowed to rent 20 reservations per 12 months as always. WHY, because the FL stat protect owners so the condominium can’t limit their rental rights.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Maybe I’m naive but I assume that everyone is equal in the eye of the law.

It’s not naive to think this is how it should be but functionally it isn’t how it works. If you have a very weak civil case especially one with minimal damages, you’re going to need to be a lawyer or pay one out of pocket for at least 100k to fight this.

Just because you got deep pockets doesn’t mean you can get away with anything.

No, but having good lawyers and political connections to judges and governors and being the party that more frequently used arbitrators are all going to make it a lot easier to enforce reasonable policies against owners renting for profit in time share against anybody who bought knowing commercial use was prohibited. I don’t think this is even a close case, but if it was, all those factors would push the scale towards Disney. Anybody paying a lawyer 100,000 to argue they should be allowed to rent to strangers on social media sites is going to have a hard (maybe impossible) time establishing they aren’t a commercial enterprise.

According to the FL stat they can’t limit how many times I’m allowed to rent.

They aren’t they are prohibiting owning a membership as a profit generating enterprise—they don’t appear to be even considering going after anybody renting less than half!

I’d say there’s a difference between ability to rent and using a membership for profit.

Absolutely, these restrictions won’t catch owner users (and for us edge cases with overlapping res and 20+ personal res, Disney is clearly no coming after people who use the vast majority of their points), only people renting enough that their ownership is likely to be net revenue generating.

Do the Florida statutes protect owners using timeshares as a commercial enterprise when from day one those contracts said for personal use only? I’m not sure.

I’ve never seen anybody argue that in a compelling way, only nuances as to how tightly you can define commercial.

If DVC is not stopping rentals from owners who otherwise show patterns of personal use, and DVC is only stopping rentals stemming from memberships showing high levels and patterns of commercial activity, what prevents DVC from enforcing the original contracts that say ‘for personal use only’ and ‘commercial use prohibited’ throughout?

Nothing, especially if PPs are correct that we are all agreeing to T&Cs compelling arbitration.

Like @Tatebeck, this makes me feel better about maybe buying (as I have 20+ rentals a year and might need to rent one every 2-3 years…in year 4 I’ve rented exactly one res!) more, BUT I will be waiting to see if they actually take action against the mega renters first and whether or not it makes it easier to book at 11/7mo.

 

[VGCgroupie]

It’s not naive to think this is how it should be but functionally it isn’t how it works. If you have a very weak civil case especially one with minimal damages, you’re going to need to be a lawyer or pay one out of pocket for at least 100k to fight this.

No, but having good lawyers and political connections to judges and governors and being the party that more frequently used arbitrators are all going to make it a lot easier to enforce reasonable policies against owners renting for profit in time share against anybody who bought knowing commercial use was prohibited. I don’t think this is even a close case, but if it was, all those factors would push the scale towards Disney. Anybody paying a lawyer 100,000 to argue they should be allowed to rent to strangers on social media sites is going to have a hard (maybe impossible) time establishing they aren’t a commercial enterprise.

They aren’t they are prohibiting owning a membership as a profit generating enterprise—they don’t appear to be even considering going after anybody renting less than half!

Absolutely, these restrictions won’t catch owner users (and for us edge cases with overlapping res and 20+ personal res, Disney is clearly no coming after people who use the vast majority of their points), only people renting enough that their ownership is likely to be net revenue generating.

I’ve never seen anybody argue that in a compelling way, only nuances as to how tightly you can define commercial.

Nothing, especially if PPs are correct that we are all agreeing to T&Cs compelling arbitration.

Like @Tatebeck, this makes me feel better about maybe buying (as I have 20+ rentals a year and might need to rent one every 2-3 years…in year 4 I’ve rented exactly one res!) more, BUT I will be waiting to see if they actually take action against the mega renters first and whether or not it makes it easier to book at 11/7mo.

Great responses as always.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I have to think this'll have a pretty big impact on the resale market if DVC shows they're serious about enforcement

That’s one thing. But if the big point owners flood the market with contracts the price will go down. The delta between resale and direct will become much bigger than it is now. This could potentially impact DVCs direct sales.

 

[Genie+]

Ironically enough this actually makes me want to maybe pick up some more mega deal points now that I know I can rent as long as it is a minority of my points and reservations. I was very hesitant to rent anything previously just because the rules were so murky!

I was thinking along the same lines. The previous ambiguity made it feel more risky.

The real risk is buying the extra points, planning the occasional rental, then using them all on Cabungelows for us instead!

 

[VGCgroupie]

That’s one thing. But if the big point owners flood the market with contracts the price will go down. The delta between resale and direct will become much bigger than it is now. This could potentially impact DVCs direct sales.

Will they make up for this in renting rooms themselves? Id say yes.

 

[Tatebeck]

The FL stat protect owners in the sense that the condominium can limit their right to rent.

Previously we have been allowed to make 20 reservations per 12 months. Anything above was considered commercial use. The same 20 reservations we could rent without it being considered commercial use.

My understanding is that even with a redefined commercial use policy we are allowed to rent 20 reservations per 12 months as always. WHY, because the FL stat protect owners so the condominium can’t limit their rental rights.

No you couldn't. If a member did something else other than book over 20 reservations not in their name that Disney considered commercial activity they could still have punished the member for it. From the old 20 reservation rule:

"This policy is not intended, and shall not be deemed, either (i) to constitute an exclusive act or statement by the Association regarding any breach of the commercial activity prohibitions set forth in the Declaration of Condominium and Membership Agreement, or (ii) to be an exhaustive list of all activities that shall be deemed to be commercial activity. Accordingly, the Association reserves the right to promulgate such additional rules or to take such additional actions or measures as it deems appropriate with respect to any breach of such prohibitions"

 

[smile5sunshine]

This is my take.

Either DVC don’t care or maybe they hope that owners don’t know the FL statutes.

The florida statutes 718.110(13) states:
An amendment prohibiting unit owners from renting their units or altering the duration of the rental term or specifying or limiting the number of times unit owners are entitled to rent their units during a specified period applies only to unit owners who consent to the amendment and unit owners who acquire title to their units after the effective date of that amendment.

IMO unless we hear about enforcement I think this is a scare tactic. Unless of course the FL 718.110 does not apply to DVC condominiums?

Since owners have been allowed to make and rent 20 reservations per 12 months per UY that’s how it’s still gonna be.

New owners can have new rental rules but current owners keep the ones they have.

Could all the insistance on checking that little "personal use" box or verbally confirming you understand and agree to the terms of use - which now includes this UPDATED commercial use policy - be because this effectively acknowledges each member's consent to the new amendment?

 

[Tatebeck]

Could all the insistance on checking that little "personal use" box or verbally confirming you understand and agree to the terms of use - which now includes this UPDATED commercial use policy - be because this effectively acknowledges each member's consent to the new amendment?

Interesting take.

It's possible, but I think I lean towards no, just because there is no way of making a reservation without checking the box or verbally agreeing over the phone. It's not really consent if they have no other way to use the points that they already paid for before the little box was added. I just don't think that would hold up as consent if they were trying to override the Florida law. I just think they went around the law (or stayed within the law?) with some creativity.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Interesting take.

It's possible, but I think I lean towards no, just because there is no way of making a reservation without checking the box or verbally agreeing over the phone. It's not really consent if they have no other way to use the points that they already paid for before the little box was added.

But is it really coercion (vs voluntary consent) if you had an obligation to use a contract for personal use all along? Now the policy change is just being clearer about behaviors that are NOT personal use.

 

[Girlstar30]

Ok im back since apparently now im off the radar

 

[Tatebeck]

But is it really coercion (vs voluntary consent) if you had an obligation to use a contract for personal use all along? Now the policy change is just being clearer about behaviors that are NOT personal use.

Hmm. But there is still no way to separate the personal use clause and the updated terms and conditions as they are combined into one box.

A member could rightfully be wanting to agree to the personal use clause but not want to agree to new updated terms that they are not legally required to accept. But they are given no option to do so in order to use their points. Requiring acceptance of the new terms could possibly be considered to not be consent to changes according to the law.

If they separated the two boxes and only made you check the personal box to continue then anyone who accepts the second box would more clearly have been considered to consent to the new terms IMO.