New Definition of Rental Activity?

[MerlinandtheMouse]

This made me question legacy DVC contracts. Suppose someone inherits a contract from their heir as a means of income (yes, I know it's not designed/supposed to be used in that manner). And the new owner doesn't want to enjoy the onsite use of the DVC contract. How could DVC regulate situations like that? Wouldn't that be punishing the potential intent of the original purchaser?

The original purchaser intended for the inheritor to use DVC as a means of income? Or the inheritor simply wants to inherit as a means of income? Either way, as it’s clearly stated, DVC is not meant to be a means of income or commercial use and so if the inheritor doesn’t want to use it for personal enjoyment, then they should sell once inherited or simply refuse the inheritance. Why would it be punishing anyone? If your potential intent goes against direct rules then it should not be your intent and it’s not punishment, it’s enforcement.

 

[Sandisw]

This made me question legacy DVC contracts. Suppose someone inherits a contract from their heir as a means of income (yes, I know it's not designed/supposed to be used in that manner). And the new owner doesn't want to enjoy the onsite use of the DVC contract. How could DVC regulate situations like that? Wouldn't that be punishing the potential intent of the original purchaser?

No matter what the intent was of the original
Owner. It’s about the rules for whomever owns it now.

So, if someone inherits a DVC contract and doesn’t want to use it within the rules, then they either let it sit or sell.

But, nothing would allow them to break the rules bedside they didn’t purchase but inherit.

 

[Bearval]

I agree except for #2.

#2 there is a twist, curtail commercial renting by any entity not related to the Disney Corporation.
Disney is the #1 renter of DVC points after all.

Ok point taken, i will edit .

 

[hertamaniac]

The original purchaser intended for the inheritor to use DVC as a means of income? Or the inheritor simply wants to inherit as a means of income? Either way, as it’s clearly stated, DVC is not meant to be a means of income or commercial use and so if the inheritor doesn’t want to use it for personal enjoyment, then they should sell once inherited or simply refuse the inheritance. Why would it be punishing anyone? If your potential intent goes against direct rules then it should not be your intent and it’s not punishment, it’s enforcement.

But the intent was a contractual agreement at the time/date stamp was executed; a deviation from that date of execution could be interpreted as punishment in my mind.

No matter what the original intent was it's been said to us during our DVC sales pitch that the contract can be used a legacy mechanism to be handed down. It's up to the inheritor to determine the methodology on how to use it. In fact, part of the appeal of the DVC model is/was to be able to rent points which could be our tipping point to actually purchase a DVC contract in the first place.

 

[Bearval]

I don’t think they would ever do that. It’s why I said I think it’s not as cut and dry as that…which is why we might have seen some updated and more specific language in identifying it.

Even with the 20 reservation in the name of others rule, it simply triggered a review of the account, and wasn’t an automatically deemed one was renting outside the rules.

I think if someone is renting one or two reservations every year, even If they are larger, they’d be okay. However, if someone is renting one or two reservations a year, year after year, and it’s the bulk of the membership, with the owner never using it, they could decide it is an issue…

Someone who is renting lots of small rentals, even if it’s less points than above, might get flagged sooner….but, I still believe the goal of any such update is to put the brokers on notice…

All Disney would have to do is cancel a block of the reservations "reserved" by the third party commercial renting companies ( say all of July) and they would have effectively put them all out of business for good. Can you imagine showing up at WDW with your family in tow being told your reservation has been canceled? Now you either have to go home or scramble to find a room and now pay the highest rate. You would be pretty pissed off, doesn't matter if you get your money back (or one of those vouchers) but you are dam sure going to tell everyone what happened.

 

[hertamaniac]

No matter what the intent was of the original
Owner. It’s about the rules for whomever owns it now.

So, if someone inherits a DVC contract and doesn’t want to use it within the rules, then they either let it sit or sell.

But, nothing would allow them to break the rules bedside they didn’t purchase but inherit.

Clearly, I'm not a DVC owner. But does the original contract allow for a change in terminology, language, addendums at free-will by DVC? Maybe the contract gets updated once the original has either been fully executed to term limits or a new owner (i.e. inheritor) takes ownership. But I'd imagine that has to be declared in the original contract.

I'm learning.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

But the intent was a contractual agreement at the time/date stamp was executed; a deviation from that date of execution could be interpreted as punishment in my mind.

No matter what the original intent was it's been said to us during our DVC sales pitch that the contract can be used a legacy mechanism to be handed down. It's up to the inheritor to determine the methodology on how to use it. In fact, part of the appeal of the DVC model is/was to be able to rent points which could be our tipping point to actually purchase a DVC contract in the first place.

I don’t think it’s up to the inheritor to go beyond what the rules of DVC are. Just because you inherit it doesn’t make the rules of contract go away. You can rent in small capacities in certain situations, as DVC has written, but you can’t create a commercial renting situation as a means of income.

 

[Bearval]

All Disney would have to do is cancel a block of the reservations "reserved" by the third party commercial renting companies ( say all of July) and they would have effectively put them all out of business for good. Can you imagine showing up at WDW with your family in tow being told your reservation has been canceled? Now you either have to go home or scramble to find a room and now pay the highest rate. You would be pretty pissed off, doesn't matter if you get your money back (or one of those vouchers) but you are dam sure going to tell everyone what happened. The y could only do it for that one month, when other renters hear that and have trips after July they are all going to demand cash refunds now.

 

[Sandisw]

Clearly, I'm not a DVC owner. But does the original contract allow for a change in terminology, language, addendums at free-will by DVC? Maybe the contract gets updated once the original has either been fully executed to term limits or a new owner (i.e. inheritor) takes ownership. But I'd imagine that has to be declared in the original contract.

I'm learning.

There is one POS for each resort and anyone who owns a share at the resort is bound by the terms of it.

No matter how or when a contract changes hand. It’s still tied to the POS for that resort.

 

[Mirabell Rose]

Clearly, I'm not a DVC owner. But does the original contract allow for a change in terminology, language, addendums at free-will by DVC? Maybe the contract gets updated once the original has either been fully executed to term limits or a new owner (i.e. inheritor) takes ownership. But I'd imagine that has to be declared in the original contract.

I'm learning.

No. That is why it’s a contract. It requires all parties to sign off on changes not afforded in the original contract. Disney reserves only the rights stated in it. They can not on their own materially change it or change it in any way outside of what the contract allows. For example, contract allows them to shuffle points between times of the year but not overall increase or decrease points.

 

[Bearval]

No. That is why it’s a contract. It requires all parties to sign off on changes not afforded in the original contract. Disney reserves only the rights stated in it. They can not on their own materially change it or change it in any way outside of what the contract allows. For example, contract allows them to shuffle points between times of the year but not overall increase or decrease points.

Well maybe for clarification of your last sentence we should say the contract doesn't allow them to increase the points if the owners throw a fit when they try.

 

[Brian Noble]

But does the original contract allow for a change in terminology, language, addendums at free-will by DVC?

Pretty much, with some very specific exceptions. And Disney is not alone. More or less all of the major timeshare systems have such clauses in their governing documents.

And, as I wrote above, the "commercial use" restriction has been there from the beginning. The changes to the governing documents have arguably only clarified what DVC considers to be "commercial use" in its "reasonable" discretion.

Also, contracts by themselves don't force people to behave in a certain way. They only define what behavior is not acceptable in the context of the agreement, and (sometimes) what the consequences are of behaving unacceptably. For example, a contract for future payment doesn't force the buyer to write the check, but it might be used by the courts to compel such payments.

 

[buffalobasingal]

This is something that either way it would be alright for our family. On the one hand, I wonder if rentals impacted my ability to book at VGC. I ended up selling my contract after trying to book my second trip there for early December in 2023 at the 11-month window and the first day that I could it was already gone that morning. That was the reason that I felt that it was not worth having VGC as my home resort if I was not able to get the dates we wanted.

However, I have rented out extra points twice now that we did not use which paid for our dues for the year. And, I have purchased my DVC contracts with the anticipation to rent out points during the phase of my life between my kids' graduation and my grandkids.

One thought I had is I wonder if it would be helpful if DVC limited rentals to be booked only during the 7-month window so that only reservations for the actual owners and their families could be made during the 11-month window.

If it did happen that we were not able to rent our points out at all then that gives me the perfect excuse to visit the parks more often!

 

[Shelly F - Ohio]

The following is an excerpt from the new CFW Master Declaration:

View attachment 830702

It doesn't appear to be in the new POS (yet), but there is now at least one resort with a less ambiguous definition of commercial activity, and it specifically addresses a pattern of renting confirmed reservations (not just points) or frequent occupancy by others of such reserved accommodations. Note also, it says a "pattern" of renting reserved accommodations, not "frequent" renting. @Sandisw @Brian Noble

Also interested in the "creating, maintaining, or frequent use of a rental or resale website" language...

Thoughts?

Can you share the link to the CFW Master Declaration

 

[Bearval]

This is something that either way it would be alright for our family. On the one hand, I wonder if rentals impacted my ability to book at VGC. I ended up selling my contract after trying to book my second trip there for early December in 2023 at the 11-month window and the first day that I could it was already gone that morning. That was the reason that I felt that it was not worth having VGC as my home resort if I was not able to get the dates we wanted.

However, I have rented out extra points twice now that we did not use which paid for our dues for the year. And, I have purchased my DVC contracts with the anticipation to rent out points during the phase of my life between my kids' graduation and my grandkids.

One thought I had is I wonder if it would be helpful if DVC limited rentals to be booked only during the 7-month window so that only reservations for the actual owners and their families could be made during the 11-month window.

If it did happen that we were not able to rent our points out at all then that gives me the perfect excuse to visit the parks more often!

After seeing the massive number of "confirmed reservations" there were for ALK value rooms and AKL concierge rooms just on one site I am convinced that commercial renters definitely do impact the availability of all high demand rooms. It is easy to know that this is a "commercial operation" since the prices for the rooms when divided by the number of points to book the room wind up being over $28pp. I for one hope Disney cracks down on this.

 

[tx911]

I ended up selling my contract after trying to book my second trip there for early December in 2023 at the 11-month window and the first day that I could it was already gone that morning. That was the reason that I felt that it was not worth having VGC as my home resort if I was not able to get the dates we wanted.

Once people stop buying contracts in the first place because of this problem, you can bet Disney will address it.

 

[Nabas]

I ended up selling my contract after trying to book my second trip there for early December in 2023 at the 11-month window and the first day that I could it was already gone that morning. That was the reason that I felt that it was not worth having VGC as my home resort if I was not able to get the dates we wanted.

It’s supply and demand.

Lots want early December. Few want late August. Yet a DVC timeshare means selling points for all times of the year.

I think this is why Disney started offering fixed week contracts.

 

[buffalobasingal]

It’s supply and demand.

Lots want early December. Few want late August. Yet a DVC timeshare means selling points for all times of the year.

I think this is why Disney started offering fixed week contracts.

I hear you that supply and demand determine availability. What I am wondering is if not allowing rentals to be booked between that 11-7 month window would help improve owners' chances who are looking to book their own vacations at those high demand times. Especially at VGC since it is a popular resort with a very limited number of rooms.

I'm happy that I sold my VGC since I made a profit and it allowed me to buy more points and directly from Disney for VDH to get full member benefits. Plus, we split our vacations between DLR and WDW, so it worked out to be a positive for us in the end. And, who knows, I may get lucky some year and be able to book a reservation at VGC once again.

 

[Nabas]

I hear you that supply and demand determine availability. What I am wondering is if not allowing rentals to be booked between that 11-7 month window would help improve owners' chances who are looking to book their own vacations at those high demand times. Especially at VGC since it is a popular resort with a very limited number of rooms.

I'm happy that I sold my VGC since I made a profit and it allowed me to buy more points and directly from Disney for VDH to get full member benefits. Plus, we split our vacations between DLR and WDW, so it worked out to be a positive for us in the end. And, who knows, I may get lucky some year and be able to book a reservation at VGC once again.

It’s a good idea but it could be difficult for Disney to enforce.

If I simply give a relative my points to use, is that a rental?

What if I give my adult child points and go at the same time?

What if my adult child goes on different days?

What about a coworker?

What if I charge them my Maintenance Fee? More than my Maintenance Fee? How is Disney supposed to know?

From a simple search on DVC rental sites, it appears that at least a couple are grabbing hundreds of the most in-demand rooms on speculation and then offering them for cash as “confirmed reservations”.

This appears to have been going on for at least a few months but Disney, so far, doesn’t appear to have done anything about it.

This appears to be a violation of the contracts we signed when we became DVC members.

I’d like to see Disney address this first before they change anything else.

 

[Bearval]

It’s a good idea but it could be difficult for Disney to enforce.

If I simply give a relative my points to use, is that a rental?

What if I give my adult child points and go at the same time?

What if my adult child goes on different days?

What about a coworker?

What if I charge them my Maintenance Fee? More than my Maintenance Fee? How is Disney supposed to know?

From a simple search on DVC rental sites, it appears that at least a couple are grabbing hundreds of the most in-demand rooms on speculation and then offering them for cash as “confirmed reservations”.

This appears to have been going on for at least a few months but Disney, so far, doesn’t appear to have done anything about it.

This appears to be a violation of the contracts we signed when we became DVC members.

I’d like to see Disney address this first before they change anything else.

I don't think Disney "cares" if a DVC owner is gifting, giving or occasionally renting out excess points (however I don't think Disney saw what the internet could become back in 1992 and was expecting owners to rent out points by way of mouth to family, friends & neighbors). I do think they are beginning to care that there are a few companies (using either points that they own or work as a intermediary for owners) renting out points as commercial enterprises that compete directly with Disney for vacationers.