Occupancy Thread

[Terry S]

For our family a 1 Bedroom is not even big enough for 4 people. I guess it really depends on your families vacation wants. We like to relax during vacation so we are in our room a lot. The 2 bedroom affords us to have a living Room and kitchen that is actually used as a living room and kitchen and not a bedroom. If you are using the resort simply for a place to sleep, it does not matter as much.

 

[Mom B]

I should think you'd manage okay. In our "early" Disney days, we took our 4 kids, ages 18, 16, 8, and 6, and stayed in a "junior suite" at Wilderness Lodge. The room space was probably pretty similar to a 1 br villa. There were 2 dbls (or qns?) in the bedroom and a pullout couch in the living area with a kitchenette and 1 bathroom. We put the 6 & 8 yo on one bed, and the two teenagers camped out in the living area; don't think they actually opened the pullout once, as they didn't mind sleeping on the floor. I don't think they minded "roughing it" a little as long as we were in Disney World. Who spends much time in the room anyway? Given a chance at home, my kids often camped out on the living room floor on weekends in front of the TV, so not much difference....The living area is pretty generous at OKW and if a younger one isn't too tall, you might even use the loveseat as sleeping space in addition to the pullout; even my taller kids sometimes like to scrunch up on the short couch, as strange as it may seem....And I don't remember any huge issues with the bathroom either, but then we're used to one bathroom at home, too.

 

[o.t.4disney]

On our first ever trip using our points we stayed in a studio at V.B. There are five of us, the youngest being four. I wanted to try it to see if we could get by. We did get by but the two older boys sixteen and thirteen were getting on each others nerves. With that said they soon got on my DW's nerves which then she got on my nerves. Needless to say on our next trip this Dec. we are going to try a one bedroom. We will see how that goes. Maybe we might one day need a two bedroom but I like that we can choose where we want to stay.

Try for yourself. The points are yours.

 

[shelbyjosh]

Ok..where's Rich? He would be putting in his 2 cents by now!!

We are a family of 4 (DD9 and DS6) and we are just about ready for a 2 br. We are tired of the kids hogging the living room every night when they sleep on the sofa bed. It pretty much forces us to watch tv and snack in the master bedroom. At least when we do get a 2 br. they will have their own bed and bathroom. No more flushing toilets at 2 a.m.!!

 

[DrTomorrow]

Originally posted by jarestel
If the biggest deal on a vacation is bathroom time, then I would say overall things are probably going pretty well, LOL! [...]

Well, from that POV, I guess that if the biggest deal on a vacation is deciding between a 1BR and 2BR DVC Villa, then things are going very, very well, LOL!

From a more practical perspective, I guess that this is matter of individual preference, and the OP should asses their wants and needs for a WDW trip; this is actually very similar to discussions I've participated in on Las Vegas boards (and we're off to LV next week!). Some people treat their hotel in LV as a key part of the trip: a little luxury, something a bit nicer than 'back home'; others take the "I'm not going to spend much time in my room - and when I'm there, I won't be sober - so why spend anything extra for more than a bed, shower and toilet" approach.

To each his/her own....

 

[CarolAnnC]

This thread has been edited and will only remain open if our DIS Posting Guidelines are adhered to. Thank you all in advance for your compliance. We like to have an Occupancy DIScussion if possible on this board, and would like it to remain for future participants.

 

[crisi]

Originally posted by Dean
OTOH, the statement "but my guide said it was OK" is meaningless and not a reasonable support of going over the occupancy limits.

May not be technically true. The guide may have entered into a verbal contract with those words - although I doubt it, the paper contract should take precident. More likely, being presented with a contract significantly different than "what the guide promised" may open DVC up to a "bait and switch" class action. I would think that risk would be significant enough that I wouldn't expect DVC to enforce these anytime in the near future.

 

[Doctor P]

It is helpful to not speculate about legal issues on the basis of rumor and second hand information. The only things that are binding in real estate contracts are what is in writing, and this is definitely true of timeshare contracts. The written statements on occupancy are actually quite clear, but as confirmed by numerous parties including myself MS has chosen to overlook the written rules but neither encourage nor facilitate additional occupancy beyond the stated limits.

 

[ChairborneRangr]

So... I saw someone actually put 5 in a studio. Do many people have experience with that? And has anyone talked to the "authorities" and have them say "no"?

I have three princesses. (we won't be traveling with my son this time, since he'll be taking finals at college) I get up early, take a shower, get ready in the bathroom then vacate the room so they can get ready. 1 bathroom really isn't a problem for me.

Thanks

 

[CVW]

Originally posted by crisi
The guide may have entered into a verbal contract with those words - although I doubt it, the paper contract should take precident. More likely, being presented with a contract significantly different than "what the guide promised" may open DVC up to a "bait and switch" class action. I would think that risk would be significant enough that I wouldn't expect DVC to enforce these anytime in the near future.

Crisi, you're probably correct, even though Dean will soon tell you you're not! The reason you're NOT correct is that the language of our contract (and most timeshare contracts for that matter) explicitly state that no verbal promises are binding if not written into the contract. That alone would give Disney the right to void our reservation and kick us out of our villa.

But the reason I think you're CORRECT is that any contractual dispute isn't settled by the letter of the contract. It's settled by a jury who wants to get home in time for dinner.

And the jury would hear an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, from hundreds of "don't worry about it's" from salespeople to thousands of examples of five people filling a 1br without a problem.

Win or lose, I can't even remotely imagine that Disney would want to wage a battle that could only hurt sales in the future.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by crisi
May not be technically true. The guide may have entered into a verbal contract with those words - although I doubt it, the paper contract should take precident. More likely, being presented with a contract significantly different than "what the guide promised" may open DVC up to a "bait and switch" class action. I would think that risk would be significant enough that I wouldn't expect DVC to enforce these anytime in the near future.

This has been addressed in lawsuits from time to time from what I'm told. The written word always takes precedence. Remember that even proving a verbal issue would be an almost impossibility plus the salesman does not have the authority to promise anything else. Just like buying a car where the sales manager has to sign off for anything to apply.

Though rarely, people have been denied the ability to make a studio or 1 BR reservation for more than four.

 

[DrTomorrow]

Originally posted by CVW
[...]Win or lose, I can't even remotely imagine that Disney would want to wage a battle that could only hurt sales in the future.

I wouldn't want to bet on that; Disney has threatened litigation against preschools that had unlicensed Disney characters painted in the hallways. Besides, who's to say that knowing that DVC enforces occupancy regulations would hurt sales?

Guide 1 tells you: "We enforce the occupancy regulations to make sure that fire codes are followed, parking lots aren't overfilled and to help reduce wear and tear."

Guide 2 tells you: "Nope, we turn a blind eye to the number of people checking in. Cram as many in as you want - it's your timeshare."

Which one makes you feel better about how your investment is being managed?

 

[CVW]

Originally posted by Dean
This has been addressed in lawsuits from time to time from what I'm told. The written word always takes precedence.

To my esteemed colleague and mentor Dean, I would reply that the written word does NOT always take precedence! Ask any divorce attorney dealing with a ten year-old prenuptial agreement. Or in my field (medicine) where a doctor tries to run his associate out of town because of a non-compete clause the associate signed years ago. (I've STILL never seen a non-compete hold up in court.)

Both cases have one thing in common: the changing behaviour of the litigant over time.

In DVC's case, they've created their own problem by almost never enforcing their own occupancy limit. (I've never heard a FIRST HAND report of it, certainly not with a party of five. Never.) Their failure to abide by their own contract is raw meat to a good attorney.

And there would certainly be a lot of sales people who could be deposed to testify that they were told (by DVC) to tell people "it's okay". Maybe they could win the occupancy argument, but they may well have to fight fraud at the same time.

And to my esteemed colleague Dr. T:

Originally posted by DrTomorrow
...Which one makes you feel better about how your investment is being managed?

The one that makes me feel BETTER is the one that best suits my needs. Many people have bought in, and feel better about their investments, because they feel that they can take their spouse and three kids to a 1 bedroom villa.

Anyway, on with the debate. Pass the nachos.

 

[Dean]

CVW, I can tell you that I've seen non compete clauses hold up several times. In fact, the only times I've seen them not hold up is when there was a local need for the type of physician in question that was felt to outweigh the legalities otherwise. Though in many cases I suspect the other party waives the non compete clause.

There really are several different issues. First is one would have to take the risk of suing DVC and if one lost, the risk of having to pay DVC's legal costs as well. Second, one would need absolute proof that they were told specifically something absolutely contrary to the written contract or not addressed there and not honored. We're talking written, video or audio evidence or MULTIPLE disinterested parties or someone from the actual timeshare (in question) side. You'd actually need proof that the party in question was told that, not just that it happened to others. The timeshare or it's legal entity would have to be in the US, many aren't. Then there's the question of the amount of damages to the purchaser, usually pretty small overall.

While I don't argue that there are times when it's possible to prove a contractual situation regarding verbal issues, I can't think of a time when that would apply to timeshare. A divorce of a long standing marriage is by no means a comparable event. There have been reports on this board of people not being allowed to book when over the occupancy limits but it's been a while and not many.

Plus I sincerely doubt DVC ever told a guide to say it's OK to go over the limits though I know MS has. And I'm sure DVC would be more than glad to tell anyone in this situation what RCI told a member, "we have a legal department for people like you". But until it's actually tested in court with DVC, there is no absolute proof. Unfortunately DVC has been consistent at being inconsistent, on almost everything.

 

[Desperado]

Originally posted by CVW
To my esteemed colleague and mentor Dean, I would reply that the written word does NOT always take precedence! Ask any divorce attorney dealing with a ten year-old prenuptial agreement. Or in my field (medicine) where a doctor tries to run his associate out of town because of a non-compete clause the associate signed years ago. (I've STILL never seen a non-compete hold up in court.)

Both cases have one thing in common: the changing behaviour of the litigant over time.

In DVC's case, they've created their own problem by almost never enforcing their own occupancy limit. (I've never heard a FIRST HAND report of it, certainly not with a party of five. Never.) Their failure to abide by their own contract is raw meat to a good attorney.

And there would certainly be a lot of sales people who could be deposed to testify that they were told (by DVC) to tell people "it's okay". Maybe they could win the occupancy argument, but they may well have to fight fraud at the same time.

Great point, consistent with one I maintain. A sudden change in the enforcement disallowing 5 in a one bedroom would be a major change with consequences. It's not as cut and dry as some like to stand on thier soapbox and preach about. It never has been.

 

[Desperado]

Originally posted by DrTomorrow
I wouldn't want to bet on that; Disney has threatened litigation against preschools that had unlicensed Disney characters painted in the hallways. Besides, who's to say that knowing that DVC enforces occupancy regulations would hurt sales?

Guide 1 tells you: "We enforce the occupancy regulations to make sure that fire codes are followed, parking lots aren't overfilled and to help reduce wear and tear."

Guide 2 tells you: "Nope, we turn a blind eye to the number of people checking in. Cram as many in as you want - it's your timeshare."

Which one makes you feel better about how your investment is being managed?

Well, taken to the absurd extreme above, I'd prefer that guide saying DVC is reasonable with accomodations, they know not every room is filled to capacity, and will allow an extra child in a one bedroom, but you need to supply the bedding, etc.

If they are so concerned with parking lot capacity, the local pool crashers would be a group to address more vigorously, not families who have heavily invested in DVC.

I don't believe nor have I heard of any reports of any guides saying "Cram as many in as you want - it's your timeshare." It makes your analogy absurd, and inconsequential.

 

[Doctor P]

Just three words: Statute of Frauds. Look it up if you don't know what it is. Also, just because DVD chooses not to enforce doesn't meet that compliance is not required or expected or enforceable.

 

[pplasky]

Originally posted by Doctor P
Just three words: Statute of Frauds. Look it up if you don't know what it is. Also, just because DVD chooses not to enforce doesn't meet that compliance is not required or expected or enforceable.

If MS allows you to make a reservation for 5 in a room, than compliance is certainly not required or expected. If they put 5 on a reservation than they are aware you are putting 5 in your room. Period.

 

[jarestel]

Originally posted by DrTomorrow
From a more practical perspective, I guess that this is matter of individual preference, and the OP should asses their wants and needs for a WDW trip; this is actually very similar to discussions I've participated in on Las Vegas boards (and we're off to LV next week!). Some people treat their hotel in LV as a key part of the trip: a little luxury, something a bit nicer than 'back home'; others take the "I'm not going to spend much time in my room - and when I'm there, I won't be sober - so why spend anything extra for more than a bed, shower and toilet" approach.

To each his/her own....

I totally agree, Dr T... Whether a family requires one or one thousand bathrooms is strictly their own business.

 

[jarestel]

Originally posted by DrTomorrow
Guide 1 tells you: "We enforce the occupancy regulations to make sure that fire codes are followed, parking lots aren't overfilled and to help reduce wear and tear."

Guide 2 tells you: "Nope, we turn a blind eye to the number of people checking in. Cram as many in as you want - it's your timeshare."

Which one makes you feel better about how your investment is being managed?

I don't think guides say either of these things and have never heard it reported here that they do, except in your made up example. Most of the reports we get here are about guides telling a young family that it shouldn't be a problem getting their three young children into a studio or 1-BR. Nobody ever has defended cramming a fraternity of spring breakers into a studio that I know of.