Official Thread - New commercial use policy published 03/31

[muppets3d]

This has always been the problem - DVD/DVC gets no additional income if the rules are or are not followed. So this is about making members happy and making the system work better. But in looking at the rules, I gotta say that they are so vague in many areas that I don't think they'd stand up in court, if someone (or more likely, some company) sued them because "a consequence" denied them part of their rights as an owner. Maybe under the new Trust, Disney has more leeway. But for timeshare owners whose ownership is tied to an actual unit, I think Disney has a difficult road if someone (or again, some company) gets litigious. And how much is DVD willing to shell over for legal fees for an issue in which they receive no meaningful financial benefit? I think generally Disney is making a smart move: trying to scare most people into acting in a respectful way. But again, will this truly dissuade the big schemers (i.e. the big commercial renters) out there? And the big renters is where the problem is, IMO.

Disney Corporate gets plenty of additional income if DVC renting is curtailed. How many people could have booked a Disney moderate or even deluxe resort, but decided to rent DVC points instead because they're advertised all over the internet as "deluxe at moderate prices"

That is the main reason why this is happening I think. Member satisfaction is certainly a big reason too, but the fact that Disney can't fill moderate or deluxe cash rooms but lots of DVC inventory gets snapped up at 11 months and sold on broker sites is the main reason.

 

[VGCgroupie]

He’s kind of stuck. He bought Aulani, Disneyland Hotel, and Rivera direct with loans and then had a job change which cut his income. He can’t sell the contracts without a major cash infusion (which he doesn’t have) and so the rentals essentially cover the dues and part of the loan payments.

We can “should have, could have, would have” all you want…. but that doesn’t really matter at this point.

It’s rent or go into foreclosure and he does not want to go into foreclosure and has hopes that the income will increase in time in a new role with a new company and that he will be able to use them for personal use.

At this point, I would put him in the “willing to risk it” category and will just adjust to have fewer & larger rentals.

I do think that cases like this where he clearly not running a commercial enterprise can be explained away, and these scenarios aren't all that common. Will he have to explain maybe, but I dont know that he would fall into commercial renter if he truly only owns and rents 300 points and has underwater loans.

 

[AstroBlasters]

We are violating the overlapping reservations clause - on all of our reservations this year. We cruise a lot and take our adult children - I routinely book 2 studios before and after cruises. Have 8 of these overlapping reservations on my account right now. And nothing else.

I am not wasting the extra points for a 2 bedroom
and will not make my adult sons share a bed in the living area of a one bedroom. We book 2 studios. Anxiously waiting for what DVC will tell me when they deem I have broken their new rules.

We like to have overlap nights when we do a split stay so we are not homeless from 11am to 4/5pm….

 

[mkatsy]

That’s crazy
Why don’t they just put the money into the stock market

Because most of them started off as realtors and this is their wheelhouse.

 

[Moonspinner]

Disney Corporate gets plenty of additional income if DVC renting is curtailed. How many people could have booked a Disney moderate or even deluxe resort, but decided to rent DVC points instead because they're advertised all over the internet as "deluxe at moderate prices"

That is the main reason why this is happening I think. Member satisfaction is certainly a big reason too, but the fact that Disney can't fill moderate or deluxe cash rooms but lots of DVC inventory gets snapped up at 11 months and sold on broker sites is the main reason.

Agree and I think a lot more people would buy Dvc if they couldn’t rent.

 

[VGCgroupie]

We are violating the overlapping reservations clause - on all of our reservations this year. We cruise a lot and take our adult children - I routinely book 2 studios before and after cruises. Have 8 of these overlapping reservations on my account right now. And nothing else.

I am not wasting the extra points for a 2 bedroom
and will not make my adult sons share a bed in the living area of a one bedroom. We book 2 studios. Anxiously waiting for what DVC will tell me when they deem I have broken their new rules.

If you aren't renting points there is zero reason to be concerned by this. This is clear cut overreaction.

 

[disneylandtour]

I don’t think Disney will have any problem shutting down as much of this as they want. The original contracts say no commercial activity. It’s very straightforward. They are just being nice by giving people fair warning. And in legal proceedings fair warning is important.

This is the problem: the language is not very straight forward. It needs to quantify what is and is not commercial renting. It can't be subjective. It uses words that need to be interpreted, like "regularly" and "frequently." Here's the language...

You agree that any reservations made under your membership are solely for personal use and
not for commercial purposes, as required by governing documents for each DVC Resort,
including but not limited to the Declaration of Condominium and Membership Agreement.
DVCM reserves the right to interpret personal use and determine if reservations are booked for
personal or commercial purposes in its sole discretion. Personal use may include enjoying the
benefits of a DVC Membership with family or allowing use of any reserved Vacation Home to
friends and family on occasion. Additionally, personal use means that the member does not
regularly or frequently rent/sell reservations booked using their membership.

True, if all of a person's / business's points are rented, then absolutely this is commercial renting. But what if 50% are rented...or 30%?

 

[muppets3d]

It's baffling how some people are bound and determined to be a victim here.

 

[muppets3d]

This is the problem: the language is not very straight forward. It needs to quantify what is and is not commercial renting. It can't be subjective. It uses words that need to be interpreted, like "regularly" and "frequently." Here's the language...

You agree that any reservations made under your membership are solely for personal use and
not for commercial purposes, as required by governing documents for each DVC Resort,
including but not limited to the Declaration of Condominium and Membership Agreement.
DVCM reserves the right to interpret personal use and determine if reservations are booked for
personal or commercial purposes in its sole discretion. Personal use may include enjoying the
benefits of a DVC Membership with family or allowing use of any reserved Vacation Home to
friends and family on occasion. Additionally, personal use means that the member does not
regularly or frequently rent/sell reservations booked using their membership.

True, if all of a person's / business's points are rented, then absolutely this is commercial renting. But what if 50% are rented...or 30%?

If DVC said renting out 2000 points was allowed, then suddenly all the brokerages would only own 1999 points.

 

[VGCgroupie]

If DVC said renting out 2000 points was allowed, then suddenly all the brokerages would only own 1999 points.

 

[Mr_Woodchuck]

Agree and I think a lot more people would buy Dvc if they couldn’t rent.

For us, renting points led to us buying. I was a "never ever" timeshare person, but once we rented and stayed at Poly, I was sold!

 

[muppets3d]

For us, renting points led to us buying. I was a "never ever" timeshare person, but once we rented and stayed at Poly, I was sold!

And renting is always going to be an option.

 

[Sandisw]

Except that the plain-English reading of the newly released language speaks directly to using brokers (“third party service provider” is about as unambiguous as you can get). That whole section is almost, without exception, addressing brokers.

Plus, if this is the FAQ you are referring to, then I’ll just point out the last sentence:



I’ve never seen the word “consequences” used in a positive light, and they’ve now delineated what those “consequences” may entail.

That last line does add more context but I still feel the statement reasonablly conclude you are a commercial enterprise carries a lot of weight when it comes to them deciding you have crossed into the world of being one.

 

[disneylandtour]

If DVC said renting out 2000 points was allowed, then suddenly all the brokerages would only own 1999 points.

But that's the problem, without that, I'm not sure how much these vague terms would stand up in court.

And I think your example may be overly simplistic. It could be something like - DVC members are allowed to rent up to 20% of their total points each year, with a roll over option for up-to-five years. That is, DVC members could rent out a full year's worth of points once every five years or a smaller amount every year, up to the percentage allowed by the rolling 20% rule.

Or a 25% rule or a 30% rule, etc. Or whatever.

That would quantify it, allow owners options, yet would remove commercial renting. I'm pretty sure that there are legitimate family medical situations that require renting points. This gives a path to that, while also quantifying what commercial renting is.

Words like "regularly" aren't going to do much in court, if someone (or some business) sues because they are open to reasonable interpretation.

 

[RivShore]

For us, renting points led to us buying. I was a "never ever" timeshare person, but once we rented and stayed at Poly, I was sold!

Same. lol

 

[Tatebeck]

But that's the problem, without that, I'm not sure how much these vague terms would stand up in court.

And I think your example may be overly simplistic. It could be something like - DVC members are allowed to rent up to 20% of their total points each year, with a roll over option for up-to-five years. That is, DVC members could rent out a full year's worth of points once every five years or a smaller amount every year, up to the percentage allowed by the rolling 20% rule.

Or a 25% rule or a 30% rule, etc. Or whatever.

That would quantify it, allow owners options, yet would remove commercial renting. I'm pretty sure that there are legitimate family medical situations that require renting points. This gives a path to that, while also quantifying what commercial renting is.

Words like "regularly" aren't going to do much in court, if someone (or some business) sues because they are open to reasonable interpretation.

Too specific and restrictive. New members would lose a ton of points if they had anything come up in their first few years of ownership. Or regular members who rented within the last year or two wanting to return this year but then cancelling due to a medical emergency for example.

I think they did great. Give much more info for regular members to follow, but still allowing themselves to take care of any egregious offenders they see.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Again it comes down to the regular part. That section definitely still means something, just like the others do.

It means that it is allowed to rent a single reservation. It is also allowed to advertise that the single reservation is available.

It is only when you rent (or try to rent aka advertise) too much that you will be put on DVC/Disney's radar.

So it is only unacceptable if you do it regularly (aka year after year, reservation after reservation, etc.), otherwise it is allowed

Regular does not mean that it is allowed to rent a single reservation. Regular means consistent, or routine, or in a pattern. Even renting once a year but doing it year in and year out would constitute "regular' by definition of the word and could get an owner on the DVC radar (although I doubt it from a practical, real-world perspective, but words do have meaning and are chosen based on that meaning).

Anyway, you've now gone from "It clearly reads to me that using a third party is 100% allowed, just not encouraged or endorsed" to "It is only when you rent (or try to rent aka advertise) too much that you will be put on DVC/Disney's radar". If something is 100% allowed, by definition there can be no restrictions or limitations (the whole 100% thing). If there are restrictions or limitations, then it's clearly not "100% acceptable" (or, at best 100% acceptable, but only once or twice).

There are limitations (albeit the ambiguous "regularly"), and I'd wager there are enough owners who use the rental brokers for far more than one or two rentals here and there, and THOSE owners will be dissuaded from using the brokers. I'd also wager that those folks are a robust portion of the broker's book of business (and let's not forget the brokers who are flipping contracts and renting points out on them). I'd also guess the number of reservations the brokers list themselves are probably greater than one or two.

Again, as with so many posts on here, no one has or is saying that the first offense will lead to damnation and ruination. No one has said that the casual renter or the owner who likes to make multiple reservations FOR THEMSELVES will suddenly become the target for Disney's wrath. What I AM saying is that people can't just read the parts they like or assume a rule couldn't possibly apply to them, just because that would affect the specific way they use their points. Also, recognizing that a rule might exist, but convincing yourself that even though the rule sounds like it applies to you, there's no way you're a bad enough "offender" to be negatively impacted is a rather tenuous approach to things.

 

[Moonspinner]

But that's the problem, without that, I'm not sure how much these vague terms would stand up in court.

And I think your example may be overly simplistic. It could be something like - DVC members are allowed to rent up to 20% of their total points each year, with a roll over option for up-to-five years. That is, DVC members could rent out a full year's worth of points once every five years or a smaller amount every year, up to the percentage allowed by the rolling 20% rule.

Or a 25% rule or a 30% rule, etc. Or whatever.

That would quantify it, allow owners options, yet would remove commercial renting. I'm pretty sure that there are legitimate family medical situations that require renting points. This gives a path to that, while also quantifying what commercial renting is.

Words like "regularly" aren't going to do much in court, if someone (or some business) sues because they are open to reasonable interpretation.

The thing is anyone who rents is technically engaged in commercial activity. Gifting is not. I’m not saying Disney cares if “average” owners are renting. I don’t either. But technically, Disney could go after every last person. Disney doesn’t have to prove owners are renting regularly. They just have to prove that you are renting. That’s why they make you check that box saying it is for personal use. They don’t say personal use on average or mostly or regularly, they say at all. They make you confirm that every single reservation is not a rental.

 

[disneylandtour]

Disney Corporate gets plenty of additional income if DVC renting is curtailed. How many people could have booked a Disney moderate or even deluxe resort, but decided to rent DVC points instead because they're advertised all over the internet as "deluxe at moderate prices"

That is the main reason why this is happening I think. Member satisfaction is certainly a big reason too, but the fact that Disney can't fill moderate or deluxe cash rooms but lots of DVC inventory gets snapped up at 11 months and sold on broker sites is the main reason.

Those are two different divisions. DVD has its own budget, as does each resort hotel on property. DVD stands to get no financial gain from this. In many ways, DVD and the resort hotels are in competition with each other. Disney is not a single company--and from what I've seen, not all the divisions get along well with each other--it's more like a bunch of companies, with shared IP, under a corporate umbrella.

 

[disneylandtour]

The thing is anyone who rents is technically engaged in commercial activity. Gifting is not. I’m not saying Disney cares if “average” owners are renting. I don’t either. But technically, Disney could go after every last person. Disney doesn’t have to prove owners are renting regularly. They just have to prove that you are renting. That’s why they make you check that box saying it is for personal use. They don’t say personal use on average or mostly or regularly, they say at all. They make you confirm that every single reservation is not a rental.

This is not true. Non-regular, non-commercial renting is allowed in the ownership terms. And "personal use" is different than "I'm staying there myself." It may have been a better plan, 35 years ago, to set up DVC with no renting. But that's not how it was arranged. The problem is: the rules remain fuzzy without actual quantities.