Renter vs Guest

[Dean]

This came up in another thread and I wanted to explore the issue a bit. Reading through the POS and "Member Benefits Guidebook", the definition of a guest is someone "paid no compensation". Thus, as I read it, anyone who reimbursed a member for their fees or any other costs, or paid a portion to the member say to stay in the second BR along with the member, would technically be renters and not guests. Does taking the family out to dinner in return constitute compensation? There are quite a few ramifications to perks and the like not to mention classifying a whole group of DVC members as renters who would not have considered themselves as such.

 

[jarestel]

We've provided accomodations for friends and family in the past. They do generally insist on paying for a few meals for us during the trip, so does our acceptance of the "free" meals constitute a rental contract? Interesting idea. I suppose it might be construed as a barter situation under certain conditions, though a very inequitable one on my part. And I thought I had never rented out my points! For those who don't like members renting out their points for less than certain dollar amounts, I wonder how they feel about renting for food?

 

[Judique]

We've provided accomodations for friends and family in the past. They do generally insist on paying for a few meals for us during the trip, so does our acceptance of the "free" meals constitute a rental contract? Interesting idea. I suppose it might be construed as a barter situation under certain conditions, though a very inequitable one on my part. And I thought I had never rented out my points! For those who don't like members renting out their points for less than certain dollar amounts, I wonder how they feel about renting for food?

Lol! Guess that makes me a renter also.

 

[CarolMN]

This came up in another thread and I wanted to explore the issue a bit. Reading through the POS and "Member Benefits Guidebook", the definition of a guest is someone "paid no compensation". Thus, as I read it, anyone who reimbursed a member for their fees or any other costs, or paid a portion to the member say to stay in the second BR along with the member, would technically be renters and not guests. Does taking the family out to dinner in return constitute compensation? There are quite a few ramifications to perks and the like not to mention classifying a whole group of DVC members as renters who would not have considered themselves as such.

LOL, Dean. That's probably only one of the many reasons that DVC decided not to even attempt to police the difference.

If they ever do, my "guess" is that they would restrict benefits and perks to members and guests staying with them. In other words, if the member isn't present, no DVC perks. That's the only easy way I can think of to differentiate - and I'm sure that definiton would not please everyone.

Best wishes -

 

[Doctor P]

LOL, Dean. That's probably only one of the many reasons that DVC decided not to even attempt to police the difference.

If they ever do, my "guess" is that they would restrict benefits and perks to members and guests staying with them. In other words, if the member isn't present, no DVC perks. That's the only easy way I can think of to differentiate - and I'm sure that definiton would not please everyone.

Best wishes -

Not only is that the easiest way to deal with the issue, it is also one that is consistent with most other membership clubs (not talking about timeshares, really). Member privileges only extend to guests when accompanied by a member.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Not only is that the easiest way to deal with the issue, it is also one that is consistent with most other membership clubs (not talking about timeshares, really). Member privileges only extend to guests when accompanied by a member.

That is how I would think it would be too.

 

[Sammie]

LOL, Dean. That's probably only one of the many reasons that DVC decided not to even attempt to police the difference.

If they ever do, my "guess" is that they would restrict benefits and perks to members and guests staying with them. In other words, if the member isn't present, no DVC perks. That's the only easy way I can think of to differentiate - and I'm sure that definiton would not please everyone.

Best wishes -

Personally I think that is the way it should be. I think Renters are getting such a great deal on accommidations that perks and discounts should be restricted to Members that actually paid for them. It would be very easy to monitor, simply require the blue Membership card for discounts, valet parking, pool hopping, etc.

At the price that some are being able to rent, I can't see where they would have a legitimate complaint compared to what Disney is charging for the same accommidation minus the perks given to members.

 

[Figment2]

LOL, I guess I should go edit my post "that I've never rented my points" since guests have bought me dinner! Interesting post, Dean.

I agree with all that benefits should only extended to guests when the owner is there. I have been asked for my blue member card from time to time but there is no consistency.

Cyn

 

[Caskbill]

There's a lot in the POV that isn't strictly enforced.

For example, I found this:
Article XII, USE RESTRICTIONS

12.1 Personal Use. Each of the Vacation Homes shall be occupied only as vacation accommodations. Use of the accommodations and recreational facilities of the Condominium is limited solely to the personal use of Owners, or Cotenants, their guests, invitees and lessees and for recreational uses by corporations and other entities owning Ownership Interests in a Unit. Use of Vacation Homes and recreational facilities for commercial purposes or any purporses other than the personal use described herein is expressly prohibited. "Commercial purpose" shall include, but not be limited to, a pattern of rental activity by a Cotenant that the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. No Vacation Home in any Unit may be divided or subdivided into a smaller Vacation Home.

Use of Color and Bold added by myself for empahsis. It sure seems to me that those members who own thousands of points and rent them out all the time, often with glamorous 'ads' on E-Bay, sure seem to fit the definition of commercial use as they definitely exhibit a "pattern of rental activity".

 

[BurkeTribe]

At the price that some are being able to rent, I can't see where they would have a legitimate complaint compared to what Disney is charging for the same accommidation minus the perks given to members.

As a 1-time-so-far-renter and gonna-rent-again-er I have to agree-- we didn't miss or know to miss any of the perks (don't even really know what they all are, other than the pool thing), and could care less because we got an awesome studio at OKW at a price that made our trip that much better

 

[JerJan]

Caskbill wrote:

Use of Color and Bold added by myself for empahsis. It sure seems to me that those members who own thousands of points and rent them out all the time, often with glamorous 'ads' on E-Bay, sure seem to fit the definition of commercial use as they definitely exhibit a "pattern of rental activity".

I couldn't agree more.......

 

[Dean]

There's a lot in the POV that isn't strictly enforced.

For example, I found this:
Article XII, USE RESTRICTIONS

12.1 Personal Use. Each of the Vacation Homes shall be occupied only as vacation accommodations. Use of the accommodations and recreational facilities of the Condominium is limited solely to the personal use of Owners, or Cotenants, their guests, invitees and lessees and for recreational uses by corporations and other entities owning Ownership Interests in a Unit. Use of Vacation Homes and recreational facilities for commercial purposes or any purporses other than the personal use described herein is expressly prohibited. "Commercial purpose" shall include, but not be limited to, a pattern of rental activity by a Cotenant that the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. No Vacation Home in any Unit may be divided or subdivided into a smaller Vacation Home.

Use of Color and Bold added by myself for empahsis. It sure seems to me that those members who own thousands of points and rent them out all the time, often with glamorous 'ads' on E-Bay, sure seem to fit the definition of commercial use as they definitely exhibit a "pattern of rental activity".

For another thread obviously, but the problem is that case law says that all rules have to apply to all owners in the same way. And thus for DVC to enforce this issue in any way would mean they'd have to stop themselves.

 

[Doctor P]

For another thread obviously, but the problem is that case law says that all rules have to apply to all owners in the same way. And thus for DVC to enforce this issue in any way would mean they'd have to stop themselves.

And based on what I know about the case law in this area, I don't think that they would have any trouble beating that objection (at least in most states--I don't know Florida's case law well on this issue). It is very common for a developer to retain rights in a condo declaration that are not held by other owenrs, even after the association is turned over to the owners. But, as Dean said, that is really an issue for another thread, and I doubt the issue will ever come up in practice.

 

[Caskbill]

And based on what I know about the case law in this area, I don't think that they would have any trouble beating that objection (at least in most states--I don't know Florida's case law well on this issue). It is very common for a developer to retain rights in a condo declaration that are not held by other owenrs, even after the association is turned over to the owners. But, as Dean said, that is really an issue for another thread, and I doubt the issue will ever come up in practice.

I wasn't trying to hijack the thread, but was trying to illustrate that DVC doesn't enforce things that are clearly covered in the POS, so it's easy to see why they don't enforce things which are not clearly defined, or still have a grey definition.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Caskbill, I think that might be "grey" for a reason. I don't think they make any attempt to curb the use for commercial purpose. The information is certainly easy to access on "who" is doing comercial business, so if they had any intention of enforcing, they certainly could.

 

[Johnnie Fedora]

For another thread obviously, but the problem is that case law says that all rules have to apply to all owners in the same way. And thus for DVC to enforce this issue in any way would mean they'd have to stop themselves.

Wouldn't that put the whole "trade your points for other vacation options" in jeopardy? DVC is the largest broker with all those traded in points, right??

 

[roadtripper]

Here's my next eBay ad-- whaddaya think?

For rent: one OKW studio Sun-Thursday
Price--
Dinner for four at Victoria and Albert's
8 Mickey bars
Fridge full of veggies, dip, cheese and crackers and beer
Lunch for four at Le Cellier

Serious renters only-- Guinness preferred

This renting thing is GREAT!

 

[Doctor P]

Wouldn't that put the whole "trade your points for other vacation options" in jeopardy? DVC is the largest broker with all those traded in points, right??

I don't think that is the same as renting, either legally or in terms of spirit. I think what Dean is referring to is the ongoing rental of breakage (unclaimed units) and/or the rental of developer's inventory/retained ownership interests.

 

[Dean]

Wouldn't that put the whole "trade your points for other vacation options" in jeopardy? DVC is the largest broker with all those traded in points, right??

If they tried to stop renting it would essentially remove any cash equivalent options IMO. I'm sure DVC doesn't care, but even if they did, I'm sure their lawyers would tell them it's not defensible. Same for the 1999 end of free passes when DVC fairly quickly backed down on borrowing 2000 points into 1999 and getting free passes, they knew there was not way to win in court on that one.