Response from DVC legal about renting/transfers!!! READ THIS

[dianeschlicht]

Guess I get to play the devils advocate and go on record saying I'm not so thrilled with what the OP posted. First, what proof do we have he actually spoke to DVC legal, just his word; maybe the OP is just telling everyone what they been wanting to hear. 2nd, if he did actually speak to the legal dept, their unwillingness to do anything about point morphing is very dissapointing to say the least. I feel this is where the real problems lie with the DVC system. 3rd, the statement that members can continue to rent points as long as they are only renting their own points also dissapoints me. I always believed that DVC was set up so families and individuals could secure deluxe accomodations for years to come at Disney resorts. I never dreamed it was set up so anyone could buy all the points they wanted up to the limit, only use a small portion of those, then rent out the remainder to pay for their investment. Boy was I wrong, and with this statement from legal, it will continue to be ok to do so. I don't agree with transfers or renting, but that is just me, and I am obviously in the minority when it comes to doing so. Thanks for your time, just wanted to get this off my mind.

First of all, I'm not going to assume Dumbo would lie about something like this. I generally take folks at their word. Secondly,we have always known we could rent our own points out. It says so right in the documents that all of us signed when we became members. Now as to you your other points about renting. I think this is another issue of the "spirit" of the rule. I suspect owning 10,000 plus points in the same family to get around the loopholes is not in the spirit of the rule, and neither is owning 10,000 points and only using 500 for yourself.

 

[JimMIA]

AH...there! This thread reads SO much better now!

 

[dianeschlicht]

My question for DVD would be how the OP's statement fits into allowing families, corporations, trusts or whatever, own more than 5000 points. It certainly is not what I thought the intent was of the rule. Perhaps that's another DVD/DVC loophole that needs to be plugged, and only they can do it. The transfer enforcement is a bandaid to fix a larger problem, and as several have pointed out, it ends up hurting some of the people it is trying to protect.

 

[JimMIA]

My question for DVD would be how the OP's statement fits into allowing families, corporations, trusts or whatever, own more than 5000 points. It certainly is not what I thought the intent was of the rule. Perhaps that's another DVD/DVC loophole that needs to be plugged, and only they can do it. The transfer enforcement is a bandaid to fix a larger problem, and as several have pointed out, it ends up hurting some of the people it is trying to protect.

I don't see how DVC could stop this practice , even if they wanted to...which I doubt. A husband, a wife, a joint ownership, a trust ownership -- those are each seperate legal "persons." You can't deny a wife independently owning something just because her husband invested in the same thing. Nor can you prohibit an individual from buying something because their business happens to own the same asset.

BTW...isn't the point limit for corporations higher than 5,000? I thought there was a seperate level for corporations who want to purchase DVC for employee rewards, etc.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

OP - Who in legal did you speak with? Just curious. Thanks for posting the information you received from the legal department.

 

[dianeschlicht]

I don't see how DVC could stop this practice , even if they wanted to...which I doubt. A husband, a wife, a joint ownership, a trust ownership -- those are each seperate legal "persons." You can't deny a wife independently owning something just because her husband invested in the same thing. Nor can you prohibit an individual from buying something because their business happens to own the same asset.

BTW...isn't the point limit for corporations higher than 5,000? I thought there was a seperate level for corporations who want to purchase DVC for employee rewards, etc.

Okay, Jim, I see your point, and yes, that's all true, but somewhere along the line abuse happens with it. Is it because of the "corporate" nature of the number of points?

 

[crisi]

Okay, Jim, I see your point, and yes, that's all true, but somewhere along the line abuse happens with it. Is it because of the "corporate" nature of the number of points?

Could they potentially limit the number of points one can be an associate member over and therefore have control over?

I'd imagine when a corporation holds the points, the people who have authority to use the points are associate members on the account.

Want 5000 points for you and another 5000 for your spouse - great - Disney will be happy to sell them to you, but your spouse will need to be the one making phone calls.

 

[OneMoreTry]

AFter reading most of this thread, whether true or not, I'm thinking that DVC's focus here is to make sure that points stay with the appropriate resort. That would seem to be the most pressing concern. It would be no good to have twice as many VWL points floating around as their are rental nights available, which would be the result of morphing (maybe better described as "reassigning" because once changed no features of the original resort remain as would be the case in a morph).

This solution seems pretty "stone-age." Versus software tracking to prevent reassigning.

As for all the other arguably despicable ways points are used, at some point the cost of trying to stop unethical behavior outweighs any benefit.
That's why we can all drive 80 or more down I95.

 

[Johnnie Fedora]

I can see the DVC announcement now...

An 8-10% dues increase next year to cover the cost of "studying" an update to the 1991 software used to track DVC points.

Because...Our members asked for it!!

 

[Tony P. IL.]

AFter reading most of this thread, whether true or not, I'm thinking that DVC's focus here is to make sure that points stay with the appropriate resort. That would seem to be the most pressing concern. It would be no good to have twice as many VWL points floating around as their are rental nights available, which would be the result of morphing (maybe better described as "reassigning" because once changed no features of the original resort remain as would be the case in a morph).

This solution seems pretty "stone-age." Versus software tracking to prevent reassigning.

As for all the other arguably despicable uses ways points are used, at some point the cost of trying to stop unethical behavior outweighs any benefit.
That's why we can all drive 80 or more down I95.

I agree. (Example) trade in OKW points and they stay OKW points. Trade out OKW points and they stay OKW points. Isn't this the way it use to be? And didn't they also take on the use year of those points?

 

[dianeschlicht]

AFter reading most of this thread, whether true or not, I'm thinking that DVC's focus here is to make sure that points stay with the appropriate resort. That would seem to be the most pressing concern. It would be no good to have twice as many VWL points floating around as their are rental nights available, which would be the result of morphing (maybe better described as "reassigning" because once changed no features of the original resort remain as would be the case in a morph).

This solution seems pretty "stone-age." Versus software tracking to prevent reassigning.

As for all the other arguably despicable uses ways points are used, at some point the cost of trying to stop unethical behavior outweighs any benefit.
That's why we can all drive 80 or more down I95.

By curtailing the transfers, they are avoiding the issue with the "point morphing". Since there wont be as many transfers, there wont be as many opportunities for points from resort "A" to be used at resort "B", so morphing will be down because transfers are down.

 

[RobDoc]

Please consider this a second reminder to keep this thread on topic. Here is the first reminder for those that obviously missed it and have had their posts removed as a result.

If anyone wishes to make comments about individuals who have rented or who made comments about renting or who have made comments about those who have made comments about renting, please use PM or email, since they will continue to be removed from this thread - at least for a little while. Once we become really, really tired of cleaning up posts after already being warned twice, more drastic action could be taken - and no one wants that to happen.

 

[byoung]

I also thank you for this info.

 

[DisneyMomOK]

OP - Thanks for this informative post. I have been surprised the IRS or the Florida tax commission hasn't been after those big transfer folks. I (probably incorrectly) assume that people that flaunt the rules also forget to include those pesky taxes that would be due. Thanks again for the timely info.

Sharon

 

[Gary K. D.]

Be careful what you wish for...the current thought is to deem ANY posting of points or reservations for rent on this site or any other to be commecial in nature and subject to Froggy's Magic Twanger (Andy Devine for those younger than me). It seems that in it's infinite wisdom in correcting a few problems (transfers, point morphing and mass e-bay resevations) Disney is threatening to squash all advertisements of points for rent by sweeping them under the "commercial purposes" clause. They are offeing very general guidelines so they have open to them some random enforcement of ill thought out guidelines that are intended to clarify or modify the POS document that we all relied on when we purchased DVC. Get ready to have your guests grilled by Disney Gestapo when they check in (assuming that the DVC member is not named on the reservation document) to assertain how the reservation was made and the relation of the guest to the DVC owner. If the answers offered are not according to some sudo DVC enforcement guide book, be prepared for Disney to send your guests packing and then attempt to blame the whole thing on the DVC owner who made the reservation for that guest. This should really give Disney that lily white reputation they are always seeking.

I dare say that these fixes are aleady having a negative effect on those who are a few or many points short in making that family reunion reservation. With only one transfer allowed per use year...good luck accumulating the points for that large family reunion reservation or finding someone who will waste his one transfer out per use year on one or two point transfers to complete a DVC member's reservation. Of course Disney's answer, at the present time is to "buy more contracts". And, yes, that is a quote from Disney compliance and much of the preceeding was gleened from the same conversation with DVC Legal this past week.

Disney has threatened to use a sledge hammer to correct a problem that a fly swatter would have taken care of. I hope they reconsider their solutions and come up with something that will JUST fix the problem.

 

[3DisneyKids]

Gary--what makes you think that guests (rentees) would be grilled by Gestapo-like DVC CMs? Seriously, those kind and wonderful CMs who are working the "front lines" have no real power or authority, and thus I can't see DVC giving those folks the ability to refuse a rentee from being able to check in. Once the reservation has been made and Disney has not cancelled it, it is not going tbe pulled out from the rentee on the DAY of check-in. If DVC is worried about a commercial renting issue, it will be taken care of long before the date of arrival.

Thus, I go back to my original question, what makes you think this will be the situation? Thanks.

ETA: No need to respond to this now. Just realized that the DISer to whom I posed this question is a commercial renter. Now I understand where he is comning from.

 

[Gary K. D.]

Let me first object to your label of me as a commercial renter. I never make reservations for difficult of obtain dates in the hope that I can sell the reservation at an inflated price on e-bay or other sites later on. I do not transfer in large amounts of points and morph them into another Resort for the sake of making reservations at the 11th month window. I rarely post that I have points for rent or for sale and most of my posts are answers to people looking for reservations. Yes, I do have a large position at Disney BUT everything I do has been allowed in the POS doocuments that I received. I have helped many of my fellow members by transferring points TO them to complete their reservations or trading points so that they could visit a Resort that was not their home Resort.

I am just as interested as you are that there are one set of rules that are fair to all. Everything that I stated in my previous post was taken from a conversation that I had with Disney's Business, Standards & Regulatory Affairs and, yes, canceling a reservation at the time of check in WAS mentioned as a solution by that office as well as deeming anyone who offers points for rent on a web site, newspaper or "a sign in one's own office a commercial renter. Looking over the the posts on the Rent and Trade Board, I am not sure if you are an owner but apperantly it is OK with you to seek points from "commercial renters" (according to the latest POS interpretation by Disney) as long as the reservations are for you. I accept your apology.

 

[LisaS]

Very interesting info, Gary. It sounds like Disney has no problem with a member renting points to friends and relatives, but would consider members renting to strangers as a commercial enterprise.

 

[JimMIA]

Get ready to have your guests grilled by Disney Gestapo when they check in (assuming that the DVC member is not named on the reservation document) to assertain how the reservation was made and the relation of the guest to the DVC owner. If the answers offered are not according to some sudo DVC enforcement guide book, be prepared for Disney to send your guests packing and then attempt to blame the whole thing on the DVC owner who made the reservation for that guest.

WOW! The WDW you visit sure is WAY different from where we go! We hardly ever see security, much less the Gestapo!

The idea that Disney is going to turn guests away at the door is simply ludicrous. Do they have a right to do that? Of course they do. But will they? Naw.

They also have no need to ask a guest anything about their ressie. Why would they ask someone who knows nothing when they have the entire account record at their disposal?

They've obviously rattled a few cages, but DVC has much more realistic and effective methods of stopping commercial behavior they find inappropriate. The way to tell if an account is being used inappropriately is to simply look at the account. The way to stop inappropriate use of an account is to restrict the account or shut it down altogether. No need for intrigue, folks.

Until some poor family actually gets thrown out of the BCV lobby into a raging thunderstorm, I think we can all rest easy.

 

[TCPluto]

Let me first object to your label of me as a commercial renter.

Great information from the OP.

Gary, your record speaks for itself. You have a long history of buying low and renting high (and often, based on your posts). Every single post in your last 500 deals with renting or seeking points. Sounds commercial to me...

That DVD is taking aggressive action to thwart the comercial renters is a great thing, in my opinion.