Third party commercial renters

[DougEMG]

Nope. Take someone who has owned points for over a decade and always used them for personal stays, never renting them. Then one day a couple of weeks before a trip they get into an accident and decide to rent out the reservation instead. This is clearly not a “commercial” rental and is explicitly permitted, so even though it might be considered a “spec” rental, it should not be banned. I think what would make everyone here happy would be Disney cracking down on owners of huge numbers of points who consistently list multiple reservations for rent on internet sites.

Very valid point.

So where does that leave us?

 

[DougEMG]

This syncs pretty well with my BWV experience. Twenty years of the same routine and then myself and my friends can't get what we want for the last 4-5 years.

It was working and then it stopped working.

This was my experience as well.

I used to book BWV standard studios (because I am frugal) and always walked the reservation. Walking became harder and harder (from renters or from resale owners who bought to go to BWV in the fall just like I did), until eventually I just gave up and started booking 1 bedrooms the last few years (cause my wife and daughter made me!).

So while the room I wanted wasn't available there was still a room I could book.

 

[DougEMG]

Some thoughts on matters raised in this thread:

A. The IRS Issue

The IRS provisions cited by disneyjanet earlier is this thread do not determine that DVC rentals are a commercial enterprise or commercial use. Besides that none of the IRS provisions cited even mention the words "commercial enterprise," the provision cited that covers sole proprietorships, which includes stating that sole proprietorships are required to pay social security and medicare taxes, applies to sole proprietorships that are set up to be in the business of doing something.

Other IRS provisions that exist actually favor a finding that a member doing some rentals is not engaging in a business or commercial use, unless the member has actually set up such a business for the purpose of doing rentals and that is the member's principal occupation. Under the tax rules, if someone owns real property and rents it out, but the person is not actually in the business of doing such rentals, the income from rentals is not treated the same as business earned income but instead as passive investment income, which is not subject to social security or medicare taxes. See, e.g., IRS tax topic "Topic No. 15, Renting residential and vacation property"; www.stessa.com/blog/is-rental-income-earned-income. Though you can be taxed for the income (minus expenses) from rentals, you cannot be found to be actually conducting a business, and it is not "GIG" income. Id.

You do need to pay taxes on rental income (less expenses), and need to file a schedule E with your federal return, except that if you rent a property for 14 days or less in a year, and you, or relatives, use it for 15 days or more, the rental income is not subject to tax and does not have to be reported. Id.

B. Rentals of Pre-Riviera Resorts

As to rentals, the pre-Riviera DVC Resorts (which includes the VGF Resort Studios as they were added to the prior VGF, and likely the new Poly because it appears it will become part of the old Poly) have essentially the same terms of importance, and prohibit, as a Commercial purpose, a pattern of rental activity” that the Association (in later POS’s the “Board” of the Association) can reasonably conclude constitutes a “commercial enterprise or practice.”

During the mid-2000’s, there were many members that had become professional renters, not by use of rental brokers, but by themselves being in the business of making large numbers of reservations by having control of a large number of points, not just by owning the maximum, but also becoming associate members of other members’ accounts, which allowed them to use those other members’ accounts to make reservations, and also by getting a large number of transfers of points into their accounts from other members – at the time one could do an unlimited number of transfers per year either into or out of one’s account, but not both. The internet was the main source used to find members who wanted to rent. To address that problem, DVC adopted three changes: (a) it changed the transfer rule to once per use-year (which had actually been the original transfer rule until the early 2,000’s); (b) it adopted a rule limiting the number of accounts on which a member could be an associate member to four; and (c) in 2008, it adopted a rule which stated that if a member made more than 20 reservations in a year, a presumption would be created that the member was violating the commercial purpose/enterprise rule and reservations in excess of 20 would be canceled unless the member established that the member was not violating the rule.

Thereafter, DVC took action against a number of members it believed were violating the new rules created. It was after that time that rental brokers, which included at least some of whom were actually members who had previously been professional renters before the changes, became a principal method of doing many DVC rentals, again via use of the internet. Brokers I am aware of are not renting lots of points they own, but instead are the source for many owners to do rentals.

When that 20-rental rule was adopted, DVC members could likely have challenged it under ¶718.110(13) of the Florida condominium statutes. When setting up condominium resorts, a developer can create restrictions to rentals. However, once sales occur, that statute applies and provides the following:

"An amendment prohibiting unit owners from renting their units or altering the duration of the rental term, or specifying or limiting the number of times unit owners are entitled to rent their units during a specified period, applies only to unit owners who consent to the amendment and unit owners who acquire title to their units after the effective date of that amendment."

In other words, DVC likely cannot legally add new rental restrictions like many that have been proposed in this thread, except by submitting them to a vote of the members, and then, even if passed, members who vote against the changes are not required to follow them.

The 20-reservation rule was not challenged at the time because it made sense. Someone doing more than 20 reservations in a year is likely doing a lot of rentals and violating the commercial purpose rule, although the member could avoid any penalty by showing he was not violating the commercial purpose rule. At the same time, that 20 reservation rule provided strong evidence that could later be used in any legal case involving DVC’s trying to create more onerous restrictions to the right to rent to the pre-Riviera resorts, i.e., it shows that DVC itself believed the right to rent provided in the POS’s allowed members to do a lot of rentals.

Moreover, case law strongly supports the right of an owner to rent, and follows a rule that any restrictions created to limit an owner’s ability to do rentals shall be strictly construed against prohibiting rentals unless the restrictions clearly prohibit the activity, and restrictions against “business” or “commercial” use have been held to be not clear enough to create such a restriction . See, e.g., Santa Monica Beach Property Owner’s Association, Inc. v. Acord, 219 So. 3d 111 (Fl. App. 2017) (finding that a rule prohibiting owners from using their property for any “business purpose” did not prevent an owner from doing multiple short-term, vacation rentals because the restriction that existed failed to explicitly preclude the owner from doing such rentals); Laursen v. Giolli, 549 So.2d 1174 (Fl App. 1989) (recognizing that an owner’s renting one’s property to others would generally not be considered a commercial use prohibited by applicable restrictions, but an owner’s actually converting his home to a year-round, profit-making, assistant living facility that provides workers and services to the residents for a monthly charge, is acting as an actual business and thus as a prohibited “commercial enterprise”).

Also, the suggestion that DVC could alternatively sue the rental brokers to stop rentals, including for trademark violations, likely would not succeed. The brokers I am aware of are not set up to rent points they own. They are renting points provided by their member customers, who actually do the renting. DVC does not have a contract with those brokers relating to their rental activity. It is a fair use of any trademark for the renting member and the rental broker to name the resort and type of room that is available to rent, and thus DVC likely does not have a valid trademark violation claim to pursue. Moreover, "DVC" is not a Disney trademark. That is because some company that made paint-related items got that trademark before Disney's DVC even existed.

C. Riviera and Later Resorts

The Riviera Declarations, §12, make changes of importance to the right to rent that did not exist before Riviera was added. It eliminates the requirement that any decision made by the Board (or DVCM) to find a violation of the commercial purpose/enterprise provisions has to be “reasonable,” and instead says the association (or DVCM) shall be the “sole determiner” as to whether there is any violation of the commercial purpose restrictions. It also expressly declares, in §12.1.3, that it can cancel any reservations or remove anyone from the property if the reservation is found to be a prohibited one under ¶12. It then adds it can conclude:

"[A}n owner is engaged in a commercial enterprise as a result of a pattern of rental activity of reserved Vacation Homes or frequent occupancy by others of reserved Vacation Homes, other than the Owner’s family, use of regular rental or resale advertising, maintaining a rental or resale website, or frequent purchase and resale of Ownership Interests whether in the name of the Owner or those related to the Owner.”

In other words, the owner can possibly be found, in a decision that cannot be challenged on the basis of reasonableness, to be acting as a commercial enterprise in violation of the rental restriction for doing nothing more than “frequent” reservations for people not having the same name as the owner. Moreover, with sole power to make any decision, and the lack of a reasonableness standard, DVC could possibly, if it wanted to, also find such “fequency” exists for only two or three reservations.

I am assuming VDH has similar provisions. I know CFW does. What appears to be happening is that DVC has, starting with Riviera, decided to make it easier for it to accuse members of violating the commercial enterprise restriction even though it cannot easily determine that the member is actually acting as a commercial enterprise as understood in the law. In other words, DVC may still allow rentals but can use the new rules for finding out if a member is actually acting as a commercial enterprise, since it can easily determine from its own records that a member has been making reservations for persons other than those with the same name as the member, and then have the member explain why they are not rentals.

D. Other Rental Restrictions

On a possible enforcement side is the corporation and maximum ownership provisions in the POS, found in the beginning of the home resort opening Public Offering Statement Text. Some have memtioned the belief that many of these professional renters have actually set up businesses along with other members. Apparently many are unaware that the POS's expressly prohibit members that are corporations (which would include LLC's) or "other business entities" which would include partnerships or agreements with other members to do rental reservations) are limited to allowing only directors, officers, principals, or employees of the business entity to actually use any DVC rooms, i.e., they cannot rent to anyone other those corporate-related personnel. Moreover, the 4,000 home resort/8,000 all resorts point total rule is a combined party rule. A member's having multiple memberships, or any members who are acting together to do rentals or reservations, cannot together own moire than 4,000/8,000 total points. Thus, if there currently are such business entities, as some have mentioned, DVC could shut them down from doing reservations.

E. Possible Allowed New Rules

There are about 250,000 DVC memberships ( that was the last total I saw and was provided end of 2022, and the number of members are more since that counts joint owners, such as husband and wife, as one). Thus, over any 11-month period one can likely expect at least about 200,000 total reservations. Redweek's 1,200 such reservations, shown over an 11-month period, would thus be less than 0.6% of all reservations. Moreover, going through them, it appears that at least about 700 of them are for rooms that have no problematic 11-month-out reservation issue, e.g., SSR. OKW, Poly, BCV, BRV, BLT lake view, Kidani, Jambo rooms other than value or club level, VGF Resort Studios, VGC studios, and Aulani studios, and there are likely more because the Redweek lists for resorts like BLT, BWV, and Riviera for most studio rentals do not tell you whether the room is standard view (the ones that may have an 11-month issue) or other views. As noted, the Redweek list has a lot of single night reservations for rooms that have a 11-month-out reservation issue such as AKV value and club level, BWV, Riviera standard view and Tower studios. My guess is those are not reservations made right at 11-months out, when members who would be renting would most likely attempt to get multiple nights. Instead, they are members likely waiting for walkers to pass by or other cancellations and grab an opening that becomes available as a result.

A few months back, I went through the resort reservations shown for the DVC Rental Store (dvcrentalstore.com) which listed more than 400 reservations, which many members also blamed for the inability to reserve hard to get rooms for hard to get times. What I found in that list is that a large percentage of the rooms were for reservations usually easy to get, including a large number of SSR, OKW, and Kidani reservations usually available even at 7-months out. At the time, the list had only 6 total reservations combined for AKV value, AKV club level, and BWV standard studios. There were no single day reservations. There were also a significant number of reservation that were 30-days or fewer out, meaning all the points would end up in holding if the reservation was not purchased, indicating those were likely the result of members not being able to use a reservation, and thus not something being pursued by professional renters. Thus, what you may see on Redweek is not necessarily what you are going to find with other rental brokers. Moreover, even if renting were done away with, that would likely not mean that members will be able to easily get those hard to get reservations such as AKV value studios. The same 11-month problem would likely still exist just from all the members trying to actually reserve the rooms for their own use.

Nevertheless, if there is a need to further limits to rentals, there are rules that DVC could create, which I have mentioned before, that would not require further limiting the rights of an owner to make reservations. Since walking likely aids professional renters in getting reservations, DVC could easily do away with most walking by simply adopting the reservation rule that existed before mid-2008: One could reserve a room beginning 11 months out from date of departure from DVC (or 7-Months for non-home resorts). Thus, today June 23, you could reserve home resort only for a reservation that ends on May 23. Thus, if you wanted to walk a reservation to the June 1 to 7 dates, would have to reserve the night of May 22 today, then tomorrow morning at 8.a.m. try for May 23 when you will be competing with others desiring to get that date because the May 22 reservation you have will not prevent the May 23 night from disappearing to others seeking reservations. Result: the only way you can walk a reservation is every morning at 8 a.m. try to get a new end date, while competing with others for the same date. In other words, to do a walk would require attempting to reserve a night every day at 8 a.m. and getting lucky every day.

The POS documents actually require members to get rentals using a written contract with terms to show the renter has to follow the rules applicable to using a room and resort facilities. If a problem DVC has is actually determining who are doing too many rentals, DVC could require members who are renting to provide such written contracts when a rental is done to assure they are properly done. It could also state that failure to submit a rental agreement when there is a rental may result in cancellation of the rreservation if DVC learns it is rental. If informed of that requirement, the person considering renting from the member would most likely insist on the rule being followed. Professional renters would have a real problem if they failed to submit a rental agreement and failed to tell the renter of the requirement for such submission. If the reservation was thereafter canceled for failure to submit the contract, the renter would have a claim not just for damages, but for punitive damages for fraud against the renting member.

Love the level of detail in the information you provide

 

[crisi]

This was my experience as well.

I used to book BWV standard studios (because I am frugal) and always walked the reservation. Walking became harder and harder (from renters or from resale owners who bought to go to BWV in the fall just like I did), until eventually I just gave up and started booking 1 bedrooms the last few years (cause my wife and daughter made me!).

So while the room I wanted wasn't available there was still a room I could book.

There are a LOT more 50 point BWV contracts out there. There is a LOT more information out there on walking. And standard view studios at BWV are such an awesome deal. Made worse by them all being lockoffs - which makes it really flexible for DVC - but not easy to secure two bedrooms either. That combination was going to create a supply demand problem even if there are no "commercial spec renters using bots and apis to secure reservations." See also VAKL Concierge.

I remain of the opinion that DVC should enforce its terms on "commercial rental" and that they should also enforce the terms drusba pointed out above on limitations on ownership - but that in the end the majority of the issues that people are having getting reservations are because there are too few of certain types of rooms and too many people who want them. Some of those problems are of DVCs creation - 50 point direct buy ins for benefits comes to mind.

 

[Judique]

This was my experience as well.

I used to book BWV standard studios (because I am frugal) and always walked the reservation. Walking became harder and harder (from renters or from resale owners who bought to go to BWV in the fall just like I did), until eventually I just gave up and started booking 1 bedrooms the last few years (cause my wife and daughter made me!).

So while the room I wanted wasn't available there was still a room I could book.

Absolutely. I have my February 2025 Boardwalk View 2 bedroom for family and myself, and I used to be able to get a fall or December studio for my own solo trip. Right now, I have 2 nights BWV, 1 night OKW and 2 nights CFW. Split stay is okay, just not a 3 way split. I need my OKW night to turn into a BW night. Put in the waitlist at 11 months. Crickets so far. Was trying to get 5 nights at BW. Happy to try out CFW when the opportunity arose to book two nights.

Walking doesn't work well with an October use year for fall reservations at BW.

 

[DaveNan]

This was my experience as well.

I used to book BWV standard studios (because I am frugal) and always walked the reservation. Walking became harder and harder (from renters or from resale owners who bought to go to BWV in the fall just like I did), until eventually I just gave up and started booking 1 bedrooms the last few years (cause my wife and daughter made me!).

So while the room I wanted wasn't available there was still a room I could book.

I think 4 things contributed to increased walking....

1) the change to making modifications available on the website also ramped up walking. Folks did it before, but it was limited because it required a call to MS and a long walk was a lot more work and might feel "dirty" to some owners, since it is in a gray area. This was 5ish years ago.
2) Increased knowledge of the tactic on the web and boards.
3) As many have said - walking begets walking. As members experience "missing out on reservations", they walk early and longer the next time.
4) Finally, true to this threads title, for the limited room categories that represent exceptionally lower points per night, or stated another way, higher $ per point for fixed price rentals, these categories have gotten even more in demand. They were always in high demand and the supply never met the demand, but the demand has gone even higher. This means people are going to more extreme measures to get these room, both owners wanting to use their points for personal use and owners wanted to get fixed price rentals. see #3 again.

I own at BWV and AKV - getting std (BWV) and value/concierge rooms (AKV) has gotten more difficult. Weather it's bots or just more people competing for the same limited number of rooms (typically just one room, if any are available), it is harder. I too have just given up trying most of the time.

 

[TheDailyMoo]

There must be a symbiotic relationship happening between Disney and the large rental companies for Disney to be so vague and secretive about commercial renting language and seemingly lack of going after these obvious large renters. Disney leadership can be stupid in many ways but they aren't naïve enough to not realize what's going on.

What does Disney get out of it is the question because they definitely are reaping some benefits from all these large commercial renters doing their thing with impunity.

 

[Sandisw]

There must be a symbiotic relationship happening between Disney and the large rental companies for Disney to be so vague and secretive about commercial renting language and seemingly lack of going after these obvious large renters. Disney leadership can be stupid in many ways but they aren't naïve enough to not realize what's going on.

What does Disney get out of it is the question because they definitely are reaping some benefits from all these large commercial renters doing their thing with impunity.

Remember that DVC has access to all the memberships and how many rentals are on each one and whose names are on them.

So, they know exactly what is going on with each owner. As some of us have shared, rental brokers rent a lot…and I will go as far to say the bulk…from individual owners who, on their own, are not in violation of any rules.

If the number of memberships that @drusba shared is accurate….there are at least 200 K memberships. Even if you pretend that DVC made the unreasonable rule to cap every membership at one…by law we have to have at least that…that is 200K rentals a year.

Obviously, some rent more than others and not everyone rents, but the issue is that the rental market could have an average of 547 rentals every day at a minimum.

None of us know exactly what happens on others DVC memberships, but DVc does and maybe nothing is happening like people want because when reviews happen, what is found is within the rules DVC has set up for allowing us to rent under the right we have.

 

[drusba]

This syncs pretty well with my BWV experience. Twenty years of the same routine and then myself and my friends can't get what we want for the last 4-5 years.

It was working and then it stopped working.

In last 5-6 years, rentals are only at best a very minor cause of the inability to get BWV rooms. Before 2017, standard view studios (and thus also 2BRs since all are lock-offs) had only a partial problem booking right at 11-months out. They could disappear right at 8 a.m. at 11-months out in the high demand fall season that runs from late Sep to marathon weekend in Jan, but that occurred only about 30% of the time the rest of the year (the "moderate season"), thus allowing one to get a studio in the fall via walking because one could start a walk by booking a studio beginning before the last week of Sep. Boardwalk view studios had that 11-month problem in the fall season but only about 20% of the time during that fall season, and not in the moderate season. Pool/garden studios were always open in the moderate season even at 7-months out and did not fill right at 8 a.m. at 11-months during the fall season.

That began to change in 2017 and by end of 2019, a substantial change had occurred, with standard view studios being filled right at 8 a.m. at 11-months out year round, boardwalk studios doing the same throughout the fall season, and pool/garden view studios being filled right at 11-months out for parts of the fall season and being gone by 7-months for about 60% of the moderate season.

Renting had virtually nothing to do with that significant change. The cause was DVD because it decided to add the pull-out Murphy bed to the studios during the 2016 refurb which changed the allowed occupancy to 5 (plus a child under 3) instead of the prior 4, resulting in that substantial increase in demand.

Similar changes occurred at BRV and BCV, where the Murphy bed was also added in 2016, although neither developed an 11-month out issue. Before 2017, BRV rooms were always open at 7 months out in the moderate demand season (mid-Jan to late Sep). By the end of 2019, those were filing before 7-months out about 60% of the time during the moderate season. Before 2017, BCV studios were open about 50% of the time at 7-months out in the moderate season, and went to having a lack of availability at 7-months throughout that moderate season.

 

[TheDailyMoo]

None of us know exactly what happens on others DVC memberships, but DVc does and maybe nothing is happening like people want because when reviews happen, what is found is within the rules DVC has set up for allowing us to rent under the right we have.

Is there a possibility that they handle commercial renting like how speeding on the highway is handled…where I live almost everyone on the major expressways go over the 55 limit (of course not everyone but a majority). It just seems to be something that’s “accepted” as normal. Of course once in a while someone can be pulled over if it’s very egregious or the highway patrol is looking to make some money I guess lol.

Or you may be right that almost all commercial renters have it set up so they can skirt the thresholds set forth by DVC. I mean let’s be real commercial renting IS going on at a pretty large scale level but perhaps like you said they’re all set up so as not to break any rules. You’re right we don’t know. I just keep coming back to the idea that Disney is getting something out of this. Or if not that then they aren’t being hurt by it and don’t care if any of us get a BW standard or an AK value. Maybe that’s the real answer.

 

[Sandisw]

Is there a possibility that they handle commercial renting like how speeding on the highway is handled…where I live almost everyone on the major expressways go over the 55 limit (of course not everyone but a majority). It just seems to be something that’s “accepted” as normal. Of course once in a while someone can be pulled over if it’s very egregious or the highway patrol is looking to make some money I guess lol.

Or you may be right that almost all commercial renters have it set up so they can skirt the thresholds set forth by DVC. I mean let’s be real commercial renting IS going on at a pretty large scale level but perhaps like you said they’re all set up so as not to break any rules. You’re right we don’t know. I just keep coming back to the idea that Disney is getting something out of this. Or if not that then they aren’t being hurt by it and don’t care if any of us get a BW standard or an AK value. Maybe that’s the real answer.

How are you defining commercial renting? What rules are you using when you say “it’s being done”?

 

[Judique]

In last 5-6 years, rentals are only at best a very minor cause of the inability to get BWV rooms. Before 2017, standard view studios (and thus also 2BRs since all are lock-offs) had only a partial problem booking right at 11-months out. They could disappear right at 8 a.m. at 11-months out in the high demand fall season that runs from late Sep to marathon weekend in Jan, but that occurred only about 30% of the time the rest of the year (the "moderate season"), thus allowing one to get a studio in the fall via walking because one could start a walk by booking a studio beginning before the last week of Sep. Boardwalk view studios had that 11-month problem in the fall season but only about 20% of the time during that fall season, and not in the moderate season. Pool/garden studios were always open in the moderate season even at 7-months out and did not fill right at 8 a.m. at 11-months during the fall season.

That began to change in 2017 and by end of 2019, a substantial change had occurred, with standard view studios being filled right at 8 a.m. at 11-months out year round, boardwalk studios doing the same throughout the fall season, and pool/garden view studios being filled right at 11-months out for parts of the fall season and being gone by 7-months for about 60% of the moderate season.

Renting had virtually nothing to do with that significant change. The cause was DVD because it decided to add the pull-out Murphy bed to the studios during the 2016 refurb which changed the allowed occupancy to 5 (plus a child under 3) instead of the prior 4, resulting in that substantial increase in demand.

Similar changes occurred at BRV and BCV, where the Murphy bed was also added in 2016, although neither developed an 11-month out issue. Before 2017, BRV rooms were always open at 7 months out in the moderate demand season (mid-Jan to late Sep). By the end of 2019, those were filing before 7-months out about 60% of the time during the moderate season. Before 2017, BCV studios were open about 50% of the time at 7-months out in the moderate season, and went to having a lack of availability at 7-months throughout that moderate season.

This is a nice summation, and much of it is accurate. I have an October use year and can't start a walk in September.
So I must proceed to try and beat the clock.

I believe (with no way to prove) that manipulation is occurring using bots.

Your third paragraph above is an assumption. My assumption would be that it follows that renting WOULD have a substantial impact as renters are usually the ones (my assumption) looking for more sleep spaces. Or 3 separate sleep spaces - parent, boy, girl. Plus, now that rooms can be rented out almost with no impunity, grabbing those 'cheap' 10 point studios in December or 9 point studios in January mean that there's so much more profit when the room is offered for say - $300 to $450, still a percentage below Disney cash, but a super windfall for bot grabber - $30 to $45 per point gross.

Back on the Dis's rent trade board we see $15 to $22? per point with the occasional confirmed reservation for a bit more. But out in the wild, the offer is for cash, and confirmed reservations, not for point value.

That changes things quickly and makes almost any studio a little goldmine, but especially the cheaper ones. Just check out the profit and follow the money.

 

[miTnosnhoJ]

The FaceBook post brought a couple of thoughts to my meager brain:

1) Is it 20 reservations or 20 rentals that is the trigger? You could hit 20 reservations very quickly if you are walking, but 20 completed rentals might be much more indicative of commercial activity.

2) It has been said that Timeshares are real estate for people who can't do math. Which begs the question, surely the contracts that Disney voided were Direct contracts? Is there any instance of Disney voiding a resale contract after waiving ROFR?

It is my belief that you can't make money buying at Direct prices and then renting. You could only recoup some of your investment. But I am much less sure that you couldn't make money by opportunistically buying resale and then renting out your points. So again, can Disney void resales?

 

[TheDailyMoo]

How are you defining commercial renting? What rules are you using when you say “it’s being done”?

Not sure what your purpose is in asking that because we all know there are points and confirmed reservations being sold for the sole purpose of making a profit. That in and of itself is commercial. I don't know you to be pedantic so I'm assuming it's meant to be a conversation starter. The big companies that rent are doing so on behalf of others but also for sure with their own trove of points. If it's someone's primary or even secondary income then it is by definition commercial. It would be borderline delusional to say that there is absolutely no renting being done on any commercial level.

Now like you've said before and I can agree with your reasoning, the large point holding companies may be savvy enough to keep everything on the up and up as it pertains to Disney's rules or lack thereof of commercial renting. It's either these companies and large for profit point holders are skirting around the rules and thereby avoiding the ire of DVC or Disney is simply satisfied with keeping things status quo. OR perhaps things get to a point, such as threads like this, which put more pressure on Disney to change the language and then go after any major commercial players. Just to put it out there the idea of commercial SPEC renting does bother me but I also realize there aren't many ways for Disney to combat it under the current verbiage. Unilaterally changing rules to fight it could mess with many other members I agree. But it's hard to say that commercial spec renting doesn't hurt the average DVC user when looking for specific rooms.

 

[Sandisw]

The FaceBook post brought a couple of thoughts to my meager brain:

1) Is it 20 reservations or 20 rentals that is the trigger? You could hit 20 reservations very quickly if you are walking, but 20 completed rentals might be much more indicative of commercial activity.

2) It has been said that Timeshares are real estate for people who can't do math. Which begs the question, surely the contracts that Disney voided were Direct contracts? Is there any instance of Disney voiding a resale contract after waiving ROFR?

It is my belief that you can't make money buying at Direct prices and then renting. You could only recoup some of your investment. But I am much less sure that you couldn't make money by opportunistically buying resale and then renting out your points. So again, can Disney void resales?

The one thing that is not clear is what contract was voided…was it already a contract that had been closed or, was it a new sale that DVC cancelled.

To take back an ownership interest from an owner, being that it is a deeded ownership in a specific unit…unless it’s CFW…they have to go though a legal channel to do so, assuming that they even have the right to even do it.

So, it seems more logical that the owner had a sale canceled, because no way can DVC just unilaterally change the ownership of a contract…

In terms of the 20 reservation trigger, it was 20 total on a membership and that one would not be allowed to hold more than that if one could not satisfy to DVC that all 20 were for the owner or owners families.

If any were considered rentals, then the owners was capped at 20…if more than 20 had been booked before being reviewed, then the ones above 20 got canceled,

And, the rules, are per membership.

 

[JackosinDIS]

The one thing that is not clear is what contract was voided…was it already a contract that had been closed or, was it a new sale that DVC cancelled.

To take back an ownership interest from an owner, being that it is a deeded ownership in a specific unit…unless it’s CFW…they have to go though a legal channel to do so, assuming that they even have the right to even do it.

So, it seems more logical that the owner had a sale canceled, because no way can DVC just unilaterally change the ownership of a contract…

In terms of the 20 reservation trigger, it was 20 total on a membership and that one would not be allowed to hold more than that if one could not satisfy to DVC that all 20 were for the owner or owners families.

If any were considered rentals, then the owners was capped at 20…if more than 20 had been booked before being reviewed, then the ones above 20 got canceled,

And, the rules, are per membership.

The weird thing about this is that the reservations that were cancelled were made in Feb 24, so points must have been loaded for the owner at that time. It’s now well over 90 days later, so even if it were a direct purchase, I don’t see how Disney could have cancelled the sale… very confusing

 

[Sandisw]

Not sure what your purpose is in asking that because we all know there are points and confirmed reservations being sold for the sole purpose of making a profit. That in and of itself is commercial. I don't know you to be pedantic so I'm assuming it's meant to be a conversation starter. The big companies that rent are doing so on behalf of others but also for sure with their own trove of points. If it's someone's primary or even secondary income then it is by definition commercial. It would be borderline delusional to say that there is absolutely no renting being done on any commercial level.

Now like you've said before and I can agree with your reasoning, the large point holding companies may be savvy enough to keep everything on the up and up as it pertains to Disney's rules or lack thereof of commercial renting. It's either these companies and large for profit point holders are skirting around the rules and thereby avoiding the ire of DVC or Disney is simply satisfied with keeping things status quo. OR perhaps things get to a point, such as threads like this, which put more pressure on Disney to change the language and then go after any major commercial players. Just to put it out there the idea of commercial SPEC renting does bother me but I also realize there aren't many ways for Disney to combat it under the current verbiage. Unilaterally changing rules to fight it could mess with many other members I agree. But it's hard to say that commercial spec renting doesn't hurt the average DVC user when looking for specific rooms.

The reason I ask is because the conversation is related to our contracts and saying commercial renting is happening, without explaining what you are specifically referring to in relation to the contract matters.

Even one single rental can make someone a profit…so if one says that’s commercial, it’s not in the context of the contract…because by law, we get to rent.

For all those owners with contracts at resort pre-RIV say the rules needs to be reasonable.

Can we really conclude that advertising a reservation that is made, spec rental, especially when the contract says that an owner does not have to get approval for a rental, turns the membership into a commercial enterprise?


Rental brokers are certainly commercial enterprises, but they make money off of an average owner, as a fee to find them a renter. It’s the individual owner who owns those rentals and the one who has to stay within limits.

So, the only rentals that a business can be held accountable for are the ones that they actually own..which is why I will always come back to the point that seeing 1000 confirmed reservations on a website does not mean commercial renting is happening in relation to DVC ownership, without knowing how many actual owners are involved…unless someone is defining commercial renting is anytime an owner offers to rent something...

 

[Sandisw]

The weird thing about this is that the reservations that were cancelled were made in Feb 24, so points must have been loaded for the owner at that time. It’s now well over 90 days later, so even if it were a direct purchase, I don’t see how Disney could have cancelled the sale… very confusing

I haven’t been able to find that post, but does it say that the contract they came from was the one voided, or that the owner had a contract voided.

However, once a contract is closed, then not sure how DVD can take it back without goong through legal channels….similar to owners who don’t pay their loans…DVD has to foreclose, right?

It’d be the same here…voiding it implies it had not yet closed…at least to me…however, if one gets caught, and DVC says you are in violation, I just dont see how they can force someone out of DVC ownership…once the membership is back in compliance…which it would be once the 5 trips were removed…and it said it wasn’t all…then there would be no reason for DVD to start legal proceedings to take back an ownership.

 

[JackosinDIS]

I haven’t been able to find that post, but does it say that the contract they came from was the one voided, or that the owner had a contract voided.

However, once a contract is closed, then not sure how DVD can take it back without goong through legal channels….similar to owners who don’t pay their loans…DVD has to foreclose, right?

It’d be the same here…voiding it implies it had not yet closed…at least to me…however, if one gets caught, and DVC says you are in violation, I just dont see how they can force someone out of DVC ownership…once the membership is back in compliance…which it would be once the 5 trips were removed…and it said it wasn’t all…then there would be no reason for DVD to start legal proceedings to take back an ownership.

It says “As a result, their most recent contract purchase was voided, along with five reservations that were secured with the points on the contract, one of which is the original poster’s reservation” (the res that was cancelled).

Yes, I agree that the term ‘voiding’ implies it had not yet closed, but in this case I don’t see any way that it couldn’t have closed given that the res was made 4 months prior with points already available on the contract. Must be more to it that we don’t know (and will probably never know) about!

 

[CWTC]

Yes, I agree that the term ‘voiding’ implies it had not yet closed, but in this case I don’t see any way that it couldn’t have closed given that the res was made 4 months prior with points already available on the contract. Must be more to it that we don’t know (and will probably never know) about!

I interpreted the story as the reservation in question (GV at AKL) was made with a different contract and the one that was voided/cancelled was contract that member was in the process of acquiring. Kind of like we have 3 upcoming trips already booked with points, are in the process of acquiring a resale BLT contract, and will use those points differently.

I agree though there is a whole backstory that would be interesting to know but we never will.

As a side note, I was surprised by the number of commenters on the FB post who said the same thing had happened to them. I think I counted 3 or 4 although I could have missed some.