Tighter renting restrictions

[bicker]

Plus I disagree with you idea that reasonable people won't rent at all which is the only way to be certain given your definition of commercial.

I disagree that that's the only way of being certain. The point about reasonable folks is that they know instinctively if their offerings are commercial in nature. Maybe some don't have a self-regulating compass like that, but most do.

Interesting discussion though.

 

[greenban]

I disagree that that's the only way of being certain. The point about reasonable folks is that they know instinctively if their offerings are commercial in nature. Maybe some don't have a self-regulating compass like that, but most do.

Interesting discussion though.

But even Captain Jack Sparrow (a Disney Employee) has a broken compass.

I too spoke with Disney Legal, back when I first purchased the DVC and was told renting was fine. Since I had planned to retire there, I had my lawyer draft an intogratory (SP?) and he received a written response.

When this comercial renting brouha-ha started, I called DVC Compliance directly. These are the people behind 'The Letter'. They are strictly enforcing the 'pattern of commercial activity' based on a set of parameters called Bright Line Testing . I was told that one of them was 20 reservations per year. I was told that was a calander year, BTW. I was also told that it would be only one of several Bright Line Tests implemented.

At the time of my call (several months ago) I was told that no ressies had been/would be cancelled, but if the rental behavior continued, that they would be.

I was also told that the point morphing issue would be shortly fixed in software, I am unsure if that has happened yet.

Finally, unlike my dealings with Legal, this was a telephone call, I have no proof or support of my claims, other than my memory, so YMMV!

-Tony

Lost and in search of a working compass

 

[3DisneyKids]

Thanks, Tony. This is the most informative post I have seen on this issue.

 

[dianeschlicht]

But even Captain Jack Sparrow (a Disney Employee) has a broken compass.

I too spoke with Disney Legal, back when I first purchased the DVC and was told renting was fine. Since I had planned to retire there, I had my lawyer draft an intogratory (SP?) and he received a written response.

When this comercial renting brouha-ha started, I called DVC Compliance directly. These are the people behind 'The Letter'. They are strictly enforcing the 'pattern of commercial activity' based on a set of parameters called Bright Line Testing . I was told that one of them was 20 reservations per year. I was told that was a calander year, BTW. I was also told that it would be only one of several Bright Line Tests implemented.

At the time of my call (several months ago) I was told that no ressies had been/would be cancelled, but if the rental behavior continued, that they would be.

I was also told that the point morphing issue would be shortly fixed in software, I am unsure if that has happened yet.

Finally, unlike my dealings with Legal, this was a telephone call, I have no proof or support of my claims, other than my memory, so YMMV!

-Tony

Lost and in search of a working compass

This is the most definitive information we have heard so far.

 

[rinkwide]

...even Captain Jack Sparrow...has a broken compass...

Oh, it's not broke. Like most people's, it just points them toward the thing they want most.

 

[dumbo71]

But even Captain Jack Sparrow (a Disney Employee) has a broken compass.

I too spoke with Disney Legal, back when I first purchased the DVC and was told renting was fine. Since I had planned to retire there, I had my lawyer draft an intogratory (SP?) and he received a written response.

When this comercial renting brouha-ha started, I called DVC Compliance directly. These are the people behind 'The Letter'. They are strictly enforcing the 'pattern of commercial activity' based on a set of parameters called Bright Line Testing . I was told that one of them was 20 reservations per year. I was told that was a calander year, BTW. I was also told that it would be only one of several Bright Line Tests implemented.

At the time of my call (several months ago) I was told that no ressies had been/would be cancelled, but if the rental behavior continued, that they would be.

I was also told that the point morphing issue would be shortly fixed in software, I am unsure if that has happened yet.

Finally, unlike my dealings with Legal, this was a telephone call, I have no proof or support of my claims, other than my memory, so YMMV!

-Tony

Lost and in search of a working compass

Tony,

Not that I didn't already know this but you are far brighter than I. After my conversation with DVC legal I should have had something put in writing. Silly me took them at their word.

Thanks for the information and I might add you are a brave soul. When I posted of my conversations with DVC legal I was basically called a liar.

 

[greenban]

Tony,

Not that I didn't already know this but you are far brighter than I. After my conversation with DVC legal I should have had something put in writing. Silly me took them at their word.

Thanks for the information and I might add you are a brave soul. When I posted of my conversations with DVC legal I was basically called a liar.

Dear Dumbo71:

We all know I'm relatively self-centered and immature, and I wish I could claim I was thick skinned enough to not care what others call me, but.....

With the grief heaped on you and others (Jay Foster comes to mind), I waited this long to post, since I didn't wanted to be flammed.

So, sadly (but honestly) not brave, just waited until I thought it was safe to post.

What took guts was calling DVC Compliance, having to give my Membership info, and knowing I risked being 'Bright Lined'.

To be fair, the lady I spoke to was pleasant and forthcomming (at least I felt that way). However, my impression is that they are taking this very seriously, and there will be no exceptions. My opinion is that DVC restrictions will progress beyond this. I don't know if the impitous is from Member Complaints about High Demand Speculation Booking, Actual lost revinue from the morphers, Tax issues from Florida State or the County, protection of DVC-II & III properties or a combination. But I do feel (no proof, just speculation) that there is a 'behind the scenes' rational for this.

Sincerely,

-Tony

A morally bankrupt, compassless, recovering renter!
(I have never stolen a pool towel, or inhaled while drying with a pool towel, honest!)

 

[greenban]

Oh, it's not broke. Like most people's, it just points them toward the thing they want most.

Rinky:

I hope it is appropriate to post publically, that I love you!

Thanks for the big smile!

-Tony

 

[Dean]

I disagree that that's the only way of being certain. The point about reasonable folks is that they know instinctively if their offerings are commercial in nature. Maybe some don't have a self-regulating compass like that, but most do.

Interesting discussion though.

No, this is not a feelings issue, this is a technical issue. If it was truly instinctive consistently, we wouldn't get to have all these fun discussions about it.

 

[RobDoc]

No, this is not a feelings issue, this is a technical issue. If it was truly instinctive consistently, we wouldn't get to have all these fun discussions about it.

The technical part of this is addressed by sending out a warning letter before actually doing anything. That gives the member an opportunity to clarify the policy as it applies to them and , hopefully, straighten out any misunderstanding about what "pattern" of activity they have participated in before there are any consequences.

I know that if I got a letter, I'd be on the phone immediately and would expect a written follow-up from Disney outlining that conversation. If that were not forthcoming, a written follow-up would be sent via attorney to the friendly folks at Disney legal - where I would truly expect some sort of written response about the "technical issues".

I agree with Dean, this is not about feelings, it is about technical issues. While the POS wording may leave room for discussion on this board, the "definition" made by the Board regarding an individual's specific "pattern of rental activity" certainly is technical and would need to be put in writing for that individual before any penalty would be enforced. There is no indication as yet that DVC has gone to that extent - although the wording of the letter already received by a few has apparently been sufficient for them to make changes in their DVC utilization just from that simple threat.

I think that bicker's thought about "instinctive" behavior is also accurate - since IMO, very few (at least on this board) should/would fall into the "commercial" category anyway. As reported in this thread, one member who was concerned that he might be viewed in that fashion has even proactively contacted DVC legal and has recieved both verbal and written communication validating his rental activity. In this case, I look at the "instinctive" thought that he might have been considered "commercial" and took steps to proactively determine his status before receiving communication to the contrary.

 

[4Pluto]

Maybe the most damning evidence would be how someone represents their rental activity for tax purposes. The proceeds from renting should be taxable income. I had understood that for vacation properties you could deduct expenses (such as maintenance, mortgages, the costs of renting and advertising) as business deductions if you met certain tests. If those deductions are available for timeshare rentals, I would think a true commercial renter would want to take those deductions to reduce their taxes.

I don't know if those rules apply to timeshares [AND DO NOT TAKE THIS AS TAX ADVICE ] but that would be one way to prove that someone considered themselves engaged in commercial activity.

 

[dumbo71]

The technical part of this is addressed by sending out a warning letter before actually doing anything. That gives the member an opportunity to clarify the policy as it applies to them and , hopefully, straighten out any misunderstanding about what "pattern" of activity they have participated in before there are any consequences.

I know that if I got a letter, I'd be on the phone immediately and would expect a written follow-up from Disney outlining that conversation. If that were not forthcoming, a written follow-up would be sent via attorney to the friendly folks at Disney legal - where I would truly expect some sort of written response about the "technical issues".

I agree with Dean, this is not about feelings, it is about technical issues. While the POS wording may leave room for discussion on this board, the "definition" made by the Board regarding an individual's specific "pattern of rental activity" certainly is technical and would need to be put in writing for that individual before any penalty would be enforced. There is no indication as yet that DVC has gone to that extent - although the wording of the letter already received by a few has apparently been sufficient for them to make changes in their DVC utilization just from that simple threat.

I think that bicker's thought about "instinctive" behavior is also accurate - since IMO, very few (at least on this board) should/would fall into the "commercial" category anyway. As reported in this thread, one member who was concerned that he might be viewed in that fashion has even proactively contacted DVC legal and has recieved both verbal and written communication validating his rental activity. In this case, I look at the "instinctive" thought that he might have been considered "commercial" and took steps to proactively determine his status before receiving communication to the contrary.

Doc,

I agree with your post.

I guess the question would be really more for Greenban but maybe you can lend some insight here as well. Based on what Greenban was told and has in writing is it safe to say he is in the clear to continue renting? Expanding on that, would it be wise for him to continue on his current course of adding points until retirement knowing that it would mean increased rentals in the interim?

I guess in a nutshell, do you have confidence that Greenban will not be subjected to some type of enforcement jeopordizing his membership?

 

[dumbo71]

Maybe the most damning evidence would be how someone represents their rental activity for tax purposes. The proceeds from renting should be taxable income. I had understood that for vacation properties you could deduct expenses (such as maintenance, mortgages, the costs of renting and advertising) as business deductions if you met certain tests. If those deductions are available for timeshare rentals, I would think a true commercial renter would want to take those deductions to reduce their taxes.

I don't know if those rules apply to timeshares [AND DO NOT TAKE THIS AS TAX ADVICE ] but that would be one way to prove that someone considered themselves engaged in commercial activity.

This is just my opinion but I don't think DVC cares about any of that. Those are IRS issues you speak of.

You are correct that ALL rentals should be declared and I'm sure Greenban and others are well aware of that.

 

[RobDoc]

Tony will need to respond because only he knows what he has in writing and what assurances he received verbally.

Based on his comments above, it sounds as though he has written confirmation that renting is allowed.

I too spoke with Disney Legal, back when I first purchased the DVC and was told renting was fine. Since I had planned to retire there, I had my lawyer draft an intogratory (SP?) and he received a written response.

If that is the extent of the content of the written letter, it would not seem to address his present personal situation, so I'll defer to his understanding of what his status may be regarding his rental activity. From the implied tone of his prior comments, it would seem he is not under close scrutiny at this time.

I'm sure he'll make additional comment.

 

[jctwizzer]

Well, this sure has kept a lot of people busy; and as usual there's a wide variety of opinions. And at this point, that's all there is--opinions. None of this discussion has any degree factuality...if that's a word---for one reason.
DVC owns the football; and makes the rules; and can interpret or change them to fit a current situation. IMHO that's why they keep things vague. What you talked about to them in the past or got in a letter, may have been valid then, but if circumstances dictate that DVC adopt a different policy--on any subject--to fit their current situation, it will be done. I think they've demonstrated that in the past. Moreover, having seen references to possible litigation on these matter, I get somewhat amused because in most cases the dollar amounts involved don't warrent spending the money for a decent lawyer (a possible misnomer) ---unless you're really anal about the situation. Again, IMHO, DVC is being deliberately vague to give them some flexibility. You could rent twenty times with no bad tenants. Or you could rent twice to people who vandalize the property. As things now stand, they could use the vague language to stop either party. If as suggested, a situation ends up in litigation, then the same rules that apply to an abundance of things in todays society will apply---nobody really knows what the rules say until a court tells them; and having seen courts rule against what appears to be logic and/or plain language, it's impossible to guess how things will turn out. After all that, we get to the gist---the entire discussion in this thread don't mean doodly squat!! JMHO, again!

 

[RobDoc]

... Moreover, having seen references to possible litigation on these matter, I get somewhat amused because in most cases the dollar amounts involved don't warrent spending the money for a decent lawyer (a possible misnomer) ---unless you're really anal about the situation. ...

So, if you received a letter from DVC legal and later found that your reservations had been cancelled or that MS would not allow you to make a reservation, you would be hesitant to contact a "decent lawyer" ?

 

[Doctor P]

So, if you received a letter from DVC legal and later found that your reservations had been cancelled or that MS would not allow you to make a reservation, you would be hesitant to contact a "decent lawyer" ?

I'm with jctwizzer on this for most people. The amount of money involved is not enough to vigorously fight for most people, which generally means throwing money away "to make a point." Litigation for most people is simply out of the question financially. The cost of one or two days litigation with a decent lawyer is enough to pay for a full DVC membership in most circumstances. Perhaps its sad, but it is also pretty true in most parts of the country.

 

[RobDoc]

I'm with jctwizzer on this for most people. The amount of money involved is not enough to vigorously fight for most people, which generally means throwing money away "to make a point." Litigation for most people is simply out of the question financially. The cost of one or two days litigation with a decent lawyer is enough to pay for a full DVC membership in most circumstances. Perhaps its sad, but it is also pretty true in most parts of the country.

I'll repeat the question. If you were not allowed to use your membership (cancelled reservations or being told by MS you could not make a reservation) you wouldn't contact legal assistance????

If I received a simple letter, I would merely call DVC myself to see what it meant - without legal counsel - but if I found that my ability to use my ownership was jeopardized, I would have an attorney in a heartbeat. I consider the cost of ownership more than enough to justify a vigorous fight for ANY member injustly denied the ability to use that membership. As I have already stated, few members will be placed into this situation. To my knowledge, I have done nothing to warrant even receiving the intial letter, but I would certainly "vigorously fight" any action against my membership since I know I have done nothing to violate any rules. If you know you have violated rules, then it's a personal decision as to the value of your ownership. I would agree that if a member knows they are using DVC as a commercial enterprise, it would be wise to do the math before inviting the expense of litigatrion - but for members who don't fall into that category, the vigorous fight would be well worthwhile ( and most likely would never reach the point of litigation anyway).

 

[dumbo71]

I'll repeat the question. If you were not allowed to use your membership (cancelled reservations or being told by MS you could not make a reservation) you wouldn't contact legal assistance????

If I received a simple letter, I would merely call DVC to see what it meant - without legal counsel - but if I found that my ability to use my ownership was jeopardized, I would have an attorney in a heartbeat. I consider the cost of ownership more than enough to justify a vigorous fight for ALL members if they were denied the ability to use that membership.

I'm with Doc. If my membrship was suspended or frozen I'd have to get an attorney involved. If I didn't feel that membership was worth fighting for I'd sell and get out now.

 

[Doctor P]

I'm with Doc. If my membrship was suspended or frozen I'd have to get an attorney involved. If I didn't feel that membership was worth fighting for I'd sell and get out now.

I think some things are getting twisted here. jctwizzer's comment was about LITIGATION. There is a big difference between contacting a lawyer and engaging in litigation. I certainly would find out what my rights are and options are, and perhaps have the lawyer send a letter, but a vigorous litigation is another story.