Some seem to believe one rental by a member, or perhaps a few, could be found to be a violation of the terms of the POS's declarations. None of the POS's declarations limit the right to rent to one or only a few rentals. The pre-Riviera resorts' declarations expressly allow multiple rentals by a member, and the only restriction is that a member cannot engage in a pattern of rental activity from which the association can reasonably conclude shows the member is engaging in a commercial enterprise.
Those declarations were drafted by lawyers, and there are statutes that use the term commercial enterprise, and it has a generally recognized legal meaning: it refers to someone engaging in the "business'' of something. There are likely some members who do many rentals as a business, but the likely majority of rentals do not fit within the restriction in the declarations, e.g., doing some profitable rentals to offset dues, doing some rentals to use points you will not be able to use, doing rentals of confirmed reservations that you learn you cannot use, doing some rentals to friends or family, are not things that lead to the conclusion that one is in the business of doing rentals. In June 2008, DVC itself recognized the limitations to its power to restrict when it created a rule that said that any member doing more than 20 reservations in a year would be presummed to to be violating the rental restriction, but it was a presumption that the member could overcome.
In essence. doing one or some reservations for profit is not a violation of the terms of those POS's. The rules stated in the POS's have changed for the three newly created DVC resorts starting with Riviera, and with the most retractions in the CFW POS, but even those do not say or imply that a single or a few rentals in a year could be a violation. You cannot state a member has a right to rent and then say just doing a few rental violates the rules.
Moreover, particularly as to the pre-Riviera DVC Resorts (which includes the additions to VGF and Poly), DVC faces the problem that what is in the declarations is a "material" term, and the ability to do some rentals cannot be reduced by any new, more restrictive "rule" absent an amendment to the declarations, which is subject to the vote of all the members of a resort.