DVC plans to target commercial renters

[lowlight]

It is not irrelevant to the overall membership and timeshare operations. If the vast majority of owners had 100 to 125 points, there is no way there would be enough studios to go around, and larger units would sit empty on a continuous bases.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? Disney wanted profit, so they lowered the buy in to increase market share. It makes them doubly on the hook for fixing an issue they created and then exacerbated.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Florida Statute 721 Part 1 covers timeshares.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter721/All

I could not find anything within the statute granting an owner an explicit right to rent their timeshares. I did find Internet references elsewhere suggesting that you need to check your timeshare bylaws.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Florida Statute 721.13(12)(a) appears to grant Disney significant power to determine how DVC is used "in the best interests of the owners as a whole".

I suggest reading the statute to see if you can find something.

It was somewhat rhetorical. I've read 721 several times and have never seen any language that implicitly guarantees the right to rent out your timeshare. Plenty of language guaranteeing USE of the timeshare, but nothing about any legal right to RENT it out.

People just keep posting that it's "in there"...

 

[lowlight]

It was somewhat rhetorical. I've read 721 several times and have never seen any language that implicitly guarantees the right to rent out your timeshare. Plenty of language guaranteeing USE of the timeshare, but nothing about any legal right to RENT it out.

People just keep posting that it's "in there"...

It’s been repeated so many times I actually just assumed it was fact.

 

[zavandor]

It was somewhat rhetorical. I've read 721 several times and have never seen any language that implicitly guarantees the right to rent out your timeshare. Plenty of language guaranteeing USE of the timeshare, but nothing about any legal right to RENT it out.

People just keep posting that it's "in there"...

It is entirely possible this is DISknowledge, like the fact that on average a DVC member sells after 10 years (not true). It's been repeated often enough that everyone believes it, thanks for raising the issue if this is really true or not.
Following

 

[TCRAIG]

And then we come back to the problem of defining "commercial renting," is it one owner renting out their points and making reservations upon request of a renter? Is it spec renting, is it both,? To me, reserving 11 months out for a spec rental is an issue, and that could be fixed by not allowing any reservation booked during the 11 month window to change names. Members could reserve rooms for themselves, or for friends and family up to the number of points they have during the eleven month window, even walking those reservations if they feel the need to do so, but if for some reason they need to change the names at a later date, it would need to be that the original reservation would need to be canceled and a new reservation made based upon availability, or the name changed after the 7 month period based upon if there is still availability for that room type. That would likely eliminate the problem of spec rentals being booked at 11 months. Or maybe only allowing a name change one month or less prior to check-in for reservations made during the 11 month window. That would allow owners who suddenly have a travel issue with a home resert reservation to maybe recover something.

As you know, here on the DIS we don't allow owners to offer existing reservations more than 30 days prior to the check-in date without paying a $125 rental plan for one reservation or $250 plan for a maximum of three existing reservations per year to discourage the practice of spec rentals. The vast majority of our rental board is point rentals based upon requests of renters and resort availability.

I would vote a great big NO WAY on this…if I make a reservation at 11 months and then can’t go for whatever reason - I should be able to gift or rent to someone else…

 

[DonMacGregor]

It’s been repeated so many times I actually just assumed it was fact.

It is entirely possible this is DISknowledge, like the fact that on average a DVC member sells after 10 years (not true). It's been repeated often enough that everyone believes it, thanks for raising the issue if this is really true or not.
Following

I tend to agree. For several weeks the original post and my quoting post have sat unanswered. As have numerous prior requests for a citation in prior threads. It's one of the first lines of defense raised by advocates of renting, yet literally none of them respond when the general question is raised regarding WHERE in the Florida Statutes the explicit (or even implicit) right to rent out your timeshare is granted. You'd think it would be bookmarked by now.

I too have only ever found references in the Statutes that provide deference to the bylaws of the subject timeshare.

 

[zavandor]

I tend to agree. For several weeks the original post and my quoting post have sat unanswered. As have numerous prior requests for a citation in prior threads. It's one of the first lines of defense raised by advocates of renting, yet literally none of them respond when the general question is raised regarding WHERE in the Florida Statutes the explicit (or even implicit) right to rent out your timeshare is granted. You'd think it would be bookmarked by now.

But is it really needed at all, since the DVC POS guarantees it?

 

[DonMacGregor]

But is it really needed at all, since the DVC POS guarantees it?

Yes, because the argument is used to defend against any suggestions that DVC can limit renting "because even if DVC tries to limit renting, they can't because it's guaranteed under Florida timeshare law".

 

[zavandor]

Yes, because the argument is used to defend against suggestions that DVC can't limit renting "because it's guaranteed under Florida timeshare law".

Well, I think the fact that renting is guaranteed in the POS is enough, regardless of the existence of a Florida law.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Well, I think the fact that renting is guaranteed in the POS is enough, regardless of the existence of a Florida law.

The latest reference was by Chuck S. who said:

Yes, but remember, such changes (while not mentioned in the Disclosure) must be done with the approval/review/filing of said changes with the Florida commision that oversees timeshares, and Florida, by law, says we have the right to rent our points/reservations.

So the point is that if DVC decides to change their definition of renting, or even eliminate it entirely, then the ONLY thing guaranteeing the right to rent IS the POS, and not some never-cited language in Florida timeshare law. That's the whole point of my question.

 

[Nabas]

Well, I think the fact that renting is guaranteed in the POS is enough, regardless of the existence of a Florida law.

As I quoted earlier, commercial renting is expressly forbidden by the POS.

I also posted a legal definition of commercial activities and quoted Florida statute granting Disney broad power to determine how DVC points are used.

At recent condo association meetings, Disney said they are ok with occasional renting but again emphasized that commercial renting is disallowed.

IMO, Disney can do pretty much whatever they want as long as it’s “in the best interests of the owners as a whole“.

 

[zavandor]

As I quoted earlier, commercial renting is expressly forbidden by the POS.

I also posted a legal definition of commercial activities and quoted Florida statute granting Disney broad power to determine how DVC points are used.

At recent condo association meetings, Disney said they are ok with occasional renting but again emphasized that commercial renting is disallowed.

IMO, Disney can do pretty much whatever they want as long as it’s “in the best interests of the owners as a whole“.

The POS actually prohibits commercial enterprises. And a board member said they're fine with members renting occasionally.
If the topic of this conversation is if DVC is going to stop any form of rental then no, not happening.

 

[CarolMN]

And, FWIW, I understand why Mods and owners of the Dis would not want the boat rocked. That’s a pretty busy subforum…

PSA: All three of us DVC Mods are volunteers. We have no more "skin in this game" than any other DVC Member who posts here.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

Walking will not go away even if the large commercial players are exited. Demand outstrips supply by large margins. Think AKL value will suddenly become readily available? Those VGC studios at 7 months lasting more than a minute at 800AM? The membership is 250,000 strong. Walking won't change unless they change the rules to slow walking like hard breaks before demand times and/or lottery on specific days (which I can see returning)

That may be true. However, the way things are going, it seems like walking is becoming necessary for many reservations where it would normally not be needed. Getting rid of the commercial renters may not eliminate walking for AKL value, but the rooms being walked would likely be reduced greatly and only impact those few hard-to-get rooms or popular seasons instead of impacting everyone all the time.

 

[DonMacGregor]

If the topic of this conversation is if DVC is going to stop any form of rental then no, not happening.

It isn't, and literally no one (and I'd be more than happy to be shown otherwise) arguing for the policing of rentals in any of the previous 753 posts has suggested it. It is, however, a common strawman ("THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY ALL OF YOUR RENTAL RIGHTS!") raised by those vehemently opposed to ANY restrictions whatsoever on renting.

 

[bdrex28]

It isn't, and literally no one (and I'd be more than happy to be shown otherwise) arguing for the policing of rentals in any of the previous 753 posts has suggested it. It is, however, a common strawman ("THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY ALL OF YOUR RENTAL RIGHTS!") raised by those vehemently opposed to ANY restrictions whatsoever on renting.

This! 100% agree.

The "oh DVC is going to limit everything I do, etc. etc" complaining is so illogical. This applies to both walking and commercial renting. It would be so incredibly easy for DVC to limit walking in 95% of the true walking cases. So...So...So Easy.

Same with commercial, if they want to.

The only hard part on commercial is they have to define what commercial is. For example, let's say they use the 5 reservations per year transferred to 5 different names. Well, then what stops a commercial renter from splitting their contracts into multiple entities all staying at the 5 or less per year? I mean, it would be a pain in the butt, but create a rule and someone will find a way around it. The goal therefore would be for DVC to define commercial and try to limit say 75% of it. They wont get it all. But 75% would be good.

 

[xdan0920]

Something simplistic will also be needed by DVC if they want to curtail activity without significantly affecting sales and enthusiasm for the DVC product.

This is subjective though. IMO, a hardline against renting would increase enthusiasm for the product. I know, personally, I was way more enthused about DVC a decade ago.

 

[Brian Noble]

The only hard part on commercial is they have to define what commercial is

No, they don't. At least, they don't have to tell anyone what the definition is. None of the other timeshare developers have. And, in most cases, it appears to be the Justice Stewart standard: "I know it when I see it."

And, that's probably the right standard. In the vast majority of Wyndham cases, all of the people who got nastygrams (or worse) were fairly egregious: either using Wyndham copyright materials in their advertising, renting a crapton of rooms, etc. There are a few people whose "best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw someone" who was unjustly accused, but I don't know that I've ever seen a first hand report of that.

A few people claim to have only sent family members a few times, but when you push that turns out to only sort of kind of be true, and in fact there are, for example, "people from work" who've paid for a few stays, and so on.

I'm sure a small handful of folks did get swept up in the dragnet who maybe didn't 100% deserve it, but as far as I can tell, there just aren't that many of them.

 

[Genie+]

It was somewhat rhetorical. I've read 721 several times and have never seen any language that implicitly guarantees the right to rent out your timeshare. Plenty of language guaranteeing USE of the timeshare, but nothing about any legal right to RENT it out.

People just keep posting that it's "in there"...

There are only 43 instances of the word ‘rent’, and they all happen before 721.14

The first mention happens in 721.05, the last mention is in 721.13, and the all occur within Part 1

721.14 through 721.98 do not ever mention the word rent

There is no mention of the word rent in Part II, Part III or Part IV

Yeah, maybe there is somewhere else Florida Law covers the right to rent your timeshare? This is not it.

The only time profit is mentioned is as part of ‘non-profit’

‘Personal property timeshare plan’ is mentioned 39 times

I did not read the entire 60,000+ words though

 

[xdan0920]

Gee, I wonder if Shane rents a large percentage of their points every year. Hard to deduce…