DVC plans to target commercial renters

[Sandisw]

This prevents managing entities from modifying the terms of the POS/contract to limit rentals without the consent of the timeshare owners.

It’s my understanding that the original POSs included a clause to prevent commercial renting, and that Disney gets to define within reason what constitutes a pattern of commercial renting. In other words, the clause limiting commercial renting predates this statute and so does not apply to DVC.

DVC always was intended for personal use, although Disney has acknowledged that some renting is acceptable.

This thread is as long as it is because of disagreements of what constitutes a pattern of commercial renting.

To clarify…since I got asked to use correct terms….there is no such language as “commercial renting” in the contract.
DVC only uses the word renting…and it’s allowed expect for a commercial purpose.

The term “commercial purpose” is well defined already in the contract and can not be changed by DVC.

And of course, the definition is a pattern of rental activity that the board identifies in their reasonable discretion has become a commercial enterprise or practice…

When that last part about relationships to being a commercial enterprise/practice is left out, I think it gives an incomplete picture of what is prohibited and what is not.

Now, what DVC has discretion to do is define what patterns shift someone’s actions to being considers a commercial enterprise and practice, but they are no longer….probably never were…allowed to change that definition of commercial purpose to mean something else.

The statue above would still apply to all rentals that a DVC owner makes that don’t rise to the commercial purpose level.

That is why setting rules like renting only 7 months out , or only certain rooms, etc. would be problematic because it is hard to equate them as something only happens when one is running a commercial enterprise/practice.

From my understanding this statue is, in part, is what prevents DVC from further limiting rentals limit outside the current commercial purpose clause.

As you said, this is why this debate continues because if one believes DVC can set rules simply because renting is inherently commercial, then nothing seems as if it would be out of bounds in an attempt to deal with owners concerns.

 

[Cyberc1978]

To clarify…since I got asked to use correct terms….there is no such language as “commercial renting” in the contract.
DVC only uses the word renting…and it’s allowed expect for a commercial purpose.

The term “commercial purpose” is well defined already in the contract and can not be changed by DVC.

And of course, the definition is a pattern of rental activity that the board identifies in their reasonable discretion has become a commercial enterprise or practice…

When that last part about relationships to being a commercial enterprise/practice is left out, I think it gives an incomplete picture of what is prohibited and what is not.

Now, what DVC has discretion to do is define what patterns shift someone’s actions to being considers a commercial enterprise and practice, but they are no longer….probably never were…allowed to change that definition of commercial purpose to mean something else.

The statue above would still apply to all rentals that a DVC owner makes that don’t rise to the commercial purpose level.

That is why setting rules like renting only 7 months out , or only certain rooms, etc. would be problematic because it is hard to equate them as something only happens when one is running a commercial enterprise/practice.

From my understanding this statue is, in part, is what prevents DVC from further limiting rentals limit outside the current commercial purpose clause.

As you said, this is why this debate continues because if one believes DVC can set rules simply because renting is inherently commercial, then nothing seems as if it would be out of bounds in an attempt to deal with owners concerns.

Assuming DVC can’t limit rentals, but they can decide or define what commercial purposes are.

When DVC at their sole discretion decides what commercial purposes are, wouldn’t that be considered limiting IF what was allowed yesterday is no longer allowed?

By allowed I mean that it’s the duty of DVC to enforce the rules and by doing nothing they are condoning what’s been done. If all of a sudden you can’t do what you always been doing that’s a limitation or restriction.

 

[Tatebeck]

Assuming DVC can’t limit rentals, but they can decide or define what commercial purposes are.

When DVC at their sole discretion decides what commercial purposes are, wouldn’t that be considered limiting IF what was allowed yesterday is no longer allowed?

By allowed I mean that it’s the duty of DVC to enforce the rules and by doing nothing they are condoning what’s been done. If all of a sudden you can’t do what you always been doing that’s a limitation or restriction.

It seems they are allowed to enforce/not enforce rules as they see fit, as long as they feel it is in the best interest of the membership as a whole

"DVC Operator shall have the right to temporarily modify, adjust, or amend these Rules and Regulations, or suspend enforcement of, or make exceptions to enforcement of or adherence to, these Rules and Regulations, as DVC Operator determines necessary in its discretion, for life, health, property protection, safety, demand balancing, or reservation system operational effectiveness or efficiency purposes, as DVC Operator determines in its discretion, as a result of an emergency situation, including acts of terrorism, pandemics or epidemics, or act of God, or other such circumstances that DVC Operator determines, in its discretion, require such modification, adjustment, amendment, suspension, or exception and for such duration as DVC Operator determines is necessary, in its discretion; provided, however, that such modification, adjustment, amendment, suspension, or exception is in the best interests of the Members as a whole, as determined by DVC Operator in its discretion."

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Right, and it is very difficult for any owner to ever make a true “profit” after all of their costs and taxes.

Not trying to argue this point any further but for those who (unwisely) take tax advice from internet strangers like myself, please note that federal and state governments consider profit to be pre-tax numbers.
I have also seen many posts throw out suggestions about what you can use to offset profit for a particular rental that would subject you to willful tax evasion penalties (e.g. saying your total cost of 2000 points is way more than your income from renting 200 points in one year)— this isn’t directed at @AstroBlasters but for those of you who are renting points (or considering it), definitely check with a CPA about what can and cannot be written off against the income.

If DVC buys back owners point to rent, it doesn’t change the rental market at all because renters would still be filling the DVC rooms.

I know that other timeshares may do it, but those have a lot more hotels in a lot more locations to absorb the use owners points.

I am not sure that it would work at WDW given its potential impact on the hotel division, not to mention it would eat into DVC own profits from renting their own points and extra they get from breakage.

I’m not sure how it impacts breakage profits, but Disney would be in a better position if they could buy points at $12-15 (a lot of what brokers are giving these days is $16 or less!) and sell it as OTUP for $20-25 (could probably get $25 at a few places if they started selling OTUP to owners before the 7m mark)…but also for owners, I think we’d be better off if Disney wasn’t targeting the same rooms, but potentially worse off if they are using the points to lock up holiday periods, etc. I’m honestly not sure how or when Disney can book with its own points.

I would assume Disney would be able to rent out those rooms at much more than the dues cost, just like a renter does so some of the other losses could be offset. Clearly one would have to go through the numbers to see if it was a net positive for Disney or not.

If they can take a cut of all rentals, I think they would be better off than the status quo, and it appears they can’t stop a large chunk of rentals under the PoS, unless the renter has a pattern of activity that shows commercial purpose.

When that last part about relationships to being a commercial enterprise/practice is left out, I think it gives an incomplete picture of what is prohibited and what is not.

I think the reason why many who are lawyers on this thread gloss over it is that the language of commercial practice/commercial enterprise” itself doesn’t mean much more than “renting with the goal to make profit”— though I do think pattern of activity is probably significant and I think at least 99% of the people on this thread don’t think they will go after people who only very occasionally rent, even if picking rooms to maximize profit.

Now, what DVC has discretion to do is define what patterns shift someone’s actions to being considers a commercial enterprise and practice, but they are no longer….probably never were…allowed to change that definition of commercial purpose to mean something else.

I think that is the crux of it— many of us don’t think (under a plain reading of PoS and FL statutes) that they need to change anything to crack down on people who routinely rent a material chunk of their points.

That is why setting rules like renting only 7 months out , or only certain rooms, etc. would be problematic because it is hard to equate them as something only happens when one is running a commercial enterprise/practice.

From my understanding this statue is, in part, is what prevents DVC from further limiting rentals limit outside the current commercial purpose clause.

I don’t understand why that specific language would stop Disney from taking actions to give rentals lower priority (or just change the system to stop spec renting).

As you said, this is why this debate continues because if one believes DVC can set rules simply because renting is inherently commercial, then nothing seems as if it would be out of bounds in an attempt to deal with owners concerns.

I’m not completely clear on what Disney can’t and can’t do to limit commercial activity, but it seems that, after stopping outright commercial enterprises, changing general rules to discourage spec renting (post booking name changes outside of a list of friends and family) would help a lot with curbing commercial practices (which are forbidden) without causing significant inconvenience to the membership at large. Like others, I often book a room for myself and add my family later— but they would all be on my F&F list so it wouldn’t be an issue.

 

[Cyberc1978]

It seems they are allowed to enforce/not enforce rules as they see fit, as long as they feel it is in the best interest of the membership as a whole

"DVC Operator shall have the right to temporarily modify, adjust, or amend these Rules and Regulations, or suspend enforcement of, or make exceptions to enforcement of or adherence to, these Rules and Regulations, as DVC Operator determines necessary in its discretion, for life, health, property protection, safety, demand balancing, or reservation system operational effectiveness or efficiency purposes, as DVC Operator determines in its discretion, as a result of an emergency situation, including acts of terrorism, pandemics or epidemics, or act of God, or other such circumstances that DVC Operator determines, in its discretion, require such modification, adjustment, amendment, suspension, or exception and for such duration as DVC Operator determines is necessary, in its discretion; provided, however, that such modification, adjustment, amendment, suspension, or exception is in the best interests of the Members as a whole, as determined by DVC Operator in its discretion."

Regardless of what the rules states, as they are fluffy and not precise in their definition and of course assuming that the statuette applies they can’t decide today what commercial purpose is and tomorrow have another take on it.

Otherwise what’s the point of the rules. They might just have written the POS short and crisp : DVC shall decides all and everything in all regards

 

[Sandisw]

It seems they are allowed to enforce/not enforce rules as they see fit, as long as they feel it is in the best interest of the membership as a whole

"DVC Operator shall have the right to temporarily modify, adjust, or amend these Rules and Regulations, or suspend enforcement of, or make exceptions to enforcement of or adherence to, these Rules and Regulations, as DVC Operator determines necessary in its discretion, for life, health, property protection, safety, demand balancing, or reservation system operational effectiveness or efficiency purposes, as DVC Operator determines in its discretion, as a result of an emergency situation, including acts of terrorism, pandemics or epidemics, or act of God, or other such circumstances that DVC Operator determines, in its discretion, require such modification, adjustment, amendment, suspension, or exception and for such duration as DVC Operator determines is necessary, in its discretion; provided, however, that such modification, adjustment, amendment, suspension, or exception is in the best interests of the Members as a whole, as determined by DVC Operator in its discretion."

I believe what this is referring to are the home resort and regulations that cover the booking and use product.

The part of the declarations that related to renting is not the same.

So, they have the discretion to amend those…like when they temporarily made borrowing 50% after Covid.

Or, when they changed to booking from check in vs check out.

DVC does not have the authority to make material changes to the contract unilaterally.

The definiton for commercial purpose is well defined in the contract. So we know what DVC must include as part of that definition.

But, what DVC has the ability to do is use discretion to identify what pattern of rental activity triggers the violation.

So, in that sense they have leeway….which is why they don’t hafe to stick with the 2008 20 reservations threshold trigger. That is what can be changed as they see fit.

 

[Sandisw]

Assuming DVC can’t limit rentals, but they can decide or define what commercial purposes are.

When DVC at their sole discretion decides what commercial purposes are, wouldn’t that be considered limiting IF what was allowed yesterday is no longer allowed?

By allowed I mean that it’s the duty of DVC to enforce the rules and by doing nothing they are condoning what’s been done. If all of a sudden you can’t do what you always been doing that’s a limitation or restriction.

No because the rules were written in such a way that DVC had always had the discretion to change the way they apply “pattern of rental activy” to identify a commercial enterprise/practice.

Now, if they tried to redefine the definition of commercial purpose? Then that would not be allowed…hence why I said that I believe the new statue fits.

Basically, I don’t believe they can’t take out that a pattern of rental activity is a requirement in determining it since the contract date is includes that.

They just get to be the ones who decide what a pattern of rental activity actually looks like is and for pre RiV owners, that needs to be reasonable.

That’s why I have said thst I do not believe they could say that anyone who rents more than 7 months in advance can be reasonably accused of using their membership as a commercial enterprise.

So, right now, they are expected to set reasonable thresholds for what shifts a membership to one that has evidence of being a commercial enterprise/practice.

 

[Tatebeck]

I believe what this is referring to are the home resort and regulations that cover the booking and use product.

The part of the declarations that related to renting is not the same.

So, they have the discretion to amend those…like when they temporarily made borrowing 50% after Covid.

Or, when they changed to booking from check in vs check out.

DVC does not have the authority to make material changes to the contract unilaterally.

The definiton for commercial purpose is well defined in the contract. So we know what DVC must include as part of that definition.

But, what DVC has the ability to do is use discretion to identify what pattern of rental activity triggers the violation.

So, in that sense they have leeway….which is why they don’t hafe to stick with the 2008 20 reservations threshold trigger. That is what can be changed as they see fit.

Ah, sorry, wrong set of documents for rental rules, but it still stands that they can choose to enforce or not. If you look at the other documents, it almost always says that they "may "enforce. But not that they have to. Here is a snippet from VGF POS specifically.

"COMPLIANCE AND DEFAULT

15.1 Compliance and Default. Each Owner is governed by and must comply with the terms of theCondominium Documents, as they may be amended from time to time. Failure of an Owner to comply with theprovisions of the Condominium Documents entitles the Association or other Owners to pursue any and all legal andequitable remedies for the enforcement of such provisions, including an action for damages, an action for injunctiverelief, an action for declardtory judgment, or, with respect to Units committed to the Vacation Ownership Plan,suspension of the right of an Owner to access lhe benefits of the use of such Owner's Ownership Interest ascontemplated under this Declaration, the Membership Agreement and the DVC Resort Agreement. All provisions ofthe Condominium Documents are enforceable equitable servitudes and run with the land and are effective until theCondominium is terminated.

15.2 Costs and Fees. ln any proceeding arising because of an alleged failure of an Owner or theAssociation to comply with the terms of the Condominium Documents, as they may be amended from time to time,the prevailing party is entitled to recover the costs of the proceeding, and recover such reasonable fees for attomeys,paralegals, legal assistants and other professionals as may be awarded by the Court, including all appeals and allproceedings in bankruptcy and probate.

15.3 No Waiver of Riqhts. The failure of DVD, the Association or any Owner to enforce any covenant, restriction or other provision of the Condominium Documents does not constitute a waiver of the right to do so in the future"

So they have the ability to enforce when they want to, but they don't have to every time

 

[Sandisw]

Not trying to argue this point any further but for those who (unwisely) take tax advice from internet strangers like myself, please note that federal and state governments consider profit to be pre-tax numbers.
I have also seen many posts throw out suggestions about what you can use to offset profit for a particular rental that would subject you to willful tax evasion penalties (e.g. saying your total cost of 2000 points is way more than your income from renting 200 points in one year)— this isn’t directed at @AstroBlasters but for those of you who are renting points (or considering it), definitely check with a CPA about what can and cannot be written off against the income.

I’m not sure how it impacts breakage profits, but Disney would be in a better position if they could buy points at $12-15 (a lot of what brokers are giving these days is $16 or less!) and sell it as OTUP for $20-25 (could probably get $25 at a few places if they started selling OTUP to owners before the 7m mark)…but also for owners, I think we’d be better off if Disney wasn’t targeting the same rooms, but potentially worse off if they are using the points to lock up holiday periods, etc. I’m honestly not sure how or when Disney can book with its own points.

If they can take a cut of all rentals, I think they would be better off than the status quo, and it appears they can’t stop a large chunk of rentals under the PoS, unless the renter has a pattern of activity that shows commercial purpose.

I think the reason why many who are lawyers on this thread gloss over it is that the language of commercial practice/commercial enterprise” itself doesn’t mean much more than “renting with the goal to make profit”— though I do think pattern of activity is probably significant and I think at least 99% of the people on this thread don’t think they will go after people who only very occasionally rent, even if picking rooms to maximize profit.

I think that is the crux of it— many of us don’t think (under a plain reading of PoS and FL statutes) that they need to change anything to crack down on people who routinely rent a material chunk of their points.

I don’t understand why that specific language would stop Disney from taking actions to give rentals lower priority (or just change the system to stop spec renting).

I’m not completely clear on what Disney can’t and can’t do to limit commercial activity, but it seems that, after stopping outright commercial enterprises, changing general rules to discourage spec renting (post booking name changes outside of a list of friends and family) would help a lot with curbing commercial practices (which are forbidden) without causing significant inconvenience to the membership at large. Like others, I often book a room for myself and add my family later— but they would all be on my F&F list so it wouldn’t be an issue.

Commercial enterprise is a for profit business so it’s not just renting for profit. One of the definitions of a commercial practice is the use of advertising and such in a way that promotes a business…which I think is an important element of what DVDs intent was when limiting the owner’s right to rent.

It was to stop owners from Turing this into a business or owners setting up a business in the DVC room when they occupied it.

And for the average owner who is reading the contract, that is a pretty easy interpretation to have.

In terms of priorities for owners vs guest or renters? The contract does not differentiate them when defining personal use. So, IMO, that prevents DVC from putting limits on me as an owner in terms of who occupies a reservation that I booked.

I also believe that the FCFS clause also supports thst being a violation of the contract and IIRC @drusba has also mentioned this…seeing her legal background, I have confidence in her analysis.

If one can point to the contract to show something that cgives DVC the right to give an owner priority for a booking when they are a guest over an owner who books for a renter, I’d love to be directed to it.

When I read my contract and read the declarations the definitions listed, and what limitations exist for renting, the language seems to support to me that DVC must create a threshold that matches a pattern of rental activity threshold thst moves it into a commercial enterprise.

If someone believes that including the terms “commercial enterprise” is not important, they are free to believe it.

But, DVD included it…they didn’t have to word it that way…and for me, as an owner, I think those words are critical and material to the POS and therefore, expect DVD to act accordingly.

Take the new 2021 statue posted above that discusses putting in new rules related to owners for renting,

IMO, this would be another reason why DVC would not be able to suddenly put in a new rule that prevents spec renting when one has never existed without a vote of owners

And why an owner would have the right to ignore it even if others owners agree.

I understand people want the rental market controlled some and see things like spec rentals as an issue because they feel owners should take priority over guests and renters.

I simply do not believe the POS was written to distinguish between them and therefore, think any attempt to do such would be DVC violating the terms of the contract…which is also why I feel pretty confident they never will.

 

[Sandisw]

Ah, sorry, wrong set of documents for rental rules, but it still stands that they can choose to enforce or not. If you look at the other documents, it almost always says that they "may "enforce. But not that they have to. Here is a snippet from VGF POS specifically.

"COMPLIANCE AND DEFAULT

15.1 Compliance and Default. Each Owner is governed by and must comply with the terms of theCondominium Documents, as they may be amended from time to time. Failure of an Owner to comply with theprovisions of the Condominium Documents entitles the Association or other Owners to pursue any and all legal andequitable remedies for the enforcement of such provisions, including an action for damages, an action for injunctiverelief, an action for declardtory judgment, or, with respect to Units committed to the Vacation Ownership Plan,suspension of the right of an Owner to access lhe benefits of the use of such Owner's Ownership Interest ascontemplated under this Declaration, the Membership Agreement and the DVC Resort Agreement. All provisions ofthe Condominium Documents are enforceable equitable servitudes and run with the land and are effective until theCondominium is terminated.

15.2 Costs and Fees. ln any proceeding arising because of an alleged failure of an Owner or theAssociation to comply with the terms of the Condominium Documents, as they may be amended from time to time,the prevailing party is entitled to recover the costs of the proceeding, and recover such reasonable fees for attomeys,paralegals, legal assistants and other professionals as may be awarded by the Court, including all appeals and allproceedings in bankruptcy and probate.

15.3 No Waiver of Riqhts. The failure of DVD, the Association or any Owner to enforce any covenant, restriction or other provision of the Condominium Documents does not constitute a waiver of the right to do so in the future"

So they have the ability to enforce when they want to, but they don't have to every time

They absolutely can choose to enforce or not enforce the terms of the contract.
For example, they don’t have to enforce the LLC clause or the commercial purposes clause at al

Maybe that is why they have the don’t ask, don’t tell policy when they allow owners to transfer points for money, which they know is happening.

But that doesn’t mean they get to change the rules. I see nothing that gives them the ability to give owners priority for booking rooms when they are occupant but not when they book for a stranger.

That’s why I have said there is a lot already there that DVC can do to make sure that the commercial purpose clause of the contract, as it is defined, is enforced and by doing that, those who have been allowed to run commercial enterprises from their DVC membership will be stopped.

One thing I didn’t realize…and I have read this before…is that it does give other owners the ability to push DVC to enforce the rules…not an easy task and probably a very uphill battle but I didn’t even process that was there

It’s good though because if they try to make rules that don’t fit the commercial purposes clause based on how it is written it is a battle I am willing to at start to fight…even if I never make it past a few feet!! Hahaha

The good thing is that I really do believe that DVC never does anything that they don’t believe they have the ability to find a plausible way to use the contract language in their favor.

So I am not anticipating any crazy changes to how things proceed in the future.

 

[AstroBlasters]

Not trying to argue this point any further but for those who (unwisely) take tax advice from internet strangers like myself, please note that federal and state governments consider profit to be pre-tax numbers.
I have also seen many posts throw out suggestions about what you can use to offset profit for a particular rental that would subject you to willful tax evasion penalties (e.g. saying your total cost of 2000 points is way more than your income from renting 200 points in one year)— this isn’t directed at @AstroBlasters but for those of you who are renting points (or considering it), definitely check with a CPA about what can and cannot be written off against the income.

I’m not sure how it impacts breakage profits, but Disney would be in a better position if they could buy points at $12-15 (a lot of what brokers are giving these days is $16 or less!) and sell it as OTUP for $20-25 (could probably get $25 at a few places if they started selling OTUP to owners before the 7m mark)…but also for owners, I think we’d be better off if Disney wasn’t targeting the same rooms, but potentially worse off if they are using the points to lock up holiday periods, etc. I’m honestly not sure how or when Disney can book with its own points.

If they can take a cut of all rentals, I think they would be better off than the status quo, and it appears they can’t stop a large chunk of rentals under the PoS, unless the renter has a pattern of activity that shows commercial purpose.

I think the reason why many who are lawyers on this thread gloss over it is that the language of commercial practice/commercial enterprise” itself doesn’t mean much more than “renting with the goal to make profit”— though I do think pattern of activity is probably significant and I think at least 99% of the people on this thread don’t think they will go after people who only very occasionally rent, even if picking rooms to maximize profit.

I think that is the crux of it— many of us don’t think (under a plain reading of PoS and FL statutes) that they need to change anything to crack down on people who routinely rent a material chunk of their points.

I don’t understand why that specific language would stop Disney from taking actions to give rentals lower priority (or just change the system to stop spec renting).

I’m not completely clear on what Disney can’t and can’t do to limit commercial activity, but it seems that, after stopping outright commercial enterprises, changing general rules to discourage spec renting (post booking name changes outside of a list of friends and family) would help a lot with curbing commercial practices (which are forbidden) without causing significant inconvenience to the membership at large. Like others, I often book a room for myself and add my family later— but they would all be on my F&F list so it wouldn’t be an issue.

I was speaking from a “shareholder” perspective and not an IRS perspective.

 

[Sykes]

No because the rules were written in such a way that DVC had always had the discretion to change the way they apply “pattern of rental activy” to identify a commercial enterprise/practice.

Now, if they tried to redefine the definition of commercial purpose? Then that would not be allowed…hence why I said that I believe the new statue fits.

Disney never defined commercial purpose in the contract. The "commercial purpose" clause was illustrative, not exhaustive--that is, it provides an example of what might be considered commercial activity, not an exhaustive definition of commercial activity, and then it very plainly gives Disney complete discretion to determine what is considered commercial activity. And even that clause is subordinate to the section that wholly restricts usage to "Personal Use" only, so it is solely illustrating an example of what would run afoul of the personal use restriction.

Disney has a LOT of flexibility to make changes within both the terms and the spirit of the contract.

 

[Genie+]

By allowed I mean that it’s the duty of DVC to enforce the rules and by doing nothing they are condoning what’s been done. If all of a sudden you can’t do what you always been doing that’s a limitation or restriction.

I wondered about this aspect as well. Over the years owners have mentioned they bought after seeing it going on, and it was part of their purchase decision. Seems reasonable, though every road leads back to the existing contract language.

Why would they allow something for so long if it was improper, when it is their job to manage and enforce the contract? Then thought about it from DVC’s angle. Could they just say they didn’t need to act unless/until it became an issue? ie- they didn’t enforce prior because it had little negative impact and not worth the resources or risking a cure worse than disease.

It’s pretty easy to explain how the internet advancing enabled huge increases in commercial renting to where it’s now negatively impacting the membership enough to warrant tighter enforcement. Where DVC thinks there might be legal pushback I’d expect them to be prepared with data to back their decision.

 

[Hubalorian]

Couldn’t a mandatory rental agreement be required to be given to Disney along with a parking/resort fee just for guests through a rental? Anyone in violation of this rule could have their membership temporarily suspended?

I suggest the resort/parking fee is so that it does not look as appealing to rent points knowing you would be responsible for those fees?

 

[Willow Ufgood]

Couldn’t a mandatory rental agreement be required to be given to Disney along with a parking/resort fee just for guests through a rental? Anyone in violation of this rule could have their membership temporarily suspended?

I suggest the resort/parking fee is so that it does not look as appealing to rent points knowing you would be responsible for those fees?

A rental agreement? Yes.

A parking/resort fee? No. Our dues pay for maintaining the parking lots and resort facilities already. It would be double dipping on DVC's part to institute either one of those.

 

[Sandisw]

Disney never defined commercial purpose in the contract. The "commercial purpose" clause was illustrative, not exhaustive--that is, it provides an example of what might be considered commercial activity, not an exhaustive definition of commercial activity, and then it very plainly gives Disney complete discretion to determine what is considered commercial activity. And even that clause is subordinate to the section that wholly restricts usage to "Personal Use" only, so it is solely illustrating an example of what would run afoul of the personal use restriction.

Disney has a LOT of flexibility to make changes within both the terms and the spirit of the contract.

The term commercial purpose is definitely defined. It’s been posted already by a few of us. I’ll post again at the bottom.

It states that commercial purpose “includes a pattern of rental activity or occupancy by an Owner that the board, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice”.

What is not defined and is up to DVC is what constitutes a “pattern of rental activity” that they use to conclude it constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice.

The contract gives them the authority to define that and change that if they want

At one time, that pattern was the 20 reservations threshold rule. It’s that level of definition that DVC gets to decide.

But the contract specifically uses that it includes the pattern of activity and IMO, what ever they decide must include that as part of the criteria…

And, personal use is not defined as the contract as use by the owners. It is the use of the vacation home for vacation…who’s is what personal means in this context.

It is why you see under the personal use clause them refer to it as “recreational use” when discussing LLC, corporations and stuff because a coporarion is no a person so whomever they let use the vacation home has to be there for recreational reasons…aka vacation.

They do not differentiate anywhere that personal use is different for owners, leaders, exhangees and invitiees..and it’s why all those groups of guests are listed in the “personal use” clause.

And if you read the DVC Membership Agreement it says owners can make reservations for themselves, guests and renters, with no mention that rules can be written to give owners a priority.

So, while DVC has a lot of latitude in what they can do for home resort rules and regulations and in enforcing the commercial purpose clause, they do not have the authority to make up new clauses that go against the POS, especially when talking a material change.

As I have mentioned, they can certainly say that things other than a pattern of rental activity must be included, but I do not believe, based on others legal analysis over the years, they can remove that as a qualifier to determine one’s actions constitute a commercial enterprise and practice.

That is the other part that can’t be ignored by DVC. They can’t all of a sudden limit rentals that are clearly not a commercial enterprise or practice using an unreasonable threshold for those owners pre RIV.

 

[Hubalorian]

A rental agreement? Yes.

A parking/resort fee? No. Our dues pay for maintaining the parking lots and resort facilities already. It would be double dipping on DVC's part to institute either one of those.

I am pretty sure they did exactly that in the Chapek era? DVC got free parking, unless it was a rental then you had to pay like everyone else who were not DVC members (back when parking wasn’t free)

 

[Willow Ufgood]

I am pretty sure they did exactly that in the Chapek era? DVC got free parking, unless it was a rental then you had to pay like everyone else who were not DVC members (back when parking wasn’t free)

No. Renters got free overnight parking as well.

 

[Sandisw]

Couldn’t a mandatory rental agreement be required to be given to Disney along with a parking/resort fee just for guests through a rental? Anyone in violation of this rule could have their membership temporarily suspended?

I suggest the resort/parking fee is so that it does not look as appealing to rent points knowing you would be responsible for those fees?

The contract requires a rental agreement so I do not think anything restricts them from requiring owners to submit it since they are required to have one.

But the contract also gives the owners the right to set their own terms and conditions for the rental.

So, I do not think the owner can be forced to charge a parking fee as I would see that as DVC dictating one rule of a rental and that clause says they can’t.

 

[Sandisw]

I am pretty sure they did exactly that in the Chapek era? DVC got free parking, unless it was a rental then you had to pay like everyone else who were not DVC members (back when parking wasn’t free)

Anyone in a DVC rental by an owner got free parking because owners pay for parking upkeep as part of dues.

Guests who rented a DVC room directly through Disney were charged parking fee because they were the ones renting it and they were allowed to do that.

So, nothing would prevent an owner from charging it…they could…but they can’t be forced to charge it…unless DVC removed it from the operating budget and then it would apply to all, not just renters.