Third party commercial renters

[DonMacGregor]

But just remember, the entire discussion is pretty moot, as LLC are permitted to own points. And if DVC is saying that the 8,000 limit is a suffcicient deterrent (at least to DVC) for commercial renting, and they are no longer using the 20 reservation limit, then they are doing nothing wrong.

I mean, consider how many thousands of point DVC itself owns own, and rents out. In addition to the points used for trades to the Disney Collection and breakage points. It will be interesting to see what further responses Sandi gets.

LLC’s only matter in so far as they are a stupidly simple and cheap way for any entity (individual or business) to circumvent the point maximums per resort and overall. As I mentioned in the last incarnation of this thread, if I set up a trust or LLC to purchase and enjoy my contracts, that’s one thing. However, if I get up tomorrow morning and by noon have created a dozen new LLC’s with a total expenditure of around $600, I can then, all by my lonesome, go out and buy me a sweet, sweet, bundle of contracts adding up to just shy of 100,000 points (or however many I want in more practical numbers). They become a convenient tool for circumventing the rules. One man becomes a dozen (or two dozen) legal entities.

I get that under the contracts, I’m doing nothing wrong. My dear friend who has taught ethics at Notre Dame, Duke, and the Naval Academy, and is a nationally recognized ethicist might offer some differing thoughts.

 

[lowlight]

But just remember, the entire discussion is pretty moot, as LLC are permitted to own points.

It’s not moot to me. I don’t think you and Sandi are interpreting the contract correctly. Further, even if you are, I think a flame can be held to DVC’s feet to get them to change. Nobody is correct or wrong here because we are all a bunch of cavemen marveling at fire when it comes to legal speak. The courts ultimately decide who is wrong or right, for better or worse.

 

[muppets3d]

Also just to be clear - I totally believe that’s a possibility. I am just struggling with the economics of only having confirmed listings as a business model. I think if a business was going to operate with 5 figures worth of points that they would have to take on some of the custom listings as well in order to keep all those points profitable.

Im also totally in favor of limiting the number of contracts you can rent per year or other such measures discussed here (like making Aunt Edna part of your friends and family list). So I’m really not trying to excuse the commercial renting - just giving another perspective.

I never said they're only doing confirmed reservations...I don't know where you got that idea.

 

[Kailunkat]

I never said they're only doing confirmed reservations...I don't know where you got that idea.

Yes - apologies. I quoted your comment but I was meaning it as a more general comment, not meant for you specifically.

@lowlight I used the David's site as an example because I don't have to submit my email in order to price the two types of rentals, and because they are undoubtedly one of the top rental brokers. Here is a different website that does both types of rentals - it shows that they also offer the same rate for confirmed vs custom. And here is a third also attached. (Points for Poly standard view studio = 212 pts, multipled by $27 per points = exact same as the confirmed listing amount before fees).

If there are other brokers who price custom and confirmed differently then I believe it's on the renters and DVC members to price and research effectively. The same way it's on a landlord, property manager, or renter to make sure they are accurately pricing and paying for lodgings.

But my larger point was this: If these businesses are controlling thousands and thousands of points as you believe, there should ALSO be room to make custom reservations. There are only so many premium weeks and value studios that can be reserved in a year. If they each really control that many points in the DVC system - the availability of those confirmed bookings can't soak that many points without overflowing. The natural overflow is to cater to custom listings (which you could upcharge for because the renters paying for it don't have other options if they aren't DVC themselves). Yet NONE of the larger rental brokers could fill a 500pt stay.

I understand that you are saying that they can rent their company owned points for more of a profit because there is no middle man. I'm not debating that. I'm just saying that if so many points are in that corporate pool - it doesn't make sense that no one could fill a 500pt contract at the pre-11month mark.

It really isn't meant to be a personal attack. I get that your upset and want things to change. I understand that a broker told you at one point that they would only work with you if you booked a valuable confirmed rental for them to sell. I'm not doubting that happened. I agree that if they tell everyone to do that, then they decrease availibility for DVC members to book those rooms and shift those DVC rooms to the hotel guest side - which isn't beneficial for DVC members OR for Disney who could book those people as hotel guests for cash otherwise. We agree on most points. The ONLY thing I am arguing - is that most/all of these companies have their own massive DVC point hoards. In my personal experience, that is not the case and doesn't make sense from a financial perspective.

 

[Sandisw]

It’s not moot to me. I don’t think you and Sandi are interpreting the contract correctly. Further, even if you are, I think a flame can be held to DVC’s feet to get them to change. Nobody is correct or wrong here because we are all a bunch of cavemen marveling at fire when it comes to legal speak. The courts ultimately decide who is wrong or right, for better or worse.

I am all for knowing what part of the contract you are referring to. I could completely be reading it wrong, but so far, there is not anything specific you have shared…and if you did, I missed it so please post it again…other than saying advertising on Redweek, because they pay a fee, has to mean those are all on memberships with the same owner so it’s a violation.

The term”commercial renting” is being used but what does that mean?

I have made clear in many of my posts that the underlying piece is DVC and if they say this is what it takes to have a membership flagged as a being a commercial enterprise, then that is what it is….,unless someone takes them to court and legally, they are found to be wrong.

All I do, is read things, and interpret what I think they means. I don’t feel the contract or DVC, other than in 2007, is clear in what makes the difference.

As I said earlier, owners can say violations are happening, but they have to at least support it with parts of the contract that fit….more than just “ one cant commercially rent” when that phrasing isn’t used.

But, I definitely think people should push DVC if they don’t like what is happening. So far, in this thread, sounds like I…and maybe one other person…has contacted DVC and pushed them to give us answers,

And, the rental market doesn’t bother me and I am pretty confident that things are allowed to stand because DVC has decided to define commercial enterprise very broadly….whether that definition is seen as unreasonable to some or not.

Personally I’d rather have fewer Rules than more

 

[Sandisw]

LLC’s only matter in so far as they are a stupidly simple and cheap way for any entity (individual or business) to circumvent the point maximums per resort and overall. As I mentioned in the last incarnation of this thread, if I set up a trust or LLC to purchase and enjoy my contracts, that’s one thing. However, if I get up tomorrow morning and by noon have created a dozen new LLC’s with a total expenditure of around $600, I can then, all by my lonesome, go out and buy me a sweet, sweet, bundle of contracts adding up to just shy of 100,000 points (or however many I want in more practical numbers). They become a convenient tool for circumventing the rules. One man becomes a dozen (or two dozen) legal entities.

I get that under the contracts, I’m doing nothing wrong. My dear friend who has taught ethics at Notre Dame, Duke, and the Naval Academy, and is a nationally recognized ethicist might offer some differing thoughts.

When someone sets up an LLC, are there actual people whose names are associate with them?

I know very little about how they function. The reason I ask is that the new language in the CFW POS detailed out that the 8000 limit applies against any contract or contracts in which they are an owner or have any connection to..its more detailed than RIV.

So, if someone has an individuals membership, in their name, and open an LLC, would there name be listed anywhere?

 

[mistysue]

When someone sets up an LLC, are there actual people whose names are associate with them?

I know very little about how they function. The reason I ask is that the new language in the CFW POS detailed out that the 8000 limit applies against any contract or contracts in which they are an owner or have any connection to..its more detailed than RIV.

So, if someone has an individuals membership, in their name, and open an LLC, would there name be listed anywhere?

Yes, an LLC is associated with the members, but it can take a FOIA request to get there names sometimes, so there can be effort involved.

In about the best "we're not answering you" way possible, I got a response from DVC today. I began a chat with member services to ask what would differentiate a personal vs corporate use of my membership.

The chat gave me an email address. Ok, write an email. I got a response this evening that they can not respond to email because they can only respond if the member is logged in during the conversation.

 

[Kailunkat]

When someone sets up an LLC, are there actual people whose names are associate with them?

I know very little about how they function. The reason I ask is that the new language in the CFW POS detailed out that the 8000 limit applies against any contract or contracts in which they are an owner or have any connection to..its more detailed than RIV.

So, if someone has an individuals membership, in their name, and open an LLC, would there name be listed anywhere?

Yes, there are actual names associated with an LLC. However, LLC is similar to a corporation in that it is considered legally to be a completely separate entity from it's owners/partners. You do designate the names of the LLC owners at it's inception and those can be easily found on any of the LLC filing documents - but legally they are a different entity.

No idea how that would impact DVC ownership.

 

[Chuck S]

Yes, there are actual names associated with an LLC. However, LLC is similar to a corporation in that it is considered legally to be a completely separate entity from it's owners/partners. You do designate the names of the LLC owners at it's inception and those can be easily found on any of the LLC filing documents - but legally they are a different entity.

No idea how that would impact DVC ownership.

And for making reservations, the LLC would likely appoint the President/CEO of the corporation to do that, however, they can really appoint anyone they wish, and they would act basically like an "associate member."

 

[Sandisw]

Yes, an LLC is associated with the members, but it can take a FOIA request to get there names sometimes, so there can be effort involved.

In about the best "we're not answering you" way possible, I got a response from DVC today. I began a chat with member services to ask what would differentiate a personal vs corporate use of my membership.

The chat gave me an email address. Ok, write an email. I got a response this evening that they can not respond to email because they can only respond if the member is logged in during the conversation.

MS would definitely not be the ones who can answer. It needs to be through MA.

And I did that once with sending an email to merge reservations and wasn’t logged in and got that response.

When I emailed them…I did use the Contact Us via website and made sure to add to please get this to whomever would be able to me the written policy.

I think that is why my responses have come from MA.

 

[Sandisw]

Yes, there are actual names associated with an LLC. However, LLC is similar to a corporation in that it is considered legally to be a completely separate entity from it's owners/partners. You do designate the names of the LLC owners at it's inception and those can be easily found on any of the LLC filing documents - but legally they are a different entity.

No idea how that would impact DVC ownership.

The language says that you are capped at owning the 8000 on any and all points you are associated with count.

So, if there are actual names on a LLC, when it is filed, then the vacation ownership interests bought under LLC all count toward thst named individual’s cap.

So, if I have 900 points and open an LLC and buy 2000 and my name is connected, I am considered 2900.

As I shared above, the way the CFW POS is written, it is more detailed than in the past, in making that point clear.

The biggest piece that might happen if owners contact DVC is to pin them down on what the thresholds and activities they see related to on a membership that distinguishes personal use vs commercial use…becoming a commercial enterprise.

Without those, it really is impossible to say this makes it commercial for the purposes of DVC,

I mean if I sell something on FB marketplace a few times a year, am I now a commercial enterprise? What about 15 things? How about 50?

At some level, it would shift from personal to commercial. Same with renting reservations…when is too many considered to be the shift.

 

[DonMacGregor]

So, if there are actual names on a LLC, when it is filed, then the vacation ownership interests bought under LLC all count toward thst named individual’s cap.

So, if I have 900 points and open an LLC and buy 2000 and my name is connected, I am considered 2900.

After some research, DVC will require either an officer or managing agent be named when the contract is purchased. While an additional hoop, when setting up each LLC, you could simply add a different family member (or employee which is what we’re really talking about) as an “officer” or agent to each LLC and have that individual’s name registered with Disney. Because the LLC’s are unrelated as legal entities, there would be no cross-referencing based on the name of the provided managing agent. These aren’t going to be one-and-done, so a little extra effort on the front end isn’t a deal breaker. The umbrella ownership behind the LLC’s would stay the same.

I highly doubt Disney is asking LLC’s to provide the names of ALL officers, just the one serving as the agent. The whole nexus of this thread is what Disney doesn’t seem interested in doing, policing ownership wise, and this would seem even further down on their to-do list (as people keep pointing out, they just wanna sell points). In fact, I read that you can opt to add additional names as “affiliates” (like associate members) which wouldn’t be necessary if they already had all of the officer’s identities).

For clarification, I said “I” in the context of a business purchasing large numbers of points for commercial use, not “me” just doing it to buy 100K points (or however many). 6 employees or 6 family members get you 6 memberships. Adding adding additional “officers” to an LLC is just another piece of paper.

 

[mistysue]

MS would definitely not be the ones who can answer. It needs to be through MA.

And I did that once with sending an email to merge reservations and wasn’t logged in and got that response.

When I emailed them…I did use the Contact Us via website and made sure to add to please get this to whomever would be able to me the written policy.

I think that is why my responses have come from MA.

I do vaguely recall this happening to me over something in the past too, but I find it greatly amusing when the site says "email us here____" , and doing so results in an email saying they can't talk to you because you aren't logged in.

 

[mistysue]

After some research, DVC will require either an officer or managing agent be named when the contract is purchased. While an additional hoop, when setting up each LLC, you could simply add a different family member (or employee which is what we’re really talking about) as an “officer” or agent to each LLC and have that individual’s name registered with Disney. Because the LLC’s are unrelated as legal entities, there would be no cross-referencing based on the name of the provided managing agent. These aren’t going to be one-and-done, so a little extra effort on the front end isn’t a deal breaker.

I highly doubt Disney is asking LLC’s to provide the names of ALL officers, just the one serving as the agent. The whole nexus of this thread is what Disney doesn’t seem interested in doing, policing ownership wise, and this would seem even further down on their to-do list (as people keep pointing out, they just wanna sell points). In fact, I read that you can opt to add additional names as “affiliates” (like associate members) which wouldn’t be necessary if they already had all of the officer’s identities).

For clarification, I said “I” in the context of a business purchasing large numbers of points for commercial use, not “me” just doing it to buy 100K points (or however many). 6 employees or 6 family members get you 6 memberships. Adding adding additional “officers” to an LLC is just another piece of paper.

That's the catch - while there is a record at the State level of who is a member of the LLC, if they don't volunteer that information to DVC, someone has to go look for it. (I realize you said this in more words, I am repeating because it's easy to miss if you didn't already know)

 

[DonMacGregor]

That's the catch - while there is a record at the State level of who is a member of the LLC, if they don't volunteer that information to DVC, someone has to go look for it. (I realize you said this in more words, I am repeating because it's easy to miss if you didn't already know)

Correct, and if you provide a name of an officer or agent for each LLC that is not that of the common (and actual) owner, then they would have to do some deep diving to ferret out that information (and have some reason to do it in the first place).

If I set up “FloridaFamilyLLC” and, separately, “VacationPointsLLC” and provide a different registered agent for each, there’s absolutely nothing that would even prompt Disney to dig deeper. They are, on their face, innocuous and nothing ties those two entities to each other.

I suppose if you’re stupid and name them “DVCPointsOne”, “DVCPointsTwo”, “DVCPointsThree”, etc. you might raise some suspicion…

 

[Chuck S]

...which wouldn’t be necessary if they already had all of the officer’s identities).

Maybe, maybe not. The person named as the affiliate is basically a points manager, they do not have to be an officer of the corporation. They can assign that task to anyone they with with a corpoate resolution. Nor does every corporate office necessarily have the right in the corporate bylaws to make/change reservations. The bylaws could say that the affiliate is someone appointed by the corporate board of directors.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Maybe, maybe not. The person named as the affiliate is basically a points manager, they do not have to be an officer of the corporation. They can assign that task to anyone they with with a corpoate resolution. Nor does every corporate office necessarily have the right in the corporate bylaws to make/change reservations. The bylaws could say that the affiliate is someone appointed by the corporate board of directors.

My point was simply that nothing even tangentially suggests that the names of all corporate officers need to be provided, and I was (maybe somewhat awkwardly) using the need to specifically provide the name of any affiliate members (not specifically the registered agent) as a further suggestion that you only need to provide one name (if they had all of the names of all officers already, then one would assume that all of those names would automatically be identified as “owners” or affiliates when the contract was purchased and wouldn’t need to be added later.

Regardless, even if it was a poor example, as you say, anyone can be listed as the registered agent.

 

[Sandisw]

After some research, DVC will require either an officer or managing agent be named when the contract is purchased. While an additional hoop, when setting up each LLC, you could simply add a different family member (or employee which is what we’re really talking about) as an “officer” or agent to each LLC and have that individual’s name registered with Disney. Because the LLC’s are unrelated as legal entities, there would be no cross-referencing based on the name of the provided managing agent. These aren’t going to be one-and-done, so a little extra effort on the front end isn’t a deal breaker. The umbrella ownership behind the LLC’s would stay the same.

I highly doubt Disney is asking LLC’s to provide the names of ALL officers, just the one serving as the agent. The whole nexus of this thread is what Disney doesn’t seem interested in doing, policing ownership wise, and this would seem even further down on their to-do list (as people keep pointing out, they just wanna sell points). In fact, I read that you can opt to add additional names as “affiliates” (like associate members) which wouldn’t be necessary if they already had all of the officer’s identities).

For clarification, I said “I” in the context of a business purchasing large numbers of points for commercial use, not “me” just doing it to buy 100K points (or however many). 6 employees or 6 family members get you 6 memberships. Adding adding additional “officers” to an LLC is just another piece of paper.

Thanks for the details. So, the only way that the same person can be tied to more than one LLC would be if they are listed and unless they are the main one, it may not be something easily found.

So, then it comes back to the question if they are able to set up without the same officers or names, then for DVC purposes, would it then be that they’d be seen no different than you or I being different owners? And that any enforcement would need to be applied to each one individually?

That is a legal question I’d love to have the answer to..but it would involve me probably having to contact a lawyer who specializes in timeshares and contracts…and I don’t have concerns that would prompt that.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Thanks for the details. So, the only way that the same person can be tied to more than one LLC would be if they are listed and unless they are the main one, it may not be something easily found.

So, then it comes back to the question if they are able to set up without the same officers or names, then for DVC purposes, would it then be that they’d be seen no different than you or I being different owners? And that any enforcement would need to be applied to each one individually?

I think so, and therein lies the workaround.

I mean, if Disney wanted to, they could do a search on sunbiz.org and plug in the name of the registered agent, make a note of all other officers listed for that LLC, and then search those names and come up with the multiple LLC's owned by them, but that would require that they either do that as a matter of course in their normal process, or have some reason to do it specific to that sales transaction.

It's certainly not bulletproof and doesn't set up some sort of corporate veil of anonymity if someone wants to take the extra steps to head down the ownership rabbit hole. My only real point in the whole exercise was to spitball how an individual or company could circumvent ownership points limits. I mean, the same end result could be achieved, albeit on a smaller scale, by simply having each member of your family listed as the purchaser on a number of discrete contracts up to their individual limits, but with a single payer on the purchase and dues. Disney isn't going to care how my son got the money to buy those 8,000 points, even if his sister also happens to own 8,000 points as well (as do both of her cousins).

 

[Sandisw]

The one thing about the 2007 policy is that enforcement was clear.

If your membership was deemed to be considered commercial, the remedy was cancel all reservations above 20…first 20 were left alone.

So, what do people think DVC could do, beyond canceling, to enforce someone using ownership interests as a commerical enterprise?

I doubt they can force a sale, can they?? I know the contract gives reasons to lock out an owner, but those only refer to financial reasons? Could they use that without updated documents to include commercial use as a reason?

Any thoughts?