I think so, but aside from room capacity concerns there would be no actual harm in leaving themselves on it (or whoever they put as the lead guest - so they could create a sock puppet to serve that purpose across all of their rentals)
Oh, okay. I see. That makes sense.
1 Like
That’s the only thing I am worried about losing- online checkin. Not so much about losing any points because I think that will only will affect large scale commercial renters if anyone at all.
Initially when we first bought in lead guest was important. Only they could checkin at the desk and I would have to call in and change the lead to whom ever was arriving first…Now it doesn’t matter our July trip SIL and family arrived hours before thanks to ridiculous traffic on I75. They were able to head straight to the room thanks online checkin.
As you said Ms. Sock A Muppet, or any name could technically remain lead on the reservation as long as online checkin can still be done.
1 Like
Online check-in is nice, but at many resorts, probably not a big deal. For example, at BWV, you pretty much have to walk through the lobby anyhow. Saves a small bit of time, but not a deal breaker.
Other resorts, it is a bit more problematic. At SSR, you have to first go to the main building, which is really nowhere near your room. So this could lead to backups when it comes to having to wait for someone from bell services or whatever to take you to your room with your luggage, etc.
I don’t think you would need to lose this? I’m confused.
If you mean because of the sock puppet - could they create a unique sock puppet for each rental and make friends with you on DME?
I think the thought is that if you need to prove that the “lead guest” is actually checking in that you can’t use online check-in. In theory with online check in the guests listed don’t really need to be the ones in the room.
2 Likes
Oh I am not saying we would need to lose this I am saying that’s the only possible change I could see that would directly affect us meaning my family.
Again might be how I am looking at this but some sort of change might be coming if DVC addresses the issues, me personally my brain is racing through all the scenarios and the possible impacts- regardless of the fact we don’t rent or walk reservations.
1 Like
Fundamentally it comes down to the fact that we tend to not like change. We fight it, kicking and screaming, even if it is in our best interest. We’ve seen repeatedly on these forums, for example, that the moment Disney announces any forthcoming change (be in a ride replacement, or whatever) that we start crying the sky is falling…but then after the change comes, we just quietly accept it as the new norm. (Perhaps a bit hyperbolic, but you get my drift.)
So, will Disney’s changes to address the problem potentially impact “regular” guests in some way? Perhaps. Will we be happy about it? Probably not. Will we come to peace with it? Almost certainly yes!
3 Likes
Circling back to this, mainly because I remembered having read about it elsewhere.
So these laws are in the FL Condomnium statues which the original DVC set-up falls under.
Those are statutes 17 & 18 apparently.
The new Trust set up is not a Condominium association, so they have more flexibility to limit it.
1 Like
These look like the are statute 718 whereas timeshares are 721. I still can’t find anything in either that requires anyone to allow rentals.
Oops, yes 718 & 719 for Condos.
I’ve given up on the legalese though.
From what I understand, due to a change in the laws around Condos, if DVC want to change the rules it has to be voted on by owners. And the changes would only apply to those who agreed.
But there is already wording around “commercial purposes” which they can define as they want to.
See what I mean? It’s a convoluted debate, so ultimately we wait.
2 Likes
So I’m just going to quote verbatim from a DIS poster “drusba” who is a FL lawyer. It kind of summarises their argument.
Under condominium law, there can be many restrictions created to limit an owner’s ability to rent and those can be set out in the original declarations provided when the resort first goes on sale. However, the suggestions made by posters above to create new restrictions to rentals have a major problem under condominium law. The condominium statute prohibits adding restrictions that would further reduce the ability of an owner to rent after a resort has actually first been sold, absent having an actual vote of the owners on any such new restrictions, and then, even if the restrictions are adopted, all those who vote against the changes do not have to follow the changes made. Fl. Stat. §718.110(13). Moreover, DVC/DVD itself recognizes it cannot unilaterally make changes to the right to rent that is provided in the declarations, as the declarations provide, that, though DVD can make changes, it cannot make any changes to the material rights of the members absent a member vote.
2 Likes
In other words, as I understand it, it’s not so much that FL law allows us to rent. But that because the DVC documentation said we could rent when they started selling the resorts, they can’t then go back and try to tighten the rules.
What they can do is to define “commercial enterprise” and then go after those that they consider are in violation of that.
Like the LLCs created by some of the broker firms, who use their own points to rent out.
Or something. 
4 Likes
Ya, I am 100% in favor of allowing people to rent. I would literally be so bold as to say 10 times per year. But the burn and churn rental companies who are booking these 1, 2, 3 high priority nights every single year need to be stopped!
2 Likes
What does this all mean for dvcrentalstore and David’s? Would they potentially be shut down? Does what they’re doing constitute ‘commercial renting’?
I’m concerned bc I’m renting for the 1st time from one of the big rental companies for a few days. 1st time ever in a DVC resort. Do I need to worry that my reservation might technically be refused when I get there?
1 Like
I don’t think it is the section they reference, but this is the language below. Does DVC specifically state renting is allowed?
(13) An amendment prohibiting unit owners from renting their units or altering the duration of the rental term or specifying or limiting the number of times unit owners are entitled to rent their units during a specified period applies only to unit owners who consent to the amendment and unit owners who acquire title to their units after the effective date of that amendment.
1 Like
No. Their primary role is a broker, where they basically link you with an owner who is renting. That is fine and would likely be allowed going forward anyway.
Regardless, none of this is changing soon anyway.
4 Likes
I think that in the ideal future their business would be limited though. I am sure some/many of their points owners are “commercial renters”.
3 Likes
David’s changed his model years ago to abide by DVC rules, when DVC limited associate members to 4 per contract. David’s used to get owners to add them as associates so they could make the reservations themselves. I don’t know if they also own loads of points, I don’t think so.
Rental Store though apparently do, through LLCs. Several people have said the owner listed on their confirmed reservation was an LLC linked to the broker. I think they buy, use the points and then sell the stripped contract.
And at least one big Facebook group do the same.
DVC rules say that LLC’s can use points for themselves and employees. So if they are renting out hundreds of reservations then that would be a “pattern of activity suggesting commercial enterprise”.
A while ago there was wording around 20 reservations in a rolling year, that would trigger a review. The owner would have to show they were not renting all of them, else DVC would cancel subsequent reservations.
So they could change the wording to be more specific……
OR
Simply look for a similar pattern…
Given that the Mgt Fee is fixed at 12% of the operating costs, they’re unlikely to go after small fry owners.
Apparently there is some evidence that one broker has dumped a lot of Aulani contracts on the market. Maybe that’s what the LLC operating brokers will have to do.
I agree with some who suggest DVC might well have already done some donkey work on this and that they will know the big commercial players.
6 Likes
The question comes back to how DVC define commercial enterprise.
But also the mgt fee is fixed. If they start trying to flag owners who make > 5 reservations or >50% of their points not in their own name etc that affects the phone lines etc.
And they’ve said we can rent, that it’s fine to rent to cover dues, and if you can’t use your points.
AND how do they identify a rental? How can they tell if it’s a rental or gifted to a friend, or child, or niece? Given there are 250,000 owners. Which is why I don’t think your average owner is going to be targeted for renting points some years.
3 Likes