crvetter
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
I’m jumping in late here. But there is a strong valid reason to allow for name changes without limits. That reason is because of DVC themselves. I like to book my 2 week vacations as separate weeks at 11 months that way at 7 months I can more easily book a different room. However, if you book with the same lead guest there have been instance where DVC sees them as a continuing stay and combines them. This severely limits my ability to more easily split stay at 7 months.Change of dates would make no sense to restrict only that of the primary name on the account.
Additionally even the primary name could possibly be granted on a very limited basis like 1 time ever few years or something to allow for extenuating circumstances.
In the end would make zero sense to have a full rebook when changing dates except when a date overlapped with the 11 month date possibly if you are trying to attack walkers. It would make sense to first curtail rentals though and seeing if that stopped the walking.
Another very simple reason would be I book a room (say a tower studio) for a family member. I can’t be lead guests on both rooms but at 11 months I can’t be 100% sure that family member can get the required visa to visit the US. So I might not want to cancel the room but offer it to a different family member instead (these would be all as gifts/free). Given lower occupancy rooms I can exactly be on both, nor would I be able to if I had another room at the same time. This scenario isn’t in vagrant violation of any rule with DVC and explicitly allowed by the POS (it says guests of the owner).
So in the above scenarios a limitation on lead guest changes very strictly limits my personal use and enjoyment of DVC. Which change contracts that explicitly limit an owner’s use and enjoyment of a real estate property isn’t usually looked so kindly by the courts (when the contract explicitly has allowed for it, and they don’t enforce anything differently). Unfortunately in HOAs, which your home resort is very similar to one, you can’t claim an interpretation of a rule years down the line counter to the one you’ve had in place. The courts are very strongly against that, which is why expect DVC introduced that new language (and they could as the sole voting member to the other associations maybe). Though any changes would be hard if it changes anyone’s right of personal enjoyment and use. Everyone bought into the same system (educated or not) so the footing was potentially equal. But DVC changing rules to be dracaenas again would be a direct bait and switch from what we all bought (not a lack of education by the buyer).
I do sympathize with people that can’t get what they want. But that’s DVD over promising those cheap rooms, no stopping of walking is going to make them easier. Because that walker has 100s (if not 1000s) of non-walkers wanting to take it. I personally think incremental (in agreement with you) change is better stop commercial owners, which is very explicitly forbidden in the POS for every resort ever sold. Problem is how do you define commercial, I think that’s probably pretty easy, they literally are declaring business income on it to the IRS so DVCMC could sue for that (not DVD since they aren’t the same) but it would come out as a cost to the association if they did so because it’s the association enforcing the associations rule, so owners want to front that cost?