# Worldmark Owners have access to owner list, 9th circuit court ruling



## cruisin (Sep 2, 2010)

Interesting read:

http://calapp.blogspot.com/2010/08/worldmark-v-wyndam-resort-development.html

Worldmark refused the list after its first court loss and appealed, and the Court of appeals gave him the owner emails too. 

Looks like under California law any Timeshare owners of California Timeshares have a legal right to owner lists for Club related issues.


----------



## siesta (Sep 2, 2010)

score 1 for the little folks.


----------



## Rob&Carol Q (Sep 2, 2010)

That means an owner with a desire to market stuff has access as well...two sides to that coin.


----------



## siesta (Sep 2, 2010)

"The California Corporations Code entitles members of such groups to obtain the fellow names and addresses of its members *for purposes reasonably related to the group*"

I believe this clause prohibits spam and advertising/marketing.


----------



## DH1 (Sep 4, 2010)

I guess it doesn't matter too much that the author gets so many facts wrong in the case, but one might expect better from a professor of law...

After reading the Appellate Court Opinion, several facts become clear.

First of all it appears Miller (a he not a she) did not sue WorldMark it was the other way around - WorldMark sued him.

The superior court ruled in Miller's favor and so it was WorldMark - not Miller - who appealed the matter.

Then the Court of Appeal upheld, and favorably modified, the lower court's ruling granting Miller's request for the member list  - including email addresses.

I'm no lawyer, but in reading the Court's Opinion, I get the impression that the Court was sending a message to more than WorldMark.

In any case, the professor got the conclusion right - Hurrah for the Court of Appeal!


----------



## cruisin (Sep 4, 2010)

I think it was meant to send a message to all corporations  in California, this was not just an HOA ruling, it has big implications outside timeshare.


----------



## melschey (Sep 4, 2010)

Rob&Carol Q said:


> That means an owner with a desire to market stuff has access as well...two sides to that coin.



Not true. That is what Wyndham wants WM owners to believe. The owner requesting the list has show it is for legitimate club purposes and not for any  personal profit. It doesn’t mean that just anyone can request the owner list and get it.


----------



## mshatty (Sep 4, 2010)

melschey said:


> Not true. That is what Wyndham wants WM owners to believe. The owner requesting the list has show it is for legitimate club purposes and not for any  personal profit. It doesn’t mean that just anyone can request the owner list and get it.



The issue is what the WM owner does with it when he/she gets it no matter what legitimate club purpose is asserted.  Wyn is probably right even though it doesn't have a legal right to withhold the list.

Think about all of the junk and spam you get now.  I certainly don't want any WM owner emailing me about anything without my prior permission.


----------



## cruisin (Sep 4, 2010)

One  would think that Wyndham could  have emailed out legitimate requests by owners  pertaining to club business and this probably  would not have been an issue.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Sep 5, 2010)

cruisin said:


> One  would think that Wyndham could  have emailed out legitimate requests by owners  pertaining to club business and this probably  would not have been an issue.



Yep. That's all they needed to do. They opted to be hard-nosed, and it cost them. It's likely to come back at them in the suit filed by the Wixon's as well.

I also noted that the court awarded costs to Martin as well.  So now Worldmark members also have to pay for the privilege of what is effectively a defense of Wyndham's self-serving actions.

I think it illustrates precisely the conflict of interest alleged in the Martin and the Wixon pleadings.


----------



## melschey (Sep 5, 2010)

cruisin said:


> One  would think that Wyndham could  have emailed out legitimate requests by owners  pertaining to club business and this probably  would not have been an issue.



That is all they were asked to do and they refused.


----------

