Wyndham is closing a handful of legacy resorts - dedicated chart/tracker located in the first post for this unfolding set of events

[CO skier]

66.67% of the vote was required to decide anything. However, only 20% of members were required to constitute a quorum.

Not sure if there is a point being made.

A quorum is required to conduct business. If 67%+ of the total ownership votes in an election, the 20% quorum would be met with more than 40% to spare.

 

[CO skier]

(there were 26 "no" votes).

The elections at the other resorts will likely be just as lopsided, percentagewise.

 

[CO skier]

At ORIC, Wyndham Vacation Resorts (T&L) owns ~17%
Club Wyndham Access owns ~41%
They voted all their intervals for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Quorum requires 20% of owners' total votes...measures pass with 67% of vote
Wyndham voted 1880 out of 2038 "yes" votes (there were 26 "no" votes).

Something does not add up here. If Wyndham controls 58% of the ownership (17%+41%) and voted 1880, then there would be a total of 3241 total available (1880/0.58).

2038 yes votes divided by 3241 total available equals 62.87% which is less than the 67% of total available to pass.

 

[bnoble]

Why did the givebacks go to Wyndham and not ORIC?

Why would the HOA want them? They don’t have a sales arm. They just become bad debt that way.

 

[comicbookman]

Something does not add up here. If Wyndham controls 58% of the ownership (17%+41%) and voted 1880, then there would be a total of 3241 total available (1880/0.58).

2038 yes votes divided by 3241 total available equals 62.87% which is less than the 67% of total available to pass.

It's 67% of the votes cast. Only need 20% of 3241 cast to have a quorum.

 

[CO skier]

It's 67% of the votes cast. Only need 20% of 3241 cast to have a quorum.

It would be interesting to see the Declaration language on that.

Whenever I have seen the 67% vote threshold invoked in a timeshare Declaration, it has always been in connection with total votes in the Association, not total votes cast, such as in this example:

 

[Floridaman76]

It would be interesting to see the Declaration language on that.

Whenever I have seen the 67% vote threshold invoked in a timeshare Declaration, it has always been in connection with total votes in the Association, not total votes cast, such as in this example:

View attachment 114626

I live in a deed restricted community governed by a HOA. That's the way it is for us when we have to make material changes to the HOA Covenants. It requires a supermajority of owners.

Not percentage of recorded votes, but it requires a 60% or more recorded vote of all owners. It would be crazy to think that such a substantive change could be made by "we have a quorum, now we need only 65% of recorded votes" to pass.

HOA's in Florida by law have a 30 year sunset clause and we went throught this about 10 years ago, we had to hold the vote 3 times because we could not get an acceptable number of owners to even place their vote on the topic. Each time, the number of votes in favor of maintaining the deed restrictions passed overhwelmingly but we did not have the number of total votes required for the vote to be considered valid.

This varies wildly by state and the governing documents of the HOA itself dictate a lot of these terms. Who knows what the terms are in these affected HOA's.

 

[robbie0001]

As far as destroying value: even a decent fraction of that estimated $5K is a windfall for owners at that resort. The intervals at OIRC are worthless, and would be no matter who the management company was.

ORIC is expected to sell for $12-17 million according to the real estate firm that has been hired to market the property. ORIC also has $5.2 million in reserve funds. With 3,200 intervals, each interval is expected to receive ~$5,000 using the low end of the sale range. The HOA "has consented to concurrent representation" of the law firm that represents Wyndham/T&L in "unrelated matters", so I suspect the numbers are accurate.

 

[bnoble]

There will be some unwinding costs, but hopefully the bankruptcy angle will keep them to a minimum.

 

[chapjim]

Not sure if there is a point being made.

A quorum is required to conduct business. If 67%+ of the total ownership votes in an election, the 20% quorum would be met with more than 40% to spare.

But, that's not it! The threshhold in the Orlando International was 67% of those voting, not 67% of the total ownership. Looking at minimums, if the 20% quorum is barely met, then only about 13% of the ownership decides the issue.

Edit: From the Appendix to Notice of Special Meeting: "Pursuant to Section 3 of Article II of the By-Laws the presence in person or by proxy of 20% of the unit owners' total votes shall constitute a quorum at the special meeting. Pursuant to Section 2 of Article II of the By-Laws, 66.67 of the total votes of the voting members present in person or by proxy at a duly called meeting, at which a quorum is present, shall decide any questions raised at the special meeting." [Emphasis mine]

 

[Floridaman76]

But, that's not it! The threshhold in the Orlando International was 67% of those voting, not 67% of the total ownership. Looking at minimums, if the 20% quorum is barely met, then only about 13% of the ownership decides the issue.

That seems really insanely low to me considering the thresholds in the founding and governing documents of the residential HOA's i've been involved in. In my current HOA, you could not even call a HOA meeting to order with 20%, let alone change any policies the HOA board is delegated authority to and definitely not change any of the covenants or disband the HOA/Sell the property

 

[chapjim]

That seems really insanely low to me considering the thresholds in the founding and governing documents of the residential HOA's i've been involved in. In my current HOA, you could not even call a HOA meeting to order with 20%, let alone change any policies the HOA board is delegated authority to and definitely not change any of the covenants or disband the HOA/Sell the property

See edit to the previous post.

I agree 20% sounds low but that's what it is at Orlando International.

 

[TUGBrian]

there are also qualifiers that would reduce the number of owners that are eligible to vote, for instance anyone in default for more than 60 days are not likely eligible to vote and thus are not counted in the total voting member number used to calculate the 66.6% majority needed.

id imagine that default number is fairly high for most if not all of these resorts allowing for the developer controlled votes to reach the necessary %

 

[Twenty20]

Sidebar topic, unrelated to the timeshares. But I found it interesting that Wyndham still owns over 1,200 individual, undeveloped home lots within FF Glade. And they pay community club fees of something like $55/mo on each of those lots. They are trying to unload them to the current developer of FF Glade (who is a former Wyndham executive). The lots have little market value currently as there are no roads, water, infrastructure. But remain a significant legacy liability for Wyndham.

 

[CO skier]

there are also qualifiers that would reduce the number of owners that are eligible to vote, for instance anyone in default for more than 60 days are not likely eligible to vote and thus are not counted in the total voting member number used to calculate the 66.6% majority needed.

id imagine that default number is fairly high for most if not all of these resorts allowing for the developer controlled votes to reach the necessary %

At Pagosa Mountain Meadows, it was an absolute, unqualified 67% of the total votes in the Association (no mention of "intervals or owners in good standing"):

 

[Jan M.]

Sidebar topic, unrelated to the timeshares. But I found it interesting that Wyndham still owns over 1,200 individual, undeveloped home lots within FF Glade. And they pay community club fees of something like $55/mo on each of those lots. They are trying to unload them to the current developer of FF Glade (who is a former Wyndham executive). The lots have little market value currently as there are no roads, water, infrastructure. But remain a significant legacy liability for Wyndham.

I think it was early on when we first heard about the resort closures that someone related to a board member for the FG Community Association posted about the dues in one of the Facebook groups. That the Wyndham pays $1M in dues, probably more I'm guessing based on what you posted. How that's going to be a big shortfall for the Association to have to pass on to everyone owning there.

It's likely ownership of those lots goes back to the Fairfield days. If there was a good market you'd think Wyndham would have either built by now or divested the company of them.

 

[TUGBrian]

At Pagosa Mountain Meadows, it was an absolute, unqualified 67% of the total votes in the Association (no mention of "intervals or owners in good standing"):

View attachment 114645

there is likely a separate section that establishes the associations rights to suspend voting privileges for owners based on certain guidelines. (ie being 60/90/120 days delinquent).

at least in the ones ive read. no doubt that many states have vastly different languages based on state HOA laws etc.

 

[robbie0001]

It would be interesting to see the Declaration language on that.

Whenever I have seen the 67% vote threshold invoked in a timeshare Declaration, it has always been in connection with total votes in the Association, not total votes cast, such as in this example:

View attachment 114626

ORIC changed its Declaration and voting provision in 1995
1) Lowering the quorum to 20% of the "unit owners' total votes" (down from 33 1/3 %, and 51% at inception)
2) Requiring 66.67% of the "total votes of the votinq members present in person or by proxy" to make decisions

By lowering the percentage needed to achieve quorum, and limiting voting to members present in person or by proxy, Wyndham was able to consolidate its control of the resort. So,the HOA is fully controlled by Wyndham to implement whatever Wyndam has decided.

 

[robbie0001]

The Pagosa Mountain Meadows vote to terminate followed by a vote to convert to a condo plan required a super-majority (67%) of the entire resort ownership to pass, which it did.


58% Wyndham ownership seems on the low end for resorts that will require a super-majority vote to pass.

Was only a simple majority (50%) vote needed to pass the bankruptcy vote?

no, only 2/3 of the voting members present in person or by proxy (of which only 20% were required for quorum)

 

[CO skier]

there is likely a separate section that establishes the associations rights to suspend voting privileges for owners based on certain guidelines. (ie being 60/90/120 days delinquent).

at least in the ones ive read. no doubt that many states have vastly different languages based on state HOA laws etc.

Sure, the voting rights/privileges are suspended, but the number of weeks in the Association remains constant.

 

[Rolltydr]

Wyndham was able to consolidate its control of the resort.

So, what you're saying is, Wyndham was able to consolidate its control of the Wyndham resort because it is a Wyndham resort?

 

[chapjim]

ORIC changed its Declaration and voting provision in 1995
1) Lowering the quorum to 20% of the "unit owners' total votes" (down from 33 1/3 %, and 51% at inception)
2) Requiring 66.67% of the "total votes of the votinq members present in person or by proxy" to make decisions

By lowering the percentage needed to achieve quorum, and limiting voting to members present in person or by proxy, Wyndham was able to consolidate its control of the resort. So,the HOA is fully controlled by Wyndham to implement whatever Wyndam has decided.

Amazing foresight and patience on Wyndham's part. Thirty years later, they decide to sell the resort.

 

[robbie0001]

So, what you're saying is, Wyndham was able to consolidate its control of the Wyndham resort because it is a Wyndham resort?

It was not a Wyndham resort when it was built. The HOA gave Wyndham increasing control over time, and Wyndham modified the bylaws to suit its interests to the detriment of people who originally bought from the developer (not my situation by the way, but I think their destruction of ORIC is a clear example of how the timeshare model simply does not work, and I feel bad for people who invested in ORIC and have now lost their retirement savings). Wyndham's handling of ORIC over time shows that its timeshares are not investments, and use of Wyndham properties can often be arranged through 3rd party services at less cost than maintenance fees for those who own in Club Wyndham Access.

As an aside, why should anyone ever believe anything that Wyndham says about a timeshare purchase or vacation program? They can, and will, change bylaws whenever they want based on their control of HOAs. .

 

[robbie0001]

Amazing foresight and patience on Wyndham's part. Thirty years later, they decide to sell the resort.

I don't when and how Wyndham consolidated its interest in ORIC, but ORIC was likely much more valuable to Wyndham prior to Bonnet Creek being built. Wyndham stands to make $10 million (or more) from the sale. Considering that Wyndham likely received many deeds for little or no consideration, ORIC actually worked out very well for Wyndham. Its the original owners (who bought from the developer) who lost thousands.

Timeshares work really well for the developers and management companies, but a 95% loss of initial investment (for those who bought in the 1980s), under an HOA, is simply not an acceptable outcome.

 

[TUGBrian]

Sure, the voting rights/privileges are suspended, but the number of weeks in the Association remains constant.

correct but for % purposes, those not eligible to vote are not counted in the total and the factor for 66.6% (at least for us)