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

[paxsarah]

You don't have to believe it, but don't, basically, be calling someone a liar or a Wyndham shill because they are reporting what they are being told.

I didn't see them use the term "liar" or "shill" anywhere. In fact, it makes me wonder...

How do you make that leap?

 

[Arimaas]

So, when someone tells you they aren't sure of something, to you, that means they are sure? How do you make that leap?

HitchHiker has told everyone all along that he wishes this was different and that Wyndham was communicating more than they are. However, he knows, because he is talking to the people who are making and/or following the decisions, that legal concerns are preventing them from doing so. That's all. If you know that isn't true, give us your evidence. HitchHiker has told us, as much as he can without actually naming names where his information is coming from. Where does yours come from? You don't have to believe it, but don't, basically, be calling someone a liar or a Wyndham shill because they are reporting what they are being told.

I don't know why you feel the need to jump in and speak for the poster I was discussing this with as his defender, but please let me know where I called him a liar? In fact, I was pretty polite and professional in my posting.

So you can understand my thought process - Wyndham tells HitchHiker that they are doing this for legal reasons. The one quote I spent 45 seconds looking up said "I'm not sure what else can legally be communicated?" meaning, I believe that he believes Wyndham's reasoning for not communicating. I (personally, me, this guy) do not believe that, "legally" there is not another way to handle this. I do not give Wyndham the pass or cop out on the "legal" excuse. For example, like I said before, would a pop up booking notice on the impacted resorts not be legal (BTW, we use the word legal a lot here. I think we are also misusing that word, but that's another issue. No one is going to jail here for telling us what time shares are closing).

That being said, Wydnham cares less what I think, and I know it. I am a resale owner who will never buy retail. They make no money off of me. Doesn't mean I can't express, in this open forum that they do sometimes read, my frustration with them and that I don't buy the "legal" excuse.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Odd that you still cannot order a paper copy. Who knows what will be released or when. This is the service we have come to expect. And it has to be frustrating for the customer service staff. How many more good ones will we lose this go around?

Perhaps these actions are why they are delaying paper copies. They may simply update the current Member directory and then issue paper copies heading into 2026 timeframe. I also wonder aloud if paper copies will still be a thing moving forward. Not saying I'm a fan of that, just saying I'm sure moving to a 100% electronic member directory is under consideration to save on costs and allow for easier ongoing updates.

 

[chapjim]

<snip>

That being said, Wydnham cares less what I think, and I know it. I am a resale owner who will never buy retail. They make no money off of me. Doesn't mean I can't express, in this open forum that they do sometimes read, my frustration with them and that I don't buy the "legal" excuse.

Wyndham isn't alone.

 

[jp10558]

I don't know why you feel the need to jump in and speak for the poster I was discussing this with as his defender, but please let me know where I called him a liar? In fact, I was pretty polite and professional in my posting.

So you can understand my thought process - Wyndham tells HitchHiker that they are doing this for legal reasons. The one quote I spent 45 seconds looking up said "I'm not sure what else can legally be communicated?" meaning, I believe that he believes Wyndham's reasoning for not communicating. I (personally, me, this guy) do not believe that, "legally" there is not another way to handle this. I do not give Wyndham the pass or cop out on the "legal" excuse. For example, like I said before, would a pop up booking notice on the impacted resorts not be legal (BTW, we use the word legal a lot here. I think we are also misusing that word, but that's another issue. No one is going to jail here for telling us what time shares are closing).

That being said, Wydnham cares less what I think, and I know it. I am a resale owner who will never buy retail. They make no money off of me. Doesn't mean I can't express, in this open forum that they do sometimes read, my frustration with them and that I don't buy the "legal" excuse.

I've gone round and round with both of them in this thread, and what is happening is they're conflating Wyndham's lawyers telling them they don't think it's a good idea to communicate anything till some nebulous "later" for "legal reasons" with how I think you (and I) read "legal", a la, you go to jail or get assessed a large fine from the government for doing so.

And my argument is that this conflation hides that basically Wyndhams lawyers are (like many) extremely conservative and must think there's some civil liability they're avoiding by not telling anyone anything, and just taking bookings etc that they do not intend to honor. Or they think that "officially" telling people resorts are closing would interfere with the bankruptcy method Wyndham is trying to use to close the resorts.

The other part where I keep ending up is just trying to figure out what the lawyers think a notification would do. Prompt a lawsuit to block the HOA votes (that as far as I can tell are being carried out per the rules)? I'd love someone who buys all this stuff to explain to me a theoretical risk here based on the documents we've looked at and what we can ask AI/google about civil / contract law.

I still maintain at the root of all this is Wyndham's timescale - probably based on thinking they'll save money (and maybe they will) - they could have started the votes with the end date 13 months out from the end of the month the votes happened. Then there's no "running out of time" issue, and keeping silent isn't an issue. I don't buy even the lawyers said (at the beginning) "you must close this out by the last day of 2025".

 

[Arimaas]

Wyndham isn't alone.

For some one that doesn't care, you seem to read my posts

 

[Arimaas]

I've gone round and round with both of them in this thread, and what is happening is they're conflating Wyndham's lawyers telling them they don't think it's a good idea to communicate anything till some nebulous "later" for "legal reasons" with how I think you (and I) read "legal", a la, you go to jail or get assessed a large fine from the government for doing so.

And my argument is that this conflation hides that basically Wyndhams lawyers are (like many) extremely conservative and must think there's some civil liability they're avoiding by not telling anyone anything, and just taking bookings etc that they do not intend to honor. Or they think that "officially" telling people resorts are closing would interfere with the bankruptcy method Wyndham is trying to use to close the resorts.

The other part where I keep ending up is just trying to figure out what the lawyers think a notification would do. Prompt a lawsuit to block the HOA votes (that as far as I can tell are being carried out per the rules)? I'd love someone who buys all this stuff to explain to me a theoretical risk here based on the documents we've looked at and what we can ask AI/google about civil / contract law.

I still maintain at the root of all this is Wyndham's timescale - probably based on thinking they'll save money (and maybe they will) - they could have started the votes with the end date 13 months out from the end of the month the votes happened. Then there's no "running out of time" issue, and keeping silent isn't an issue. I don't buy even the lawyers said (at the beginning) "you must close this out by the last day of 2025".

You summed up my thoughts a lot neater than I did. Correct, I don't think this is a "legal" issue per se. My beliefs are, that Wyndham's lawyers are recommending them take this route, for whatever reason. We will never know the reason. However, I have a hard time just saying "oh well, Wyndham's lawyers are saying this isn't legal, so it must be not be legal".

And no matter which way this plays out, Wyndham is probably exposed civilly. (I mentioned a class action lawsuit a few posts back). Whether they stop taking reservations for the resorts before the HOA votes, or by taking reservations they know they aren't going to honor. This is just, the path of least resistance, probably already mapped out by the attorneys.

I would have more respect for Wyndham (again, not that they are going after my respect), if they just said "we are doing this because this is what we feel is best for us and our shareholders." instead of this "it's not legal" cop out.

 

[Floridaman76]

For some one that doesn't care, you seem to read my posts

Yeah, there's lots of that around here... they love to engage and have the last word. Even when they are wrong or just grasping at straws to defend their position.

Something that I bet a good lawyer could and should argue is that Wyndham, continuing to accept reservations past the date they know for certain the resorts will be shutting down (demonstrated by the fact that they have told this to employees) means they are in fact acting in bad faith to it's owner base (customers) who have booked their vacations months in advance, in good faith, with the understanding they will be honored.

These two worlds cannot exist similtaneously. You absolutely cannot have it both ways. And the question ultimately will be whether a court sides with "vague legalese" or "Wyndham did not act in good faith and owes compensation to affected parties".

You can't play the "aw shucks, some rando contract verbiage says I can't block out bookings" and the "sorry, you are on your own and we owe you nothing" cards simultaneously.

 

[paxsarah]

I would have more respect for Wyndham (again, not that they are going after my respect), if they just said "we are doing this because this is what we feel is best for us and our shareholders." instead of this "it's not legal" cop out.

I mean, technically they aren't saying anything, not publicly. I don't know that anyone said "it's not legal," but just that they're handling it based on legal advice. I don't like the lack of communication, but they certainly appear to be convinced by whatever their legal team is telling them.

 

[Arimaas]

Yeah, there's lots of that around here... they love to engage and have the last word. Even when they are wrong or just grasping at straws to defend their position.

I'm all for engagement and position defending. As long as it's done civilly and respectfully. I'm pretty certain that I have not called anyone names, insulted anyone (such as the dig at me above) or tried to get the last word in.

 

[Rolltydr]

That is not the language of someone that is just reported what Wyndham has said, that is the language of someone that took what they said, believe it, and are holding the rest of us to it.

This is the statement where you, unequivocally, question HitchHiker’s truthfulness. Perhaps, you didn’t mean to, but you most certainly did!

 

[Rolltydr]

My beliefs are, that Wyndham's lawyers are recommending them take this route, for whatever reason. We will never know the reason. However, I have a hard time just saying "oh well, Wyndham's lawyers are saying this isn't legal, so it must be not be legal".

Attorneys are advising Wyndham on how to proceed through what has been described here as an untested bankruptcy court proceeding. What else would you call it?

 

[Arimaas]

This is the statement where you, unequivocally, question HitchHiker’s truthfulness. Perhaps, you didn’t mean to, but you most certainly did!

I think you need to reread what I wrote carefully. While I may have mischaracterized what is going on inside HitchHiker's head (since I can't really know unless he tells me) I never called him a liar. I said, it seems to me that he believes the "it's not legal" angle Wyndham is putting out through him, and that it is the actual reasoning behind these actions, and if I question any of their actions, the answer is, because "it is not legal to do otherwise" and because "Wyndham says so". I have a hard time a) believing Wyndham is being truthful and b) that there is not a "legal" way to go about this a different route.

I'd have to go back for the actual "it's not legal" language, and I paraphrase so please don't hold me to the exact language.

 

[Arimaas]

Attorneys are advising Wyndham on how to proceed through what has been described here as an untested bankruptcy court proceeding. What else would you call it?

Wyndham has a goal in mind. None of us are privy to what that goal is specifically. We can only assume that is to wrap this up by 12/31 to get everything off the books as neat as possible by end of CY 25. The attorneys (we think) are advising of them of the best way to go about that, that meets THEIR needs. That has nothing to do with what is "legal" and what isn't. A attorney worth his or her weight in anything, can accomplish whatever a client wants, for the most part (I'm not talking about a criminal defense attorney here). If Wyndham wanted to put a pop up on the reservations it could, it just not in its best interests. Very different than something "not being legal".

Now, this is just by 2¢, so I can't back this up with fact, but if the Wyndham attorneys can find a way to make it perfectly "legal" to sell timeshare by telling outright lies and scaring people into spending more money after an "account review," they could find a way to block out dates "legally".

Either way, this is going to continue on and on. I may have to take a cue from hitchhiker and back out of the continued discussion on this as well.

 

[Rolltydr]

I think you need to reread what I wrote carefully. While I may have mischaracterized what is going on inside HitchHiker's head (since I can't really know unless he tells me) I never called him a liar. I said, it seems to me that he believes the "it's not legal" angle Wyndham is putting out through him, and that it is the actual reasoning behind these actions, and if I question any of their actions, the answer is, because "it is not legal to do otherwise" and because "Wyndham says so". I have a hard time a) believing Wyndham is being truthful and b) that there is not a "legal" way to go about this a different route.

I'd have to go back for the actual "it's not legal" language, and I paraphrase so please don't hold me to the exact language.

I read it carefully several times before I responded. I don’t see how it can be interpreted any other way. You seem to be saying now that you believe he is a shill, but not necessarily, a liar. If you will look back, you will see that I said you called him a “ liar or a Wyndham shill”. I stand by my statement.

 

[paxsarah]

If you will look back, you will see that I said you called him a “ liar or a Wyndham shill”. I stand by my statement.

You're funny.

How do you make that leap?

 

[Arimaas]

I read it carefully several times before I responded. I don’t see how it can be interpreted any other way. You seem to be saying now that you believe he is a shill, but not necessarily, a liar. If you will look back, you will see that I said you called him a “ liar or a Wyndham shill”. I stand by my statement.

Well, you would be mischaracterizing what I said, and if HE believes that, than I apologize to HIM.

Since you don't think I am calling him a liar, let's concentrate on shill.

According to Oxford, a shill "is an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others." I don't believe he is working in concert with Wyndham one bit, meaning I don't think he is an accomplice, meaning, I don't think he, by definition, is a shill. I do think, from what I have read from his posts, is that he believes what his contacts are telling him, and this is what he is reporting it to us. If we question the reasoning, the answer is that is what his contacts are telling him and I should accept it at face value. All I am saying is that I don't believe what his contacts are telling him. If HitchHiker cares enough to comment, I will entertain his posts, as I will owe him an apology if he took my posts as calling him a liar or shill, or something else of the sort. However, I am done further discussing this with you.

 

[Rolltydr]

Well, you would be mischaracterizing what I said, and if HE believes that, than I apologize to HIM.

Since you don't think I am calling him a liar, let's concentrate on shill.

According to Oxford, a shill "is an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others." I don't believe he is working in concert with Wyndham one bit, meaning I don't think he is an accomplice, meaning, I don't think he, be definition,is a shill. I do think, from what I have read from his posts, is that he believes what his contacts are telling him, and this is what he is reporting it to us. If we question the reasoning, the answer is that is what his contacts are telling him and I should accept it at face value. All I am saying is that I don't believe what his contacts are telling him. If HitchHiker cares enough to comment, I will entertain his posts, as I will owe him an apology if he took my posts as calling him a liar or shill, or something else of the sort. However, I am done further discussing this with you.

Good. Bye.

 

[chapjim]

For some one that doesn't care, you seem to read my posts

Yes, I do, but they're getting old and repetitious.

 

[Arimaas]

Yes, I do, but they're getting old and repetitious.

I concur. I even tired myself out. See post 2,392.

 

[Sandi Bo]

I'll switch it up, been sitting on the sidelines trying not to spend too much time worrying about this fiasco (while mourning the probable loss of our #1 favorite resort).

First I'll comment on how ridiculous Wyndham's communication plan (or lack thereof is). They appoint some messengers that can communicate for them, so nothing is official, and ultimately would never stand up in court (it's all heresay - by design).

Second, special thanks to those so concerned about the 'innocent owners', planning vacations for 2026 at resorts that likely will be cancelling those well planned and thought out vacations. We can only hope the message makes it to as many as possible (knowing full well it will not get to everyone).

And just wondering how many people (Wyndham included) think it was such a great idea to shut down those megarenters / people who were paying maintenance fees on millions of points. And filling those empty rooms. And provided marks for their sales folks. Now Wyndham's left holding the bag, so to speak. All these contracts they can't resell. Apparently they aren't the best at the rental business, either. As a result we are losing 13 resorts (some that many of us like and used quite frequently). And it's allowing Wyndham to offer to trade the points for CWA points they got left holding.

I see no winners here. Just a poor business plan by a corporation that thrives by allowing their sales staff to lie and decieve, and enough money they get away with this kind of stuff. Who still thinks Wyndham's got their best interests at heart - timeshares for owners and families? If you believe all that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you - better yet - are you interested in any Wyndham contracts, listing mine is on my to do list.

 

[comicbookman]

Yeah, there's lots of that around here... they love to engage and have the last word. Even when they are wrong or just grasping at straws to defend their position.

Something that I bet a good lawyer could and should argue is that Wyndham, continuing to accept reservations past the date they know for certain the resorts will be shutting down (demonstrated by the fact that they have told this to employees) means they are in fact acting in bad faith to it's owner base (customers) who have booked their vacations months in advance, in good faith, with the understanding they will be honored.

These two worlds cannot exist similtaneously. You absolutely cannot have it both ways. And the question ultimately will be whether a court sides with "vague legalese" or "Wyndham did not act in good faith and owes compensation to affected parties".

You can't play the "aw shucks, some rando contract verbiage says I can't block out bookings" and the "sorry, you are on your own and we owe you nothing" cards simultaneously.

I see your law degree is lacking again. different laws and contractual obligations apply to members, HOA's and employees. there are federal and state laws as well as specific contractual language which apply to this situation. Add to that that they are going down a new way of closing things down the level of uncertainty is very high. While I hate the result, acting in good faith means means different things than what you and I would like. I have no doubt you could find an ambulance chaser to try to make a brute force bad faith argument, but I doubt any truly decent lawyer would touch such a case.

 

[ctorrega]

Today I received Notice of Special Meeting regarding Fairfield Bay to be held on September 25th @ 11am

Purpose is to discuss and vote to authorize BOD to file chapter 11

 

[HitchHiker71]

Today I received Notice of Special Meeting regarding Fairfield Bay to be held on September 25th @ 11am

Purpose is to discuss and vote to authorize BOD to file chapter 11

Thanks for sharing this update. I will update the table in the OP with this info.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

I'll switch it up, been sitting on the sidelines trying not to spend too much time worrying about this fiasco (while mourning the probable loss of our #1 favorite resort).

Which resort? Curious more than anything. I’d guess BB?

First I'll comment on how ridiculous Wyndham's communication plan (or lack thereof is). They appoint some messengers that can communicate for them, so nothing is official, and ultimately would never stand up in court (it's all heresay - by design).

Not appointed. Volunteered. It was Richelle and I proactively pursuing this whole topic on our own. We were not approached for any of this, and we don’t have to do any of this really. We could simply stop sharing any/all information, creating data tables, and keeping the data current, and leave people in the dark. We do this work and sacrifice our own time primarily because we want to attempt to at least partially ease burdens for everyone involved. We get nothing out of this really, other than to help others.

Second, special thanks to those so concerned about the 'innocent owners', planning vacations for 2026 at resorts that likely will be cancelling those well planned and thought out vacations. We can only hope the message makes it to as many as possible (knowing full well it will not get to everyone).

That’s why we are doing what we are doing here.

And just wondering how many people (Wyndham included) think it was such a great idea to shut down those megarenters / people who were paying maintenance fees on millions of points. And filling those empty rooms. And provided marks for their sales folks. Now Wyndham's left holding the bag, so to speak. All these contracts they can't resell. Apparently they aren't the best at the rental business, either. As a result we are losing 13 resorts (some that many of us like and used quite frequently). And it's allowing Wyndham to offer to trade the points for CWA points they got left holding.

I see no winners here. Just a poor business plan by a corporation that thrives by allowing their sales staff to lie and decieve, and enough money they get away with this kind of stuff. Who still thinks Wyndham's got their best interests at heart - timeshares for owners and families? If you believe all that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you - better yet - are you interested in any Wyndham contracts, listing mine is on my to do list.

Sounds like you will be exiting Wyndham?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk