No, don't need the last word, (feel free to spout some new nonsense after this post) as a lawyer for almost 40 years, I just hate to see lay people spout nonsense about the law as if it were fact.
I am sure if the average owner knew how much more prime availability is being booked by owners to take their families on vacation versus 10 years ago, they would want more of the same for the next 10 years. Wyndham clearly thinks it is still a good idea. The renter/megarenter activity at resorts such as Bentley Brook must be one of the reasons these resorts are getting the boot. What kind of a business plan is it for Wyndham to subsidize competition for Extra Holidays through VIP discounts and upgrades to owners running a commercial rental business?
Those "empty rooms" megarenters were filling were prime reservations at high demand resorts booked at 13 months, hence the introduction of Owner Priority Dates. Now those "empty rooms" are being filled by owners booking for their personal use, many of whom paid retail prices for these premium vacations.
It was inevitable due to the owners at the resorts voting with their feet. Would you have preferred the following alternative?
This is your opinion. You state it like it's facts. We don't get facts and data from Wyndham. EVER about anything. You have your opinion and I have mine.
Yes, BB is a huge disappointment/loss for us. I will forever be grateful for the time spent there, for vacations as well as convenience for family when my mother was ill.
Table in the OP updated as promised. Did the letter happen to address any 2026 operations vote as well, and/or a date after which operations will cease?
When I was at Skyline in mid August, you had a lot of upset people stating they were going to call owner resolutions and the resort to address the rumors. Many of the folks I was talking to own at Skyline and stay there for weeks at a time. The resort looked in pretty decent shape and was filled to capacity. Sales was doing their thing too to a full house.
I will continue to trumpet the F&F type program for this purpose, but to date it's largely fallen on deaf ears unfortunately. I know that's not what you're driving at here per se, but I've always pitched that if Wyndham is going to allow any rentals from owners, create a feature that puts guard rails around this capability from the outset and allows everyone to play by the same rules on the same field so to speak.
I figured it was BB as I recall you posting about how disappointing this would be earlier in this thread. We are basically just as disappointed with the Poconos closure for the same reason. More than any other resort, though Wyndham Shawnee was an older more rustic type of resort, we personally have grown to love the resorts off the beaten paths. That's us though, and clearly Wyndham has chosen to head in a different direction.
As do I. I'd try to list them out but then I'd forget someone that may feel left out, and therefore I will resist the temptation to do so.
Downsizing sounds like it may be in the cards. I agree, if there's any way to keep the account(s) at Founders level, that would be ideal. It's certainly worthwhile trying to keep any Founders level account intact IMHO.
Did the letter mention any vote on 2026 operations, or ceasing operations on/after a certain date?
Table in the OP updated with this information - thanks for sharing.
It's largely a form letter that all resorts are using that was, essentially, written by K&L Gates - the third-party law firm representing all of the HOAs for these actions. This is an excerpt from the form letters regarding Association representation and the real estate firm hired for property sale - again - all of the HOAs are using the same firms for these actions - at least to date:
A quick Google search of the firms shows that Hilco is a large firm that specializes in RE optimization and disposition. Again, we will never be privy to it, and it really doesn't matter to us cogs, but I am curious if Wyndham conducted an optimization survey with their holdings, if so, how long ago that survey was conducted, and is this part one of a multi phase process depending on how this goes. I guess only time will tell.
This is the thing I've been wondering about. If I'm looking to book a trip, and am booking flights and other hard to change or refund things and you knowingly offer me a accommodations that you never intend to fulfill - isn't that some sort of fraud? I don't mean owners here, I mean presumably they're also renting these still on the open market in Extra Vacations or the like. If you then rug pull me on my lodging I'm suffering actual monetary damages on either more last minute bookings, lost airline tickets or change fees on those tickets, etc. Would trip insurance even cover a booking that went "poof", not for some natural disaster, but because a hotel, TS, AirB&B, whatever didn't actually exist when you showed up?
Now, what I'm betting is that the Wyndham lawyers are thinking no one will sue, or they can claim indirect damages aren't their issue. Who knows how courts would rule, or if there's going to be enough people annoyed enough to themselves make a case of it. Which is IMO one issue in our legal system - it's so hard to deal with it that you have to be screwed out of a LOT of money to make it worthwhile. So companies in general are always breaking the law but just up to the threshold where a customer or otherwise affected person would find it worthwhile to sue.
I still say there is a possible class action suit here by the folks that made the reservations and had the rug pulled out from under them. However, the only people to really receive anything for their damages in a class action suit is the lead plaintiff, and then the law firm that takes a third. But like I said earlier, I am sure the attorneys and risk managers went over all the permutations that this may play out, that was considered, and still deemed better to operate this way they because it meets their end goals with the best outcome for Wyndham.
You had some questions
I provided some answers.
Wyndham provides facts if one does some digging. There is a wealth of facts in the Fairshare Vacation Plan Trust Agreement and Club Directory, among other sources. A few examples:
Actually, RENTER of all people pointed out in the first week or so that the resorts under discussion had been blocked from Extra Holidays listings after the new year.
That has been my supposition all along yes, though only time will tell of course.
IDK about KBV. Someone who is privy to the KBV HOA comms would have to provide this type of guidance.
At least two more. My deeds are at Mountain Ridge and Fairways. I think there might even be 1 or 2 more. I have not received any communications yet.
Still looks like lots of opinion (an assumptions) to me. Why not up be upfront and honest, I shouldn't have to dig for facts or interpolate or make assumptions based on opinions. Facts and data are what I want to see, from Wyndham directly. I realize that isn't going to happen.
Long story short, your argument requires intent to defraud. If Wyndham is following the steps in question due to direct legal advice from outside firms and/or their own lawyers, and there are legal requirements that are being followed per the bylaws, governing documents, and local/state/federal laws, and Wyndham's legal representation can prove this, and I'm assuming they certainly can in any court of law, then there is no intent to defraud. I'd be curious to get feedback from real world lawyers like @comicbookman as to my assertions here, whether on or off base.