[CONTENT REMOVED FROM ORIGINAL THREAD PLACED HERE] Legal debate thread for the ongoing Wyndham resort closure actions...

[Arimaas]

You have no claim. Just because it is not your actions that cause it, it is you who are actually in breach of the contract. You cannot solve this by using the HOA and Wyndham interchangeably. The HOA is a distinctly separate entity both legally and physically. This is a fact, not an opinion. You choosing to use them interchangeably does not change that fact. It is no different than if your auto insurance company drops you for failure to make payment because someone stole all your money. It's not your fault you can't pay, but it is you breaching the terms of your contract with them. In both instances your breach is caused by a 3rd party. Unless you can find examples of improper dealings between Wyndham and HOA, I don't see any court declaring that the HOA and Wyndham can be claimed to be interchangeable. As I said earlier, Wyndham's majority membership in the HOA is only an issue if they used it to cause the HOA to treat them different than other owners. We have no evidence of that so far.

I disagree with you and still think there’s a claim. You are right I am being sloppy with my interchangeable use, but I still think there’s a valid claim. Am I going to pursue it is another matter. Actually, I can’t pursue it. I am not one of the people damaged in this

 

[comicbookman]

I disagree with you and still think there’s a claim. You are right I am being sloppy with my interchangeable use, but I still think there’s a valid claim. Am I going to pursue it is another matter. Actually, I can’t pursue it. I am not one of the people damaged in this

So basically, you admit that you think there is a claim, because you think there should be a claim, not based on any actual facts. OK, good to know. Not really how the law works.

 

[Arimaas]

Please show your math on the claimed 133% increase. IIRC you would be paying approximately $2/1000 more, or $8.13/1000 compared to $6.30/1000 - which is actually $1.83 more. My math calculates out to a 29% increase by the numbers, assuming your $6.30/1000 does not include PFs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 33% versus 29% isn’t too much of a difference given my math was done in my head. I just figured it’s 1/3 more.

 

[Arimaas]

So basically, you admit that you think there is a claim, because you think there should be a claim, not based on any actual facts. OK, good to know. Not really how the law works.

Just like any one whoever brings a case to court. One side thinks they are right. One side thinks they are wrong. Neither of us know the answer. Not you, not me.

Questions of Facts get presented to to a jury to decide.

 

[comicbookman]

The 33% versus 29% isn’t too much of a difference given my math was done in my head. I just figured it’s 1/3 more.

View attachment 117023

Actually, Hitchhiker is comparing 29% to 133%, a very large difference. You specifically said a 133% increase, which is huge. (that would be double plus another 3rd). I assume you mispoke.

 

[HitchHiker71]

The 33% versus 29% isn’t too much of a difference given my math was done in my head. I just figured it’s 1/3 more.

View attachment 117023

You said 133%, twice. Not 1/3. These are not the same. Basic mathematics. Details matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Arimaas]

Actually, Hitchhiker is comparing 29% to 133%, a very large difference. You specifically said a 133% increase, which is huge. (that would be double plus another 3rd). I assume you mispoke.

You said 133%, twice. Not 1/3. These are not the same. Basic mathematics. Details matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. Used the formula wrong I posted. 33% increase still a lot.

Either way I give up you guys are right I don’t care anymore.

 

[comicbookman]

Just like any one whoever brings a case to court. One side thinks they are right. One side thinks they are wrong. Neither of us know the answer. Not you, not me.

Questions of Facts get presented to to a jury to decide.

Except you still haven't actual state a cause of action, so right or wrong does not come into it. You don't get to file a lawsuit by claiming that Wyndham must have done something wrong to me because I don't like what happened. You have state a specific cause and you have repeatedly failed to do so. That does not come down to neither of us knows the answer. While I have state opinions, I have also stated facts which undermine the supposed basis for your opinion. Like your math, (133% vs 29%) your opinion sits on easily disproved grounds. mine could be eventually disproved as well, but there are currently no facts that disagree with it.

Edit to add: There are no disputed facts so far, just an assertion by you that a proven fact should be ignored. (that the HOA and Wyndham are separate entities)

 

[Arimaas]

See above. I’ve given up trying. There’s no you was trying to debate this any longer. I really don’t care anymore.
And it’s not because I carried the 100% incorrectly in my formula it’s just not worth my time anymore.

 

[comicbookman]

See above. I’ve given up trying. There’s no you was trying to debate this any longer. I really don’t care anymore.
And it’s not because I carried the 100% incorrectly in my formula it’s just not worth my time anymore.

I did give you the benefit of saying you misspoke. My point was your arguments were sloppy and that undermined any point you were trying to make. I do agree, as I said before, the result sucks and it would benefit (and cost very little) for Wyndham do something to make it fair for the sake of good PR.

 

[Rolltydr]

Just like any one whoever brings a case to court. One side thinks they are right. One side thinks they are wrong. Neither of us know the answer. Not you, not me.

Questions of Facts get presented to to a jury to decide.

But, you have to present facts to a judge that show you at least have some chance of prevailing with your arguments. Cases based on conjecture and made up charges of harm get dismissed very early in the process without ever being presented to a jury.

 

[Arimaas]

Except you still haven't actual state a cause of action, so right or wrong does not come into it. You don't get to file a lawsuit by claiming that Wyndham must have done something wrong to me because I don't like what happened. You have state a specific cause and you have repeatedly failed to do so. That does not come down to neither of us knows the answer. While I have state opinions, I have also stated facts which undermine the supposed basis for your opinion. Like your math, (133% vs 29%) your opinion sits on easily disproved grounds. mine could be eventually disproved as well, but there are currently no facts that disagree with it.

Edit to add: There are no disputed facts so far, just an assertion by you that a proven fact should be ignored. (that the HOA and Wyndham are separate entities)

I did give you the benefit of saying you misspoke. My point was your arguments were sloppy and that undermined any point you were trying to make. I do agree, as I said before, the result sucks and it would benefit (and cost very little) for Wyndham do something to make it fair for the sake of good PR.

Appreciate the benefit and the agreement. I am going to decline to keep going down this rabbit hole. It's just not worth my time anymore.

 

[comicbookman]

Appreciate the benefit and the agreement. I am going to decline to keep going down this rabbit hole. It's just not worth my time anymore.

Enjoy the silence and have a good day.

 

[dioxide45]

You have no claim.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but would it perhaps be better to use terminology like "I personally wouldn't take your case" or "I don't know if any attorneys that would be willing to take such a case" or "I don't think a judge would see it that way"? Aren't we all just providing opinions here based on what we understand of the facts (which there are few)? In reality, the written explanation of a court judgement is also considered the 'opinion'.

 

[dioxide45]

Quoting from the other thread;

Interesting. I would have thought that the refunds would occur before the bankruptcy filings since they were directly authorized by a membership vote. Expenses for 2026 are being covered out of reserves, again by a membership vote, so that is not an ongoing issue.

I would have thought the same thing. If it doesn't work that way, couldn't each owner as a creditor have a different claim? If so, wouldn't it be harder to put them all in the same class?

 

[comicbookman]

Quoting from the other thread;

I would have thought the same thing. If it doesn't work that way, couldn't each owner as a creditor have a different claim? If so, wouldn't it be harder to put them all in the same class?

If the court authorizes the refund, it could still be carried out in the same manner after bankruptcy as it would have been before. Given the level of reserves and the fact that the HOAs are not actually broke I don't see why the court would block this distribution, but there are a lot of unknowns in that scenario.

 

[dioxide45]

If the court authorizes the refund, it could still be carried out in the same manner after bankruptcy as it would have been before. Given the level of reserves and the fact that the HOAs are not actually broke I don't see why the court would block this distribution, but there are a lot of unknowns in that scenario.

Just seems odd that they would want to try to seek court approval when they could distribute it prior. Though perhaps distributing the funds prior to bankruptcy could cause some additional questions. Like if you're filing bankruptcy, you don't have much business dolling out money.

 

[kozykritter]

Just seems odd that they would want to try to seek court approval when they could distribute it prior. Though perhaps distributing the funds prior to bankruptcy could cause some additional questions. Like if you're filing bankruptcy, you don't have much business dolling out money.

Bankruptcy filings have a 90-day lookback period for payments and asset transfers where some creditors received preferential treatment versus others. Assuming the bankruptcy filings are meant to happen sooner rather than later, this conservative approach saves the trustee from possibly having to claw back those payments later if they are found to be preferential (aka they received more money upfront than they would have after the bankruptcy is settled).

 

[comicbookman]

Bankruptcy filings have a 90-day lookback period for payments and asset transfers where some creditors received preferential treatment versus others. Assuming the bankruptcy filings are meant to happen sooner rather than later, this conservative approach saves the trustee from possibly having to claw back those payments later if they are found to be preferential (aka they received more money upfront than they would have after the bankruptcy is settled).

That is true, however based on the presentations at the HOA meeting the HOA has no outstanding debts, just ongoing expenses. So, no really no existing creditors. They also said there was more than enough in the reserves to cover ongoing costs until a sale is completed, so unlikely that a claw back would be even a remote consideration. They implied that the 2026 refunds would be coming before any CWA swap, which needs to happen before the end of the year to avoid screwing up reservations of those taking the swap. Hitchhiker has agreed to bring this up at his next meeting with Wyndham to see if we can get clarity on an official expected timeline.

 

[kozykritter]

That is true, however based on the presentations at the HOA meeting the HOA has no outstanding debts, just ongoing expenses. So, no really no existing creditors. They also said there was more than enough in the reserves to cover ongoing costs until a sale is completed, so unlikely that a claw back would be even a remote consideration. They implied that the 2026 refunds would be coming before any CWA swap, which needs to happen before the end of the year to avoid screwing up reservations of those taking the swap. Hitchhiker has agreed to bring this up at his next meeting with Wyndham to see if we can get clarity on an official expected timeline.

True, but what the HOA says doesn't always influence how the bankruptcy court operates in a case as they have to allow for undisclosed or unexpected creditors filing claims and the potential ramifications with respect to preferential payments. The HOA has its own agenda and that will influence what is presented to its owners in a meeting and also how it presents its case to the court. The bankruptcy court has to allow for the facts to differ from those presented, and trying to recover funds sent to hundreds/thousands of individuals is likely a more challenging activity versus doing so with corporate/business payments.

 

[dioxide45]

The point [] is that, contrary to popular belief

is simply not true.



If that is how the buyer negotiates the purchase price, without regard to the delayed award, that is on them.

I am curious @CO skier , were you enlightened by the followup posts on this from the other thread?

I vote for the points are missing forever (not months or years).

If they realign you, there is a gap in usage (3, 6, or 9 months). Yet someone, either the buyer or the seller, is paying maintenance fees for that time period. And now you have a contract whose use year has been realigned (pushed out). Sell it again, what happens? New user gets the new use year (I suppose that supports the missing for years argument, but now they are missing forever).

If it were 'fair' to realign without giving an owner prorated points for that time period, why did Wyndham do that for some (most but not all) owners during the great realignment exercise 10 years ago?

That's a good point. When realignment happens, someone is paying 15, 18, or 21 months of maintenance fees for the same amount of points. That doesn't simply go away or not happen just because the expiration date changes. That money is lost. Even if it is said that the money goes to the HOA, for Wyndham managed properties they are earning a management fee. You can also look at the Club Fee. That is also billed monthly and a portion of that goes to Wyndham as revenue.

Something is being stolen. We can say it's points or cash, but we can't ignore it and somehow think Wyndham is not part of it.

 

[Floridaman76]

But, you have to present facts to a judge that show you at least have some chance of prevailing with your arguments. Cases based on conjecture and made up charges of harm get dismissed very early in the process without ever being presented to a jury.

And you are not a judge, and this is not a court of law.

The poster owes you nothing more than what they've written. Some of you seemingly ground him down just to get the last word in

Some of you are something else, jesus...

 

[comicbookman]

And you are not a judge, and this is not a court of law.

The poster owes you nothing more than what they've written. Some of you seemingly ground him down just to get the last word in

Some of you are something else, jesus...

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but would it perhaps be better to use terminology like "I personally wouldn't take your case" or "I don't know if any attorneys that would be willing to take such a case" or "I don't think a judge would see it that way"? Aren't we all just providing opinions here based on what we understand of the facts (which there are few)? In reality, the written explanation of a court judgement is also considered the 'opinion'.

Not really. It is my professional opinion, based on being a member of the bar for 40 years, that no valid claim was stated. What has been presented is so far from making an actual claim that I have no hesitation speaking in the affirmative. Yes it is my opinion, but in this case I don't see the need for any qualifiers.

 

[Floridaman76]

And you are not a judge, and this is not a court of law.

Not really. It is my professional opinion, based on being a member of the bar for 40 years, that no valid claim was stated. What has been presented is so far from making an actual claim that I have no hesitation speaking in the affirmative. Yes it is my opinion, but in this case I don't see the need for any qualifiers.

And as so many of your posts indicate, you have completely missed the point.

But just like the other poster, i'm exiting this pointless circular conversation with you. Error GoTo 0

 

[comicbookman]

And as so many of your posts indicate, you have completely missed the point.

But just like the other poster, i'm exiting this pointless circular conversation with you. Error GoTo 0

and as usual you twist your position and when cornered, run. No regrets to see you gone. (although you have claimed you were gone before, but you just can't help yourself to try to sound like you know what you are talking about, which you often don't)