VIP Transfer to new owner loophole?

[brekkon]

Been away for a while and am wondering if this loophole still exists. If a deed is still owned by original owner can two title transfers still be done to retain VIP status for new owner?

The way I understood it a couple years ago you could do a title change moving 1 new owner onto the title and leaving an original owner, (No VIP benefits lost doing this) Then do another title change after that goes through to remove the last owner and place the 2nd new owner onto the title.

This loophole allowed the Points to still appear as ORIGINAL owner points and thus count towards VIP status.

Does anyone know if this is still an existing loophole?

Has anyone seen this get accomplished and verified it had worked?

I am trying to see the best way for us to add another contract through resale and see if we can jump up VIP level in doing it this way still.

 

[brekkon]

Thanks for any information people can provide on this.

 

[55plus]

If Wyndham ever suspected this, they could do a deed search where the deed was filed to verify the owner and compare it to the account. It could be problematic for the new owner of the documents don't match. Could end up being expensive if Wyndham claimed fraud and took it to court.

 

[brekkon]

If Wyndham ever suspected this, they could do a deed search where the deed was filed to verify the owner and compare it to the account. It could be problematic for the new owner of the documents don't match. Could end up being expensive if Wyndham claimed fraud and took it to court.

Not sure how it is fraud if that is the way the system works so that when you hand down deeds to family the VIP status transfers. I think to be fraud it would actually have to be spelled out that it is not allowed. It was a wyndham employee that first told me about the loophole that I am wondering if they finally put in a rule that does not allow it. (If there is now a rule that prevents this and you did it only then would it be fraud)

 

[scootr5]

One thing is for sure, if it’s discussed here on the public forum and it benefits someone besides Wyndham they’ll close it down.

 

[Braindead]

when you hand down deeds to family the VIP status transfers.)

That’s not a loophole if in fact that’s what you’re doing, in fact it’s been reported here that Wyndham MAY do the paperwork free of charge.

The way I understood it a couple years ago you could do a title change moving 1 new owner onto the title and leaving an original owner, (No VIP benefits lost doing this) Then do another title change after that goes through to remove the last owner and place the 2nd new owner onto the title.

Does anyone know if this is still an existing loophole?
I am trying to see the best way for us to add another contract through resale and see if we can jump up VIP level in doing it this way still.

Now your committing fraud and you are acknowledging it also as you say LOOPHOLE back dooring a benefit that you acknowledge is illegitimate

 

[brekkon]

That’s not a loophole if in fact that’s what you’re doing, in fact it’s been reported here that Wyndham MAY do the paperwork free of charge.

Now your committing fraud and you are acknowledging it also as you say LOOPHOLE back dooring a benefit that you acknowledge is illegitimate

A loophole by definition is LEGAL. If it was illegitimate it would actually be breaking the rules which must be clearly laid down in any contract. Since it was not laid out anywhere it was a LEGAL means to an end which I am calling a loophole. I am basically just asking if that loophole is still there and anyone has experience doing it.

I would appreciate it if people refrained from even commenting on this thread if all they are going to be is armchair lawyers with their cereal box prize degrees in contract law.

 

[55plus]

I wouldn't call what you are talking about a loophole. I'd consider it fraud per it's definition: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

 

[harveyhaddixfan]

I wouldn't call what you are talking about a loophole. I'd consider it fraud per it's definition: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

The same could be said about Wyndham selling to someone and not telling them that they strip benefits from resale contracts.

 

[Eric B]

I wouldn't call what you are talking about a loophole. I'd consider it fraud per it's definition: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any part of what he's contemplating as something that would meet the definition of fraud (knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment). What he's proposing is a change in title of real estate to add his name to it, accompanied by the appropriate payment to Wyndham for the account maintenance, followed by an actual real estate transaction to transfer the title from a joint tenancy to sole ownership on his part, again accompanied by the appropriate payment to Wyndham for the account maintenance. If I were doing it, I wouldn't even try to hide any fact from Wyndham when doing either transfer. It's just following the rules as they have them set up. They might seek to change them in the future, but the only way I can see that would make it stick would be if they made the VIP status particular to the individual purchasing from them rather than associated with the account. That would get a bit messy, though, and remove most of the incentive for later purchases by a single individual.

 

[55plus]

The same could be said about Wyndham selling to someone and not telling them that they strip benefits from resale contracts.

I totally agree. I inherited a Fairfield VIP Platinum from the early '90s from my parents. I've watched the benefits and perks deplete over the years. Fortunately the valuable and important ones haven't been touched.

 

[ecwinch]

Having just buffed up my cereal box law degree, I fail to see how this is fraud or a violation of your contract.

It is legal to add someone to the title.
It is legal to remove someone from the title.

Unless you signed something in the process mis-representing a material fact, I fail to see fraud.

 

[Braindead]

It is legal to add someone to the title.
It is legal to remove someone from the title.

Money laundering works pretty much on that principle

 

[ecwinch]

Money laundering works pretty much on that principle

In money laundering you typically are misrepresenting that the money is yours. So decent analogy, but flawed.

Here the transaction is completely transparent to Wyndham. They see X added to the title, and later they see Y removed from the title.

If Wyndham felt it was a violation of the contract, they could simply remove VIP benefits when Y is removed from title.

 

[Braindead]

In money laundering you typically are misrepresenting that the money is yours. So decent analogy, but flawed.

Here the transaction is completely transparent to Wyndham. They see X added to the title, and later they see Y removed from the title.

If Wyndham felt it was a violation of the contract, they could simply remove VIP benefits when Y is removed from title.

And here they are misrepresenting that they are family instead of money, knowing that’s the only way to keep the VIP status.

 

[ecwinch]

And here they are misrepresenting that they are family instead of money, knowing that’s the only way to keep the VIP status.

As I understand the loophole - unless someone is doing this in Ovations - there never has to be a representation that there is a family relationship.

 

[raygo123]

There is no mention in your contract about VIP in anyone's contract. that is a function of club Wyndham. If any problem offers it would be when you try to register it with Wyndham.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk

 

[55plus]

As I understand the loophole - unless someone is doing this in Ovations - there never has to be a representation that there is a family relationship.

Sounds like the definition of fraud, not a loophole. It's misrepresentation, that's the fraud.

 

[Braindead]

As I understand the loophole - unless someone is doing this in Ovations - there never has to be a representation that there is a family relationship.

Why are you doing 2 title transfers if your not misrepresenting that you’re family or an original owner ?
The only reason you’re doing 2 transfers is because you’re knowingly trying to circumvent the rules for personal gain to another’s detriment
The OP is hoping they don’t get noticed or caught just like me speeding down the highway

 

[paxsarah]

Why are you doing 2 title transfers if your not misrepresenting that you’re family or an original owner ?
The only reason you’re doing 2 transfers is because you’re knowingly trying to circumvent the rules for personal gain to another’s detriment

I'd say the more accurate word you're using is circumvention, not misrepresentation. If it was explicit misrepresentation, they'd do it in a single transaction and represent it as a family relationship. Instead by using two transactions to add/remove individuals instead of a single transfer, they're circumventing the expected process and hoping it flies under Wyndham's radar. You might be able to say it's misrepresentation by omission, but not direct misrepresentation.

 

[Braindead]

I'd say the more accurate word you're using is circumvention, not misrepresentation. If it was explicit misrepresentation, they'd do it in a single transaction and represent it as a family relationship. Instead by using two transactions to add/remove individuals instead of a single transfer, they're circumventing the expected process and hoping it flies under Wyndham's radar. You might be able to say it's misrepresentation by omission, but not direct misrepresentation.

Sorry my cerial box law degree professor wasn’t very good at teaching the correct terminology

 

[55plus]

Circumventing is the process, not the action. Misrepresentation is the action and the end result, which is fraud due to deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

 

[ecwinch]

Then why does Wyndham allows a co-owner (who was not on the title when VIP benefits were obtained) to enjoy VIP benefits if it is a violation of some provision of their contract?

And doesnt Wyndam allow LLC's and Trusts to have VIP benefits? How is either of those two scenario's any different?

 

[Braindead]

Then why does Wyndham allows a co-owner (who was not on the title when VIP benefits were obtained) to enjoy VIP benefits if it is a violation of some provision of their contract?

And doesnt Wyndam allow LLC's and Trusts to have VIP benefits? How is either of those two scenario's any different?

As raygo123 pointed out it’s not in the contract other than I believe you have to abide by the Trust rules. Probably wrong on terminology

It’s my understanding that Wyndham allows VIP benefits to transfer to certain family members, including same sex unions and changes of entities of trust or LLCs

It would be a lot easier to have a same sex union for a couple of months, don’t know if it would be considered an affair to your spouse

 

[55plus]

I wasn't married when I inherited my parent's VIP Platinum. inheritarence is spelled out in the directory. I added my wife to the deeds after we were married and sent a copy of the deeds to Wyndham to add my wife to my ownrship/membership account. That was the proper procedure to make my wife a co-owner. If you obtain a VIP account, process a deed transfer from the original owner to you and not provide Wyndham a copy, you are misrepresenting the ownership and committing fraud by using the VIP benefits associated with the ownership/membership. If the original owner stays on the account with you then it's probably quasi legal.