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

[HitchHiker71]

You seem to wordsmith everything. I went back to look at what this was actually about. It was the difference between properties that are simply dropped from Club Wyndham vs. those that are closed and shutdown/sold and no longer a timeshare (and the owners are paid out and some other company or developer owns it. I need to make sure I cover every possible detail, though I am sure there is something that I won't mention that you will point out as wrong because every possible scenario can't possibly be covered in a short social media post) as it pertains to CWA.

When a resort is closed and it is sold and owners are paid for their ownership, it seems quite simple. Owners and CWA no longer has any ownership rights.

However, when a property is in CWA and it is dropped from Club Wyndham exchange program (not closed), what happens to those deeds that the CWA trust owns? They don't, and won't, go away. Club Wyndham needs to do something with them. Technically speaking, Club Wyndham could still allow CWA owners to use ARP since the property is still a timeshare and CWA still owns the usage rights to those weeks. Since the property wouldn't be in Club Wyndham, other CW owners wouldn't be able to make reservation.

Well, let's first remember that CWA doesn't hold any deeds - the deeds are all held in a separate trust - we've debated this within this thread and you yourself landed at this same conclusion, so we're in agreement on this fact. The CWA is merely a perpetual membership within the Association denominated in Points entitling the owner to participate in the Club - which is CWA. Best guess, when the resort is removed from the Club - those points are no longer accessible within CWA - the points associated to all impacted deeds are removed from the Club entirely. The deeds likely remain in the Fairshare trusts - the land bank trust - which is entirely disparate from CWA - and will likely remain in that land bank trust until the disposition of the resort is complete (whatever that looks like - whether sold, moved, transferred, etc.). I'd surmise that once these contracts are removed from eligibilty for CWA - there's no way owners can book anything at all - since the usage rights are terminated upon removal from CWA. I'm not certain of this, just an educated guess.

 

[dioxide45]

Well, let's first remember that CWA doesn't hold any deeds - the deeds are all held in a separate trust - we've debated this within this thread and you yourself landed at this same conclusion, so we're in agreement on this fact.

Yes, I am aware. It is just easier to say "the CWA trust" instead of "the trust that holds all the deeds for CWA". We all know what we are really talking about. Thus my previous "wordsmithing" comment.

Though I also thought we determined that the deeds are not held in the Fairshare trust. This is what we determined in a prior post;

CWA deeds are held in a land trust with First American Trust, a Federal Savings Bank, as trustee for the PTVO Owners Association, Inc. ("Association"), the property owners association for Club Wyndham Access owners.

Based on your screen shot the trust is actually called the ClubWyndham Access Vacation Ownership Plan Trust. So I think, at least how I see it, calling it the CWA Trust actually seems most logical. Or we start referring to it as CWAVOP Trust.

The only fundamental difference with CWA vs. how some other pure point systems have setup their trusts is that with CWA you are buying access to utilize a set number of points with a membership agreement vs other trust sell deeded beneficial interests.

 

[CO skier]

However, when a property is in CWA and it is dropped from Club Wyndham exchange program (not closed), what happens to those deeds that the CWA trust owns?

See post #1583.

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

There is a 100% chance these weeks will no longer be a part of Club Wyndham and by extension, CWA, if/when/as each affected resort votes to terminate as a timeshare by one means or another. No different than any other converted fixed week owner at the affected resort. Sure, if the resort is...

tugbbs.com

Since the property wouldn't be in Club Wyndham, other CW owners wouldn't be able to make reservation.

... other CW owners and CWA owners wouldn't be able to make reservation(s).

Technically speaking, Club Wyndham could still allow CWA owners to use ARP since the property is still a timeshare and CWA still owns the usage rights to those weeks.

How do you know "CWA still owns the (deeds) and usage rights" after a CWA resort exits Club Wyndham by whatever means?

Wyndham may transfer deeds out of CWA as easily as they are transferred in, provided enough deeds remain in CWA to "cover" the CWA points that have been sold. See post #1607.

 

[dioxide45]

How is CWA any different from any other converted fixed week? When a resort is dropped from Club Wyndham by whatever means, all the CW points associated with any CWA converted weeks, individual converted weeks, or UDI deeds cease to exist. I do not know how Wyndham handles the logistics of the deeds they would now own, but they definitely could not still be part of CWA which is part of Club Wyndham, because the resort has de-coupled from Club Wyndham.

See post #1583.

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

There is a 100% chance these weeks will no longer be a part of Club Wyndham and by extension, CWA, if/when/as each affected resort votes to terminate as a timeshare by one means or another. No different than any other converted fixed week owner at the affected resort. Sure, if the resort is...

tugbbs.com

... other CW owners and CWA owners wouldn't be able to make reservation(s).


How do you know "CWA still owns the (deeds) and usage rights" after a CWA resort exits Club Wyndham by whatever means?

View attachment 114428

Wyndham may transfer deeds out of CWA as easily as they are transferred in, provided enough deeds remain in CWA to "cover" the CWA points that have been sold. See post #1607.

They can't "transfer deeds out of CWA as easily as they are transferred in". They need to have a legal entity or individual willing to accept the deeds. When they were transferred in, they had a willing entity to take them - CWA Trust. Perhaps they could transfer them out of the CWA trust and put them in the name of just Travel + Leisure or some other trust or LLC they've created to take them.

 

[Arimaas]

Since we are on a CWA roll, why does my CWA contract list a reciprocal resort ? Is that where the actual deed is tied to? Btw I am not a fan of the CWA MFs. They up my average cost, and now that I am losing 154k Fairfield Glade at $6 and change per 1k, my average cost will be increasing even more.

 

[CO skier]

They can't "transfer deeds out of CWA as easily as they are transferred in". They need to have a legal entity or individual willing to accept the deeds.

The deeds are transferred into the CWA trust from Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. All it takes is a deed to transfer an ownership out of the CWA Trust and back to Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.

Easy.

 

[CO skier]

Btw I am not a fan of the CWA MFs. They up my average cost, and now that I am losing 154k Fairfield Glade at $6 and change per 1k, my average cost will be increasing even more.

No desire to flip to CWA even if it is developer. Like I said, I was looking to dump my 126K CWA contract, so I'll just dump my 154 Fairfeild Glade instead.

The deeds still are filed in the county, owned by someone, it's real estate, not something Wyndham can just take away and give you expensive CWA points to replace it.

Just for clarity, no one will be forced to accept a swap to CWA.

 

[Arimaas]

Just for clarity, no one will be forced to accept a swap to CWA.

Of course not. It’ll be an option that many people may take. I think we all know that here. But my average cost per 1000 will now go up since the $6.50/1000 Fairfield glade was bringing down the average, even without flipping the contract to CWA.

I’m happy they are offering this for those that want to keep their Wyndham points. For me, it’s not worth it.

Edited to add last sentence to first paragraph.

 

[CO skier]

But my average cost per 1000 will now go up since the $6.50/1000 Fairfield glade was bringing down the average, even without flipping the contract to CWA.

Then buy a replacement 154k contract at Grand Desert or other resort where the maintenance fees are about $6/1000 or lower.

$35 all-in

Wyndham Grand Desert - 154,000 Points | eBay

Wyndham Points can be used at any Wyndham location! LOCAL PICK-UP IS NOT NECESSARY. Wyndham Grand Desert. 154,000 Club Wyndham Points, Allocated July 1st every year. WYNDHAM WILL TAKE SEVERAL WEEKS TO COMPLETE THEIR END OF THE TRANSFER.

www.ebay.com

 

[Arimaas]

Then buy a replacement 154k contract at Grand Desert or other resort where the maintenance fees are about $6/1000 or lower.

$35 all-in

Wyndham Grand Desert - 154,000 Points | eBay

Wyndham Points can be used at any Wyndham location! LOCAL PICK-UP IS NOT NECESSARY. Wyndham Grand Desert. 154,000 Club Wyndham Points, Allocated July 1st every year. WYNDHAM WILL TAKE SEVERAL WEEKS TO COMPLETE THEIR END OF THE TRANSFER.

www.ebay.com

Before all this,I was gonna dump the 126k CWA anyway. I actually called certified exit maybe three months ago, but my contracts weren’t eligible for some reason. I said that on one of these 68 pages. So unless I can buy the replacement 154k and still dump the CWA, I’ll just hold steady for now and see how this plays out.

I was able to use CWA ARP for Mardi Gras for 2026, so it did serve a purpose.

 

[dioxide45]

The deeds are transferred into the CWA trust from Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. All it takes is a deed to transfer an ownership out of the CWA Trust and back to Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.

Easy.

It does, if they want to go through the trouble and the expense. I don't see why they would do that until they have a buyer outside of Club Wyndham willing to take them.

 

[CO skier]

It does, if they want to go through the trouble and the expense. I don't see why they would do that until they have a buyer outside of Club Wyndham willing to take them.

What is so difficult to comprehend about "because a resort that is not part of Club Wyndham cannot have any deeds (or points), including Club Wyndham Access deeds and points, in the Wyndham Fairshare Vacation Plan?" It is simply not an option.

 

[HitchHiker71]

What is so difficult to comprehend about "because a resort that is not part of Club Wyndham cannot have any deeds (or points), including Club Wyndham Access deeds and points, in the Wyndham Fairshare Vacation Plan?" It is simply not an option.

I'm fairly certain it's as simple a flipping a binary value in a field in a database. Everyone seems to be concerned about the logistics of where the deeds exist, within what trust, as if that somehow controls whether that inventory is accessible, etc., whereas I think that's mostly academic. From a system accessibility standpoint, it's as simple as you said, as long as there are enough points in the CWA trust to meet the macro points entitlements held by the collective trust members, that's all that is required legally. When any one resort is removed from Club Wyndham come 12/31/2025, it's as easy as flipping a bit and boom, every piece of inventory and every point associated from that resort via the contracts is no longer accessible. It's one ETL process run at the SQL layer on the back end, after which all inventory for that resort is effectively removed from the reservation system overnight. The deeds stay in place within whatever trust holds them, they are simply made inaccessible to the Club Wyndham systems by flipping a bit in the back end systems.

My overall point here is it doesn't matter where the deeds are held, that has nothing to do with the accessibility of the inventory attached to those deeds - that is an easy binary field in the back end database that controls whether that inventory is available for reservations. Come 12/31/2025 - an ETL process will run that removes all inventory for all impacted resorts that are being removed from the Club Wyndham system - boom - done. Where the deeds are held is largely irrelevant from this perspective.

 

[Double U]

So it cost a million dollars to put in two double wide trailers where the tennis courts were wow

Daniel

It wasn't quite as simple as putting a speck home on a speck developed lot. Infrastructure, utilities, etc had to be extended. Commercial development is almost always going to cost more than residential. Furnishings, a front desk, and even Infrastructure for the sales department (who wasn't even selling the deeds the property had), had to be installed. A Commercial grade laundry, and a new maintenance facility had to be built and supplied. Personally, I think they did a great job and to get it all done at the price they accomplished. Resorts complain about investing that much in a property these days. It was an incredible feat!

And something like this is not maintenance or routine upkeep. It is a capital improvement, and those are an investment as they enhanced the value. A capital improvement is different.

 

[dioxide45]

What is so difficult to comprehend about "because a resort that is not part of Club Wyndham cannot have any deeds (or points), including Club Wyndham Access deeds and points, in the Wyndham Fairshare Vacation Plan?" It is simply not an option.

Wrong, the Fairshare Vacation Plan does not hold deeds....

 

[CO skier]

Where the deeds are held is largely irrelevant from this perspective.

I think "where the deeds are held" would be highly material for calculating the Club Wyndham Access maintenance dues. Why should CWA owners pay maintenance fees for intervals in resorts they do not have access to?

 

[CO skier]

Wrong, the Fairshare Vacation Plan does not hold deeds....

Let me spell it out, so even you may comprehend, "because a resort that is not part of Club Wyndham cannot have any deeds (or points), including Club Wyndham Access deeds and points, participating in the Wyndham Fairshare Vacation Plan?"

 

[HitchHiker71]

I think "where the deeds are held" would be highly material for calculating the Club Wyndham Access maintenance dues. Why should CWA owners pay maintenance fees for intervals in resorts they do not have access to?

Again - I would surmise this is as simple as flipping a bit - in this case in the back end billing system - which may or may not be tied to the first bit flipped that removes the inventory from the reservation system. If a contract is removed from the reservation system, then the billing system may see this and run a ETL process to prevent that contract from billing to the owner. This stuff is not difficult from an IT perspective, it's on or off, it's that simple, and I'd imagine the systems were built to allow for removal of contracts from the system if/when this transpires. That said, there may be upstream or downstream impacts that are unexpected given all of these systems are tied together in various ways, that's where the problems and unexpected outcomes may or may not come into play.

 

[CO skier]

Again - I would surmise this is as simple as flipping a bit - in this case in the back end billing system -

These "flipping bits" theories beg the question, "If it is such a simple process, why does Wyndham go to all the trouble to create and record deeds transferring CWA inventory ownership from Wyndham Vacations Resorts, Inc. to First American Trust?" Why not just leave them deeded to WVR and "flip the bits" whenever needed?

 

[jp10558]

These "flipping bits" theories beg the question, "If it is such a simple process, why does Wyndham go to all the trouble to create and record deeds transferring CWA inventory ownership from Wyndham Vacations Resorts, Inc. to First American Trust?" Why not just leave them deeded to WVR and "flip the bits" whenever needed?

IT settings have nothing to do with legal issues around real estate ownership, so I bet there's legal issues. Probably tax issues, where / how you report earnings, assets, whatever stuff. It's also entirely possible, given how "good" Wyndham IT is - that while it's theoretically "easy" to flip a bit, it might be far harder to get the right people to sign off on flipping that bit, and they may not really know what happens when they flip the bit because a lot of historically "tested" assumptions have now changed for the systems.

For example, where I work we had a new category of remote access request - outside trainings. We'd never done this before, but sounds simple right? Make account, put in a different group for trainings. We do that, no trainee can log in. Why? Oh yea, 2FA only syncs defined groups for for reasons we didn't sync all groups, so we forgot to add this new group to the sync. So 2FA said there was no valid account to log in to. Ok, now 90% of things work, but one critical web app doesn't let anyone from the training group do anything. Huh? Well, turns out for reasons in setup, it was configured - you guessed it - to check permissions on selected groups, and the new group wasn't one of them (didn't exist when the webapp was deployed).

How did we miss that? Well, it turns out we usually think about dependency chains / effects in the other direction - i.e. when setting something up, what does it need. This is also relatively easy to track back because you're starting at the end of the config chain and following the defined "arrows" all the way back to central auth. This was the other way round, the central auth groups don't have an "arrow" out to each thing that uses them, it's "everything". The other problem is the identity management people don't necessarily know how the 2FA is configured or how the webapps are configured - they tell you "this person has an account and has these memberships" but they don't know what memeberships a service is looking for. It's also just the case that it's not something that is done (adding a category of user) all the time, in fact it may only happen every 5-10 years.

I see some concerning parallels here - I've not read on TUG or heard of a previous time multiple resorts are pulled out at once. Actually, I hadn't heard of one being pulled out before this thread TBH. I can just imagine there's a lot of downstream stuff in the IT system that hasn't actually been tested and they'll find a lot of bugs after flipping those bits - well, not really bugs but unintended interactions downstream.

 

[HitchHiker71]

These "flipping bits" theories beg the question, "If it is such a simple process, why does Wyndham go to all the trouble to create and record deeds transferring CWA inventory ownership from Wyndham Vacations Resorts, Inc. to First American Trust?" Why not just leave them deeded to WVR and "flip the bits" whenever needed?

Because there are legal requirements surrounding real estate ownership and how the trusts are structured according to the governing documents, however, as you and IIRC @bnoble have repeatedly pointed out, there is really very little preventing Wyndham from choosing to remove any resort from Club Wyndham, as is also covered via the governing documents. My point is, that the removal of the resort from Club Wyndham, and the re-assignment and/or transfer of deeds between trusts, if needed at all, aren't tied together legally. So Wyndham can choose to remove these resorts from Club Wyndham essentially at their discretion, and then determine how the disposition of the resort itself, and the underlying deeds involved, will transpire, as separate transactions.

My overall point was, people are getting overly focused on the legalese and the deeds, when it's very easy to effectively remove the inventory tied to these resorts from Club Wyndham, and from CWA, without any difficulty, by simply flipping a bit in the database. Think in terms of the points from the contract/deed are either valid and included in the reservation system, or they are not. On or off, zero or one. It's literally that simple from a reservation system standpoint on the back end. Once that is done, how or where these deeds exist within the various trusts can be handled. It's the same concept as when inventory is blocked out for maintenance for example, we often see blocked out inventory for months at a time in the reservation system, why does everyone think come 12/31/2025 it's not going to be that easy? In point of fact, as soon as the HOA vote processes are far enough along, all inventory for the impacted resorts will be blocked out of the reservation system after 12/31/2025 - likely sometime in September timeframe given most of the resorts should have the HOA votes done by end of September best estimate - after which this inventory will be blocked out altogether anyways. So at that point, it's really a done deal, and that inventory will never come back. Does anyone think the underlying deeds have moved anywhere when that occurs? Nope, which proves my point, the removal of the inventory from the reservation system has nothing to do with the processing of the deeds within the trusts.

 

[HitchHiker71]

IT settings have nothing to do with legal issues around real estate ownership, so I bet there's legal issues. Probably tax issues, where / how you report earnings, assets, whatever stuff. It's also entirely possible, given how "good" Wyndham IT is - that while it's theoretically "easy" to flip a bit, it might be far harder to get the right people to sign off on flipping that bit, and they may not really know what happens when they flip the bit because a lot of historically "tested" assumptions have now changed for the systems.

I disagree - come September timeframe IT will likely block off ALL of the inventory for the resorts once the HOA vote thresholds are passed and completed, after which all inventory will simply be blocked off after 12/31/2025. That inventory is never coming back. Does that mean these resorts have completed any of the legal processes? Nope, not even close. That proves my point though, that the dispositions of the deeds that underlie all of this, is not germane to removing the inventory from the reservation system, since as @bnoble has repeatedly pointed out, Wyndham can remove resorts from Club Wyndham largely at their discretion. Taking this action has nothing to do, however, with the disposition of the underlying deeds. Those transactions will be handled separately from the removal of the inventory from the reservation systems after 12/31/2025. Wyndham does this literally almost every day - blocks out inventory for maintenance issues, repairs, etc. It's not hard to do, the system is designed to do it obviously.

For example, where I work we had a new category of remote access request - outside trainings. We'd never done this before, but sounds simple right? Make account, put in a different group for trainings. We do that, no trainee can log in. Why? Oh yea, 2FA only syncs defined groups for for reasons we didn't sync all groups, so we forgot to add this new group to the sync. So 2FA said there was no valid account to log in to. Ok, now 90% of things work, but one critical web app doesn't let anyone from the training group do anything. Huh? Well, turns out for reasons in setup, it was configured - you guessed it - to check permissions on selected groups, and the new group wasn't one of them (didn't exist when the webapp was deployed).

How did we miss that? Well, it turns out we usually think about dependency chains / effects in the other direction - i.e. when setting something up, what does it need. This is also relatively easy to track back because you're starting at the end of the config chain and following the defined "arrows" all the way back to central auth. This was the other way round, the central auth groups don't have an "arrow" out to each thing that uses them, it's "everything". The other problem is the identity management people don't necessarily know how the 2FA is configured or how the webapps are configured - they tell you "this person has an account and has these memberships" but they don't know what memeberships a service is looking for. It's also just the case that it's not something that is done (adding a category of user) all the time, in fact it may only happen every 5-10 years.

I see some concerning parallels here - I've not read on TUG or heard of a previous time multiple resorts are pulled out at once. Actually, I hadn't heard of one being pulled out before this thread TBH. I can just imagine there's a lot of downstream stuff in the IT system that hasn't actually been tested and they'll find a lot of bugs after flipping those bits - well, not really bugs but unintended interactions downstream.

Not entire resorts, but multiple resorts are always undergoing maintenance at any one time, and inventory is collectively blocked out across multiple resorts - floor by floor or building by building, or both, at all times. Again, the system is already designed to do this, and the ability to do so for ongoing resort maintenance and renovations is proof. Stop making it overly complicated. Yes there are legal processes, but don't conflate the legal processes with the removal of the inventory after 12/31/2025 for all impacted resorts from the online reservation system, they are disparate processes.

 

[paxsarah]

I see some concerning parallels here - I've not read on TUG or heard of a previous time multiple resorts are pulled out at once. Actually, I hadn't heard of one being pulled out before this thread TBH. I can just imagine there's a lot of downstream stuff in the IT system that hasn't actually been tested and they'll find a lot of bugs after flipping those bits - well, not really bugs but unintended interactions downstream.

Not entire resorts, but multiple resorts are always undergoing maintenance at any one time, and inventory is collectively blocked out across multiple resorts - floor by floor or building by building, or both, at all times. Again, the system is already designed to do this, and the ability to do so for ongoing resort maintenance and renovations is proof. Stop making it overly complicated. Yes there are legal processes, but don't conflate the legal processes with the removal of the inventory after 12/31/2025 for all impacted resorts from the online reservation system, they are disparate processes.

It's less the ability to block off entire blocks of inventory that I'm concerned about - look, they're doing it right now for Bonnet Creek for no apparent reason! - and more the ability to seamlessly remove old contracts from hundreds(?) (thousands?) of owners and provide them with equivalent CWA contracts in a timely manner without messing up the owners' VIP status and ability to book. That is something that they've literally never done. They've taken resorts out, they've blocked off inventory for renovations or whatever, but they've never done that while simultaneously providing new contracts to a large number of owners.

And the example of Bonnet Creek's calendar being inexplicably blocked from December onward makes me even more irritated that Wyndham hasn't seen fit to preventatively block 2026 calendars at all of the resorts they expect to close. If something falls through, they can just turn it back on. But maybe since Bonnet Creek can't be booked, an owner looking to go to Orlando in 2026 can just book at Star Island or OIRC instead because they're wide open, apparently.

 

[HitchHiker71]

It's less the ability to block off entire blocks of inventory that I'm concerned about - look, they're doing it right now for Bonnet Creek for no apparent reason! - and more the ability to seamlessly remove old contracts from hundreds(?) (thousands?) of owners and provide them with equivalent CWA contracts in a timely manner without messing up the owners' VIP status and ability to book. That is something that they've literally never done. They've taken resorts out, they've blocked off inventory for renovations or whatever, but they've never done that while simultaneously providing new contracts to a large number of owners.

And the example of Bonnet Creek's calendar being inexplicably blocked from December onward makes me even more irritated that Wyndham hasn't seen fit to preventatively block 2026 calendars at all of the resorts they expect to close. If something falls through, they can just turn it back on. But maybe since Bonnet Creek can't be booked, an owner looking to go to Orlando in 2026 can just book at Star Island or OIRC instead because they're wide open, apparently.

No argument here - but the topics you bring up aren't germane to simply blocking off resorts in the reservation system itself. Again, there may be upstream or downstream impacts, as @jp10558 has already outlined with his anecdotal example, but that's for Wyndham to resolve in their other systems that track ownerships, that yes the online system also interacts with that dataset, toward your point, but blocking out the impacted resorts isn't difficult in and of itself, and that's one of the big gaps right now - owners can still make reservations at most if not all of these resorts into 2026, so the first priority is to stop the bleeding, especially for those who aren't yet informed that any of this is even happening - which in reality is likely the vast majority of the ownership base - since all Wyndham has officially done to date is post an online website update - no emails to existing owners yet - and only a small subset of owners at the impacted resorts have even received any notifications from the HOA as yet. While we on TUG are informed, along with the relatively small subset of owners who interact on the FB groups, the reality is that the vast majority of CW owners have no clue about any of this yet.

 

[Arimaas]

You know, all this talk about HOA votes and September, and I still haven't gotten anything from Fairfield Glade.