[ALL DEBATE CONTENT REMOVED FROM ORIGINAL THREAD PLACED HERE] All debate topics for the ongoing Wyndham resort closure actions...

[HitchHiker71]

Exactly. It seems like the Wyndham defenders here are saying it's both legally required and "orderly" that someone who shows up for a booking in 2026 just rolls up to a locked gate and empty resort, probably without even a paper sign saying "we're closed", just an abandoned property - like we're crazy to think that is unacceptable. Or to think that we'd love someone to explain the law that requires THAT.

The service impact to the customer base is entirely out of scope from a legal standpoint. The bankruptcy judges could care less. As someone else already indicated, they care about their court dockets, schedules, and rulings, and that’s pretty much it.

Wyndham and the HOAs will be left to deal with the uncertain aftermath of these bankruptcy proceedings from a customer service standpoint, not the courts. Your attempt to conflate legal processes with corporate customer service is amusing though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jp10558]

The service impact to the customer base is entirely out of scope from a legal standpoint. The bankruptcy judges could care less. As someone else already indicated, they care about their court dockets, schedules, and rulings, and that’s pretty much it.

Wyndham and the HOAs will be left to deal with the uncertain aftermath of these bankruptcy proceedings from a customer service standpoint, not the courts. Your attempt to conflate legal processes with corporate customer service is amusing though.

I'm not the one conflating it. I've been told over and over in this thread that this customer service plan, such as it is, is legally mandated or legally forced somehow. Every time I ask "why couldn't Wyndham do any of a bevy of alternatives" the answer is it's legally prohibited in some way.

 

[jp10558]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting anywhere that Wyndham is legally obligated to end bookings or management by year end. This is obviously a goal that Wyndham has decided upon primarily to simplify the management of these resorts given the calendar year end date, which avoids the headaches of having to deal with 2026 resort operations, points contract provisions, reservations, etc., to say nothing of the fiscal year end expense related items. I’d surmise this date isn’t written in stone for every resort given the bankruptcy approaches in play, but that is the intended outcome at least for now. As @bnoble has repeatedly pointed out, Wyndham can essentially remove resorts from Club Wyndham at their discretion. Given they have already informed the employees supporting these resorts that their employment will end on 12/31/2025, I’d assign high confidence this date isn’t going to change for any of the impacted resorts unless the legal proceedings require it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But this is my point - if they aren't mandated legally to end bookings and aren't mandated legally to keep them in Club Wyndham (i.e. keep bookings) then legally they can do either. If they're free to do either then I'm lost why we're saying there's a legal reason they can't be clear about what they're doing.

Basically, you all defending Wyndham here are trying to have it every way - contradictory ways and hide behind the law when that's just not true. What's happening here is Wyndham has decided that they're picking an arbitrary short shutdown date, using a novel legal theory of bankruptcy to not use the existing contractual methods to close down a resort, and want to hide that this is happening for fear of pushback, somehow thinking that they can hide behind "legal requirements" that simply don't exist to screw over likely thousands of people. This is the AirB&B complaint across a huge part of a timeshare system - that you can get left having paid for something and there's no location to stay at when you get there.

 

[Rolltydr]

But this is my point - if they aren't mandated legally to end bookings and aren't mandated legally to keep them in Club Wyndham (i.e. keep bookings) then legally they can do either. If they're free to do either then I'm lost why we're saying there's a legal reason they can't be clear about what they're doing.

Basically, you all defending Wyndham here are trying to have it every way - contradictory ways and hide behind the law when that's just not true. What's happening here is Wyndham has decided that they're picking an arbitrary short shutdown date, using a novel legal theory of bankruptcy to not use the existing contractual methods to close down a resort, and want to hide that this is happening for fear of pushback, somehow thinking that they can hide behind "legal requirements" that simply don't exist to screw over likely thousands of people. This is the AirB&B complaint across a huge part of a timeshare system - that you can get left having paid for something and there's no location to stay at when you get there.

I'm not a lawyer, which I have stated at least a couple of times in this thread, so I don't know what the legal requirements are and I never claimed to. I did work for a huge national corporation with a well-paid legal department. I know in these situations, the company executives do what their attorneys advise them to do. That's why they pay them so much. They want the best legal advice they can get.

 

[jp10558]

I'm not a lawyer, which I have stated at least a couple of times in this thread, so I don't know what the legal requirements are and I never claimed to. I did work for a huge national corporation with a well-paid legal department. I know in these situations, the company executives do what their attorneys advise them to do. That's why they pay them so much. They want the best legal advice they can get.

Saying "Wyndham has lawyer advice to do XXX" is pretty different from how I and many others would interpret "legal reasons". I agree, we have no idea why the lawyers might suggest doing something (but there are lots of reasons that amount to one estimation of possible lawsuits vs another), but that's very different to suggesting (as some of us understood people to be saying) that there were laws or court imposed rules that essentially are a gag order on Wyndham in this regard.

What they're probably banking on is that almost no one is going to take them to small claims court or sue them over wasted tickets and sudden rebooking attempts, but they think someone might try and claim they hurt the sales value of the resort if they say it's shutting down. Personally I still think that's wrong - trying to sell a property pretty much implies you don't want it anymore and that's all the not allowing future booking says IMNSHO. Of course if Wyndham does remove resorts at the end of the year then it becomes even sillier for ones that haven't gone through bankruptcy or whatever.

 

[Rolltydr]

Saying "Wyndham has lawyer advice to do XXX" is pretty different from how I and many others would interpret "legal reasons".

Sorry for the confusion, but if an attorney advises you to do something, there is a legal reason for that advice.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I'm not the one conflating it. I've been told over and over in this thread that this customer service plan, such as it is, is legally mandated or legally forced somehow. Every time I ask "why couldn't Wyndham do any of a bevy of alternatives" the answer is it's legally prohibited in some way.

You've not been told that, at least not by me. The HOA processes are controlled by the bylaws, along with applicable county, state, and federal laws. Laws often dictate disclosure requirements and lawyers often advise on when and how to disclose certain data at certain points in time, based upon their expertise and the legal ramifications (risks) of premature disclosures. As previously pointed out, the lawyers could care less about customer service, they are paid to minimize risk and deliver certain legal outcomes. Period, full stop. Wyndham is exercising caution given the unprecedented approaches in play, as their lawyers are no doubt advising. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the customer service leadership within Wyndham would have already communicated certain aspects if they could. Legal has prevented them from doing so. That means the legal department, that must approve any/all customer facing communications for these actions, has prevented forward looking statements from being published. You can dislike it all you want, that's the simple truth.

 

[HitchHiker71]

But this is my point - if they aren't mandated legally to end bookings and aren't mandated legally to keep them in Club Wyndham (i.e. keep bookings) then legally they can do either. If they're free to do either then I'm lost why we're saying there's a legal reason they can't be clear about what they're doing.

As is clearly evidenced by the HOA votes at OIRC, as soon as the 2026 operations vote was passed to cease resort operations effective 12/31/2025, within 24 hours the OIRC inventory was blocked off. This was the requirement set down by the Wyndham legal representation involved in these actions. It really is irrelevant what you, or I, or anyone else thinks or believes.

For those interested in posting questions as to how these actions impact your ownership, please do so. I'm continuing to capture your questions and present them to Wyndham corporate on a bi-weekly basis. We can expect a more informative communication in October timeframe from Wyndham on these actions, as most of the HOA votes will have transpired by that time. The next six weeks should tell the tale for the majority of impacted resorts, best estimate.

 

[Rolltydr]

On a positive note, it would seem that not too many TUGgers have ever been involved in high profile legal cases.

 

[Arimaas]

If I can do it anyone can really, they simply choose not to, or just plain don’t have the interest. I’m not special by any means, despite what my wife would say about me.

Still, given the prodigious amount of posts that many on this forum have accumulated over many years, if they put half as much effort into building relationships with Wyndham as opposed to complaining about Wyndham, they’d likely have superseded whatever I’ve been able to do given my professional commitments and constraints.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you want to pass on your contact, I'd gladly email them as an owner of one of the impacted resorts, and a customer of the system, in a professional, polite manner, giving them my concerns and viewpoints, which are formulated based on my education (attorney) and personal experiences.

 

[Arimaas]

According to the Wyndham missive, it will not be honored, as only reservations up through the end of 2025 will be honored. I would not count on these reservations being honored, make alternate arrangements. There's a 95% chance that regardless of the resort disposition specifics and timelines, Wyndham is going to remove the impacted resorts from Club Wyndham effective 12/31/2025. Be prepared to live with disappointment if you're hoping this is all going to somehow work out to your advantage.

Not trying to be snarky here, but what if the legal process doesn't play out by then? Can they still just remove them on 12/31? If so, then this undermines the entire theory that they can't block out things until the legal process plays out, can't notify us, etc etc. They arbitrarily picked the date, before the legal proceedings even started. I own at FG. Haven't heard a peep. Can everything wrap up in the next 90 + days where they can just not honor reservations any more than them just blocking it out now?

 

[Arimaas]

Saying "Wyndham has lawyer advice to do XXX" is pretty different from how I and many others would interpret "legal reasons". I agree, we have no idea why the lawyers might suggest doing something (but there are lots of reasons that amount to one estimation of possible lawsuits vs another), but that's very different to suggesting (as some of us understood people to be saying) that there were laws or court imposed rules that essentially are a gag order on Wyndham in this regard.

What they're probably banking on is that almost no one is going to take them to small claims court or sue them over wasted tickets and sudden rebooking attempts, but they think someone might try and claim they hurt the sales value of the resort if they say it's shutting down. Personally I still think that's wrong - trying to sell a property pretty much implies you don't want it anymore and that's all the not allowing future booking says IMNSHO. Of course if Wyndham does remove resorts at the end of the year then it becomes even sillier for ones that haven't gone through bankruptcy or whatever.

There may not be a bunch of small claims actions that Wyndham is worried about, but I can assure you some class action attorneys will be salivating at taking a case that gets 1/3 of any class action settlement out of this mismanagement (which I am sure Wyndham's attorneys already thought of and consider as the cost of doing business) .

 

[Arimaas]

I am not making excuses for Wyndham - I am telling everyone what Wyndham corporate is telling me. Period. Full stop. You can disbelieve it if you like, that is your and anyone else's prerogative to do so. I'm not going to stop communicating what is being relayed to @Richelle and I, for you or anyone else, just to be clear. I've also agreed that a communication plan is lacking. Keep in mind I'm dealing directly with Wyndham's PR director. The same PR director that originally wanted to include the list of resorts, but was denied by Wyndham's legal representation. That could be one of two reasons, or both. One, there's a law (hence a legal reason) preventing such inclusion. Two, there's a legal risk in including the resorts prematurely for some reason. You keep wanting to believe what you want to believe, and again that's fine. I'm done with this conversation, I will no longer be engaging with any of these types of posts moving forward.

I've also never made excuses for sales and marketing, I believe many here would indicate I've repeatedly indicated that the ELT is complicit in the deceptive sales practices and simply utilizes cognitive dissonance and plausible deniability with respect to this topic.

I get the frustration, I really do, but at the same time, until the actual HOA votes transpire, I'm not sure what else can legally be communicated?

I'm not looking to pick a fight. Like I said in my post you replied to, I do appreciate your insight and you moderating this topic. However, and it may come off different because often times the internet is not the best place to have a conversation, what you seem to me (my perception, not speaking for anyone else) is to be making excuses for Wyndham that goes beyond just reporting what is being said. For example, and I'm not going back 95 pages here, but look at the quote I pulled out from your post I replied to "I'm not sure what else can legally be communicated." 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. I don't mind if you don't respond, as you already said you won't, and no doubt this would just continue be a circular conversation anyhow, but I want you to know that that is where I am coming from.

Again, I appreciate your insight and assistance with wrangling this topic and by no way am I asking you to "stop communicating what is being relayed", but as someone else pointed out, you have connections within Wyndham and volunteered those connections within this topic, so you are getting the push back from others on here who aren't so keen on taking Wynhdam's answers on their face. Like I said a few posts back, if you want to provide me with your contact's info, I would gladly reach out myself (professionally and respectfully) to share my concerns and ask what is going on, and what the reasoning is, but until I get that access, I am restricted to posting here on TUG.

 

[Rolltydr]

For example, and I'm not going back 95 pages here, but look at the quote I pulled out from your post I replied to "I'm not sure what else can legally be communicated." 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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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?