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

[paxsarah]

Couldn’t Wyndham as the majority membership of the HOA’s forced the BOD’s hands? I don’t know the bylaws, but couldn’t they have proposed this and forced the HOA to vote, regardless of the BOD’s wishes ?

By sheer numbers Wyndham would win any vote (except possibly a supermajority for certain types of actions, I guess). My point was about ugliness and delay. The HOA board is also the one that has to carry out the closure process. The HOA is the debtor in each of these cases, so HOA needed those boards ready to carry out the process purely from a procedural standpoint.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I am not sure what you mean they got the HOAs to agree. The HOA is made up of owners/members, which Wyndham made up the majority. They only needed to agree themselves. Perhaps they needed the BOD approval. But they were able to force the motion by requesting the special meeting for the election.

Check the actual votes - all of the interval votes were 90%+ - most of them were 95%+, and most of the BOD votes were unanimous for closure and bankruptcy. While Wyndham may have held a majority of the BOD seats - they did not ever hold the entirety of the BOD seats. A significant portion of individual interval owners also voted to move forward with the resort closures and bankruptcy as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

I assume he meant the boards of directors. But it could have been ugly if an HOA board (or multiple) refused to go along and support the plan - even if by sheer numbers Wyndham would win any vote. There might have been procedural machinations a board could have used based on its bylaws to thwart or slow the process. Wyndham did need the boards to go along to make the process a smooth one (and if this is "smooth," imagine what not smooth would have been!).

Not just the BODs, also the interval owners - see above post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

Couldn’t Wyndham as the majority membership of the HOA’s forced the BOD’s hands? I don’t know the bylaws, but couldn’t they have proposed this and forced the HOA to vote, regardless of the BOD’s wishes ?

They can force a motion but cannot force affirmative votes from non-Wyndham BOD seats - unless those BOD members saw the writing on the wall with the termination of the deedback agreements that occurred that essentially forced the BOD members, as well as the majority of the interval owners to “see the light at the end of the tunnel.” The impacted HOAs would have collapsed under their own weight without the deedback agreements that were terminated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Arimaas]

They can force a motion but cannot force affirmative votes from non-Wyndham BOD seats - unless those BOD members saw the writing on the wall with the termination of the deedback agreements that occurred that essentially forced the BOD members, as well as the majority of the interval owners to “see the light at the end of the tunnel.” The impacted HOAs would have collapsed under their own weight without the deedback agreements that were terminated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right. But my question is, what does it matter what the BOD is wanted ? I haven’t read the bylaws, but I assume the motion to declare bankruptcy and close is based on an HOA vote and not a BOD. And I also assume individual HOA members can put forth any motion, but I may be wrong in that.

 

[chapjim]

Right. But my question is, what does it matter what the BOD is wanted ? I haven’t read the bylaws, but I assume the motion to declare bankruptcy and close is based on an HOA vote and not a BOD. And I also assume individual HOA members can put forth any motion, but I may be wrong in that.

Here are the OIRC Bylaws. Help yourself.

https://www.oirc-hoa.com/editor_upload/File/Bylaws/FL%20-%20OIRC%20-%20Bylaws%20-%2006-02-1981.pdf

 

[Arimaas]

Here are the OIRC Bylaws. Help yourself.

https://www.oirc-hoa.com/editor_upload/File/Bylaws/FL%20-%20OIRC%20-%20Bylaws%20-%2006-02-1981.pdf

Looks like 25% of the membership can call a special meeting and propose the BOD act if skimming this on my phone is right.

 

[shawnee83]

Some great points here I did not think of, particular the issue of Wyndham being on the hook for maintenance fees for all the intervals they ended up with.

Hitchhiker71 also makes a good point:

Basically, it typically comes down to financial decisions and risk management decisions at the end of the day.

There's a Facebook page with a great deal of emotional venting, and while I can certainly understand it, I don't see Wyndham as some evil force in all this. It was maybe five years ago when I first noticed how EMPTY Shawnee was, particularly mid-week. Even over the weekends it was not that busy, and I wonder how many of those visitors were using points they got over the internet and were not Club Wyndham owners.

As the guy said in The Godfather... "It's just business... nothing personal."

 

[chapjim]

Some great points here I did not think of, particular the issue of Wyndham being on the hook for maintenance fees for all the intervals they ended up with.

Hitchhiker71 also makes a good point:


There's a Facebook page with a great deal of emotional venting, and while I can certainly understand it, I don't see Wyndham as some evil force in all this. It was maybe five years ago when I first noticed how EMPTY Shawnee was, particularly mid-week. Even over the weekends it was not that busy, and I wonder how many of those visitors were using points they got over the internet and were not Club Wyndham owners.

As the guy said in The Godfather... "It's just business... nothing personal."

That Wyndham was paying maintenance fees on returned/foreclosed contracts has been widely discussed in this and the other super-long thread. Certainly that was a significant factor in Wyndham's push to close some of the resorts.

Low occupancy rates were a factor cited by Wyndham.

A third was required upgrades, many of which were related to the Americans with Disabilities Act, which applies to public accommodations. So, resorts like OIRC, with which I am familiar, are multi-story but with only stairs to reach the upper floors. Therefore, it is non-compliant with ADA. Selling a resort like OIRC doesn't mean the buyer is stuck making the upgrades Wyndham didn't do. It just makes the resort no longer a public accommodation if, say, it is converted to apartments or privately-owned condos.

From the extensive discussions, all the closed/closing resorts are/were affected by one or more of these three factors.

Whiners on Facebook are not particularly deep thinkers.

 

[Arimaas]

Some great points here I did not think of, particular the issue of Wyndham being on the hook for maintenance fees for all the intervals they ended up with.

Hitchhiker71 also makes a good point:


There's a Facebook page with a great deal of emotional venting, and while I can certainly understand it, I don't see Wyndham as some evil force in all this. It was maybe five years ago when I first noticed how EMPTY Shawnee was, particularly mid-week. Even over the weekends it was not that busy, and I wonder how many of those visitors were using points they got over the internet and were not Club Wyndham owners.

As the guy said in The Godfather... "It's just business... nothing personal."

I don’t think Wyndham was evil for doing this. I think they were terrible for HOW they did it. But now as it’s all unpacked, I shouldn’t have thought otherwise about a company that makes money lying to folks that generally don’t have the means or finances to know that they are being lied to (regardless of what a ADRA survey says about sales).

Pretty sure I’ve quoted the Godfather all along in this thread (without knowing it was the Godfather) regarding the closings.

 

[easyrider]

Somehow, as is not unusual with Bill, he conflated together charging and camping - why I have absolutely no idea - since no one said anything about combining these two disparate topics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

*** CONTENT MODERATED/REMOVED ***

I really doubt anyone wants to camp in a Tesla. My bet is you or Laura have never camped in your Teslas. Even if you did , you could camp out in any vehicle. There are many homeless doing this every night. It isn't unique or something Tesla does better. In fact, there are many suv's that are bigger and better for camping purposes.

Bill

 

[shawnee83]

That Wyndham was paying maintenance fees on returned/foreclosed contracts has been widely discussed in this and the other super-long thread. Certainly that was a significant factor in Wyndham's push to close some of the resorts.

Low occupancy rates were a factor cited by Wyndham.

A third was required upgrades, many of which were related to the Americans with Disabilities Act, which applies to public accommodations. So, resorts like OIRC, with which I am familiar, are multi-story but with only stairs to reach the upper floors. Therefore, it is non-compliant with ADA. Selling a resort like OIRC doesn't mean the buyer is stuck making the upgrades Wyndham didn't do. It just makes the resort no longer a public accommodation if, say, it is converted to apartments or privately-owned condos.

From the extensive discussions, all the closed/closing resorts are/were affected by one or more of these three factors.

Whiners on Facebook are not particularly deep thinkers.

Yes we all discussed those, but the maintenance fees paid by Wyndham make a good case for bankruptcy and closing the place. If they just terminated their agreement with the HOA's they'd still be on the hook for all those intervals if the timeshares kept operating.

I sympathize with the people on the Shawnee facebook group, but many of them seem to think that Wyndham should act as some kind of charitable organization and keep running the place at a loss. The ones who are not "deep thinkers" are the ones who think they are not being paid market value for their weeks. If we get more than a penny then I'll consider that full market value. Sad but true.

 

[dioxide45]

I assume he meant the boards of directors. But it could have been ugly if an HOA board (or multiple) refused to go along and support the plan - even if by sheer numbers Wyndham would win any vote. There might have been procedural machinations a board could have used based on its bylaws to thwart or slow the process. Wyndham did need the boards to go along to make the process a smooth one (and if this is "smooth," imagine what not smooth would have been!).

As was discovered in the OIRC declarations, the bar to request a special election is actually quite low. The BOD doesn't have a method to really fight back against it. They are bound to fulfill their obligation to follow the covenants of the declaration.

Check the actual votes - all of the interval votes were 90%+ - most of them were 95%+, and most of the BOD votes were unanimous for closure and bankruptcy. While Wyndham may have held a majority of the BOD seats - they did not ever hold the entirety of the BOD seats. A significant portion of individual interval owners also voted to move forward with the resort closures and bankruptcy as well.

Do you have any ideas as to the percentage of owners, outside of Wyndham, that actually voted in the elections? Most owners are absent and don't vote, don't bother, and don't care. Participation rates in annual elections is already abysmal. In the end, the votes of the other members didn't matter anyway, Wyndham knew it. So there was no working with anyone. They request the meeting, they vote their control.

Looks like 25% of the membership can call a special meeting and propose the BOD act if skimming this on my phone is right.

Exactly, the BOD hand was forced. The bar is low and a single entity with majority control is calling the shots, regardless if the majority owner has "control" over individual board members.

 

[pagosajim]

Yes we all discussed those, but the maintenance fees paid by Wyndham make a good case for bankruptcy and closing the place. If they just terminated their agreement with the HOA's they'd still be on the hook for all those intervals if the timeshares kept operating.

Everyone seems to accept that Wyndham is paying the MFs on all these deeded back intervals. I submit that a huge majority of those deedbacks where subsequently resold as CWA weeks whose MFs were then paid by a regular owner (indirectly through the CWA agreement). Wyndham did hold some number of deebacks for periods of time, but they were in the sales chain awaiting new ownership through CWA. IMHO, the amount of MFs that Wyndham was paying at any one POA was relatively low. I speak from experience having presided over the Pagosa Ptarmigan POA for many years.

 

[dioxide45]

I don’t think Wyndham was evil for doing this. I think they were terrible for HOW they did it.

I don't know why people seem to think that some here think Wyndham was evil or sinister. They read far more into online forum messages than they really need to. I don't even know if how they did it was terrible. I think they tried to rush the process much faster than it needed to be done. But in the end, this was something done by Wyndham for their own corporate self interest. 100%. There isn't any denying that. That still doesn't make them evil IMO and it doesn't mean their interests don't also align with interests of the other HOA owners/members. Wyndham had the right to do what they did based on the rules of the associations. Evil would have been to stop paying the maintenance fees on the weeks they own and just letting the HOAs collapse under the bad debt.

I just take issue when people keep parroting the "we worked with the HOAs" BS corporate line.

Unless and until these developers start building new resorts, existing resorts will simply continue to age and get into the same situation of "required upgrades" that the closed resorts got themselves into. What happens then?

 

[dioxide45]

Everyone seems to accept that Wyndham is paying the MFs on all these deeded back intervals. I submit that a huge majority of those deedbacks where subsequently resold as CWA weeks whose MFs were then paid by a regular owner (indirectly through the CWA agreement). Wyndham did hold some number of deebacks for periods of time, but they were in the sales chain awaiting new ownership through CWA. IMHO, the amount of MFs that Wyndham was paying at any one POA was relatively low. I speak from experience having presided over the Pagosa Ptarmigan POA for many years.

If the deeds are in CWA, then either CWA owners are paying the fees or Wyndham is paying the fees of unsold points. Are you saying that the HOAs had separate agreements with Wyndham regarding payment of maintenance fees? I would expect that type of arrangement to be illegal under the property declarations and covenants. When a resort is first built, a developer will often provide, what is called, a guarantee. Where they don't necessarily have to pay maintenance fees on all unsold intervals but rather they cover certain cost differences between what revenue comes in and what expenses go out. However, once that guarantee period ends, they pay the same fees as every other interval owners.

 

[Arimaas]

I don't know why people seem to think that some here think Wyndham was evil or sinister. They read far more into online forum messages than they really need to. I don't even know if how they did it was terrible. I think they tried to rush the process much faster than it needed to be done. But in the end, this was something done by Wyndham for their own corporate self interest. 100%. There isn't any denying that. That still doesn't make them evil IMO and it doesn't mean their interests don't also align with interests of the other HOA owners/members. Wyndham had the right to do what they did based on the rules of the associations. Evil would have been to stop paying the maintenance fees on the weeks they own and just letting the HOAs collapse under the bad debt.

I just take issue when people keep parroting the "we worked with the HOAs" corporate line. BS. Just call it what is is.

Unless and until these developers start building new resorts, existing resorts will simply continue to age and get into the same situation of "required upgrades" that the closed resorts got themselves into. What happens then?

Let me clarify. When I say “how” I don’t mean the bankruptcy process. I mean the double talk “resort refresh”, keeping it all a big secret, zero transparency and zero ability to even call someone for help. That part of the process is what left a bad taste in my mouth. What if people had reservations? Flights? Didn’t want to take the swap because finances were fixed and didn’t want to pay CWA MFs? Doesn’t seem like a real equitable and transparent process. But obviously a company that tries to sell me points based on fear isn’t the most equitable or transparent company anyway, so we will have a mutually beneficial relationship. I’ll continue to use my total resale account, to stay at nice accommodations for pennies on the dollar AND I’ll keep my mouth shut while I sit through a 45 minute pitch every time I travel for gas money and tolls.

Edited to add: what about only an owner of one contract that rolled points forward but didn’t wait the swap? Wyndham’s answer? “Too bad” - and some folks even here echoed that. No I’m sorry, that’s why they are “evil”.

 

[dioxide45]

Let me clarify. When I say “how” I don’t mean the bankruptcy process. I mean the double talk “resort refresh”, keeping it all a big secret, zero transparency and zero ability to even call someone for help. That part of the process is what left a bad taste in my mouth. What if people had reservations? Flights? Didn’t want to take the swap because finances were fixed and didn’t want to pay CWA MFs? Doesn’t seem like a real equitable and transparent process. But obviously a company that tries to sell me points based on fear isn’t the most equitable or transparent company anyway, so we will have a mutually beneficial relationship. I’ll continue to use my total resale account, to stay at nice accommodations for pennies on the dollar AND I’ll keep my mouth shut while I sit through a 45 minute pitch every time I travel for gas money and tolls.

Edited to add: what about only an owner of one contract that rolled points forward but didn’t wait the swap? Wyndham’s answer? “Too bad” - and some folks even here echoed that. No I’m sorry, that’s why they are “evil”.

Fair enough. I hadn't even considered that part of the process. It does seem kinda shitty. But we know Wyndham is already good at stealing stealing money when adjusting use years on transferred resale contracts, so this is just par for the course.

 

[chapjim]

Everyone seems to accept that Wyndham is paying the MFs on all these deeded back intervals. I submit that a huge majority of those deedbacks where subsequently resold as CWA weeks whose MFs were then paid by a regular owner (indirectly through the CWA agreement). Wyndham did hold some number of deebacks for periods of time, but they were in the sales chain awaiting new ownership through CWA. IMHO, the amount of MFs that Wyndham was paying at any one POA was relatively low. I speak from experience having presided over the Pagosa Ptarmigan POA for many years.

If the intervals were subsequently sold, then Wyndham no longer owned them and of course didn't pay the associated maintenance fees. But, for the intervals Wyndham owned, regardless of whether they were in a "sales chain," Wyndham had to be paying maintenance fees. How else could this work?

 

[chapjim]

Yes we all discussed those, but the maintenance fees paid by Wyndham make a good case for bankruptcy and closing the place. If they just terminated their agreement with the HOA's they'd still be on the hook for all those intervals if the timeshares kept operating.

I sympathize with the people on the Shawnee facebook group, but many of them seem to think that Wyndham should act as some kind of charitable organization and keep running the place at a loss. The ones who are not "deep thinkers" are the ones who think they are not being paid market value for their weeks. If we get more than a penny then I'll consider that full market value. Sad but true.

I agree that maintenance fees paid by Wyndham made a good case for closing and selling the resort.

I don't think the maintenance fees paid by Wyndham had anything to do with the decision to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They were not related. Chapter 11 was a logical way to facilitate the sale. Once the owners approved the sale, Chapter 11 would have been the way to go even if Wyndham was not paying maintenance fees.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Yes we all discussed those, but the maintenance fees paid by Wyndham make a good case for bankruptcy and closing the place. If they just terminated their agreement with the HOA's they'd still be on the hook for all those intervals if the timeshares kept operating.

I sympathize with the people on the Shawnee facebook group, but many of them seem to think that Wyndham should act as some kind of charitable organization and keep running the place at a loss. The ones who are not "deep thinkers" are the ones who think they are not being paid market value for their weeks. If we get more than a penny then I'll consider that full market value. Sad but true.

I think I'm part of that same FB group you're referring to, and yes there's a few members that just won't quit when it comes to spreading misinformation on that group. I've said as much a few times over the past several months posting into that group. Here's a link to the group I'm referring to if anyone is interested in joining and seeing the content: https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1DWRVRTcEc/?mibextid=wwXIfr

 

[HitchHiker71]

I don’t think Wyndham was evil for doing this. I think they were terrible for HOW they did it. But now as it’s all unpacked, I shouldn’t have thought otherwise about a company that makes money lying to folks that generally don’t have the means or finances to know that they are being lied to (regardless of what a ADRA survey says about sales).

Pretty sure I’ve quoted the Godfather all along in this thread (without knowing it was the Godfather) regarding the closings.

I think we can all agree the communication aspects left a LOT to be desired, and continue to do so. It's quieted down on the main thread since there's not many updates on the Omni site to reference that are worth pointing out, however I suspect H2 2026 will have a fair amount of legal activities that will result in the main thread becoming more active again.

 

[HitchHiker71]

If the intervals were subsequently sold, then Wyndham no longer owned them and of course didn't pay the associated maintenance fees. But, for the intervals Wyndham owned, regardless of whether they were in a "sales chain," Wyndham had to be paying maintenance fees. How else could this work?

Agreed. Whether Wyndham held the deedbacks in the Fairshare Trust or moved them into the CWA trust, if they are unsold inventory then Wyndham is paying the MFs on those weeks/points. If Wyndham held over 60% of the interval inventory at these resorts, as was the case in almost all of the impacted resorts, then it is likely that was unsold inventory, and Wyndham was actually paying the MFs on those contracts until the resorts were closed on or after 12/31/2025, regardless of the legal mechanism in which that inventory was being held.

 

[paxsarah]

Everyone seems to accept that Wyndham is paying the MFs on all these deeded back intervals. I submit that a huge majority of those deedbacks where subsequently resold as CWA weeks whose MFs were then paid by a regular owner (indirectly through the CWA agreement). Wyndham did hold some number of deebacks for periods of time, but they were in the sales chain awaiting new ownership through CWA. IMHO, the amount of MFs that Wyndham was paying at any one POA was relatively low. I speak from experience having presided over the Pagosa Ptarmigan POA for many years.

I didn't own at any of the closed resorts, but I do own at Kingsgate, which while it seems healthy (for now, at least) it is a pretty good analogue to the others in terms of age, existence of converted fixed weeks but also UDI points, etc. I did a little figuring about it (based on the 2025 HOA financial report containing 2024 financials) in another unrelated thread:

Spelled out on Page 10 of the report:
PTVO owns 37% of available points
PTVO owns 43% of available intervals
WVR owns 17% of available points

Calculated by me:
WVR owns 510 (Page 12) of 8,364 (budget page) total intervals, or 6%

Obviously PTVO (CWA) owns more, but Wyndham's directly owned share isn't nothing. From the same report (Page 12), in 2024 Wyndham paid the HOA $594,587 on maintenance for intervals and $1,838,638 on maintenance for UDI points for a total of $2,433,225 in total maintenance assessments to the HOA. It's up to the individual to decide whether they feel that's "relatively low."

 

[Arimaas]

I didn't own at any of the closed resorts, but I do own at Kingsgate, which while it seems healthy (for now, at least) it is a pretty good analogue to the others in terms of age, existence of converted fixed weeks but also UDI points, etc. I did a little figuring about it (based on the 2025 HOA financial report containing 2024 financials) in another unrelated thread:

Obviously PTVO (CWA) owns more, but Wyndham's directly owned share isn't nothing. From the same report (Page 12), in 2024 Wyndham paid the HOA $594,587 on maintenance for intervals and $1,838,638 on maintenance for UDI points for a total of $2,433,225 in total maintenance assessments to the HOA. It's up to the individual to decide whether they feel that's "relatively low."

As you know, Kingsgate is my only other contract other then 126k CWA. I lost glade in the closings. It is in the back of my mind that’s I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop. My only hope is that Williamsburg is a big family destination, so low occupancy shouldn’t be an issue here.