Club Wyndham Suspension

[SteveinHNL]

Good thing it would be free because you would lose, as have many others before.

You would get your money's worth.

lol, it's possible. Also very possible to negotiate an acceptable resolution allowing the use that OP is making, which does not sound like a commercial use.

 

[chapjim]

lol, it's possible. Also very possible to negotiate an acceptable resolution allowing the use that OP is making, which does not sound like a commercial use.

Therein lies the dilemma. Wyndham has never defined "commercial use," nor is it expected ever to be defined. Commercial, in its most basic sense, would mean holding out to the public, i.e., advertising on any of the various listing sites. That would be aggravated by using Wyndham's stock photos and/or resort descriptions, violating copyrights.

The other obvious measure of "commercial use" would be excessive (as viewed by Wyndham) use of guest certificates. In 2021, before I got "the letter," I exhausted my supply of guest confirmations (30 at the time) in the third week of February. I bought fifty-three more (at $99 each) before getting fingered by Wyndham in October 2021 and being required to cancel a bunch of reservations.

As for negotiating, Wyndham has all the cards and doesn't need to negotiate. Nor does it need to explain anything. OP's best shot is to explain his situation and beg for mercy, but don't expect it to be granted. Wyndham has some real dicks working this issue. In October 2021, I got Wyndham not to cancel one rented reservation. It was for a wedding a week away and I told the guy it would be downright cruel to cancel a unit to be occupied by a wedding party. He bought it.

 

[DrGavin]

I am not an attorney, but even this layman can see the difference between "alienability" -- the conveyance of propery -- and use rights restrictions when joining a timehare exchange program

by an assignment to the Trust of the Use Rights attributable to such Property Interest(s)

Alienation doesn't have to be through a sale; it can also be through a lease. Restricting the ability to enter into short-term leases is a restraint on alienation. Whether or not the Wyndham documentation that my mother signed contained an express prohibition against leasing is something to be investigated.

Again, these are just questions and thoughts that come to mind.

I'm not trying to engage in a commercial enterprise. I'm just trying to help my elderly mother offset maintenance fees while she recovers from nearly dying in the hope that she will be able to travel at some point in the future.

If Wyndham comes after her for that, I will fight as best I can, but I hope they won't, so I won't have to.

 

[paxsarah]

That would be aggravated by using Wyndham's stock photos and/or resort descriptions, violating copyrights.

I know at least one @RENTER has solved that problem by taking photos of Wyndham’s photos.

 

[dioxide45]

I know at least one @RENTER has solved that problem by taking photos of Wyndham’s photos.
View attachment 81683

Can’t someone just go to the resort themselves and take their own photos? Could write the trip off as a business expense!

 

[tschwa2]

Can’t someone just go to the resort themselves and take their own photos? Could write the trip off as a business expense!

Yes but people are often too lazy. Also if you traveling to multiple resorts to do this and writing it off as a business expense doesn't that imply that renting is a commercial endeavor?

 

[rickandcindy23]

Can’t someone just go to the resort themselves and take their own photos? Could write the trip off as a business expense!

We did that in 2008. It was a lot of fun. We went to the Orlando resorts and the coastal Florida ones.

 

[HitchHiker71]

As many owners know, Wyndham Sales Representatives have regularly stated in presentations that owners could rent out their timeshare(s) to offset maintenance fees without having to go through Extra Holidays (EH). In the past two years, I have been told by four different Sales Reps; three of the four were Sales Managers, that it was acceptable to rent without going through EH.

Earlier this year, I wrote Wyndham Corporate to ask for clarity on the issue of an owner renting their timeshare to help offset maintenance costs. I received the following answer in writing from an Owner Resolutions & Strategy Executive Case Specialist:

“The only rental option we permit owners to utilize when it comes to rental is the option provided through Extra Holidays directly. Within the terms and conditions associated with any Club Wyndham contract- it discloses that purchases are to be for personal use and not rental by owner for a profit. If an owner is caught renting outside of Extra Holidays, their account can be flagged for commercial use.”

One thing is clear; Sales is saying one thing and Corporate is saying something totally different.

Wyndham has practiced cognitive dissonance (i.e. dual personalities) with respect to this issue for over a decade now. The commercial use clause has been in the Member Directory going back as far as PDFs were available around 2008 timeframe. Sales and marketing will say whatever they have to say to make a sale - up to and including renting to offset MFs. I've heard it myself as well from certain sales people over time. I've also seen a similar statement as what you've posted here from Wyndham on other posts here on TUG - and on the FB groups. That's why I've always stated that the only "officially supported" rental path is EH.

 

[bnoble]

Sales and marketing will say whatever they have to say to make a sale - up to and including renting to offset MFs.

And strictly speaking, it is not wrong to say this---because Extra Holidays exists---just as you note:

I've always stated that the only "officially supported" rental path is EH.

 

[SteveinHNL]

Therein lies the dilemma. Wyndham has never defined "commercial use," nor is it expected ever to be defined. Commercial, in its most basic sense, would mean holding out to the public, i.e., advertising on any of the various listing sites. That would be aggravated by using Wyndham's stock photos and/or resort descriptions, violating copyrights.

The other obvious measure of "commercial use" would be excessive (as viewed by Wyndham) use of guest certificates. In 2021, before I got "the letter," I exhausted my supply of guest confirmations (30 at the time) in the third week of February. I bought fifty-three more (at $99 each) before getting fingered by Wyndham in October 2021 and being required to cancel a bunch of reservations.

As for negotiating, Wyndham has all the cards and doesn't need to negotiate. Nor does it need to explain anything. OP's best shot is to explain his situation and beg for mercy, but don't expect it to be granted. Wyndham has some real dicks working this issue. In October 2021, I got Wyndham not to cancel one rented reservation. It was for a wedding a week away and I told the guy it would be downright cruel to cancel a unit to be occupied by a wedding party. He bought it.

Respectfully, I don't agree with you. You have pointed out the single biggest issue, which is that "commercial use" is being defined arbitrarily by Wyndham. Each party to a contract has an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and further, one of the rules of contract construction is that vague terms are construed against the drafter, particular with contracts of adhesion (i.e., contracts where the consumer has no say in the language of the contract).

Given that OP is simply passing his units on to friends and family members and recouping his MFs due to his inability to personally use what he owns, and not making a profit, I think Wyndham would have a very tough go of it, and they would be looking at 3 problems in a lawsuit: (1) whether a trial court might rule against them on the contract construction issue, which is likely, as Wyndham can't be arbitrary; (2) they would certainly be paying a lot of attorney's to fight the case; (3) if they lose, it would set a precedent that would be bad for them on a large scale, while if they were to agree to relent and allow this particular user to continue his practice, it would be considered an isolated "non-commercial use" that would have no impact on how they are treating other owners.

You might be surprised how frequently large companies make "business decisions" in this way, i.e., treating the masses poorly and settling the occasional legal challenge if it doesn't compromise their larger practice. Given that "commercial use" is decided on a case-by-case basis according to their whim, it would do them no harm to relent for this one person.

Wyndham's successful rationale is that almost everyone won't bother to challenge them, and in many cases, owners who did sue would not have the facts on their side because they are in fact engaging in commercial use for profit.

So I think your conclusion that Wyndham holds all the cards really isn't correct. What they do hold (as shown by your position) is the perception that they will win every legal challenge, the fact that almost every owner would not care to spend the money to challenge their application of "commercial use," and that in most cases, the facts are on their side, because a great many folks are in fact engaging in commercial use.

That said, I think virtually everyone who is not a lawyer would not find the investment of attorney's fees to be wise. Which Wyndham knows, and counts on.

 

[RENTER]

I know at least one @RENTER has solved that problem by taking photos of Wyndham’s photos.
View attachment 81683

I know at least one @RENTER has solved that problem by taking photos of Wyndham’s photos.
View attachment 81683

Sorry but you are no Sherlock Holmes. You are wrong again.

 

[Mongoose]

The commercial use clause has been in the Member Directory going back as far as PDFs

What is the actual language? Typically for it to be Commerical Use, there has to be a monetary reward. I would think renting a unit to cover MFs or even at a partial loss does not create a monetary reward, but I am talking common sense not legal or Wyndham speak.

 

[paxsarah]

Sorry but you are no Sherlock Holmes. You are wrong again.

Okay.

 

[HitchHiker71]

What is the actual language? Typically for it to be Commerical Use, there has to be a monetary reward. I would think renting a unit to cover MFs or even at a partial loss does not create a monetary reward, but I am talking common sense not legal or Wyndham speak.

Here's the language from the current Member Directory:

 

[bnoble]

Respectfully, I don't agree with you.

I think you and Jim are basically saying the same thing. Namely: "Being right doesn't really matter, because compelling Wyndham to recognize you are right is too expensive to bother doing given what's at stake."

 

[Silverdollar]

Respectfully, I don't agree with you. You have pointed out the single biggest issue, which is that "commercial use" is being defined arbitrarily by Wyndham. Each party to a contract has an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and further, one of the rules of contract construction is that vague terms are construed against the drafter, particular with contracts of adhesion (i.e., contracts where the consumer has no say in the language of the contract).

Given that OP is simply passing his units on to friends and family members and recouping his MFs due to his inability to personally use what he owns, and not making a profit, I think Wyndham would have a very tough go of it, and they would be looking at 3 problems in a lawsuit: (1) whether a trial court might rule against them on the contract construction issue, which is likely, as Wyndham can't be arbitrary; (2) they would certainly be paying a lot of attorney's to fight the case; (3) if they lose, it would set a precedent that would be bad for them on a large scale, while if they were to agree to relent and allow this particular user to continue his practice, it would be considered an isolated "non-commercial use" that would have no impact on how they are treating other owners.

You might be surprised how frequently large companies make "business decisions" in this way, i.e., treating the masses poorly and settling the occasional legal challenge if it doesn't compromise their larger practice. Given that "commercial use" is decided on a case-by-case basis according to their whim, it would do them no harm to relent for this one person.

Wyndham's successful rationale is that almost everyone won't bother to challenge them, and in many cases, owners who did sue would not have the facts on their side because they are in fact engaging in commercial use for profit.

So I think your conclusion that Wyndham holds all the cards really isn't correct. What they do hold (as shown by your position) is the perception that they will win every legal challenge, the fact that almost every owner would not care to spend the money to challenge their application of "commercial use," and that in most cases, the facts are on their side, because a great many folks are in fact engaging in commercial use.

That said, I think virtually everyone who is not a lawyer would not find the investment of attorney's fees to be wise. Which Wyndham knows, and counts on.

Wyndham has the upper hand because they can freeze your account and keep you from using your points to book reservations. At the same time you would be required to continue making payments for maintenance fees. Your account could be "tied up" for months, or even years. You could challenge this in court, but it would be cost prohibitive for most owners.

 

[Mongoose]

Here's the language from the current Member Directory:

View attachment 81701

So no definitions. Wonderful. Often in legalese for it to be Commercial Use there has to be a financial reward.

 

[CYRUS2400]

So no definitions. Wonderful. Often in legalese for it to be Commercial Use there has to be a financial reward.

Agree, no definitions. Add to it that they do not define 'personal use', either. Since they allow Guest Confirmations, all use would be for personal use. If they did away with GC's, there would be no question about 'personal use', it would be obvious. The contradictions in this statement are many, the entire statement is basically useless.

 

[Mongoose]

Agree, no definitions. Add to it that they do not define 'personal use', either. Since they allow Guest Confirmations, all use would be for personal use. If they did away with GC's, there would be no question about 'personal use', it would be obvious. The contradictions in this statement are many, the entire statement is basically useless.

Once again, I bid on a Wyndham package on eBay and let it go because I just don't need the headache.

 

[HitchHiker71]

So no definitions. Wonderful. Often in legalese for it to be Commercial Use there has to be a financial reward.

There's threads here on TUG somewhere where I went and dug up the many references made to the underlying trust documents. Notice there are two capitalized terms in that sentence alone, Program and Member. Those are terms that are ultimately defined in the trust documents - and then there are terms embedded within the definitions of those terms - and on and on it goes. It's quite a maze of legal documentation really.

 

[sponger76]

So no definitions. Wonderful. Often in legalese for it to be Commercial Use there has to be a financial reward.

Often in legalese, accepting money in return for goods or services (including rentals) constitutes commercial activity. It doesn't necessarily have to mean making a profit. There are many enterprises that end up going out of business because they failed to make a profit, but they were still considered to be commercial enterprises.

 

[rickandcindy23]

The rentals of Bonnet Creek on RCI (the only I looked at on RCI) are definitely going for quite a bit of money. As long as Wyndham is making money, that's all that matters.

Meanwhile, I am paying fees every month for contracts Wyndham won't let us deedback.

 

[RENTER]

Okay.
View attachment 81699

If you think this is my posting on Airbnb, you are sadly mistaken. Now the question is that if you are spending so much time trying to figure out who I am then are you someone who works for Wyndham or someone who has no life. The next question is what comes first. You finally figure it out or I am no longer allowed to rent to cover my maintenance fees and I stop paying Wyndham and walk away. I am at 25/12 so maybe you can figure it out before I hit 26/13.

 

[chapjim]

Respectfully, I don't agree with you. You have pointed out the single biggest issue, which is that "commercial use" is being defined arbitrarily by Wyndham. Each party to a contract has an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and further, one of the rules of contract construction is that vague terms are construed against the drafter, particular with contracts of adhesion (i.e., contracts where the consumer has no say in the language of the contract).

Given that OP is simply passing his units on to friends and family members and recouping his MFs due to his inability to personally use what he owns, and not making a profit, I think Wyndham would have a very tough go of it, and they would be looking at 3 problems in a lawsuit: (1) whether a trial court might rule against them on the contract construction issue, which is likely, as Wyndham can't be arbitrary; (2) they would certainly be paying a lot of attorney's to fight the case; (3) if they lose, it would set a precedent that would be bad for them on a large scale, while if they were to agree to relent and allow this particular user to continue his practice, it would be considered an isolated "non-commercial use" that would have no impact on how they are treating other owners.

You might be surprised how frequently large companies make "business decisions" in this way, i.e., treating the masses poorly and settling the occasional legal challenge if it doesn't compromise their larger practice. Given that "commercial use" is decided on a case-by-case basis according to their whim, it would do them no harm to relent for this one person.

Wyndham's successful rationale is that almost everyone won't bother to challenge them, and in many cases, owners who did sue would not have the facts on their side because they are in fact engaging in commercial use for profit.

So I think your conclusion that Wyndham holds all the cards really isn't correct. What they do hold (as shown by your position) is the perception that they will win every legal challenge, the fact that almost every owner would not care to spend the money to challenge their application of "commercial use," and that in most cases, the facts are on their side, because a great many folks are in fact engaging in commercial use.

That said, I think virtually everyone who is not a lawyer would not find the investment of attorney's fees to be wise. Which Wyndham knows, and counts on.

Yeah, I studied contract law in law school, too. It doesn't amount to a pinch of coon$hit in this context.

 

[Eric B]

Respectfully, I don't agree with you. You have pointed out the single biggest issue, which is that "commercial use" is being defined arbitrarily by Wyndham. Each party to a contract has an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and further, one of the rules of contract construction is that vague terms are construed against the drafter, particular with contracts of adhesion (i.e., contracts where the consumer has no say in the language of the contract).

Given that OP is simply passing his units on to friends and family members and recouping his MFs due to his inability to personally use what he owns, and not making a profit, I think Wyndham would have a very tough go of it, and they would be looking at 3 problems in a lawsuit: (1) whether a trial court might rule against them on the contract construction issue, which is likely, as Wyndham can't be arbitrary; (2) they would certainly be paying a lot of attorney's to fight the case; (3) if they lose, it would set a precedent that would be bad for them on a large scale, while if they were to agree to relent and allow this particular user to continue his practice, it would be considered an isolated "non-commercial use" that would have no impact on how they are treating other owners.

You might be surprised how frequently large companies make "business decisions" in this way, i.e., treating the masses poorly and settling the occasional legal challenge if it doesn't compromise their larger practice. Given that "commercial use" is decided on a case-by-case basis according to their whim, it would do them no harm to relent for this one person.

Wyndham's successful rationale is that almost everyone won't bother to challenge them, and in many cases, owners who did sue would not have the facts on their side because they are in fact engaging in commercial use for profit.

So I think your conclusion that Wyndham holds all the cards really isn't correct. What they do hold (as shown by your position) is the perception that they will win every legal challenge, the fact that almost every owner would not care to spend the money to challenge their application of "commercial use," and that in most cases, the facts are on their side, because a great many folks are in fact engaging in commercial use.

That said, I think virtually everyone who is not a lawyer would not find the investment of attorney's fees to be wise. Which Wyndham knows, and counts on.

I have to agree with @chapjim. Wyndham doesn't have to hold all the cards in order to make it economically infeasible for an attorney working pro se to fight them. They just have to be able to suspend your account for an audit that lasts months to years and wait you out.

IMHO, the issue most don't see is that it isn't really an issue of renting out a property you own, which they really should allow freely to be on the right side of the issue, but instead renting out a stay acquired through a proprietary exchange system in place of the use of what you own. Similar to RCI and II stays, both of which you aren't allowed to rent, it strikes me as a potentially appropriate restriction. They do a lousy job of articulating the basis and setting the limits and have allowed their sales staff to further muddy the waters, so I occasionally accommodate a friend or acquaintance without thinking twice about it. They have always seemed to tolerate an occasional rental from anyone based on the experiences posted here and I wouldn't expect that to change - I just wouldn't count on being able to rent as a side business as had been done in the past because they have cleaned up their management significantly.