[CONTENT REMOVED FROM ORIGINAL THREAD PLACED HERE] Legal debate thread for the ongoing Wyndham resort closure actions...

[Arimaas]

How much of the oxygen in this thread is being consumed by one person "just asking questions"?

Y'all can keep arguing with him if you want, but I'm putting him on ignore for a week or two. Hopefully he will run out of steam between now and then.

Isn't it carbon that we are wasting here, not oxygen? Sorry, thought we could all use some levity. I am also sure some folks might think I am wasting carbon too.

 

[Arimaas]

To me it would make sense to do that, but i've been yelled at by "lawyers" on here about semantics, so who knows. It's anybody's guess as to what's actually going to happen until 1/1/2026 is my theory.

I'm going to an update on Friday at Ocean Walk and i'm going to fish for information and see what kind of good lies they try to spread.

Not all lawyers yell at you - I agree with you. I think Wyndham is wrong for its lack of transparency and not blocking off inventory now in preparation of this, or at the very least, give some sort of popup warning.

 

[comicbookman]

Not all lawyers yell at you - I agree with you. I think Wyndham is wrong for its lack of transparency and not blocking off inventory now in preparation of this, or at the very least, give some sort of popup warning.

very few lawyers yell at him for being upset at Wyndham for lack of transparency. Mostly it's because he makes things up and states his uninformed opinions as legal fact.

 

[dioxide45]

Explain how it works without a functioning HOA.

Under Florida Statute, the association would be setup as a non profit. The HOA exists as long as there are members. As long as there are deeded owners, there are members. The members control the association. The accession doesn't own the property. The association simply can't vanish. If there isn't a functioning HOA or BOD, the court may appoint a receiver to manage the affairs of the association if the BOD fails to act in accordance with the law and fulfill financial obligations. The receiver can't dissolve the association. They would be tasked to perform the duties the BOD would normally perform. Assessing the owners, foreclosing on defaulted deeds, finding an entity that wants to acquire those deeds.

If there is a developer that wants to acquire the property for future development, they could acquire deeds in bulk or piecemeal. That developer could approach the receiver or individual owners (like Westgate did) and buyout ownerships. In the end, in order to terminate the condominium, the voting threshold still needs to be met. You can look at the case of Biscayne 21 (this is a very recent court precedent) where a developer acquired 86% ownership of the condominium and attempted to change the voting threshold to terminate the condominium from 100% to 80%. They lost their case on appeal but are still looking to appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.

Now, the above doesn't cover bankruptcy necessarily. If the association can't handle the situation the court could appoint a receiver. This still doesn't take care of collapsing the condominium association to then be able to sell the property free and clear. Owners will still have to vote on termination. A developer can buy individual deeds and control the association but individual owner rights are still recognized and they have to be willing to vote to extinguish their ownership rights.

 

[comicbookman]

Under Florida Statute, the association would be setup as a non profit. The HOA exists as long as there are members. As long as there are deeded owners, there are members. The members control the association. The accession doesn't own the property. The association simply can't vanish. If there isn't a functioning HOA or BOD, the court may appoint a receiver to manage the affairs of the association if the BOD fails to act in accordance with the law and fulfill financial obligations. The receiver can't dissolve the association. They would be tasked to perform the duties the BOD would normally perform. Assessing the owners, foreclosing on defaulted deeds, finding an entity that wants to acquire those deeds.

If there is a developer that wants to acquire the property for future development, they could acquire deeds in bulk or piecemeal. That developer could approach the receiver or individual owners (like Westgate did) and buyout ownerships. In the end, in order to terminate the condominium, the voting threshold still needs to be met. You can look at the case of Biscayne 21 (this is a very recent court precedent) where a developer acquired 86% ownership of the condominium and attempted to change the voting threshold to terminate the condominium from 100% to 80%. They lost their case on appeal but are still looking to appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.

Now, the above doesn't cover bankruptcy necessarily. If the association can't handle the situation the court could appoint a receiver. This still doesn't take care of collapsing the condominium association to then be able to sell the property free and clear. Owners will still have to vote on termination. A developer can buy individual deeds and control the association but individual owner rights are still recognized and they have to be willing to vote to extinguish their ownership rights.

Not really an answer to my question. All you did was say there will be a HOA of some type. A receiver is not the same as an HOA. The court has a lot of power in this scenario, which you keep ignoring.

 

[Floridaman76]

very few lawyers yell at him for being upset at Wyndham for lack of transparency. Mostly it's because he makes things up and states his uninformed opinions as legal fact.

I don't think I've ever claimed to have stated anything as a legal fact. Some of you "lawyers" are very quick to point out where I might be wrong. And that's fine and a lot of claims I have made have turned out to be wrong. But from where i'm sitting some of you don't have the best track record of facts being on your side. And you have allegedly passed the bar.

I can state my opinions just like everyone else here is doing. At the end of the day, we are just throwing darts at walls.

 

[comicbookman]

I don't think I've ever claimed to have stated anything as a legal fact. Some of you "lawyers" are very quick to point out where I might be wrong. And that's fine and a lot of claims I have made have turned out to be wrong. But from where i'm sitting some of you don't have the best track record of facts being on your side. And you have allegedly passed the bar.

I can state my opinions just like everyone else here is doing. At the end of the day, we are just throwing darts at walls.

Everyone gets to state their opinions. You kept making assertions and presented them as facts. not the same thing. A can't do B or X is not allowed, type statements. When you have been called on it you resorted to name calling and sometimes claiming you said the opposite of what you originally said. You just get upset whenever you get called out for what you say. It does not require passing the bar to see that.

 

[dioxide45]

Not really an answer to my question. All you did was say there will be a HOA of some type. A receiver is not the same as an HOA. The court has a lot of power in this scenario, which you keep ignoring.

So far I have yet to see where you have provided any sources to indicate that the court has the power. If it is there, please provide it. The court can't order the association to sell deeded ownership that the association doesn't own or control.

 

[Floridaman76]

Everyone gets to state their opinions. You kept making assertions and presented them as facts. not the same thing. A can't do B or X is not allowed, type statements. When you have been called on it you resorted to name calling and sometimes claiming you said the opposite of what you originally said. You just get upset whenever you get called out for what you say. It does not require passing the bar to see that.

As your posting record and as people other than me posting back and forth with you shows, i'm not the only one calling your out for your questionable "legal advice" or opinion here. And I think you are grossly misrepresenting some of my statements in bad faith. Something that could get you sanctioned by the bar if this was a legal proceeding.

Furthermore, I didn't call you out specifically by name before you re-engaged me (by name/quote). So what does that say? I would suggest if you don't like what I have to say, put me on ignore, then that problem is solved. But I don't think you can or will do that. And that speaks volumes.

Just saying. I'm exiting this conversation before the old [Message deleted by moderator] tag shows back up

 

[dioxide45]

Not really an answer to my question. All you did was say there will be a HOA of some type. A receiver is not the same as an HOA. The court has a lot of power in this scenario, which you keep ignoring.

If you have sources for your assertions that the court has the power to override the termination thresholds, you should provide them. If you are an attorney, then you should have much easier access to these sources to provide them here.

 

[comicbookman]

So far I have yet to see where you have provided any sources to indicate that the court has the power. If it is there, please provide it. The court can't order the association to sell deeded ownership that the association doesn't own or control.

Correct, the court can however force deed holders to sell because they are ultimately responsible for the debts of the association. If the association doesn't pay the taxes on the property, despite collecting the money from owners, and spends that money on something else, the state can go after the deed holders, and if they don't pay, force a sale. Chapter 11 allows the court to treat the deed holders as a class, rather than having to deal with them individually. So, it could force a sale if it determine that is best for the class as a whole. It's the basics of how Bankruptcy works.

 

[dioxide45]

Correct, the court can however force deed holders to sell because they are ultimately responsible for the debts of the association. If the association doesn't pay the taxes on the property, despite collecting the money from owners, and spends that money on something else, the state can go after the deed holders, and if they don't pay, force a sale. Chapter 11 allows the court to treat the deed holders as a class, rather than having to deal with them individually. So, it could force a sale if it determine that is best for the class as a whole. It's the basics of how Bankruptcy works.

Can you cite your source? It should be pretty easy to provide a previous case or text from the legal code. No?

Yes, that is how it works in the case of personal bankruptcy. If an individual files for bankruptcy, the court could force them to personally to sell their deed to fulfill their debts. But in the case of an bankruptcy by the association, the members are neither a debtor or a creditor. The association is still responsible for collecting fees and paying vendors or creditors. The association can't take what they don't own to pay creditors.

Again, if the above is not correct. Provide a source related to your specific claim.

Adding: If such a situation is so easy, why didn't Two Roads Development, who controlled 86% of Biscayne 21 association just have the association file Chapter 11 and go the route you are suggesting? We can't be led to believe that Wyndham's attorneys are the first to come up with such a concept?

We should also remember here, that none of these associations were in financial distress. Orlando International even said they were in good financial health. So what would they be using the proceeds for from the forced sale of the individual timeshare owners deeds for? Just closing down the condominium because a developer decided it didn't want to be involved anymore? If that is allowed to happen, it can have HUGE ramifications for all condominiums across the country. Not just timeshares.

 

[comicbookman]

That is al

Can you cite your source? It should be pretty easy to provide a previous case or text from the legal code. No?

Yes, that is how it works in the case of personal bankruptcy. If an individual files for bankruptcy, the court could force them to personally to sell their deed to fulfill their debts. But in the case of an bankruptcy by the association, the members are neither a debtor or a creditor. The association is still responsible for collecting fees and paying vendors or creditors. The association can't take what they don't own to pay creditors.

Again, if the above is not correct. Provide a source related to your specific claim.

Adding: If such a situation is so easy, why didn't Two Roads Development, who controlled 86% of Biscayne 21 association just have the association file Chapter 11 and go the route you are suggesting? We can't be led to believe that Wyndham's attorneys are the first to come up with such a concept?

It is also how it works for corporate and non-profit bankruptcy. As for Two Roads, I assume they thought the way they did it was most beneficial to them. Just because it fits Wyndham's needs does not mean other organizations have the same requirements or goals. Every bankruptcy is unique. If for no other reason than you have a variety of judges. Judges in Bankruptcy proceedings have a large amount of power, how the wield that power is up to the individual judge. So just because they can do something, does not mean they will do it. Wyndham clearly thinks the Judges have the power to do what works best for Wyndham. The odds are they are correct. I have merely been pointing out that the courts have the power to do things, not whether they will do it. You keep making categorical statements that they can't do things. It is your absolute statements that need support, for which you have none.

 

[dioxide45]

It is your absolute statements that need support, for which you have none.

You aren't doing the same without support? Just saying that the power is there. No other cases to cite, nothing. Right. Time to move on now since you haven't provided anything of substance where I have at least provided several document situations where if the power was there, these large developers and corporations would have at least tried it. It could also be that Wyndham attorneys will try it and no one will try and legally challenge it. That doesn't necessarily make it legal.

 

[comicbookman]

You aren't doing the same without support? Just saying that the power is there. No other cases to cite, nothing. Right. Time to move on now since you haven't provided anything of substance where I have at least provided several document situations where if the power was there, these large developers and corporations would have at least tried it. It could also be that Wyndham attorneys will try it and no one will try and legally challenge it. That doesn't necessarily make it legal.

Yes my statement about power is an absolute but is based on the code itself. You have cited cases that are apples to oranges. I am not about to teach a bankruptcy 101 class for you to ignore. Look at the bankruptcy code itself or stop making proclamations and getting pissed that people call you on it. However, you have won. clearly you are a lost cause, and I give up. Arguing in circles with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about has gotten really old. I surrender to your massive self-evaluated expertise.

 

[dioxide45]

Yes my statement about power is an absolute but is based on the code itself. You have cited cases that are apples to oranges. I am not about to teach a bankruptcy 101 class for you to ignore. Look at the bankruptcy code itself or stop making proclamations and getting pissed that people call you on it. However, you have won. clearly you are a lost cause, and I give up. Arguing in circles with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about has gotten really old. I surrender to your massive self-evaluated expertise.

I mean if it is easy enough, you should be able to back up your statements. You proclaim to have all the knowledge but can't seem to back any of your statements up. You can't even cite one single case like it. You may try to dismiss my examples as apples and orange because they don't fit your narrative. You may also say they are apples and orange, but I don't see how they are. Is it because it is residential condominium vs. timeshare? Those are both covered under the same state statutes.

You also state that every case is unique, but we now all of a sudden have about a dozen cases that are all almost identical. Strange.

 

[HitchHiker71]

You also state that every case is unique, but we now all of a sudden have about a dozen cases that are all almost identical. Strange.

That's not what he said. What he said is accurate - every bankruptcy case is somewhat unique. Just because Wyndham is using a similar process for each resort exit that we know about, doesn't mean Wyndham expects the same outcomes. I can state categorically, directly on behalf of Wyndham corporate, that each resort exit is going to be somewhat unique, for various legitimate reasons, including but not limited to bylaws, governing documents, and applicable local, state and federal laws, which is what I've been saying all along. The outcomes expected are not going to be the same. We cannot conflate a similar process that Wyndham is using and assume similar outcomes via the bankruptcy courts.

 

[dioxide45]

this is fascinating to me as every hoa/attorney/etc states this is not allowed in any way shape or form. any money allocated to reserves cannot be used as operating funds.

Okay. So I turned up this in Florida Statute (718.13). So, it looks like it is permitted. The bankruptcy filing seems irrelevant to the transfer.

Funds in any deferred maintenance or capital expenditure reserve account may not be transferred to any operating account without the consent of a majority of the purchasers of the timeshare plan. The managing entity may from time to time transfer excess funds in any operating account to any deferred maintenance or capital expenditure reserve account without the vote or approval of purchasers of the timeshare plan. In the event any amount of reserves for accommodations and facilities of a timeshare plan containing timeshare licenses or personal property timeshare interests exists at the end of the term of the timeshare plan, such reserves shall be refunded to purchasers on a pro rata basis.

 

[schreff]

I may have missed some posts or a basic legal concept concerning this Wyndham resort closing mess. Chapter 11 is reorganization bankrupcy which gives the resort the ability to restructure debt so that it can remain open and Chapter 7 is for the purpose of termination, i.e. closing the resort. If Chapter 7 was used then all non-exempt assets could be used to wind down as per a court appointed trustee. Please let me know what I am not understanding.

 

[jp10558]

I may have missed some posts or a basic legal concept concerning this Wyndham resort closing mess. Chapter 11 is reorganization bankrupcy which gives the resort the ability to restructure debt so that it can remain open and Chapter 7 is for the purpose of termination, i.e. closing the resort. If Chapter 7 was used then all non-exempt assets could be used to wind down as per a court appointed trustee. Please let me know what I am not understanding.

Neither Wyndham nor the HOAs have really explained the legal concepts they're using here. I think the Chapter 11 is a red herring WRT the resorts closing - the HOAs can't "go bankrupt" in a general sense, they can always impose assessments. Also all the meetings reported so far include votes to terminate the timeshare per the rules set up when the timeshare started. So whatever the Chapter 11 is for, it's not to close the resorts from what I can tell. That could have happened with just the votes in the meetings to terminate.

 

[Floridaman76]

that would be something that would irk me more than the closing as a member. to have a % of my annual fees each and every year be allocated specifically for infrastructure repairs or other long term maint/upgrades....to instead be used to pay operating costs because the resort is closing.

BINGO!

Deferring maintenance for years, then going on a "refurb blitz" a handful of months before the resort shutters, so the people who payed into it potentially could not reap the rewards.

Then moving reserves to cover operational costs to use as Wyndham sees fit, wow. The optics of this suck.

 

[comicbookman]

I think in the end it still all nets itself out. If they move funds from reserve to cover operating fees it prevents them from maybe having to come back to the owners for funds to continue the wind down. If they don't move the money, it has to come from somewhere else. Perhaps they assess owners or get a loan that has to be paid back when everything is wound down. The net result isn't any different

BINGO!

Deferring maintenance for years, then going on a "refurb blitz" a handful of months before the resort shutters, so the people who payed into it potentially could not reap the rewards.

Then moving reserves to cover operational costs to use as Wyndham sees fit, wow. The optics of this suck.

Is there a coherent thought here? Deferring maintenance is common at timeshare resorts, only some of the resorts have done resent refurbs and using reserves instead of additional maintenance fees is a zero sum game as has already been pointed out. So I ask again is there a coherent thought or just more vague conspiracy suggestions?

 

[dioxide45]

Is there a coherent thought here? Deferring maintenance is common at timeshare resorts, only some of the resorts have done resent refurbs and using reserves instead of additional maintenance fees is a zero sum game as has already been pointed out. So I ask again is there a coherent thought or just more vague conspiracy suggestions?

The refurb blitz is a little questionable, but perhaps it makes the properties more valuable if the eventual result is a sale. But wouldn't whoever buys the property have to do the other capital improvements that Wyndham is saying is the reason they need to close these properties? So I suspect those needed capital improvements will bring the value back down. Using the reserves mostly impacts the CWA swap folks since they won't be getting a cash out.

 

[comicbookman]

Just got my Glade paperwork. Stonecastle HOA. Chapter 11 vote is Oct. 9th. I will attend by zoom. Vote 1 is on Chapter 11. Vote 2 is on retention of professionals (
k&L Gates, Hilco real estate and support professionals as need). Vote 3 is on ending operations on Dec.27th, using reserves to cover 2026 costs and refunding 2026 maintenance fees. Vote 4 empowers the professionals hired to do what is needed to finish the sale process.

The intro says the finances are sound, but coming up is potentially $3 mil for upgrades, $1 mil for structural repairs and $1.5 mil for a fire alarm system upgrade. I will do a deep dive tomorrow into the budget to see if anything jumps out.

 

[comicbookman]

The refurb blitz is a little questionable, but perhaps it makes the properties more valuable if the eventual result is a sale. But wouldn't whoever buys the property have to do the other capital improvements that Wyndham is saying is the reason they need to close these properties? So I suspect those needed capital improvements will bring the value back down. Using the reserves mostly impacts the CWA swap folks since they won't be getting a cash out.

The CWA people won't get the cash out, but depending on the swap timing they should get the 2026 maint. fee refund or at least a credit applied to their new CWA points. It will be interesting to see if Wyndham makes the deadline to accept the swap be prior to the refund. Hitchhiker, could you ask your contacts during your next talk how this would be handled? Especially since I believe CWA does not pay a year ahead. The refund should go to the original owner who actually paid it, not to Wyndham after a trade.