Do we have a right to owners' roster?

[timeos2]

The Association is YOU

Until now I had only been mildly attentive to this thread, thinking that if anything happens it wouldn't be at my expense other than my loss of privacy against my will.

But, now that we're talking about the potential for an across-the-board assessment applied to all owners, for the sake of recovering costs incurred by a few other owners, now you've got my attention.

Everytime I hear an owner talk about suing the resort for percieved problems or a trip and fall I have to wonder if they understand who pays. The Association isn't some big company with independent income and rich investors - it's them! The income comes only from the owners themselves. When someone sues the owners pay for any attorneys fees, settlement or award. We suffered through that when our resort Association was sued by the Developer and before we were done over $235,000, that had to be raised in part through a Special Assessment, was spent to fight the suit with much more spent by the Developer. What would all that money have bought for the resort instead of lining lawyers pockets?

When you own a condo or timeshare you are "them" so think carefully before suing yourself.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I doubt that any news program would take interest in this subject.

You will rarely see anything about timeshare on the news because we are a fairly small number of people, and those of us that own timeshare are looked upon by many as easily duped or culpable because we fell for the developer lies. Most people don't have any clue that there is a resale market out there.

That is their opinions of timeshare. I know that Tom Martino, consumer advocate on KHOW radio, thinks any person who buys timeshare is a moron and will have to pay those maintenance fees forever. He says you can stay in a hotel cheaper and challenged anyone to call in, this was two months ago. I did call in, was put on the air, and he would not listen to a thing I was saying. He just kept asking how much I paid originally, how much are my maintenance fees, then he would come up with a wacky figure on my per-night expense. I told him that a two-bedroom timeshare was the same as two hotel rooms or a suite. He wouldn't listen to any of it.

Of course, he is correct that there are deals on hotels out there, RCI isn't helping by renting out units on snaptravel.com and other sites, which devalues our weeks. Costco always has timeshare units for rent with a package. But mostly, timeshare is a good deal. I don't like people thinking we are fools for buying, especially now that we own 10 weeks. We are either stupid or smart, I don't know for sure.

 

[PA-]

Until now I had only been mildly attentive to this thread, thinking that if anything happens it wouldn't be at my expense other than my loss of privacy against my will.

But, now that we're talking about the potential for an across-the-board assessment applied to all owners, for the sake of recovering costs incurred by a few other owners, now you've got my attention.
....

You honestly believe that Trendwest/Cendant would bill the owners in a special assessment in that case?

1) They would never allow a special assessment to hinder their reputation and sales efforts,

2) Especially for such small peanuts. The legal fees will probably be a few thou or so. Even if a couple mil, that's not a big enough deal to put up with the bad relations an assessment would cause.

3) Even if they tried, they probably wouldn't get away with it. The BOD is breaking the law, and violating the by-laws. As representatives of Trendwest/Cendant, they are in too precarioius a position to bill us for trying to extend their stranglehold on the board. There's no way that would fly.

 

[normbailey]

Oh well, it's almost sweeps month on TV, might be good for one of those "consumer reporter segments".

Oh, my, not the media.



I can just see it now......

A. Harry Nuzeanker reporting.....welcome to the 6 o'clock news. Tonight's Breaking News is about the latest hot gossip involving timeshares. We were the first to break this story earlier this hour, and we now have five of our crappiest (I mean, crack) reporters in the field.......

Around here every time the word 'snow' is even lightly mentioned in the forecast, we'll have 3 to 5 bundled reporters in the field to cover the events as they unfold. And these breaking news stories are always accompanied by their own custom-designed logos and graphics.

What's funniest is that even when there isn't any snow falling, they still report in and have the camera pan down to the roadway to show you that nothing is falling yet.

Maybe that's how this issue will be presented in the media. We'll have reporters strategically positioned at timeshares across the country. Each reporter will be saying something to the effect of

"Blondish Curlytop, live at the WorldMark Victoria resort, although we really have nothing to report yet. As you can see, the timeshare resorts are still standing and owners are seemingly going about their normal routines of enjoying their relaxing vacations. Maybe they just aren't aware of the breaking news they're about to be engulfed in. Or, ......"

Dang. Why did you have to mention the media?

 

[normbailey]

You honestly believe that Trendwest/Cendant would bill the owners in a special assessment in that case?

1) They would never allow a special assessment to hinder their reputation and sales efforts,

2) Especially for such small peanuts. The legal fees will probably be a few thou or so. Even if a couple mil, that's not a big enough deal to put up with the bad relations an assessment would cause.

3) Even if they tried, they probably wouldn't get away with it. The BOD is breaking the law, and violating the by-laws. As representatives of Trendwest/Cendant, they are in too precarioius a position to bill us for trying to extend their stranglehold on the board. There's no way that would fly.

I never said they would. All I said was that it could happen, that there is a potential. Huge difference between potential and stating that one believes it WILL happen.

I don't make predictions or claim that things will happen based on speculation. All I said was that there is a potential for it to happen based on the fact that the bylaws provide for the contingency.

And we all have our own individual assessments of what is small peanuts and what is outrageous. If you think a few thou or so or even a couple mil is small peanuts, fine. On this side of the debate, I think even a few hundred is repugnant.

 

[normbailey]

Everytime I hear an owner talk about suing the resort for percieved problems or a trip and fall I have to wonder if they understand who pays. The Association isn't some big company with independent income and rich investors - it's them! The income comes only from the owners themselves. When someone sues the owners pay for any attorneys fees, settlement or award. We suffered through that when our resort Association was sued by the Developer and before we were done over $235,000, that had to be raised in part through a Special Assessment, was spent to fight the suit with much more spent by the Developer. What would all that money have bought for the resort instead of lining lawyers pockets?

When you own a condo or timeshare you are "them" so think carefully before suing yourself.

John, thank you. Too bad your organization had to suffer as you've stated here. Makes one wonder, based on all of the in-house discussions my timeshare owners group has, about improvements and upgrades they want . . . how much more would we have in our resorts if we didn't lose a "few thou" here, a "couple mil" there, or even a real number like $235,000.

Granted, not all of it lines the lawyers' pockets. Some of it goes to the costs of running our legal system beyond the attorneys, but one thing is unmistakably and inarguably true - all of the costs come OUT of the pockets of those involved in the suits.

 

[RichM]

I agree with PA - the legal fees would probably be under $50,000. I can't imagine Jay or anyone wanting to spend that much or anywhere near that much in such an effort. Let's assume a round 250,000 WM owners at this point - that'd be a whopping 20 cents each; not even worth the price of the stamp or paper to mail out the bill to each owner.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -

- www.wmowners.com

 

[Gadabout]

Oh, my, not the media.



I can just see it now......

Dang. Why did you have to mention the media?

I only mention the media because it doesn't cost anything, and yet can have an immense impact, if the story is handled correctly by the right reporter.

And as to mentioning a potential lawsuit, it would probably be like many of these types of lawsuits--not necessarily for money, but just to get them to comply with the law. And in this case, maybe putting it to the owners first, when they buy a unit, as to exactly how they want to be contacted by other owners and for what purpose, might actually stave off this type of lawsuit. But this is the problem, right?

For example, I would want to know if there were others who felt that MFs were too high and would want to see about cutting expenses here and there, in other words, issues that directly affect running the TS.

On the other hand, I would NOT want people (even other owners) constantly contacting me to find out if I'm tired of my TS and want to sell it to them cheap--that could be handled with some small announcement in the newsletter (i.e. "Don't call us, we'll call you).

If you can't contact other owners, you can't effect change when you need to, and at that point you're essentially staying in a hotel, where they can raise rates at whim, and you're stuck paying them.

 

[PA-]

I never said they would. All I said was that it could happen, that there is a potential. Huge difference between potential and stating that one believes it WILL happen.

I don't make predictions or claim that things will happen based on speculation. All I said was that there is a potential for it to happen based on the fact that the bylaws provide for the contingency.

And we all have our own individual assessments of what is small peanuts and what is outrageous. If you think a few thou or so or even a couple mil is small peanuts, fine. On this side of the debate, I think even a few hundred is repugnant.

Small peanuts to you is differerent than Cendant. They're a $19Billion company, they aren't going to make you pay their inappropriate legal fees. Sheez. I don't understand what point you're trying to make, or whether you're agreeing or arguing, and with whom. Yes, it's possible that they COULD try to charge all owners $5 to raise $1million for their illegal refusal to comply with the bylaws and state law. For that matter, they COULD try to assess you $1million so they can refurbish the boardroom, but no reasonable person expects them to ever try it, or get away with it.

 

[normbailey]

Small peanuts to you is differerent than Cendant. They're a $19Billion company, they aren't going to make you pay their inappropriate legal fees. Sheez. I don't understand what point you're trying to make, or whether you're agreeing or arguing, and with whom. Yes, it's possible that they COULD try to charge all owners $5 to raise $1million for their illegal refusal to comply with the bylaws and state law. For that matter, they COULD try to assess you $1million so they can refurbish the boardroom, but no reasonable person expects them to ever try it, or get away with it.

The point I'm making, and the position I'm taking, seems crystal clear to others on this board, but I'll give it another shot anyway.

• This thread was started on the question of legality regarding release of owner lists to other members.

• At one point recently it focused in on one person's (or a group's) claim that WorldMark was acting illegally and that on-going legal action was occurring.

• Another respondent then stated that those same bylaws that the list seekers are rallying around also have a provision for the club to recover costs by invoking an assessment to the entire membership. We've seen proof that one side of the argument has chosen to invoke the bylaws for their benefit. Who can say with absolute certainty that the club won't invoke their right to recoup those costs?

• Yet another poster in this thread cited a situation where their timeshare had to fork over more than $200,000 in legal costs and stated the they wondered what they could have had as far as improvements for their resort.

Those are the facts. I'm on the side of the debate that favors NOT releasing the list. I'm on the side of the debate that does not want to find myself assessed additional monies to recover the incurred costs of said legal action.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but as of today there hasn't been any legal findings through a court of law, has there? Is so, this discussion wouldn't be occurring. Either the list would have been released or the list request would have been ruled invalid by a proper ward of the court.

I am NOT saying it or anything else WILL happen, since I don't have a window into the future and any speculations on the future are guesswork at best. I am only saying what I do NOT WANT to happen.

And, regardless of whether a company is a 19 Billion dollar enterprise or a 19-dollar lemonade stand, I wouldn't want EITHER of them to take money out of my pocket to recover costs incurred by legal action of this sort.

That's my position, and it's not budge-able.

 

[PA-]

You're on the side of not releasing the list...

Yet, you don't want even a .000001% chance of Worldmark using your money to defend that position in court.

So..why wouldn't you then be on the side of....

To date, I know of no rulings on the issue, I don't believe any case has gone through the discovery process in a court of law. It seems unlikely the Worldmark BOD would prevail, caselaw precedent would indicate otherwise. But as Dave points out, ya never know.

 

[mtngal]

Small peanuts to you is different than Cendant. They're a $19Billion company, they aren't going to make you pay their inappropriate legal fees. Sheez. I don't understand what point you're trying to make, or whether you're agreeing or arguing, and with whom. Yes, it's possible that they COULD try to charge all owners $5 to raise $1million for their illegal refusal to comply with the bylaws and state law.

Now I'm really confused with all the talk of lawsuits. Just who is being sued? Is it the WorldMark Board of Directors, WorldMark the Club, or Trendwest/Cendant? From what I understand they are not the same thing, and their funding/sources of income are very different. If the suit is against Cendant, then you could be right - they have other ways of earning money. If the suit is against Trendwest, you might be right or might not (would this be an excuse to spin off Trendwest and letting it go into bankruptcy, thereby protecting the rest of Cendant's assets?). If the suit is against WorldMark or the WM Board of Directors, then I would say that a special assessment would be almost guaranteed if it ends up in court, since WorldMark the Club is solely owned by the owners, NOT by Trendwest, and is NOT a multi-million corporation. While the board may have a majority of members who are associated with Trendwest, their finances are separate. Am I concerned now? You bet I am!

 

[ThaiChef]

I have a sincere belief that it is my right as a WorldMark owner to obtain the member list. I do not take my actions lightly. Obviously there are people on both sides of this issue.

Yes, my actions will cost Trendwest (and possibly WorldMark) some money.

The fact that it will cost money isn't the measure of whether my actions are right or wrong.

Some of the comments on this thread remind me of something that the Trendwest attorney said in court...something to this effect:

Your honor, if all WorldMark owners sought the member list we'd be in court forever...(of course they wouldn't need to go to court if they simply complied with the bylaw)

While it's true that my actions are costing Trendwest money, it's also true that Trendwest's refusal to my request is costing them money.


JMO

--Jay

 

[roadsister]

Now I'm really confused with all the talk of lawsuits. Just who is being sued? Is it the WorldMark Board of Directors, WorldMark the Club, or Trendwest/Cendant? From what I understand they are not the same thing, and their funding/sources of income are very different. If the suit is against Cendant, then you could be right - they have other ways of earning money. If the suit is against Trendwest, you might be right or might not (would this be an excuse to spin off Trendwest and letting it go into bankruptcy, thereby protecting the rest of Cendant's assets?). If the suit is against WorldMark or the WM Board of Directors, then I would say that a special assessment would be almost guaranteed if it ends up in court, since WorldMark the Club is solely owned by the owners, NOT by Trendwest, and is NOT a multi-million corporation. While the board may have a majority of members who are associated with Trendwest, their finances are separate. Am I concerned now? You bet I am!

Mtngal,
This is the issue that a few dozen people do not understand and they either don't see-or refuse to see another view- that there IS a difference.....you better believe "we" WM owners would be paying through an assessment as stated in the bylaws, NOT TW or Cendent....and THAT is a concern as I see it to more than 200,000 owners. Whether you agree or disagree about the owner list, THAT is the issue for pro and con.

 

[RichM]

That's the key - any assessment, even if there were one, would be divided amongst over 200,000 owners, some of which own multiples of a "basic" membership (I assume the assessment shares are proportional to points owned?), so that assessment would be divvied up even further.

Jay, how much are you willing to spend in legal fees? Multiply that by 5 or 10 and assume that's what WM would spend (higher-priced, higher-quantity of lawyers). How many credits are owned by owners? 2 billion now? (it was 1.63 in the 2003 report). So, divide that dollar value by 2 billion, then multiply by the number of credits you own. For me (12,000 credits), $50,000 in WM legal costs = 30 cents. $100,000 = 60 cents. As an owner, I'd find that acceptable regardless of the outcome (win or lose on either side) because then there'd be a precedent and the Club could use it, either way, to deal with any future requests.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -

- www.wmowners.com

 

[ThaiChef]

Mtngal,
This is the issue that a few dozen people do not understand and they either don't see-or refuse to see another view- that there IS a difference.....you better believe "we" WM owners would be paying through an assessment as stated in the bylaws, NOT TW or Cendent....and THAT is a concern as I see it to more than 200,000 owners.

Faye,

I'm certainly capable and willing to examine alternate viewpoints. If I take a position that is different from yours does that make my position wrong? I think that it only shows that we have different viewpoints.

At this point, my actions have cost each WorldMark owner far less than a single dollar. My personal out of pocket costs are around $2,000.

Let's not blow this too far out of proportion.

--Jay

 

[normbailey]

So..why wouldn't you then be on the side of....

To date, I know of no rulings on the issue, I don't believe any case has gone through the discovery process in a court of law. It seems unlikely the Worldmark BOD would prevail, caselaw precedent would indicate otherwise. But as Dave points out, ya never know.

That is assuming there are only two sides to the issue. I don't share that assumption. I believe there are both objective and subjective sides to every issue. Especially when dealing with matters involving personal privacy, legal rulings, corporations, individuals, and so on.

I have chosen to base my position, and the side I support, not solely based on the facts, but also on some very strong inner core beliefs and values. I'm also convinced that on a lot of other issues you and I could and would probably agree. If we weren't in agreement on anything, one of us wouldn't be a WorldMark owner in the first place.

Jay said it quite nicely when he said "If I take a position that is different from yours does that make my position wrong? I don't think so...it only shows that we have different viewpoints." I couldn't have said it better.

That's what this free society is all about. He's within his rights to take the course of action he's taking. I'm within my rights to take the position of opposing it. Have I said anything otherwise? I don't like his action, but I am grateful that we're lucky to be living in a country where he has the right to take such an action. And I will never suggest otherwise.

Nor will I ever back down from opposing him, or you for that matter, on this issue.

I'm impressed that he is willing to reimburse any owner who asks for it. If it comes to that, I'll be happy to save him postage by using PayPal. But only if he agrees that I don't have to submit my reimbursement request via registered mail.

Would I ask for the nickel? Darn tootin' I would. It's a matter of principle. One of those subjective values I use to help determine the positions I take. And keeping one's word is one of the highest principles I use as a metric. So, if you're still confused as to why I've taken the position I've taken, just consider the high probability that we may have differing principles and values.

The caveat being that mine are not open for discussion here.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Just My Little Way Of Sticking It To "The Man"

When you own a condo or timeshare you are "them" so think carefully before suing yourself.

But wait!

I am The Man.

Does that mean I'm sticking it to myself?

Whoa!

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.

 

[ThaiChef]

Jay said it quite nicely when he said "If I take a position that is different from yours does that make my position wrong? I don't think so...it only shows that we have different viewpoints." I couldn't have said it better.

That's what this free society is all about. He's within his rights to take the course of action he's taking. I'm within my rights to take the position of opposing it. Have I said anything otherwise? I don't like his action, but I am grateful that we're lucky to be living in a country where he has the right to take such an action. And I will never suggest otherwise.

Nor will I ever back down from opposing him, or you for that matter, on this issue.

Norm,

PayPal works fine for me

Thanks for your friendly and very reasonable opposition I like your style.

I'm a bit like you. I consider myself a principle-based person who is willing to take tough stands.

--Jay

 

[cotraveller]

Let's not blow this too far out of proportion.

Well put Jay. We are not talking about a rundown derelict timeshare in some obscure corner of the world. We are talking about one of the most well thought of, well respected, and well run timeshare organizations in existence.

All of the underlying issues, taxes, locations, etc., etc., behind the actions that are being discussed in this thread are subjective issues. They have been discussed over and over on this forum and others ad infinitum. Even among this small group there is no consensus as to who is right or wrong.

I watch in a somewhat amazed state at the lengths some are willing to go in an attempt to further their causes. The steps they think are necessary to gain I’m not sure what. I don’t understand the motives. Perhaps it’s a power, control, money, ego, or some similar issue. I wonder why they think they know better than I what is in my best interest. I shake my head while visualizing just how much good could be done if all that time and effort, not to mention the money, were expended working within the system rather than attacking it. Working to build the system up to make it even better.

So as you said, let’s not blow this out of proportion.

 

[ThaiChef]

Well put Jay. We are not talking about a rundown derelict timeshare in some obscure corner of the world. We are talking about one of the most well thought of, well respected, and well run timeshare organizations in existence.

So as you said, let’s not blow this out of proportion.

Thanks, Fred.

I love it when people can share opposing points within the confines of a polite and civil discourse.

I'm the Republican precinct chair in my area. My next door neighbor is the Democratic precinct chair. We enjoy many over-the-fence discussions. I find those over-the-fence discussions similar to some of our exchanges.

In spite our vastly opposing views of the political world, my neighbor and I remain good friends and are able to find many points of common interest and agreement. I suspect it would be the same way if you and I were neighbors.

I share your feelings regarding the greatness of WorldMark. I'm happy to be an owner in such an awesome club.

--Jay

 

[Dave M]

In my capacity as a BBS Administrator....

I have just deleted three messages from this thread. Challenging the motives of others in this thread, telling them how they should or shouldn't act and other discourteous approaches to discussing people who post here rather than courteously discussing the content of other posts is not permitted.

As I stated in post #99 in this thread

Being courteous, as defined in the Site Rules (link on the above blue bar), means refraining from behavior lectures, personal attacks, boorish behavior and bad manners. It means referring to others as you would like to be treated. It means that when you express disagreement with another's post, you do so courteously and respectfully.

Please post nicely or not at all.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I am not a Worldmark owner, but my problem is similar.

I just got on the board at the timeshare that was my very first purchase, our first purchase, almost 25 years ago. The developer left our resort with huge debt and went bankrupt, so all the owners had to step up and take care of the debt, which raised our maintenance fees substantially at the time, which was over twenty years ago, but I cannot tell you exactly how long ago it actually was.

The timeshare was great for many years, we used it, traded it and even received a free ski week 1 at our resort when other owners let their weeks go. The board was just happy to have people paying MF's on these weeks.

Then four years ago, we got a huge assessment to pay for decks for all of the units, even the whole-owned units because it was in the timeshare owners' best interest to do so. We were opposed and voiced our opinions to the management company and were told that we were the only ones opposed. How could we prove otherwise? We went to an owners' meeting ten months after the assessment (we go to all of them because they are in Denver), and about twenty couples were present, so we asked at the meeting why we are paying for the decks are were treated as if we were unreasonable. A few of the older folks defended the purchase of the decks because they were deteriorating. Of course, it turned out that we had no choice but to replace the decks because they were old and the whole owners refused to pay. What gave them that right to refused to pay? That was the real issue.

Now we get further assessments for five years, totalling $950 with almost no explanation as to why we are paying it. The newsletter read, "due to the deteriorating shells....." Why can't an owner get a list of other owners? Where is our freedom to stand up to people who laud these decisions over us?

No, we have no voice and cannot do a thing about it because most of the owners are old, much older than we are, and they accept that which they cannot change because the fight is out of them. They give their weeks up. There is no rebellion at the meetings that we attend every year, just complacency.

1) We cannot band together because our resort's site already has a BBS and not one person ever posts there.
2) We can't vote board members off because they get all the proxies.
3) We are not allowed to have members' numbers to ask for proxies and explain why we are unhappy.
4) We can't put anything in the newsletter opposing the all-powerful board.

Basically, the board thinks they are looking out for everybody so why should they get to band together? How is that for freedom? All of you who are posting against members being allowed to have your phone number, put yourself in the place of an owner with the frustrations I have felt. How can you oust the board that has all the proxies and all the votes????

Yes, I got on the board because there was actually a vacancy, but replacing other board members that have been in place for many years, most have been on for over 10 years, will be impossible unless they relinquish their positions. Board members who like being in charge and feel that they are looking out for the best interests of all owners, are not going to retire.

Actually, I would say that the management company has far more to say than the board on most issues, anyway. I have a battle ahead against the board and the management company.

 

[ThaiChef]

Cindy,

You may have already addressed this...as a member of the BOD of your HOA, aren't you able to get a member list? The WorldMark bylaws state that a member of the board has an absolute right to all the records. What do your bylaws state regarding a directors rights to the HOA records?

What stops you from building a coalition of owners and getting rid of the management company?

--Jay

 

[rickandcindy23]

Jay, the by-laws don't say anything about the board having records, if I am reading them correctly. I went over some of the bylaws a few months ago, when I found out that our resort has a ten-year exclusive contract with II that the former president signed. We are not allowed to use any exchange company except II. I thought the bylaws might give me some clue as to how the president has enough power to keep 1300 people from using DAE or any other company that would give us more options. There was nothing about the president's power in the bylaws.

At that time, I asked for a copy of the signed contract with II to look over myself. The management company said they could get that to me but it would take some time. I was trying to get on the board at the time and had several exchange companies willing to give free weeks for a drawing at our annual meeting. The management company stopped me because of the contract with II. I really want to see this contract, but two months later, no contract. I haven't forgotten and will ask to see it at our next meeting, whenever that will be.

The board members are nice people, they really are. But they do love their positions, making decisions for everyone and giving no say to anyone. My real problem has been with the communications between the board and the owners. Aside from less than a page of minutes from the annual meeting, all information, all year long, comes from the management company. Most of that is generic information: "The weather has been great here, the summer warmer than usual......." Lah dee dah!