New WM Policy on Reservations

[CO skier]

Fees are clearly stated in the bylaws under 5.1(b)4 (4) Fees. Prescribe reasonable fees for use of specific Club property which is individual-use intensive and not normally furnished with a Unit as part of the Common Furnishings.

You are confusing two different sections of the bylaws.

Section 5.1 (b) is titled "Discretionary Powers. In addition to the foregoing mandatory duties"

which is in addition to, not defining of, the mandatory powers and duties listed in Section 5.1 (a), which includes 5.1 (a) (3) (iv) Number of occupants, guests and fees;

 

[samara64]

where does it say in addition.

Also how does this all work with section 7

7.1 Annual Assessments. Each year the Board shall consider the current and future needs of the Club as to its operation, the operation and maintenance of the Resorts and any personal property maintained by the Club, including reasonable reserves for capital Improvements and replacements, payment of taxes, and protecting and promoting the common interests of the Members pursuant to the Articles, Declaration, Bylaws and Rules. In light of such needs, the Board shall determine the annual budget of the Club and fix by resolution the amount of annual assessments to be levied against each Membership for the coming year, based on the respective numbers of Vacation Credits held.
(a) Assessment Formula. As of August 1, 2000, all Memberships will be subject to an annual assessment which shall be based upon the formula set out at Exhibit A, a true and complete copy of which is attached hereto and fully incorporated herein.
(b) Limitation. No annual assessment or Bonus Time Fee shall be increased more than the higher of the following two (2) amounts above the annual assessment or Bonus Time Fee for the immediately preceding fiscal year:
(1) Five percent (5%); or
(2) The percentage increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the calendar year immediately preceding the year for which the increase is being made; provided, however, an increase in annual assessments due to an increase in real property taxes against Units shall be excluded from the calculation of percentage increase for applying this limitation.


Where the guest fee will make it go above the 5% unless Wyndham reduced the MF to match the GC fees income.

 

[CO skier]

where does it say in addition.

In section 5.1 (b) of the WorldMark bylaws that I quoted.

Also how does this all work with section 7

7.1 Annual Assessments.

"Fees" are completely unrelated to Annual Assessments. Section 7.1 does not apply.

 

[samara64]

You can call it fees or assessment. It is he same.

What does the GC fee entails if you do it online. What is the cost to the club.

 

[CO skier]

You can call it fees or assessment. It is he same.

The Club bylaws call fees and assessments by two different names, because they are two different things.

 

[samara64]

Deleted. duplicate post. See below

 

[samara64]

You are confusing two different sections of the bylaws.

Section 5.1 (b) is titled "Discretionary Powers. In addition to the foregoing mandatory duties"

which is in addition to, not defining of, the mandatory powers and duties listed in Section 5.1 (a), which includes 5.1 (a) (3) (iv) Number of occupants, guests and fees;

Other than 5.1(b)4 (4) , where else is the term "fees" explained.

If you for example look at the term "annual assessment", you will see it is clearly defined.

 

[CO skier]

Other than 5.1(b)4 (4) , where else is the term "fees" explained.

Get serious. "Fees" are whatever the BOD determines according to Section 5.1 (a) of the bylaws.

A few examples, "Internet fees," "housekeeping fees", "movie rental fees." None of these "fees" (like guest certificate fees) have anything to do with 5.1(b)4 (4). Sorry for your misinterpretation.

 

[Mongoose]

No more multiple reservations for same days beyond number of owners (i.e. max 2) without guest certificate being assigned within 48 hours of booking and no changes to the guest certificate thereafter (that's the real kicker). If guest name not provided within 48 hours Reservation is cancelled. Within 14 days, need immediate guest certificate assignment. Implementing January 2021 unless they decide to do it earlier.

This really only causes problems for people making multiple Reservations starting the same day/resort. Problems for people planning Family Reunions. You have to be certain who is coming because you can not change the name on the GC.

The WM BOD still has not done anything for cancellations by WM because of Covid19 that cost loss of GC.

I think this is good for regular owners and will keep the organized mega renters for monopolizing the prime weeks and locations. This see this as a protective measure to protect the brand.

 

[samara64]

Get serious. "Fees" are whatever the BOD determines according to Section 5.1 (a) of the bylaws.

A few examples, "Internet fees," "housekeeping fees", "movie rental fees." None of these "fees" (like guest certificate fees) have anything to do with 5.1(b)4 (4). Sorry for your misinterpretation.

So why do we need a bylaws if the BID can assert any fees like CWA.

 

[ecwinch]

This is a common problem when trying to read the governing documents. When you read the documents, you have to keep in mind the objective of governing documents and recognize that no governing document can contemplate the wide range of decisions that a BoD might face. As such courts have and are going to take a broad interpretation of the powers of BoD, not the narrow one you might desire. Applying the litmus test of "is the BoD acting to ensure the fair and efficient on-going operation of the Club". And while you might disagree, I am pretty sure that this rule meets that test.

As the governing documents indicate when they say:

Rules. To promulgate Rules regarding, among other things, conduct of Club business, behavior of Members and guests, and use of the Resorts, including, but not limited to, the following subjects: (i) Length of stay; (ii) Frequency of use; (iii) Reservations; (iv) Number of occupants, guests and fees; (v) Provision for the rental of Resorts by the Club to nonmembers when not in use by Members; (vi) Charges for use of specific facilities; (vii) Personal conduct and behavior; (viii) Check out times; and (ix) Care and maintenance of Units and facilities

Clearly supporting that the BoD has broad powers in terms of setting rules, as long as those rules are applied equally to all members and have some basis in the ensuring the successful operation of the Club. Here the Club is increasing revenue while prioritizing member usage over guest usage. Rules that are consistent with the purpose of the Club - ie. the use and enjoyment of the properties by the members .

In the 9th District Circuit, where any case against WM would likely be litigated, there are decided cases that support that outcome. The clearest one actually involved a BoD that imposed a guest fee on guest usage.

 

[Marathoner]

Ressurecting an old thread.

My observations:
- there is no additional availability of 'difficult to book' reservations due to the max 2 overlapping reservations policy
- Wyndham is using the 'megarenters' complaints to make WM less owner friendly and more expensive
- owners need to stop complaining about megarenters so that Wyndham stop adding restrictions and costs to our club.

While unfortunate, I'd rather have megarenters and revert back to what our club was like 6 years ago. Please keep this in mind and stop enabling Wyndham from adding additional costs to our ownership in the name of 'combatting megarenters'

 

[tschwa2]

Deleted

 

[sue1947]

Ressurecting an old thread.

My observations:
- there is no additional availability of 'difficult to book' reservations due to the max 2 overlapping reservations policy
- Wyndham is using the 'megarenters' complaints to make WM less owner friendly and more expensive
- owners need to stop complaining about megarenters so that Wyndham stop adding restrictions and costs to our club.

While unfortunate, I'd rather have megarenters and revert back to what our club was like 6 years ago. Please keep this in mind and stop enabling Wyndham from adding additional costs to our ownership in the name of 'combatting megarenters'

yep. But I would like to revise your second point to:
Wyndham is using the 'megarenters' complaints to make WM less owner friendly and to transfer more money from owner's pockets to their's.

It has also made it more difficult to get difficult to get spots off the waitlist. In the past, we might pick up various types of units until we could make a whole. That might involve multiple overlapping reservations until it all came together. Now each of those overlaps cost me a guest cert. Renters, on the other hand, just add $100 to the cost and carry on.

Assign your proxy to wmowners.com.