• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 26 years!

    Join tens of thousands of other owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $14,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $14 Million dollars
  • Follow the TUG Member Banner as it travels the world on vacation with Timeshare owners! Also sign up to get the banner sent to you so you can submit a photo of your vacation with the banner to share with TUG! Banner Thread
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free! Join tens of thousands of other owners who get this every week! Latest resort reviews and the most important topics discussed by owners during the week!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    Read more Here
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

New WM Policy on Reservations

samara64

TUG Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
536
Reaction score
179
Points
253
Location
Seattle
I'm not sure I understand what Wyndham was thinking when the pushed this guideline. What do you think this guideline will accomplish? What is the true intent vs. advertised intent of the policy?

I think making more money.

If you can wail til check in, you can maybe get new GC with your annual award and use it. If you have to add it right away and you do not have free ones, you have to buy one. You may get one later that will sit unused.

Very bad policy but I do not think it will have a major impact on us in normal use.
 

CO skier

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
857
Points
223
Location
Colorado
What do you think this guideline will accomplish?
It will increase availability, at least marginally. Owners booking reservations that require a guest certificate will have to know the name of the guest within 48 hours of booking the reservation or be willing to pay $99 to change the name some time later than 48 hours or delay booking the reservation. The increased availability will come from those delayed bookings and multiple bookings that are made now that will not be after the new rule.

Not allowing guest name changes at any time would be a real game changer for the rental businesses. There would be a significant increase in 13-month availability for all owners.

Guest name changes are allowed in Club Wyndham. That is how I expect to see the new guest Guideline introduced in WorldMark.
 

geist1223

Guest
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
3,182
Reaction score
2,665
Points
299
Location
Salem Oregon
Resorts Owned
Worldmark 89,000
Seaside Oregon Residence Club
DRI Hawaiian Collection 50,500
Royal Solaris San Jose del Cabo
The wording of the proposed changes is interesting and open to various interpretations.

1. Can only make number of same time period reservations as the number of Members on the Accoumt. If more than have to add Guest name within 48 hours or excess Reservation is cancelled.

A. So what is same time period. Do the days have to exactly match. If they are off by a day is that ok.

B. Wyndham says there can only be 2 People on an Account. By the Governing Documents say 2 or more. Governing. Documents should Control.

So if there are 2 Members on the Account can they make 2 Reservations that start 7/1/21 for 7 days. Then make 2 more Reservations starting 7/2/21 for 7 days. Then make 2 more Reservations starting 7/3/2 for 7 days. Wyndham's over lapping Reservation Rule should stop this.

Wonder what wording changes will occur over the next several months.

2. The current wording appears to allow for changes in name of Guest up to time of check-in. Whatever Guest name is listed on day of check-in has to be present at time of check-in. No change of Guest Name after check-in. This appears to be an attempt to cut down on long Reservations where the "Owner" checks in a new Guest every week. But does allow for multiple changes before check-in. Each change will cost you a GC or GC Fee.
 

ski_sierra

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
377
Reaction score
189
Points
103
Location
SF Bay Area
Resorts Owned
Worldmark, HGVC Craigendarroch, MGC (EOYE), SDO (EOYO), Cliff Club Snowbird
Not sure where you got this information. I called and Worldmark does not know anything about it. BOD has not made any announcements regarding this.

I called and the only thing they said is that it is recommended to add the GC 48 hours before checking in due to COVID-19.

Anything in writing on the website you can quote @geist1223
 

CO skier

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
857
Points
223
Location
Colorado
So there’s a possibility of getting Yellowstone now, not in the middle of Winter?
Unrelated to guest certificates, but if you are interested in WM West Yellowstone not in the middle of winter, there is some VERY rare availability now for mid-June to mid-July 2020. I think the news is not widely known that the situation has changed at WMWY, and new reservations are accepted beginning 6/12/2020.
 

sue1947

TUG Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
478
Points
293
Location
Seattle
Resorts Owned
Worldmark and VI
So there’s a possibility of getting Yellowstone now, not in the middle of Winter?
Nope. The only impact will be to add $99 to the cost of the rental. Not a big deal for those rentals. Wyndham gets an additional $99/rental of income via guest fees so they are essentially cutting themselves into the business.
 

Tacoma

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
856
Reaction score
193
Points
253
Location
Calgary,Ab, Canada
I am hoping that the new rule is you have to put the guest name on in 48 hours and NO changes to the guest name after that or loss of that reservation. If it is put on a guest name but you are allowed to change it again then this is only a cash grab for wyndham and not an attempt to stop mega renters. As mentioned there is enough profit that the extra $100 would just be tacked on and owners would not get increased availabilty. Only time will tell for sure but I am becoming worried this is more about $ than helping owners to get prime reservations.
 

sue1947

TUG Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
478
Points
293
Location
Seattle
Resorts Owned
Worldmark and VI
Here's what the rule says:
"The proposed guideline requires a guest name to be assigned to reservations held for the same time period beyond the number of owners on the account, and that the name be added within 48 hours of booking or it would be subject to cancellation. Reservations booked within 14 days of check in would require the guest name be added at the time of booking or be subject to cancellation. Guest names may not be modified after check-in and the guest listed on the reservation must be present at check-in and occupy the unit."

I've bolded the key part. If they wanted it to be "Guest names may not be modified", they would not have included the 'after check-in'. It's a cash grab.
Sue
 

Eric B

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2017
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
1,478
Points
224
Resorts Owned
Vacation Village, Wyndham, WorldMark, SVV, WSJ, Vidanta, Buganvilias, Captain Morgan's
From the WorldMark site:

Multiple reservations guideline change.
At a March special meeting, the Board of Directors voted to approve an update to the WorldMark, The Club guidelines for booking multiple reservations.

Currently, the multiple reservations guideline states that an owner may book multiple reservations for the same time period. Each owner on the account is allowed to check into a reservation for the specific suite they will occupy. Any further reservations will require a guest name. The guest listed on the reservation must be present at check-in and occupy the suite.

Beginning Oct. 1, 2020, owners who book multiple reservations, beyond the allowed amount for the number of owners on an account, will be required to add a guest name within 48 hours of booking or at time of booking if the reservation is booked 14 days or less from date of arrival.

If a guest name is not added by the deadline, the reservation will be subject to cancellation and the corresponding credits will be forfeited in accordance with the cancellation policy.

This update to the multiple reservations guideline ensures:

  • Fair and equitable reservation access for all owners.
  • A streamlined check-in process, by eliminating extra time taken at check-in to add a guest name.
  • Maximized resort availability as suites from canceled reservations will be offered to other owners.
Cancellation guideline change.
The current cancellation guideline states that an owner canceling after the cancellation date will be penalized to the extent that other owners cannot use the same time period. A manual process has been created to allow owners to request penalized credits or rental fees be restored if any nights of the reserved time period are booked by another owner.

Beginning Aug. 5, 2020, if a reservation is canceled in less than the required number of days, the owner will be charged the applicable number of vacation credits and/or Bonus Time fees for that use, and the manual process of restoring credits and fees will be removed.

This update to the cancellation guideline ensures:
  • A simplified guideline that allows for a fair and equitable result when canceling owner reservations.
  • Process improvement to maximize effort for Vacation Planning Centers and system enhancements.
Extended hours for more vacation memories.
The Vacation Planning Center is extending their hours to better serve you. Beginning Aug. 3, 2020, the new hours of operation will be (excluding major holidays):
  • Monday - Friday, 6 a.m. - 7 p.m. PT
  • Saturday - Sunday, 6 a.m. - 5 p.m. PT

Source:

 

ski_sierra

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
377
Reaction score
189
Points
103
Location
SF Bay Area
Resorts Owned
Worldmark, HGVC Craigendarroch, MGC (EOYE), SDO (EOYO), Cliff Club Snowbird
It will be interesting to see the impact. I feel this isn't going to make much of a difference for the high demand weeks.

I feel the root cause of low availability is the large number of units that sit empty as they are not in desirable locations or they are too seasonal but the low season costs too many credits.
 

Attachments

JudyS

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,058
Reaction score
150
Points
298
Location
Ann Arbor, MI
Here is a notice I got today.

"The WorldMark Board of Directors recently approved a change to the Multiple Reservation guideline. We are contacting you regarding your upcoming reservation(s) that could be in violation of the updated guideline when it takes effect on Thursday, Oct. 1, 2020. While this rule previously did not require a guest name be added right away, the Board has approved a change to this guideline to ensure fair and equitable reservation access for all owners, and simplify and streamline the check-in process at the resorts. As of Oct. 1, 2020, if any reservations are still in violation of this guideline, they will be cancelled. The details of your reservation(s) and the updated guideline are below:

WorldMark, The Club Guideline Section C.14 Reservations-Multiple Reservations states that an Owner may book multiple reservations at a resort for the same time period. Each Owner on the account is allowed to check into a reservation for the specific unit they will occupy. Any further reservations will require a guest name. The guest listed on the reservation must be present at check-in and occupy the unit. With the updated guideline, reservations that do not have a guest name added within 48 hours (2 days) of the reservation being booked, or at the time of reservation if booking 14 days or less, will be cancelled."

Even though the rules say they apply only to multiple reservations, it sounds as if this also applies to a single guest reservation where the owner is not checking in. In other words, it sounds as if *all* guest reservations will have to be made within 48 days of booking the suite (or immediately at booking if booking 14 days or less out), regardless of whether the owner(s) have addition reservations for that time period or not.

Does my interpretation match other people's here?
 

geist1223

Guest
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
3,182
Reaction score
2,665
Points
299
Location
Salem Oregon
Resorts Owned
Worldmark 89,000
Seaside Oregon Residence Club
DRI Hawaiian Collection 50,500
Royal Solaris San Jose del Cabo
If you have only 1 Reservation (no overlapping reservations) the change should not apply.
 

happytrailz

Guest
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
Points
13
Letter I plan to send, any constructive comments?

July 13, 2020

Worldmark Legal Affairs
Worldmark Consumer Affairs
6277 Sea Harbor Drive
Orlando, FL 32821

To Whom It May Concern:

RE: Request for Information Letter: Guest Certificates and Credit Restoration Guidelines

We are writing you to request that you provide us with detailed written legal analysis and justifications that supported recent changes to Club Guidelines regarding guest certificates and credit restoration guidelines.

Saying it plainly, show me where it says you can do this. In my reading of the Club documents, I find little basis or authority for the Board to impose guest fees or to refuse credit and related taxes/fees restorations.

First, guest fees. Board Guidelines (II)(A)(10) and (17) seem to be the only applicable Board authorities to set fees or assessments. (10) reads “set reasonable monetary fees for the use of specific Club property” (emphasis added). (17) reads “levy annual and special assessments”.

If the Board is using (10), then how are guest fees tied to the use of specific Club property? Applying the “ordinarily prudent person” (and related) standards cited under Board Guidelines (IV), Standards of Conduct for Directors, it seems unlikely that one could conclude a guest fee could be required for use of specific Club property (for example, to occupy a room, or to use the pool or the clubhouse), when no such fee is required of the Owners. More likely, (10) was written to allow fees to be levied on all Owners and guests, for special “extras” or activities, such as spas, restaurants, or paid recreational activities.

If the Board is using (17), then does this mean the Board considers guest fees to be the same as annual or special assessments? As above, an ordinarily prudent person would say “no, they are not”.

The Club's Bylaws likewise do not provide for guest fees. The only revenue generation allowed in the Bylaws is annual and special assessments (Bylaws Section 7, which ties back to the Board's purview over those specific revenue streams in Board Guidelines (17), above).

It has been put forward by many that the Board's guest certificate actions are designed to thwart rental activities, even though the Board's stated logic (currently posted on the Club's website) supporting guest certificates does not mention this reason. My reading of the Board's purported reasoning suggests it flows from Board Guidelines (II)(A)(3) and (4). Neither of these Guidelines gives the Board any authority to levy fees or charges to further its purposes to “conduct, control or manage Club business, affairs, or guests” (paraphrased). If, in fact, the Board has decided to “go after renters”, which looks to be the case, then that action violates Declaration Section 2.15, which specifically allows rentals, with very limited restrictions, none of which relate to guest usage or certificates.

Furthermore, I believe the Board's actions also violate Declaration Section 2.11 regarding cancellations. Changes in cancellation policies, specifically the new guideline:

Members will be required to add a guest name within 48 hours of booking or at time of booking if the reservation is booked 14 days or less from date of arrival.

If a guest name is not added by the deadline, the reservation will be subject to cancellation and the corresponding credits will be forfeited in accordance with the cancellation policy.
can only be imposed upon the Membership after a majority vote of Members. Therefore, I believe this new guideline, not having been put in front of and approved by the Membership, is invalid.

It also appears that any effort by the Board to restrict or abridge a Member's right to allow guests within the “Use Easement” (aka the Member's right to use the units and properties) is prohibited by Declaration Section 5.7(a)(i) Use Easement: “(the Club) shall not interfere with the right of Members to permit the use, possession, and enjoyment of the Property by the Guests of Members ...”. Charging guest fees, and canceling reservations lacking guest names after 48 hours, both constitute interference with these Members' rights. And pursuant to Section 5.7(c)(v) Club Rights, the Club may “regulate the number and behavior of Guests”. The plain reading of this is, the Club can limit how many guests can occupy a Unit and how they behave, but not charge Members a fee to allow guests.

And even if the Board cites its authority to set fees under Bylaws Section 5.1(a)(3)(iv), Rules, those fees must be reasonable. The Club has non-profit status. Charging $100, $200, or more for guest certificates or guest certificate changes far exceeds the few dollars it costs to change the names and maintain the software/hardware system. This is clearly is not a “reasonable” fee when viewed by “an ordinarily prudent person”. In our opinion, guest certificates should be free and unlimited -- or at the worst, changeable at any time, without incurring an additional fee.

Second, let's briefly review the planned elimination of the manual credit restoration policy. This change is to an “actual”, if somewhat informal, cancellation policy, but one that has benefited all Members since the Beginning of Time. Currently, it is described in Guidelines Section 22, Cancellation, “If (a reservation is) canceled in less than the required number of days, the Owner will be charged the applicable number of Vacation Credits and/or Bonus Time fees for that use, to the extent that other Owners cannot use the same period” (emphasis added).

Similar to the guest certificate rule discussed above, this is also clearly a cancellation policy. Therefore, changing or deleting it also requires a majority vote of the Members (per Declaration Section 2.11). However, we would argue for leaving it unchanged, as it is a fair and equitable policy as currently written. It enables owners a chance to be made whole, allows other Members to get last minute/Bonus Time space, and overall is neutral to Club finances. We strongly suggest leaving it alone, but we could understand imposing a reasonable service fee, say $25, to cover the extra time used by Owner Care to field phone calls and do the paperwork resulting in restored credits.

Finally, we have been members for a long time. We knew what to expect when we bought into the Club. Over the years, with time and experience, we have learned how to use our Membership and to live within the rules. We became used to the policies and reasonably expected them to remain the same. The recent spate of guideline changes have upset the norms resulting in severe dislocation and loss of ownership values. Worldmark credits now sell for as little as 10 cents on eBay. We think it's fair to conclude that your Member-unfriendly actions have a lot to do with that crash in credit resale prices.

We, as all Members should, just want to be on a level playing field, not have our ownership rights or use abridged, and not have its value destroyed. That is not too much to ask.

All in all, it's our opinion these changes are both a transparent money grab by Wyndham and an effort to “eliminate the competition” from anyone with the nerve to do a handful of rentals. In summary, your “bad acts” include:

- Taking credits, fees, and cash from Members without compensation.
- Charging any/multiple guest fees.
- Acquiring prime inventory by forcing people to “cancel now or lose your credits”, so that Wyndham can then grab that space and rent it at market rates (and I am sure you'll be doing so without charging yourself guest fees). And if you think I'm being paranoid, note, I can read – Wyndham's rental program is facilitated by Declaration 2.5, Declarant, which states, “Declarant shall not reserve any occupancy period earlier than 45 days before the first day of that period...” ). You will grab that prime time and rent it!

Don't think we don't see or know what you're up to over there at Wyndham!

I will expect to hear from you by August 1. Failure to resolve my issues may result in litigation on our behalf, as well as seeking to establish class action status for all other owners.

Thank you for your attention.
 

ecwinch

Moderator
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,098
Points
548
Location
San Antonio
Resorts Owned
Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
Letter I plan to send, any constructive comments?

Saying it plainly, show me where it says you can do this. In my reading of the Club documents, I find little basis or authority for the Board to impose guest fees or to refuse credit and related taxes/fees restorations.

First, guest fees. Board Guidelines (II)(A)(10) and (17) seem to be the only applicable Board authorities to set fees or assessments. (10) reads “set reasonable monetary fees for the use of specific Club property” (emphasis added). (17) reads “levy annual and special assessments”.


Furthermore, I believe the Board's actions also violate Declaration Section 2.11 regarding cancellations. Changes in cancellation policies, specifically the new guideline:

Members will be required to add a guest name within 48 hours of booking or at time of booking if the reservation is booked 14 days or less from date of arrival.

If a guest name is not added by the deadline, the reservation will be subject to cancellation and the corresponding credits will be forfeited in accordance with the cancellation policy.
can only be imposed upon the Membership after a majority vote of Members. Therefore, I believe this new guideline, not having been put in front of and approved by the Membership, is invalid.

It also appears that any effort by the Board to restrict or abridge a Member's right to allow guests within the “Use Easement” (aka the Member's right to use the units and properties) is prohibited by Declaration Section 5.7(a)(i) Use Easement: “(the Club) shall not interfere with the right of Members to permit the use, possession, and enjoyment of the Property by the Guests of Members ...”. Charging guest fees, and canceling reservations lacking guest names after 48 hours, both constitute interference with these Members' rights. And pursuant to Section 5.7(c)(v) Club Rights, the Club may “regulate the number and behavior of Guests”. The plain reading of this is, the Club can limit how many guests can occupy a Unit and how they behave, but not charge Members a fee to allow guests.

And even if the Board cites its authority to set fees under Bylaws Section 5.1(a)(3)(iv), Rules, those fees must be reasonable. The Club has non-profit status. Charging $100, $200, or more for guest certificates or guest certificate changes far exceeds the few dollars it costs to change the names and maintain the software/hardware system. This is clearly is not a “reasonable” fee when viewed by “an ordinarily prudent person”. In our opinion, guest certificates should be free and unlimited -- or at the worst, changeable at any time, without incurring an additional fee.

Second, let's briefly review the planned elimination of the manual credit restoration policy. This change is to an “actual”, if somewhat informal, cancellation policy, but one that has benefited all Members since the Beginning of Time. Currently, it is described in Guidelines Section 22, Cancellation, “If (a reservation is) canceled in less than the required number of days, the Owner will be charged the applicable number of Vacation Credits and/or Bonus Time fees for that use, to the extent that other Owners cannot use the same period” (emphasis added).

Similar to the guest certificate rule discussed above, this is also clearly a cancellation policy. Therefore, changing or deleting it also requires a majority vote of the Members (per Declaration Section 2.11). However, we would argue for leaving it unchanged, as it is a fair and equitable policy as currently written. It enables owners a chance to be made whole, allows other Members to get last minute/Bonus Time space, and overall is neutral to Club finances. We strongly suggest leaving it alone, but we could understand imposing a reasonable service fee, say $25, to cover the extra time used by Owner Care to field phone calls and do the paperwork resulting in restored credits.

Finally, we have been members for a long time. We knew what to expect when we bought into the Club. Over the years, with time and experience, we have learned how to use our Membership and to live within the rules. We became used to the policies and reasonably expected them to remain the same. The recent spate of guideline changes have upset the norms resulting in severe dislocation and loss of ownership values. Worldmark credits now sell for as little as 10 cents on eBay. We think it's fair to conclude that your Member-unfriendly actions have a lot to do with that crash in credit resale prices.

We, as all Members should, just want to be on a level playing field, not have our ownership rights or use abridged, and not have its value destroyed. That is not too much to ask.

All in all, it's our opinion these changes are both a transparent money grab by Wyndham and an effort to “eliminate the competition” from anyone with the nerve to do a handful of rentals. In summary, your “bad acts” include:

- Taking credits, fees, and cash from Members without compensation.
- Charging any/multiple guest fees.
- Acquiring prime inventory by forcing people to “cancel now or lose your credits”, so that Wyndham can then grab that space and rent it at market rates (and I am sure you'll be doing so without charging yourself guest fees). And if you think I'm being paranoid, note, I can read – Wyndham's rental program is facilitated by Declaration 2.5, Declarant, which states, “Declarant shall not reserve any occupancy period earlier than 45 days before the first day of that period...” ). You will grab that prime time and rent it!

Don't think we don't see or know what you're up to over there at Wyndham!

I will expect to hear from you by August 1. Failure to resolve my issues may result in litigation on our behalf, as well as seeking to establish class action status for all other owners.

Thank you for your attention.
In no way should you take the following as an attempt to discourage you from exercise your right as an member of WMtC to communicate your concerns on these matters. But I will offer you the following suggestions:

First off, I would first write the WM BoD of directors following the published BoD communication policy (available in the BoD section of the website). Specifically, it outlines the procedure for getting a written response from the BoD, and not the "buffer" communication channel that is routed thru Owner Care and is pretty much just a firewall to keep members from communicating with the BoD. That correct channel is sending your letter specifically to the Club Secretary. There is no promise you will get a satisfactory response, but you will get a response.

Secondly, you should thoughtfully consider the powers of BoD as it pertains to their authority to create rules as outlined in the Declartion in 1.28 and in the By-laws in paragraph 5.1.a(3).

1.28 Rules; the Rules and Regulations adopted and amended from time to time by the Board, which relate to the possession, use and enjoyment of the Property, which may be entitled "Guidelines.

(3) 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


Now you certainly can make the case that the BoD's authority is strictly limited to charging fees as outlined by the Declaration, but as a matter of practice I think that one fails. If for no other reason that the members have constructively allowed the BoD the authority to set housekeeping charges for usage, when there is no express authority in the Declaration for the BoD to do so. As the section of the Declaration that outlines their authority is:

(iv) to establish uniform Rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the Property and the facilities thereon, and reasonable fees for the use of any Club property which is individual-use intensive, other than the Units and the Common Furnishings normally in them such as appliances, kitchenware, beds, couches, T.V., telephones etc. Examples of items that might be charged for are cribs, roll-away beds and other items not normally furnished with a unit;

And while I can agree in part with your view on the Cancellation policy, I think all you will accomplish is creating a rule where overlapping reservations are not allowed without a GC. So be careful there, because the proposed policy is far more flexible than the one that could be created to accomplish the same goal.

Because here is two tests that you really consider when it comes to the BoD's ability to set policy - is the policy for the good of the Club as a whole, and does it apply uniformly to all members? Any legal challenge to the rules of the BoD will have to overcome the "business judgement rule" - which courts have viewed as giving duly elected BoD's broad discretion in decision making. So basically, as I view it, if it is not an explicit violation of the Declaration or By-Laws you are unlikely to get the outcome you like. Because if it is in grey area - like most of the items you cite - it would have to fail those two tests for a court to deliver the relief you seek. So is a policy that generates more revenue from non-owners good for the Club as a whole? I think the court would say so. Is a policy that prevents members from tieing up inventory only to release it at the last minute good for the Club? I think a reasonable person would see how that benefits the group as a whole.

And it really does not matter in the scheme of things of "what you bought into". You bought into a Club and you agreed to be bound by the governing documents of the Club. You even acknowledged that those rules would/could change over time. And you always have the right every member has when they dislike changes being made - you stop being a member or you get enough of the membership to support your complaints. We have been down the class action route before, and only the lawyers benefit from that route - unless you are directly paying them. Because in any contingency fee agreement, the lawyer's interest is not aligned with yours when it comes to taking the risk of losing.

And unless you can prove the "money grab conspiracy" theory, you might consider leaving that narrative out. The basic financial structure of the Club defeats that argument on most fronts.

Because as has been predicted for years, these rule changes are less about a "money-grab" as an attempt to homogenize all the timeshare brands that Wyndham operates as a pre-cursor for WM moving to the new web platform.

JHMO. Disagreement is not dislike.... and I will never understand how we have come to this place where so many people think it is.
 
Last edited:

rhonda

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,110
Reaction score
716
Points
348
Location
San Diego, CA
Resorts Owned
Worldmark, DVC, Grand Pacific Palisades // Gone: Warner Springs Ranch, Seapointer (SA), WinPointVIP (?)
@ecwinch

THANK YOU for the incredibly gentle and thorough post above.
 

CO skier

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
857
Points
223
Location
Colorado
The recent spate of guideline changes have upset the norms resulting in severe dislocation and loss of ownership values. Worldmark credits now sell for as little as 10 cents on eBay. We think it's fair to conclude that your Member-unfriendly actions have a lot to do with that crash in credit resale prices.
WorldMark resale prices have been declining since before the following was written in 2007 regarding a lawsuit at that time:
I've been forecasting falling WM credits (resale) for many years now - how in the world is a lawyer going to prove that WN's actions contribute to the already falling prices?

Heck, even the lawsuit admits that resale WM credits are easily available for 70¢ each - and you know that they are high-balling that figure to begin with. (That number has to last thru 5 years of litigation)

I first bought into WorldMark ten years ago at $0.35/credit.

WorldMark resale prices on EBay are half what they were this time last year. That is likely related to the travel restrictions and job losses resulting from Covid-19. Demand for timeshares in general has gone off a cliff.


It is a long letter. My constructive comment would be to delete the section relating the drop in resale value to Guideline changes. It is not true, and deleting it makes the letter more readable and credible.

It should also be noted that the "credit restoration policy" could, and so probably was, abused. Someone with access to more than one account could book 7 nights at 13 months, hold onto the reservation until the 5-day Bonus Time guest use window, cancel the 7 night reservation, then book 3 nights in a different account and 4 nights in another at the Bonus Time rate and add the guest names. Or worse, rebook only the 3-4 nights that were rented, and the remaining nights appear on the booking calendar as broken inventory with 7 or less days of life for owners to book. After the reservations were completed, call in and have the credits from the 7-night, 13-month reservation restored to the first account.

Closing loopholes like this benefits the whole membership with more availability while affecting a relatively small percentage of members who book guest reservations.
 
Last edited:

happytrailz

Guest
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
Points
13
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I toned down the end of the letter a bit, then sent it.

A few other thoughts.

IMO, the requirement to add a guest name on multiple reservations within 48 hours of reserving space could be deemed "arbitrary and capricious". Meaning, unjustifiable. At the most, it might be reasonable to say you have to add your guest's name/or have your reservation canceled, if you are out of compliance with the existing cancellation guidelines (for example, no less than 30 days ahead, for 13 month reservations).

Also, the plain language interpretation of the current cancellation guideline, which has been in effect for a long time (anyone know from when?) says:

If cancelled in less than the required number of days, the Owner will be charged the applicable number of Vacation Credits and/or Bonus Time fees for that use to the extent that other Owners cannot use the same period ...

would be to restore your credits automatically to your account, if another Member travels on/uses the space. But instead, Owner Care sent me this response:

Per WorldMark Bylaws Section 5 (a) (3) gives the Board the authority to set up the guest certificate policy as well as make changes to the policy as needed.
“WorldMark Guidelines: Reservations - Section C line # 22

If cancelled in less than the required number of days, the Owner will be charged the applicable number of Vacation Credits and/or Bonus Time fees for that use to the extent that other Owners cannot use the same period. After check-in, there is no refund of Credits or Bonus Time fees in the event of an early checkout regardless if another Owner occupies the remaining reserved period.”
Credit refund has never been contractually obligated, it was a courtesy. I realize this is frustrating for you however it ensures timely cancellation of reservations with the reservation availability to all owners, also in a timely manner.

IMO, demanding that CS/OC comply with the plain language of Club Guidelines is not "a courtesy".

So now, I am ready to begin interviewing attorneys. Can anyone recommend a good firm to take on the owners' causes (I know of several formidable firms that mainly defend timeshare developers)?
 

ecwinch

Moderator
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,098
Points
548
Location
San Antonio
Resorts Owned
Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
Keep in mind here that you will be suing the BoD.... whose legal bills your dues pay for.

But before reaching out to a lawyer, I would probably spend a few minutes doing a google search for lawsuits against Worldmark The Club, a California Non-Profit Mutual Benefit Corporation.

There has only been one truly meaningful lawsuit by a WM member against the BoD. That action was "Pro Se".... where the member represented themselves. Meaning no contingency fee arrangement where his lawyers could drive a settlement that benefitted them to more than anyone else.

In most lawsuits, we only get some meaningless tokens - like the right to transfer inventory at a few key resorts because some foolish people believed those resorts were overbuilt (Anaheim, and Indio). Compared to a couple of buildings at Schooner's Landing - that was true, but short-sighted.
 
Last edited:

CO skier

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
857
Points
223
Location
Colorado
IMO, the requirement to add a guest name on multiple reservations within 48 hours of reserving space could be deemed "arbitrary and capricious". Meaning, unjustifiable.
Sorry, but you are flat out wrong in your opinion.

Also, the plain language interpretation of the current cancellation guideline, which has been in effect for a long time (anyone know from when?) says:

If cancelled in less than the required number of days, the Owner will be charged the applicable number of Vacation Credits and/or Bonus Time fees for that use to the extent that other Owners cannot use the same period ...
...
IMO, demanding that CS/OC comply with the plain language of Club Guidelines is not "a courtesy".
On August 5, 2020 the Guidelines will change to modify or delete this language. This is completely within the BOD powers to revise the Club's Guidelines.


Any attorney will gratefully accept your payments. My advice is to seek out an attorney on a contingency basis. No attorney will find it worth their while, and that says everything about your (lack of) "case."
 

ecwinch

Moderator
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,098
Points
548
Location
San Antonio
Resorts Owned
Marriott Harbour Point (HP), Kauai Beach Villas, Riverside Suites, WorldMark Pts (WM), Wyndham Pts
Skier's statement is a little harsh.... but is on point in one regard.... that it is your opinion that the policy "could be deemed arbitrary and capricious". Obviously the BoD has a different opinion.... which places the burden of proof on you to demonstrate that it is "arbitrary and capricious". And by what standard to make that assertation?

Once again, I would just suggest you spend some time really diving into the "business judgement rule".

If the courts allowed lawsuits every time a member of a corporation disagreed or had a different opinion on a decision, our legal system would be even more abused than it is today.

 

dgalati

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
2,105
Reaction score
837
Points
223
Just trying to save someone from wasting thousands of dollars. :shrug:
Not buying into a timeshare system and becoming burdened with maintenance fees would be a good way to not waste thousands also.
 

CO skier

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
857
Points
223
Location
Colorado
Not buying into a timeshare system and becoming burdened with maintenance fees would be a good way to not waste thousands also.
It depends. In my case, my timeshare ownership gives me exactly the unit I want when I want during premium ski season. It cannot be rented, because there is only one unit of that type at the resort, and I reserved it as an owner. Sorry to those, like you, who did not buy into WorldMark.

Wait a second, dgalati. Did I not read somewhere that you recently bought into WorldMark and decided to "becoming burdened with maintenance fees" because you finally comprehended the advantages of timeshare ownership versus renting?

Are you posting out of both sides of your mouth?
 
Top