If it were me, I would be looking at whether there is anything necessary or appropriate to cure the perceived defect in the transaction.
@Grammarhero didn't do anything like the ethics cases that were cited; instead it may have been that the agent for the seller had a deed that has a defect transferring the timeshare to them that needs to be fixed because it was executed prior to identifying the buyer. I don't think there is anything to worry about ethically.
Not sure why Wyndham would care. They own one of the exchange companies that provides services to the property in question, which is a Vacation Village (VV) resort. I've never heard of an exchange company having anything to do with transfer of ownership. In any case, I believe that Williamsburg Plantation is one of those resorts that has ROFR; I know that Colonies at Williamsburg, which is managed by the same part of VV is. They already had a bite at the apple for objecting to the transfer if that's the case, and they must not have, unless the transfer agent skipped that step.
IMHO,
@Grammarhero might have a means to unwind the transaction, but I would look at it as an excuse to do so rather than a reason if it were me. I'm a licensed attorney as well, and therefore bound by ethical rules, too. I would think that backing out of a bona fide transaction without giving the seller an opportunity to cure the perceived defect would be another ethical concern that isn't all that clear cut as to whether it's the right thing to do. If there is a defect with the deed for a timeshare I bought, I would think that seeking to have the defect fixed by the seller is the right thing to do rather than starting a quiet title action. I would be surprised to learn that there have been any quiet title actions filed for timeshare deeds filed with no objection from any of the parties involved (including the resort management) in circumstances like this.
