Wyndham is closing a handful of legacy resorts - dedicated chart/tracker located in the first post for this unfolding set of events

[CO skier]

The optics on this absolutely suck. And given how they are potentially treating owners here, how could anyone eithically sell the product in good faith. Especially with all of the "dots on the map" and "lock in your vacation price forever" and even "we still have our original location we opened in the 70's". I literally heard that at one of the updates within the last 2 years. Using stability and longevity as a benefit.

You have been around timeshares long enough to know that any sales promises do not mean a thing.

 

[bnoble]

True, but we would expect some type of owner approval at Fairfield Glade too.

There are two things that could be going on. One is removing the resort from the Wyndham point system. The other is terminating the timeshare plan at the property. Wyndham can do the former unilaterally, they do not need owner permission to do it. Wydnham might also be able to terminate their management contract now for CY26, and that would explain why they are telling the employees they are out of a job.

The resort may or may not continue a timehsare plan. If they do, they will need to contract with another management company, and that company will need some staff.

 

[WinniWoman]

They’re not definite (except for the first one) but they’re updated by @HitchHiker71 with basically everything we know in this thread.

Even though not definite, most of them are extremely likely based on the information we currently have.

Thanks!

 

[CO skier]

Except that WYN controls most of the HOA's through majority voting rights in all likelihood.

Wyndham did not hold all those deeds for 30-40 years. Owners, for whatever reasons, gave all those deeds (and control) back to Wyndham, mostly through foreclosure or Certified Exit. As I posted upthread, owners at these resorts have been voting with their feet, for a decade.

 

[Arimaas]

As for transparency by Wyndham. Wyndham doesn't necessarily owe anything to the property owners. It is up to the HOA BOD to provide the necessary communication to the owners.

You’re right, legally they don’t owe the property owners a thing. But Wyndham is the company the vast majority of owners think owns the property (except for of course any legacy owners who bought the property from someone else). Most owners are not as knowledgeable as us. They went to a sales meeting somewhere, and bought property, quite possibly never even visiting it. They likely don’t even know about an HOA. So, you’re right, legally Wyndham owes the owners nothing, But that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

 

[Roger830]

I'm not a lawyer but I also don't understand the bankruptcy court angle. On the surface it seems like it's a potential end around run to not need owner approval, or freeze them out of any sort of proceeds.

An example of bankruptcy used as a negotiating tactic.

In April 1987, Texaco filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after a $10 billion judgement awarded to Pennzoil over Getty Oil acquisition.
This filing allowed Texaco to reorganize its finances and operations while protected from creditors, including Pennzoil, who sought to seize Texaco's assets. After a period of reorganization, Texaco emerged from bankruptcy in 1988 after settling with Pennzoil for $3 billion.





Like

 

[CO skier]

Wydnham might also be able to terminate their management contract now for CY26, and that would explain why they are telling the employees they are out of a job.

The resort may or may not continue a timehsare plan. If they do, they will need to contract with another management company, and that company will need some staff.

If this is the case, why did Wyndham tell the employees that some resorts are "closing" rather than "there will be new management starting January 1?" (If the rumor in post #1 from a "reliable source" regarding Bentley Brook and 2 RI resorts is to be believed.)

 

[RENTER]

A new post that should give CO skier and others a laugh because it is logical and uses common sense. Again, while they laugh, I have returned from another trip paid for by my grateful guests who write me terrific reviews. The savings from lodging is then invested in the stock market.

Since this is a long post and I have fat fingers and hit the wrong keys, I will save it and keep editing to add to hit

Wyndham risks losing many in the Northeast who do not want to travel to the South or West and only bought because of those Northeast locations. So, Wyndham risks them walking away and stop paying maintenance fees.

If Wyndham's thinking is so what, they will replace them with the younger generation, good luck with that. Just ask employers who are frustrated with them and are bringing back older workers or using robots of AI.

I do not know the numbers, but I guess a third is getting rich off social media and have no use for Wyndham. Another third does not want to work or pay for anything. Leaving just a third who may be interested.

So, Wyndham risks losing sure money from good customers for potential headaches. But they don't have to. I am sure many will stay if they are allowed to rent outside EH and its 40% highway robbery. They can then stay in the system to use RCI for the Northeast and Wyndham for the occasional trip South and West.

Allow rentals thru approved companies like they do now with Airbnb. Airbnb verifies the guests and has a million-dollar insurance policy to cover guest damages. All timeshares should be doing it to stop owners from walking away and not paying maintenance fees.

But also work with local governments to exempt timeshares from their short-term rental laws which are meant for residential homes where the problems are.

A win -win for Wyndham
1. Current happy owners stay and pay their maintenance fees
2. Current unhappy owners thinking of leaving and not paying may reconsider
3. More new people coming in thru the rents and may want to buy and do the same. Which many of my renters did. Now I tell them to stay away.
4. Those resorts not busy can get busy with more national exposure that companies like Airbnb provides as owners find other resorts booked, find rooms there and post them which will interest those living close by.
5. More guest pass fees for Wyndham
6. Current owners having success may buy more points like I did.
7. More happy campers improves the image of Wyndham and the timeshare business.

Obviously, those who hate renters are steaming as they read this. So, keep the owner priority period for them.

Off course this logical and makes common sense. Two things missing in today's world of rising cost of education and SAT scores. May not work but something to think about. But will tell you about someone who laughs it off.

The end

 

[chapjim]

I'm not a lawyer but I also don't understand the bankruptcy court angle. On the surface it seems like it's a potential end around run to not need owner approval, or freeze them out of any sort of proceeds.

This really speaks volumes to the complete lack of tranparency on Wyndham's part here.

The optics on this absolutely suck. And given how they are potentially treating owners here, how could anyone eithically sell the product in good faith. Especially with all of the "dots on the map" and "lock in your vacation price forever" and even "we still have our original location we opened in the 70's". I literally heard that at one of the updates within the last 2 years. Using stability and longevity as a benefit.

***MODERATOR ACTION*** - political content removed - violation of forum rules

Exactly the opposite. From the Notice of Special Meeting:

The Special Meeting is for the purpose of voting on whether to authorize the Board of Directors to file a Chapter 11 case for the purpose of pursuing the sale of the entire resort.

Interval owners would receive a pro rata share from the sale of the Resort after payment of priority liens and claims and costs of sale.

As noted before, 20% of the membership must be present in person or by proxy and 66.67% of the votes shall decide any questions raised at the Special Meeting. Those thresholds are from the By-Laws.

Now, maybe Wyndham has sufficient votes to make the decision and cram down that decision on the other owners. If that is the case, then Wyndham gets its way.

How else would you do it? Do you really think that a small minority of non-corporate owners (i.e., natural persons) should make decisions like this?

 

[chapjim]

I completely expect that. It always is. Good point to share

Edit to add: sage advice to plan ahead!

There's no other way to plan.

 

[chapjim]

A new post that should give CO skier and others a laugh because it is logical and uses common sense. Again, while they laugh, I have returned from another trip paid for by my grateful guests who write me terrific reviews. The savings from lodging is then invested in the stock market.

Since this is a long post and I have fat fingers and hit the wrong keys, I will save it and keep editing to add to hit

Wyndham risks losing many in the Northeast who do not want to travel to the South or West and only bought because of those Northeast locations. So, Wyndham risks them walking away and stop paying maintenance fees.

If Wyndham's thinking is so what, they will replace them with the younger generation, good luck with that. Just ask employers who are frustrated with them and are bringing back older workers or using robots of AI.

I do not know the numbers, but I guess a third is getting rich off social media and have no use for Wyndham. Another third does not want to work or pay for anything. Leaving just a third who may be interested.

So, Wyndham risks losing sure money from good customers for potential headaches. But they don't have to. I am sure many will stay if they are allowed to rent outside EH and its 40% highway robbery. They can then stay in the system to use RCI for the Northeast and Wyndham for the occasional trip South and West.

WHATTA GUY!!

 

[jp10558]

The optics on this absolutely suck.

Do you really think TS companies care about optics? I don't think their reputation could get any worse with the general public already.

 

[HitchHiker71]

And what happens to owners who own deeded/ converted weeks at Orlando International? They lose out and some other company buys it and turns it into apartments without paying current owners a dime?

As some of these resorts are closing completely, you know that Wyndham will have gained some dirty money on the owners' losses.

Asked and answered, impacted owners will receive swapped CWA points on a 1:1 basis to keep them whole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dioxide45]

As noted before, 20% of the membership must be present in person or by proxy and 66.67% of the votes shall decide any questions raised at the Special Meeting. Those thresholds are from the By-Laws.

So why not just have the same vote to close the resort? What does the bankruptcy provide except an added expense? Can't they force the conveyance of the individual deeds if they were to just dissolve the timeshare scheme? Many other timeshare properties have closed in the past without the need for bankruptcy protection.

 

[comicbookman]

So why not just have the same vote to close the resort? What does the bankruptcy provide except an added expense? Can't they force the conveyance of the individual deeds if they were to just dissolve the timeshare scheme? Many other timeshare properties have closed in the past without the need for bankruptcy protection.

The bankruptcy process allows them to handle all the owners at once, rather than having to go to court over each owner that resists or fails to respond.

 

[chapjim]

So why not just have the same vote to close the resort? What does the bankruptcy provide except an added expense? Can't they force the conveyance of the individual deeds if they were to just dissolve the timeshare scheme? Many other timeshare properties have closed in the past without the need for bankruptcy protection.

I suspect it is because Chapter 11 triggers an automatic stay, halting collection efforts, lawsuits, and foreclosures against the debtor. It kind of freezes things financially while the sale is proceeding. Chapter 11 does not discharge debts although there may be some negotiations between the debtor and creditors with an eventual reduction in the amount of debt.

 

[dioxide45]

The bankruptcy process allows them to handle all the owners at once, rather than having to go to court over each owner that resists or fails to respond.

But I would think if a majority of owners vote to dissolve the timeshare, then all owners have to abide by that. Many resorts do this without bankruptcy and I am sure they don't clear title on each deed when a timeshare sunsets. We've seen lots of Florida timeshares sunset. Perhaps those other properties have certain provisions in the condo CC&R documents that permit that type of sunset and Orlando International lacks such a provision.

 

[Floridaman76]

So why not just have the same vote to close the resort? What does the bankruptcy provide except an added expense? Can't they force the conveyance of the individual deeds if they were to just dissolve the timeshare scheme? Many other timeshare properties have closed in the past without the need for bankruptcy protection.

That's my exact point.

 

[CO skier]

So why not just have the same vote to close the resort? What does the bankruptcy provide except an added expense?

Wyndham may have learned something from the Kauai Beach Villas fiasco. A vote was scheduled to close the resort, a group of whole owners sued, and tied up the process for years, and it still goes on. Maybe a bankruptcy filing can protect the majority of owners from the lawsuits by a few.

 

[CO skier]

and 66.67% of the votes shall decide any questions raised at the Special Meeting. Those thresholds are from the By-Laws.

That is a very high hurdle, but the vote to terminate Mountain Meadows and the subsequent vote to convert it to condos cleared that same high hurdle.

 

[dioxide45]

Wyndham may have learned something from the Kauai Beach Villas fiasco. A vote was scheduled to close the resort, a group of whole owners sued, and tied up the process for years, and it still goes on. Maybe a bankruptcy filing can protect the majority of owners from the lawsuits by a few.

Ahhh. That sheds some more light on this. Though I don't think Orlando International has a whole ownership component like they do at KBV?

 

[bnoble]

But I would think if a majority of owners vote to dissolve the timeshare, then all owners have to abide by that.

They would have to abide by the fact that the timeshare plan no longer exists, but they are still (partial) owners. So you might still have to clear all the deeds individually in that case to get clear title to the property.

 

[CO skier]

Now, maybe Wyndham has sufficient votes to make the decision and cram down that decision on the other owners. If that is the case, then Wyndham gets its way.

ALL the owners who vote to clear the 66.67% hurdle get their way. I do not see how anyone can make the case this is "not fair." (Not that you are saying it, just making a general point.)

 

[dioxide45]

They would have to abide by the fact that the timeshare plan no longer exists, but they are still (partial) owners. So you might still have to clear all the deeds individually in that case to get clear title to the property.

Even if they do, somehow other properties have done it without the need for bankruptcy. They can clear title using methods other than bankruptcy. Quiet title or foreclosure come to mind.

 

[CO skier]

Ahhh. That sheds some more light on this. Though I don't think Orlando International has a whole ownership component like they do at KBV?

That was just an example of how a lawsuit can tie-up the process for years. In general terms, Wyndham does not want a lawsuit of any kind delaying the inevitable.