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

[Floridaman76]

Wyndham has to follow the bylaws, governing documents, and all applicable state/county/township/local laws. If "the right thing to do" directly conflicts with the established legal process, then what do you really expect Wyndham to do here? Wyndham cannot supercede the law, and if they do, then they can be sued by the HOA or other entities for breaking the law. I don't think it's as simple as many would like to believe it is here. It's not a simple binary process or decision. People being uninformed is not a good enough reason to violate legal process. One thing we can be utterly certain about, Wyndham is going to follow the law, they have an entire legal department that ensures this is the case, especially when it comes to complex actions like we are seeing play out at present. Once Wyndham can legally provide more detailed communication, they intend to do so, but not until the legal processes permit. As @TUGBrian said, there are many mixes of legal requirements that seemingly make little to no sense (and he sits on HOA BODs), yet they still have to follow these laws. Wyndham is no different with this in mind. Not saying I like it, but I can understand the reasoning.

For me personally, the reasoning behind some of these moves is really questionable.

On one hand, Wyndham is a business to run, and needs to make decisions to keep the business solvent. And since it's a publicly traded corporation, growing to pacify shareholders. But it also needs to be acting in the best interest of it's customers (us).

I think some of us would be lying if we didn't see some of these coming, eventually. Especially Fairfield Bay, The Glade, Orlando International, Star Island, maybe even Patriots Place (at least prior to the remodel) and definitely the argument could be made for downsizing Shawnee, exiting some of the really older sections which are a maintenance liability. But Crestview? They developed that.

But on the other hand, there are places like Bentley Brook. I've never been there, but it's apparently a really popular destination with year round high utilization. We don't know the finances on keeping the place running and functional, but it seems really odd Wyndham would dump a location completely which is in high demand.

Places like Orlando and Williamsburg admittedly there is a LOT of timeshare properties and rooms in those locations and certain times of the year they probably have excess capacity. Also in the case of Orlando International, the place was subpar and maybe didn't fit into their long term strategy.

But the optics of this are awful, and some might say we as owners aren't owed anything, but I disagree, because it looks like somebody is asleep at the wheel right now. Really lacking in vision and long term leadership from management.

 

[comicbookman]

For me personally, the reasoning behind some of these moves is really questionable.
But on the other hand, there are places like Bentley Brook. I've never been there, but it's apparently a really popular destination with year round high utilization. We don't know the finances on keeping the place running and functional, but it seems really odd Wyndham would dump a location completely which is in high demand.

I have been to Bently Brooke in Winter and Summer. It is a lovely place. My guess as to Wyndham's motives would be the fact that they only control a piece of a very small resort, which probably means their costs are high and their ability to sell is limited. I don't remember there being a sales center at all, but it has been years since I was last there.

 

[Twenty20]

It was a terrific vacation for us when we would play golf every day in the morning, each day on a different course. Then have the afternoons to explore the area.
When we were searching for a place for retirement,we went to several places south of Orlando with really dated condos along golf courses. Lots of retired couples were happy to have them as second homes and they were relatively cheap.
We also rented sight unseen in Green Valley. The housing was awful, about 600 square feet and furnished with Salvation Army rejects. . But everyone there was older and it got them out of the cold.
Those condos flipped easily and neighborhoods were well kept, possibly because of age restrictions.

Yes but those were in locations with year round warm weather. That's not FF Glade.

I understand the appeal to a certain retiree from the Midwest to move to the Glade, it's a nice community with a lot of quality amenities for residents, particularly if you golf. And the costs are very reasonable. Particularly compared with trying to find something similar further south.

And yes I think there would be a market for some of the condos there. But the older ones have terrible floorpans for an older buyer. Oak Knoll has the primary bedroom on a lower level, guest bedroom on entrance level and living area and kitchen on upper level. Most seniors aren't going to want that for a full time living situation. Pls parking isn't real close to the actual units.

I can't imagine the market value of one of those condos there is worth much, as-is. Maybe a new developer would raze them and build more suitable condos for full time residents.

 

[chapjim]

<snip>

I can't imagine the market value of one of those condos there is worth much, as-is. Maybe a new developer would raze them and build more suitable condos for full time residents.

There goes reasonable cost.

 

[Pennytx]

You'll hopefully get a more accurate answer depending on how you phrase the questions. First ask if the resort is being dropped by Wyndham from our roster of resorts. Then ask if the resort is solely a Wyndham resort or there are units and sections that aren't part of the Wyndham system that will remain in operation. If a resort is solely a Wyndham resort then it would seem the resort will be ceasing operations entirely as of 12/31/25.

CO skier in his posts told how things were handled with the Pagosa Mountain View Assn. I think the company he mentioned that came in to handle things was Lemonjuice? It sounds like there are companies that come in, maybe from day one of the closing, to take over and do everything that needs done while the resort is changing hands or being sold off.

The employees and salespeople probably don't know much more than their jobs are ending on 12/31/25 and owners will be offered a CWA swap for their deeds.

I will do my best

 

[HitchHiker71]

For me personally, the reasoning behind some of these moves is really questionable.

On one hand, Wyndham is a business to run, and needs to make decisions to keep the business solvent. And since it's a publicly traded corporation, growing to pacify shareholders. But it also needs to be acting in the best interest of it's customers (us).

I think some of us would be lying if we didn't see some of these coming, eventually. Especially Fairfield Bay, The Glade, Orlando International, Star Island, maybe even Patriots Place (at least prior to the remodel) and definitely the argument could be made for downsizing Shawnee, exiting some of the really older sections which are a maintenance liability. But Crestview? They developed that.

But on the other hand, there are places like Bentley Brook. I've never been there, but it's apparently a really popular destination with year round high utilization. We don't know the finances on keeping the place running and functional, but it seems really odd Wyndham would dump a location completely which is in high demand.

Places like Orlando and Williamsburg admittedly there is a LOT of timeshare properties and rooms in those locations and certain times of the year they probably have excess capacity. Also in the case of Orlando International, the place was subpar and maybe didn't fit into their long term strategy.

Wyndham has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders, not its customers, though by association they are really one and the same - happy customers result in happy shareholders. I don't necessarily see the questionable nature of these decisions. You appear to have basically answered your own questions. If it's not surprising that Wyndham is exiting the majority of these older timeshare locations, for reasons that @bnoble has outlined very nicely already, so I won't repeat them again here. Suffice it to say that it is likely in the best interests of the majority of Wyndham owners to "rightsize" the resort portfolio.

Specific to Bentley Brook, it's still an older resort, and the last couple of times we were there (both times in 2024), the hallways and a subset of the rooms were not exactly wonderfully updated. That's why they are renovating it this year. If we assume Wyndham takes feedback from the majority of the ownership base, which is not really represented well here on TUG, and that the majority has indicated these resorts don't measure up to Wyndham standards, then the actions being taken make sense. We can certainly agree that the methods being used aren't ideal from a communication standpoint, but even then, we don't know what the complex legal requirements are specific to each resort location. It's easy to critique, but without a clear understanding of the entire process, it's at least in part based on some level of lack of understanding of said process.

Specific to Wyndham Shawnee, Crestview consists of a very small subset of the overall Shawnee resort. It wouldn't make sense to keep such a small portion of the overall resort under Wyndham management. It's literally only 40 units for all of Crestview. That's not enough inventory to justify keeping any one resort location, especially when Crestview is surrounded by a much larger subset of units that will then be managed by another resort management company, along with Crestview - since it would make zero sense for Wyndham to manage only a very small subset of the total inventory at the resort.

But the optics of this are awful, and some might say we as owners aren't owed anything, but I disagree, because it looks like somebody is asleep at the wheel right now. Really lacking in vision and long term leadership from management.

I agree the optics aren't great. I disagree that Wyndham is asleep at the wheel. A great deal of planning has gone into these actions, across multiple years as is clearly evidenced by the intentional collection of enough inventory to guarantee voting outcomes. Just because we don't like what we're seeing from the outside early on in this process doesn't mean this isn't all being managed behind the scenes, it simply means that we don't like what we're seeing on some level, and we're likely being kept at arms length while the legally required processes play out with the impacted HOAs. I'd argue that the vision and long term leadership here is actually good - since these older resorts don't really fit well with where Wyndham is going in the future. Hard decisions are being made here that impact a smaller subset of the ownership base that are more interested in keeping things the same. It doesn't mean they are the wrong decisions if the majority of the ownership base has indicated these are the right decisions, it simply means you're in the minority that has to either embrace the changes, or choose to exit.

 

[PeterS]

With The Orlando In't Resort of only 63 units ... about 3150 TS units.... and it looking like they are declaring bankruptcy..
What could an owner see in cash if they didn't take the swap deal and keep their shared ownership?
The sales price divided by 3150? Will bankruptcy affect this or even eliminate any payout? And it could be years before paid if at all...

 

[jp10558]

For me personally, the reasoning behind some of these moves is really questionable.


But the optics of this are awful, and some might say we as owners aren't owed anything, but I disagree, because it looks like somebody is asleep at the wheel right now. Really lacking in vision and long term leadership from management.

I think it's really worth it to take a step back and realize TUGgers are not the common owner of timeshares, nor are the the common masses who may yet become Wyndham customers. Most people (as we see all the time) research never about what TS they bought.

For TUGgers I agree, this is really badly handled, though I can understand the potential legal issues, I also cannot fathom why it couldn't have been managed for exits at the end of 2026 so no one had any bookings they were confused about? I mean, lock everything down before the end of this year, but with the dates one year further on.

I also think for people deep in the system, or anyone going to read about it now or later, having an explanation would have been better, but also having some announced new resorts to give us some examples of what Wyndham thinks aligns with the new customer tastes, as well as dull the impact of apparently around 15 resorts being dropped. Just the number is kind of astounding.

However, as we know from TS sales - the vast majority of things that normal sales would need to take into account just don't apply to TS. So I doubt there's any thought about annoying even vocal small minorities of owners because it's not like bitching on Facebook is going to make their general reputation any worse.

 

[TUGBrian]

Im sure someone somewhere ran some numbers and calcluated that over the long term (insert random 5/10/20 year timeline) that the program as a whole would be more profitable without these resorts as a part of it.

id also imagine the folks that did the calculations, and approved the proposal to cut these resorts likely handed the task of managing the project to a completely different person or department to carry out the decision as they saw fit..... and here we are =)

 

[TUGBrian]

TUG fb TUG member claims to have checked into skyline tower this week and is being told the resort is completely shutting down as of 1/1/2026... ie employees all out looking for jobs as theirs ends at the end of the year.

thats a real shame...but if that resort is truly closing and likely being liquidated, i cannot fathom there is not a state statute that REQUIRES all homeowners be notified via regular mail.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Wyndham has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders, not its customers,

Eh, Wyndham, the property management company, hired by Wyndham property owners, absolutely has a fiduciary duty to those owners.

 

[CO skier]

i cannot fathom there is not a state statute that REQUIRES all homeowners be notified via regular mail.

I think the governing documents for all the resorts require a vote of the ownership to terminate the timeshare. We might not hear of these for months, though. At Mountain Meadows, the owners were noticed of the December 4, 2024 Special Meeting on November 16, 2024. The timeshare terminated January 4, 2025.

 

[comicbookman]

Eh, Wyndham, the property management company, hired by Wyndham property owners, absolutely has a fiduciary duty to those owners.

Not really. A contractual duty definitely. A fiduciary duty, not necessarily.

 

[CO skier]

Eh, Wyndham, the property management company, hired by Wyndham property owners, absolutely has a fiduciary duty to those owners.

The usual arrangement is that the HOA Board of Directors hires the property manager. The resort HOA is responsible to the owners.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Not really. A contractual duty definitely. A fiduciary duty, not necessarily.

That's just not accurate (at least in most states, I'm certainly not doing a 50 state review here). And further, one of the fiduciary duties of a property management company (again in most states) is the duty to avoid conflicts of interest and to avoid engaging in self-dealing and opportunities for self-gain that would harm the interests of the property owner(s).

I'm not saying Wyndham is doing that here, but they definitely have an obligation not to do that.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

The usual arrangement is that the HOA Board of Directors hires the property manager. The resort HOA is responsible to the owners.

I mean, that's semantics, the property manager still owes a fiduciary duty to it's client, in that case the HOA, which in turn represents the owners. The property company still can't engage in self-dealing and profit-maximization at the expense of it's client "because it owes a fiduciary duty to it's stockholders."

 

[comicbookman]

That's just not accurate (at least in most states, I'm certainly not doing a 50 state review here). And further, one of the fiduciary duties of a property management company (again in most states) is the duty to avoid conflicts of interest and to avoid engaging in self-dealing and opportunities for self-gain that would harm the interests of the property owner(s).

I'm not saying Wyndham is doing that here, but they definitely have an obligation not to do that.

I was referring to Wyndham's obligation to the owners, since they would have been hired by the HOA. It may seem like a non-distinction, but it is a real difference.

 

[comicbookman]

I mean, that's semantics, the property manager still owes a fiduciary duty to it's client, in that case the HOA, which in turn represents the owners. The property company still can't engage in self-dealing and profit-maximization at the expense of it's client "because it owes a fiduciary duty to it's stockholders."

For instance, the owners would probably have a hard time getting standing to sue for a fiduciary issue. The HOA would have to do it.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

I was referring to Wyndham's obligation to the owners, since they would have been hired by the HOA. It may seem like a non-distinction, but it is a real difference.

The HOA represents the owners though. What's in the best interests of the HOA is in the best interests of the owners writ large, by definition.

 

[comicbookman]

The HOA represents the owners though. What's in the best interests of the HOA is in the best interests of the owners writ large, by definition.

And Wyndham probably owns the majority of deeds.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

For instance, the owners would probably have a hard time getting standing to sue for a fiduciary issue. The HOA would have to do it.

Sure, maybe. But none of this excuses away Wyndham's fiduciary duties to the HOA/owners because they **also** have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders. If a property management co's fiduciary duty to it's stockholders (its owners) trumped that to it's clients, you would end up with absurd results.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

And Wyndham probably owns the majority of deeds.

That doesn't matter in this analysis though. They owe a fiduciary duty to the ownership as a whole, not to the largest owner of deeds. Consider the folllowing scenario:

1. Wyndham owns 65 percent of the deeds at Bentley Brook, and individuals own the other 35 percent of the deeds.
2. Bentley Brook is valued at 10 million dollars (making up numbers here)
3. The Wyndham-controlled HOA votes to sell Bentley Brook to a third party for $1 in exchange for that party paying Wyndham a 10 million dollar consulting fee.

That would clearly breach the HOA's fiduciary duty, and Wyndham's. That would not be permitted if the other owners turned around and sued, even though that would certainly be in the best interests of the stockholders.

 

[CO skier]

I have been to Bently Brooke in Winter and Summer. It is a lovely place. My guess as to Wyndham's motives would be the fact that they only control a piece of a very small resort, which probably means their costs are high and their ability to sell is limited.

BB looks like a fairly large resort. If Wyndham is the minority owner there, why are they the management company?

When I looked into it, Bentley Brook (and some of the other resorts on the current "closing" list) were acquired by Cendant (predecessor to Wyndham WorldWide) from Equivest. Maybe it is just coincidence, or maybe Wyndham is "closing" and dispositioning some resorts as a package group.

 

[bnoble]

is being told the resort is completely shutting down as of 1/1/2026... ie employees all out looking for jobs as theirs ends at the end of the year.

These are not the same thing. The latter would be true even if the only thing that is happening is that Wyndham is withdrawing as the management company. The current employees would need to look for jobs, but those jobs could possibly be at the resort under a new management company.

 

[comicbookman]

That doesn't matter in this analysis though. They owe a fiduciary duty to the ownership as a whole, not to the largest owner of deeds. Consider the folllowing scenario:

1. Wyndham owns 65 percent of the deeds at Bentley Brook, and individuals own the other 35 percent of the deeds.
2. Bentley Brook is valued at 10 million dollars (making up numbers here)
3. The Wyndham-controlled HOA votes to sell Bentley Brook to a third party for $1 in exchange for that party paying Wyndham a 10 million dollar consulting fee.

That would clearly breach the HOA's fiduciary duty, and Wyndham's. That would not be permitted if the other owners turned around and sued, even though that would certainly be in the best interests of the stockholders.

That would be fraud, so yeah they could sue. However, if they sold it for $900k and took a $100K fee, probably wouldn't get very far. So of course, if they do something grossly wrong thing are different. Wyndham's lawyers are to good to allow anything blatant. As long as they can say that what they are doing is good for the majority of owners, and not doing anything grossly incorrect they are safe.