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

[chapjim]

Do you know if the condo governing documents had a provision for closing and divesting the property or some other sunset clause?

The property also didn't seem to actually be bankrupt. They, in fact, stated in their letter that they were financially stable. It does seem like a way to sidestep other processes for shutting down a property. Perhaps this is just another way to do it but if this is an option, why don't other properties go the same route?

I don't have the governing documents for OIRC. And it's not "2/3 ownership vote." It is 2/3 of those present in person or by proxy. Vastly different requirement.

Don't get hung up on the word "bankrupt." You don't have to be "bankrupt" to file under Chapter 11.

Edit: I pulled some of the condo documents and am reviewing them now.

 

[Floridaman76]

First, I'd dispute the idea that OIRC was "much more valuable" to Wyndham at any point in its history. It gives off failed-condo-turned-timeshare vibes, in a middling area of a town in which you cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a timeshare. I've booked a stay there, and it's not horrible for a Universal-area visit, but even then I'd rather be at any of a half-dozen other timeshares in that end of town.

I would be shocked if that property survives as-is. I would put money on it getting dozed and something else built there. It's not a great part of town that's better days are well behind it.

There's also a real poor Bluegreen property next door, and the whole area is strip-mall central. And a ghetto mom and pop amusement park at the end of the road.

Maybe it survives short term as apartment or condo conversion, the area is desperate for somewhat affordable housing. All those people who work in the various tourist places have to live somewhere

 

[TUGBrian]

id be pretty surprised if wyndham did not have all its ducks in a row legally prior to pursuing this course of action in regards to florida hoa laws/statutes that are very well defined and enforced.

 

[chapjim]

id be pretty surprised if wyndham did not have all its ducks in a row legally prior to pursuing this course of action in regards to florida hoa laws/statutes that are very well defined and enforced.

I agree but there is a contingent here on TUG that sees misbehavior at every turn.

It wouldn't surprise me if Wyndham had a "stalking horse" bidder that set the floor on a selling price for Orlando International.

Also, if anyone expects their proceeds check in 2025, they are likely to be disappointed. I'd be surprised if anyone gets a check before 2027.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I agree but there is a contingent here on TUG that sees misbehavior at every turn.

It wouldn't surprise me if Wyndham had a "stalking horse" bidder that set the floor on a selling price for Orlando International.

I'd surmise for many of the impacted resorts, Wyndham already has potential buyers and interested parties waiting in the wings.

 

[Edsolomon]

I own at OIRC. So, what happens to the points I have deposited with Wyndham? If/when the closure comes, do I still have the ability to use those points? And what about the maintenance fees I keep paying? Trying to plan for NEXT year. Sorry if this has been discussed before....I am jumping into this late. I have had good luck for over 30 years with Wyndham, although it has been expensive. However, with a family, I could never afford a resort like I am able to get with an exchange.
Ed

 

[chapjim]

I own at OIRC. So, what happens to the points I have deposited with Wyndham? If/when the closure comes, do I still have the ability to use those points? And what about the maintenance fees I keep paying? Trying to plan for NEXT year. Sorry if this has been discussed before....I am jumping into this late. I have had good luck for over 30 years with Wyndham, although it has been expensive. However, with a family, I could never afford a resort like I am able to get with an exchange.
Ed

I own there as well and I don't think anyone has a definitive answer to your question or a dozen or so like it.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I own at OIRC. So, what happens to the points I have deposited with Wyndham? If/when the closure comes, do I still have the ability to use those points? And what about the maintenance fees I keep paying? Trying to plan for NEXT year. Sorry if this has been discussed before....I am jumping into this late. I have had good luck for over 30 years with Wyndham, although it has been expensive. However, with a family, I could never afford a resort like I am able to get with an exchange.
Ed

You're paying for your 2025 points through year end. From what we've been told, directly, from Wyndham, your 2025 points will remain in place since you've already paid for them, whether you consumed them or deposited them. The question is, if OIRC is the only contract you own, what happens to your account heading into 2026. We do not yet have any solid answer on that particular question. So my question back to you is, do you only own at OIRC? Or do you also own other Wyndham timeshare contracts within your account? If the latter, my original answer should apply, but only time will tell, as IDK if the bankruptcy approach being used may impact the outcome differently for one reason or another.

 

[paxsarah]

But, I'll bite: Let's suppose Wyndham never entered the OIRC picture. In such an alternate universe, what is the best possible realistic outcome for those original owners? Because I don't think there are many such universes in which such owners sell a week for more than $5K in the Year of Our Lord, 2025.

This. Maybe the loss in value is not an acceptable outcome, but this is a timeshare thing, not specifically a Wyndham thing.

 

[dioxide45]

I agree but there is a contingent here on TUG that sees misbehavior at every turn.

It wouldn't surprise me if Wyndham had a "stalking horse" bidder that set the floor on a selling price for Orlando International.

Also, if anyone expects their proceeds check in 2025, they are likely to be disappointed. I'd be surprised if anyone gets a check before 2027.

I don’t see misbehavior. But it does seem like they are trying to sidestep a bylaw requiring 100% vote. If that requirement is there then my prior statements about sidestepping are accurate. The documents have a provision allowing the resort to close. It just seems they don’t like the terms.

It is entirely possible that this is the only viable option and the HOA will likely ultimately prevail but it may fall under more scrutiny.

 

[dioxide45]

id be pretty surprised if wyndham did not have all its ducks in a row legally prior to pursuing this course of action in regards to florida hoa laws/statutes that are very well defined and enforced.

There are lots of big companies with big legal teams that lose in court every day.

 

[Rolltydr]

There are lots of big companies with big legal teams that lose in court every day.

Oh, really? Please tell us how many lawsuits Wyndham has lost. You can narrow it down to this century, if that will make it easier for you.

 

[comicbookman]

I don’t see misbehavior. But it does seem like they are trying to sidestep a bylaw requiring 100% vote. If that requirement is there then my prior statements about sidestepping are accurate. The documents have a provision allowing the resort to close. It just seems they don’t like the terms.

It is entirely possible that this is the only viable option and the HOA will likely ultimately prevail but it may fall under more scrutiny.

I doubt a judge would find this work around unreasonable. It is impossible to get a 100% response. So it can be easily argued that this action is reasonable. Also, with more than half the ownership voting in favor (Wyndham alone makes that a thing), I think a judge would have no objections unless a large percent of the remaining owner's protest.

 

[Floridaman76]

Oh, really? Please tell us how many lawsuits Wyndham has lost. You can narrow it down to this century, if that will make it easier for you.

Let's be real. most of the lawsuits Wyndham has won were frivalous claims by ridiculous plaintiffs

 

[comicbookman]

Let's be real. most of the lawsuits Wyndham has won were frivalous claims by ridiculous plaintiffs

and, your point is?

 

[bnoble]

There are lots of big companies with big legal teams that lose in court every day.

True, but I'm going to bet the average Big Company wins many more than they lose when it comes to individual customer lawsuits.

 

[bnoble]

I agree but there is a contingent here on TUG that sees misbehavior at every turn.

This appears to be nearly a requirement to hang out around these parts.

 

[chapjim]

I don’t see misbehavior. But it does seem like they are trying to sidestep a bylaw requiring 100% vote. If that requirement is there then my prior statements about sidestepping are accurate. The documents have a provision allowing the resort to close. It just seems they don’t like the terms.

It is entirely possible that this is the only viable option and the HOA will likely ultimately prevail but it may fall under more scrutiny.

What by-law requires a 100% vote? I have cited quorum and voting requirements in the OIRC By-Laws at least twice in this thread.

If side-stepping (i.e., ignoring) a by-law isn't misbehaving, what is? What would you call it?

You don't think a Bankruptcy Court will provide enough scrutiny?

 

[dioxide45]

Oh, really? Please tell us how many lawsuits Wyndham has lost. You can narrow it down to this century, if that will make it easier for you.

You seem to be implying that Wyndham has a perfect record, batting 1.000, never losing when it comes to lawsuits? You would certainly be wrong. We know of one, well publicized case, where they lost to a former employee who likes to brag about it in his commercials. Sure, it wasn't a timeshare lawsuit, but they did lose. Here is information regarding a case where Wyndham agreed to pay restitution to 29 owners and rescind their contracts. While it was perhaps a settlement and not truly defined as losing, I wouldn't expect them do something like that if they thought they could win. Both of these cases were this century.

As for disputes when it comes to purchase contracts, many of those get pushed into arbitration and we may never see the results of such cases. Though more than not they go in favor of Wyndham since they are the one paying the arbitrator. But are they hitting 1.000 on those? Not likely.

You seem to be hung up on the cases where someone comes around here saying they are going to sue or big cases we might see brought up on here where the case was dropped. Those are not a representation, by any means, of all lawsuits against Club Wyndham.

 

[dioxide45]

True, but I'm going to bet the average Big Company wins many more than they lose when it comes to individual customer lawsuits.

I am not disputing that. We should also remember in this case of OIRC, it is the HOA that is taking legal action to file for bankruptcy, not Wyndham. I was just replying to someone who seemed to think that big companies are immune to legal issues because they have lots of attorneys to do their due diligence. That isn't necessarily the case.

 

[dioxide45]

I doubt a judge would find this work around unreasonable. It is impossible to get a 100% response. So it can be easily argued that this action is reasonable. Also, with more than half the ownership voting in favor (Wyndham alone makes that a thing), I think a judge would have no objections unless a large percent of the remaining owner's protest.

While it may be impossible to get a 100% response, that is still what the requirement seems to be. There are other legal actions they can take against individuals and defaulted deeds to clear title to close the timeshare.

 

[dioxide45]

What by-law requires a 100% vote? I have cited quorum and voting requirements in the OIRC By-Laws at least twice in this thread.

If side-stepping (i.e., ignoring) a by-law isn't misbehaving, what is? What would you call it?

You don't think a Bankruptcy Court will provide enough scrutiny?

See post #1772. That is what I am going by. I see in post #1776 that you pulled some of the condo docs. Have you found something different that disputes that?

Sidestepping and ignoring are two different things. If the by-law noted in post 1772 is in fact true, they are working another way to get around that. I am not saying that is illegal but they are sidestepping the by-law. I don't know what else you would call it.

 

[comicbookman]

While it may be impossible to get a 100% response, that is still what the requirement seems to be. There are other legal actions they can take against individuals and defaulted deeds to clear title to close the timeshare.

But that would cost a lot of time and money. A bankruptcy judge would look at that and most likely not have an issue with a strategy that avoids those type of delays and expenses. You don't have be in the red to utilize bankruptcy. As long as you aren't doing something illegal ( like laundering money or fraudulent conversion) bankruptcy is a perfectly legitimate option. Most people are under the false impression that to use the bankruptcy proceedings you need to be broke. Not even remotely so. Bankruptcy, especially chapter 11, is designed to allow companies to restructure. It allows them to void contracts, negotiate new terms with lenders and landlords and jetison unfavorable contracts, among other things. It is meant to streamline this process, so this is exactly what the bankruptcy laws where designed for.

 

[dioxide45]

I agree but there is a contingent here on TUG that sees misbehavior at every turn.

This appears to be nearly a requirement to hang out around these parts.

This seems to be a common trope put out by many others too. A way to try and insult others so they can feel better about their own point of view?

 

[dioxide45]

But that would cost a lot of time and money. A bankruptcy judge would look at that and most likely not have an issue with a strategy that avoids those type of delays and expenses. You don't have be in the red to utilize bankruptcy. As long as you aren't doing something illegal ( like laundering money or fraudulent conversion) bankruptcy is a perfectly legitimate option. Most people are under the false impression that to use the bankruptcy proceedings you need to be broke. Not even remotely so. Bankruptcy, especially chapter 11, is designed to allow companies to restructure. It allows them to void contracts, negotiate new terms with lenders and landlords and jetison unfavorable contracts, among other things. It is meant to streamline this process, so this is exactly what the bankruptcy laws where designed for.

I'm not saying it isn't a viable way to go, but it is still sidestepping the requirements that were in the governing documents to shut down the resort if post #1772 is accurate. Florida Statutes for vacation and timeshare plans also covers termination of a timeshare plan in statute 721.125.