No, but you keep implying that it is shady,
You are reading something into my posts that isn't there. I don't know why you think I am implying it is shady. You seem to have caught the bug from others that seem to see sinister things in posts by others that really isn't there. This is the sad reality of TUG lately, mainly in the the Wyndham forum. I don't get it. People can't have honest dialog without being accused of either, a) being a commercial renter, or b) being a naysayer. There is no such thing as a devils advocate anymore? People don't want to hear something that goes against their line of thinking?
Maybe it's the fact that you keep emphasizing that they are sidestepping a bylaw ( your words) or that you keep harping on Wyndham throwing their weight around. Or mentioning Florida Statutes like they are somehow more important than federal bankruptcy statutes creates the impression that something is not kosher
Huh? Where have I harped on this? I expect some kind of direct quote of a message I posted in this thread where I said something about Wyndham throwing their weight around. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else? Or, once again, that you are reading something into this that simply isn't there.
Ummm..okay I guess?
I didn’t imply any such thing. You stated above that large companies (Wyndham is a large company and the subject of this thread) lose in court every day. I simply asked you how many times Wyndham has lost in court this century. You named 1. In 25 years. That’s hardly losing every day. To me, and a few others here, it appears that Wyndham is being very careful in how they are handling these few resort closings/downsizings. You think it’s because they’re doing something shady or illegal. I think it’s because they are following the legal process and will make announcements, or the HOA’s will make announcements, when the votes have been counted, and thus, the decisions have actually been made. Like it or not, you’re going to have to wait for that process to play out.
I said companies lose lawsuits every day. That companies is collective plural. Companies are losing lawsuits every day. I didn't mean one company loses lawsuits every day. You misinterpreted what I said because of your biased view to what you think my perspective is here. I also mentioned two lawsuits, not one.
Do you truly believe there is a law/by-law/rule/amendment/statute, whatever the heck you want to call it, that requires a unanimous (100%) vote of all stakeholders/owners/HOA members, which could number in the thousands, at some resorts? If you actually believe that to be the case, I have an oceanfront timeshare I'd like to offer you.
Is your Ocean Boulevard timeshare up for sale? Or is that not oceanfront?
I am not disagreeing that it isn't an unreasonable standard. It is the standard that exists and that owners, including Club Wyndham, agree to when owning a deed. That said, we don't even know if such a standard exists. It has only been reference here, not quoted and @chapjim who seems to have access to the governing documents (as every owner does) hasn't provided an update about it.
This right here is why I said what I said in another Wyndham thread where buying up contracts at impacted resorts was proposed in an effort to "time the market" and receive payouts. We don't yet know the disposition of any of these resorts for certain just yet, and particularly for resorts like Wyndham Shawnee where multiple HOAs exist where Wyndham only provides management services, it's entirely possible these HOAs may end up voting to have another timeshare company take over their management contracts and call it a day. So while Wyndham may exit, there may not be any payout for a subset of these HOAs, so please be careful when considering ideas like this. Even with resorts like Bentley Brook where we think privately owned condos are likely, we simply don't know what the disposition will end up looking like just yet.
It is my general understanding that there was a by-law added at some point that explicitly required a nearly unanimous voting outcome specifically to sell the resort. I don't have the actual verbiage however, so I cannot say for certain, but I have it on pretty good authority that this is the primary reason OIRC sought a bankruptcy proceeding as the path forward given Wyndham could not reliably meet the voting requirement for a resort sale with their interval votes.
Search for the term unanimous and see what comes up.
The word unanimous appears twice in the Articles of Incorporation in a section dealing with amending the by-laws.
To be precise, the Special Meeting was called "for the members to discuss and vote on whether to authorize the Board of Directors to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case for the Association for the primary reason of pursuing a sale of the entire resort." [Emphasis mine]
No one on TUG, and no one in the know, would say timeshares are investments. Only lying salesweasles have claimed that, and at least recently the phrasing was ambiguous and could be argued not to mean a literal investment but a figurative one - a la "An investment in future vacations". Which most people who are at all cognizant of what investments usually are would understand is pretty explicitly not even promising a financial ROI but an opportunity to consume lodging.
