# Wyndham Canterbury Class Action Lawsuit [merged]



## RMitchell (Feb 23, 2013)

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/7_on_your_side&id=9003521

However, the couple is also very troubled. They claim they were tricked into buying more timeshares for the resort and it's put them deep into debt. 

 "They said we owed $96,000. I was shocked!" said Donna.

How is different from any timeshare? They're all like this and don't pay full price.


----------



## RMitchell (Feb 23, 2013)

*oops*

Not noit not


----------



## RichardL (Feb 23, 2013)

Informative link.  Thx for posting


----------



## Passepartout (Feb 23, 2013)

RMitchell said:


> Not noit not



Easy to correct a header. Just click 'edit' on your post, then 'Go Advanced' and correct away and click 'Save'.

Also,Thanks for the link, but is comes as no mystery to TUGgers who know their tactics. Kinda like preaching to the choir.

Jim


----------



## ronparise (Feb 23, 2013)

The "reduce your interest" tactic is exactly the one my friend fell for...Same story, she didnt realize that she had purchased more points (at the promised lower interest rate) until the bills started coming.  She was able to get Wyndham to take back the new purchase.


----------



## DazedandConfused (Feb 23, 2013)

While I feel their pain and agree that they were probably victims of an aggressive sales team, they admitted to signing contracts without reading them....sad, especially for two teachers. 

The interesting thing is their attorney refers to them as confused senior citizens.

It is also a double whammy. Not only do they owe $95,000, they also owe $6,000 per year in dues.

What timeshare costs $6000 in annual dues?

Here's what the suit claims back in July 2010, a sales person told the couple they could qualify for a lower interest rate on their loan. There were so many papers and legal terminology the couple said they didn't read all of the papers or understand what they signed. Only later they realized they'd actually purchased more timeshares, worth another $30,000.  

Tom and Donna now owe $95,000 on their timeshare loan, plus $500 a month in maintenance fees. They had to borrow on their Chico home to keep up the payments.


----------



## jebloomquist (Feb 23, 2013)

*Wyndham Canterbury Class Action Lawsuit*

I called Donna and Tom Crook today. The couple is from Chico, CA. I called because I get daily Google searches on Wyndham related topics.

My search today pointed me to an article from abc7nes KGO-TV, San Francisco. The Feb 22, 2013 article “Chico couple files class action suit against timeshare company” caught my eye. “The suit claims Wyndham salespeople were targeting senior citizens, using deceptive practices to sell timeshares they couldn't afford.” After reading the article and watching the accompanying video, I decided to see if I could find them on switchboard and give them a call.

After finding them I called and talked for about 45 minutes about their current condition concerning their purchase of Wyndham Canterbury and about TUG. My main purpose for calling them was to let them know that there is a bulletin board, TUG, with a great deal of information and filled with posts describing situations similar to theirs where unsuspecting vacationers had purchased very expensive Wyndham properties through sales rep who mislead them.

The Crook’s story has many twists and turns and fits this pattern exactly.

About 10 months ago they initiated a class action lawsuit against Wyndham. It has been in the hands or the pockets of the lawyers ever since.

I hope that the Crooks decide to find and explore TUG. If so, maybe we can get a good insight into their case and what the rewards and pitfalls are of being a part of such a lawsuit. I am sure that they will welcome anyone who wants to join the class action lawsuit.

Jim


----------



## ronparise (Feb 23, 2013)

There's another thread on TUG on this topic

here

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187906


The article and a news video is here

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/7_on_your_side&id=9003521


----------



## jebloomquist (Feb 23, 2013)

DazedandConfused said:


> It is also a double whammy. Not only do they owe $95,000, they also owe $6,000 per year in dues.
> 
> What timeshare costs $6000 in annual dues?
> 
> ...



The Crooks own 1.5 million points at Canterbury and are Presidential Reserve owners. There were sales at Canterbury and then at Bali Hai Villas. A Presidential Reserve was granted with the purchase at Bali Hai Villas, then disallowed then reinstated. This coincided with the buying then rescinding at Bali Hai Villas. The points were then moved to Canterbury.


----------



## 55plus (Feb 23, 2013)

WOW! But then again, I'm not surprised....


----------



## markb53 (Feb 23, 2013)

morrisjim said:


> WOW! But then again, I'm not surprised....



I'm not surprised either. I was at Bali Hai for christmas. And I went through a "owner's update". And I really don't mind them because I know they are not going to fool me into giving them more money. I just like to waste there time. It took less than an hour and I made $75. But I know for people less in the know, they could get taken. The big sales pitch they gave me, since my points are fully paid off, was to trade in my "really expensive" CWA points for some much cheaper Bali Hai points. They showed me what I was paying in MF for my CWA and explained that if I did an equity swap, they would take the CWA back at full retail value, and give me more Bali Hai points in return to make me permanent VIP Silver and my maintenance fee would actually be lower than what I was paying now. Even that part wasn't completely true since they were comparing my CWA with the Program fee and Bali Hai without. I will admit the MF wasn't a whole lot more than what I am paying. What she failed to mention at all is that I would have to pay them $33,000.00. It was very clearly on the paper she laid in front of me. But I had already made the calculations while she was away printing up the offer and without even looking at the paper I said to her. "Let me guess, all I have to give you is about $33,000.00, right, I don't think so." she looked at the paper and at me. And I was off to gifting. It was actually kind of fun. My wife hates the owner updates though.


----------



## ronparise (Feb 23, 2013)

markb53 said:


> I'm not surprised either. I was at Bali Hai for christmas. And I went through a "owner's update". And I really don't mind them because I know they are not going to fool me into giving them more money. I just like to waste there time. It took less than an hour and I made $75. But I know for people less in the know, they could get taken. The big sales pitch they gave me, since my points are fully paid off, was to trade in my "really expensive" CWA points for some much cheaper Bali Hai points. They showed me what I was paying in MF for my CWA and explained that if I did an equity swap, they would take the CWA back at full retail value, and give me more Bali Hai points in return to make me permanent VIP Silver and my maintenance fee would actually be lower than what I was paying now. Even that part wasn't completely true since they were comparing my CWA with the Program fee and Bali Hai without. I will admit the MF wasn't a whole lot more than what I am paying. What she failed to mention at all is that I would have to pay them $33,000.00. It was very clearly on the paper she laid in front of me. But I had already made the calculations while she was away printing up the offer and without even looking at the paper I said to her. "Let me guess, all I have to give you is about $33,000.00, right, I don't think so." she looked at the paper and at me. And I was off to gifting. It was actually kind of fun. My wife hates the owner updates though.



I have the same problem you do, Mark...I really enjoy the owner updates, and believe it or not, I would buy from them if the deal was right (if they could reduce my monthly  mf by more than the new monthly payment I might bite) 

 my wife hates these things. Sometimes if she sleeps in, Ill wonder over to the sales room for a little fun, but they wont gift me.


----------



## markb53 (Feb 23, 2013)

ronparise said:


> I have the same problem you do, Mark...I really enjoy the owner updates, and believe it or not, I would buy from them if the deal was right (if they could reduce my monthly  mf by more than the new monthly payment I might bite)
> 
> my wife hates these things. Sometimes if she sleeps in, Ill wonder over to the sales room for a little fun, but they wont gift me.



On this deal I would have gone from 182k CWA to 308k Bali Hai. My anual MF would have gone from $995.54 to $1111.88. My maintenance fee per k would have gone from 5.47 to 3.61. Not a bad deal, just not worth $30,000.00 to me. For you if they were willing to do an equity swap on say a million CWA points that you were paying $5470 per year in MF and Converted it to Bali Hai at $3610.00 per year for a $30,000 purchase. The break even point would be 16 years on MF. Still not sure if it would be worth it. But it is closer. I am happy with the points I have. I don't expect to buy more. If I need more in certain years. I will rent. I have already taking some short vacations by renting from a Platinum owner who doesn't have to pay hk fees. works out great.


----------



## ronparise (Feb 23, 2013)

No it wont work at those numbers, but it would come closer with bigger numbers and a smaller new purchase, say a 126k eoy at $15000 

3 million cwa points at $5.45/1000 = $1360/mo
3 million Bali Hai  at $3.61/1000 = $902/mo

Thats a $460/mo savings

The payments on a  $15000 purchase should be less than that

In sure this is just an academic exercise...I dont think they would work with numbers like that, or they would require a much larger purchase


----------



## markb53 (Feb 23, 2013)

ronparise said:


> No it wont work at those numbers, but it would come closer with bigger numbers and a smaller new purchase, say a 126k eoy at $15000
> 
> 3 million cwa points at $5.45/1000 = $1360/mo
> 3 million Bali Hai  at $3.61/1000 = $902/mo
> ...




I bet if you wanted to do a CWA equity trade for 3 million points they would want at least a 1 million point new purchase.


----------



## capital city (Feb 25, 2013)

I dont understand. If you have buyers remorse you just say " I didn't read the whole contract" and sue somebody? I do understand that Wyndham sales can be deceptive but anyone that has bought a car should have a pretty good idea to read the contract before signing and if you feel like your low on time or pressured at least read it within the first couple of days afterward.


----------



## csxjohn (Feb 25, 2013)

capital city said:


> I dont understand. If you have buyers remorse you just say " I didn't read the whole contract" and sue somebody? ....



There are more and more laws being passed to protect senior citizens from themselves.

Just like someone under 18 can't buy real property without and adult involved, the seniors are starting to get some protection from predators.

What you may not yet understand that as some of us age, simple things that we used to process in our minds are somehow more confusing now.

So it's not just a matter of buyers remorse but the realization that you were flat out lied to, tricked and bilked.

When this happens a lawsuit is in order, I believe.

Add to that the slime that understand this and take advantage.

I know there's no excuse for not reading what you sign but these predators understand that many seniors are very trusting.

Look at Markb53's post where the large sum of money was not even mentioned.

Even if you pay too much for a car from a slick salesman, your $40,000 car is not going to be worth $400 tomorrow.  It will be up there in the tens of thousands, unlike timeshare purchases.


----------



## DazedandConfused (Feb 25, 2013)

capital city said:


> I dont understand. If you have buyers remorse you just say " I didn't read the whole contract" and sue somebody? I do understand that Wyndham sales can be deceptive but anyone that has bought a car should have a pretty good idea to read the contract before signing and if you feel like your low on time or pressured at least read it within the first couple of days afterward.



I was thinking of the same thing.

Of course, if they were lied to and taken advantage of, that is an important issue, but these are two EDUCATED teachers and they both admitted to signing without reading the contracts and they are not some 80 year old nursing home residents.

Heck, once you turn 50, you get an AARP card, does that make 50yo people senior citizens and a special protected class.

I do hope they win the lawsuit, but it may be an uphill battle.


----------



## TUGBrian (Feb 25, 2013)

I have an elderly neighbor who likely fell for this as well...she mentioned to me in passing  a few years back that she went to something at ocean walk and purchased some $80,000 worth of points (on top of what she had).  Ill have to mention this to her.

crazy.


----------



## TwilightStruggler (Feb 26, 2013)

Seems like my parents are also victims of this predatory practice of selling elderly people timeshares they can't afford. I found out last weekend (Feb. 23-24) when my father complained about a bill coming from BillMeLater. They didn't even know that they have an account from that site. I went there and made an account for them just to access the bills.  While making the account, I did NOT supply any bank account info, nor credit card info. You had to find that small text that says "Skip".

Once there, I check the purchases. According to their records, they both bought a Wyndham Vacation Resort "product" with about a 19% interest rate. "How did this happened?" I asked.  They didn't know. So I scanned through the Wyndham contract. In the field that ask how it's going to be paid, a seeming statement says, "Bill Me Later". Notice the spaces between the three words. I get a feeling, my father thought that was a sentence and not a company name.

Is it legal for Wyndham to create an account for my parents in BillMeLater.com and buy a product for them?

-


----------



## comicbookman (Feb 26, 2013)

TwilightStruggler said:


> Once there, I check the purchases. According to their records, they both bought a Wyndham Vacation Resort "product" with about a 19% interest rate. "How did this happened?" I asked.  They didn't know. So I scanned through the Wyndham contract. In the field that ask how it's going to be paid, a seeming statement says, "Bill Me Later". Notice the spaces between the three words. I get a feeling, my father thought that was a sentence and not a company name.
> 
> Is it legal for Wyndham to create an account for my parents in BillMeLater.com and buy a product for them?
> 
> -



While I am sure the sales weasels skipped the details, it sounds like your parents may have known that they would be receiving an additional bill.  They just thought it would come from Wyndham, not a third party.  Using a third party biller is not illegal.  My home mortgage company did that without ever asking me.  The bigger question would be whether your parents understood that they had not made full payment.


----------



## TwilightStruggler (Feb 26, 2013)

I was thinking of helping them to pay it off, but geez... it's going to cut into my savings. And my father doesn't want to travel anymore after getting into a car crash coming home from their Wyndham vacation last year. And it was my car I let him borrow. 

Anyway, thanks for the response. I'll grill my father what happened at the Wyndham meeting last year.

-


----------



## ronparise (Feb 26, 2013)

DazedandConfused said:


> What timeshare costs $6000 in annual dues?



Any timeshare can cost $6000 a year in maintenance fees, if you own enough of it.  For example I own 10 weeks at one resort, my bill is right at $6000

If they owe $95000, I bet this couple owns enough Wyndham points that they can reserve 10 weeks or more


----------



## DazedandConfused (Feb 26, 2013)

ronparise said:


> Any timeshare can cost $6000 a year in maintenance fees, if you own enough of it.  For example I own 10 weeks at one resort, my bill is right at $6000
> 
> If they owe $95000, I bet this couple owns enough Wyndham points that they can reserve 10 weeks or more



I understand that, but you would think this would be a major red flag to the members.

If one of the highest annual dues is a 2 bedroom Hawaii beachfront - I am guessing $2,000 per year, then they need 3 weeks to be at $6,000.

You would think they would notice this bare minimal info before signing.

Now, on the other hand, if they thought they were just refinancing an existing debt to a lower interest and had no intention of increasing their annual dues or weeks of use, that is a different story.

I have not had the displeasure of dealing with timeshare sales agents like these sharks so it is a little had to understand how this coupe could get so taken advantage of. 

The major issue that I see is that they admit signing documents without reading the contract and NOW they are trying to get out of something they signed. I am certainly not taking Wyndham side here, but they probably have the better lawyers and deeper pockets. No matter, it is a sad story for the retire school teachers.

If I was them, I probably would do a strategic default and stop all payments. 

I doubt defaulting on a $95,000 timeshare loan + $6,000 annual dues default will hurt that much and if it does, whatever credit report ding they get is not worth paying $95,000 to fix.


----------



## jebloomquist (Feb 26, 2013)

This suit is not just one where an owner wishes that he/she had not made a Wyndham purchase. It is not just one where we can all say, “too bad that you didn’t read all of the fine print, you fool.” But, this is what I see some of you suggesting.

This suit also includes five former Wyndham employees whose jobs were terminated because they complained or were whistle blowers to practices which they felt were fraudulent.

“Patricia Williams is a former salesperson at the San Francisco resort. She claims she was fired for blowing the whistle on fraudulent sales.” And another, Marty Whitney said, “I did report it and I was told to keep my mouth shut or I would be fired.” These employees felt that sales personnel where purposefully tricking seniors such as Donna and Tom Crook. 

My experience when buying from the developer is very similar to buying a home at the closing. It seems as if there is a never-ending flow of documents to be signed. If I did not have trust in the closing agents and instead, demanded to read and digest each document, everyone should be prepared to sit around for about a week.

The Wyndham sales persons are masters at getting individuals to trust them as they dish out the fifty plus pages of documents to be signed.

“Whitney said … she was shocked to find sales people tricking Donna, Thomas, and other seniors into signing contracts for more timeshares. They say sales people preyed on the elderly who were easily overwhelmed and confused by complicated documents and fine print.” "When people would come in, they didn't know what they were signing and I was told as long as they could walk in, be on a walker, be in a wheelchair, it really didn't matter," said Whitney.

“Here's what the suit claims back in July 2010, a sales person told the couple they could qualify for a lower interest rate on their loan. There were so many papers and legal terminology the couple said they didn't read all of the papers or understand what they signed. Only later they realized they'd actually purchased more timeshares, worth another $30,000.” “When they complained, another sales person told them Wyndham would guarantee to buy back those points after 11 months if they upgraded to a higher level called "presidential reserve"”.

“So the Crooks agreed to invest another $49,000. However the lawsuit says, 11 months later, Wyndham rejected their request to buy back those shares. It turns out there was no guarantee to buy back points, only Wyndham's right to purchase them.”

Yes, the Crooks should have read every word and understood each one. Each of us should, but we don’t, and the Wyndham sales personnel count on and exploited that fact, according to this lawsuit.

Jim


----------



## capital city (Feb 27, 2013)

I read the article and don't see where they really went through anything different then what I did or anyone has with timeshare salespeople. Anybody that signs something after a hour presentation and without reading is going to regret it later. They probably were told that they could have a lower % rate and lower payment by singing this and they did. Wyndham failed to mention rolling in more timeshare points in order for them to qualify for the new rate. Shouldn't they have wondered why Wyndham would voluntarily reduced their interest rate?

Its the same thing as going to buy a car and talking monthly payments with the sales person rather then price of the vehicle. You look later and say I just told him I wanted to pay $500 month I didnt say I wanted an extra warranty and a special undercoating, etc. Well you didnt say you didnt want it either and you signed the papers.


----------



## ronparise (Feb 27, 2013)

capital city said:


> I read the article and don't see where they really went through anything different then what I did or anyone has with timeshare salespeople. Anybody that signs something after a hour presentation and without reading is going to regret it later. They probably were told that they could have a lower % rate and lower payment by singing this and they did. Wyndham failed to mention rolling in more timeshare points in order for them to qualify for the new rate. Shouldn't they have wondered why Wyndham would voluntarily reduced their interest rate?
> 
> Its the same thing as going to buy a car and talking monthly payments with the sales person rather then price of the vehicle. You look later and say I just told him I wanted to pay $500 month I didnt say I wanted an extra warranty and a special undercoating, etc. Well you didnt say you didnt want it either and you signed the papers.



you may be right. they signed without reading the contract, so shame on them and it serves them right...however...I dont think its that simple.

most of us have an assumption that the folks we do business with dont lie (maybe exagerate, and maybe stretch the truth a bit, but not outright lie) and we expect that when we sign something its pretty much as described verbally. For example when we buy a car we usually dont have to specify that we want one with a steering wheel included...thats assumed and if the salesman said a steering wheel was included and it wasnt, (read the small print for an explanation) we would be upset.. This Wyndham salesman said the contract was for new financing at a lower rate, and our op believed it. As we know the contract was for lower financing but with a new purchase included.., and that aint right

In Florida and I believe most states Wyndhams timeshare salesmen are like me, licensed by the State....I have no doubt that if I lied to a customer and got a signature because of those lies my license would be in danger and the contract could easily be voided. The most important feature of a contract is that one party makes an offer for an arrangement that another accepts. This can be called a concurrence of wills or consensus ad idem (meeting of the minds) of two or more parties. 

In this case I have no doubt that there was no meeting of the minds...one side was conned


----------



## Tamaradarann (Feb 28, 2013)

*Read all the Fine Print that the Seller Makes Up!*



ronparise said:


> you may be right. the signed without reading the contract, so shame on them and it serves them right...however...I dont think its that simple.
> 
> most of us have an assumption that the folks we do business with dont lie (maybe exagerate, and maybe stretch the truth a bit, but not outright lie) and we expect that when we sign something its pretty much as described verbally. For example when we buy a car we usually dont have to specify that we want one with a steering wheel included...thats assumed and if the salesman said a steering wheel was included and it wasnt, (read the small print for an explanation) we would be upset.. This Wyndham salesman said the contract was for new financing at a lower rate, and our op believed it. As we know the contract was for lower financing but with a new purchase included.., and that aint right
> 
> ...



I agree that one should read all the fine print before signing documents.  I also agree that there is so much that is thrown at you that you can't possible read all the fine print that you should.  Furthermore, I agree that the licensed real estate professional should have the ethical value to not misrepresent the product, payments, maintenance, or other important aspects of the sale.  However, all the things that should be in life are not as they should be. 

 I have purchased a number of timeshares and I am satisfied,  However, I can see a lot of possible buyers remorse in purchasing timeshares including not reading the fine print.  While this may not be practical in the purchase of timeshares, my career experience leads me to believe that the best way to buy anything of significant value is for you, the purchaser, to draw up a specification to solicit quotes for what you want to buy on your terms not buy what others want to sell you on their terms.  Then prepare or have the legal document prepared for you for both you and the seller to sign referring to the specification that you prepared.  If the seller doesn't want to put in a quote or sign your document you don't buy from them.  

What a difference this practice would make in the timeshare industry.


----------



## Jimbo1 (Feb 28, 2013)

jebloomquist said:


> I am sure that they will welcome anyone who wants to join the class action lawsuit.
> 
> Jim



I'd like to consider joining them.  Does anyone know the firm carrying the flag for the Cooks?


----------



## Rent_Share (Feb 28, 2013)

ironically the plaintiff/victim is named Crook


----------



## Goofyhobbie (Feb 28, 2013)

*Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco*

According to court records of the Superior Court of the State of California:

*RE: *Thomas Crook & Donna Crook vs. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide

*Case # CGC-12-526185*

(If you choose to follow the case leave out the hyphens when submitting your search)

Attorney Name: Organ, Lawrence A. 

Bar Number: 175503

Address:

Law Offices of Lawrence A. Organ
407 San Anselmo Avenue 
Suite 201
San Anselmo, CA 94960
USA

Phone Number:  (415) 453-4740

Parties Represented:  CROOK, DONNA (PLAINTIFF)
 CROOK, THOMAS (PLAINTIFF)


----------



## ledaga (Feb 28, 2013)

*Writ on the contract.*

My procedure with Wyndham is to write any verbal statements on the contract and initial the statement and date it and request their signature with a space and a signature initials on the contract.  If they won't initialize the contract it cannot be finalized without the signature.  You have the legal right to put notes on the contract to clarify any issues especially any verbal promises.


----------



## MauiLea (Feb 28, 2013)

*Deceptive Sales Practices*

I opened the link and read the article. I don't think they are targeting seniors who are easily confused. They are targeting all age groups. Even a younger 50 year old can be easily confused during the sales presentation. What sounds good during the presentation is "not so good" when you read the fine print. 

I believe the high maintenance payment.....I saw a "great deal" for 1,000,000 Wyndham Bonnet Creek points, $ 5995. The original cost didn't scare me. What scared me off was the $ 500 per MONTH maintenance fee. And the VIP benefits don't transfer to new owners. Wyndham made their money on the original sale, so I don't understand why VIP benefits aren't transferable (except to immediate family). Why pay $ 6000 annually for maintenance fees and get treated any less?

So...yes, I believe the $ 6000 maintenance fee. How many people can really afford that?  And....it's deeded, so this can go on forever.....and maintenance fees and taxes will only go UP. Adding in travel and other costs to vacation, a family can easily spend $ 12,000 or more each year. In this economy, who can afford that? OK...many can, but not me. I would sue if the same situation happened to me.


----------



## ledaga (Feb 28, 2013)

Having been to several updates, I have not been to one where there were not attempts trick bait and switch you into signing without giving time to read the contract and in many cases they will not give you a full copy and mail it to you later so you can enjoy your holiday.  What was said in the suit is absolutely true and they will use tactics on anyone who will sit and listen regardless of the age.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 1, 2013)

The whole retail timeshare model is bad but as long as it continues to work well enough to feed millions of dollars into the massive organizations that has spawned it will not be changed. It has been honed over decades to nearly unassailable with pseudo - consumer friendly "protections" such as guaranteed rescission periods that long ago where figured out by the sellers. Now those very rights, when not applied as provided in a relatively short time, serve to prevent any additional challenge by the victims. If the retail sellers can get the marks past those those few precious days, and they are the masters at it, they know the courts will usually uphold the sale as valid regardless of what may have been stated verbally at the table. These are pro's going after the most novice and uninformed.  

It is really too bad as the actual concept of timeshare is a good one but has been perverted into a nightmare for far too many people.  The elderly and the young, as is often the case, are the most vulnerable to these deceptive tactics.


----------



## Pietin (Mar 1, 2013)

ledaga said:


> Having been to several updates, I have not been to one where there were not attempts trick bait and switch you into signing without giving time to read the contract and in many cases they will not give you a full copy and mail it to you later so you can enjoy your holiday.  What was said in the suit is absolutely true and they will use tactics on anyone who will sit and listen regardless of the age.



This is why it is important to spread the word about this  bulletin board, TUG bbs, and others like it.   And it's not just Wyndham  who operates like this.  I sure we all have stories of going to a presentation where there is hi pressure sales.  We were with the inlaws a couple a years ago after Tamarack changed to Festiva.  The inlaws had a paid off week and were offered a small points package inchange for deeded week.  The points would cost and the amount of points wouldn't get them into the resort in same time or unit they own.  The pitch was their maintenance fee would go up faster than if they had points.   In reality if they did purchase the points they would be paying the same for less and have a new mortgage.    After a few questions the sale rep ask us if we were staying the whole week with the inlaws and then set up a follow up meeting we we were not there.  The inlaws forgot to attend.
They recently got Wyndham points for free of a board.


----------



## DazedandConfused (Mar 1, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> It is really too bad as the actual concept of timeshare is a good one but has been perverted into a nightmare for far too many people.



I 100% agree....it is sad the good idea of shared interval vacation ownership has so many crooks involved in sales.

Think about it, this is a real estate transaction, you think they should restrict sales to REALTORS.


----------



## siesta (Mar 3, 2013)

ronparise said:


> the most important feature of a contract is that one party makes an offer for an arrangement that another accepts.


forgive me, but this is incorrect. There are plenty of offers that have been accepted and when taken to court for breach of contract claims are determined by the courts to not be a valid contract because no consideration was given.  Consideration is something either of benefit to the promisor, or a detriment to the promisee, and must be bargained for in the exchange. Courts do not determine the adequacy of the consideration, but merely the sufficiency of consideration (typically stated as even a peppercorn will suffice).  Without consideration, there can be no contract, even if an offer was made and accepted. Fyi the 5 elements of a contract are contractual intent, offer, acceptance, consideration, and certainty of terms.

If this went over your head dont feel bad, most law students struggle witth the concept of consideration in their contracts class, and even Professor Arthur Corbin of Yale Law, who wrote one of the most famous legal treatises of the last century (Corbin on Contracts) felt it was a confusing concept.


----------



## ianlaura (Mar 3, 2013)

siesta said:


> forgive me, but this is incorrect. There are plenty of offers that have been accepted and when taken to court for breach of contract claims are determined by the courts to not be a valid contract because no consideration was given.  Consideration is something either of benefit to the promisor, or a detriment to the promisee, and must be bargained for in the exchange. Courts do not determine the adequacy of the consideration, but merely the sufficiency of consideration (typically stated as even a peppercorn will suffice).  Without consideration, there can be no contract, even if an offer was made and accepted. Fyi the 5 elements of a contract are contractual intent, offer, acceptance, consideration, and certainty of terms.
> 
> If this went over your head dont feel bad, most law students struggle witth the concept of consideration in their contracts class, and even Professor Arthur Corbin of Yale Law, who wrote one of the most famous legal treatises of the last century (Corbin on Contracts) felt it was a confusing concept.



Actually, I think Ron's point was that mutual assent is one of the primary issues in _this_ case.  The Crook's would not be asserting that there was failure of consideration.  Consideration is not relevant here.

It is likely that the Crook's are claiming that mutual assent is lacking (and the contract voidable) because there has been fraudulent misrepresentation.  Unfortunately for the Crook's, one of the elements that you must prove on a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation is "justifiable reliance."   In general, one can not say one justifiably relied on a misrepresentation if the contract clearly states the truth of the situation.

My guess is that they are also claiming "procedural unconscionability."  Procedural unconscionability is based on the idea that there was unfairness in the creation of the contract and that such unfairness was "contrary to the dictates of conscience, unscrupulous or unprincipled."  This claim is probably the better argument and one a judge might look favorably upon as a matter of public policy.

 I hope they win.


----------



## siesta (Mar 3, 2013)

LauraW said:


> Actually, I think Ron's point was that mutual assent is one of the primary issues in _this_ case.  The Crook's would not be asserting that there was failure of consideration.  Consideration is not relevant here.
> 
> It is likely that the Crook's are claiming that mutual assent is lacking (and the contract voidable) because there has been fraudulent misrepresentation.  Unfortunately for the Crook's, one of the elements that you must prove on a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation is "justifiable reliance."   In general, one can not say one justifiably relied on a misrepresentation if the contract clearly states the truth of the situation.
> 
> ...


 no you missed my point. I'm not arguing the plaintiff would bring a cause of action for a breach of contract asserting invalid consideration was provided, and certainly not the crooks, and why on earth would the crooks claim mutual assent is lacking? That doesnt make any sense. (why would they want to void their own contract?). Now if what you were trying to imply was that the defendants would claim there was no mutual assent to the verbal promises that the plaintiff is saying were made, this is highly unnecessary.  This is a sale of real property therefore the Statue of Frauds applies, and requires the terms in writing. The defendants would claim that the only mutual assent present would be to the terms they expressly offered, and which the plaintiff expressly agreed to.

I was simply pointing out that Ron made a general statement that the most important part of a contract is that an offer was made and it was accepted. This is simply not true.  Both parties can manifest their intent to enter a contract, and there can be be mutual assent, and even though an offer has been made and accepted is not enough. There MUST be consideration provided that was specifically bargained for.  Although this has nothing to do with this particular case, it was worthh pointing out when I hear a non-attorney make a blanket statement that "the most important part of a contract is an offer that has been accepted."

By the way Laura, in a case like this, it will be quite the uphill battle to prove procedural unconscionability, or a cause of action on the promissory estoppel theory that detriment occured as a result of relying on the promises made.  If it weren't, then everyone who got duped at a presentation and agreed to terms that werent present in the contract but promised verbally would be successful.


----------



## ronparise (Mar 3, 2013)

MauiLea said:


> I opened the link and read the article. I don't think they are targeting seniors who are easily confused. They are targeting all age groups. Even a younger 50 year old can be easily confused during the sales presentation. What sounds good during the presentation is "not so good" when you read the fine print.
> 
> I believe the high maintenance payment.....I saw a "great deal" for 1,000,000 Wyndham Bonnet Creek points, $ 5995. The original cost didn't scare me. What scared me off was the $ 500 per MONTH maintenance fee. And the VIP benefits don't transfer to new owners. Wyndham made their money on the original sale, so I don't understand why VIP benefits aren't transferable (except to immediate family). Why pay $ 6000 annually for maintenance fees and get treated any less?
> 
> So...yes, I believe the $ 6000 maintenance fee. How many people can really afford that?  And....it's deeded, so this can go on forever.....and maintenance fees and taxes will only go UP. Adding in travel and other costs to vacation, a family can easily spend $ 12,000 or more each year. In this economy, who can afford that? OK...many can, but not me. I would sue if the same situation happened to me.



$6000 a year is peanuts to a lot of people...Ive sold condos to snowbirds in Ft Myers, where the buyer writes a check for $250000 and commits to over $12000 a year for taxes, insurance and condo fees; elect, cable and water bills; with the intent to use the place for just 3 months a year A platinum VIP owner (especially one with a canterbury deed with the low mfs/1000 points) can enjoy the same 3 months at a South Florida resort  for the same $6000.


----------



## ronparise (Mar 3, 2013)

siesta said:


> no you missed my point. I'm not arguing the plaintiff would bring a cause of action for a breach of contract asserting invalid consideration was provided, and certainly not the crooks, and why on earth would the crooks claim mutual assent is lacking? That doesnt make any sense. (why would they want to void their own contract?). Now if what you were trying to imply was that the defendants would claim there was no mutual assent to the verbal promises that the plaintiff is saying were made, this is highly unnecessary.  This is a sale of real property therefore the Statue of Frauds applies, and requires the terms in writing. The defendants would claim that the only mutual assent present would be to the terms they expressly offered, and which the plaintiff expressly agreed to.
> 
> I was simply pointing out that Ron made a general statement that the most important part of a contract is that an offer was made and it was accepted. This is simply not true.  Both parties can manifest their intent to enter a contract, and there can be be mutual assent, and even though an offer has been made and accepted is not enough. There MUST be consideration provided that was specifically bargained for.  Although this has nothing to do with this particular case, it was worthh pointing out when I hear a non-attorney make a blanket statement that "the most important part of a contract is an offer that has been accepted."
> 
> By the way Laura, in a case like this, it will be quite the uphill battle to prove procedural unconscionability, or a cause of action on the promissory estoppel theory that detriment occured as a result of relying on the promises made.  If it weren't, then everyone who got duped at a presentation and agreed to terms that werent present in the contract but promised verbally would be successful.



"crook" doesnt refer to the Wyndham sales staff...Crook is the name if the couple that is suing Wyndham


----------



## siesta (Mar 3, 2013)

ronparise said:


> "crook" doesnt refer to the Wyndham sales staff...Crook is the name if the couple that is suing Wyndham


 haha, it all makes sense now, I was like what is this lady talking about. If you disregard my misunderstanding on that part, the rest still applies.  I am then in agreement withh Laura when she says the plaintiffs claim that mutual assent was lacking based on fraudulent misrepresentation would likely not succeed as the terms are expressy stated. Those are the only terms that are proveable.  Her suggestion of a promissory estoppel approach would be hard pressed as well.

when its one crook suing another crook, saying plaintiff and defendant is much easier to follow...


----------



## ronparise (Mar 3, 2013)

siesta said:


> forgive me, but this is incorrect. There are plenty of offers that have been accepted and when taken to court for breach of contract claims are determined by the courts to not be a valid contract because no consideration was given.  Consideration is something either of benefit to the promisor, or a detriment to the promisee, and must be bargained for in the exchange. Courts do not determine the adequacy of the consideration, but merely the sufficiency of consideration (typically stated as even a peppercorn will suffice).  Without consideration, there can be no contract, even if an offer was made and accepted. Fyi the 5 elements of a contract are contractual intent, offer, acceptance, consideration, and certainty of terms.
> 
> If this went over your head dont feel bad, most law students struggle witth the concept of consideration in their contracts class, and even Professor Arthur Corbin of Yale Law, who wrote one of the most famous legal treatises of the last century (Corbin on Contracts) felt it was a confusing concept.



Ok Ill modify what I said to "one important and necessary part of a contract is...."

Im no lawyer but I work with this stuff as it relates to real estate every day. Im the salesman that asks folks to sign on the dotted line 

As an extreme example there is no court that would affirm a contract if it could be shown that I held a gun to my customers head at the signing (and he saw my last customer in the corner of the room with a single bullet hole in the head)

Im suggesting that the words spoken leading up to a contract signing mean something...maybe not as much as the written document, but something. And maybe something enough to convince a judge to void the contract.

It just aint right that a salesman says that the contract that Im about to sign is to reduce my interest rate, when what it really  does is to sell me more product (albeit at a lower interest rate) This is what Wyndham does.  Ive seen it happen before to a friend.  And if the Crooks can prove that thats what Wyndham did, I have no doubt that the contract will be voided...like my friends. And she didnt have to go to court. Wyndham was eager to settle ahead of that possibility

You see the salesmen are trained in this technique and the Wyndham lawyers know it...and they dont want this to be common knowledge and they dont want to have to defend the practice in court. I have no doubt that if the Crooks can present any kind of case at all Wyndham will reverse this thing almost without an argument

This thing will never get to court (at least thats my best guess)


----------



## ianlaura (Mar 3, 2013)

ronparise said:


> "crook" doesnt refer to the Wyndham sales staff...Crook is the name if the couple that is suing Wyndham



Ah, I did not understand Siesta's response to me until Ron wrote this. 

I agree that procedural unconscionability is not an easy claim to win, but I don't know what other claim stands a better chance.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 3, 2013)

ronparise said:


> You see the salesmen are trained in this technique and the Wyndham lawyers know it...and they dont want this to be common knowledge and they dont want to have to defend the practice in court. I have no doubt that if the Crooks can present any kind of case at all Wyndham will reverse this thing almost without an argument
> 
> This thing will never get to court (at least thats my best guess)



The problem is that what is written - and signed - is assumed to be the complete understanding of the agreement. What was said - since it is seldom available in any documented form only in disputed versions from both sides - can't be trusted like the written document can. 

It is never simple as it seems but beating any one when your "proof" is verbal language recalled vs what they present as memorialized on paper (and signed by both parties) is a very tough road.  It may never go to court but it will likely be because the family named Crook folds not the crooks at Wyndham.  JMHO.


----------



## siesta (Mar 3, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> The problem is that what is written - and signed - is assumed to be the complete understanding of the agreement.


 not only is it assumed to be the complete terms of the agreement, but its required to be by law.  The Statue of Frauds requires terms regarding the sale of real property to be expressly stated (written).

This is meant to protect both parties especially the offeree, but it works to the disadvantage of an uninformed offeree who doesn't know any better, or is not performing due diligence and reading before they sign.  Some people say "how Can I read all of this in the time they give me to sign?" that is more of a reason to not sign and do your homework by reviewing what you are contractually binding yourself to. And if you can't comprehend it, that is why there are attorneys who get paid the big bucks to read it for you and hold your hand.


----------



## ledaga (Mar 5, 2013)

Yes and this is reason for writing on the contract any differences prior to signing to clarify and additions to the contract which requires signatures of both parties.  Always put additions on the written contracts if it is not spelled out.


----------



## ronparise (Mar 5, 2013)

I agree with all of you that whats written is the contract and if this case goes to court Wyndham will win...They are after all "right"

But there is such a thing as being dead right

I am within my rights to step off the curb at a crosswalk...after all the pedestrian has the right of way... if I do it in spite of the fact that a bus is coming and runs me down, Im still "right" but I would say dead right


I think its the same thing with Wyndham and these contracts that they lie about to get signed...Wyndham is apparently right to do this. and if they go to court to enforce it they will be found "right" as you all say.   I just dont think they want their sales practices to be made a matter of record in a court.. I think if the Crooks stop paying,  Wyndham will quietly void their contract and make them whole...Ive seen it happen three times now, and I dont think its coincidence.


----------



## capital city (Mar 5, 2013)

Even if they added more points to the contract  and didnt tell them about it is it really different then selling a 168,000 pt contract and telling that person they will be getting weeks on the beach of Hawaii or wherever they want to go every year? That they know for a fact how good of an investment it is by how Wyndham's stock has been doing (that makes no sense) and they will be able to sell for a profit years down the road. 

Does it really matter what was verbally implied? Isn't that why we have written contracts to spell everything out? What stops anyone that has buyers remorse from making the same claims as the Crooks. Not saying that is the case, just saying what stops people from backing out of every contract by saying this or that was verbally agreed on? If I had made a $100,000 Wyndham mistake I would make up anything and everything to get my money back.


----------



## ronparise (Mar 5, 2013)

capital city said:


> Even if they added more points to the contract  and didnt tell them about it is it really different then selling a 168,000 pt contract and telling that person they will be getting weeks on the beach of Hawaii or wherever they want to go every year? That they know for a fact how good of an investment it is by how Wyndham's stock has been doing (that makes no sense) and they will be able to sell for a profit years down the road.
> 
> Does it really matter what was verbally implied? Isn't that why we have written contracts to spell everything out? What stops anyone that has buyers remorse from making the same claims as the Crooks. Not saying that is the case, just saying what stops people from backing out of every contract by saying this or that was verbally agreed on? If I had made a $100,000 Wyndham mistake I would make up anything and everything to get my money back.



The point is you probably wouldnt have to make anything up.

I know one person that got their contract voided because the sales guy told him how easy it was to rent reservations made with their points. and another that  got her contract reversed because the salesman did the same thing to her that was done to the Crooks. and there was reported on the Worldmark owners forum recently where a lady got her contract voided because of misrepresentations made regarding rci trading opportunities


----------



## kwcourtney (Mar 6, 2013)

RMitchell said:


> http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/7_on_your_side&id=9003521
> 
> However, the couple is also very troubled. They claim they were tricked into buying more timeshares for the resort and it's put them deep into debt.
> 
> ...


They are not alone.   A favorite tactic is to tell you to buy even more points and they will "teach" you how to sell your excess points to pay your maintenance fees.   Fact: they make commissions on sales not "teaching" clients about anything.   Phone calls & emails to your sales person or "customer service reps" are not returned.   Clients have no problems that can't be solved by buying more points....!!!


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 8, 2013)

update on this:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/11/08/62796.htm


----------

