# Deneen et al v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.; August 14, 2019 [Merged]



## IsaiahB (Aug 20, 2019)

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit...ss-action-says-timeshare-sales-are-deceptive/



> Wyndham Vacation Resorts has been hit with a class action lawsuit from customers who claim that their sales policies and practices regarding timeshares are deceptive.
> 
> Plaintiffs AnnaMarie Deneen, Michael J. Deneen, Erin Munoz, Paul Munoz, and Nazret Z. Gebremeskel say that Wyndham makes misrepresentations to customers about numerous features in their vacation plans, ranging from the value of timeshare points to the cleaning services that are available to the vacationers.
> 
> ...


----------



## IsaiahB (Aug 20, 2019)

I've now had time to read the complaint. It has a near-zero chance of any significant success. 



> PRAYER FOR RELIEF
> Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief on behalf of themselves and all others
> similarly situated:
> A. An order certifying the proposed Class and Subclass under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
> ...



Doesn't hurt to ask... but the filing costs alone for the complaint alone were $400.


----------



## chapjim (Aug 20, 2019)

If plaintiffs hope to prevail with assertions like "confusing, vague, and ambiguous boilerplate contracts," "purported written agreement," and because desired destinations are not available at the desired time, they are mistaken.

As with most class actions, the real plaintiffs are the attorneys.  If Wyndham decides to flick a booger and settle, the attorneys will get the money.  The named plaintiffs will get coupons -- probably for a weekend at a Wyndham resort (how perverse is that?).

I didn't read the filing, only the summary.  Pretty stupid.


----------



## easyrider (Aug 20, 2019)

This class action includes all people that entered into a security agreement with Wyndham in the last ten years which I think would include resale contracts.

Bill



> Putative Class Members in the Wyndham class action lawsuit include: “All persons who entered into a ‘Security Agreement – ClubWyndham Access Vacation Ownership Plan – Retail Installment Contract – Purchase and Security Agreement’ (Agreement) with Wyndham or its successors in the last ten years and whose Agreements do not contain arbitration clauses.”



https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit...1r0l_DjfetNmm8KxTUMd7U0XN0Nf9VK76u8Vm_OKABa5I


----------



## chapjim (Aug 20, 2019)

Really?  Resale contracts?

How are you going to show that you were damaged by Wyndham's sales practices when Wyndham wasn't a party to the sale?


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 20, 2019)

chapjim said:


> Really?  Resale contracts?
> 
> How are you going to show that you were damaged by Wyndham's sales practices when Wyndham wasn't a party to the sale?



The class is limited to retail purchases.  

Even if resale purchasers are included in the class, there will be two classes given different amounts: 1) developer/retail purchasers, 2) resale purchasers.  The developer/retail purchasers might get $500, but the resale purchasers might get $1.   

To compare to another class action lawsuit, those signing up for the equifax data breach might get $2.  However, those whose identities were actually stolen, had fraudulent cc in their names, and had to fix such might recover $200.


----------



## am1 (Aug 20, 2019)

No doubt judging by the comments Wyndham will keep moving forward.  Just a hiccup.


----------



## dgalati (Aug 20, 2019)

Wyndham will point out the "Privilege" it is to own and how many come back to buy into the status.


----------



## dgalati (Aug 20, 2019)

Grammarhero said:


> The class is limited to retail purchases.
> 
> Even if resale purchasers are included in the class, there will be two classes given different amounts: 1) developer/retail purchasers, 2) resale purchasers.  The developer/retail purchasers might get $500, but the resale purchasers might get $1.
> 
> To compare to another class action lawsuit, those signing up for the equifax data breach might get $2.  However, those whose identities were actually stolen, had fraudulent cc in their names, and had to fix such might recover $200.


Only problem is resale can never have the status or privilege....


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 20, 2019)

dgalati said:


> Only problem is resale can never have the status or privilege....


You can’t expect much for $1 Wyndham Ts or $1k Canterbury Ts.


----------



## johnma (Aug 20, 2019)

easyrider said:


> This class action includes all people that entered into a security agreement with Wyndham in the last ten years which I think would include resale contracts.
> 
> Bill
> 
> ...


How does one add their name to this suit?


----------



## Braindead (Aug 20, 2019)

I noticed a couple of items:
1. It clearly refers to CWA contracts purchased in the last 10 years. Is this only for CWA contracts or is that a misquote??
2. Only contracts that DO NOT have the arbitration clause. Mine does from a couple of years ago.

It’s funny to see owners comments down below, gee I wonder if Wyndham reads those & if they’re actually using their real name!!


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 20, 2019)

johnma said:


> How does one add their name to this suit?


CA just started.  Wait until the claim website goes up.  Expect about $500.


----------



## easyrider (Aug 20, 2019)

It looks like the filing code is contract insurance or a code 110. Code 110 in this case might be a breach of contract but is likely a tort claim. If this is a tort claim then it should include resales, imo. 

To enter into a "security agreement" with Wyndham would only mean that a person has a contract with Wyndham. If you bought a $1 resale in the last 10 years, and pay Wyndham to use the Wyndham product, you have entered a security agreement in the last 10 years and likely qualify to be added to the class action suit, imo. 

I also think the verbage Wyndham or successors means that successors are those that sell resales to include those that bought on the secondary market.

I could be wrong. We will know for sure as this rolls out.

Bill

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2019cv05499/367812


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 21, 2019)

I’m posting the 34 page Complaint and about 100 pages of Exhibits to the Complaint.  If there’s a demand, I will post the other 50 pages of exhibits.  All the documents I got so far were free, but the other 50 pages will cost me $5.
Happy legal reading.


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 21, 2019)

Wyndham lawsuit


----------



## ecwinch (Aug 21, 2019)

easyrider said:


> It looks like the filing code is contract insurance or a code 110. Code 110 in this case might be a breach of contract but is likely a tort claim. If this is a tort claim then it should include resales, imo.
> 
> To enter into a "security agreement" with Wyndham would only mean that a person has a contract with Wyndham. If you bought a $1 resale in the last 10 years, and pay Wyndham to use the Wyndham product, you have entered a security agreement in the last 10 years and likely qualify to be added to the class action suit, imo.
> 
> ...



I suspect you are. As a resale purchaser is only assuming the rights/obligations of the original purchaser and if the loan is paid off, those rights/obligations are to the HOA, and to the Fairshare Trust. They are not assuming any direct contract with Wyndham, as Wyndham is providing services to the trust and the resorts.


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 21, 2019)

I just read the class action lawsuit.  All the class reps are retail purchasers.  Unless the attorneys agreed to add a resale purchaser as a different class, resale purchasers are not involved in the class action lawsuit.


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 21, 2019)

easyrider said:


> It looks like the filing code is contract insurance or a code 110. Code 110 in this case might be a breach of contract but is likely a tort claim. If this is a tort claim then it should include resales, imo.
> 
> To enter into a "security agreement" with Wyndham would only mean that a person has a contract with Wyndham. If you bought a $1 resale in the last 10 years, and pay Wyndham to use the Wyndham product, you have entered a security agreement in the last 10 years and likely qualify to be added to the class action suit, imo.
> 
> ...


Whether you are included in the class lawsuit is determined by whether one of the class rep’s situation is similar to yours. In this lawsuit this far, the five plaintiffs all bought retail.  Thus, until the plaintiffs’ attorneys amend the complaint to add at least one resale buyer, you are not legally included in the class. 

Wyndham’s mountain of multi-millionaire attorneys will move to exclude resale buyers from compensation.  It depends on whether plaintiffs counsel is willing to fight for resale buyers.  They may for the money and to rack up attorney fees.  Or they might not as resale buyers aren’t as sympathetic, can be a distraction, and they might want to focus on fighting for retail purchasers only.


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 21, 2019)

Initial appearances on Oct 15, 2019.


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 21, 2019)

Exhibits A-C to Complaint


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 21, 2019)

Exhibits D-E to Complaint


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 21, 2019)

Exhibits F-G to Complaint


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 21, 2019)

Exhibit H-1 to Complaint.


----------



## easyrider (Aug 21, 2019)

Grammarhero said:


> I just read the class action lawsuit.  All the class reps are retail purchasers.  Unless the attorneys agreed to add a resale purchaser as a different class, resale purchasers are not involved in the class action lawsuit.



I didn't see that. What I do see is that the verbiage uses the word "successor" as in an agreement with Wyndham or its successors. A  successor to Wyndham is just the next seller in line that is selling the contract. The successor is selling the product liability.

I didn't see where resale contracts are excluded but I do see that all of the listed complainants bought directly from Wyndham.

Nope, I don't own any Wyndham . I do have Worldmark and have attended flawed sales Wyndham sales presentations. 

I doubt that any consumer gets a big settlement check but I think Wyndham may be forced to change their sales practices and product usage.

Bill


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 21, 2019)

easyrider said:


> I didn't see that. What I do see is that the verbiage uses the word "successor" as in an agreement with Wyndham or its successors. A  successor to Wyndham is just the next seller in line that is selling the contract. The successor is selling the product liability.
> 
> I didn't see where resale contracts are excluded but I do see that all of the listed complainants bought directly from Wyndham.
> 
> ...



In class action lawsuits, there has to be a class rep that represents your situation. That’s why you see the words “similarly situated.”  None of the class reps so far are resale buyers.

These are my opinions gleamed from years of legal experience.  Call one of the Plaintiffs lawyers and ask if resale purchases are included or if they are willing to represent resale buyers.


----------



## easyrider (Aug 21, 2019)

Grammarhero said:


> In class action lawsuits, there has to be a class rep that represents your situation. That’s why you see the words “similarly situated.”  None of the class reps so far are resale buyers.
> 
> These are my opinions gleamed from years of legal experience.  Call one of the Plaintiffs lawyers and ask if resale purchases are included or if they are willing to represent resale buyers.



No thank you. I only posted this because it is interesting to me. Your posts on this topic are very interesting too.

Bill


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 21, 2019)

easyrider said:


> No thank you. I only posted this because it is interesting to me. Your posts on this topic are very interesting too.
> 
> Bill


Deleted


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Aug 21, 2019)

easyrider said:


> I didn't see that. What I do see is that the verbiage uses the word "successor" as in an agreement with Wyndham or its successors. A  successor to Wyndham is just the next seller in line that is selling the contract. The successor is selling the product liability.
> 
> I didn't see where resale contracts are excluded but I do see that all of the listed complainants bought directly from Wyndham.
> 
> ...



Successor in this case is using the legal definition of a corporate successor, and therefore your interpretation of the word is not correct with respect to resale contracts.  A corporate successor is a corporation that takes on the burdens of a previous corporation through merger, acquisition, or other means of succession. Successor liability is an important issue in areas such as product liability, environmental concerns, and labor and employment law.  In this instance it is specific to product liability.  The term successor here is protecting the class action from any changes to Wyndham's corporate structure - in an attempt to avoid product liability/culpability by changing their structure.  It has nothing to do with resale contracts, sorry to say.


----------



## chapjim (Aug 21, 2019)

easyrider said:


> It looks like the filing code is contract insurance or a code 110. Code 110 in this case might be a breach of contract but is likely a tort claim. If this is a tort claim then it should include resales, imo.
> 
> To enter into a "security agreement" with Wyndham would only mean that a person has a contract with Wyndham. If you bought a $1 resale in the last 10 years, and pay Wyndham to use the Wyndham product, you have entered a security agreement in the last 10 years and likely qualify to be added to the class action suit, imo.
> 
> ...




You're trying hard but missing the mark.  If you bought resale, you have entered into no security agreement with Wyndham.   Wyndham doesn't need security on a resale contract.  Prove me wrong and show me a copy of a security agreement with Wyndham (or any other timeshare company or any company at all!) that you signed as part of a resale.

Maybe it would be better to think of auto sales.  You buy a vehicle from a dealer and you sign a security agreement with the dealer (or the parent corporation or a finance company).  You agree to make payments as specified and the dealer (or parent corporation or finance company) retains a security interest in your vehicle -- he has the right to repossess if you don't make the payments.  If you sell that car to a private party, your buyer has nothing to do with the dealer.  The dealer has no skin in the game and has no need for a security agreement. 

A successor to Wyndham would be a corporation -- the result of a sale, name change, reorganization, etc.  A resale purchaser of a Wyndham contract would not be a successor to Wyndham, he would be the successor to the previous owner of the contract.


----------



## chapjim (Aug 21, 2019)

dgalati said:


> Only problem is resale can never have the status or privilege....



How is that a problem?  The resale buyer didn't pay for the status or privilege and didn't get what he didn't pay for.  Sounds perfect to me!


----------



## Jenny Ellis (Aug 21, 2019)

I don't care about the money. I just to cancel my contract. Some crazy attorney wanted $5000 upfront to join a multi-party lawsuit. I'd rather be in a class action that doesn't cost me a dime.


----------



## dgalati (Aug 21, 2019)

chapjim said:


> How is that a problem?  The resale buyer didn't pay for the status or privilege and didn't get what he didn't pay for.  Sounds perfect to me!


You are correct Jim resale buyers didn't pay to achieve the level of privilege and status by paying developer price. I have traveled for less then a VIP without paying for the VIP status and so called privilege. Just make it work how ever you can.


----------



## easyrider (Aug 21, 2019)

Abrams Firm said:


> Wyndham owns Worldmark (it's called "Worldmark by Wyndham")



It is called Worldmark by Wyndham but Worldmark is not owned by Wyndham. Wyndham is only the hired developer for Worldmark.

I originally thought that the term "successor" would mean successor, not "corporate" successor or "successor - in - interest" although the "successor - in - interest" would be a person obtaining the timeshare in the same manner as a resale buyer. If the suit actually read corporate successor or successor in interest it would be vary clear who is in mind to be included in this class.  

Bill


----------



## CO skier (Aug 22, 2019)

easyrider said:


> Wyndham is only the hired developer for Worldmark.


You are very confused.  Wyndham purchased and owns the rights as Developer for WorldMark.

Wyndham is "hired" only as the WorldMark program manager.


----------



## chapjim (Aug 22, 2019)

dgalati said:


> You are correct Jim resale buyers didn't pay to achieve the level of privilege and status by paying developer price. I have traveled for less then a VIP without paying for the VIP status and so called privilege. Just make it work how ever you can.



So, you are saying you CAN have the status and privilege without paying for it!


----------



## dgalati (Aug 22, 2019)

chapjim said:


> So, you are saying you CAN have the status and privilege without paying for it!


Yes this is possible if you consider that some VIP owners let their family travel for free. I do have a VIP Uncle remember and I did give him a resale deed to use with his VIP status.


----------



## Braindead (Aug 22, 2019)

[Post removed by Moderator - everyone play nice]


----------



## OldGuy (Aug 22, 2019)

chapjim said:


> Really?  Resale contracts?
> 
> How are you going to show that you were damaged by Wyndham's sales practices when Wyndham wasn't a party to the sale?



Just going awry here . . . we had a recent, very-short discussion, about how resale owners could be bound by the obligations of timeshare _contracts _they were never a party to_, _and upon reading those that I have saved on my laptop, the verbiage in standard TS deeds does that.

So, by a stretch, if part of the complaint is that Wyndham does not fulfill their obligations, in addition to the deceptive sales complaint, all owners could be included.

Granted, it will just be a blip on the radar, but, c'mon folks, we've had this discussion before, and it's hard to find a retail timeshare sales operation that is not unethical.  It is just a matter of the level of sleaze.  Part of the new Arizona timeshare legislation, a part that ARDA prevailed on, was a cooling-off period, so buyers could sleep on it overnight, before closing the next day.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Aug 22, 2019)

easyrider said:


> I originally thought that the term "successor" would mean successor, not "corporate" successor or "successor - in - interest" although the "successor - in - interest" would be a person obtaining the timeshare in the same manner as a resale buyer. If the suit actually read corporate successor or successor in interest it would be vary clear who is in mind to be included in this class.
> 
> Bill



Remember that what you're referring to is a legal document, therefore it's written and must be interpreted using legal language and terms.  Legal documents use different language/terms that require the ability to interpret certain words using their legal definitions, not lamen's terms, hence the fact that its a legal document.


----------



## Grammarhero (Aug 22, 2019)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Remember that what you're referring to is a legal document, therefore it's written and must be interpreted using legal language and terms.  Legal documents use different language/terms that require the ability to interpret certain words using their legal definitions, not lamen's terms, hence the fact that its a legal document.



@HitchHiker71 are you a lawyer?  You appear to have a legal background.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Aug 22, 2019)

Grammarhero said:


> @HitchHiker71 are you a lawyer?  You appear to have a legal background.



Nope.  But I'm formally trained in legal contract drafting and review as part of my job.  It also helps that I worked for one of the largest law firms in the world for 15 years, in an IT capacity - the last half of which was at the level where I dealt with vendor contracts, reviews, etc., on an almost daily basis at times - so I was trained by the best so to speak - meaning the people who I learned from were some of the best attorneys in their respective fields.  You quickly learn how to properly interpret legal documents when performing contract reviews and making edits/alterations on a frequent basis.


----------



## OldGuy (Aug 22, 2019)

Grammarhero said:


> @HitchHiker71 are you a lawyer?  You appear to have a legal background.



Prior to my career as a sleazy direct salesman, I prepared to be a lawyer, with lots of law as an undergraduate.

Does that overqualify me in law?


----------



## easyrider (Aug 22, 2019)

CO skier said:


> You are very confused.  Wyndham purchased and owns the rights as Developer for WorldMark.
> 
> Wyndham is "hired" only as the WorldMark program manager.



Are you trying to say that Wyndham owns Worldmark because they paid to be the developer for Worldmark ? Worldmark is its own corporation owned by its members and operated by its membership board is how I remember the story. 

Bill


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Aug 22, 2019)

OldGuy said:


> Prior to my career as a sleazy direct salesman, I prepared to be a lawyer, with lots of law as an undergraduate.
> 
> Does that overqualify me in law?



The good news is that there are several online legal dictionaries where you can quickly check on the legal definition of any particular word.  Here's a link for "successor" for instance:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/successor/

Gotta love the internet - pretty much anything we want to know about is only a few clicks away.


----------



## easyrider (Aug 22, 2019)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Remember that what you're referring to is a legal document, therefore it's written and must be interpreted using legal language and terms.  Legal documents use different language/terms that require the ability to interpret certain words using their legal definitions, not lamen's terms, hence the fact that its a legal document.



I wrote up thousands of contracts and have been disposed to review other contracts involved in conflicts. Usually, if a word has more than one meaning, that meaning has to be clarified and can't be subjective. Usually the meaning of a noun is the legal definition of the noun. If there isn't an adjective use to describe the noun the simple definition applies.

There is no adjective used to describe the noun successor in this lawsuit.



> Singular successor. A term borrowed from the civil law, denoting a person who succeeds to the rights of a former owner in a single article of property, (as by purchase,) as distinguished from a universal successor, who succeeds to all the rights and powers of a former owner, as in the case of a bankrupt or intestate estate



Bill


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Aug 22, 2019)

easyrider said:


> I wrote up thousands of contracts and have been disposed to review other contracts involved in conflicts. Usually, if a word has more than one meaning, that meaning has to be clarified and can't be subjective. Usually the meaning of a noun is the legal definition of the noun. If there isn't an adjective use to describe the noun the simple definition applies.
> 
> There is no adjective used to describe the noun successor in this lawsuit.
> 
> ...



Yes, but your error is in interpreting Wyndham - which is _not _singular - as a singular successor.  Wyndham is a corporation - hence it's a corporate successor.


----------



## OldGuy (Aug 22, 2019)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Gotta love the internet - pretty much anything we want to know about is only a few clicks away.



When DW asks me a question, I normally say, "You've got the answer in your hand."


----------



## easyrider (Aug 22, 2019)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Yes, but your error is in interpreting Wyndham - which is _not _singular - as a singular successor.  Wyndham is a corporation - hence it's a corporate successor.



The sentence reads Wyndham or its successors. "Or" is used as a conjunctive adverb meaning both Wyndham and successors are different entities. Wyndham is singular and successors is plural. 

The word " and" instead of "or" could mean corporate successors but they used "or" meaning at least two groups, Wyndham or its successors. 

In a contract "or" describes this or that. In a contract "and" describes both this and that.

Bill


----------



## chapjim (Aug 22, 2019)

OldGuy said:


> Just going awry here . . . we had a recent, very-short discussion, about how resale owners could be bound by the obligations of timeshare _contracts _they were never a party to_, _and upon reading those that I have saved on my laptop, the verbiage in standard TS deeds does that.
> 
> So, by a stretch, if part of the complaint is that Wyndham does not fulfill their obligations, in addition to the deceptive sales complaint, all owners could be included.
> 
> Granted, it will just be a blip on the radar, but, c'mon folks, we've had this discussion before, and it's hard to find a retail timeshare sales operation that is not unethical.  It is just a matter of the level of sleaze.  Part of the new Arizona timeshare legislation, a part that ARDA prevailed on, was a cooling-off period, so buyers could sleep on it overnight, before closing the next day.



The issue is not one of sleaze so let's stop the nonsense (or, as you call it, going awry -- by a stretch).

The issue is whether the plaintiffs in this case were deceived (whatever) by Wyndham sales people with whom they had contact and from whom they purchased some interest in timeshares.  The issue NOT to be decided is whether people who had no contact with and never bought anything from Wyndham can assert that they were deceived (whatever) by Wyndham.  The question is too bizarre to even consider.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Aug 22, 2019)

easyrider said:


> The sentence reads Wyndham or its successors. "Or" is used as a conjunctive adverb meaning both Wyndham and successors are different entities. Wyndham is singular and successors is plural.
> 
> The word " and" instead of "or" could mean corporate successors but they used "or" meaning at least two groups, Wyndham or its successors.
> 
> ...



I don't want to argue, but I disagree.   Wyndham is not a singular reference from the perspective of the legal definition.  Here's the definition of Singular Successor that you posted:



> Singular successor. A term borrowed from the civil law, denoting a person who succeeds to the rights of a former owner in a single article of property, (as by purchase,) as distinguished from a universal successor, who succeeds to all the rights and powers of a former owner, as in the case of a bankrupt or intestate estate



Is Wyndham a person?  No.  Since Wyndham is in fact a corporation, by definition it's not possible that it's a Singular Successor.  Wyndham is a Corporation, which by definition means it's a Corporate Successor.  That is embedded in the context.  The use of "or" is almost universal with respect to succession IME.  I've never seen the use of "and" in all my years of contract review with respect to Corporate Succession.  Reason being, "and" requires both entities to exist.  So if Wyndham terminated their incorporation after being subsumed by another entity, the fact that Wyndham corporation no longer exists, would mean that both entities would have to exist in order for the contractual verbiage to apply.  Easy to skirt that outcome - simply eliminate one of the two entities right?  The use of "or" negates this possibility, as it would apply to either entity - and with respect to the successor entity - it is plural - meaning it would apply to multiple succession entities - which itself eliminates the possibility of negating the class action by enacting multiple divestitures via multiple succession entities.


----------



## OldGuy (Aug 22, 2019)

chapjim said:


> The issue is not one of sleaze so let's stop the nonsense



_Nonsense_?  Is that like _absurd_?



How is this lawsuit not about unethical sales practices, ie, sleaze?

*“Wyndham’s business model is premised on the false assumption that you can lie to consumers to get them to sign confusing, vague and ambiguous boilerplate contracts and that because then there is a purported written agreement, you have no liability for the lies,” the Wyndham class action lawsuit claims.

The Wyndham class action lawsuit claims that desired destinations are not available at the desired time and need to be booked as much as a year beforehand. 

“The business practice of Wyndham is to focus on selling points, rather than managing the destinations and making them available to members. Wyndham members find that there is little availability. When they complain, Wyndham’s response is that they need to buy more points,” the Wyndham class action lawsuit alleges.

The plaintiffs also state that a sales pitch to purchase more points begins even before the vacation goer parks their car.  Before they are given a parking pass, they are urged to attend an owner meeting update, which is just a sales presentation for Wyndham to purchase more points.

The Wyndham class action lawsuit claims that if members are able to get parking passes without attending a sales meeting, they are harassed with phone calls and marketing materials are placed under their doors to attend more sales meetings.

“These meetings last most of a day and do not conform to most consumers’ idea of a ‘vacation day,’” states the class action lawsuit.


https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit...ss-action-says-timeshare-sales-are-deceptive/*


----------



## chapjim (Aug 22, 2019)

If the discussion in this thread were limited to unethical sales practices that affect Wyndham as a seller and and a retail buyer, I would not have commented.  However, people keep dragging in all kinds of irrelevant nonsense about resale buyers, etc., and we have had a very unfocused discussion.

If part of the complaint is, as you suggest, that Wyndham does not fulfill its contractual obligations, I'm pretty sure that will fail.  I don't think that is part of the complaint.  In all the hundreds of discussions on TUG about Wyndham, I doubt there are more than a handful that complain that Wyndham does not fulfill its contractual obligations.


----------



## OldGuy (Aug 22, 2019)

chapjim said:


> If the discussion in this thread were limited to unethical sales practices that affect Wyndham as a seller and and a retail buyer, I would not have commented.  However, people keep dragging in all kinds of irrelevant nonsense about resale buyers, etc., and we have had a very unfocused discussion.
> 
> If part of the complaint is, as you suggest, that Wyndham does not fulfill its contractual obligations, I'm pretty sure that will fail.  I don't think that is part of the complaint.  In all the hundreds of discussions on TUG about Wyndham, I doubt there are more than a handful that complain that Wyndham does not fulfill its contractual obligations.



Then why even file a lawsuit?  I mean, if you already have it resolved?


----------



## ecwinch (Aug 22, 2019)

This whole thread line of "this includes resale buyers because they are successors" is really moot, because this class action is not going anywhere. Class actions never result in meaningful relief for the class, and only exist to generate revenue for the attorneys involved.


----------



## dgalati (Aug 22, 2019)

chapjim said:


> If the discussion in this thread were limited to unethical sales practices that affect Wyndham as a seller and and a retail buyer, I would not have commented.  However, people keep dragging in all kinds of irrelevant nonsense about resale buyers, etc., and we have had a very unfocused discussion.
> 
> If part of the complaint is, as you suggest, that Wyndham does not fulfill its contractual obligations, I'm pretty sure that will fail.  I don't think that is part of the complaint.  In all the hundreds of discussions on TUG about Wyndham, I doubt there are more than a handful that complain that Wyndham does not fulfill its contractual obligations.


Status and privilege is not free if buying from Wyndham. No laws are broken when two parties have a meeting of the minds, a signed contract and there is some monetary consideration involved.


----------



## OldGuy (Aug 22, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> Class actions never result in meaningful relief for the class



Never?

https://www.gjel.com/blog/largest-class-action-settlements.html

A notable sample:

*Cendant chairman Walter Forbes and vice chairman Kirk Shelton were both imprisoned on conspiracy charges and ordered to pay over $3 billion each in restitution.*


----------



## ecwinch (Aug 22, 2019)

OldGuy said:


> Never?
> 
> https://www.gjel.com/blog/largest-class-action-settlements.html
> 
> ...



Yes, I did over generalize.

But here we discussing is class action lawsuits in the timeshare industry, not product liability or accounting fraud.

As this recent post indicates:

https://www.tugbbs.com/forums/index.php?threads/2016-lennen-v-marriott.242224/


----------



## chapjim (Aug 22, 2019)

OldGuy said:


> Then why even file a lawsuit?  I mean, if you already have it resolved?



I agree 100%.  It's a stupid filing.  Plaintiffs' attorneys probably think they have a lottery ticket and they're right.  Their chances are about that good (meaning, bad).


----------



## OldGuy (Aug 22, 2019)

But, it is filed, and it can be followed.  It shows right up on search engines.

It should be resolved in about 6 years, if it gets expedited.



When you look at the list of successful class action cases I posted, you never know.

That list does not even include the current one against Roundup.

Just because the one against RCI, which the plaintiffs won-ish, legitimized RCI's bad behavior, doesn't mean some of them don't impact those behaving badly.


----------



## ecwinch (Aug 22, 2019)

OldGuy said:


> Just because the one against RCI, which the plaintiffs won-ish, legitimized RCI's bad behavior, doesn't mean some of them don't impact those behaving badly.



Of course, if you ignore the one against Worldmark By Wyndham, and the other against DRI in Kauai. And their actually were two against RCI - one on the weeks side, and the other on the points side.

All of those cases have one common thread - they were settled, the class got some meaningless relief, the lawyers got a nice payday, and the timeshare company got a settlement that explicitly granted them the right to do what they do. In the Worldmark case, it explicitly granted Wyndham the right to unilaterally set credit values.


----------



## easyrider (Aug 22, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> This whole thread line of "this includes resale buyers because they are successors" is really moot, because this class action is not going anywhere. Class actions never result in meaningful relief for the class, and only exist to generate revenue for the attorneys involved.



We will see how this rolls out. Certainly the law firms will be making money and Wyndham will be paying attorneys  and possibly a settlement which will affect their earnings. I don't consider it moot but I do find it interesting because I have attended Wyndham presentations and I do own Worldmark. 

Bill


----------



## OldGuy (Aug 23, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> the class got some meaningless relief,



I dunno.  I'm a member of the class, and get RCI weeks for $239, and for others, too.


----------



## dgalati (Aug 26, 2019)

I wouldn't count on receiving much after the lawyers take their cut. Most class action lawsuits result in very little compensation for the plaintiffs.


----------

