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

[Grammarhero]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[Post removed by Moderator - everyone play nice]

 

[OldGuy]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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.



Bill

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]

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]

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]

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.