UPDATE: RCI CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT - must read for all RCI members [Includes Results]

[dundey]

Just wanted to say a quick but sincere thank you to both Susan and Dave for all their recent efforts.
I have not been on here much recently, but have been a TUG member and timeshare owner / exchanger for 12 years.
Hopefully these efforts will lead to at least some meaningful change in RCI's ongoing practices.

 

[Susan2]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, as to discovery, there is a right under the Rules of Civil Procedure to conduct discovery. If the court order you refer to purported to prohibit discovery at all at any period of the case, then it would be in conflict with the Rules and subject to being overturned. A motion to accomplish that could be made in the trial court. More likely the order limited discovery during some time period or did something similar. In that situation, it would IMHO be malpractice to settle a case before the time when discovery could be conducted arrived and discovery was done. They should have waited and done discovery BEFORE sitting down to settle the case. Discovery is critical to negotiation, as it tells you how strong a case you have. In this case, RCI attorneys knew what evidence was out there but plaintiffs attorneys did not so they were flying blind.

My recollection of what I read some time ago about the case, was that there was a scheduling order that divided discovery, and in the initial period discovery was limited to issues dealing with certifying the class. Discovery on the merits was not prohibited, just assigned a later time. Plaintiffs attorneys did not wait for that time to arrive, and proceeded to sell out their clients interests in a ''setttlement'' without waiting for discovery on the merits. That is what I believe is unethical and what I have a huge problem with.

It is good to know that these sellout shysters of plaintiffs attorneys are not going to get $4million, but then $2million is way too much. Two cents would probably be too much IMHO.

My remarks about value were indeed directed as the stupid trinkets, but the injunctive relief is very, very weak, and also of relatively little value. Injunctive relief is what matters in these cases, not trinkets.

Carolinian, you may be absolutely right. I don't know. I do family law (divorces, custody, visitation, child support, etc.), in Western New York, and I suspect that the sorts of discovery we do is quite different from what is appropriate here. So I can't really comment. On the other hand, the Plaintiffs's attorneys may have gotten good information from sources other than discovery. (We certainly do that sometimes in family law! )

In my practice, I do both the "traditional" litigation and "alternate dispute resolution" including mediation and collaborative law, much of which amounts to agreements to "play nice in the sandbox." Perhaps for that reason, I see the current RCI lawsuit as a sort of "Can this marriage be saved?" situation. Frankly, I think that if RCI "goes down," we will have to reinvent it -- based, of course, on what we believe are fairer principles. It could quite possibly be done, and it may happen. It would definitely take time, however. And in the meantime, the entire timeshare industry could suffer a setback from which it would never recover. Having said that, I do not believe that RCI should be allowed to continue to profit by renting out timeshare weeks which RCI does not own, and which were deposited with the specific intentions that they would be used for exchange, especially without the knowledge or consent of the owners. Furthermore, I firmly believe that if RCI truly believed that it had the right to rent out those weeks, RCI would inform its Vacation Guides (and everyone else) that it was doing so. On that, you and I are in agreement.

However, if "two cents" is more than you think that the Plaintiffs' attorneys deserve to be paid, then we will have to disagree on that point.

 

[Susan2]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just wanted to say a quick but sincere thank you to both Susan and Dave for all their recent efforts.
I have not been on here much recently, but have been a TUG member and timeshare owner / exchanger for 12 years.
Hopefully these efforts will lead to at least some meaningful change in RCI's ongoing practices.

From your lips to God's RCI's ear!

 

[TUGBrian]

added the poll for you, the poll title limits the amount of txt sadly...i fit in as much as i could =)

 

[Susan2]

added the poll for you, the poll title limits the amount of txt sadly...i fit in as much as i could =)

Thanks, Brian!

For future reference, how many characters can be put on the title?
How many on the answer options?

 

[TUGBrian]

that listed right there is the actual limit (there was like one letter left)

im not sure on the poll options, but I am guessing its roughly the same.

 

[Susan2]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just double checking: If we use Susan to represent us do we also need to send an objection letter to the court?

I would definitely advise all of my clients to send an objection letter to the Court if they have not already done so, or if they wish to change the wording or nature of their prior objections --even if they have already asked me to represent them. But I would also ask them to send me a copy for my information.

A word of caution: Naming an attorney on your objection letter does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship.

Also, please be mindful that an attorney cannot represent clients whose goals and objectives are in conflict with the goals and objectives of other clients. For example, in one recent post, a TUG member suggested arguing against the fees payable to the Plaintiffs' attorneys. Assuming that was not just hyperbole, that would be a problem if he were my client, as other objectors I represent would not want to take that position. I myself don't feel that it would be productive or appropriate to argue against the fee request. Therefore, I WOULD HAVE TO DISCONTINUE REPRESENTATION of such a [hypothetical] client.

In some cases, more is NOT merrier!

The clients that I currently represent are people who have read what I have to say, and who agree with it. That doesn't mean that I won't accept additional clients, but it might be wiser to wait until my local counsel and I have something more specific to say, such as a new proposed settlement offer to RCI. Then, if people who object to the current proposed settlement agree with what that proposal, and want to add themselves to the roster of clients I represent, I would be happy to add them. Likewise, if current clients find themselves in disagreement with such a settlement offer, then they should let me know, and I will inform the Court that I no longer represent them due to a conflict.

 

[Jennie]

Caution

In trying to decide whether or not to have Susan Collins (or any other attorney) represent you in this case, you should ascertain what their position is on the key issues of the case.

ASK first what is the #1 change/benefit he or she is advocating for in the proposed settlement? You might be quite surprised, maybe even shocked, at the answer. If you disagree with the attorney's chief goal, not only should you not ask the attorney to represent you, but the attorney will require you to request that you not be his/her client.

Make sure you are "on the same page" with the attorney before "signing on."

 

[Jennie]

Date discrepencies need to be resolved

In the FAQ section at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com
there are date deadline discrepancies that need to be clarified and rectified.
This is the website set up by the company approved by the court to send out the notice postcards and provide impartial factual information.

6. How do I object to the settlement?

If you’re a Class member, you can object to the settlement if you don’t like any part of it. You can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider your views. To object, you must send a letter saying that you object to the settlement in In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-1222 (PGS). Be sure to include the class member’s name, address, telephone number, RCI Weeks Exchange Program Identification Number, Resort Identification Number, resort name and your signature, and the reasons you object to the settlement. Mail the objection to these places postmarked no later than November 20, 2009,

9b.What are the deadlines?
If you wish to object to the Settlement, you must send your objection to the Clerk of the Court, Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defense Counsel so that it is received by them by November 20, 2009.[/B]


8. May I speak at the hearing?

You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Fairness Hearing. To do so, you must send a letter saying that it is your “Notice of Intention to Appear in In re: Resort Condominium International, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-1222 (PGS).” Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, and your signature. Your notice of Intention to appear must be postmarked no later than November 20, 2009


9c What are the deadlines?


If you wish to appear at the Final Settlement Hearing, you must file a Notice of Intention to Appear with the Clerk of the Court, and serve the Notice on Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defense Counsel so that it is received by them by November 20, 2009.

 

[Snorkey]

What are the settlement benefits?

If the Court approves the settlement and you do not exclude yourself, current members automatically get the benefit of the changes to RCI’s operation of the Weeks Exchange Program.

In addition, eligible current members have their choice of one of five special benefits. A current member can choose: (1) the opportunity to search available inventory and make an exchange request prior to depositing your vacation time; (2) a $20 credit that can be used toward a membership renewal or toward your next exchange; (3) a prorated refund of your subscription fee and a refund of fees you’ve paid for a pending exchange requests, should you decide to end your Weeks Exchange Program membership; (4) one free night stay at any RCI rental that can be used toward the same room of any paid rental of at least one night; or (5) a $100 discount certificate per cabin for the purchase of any cruise offered by RCI, with the option of receiving additional $100 discount certificates toward the purchase of up to three additional cabins for the same cruise. Eligible former members can request to receive a $15 credit toward re-joining the Weeks Exchange Program or request a $15 payment from RCI.


Is this worth it?

 

[TSToday]

October 26 & November 30th

Points Class Action. A case management conference, setting deadlines for pretrial discovery and other pretrial procedures, is scheduled for October 26, 2009. The lack of discovery in the Weeks Class Action has not helped the Weeks Members. This upcoming conference could set the stage for something significant relative to discovery for both Points Members and Weeks Members and issues dealing with RCI's claim to have a lawful right to rent deposited weeks. We should develop an understanding as to how the decision about the Weeks settlement can impact on the Points Class Action, and how the ability for the Points Plaintiffs Attorney to take discovery will impact on a trial or future settlement in that case.

"Fairness" Hearing I believe the proposed weeks settlement remains flawed and therefore, I intend to maintain my objection. You should consider the differences between objecting, appearing and attending. If you intend to object, send your letter to the court by 11/20. If you intend to appear (speak at the Fairness Hearing on 11/30) notify the court by 11/20. If you would just like to attend the Hearing to see for yourself how the process works and to demonstrate your support, you can just show up, keeping in mind that the hearing can be postponed. A huge turnout of attendees will send a strong message to the court and to the attorneys.

Postcard notice.At the most recent hearing about the notice, I pointed out to the court, that it was very important that the notice be legible and that the type should be large enough so the reader would not have any difficulty in reading it. My recollection is that the sample RCI presented in court was larger and more legible. The postcard that I received in the mail was, in my opinion, in adequate because of a lousy printing job and the type was much too small. If you agree, I would like to have some samples of what was received sent to me. If you disagree and feel that the notice was adequate as to legibility, please advise. I am not talking about content but only legibility. RCI spends plenty of money on direct mail postcards, it should have done a better job with this one simply because of its importance to over 2 million current and prior Weeks Members.
Shep Altshuler
Publisher
TimeSharing Today

 

[Stricky]

(I think it is time for this to be a sticky)

 

[Jennie]

RCI has the right, like any red-blooded American company, to devise a service offering and sell it to the public, so long as it is legal and they do not operate with deception. If it's not particularly appealing it won't sell, as the market handles that sort of thing.

I don't think we can demand RCI not rent weeks that are deposited. But I do feel we can, and should, ask that they be prevented from it for a period of time that somehow relates to the existing memberships purchased and deposits made under the original concepts of the program, those that most of us agree were acceptable and that we wish were still offered.

My beef is they changed the program without being forthcoming about it. They kept pushing us to renew for longer periods of time ("Renew now before the rates go up!") without saying the plan was changing. They told us to deposit our weeks with them and they'd have a good one for us to pick in return, but they started syphoning the better weeks out to the various Points and Rental programs, all in the interest of increased revenue. If they want to devise a program like this, the one they obviously are trying to operate, they can do so but I won't be a member, and sure as heck won't give them my beach side week because they will not return me anything of value for it, especially when you consider my costs for such activity: my membership fee, my exchange fee, and my vacation time.

I think we should be asking that they operate the program under the old concepts until most of the current deposits have been exchanged, and the memberships played out. From that point forward they can do what they want but it will be without me, and it sounds like most of the people on this board, maybe the bulk of the 80,000 members Susan refers to. This would mean no, and I mean NO removal of deposited weeks to any other venue or market for approximately two years, and potentially the restoration of inventory previously removed causing the existing inventory to be lacking any decent properties to withdraw. They could make that restoration by making Points and other programs' time available to the Weeks membership.

Let us get the value they originally promised us, and for which they coerced us into paying membership and exchange fees, then set them free to create whatever business model they want so long as they are up front about the how the service operates, and therefore the value of the service.

That is the basis of my complaint. Not that I want them to continue to provide the old program forever (I sill long the simplicity of my Windows 95 machine but MS ain't doing that either), but that I want them to give me the value they promised in exchange for what I already gave them. I have a membership good through 2012 but I can get some of that prorated back to me once I use up my exchanges. My biggest beef is my deposited 2008 and 2009 weeks, for which I'm still looking for a decent exchange, aren't getting matched up with anything resembling a LIKE vacation experience. I've already pulled my 2010 week and as soon as I can get use up my remaining deposits I'm gone from their rolls. But I think they should be made to give me something of value for those deposits. If they temporarly restore the program I can get what I need and split. I'll bet this hold true for many of you as well.

Considering the bait and switch they performed, any aspect of this they perceive as punitive would be warranted. After all, under this proposal in two years they can rent to their hearts delight, and anyone still a member at that time will know up front what they are getting into. But they lied to us and stole our vacations. I just want them back and then be shed of them.

And they can keep their trinkets.

VERY WELL SAID !!!!

During all the telephone and in-person conferences we Objectors have had over the past few months with RCI and the Plaintiffs attorneys, your idea has never been mentioned.

It would be great if you would send a letter to the Federl Court stating that you are objecting to the terms of the proposed settlement and attach a printed copy of what you have posted above.

There should be instructions posted in one place here on TUG shortly. Or you can obtain it from the official impartial website authorized by the court:
http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com

 

[jacknsara]

Sunshine makes the best disinfectant

Aloha
I have been following this thread with great interest even though we have been relatively successful with RCI exchanges. I am in awe of Susan2 and the pro bono work being done on behalf of people who by and large are neither economically nor socially underprivileged.
Timeshare commerce exists in an environment of extreme economic / information inefficiency.
I don’t recall ever seeing unanimity within the TUG community. In http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=803275&postcount=478 Goofyhobbie states: “The goal as many objectors see it, is to get RCI to revise their settlement significantly.”
I have no quarrel with that as an intermediate objective. I believe there is an even more overarching objective. It might be something like maximizing owners’ perceived value of owning and using their timeshares. For now, I’d rather avoid the distraction of fine tuning the words used to articulate it.
Using that as a target, what outcome for any class action suit against RCI (or any exchange company) might make the most progress toward that objective?
I contend that the highest leverage opportunity is in developing a groundswell of unfunded objectors large enough that the judge does not accept the current proposed settlement. Such a development would be unusual perhaps even unprecedented. With a little bit of help, it would likely catch the notice of various news media. That would likely increase general awareness of market realities. That would reduce the economic / information inefficiency currently rampant in the timeshare world, which would have more influence on the business behavior of exchange firms and developers than any negotiated settlement language. I am all for discovery and improved settlement language too.
So, just what do I recommend that the TUG community do? Step 1 is obvious. Perhaps steps 2 thru 4 have been suggested earlier, but I don’t remember:
#1) Object. (Since this thread is so long, I’m pasting in a link to Goofyhobbie’s helpful info http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=803642&postcount=495 )
#2) All Tuggers who stay at a timeshare in the next five week should communicate with others at whatever resort they are staying at to tune in to the issue. Encourage them to object.
#3) For those Tuggers with connections to media professionals, encourage them to track the issue (and even attend the hearing).
#4) A poll where Tuggers can anonymously indicate their intended course of action might be very useful for community self awareness and encouragement.
Jack

 

[Goofyhobbie]

Jeannie,

I too like what RustyS had to say. He made some very valid points. We cannot reasonably expect for a corporation with a good business model to always and forever maintain that business model given the variables that come into play going forward. No one has a crystal ball that says all things will stay the same forever.

But, RCI as a service company has not, to my knowledge, reached out to the membership that it serves to advise how their business model has drastically changed.

To the contrary, when specifically asked representatives of RCI have conveyed misinformation at best or outright lied to its membership time and again about what they have been doing with our deposited weeks.

The deception is contrary to public policy and ethical business practices. Any settlement should have provisions to protect against the offending practice for at least the same period of time that the deception lasted.

In this case that would be ten years if you assume that the deception started on January 1, 2000.

Jeannie said: There should be instructions posted in one place here on TUG shortly. Or you can obtain it from the official impartial website authorized by the court: http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com

The instructions at the authorized court site are pretty explicit; but depending on what you are looking for regarding sending in an objection the Frequently Asked Questions and other documents leave things out that should be addressed and state things differently depending on where you look.

After some considerable research, I posted Informational Instructions that should help the average objector fill in the gaps. The Information is GENERIC and posted in such a way that a new comer to this site could retrieve what they need to complete their objection notice.

For anyone looking for some guidance recommend you go back through this thread to Post #491 through Post # 498.

 

[RustyS]

Thanks.

VERY WELL SAID !!!!

During all the telephone and in-person conferences we Objectors have had over the past few months with RCI and the Plaintiffs attorneys, your idea has never been mentioned.

It would be great if you would send a letter to the Federl Court stating that you are objecting to the terms of the proposed settlement and attach a printed copy of what you have posted above.

There should be instructions posted in one place here on TUG shortly. Or you can obtain it from the official impartial website authorized by the court:
http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com

I'm seriously considering submitting such an objection. I have printed off the proposed settlement (yes, it is a pain to sift out the pages and pages of junk but it was doable) and plan to spend a day with a highlighter to get the key points out. I'd like to be able to quote that and other RCI documents if I submit anything. The comment above is part of me rolling the issues and ideas around in my head and spreading them out in words to see how they line up. I submitted a similar posts a few days back but I think they got lost in a barrage the same day. If interested, see post #465 or post #475

In my zeal to get value from my weeks, I may not have been clear but I absolutely agree with GoofyHobbie that RCI, like any red-blooded American company, has to be transparent in what they offer and how they operate, especially when they are operating in trust for their clients (members, whatever). And they are operating in trust because we "deposit" something of value, not money but future vacation, and withdraw from a "space bank". Even the terms they use for the program evokes the image of a vault, so they know they are offering to be stewards of our property. Hence, they operate "in trust".

If they want to operate the program like they apparently do, getting us to give them our vacation weeks and then renting them out to the highest bidder, offering us run-down studios in Kissimmee or Branson in return for the 2BR Vail ski week we deposited and they rented out, they have to be up front going forward. Something tells me they won't have the membership they want and need to perpetuate that model. But the market will handle it so long as they are clear what they intend to do with the deposits they seek.

It's quite possible RCI recognizes it's a lousy deal and will only be transparent if forced to do so.

 

[RustyS]

Aloha
... I believe there is an even more overarching objective. It might be something like maximizing owners’ perceived value of owning and using their timeshares. ...
I contend that the highest leverage opportunity is in developing a groundswell of unfunded objectors large enough that the judge does not accept the current proposed settlement. ... I am all for discovery and improved settlement language too.
So, just what do I recommend that the TUG community do? Step 1 is obvious. Perhaps steps 2 thru 4 have been suggested earlier, but I don’t remember:
#1) Object. (Since this thread is so long, I’m pasting in a link to Goofyhobbie’s helpful info http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=803642&postcount=495 )
#2) All Tuggers who stay at a timeshare in the next five week should communicate with others at whatever resort they are staying at to tune in to the issue. Encourage them to object.
#3) For those Tuggers with connections to media professionals, encourage them to track the issue (and even attend the hearing).
#4) A poll where Tuggers can anonymously indicate their intended course of action might be very useful for community self awareness and encouragement.
Jack

And aloha to you too. Something tells me the weather you awoke to today is better than what I saw, and if not the weather than the overall scenery.

I'm not certain I can agree with your overarching objective. Actually I agree we should all be concerned with protecting the value of our timeshares, but I don't know we can pin that on RCI. They aren't the one that sold us our units. They didn't set the price to something most of us realized was actually unreasonable once we left the boiler room of the presentation. They just operate an exchange service, one that the salesmen touted as a key benefit to TS ownership, true, but unless you can prove some sort of collusion or conspiracy to defraud, it is unlikely we can get satisfaction from the courts on that objective.

RCI operates what used to be an exchange service. They're not the only one out there for us owners of timeshares to turn to. There's the big box competitor II, the local outfits that are discussed elsewhere in TUG, there's RedWeek, and TUG itself. We are not held captive to RCI, so I think it would be difficult to get a court to force them to operate a plan to protect the value of our property. It would be like getting the court to force Sony to continue making the BetaMax because I have a big collection of Beta tapes and my local BlockBuster let's all us owners swap them with each other. Or maybe it's making BlockBuster continue to offer a bin in the back to allow us Beta owners an outlet to trade. Something like that. It's just not RCIs responsibility to prop up the value of our timeshares.

It IS, however, their responsibility to provide me the service I paid for and thought I was going to receive when I renewed my membership and deposited my weeks with them. They made a deal with me and reneged. If enough of us feel the same way THAT is our class complaint.

They probably have some modified legaleaze that I implicitly signed when I made my deposits, but I think there would be enough evidence that they were not transparent enough in the changes they made to the plan considering the number of members that claim they were unaware RCI was shifting deposited weeks away from the exchange program into the Points and Rental programs. If we focus on this issue, something akin to Bait and Switch, or possible theft of property through diversion of assets, we may convince a court that RCI owes us value, an apology, and that they owe future membership a clear disclosure on what they will be doing with the deposits, including the net result of a lousy selection being available when it's time to withdraw.

As for taking this to the media... Well it seems to me that would be bringing additional negative attention on the time share industry, and to some extent on us the owners. I get enough crap from friends and family about being suckered into timeshares, and honestly I'm starting to agree with them. I went to my first presentation to get a free BBQ grill (probably a cheap hibachi), but instead left with a headache, a dazed look, a deed and a mortgage. But that was 25 years ago so I can write it off as youthful vulnerability. Why I bought the second one... well it's harder to dismiss. Something to do with the Tech Boom and a pleasant stay at a Marriott.

Whether RCI operates a reasonable exchange service in the future or not, we'll still own, and be trying to protect the value of, our timeshare vacations. We need to start planning on them not being part of the picture because they can make more money renting excess inventory from the resorts. I just don't want them renting my exchange deposit, and I want value for those deposits that I've already made.

 

[Carolinian]

Another area to work on in terms of disclosure is requiring any developer selling a timeshare to provide disclosure on any affiliated exchange company's rentals. Presently under the timeshare law of most if no all states developers have to provide purchasers with a detailed disclosure guide on exchange programs of such exchange companies. Those laws were written in the good old days when Chystal deHahn ran RCI and things were on the up and up. Nobody even comtemplated that they would be skimming off good weeks for rentals. A similarly detailed disclosure guide ought to be required from any affiliated exchange company that rents exchange deposits. That way timeshare buyers would know what they are getting into. Part of the disclosure should include price ranges of rentals. Of course, then developers would have a hard time selling weeks, so they would either come down like a ton of bricks on RCI or jump ship to II. Either way, they would jerk RCI's chain very, very hard.

If I were back in the states, I could find a legislator to introduce that in the NC General Assembly. The real key would be to get it introduced in Florida, since many states look to what Florida does in timeshare.

 

[TSToday]

Put the pieces together

If you haven't done so, read the Complaint in the Points Class Action. You can see how it brings in a breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and the possibility of RCI violating Consumer Protection Laws. Here is a link that Timesharing Today has provided. http://tstoday.com/rciclassaction/glenz.pdf.

All timeshare owners owe a lot to Anton Glenz who is the Plaintiff in the Points Class Action. The question remains as to whether the Attorneys will prevail in being allowed discovery.

Time is running out. The November 20th filing deadline in the Weeks Class Action is not that far away.

Shep Altshuler-Publisher
TimeSharing Today
staff@tstoday.com

 

[bunny217]

okay...I'm stumped..

I am wanting to send the form letter (post 497)...but stumped as to what to write in the body....I don't know what to say in it. I am behind this movement all together...but legally....am totally confused as to what I should actually say. That is the reason I'm so glad to have found this forum....you all are sooo very much more knowlegdable than I could ever be about the legal aspect of things...Can anyone help? It wouldn't make any sense for me to fill it out and just say something that wouldn't help the cause. Am I making any sense?
Thanks for any help anyone can pass my way....Barb

 

[TSToday]

A right to rent

Rusty said: RCI has the right, like any red-blooded American company, to devise a service offering and sell it to the public, so long as it is legal and they do not operate with deception. If it's not particularly appealing it won't sell, as the market handles that sort of thing.

But, if you read the notice sent by RCI, it states:
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit that claims RCI, LLC unlawfully rented or otherise disposed of timeshare inventory deposited by members of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program.

If you agree that RCI has the right to rent or otherwise dispose of those weeks, why would two Class Action lawsuits have been filed in the first place? Common sense dictates that if RCI's actions were OK, the Plaintiffs Attorneys would not have bothered to pursue with this costly litigation in the first place.

 

[RustyS]

They can sell it, I don't have to buy it

Rusty said: RCI has the right, like any red-blooded American company, to devise a service offering and sell it to the public, so long as it is legal and they do not operate with deception. If it's not particularly appealing it won't sell, as the market handles that sort of thing.

But, if you read the notice sent by RCI, it states:
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit that claims RCI, LLC unlawfully rented or otherise disposed of timeshare inventory deposited by members of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program.

If you agree that RCI has the right to rent or otherwise dispose of those weeks, why would two Class Action lawsuits have been filed in the first place? Common sense dictates that if RCI's actions were OK, the Plaintiffs Attorneys would not have bothered to pursue with this costly litigation in the first place.

I may be guilty of using too many words so my meaning got lost.

They can devise and offer any service they want, but they have to be truthful in advertising it, signing people up, etc. They changed the plan without properly telling us (at least that's my contention), because if I knew they were skimming the cream inventory to cater to their new Points customers, or line their pocket with rental income, I would not have deposited my weeks with them, nor would I have renewed my membership.

The "unlawfully rented or otherise disposed of timeshare inventory" statement agrees with my contention that the deposits they removed from the inventory had been deposited for exchange purposes only, because that is how the program historically operated. Once they started depleting the inventory (and of course they chose the best stuff), the problems began.

They can offer it, though I don't have to buy it. But when they sell me one thing and deliver something else, we have a problem. Apparently it's not just me, because lots of Weeks owners, and now lots of Points owners too, object to how they are operating the programs they sold us. Bait and switch, deceptive practices, diversion of property... Something along these lines has occurred in the past and RCI owes something back to those of us affected by the quiet change in their operation that bled out the exchange inventory.

When I gave them my week it was nowhere in my mind to allow them to remove it from the exchange pool, after all they never had in the previous 20 years or so of my membership, because I was always able to get an acceptable exchange when I requested. And they took my deposit with the promise (written, implied, historical, I don't know) that I would receive a like property when I went to withdraw. It looks like many of us feel the same way. I think if we focus just on that we have a chance to be made right, then decide if we want to make any future deposits under their new plan.

If they want to make this program and sell it openly they are free to do so. We cannot demand they return to the old business model forever just because we liked it better (hey Blockbuster, rent me some Beta tapes). But they can't summarily change the old program after I bought into it and gave them control of my weeks, at least not until their obligations to me (us) have been fulfilled. That was unfair and needs to be rectified. My thoughts on that are to return to the old business model for a while (a period relating to the open memberships and deposits) where no exchange inventory is removed, replenish that inventory with Points and Rental inventory (reverse the flow to replace what they took away), let us get our expected and agreed-upon value by exchanging out the deposits we have already made (and for that matter give us another week for the ones we took that were substandard because that was all we had from which to choose), THEN they can implement a new program. They better be up front or they'll have deceptive practices issues again.

Once they make it right to all of us who bought memberships and deposited weeks under the old concepts, they can offer whatever they want. I, for one, won't be using their services at that point and I doubt few others will either.

 

[thheath]

RCI Rentals to Military Groups

RCI continues to push rentals to non-member groups no matter the ongoing litigation. As retired military I get an email from them at least once a month with some special they're running. Here's one I received today:

http://emails.fam2friends.com/w/web...ATVNOLkNPTQ__&si=&mv=T&bv=H&oc=H&sc=&k=11ExQW

 

[DanM]

I am wanting to send the form letter (post 497)...but stumped as to what to write in the body....I don't know what to say in it. I am behind this movement all together...but legally....am totally confused as to what I should actually say. That is the reason I'm so glad to have found this forum....you all are sooo very much more knowlegdable than I could ever be about the legal aspect of things...Can anyone help? It wouldn't make any sense for me to fill it out and just say something that wouldn't help the cause. Am I making any sense?
Thanks for any help anyone can pass my way....Barb

Here are excerpts from my letter of objection that others may want to adapt or incorporate:

"RCI sells itself as an exchange company and is acting in bad faith when it rents deposited units before the last minute.

I oppose any rental of units deposited in RCI, regardless of when deposited for exchange, unless they are still not taken in exchange 45 days before their use date. At no time should any deposits be offered exclusively for rent, even during the 45 day window."

 

[TSToday]

Impact

And what is the impact on Members if the Court approves the current proposed settlement because there were not sufficient objections to it?