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

[RustyS]

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."

Dan, I'm concerned about "offered exclusively for rent". I don't think they should be offered for rent at all because it exposes the inventory to depletion.

I'm leaning towards the statement "at no time should any interval deposited into the exchange system be offered through any other channel (Points, Rentals, etc) until 30 days prior to the use date". Or "all intervals deposited into the Exchange system shall be made available exclusively to members of the Weeks program for the purpose of exchanges in kind with the single exception of allowing use through other markets, including Points and Rental programs, no earlier than 30 days prior to check-in date". Something along those lines.

Problem is I don't know we have standing to require this from a company in perpetuity. I'd be happy getting that concession for long enough to run out all the memberships and deposits made under the old program concepts.

 

[RustyS]

... Basically, members who can not plan their vacations and/or deposit their Weeks a year in advance or do not happen to have an active search pending when a Member Week is deposited will probably lose that Member Week to RCI who will rent the Member Week.

You definitely hit the head of a nail that they are driving through my vacation forecast. They seem to think by offering that very narrow window for exchange they have fulfilled their obligations. Unfortunately, I can't plan that far in advance due to kids class and sport schedules, the health of elderly family members, and my own work demands. Sometimes I feel lucky if I can get 3 months planning.

For the program to be of value to me, the inventory must remain intact with the obvious exception of legitimate member exchange activity. True, at 90 days out I've probably missed some of the better opportunities, but there will still be something in there.

Secondly, I'm seeing a more disturbing trend in exchange inventory offerings. Whole slices of the calendar are no longer available to me yet seem to have plenty of inventory in the rental programs. Specifically I searched for ski vacations and see an obvious black out on properties of all quality and size levels during ski season. Non-ski locations, like lakes in the northwest and other obvious summer spots, are available to me Dec - Mar, and ski locations are available Apr - Nov, but there is little of value in there. If I want to see anything decent I have to look in the rental pool.

So the way it is currently operating it doesn't seem to be driven solely by deposited weeks, but also by match criteria, trading power, call it what you want, but the only way I can get what I used to trade for is to rent it. Sadly, the agents on the phone stick to the party line that "no deposits have been made for that period" (yet I can see deposits for after that period or rentals available during). Deception, deception, deception.

 

[RustyS]

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

"Hosed again by corporate America"?

"The little guy trampled by the CEOs"?

"Granny's investment in a Branson vacation wiped out in the interest of maximizing shareholder value"?

 

[Susan2]

Change requests to proposed Settlement Agreement

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.

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

Here is a copy of the settlment proposal I sent to RCI's lead counsel.

I have tried to make the objectives clear without getting too terribly wordy, but it may help considerably to refer to the actual proposed settlement agreement in order to more fully understand what we are asking. I do not have the time to correspond with everyone who has questions, or even to post explanations, but I think there are enough TUGgers out there who have read the agreement who can discuss it, or at least post sections of the agreement on this thread, if other readers don't understand or cannot navigate around the agreement. (Thank you in advance.)

Obviously, even these requested modifications will not satisfy everyone's desires, but we hope we've addressed most people's major concerns. The proposal addresses only the changes to RCI's practices, not the individual benefits some members refer to as "trinkets," because we believe that most members are far more concerned with RCI's ongoing practices than the are with increasing the individual payout even 10 times. (10 x $15 = $150. Not enough for me to put up with RCI's antics! And for me ten $100 cruise vouchers = more paper to put in the recycling bin!)

So, here is what we're asking:

1. As we read it, Section II. C (Priority for Weeks Exchange Fulfillment) provides that beginning August 31, 2010 and continuing for a period of two years, RCI is required to hold weeks deposited for exchange by members more than a year in advance exclusively available for members to exchange for a period of 31 days from the date of deposit (rather than from the date of RCI's confirmation of the deposit, which is the date on which the unit is available for exchange), and also requires that weeks deposited less than a year in advance be used to fulfill outstanding searches for those members whose searching weeks have sufficient trade power to make the exchange. After the end of the "exclusivity period," or the comparison of the deposited week to outstanding searches, RCI may then "swap out" the deposit for a week RCI acquired from another source, and offer it for rent "or any other purpose." Under the terms of the proposed agreement, after the exclusivity period expires or the unit has been compared against ongoing searches, "RCI will make the deposited Vacation Time available for both Exchange and Rental, should RCI wish to offer the Vacation Time for Rental." It is not clear that the weeks would be simultaneously available for exchange in the event that RCI were to use to the deposited Vacation Time "for any other purpose" as is allowed under the balancing as required by Section II.A.(2).

We propose instead that there be a "rolling exclusivity” term for ALL deposits in accordance with the table below. The time would run from the date the week is made available for exchange to other RCI members. These new terms of exclusivity should be as follows:
a. 120 days for deposits made 11 or more months in advance of the check-in date,
b. 90 days for deposits made between 6 to 10 months in advance of the check-in date, and
c. 31 days for deposits made between 3-6 months in advance of the check-in date.

2. We also want to see the proposed Agreement amended to clarify that Vacation Time will be made simultaneously available for exchange when it is used for rental or "for any other purpose" (subject to the aforementioned balancing act). We understand these "other purposes" to include RCI transferring said weeks to "other exchange or accommodation programs" which is allowed in paragraph 25 of the Terms and Conditions of RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership.
Therefore, Section II C Priority for Weeks Program Exchange Fulfillment should be amended to state that RCI will make ALL Vacation Time available for both Exchange and Rental, should RCI wish to offer the Vacation Time for rent "or for any other purpose, including rental, whether through RCI or whether through any other exchange program, partner, affiliate or other entity."

The provisions of Subparagraph 1 (other exchange programs) and subparagraph 2 (excess Vacation Time and inventory not subject of a Confirmation ninety (90) days prior to the starting date) should be specifically modified to state that these weeks will be simultaneously available for exchange by RCI members.

3. Section II A.2, “Balancing of RCI Deposits and Rented Inventory,” allows RCI to “swap out” weeks deposited for exchange by substituting inventory acquired directly from the resorts, or from another source. We propose that this section be amended as follows: 1) the third line should be changed from “Vacation Time that is deposited by members and is rented by RCI” to read ”Vacation Time that is deposited by members and is rented or otherwise disposed of by RCI in any manner other than direct exchange by another member”; and 2) Sub-provision b which excludes “Vacation Time that is not the subject of a Confirmation ninety (90) days prior to the start date of that Vacation Time” from the balancing requirement should be stricken, so that RCI is not allowed to pull these weeks from the spacebank without replacing them with other inventory. Alternately, subprovision b could be reduced to thirty (30) days, provided that this change is consistent throughout the proposed Agreement.

4. Weeks deposited by members for exchange would not be offered for rent through RCI or other exchange program, partner, affiliate or other entity for less than the annual maintenance fees, unless said Week is still available within 90 days of the start date, in which case, RCI (or its affiliate or partner) would be free to offer said week for whatever it believed the market would bear. This restriction would exclude Weeks offered as "bonus” vacation time, as these are not "rental” weeks.

5. Section II. A.(1) regarding Disclosure of Trading Power should be amended to allow Affiliated Resorts, as well as individual timeshare owners, to view the trading power of weeks. At a minimum, affiliated resorts should be able to compare the trading power of each week of unsold inventory, or weeks that are otherwise available for sale, and to clearly inform resorts that they have the ability to compare the trading power of weeks in inventory. (RCI has consistently denied responsibility for timeshare sales people overstating the exchange value of the weeks they sell. However, unless RCI makes it possible for resorts to obtain specific information on exchange values other than "red-white-blue," RCI cannot shift the responsibility for misrepresentation wholly to the resorts.)

6. These program changes should be permanent.

7. The provisions of Section II. A. 3 Disclosure of Weeks Program Activity should be lengthened substantially (we suggest at least ten years, rather than two years from December 31, 2008, as stated in the agreement), as this is the mechanism under which members can be assured that RCI is complying with the requirements of the proposed Agreement. Vacation Time deposited less than ninety (90) days in advance should not be excluded from this disclosure, but should be reported separately. Alternately, the 90 days could be changed to 30 days, if this change is consistent throughout the agreement.

8. A provision should be added to Section VIII (Payment of Attorneys’ Fees, etc., to allow the attorneys for the Objectors (Susan B. Collins and Mandel, Katz & Brosnan LLP) to seek a fee and reimbursement of expenses (with RCI reserving all its rights in the same manner as set forth in paragraph A regarding the class action attorneys).

9. Section VII. G regarding sending confirmation of RCI’s compliance with the above terms should be amended to include Susan Collins as well as Jenelle Welling as the recipient of the information.

10. RCI Guides should be trained and monitored to ensure that they are not providing misinformation to members, more than is reasonable and occasional human error, and there should be a person or a department designated to whom to send complaints regarding misinformation. RCI should agree to make all reasonable efforts to ensure that misinformation is corrected.

If this counteroffer is accepted, the Objectors would agree to withdraw their objections, either without comment or stating that, although they would have preferred a more comprehensive settlement with more restrictive terms, based on all of the circumstances, they acknowledge that these terms of the settlement are acceptable to the majority of the class. (Alternately, we can discuss an amendment to section X. C relating to the active involvement of the Objectors.)


We have no assurance that RCI will discuss these proposed terms, but we intend to place them before the Court should RCI not be willing to discuss them. We believe that all these requested terms are reasonable and that none of them would unduly restrict RCI's legitimate business practices.

 

[TUGBrian]

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com now contains TUGGER goofyhobbie's instructional/informational posts from earlier in the thread for easy reference.

 

[DanM]

I think Susan's point about units remaining available for exchange even if offered for rent is the key one. It's my major concern and where I differ, perhaps, with Rusty. Putting aside the time periods when things might be exclusively offered for exchange, I see many prime weeks sitting in the rental pool for months because they are simply too expensive. There have been more than a dozen January Whistler and Colorado ski weeks sitting in Extra Vacations at $1100 - $1600 since mid summer.

Bottom line, if the rental is more than about $700 (my average cost for maintenance and exchange fees), I won't rent and obviously many others won't either. I will hold out and hope for an exchange. So, my theory is that as long as the unit is offered for exchange and rent at the same time exchangers will have a reasonable shot at getting the unit. RCI will screw itself by asking too much for rent for too long.

 

[RustyS]

I think Susan's point about units remaining available for exchange even if offered for rent is the key one. It's my major concern and where I differ, perhaps, with Rusty. Putting aside the time periods when things might be exclusively offered for exchange, I see many prime weeks sitting in the rental pool for months because they are simply too expensive. There have been more than a dozen January Whistler and Colorado ski weeks sitting in Extra Vacations at $1100 - $1600 since mid summer.

Bottom line, if the rental is more than about $700 (my average cost for maintenance and exchange fees), I won't rent and obviously many others won't either. I will hold out and hope for an exchange. So, my theory is that as long as the unit is offered for exchange and rent at the same time exchangers will have a reasonable shot at getting the unit. RCI will screw itself by asking too much for rent for too long.

To an outsider, someone who has not purchased a timeshare property and pays no annual maintenance fee, a week in a condo (the larger the better) for 1100 to 1600 per night is a bargain compared to booking multiple hotel rooms to house his skiing family, especially since they can eat in.

RCI doesn't price the rentals for us, the exchangers. They price it for people who compare the price and lodging experience to hotel rooms. In doing so they have indeed reduced the value of timeshare ownership because why would I go through the hassles when I can rent and walk away at the end of the week?

Trust me those weeks will go. Maybe not a long way out, but they can keep them at that price and a high percentage will end up occupied.

 

[ctyatty]

One test of fairness is reciprocity, If RCI would go out and rent what I wanted to trade for, then it could be fair. So if the week I desired was not deposted, it would expend some of that rental income to provide me with the trade which I desire.

RCI is renting inventory which should rightfully be avaiable to members. So the basic concept is a consumer fraud. RCI really doesn't pool all deposited weeks, it skims the cream for profit to the detriment of members.

The proposed settlement is a rip-off plain and simple. The lack of transparency and obtaining membership money under false pretenses ought to mean upper management gets fired.

Too bad so much of corporate America gives free enterprise a bad name by their tales I win heads you lose attitude.

Plus its pretty easy for them to increase the trade power of weeks it can successfully rent so that the dogs are leftover.

 

[BigElm]

Apart from the email, I got my postcard today (bottom left showing "Second Notice").

Anyway, as to Susan's post, I can agree with everything as an Objector but the fact that a deposited week is available for rent at the same time, concerns me. I believe that after a period of time that a deposited weeks sits in the exchange pool, it should then become available for rent AFTER a given period of time from it's deposit date.

It would be nice to see RCI put deposit dates on those units that are available when doing a search; but who's to say that RCI won't alter the date to move it to a rental pool sooner. Unless members keep a close watch of their desposits and see them available online, this may help keep RCI on their toes.

 

[Jennie]

In regard to your first point above, my legal statement states:
Basically, RCI knows the majority of Weeks are deposited by Members less than a year in advance and the chances of a search to be started before a Member happens to deposit their Week AND the search meets the Member's search are low. RCI knows the deposit and search patterns of their Members since that is what RCI tabulates and they know human nature. RCI can predict that the majority of Weeks deposited will not meet the two above requirements. RCI knows they can still take a majority the Member Weeks deposited for rentals under the present Settlement, as long as they are within three (3) undefined Trading Power Segements.

Your second point is key also since actually there were deposits made, but RCI knows valuable Weeks, thus RCI deposits their Week in this situation and takes out the better Week. RCI can do this per the Settlement that allows exchanges within three "Trading Power Segements". Also, this can all be done in seconds with computer software, even while RCI advertises to renters.

Steve, the problem is that RCI is the sole judge of the rating/value assigned to each week. Those of us who have completed a large number of exchanges know that there are many resorts rated gold or silver crown (formerly RID--Resort of International Distinction) that do not deserve that high a rating.

Since RCI and Wyndham timeshare resorts are now owned by the same parent company, Wyndham Worldwide (having been spun off from Cendant), the potential for deliberate rating tampering is higher than ever.

New resorts,while in active sales, give RCI many free weeks which they hope will be given to RCI members as exchanges. They hope the exchange guests will like the resort and decide to purchase a week while they are vacationing there. Those resorts always seem to have a high rating, whether they deserve it or not. How else can they convince a person to buy a week there if they cannot brag about how it is a Gold Crown Resort and will therefore be an excellent trader?

And even if RCI actually aimed to be scrupulously honest :hysterical: in determining the correct ratings, RCI has such a long history of bungling and ineptness, that there would likely still be many major mistakes in their ratings.

For instance, a TUG member I know personally deposited a prime one bedroom week at a resort where he owns several weeks. When searching for a different (but comparable season) week at the same home resort with his own week at that resort (what we used to refer to as an "internal exchange") he was told he did not have "strong enough trade power" to pull it BUT his low value off-season studio unit in another part of the country pulled it. I'm sure many TUGgers can attest to similar experiences.

So, unless there is oversight and accountability for the way RCI assigns a value rating to a week, it will not matter how many "segments" are used to determine the comparability of an exchange or for"swapping out" weeks from the spacebank.

 

[Jennie]

Apart from the email, I got my postcard today (bottom left showing "Second Notice").

Anyway, as to Susan's post, I can agree with everything as an Objector but the fact that a deposited week is available for rent at the same time, concerns me. I believe that after a period of time that a deposited weeks sits in the exchange pool, it should then become available for rent AFTER a given period of time from it's deposit date.

It would be nice to see RCI put deposit dates on those units that are available when doing a search; but who's to say that RCI won't alter the date to move it to a rental pool sooner. Unless members keep a close watch of their desposits and see them available online, this may help keep RCI on their toes.

Would it concern you even more to know that Susan and some other objectors want the settlement to include a legal mandate that if RCI rents a timeshare week, it must be at a price equal to, or greater than the maintenance fees an owner would pay for the same unit? I think their rationale is that unless rental price propping occurs, people will stop buying timeshares on the resale or full price market if they can rent them for less, with no on-going responsibility to pay annual maintenance fees and possible Special Assessments.

To me, though, and many other owners with whom I have discussed the subject, the primary goal of this class action lawsuit should be to prevent RCI from renting any weeks that members have deposited in the spacebank for exchange with other members. To then say, "But if RCI is going to rent them then they should be required to charge a much higher price than they have been doing." To me it seems so illogical. This would be financially rewarding RCI for bad behavior and thus giving them a greater financial incentive to continue, and even escalate the activity.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Simoncc]

Would it concern you even more to know that Susan and some other objectors want the settlement to include a legal mandate that if RCI rents a timeshare week, it must be at a price equal to, or greater than the maintenance fees an owner would pay for the same unit?

To me, though, and many other owners with whom I have discussed the subject, the primary goal of this class action lawsuit should be to prevent RCI from renting any weeks that members have deposited in the spacebank for exchange with other members.

Am I missing something here?

It will be necessary to compromise if the courts are to agree to any settlement proposed by the Objectors.

Are RCI doing anything illegal by renting units out? Not in itself, but rather by deceiving (I don't think that's too strong a word) many members into thinking that the practice is a lot less widespread than it is.

No judge is going to ban RCI from renting units so the key is to come up with a proposal that is as fair as possible to all sides. As I understand it the 3 key points to Susan's proposal are:

1. A rolling exclusivity period where deposited weeks are only available for exchange - on much better terms than proposed by RCI.

2. After this period depositied weeks are still available for exchange until rented by RCI.

3. The price set by RCI to rent the units should not set at a level that threatens the viability of the resort i.e less than the annual MF.

In an ideal world, RCI wouldn't rent out any units but that just ain't going to happen. I would be happy to continue with RCI if they complied with the terms of the Susan's proposed settlement. Others may not be but if the new terms were widely distributed to members and resorts then people can make an informed choice.

 

[Jennie]

Barb, One of the objecting attorneys has said in court papers he has "spent over 100 hours studying the Settlement". His Settlement summary states.........[/b]

Is this clown having an out of body experience?

Stephan IS the attorney who filed the court papers.

He's talking about it as if someone else did it.

How weird is that

 

[Carolinian]

I do not know about your consumer protection law, but most if not all states in the US use language like that in North Carolina, which says Any unfair or deceptive act of practice in or affecting commerce is unlawful That is pretty darn broad, and unlawful means the same thing as illegal.

It will be necessary to compromise if the courts are to agree to a proposed settlement.

Are RCI doing anything illegal by renting units out? Not in iteslf, but rather by deceiving (I don't think that's too strong a word) many members into thinking that the practice is a lot less widespread than it is.

No judge is going to ban RCI from renting units so the key is to come up with a proposal that is as fair as possible to all sides. As I understand it the 3 key points to Susan's proposal are:

1. A rolling exclusivity period where deposited weeks are only available for exchange - on much better terms than proposed by RCI.

2. After this period depositied weeks are still available for exchange until rented by RCI.

3. The price set by RCI to rent the units should not set at a level that threatens the viability of the resort i.e less than the annual MF.

In an ideal world, RCI wouldn't rent out any units but that just ain't going to happen. I would be happy to continue with RCI if they complied with the terms of the proposed settlement. Others may not be but if the new terms were widely distributed to members and resorts then people can make an informed choice.

 

[Simoncc]

I do not know about your consumer protection law, but most if not all states in the US use language like that in North Carolina, which says Any unfair or deceptive act of practice in or affecting commerce is unlawful That is pretty darn broad, and unlawful means the same thing as illegal.

As I said - it is not the renting of units itself that is unlawful but rather how RCI have gone about it.

 

[Jennie]

They better be up front or they'll have deceptive practices issues again..

No they won't. They won't have any members left to file complaints or lawsuits.

Hey, if a thug, brandishing a gun, rings your doorbell and asks you to open the door so he can rob you blind,..........

 

[Jennie]

I am wanting to send the form letter (post 497)...but am stumped as to what to write in the body....I don't know what to say in it....Barb

Don't worry at all about what to say. It's fine to just send in the form without any comments. The Judge has already been made totally aware of RCI's despicable practices. He legally he needs a large outpouring of objectors in order to justify declaring the proposed settlement unfair.

If that happens, RCI may decide to "get real" and agree to significant changes to the settlement. Otherwise RCI is facing a trial, either before an intelligent judge who cares about justice being done, or a jury of our "peers". If ordinary people serving as jurors hear the facts I'll bet that a kinder gentler RCI will be reborn.

If you decide to put a statement in your "letter" you might want to say something like this: I object to the proposed settlement because it does not stop, or severely limit, RCI from removing deposited weeks from the spacebank and renting them to the public.

But please, just send in the letter, even without any comment. It will help immensely.

By the way, if you own more than one week, you just list the name and resort I.D. # of ONE week.

If you don't know your RCI number, call and ask for it at 800-338-7777

To look up your Resort I.D. go to www.rci.com and click on "Resort Directory" at the top of the home page. You do not have to log in to view it.

 

[BigElm]

Would it concern you even more to know that Susan and some other objectors want the settlement to include a legal mandate that if RCI rents a timeshare week, it must be at a price equal to, or greater than the maintenance fees an owner would pay for the same unit? I think their rationale is that unless rental price propping occurs, people will stop buying timeshares on the resale or full price market if they can rent them for less, with no on-going responsibility to pay annual maintenance fees and possible Special Assessments.

To me, though, and many other owners with whom I have discussed the subject, the primary goal of this class action lawsuit should be to prevent RCI from renting any weeks that members have deposited in the spacebank for exchange with other members. To then say, "But if RCI is going to rent them then they should be required to charge a much higher price than they have been doing." To me it seems so illogical. This would be financially rewarding RCI for bad behavior and thus giving them a greater financial incentive to continue, and even escalate the activity.

Am I missing something here?

I for one am not a fan of renting units but the fact is that the court will not ban RCI from renting them. The rental program which we as members can participate in, has more exposure to the publc and goes through the RCI handling and filtering of such renters; albeit at a profitable margin. I, for one, have not nor intend on using RCI's rental program but the reality is that they can attest that their rental program "benefits" members without the legwork... Blah, blah, blah!

IF we have to compromise, then I'm just saying that there be an exclusive area next to that resort availability line showing the date of deposit made by X member and the time period left before moving it to a rental pool. The only thing I don't agree with is having those units available for rent WHILE in the exchange pool. Any renter who can fork up the money to rent, whether for high or low $, invades our ability to exchange with these units, especially if they are of compatible trading power exchanges. The renter pays the money, RCI makes a good chunk of profit and us members continue to pay maintenance, exchange and membership fees; and still get the short end of the stick because these units are not available.

So bottom line.... Have deposited units in the exchange pool for a agreed determined amount of time before being moved to the rental pool. So, us "investing members" can have something worthwhile to look forward to when planning for out vacation.

BTW, I'm sending my Objection letter this weekend.

 

[bunny217]

My Letter is Ready to Mail...

I know I need to send one to the Clerk of Court...and then cc a copy to Mr. Berman and Mr. Sager (at the bottom)....do I need to send one to anyone else here or on this board?
We're leaving next Saturday for 2 weeks down at our resort...so I'm taking some extra blank letters with me. I wish I could explain to people as throughly as you all do as to what is going on and what the problem is. Is there anyway to explain it in a "nutshell"? For example.... If I meet people that are unfamiliar with it.... I'd like to explain it to them, but don't have the skills or enough knowledge to answer the questions that they may ask.
I have relatives that are owners, and will see them there...I have told them about the suit...I've also refered them to this site, but I'm not quite they're understanding the whole thing either. That's why I'm taking the blank letters.
Thank you for your help...everyone...for all that you are doing.
Barb

 

[TUGBrian]

I think ill create a blank letter available for download or copy on the site for easier reference...ill try to get that up this weekend.

 

[Born2Travel]

I think ill create a blank letter available for download or copy on the site for easier reference...ill try to get that up this weekend.

I think that would be great - I can't keep up with all this AND try to think of what to say in a letter - just too much going on. Thank You

 

[bunny217]

...oh...

I think ill create a blank letter available for download or copy on the site for easier reference...ill try to get that up this weekend.

I copied and pasted the one from post #497....then just filled in the blanks..is that okay? barb

 

[TUGBrian]

oh thats fine...there is no "wrong" format for writing an objection letter as long as it gets to the right person!

i was just going to make an easier one vs people having to go find post 497 =)

 

[Golfnut7]

My message to the court

I am planning to mail the following objection. Any problem with what I say?

I object to the proposed settlement because I believe that RCI should not be allowed to remove deposited weeks from the Spacebank and then rent them, at least until it is clear that others in the Points system don't want them.

Every time I try to plan my vacation, the selection is pitiful in the Spacebank. Just try to find a unit on the beach in California. Always, there is almost nothing available, but many units in the rental section. This is simply wrong! It is stealing our deposit and renting it to someone else! When I deposit my week, I expect to get a week of equal value somewhere else.

Just now I ran a search for February 2010. There is only 1 unit available in the Spacebank for Southern California, Costal and it is in Anaheim – which of course is not on the coast at all. When I look at the rentals, there are 47 units available in the Southern Pacific Coast for the same time period.

 

[Jennie]

I am planning to mail the following objection. Any problem with what I say?

I object to the proposed settlement because I believe that RCI should not be allowed to remove deposited weeks from the Spacebank and then rent them, at least until it is clear that others in the Points system don't want them.

Every time I try to plan my vacation, the selection is pitiful in the Spacebank. Just try to find a unit on the beach in California. Always, there is almost nothing available, but many units in the rental section. This is simply wrong! It is stealing our deposit and renting it to someone else! When I deposit my week, I expect to get a week of equal value somewhere else.

Just now I ran a search for February 2010. There is only 1 unit available in the Spacebank for Southern California, Costal and it is in Anaheim – which of course is not on the coast at all. When I look at the rentals, there are 47 units available in the Southern Pacific Coast for the same time period.

The information you are proposing to send to the court as an objection is EXCELLENT! But even just a one line statement such as: "I am objecting to the terms of the proposed settlement" or "I object to this settlement" will be fine and will be registered by the court as an objection. The more objections the court receives, the more likely the Judge will be to not approve the settlement in its present form.

But I did want to clarify one thing. This lawsuit is on behalf of RCI WEEKS MEMBERS. There is a separate lawsuit, recently filed, on behalf of RCI POINTS members. You need to have had an RCI weeks account between January 1, 2000 AND August 31, 2009 to be eligible to file an objection in this case, and claim one of five designated "benefits" (which TUG members are derisively referring to as "trinkets").

Many RCI members are WEEKS members AND Points members. They are eligible to object to the terms of the present case. But if you are only an RCI Points member, you would not be a member of this class action lawsuit unless you were a Weeks member at any time between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009.. You would not be eligible to file an objection in this case. But don't worry, your tiurn will come. The Points case will hopefully get to this point sometime and we'll help get the word out for you too.