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

[BigElm]

If you think that, then you do not understand the law or the legal issues. Please read some of the material from TST to educate yourself.

Your comment is too generalistic. What EXACTLY are you referring to that I need to educate myself on. I've been a TS member for over 10 yrs. so please enlighten me.

 

[ecwinch]

DeniseM, You are not the only one confused. Are your questions asking in the role as Moderator? If you would like, please respond via private email.

Are you Steve Willet, the California attorney that sent an objection letter to the court. The one that stated that he was not a member of RCI, but was objecting on the behalf of his parents (who are members)?

The one who argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed and refiled in California where Mr. Willet could obtain a better settlement?

Only ask because because the similarities in first names and locations.

 

[DeniseM]

Your comment is too generalistic. What EXACTLY are you referring to that I need to educate myself on. I've been a TS member for over 10 yrs. so please enlighten me.

TST is Timeshare today - the various documents you can read are all referenced in this thread.

 

[Jennie]

According to papers he has filed in Federal Court, "Stephan" is:
[Contact info. removed]

On October 16, 2009 he filed what he calls a "NOTICE" in the United States District Court.

In it he refers to Timesharing Today as an eMagazine. In previous "notices" he filed with this court, and Emails he sent to Susan Collins and me, he kept referring to 3 eMagazines--Timesharing Today, TUG, and Redweek. We repeatedly informed him that these 3 entities are not eMagazines but it "went in one ear and out the other."

As noted in earlier posts here on TUG, we were also unable to convince Stephan that RCI does not OWN the weeks that they "swap out" for deposited weeks. He made this same ridiculous statement several times in front of 17 witnesses at a meeting with RCI. Mr. Sager, lead attorney for the Defendant (RCI)corrected him several times stating, "RCI does not own any weeks" but it did not stop Stephan from continuing to say it. We were also unable to make Stephan understand that if this lawsuit prohibits RCI from renting timeshare weeks, it will NOT prohibit timeshare owners from renting the weeks that they own.

On page 8 of the October 16th "Notice" Stephan states, "I have tried to make the Court aware in writing specifically where I feel I was critical in improving the supplemental notice to the class. Based on the knowledge and work I have conducted on this case over the past 2.5 years to achieve a level of understanding that exceeds every attorney of record on this case, I expect a fee petition to sum to about $250,000. at $475./hour as specified in my retainers for over a year now, not including local counsel fees.

Let this serve as my formal notice of appearance for [name removed]. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 102.1 leave of court is requested to withdraw as counsel for [name removed], who will personally file his own objection."


Up until now, Mr. Willett was appearing as an attorney for [name removed]. Since Stephan was not a timeshare owner, and not an RCI Weeks member, he was not a member of the class and could not voice his objections to the settlement. Shep, Susan, and I could and did speak because we own timeshare weeks and have been RCI Weeks members for several years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney. I have been devoting my time to this important "cause" as a volunteer. I have paid all my own expesnse and will not be applying for, nor accepting, any fees related to my involvement in this case. I have been a TUG member since 1994. I currently own 14 weeks, 3 RCI Points packages, and 2 Wyndham-Fairfield Points packages. I have completed approximately 80 exchanges. I have a deep interest and concern about the way in which RCI operates the Weeks exchange program.

 

[dwainwri]

Where do Canadian weeks members fit into this lawsuit?

I've been following this thread for some time now. As an RCI member since 1994, none of this has been a surprise to me. Like many long-time TUGGERS, we can remember when making an exchange wasn't difficult and last minute availability was amazing. That began to dry up about 6-8 yrs ago and now trades are very difficult. Renting... I have steadfastly refused to "RENT" what was obviously deposited weeks.

I haven't sent an objection letter as I was under the impretion that a Canadian wouldn't have any standing in a U.S. court case. However, this issue seems to be picking up steam and I'm beginning to feel that RCI may be in for a surprise...

My question is for Susan - Is there any point in Canadians objecting to the settlement? If there is, I can round up quite a few objectors fairly quickly!
What is our legal standing as Canadians???

Don Wainwright,
Toronto

 

[DeniseM]

I expect a fee petition to sum to about $250,000. at $475./hour as specified in my retainers for over a year now, not including local counsel fees.

Does this mean that he is asking the court to award him $250,000 as part of the settlement?


Please tell me that could NOT possibly happen!

I gue$$ thi$ answer$ my question$ about what hi$ "intere$t" in this ca$e i$!

 

[geekette]

Does this mean that he is asking the court to award him $250,000 as part of the settlement?


Please tell me that could NOT possibly happen!

I gue$$ thi$ answer$ my question$ about what hi$ "intere$t" in this ca$e i$!

YEP.

If only he had enuf interest to educate himself on the basics!

Hey, Stevie, RCI DOESN'T OWN ANY TIMESHARE WEEKS ANYWHERE!

 

[Jennie]

Prior to the last hearing that resulted in the new notice being sent, the Plaintiffs Attorney sent a letter to the court saying that the new notice would only produce the same objections that have already been presented. He then listed them. While the volume of objections above the 100 or so already sent will be very powerful, it will be extremenly beneficial for those who intend to appear in court to present new information that has since come to light. The Complaint in the Points Class Action can help in that regard in that it provides a lot of informative allegations.

Having a strong attendee turnout on November 30th will also send a strong message.
Shep Altshuler
TimeSharing Today

But are you sure that new information can be cited at this time? I'm not an attorney nor do I have any prior knowledge of class action lawsuits but I worked in the New York Criminal Court system for years. Once a criminal indictment was filed, if new information came to light prior to a trial or plea bargain, there was a need to obtain the court's permission to add the information. The defense attorney would fight against it. If the judge approved it, it was a complicated process to amend the original charges. But if the information was known/available at the time the indictment was filed, and for whatever reason was not included, the prosecutor was "out of luck."

The current case was filed in 2006. By then the "rental permission" clause was already in the RCI "Terms and Conditions" of membership so I'm not sure it is "new" information. It's new to many RCI members but not a new development. The fact that the unconscionable contract type of clauses were not made part of the current case is unfortunate. Or perhaps the Plaintiffs had legal or strategic reasons for not "going there". I have no "inside" information about this. I'm pondering it just like the rest of us. I do have serious concerns, however, about whether the Points lawsuit will be able to overcome the obstacles encountered when a prior lawsuit brought on behalf of Wyndham-Fairfield owners was dismissed.

I guess there's no harm in mentioning "new" things in an objection letter. But I doubt it would make much difference. Please understand that a Judge does not live in a vacuum. He/she keeps informed about any issues related to a case he/she is handling. I'm sure Judge Sheridan is aware of the Points lawsuit and has personally read it and discussed it with trusted sources.

I'd again like to emphasize my belief that the quantity of objections filed is more important than what is actually written in the letter. More people will object if they know that they don't have to "obsess" over what to say. In my humble opinion, KISS is a good motto here

 

[Jennie]

Does this mean that he is asking the court to award him $250,000 as part of the settlement?


Please tell me that could NOT possibly happen!

I gue$$ thi$ answer$ my question$ about what hi$ "intere$t" in this ca$e i$!

Over 2.5 years the only known client he had is his father. He is now asking the court's permission to withdraw his representation of his father and add one other new client. Presumably he has no other clients? Did his father fire him?

Stephan has been asking TUG members to submit objections to him instead of following the official instructions set by the court that they be sent by the objector, with an original signature, directly to the to the court. It seems as if he may have made this request as a basis to support his goal of seekimg court fees for "representing" objectors. He keeps trying to convince TUGgers that he is far more experienced and able than Susan Collins who has been working diligently and competently with Shep and me since June.

If Stephan's motive for posting on TUG is to try to justify receiving fees for representing TUG objectors, do you think this new information (Notice to the court submitted October 19, 2009) may be enough to persuade TUG Brian to remove Stephan's rambling, errors-filled "information" from TUG? I know and respect TUG's policy about not censoring information. But there is a policy about not promoting a business or anything else for personal financial gain.

It should be noted that the court Notice filed includes allegations that I posted incorrect information ON TUG about him. He has misquoted me . Does he get anything straight???

 

[DeniseM]

Jennie - sometimes posts are deleted, but usually, we just give people enough rope to hang themselves - as has happened here. It's far more "informative" when they show their true colors in this fashion...

However, that's TUGBrian's call...

I wonder if Stephan knows, that we know when he is here, because his little green light is on. He's been here for a couple hours - I am sure he will chime in at any minute and clear this all up for us!

 

[Jennie]

I've been following this thread for some time now. As an RCI member since 1994, none of this has been a surprise to me. Like many long-time TUGGERS, we can remember when making an exchange wasn't difficult and last minute availability was amazing. That began to dry up about 6-8 yrs ago and now trades are very difficult. Renting... I have steadfastly refused to "RENT" what was obviously deposited weeks.

I haven't sent an objection letter as I was under the impretion that a Canadian wouldn't have any standing in a U.S. court case. However, this issue seems to be picking up steam and I'm beginning to feel that RCI may be in for a surprise...

My question is for Susan - Is there any point in Canadians objecting to the settlement? If there is, I can round up quite a few objectors fairly quickly!
What is our legal standing as Canadians???

Don Wainwright,
Toronto

Hi Don,

I was quite sure that Canadians would be able to participate in this case. But I sent an Email to the Lead Attorney for the Plaintiffs to double-check. and this is the reply:

"Country of residence is not a factor for participation in the claims process. Hence, Canadians are welcome to participate so long as they meet the definition of a class member (are or were members of the Weeks Program)".

So, go get 'um!

 

[TSToday]

New information

But are you sure that new information can be cited at this time? I'm not an attorney nor do I have any prior knowledge of class action lawsuits but I worked in the Criminal Court system for years. Once a criminal indictment was filed, if new information came to light prior to a trial or plea bargain, there was a need to obtain the court's permission to add the information. The defense attorney would fight against it. If the judge approved it, it was a complicated process to amend the original charges.

The current case was filed in 2006. By then the "rental permission" clause was already in the RCI "Terms and Conditions" of membership so I'm not sure it is "new" information. It's new to many RCI members but not a new development. The fact that the unconscionable contract type of clauses were not made part of the current case is unfortunate. Or perhaps the Plaintiffs had legal or strategic reasons for not "going there". I have no "inside" information about this. I'm pondering it just like the rest of us. I do have serious concerns, however, about whether the Points lawsuit will be able to overcome the obstacles encountered when a prior lawsuit brought on behalf of Wyndham-Fairfield owners was dismissed.

I guess there's no harm in mentioning "new" things in an objection letter. But I doubt it would make much difference. Please understand that a Judge does not live in a vacuum. He/she keeps informed about any issues related to a case he/she is handling. I'm sure Judge Sheridan is aware of the Points lawsuit and has personally read it and discussed it with trusted sources.

I'd again like to emphasize my belief that the quantity of objections filed is more important than what is actually written in the letter. More people will object if they know that they don't have to "obsess" over what to say. In my humble opinion, KISS is a good motto here.

Jennie: Yes, the volume of letters from new objectors is important. The comment focused on having new information presented by those who will be appearing in court at the Fairness Hearing on 11/30.

 

[TSToday]

Count down

We are in a 4 week countdown to the November 20th deadline for filing a claim, opting-out, requesting to appear in court and objecting. This is a time to be concise and factual.

1. In its Mar/Apr 2009 issue, TimeSharing Today, published a summary of the proposed settlement agreement in the Weeks Members Class Action. Approximately, 80 readers sent objection letters to the Court.
2. In June 2009, there was a Fairness Hearing in US District Court. My primary focus in appearing was to voice my objections about the inadequacy of the notice sent by RCI to its Weeks Members. Susan Collins and Caroline Lindholm added their comments about the notice and also detailed their concerns about the inadequacies of the proposed settlement agreement.
3, The Judge agreed about the inadequacy of the notice and ordered RCI to send a new notice to the Weeks members. In early October, a postcard notice was sent by RCI to over 2 million Weeks Members and former weeks members, plus an email notice to about 500,000 members was sent.
4. The Judge has not yet ruled on the proposed settlement agreement, which will be considered at a Fairness Hearing on November 30, 2009.
5. Although an effort has been made by Susan Collins to present a counter-proposal to the settlement agreement, there are no active discussions taking place between the Objectors and RCI's attorneys at this time.
6. Based on past observations, it is reasonable to expect that the Plaintiffs Attorneys and RCI's Attorneys are going to aggressively defend the terms of the original proposed settlement agreement. That agreement ratifies RCI right to rent deposited weeks and to use those weeks for other purposes. At a meeting on September 9, 2009, RCI defended its right to rent weeks at rates that are below the maintenance fees paid by the owner.
7. After the November 30th Fairness Hearing, the judge will either approve or disapprove the proposed settlement agreement.
8. Because the court did not allow discovery by the Plaintiffs Attorneys, a settlement appeared to them to be the best option. But the terms of the proposed settlement are not acceptable to the Objectors.
9. However you decide to proceed, do not miss the November 20th filing date. Send in your letters early. If you want to object, send a separate letter of objection. If you want to appear, send a separate letter requesting to appear. If you want to file a claim send a separate claim form. You can object and still file a claim for benefits. You can also take no action and you will still be included in any programmatic changes made if the proposed settlement is approved. If you previously objected, there is no need to send another objection letter.

Please note: Prior to last June's Fairness Hearing, I went to the Court to view the objection letters that were sent. If you have recently sent an objection letter to the Court, or if you are going to send an objection letter to the Court, please help facilitate our information gathering efforts by sending a copy to TimeSharing Today as follow:
RCI Class Action
c/oTimeSharing Today
140 County Rd., Ste 114
Tenafly, NJ 07670

Shep Althsuler-Publisher
TimeSharing Today

 

[RustyS]

Let's move past Stephen and focus on the case

YEP.

If only he had enuf interest to educate himself on the basics!

Forgive me if this looks like a flame, but what a slime. Expects to be paid (handsomely) for familiarizing himself with the basics of the case since he had no knowledge, bearing, or status in the original complaint. And people wonder why lawyers are such good joke fodder.

I recommend anyone with thoughts on this dude and his ambulance-chasing ways submit them as a PS on their objection paperwork. Jennie, Susan, et al can't be expected to be the only ones pointing out he is trying to worm his way in and hasn't demonstrated any utility to the plaintiffs as a class, and has instead been witnessed providing erroneous instructions to class members either out of malice, greed, or ignorance. If the court is aware of many independent concerns as to his standing perhaps they'll factor that in as they review his statements.

But lets move past him, ignoring him as we go by, and focus on the looming deadline for objections. Hopefully all interested parties will submit theirs, even without lots of detail, as I agree with those that point out the number of objections will have meaning. Someone will provide the details. Don't not file (sometimes a double-negative is warranted) because you don't have anything to add, raising your hand to be counted is valuable enough on it's own.

 

[DeniseM]

Before things become too hostile, I thought I should at least try and reply. Yes, no, & no to the post’s questions. .

These are the questions that Stephan is answering and his responses:

1) Do you live in Escondido, CA? YES

2) Hasn't Ms. Collins already turned down your offer of assistance in the past? NO

3) Can you please post a link to your professional website? NO
__________________

 

[geekette]

Thank you, Denise.

It made no sense to me that he was saying he answered everything and referenced a post that he didn't write!

 

[DeniseM]

Thank you, Denise.

It made no sense to me that he was saying he answered everything and referenced a post that he didn't write!

I wrote post 581, and the way I read his response, I believe he is saying he has already answered my questions from post 581.

 

[Stricky]

The bottom of this page has some info on him: http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/Ob...t_opinion_on_RCI_class_action_settlement.html

(I belive that site was set up by Brian)

 

[GadgetRick]

Before things become too hostile, I thought I should at least try and reply. Yes, no, & no to the post’s questions. In reference to Post 581, all those questions have been answered in posts on this thread. As you should know that is the big problem with BBs since there is too much information. Anyway, after the National Class Action Conference this week, I will provide a more detailed response. Also, my legal statement on the RCI Weeks Class Action Settlement on this site describes all the personal information I am comfortable sharing publicly, and there is a personal email provided if further inquiry is desired.

What is the mystery? Who are are you? What's your interest in all of this? You've not answered these questions that I can see. They're simple questions, take you a couple of minutes to type out. I'm sure you can find time in your busy conference schedule.

Quite frankly, I don't know anything about you but it certainly seems as if we should not trust you as you're being quite the mysterious person around here. Not trying to be hostile, just being honest. If you're trying to help, then help but this game you seem to be playing with who you are, etc. is almost comical. Others here have actually been helping and seem to have our best interests in mind. Honestly, I have no idea what you have in mind...

If you were to clear everything up, just explain everything then maybe we would have more respect for what you're saying here.

 

[Fredm]

RCI Rental Rates

A fellow TUGGER (nodge) just compiled current rental rates from RCI for Sheraton Vistana Resort.

FYI, HOA fees are $923/year.

Now, if anyone doubts that RCI is destroying owner equity you live on another planet.

 

[DeniseM]

Originally Posted by Stephan
Before things become too hostile, I thought I should at least try and reply. Yes, no, & no to the post’s questions.

1) Do you live in Escondido, CA? YES

Can you please clarify one thing? If you live in Escondido, why did you list another state of residence on your court documents (a matter of public record) and why do your email address and IP address both originate from the East Coast?

 

[urple2]

Finished my objection letters, including one for TSToday.

Will Mail in the AM.

 

[kirby2000]

Did RCI pay anything to the resorts?

First, I want to thank ALL OF YOU that have been providing the informational posts! You all have provided a wealth of info to the countless numbers of us that have not posted but instead we check in to read the current status and to get educated opinions. In no particular order I'd like to extend a special thanks to Brian, Dave (Goofyhobbie), DeniseM, Jennie, RustyS, Shep, and Susan! I apologize to the many that contributed just as much but I failed to list.

Second, I understand the short version of the Class Act is the fact that RCI was taking the better weeks that were deposited for exchange purposes and they were renting them to the public thereby reducing or eliminating a pool of desirable weeks to exchange for, and RCI pocketed the rent money too. Also, the rental rates were less than the maintenance fees and HOA fees that most Owners pay annually thereby reducing the value of the weeks owned. This is only a short version so I can get to my third thought....

Third, as I look over my maintenance fee invoice that just arrived today and yet again is the "Replacement Reserve" fee that increases my Maintenance Fees by about 25% -- the question must be asked: did any of the rent money taken in by RCI ever get back to the resorts to contribute towards the replacement reserves? It comes down to the Owners are paying fees to keep the "rental property" in top shape for RCI's "customers"! The RCI database must contain how many units they rented at each resort, directly or indirectly through other avenues.

Fourth, continuing along the same lines -- along with my maintenance fee invoice is a copy of the 2009 and 2010 Operating Budgets. So, again, the Owners covered the 16.5 million dollars ($16,500,000.00) in operating expenses for 2009 while RCI used the resort and units as rental properties? For every owner that used a unit there were facility expenses but likewise for every renter there were the same facility expenses; payroll and operating expenses for: administration, admin support costs, front desk, reservations, maintenance, housekeeping, common area, grounds department, pool department, purchasing department, activities department, restaurant, store, and security. An interesting Note along with the budget, "Distribution of expenses was based on a review of variable costs by unit style, including costs to clean and stock each unit style, based on the projected usage of each unit style...". So my maintenance fees and replacement reserve fund fees are based on projected usage - and I as an Owner have no way to know how much of that is rental usage? Very hard to accept that the Operating Budget for 2010 will be a half million dollars higher than 2009! Is there any request for RCI to relinquish profits from the Weeks, possibly directly to the resorts to offset future operating costs?

Last, I apologize for the long and rambling post! Thanks again to all that have diligently stayed on top of the issue and provided so much information to the rest of us. I'll definitely submit an objection prior to November 20.

 

[Jennie]

Hi Kirby,

Your post is anything but rambling. You very intelligently articulate one of the many complaints all timeshare owners should have about RCI's rental to the public weeks that members deposited into the spacebank, expecting that it would be used by another member as an exchange.

In Court on June 16, 2009, RCI's attorney stated that they needed to rent all weeks that were deposited within 90 days of the check-in date, otherwise they would go to waste or be "spoiled" inventory (or words to that effect). Susan Collins and I argued against this stating that unused weeks reduce the wear and tear on the unit, and lower the overall cost of operating the resort e.g. by lowering the cost of laundry, housekeeping services, towels and chairs used at the pool or beach, disposal of trash. etc...

When a timeshare owner vacations in his own unit, or one obtained as an exchange, he is much more likely than a renter to "respect" the unit and comply with the resort rules. In most cases he will turn off the air conditioner when going out for several hours. He will keep the kitchen area clean, and not let garbage pile up, thus reducing the potential for insect or rodent infestation. He will strip the beds, and place dirty kitchen items in the dishwasher before checking out--thus cutting down on the amount of staff needed to get the units ready for the next guest.

Of course, RCI could care less about any of this. It's not coming out of their pocket. We pay the bills, we pay for RCI membership, and they take our deposited weeks and rent them to the public, and keep all of the rental income. And on top of that, they rent at prices below what the owner pays for maintenance fees, real estate taxes, reserve fund deposits, and possible Special Assesments--not to mention the initial cost of purchasing the week. What a racket! It's mind-boggling how they think they can get away with this. I guess they've been counting on the fact that most owners had no clue this was happening, and would never find out.

I hope enough of us get the message out to RCI and the court via objection letters.

 

[Jennie]

Jennie: Yes, the volume of letters from new objectors is important. The comment focused on having new information presented by those who will be appearing in court at the Fairness Hearing on 11/30.

OOPS, sorry, I misunderstood