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

[grest]

I apologize...this becomes cumbersome and overwhelming to me. A simple question (I know, it's never that simple): If I object to RCI's rental of weeks that could be exchanged, how should I respond to the postcard?

 

[Jennie]

I apologize...this becomes cumbersome and overwhelming to me. A simple question (I know, it's never that simple): If I object to RCI's rental of weeks that could be exchanged, how should I respond to the postcard?

The postcard is just informing you about the lawsuit and your rights and options. It lists a website you can go to for details:
www.weeksprogramsettlement.com

TUG members found that some of the information there was contradictory or unclear. So after obtaining clarification from the attorneys, TUG member goofyhobbie was kind enough to compose a clearer summary to guide us:
http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TU...ructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html

There is no official form for filing an objection. You can use the sample "goofy" prepared. Or handwrite or type your own. Just include the Case number and your required personal information--name of at least one person on the RCI Weeks account, address, phone number, and the name of only one resort at which you own a week, plus the resort I.D.number.

You can write one simple sentence: "I object to the terms of the proposed settlement"

You can add some reasons if you wish but it is not necessary.

Send the signed original to the court plus a copy of it to 2 attorneys. The 3 addresses are listed at both of the above-noted web sites.

It shouldn't take more than 5-10 minutes to do it. Make sure all 3 envelopes are postmarked no later than November 20th.

You can also go to www.weeksprogramsettlement.com to file a claim on-line for one of 5 benefits. Or you can call the 800 number on the postcard and request that a claim form be sent to you by mail.

But your objection can only be filed by mail.

 

[BigElm]

Seriously, I think we need to stop feeding "Stephan" the TROLL! This thread isn't about him and all these questions are just cluttering a very good informative thread.
Ignore feature is your friend... So can we move on with what's really important here please?!

In the meantime, I'm waiting for Susan to send me some documents to finalize the objection process.

Jennie, I fully agree with your posts and did not in anyway question them. I threw an "idea" out there but I realize it's not 'ideal' at this time as we fight to prove to RCI that they can't do whatever the heck they please with us!

 

[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.

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

. . . 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?

Kirby, I will respond only to a part of the your post that Jennie did not already address in her very good response. I think I can answer this question, if you can be patient with my desire to provide some background.

The answer is that we have absolutely no indication, and no reason whatever to believe, that RCI "shares" what it sees as its legitimate "profits" with the resorts. That is not to say that some of the resorts get nothing if they turn over weeks to RCI -- but this is not the same as the weeks taken from the spacebank which were deposited by members.

There are some resorts with whom RCI has negotiated to take unused weeks off their hands. My understanding is that this used to consist largely of unsold weeks from new resorts in active sales, and that the resorts wanted the units occupied because it's harder to sell timeshare weeks when the resort looks deserted. Also, I have read that timeshare owners are three times more likely to buy another timeshare than non-owners are to buy a first timeshare. Therefore, new resorts in active sales used to give RCI blocks of time, which RCI put into the spacebank. This caused an excess of units in the spacebank. RCI would therefore give these reosrts "bonus certificates" to be given out as the resorts saw fit. (I understand that there were other benfits also, such as marketing.) Once upon a time, if you took a timeshare sales presentation, your benefit for doing so was often a bonus certificate which you could redeem from excess inventory for about $149 or so. The system worked well for both the resorts and for members.

However, it appears that once RCI got bought out by the big corporations, an executive decision was made that this was "non-maximization of potential profits," because RCI was not actually benefitting from the exchanges -- except, of course, from membership renewls, exchange fees, bonus fees, etc. (What a concept! RCI had merely provided services at a reasonable price!) Enter: Corporate Greed.

RCI has apparently now decided that it has a stake in all these unused units which WE OWN AND PAY FOR! (To understand why RCI feels this way, it is only necessary to think of a spoiled child in a toy store. All those "pretties" to be had!) The fact that the PLAINTIFFS' attorneys themselves told the judge on June 16 that unused weeks "spoil" shows that they are (or were) also on board with this concept of maximizing profits -- but not for the resorts, or for the members.

I have been told that RCI now gets weeks directly from resorts in various ways, including paying the resorts for these weeks. I cannot say which resorts these are, but I know that one of my resorts negotiated a contract with RCI for some unused weeks. Now, if RCI rented THESE weeks, or turned these weeks over to another exchange or rental pool under another name, then that would not upset a whole lot of members (except perhaps for the owners at that same resort), and the resorts who negotiated the contracts would have only themselves to blame if they found that they could not sell weeks to new owners, because the new owners could rent them elsewhere cheaper than they would pay in annual maintenance fees. Make sense?

However, RCI is not limited to renting THESE weeks, or use THESE weeks to "dispose of in any other manner." They SWAP these weeks out for weeks that were deposited by owners for exchange. Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, this practice is legitimized. The Plaintiffs' attorneys say that one of the big advantages iof the settlement is that RCI is now limited to swapping out on a week-for-week basis using the same criteria that a member must use for making an exchange. Even if this were so, every RCI member knows that some weeks are "more equal than others"! In addition, this is one of the terms of the contract that I do not read the same as the Plaintiffs' attorneys describe it. I see the words "aggregate value" and don't necessarily see that other provisions specifically negate this. (Here, I heartily invite TUG members who are trained in the law to send me a PM so that we can review and discuss the contract terms.)

The main problem I see is that even if RCI pays the full maintenance fee (doubtful!) for each week it gets from a resort with unused but desirable weeks, RCI then has the "right" (per the proposed agreement) to swap these out with weeks it deems more rental worthy at another unsuspecting resort, who now (along with its owners) actually incur the burden of seeing its weeks used by persons who don't own and will likely never buy at that resort, especially if they can rent weeks for an amount that's lower than that maintenance fees! To check this out, go to Post No,. 610, where Fredm posts a link to "nodge's" list of rental rates for Sheridan Vistana Resort, where you can see that units are available for rent for substantially less than the maintenance fees. And not just at the last minute, either. These units are available through May or June next year.

There is, of course, the question of just how successful we "little guys" may be in fighting this whole profit-making setup. Frankly, I doubt there is a single other attorney on this case who wouldn't like to see me go away. Without Shep and Jennie and me appearing in person on June 16, no new notice would have been sent out, and it is also likely that the agreement would have been approved, despite the written objections. (I brought another 100 objections with me, most of whom had not known about the lawsuit or the settlement. TS Today's efforts to get the word out was invaluable.)

Plaintiffs's attorneys are trying to muzzle me, saying that I am "soliciting clients." To borrow another TUGger's phrase, "Horsehocky!" I do, however, want to get the word out about the settlement to people who may not know how this proposed settlement agreement will affect them, and let them decide just how and whether they want to respond.

Okay, getting off the soapbox now . . .

 

[Goofyhobbie]

Ah! You look so good up there!

Susan,

Thanks for taking the time to share more of your insight with TUGGERS and guests of TUG. Most of us have not had the benefit of your experience and perception which has developed over the last few months as both a timeshare owner who has had first hand experience with RCI as an exchanger and as an attorney interacting face to face with RCI corporate executives and their attorneys.

We appreciate your efforts and the efforts of Jeannie, Shep, and other objectors who have supported the "grass roots" effort to see the proposed settlement go down in flames!

 

[brigechols]

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)

Thanks for the link. He is a patent attorney who also investigates and files plaintiff class action consumer lawsuits. Very unusual combination. Love this statement: I [Stephan] am a patent attorney that has worked extensively with Computer Networks, and based on my knowledge of software and the present capabilities of the Weeks’ exchange software used by RCI, I feel I am one of the most knowledgeable individuals of the RCI exchange process.:hysterical: :rofl:

 

[london]

Class Action Suit

Thanks for the link. He is a patent attorney who also investigates and files plaintiff class action consumer lawsuits. Very unusual combination. Love this statement: I [Stephan] am a patent attorney that has worked extensively with Computer Networks, and based on my knowledge of software and the present capabilities of the Weeks’ exchange software used by RCI, I feel I am one of the most knowledgeable individuals of the RCI exchange process.:hysterical: :rofl:

It will be interesting to see what the final agreed weeks settlement will consist of. Hopefully, weeks owners will be in a better trading position.

Mr. Willet may be paid via the court.

 

[TSToday]

Switching Points to Weeks

Did you ever switch from Points back to Weeks? Please provide details as to how this was accomplished.
Shep Altshuler
Publisher
TimeSharing Today

 

[joestein]

I have posted on these boards for many years so even though some of my opinions might run towards RCI, I hope everyone knows I am not a shill of any sort.

RCI is a company. It is only interested in profit, our investments in our timeshares in none of their concern or care. There only concern should be that their action could hurt (but isn't at this time) an industry that they are dependant on for their liveihood.

In connection to the idea of spoilage of weeks that are under 90 days, I understand and agree with RCI's stance. They are there to make profits and if a unit has not been exchanged within 90 days they should have the right to rent it out for whatever they can get for it so that they could make a profit on it. Remember if a unit has not been exchanged, they dont make a fee so they need to make it up somewhere. Whether a owner takes better care of a unit than a renter is none of their concern, nor should it be.

The problem as I see it has do with the pooling of weeks for a particular timeshare. An example as I understand how it works is that if 100 good weeks of a timeshare has been deposited and they go buy 100 junk weeks from the timeshare itself, they figure they have the right to 100 weeks, so they take the good weeks to rent and leave the junk for exchanges. I wonder if they do the same for weeks that hit the 90 day mark( i.e. consider themselves the owners of the a "week" of that timeshare now, rather than the owner of a particular week that is less than 90 days out.)

I think the solution that is being sought in court is going in the wrong direction, I think we would be better served by a solution that un-pooled timeshare weeks. Each week would be a distinctive week by itself. What ever weeks RCI buys from a timeshare would stay out of the exchange pool. RCI could be allowed to exchange their weeks in the pool, but it would have to be guided by the same rules that guide our exchanges.

This would allow better weeks to stay in the pool, and if they get to within 90 days, then hell, RCI gets the right to rent it out.

The only problem with this is that RCI would most likely stop buying junk weeks and this would mean a considerable maintenance increase in many timeshares.

Joe

 

[dneuser]

In connection to the idea of spoilage of weeks that are under 90 days, I understand and agree with RCI's stance. They are there to make profits and if a unit has not been exchanged within 90 days they should have the right to rent it out for whatever they can get for it so that they could make a profit on it. Remember if a unit has not been exchanged, they dont make a fee so they need to make it up somewhere. Whether a owner takes better care of a unit than a renter is none of their concern, nor should it be.

There is another very fine option to renting units that have not been picked up prior to 90 day "limit". RCI can remove the ever-elusive and never fully explained trading power filters and open access to all weeks members for exchange. I'm fairly certain that those who have been complaining for years about loss of trading power would jump at the chance to trade into some of those units that have been out of reach except through rental.

When RCI accepted the week for deposit from member they were willing to accept $169 or $199 for its exchange from another member. Why within 90 days should they suddenly be entitled to $1500 for the same week? Instead, they should open the opportunity for exchange to a member who will gladly give them the $169/$199 for the exchange even up until 30 days prior to check-in.

 

[Hophop4]

My objection letters just got mailed today.

 

[joestein]

There is another very fine option to renting units that have not been picked up prior to 90 day "limit". RCI can remove the ever-elusive and never fully explained trading power filters and open access to all weeks members for exchange. I'm fairly certain that those who have been complaining for years about loss of trading power would jump at the chance to trade into some of those units that have been out of reach except through rental.

When RCI accepted the week for deposit from member they were willing to accept $169 or $199 for its exchange from another member. Why within 90 days should they suddenly be entitled to $1500 for the same week? Instead, they should open the opportunity for exchange to a member who will gladly give them the $169/$199 for the exchange even up until 30 days prior to check-in.

They should do both concurrently. Let the unit go to a renter or exchanger- whichever comes first at the 90 day point. But I thought they made all properties available to all exchangers at the 90 day point (or is that 45 days?)

But lets be realistic for a second.... How many quality weeks would really be available past 90 days anyway?

Joe

Joe

 

[doubleos]

Quality Weeks

JoeStein wrote:
But lets be realistic for a second.... How many quality weeks would really be available past 90 days anyway?

Joe

Hi Joe,
I have to take you at your word that you are not a shill, but if not, you seem very naive. I know for a fact that a week I put up for exchange went up immediately for rent and not exchange and it is extremely easy for me to find weeks that I would exchange for that are only available for rent. If you are right that quality weeks would not last past 90 days then I assume you are also saying that were we able to exchange during that same period that these weeks would not be available for rent either. I think you have given great support for the argument of those of us who object to the settlement.
Lewis

 

[joestein]

JoeStein wrote:
But lets be realistic for a second.... How many quality weeks would really be available past 90 days anyway?

Joe

Hi Joe,
I have to take you at your word that you are not a shill, but if not, you seem very naive. I know for a fact that a week I put up for exchange went up immediately for rent and not exchange and it is extremely easy for me to find weeks that I would exchange for that are only available for rent. If you are right that quality weeks would not last past 90 days then I assume you are also saying that were we able to exchange during that same period that these weeks would not be available for rent either. I think you have given great support for the argument of those of us who object to the settlement.
Lewis

Listen, most people deposit their weeks early to get good trading power. If a good week is deposited a year before the date of the week, and RCI didn't steal it, what is the chance it would still be around at 90 days? Pretty much Nil.

Joe

 

[Jennie]

You'd be surprised how many people don't get around to depositing their week until it's almost too late to do so.

And many people who reserved a week way in advance cancel it close to the check-in date when a job or health issue or some other unforseen circumstances prevent them from going on the planned vacation.

I've picked up a lot of great last minute cancellations this way. I've also had to toss back some very desirable weeks I had reserved a year of more in advance because of a last minute problem.

 

[joestein]

I know that DoubleOS called me nieve, but I think it is most of you out there who are nieve.

If anyone thinks that RCI is going to change tremendously the way they operate, they are kidding themselves. RCI is just here to make money, and will change only when forced and even then it has to be in a way in which it feels it can live with.

Personally, I think the current settlement is near to useless for the long run, but if they were make the changes permanet, then I think it would be good (as we could reasonably get). Is it everything the people who post on this board want? Not even close, but at least it is a realistic goal.

I think that my idea of "un-pooling" the weeks would work great, but I know that it not realistic to think that RCI would ever do that, it works against them too much.

To the people who deposit late or change their plans at the last minute, tough noogies! If as a time share owner you don't plan in advance, then you are probably better served by selling your timeshare.

Joe

 

[rickandcindy23]

Maybe RCI should be in the business of educating people on late deposits, Joe.

RCI could give statistics on your week, specifically:
Deposit at one year out and see XXX available units
Deposit at six months out and see XXX units
Deposit at 2 months out and see X units

Unhappy exchangers want to walk away from their timeshares, because the concept isn't as it was presented by the salespeople in the first place, and aren't we all saying that availability is less because RCI chooses to rent? Some owners just stop paying, while others go to extremes at getting rid of their unwanted timeshares. RCI is destroying the very product it promotes, through their own timeshare rental program. Resorts should be outraged that RCI is making owners want to walk away from the obligations, simply because RCI reduces the trading power of their weeks in one system upgrade (okay, yes I am still ranting about that one).

You have a lot of disillusioned owners, and RCI never suffers because of it.

Another point I wanted to make but haven't yet: Alternative exchange companies like Trading Places, Trading Places Maui, Hawaiian Timeshare Exchange, etc., all offer one-to-one exchanges for your weeks. Hawaiian only takes red weeks, but you will get Hawaii in return, even if you own a January Orlando week. I don't even know if TP Maui requires a red deposit, but I don't think they do. Considering all of the wonderful opportunities we have for joining these alternate companies, I think RCI should have to list those in a letter to all owners, basically saying, "we are in the business of renting timeshares, so we want you to know about these other companies that don't charge annual fees, or charge less than we do, all with cheaper exchange fees." I just want RCI to say, "You have choices." But resorts bear some of the responsibility for that.

Okay, well that would be something the judge would never do, but still, I think RCI should PAY for their sins.

 

[Carolinian]

The ''settlement'' is really a sell-out by greedy plaintiffs attorneys who are looking for big fees for their own pockets. It does little and for a limited period. Timesharers are much better off rolling the dice with the court and taking this on to trial. The consumer protection laws are on our side.

I know that DoubleOS called me nieve, but I think it is most of you out there who are nieve.

If anyone thinks that RCI is going to change tremendously the way they operate, they are kidding themselves. RCI is just here to make money, and will change only when forced and even then it has to be in a way in which it feels it can live with.

Personally, I think the current settlement is near to useless for the long run, but if they were make the changes permanet, then I think it would be good (as we could reasonably get). Is it everything the people who post on this board want? Not even close, but at least it is a realistic goal.

I think that my idea of "un-pooling" the weeks would work great, but I know that it not realistic to think that RCI would ever do that, it works against them too much.

To the people who deposit late or change their plans at the last minute, tough noogies! If as a time share owner you don't plan in advance, then you are probably better served by selling your timeshare.

Joe

 

[crazyhorse]

All this court action is taking place in the USA. I have been following the progress off and on for some years, but as a European member do I have any options?

The situation over here regarding exchange issues seems to be similar to USA members` experience but there are no ongoing court actions (I believe).

At least one national consumer protection organisation over here is aware of the issues and is following the legal process. So I guess it`s a case of wait and see.

As a long time member of RCI, I am not particularly interested in the compensation side of the settlement itself, as the options are so paltry.

However the whole business has revealed that RCI has scant regard or respect for its members. The rule that once a deposit is made (for exchange!), it becomes the sole property of RCI, is "greed gone too far".

The settlement now offers that RCI will not have sole possession of it until 31 days after it has been deposited. Hard to believe!

I have to agree that the Exchange Pool should be kept distinct from the Rental Pool. No transfers should be allowed from the Exchange Pool to the Rental Pool until near to (90 days?) the Exchange Week start date.
Ideally I would also like to see the Exchange Pool inventory open for all to see, so a depositer can see where his week has gone.

Too much to ask perhaps.

 

[DeniseM]

All this court action is taking place in the USA. I have been following the progress off and on for some years, but as a European member do I have any options?

Yes you do - a few posts up, the same question was asked by a Canadian - see the response to that question for more info.

 

[Jennie]

Yes you do - a few posts up, the same question was asked by a Canadian - see the response to that question for more info.

I think that if Europeans own European timeshares (and in some other areas), they belong to RCI Europe, which is a separate company. I suspect that they would not be members of the current U.S. class action lawsuit unless they own a U.S., Canadian, or Mexican timeshare that is affiliated with the RCI exchange program in the U.S..

But I will clarify this with the Lead Attorneys in the current case and will post the official answer when received.

 

[GadgetRick]

If anyone thinks that RCI is going to change tremendously the way they operate, they are kidding themselves. RCI is just here to make money, and will change only when forced and even then it has to be in a way in which it feels it can live with.

I think that my idea of "un-pooling" the weeks would work great, but I know that it not realistic to think that RCI would ever do that, it works against them too much.

To the people who deposit late or change their plans at the last minute, tough noogies! If as a time share owner you don't plan in advance, then you are probably better served by selling your timeshare.

Joe

So, because RCI is a business blah blah blah, should we just not complain when they (as a business) decides to do something we (as a customer) don't like? Many businesses have made decisions based on profit only to change those decisions once they realized how much it pissed off their customers.

And everyone can't plan ahead which is why some people do things at the last minute.

 

[Goofyhobbie]

Can a Non-US Citizen File an Objection with the U. S. District Court?

Crazyhorse said: All this court action is taking place in the USA. I have been following the progress off and on for some years, but as a European member do I have any options?

We are in the process of trying to clarify whether or not "class members" residing in countries outside of North America have standing with the U. S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In other words we are trying to get the definitive answer to the question:

Can a citizen of a country other than the United States and Canada send an OBJECTION to the Clerk of Court and have that Objection recognized?

Based on Jeannie's post # 599 it appears that any Member of RCI that was a member between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009 can file an OBJECTION regardless of the member's country of residence. But, as stated earlier that fact is being confirmed and will be posted here with clarity as soon as possible.

 

[joestein]

So, because RCI is a business blah blah blah, should we just not complain when they (as a business) decides to do something we (as a customer) don't like? Many businesses have made decisions based on profit only to change those decisions once they realized how much it pissed off their customers.

And everyone can't plan ahead which is why some people do things at the last minute.

If someone likes to do things at the last minute, Timesharing is not really for them. Most people who are happy with their timeshare experences (I know that I am) plan in advance.

As for them RCI changing because it pisses off its customers, get real. They don't care. Why should they? The majority of their customers come from timeshare companies who customers have no choice in where they exchange. (i.e. Wyndham, HGVC, Worldmark, Disney, Starwood, etc. - not to mention properties that only exchange through RCI) If you don't want to use them, your options are limited. Most timeshare owners probably never even heard of SFX or the small exchangers.

SO..... instead of asking for the world, try for something small that might have a chance of sticking, its better than nothing.

Joe

IMHO.... The best thing we can hope for is that the changes that RCI agreed to make for 2 years can be made permanet.

 

[Jennie]

I just got a postcard today-didn't know about any of this since I sold my RCI affiliated resort a few years back and canceled membership. I went online for the claim form and I had the choice of $15, or a discount if I wanted to rejoin RCI-I took the $15!

You can also file an objection to the proposed settlement. Even though you are
no longer an owner of an RCI affiliated resort, you might want to support others who are still owners and are not being treated fairly. It could benefit your family and friends who might want to enjoy the benefits of timeshare ownership in the future, and help protect the investment that millions of people have already made, that is being destroyed by RCI's greed driven business practices.

It will only take you about 5-10 minutes, and cost you 3 first class stamps to file an objection. You can object even though it no longer personally affects you.

Scroll down to post #617 for simple directions on how to do this, if you wish
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100107&page=25