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

[Carolinian]

What the independent exchange company receives is a week deposit from a trading partner that one of its members has requested. That goes out in a confirmed exchange. The exchange company has given a week and received a week from its trading partner. Unless the trading partner is dumb enough to also pay cash, then it is a clean trade for the exchange company with no real backdoor for renting.

I think Roger's point was that if they swap with other exchanges, then how can you know that they do not use that as a back-door for rentals - potentially doing so for the express purpose of maintaining their "non-rental" policy.

Roger Roger?

 

[ecwinch]

*quote deleted*

Do you not think it would relatively easy to "pierce the corporate veil" in that scenario?

I think a robust solution that would pass court-muster to prevent "cherry-picking" is going to be problematic. Only a provision that prevents weeks from being exchanged with other exchange for a period similar to the rental exclusion would address that. That for a set period (say 30 days) inventory will only be made available to individual members.

 

[Carolinian]

You might look into the independent exchange companies. Some of them, like DAE have FREE guest certificates.

My husband and I own 6 weeks' of time share, 4 of them in Cabo san Lucas. We had NO idea there was a class action suit, much less any settlement offered. We got a postcard in late October with a November 20 deadline to file our form to join in the suit. The card came from the settlement administrator. If RCI had a decent case, it seems to me they should have made it loudly and clearly to the members. They certainly have no trouble sending us emails to sell us things or charging ridiculous fees ($59 now for a "guest certificate" when we allow a married daughter to use one of our units whose name doesn't match ours). Geez. Why should RCI or the location care WHO checks into a unit for which WE PAID the maintenance and exchange fee?

 

[ecwinch]

What the independent exchange company receives is a week deposit from a trading partner that one of its members has requested. That goes out in a confirmed exchange. The exchange company has given a week and received a week from its trading partner. Unless the trading partner is dumb enough to also pay cash, then it is a clean trade for the exchange company with no real backdoor for renting.

But there is nothing to prevent this scenerio:

Trading Company X has a established policy of not renting exchanges which for PR reasons they want to maintain.

They go over to the dark side and want to increase revenue.

So they cut a deal with Trading Company Y that does rentals out units.

A great rental week is deposited into Trading Company X.

They exchange it with Trading Company Y, for a dog week worth nothing.

They have a side deal that Trading Company Y will pay 50% of the rental revenue for that week. Or alternatively Trading Company Y agrees to pay a flat fee of $300 for each week in addition to the dog week.

The net affect is that inventory is being diverted and not available to exchangers.

I think Stephan is raising a similar concern regarding Wyndham and RCI. Different logistics, but similar impact.

 

[Jennie]

I am not going into Chicken Little mode, but I actually started to get a little confused a couple of days ago when I saw Jeannie describing the Plaintiff's counsel in favorable terms. I thought one of the issues was that they were only in this for the money and were settling out to the detriment of class members. But now one of their lead attorney's is a "Ms. Welling is an ethical professional (and very nice person)". That seems like a disconnect to me.

So sorry for the confusion.

"Egret" posted the following question: "I'm sorry I don't have more info at this time and it won't be available to me until some time tomorrow. My husband indicated to me that a lawyer called and left a message on our answering machine regarding the RCI Class Action lawsuit and would like a return call. He didn't know whether it was an RCI attorney or Plantiffs' attorney.

Has anyone else received a call like this?"

Subsequently "Egret" posted that the attorney was a Ms. Welling from the west coast.

I posted a response trying to provide identifying information about the "unknown" caller so that "Egret" would know that the call was "legitimate" and to clarify Ms. Wellings' role is in the case.

As a very active "Objector" to the proposed settlement, I have had many conversations and Email exchanges with Ms. Welling of the Green-Welling law firm in San Francisco. This is the firm that brought the lawsuit against RCI. They are known as the Plaintiffs' attorneys. Ms. Welling has always been pleasant and polite in answering my numerous questions, and discussing various aspects of the proposed settlement.

When I offered the opinion that Ms. Welling is an ethical professional, I was commenting only upon the nature of my personal interactions with her.

I am in no way endorsing the proposed settlement the Green-Welling law firm agreed upon with RCI.

I just wanted to inform "Egret" that if she returned the phone call, she would be speaking with a principle attorney in this case. She need not worry about being pressured in any way about her objections to the settlement. This is not Ms. Wellings' role.

One of her duties is to do her best to ensure that all of the objections are considered by the Judge. For this to happen, the objection letter must contain legally specified information including the RCI Weeks member's name, address, telephone number, RCI number, and the name and Resort I.D. number of one resort owned. The letter must be signed by at least one member whose name appears on the account.

Several objections received thus far by the Court are missing one or more pieces of the required information. I was guessing that this might be the reason for the Ms. Wellings' call.

Ms. Welling knows I am a diehard objector. She has discussed tactical reasons why her law firm allegedly believes the proposed settlement is the best they can obtain under the circumstances. I am not impressed. Nothing she has said has changed my mind.

The legal system has complex rules. We have all heard about cases that are dismissed on technicalities e.g.a person admits to committing a serious crime but he did so without being read his Miranda rights. Is is fair? Of course not. But would you condemn the defense attorney who brought the motion to have the case dismissed? He's "playing by the rules" as he sees them. The Judge makes the final determination. If an attorney decides to defend a person accused of a heinous rape or murder, would you call him or her "slimy", even if one of his/her main purpose was to obtain a large fee? Someone must accept cases like this in order for justice to be served? What if the accused person is innocent? Attorneys play many roles.

Sometimes a case turns out "wrong" because one adversary is "out-classed" by their opponent. Or they start out fully expecting to win but, through errors or events within or beyond their control, they get to the point where they feel that they are not likely to win, so they try to salvage the case by working out a "plea bargain." It's not a perfect world.

The attorneys involved in situations like this may be very ethical--or not. Most attorneys will act ethically, if only to avoid the legal consequences of doing otherwise. Ms. Welling is an extremely intelligent individual. She is not going to risk her career and livelihood to say something unethical to an objector in this case.

I have strong opinions about legal aspects of this case but do not plan to state them publicly. I just want to make it clear that many of us working as unpaid volunteers have devoted countless hours to spreading the word to RCI members about how awful the proposed settlement is. We are hoping that the Judge will declare the proposed settlement, in it's current form, to be grossly unfair. The more objection letters he receives, the better our chance are.

P.S. If "egret" has called Ms. Welling, it would be interesting to hear what transpired, if she wishes to share the information with TUG members.

 

[Goofyhobbie]

RCI class action suit news to Beth H.

Beth H. said: My husband and I own 6 weeks' of time share, 4 of them in Cabo san Lucas. We had NO idea there was a class action suit, much less any settlement offered. We got a postcard in late October with a November 20 deadline to file our form to join in the suit. The card came from the settlement administrator. If RCI had a decent case, it seems to me they should have made it loudly and clearly to the members. They certainly have no trouble sending us emails to sell us things or charging ridiculous fees ($59 now for a "guest certificate" when we allow a married daughter to use one of our units whose name doesn't match ours). Geez. Why should RCI or the location care WHO checks into a unit for which WE PAID the maintenance and exchange fee?

Beth, please allow me to encourage you and your husband to object to the proposed settlement.

You can file a claim for one of the meager benefits being offered by RCI and you can also send the Court and Objection Letter.

To help you with the objection letter we have instructions and a Form Letter that you can simply print it out and fill in by going to the following link:

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html

 

[Jennie]

But there is nothing to prevent this scenerio:

Trading Company X has a established policy of not renting exchanges which for PR reasons they want to maintain.

They go over to the dark side and want to increase revenue.

So they cut a deal with Trading Company Y that does rentals out units.

A great rental week is deposited into Trading Company X.

They exchange it with Trading Company Y, for a dog week worth nothing.

They have a side deal that Trading Company Y will pay 50% of the rental revenue for that week. Or alternatively Trading Company Y agrees to pay a flat fee of $300 for each week in addition to the dog week.

The net affect is that inventory is being diverted and not available to exchangers.

I think Stephan is raising a similar concern regarding Wyndham and RCI. Different logistics, but similar impact.

In the proposed settlement, the number and quality of weeks being "swapped out" of the exchange bank would have to be equal to the number and quantity of the weeks "swapped in" to replace them.

The huge problem with this is that RCI is the sole arbiter of the value of all of the weeks. So they could easily manipulate the ratings of any of the weeks. They could over-rate the "swap-ins" and/or under-value the weeks being "swapped out."

That's been a long-standing problem even when dealing only with like-for-like exchanges. We have all at one time or another been offered (or accepted) weeks that were inferior in value to the week we deposited. It may have been an error due to incompetence in RCI's rating system, or a deliberate decision to "reward" the resorts that have "played ball" nicely with RCI e.g. resorts in sales that agree to exclusive affiliation with RCI and supply lots of new naive members, and/or resorts that give RCI lots of unsold weeks to use as rentals to lure in prospective buyers.

Although the proposed settlement provides for reporting of raw statistics, there is virtually no one assigned to analyze and verify the data. The reports would go to the Green Welling law firm (Plaintiffs in this case) but they state that they would receive no compensation for checking on it. Ms. Collins requested that RCI send a copy to her but they have not agreed to do so.

 

[Jennie]

Over the weekend, I attended the annual meeting at a timeshare in New Jersey. About 30 stalwart folks traveled during near hurricane conditions to get there. Most have been RCI Weeks members for years and are clearly passionate about their timeshare ownership. Only one couple said they knew about the proposed settlement and had already filed an objection.

One lady pulled the RCI notice postcard out of her pocketbook and asked if this was what I was talking about. I said yes. She said that she has no Internet skills nor access and was thinking of calling the "800" number on the card but was afraid it was just one of those "rip off" companies wanting an upfront fee to sell her week. She said that now that I had verified it was "legit" she would file an objection because she no longer receives good exchanges like she did for years, despite depositing up to two years in advance.

Another person said he believes he saw the postcard but thought it was junk mail and discarded it without reading it. He was quite annoyed and said it was a travesty that something "legal" and so important would be sent on a tiny flimsy piece of paper like that. He is a Board member and said that this will be the impetus needed for the resort to establish a much discussed in-house internal exchange and rental program.

It's a shame that RCI is allowed to treat millions of memberss in such a shabby manner. I hope they all vote with their feet if needed changes aren't made.

 

[crazyhorse]

When RCI was privately owned, it offered members good services at reasonable prices. But then it got bought out.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a sort of timeshare-owners co-op? A BIG one.

Anyone out there have any good ideas on that?



No, I haven`t any good ideas, but here`s some bad ones!

It seems that some Clubs already operate an in-house Exchange Pool, and in theory these could be joined up to form a kernel of a new system.

How could it operate? What would we like to see? Perhaps:


1. 5000 or more clubs/resorts sharing the same Exchange Pool.

2. The Pool (run by a Co-operative) is none profit making. Any excess income is shared pro-rata back to the clubs.

3. The Co-operative determines which timeshare clubs become (and stay) members of the Co-operative.

4.The weeks in the Pool can only be deposited or taken out by a bona fide timeshare owner. The Pool content should be visible prior to the member making his deposit.

5. A member can deposit his week into the Pool no sooner than 12 months before its opening date, and he must have paid his maintenance fees for this week. Terms negotiable!

6. A member, once his week is deposited can take a week from the Pool, provided its start date is no more than 24 months later than his own (such a week may not be deposited for many months!) Terms negotiable!

7. There is no grading of the timeshare weeks in the Pool. However, a member wishing to trade up his week will need to pay a fee, which is the difference between the maintenance fee of his week and the week he desires.There is no other fee to pay.

8. The Co-operative needs funding to operate. This is obtained from the fees shown in clause 7 above.

9. No weeks in the pool will be allowed to be rented out until 40 days prior to their start date.The association will have not paid for these, so any proceeds from the rental should be regarded as excess income and shared pro-rata back to the clubs.

10. The Co-operative may run a Rental System for timeshare weeks not owned by individuals, and any income from these rentals returned to the associated clubs. No weeks in such a Rental System can be transferred into the Exchange Pool.


n.b. the upgrade fee will be influenced by international currency variations, but there again, what isn`t?

How do Points Owners fit into this system?


This is a rough idea of how such an association could operate.

 

[Egret1986]

After a PM from another Tugger and reading some posts, I chose not to call

Originally Posted by ecwinch
I am not going into Chicken Little mode, but I actually started to get a little confused a couple of days ago when I saw Jeannie describing the Plaintiff's counsel in favorable terms. I thought one of the issues was that they were only in this for the money and were settling out to the detriment of class members. But now one of their lead attorney's is a "Ms. Welling is an ethical professional (and very nice person)". That seems like a disconnect to me.

Then when I saw the above post by ecwinch, it summed up my own feelings. I had previously indicated to the Tugger that PM'd me that I would continue to read this thread to stay up-to-date, but wouldn't be posting anymore on this thread.

However, since you asked Jennie, I thought I would let you know that I did not contact Ms. Welling. I do not wish to discuss her tactical reasoning for the settlement. I only wished to provide my objection and the reasons for my objection to the settlement. I was very careful to include everything that was required in the letter and signed the letter. Therefore, I do believe that there is a different reason for the telephone call. I appreciate all the time and effort others have invested into objecting this settlement. I have done what I feel I can do by sending in my objection letters with the required information and signatures, and do not wish to debate anything with the lawyers involved. There are those here on TUG, as well as others, with more knowledge and better skills to do this.

So sorry for the confusion.

I posted a response trying to provide identifying information about the "unknown" caller so that "Egret" would know that the call was "legitimate" and to clarify Ms. Wellings' role is in the case.

When I offered the opinion that Ms. Welling is an ethical professional, I was commenting only upon the nature of my personal interactions with her.

I am in no way endorsing the proposed settlement the Green-Welling law firm agreed upon with RCI.

I just wanted to inform "Egret" that if she returned the phone call, she would be speaking with a principle attorney in this case. She need not worry about being pressured in any way about her objections to the settlement. This is not Ms. Wellings' role.

One of her duties is to do her best to ensure that all of the objections are considered by the Judge. For this to happen, the objection letter must contain legally specified information including the RCI Weeks member's name, address, telephone number, RCI number, and the name and Resort I.D. number of one resort owned. The letter must be signed by at least one member whose name appears on the account.

Several objections received thus far by the Court are missing one or more pieces of the required information. I was guessing that this might be the reason for the Ms. Wellings' call.

Ms. Welling knows I am a diehard objector. She has discussed tactical reasons why her law firm allegedly believes the proposed settlement is the best they can obtain under the circumstances. I am not impressed. Nothing she has said has changed my mind.

P.S. If "egret" has called Ms. Welling, it would be interesting to hear what transpired, if she wishes to share the information with TUG members.

With regards to a later post of yours about attending a timeshare meeting and those who traveled in inclement weather to attend and were unaware of the Class Action, I believe this is typical. If I wasn't a TUGGER, I too would probably not know about this Class Action and would have tossed the postcard that RCI sent. There was nothing about that little postcard to draw attention to the fact that it was about something that could impact timesharing and exchanging. I have been actively timesharing and exchanging since 1984 and feel I am more savvy than the average timesharer. But I just wouldn't have realized the significance of that postcard notification, RCI's website notification or the notification that was indicated to be posted in their Endless Vacation magazine. As the person indicated that spoke to you at the timeshare meeting, so much junk is received from RCI that this would have definitely been overlooked without being informed as to what is going on here on TUG.

Thank you, Jennie, and everyone else for your part in attempting to make our voices heard and providing ongoing information and updates.

 

[ecwinch]

So sorry for the confusion.

.

Jennie,

Thanks for clearing the issue up. And thanks for all the time and effort you have put in on this case. If a Susan is a credit to her profession, you are equally a credit to concerned timeshare owners.

My only observation was that in regard to your characterization as an ethical professional. I now understand fully the scope of your comments.

Thanks

 

[jerseygirl]

In the proposed settlement, the number and quality of weeks being "swapped out" of the exchange bank would have to be equal to the number and quantity of the weeks "swapped in" to replace them.

The huge problem with this is that RCI is the sole arbiter of the value of all of the weeks. So they could easily manipulate the ratings of any of the weeks. They could over-rate the "swap-ins" and/or under-value the weeks being "swapped out."

Jennie -- Is it really as simple as:


In the proposed settlement, the number and quality of weeks being "swapped out" of the exchange bank would have to be equal to the number and quantity of the weeks "swapped in" to replace them.


Many years ago, you patiently educated me about RCI rentals. I thought you told me that there were four sources of rental inventory, as follows:

1. RCI gets weeks from developers (and now hotels). I think we can all agree they're entitled to rent anything not obtained as a member deposit.
2. If an RCI weeks member exchanges for a cruise, they will pull a week from inventory to rent it and make up for that "oh so generous" discount they offer. In my opinion, this would be fair too -- if they pulled ONLY the week the member deposited (e.g., II won't let you exchange an already deposited week for a cruise -- you have to make arrangements for the cruise exchange prior to depositing, which tells me they're renting just that week). But, back when Madge was here, she talked about the fact that many times the deposited week had already been taken for rental, I mean exchange (!), so they pulled something of equivalent value. This has always been of great concern to me as I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them to substitute something of equal value. This goes to your point that "RCI is the sole arbiter of the value of all of the weeks, and as far as I'm concerned, this is one of the scariest parts of the entire settlement.
3. If a points member exchanges for any "Points Partner" item (not just a cruise), the same thing happens. And the same scary substitutions can occur.

But ... the fourth source we don't seem to be talking about is this one:

When Madge was here, she talked about RCI's rentals of historically unused inventory in such a way that I was NEVER under the impression they had to substitute any weeks for these rentals. If this worked like II's program (most are in the last 60 days, and the weeks stay available for exchange when they're moved to getaways, I would be okay with this also -- provided there was some short "lead time" (e.g., 3 days, 5 days, whatever) where owners of low value weeks could still grab last minutes exchange before they're offered to all in Last Call. I think keeping these last minute weeks available for exchange only for some short time is a KEY component to keeping off-season owners in the game (i.e., paying maintenance fees).

Is this 4th "rental inventory" source addressed in the settlement? I have to admit to not reading it line-by-line, sorry.

The bottom line for me is that not only do I not trust them to be the "the sole arbiter of the value of all weeks," I think we need to ensure that ALL inventory, regardless of deposit date, is made available exclusively for exchange for some period of time. If that means RCI had to refuse accepting deposits at 30 days (for example), I could live with that. What I abhor is last minute inventory (especially cancellations of good weeks) being offered as rentals to the general public before members/owners have a chance at it.

Hope this makes sense ... and if anyone knows the answer, I'm sure you do!

 

[wilwil]

thank you! and suspicious RCI activity

Thanks to all that have contributed! I am a new member to TUG and have just recently learned of the RCI Lawsuit. I have tried to scan through most of these posts over the last few days. Our letters of objection will go in the mail tomorrow.

FYI - we reside in Canada and have NOT received any notice about this lawsuit from RCI but they are still able to mail us info or email us about new cancellation policies....

Suspicious RCI activity
Over the last two weeks, the last one today, I was emailed by RCI to complete some on line surveys. Maybe I am suspicious after reading all this information, but the surveys seemed to be fishing for information. The first one was about "online social media", but a few questions asked about how we used the internet and if we ever visited or contributed to a timeshare related forum or blog... the timing of the survey seemed suspicious as we had been researching RCI and the frustrating experiences we were having and how it has changed from when we first joined.
The second survey today was looking for "feedback" about some positive recent exchanges and how they could enhance the exchange/vacation process. They seemed to want to hear to get some positive comments about recent exchanges, which we did not give them. Perhaps they wanted this to take to court to have a survey that out of X members a high % expressed positive experiences from a recent exchange. Yet they never let us know about the lawsuit - which is buried on the bottom of the home page that disappears as soon as you login.

Thanks again to all who have put so much time into this. We even considered driving down on November 30 from Canada but could not make the adjustments to take time off of work.


We would like to find out some alternative exchange methods other than RCI. They have gotten too greedy and now I am more educated thanks to TUG so I will not support them anymore. They get our membership fee, then exchange fee up front with our deposited week - and we get very little in return while they profit on our gold crown red time week by renting it out. The only way they will listen is if we take our weeks elsewhere and that will eliminate their "free" inventory that we pay them to take from us....

 

[Carolinian]

Sources of RCI rental inventory

Jennie -- Is it really as simple as:


In the proposed settlement, the number and quality of weeks being "swapped out" of the exchange bank would have to be equal to the number and quantity of the weeks "swapped in" to replace them.


Many years ago, you patiently educated me about RCI rentals. I thought you told me that there were four sources of rental inventory, as follows:

1. RCI gets weeks from developers (and now hotels). I think we can all agree they're entitled to rent anything not obtained as a member deposit.
2. If an RCI weeks member exchanges for a cruise, they will pull a week from inventory to rent it and make up for that "oh so generous" discount they offer. In my opinion, this would be fair too -- if they pulled ONLY the week the member deposited (e.g., II won't let you exchange an already deposited week for a cruise -- you have to make arrangements for the cruise exchange prior to depositing, which tells me they're renting just that week). But, back when Madge was here, she talked about the fact that many times the deposited week had already been taken for rental, I mean exchange (!), so they pulled something of equivalent value. This has always been of great concern to me as I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them to substitute something of equal value. This goes to your point that "RCI is the sole arbiter of the value of all of the weeks, and as far as I'm concerned, this is one of the scariest parts of the entire settlement.
3. If a points member exchanges for any "Points Partner" item (not just a cruise), the same thing happens. And the same scary substitutions can occur.

But ... the fourth source we don't seem to be talking about is this one:

When Madge was here, she talked about RCI's rentals of historically unused inventory in such a way that I was NEVER under the impression they had to substitute any weeks for these rentals. If this worked like II's program (most are in the last 60 days, and the weeks stay available for exchange when they're moved to getaways, I would be okay with this also -- provided there was some short "lead time" (e.g., 3 days, 5 days, whatever) where owners of low value weeks could still grab last minutes exchange before they're offered to all in Last Call. I think keeping these last minute weeks available for exchange only for some short time is a KEY component to keeping off-season owners in the game (i.e., paying maintenance fees).

Is this 4th "rental inventory" source addressed in the settlement? I have to admit to not reading it line-by-line, sorry.

The bottom line for me is that not only do I not trust them to be the "the sole arbiter of the value of all weeks," I think we need to ensure that ALL inventory, regardless of deposit date, is made available exclusively for exchange for some period of time. If that means RCI had to refuse accepting deposits at 30 days (for example), I could live with that. What I abhor is last minute inventory (especially cancellations of good weeks) being offered as rentals to the general public before members/owners have a chance at it.

Hope this makes sense ... and if anyone knows the answer, I'm sure you do!

As to where the bulk of RCI's rental inventory in prime season is coming from, you might want to check out the following thread:

http://www.timesharetalk.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7761

The owner of the board checked out Anon's bonafides by asking him questions about his own RCI account that only someone with access to RCI's computers could answer, and Anon came back with all the right answers. He is what he says he is.

 

[jerseygirl]

Carolinian --

I've always believed both Anon and Bootleg. My history with RCI -- one deposit (and I own an embarrassing number of timeshares). You don't need to sell me on their bad behavior -- I've been in your camp for years.

But, I'm hoping my friend Jennie can answer whether or not they're claiming they substitute inventory when they pull the "historically unrequested inventory" from the exchange pool. I think this is an area where a lot of inventory can go out the back door if the settlement is not specific to this source of rental inventory as well. And, my recollection of Madge's responses to questions on this point were that they did not substitute inventory for this particular pool -- they considered it theirs, free and clear.

And, believe me, my objection letter outlined my objections to the rental of ANY deposits without first offering them exclusively for open exchange (not just against existing ongoing requests) for a fair and prominently published amount of time. I also objected to allowing them to set any substitution polices (i.e., don't allow the fox to guard the hen house). And, I objected to the excessive fees being awarded to the attorneys who are attempting to sell out the class. I'm on it -- truly. I just have one one final issue (rental inventory scenario #4) that I'd like to understand.

-- Jerseygirl

 

[Derrick229]

Now I know this is off topic,

[Deleted - It is off-topic - it has nothing to do with this issue or this forum. Please feel free to start a new thread in the TUG Lounge, if you wish. - DeniseM Moderator]

 

[RustyS]

My objections mailed yesterday

I mailed my signed objection letter to the court and provided copies (also signed just to be sure) to the two attorneys per the instructions. Hopefully they will arrive on time and my own bad habit of procrastination won't adversely affect my opinions being heard. I used one of the templates posted here and/or on the various settlement sites, and for that I thank all who put the effort into making it easy on the rest of us.

I saw that TSToday has requested copies of the objections filed, but I have to admit to not having the history in the community to know if this is a good idea or not. Anyone want to endorse this for me? Also, in this day and age of electronic / paperless communication, I hope they accept an emailed PDF because I'm already bugged by having to send paper copies to the attorneys that have a relationship with the court. You'd think they'd get an email of each item received as soon as it was scanned into the court's workflow management system.

 

[RustyS]

I got rid of my timeshare years ago (well 2007)

Blah blah blah <snipped details about your life including a veiled jab at the bulk of readers of this forum>
...

Well aren't you the proud one... What's your point?

 

[RustyS]

Cross post from another thread (sorry, but it's warranted)

There is another thread in the Exchange forum that deals with exchanges outside of RCI, and subsequent rental of those exchanges. In it a question was posed and our friend Denise dredged up an old post that is relevant to this thread.

They do not allow you to swap an exchange week with someone else - see this post from an RCI Rep.

That RCI rep made statements that agree with many members as to why RCI's actions led to the class action suit, yet contradict RCI's assertions in that suit. I'm gong to quote it here to ease any discussion.

1) Accurate representation of Trading Power value -- RCI has contracts with its affiliated resorts and is in a better position to influence information provided about its program.

2) Fair exchange policy - RCI's program strives to provide a vacation that is comparable to the one you own. If members buy a deposited week from a resort they've never visited, RCI has no way to gauge their expectations.

3) Support for timeshare sales and purchases -- Most people who want higher quality vacation exchanges invest in the purchase of higher quality weeks. When these weeks are deposited with RCI, they in turn provide exchange families with a better selection and quality of inventory from which to choose. Travelers would not be incented to upgrade their purchases if they could simply buy the "interest" for a fraction of the purchase price per year.

4) The demand among RCI members for certain areas and times of year is overwhelming (school breaks, holidays, etc.) This is magnified when non-members can compete for the same space.

If you can't use a confimed exchange, cancel it and make the unit available to other RCI members who may be requesting it. When members rent or swap confirmed exchanges, they undermine RCI's program to the detriment of other members. If a member is waiting for a vacation, he would indeed be upset to think that prime exchange units were being offered to the general public or traded among friends instead of being released.

RCI works hard to keep its exchange program viable and to satisfy its subscribing members. Maintaining control of our inventory is crucial to our ability to do this.

Wow. The potential for the rental process to undermine the value of a timeshare. The potential for the rental process to upset members because prime exchange units were being traded outside the system. Wow.

I don't know who the rep was that made these statements, nor do I know when they were made. But if it could be proven this was the corporate position at some point in time, it would prove RCI has reversed their operating concepts and embraced actions they previously predicted would be detrimental to their membership.

If only there was a discovery process in these proceedings. Of all the stuff I put in my objections, I forgot to point out the wealth of information that would support the action if the court would insist on hearing it. Dang.

 

[Judy]

Object to RCI class action lawsuit

Edited to remove the author's name as requested by two other TUGgers concerned about her privacy, although I think that without an author's name, the information loses its credibility.

I received this in an email. The sender said, "Please consider passing this information on to any other timeshare owners you may know." So I'm posting it here for your information. I haven't verified it myself. I don't know why she didn't post it here herself - I hope it's not against TUG rules.

OBJECT TO RCI’S UNFAIR TREATMENT OF MEMBERS

If you have been an RCI Weeks member at any time between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009 (even if you are no longer a member), you are automatically a member of a class action lawsuit pending in the U. S. Federal Court in Trenton, New Jersey.

RCI is accused of removing highly desirable weeks that were deposited by members into the Spacebank, and renting them to the general public, often at a price much lower than what the owner pays in annual maintenance fees. RCI admits to doing this but claims it has the right to do whatever it wants with deposited weeks!!!

The attorneys who started the lawsuit in 2006 have made an agreement with RCI's attorneys to settle the case, but it must be approved by Judge Gerald Sheridan at a "Fairness" Hearing to be held on November 30, 2009. The proposed settlement is considered by most RCI Weeks members to be very unfair.

If you are a member of the class and do not like the proposed settlement, you are urged to send an objection letter to the Court. It can be as simple as one sentence such as: “I object to the terms of the proposed settlement”. It must be postmarked by November 20th.
If a large number of letters are received by the Court, we are hopeful that it will lead to a better settlement.

You also have the right to separately file a claim for ONE of five special one-time benefits even if you are no longer a member. You can file on-line at: www.weeksprogramsettlement.com or by mail no later than November 20, 2009.

For additional information about this lawsuit, there is a long discussion going on at the TUG ”Exchanging" bulletin board/Forum: http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100107
P.S. Please consider passing this information on to any other timeshare owners you may know.

Send an objection letter, with an original member signature, to the Court
( If there are 2 or more owners listed on the RCI account, only one person's name and signature is required)
AND send a copy to the attorney for the Plaintiffs
AND send a copy to the attorney for the Defendant (RCI is the defendant).

The original goes to:
Clerk of Court
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
402 East State Street
Trenton, N.J. 08608

In the letter include

RE: In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC
Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS)

I ______________________________________object to the proposed settlement. (You can state one or more reasons for your objection, but it is not necessary to do so).

Include your address and telephone number
RCI account number
RCI Resort name and I.D number of one resort you own.
If there are 2 or more owners listed on the RCI account, only one person's name and signature is required

At the bottom of your letter, indicate that you will be sending a copy to:

cc: David S. Sager, Esq. cc: David C. Berman
DAY PITNEY LLP A Professional Corporation
P.O. Box 1945 P.O. Box 111
Morristown, N.J 07962 Morristown, N.J. 07963-0111

Note: There is no official form. Any type of letter is fine so long as if contains the required member identifying information and signature. Below is a sample letter you may print out and use if you wish.







Clerk of Court
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
402 East State Street
Trenton, N.J. 08608

RE: In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC
Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS)


I ______________________________________
object to the terms of the proposed settlement.

(original signature required)

 

[Stricky]

She has posted it.

 

[Carolinian]

Judy, didn't you catch RCI offering the summer Hatteras High week you deposited for exchange as a rental? Or was that someone else? If it was you, I hope you will mention that in an objection letter.

 

[derb]

My letter went out in todays mail.

 

[DeniseM]

I received this in an email from Caroline Lindholm, who according to her own post, is TUG member Jennie. She said, "Please consider passing this information on to any other timeshare owners you may know." So I'm posting it here for your information. I haven't verified it myself. I don't know why she didn't post it here herself - I hope it's not against TUG rules.

Jennie, and others, are trying to reach out to Tuggers who may not read the info. posted in the forums. The email you posted is what this thread is all about - Jennie started the thread and has been instrumental in this lawsuit.

 

[Judy]

Judy, didn't you catch RCI offering the summer Hatteras High week you deposited for exchange as a rental? Or was that someone else? If it was you, I hope you will mention that in an objection letter.

Yes. Good idea.