Update on Lawsuit against RCI

I dont know but some one has to know how to get in on the lawsuits...rci isnt going to tell us

Are you ready to thow good money after bad money?

Law suit can be very expensive. A big company like RCI has money to fight us.

Below is what a lawyer wrote to a group, who want to suit RCI.

Letter from Lawer to me.

Hello:

This letter is sent out of frustration. I have worked for over 6 months on trying to get a class action suit started against RCI in connection with the restriction it put on the use of points to owners at Blue Bay and Temptations resorts. One person is needed to be a plaintiff in the suit However the clause that RCI has placed in its terms and conditions about RCI recovering cost and fees has had a chilling effect and no one is willing to be the named plaintiff. Or almost no one.

I intend to cover 3 topics with this email. 1) The clause that is at issue in bringing the suit. 2) Having multiple members agree to back the named plaintiff. 3) request for minimal fees. This letter has two attachments, both are the same thing. One is in a microsoft word format and the other is the same document in pdf format.

1. The clause that is causing the hesitation and unwillingness says: "If any legal action is initiated by a Member or guest or by the Network pertaining, directly or indirectly, to these Terms and Conditions or the Network in general, and the Network prevails, that Member or guest shall, without limitation, pay all costs incurred by the Network in defending such action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, paralegal fees and court costs."

Now this is a one-sided clause, notice RCI does not say that it will pay the fees and cost if the member prevails. Also this is in a document the member does nto sign and has no ability to negotiate. For these two reasons courts generally do not favor such clauses, and often will hold them non enforceable. However, it is not a per se illegal clause so the attorneys cannot guarantee any plaintiff that if the case is lost that the court will not assess the fees and cost against him. Thus there is a chilling effect on any member thinking of suing.

On member has indicated a willingness to be plaintiff if he can get sufficient support form other members.

2. To get the other members to support the named plaintiff I have drafted an indemnity agreement; it is the attached document. When signed and delivered back to my office and is then followed by a suit being filed by a member this document becomes a binding enforceable contract. But just signing it alone will not get a plaintiff. The member wants to know that people will step forward with sufficient funds to cover an award on a dismissal fairly early in the case. I expect such a motion could result in fees from $20,000 to about $35,000. Our member is willing to act if the contracts [attached document] are completed by at least 35 people and contain pleadges totallying at least $35,000. There is a place in the attached document for members to insert a payment amount that will be paid if the court rules against the suit and orders a payment of fees to RCI.

There is a blank in the contract at paragraph number 2. I urge everyone to insert at least $1,000.00 in the blank. If you have invested as much as $25,000 in points then I would suggest it be higher, say $1,250.00/ or if you nvested as much as $30,000 in points then I would suggest $1,500 / or if you nvested as much as $40,000 in points then I would suggest $2,000 / or if you nvested as much as $50,000 in points then I would suggest $2,500 / or if you nvested as much as $60,000 in points then I would suggest $3,000.

Now I only have 48 people who will recieve this email. So virtually I need 80% to sign these contracts and send them back. If you want this suit filed I am urging you to print out one of these contracts and complete an amount in paragraph number 2, Then take the printed form to a notary as you have to sign in front of a notary and have it signed and sealed by the notary. [Most banks can do that for their customers.] Make sure your printed name and address are legible for me to read. Once completed you should photo copy the document so you will have a copy to keep. [I encourage and request that you use a blue ink pen when signing as then there is no doubt as to the original] Mail the original back to me. Do not send any money for the amount in the contract. Money is not needed for this contract at this time.

One final point on the contract. If you know of any other members who are also affected by RCI limiting the use of points just to BlueBay and Temptations members, that I encourage you to make multiple copies of the attached contract and of this email to distribute to those members. Perhaps they will join in the contracts and help get this case going.

3. Fee request: As I stated at the begining this has been a case I have already worked on for over 6 months. It is very unlikely, even if successful that I will ever make my hourly rate. Because the RCI documents specify New Jersey Law and jurisidtion in New Jersey, I found an experienced class action attorney to take this case on a contingency basis for the plaintiff class. He will only be paid if successful. My share will be quite small; I will be paid by him a 10% referral fee, if the case is successful. And now with this contract I am taking on more responsibility and will possibly have to involve my trust account. [All Illinois attorneys are requirred to maintain a trust account for client funds.] Therefore to cover some of my time and expenses and overhead I am requesting that each of you recieving this email consider sending me a voluntary fee payment. I am asking each to send $200 to $100 as you deem appropriate. There is not requirement to make this payment, but any payments recieved will be appreaciated.

C. P. V.

I agree with some of you here that instead of starting a new lawsuit against RCI, it is better to get into the current class action lawsuit that is there again RCI at this time. Even though there is a tentative settlement, the settlement doesn't seem fair or would do much to the week members. So since this settle has not been approved by the court, there is still chance for all of you to object to it. To object to the settle, you need to write to the attorney to object to the settlement by April 6, 2009. Here is the link for the information:

http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/faq.htm

According to the settlement, RCI suppose to change its ways of doing business and that its rentals will not impact the RCI weeks inventory for member's use. But from what I see, I do not see any difference, especially I know that RCI has business contracts with people to rent out its last minute inventory. Below is the company that has been listing and selling RCI last minute inventories online and on ebay for years now. http://justgottago.com/index.html http://stores.ebay.com/JustGottaGo

The owner of this company has personally confirmed to me that he has a business contract with RCI to sell excess inventory. Look at what he sells, they are all great resorts that you can hardly find on RCI website for exchange. Why do they have so many nice last minute inventories? Was RCI helding onto the good resorts and not giving them out for exchange. Also shouldn't these last minute inventories be a RCI member benefit as well becasue one of the benefits that RCI advertise is "Last Call?" Just this alone, I feel that the current proposed settlement is not adequate. These separate RCI business contracts to sells excess inventories should be stopped as well. So remember, submit your objection to the settlement by April 6, 2009. Again, you can find the information at the following link: http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/faq.htm

Go to the RCI web site, the points side and look at the bottom right side, in yellow is a link to the law suit.

My name is John, I live in Montreal Quebec. We bought a time share in Daytona Beach and yes the sales speach that they gave us is not not not at all what we got! They are liaers I do not have money to take them to Court or elase I would .

In regard to soonn who posted Feb 26, 2009 07:10 PM, get the atty to petition the court for a Safe Harbor in regard to a class action lawsuit and the RCI clause. Safe Harbor is a legal petition to the court asking if the action (Class Action) can triger the RCI clause. If the judge rules the RCI clause is not legal or valid, or that a class action will not triger the RCI Clause, then you can proceed with the Class Action without concern of incurring the RCI legal costs.

I used Safe Harbor when contesting a trust. Since contesting a trust can cause you to be terminated as a beneficiary I petitioned the court under Safe Harbor to verify three actions would not cause me to be eliminated as a beneficiary. The court ruled two actions would not put my beneficiary status at risk and so I sued the trustee in regard to the two issues. Resolution of those actions resulted in rendering the third action uneccessary.

I very seldom agree with anything Perry M states on Tug, but concerning the RCI lawsuit I will have to agree with him.

It clearly states on page 500 under 'Depositing Vacation Ownership and Requesting an Exchange' in RCI's Terms and Conditions :

c: "By depositing Vacation Ownership with RCI, you relinquish all rights to use that Vacation Ownership an agree that such deposited Vacation Ownership may be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions, RENTALS and for other purposes at RCI's DISCRETION".

That rule has always been in place. In other words, when you deposit your week (s) into RCI then RCI owns that week to do with what they wish. It's all in black and white in the back of the RCI wishbook, but evidently there are those that don't take the time to read the fine print .... they just jump on the bash RCI bandwagon without even reading RCI's their terms and conditions.

As Perry M states, all this lawsuit will do is make the lawyers rich and the cost of this lawsuit will be passed onto all RCI members in the form of higher fees.

With that rule plainly stated, I don't see how this lawsuit came to fruition in the first place ... since the suit has no validity whatsoever.

Do you people realize how important the result of this lawsuit is for timeshare owners? Lets not get off track talking about dishonest salespeople or specific resorts. Plus a lot of us are already owners whether or not we got a good deal or were taken advantage of...so for those of us that already own lets try and make it better for everyone. We need to get behind this suit and all stand up for our rights as owners. We are getting screwed and we need to fix this major problem. Thanks for bringing this lawsuit to light. Does anyone have any ideas how we can help ensure we get this behavior of RCI and other exchange companies changed?

Comments that basically state...it clearly states that RCI can screw us...doesn't mean we should allow it or not get it changed. If you were getting the shaft with anything else in life would you allow it. Well I guess we all do when it comes to utilities companies, cell phone companies, etc..they take advantage of us and it seems we keep allowing it. I think people need to gang up on these companies and change things

dcc8 wrote:

...Does anyone have any ideas how we can help ensure we get this behavior of RCI and other exchange companies changed?

I have followed this case (Murillo vs. RCI) VERY closely since March, 2006 when the suit was first filed. I personally despise RCI and most everything about them, but I report on the case progress now and then, here and elsewhere, as accurately and objectively as I can (while openly admitting my own personal bias against and dislike for RCI). With due respect, there are already some very competent, experienced timeshare owners (some of them very articulate attorneys, I might add), speaking up knowledgeably and eloquently at the Fedral Court proceedings in NJ, on behalf of other owners at RCI affiliated facilities (...presumably including you). These are people who are NOT the plaintiff attorneys, I must make very clear here, but who are instead voluntarily present to address the court --- at their own expense and with NO prospect of ANY form of reimbursement for their time, effort, or travel expenses. You (and all other owners at RCI affiliated facilities) could hardly be any better represented there than you are already.

That said, in truth there really is no "magic bullet" available here. The case is being appropriately processed through our legal system but frankly, RCI has a clear and distinct advantage in this matter, since (...like it or not...) the openly written RCI membership terms and conditions make it very clear that RCI CAN DO WHATEVER IT WANTS WITH DEPOSITED WEEKS. In recent years, as a conscious business decision, RCI is increasingly and very obviously doing just exactly that by choosing to rent out the best deposits themselves for profit, instead of making those deposits available to RCI members for "exchange" purposes. The undeniable fact that RCI *CAN* do this, as is clearly stated in their written terms and conditions of membership, will likely (and unfortunately) prevail over all else in the end, when all the smoke clears. With the above in mind, there is really only ONE answer regarding "changing RCI behavior". That answer is: DON'T GIVE RCI ANY OF YOUR WEEKS TO BEGIN WITH! Vote with your wallet! There are numerous other exchange company options out there. None are as big as RCI, but most are (in my opinion), much better AND less expensive than RCI. If you nonetheless voluntarily choose to give your weeks to RCI, just always remember that RCI CAN DO WHATEVER IT WANTS WITH DEPOSITED WEEKS. It has always been so and it will likely always continue to be so, any current and / or future lawsuits notwithstanding. If you want to "change" RCI behavior, then you must simply refuse to give RCI good weeks to then just rent out directly themselves. You can choose to NOT belong to RCI and you can choose NOT to deposit with RCI. THAT is the one and only choice which has any prospect of success for actually "changing RCI behavior". Otherwise, what RCI is doing right now is clearly working VERY well for them, thank you, because people just keep on blindly depositing their weeks with RCI, thereby being willing, voluntary participants in an increasingly futile "deposit --- then hope" approach, voluntarily continuing to give RCI good inventory for RCI to then just rent out directly for their own profit (...for about ten times the amount of an exchange fee). This is great for RCI, but not so great for RCI members futilely seeking good quality weeks in exchange for their deposits, against all odds.

I wish there was a better answer. As openly stated, I personally have nothing but disdain and contempt for RCI and its' self-serving practices, but the plain, simple and unvarnished fact of the matter is that RCI CAN (AND RCI DOES, AND RCI WILL CONTINUE TO) DO WHATEVER RCI PLEASES WITH WEEKS VOLUNTARILY DEPOSITED WITH RCI...

I have been a member of the Grand Seas Resort since 1997 and now of club navigo since 2005. I have had nothing but issues and problems and they one get worse. I can not even give away the timeshare as they will not process the quite claim deed. Can you tell me if I would qualify for this lawsuit if so how do I get involved if not do you know of one out there.

Thank you

I wonder if "Unjust enrichment" is an argument which has been submitted in this lawuit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment

I agree it's difficult to win a suit when you agree to terms allowing the other party to take advantage of you. But at some level there are legal protections which by law can't be waived. Does anyone think RCI's actions to rent units which causes removing inventory from exchange availability unjust enrichment?

I haven't read all the T&C with RCI, I've trolled thru the Diamond Resorts T&C and Club docs. There are a lot of sections which favor DRI over the owner/member, some of which I am contemplating addressing thru unjust enrichmet.

I submit that while RCI has the right to rent units, their responsibility to provide units for exchange through the same T&C can trigger unjust enrichment. For example, if 10 owners deposit 10 units and 5 owners snap up the 5 best deposited units. The other 5 owners are out of luck if they wanted those 5 best units already exchanged. Suppose though that RCI chose to rent out the 5 best units. - First, even though RCI has the right to rent units per their T&C, they have unjustly removed available inventory and created a situation where 5 of the 10 members will not be able to exchange AS WELL AS leaving the least desirable units for exchange. While I'm certain the T&C protects RCI in the case of units not being available, if they are directly reducing availability without alternate fulfilment then I would like to think this could be unjust enrichment. - Second, if RCI is renting out the best deposited units they are using privilege of being the managing entity to take advantage of members. That sounds unjust to me. I can understand if a unit wasn't being exchanged. I can understand if there were a surplus of units at a resort during the same period. It would not be unjust to rent those units out since that sounds like members were not taking advantage of exchanging to that location. But if members want to exchange into a Disneyland timeshare in California and the less desirable resorts/units come available for exchange while the more desireable resorts/units are available for rent, then that sounds like unjust enrichment to me. Really, any CA resort near Disney deposited should be available for exchange and not rental due to the high demand in that location, and in all similar demand location. Regardless of what the T&C say, RCI still has a responsibility to provide members with exchanges and removing units in situations where they would have been exchanged should be a legal violation.

"I submit that while RCI has the right to rent units, their responsibility to provide units for exchange through the same T&C can trigger unjust enrichment"

I don't know anything about unjust enrichment, but it plainly states in RCI's terms and conditions that once you deposit your week with them then it's theirs to do what they wish .... in other words once you deposit, you no longer own that week, RCI does. Also, I don't understand why people are so upset with RCI renting out deposited weeks in the first place .... the owner chooses to deposit his/her week, they aren't forced to.

There are several independent exchange companies other than RCI and II.

We own over one million points in Wyndham. We love taking our trips and have been in the program for almost two years. On September 1, 2009 I called to make a reservation for July2, in Sedona for our daughters. I asked for the points to be taken out of our cancel points, or to look at moving the date back into June since we had a July 1 renewal date and still have a lot of points left in 2010. They suggested that we change our contract date instead. I really did not even know what they were talking about. I said they could if it would simplify our two dates into one trusting they would be making a change to help us. Instead, they moved 936,000 points back six months without our full knowledge. This seems to be a breach of contract to us. We have tried since September 2 to get them to move our renewal date up to the original July 1, 2010 date. Instead, they say we would be hurting other owners if they correct this mistake. In essence, they are asking us to prepay on the use of our time share six months in advance. That would be like asking a new car owner to make six payments and then be allowed to drive the car. It is illegal and wrong. Any ideas of who I can talk to, or how I can correct this mistake? Thanks. RZimmer

What does the above inquiry have to do with the actual subject of THIS thread --- which is the ongoing class action lawsuit filed against RCI???

You should consider starting an entirely new thread regarding this entirely unrelated subject --- and it would probably be much more appropriate posted over in the "Timeshare Companies" forum instead...

Want to get in on a Lawsuit against RCI!

You may want to try this emailing the address below. charnie stein <charniestein@yahoo.com>

Also goto URL: http://www.cancuncare.com/forum select ===> Temptation Resort Cancun Forum, and again select >>> WATCH OUT PREMIER MEMBERS

post you request in this forum, some one will sure help you get intouch with a on going Lawsuit.

Good Luck!

Has a class action lawsuit been filed with respect to the limitation on points?

I do not know, I am not joining the lawsuit.

What do Grand Seas Resort and Club Navigo have to do with RCI? Are they RCI points resort? If not, they would not seem to have any connection to the lawsuit under discussion which has to do with exchanges through RCI, not ownership issues of resorts which happen to use RCI as an exchange company. MD

"According to the settlement, RCI suppose to change its ways of doing business and that its rentals will not impact the RCI weeks inventory for member's use. But from what I see, I do not see any difference, especially I know that RCI has business contracts with people to rent out its last minute inventory."

Why is there any objection to RCI renting out last minute inventory or "excess" inventory? Obviously, this is stuff nobody accepted in a trade and is about to expire. As long a members have already had their shot at it, good luck to RCI in finding it a home and saving a few otherwise lost bucks. There are whole exchange companies that specialize in getting members cheap "Burn Weeks". (Of course they don't exactly call them that!)

Not all these proposed Class Actions are related in content. A win in one subject area would be unlikely to affect another. Few of us have any idea what the problem was with the specific resorts mentioned by the frustrated lawyer. "Restrictions on the use of points" sounds like a very different problem than we have generally been hearing about. An RCI Points system matter? MD