Manhattan Club Lawsuit

For the first time this year I was unable to rent my New Years Eve time on RedWeek. I had it listed way below market and still no takers. I ended up giving it away to a family member. It cost me money to upgrade to verified status and nothing happened. Have done it successfully in the passed and always at a few hundred dollar loss. Will not throw more good money after bad. It’s over...

I too have tried to rent unsuccessfully on this site and even requested many times that they indicate I had a penthouse unit. There are always so, so many weeks listed for rent and very, very, few ever get rented. It is a losing proposition as you have pointed out.

I am reluctant to pay Mr. Zimmerman an upfront fee when I don't know what the goal is. I've already dumped beaucoups into TMC. A realtor friend of mine hasn't paid them anything for two years. He got a letter several months ago saying that they were considering a "take-back" program but he's heard nothing since his response indicating his interest in giving his timeshare back. I contacted the tax department of NYC and they responded that I can pay my taxes directly to them. However, looking at the tax bill online, I can't figure how much I as a one week owner owe. I have written the financial office of TMC and asked them how to figure it but they haven't responded to that (or any of my two prior letters, either). I find TMC virtually incommunicado except for their occasional bill with the accompanying threat of penalties, interest, etc. I don't count the telephone tag calls to and from Lynn O'Donnell who obviously is no more interested in communicating with members than anyone else in that black box.

It takes real chutzpah to go on a free site like redweek where you complain about the MC and then complain about the site because you couldn’t rent your unit. I don’t know when you posted or how much you asked or what you said or whether you had photos. It happens. Next time use eBay.

I think I was very clear on my answer. If we had the owner list I would have said that. I said it was in process. I have no other news to share and honestly I bet everyone is tired of this whole blog - and the countless pages of the same written over and over again.

hello,

the "coalition of financially distressed TMC owners" was in no way established as an alternative to zimmerman's proposed possible lawsuit. if you were informed enough, you would have seen that we (who established the coalition) usually suggested that those who joined us also join zimmerman. we claimed no exclusivity to solving the legal issues and we offered no legal advice whatsoever. we made attempts to try to get a substantial number of owners' contact information; we would then proceed from there. in fact during the planning of the coalition, we did not exclude the idea of turning the contacts over to zimmerman. in this case we would need to proceed with caution due to privacy issues. and for the record, and your comments about my "carping" about whether or not the owners' contact list was made available to zimmerman or tucker, we were NEVER asked about the number of owner contacts we received.............again, for the record, and your satisfaction........since you stated the issue.....we have between 60 and 80 contacts. that certainly wasn't at all encouraging to us. at this point, we did not receive any further queries about owners wanting to join the "coalition". if zimmerman wanted, we would have asked all contacts that we were able to assemble to contact him, on their own, again because of privacy issues. we did not work under clandestine situations. the "coalition" was always upfront about the why's and wherefore's of our mission. (check back pages of redweek.com for the mission statement of the "coalition").

i hope this establishes a more friendly atmosphere between us. bickering among each other solves nothing and substantially weakens our cause. i believe that if zimmerman disclosed a yea or nay about attaining use of the famous TMC OWNERS' CONTACT LIST, if yea, i believe it would encourage more owners to want to join his possible lawsuit. if nay, owners still have the option to join him to make his case stronger. as an attorney, he obviously wouldn't want to reveal the number of those who joined him to date. however a statement from him giving us the current strength status of his legal attempts would be to his benefit. and i still ask the question: did tucker or zimmerman gain access to the owners' contact list? a simple yes or no would suffice for now. i assume most owners, especially those of us in this redweek.com forum, would welcome having this information.............just a simple yes or no.

i truly hope that my comments here will tend to alleviate the adversarial tenor of our online TMC relationship. we have enough TMC enemies to fight; this shouldn't lead to combat among owners. keep in mind, i and my co-founder will do all we can to win our common cases against TMC/EICHER/ET AL.

chrisv

dennisc283 wrote:

chrisv126 wrote:

robert, i second beckyf's response to your comments 90%...............here's my take on about the other 10% of your well-written statement.

your quote, " One of the long time suspicions by many owners is that TMC oversold ownership. It's also speculated by several of us (myself included) that is why TMC has not released the list of owners. Doing so could admit criminal wrong doing on behalf of the managers." i believe that fraud was admitted to by eichner during the schneiderman legal hearings. fraud, especially since committed so openly and to such an extent, is a criminal offense. schneiderman accepted eichner's plea deal to end the legal proceedings and "WIN" his case as a political (BS) VICTORY, perhaps a feather in his cap. and indirectly in cuomo's cap as well. the criminal offense issue should have been pursued. eichner would almost definitely be given a comfy cell, albeit without the benefit of the 26 floor lounge! another quote: " I feel there is signifiant enough evidence within the NYAG case that shows breach of contract on behalf of TMC. It is my personal opinion that I have been wronged and have suffered a significant loss in value of an asset purchased from TMC due to the perceived breach.".......a perfect interpretation which i agree to fully. breach of contract would have had its own penalties attached, again, an issue overlooked by schneiderman.......much too suspicious for me to swallow.

since you think and write so clearly, what's your take on not yet getting information about zimmerman (or tucker) getting access to the TMC owners' contact list? i have written quite extensively here (RW) about this and finally got an unsatisfactory response from sueo which can be read a few comments down.

keep in touch

It’s very strange to me that you, who launched an alternate group on the heels of Zimmerman trying to amass enough owners to finance his efforts for owners. Yet you keep carping about not receiving information from that effort. Yet, you have not reported results of your Coalition and your alternative approach to Zimmerman. Come’on man!!

sueo, i hope you don't choose to leave this redweek.com TCM forum, but if you do, goodbye and good luck.

sueo79 wrote:

I think I was very clear on my answer. If we had the owner list I would have said that. I said it was in process. I have no other news to share and honestly I bet everyone is tired of this whole blog - and the countless pages of the same written over and over again.

Since when is Red Week free? It not only costs to be a member but there is a charge to post and additional charge to be verified or have your listing in BOLD. The price posted was way under what anyone else was posting at a substantial loss. Just wanted to make all of this perfectly clear and maybe I will try EBAY in the future.

Unless there have many new changes made, Redweek is NOT free and there is also another fee you have to pay in order to list your week for sale or for rent.

Hey There, Remember that email from a couple of months ago offering $100 to be made free and clear of your unit and obligation? Did anyone take that option? What happened?

Ladies, sorry I wasn't clear. The blog can be free. Advertising is not free. I can't say why you were unsuccessful at renting your time. In my experience, given enough lead time, everything sells at the right price. When I wanted too, I always rented my time, granted at a cut rate price. Cookie, you said this was the first time you couldn't rent it. Is one failure reason enough to slam Redweek? Honestly, I don't get this rush to blame someone else whenever something doesn't go the way we hoped it would.

Nathan Z - I well understand Cookie's frustration . Have you ever looked at all the many, many Manhattan Club weeks advertised for rent on the Redweek rental site. Compare that with maybe 10 weeks that are rented. I tried 3 different times to rent my penthouse with plenty of advance time - no takers. And of course, Redweek refused to divulge that it was a penthouse unit. I never understood because on many other time share properties , they would add that it was a garden, or ocean view, or oceanfront or some other designation to show the differences in rental rates but they refused to do anything for us Manhattan Club penthouse owners - that would have explained why we were trying to charge more for our weeks so I don't think we got a fair shake and I question whether they do enough advertising to attract people to their web site.

I share your frustration. But by the time I rent on any site, I am just looking to cut my losses. The numbers I saw on RW ranged from $210 to $550 per night. How much is the average MC maintenance fee anyway? Somebody's taking a bath at $210, but at $550? That's a tough sell, and here, buyers know they have you over a barrel because as owners, we have a sell-by date. I'm no expert, but I always stress that there are no hotel/occupancy taxes, saving 20% off the top, so $300 at the MC is almost $400 anywhere else; and maybe, Jeff could prevail on the RW powers that be to add a checkbox for "penthouse" units below the generic listings. As far as the number of listings go, there are about 15,000 weeks a year at the MC; if 10-20 are for rent throughout the year, that's still only 1/10 of 1%; and they're not usually renting the same week you are, so I don't think that's the problem. Anyway, good luck!

I agree Nathanz2. Also, don't forget the valet parking fee of $35.00 per each 24 hours. Not bad for NYC.

NO owner here should in ANY way be defending TMC's "generous offerings". TMC is our enemy, financially and otherwise.

Agree, we just want out of this contract. The maintenance Fee's, and upgrade of the hotel are horrendous. The Manhattan Club employees are unable to help, they has been the direction given to them. What does Blue Green have to say about the pending law suit?

Join the lawsuit!

I recently became aware of the new lawsuit, and sent an email about 2 months ago to the law firm that is representing the owners, indicating my interest in joining the coalition. I did not hear back. How can I confirm that I am part of the coalition of owners being represented?

Peg, there is no coalition being represented. Only individuals who have signed papers with Jean Marc Zimmerman and paid him his retainer are being represented. If you need more info to reach the attorney, read this blog backwards. The attorney has posted from time to time. I do not speak for him but I’m sure his office will explain their goals and terms.

hello peg,

there is, in fact, a COALITION OF FINANCIALLY DISTRESSED TMC OWNERS (COFDTMCO). we are not representing ourselves as a legal entity nor are we offering legal advice. our purpose is to get as many owners to join us (NOT PRECLUDING JOINING ZIMMERMAN'S PROPOSED LAWSUIT) to gather their contact information. we have suggested to our members to join zimmerman, should they choose. our raison d'etre is to gather and use tmc owners' info to form strength in numbers against our common enemy, TMC/EICHNER, AND PROBABLY BLUEGREEN. in no way are we presenting a case contra to zimmerman's. as a caveat, we feel that, up to the present time, we haven't collected sufficient numbers of tmc owners to be effective in showing strength in numbers.

we are not yet aware if zimmerman or tucker has attained access to the total list of TMC OWNERS. we believe this list to be a possible major key to his success in proceeding with his lawsuit. should he choose to ask the founders of (COFDTMCO) for our current list of between 70 and 80 owners, we would email all of them to contact zimmerman for further information about his proposed lawsuit. we will not turn over our list directly to zimmerman due to privacy issues, a situation he most likely agrees with. again, if he desires to gain more possible clients, and he contacts us,, we will not be adverse to accommodate him by emailing our members suggesting they confer with him.

pegc29 wrote:

I recently became aware of the new lawsuit, and sent an email about 2 months ago to the law firm that is representing the owners, indicating my interest in joining the coalition. I did not hear back. How can I confirm that I am part of the coalition of owners being represented?