TS Today "RCI Fairness Hearing Update"

[GoofyHobbie Member Find all posts View Profile Close GoofyHobbie]

Here Comes The Judge!

JLB said: Law is different in every courtroom. When the courtroom door closes, law is whatever the judge decides it is.

Consider what someone wiser than myself had to say on this point:

"The Judge's oath requires him to judge according to the law, not according to his pleasure." Source: "Apology" by Plato

Dave

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

Someone say something?

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

Consider what someone wiser than myself had to say on this point:

"The Judge's oath requires him to judge according to the law, not according to his pleasure." Source: "Apology" by Plato

Dave

One of those things that looks good when you read it and sounds good when you say it.

An attorney's oath requires them to be respectful with everyone they deal with, so there.

[TSToday Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close TSToday]

RCI Class Action Lawsuits

If TimeSharing Today had not published the summary of the proposed settlement agreement in its Mar/Apr issue, the chances are the agreement would have been approved. About 100 owners sent written objections to the court. Three of us appeared at the Fairness Hearing and strong arguments were presented.

Now, many additional Weeks Members have become aware of the proposed settlement and there is an opportunity to express your thoughts as has been outlined on this forum and on TUG. I am remaining as an objector because the proposed settlement remains flawed. At this time, there are no active discussions among the Objectors and David Sager, Esq., Attorney for the Defendant RCI, relative to proposed changes to the settlement submitted by Susan Collins.

If you are planning to object, send in your objections before November 20th. In June, I went to the court to view the objection letters. I sensed that the majority of those letters came from TimeSharing Today readers. Many readers sent copies of their objection letters to TSToday. Please send copies to us if you are writing to the court. They can be mailed to:
Shep Altshuler-Publisher
TimeSharing Today
140 County Rd. Ste 114
Tneafly, NJ 07670

Appearing and Attending. Appearing means that you would like to speak and present present your objection at the November 30th hearing. You can also have an attorney appear on your behalf. I have asked Susan Collins to represent me relative to my objections to the agreement. Attending means that you will come to the court on November 30th to observe the proceedings. A large turnout of attendees by Weeks Members will send a strong message to the court and to the attorneys. Keep in mind that, if you are traveling, the Fairness Hearing may be postoned at the last minute.

You should also keep in mind that another Class Action Lawsuit was filed against RCI in January of this year by a Points Member. So, there is a parallel lawsuit under way. If a flawed settlement agreement is approved in the Weeks Class Action, it might be possible that it could impact any settlement in the Points lawsuit. David Sager, Esq. appears to be representing RCI in both cases. He is a smart and aggressive litigator who is doing everything he can to preserve RCI's claim that it has the lawfull right to rent and use deposited weeks for other purposes.
Shep Altshuler
TimeSharing Today
staff@tstoday.com

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

We all need to get our objection letters in. Mine went into the mail today.

[motomem Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close motomem]

So after finally doing some catch-up work on this lawsuit, in preparation for sending objection letters, I read the "Terms and Conditions Of RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership" that is posted on the RCI website.

In black and white, in section 24. RCI RIGHTS, it flatly states: "RCI may, at any time, dispose of Vacation Time in any commercially reasonable manner.".

There are no other restrictions on this statement. It appears to me, imho, that RCI has done nothing wrong. You deposit a week, they can do whatever with it at any time. I cannot find anywhere in the terms and conditions any kind of time restriction where they must hold banked weeks for a period of time so that they are available to exchangers.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but based on this and what the lawsuit is about, there is no reason to object to any settlement because the lawsuit is basically bogus. I'm not saying I like the way they run the program, but everyone agreed to the terms and conditions when they joined the program.

It sounds like the lawsuit should be about changing the terms and conditions, not based on the fact that RCI did anything "wrong" because it appears they did not. Of course, changing the terms and conditions will happen as a result of the lawsuit, but the basis of the lawsuit seems to be untrue.

So, if II only does exchanges, how do we get all resorts, Vacation Clubs, etc., to move to II ??? This would make RCI perk up and listen.

Again, if I misread the terms and conditions somebody please let me know.

[ace2000 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close ace2000]

So after finally doing some catch-up work on this lawsuit, in preparation for sending objection letters, I read the "Terms and Conditions Of RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership" that is posted on the RCI website.

In black and white, in section 24. RCI RIGHTS, it flatly states: "RCI may, at any time, dispose of Vacation Time in any commercially reasonable manner.".

There are no other restrictions on this statement. It appears to me, imho, that RCI has done nothing wrong. You deposit a week, they can do whatever with it at any time. I cannot find anywhere in the terms and conditions any kind of time restriction where they must hold banked weeks for a period of time so that they are available to exchangers.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but based on this and what the lawsuit is about, there is no reason to object to any settlement because the lawsuit is basically bogus. I'm not saying I like the way they run the program, but everyone agreed to the terms and conditions when they joined the program.

It sounds like the lawsuit should be about changing the terms and conditions, not based on the fact that RCI did anything "wrong" because it appears they did not. Of course, changing the terms and conditions will happen as a result of the lawsuit, but the basis of the lawsuit seems to be untrue.

So, if II only does exchanges, how do we get all resorts, Vacation Clubs, etc., to move to II ??? This would make RCI perk up and listen.

Again, if I misread the terms and conditions somebody please let me know.

Very good question, and one I'm wondering about also... what are we trying to gain here? Are we trying to get them to stop this practice altogether?

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

So, if II only does exchanges, how do we get all resorts, Vacation Clubs, etc., to move to II ??? This would make RCI perk up and listen.

II does not only do exchanges. When Craig Urbine, a former II exec, was active at TUG he stated directly that II rents exchanges and that that an exchange company cannot be profitably run without a rental program.

I've often commented about the curuousness that people get so upset about RCI actively renting units, while ignoring the rental actvities of other exchange companies. Just because they may be less obvious doesn't mean they are doing it to any less of an extent.

[kennyw Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close kennyw]

Consider what someone wiser than myself had to say on this point:

"The Judge's oath requires him to judge according to the law, not according to his pleasure." Source: "Apology" by Plato

Dave

Plato never encountered our Supreme Court. If his statement were true how could 9 supposedly intelligent Justices, judging in accordance with the same law, constantly vote 5 to 4? I these cases either the 5, or the 4, or all, are voting "according to his pleasure".

[motomem Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close motomem]

So after finally doing some catch-up work on this lawsuit, in preparation for sending objection letters, I read the "Terms and Conditions Of RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership" that is posted on the RCI website.

In black and white, in section 24. RCI RIGHTS, it flatly states: "RCI may, at any time, dispose of Vacation Time in any commercially reasonable manner.".

There are no other restrictions on this statement. It appears to me, imho, that RCI has done nothing wrong. You deposit a week, they can do whatever with it at any time. I cannot find anywhere in the terms and conditions any kind of time restriction where they must hold banked weeks for a period of time so that they are available to exchangers.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but based on this and what the lawsuit is about, there is no reason to object to any settlement because the lawsuit is basically bogus. I'm not saying I like the way they run the program, but everyone agreed to the terms and conditions when they joined the program.

It sounds like the lawsuit should be about changing the terms and conditions, not based on the fact that RCI did anything "wrong" because it appears they did not. Of course, changing the terms and conditions will happen as a result of the lawsuit, but the basis of the lawsuit seems to be untrue.

So, if II only does exchanges, how do we get all resorts, Vacation Clubs, etc., to move to II ??? This would make RCI perk up and listen.

Again, if I misread the terms and conditions somebody please let me know.

Here are a couple of responses from the TUG forum:
= = = = =
Response 1:
That is called a contract of adhesion. A business can not just bury something in the fine print, especially something that totally contradicts the way it presents itself to members to induce them to make deposits, and then get away with it. What if your bank buried something in the fine print that said they could keep the money you deposit if they wanted to? Or pay you back in any type of dollars they wanted, like say Hong Kong dollars?

Consumer protection law says that if a company does something that is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'' it is unlawful. The fact that they wrote a selfserving rule that says they can do it is not a defense, and may on the contrary be evidence of their intentional wrongdoing.

If they put in big letters on their materials that they could rent your deposits instead on using them for exchanges, how many deposits do you think they would get? That is why they hide this stuff, and that is why their actions are BOTH deceptive and unfair.

Response 2:
The prev poster is right on target when he points out that what RCI is and has been doing is deceptive and unfair. Just because a company has the abilty to dictate the terms of doing business that does NOT make what they choose to do legally sufficient.

Adhesion contracts such as RCI's Terms and Conditions, your auto insurance policy, credit card contract, or life insurance contract should be fair and reasonably adhere to the purpose of the contract for the good of both the consumer and the company writing the terms.

It is true that you or I as a consumer can take our business elsewhere, but isn't that just letting the Bully continue to control the playground.

Leaving the playground with our tail between our legs just because RCI has dictated some rules that we don't like is not the way this should work out.

If the rules that RCI has dictated take advantage of you as a consumer then a Court can and should say that those rules are wrong.

We as Consumers are not getting what we bargained for.

We need to stand up and get justice for ourselves and justice for those who otherwise will continue to do business with companies like RCI.

I object vehemently to the proposed settlement because it will do exactly what you say it will do. It will, for the most part, rubber stamp what RCI has been doing for the last nine years and leave them free to continue to take advantage of an unknowing membership.

RCI writing its own rules and changing them when ever it suits their purpose and their pocket book does not sit well with me!

= = = = =

I put my objection letters in the mail today.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

In black and white, in section 24. RCI RIGHTS, it flatly states: "RCI may, at any time, dispose of Vacation Time in any commercially reasonable manner."

That's certainly not new news, not earthshaking, and not convincing to those of us who plunked down our thousands of dollars years ago, based on a perceived promise from RCI, communicated in virtually every TS pitch we've ever atended.

That promise was that RCI was there, from the beginning, for the sole purpose of allowing the owners of condos, or vacation intervals, to exchange with each other. Nothing more.

The unilateral change in business model that Cendant brought about breached that, and the faith RCI members had placed with them. It has eroded the value of our vacation intervals, without compensation.

Although some claim there are viable alternatives, to the majority of us there are not. RCI has been and is still a virtual monopoly to us. We are screwed without them, and for many of us, because of the disappearing inventory that has not been accounted for, we might as well be.

As I said elsewhere today, this all started many years ago with a seemingly innocent little thing like doing something with excess inventory, the stuff that nobody wanted, and because nobody stuck their finger in the leak, it has escalated to the stuff that everybody wants.

My first letters to RCI go back well beyond this PC, which we bought in 1998 or so, but here is part of one I sent to Ken May on October 8, 2001:

How can the RCI subscriber be assured that they have available in the exchange pool quality resort weeks in large enough numbers to satisfy the direct week-to-week exchanger, now and in the future? . . . Many feel their exchange pool is dwindling or that the larger, better quality Affiliates are going it on their own. Many of us feel helpless to do anything about it.

Interestingly, here's part of what I wrote him on March 11, 2002:

"I have certain searches that I do on-line almost every day, at all different hours of the day, week in and week out, and have for years. That may be sad, or not, but the point is that I know exactly the resorts that our week pulls on those searches. You can give me a search and I can tell you, within a couple of resorts, what will show up. I know the resorts. I’ve been to the resorts. I know others that own at my resort and I know what their weeks pull on the same searches. I know others at other resorts and I know what their weeks pull on the same searches . . .

Like I said in my last letter, between 10:00 PM on February 27, and midnight on March 3, something happened so that resorts I had been seeing, day in and day out, week after week, just were no longing appearing. . .

The value of a week in the Spacebank is what resorts it can be exchanged for. . . It is not good enough just to say, “Nothing happened.” Something did happen and we need to get to the bottom of it. "

deja vu all over again

Wow!!! I actually wrote in 2002 that I had been doing these daily searches for years, and that was more than 7 years ago!!!