RESORT TIMESHARING : THE CONSUMER'S RIGHTS & REMEDIES 2001

This Article Has Been Submitted To The International Travel Law Journal For Publication And May Not Be Reproduced Without The Permission Of Thomas A. Dickerson.

January 20, 2001
By Judge Thomas A. Dickerson[1]

 

 

Introduction

Resort timesharing or vacation ownership is predicated on the joint ownership or joint use of a commonly owned or leased condominium apartment or apartment building[2]. Typically, the consumer will purchase or lease the use of a condominium apartment for one or two weeks out of every year by paying an initial fee and an annual maintenance charge. Timeshares or interval ownerships have been marketed as both an inflation proof mechanism for securing accommodations in a resort area and as an investment in real estate, albeit 1/52 or 1/26 of the subject apartment.
" The resort timeshare industry is experiencing an unprecedented degree of growth and prosperity. In 1996, resort timeshares in the United States were over $2.1 billion with an average sales price of about $10,000.00 for each timeshare week. At that time, there were over 1.7 million families in this country that owned a vacation ownership product. Whether oceanfront, mountain property, or even within an urban setting, resort time share may be one of the best uses of property in the vacation industry "[3].

 

The Timeshare Product [4]

(1) The fixed week: One week of use same time every year.

(2) The floating week or flexible use plan: One week of use anytime if available.

(3) The split week: The use of less than the one week timeshare[5].

(4) The biennial timeshare interest: use every other year[6].

(5) The fractional timeshare interest: more than a single week of use.

(6) The most important aspect of each of these vacation products, however, is the exchange program with which it is marketed[7]. The exchange program allows timeshare owners to " take advantage of networking use throughout the world "[8].

Timesharing Marketing Techniques

The timeshare product is marketed to the general public through:

(1) promotional programs,

(2) owner referral programs,

(3) in-house guest programs,

(4) off-premise contact solicitation,

(5) direct mail,

(6) telephone solicitation,

(7) the entry level introductory product[9].

Each of these marketing techniques may subject the consumer to fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive and unfair business practices and financial loss.

The Timeshare Players

(1) Hotels or hotel chains that have expanded the use of their existing hotel properties[10].

(2) Real estate developers who build or purchase a condominium complex located in a desirable vacation locale.

(3) Sales and marketing organizations created and/or operated by  developers which market timeshares directly to consumers.

(4) Owners' associations or clubs which are established by developers and, eventually, turned over to the timeshare owners. The association or club, typically, owns and/or manages the residential vacation units for the benefit of its members-owners and performs maintenance and other functions.

(5) Exchange companies that are in the business of facilitating exchanges or trades among timeshare owners in various locales.

 

Types Of Common Consumer Problems

Misrepresentations & Timeshare Scams

(1) Bust-out schemes in which developers misappropriate consumer payments after misrepresenting their willingness and ability to deliver promised timeshares [ Isaak v. Trumbull Savings & Loan Company[11],( consumers sue banks after loss of investments in campground timeshares ) or resale services [ State of Ohio v. Houseman[12]

( " ( defendant ) informed ( timeshare owners ) that the one-week timeshares that they previously purchased for $5,000 were worth $17,600...The victims were assured that if OCB failed to sell the timeshares in (12) months, then ( defendant ) would buy the timeshares for 90% of the $17,600 figure. To receive this twelve month guarantee, the victims had to pay ten percent of the $17,600 value, which is approximately $2,600. Additionally, the victims were told...that they would receive a ' free ' vacation as part of the package... neither victim received any money for their timeshare " )].

(2) Misrepresenting the market and rental value of timeshares and the ease of their resale [ Dorian v. Harich Tahoe Development[13]

( timeshare promoters allegedly misrepresented that
" (1) timeshare purchasers would not have difficulty promptly reselling their timeshares, (2) defendants' sales staff would immediately resell or help the purchasers resell...(3) the timeshare would produce profitable rental income yearly...(5) the market value of each timeshare was 30% to 60% higher than the contract price paid for the timeshare " )].

(3) The deceptive use of timeshare presentations to promote the sale of overpriced products such as water purification systems [ U.S.A. v. Gennuso[14]

( " ( defendant ) sold water purification systems at prices much greater than wholesale. In order to induce victims to buy ( defendant ) falsely told the victims that they would be entitled to one or four prizes...a lifetime of vacations...In fact, the sole prize awarded was the ' lifetime of vacations ' which consisted only of a listing of timeshare condominiums. Participants could stay free at any condominium in the listing, provided they attend a sales pitch to purchase a timeshare when they arrived. Furthermore, participants had to pay for their own travel and food expenses " )].

(4) Falsely promising to repurchase a timeshare if the consumer was not satisfied [ Leisure American Resorts, Inc. v. Knutilla[15] ( jury verdict against developer in the amount of $25,000 for fraud and breach of contract in failing to repurchase timeshare unit )].

(5) Misrepresenting the willingness and ability of a timeshare promoter to resell timeshare units [ Resort Timeshare Resales, Inc. v. Attorney General[16] ( promoter allegedly misrepresented that it would advertise timeshare owner's properties in USA Today, that it had experienced " high buyer activity " in timeshare owner's area and that timeshares would be sold " within thirty to sixty days "; failure to notify consumers of right to cancel contracts within three days )].

(6) Misrepresenting a timeshare lease with a 40 year reversion clause as a timeshare sales contract [ Agrawal v. Rault Club Ten, Inc.[17], 464 So. 2d 951 ( La. App. 1985 )( timeshare salesman allegedly misrepresented lease agreement with 40 year reversion clause as a sales contract )].

(7) Misrepresenting the annual availability of a timeshare unit >[ Tiffany v. Sturbridge Camping Club, Inc.[18], 32 Mass. App. Ct. 173, 587 N.E. 2d 238 ( 1992 )( recreational camping club operator allegedly misrepresented in oral sales pitch the availability of the same campground site every year; violations of Massachusetts Real Estate Time-Share Act )].

(8) Bait & Switch Schemes.

" ' Bait advertising ' is the advertising of merchandise without the bona fide intention of selling it in order to lure consumers into the sales environment and switch the consumer to a different item which is more expensive..."[19].
In Federal Trade Commission v. Paradise Palms Vacation Club[20] it was alleged that timeshare developers sold some 3,000 timeshares at $6,000 a share by using promotional material depicting luxurious Hawaiian condominiums near or on the beach at Waikiki. Unfortunately, the defendants were unable to deliver the advertised Hawaiian timeshares to more than 20% of the timeshare owners. The remainder were offered " comparable " units in Lake Tahoe and Ocean Shores, Washington.

Several years later the Paradise Palms case was resolved by the entry of judgments against the developers one of which[21] described the following misrepresentations:

(A) That each ( timeshare owner ) would be able to vacation in a luxurious condominium unit in Hawaii every year for decades to come. In fact, the Club's luxury units would accommodate no more than 20% of its members. The large majority of ( the ) vacation units were not in Hawaii at all, but rather in an apartment building in Lake Tahoe, Nevada, and a motel in Ocean Shores, Washington.

(B) That ( defendant ) owned the entire 42-story, twin tower Discovery Bay condominium complex in Waikiki. In fact, the Club owned only eight Discovery Bay units, all of which were the subject of litigation seeking to prevent their use for timesharing purposes.

(C) That ( defendant ) would transfer to the Club, for members' use and benefit, at least one residential vacation unit for every 52 timeshare weeks they sold. Consumers were told that for every unit so transferred, sufficient receivables would be placed in an escrow account to cover any encumbrance on the unit. In fact, ( defendant) failed to transfer one unit every 52 weeks sold. It also failed to place sufficient funds in escrow to cover encumbrances on the units which were transferred to the Club.

(D) That each ( timeshare owner ) would, upon payment of a $35 fee, be entitled to participate in the timeshare exchange network operated by Interval International, through which they would be able in any year to exchange their right to ( defendant's ) accommodations for a right to use other timeshare vacation accommodations throughout the United States and abroad. In fact, due to ( defendant's failures )....numerous ( timeshare owners ) were unable to...obtain their requested exchanges "

(9) Misrepresenting the ownership of a mountain for skiing by timeshare owners [ State of Vermont v. Stedman[22] ( Vermont Attorney General sued a timeshare developer alleging fraud. Specifically, it was charged that defendants made many misrepresentations in selling ski vacation timeshares including promising one free day of skiing, that the mountain would be used exclusively by timeshare owners, that consumer monies would be escrowed and refunds would be available. The Court found that defendants had violated the Consumer Fraud Act " through the misrepresentations regarding ownership of the mountain and through the failures to inform prospective buyers of the speculative nature of the timesharing scheme. "

 

Structural Defects In Timeshare Properties   

The timeshare property may contain structural defects in the common areas and in the owner's apartment. In Raven's Cove Townhouses, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Company[23], a condominium owner's association sued the developers for damages arising from structural defects in the jointly owned property. Among the many allegations against the developer were charges that:

(1) the landscaping surrounding the complex was defective because of a failure to prepare the soil resulting in yellow lawns, dead olive trees and unhealthy plants,

(2) the drainage and irrigation systems varied from the architect's specifications,

(3) the siding on the complex was unpainted, which resulted in decomposition from water and rusting, blacking and mildew,

(4) the use of ungalvanized nails in the trim causing deterioration in the paint and premature chalking.

All of these defective conditions were of such a nature that they became obvious only after the owners assumed control of the complex. Appropriate causes of action in structural defect cases include breach of contract and breach of warranty [ Drexel Properties, Inc. v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc.[24] ].  

 

Mismanagement Of Owners Association

The purpose of the timeshare owners' association or club, typically, created and initially controlled by developers, is to manage the jointly owned property [ Raven's Cove Townhouses, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Company[25] ( discussion of duties of a condominium owners' association )]. Timeshare owners' associations have been involved in a variety of lawsuits including:

(1) Charges of negligence by rape victims [ Guerrero v. Bluebeard's Castle Hotel, Inc.[26] ( flight attendant subject of attempted rape at Bluebeard's timeshare facility; individual timeshare owners not liable as joint venturers for assault )].

(2) Disputes with management over fees charged for an exchange program [ Egrets Point Townhouses Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Fairfield Communities, Inc.[27] ( after owners' association did not renew management contract the fees for exchange program were properly increased )] and the return of monies due on a rental management agreement [ Key Club Associates v. Mayer[28] ( counterclaim against defendant class of timeshare owners claiming monies due on rental management agreement )].

(3) Charges of racial discrimination [ Louisiana Acorn Fair Housing v. Quarter House[29] ( timeshare owners association charged with discriminating against African Americans, aliens, persons of mid-Eastern or Indian cultures, persons physically unable to climb stairs, pregnant women, families with more than two children or families with children under 10 years of age )].

(4) Condemnation proceedings [ City of Excelsior Springs v. Elms Redevelopment Corp.[30] ( 850 timeshare purchasers paid $5000 to $10,000 for the right to stay at the Elms Hotel for one or two weeks a year for 30 to 50 years; condemnation action against defendant class of timeshare owners set aside because of inadequate representation )].

(5) Disputes over by-law amendments [ Lake Arrowhead Chalets Timeshare Owners Association v. Lake Arrowhead Chalets Owners Association[31] ( dispute between rival owners' associations over the amendment of the by-laws for operation of condominium )].

(6) Challenges to tax assessments [ In re 560 Ocean Club, LP[32]   ( apartments restricted to use as private residences could be leased for short terms ); Laguna Royale Owners Ass'n v. Darger[33], ( timeshares in a condominium apartment restricted use solely to residential purposes enforced ); White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin[34]; Reefshare, Ltd. v. Nagata[35] ( provision restricting use of apartments to a permanent or temporary resident and for no other purpose did not explicitly authorize timesharing ); McCabe v. Board of Assessors[36] ( trustees of time-share condominium trust challenge town's real estate tax bills )].

(7) Challenges to enforcement of restrictive covenants [ Madaket Realty, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Nantucket[37] ( ban on timesharing did not apply to single-family residences ); O'Connor v. Resort Custom Builders, Inc.[38] ( restrictive covenant barring timesharing or interval ownership not enforced ); Forbes v. Schaefer[39] ].

(8) Undercapitalized timeshare owners' associations [ Raven's Cove Townhouses, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Company[40] ( owners' association had no financial reserve or operating funds and owners faced difficult burden of funding litigation against developers over structural defects )].

Timesharing Vacation Packages              

It is not uncommon for consumers to receive a telephone solicitation, fax or E-mail offering a " free " vacation or cruise. This marketing tool is often used by timeshare promoters as a means of inducing consumers to attend a timeshare sales presentation at the timeshare facility. In addition to the numerous misrepresentations, scams and defaults arising from a standard package tour [ for a discussion tour operator defaults see Dickerson, Travel Law: The Internet Book Updated at http://www.courts.state.ny.us/tandv/travellaw.htm], the timeshare package tour may fail to disclose its intended purpose, i.e., mandatory attendance at a timeshare sales presentation.

Some common misrepresentations are prohibited by recent timeshare industry consent decrees [ Scavo, Marketing Resort Timeshares: The Rules Of The Game[41],

( " Timeshare developers, without any admission of prior wrongdoing, voluntarily agreed that in the sale of a vacation package, they would not misrepresent certain facts...(fn 103) One fact that may be misrepresented is the price of the vacation. ' Unbundling ' of any part of the cost of the vacation package ( such ) as a port fee, charge for tax...is strictly prohibited. Also included were terms regarding accommodations, destinations, or other goods or services. The developers promised not to represent that a consumer was selected as a winner, when in fact the enterprise is simply a promotional scheme to contact prospective customers. Additionally, they agreed not to state false limitations on the time within which they must accept the offer so as not to create a false sense of urgency. The agreement also included terms indicating that a vacation was reserved for a consumer...They also agreed to be forthright about the purpose of the offer ( by not stating it is to promote tourism, regulate disbursement of vacation packages...). It was also agreed that any stated percentage of satisfied customers would be based on reasonable, numerical substantiation. Finally, it was agreed to not imply a relationship with any governmental agency..." )]
and the Code of Ethics of the American Resort Development Association [ Id.
( " the Board of Directors of the American Resort Development Association ( ARDA ), on October 21, 1997, adopted... vacation interpreting guidelines of the ARDA Code of Standards and Ethics...These guidelines instructed timeshare developers than any mandatory timeshare tour relating to the sale of a vacation package must be clearly disclosed...If the vacation package includes an optional or invitational timeshare tour, the tour need not be disclosed....In addition, the ARDA Code... provides clear guidelines to timeshare developers concerning issues such as urgency, ' winner ' language, the purchase of the vacation message...Unbundling fees and false affiliations " )].

Violation Of Federal & State Securities Laws

Under certain circumstances, the sale of a condominium unit may be considered the offer and sale of a security, making the transaction subject to the anti-fraud and registration provisions of federal and state securities laws. For example, the offer and sale of a security was found in a case in which the developer of a condominium complex sold units to buyers for investment, as opposed to residential purposes [ Hocking v. Dubois[42] ]. The sale was coupled with an arrangement under which the buyer was encouraged to rent the unit with paid rentals going into a pool used to pay operating and maintenance expenses with the balance to be divided among participating owners. Selling an unregistered security is a violation of Section 5 of the federal Securities Act of 1933 as well as a violation under most state blue sky laws. Under most state securities acts, there is an implied right of action for rescission of such illegal sales. In addition, Section 12(1) of the 1933 Act specifically provides that any person selling a security in violation of Section 5 shall be liable to the purchaser who may sue in law or equity, to recover the consideration ( less any income received ) or for damages.

 

Violation Of State Timeshare Statutes

Several States have adopted timesharing statutes[43].

(1) The purpose of timesharing statutes is well stated in Florida's Timesharing Act [ " (to ) establish procedures for the creation, sale, exchange, promotion and operation of timeshare plans...provide full and fair disclosure to the purchasers...of timeshare plans...recognize...that the sale, promotion and use of timeshare plans is an emerging, dynamic segment of the tourism industry ( which ) continues to grow, both in sales and in complexity...that a uniform and consistent method of regulation is necessary ( to be applied to ) condominiums, cooperatives, undivided interest campgrounds, vacation clubs, multistate vacation plans and multiyear vacation and lodging certificates "[44] ]. Timeshare statutes accomplish these goals by

(2) Creating a governmental agency and director to monitor timeshare developments [ Washington's Timesharing Act states that timeshare developers must register[45] their plans with a director whose powers include " Make public or private investigations...to determine whether any registration should be granted, denied or revoked or whether any person has violated or is about to violate any provision of this chapter or any rule or order issued under this chapter "[46].  ].

(3) Requiring disclosures and filings before a developer may offer a timeshare plan to the general public, use of uniform consumer contracts, adherence to advertising standards and definitions of express and implied warranties [ Louisiana's Timeshare Act sets forth how a timesharing plan is to be

(4) Consumer payments must be placed in escrow accounts [ Georgia's Timesharing Act requires that consumer monies be escrowed[53]

[ " A developer of a time-share program shall... Deposit with an escrow agent 100 percent of all funds which are received during the seven-day cancellation period. ( After the seven day period )...funds may be disbursed to the developer by the escrow agent from the escrow account periodically in the ratio of the amount of time the purchaser has already used or had the right to use the accommodations or facilities of the time-share use at the time of the disbursement in relation to the total time sold to the purchaser..."[54] ].

(5) Consumers have a cooling off period in which to cancel any purchase contract without penalty [ Illinois' Timesharing Act provides that

" Any purchase contract entered into by a purchaser of a time share interest...shall be voidable by the purchaser, without penalty, within 5 calendar days after the receipt of the public offering statement or the execution of the purchase contract, whichever is later...Upon such cancellation, the developer or resale agent shall refund...all payments made...less the amount of any benefits actually received...within 20 calendar days after receipt of the notice of cancellation..."[55] ].

(6) All developers, acquisition agents, sales agents, plan managers and exchange agents must be registered and/or licensed [ Hawaii's Timesharing Act requires that sales agents and acquisition agents be licensed[56] and all developers, acquisition agents, sales agents, plan managers and exchange agents register their time sharing plans with ( the ) timesharing director[57] ].          

(7) Establishing procedures and rules for the operation and governance of timeshare owners associations [ Massachusetts' Timesharing Act sets forth the powers of the owners' association[58], timeshare expense assessments[59], voting procedures[60], insurance requirements[61], duties of managing entity including maintenance and repair of common facilities[62] ].

(8) Prohibiting certain deceptive promotional and business practices and creating rights and remedies for aggrieved consumers including the imposition of civil penalties [ Texas' Timesharing Act enumerates deceptive trade practices which are prohibited[63] and sets forth penalties[64] which may be imposed for violating provisions of the Act ].

 

Telemarketing & Other Consumer Protection Statutes

There are other statutes, both state and federal, which seek to protect the consumer from timeshare abuses [ Scavo, Marketing Resort Timeshares: The Rules Of The Game[65]

( " One should be mindful of the requirements generally found in specific state statutes when soliciting by direct mail that results in a telephone inquiry to acquire a vacation package. It is also important to be aware of the Federal Telemarketing Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act and the applicable telemarketing sales rules adopted by the Federal Trade Commission. Each state may have different statutes regulating what may, or may not, be said in direct mail solicitation...Many states also regulate the use of consumers being ' specially selected '. In these states, it is generally understood that it is an unfair and deceptive trade practice to represent that a person has been specially selected in connection with the sale, lease or solicitation of any property...The Telemarketing Sales Rule adopted by the Federal Trade Commission...prohibits deceptive and abusive practices by telemarketers...The required disclosures by telemarketers include (a) the total cost and quantity of the goods or services that are the subject of the sales offer, (b) all material restrictions, limitations or conditions to purchase, receive, or use the goods or services that are the subject of the sales offer, (c) disclosure of a seller's refund cancellation exchange or repurchase policies under certain circumstances...and (d) disclosure of information in connection with prize promotions..." )]
[ for a discussion of consumer protection statutes available in New York State including those prohibiting deceptive telemarketing see Dickerson, Consumer Law 2000 Update at http://courts.state.ny.us/tandv/sccarb.html ].

Back to Top

FOOTNOTES

[1.] Thomas A. Dickerson is a Westchester County Court Judge, New York State with a Web Page at http://members.aol.com/judgetad/index.html. Judge Dickerson is the author of Travel Law, Law Journal Press, New York, 1981-2001, updated biannually, with a Web Page at http://members.aol.com/travellaw/index.htmland Class Actions: The Law of 50 States, Law Journal Press, New York, 1988-2001, updated annually, with a Web Page at http://members.aol.com/class50/index.html and over 180 articles and papers on consumer law issues, many of which are available at http://courts.state.ny.us/tandv.html.

[2]. See Scavo, Marketing Resort Timeshares: The Rules Of The Game, 73 St. John's L. Rev. 217, n. 4. ( 1999 )
( " Vacation ownership product includes two basic types of timesharing projects. In the first type consumers receive a fee interest, coupled with an exclusive but restricted right of occupancy. In the second type, consumers receive a lease license or club membership that allows the person to use the property for a specific amount of time each year for a stated number of years " ).

[3].  Id.

[4]. Id. at p. 220.

[5].  See Stubblefield, Interval Ownership and Vacation Club Options, ALI-ABA 1181, 1187 ( 1995 )
( " by splitting weeks, a developer can offer interests which entitle the purchaser to use the accommodations for only three or four days per year for approximately half the cost of a full week " ).
[6].  Id. (
" The purchaser of an odd/even year interest would obtain the right to use the accommodations only during odd years or only during even years...the purchaser would generally have only one-half of a vote and pay only one-half of the maintenance fee charged to owners of consecutive year interests " ).
[7].  See Ragatz, Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy 81 ( 1982 )
( " the overwhelming majority of ( timeshare owners ) bought their timeshares at least in part due to the exchange privilege " ).

[8]. See Scavo, Marketing Resort Timeshares: The Rules Of The Game, 73 St. John's L. Rev. 217, 221 ( 1999 ).

[9].  Id. at pp. 222-223.
" Each of ( these techniques ) is aimed at producing prospects for sales of the timeshare products...For example, the owner referral program seeks new prospects by obtaining the names of potentially interested persons from existing owners, or otherwise upgrading existing owners into a new resort timeshare product offering, usually from the same developer. The owner referral program often works in conjunction with the in-house guest program. This program identifies prospects from owners and then invites those prospects to be guests of the resort with the goal being that the satisfied guest will become a timeshare buyer. On the other hand, the off-premise contact solicitation does not rely on existing owners, but rather seeks to attract those vacationing in the area of the timeshare facility to a timeshare presentation. The unbounded contact made through off-premise solicitation, however, has the potential of producing unqualified prospects. Therefore, direct mailing, in connection with telephone solicitation, which rely upon demographically selected individuals, is developing as a more favored marketing approach. The entry level introductory product...offers consumers a sample of what the timeshare experience might be by providing a singular use stay at a timeshare facility, which is occasionally coupled with the exchange experience " .
[10]. Id. at N. 11.
( " ' Hotel companies operating in a hospitality industry that's mature and expanding at only two (2) percent a year, got into time sharing because they needed a new way to expand market share and revenues ' " ).

[11].  Isaak v. Trumbull Savings & Loan Company, 169 F. 3d 390 ( 6th Cir. 1999 ).

[12]. State of Ohio v. Houseman, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 3015 ( Ohio App. 2000 ).

[13]. Dorian v. Harich Tahoe Development, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21627 ( N.D. Cal. 1996 ).

[14]. U.S.A. v. Gennuso, 967 F. 2d 1460 ( 10th Cir. 1992 ).

[15]. Leisure American Resorts, Inc. v. Knutilla, 547 So. 2d 424 ( Ala. Sup. 1989 ).

[16]. Resort Timeshare Resales, Inc. v. Attorney General, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9637 ( 2000 ).

[17]. Agrawal v. Rault Club Ten, Inc., 464 So. 2d 951 ( La. App. 1985 ).

[18]. Tiffany v. Sturbridge Camping Club, Inc., 32 Mass. App. Ct. 173, 587 N.E. 2d 238 ( 1992 ).

[19]. Note, New York Creates A Private Right Of Action To Combat Consumer Fraud: Caveat Venditor, 48 Brooklyn L. Rev. 509, 558, n. 207 ( 1982 ).

[20].  F.T.C. v. Paradise Palms Vacation Club, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19109 ( W.D. Wash. 1986 )( developer misrepresents location, availability and exchange privileges of Hawaiian timeshare units ); F.T.C. v. Paradise Palms Vacation Club, 1985 U.S. Dist LEXIS 12581 ( W.D. Wash. 1985 )( developer misrepresents availability, location, escrow accounts and exchange privileges of Washington and Nevada timeshare units ).

[21]. U.S.A. v. Weiswasser, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20152 ( W.D. Wash. 1985 ).

[22]. State v. Stedman, 547 A. 2d 1333 ( Vt. Sup. 1988 ).

[23]. Raven's Cove Townhouses, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Company, 114 Cal. App. 3d 783, 171 Cal. Rptr. 334 ( 1981 ).

[24]. Drexel Properties, Inc. v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc., 406 So. 2d 515 ( Fla. App. 1981 ).

[25]. Raven's Cove Townhouses, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Company, 114 Cal. App. 3d 783, 171 Cal. Rptr. 334 ( 1981 ).

[26]. Guerrero v. Bluebeard's Castle Hotel, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 343  ( D.V.I. 1997 ).

[27]. Egrets Point Townhouses Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Fairfield Communities, Inc.,  870 F. Supp. 110 ( D.S.C. 1994 ).

[28]. Key Club Associates v. Mayer, 718 So. 2d 346 ( Fla. App. 1998 ).

[29]. Louisiana Acorn Fair Housing v. Quarter House, 952 F. Supp. 352 ( E.D. La. 1997 ).

[30]. City of Excelsior Springs v. Elms Redevelopment Corp., 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1797 ( Mo. App. 1998 ).

[31]. Lake Arrowhead Chalets Timeshare Owners Association v. Lake Arrowhead Chalets Owners Association, 51 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 875 ( 1996 ).

[32]. In re 560 Ocean Club, LP, 133 B.R. 310 ( 1991 ).

[33]. Laguna Royale Owners Ass'n v. Darger, 119 Cal. App. 3d 670, 174 Cal. Rptr. 136 ( 1981 ).

[34].  White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So. 2d 346 ( Fla. App. 1979 ).

[35]. Reefshare, Ltd. v. Nagata, 70 Haw. 93, 762 P. 2d 169 ( 1988 ).

[36]. McCabe v. Board of Assessors, 402 Mass. 728, 525 N.E. 2d 640 ( 1988 ).

[37]. Madaket Realty, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Nantucket, 402 Mass. 137, 521 N.E. 2d 723 ( 1988 ).

[38]. O'Connor v. Resort Custom Builders, Inc.,459 Misc. 335, 591 N.W. 2d 216 ( 1999 )

[39]. Forbes v. Schaefer, 226 Va. 391, 310 S.E. 2d 457 ( 1983 ).

[40]. Raven's Cove Townhouses, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Company, 114 Cal. App. 3d 783, 171 Cal. Rptr. 334 ( 1981 ).

[41]. Scavo, Marketing Resort Timeshares: The Rules Of The Game, 73 St. John's L.Rev. 217, 236 ( 1999 ).

[42]. Hocking v. Dubois, 839 F. 2d 560 ( 9th Cir. ), rehearing granted 852 F. 2d 503 ( 9th Cir. ), opinion withdrawn 863 F. 2d 654, on rehearing 885 F. 2d 1449 ( 9th Cir. 1989 )( en banc ), cert. denied 110 S. Ct. 1805 ( 1990 ).

[43].  See e.g.,

Arkansas:A.C.A. §§ 18-14-101 to 18-14.601.

California:Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 11003.5 to 11018.11; 10249.3-10250.58.

Florida:Fla. Stat. §§ 721.02 to 721.27.

Georgia:O.C.G.A. §§ 44-3-169 to 44-3-194.

Hawaii:Hawaii Rev. L. §§ 514E-1 to 514E-30.

Illinois:Ill. Stat. Ch. 765 §§ 101/1-15. to 101/15-70. Louisiana: La. R. S. 9:1131.2. to 9:1131.20.

Massachusetts:Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 183B, §§ 2-54.

Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 34-41-1.03 to 34-41-5.07.

Texas:V.T.C.A. Prop. Code §§ 221.002 to 221.062.

Virginia:Va. Stat. §§ 55-361.1 to 55-400.

Washington:Wash. Stat. §§ 64.39.010 to 64.36.225.

Wisconsin:Wis. Stat. §§ 707.21 to 707.57.

See also: Regulation Of Time-Share Or Interval Ownership Interests In Real Estate, 6 A.L.R. 4th 1288.

[44].  Fla. Stat. § 721.02.

[45].  Rev. Code Wash. § 64.36.020.

[46]. Rev. Code Wash. § 64.36.190.

[47].  La. R.S. 9:1131.4.

[48]. La. R.S. 9:1131.6.

[49].  La. R.S. 9:1131.10.

[50]. La. R.S. 9:1131.12.

[51]. La. R.S. 9:1131.14.

[52].  La. R.S. 9:1131.15

[53].  O.C.G.A. §§ 44-3-175, 44-3-176.

[54].  O.C.G.A. § 44-3-175.

[55].  765 ILCS 101/10-10.

[56].  HRS § 514E-2.5.

[57].  HRS § 514E-10.

[58].  Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 183B, § 20.

[59].  Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 183B, § 28.

[60].  Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 183B, § 32.

[61].  Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 183B, § 26.

[62].  Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 183B, §§ 19, 24, 5.

[63].  Tex. Prop. Code § 221-071.

[64].  Tex. Prop. Code § 221.073.

[65]. Scavo, Marketing Resort Timeshares: The Rules Of The Game, 73 St. John's L. Rev. 217, 236 ( 1999 ).

Back to Top

Back to Top