Wyndham

Hamm v Wyndham

Case Number: 3:19-cv-00426

Last Updated: April 16, 2021

Status

Pending Wyndham’s answer.

Location

Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville)

Presiding Judge

Judge Aleta A. Trauger

Date Filed

05/20/2019

Highlights

Timeshare owners allege they were tricked into buying a timeshare that they could not use due to restrictions on reservations.

Case Posture

Claims:

In their lawsuit, timeshare owners Gary and Linda Hamm claim fraud, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, misrepresentation by concealment, violation of the Tennessee Timeshare Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

The Hamms ask the Court to pay compensatory damages, treble and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Posture:

Pending Wyndham’s answer to the amended complaint.

Summary:

Timeshare owners Gary and Linda Hamm allege that over the years they were pressured and/or bullied into agreeing to purchase multiple upgrades of their Wyndham timeshare properties even as Wyndham has systematically eliminated benefits that impact timeshare owners’ usage. They allege they were falsely misled with offers and/or claims such as good for “one-day-only”, being able to vacation anywhere at any time, the ability to use the timeshare as a tax deduction and that maintenance fees would be lowered if they upgraded or traded. In reality, their desired vacation dates were never available, hard to secure or extremely limited. In addition, Wyndham misrepresented that there is a market for rental of the owners’ interests. Allegedly, Wyndham did not disclose to the Hamms that Wyndham openly markets and rents units to the public at large through third-party sites and at costs far below the costs incurred by the timeshare owners, unfairly competing with timeshare owners.

In addition, the timeshare owners allege that Wyndham sales representatives told them to falsify their income on a Wyndham visa card application and that Wyndham would buy back the timeshare if they no longer wanted it. Finally, the Hamms allege Wyndham used high pressure sales tactics to hurry them to a decision and that sales representatives would become demeaning and angry if they wanted to leave or think about their decision.

Selected Events:

10/9/2020 – MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT [47]

Wyndham moved unsuccessfully to dismiss the timeshare owner’s Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or alternatively to transfer venue.

Click on the PDF titles below to view.

Docket link

Operative Complaint

Critical Orders

Critical Briefs

Transcripts

Click on the PDF titles above to view.

Parties

Plaintiffs:

Gary W. Hamm, Linda M Hamm

Plaintiffs’ counsel:

George H. Rieger , II of Rieger Law Firm

Defendants:

Wyndham Resort Development Corp., Wyndham Worldwide Operations, Inc., Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., Wyndham Consumer Finance, Inc., Wyndham Rewards, Inc., John Does 1-100

Defendants’ counsel:

Keith William Randall, Paul Savage Davidson of Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP

copyright © 2020 – 2022 Timeshare Law Library

By using this site and its services you agree to the Terms of Service of this site.

By continuing to use this site you agree to these Terms of Service and acknowledge that you understand that you are agreeing to binding legal terms.