Heisman v. Wyndham

Summary:

Plaintiffs Bradley Heisman and Julia Matoni entered into a timeshare agreement with Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. After a poor experience, they brought a claim in arbitration before the AAA, as required by their agreement with Wyndham. The AAA declined to hear the claim, because Wyndham did not cooperate with their procedures, and advised Plaintiffs that they could sue in court. Plaintiffs then filed this action in state court, asserting contract and consumer-protection claims. Wyndham removed the action to this court, and moved to compel arbitration.

In their Complaint, the timeshare owners alleged that in May 2019, they were on vacation at a Wyndham resort in West Palm Beach, Florida when Wyndham’s sales staff “befriended” the 61 and 78 year old couple and offered them incentives to attend a timeshare presentation.  

“The salesperson that was assigned to Plaintiffs was so nice and friendly and said she would help whenever assistance was needed, however despite repeated calls, she never responded.  Finally in response to a text message explaining the buyers’ frustration and issues, she did nothing but respond with a frowning emoji”.  

As to the breach of contract claim, the timeshare owners claim Wyndham:

• Wyndham agreed to reasonably provide Club Accommodations to the timeshare wonders however the accommodations are not available and advanced booking times are excessive;
• Wyndham failed to reasonably provide club accommodations in breach of the Security Agreement;
• Wyndham charged the timeshare owners excessive maintenance and booking fees;
• Wyndham refused to arbitrate the matter before the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) in breach of the Security Agreement.

In support of the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, the timeshare owners allege Wyndham:

• Wyndham was required to refrain from unreasonable conduct that would prevent the timeshare owners from receiving the benefits of their bargain; and
• Wyndham breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by frustrating the purpose of the Security Agreement entered into with the timeshare owners.

In the declaratory relief cause of action, the timeshare owners allege and seek the following declaratory relief from the Court:

• Rescission of the Security Agreement;
• Declare the Security Agreement to be void ab initio for being vague and ambiguous as to the property right being sold and purchased and unconscionable nature of the Security Agreement;
• Declare the Security Agreement to be void ab initio for its failure to contain all required material terms sufficiently and in plain language.

In the Complaint, the timeshare owners claim Wyndham violated the FDUTFA by unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices and unfair or deceptive acts or practices  such as:

• Not being made aware of any notice requirements to use points and book vacations;
• That the timeshare owners could book vacations anywhere in the world;
• The timeshare owners would be assigned their own travel specialist to plan trips;
• The timeshare owners would be contacted by a Wyndham representative to help them set up an iPad to book vacations; 
• The timeshare owners could not contact anyone on the phone at Wyndham to plan a trip;
• The original timeshare sales presentation lasted eight (8) hours when Wyndham promised it would only take ninety (90) minutes;
• Wyndham failed to disclose the nature of escalating maintenance fees;
• There is a large fee to carry over points from year to year;
• If the timeshare owners sought an attorney to review the Wyndham documents prior to signature, any offers made by Wyndham would be revoked;
• Wyndham promised the timeshare owners a two-week vacation anywhere in the world for joining Wyndham but Wyndham made it impossible for the timeshare owners to take advantage of the offer;
• Wyndham did not disclose there is a fee if points are transferred/deposited with RCI;
• Wyndham claimed points can be redeemed for cash, which is false;
• Wyndham falsely claimed the timeshare contract could be passed on to the timeshare owners’ heirs like a traditional timeshare;
• No disclosure of how many points equate to a hotel stay or the cost of airfare;
• Falsely asserting Wyndham points could be banked for years but instead, expire after one (1) year; and
• Wyndham falsely claimed a Barclays’ credit card was required to pay for the deposit to be offered at zero percent interest.

In the sixth cause of action against Wyndham, the timeshare owners allege Wyndham fraudulently induced them to enter into timeshare contract in the following manner:

• Wyndham’s agents knew or should have known the falsity of the misrepresentations and omissions when they were made;
• Wyndham’s agents intended that the timeshare owners be induced to act based on the misrepresentations and omissions made by Wyndham’s agents; and
• Wyndham’s actions were willful, wanton and malicious, allowing the timeshare owners to recover punitive damages.

The timeshare owners prayed for the Court to declare the Security Agreement void ab initio; to rescind the Security Agreement; for restitution of all monies the timeshare owners paid to Wyndham; for compensatory and punitive damages; and for compensation for their attorneys’ fees.