Nevil v Wyndham

Case Number: 6:20-cv-03114

Last Updated: May 11, 2021

Status

Pending in State Court

Location

Circuit Court of Taney County, Missouri (remanded from USDC, Western District of Missouri)

Presiding Judge

Hon. M. Douglas Harpool

Date Filed

04/16/2020

Highlights

Case Posture

Claims:

Attorney David Vaughn of Montgomery and Newcomb, LLC, brought this complaint on behalf of timeshare owner Kay Nevil, alleging violation of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, 407 RSMo et seq. (MMPA). Ms. Nevil seeks a refund of $39,607.54, as well as costs and attorney fees as provided by 407.025 RSMo.

Posture:

The case is not yet at issue. After the timeshare owner filed her complaint in Circuit Court of Taney County, Missouri, Wyndham removed the lawsuit to USDC, Western District of Missouri US District Court. The timeshare owner successfully remanded the case back to state court where it is now pending.

Summary:

Timeshare owner Kay Nevil alleges in her complaint that Wyndham is a travel club as defined by Missouri law, and was therefore required to, but failed to register as a travel club with the Missouri Attorney General. Under Missouri law, consumers have three years from the date of a travel club contract to rescind their contract and obtain back any payments made. She alleges that less than three years after she entered into a contract with Wyndham, she made a demand to rescind her contract and refund her $39,607.54, but that Wyndham failed and refused to do so.

Selected Events:

9/4/20 – Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. [27]

After Wyndham removed her lawsuit to federal court, timeshare owner Kay Nevil moved to remand, on the basis that the requisite amount in controversy for removal was not met. The prayer for relief in her complaint states that she sought damages not to exceed $74,999.00. Wyndham’s notice of removal states that the amount in controversy requirement was met because the MMPA permits additional recovery of punitive damages and attorney fees. In response, Ms. Nevil argued that she had not requested punitive damages in her complaint, and attached a stipulated that she will not seek more than the amount prayed for in her complaint.

The Court (Judge Harpool) granted Ms. Nevil’s motion and remanded the case to Taney County, Missouri.

Click on the PDF titles below to view.

Critical Briefs

Transcripts

Click on the PDF titles above to view.

Parties

Plaintiffs: KAY NEVIL

Plaintiffs’ counsel: Montgomery and Newcomb, LLC

Defendants: WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC.

Defendants’ counsel: Armstrong Teasdale LLP-KCMO