Manhattan Club Lawsuit

Thanks to Jeff, Shep and Doug for keeping us up to date with the AG's investigation of TMC. As all three pointed out, letters to the AG and to the court (Judge Rackower) have had enormous impact on the initial instigation and continuing progress of this investigation. It has taken a long time to get to where we are now and it seems that there is a long way to go, but it is important to continue communication with the agencies that can help us owners work toward justice.

I am part of Doug Wasser's group and want to thank him especially for keeping up with developments in this case and communicating them to the group in understandable terms.

To Jeff and others - I just left TMC Timeshare Owners Annual meeting. It lasted from 9 - 11:15 am-ish. The Order of Business was only the election of Association board members. All 3 current members were re-elected: Robert Ballot, James Dunphy, Patricia Soltys (who was not present). The one new nominee, Tim Gordon, was not. The GM Joshua W. was the lead spokesperson. He's kind of gruff and did his best to keep a lid on any discussion beyond the election business, but he did allow a period after business for a Q&A from the audience. There were about 100 people present. About 10 questions were answered, or attempted, but only steam released on the elephant in room (AG investigation). Then we broke up in clusters around board members and asked individual questions, but always with the fearfulless that they can't talk about anything (that we really want to know). So I've come away with a peak into process and personalities, all too much for me to digest at this forum at the moment. We were given the invitation to email or pay any of them a visit, so I will start to do that, beginning with my current visit. I have the business card of the Executive Director of Operations Salvatore Reale. I will try to see him today or tomorrow.

jils465,

the TMC OWNERS' ANNUAL MEETING IS A SET-UP JOKE! the principals, eichner, et al, all know the outcomes well before the meetings come to order. your comment about j wirshba, " He's kind of gruff and did his best to keep a lid on any discussion beyond the election business": this is typically their modus operandi......move this (required and advertised) meeting along for the record. we know exactly what we want as the final outcome anyway. as for ballot, dunphy and soltys, they're owners JUST LIKE US. i can't recall their doing anything to benefit their "brother and sister" owners...........or maybe i missed something. are they even allowed speak at meetings on owners' behalf and if so, do they? did they speak at this meeting that you attended? was this annual meeting a sham, a scene from a fictional play? did you find in to be up front and transparent, allowing owners to vent frustrations, and in the process, make some headway toward changing owners' issues for the better? i think not, and i don't think many other owners would think any differently...... that may be one of the reasons that TMC IS A DEFENDANT IN THE NYSAG MR. SCNEIDERMAN'S CURRENT LAWSUIT AS THE PLAINTIFF. i'd be very interested in knowing about your upcoming meeting with sal reale concerning his transparency and honest willingness to assist owners in their plight to get what they paid dearly for, e.g., reasonable (not ridiculously exorbitant) maintenance fees, reliable and reasonable reservation access and other issues expressed in this forum. i have had many conversations with sal reale, few of which addressed my issues. the results of your meeting expressing your concerns remain to be seen. sorry, but i don't have positive vibes at this time.

keep in touch. keep us all posted. we await your impressions and comments.........after you " digest at this forum at the moment."

chris

jills465 wrote:

To Jeff and others - I just left TMC Timeshare Owners Annual meeting. It lasted from 9 - 11:15 am-ish. The Order of Business was only the election of Association board members. All 3 current members were re-elected: Robert Ballot, James Dunphy, Patricia Soltys (who was nor present). The one new nominee, Tim Gordon, was not. The GM Joshua W. was the lead spokesperson. He's kind of gruff and did his best to keep a lid on any discussion beyond the election business, but he did allow a period after business for a Q&A from the audience. There were about 100 people present. About 10 questions were answered, or attempted, but only steam released on the elephant in room (AG investigation). Then we broke up in clusters around board members and asked individual questions, but always with the fearfulless that they can't talk about anything (that we really want to know). So I've come away with a peak into process and personalities, all too much for me to digest at this forum at the moment. We were given the invitation to email or pay any of them a visit, so I will start to do that, beginning with my current visit. I have the business card of the Executive Director of Operations Salvatore Reale. I will try to see him today or tomorrow.

great report. Hope other owner participants share their views of annual meeting and follow up meetings with TMC staff

Did any one tape a movie on their iPhone of this meeting? The Judge might just like to see how the principles of TMC orchestrate the meeting to their needs.

James 687

I am a m.c.owner and I have posted in the past. I am pleased the letters we wrote to the attorney general and the specific judges have helped in the process. My biggest concern, which I mentioned in my correspondence, is the mismanagement / fraud which has led to outlandish maintenance costs coupled with zero resale value. Can anyone tell me one day, resulting from these and future proceedings , we will be compensated for this double wammy. Or after a couple yrs the outcome will simply be we get a extra day or 2 to stay free of charge.

My hope is the threat of criminal charges with jail time will cause Eichner and his corrupt posse to try to reach some sort of plea deal to preclude incarceration. That a consideration might be that he refund the purchase price of the time shares to the disgruntled owners. He claims that there are so very few of us and he believes the time shares are a good investment - then he should be more than willing to repurchase them from us.

kurtj22 wrote:

I am a m.c.owner and I have posted in the past. I am pleased the letters we wrote to the attorney general and the specific judges have helped in the process. My biggest concern, which I mentioned in my correspondence, is the mismanagement / fraud which has led to outlandish maintenance costs coupled with zero resale value. Can anyone tell me one day, resulting from these and future proceedings , we will be compensated for this double wammy. Or after a couple yrs the outcome will simply be we get a extra day or 2 to stay free of charge.

The meeting on Aug. 3 was the first Member Association Board meeting we attended since we became owners in 1997. Since we did not receive an invitation, we were denied entry despite the fact that we showed them our Manhattan Club ID cards. The reason given was they were at full capacity. We waited until 9:30, 30 minutes past meeting time, when someone came out of the meeting room and told us that she was leaving because the meeting had not started and she could not wait. She also told us that the meeting room was half empty. When we approached TMC "door keepers" again, they final allowed us in. Jill gave a good summary of the meeting proceeding in a previous post. The meeting was one sided, on the side of the sponsored board members speaking favorably on the side of TMC. They refused to discuss any questions remotely related to the ongoing lawsuit. Three existing non-sponsored members were re-elected to the board. I did get chance to talk to one of them and this is what I come out of the meeting with: 1. Members in good standing will bear the burden of the delinquent timeshare maintenance fee. As more and more owners refuse to pay their maintenance fees, the rest of the owners will have greatly increased payments to make up the shortfall. 2. The developer, when allowed to resume sale of the foreclosed units, will pocket the money. None of the sale proceeds will be used to reduce the cost of the maintenance fees. 3. There was no exclamation for the developer's high management fees.

Another very concise analysis of the meeting. This needs to be forwarded to the Judge and more importantly to the Attorney General's office.

viviens2 wrote:

The meeting on Aug. 3 was the first Member Association Board meeting we attended since we became owners in 1997. Since we did not receive an invitation, we were denied entry despite the fact that we showed them our Manhattan Club ID cards. The reason given was they were at full capacity. We waited until 9:30, 30 minutes past meeting time, when someone came out of the meeting room and told us that she was leaving because the meeting had not started and she could not wait. She also told us that the meeting room was half empty. When we approached TMC "door keepers" again, they final allowed us in. Jill gave a good summary of the meeting proceeding in a previous post. The meeting was one sided, on the side of the sponsored board members speaking favorably on the side of TMC. They refused to discuss any questions remotely related to the ongoing lawsuit. Three existing non-sponsored members were re-elected to the board. I did get chance to talk to one of them and this is what I come out of the meeting with: 1. Members in good standing will bear the burden of the delinquent timeshare maintenance fee. As more and more owners refuse to pay their maintenance fees, the rest of the owners will have greatly increased payments to make up the shortfall. 2. The developer, when allowed to resume sale of the foreclosed units, will pocket the money. None of the sale proceeds will be used to reduce the cost of the maintenance fees. 3. There was no exclamation for the developer's high management fees.

tulipblossom,

i repeat my interpretation of the so-called "owners' board meeting".....this is an eichner and gang sponsored necessity. he plays the legal game very well, and has brilliant attorneys to guide him and his company's every single move, making the entire fraud, sham and lie-filled organization look legal. i repeat my response to your last comments about recent the board of directors' meeting:

jils465,

the TMC OWNERS' ANNUAL MEETING IS A SET-UP JOKE! the principals, eichner, et al, all know the outcomes well before the meetings come to order. your comment about j wirshba, " He's kind of gruff and did his best to keep a lid on any discussion beyond the election business": this is typically their modus operandi......move this (required and advertised) meeting along for the record. we know exactly what we want as the final outcome anyway. as for ballot, dunphy and soltys, they're owners JUST LIKE US. i can't recall their doing anything to benefit their "brother and sister" owners...........or maybe i missed something. are they even allowed speak at meetings on owners' behalf and if so, do they? did they speak at this meeting that you attended? was this annual meeting a sham, a scene from a fictional play? did you find it to be up front and transparent, allowing owners to vent frustrations, and in the process, make some headway toward changing owners' issues for the better? i think not, and i don't think many other owners would think any differently...... that may be one of the reasons that TMC IS A DEFENDANT IN THE NYSAG MR. SCNEIDERMAN'S CURRENT LAWSUIT, HIM AS THE PLAINTIFF. i'd be very interested in knowing about your upcoming meeting with sal reale concerning his transparency and honest willingness to assist owners in their plight to get what they paid dearly for, e.g., reasonable (not ridiculously exorbitant) maintenance fees, reliable and reasonable reservation access and other issues expressed in this forum. i have had many conversations with sal reale, few of which addressed my issues. the results of your meeting expressing your concerns remain to be seen. sorry, but i don't have positive vibes at this time.

keep in touch. keep us all posted. we await your impressions and comments.........after you " digest at this forum at the moment."

chris

tulipblossom wrote:

Another very concise analysis of the meeting. This needs to be forwarded to the Judge and more importantly to the Attorney General's office.

viviens2 wrote:

The meeting on Aug. 3 was the first Member Association Board meeting we attended since we became owners in 1997. Since we did not receive an invitation, we were denied entry despite the fact that we showed them our Manhattan Club ID cards. The reason given was they were at full capacity. We waited until 9:30, 30 minutes past meeting time, when someone came out of the meeting room and told us that she was leaving because the meeting had not started and she could not wait. She also told us that the meeting room was half empty. When we approached TMC "door keepers" again, they final allowed us in. Jill gave a good summary of the meeting proceeding in a previous post. The meeting was one sided, on the side of the sponsored board members speaking favorably on the side of TMC. They refused to discuss any questions remotely related to the ongoing lawsuit. Three existing non-sponsored members were re-elected to the board. I did get chance to talk to one of them and this is what I come out of the meeting with: 1. Members in good standing will bear the burden of the delinquent timeshare maintenance fee. As more and more owners refuse to pay their maintenance fees, the rest of the owners will have greatly increased payments to make up the shortfall. 2. The developer, when allowed to resume sale of the foreclosed units, will pocket the money. None of the sale proceeds will be used to reduce the cost of the maintenance fees. 3. There was no exclamation for the developer's high management fees.

Good day !!!! I am looking for Jeff's message, I don't find it. Any directions as to how to read it ???

Thank you,

Leonor Boada

1. When owners are delinquent and hence unable to make reservations, I would expect the developers to be able to list the freed-up time online and collect substantial fees for reservations booked to people wishing to stay at the Club. Wouldn't these fees go into the account for management fees and thereby offset the additional costs that would otherwise have to be paid by the paid-up members? If not, why not?

2. There is a reference to foreclosed units. Have any units be foreclosed? Will units be foreclosed if management fees become delinquent? Are the delinquent owners personally liable for the unpaid management fees on units that have been foreclosed? Will the amount of an owner's delinquency be offset against revenues that the Manhattan Club receives upon resale of the unit?

viviens2 wrote:

The meeting on Aug. 3 was the first Member Association Board meeting we attended since we became owners in 1997. Since we did not receive an invitation, we were denied entry despite the fact that we showed them our Manhattan Club ID cards. The reason given was they were at full capacity. We waited until 9:30, 30 minutes past meeting time, when someone came out of the meeting room and told us that she was leaving because the meeting had not started and she could not wait. She also told us that the meeting room was half empty. When we approached TMC "door keepers" again, they final allowed us in. Jill gave a good summary of the meeting proceeding in a previous post. The meeting was one sided, on the side of the sponsored board members speaking favorably on the side of TMC. They refused to discuss any questions remotely related to the ongoing lawsuit. Three existing non-sponsored members were re-elected to the board. I did get chance to talk to one of them and this is what I come out of the meeting with: 1. Members in good standing will bear the burden of the delinquent timeshare maintenance fee. As more and more owners refuse to pay their maintenance fees, the rest of the owners will have greatly increased payments to make up the shortfall. 2. The developer, when allowed to resume sale of the foreclosed units, will pocket the money. None of the sale proceeds will be used to reduce the cost of the maintenance fees. 3. There was no exclamation for the developer's high management fees.

These are questions, we should all ask the TMC management. Based on Booking.com there are plenty of units for rent for substantial rental fees in the first two weeks of August.

Knowing what we know about TMC developer & operations, we should not expect that Eichner would be looking for ways to minimize OUR maintenance fees at the expense of his own revenue. Undoubtedly he will seek to pocket all revenue from rental of available timeslots from those who have abandoned the right to use.

I would be pleased to sell my MC Penthouse Suite for the 2005 price I paid. From what I understand, the current rate for a week (400 points) from a competitor is $100K. I did not purchase my week for that amount. I paid much less.I believe current MC owners could offer great bargains to the current market. TMC still has quite a positive reputation and I am sure there could be a very positive outcome if current owners could return their units back to Eichner and company for the price they paid. TMC units could then be resold for probably at least twice what current owners paid. A win win for all.

New hearing on August 29, 2016

Order releasing frozen funds for the purpose of paying ongoing legal fees related to this matter this matter and two other lawsuits in which the Respondent Entities are defendants and related legal matters.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=wkL9R_PLUS_ALt4d40hC/fgVSZg==&system=prod

I HAVE READ ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE ABOUT THE MEETINGS, AND I AM PLEASED WITH THE REPORTING. YET IT SEEMS TO ME THAT A POSSIBLE SOLUTION IS (SOMEONE NEEDS TO OFFER TO THE TMC MANAGEMENT A PROPOSAL THAT IF THEY WISH TO CONTINUE TO SELL TIMESHARES AT THE MANHATTAN CLUB, AFTER ALL THIS IS SAID AND DONE, WHICH I BELIEVE WILL HAPPEN, THEY NEED TO OFFER TO OWNERS A BUYBACK OF THEIR PURCHASE PRICE, AND THEY WILL HAVE NEW INVENTORY, A VALUE THAT THEY CAN MORE THAN DOUBLE, AGAIN MAKING A BIG PROFIT, AND THOSE OWNERS WOULD BE SATISFIED, THE TMC WILL SETTLE THEIR PROBLEM, AND NO ADDITIONAL COSTS WILL BE INCURRED. THIS CAN ONLY HAPPEN, NOW, AND ONLY THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL BE REFUNDED WITHOUT ANY FINES, FEES, LATE FEES, OR PRIOR MANAGEMENT FEES TO BE DEDUCTED. THIS WOULD BE FAIR TO ALL, AND FOR THOSE WISHING TO KEEP THEIR OWNERSHIP, CAN PAY WHAT THEY FEEL THEY WISH TO KEEP THEIR OWNERSHIP. IF SUCH A PROPOSAL IS PUT ON THE TABLE, NOT ONLY TO THE TMC MANAGEMENT, BUT ALSO THE COURT SYSTEM, MAYBE THIS COULD BE SETTLE IN A TIMELY MANNER, SAVING EVERYONE AGGRAVATION AND EXPENSE.

henryd30, lots to be said of your proposal to management. personally i would like to keep my ownership IF THE MAINTENANCE FEES PER WEEK WERE REDUCED MEGA-SUBSTANTIALLY (WHICH PROBABLY WILL NOT HAPPEN.) I ACKNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION BUT OBVIOUSLY DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO IT. WHATEVER POSITIONS WE TAKE EITHER IN COMMON OR INDIVIDUALLY, WE MUST AWAIT THE COURT'S DECISION (WHENEVER THAT WILL BE). FROM THE SOUNDS OF IT, IT APPEARS THAT YOU'RE HOPING FOR SOME SORT OF PLEA BARGAIN. IF THAT OCCURS, I WOULD HOPE THAT OWNERS WOULD HAVE OPTIONS FROM TMC TO CHOOSE FROM RATHER THAN A BLANKET SETTLEMENT WHICH ALL OWNERS WOULD HAVE TO ACCEPT.

chris

henryd30 wrote:

I HAVE READ ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE ABOUT THE MEETINGS, AND I AM PLEASED WITH THE REPORTING. YET IT SEEMS TO ME THAT A POSSIBLE SOLUTION IS (SOMEONE NEEDS TO OFFER TO THE TMC MANAGEMENT A PROPOSAL THAT IF THEY WISH TO CONTINUE TO SELL TIMESHARES AT THE MANHATTAN CLUB, AFTER ALL THIS IS SAID AND DONE, WHICH I BELIEVE WILL HAPPEN, THEY NEED TO OFFER TO OWNERS A BUYBACK OF THEIR PURCHASE PRICE, AND THEY WILL HAVE NEW INVENTORY, A VALUE THAT THEY CAN MORE THAN DOUBLE, AGAIN MAKING A BIG PROFIT, AND THOSE OWNERS WOULD BE SATISFIED, THE TMC WILL SETTLE THEIR PROBLEM, AND NO ADDITIONAL COSTS WILL BE INCURRED. THIS CAN ONLY HAPPEN, NOW, AND ONLY THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL BE REFUNDED WITHOUT ANY FINES, FEES, LATE FEES, OR PRIOR MANAGEMENT FEES TO BE DEDUCTED. THIS WOULD BE FAIR TO ALL, AND FOR THOSE WISHING TO KEEP THEIR OWNERSHIP, CAN PAY WHAT THEY FEEL THEY WISH TO KEEP THEIR OWNERSHIP. IF SUCH A PROPOSAL IS PUT ON THE TABLE, NOT ONLY TO THE TMC MANAGEMENT, BUT ALSO THE COURT SYSTEM, MAYBE THIS COULD BE SETTLE IN A TIMELY MANNER, SAVING EVERYONE AGGRAVATION AND EXPENSE.

I have read all the recent posts of the past 3-4 weeks with great interest. While the speculation of getting a buyout by TMC of owners who might want an out sounds good, I suspect it would not be an option for me. I bought my timeshare directly from the original owner, not from TMC, because TMC management had a reputation even back then of refusing to allow a private sale to go thru so that they could resell the timeshare for a higher price. My first stay at the Club, I asked for a tour and was refused. I asked for a copy of the Offering and other documents given to first time buyers and was refused. This was in October of 2005! I am curious - are there other current owners who purchased through the secondary market as I did? My maintenance fee has gone from a doable $800+/- to around $2,500 for a Junior Executive Suite/Gold Level, which allowed up to 3 weekends a year, 7 single nights or a week. That flexibility lasted until about 2008, when it started to be more difficult to book time on the fly. I complained then about having to book a full week a year in advance. I have not been able to get a week at my preferable time of year in at least 5 years.

Daniel, I, too, purchased on a secondary market, but think this thead is not really about that. How can I contact you? Lizz PS will be away for about 10d, may not have access