Manhattan Club Lawsuit

I think there are 2 types of owners willing to give back their ownership. The first are those in arrears in annual fees.

The second are those current and not in arrears.

It would seem that the offer to those current could work. There is no debt to be forgiven, and it requires no resources from TMC other than administrative.

While I would agree that there is no reason to believe that TMC will ever "forgive" any debts without being forced, I cannot see why TMC would not seriously entertain receiving a returned week at no cost.

I am one of the owners not in arrears. I just don't want to be burdened with paying dues for something I don't use. I have no doubt that someone will be making money on the "give backs". I just want to be free of a bad I investment and call it a day.

bruceg213 wrote:

Lynn O'Donnell has been given a list of owners to contact about taking back contracts for no cost, past due maint. fees excused, no ding on credit reports. She told me that, if you are on her list of owners wishing out, you will be contacted eventually. No point in calling her unless you are not on her list and want to be.

Would be nice to find out WHO gave Lynn "her" list of owners. How many owners are on the list? Who is on the list? How is TMC going to proceed with the list - chronologically, alphabetically, selectively, by a good standing or arrears amount? How many interests is TMC willing to take back? What are the guarantees all owners who want to get out are eligible? What happen to owners who are not Redweek readers, never been informed on TMC updated policies, and have no clue what's going on with the Club?

Called Lynn today, Lynn's message box was overfull, my message was not accepted. Not sure my name is on the list, my give-back discussion with her (or someone else) occurred 4-5 years ago, and I was told a chance was next to zero. Also I am not sure my phone number has been updated in TMC records since then.

TMC has the list of owners' emails, why is Lynn avoiding electronic correspondence? Obviously Lynn would save many working hours we pay for when contacting owners via emails and owners get proof of conversation. Looks like another 'secret service' operation being arranged by TMC - non-profit organization.

Lol, no information from TMC. What a surprise.

craigr32 wrote:

I think there are 2 types of owners willing to give back their ownership. The first are those in arrears in annual fees.

The second are those current and not in arrears.

It would seem that the offer to those current could work. There is no debt to be forgiven, and it requires no resources from TMC other than administrative.

While I would agree that there is no reason to believe that TMC will ever "forgive" any debts without being forced, I cannot see why TMC would not seriously entertain receiving a returned week at no cost.

So why, according to the user gorgem, he/she was contacted on the first place? gorgem said he/she was in arrears in annual fees for 4 years.

ANYTHING TMC does that appears to be of benefit to owners is totally suspicious and unbelievable. GIVEBACKS will benefit ONLY TMC. this will allow TMC to relieve owners of their initial investment and permit TMC to add our shares to their inventory for future sales. NICE GOING, TMC. keep our investments then resell our thoughtful GIVEBACKS. BULLSHI*!

fibon wrote:

bruceg213 wrote:

Lynn O'Donnell has been given a list of owners to contact about taking back contracts for no cost, past due maint. fees excused, no ding on credit reports. She told me that, if you are on her list of owners wishing out, you will be contacted eventually. No point in calling her unless you are not on her list and want to be.

Would be nice to find out WHO gave Lynn "her" list of owners. How many owners are on the list? Who is on the list? How is TMC going to proceed with the list - chronologically, alphabetically, selectively, by a good standing or arrears amount? How many interests is TMC willing to take back? What are the guarantees all owners who want to get out are eligible? What happen to owners who are not Redweek readers, never been informed on TMC updated policies, and have no clue what's going on with the Club?

Called Lynn today, Lynn's message box was overfull, my message was not accepted. Not sure my name is on the list, my give-back discussion with her (or someone else) occurred 4-5 years ago, and I was told a chance was next to zero. Also I am not sure my phone number has been updated in TMC records since then.

TMC has the list of owners' emails, why is Lynn avoiding electronic correspondence? Obviously Lynn would save many working hours we pay for when contacting owners via emails and owners get proof of conversation. Looks like another 'secret service' operation being arranged by TMC - non-profit organization.

In all my years of dealing with Lynne O'Donnell, whenever there was any communication via email...I initiated it and she would not answer via email if it was of any consequence. She always told me to call her back and I believe it was so there would not be any documentation of my issue(s). As I have shared many times, I gave back a time share, was told I would get $100, signed the papers, but the deal wasn't finalized because the AG took over and halted all sales and transactions. I wrote her a couple of months ago, re: my final papers and she said nothing was happening (I had to call her back). After I heard the latest news, I emailed her as to when I would get the final papers and my $100....I realize she seems busy now, but still no answer from her...

I thought I had responded regarding delinquent owners, but don’t see it anywhere. Those unpaid maintenance fees belong to the association and otherwise remain with the delinquent owner. In Ca it’s recommended to go to Small Claims for anything under about $1700, more than that foreclosure procedings against that owner. Is NY so different?

We are our ninety years old and so need to be relieved of this time share- and any responsibility associated with it--please advise us !-Thank you for any help--RTH

If there was a true buy back policy - it would have been shared at the Board meeting. It was not. Total scam - and just a stall tactic to get people to not join a lawsuit. Please do not fall for this bull.

Thank you Mr Zimmerman for your insight on the buy back/owner debt issues. Let me be clear, I do not fault anyone who stopped paying their maintenance fees. I considered doing that a few years back. But I knew I had a legal obligation to pay it now or pay it later. Did I like paying two times more then what I could rent the same room for on the open market. Heck NO. But I realized that a large part of the increased fee was due in part to the shortfall caused by some owners not paying their fees. But please, DO NOT LET TMC SCAM YOU ONE LAST TIME. You will be required to pay your past due fees sooner or later. That past due money does not belong to TMC, it belongs to ALL owners and should go back into the budget when received as income, thus lowering the maintenance fees.

A follow-up question for Mr. Zimmerman. Is it possible for the owners association to forgive an owners debt, take back their unit at no cost, and resell the unit with the money made from the sale going back into the budget as income? That would be a win, win for everyone. I have not joined your law suit yet, but I am strongly concidering doing so.

jeanmarcz wrote:

Message from Jean-Marc Zimmerman of Zimmerman Law Group:

We understand that various TMC timeshare owners who are in default on their maintenance fee and tax payments are receiving “offers” to give-back their interests (“units”) for zero compensation, with no liability for past due fees or taxes.

We do not understand, from the public posts, exactly who is offering to acquire the units. TMC has no budget to acquire units, and at the annual meeting, made no suggestion that there would be any acquisitions, and in fact the Board made clear that there would be no acquisitions. TMC does not apparently have the right to simply forgive the bad debt, and if they do acquire the units back from owners, it has no mechanism to resell them.

Similarly, it would be a breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets for TMC to simply give these units to BlueGreen or the Eichners, and the valuation for such a transfer would require a forensic accountant since any such transaction is an interested party transaction. It appears from TMC’s timeshare plan that BlueGreen cannot simply acquire the units directly from owners, without paying the arrearages to TMC in order to be able to use or resell those units.

TMC is a valuable asset. If we assume for the sake of argument that TMC is worth $150 million, then each of the 286 rooms is worth approximately $10,000 per week.

However, by virtue of the wrongful conduct committed by TMC’s Sponsor (as admitted in the Assurance of Discontinuance) and given the current onerous management contract and excessive maintenance fees still being charged, many owners are sufficiently demoralized with their TMC ownership experience to be willing to give back their units, with no return of either the whole or a portion of their initial equity investment.

Thus, the Sponsor has achieved its apparent goal of making the timeshare owners’ equity worthless. This is a key basis for our proposed suit, and we believe that if TMC was properly managed, and freed of the Sponsor’s wrongful conduct and existing management contract, it could be as good an “investment” as owners believed when they first paid their hard-earned dollars to purchase their units.

The give-back offer is an apparent furtherance of an effort to appropriate the entirety of the $400 million dollars paid by the timeshare owners in the first place.

So, if an owner is in arrears significantly less than $10,000, we believe that the offer to return the equity interest is not a good offer. One must presume that that acquirer of the inventory sees a potential for profit in doing so. However, it appears that they want to keep the current market value suppressed to zero until they can appropriate all of the available units for their own ends.

Of course, if an owner owes arrearages of greater than $10,000, and the buyer is the proper entity to grant a waiver or release of the owner’s debt (or is willing to pay the arrearages to TMC in cash), that could be a good deal. But, the willingness of an entity to do so must be considered evidence of a profit motivation. Please note that the rescission of debt is taxable income, and the owner may have to pay taxes on the forgiven debt. Meanwhile, the reduction in value of the timeshare is a capital loss and might not be fully deductible. Please consult a competent attorney, before entering into any such transaction!

In conclusion, this new information regarding the proposed give-back of timeshare interests currently in default is significant and needs to be monitored, and as we more fully understand the facts, we will study the applicable law and consider action.

Jean-Marc Zimmerman Zimmerman Law Group 233 Watchung Fork Westfield, NJ 07090 jmz@tmcsuit.com

This communication constitutes an advertisement under the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the practice of lawyers. Our past results are no guarantee of future performance.

From Facebook The Manhattan Club Timeshare Scam page Emilee Concannon September 1 at 12:53 PM We just spoke with Lynn and there is a specific list given to her by BlueGreen on units that they are willing to deed back at this time. They don’t know who is on the list or in what order and she doesn’t have any control over that. Of course, there is a long list of people that want to deed back. Hopefully this information helps someone else!

Why should we have to give back a fraudulent investmenT? TMC oversold units by 14,000 owners not allowing many of us to get our time we paid $22,000 for. They should be paying us for their fraudulent actions and returning the funds they fraudulently sold that did not exist. Not screwing us more by taking the investment back for nothing. If we had been able to use our time and had the maintenance fees that were discussed with us when purchased been ad heated to we would not be in this situation. We will be joining the lawsuits.

hello sharon, in response to your post, i repeat..................

ANYTHING TMC does that appears to be of benefit to owners is totally suspicious and unbelievable. GIVEBACKS will benefit ONLY TMC. this will allow TMC to relieve owners of their initial investment and permit TMC to add our shares to their inventory for future sales. NICE GOING, TMC. keep our investments then resell our thoughtful GIVEBACKS. BULLSHI*

all tmc scammers, and fraudulent rotters should be dining on empty clam shells in their respective cells.....a suite at rikers would be fine.

sharonv68 wrote:

Why should we have to give back a fraudulent investmenT? TMC oversold units by 14,000 owners not allowing many of us to get our time we paid $22,000 for. They should be paying us for their fraudulent actions and returning the funds they fraudulently sold that did not exist. Not screwing us more by taking the investment back for nothing. If we had been able to use our time and had the maintenance fees that were discussed with us when purchased been ad heated to we would not be in this situation. We will be joining the lawsuits.

I'd be very careful of the 'give backs'. I'd be willing to bet the biggest piece of paper TMC will ask you to sign will be a release of any and all liability for past acts by TMC. Others have questioned the legal authority to actually do the buy back. Which are valid concerns. But if the owner had signed a release that may survive the failure of transfer of title.

Just me 2 cents.

hello roberts,

we seem to be totally on the same page (as ragged as the page is!)

here's a recent reply i have sent in reference to the GIVEBACKS:

ANYTHING TMC does that appears to be of benefit to owners is totally suspicious and quite unbelievable. GIVEBACKS will benefit ONLY TMC. this will allow TMC to relieve owners of their initial investment and permit TMC to add our shares to their inventory for future sales. NICE GOING, TMC. keep our investments. then resell our thoughtful GIVEBACKS which we originally spent mucho dollars for and continue to pay (if we choose to ) exorbitant maintenance fees for............THAT'S TOTAL. BULLSHI*!

roberts714 wrote:

I'd be very careful of the 'give backs'. I'd be willing to bet the biggest piece of paper TMC will ask you to sign will be a release of any and all liability for past acts by TMC. Others have questioned the legal authority to actually do the buy back. Which are valid concerns. But if the owner had signed a release that may survive the failure of transfer of title.

Just me 2 cents.

I hired an attorney more that a year ago because I just couldn't do the maintenance fees anymore. Until then I always paid them and loved using my week in NYC. The increase in fees was my breaking point. TMC now communicates only with my attorney. I just heard from him and he is sending me some papers to sign and I am out. The 1st ten years I got my money's worth at TMC, but for the next ten it became a burden. I made the decision and paid the lawyer as my last act of sending good money after what became my ultimate bad investment. But at least I didn't give it to TMC, even though they are getting my unit back for free. I don't even care. I just chalk it up to experience and am glad to be rid of the stress and have the monkey off my back.

May i ask who your attorney is and how much it cost you to hire him/her as we are in the same situation?

There always seems to be some confusion about the Manhattan Club - we the timeshare owners are the Manhattan Club. Eichner was only the developer - so when you "give" your unit back, who are you actually giving it to? Is it to the corporate developer? Who will get to resell it? Who is releasing you from liability for your debts to the Manhattan Club - that's assuming that an owner stopped paying the maintenance fees If you don't pay maintenance fees, then you are hurting the Association which belongs to the timeshare owners - not to Eichner. So, Chris, can you also share your thoughts on this.

hi tulipblossom,

first off, no criticism intended, ok? however, there are different strokes/opinions/takes on common issues: "we the timeshare owners are the Manhattan Club." owners of entities like the manhattan club are not treated like manure. fairness and respect are expected. i have yet to see that, to wit, the exorbitant maintenance fees & lack of reservation availability (to name only two fraudulent issues.)

"when you "give" your unit back, who are you actually giving it to? Is it to the corporate developer? Who will get to resell it"...............YES. we GIVE IT BACK to (PROBABLY) bluegreen, who will add your and others' givebacks to their sales inventory. they are paying you nothing for what you spent thousands for, so it's ALL profit for them when they re-sell it.

"If you don't pay maintenance fees, then you are hurting the Association which belongs to the timeshare owners - not to Eichner." i must LOL (no malice intended!!!!!) there is an Association which is made up of people who couldn't care less about us owners, even pat, bill and jim (non- sponsored board members AND OWNERS.....A JOKE!) keep in mind, eichner is, by court order/ruling, not to deal in the timeshare business. so what? there are others in his fraudulent circle who can AND DO act in his behalf. all the rental monies FOR OUR TIME that were collected and continue to be collected go into the pockets of the HURTING ASSOCIATION, i.e., eichner, on behalf his associates, bluegreen and whoever else gets his/her dirty fingers into the pie.

i could go on, but will not. my own simple conclusion (to be agreed with or not) is: i pay when i want to stay. i WILL NOT GIVE BACK MY TIME, ADDING PROFIT TO A PROVEN FRAUDULENT OPERATION. RIGHT NOW, I'M TAKING A WAIT-AND-SEE STANCE. if paying becomes much more of a financial burden, then i won't pay and, ergo, i won't stay.

happy labor day, tulipblossom!!! your comments, pro or con, are welcome

tulipblossom wrote:

There always seems to be some confusion about the Manhattan Club - we the timeshare owners are the Manhattan Club. Eichner was only the developer - so when you "give" your unit back, who are you actually giving it to? Is it to the corporate developer? Who will get to resell it? Who is releasing you from liability for your debts to the Manhattan Club - that's assuming that an owner stopped paying the maintenance fees If you don't pay maintenance fees, then you are hurting the Association which belongs to the timeshare owners - not to Eichner. So, Chris, can you also share your thoughts on this.