Manhattan Club Lawsuit

many hundreds maybe thousands have stopped paying maintenance. It’s the list they are going after to buy back the deeds in the first place right ? I am no way the first or last. And who was foreclosed on ? Anyone here ?

the issue of possible effects on credit rating for non-payment of maintenance fees has not been addressed. many owners are concerned about this possibility. comments about this will prove helpful. the legal possibility of foreclosure is still sketchy, regardless of the timing of the foreclosure notice. legal clarification regarding these issues is also a necessity. perhaps mr zimmerman can comment within the bounds of his legal expertise.

chris

sueo79 wrote:

many hundreds maybe thousands have stopped paying maintenance. It’s the list they are going after to buy back the deeds in the first place right ? I am no way the first or last. And who was foreclosed on ? Anyone here ?

december 12 has come and gone. what are the results of this all-important court date for mr tucker.? why hasn't ANY information been published here on redweek.com? is it an oversight? was the court date changed? was the court proceeding halted/postponed? we need to know, NOW, the entire disposition and conclusion of this court proceeding.

december 12 has come and gone. what are the results of this all-important court date for mr tucker.? why hasn't ANY information been published here on redweek.com? is it an oversight? was the court date changed? was the court proceeding halted/postponed? we need to know, NOW, the entire disposition and conclusion of this court proceeding.

Your analogy fails in the fact Eisner sold 14,000 more units than existed. So why pay a mortgage if you were sold a house that did not exist. That’s what has happened to many of us - yes about 14,000 of us bought nothing. So who would continue paying on a contract of fraud. TMC should not even need the 14,000 units extra maintenance fees as it was never needed in the first place to maintain the non existent unit. We are not hurting anyone. Only continuing to damage ourself if we continue to pay for a non existent unit. Our hard earned funds should be reimbursed - principal investment and plus maintenance The years paid but did not have any use. Thank you

Are you saying you never used TMC?

today is december 14, 2018................and still no answers about mr tucker's december 12 court hearing/proceeding.

CAN ANYONE OFFER VERIFIED INFORMATION? IF NOT, WHY NOT?

UPDATE FROM ZIMMERMAN LAW GROUP

Dear TMC owners: The long-awaited hearing in the Tucker v. TMC case was held on December 12, 2018. Because of a procedural issue, the Court was unable to order that TMC’s member list be provided to plaintiff.

Significantly, given that plaintiff is ultimately likely to prevail on the merits of his claim against TMC since his goal of organizing members potentially adverse to TMC's board/management has been recognized by New York Courts as a proper purpose for seeking the list, the Court requested that counsel for both parties work together to try and resolve the issue so that plaintiff can send his message to all other TMC members without further court action. Counsel for both parties are presently exploring how to do so. This may entail allowing TMC to disseminate Mr. Tucker’s message though its service provider, advising all other members about the Assurance of Discontinuance and advocating for changes and reforms at TMC, so long as doing so is not cost-prohibitive and does not edit or censor Mr. Tucker’s message.

Also, since TMC would undoubtedly have appealed a court decision granting Mr. Tucker the member list, the manner by which the Court requested the parties resolve the list issue will likely result in plaintiff’s message being disseminated to the other TMC members sooner and at less cost than would be the case if an appeal had to first be decided before he could access the list.

There is no quick resolution of the underlying issues at TMC, including excessive maintenance fees, difficulty in reserving units, and the illiquidity of memberships, that the action we are preparing to file on behalf of those members who have retained us will seek to resolve. Relief will ultimately be attained if a court determines that the existing structure is, as we contend, oppressive and deserving of judicial intervention.

Alternatively, relief will be attained if members organize in sufficient number to claim control of TMC’s board and management. While Redweek provides a platform to reach a limited subset of the members, plaintiff is seeking to organize a much larger number of members. Specifically, he seeks to organize at least 5% of the reported 18,000 TMC members, to work together to enact meaningful structural changes and reforms at TMC, and to help convert members’ presently “worthless” timeshare interests into cash or equity in a viable entity. Our contention that existing TMC memberships are worthless is based in part on the following facts: (a) TMC is offering to reacquire memberships in arrears for $100 cash; (b) the cost of staying at TMC may be lower for non-members than a member’s yearly maintenance fees; (c) members are unable to sell or transfer their interests to third parties; and (d) the demand for memberships on the secondary market is non-existent.

We therefore encourage TMC members who have not yet retained us to do so and join with Mr. Tucker to effectuate the desired changes at TMC that will enable you to regain the value of your membership interest. Finally, in papers filed in the Tucker case, TMC asserts that the Eichners and their related entities are no longer TMC’s Sponsor and have been “replaced” by BlueGreen. We are presently investigating to determine the accuracy of this assertion, and if it is accurate, how such change was made and how it affects existing TMC members. At present, we are not aware of any public information which documents whether BlueGreen has legally assumed the liabilities and responsibilities of the former Sponsor.

Jean-Marc Zimmerman Zimmerman Law Group 233 Watchung Fork Westfield, NJ 07090 T: (908) 768-6408 F: (908) 935-0751 E: jmz@tmcsuit.com

perhaps my interpretation is inaccurate, but i recall that the court determined that eichner had 3 years to effectuate corporate changes as prescribed by the court's decision in litigation headed by the nysag, eri schneiderman.

mr zimmerman's comments say:

"Finally, in papers filed in the Tucker case, TMC asserts that the Eichners and their related entities are no longer TMC’s Sponsor and have been “replaced” by BlueGreen. We are presently investigating to determine the accuracy of this assertion, and if it is accurate, how such change was made and how it affects existing TMC members. At present, we are not aware of any public information which documents whether BlueGreen has legally assumed the liabilities and responsibilities of the former Sponsor."

i also understand that bluegreen is somehow currently "in the TMC corporate picture" but i am unaware of the extent of bluegreen's immediate legal status in this corporate messy maze. some unraveling must be done in order for understandable corporate structure to be realized. it appears that this is the primary objective before any other further court actions (short of mr tucker's litigation) take place.

these comments are obviously from one without legal expertise, but with common sense, which should also be considered

jeanmarcz wrote:

UPDATE FROM ZIMMERMAN LAW GROUP

Dear TMC owners:

The long-awaited hearing in the Tucker v. TMC case was held on December 12, 2018. Because of a procedural issue, the Court was unable to order that TMC’s member list be provided to plaintiff.

Significantly, given that plaintiff is ultimately likely to prevail on the merits of his claim against TMC since his goal of organizing members potentially adverse to TMC's board/management has been recognized by New York Courts as a proper purpose for seeking the list, the Court requested that counsel for both parties work together to try and resolve the issue so that plaintiff can send his message to all other TMC members without further court action. Counsel for both parties are presently exploring how to do so. This may entail allowing TMC to disseminate Mr. Tucker’s message though its service provider, advising all other members about the Assurance of Discontinuance and advocating for changes and reforms at TMC, so long as doing so is not cost-prohibitive and does not edit or censor Mr. Tucker’s message.

Also, since TMC would undoubtedly have appealed a court decision granting Mr. Tucker the member list, the manner by which the Court requested the parties resolve the list issue will likely result in plaintiff’s message being disseminated to the other TMC members sooner and at less cost than would be the case if an appeal had to first be decided before he could access the list.

There is no quick resolution of the underlying issues at TMC, including excessive maintenance fees, difficulty in reserving units, and the illiquidity of memberships, that the action we are preparing to file on behalf of those members who have retained us will seek to resolve. Relief will ultimately be attained if a court determines that the existing structure is, as we contend, oppressive and deserving of judicial intervention.

Alternatively, relief will be attained if members organize in sufficient number to claim control of TMC’s board and management. While Redweek provides a platform to reach a limited subset of the members, plaintiff is seeking to organize a much larger number of members. Specifically, he seeks to organize at least 5% of the reported 18,000 TMC members, to work together to enact meaningful structural changes and reforms at TMC, and to help convert members’ presently “worthless” timeshare interests into cash or equity in a viable entity. Our contention that existing TMC memberships are worthless is based in part on the following facts: (a) TMC is offering to reacquire memberships in arrears for $100 cash; (b) the cost of staying at TMC may be lower for non-members than a member’s yearly maintenance fees; (c) members are unable to sell or transfer their interests to third parties; and (d) the demand for memberships on the secondary market is non-existent.

We therefore encourage TMC members who have not yet retained us to do so and join with Mr. Tucker to effectuate the desired changes at TMC that will enable you to regain the value of your membership interest.

Finally, in papers filed in the Tucker case, TMC asserts that the Eichners and their related entities are no longer TMC’s Sponsor and have been “replaced” by BlueGreen. We are presently investigating to determine the accuracy of this assertion, and if it is accurate, how such change was made and how it affects existing TMC members. At present, we are not aware of any public information which documents whether BlueGreen has legally assumed the liabilities and responsibilities of the former Sponsor.

Jean-Marc Zimmerman Zimmerman Law Group 233 Watchung Fork Westfield, NJ 07090 T: (908) 768-6408 F: (908) 935-0751 E: jmz@tmcsuit.com

I've heard 14,000 units were sold but who knows how many non existent weeks were sold and where did that figure come from? How do you know that you were one of the "over sold "units. As far as an analogy about a bank - a bank is not going to give one a mortgage until you, the mortgagor, apply for one. And if you've defrauded the bank, then it falls back on you, the purchaser. The bank isn't going to just write off the loss and not seek to recover. At some point the old "caveat emptor" legal principle applies which is "buyer, beware". I just happen to believe that those who don't pay end up hurting those who do and they will not be able to walk away and damage the Manhattan Club because of the developer's fraudulent actions. I think many are penalizing the Manhattan Club when their anger should be directed against Eichner, the developer - he's the one who defrauded all owners - it wasn't the Manhattan Club as the Manhattan Club is comprised of all the timeshare owners. My understanding is that we all received fee simple deeds which I believe means we own the property. Perhaps the Zimmerman firm can explain what we own and who owns the building and assets. But again, you need to do what you believe is right for you.

what we tmc owners are in dire need of is a determination from an expert legal source about paying or not paying maintenance fees including the consequences of non-payment. this should include if non-payment affects credit rating adversely. it should also show if and how it affects owners who do pay. personally, i don't believe either scenario will prove to have a viable and firm answer from guesswork by laypeople. the answers to both issues seem to be MAYBE, but that remains conjecture, unless and until we get a firm answer from a reliable legal source. at this time the only legal source we can turn to is zimmerman, unless other owners have legal expertise in these matters.

mr zimmerman, please offer us your legal expertise/opinion regarding the above matters.

Chris: After your comments & attitude about Zimmerman’s efforts for his clients, I’m not surprised that he wouldn’t have THIS forum on the top of his list for disclosing what, if anything, happened on December 12.

chrisv126 wrote:

tmc owners,

on or about nov 7, 2018 attorney zimmerman wrote in this redweek.com forum the following:

Jean-Marc Z. wrote: "Dear TMC Members: We are writing to provide an update on our progress in the TMC suit.

As many of you know, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Robert Tucker, who was candidate for a non-sponsor Board position, to obtain TMC’s member list (presently maintained in confidence by TMC) in an effort to communicate with other members about remediating and obtaining redress for the wrongs TMC’s Sponsor admitted committing.

A hearing in Mr. Tucker’s case is next scheduled for December 12. While his lawsuit is not part of the action for which we have been retained by other members, Mr. Tucker may make this list available for contacting and organizing timeshare members. We are also engaged in other efforts to obtain the member list from TMC. Obtaining the list will eliminate the stranglehold that TMC’s Sponsor....."

today is dec 12 2018. has anyone heard about the results of mr tucker's hearing? if so, please post the information here in the redweek.com... TMC lawsuit... forum.

thanks,

chris

Dennis. I completely agree.

dennis and sue.

in no way did i fault redweek nor jeff weir (i'm not quite sure why jeff was made part of this scenario). that didn't happen either by tone or written composition. redweek.com has the responsibility to submit appropriate messages that subscribers post, just as they posted mine. that's one of the benefits we all pay for to become contributors to TMC forum. jeff weir does a fine job of reporting: he does not volunteer his time. he's a reporter for redweek.com, and a good one. we had all been awaiting the results of the dec 12 court hearing. those who requested the hearing should have reported it more quickly than 2 days after said meeting took place. it would have been posted on redweek.com upon submission by the responsible party. i think we have been patient for over three years. there comes a time when patience is rather worn and somewhat tattered. being anxious for available information has nothing to do with patience in the first place. this is a need-to-know-quickly piece of information. owners on this redweek.com depend on this type of information to help them make future decisions regarding the patent TMC fraud and financial distress that they have had to bear. perhaps the patience you describe should be practiced by those who need it most

the above is my answer to dennis' (with whom sue completely agreed) comments to me in the other redweek.com forum:

ask-redweek-manhattan-cub-bluegreen

as follows: Chris: Tone matters. Red week has no RESPONSIBILITY to report anything. Jeff Weir has been doing a great job for years, hopefully he’ll continue to volunteer his time & efforts. Perhaps the hearing didn’t happen. Perhaps Redweek decided not to spend money on this hearing. Lets have a little patience with our friends at Redweek, or anyone else who may have spent the time & money to find out, document and report.

sueo79 wrote:

Dennis. I completely agree.

Zimmerman addressed non payment of maintenance fees PAGES AGO. He said it was not a good idea.

By RedWeek Support RedWeek.com Team We would like all Forum users to be aware that by adding your email address to a public forum you may be opening yourself to spammers or scammers. We have had issues previously with scammers targeting Manhattan Club owners. You are able to edit any previous forum post to remove your email address or other contact information. We would recommend setting up a private Facebook page or other means to communicate, rather than exposing your contact information on a public website. Please visit this page for information on protecting yourself from phishing scams: Phishing Scam (https://www.redweek.com/resources/scams/phishing-scam)

williamm465 wrote:

Are you saying you never used TMC?

I’m sure that even if Sharon did use TMC the amount of upfront money at time of purchase MORE THAN COVERED THE TIME SHE ACTUALLY SPENT THERE! TMC is now no more than a hotel to all of us owners now that the general public can stay there MUCH EASIER than those of us who handed over MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS! In my case, $60GRAND! Why would I continue to hand BLUEGREEN $3500 a year to do with it what they see fit??? It not rocket science!

Sue, the list is NOT to try to purchase back the deeds. The list is vital because there are THOUSANDS of owners who are COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF THE NYAG’S INVESTIGATION and if owners who ARE aware get their hands on the owners list they may try to organize and bring legal action against Eichner.

William - apparently, unlike you and myself, there are some who do not understand that what one paid to purchase a timeshare is just that - a purchased of a week. in a building that was to be owned by the Association of timeshare owners. So the maintenance fees that are paid have zero to do with the purchase price except as to the yearly amount one is assessed. That is because all owners do not pay the same yearly maintenance fees. Penthouse owners pay the most. Also, included in the purchase price was not a figure for assessments for years to come. The yearly fees were intended to pay for the operational expenses of the Manhattan Club such as insurance, property taxes, maid service, utilities, repairs,etc. So, Eicher, the developer got the purchase price the timeshare owner initially paid - after that, we, as owners were to be assessed yearly for the operational expenses. Eichner defrauded us and our recourse should be directed towards him - not the Manhattan Club itself. My understanding was that we, as timeshare owners, ,own the Manhattan Club- the property/building belongs to us - not to Eichner. . Is that not the understanding of our group? We all should have received deeded timeshares. Please explain if my understanding is incorrect.

message to gail and william,

face it, eichner IS the manhattan club. he's a mega real estate tycoon who surrounds himself with experts in every facet of his fraudulent activities. make no mistake, eichner has not disappeared from TMC nor the timeshare industry itself. through various and continuous fraudulent means, he remains, albeit invisible, a major part of TMC and the timeshare industry. you delude yourself (as i had done in the past). yes we have deeds, and i'm not sure how legal or viable they currently are. only an experienced attorney can make that judgement. your understanding of what you expect our ownership of TMC to be is on target, but wishful thinking. do you really think eichner hasn't taken care of that issue; do you think he would let ANYONE on their legal terms, own something he developed? it's like having another child to him, not to be shared with "strangers". one could say that eichner allows us to use TMC, but only under his terms. this is precisely the issue that we should be forcefully battling him against. the list that we all hoped would be forthcoming from the december 12 court hearing is still not in responsible hands (ours.) eichner has a stronghold on that. he knows that once that list of owners becomes available to us, he's finished along with his real estate empire. (google him sometime to see the real estate fortunes he's amassed.) it appears highly unlikely that mr tucker will make any headway by following the court's admonition to sit down with eichner's attorneys to work out a settlement regarding making the owners' list available to him. does anyone see that happening?

please do not misconstrue my comments as criticism of any kind. my words are solely meant to reveal what IS, and not what you rightfully WISH IT TO BE. that's the reality we're left with.

now let's get on with our battle with TMC. BLUEGREEN OR EICHNER (THEY'VE BECOME ONE PACKAGE/ENTITY). make no mistake, our fight is against the whole or individual parts of this FRAUDULENT, EVIL ENTITY. THEY LITERALLY STOLE FROM US (no matter who or what did that). now we need to concentrate on justice for all members of the wonderful club most of us seem to like, and we need to fight for this justice with competent expert legal might. attorneys need some teeth............some ammunition...............state and national timeshare legislation of which there is very little. what little there is seems to lack any power of regulation. i have written to the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION with my various complaints about TMC. on the FTC complaint website, they expect substantial comments about your complaints. there is generous space for expressing and describing your complaints, so we can write as much as necessary to show how we were defrauded and shammed by TMC. PLEASE, ALL, THAT IS EVERY PERSON IN THIS FORUM..............TAKE THE TIME TO SEND YOUR COMPLAINTS TO THE FTC..................................IT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE THAT THE MORE COMPLAINTS THE FTC RECEIVES ABOUT TMC, THE MORE THEY WILL TAKE NOTE OF OUR PLIGHT AND PERHAPS OFFER US AS MUCH SORELY NEEDED ASSISTANCE AS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THEIR AUTHORITY. PART OF THE FTC'S DUTIES LIE IN THE REALM OF CONSUMER FRAUD PROTECTION. THIS IS CERTAINLY A GOOD MATCH FOR OUR TMC PREDICAMENT.

https://www.ftc.gov/............................................................................................

in addition to the legal attempts to help us through this messy and complicated situation, contacting the FTC is simply an additional action that we can take to benefit us all. reaching out to the FTC is in no way in competition with the legal team we're depending upon, just as joining the COALITION OF FINANCIALLY DISTRESSED TMC OWNERS is in no way a legally competitive entity. we're available to help. we have over 80 people who have joined us, some of whom have also joined the possible lawsuit being prepared. you might think 80 people is a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of TMC OWNERS. true, but it cannot be said that developing this contact list is not a move in the right direction.

with all the name-calling and bickering noted on these 248 pages of redweek.com, it's time to put all that aside and come together with a united front. aren't we all working toward the same end: justice from the TMC fraud? we may differ on points of view and ways, means, methods and plans to stop the enemy, but that differing shouldn't get in the way of what we all seek as a final outcome of our efforts, a victory for all of us.