By Irene Parker, MBA

A tangled web of five class action lawsuits filed by active duty military service members marches on. Lawsuits have been ongoing, accusing Holiday Inn, Hilton Grand Vacations, Westgate Resorts, Bluegreen Vacations and Travel & Leisure/Wyndham of violating the Military Lending Act.  

Updated January 18, 2025: On November 29, 2024, a fifth lawsuit was filed against timeshare developer Hilton Grand Vacations, following lawsuits filed against Bluegreen, Westgate, Holiday Inn and Wyndham, accusing Hilton Grand Vacations of violating the Military Lending Act. Cristina Ayala Rodriguez v. Hilton Resorts Corporation d/b/a Hilton Grand Vacations, was filed in U.S District Court Middle Division, Orlando, Civil Action No. 6:24-cv--2182. The lawsuit complaint states that Virginia resident Cristina, a single mom, and a Chief Warrant Officer 2 wtih the U.S. Army, in 2018 booked a reservation through the Hilton Honors Reward program. She was asked if she would like to learn more about how to vacation less expensively, without being told this was about a timeshare. She accepted a stay in Orlando and attended a presentation on December 1, 2019. At check-in, Cristina was offered a free cruise in exchange for attending a timeshare presentation. She purchased 5,000 points for $19,170, financing $17,253. According to the lawsuit complaint, she reported that she was told the timeshare was an investment that would increase in value, it could be rented out, and could be used as a write off for tax purposes.    

On January 14, 2025, a third amended complaint was files in Steines v. Westgate. A chronology of the lawsuits is below.     

The core of all reports of deceptive acts in timeshare is the oral representation, or non-reliance clause. While this clause appears in other contracts, it is overworked in timeshare contracts. Timesharing Today produced the following public service announcement, warning that timeshare buyers cannot rely on claims made by any sales agent.

https://vimeo.com/1039259484?share=copy#t=0

On October 28, 2024, Episode 36, PodTV's Timehare Solution or Surrender, featured military families that have reached out to report financial harm and security clearance concerns because they bought a timeshare. All reported unfair and deceptive practices except for one, a deployed Army National Guard father. Their household income dropped by $40,000 because of being deployed. They had upgraded to a 2 BR, but couldn’t afford the timeshare after being deployed. They had no choice but to default. 

All shows can be accessed from the menu by date. https//podtv.tv/timeshare-showcase

A timeshare purchase that goes bad can be especially harmful to active duty service members. Angelique Lingard and Sudarien D. Smith described in their lawsuit against Holiday Inn Club Vacations, just how perilous attending timeshare presentations can be. Could the following be why the military are offered discounted vacations that are timeshare promotions? As stated in Lingard vs Holiday Inn: 

The Uniform Code of Military Justice states that a service member can be subject to a “bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to six months” for dishonorably failing to pay a debt. (Manual for Courts Martial, 2012, Sec 71)

Upgrading for reasons that don’t exist is a common theme. No report is more compelling than Angelique and Sudarien’s report. Angelique said all their sales agents, beginning with their first purchase and subsequent upgrades, assured them they could sell back their timeshare at any time. The sales agent at their seventh purchase informed them that was incorrect, but claimed she could lower their maintenance fees by consolidating their contracts. Their first purchase was a fixed week.   

Purchase 2: In 2017, Angelique and Sudarien upgraded to a Cape Caribe Resort week. They said that their sales agent told them that they could sell their week back to Holiday Inn at any time - because they are in the military. 

Purchase 3: In 2018 Angelique and Sudarien turned in their deed for 300,000 Standard Points at a cost of $60,070 (pmt $1,004) and 50,000 Signature Points at a cost of $13,736 (pmt $229)

Purchase 4: On August 2, 2019, 50,000 additional points were purchased for $13,329 

Purchase 5: On September 21, 2020, 425,000 points were purchased (trading in the 300,000 points purchased in 2018). The cost was $78,760 (pmt $1,154). Maintenance fees $4,000

Purchase 6: In April of 2021, 30,000 points were purchased to gain Registry Collection Access. 

Purchase 7: In August of 2021, in Galveston, TX, Angelique and Sudarien were informed that all prior agents, at every transaction, were incorrect. They could not sell back points to Holiday Inn, but their sales agent explained that she could consolidate their prior contracts to lower maintenance fees. The cost for 200,000 additional points was $51,679 (pmt $864). This transaction did not lower maintenance fees. 

At the time of filing their lawsuit, Angelique and Sudarien had two contracts: 

Their 2020 purchase of 425,000 points for $78,760.20 (pmt $1,154) and their 2021 purchase of 200,000 points for $51,679.10 (pmt $864)   

Angelique and Sudarien owed Holiday Inn 29% of their annual income.   

In a February 21, 2023 ruling, attorneys for Holiday Inn argued, Plaintiffs do not allege how they or anyone else have been damaged by the arbitration or class action waiver.”  We heard from this family: 

In 2019, a father of four, and an active duty Navy service member, 12 years served, lost in arbitration disputing a $12,000 purchase. The judgment against them was $66,000. They were ordered to pay over $50,000 of the resort’s attorneys fees. According to their report: 

The Manager reassured us that buying a timeshare was like buying a home. It was an investment, he told us, and that when we went to buy a home it would help us because the mortgage company would see that we already have a great payment history with a mortgage loan. While riding back to the resort, I asked “If I change my mind tomorrow what happens? How do I get out of this contract?” The sales rep laughed and told me I’ve already signed on the dotted line, so it was too late. (Nevada has a five day contract cancellation period)

In chronological order, the status of each lawsuit, as we have interpreted the filings. 

EMMANUEL G. LOUIS and TAMARAH C. LOUIS v. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED, INC., and BLUEGREEN VACATIONS CORPORATION, No. 21-cv-61938 (M.D. Fla.)

The Bluegreen lawsuit was the first lawsuit alleging violations of the MIlitary Lending Act, but the central issue - whether a military timeshare buyer is a Covered Borrower - was not addressed. The Bluegreen lawsuit addressed traceability, as described below. 

A Florida District Court ruled that an individual who buys a timeshare while serving active duty is a Covered Borrower in Steines and Ormesher vs. Westgate Resorts. Westgate appealed. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, on September 5, 2024, upheld the Florida District Court’s ruling. This would seem to make the ruling in Louis vs. Bluegreen, a moot point because, as a Covered Borrower, transactions should be “void from the inception of such contract.”   

Residential mortgages are exempt from the MLA. Judge Roy Dalton stated at the Florida District Court, “When I check out of a timeshare, I can’t leave my underwear and toothpaste.” Also critical, is that the MLA prohibits arbitration, arguably pro-industry. 

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Jacksonville ruled in favor of Bluegreen, but attorneys for the military timeshare buyers filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States on October 18, 2024 on behalf of petitioners (plaintiffs) EMMANUEL G. LOUIS and TAMARAH C. LOUIS. From the filing: 

According to the Eleventh Circuit, where a plaintiff challenges the enforcement of a void contract, it is not enough that they have suffered an injury traceable to the defendant and redressable by the court. They must also show that their injury is traceable to the specific statutory provision that the defendant allegedly violated. 

This additional requirement (traceability) has no basis in the Constitution’s text or this Court’s precedent. To the contrary, this Court has held that a plaintiff’s injury need only be traceable to the defendant, not the specific statutory provision (in the MLA) the defendant violated. 

In the Second, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, the Louises would have been permitted to proceed with their lawsuit. They suffered a traditional pocketbook injury; caused by the defendant’s conduct; that’s redressable by the relief they seek. But the Eleventh Circuit held that the Louises lacked standing because they did not allege that their injury was traceable to the specific provisions of the Military Lending Act that Bluegreen violated. 

If Private Louis had been at Camp Pendleton in California or Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, when he took out Bluegreen’s loan, he could have challenged it in federal court. But because he was in Florida when Bluegreen targeted him, Bluegreen can continue to enforce a loan Congress has declared illegal—without any concern that a federal court will stop it. 

Service members should not be subject to one set of rules when they are stationed in one state and another when they are stationed elsewhere. This split cannot stand. 

Two amici curiae briefs have been filed in support of military timeshare buyers. Bluegreen Vacations filed an opposition to the writ on December 20, 2024.   

The First amici curiae: In support of military timeshare buyers, was filed November, 2024 by: 

  • Blue Star Families, a nationwide nonprofit that supports the wellbeing of military and veteran families with over 330,000 members;  
  • Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, a national nonprofit that focuses on issues affecting Coast Guard personnel and families; 
  • Fleet Reserve Association, a nonprofit with over 450,000 members that has advanced the interests of Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy personnel and families since 1924; 
  • Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a nonprofit of over 425,000 members that represents the post-9/11 military community;  
  • Jewish War Veterans of the USA, founded in 1896, is the oldest active national veterans service organization and is dedicated to representing Jewish servicemembers and veterans;  
  • Military Officers Association of America is the Nation’s largest organization of uniformed servicemembers and surviving spouses, with more than 360,000 members;  
  • Minority Veterans of America, a nationwide nonprofit advocating on behalf of historically marginalized and underserved servicemembers and veterans;  
  • National Military Family Association, the leading nonprofit dedicated to serving all military families and has, since 1969, worked with families to identify and solve the unique challenges of military life; 
  • United States Army Warrant Officers Association, a nonprofit focused on the advancement and professional development of warrant officers in the Army; 
  • Veterans Education Success is a nonprofit working to advance higher-education success for service members, veterans, and military families and to protect the promise of the G.I. Bill and other postsecondary programs.  

The Second Amici Curiae, filed November 18, 2024

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CENTER FOR CONSUMER LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE AND DEBORAH L. RHODE CENTER ON THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

While a pilot stationed in Florida is effectively blocked from pursuing her Military Lending Act claim in federal court, her counterpart in South Dakota can do so under the same facts. The transient nature of military service is also important to recognize. If that South Dakota-based pilot is transferred to Florida and her rights under the Military Lending Act are violated there, she will have suddenly and nonsensically lost the ability to vindicate her rights under the Military Lending Act. This is a recipe for confusion and lost opportunities for redress. As Congress made clear, servicemembers are equally entitled to the Military Lending Act’s protections, for which equal access to the courts is a prerequisite.

By Stanfords Rose Carmen Goldberg

The second Military Lending lawsuit was ADAM U. STEINES; MIRANDA L. STEINES v. WESTGATE RESORTS, et. al. Case 6:22-cv-00629-RBD-DAB, filed on February 2, 2022

Third: Angelique Lingard et al. v Holiday Inn Club Vacation fka Orange Lake. Middle District of Florida, Case No. 6:23-cv-323-PGB-RMN 

Judge Sneed recently dismissed Defendant Holiday Inn’s request for reconsideration. Bluegreen had filed a motion asking for the case to be dismissed.

Fourth: Heather Huskey et al v Travel & Leisure, Wyndham, Florida Middle District, Case No. 6:23-cv-601

Judge Mendoza - stayed at pleadings stage pending the Steines ruling - Carlton Fields on defense. 

TARDA has heard from hundreds of active duty service members and veterans since a group of volunteers began tracking complaints in 2016. Many veterans maintain security clearances post-service to work in military-related positions. We feel no service member’s security clearance should be jeopardized because they financed a timeshare. There have been far too many reports of unfair and deceptive, marketing, sales and lending practices with developers and their agents protected by the non-reliance clause. Attorney Mike Finn, in a New York Times inarticle in 2016, called this clause the license to lie clause.