Pending Actions Against Timeshare Developers

In the past year, hundreds of consumers and over a dozen former timeshare employees have risen up to vindicate their rights by bringing claims against timeshare developers.

Whistleblower Lawsuits Against Developers

DANIEL VENDL v. DIAMOND RESORTS

CASE # 2:19-cv-00672 | US DISTRICT COURT, NEVADA

In Vendl v. Diamond, a former Diamond employee represented by attorneys Annie Lung and Maile Esteban-Trinidad claims that he was fired after being told to falsify documents including preparing a chart that had no basis in facts to induce customers to buy timeshares. He alleges that he complied under fear that he would lose his job.

DULENE AMILCAR et al. v. WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP

CASE # 18-008241 | CIRCUIT COURT SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

Amilcar v. Wyndham is a mass whistleblower lawsuit in which ten former Wyndham sales representatives and other staff, represented by attorneys Wil Florin and Thomas Roebig, Jr., allege that Wyndham retaliated against them for objecting to and/or refusing to participate in Wyndham’s unlawful, unethical, and fraudulent sales practices, including practicing real estate without a license, confusing and misleading buyers or wearing them down so they would buy property, misdirecting buyers to points charts that depicted false information, advising buyers that a Wyndham timeshare is an investment and its value would increase over time, instructing buyers that the property was “not a timeshare,” misrepresenting to buyers the effect of completing a credit application, altering buyers’ income level on their credit application, advising buyers that Wyndham would buy back their property, preying upon the elderly, misrepresenting the nature of a Club Wyndham Access purchase, overselling timeshares resulting in many owners not being able to use their timeshare due to overbooking, advising owners (and especially the elderly) to purchase more points and keep making the same monthly loan payment while paying off their loan, when in actuality, Wyndham simply extended the repayment term, and instructing sales representatives to “do whatever they have to do” to close deals, even if it was unlawful or unethical.

The complaint includes state whistleblower claims and negligent supervision and retention, and contains prayers for back pay and benefits, front pay and/or lost earning capacity, emotional distress damages, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages.

WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP v. SANDY ADAMS

CASE # 4:19-CV-00854 | US DISTRICT COURT, SOUTH CAROLINA

Wyndham v Adams is lawsuit involving a whistleblower counterclaim by a former Wyndham quality assurance officer, Sandy Adams, who is represented by Joseph and Williams Hopkins. Wyndham terminated and then sued Ms. Adams for theft of Wyndham timeshare owner names, which Wyndham alleges are trade secrets. Ms. Adams countersued, alleging that she was an award-winning employee who Wyndham retaliated against only after she complained of and opposed illegal practices, including reporting to Wyndham that a Wyndham sales representative had forced Wyndham timeshare owners to sign a cancellation “retraction letter” under false pretenses and had lied to these owners about their purchase. She alleges that she also complained to management that Wyndham sales agents misrepresented to owners the truth about “conversions” of ownership from South Carolina’s Plantation Resort to Wyndham, and that owners were falsely told that by “converting” they would have a lower maintenance fee. She alleges that in reality, after the transaction, owners were encumbered with two timeshares with two mortgages and two separate maintenance fee obligations.

Pending Timeshare Owner Actions Against Westgate

MARILYN MOORE, et al. v. WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD

CASE # 3:19-CV-00079| US DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE (PROPOSED CLASS ACTION)

In Moore v. Westgate, ten representative timeshare owners, represented by attorneys Mark Chalos and John Spragens, allege on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated timeshare owners  that Westgate’s high-pressure sales scheme involves convincing prospective purchasers to buy into its vacation timeshare program while failing to disclose legally required information to buyers and failing to provide purchasers with adequate access to their timeshares. The timeshare owners claim fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of fair dealing, civil conspiracy, and violation of the Tennessee Timeshare Act.

ERIC & MARIA COX v. WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD

CASE #3:19-CV-00079| US DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

In Cox v. Westgate, Mr. and Mrs. Cox, represented by attorney Aubrey Givens, allege that they endured a seven-hour sales presentation and were not allowed to leave or given anything to eat. They allege that they were tired, hungry, pressured, harassed and finally rushed into signing 30 separate documents without the opportunity to seek advice or read through the contractual provisions. They allege that the Westgate sales representative misrepresented to them that the timeshare they purchased was “prime real estate” that would increase in value and would bring the couple rental income that would “pay for itself.” They allege the sales representative misrepresented to them that they could take the deed to the timeshare to a bank to refinance the loan that Westgate made to them at a lower rate.

They allege that Westgate knowingly failed to disclose that Westgate timeshares are bad investments, have no aftermarket value, and are extremely difficult to use and/or rent.

The timeshare owners ask the court to hold that the contract was induced by fraud and is “shocking” to the common sense of a reasonable individual and is therefore unconscionable, and to relieve them from continuing obligation of paying maintenance fees.

EMILY GEORGE, et al. v. WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD

CASE # 3:18-CV-00512 | US DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

George v. Westgate is a mass tort action in which 39 timeshare owners, represented by Jessica Stewart of The Abrams Firm, allege that Westgate sales representatives misrepresented to them that Westgate’s timeshares are good investments that can be resold for a profit, misrepresented the ease of reserving accommodations, and gave them false advice regarding estate planning. The timeshare owners claim fraud, unauthorized practice of law, breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and violation of the Tennessee and California Timeshare Acts.

Pending Consumer Action against Orange Lake Country Club

ATHENA WILLIAMS, et al., v. HOLIDAY INN, SILVERLEAF RESORTS, ORANGE LAKE COUNTRY CLUB, et al.

CASE # 2:19-CV-57 | U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF VERMONT

In Williams v Holiday Inn, Silverleaf Resorts, and Orange Lake Country Club, 22 timeshare owners, represented by attorney Joshua Martin, allege that Orange Lake Country Club, itself or through the other defendants, falsely told them that the timeshares they purchased were valuable and would be a good investment and could be resold for a profit; that the sales representatives engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and that the timeshare sale constituted a purchase of securities in violation of the Securities Exchange Act, the Vermont Consumer Protection Act, and the California Timeshare Act.

Pending Consumer Actions against Wyndham

BAILEY et al. v. WYNDHAM (PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT)

CASE # 3:19-CV-05325 | U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Bailey et al v. Wyndham is a pending lawsuit for elder financial abuse and other claims brought by 42 timeshare owners, some of whom were 65 years or older at the relevant time, represented by attorney Jack Duran, Jr., of California and The Abrams Firm of Washington.  The lawsuit is brought on the timeshare owners’ own behalf and on behalf of the general public.

The timeshare owners allege that Wyndham made owners sit for 4-9-hour sales presentations and were induced to enter into contracts in reliance on Wyndham’s false claims, such as that timeshare owners would have the ability to bequeath their “property” to their family members. The timeshare owners allege that Wyndham conceals that children become liable for ever-increasing multi-generational debt, and that when they are persuaded to upgrade their contracts through promises to resolve deficiencies in their existing contract, this only adds more costs, and does not resolve the deficiencies.

The timeshare owners further allege that timeshare owners are not informed that when adding all the fees and interest under the contract, the plaintiffs would pay nightly lodging rates as high as $9,166, and that the rates were as high as 6,666% more than what the timeshare owner could purchase by booking online.

In addition to elder financial abuse, the timeshare owners claim securities fraud, breach of contract, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unconscionable successor liability, and violation of the California Timeshare Act.

ANNAMARIE DENEEN, et al. v WYNDHAM (PROPOSED CLASS ACTION)

CASE #: 1:19-cv-05499 | U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Dennen v Wyndham is a prospective class action lawsuit brought against Wyndham by timeshare owners Anna Marie and Michael Deneen, Erin and Paul Munoz, and Nazret Gebremeskel, for themselves and all other similarly situated timeshare owners. They are represented by attorneys Howard Prossnitz and Adam Szulczewski.

The timeshare owners are all government employees. Erin Munoz is a Chicago Police Officer and Paul Munoz is a Cook County Sergeant. Nazret Gebremeskel (“Naz”) is an unemployment claims examiner with the District of Columbia.  Michael Deneen is retired military and now works for the federal government in the office of Personnel Management. His wife Ann works for Assessor’s Office in Will County, Illinois. All were approached by Wyndham sales representatives to attend a “short” sales session, which lasted for hours. Naz was transported off the property, purse “checked” and given no way to return without the Wyndham sales representative’s assistance.

The timeshare owners allege that after enduring high-pressure sales presentation, they each purchased points that were inadequate to book the vacation they wanted. They allege that fees were assessed to them that were not disclosed and inadequate services were available (for example, no room cleaning during their stay). They allege that there were no reservations available through the developer’s booking systems, even while non-timeshare owners had access to plenty of availability online.

TERINA and BRYAN CLARK v. WYNDHAM (PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT)

CASE # 1:18-CV-01661 | US DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Clark v Wyndham, timeshare owners Terina and Bryan Clark, represented by US Consumer Attorneys, have brought a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and the general public, claiming that Wyndham violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and the California Timeshare Act when Wyndham sold them and financed for them real property interests without the requisite real estate license.

WOODWARD and JOANN DRAKE v. WYNDHAM

CASE # 8:2019-CV-01668 | U.S. DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Drake v Wyndham, timeshare owners Woodward and Joann Drake, represented by attorney Mitchell Sussman, allege that Wyndham and their agent, Amber Chisum, committed fraud. The timeshare owners allege that Amber Chisum acted as a dual Real Estate agent on behalf of Wyndham and did not allow them to contact their own Real Estate agents to check the validity of the contracts. They allege they were promised availability to all properties, which was false. They allege they were not able to use their points appropriately and that Wyndham did not honor the promises made to induce them to purchase their timeshare interest.

LAWRENCE and LINDA COUCH, et al. v. WYNDHAM

CASE # 6:18-CV-02199 | U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Couch v. Wyndham is a lawsuit brought by timeshare owners Lawrence and Linda Couch, Wayne and Gayle Mauer, Edward and Linda Sherwood, and Gerald and Pamela Van Etten, represented by attorney Martin Holmes. The consumers allege fraud, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, New Jersey, and South Carolina’s Timeshare statutes, and violation of Florida, Hawaii, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, and South Carolina’s consumer statutes.

According to the Complaint, Wyndham uses a high-pressure sales pitch that is replete with lies and omissions, designed to induce prospective owner to purchase hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of points by fraud and concealment.

TROY, KYLE AND KRISTEN GRZYMKO v. WYNDHAM

CASE # 6:19-CV-01702 | US DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

In Grzymko v. Wyndham, timeshare owners represented by attorney Donald Hackett allege fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and violation of the Florida Timesharing Act. They allege that Wyndham misrepresented that they had equity in their timeshare interest that they could “roll” into a new purchase, that their timeshare interest had significant real value, and that they could rent their timeshare to cover maintenance fees. They allege that they were repeatedly denied reservations when rooms were available, because Wyndham was renting them on the open market.  

AARON HOWARD v. WYNDHAM

CASE # 3:19-CV-00199 | US DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Howard v Wyndham is a lawsuit brought by timeshare owner, Aaron Howard, represented by Aubrey Givens. He alleges that Wyndham misrepresented to him that the timeshare could be sold for a profit, that he could rent out his timeshare to cover all his costs, that he could buy airline tickets and rental cars with his points, and that by using a Wyndham Barclay card he could offset his costs by accumulating points. He alleges that he was tricked into signing documents that often contradicted Wyndham sales agents’ statements, that Wyndham misrepresented that he had to purchase more points in order to lower his maintenance fees or to have maintenance fees that would not increase, and that he could refinance his purchase through a bank at a lower interest rate. The timeshare owner alleges the Wyndham’s sales agent gave him her phone number and told him she would assist him in using his timeshare in the future but had no intention of doing so; and that he was repeatedly denied reservations when rooms were available because Wyndham rents these rooms on the open market, such as via internet travel sites, and for Wyndham marketing purposes, instead of making sure they were available to timeshare owners such as the plaintiff.

The complaint claims fraud, breach of contract, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection and Timeshare Acts. In addition to naming Wyndham, the timeshare owner names as defendants Jessica Creech and Matthew Chodak, the alleged Wyndham sales representatives who made the claimed misrepresentations.

WILLIAM & LOUISE MCKNELLY v WYNDHAM

CASE # 3:19-CV-00103 | US DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

In McKnelly v. Wyndham, husband and wife timeshare owners represented by attorney Aubrey Givens allege that through the years they have paid Wyndham at least $230,000 including mortgages, maintenance fees and interest.

The timeshare owners allege that after they complained to Wyndham about their dissatisfaction with Wyndham, Wyndham retaliated by freezing their accounts and advised they would be not able to use any current reservation of their timeshare interests or make any additional reservations.

MULTIPLE PLAINTIFFS v. WYNDHAM

MULTIPLE CASE #s | US DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

In Drury v. Wyndham, Hamm v. Wyndham and McLearn v. Wyndham, timeshare owners represented by attorney Chip Reiger allege that over the years, they have been misled, pressured and/or bullied into agreeing to purchase multiple upgrades of their Wyndham timeshare properties and/or points; however, Wyndham has systematically eliminated benefits that impact the timeshare owners’ use. They allege that Wyndham falsely told them that the offers were made on a “one-day-only” basis and would expire, that the timeshare maintenance fees would be lower if they upgraded or traded, and that the timeshare could be used as a tax deduction. They allege that Wyndham falsely told them that they would be able to vacation anywhere at any time, but desired reservations were never available or extremely limited and difficult to secure. The timeshare owners allege that Wyndham unfairly competes with timeshare owners, in that while Wyndham represents that there is a market for rental of the timeshare owners’ interests that will offset the purchase price, Wyndham did not disclose to the plaintiffs that Wyndham openly markets and rents units to the public at large, and the public at large can rent units at costs far below the costs incurred by the plaintiffs.

The timeshare owners allege that Wyndham falsely told them that Wyndham would buy back the timeshare upon request, and that Wyndham’s “right of first refusal” program was, in fact, a buyback program. Finally, the timeshare owners allege that Wyndham pressured them to make hurried decisions and that the sales representatives would become angry and demeaning if they wanted to walk away or take time to think about their decisions.

Your Title Goes Here

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

Additional Plaintiffs

HENRY and JANE DRURY v. WYNDHAM, CASE # 3:19-cv-00271

GARY and LINDA HAMM v. WYNDHAM, CASE # 3:19-cv-00426

LARRY and DEANNE MCLEARN v. WYNDHAM, CASE # 3:19-cv-0004

CLOSE

MULTIPLE PLAINTIFFS v. WYNDHAM

MULTIPLE CASE #s | US DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

In each of these related lawsuits brought by attorney Aubrey Givens on behalf of Wyndham timeshare owners, the consumers allege causes of action including  fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract (duty of good faith and fair dealing and failure to provide reservations as represented), and violation of Florida’s Vacation Club and Timesharing Act.

Your Title Goes Here

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

Additional Plaintiffs

Angell et al v. Wyndham, Case No. 6:19-cv-01545-WWB-EJK      

Barnett v. Wyndham, Case No. 6:19-cv-01546

Barrett v. Wyndham, Case No. 6:19-cv-01547

Birkinbine et al v. Wyndham, Case No. 6:19-cv-01548

Black et al v. Wyndham, Case No.  6:19-cv-01549

Blemly v. Wyndham, Case No. 6:19-cv-01551

Brauch et al v. Wyndham, Case No. 6:19-cv-01552         

Brooks et al v. Wyndham, Case No. 6:19-cv-01553

Burch et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01554 

Buxton et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01555-PGB-DCI          

Campbell et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01556-RBD-EJK      

Cockrum et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01557-RBD-GJK       

Coffman et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01558-PGB-GJK       

Comer et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01559-WWB-LRH       

Dalzell v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01560-WWB-EJK    

Deasy et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01561-WWB-DCI         

de Mets et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01562-WWB-LRH     

Demmer et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01563-CEM-DCI       

Einfeldt et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01564-RBD-DCI         

Fay et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01565-RBD-EJK   

Flory v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01566-WWB-GJK      

Gilbert et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01567-PGB-DCI          

Grant et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01568-CEM-DCI

Jeffers et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01570-PGB-GJK          

Liberatore v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01572-PGB-DCI

Linder-Bombeck et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01576-PGB-GJK        

Magley et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01577-CEM-DCI         

Martin v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01590-WWB-EJK   

May et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01591-CEM-DCI 

Nielsen et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01592-WWB-DCI       

Pilley et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01593-RBD-GJK

Reed v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01594-PGB-LRH       

Rushing et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01595-RBD-LRH        

Sanders v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01596-CEM-DCI

Schaefer et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01597-CEM-DCI       

Schwertz et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01598-CEM-DCI      

Sapp v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01599-CEM-DCI        

Spears et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01600-PGB-EJK           

Spor et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01601-WWB-EJK

Stewart et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01602-PGB-EJK         

Suenaga et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01604-CEM-DCI       

Sadler et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01605-CEM-DCI          

Walker v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01606-RBD-DCI     

Williams et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01607-WWB-GJK     

Wilson v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01608-WWB-GJK   

Wright et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01609-RBD-DCI          

Austin v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01610-PGB-EJK      

Blessing et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01613-PGB-EJK        

Chavez v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01614-PGB-GJK     

Greene et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01615-PGB-EJK         

Johnson v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01616-CEM-DCI   

Howard v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01617-WWB-LRH

Porter et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01618-RBD-GJK          

Sheffer et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01619-RBD-DCI         

Young et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01620-CEM-DCI          

Anderson v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01646-PGB-GJK 

Chandler et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01647-CEM-LRH

Mason et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01648-CEM-DCI         

McDermott et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01649-RBD-LRH  

Kriens Sr. et al v. Wyndham 6:19-cv-01650-RBD-EJK

US DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CLOSE

MULTIPLE PLAINTIFFS v. WYNDHAM

MULTIPLE CASE #S | US DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

In these related lawsuits, timeshare owners represented by Aubrey Givens allege that Wyndham misrepresented that they had equity in their timeshare interest that they could “roll” into a new purchase, that their timeshare interest had significant real value, and that they could rent their timeshare to cover maintenance fees. They allege that they were repeatedly denied reservations when rooms were available, “because Wyndham was renting them on the open market, such as via internet travel sites, and for Wyndham marketing purposes, instead of making sure they were available to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Wyndham owners, in order to enrich themselves.” They allege that this practice reduces the exclusivity of timeshare access and ownership, because the rooms are being rented out by Wyndham “at a fraction of what timeshare ownership costs.”

The lawsuits allege that when the plaintiffs complained about their timeshare by sending a demand letter through counsel, Wyndham sent a letter through counsel advising that the timeshare owners “would not be able to book with points already paid for, and reservations already made would be cancelled.” 

Your Title Goes Here

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

Additional Plaintiffs

EDNA ALLEN v WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, CASE # 3:18-cv-00259

WILLIAM and ANN AMOS v WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, CASE # 3:18-cv-00260

LARRY and SUZANNE ATKINS v WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, CASE # 3:18-cv-00261

LINDA BAUER and TRACY HOOPINGARNER v. v WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, CASE # 3:18-cv-00262

JEFFREY and RAMONA FRAY et al. v WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, CASE # 3:18-cv-00263

RASHAD and AMY FULCHER v WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, CASE # 3:18-cv-00264

SHIRLEY HELMLY v WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, CASE # 3:18-cv-00266

DENNIS and SHARON MILES v WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, CASE # 3:18-cv-00267

LINUS and SUE SCHNARR v WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, CASE # 3:18-cv-00268

HARVEY and SHARON THOMAS v WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, CASE # 3:18-cv-00269

WILLIAM and CAROLYN WILSON v WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, CASE # 3:18-cv-00271

US DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

CLOSE
Disclaimer: While the Coalition to Reform Timeshare’s summaries attempt to concisely reflect timeshare owners’ and whistleblowers’ allegations, for full context and accuracy, the reader is encouraged to review the court-filed pleadings that are linked for the reader’s reference to the caption for each lawsuit.

The Coalition to Reform Timeshare is dedicated to reforming the timeshare industry. We advocate that timeshare companies should be subject to a strict code of ethics and transparency in their sales techniques. 

Terms & Conditions  © 2019 Coalition to Reform Timeshare