...
By Gordon Newton
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
For many Americans, the hardest part of owning a timeshare is not buying it. It is getting rid of it.
Rising maintenance fees, financial strain, changing lifestyles and reduced use eventually lead some owners to conclude that their timeshare no longer makes sense. Yet ending that ownership can be far more difficult than expected.
Newton Group’s Timeshare Exit Study analyzed more than 9,000 questionnaires completed by owners actively seeking help to end their ownership. The study reflects the experiences of owners already struggling with unwanted ownership. Among 7,527 owners who answered a question about prior exit attempts, 54.8 percent said they had already tried and failed to end their ownership. Across the broader study, 26.9 percent reported that they had previously hired an exit company that failed.
Read More on My Turn
I founded Newton Group, a timeshare exit company, and I am the founding non-attorney partner, CEO and majority owner of a consumer-rights law firm that represents timeshare owners. That gives me a clear point of view, which readers deserve to understand. It has also given me a close view of where the timeshare exit industry can fail consumers.
My position is straightforward: timeshare exit companies should be required to tell consumers, clearly and in writing, whether an attorney personally represents them. Companies should not be permitted to imply legal representation through phrases such as “attorney-backed,” “attorney-led” or “legal team” when the attorney actually represents the company.
That distinction should not be hidden in fine print. It should be one of the first things a consumer is told.
Timeshare owners frequently encounter phrases such as “attorney-backed,” “attorney-led,” “in-house counsel,” “attorneys on staff” and “legal oversight.”
Those terms sound reassuring. They may create the impression that a lawyer is personally protecting the consumer’s interests.
But attorney involvement and attorney representation are not the same thing.
An attorney who works for, advises or serves as in-house counsel to an exit company may represent the company, not the timeshare owner paying for the service. When the company is the client, the attorney’s professional duties are owed to the company.
A lawyer who personally represents the timeshare owner owes those duties directly to the owner. That attorney must protect the client’s interests, explain the risks and benefits of available options and provide advice based on the client’s individual circumstances.
Consumers should not have to decipher a company’s organizational structure to learn which relationship they are purchasing. Before accepting payment, every exit provider that advertises attorney involvement should be required to answer three questions in writing:-
Does the attorney represent the timeshare owner?
Will the owner enter into a separate attorney-client relationship?
What is the scope of that representation?
If the answer to the first question is no, the company should be prohibited from using language that reasonably creates the opposite impression.
Personal legal representation cannot be partially provided or suggested through branding. A consumer either has an attorney-client relationship or does not.
At the law firm I cofounded, that standard is put in writing. Every client receives a Letter of Representation confirming that the attorney represents the owner—not the exit company. Whether an exit provider follows our model or another one, consumers deserve that same level of clarity.
This issue should not be left entirely to voluntary industry practices.
Federal and state regulators should establish clear disclosure standards for companies that market legal involvement in timeshare exit services. Those standards should prohibit companies from implying that a lawyer represents the consumer unless a direct attorney-client relationship exists and has been confirmed in writing.
Clear disclosure, however, is only part of the issue. There should also be limits on the legal guidance non-attorneys may provide.
Timeshare exit can involve contract interpretation, payment obligations, credit reporting, collection activity and more. Yet some owners receive direction from salespeople, account representatives or self-described “legal experts” who do not personally represent them.
In a 2023 federal decision, U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger found that non-attorney representatives engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when they interpreted timeshare contracts, explained their legal consequences and claimed they could legally terminate or cancel them. The court also found that consumers had been led to believe they were receiving legal services and had a legal basis for stopping payments.
That type of advice can have serious consequences.
Stopping payment may be one consideration in a broader legal strategy, depending on an owner’s circumstances. But it can also result in late fees, collection activity, foreclosure proceedings and credit damage. It is not a routine customer-service decision. It is a financial and legal decision that should be discussed with an attorney who represents the owner and is obligated to protect and prioritize their best interests.
Non-attorneys should not be allowed to interpret a consumer’s contract, claim to provide a legal termination or recommend a payment strategy that exposes the owner to serious legal or financial consequences.
Timeshare owners should have access to trustworthy third-party help. Many do not want to face a large resort organization alone, and they should not have to.
But the answer is not another company selling a slightly different version of the same promise.
The answer is enforceable standards that put the owner first.
Companies should disclose who the attorney represents. Legal-sounding marketing should not be used to imply a relationship that does not exist. Non-attorneys should not provide individualized legal advice.
When more than half of the owners seeking help had already tried to end their ownership, and 26.9 percent reported that they had hired an exit company that failed, the exit industry should not dismiss those experiences as isolated cases. Lawmakers and regulators should ask if the current model rewards promises more than performance.
Timeshare owners deserve to know who is helping them, what service they are purchasing, who the attorney represents and whose interests are being protected.
Until those answers are required, the industry will continue asking consumers to make consequential decisions without the information they need most.
Gordon Newton is a nationally recognized timeshare exit expert. He is the founder and CEO of Newton Group, which has helped timeshare owners pursue solutions to unwanted ownership since 2005, and the author of The Consumer’s Guide to Timeshare Exit*, downloaded more than 50,000 times.* Newton also published Newton Group’s Timeshare Exit Study, based on the experiences of more than 9,000 owners, and serves as the founding non-attorney partner, CEO and majority owner of DC Capital Law, a national timeshare consumer-rights law firm. He has been interviewed, featured or cited for his insights on timeshare exit and consumer protection by Bloomberg Television, CNBC, Fox Business, Forbes, USA Today, U.S. News & World Report, TravelMag, BBB Beacon Magazine, ValiantCEO, and other national media outlets.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines