Timeshare Exit Team, Revealed

Brandon Reed cannot describe Timeshare Exit Team’s plan to secure a “timeshare exit” for its customers.

In a video posted to the company’s YouTube channel in June 2016, Brandon Reed says that Timeshare Exit Team is a “consumer-protection group that specializes in getting people out of their timeshare contracts,” and he claims that company “gives a one-hundred-percent money-back guarantee.”

The State of Washington describes the company differently. In a complaint filed in February 2020, the State alleges that Timeshare Exit Team lacks the expertise to even determine whether a consumer’s “exit” is legitimate, and that the company regularly ignores demands for refunds from dissatisfied customers.

At Hancock.Law, we think that confused customers should review the December 2018 deposition testimony of Timeshare Exit Team founder and chief executive Brandon Reed. We are confident that the deposition transcript will resolve whatever confusion they might have.

In December 2018, Timeshare Exit Team founder and chief executive Brandon Reed was deposed by a lawyer for a timeshare developer. The deposition transcript tells you everything you need to know about Timeshare Exit Team’s plan to deliver value to consumers.

Deposition Testimony

  • Epstein: Does Timeshare Exit Team tell its customers to stop paying their mortgage and maintenance fees?
  • Reed: No, not at all.
  • Epstein: Okay. Well if they’re trying to get out of their timeshare, why would they keep paying?
  • Reed: Because we make it very clear to them that they’re financially responsible for their timeshare throughout the exit process.
  • Epstein: Okay. Does — Why would a timeshare developer want to take back a timeshare interest that they’re getting paid on?
  • Reed: Because we — You know, we still —Even though they’re paying, it doesn’t mean that they can’t be exited from their timeshare.
  • Epstein: But if the exit requires a consent of the timeshare developer, in other words, willing to take it back, why would they do that if they’re getting paid on it? How is that a smart economic move on the timeshare developer’s part?
  • Reed: Ask it again for me, please. Yeah, I’m slowing down.
  • Epstein: If the customer is paying their mortgage and paying their maintenance, what motivation does a timeshare developer have to take the timeshare interest back and relieve them of the liabilities that they’re paying?
Lawyer Richard W. Epstein conducted the deposition on behalf of timeshare developer Orange Lake Country Club..
  • Reed: I’m just going to say that’s not — You know, for us I don’t do the negotiating, so it was for the attorney to deal with that. I just wasn’t —
    People do come in, and they stop paying. I mean, that doesn’t — Not because we’ve told them to stop paying, but people come in and they already are behind on paying. 
    And so, you know, have I heard in the past that hey, it’s easier if they’re not paying, but that’s not — that’s just not something we tell our customers. So it’s — We make it very clear that you are responsible for — for your maintenance fees and all — you know, and your mortgage payment throughout the exit process. 
    And so why the timeshare, why they would take it back even though they’re paying? It goes back to all the reasons why we believe that the developer, you know, should take these timeshares back. I mean, even just because they’re not paying — 
  • Epstein: I’m just wondering. I mean, you’re an experienced businessman.
  • Reed: Yeah.
  • Epstein: I guess you consider yourself an entrepreneur, probably rightly so. 
  • Reed: Uhm-hm.
  • Epstein: How does that business model work? You have a customer that is paying you —
  • Reed: Uhm-hm.
  • Epstein: — for the service or product that they sold you, and they continue to pay you for that, and come to you and said, “I want to give the product back and not pay you anymore.” Why would I do that? Why would I take it back and stop the stream of money that I’ve been getting up until now? How does that work?
  • Reed: I’m not the timeshare developer, so I don’t — I don’t —
  • Epstein: I’m asking you as a businessman. How does that work from a business standpoint?
  • Reed: Well, as a businessman — As a businessman if I was — First of all, I wouldn’t be charging these people 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 thousand or $150,000 for something that has — that’s not worth a penny. It’s not worth a penny the day they sell it. 
    So as a businessman I wouldn’t sleep at night if I did something like that. So I don’t — We don’t — You know, we don’t charge people for something that we can’t get done. And then we give a guarantee if we can’t get it done, then we give them their money back. So —
    So you’re asking me personally as a businessman —
  • Epstein: Just as a a businessman.
  • Reed: Yeah.
  • Epstein: Just opine upon that economic model.
  • Reed: Yeah. It wouldn’t — As a businessman I would not do that to the consumer. I wouldn’t take 20 or 30, or the average is a little over $20,000 at a 17.9 percent interest rate for a product that is really bad. I mean, the reality is that people that come into these — into these presentations, one of their biggest complaints are we can’t get to where we want to go when we want to go. You, we didn’t get what we were promised. 
    I mean, it’s — the timeshare product — it’s just — It’s an old model. Timeshares came out before the internet. You don’t have to be a timeshare owner anymore to even access their inventory. So as a businessman I wouldn’t do what they’re doing. I wouldn’t charge somebody something that’s worth nothing and charge them a bunch of money for it.
  • Epstein: Can we agree on something that you — what you said does not answer my question at all. It doesn’t even address my question. 
Epstein: What you said does not answer my question at all. It doesn’t even address my question.

Ouch.
  • Reed: I don’t — I don’t think so. I think I was answering your question.
  • Epstein: Okay. Well, my question was simple. 
  • Reed: Go back to it. I get a little —
  • Epstein: A businessman sells — I sell you a product, —
  • Reed: Uhm-hm.
  • Epstein: — and you agree to pay for that product over time. And you are paying me — 
  • Reed: Uhm-hm.
  • Epstein: — what I am due over time.
  • Reed: Yeah.
  • Epstein: Why would I stop that? Why would I take the product back and relieve you of the obligation to pay for the product? Why?
    How does that work as a business model? Forget about what the product is. How does it work as a business model?
  • Reed: I’m going to do my best to answer this. It’s just I’m — Again, if it’s a product that actually has value, I could understand. That wouldn’t make any sense.
    Like if I — I bought a car one time, and I regretted buying the Hummer after my wife left because it — The engine blew at 100,000 miles. Okay. I’ll never buy another — Hummers aren’t cool anymore, anyway. But I regretted that purchase, okay, but at least it drove. Okay.
To explain why a timeshare developer would agree to take back the timeshare of a customer who is making regular payments, Brandon Reed testified about the time that the engine on his Hummer failed after 100,000 miles.

Huh?

I can understand that situation. If I went back to the dealer and said, “Listen, I put 20,000 miles on this thing, and I want to just return the car.” You know, that doesn’t make any sense. Okay. But when somebody has been sold a timeshare for on average $20,000 at a 17.9 percent interest rate and they can’t even use the darn thing, when an attorney goes back to the developer and says, “Listen, yeah, the people have been paying, but the reality is they bought something that has no value.”
And you guys — You guys were — You guys are the type of people that are willing to sell these people, this consumer, this customer — You know, you basically took them because their product has not value, but yet you sold it to them. And you’re charing them 17.9 interest. It’s like a credit card. Like it’s not okay. 
So for that reason, and when you tell that story to a developer, how about the press hears about this one? Like this is not okay. This is really bad. If I was them I’d say, “Whoa, I’ll take it back.” So —

Orange Lake v. Timeshare Exit Team

At Hancock.Law, we believe that Brandon Reed’s deposition testimony may have something to do with Timeshare Exit Team’s decision to settle the lawsuit filed against the company by Orange Lake Country Club on the eve of trial. According to a press release issued by Orange Lake, the settlement required Timeshare Exit Team to make “an undisclosed payment” to a timeshare developer.

That’s right: Two days before finally getting the chance to hold a major timeshare developer accountable in an open courtroom, Timeshare Exit Team agreed to pay money to the timeshare developer.

How is that accountability? How is that a “major win” for consumers?

In a separate blog post, we asked an additional question about the case: How much did it cost?

Brandon Reed’s deposition transcript suggests that the case was expensive indeed. Three different lawyers represented Timeshare Exit Team and Brandon Reed at the deposition, and seven different lawyers attended the deposition, representing multiple parties. The deposition lasted from 9:45 a.m. until 6:56 p.m., more than nine hours later. You do the math.

Value to Clients

This blog post quotes from only eight pages of Brandon Reed’s 450 pages of deposition testimony. 

At Hancock.Law, we take seriously our fiduciary duties to our clients, including our fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty and our fiduciary duty of disclosure. If we know facts that are relevant to the legal interests of our clients, we disclose those facts to our clients. Clients of Hancock.Law therefore have access to the entirety of Mr. Reed’s deposition testimony, along with multiple other court filings from the case that affect their legal interests.

This blog post isn’t legal advice.
To schedule a free consultation with Hancock.Law, call us 24/7 at (206) 785-7019.

Author: David Hancock

consumer lawyer

3 thoughts on “Timeshare Exit Team, Revealed”

Leave a Reply