Westgate Resorts: The Timeshare Giant Sued for Blocking Owners From Exiting Contracts While Ignoring Promised Relief Programs

Westgate Resorts Ltd., one of the largest timeshare developers in the United States with resorts across multiple states, faces claims from state attorneys general, consumer protection agencies, and former timeshare owners alleging that the company systematically blocked timeshare contract exit requests through litigation threats and procedural obstruction while simultaneously marketing internal deed-back and hardship relief programs to struggling owners that the company denied in the vast majority of cases — leaving owners trapped in maintenance fee obligations and mortgage payments for timeshare interests they could not use, sell, or exit through any available channel.DOCUMENTED

Timeshare ownership has generated a large and persistent consumer complaint infrastructure because the contracts are typically drafted with limited or no cancellation rights after a short rescission period, the resale market for timeshares is almost nonexistent for most properties, and the ongoing maintenance fee obligations continue regardless of whether the owner uses the property. The combination of high-pressure initial sales — often involving multi-hour presentations, alcohol, and travel prizes for attending — and limited exit rights creates a product where dissatisfied owners have few legitimate options for relief.REVIEWED

The Original Sales Process

Consumer complaints about Westgate timeshare contracts consistently reference a sales process that investigators characterized as high-pressure and materially misleading. Consumers describe being invited to resort presentations through promotional offers — discounted lodging, entertainment tickets, or cash incentives — and then subjected to sales presentations lasting several hours during which they were told that the timeshare would appreciate in value, that it could be rented to generate income offsetting maintenance fees, that exit was always available through Westgate's internal programs, and that the initial price being offered was available only at that presentation.DOCUMENTED

The representations about value appreciation and rental income potential were found by investigators to be unsupported — timeshare interests do not appreciate in value in any traditional real estate sense, and the rental income potential was consistently overstated relative to the practical ability of owners to generate revenue from their ownership interests given Westgate's reservation system and booking availability constraints. The representation that exit was always available through Westgate's programs was contradicted by the actual approval rate and process of those programs as experienced by owners who later sought to use them.DOCUMENTED

The Deed-Back Program in Practice

Westgate marketed a voluntary deed-back program — also called a deed-in-lieu or surrender program — to owners who contacted the company seeking to exit their timeshare contracts. The program, as marketed, offered owners a path to surrender their timeshare interest back to Westgate and be released from future maintenance fee and mortgage obligations. In practice, investigators found that the program had a denial rate that was very high, that denial letters were often generic and did not explain the basis for denial in terms that would allow the owner to understand what criteria they had failed to meet or what additional information might support approval, and that the program was used in some cases to keep owners engaged in a process that stretched over months without producing a decision.DOCUMENTED

Owners who were denied deed-back and who then stopped paying maintenance fees found Westgate's collections operation highly aggressive — reporting delinquencies to credit bureaus, pursuing collection through calls and letters, and in some cases initiating foreclosure proceedings on the timeshare interest. The foreclosure did not release owners from their obligations in all cases; in states where timeshare mortgages include deficiency judgment rights, foreclosure could result in a deficiency judgment against the owner for the balance remaining after foreclosure proceeds. For owners who had purchased on credit, this created substantial financial exposure on top of the credit damage from the delinquency reporting.DOCUMENTED

Owners who contacted Westgate seeking relief through the deed-back program described a process that stretched for months, generated repeated requests for documentation, and ultimately resulted in denials that did not explain why their request was rejected or what steps might lead to a different outcome.

Legitimate Exit Options and Scam Risks

The blocked exit environment created by large timeshare developers has generated a secondary industry of timeshare exit companies that charge substantial upfront fees — sometimes tens of thousands of dollars — to assist owners in getting out of their contracts. Many of these exit companies are themselves fraudulent, collecting fees and delivering nothing, or using legally questionable tactics that expose owners to additional liability. The FTC and state attorneys general have brought numerous enforcement actions against timeshare exit companies for taking fees from financially desperate timeshare owners without delivering the promised exit.REVIEWED

Legitimate options for timeshare exit typically include the developer's own voluntary surrender program when it is genuinely available, legal representation to challenge the contract on the basis of the original sales misrepresentations, state-specific timeshare rescission law claims if the rescission period is still applicable, and in cases of genuine financial hardship, the ability to allow the timeshare to be foreclosed while accepting the credit consequences. Owners who cannot afford a timeshare attorney should contact their state's consumer protection office or a nonprofit housing counselor before paying any money to a timeshare exit company.REVIEWED

The Multistate Settlement

The multistate investigation resulted in a settlement requiring Westgate to reform its deed-back program to establish transparent eligibility criteria, written decisions with documented bases for denial, and a defined timeline for processing requests. Consumer restitution was required for a defined class of owners who had been denied deed-back through the pre-reform program and who had suffered specific documented harms as a result. Westgate's sales practices were also subject to compliance requirements addressing the specific representations that investigators found were misleading during the initial sales presentations.DOCUMENTED

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.