By: dmc-admin//July 30, 2002//
“We see nothing unreasonable in DATCP’s decision to limit eligibility to those persons who: (1) incurred economic harm as a result of their contacts with Peppertree; (2) purchased time-shares from Peppertree after January 1, 1998; and (3) notified DATCP within sixty days of the execution of the stipulation….
“With respect to the requirement that a person sign a release in order to be eligible, paragraph 13 of the consent order requires that before any person could receive money from the fund, the person was required to sign a release. It is true this requirement is not expressly labeled an “eligibility” requirement nor is it contained in paragraph 5, which discusses other eligibility criteria for the restitution program. However reading the order as a whole, the only reasonable construction is that signing the release is an eligibility requirement. Therefore, DATCP was acting consistent with the terms of the consent order by requiring that persons sign a release of all claims against Peppertree related to the marketing and purchase of their time-share in order to receive a payment from the fund.”
Order affirmed.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist IV, Dane County, De Chambeau, J., Vergeront, P.J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Thomas P. Godar, Madison; Jon G. Furlow, Madison; Ian A.J. Pitz, Madison
For Respondent: David J. Ghilardi, Madison; David J. Gilles, Madison