Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-2941 State v. Peppertree Resort Villas, Inc.

By: dmc-admin//July 30, 2002//

01-2941 State v. Peppertree Resort Villas, Inc.

By: dmc-admin//July 30, 2002//

Listen to this article

“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

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests