What is this lawsuit about?

In this lawsuit, several current unit owners in the Condo-Hotels (the “Plaintiffs”) sued Boyne claiming that the requirement contained in Condo-Hotel Declarations that unit owners wishing to rent their units must hire Boyne as their exclusive rental manager is illegal and unenforceable. Plaintiffs also alleged that Boyne has operated the rental management program in violation of the law, has misappropriated rental revenue belonging to class members, and has improperly used its control over the rental management program to financially benefit itself at the expense of unit owners in various ways.

Boyne denies the allegations asserted against it and denies any wrongdoing. The parties have agreed to settle the case to avoid the uncertainty and costs of trial and any potential post-trial appeal.

Who is included?

This case involves both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) classes defined as follows:

Rule 23(b)(2) Settlement Class: All persons and entities, other than Defendants, that currently own one or more residential units in the Condo-Hotels, as well as any persons or entities that acquire ownership of one or more residential units in the Condo-Hotels before the Effective Date.

Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class: All persons and entities, other than Defendants, that: (i) own or have owned a unit in the Condo-Hotels; (ii) have participated in Boyne’s Rental Management Program on or after December 31, 2013; and (iii) did not give timely notice of their election to opt out of the Rule 23(b)(3) class during the opt-out period, i.e., on or before September 20, 2024.

What does the Settlement provide?

A summary of the Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) Class benefits are available at FAQ 6.