Wesley Financial Group Lawsuits: Diamond, Westgate, Korshoff

Wesley Financial Group has been sued by three major timeshare developers — Diamond Resorts, Westgate Resorts, and Capital Vacations — as well as by a former employee, with all of the developer suits alleging that the Franklin, Tennessee company runs a deceptive timeshare exit scheme. The Westgate and Capital Vacations cases have ended, the Diamond case remains active, and Wesley Financial Group (WFG) has its own antitrust suit pending against Diamond. Here is where each of the Wesley Financial Group lawsuits stands as of mid-2026.

Diamond Resorts v. Wesley Financial Group

Diamond Resorts filed suit against WFG and founder Chuck McDowell in June 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The complaint alleged fraudulent business practices and false advertising, accusing WFG of charging thousands of dollars in upfront fees for services it did not perform, instructing owners to stop paying on their contracts at the risk of foreclosure and credit damage, and marketing a “100% money-back guarantee” that Diamond called a hoax. Diamond also alleged that WFG impersonated timeshare owners in phone calls and concealed negative feedback, including the Better Business Bureau’s revocation of its accreditation.¹

After Hilton Grand Vacations acquired Diamond Resorts, the Hilton entities joined the case as plaintiffs alongside the Diamond subsidiaries. The case was still active in 2025. On March 21, 2025, Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin granted in part a motion for attorney fees and awarded the plaintiffs $55,749.82.² The underlying claims have not yet been finally resolved.

WFG’s Antitrust Countersuit Against Diamond

In December 2023, WFG went on offense and filed its own federal lawsuit against three Diamond Resorts entities in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The docket classifies the case as antitrust litigation, and the specific anticompetitive allegations are not detailed in the available record. The case saw extensive motion practice through 2024 and 2025, including a motion to dismiss and multiple discovery disputes.³

In November 2024, the court granted a joint motion for a temporary stay to allow mediation and administratively closed the case. Docket activity continued into 2026 despite that closure, with the most recent entry dated May 8, 2026. The suit has not reached final resolution.³

Westgate Resorts v. Wesley Financial Group

Westgate Resorts filed its case in October 2019 in the Middle District of Florida. It was transferred in July 2020 to the Middle District of Tennessee, where it was assigned to Judge Aleta Arthur Trauger.⁴ Westgate alleged that WFG operated a fraudulent cancellation scheme designed to induce Westgate owners to breach their purchase agreements. The complaint centered on the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and focused on false marketing, the unauthorized practice of law, and instructions to owners to stop making mortgage and maintenance fee payments.⁵

An August 2023 memorandum from the court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, including whether WFG’s business practices violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.⁵ According to a later press release from Capital Vacations, a federal judge ruled that WFG’s practices violated that Tennessee statute, and the Better Business Bureau of Middle Tennessee issued an alert citing the finding.⁶ The case was terminated on November 6, 2024. The specific terms of the resolution are not detailed in the available court record.⁴

Capital Vacations v. Wesley Financial Group

Capital Vacations sued WFG and McDowell on May 15, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for South Carolina. Capital said it also planned a state-level filing in the South Carolina Supreme Court over the unauthorized practice of law. The allegations echoed the earlier developer suits: thousands in upfront fees for no legitimate service, instructions to owners to stop paying on their loans, directions to submit “ghost-written” complaints containing fabricated claims while concealing the customer’s relationship with WFG, and a money-back guarantee that Capital said was virtually impossible to claim because of restrictive fine print. Capital also argued that WFG, not being a licensed law firm, was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.⁶

In April 2025, Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin issued a mixed ruling. She dismissed all claims against McDowell personally for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissed a claim under the North Carolina Timeshare Act. She denied the motion to dismiss as to WFG on the remaining claim under the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.⁷ The case then moved into scheduling and discovery on that surviving claim.

On May 21, 2026, Judge Austin signed an order dismissing the case without prejudice and without costs following a settlement. Either side can reinstate the case within 60 days if the settlement is not consummated.⁸ The terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available record.

Korshoff v. Wesley Financial Group

WFG has also lost a suit brought by a former employee. In Korshoff v. Wesley Financial Group, the plaintiff sued for unpaid commissions and asserted breach of contract, unjust enrichment, retaliatory discharge, and intentional misrepresentation. A jury found in the plaintiff’s favor on all counts, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict in February 2024.⁹

What Consumers Have Alleged

The developer suits track a pattern of complaints from customers. WFG is not accredited by the Better Business Bureau, and as of mid-2026 had 94 complaints on file with the BBB over the prior three years, 35 of them closed in the most recent 12-month period. Common grievances include paying large upfront fees, with some complainants reporting charges of $18,000 to $27,000, then seeing little progress for months, struggling to reach staff, and being denied refunds when the company cited breach of contract or missed deadlines in the fine print of its guarantee. Some customers also reported discovering that credit restoration services they believed were included were in fact a separate charge from a third-party provider.¹⁰

In September 2019, the BBB of Middle Tennessee and Southern Kentucky announced it would no longer accredit any timeshare exit company in its coverage area. Its president cited “escalating complaints about timeshare exit companies nationwide” and said the bureau did not believe the industry “fosters trust in the marketplace.”¹¹

How Wesley Financial Group Responds

WFG maintains that it provides a legitimate service for consumers who were deceived during timeshare sales presentations. On its website, the company says developers use delay tactics and pressure to discourage cancellations, and that professional assistance is necessary because do-it-yourself exits are complex and error-prone. WFG says it has helped more than 45,000 families exit timeshares and saved them over $725 million in debt.¹² The developers, for their part, have argued in their filings that exit companies like WFG profit by charging large fees for services that amount to telling owners to default.¹³

1
Resort Trades. Wesley Financial Group and Founder Chuck McDowell Sued by Diamond Resorts
2
GovInfo. Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development LLC et al v. Wesley Financial Group LLC et al
3
CourtListener. Wesley Financial Group LLC v. Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development
4
CourtListener. Westgate Resorts Ltd v. Wesley Financial Group LLC
5
CaseMine. Westgate Resorts Ltd v. Wesley Fin. Grp. LLC et al
6
PR Newswire. Capital Vacations Has Sued Wesley Financial Group LLC
7
Justia. Capital Resorts Group LLC v. Wesley Financial Group LLC et al
8
PACER Monitor. Capital Resorts Group LLC v. Wesley Financial Group LLC et al
9
Travis ADR. Retaliation and Whistle Blowing
10
Better Business Bureau. Wesley Financial Group LLC BBB Complaints
11
Consumers’ Checkbook. Trouble With Timeshare Exit Companies
12
Wesley Financial Group. Wesley Financial Group
13
Hilton Grand Vacations. Diamond Resorts Wins Critical Ruling to Protect Customers From Nationwide Consumer Scam