• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

[ 2012 ] Fairmont / Sunchaser / Northwynd official thread with lawsuit info!

pdoff

newbie
Joined
May 31, 2013
Messages
31
Reaction score
3
Points
8
Lets take another look at the history of Northmont. We eventually learned that Fairmont Resort had gone bankrupt and was taken over by Northmont - quite probably by many of the same people under a new handle (Thread 931 - pg 38).
There are a lot of unanswered questions - where did all of our maintenance fees go - certainly not into the upkeep of Riverside?
Could they have been used to invest in other resorts that all wnt belly-up - in Belize, Hawaii, Mexico etc. etc.? Did Timeshare Lessees that invested in these resorts end up with no holidays and empty wallets?
The iconic Rafter 6 Ranch also went bankrupt after dealing with these folks.

Investing in time shares years ago was intended to be for relaxing affordable holidays in senior years - not a money pit for predators.
 

GypsyOne

newbie
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
197
Reaction score
149
Points
103
Last edited:

Real World

Guest
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Points
61
Location
Edmonton
Your informing us that we can all read the judgement and form our own ideas is not exactly earth shaking. Of course we read the judgement and formed opinions. Then it is time to draw conclusions and summarize the salient points for public consumption in a public forum. It is not selective editing. Not everyone wants to wade through 106 pages of what sometimes is nothing more than legal mumbo-jumbo, which may appear learned and final, but in fact it is not. The legalize has to be condensed to the main message and conclusion. If you think our anger over the 100% rulings in favor of the Defendant is hyperbole, excuse us for getting angry over an egregious injustice.

You also seem to think that Fitzpatrick's ruling is somehow irrefutable truth. But, one such as me has not been a long-time inhabitant of this spinning orb without developing some healthy skepticism. I also know that where there is money there is influence; and where there is big money there is big influence. (Lawyers at Norton Rose tried to cosy up to our lawyer and even asked him "to join the team," and they would direct legal work his way, which of course he declined.) Judges are human, they can be biased, and they can be influenced. I'm not saying the judge was paid off. The Judge or Northmont would not be that stupid. But, a luncheon meeting between a high official within Northmont and a well placed B.C. government official to lay out the problem could occur. The B.C. government does not want a failed major tourist attraction on it's hands. Nor would they want to pump public money into a shoddily built failing commercial facility. The easy way out is to tap into the TS owners. So the government official then has a meeting with a high placed person within the judicial system and advises that the B.C. government would sure hate to see Northmont fail. The high placed person in the justice system then whispers into the Judge's ear that the Government does not want Northmont to fail. There are some plum court assignments and promotions coming up. Conspiracy theory? Maybe. I don't know if this happened. I'm only speculating. But, as I said, I've been on this planet a long time, part at the management level within government, and I have developed some skepticism.

Even after wading through the legalize and cherry-picked case law, I find it incomprehensible that Fitzpatrick could reach the conclusions that she did. To wit:

- Fitzpatrick's ruling holds the TS owners responsible for the re-constuction of shoddily built resort buildings, in some cases not built to code. Buildings that should have a lifetime of 50-60 years or longer are failing after only fifteen years, and Fitzpatrick says we're responsible. The thought does not seem to occur to her that the builder has a legal and fiduciary duty to market a sound product to the public built to normal construction standards, and that when they don't, it is misrepresentation resulting in fundamental breach of contract. Astonishing!
- My contract is a lease. Lessees are not responsible for capital or structural replacement. I don't buy her arguement that ours are not like ordinary commercial leases. A lease is a lease is a lease.
- My lease does not specify "capital costs" in the list of expenses. That capital replacement is somehow included in one of the other catch-all items just does not wash. For example, a relatively minor expense such as insurance is included in a separate line item. Surely, if it was meant to be, capital replacement or major reconstruction that could amount to, say, $50 million dollars would be front and center in the list of expenses so as to not leave any doubt.
- Why after the bankruptcy and the takeover by the new owners, did they try to have lessees convert to co-ownership agreements with new contracts that added the clause, "pay the cost of capital improvements that may from time to time be required." The reason is clear to everyone but Her Ladyship; the original lease agreements did not include capital costs, nor was it ever intended that lessees be responsible for capital improvements.
- My lease gives a formula for settlement in the event I default. Basically, I forfeit the timeshare and they pay me for remaining time at a discounted rate. Fairmont says they don't have to follow the clause in the agreement, but rather I forfeit the timeshare AND pay them a sum of money. In effect paying for the timeshare twice, but being done out of the timeshare.
- Fitzpatrick takes the liberty of combining all leases and co-ownership agreements into one category which, of course, is the one most advantageous to Northmont. Yet it is her that admonishes us to follow the ordinary wording in the agreement. She has, in effect, made everyone financially responsible for all costs including major construction and reconstruction as if they were owners, but without having the financial benefit of ownership. Where is the justice? Where is the common sense?
- My lease states that a Lessee's Association would be formed, or in the case of the co-ownership agreements, an Owners' Association. One was never formed - a breach of contract. Major financial responsibility without representation violates all principles of business associations.
- The latest arrogance of Northmont is, with Fitzpatrick's ruling in hand, to convert all leases prior to 2003 to the 2003 lease. With the sending of an email they think they can nullify my lease that I signed in 2000 to that of a stranger's agreement who signed in 2003. The arrogance is just astonishing.

So, Real World, I don't know what alternate universe you live in, but it's not the same one as me.

GypsyOne in my universe people are allowed to post their opinions in a public forum without being attacked by those who have a different opinion.
 

Real World

Guest
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Points
61
Location
Edmonton
No, it absolutely is you Real World who is chirping from the sidelines. What do you own? We don't even know what you are pretending to own. Why didn't you put down what you owned when you signed up? I mean it's not like Kirk Wankel is going to track you down and threaten you with a lawsuit. That's on this board. Did you read that? Who's money do you think he'll use to pay for that legal action?

You say you've been following for a year? That don't impress me much. I read a year's worth of posts in an evening.

Your first post was April 02. Since then you've posted 9-times. The last 7-post have been defending your first two posts. Those attacks weren't from just me. The best one was from GypseOne, who put a very fine point on it with, “Nice Try.”

Your first post, after reading the site for a year, was a Pollyannaish offering about the downside of owning a timeshare. But we know it was your veiled attempt to say, "You signed the contract, you have to pay the yearly fees." Yes, again, we know the Company Line. We get that formally from the World of Warcraft himself.

Your second post, despite having read this bulletin board for a year, was another Pollyannaish offering asking about special assessments and the reason Justice Loo's decision was overturned on Appeal. This was your way of saying, “Read your lease"; and, "You only won the Appeal on a technicality."

That's it. That's all you've said. A year in, that's the sum of your contribution. Sounds a lot like chirping to me. Tell us all again how you aren't championing Mr. Wankel’s cause.

Maybe either Punter or GypsyOne is from Edmonton. They could meet you for a game of golf. I've got an idea. I will fly to Edmonton and, I will pay for golf at either the Mayfair or the Glendale. To make it interesting, the loser has to accept the winner's Sunchaser timeshare interests. Don't have one to lose? No problem. If I lose, you can kick me in the nuts: the pain and indignation is a reminder I own at Sunchaser. It's the same thing. Except the pain passes, unlike "Legacy for Life". We could sell tickets to help fund the legal defence.

Don't worry, owning a vacation interval interest at Sunchaser is a great investment. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. You and owner1 can sit on the plastic deck furniture and share a whine. Why just yell across the office and ask Kirk Wankel. He'll probably tell you they are considered collector's items BECAUSE THEY AREN'T EVEN TRYING TO SELL ANY!

Thanks for the offer to pay for a round of golf but your stakes seem a little unfair since you have paid the Northmont fees and physical violence is not something I believe in.

Investing the cost of the airfare in a stress management course might be more beneficial.
 

aden2

Guest
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
193
Reaction score
292
Points
224
Location
Edmonton
Timeshare contracts in perpetuity are inherently unfair and unenforceable.

Does the latest “ground breaking” timeshare ruling provide hope for timeshare victims locked into contracts?
IMG_3267small

A Norwegian woman has been awarded approximately €40,000 by the Spanish Supreme Court in a “ground breaking” timeshare dispute decision. The ruling, which could have significant repercussions for timeshare operators, has granted fresh hope for Brits and expats looking to exit costly timeshare agreements.

In a case against the Anfi Group, the Court ruled that an ‘in perpetuity’ clause included in the woman’s contract was, in fact illegal under Spanish law. Such provisions require the customer to cover the costs of their timeshare for the remainder of their life and, when they die, this responsibility may even pass to their next of kin. In short, perpetuity clauses make timeshare contracts very difficult to break.

However, such clauses are at odds with Spanish law which states that timeshare contracts signed after 1998 cannot stand for more than 50 years. Nevertheless, Afini argued that it was within its rights to sell timeshares in perpetuity after this date, as the units were built before the law was introduced and as such, the legislation did not apply.

The Court disagreed and ordered Anfi to refund all payments, plus interest and legal fees.

While the ruling currently covers just the one case, there are a vast number of timeshare customers who were sold perpetuity deals after 1998. Does the precedent set by the Spanish Supreme Court now pave the way for these people to come forward and secure release from invalid contracts and seek potential compensation payments?
 

GypsyOne

newbie
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
197
Reaction score
149
Points
103

The European courts seem to be years ahead of the Canadian court system when it comes to consumer protection within the timeshare industry. The Spanish ANFI Group case was litigated on only two issues: the main issue being that selling timeshares into perpetuity (comparable to the Northmont "Legacy For Life") was illegal; and a secondary issue being that the contract needs to show how maintenance fees are calculated. "Often contracts of this nature leave clients with large instalments to pay for the purchase and an annual maintenance fee which, if not correctly described, might also breach Spanish contract law if it does not disclose the formula by which future fees are to be calculated. This can mean that the sellers themselves might be free to charge any fee they deem necessary each year, throughout the term of the contract."

Interesting too, that the remedy applied to the breach of contract was for the company to reimburse the plaintiff for the original cost of the timeshare plus interest and legal costs (not maintenance fees). "If a seller fails to correctly follow all the steps necessary for a valid contract as set out by law, then it is as though the contract never existed at all."

Clearly the European courts, probably with more years of experience with corruption that exists within the timeshare industry, have many years head start in protecting the consumer.

The Spanish court would have had a field day with the Northmont JEKE case. Namely,
- Northmont assuming that lessees are responsible for capital costs, including capital construction and capital reconstruction;
- Assuming that the authority to charge capital costs is provided by capital costs being listed with the maintenance costs when clearly it is not; and making that assumption on the basis that such an important and large cost item could reasonably be lumped in with the general "catch-all" items. Note the Spanish court's emphasis on clearly described costs.
- Misrepresenting the state of the resort in the quest to convert leases to co-ownership agreements so as to add the clause, "pay the cost of capital improvements that may from time to time be required";
- Assuming that the TS owners are responsible for correcting shoddilly constructed and therefore prematurily deteriorating buildings;
- Assuming that lessees and co-owners have the same contractual rights and responsibilities;
- Ignoring the clause in the lease that provides a formula for settlement in the event of default and instead implementing an arbitrary remedy;
- Not providing timely and complete financial statements;
- Not providing a Lessee's or Owners' association as required by contract, thereby denying TS owners a voice in management decisions;
- Giving the TS owners the responsibility and costs of ownership without having the potential for financial benefits;
- Nullifying contracts signed in good faith prior to 2003 by making them subject to the terms of leases signed in 2003.

You have to wonder, are the courts in Canada really that far behind the rest of the civilized world in consumer protection and the integrity of a contract, or is it one incompetent or corrupt B.C. court?
 
Last edited:

Makai Guy

Administrator
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
4,546
Reaction score
1,340
Points
649
Location
Aiken, SC, USA
Resorts Owned
Spicebush (Hilton Head Island)
This thread has been little more than infighting between several individuals for some time now. Another handful of posts has just been deleted.

Time to shut this thing down.

[Edit]

I've received several requests to reopen this thread, as it seems to be important to many affected TUGgers, so I have reopened it.

If you want to KEEP this open:
  • Discuss the issues, not each other.
  • Do not direct remarks to each other -- that's what the forum's Private Message capabilities are for.
 
Last edited:

TUGBrian

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
22,091
Reaction score
7,673
Points
1,099
Location
Florida
furthermore, no more warnings for snide comments or offtopic remarks in this thread will be given.
 

T-Dot-Traveller

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
3,592
Points
348
Location
Canada
Resorts Owned
Mayan Palace Regency
Taranova
Thank you - Doug & Brian

I regularly read this thread and Peppertree Atlantic Beach l - out of interest -
as I own neither .

*******
I would support some kind of $ crowd- sourcing to help fund the owner / user legal issues I have read about in each thread .

The issues are different between the 2 resorts although shoddy or non code construction seems to be a commonality that exacerbated developer / manager HOA $$ issues .

I do think the legal issues presented by each of these resort.ownership situations are ones that have the potential to be use as precedents in other jurisdictions AND therefore could effect many TUG members and the wider community of TS owners .

Thought ? Anyone .

.
 

GypsyOne

newbie
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
197
Reaction score
149
Points
103
This thread has been little more than infighting between several individuals for some time now. Another handful of posts has just been deleted.

Time to shut this thing down.

[Edit]

I've received several requests to reopen this thread, as it seems to be important to many affected TUGgers, so I have reopened it.

If you want to KEEP this open:
  • Discuss the issues, not each other.
  • Do not direct remarks to each other -- that's what the forum's Private Message capabilities are for.

Thanks Doug for opening this thread as it is about the only forum that people affected by this horrendous situation are able to discuss the issues. I have no problem with a bit of sniping - it probably means I am getting my point across. But it would help the discussion if people would identify their interests. I suspect those one or two defending Northmont are either REIT investors who made a bad investment, or TS owners who paid the renovation fee and are possibly having buyer's remorse. We could have a better discussion based on the facts if they would identify their point of view.
 

T-Dot-Traveller

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
3,592
Points
348
Location
Canada
Resorts Owned
Mayan Palace Regency
Taranova
Please -STOP THE CRAP - parts of this - have shown ( Canadian ) values in poor light

Spend some thought time being concerned about those who lost everything in
Fort McMurray this week ( May 1-6 2016 )

*******

I understand ownership in this resort has become a nightmare
just like the Peppertree Atlantic Beach l story .

Please use the editing function
so that civility is shown.

Yes - some of the sniping was entertaining - and so is a hockey fight -
but the goal here should be big picture --

-related to TS contracts and obligations and judge rulings that some may feel
extend and poorly interpret a contractual situation .

Big picture for me - I own Mexican RTU that ends in 15 years unless I choose to extend it . I would not like to find out some Mexican judge says RTU means forever MF .

That is why I suggest crowd sourcing some funding .

*******

PS - George Laraque knew when it was time to play the game and not sit in the penalty box
the Mods are watching like referees with a quick whistle -

.
 
Last edited:

Meow

newbie
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
105
Reaction score
25
Points
188
Location
Alberta
The common enemy

Unfortunately there are two distinct groups that have been brought into opposition to each other by a common enemy - Northmont/Northwynd.
A group of us have chosen to challenge Northmont. Another group have chosen to side (perhaps reluctantly) with Northmont to protect their investments. We didn't expect to be enemies just because we bought into this resort. Whatever the outcome of this unfortunate situation - there will be losers and probably no winners.
This thread has brought out the rift between us. The only thing we have in common is that we were all mislead when we entered into our timeshare contracts.
This will leave a bad taste for the Timeshare business. If you knew how this has going to end up would you have got involved? This has turned out to be the costliest mistake I have ever made - and its not over yet!
 
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
54
Reaction score
56
Points
18
Why did Fairmont declare bankruptcy?

A bit odd that they would do this considering what Northmont has done. Why would any TS developer get in financial trouble if they had a judge's green light to charge whatever they want, ignore parts of the contract and change other parts of the contract.

I guess Fairmont hadn't yet realized the extent of the lack of consumer protection in the legal system.

I'm glad to hear that other TS users outside of this resort are taking an active stance, even willing to raise funds. Imagine where this could go for the industry if capital cost charges and retroactive contract changes become the norm.
 

GypsyOne

newbie
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
197
Reaction score
149
Points
103
Fairmont bankruptcy

A bit odd that they would do this considering what Northmont has done. Why would any TS developer get in financial trouble if they had a judge's green light to charge whatever they want, ignore parts of the contract and change other parts of the contract.

I guess Fairmont hadn't yet realized the extent of the lack of consumer protection in the legal system.

I'm glad to hear that other TS users outside of this resort are taking an active stance, even willing to raise funds. Imagine where this could go for the industry if capital cost charges and retroactive contract changes become the norm.

Yes, why did Fairmont declare bankruptcy and not go after the TS owners? Maybe because they felt obliged to honour the terms of the TS leases, thus displaying a modicum of integrity.

Several TS owners in other resorts have expressed willingness to help fund the quest for justice at Fairmont. The reason undoubtedly being that if this blank-cheque ruling is allowed to stand, other TS resorts will be equally vulnerable. No question that justice will often be determined by the size of your war chest for preparing your case. We do need to win the appeal, not just for the Fairmont TS owners but for all TS owners. If we lose, it will be open season on all TS owners in all resorts.

I have been told that the best way to raise money for a public cause is via one of the Crowd Funding projects, the best one being GoFundMe. Anyone know how to go about doing that?

Another way to contribute to the cause is the old fashioned way. Send a cheque (or comparable payment) made out to Geldert Law inTrust, Sunchaser Litigation Group:
Geldert Law
c/o Michael Geldert
3101A - 930 Seymour
Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1B4

www.geldertlaw.com
 
Last edited:

Spark1

newbie
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
382
Reaction score
394
Points
123
Location
Ponoka alberta canada


From Her Ladyship's ruling page 6-7:

2) Vacation Interval Agreements (VIAs)

[13] Fairmont leased (and then later sold) vacation intervals, or time shares, in the Resort. There are basically two types of vacation interval agreements: (a) agreements entered into prior to 2009 by which vacation interval owners acquired a 40-year leasehold interest; and
(b) agreements entered into from 2009 forward which create co-ownership interests.
In addition, from 2009, vacation interval owners who held leasehold interests were given the option of entering into a co-ownership interest agreement. (Legacy for Life)
Is this true. Northwynd Northmont takes over the resort June 22/2010 and they continue to sell Legacy for Life after they take over ownership.I was told that before they could offer Legacy For Life,all buildings had to pass a strict building inspection and that all were in excellent shape as they had all been maintained well over the years. Maintenance and refurbishing would continue just as it had in the past. Interesting, May 2013 the Freedom to Choose arrives. This is what this lady was told and her family spent more time at this resort than most owners. There must of been poor management of this resort for less than 3 years to let it get in poor condition, so it needed a total renovation.
How many more Legacy For Life owners were told this same thing?Was this resort poorly looked after buy the last owner Collen Knight?
 

GypsyOne

newbie
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
197
Reaction score
149
Points
103
Is this true. Northwynd Northmont takes over the resort June 22/2010 and they continue to sell Legacy for Life after they take over ownership. I was told that before they could offer Legacy For Life, all buildings had to pass a strict building inspection and that all were in excellent shape as they had all been maintained well over the years. Maintenance and refurbishing would continue just as it had in the past. Interesting, May 2013 the Freedom to Choose arrives. This is what this lady was told and her family spent more time at this resort than most owners. There must of been poor management of this resort for less than 3 years to let it get in poor condition, so it needed a total renovation.
How many more Legacy For Life owners were told this same thing?Was this resort poorly looked after buy the last owner Collen Knight?

My understanding is that Northmont initiated the Legacy For Life program when they took over after the bankruptcy. They knew the buildings had major problems due to shoddy construction, often built not to code or standard construction practices, and that major renovation and rebuilding would be required. So, how do you shift the remedial construction costs to the TS owners? The TS owners' contracts were leases, which could be problematic to Northmont, since in common business practice, lessees do not own the buildings and thus are not responsible for construction or reconstruction. The path they chose was to sell the TS owners on a Legacy For Life conversion program, which would enable them to rewrite the contracts to co-ownership agreements and add the clause, "pay the cost of capital improvements that may from time to time be required," as well as some other modifications. The brilliance of this program is that they also charged around $5-6,000 per TS owner for a program which resulted in shifting the cost of capital improvements to the TS owner into perpetuity. Those that converted got ownership so far as the obligation to pay all the bills, but not ownership for equitable financial rights and benefits. For the company, this has to be one of the biggest sweet heart deals ever imposed. The irony is that, as it turned out, they didn't need to convert the leases to co-ownership agreements. All they needed was a friendly judge to agree to their argument that our agreements are different from ordinary commercial leases and that we are responsible for all costs and, in the absence of a Timeshare Association, at the whim of the developer/manager. I did not expect a judge would be party to such re-interpretation of terms in a contract. I thought the courts had a duty to protect the consumer against such evil practices.

Spark1, I don't think the building problems started after the bankruptcy; the evidence suggests the buildings were shodilly built and inadequately maintained from the beginning. Buildings that should have had a lifetime of 50-60 years or more were becoming unusable after fifteen years. In other words, the lessees were sold 40-year leases in buildings that should have had a lifetime of at least 50-60 years, but rather for some buildings had only around 15 years. That is fundamental misrepresentation and fraud.

I don't know what building inspections or disclosures were required when the co-ownership agreements were being marketed in 2009, or what disclosures were provided. So far as I know, all provinces have laws that require disclosure of building flaws and that hiding flaws or misleading purchasers about the quality of the building is illegal. In about 2009, I was confronted with a blitz of emails, letters, and phone calls promoting the "exciting new direction for Fairmont." I ran as hard as I could in the other direction, suspecting this exciting program was not for my benefit. The anecdotal information I have is that a glowing picture of the future of Fairmont was given and that any building problems were either not disclosed or hidden deep in the paperwork or CDs that the buyer might read or view later. Certainly, the amendment to include being responsible for capital improvements would not have been pointed out. The evidence strongly suggests the intent was to deceive the public about what they were buying into. Whether the company managed to stay within the law is open to speculation.
 
Last edited:

ERW

newbie
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
86
Reaction score
1
Points
6
Location
Winnipeg, MB
A bit odd that they would do this considering what Northmont has done. Why would any TS developer get in financial trouble if they had a judge's green light to charge whatever they want, ignore parts of the contract and change other parts of the contract.

I guess Fairmont hadn't yet realized the extent of the lack of consumer protection in the legal system.

I'm glad to hear that other TS users outside of this resort are taking an active stance, even willing to raise funds. Imagine where this could go for the industry if capital cost charges and retroactive contract changes become the norm.

One thing I have not seen referred to here is the Global meltdown of 2008-2009. If Fairmont had been purchasing properties based on the increasing value of Fairmont and other properties they already owned, when the markets fell apart (and along with the crash of the real estate market), that would have had a huge impact on the properties Fairmont held. This likely had more of an impact on the Fairmont financial situation than anything else.
 

ERW

newbie
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
86
Reaction score
1
Points
6
Location
Winnipeg, MB
My understanding is that Northmont initiated the Legacy For Life program when they took over after the bankruptcy. They knew the buildings had major problems due to shoddy construction, often built not to code or standard construction practices, and that major renovation and rebuilding would be required. So, how do you shift the remedial construction costs to the TS owners? The TS owners' contracts were leases, which could be problematic to Northmont, since in common business practice, lessees do not own the buildings and thus are not responsible for construction or reconstruction. The path they chose was to sell the TS owners on a Legacy For Life conversion program, which would enable them to rewrite the contracts to co-ownership agreements and add the clause, "pay the cost of capital improvements that may from time to time be required," as well as some other modifications. The brilliance of this program is that they also charged around $5-6,000 per TS owner for a program which resulted in shifting the cost of capital improvements to the TS owner into perpetuity. Those that converted got ownership so far as the obligation to pay all the bills, but not ownership for equitable financial rights and benefits. For the company, this has to be one of the biggest sweet heart deals ever imposed. The irony is that, as it turned out, they didn't need to convert the leases to co-ownership agreements. All they needed was a friendly judge to agree to their argument that our agreements are different from ordinary commercial leases and that we are responsible for all costs and, in the absence of a Timeshare Association, at the whim of the developer/manager. I did not expect a judge would be party to such re-interpretation of terms in a contract. I thought the courts had a duty to protect the consumer against such evil practices.

Spark1, I don't think the building problems started after the bankruptcy; the evidence suggests the buildings were shodilly built and inadequately maintained from the beginning. Buildings that should have had a lifetime of 50-60 years or more were becoming unusable after fifteen years. In other words, the lessees were sold 40-year leases in buildings that should have had a lifetime of at least 50-60 years, but rather for some buildings had only around 15 years. That is fundamental misrepresentation and fraud.

I don't know what building inspections or disclosures were required when the co-ownership agreements were being marketed in 2009, or what disclosures were provided. So far as I know, all provinces have laws that require disclosure of building flaws and that hiding flaws or misleading purchasers about the quality of the building is illegal. In about 2009, I was confronted with a blitz of emails, letters, and phone calls promoting the "exciting new direction for Fairmont." I ran as hard as I could in the other direction, suspecting this exciting program was not for my benefit. The anecdotal information I have is that a glowing picture of the future of Fairmont was given and that any building problems were either not disclosed or hidden deep in the paperwork or CDs that the buyer might read or view later. Certainly, the amendment to include being responsible for capital improvements would not have been pointed out. The evidence strongly suggests the intent was to deceive the public about what they were buying into. Whether the company managed to stay within the law is open to speculation.

I realize it may not be something that can be openly discussed, but I can't help but wonder why the leases and subsequent Legacy for Life ownerships were lumped together at the trial? They are two very different situations and the lease holders, in my opinion, would be far less likely to be held responsible for major re-construction costs than the Legacy for Life individuals.

I too went to the presentation here in Winnipeg and was sceptical from the moment they opened their mouths to talk about how great a deal this was. I also suspected this was a cash grab of some sort but did not foresee the future implications of signing up as it relates to repairs required to the property.
 

GypsyOne

newbie
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
197
Reaction score
149
Points
103
I realize it may not be something that can be openly discussed, but I can't help but wonder why the leases and subsequent Legacy for Life ownerships were lumped together at the trial? They are two very different situations and the lease holders, in my opinion, would be far less likely to be held responsible for major re-construction costs than the Legacy for Life individuals.

I too went to the presentation here in Winnipeg and was sceptical from the moment they opened their mouths to talk about how great a deal this was. I also suspected this was a cash grab of some sort but did not foresee the future implications of signing up as it relates to repairs required to the property.

Judge Fitzpatrick lumping leases and co-ownership agreements together is one of the mysteries of her ruling. Seems she decided all TS owners would be held responsible for correcting faulty construction in flawed buildings, therefore ignore the differences in contracts and treat them as one for paying for capital reconstruction. If there is no difference, why then would Northmont spend so much time and resources convincing lessees to convert from one type of agreement to another and adding the clause, "pay the cost of capital improvements that may from time to time be required?" The reason is very likely that Northmont feared the lease agreements could be problematic to their offloading the cost of reconstruction.

One would hope this is not the ruling of an activist judge advocating for the group who do not want Fairmont to fail (Fairmont, Northmont, B.C. government), or to have to put up their own money for correcting the many deficiencies in their resort.
 
Last edited:

mmchili

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
39
Reaction score
2
Points
8
My Perspective

After reading the responses, I am amazed and appalled at the rhetoric expressed. So, I decided to add my perspective. The way I see it, the problems at Sunchaser were created by Fairmont Resort Properties Limited (Fairmont). Northmont took on the problems when they took assignment of Sunchaser. Who is to blame?

The major issue which drove the significant renovation was the leaking plastic water piping. This issue together with a poorly maintained resort by Fairmont, who allowed a deficit to accumulate, contributed to the cost of repairing Sunchaser. And Fairmont did not pursue compensation from the class action settlement regarding the plastic plumbing.

The condition of Sunchaser was the result of Fairmont’s actions, not Northmont’s who took over the resort “as is”. If Sunchaser was taken over by someone else other than Northmont, would the situation be any different? Or if Northmont were to go broke and Sunchaser taken over by someone else, would it be operated differently? I think not.

When Northmont took over Sunchaser, they sent a survey to us owners and one of the questions asked was about the establishment of an owners association. My files show that very few owners responded and most of those who responded were not in favor of an association. So why are there complaints about not having an owners association? Was it because of the additional cost of having one? How many owners discussed the budget and maintenance fee with Fairmont or Northmont?

So, what should be done with a resort that is outdated poorly maintained and has major water line leakage? Let it leak and deteriorate or repair it? After a lot of research and consideration, I decided the best alternative was /is to repair it and upgrade it or lose it altogether. However I did not expect the cost to be as requested. I still do not like the cost but Northmont hired professionals to scope out the work and hired a credible contractor to do the repairs, etc.

I studied my contract, consulted with my lawyer, discussed with other owners and met and discussed with Northmont after which I decided to “pay and stay”. I respect the decisions made by other owners to pay and go, pay and stay or pursue legal action. The legal avenue of resolve is available to everyone. However I do not have any respect for those owners who are abusive, belligerent and ignorant in their rhetoric. And do not appreciate nor respect those owners who have decided to not pay their maintenance fee, not to pay the renovation fee and not pursue legal action. Their delinquency is increasing the maintenance fee to me and other owners who are current with their fees.

I’m assuming those owners who are part of the litigation group also have not paid the fees, for which I may have to compensate for. However, I expect these owners to either pursue their legal actions with credible claims and credible evidence without delay or pay their debt. I fully support and expect Northmont to pursue collection of the outstanding fees and related interest charges.

I note that my 2016 maintenance fee is based on approximately 5,400 timeshare weeks versus 12,750 weeks for Sunchaser as a whole. By my calculations, this means that Hillside (7038 weeks) could be separated from Sunchaser and Riverside (4,080 weeks) and Riverview (1,632 weeks) could remain as Sunchaser. However there is no mention made in the budget for delinquent maintenance fees or delinquent fees received. My calculations in reviewing prior years’ maintenance fee show that I paid $100 annually to cover delinquency.

As for the legal action; based on the rhetoric expressed on TUG, I would expect Fitzpatrick’s decision to be appealed by Jeke and/or if not, that claims would be filed by everyone else who is part of the group action. Has an appeal been filed? Have any other claims been filed? Express your feelings, accusations and allegations to the Judge and live with the consequences. I do not feel encouraged or enticed to become part of the litigation group. I am not interested in becoming part of any litigation group which includes owners who are abusive and ignorant in their rhetoric.

Also, Fairmont Mountainside Villas is not interested in being connected with Sunchaser in any way, shape or form. Go to their website and there you will see their express statement to that effect.
 
Top