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



## htusa2002

HI-does anyone know what the new program they are launching for the old time owners at Fairmont/Sunchaser villas for 2013? The woman at office says they will be doing some new program for owners that have been there a while right away?


----------



## spirits

*Hmmmmm*

Do not own at Fairmount but everytime I get a new and improved program at work it either costs me more time and effort or it costs me money out of my pocket.  This does not sound good either....good luck owners, I hope I am wrong.





EDITED BY MODERATOR 
SINCE THIS POST AS OF JULY 2014 IS OVER 64 PAGES AND 1600 POSTS HERE IS THE BACKROUND


			
				sunchasertimeshareowners.com/ said:
			
		

> Background
> Sunchaser Villas Timeshare
> 
> From the early 1990’s through to December 2012 approximately 15,500 people invested over $200 million to purchase timeshare interests in the Sunchaser timeshare resort in Fairmont, BC. In early 2009 the original developer of the resort became subject to proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). As a result, the original Developer’s interest in the Sunchaser Resort was transferred to the Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. (“Northwynd”) group of companies. One of Northwynd’s subsidiaries, Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. (“Northmont”) took over as the Developer of the Resort. Another subsidiary, Resort Villa Management Ltd. (“RVM”), took over as Property Manager of the Resort.
> 
> Prior to 2009 each of the timeshare interests was held as a forty (40) year lease allowing the holder to use the Resort facilities for a one week period providing they pay a prorated share of the annual operating costs and contribute to a reserve for replacement of furniture and fixtures. The timeshare “owners” were really lessees; the Developer acted as landlord and owned the residual interests and would have clear title to the Resort properties when the leases ended.
> 
> During the CCAA proceedings, a new program was introduced to encourage the timeshare owners to pay a substantial additional fee to join the RCI points program and extend their contracts in perpetuity. We estimate less than 1/3 of the owners chose this option; those that did have subsequently discovered that this conversion contract made them “co-owners” and also included a clause that Northmont interprets to mean they are responsible for a share of the capital improvements that may be required.
> 
> Documents that have been submitted to court proceedings to date confirm that at the time Northmont became involved with the Resort, they were aware of various issues of deferred maintenance at the Resort and that the Replacement Reserve had been depleted. We have now discovered that during the period from mid 2010 to December 2012, Northmont was spending monies from the Resort funds to investigate and prepare plans for a major refurbishment and upgrade for the Resort.  The annual maintenance fees increased by over 22% from January 2010 to January 2013. During this period, none of the annual reports to the timeshare investors provided details re these plans and no financial statements were released to the timeshare investors. Initial disclosure of these plans to most timeshare owners came in January 2013 at which time Northmont indicated all timeshare holders (including those who were only leaseholders) would be invoiced for the full cost of the multi-year renovation plan. Further details of the plans were not provided until late April 2013 when most timeshare owners received invoices of approximately $4,000 for each annual timeshare week they held – $2,000 in each of 2013 and 2014. Those owners were also advised they could, as an alternative, surrender their rights under their timeshare contracts by paying a fee of approximately $3,000 in addition to all of the monies they had paid to date. Full details of this renovation plan have still not been made available to timeshare owners, despite ongoing and repeated requests by owners desperate to understand what is actually being done at the Resort and how it is in their best interests.
> 
> An association for the timeshare owners had never been formed despite repeated promises from the Developer to do so. Through the use of social media, some of the owners were able to contact each other and gradually organized to challenge the actions by Northmont and its associates and agents.
> 
> In April 2013, Northmont and the Resort Trustee filed a Petition in the BC Supreme Court seeking approval to unilaterally alter all the timeshare contracts at the Resort and give effect to its plans for the Resort.  Approximately 800 of the timeshare owners filed responses to the Petition or retained one of several law firms to represent them in the proceedings. During the series of case planning conferences, the Court directed that a Special Case process would be used to address some issues, but there would be no consideration of the timeshare owners’ argument that Northmont had breached fundamental terms of the timeshare contracts.  In November 2013, a decision was released that supported Northmont’s decision to invoice all timeshare owners for all the renovation costs.
> 
> The recent BC Court of Appeal decision has overturned the November decision and recognized that the “validity and enforceability of the Agreements was in issue” and that the timeshare owners had been required to proceed “without having had an opportunity to contest the enforceability of the underlying Agreements”.  It further concluded that the lower court proceeding “failed to give proper effect to…the rights of the time share Owners. This proceeding did not favour access to justice – it precluded it.”
> 
> We believe that all of the timeshare owners who signed contracts for specific term leasehold interests have no responsibility for the cost of capital improvements at the Resort, and that even the timeshare owners who have signed contracts that include the term “capital improvements” are insulated from paying for these improvements as the Developer, by his actions, has breached fundamental terms of the timeshare contracts.
> 
> We believe that Northmont and its associated companies have failed to “manage and maintain the Resort in a prudent and workmanlike manner” as they are required to do pursuant to the timeshare contracts. We contend that:
> 
> 1)       The Property Manager has failed to carry out required maintenance activities at the Resort and allowed it to go into a state of disrepair even though the annual budgets provided adequate funds for this maintenance.
> 
> 2)       The Developer failed to construct certain buildings to acceptable standards and used substandard materials in construction.  The previous Developer recognized this obligation and completed certain repairs at its cost. Northmont has failed to carry out their cost obligations, even though our understanding is that they were directed to do so as part of the CCAA proceedings.
> 
> 3)       The Developer has failed to provide proper accounting for its proportionate share of the maintenance fees for units it controls.
> 
> 4)       The Developer and Property Manager have failed to provide a full accounting for monies paid from Resort funds to the associated companies, thus failing to provide assurance to the timeshare owners that they are receiving proper value for monies paid.
> 
> 5)       Portions of the Resort are registered as a separate Strata Plan (Riverview Building 8100 which was completed in 2004) that is subject to the requirements of the Strata Property Act of BC. The Developer and Property Manager have failed to maintain segregated accounting records and to establish required reserves for the strata portions of the Resort as required by the Strata Property Act and are not properly licensed to act as a Strata Property Manager under the Real Estate Act of BC.
> 
> A recent update provided to the timeshare owners by Northwynd indicates the Developer and Property Manager intend to pursue collection of the renovation project fees in full, ignoring the appeal ruling that overturned the court order it relied upon as justification for charging these fees to all timeshare owners.
> 
> A different update was sent to investors in the REIT which owns the residual interests in the Resort through a subsidiary limited partnership. That document provides a chronology of Northwynd’s involvement with the Resort, including its several unsuccessful attempts to sell its interests in the Resort since 2010, and notes the success in generating substantial cash flows from cancellation fees relating to the Resort Realignment Plan.
> 
> Our group of timeshare owners has determined that the most appropriate course of action is to commence a Class Action  that claims damages from Northmont and their associates on the basis they have breached fundamental terms of the timeshare contracts.  Our goal is to ensure that Northmont and its associates are held accountable for their failure to manage the Resort in the best interests of timeshare owners.


----------



## Quadmaniac

htusa2002 said:


> HI-does anyone know what the new program they are launching for the old time owners at Fairmont/Sunchaser villas for 2013? The woman at office says they will be doing some new program for owners that have been there a while right away?


*
TRANSLATION* : We extracted money from you years ago and haven't had the opportunity to get more from you, so we're creating a new "program" so we can get more of your money. Since you were naive enough the first time, you will probably still be now and we're going to try to get as much as we can from you.

*REALITY* : No matter what program they offer, "benefits", it is going to cost you thousands $$$ for something that will still be worth basically nothing even after buying into the new "program", no matter how "special" it may be.

JUST SAY NO and save yourself $$$$$

I still have a Golden Season Annual, that was "upgraded" to RCI points (owners paid $35K) that was given to me for free. Don't fall into that trap. No upgrade is worth any amount that they are asking for.


----------



## RandRseeker

I just reserved my 2013 week and there was no mention of a new program....hmmm.  

All I know is my maintenance fees just keep climbing and I'm sure by next year (2014) they'll be over $1000 for my two bedroom lockoff.  This up almost 30% over the past four years.  Add that to the lock off fee, II membership and exchange fees, I wonder if it's even worthwhile to timeshare anymore.

I wonder how these maintenance fees compare to other timeshares?


----------



## Quadmaniac

Depends what time share, but many of timeshares I have are similar in MF. There are still cheaper ones, but not sure what the quality of the resort/unit is.


----------



## Meow

*Fairmont Renovations*

With Sunchaser's last mailing you will now realize what the "new program" is all about.  Their planned renovation is estimated to cost from $28 million to $38 million.  They have not disclosed what it will cost on a unit basis, but one can try to estimate.  The unit cost is about $900 for the $9 million 2013 maintenance budget.  Therefore we would be looking at somewhere from a $3000 to $4000 special assessment spread over two years.  There is no question that the Hillside/Riverside complex is badly in need of a renovation.  My question is -  is this a voluntary assessment?  I'm not sure the lease allows for a special assessment like this.  Perhaps, those that wish to bail out, can do so.  Defaulting on this assessment does not appear the same as a default on maintenance fees.


----------



## RandRseeker

I also just got the brochure showing the "exciting changes coming to the resort".  While the renovations look very nice and some improvements are needed, to ask owners to contribute upwards of $3000 per unit seems like way too much to me.

Do owners have any say in this decision by management?  I have always been a believer that timeshare owners should not be able to simply walk away from their maintenance fees, leaving the other owners on the hook to pickup the revenue shortfall, however, I'm not sure a renovation of this magnitude is something I can support.


----------



## Phew

*New Program*

Just received the new program info as well. Have a lease at Hill/River  bought on resale market 8 or 9 years ago. It is a bi-annual 2 bdrm lock off purchased by original owner in 1995 so has 22 years (11) remaining. Fees have doubled since we purchased and now looks like we are going to be hit for major reno costs. One requirement of the lease is to be provided an annual audited Financial Statement each year by I believe the end of March of following year, This has not happened since 2009. Two years in breach of clause. Hard to trust these guys. Right now it is almost impossible to give away the timeshare. Advice to anyone thinking of buying a timeshare is run as fast as yopu can away.


----------



## Meow

I believe this could be the final straw for many lessees, the defaults will cascade and the property goes into receivership.  Then someone picks it up for 10 cents on the dollar.  Sort of a 'deja vu' all over again. Can we be sure the assessment funds actually go into a trust account as they allege?  Reinvesting in the property at this time seems a little risky to me.


----------



## htusa2002

*New program*

Hi, I am not 100% for sure but. The new thing they told me about that may happen is not renos, but rather if you are a long term owner with a lease and want out maybe you'll be able to pay to get out early. I don't think they know if it's a go ahead yet, but you can call and ask about this. Either way learning this stopped us fom buying a resale property last month because we didnt want to buy into a place where people are paying to get out of leases......doesn't sound too good. Again I am not 100% sure so call and ask them.


----------



## Rufus

“The New Sunchaser” document has a section called “Deficit”. There’s no indication of the magnitude of it and there’s been no financial statements for the last couple of years. Not releasing financial statements is a serious problem. If it’s in the agreement to get them in a timely fashion then I think we have grounds for a complaint to the province. Do we have a lawyer to collectively get advice from about this concerning default / buy back options?


----------



## Phew

*Sunchaser Fairmont new deal*

There is a clause in an agreement I have seen requiring audited Financial Statements to be provided by March 31 of each year. This has not been done. In light of the most recent communication re deficit it is of major concern. Has anyone who posts here sought legal advice? Would be nice yto hear.


----------



## tdjanzen

I am just returning from a family Christmas vacation and have already requested information from Sunchaser regarding the total per unit cost for the renovations.

I am concerned that the timing of the assessment will force everyone to pay their 2013 maintenance fees before they have any idea of the magnitude of the assessment.  Also, I worry that the assessment will be more like 3 to 4,000 in 2013 and 2014.

I was actually able to dig up the original contract for our timeshare purchase.  As far as I can tell there is no specific reference to refurbishment and special assessments.

I have no problem with renovations that are required to keep the buildings up to date but I do have questions when the Sunchaser document is silent on what the assessment will be and their assumption that they can receive 15% of the refurbishment budget as their "management" cost.

I will be trying to reach a lawyer upon my return from my vacation as I don't want to lay out funds for maintenance fees if I can walk away from the whole mess.  I think at $900 a week, the cost for Sunchaser is getting close to unreasonable.  Having to essentially re-purchase the timeshare unit, makes it impractical to continue to own at Sunchaser.

BTW did anyone notice how the newsletter glosses over the RCI conversion.  Something along the lines of "last year this cost $6,000 but now it will only cost $2,000).  I feel really sorry for people who spent the cash.


----------



## Phew

*Fairmont Deal*

I have talked to some other lease owners who have the same sentiment re getting legal advice.   Does anyone know of an effective way of contacting owners - maybe social media is the way to go. I don't know much about that so if there is a group already going that information would be usefull.


----------



## htusa2002

*maintenance fee*

Hi-just wondering but most 2 bedroom lock offs for gold crown/silver units are actually around $800 to $1000 in maintenance so not sure why everyone thinks this is too high?


----------



## Jjareed

*Renovation*

I called them up this morning and chatted with a nice women about the upcoming renovation project.  She told me we don't have a choice about paying the renovation cost which in my case will be between 3000 to 4000.  I asked her if they would buy my unit back and she said they don't do that.  I suggested just giving it back and she said they don't want them back.  My reply to her was that the units must be worthless or you would take them back.    I also got into a discussion of what is going to stop them from doing this later if I give in and pay.  Did not have a good response, meaning she implied that they can do what they want.  I asked her if we could vote on any of this and she said no.  I mentioned to her that when we bought our timeshare in 97 that I was told if we didn't like what was going on we as owners could vote to change things.  She didn't know if that is correct or not.  She also mentioned there was a survey sent out and the majority of the owners wanted the change.  I don't know if I can agree with her on.  Thinking about getting out!  Suggestions?


----------



## Tacoma

Maintenance fees are now at $950 a year up another $60 over last year alone.  If the assessment is $3000 per week assuming 50 weeks per year usage 2 for maintenance the cost per unit is $150,000.  That must be some renovation they are planning!

I have no problem with a reasonable special assessment to upgrade units.  However you could build new for what they are asking.  Also the fact that they never produced financial statements for at least 2 years is a breach of their contract.

They tried to extort more money by having people pay to get RCI and when that didn't work they came up with this new plan.  I agree that we need legal advice before we give this company any more money.  What's the percentage of people defaulting on maintenance fees?  Is sunchaser going to pay their share of the renovation or just the current maintenance fee paying owners?  What happens to the weeks that aren't having their maintenance fees paid?  Is sunchaser renting these out to the general public or just letting them sit empty?  There are way too many questions to pay a special assessment that big and trust that they will use the money prudently.

They haven't been able to get enough cleaners to have all rooms ready for check in time so how will they find the workers in the valley to do that much work?  The BRMR upgrading was supposed to be done in 3 years and my best guess is that it took 6 years.  I do not want a repeat of that.

I just checked out of a hillside unit on Friday and the unit was not all that bad.  I know Riverside is in worse shape so I understand that section needing to be done but again I'm not sure any one unit needs $150,000 in renovations.  The cost of the special assessment an Point of Poipu in Hawaii was $5800 and that sounded like it was a complete redo due to water intrusion.  

I will join any group that wants to find out more before we pay this company any more dollars.  I'm worried they won't let me use this year's week (already paid for) unless I have agreed to or have started paying the special assessment.

Another point is a friend of mine who owns an EEY golden season tried to book in June last year and was told he was too late to get anything. I don't know how flexible he was and I understand how all units could be booked but since there is only one golden week before July it does seem unlikely that that happened.  He has been saying for at least six months he's going to sue them  for not putting out financial statements.

Joan


----------



## htusa2002

I think you should all get out of your contracts. For that price of renos you can get a free timeshare from someone anywhere and just trade it into II or Rci

I bought Grand Canadian in canmore summer week for cheap. maintenance fees $875 and yes we had to pay the cost of all the defaulted people, but still it's a good trader for the price.


----------



## Jjareed

*Out of contract*

Htusa or anyone else,

If I wanted to get out of my contract do you know how I could do it


----------



## RandRseeker

Jjareed said:


> I called them up this morning and chatted with a nice women about the upcoming renovation project.  She told me we don't have a choice about paying the renovation cost which in my case will be between 3000 to 4000.  I asked her if they would buy my unit back and she said they don't do that.  I suggested just giving it back and she said they don't want them back.  My reply to her was that the units must be worthless or you would take them back.    I also got into a discussion of what is going to stop them from doing this later if I give in and pay.  Did not have a good response, meaning she implied that they can do what they want.  I asked her if we could vote on any of this and she said no.  I mentioned to her that when we bought our timeshare in 97 that I was told if we didn't like what was going on we as owners could vote to change things.  She didn't know if that is correct or not.  *She also mentioned there was a survey sent out and the majority of the owners wanted the change. * I don't know if I can agree with her on.  Thinking about getting out!  Suggestions?



I don't remember a survey - anyone else??  If I had seen one, I sure wouldn't have agreed to any renovations with a price tag of $28 million plus!!


----------



## RandRseeker

Here's a link to FAQs regarding the upcoming renovation project:

http://www.sunchaservillas.ca/owners/faq.asp

Many of the questions people are asking here are addressed.  I'm so not happy about this:annoyed:


----------



## Tacoma

I do not remember a survey either.  If we agreed it must  have been the generic questions like would you like to see more amenities to which everyone answers yes because it never mentions you'll have to pay for this. Thanks for the link I should have looked there.  

I hate to try and "give this away" to an unsuspecting victim.  But because of that I'll either have to pay $3000-4000 or potentially destroy my credit. At least I have golden season.  I have never traded this does it trade well in II or RCI?  

I also noticed the common barbecuing areas.  I imagine that means no more barbeques at individual units.  Alhough I believe that this keeps maintenance fees down it is a serious downgrade to what we own now.  Also this location lends itself to doing a lot of cooking and let's face it the weather doesn't always lend itself to being very far from your unit.

I'm really worried that they will never raise the funds and the project will stall.  Those who pay will never see the project completed.  Or are they using this as a way to take back a lot of units and resell them?

I'm going to try and  find out when the AGM is and attend if I can.  I will also see if I can get the minutes from the last AGM to see when this was first raised.

Still looking to hear from a lawyer about this since I know they did not produce financial statements for at least 2 years.  If nothing else I would like to see this broken into 2 projects one for Riverside and the other for Hillside with the funding being in two sections.  Only after the first upgrade is done would we be responsible for the second.  I don't trust them.

Still have not told my husband or friends about this.  That will make for an interesting conversation for this weekend.  I didn't want to spoil our vacation last week.

Joan


----------



## konno

*When did SVV or Northwynd take over?*

We are bi-annual members and are due to use our week this year.  In 2011 we paid our maintenance fee and used our interval (we did not buy the deed) and we are trying to understand if we paid SVV or FVV the maintenance fee.  

What constitutes consent to a maintenance agreement with SVV?  Paying your maintenance fees?  We never did sign anything with the new developer.

We are concerned the request for funds will never end and do not trust them one bit.  We are thinking of giving away our interval with full discloser.  I know this does not help the other owners but I don't want to keep on putting money into a sinking ship!


----------



## Quadmaniac

You don't have to sign anything as the new company took over all the obligations of the previous, so they don't need to get your signature. 

I called and they are planning on bringing the assessment out in about April, so I am going to get rid of my last one before that. In fact I am going to try to give it away on Kijiji pretty quick here for free.


----------



## Phew

There are a good number already on Kijiji and also a large number listed with the realtor in Invermere - some as little as 1$. My biggest concern is we as lease owners have no idea what the financial situation is because they have not provided audited financial statements for two full years and will soon may be  in breach of that requirement for 2012 as well. How can we trust they are not hiding a worse situation than we are told.


----------



## Skeezics_100

*Fairmont Renovations*

I was reading this thread of conversation and it really peaked my interest.  I've never written on blogs before so you'll have to excuse me but I don't know how to repost a previous thread but someone asked if there was a way we could collectively contact a lawyer about these outrageous fees coming in April 2013.

Well I've been trying to sell our two Sunchasers villas timeshares (with absolutely no luck) and I was just contacted by another Fairmont owner who happened to see my ad.  He told me that he has been in contact with a few other owners regarding this "special assessment" payment coming in April 2013 and they are looking at launching a class action lawsuit regarding these new fees as well as the breaches to our contracts for increasing maintenance fees more than the allowable percentage.  

He also mentioned that I guess if we wanted to sell our timeshares that Sunchasers will not approve of the sale (transfer the deed) unless the owner signs a contract that stipulates if the buyer defaults on their maintenance fees, then Sunchaser can go back to the original owner for payment.  This is another area that they want the lawsuit to address.

I don't have all the information yet but he said that they are starting a Facebook page called "Sunchasers Vacation Villas owners grievance and action group".  I couldn't find the page but asked him to email me the link.

He's looking for more owners to join the group and hopefully as a group we can get some answers or better yet.......out of our contracts.

Once I hear more I'll post it.


----------



## vacationsforever2012

*Seeking solutions*

Interesting Threads - lots of issues and concerns.  It is time to consider solutions

What do we owners want:

1.  It appears some maintenance and renovations are required?  (Agree?)

And this will benefit owners - improved facilities; more attractive for trades.  But at what cost?   Given what many paid for these timeshares $3,000 is not necessarily outrageous.  And those who bought on resale or were gifted; it is not a lot to pay for a quality resort even considerating maintenance fees ($900 for a great accomodations and locations for a week with lockout options for B side.  The B side still trades well for Golden and Golf with II

Issues;
-  Is this a Cadillac approach
-  What happened to reserve fund from past membership fees
-  Paying a 15 percent management fee; especially when it appears to be past negligence
-  Trust:  No audited statements
-   No real owner input (surveys are opinions without much info to base them on)

2.  An escape clause - selling is impossible or very difficult especially for Prime and Leisure.    Giving away has been possible.  (I gave away one of my units last year).  But with assessment probably impossible unless it is not disclosed or paid by seller

And it appears new rules leaving current owners on hook for defaults (Is this confirmed?  Can they do this?  I believe this would be due to some transfers to shell corporations that then defaulted and couldn't be pursued.

HOW TO PROCEED
-  A legal opinion!  Surely there are some lawyers that own at Fairmont and talk of a class action suit
-  What about learning from the First Nations - a fee boycott unless Northwynd (the owners of SunChaser) offer concessions - an owner group with some funding; audited statements and waive management fee on assessment (What else?)

Owners need to get ORGANIzED - Facebook idea sounds good.


----------



## Jjareed

*Opting out*

Just talked to Emily at the Vacation ownership services with Sunchaser and asked her if we had any options for opting out of the renovation.  She said for $3200 we could get out of our contract plus this years maintenance fees.  
The charge varies on how much time you have left on your contract.  
I told her I wouldn't mind paying for the renovation if I could get a guarantee that another renovation project would not come up after this one is finished.  They will not guarantee that another renovation will not happen in the near future.  
So now I have to decide what to do.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Jjareed said:


> Just talked to Emily at the Vacation ownership services with Sunchaser and asked her if we had any options for opting out of the renovation.  She said for $3200 we could get out of our contract plus this years maintenance fees.
> The charge varies on how much time you have left on your contract.
> I told her I wouldn't mind paying for the renovation if I could get a guarantee that another renovation project would not come up after this one is finished.  They will not guarantee that another renovation will not happen in the near future.
> So now I have to decide what to do.



There are no guarantees with any timeshare there won't be renovation project in the future. Its a potential liability with owning a timeshare.

Instead of paying them $3200, you could always give it away. Worst case, pay the MF and include it as a bonus.


----------



## konno

I am not sure that you will even be able to give the time/deed away.  There are so many on Kijijii right now and I don't think anyone will take it given all the listings.  It looks like everyone is trying to get off the ship.


----------



## Quadmaniac

konno said:


> I am not sure that you will even be able to give the time/deed away.  There are so many on Kijijii right now and I don't think anyone will take it given all the listings.  It looks like everyone is trying to get off the ship.



Yep there are a lot on Kijiji. If they're asking for MF and $3200, paying MF and giving it up is much better than paying an additional $3200. The ad is free and what's the worst that can happen ? Nothing to lose, so why not put an ad out there ?


----------



## RandRseeker

Jjareed said:


> Just talked to Emily at the Vacation ownership services with Sunchaser and asked her if we had any options for opting out of the renovation.  She said for $3200 we could get out of our contract plus this years maintenance fees.



Did Emily say how long this exit plan is available for?

I think I might choose this option and be done with the place.  I've only owned there for six years still have 15 years left.  I really don't want to face anything like this again.  I've already paid my 2013 maintenance fees and deposited the week with II - and my past experience is that my prime ski week doesn't fetch any good trades unless I wait until Flexchange.


----------



## kevinjanny

I wonder how long it's going to be before we get hit with the same kind of assessment at Lake Okanagan? We would like to get out of our contract as well.
It boggles my mind that you have to pay them to take back the stupid thing. Good thing we didn't pay that much in the first place.


----------



## Fairever

*Discussion with Sunchaser*

I had a long conversation with the person at Vacation Services who had no clue on the questions that I was asking so I was passed on to someone at Project Developments who previously worked at Royal Host.

Firstly, I questioned where in my contract a capital expenditure such that they are proposing would be allowed.  Under the clause of Special Assessments it is not covered and in the clause Operating Costs and Reserve for Refurbishing they believe this expenditure is covered.  Quite frankly a reserve is something that is created over a period of time.  They are funds that are earmarked by a firm from its retained earnings for future use. The clause talks about the refurbishment of the villas but no specific mention to capital expenditures as suggested.  Seems to me that there should be a capital expenditure clause and it does not exist. They are confusing operating costs which are short term in nature along with a reserve that is established over some period of time.  This capital expenditure is neither.

I did not convert to RCI as I was concerned that there was some underlying premise why they wanted the unit holders to change.  I challenged the individual on the phone that they had a conversion because the existing contract that they had was not sufficient enough to cover Sunchaser in an event such as this.  This is a company that went through CCAA and the owner just inherited the existing arrangement.  She first said that the two contracts were the same then later mentioned that there were some changes but she would not get into the specifics.  Seemed to me there are some deficiencies in the old contract but I am not a lawyer.

I then asked what happens if I decide to pay my amount and they are not successful on having their forecasted amount of unit holders pay (they just decide to go into default).  Obviously that becomes an increased liability to the existing unit holders so the number they are providing is not a firm number and could be substantially higher.  I asked what they forecasted for the take up and she suggested that she had done this once before with Royal Host and the take up was around 80%.  She would not provide what they have forecasted for Sunchaser and not sure why she wouldn't.  Perhaps it is higher which is just another risk.

I asked about the trading power at Interval and noticed lately that requests that I was able to the get in the past I no longer could get.  The response was that was because of negative customer reviews and even after the renovation is complete it is going to take a couple of years for the trading power to return. Not that comforting.

Lastly, being a little difficult I asked why a unit holder with X amount of years would pay the same amount as another unit holder that converted to a deeded title.  If this business is run properly an annual reserve should be put aside for the next renovation that takes place.  So if that is the case, all the unit holders are funding the next renovation for the unit holders who are now deeded or hold the units into perpetuity.  That means I am paying for a renovation in the future that I may never get any use out of as my time lapses.  Why would one contribute to this kind of arrangement.

I thought I would post the information that I found out for others to see. I am going to have this document reviewed and get a legal opinion on my rights as a unit holder because at the end of the day one can speculate forever what is right and what is wrong.  I am concerned what I will hear back is that contract will be open to interpretation which is neither black and white.  If I knew the amount they were asking for was the amount and nothing more I may consider but that is something they can't guarantee.  So the amount may between $3-4,000 now but may fall out substantially higher.  Who makes an additional investment into something that is a continuing liability with no upside?


----------



## htusa2002

Hi I don't know why you woud ever pay. The Royal Host I am pretty sure is the company affiliated with Banff Gate Lodges and Spa the timeshare where everyone lost all thier money and timeshare because it was a million dollar scam. This is all documented with lawyers over the past 10 years.

You have no paper work or proof of anything. They could take your $4000 and never ever do a renovation and boom suddenly claim bankruptcy. Sounds like a total scam to me, just my opinion.


----------



## bigtares

*Fairmont Renovations*

Skeezics--do you have that facebook link? I could not find it. Does anyone else have a link to any other site where i can get more information on the special assessment? Thanks1


----------



## kahleco

*Default of payment at Sun Chasers*

I have a copy of the original Schedule "H" Vacation Lease. It does not contain any section permitting a special assessment for major renovations. Interestingly enough it contains a detailed provision for Default in paragraph 12 to the effect that anyone defaulting is deemed to have agreed to allow the managing company to lease their unit during the period of default and apply the rental income to the arrears. If the default is not cured within 16 months then you are deemed to have offered to sell the unit back to the Lessor for one half of 1/40 of the original purchase price ammortized over the remaining lease period. There are no other provisions in the default clause. ie. no demant for payment or the using collection agents as they are currently doing. I wonder if the terms of this lease are still in effect? 
This whole mess begs the getting together of a number of interested owners, contibution $100.00, and engaging a law firm to provide a legal opinion.


----------



## tdjanzen

I too have the original lease documents and somehow I suspect that the users that switched over to title ownership will not have the same wording.


----------



## Jjareed

*Lease*

I too have been reviewing my lease.  From the way I understand it is that my lease contract from 1997 should still be in affect.  Paragraph 38 says the lessor reserves the right to modify the lease provided that the lessor gives the lessee notice to changes.  I don not ever remember receiving any notices that the terms of my lease were changing.


----------



## kahleco

*Lease*

When I asked them and mentioned schedule "H" I got a note back saying they were not familiar with that document and wanted me to send them a copy. Makes you wonder!


----------



## TomS

*Fairmont Vacation Villas Sunchaser Time Share - Attorney help with renovation fees*

All, there are many valid points here.  Unfortunately, we are all much stronger as a group rather than individuals.  Here are two attorneys in BC that we are working with fighting Northwynd.

*Contact 1*
Kellie Hamilton, Lawyer
KellieHamiltonLaw.com
Law Corporation
Barrister & Solicitor
Nelson Square
1700 - 808 Nelson Street
Vancouver, BC   Canada V6Z 2H2
Tel: 604-685-7111
Fax: 604-685-7103
mailto:kh@kelliehamiltonlaw.com
http://www.kelliehamiltonlaw.com

*Contact 2*
Geldert Law
930 Seymour Street, Suite 2704
Vancouver, BC, Canada
V6B 1B4
Phone: +1 (778) 330.7775
Fax: +1 (778) 330.7774
info@geldertlaw.com


----------



## Steve Phy

*Check this site*

http://www.northwyndownersassociation.ca/ 

We need to band together.


----------



## kevinjanny

The site looks very similar to Sunchaser's site. Is it a legitimate site for disgruntled owners or something else manufactured by Sunchaser?:annoyed:


----------



## tdjanzen

kevinjanny said:


> The site looks very similar to Sunchaser's site. Is it a legitimate site for disgruntled owners or something else manufactured by Sunchaser?:annoyed:



I was wondering the same thing.  I took the time to register for the site but I do wonder, why would a Owner's Association need my lease number.  At that point, I cancelled the registration.

I would love to hear from others whether or not this is legit.


----------



## kevinjanny

If they want your lease # to register it raises a red flag to me right away. It even has the same colours, font, and pictures as the Sunchaser site. To me it seems as though Sunchaser may be trying to do some damage control, by establishing their own site for owners only, and getting us to vent frustrations there instead of TUG. They may be getting a bit nervous now that lawyers appear to be getting involved. I could be wrong but I guess we'll see what experience other owners have with the website.  I would encourage all owners to contact the legal firms listed in a previous post and see what they have to say, as my in-laws are currently in Fairmont and have not been able to get any answers. As an owner at LOR I'm thinking this is going to be hitting us as well.  Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Steve Phy

I registered without my Lease #.  there were some on that site who were wondering as well.  I say lets band together. I don't care what site it is.  Northwynd is probably following both sites anyway>  Who cares.  We need to organize and go after them as a group.


----------



## LarryEdmonton

I also just entered 1234 for lease no.  

It is obviously real. Join


----------



## tdjanzen

LarryEdmonton said:


> I also just entered 1234 for lease no.
> 
> It is obviously real. Join



I have the same lease number; what's the odds/

It appears that this is another way to hear about other people's frustrations and their plans.  I personally know a few people that have lost their investment in Fairmont Properties and they had commented previously of how they felt that the management company had improperly accounted for a number of items.  It hadn't registered with me that the same folks are now involved with Northwynd.

I hope to contact the Vancouver lawyers tomorrow.

I am just looking for some advice.  Our biennial odd golden week is scheduled for this summer but I don't want to give Northwynd a dime.   I think that even though I pay the 2013 maintenance fee; if I don't pay the assessment amount, they will not allow us to use our week.  So why bother paying the maintenance fee?

Any thoughts?


----------



## kevinjanny

Well my curiosity got the best of me and I signed up too. It seems legit to me. I can't believe how Northwynd has got away with not releasing any audited financial statements to owners for the last 3 years.


----------



## LarryEdmonton

Steve Phy said:


> http://www.northwyndownersassociation.ca/
> 
> We need to band together.



Visit this site and learn results of meeting with Sunchaser.      Writer has been co-opted to support the assessment.  He has a good rationale so this is not meant as a negative comment


----------



## Steve Phy

*Lawyer*

As you can see if you visit the other site, we are seeking legal advice.


----------



## chips1

*LOR*

I am a new member of TUG and its the first time I have used a site like this.
I read some of the comments and am very concerned that there will be a "special assessment" in the near future
I have a LOR week and am in need of getting rid of it, lost my job etc. so i started looking around for information. I have decided to stop paying maintanance fees because of the fee increases and the changes to rules of selling (forced to sign an Acknowledgement of Liability) which effectively holds seller liable for fees not paid by the buyer.
If you have any info you could provide on would be appreciated.


----------



## Missbevy

Quadmaniac said:


> There are no guarantees with any timeshare there won't be renovation project in the future. Its a potential liability with owning a timeshare.
> 
> Instead of paying them $3200, you could always give it away. Worst case, pay the MF and include it as a bonus.


Not a good option to give away or sell... Sunchaser
Has to agree... and in order for the transfer of name 
To go through you have to sign that you are responsible
For the maint. fees if the new owner does not pay them.


----------



## jekebc

I'm new to the TUG site. I also am a Fairmont/Sunchaser timeshare owner that is thoroughly disgusted with the manner current and previous management has dealt with the resort. I have followed this issue on the NorthwyndOwnersAssociation website and the Facebook Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owners Grievance group.
I believe Northwynd are in breach of the lease contract by failing to manage and maintain the resort in a prudent and workmanlike manner. I do not trust Northwynd to properly handle any further funds they receive. I also believe the current cost of maintenance fees is higher than that of a similar quality hotel and that those fees will only go up as the current deficit and the essential repairs are addressed.
It's time to get out. If you agree and are willing to walk away from your investment in exchange for an unconditional release with no further payments to Northwynd, please join our group. Email me at thebelfrys@shaw.ca and I will forward details of our plan of action. We have discussed this plan with a lawyer who advised that he thought we were on the right track.


----------



## JMRink

My husband and I are divorcing and had a buyer for our points at Fairmont until the saskatoon news story and now we SOL


----------



## fedupwithtimeshare

what did your lawyer have to say. Contact me at enplinfoot@yahoo.com Ed


----------



## fedupwithtimeshare

Steve Phy said:


> As you can see if you visit the other site, we are seeking legal advice.



whats did you get from legal advise
enplinfoot@yahoo.com


----------



## jekebc

Do you own a timeshare at Sunchaser Vacation Villas in Fairmont, B.C. and have concerns re the notice of major renovations that will increase the maintenance fees. A group of 30 timeshare owners that share your concerns are working together on a plan of action as to how to deal with Northwynd and the management company for the resort. If you would like to join this group, please email: thebelfrys@shaw.ca for details.


----------



## Steve Phy

fedupwithtimeshare said:


> whats did you get from legal advise
> enplinfoot@yahoo.com



Contact : thebelfrys@shaw.ca  & or thephypers@hotmail.ca


----------



## Duane_Meade

This site is not up


----------



## Meow

Any theories on why the www.northwyndownersassociation.ca website was shut down?


----------



## condomama

*Northwynd Grievance Group*

I emailed one of the participants mid week, and received a reply indicating that there had been an internal disagreement as to how the site was to be run, which led to the website being shut down.  The person indicated that a new website was being developed which would launch if and when a homeowners group was recognized by NW.  So I guess we just have to be patient and see what transpires.


----------



## Meow

Thanks for that update Condomama.  I don't expect that Northwynd will recognize any Owners' group before we are forced into their reno scheme.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Missbevy said:


> Not a good option to give away or sell... Sunchaser
> Has to agree... and in order for the transfer of name
> To go through you have to sign that you are responsible
> For the maint. fees if the new owner does not pay them.



How is it not better ? Sunchaser will transfer when you sign for responsibility if the new owner does not pay. You have the new owner sign a letter saying that they assume responsibility hold you harmless if they fail to pay the maintenance. Better to take a chance on someone taking it over then keeping it yourself.

I sold my Golden season and I did not even worry about getting my buyer to sign a counter protection letter as he was already an owner there. He knew what he was buying and took it over without incident. After he put out $3500, I am comfortable that there won't be an issue.

There is always a chance you could run into someone defaulting, but I would rather take that chance then have to pay $4K and ongoing maintenance. It's better in your mind to be absolutely responsible to pay vs maybe having them come chase you if someone defaults ? I have $3500 in my pocket that could go to any default so I am already ahead of holding on to it. 

Even if I gave it away and the person paid the dues for 3 yrs, am I not still ahead of having been responsible for the assessment and MF for those three years in the worst case scenario ? Let's say just this one year, thats still better than paying it myself. Not seeing your logic in the case how it is not better.


----------



## Duane_Meade

*The scam of scams*

This whole thing is a joke,its time to cut your losses.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Duane_Meade said:


> This whole thing is a joke,its time to cut your losses.



You got that right. That's why I got the heck out of there however I could.


----------



## Meow

According to the Invermere realtor who lists timeshares in his interview on CBC Saskatoon, there is no longer a market for the Fairmont Sunchaser timeshares. You can't sell them or give them away and it would be a cruel joke to will them to someone.  I guess we have to leave room in our coffins to take the lease agreements with us.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Meow said:


> According to the Invermere realtor who lists timeshares in his interview on CBC Saskatoon, there is no longer a market for the Fairmont Sunchaser timeshares. You can't sell them or give them away and it would be a cruel joke to will them to someone.  I guess we have to leave room in our coffins to take the lease agreements with us.



The market is very limited. I was able to sell my gold, but my brother's prime golf was not had any takers yet even though we are giving it away for free, they just pay the transfer fee plus when they can show us the deed has been successfully transferred, we were offering a week's stay in Vegas. Had a few tired kickers but no serious takers yet.

I would try Kijiji and you might have to offer transfer and usage for the year ?


----------



## Duane_Meade

*Everyone out there*

I talked to two Atty today one in New Port Beach CA, one Washington St. This whole thing is a SCAM. The people that you are talking too are not empowered to do anything there job is to get money out of you. Don't send anymore money.


----------



## Velo

*Scam ?*



Duane_Meade said:


> I talked to two Atty today one in New Port Beach CA, one Washington St. This whole thing is a SCAM. The people that you are talking too are not empowered to do anything there job is to get money out of you. Don't send anymore money.




Please clarify who you are referring to, and why, this is confusing.


----------



## Meow

I suspect it is a scam. However, I'm not sure I would rely too much on the legal opinions of attorneys from California and Washington, unless they are well versed in the precedents of B.C. and Canadian contract law.


----------



## Duane_Meade

your right your there ATM


----------



## condomama

Is the sunchaser vacation villas owner grievance and action group facebook page down?


----------



## Duane_Meade

*2012, 2013*

I talked to a person in Invermere today and they told me they received a letter from Sunchaser saying they were starting a new program to cover the cost of maintenance with people that paid there overhead expenses semi annual, it amounted to about $4000 per unit.The next year they would bill the people that paid annually. That works out to $200,000 per unit. They closed the sales so they must 100% occupancy. 
 We haven't been there for about five years because of health issues. They said the condition of the property looked good however they also said Mountain Side sustained a lot of property damage due to a land slide. I wonder how the water system is holding out? They also told me people were trying to get out of the lease/purchase agreements, some were just walking away or used a local Realtor to try to sell. It looks like someone has big problems. They can try to squeeze us all or take the money and run. Closing note RCI Just lost a large class action lawsuit in the States. Sunchaser uses RCI as a timeshare trading partner.


----------



## mmchili

Northwynd Real Estate, the owner of the underlying real estate of Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Fairmont Hot Springs, has estimated a cost of $28 to $38 million, excluding management fees of 15% and HST, to do a "high-level" renovation of the entire resort. This translates to a special assessment of $3,000 to $4,000 per annual timeshare week or $1,500 to $2,000 per bi-annual timeshare week which will be payable monthly at $100per month, interest free.
Regarding the closure of the sales office, the Fairmont office was not closed because it has sold all the timeshare weeks. They have chosen to handle sales differently recognizing that timeshares do not sell very well. Sales will occur by timeshare owners or potential purchasers contacting Northwynd directly rather than Northwynd trying to contact/attract potential purchasers. They propose to sell a conversion contract (from a 40 year lease to perpetual ownership) for $2,000 versus the previous price of $6,000, no indication at this time of the price for a 40 year lease.
There is no effect on Sunchaser because of the land slide/water flood at Mountainside. The repairs are basically complete at this time apart from completing the landscaping. Sunchaser did not incur any damage from the landslide/water flood at Mountainside.
There are several ways for owners to get out of their lease; unfortunately they are very difficult to sell because of the special assessment, the prevailing timeshare market and the high maintenance fees, currently at $950 per annual week. At this time it is very difficult to sell a timeshare week for $1.00, however Northwynd will release someone from their annual week for a sum of approximately $3,145 and for a bi-annual week for approximately $1,600. 
Unfortunately, those who walk away from their lease impose a greater burden on the remaining owners and incur extra costs as Northwynd aggressively peruses collection. It is obvious that Northwynd is not interested in taking back any of the timeshare weeks/leases. It is unfortunate that Sunchaser owners have not provided Northwynd, the owner, or Resort Villa Management (RVM), the resort manager, a lot of feedback regarding the maintenance fees and the high-level renovation estimate and as a result they are working on the understanding that most owners are happy with the situation. The resort has 18,900 leases, of which approximately 14,000 are sold. How many of the 14,000 have called and/or written to Northwynd/RVM to express their dissatisfaction with the fees? According to a survey of the owners, over a year ago, there was no interest in establishing an owners association. So, how do owners try to resolve any issues, such as the annual maintenance fees or the impending special assessment, with Northwynd/RVM? If many owners do not write and do not want an owners association, what happens? The owner/manager does as they see fit.


----------



## Maple_Leaf

*Timeshare governance trumps everything*

The lesson that is taught over and over is if you are considering buying or leasing a timeshare you need to understand the governance structure before you sign on the dotted line.  If you don't understand how the timeshare is governed, RUN!


----------



## Quadmaniac

Maple_Leaf said:


> The lesson that is taught over and over is if you are considering buying or leasing a timeshare you need to understand the governance structure before you sign on the dotted line.  If you don't understand how the timeshare is governed, RUN!



I would bet very few people, even here at TUG, have knowledge of their governance structure of their timeshare? Even so, many management companies make their own rules after the fact as shown here. Well informed "owners" simply are helpless most of the time. Simple fact.


----------



## Meow

Thank you, TSWOW, for setting out the facts of our situation in such a clear and concise fashion.  I agree that all those who have a problem with the way Northwynd are proceeding, should let their feelings be known to Northwynd.  As far as Northwynd knows, the vast majority of unitholders are on side with them.


----------



## RandRseeker

tswow said:


> Northwynd Real Estate, the owner of the underlying real estate of Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Fairmont Hot Springs, has estimated a cost of $28 to $38 million, excluding management fees of 15% and HST, to do a "high-level" renovation of the entire resort. This translates to a special assessment of $3,000 to $4,000 per annual timeshare week or $1,500 to $2,000 per bi-annual timeshare week which will be payable monthly at $100per month, interest free.
> It is unfortunate that Sunchaser owners have not provided Northwynd, the owner, or Resort Villa Management (RVM), the resort manager, a lot of feedback regarding the maintenance fees and the high-level renovation estimate and as a result they are working on the understanding that most owners are happy with the situation. .



I wonder if people got the brochure about the "Exciting changes coming in 2013" and didn't realize that it was going to come with a huge price tag to them?  There really wasn't any mention of how much each unit would have to pay, and I bet once they receive the bill, a lot more owners will be giving some feedback!


----------



## jekebc

To Tswow - sounds as though you are a big fan of Northwynd - An employee or one of the REIT investors trying to get his money back?
Since they took over Northwynd and their associated companies have, in my opinion, failed in their obligation to manage and maintain the resort in a prudent and workmanlike manner. Maintenance Fees have increased by 26% but the state of repair of the resort has deteriorated. Northwynd has spent $3.2 million more than the budget as at Dec 2011 with no authority to do so. From 2009 to 2011 they allowed bad debts in excess of $500 K per year, so much for an aggressive collections. They are allowing owners to terminate their lease for payments of $3,000 +/- but instead of paying those funds towards maintenance fees, are pocketing the money as damages.They failed to produce proper audited financial statements for the past 2 years and are about to miss the March 2012 deadline - what are they hiding? In my opinion, they are simply collecting whatever monies they can, transferring it out of the reach of timeshare owners, and are about to declare bankruptcy, leaving the owners to hold an empty bag. I don't think Northwynd et al can be trusted. Why would you give them more money?


----------



## Duane_Meade

I agree i think everyone should stop paying and see what happens.


----------



## gnorth16

28-38 million for reno's...  Not only is that extremely high, the range is alnmost too wide to be believable.  I stayed at Riverside a few years back and it was nice, not gold crown IMO, but well furnished and nice layouts.  I'm not sure where $200,000 per unit will be applied?  Gold plated appliances????


----------



## fedupwithtimeshare

bigtares said:


> Skeezics--do you have that facebook link? I could not find it. Does anyone else have a link to any other site where i can get more information on the special assessment? Thanks1



Do you own a timeshare at Sunchaser Vacation Villas in Fairmont, B.C. and have concerns re the notice of major renovations that will increase the maintenance fees. A group of 50 timeshare owners that share your concerns are working together on a plan of action as to how to deal with Northwynd and the management company for the resort. If you would like to join this group,contact Jim at thebelfrys@shaw.Ca


----------



## Duane_Meade

just walk away its good money after bad.


----------



## LarryEdmonton

fedupwithtimeshare said:


> Do you own a timeshare at Sunchaser Vacation Villas in Fairmont, B.C. and have concerns re the notice of major renovations that will increase the maintenance fees. A group of 50 timeshare owners that share your concerns are working together on a plan of action as to how to deal with Northwynd and the management company for the resort. If you would like to join this group,contact Jim at thebelfrys@shaw.Ca



Can you quit repeating the same message.  It is not necessary.  Clearly you made your proposal known to those interested


----------



## Quadmaniac

Duane_Meade said:


> I agree i think everyone should stop paying and see what happens.



Tell us how it works out for you. Might not be as simple as you make it out to be as there are consequences.


----------



## Tacoma

Well it's the end of April and I still haven't seen anything from Sunchaser.  Has anyone received official notice of the costs, payment plans etc.?  

Joan


----------



## condomama

Not yet, but all the forthcoming details appear to have been posted on their website under Renovations, including that they are starting with building 800 already.  We await how they will address us personally, though.


----------



## DarkLord

Just got the renovation special assessment bill, it's $4200 with tax.  My first thought was to walk away.  Or maybe I should just ignore it and hope something better will happen.  What do you think?


----------



## LarryEdmonton

You are given the option to walk away subject to a payment for foregone management fees and your share of past deficits 

It looks like they have a good plan to make the Resort an efficient and quality resort

In my view some fair options with the facts clearly laid out on their Webpage


----------



## DarkLord

How much is the cancellation option?  I have 20 years left so let's say 20 years of MF is $20,000.  11% of that is $2,200 and I have one week to use which is worth $1000.  That means the cancellation is only going to cost me $1,200 which might not be too bad.


----------



## RandRseeker

DarkLord said:


> How much is the cancellation option?  I have 20 years left so let's say 20 years of MF is $20,000.  11% of that is $2,200 and I have one week to use which is worth $1000.  That means the cancellation is only going to cost me $1,200 which might not be too bad.



According to the document posted on their website the cancellation option will cost $3,167.51 (based on a two bedroom annual with 20 years remaining MF).  
Also, they provide no assurance beyond May 31st, 2013 that it will not be modified or eliminated in the future as circumstances dictate.


----------



## DarkLord

The cancellation option looks like a cash grab to me.  Assuming I'm on the hook for $4K reno reassessment and I pay them the $3K cancellation.  Minus one year MF the $3K is only $2K to Northwynd.  That means they have to flip my lease to a new buyer for at least $2K ($4K-$2K) to break even.  For a golden lease they might be able to get it.  Both for low season lease, we know they are not worth $2K in recent months.  Plus they need to pay commission, office expense to sell my lease.  Why would Northwynd do it?

They have no intention of running this resort long term, I'm convinced of that.


----------



## Quadmaniac

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it. Let's say people cancel for $3167 vs $4194, you're off the hook and they have the deed. How do they come up with the money for the "reno" ? Who pays the ongoing MF for the deeds turned back in ? Lets assume 30% return their deeds - that's a lot of MF to come up with. So the remaining owners pick that up or the management company ? Who owns the returned deeds or more accurately who is paying the ongoing MF ? Not seeing how this can work.


----------



## KGB_527

*Just got my letter today.*

And I choked.
This group - NORTHWYND is crazy organization.
This is highway robbery. How can these people (MGMT) think, that the current owners will act like a sheep going for the slaughter.

Do they really think, that I will wake up tomorrow and say "I have $2K-$4K spare cash, and I am going to help these "nice guys at NORTHWYND"
And I will only take their word for it, that they will spend it wisely. WOW!!!

Boys and Girls. If you send any money to this group, I think you are better off to send it to me
I know you will never do the latter, but please DO NOT sent your money to NORTHWYND either.

Let's say they really want to manage this property well. How did they arrive to their RENO budget numbers low $28mln > high $38mln?
Who will hold this money, and be accountable to pay for this project as it goes along, as well as inspecting that this job is done on budget, and on time?

Why is there such a spread low/high, can we really trust these numbers? With this big $$$$, how can we ensure that there are no greasy/sticky third party hands waiting for their share?

Let's say that these are LEGIT $$$$ to be spend to get this house in order.
However, do we know if this is the end of their demands, or after few months, or a year they will get on with another PONY project to improve "OUR" resort and will ask again for $2K or more?

These guys are just spending like drunken sailors. I just paid my maintenance fee ~$1,000. Paid my exchange ~$200.00. ENOUGH!!!
And it looks like despite of that, I will not be able to use my resort or go on exchange. 

Let's say we paid our share for this RENO project. What would happen if we have a massive walk-out of 1000 owners? Where will my money go? Will it be returned to people who paid, or go into the sinkhole to be never seen again? With massive walk-out, they will not be able to complete their project.

I really think this house of cards is coming down. It started in 2007-2008 with Fairmont Financial Corp spending huge money on properties in Hawaii, Belize, California, Arizona at the peak of the market. Instead of paying for maintenance, they went on shopping spree with a lot of borrowed money. After the markets collapsed they ended up with OK assets but huge debt.
And that was the beginning of the end of Fairmont. 5 years later we are almost there.

I really think we have to organize, and NOT send them any money.
I do not trust NORTHWYND at all, and I will not throw my good money after bad.

POWER IN PEOPLE!!!

Thank you


----------



## DarkLord

That's right.  I've joined the class action group.  What bugs me is that we, the owners, have no rights, in any of these.  Just because I purchased a TS years ago, I have to do whatever Northwynd tells me too.  It's $4K now and who's to say Northwynd won't come up with one special assessment after another.

No taxation without representation.


----------



## Scammed22

Is that class action group with Jim? We've had Fairmont for 17 years, every year its been our home, its where are children grew up and now they took it from us because of their greed? Canmore pulled this crap and we lost that one also. This time I have no problem giving my money to a lawyer and suing, we are tired of low life scum and now threats to send collections after us!!!!!...let them try.... If they even try to ruin our credit they'll have more problems then they'll know what to do with.  I have no problem with paying my bills....and if they were legit and spent our money the way they should have this wouldn't be happening. If at that point we had to help save our resort because a roof caved in, then thats different. But living the life of Riley and ripping people off is not sitting well with me. No judge is going to allow these low life’s to threaten and destroy peoples life’s because they didn't manage this resort  properly. The people need to be protected.
 Oh this has changed timeshares all over... forever. Good Job Fairmont!


----------



## DarkLord

Scammed22, yes, it's Jim's group and I'm recruiting other owners to join.  I don't know if Northwynd can legitiimately levy the assessment on us, and I don't know if Norhtwynd can legitimately relieve us of future obligation with the cancel option.  Frankly, I don't think Northwynd is legitimate at all.  Most owners are furious of the significant increase in MF already and this one will push them over the cliff.

Considering some owners bought a used lease for $1000 and you levy a $4000 assessment on them, good luck to expect them to pay up.  And some of these owners could be in US or some far flung places, good luck if Northwynd tries to force it down our throat with law suits.  Even if the reno is legit, there's not way this could work.  

If this is legit, Northwynd will take out a loan and maybe add $100 or so every year on the MF to make this work.  Their high hand approache just reaffirm my belieft that this is a scam through and through.  They just wanted to grab the cash and make off.


----------



## dorchyz

*New Program*

The new program is a new cost to timeshare owners,,over $2000.00 one time fee to be used for renovations.  Not sure what this new Northwynd company has done with all our fees for the past 3 years, but there's got to be something illegal to all of this.  Anyone have any legal advice on how to get out of paying for this or even better, get out of our condo ownership?


----------



## dorchyz

Are we considered owners of shares?  If we are, should there not have been a proxy sent out for us to either approve or disapprove of this renovation maintenance fee?  Can the board just legally come up with stuff and submit "owners" to their horrible choices?


----------



## Phew

The website contains all the information including the option for cancelling the leases including the cost to do so. In the event leases are cancelled and depending on the numbers chosing the option the plan outlined is to restructure to a smaller resort that appears to be right sized for the number of owners remaining. They do appear to have a plan which seems to be accepted by the courts. Worth reading and considering options. While I don't like the idea of paying to get out it seems reasonable in terms of fairness to all timeshare owners, including those who stay.


----------



## DarkLord

Phew said:


> While I don't like the idea of paying to get out it seems reasonable in terms of fairness to all timeshare owners, including those who stay.



This might be the case of a not-for-profit condo board.  But Northwynd, the owner of these properties are here for a profit.  So why should people pay to get out?


----------



## dorchyz

It's pretty lousy business if you have to go onto a website to see what's going on with your investment and how they've come up with demanding owners pay $2-4k on top of maintenance fees.  They haven't been responsible enough to send out financial reports for years (probably since they've taken over the property).  

And why should I feel good about helping those who decide to stay?  Why shouldn't they feel bad about me having to pay when I can't afford to?  Isn't it enough that my investment has been beaten down to $0 and now I need to feel responsible to the other owners who want to stay by paying $2-4k?   Hmmm, am I missing something?


----------



## DarkLord

dorchyz said:


> They haven't been responsible enough to send out financial reports for years (probably since they've taken over the property).



Exactly.  I knew people who bought retail at the tail end and now their $20K-$30K investment has evaporated into nothingness all thanks to the steward of Northwynd for the last 3 years.  And we are supposed to give Northwynd more of our money?

Every since Northwynd took over, they tried to push those conversion or RCI points down our throats for more money.  And when that failed, it's the reno assessement or cancel option, cash grab all the same.  All they have every done is to seperate us from our cash.  They are no intention of managing the property other than to make a quick buck.


----------



## Phew

Just for the record. Audited statements to 2011 are on the website. Reality is the agreement signed is binding. Doesn't mean you can't walk but if you do you may be pursued for payment including interest - if they get a judgement they can take action to collect including liens on other property as well as other possibilities for collection.  Get a legal opinion if you wish but it looks like it is what people agreed to wether they understood it or not. I know it sucks but I think I'll pay to get out and put it behind me as a good lesson learned and warn everyone not to buy a timeshare. AND I am OK with people being in something for profit - it makes the world go round in my opinion. Do whatever you think is best for you


----------



## DarkLord

You can contract Kellie Hamilton Law Firm to join the Fairmont Timeshare class action (scroll down to the bottom).

http://kelliehamiltonlaw.com/


----------



## Skeezics_100

*Facebook Link*



fedupwithtimeshare said:


> Do you own a timeshare at Sunchaser Vacation Villas in Fairmont, B.C. and have concerns re the notice of major renovations that will increase the maintenance fees. A group of 50 timeshare owners that share your concerns are working together on a plan of action as to how to deal with Northwynd and the management company for the resort. If you would like to join this group,contact Jim at thebelfrys@shaw.Ca



I'm sorry but I don't have that Facebook link.  An owner from Saskatchewan contacted me and told me about the facebook page but when I went to look for it I couldn't find it either.  And unfortunately his number was erased from my phone.  If he contacts me again, I'll definately post it!!

Oops I quoted the wrong question.......I'm not very good at this!!

But for those who were asking about the Facebook link.......


----------



## RealCat

Just received my renovation billing.  Can you tell me are we banding together with one or both of these lawyers to do something about this?  

Thank you for this information


----------



## condomama

Apart from all else going on, I haven't seen mentioned something very basic to consider regarding the buyout dollars.  'Way back then', we all entered into a contract with Fairmont to purchase our timeshare, similar to a cell phone, health club, or any other kind of contract.  We know that to break any contract, it will cost the purchaser penalty dollars, and the penalty is not usually discretionary or negotiable.  So I can't see us winning that argument.....


----------



## Scammed22

I've hopped on the bandwagon and contacted the law firm, and if you’re a victim you should too! I've paid my high maintenance fees for a five star resort and have got nothing but harassed for money money money in the last years since the change over, when we try to go away to relax as a family. The stress this company is causing is unacceptable and an example should be made.  

We should have a spokesperson to contact the news media so the public is aware of what is going on, as well as owners knowing their rights.


----------



## rustyp

*Fairmont/Sunchaser/Northwynd Renovations*

I received this information from a lawyer who has reviewed the documents filed by Sunchaser/Northmont Resort Properties LTD. with the Supreme Court of British Columbia.  This document was included with the bill from them for the new renovations.  This is what the lawyer had to say:

Your legal obligations are covered exclusively by the contract(s) you have signed. To that end, owing to the vague language in the various time-share contracts, Northwynd has initiated a court application in an attempt to confirm its ability to do two things:

1.	Unilaterally amend the time-share agreements to allow them to charge owners/lease-holders for their desired renovations; and,

2.	To unilaterally transfer portions of the properties currently available to owners/lease-holders outside of the Resort.

What this is really about then is their attempt to obtain court sanctioned permission to effect unilateral changes to their contractual relationship with each owner/lease-holder. It is a risky proposition however, because should they fail to do so they will not have the legal standing to effect what they are currently proposing to do. 

In other words, if this is approved our old contract will not protect us from whatever changes or charges that Northwynd wishes to impose on us as owners.

Mr. Geldert is advising every owner/lease-holder to prepare submissions in reply to this court application. He is also advising that our firm be provided an opportunity to review those submissions to ensure they are ready to be filed with the court and served on Northwynd. Full copies of the associated court documents can be obtained on the Sunchaservillas.ca website should you wish to review the entire package of documents. We encourage all of you to contact a lawyer of your choice or Mr. Geldert (whose contact info is in this site already).


----------



## rustyp

condomama said:


> Apart from all else going on, I haven't seen mentioned something very basic to consider regarding the buyout dollars.  'Way back then', we all entered into a contract with Fairmont to purchase our timeshare, similar to a cell phone, health club, or any other kind of contract.  We know that to break any contract, it will cost the purchaser penalty dollars, and the penalty is not usually discretionary or negotiable.  So I can't see us winning that argument.....



This issue was addressed earlier in the blogs where a section of the contract was quoted. It basically says that if you fail to meet your payment requirements for 16 months, then the unit reverts to Sunchaser (the owner). There is absolutely nothing about buyout dollars in my contract. They seem to be changing the rules to their benefit whenever they want with no consultation with owners. These folks are worth being wary of. If they raise the 28 + million dollars, I would think they could build all new buildings....where will all this money go?


----------



## rustyp

Phew said:


> The website contains all the information including the option for cancelling the leases including the cost to do so. In the event leases are cancelled and depending on the numbers chosing the option the plan outlined is to restructure to a smaller resort that appears to be right sized for the number of owners remaining. They do appear to have a plan which seems to be accepted by the courts. Worth reading and considering options. While I don't like the idea of paying to get out it seems reasonable in terms of fairness to all timeshare owners, including those who stay.



Hey Phew, this matter has not yet been through the Courts - a hearing is scheduled for June of 2013. What they are doing (sending us bills) right now has no legal sanction. It's just what they want to happen if there is no opposition at the Court hearing. Seems that they are getting ahead of themselves by sending us bills now.


----------



## Soccer Canada

So what seems to be the consensus? Don't pay it and wait for the courts to sort it all out?
Do you think that Northwynd would be as so bold as to send Collection Agencies out after the money? From the sounds of it most are not willing to pay?

Robb


----------



## KGB_527

Phew said:


> Just for the record. Audited statements to 2011 are on the website. Reality is the agreement signed is binding. Doesn't mean you can't walk but if you do you may be pursued for payment including interest - if they get a judgement they can take action to collect including liens on other property as well as other possibilities for collection.  Get a legal opinion if you wish but it looks like it is what people agreed to wether they understood it or not. I know it sucks but I think I'll pay to get out and put it behind me as a good lesson learned and warn everyone not to buy a timeshare. AND I am OK with people being in something for profit - it makes the world go round in my opinion. Do whatever you think is best for you



Phew

What agreement??? As I understand my contract there is nothing, that says if I want to walk-out I owe them anything. I just paid my regular maintenance fee.
For their PIPE-DREAMS they can pay out of their own pockets, with their own money. This is a major project, that should have been first voted on and should have got approval of at least 66.6%. Did anybody get anything, about them considering such a major project? Was anybody asked to vote on it - NO. This idea was borne by STEALTH, and they are trying to deliver as such.
All it does I believe will cause massive walk-out. Their will not be winners here. They will loose this property and their reputation, and we will loose our rights to use and enjoy as well. So, please DO NOT try to spread fear on this forum. There is nothing to fear. Unless you are one of them.


----------



## Dorferman

*Legal Contacts*



DarkLord said:


> You can contract Kellie Hamilton Law Firm to join the Fairmont Timeshare class action (scroll down to the bottom).
> 
> http://kelliehamiltonlaw.com/



The email address for Ms. Hamilton on her site does not work. Could you or someone else please provide me with contact information for her or the other lawyer? This thread is getting long and will get longer. I see it as absolutely essential that we all get under one flag here. 
Addendum: It looks like this one from the very bottom of her page might work: khamilton@kelliehamiltonlaw.com


----------



## Dorferman

*Correct*



KGB_527 said:


> Phew
> 
> What agreement??? As I understand my contract there is nothing, that says if I want to walk-out I owe them anything. I just paid my regular maintenance fee.
> For their PIPE-DREAMS they can pay out of their own pockets, with their own money. This is a major project, that should have been first voted on and should have got approval of at least 66.6%. Did anybody get anything, about them considering such a major project? Was anybody asked to vote on it - NO. This idea was borne by STEALTH, and they are trying to deliver as such.
> All it does I believe will cause massive walk-out. Their will not be winners here. They will loose this property and their reputation, and we will loose our rights to use and enjoy as well. So, please DO NOT try to spread fear on this forum. There is nothing to fear. Unless you are one of them.




You are definitely on the right wave length here. This is the opening salvo of a larger plot to extort money from us to achieve a larger, more profitable purpose for the principals. Their "budget" is shaky at best and if we line up like sheep and pay their invoice it is highly probable that there will be more and larger invoices as many people will not pay.


----------



## Dorferman

Soccer Canada said:


> So what seems to be the consensus? Don't pay it and wait for the courts to sort it all out?
> Do you think that Northwynd would be as so bold as to send Collection Agencies out after the money? From the sounds of it most are not willing to pay?
> 
> Robb



I do not believe any of us should pay anything here until we get as many of us as possible under one flag with these lawyers. Northwynd is being strategic about this and clearly wants to set themselves up to suck even more money out of the place going forward.


----------



## Scammed22

When Baff Mountain Gates went under in Canmore they did the same thing, they sent bills...some unfortunately paid them we didn't. In the end we all lost our timeshare.


----------



## Soccer Canada

Here is my concern (and I have yet to hear back from the lawyer suggested here, so this is all purely speculation).
We all are going to have to pay a lawyer some sort of sum of money, I am going to hazard a guess and assume that sum will be fairly equal to the $2000ish bill I just got in the mail from Resort Villa Management. So we pay a lawyer and lose, and now we are stuck with a $4000 bill or more? I am also worried that the idiots at Northwynd put things into collections and screw all of our credit ratings that don't pay, and unfortunately in my earlier years I have some knowledge of Collection Agencies and the laws that govern them in Canada (Alberta specifically) and the fact is the consumer has no rights when it comes to a collection here..

Robb


----------



## DarkLord

One big thing is missing here and I know a few people who went through big ticket ondo reno assessment, there's always financing option and it's usually done by the condo board for the whole project.  Not too many people can 4G with 30 day notice.

I'm telling you guys there's no way this reno is legit.  From the ferociousness of Northwynd asking us for cash to the passive agreesive threat they lay out means one and only one thing, they are just after our cash.  I don't think a sales office the size of Northwynd has the manpower or the know how to manage a $30M-$40M project.  These are all just sales people who know nothing about construction.

We are only give two options, folk out $4K or folk out $3.2K to cancel plus one year of MF of $800 which equals $4K just the same.  Does it strike you as coincident that the two numbers are the same?

Paying them off today won't solve the problem of tomorrow for I don't see them owning Fairmont a few years down the road.  The new owner of Fairmont might just levy another $4K on us.


----------



## Dorferman

*Lawyer's Fees*



Soccer Canada said:


> Here is my concern (and I have yet to hear back from the lawyer suggested here, so this is all purely speculation).
> We all are going to have to pay a lawyer some sort of sum of money, I am going to hazard a guess and assume that sum will be fairly equal to the $2000ish bill I just got in the mail from Resort Villa Management. So we pay a lawyer and lose, and now we are stuck with a $4000 bill or more? I am also worried that the idiots at Northwynd put things into collections and screw all of our credit ratings that don't pay, and unfortunately in my earlier years I have some knowledge of Collection Agencies and the laws that govern them in Canada (Alberta specifically) and the fact is the consumer has no rights when it comes to a collection here..
> 
> Robb



These are legitimate concerns Robb. I have not spoken to the lawyer yet either but if this is a class action there will be no fees. They get a percentage from success or nothing. 

As for collections, this is the point to having two hundred of us and an appropriate supreme court ruling. Then they cannot act. 

But you know what? If you are worried, I would go ahead and pay. Resting easy is more important than a few thousand dollars.


----------



## Phew

KGB and others - sorry if you interpret that I am trying to spread fear as it is not my intent. THis whole mess is frustrating. THe agreement I refer to is the purchase agreement in whatever form it was at the time we purchased. I agree it is arguable wether they can assess major reno costs as they are trying to do. There is one legal  opinion they obtained that they can but in the end the court will decide. Unfortunately it is difficult for owners to get together because we do not know each other and have no easy way of organizing. Will try to contact the lawyer listed to ask my questions and determine my course of action.


----------



## Quadmaniac

rustyp said:


> This issue was addressed earlier in the blogs where a section of the contract was quoted. It basically says that if you fail to meet your payment requirements for 16 months, then the unit reverts to Sunchaser (the owner). There is absolutely nothing about buyout dollars in my contract. They seem to be changing the rules to their benefit whenever they want with no consultation with owners. These folks are worth being wary of. If they raise the 28 + million dollars, I would think they could build all new buildings....where will all this money go?



Does anyone have a PDF scan of the documents ? Resale owners never had any of these documents, so it would be good to post them if someone has scanned them ?

Thanks


----------



## Phew

Quadmaniac said:


> Does anyone have a PDF scan of the documents ? Resale owners never had any of these documents, so it would be good to post them if someone has scanned them ?
> 
> Thanks



Look at the Sunchaser website at the court filed documents - there are four different versions from different time periods included in the petitions to the court , the first being from 1992 I believe and up to the most recent.


----------



## Marusj

*I am chocked...*

I am reading all the posts and considering my options and the more I read the more convinced I am that this is a scam. Nobody mentioned this previously but I found information that they have sold there 14900 shares, and they are charging us all the "renovation" fee. I did very quick and "dirty" calculations. I assumed that not all people own the full share and there are some owning just the bi-annual timeshare. Considering that the full owners pay between $4000 and $4400, and bi-annuals are paying between $1800 and $2300, I assumed average "renovation" fee at $3000 (and I think this is the low end), and multiplied it by the number of leases (14900) and I got almost $45 millions...Whoa, nice chunk of money...it is much more than their requirements for the reno...I am inclined to less and less trust them. Crappy situation. Best of luck to all of us!


----------



## Dorferman

*Good Work*

Yes, I did some similar mathematics - bravo! If it talks like a rat....

The problem with paying these people anything is that it is just like paying a blackmailer. You can never be sure that it is the final payment. 

Personally, I am holding off writing cheque(s) until we avail ourselves of legal advice, hopefully from one or both of these class action lawyers. I see considerable benefit to us acting in as much concert as possible.

If I were a betting man, I would bet that this whole thing is going to go under and our timeshares with it (a la the one in Canmore). Sadly, that may be the best possible outcome for everyone.


----------



## Scammed22

A concern >>>there are two lawyers mentioned on this form...I think we should all have the same one. I contacted Jim by email and contacted http://kelliehamiltonlaw.com/ hope to get answers by next week. No point in having different lawyers...... Stronger by the numbers.


----------



## Dorferman

*Lawyers*

I agree unless they are working very closely together.


----------



## Aussie girl

I sent an email last week to the law firm, but have yet to hear anything back.


----------



## RandRseeker

Dorferman said:


> These are legitimate concerns Robb. I have not spoken to the lawyer yet either but if this is a class action there will be no fees. They get a percentage from success or nothing.




I have no knowledge of how class actions work, but I do believe that the lawyer would get paid out of any money that is recovered through the court case.  If the owners are simply trying to avoid paying the renovation fees and not really suing for any money, then who will pay the lawyers in this case?  (sorry if I am not understanding )

As much as I hate to do it, I think that paying the buy out cost is in my best interest.  I have a feeling that this reno will go ahead no matter what, and that in the end the remaining owners will pay - either through this assessment or through increased maintenance fees.  

I have had enough of Fairmont and the escalating annual maintenance fees, and it appears that I won't even be able to give my unit away.


----------



## cmg

*Sunchaser Scam!*

This whole Sunchaser timeshare proposal stinks. They have now applied to the BC Supreme Court to modify the terms of the Timeshare trust document to give them the right to remove land and buildings from the resort trust if the property is no longer subject to a timeshare interest. So here is how I see it working:
1. Sunchaser sends you a big renovation bill which effectively forces you to surrender your timeshare interest and pay the inflated cancellation fee. The only way to force you to sell is to hit you with a bill over which you have no control. This opens up the opportunity for them to remove property from the trust.
2. Since you are out, Sunchaser can move the resort lands, held in trust for the timeshare owner, out to themselves. This assumes they will be granted this right on June 20, 2013, the scheduled hearing date.
3. They then sell the units (removed from the trust) as apartments, strata units or they tear them down, subdivide the land into residential lots and sell them at a premium as golf course lots. They make a ton of money.
4. The remaining timeshare owners are forced in to a building of no commecial value for their time share week.
5. The timeshare owners are spoon fed whatever Sunchaser decides to give them. They have no control over the maintenance fees or what they get for their money. So eventually they elect to surrender their timeshare week as well.
6. Well look at that. Sunchaser now owns all the lands and buildings and got you to pay again to get out of something of value that you owned and paid for. They got you to pay them to take your land and buildings away from you. Isn't that a great scam! 

Face it. Sooner or later Sunchaser will force you will surrender your timeshare interest. They want the land!! So the only issue is really the cancellation fee.
I think we should launch a lawsuit challenging the cancellation fee since they are already getting our land and buildings when we cancel. Should we have to pay them cash on top of this??


----------



## TravellinMom

*Scam?*

Has anyone googled - Deloitte, Kirk Wankel, Fair Sky Resources and Canadian Western Bank? Interesting reading.

There is a Kirk Wankel, CFO on the Dec 10 2012 letter from Sunchaser Villas.  Same person?  

The northwyndownersassociation.ca does not work (under construction).


----------



## Prairie Girl

*Sunchaser Scammers!*

Contact Mr. Belfry.  His e-mail is listed here.  He has 92 people signed so far to challenge this.

My fear is after they collect all the cancellation money they will then file for bankruptcy as took place several years ago at Canmore!


----------



## DarkLord

Suprised no one brought this up:

Seems like this reno game is the favorite game Northwynd plays.

http://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=17251

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/rancho-banderas-c3151.html

http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopi...as-Puerto_Vallarta_Pacific_Coast.html#6019510


----------



## Chilliaces

*SCAM*

Was Northwynd the owner of that defunked Canmore property?


----------



## Jaded_Owner

*They want us to leave (after they take our money of course)*

In reading the posted doccuments on the Sunchaser website, Page 7 point 8 of the following doccument...

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Matkin-Affidavit-sworn-April-15-2013.pdf

...states that they need 66.67% of the vote to make the required changes to the collective contracts, so they NEED as many of the owners to leave as possible as they then gain control of those votes.

There is also a big difference between repairs to foundations and plumbing, and a full scale gut and renovation. How is it they can impose this assessment for a full scale renovation (a capital improvement to their asset) without consulting the owners on the design and plan, and without receiving 66.67% of the vote in favour..

We didnt even know this was happening until we received our letter in the mail...didnt even get the brochure some have mentioned.


----------



## Wendy T

*How the rich get richer.*

I just opened our "Renovation Project Fee" envelope this morning.  OMG these guys have played us for suckers.  First, my husband and I and my brother and his wife were stupid enough to fall for the conversion from a 40 year contract to a life lease-what they called the "Legacy for Life"-, meaning we paid close to $5000.00-mistake!!  Now we likely "own" either nothing or a whole lot of debt.  What a legacy!  This is so upsetting as in the past we have enjoyed our timeshare ownership in Fairmont, and we exchanged for many beautiful properties. We encouraged others to buy timeshares as it was working so well for us.  We certainly never saw the wolf around the corner. Increasingly we have not been able to access exchanges that we would like, and we have not been able to book into Fairmont either. How does that work when you can not actually stay at your home resort???  Now they want a considerable amount of more money from us (we have a gold annual and a biannual prime).  The maintenance fees have climbed every year (over the cost of living by a considerable amount), but the quality of our experiences as decreased.  Our "renovation" bill is $6400.00 and that's on top of the maintenance fees that we just paid that were $2000.00. Pretty clear that this would be a game that they would pull every few years. Not a chance we can afford this as we getting close to our retirement years.   We also had to pay to renew our RCI membership.  On top of all that even though they want your RCI membership paid in advance, they changed the date that they post our available points from the beginning of the year to the 1st of June.  From reading all these postings, it is clear that this a scam-I don't think any of should pay either, we will just continue to be victims.  I have email both lawyers.  See where this all goes I guess.


----------



## isabela60

*Fairmont Scam??*

We are also outraged of this situation! We know they are upgrading/renovating the resort on ongoing basis, but isn't it that's why we pay high cost of maintenance fees? What happened to the reserve fund? This is totally poor management, poor tactics and they are making us time share owners to pay for all of these mess. If we stay and pay the reno fees, does it guarantee us that it will never happen again?? It is so hard to trust these people again!! And how could you swallow the option of leaving but you have to pay a lot of money?? Cmon', stop milking us! We earn for a living too, we can't just give away money just like that!


----------



## DaveO

*Scam!*

Northwynd is a scam!! In order to even pay the fees they're requesting that you agree that they can #1 change your contract at anytime and #2 that they can move the "lesser" value villas out so that they can give them to themselves!! What a SCAM!!! This must be a sick joke!! I love their wording when they explain they "must" do this in order to save the resort.

We must make a stand against Northwynd as they have already ran this scam and got away with it in Mexico with Rancho Banderas, villas were giving to ex-Fairmont employees as part of their termination package. I can see the villas they're looking to remove from the resort going to these same individuals once they fold up fairmont as soon as they collect some of the 9.5 million they're trying to collect from all of us owners in the form of "Management Fees" for their 45 million dollar moon landing project!! 

This is not a joke if they win that hearing in June we all lose our timeshares + MONEY!!

DO NOT SEND NORTHWYND ANY MONEY, they're in breach of the contract you signed with them!! If you do you are agreeing to the terms in the letter they sent of #1 change your contract at anytime and #2 that they can move the "lesser" value villas out  so that they can give them to themselves!!

Please do yourself and every owner at Fairmont a favor and contact thebelfrys@shaw.ca, he has many people that are going to contest Northwynd and you should join before it's to late!


----------



## twoofus

*Feeling duped*

Having received our 'Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay' package in the mail, and being alerted to this forum by friends (fellow victims) and reading the various comments ...we have sent an email to both the 'thebelfrys@shaw.ca' and the www.kelliehamiltonlaw.com firm to 'sign up' with both as interested parties in the class action suit.  We will be anxiously awaiting some word from either or both of them.

Contacting the Resort Villa Managment Company would be to us like entering the devils lair.  We have lost all trust in corresponding with this company.

Thankfully there is this forum for us to participate in, even just to vent.  We will post whatever information or guidance we receive from either of the contacts mentioned above.


----------



## jekebc

*Unable to assist more Owners*

message from the belfrys.
I have been completely swamped by contacts from almost 300 owners such that I simply ca't keep up with responses. Regrettably I must turn away new contacts and can offer little advice other than to seek legal counsel. My understanding is both lawyers that are involved -Kellie Hamilton and Michael Geldert are also swamped and not taking new clients.
The most important is to make a submission to the scheduled hearing before the May 31 deadline. It requires an affidavit, so best to use your own legal counsel to submit Form 67 (BC courts website).
Please consider not paying any monies to Northwynd pending the June 20 hearing. Remember you can be in arrears for up to 90 days before they can take action to terminate your timeshare. If they have already breached the terms of the lease do they have the right to enforce collection action?
Best wishes to all
Jim Belfry


----------



## Judythreetimes

Fairever said:


> I had a long conversation with the person at Vacation Services who had no clue on the questions that I was asking so I was passed on to someone at Project Developments who previously worked at Royal Host.
> 
> Firstly, I questioned where in my contract a capital expenditure such that they are proposing would be allowed.  Under the clause of Special Assessments it is not covered and in the clause Operating Costs and Reserve for Refurbishing they believe this expenditure is covered.  Quite frankly a reserve is something that is created over a period of time.  They are funds that are earmarked by a firm from its retained earnings for future use. The clause talks about the refurbishment of the villas but no specific mention to capital expenditures as suggested.  Seems to me that there should be a capital expenditure clause and it does not exist. They are confusing operating costs which are short term in nature along with a reserve that is established over some period of time.  This capital expenditure is neither.
> 
> I did not convert to RCI as I was concerned that there was some underlying premise why they wanted the unit holders to change.  I challenged the individual on the phone that they had a conversion because the existing contract that they had was not sufficient enough to cover Sunchaser in an event such as this.  This is a company that went through CCAA and the owner just inherited the existing arrangement.  She first said that the two contracts were the same then later mentioned that there were some changes but she would not get into the specifics.  Seemed to me there are some deficiencies in the old contract but I am not a lawyer.
> 
> I then asked what happens if I decide to pay my amount and they are not successful on having their forecasted amount of unit holders pay (they just decide to go into default).  Obviously that becomes an increased liability to the existing unit holders so the number they are providing is not a firm number and could be substantially higher.  I asked what they forecasted for the take up and she suggested that she had done this once before with Royal Host and the take up was around 80%.  She would not provide what they have forecasted for Sunchaser and not sure why she wouldn't.  Perhaps it is higher which is just another risk.
> 
> I asked about the trading power at Interval and noticed lately that requests that I was able to the get in the past I no longer could get.  The response was that was because of negative customer reviews and even after the renovation is complete it is going to take a couple of years for the trading power to return. Not that comforting.
> 
> Lastly, being a little difficult I asked why a unit holder with X amount of years would pay the same amount as another unit holder that converted to a deeded title.  If this business is run properly an annual reserve should be put aside for the next renovation that takes place.  So if that is the case, all the unit holders are funding the next renovation for the unit holders who are now deeded or hold the units into perpetuity.  That means I am paying for a renovation in the future that I may never get any use out of as my time lapses.  Why would one contribute to this kind of arrangement.
> 
> I thought I would post the information that I found out for others to see. I am going to have this document reviewed and get a legal opinion on my rights as a unit holder because at the end of the day one can speculate forever what is right and what is wrong.  I am concerned what I will hear back is that contract will be open to interpretation which is neither black and white.  If I knew the amount they were asking for was the amount and nothing more I may consider but that is something they can't guarantee.  So the amount may between $3-4,000 now but may fall out substantially higher.  Who makes an additional investment into something that is a continuing liability with no upside?



We are curently in a dispute with Sunchaser. To say we feel we have been totally mislead and downright lied to is an understatement. So that I am not repeating what you are doing, could you please respond? It would be very appreciated. I am so angry  right now. Thank you!


----------



## Judythreetimes

My husband and I will happily join any class action law suit!! We are so angry right now. They have screwed with us since we bought this. In fact I would say,  they downright lied and totally misrepresented this time share!!


----------



## Judythreetimes

*Pissed of with Sunchaser*



Scammed22 said:


> A concern >>>there are two lawyers mentioned on this form...I think we should all have the same one. I contacted Jim by email and contacted http://kelliehamiltonlaw.com/ hope to get answers by next week. No point in having different lawyers...... Stronger by the numbers.



We want to add our name to the list of growing pissed off time share owners.
We are going on a 2 week road trip, leaving Friday, but you can call my cell any time 780-404-7594 Thank you! I am so happy to have found this forum!


----------



## Judythreetimes

How can they get away with this? There is nothing in the original contract. I refuse to pay an extra $1600 to them, for them to buy us out???? It makes no sense!! I am really looking forward to reading the Financial Statement that supposedly will be on line in June. I will believe it when I see it. In the meantime I am going to warn anybody and everybody to stay away from Sunchaser. I am also emailing  RCI my displeasure with their association with this rip off.


----------



## isabela60

KellieHamilton responded fairly quickly! We are joining this class action lawsuit!


----------



## AbeJ

hello all, what a mess, just got my "offer" by mail 2 days ago and had heard nothing of this prior. I am confused by jekebc's post Mar 11 saying no new clients and the one I've tagged saying Keelie replied. I emailed Keelie yesterday and today called and voicemail is full, and website has been changed to remove previous "Fairmont" link. if she is still at it then great hope I hear back. emailed belfrys but just now so not sure what's current there.  any other suggestions appreciated !!


----------



## AbeJ

and not to get fragmented lawyers as some suggested against, but if anyone has a lawyer in Edmonton region who has been in this, I'd appreciate knowing of such. would rather join a larger collection, but worst case, don't want to start from zero ... Thanks


----------



## Cdnpt

AbeJ said:


> and not to get fragmented lawyers as some suggested against, but if anyone has a lawyer in Edmonton region who has been in this, I'd appreciate knowing of such. would rather join a larger collection, but worst case, don't want to start from zero ... Thanks



I live in Pennsylvania and just got my notice in the mail today. Unfortunately it looks like I too am too late to sign up with either of the lawyers involved.  If anyone else knows of an alternative law firm handling this situation please let me know.


----------



## CindyD

*New program coming for fairmont*

We have met with our lawyer and gave him all the paper work and he has written a letter recommending we pay the fee to surrender in the Resort and should comply within the recommended time period.

Would like to hear if anyone else has received simiular legal advise

Thank you


----------



## KandyApple

While I share concerns about the ability of Northwynd to continue into the future there are a couple points I would like to make.
1.  I own a similar timeshare unit at Meadow Lake and the annual maintenance fees are virtually the same as the ones at Fairmont.  I only purchased at Fairmont a couple years ago so I can't help but think that maybe the owners that are complaining about such a large increase in fees have contributed to the problem.  Granted the previous resort managers must have completely mismanaged the resort, they should have been collecting more maintenance fees to make sure the necessary upgrades were done on an ongoing basis.
2.  If Northwynd was going to run with our money why are they giving us 4 years interest free to pay the Reno fee?  I am sure if they tried to abscond with the funds they would not be all that successful in sueing me for uncollected amounts.
Maybe I am a bit naive but I am not as upset by their proposal as many here are.  

It seems clear that the resort needs upgrading and no reserve exists.  Whether Northwynd is trying to scam us is pretty much speculation, if I opt for the $100 a month I will have a year or so to see whether they do or not.


----------



## Dorferman

*Do Not Pay (Yet or Ever)*

If you look at the last few pages of this site and links you will get a flavor for what is happening here. There is no lessee/owner board here so we timeshare holders are not parties to the run down of this place. We have been reliant upon information from Sunchaser which has just now burst upon us with these massive renovation plans. Their real plan is to drive all of us out and then redevelop the property with your $100/month and other monies they extort from other "owners" and timeshare lessees. Your money will help finance their battle against the rest of us.


----------



## Spark1

htusa2002 said:


> HI-does anyone know what the new program they are launching for the old time owners at Fairmont/Sunchaser villas for 2013? The woman at office says they will be doing some new program for owners that have been there a while right away?





CindyD said:


> We have met with our lawyer and gave him all the paper work and he has written a letter recommending we pay the fee to surrender in the Resort and should comply within the recommended time period.
> 
> Would like to hear if anyone else has received simiular legal advise
> 
> Thank you[/QUOhTE]


----------



## CindyD

Thanks for the tip, we will stay tuned to see what deveolps


----------



## Spark1

CindyD said:


> We have met with our lawyer and gave him all the paper work and he has written a letter recommending we pay the fee to surrender in the Resort and should comply within the recommended time period.
> 
> Would like to hear if anyone else has received simiular legal advise
> 
> Thank you



Your lawyer is giving you bad advice. The court case allowing Northwyn to charge these high renovation fees will not be through the court until June 20/2013. Northwyn is trying to get the worthless timeshare people to build them a new resort. Hire khamilton@kelliehamiltonlaw.com


----------



## THE AVENGER

There are several questions that have been bothering me regarding the Fairmont situation that we are all affected by.
1.	 Who are we dealing with? 
As I understand it!
Several years ago (6 or 7) we were offered an investment opportunity by a group from Fairmont called FRPL (Fairmont Resort Properties Limited) which promised to pay 12% on our investment.  The key presenter of the scheme was Ed Nochalt.  Colin Knight was there as well as others of the Fairmont group.  We never invested but several people invested large sums into this plan.  Some I know personally invested $100,000-$150,000 and much more.  Interest payments were made for a few months then stopped.  When Fairmont went into receivership, several of these investors (whom I know personally), formed a company called Northwynd and took over the assets of Fairmont.  They knew nothing about running a timeshare company so left the same administration in place (who had run it into the ground by skimming large sums into their pockets).
These investors (Northwynd), have devised a scheme (using a very clever lawyer) to recover some of their investment.   The cash call for refurbishing will likely be funneled off to these investors by calling it repayment of loans or payments to creditors.  This may be legal from the so called trust funds.  There are no indications where the funds from those who are opting out will be allocated to.  They are to go to a trust account of the lawyer.  What are the conditions of this trust and what is it for?  I understand it will go into the pockets of the Northwynd investors group.
2.	Who are the principles of Northwynd?
3.	Where did Northmount come from?
4.	If we indicate that we are opting out, and we pay nothing towards it (or a token amount), would we be subject to the 2% per month?  There is no mention of how this would be handled.  Maybe this could be stretched out for several months or maybe years at say $10 a month since we as pensioners can only afford that much.  I don’t think they can start action if you are attempting to pay the debt.
5.	We also own at Lake Okanagan.  How is this going to affect this resort since it is owned by Northwynd?
6.	I would expect that most of those who are taking the option to pay the refurbishing fee would take the $100/month option.  This will not put enough cash in the hands of Northwynd to proceed with any sort of refurbishing and the whole scheme will collapse.  No bank will advance credit to anyone in the financial condition of Northwynd.
7.	I believe Northwynd has a questionable name in the Valley, so they may find it hard to get contractors to work for them unless it was cash up front.
8.	How does this affect our status with Interval International?  We have 4 weeks banked with them.  Will we still have a membership with them and be able to use Getaways?
9.	Some owners have looked at engaging a lawyer to act on their behalf.  The only thing a lawyer can do for you is take your money and give you some advice.  Some owners think they can start a class-action-suit.  This is not feasible since there is no loss to be recovered in this case.     THESE ARE SOME OF MY CONCERNS AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME OTHER’S IDEAS!


----------



## DarkLord

Thanks Avenger for sharing the info.  How this will play out is purely my educated conjecture.  It doesn't seem like the lease owners have any rights with the liabilities that come with it.  If the assets (the villas) go into receivership again, the owners rank dead last among creditors and likely won't have anything to recover from.

The June court hearing is an important event.  Personally, I don't think Northwynd have the resources to go after the owners for few thousands dollars each.  There are 15000-19000 of us, many of whom do not reside in Canada.  It is extremely not cost effective to launch thousands of small claim suits to get judgements.  And then try to enforce the judgements.

I might be wrong but I have never heard of such court precedent.  What is clear to me is that Northwynd is just trying to intimidate the owners and whatever amounts they can get in the shortest period of time is a plus to them.  Some will cave for sure but I suspect many won't which makes the renovation a complete impossibility from the get go.


----------



## Spark1

THE AVENGER said:


> There are several questions that have been bothering me regarding the Fairmont situation that we are all affected by.
> 1.	 Who are we dealing with?
> As I understand it!
> Several years ago (6 or 7) we were offered an investment opportunity by a group from Fairmont called FRPL (Fairmont Resort Properties Limited) which promised to pay 12% on our investment.  The key presenter of the scheme was Ed Nochalt.  Colin Knight was there as well as others of the Fairmont group.  We never invested but several people invested large sums into this plan.  Some I know personally invested $100,000-$150,000 and much more.  Interest payments were made for a few months then stopped.  When Fairmont went into receivership, several of these investors (whom I know personally), formed a company called Northwynd and took over the assets of Fairmont.  They knew nothing about running a timeshare company so left the same administration in place (who had run it into the ground by skimming large sums into their pockets).
> These investors (Northwynd), have devised a scheme (using a very clever lawyer) to recover some of their investment.   The cash call for refurbishing will likely be funneled off to these investors by calling it repayment of loans or payments to creditors.  This may be legal from the so called trust funds.  There are no indications where the funds from those who are opting out will be allocated to.  They are to go to a trust account of the lawyer.  What are the conditions of this trust and what is it for?  I understand it will go into the pockets of the Northwynd investors group.
> 2.	Who are the principles of Northwynd?
> 3.	Where did Northmount come from?
> 4.	If we indicate that we are opting out, and we pay nothing towards it (or a token amount), would we be subject to the 2% per month?  There is no mention of how this would be handled.  Maybe this could be stretched out for several months or maybe years at say $10 a month since we as pensioners can only afford that much.  I don’t think they can start action if you are attempting to pay the debt.
> 5.	We also own at Lake Okanagan.  How is this going to affect this resort since it is owned by Northwynd?
> 6.	I would expect that most of those who are taking the option to pay the refurbishing fee would take the $100/month option.  This will not put enough cash in the hands of Northwynd to proceed with any sort of refurbishing and the whole scheme will collapse.  No bank will advance credit to anyone in the financial condition of Northwynd.
> 7.	I believe Northwynd has a questionable name in the Valley, so they may find it hard to get contractors to work for them unless it was cash up front.
> 8.	How does this affect our status with Interval International?  We have 4 weeks banked with them.  Will we still have a membership with them and be able to use Getaways?
> 9.	Some owners have looked at engaging a lawyer to act on their behalf.  The only thing a lawyer can do for you is take your money and give you some advice.  Some owners think they can start a class-action-suit.  This is not feasible since there is no loss to be recovered in this case.     THESE ARE SOME OF MY CONCERNS AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME OTHER’S IDEAS!


What are you going to do knowing all this


----------



## tugbowl

This is dirty legal maneuver. There are people organized to take class action. If Northwyne win on June 20, we are screwed. There are opinions that Northwyne may not likely to win because it has breach numerous contract clause prior, and hopefully forcing them to nullified the lease over time without us being criminally charged.

It is just a personal speculation -- FILLING Form 67 before May 30 as suggested by some poster appears as a form of insurance against default on the leasee part, as withheld payment subject to pending judgement is not default. It also serve as dissent for affected interest parties against Northwyne's partition trying to upheld their "right" to change rules governing the leasee contract.

Most importantly, beyond June 20, the leasee needs to be organized as a single entity instead of being fragmented. 10,000 leasee x $3,000 each is $30 millions. I am sure a fraction of that, said a couple of millions spend on legal advices can cause Northeyne some headache, *IF AND ONLY IF* the leasee are INFORMED and not broken into several subgroups and many individuals due to apathy, or awaiting others to champion their grievance. It is a classic case of divided and conquered, and can only be addressed by attrition of the commoners standing together, hopefully with leadership if lucky.

Finally, beware of potential spooks.


----------



## Lloyd E

*Have representation June20/2013 Hearing*

The financial proposal of the new developer of Sunchaser Vacation Villas , Northwynd Resort Properties (Northmont), is patented unfair to all lessees and , pertaining to the fee for cancellation of lease, is very presumptuous that the developers wholly owned Resort Villa Management Ltd. will be the manager for the next 20 years.
The developer (Northwyn, Northmont) deals with selling time share and the manager (Northwyn Northmont) deals with operating the resort.
How did we get in this position. The Vacation lease gives the manager (Owned by the developer) 15% of monies spent from the refurbishment account and the operating account. There is the incentive to spend more to make more. The lessees are then charged more each year to increase the income of the management company (Developer).
The lessees have been contributing to the refurbishment account on inception of the development and it should have adequately covered unit furnishing replacement. A large amount was spent on other projects outside of the mandated uses. I suspect, in the past, to build more villas instead of sales revenue. One multimillion dollar expenditure to repair the foundation of the 7000 block should have been partially covered by the architect and construction company that performed the faulty work. Is the construction contractor and the developer one in the same? The $630,000 spent to replace the deck on #500 villa is questionable. The list goes on as the developer gets 15% of monies spent. When Northwyn took over in 2010 they gave a concession of only charging $1,000,000 instead of the 15%. The money tree had been shaken too hard but since then it has been 15%. The lessees have had no oversight from a lessees association since the 1990s.
We now have a proposal from the developer (Northmont) to renovate the resort (not refurbish the existing) and every like lease pays the same regardless of years left on their lease (Patently unfair). The exit proposal charges lessees to cancel their lease based on lost revenue to the developers management company (Again presumptuous on behalf of the developer that its management company will manage the resort for the next 20 years).
The BC court hearing June 20th , deals with the Trustee cooperating with Northmont on the restructuring and renovation. The trustee holds title of the lands on behalf of the lessees and Northmont. The trustee should represent our interests but is in conflict with the developer interests. The affidavit by Kirk Wankel (Representing Northmont and Northwynd) April 16,2013 states that they have the right to unilateral change based on Modification of Lease clauses in the lease agreements. This is debateable and could halt the proposal but if not, the lessees may get some adjustments to the amounts demanded based on years left on the lease. For those who want out it can be pointed out that it takes 51% of the owners to remove Resort Villa Management Ltd and therefore their claim to 20 years of management fees as a payout to cancel the lease is frivolous. It may take a separate application to court to order all proceeds from the renovation charges be spent on the timeshare units and common use facilities but our lawyers should make the point. The developer would love to have you pay for renovation of properties he is taking out of the Resort. The charge for paying past loans should be denied. Bank loans for past refurbishing and maintenance costs should be carried as normal course of business expense.
Bottom line, get a lawyer to represent you at the hearing.
More revelations are appearing daily on TUG that fill in the blanks.


----------



## morena

Could someone please tell us how to organize and unite together?  I agree that this is the best way to make a difference.  It looks like from earlier posts that lawyers who started the class action suits have closed them to new people.  I thought they usually advertised for as many people as possible.  We only received our notice of assessment yesterday!!  We are in the US and we certainly don't want to pay a lawyer who's only advice is to pay the fees and get out.  We could go on two vacations with the money they are charging us to get out!  No one seems to be concerned about the fact that we are all losing vacations that we have already paid for.  We are only biennial but that is ten lost vacations.  I think they should be compensating us for stealing our future vacations, not charging us to steal them away from us.  I agree with the person who wrote before, they want the land that our time shares sit on.


----------



## DaveO

*Cash grab?*

Wow all the pieces of the puzzle are falling into place. 

This is definitely just a cash grab by the Northwynd owners that put a serious amount of cash up for their investment as per The Avenger's post. They want their money back and it looks like they will be folding up shop after trying to extort whatever money they can. In the contract it says you can be 90 days in arrears. 

I urge everyone to file the form 67 before the May 30th deadline with the court in BC and block their attempt to #1 Change our timeshares and #2 Take land out of the trust. The more people that petition the court the less likely they will win.


----------



## condomama

So if they lose in court, that would be good - except that Northwynd will then close the resort?


----------



## condomama

What happens to the people who bought into RCI points at Sunchaser a couple of years ago?  Someone I know who did that, hasn't received any of these same documents or an invoice.  He had no idea what I was talking about - and still would not, had I not refered him to the website. Some of the Sunchaser information we received suggests that a small portion of the RCI funds received were attributed to the 7000 building foundation renovation, and as such those points owners will not receive a further invoice until 2014. I'm quoting 3rd hand, so is that a correct understanding of the situation for them?


----------



## CindyD

*Form 67*

I have looked throught the unchaser web site and I can not find the Form 67 any path to follow?  Here is a link to the site I am on
http://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/


----------



## twoofus

*New Group ..*



morena said:


> Could someone please tell us how to organize and unite together?
> 
> 
> How many class action suits can be organized?  Is their a limit to a number of participants on a class action suit?    I am interested in the query (above quote) as well.   How / where ?  Let's unite somehow.  Hoping to acquire some legal insight and will add what I glean later today.


----------



## DarkLord

condomama said:


> So if they lose in court, that would be good - except that Northwynd will then close the resort?



If Northwynd loses, then closing the resort is likely the scenario.  Ironically, that might be the best case scenario for most of the owners.  

If Nortwynd wins, who knows how many of these special assessment they can cook up?


----------



## Tacoma

Can someone with better technical skills than mine please provide a link to form 67.  A lot of things bother me but I especially dislike that we have to decide before they even get court approval for what they want to do.


----------



## morena

*Kelie Hamilton Law office*



DarkLord said:


> You can contract Kellie Hamilton Law Firm to join the Fairmont Timeshare class action (scroll down to the bottom).
> 
> http://kelliehamiltonlaw.com/



I tried calling Kellie Hamilton Law Firm and it says her mailbox is full.  Then I went to her website and all her links were broken.  I thought it as strange that a lawyer's office could be completely shut down like that.  Who has talked to them or heard from them recently?  I don't understand how they could close a class action suit.


----------



## condomama

For Tacoma and others - 
Form 67 - 
http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca 
scroll side tab - court services branch - other matters - supreme court - forms - civil - then you can do a search for Form 67 numerically.


----------



## condomama

Earlier in the week, Kelly Hamilton Law had a specific link to Fairmont on her home page.
She had included Mountainside in her list & I wrote to point out the error.  This was the reply I received from her office, which obviously was not an answer directed at my email at all, but was interesting nevertheless - 

"Re: Northwynd-
please be advised that my retainer is $400 payable to kelliehamiltonlaw.com law corporation.  

Our main goal is to get an order from the Court that my clients should be able to walk away from the contract without any financial obligation. 

Should you wish me to represent you, please send to my office before or by may 20, 2013 the followings: 

1  the retainer 

2 and copies of your contract and all letters you have received from Northwynd. 

We can not guarantee an outcome. The court may and may not agree with us


Yours truly,

Kellie Hamilton, Lawyer


KellieHamiltonLaw.com

Law Corporation
Barrister & Solicitor
Nelson Square
1700 - 808 Nelson Street
Vancouver, BC   Canada V6Z 2H2
Tel: 604-685-7111
Fax: 604-685-7103

mailto:kh@kelliehamiltonlaw.com

http://www.kelliehamiltonlaw.com


----------



## DaveO

*Form 67*

Form 67 can be found here:

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bc%20form%2067&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CDwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourtbc.ca%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fweb%2Fforms%2FForm-67.pdf&ei=31-MUe_5FKbSigK2soCIDw&usg=AFQjCNFQWjlMqvJxnye4tsN1ah-PFHobOg&sig2=vZk02RNtBSrEzCYZgsOacQ&bvm=bv.46340616,d.cGE


----------



## AbeJ

I also tried Hamilton and got no reply, full voicemail, and links gone. there is another lawyer Geldert named in this blog chain and I googled and emailed there and just got a reply and an offer to be represented.

further, upon review of Form 67, seems ok / straight forward enough, but I'm not sure I know or can find all the little bits of info required to complete it (petitioner(Northwynd?) name, petition #, petitions made, etc) ... does anyone have a completed Form 67 others can edit just their name and address info ?  I don't know if either lawyer noted is really doing a class action counter-claim at this time, maybe, but for those not into paying lawyer fees (we likely might), a completed Form 67 with name and address replaced is likely doable by everyone.  and whether the courts get one class anti-petition with 5000 names or 5000 single anti-petitions might amount to same thing ??

thanks all


----------



## CindyD

*Form 67*

I have downloaded the form 67 and I am unsure I would be able to fill it out correctly would be interested in a copy of a completed one
Thanks


----------



## morena

*Help with Form 67*



CindyD said:


> I have downloaded the form 67 and I am unsure I would be able to fill it out correctly would be interested in a copy of a completed one
> Thanks



I have printed it as well but any guidance would be appreciated.  Thank you.


----------



## Disappointed W

*Legal counsel is available with Mr. Geldert for $275/hourly or $1000 "All in"*

I have emailed Mr. Michael Geldert. Please see the response below, as well as the email address:
<info@geldertlaw.com> 
Thank you for your email. As you know, many time-share owners are working together to contest the efforts being made by Northwynd. Many of those have either retained Mr. Geldert for an all-in amount of $1,000 CAD or are being advised on an ad-hoc basis as they represent themselves at his hourly rate of $275. You may choose either option. There is not a class-action against Northwynd at this time but this will be discussed moving forward.



At Mr. Geldert's request, the following is for your review:



Your legal obligations are covered exclusively by the contract(s) you have signed. To that end, owing to the vague language in the various time-share contracts, Northwynd has initiated a court application in an attempt to confirm its ability to do two things:


1.Unilaterally amend the time-share agreements to allow them to charge owners/lease-holders for their desired renovations; and,


2.To unilaterally transfer portions of the properties currently available to owners/lease-holders outside of the Resort.



What this is really about then is their attempt to obtain court sanctioned permission to effect unilateral changes to their contractual relationship with each owner/lease-holder. It is a risky proposition however, because should they fail to do so they will not have the legal standing to effect what they are currently proposing to do. 



Mr. Geldert is advising every owner/lease-holder to prepare submissions in reply to this court application. He is also advising that our firm be provided an opportunity to review those submissions to ensure they are ready to be filed with the court and served on Northwynd. Full copies of the associated court documents can be obtained on the Sunchaservillas.ca website should you wish to review the entire package of documents. 



Should you retain Mr. Geldert, he will assist you in preparing, filing and serving the necessary submissions. He will also canvas the legal arguments that are available, including, most readily, that what Northwynd is proposing to do fundamentally alters the Agreement(s) and prejudices the rights of the owners/lease-holders.



If you are interested in retaining Mr. Geldert please complete and return the attached information sheet to me by email to (patricia@geldertlaw.com) along with copies of (2) pieces of government issued identification. We would ask that you also provide us with a copy of your time-share agreement and the most recent correspondences that relate to it. Once in receipt of these documents I will schedule a time for you to speak with Mr. Geldert on the phone to confirm the foregoing. 





Kind Regards,






Patricia Maiato, Legal Assistant




T: 778.330.7775   |     F:778.330.7774    |   W: www.geldertlaw.com 

2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 1B4


----------



## Spark1

Disappointed W said:


> I have emailed Mr. Michael Geldert. Please see the response below, as well as the email address:
> <info@geldertlaw.com>
> Thank you for your email. As you know, many time-share owners are working together to contest the efforts being made by Northwynd. Many of those have either retained Mr. Geldert for an all-in amount of $1,000 CAD or are being advised on an ad-hoc basis as they represent themselves at his hourly rate of $275. You may choose either option. There is not a class-action against Northwynd at this time but this will be discussed moving forward.
> 
> 
> 
> At Mr. Geldert's request, the following is for your review:
> 
> 
> 
> Your legal obligations are covered exclusively by the contract(s) you have signed. To that end, owing to the vague language in the various time-share contracts, Northwynd has initiated a court application in an attempt to confirm its ability to do two things:
> 
> 
> 1.Unilaterally amend the time-share agreements to allow them to charge owners/lease-holders for their desired renovations; and,
> 
> 
> 2.To unilaterally transfer portions of the properties currently available to owners/lease-holders outside of the Resort.
> 
> 
> 
> What this is really about then is their attempt to obtain court sanctioned permission to effect unilateral changes to their contractual relationship with each owner/lease-holder. It is a risky proposition however, because should they fail to do so they will not have the legal standing to effect what they are currently proposing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Geldert is advising every owner/lease-holder to prepare submissions in reply to this court application. He is also advising that our firm be provided an opportunity to review those submissions to ensure they are ready to be filed with the court and served on Northwynd. Full copies of the associated court documents can be obtained on the Sunchaservillas.ca website should you wish to review the entire package of documents.
> 
> 
> 
> Should you retain Mr. Geldert, he will assist you in preparing, filing and serving the necessary submissions. He will also canvas the legal arguments that are available, including, most readily, that what Northwynd is proposing to do fundamentally alters the Agreement(s) and prejudices the rights of the owners/lease-holders.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are interested in retaining Mr. Geldert please complete and return the attached information sheet to me by email to (patricia@geldertlaw.com) along with copies of (2) pieces of government issued identification. We would ask that you also provide us with a copy of your time-share agreement and the most recent correspondences that relate to it. Once in receipt of these documents I will schedule a time for you to speak with Mr. Geldert on the phone to confirm the foregoing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patricia Maiato, Legal Assistant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T: 778.330.7775   |     F:778.330.7774    |   W: www.geldertlaw.com
> 
> 2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 1B4


I was just at my Federal MP's and I went over what Northwyn was proposing to do and they felt I should contact everyone that we know that has timeshare at the same resort and report it to the Canadian Anti Fraud Centre at 1-888-495-8501.


----------



## Spark1

Marusj said:


> I am reading all the posts and considering my options and the more I read the more convinced I am that this is a scam. Nobody mentioned this previously but I found information that they have sold there 14900 shares, and they are charging us all the "renovation" fee. I did very quick and "dirty" calculations. I assumed that not all people own the full share and there are some owning just the bi-annual timeshare. Considering that the full owners pay between $4000 and $4400, and bi-annuals are paying between $1800 and $2300, I assumed average "renovation" fee at $3000 (and I think this is the low end), and multiplied it by the number of leases (14900) and I got almost $45 millions...Whoa, nice chunk of money...it is much more than their requirements for the reno...I am inclined to less and less trust them. Crappy situation. Best of luck to all of us!


They breached this contract but sending out this renovation bill which is not part of our agreement. The court case is on june20/2013. They also have not sent out audited financial statements my march 31 of each year.


----------



## Spark1

condomama said:


> So if they lose in court, that would be good - except that Northwynd will then close the resort?



Can you believe that this BC court judge would rule against 15000 timeshare owners changing our original agreements that we signed with fairmont vacation villas. To me that would be illegal. Buy this judge ruling in favor  we would have a bill of 28 to 40 million. In my opinion I do not feel he or she would do this.


----------



## condomama

*other court cases pending?*

I've just finished reading - or skimming in some cases - very extensive articles posted online about Rancho Banderas and Makaha Resorts, concerning the many isssues brought forward by unhappy owners shortly after Fairmont/Northwynd took over.  In quite a few of those articles, disgruntled owners indicated an interest in going to court to challenge these decisions and to try and recoup their losses.  That was several years ago in both cases.  Does anyone know if there has been any recent activity?  Is it possible there are still court cases pending that Northwynd has to fight in addition to this current situation?  Thanks.


----------



## THE AVENGER

*trusts*

Does anyone have any idea what the conditions of the lawyer's trust accounts are?  The renovation trust is to renovate the resort but what are the specific plans after they pay themselves for their personal investment they made in the company via FRPL (there won't be a cent left to renovate anything)?  There has not been one word as to where the trust monies from the by-out monies will go.


----------



## Meow

*Form 67*

Should we all individually file Form 67s? Do we require a lawyer to do the filing or can we do it ourselves?  The form seems a little complicated for a layman.
Would appreciate some guidance from anyone who has gone through the process.  This whole mess is doing a number on my blood pressure!


----------



## CindyD

*More Money out the door*

Wow this seems like it is going to get bigger and more messy, lawyers turning away clients I have never heard of that.  It seems like every where we turn someone has their hand out asking for more money!  What happens if we just wait, take my timeshare its not worth anything!  Form 67 who can understand it what is it going to protect me from?


----------



## dotbuhler

I, too, think this is a classic "Bait and Switch"! We were suckered out the minute we walked in there. I will have MY day in court. Therefore I refuse to pay this blackmail to these criminals. There has been far too many changes since the origional purchase 20 years ago. The origional lease party seems to have fallen off the face of the earth. I do not consider myself in any way, shape, or form bound by these upstarts. I will fill out the form, and I encourage everyone else to do so, as well. Outside of a sit-in or march, what other way is there to communicate our distress?


----------



## dotbuhler

I think contacting the Anti-Fraud Centre is important. Than you for the contact number. The ombudsman would be a good choice, if we still have such a creature...AND don't forget the Better Business Bureau! They can jerk Northmont's chain, as well. Use the media and whatever else to expose these scumbags! In the words of Red Green, "We're all in this together!"


----------



## Tacoma

The person who is linked in post 140 the belfry's seems to still be taking clients.  I don't know the costs yet but he just contacted me again and said he is up to 200 clients.  So it might not be too late to get representation.  

Joan


----------



## Spark1

Tacoma said:


> The person who is linked in post 140 the belfry's seems to still be taking clients.  I don't know the costs yet but he just contacted me again and said he is up to 200 clients.  So it might not be too late to get representation.
> 
> Joan


This northwynn got away with all kinds of illegal stuff at the Rancho Banderas in Mexico. Profeco which is their consumer affairs department for tourist and locals are just swamped with this stuff. Now they are going to try their illegal stuff in Canada. We have to stop them.


----------



## morena

Prairie Girl said:


> Contact Mr. Belfry.  His e-mail is listed here.  He has 92 people signed so far to challenge this.
> 
> My fear is after they collect all the cancellation money they will then file for bankruptcy as took place several years ago at Canmore!



I don't understand who Mr. Belfry is.  Is he an owner organizing a class action suit or is he a lawyer taking clients?


----------



## mmchili

Spark1 said:


> Your lawyer is giving you bad advice. The court case allowing Northwyn to charge these high renovation fees will not be through the court until June 20/2013. Northwyn is trying to get the worthless timeshare people to build them a new resort. Hire khamilton@kelliehamiltonlaw.com



Fairmont Mountainside Vacation Villas
http://mountainsidevillas.com/

***NOTICE TO OWNERS***
IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION, KELLIE HAMILTON LAW CORPORATION HAS LISTED US (MOUNTAINSIDE VACATION VILLAS) AS PROPERTY OWNED BY NORTHWYND PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST.  THIS IS NOT THE CASE, WE HAVE NEVER BEEN AND WILL NEVER BE AFFILIATED WITH NORTHWYND.  WE HAVE BEEN LISTED ON HER WEBSITE AS WELL AND SHE HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED BY OUR GENERAL MANAGER (DAVID DUPONT) TO REMOVE IT AND SUBMIT A RETRACTION.


----------



## CindyD

*Anti-Fraud Center*

I have contacted the Anti-Fraud Center and they have taken the information and they will look into it. I am also preparing information to send to the media ex Global BC, CTV and Marketplace perhaphs if we put pressure on them they will stop all this.


----------



## Spark1

*Supreme Court of BC*



CindyD said:


> I have contacted the Anti-Fraud Center and they have taken the information and they will look into it. I am also preparing information to send to the media ex Global BC, CTV and Marketplace perhaphs if we put pressure on them they will stop all this.



I also phoned the Canadian Anti-fraud Centre at 1-888-495-8501 and they give you a file number and have you fax all the information to them . Also I have contacted BBB Calgary at 403-5318784. They also said they are getting a lot of calls and Northwynd  only has a D minus rating. Everyone that is affected should try to make these calls if possible.


----------



## Tacoma

I just got  a detailed response from The Belfry's (post 140).  Seems like he is an owner who is spearheading people to work together to fight this.  He wants $50 now to consult a laywer and said we may need to put in more for the court action on June 20th.  He has already talked to both lawyers recommended on this site and feels one is more in tune with what is happening than the other.  Based on his response I will be sending my cheque for the advise.  Wish I hadn't booked this summer since if I don't pay the renovation fee I doubt my guests will get to stay there.  Hate to pour more money into a sinking ship but would like to get this year's usage since I paid for it. 

I really agreed with his statement don't give them any more money until we get a court order telling us to.   It could be worse it could be whole ownership.  Again the audacity to order us to pay before they even have permission from the courts to put this through.

Joan

Joan


----------



## Chilliaces

*What to do?*

Of approx. 15000 owners, is there not at least one or more lawyers that could at least give some insight or advise?


----------



## ERW

Unfortunately this is all a little over-whelming for the average timeshare holder. I believe that if enough opposition is delivered to the courts, it would be very difficult for a judge to rule in favor of Northwynd being allowed to make such significant changes to the contracts of some 15,000 timeshare holders. Unfortunately, the courts can and do make some very convoluted decisions at times. 

I haven't looked at the Form 67 yet - has anyone here completed the form and sent it in yet?


----------



## mmchili

*ERW*

Look on the Sunchaser website and review the 'Response to Petition' by Northmont which shows the format to complete your Form 67 (Response to Petition). Print out Form 67 and compare it to Northmont's response and you will find it also follows Form 67 .


----------



## condomama

Court actions can take months, even years to conclude.  The May 31 deadline looms; we might have to make up our minds long before we see a conclusion to this.    So I'd lilke some clarification if possible from those who understand the legal proceedings and these posted petitions better than I: 
- Is the judge considering his ruling now, and the June 20 court date will hear the judge's decision brought down yea or nay for the preceeding petitions?  
- Or is this June court date just another 'cog in the wheel' to further discuss the ongoing arguments before the court?  If that is the case, then a judges' decision -  permission granted or not - could still be many months away, and by waiting past the May 31 deadline, even holding off within 90 days as some have said we could - our opportunity to get out may disappear.  Thanks for clarifying the June 20 decision point.


----------



## Undecided62

*Decide or be delinquent*

As an owner, I called the Sunchaser office to find out if I lose use of my reserved week this coming July, if I don't make a decision before May 31st.
I was informed (and I'm paraphrasing) that if I do not make a decision and select either option of "paying the reno fees in whole or in part", OR "paying the freedom to choose option and leave" before May 31st, 2013, that my account will be shown delinqent, and I will not be allowed access to my unit in July.  I paid my regular maintenance fees to make the reservation, but now I'm being forced into a $4000+ decision before I can use the reserved week.
I asked why I was being treated differently than say an owner who booked, paid for, and used a week in March of 2013?  They paid the same fees I did and they got to use their week.  Now that I have another bill, (timing is a bugger....) suddenly I have to fork out way more cash just to use this week?  I certainly haven't decided what the heck to do....but sure considering walking away.  I'm afraid that if I select the Freedom to Choose and leave, and pay my way out, that those of you who are left will have hefty bills in the future.  What's the saying..... looks like a, smells like a, must be a....  It's too confusing.


----------



## DarkLord

Undecided62 said:


> What's the saying..... looks like a, smells like a, must be a....  It's too confusing.



I said it before that Northwynd's highhanded approach of threaterning the owners means something.  For this is no normal business behaviore.  When you are considering your option, ask youself this question, why an alledgely trust company that was supposed to look after the owners' (trustees') interest chose to threatern the owners?


----------



## EvaS

*New to this blog*

Hi all,

I am new to this blog. The cancellation fee in my case is about $5400, yak. Of course I am not happy with this and want to fight that decision. I already call Kelly Hamilton but she didn't call me back. Please for more info, I am going to join that petition.

1. do I have to get help from lawyers in order to fill the form 67? or there is a sample available?

2. do I have contact any lawyer or I just fill the form and submit to the court?

Any other information is appreciated. 

Thanks,
Eva


----------



## sk8r

DarkLord said:


> I said it before that Northwynd's highhanded approach of threaterning the owners means something.  For this is no normal business behaviore.  When you are considering your option, ask youself this question, why an alledgely trust company that was supposed to look after the owners' (trustees') interest chose to threatern the owners?


I am also booked to go to Fairmont, (June 10 and December 28). The December 28th date is my use week for 2013 and the June date is using extra points and required an exchange fee.  I am not sure how they can enforce their demand for payment in this case when I booked the vacation through RCI and paid an exchange fee. I think that I will contact RCI and clarify.


----------



## jekebc

A further message from Jim Belfry.

I am an owner at Sunchaser trying to help other owners to find proper legal advice on how to challenge Northwynd in their latest attempt to coerce owners to pay more money.
I have been completely swamped with over 275 new contacts in the past week and am no longer able to add new contacts to our group.
I have met with another law firm in hopes that they will offer their assistance to the 14,500 owners that are affected and hope to have more details to post shortly.
I urge you not to agree to pay money to have your contract terminated. You are giving up any right of recourse.


----------



## Tacoma

I'm in the same situation as undecided 62, I booked at exactly 12 months out (and paid) for an August week.  I was going to rent it out but am worried no one will want to take a chance.  My thoughts were to start paying the fees to stay and then if they can't give me answers after August as to what % of people went each direction then it will be time to pull.  My week is an annual golden so it has value to me even with the ridiculous maintenance fees.  What a world where the company does not have to produce financial statements for years and we have to pay as soon as they ask.  

Joan


----------



## Scammed22

We've been scammed before with Canmore...we never got legal advise but there were a lot of back and forth emails and letters between owners and timeshare. RCI said it wasn't there problem. And guess what.... we lost our timeshares the ones that didn't pay extra, and the ones that did. Now reliving it all over again.... This time legal action is the only way to go....Your going to read about Fairmont in a while of how people were scammed to pay, and lost their timeshares  no matter what they choose to do.....very sad.......


----------



## Spark1

this was Northwynds plan. Demand huge Reno fees by may31 and threaten the timeshare owners if they do not pay buy may 31 and keep them from using the resort at high season.It does not matter if you paid maintenance for the last 20 years.They are upsettig alot of timeshare owners a they will probably just walk away from this resort


----------



## Jaded_Owner

The argument against them is that they are in breach of contract for not posting audited financials by March 31 every year and not disclosing an apparent $19 million dollar maintenance shortfall when they took over the resort from FRPL in 2010. WIth this knowledge they proceeded to sell the Legacy for Life program which not olny raised millions of dollars for them, but allowed them to tweak the contract language in their favour. This coupled with the strong arm bully tactics to try to raise as much as they can before the court date should make anyone think twice before paying them a cent.


----------



## condomama

condomama said:


> Court actions can take months, even years to conclude.  The May 31 deadline looms; we might have to make up our minds long before we see a conclusion to this.    So I'd lilke some clarification if possible from those who understand the legal proceedings and these posted petitions better than I:
> - Is the judge considering his ruling now, and the June 20 court date will hear the judge's decision brought down yea or nay for the preceeding petitions?
> - Or is this June court date just another 'cog in the wheel' to further discuss the ongoing arguments before the court?  If that is the case, then a judges' decision -  permission granted or not - could still be many months away, and by waiting past the May 31 deadline, even holding off within 90 days as some have said we could - our opportunity to get out may disappear.  Thanks for clarifying the June 20 decision point.


Does anyone have an answer to this?  Will we get a definitive answer on June 20 from the judge or just a further delay into next Fall or Winter?  Anyone even have an educated guess perhaps based on their own professional knowledge of the legal system?


----------



## RandRseeker

condomama said:


> Does anyone have an answer to this?  Will we get a definitive answer on June 20 from the judge or just a further delay into next Fall or Winter?  Anyone even have an educated guess perhaps based on their own professional knowledge of the legal system?



This is my concern as well...If I don't decide by May 31st, the option to pay the exit fee may not be there anymore and I'm stuck paying the reno fee and the increasing maintenance fees on a timeshare that I can't even sell.  This court case could drag on forever, and in the meantime owners aren't even able to use their weeks.

I can't believe that Northwynd is giving people such a short time frame to make such large decisions and payments!


----------



## DarkLord

RandRseeker said:


> This is my concern as well...If I don't decide by May 31st, the option to pay the exit fee may not be there anymore and I'm stuck paying the reno fee and the increasing maintenance fees on a timeshare that I can't even sell.  This court case could drag on forever, and in the meantime owners aren't even able to use their weeks.
> 
> I can't believe that Northwynd is giving people such a short time frame to make such large decisions and payments!




If you read the following document, the justice may give you the ruling on that day or give a written ruling at a later day.
http://www.supremecourtbc.ca/sites/default/files/web/Starting-a-Proceeding-by-Petition.pdf

It is not for certain that Northywynd will prevail in their petition.  It is only a petition that the court hasn't ruled on yet and many of us believe Northwynd has no ground to impose the reno assessment on us.  

Even if Northwynd should prevail and that's by no means a certainty when the judge sees the hundreds or thousands of owners submission, the owners still have avenues to overturn it.  

Many of us believe we should not pay Northwynd one cent until we know how the judge rule on the Northwynd's petition on June 20, 2013.  Should Northwynd lose, you would have wasted a few grands and give up your TS if you chose the buyout option.

If Northwynd wins, we can still appeal as this is only a petition.  The reason Northwynd gives owners a tight May 30 deadline before they even know about the ruling on June 20 should tell you something sinister is in the work.

If Northwynd is a legitimate business, they would wait for the ruling on the petition before they even invoice the owners.  But they invoice the owners and force the owners to pay before the ruling on June 20 tells me that they have no confidence on their petition.  And if they have no confidence on their petition, why do they think they have the right to take the reno or buyout monies from the owners?  Because Northwynd is not legit.


----------



## CindyD

*To Cancel or Not*

I have sent our lawyer more info from discussions and he keeps telling us to pay the cancellation fee to get out of this mess and be done with it.


----------



## Spark1

DarkLord said:


> If you read the following document, the justice may give you the ruling on that day or give a written ruling at a later day.
> http://www.supremecourtbc.ca/sites/default/files/web/Starting-a-Proceeding-by-Petition.pdf
> 
> It is not for certain that Northywynd will prevail in their petition.  It is only a petition that the court hasn't ruled on yet and many of us believe Northwynd has no ground to impose the reno assessment on us.
> 
> Even if Northwynd should prevail and that's by no means a certainty when the judge sees the hundreds or thousands of owners submission, the owners still have avenues to overturn it.
> 
> Many of us believe we should not pay Northwynd one cent until we know how the judge rule on the Northwynd's petition on June 20, 2013.  Should Northwynd lose, you would have wasted a few grands and give up your TS if you chose the buyout option.
> 
> If Northwynd wins, we can still appeal as this is only a petition.  The reason Northwynd gives owners a tight May 30 deadline before they even know about the ruling on June 20 should tell you something sinister is in the work.
> 
> If Northwynd is a legitimate business, they would wait for the ruling on the petition before they even invoice the owners.  But they invoice the owners and force the owners to pay before the ruling on June 20 tells me that they have no confidence on their petition.  And if they have no confidence on their petition, why do they think they have the right to take the reno or buyout monies from the owners?  Because Northwynd is not legit.


Calgary Better Business Bureau gives them a D minus rating and they said it will not be long it will be a F rating. Give them a call and check it out if you like.


----------



## darklord700

I personally don't worry about the buyout option not being there after May 31.  If you want to give a company like Northwynd a few grands to get out, they will gladly take it after May 31.  It's just sleazy used car salesman tactic the May 31 deadline is.


----------



## Scammed22

We have lost almost a thousand dollars already by paying our maintenance fee last summer for the 2013 rental booked for this July, and now we can't use it...also another bill after Christmas of an increase so seriously do you think we're stupid enough to give them another cent???? I can see a lot of counter lawsuits in the wings.

FYI>>>> They read this form just so everyone knows..It was mentioned in my letter from them....watching like money hungry rats!


----------



## Guymar

CindyD said:


> I have sent our lawyer more info from discussions and he keeps telling us to pay the cancellation fee to get out of this mess and be done with it.



My lawyer in Saskatchewan says the same. He is not familiar with the law in BC but if this was in Saskatchewan he maintains they have the right to do what they are attempting.  I also contacted Northwynd as I have a week booked in late June that I have paid Maintenance on. Northwynd says that if I comply with one of the options offered including the option to buy my way out I am entitled to come and enjoy my booked week. (Actually the lady I spoke to at Northwynd was very cordial and patient with me).  I think the court case in June is to give them legal grounds to downsize the resort based on the leases they will have moving forward but it may include other options they are seeking. I will be making a decision over the next week on what I will do. Good luck to everyone on their decisions.


----------



## DarkLord

Guymar and CindyD, not to say your lawyers' advice was incorrect.  But there're lawyers in BC advising otherwise.  I think the least we can say is that Northwynd is not 100% in the right or they wouldn't pull a stun like this.

Personally, I would rather spend the buyout money fighting Northwynd than to pay them.  Paying them now is exactly what they wanted you to do to maximize the size of their wallets.  We all have to decide what to do in the end.


----------



## RandRseeker

Something that's bothering me about this whole thing is that I paid my 2013 maintenance fee back in September 2012 when I reserved my week.  There was no mention back then that I would have to pay the assessment or risk losing the right to my week.  

Is Northwynd within their legal rights to not allow use of a 2013 week unless the assessment is paid, when they did not advise of the additional charges when the week was reserved?


----------



## cindyrend

As far as I'm concerned our lease is already broken, as they didn't maintain the resort, which is the purpose of our maintenance fees.  Someone I spoke to that sells timeshare (so don't know how reliable of a source he is) said that if you only have a right to use and not a deed for property then they really have no recourse if you stop paying.  His recommendation was simply to give it back and we are going to send a letter relinquishing our leases and any financial responsibility.  I also think, how are they ever going to follow through with getting our money...are they going to take 15000 owners to small claims court and even if they get a judgement, is it really going to impact anyone's credit rating.  Just my thoughts.


----------



## DarkLord

cindyrend said:


> I also think, how are they ever going to follow through with getting our money...are they going to take 15000 owners to small claims court and even if they get a judgement, is it really going to impact anyone's credit rating.  Just my thoughts.



My sentiments exactly.  It is not financially feasible to enforce the judgement on any non Canadian owners (eg US owners).  Even for Canadian owners, the cost to enforce judgement on indignant defender is easily in the thousands.  And if the owners are elderly pensioners or unemployed individuals, there'll be no wages to garnish or assets to seize.  I think Northwynd knew about this deep down inside and that's why they tried to strong arm owners to pay before May 31.  That's why they gave us the payout option but instead all they could do is just to take the lease back.


----------



## cindyrend

Another thing from reading through what they have sent me, is that all of us with biannual weeks are going to get another bill next year for this renovation project.  And who knows what might come after that.  Northwynd does not seem to have a good reputation.


----------



## condomama

How much will the lawyers' fees be in the end, though?  To sign up is $1000.00 'all in'.  Is that just the beginning, for this upcoming June 20 hearing?  Will he ask for more money to go forward from there? Just asking....


----------



## DarkLord

condomama said:


> How much will the lawyers' fees be in the end, though?  To sign up is $1000.00 'all in'.  Is that just the beginning, for this upcoming June 20 hearing?  Will he ask for more money to go forward from there? Just asking....



$1000 "all in" should get you through June 20 and then some.  Lawyers bill by the hour and going to the one lawyer that handles the same few hundred TS suits makes sense as he doesn't need to go through the same facts again.


----------



## Spark1

Guymar said:


> My lawyer in Saskatchewan says the same. He is not familiar with the law in BC but if this was in Saskatchewan he maintains they have the right to do what they are attempting.  I also contacted Northwynd as I have a week booked in late June that I have paid Maintenance on. Northwynd says that if I comply with one of the options offered including the option to buy my way out I am entitled to come and enjoy my booked week. (Actually the lady I spoke to at Northwynd was very cordial and patient with me).  I think the court case in June is to give them legal grounds to downsize the resort based on the leases they will have moving forward but it may include other options they are seeking. I will be making a decision over the next week on what I will do. Good luck to everyone on their decisions.


Look at your court petition you will find they are are talking about restructuring and refurbishing. Refurbishing means renovations.


----------



## CindyD

*Sunchaser*

My lawyer contacted me again and said that I should pay attention to the legal opinion from Norton Rose LLP in the Legal-contract information section, under the renovation program section at sunchasers website. Here is the link

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-conten...nfirmingOccupancyCostsandReplacementCosts.pdf


----------



## Scammed22

Seriously! We received all this information less than two weeks ago.  We had not been notified before or had any idea there were issues other than an increase in maintance fees after the new year...AGAIN!. Maybe due to the fact we didnt fall for the legacy give us more money crap.
 Who does this, with no notice, less than a month? I work full time and my husband is not well. Who has this kind of money to just hand over?  I have no time for this, and the stress is not doing well for me. The more I'm pushed the madder I'm getting. I'm interested to see e what takes place in court! Isn't that our right??????? If this is the outcome>>>> to other timeshare owners everywhere be scared be very scared!


----------



## Spark1

CindyD said:


> My lawyer contacted me again and said that I should pay attention to the legal opinion from Norton Rose LLP in the Legal-contract information section, under the renovation program section at sunchasers website. Here is the link
> 
> http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-conten...nfirmingOccupancyCostsandReplacementCosts.pdf



Cindy what agreement do you have? My agreement was signed on nov/2002 and item number 9 does not state that we have to replace the resort. Norton rose states on summary of conclusions item no. 2 proportionate share of all costs of administration,maintenance,repair and replacement of the resort. This is their lawyers interruption.


----------



## Undecided62

For those who are asking some lawyers questions, here is a link to one opinion regarding our leases. I found it on an internet search.  The questions to the lawyer were not mine.  By placing this link I am not endorsing the site,  nor the comments, just locating information for others to be aware of.

http://www.justanswer.com/canada-law/6pz99-40-year-lease-timeshare-started-2004.html


----------



## jekebc

*BC Law Firm to Contact re Sunchaser*

We have been unable to add more to our group of 200+ owners, but I contacted  another law firm in Victoria. It is one of the top litigation firms in the area and has the staff and support systems able to help many owners. You can find details of the firm at: www.coxtaylor.ca  They have agreed to take on a group of Sunchaser owners to challenge Northwynd at the upcoming hearing. I have supplied them with a lot of background details and documents.
If you wish to inquire re their services, please email your name and address to sunchaser@coxtaylor.ca Attention Lindsay LeBlanc.
Please note I am not associated with any law firm. I am just a perturbed owner at Sunchaser trying to help other owners deal with this fiasco.

Jim Belfry, Victoria


----------



## CindyD

*Vacation Villa Lease*



Spark1 said:


> Cindy what agreement do you have? My agreement was signed on nov/2002 and item number 9 does not state that we have to replace the resort. Norton rose states on summary of conclusions item no. 2 proportionate share of all costs of administration,maintenance,repair and replacement of the resort. This is their lawyers interruption.



Our contract was signed in Mar/97 and it is not the same as my previous link post, that link was just brought to my attention from our lawyer


----------



## Spark1

CindyD said:


> Our contract was signed in Mar/97 and it is not the same as my previous link post, that link was just brought to my attention from our lawyer



google, sunshasersvillas 2013 budget. That budget states that all the renovation fee was 14% of their operating costs. Nothing mentioned about replacing the resort as stated buy Norton Rose.


----------



## CindyD

Spark1 said:


> google, sunshasersvillas 2013 budget. That budget states that all the renovation fee was 14% of their operating costs. Nothing mentioned about replacing the resort as stated buy Norton Rose.



I googled it the only thing I got was your post, can you send the link?


----------



## aden2

It might be helpful to go to Government of Alberta and read "Fair Trading Act". This act includes TIMESHARES. Further if the supplier or consumer is from Alberta or if the contract came from Alberta. In this case Northwynd's offices are in Alberta. So if Northwynd is in violation of the said contract the Alberta Government will investigate.


----------



## Tacoma

Just got together with friends last night who booked their summer week last year and deposited it with an exchange company.  They are not going to pay the renovation fee.  Will their exchange be honored?  How will this likely be dealt with.  They're saying if we are using our week and haven't paid it then we can't go but what happens to an exchanger?  This could get ugly for anyone trying to stay there this summer or fall.


----------



## Tacoma

The fair trading act is 124 pages can you give me a clue as to what you think might apply?  Although I'm a good reader I don't want to wade through that much.

Joan


----------



## CindyD

Tacoma said:


> Just got together with friends last night who booked their summer week last year and deposited it with an exchange company.  They are not going to pay the renovation fee.  Will their exchange be honored?  How will this likely be dealt with.  They're saying if we are using our week and haven't paid it then we can't go but what happens to an exchanger?  This could get ugly for anyone trying to stay there this summer or fall.



We also have weeks confirmed through II in July this year and Feb of next year.  I just got confirmation on the July week a few days ago so I am asuming that they will be honoured


----------



## Tacoma

So those of us who have paid maintenance fees should deposit our weeks. I wonder when they will stop letting us deposit before paying I would guess June 1st.  

 I love staying there and love the opportunity to book exactly what I want 12 months out but after finding out what this company did to owners at Rancho Banderas in Mexico and a resort in Belize I believe this will not go well for us. 

My husband says just let them ruin our credit but I always pay my bills.  This is keeping me up at nights. At what point do you say ENOUGH!


----------



## aden2

Alberta Fair Trading Act:Violation is failing to give an annual audit financial report. check the audit Collins Barrow Feb 12, 2013 "unable to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence about recorded values of deferred revenue and accounts receivable as of Dec.31, 2010 and 2009."

[/B]Cancelling agreement

7(1) A consumer may cancel at no cost or penalty to the consumer a consumer transaction, whether written or oral, that was entered into by the consumer and a supplier who engaged in an unfair practice regarding the consumer transaction, whether the unfair practice occurred before, during or after the time when the consumer transaction was entered into, and in addition the consumer is entitled to any remedy that is available at law, including damages.

(2) Where a supplier has been found to have engaged in an unfair practice, any consumer who entered into a consumer transaction that was subject to the unfair practice with the supplier who engaged in the unfair practice may cancel the consumer transaction at no cost or penalty to the consumer


----------



## morena

*fair trade act*

I wonder if this fair trade act applies in BC?  Also, it says any transaction, so hopefully that would include leases?  Does anyone know?  If this was a purchase gone bad we could let them repossess the item or give it back but a lease seems to be different?  Does anyone in this situation have a deeded timeshare?  Mine is called a "vacation experience lease".  Some experience, huh?


----------



## aden2

25(1) This Part applies to the following direct sales contracts and

time share contracts:

(a) a contract in which the supplier or consumer is a resident
of Alberta;

(b) a contract in which the offer or acceptance is made in or is
sent from Alberta;

What I did was , I sent a letter to Northwynd stating that I was with holding funds because of their violation of our contract, misrepresentation, no audited financial statement, no reserve fund etc.. I also stated a wanted an unconditional release from my contract. After I got their reply back I went to service Alberta website and printed a complaint form, and attached Collins Barrow financial report, my letter to Norwthynd , and Northwynd's reply. I left it up to Service Aalberta what articles they violated. I sent all of this info by my fax.
Service alberta was involved in the timeshare at Canmore " of misleading or deceiving consumers, misrepresenting a consumer’s rights, remedies or obligations, and using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity of material fact in a consumer transaction."

It is my understanding it does apply to B.C. because the contract came from Alberta.


----------



## CindyD

*Sunchaser Update*

I just recieved this email from Sunchaser

***This is a bulk email.  If you have already received and responded to your package, please ignore.***

On April 29th, 2013 we mailed out the Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay resort realignment plan along with invoices for the annual and biennial odd vacation interval owners.

If you have not already received the package, you can find it on the www.sunchaservillas.ca website under the renovation program section.  In addition, a substantial amount of additional information including an extended communication and a budget commentary are available for your review.

If you have any questions after reviewing the information or require an updated statement of account, please contact us at customercare@northwynd.ca or by calling 1-877-451-1250.  Please note this is time sensitive and biennial odd and annual owners need to respond by May 31st, 2013.

Best regards,

Vacation Ownership Services
 Resort Villa Management


----------



## CindyD

aden2 said:


> Alberta Fair Trading Act:Violation is failing to give an annual audit financial report. check the audit Collins Barrow Feb 12, 2013 "unable to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence about recorded values of deferred revenue and accounts receivable as of Dec.31, 2010 and 2009."
> 
> [/B]Cancelling agreement
> 
> 7(1) A consumer may cancel at no cost or penalty to the consumer a consumer transaction, whether written or oral, that was entered into by the consumer and a supplier who engaged in an unfair practice regarding the consumer transaction, whether the unfair practice occurred before, during or after the time when the consumer transaction was entered into, and in addition the consumer is entitled to any remedy that is available at law, including damages.
> 
> (2) Where a supplier has been found to have engaged in an unfair practice, any consumer who entered into a consumer transaction that was subject to the unfair practice with the supplier who engaged in the unfair practice may cancel the consumer transaction at no cost or penalty to the consumer



I was looking for this audit, where did you find it?


----------



## aden2

The audit for Sunchasers Villas is found on their website, and look for the audit statement is done by Collin Barrow C.A. in Calgary. I believe it is very import to sent this with your complaint (the forms are found "Service Alberta). On the complaint form check the box that has timeshare. The complaint form has address, phone number, and fax number on.  The time share in Canmore in 2010 was charge with "misrepresenting a consumer’s rights, remedies or obligations, and using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity of material fact in a consumer transaction."


----------



## aden2

I have double checked the Sunchaser Vacation Villas website and the audited financial reports, but there is no audited financial report 2012! My contract states an AUDITED FINANCIAL REPORT NO LATER THAN MARCH 31 ST OF EACH YEAR. Well no audited report for 2012, but I a get a demand note from Northwynd , and today received a reminder that I have to May 31 st to pay up. What a scammed this has become!!


----------



## aden2

Thanks for the update, I understand several timeshare holders have civil claims still today regarding Canmore.


----------



## morena

*confused*



aden2 said:


> Alberta Fair Trading Act laid charges in Canmore timeshare fraud.
> However, the contracts did not protect consumers, leading to the allegation that the companies and individuals facing the charges misled the time-share customers.
> 
> Facing 168 counts of fraud over $5,000 and 24 Alberta Fair Trading Act charges of misleading or deceiving consumers are Chateau World Vacations Inc. and director Kim Schram of Edmonton, Properties International Ltd., Royal Crown Resorts Ltd., Royal Club Resorts Inc., and director Andre Muran of Canmore.
> 
> The accused are scheduled to appear in Calgary provincial court on Aug. 4, 2011.



Did they appear in court?  This was nearly two years ago.  Does anyone know if they were charged these fines?  It seems like if they did it would have discouraged them from doing this again.


----------



## condomama

morena said:


> Did they appear in court?  This was nearly two years ago.  Does anyone know if they were charged these fines?  It seems like if they did it would have discouraged them from doing this again.


Check this out for the timeline: http://cheatauworld.ca/timeline.htm


----------



## morena

*unsure about it all*



condomama said:


> Check this out for the timeline: http://cheatauworld.ca/timeline.htm



I'm not sure where this leaves us?  Are we wasting time,  paper & postage by reporting these current acts of Northwynd as fraudulent?


----------



## THE AVENGER

Has anyone approached Northwynd/Northmount  on paying the fee to get out  on the same plan as the refurbishing plan (eg. $100/ month)?
Also when they approached us  (using a high pressure sales company) on purchasing the deeded plan (Legacy For Life) they already knew they were in financial problems and presented it as a great opportunity.  Is this not FRAUD?


----------



## condomama

A standard statement from Northwynd: "In 2011 we did not know at that time a renovations such as this was going to be put into place. The decision to move forward with this renovation came in late 2012.The sales department closed in November 2012."  
Vacation Ownership Services Representative
Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.
5799 – 3rd Street SE
Calgary, AB T2H 1K1

Local : 403-517-2601
Toll Free: 1-877-451-1250
Toll Free Fax: 1-888-378-4477
Email: customercare@northwynd.ca


----------



## THE AVENGER

T





condomama said:


> A standard statement from Northwynd: "In 2011 we did not know at that time a renovations such as this was going to be put into place. The decision to move forward with this renovation came in late 2012.The sales department closed in November 2012."
> Vacation Ownership Services Representative
> Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.
> 5799 – 3rd Street SE
> Calgary, AB T2H 1K1
> 
> Local : 403-517-2601
> Toll Free: 1-877-451-1250
> Toll Free Fax: 1-888-378-4477
> Email: customercare@northwynd.ca



They may not have their plans for renovations but they certainly
knew the state of the property!!!


----------



## cindyrend

I agree, they knew exactly what they were buying.  We were there 5 or 6 years ago and it was looking like it needed some updates at that time.  We just seem so at the mercy of Northwynd or whoever has owned or might own it in the future and what's to stop them for continuing to ask for money, as well as increasing our maintenance fees.  It would be nice if as owners, we could all respond as one and take back some of our power, after all supposedly we each own 2% of one unit.


----------



## Spark1

THE AVENGER said:


> Has anyone approached Northwynd/Northmount  on paying the fee to get out  on the same plan as the refurbishing plan (eg. $100/ month)?
> Also when they approached us  (using a high pressure sales company) on purchasing the deeded plan (Legacy For Life) they already knew they were in financial problems and presented it as a great opportunity.  Is this not FRAUD?



If this is fraud do not pay any money to these crooks. Why do you think they have a F rating with the BBB in Calgary. They are not honest people


----------



## Spark1

cindyrend said:


> I agree, they knew exactly what they were buying.  We were there 5 or 6 years ago and it was looking like it needed some updates at that time.  We just seem so at the mercy of Northwynd or whoever has owned or might own it in the future and what's to stop them for continuing to ask for money, as well as increasing our maintenance fees.  It would be nice if as owners, we could all respond as one and take back some of our power, after all supposedly we each own 2% of one unit.



I like what Aden did item no. 238. The Alberta gov't protects timeshare owners from scams and fraud. They protect Alberta residents because this company is from Calgary Alberta. Check Service Alberta website and read Fair Trading Act. And print off the government of Alberta Complaint form. They could also protect out of province timeshare owners when dealing with a Alberta Company.


----------



## aden2

the Cancellation Agreement
7. the following additional terms form part of the agreement
a). "This agreement shall be construed, interpreted and applied in accordance with, and shall be governed by, the laws of Alberta and the laws of Canada applicable therein."


----------



## disillusioned

*Running out of time*

On the Sunchasers web site under the Renovation Program tab, in the petition between Philip K. Matkin (Petitioner) and Northmont Resort (Respondents), entitled "S132760 BC Supreme Court Order of Master Scarth" paragraph 2 it states "Any Owner wishing to respond to the Petition or make submissions at the hearing on June 20, 2013 (or such later date to which it is adjourned) shall file and serve on the Petitioner  and the Respondents of record, on or before May 31, 2013, their Response in Form 67 and any affidavit or other materials upon which they intend to rely at such hearing.” 
This is the Petition where the Trustee is questioning the Court if Northmont can actually do what they are telling us they are doing and asking the Court for advice!


----------



## DarkLord

Spark1 said:


> If this is fraud do not pay any money to these crooks. Why do you think they have a F rating with the BBB in Calgary. They are not honest people



For those who worry not paying Northwynd could ruine your credit history, please note that they are a F rating company with BBB.  If hundreds and thousands of us report to the credit rating agency that Northwynd is a rogue vendor, they couldn't touch our credit rating.


----------



## ERW

I'd like to complete the form 67 and send it to the courts, but does doing so require me to attend the hearings in June? 

Secondly, I think the more noise created (BBB, Alberta Fari Trade Act) the more it ties Northwynd's hands up. 

I am calling the Northwynd office in the next day or so and telling them that I am undecided and will not be agreeing to any proposed options until the hearing is held in June and a decision is handed down.

I find it difficult to believe that a judge would render a decision that affects 14,000 + timeshare holders/owners without a full representation from those affected. That is why I feel it is important to respond to the BC Courts with a completed Form 67 stating the reasons this is not a legitimate option. I do not beleive that a survey or a heavy handed "Act or die by May 31st" is a fair way of dealing with the lessees/owners. 

I would like to see the judge come back and state that an independant group must solicite the opinions of the lessees/owners. Also, if this is allowed, any funds collected would be set aside in trust on behalf of the lessees/owners so that if Northwynd were to suddenly default, the funds are protected on behalf of the timeshare holders and not disappear into someone's pockets.


----------



## DarkLord

ERW said:


> I'd like to complete the form 67 and send it to the courts, but does doing so require me to attend the hearings in June?



No, you will not be required to attend the hearing.  A petition to the BC court is done by affaidavit, there'll be no witness presented, not even from Northwynd.  The judge will rule only on the evidence (the affaidavit) presented to him/her.

That's why it is of paramount importance for the owners to make submission before the end of May.


----------



## ERW

Although I am sure this would not be taken seriously by Northwynd (or the courts for that matter), one of the things that bothers me is the fact that 10 years ago I paid for a 40 year "lease". So far I have used 25% of that agreed time. Therefore, the way I see it, I have 75% of the value of my purchase outstanding to be used. I would have no problem paying to buy out my lease if Northwynd in turn agrees to refund me 75% of my original purchase price.

I'm sure that would simply be laughed at but from my perspective, there is still value in the property at Fairmont - if I walk away by paying the buyout based on their terms, I'm out of pocket and they have still made a great deal of cash based on the inherent value of the property. 

Just my 2 bits worth.


----------



## ERW

Im on a roll now!

The leases many of us signed (I'm not sure if it is present in all the lease/purchase agreements) include a clause indicating a "Association of Owners" would be formed with an advisory board. 

Does anyone know if this has ever been done? I've not heard of it. I think I'll request to be put in touch with this "advisry board"nd see what their reaction is. If they refuse to allow an association to be formed, could this perhaps be a means of releasing us from our agreements as breach of contract?

Thoughts?


----------



## morena

*agreement*



ERW said:


> Although I am sure this would not be taken seriously by Northwynd (or the courts for that matter), one of the things that bothers me is the fact that 10 years ago I paid for a 40 year "lease". So far I have used 25% of that agreed time. Therefore, the way I see it, I have 75% of the value of my purchase outstanding to be used. I would have no problem paying to buy out my lease if Northwynd in turn agrees to refund me 75% of my original purchase price.
> 
> I'm sure that would simply be laughed at but from my perspective, there is still value in the property at Fairmont - if I walk away by paying the buyout based on their terms, I'm out of pocket and they have still made a great deal of cash based on the inherent value of the property.
> 
> Just my 2 bits worth.



I totally agree.  Very few have mentioned this but it is a large loss to me as I loved Fairmont, never went or exchanged anywhere else.  I think they should be paying us, not the other way around.


----------



## Spark1

ERW said:


> Although I am sure this would not be taken seriously by Northwynd (or the courts for that matter), one of the things that bothers me is the fact that 10 years ago I paid for a 40 year "lease". So far I have used 25% of that agreed time. Therefore, the way I see it, I have 75% of the value of my purchase outstanding to be used. I would have no problem paying to buy out my lease if Northwynd in turn agrees to refund me 75% of my original purchase price.
> 
> I'm sure that would simply be laughed at but from my perspective, there is still value in the property at Fairmont - if I walk away by paying the buyout based on their terms, I'm out of pocket and they have still made a great deal of cash based on the inherent value of the property.
> 
> Just my 2 bits worth.



I feel the same way as you do. The reason us 14500 owners with 40 year lease contracts are being asked to pay these high reno fees is this.
They knew there were significant deferred maintenace issues and that the resort would need significant upgrades to operate at is former 4-5 star level.
Theaug. 2010 disclosure statement indicated 19 million of repairs and upgrades.thew knew they would not be able toget the lesees to pay for the needed repairs and upgrades. they had to come up with a plan to convince owners to ne responsible. They brought out the Legacy for  Life with the '' carrot"" of joining the RCI program. without telling the owners of the amount of repairs/ upgrades and without explaining the impact of the change, they slipped in a new clauseto the converion contract that stated that the co-owners were responsible for Capital improvements that may be needed {Intentional Misrepresentation}
From 2010 to 2012 they proceeded to contract studies to help put together a reno plan using monies that shoud have gone to resort maintenance and replacements. During this period they failed to let owners/lessees know the extent of the problem and failed to produce statements that would disclose the costs they were incurring.In this period they spent 4.5 million in excess of the budet that had been submitted to the owners. In jan. 2013 they announced the plans they had been working on with a preliminary budget of 28 to 35 million. By the time the invoices were mailed in april, they had inflated that to 50 million or 4000 per annual unit. They then brought out the bait- instead of paying 4000 why don"t you surrender your contract and we will only charge you 3000- aren't we nice guys. But you have to act by May 31 or we may withdraw this chance and you will be stuck. The real message- We need to convince you to pay before the court hearing because the court may tell us we can not charge you for the renos


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Interesting info*

I have been following this post and can offer the following information. We purchased a used annual golden unit at Fairmont Hillside about 8 years ago. I researched to death the resort, went on the presentations twice over a 3 years period prior to this and showed the salesmen at the last presentation a list of used units offered by a real estate agent in the area at about half the asking price of a new unit. The new 40 year units were going for about $25,000 at the time for an annual, gold lockoff unit sleeping 8 people. The real estate agent had the exact same units for sale for about half of this amount but instead of 40 years remaining, they had anywhere from 28 to 36 years remaining. 

After checking the internet I found a used timeshare company located in the U.S. that sold me one for $3800 U.S This worked out to $5000 CDN including transfer fees and the first year of Maintenance fees. We thought this was a steal of a deal and have used this unit for the past 8 years. 

Two years ago, when booking for the next year in advance, we were informed to do so we had to pay our Maintenance fees a full year in advance. In order to secure the prime unit we wanted we did so. We also went to several of the presentations in regards to upgrading to a point system, and also to purchase the Legacy for Life program. The sales people bragged that over 50% of the people already have switched over to this great program. We never did purchase and continued to be invited to many sales presentations.

It is clear to me that something is not right here. Their actions and also history of this company indicate to me that this is a money grab no different then the Legacy for Life program. 

We love Fairmont, love the area and are hopeful that we can continue to spend many more years using the timeshare we bought. I am not about to sign up for the renovations at the end of May, nor am I about to pay them to walk away. I am a bit concerned if they can refuse me entry this summer when I come out to Fairmont to use the facility i am entitled to use, and have paid the Maintenance fee a year in advance?

Also found this information tidbit from a realtor in Fairmont, posted a year ago.

http://www.justanswer.com/canada-law/7age8-small-timeshare-resale-business-fairmont-hot-springs.html


----------



## aden2

There is another group out of Victoria that it might be worth your effort to contact. It is my understanding they will be acting on behalf of a group. I have already joined a group. The affadavid you get a form at any court house and have them witness it. You would use the same format that Kirk Wankel used, and use a number system stating when bought, what tales they told you, and when you become aware of their problems. These would be a suggestion to use in your affadavid. I hope you wrote/emaile Northwynd that you are hold funds because they violated the contract.


----------



## Disappointed W

*Link for filing your own Form 67*

Well, I am trying to look at this all as an unplanned journey of learning into the world of legal proceedings.  I found a link which may be helpful:

http://www.supremecourtbc.ca/sites/default/files/web/Defending-a-Proceeding-Started-by-Petition.pdf

I guess I had better get on this if it is to be submitted by May 31!


----------



## bifft

*Get the story onto CTV*

Those of you in Calgary might consider contacting Lea.Williams-Doherty@bellmedia.ca<Lea.Williams-Doherty@bellmedia.ca>; Ms. Doherty is aware of the issue however would like an interviewee to flesh out the story. Give it your best shot.


----------



## disillusioned

*Copies*

Do we send Form 67 just to the Court or to each of the parties involved? The letter telling Northwynd that we aren't going to pay for something that should have been taken care of through 20 years of paying maintenance fees faithfully, does that go to the court too? What about our original contract?


----------



## DarkLord

disillusioned said:


> Do we send Form 67 just to the Court or to each of the parties involved? The letter telling Northwynd that we aren't going to pay for something that should have been taken care of through 20 years of paying maintenance fees faithfully, does that go to the court too? What about our original contract?



Form 67 and the affidavit of submission should go to the court, Northwynd and Northwynd's lawyer so 3 copies.  The letter telling Northwynd to take a hike can go to Northwynd alone.  You can include your original contract with the affidavit.


----------



## abowner

*removal of management company*

1. How does a person get a hold of the owners list to try and get approval to remove the management company? 

(Anyone else find it odd the Trustee that is suppose to be looking after the owners interests has the same address as Northmont and Northwynd)


----------



## THE AVENGER

*Anti Fraud*

I have been in touch with the Anti Fraud Department of the RCMP.  The person I spoke to was very attentive and anxious to recieve any documentation I could forward to them.  It was about a week ago that I phoned them and they were very familiar with the situiation as they had had several calls in the previous few days.  My sugestion is that everyone phone them, which may result in them suspending Northwynd's action.  At one point in conversation, the person I talked to said "don't sign anything".
The number for the Anti Fraud Department is   1-888-495-8501


----------



## Fred765

*2012 and 2011 Audited Financial Statements*

Well it looks like the audited financial statements for 2012 have been completed and are now posted on the Sunchaser website under the owners section.  The 2011 audited financials were signed off over 10 months late due to a change of property managers and computer systems in mid 2010.  Apparently they couldn't determine what the accounts receivable and deferred revenues were at the end of 2011 and 2010 due to a lack of audit evidence.  You should pay attention to the qualified opinion on the December 31, 2011 audited financial statements.

The 2012 audited financial statements were due March 31, 2013 and were signed off May 14, 2013 just in time for the May 31, 2013 imposed deadline.

For fun do a bit of math and divide the total 2012 maintenance fees receipts in the audited financial statements by the amount you paid for your 2012 maintenance fees (excluding taxes) to determine how many units were paid and included in revenue.  This assumes everyone pays the same amount.  Compare this number to the number of vacation interval owners and vacation interval agreements listed in KIrk Wankel CA's affidavit (section 11).

On the 2012 audited financial statements you should carefully read Note 9 titled Subsequent Events and pay attention to bad debts, growing deficits, management fees, related party transactions and Note 3 which talks about Northmont's support for Building 7000.


----------



## DOCKEN KLYM

*Legal action - fairmont sunchasers vacation villas*

Good Day;

We are a law firm located in Calgary, Alberta, and we have been asked to investigate the assessment against the owners of timeshare properties at Sunchasers Vacation Villas.

We are seeking to file an Objection with the courts in relation to the upcoming May 31. 2013 Application by the timeshare operator.  We are seeking investors who wish to oppose the assessment.  If you are interested in doing so, please contact our offices for further details.

Robert C. Forsyth
System Administrator
DOCKEN KLYM
403-269-3612
robert@docken.com


----------



## THE AVENGER

*The thugs*

Where can we find any accounting of where and how the monies they are asking for will be spent?  They are asking for a large sum of money (over 4 times our anual maintainance fees) up front.  They claim to be holding this money in trust, but what are the conditions of that trust?  If we fall for this scheme, we are buying a "pig in a poke".  When Northwynd goes bankrupt, (likely in the next few months), the principles of Northwynd will find a way to direct this money into their pockets.  Northwynd, (who took over the assets of Fairmont when it went into recievership), was a group of investors in FRPL.  They have devised this scheme to recover some of their losses.
"These people are heartless".  They are asking for money from people in nursing homes, widows and widowers, people on minimum government pensions, etc. etc.  I know of one 94 year old owner who was taken down to the office by her daughter where they found no sympathy and they were unbending.  Another sister of mine is in a seniors residence and her husband has dementia in a nursing home and are being forced into this corner not knowing what to do about it.
THESE PEOPLE ARE "THUGS OF THE LOWEST DEGREE"


----------



## Becooling

*Anti-Fraud Centre*



THE AVENGER said:


> I have been in touch with the Anti Fraud Department of the RCMP.  The person I spoke to was very attentive and anxious to recieve any documentation I could forward to them.  It was about a week ago that I phoned them and they were very familiar with the situiation as they had had several calls in the previous few days.  My sugestion is that everyone phone them, which may result in them suspending Northwynd's action.  At one point in conversation, the person I talked to said "don't sign anything".
> The number for the Anti Fraud Department is   1-888-495-8501



If you phone you are going to spend a lot of time on hold.  My suggestion which I did was go to the website antifraudcentre.ca and fill out the report form.  I also talked to them but filing the complaint seems to be the best method of getting your complaint registered.  I would guess the more complaints they get the more likely they will investigate.


----------



## Undecided

*Converted to RCI*

Hi,

I converted to RCI in 2010 and it looks like they have amended the contract to what suits them best.  I'm from BC and will most likely never use that resort again as it's just too far to drive down there.  As much as I like to vacation, it just seems as the maintenance fees keep going up and up and the RCI membership fee along with the exchange fees and cleaning fees.  It would be a lot less expensive taking a trip once in a while from expedia when I want and where I want.  Maybe might be best just to cancel once and for all instead of dealing with all this over and over again.  Cutting my losses before they become any bigger.


----------



## DOCKEN KLYM

Good Day;

We are a law firm located in Calgary, Alberta, and we have been asked to investigate the assessment against the owners of timeshare properties at Sunchasers Vacation Villas at Fairmont.  We are currently working with a firm in Victoria, BC to represent owners of these properties.  We will be handling Alberta-based clients, while the Victoria firm will be handling BC-based clients.

We are seeking to file an Objection with the courts in relation to the upcoming May 31. 2013 Application by the timeshare operator. We are seeking owners/investors who wish to oppose the assessment. If you are interested in doing so, please contact our offices for further details.

Robert C. Forsyth
System Administrator
DOCKEN KLYM
403-269-3612
robert@docken.com


----------



## DaveO

*Math 101?!?*

I might be bad at math, unless someone knows how many actual annual / bi-annual owners there are? But how do the numbers work in Kirk Wankel's Affidavit he states in section 11 - "Currently there is 14'500 Vacation Interval owners who have entered into 18'600 vacation interval units.

If you look at the audited statements 9.5 million was collected and 500k was wrote off.

500k / $949.88 (Maintenance fees for 2013) =  526 people

9.5 million / 14'500 - (526 from above) 13974 = $680.00 and my maintenance fees were $949.88 this year!!

Even if you took the 18'600 vacation intervals and worked it out at say a 60% (annual owners) / 40% (bi-annual) split it still works out to over 10+ million.

18'600  * 60% = 11160 annual fees at $949.88 = 10.6 million in maintenance fees.

I would assume that these numbers have been fudged in the audited statement and Kirk Wankel is lying in his affidavit which is a federal offense!!

The documents that I'm using for this information is located here:

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Wankel-Affidavit-sworn-April-15-2013.pdf

Section 11

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/December-31-2012-Financial-Statements.pdf

Maintenance fees collected.


----------



## tdjanzen

DaveO said:


> I might be bad at math, unless someone knows how many actual annual / bi-annual owners there are? But how do the numbers work in Kirk Wankel's Affidavit he states in section 11 - "Currently there is 14'500 Vacation Interval owners who have entered into 18'600 vacation interval units.
> 
> If you look at the audited statements 9.5 million was collected and 500k was wrote off.
> 
> 500k / $949.88 (Maintenance fees for 2013) =  526 people
> 
> 9.5 million / 14'500 - (526 from above) 13974 = $680.00 and my maintenance fees were $949.88 this year!!
> 
> Even if you took the 18'600 vacation intervals and worked it out at say a 60% (annual owners) / 40% (bi-annual) split it still works out to over 10+ million.
> 
> 18'600  * 60% = 11160 annual fees at $949.88 = 10.6 million in maintenance fees.
> 
> I would assume that these numbers have been fudged in the audited statement and Kirk Wankel is lying in his affidavit which is a federal offense!!
> 
> The documents that I'm using for this information is located here:
> 
> http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Wankel-Affidavit-sworn-April-15-2013.pdf
> 
> Section 11
> 
> http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/December-31-2012-Financial-Statements.pdf
> 
> Maintenance fees collected.



I have no idea of the split between annual and bi-annual owners.  It is possible that earnings are mis-stated but if all owners were bi-annual, then revenues would be about $8.8 million (182,000 divided by 2 * $949 per year of maintenance) so likely there are a lot more bi-annual owners than there are annual owners.  Certainly, from the amount of units offered for sale over the years, there are always more bi-annual units.

The thing that struck me about the 2011 and 2012 financials is that even with all the cutbacks in service personnel, the place still lost well over a million dollars per year. That means that there is almost no way that Northwynd will be able to run this place at break-even.  At a minimum, maintenance fees need to be 10 to 20% higher, just so the place breaks even.

I have heard the argument that timeshares in Hawaii have much higher maintenance fees and so we shouldn't gripe about paying $1,000 for Fairmont.   But from the financials, it is obvious that they need at least $1,100 to $1,200 a year now to break-even.  And would suggest that if they are successful in pushing forward with their plan, there will significantly more defaults and for those who were willing to pay for the current plan, they will be asked for more repeatedly.  I believe that $1500 a year will be the annual maintenance fee in short order and quite frankly that is just too much.

The question now is.... does one pay out the funds and then it's done and one can enjoy the last summer there.  OR does one simply walk away.

Personally, I'm not comfortable walking away BUT I really hate being forced to act prematurely (even before the judges decision) to be able to use this summer's rental.

I am wondering if it possible as part of the petition to the court to request an injunction so that people that have paid their maintenance fee (but not the "refurbishment amounts") be able to use their rentals (that they arranged as much as a year ago) without having to commit to the "Freedom to Choose" option.

Any legal minds here that could respond.


----------



## Misery1

*Freedom to Choose = Trapped*

I have spent way too many hours stressing over and researching this issue.  In Mr. Wankel's Affidavit he states that a "Communication" was sent to owners in December (Exhibit G).  Mr. Wankel is misleading the Court as I know I did NOT receive any such communication.  I prepaid my 2013 maintenance when I reserved my week last year and I have not received any correspondence from anyone until the Renovation Program Response Form arrived in the mail around May 10.  We are not the original owners, and only took it over to help out a family member that couldn't afford the annual maint. after the original owner died.  Unfortunately, it appears we will pay dearly for our kindness, one way or another.  I was interested in the Freedom to Choose option; however, the surrender form concerns me.  It states that if I fail to make a payment within the time stipulated Northmont may terminate the agreement without notice and any amounts paid in respect of the cancellation fee, up to 50%, shall be retained by them as liquidated damages and the other 50% put towards future maintenance fee obligations.  I live outside the country and 1. Can't obtain a Canadian $ cashiers check (if I send USD and they disagree with the exchange rate I could be considered in default and they will keep my money and give me nothing in return), 2. Can't guarantee that mail/courier will deliver before May 31st deadline (again, no guarantee that if it arrives a day late they won't consider me in default and keep the $). It clearly states NO timeshare owner shall be entitled to the refund of any amounts paid under this agreement.  In addition, there is no deadline or timeframe in which they agree to process the surrender, and in the meantime it states owner shall remain liable for any and all amounts including next year's maintenance fee billing etc.  So, even if I sent the right amount and it makes it in time, they can just keep it and not process my surrender for as LONG as they want to take?  Based on the reputation of how Northwynd has handled properties it owned in Mexico and Hawaii it's not likely they will treat us owners any more ethically so I have filed a complaint with the Anti Fraud Dept. as recommended here.  I'm still trying to figure out if there is any way I can get the Form 67 completed and submitted in time. I understand as owners we have obligations; however, a reputable company would have communicated to us early on (not just say they did), had a phased approach so that we wouldn't have had a hefty special assessment, and would have treated us fairly so that we could trust they had the owners' best interest and not their own at heart.  Thank you for all the great advice and suggestions everyone here has provided.


----------



## disillusioned

Please show me how to fill out Form 67?


----------



## Spark1

Misery1 said:


> I have spent way too many hours stressing over and researching this issue.  In Mr. Wankel's Affidavit he states that a "Communication" was sent to owners in December (Exhibit G).  Mr. Wankel is misleading the Court as I know I did NOT receive any such communication.  I prepaid my 2013 maintenance when I reserved my week last year and I have not received any correspondence from anyone until the Renovation Program Response Form arrived in the mail around May 10.  We are not the original owners, and only took it over to help out a family member that couldn't afford the annual maint. after the original owner died.  Unfortunately, it appears we will pay dearly for our kindness, one way or another.  I was interested in the Freedom to Choose option; however, the surrender form concerns me.  It states that if I fail to make a payment within the time stipulated Northmont may terminate the agreement without notice and any amounts paid in respect of the cancellation fee, up to 50%, shall be retained by them as liquidated damages and the other 50% put towards future maintenance fee obligations.  I live outside the country and 1. Can't obtain a Canadian $ cashiers check (if I send USD and they disagree with the exchange rate I could be considered in default and they will keep my money and give me nothing in return), 2. Can't guarantee that mail/courier will deliver before May 31st deadline (again, no guarantee that if it arrives a day late they won't consider me in default and keep the $). It clearly states NO timeshare owner shall be entitled to the refund of any amounts paid under this agreement.  In addition, there is no deadline or timeframe in which they agree to process the surrender, and in the meantime it states owner shall remain liable for any and all amounts including next year's maintenance fee billing etc.  So, even if I sent the right amount and it makes it in time, they can just keep it and not process my surrender for as LONG as they want to take?  Based on the reputation of how Northwynd has handled properties it owned in Mexico and Hawaii it's not likely they will treat us owners any more ethically so I have filed a complaint with the Anti Fraud Dept. as recommended here.  I'm still trying to figure out if there is any way I can get the Form 67 completed and submitted in time. I understand as owners we have obligations; however, a reputable company would have communicated to us early on (not just say they did), had a phased approach so that we wouldn't have had a hefty special assessment, and would have treated us fairly so that we could trust they had the owners' best interest and not their own at heart.  Thank you for all the great advice and suggestions everyone here has provided.



What these guys are doing is putting the fear of god into everybody with all there threats and buy doing this knowing that alot of the owners are elderly  and do not like the idea of lawyers, judges, bill collectors . They are banking on the seniors paying the cancellation fees before the end of May31. If we all stick together and do not cave in we will beat this case. I am not giving these bandits one thin dime.
I recommend that everyone phone 18774274088, this is service Alberta and the website is  www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/562.cfm. they protect consumers from Alberta and others that have problems with Alberta businesses. This is the fair Trading Act and they deal with timeshare fraud. You can download a Government of Alberta Consumer Complaint Form and fill it out and fax all the info. to them. The Fair Trading Act Laid Charges against the same type of companies like Northwynd at Canmore Alberta and won the case and the owners sued them in court for damages. Northwynd is a Calgary based company and can be charged. Everyone should be doing this.


----------



## Lion Fish

*www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/562.cfm*

Here are the instructions on the website to file a complaint.  Did you notice that this forum has been viewed almost 40,000 times?


Filing a Complaint

The first step in any complaint process is to talk with one of our Information Officers in the Consumer Contact Centre at 780-427-4088 in Edmonton and toll-free at 1-877-427-4088 throughout the rest of the province. If they recommend that you file a formal complaint, complete the on-line form or the printable complaint form (pdf).

You can also refer to our "Filing a Complaint with Consumer Services" infosheet.

Please be sure to fill out the entire form.If you have copies of documents to support your claim, we recommend you print the form and send it with a copy of your supporting documents to the address below depending on which part of the province you reside in. Please do not include in the on-line complaint form any personal information like your bank account number, charge card or social insurance number. If you must include that information in your complaint, please send it to us by Canada Post mail instead.

Note: The information being collected on the complaint forms is for the purpose of a possible complaint investigation in accordance with the Cemeteries Act, the Charitable Fund Raising Act, the Fair Trading Act or the Government Organization Act (in relation to Residential Tenancies and Mobile Home Sites Tenancies investigations). When necessary, the information provided may be disclosed to law enforcement agencies or in connection with legal proceedings.   

Questions about the collection of this information can be directed to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Coordinator for Service Alberta, Box 3140, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 2G7, (1-877-427-4088).


----------



## aden2

disillusioned said:


> Please show me how to fill out Form 67?



Most court houses will help you fill out form 67, but you need to fill out an affidavit with it. If you are not with a group fax your completed forms to 
Supreme Court of B.C. ;Vancouver,B.C.   Fax: 604-660-2429 (Civil Court).


----------



## Spark1

THE AVENGER said:


> Where can we find any accounting of where and how the monies they are asking for will be spent?  They are asking for a large sum of money (over 4 times our anual maintainance fees) up front.  They claim to be holding this money in trust, but what are the conditions of that trust?  If we fall for this scheme, we are buying a "pig in a poke".  When Northwynd goes bankrupt, (likely in the next few months), the principles of Northwynd will find a way to direct this money into their pockets.  Northwynd, (who took over the assets of Fairmont when it went into recievership), was a group of investors in FRPL.  They have devised this scheme to recover some of their losses.
> "These people are heartless".  They are asking for money from people in nursing homes, widows and widowers, people on minimum government pensions, etc. etc.  I know of one 94 year old owner who was taken down to the office by her daughter where they found no sympathy and they were unbending.  Another sister of mine is in a seniors residence and her husband has dementia in a nursing home and are being forced into this corner not knowing what to do about it.
> THESE PEOPLE ARE "THUGS OF THE LOWEST DEGREE"



These timeshare agreements go against the Charter OF Rights. We have to get after the Federal and Provincial governments to not allow timeshares in Canada. There are problems with timeshares throughout all of North America.


----------



## Lion Fish

*Better Business Bureau rating for Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd*

http://www.bbb.org/calgary/business...ynd-resort-properties-ltd-in-calgary-ab-32883

Try the following link to check their BBB rating.


----------



## mmchili

Another way to look at the maintenance fees is at the number of timeshare weeks, which is used to calculate the fee. There are 250 units at 51 weeks per year equals 12,750 weeks. This has to be adjusted because the terrace units pay 15% less than the lock-off units. This results in 12,581.7 net weeks.

Here is how the net weeks are calculated using 228 lock-off units and 22 terrace units.    228 units x 51 weeks x 100% = 11,628 weeks
              22 units x 51 weeks x  85% =      953.7 weeks 
                                              Total  = 12,581.7 net weeks        

However, for 2012, because of delinquent weeks and off-line weeks, 11,388.3 net weeks was used to calculate the maintenance fees.

Here is the formula used: 1000/11,388,300 x $9,037,225 = $793.55 (LO)

                                       850/11,388,300 x $9,037,225 = $674.52 (TR)

If there were no delinquents and off-lines the fee would have been:
                                      1000/12,581,700 x $9,037,225 = $718.28 (LO)

                                        850/12,581,700 x $9,037,225 = $610.54 (TR)

From the above, the lock-off weeks paid an additional $75.27 and the terrace weeks paid an additional $63.98 because of delinquencies and off-lines.


For 2013, because of delinquent weeks and off-line weeks, 10,829.1 net weeks was used to calculate the maintenance fees. Use the above formula and replace the net weeks and budget amount for 2013 for both scenarios.

The lock-off weeks paid an additional $118.15 and the terrace weeks paid an additional $100.42 because of delinquencies and off-lines.

For 2012, the budget was $9,037,225 (not including HST) versus the financials that show maint fees receipts of $9,538,384 and fees net of bad debts of $8,730,441. Does this mean that $306,784 less than budgeted was collected? An additional 380 delinquent weeks?


----------



## morena

*what about earlier post*



Spark1 said:


> What these guys are doing is putting the fear of god into everybody with all there threats and buy doing this knowing that alot of the owners are elderly  and do not like the idea of lawyers, judges, bill collectors . They are banking on the seniors paying the cancellation fees before the end of May31. If we all stick together and do not cave in we will beat this case. I am not giving these bandits one thin dime.
> I recommend that everyone phone 18774274088, this is service Alberta and the website is  www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/562.cfm. they protect consumers from Alberta and others that have problems with Alberta businesses. This is the fair Trading Act and they deal with timeshare fraud. You can download a Government of Alberta Consumer Complaint Form and fill it out and fax all the info. to them. The Fair Trading Act Laid Charges against the same type of companies like Northwynd at Canmore Alberta and won the case and the owners sued them in court for damages. Northwynd is a Calgary based company and can be charged. Everyone should be doing this.



Did you read the earlier post #245 about Canmore and how the antifraud case of 168 cases of fraud over 5000.00 was inexplicably dropped?  I don't know if this was posted to scare us or what?  Are you sure that individuals won these cases?


----------



## cindyrend

So here's what I'm wondering, some owners have already retained lawyers that will represent them at court, but won't whatever decision the judge makes impact all owners the same?


----------



## twoofus

*It is going to cost one way or another*



Spark1 said:


> These timeshare agreements go against the Charter OF Rights. We have to get after the Federal and Provincial governments to not allow timeshares in Canada. There are problems with timeshares throughout all of North America.



As of today, our position hasn't changed ..we just want out.  We don't want to leave our adult children with this ongoing nightmare.  We initially have our lease at $13,500 + RCI 3,500 - so for approx. 17,000 (paid) and $900 + mtce fees due in 2014 ....we want to just surrender our lease - but are unable to pay for this 'opportunity'.  Someone's query about will a 'payment' plan ($100.00)  be offered for this option as well be forthcoming is something we will have to wait and see.

We were unable to commit to a group that was requiring a $1000.00 retainer, so solicited our own legal advice ($436.80) - which basically netted us the info that we are much better off participating in a group - so we have now committed to the group out of Victoria with a retainer of $300.00 - we will now wait and see what transpires.  We felt totally inept at trying to pursue this on our own, and to do nothing and wait and see felt similiar to not participating in an election vote- Good Luck to us all.

I quoted the 'we have to get Federal & Provincial ....' above, as once this current issue is underway (after May 31/June20) I think we need to stay here (together) on this and focus our energies as per quote.


----------



## disillusioned

Is this applicable to us "Agreements void for non-compliance
23  A promise or an agreement to purchase or lease a development unit is not enforceable against a purchaser by a developer who has breached any provision of Part 2 [Marketing and Holding Deposits].
I found it in this document from BC law concerning Real Estate Development Marketing Act http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_04041_01


----------



## Spark1

twoofus said:


> As of today, our position hasn't changed ..we just want out.  We don't want to leave our adult children with this ongoing nightmare.  We initially have our lease at $13,500 + RCI 3,500 - so for approx. 17,000 (paid) and $900 + mtce fees due in 2014 ....we want to just surrender our lease - but are unable to pay for this 'opportunity'.  Someone's query about will a 'payment' plan ($100.00)  be offered for this option as well be forthcoming is something we will have to wait and see.
> 
> We were unable to commit to a group that was requiring a $1000.00 retainer, so solicited our own legal advice ($436.80) - which basically netted us the info that we are much better off participating in a group - so we have now committed to the group out of Victoria with a retainer of $300.00 - we will now wait and see what transpires.  We felt totally inept at trying to pursue this on our own, and to do nothing and wait and see felt similiar to not participating in an election vote- Good Luck to us all.
> 
> I quoted the 'we have to get Federal & Provincial ....' above, as once this current issue is underway (after May 31/June20) I think we need to stay here (together) on this and focus our energies as per quote.



Have you received Audited Statements yet. If not they have breached your agreement. My agreement states prior to the 31st day of March in each calendar year, send to the lessee. They have also breached my agreement item number 9 stating we have to replace their resort, it doesnot say that in my agreement. There are two agreements out there one being co-owners and the other vacation villa lease. They are different.


----------



## CindyD

*Victoria Law Firm*



twoofus said:


> As of today, our position hasn't changed ..we just want out.  We don't want to leave our adult children with this ongoing nightmare.  We initially have our lease at $13,500 + RCI 3,500 - so for approx. 17,000 (paid) and $900 + mtce fees due in 2014 ....we want to just surrender our lease - but are unable to pay for this 'opportunity'.  Someone's query about will a 'payment' plan ($100.00)  be offered for this option as well be forthcoming is something we will have to wait and see.
> 
> We were unable to commit to a group that was requiring a $1000.00 retainer, so solicited our own legal advice ($436.80) - which basically netted us the info that we are much better off participating in a group - so we have now committed to the group out of Victoria with a retainer of $300.00 - we will now wait and see what transpires.  We felt totally inept at trying to pursue this on our own, and to do nothing and wait and see felt similiar to not participating in an election vote- Good Luck to us all.
> 
> I quoted the 'we have to get Federal & Provincial ....' above, as once this current issue is underway (after May 31/June20) I think we need to stay here (together) on this and focus our energies as per quote.



We have contacted the Victoria Lawyer and I hope this is not just another scam, seems like everyone has there hands in our wallets.


----------



## aden2

[U]We were unable to commit to a group that was requiring a $1000.00 retainer, so solicited our own legal advice ($436.80) - which basically netted us the info that we are much better off participating in a group - so we have now committed to the group out of Victoria with a retainer of $300.00 - we will now wait and see what transpires.  We felt totally inept at trying to pursue this on our own, and to do nothing and wait and see felt similiar to not participating in an election vote- Good Luck to us all.

I quoted the 'we have to get Federal & Provincial ....' above, as once this current issue is underway (after May 31/June20) I think we need to stay here (together) on this and focus our energies as per quote.[/QUOTE]*[/B**

Glad to hear you are with a a group. I would also suggest that you go to ["]Alberta Fair Trading Act. Since their was a violation of our timeshare contract i.e. no yearly audited financial report, unable to give an audit for 2009 & 2010 as documents missing, no reserve fund  as 15% required in contract etc. This all means that under Alberta Law your contract can be voided. Alberta Law applies to the Sunchaser villas, because the business offices are in Alberta.*


----------



## gilker

*money grab?*

just wondering; since they can charge a 15% fee on the reno's...on 40 mill that works out to 6 mill they collect in fees. I am wondering where does that go? that is a large amount of money


----------



## mmchili

www.mountainsidevillas.com
Communication to Owners
  IMPORTANT NOTICE 
There have been a number of communications published recently about the Timeshares at Fairmont. Some of these communications have associated Mountainside Villas with Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust (Northwynd Properties). Northwynd operate the Timeshare Development on the west side of highway 93/95 in Fairmont. 
Mountainside Villas are a completely separate entity and the real estate is owned by Fairmont Hot Springs Resort Ltd. and managed by Fairmont Villa Management. There is no association between the two companies, nor has there ever been. 
We, at Fairmont Villa Management have been receiving a number of calls wondering if we are included in Northwynd Properties current “cash call”. At Mountainside we are very proud of the fact that we have been able to operate Mountainside Villas within our operating budgets, are in good financial health along with a substantial reserve.


----------



## ERW

A somewhat unrelated question but an interesting thought all the same...

If the owners are being held responsible for the bulk of the renovation costs, does that mean the owners could potentially be issued cheques in the event that the resort makes money somewhere down the road?

:hysterical:


----------



## condomama

tswow said:


> www.mountainsidevillas.com
> Communication to Owners
> IMPORTANT NOTICE
> There have been a number of communications published recently about the Timeshares at Fairmont. Some of these communications have associated Mountainside Villas with Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust (Northwynd Properties). Northwynd operate the Timeshare Development on the west side of highway 93/95 in Fairmont.
> Mountainside Villas are a completely separate entity and the real estate is owned by Fairmont Hot Springs Resort Ltd. and managed by Fairmont Villa Management. There is no association between the two companies, nor has there ever been.
> We, at Fairmont Villa Management have been receiving a number of calls wondering if we are included in Northwynd Properties current “cash call”. At Mountainside we are very proud of the fact that we have been able to operate Mountainside Villas within our operating budgets, are in good financial health along with a substantial reserve.


(And re my posting along time ago, it seems, at # 172) - thanks for the confirmation.  Mountainside has always been well run, maintained, and a joy to visit.  Regardless of the fact that it's right across the road from Riverside, we've always had to pay to exchange or getaway through II - perhaps for good reason!


----------



## montanalady

twoofus said:


> As of today, our position hasn't changed ..we just want out.  We don't want to leave our adult children with this ongoing nightmare.  We initially have our lease at $13,500 + RCI 3,500 - so for approx. 17,000 (paid) and $900 + mtce fees due in 2014 ....we want to just surrender our lease - but are unable to pay for this 'opportunity'.  Someone's query about will a 'payment' plan ($100.00)  be offered for this option as well be forthcoming is something we will have to wait and see.
> 
> We were unable to commit to a group that was requiring a $1000.00 retainer, so solicited our own legal advice ($436.80) - which basically netted us the info that we are much better off participating in a group - so we have now committed to the group out of Victoria with a retainer of $300.00 - we will now wait and see what transpires.  We felt totally inept at trying to pursue this on our own, and to do nothing and wait and see felt similiar to not participating in an election vote- Good Luck to us all.
> 
> I quoted the 'we have to get Federal & Provincial ....' above, as once this current issue is underway (after May 31/June20) I think we need to stay here (together) on this and focus our energies as per quote.



With regards to surrender, which I plan to do, I took this mess to my lawyer along with the contract I signed in 2000.  She pointed out that Provision 13 (Default of the Lessee in any payment required under this Lease) allows me to surender the property through non-payment for 16 months at which time it will be considered that I have offered it for sale back to the lessor for.....(multiple calculations)...a small amount.  But it does NOT allow them to charge me for surrender of the lease!

She wrote a letter for me stating the above.


----------



## Meow

twoofus said:


> As of today, our position hasn't changed ..we just want out.  We don't want to leave our adult children with this ongoing nightmare.  We initially have our lease at $13,500 + RCI 3,500 - so for approx. 17,000 (paid) and $900 + mtce fees due in 2014 ....we want to just surrender our lease - but are unable to pay for this 'opportunity'.  Someone's query about will a 'payment' plan ($100.00)  be offered for this option as well be forthcoming is something we will have to wait and see.
> 
> We were unable to commit to a group that was requiring a $1000.00 retainer, so solicited our own legal advice ($436.80) - which basically netted us the info that we are much better off participating in a group - so we have now committed to the group out of Victoria with a retainer of $300.00 - we will now wait and see what transpires.  We felt totally inept at trying to pursue this on our own, and to do nothing and wait and see felt similiar to not participating in an election vote- Good Luck to us all.
> 
> I quoted the 'we have to get Federal & Provincial ....' above, as once this current issue is underway (after May 31/June20) I think we need to stay here (together) on this and focus our energies as per quote.



Twofus,
We would like to contact the Victoria group you have just joined.  Could please pass on the contact information?  Thanks.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Mountainside*



tswow said:


> www.mountainsidevillas.com
> Communication to Owners
> IMPORTANT NOTICE
> There have been a number of communications published recently about the Timeshares at Fairmont. Some of these communications have associated Mountainside Villas with Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust (Northwynd Properties). Northwynd operate the Timeshare Development on the west side of highway 93/95 in Fairmont.
> Mountainside Villas are a completely separate entity and the real estate is owned by Fairmont Hot Springs Resort Ltd. and managed by Fairmont Villa Management. There is no association between the two companies, nor has there ever been.
> We, at Fairmont Villa Management have been receiving a number of calls wondering if we are included in Northwynd Properties current “cash call”. At Mountainside we are very proud of the fact that we have been able to operate Mountainside Villas within our operating budgets, are in good financial health along with a substantial reserve.



As an owner at both Mountainside Villas and Sunchaser for the past 8 years, I can vouch for the night and day difference between how these two two companies have been run. At first we rather enjoyed the uniqueness and differences of the two different timeshare resorts, so close in distance yet so different in what they had to offer. We have always spent one week at one resort and then switched over to the other. 

In the past 3 years we have noticed a rapid increase in our Maintenance fees at Sunchaser at a much higher rate then those at Mountainside.  Yet Mountainside has and continues to upgrade the units using the funds that have been properly set aside for renovations. 

If any of you are opting out of Sunchaser but still are looking for experiencing and enjoying the Fairmont Hot Springs area, I would not hesitate suggesting looking at picking up a used timeshare at Mountainside Villas. Night and day difference in how these two are managed.


----------



## ERW

Does anyone know any details (or where I can find details) about the Canmore resort as mentioned earlier? Just curious if it was a similar situation to ours.


----------



## mmchili

ERW; as a lease holder, at the end of the lease we own nothing. As a co-owner, we own a portion of the resort, of whatever value there is.

Here are some links to the Canmore property.
http://cheatauworld.ca/timeline.htm
http://www.rmoutlook.com/article/20110804/RMO0801/308049987/-1/rmo0801/fraud-                      charges-laid-in-time-share-scam
http://cheatauworld.ca/chateauworld.htm
http://www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/pdf/undertakings/FTA-Royal_Crown_Resorts-Apr_19                      _07.pdf
http://my.opera.com/CHEATauWorld/blog/index.dml/tag/Kim Schram


----------



## aden2

cindyrend said:


> So here's what I'm wondering, some owners have already retained lawyers that will represent them at court, but won't whatever decision the judge makes impact all owners the same?




[*COLOR="royalblue"]In the Canmore case the timeshare holders who came forward were the ones being considered damages, even though the Judge stated that he was confident that there were many more timeshare holders.[/COLOR]*


----------



## ERW

aden2 - would filing the Form 67 qualify as coming forward? And in this case so far, there are no real damages to award, so far it is more of a cease and desist request (or rather an objection) in relation to allowing Northwynd to go forward with their request. Or am I off base?


----------



## aden2

ERW said:


> aden2 - would filing the Form 67 qualify as coming forward? And in this case so far, there are no real damages to award, so far it is more of a cease and desist request (or rather an objection) in relation to allowing Northwynd to go forward with their request. Or am I off base?



1., have you written to Northwynd (you could email thems)stating that you are withholding for there numerious violations of the contract, when you get their reply go to Service Alberta and print a complaint form. Make sure you check off "timeshare". Make a formal complaint and attached your letters and Norwthyn's respond. There is an address and fax # on the form. 

2. do fill out the affavidit and form 67. You can get it notorize at a court house free of charge. You can also fax it to the Civil Divison Vancouver.

3. comments from Canmore court action I’m disappointed because these charges are specific to the issues of 59 members and we know there are a lot more victims than that,” she said.

Goodwin also expressed concern because Muran pleaded guilty to Fair Trading Act charges in the past and “got a plea deal, a slap on the wrist and a wag of the finger.

“I want to see serious penalties for this naughty corporate behaviour,” she said.

Under a previous name, Royal Club Resorts (RCR), the company and Muran were charged in 2004 with 125 charges in relation to failing to provide timely refunds to customers who cancelled their contracts.


----------



## Judythreetimes

I am sending you an email..this thread jumps arounf so much, I am unsure what is and isn't happening. We are extremely pissed at this company...


----------



## Judythreetimes

Maybe...no one got anything in the mail about what was going on at this resort? I know we sure as hell didn't. We have had nothing but problems with this Timeshare from the beginning. They are rude and obnoxious. All of them.


----------



## marbel62

montanalady said:


> With regards to surrender, which I plan to do, I took this mess to my lawyer along with the contract I signed in 2000.  She pointed out that Provision 13 (Default of the Lessee in any payment required under this Lease) allows me to surender the property through non-payment for 16 months at which time it will be considered that I have offered it for sale back to the lessor for.....(multiple calculations)...a small amount.  But it does NOT allow them to charge me for surrender of the lease!
> 
> She wrote a letter for me stating the above.


Our lease also states the above, but it goes on to say that " If the Lessor accepts the deemed offer as aforesaid, the Lessor shall be entitled to the Lessee's  leasehold interest..." , the critical word being " accepts ".
I doubt that Northwynd will accept the taking back( without cost to owners) of defaulted timeshares, since they have already said in today's market they are unsaleable, in a list of their explanations ( excuses ) why they are in such financial dire straights.They need money and don't want to be stuck with more inventory they can't sell, hence this money making scheme they have come up with, at the owners' expense. 
I too do not want to pay out any more money to help this company fix the problems they inherited from FRPL. Surely when a company buys another, they ought to do due diligence to find out the financial state of affairs (and the state of the property bought) of the company they are buying. Seems to me we owners are the ones footing the bill to protect the investments of the Northwynd group.
The best scenario for all owners would be that Northwynd et al  goes bankrupt. The only way I see this happening is if no owner pays them any money. However, I know most owners are afraid to do this, because of Northwynd's threat of legal action, collection agency etc. So, this company will make its millions of dollars in this scheme and laugh all the way to the bank at us owners. I sure hope there will be a class action suit eventually  and that we owners will be able to recoup some, if not all, of our losses.


----------



## ERW

I am filling out the Form 67 but haven't contemplated the Service Alberta option, but I'm thinking the more brought up about this whole mess, the better. 

I still think that once a judge sees all of the opposition to what Northwynd is trying to pull, he/she would be hard pressed to allow it to happen. 

I still have some things that are not quite clear in my mind:

1) Is the resort still considered to be in receivership and if so, is there a trustee in place that is considered to be arms length from Northwynd?

2) Is there any sort of consensus as to what should be stated in the Form 67? I don't beleive a judge would consider financial hardship on the part of the timeshare owner to be a legitimate reason. From what I understand, the process that Northwynd is pursueing is the area to be objected to. I am thinking Northwynd's demands to choose to stay or go by May 31st before the decision has been actually considered by the courts would be one reason. Breaking various clause in the contract regarding mtce fees, not setting up an owners association, late financial statements and insufficient consultation regarding the renovations would be some of the reasons. Are there any others that would be considered relevent? I would add that concerns regarding the solvency of Northwynd and what would happen to owners' "investment" if Northwynd decided to go belly up in 6 months would be another issue (if the judge were to find Northwynd's request reasonable, I would want to see the funds placed under the control of an independant trustee appointed by the courts so owner's mtce payments would not "disappear".)

Any other important issues I am missing?

I think consistency of the message being sent to the BC courts is important. I probably should have posted these comments/questions a month ago so some common ground could be reached amoung all of us.

And I wonder if the folks at Northwynd/Northmont monitor this string of comments?


----------



## browger

*Form 67*

Sorry, but we just found out about this site and have been trying to digest all the info.  We are wondering how to find this 'form 67'

We have been reading the original lease, and have been reading section
12 about default of lease and any payment required under the lease.
(Page 3)  'Fairmont Vacation at Riverside'.  It is all quite interesting, it looks like they need to pay us, not the other way around.  50% of 1/40 of the purchase price for an annual lease (if surrendering or defaulting after 16 months).

We are running out of time, this is why I don't have the time to try and search out where to find the form.  I called the Lawyer Kellie Hamilton, and she wants $400.00, and I know for a fact that hundreds have been in touch with her, so again, feeling a little wary about this.  Is this another money grab, or should we be doing it!


----------



## stan Smith

ERW said:


> I am filling out the Form 67 but haven't contemplated the Service Alberta option, but I'm thinking the more brought up about this whole mess, the better.
> 
> I still think that once a judge sees all of the opposition to what Northwynd is trying to pull, he/she would be hard pressed to allow it to happen.
> 
> I still have some things that are not quite clear in my mind:
> 
> 1) Is the resort still considered to be in receivership and if so, is there a trustee in place that is considered to be arms length from Northwynd?
> 
> 2) Is there any sort of consensus as to what should be stated in the Form 67? I don't beleive a judge would consider financial hardship on the part of the timeshare owner to be a legitimate reason. From what I understand, the process that Northwynd is pursueing is the area to be objected to. I am thinking Northwynd's demands to choose to stay or go by May 31st before the decision has been actually considered by the courts would be one reason. Breaking various clause in the contract regarding mtce fees, not setting up an owners association, late financial statements and insufficient consultation regarding the renovations would be some of the reasons. Are there any others that would be considered relevent? I would add that concerns regarding the solvency of Northwynd and what would happen to owners' "investment" if Northwynd decided to go belly up in 6 months would be another issue (if the judge were to find Northwynd's request reasonable, I would want to see the funds placed under the control of an independant trustee appointed by the courts so owner's mtce payments would not "disappear".)
> 
> Any other important issues I am missing?
> 
> I think consistency of the message being sent to the BC courts is important. I probably should have posted these comments/questions a month ago so some common ground could be reached amoung all of us.
> 
> And I wonder if the folks at Northwynd/Northmont monitor this string of comments?


You bet Northwynd is monitoring these messages!!   I feel this IS a "money grab" and the only way to fight a bully is to stand up against them and show them it will cost more to  try and intimidate folks than to tell them the truth.  The only way to stop bullying is to stand up against it!  I have signed up with a lawyer.


----------



## aden2

You may be familiar with court proceedings and trials, but proceedings commenced by petition are different in several ways. First, the person starting the action is called the petitioner, and the person defending the action is called the petition respondent. And, if a proceeding is started with a petition, there is no trial with witnesses. Instead, the matter is heard by a judge, and the evidence is presented by affidavits only 

Before the hearing, the petitioner cannot ask for documents from the petition respondent or ask him or her questions. All evidence is presented in the form of affidavits 


Suggested Lawyers:
sunchaser@coxtaylor.ca Attention Lindsay LeBlanc - they are out of Victoria; retainer is $300.

Law firm in Calgary
 We are a law firm located in Calgary, Alberta, and we have been asked to investigate the assessment against the owners of timeshare properties at Sunchasers Vacation Villas.If you are interested in doing so, please contact our offices for further details."

Robert C. Forsyth
System Administrator
DOCKEN KLYM
403-269-3612
robert@docken.com 

Also The Alberta Fair Trading Act re: timeshares , it applies to Northwynd. 

Hope this info is helpful!


----------



## Spark1

Guymar said:


> My lawyer in Saskatchewan says the same. He is not familiar with the law in BC but if this was in Saskatchewan he maintains they have the right to do what they are attempting.  I also contacted Northwynd as I have a week booked in late June that I have paid Maintenance on. Northwynd says that if I comply with one of the options offered including the option to buy my way out I am entitled to come and enjoy my booked week. (Actually the lady I spoke to at Northwynd was very cordial and patient with me).  I think the court case in June is to give them legal grounds to downsize the resort based on the leases they will have moving forward but it may include other options they are seeking. I will be making a decision over the next week on what I will do. Good luck to everyone on their decisions.



Northwynd is a Alberta based company from Calgary Alberta. If they are doing things according to consumar laws they can be charged buy Service Alberta PH. 18774274088. Get a complaint form and mail it in buy fax.


----------



## ERW

Interesting information Aden - my understanding is that under the existing terms of the various leases/purchase agreements, Northwynd would not be able to do what they are proposing. The only way they can proceed is by petitioning the courts to clarify if the contracts will allow Northwynd to proceed. Barring that, see if the judge that hears the petition feels that the circumstances are such that Northwynd is justified in doing what they are doing. Saying yes to this would open the door to Northwynd to proceed.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

My take on this? If the resort buildings are legitimately in such bad shape and need to renovations to meet building codes, I understand. However, I do not agree with how they have gone about this. No real consultation with the owners that will be footing the bulk of the bill, a "do or die" ultimatum ( before a decision is handed down) to either accept their terms or buy your lease out, and finally, no assurances that the monies collected would be held in trust to be released in stages as the work is completed. It appears to me the money would just disappear into a pit and if Northwynd goes under, our money disappears as well. Or for that matter that in 2 or three years time, they won't be back looking for another 3, 4 or $5,000.00


----------



## Spark1

morena said:


> I wonder if this fair trade act applies in BC?  Also, it says any transaction, so hopefully that would include leases?  Does anyone know?  If this was a purchase gone bad we could let them repossess the item or give it back but a lease seems to be different?  Does anyone in this situation have a deeded timeshare?  Mine is called a "vacation experience lease".  Some experience, huh?



Yes it does, reason Northwynd is a Calgay based Company.


----------



## mmchili

The audited financial statements for 2012 were recently posted on Sunchaser’s web-site, visit http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/December-31-2012-Financial-Statements.pdf

I received no email from Northmont/Northwynd advising that the financials were being posted on the web-site nor that they are available.

aden2; which clause of which contract requires the 15% replacement reserve? I have a copy of three different contracts and neither make reference to the 15% replacement reserve.

gilker; the 15% management fee goes to Northmont/Northwynd as pure profit. We get no specific service (accounting, administration, etc) for the 15% fee other than the name of Resort Villa Management (RVM). 

The lessees and co-owners pay for everything, all the costs incurred by RVM and a significant amount billed back to RVM by NW, which is stated in the 2012 Financial Statements under ‘Off-site wages and benefits’ at $979,854, an increase from 2011 at $721,400.


----------



## gilker

tswow said:


> The audited financial statements for 2012 were recently posted on Sunchaser’s web-site, visit http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/December-31-2012-Financial-Statements.pdf
> 
> I received no email from Northmont/Northwynd advising that the financials were being posted on the web-site nor that they are available.
> 
> aden2; which clause of which contract requires the 15% replacement reserve? I have a copy of three different contracts and neither make reference to the 15% replacement reserve.
> 
> gilker; the 15% management fee goes to Northmont/Northwynd as pure profit. We get no specific service (accounting, administration, etc) for the 15% fee other than the name of Resort Villa Management (RVM).
> 
> The lessees and co-owners pay for everything, all the costs incurred by RVM and a significant amount billed back to RVM by NW, which is stated in the 2012 Financial Statements under ‘Off-site wages and benefits’ at $979,854, an increase from 2011 at $721,400.



so for that 15% management fee, the larger the 'reno' bill, the larger their profit??  could that be why the reno's have escalated so high?


----------



## Spark1

Judythreetimes said:


> Maybe...no one got anything in the mail about what was going on at this resort? I know we sure as hell didn't. We have had nothing but problems with this Timeshare from the beginning. They are rude and obnoxious. All of them.



We have friends that converted to RCI points and they to have not received this outrageous renovation package. They say that because they have points they are not responsible for the payment and somebody else pays it I do not know much about this point system and can not see why they are exempted from paying these fees. I hope this is not true because it will take out a group of owners that will not be fighting these high fees. It will also give a false reading about how the majority of the owners feel about these renovation costs.


----------



## aden2

Vacation Experience Lease - REPLACEMENT RESERVE 15%
#10. (h)"as compensation for its services the Manger shall be entitled to annual fee equal to fifteen per cent (15%) of the aggregate of the Replacement Reserves".


----------



## mmchili

Spark1 - We have converted to RCI points and RECEIVED an invoice for our proportionate share of the Renovation Project Fee for our annual week. Perhaps your friend has an biennual-even week which will be invoiced next year, 2014. 

aden2 - The last paragraph of clause 10 of our 1996 Vacation Villa Lease states: "As compensation for its services the Manager shall be entitled to an annual fee (the "Management Fee") equal to fifteen per cent (15%) of the aggregate of the Replacement Reserves and the Operating Costs assessed in each calendar year with respect to the Project." I interpret this to mean the management fee is 15% and that it applies to the operating costs and replacement reserves.

Regarding default of lessee, our agreement states “If the lessor accepts the deemed offer ---“. The key word is “If”. The lessor (Northmont/Northwynd) is not required or obligated to accept the “deemed offer”, only "if" it accepts. “If” is discretionary, not mandatory word.

The resort is not under receivership; Fairmont Resort Properties (FRPL) is defunct. The receivership under CCAA was finalized in July, 2010 when the resort was transferred to Northmont. 

Yes, I believe Northmont/Northwynd and Resort Villa Management monitor TUGBBS.

I believe it is very important for each owner, lessee and co-owner, to respond to the petition filed by the trustee, Matkin, whether as an owner, an owner with a lawyer or as a group with a lawyer. The Judge, Petitioner Matkin and Respondent Northmont should be made aware of the owner’s concerns.

Form 67 and instructions can be found at: http://www.supremecourtbc.ca/sites/default/files/web/Defending-a-Proceeding-Started-by-Petition.pdf


----------



## Spark1

Judythreetimes said:


> Maybe...no one got anything in the mail about what was going on at this resort? I know we sure as hell didn't. We have had nothing but problems with this Timeshare from the beginning. They are rude and obnoxious. All of them.



I feel none of us know what is going on at this resort. Did everyone read up about the limited subsidy agreement between Northmont and RVM. Google Limited Subsidy. Read about the cost overruns on this 7000 building. Everybody knows renovations are more expensive than new construction. They talk about polyB plumbing, hell lots of buildings have this pipe, They talk about the electrical behind the walls, if the electrical was not done properly the place would of burnt down buy now. All of this was inspected buy Provincial inspectors. With renovations nobody will know what the price will be. We live in Mexico in the winter months and people joke about how slow the mexicans work,i have watched how construction workers work at this resort,the Mexicans have them beat. The costs overruns will be high, this price between 28 and now 50 million means nothing. It would of been cheaper to push the buildings down and start over. Northwynd will take advantage of the timeshare owners. This is Canada after 20 years everything is old, in Europe they live in their homes over 400 years. Once the timeshare Owners finish paying for this Major Renovations,watch what will happen to the maintenance fees, they will double. This is why i am walking away from this resort.


----------



## mmchili

Spark1 - The maintenance fees are bound to increase after NW does a capital reserve fund study to build up the reserves for the next round of renovations, alterations, etc.


----------



## nofair

We would like to contact the Victoria group you have just joined.  Could please pass on the contact information?  Thanks.


You can contact Cox Taylor website: www.coxtaylor.ca
Their office is in Victoria


----------



## Misery1

*Northwynd has not earned anyone's trust*

The CCAA Monitor recommended to the Court to accept the Offer (Northwynd) within the CCAA proceedings, because the following benefits would be achieved:
a) Northwynd LP will continue operating the majority of the existing business of the Fairmont Group as a going-concern;
b) retention of employees' jobs will continue for many of its staff;
c) the management and administration of the Fairmont Group and the remaining Fairmont Resort Non-CCAA Debtor entities will continue without significant interruption;
d) timeshare usage will be essentially unchanged for the more than 15,000 timeshare owners who have purchased timeshare interest from the Fairmont Group; and
e) Northwynd LP will take the responsibility (as contemplated in the Offer) for the repair of Building 7000.

If Northwynd agreed to take responsibility (which included the trust where $400 of inventory time share and reversionary program weeks sold were required to be deposited to) why has the deficit of the repairs been passed on solely to the timeshare owners? By creating the Limited Subsidy Agreement between Northmont and RVM (even though they own both of these companies) they have been able to distance themselves from any obligation they agreed to under CCAA? In addition, by them stopping selling timeshares etc. in 2011 they bankrupted the trust that was created as part of the CCAA to fund the repairs). The positives noted in all of those monitoring reports was the consistent flow of cash coming from all of our timeshare maintenance fees! The actions Northwynd is trying to get the courts to agree to (altering all of our agreements, changing weeks, removing buildings) is a substantial change in our interests. Northwynd has sold off a substantial amount of interests it acquired (Makaha Resort & Golf Club, Costa Maya Reef (they transferred those poor timeshare owners to Lake Okanagan and then sold the property) and Rancho Banderas.  

You only need to look at how Northwynd has treated timeshare owners at these resorts to see our future.  We will lose our resort in the end, one way or another, the question is how much more money are you will to invest into this sinking ship.  I too have joined one of the lawyer represented groups.


----------



## nofair

Meow said:


> Twofus,
> We would like to contact the Victoria group you have just joined.  Could please pass on the contact information?  Thanks.



Website: www.coxtaylor.ca
The victoria office
So far the group is growing quick. Request to join and you will receive an email with all details and the deadline is set for 27 May to respond..maybe they will extend it.


----------



## Spark1

Misery1 said:


> The CCAA Monitor recommended to the Court to accept the Offer (Northwynd) within the CCAA proceedings, because the following benefits would be achieved:
> a) Northwynd LP will continue operating the majority of the existing business of the Fairmont Group as a going-concern;
> b) retention of employees' jobs will continue for many of its staff;
> c) the management and administration of the Fairmont Group and the remaining Fairmont Resort Non-CCAA Debtor entities will continue without significant interruption;
> d) timeshare usage will be essentially unchanged for the more than 15,000 timeshare owners who have purchased timeshare interest from the Fairmont Group; and
> e) Northwynd LP will take the responsibility (as contemplated in the Offer) for the repair of Building 7000.
> 
> If Northwynd agreed to take responsibility (which included the trust where $400 of inventory time share and reversionary program weeks sold were required to be deposited to) why has the deficit of the repairs been passed on solely to the timeshare owners? By creating the Limited Subsidy Agreement between Northmont and RVM (even though they own both of these companies) they have been able to distance themselves from any obligation they agreed to under CCAA? In addition, by them stopping selling timeshares etc. in 2011 they bankrupted the trust that was created as part of the CCAA to fund the repairs). The positives noted in all of those monitoring reports was the consistent flow of cash coming from all of our timeshare maintenance fees! The actions Northwynd is trying to get the courts to agree to (altering all of our agreements, changing weeks, removing buildings) is a substantial change in our interests. Northwynd has sold off a substantial amount of interests it acquired (Makaha Resort & Golf Club, Costa Maya Reef (they transferred those poor timeshare owners to Lake Okanagan and then sold the property) and Rancho Banderas.
> 
> You only need to look at how Northwynd has treated timeshare owners at these resorts to see our future.  We will lose our resort in the end, one way or another, the question is how much more money are you will to invest into this sinking ship.  I too have joined one of the lawyer represented groups.



Everyone should check out (THE SUNCHASER VACATION VILLAS AT RIVERSIDE,HILLSIDE AND RIVERVIEW) Management's Discussion and Analysis. You will see on page2 that Fairmont was in default of its obligations to mortgage bondholders who had invested funds in FRPL. Finance Ltd. On March4 2010 Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust (Northwynd) was formed, the holders of mortgage bonds issued by FRPL,exchanged their bonds for units of the trust Concurrently. It is hard for me to believe that Northwynd did not know what was happening was audited statements and the condition of this resort. Were Northwynd the bond holders of FRPL, Finance Ltd.


----------



## aden2

From May 25th for one week we were booked for a timeshare @ Sunchaser's but received an email that we had to sign and return one of the three options first. Therefore no week at Sunchaser's even though we had paid our maintenance of$949.50 last January. So much for the timeshares, lost another $949.50.


----------



## Tacoma

Aden 2 can you clarify your most recent statement.  Was this your week or an exchanged week?  When were you supposed to go to Fairmont? 

Yet another intimidation from this company.  My friend called them last week and on the phone they were very polite and said their weeks were safe.  I told him it was only because they were thinking he was paying.  It appears my thought was correct.


----------



## Spark1

morena said:


> I have printed it as well but any guidance would be appreciated.  Thank you.



Take it to any court house and they will help you fill it out.


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> From May 25th for one week we were booked for a timeshare @ Sunchaser's but received an email that we had to sign and return one of the three options first. Therefore no week at Sunchaser's even though we had paid our maintenance of$949.50 last January. So much for the timeshares, lost another $949.50.



Why are we all putting up with this. Why not pay them a visit. There is 14500 timeshare owners. We are the majority. They think we have no rights. We would than have media attention.


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> Why are we all putting up with this. Why not pay them a visit. There is 14500 timeshare owners. We are the majority. They think we have no rights. We would than have media attention.



I taked with a legacy for life owner this morning and she said she and her son questioned her sales person about the reserve fund for refurbishing and he told  them that there was lots of money in that fund for doing major renovations. She asked this question because she wanted to make sure the buildings make it past 40 years. I got a email from Sunchasers stating that you are correct, a reserve fund was to be setup to help alleviate the costs of a large renovation,but the reserve fund was never created. Who do you beieve? Please post if this happened to you.


----------



## aden2

Tacoma said:


> Aden 2 can you clarify your most recent statement.  Was this your week or an exchanged week?  When were you supposed to go to Fairmont?
> 
> Yet another intimidation from this company.  My friend called them last week and on the phone they were very polite and said their weeks were safe.  I told him it was only because they were thinking he was paying.  It appears my thought was correct.



This was our week to use, and the week had been booked last year. Now I rec'd an email "that if we signed one of the three options and returned it before our week was to start (May 25th) we could still use the week".  We  were not taking our signing any of their options. In 2010 we paid a total of over $7200. to convert to "Legacy for Life", during that time Fairmont had changed names and had gone into bankruptcy.:annoyed:


----------



## fairmontlvr

aden2 said:


> This was our week to use, and the week had been booked last year. Now I rec'd an email "that if we signed one of the three options and returned it before our week was to start (May 25th) we could still use the week".  We  were not taking our signing any of their options. In 2010 we paid a total of over $7200. to convert to "Legacy for Life", during that time Fairmont had changed names and had gone into bankruptcy.:annoyed:



I wonder what will happen if you we're to just drive out there, show up and mention that you haven't decided yet on the restoration project. Or if you we're to show up and tell them you have spoken to a lawyer who has suggested not to sign anything until this goes through the courts.  I doubt they could refuse you from using your "right to use" for something you booked last year and something that you have fully paid your maintenance fees. 

As this is the start to the peak season, I am sure there will be plenty of others still wanting to use the week they have signed up and paid for, yet don't want to commit to anything till this goes through the courts. 

Thoughts of others still wanting to use their week this summer?


----------



## Undecided62

*We've been told we lose our paid for week*

We have a week booked in July, fees were paid last year when we reserved. We were told that we lose access to the week if we don't pay for one option in the pay/stay/go fiasco.


----------



## browger

*Notification*

We are now one of the many owners involved with the litigation against Northwynd.  


Thankyou for (previous) posting the Vancouver Lawyers e-mail address and name(Lindsay LeBlanc)

What I am wondering now is:
Do we have to 'notify' Northwynd that we have acquired a lawyer
and are involved in a litigation against them.

I am asking this now, as we just got the lawyer yesterday, and 
I can't ask this question today and they are very busy attending to 
others.

Thanks and look forward to hearing back from someone..........


----------



## Norge 76

cindyrend said:


> I agree, they knew exactly what they were buying.  We were there 5 or 6 years ago and it was looking like it needed some updates at that time.  We just seem so at the mercy of Northwynd or whoever has owned or might own it in the future and what's to stop them for continuing to ask for money, as well as increasing our maintenance fees.  It would be nice if as owners, we could all respond as one and take back some of our power, after all supposedly we each own 2% of one unit.


Northwynd has no right to demand contract termination fee. In fact if you refer to item no. 13 of the contract it says that if you surrender the timeshare they have to compensate you as per he formula stated therein. Has anyone applied his clause no. 13?


----------



## madashell

browger said:


> We are now one of the many owners involved with the litigation against Northwynd.
> 
> 
> Thankyou for (previous) posting the Vancouver Lawyers e-mail address and name(Lindsay LeBlanc)
> 
> What I am wondering now is:
> Do we have to 'notify' Northwynd that we have acquired a lawyer
> and are involved in a litigation against them.
> 
> Can you please give the name of the lawyer the email and phone number for others to use.
> Thx


----------



## madashell

browger said:


> We are now one of the many owners involved with the litigation against Northwynd.
> 
> 
> Thankyou for (previous) posting the Vancouver Lawyers e-mail address and name(Lindsay LeBlanc)
> 
> What I am wondering now is:
> Do we have to 'notify' Northwynd that we have acquired a lawyer
> and are involved in a litigation against them.
> 
> I am asking this now, as we just got the lawyer yesterday, and
> I can't ask this question today and they are very busy attending to
> others.
> 
> Thanks and look forward to hearing back from someone..........


Can you please post the name, phone number and email of the lawyer that you have found for the class action.
Thx


----------



## THE AVENGER

Some Questions Regarding This Mess
1.	If we pay nothing what is the penalty?  As I understand it they will impose a 2%/mo charge.  They threaten us with bill collectors and ruined credit etc.  This would require taking each one of us to court individually.  The cost of this would be born by those who have paid the high renovation fees.
2.	What is the benefit of us making individual submission to the court on June 20?  There are several groups (some via lawyers at $300-1000/per individual). Is this court case not dealing with their authority to renovate and delete buildings and sell them off, and not about the charges they are imposing on us?  What does filling out Form 67 do for us?
3.	This leaves us with two options, 1. To pay nothing and wait for the results of the court case.  I am sure they will be only too glad to receive the payment at any time.  They are threatening us with a dead-line.  2. Fill out the option to leave forms and submit a minimum payment of $100/mo via post dated checks for 6 mo as is offered to those who are taking the renovation option.  As pensioners on limited income this is all we can afford.  In talking to them they say for us to go out and borrow the money.  At 78 years old who is going to loan us money?


----------



## browger

*Name of lawyer*

Your question:
Can you please post the name, phone number and email of the lawyer that you have found for the class action.
Thx 


I found the name of the lawyer on page 13 of this forum, item number
311

Lawyers name and website is posted.  Name: Lindsay LeBlanc

IMPORTANT:  I was advised that the closing date is Monday the 27th, but if I wanted to pursue with their firm,
they would add our name to the litigation, and send paperwork and $300.00.  I would say, send an e-mail
if you want info, and want to be added.  I don't know what the outcome will be, but better than sending
thousands to the wind!


----------



## Furious

This is the response i received from sunchaser to my question posted below.  seems they have an answer to everything

Good morning,

The clause you refer to is again at the discretion of the developer if they wanted to purchase it back, which they are of course not doing as they are not reselling inventory.  Any inventory that comes back due to cancellation will ultimately be taken off line and removed from the timeshare regime so the remaining owners to do not have to carry the cost of this inventory.  These units/buildings would not be renovated.

As for the renovation maintenance fee, this is maintenance and each owner is billed for their share of the maintenance fee as noted in the contracts.  The renovations have already begun at the resort with the 800 building, this should be complete mid-September.

The choice is yours whether you choose to stay or go, I am happy to assist you with any questions you may have.

Regards,



Karen Weyland
Manager - Vacation Ownership Services
Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.
5799 3rd Street SE
Calgary, AB T2H 1K1
Local 403-517-2601
Toll Free: 1-877-451-1250
Toll Free Fax 1-888-378-4477
Email:  customercare@northwynd.ca

From: Lorraine [mailto:shylow2@telus.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:26 PM
To: Karen Weyland
Subject: Re: Renovation project

I think you are wrong about that, in any case my agreement says that " in the event that default of payment is not remedied within 16 months of the default then I shall be deemed to have offered to sell my interest to the lessor for an amount equal to 50% of one fortieth of the purchase price for an annual lease". There is nothing about me owing you for future costs of renovations that have not even happened yet and may or may not ever happen.  I would be sad to leave the resort but I will not pay to leave, that is just ridiculous!!


----------



## Spark1

Furious said:


> This is the response i received from sunchaser to my question posted below.  seems they have an answer to everything
> 
> Good morning,
> 
> The clause you refer to is again at the discretion of the developer if they wanted to purchase it back, which they are of course not doing as they are not reselling inventory.  Any inventory that comes back due to cancellation will ultimately be taken off line and removed from the timeshare regime so the remaining owners to do not have to carry the cost of this inventory.  These units/buildings would not be renovated.
> 
> As for the renovation maintenance fee, this is maintenance and each owner is billed for their share of the maintenance fee as noted in the contracts.  The renovations have already begun at the resort with the 800 building, this should be complete mid-September.
> 
> The choice is yours whether you choose to stay or go, I am happy to assist you with any questions you may have.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Karen Weyland
> Manager - Vacation Ownership Services
> Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.
> 5799 3rd Street SE
> Calgary, AB T2H 1K1
> Local 403-517-2601
> Toll Free: 1-877-451-1250
> Toll Free Fax 1-888-378-4477
> Email:  customercare@northwynd.ca
> 
> From: Lorraine [mailto:shylow2@telus.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:26 PM
> To: Karen Weyland
> Subject: Re: Renovation project
> 
> I think you are wrong about that, in any case my agreement says that " in the event that default of payment is not remedied within 16 months of the default then I shall be deemed to have offered to sell my interest to the lessor for an amount equal to 50% of one fortieth of the purchase price for an annual lease". There is nothing about me owing you for future costs of renovations that have not even happened yet and may or may not ever happen.  I would be sad to leave the resort but I will not pay to leave, that is just ridiculous!!



Karen the reason our timeshares are worthless is because of the D- companies like Northwynd and Fairmont that have done a terrible job of managing resorts and all you are interested in is lining your pockets with money. So you can pay all us 25% of 0=0 and that is what this hole resort is worth.


----------



## morena

*unsure*



Spark1 said:


> Take it to any court house and they will help you fill it out.



I am in Montana.  Do you mean any courthouse in BC?  Where would the nearest one be to crossing at Roosville?  And can a US citizen file a Form 67?


----------



## aden2

morena said:


> I am in Montana.  Do you mean any courthouse in BC?  Where would the nearest one be to crossing at Roosville?  And can a US citizen file a Form 67?



Yes anyone can file form 67.

You can also contact on the internet Alberta Fair Trading Act. alberta law applies because their business is in Alberta. Besides joining a law group in Vancouver I also filed a complaint with "Services Alberta" Timeshares are part of the Fair Trading Act. Further when a contract is broken by a company then the Alberta Government will have the contract voided.


----------



## ERW

Interesting that timeshare holders/owners that have already made the "standard" mtce fees (not including the reno mtcs fees) that have already booked have been denied access. My understanding is that Northwynd is approaching the BC courts to see if they can pursue this policy and that it has not been approved yet. Does that not mean that denying access due to non-payment of their inflated mtce fees is not legal as it has technically not been approved by the courts yet?


----------



## Meow

*Form 67*

Have any Alberta residents filed a Form 67?  If so, could anyone provide some guidance on how to fill in the form and file the document?  I am also hoping to join one of the lawyer led groups.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Phew said:


> Quadmaniac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone have a PDF scan of the documents ? Resale owners never had any of these documents, so it would be good to post them if someone has scanned them ?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the Sunchaser website at the court filed documents - there are four different versions from different time periods included in the petitions to the court , the first being from 1992 I believe and up to the most recent.
Click to expand...


I can see versions from Northwynd but not the ones from 1992 (exhibit A and B are not posted). Could someone scan the original ones from Fairmont back in the late 90's /2000 range ?

I would like to read item 12/13 or at least have it. A bunch of people I know have resale ones so no access to the original contract.

Thanks


----------



## DOCKEN KLYM

*Litigation Group - AB, BC, SK, and USA*

We are Alberta's only class action firm, and have recently been brought in as litigators on this matter.  We are working with firms in B.C. to oppose Northwynd's position.

If you are interested in pursuing legal action by joining our litigation group, please contact our firm via e-mail at:

robert@docken.com.

The deadline for registration with our group is *WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2013*


----------



## Skeezics_100

*Docken KLYM*



DOCKEN KLYM said:


> We are Alberta's only class action firm, and have recently been brought in as litigators on this matter.  We are working with firms in B.C. to oppose Northwynd's position.
> 
> If you are interested in pursuing legal action by joining our litigation group, please contact our firm via e-mail at:
> 
> robert@docken.com.
> 
> The deadline for registration with our group is *WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2013*



I contacted DOCKEN KLYM and they were very helpful in answering my specific questions.  I wasn't sure if it mattered that I was an Alberta resident when determining which law firm to contact.  And when I read in an earlier post that the Victoria law firm's deadline was TODAY, I panicked that I wouldn't be able to sign up for a group.  

But Robert said that they have been responding to calls about this whole NorthWynd mess since they got involved a week or so ago.  They currently have about 90 owners and are still responding to calls and emails.  *But they're deadline is in two days so contact them to sign up.*  He did say that owners could sign up after the May 29th deadline but they would be responsible for filing their own Form 67 and any penalties associated with it.

I asked Robert if DOCKEN will be working with the other law firms to avoid duplicating work and he said yes they have contacted the other law firms and will work together to develop a strategy going forward.

DOCKEN will file Form 67 on your behalf and personally that sold me because I didn't understand that form anyway.  

It doesn't matter which lawyer you use, just get one and file Form 67 before May 31st!!  That's very IMPORTANT!!


----------



## den403

*den403*

What does form 67 do


----------



## Skeezics_100

*Response to Petition - Form 67*



den403 said:


> What does form 67 do



Here is the link to find Form 67:
http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/forms/sup_civil/67.pdf


----------



## TS Migraine

Form 67 is the legal BC Court response to form 66: the Petition we have received from Sunchaser demanding that we STAY or GO, and pay either way. I spoke with the Calgary Class Action Lawsuit Firm- Docken Klym and as a Bi-annual Gold Odd owner of a 40 year Lease purchased in 1992- starting 1993, I now understand our options as follows, Option 1 + 2 :According to Petition 66, I have two options:  I must either pay ~ $2000.00 to stay or $1700.00 to go. I must make this decision by May 31 and have my documents post marked no later or face penalties for not responding on time. Option 3, is to pay the $500.00 retainer required by Docken Klym (robert@docken.com) before May 29th and let them file FORM 67 on behalf of ALL people signed up to be a part of the Class Action Suit before May 31st. You can become a part of the CA law Suit after May 31st, but you will still need to respond by May 31st with Form 67 personally or pay either option 1 or 2. The CA Lawsuit means we don't have to personally file Form 67 and we don't have to pay the Stay or Go fees by May 31st. Docken Klym cannot guarantee an outcome from the courts in our favour, but based on their preliminary evaluation of the situation ( they have only been involved for about 1 week, and they already have almost 100 people retaining them for all the reasons complained about in this blog) they feel we have a breach of our original agreements to legitimately grieve, and they have been in touch with the BC law firms who have ammassed another 250 disgruntled Sunchaser owners who wish to pursue this rip-off through the courts. I spoke with Service AB, ( I am an AB resident and the FTA of AB does apply, but not as legal counsel for what we need to do now) and I wish to clarify, that they will NOT be involved in any legal action against Northwynd. They take complaints, but interaction with them does not allow you to ignore the May 31st deadline imposed by the Form 66 Petition for your Stay or Go money. 
MY BEST ADVICE : Contact Docken Klym - NOW- and add to the numbers of people represented by the Class Action Law Suit. This reduces the overall legal costs for all of us, and delays the need to decide whether we stay or go until a Court decision has been made about whether or not Northwynd has the right to alter our Original contracts, and force us to pay for their future resort improvement and profit. I am personally very uncomfortable signing anything that alters my original agreement, because since the change of ownership in 2010, the tactics used by the new owners of the Property WEST of the Highway to get my money have been so far: deception, coercion, threats, and bullying. Hey, I just want to pay legitimate fees and go on a holiday every other year. I don't need these bad management headaches, short notice calls for funds, and coercion or bullying tactics.


----------



## morena

*class action*



DOCKEN KLYM said:


> We are Alberta's only class action firm, and have recently been brought in as litigators on this matter.  We are working with firms in B.C. to oppose Northwynd's position.
> 
> If you are interested in pursuing legal action by joining our litigation group, please contact our firm via e-mail at:
> 
> robert@docken.com.
> 
> The deadline for registration with our group is *WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2013*



What is the ultimate goal of the class action group and how does it differ from the other groups because they are not calling themselves class action groups?


----------



## den403

Sunchaser Northwynd Class Action Lawsuit
53 minutes ago near Calgary
Do not send northwynd any money for anything until you contact a lawyer!!!!

For those who want to terminate and sell back their lease the way things are worded in the termination agreement they can still come after you down the road!!

For those who paid to $$$$$$ 
to purchase their timeshares recently and can't simply walk away and want to fight...do it!

Bottom line we all need to stick together and either get out of our contracts or fight to get back our investment. 
We all need lawyers either way


----------



## disillusioned

*RCI*

Did anyone find out why Northwynd allowed a lower buy out fee for RCI members? Why would that membership make a difference to the total amount an owner would have to pay? If Northwynd needs 38 million dollars to get the renovation done, why would they give a break to an RCI owner?


----------



## TravellingMom

*Questions*

If you go to this link creditors for Fairmont Resort Properties and bankruptcy documents from July 2010 should come up

http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...t Properties Ltd/FRP - Bankruptcy Package.pdf

No assets were listed in the bankruptcy - zero - only liabilities ? 

In the listing of creditors are the following:

FRPL Finance - $ 10,000,000
Dunvegan Petroleum - owned by Colin Knight - $ 2,000,000 +
Colin Knight - $ 2,800,000
Cedarpointe Estates - $ 2,080,000 (Cedarpointe Estates doesn't come up anywhere on google - but at the address listed - 3126 Watt Road Kelowna - comes up with a Barry Johnson - who happens to be also listed as a bankruptcy lawyer in Kelowna

Certainly raises some questions....maybe this whole thing has been in the works for a while?


----------



## den403

i believe i read that eachowner that converted over to RCI for $$$
$400 was put aside for future costs from these owners


----------



## disillusioned

den403 said:


> i believe i read that eachowner that converted over to RCI for $$$
> $400 was put aside for future costs from these owners


Does that mean that $400 of the money they paid to change to RCE was saved for a future renovation?


----------



## disillusioned

TravellingMom said:


> If you go to this link creditors for Fairmont Resort Properties and bankruptcy documents from July 2010 should come up
> 
> http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...t Properties Ltd/FRP - Bankruptcy Package.pdf
> 
> No assets were listed in the bankruptcy - zero - only liabilities ?
> 
> In the listing of creditors are the following:
> 
> FRPL Finance - $ 10,000,000
> Dunvegan Petroleum - owned by Colin Knight - $ 2,000,000 +
> Colin Knight - $ 2,800,000
> Cedarpointe Estates - $ 2,080,000 (Cedarpointe Estates doesn't come up anywhere on google - but at the address listed - 3126 Watt Road Kelowna - comes up with a Barry Johnson - who happens to be also listed as a bankruptcy lawyer in Kelowna
> 
> Certainly raises some questions....maybe this whole thing has been in the works for a while?


They gave over $450,000 to Morcom who is an owner of Fairmont
OWNERSHIP AND CORPORATE STRUCTURE 
Fairmont is a privately owned Canadian company that was acquired by Collin Knight (Dunvegan Petroleum Ltd) and Douglas Morcom (Morcom Consultants Ltd). 
The above was found online at FRPL Finance, a blog site


----------



## den403

on Pg 3 of the freedom to stay papers that were mailed out it says that 'Because of the limited subsidy agreement between Northmont and RVM $400 of the purchase price of an RCI points conversion overlay or member since 2009 was paid on behalf of the timeshare member towards the building 7000 foundation repair. As such those members are only responsible for their share of the nonbuilding 7000 deficit.


----------



## disillusioned

*Toronto Dominion*

Does anyone have info for when Toronto Dominion ceased to be the Trustee?


----------



## Lion Fish

*Process of change*

It would have been very interesting to be a fly on the wall during the finance and board meetings during the last few years.  Think about what motivated a process that created fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Then choose which way to go, by yourself or in a group.


----------



## Meow

*Legal Actions*

Does anyone have an rough estimate of the total number of lessees/ fee simple owners that have chosen to proceed with legal action, either induvidually or with one of the groups? I suspect that we are only a minority as compared to the total number of lesees/owners (15,000?).  Probably most have neither consulted a lawyer nor talked it over with others and therefore will just hold their noses, select one of Northwynd's chioces and hand over the cash.  Hopefully, there is a sufficient critical mass of displeased parties that the B.C. Court will decide in our favor.  It will be an interesting next few weeks.


----------



## Spark1

disillusioned said:


> Did anyone find out why Northwynd allowed a lower buy out fee for RCI members? Why would that membership make a difference to the total amount an owner would have to pay? If Northwynd needs 38 million dollars to get the renovation done, why would they give a break to an RCI owner?



That is not the case for all RCI owners. I just got off the phone with sunchaser consumer services. I asked them who was paying the renovation fees for the Premier Owners Association (SPOA or the association) They told me the developer was picking up those costs. The money will come out of the pockets of all the other timeshare people who will be forced to pay these  outrageous fees. These are timeshare owner from this resort who joined the SPOA   RCI points. They used the condos the same way we did but know Reno costs for them.


----------



## TS Migraine

Docken Klym told me that in one week they have been contacted by almost 100 people. Rob said they have been in touch with the law firms in BC who are involved by personal request for about 250 people. That means 350 owners have saught legal help to file Form 67 to oppose the Petition 66 requirements imposed on us by Northwynd. That means, Northwynd cannot proceed until the courts make a ruling on whether or not they can go ahead. Docken Klym said once the Class Action Law suit is filed- no later than May 31st-- to stop the mandatory acceptance of Petition 66 as of May 31st, more owners can sign up for the Class action suit- but they will still need to have responded to the Stay or Go ultimatum by May 31st or face penalties if they have not personally filed Form 67. The Law Firms in BC are onside and seeking guidance from Docken Klym since a Class Action is our best hope of appealing in large numbers to the BC Court. It is possible, that Northwynd will not be allowed to impose restrictions on our paid for time share weeks WHILE this action is in the Court, so those of us booked into Fairmont in the near future SHOULD be allowed to use our time, deposit with interval, etc. under the old rules, until this NEW issue is finalized by the courts. If you have filed Form 67 by yourself on time, or you have had legal counsel do it for you, you are not required to pay to Stay or Go by May 31st. If you have NOT filed Form 67 officially, you need to have a response to Northwynd inthe mail by May 31st with cash or face penalties. Even if you have made a choice and paid cash to Northwynd by May 31st, you can still become part of the Class Action Lawsuit after May 31st, but now you need to also pay the retainer fee as well as whatever you have paid Northwynd to stay or go. If the Class Action suit is successful in the owner's favour, then they hope to recover the monies paid by May 31st by owners adversely coerced to sign by that date.


----------



## TS Migraine

Morena, the class action suit is a "convenient" way for all of us to speak as one voice against Northwynd's coercion. Since there are 15000 owners, individual laws suits would be out of the question for Northwynd to fight (bonus) but it is David against Goliath in that Northwynd has our maintenance money to fight us and we have to spend our own to use a lawyer, 1 case at a time, at between $400- $650 dollars an hour. If we pay the $500.00 retainer to Docken Klym, they collect this money from all people jerked around by Northwynd, and then speak as one voice against the changes imposed on us and our original agreements by Petition 66.  About 100 people have already signed up to the Class Action in AB, and the BC law firms are seeking guidance from Docken Klym about a Class action approach for their clients. Just as we have benefitted by this BLOG to share our concerns, a Class Action Suit can incorporate the concerns of the many. Docken Klym will file FORM 67 collectively on our behalf, which is free if you do it right yourself on time on your own, but I think being part of the group means you are on time with all court requirements and they are savy about HOW to be most effective in this dispute with our major issues having input from the masses, I am not "in the know" about ALL the subterfuge of the past 3 years because I only got on board a week ago- like, I am sure, most owners who knew NOTHING about this fiasco until May 10th or there-abouts.


----------



## Soccer Canada

Has anyone in the group filled out Form 67 on their own and faxed it in. If you have could you contact me to discuss so I can get this thing filled out and faxed in. I was going to join one or more of the potential groups, but my Furnace/Water Heater both packed her in at the same time on Monday and that ever growing bill left me not having the funds to do anything with a lawyer.. Would appreciate anyone's help that has already done it.

Thanks!
Robb


----------



## fairmontlvr

TravellingMom said:


> If you go to this link creditors for Fairmont Resort Properties and bankruptcy documents from July 2010 should come up
> 
> http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...t Properties Ltd/FRP - Bankruptcy Package.pdf
> 
> No assets were listed in the bankruptcy - zero - only liabilities ?
> 
> In the listing of creditors are the following:
> 
> FRPL Finance - $ 10,000,000
> Dunvegan Petroleum - owned by Colin Knight - $ 2,000,000 +
> Colin Knight - $ 2,800,000
> Cedarpointe Estates - $ 2,080,000 (Cedarpointe Estates doesn't come up anywhere on google - but at the address listed - 3126 Watt Road Kelowna - comes up with a Barry Johnson - who happens to be also listed as a bankruptcy lawyer in Kelowna
> 
> Certainly raises some questions....maybe this whole thing has been in the works for a while?



I think this is time to have someone here pass this information  along with other relevant information on this site to someone in the media that could do an in-depth investigation. CBC or CTV  MarketPlace, W5, etc. Could be quite the challenge and quite the story for some investigative journalists to explore.


----------



## fairmontlvr

fairmontlvr said:


> I think this is time to have someone here pass this information  along with other relevant information on this site to someone in the media that could do an in-depth investigation. CBC or CTV  MarketPlace, W5, etc. Could be quite the challenge and quite the story for some investigative journalists to explore.



I found this a while back. One guys run ins with Northwynd Fairmont Ranchero Banderas. He did quite a bit of investigating on his own about Northwyn, and the previous owners. Makes for a good read and also should be a sign of what we are dealing with.

http://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=17251


----------



## THE AVENGER

*May 31 Dead Line*

What is the penality for late payment of either of the options?  As I read it "2%/annum of the balance owing".   This amounts to $100/year on $5000 or $8.33/mo.  They threaten that the wrath of God will decend on you if you don't pay them by May 31.
They say this offer is only open until May 31.  If I ignore them, then appear on their door step with a certified check of the asked amount on June 30, do you think they will refuse it?  "They will grab it and run."  This time-limited scare tactic is working to their advantage and the investors (who bought the assets of Fairmont) are using this to recover some of their money they lost in their FRPL investment.
The lawyers who are wanting to represent us at the June 20 court appearing, and asking for thousands of dollars to do so ($500 X 350 = $175,000 for a few day, work) are using this same time-sensitive scare tactic as well.
I believe they can't enforce anything on anyone since none of the requests for these payments were sent to us by Registered letter.


----------



## Brit76

I agree with #369 re registered mail.  Though I have contacted the Victoria attorney - and in that vein there was no mention that this was a class action suit!


----------



## Skeezics_100

fairmontlvr said:


> I think this is time to have someone here pass this information  along with other relevant information on this site to someone in the media that could do an in-depth investigation. CBC or CTV  MarketPlace, W5, etc. Could be quite the challenge and quite the story for some investigative journalists to explore.



Given that legal action has already commenced, I would be hesitant to bring this to the media - at this point in time.  Let's see what happens after the June courtdate and then ask the lawyers advice if this is something that could hurt OR hinder our case.


----------



## Skeezics_100

Brit76 said:


> I agree with #369 re registered mail.  Though I have contacted the Victoria attorney - and in that vein there was no mention that this was a class action suit!



That's because CoxTaylor in Victoria is NOT a "Class Action" Law firm.  Neither are the the two other firms in Vancouver.  I can only assume that DOCKEN KLYM, an Alberta based law firm, was contacted by some owners due to their expertise in dealing with large organizations and class action lawsuits.  They were probably also contacted because Northwynd is an Alberta based company and maybe other legislation could apply such as the _Alberta Fair Trading Act _.

But regardless of the "class action" law suit, ALL of the law firms are all working together with regards to this "Special Assessment".  Depending on the law firm chosen they_ may_ also represent owners for other matters pertaining to Northwynd, which would be outside the group interest and at the cost of the individual owner.


----------



## morena

*faxing*



Soccer Canada said:


> Has anyone in the group filled out Form 67 on their own and faxed it in. If you have could you contact me to discuss so I can get this thing filled out and faxed in. I was going to join one or more of the potential groups, but my Furnace/Water Heater both packed her in at the same time on Monday and that ever growing bill left me not having the funds to do anything with a lawyer.. Would appreciate anyone's help that has already done it.
> 
> Thanks!
> Robb



I was told by Court in Vancouver that they do not accept faxes.  West coast Title Search will accept your fax and file it with the court for 24.00 fee.


----------



## morena

*affidavits*



morena said:


> I was told by Court in Vancouver that they do not accept faxes.  West coast Title Search will accept your fax and file it with the court for 24.00 fee.



I cannot get a consistent answer as to whether or not an affidavit must be filed with the initial response to Petition Form 67.  This seems to be a separate document and Vancouver court acted like it wasn't necessary.  Does anyone know the answer to this for sure?  Thanks as we are running out of time to respond.


----------



## aden2

Brit76 said:


> I agree with #369 re registered mail.  Though I have contacted the Victoria attorney - and in that vein there was no mention that this was a class action suit!


To BRIT 76....
I know the lawyer in Calgary files class action suites. I am with a group with Michael in Vancouver, and he is working closley with the Victoria. group. From our group all I know it that they are asking for a postponement of June 20th to get more timesharehlders involved. My form 67 and files have been expresspost to Vancouver Registry. It only takes one day from Edmonton.


----------



## condomama

Global Calgary has picked up the story on tonight's newscast, not sure which one.....


----------



## expat

I think i represent a lot of owners who would be happy to file this Form 67 but are not sure what to write. I have downloaded the form. Can someone please help with what we should fill out for #'s 6 through 8? Thank you so much.


----------



## condomama

condomama said:


> Global Calgary has picked up the story on tonight's newscast, not sure which one.....


Tony Tie, Global's consumer specialist was on the 5 p.m. news with the story.....


----------



## CindyD

*Global Calgary News Story*

CALGARY- Timeshare owners at the Sunchaser Villas in Fairmont B.C. were taken by surprise when they were billed for repairs at the resort.

Glenn and Terry Graversen of Calgary have had a two-week timeshare at Sunchaser Villas for the past 16 years.

They now have to pay $4,000 for renovations to the villas or as an alternative, pay $3,000 to cancel their contract.

The vacation villas at Fairmont went bankrupt several years ago and the new owner says the assessment is necessary because maintenance had been neglected for years.

But the Graversens say this isn’t what they signed up for. The couple says they have paid maintenance fees every year and it isn’t their fault the previous owners of the resort let maintenance slide. 




Related Stories 
•
CONSUMER FYI: Timeshare sellers warned about online timeshare resellers



Advertisement


“My concern is that they purchased it and now they’re making us pay for their mistake of purchasing a property that wasn’t worth what they paid for,” says Terry Graversen.

The new company running Sunchaser says timeshare members weren’t charged enough for upkeep in the past, and without this renovation, they stand to lose their investment.

“We believe the owners probably should have been charged about $300 to $400 a year more for the last 15 years to properly address the maintenance of the resort,” says Kirk Wankel of Northwynd Resort Properties.

The company says most of the money will be be used to replace the Poly-B piping throughout the resort. The plastic piping has been banned because it leaks.

Timeshare members in Alberta and B.C. have hired lawyers to fight the case.

They will be in court next month.


----------



## browger

*I am mad!*

I am mad, and feel like crying.  I just heard about a 'senior lady, husband very ill' who just sold her car to come up with the money to 'get out'.  She is old and doesn't want a fight.

Well, now, I want a fight.  I plea with all of you to go to social media.  Write something in Facebook, get your kids to post it and 'share'.  

I 'personally' took out my own ad in the local newspaper a week ago and asked for people to contact me.  Thanks to one particular lady (that has now sought a lawyer), she told me about Tug.  I knew nothing about it! 

Thank you Tug website for helping get my message out and out to many others.

We have signed with a lawyer in Vancouver.  She (Lindsay LeBlanc).  She was wonderful........just send me info., and send the rest later.  It isn't too late.

If you as a group thing this is a bad idea to post something, please tell me, before I do it.  I will wait a few hours.

Thanks


----------



## stan Smith

browger said:


> I am mad, and feel like crying.  I just heard about a 'senior lady, husband very ill' who just sold her car to come up with the money to 'get out'.  She is old and doesn't want a fight.
> 
> Well, now, I want a fight.  I plea with all of you to go to social media.  Write something in Facebook, get your kids to post it and 'share'.
> 
> I 'personally' took out my own ad in the local newspaper a week ago and asked for people to contact me.  Thanks to one particular lady (that has now sought a lawyer), she told me about Tug.  I knew nothing about it!
> 
> Thank you Tug website for helping get my message out and out to many others.
> 
> We have signed with a lawyer in Vancouver.  She (Lindsay LeBlanc).  She was wonderful........just send me info., and send the rest later.  It isn't too late.
> 
> If you as a group thing this is a bad idea to post something, please tell me, before I do it.  I will wait a few hours.
> 
> Thanks


It is a good idea to post your thoughts, feelings and suggestions.  The cure to this situation is to expose it for what  it is and to fight it in whatever is necessary.  Don't be intimidated by Northwynd.  they are in  the wrong, we are in the right.


----------



## CindyD

browger said:


> I am mad, and feel like crying.  I just heard about a 'senior lady, husband very ill' who just sold her car to come up with the money to 'get out'.  She is old and doesn't want a fight.
> 
> Well, now, I want a fight.  I plea with all of you to go to social media.  Write something in Facebook, get your kids to post it and 'share'.
> 
> I 'personally' took out my own ad in the local newspaper a week ago and asked for people to contact me.  Thanks to one particular lady (that has now sought a lawyer), she told me about Tug.  I knew nothing about it!
> 
> Thank you Tug website for helping get my message out and out to many others.
> 
> We have signed with a lawyer in Vancouver.  She (Lindsay LeBlanc).  She was wonderful........just send me info., and send the rest later.  It isn't too late.
> 
> If you as a group thing this is a bad idea to post something, please tell me, before I do it.  I will wait a few hours.
> 
> Thanks



I have gone on the Global BC facebook and posted the Global Calgary story, I have also sent info to Fifth Estate, W5, Vancouver Sun, The Province and the Times Colonist


----------



## Brit76

This may have been posted previously - relative to the 2010 bankruptcy filing.  Thought it was interesting - Ernst & Young Document Restructuring Centre - Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd [CCAA Monitor and Trustee in Bankruptcy] - http://documentcentre.eycan.com/Pages/Main.aspx?SID=107


----------



## Quadmaniac

I had originally emailed Global Calgary to do a story on it and this was the reply I sent to Tony in regards to the "angle" of the story:

Hi Tony

I appreciate you investigating this issue but I think the angle in which Northwynd has responded is a total snow job.

As with the calculations I made below - $4200 x 50 weeks is $210,000 (This is allowing for 2 weeks to be unaccounted for yet). You can go out and buy a 1200 sq ft condo for $200,000 in smaller communities without a problem and that includes the cost of the land and profit for a condo builder. Let's assume that Northwynd is being truthful about the pipes needing to be replaced (there is a 15% management fee built in, so 85% of $210,000 = $178,500), it's going to cost about $178,500 to replace pipes ? Does that not sound excessive from doing the simple math ? How much were these timeshares to build in the first place not including the land ? I'm sure it did not cost them $200,000 for building costs alone.

This is the other thing that does not make sense : there is a separate part of the Fairmont resorts that are not part of Northwynd, called Fairmont Mountainside - these units I believe were the first to be built by Fairmont and are managed by a different company than Northwynd. Their maintenance is LOWER and there is no plans for a major overhaul. Riverside, Riverview and Hillside were built after Mountainside by the same developer. If these problems exist to the extent that they are claiming, I would expect the following :

1) Mountainside would need the same renovations
2) Mountainside's maintenance fees would be closer to ours, but they are in fact lower every year
3) How does Mountainside manage with lower maintenance fees every year and we were supposed to pay 300-400 more per yr as Northwynd claims, yet our buildings are in financial difficulty ?
4) The quality of construction to be generally the same/similar in all four developments.

These four sections / buildings are all part of the same resort, how can one run so well on lower fees and no renovation overhaul but the other three are in shambles ? If they need such a huge renovation, would we not expect the resort to be in very non-livable conditions if $178,500 in renovations is required ? I personally have not been to the resort, but if the resort was in THAT POOR OF CONDITIONS, how do we not have complaints from those staying at the timeshare ? Shouldn't there be a flood of complaints that the place is run down and needs a major overhaul ?

Please note that in our year maintenance fees there is a build in reserve fund of 15% that they collected every year, so how can it be that so much is needed ?

The release fee is not something that is part of the original contract of purchase people signed. In fact, all of them state that if they are 16 months behind in payments, it is deemed that the owner has sold it back the to resold at a fraction of the price. It does not state anywhere that an owner must pay a fee. If you surrender the unit, the unit would be removed from the timeshare trust and NOT renovated - so what happens to the unit and land ? It becomes the property of Northwynd and what do you suppose they are going to do with it ? Fix it up and sell it as a condo probably with a fraction of the money from the renovation fee. $3300 x 50 = $165,0000. I think that will be easily done for less than 5 % of that cost for what each unit may need.

Anyways, I think Northwynd has spun this to whitewash the real facts. I am not in construction, but the numbers don't add up to me.

If you would reconsider the angle with an update after further investigating, that would be appreciated as all of these facts can be easily verified.

Thank you

On 2013-05-27, at 3:57 PM, Tony Tighe wrote:

I am doing a news story about this.
Please send me a phone number so we can talk.


Tony Tighe |Consumer Reporter/Global TV | (403) 861-8129 
tony.tighe@globalnews.ca 
222-23rd St NE |Calgary, Alberta |T2E 7N2|



-----Original Message-----

Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 5:05 PM
To: CICT News Tips
Subject: Timeshare Fraud ?

Hello

I was wondering if your station could do a story on timeshare fraud ? Currently there is a situation with Sunchaser Villas in Fairmont BC where the management company Northwynd is trying to give every deed owner a special assessment of $4200 per week for renovations that they are "planning" to do on the resort. On a simple math basis - 

$4200 x 50 weeks = $210,000 to renovate a 2 br unit (approx 1200 sq ft ?)

The amount seems excessive and at this amount, you can re-build the whole complex from scratch. Owners are not being given a choice and they are being forced to pay this or pay $3200 and you can walk away from your deed. For those surrendering their units, Northwynd plans on applying to the BC Supreme Court to change the terms of the contracts that allows them to remove units from the resort and make it smaller. It seems that if they can get enough to surrender their units, they can still use the $3200 per week to do some minor renovations and try to sell the units individually or create another timeshare possibly. 

Many of the owners paid anywhere from $15,000-$35,000 for their units in the first place plus yearly maintenance which is about $950  per year (this includes a reserve fund already). There is no provision in the contracts for a renovation as they are contemplating. 

The issue is that they have done this before and run off with the money leaving many timeshare owners with nothing :

http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopi...as-Puerto_Vallarta_Pacific_Coast.html#6019510
http://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=17251
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/rancho-banderas-c3151.html

There is a huge discussion thread about the renovations and a class action suit :

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182857

Here is the Sunchaser site detailing the renovation project

http://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/

Do you think this is something Global would look into a bit more closely ?

Thank you​


----------



## mmchili

Thousands of timeshare owners face unexpected repair bill
By Tony Tighe Global News May 28,2013

CALGARY- Timeshare owners at the Sunchaser Villas in Fairmont B.C. were taken by surprise when they were billed for repairs at the resort.

Glenn and Terry Graversen of Calgary have had a two-week timeshare at Sunchaser Villas for the past 16 years.

They now have to pay $4,000 for renovations to the villas or as an alternative, pay $3,000 to cancel their contract.

The vacation villas at Fairmont went bankrupt several years ago and the new owner says the assessment is necessary because maintenance had been neglected for years.

But the Graversens say this isn’t what they signed up for. The couple says they have paid maintenance fees every year and it isn’t their fault the previous owners of the resort let maintenance slide. 

“My concern is that they purchased it and now they’re making us pay for their mistake of purchasing a property that wasn’t worth what they paid for,” says Terry Graversen.

The new company running Sunchaser says timeshare members weren’t charged enough for upkeep in the past, and without this renovation, they stand to lose their investment.

“We believe the owners probably should have been charged about $300 to $400 a year more for the last 15 years to properly address the maintenance of the resort,” says Kirk Wankel of Northwynd Resort Properties.

The company says most of the money will be be used to replace the Poly-B piping throughout the resort. The plastic piping has been banned because it leaks.

Timeshare members in Alberta and B.C. have hired lawyers to fight the case.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*december 7, 2011 sunchaser letter*

going through some of my letters from sunchaser ,  i came across a letter dated Dec 7, 2011. This letter talks about some of the challenges facing Sunchaser, and how the new owners are committed to improving operations. 

There are some very intersting points in this letter.

in regards to maintence fees and i will quote

"The maintenance fee increase for 2012 is 5.6%. This is marginally above the increase in the consumer pirce index which was 3.2% to the end of September 2011. While we apprediate that any increase in fee is not desirable especially in the current economic climate, we believe this increase is very reasonable given the history of the resort.

Unfortunately, past management created budgets with significant errors and omissions that posed major challenges for RVM. It has taken significant time and energy to reduce costs heading into 2012 as a status quo budget correcting past errors would hae resulted in a completly unacceptable 19% increase in maintenance fees. To bring costs in line we have reduced our staffing complement by approximately 15% and are focused on improved efficeiency, space utilization and costs. At the same time, we continue to strive to porvide the service excellence that our owners expect. More importnantly, we are fostering a culture of accountability and financial responsibility as we recognize that we must operate the resort within the fees that we generate."

does that last sentence not clearly state they are committed to operate within their means, within the maintenance fees they take in. Also by their own admission, a 19% increase is completely unacceptable, yet a one time fee in excess of 400% is???

Further to this also in the same letter dated December 7,2011 under Refurbishment and i will again quote:
"3) Long term plan: We are currently in the process of a complete site review for maintenance and refurbishment. As the review progresses, we hope to engage you for feedback. Once the review is complete, we will create a detailed five year plan for the resort. The plan will be forwarded to all of our owners at that time"

i don't recall any opportunity for feedback.


----------



## Casper1959

*Docken Klym litigation*

I have been reading this thread for days and thanks all for the information.  So much to learn in such a short period of time and the deadline looms over us all.  We decided to join the Calgary group with Docken Klym and paid the $500 retainer.   I talked to Robert Forsyth and felt much better about our decision after talking to him.   He called it a litigation, not a class action at this time.
Something to note is that the retainer goes into a fund and this is used to pay for the fees of Docken Klym and any funds remaining in this "fund" at the completion of the litigation will be disbursed back to the members of the group.  My understanding is that the deadline to sign up with Docken Klym and have them file the form 67 is today (May 29) at 4:00 but people can still join the group after that point.   There is strength in numbers and I know that to many $500 is a lot of money and it may feel like throwing good money after bad but at this point I feel that we need to have legal assistance.


----------



## Undecided

*Lawyer communication...*

Just curios if the lawyers are actually "talking" to the people that have retained them or are they simply communicating by A general email. I understand they they are swamped but I haven't been able to talk to anyone except the receptionist.  I would hope they send a copy of any documents they file on behalf of the owners to the owners who have retained them.


----------



## disillusioned

*Looks like they have fulfilled certain obligations*

This was an email that was sent to all owners Nov 11, 2011

Fall 2011 Survey Reminder
Greetings from Resort Villa Management.

Our records indicate that you have a timeshare lease at Sunchaser Vacation Villas in Fairmont Hot Springs.

This is a reminder that we would appreciate hearing from you in response to the Fall Newsletter and Survey that we recently sent. We are asking for your opinion on several topics.

The areas of interest include:
• Your views on pet-friendly units.
• The formation of a Home Owners Association.
• Possible revenue streams to help meet operational costs.
• and a number of other topics of interest.

We ask for about 5 minutes of your time to go through the 20 statements and questions on this survey so that we may better understand your expectations and opinions.  Your answers serve to guide us in decision making and identifying specific issues that need attention.

Your responses are anonymous and confidential. If you have any questions or concerns about the survey, please contact the Sunchaser Villas Front Desk at 250-345-4545.

The survey close date is December 4, 2011. Thank-you in advance for your participation. If you have already completed the survey, please disregard this request.
(Please Note: the survey website is down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, November 22, 2011 from 7:00pm to 1:00am)

Proceed to survey.


----------



## browger

*Att: Undecided*



Undecided said:


> Just curios if the lawyers are actually "talking" to the people that have retained them or are they simply communicating by A general email. I understand they they are swamped but I haven't been able to talk to anyone except the receptionist.  I would hope they send a copy of any documents they file on behalf of the owners to the owners who have retained them.




We were wondering the same thing, they are swamped, but we did sign up on Saturday and received a note that to confirm they received our info. yesterday, and a general e-mail to follow.


----------



## LarryEdmonton

*Points Converters?*

It appears that those that moved to Points with RIC are exempt from the Maintenance charges.

True of False?


----------



## Quadmaniac

LarryEdmonton said:


> It appears that those that moved to Points with RIC are exempt from the Maintenance charges.
> 
> True of False?



Absolutely false


----------



## TUGBrian

global calgary news story mentioned above

http://globalnews.ca/news/596669/thousands-of-timeshare-owners-face-unexpected-repair-bill/


----------



## morena

*letter*



fairmontlvr said:


> going through some of my letters from sunchaser ,  i came across a letter dated Dec 7, 2011. This letter talks about some of the challenges facing Sunchaser, and how the new owners are committed to improving operations.
> 
> There are some very intersting points in this letter.
> 
> in regards to maintence fees and i will quote
> 
> "The maintenance fee increase for 2012 is 5.6%. This is marginally above the increase in the consumer pirce index which was 3.2% to the end of September 2011. While we apprediate that any increase in fee is not desirable especially in the current economic climate, we believe this increase is very reasonable given the history of the resort.
> 
> Unfortunately, past management created budgets with significant errors and omissions that posed major challenges for RVM. It has taken significant time and energy to reduce costs heading into 2012 as a status quo budget correcting past errors would hae resulted in a completly unacceptable 19% increase in maintenance fees. To bring costs in line we have reduced our staffing complement by approximately 15% and are focused on improved efficeiency, space utilization and costs. At the same time, we continue to strive to porvide the service excellence that our owners expect. More importnantly, we are fostering a culture of accountability and financial responsibility as we recognize that we must operate the resort within the fees that we generate."
> 
> does that last sentence not clearly state they are committed to operate within their means, within the maintenance fees they take in. Also by their own admission, a 19% increase is completely unacceptable, yet a one time fee in excess of 400% is???
> 
> Further to this also in the same letter dated December 7,2011 under Refurbishment and i will again quote:
> "3) Long term plan: We are currently in the process of a complete site review for maintenance and refurbishment. As the review progresses, we hope to engage you for feedback. Once the review is complete, we will create a detailed five year plan for the resort. The plan will be forwarded to all of our owners at that time"
> 
> i don't recall any opportunity for feedback.



Could you please scan in a copy of this letter?  I would like to use it as backup for my affidavit and I am not sure I have a copy of it.  Thanks


----------



## gnorth16

TUGBrian said:


> global calgary news story mentioned above
> 
> http://globalnews.ca/news/596669/thousands-of-timeshare-owners-face-unexpected-repair-bill/



Disappointed in Global's representation on this.  Yes, it got the word out, but didn't scratch the surface of what is really going on.  They should have talked about the "ballpark" of 38-50 million and the 15% that will line Northwynd's pockets.  

The land up against the river is absolutely beautiful and i'm sure they would be happy to take out as many TS's with the cancellation clause and turn them into condos (reno's or tear downs).  

This needs to go to the Fifth Estate or an investigative type show.  Regular news won't cover this with the proper detail in 2 minutes.


----------



## mmchili

NEWS & INFORMATION FROM SUNCHASER VACATION VILLAS	April 2012

""Fall Survey Results
Last fall we sent out a survey to ask for your opinion on several topics. The areas of interest included:
•	Your views on pet-friendly units.
•	The formation of a Home Owners Association.
•	Possible revenue streams to help meet operational costs.
•	and a number of other topics of interest.
There was an excellent response rate. We received 3,310 responses and over 1,000 comments were contributed.  The survey results have been tabulated and the comments have been summarized into several broad themes within the report.""

Interesting; only 3,310 responses from 14,500 owners.

HOA Survey Question ,
""I believe that establishing a Home Owners Association (HOA) is a positive step for
improved communications between the lease holders, the management company and the
developer. (Recognizing that the associated costs (email, postage, etc.) would have to be
covered by annual maintenance fees.)""

There were 3,235 responses to the HOA question; 135 strongly agreed, 695 agreed, 1293 neutral, 658 disagreed, 454 strongly disagreed.

I wonder what the response would be today?


----------



## morena

*Affidavits*



morena said:


> I cannot get a consistent answer as to whether or not an affidavit must be filed with the initial response to Petition Form 67.  This seems to be a separate document and Vancouver court acted like it wasn't necessary.  Does anyone know the answer to this for sure?  Thanks as we are running out of time to respond.



I received the answer to my own question.  You do not have to file an affidavit at the same time that you file your Form 67.  I just left #6 blank and I will file an affidavit later, if necessary.  Affidavits cannot be faxed or e-mailed.  They have to be mailed or delivered to the Vancouver Court.


----------



## morena

*Better Business Bureau*

You can go to the Better Business Bureau associated with Calgary and file a complaint online.  Northwynd already has a D- rating.  The more people that file a complaint with them the better.  I believe it will help our case down the line.


----------



## DaveO

*Email this if you are an owner!!*

It has been suggested that all owners send the email noted below to Resort Villa Management (as long as you are comfortable in doing so).

We suspect that Petitioner and Respondent will be arguing that because some owners managed to file a response before May 31st that this is an indication that everyone had sufficient time to do so. 

In order to provide the owners with a viable argument in rebuttal, a wave of emails from as many owners as possible would be of great value going forward (even if they have filed and served their Response). We want to have as many people who are willing do this in advance of May 31st. 

They can do so by sending an email to the lawyers of record for both Trustee and Northmont:

Respondent (Northmont) / Judson E. Virtue: jud.virtue@nortonrose.com 
RVM Email Address: resortvillamanagement@northwynd.ca
Petitioner (Trustee) / Warren B. Milman:  wmilman@mccarthy.ca
ScumBag Northwynd CEO: kwankel@northwynd.ca

Copy and paste the following to the email:

 As an Owner of a timeshare at Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Riverside, Hillside and Riverview in Fairmont BC that is affected by the Petition between Philip K. Matkin Professional Corporation and Northmont Resort properties Ltd., I/We  hereby request: and provide notice:

1) That the hearing be adjourned to a later date to allow more owners to prepare for it;
2) That the current amount of time scheduled for the hearing is not sufficient to allow the owners to make their submissions before the court;
3) That their May 31st deadline to file Form 67 with their affidavit has not allowed them sufficient time to hire a lawyer and ensure that their submissions are complete;
4) That the “Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay” letter has effectively put the owners under duress with respect and has not allowed owners to make a fair and reasoned decision.


----------



## den403

3 lawyers from BC that I know of and 1in Calgary

Kelliehamiltonlaw.com
BC
1-604-685-7111

leblanc@coxtaylor.ca
BC
1-250-338-4457

Geldert law
BC
1-778-330-7775

Robert Docken in Calgary
403-269-3612
robert@docken.com


----------



## Soccer Canada

Here is the response that I received when sending the note about extending the deadline:

Hello Mr. Alexander,



The schedule is set out by the BC Court in a Court Order.  The parties do not have the right to unilaterally waive or change the Court Order.  I suggest you make your views known to the Court on June 20 and that if you require any advice or assistance with that, you contact independent legal counsel.



Regards,



Jud Virtue 

Partner



Norton Rose Canada LLP / S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l. 

400 3rd Avenue SW, Suite 3700, Calgary, Alberta T2P 4H2 Canada

T: +1 403.267.9541  |  F: +1 403.264.5973

Jud.Virtue@nortonrose.com


----------



## renoman

DaveO said:


> It has been suggested that all owners send the email noted below to Resort Villa Management (as long as you are comfortable in doing so).
> 
> We suspect that Petitioner and Respondent will be arguing that because some owners managed to file a response before May 31st that this is an indication that everyone had sufficient time to do so.
> 
> In order to provide the owners with a viable argument in rebuttal, a wave of emails from as many owners as possible would be of great value going forward (even if they have filed and served their Response). We want to have as many people who are willing do this in advance of May 31st.
> 
> They can do so by sending an email to the lawyers of record for both Trustee and Northmont:
> 
> Respondent (Northmont) / Judson E. Virtue: jud.virtue@nortonrose.com
> RVM Email Address: resortvillamanagement@northwynd.ca
> Petitioner (Trustee) / Warren B. Milman:  wmilman@mccarthy.ca
> ScumBag Northwynd CEO: kwankel@northwynd.ca
> 
> Copy and paste the following to the email:
> 
> As an Owner of a timeshare at Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Riverside, Hillside and Riverview in Fairmont BC that is affected by the Petition between Philip K. Matkin Professional Corporation and Northmont Resort properties Ltd., I/We  hereby request: and provide notice:
> 
> 1) That the hearing be adjourned to a later date to allow more owners to prepare for it;
> 2) That the current amount of time scheduled for the hearing is not sufficient to allow the owners to make their submissions before the court;
> 3) That their May 31st deadline to file Form 67 with their affidavit has not allowed them sufficient time to hire a lawyer and ensure that their submissions are complete;
> 4) That the “Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay” letter has effectively put the owners under duress with respect and has not allowed owners to make a fair and reasoned decision.



All the angst we have witnessed over this is well and good, and the lawyers may be effective in their mission. But if you only want to guarantee to be able to exit (as we do in any event) I do not yet see the lawyers making suggestions that - whatever happens- there will still be an opportunity to exit at a reasonable cost. If not, then you are still on VIA as we read it, with an even higher fee on your invoices, and still being billed for future maintenance on something you no longer need.


----------



## TS Migraine

One of the four points Docken Klym have listed as a grievance response in Form 67included being able to relenquish ownership at no cost- as was stated in original contracts. They also made the point that the reno assessment fees assigned to owners was unacceptable. I asked Rob to write the four main points down for me, and he did, and then I forgot them at the Law office yesterday (consequently, I am glad I am not managing this on my own). Rob said they had MANY phone calls since the Global News report, and many other media notices, and they expected to be swamped with owners wanting into the Class Action today. He said they would be sending out an email to all who have retained them on Thursday to tell us where things are at and numbers of people signed up. I expect the FOUR POINTS they felt were legally pertinent will be included in the Thursday emailed information. As for the expense of $500.00, I was assured that if say10,000 owners sign up and pay the retainer, and actual costs are only a fraction of the money fund accumulated, the surplus would be divided up and split amongst the 10,000 as refund. In effect, Northwynd has purchased the Fairmont Property at a bankruptcy price, and now they are trying to redevelop their property with our funds. They need to realize that when they purchased the property assets, they bought the existing liabilities too. They cannot expect us to foot the reno costs to improve the value of THEIR property, and enhance their future profit margin. Our contracts are part of what they bought- delinquent maintenance fees et al. They cannot expect US to pay for the cost of their obligations as new owners of a fire sale property.  It's like a divorce- you get half the assests AND half the accumulated debts- those costs are Northwynd's, not ours.


----------



## Cobboy

"PLEASE" everyone email Robert at Docken Klym in hopes that they will still take on new comers. There are two simple forms to complete and an affidavit to have witnessed by your local lawyer.   Yes, $500.00 retainer, but "the more the merrier".  It is absolutely necessary that this be a group effort.


----------



## jg_filer

*What is form #67? Is someone going to attend the hearing and report what happens?*



expat said:


> I think i represent a lot of owners who would be happy to file this Form 67 but are not sure what to write. I have downloaded the form. Can someone please help with what we should fill out for #'s 6 through 8? Thank you so much.



What is form 67? Is someone going to attend the hearing and report what happens, also who argues for who?


----------



## jg_filer

What is form #67? Is someone living close going to attend the hearing and share what happens and maybe who argues for who?


----------



## DarkLord

renoman said:


> I do not yet see the lawyers making suggestions that - whatever happens- there will still be an opportunity to exit at a reasonable cost.



There's no certainty in lawsuit.  But really once Northwynd knows that the owners won't go away quietly and act like lambs lead to the slaughter, you think they won't be glad to take your money and let you get out?

If I may say so, your kind of response is exactly what their scare tactic hopes to achieve.

Renoman, you'll have to make the decision you think is right.  But I'll say it right here that Northwynd will make cancel option available long after May 31.  In all likelihood, perhaps a even sweeter one to entice people to pay them to cancel.  Remember, Northwynd has no legal ground to charge us the reno fee until the court rules in favor of their petition.  Should the court rule against their petition, you think they wouldn't take a few grands from you to cancel just because it's passed their self imposed May 31 deadline?


----------



## DarkLord

TS Migraine said:


> They cannot expect US to pay for the cost of their obligations as new owners of a fire sale property.  It's like a divorce- you get half the assests AND half the accumulated debts- those costs are Northwynd's, not ours.



Alone this line of thought, what do we, the owners, really "own"?  Sounds like we don't own the resort and thus the ultimate financial benefits that come with the proposed renovation.  If that's the case, why should we foot the bills and let Northwynd benefit from it?


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Sunchaser Fees*

I’m new to the forum and am only now getting up to speed with the issues. I have owned one annual week, bought resale in 2004, but actually never go to the resort. I simply deposit with Interval and trade. I avoided all the bs phone calls last year, trying to convert my week to RCI points or whatever that scheme was about.
(Sorry for the long winded post)

If seems that timeshare owners at Sunchaser will fall into a number of different categories. What’s right for one won’t be right for others. As I see it, you would fall into some of these groups.

1. 	I want out. I’ll pay the $3,167.51 just to done with these crooks.
Comment: Great if the money doesn’t matter to you and you have had it with timeshare “investments”.  Are you 100% you will be off the hook or do you have to hire a lawyer just to be sure?
For every 50 or 51 owners that pay this fee they will have recovered as clear title, one unit. That unit still retains some residual value (let’s take a guess at $100,000) and they will have $3016 x 50 wk, or over $150,000 in cash in their pockets. Added to the residual unit value that’s $250,000. Imagine it about 40% of all owner did this. This would be about 100 units.  They would own a 100 suite project and have $15,000,00 in the bank.

2.	I want out. I’m not going to held at gunpoint by an arbitrary cancellation fee, determined by Northwyn. I believe I should be able to “quit claim the lease, returning the real estate interest to to Northwynd. 
Comment: Northwynd has decided they want to collect $3,016 + tax from each unit week that gives up their timeshare. The breakdown is to collect the next 20 years of management in advance plus a deficit recovery fee that is in large part a direct result of their mismanagement and cost overuns from the renovation started on Bldg. 7000 (see last financials). How have they earned 20 yr of management fees and what are the chance they will be around then.?
In this category of owner I would expect some may be prepared to pay some lesser amount to walk away, perhaps a small transfer fee of a few hundred bucks. Keep in mind how much they would reap from fees, as outlined above.

3.	I want out. I am done with paying Northwyn and will chose to default and pay nothing more to them, ever!
Comment: This will bring up the entire question of non-payment and Northwynd`s response.  The first thing is that you lose all privileges at Sunchaser. If you have paid the fees invoiced in January you may not be able to use a week booked there later this year. Some of leases show a clause that says after default and non payment for 16 months the resort can buy your unit back. The clause and Norton Rose summary make it clear there is no obligation to do this. Originally this clause was there so the developer could take back the units and resell them again if the owner didn`t pay. Now that there is no resale value for the weeks, they don`t want them, a least not without a fat check to go with it.		
What will Northwynd`s option be to recover their extortion fee. Well they can turn the account over to collection. They should expect a long wait and a big discount if anyone pays. They can file a court claim for the amount, seeking judgement. Plan on a lawyer at high rates and appearances in Small Claims Court. Expect vigorous defenses from very disgruntled owners.  If they are awarded a judgement, try to enforce it. Hire a lawyer, file more court documents, hope to collect. 
As a further note, how successful has Northwyn been on prior defaults. It is certainly noted in their documents that defaults have been rising.

4.	 I am happy to pay my renovation fee and keep going to a new resort.
Comment: There will be those who simply pay this fee thinking they are protecting and enhancing their investment. They should ask themselves these questions. Is this the last cash call I will ever get from Northwynd.? Are they competent to oversee the renovation planned on time and budget.? Did they demonstrate this with the current renovation.? Where will my maintenance fee be in 5 yr. $1000., $2,000? Is Northwyn entitled to a 15% fee or maybe as much as $4,000,000 in fees to do the reno? Is my money in trust and will there be any oversight from the owners or an outside agency regarding the expenditures?	
Remember that at the end of 20 years, you own nothing. You will have paid handsomely to remodel the resort and continuously maintain it for 20 years, just to cede it to Northwynd in 2033.

5.  	The Legacy for Life owners
	Don’t know much about this but I expect they will have their own issues.

Where to from here:
Obviously getting legal representation is needed and the only feasible option is in large groups. I’m too late to file a Petition myself by May 31 but it may be worthwhile joining a group. Its also important to be sure the lawyer is working toward your goal. (Walking away, staying, reducing fees, whatever)

I would like to see as a minimum, an adjournment so additional owners can become involved.  Also assurances that those that paid annual dues early in the year get to use their booked week at the resort. 
One thing for sure it that this can go on a long time. Between petitions, orders, affidavits, postponements, discoveries, filings, briefs, hearings and the time honored practice of burying people in paper, you should expect no quick results.

Btw, a retainer I have seen quotes lawyer rates at $650.00/ hr and paralegal rates at $175/hr. plus every other disbursement imaginable. Consider one lawyer calling another at different firm on this case.  The cash burn rate could be running near $1300/hr.!


----------



## tdjanzen

Cobboy said:


> "PLEASE" everyone email Robert at Docken Klym in hopes that they will still take on new comers. There are two simple forms to complete and an affidavit to have witnessed by your local lawyer.   Yes, $500.00 retainer, but "the more the merrier".  It is absolutely necessary that this be a group effort.



I did that today and 5 hours later got an email that stated the deadline for participating was May 29 at 12:00 pm.  Which means the deadline was 5 hours prior to them sending me an email encouraging me to join the group.

Now I am thoroughly confused.

But I guess my fault for waiting so long.

If there is an opportunity to join the group at a later date, I would again consider it.


----------



## Casper1959

tdjanzen said:


> I did that today and 5 hours later got an email that stated the deadline for participating was May 29 at 12:00 pm.  Which means the deadline was 5 hours prior to them sending me an email encouraging me to join the group.
> 
> Now I am thoroughly confused.
> 
> But I guess my fault for waiting so long.
> 
> If there is an opportunity to join the group at a later date, I would again consider it.



I was told by Rob at Docken Klym  that people could still join the group after the  29th, they just would not have form 67 filed for them.


----------



## TS Migraine

tdjanzen, you can still join the Class Action after today, but if you haven't filed Form 67. you face "penalties"  as stated by Northwynd if you don't have your Stay or Go papers postmarked by May 31st and in the mail. If the Docken Klym Class Action is successful in our favour, you may get your Stay or Go money back as mandated by the Judge.  If enough TS owners get on board the Class Action, you may get some of your $500.00 back too since this Petition Court manoeuvre is pretty simplistic and shouldn't cost Docken Klym all of our money to pursue. If additional court proceedings are required, that may be a different matter.


----------



## Spark1

Quadmaniac said:


> Absolutely false



Timeshare owners who changed to RCI Points that joined the Sunchaser Premier Owners Association (SPOA) Their Association is billed maintenance fees and the developer pays their renovation fees. Legacy for life pays full renovation costs.


----------



## JasonO

*Lawyered Up!!*

After looking ever everything over a thousand times I figured I might as well get a lawyer and fight back.  I have a unit at lake Okanogan, and  2 years ago, they offered me what I thought was a sweet deal at Fairmont.  I was happy, as it got me more points so I could bugger off to somewhere warm in the winter. Imagine my surprise when they now say that I'm on the hook for the renovation bill.  Needless to say I'm not happy, as with many of the other owners.  I would rather lose some cash on a lawyer than watch theses crooks get away with this easily.


----------



## Spark1

TS Migraine said:


> tdjanzen, you can still join the Class Action after today, but if you haven't filed Form 67. you face "penalties"  as stated by Northwynd if you don't have your Stay or Go papers postmarked by May 31st and in the mail. If the Docken Klym Class Action is successful in our favour, you may get your Stay or Go money back as mandated by the Judge.  If enough TS owners get on board the Class Action, you may get some of your $500.00 back too since this Petition Court manoeuvre is pretty simplistic and shouldn't cost Docken Klym all of our money to pursue. If additional court proceedings are required, that may be a different matter.



Do not be stupid, if you pay them nothing according to our agreement which states nothing about us paying capital expenditures , item no. 9 you will not have to try to get your money back. This case should be fought on the bases of all the breaches of our agreements.Northwynd are not nice people and once they have your money you will not get it back.


----------



## TS Migraine

DarkLord, what we "own" is ( in my case anyway) A Lease that entitles me to one week of time in a building owned by Northwynd. The Lease is a Legal document, complete with the terms it states, so no two Lease Owners can own the same week in the same building unit. However, if you don't book or use your week, then the Building Owners have the right to -rent out- your week to whomever will pay to use it, so as to not lose the profits associated with the "lease" of that unit. Paying the Building Owners to NOT USE your lease week,  {GO} is absurd in my opinion, espcially if a 16 month lapse in use and maintenance fees allows them to profit off another person using the space. By SIGNING a NEW Stay or Go agreement, and paying the coerced cash, we may forfeit our legal rights under the original agreement. Fortunately, whatever the Class action determines through the court should apply to all Lease Owners equally. BUT NO- WE should not be Paying to Increase Northwynd's property improvements. They need to figure out how to manage the deficit costs they bought, and still run an eventually profitable business.


----------



## TS Migraine

Spark1, I am just repeating what I was told by Rob at Docken Klym. Petition 66 is a legal document filed with the BC court. If you got the letter, you are legally required to respond by May 31st, with either Form 67 or a letter Postmarked no later than May 31st with a decision to stay or go. If a court rules Northwynd has NO RIGHT to any money given them, they HAVE to cough it up and pay it back, unless they file Bankruptcy and claim no cash. I agree, Northwynd are not nice people.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Spark1 said:


> Timeshare owners who changed to RCI Points that joined the Sunchaser Premier Owners Association (SPOA) Their Association is billed maintenance fees and the developer pays their renovation fees. Legacy for life pays full renovation costs.



So you did not get your bill ? Unlikely in my opinion, you're still an owner, so you are not exempt from the reno fees.


----------



## browger

*RCI Pts. owners*

Originally Posted by Spark1 View Post Timeshare owners who changed to RCI Points that joined the Sunchaser Premier Owners Association (SPOA) Their Association is billed maintenance fees and the developer pays their renovation fees. Legacy for life pays full renovation costs.


My response:
I know for a fact, and have spoken to at least 3 owners, and they switched to RCI pts, and they have received the same package as those that are still in their original lease.  Not only did they pay thousands to switch to this
RCI pts plan, they are now looking at thousands more to stay or get out!
Grrrrr


----------



## DarkLord

TS Migraine said:


> DarkLord, what we "own" is ( in my case anyway) A Lease that entitles me to one week of time in a building owned by Northwynd. Paying the Building Owners to NOT USE your lease week,  {GO} is absurd in my opinion.. By SIGNING a NEW Stay or Go agreement, and paying the coerced cash, we may forfeit our legal rights under the original agreement.



My sentiments exactly.  What we purchased is a right to use the resort and it shouldn't come with the liabilities of paying for the reno accessment.  What Northwynd hopes to fool owners into believing is that we own the property of the resort.  That is not true, we don't own the resort property other than the rights to use it in a specific way.  

There's no reason to have to pay Northwynd to give up the rights to use the resort.  May 31 is come up in one day, let's see what Northwynd does when owners to pay them the reno fee and don't pay them to cancel.


----------



## Spark1

Quadmaniac said:


> So you did not get your bill ? Unlikely in my opinion, you're still an owner, so you are not exempt from the reno fees.



I have received my bill. I live in Mexico for the winter months, not that far from the Rancho Bandaras resort. I heard many complaints from timeshare owners about Northwynd. I have helped  owners down there and informed them about Profeco which is their Consumer Department for Tourist and locals. This company does not have a great track record. I have been working on a package, collecting information from owners in this area. Norton Rose states that there is 2 agreements  that is used at this resort but he did not mention (SPOC). This is another scheme to sell RCI points. they have about 700 members , majority being from Fairmont and then Mesquite Nevada and Lake Okanagan. Question is who's money is the developer using to pay for this association. My package is almost complete and i will be meeting with my Member of Parliament on Friday and next week i will be meeting with a officer SERVICE ALBERTA. Everyone should be contacting their MLA's and SERVICE ALBERTA.


----------



## bifft

*Our submission to Alberta Services and BC Consumer Protection*

We signed up for a Timeshare in 1997 with Fairmont Resort Properties (Fairmont Hot Springs, BC.) Maintenance fees were expected and ranged from $400 - $700 per year. We paid these annual fees. In 2010 FRP went into receivership bought out buy Northmont Resort Properties. Our maintenance fee for 2011 was $1678, which we paid. November of 2012 we received a Maintenance assessment of $1900 =/- which we again paid, however now in mid May we received another Maintenance fee for some $5600, a total of $7500. We were informed that this May assessment was to be paid by May 31st or deal with penalties in addition we were given the option of opting out of the Timeshare for the sum of some $4500 also to be completed by May 31st. This most recent assessment amounts to a 347% increase over the 2011 fee. Needles to say we have not paid this final assessment, nor will we, also we have not paid the opt out fee. It's hard to imagine the thinking that would ask a senior to pay to opt out of a transaction that ostensibly should still have value. At no time in our association with NRP did we or would we entertain approving the sorts of renovations that are being proposed, those kinds of expenses should be financed through the conventional practices, (Banks, Lending institutions, etc.) NRP's approach amounts to expecting present Timeshare holders to finance the entire project when some of us quite frankly will not be here that much longer. Expecting us to accommodate the arrangement in less than a month and deal with some 6 or 7 pages of legalese is, quite ludicrous. Thank you so much for allowing me this opportunity to vent. :annoyed:


----------



## DarkLord

bifft said:


> It's hard to imagine the thinking that would ask a senior to pay to opt out of a transaction that ostensibly should still have value.



Sorry to hear about your story, Bifft, but we are all on the same boat.  You raise a good point about the opt out option presented by Northwynd.  It is really odd if an asset still has value, why would Northwynd even guess that some owners will opt out, by paying them a few grands no less?

It is almost as if Northwynd knew that the timeshare has zero value, probably by watching the zero resell market in the last few years, assumed that some owners already though the same way because of the ridiculously high MF and thus gave us the opt out option.

But if Northwynd knew the timeshares are not worth the paper they are written on, why proceed with the renoation then?  Freudian slip on Northwynd's part, that's my conclusion.


----------



## Soccer Canada

Here is what I received in response to my letter to Northwynd:
Dear Robert,



Thank you for your letter,



At this time, we must reject your offer as your claims of breach of contract and the rights you are trying to ascribe to said breaches has no basis.



We have asked your group on multiple occasions, as we do with all of our timeshare owners who have questions about their rights and responsibilities under their vacation interval agreement, to seek legal advice.  



You have no legal right to terminate your payments.  If you maintain this position and go into default, you will be liable for all amounts owing, as well as interest costs, and legal costs that are incurred in pursuit of collecting on that default.



It has come to our attention from reviewing the www.tugbbs.com website (post #193) that the leader of your group is now soliciting members for funds to consult a lawyer which should lead you to question what legal advice has been received to date.  



We strongly urge you to ask your group for a detailed legal opinion validating the claims that you are making and that you seek your own independent legal review of your vacation interval agreement if you are unsatisfied with the information that you receive.



On April 29, 2013, the Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay package was mailed to all of our timeshare members.  In addition, the materials are available on the www.sunchaservillas.ca website.



We would specifically like to refer you to the Order Made After Application by Master Scarth of the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the “Order”) in relation to the petition by the trustee of the timeshare regime.  



We strongly believe that our realignment plan is in the best interests of our timeshare members and look forward to the Supreme Court of British Columbia validating our position.  At the same time, we fully support our timeshare members having the opportunity to be a part of the process and being heard if they disagree.  



If you and your legal counsel believe you have a valid position to reject our plans for Sunchaser Vacation Villas, this is your opportunity to contest the process in a proper legal fashion.  We urge you and your legal counsel to review the Order and act in accordance with it.  



As a reminder, you are responsible for paying or enrolling in a payment plan for the renovation project maintenance fee by May 31st, 2013 or you will be in default of your obligations irrespective of the impending court hearing.



Once you have reviewed the Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay package, please feel free to contact Vacation Ownership Services at 1-877-451-1250 or reply to this email if you have any questions.  Otherwise, we look forward to receiving the paperwork for whichever option you select.



Best Regards,







Vacation Ownership Services 

Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.

5799 3rd Street SE

Calgary, AB T2H 1K1


----------



## Soccer Canada

So it would appear that they are in fact reviewing our statements on TUG. It would also appear they are hoping to intimidate everyone into paying saying that what we say here lacks sound advice..

I have a hard time thinking they will send collection notices amounting to millions to anyone at this point..


----------



## DarkLord

Soccer Canada said:


> So it would appear that they are in fact reviewing our statements on TUG. It would also appear they are hoping to intimidate everyone into paying saying that what we say here lacks sound advice..
> 
> I have a hard time thinking they will send collection notices amounting to millions to anyone at this point..



They used some quasi formal tone like "consulting your lawyer" to stake their case.  Why would they use such confrontational tone if this whole this is not a scam?  This is a scam through and through.  I'll like to see Northwynd dealing with thousands of disgruntle owners.  It'll only be one more day to see what trick they can pull beofre their useless self imposed deadline of May 31.


----------



## Spark1

DarkLord said:


> They used some quasi formal tone like "consulting your lawyer" to stake their case.  Why would they use such confrontational tone if this whole this is not a scam?  This is a scam through and through.  I'll like to see Northwynd dealing with thousands of disgruntle owners.  It'll only be one more day to see what trick they can pull beofre their useless self imposed deadline of May 31.



That is correct and the best way to deal with these guys is to stop all the money from flowing into their pockets. This is the last statement on their cancellation agreement.
As a reminder, until the cancellation agreement is accepted and approved by Northmont Resort Properties Ltd, you will continue to be the owner of your vacation interval agreement and responsible for the obligations therein. That means if you give them 10,000.00 to cancell they could take years to cut you loose.


----------



## DarkLord

Spark1 said:


> As a reminder, until the cancellation agreement is accepted and approved by Northmont Resort Properties Ltd, you will continue to be the owner of your vacation interval agreement and responsible for the obligations therein.



This gets me the most.  Just because I bought a timeshare it doesn't mean I am on the hook for anything and everything Northwynd says I am obligated to.  What if a hole opens up on the ground and the entire resort falls into it?  Am I supposed to sell my house to pay for it?  I don't think so, there's the concept of limited liability in commercial law that Northwynd doesn't seem to grasp.

If alients took over Fairmont and I lost my investment on my timeshare, that's one thing.  But I won't be on the hook to rebuild it which is exactly what Northwynd thinks I should.

Northwynd calls us OWNERS but we don't own anything.  We don't have a say in how the resort should be managed or if Northwynd should be the one managing it and what kind of renovation should be carried out.  And when it comes time to pay, we OWNERS have obligation according to Northwynd?  I've never so blantantly been taken for a fool in my life before.


----------



## fairmontlvr

DarkLord said:


> This gets me the most.  Just because I bought a timeshare it doesn't mean I am on the hook for anything and everything Northwynd says I am obligated to.  What if a hole opens up on the ground and the entire resort falls into it?  Am I supposed to sell my house to pay for it?  I don't think so, there's the concept of limited liability in commercial law that Northwynd doesn't seem to grasp.
> 
> If alients took over Fairmont and I lost my investment on my timeshare, that's one thing.  But I won't be on the hook to rebuild it which is exactly what Northwynd thinks I should.
> 
> Northwynd calls us OWNERS but we don't own anything.  We don't have a say in how the resort should be managed or if Northwynd should be the one managing it and what kind of renovation should be carried out.  And when it comes time to pay, we OWNERS have obligation according to Northwynd?  I've never so blantantly been taken for a fool in my life beforer.



I agree, what we own is TIME. Time as measured by a week, whether annual, biennual, prime golf, gold, it is TIME. We do not own the resort, we do not own the buildings, we own TIME. What was a 40 year right to use our TIME. Sure we are responsible for maintenance costs associated to the use of our time at the resort. 

As I pointed out in an earlier post from a letter sent out by RVM dated December 7, 2011 in regards to the issue of Maintenance fees.   " _*Most importantly, we are fostering a culture of accountability and financial responsibility as we recognize that we must operate the resort within the fees that we generate.*_ "

Whatever happened to this culture?


----------



## Soccer Canada

There is no accountability. They paid pennies on the dollar to buy the place out of bankruptcy. What would be very interesting is if they were able to sell the land and buildings, would we all get our 1/52, or 1/104 of sale of our individual units as set out in the lease, I highly doubt it. In fact Ill make Northwynd a deal, each condo is worth $150-200K easy, they can sell each condo, I am a biennial owner, so even on the low side Id get 1/104 of $150000K thats $1400, they can take their 15% off the $1400.00 and take my lease. Why on this green earth would I pay double that to give them the lease so they can sell that same unit and pocket all 150k?? Sounds like one hell of a racket, maybe we should all band together and set up a timeshare management company.

Why are we responsible for paying for them to upgrade some pipe at the cost of millions and millions of dollars, and further to that why are we responsible to pay Northwynd a 15% management fee!


----------



## TS Migraine

[why are we responsible to pay Northwynd a 15% management fee![/QUOTE]

Especially when their so called "Management" has proven highly unsuccessful from a Good business perspective, and on a personal 'owner' level, it amounts to intimidation, manipulation, deception, coercion, threats, and Bullying! I am not willing to pay 15% of my bi-annual holiday money for Human Rights abuse euphemistically titled "Management!" I have marched 5 different parties through AB Provincial Court under the FTA of Alberta, concerning construction corruption with our home. I won all 5 cases, without a lawyer's help, I collected most of the money I sued for, and these bad guys weren't as blatantly abusive as Northwynd. They were sneaky, but not half so bold. Northwynd must be desperate.
The coercive letter received by the previous blogger that attempts to legally support Northwynd's position by Petition 66, which hasn't made its way through the BC court System until June 20th, blows me away. I thought I wanted to remain a TS owner, but now I just want to use my legally paid for Time and never have anything more to do with these corrupt-to-the-core people. I hope for the sake of all the other VICTIMS of this abuse, especially our trusting, vulnerable, blind-sided Senior owners, the BC Court hears our Human and Legal Rights Voice loud and clear through the Class Action suit, and stops Northwynd's abuse in its tracks- for good.


----------



## TS Migraine

Did you hear that Docken Klym lawyers spoke today about a pennies on the dollar "payout" to the people represented by the Class Action with the infamous Bre- X? That settlement took 16 years and three of the main guys never faced prison time, but two died in the interim. I am glad I paid 500 to Docken Klym, and NOTHING MORE to Northwynd. Here's hoping that the CA brings this all to an immediate end June 20th. Northwynd should have to come up with an entirely different strategy to fund their proposed property enhancing reno. Are ALL BC construction projects from the 80s and 90s having to gut there dwellings and upgrade ABS pipe to meet code? I doubt it.


----------



## truthr

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you to everyone who has been a part of this thread. 

We just received our "package" last night and were overwhelmed by the contents.   Our initial reaction was to just pay to get out and be done with the whole time share thing. 

But then - I googled and found this place and read and read until I just couldn't read anymore. :zzz:

Got up this morning and read some more.  Wanted to respond, but thought I had to pay to join the site. 

But then just a few minutes ago whilst clicking on more buttons - I discovered I could join without having to give anyone a credit card :whoopie:

So relieved.


----------



## Fly525

In the April 12, 2013 Freedom To Choose, Reason To Stay letter from Northwynd, page 2, they mention that the approximately 850 "regular Joes/Janes" invested nearly $44,000,000 into Fairmont debt.  Is this the same money referred to in the audited financial statements which show $43,800,000 being cancelled as a result of the CCAA proceedings?

Also, what are your thoughts on the requirement (for those choosing to cancel their VIA's) on our being asked to pay Management Fee's for the next 20 years?  I'm asking myself why I would consider paying someone to manage my time at Fairmont if I'm cancelling and surrendering my VIA.


----------



## truthr

I just thought of something - my apologies if it has been addressed somewhere in the past 18 pages.

Anywho - whether we pay to stay in or pay to opt out, according to the docs we must commit/pay prior to May 31st, 2013 which would then provide them with a cash flow.  In addition for those who opt out that would then provide them with more units in their assets column since they would technically own the inventory.  Win/Win for them.  More money/more units.

With what they are proposing it will also make the resort less desirable for exchanges.  So whomever stays will end up with new contracts, because of the re-shuffle of unit numbers in addition to units that are less than worthless no matter what improvements they do (if, in fact, they do any improvements at all). :annoyed:


----------



## ERW

Another question - our package (we are biennial even years timeshare holders) stated very emphatically that ***THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE***  and the enclosed information implies that we would receive our bill in November or December of this year and would be due January 31st, 2014. I have assumed that this meant we are not required to respond to the stay or go program until that time. Anyone have any thoughts on this?


----------



## truthr

ERW said:


> Another question - our package (we are biennial even years timeshare holders) stated very emphatically that ***THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE***  and the enclosed information implies that we would receive our bill in November or December of this year and would be due January 31st, 2014. I have assumed that this meant we are not required to respond to the stay or go program until that time. Anyone have any thoughts on this?



We are the same - it also states "At that time, you will be entitled to the same payment options as have been provided to the Annual and Biennial Odd Timeshare Members".

If I hadn't jumped on the computer to do some research I would not have found out about form 67 (which I was too late to comply with in any event since we just received the correspondence last night).  Nor any of this other hoopla ha.

They certainly aren't very transparent or helpful and then they expect us to be "patient" with them and their problems while they rape us.


----------



## ERW

Evidently Northwynd monitors this site - perhaps someone from there would like to speak up and advise if this is the case.


----------



## truthr

ERW said:


> Evidently Northwynd monitors this site - perhaps someone from there would like to speak up and advise if this is the case.



:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## LookingForAnswers

Thanks truthr for the pointer on signing up for free.... I thought we had to pay to join in, so, we have been lurking in the background reading everyone's posts.

Our first thought was to pay to get out, but have to admit that was a hard pill to swallow - that's why we started searching the web for help.  

We tried to get some insight from a lawyer who had put up a web page about what is going on at Sunchaser Villas.  We tried to telephone her, sent a couple of e-mails, and finally got a call back from her about a week later.  She was allocating 10 to 15 minutes per person to tell us her plans.... which I must say were quite confusing, the only clear message was to send her $400.   She said she would email further instructions and information, but we didn't receive that until after I emailed her back several days later stating that we still were uncertain as to how to proceed.  

Here is a copy of theEmail, we received, 


> I may have contacted you.  $400 fees will cover our court application seeking various Options.  We are asking the court to set aside Northwynd’s demand of payments for all timeshare owners: the staying ones and going ones.
> 
> please be advised that we are preparing for a court application, not a class action. My retainer is $400.00 payable to XXXXXXX.  Please send a cheque and copies of two pieces of your identification.  I will then send you a copy of the affidavit for you to complete and will then add you as our client. It is to be noted that an outcome cannot be guaranteed. The court will have a chance to hear the concerns and objections I intend to raise on behalf of my clients. Please submit your retainer and id before or by Friday, May 17, 2013 or by Monday May 22, 2013 (extended).
> 
> Meanwhile I suggest you send a letter, or email, to northwynd objecting their assessment as soon as you can.”



We didn't feel comfortable sending money, because it seemed too uncertain as to what the money would cover....   This is when we stumbled on Tugbb.com   

Our gut was telling us just to do nothing and wait and see what takes place... but last week, I decided to try to fill the form 67 out myself, thinking that better to send one, even if not "professionally" worded, than just to ignore it.   I was able to find the form online, with a help sheet how to fill it out.  Then by copying the "legal entities" mentioned on the form 66 and 67 posted on Sunchaser's web page, I managed to complete the form by adding my own basic objections to the petition.

Besides the 2 days it took me to figure the form out, fill it, and send it express post to Vancouver Courts, it only cost me $10 for postage.  The duplicate forms came back stamped and ready to be sent to the appropriate entities this afternoon.  

We also sent the emails DaveO suggested we send this afternoon.  

Hoping our 1 little vote of protest adds to the shout of objection.  And I hope that others who have been lurking in the back ground as we have, also consider, that even if they aren't part of a group action - each single protest only adds strength to the mass.


----------



## truthr

Your are so welcome Looking For Answers - for anyone else that is lurking just click on the Join TUG at the top right hand corner of this page to join.

I, as well, have sent the email to the people mentioned somewhere in this thread - don't expect much from them other than their standard response.

I was not able to fill out the form 67 and get it to the courts in time since, as I said, we just received the correspondence last night.

We are originally from Alberta but are currently in BC.  I went to the Calgary lawyer website and filled out their form today.

You are correct there is strength in numbers, hopefully the lawyers will at the very least be able to get some sort of extension to the court proceedings so we can be heard.

Does Northmount/Northwynd really think they can swindle a bunch of baby boomers (my apologies to those who are not baby boomers)?

After all this is the age of the internet.


----------



## Fly525

I also have a Biennial Even lease.  Here is the reply that I received from Vacation Ownership Services via email yesterday.  
"For Lease xxxxxxx - you will be invoiced in approximately December, and yes we are asking for a response whether you are moving forward or participating in the cancellation post marked for May 31, 2013."


----------



## truthr

Fly525 said:


> I also have a Biennial Even lease.  Here is the reply that I received from Vacation Ownership Services via email yesterday.
> "For Lease xxxxxxx - you will be invoiced in approximately December, and yes we are asking for a response whether you are moving forward or participating in the cancellation post marked for May 31, 2013."



Asking??  More like demanding. :annoyed:


----------



## Hey lady

Yes, thanks truth4- I did't want to pay and after your posting realized there are 2 sites, one free, one pay. Ironically Northwynd is now saying "there isn't a market" for Fairmont (timeshares). DUH ! Yet 18 months ago they wanted me to convert my weeks into Legacy for $8000. After the maintenance fees exceeded $850 it is no longer cost effective to own. I can rent a luxury condo for $4000 a month in Palm Springs in high season.  My maintenance fees now exceed $2000 per year (2  units)  plus exchange fees of $179 per week and I need to pack up and change units or resorts every week.  No more - I'm outa here after owning for 20 years.


----------



## oneworldonerace

*I am currently using Geldert Law Firm*

I retained the Geldert Law Firm to represent my case in the dispute with Northwynd's unfounded demand for fees. I've been a bi-annual owner for 19 years. I encourage others to join the suit with the Calgary Firm listed in other posts or the Geldert Law Firm - to at least understand your contract and your rights.  

This was the letter I received tonight from Geldert Law Firm with the results of the court appearance today: 
 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In Supreme Court this morning, in negotiation with Warren Milman (lawyer for the Trustee/Petitioner), Jud Virtue (lawyer for Northmont/Respondent), Kellie Hamilton for her clients and myself for mine, and on behalf of all owners affected, we were able to secure an agreement to have a consent order filed today that removes the deadline for owners to file a response by May 31, 2013.

Please find attached the Order of Master McCallum varying the Order of Master Scarth. I note that Respondent will be making this available shortly on their website but that you are also free to circulate this among the community of owners at your discretion to ensure the following is clear:

WHAT THIS MEANS /

1.       The attached Order changes the previous Order of Master Scarth in the following manner:

a.        Owners, or their lawyers, no longer have to file their Response to the Petition by May 31st, 2013.

b.       The Court will decide on June 20th, 2013, what deadline the Owners shall have to file their Response and supporting materials.

c.        The June 20th hearing shall now be used to resolve procedural issues as between the interested parties and to determine how the within issues are to be scheduled and heard. There will not be a decision made on the Petition on June 20th.

d.       I will be appearing on your behalf on June 20th, 2013, to make submissions. I will be in touch with you before this hearing to discuss what I will need from you at the appropriate time.

2.       This Order does not in any way obviate the need for each owner to make a written reply to the “Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay” letter (the “Letter”) they received from Resort Villa Management Ltd. (“RVM”). I note that I will be writing RVM on your behalf tomorrow morning and will email you with a copy of the letter I send to them.

3.       Each owner now has additional time to gather relevant documentation that can be used to corroborate their affidavit evidence and to ensure nothing is missed. It also provides the owners, and each of them, with additional time to reach out to the community of owners online to ensure that every own is made aware of what their rights are, what is being done and what they can do about it.


My regards,
Michael Geldert, B.A, LL.B, LL.L, Esq.
T: 778.330.7775   |     F:778.330.7774    |   W: www.geldertlaw..com 
2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 1B4


----------



## truthr

Thank you so much for sharing this OneWorldOneRace

I am a little confused as why we still have to respond to the Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay deadline.

I would certainly like more information before committing to either of those options.

Edited to add:  Does your lawyer have more than one client with regards to this issue?


----------



## HTD

Hi i have just discovered this forum a few days ago. I am an biennial owner and just found out about all this less than a week ago by e mail since i had moved in the last year and had not recieved anything in the mail .I'm very upset with the way Northmont brought this to our attention. They claim that these options are in our best interest. HARD TO BELIEVE, the only interest they have is getting as much money possible before the deadline. I won't be pressured into signing anything. I believe these these are just scare tactics to get want they want.My thoughts are what would happen if all the TS owners did not sign anything before the deadline? Is Northmont in that much trouble financially that they need all this money?


----------



## ERW

I too am unsure why, if the petition response has been delayed, why lessees would still be required to respond to the stay or go campaign? Actually, I have found it a little hard to understand how Northwynd could demand a decision from the owners when the petition has not been heard by the courts. I could understand presenting the case to owners and canvasing them for a response, which in turn could be presented as part of their petition. Or presenting their submission, having a decision handed down then presenting it to the owners. As it stands now, it is akin to convicting someone of a crime then having the trial later.

Am I out to lunch?


----------



## truthr

ERW said:


> I too am unsure why, if the petition response has been delayed, why lessees would still be required to respond to the stay or go campaign? Actually, I have found it a little hard to understand how Northwynd could demand a decision from the owners when the petition has not been heard by the courts. I could understand presenting the case to owners and canvasing them for a response, which in turn could be presented as part of their petition. Or presenting their submission, having a decision handed down then presenting it to the owners. As it stands now, it is akin to convicting someone of a crime then having the trial later.
> 
> Am I out to lunch?



I don't think you are out to lunch.  I am thinking the same thing.  If the June 20th court date is to determine the date we have to respond to this, then I would think we should not respond until the date imposed by the court.

This gives all of us (and more hopefully) to choose which law firm we want to represent us, individually and collectively, and gives the lawyer time to respond on behalf of their clients.

That, IMO, is how it should have been handled right from the get go; unless Northwynd has something to hide.


----------



## oneworldonerace

*Number of current people represented*

IN RESPONSE TO TRUTHR QUESTION:

I was contacted by phone today by Geldert's Firm to let me know the case was before the courts, and I did ask how many others are seeking legal council.  The representative from Geldert said approximately 700 to date.  Now, please do not quote me on this because I don't know if that was all firms combined or their firm specifically.  

The letter with the Supreme Court of BC outcome came to me tonight from the Geldert office via email. I am just passing information on in hopes that as one unified group we will have a voice and stop the Court Appeal by Northwynd to extort money from nervous owners, and disregard our rights and existing contracts.


----------



## Undecided

*Clarification needed please*



oneworldonerace said:


> I retained the Geldert Law Firm to represent my case in the dispute with Northwynd's unfounded demand for fees. I've been a bi-annual owner for 19 years. I encourage others to join the suit with the Calgary Firm listed in other posts or the Geldert Law Firm - to at least understand your contract and your rights.
> 
> This was the letter I received tonight from Geldert Law Firm with the results of the court appearance today:
> ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> In Supreme Court this morning, in negotiation with Warren Milman (lawyer for the Trustee/Petitioner), Jud Virtue (lawyer for Northmont/Respondent), Kellie Hamilton for her clients and myself for mine, and on behalf of all owners affected, we were able to secure an agreement to have a consent order filed today that removes the deadline for owners to file a response by May 31, 2013.
> 
> Please find attached the Order of Master McCallum varying the Order of Master Scarth. I note that Respondent will be making this available shortly on their website but that you are also free to circulate this among the community of owners at your discretion to ensure the following is clear:
> 
> WHAT THIS MEANS /
> 
> 1.       The attached Order changes the previous Order of Master Scarth in the following manner:
> 
> a.        Owners, or their lawyers, no longer have to file their Response to the Petition by May 31st, 2013.
> 
> b.       The Court will decide on June 20th, 2013, what deadline the Owners shall have to file their Response and supporting materials.
> 
> c.        The June 20th hearing shall now be used to resolve procedural issues as between the interested parties and to determine how the within issues are to be scheduled and heard. There will not be a decision made on the Petition on June 20th.
> 
> d.       I will be appearing on your behalf on June 20th, 2013, to make submissions. I will be in touch with you before this hearing to discuss what I will need from you at the appropriate time.
> 
> 2.       This Order does not in any way obviate the need for each owner to make a written reply to the “Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay” letter (the “Letter”) they received from Resort Villa Management Ltd. (“RVM”). I note that I will be writing RVM on your behalf tomorrow morning and will email you with a copy of the letter I send to them.
> 
> 3.       Each owner now has additional time to gather relevant documentation that can be used to corroborate their affidavit evidence and to ensure nothing is missed. It also provides the owners, and each of them, with additional time to reach out to the community of owners online to ensure that every own is made aware of what their rights are, what is being done and what they can do about it.
> 
> 
> My regards,
> Michael Geldert, B.A, LL.B, LL.L, Esq.
> T: 778.330.7775   |     F:778.330.7774    |   W: www.geldertlaw..com
> 2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 1B4



What does

2.       This Order does not in any way obviate the need for each owner to make a written reply to the “Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay” letter (the “Letter”) they received from Resort Villa Management Ltd. (“RVM”). I note that I will be writing RVM on your behalf tomorrow morning and will email you with a copy of the letter I send to them.

mean?

Does that mean that whatever date is decided on June 20th by the courts is the date that the response needs to be sent to Northwynd with either stay or go? 

So right now, only the date to respond has been extended?  Am I correct in understanding that?

And does this apply to all timeshare owners opposed to just those that retained Kellie Hamilton or Michael Geldert?  

Please clarify.  Thanks.


----------



## disillusioned

My prospectus, given at the time of purchase, says that we can remove the Manager if we have  51% of leaseholders sign to have him go and we provide a new manager.


----------



## SAHD_rocks

Does the written reply to the “Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay” letter (the “Letter”) need to include a selection for either of the choices or is it a written reply acknowledging the receipt of the letter?  I am very uncomfortable at this point making a choice.  I do not want to sign anything now without a lawyer looking at it but unfortunately that will not happen tomorrow.  I am just sick learning about all of this over the last few days.  I originally bought into the case for the renovation fee and was ready to pay, but after going through all 19 pages of this forum, my feeling this is one last cash grab before the whole thing collapses and we loose everything.


----------



## truthr

Now that we have more time hopefully we can get more information/instruction from the respective legal firms already involved.

Maybe one or more of them could post a little something here to let us know who is accepting more clients.  What their retainer fee is and how we should proceed to retain them.


----------



## SAHD_rocks

I see the Sunchaser Villas webpage is reporting a fire in the rec center the other night.  What is this going to cost us now?

_On the night of May 27th, the Sunchaser Vacation Villas recreation centre experienced a fire. While no guests or staff were injured in the fire, the building did sustain damage on the lower floor significant enough to require cleaning by an industrial company trained to handle these types of situations. For the last couple of evenings, we have needed to close the rec centre to allow for the company handling the clean-up to work on cleaning the air in the building. Currently, the main level of the recreation centre is open with the exception of the pool area. We hope to re-open the indoor pool at some point today (May 30th) if all goes well, now that electricity has been restored to the heating and circulation systems to the pool. All of these systems need to be operational for a sufficient amount of time to allow for a reasonable temperature, chemical balance and proper water circulation. As soon as this has been achieved, we will re-open the pool area as well. The bottom floor where the gym and craft room are located remains closed as more extensive clean up and repair take place._


----------



## fairmontlvr

*This summer?*

I wonder what this will mean for all us that opposed the gun to the head deadline that Northwynd had imposed on us? For those of us that faithfully paid our maintenance fee a full year in advance last summer to book for this summer. I cannot see how they can refuse our right to use our time this summer while this gets settled in the courts.


----------



## truthr

SAHD_rocks said:


> I see the Sunchaser Villas webpage is reporting a fire in the rec center the other night.  What is this going to cost us now?
> 
> _On the night of May 27th, the Sunchaser Vacation Villas recreation centre experienced a fire. While no guests or staff were injured in the fire, the building did sustain damage on the lower floor significant enough to require cleaning by an industrial company trained to handle these types of situations. For the last couple of evenings, we have needed to close the rec centre to allow for the company handling the clean-up to work on cleaning the air in the building. Currently, the main level of the recreation centre is open with the exception of the pool area. We hope to re-open the indoor pool at some point today (May 30th) if all goes well, now that electricity has been restored to the heating and circulation systems to the pool. All of these systems need to be operational for a sufficient amount of time to allow for a reasonable temperature, chemical balance and proper water circulation. As soon as this has been achieved, we will re-open the pool area as well. The bottom floor where the gym and craft room are located remains closed as more extensive clean up and repair take place._



Insurance should cover that.  That is, as long as they have paid the premiums.


----------



## Brit76

Can someone provide a link to this new order that has been mentioned?  I haven't got anything official from the lawyer I retained!!!!!!!


----------



## pdoff

.  Hello Mr. & Mrs. Joe & Jane Northwynd,

We realize that you are monitoring this site. It is May 31st. There are probably well over a thousand people signed up in groups with several lawyers and a stay of execution for the May 31 deadline for signing up for the court date.
How about backing off, returning ill gotten funds to nervous Seniors and saving what is left of your reputation!


----------



## renoman

Brit76 said:


> Can someone provide a link to this new order that has been mentioned?  I haven't got anything official from the lawyer I retained!!!!!!!



I can also find no link to the judgement. Any ideas anyone ?


----------



## Spark1

pdoff said:


> .  Hello Mr. & Mrs. Joe & Jane Northwynd,
> 
> We realize that you are monitoring this site. It is May 31st. There are probably well over a thousand people signed up in groups with several lawyers and a stay of execution for the May 31 deadline for signing up for the court date.
> How about backing off, returning ill gotten funds to nervous Seniors and saving what is left of your reputation!



I am now calculating how much time i will be loosing because of Northwynds greed and i will be mailing this to them registered mail. I will be charging them 2% for each month that they are in default of payment. This will continue until this problem is resolved.


----------



## ferrier1

*ferrier1*

All that are not paying the fees by the deadline must simply send Northwynd a note telling them so, and that you are joining a litigation group.


----------



## TS Migraine

Thanks oneworldonerace. I haven't yet heard from  Docken Klym in Calgary, but I suspect they represented some of the 700 your lawyer refers to. I am so glad I took my sister's advice and searched the internet for info on Fairmont last week! Thanks TUG for being here.  I agree that our best hope is to speak with one voice, and insist that what we originally agreed to when we signed our Lease agreements, however many years ago, is still what we expect to get and give as Time Share owners. I reiterate, just like an acquisition or merger of an Insurance Company, if a new Company buys the Co. with which you have an insurance policy, the new Co. has to honour your Insurance agreement with the Original Company. They buy the assets and the liabilities. Those of us who reliably paid our maintenance fee and inflicted no damage to the property should have been considered a VALUABLE part of their business - we don't deserve abuse and coercion with a money grab. I am pleased to learn the May 31st deadline to stay or go is defunct. I expect our lawyers will consult us and come up with the appropriate 'affidavits' now, and this extension will give ALL owners more time to hop on board the Class Action Suit. THANKS AGAIN TUG for being here, and allowing us to connect with each other and collectively compare notes- much appreciated.


----------



## gilker

*Fees?*

I am wondering are all maintenance fees the same?  Our fees for 2013 are $949.88. I'm wondering if I've overpaid over the years. If the fees are all the same that means each unit would bring in over $40,000 a year. Surely that's enough to keep it running.


----------



## TS Migraine

Undecided, I interpret this reply letter to RVM to mean that legally we are still obligated to reply, BUT if we have retained legal counsel, we take their counsel, and let THEM write the letter on our behalf. I am sure the 4 points I neglected to bring home with me from DockenKlym's office will be the crux of the letter from Docken Klym on our behalf, and that like Geldert's clients, Docken Klym's clients will get a copy of the letter drafted to RVM on our bejhalf. I presume Docken Klym, Geldert, and every other law firm hired by Fairmont owners to represent them, will confer with each other about what goes into this letter. If you don't have a lawyer, either get on board, or write the letter now.


----------



## CleoB

gilker said:


> I am wondering are all maintenance fees the same?  Our fees for 2013 are $949.88. I'm wondering if I've overpaid over the years. If the fees are all the same that means each unit would bring in over $40,000 a year. Surely that's enough to keep it running.



That is exactly the amount we paid.  Unfortunately we paid last year so we could book for September of this year.  Looks like we won't be able to use it.


----------



## CleoB

truthr said:


> Thank you, Thank you, Thank you to everyone who has been a part of this thread.
> 
> We just received our "package" last night and were overwhelmed by the contents.   Our initial reaction was to just pay to get out and be done with the whole time share thing.
> 
> But then - I googled and found this place and read and read until I just couldn't read anymore. :zzz:
> 
> Got up this morning and read some more.  Wanted to respond, but thought I had to pay to join the site.
> 
> But then just a few minutes ago whilst clicking on more buttons - I discovered I could join without having to give anyone a credit card :whoopie:
> 
> So relieved.



Thanks for the info.  I've been reading this forum and wasn't aware that I could join for free.  I've been following posts on Facebook under Sunchaser Northwynd Class Action Lawsuit.


----------



## TS Migraine

gilker said:


> I am wondering are all maintenance fees the same?  Our fees for 2013 are $949.88. I'm wondering if I've overpaid over the years. If the fees are all the same that means each unit would bring in over $40,000 a year. Surely that's enough to keep it running.



Hi Gilker et al, 
I paid $951.76 on February 5th, 2013. There is a code T-741763 that accounts for my $1.88 more than you paid??? Something to do with being a GOBO maybe? My original email complaint to RVM when I read the Stay or Go letter included  disgruntlement about receiving this invoice so hot on the heels of my bi-annual maintenance fees. I had no idea in February, when I gulped at the cost , but willingly paid my maintenance, what was in the works with this Stay or Go Coercion. I originally wanted to pay the Stay fee and carry on as we did for the first 20 years:annoyed:. Now I just want to deposit my time, go somewhere else, and wait to see if we can effectively ditch this Management Company. Thanks to TUG, we might amass a 51% of owners to overthrow the existing Management. Anyone out there know a reputable time share manager with integrity?  I suspect our present disastrous MANAGEMENT will make it hard to "exchange" Sunchaser with other well managed resorts going forward. Maybe I can't deposit with II becaue they will have nothing more to do with this corrupt management company????   Anybody try to deposit their paid for time or book an exchange recently??


----------



## Fly525

Thanks "oneworldonerace" for sharing the Geldert letter.  That addresses the June 20th deadline.  Do you or anyone else know if this will allow us to defer our "Freedom to Choose/Reason to Stay" decision beyond May 31, 2013?  If so, what is the process for achieving that?


----------



## Fly525

*Freedom to Choose*

I have 2 Biennial leases and 1 Annual lease.  Northwynd is requesting a total of $6440.03 to cancel the 3 leases, claiming that as a percentage of future costs, this amount is just over 11%.

What seems most incredible to me is that $4816.80 (73%) of the demanded "Cancellation Fees" is to pay for "lost property management fees."  I'm wondering how they can charge me to manage leases for the next 20 years when those leases will apparently be cancelled upon my payment of their requested fees?

The other items that make up the requested "Cancellation Fee" while not legally required according to my previously signed leases, are at least understandable.  Future "lost management fees" are not even comprehensible.


----------



## TS Migraine

Fly25, the original way to avoid choosing stay or go was to file Form 67 with the BC court and send in an affidavit with your refusal to forfeit your original Lease Agreement by May 31st. Now that the issue is in front of the court, and the May 31st deadline has been extended, you have more time to file Form 67, and send in an affidavit with your concerns, but as I understand it, you should no longer have to choose to either stay or go until the Court decides whether or not RVM has the authority to demand that of us. If you are part of a Class Action suit or with a private lawyer, they should do all this for you. It is my expectation that the Class Action Law suit's purpose is to overthrow the RVM right to make these outrageous demands for our money AND our decisions to stay or go -by any deadline. We are fighting for our rights as originally agreed to in our purchased Lease agreements. We should not have to choose to stay, go, or pay anything asked for in the "LETTER", until we find out what comes of the court proceedings.


----------



## TS Migraine

Fly 25, If you have THREE Lease agreements, I think hopping on board the Class Action with Docken Klym would be your most cost-effective way to handle this mess. You are like three clients in one, and I would hope only one retainer fee of 500 dollars would be required of you. You get three, three, three suits in ONE! And you don't have to pay anything, or choose to stay or go on any of the three Leases while this thing is in the courts. Check back a few pages of this thread to obtain the Docken Klym contact email (rob@dockenklym.com- I think)  and ask them if infact you will get a three Lease representation for One retainer fee? I say, that would be the deal of the week. ;-)


----------



## LookingForAnswers

Fly525 said:


> Thanks "oneworldonerace" for sharing the Geldert letter.  That addresses the June 20th deadline.  Do you or anyone else know if this will allow us to defer our "Freedom to Choose/Reason to Stay" decision beyond May 31, 2013?  If so, what is the process for achieving that?



The way I understand it is that you don't have to choose to stay or to go... We sent our letter yesterday, venting our concerns then summed up our letter this way:


> In summary, at this time, we are not prepared to pay money to give our units back to the Developers; nor are we willing to pay renovation fees before an actual determination of what is to be renovated and what of this is legal to pass on to the time share owners.  So, please be advised that we are using our Freedom of Choice, to wait for the decision of the court on June 20th regarding Northmont's April 16, 2013  petition to the court.



We doubt they will even read our letter....   I think they are just opening the mail looking for money at this point.   But we sent our letter express post (with a tracking number) so that we can at least prove we sent it if need be.

If we don't send the letter, I suspect Northmont, Northwynd, or whatever they are calling themselves, will claim that a non-response time share owner is not objecting to the two options presented.  Really, in my opinion, it appears that they don't care which of the two options we take....  but if we make it clear we aren't going for their demands - they can't use our "vote" of acceptance of their petition to change our contracts.   

So in the very least, each time share owner NEEDS to reply to the demands of Northmont with a response.  Either to accept their offer or to advise them that their offer is not acceptable to you.

Bottom line:  If you want to personally help fund the managers/developers with money to make Sunchasers a 5 star resort again again - then pick one of their options.... simple. Only other choice left, regardless of whether you want the resort renovated at the expense of the developers only (not the time share owners), the resort to continue running as it has been, or for the resort to collapse.... send your letter (get it stamped at the post office with the May 31st date) or send an e-mail before midnight May 31 (Mountain Time Zone - same as Calgary time zone NOT Vancouver time zone) stating you are holding your decision, awaiting the court ruling on this matter.


----------



## Hey lady

*Trade/Deposit*

I have 3 different memberships with RCI. One to deposit Lake Okanagan, one to deposit Legacy for life and one for a timeshare with Wyndham, and a membership with Interval.
I have 3 weeks on deposit with Interval. Recently tried to "test" an exchange for Mexico for June and did got inferior results to this time last year. Co-incidental? What makes me mad is I have one week of Legacy for 2013 - it's the new points system and Northwynd has not deposited the points, despite having paid the annual fees.
I have one week at Lake Okanagan - Northwynd changed the deposit system to a bizarre point system at RCI - I think it's for inferior units, very low rating. Used to be able to transfer to Interval and Northwynd stopped that. 
I used to use the Platinum club started by Fairmont but with Northwynd it is useless.


----------



## LookingForAnswers

TS Migraine said:


> ...  Now that the issue is in front of the court, and the May 31st deadline has been extended, you have more time to file Form 67, and send in an affidavit with your concerns, ....



So just to clarify...  we have filed our Form 67, and sent copies to the 2 lawyers as well at to Northynd themselves....  but haven't sent an affidavit.  Is this really needed?  Is this different than the letter of response to the Resort Villa Management RPF Bill and Freedom to Choose Package?   Do you have a copy of your affidavit, or the gist of what it is to say?  Does it have to be notarized by a lawyer or just witnessed by someone? Also, does this get filed at the Vancouver Court as well?  And once filed - where does it go?


----------



## LookingForAnswers

Hey lady said:


> Recently tried to "test" an exchange for Mexico for June and did got inferior results to this time last year. Co-incidental?



We too have several weeks deposited at Interval.  2 weeks ago we had several interesting trades available.... Now NOTHING compares!  kinda fishy to me as well.

Like you Hey lady.... we have time shares at another resort as well, and are concerned they are going to be affected too.

I was wondering what is going to happen to the units we deposited, when someone books into Sunchaser at Fairmont - are their reservations going to be affected if we have chosen to wait for the court decision?  Can you imagine how that is going to impact on the Resorts reputation if someone shows up for their interval exchange week there and is refused access to their unit!


----------



## Soccer Canada

I think what might be very interesting, and might be something for those of you involved in the lawsuit with Dockyn Klym. I have read several FB Posts and TUG Posts that owners that have weeks booked in June are being REFUSED their weeks because they have not sent in the Renovation Fee, but have completed Form 67 and sent a Letter to RVM etc. Once again, that is not verified, but it is not really a stretch to believe.

I would be curious too see what the occupancy level of the resort is, and also to find out how many of those Units have been Rented/Exchanged into during these times that folks with Rightful reservations have been denied access. You would think that that wold be some sort of Breach of Lease/Contract, correct? Especially if they rented a owners week out from underneath them to someone external, especially if they rented it for Cash through RCI or otherwise? Probably tough to prove but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## TS Migraine

I have not submitted an affidavit personally, nor did I fill out Form 67 because I signed on with Docken Klym as part of the Class Action, and I fully expect THEY will be doing all that on my (our) behalf. I know they filed Form 67 for all who had retained them before noon on Wednesday, and if I remember correctly, they were then going to set about preparing the "Affidavit" that will effectively address all our concerns about the Freedom ( coercion) To Choose Letter. I believe Affidavits sent in personally, like Form 67, need to go to the BC Court, and I suspect it would need some authorization by a Notary of The Public and probably registered mail to make it official.


----------



## TS Migraine

Just In from Docken Klym:

Thank you for choosing our firm to represent you in the Northwynd Sunchasers Vacation Villas petition.  You have been successfully registered for this litigation.



An order was obtained by consent to remove the May 31, 2013 deadline for owners to file a response to Northwynd’s petition. The courts still require all owners to file a response to Northwynd’s petition, but have not determined the new deadline at this time.  We will be filing this response on behalf of all of our clients, and you will not be required to do so. 



The courts will decide on June 20, 2013 what the new deadline will be for owners to respond.  The June 20, 2013 court date will also be used to resolve procedural issues and to address scheduling issues.  A decision on the petition will not be made on June 20, 2013.  We will be in touch with you further prior to that date.



At this time we do not require anything further from you.  We will be in touch in the coming weeks prior to the June 20, 2013 court hearing.  





Robert C. Forsyth

System Administrator

DOCKEN KLYM

403-269-3612

robert@docken.com


----------



## TS Migraine

FURTHER to THE DOCKEN KLYM POSTING ABOVE:
Thank you ( for posting their response to #479 TUG.) .  Please be sure to clarify in your post that we are ONLY responding on behalf of clients who are REGISTERED with us.  We would hate for someone to miss a deadline because they did not have legal counsel and assumed that they were covered.





Robert C. Forsyth

System Administrator

DOCKEN KLYM

403-269-3612

robert@docken.com


----------



## renoman

TS Migraine said:


> Just In from Docken Klym:
> 
> Thank you for choosing our firm to represent you in the Northwynd Sunchasers Vacation Villas petition.  You have been successfully registered for this litigation.
> 
> An order was obtained by consent to remove the May 31, 2013 deadline for owners to file a response to Northwynd’s petition. The courts still require all owners to file a response to Northwynd’s petition, but have not determined the new deadline at this time.  We will be filing this response on behalf of all of our clients, and you will not be required to do so.
> 
> 
> What is clear is that the From 67 deadline has been moved to some unspecified future date. It is also clear we have to make a choice to stay or go.
> But...is the May 31 deadline for that decision still in place?


----------



## truthr

I emailed this yesterday to:
RVM Email Address: resortvillamanagement@northwynd.ca

Petitioner (Trustee) / Warren B. Milman  wmilman@mccarthy.ca

Respondent (Northmont) / Judson E. Virtue: jud.virtue@nortonrose.com


As an Owner of a timeshare at Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Riverside, Hillside and Riverview in Fairmont BC that is affected by the Petition between Philip K. Matkin Professional Corporation and Northmont Resort properties Ltd., I/We hereby request: and provide notice:

That the hearing be adjourned to a later date to allow more owners to prepare for it; 

That the current amount of time scheduled for the hearing is not sufficient to allow the owners to make their submissions before the court; 

That the May 31st deadline to file Form 67 with their affidavit has not allowed the owners sufficient time to hire a lawyer and ensure that their submissions are complete; 

That the “Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay” letter has effectively put the owners under duress with respect and has not allowed owners to make a fair and reasoned decision.

_Response Received today:_


Hello,

Thank you for your e-mail.

On May 30, 2013, legal counsel for the Trustee, Northmont and some Vacation Interval Owners, attended in BC Court to seek the Court's consent to vary the time for filing of Responses to the Petition and Affidavits.  The Court agreed to vary the Order such that the filing and service date for Responses to the Petition and supporting affidavits, is now to be determined at a date to be set by the Court at a hearing to be held on June 25, 2013 at 3:00 PM in the Vancouver Court.

Accordingly, Vacation Interval Owners who intend to participate in the legal proceedings but require more time to file and serve their Response to Petition and Affidavits are no longer required to do so before May 31, 2013.  Instead, the date for such filing and service will be determined by the Court at a hearing to be held on June 25.

The Hearing on June 25 (or later date) will be procedural in nature, primarily to determine the timelines and process for the Trustee's application for advice and direction.  No substantive issues (I.E. issues affecting substantive rights) will be decided at that hearing.  Notice of the Court Order and of the June 25 Hearing Requisition will be posted on the website, but please spread the word.


Regards,

Jud Virtue 
Partner
Norton Rose Canada LLP / S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l.

MY QUESTION:

Is the new court date June 20th or 25th?


----------



## heydynagirl

*Received this email from Norton Rose*

So glad I found this forum, its been mighty interesting reading all the comments and what is being done by everyone.  I own a prime biannual odd week at Fairmont.  I did pay my (increased again) maintenance fees at the beginning of the year, locked off the B side and deposited the two one week periods to Interval.   So glad I got that done earlier in the year.  Not very impressed with the happenings out there in Fairmont and am definitely on the bailing out side.  I am hoping to not have to pay the fees to bail out as, quite frankly, I don't have the money.  FYI,   yesterday, I sent the following email, below it is the reply I received back from Norton Rose Canada:


-----Original Message-----
From: me 
Sent: May 30, 2013 3:36 PM
To: resortvillamanagement@northwynd.ca 
Cc: wmilman@mccarthy.ca; Virtue, Jud
Subject: May 31 deadline

To whom it may concern:


As an Owner of a timeshare at Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Riverside,
Hillside and Riverview in Fairmont BC that is affected by the Petition
between Philip K. Matkin Professional Corporation and Northmont Resort
properties Ltd., I/We hereby request: and provide notice:

That the hearing be adjourned to a later date to allow more owners to
prepare for it;

That the current amount of time scheduled for the hearing is not sufficient
to allow the owners to make their submissions before the court;

That the May 31st deadline to file Form 67 with their affidavit has not
allowed the owners sufficient time to hire a lawyer and ensure that their
submissions are complete;

That the "Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay" letter has effectively put the
owners under duress with respect and has not allowed owners to make a fair 
and reasoned decision.


I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING REPLY JUST MOMENTS AGO:

Hello,

Thank you for your e-mail.

On May 30, 2013, legal counsel for the Trustee, Northmont and some Vacation Interval Owners, attended in BC Court to seek the Court's consent to vary the time for filing of Responses to the Petition and Affidavits. The Court agreed to vary the Order such that the filing and service date for Responses to the Petition and supporting affidavits, is now to be determined at a date to be set by the Court at a hearing to be held on June 25, 2013 at 3:00 PM in the Vancouver Court.

Accordingly, Vacation Interval Owners who intend to participate in the legal proceedings but require more time to file and serve their Response to Petition and Affidavits are no longer required to do so before May 31, 2013. Instead, the date for such filing and service will be determined by the Court at a hearing to be held on June 25.

The Hearing on June 25 (or later date) will be procedural in nature, primarily to determine the timelines and process for the Trustee's application for advice and direction. No substantive issues (I.E. issues affecting substantive rights) will be decided at that hearing. Notice of the Court Order and of the June 25 Hearing Requisition will be posted on the website, but please spread the word.

Regards,

Jud Virtue
Partner
Norton Rose Canada LLP
400 3rd Avenue SW, Suite 3700, Calgary, Alberta T2P 4H2 Canada
T: +1 403.267.9541 | F: +1 403.264.5973
Jud.Virtue@nortonrose.com


----------



## BinScammed

*BinScammed*

I've been on Sunchaser's website with justification for their argument as to why  we should be paying to renovate their building.  Simply put, their argument has very little basis.  It's pretty illogical (stupid) to say the least.  I also have other questions that are nagging at me and they haven't been addressed yet.

When I bought my timeshare, I bought it under the assumption that the building was/was going to be constructed according to the building code of the day and that there were no shortcuts taken that could jeopordize the lifespan of the building.  Obviously, this has not been the case since some very serious issues have arisen as Northwynd is now trying to tell us.  For one thing, they keep mentioning foundation problems among other things.  

Building components have a life-span and yes, maintenance may be required for the component to meet its full life.  Poured concrete and foundation, as I assume these units have, have a life span of 200 years.  Concrete block, 100 years.  For the most part, there is very little to no maintenance required for concrete to reach it's full usable life.  So who's fault is it that shoddy building practices were used to construct these buildings?  Ours?  Even the argument that ground collapse and shift really doesn't stand as the ground on all building sites must be sufficiently prepared to withstand the weight and movement associated with the building over the course of its useful life.  This is just one of many aspects to this renovation that must be addressed.

As to who should pay for this major renovation, Sunchaser says on their website: (http://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/f-a-q/)

Q – Why doesn’t Northwynd (the Developer) have to pay for this?

A – The maintenance of the resort is the responsibility of the timeshare owners and timeshare lessees as required under each contract. The developer is only responsible to the extent that it also is the active owner of any inventory......

For timeshare lessees, this is similar to owning a vehicle lease. You agree to maintain the vehicle to a certain standard for the life of the lease. If the engine breaks down during the lease, it is your responsibility to fix, not the car company. If you return the vehicle in sub-standard condition at the end of the lease, the car company charges you for the deficiencies.

They then try to argue that 'co-owners' and 'timeshare lessees' are the same thing according their attorney, Norton Rose as found here: http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-conten...nfirmingOccupancyCostsandReplacementCosts.pdf

￼In it they note that their are two versions of the agreement.  An original 40 year lease arrangement (vacation villa lease/experience lease) and the second creating a co-ownership called a vacation interval agreement.  They then state that, "Except as specifically noted, for purposes of this letter the two versions are practically identical".  WHAT??  A lease and co-ownership is practically identical?  I don't care what the wording, these are two very different and distinct things.  My argument is for the lease portion since this is what I'm under.  This would be like saying that a person who owns a condominium and the person renting from the owner of that condominium are essentially identical parties and have the same responsibility towards that building.  Even if the owner coerced the renter to sign such an agreement, no court would ever enforce it!  Yes, the owner can, as part of the renters lease, require maintenance to be done to their condo while the renter is leasing it, and at the cost to the renter.

Somewhere, either in the mess of papers we received or on Sunchaser's website, I recall reading that Sunchaser feels an obligation to the original investers of the buildings to help them recover as much of their original investment as possible, because they lost so much.  That is fine and good.  But at who's cost?  Investors know full well that their is a possiblility that their investment will go south and it is they, not anyone else that bears responsibility for it.  The higher the potential return (%), the higher the probability of loss (risk factor).  I have lost significantly on some investments that I made, especially during the economic crash.  Would I and every other investor be justified in going after the company's customers to recover that loss?  Ridiculous!!  But that is what's happening here.  We leaseholders DO NOT have a vested interest in the building itself, yet we are being strong-armed into paying for the renovations.  Ridiculous!  The company (Northwynd) is trying to go after their customers (us) to pay the investors.  Yes, we have an obligation for maintenance, just like a renter would, but we simply have no obligation to the renovation of the building unless we caused the damage itself.  We too had no say in who the company was using to do that maintenance, yet they are trying to tell us that we are responsible because the former company misspent or misappropriated funds - their words, not mine.

Now let's use their argument (mentioned above regarding maintenance/car leases) and responsibility. 

*For timeshare lessees, this is similar to owning a vehicle lease. You agree to maintain the vehicle to a certain standard for the life of the lease. If the engine breaks down during the lease, it is your responsibility to fix, not the car company. If you return the vehicle in sub-standard condition at the end of the lease, the car company charges you for the deficiencies.    *

Let me illustrate what they are trying to say.  Let's say that I lease my car from ABC leasing who buys their car from XYZ car manufacturing.  I lease the car with the understanding that the car meets certain safety standards and will last the life of the lease.  ABC leasing assumes the same thing from XYZ car manufacturing when they buy their cars.  Since the manufacturer deems that certain maintenance is necessary on their vehicles, that maintenance requirement is passed on to the lessee.  However, ABC leasing requires all their lessees have their vehicles serviced by one maintenance company.  When we sign those papers, we agree to those terms.  When we get vehicle maintenance done, we are assuming that that company is actually doing the work that we ask and pay them to do.    

As it turns out, XYZ car manufacturing were shysters.  Their cars didn't meet the minimum expected standards and fell short of lasting the life of the lease.  ABC leasing were simply bad at what they were doing, declared bankruptcy and out of the ashes, DUD Group was born.  After they buy the assets of ABC leasing for pennies on the dollar, they realize that all of the vehicles are substandard and need significant work.  Not only did this happen, but the maintenance company that we were required to use either didn't do the work or used substandard parts to maintain our vehicles.  To add insult to injury, after DUD Group takes over, the maintenance rates significantly go up  year after year so that maintaining your vehicle simply becomes unaffordable.  But, you're locked in with that maintenance company.

So, who is responsible to bring the car back up to minimum standards again?  The lessee or the owner?  By rights, it should be XYZ car manufacturing, but they're out of the picture now.  If the lessee was doing all the required maintenance on their vehicle (and it was actually being done) when it was needed, should they be required to, say, replace the engine because the engine block was made of sub-standard material?  I don't think even someone with the intelligence of a moron would see the logic in that.  And yet this is exactly what is being asked of us!!!!!!!!!

Sunchaser's site also states this:

*As a reminder, Northwynd is not the developer and property manager that created this situation. Northwynd agreed to acquire the developer and property manager rights from the now defunct previous owner through their Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) protection in 2010.*

We did not create this situation, either!!!!!!!!!!  This is also not our (lessees) building.  We are simply renting 'time'.  But we have to pay significant upgrades to a building that should last between 75-100 years with adequate maintenance?  We barely got 20 years out of it regardless of the maintenance that was done or not done to it.  Some of these upgrades are obviously the fault of the builder and/or Fairmont Resort Properties for, perhaps, choosing a contractor based on price only.  Again, not our fault.  

The new owner also assumes the liability from that point forward and the condition of the assets that come under your possession!  It's not just about, 'look what we got for pennies on the dollar'!!

As an additional side note, I work in the fire and flood restoration industry and have dealt with this side of insurance companies for some time.  I would not be surprised that a significant reason why the plumbing must be changed is that it is a condition set out by the building insurers in order to maintain their insurance coverage.  This usually comes as a result of having a number of claims to a building (or buildings covered under the one policy) caused by the same situation.  Since all insurance companies 'talk to each other', it's not simply a matter of finding a new insurance provider. 

I have several other points to bring out, but this is long enough of a read as it is!

BinScammed!!


----------



## DarkLord

BinScammed, thanks for providing your analysis.  My analysis is simplier.  Lease owners are like "renters" and we first pay a certain amount to acquire the rights to "rent" a unit at certain time of the year for 40 years.

Since we are only renters then it is the landlord, aka Northwynd, who should pay to fix the deficiency of the buildings.  Northwynd likes to twist words to suit their greedy purposes but the substance of this business transaction is just simple as that.

We know the resale market of Fairmont is literally zero at this point becuase our leases are worthless.  But why should that be the case because those units even at their current delapidated state should easily fetch $100K or so each?  Because educated buyers at this point know that lease owners do not own the properties.


----------



## fairmontlvr

DarkLord said:


> BinScammed, thanks for providing your analysis.  My analysis is simplier.  Lease owners are like "renters" and we first pay a certain amount to acquire the rights to "rent" a unit at certain time of the year for 40 years.
> 
> Since we are only renters then it is the landlord, aka Northwynd, who should pay to fix the deficiency of the buildings.  Northwynd likes to twist words to suit their greedy purposes but the substance of this business transaction is just simply as that.



We should also remember that due to the initial contract, the 15% management fee that was worked in is in Northwynds favor. Not only do they benefit from this as maintenance fees have steadily rose over the years, but also they benefit from this Refurbishment fee as they make 15% off the top.

Using the lease of a car analogy, it would be like the leasing company forcing you to have every minor scratch, dent and conceivable repair done to the car, even if you think it is fine to drive, and oh maybe even give the car a nice new paint job before you hand it back. Oh and by the way, we get to decide who will do the repairs and we will charge you %15 to oversee these repairs.


----------



## truthr

*Trustee*

I have just spent more time reading over some of PDF documents on the Sunchaser site - I am gonna need a drink tonight for sure:ignore:

Anywho - since the Trustee gets paid a pretty significant amount of money each year - isn't it their job to represent us?  

I saw (sorry can't remember exactly which doc) that they get paid $6,000.00 monthly plus $2.00 per owner/lessee per year.

HELLO!!!  What exactly is their role in all this???


----------



## DarkLord

fairmontlvr said:


> Using the lease of a car analogy, it would be like the leasing company forcing you to have every minor scratch, dent and conceivable repair done to the car, even if you think it is fine to drive, and oh maybe even give the car a nice new paint job before you hand it back.



It's more like Northwynd leases us a Lada and wants us to upgrade it to a Rolls Royce when we return it.

Of course, Northwynd also expects us to be stupid enough not to know the difference.


----------



## Soccer Canada

Further to DarkLord's comments. 
We are all paying MAINT FEES, where have those all gone? 
Basically the long and the short of it is Northwynd WANTS us to cancel, and then not only are we left with NOTHING (not that we have a whole lot more then nothing now), but we are PAYING them to upgrade the units, turn them into Condo's which they will in turn sell for at least $200K + once they have been renovated(assuming they even renovate them and just dont pocket that money too). AND on top of all this, they will collect a CONDO Fee from those buyers for the upkeep of the exterior structure and external grounds probably in neighborhood of $200-$300/month. And in 5-7 years time they will do this EXACT same thing to those folks that have paid Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars for a Condo, and those folks will definitely have no way out because they will be "OWNERS" not "RENTERS/LEASEE'S", and in turn they will then have a zero investment.
You sort of have to admit that in a perfect world where the consumer is of complete zero intelligence they would have walked away with Millions on their penny investment. And the unfortunate part is they still might, and if the court allows this, it will pave way for the same thing to happen in a relatively short amount of time (5-7 years I would bet). Its also a scary thought that other management companies are surely monitoring this, and it could pave the way to a scary landscape to be a timeshare owner.


----------



## truthr

All these is very depressing

Is it 5 o'clock yet??


----------



## mkassi

*How to file an objection with bc supreme court*

The deadline has been extended until at least the end of June, but it's still important for all timeshare lease owners to object to Northmont's attempt to unilaterally change our leases and charge us the RPF.  For those of you who don't want to use a lawyer, here's the process for submitting your objection (Form 67) directly to the BC Supreme Court. 

This process will cost you about $150: $40 for the Affidavit, $30 for Filing with the Court, $40 for your second Affidavit of Service, and $30 for Filing that with the Court , for a total cost of $150.

*STEP ONE: PREPARE YOUR DOCUMENTS*

A.  Form 67 - Your Response to the Petition   

Here's a SAMPLE: You will want to adjust the wording to match your circumstances. This was vetted by a lawyer, but _*note that I am not providing you legal advice*_ - just showing you a sample of what we prepared.  

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6joHMPLA_RQZExQSEhQVVhTWFk/edit?usp=sharing

B. AFFIDAVIT - Your "story" and supporting documentation - use your own words.

Here's a SAMPLE:  Again, you will need to adjust your "story" and your "Exhibits" (supporting documentation) to match your circumstances

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6joHMPLA_RQU1B3RWpuck5Dd3c/edit?usp=sharing

C. ELECTRONIC FILING Form 119 - This form allows you to file your affidavit electronically, by email.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6joHMPLA_RQWnRudDdYNEJHU00/edit?usp=sharing

*STEP TWO:  SWEAR YOUR AFFIDAVIT*

For this, you will need to take a copy of your affidavit and copies of all your exhibits to a law office or notary public in your area to get them "sworn."  Usually, this costs about $40. Only the Affidavit needs to be sworn. The other documents (Form 67 and 119) can just be signed normally.

*STEP THREE:  FILE YOUR DOCUMENTS WITH THE BC COURT*

BC Supreme Court allows the electronic filing of documents. Dye & Durham is a registry agent that can file the documents for you. Their website is:  www.dyedurhambc.com

a. Pre-authorize Dye & Durham to charge your credit card for filing charges by filling out this authorization form:  https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6joHMPLA_RQLVBaOXdQSzk2UXc/edit?usp=sharing
They asked me to fill in amount: "pre-authorized for up to $100" - The actual charges for e-filing the documents was only about $30.

b. Scan and email your Documents to Dye & Durham 

The email address for Dye & Durham's Vancouver Registry is:  vancourt@dyedurhambc.com

In the email, tell them that you want the documents filed in the BC Supreme Court.  Attach the following scanned (pdf) files to your email:

   * Form 67
   * Sworn Affidavit
   * Form 119
   * Credit Card Authorization

*STEP FOUR:  SERVE THE FILED DOCUMENTS ON PETITIONER BY EMAIL*

It will take 24 to 48 hours for Dye & Durham to file the documents with the BC Supreme Court and email you the filed copies back.

You will know they have been filed with the court because they will have a stamp in the left hand corner, with the filing date and stamp.

Next, you need to serve the filed documents on the petitioner by Email

A. To:  wmilman@mccarthy.ca

B. SUBJECT: "Service of Court Documents" 

C:  Body:

Attention: Warren B. Milman, Suite 1300, 777 Dunsmuir Street. PO Box 10424, Pacific Centre, Vancouver, BC  V7Y 1K2

This email hereby serves you with the “Response to Petition” (Form 67),  “Affidavit,” and “Electronic Filing Document” (Form 119) filed by YOUR NAME (Petition Respondents), Case No. S=132760, in the Vancouver Registry
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT, R.S.B.C. C. 464 S.86  BETWEEN: PHILIP K MATKIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION (Petitioner) AND NORTHMONT RESORT PROPERTIES LTD.( Respondent)

D:  Attachments: Attach the filed copies you received back from the courts.

   * Filed Form 67
   * Filed Sworn Affidavit
   * Filed Form 119

Send the email to wmilman@mccarthy.ca, requesting a "read receipt" if your email program allows. Also, cc. yourself a copy.


*STEP FIVE:  FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE *

In this step, you will need to provide the court a sworn affidavit that you have served the petitioner with the documents. 

A. PREPARE FORM 16 - Affidavit of Ordinary Service

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6joHMPLA_RQTUJWX2w2VjBubjA/edit?usp=sharing


Indicate when you served the petitioner by email
Attach copies of all the documents you served on the petitioner, marked as exhibit "A".


B.  Get your affidavit of service sworn 

You will have to go back to the law office or notary public and shell out another $40 to get the affidavit of service sworn.

C. Complete another Form 119, Electronic Filing Statement to accompany your Affidavit of Service. 

D.  Scan & email your Affidavit of Service to Dye & Durham (as in step 3 above) to file with the BC Supreme Court - which will cost you another $30 or so.


That's it!  You're done! If you follow these steps, you can ensure that your interests are represented in court without paying hefty legal fees. Hope this helps . . . and that many of you will take the time to make your objections known to the Court.


----------



## bifft

Anyone out there know a reputable time share manager with integrity? I suspect our present disastrous MANAGEMENT will make it hard to "exchange" Sunchaser with other well managed resorts going forward.

How about the folks on the other side of the Hwy. Mountainside.


----------



## bifft

TS Migraine said:


> Hi Gilker et al,
> I paid $951.76 on February 5th, 2013. There is a code T-741763 that accounts for my $1.88 more than you paid??? Something to do with being a GOBO maybe? My original email complaint to RVM when I read the Stay or Go letter included  disgruntlement about receiving this invoice so hot on the heels of my bi-annual maintenance fees. I had no idea in February, when I gulped at the cost , but willingly paid my maintenance, what was in the works with this Stay or Go Coercion. I originally wanted to pay the Stay fee and carry on as we did for the first 20 years:annoyed:. Now I just want to deposit my time, go somewhere else, and wait to see if we can effectively ditch this Management Company. Thanks to TUG, we might amass a 51% of owners to overthrow the existing Management. Anyone out there know a reputable time share manager with integrity?  I suspect our present disastrous MANAGEMENT will make it hard to "exchange" Sunchaser with other well managed resorts going forward. Maybe I can't deposit with II becaue they will have nothing more to do with this corrupt management company????   Anybody try to deposit their paid for time or book an exchange recently??



How about approaching the folks at Montainside.


----------



## truthr

Although I think it is all well and good to file individual objections to the courts, it would appear that what Northwynd/Northmount is attempting to do has more long term consequences.

By banning together and using one of the already in the loop law firms our interests/rights, individually and collectively, can be assessed and protected.

I would think that once the lawyers review the various agreements it will be more cost effective moving forward.

There is strength in numbers.


----------



## mkassi

truthr said:


> Although I think it is all well and good to file individual objections to the courts, it would appear that what Northwynd/Northmount is attempting to do has more long term consequences.
> 
> By banning together and using one of the already in the loop law firms our interests/rights, individually and collectively, can be assessed and protected.
> 
> I would think that once the lawyers review the various agreements it will be more cost effective moving forward.
> 
> There is strength in numbers.



Agreed.  But this preliminary step - filing objections to the petition - is separate from any "class action" corporate legal action we may take against Northmont.

What most lawyers are doing is collecting affidavits and using them to compile a "group objection" Form 67. It's important to understand that this is not a class action suit - It's just an appeal to have the Court deny Northmont's request to unilaterally change our contracts and transfer properties out of the Resort. 

Right now, our "strength in numbers" comes from flooding the court with objections. Later, our "strength in numbers" will come by all banding together to get rid of Northmont management and/or to launch a class action suit.


----------



## truthr

mkassi said:


> Agreed.  But this preliminary step - filing objections to the petition - is separate from any "class action" corporate legal action we may take against Northmont.
> 
> What most lawyers are doing is collecting affidavits and using them to compile a "group objection" Form 67. It's important to understand that this is not a class action suit - It's just an appeal to have the Court deny Northmont's request to unilaterally change our contracts and transfer properties out of the Resort.
> 
> Right now, our "strength in numbers" comes from flooding the court with objections. Later, our "strength in numbers" will come by all banding together to get rid of Northmont management and/or to launch a class action suit.



I do understand that as of right now this isn't a class action suit, just a lot of people using some of the same lawyers/law firms.

Well as of yesterday it would appear that there is no deadline date for filing Form 67 until after the June court date (which is either the 20th or the 25th depending on whose information you are reading).

Having said the above, I believe it is still important for anyone who wants to be part of a larger group to contact one of the law firms so that they are not inundated at the last minute when we do have a deadline date for some type of action.

With people already being told they cannot utilize their "time" unless they "Opt in or out" and pay according - I would assume that, in and of itself, would constitute a whole other lawsuit for breach.

In addition as was pointed out in this thread - this company has been in breach of contract many times over the years since they took over.

It might be a good thing to become proactive regarding these issues.


----------



## EvaS

truthr said:


> I have just spent more time reading over some of PDF documents on the Sunchaser site - I am gonna need a drink tonight for sure:ignore:
> 
> Anywho - since the Trustee gets paid a pretty significant amount of money each year - isn't it their job to represent us?
> 
> I saw (sorry can't remember exactly which doc) that they get paid $6,000.00 monthly plus $2.00 per owner/lessee per year.
> 
> HELLO!!!  What exactly is their role in all this???



I paid my retainer fee to one lawyer in BC. She told me that the Trustee and the owner are close friends. She said this is not right.


----------



## mkassi

EvaS said:


> I paid my retainer fee to one lawyer in BC. She told me that the Trustee and the owner are close friends. She said this is not right.



Here's how it works:

The Trustee represents timeshare owners and ALSO represents Northmont. 

When Northmont asked the Trustee to agree to the renovation plan, it put the Trustee in a conflicting position, as saying "yes" to Northmont meant doing something that the timeshare owners would likely object to.

That's why the Trustee took the matter to the Court, to have the Court direct the Trustee as to whether or not he should approve Northmont's plan.


----------



## truthr

EvaS said:


> I paid my retainer fee to one lawyer in BC. She told me that the Trustee and the owner are close friends. She said this is not right.



 Why am I not surprised.

But on the other hand, it is the Trustee who petitioned the courts for direction.  So in a way s/he has tipped the hand in addition to the outrageous demands by Northwynd/Northmount to extort monies from us.

Maybe they won't be such close friends after all this.


----------



## disillusioned

mkassi said:


> The deadline has been extended until at least the end of June, but it's still important for all timeshare lease owners to object to Northmont's attempt to unilaterally change our leases and charge us the RPF.  For those of you who don't want to use a lawyer, here's the process for submitting your objection (Form 67) directly to the BC Supreme Court.
> 
> This process will cost you about $150: $40 for the Affidavit, $30 for Filing with the Court, $40 for your second Affidavit of Service, and $30 for Filing that with the Court , for a total cost of $150.
> 
> *STEP ONE: PREPARE YOUR DOCUMENTS*
> 
> A.  Form 67 - Your Response to the Petition
> 
> Here's a SAMPLE: You will want to adjust the wording to match your circumstances. This was vetted by a lawyer, but _*note that I am not providing you legal advice*_ - just showing you a sample of what we prepared.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6joHMPLA_RQZExQSEhQVVhTWFk/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> B. AFFIDAVIT - Your "story" and supporting documentation - use your own words.
> 
> Here's a SAMPLE:  Again, you will need to adjust your "story" and your "Exhibits" (supporting documentation) to match your circumstances
> 
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6joHMPLA_RQU1B3RWpuck5Dd3c/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> C. ELECTRONIC FILING Form 119 - This form allows you to file your affidavit electronically, by email.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6joHMPLA_RQWnRudDdYNEJHU00/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> *STEP TWO:  SWEAR YOUR AFFIDAVIT*
> 
> For this, you will need to take a copy of your affidavit and copies of all your exhibits to a law office or notary public in your area to get them "sworn."  Usually, this costs about $40. Only the Affidavit needs to be sworn. The other documents (Form 67 and 119) can just be signed normally.
> 
> *STEP THREE:  FILE YOUR DOCUMENTS WITH THE BC COURT*
> 
> BC Supreme Court allows the electronic filing of documents. Dye & Durham is a registry agent that can file the documents for you. Their website is:  www.dyedurhambc.com
> 
> a. Pre-authorize Dye & Durham to charge your credit card for filing charges by filling out this authorization form:  https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6joHMPLA_RQLVBaOXdQSzk2UXc/edit?usp=sharing
> They asked me to fill in amount: "pre-authorized for up to $100" - The actual charges for e-filing the documents was only about $30.
> 
> b. Scan and email your Documents to Dye & Durham
> 
> The email address for Dye & Durham's Vancouver Registry is:  vancourt@dyedurhambc.com
> 
> In the email, tell them that you want the documents filed in the BC Supreme Court.  Attach the following scanned (pdf) files to your email:
> 
> * Form 67
> * Sworn Affidavit
> * Form 119
> * Credit Card Authorization
> 
> *STEP FOUR:  SERVE THE FILED DOCUMENTS ON PETITIONER BY EMAIL*
> 
> It will take 24 to 48 hours for Dye & Durham to file the documents with the BC Supreme Court and email you the filed copies back.
> 
> You will know they have been filed with the court because they will have a stamp in the left hand corner, with the filing date and stamp.
> 
> Next, you need to serve the filed documents on the petitioner by Email
> 
> A. To:  wmilman@mccarthy.ca
> 
> B. SUBJECT: "Service of Court Documents"
> 
> C:  Body:
> 
> Attention: Warren B. Milman, Suite 1300, 777 Dunsmuir Street. PO Box 10424, Pacific Centre, Vancouver, BC  V7Y 1K2
> 
> This email hereby serves you with the “Response to Petition” (Form 67),  “Affidavit,” and “Electronic Filing Document” (Form 119) filed by YOUR NAME (Petition Respondents), Case No. S=132760, in the Vancouver Registry
> IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
> IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT, R.S.B.C. C. 464 S.86  BETWEEN: PHILIP K MATKIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION (Petitioner) AND NORTHMONT RESORT PROPERTIES LTD.( Respondent)
> 
> D:  Attachments: Attach the filed copies you received back from the courts.
> 
> * Filed Form 67
> * Filed Sworn Affidavit
> * Filed Form 119
> 
> Send the email to wmilman@mccarthy.ca, requesting a "read receipt" if your email program allows. Also, cc. yourself a copy.
> 
> 
> *STEP FIVE:  FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE *
> 
> In this step, you will need to provide the court a sworn affidavit that you have served the petitioner with the documents.
> 
> A. PREPARE FORM 16 - Affidavit of Ordinary Service
> 
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6joHMPLA_RQTUJWX2w2VjBubjA/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> 
> Indicate when you served the petitioner by email
> Attach copies of all the documents you served on the petitioner, marked as exhibit "A".
> 
> 
> B.  Get your affidavit of service sworn
> 
> You will have to go back to the law office or notary public and shell out another $40 to get the affidavit of service sworn.
> 
> C. Complete another Form 119, Electronic Filing Statement to accompany your Affidavit of Service.
> 
> D.  Scan & email your Affidavit of Service to Dye & Durham (as in step 3 above) to file with the BC Supreme Court - which will cost you another $30 or so.
> 
> 
> That's it!  You're done! If you follow these steps, you can ensure that your interests are represented in court without paying hefty legal fees. Hope this helps . . . and that many of you will take the time to make your objections known to the Court.



According to the petition, Master Scarth has said it shouldn't cost anyone anything to respond to the petition.


----------



## truthr

disillusioned said:


> According to the petition, Master Scarth has said it shouldn't cost anyone anything to respond to the petition.



If you are referring to #6.  There shall be no cost payable in respect of this hearing.

I believe that means that neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent have to pay each other any monies with respect to the April 18th hearing.


----------



## mkassi

disillusioned said:


> According to the petition, Master Scarth has said it shouldn't cost anyone anything to respond to the petition.



It won't cost you anything if you can find a public notary to swear it for free (Legal Aid maybe?), then file it with the BC Supreme court yourself, and then go to the law office of the petitioner in downtown Vancouver and serve it yourself, and then go back to the legal aid office to get another affidavit sworn for free, and then go back to the BC Supreme Court and file your affidavit of service.

So technically, I guess it's possible that it might not cost someone who lives in Vancouver anything to respond to the petition.


----------



## aden2

mkassi said:


> It won't cost you anything if you can find a public notary to swear it for free (Legal Aid maybe?), then file it with the BC Supreme court yourself, and then go to the law office of the petitioner in downtown Vancouver and serve it yourself, and then go back to the legal aid office to get another affidavit sworn for free, and then go back to the BC Supreme Court and file your affidavit of service.
> 
> So technically, I guess it's possible that it might not cost someone who lives in Vancouver anything to respond to the petition.



You can live anywhere in Canada, and perhaps the U.S. and have your affidavit notarize for free at the court house. This
means only the cost of say xpresspost.


----------



## pdoff

check out #294 - 299

Nothwynd has put me off of timeshares forever - anywhere


----------



## Judythreetimes

The more I delve into this mess, the more I want to know WHERE did all the maintenance and exchange fees go???? After talking to a few owners, and reading some Trip Advisor comments, it very apparent that not even the basic maintenance has been done anywhere over the years. Something smells rotten in all of this. I asked Revenue Canada to take a look at SunChaser, Northwynd and Fairmont. Everyone can do this, and do it ANONYMOUSLY. I want answers as to where all the money went! At this point I don't care if we lose our 2 weeks, but I sure as hell am not paying them to get out of it!


----------



## CindyD

*Sunchase Update Letter Recieved this morning*

We recieved a letter from Northwynd via email this morning.  Do they really expect us to feel sorry for them!


----------



## Judythreetimes

CindyD said:


> We recieved a letter from Northwynd via email this morning.  Do they really expect us to feel sorry for them!


What did it say?
they won't even respond to my emails now.


----------



## CindyD

*Sunchaser Update Letter*

I am unable to copy the letter try this link

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1QbU...quE5f70xfkHXOlp0w-tKZS0cWJcR/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Judythreetimes

CindyD said:


> I am unable to copy the letter try this link
> 
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/1QbU...quE5f70xfkHXOlp0w-tKZS0cWJcR/edit?usp=sharing


I need permission to access..It's okay..I can only imagine what it says. I have saved every email from 5 years ago between us and them, and thank goodness I did. This is not the first time we have had issues with them. Printed everyone of them off and sent that to the lawyer as well.


----------



## RandRseeker

Just curious what everyone thinks will happen after this nightmare has been settled?  

Just suppose that the courts find that the owners cannot be forced to pay the reno fees... I think we are left with a timeshare at a resort that is clearly becoming rundown, probably won't pull much for exchanges, and the maintenance fees will climb significantly in order to get the place fixed up.

There just doesn't seem to be a good outcome which ever way this goes.


----------



## Judythreetimes

I for one want out, but I am sure in hell not paying them to get out. None of us should have to pay to get out. It is against the fair trade act.


----------



## disillusioned

pdoff said:


> check out #294 - 299
> 
> Nothwynd has put me off of timeshares forever - anywhere



I feel the same way! I think timeshares were invented to take advantage of people!


----------



## truthr

CindyD said:


> I am unable to copy the letter try this link
> 
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/1QbU...quE5f70xfkHXOlp0w-tKZS0cWJcR/edit?usp=sharing



How can they send an email to some and not others?  I would be very interested in reading the letter CindyD.


----------



## Judythreetimes

We have a time share in Mexico. Five years and never an issue. We get monthly updates of what is being done to keep everything up to date and for new improvements. This year we were asked to pay an extra $100 in maintenance. We get 2 new pools and a new restaurant for that. To say thanks..we got $100 gift certificate for any of their amenities. Our fees are $750 a year. With all kinds of special offers for our friends and family. That is the way a time share should be run.


----------



## Hey lady

*Email June 1*

I, too received an email this morning from Kirk Wankel, The 2 page attachment is propriety and I cannot copy it, etc. so I will briefly summarize.
The hearing on June 25th is just to set a date for a hearing of the objections. Those who haven't paid the asessments or the opt out fees by May 31st are NOW IN DEFAULT. He is the chartered accountant and didn't cause the problem. Do not take out our frustrations on his staff. They believe their interpretation of the agreement is sound.
The email says it is sent to everyone.


----------



## truthr

Hey lady said:


> I, too received an email this morning from Kirk Wankel, The 2 page attachment is propriety and I cannot copy it, etc. so I will briefly summarize.
> The hearing on June 25th is just to set a date for a hearing of the objections. Those who haven't paid the asessments or the opt out fees by May 31st are NOW IN DEFAULT. He is the chartered accountant and didn't cause the problem. Do not take out our frustrations on his staff. They believe their interpretation of the agreement is sound.
> The email says it is sent to everyone.



Well I, for one, have not received this "email".  I don't believe we can be in default for something we never agreed to.

And they keep getting the new hearing date wrong, according to the official court document of May 30th, it reads "a hearing to be set by this Court on or after June 20th, 2013".  And that date is only to set a date to hear the matter.


----------



## Judythreetimes

Hey lady said:


> I, too received an email this morning from Kirk Wankel, The 2 page attachment is propriety and I cannot copy it, etc. so I will briefly summarize.
> The hearing on June 25th is just to set a date for a hearing of the objections. Those who haven't paid the asessments or the opt out fees by May 31st are NOW IN DEFAULT. He is the chartered accountant and didn't cause the problem. Do not take out our frustrations on his staff. They believe their interpretation of the agreement is sound.
> The email says it is sent to everyone.


Hmmmm.. I didnt get that. And I did email him with our concerns. Maybe Monday. I know there is a lot of people to reply to.


----------



## truthr

The matter is before the courts with lawyers retained by owners/lessees and they are still using strong arm, intimidation, threatening tactics.  Sheesh not a way to win our confidence and cooperation.

Looks like they are trying everything and anything to get people to pay before they go belly up.

As for the Chartered accountant not being part of the problem - hello?  They are the ones who have not provided audited financial statements in a timely fashion.  IMO anyone associated with these guys are part of the problem.


----------



## Hey lady

*correction to June 1 email*

Sorry, should have said the hearing on June 25 is to determine a date for filings and service, as May 31 was not sufficient time.


----------



## Tacoma

Sunchaser has stated that owners who have not responded to their threats will not be allowed to occupy their units this year in spite of the fact that many paid their maintenance fees a year in advance.  What do you believe they will do about people who booked units and then deposited them with various exchange companies?  My thought is if they pull these vacations they will never be allowed to use these exchange companies again so when I saw the writing on the wall I deposited my week even though I would have preferred to use it.  Just my way of saying screw you to this company.:rofl:

Love their letter this morning.  I almost feel sorry that even if they are all new people in this company (not) they did such a poor job checking out the situation before taking over someone else's mess.  I'm so glad they're looking out for our best interests.

I know 3 others who own at this resort.  I believe one paid to get out (but used a lawyer to put the funds in escrow until they get the paperwork) , one signed up for the reason to stay program for $100 monthly, and one is just ignoring it and risking a credit hit.


----------



## truthr

*From Facebook*

Someone on a Facebook site posted this and I agree - 

_This is the problem I have with the Letter to Stay or To Go: They are not ONLY ASKING you to make a decision on staying or going, but along with that decision you are forced into signing your acceptance of the Petition that is in the court system. It is all or nothing. The petition is Northwynd/mont/Sunchaser asking if they can legally make the unilateral agreement changes and/or removing land/buildings from the owners 'trust'. The 'trust' is there to protect us so that we do not lose our property if something (bankruptcy) were to happen. In my opinion these are 3 separate decisions and should not be lumped into one. Because of that we have retained a lawyer. If it was JUST the reno, I might be ok. If I knew what the changes to the lease contract was, I might be ok. If I knew what buildings were being removed, I might be ok. BUT they are asking me to make these decisions BEFORE the court says that they can even legally ask us and BEFORE they say exactly what buildings/land they are targeting to remove, and agreement changes they want to make. My understanding is they are asking for full authority to manage as they see fit, without considering and/or communicating with deeded and leased owners. And the people who want to have this full authority are looking to recover personal investments lost in the Fairmont Resort Property Ltd mortgage scam. And that is wrong in my opinion._


----------



## Soccer Canada

I will mention that in the letter about threatening calls to his staff etc are definitely uncalled for. I know we are all frustrated and against this, but have to realize that the poor schmuck on the other end of the phone call is just an employee that is trying to do his 9-5 thing to support him/herself and their family. 
The good news about all of this is it seems like we have struck the first "win" by getting them to remove the May 31st date for submissions, small victories hopefully will lead to bigger ones. 
As for the Default, I will state once again that I really doubt any collection agency will take on the task of collecting a debt that is so heavily opposed and is pending litigation, this would just put that company at risk as well. So they can send "overdue" notices as much as they like, but really until a court hears the arguments (which could take month's realistically), hopefully it will put a big stint in Northwynd's Cash Flow.


----------



## Judythreetimes

Soccer Canada said:


> I will mention that in the letter about threatening calls to his staff etc are definitely uncalled for. I know we are all frustrated and against this, but have to realize that the poor schmuck on the other end of the phone call is just an employee that is trying to do his 9-5 thing to support him/herself and their family.
> The good news about all of this is it seems like we have struck the first "win" by getting them to remove the May 31st date for submissions, small victories hopefully will lead to bigger ones.
> As for the Default, I will state once again that I really doubt any collection agency will take on the task of collecting a debt that is so heavily opposed and is pending litigation, this would just put that company at risk as well. So they can send "overdue" notices as much as they like, but really until a court hears the arguments (which could take month's realistically), hopefully it will put a big stint in Northwynd's Cash Flow.


I don't agree at all with people making threatening phone calls or sending nasty emails. None of that will help the situation. Sit back now, and let the law firms handle it as they see fit. That is what we are paying them for. 
I agree with you on the collection agency part too.


----------



## truthr

Judythreetimes said:


> I don't agree at all with people making threatening phone calls or sending nasty emails. None of that will help the situation. Sit back now, and let the law firms handle it as they see fit. That is what we are paying them for.
> I agree with you on the collection agency part too.



I agree that we should not lowering ourselves to their level of threats.

Back in the day I worked for a collection agency and if memory serves me the bill has to be in arrears a certain length of time with proof that they have tried to collect it before it can go to collections or affect credit ratings.  Besides that the collection agency will take a %, so I rather doubt they will go that route any time soon.


----------



## bifft

*Financing Reno*

I'm missing something. Are the facilities really in such bad shape that banks or lending institutions won't provide financing for the reno or is it the credit rating, I suspect the later? In our operations when major work is to be done the banks are very helpful. The reno proposed is something that normally would require long term financing. A large portion of Timeshare holders are seniors suggesting that there would be a turn over of TS users. I guess what I'm getting at is a good accountant would have naturally sought long term financing for this project rather than a quick grab for our monies. I have missed this in all Northmont proposals and our discussions certainly have not addressed this. On principal I simply don't accept the present proposal, it just is not business like.


----------



## oneworldonerace

*At this time there is no court decision in favour of Northwynd's application*



truthr said:


> Someone on a Facebook site posted this and I agree -
> 
> _This is the problem I have with the Letter to Stay or To Go: They are not ONLY ASKING you to make a decision on staying or going, but along with that decision you are forced into signing your acceptance of the Petition that is in the court system. It is all or nothing. The petition is Northwynd/mont/Sunchaser asking if they can legally make the unilateral agreement changes and/or removing land/buildings from the owners 'trust'. The 'trust' is there to protect us so that we do not lose our property if something (bankruptcy) were to happen. In my opinion these are 3 separate decisions and should not be lumped into one. Because of that we have retained a lawyer. If it was JUST the reno, I might be ok. If I knew what the changes to the lease contract was, I might be ok. If I knew what buildings were being removed, I might be ok. BUT they are asking me to make these decisions BEFORE the court says that they can even legally ask us and BEFORE they say exactly what buildings/land they are targeting to remove, and agreement changes they want to make. My understanding is they are asking for full authority to manage as they see fit, without considering and/or communicating with deeded and leased owners. And the people who want to have this full authority are looking to recover personal investments lost in the Fairmont Resort Property Ltd mortgage scam. And that is wrong in my opinion._




I believe that these points above are extremely valid. By lumping all things into one document and having people agree to multiple issues and sign off in agreement of these vague projections before the court hearings and due process is just wrong.

I was sent a copy of the the ruling from the Court of Queens Bench on May 30th and the ruling was to provide time for TS owners and lease holders to prepare.  According to the May 30th ruling, the date for the next court hearing will be set on or after June 20th. (this is according to the Court of Queens Bench document I received from GeldertLaw office)  Perhaps a date has now been set and I am not aware of it being the 25th.

To address the questions about what to agree with and what not to sign off and agree with, I am providing a brief summary of the letter sent on my behalf to Northwynd from Geldert Law office.  Generally summarized it stated:

....that I did not agree to the petition before the courts and both options from Northwynd were resolutely rejected and until there was an order from the courts, no money will be paid. Furthermore, if there is any action taken by Northwynd against me before the hearings are complete, steps will be taken to protect my name and my credit....

I suggest if at all possible, seek legal council.  I don't have the answers and this is very complex considering they were able to take this to court to seek judgement to literally change all previous contracts.  How this is even possible is a mystery to me.


----------



## CindyD

*Letter Recieved from Sunchasers Villas - May 31/13*

It took me awhile to type this but this is the letter I recieved today form Sunchasers...Enjoy

Dear leaseholder or co-owner
At this time, we wanted to provide an update on the petition before the Supreme Court of British Columbia (“SCBC”).
Northmont and the Trustee began the legal process because we realized that all contracts, no matter how “black & white” are open for interpretation and that our timeshare members needed a fair and reasonable legal opportunity to debate the merits of the resort realignment and the rights and responsibilities of all of us to our resort.
Over the past 2 weeks, it has become clear that the largest areas of questions from our timeshare members relate, not to the realignment, but to the rights and obligations arising in the vacation interval agreement.  In other words, who is responsible for what?
For instance, if someone is a leaseholder, are they responsible for different costs that a co-owner?  Is the developer responsible for structural improvements or are the timeshare members?  Who is responsible for issues that go back to the initial construction or how Fairmont ran the resort?

While we continue to believe our interpretation of the agreement is sound based on the Norton Rose Legal Opinion that we have had on the website throughout this process and is consistent with timeshare resorts throughout Canada, we recognize and support the rights of our timeshare members to present their interpretation and have a decision rendered by the SCBC after hearing on its merits.
To that end, the Trustee and Northmont had already agreed with some council representing timeshare members that the time for them to file and serve Responses and Affidavits could be and were willing to extend the same courtesy to all legal counsel in order to ensure all of our timeshare members had a reasonable opportunity to participate in the legal process, if desired.  However, 1 counsel preferred to formalize the extension through a court order as a result, on May 30, 2013, legal counsel for the Trustee, Northmont and some Vacation Interval Owners, attended in the SCBC to seek the Court’s consent to vary the time for filing of Responses to the Petition and Affidavits.  The Court agreed to vary the Order such that the filing date for the Responses   to the Petition and supporting Affidavits is now to be determined at a hearing to be held on June 20, 2013 or a later date accepted to the Court.  The hearing has now been schedule to occur on June 25/13 at 3pm.  A copy of the order has been placed on the www.sunchaservillas.ca website in the BC Supreme Court Petition section.
As a result of this change, Vacation Interval Owners who intended to participate in the legal proceedings but require more time to file and serve their Response to Petition and Affidavits are no longer required to do so before May 31/13.  Instead, the date for such filing and service will be determined by the Court on the June 25 Hearing.
As a result of this change, Vacation Interval Owners who intend to participate in legal proceedings but require more time to file and serve their Response to Petition and Affidavits are no longer required to do so before May 31, 2013.  Instead, the date for such filing and service will be determined by the Court at the June 25 Hearing.
The Hearing on June 25/13 will be procedural in nature, primarily to determine the timelines and process for the Trustee’s application for advice and direction.  No substantive issues (I.E. issues affecting substantive rights) will be decided at that hearing.  Once this hearing is complete, we should have a better understanding of the potential timeline for resolution of the issues.
Please note that the changes in timeline for the Petition does not alter the due date of your renovation project maintence fee invoice.  If you have not enrolled in one of the payment plans, paid your invoice in full, or chosen the cancellation option, you will be in default as of June 1/13.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that this is a tough situation and that everyone, whether timeshare member or Northwynd employee, deserves to be treated fairly and professionally through this process.  Our employees are simply trying to do their job to the best of their ability and that should not require them to be verbally abused or in some cases, threatened.

None of us own this company.  I am a Chartered Accountant.  My career, integrity, and professional reputation are far more valuable than this job.  I would not have asked my staff to put in the long hours and face the negative reaction that was inevitable if I didn’t believe this was a fair solution to an otherwise untenable situation.  My staff would not have agreed to the kind of work we have asked of them for the last month if they did not believe it was fair.

Over 75% of our customer service staff and all of senior management have been hired since Northwynd took over.  We have been asked to fix a problem we did not create.  We agreed to try because we see what Sunchaser Vacation Villas should be and we knew the alternative was unfair to everyone.  We believe in the future of the resort and providing a level of quantity appropriate to the vacation interval you purchased.
We also believe in the reality that at some point in time, a timeshare owner will go from getting good value out of their vacation interval to no longer being able to use it and that when that happens, there has to be a fair way out.

You are allowed to disagree.  However, you are not allowed to take it out on our staff.  They are regular people, just like you, and they do not deserve to be treated like they have been.  They deserve no less respect than the cashier at your local Tim Horton’s or your neighbour.

For the many owners who have given us positive feedback, whether  it is a thank you for helping you understand the situation, recognition that it is a tough situation with no easy answers, thanking us for giving you an opportunity to cancel when none existed before, or just saying thanks for finally starting a renovation, we want to thank you.  It is your kind words that we hold onto on a daily basis to remind us that we have created a program that is fair and that trying to solve this situation was the right decision.

Best regards
Kirk Wankel


----------



## CleoB

truthr said:


> Why am I not surprised.
> 
> But on the other hand, it is the Trustee who petitioned the courts for direction.  So in a way s/he has tipped the hand in addition to the outrageous demands by Northwynd/Northmount to extort monies from us.
> 
> Maybe they won't be such close friends after all this.



I suspect the trustee is just covering his ass.


----------



## CleoB

RandRseeker said:


> Just curious what everyone thinks will happen after this nightmare has been settled?
> 
> Just suppose that the courts find that the owners cannot be forced to pay the reno fees... I think we are left with a timeshare at a resort that is clearly becoming rundown, probably won't pull much for exchanges, and the maintenance fees will climb significantly in order to get the place fixed up.
> 
> There just doesn't seem to be a good outcome which ever way this goes.



We, as a group, could sue Northwynd.


----------



## truthr

*Canada Timeshare News*

here is a link to an article just written today about what is going on
http://www.insidethegate.com/gateho...aign=Feed:+insidethegate/IgKT+(The+GateHouse)


----------



## truthr

CleoB said:


> I suspect the trustee is just covering his ass.



I agree and I also agree that if we can somehow turn this into a class action suit of some sort it should be done.


----------



## Chilliaces

*Which do I choose?*

Northwynd has given us a great choice, either cut off both arms to stay or just one if you want to leave. A-holes.
As this thing snowballs, I hope the timeshare owners can get enough strength to run this company right out of business. In the email we received today, they seem to be under the impression that they gave use fair warning and its a fair deal for owners. This is a dictator living high on the hog and the peasants left to starve. 
Their letter asked people to stop calling and giving their people such a hard time on the phone. Well then, maybe the people at the top should answer the phones so I can give them a piece of my mind.


----------



## renoman

Judythreetimes said:


> We have a time share in Mexico. Five years and never an issue. We get monthly updates of what is being done to keep everything up to date and for new improvements. This year we were asked to pay an extra $100 in maintenance. We get 2 new pools and a new restaurant for that. To say thanks..we got $100 gift certificate for any of their amenities. Our fees are $750 a year. With all kinds of special offers for our friends and family. That is the way a time share should be run.



We also have two great timeshares in Mexico, where one night normally expect the kind of crap these guys are serving up. The Mexico ones are great. back to the current group of twits; just about as trustworthy and savvy as the average Senator. 

I put my trust in the lawyers to sort it out.


----------



## Spark1

CleoB said:


> We, as a group, could sue Northwynd.



The only way you can get out of a timeshare is BREACH of contract, and they have breached my contract 5 different ways. 
1/Late audited statements
2/Management
3/Trust set up for renovations
4/assessments
5/cancellation agreement


----------



## den403

Where is the money being held for the people are paying to stay. We know where the cash is from the people that leave


----------



## truthr

den403 said:


> Where is the money being held for the people are paying to stay. We know where the cash is from the people that leave



I have been wondering that as well.  If they were being transparent and accountable they would have set up a separate, at arms length, trust account.

And I also agree with the other poster regarding breach of contract.

Oh, I finally got the new email.

I also agree that no one should be threatening staff, but what did they expect the reactions to be with their bullying tactics.  They expect us to just go along with this ridiculous scheme without fighting back.


----------



## Maritimer

RandRseeker said:


> Just curious what everyone thinks will happen after this nightmare has been settled?:



Interesting question RandRseeker.

The unfortunate reality is that the solution proposed by Northwynd is the best alternative in a bad situation.  The other options are not pretty and guarantee everyone loses.  We all signed contracts and share the liabilities we never expected to become reality.

It seems like a lot of money but is the only reasonable alternative to excessively higher maintenance fees in the future to keep patching-up and fixing.  At least this way, we will have a quality, tradable resort when the major renovations are completed. A win-win for everyone.


----------



## Judythreetimes

Maritimer said:


> Interesting question RandRseeker.
> 
> The unfortunate reality is that the solution proposed by Northwynd is the best alternative in a bad situation.  The other options are not pretty and guarantee everyone loses.  We all signed contracts and share the liabilities we never expected to become reality.
> 
> It seems like a lot of money but is the only reasonable alternative to excessively higher maintenance fees in the future to keep patching-up and fixing.  At least this way, we will have a quality, tradable resort when the major renovations are completed. A win-win for everyone.


Northwynd bought this property knowing full well what state it was in. It appears that not even the basics of maintenance have been done at this resort for years. Where is the money? I don't feel it is a reasonable alternative. It is an atrocious amount of money they are asking for! They want us to pay them to get out? Are you kidding me?? I would rather lose this timeshare then ever associate with them again. But I sure as hell am not paying them to get out of a contract that they breached on so many counts. The more I delve into this, the more suspicious it is. They have used threats and intimidating emails, they have taken away member's holiday weeks for not paying these renovation fees, even though they have paid their maintenance for 2013. You think that is fair? It is not a reasonable alternative to just hand over more than $3000 to these people. In some cases, even more than that. You think the yearly maintenance fees aren't going to go way up in the future? Guess again.


----------



## ERW

I read the letter from Sunchasers yesterday. I agree taking it out on the staff is not any way to deal with the situation. We all maybe extremely angry about the whole mess, but yelling at someone answering the phones is not the way to go. I tell my staff that if someone calls and starts swearing, hang up. If they call back swearing, hang up again.

I am very curious how many are fighting this, how many have paid to stay, paid to go or just not responded? The time is long, long overdue to form a Timeshare Owners group. This would truly be the only way there could be one voice in regards to our time shares. From the rough numbers I've seen here, it appears 1500 (?) may be working with lawyers, no idea how many other are doing this independantly. 

Anyone have any ideas or suggestions? Our leases have a provision to form such a group. That being said, I can't imagine how you would ever get 15,000 owners to agree on anything, but the option is there. Truth is, whomever would head up this group would likely end up being hated as much as those in control of Northwynd!

As far as Northwynd, they are in a pickle. They have taken on this resort and found it requires mega-work to get it ship-shape. My problem is they have handled this in the worst possible way. Not sure if they thought this all out and anticipated how much of a reaction they would receive or if they just thought by giving people an option to get out (albeit at a cost) they could get away with all of this. Honestly, I wouldn't have an issue paying for some of the renos if I knew a) the money was held in trust and would be paid out as reno work was done. b) this had all taken place AFTER the BC courts had given it the nod. c) there were assurances that this would be the last we would hear of with regards to reno fees. d) Northwynd would assume a large portion of the reno fees and they took over the resort, should have known what issues were facing the resort and only then decided if it was worth taking on. and e) known and was in agreement as far as what reno work will be done. 

I see a number of people stating that they would be crazy to send collections people after the timeshare owners. I do not see it that way. I do not think it would happen until the court gives Northwynd the ok (if i eventually does) to proceed. But then at that point Northwynd would have no choice to go the collections route or they would not survive. Remember, don't think using YOUR logic, think using THEIR logic. Sad part of all this is if this does not get resolved in a reasonably timely manner, the resort is going to go down the tubes. 

I still have 30 years of timeshare that I have not yet used. I don't want to see that happen. But I also can't justify paying reno and mtce fees every two year to the tune of $200. or $3000.


----------



## Judythreetimes

ERW said:


> I read the letter from Sunchasers yesterday. I agree taking it out on the staff is not any way to deal with the situation. We all maybe extremely angry about the whole mess, but yelling at someone answering the phones is not the way to go. I tell my staff that if someone calls and starts swearing, hang up. If they call back swearing, hang up again.
> 
> I am very curious how many are fighting this, how many have paid to stay, paid to go or just not responded? The time is long, long overdue to form a Timeshare Owners group. This would truly be the only way there could be one voice in regards to our time shares. From the rough numbers I've seen here, it appears 1500 (?) may be working with lawyers, no idea how many other are doing this independantly.
> 
> Anyone have any ideas or suggestions? Our leases have a provision to form such a group. That being said, I can't imagine how you would ever get 15,000 owners to agree on anything, but the option is there. Truth is, whomever would head up this group would likely end up being hated as much as those in control of Northwynd!
> 
> As far as Northwund, they are in a pickle. They have taken on this resort and found it requires mega-work to get it ship-shape. My problem is they have handled this in the worst possible way. Not sure if they thought this all out and anticipated how much of a reaction they would receive or if they just thought by giving people an option to get out (albeit at a cost) they could get away with all of this. Honestly, I wouldn't have an issue paying for some of the renos if I knew a) the money was held in trust and would be paid out as reno work was done. b) this had all taken place AFTER the BC courts had given it the nod. c) there were assurances that this would be the last we would hear of with regards to reno fees. d) Northwynd would assume a large portion of the reno fees and they took over the resort, should have known what issues were facing the resort and only then decided if it was worth taking on. and e) known and was in agreement as far as what reno work will be done.
> 
> I see a number of people stating that they would be crazy to send collections people after the timeshare owners. I do not see it that way. I do not think it would happen until the court gives Northwynd the ok (if i eventually does) to proceed. But then at that point Northwynd would have no choice to go the collections route or they would not survive. Remember, don't think using YOUR logic, think using THEIR logic. Sad part of all this is if this does not get resolved in a reasonably timely manner, the resort is going to go down the tubes.
> 
> I still have 30 years of timeshare that I have not yet used. I don't want to see that happen. But I also can't justify paying reno and mtce fees every two year to the tune of $200. or $3000.


Amen to all of that.


----------



## Spark1

Judythreetimes said:


> Amen to all of that.



That's right. The one to  take it out with is Wankel, he is the one that is telling his staff that the petition only has to do with restructuring the resort and never mentions refurbishing the resort which is explained on item no. 177 page 8 of this forum. This is where they are trying to change our agreements which he can not do. Did you see him on Global Tv with his big mouth about maintenance fees should of been 300 to 400 dollars more. That would of taken our fees to 860.00 11 years ago. It would not matter one bit with some humans how much money you give them, because a crook is a crook and they will find a way to steal your money.


----------



## Meow

I suspect that since many of us have now been placed in default, Northwynd will eventually proceed through a collection agency.  I don't think there is any way that process will be stopped while our case is mired in the Courts.  I hope our lawyers can at least temporarily put a hold on collections.  Our chance of success in the Courts is probably no better that 50%.  Legal opinions to date have gone both ways.  Who knows how the court will see it.  I don't think Northwynd will give up easily.  Because they probably just had a great infusion of cash they can hold out longer than we can. Once our various retainers are used up - how many of us are prepared to go the full distance?


----------



## Tacoma

My friends who could not take a chance on a credit hit decided they would pay to get out.  Since we are in Calgary they went to the office to pay on Friday. The entire time they were there (around 40 minutes) they said the lineup was out the door with people paying to get out.  This is just Calgary people who could go, I have to assume as large a number held their noses and mailed in a certified cheque.  So I guess this was a smart move on their part to generously allow us to pay around $3000 to give our units back to them.


----------



## ERW

Would be interesting to know how many have caved and sold off their interest, how many have elected to stay and how many have taken the legal/do nothing for now position. It is unfortunate that many, many individuals do not see this or the FB page to realize that there are alternatives. But then some may know but choose to get out while they can with a minimum of fuss.


----------



## truthr

Unfortunately no one really "sold off"; they paid to hopefully get rid of it.

I say hopefully because until they actually receive the release papers they are still classified as owners and who knows what that means.

Also this court extension can be a two edged sword - if enough people request the "opt-out" option, Northwynd just may have the ammunition to get the courts to sanction what they want to do.

I read somewhere that although you can choose to opt out and pay the amount, that they still have the option to put a cap on the number they allow to opt out.

It is the sneakiness and underhanded, lack of transparency/accountability that sends up all kinds of red flags for me with this supposed deal.

They have had 3+ years with all kinds of professionals working on how to best handle all these and yet they spring this on us and expect, no DEMAND an answer in less than 30 days with a whole lot of ambiguity as to what may or may not transpire but if we don't jump to their command they threaten our reputations/credit etc.

Edited to add:  This reminds of the bullies in the school yard taking others' lunch money/lunch, beating them etc.


----------



## pdoff

I wonder what maintenace fees are for the rest of the Timeshare world? Mountainside, across the road say there maintenace fees are less and - they have a good reserve fund. I think they had a flood last year too.(#294).
We have watched the maintenance fees increase over 150% since we purchased. A fast talking salesman (back in the early 90's) even said the maintenance fees should decrease as more people bought timeshares! Ha Ha
They are certainly too high for us to continue - let alone this added money grab. Losing what is left of our original investment is punishment enough. 
Originally there was to be one week a year for each unit not to be used to refurbish and update. I don't think the window coverings or bedspreads have been changed ever in the unit we last stayed in. 
The former owners and the new owners spread themselves thin by getting more resorts all over the place - I wonder if our maintenance fees/reserve funds were being used for this as well as lining the pockets of various owners?


----------



## Chilliaces

*Maint fees elsewhere*

I find it interesting that Northwynd says our maint fees should have been much higher the last several years and then we could have avoided this situation. I have 2 annual timeshares at Fairmont and 2 other ones as well. Northwynd is the highest right now. I pay Northwynd over $900 per year for each one in Fairmont and the others are around $750 per year. At this point I would be happy just to let these go because I am afraid of what the fees are going to be next year and in the years to come. The only thing is, I am not going to "pay them" to take them from me so that they can take my money, fix them up, and then sell them off as condos.


----------



## truthr

My apologies if this has been addressed before but I just thought of something.

If this huge project does happen:

Firstly - will that not disrupt anyone who wishes to vacation at the resort during the time of construction?

Secondly - shouldn't it lower future maintenance fees as the whole resort will be brand new?

Thirdly - if more people opt out than in will there not be less units available and possibly less amenities?  Thereby making the resort less desirable for exchange?

Also since we are even biennial we have not yet received an invoice.  I wonder how many of those exist and are not worrying about this yet because they don't know whether they need to respond or not.  I would think it would be difficult if not impossible for them to say we are in default of something we have not received.

Maybe the June court date will help to clarify this whole mess.  I know we are at a loss as to how to proceed.


----------



## Pita

*I gave up*

I only owned a Biennial prime week so it was easier to exit than put up with the extended agony and risk to any credit report as I still need my banks for business purposes.  Looking at some of the other forums on the TUG BBS, there are a lot of other timeshares where people are finding it impossible to exit.  Lots of incentives are being offered for someone to take over their worthless timeshares.

I was wondering if this means that Northwynd now owns all the these timeshares that we paid to exit?  Are they paying their proportionate share of the upgrades as the new owners these units.......assuming they are choosing to stay!!  Unfortunately, it also gives them a big block of votes for any future "survey" they may use to justify their future extortion of funds.

I paid my maintenance fees last year in order to book my unit for this Sept.  I think that I will still be able to use my week since I paid their ransom demand.  It would mean that I paid approximately, $2,600 for the privilege of using my timeshare.  I just checked on II for a Getaway at Riverside and found that the same time period that I booked is available for $607.!!

I truly admire and respect all of the owners that are taking Northwynd to task on this and past mismanagement.  Hope all the lawyers are successful in their arguments.  I am only afraid that this  might be a case of winnig the battle but losing the war!!  I think most of the owners that signed up want to get out without paying.  I dread to see that will be left of the timeshare when this all ends.


----------



## Fly525

One discussion that I have not seen on this site is "Is there any amount those wishing to surrender their leases would be willing to pay?"  

The item I object to the most is the "Base Cancellation Fee."  Page 3 of the April 12, 2013 letter (Internet version), reads as follows: "If you wish to cancel your Vacation Interval Agreement, you will be charged a cancellation fee intended to address four items: 1) Lost property management fees: We have estimated foregone fees based on the 2012 property management fee and a 20 year maximum on fees, ........."  Lines 2), 3) and 4) are at least understandable.

It is unconscionable that Northwynd is trying to collect "foregone management fees" a lease that they wouldn't be managing because the owner had surrendered it.  When they re sell the lease, the new owner would be responsible for maintenance fees and the 15% management fee would be derived from those fees. 

Personally, I'd be happy to pay my share of the 2012 Operating Budget deficit, administration and trustee fees.  It works out to $691.19 ($658.28 + GST) for an annual Two Bed lease.  This would be a much better solution than defaulting and would completely clear any obligations I committed to on my original leases.


----------



## Fly525

Thanks for posting this Five Step Process.  I will be working my way through these steps on my own.

As a point of interest, I mailed a registered letter to Kirk Wankel, along with emails to Petitioner, Respondent and Resort Villa Management on May 31, 2013 providing brief reasons for not choosing either "Freedom to Choose or Reason to Stay."


----------



## TS Migraine

oneworldonerace said:


> I believe that these points above are extremely valid. By lumping all things into one document and having people agree to multiple issues and sign off in agreement of these vague projections before the court hearings and due process is just wrong.
> 
> I was sent a copy of the the ruling from the Court of Queens Bench on May 30th and the ruling was to provide time for TS owners and lease holders to prepare.  According to the May 30th ruling, the date for the next court hearing will be set on or after June 20th. (this is according to the Court of Queens Bench document I received from GeldertLaw office)  Perhaps a date has now been set and I am not aware of it being the 25th.
> 
> To address the questions about what to agree with and what not to sign off and agree with, I am providing a brief summary of the letter sent on my behalf to Northwynd from Geldert Law office.  Generally summarized it stated:
> 
> ....that I did not agree to the petition before the courts and both options from Northwynd were resolutely rejected and until there was an order from the courts, no money will be paid. Furthermore, if there is any action taken by Northwynd against me before the hearings are complete, steps will be taken to protect my name and my credit....
> 
> I suggest if at all possible, seek legal council.  I don't have the answers and this is very complex considering they were able to take this to court to seek judgement to literally change all previous contracts.  How this is even possible is a mystery to me.



I agree with all of this, and I hope our Faith in the legal system to uphold our rights according to the original Lease Contracts holds- well said One World One race. 
How do the MArriott resorts Mangage their Properties?? They are always superb. 
Didn't I read in correspondence from Northwynd, that even if you Go, you may still be held responsible for past unpaid manitenance fees? People who think they have opted out based on the Stay or Go letter may not be totally off the hook- yet. Or, if you privately sell your time, or even Give it away, if the new owners don't pay up on time, they will come back after YOU for any money they feel is still owing? 
A lot of people are stating their ( imagined) fears, all of which are probably valid, however, for those of us still wondering what to do, it ups the emotional agony of the whole mess. Docken Klym told me I didn't HAVE to do anything more right now and they will be in touch with me before it is time to make the next move. I expect their guidance to be based on the outcomes of what has already transpired via the BC Court- not on pre-supposed suspicions. I don't think Northwynd can impose "penalties' on those of us who are under legal guidance who have not paid Stay or Go fees. I was told by Docken Klym when I retained them, that I was not responsible for any Stay or Go fees and that I was to tell Northwynd I had retained them as Lawyers. I am still hanging onto the hope that my original Lease is a legal document, kind of like a Will, whereby, no one can legally make changes to it without my permission. How it is interpretted by the BC court ( with reference to rental analogies, car lease analogies, Accountant's BC court Petition take on it ), may be another matter, but I still think I am in better hands with a lawyer than fighting that on my own. That is why I joined the Class Action rather than signing anything that might legally alter my original agreement. 
Next concern, If MANY people pay to GO rather than challenge this, A) Northwynd has a LOT of CASH to fight us in the courts, B) they may be able to appeal to the Courts saying this was a favourable option for owners- see ( 5000??)  took it. When infact, those people were probably under duress- like all the rest of us. If there are 15,000 owners and between numbers with Lawyers, TUGG and FB we might have access to the feelings of 1500, there are a lot of people under duress unspoken for. Northwynd has the advantage here, because they know who all those people are, and have contact info. maybe we are entitled to that info, since 51 % of us could oppose the present Management and replace them. How do we get access to the masses addresses?


----------



## truthr

From what I gather those who choose to stay and pay have agreed to whatever Northwynd wants to do (re:  the petition before the court).  They may think they have just chosen to pay the "one time fee" but they have also agreed to that and everything else; thereby giving Northwynd the very power they want.  That is why choosing the Stay or Go was not really much different - price tag (basically the same); signing rights over to Northwynd to do what they want (basically the same).

A win/win for Northwynd no mater which way you sign and pay; unless of course you don't sign and pay; then the threat of DEFAULT and collections.  Not a valid contract IMO.

Also regarding the resell of the "opt out", from what I have read they will not be reselling just having the titles transferred over to who???  Well Northwynd/Northmount; so in reality who ever opt outs is paying for Northwynd/Northmount to gain more assets/power over whomever is left.

Not very fair practice as far as I am concerned.


----------



## TS Migraine

Lets hope the court agrees this is ALL not a very FAIR practice. I can't imagine bullying being condoned by our Justice System, however, we are always told when things go to court, it is a 50/50 chance either way. 
A FB fellow named Jim is concerned that we are getting too many law firms involved getting a piece of our cash. He thinks the Class Action should restrict itself to fighting for the people who paid to go, ( which he thinks borders on criminal) and leave the rest to the 2 originally involved BC firms who are putting together a position paper outlining the violation of our rights via the 'Letter of Duress- Stay or Go.' Hmm. I agree we are better off speaking as 1 voice ( or at most 3), but for those of us who opted to pay a retainer fee rather than pay to stay or go, by acting before May 30th, we didn't have to pay to stay or go. For those of us in AB and further east, access to the BC firms in order to file form 67 prior to the deadline was tricky through the BC firms/ BC court .


----------



## Brit76

The phrase "Class Action Lawsuit" keeps being mentioned - where is this coming from?  I haven't seen that this is one !!!


----------



## TS Migraine

In posts 311 & 324 on previous pages, a BC firm hosted by Lindsay LeBlanc, www.coxtaylor.com was retaining Sunchaser owners for a $300.00 fee to Challenge Petition 66. Another Firm in BC was doing the same- not sure of the cost or the name of the firm. In post 347 Docken Klym, a Class Action Firm in Calgary,( robert@docken.com )got wind of the scandal about May 20th, and they have been retained by a number of people both before and since the May 31st deadline to file Form 67 and the letter of oposition to CHOOSE to stay or go. Docken Klym are the Class Action Firm, and are in consultation with the other two independent Firms out of BC who also wish to proceed in the format of a Class Action. i believe there are now about 700 people who have retained a lawyer concerning this issue. You can still retain Docken Klym and become a part of the Class Action. If you have paid to stay or go, and regret your decision and believe you have been coerced and therefore unjustly charged, Docken Klym plans to fight for a refund of those monies if the BC Court determines it was an unfait demand from the start.


----------



## Judythreetimes

TS Migraine said:


> In posts 311 & 324 on previous pages, a BC firm hosted by Lindsay LeBlanc, www.coxtaylor.com was retaining Sunchaser owners for a $300.00 fee to Challenge Petition 66. Another Firm in BC was doing the same- not sure of the cost or the name of the firm. In post 347 Docken Klym, a Class Action Firm in Calgary,( robert@docken.com )got wind of the scandal about May 20th, and they have been retained by a number of people both before and since the May 31st deadline to file Form 67 and the letter of oposition to CHOOSE to stay or go. Docken Klym are the Class Action Firm, and are in consultation with the other two independent Firms out of BC who also wish to proceed in the format of a Class Action. i believe there are now about 700 people who have retained a lawyer concerning this issue. You can still retain Docken Klym and become a part of the Class Action. If you have paid to stay or go, and regret your decision and believe you have been coerced and therefore unjustly charged, Docken Klym plans to fight for a refund of those monies if the BC Court determines it was an unfait demand from the start.


Thank you for the clarification. There seems to be some confusion as to who is doing what and why. I am with docken and will stay with them. I think they have more experience in class action and a really good track record.


----------



## fairmontlvr

pdoff said:


> I wonder what maintenace fees are for the rest of the Timeshare world? Mountainside, across the road say there maintenace fees are less and - they have a good reserve fund. I think they had a flood last year too.(#294).
> We have watched the maintenance fees increase over 150% since we purchased. A fast talking salesman (back in the early 90's) even said the maintenance fees should decrease as more people bought timeshares! Ha Ha
> They are certainly too high for us to continue - let alone this added money grab. Losing what is left of our original investment is punishment enough.
> Originally there was to be one week a year for each unit not to be used to refurbish and update. I don't think the window coverings or bedspreads have been changed ever in the unit we last stayed in.
> The former owners and the new owners spread themselves thin by getting more resorts all over the place - I wonder if our maintenance fees/reserve funds were being used for this as well as lining the pockets of various owners?



The flood at Mountainside would have been covered by insurance. Which begs the question, if one of the poly-B pipes that were used at 14 of 17 of the buildings were to happen to rupture, wouldn't the cost of repairs be covered by Sunchaser's insurance policy? If these pipes were code at the time of construction, then I would think it would be covered. Sure it would make sense to replace the pipes while doing any renovations, but to use this as justification for the fees is nonsense. 

As far as increase in fees, in 2006 the maintenance fee for a 2 bedroom at Sunchaser were$496.00. This year, not counting the renovation project, the maintenance fee for a 2 bedroom were $949.88, a 91.5% increase in 7 years.

I believe the maintenance fee at Mountainside this year for a 2 bedroom was around $700.00. How is it they seem to be doing fine at a much older complex, have a reserve fund in excess of $500,000 and have been in the process for the last few years renovating their units?


----------



## TS Migraine

In a fairly recen tprevious posting someone noted that if an Insurance company gets numerous repeat claims for the same problem, they can inisist a reno be done to fix the recurring problem or insurance won't cover it. Further, there was a Class Action against the manufacturer of Poly-B and Canadian claimants got on board to teh tune of 30 million dollars in payouts, BUT, all the claims had to be in by 2005, and it seems the previous FRP owners missed that opportunity. However, if Northwynd bought the property for pennies on the dollar in 2010, they MUST have known about the Poly-B fiasco prior to purchase. So, they would have knowingly bought this liability at time of purchase.


----------



## CleoB

TS Migraine said:


> In posts 311 & 324 on previous pages, a BC firm hosted by Lindsay LeBlanc, www.coxtaylor.com was retaining Sunchaser owners for a $300.00 fee to Challenge Petition 66. Another Firm in BC was doing the same- not sure of the cost or the name of the firm. In post 347 Docken Klym, a Class Action Firm in Calgary,( robert@docken.com )got wind of the scandal about May 20th, and they have been retained by a number of people both before and since the May 31st deadline to file Form 67 and the letter of oposition to CHOOSE to stay or go. Docken Klym are the Class Action Firm, and are in consultation with the other two independent Firms out of BC who also wish to proceed in the format of a Class Action. i believe there are now about 700 people who have retained a lawyer concerning this issue. You can still retain Docken Klym and become a part of the Class Action. If you have paid to stay or go, and regret your decision and believe you have been coerced and therefore unjustly charged, Docken Klym plans to fight for a refund of those monies if the BC Court determines it was an unfait demand from the start.



I don't understand where "class action" is coming from either.  I paid DK a retainer, but had no idea they were a class action firm.  The letter I received from Robert Forsyth never mentioned "class action".  I assumed they will file form 67 for their clients and appear in court June 20.  After, after a decision has been made whether what Northwynd is proposing is deemed legal or not, then I believe a class action will be next.  Don't jump ahead.


----------



## CleoB

fairmontlvr said:


> The flood at Mountainside would have been covered by insurance. Which begs the question, if one of the poly-B pipes that were used at 14 of 17 of the buildings were to happen to rupture, wouldn't the cost of repairs be covered by Sunchaser's insurance policy? If these pipes were code at the time of construction, then I would think it would be covered. Sure it would make sense to replace the pipes while doing any renovations, but to use this as justification for the fees is nonsense.
> 
> As far as increase in fees, in 2006 the maintenance fee for a 2 bedroom at Sunchaser were$496.00. This year, not counting the renovation project, the maintenance fee for a 2 bedroom were $949.88, a 91.5% increase in 7 years.
> 
> I believe the maintenance fee at Mountainside this year for a 2 bedroom was around $700.00. How is it they seem to be doing fine at a much older complex, have a reserve fund in excess of $500,000 and have been in the process for the last few years renovating their units?



The leaks wouldn't be covered by insurance.  We purchased a pre-owned home and when we had our first leak it was the plumber that told us about the poly b pipes.  I googled and found the law firm handling it and they told me to go through my insurance to file a claim.  Well I contacted our insurance and was told "sorry, you're to late and BTW, now that we know you have poly b we won't be covering you for any leaks".  Nice hey?  Any leak we've had (3 in the last 10 years) we've had to pay.


----------



## gnorth16

CleoB said:


> The leaks wouldn't be covered by insurance.  We purchased a pre-owned home and when we had our first leak it was the plumber that told us about the poly b pipes.  I googled and found the law firm handling it and they told me to go through my insurance to file a claim.  Well I contacted our insurance and was told "sorry, you're to late and BTW, now that we know you have poly b we won't be covering you for any leaks".  Nice hey?  Any leak we've had (3 in the last 10 years) we've had to pay.



I guess it depends where you live and the insurance company you deal with.  Although not an expert in plumbing or insurance, it would be interesting to know if there have been any leaks in the past attributed to poly B at the resort.

This is a Canadian article on Poly B (Interesting Read)

http://subject2homeinspections.com/index.php/about-the-house/item/dealing-with-poly-b



> Recently, buyers and sellers of homes with Poly B here in the Okanagan have found themselves in a bit of a conundrum at insurance time. Some insurers have tagged the product with being a higher risk. It seems that the insurance industry is heading more and more a la carte these days. If you have a pool, they charge you more. They like to charge more for having a wood burning appliance, a business run from the home or a shake roof too.
> 
> At present in Canada, Poly-B appears to be a reliable plumbing system with a very, very low incident rate of failures, most of which have been attributed to poor workmanship. Some home insurance providers might view Poly B as a higher risk, but in most cases, optional or increased coverage is available to address such situations.


----------



## AWSleepy

Hello,  I'm a brand new user here and looking for a "quick and dirty" synopsis of the issue and where it currently stands.  There are 23 pages of posts here and it is a little overwhelming trying to digest all the excellent information posted by everyone.    I'm a Sunchaser owner.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Use of booked Week?*

Is anyone that has not paid to Stay or Leave planning on trying to use their booked week in the upcoming weeks?  Not sure if they are blocking them now that the Court date has been moved back or if they are sticking with their May 31 date.


----------



## Judythreetimes

AWSleepy said:


> Hello,  I'm a brand new user here and looking for a "quick and dirty" synopsis of the issue and where it currently stands.  There are 23 pages of posts here and it is a little overwhelming trying to digest all the excellent information posted by everyone.    I'm a Sunchaser owner.


sigh...I don't think there is an easy explanation for any of it. It just gets more and more confusing as the days go by. Go here. http://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/ All the forms are there, that sort of kind of explain, but not really. the more research I do on this outfit, the scarier it becomes.


----------



## fairmontlvr

Anxiety123 said:


> Is anyone that has not paid to Stay or Leave planning on trying to use their booked week in the upcoming weeks?  Not sure if they are blocking them now that the Court date has been moved back or if they are sticking with their May 31 date.



Good question, I am sure there are many of us who still love Fairmont, still want to go and use their week this year that they have booked in the previous year and have paid the full maintenance fee but are either against the renovation fee or at least want to hear if Northwynd can even do this and are awaiting a decision through the courts. 

I cannot see Northwynd refusing owners from using their weeks this summer until a decision is made through the courts.


----------



## Undecided62

*Waiting for a response*

We have not paid and we notified Northwynd of same.  I sent them an email asking if they would honor my reservation since the matter is still before the courts. If they fail to honor my reservation, I've asked for a reimbursement of my 2013 maintenance fees.  I'm getting out one way or the other, but waiting to hear what the courts say.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Summer Booking*

You would think that we would be able to use our booked weeks until after a Court decision is made but they are stating that if we didn't answer them with a signed contract and money by May 31, we are in arrears.  And at that, we will not be allowed into our booked week.  I am hoping that they will be understanding of the upcoming decision we all have to make come the Court Decision and not make things (owner's dispositions) worse by disallowing booked and paid for weeks.  

If anyone does go down and are let into their units, please post, as many are anxiously waiting to see if the folks down in Fairmont are  accomodating their owners.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Undecided*

Please let us know if you get an answer!


----------



## TS Migraine

CleoB said:


> I don't understand where "class action" is coming from either.  I paid DK a retainer, but had no idea they were a class action firm.  The letter I received from Robert Forsyth never mentioned "class action".  I assumed they will file form 67 for their clients and appear in court June 20.  After, after a decision has been made whether what Northwynd is proposing is deemed legal or not, then I believe a class action will be next.  Don't jump ahead.



Yes. It is one step at a time, and we are not at the Class Action yet, but previous posts informed us there was a lineup of people at the Fairmont Office in Calgary last week before the May 31st deadline wanting to pay to go just to be DONE with the mess. If the BC Court Rules that Nothmont/Northwynd had n right to demand this money, those people are going to want their money back, and I suspect it won't be willingly re-imbursed. For those of us who have retained legal counsel who filed Form 67 on our behalf so we have not paid the Stay or Go fees, we may not need to proceed with a Class Action.


----------



## TS Migraine

AWSleepy said:


> Hello,  I'm a brand new user here and looking for a "quick and dirty" synopsis of the issue and where it currently stands.  There are 23 pages of posts here and it is a little overwhelming trying to digest all the excellent information posted by everyone.    I'm a Sunchaser owner.



FRP changed ownership in 2010 due to a bankruptcy sale and new property Management was established through Northmont/Northwynd. They attempted to have everyone sign a new VIA Vacation Interval Agreement when they realized they needed to do a lot of fixing to retain their 5 star rating with leaky pipes. They are now claiming if you signed the VIA you agreed to pay for Capitol Cost repairs even though you are only a TIME Owner and not a Property owner, so they have acquired permission through the Courts Petition 66, to invoice each owner for their share of the RENO cost. Expecting owners to balk at this, they gave us a STAY or GO Choice, and are using coercion concerning our week's use to force us to make a decision and sign an agreement that alters our ORIGINAL Lease Agreements. The deadline was May 31st or pay penalties. People hired Lawyers bc this just doesn't seem right or fair, and if you haven't signed the VIA, your Original Lease does not state you are responsible for Capitol Cost repairs. BUT Wankel- the Accountant who did all the Calculations references Exhibit C- The VIA to the BC court as proof Northwynd has the RIGHT to do this claiming clause 10 and stating the Lease Contracts have "similar" clauses, but they DONT. So this is an unfair cash grab using duress, time pressure, and deception about what our legal obligations are .


----------



## fairmontlvr

Undecided62 said:


> We have not paid and we notified Northwynd of same.  I sent them an email asking if they would honor my reservation since the matter is still before the courts. If they fail to honor my reservation, I've asked for a reimbursement of my 2013 maintenance fees.  I'm getting out one way or the other, but waiting to hear what the courts say.



I don't want my money back, I want the use of the week that i signed up for, am entitled to, and booked and paid for the maintenance fee a full year in advance. If any of us go down there with a group of 8 people wanting to use our lockoff 2 bedroom suite, and they refuse to allow us to use it, could we not go and stay somewhere else locally, like the Fairmont Lodge, book two rooms for the entire 7 nights, keep the receipts and file a lawsuit against Northwynd to get our money back?

 Of course one would have to include some meals as the cost to eat out would be substantially hire then cooking on your own, legal costs to fight this and oh ya, the stress and duress this caused from not honoring their statement from a newsletter where they "strive to provide the service excellence that our owners expect. Most importantly, we are fostering a culture of accountability and financial responsibility as we recognize that we must operate the resort within the fees we generate"


----------



## AWSleepy

TS Migraine said:


> FRP changed ownership in 2010 due to a bankruptcy sale and new property Management was established through Northmont/Northwynd. They attempted to have everyone sign a new VIA Vacation Interval Agreement when they realized they needed to do a lot of fixing to retain their 5 star rating with leaky pipes. They are now claiming if you signed the VIA you agreed to pay for Capitol Cost repairs even though you are only a TIME Owner and not a Property owner, so they have acquired permission through the Courts Petition 66, to invoice each owner for their share of the RENO cost. Expecting owners to balk at this, they gave us a STAY or GO Choice, and are using coercion concerning our week's use to force us to make a decision and sign an agreement that alters our ORIGINAL Lease Agreements. The deadline was May 31st or pay penalties. People hired Lawyers bc this just doesn't seem right or fair, and if you haven't signed the VIA, your Original Lease does not state you are responsible for Capitol Cost repairs. BUT Wankel- the Accountant who did all the Calculations references Exhibit C- The VIA to the BC court as proof Northwynd has the RIGHT to do this claiming clause 10 and stating the Lease Contracts have "similar" clauses, but they DONT. So this is an unfair cash grab using duress, time pressure, and deception about what our legal obligations are .



Thank you TS Migraine.  This is extremely helpful.    One more question: What specifically are the lawyers working on at this stage?


----------



## Judythreetimes

AWSleepy said:


> Thank you TS Migraine.  This is extremely helpful.    One more question: What specifically are the lawyers working on at this stage?


Thank you.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*VIA Surrender - Management Fees*

I am fully prepared to surrender my interval week.  The annual fees are high and I expect them to climb further. However, I won't agree to the concocted cancellation fee proposed by Northwynd.
My biggest issue is the concept that the Developer should be compensated for lost property management fees.  If that's not enough, they want to be paid, in advance for fees for the next 20 years.  Once the interval is surrendered (or if payment is in default) they have the ability to rent the suite at whatever the market will bear. It seems to me they would have no problem "earning" their annual fee by renting the suite for as little as one or two nights of the full week.
If this is not bad enough, they end up owning the real estate outright once they have 50 to 51 weeks surrendered and have completed a consolidation. They also have the ability to resell the unit or even an entire building if enough weeks can realigned to free the units from the timeshare interests. I also suspect there are unmentioned plans to sell any excess lands for redevelopment once the remaining units are grouped into a downsized resort.
So, Northwynd, reconsider your fees for the cancellation option. Perhaps collect a deficit recovery fee and reasonable administration and transfer fee. You may be able to resolve the issues with many interval owners and move on with renovating the remaining sections of the resort. Otherwise, face the prospect of lengthy litigation.


----------



## TS Migraine

Judythreetimes said:


> Thank you.


 The lawyers have secured an extension of the May 31st deadline to file Form 67 and the Affidavit of Opposition. The BC Court will decide on June 25th, WHEN that deadline will be. The next step is to file FORM 67 if you haven't yet , nor hired a law firm to do it for you. When this Court Review date is set, then on that date , the Court will review the Petition and ALL the objections to it. The Court should then rule about whether or not Northwynd has the right to demand this money from us. If they say YES they do, then we may need a Class ACtion to restore our Originally agreed to Contract rights. If they say NO they don't, then we may need a Class Action for those who already Paid and want to get their money back. 

Jim Belfry has good information. This TUG site has been extremely helpful, and there is a FB site as well. Sunchaser's website has all the documents listed they have filed with the court. IF we need to defend our rights on any count against Northwynd, there is STRENGTH in numbers, and the Courts will appreciate the Class Action approach as they listen to ONE Voice instead of 15000. Also, in a Class Action, the Costs are finite determined by what it takes time and effort wise to fight ONE case before the Courts, and these finite charges are split amongst ALL the Class Action clients, so $$$$$legal fees split between 1000 (?) instead of 1000 people all paying individual lawyers at between 400 and 800 dollars an hour.


----------



## Judythreetimes

TS Migraine said:


> The lawyers have secured an extension of the May 31st deadline to file Form 67 and the Affidavit of Opposition. The BC Court will decide on June 25th, WHEN that deadline will be. The next step is to file FORM 67 if you haven't yet , nor hired a law firm to do it for you. When this Court Review date is set, then on that date , the Court will review the Petition and ALL the objections to it. The Court should then rule about whether or not Northwynd has the right to demand this money from us. If they say YES they do, then we may need a Class ACtion to restore our Originally agreed to Contract rights. If they say NO they don't, then we may need a Class Action for those who already Paid and want to get their money back.
> 
> Jim Belfry has good information. This TUG site has been extremely helpful, and there is a FB site as well. Sunchaser's website has all the documents listed they have filed with the court. IF we need to defend our rights on any count against Northwynd, there is STRENGTH in numbers, and the Courts will appreciate the Class Action approach as they listen to ONE Voice instead of 15000. Also, in a Class Action, the Costs are finite determined by what it takes time and effort wise to fight ONE case before the Courts, and these finite charges are split amongst ALL the Class Action clients, so $$$$$legal fees split between 1000 (?) instead of 1000 people all paying individual lawyers at between 400 and 800 dollars an hour.


I am with Docken Klym and very happy about that! I really think that this is bigger and far more complicated than anyone originally thought. If I can find what I have, on the internet, you can bet the law firms have even better information. More people need to report this to Revenue Canada and the Canadian Anti-Fraud Agency. Follow the money.


----------



## AWSleepy

TS Migraine said:


> The lawyers have secured an extension of the May 31st deadline to file Form 67 and the Affidavit of Opposition. The BC Court will decide on June 25th, WHEN that deadline will be. The next step is to file FORM 67 if you haven't yet , nor hired a law firm to do it for you. When this Court Review date is set, then on that date , the Court will review the Petition and ALL the objections to it. The Court should then rule about whether or not Northwynd has the right to demand this money from us. If they say YES they do, then we may need a Class ACtion to restore our Originally agreed to Contract rights. If they say NO they don't, then we may need a Class Action for those who already Paid and want to get their money back.
> 
> Jim Belfry has good information. This TUG site has been extremely helpful, and there is a FB site as well. Sunchaser's website has all the documents listed they have filed with the court. IF we need to defend our rights on any count against Northwynd, there is STRENGTH in numbers, and the Courts will appreciate the Class Action approach as they listen to ONE Voice instead of 15000. Also, in a Class Action, the Costs are finite determined by what it takes time and effort wise to fight ONE case before the Courts, and these finite charges are split amongst ALL the Class Action clients, so $$$$$legal fees split between 1000 (?) instead of 1000 people all paying individual lawyers at between 400 and 800 dollars an hour.



Again, thank you so much.  I'm educating myself as quickly as I can.


----------



## renoman

Beaverjfw said:


> I am fully prepared to surrender my interval week.  The annual fees are high and I expect them to climb further. However, I won't agree to the concocted cancellation fee proposed by Northwynd.
> My biggest issue is the concept that the Developer should be compensated for lost property management fees.  If that's not enough, they want to be paid, in advance for fees for the next 20 years.  Once the interval is surrendered (or if payment is in default) they have the ability to rent the suite at whatever the market will bear. It seems to me they would have no problem "earning" their annual fee by renting the suite for as little as one or two nights of the full week.
> If this is not bad enough, they end up owning the real estate outright once they have 50 to 51 weeks surrendered and have completed a consolidation. They also have the ability to resell the unit or even an entire building if enough weeks can realigned to free the units from the timeshare interests. I also suspect there are unmentioned plans to sell any excess lands for redevelopment once the remaining units are grouped into a downsized resort.
> So, Northwynd, reconsider your fees for the cancellation option. Perhaps collect a deficit recovery fee and reasonable administration and transfer fee. You may be able to resolve the issues with many interval owners and move on with renovating the remaining sections of the resort. Otherwise, face the prospect of lengthy litigation.



This summarizes our position exactly, Beaverjfw.


----------



## CleoB

Judythreetimes said:


> I am with Docken Klym and very happy about that! I really think that this is bigger and far more complicated than anyone originally thought. If I can find what I have, on the internet, you can bet the law firms have even better information. More people need to report this to Revenue Canada and the Canadian Anti-Fraud Agency. Follow the money.



I keep reading people posting to file a complaint with Revenue Canada....but would someone explain to me just exactly how is this fraud?  Did they purchase Fairmont, pennies on the dollar, from a family member?  Have they knowing siphoned off money isn't of putting it towards the maintenance?  Please explain.


----------



## Judythreetimes

CleoB said:


> I keep reading people posting to file a complaint with Revenue Canada....but would someone explain to me just exactly how is this fraud?  Did they purchase Fairmont, pennies on the dollar, from a family member?  Have they knowing siphoned off money isn't of putting it towards the maintenance?  Please explain.


We keep seeing the same names over and over again. This fact goes way back to 2000. How can you declare bankruptcy with 0 assets? Really? What are all those buildings, furniture, vehicles etc etc.? Chopped liver? Ernie has uncovered some damning facts about who is involved.  In all of the financial statements..23 million dollars is unaccounted for. Where is it? Where are all our "maintenance fees"? It has become very apparent there was little or no basic maintenance done at this resort for years! Why is the Trustee someone who has been involved with  this group from the get go? I can only hope that the law firms are uncovering some of this. If I can find it and start connecting the dots, you can bet they have some darn fine investigators doing the same thing. Sending a report to these agencies will make them take a look..do an independent audit. Not one done by an accountant that is friends with the Trustee and various Shareholders. I f they find nothing, then fine..but I bet they do.


----------



## expat

*i agree! NO MORE $$ PAID TO NORTHWYND!*



renoman said:


> This summarizes our position exactly, Beaverjfw.



Why would anyone pay another cent to a company trying to screw us? WE LOSE either way!


----------



## morena

*good for you!*



Fly525 said:


> Thanks for posting this Five Step Process.  I will be working my way through these steps on my own.
> 
> As a point of interest, I mailed a registered letter to Kirk Wankel, along with emails to Petitioner, Respondent and Resort Villa Management on May 31, 2013 providing brief reasons for not choosing either "Freedom to Choose or Reason to Stay."



So did I, and I have yet to get back the receipt saying they signed for the letter!


----------



## truthr

Here is an article I found which lists all the "assets" Northwynd/Northmont acquired from Fairmont. I have also read some negative things about some of the properties listed in the article. Would be interesting to print all these out and do a flow chart on a wall - a really big wall.

http://timeshare-resale-blog.rpmls....ales/rci-fairmont-resorts-exchange-timeshare/

Sorry I really shouldn't have said all the "assets" what I meant was all the "resorts".


----------



## Soccer Canada

It is interesting to note that Oasis Resort in Mesquite has had many problems, the units were very run down the last time we were there and the Casino has been shut down (I know the Bullock Brothers used to own the Casino, so that may be unrelated), but the Mesquite resort is in the same state of problems (condition wise, maybe not in a legal matter).
Also the Makaha Valley Resort is currently closed, they just reopened one of the 2 golf courses there after a different company purchased them.
Interesting to note as well as far as I know both these properties were purchased out of receivership as well. Looks like Northwynd wants to try and buy things for pennies and sell them for dollars..


----------



## Fly525

Beaverjfw said:


> I am fully prepared to surrender my interval week.  The annual fees are high and I expect them to climb further. However, I won't agree to the concocted cancellation fee proposed by Northwynd.
> My biggest issue is the concept that the Developer should be compensated for lost property management fees.  If that's not enough, they want to be paid, in advance for fees for the next 20 years.  Once the interval is surrendered (or if payment is in default) they have the ability to rent the suite at whatever the market will bear. It seems to me they would have no problem "earning" their annual fee by renting the suite for as little as one or two nights of the full week.
> If this is not bad enough, they end up owning the real estate outright once they have 50 to 51 weeks surrendered and have completed a consolidation. They also have the ability to resell the unit or even an entire building if enough weeks can realigned to free the units from the timeshare interests. I also suspect there are unmentioned plans to sell any excess lands for redevelopment once the remaining units are grouped into a downsized resort.
> So, Northwynd, reconsider your fees for the cancellation option. Perhaps collect a deficit recovery fee and reasonable administration and transfer fee. You may be able to resolve the issues with many interval owners and move on with renovating the remaining sections of the resort. Otherwise, face the prospect of lengthy litigation.




This is exactly what I was getting at in Post 550.

FYI, I'm just completing Form 67 and my Affidavit and will file them myself with the help of the info in Post 491.


----------



## Fly525

*Question re multiple leases*

I have 3 seperate leases.  Does anyone know if that requires 3 individual  Form 67's and Affidavits or should they all be combined into one?


----------



## Judythreetimes

*Another Lawsuit Against Northwynd*

http://www.lechopresse.be/makaha-re...gainst-hotels-owner-honolulu-star-advertiser/

I have advised our law firm although I am sure they have it already.:ignore::deadhorse:


----------



## truthr

Judythreetimes said:


> http://www.lechopresse.be/makaha-re...gainst-hotels-owner-honolulu-star-advertiser/
> 
> I have advised our law firm although I am sure they have it already.:ignore::deadhorse:



Can you see the whole article?  all I can see is where it gets to the point of naming Northwynd and then it says you have to log in to see more.

If you can see it all, would you mind copying and pasting it?  Please

I found something related to this I think

http://hawaiirealestateandlifestyle...eclosure-lawsuit-filed-against-makaha-resort/


----------



## Judythreetimes

truthr said:


> Can you see the whole article?  all I can see is where it gets to the point of naming Northwynd and then it says you have to log in to see more.
> 
> If you can see it all, would you mind copying and pasting it?  Please


I have to pay $1.99 for 14 days access. Still waiting for that to go through. I don't think it is available to Canadians is what the issue is. I have asked some US friends for help.


----------



## truthr

Judythreetimes said:


> I have to pay $1.99 for 14 days access. Still waiting for that to go through. I don't think it is available to Canadians is what the issue is. I have asked some US friends for help.



Gotcha, look forward to seeing the whole article - between here and FB there sure is a lot of information being found and the lawyers are going to have a field day connecting the dots.


----------



## Judythreetimes

truthr said:


> Gotcha, look forward to seeing the whole article - between here and FB there sure is a lot of information being found and the lawyers are going to have a field day connecting the dots.


Oh I bet the lawyers are chortling and rubbing their hands with glee. I am almost %110 sure theat the Canadian Anti-Fraud Agency is going to have a field day as well!


----------



## truthr

One can only hope that it will get new "reputable" owners/management.


----------



## stan Smith

*Sunchaser.*

Attempting to digest all we have read and discussed, it looks to me as though Northwynd is going to go bankrupt.  If anyone can see how they can avoid that end, I would  appreciate hearing the argument.


----------



## renoman

stan Smith said:


> Attempting to digest all we have read and discussed, it looks to me as though Northwynd is going to go bankrupt.  If anyone can see how they can avoid that end, I would  appreciate hearing the argument.



I think there is a good chance of bankruptcy. For those who want out, that is probably as good an outcome as it gets. For those wishing to ante up to the repairs and stay, that is an unfortunate loss. But we have all lost, and this owner and operator has lost any goodwill they might have generated by a more reasonable approach to the issue, not the flagrant cash grab it was so evident they intended.  Cash for stayers and leavers? Heads I win...tails you lose !


----------



## morena

*went in April*



Soccer Canada said:


> I think what might be very interesting, and might be something for those of you involved in the lawsuit with Dockyn Klym. I have read several FB Posts and TUG Posts that owners that have weeks booked in June are being REFUSED their weeks because they have not sent in the Renovation Fee, but have completed Form 67 and sent a Letter to RVM etc. Once again, that is not verified, but it is not really a stretch to believe.
> 
> I would be curious too see what the occupancy level of the resort is, and also to find out how many of those Units have been Rented/Exchanged into during these times that folks with Rightful reservations have been denied access. You would think that that wold be some sort of Breach of Lease/Contract, correct? Especially if they rented a owners week out from underneath them to someone external, especially if they rented it for Cash through RCI or otherwise? Probably tough to prove but interesting nonetheless.



I took my biennial week in April right before we received the letter first of May.  The place was like a ghost town!  Dishwasher didn't clean the dishes, sauna was broken in rec room, whirlpools didn't really bubble (something was broken in the rec room last three visits).  Also told us, no weeks are being sold now.  That should have clued us in that something was wrong.


----------



## morena

*Found this on internet*

"← Bankruptcy News – Fewer Bankruptcy Cases in February 2013Hawaii Economy – State Prepares for Federal Spending Cuts →Leeward Coast Real Estate – Foreclosure Lawsuit Filed Against Makaha Resort
Posted on March 2, 2013 by Jeff and Cathi 
Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd., a Canada based company, owns the Makaha Resort on the Leeward Coast of Oahu. In April 2011, Northwynd had partnered Pacific Links Hawaii, a golf course operator, to help upgrade the hotel and convert the 173 rooms into timeshares. Pacific Links purchased the 18-hole golf course which was part of the Makaha Resort for $2.5 million and spent $3 million upgrading the golf course. Pacific Links also agreed to loan Northwynd $6.8 million to help renovate the hotel. However, Northwynd was unable up secure additional financing and closed the hotel in October 2011. Northwynd claimed at that time that they would secure financing at a later date, upgrade the property and then reopen the Makaha Resort.

Pacific Links has recent filed a foreclosure lawsuit against Northwynd and hopes to repossess the currently closed hotel that was used to secure the loan. Chief operating officer for the Pacific Links Hawaii, Micah Kane, stated, “It is very unfortunate that Makaha Hotel and Resort was unable to secure the financing to reignite hotel operations. However, we will use this as an opportunity to pursue a more comprehensive, community-based approach to developing a truly sustainable economic plan for Makaha Valley.”

Source: Honolulu Star Advertiser, 3-2-2013, www.staradvertiser.com
Posted by Jeff Uyemura-Reyes, Broker-in-Charge, Realtor®
Global Executive Realty, LLC"

Thought this was very ineresting.  It is amazing how many lies they can tell people and how much of other people's money they manage to get away with without being brought to task!


----------



## fairmontlvr

*FRPL vs Northwynd?*

So can someone help me interpret this? FRPL which owns Fairmont, transfers all of its assets to Northwynd LP, which happens to be the main creditor, then FRPL declares bankruptcy.   Northwynd retains same offices, same staff and I like how they say  below "Northwynd LP is not charging the Estate for the storage costs associated with holding the books and records. "

So same staff and people are involved, how is it that Northwynd claims the poor state of present conditions and financial situationat Fairmont are a result of the previous owners? Are they not the same?

If any accountants want to spend a few hours looking over the books during the bankruptcy period, have at er. 

http://documentcentre.eycan.com/Pages/Main.aspx?SID=107



IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF 
FAIRMONT RESORT PROPERTIES LTD. 
OF THE CITY OF CALGARY, 
IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA 
REPORT ON THE TRUSTEE'S 
PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATION 
ESTATE NO. 25-1388975
On July 30, 2010, Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. (“FRP”) filed an assignment pursuant 
to the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) and Ernst & Young Inc., 
was appointed as trustee of the estate of the bankrupt by the official receiver. 
Background 
FRP was incorporated on February 9, 1979 in the Province of Alberta and carried on 
business in the Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. FRP was considered the 
ultimate parent company for all of its direct and indirect subsidiaries and it provided 
management leadership, accounting and administrative services to all of these entities. 
FRP was also a developer of certain time share villas (the “Villas”) at Fairmont Hot 
Springs, British Columbia that represented at one point a total production of 250 Villas in 
this resort. 
The Fairmont Group’s (which consist of the following entities: FRP, Lake Okanagan Resort 
(2001) Ltd., (“LOR”), Lake Okanagan Resort Vacation (2001) Ltd. (“LORV”) and LL 
Developments Ltd. (“LLD”) ) financial deterioration started on or around December 2008 when 
it could not meet its current interest and principle payments when they became due to its secured 
creditors. 
The Fairmont Group entered into a forbearance agreement (including amendments thereto) with 
its secured creditors that required the Fairmont Group to achieve certain financial results and/or 
requirements up until March 30, 2009. The Fairmont Group was unsuccessful in improving its 
financial position and, as a result, breached the terms of the forbearance agreement. 
As a result, the Fairmont Group’s two main secured creditors applied to the Alberta Court of 
Queen’s Bench (the “Court”), with the consent of the Fairmont Group, to seek and obtain 
creditor protection for the Fairmont Group under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, 
R.S.C. 1985 c. C-36, as amended (the “CCAA”) pursuant to a court order dated March 30, 2009 
(the “Initial Order”). Ernst & Young Inc., was appointed monitor of the Fairmont Group during 
these CCAA proceedings (the “Monitor”). — 2 — 
On June 15, 2010, the Fairmont Group entered into and finalized various terms and 
conditions set out in a foreclosure agreement (the “Foreclosure Agreement”) as at June 
15, 2010 and entered into by FRP, LOR, LORV and its main secured creditor Northwynd 
LP. 
On June 22, 2010, an order was granted by the court (the “Vesting Order”) to allow the 
vesting of and transferring of title to, the various assets of FRP, LOR and LORV in 
favour of Northwynd LP, in relation to the Foreclosure Agreement. The Vesting Order 
was filed with the court on July 5, 2010. 
On July 29, 2010, the CCAA was terminated and all that remained within FRP were 
certain significant secured creditor deficiency claims, pre-CCAA unsecured claims. 
Preliminary Evaluation of Property, Assets and Undertakings
Pursuant to the Vesting Order discussed above, there are presently no assets available to the 
Trustee for realization as all of the assets have been transferred and vested to Northwynd 
LP. 
Conservatory & Protective Measures 
As of July 30, 2010, FRP did not have any operations, employees, premises and assets. 
The only items in possession of FRP were books and records located in Northwynd LP’s 
offices. As a result, the Trustee arranged for Northwynd LP to maintain the books and 
records in a secure location to allow the Trustee access when needed. Northwynd LP is 
not charging the Estate for the storage costs associated with holding the books and 
records. 
Books and records 
As discussed above, the books and records of FRP that are required for the Trustee's review 
are located at the former premises of FRP in Calgary, Alberta. 
Provable Claims and Secured Claims 
The only liabilities the Trustee is aware of are significant deficiency claims owed to 
FRP’s secured creditors and unsecured liabilities as listed on the Statement of Affairs. 
Legal Proceedings 
No legal proceedings have been instituted by the Trustee to date. 
The Trustee is not aware of any legal proceedings for or against the Company. — 3 — 
Reviewable Transactions and Preference Payments 
A preliminary review of the book and records for the last 12 months did not reveal any 
transactions which could be considered preferences or reviewable transactions. 
Trustee’s intention to act 
The Trustee has no intention act for secured creditors, as set out in subsection 13.4(1.1) 
of the BIA. 
Possible Conflict of Interest 
Ernst & Young Inc. acted as monitor in FRP’s CCAA proceedings referred to above 
which is not considered to be a conflict of interest. 
Third Party Deposits 
The Trustee received a $5,000 deposit from Northwynd LP to pay the Trustee's 
administration fees and disbursements in the bankrupt estate. 
Anticipated Realization and Projected Distribution 
All of the assets of FRP have been foreclosed upon by the secured creditors and transferred 
out of FRP. The Trustee does not anticipate a distribution to any creditors. 
ERNST & YOUNG INC. 
Trustee for the Estate of 
Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. 
Neil Narfason, CA•CIRP, CBV 
Senior Vice-President 
August 18, 2010


----------



## DarkLord

fairmontlvr, looks like Fairmont owed Northwynd some debts and throught the CCAA process gave up the resort to settle the debt to Northwynd.  Therefore, Northwynd's legal claim that TS owners are liable for the renovation deficiency must continue from the orign agreement between us and Fairmont.

Simply put, had Fairmont not gone belly up, would Fairmont have the legal rights to charge TS owners for the renovation?


----------



## fairmontlvr

DarkLord said:


> fairmontlvr, looks like Fairmont owed Northwynd some debts and throught the CCAA process gave up the resort to settle the debt to Northwynd.  Therefore, Northwynd's legal claim that TS owners are liable for the renovation deficiency must continue from the orign agreement between us and Fairmont.
> 
> Simply put, had Fairmont not gone belly up, would Fairmont have the legal rights to charge TS owners for the renovation?



So if you look at this document from the court proceedings, notice of bankruptcy and first meeting of creditors, you will see that of the $19.6 million listed on the creditor list, significant names pop up as list of creditors such as:
FRPL Finance $10,034,813 (Owned by Collin Knight (Dunvegan Petroleum Ltd.) and Douglas Morcom (Morcom Consultants Ltd.) )
Morocm $450,000
Collin Knight $2,866,691.52
Dunvegan  $2,161,476.22
Cedarpointe Estates $2,000,000

The remaining creditors are much smaller but there are 182 on the list. 
The documents show zero assests for Fairmont Resort Properties, not even a phone.
So if Northwynd was the major creditor, I wonder who owns Northwynd Properties Ltd?  Or the parent company Northmont Resort Properties?
Anyone care to do a search on these companies through Alberta Registries?

So how does Fairmont Resort Properties, set up a division called FRPL Finance, solicit people to invest in money, offering 12% rate of return over 3 years, using the collateral of the Fairmont and Okanogan properties, with the promise of investing and buying places in Hawaii, Mexico and elsewhere?  But then goes into bankruptcy protection, investors lose out, timeshare owners lose out, on the creditors list of Fairmont Resort Properties appears FRPL showing they are owed $10,000,000 among other owners of FRPL and another company called Northwynd or Northmont being the largest creditor is awarded everything. 

Something just does not seem right.


http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...t Properties Ltd/FRP - Bankruptcy Package.pdf


----------



## DarkLord

fairmontlvr said:


> So how does Fairmont Resort Properties, set up a division called FRPL Finance, solicit people to invest in money, offering 12% rate of return over 3 years, using the collateral of the Fairmont and Okanogan properties, with the promise of investing and buying places in Hawaii, Mexico and elsewhere?
> 
> Something just does not seem right.



What bugged me was that Fairmont used the resorts as colleteral!  This fact alone proves that Fairmont owned the resorts and not the TS owners.  And if Fairmont owned and now Northwynd owns the resorts along with the associated risk and reward, on what legal ground could Northwynd charge the TS owners monies to upgrade their (Northwynd's) properties?


----------



## fairmontlvr

DarkLord said:


> What bugged me was that Fairmont used the resorts as colleteral!  This fact alone proves that Fairmont owned the resorts and not the TS owners.  And if Fairmont owned and now Northwynd owns the resorts along with the associated risk and reward, on what legal ground could Northwynd charge the TS owners monies to upgrade their (Northwynd's) properties?



What gets me is where has all the money gone? What happened to the money raised from those that invested into FRPL? How can FRPL be a creditor of Fairmont Resort Properties for over $10,000,000 and yet many investors never saw any of their returns? Where did the money go from the funds raised from Fairmont Resort Properties/ Northwynds' Legacy for Life program?  

There are so many complaints on various boards about Northwynd and FRPL.
I need a break from all of this, I think I will travel down to Mexico and buy into a timeshare...... it just might be more legit!!


----------



## truthr

*One Would Think*

After spending the last week researching and reading anything and everything I can find about this whole mess One Would Think that whoever the investors are that have some really big bucks in this - that they would be doing something about all this.  My suspicion is that they are and that they are doing it in private as a group and that once all the chips fall into place it will all come out.

It is in their best interest to have all us Timeshare holders still in the mix in order to preserve their investment.


----------



## bifft

*Chartered Accountants of Alberta*

Some of the recent posts would suggest a complaint should be registered with CAA, knowing that Northmont's accounting is being investigated should give the judge pause.
This comes straight from CAA's website.
http://www.albertacas.ca/ProtectingServingthePublic/DisciplineHearings.aspx

"Discipline Hearings

If one or more allegations of unprofessional conduct are referred to the Discipline Tribunal Roster Chair, the Chair appoints a Discipline Tribunal to hear the matter. A Discipline Tribunal normally consists of two members of the Institute and one member of the public that has been appointed to the Public Member Roster by the Government. 

 The participants of a Discipline Tribunal have no prior knowledge of the case and must be free from bias on conflict. 

 The hearing is usually attended by the investigated party and legal counsel, counsel for the Complaints Inquiry Committee, the CIC Secretary, witnesses called by either side [of which the complainant may be one], a court reporter, and counsel to the Tribunal. Hearings before a Discipline Tribunal are open to the public. In rare circumstances, a tribunal may closed all or part of a hearing if the matter involves public security or if the need to protect the confidentiality of intimate financial, personal, commercial or other matters outweighs the desirability of an open hearing. 

 After hearing the evidence and arguments, the Discipline Tribunal makes its findings on each allegation. If a finding of unprofessional conduct is made the Discipline Tribunal orders appropriate sanctions. In making its determination, it considers the seriousness of the conduct, what is required to protect the public, whether rehabilitation is possible and what will deter the investigated party and other registrants. 

 The Discipline Tribunal must produce a written decision that includes reasons for its decision. The complainant is provided with a copy of the decision, but cannot appeal. Only the Investigated Party and the Complaints Inquiry Committee may appeal the decision and sanctions of a Discipline Tribunal."


----------



## Chilliaces

*You want to know where all the money went?*

All the $$$ from timeshare sales and maint fees that we thought was being wisely used for upkeep etc. was actually going to buy resorts in Hawaii, Belize, Nevada, houseboats in the Shushwaps, etc. Now they are all in trouble and our resort is falling apart. We have been swindled from the previous owners and now the new ones are worse. Who buys a resort and either doesnt do their homework as to the state of the resort, or doesn't care because they think they can get the "owners" to fix all their problems. Only a bunch of idiots would do it the way they did. If they would have eased into it and done things in stages, they probably wouldnt have had this backlash. Unfortunately there are way too many uninformed people, mostly seniors, that will just pay to get out. That is what my father wanted to do. Hopefully me talking him out of it will pay dividends by Northwynd going belly-up. I would rather lose both of my leases than give these crooks any cash. My bill was $7550, are you kidding me. Never mind paying for those who do not pay with much higher maint fees in the years to come. I hope more and more people keep joining the legal battle in this case. Northwynd needs to get the message loud and clear.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Mutual Fund Salesman fired and reprimanded for his actions with FRPL*

Found this.... http://www.mfda.ca/enforcement/hearings12/NOH201259.pdf

Basically a disciplinary hearing of reprimand  conducted by the Mutual Funds Dealers Associations of Canada of one its agents who was selling and promoting FRPL to investors. He was working for PFSL and soliciting clients to invest in FRPL.  Interesting that he was paid a commission of $185,760 by FRPL from a period of Jan 2006 to June 2007 and that he also personally invested $100,000 in FRPL. 

March 8, 2010 during the restructuring of FRPL, he was appointed as a trustee of FRPL, when his employer PFSL found out about his actions, he was terminated and then faced disciplinary action by the Mutual Funds Association of Canada. 

Interesting.


----------



## fairmontlvr

fairmontlvr said:


> Found this.... http://www.mfda.ca/enforcement/hearings12/NOH201259.pdf
> 
> Basically a disciplinary hearing of reprimand  conducted by the Mutual Funds Dealers Associations of Canada of one its agents who was selling and promoting FRPL to investors. He was working for PFSL and soliciting clients to invest in FRPL.  Interesting that he was paid a commission of $185,760 by FRPL from a period of Jan 2006 to June 2007 and that he also personally invested $100,000 in FRPL.
> S
> March 8, 2010 during the restructuring of FRPL, he was appointed as a trustee of FRPL, when his employer PFSL found out about his actions, he was terminated and then faced disciplinary action by the Mutual Funds Association of Canada.
> 
> Interesting.



So I am wondering out loud, how many other "select" investors became trustees of the restructuring of FRPL, which we can assume is now Northwynd/ Nortmont.


----------



## RandyCDK

Happy Reading

I read through these DOCs and found one that shows the initial Northwynd proposal on returns to the Northwynd shareholders that is very interesting reading (about 130 pages so grab a coffee) and one note (copied below) even tells how employees can benefit (guess I don't feel so bad anymore about hearing people were yelling at the Northwynd employees as their appears to be profit sharing for them too).  There is even a liquidation plan section and lots of info how investors will profit.

Check out this link from the 6th Ernst & Young Monitors Reports:
http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...port of the Monitor, dated March 15, 2010.pdf


*Incentive Plans*
On Closing, the Trust will establish incentive plans for employees, officers and directors of the General Partner and officers and trustees of the Trust which may include a Cash Bonus Plan and a Performance based Trust Unit incentive plan. Such trust unit incentive plans are intended to enhance the performance of the Trust and align the interests of management and employees with the interests of the holders of Trust Units, as well as to encourage participants in these plans to remain with the Trust and to attract new employees to the Trust.


----------



## THE AVENGER

*Who are we dealing with?*

.  





THE AVENGER said:


> There are several questions that have been bothering me regarding the Fairmont situation that we are all affected by.
> 1.	 Who are we dealing with?
> As I understand it!
> Several years ago (6 or 7) we were offered an investment opportunity by a group from Fairmont called FRPL (Fairmont Resort Properties Limited) which promised to pay 12% on our investment.  The key presenter of the scheme was Ed Nochalt.  Colin Knight was there as well as others of the Fairmont group.  We never invested but several people invested large sums into this plan.  Some I know personally invested $100,000-$150,000 and much more.  Interest payments were made for a few months then stopped.  When Fairmont went into receivership, several of these investors (whom I know personally), formed a company called Northwynd and took over the assets of Fairmont.  They knew nothing about running a timeshare company so left the same administration in place (who had run it into the ground by skimming large sums into their pockets).
> These investors (Northwynd), have devised a scheme (using a very clever lawyer) to recover some of their investment.   The cash call for refurbishing will likely be funneled off to these investors by calling it repayment of loans or payments to creditors.  This may be legal from the so called trust funds.  There are no indications where the funds from those who are opting out will be allocated to.  They are to go to a trust account of the lawyer.  What are the conditions of this trust and what is it for?  I understand it will go into the pockets of the Northwynd investors group.
> 2.	Who are the principles of Northwynd?
> 3.	Where did Northmount come from?
> 4.	If we indicate that we are opting out, and we pay nothing towards it (or a token amount), would we be subject to the 2% per month?  There is no mention of how this would be handled.  Maybe this could be stretched out for several months or maybe years at say $10 a month since we as pensioners can only afford that much.  I don’t think they can start action if you are attempting to pay the debt.
> 5.	We also own at Lake Okanagan.  How is this going to affect this resort since it is owned by Northwynd?
> 6.	I would expect that most of those who are taking the option to pay the refurbishing fee would take the $100/month option.  This will not put enough cash in the hands of Northwynd to proceed with any sort of refurbishing and the whole scheme will collapse.  No bank will advance credit to anyone in the financial condition of Northwynd.
> 7.	I believe Northwynd has a questionable name in the Valley, so they may find it hard to get contractors to work for them unless it was cash up front.
> 8.	How does this affect our status with Interval International?  We have 4 weeks banked with them.  Will we still have a membership with them and be able to use Getaways?
> 9.	Some owners have looked at engaging a lawyer to act on their behalf.  The only thing a lawyer can do for you is take your money and give you some advice.  Some owners think they can start a class-action-suit.  This is not feasible since there is no loss to be recovered in this case.     THESE ARE SOME OF MY CONCERNS AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME OTHER’S IDEAS!



This was posted on May 9th and mostly applies today!  those investors (=838 who formed Northwynd/Northmont) are currently launching a class action law suit against FRPL et-all.


----------



## THE AVENGER

*Who are we dealing with?*

.  





THE AVENGER said:


> There are several questions that have been bothering me regarding the Fairmont situation that we are all affected by.
> 1.	 Who are we dealing with?
> As I understand it!
> Several years ago (6 or 7) we were offered an investment opportunity by a group from Fairmont called FRPL (Fairmont Resort Properties Limited) which promised to pay 12% on our investment.  The key presenter of the scheme was Ed Nochalt.  Colin Knight was there as well as others of the Fairmont group.  We never invested but several people invested large sums into this plan.  Some I know personally invested $100,000-$150,000 and much more.  Interest payments were made for a few months then stopped.  When Fairmont went into receivership, several of these investors (whom I know personally), formed a company called Northwynd and took over the assets of Fairmont.  They knew nothing about running a timeshare company so left the same administration in place (who had run it into the ground by skimming large sums into their pockets).
> These investors (Northwynd), have devised a scheme (using a very clever lawyer) to recover some of their investment.   The cash call for refurbishing will likely be funneled off to these investors by calling it repayment of loans or payments to creditors.  This may be legal from the so called trust funds.  There are no indications where the funds from those who are opting out will be allocated to.  They are to go to a trust account of the lawyer.  What are the conditions of this trust and what is it for?  I understand it will go into the pockets of the Northwynd investors group.
> 2.	Who are the principles of Northwynd?
> 3.	Where did Northmount come from?
> 4.	If we indicate that we are opting out, and we pay nothing towards it (or a token amount), would we be subject to the 2% per month?  There is no mention of how this would be handled.  Maybe this could be stretched out for several months or maybe years at say $10 a month since we as pensioners can only afford that much.  I don’t think they can start action if you are attempting to pay the debt.
> 5.	We also own at Lake Okanagan.  How is this going to affect this resort since it is owned by Northwynd?
> 6.	I would expect that most of those who are taking the option to pay the refurbishing fee would take the $100/month option.  This will not put enough cash in the hands of Northwynd to proceed with any sort of refurbishing and the whole scheme will collapse.  No bank will advance credit to anyone in the financial condition of Northwynd.
> 7.	I believe Northwynd has a questionable name in the Valley, so they may find it hard to get contractors to work for them unless it was cash up front.
> 8.	How does this affect our status with Interval International?  We have 4 weeks banked with them.  Will we still have a membership with them and be able to use Getaways?
> 9.	Some owners have looked at engaging a lawyer to act on their behalf.  The only thing a lawyer can do for you is take your money and give you some advice.  Some owners think they can start a class-action-suit.  This is not feasible since there is no loss to be recovered in this case.     THESE ARE SOME OF MY CONCERNS AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME OTHER’S IDEAS!



This was posted on May 9th and mostly applies today!  those investors (=838 who formed Northwynd/Northmont) are currently launching a class action law suit against FRPL et-all.


----------



## Undecided62

RandyCDK said:


> Happy Reading
> 
> I read through these DOCs and found one that shows the initial Northwynd proposal on returns to the Northwynd shareholders that is very interesting reading (about 130 pages so grab a coffee) and one note (copied below) even tells how employees can benefit (guess I don't feel so bad anymore about hearing people were yelling at the Northwynd employees as their appears to be profit sharing for them too).  There is even a liquidation plan section and lots of info how investors will profit.
> 
> Check out this link from the 6th Ernst & Young Monitors Reports:
> http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...port of the Monitor, dated March 15, 2010.pdf
> 
> 
> *Incentive Plans*
> On Closing, the Trust will establish incentive plans for employees, officers and directors of the General Partner and officers and trustees of the Trust which may include a Cash Bonus Plan and a Performance based Trust Unit incentive plan. Such trust unit incentive plans are intended to enhance the performance of the Trust and align the interests of management and employees with the interests of the holders of Trust Units, as well as to encourage participants in these plans to remain with the Trust and to attract new employees to the Trust.



Northwynd does not consider us, timeshare owners, as important to them.  They see us as the cash cow.  Their “important investors” are the original Bondholders who bought into their development schemes.  If you read through the previously posted document (it’s like wading in convoluted legalize), you’ll see that their intent was to take over the Assets from FRPL and return capital to it’s Bondholders.  When the initial company stopped paying the initial bond holders their interest, a new company was formed, Northwynd.  
We are not the important Bondholders.  That’s not us. We don’t rate in their plan.  We are either part of a forced liquidation scenario or an orderly liquidation scenario.  At least that’s what this feels like.  Oh, and Northwynd was very aware of the condition of building 7000.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*True cost/value of a timeshare unit.*

This came from the same documents mentioned a few posts back and contain some interesting projections and numbers. A bit of enlightenment as to why timeshares are so much cheaper on the resale market as opposed to buying new at those slick presentations. 

Northwynd did some projections probably based on previous sales experience but the numbers shed some light into the mark-up and true value of what we own. As you can see below, they projected revenue of $23,000 per unit for the unbuilt 8300 Riverview unit. This alone seems high, sure perhaps they might sell the gold annuals at a high end but i doubt the ski season to get anywhere near as much.
The real point here is the sales cost. 43%!!.....so there you have it, the cost of all those promos, invites out to guests, the free golf, fee spas treatments for taking a tour, but probably the biggest factor, is the sales commission. They all account for 43% of the cost of what you pay for your brand new shiny timeshare.

Thus a unit that sales for $23,000, has $9,890 of it's price associated with sales.

Now using their numbers again, cost of capital of $12,377,866 / 1632 weeks = $7,584 per unit.

Net return $9,017,644 / 1632 weeks = $5,525 per unit.

Summary, if all units sell and fully developed. 
Average cost per unit of $23,000 consists of:
Cost to build    $7,584
Sales costs      $9,890
Profit              $5,525            

So in reality the $ 23,000 unit actually cost $7,584.00

So this explains why a resale is so much cheaper than buying new.

Below is the info taken from the documents

The basic pro forma components of the Fairmont Villas Building 8300 are as follows:
Fairmont Villas
Building 8300 Development
Rooms 32
Weeks 1,632
Development cost 32 roorr 9,500,000
Average revenue per week 23,000
Selling costs 43%
Net margin per week 13,110
Project revenue 37,536,000
Project margin 21,395,520
Cost of capital 12,377,866
Net return 9,017,654


----------



## Quadmaniac

fairmontlvr said:


> This came from the same documents mentioned a few posts back and contain some interesting projections and numbers. A bit of enlightenment as to why timeshares are so much cheaper on the resale market as opposed to buying new at those slick presentations.



To be honest, I don't think it really matters what the timeshare cost to build vs resale price as there is no real correlation. Most of the Fairmont ones, like many others, sell for a dollar, as that is what people are willing to pay. Its a simple case of supply and demand. Even if it cost the full amount to develop it, it would not change the resale value.


----------



## Pita

*CTV NEWS  Monday June 10*

FYI..for those in the Calgary Area, CTV news at 6:00 on Monday.

"Timeshare Nightmare"


----------



## truthr

Pita said:


> FYI..for those in the Calgary Area, CTV news at 6:00 on Monday.
> 
> "Timeshare Nightmare"



Thanks for letting us know.  We don't get that channel here in BC but will look at it on the internet Monday night.


----------



## TS Migraine

Judythree times, I dug out my Fairmont File and found the original Sales Package used to promote the FRPL "opportunity." I have it intact as we never took the bait or even considerd it possibly legit; thanks intuition .


----------



## TS Migraine

So I am totally confused by the implications of the Legacy for Life Plan and the FRPL plan, and even the VIA, which Wankel posts as Exhibit C in his Affidavit. I believe my Lease contract is Exhibit A, as would be the case for most 20 year old TS owners. If a TS owner has never signed any of the recent agreements worded to hook you for Capitol Costs etc. , how can Northwynd include us 20 year old guys in this Universal invoice? Without our agreement ( signatures) to change the terms of our contract, how can they, by re-arrangng Mgmt,and Trustees suddenly decide we are obligated for Capitol Costs if our original lease does NOT say we are??? Who is Norton Rose??? And maybe they should be investigated by the Bar Association. Accountants that need reprimand, Mutual Fund Sales people in conflict of Interest, why not lawyers too?


----------



## Anxiety123

*Use of booked weeks*

Has anyone used their booked week or have they asked if they will be able to used their booked week this summer down in Fairmont now that the May 31 deadline has passed?  That is anyone that did not sign to Stay or Go. I have not been able to get through to Sunchasers (line always busy) and never received an answer to an email I have sent them.  My week coming up soon.


----------



## Chilliaces

I talked to Sunchaser yesterday and they are honouring bookings through the end of June at this point. I have a week booked July 1-8. They told me to call back towards the end of the month. This has been extended due to the court date of June 25th. Once the court makes a ruling, we will know if we can use our week. Unfortunately that wont be until 6 days before we are scheduled to be there.


----------



## CleoB

Chilliaces said:


> I talked to Sunchaser yesterday and they are honouring bookings through the end of June at this point. I have a week booked July 1-8. They told me to call back towards the end of the month. This has been extended due to the court date of June 25th. Once the court makes a ruling, we will know if we can use our week. Unfortunately that wont be until 6 days before we are scheduled to be there.



With four legal firms involved and who knows how many people retained their own counsel, I doubt that the court will make a decision on June 25.


----------



## TS Migraine

I phoned the Reservations number on Thursday, spoke with Jessica and asked to book  Week 52 at Riverside and deposit it Lock Off with Interval. They agreed to let me do this and then messed up the lock off by splitting my A and B units into two different buildings: A side Riverside unit, and B side Hillside??? I shall phone Monday and see of it can be straightened out. Who knows, I hope Interval will still be acknowledging Fairmont in its Exchange program by week 52??


----------



## Fly525

Anxiety123 said:


> Has anyone used their booked week or have they asked if they will be able to used their booked week this summer down in Fairmont now that the May 31 deadline has passed?  That is anyone that did not sign to Stay or Go. I have not been able to get through to Sunchasers (line always busy) and never received an answer to an email I have sent them.  My week coming up soon.



Yesterday I phoned Reservations in Calgary to ask about my upcoming week.  They advised that we would be OK though technically in default because we have yet to make a decision.  Checked in today at Fairmont and was given a notice that indicated that although they hadn't restricted any weeks yet, they may do at any time.  We'll see how it goes and advise on this site.


----------



## TS Migraine

SO this astounds me. If you have paid your maintenance fees, booked your time, and show up for the appropriate week, how can they NOT allow you to use your unit for the booked week? I would think restricting this action would spawn another whole list of lawsuits. That is like stealing your maintenance money, and maybe making double money on the time on your unit, if they book someone else- from say Florida -into it???? I am really beginning to wonder about the credibility of their Norton Rose Legal counsel if they think this is a legit way to conduct their business.


----------



## pdoff

Noted that Mr. Wankel was the CFO for another defunct Company - Fair Sky Resources. A busy fellow!


----------



## truthr

pdoff said:


> Noted that Mr. Wankel was the CFO for another defunct Company - Fair Sky Resources. A busy fellow!



Oh he is a busy fellow, he is not only a World of Warcraft raid leader, he has actually written a book about it:

https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/Sixsided

Maybe part of the problem, people are no longer people, just pawns.  But this is not a computer game, this is real life, with real people; people who actually get hurt and can't just get up and walk away.


----------



## TS Migraine

Thanks for that tidbit truthr. So , I haven't read WoW by Wankel, but based on his application of Virtual warcraft tactics to real life business tactics, I say this is yet another argument proving these warcraft type video games can corrupt the minds of avid addicts and our impressionable children.


----------



## truthr

TS Migraine said:


> Thanks for that tidbit truthr. So , I haven't read WoW by Wankel, but based on his application of Virtual warcraft tactics to real life business tactics, I say this is yet another argument proving these warcraft type video games can corrupt the minds of avid addicts and our impressionable children.



According to a bio I read he is in his 30's and yet this bio says:

"Kirk Wankel is a Chartered Accountant with fifteen years of experience including over six years of senior management at the Vice President or Chief Financial Officer level." 

How can someone in their 30's possibly have this type of experience in addition to acquiring their CA level?

In addition, from what I know of WOW (which is not much) it would take an enormous amount of playing time to achieve this:

"During his extracurricular time, Kirk has spent six years as a World of Warcraft raid leader. Over the past year, he took on the challenge of combining his business experience with his extracurricular activities to develop, write, and publish the 102,000 word non-fiction book WoW Factor: an insider’s look at the real skills developed in the virtual World of Warcraft."

It is no small wonder that whatever businesses he is involved in end up in disaster - he appears to be too busy playing rather than working.


----------



## condomama

*Rafter Six*

Did you see the article in the Herald on Saturday regarding the Rafter Six Ranch financial difficulties?  Mention is made of a partnership with a timeshare company that fell through, and of course, here we know from documents posted here that it's Northwynd that backed out, leaving Rafter Six in a lurch.  To their credit, the article has a very positive overtone, with the owners trying to make the best of a bad situation and trying to find new backers while maintaining the business.


----------



## Sunset2013

Please keep us posted.  We are to check in June 20th and so far they have confirmed the unit.
Interesting since the new court date they have not cashed our May 31st " Go cheque".
Any One Else able to check in let us know.  How have others remittance been accepted or not?


----------



## Spark1

RandRseeker said:


> Here's a link to FAQs regarding the upcoming renovation project:
> 
> http://www.sunchaservillas.ca/owners/faq.asp
> 
> Many of the questions people are asking here are addressed.  I'm so not happy about this:annoyed:



This does not mean anything. If there was a trick survey, people would of been thinking that their renovation part of their maintenance fees would be paying for this major renovation cost. Nobody would agree to what they are trying to do. Timeshare should be outlawed in Canada, there are to many crooks involved in this racked. I laugh at these news articles saying how Colin Knight fell on hard times, because of the 2008 melt down. The Alberta Government allowed him to write off over 43million . Do you you think he went out broke. Just maybe he could have some of our renovation money in his bank accounts. Just remember once they got your money they quite answering their phones.


----------



## TS Migraine

So perhaps we should take a page out of Wankel's WoW book and apply virtual experience to real situations and pay him with "virtual" money!  See how happy he is when he takes our Virtual Money to the Bank?
Virtual money should suffice to pay for renos to Virtual property ownership, right?


----------



## Beaverjfw

*The people behind FRPL*

For those trying to look into the deep dark past of Fairmont, Northwynd and the tangled mess of companies involved, I came across an interesting site. There is some good info about the investment firm FRPL and the people behind. it.  Have a look
http://frplfinance.blogspot.ca/2010/02/frpl-finance-web-site.html


----------



## TS Migraine

Beaverjfw said:


> For those trying to look into the deep dark past of Fairmont, Northwynd and the tangled mess of companies involved, I came across an interesting site. There is some good info about the investment firm FRPL and the people behind. it.  Have a look
> http://frplfinance.blogspot.ca/2010/02/frpl-finance-web-site.html


This excerpt is taken from the side link to the Calgary Investment Opportunity MEMORANDUM of the above noted website by Beaverjfw: It apears promises of financial return on FRPL made February 24, 2010 were questionable at best, and there was investor/insider information that wasn't allowed to be leaked:
"Nothing contained in the Memorandum shall be relied
upon as a representation or promise of the past or future performance of FRP.
Any estimates or projections contained herein have been prepared by FRP and are based on information
currently available. They involve signifi cant subjective judgments and analyses and, accordingly, no representation
or assurance is made as to their attainability by FRP or FRPL. Actual results will differ from
any estimates or projections made and the differences may be substantial.
Recipients of this Memorandum agree that fi nancial and other information contained herein is of a confi
dential nature: i.e., they will not, directly or indirectly, disclose or permit their agents, representatives,
employees, offi cers, directors or affi liates to disclose any of this information and they will use the Memorandum
and any related information only to evaluate a potential fi nancing by FRPL of the properties of
FRP and for no other purpose.
If a recipient of this Memorandum or the shareholders of FRP or FRPL choose not to pursue a transaction,
the Memorandum and any other related material must be returned to FRPL. The Memorandum
recipient may retain no copies.
All questions about this investment opportunity should be directed to:
Mr. Ed Nycholat, CA
Manager of Operations
FRPL Finance Ltd.
Suite B, 220 - 42nd Ave SE
Calgary, Alberta T2G 1Y4
(403) 451-1161
edn@frplfi nance.com
Mr. Rex Schinnour
Sales Director
FRPL Finance Ltd.
Suite B, 220 - 42nd Ave SE
Calgary, Alberta T2G 1Y4
(403) 451-1166
rex@frplfi nance.com


----------



## condomama

*Lea Williams-Doherty*

Tonight on CTV news, Lea Williams-Doherty interviewing Northwynd and affected owners in the Calgary area.  More at 6 p.m. newscast.


----------



## truthr

condomama said:


> Tonight on CTV news, Lea Williams-Doherty interviewing Northwynd and affected owners in the Calgary area.  More at 6 p.m. newscast.



You can read about it here:  and probably watch it later after it has aired

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/owners-of-fairmont-timeshares-face-dilemma-1.1320057


----------



## browger

*Lea Williams-Doherty on Calgary CTV tonight*

Here is the 'video' on Calgary CTV tonight.  We should all post this on Facebook and also ask our families to spread the word and this video 

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/owners-of-fairmont-timeshares-face-dilemma-1.1320057


----------



## TS Migraine

I know a CA who knows Kirk Wankel. When I asked if she knew him, she said "boy do I" so I am curious to hear her story.  I will relay what she knows about him when she gives me the scoop.


----------



## SentimentalLady

*Currently at Riverside*

Currently at Riverside. Two buildings closed for major renovations, though it doesn't appear they're very busy there. (I remember how long it took them to build the Rec Centre!) One building has very low occupancy. Not sure how full the other buildings are....there are fewer cars than I'd normally expect, and it seems VERY quiet around here.

Not sure about Hillside, as we were only up there briefly today.

On check-in we were required to sign a very long new form that had only been introduced two days earlier. If we're injured etc. in any way, we cannot sue. It is mandatory to sign the form. 

Also received a little green sheet with everything else upon check-in: 

*
Renovation Project Fee*

Friendly reminder to our owners: The deadline for the renovation project fee was May 31st. If you have already contacted the Vacation Ownership Services office with your decision and have made arrangements for either the "Freedom to Choose" or "Reason to Stay", thank you!

If you have not, kindly contact the VOS office at 1-877-451-1250 as your account is considered overdue. Resort Villa Management Ltd. has the right to restrict usage. To date we have chosen not to; however this could change at any time.

We appreciate your attention to this matter.

Enjoy your stay!

Resort Villa Management


(We had paid to go by the deadline because we felt we had no choice.....we had two weeks booked here and family plans and a two-day trip to get here....  The time was just too short between the deadline and our reservations to take a chance. It would be too devastating and disappointing, and too costly to come all this way only to be turned away. But this whole thing is so wrong. Still wondering if we should join a group, because there are so many other things we'd rather spend that $5000 on.)


----------



## TS Migraine

SentimentalLady said:


> Currently at Riverside. Two buildings closed for major renovations, though it doesn't appear they're very busy there. (I remember how long it took them to build the Rec Centre!) One building has very low occupancy. Not sure how full the other buildings are....there are fewer cars than I'd normally expect, and it seems VERY quiet around here.
> 
> Not sure about Hillside, as we were only up there briefly today.
> 
> On check-in we were required to sign a very long new form that had only been introduced two days earlier. If we're injured etc. in any way, we cannot sue. It is mandatory to sign the form.
> 
> Also received a little green sheet with everything else upon check-in:
> 
> *
> Renovation Project Fee*
> 
> Friendly reminder to our owners: The deadline for the renovation project fee was May 31st. If you have already contacted the Vacation Ownership Services office with your decision and have made arrangements for either the "Freedom to Choose" or "Reason to Stay", thank you!
> 
> If you have not, kindly contact the VOS office at 1-877-451-1250 as your account is considered overdue. Resort Villa Management Ltd. has the right to restrict usage. To date we have chosen not to; however this could change at any time.
> 
> We appreciate your attention to this matter.
> 
> Enjoy your stay!
> 
> Resort Villa Management
> 
> 
> (We had paid to go by the deadline because we felt we had no choice.....we had two weeks booked here and family plans and a two-day trip to get here....  The time was just too short between the deadline and our reservations to take a chance. It would be too devastating and disappointing, and too costly to come all this way only to be turned away. But this whole thing is so wrong. Still wondering if we should join a group, because there are so many other things we'd rather spend that $5000 on.)


It is not too late to retain a law firm. If the BC Court Petition Fails and the owners succeed in proving these fees are not legitimate, then Sunchaser will be found inelligible to demand the Stay or Go fees, then a Class Action may be launched to have your money refunded to you; same applies to those who may have paid to stay.
Which Riverside buildings are closed? I did a booking for week 52 of this year and then an II Deposit. They booked me a unit in the two hundred building at Riverside. My exchange power may be seriously limited if it is closed!


----------



## TUGBrian

new article on this today, lists the lawyers and contact info for those involved in the case if any owners are interested

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/owners-of-fairmont-timeshares-face-dilemma-1.1320057


----------



## TS Migraine

Beaverjfw said:


> For those trying to look into the deep dark past of Fairmont, Northwynd and the tangled mess of companies involved, I came across an interesting site. There is some good info about the investment firm FRPL and the people behind. it.  Have a look
> http://frplfinance.blogspot.ca/2010/02/frpl-finance-web-site.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following excerpt comes from a TUGG blog  # 9 concerning the assesment fees at Rancho Banderas in Puerto Vallarts August 23, 2011. Does this all sound too familiar; is history repeating itself in 2013 with Northwynd Sunchaser Fairmont ? The major names are all the same: Collin Knight, Patrick Fitzsimonds, Kirk Wankel, Doug Frey- the guy Leah Williams Doherty interviewed..I wonder how the lawsuits at Rancho Banderas played out?:


In a letter to all timeshare owners, Mr. Fitzsimonds says:

“Our goal is to earn your confidence and participate together with you in our various capital and operational initiatives to significantly improve our properties and your vacation experience. I sincerely hope that you share our enthusiasm, and I look forward to a positive future together.”

I have talked to Mr. Fitzsimonds on several occasions. He at first was pleasant, but as time has passed he has shown he is just a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

My first conversations with Mr. Fitzsimonds were to assessments lowered and remove the old staff from their positions. Mr. Fitzsimonds gave me the run around and told me over and over how sorry he was, but he was not going to do anything about it. He told me he was going to go over everything with Mr. Stychin and get to the bottom of things.

Well after Mr. Fitzsimonds met with Mr Stychin he really had nothing to say but that he would keep the same crooks to watch over our investments. Mr. Fitzsimonds has kept the complete staff of Fairmont Resort Properties! All the same people who treated us owners like second class citizens as they laughed in our faces and hung phones up on us.

Mr. Fitzsimonds at one time offered to buy back my timeshare for what I paid for it. I told Mr. Fitzsimonds that this would not be fair considering how much money was invested in it and also how much the cost of the timeshare has gone up. Mr. Fitzsimonds has quite taking my calls and has metamorphosed into the true weasel he is. I am sure from all the posts and blogs that I have read that Mr. Fitzsimonds and his cronies are connected and the same as the old company. Tell me why do I still pay my assessments to Resorts West Management? Why are all the corporate addresses the same? If you read the complaints you will also find that the crimes are not concentrated only on Rancho Banderas, but they spread to all the resorts under the Northwynd name. Justice will be served one day Mr. Fitzsimonds and your true self will be shown.

The Future:

I have received many emails asking to join a lawsuit. I am continuing looking for a lawyer to represent us. I am filing charges in Mexico and in Canada. I will be sending word out to the media and see if we can put a stop to this injustice. This company owns many time shares and I would not be surprised if their fraudulent dealings run deeper then Rancho Banderas. During this time of economic hardship it is unconscionable that a company would steal money from hardworking people. I am still baffled that this type of company is allowed to go on ripping people off. Everyone knows they are breaking the law, but nothing has been done. Please help us on our quest to bring this company to justice and send its management to prison where they belong.


This is a list of all the people form Rancho Banderas and Fairmont properties that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (I am sure there are more, but these are the only ones I have dealt with):


----------



## TS Migraine

Bolg # 10 TUG August 23, 2011 Rancho Banderas owner. I guess these guys never went to jail based on Rancho Banderas, cuz they are still up to their tricks here in Canada: Northwynd Resort Properties - Fairmont Rancho Banderas Time Share Fraud 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Latest Information:

I have found out that the people named on the Northwynd website are all former Fairmont Resort Properties employees. Please help us on our quest to bring this company to justice and send its management to prison where they belong. Attached here is a current list of management from Northwynd Resort Properties and Fairmont Resort Properties.


Patrick Fitzsimonds; Chief Executive Officer
Doug Frey; Vice President, Development
Eleanor Fornataro; Vice President, Communications / Corporate Services
Chris Van Der Deen; Vice President, Operations / Member Services
Kirk Wankel; Chief Financial Officer


Patrick Fitzsimonds; Chief Executive Officer

Mr. Fitzsimonds has been involved in the capitalization and development of residential and resort-based real estate in the U.S. and Canada over the course of the past 34 years. He acquired a Masters Degree in Business Administration and went on to executive positions with Shelter Corporation of Canada, Qualico Developments and United Inc.. Patrick's areas of experience include construction, design, cash management and financial structure.


Doug Frey; Vice President, Development

Mr. Frey is a University of Alberta alumnus and has been involved in real estate finance and development for over 20 years. His career path includes increasingly responsible positions with National Trust and Morguard Investments Ltd., and most recently as co-founder and principal in Foxbridge Development Ltd., a real estate development company active in Alberta and British Columbia.


Eleanor Fornataro; Vice President, Communications / Corporate Services

Ms. Fornataro has worked in the timeshare industry for the past 14 years, first with Royal Host Vacation Club, and most recently with Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd.. Eleanor brings valuable experience in the areas of program development, client services, and communications.


Chris Van Der Deen; Vice President, Operations / Member Services

Mr. Van Der Deen has many years of experience in the hotel and resort sector. As General Manager of several Royal Host properties in the early 2000s, Chris developed a keen appreciation of the many facets of hotel management and guest services. Beginning in 2005 Chris led the management team of Columbia Villa Management (later Resort Villa Management) at one of Canada's largest timeshare resorts in Fairmont Hot Springs, B.C., and also took on the General Manager role at Lake Okanagan Resort in Kelowna, B.C.


Kirk Wankel; Chief Financial Officer

Kirk Wankel graduated from the University of Calgary with a Bachelors of Commerce in 1995 and obtained his Chartered Accountant designation in 1998 while working for Arthur Andersen. Kirk has over a decade of industry experience including positions as the Vice President of Finance for BW Technologies Ltd., Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Fair Sky Resources Inc., and Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Blackline GPS Inc. Kirk has been the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Northwynd since November, 2010.


----------



## den403

Reportively RCI and INTERVAL INTERNATIONAL has confirmed with a few inquiring Sunchaser members that if you have a current membership with either  of them and you continue to pay your yearly membership fees to RCI or II you will be able to book getaways and discounted hotels as long as you membership fees are up to date.....this will reportively continue even if you no longer own a time share. 

Has anyone else heard this?

Update:

Now reportively RCI aren't sure of what will happen 

Best to call for yourself !


----------



## Quadmaniac

den403 said:


> Reportively RCI and INTERVAL INTERNATIONAL has confirmed with a few inquiring Sunchaser members that if you have a current membership with either  of them and you continue to pay your yearly membership fees to RCI or II you will be able to book getaways and discounted hotels as long as you membership fees are up to date.....this will reportively continue even if you no longer own a time share.
> 
> Has anyone else heard this?



Yep. Doesn't matter whether you own a timeshare or not, pay the fees, get the membership.


----------



## Spark1

den403 said:


> Reportively RCI and INTERVAL INTERNATIONAL has confirmed with a few inquiring Sunchaser members that if you have a current membership with either  of them and you continue to pay your yearly membership fees to RCI or II you will be able to book getaways and discounted hotels as long as you membership fees are up to date.....this will reportively continue even if you no longer own a time share.
> 
> Has anyone else heard this?



This is true. I phoned II a few weeks ago and let them know what Northwynd was up to and at that time i told them i would not invest one thin dime into a company that has a D- rating with the BBB Calgary. This lady i was talking to said she worked for II several years and never ever heard of anything like this before. I told her as long as these crooks have anything to do with this resort we will never go back there. I said the part i did not like about this was not being a member of II and she said sir you are grandfathered into the system and all you need to do is keep your dues paid. She said they would get rid of Sunchaser from my file and business as normal. People be smart do not sign anything with these guys until the court case is over. Read over the cancellation document carefully, especially the last paragraph stating just because you signed that document doesn't mean you are released. It will be up to northmont the manager when you will be let go and you will be responsible for all costs incurred up to that point. The RCMP were telling people not to sign anything until after the court case. This makes since because if you pay these guys money and they loose this case now you will have to fight to get your money back good luck.


----------



## den403

Now reportively RCI is saying your membership will terminate at the end of your 2013 points usage unless you remain an owner and have paid your 2014 maintenance fees and dues.
They weren't sure yet what to do if you've prepaid for the next few years and are to reply with a response by the end if the week. The supervisors have to discuss it with the upper mgmt ad they can't answer that question.


Interval International would give nothing in writing stating anything but said the calls are recorded.


They were asked to get all their staff on the same page as they would be likely getting lots of calls soon

Recommendation :call and ask for yourself?!


----------



## fairmontlvr

Beaverjfw said:


> For those trying to look into the deep dark past of Fairmont, Northwynd and the tangled mess of companies involved, I came across an interesting site. There is some good info about the investment firm FRPL and the people behind. it.  Have a look
> http://frplfinance.blogspot.ca/2010/02/frpl-finance-web-site.html



if you go to this site, then on the left hand side click on "Blogs on FRPL Finance ".  someone was really speaking their mind about what they were thinking of FRPL. I can't repeat or copy what they said as i am sure it would get flagged by the moderator of this site. 

I do remember back in 2010 listening on 630 Ched radio station about this FRPL and wondered how they could be offering such a high rate of return at 12% per year over 3 years. I just googled Canadian rates back in 2010 and  Bond rates at the time were 3.5%, 3 year GIC'S were 1.43%  and 3 year conventional mortgages were 4.5%.

At the time I thought they were extremely attractive but fortunately I never did buy into them as they apparently only paid the investors for a few months. In reviewing the list of creditors during the bankruptcy, i noticed 630  CHED was among the companies FRPL owed money to.

What were they thinking, who at of Fairmont Resort Properties decided to set up FRPL Finance offering such high rate of returns at a time so much higher than other investments and an economy in the tank?


----------



## SentimentalLady

TS Migraine said:


> It is not too late to retain a law firm. If the BC Court Petition Fails and the owners succeed in proving these fees are not legitimate, then Sunchaser will be found inelligible to demand the Stay or Go fees, then a Class Action may be launched to have your money refunded to you; same applies to those who may have paid to stay.
> Which Riverside buildings are closed? I did a booking for week 52 of this year and then an II Deposit. They booked me a unit in the two hundred building at Riverside. My exchange power may be seriously limited if it is closed!



400 and 800 are closed right now. Who knows when they'll do which building. The exchanges never guarantee a unit number anyway. Maybe book your exchange sooner rather than later?


----------



## TS Migraine

Spark1, I have been pushing for people to retain Docken Klym precisely because, when Northwynd is found at fault, we will need a Class Action suit to recover monies paid to Northwynd under coercion of the Freedom to Choose letter. I agree, NO-ONE should give them a dime until the Court has determined the legality or NOT of what they are trying to do. Any money they get from owners now, willnot be held in a reno or maintenance fund, they are going to use it to support themselves through another bankruptcy and to FIGHT us Legally. If we all unite under one law firm, not only do we have strength in court, but we are united by enough numbers to overthrow this management company.


----------



## TS Migraine

Further more, signing ANY agreements, Stay- Go - or Otherwise, designed by Northwynd at this time to SERVE ONLY THEIR SURVIVAL and Financial obligations puts you at risk of future legal battles. When you first decided to buy a TS, you weighed that decision carefully, and probably asked yourself all the necessary security of investment decisions. Being coerced into "just being done with it" or "saving your resort so you don't lose your original investment" may not be as rational a decision, and you DONT want to threaten the legal precedent set by your original TS contract/purchase. $500.00 to retain a lawyer may sound like a lot of money, especially when we are all suspicious of the fees chargd by lawyers, but it may be false economy in this case, based on Northwynds past resort shenanigans, to NOT have Legal Counsel.


----------



## TS Migraine

I reported a while back that I knew a CA who knew/had worked with Kirk Wankel. What I have learned is that he was a few years her senior, so he is now ~early 40's, and at that time he worked with the now defunct Arthur Anderson (remember Enron???). She reported that he was a very smart fellow, but completely lacked social graces ( maybe too much time infront of those WOW video games) so he was privately labelled by co-workers as a moron which evolved into Oxy - Moron as he was working onthe Can-Oxy deal ;-). Her advice was that despite his lack of social graces, he was a very bright CA, and she wouldn't want to mess with him as he would be capable of a serious fight. I say, we need legal counsel.


----------



## Judythreetimes

TS Migraine said:


> Further more, signing ANY agreements, Stay- Go - or Otherwise, designed by Northwynd at this time to SERVE ONLY THEIR SURVIVAL and Financial obligations puts you at risk of future legal battles. When you first decided to buy a TS, you weighed that decision carefully, and probably asked yourself all the necessary security of investment decisions. Being coerced into "just being done with it" or "saving your resort so you don't lose your original investment" may not be as rational a decision, and you DONT want to threaten the legal precedent set by your original TS contract/purchase. $500.00 to retain a lawyer may sound like a lot of money, especially when we are all suspicious of the fees chargd by lawyers, but it may be false economy in this case, based on Northwynds past resort shenanigans, to NOT have Legal Counsel.


Amen to that.


----------



## Maritimer

TS Migraine said:


> I reported a while back that I knew a CA who knew/had worked with Kirk Wankel. What I have learned is that he was a few years her senior, so he is now ~early 40's, and at that time he worked with the now defunct Arthur Anderson (remember Enron???). She reported that he was a very smart fellow, but completely lacked social graces ( maybe too much time infront of those WOW video games) so he was privately labelled by co-workers as a moron which evolved into Oxy - Moron as he was working onthe Can-Oxy deal ;-). Her advice was that despite his lack of social graces, he was a very bright CA, and she wouldn't want to mess with him as he would be capable of a serious fight. I say, we need legal counsel.



This character assassination is unfortunate. Perhaps the reality is that Mr. Wankel is on everyone's side and working towards a win-win solution to this difficult situation we are all in.


----------



## Judythreetimes

Maritimer said:


> This character assassination is unfortunate. Perhaps the reality is that Mr. Wankel is on everyone's side and working towards a win-win solution to this difficult situation we are all in.


I would like to see proof of that statement. With his past history, and his connections to everyone involved in this from the 2009, I highly doubt it.


----------



## DarkLord

TS Migraine said:


> Her advice was that despite his lack of social graces, he was a very bright CA, and she wouldn't want to mess with him as he would be capable of a serious fight. I say, we need legal counsel.



Beg to differ.  Everyone in town with half a brain knows Oil and Gas is where the money is.  

Who in Calgary in their right mind think that I'm gonna spend a few years in University, study hard and work like a grunt for a few years to become a CA so that I can go work for a TIMESHARE company?  

Wankel moves from one bankrupted company to another and he might carry a nice title at Northwynd (CFO or whatever) but he's just a salary employee.  I bet he doesn't make anymore money than a mid level big Oil and Gas employee probably with less benefit.  The gist of my response is that knowing what the Calgary job market is like, no one working at a Oil and Gas comapny would swap jobs with Mr. Wankel.  

In fact and I know I'm being presumptuous here, no one choose to work for a TIMESHARE company by choice.  When I shortlist people to interview, I'll go with the one with O&G experience first, then experience with major companies (Telus, Shaw, ATCO etc) or professional corporation (KPMG, E&Y etc).  I have never seen a resume the candidate has experience with a TIMESHARE company and I surely won't put it very high on the list.  

Unless Calgary transforms from an O&G town into a tourism mecca, TIMESHARE company work experience will not be in demand in this town.  I really feel sorry for Mr. Wankel to have to work for a company that relies on hoodwinking investors or timeshare owners to survive like Northwynd


----------



## TS Migraine

truthr said:


> From what I gather those who choose to stay and pay have agreed to whatever Northwynd wants to do (re:  the petition before the court).  They may think they have just chosen to pay the "one time fee" but they have also agreed to that and everything else; thereby giving Northwynd the very power they want.  That is why choosing the Stay or Go was not really much different - price tag (basically the same); signing rights over to Northwynd to do what they want (basically the same).
> 
> A win/win for Northwynd no mater which way you sign and pay; unless of course you don't sign and pay; then the threat of DEFAULT and collections.  Not a valid contract IMO.
> 
> Also regarding the resell of the "opt out", from what I have read they will not be reselling just having the titles transferred over to who???  Well Northwynd/Northmount; so in reality who ever opt outs is paying for Northwynd/Northmount to gain more assets/power over whomever is left.
> 
> Not very fair practice as far as I am concerned.


Based on the demands and information we have been given to date by Northwynd, I think Truthr has summed up the situation acurately by identifying it is a Win Win for Northwynd, not the TS owners. Have you read the Affidavits submitted to the BC Court by Kirk Wankel on the Sunchaser site that form the basis of the Freedom to Choose Letter? Are you aware that Rancho Banderas Resort in Mexico precedes us down this FRPL imposed path with Mr.Wankel at the CA helm? As for character assasination, I am only reporting what his fellow CA's observed based on interaction with him in his role in the AA work world. Making note that he is a very bright CA is hardly character assasination, but it does alert us to the degree of intelligence we need to defend ourselves against when it is evident Mr. Wankel does not have the best interests of the TS owners in mind with his Affidavit imposed Stay or Go payment demands.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Developer vs Timeshare Manager*

I think a lot of people on here are failing to see the business side of things. 

How did Fairmont Resort Properties prosper to where they were? It was the vision to become big, and bigger and biggest. The money and margins are not in managing a complex, the money and margins are in growth and sales of timeshares. Or coming up with schemes for the existing owners to squeeze more money out of them.

They sold timeshares to people promising them a holiday opportunity at a fraction of a cost  of ownership. The profits and margins were great as long as they could continue selling to these people. Hmmm how can we squeeze a few extra dollars out of these people? How about sign them up to something called a Platinum Club, and let them think they are getting preferential treatment and can book resorts or houseboats within the Fairmont chain without having to use II.

How does Fairmont Resort Properties continue to make money as the timeshares fill in? How about something called a management fee, sure that is it, a management fee of 15% of all the Maintenance fees collected, skim this off the top, great idea!

Next, as the property is filling in, the potential buyers are drying up, the realization that the Riverview project, although fresh and new, is quite the distance from the Rec center and the waterpark/slides up at Hillside and people are not really buying into the new Riverview project, guess we scrap the idea of another Riverview building as initially planned. 

How about set up another company called FRPL Finance, we will use our collateral in our property thus far to obtain additional funds to continue our growth and develop other projects in Mexico, Hawaii, Belize and so on, we will grow and grow, because there is little money in managing a resort we want more money and the money is in the growth of other resorts. Darn the banks will not loan us money on our collateral, because we are committed to our owners that they have the right to use these places and the banks don't want to end up owning a timeshare resort. How about offer large rate of return to investors? 

Things begin to turn, the economy drops, how do we now get more money? Wait, how about changing the idea of the 40 year leases to something called perpetual ownership, we will call it Legacy for Life, we will switch them over to RCI and use the point system to win them over. Great, another $5k to $8K from these people. 

Things are not going according to plan, we cant pay our bills, or pay those creditors which just happen to be many of the original owners of FRP, lets declare bankrupcy, no assets, and change company names and have a plan in place to try and get our money back. Lets call it Northwynd.

Oh oh, we have raised the maintenance fees too high, people are bailing, they are realizing that the economics of owning are not as rosy as when we first hooked them. People are not paying their maintenance fees, people are dumping them on ebay for $1. What are we going to do? Hey wait a minute how about a scheme to charge them a one time fee, promising to renovate some of the units, and for those that want out, well heck lets just charge them also to get out. One way or another we will get more money. If we have to drop half our inventory, so be it, but perhaps with the inventory we drop, we can sell these units, or maybe level some of them and build new and start all over again. Afterall, that is where the money is.

You see, it is a business, Fairmont Reosrt Properties or Northwynd  are trying to do nothing more than any other business, and that is to make money. As much money as possible. Somehow, I do think the majority of people have caught on to their scheme, and are seeing through them for what they truly are. 
Greed is fine but you have to keep the tribe happy. I think this tribe of owners has spoken and you are seeing the results.


----------



## mmchili

** ATTENTION ALL MOUNTAINSIDE OWNERS**
If you own a timeshare lease with Mountainside Villas
and also own Riverside, Hillside or Riverview… could you please email
ering@mountainsidevillas.com. We wish to make sure all owners
are dually noted to use our Recreation Center regardless of where
you are spending your vacation week.


----------



## heydynagirl

*Reply to II continuing membership*

I spoke with Interval last week and they indicated that as long as you have a membership, if I dumped my T/S I could still buy getaways.  Of course I would have nothing to exchange anymore, but at least I can purchase getaways. 





den403 said:


> Reportively RCI and INTERVAL INTERNATIONAL has confirmed with a few inquiring Sunchaser members that if you have a current membership with either  of them and you continue to pay your yearly membership fees to RCI or II you will be able to book getaways and discounted hotels as long as you membership fees are up to date.....this will reportively continue even if you no longer own a time share.
> 
> Has anyone else heard this?
> 
> Update:
> 
> Now reportively RCI aren't sure of what will happen
> 
> Best to call for yourself !


----------



## Undecided62

*Developer vs timeshare manager*

Fairmontlvr your last post hit the nail on the head!  I've seen different schemes to try and squeeze money from us and I won't stand for threats or intimidation.  Too bad my tourist dollars won't be spent in Fairmont anymore.


----------



## Bracken

*We paid*

We decided to pay the "opt out" fee.  Interestinly, they have not cashed our cheque.  My three sisters have also sent cheques that have not been cashed.  Has this been the case with anyone else?


----------



## gnorth16

Bracken said:


> We decided to pay the "opt out" fee.  Interestinly, they have not cashed our cheque.  My three sisters have also sent cheques that have not been cashed.  Has this been the case with anyone else?



Perhaps they are not allowed to cash the cheques until after the upcoming court date/decision....


----------



## TS Migraine

Bracken, you and your sisters could stop payment on your cheque, and sign up with a law firm, or there is still time for you to file form 67 on your own to the BC Court. Perhaps the Northwynd people have realized that when the BC court rules they have NO right to demand money to "opt out" that they will have to pay your money back anyway. I would be worried however, that they may not repay you voluntarily, if by signing the Freedom to Choose papers they believe they now have some right to your cash,  and they cash your cheque before the Court rules.


----------



## fairmontlvr

Undecided62 said:


> Fairmontlvr your last post hit the nail on the head!  I've seen different schemes to try and squeeze money from us and I won't stand for threats or intimidation.  Too bad my tourist dollars won't be spent in Fairmont anymore.



We still love Fairmont, the area, the merchants, the mountains and hope this thing settles out favourably so that we can continue many more holidays in the Fairmont area in the future. 

Please, for the sake of all of the honest, reputable businesses and their employees in the area try not to think that one bad apple will ruin the bunch.

 There are plenty of other options and even other reputable timeshare properties, fractional ownership properties, hotels, and rental properties in the area to choose from.


----------



## RandRseeker

Bracken said:


> We decided to pay the "opt out" fee.  Interestinly, they have not cashed our cheque.  My three sisters have also sent cheques that have not been cashed.  Has this been the case with anyone else?



Same here - my cheque has not been cashed.


----------



## TSBS

I have learned a lot from reading this thread, researching Kirk Wankel and joining the page on Facebook. When my husband and I received the Reasons to Stay pkg, we read over it with a finetoothed comb and came to the conclusion that it would be unwise to send ANY more money to Northwynd until the court hearing decides on the legality of their requests. I think they are using scare tactics and intimidation to convince people that they will affect their credit rating if they don't pay either the stay or go fees. Chances are good that they have planned bankruptcy as a way out of this and if so, are not going to pursue the credit collections route. Even if they do, it can be challenged. I have not signed up for any lawyers at this point because I feel a judgement will affect all owners not just those who sought legal action, and prefer to keep my money in my pocket. I have already spent/lost enough money to this "investment" and don't plan to pay another nickel. I will follow the developments as they unfold, and think it is unfortunate that as BIG business, Fairmont has decided to abuse the owners/leases in this way. It is unfortunately a sign of what the world has come to with Narcissists and Antisocials coming up with ways to scam money from working people who want nothing more than an affordable vacation. 
We have only been able to use our biennial week ONCE, because right after we bought it, our first week should have been prebooked, but the salesman did not tell us this and when we tried to book we were told it was too late and they were full. We only wanted the week in February that my son has off for reading week, and this is also Family Day week so very popular with Alberta timeshare owners. We did not qualify to use our week again until 2011, and booked that well in advance. This year the Maintenance fees had jumped to what a week in a cheap hotel would cost, so we chose not to pay MF either, and shortly afterward the Stay or Go pkg arrived, making me very happy that Northwynd did not receive any more money from me. I have cancelled the auto payments for our TS, so Northwynd will have to go to collections to get anything, and then I wish them luck. 

Interesting to learn that I can still book getaways thru Interval, I may try to find out more about that, as that is one reason why we bought in in the first place and haven't taken advantage of thus far. We had the 2009 RCI conversion scam pulled on us last time we stayed, but didn't go for it as they wanted an additional $6000 up front. We didn't have it, and felt it was shifty. Glad now we were smart.

I am sorry for all the people that are affected by this.


----------



## Hey lady

*Interval/RCI membership*

As long as you pay your membership fees to II or RCI you can book getaways, etc. Since Northwynd increased the annual maintenance fees by 30% recently it is cheaper to book a getaway and less stressful than trying to exchange. It's also possible to buy a membership without owning "time". At a timeshare presentation in Mexico we were offered a membership in Interval Platinum Club for $1500 after we said no to the timeshare purchase. It's a great deal for anyone who has no "time ownership". 
Now that a bunch of people are alerting II and RCI about the current situation with Sunchasers - it might change!


----------



## Hey lady

heydynagirl said:


> I spoke with Interval last week and they indicated that as long as you have a membership, if I dumped my T/S I could still buy getaways.  Of course I would have nothing to exchange anymore, but at least I can purchase getaways.



Yes, you can have an II membership without owing "time". Nothing wrong with booking getaways.


----------



## Chilliaces

Fairmontlvr, I love your post. It is right on the money.

Not only should everyone NOT PAY, let them come after us. With the number of people wanting out, they would go broke coming after us.

Between my father, brother and myself, we have 4 annuals and 2 biennials. If you take into account all the maintenance fees we pay annually, never mind the fortune they want to either stay or go, we can rent a very nice house in the Columbia Valley off VRBO to rent, and there are lots of them, and for several weeks a year if we chose, and still be farther ahead.....and that is the plan. We have enjoyed coming to Fairmont for years and will still come to the area, just stay someplace else. 

Stay the course people. Lets take these crooks down.


----------



## fairmontlvr

Chilliaces said:


> Fairmontlvr, I love your post. It is right on the money.
> 
> Not only should everyone NOT PAY, let them come after us. With the number of people wanting out, they would go broke coming after us.
> 
> Between my father, brother and myself, we have 4 annuals and 2 biennials. If you take into account all the maintenance fees we pay annually, never mind the fortune they want to either stay or go, we can rent a very nice house in the Columbia Valley off VRBO to rent, and there are lots of them, and for several weeks a year if we chose, and still be farther ahead.....and that is the plan. We have enjoyed coming to Fairmont for years and will still come to the area, just stay someplace else.
> 
> Stay the course people. Lets take these crooks down.



Chilli aces, I am not advocating that everyone give up and not pay, I agree don't pay for this renovation plan nor should anyone have to pay to walk away. Let this go through the courts for interpretation. In fact although the more  I research the history about this company, the more I see their motif behind their actions.....$$$$$$$...., I truly believe there are a number of us owners that want to  continue to enjoy going to Fairmont, but want to be treated with respect as owners of our time we are entitled to and not treated as a source of additional funds to get Northwynd and their investors out of their financial mess.

Perhaps we can turn this forum around and offer solutions and suggestions as to how to make the most out of our situation. I am sure Northwynd is monitoring these posts as well as the overwhelming public relations nightmare through all of the negative feedback and publicity through the media. 

I am sure they are just as anxious as we are to hear the results of the hearing. This might be tied up in the courts for some time now as the hearing at the end of June is only to determine a end date for us as owners to be able to submit form 67's to the court. Once this is done, I am sure it will be months for the judge to review and make a decision. 

I think Northwynd is in quite the dilemma no matter what the ruling is. They have opened themselves up to many potential lawsuits for their actions and decisions. Not only that, but the negative media and public relations nightmare they have created.....they have lost any sense of trust. 

So how can they save face? Ideas, suggestions?

Here are mine:

1. Admit that this may have not been the best plan, save face and ask for input from their members for solutions.

2. Acknowledge that maintenance fees are high, and that as a result, many owners are selling their timeshares causing a greater supply of units compared to demand.

3. Look at removing some of the units from the inventory to accommodate the excess inventory, thus reducing the number of units requiring upgrades and maintenance. Perhaps offer some of these units for sell, certainly there still is value in these buildings and also the prime land they sit on. Maybe a fractional ownership program.

4. Develop a long term plan to slowly repair and upgrade these units based on using a reserve fund from the existing maintenance fees.

5. Consider splitting the inventory into two categories of inventory. One for those that are happy with the existing condition of the inventory and have them contribute the maintenance fees as they are now. Upgrade other units buildings with more modern features and furniture and charge those that want and desire these upgrades a renovation fee. I think this two class system previously existed, those that bought into the Riverview project could stay at Riverview or at the other units but those that bought into Riverside or Hillview could not stay at the more modern Riverview units.

These are a few suggestions of how Northwynd can save face as I am sure there are many of the 14,000 owners that want to continue to use their weeks at Fairmont and want to salvage the value of their initial investment. 

Any other ideas for Northwynd?


----------



## Judythreetimes

TS Migraine said:


> This excerpt is taken from the side link to the Calgary Investment Opportunity MEMORANDUM of the above noted website by Beaverjfw: It apears promises of financial return on FRPL made February 24, 2010 were questionable at best, and there was investor/insider information that wasn't allowed to be leaked:
> "Nothing contained in the Memorandum shall be relied
> upon as a representation or promise of the past or future performance of FRP.
> Any estimates or projections contained herein have been prepared by FRP and are based on information
> currently available. They involve signifi cant subjective judgments and analyses and, accordingly, no representation
> or assurance is made as to their attainability by FRP or FRPL. Actual results will differ from
> any estimates or projections made and the differences may be substantial.
> Recipients of this Memorandum agree that fi nancial and other information contained herein is of a confi
> dential nature: i.e., they will not, directly or indirectly, disclose or permit their agents, representatives,
> employees, offi cers, directors or affi liates to disclose any of this information and they will use the Memorandum
> and any related information only to evaluate a potential fi nancing by FRPL of the properties of
> FRP and for no other purpose.
> If a recipient of this Memorandum or the shareholders of FRP or FRPL choose not to pursue a transaction,
> the Memorandum and any other related material must be returned to FRPL. The Memorandum
> recipient may retain no copies.
> All questions about this investment opportunity should be directed to:
> Mr. Ed Nycholat, CA
> Manager of Operations
> FRPL Finance Ltd.
> Suite B, 220 - 42nd Ave SE
> Calgary, Alberta T2G 1Y4
> (403) 451-1161
> edn@frplfi nance.com
> Mr. Rex Schinnour
> Sales Director
> FRPL Finance Ltd.
> Suite B, 220 - 42nd Ave SE
> Calgary, Alberta T2G 1Y4
> (403) 451-1166
> rex@frplfi nance.com


People should read that whole thing and note the names mentioned. I just did. Where is Ed?


----------



## Joffer13

*We are in if there is a class action lawsuit.*

We just found this site tonight. How do we get in on a class action suit, if there is one? We paid the ransom to get out, because *we felt like we couldn't trust this company anymore and we were scared of how much more it might end up costing us in the future* We bought our timeshare 11 years ago as an investment in our families 'holiday' future. We feel like we got 29 years of vacation stolen from us. One small consolation is finding this site, with all these owners, makes us feel better, like we aren't alone in this situation anymore.


----------



## TS Migraine

TS Migraine said:


> Bracken, you and your sisters could stop payment on your cheque, and sign up with a law firm, or there is still time for you to file form 67 on your own to the BC Court. Perhaps the Northwynd people have realized that when the BC court rules they have NO right to demand money to "opt out" that they will have to pay your money back anyway. I would be worried however, that they may not repay you voluntarily, if by signing the Freedom to Choose papers they believe they now have some right to your cash,  and they cash your cheque before the Court rules.



The Class Action Firm is Docken Klym in Calgary and you can contact Robert Forsyth via email to receive the retainer and other necessary information. I believe his email is: robert@docken.com and the phone number is 403-269-3612. If you want support in your decision to challenge what you have paid under duress-keep reading this site. I found TUG back on page 14, and it is like finding shelter in a storm- keep reading- these TUG people know their stuff.


----------



## TS Migraine

Judythreetimes, check the Sunchaser Lawsuit  FB site. Ed has been found. There are super sleuths at work there on our behalf too. ;-)


----------



## Spark1

*Northwynd  Survey*

A June 11, 2013 CBC article on Sunchaser includes the comments: "Meanwhile, the resort said it has heard directly from roughly 6000 owners,and a large majority favour the renovation plan. Chris Bryant is among them. I have seen the engineering reports on the repairs and i agree to the assessment, though i had a tough time sending that check in last month", Bryant wrote in an e-mail.
You should understand that Chris Bryant is one of the timeshare owners who is also an investor in the Northwynd REIT-the group that actually owns the residual interest in the resort. This renovation project and the petition to the court is all about trying to hold the timeshare owners responsible for upgrades to the Resort-and those costs would normally fall on the REIT as the residual owner.
I expect Northwynd will use this claim in the upcoming court-that most owners agree with and support the renovation plan. I would like to counter their argument by asking owners to complete a brief on-line survey that another hard working timeshare owner has prepared. This survey will also collect statistics on the number of owners that have paid the cancellation fee. Note that the survey includes a request to enter your email address in a format that prevents hacking by spammers.
link to survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SunchaserTimeshare


----------



## Hey lady

*Amend Survey*

Perhaps the owners should conduct their own survey through an independ firm.


----------



## TS Migraine

How do we owners get access to an Owner's List so as to have acces to everyone to obtain the necessary 51 % to oust Northwynd?


----------



## MFD

As Owners, can we not demand to Northwynd that we wish to establish an Owner's Association?  And once that happens, are they not then required to forward us a list of all current timeshare owners?


----------



## Judythreetimes

TS Migraine said:


> How do we owners get access to an Owner's List so as to have acces to everyone to obtain the necessary 51 % to oust Northwynd?


I think one of the law firms could supoena the list. Maybe they already have?


----------



## CleoB

TS Migraine said:


> How do we owners get access to an Owner's List so as to have acces to everyone to obtain the necessary 51 % to oust Northwynd?



From my understanding Jim Belfry has a comprehensive list of the owners and is conducting a survey.  You may want to wander over to Facebook and search for "Sunchaser Villas".  You'll have to sign up as the admin is trying to weed out those associated with Northwynd/Sunchaser/etc.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Not the Only TS owners fed up with Northwynd*

I came across another thread of disgruntled TS owners where Northwynd was involved, this one posted on Tripadvisor.
Have a look at :

http://www.tripadvisor.ca/ShowTopic...bergris_Caye-Ambergris_Caye_Belize_Cayes.html

Thiis is in addition to the Ranchero Baderas property in Mexico.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Why are any of these people in jail?*

Northwynd/Sunchaser blames much of the problem on previous owners, which we are finding out are basically the same people, yet if you look at the amount of disgruntled upset people blaming Northwyd/Sunchaser for problems in Costa Maya and Mexico, there seems to be a history of problems and people getting ripped off from Northwyn/Sunchaser. 
My question, why are these people not in jail? 

Some good reading:
http://cdn.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=14694;page=1;query=


----------



## TS Migraine

Many owners were wondering how Northwynd could send a Court Petition in regular mail rather than a registered letter. In Wankel's Affidavit posted on the Sunchaser site, it reveals that he appealed to Judge Scarth to allow a regular mail out rather than a registered letter claiming costs were prohibitive at over $150,000.00 Registered mail as compared to $15,000.00 regular mail. An owners list of all 15,000 people would be  costly mailing fo rus, even with regular mail. I think Jim Belfry has access to the people who have been contacted via FB and email and the law firms in BC originally involved, but I doubt he has the complete list. Docken Klym is posting adds in Major city papers, which leads me to believe they do NOT have a list of owners- and probably law requires owners to come to DK rather than DK recruiting them. Internet is the least expensive way to rally owners, but I am sure Not all ( Senior) owners are into FB and googling TUG. It would seem before we amalgemate to overthrow Northwynd, we have to amalgamate to rally funds and establish an overthrow body.


----------



## truthr

TS Migraine said:


> Many owners were wondering how Northwynd could send a Court Petition in regular mail rather than a registered letter. In Wankel's Affidavit posted on the Sunchaser site, it reveals that he appealed to Judge Scarth to allow a regular mail out rather than a registered letter claiming costs were prohibitive at over $150,000.00 Registered mail as compared to $15,000.00 regular mail. An owners list of all 15,000 people would be  costly mailing fo rus, even with regular mail. I think Jim Belfry has access to the people who have been contacted via FB and email and the law firms in BC originally involved, but I doubt he has the complete list. Docken Klym is posting adds in Major city papers, which leads me to believe they do NOT have a list of owners- and probably law requires owners to come to DK rather than DK recruiting them. Internet is the least expensive way to rally owners, but I am sure Not all ( Senior) owners are into FB and googling TUG. It would seem before we amalgemate to overthrow Northwynd, we have to amalgamate to rally funds and establish an overthrow body.



Quite frankly I don't care how much it cost to sent such important, time sensitive documents - that should not exclude anyone from following protocol.  Hopefully that judge gets his fingers rapped over this as well.
I have been the subject to a Judge making a hasty decision which could have been disastrous had I not been thinking clearly and able to act quickly.  Without going into details - the said Judge was none too happy about having that come to bite him in the a** the next day.
Are these judges so spineless that they will let themselves be pushed into circumventing "proper" procedure? :annoyed:


----------



## TS Migraine

truthr said:


> Quite frankly I don't care how much it cost to sent such important, time sensitive documents - that should not exclude anyone from following protocol.  Hopefully that judge gets his fingers rapped over this as well.
> I have been the subject to a Judge making a hasty decision which could have been disastrous had I not been thinking clearly and able to act quickly.  Without going into details - the said Judge was none too happy about having that come to bite him in the a** the next day.
> Are these judges so spineless that they will let themselves be pushed into circumventing "proper" procedure? :annoyed:



I agree Truthr, it seems absurd Wankel could persuade  Judge Scarth to violate Legal Protocol with a cost efficiency argument . More stuff for a devoted Investigative Journalist to research.


----------



## Judythreetimes

TS Migraine said:


> I agree Truthr, it seems absurd Wankel could persuade  Judge Scarth to violate Legal Protocol with a cost efficiency argument . More stuff for a devoted Investigative Journalist to research.


Tom Harrington of CBC MarketPlace is very interested in this story. Please email your stories to him at marketplace@cbc.ca. Attn: Tom Harrington RE: Northwynd Properties.
These shysters need to be exposed for what they are. Liars and scan/ fraud artists


----------



## browger

*Marketplace*

Thanks for contacting Tom Harrington.  I have written him a note, and I hope lots more do the same.  Thanks again


----------



## TS Migraine

Mr. Harrington just got my story, and my cooperation with any future requests for more information.


----------



## truthr

I, as well, have sent an email to CBC marketplace.


----------



## Judythreetimes

browger said:


> thanks for contacting tom harrington.  I have written him a note, and i hope lots more do the same.  Thanks again


thank you!!!!!


----------



## Judythreetimes

truthr said:


> i, as well, have sent an email to cbc marketplace.


thank you!!!!!


----------



## Judythreetimes

ts migraine said:


> mr. Harrington just got my story, and my cooperation with any future requests for more information.


thank you!!!!!


----------



## Judythreetimes

*things are going to get ugly*

http://globalnews.ca/news/596669/thousands-of-timeshare-owners-face-unexpected-repair-bill/

From the comment section:
What current Northwynd management is trying to do is nothing short of 
illegal. In the coming week legal and corporate information and thousands of documents 
about Northwynd, past and current management is about to hit the web. 
Shocking, it will change the game for all the timeshare owners. New 
information that Northwynd/Sunchaser timeshare owners, their lawyers, 
the press and all levels of government can use to fight current 
management and trustees will be made public and distributed to all 
owners and investors via the internet.


----------



## truthr

*More Media*

More media coverage I just found

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/story/2013/06/11/sk-timeshare-court-13-06-11.html


----------



## truthr

Judythreetimes said:


> http://globalnews.ca/news/596669/thousands-of-timeshare-owners-face-unexpected-repair-bill/
> 
> From the comment section:
> What current Northwynd management is trying to do is nothing short of
> illegal. In the coming week legal and corporate information and thousands of documents
> about Northwynd, past and current management is about to hit the web.
> Shocking, it will change the game for all the timeshare owners. New
> information that Northwynd/Sunchaser timeshare owners, their lawyers,
> the press and all levels of government can use to fight current
> management and trustees will be made public and distributed to all
> owners and investors via the internet.



Why is this person waiting to release this information?


----------



## Judythreetimes

truthr said:


> Why is this person waiting to release this information?


It is more than one person. Confidentiality reasons.


----------



## DarkLord

TS Migraine said:


> In Wankel's Affidavit posted on the Sunchaser site.. registered letter claiming costs were prohibitive at over $150,000.00 Registered mail as compared to $15,000.00 regular mail.



Wankel has the audacity to charge owners $4000 but didn't want to spend $10 for registered mail?


----------



## golfer54

Judythreetimes said:


> Tom Harrington of CBC MarketPlace is very interested in this story. Please email your stories to him at marketplace@cbc.ca. Attn: Tom Harrington RE: Northwynd Properties.
> These shysters need to be exposed for what they are. Liars and scan/ fraud artists



New to the forum, but following it since page 5, I have also sent off my story, as well have sent it to the other media posted in the forum. I also retained Docken Klym prior to the deadline. Nothing new to many of the stories posted. We also have a Marriott TS and there is no comparison. Annual increases are pennies, and the properties are well maintained. We also decided to "go" and just use getaways. Found it was easier and in the long run cheaper than trying to exchange. When we bought, and joined the "Platinum Club", and tried to trade for a housebost and couldn't of course, that started a challenging relationship. As an appeasement, got a week in Kelowna..."free" which was a total waste of time as the unit was so old and rundown, we left and checked into a hotel for the balance. Decided after the first attempt at converting us to points, it might be time to go but so many units were for sale, that possibility was slim. From all I have read, they want people to leave and sell off the properties as fractional, etc...the big mistake in all this was to charge exit fees based on lost revenue. Greed at its best. If they retained enough owners that wanted to stay and scaled down the properties, and sold off the rest, it would have made more sense. Would like to stay at Fairmont, but not under this management group or at the cost.


----------



## TS Migraine

DarkLord said:


> Wankel has the audacity to charge owners $4000 but didn't want to spend $10 for registered mail?



Given ( at best) the precarious Legality of the Petition, and the evidently beleagured financial state of Northmont/ Northwynd, they must have felt the expenditure was too risky with no guaranteed return, I think the $10.00 per owner cost intimidated them to make this money grab attempt. I think even Northwynd may have been surprised by how many people JUST WANTED OUT. The Registered Letter cost estimated in the Wankel Affidavit was more than $150,000.00 because it would have involved labour costs for whoever had to faciltate the Registering of the document at Canada post and the trips back and forth to the Courts.The actual costs projected are in Wankel's Affidavit on the Sunchaser site, (~$215,000.00??), but I have read so much financial stuff lately, I can't keep the actual figures in my head. I know it costs $10.00 at CPost to register a letter bc I have done it a few times for PC lawsuits of my own.


----------



## DarkLord

TS Migraine said:


> I think the $10.00 per owner cost intimidated them to make this money grab attempt.



Exactly.  If this reno is legitimate, owners wouldn't mind paying $10 or so for registered mail as they are spending $4000 each anyway.  The difference between $4000 and $4010 is negligible to a reasonable owner's mind.

What it shows is the money grab attempt for Northwynd by aximizing money intake and mimizing cash outlay.


----------



## gilker

*We should have had higher fees???*

This quote from Kirk Wankel on the global news report doesn't make sense:

“We believe the owners probably should have been charged about $300 to $400 a year more for the last 15 years to properly address the maintenance of the resort,” 

I think that statement is misleading at best. The MF's have been steadily increasing over the years. If you multiply $400 x 14,500 owners x 15 years you get $87,000,000. That is far beyond even the 40 mill 'reno' costs they estimate; and if renos had been done as they should have been, the 40 mill cost would have been lower.

Regular condo fees are $3-400/month to keep the maintenance. What Wankel is stating would be $3-400/week; why would the time share maintenance costs be 4x that of a regular condo? On top of the MF that is already collected? This seems to be more gross mismanagement than lack of revenue.

I am wondering how he can publicly make such a claim; seems to be quite misleading in suggesting the MF have been too low, so now we need to pay.


----------



## TS Migraine

gilker said:


> This quote from Kirk Wankel on the global news report doesn't make sense:
> 
> “We believe the owners probably should have been charged about $300 to $400 a year more for the last 15 years to properly address the maintenance of the resort,”
> 
> I think that statement is misleading at best. The MF's have been steadily increasing over the years. If you multiply $400 x 14,500 owners x 15 years you get $87,000,000. That is far beyond even the 40 mill 'reno' costs they estimate; and if renos had been done as they should have been, the 40 mill cost would have been lower.
> 
> Regular condo fees are $3-400/month to keep the maintenance. What Wankel is stating would be $3-400/week; why would the time share maintenance costs be 4x that of a regular condo? On top of the MF that is already collected? This seems to be more gross mismanagement than lack of revenue.
> 
> I am wondering how he can publicly make such a claim; seems to be quite misleading in suggesting the MF have been too low, so now we need to pay.



Gilker, not ALL 15,000 owners own a week every year, some of us are Biennial owners, so your calculation of $87 million MF may be a bit generous, but your basic argument is sound. It was my understanding at time of purchase that our maintenance fees were divided up to have a portion set aside to accumulate for eventually necessary Capitol Cost repairs. Not sure where that money went, but it appears the sales people are very well paid, whether thay sell TS Units or REIT Mutual Funds, or Legacy for Life or whatever other program they came up with in order to raise the cash they forever mismanaged.


----------



## TS Migraine

*Mountainside and Mariotts*

Regular condo fees are $3-400/month to keep the maintenance. What Wankel is stating would be $3-400/week; why would the time share maintenance costs be 4x that of a regular condo? On top of the MF that is already collected? This seems to be more gross mismanagement than lack of revenue.

I am wondering how he can publicly make such a claim; seems to be quite misleading in suggesting the MF have been too low, so now we need to pay.[/QUOTE]

TS Owners at Mountainside claim their maintenance fees are only reasonably higher than they were at time of Purchase. Mariott TS Owners claim their annual increase in maintenance fees are pennies... go figure. I think Wankel should consult with the CAs from those resorts before he concludes the problem is the "too Low MF."


----------



## Hey lady

Gross mismanagement is the correct statement.


----------



## DarkLord

gilker said:


> This quote from Kirk Wankel on the global news report doesn't make sense:
> 
> “We believe the owners probably should have been charged about $300 to $400 a year more for the last 15 years to properly address the maintenance of the resort,”



I remembered hearing that from Wankel too.  That's why I said Wankel is a discredit to his profession in my earlier post.  If we paid $1000 MF 15 years ago in 1998, no one would've bought the Fairmont TS.  When I bought resale 6 years ago, the MF was in the low $600 and had it be over a grand, I would never have bought it.

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about nor the economics of TS and yet he's the CFO or CEO of this thing.


----------



## Hey lady

TS Owners at Mountainside claim their maintenance fees are only reasonably higher than they were at time of Purchase. Mariott TS Owners claim their annual increase in maintenance fees are pennies... go figure. I think Wankel should consult with the CAs from those resorts before he concludes the problem is the "too Low MF."[/QUOTE]

My Wyndham Resort MF have gone up a total of 8% in 11 years and this past year all the interiors got totally refurbished, without asking me for additional assessments.   When we bought into Riverside we were told our MF would drop once the resort was sold out. Another lie.


----------



## pdoff

We were also told that maintenace fees would go down as more people signed up - instead they went up over 150% to over a $1000 a year.  Wankel says they should have gone up more! These rip-off artists have p----d away our money long enough! I hope that we get a judge that takes a good look at this and sees it for what it is - A SCAM - and makes these bums pay back people - like the lady that sold her car to pay this stupid 'take off' option from these crooks. They are giving Canadian Business people a bad name!


----------



## THE AVENGER

Bracken said:


> We decided to pay the "opt out" fee.  Interestinly, they have not cashed our cheque.  My three sisters have also sent cheques that have not been cashed.  Has this been the case with anyone else?



Has anyone had their check cashed?  Ours wasn't so we stopped payment on it until we know the ruling from the BC court.  We do want out but don't feel we should be paying for their future management fees which they have not earned and likely will never earn since the whole thing will most likely end up in receivership or simply close the doors within a year or so.


----------



## Chomedy

*Opt Out*



THE AVENGER said:


> Has anyone had their check cashed?  Ours wasn't so we stopped payment on it until we know the ruling from the BC court.  We do want out but don't feel we should be paying for their future management fees which they have not earned and likely will never earn since the whole thing will most likely end up in receivership or simply close the doors within a year or so.



I received the letter offering a way out 2 days before we left for a vacation. My family had previously informed me they were not interested in inheriting my unit at Sunchaser and they wished I had never purchased it. (July 2005). Since they needed an answer by May 31st & I was going away I mailed a cheque by registered mail May 1st. They were not long cashing it. I haven't heard anything back but I made copies of all papers I signed.


----------



## ferrier1

*ferrier1*

We have 20 years on a 40 year lease left. We to asked our family if they were interested and they replied not with this mess going on. We had already mailed a check. I contacted Robert at Docken Klym and he advised to stop payment and send a note to Northwynd informing them. When I went to cancel the check had cleared the previous night. Sure do regret my descion


----------



## jekebc

To Sunchaser Timeshare Owners.
Please complete a brief survey to help prove Northwynd is misresenting how many owners support the renovation project
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SunchaserTimeshare  (or copy and paste to your web browser)
Jim Belfry


----------



## Anxiety123

*Timeshare Use*

Has anyone been turned away from using their week at Fairmont since May 31?


----------



## morena

*unbelievable*



Maritimer said:


> This character assassination is unfortunate. Perhaps the reality is that Mr. Wankel is on everyone's side and working towards a win-win solution to this difficult situation we are all in.



How much did they pay you to post this?


----------



## condomama

*Floods and evacuees*

Taking a moment to voice our concerns for all the people affected by the floods in southern Alberta.  We returned home from Fairmont yesterday, where they were once again dealing with debris coming down from the watershed above the resort to the villas and local roads were closed.  It was still raining heavily there.  It took 6 hours to go around via hwy. 3 and we passed by High River and the devastation was evident right from the highway.  Our thoughts and prayers go out to everyone affected.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*For your viewing enjoyment*

For those of you that have Netflix account you may want to have a look a the documentary called "The Queen of Versailles".  Its an eye-opening glimpse into the time-share business.

The tag line is " _Meet the Siegels, glitterati who made a fortune in the time-share business only to see it crumble in the 2008 financial collapse. The site of their rise and almost-fall is their home (America's largest), a gaudy replica of the Palace of Versailles._.
Enjoy


----------



## Undecided62

*Any News?*

Has anyone been advised about the hearing for today?  Or in fact, whether there was a hearing?


----------



## Chilliaces

*Todays Hearing*

I am very curious also as I am supposed o check in at Fairmont on Monday, that is as long as they will let me.

As soon as someone knows something, please post.


----------



## condomama

It certainly has gone really quiet lately.  Is the silence the sound of 18,000 owners collectively holding their breath?


----------



## aden2

The hearing was today June 25th @ 2 p.m. -B.C. Supreme Court Vancouver


----------



## morena

*and?*



condomama said:


> It certainly has gone really quiet lately.  Is the silence the sound of 18,000 owners collectively holding their breath?



Why is no one speaking?


----------



## TS Migraine

Today's Court hearing was to determine a DATE by which all Forms 67 and letters of Opposition must be in. It is unlikely any weighty issues like whether or not Petition 66 was a Legal  invoice or not, will have been dealt with today. I suspect it was a very brief event with only a Date being set as the deadline for Form 67 and letters of Opposition. I am sure all involved Lawyers will have letters sent by email to keep us up to date ASAP. Maybe the Quiet is the calm after the storm- FLOOD.


----------



## jekebc

I attended Court Hearing June 25 - a somewhat disjointed process. The purpose was to establish a process and schedule that the issues re the Matkin-Nothmont Petition could be addressed. The outcome was simply the Master directing the lawyers involved to confer and make submissions to a further hearing now scheduled for July 12. 

Northmont's lawyer attempted to downplay the process, stating that over 5000 timeshare owners had responded to them, and that the lawyers attending only represented a small minority of dissenting owners. The Master had reviewed the documents many of you filed and simply didn't buy into Northmont's arguments - so we achieved something.

There was some consensus that two key issues need to be dealt with some priority.
1) Does Northmont have the right under the existing contracts to charge Lessees and Co-Owners with the Renovation Fees? and,
b) Should Northmont be allowed to charge a Cancellation Fee for owners that want out of their contracts. 

These two issues will not be decided on July 12, but the intention is to agree on an outline as to how the arguments will be presented and the schedule to get a Court Decision. There will be a process for the lawyers to submit other issues that need to be decided on such as the Summer Reservations and access to Northmont/RVM documents.

And regarding Form 67 submissions:
Thank you to all that prepared and submitted Form 67, Affidavits and supporting documents - it had an impact on the Master's decisions. There is still no deadline for further submissions from those that have not as yet sent a Form 67. 

I still suggest that every owner:
1) Not make any further payments to Northmont/RVM/Northwynd pending a Court ruling and cancel any payments in process.
2) Ensure a letter has been sent to Northwynd et al advising their letters have caused duress and thus no payments will be made pending a Court ruling.
3) Have a Form 67, and preferably an Affidavit and supporting documents, ready for submission when a new deadline is established.

If you know of any owners that have not retained legal counsel re the Sunchaser issues and if they are looking for assistance, please have them email me at thebelfrys@shaw.ca


----------



## gilker

jekebc said:


> And regarding Form 67 submissions:
> Thank you to all that prepared and submitted Form 67, Affidavits and supporting documents - it had an impact on the Master's decisions. There is still no deadline for further submissions from those that have not as yet sent a Form 67.
> 
> I still suggest that every owner:
> 1) Not make any further payments to Northmont/RVM/Northwynd pending a Court ruling and cancel any payments in process.
> 2) Ensure a letter has been sent to Northwynd et al advising their letters have caused duress and thus no payments will be made pending a Court ruling.
> 3) Have a Form 67, and preferably an Affidavit and supporting documents, ready for submission when a new deadline is established.
> 
> 
> Jim I am under the understanding that my lawyer filed the form 67 on my behalf; I hope that was clear at the hearing. Was their any indication of how many people the lawyers were representing? If 1000 people paid lawyers $300-500 each I'm sure that would send a message that many people are not happy with it.


----------



## atcjtb

*Form 67*

Just wondering where I find the form 67.  I did a google search and found a document, but it is quite long and has a lot of info that seems irrelevant?
Anyone have some direction as to which form and what I need to specifically fill out on this form?  I did send an email indicating that I will not be paying until the court decision is made and the whole duress thing etc.  No response from Northwynd of course!  Any advice would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## Fly525

For info on Form 67 (and the other documents to be filed) visit Post 491 on this Forum.  I just completed the entire process and it was seamless with one small exception.  My Affidavit and Exhibits were too large a file to submit via email.  I submitted them to Dye & Durham via courier and they delivered them to the Court.


----------



## LookingForAnswers

I did file the form 67, but not an affidavit.  I was hoping that the form 67 would be sufficient.  Any thoughts on that?

Also, I did the form 67 in my name only.   My husband is also an owner with me.   Should he do one as well?  And then, do we do one for each share we own?  We have one annual and one bi-annual.


----------



## renoman

*Court Update*

We are signed on with Docken Kylm. The letter they have sent us defines 7 more hearings from July 5th to Sep 14th, all as file deadlines or to argue points. I think the form 67 deadline has passed? But not sure.  There will then be a 3 day hearing at the end of Sep (no dates yet) to wrap it up, maybe. But who knows.


QUOTE=jekebc;1487430]I attended Court Hearing June 25 - a somewhat disjointed process. The purpose was to establish a process and schedule that the issues re the Matkin-Nothmont Petition could be addressed. The outcome was simply the Master directing the lawyers involved to confer and make submissions to a further hearing now scheduled for July 12. 

Northmont's lawyer attempted to downplay the process, stating that over 5000 timeshare owners had responded to them, and that the lawyers attending only represented a small minority of dissenting owners. The Master had reviewed the documents many of you filed and simply didn't buy into Northmont's arguments - so we achieved something.

There was some consensus that two key issues need to be dealt with some priority.
1) Does Northmont have the right under the existing contracts to charge Lessees and Co-Owners with the Renovation Fees? and,
b) Should Northmont be allowed to charge a Cancellation Fee for owners that want out of their contracts. 

These two issues will not be decided on July 12, but the intention is to agree on an outline as to how the arguments will be presented and the schedule to get a Court Decision. There will be a process for the lawyers to submit other issues that need to be decided on such as the Summer Reservations and access to Northmont/RVM documents.

And regarding Form 67 submissions:
Thank you to all that prepared and submitted Form 67, Affidavits and supporting documents - it had an impact on the Master's decisions. There is still no deadline for further submissions from those that have not as yet sent a Form 67. 

I still suggest that every owner:
1) Not make any further payments to Northmont/RVM/Northwynd pending a Court ruling and cancel any payments in process.
2) Ensure a letter has been sent to Northwynd et al advising their letters have caused duress and thus no payments will be made pending a Court ruling.
3) Have a Form 67, and preferably an Affidavit and supporting documents, ready for submission when a new deadline is established.

If you know of any owners that have not retained legal counsel re the Sunchaser issues and if they are looking for assistance, please have them email me at thebelfrys@shaw.ca[/QUOTE]


----------



## LookingForAnswers

Just got this reply to my email informing them I decided to wait for the court decision before we made any decisions.   It appears they intend to use threat of interest charges to force us to pay before any court order has taken place...hmm ... interesting 



> Good Afternoon,
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your letter dated May 29, 2013.
> 
> 
> 
> The decision to move forward with renovations was a decision made by the board of trustee’s not the leases holders. At this time these renovations can no longer be deferred and needs to be completed. The initial amounts that were advised for the renovations was based on all owners moving forward with their ownership, however Northwynd does fully expect a portion of the membership base will cancel their lease.
> 
> 
> 
> The issues that are surrounding the resort were not created by Northwynd, however Northwynd is looking to create a solution. The renovations are to ensure there is still a viable resort left for members to enjoy for the duration of their lease terms. If we did not have the renovations there are no guarantees there will be a resort left in the next year or two.
> 
> 
> 
> Members have signed a forty year lease to be responsible to pay all fees required with their lease. Under Operation Costs and Reserve for Refurbishment it does state the developer has the legal rights to charge this type of fee. The contracts are alos not drafter with any kind of exit clause, and Northwynd is not obligated to offer an exit option. Northwynd understands that peoples circumstances change and that not everyone can continue to afford this program for one reason or another, however they must still take care of the remaining owners and that is why costs from a cancelation request cannot be passed along to the remaining ownership base and therefore the cancellation fees are charged to the owners wishing to terminate their contract early.
> 
> 
> 
> Cancelled inventory is returned to Northwynd as there  are no sales and marketing team in place there are no resale's of inventory occurring.  Part of the cancellation fees goes to Northwynd to cover the cost of carrying the inventory ( as any inventory under Northwynd must be paid for by Northwynd) the remainder of the cancellation fee goes directly to the resort.
> 
> 
> 
> The May 31 deadline for the documents for either the Renovations or Cancellations to be submitted has not been extended. Should a member wait to make a decision for the court hearing to be determined, the member ‘s account is subject to interest.
> 
> 
> 
> Should you have any further questions or concerns, please free to contact our office and we will be happy to assist you.
> 
> 
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Edith Starr
> 
> Vacation Ownership Services Representative
> 
> Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.


----------



## aden2

*To Edith Starr % Vacation Ownership Services Rep.; Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.*
The problem I have is your "Legacy for Life" , this was done back in 2009/2010, and I never became aware of the financial problems of now called Sunchaser Villas  until May 2013. Fairmont was declared bankrupt and taken over by Northmont June 22, 2010. My document was dated Nov.29, 2010 and it was on Fairmont Vacation Villas stationery. If I had of known the problems in 2009/2010 I would not have agreeded to this "Legacy for Life". As far as I am concern this is called "FRAUD". I have just recently laid a charge with the R.C.M.P. for fraud against Northwynd Resort Properties.


----------



## DarkLord

aden2 said:


> The problem I have is your "Legacy for Life" , this was done back in 2009/2010, and I never became aware of the financial problems of now called Sunchaser Villas  until May 2013. Fairmont was declared bankrupt and taken over by Northmont June 22, 2010. My document was dated Nov.29, 2010 and it was on Fairmont Vacation Villas stationery.



Fairmont and Northwynd are one and the same, that's why Northwynd continued using Fairmont's letterhead to sell the Legacy to life pacakge.  If the renovation is not Northwynd's problem, it shouldn't be the problem of the Legacy to Life owners as well.  What a double standard or scam Northwynd runs here.


----------



## LookingForAnswers

Good for you!


----------



## DarkLord

renoman said:


> There was some consensus that two key issues need to be dealt with some priority.
> 1) Does Northmont have the right under the existing contracts to charge Lessees and Co-Owners with the Renovation Fees? and,
> 2) Should Northmont be allowed to charge a Cancellation Fee for owners that want out of their contracts.



These are the two key issues in this controversy.

If Northwynd loses on 1), they not only couldn't charge owners for the renovation and by their own admission, the resort is in need of repair to bring it up to the 5 star level they promise the owners.  In other words, Northwynd will be paying for the renovation which will for all intense and purposes leads to Northwynd declaring bankrutpcy.

If Northwynd wins on 1), the owners can still get out, like most do anyway now without paying the cancellation fee unless Northwynd wins on 2) as well.

If the owners win on 2), most of us will just forfeit our rights of using the resort without paying the cancellation fee.

In summary, Northwynd has to win on both 1) and 2) to get money from us.  Even then, most owners, myself included will just take a hit on our credit rating and not pay them.

Guess Northwynd didn't think it will be this difficult to pull this scam here in Canada versus the last time they did it in Mexico.


----------



## aden2

I truly believe that Northwynd/Northmont will not have much credibility attempting to prove that I did not pay some fee that they had asked when I wanted to walk away from my time share because they had asked me to pay for, when Northwynd  broke the contract.


----------



## ERW

Quick question to all - our biennial lease time is in April 2014. I would like to book and deposit our time with Sunchasers and Interval sooner rather than later. Has anyone attempted lately to book their time for next year recently and what was the response from the Customer Service people at Sunchasers? Are they still grasping at charging the full maintenance and renovation amount or have they backed off at all? I don't want to let this drag on until February then get the 60 day booking restriction because I never booked soon enough.


----------



## pdoff

*looking for answers*



LookingForAnswers said:


> Just got this reply to my email informing them I decided to wait for the court decision before we made any decisions.   It appears they intend to use threat of interest charges to force us to pay before any court order has taken place...hmm ... interesting



Northwynd oviously knew what they were getting in for-we sure didn't know that there was a bankrupt situation. If we did we would probably have left then. They say that they inherited the problem. Now they want to pass it on to the people that lease a few days of time a year.
It is their problem - not ours!
They should be renamed Passingwynd.


----------



## Hotpink

*In Then Out*

We made the initial payment on the $100.00 / month option, just to use our booked week at the end of June this year and everything was confirmed in writing by SVV. The kink was in the road closure in Canmore and we decided to stay in northern Alberta and see if and when we could use #1 to use some of our time. That did not happen so we lose the week.

Phoned and asked about booking the same week in 2014 and no problem just Pay your 2014 maintenance fees ( Based on 2013 rates ) the day of booking and you can reserve the Riverside unit for the last week in June of next year. The actual MF will be adjusted next January and you will have to make up the difference. Did not buy into that this year as we don't know if they will be operating next year. Did not book did not pay.

Following the initial hearing on June 25, 2013 we heeded the advice of a few posts here and from an independent council to:

1) cancel my/our consent for any pre-authorized debit given to NRP on May 31, 2013 at the financial institution where this PAD was initiated.

2) inform Northmont in writing that we had done so and would not make any further payments the renovation scheme nor make any interest payments they levy on us.

This all has been done and we did not tell them to pound sand but we will wait and see what the court will do and live with that result then


----------



## Spark1

LookingForAnswers said:


> Just got this reply to my email informing them I decided to wait for the court decision before we made any decisions.   It appears they intend to use threat of interest charges to force us to pay before any court order has taken place...hmm ... interesting



Interesting,this statement the issues surrounding the resort were not created buy Northwynd. Why did they hire the same people that managed Fairmont vacation villas. Come on these are the same crooks ,just a different name. I would love to see these thieves go bankrupt. They do not know how to treat people and should not be in business. If this was a clear cut issue,why the court hearings? And hear we go again, if the timeshare owners,which own time not the resort did not give these honest people money one way or the other buy may31 they are going to start adding on interest. These are cowards that hide behind their lawyers and we all should be afraid. Start sending out bills with interest and us owners of time are going to send you bills for lost time with higher interest. This is not Mexico,we have rights in Canada.


----------



## Rancher

We have just returned from 5 days at Sunchaser and the resort does show its age and is in need of refurbishment.
I have not read all the posts on this site but do have an understanding of what is happening.
The original owners of Fairmont were FRPL. Now in order for them to sell their timeshares they were quoting an unrealistic maintenance fee at the time of about $400 per week. This did not allow them to place any funds in reserve for updating the units as needed. They went basically into bankruptcy and somehow everything went to Northynd. Now Northynd has this timeshare with no reserve funds and no money for refurbishment. The units need to be updated and where do think the money will have to come from. Yes the owners will be asked to pay for this.
The way I see it the owners have two choices. They either pay for the refurb. or let the resort continue to decline where no one will want to stay there or trade into it anymore.
It is unfortunate that it has come to this but they won't be the first or last owners hit with a special assessment.


----------



## browger

*Maybe do your homework*



Rancher said:


> We have just returned from 5 days at Sunchaser and the resort does show its age and is in need of refurbishment.
> I have not read all the posts on this site but do have an understanding of what is happening.
> The original owners of Fairmont were FRPL. Now in order for them to sell their timeshares they were quoting an unrealistic maintenance fee at the time of about $400 per week. This did not allow them to place any funds in reserve for updating the units as needed. They went basically into bankruptcy and somehow everything went to Northynd. Now Northynd has this timeshare with no reserve funds and no money for refurbishment. The units need to be updated and where do think the money will have to come from. Yes the owners will be asked to pay for this.
> The way I see it the owners have two choices. They either pay for the refurb. or let the resort continue to decline where no one will want to stay there or trade into it anymore.
> It is unfortunate that it has come to this but they won't be the first or last owners hit with a special assessment.



Maybe you better read older posts, and maybe do your homework.......who
told you that we pay $400.00 a week.  We might have paid $400.00 16 to 18 years ago.  We have been paying almost $1,000 for our week for several years.  What I think I am hearing is a 'version' from the other side.  Again, do your homework and then make a qualified response, by reading 'this sides' version, and 'doing your homework'.


----------



## gnorth16

DarkLord said:


> These are the two key issues in this controversy.
> 
> If Northwynd loses on 1), they not only couldn't charge owners for the renovation and by their own admission, the resort is in need of repair to bring it up to the 5 star level they promise the owners.  In other words, Northwynd will be paying for the renovation which will for all intense and purposes leads to Northwynd declaring bankrutpcy.
> 
> If Northwynd wins on 1), the owners can still get out, like most do anyway now without paying the cancellation fee unless Northwynd wins on 2) as well.
> 
> If the owners win on 2), most of us will just forfeit our rights of using the resort without paying the cancellation fee.
> 
> In summary, Northwynd has to win on both 1) and 2) to get money from us.  Even then, most owners, myself included will just take a hit on our credit rating and not pay them.
> 
> Guess Northwynd didn't think it will be this difficult to pull this scam here in Canada versus the last time they did it in Mexico.



*Northwynd wants the land.*  If they can make you pay to get rid of it, even better.  Northwynd would be happier than a pig in s#it if everyone got fed up and walked away.  

After all this BS, I am sure that most owners would be glad to walk away from their TS and not pay anything - Playing right into the hands of what Northwynd wants.  I am sure that within 5 years, it will be some form of Condos along the creek and by the clubhouse.


----------



## Spark1

Rancher said:


> We have just returned from 5 days at Sunchaser and the resort does show its age and is in need of refurbishment.
> I have not read all the posts on this site but do have an understanding of what is happening.
> The original owners of Fairmont were FRPL. Now in order for them to sell their timeshares they were quoting an unrealistic maintenance fee at the time of about $400 per week. This did not allow them to place any funds in reserve for updating the units as needed. They went basically into bankruptcy and somehow everything went to Northynd. Now Northynd has this timeshare with no reserve funds and no money for refurbishment. The units need to be updated and where do think the money will have to come from. Yes the owners will be asked to pay for this.
> The way I see it the owners have two choices. They either pay for the refurb. or let the resort continue to decline where no one will want to stay there or trade into it anymore.
> It is unfortunate that it has come to this but they won't be the first or last owners hit with a special assessment.



It sounds like you are one of the FRPL investors at 12 per-cent. Nobody can tell me if the maintenance fees that we have been paying were used according to the agreements that we signed,not the Legacy for Life agreement,that this resort could of been refurbished the way it was supposed to be. You can not buy resorts and time in different countries and refurbish the resort with our maintenance fees. FRPL went down over 43 million dollars written off buy the Alberta gov't. What makes you think Northwynd can manage this resort? Check out the Rancho Banderas resort in Nuevo Vallarta and then tell me if the timeshare owners can trust Northwynd. If you like,hrough your money into the hands of Northwynd but not me.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Any Riverview owners here?*

I am curious if there are any Riverview owners on here. To refresh everyone's memory, Riverview (not to be confused with the oldest units called Riverside) units were those closest to the bridge and were the newest having granite countertops and the most modern features. One of the selling points of those units was the exclusivity of having the option to stay in any of the units at either Riverview, Riverside or Hillside but conversely, those that bought into Riverside or Hillside could not book into the units at Riverview. 

So my question is did those that bought into the Riverview units, were they also asked to contribute to the renovation plan to upgrade the older units? One could argue that the more modern units at Riverview may not need extensive renovations and could be excluded.


----------



## aden2

We bought into Riverview, and yes were had two options: 1) buy into the reno. program; 2) pay to cancel timeshare. To make it worse we bought into the "Legacy for Life" and were lied to about Fairmont doing so well...


----------



## GypsyOne

Rancher says: "....The way I see it the owners have two choices. They either pay for the refurb. or let the resort continue to decline where no one will want to stay there or trade into it anymore.
It is unfortunate that it has come to this but they won't be the first or last owners hit with a special assessment."

There is another option.  The real owners of the Resort and the ones who are the benefactors of this renovation (The Northwynd et al group) come up with the funds to restore their resort.  The timeshare owners, at least not the original Vacation Villa leaseholders, are not the owners of this property, they are lessees / tenants and therefore not responsible for capital restorations.  The lessees (Timeshare Owners) bought the right to accommodation for a certain fixed period, and then the right expires with no residual value.  As lessees, they have an implied (or explicit) warranty of habitability and quiet enjoyment for the period of the lease.  That is what they pay rent (maintenance) for.  It is the responsibility of the lessors (owners) to provide that habitability and quiet enjoyment.  And once the fixed term lease expires, it is the real owners of the property who will continue to benefit from capital restorations.

If the lessors / owners are not prepared to inject capital into their resort to bring it up to the standard they represented when they sold timeshares, and the Resort goes bankrupt, so be it.  That is what happens when you sell timeshares in a faulty facility, misrepresent it's quality, and mismanage the funds.


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> Rancher says: "....The way I see it the owners have two choices. They either pay for the refurb. or let the resort continue to decline where no one will want to stay there or trade into it anymore.
> It is unfortunate that it has come to this but they won't be the first or last owners hit with a special assessment."
> 
> There is another option.  The real owners of the Resort and the ones who are the benefactors of this renovation (The Northwynd et al group) come up with the funds to restore their resort.  The timeshare owners, at least not the original Vacation Villa leaseholders, are not the owners of this property, they are lessees / tenants and therefore not responsible for capital restorations.  The lessees (Timeshare Owners) bought the right to accommodation for a certain fixed period, and then the right expires with no residual value.  As lessees, they have an implied (or explicit) warranty of habitability and quiet enjoyment for the period of the lease.  That is what they pay rent (maintenance) for.  It is the responsibility of the lessors (owners) to provide that habitability and quiet enjoyment.  And once the fixed term lease expires, it is the real owners of the property who will continue to benefit from capital restorations.
> 
> If the lessors / owners are not prepared to inject capital into their resort to bring it up to the standard they represented when they sold timeshares, and the Resort goes bankrupt, so be it.  That is what happens when you sell timeshares in a faulty facility, misrepresent it's quality, and mismanage the funds.


This is the only way the supreme court judge should look at this situation.


----------



## Meow

I wish I could be as optimistic, Spark 1.  Our chances are 50/50 at best.  Northwynd seems to be very careful in their approach in this and doing things by the book.  Judges are very unpredictable.  Northwyn could just as easily come out looking like the 'White Knight', trying to save the resort and salvage the investments of the REIT investors and the timeshare lessees/owners.  We are led to believe there are about 5000 timeshare owners/lessees that have bought into Northwyn's plan.  Those of us involved in the legal challenges are in the minority.  The judge can easily take the position that we are just disgruntled parties looking for loopholes to get out of our lease or 'Legacy for Life' contractual obligations.  No matter, it could be a long and costly process through the courts.  I worry that people will bail out as the costs to stay in begin to accelerate.  Northwynd has more stayng power than we do!


----------



## Hey lady

*5000 out of 15,000 in favour?*

According to Northwynd 5000 members are in favour. That leaves 10,000 members not in agreement (15,000 total membership).  Can some one comment on why a judge would say the rest (10,000) are just a bunch of disgruntled complainers and agree with the minority,5000.


----------



## fairmontlvr

Meow said:


> I wish I could be as optimistic, Spark 1.  Our chances are 50/50 at best.  Northwynd seems to be very careful in their approach in this and doing things by the book.  Judges are very unpredictable.  Northwyn could just as easily come out looking like the 'White Knight', trying to save the resort and salvage the investments of the REIT investors and the timeshare lessees/owners.  We are led to believe there are about 5000 timeshare owners/lessees that have bought into Northwyn's plan.  Those of us involved in the legal challenges are in the minority.  The judge can easily take the position that we are just disgruntled parties looking for loopholes to get out of our lease or 'Legacy for Life' contractual obligations.  No matter, it could be a long and costly process through the courts.  I worry that people will bail out as the costs to stay in begin to accelerate.  Northwynd has more stayng power than we do!



Just because 5000 owners may have opted to either one of the two packages, it does not mean they agree with Northwynd. What percentage of these 5000 opted to stay and what percentage opted to get out?
How many of these 5000 felt they had a gun to the head and were forced to make a choice in fear of creditors coming after them?
If there are close to 15000 owners and only 5000 actually chose one of the two alternatives then the way I see it is that two thirds of the owners have not responded to either choice despite the threats of accruing interest charges.
I think there are many that have not opted to register with a lawyer and are awaiting an outcome by the courts.


----------



## Meow

I expect the judge will look at the terms of the lease documents and the terms of the contracts for the Legacy for Life owners and determine our rights and the rights of Northwynd.  No one can predict how the judge will see it.  I'm not sure that the numbers in either camp should have any influence.
I am also disappointed that there are owners/lessees like TSBS (see post #666) that are prepared to have a free ride and take advantage of a favorable result (if any) of the legal actions that some of us are funding.


----------



## CleoB

Meow said:


> I expect the judge will look at the terms of the lease documents and the terms of the contracts for the Legacy for Life owners and determine our rights and the rights of Northwynd.  No one can predict how the judge will see it.  I'm not sure that the numbers in either camp should have any influence.
> I am also disappointed that there are owners/lessees like TSBS (see post #666) that are prepared to have a free ride and take advantage of a favorable result (if any) of the legal actions that some of us are funding.



If this turns into a class action lawsuit I believe the people that haven't signed up will be SOL.  At that point they will have to hire their own lawyer and fees could be much higher for them.


----------



## GypsyOne

Yes, judges can be unpredictable and you never know what other factors or politics will influence their decisions.  But based on the merits of our case, I am optimistic of a favourable ruling, although I expect the final ruling will not come at the next hearing which is scheduled for July 12.

We always knew Mr. Wankel would try to pull the numbers game, as flawed as that approach might be, in order to influence the judge for a favourable ruling.  But lets keep in mind the judicial system is not based on democracy, it is based on the rule of law.  Therefore it doesn't matter how many of the majority remain silent, it will be contract law, precedents, and the strength of our argument that will determine the outcome. There is certainly no doubt the Companies are guilty of a number of breeches of contract and misrepresentations.

As an example of how extraneous are the relative numbers, take a real life example that occurred some time ago.  I forget the exact numbers so I'll paraphrase to make the point.  Some of the chartered banks were found guilty of calculating compound interest incorrectly.  Out of, lets say 100,000 customers, say 99,995 were oblivious and just paid what they were billed.  The other five recognized the error and took the banks to court and won.  The fact that 99,995 said nothing was not proof of approval for bank policy.  Ultimately it is truth and the rule of law that wins the day.

Incidentally, Mr. Wankel has filed a second affidavit with the court and the lawyers for our side have the opportunity on July 5th to depose him (interview and question him).  The lawyers should have a fun day!

Let's make sure we hang in together.  If you haven't signed up with one of the lawyers or groups, I understand it's still not too late.  Complete a Form 67 and an affidavit and get it into the court.  Together we can defeat this injustice for a quite small cost per individual.


----------



## Meow

CleoB said:


> If this turns into a class action lawsuit I believe the people that haven't signed up will be SOL.  At that point they will have to hire their own lawyer and fees could be much higher for them.



I understand that not all the lawyers representing the varous groups of timeshare lessees/owners support the class action route. I hope this disagreement does not add confusion and delay in the legal process.


----------



## tdjanzen

Meow said:


> I understand that not all the lawyers representing the varous groups of timeshare lessees/owners support the class action route. I hope this disagreement does not add confusion and delay in the legal process.



At this time, I do not believe that this suit is at all a "class action suit".  the representation that I hired (to my understanding) is representing a group of us for this action and this action only.  They are bringing forward the concerns of the timeshare owners that don't want to choose either Choose to Stay or Bugger off.

However, depending on what the judge rules, it will become more clear as to how timeshare owners can react.  I suspect that the various iterations of the timeshare contracts may be interpreted differently as to what Northwynd can and cannot do.

As well, different timeshare owners are going to react differently.  Honestly, if I can get out without having to drop additional funds.  I am gone.  I don't have any damages and therefore I couldn't participate in any further litigation.  Legacy for Life participants probably will want to show bad faith and damages.

I feel sorry for those that want the place to continue because half of me believes that Northwynd wants us to leave and then they get the land.  Can you imagine how many houses/condos that they could place on the existing footprint and even more if you include the golf course.  The other half of me thinks that Northwynd is just in it for the short term money grab and will disappear long before the construction is completed (and good luck trying to get your money back from them).

Just my $0.02.  Hopefully, everyone who booked for this summer will get a chance to use their reservation and at least get some money worth from their annual maintenance fee.


----------



## oneworldonerace

*Past behaviour dictates future behaviour - Northwynd's greed and fraud*

Mexico has pages of angry Northwynd Timeshare owners postings over fraudulent business practices and money grabs.  

Below are two articles reported on the business dealings of Northwynd and Makaha Resort in Hawaii.  The first article is about Northwynd selling one of the Makaha Resort 18 hole golf courses in 2011. The second article is about Northwynd's sale of the golf course, it's loan of 6.8 million and being sued by Pacific Links LLC for default in 2013.  

_*Apr 25, 2011, 2:46pm HST
Northwynd Resort sells Makaha Resort & Golf Club
Pacific Business News*
Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd., the owner of Makaha Resort & Golf Club, has sold the resort’s 18-hole golf course to Hawaiian Golf Properties LLC.
The sale closed earlier this month for an undisclosed amount; it is the first step in redeveloping the 173-room resort, according to Kelly Cuff, Makaha Resort & Golf Club’s general manager.
Cuff told PBN that plans for the resort’s renovation are currently in progress, but a start date has yet to be determined.
Separately, the 7,040-yard golf Mar 4, 2013, 7:20am HST
Pacific Links Hawaii files foreclosure on Makaha Hotel and Resort_

_*Mar 4, 2013, 7:20am HSTPacific Business News*
An affiliate of Pacific Links Hawaii, which owns the two Makaha golf courses in Leeward Oahu, has filed a lawsuit to foreclose on the shuttered Makaha Hotel and Resort after the hotel owner was unable to secure additional financing to renovate the property.
Hawaiian Golf Properties LLC, which does business as Pacific Links Hawaii, had loaned $6.8 million to the 173-room hotel's Canada-based owner, Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd., which closed the hotel in October 2011 as it worked to secure more financing for a major renovation of the property.
Pacific Links bought the 255-acre Makaha Valley West course in 2011 and acquired the 145-acre East course at the Makaha Valley Country Club from developer Jeff Stone in April 2012.
The foreclosure, filed last week, does not affect the golf operations, Pacific Links said.
"It is very unfortunate that Makaha Hotel and Resort was unable to secure the financing to reignite hotel operations," Micah Kane, chief operating officer of Pacific Links Hawaii, said in a statement. "However, we will use this as an opportunity to pursue a more comprehensive, community-based approach to developing a truly sustainable economic plan for Makaha Valley."
Read More at Pacific Business News will be temporarily closed for renovations beginning on May 14. A reopening date was not immediately available.
Calgary, Can.-based Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. owns a total of eight resorts in Belize, Canada, Mexico and the United States.
Industries: Commercial Real Estate, Sports Business _

Northwynd sold the golf course, borrowed 6.8 million, and still didn't come up with a solution for it's timeshare owners.  I wonder where the money went, why they closed the entire resort, and why they are now being sued in Hawaii - coincidence?

Northwynd wants approximately 42 million for a renovation at Riverside and Hillside for a phantom project that has no back up - no engineered drawings no formal written plans, no completed estimates of the buildings to be demolished or refurbished - no guarantees of any repairs or long term viability no matter how this turns out.  

I leave it with the lawyers. I lose whether I stay or go, but I will not pay because someone presents an affidavit.  Presented in truth, partial truth or outright fraud, once a sworn affidavit is presented to the courts it becomes truth until proven otherwise.

Money to rebuild is not the issue - greed, lies and fraud are the issues and Northwnd is becoming a master on all counts.


----------



## Meow

Will any of this about Mexico and Hawaii be placed before the judge and if so, will it be considered relevant to our case?


----------



## oneworldonerace

I did send the links on the Hawaiian Makaha case to my lawyer. I am currently using Geldert law firm. I am not sure if it is being used at this time or not.


----------



## DarkLord

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Cleaner-1994-Lease-Redacted.pdf

If you look at our contract, paragraph 8, the only items Northwynd can bill the owners are things like furniture and office equipment.  This is a far cry from the fondation repairment or poly B pipes replacement Northwynd is billing us now.  And also a far cry from 5 star renovation of the resort Northwyn had in mind on paper.


----------



## DarkLord

GypsyOne said:


> Some of the chartered banks were found guilty of calculating compound interest incorrectly.  Out of, lets say 100,000 customers, say 99,995 were oblivious and just paid what they were billed.  The other five recognized the error and took the banks to court and won.



You are probably reffering to something like the Markson Credit.

http://www.thestar.com/business/per...ays_8_million_to_settle_credit_card_suit.html

I and many many people pay extra on interest on my MBNA card.  But that doesn't mean MBNA is in the clear.  One guy, Markson took MBNA to court and won.  In law, size doesn't not matter.


----------



## DarkLord

GypsyOne said:


> Incidentally, Mr. Wankel has filed a second affidavit with the court and the lawyers for our side have the opportunity on July 5th to depose him (interview and question him).  The lawyers should have a fun day!



I've read the 2nd Wankel affidavit which is not currently on Sunchaser's website.   Wankel kept making arguments asking the court to release cancellation fee and renovation fee collected so far held in trust by Norton Rose.  Wankel said the GST collected so far is about $369K which means the cancellation and renovation fee collected so far would be in the $7M-$8M range (out of the possible $40M).

The troubling sign is that Wankel said if Northmount couldn't get assess to this $7M to $8M, the resort will be bankrupt by 2013 Q3 which is a few months from now.

But aren't the $7M to $8M fee collected supposed to be use to renovate the resort instead of paying for ongoing expenses and some debt the resort owes Northwynd?


----------



## MFD

fairmontlvr said:


> I am curious if there are any Riverview owners on here. To refresh everyone's memory, Riverview (not to be confused with the oldest units called Riverside) units were those closest to the bridge and were the newest having granite countertops and the most modern features. One of the selling points of those units was the exclusivity of having the option to stay in any of the units at either Riverview, Riverside or Hillside but conversely, those that bought into Riverside or Hillside could not book into the units at Riverview.
> 
> So my question is did those that bought into the Riverview units, were they also asked to contribute to the renovation plan to upgrade the older units? One could argue that the more modern units at Riverview may not need extensive renovations and could be excluded.




When we purchased our timeshare, which was only a couple of years ago, we were told we were purchasing the newest units, which would be Riverview.  When we actually went to use it, they put us in Hillside, when I told them that we were supposed to be in Riverview, they said that Hillside was newer and we were getting a nicer unit.  At the time, I had no idea, so didn't argue.  They tell us one thing and then lie straight to our face when we inquire about it.  
We also were billed the renovation fees, even though we've only been owners for a couple years, and if what Northwynd says is true about maintenance fees being too low in previous years and now they have to start charging to make up for it, how would that apply to us?  Our maintenance fees have always been $850 and higher every year.  They'll try and make excuses for charging these renovation fees, and the only ones who benefit from it is them.


----------



## Tacoma

Much as I love Fairmont and the valley as I started to read what was happening I came to 2 conclusions.  They're crooks and they are going under and the best we can hope for is that they don't destroy our credit in the process.  When I hear of people who know what is going on booking for next year at Lake Okanagan resort and thinking that this group won't pull a similar scam on them I think they're naïve.  If I could I would have bailed but did not want to put this nightmare on an unsuspecting person.  I'm lucky that I got my unit for free so I don't have a lot invested.  Ironically I'm paying more to fight these guys.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Cash grab*



MFD said:


> When we purchased our timeshare, which was only a couple of years ago, we were told we were purchasing the newest units, which would be Riverview.  When we actually went to use it, they put us in Hillside, when I told them that we were supposed to be in Riverview, they said that Hillside was newer and we were getting a nicer unit.  At the time, I had no idea, so didn't argue.  They tell us one thing and then lie straight to our face when we inquire about it.
> We also were billed the renovation fees, even though we've only been owners for a couple years, and if what Northwynd says is true about maintenance fees being too low in previous years and now they have to start charging to make up for it, how would that apply to us?  Our maintenance fees have always been $850 and higher every year.  They'll try and make excuses for charging these renovation fees, and the only ones who benefit from it is them.



I feel for you and others that happened to buy into the Riverview units. They charged you a premium amount as yes they were the newest and had the granite or marble countertops and newest appliances and you were told that you had exclusive priviledges of buying at Riverview as others at Hillside or Riverside could not stay at Riverview.

They are the newest units, occupancy started in 2005 and I am sure did not have full occupancy for a few years. It defies logic that these newest units would require any form of an upgrade other than what the maintenance fees should be able to cover. At $4000 per unit x 50 weeks this equates to over $200,000 per unit! There is no way these units require this amount of repairs. Yet another reason this is merely a cash grab.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Don Seable*

Does anyone have any knowledge of how Don Seable got out of Fairmont Hot Springs Resort Limited? His wife Carol, is a daughter of the Wilder family who originally developed the Fairmont Hot Spring Resort before it was sold out to the Fowler Group a few years ago. Don Seable was the founder of the development of the timeshares at Fairmont and designed the Riverside Golf Course and continued the timeshare and land development around Riverside.

Both Don and his wife Carol's names come up as starting up the timeshares at Mountainside and then later at Riverside. Don is still the president of the Mountainside Villas to which I am also an owner and can attest that there is a night and day difference of how the two are run. 

Researching both Don and Carols names, it appears they are quite respected in the Columbia Valley area and are quite involved with the community and with various charitable organizations. 

I did find this, http://golfriverside.com/about-us/fairmont-story/ 

His name is not associated, or at least I did not see it, with Northwynd or later on with FRPL. So does anyone know as to what happened, did he sell out his interest, was he or his wife silent partners?


----------



## mmchili

Darklord, would you please provide the link to Wamkel's 2nd affidavit.

Re Seable; has no connection with Northmont/Riverside and has no ownership interest. Seable is the owner of the managment company that manages Mountainside. I believe Fairmont Hot Springs Resort, Mountainside Villas and Riverside Golf course were sold by the Fowler Family a couple of years ago. NM/NW has no ownership interest in the golf course.

There are details of the renovations with costs per building on the Sunchaser website. Click on Renovation Program/Renovation Documents/Renovation Power Point. NM/NW is using the poly-b issue as their main excuse for renovating because it is "behind the wall" and since the ceilings and walls have to be removed to replace the piping, they want to do a complete renovation and of course they not anly get a renovated resort but collect the 15% management fee of $6 million. My question is, will they siphon some of the monies to renovate Lake Okanagan. The hotel portion needs a major make-over, it is in worse condition than Riverside. This resort is a money pit for NM/NW at the expense of the timeshare owners. I hope the Judge sees thru NM/NW ideas and sets them straight, if that is possible.


----------



## fairmontlvr

tswow said:


> Darklord, would you please provide the link to Wamkel's 2nd affidavit.
> 
> Re Seable; has no connection with Northmont/Riverside and has no ownership interest. Seable is the owner of the managment company that manages Mountainside. I believe Fairmont Hot Springs Resort, Mountainside Villas and Riverside Golf course were sold by the Fowler Family a couple of years ago. NM/NW has no ownership interest in the golf course.



Don Seable married Carol Wilder and yes I think he and his wife were quite involved with not only the development of the timeshares at Mountainside but also with the golf course at Riverside and the timeshares at Riverside. At some point  they either sold his/her interests in Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd or were arms length. He is indeed the president of the company managing the Mountainside timeshares.

I guess my point is that everything seemed to be going well under his and his wife's continued dream of developing the Fairmont area. At some point he no longer was involved with Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd, yet continued on with the Mountainside Villas. This seems to be about the same time that the owners started to get into trouble and here we are today. It should be noted that the Wilder family sold out to the Fowler Group. The Fowlers own the Fairmont Hot Springs Resort( Lodge and pool), the ski hill, the undeveloped land around the Fairmont area, the Mountainside Villas, the three golf courses but Not the timeshares around the Riverside Golf course. 

Maybe a solution for us all would be for the Fowler Group to buy out Northwynd and get back on track of developing the potential of the Fairmont area to a point envisioned by the Wilders, by Don Seable. Treating us owners as valued customers instead of money bags and allowing us to enjoy the Fairmont area that drew us there in the first place.


----------



## Chilliaces

*I will miss this place*

I am right now at Fairmont for the last time. I love it here. It is such a beautiful place but the state of the resort is obvious.
When we checked in a few days ago, the staff at the front desk were "over the top" nice. Much more than usual. I am sure they were coached on their presentation. 
The state of the resort is obviously in need of maintenance. There are so many things that need to be repaired and/or replaced it isn't funny. 
With the amount of owners paying "extremely high" maintenance fees each year, why was it allowed to get to this state? They have been pocketing a bunch of this money I am sure.


----------



## Meow

Chilliaces:
How well is the WiFi working now?


----------



## LookingForAnswers

> Chilliaces:   The state of the resort is obviously in need of maintenance. There are so many things that need to be repaired and/or replaced it isn't funny.



Like what?   We haven't been there for 2 years... and didn't notice any problem ourselves... other than the tiled counter-tops are a bit dated.


----------



## Quadmaniac

DarkLord said:


> The troubling sign is that Wankel said if Northmount couldn't get assess to this $7M to $8M, the resort will be bankrupt by 2013 Q3 which is a few months from now.
> 
> But aren't the $7M to $8M fee collected supposed to be use to renovate the resort instead of paying for ongoing expenses and some debt the resort owes Northwynd?



What makes you think that the resort would be bankrupt by Q3 when they have already collected the 2013 MF ?


----------



## Xkon

Meow said:


> Chilliaces:
> How well is the WiFi working now?



I was there in March and it was completely unusable. Bring a hotspot with you if you do go!


----------



## DarkLord

Quadmaniac said:


> What makes you think that the resort would be bankrupt by Q3 when they have already collected the 2013 MF ?



It's from Wankel's 2nd affidavit in which he basically says if the resort cannot use the already renovation and cancellation monies Norton Rose collected in turst so far (which I estimated to be between $7M-$8M), the resort will likely have to declare bankrupcy in Q3 2013.


----------



## CleoB

DarkLord said:


> http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Cleaner-1994-Lease-Redacted.pdf
> 
> If you look at our contract, paragraph 8, the only items Northwynd can bill the owners are things like furniture and office equipment.  This is a far cry from the fondation repairment or poly B pipes replacement Northwynd is billing us now.  And also a far cry from 5 star renovation of the resort Northwyn had in mind on paper.



Unfortunately if you look at 8 (i) it says repairs to the inside and outside of the villas.  I hope the judge sees what Northwynd wants to do as a capital project and not a repair.


----------



## DarkLord

CleoB said:


> I hope the judge sees what Northwynd wants to do as a capital project and not a repair.



That's the gist of it.  What Northwynd's trying to do is akin to putting up a new building and asking the TS owners to pay for it so that they can sell and profit from it later.


----------



## fairmontlvr

DarkLord said:


> It's from Wankel's 2nd affidavit in which he basically says if the resort cannot use the already renovation and cancellation monies Norton Rose collected in turst so far (which I estimated to be between $7M-$8M), the resort will likely have to declare bankrupcy in Q3 2013.



Northwynd assumed they would get a favorable ruling from the court and started the renovation project. Now they are threatening if they don't get the favorable ruling it will drive them into bankruptcy? I have no sympathy for Northwynd if the ruling goes against them. 

This would be no different then you or I giving the go-ahead to a contractor to renovate our house based on the hope of a bank giving a line of credit. Then crying the blues when the bank turns you down and you have already started the work.


----------



## Chilliaces

*Update*

For a short time in the 90's, I sold these timeshares. I was taught to tell people that each unit was sold 51 times. 1 week per year was set aside for maintenance that could not be done when people are in the units. I am quite sure these places are used 52 weeks per year. As I sit here and look around my unit, nothing has been changed or upgraded since they were built. Same pictures, same furniture, same crappy hide-a-beds, same crappy bent up shades on all the windows, etc. There is bubbled wallpaper, cracked window sills, poor lighting, old TV's, baseboards that need replacing, etc. Our fridge and freezer don't work very well. We put water in the ice tray the night we got here and the next morning there was a small layer of ice on top but mostly still water. 
I do realized they they are well used and livable, but I guarantee you that our maintenance fees have not been used as intended.
They did upgrade the WiFi and it is much better. 
I was here the first week of July last year and it is not near as busy this year. Last year you couldn't get a lounger by the pool unless you got there early. Yesterday 3/4 of the chairs were empty at 1:30 in the afternoon.
Most people I have talked to have chosen to buy their way out. There are a lot of bitter people and most who paid thought they had no choice. They didn't know about this site and didn't do any research. Thus Northwynds claim as to how many have paid.
FRP/Northwynd management must have learned their business management skills from the government, collect all the money, and then expect that the people who paid the taxes/fees just trust that the money is used wisely, even though we all know that is not the case.
I have signed up with Docken and have given his name and number to a few people although I dont know if he or any of the other lawyers are still taking clients.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*New Affidavits posted*

There are two new affidavits posted on the Sunchasers web site under the Renovation Program / BC Court Petition.
The documents are from Wankel and Frey and the one by Doug Frey makes for interesting reading. 
http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Doug-Frey-Affidavit-1-Filed-062513.pdf


----------



## DarkLord

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Kirk-Wankel-Affidavit-2-Filed-062513.pdf

Paragraph 50 and 56, Wankel talks about high likelyhood of bankrupcy after Q3 2013.  At least he's speaking the truth now.


----------



## Quadmaniac

DarkLord said:


> It's from Wankel's 2nd affidavit in which he basically says if the resort cannot use the already renovation and cancellation monies Norton Rose collected in turst so far (which I estimated to be between $7M-$8M), the resort will likely have to declare bankrupcy in Q3 2013.



We all know that is a bunch of crap.


----------



## tdjanzen

*Q3 Bankruptcy*

Actually, I think Mr. Wankel is probably be quite accurate that Northwynd is sucking wind.  However, it is not the "minority owners" that created that situation.

If I read the document correctly, he is saying that they must have access to the Project Maintenance Fees paid to date (~$5-6,000,000; based on the GST calc.) or they won't be able to pay the contractor (that is already working on work that may or may not be approved) or pay outstanding amounts to Northwynd.  I understand the first issue but not sure that I am particularly sympathetic to Northwynd's management fee being delayed. I find it particularly galling that this deficit was hidden from timeshare owners for over 3 years, because there were no published financial statements.  Then suddenly, tada, we're presented with statements that we owe them over $4,000,000 for costs incurred over the last 3 years.

I do find it interesting that I believe we "the minority owners" could make exactly the same argument that he does.  If the Project Maintenance Fees are not put in trust (i.e. Northwynd can spend it at their will), we will NEVER see a dime of it, even if our action succeeds.  They need the money to continue operating the resort and financing the construction.

Finally, did he just say that Northwynd is planning to use the funds designated for the new construction project to fund Q3 and Q4 operations? 

Anyone that has been sitting on the fence about whether to inject cash (Reasons to Stay) or run away (Freedom to Choose), should look at that statement.  Some (all) of the money you give them could wind up being used for things other than "re-furbishing"  the facilities.  And Northwynd decides how and when it gets used.  The prospect is terrifying.

I honestly believe that there may be a point of compromise where the renovation amounts should be held in trust.  I can see that the deficit repayment could be used to do exactly that; pay off outstanding amounts.  I would have way more faith in Northwynd if they indicated a willingness to delay repayment to them as well.  There are going to receive $6,000,000 if they can make the whole project move ahead.

I just know that I will say my goodbyes to the resort this summer.  I have loved going there and spending time with my family.  But Mr. Wankel's affidavit has proven to me that there is no winning this battle.  He is correct, Northwynd is quite likely to go bankrupt and the mere mention of this fact (through his affidavit) will likely make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.  No one in their right mind is going to give these guys any money for a long, long time.


----------



## darklord700

tdjanzen, that's my conclusion after reading the 2nd Wankel affidavit.  And I deeply feel sorry for the owners who paid the renovation feel and were expecting a spanking new resort down the road.

Wankel is trying to get access to the renovation and cancellation fees paid thus far to fund normal day to day operation of the resort after Q3 2013.  Firstly that's not the intend of the renovation assessment per even Northwynd's admission.  

Secondly, what is going to happen after the few millions collected thus far runs out?  Is Northwynd going to hit the owners with another special assessment?

Northwynd is a terminal case that might not survive past this Christmas.  It's not a smart move for Wankel, our esteemed Chartered Accountant, to make the 2nd affidavit.  But maybe he wouldn't have done it if he had other choices.


----------



## GypsyOne

Kirk Wankel’s 2nd Affidavit Reveals Discrepancy in Calculating Cancellation Fee

Paragraph 17 of Wankel's Affidavit, Cancellation Fees Paid to Northmont, states in part, _“The Cancellation Fee is made up of three costs. The first is the cancellation cost which is calculated based on the present value of the future management fees owing for the remainder of the Vacation Interval to a maximum of 20 years......” _

The only problem being that the cancellation fee as layed out in Page 1 of Freedom To Choose, Reason to Stay letter of April 12, 2013 *was not* calculated on the basis of present value of future management fees, it was calculated on the basis of a larger figure - total management fees for 20 years (20 x $117.92 = $2,358.40). If the cancellation fee had been based on the present value, which by definition is the discounted value of the future flow of funds (in this case management fees), the cancellation fee would be significantly less. Instead of a cancellation fee of $3,167.51, the cancellation fee, based on a discount rate of 7%, would be $2002.91. Here is how the calculation would look: (See Reason To Choose letter for comparison)

20 year example Two Bedroom Annual
Years remaining.........................................................................20
Current management fee (excluding GST)...............................$117.92 
Present value of $117.92 for 20 years discounted @ 7%........$1,249.25
Deficit recovery, administration and trustee fee......................$658.28
Combined cancellation fee (excluding GST)..........................$1,907.53
GST @5%............................................................................$95.38
Total cancellation fee including GST....................................$2,002.91

So based on his 2nd Affidavit, and based on their own assumptions, they are overstating the Cancellation fee by $3,167.51 - $2,002.91 = $1,164.60. In other words, they have over-charged those who have paid the cancellation fee and they are over-billing those who might pay to get out. 

Which is the proper way to calculate a cancellation fee? Is it the total cumulated amount of the future management fees that they used in the calculation, or is it the discounted present value amount which he says he used? No question it is the 20-year discounted present value amount. Actuaries and financial analysts, when measuring the present value of a future flow of funds, will always discount the funds received in the future because of the time value of money. It boils down to a simple matter that people would rather have, say $117.92 today, than $117.92 twenty years in the future.

There are really two issues here. Firstly, those who are disputing paying the renovation fee and the cancellation fee for reasons of numerous breaches of contract and misrepresentations, say there should be no cancellation fee. Secondly, those who have agreed to pay the cancellation fee and walk away, may have paid too much. These people should look at whether they should either get a refund, or have the total amount returned because of misrepresentation.


----------



## GypsyOne

Deleted message.


----------



## Duane_Meade

They are try to rebuild the sucker


----------



## SentimentalLady

Meow said:


> Chilliaces:
> How well is the WiFi working now?



We were in Riverside 705 in early June and it worked great.


----------



## Hotpink

*Selling the assets*

As they are selling Lake Okanagan and as an "owner"( Northwynd's definition) we have not been consulted about this. 

http://www.specializedassets.ca/properties/lake-okanagan-resort

Now we know they want the cash and be damned with the owners.

I did NOT ever see any request for money to upgrade , renovate or expand that property.
What is different with Riverside /Hillside/ Riverview and Lake Okanagan.

Take time to read the listing and give us your thoughts


----------



## darklord700

Hotpink said:


> Take time to read the listing and give us your thoughts



If Northwynd can sell Okanagan without TS owners' consent, that means TS owners don't own the assets but Northwynd.  So why should TS owners pay for Fairmont's capital upgrade?

OTOH, the Okanagan resort might worth the asking price but Northwynd's also selling the liability to TS owners.  Meaning the buyer doesn't not own the resort until such time the TS owners claim on the use of the resort expires in a few decades.


----------



## fairmontlvr

Hotpink said:


> Take time to read the listing and give us your thoughts



If anyone has read the reviews on Trip Advisor of Lake Okanagan Resort it sounds as if the condition and lack of on going maintenance is worse than that of Fairmont. Perhaps as a result of the complaints and ongoing court case that many of us have forced, Northwynd has realized they are fighting a losing battle and could not try to push the same renovation project onto the owners at Lake Okanagan.

Another perspective is that the creditors of Nortwynd may be slowly realizing the ship is sinking, and are asking/demanding some form of payment.   If in fact this renovation project at Fairmont does not go through or is tied up in the courts for some time and Northwynd does go into bankruptcy in the fall, Northwynd and the creditors would probably receive a lot less money from a court ordered fire sale of Lake Okanagan.

Conversely, if we get a ruling from the courts that we timeshare owners are owners of time and only time and are not responsible for major capital upgrades, then Northwynd could use the proceeds of this sale at Lake Okanagan to fund these upgrades they have committed to.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Lake Okanagan Resort*

After further reading of the listing for the Lake Okanagan Resort (LOR), of the 217 units at resort, the new owner would only have 76 units available to rent as 77 are privately owned and 64 are classified as timeshares. 

This leads to the question, is Northwynd still planning on owning these 64 units? Or, because of the promoting of the Legacy for Life program, are these units not available to be listed due to this perpetual commitment? 
The ad for the listing mentions the owner would manage the site and collect maintenance fees and management fees. 
Any potential owners would be faced with many issues regarding clarification of responsibility of capital costs and renovation fees of these units.


----------



## SentimentalLady

That Hilford letter was fabulous - she pulled together all the relevant arguments that have been mentioned here.

(It was the very last pages at http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Kirk-Wankel-Affidavit-2-Filed-062513.pdf)

I'd be interested to know whether their offer was accepted.

And which legal firm they are going with.


----------



## GypsyOne

SentimentalLady said:


> That Hilford letter was fabulous - she pulled together all the relevant arguments that have been mentioned here.
> 
> (It was the very last pages at http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Kirk-Wankel-Affidavit-2-Filed-062513.pdf)
> 
> I'd be interested to know whether their offer was accepted.
> 
> And which legal firm they are going with.




No, the offer in the Hilford letter that you refer to was rejected by Northwynde and Companies along with over 100 similar letters sent to the Companies and included as an Exhibit in Form 67 and Affidavit lodged with the B.C. Supreme court each by a group of owners banding together to fight this unscrupulous issue.


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> No, the offer in the Hilford letter that you refer to was rejected by Northwynde and Companies along with over 100 similar letters sent to the Companies and included as an Exhibit in Form 67 and Affidavit lodged with the B.C. Supreme court each by a group of owners banding together to fight this unscrupulous issue.



Does anyone know what percentage of the monies collected buy may31 were cancellation fees. We all know this money paid buy timeshare owners for cancellation fees were because of the ensuing threats put forth buy Northwynd.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Who is paying Maintenance Fees now for 2014?*

In previous years we have paid our Maintenance fees a full year in advance to secure a prime unit that we wanted during our annual gold season. With the uncertainty of the future of Sunchaser and Northwynd, I don't have the confidence of giving them a dime in advance until this is cleared up. 

This started about three of four years ago and I now wonder if it was a means of using future maintenance funds inappropriately. 

Is anyone brave enough to give them a deposit now for 2014?


----------



## condomama

fairmontlvr said:


> In previous years we have paid our Maintenance fees a full year in advance to secure a prime unit that we wanted during our annual gold season. With the uncertainty of the future of Sunchaser and Northwynd, I don't have the confidence of giving them a dime in advance until this is cleared up.
> 
> This started about three of four years ago and I now wonder if it was a means of using future maintenance funds inappropriately.
> 
> Is anyone brave enough to give them a deposit now for 2014?


Not us!  We used to do the same, book and pay for the next year while we were enjoying this year's week.  Not any more!


----------



## DarkLord

From the 2nd Wankel Affidavit, I worry how the resort is going to survive no matter the outcome of the petition.  Only 840 owners out of potential 12750 owners paid in full.  These are probably the only owners (840 of them) that will pay the maintenance fee next year and beyond.  Another 1965 owners chose the $100 per month option so perhaps a portion of them will pay the maintenance fee for next year and beyond.

If the resort cannot survive on the maintenance fee collected before this fiasco, how can it manage it's budget on 840+change owners paying the maintenance fee?


----------



## jekebc

Some of you may have received a letter or email from Kellie Hamilton soliciting you to pay her a retainer and join in a Class Action that she has filed.

I suggest you be very cautious and check out what she is actually proposing before you agree to retain her services.

I have a copy of the claim she filed re the Class Action and will share it with those that wish a copy.

Please email me at thebelfrys@shaw.ca if you wish further details.


----------



## Meow

*Getting concerned!*

Now that we have our various legal groups heading off in different directions, what hope is there for any success in the courts against Northwynd?  Is it a case of divide and conquer.  Northwynd just has to sit back and let it happen.


----------



## ferrier1

*ferrier1*

I agree with Jim. First prove the allegations and then seek the damages with a class action. Although all the allegations seem well founded, nothing is proven. All we know for sure we all received a reno/freedom to choose bill.


----------



## jekebc

*Deadline for Responses - August 2, 2013*

I attended the Court session held July 12, 2013 presided over by Madame Justice Loo.
The session was actually a Case Planning Conference intended to get agreement among the parties as to the processes and schedules by which the issues in the petition can be addressed. The Court will issue an order including the steps and the dates that I will make available as soon as received.
From my notes, the key dates for consideration:
All responses to the Petition by individual owners or by law firms on behalf of owners must be filed with the Court and served on other parties by August 2, 2013.
The lawyers must agree to and submit a Statement of Special Case by August 16, 2013. This document will identify all issues to be decided on by the Court.
The schedule will provide for submissions of arguments and replies and examination of respondents through to end of September.
The actual Hearing Dates for the case have been set for October 8 to 10 with the case to be heard by Justice Loo.

Note to Owners that Have Not Submitted Form 67
It is important that all owners who have not already done so submit their objections, if any to the proposals by Northmont – this includes the billing for renovations, the levying of a cancellation fee for those that wish to cancel their contracts, and the proposed reorganizing and downsizing of the Resort.
The process of submission is by way of completed and signed Form 67, preferably with an Affidavit although it is not essential.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Form 67*

If you are not with a lawyer and want help with Form 67, you may try contacting Jim and see if he has room for more in his group.  jimbelfry@shaw.ca. He is very knowledgeable and level-headed and  has a Lawyer helping him with every step.


----------



## bjsmolan

*Sunchaser Vacation Villas*

I'm with the group who are working toward a Class Action. I will be in with all that are working in this direction.


----------



## Shywon

*Form 67*

Have been following this site since receiving bill.  We can not afford any of the lawyers and have done nothing at this point.  Was going to send in form 67 but found the filing part to be not so straight forward as the court office said to file online but to do that I need to get a user ID which required going to BC to show my ID before they would active it.  Can someone please tell me how and what address to file form 67 at and we would be happy to do this.


----------



## aden2

re: Shywon form 67 should be mailed to the Vancouver Registry.
Address: 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2E1

A copy of all documents must be served on the Petitioner by mail to the address:
Attention: Warren B. Milman, 1300 - 777 Dunsmuir Street, PO Box 10424, Pacific Center, Vancouver, BC, V7Y 1K2

A copy of all documents must be served on the Respondent by mail to the address:
Norton Rose Canada LLP, Attention Judson E. Virtue, 400 - 3rd Avenue SW, Suite 3700, Calgary, AB, T2P 4H2

Take your affadavid to any court house to have it signed and stamped. It is free of charge. All exhibits should also be singed by the clerk at the court house.


----------



## Shywon

*Form 67*

Thanks can it be signed in an Alberta Court office or does it have to be in the BC Court offices or can any notary sign it?


----------



## aden2

Shywon said:


> Thanks can it be signed in an Alberta Court office or does it have to be in the BC Court offices or can any notary sign it?



I went to the Court House in St. Albert and had the affadavid signed at no cost. Yes a notary can sign it.


----------



## renoman

SentimentalLady said:


> That Hilford letter was fabulous - she pulled together all the relevant arguments that have been mentioned here.
> 
> (It was the very last pages at http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Kirk-Wankel-Affidavit-2-Filed-062513.pdf)
> 
> I'd be interested to know whether their offer was accepted.
> 
> And which legal firm they are going with.





Can someone lead me to the Hilford letter ?


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Hillside pool*

Stopped in at the Hillside pool today and have noted the following observations:

1. Staffing levels must be reduced. Pool opened at 10:00 but water slide did not open till 12:30 pm. Went over for ice cream to find snack bar closed, so what do they do? Shut down the water slide with a long line of disappointed kids and have a lifeguard work the snack bar. 

2. Tables on raised patio area close to building had no umbrellas, only 3 umbrellas throughout entire pool area. These tables used to be quite popular for those that wanted shade, today many people were sitting in chairs along the building to get shade while the tables in the sun were empty. 

The grounds around the complex still look good and are well maintained.


----------



## SentimentalLady

renoman said:


> Can someone lead me to the Hilford letter ?



Click on the link, then go down to the very last pages. I cannot copy and paste it.

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Kirk-Wankel-Affidavit-2-Filed-062513.pdf


----------



## heydynagirl

renoman said:


> Can someone lead me to the Hilford letter ?



I sent basically the same letter (that Hilford sent) today to Wankel, Northwynd  and Resort Villa Management via email and included a copy with my affidavit when I filed form 67 today.  I got the following reply within an hour of emailing the letter.

Dear XXX,

Thank you for your letter.

At this time, there is an ongoing legal process for addressing any Vacation Interval Owners concerns with the contractual obligations of all parties and the resort realignment.

We would direction you to the BC Supreme Court Petition section of the www.sunchaservillas.ca website in the Renovation Program area.  

As it is our position that we are acting in accordance with our contractual rights, your offer is rejected.

Best Regards,



Vacation Ownership Services 
Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.
5799 3rd Street SE
Calgary, AB T2H 1K1


----------



## unFairmont

*Rebuild and Repurpose...*



Duane_Meade said:


> They are try to rebuild the sucker



As my dealings with Fairmont seemed forthright in the 1990's, I purchased and paid for a three bedroom around 2001 at Lake Okanagan that was slated to be constructed, and was given a one bedroom until inventory for 3 bedrooms was available.They then procrastinated, made excuses on slow construction, held lotteries on who would receive newly constructed units etc etc. then went bankrupt. Northwynd came along and REPURPOSED the new buildings and argued I only own a one bedroom unit. They then tried to upsell me into what I already paid for multiple times. Should have took them to court right there and then to get my money back. If they do make it as far as actually rebuilding Fairmont, I am willing to be both my timeshares (hehe) that the rebuilt buildings will also be "REPURPOSED". So frustrated with these people... If someone has a contact for a Calgary lawyer please advise - I have been busy dealing with flood issues and have been unable to follow this properly.

Best of luck to all


----------



## heydynagirl

You might want to contact Jim at thebelfrys@shaw.ca.  He has spearheaded a group of unhappy owners.  He has contacted a lawyer who advised him on our behalf and for a very small fee he can send you a sample form 67, affidavit and letter.  I was very happy to pay the fee as it saved me hundreds in lawyer fees.  He has posted several times here.  Keep in mind your form 67 must be received by the Vancouver court by Aug 2.


----------



## oneworldonerace

The Cross-Examination of Frey and Wankel took place in Calgary on July 16th and July 17th. Evidence regarding the pre-conceived intentions behind the “renovation project” is believed to reveal it to be a liquidation project. Evidence obtained will be very supportive regarding the nature of Northmont’s intentions.

Geldert Law, Docken Klym and Cox Taylor are working together regarding the preparation of affidavits for August 2nd, 2013 in support of the Special Case. Relevant issues now before the court are broader and more numerous than Northmont has agreed to at the CPC on July 12, 2013.

Discussion with counsel for Northmont regarding the Special Case is scheduled to be heard October 8-10, 2013.

Geldert Law, Docken Klym and Cox Taylor, will prepare a preliminary settlement offer to ascertain Northmont’s willingness to consider alternatives following the evidence now on the record.  

Please contact any one of these lawyers with any relevant information and relevant affidavits prior to August 2, 2013.  If you are unable to pay for a lawyer, please submit your sworn affidavit prior to August 2, 2013.


----------



## DarkLord

oneworldonerace said:


> The Cross-Examination of Frey and Wankel took place in Calgary on July 16th and July 17th. Evidence regarding the pre-conceived intentions behind the “renovation project” is believed to reveal it to be a liquidation project. Evidence obtained will be very supportive regarding the nature of Northmont’s intentions.



This is good news.  I gather this was the 3 owners lawyers cross examining Frey and Wankel outside of the courtroom in Calgary, was that right?

It'll be interesting to see the evidence uncovered during the cross examination that reveal Northwynd's intend to liquidate the resort instead of renovate it.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*More information on the ongoing legal action*

There is some additional information available on the ongoing court proceedings at the following site of one of the lawyers:

http://kelliehamiltonlaw.com/fairmount-timeshare

From here also look at the link to the right regarding the proposed class action which seeks to cede control of Sunchaser to the timeshare owners. They have the claim available for viewing.


----------



## Meow

*Class Action Suit*

This is not the outcome I was hoping for.  I am not interested in taking over a failed timeshare resort.  So instead of paying a cancelation fee to Northwynd we can pay it over to a yet to be organized owners association.


----------



## DarkLord

The likely favorable outcome is that the owners take over the resort after Northwynd declares bankrupcy.  Then the owners will fire sale the resort, pay off creditors and pocket whatever remains which likely is a few cents on the dollar.

But this is far better than paying the reno fee or paying the cancellation fee in that at least you get paid no matter how little.


----------



## tdjanzen

Meow said:


> This is not the outcome I was hoping for.  I am not interested in taking over a failed timeshare resort.  So instead of paying a cancelation fee to Northwynd we can pay it over to a yet to be organized owners association.



I would tend to agree with you.  But I also see some of the advantage that DarkLord is suggesting.

I am at Sunchaser right now and from what I can remember from past years, things seem to be working as normal.  Riversidea 400 and 800 are under construction so that may account for slightly lower than normal occupancy.

I still have trouble believing that each unit needs in excess of $200K of repairs.  But I suspect when 400 and 800 are done, they will look like new units.

I can't help but thinking that Sunchaser has played their hand all wrong in this instance.  They could have shown people a couple of renovated/updated units and said "hey, we can give you this for all of the remaining units but it will cost $4000 per owner".  Plan the spending over the next 4 or 5 years and then let the chips fall where they may.  Give people 6 months to make a decision and make it clear what their options are.

But it appears from the comments made about cross-examination, that what Northwynd really wants is their cake and eat it too.  Get the cash from current owners and then flip the units to condos.

Personally, I still think that no one is so stupid as to do the things that Northwynd has done (though desperation can make people do very stupid things) and so I am still thinking that we still don't know what their motivation is.  Though I still don't believe that it includes running a timeshare for the long term.

Examples that I have seen of poor decisions likely based on a lack of cash-flow:
the loungers at the Hillside pool are really cheap.  You can see that there are old models that probably are several hundred dollars and they are fewer in number but they work.  Or you can see a Canadian tire special that has a small 1" knob that holds the lounger at the desired position.  I saw at least 6 of these loungers today that were broken (of the 10 I looked at).  My guess is that these loungers won't last a month in the application they are being used and so will require replacement throughout the year.

Surprise, surprise, surprise   One of the hot tubs at the Riverside pool is not working.  We have been here eight times during our time share and not once have all of the hot tubs been working.

Smart business decisions:
Pool towels are now placed in the unit.  Which means that the user takes the towel to the pool and returns it to the unit.  The user now is responsible for drying and laundering the towel during the week.  It is is likely that this has greatly reduced their laundry usage.


I have some more time here this week and so I may report again but from what I see, Fairmont is still a viable place that people want to go to.  though there is almost no one on the golf course.  I do believe that Northwynd has created some serious animosity among many owners.  I seriously doubt that anyone is going to give them the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## oneworldonerace

*Three firms + Kellie Hamilton*

Not trying to say I know any more than anyone else, nor do I want to sway anyone from what they feel is the correct action to take at this time - but it is my understanding that the class action suit by Kellie Hamilton was deemed to be premature by the three firms Docken Klym, Geldert Law, Cox Taylor representing various groups of TS owners.

Kellie Hamilton arrived late to the proceedings and filed the class action without consultation with the three firms trying to work cohesively to represent each group, nor did she advise the other firms of her intent to file a class action suit prior to that time.

Consistent, cohesive and reliable representation will be the key.  Division on proceedings will create 2 very separate cases.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*What are the lawyer's objectives?*

From the information on the Kelly Hamilton site, it seems she is pursuing a different course of action than some other lawyers.  In an early conversation with Geldert law, he indicated he was only representing those that wanted to to take the "leave" option and be done with Northwynd once and for all.  Its important to sign up with the right lawyer, one that is striving for your own objectives.


----------



## DarkLord

tdjanzen said:


> I can't help but thinking that Sunchaser has played their hand all wrong in this instance.  They could have shown people a couple of renovated/updated units and said "hey, we can give you this for all of the remaining units but it will cost $4000 per owner".  Plan the spending over the next 4 or 5 years and then let the chips fall where they may.  Give people 6 months to make a decision and make it clear what their options are.



I think Northwynd planned this all along before they even acquired the resort.  They had done it once and got away with the Mexico resort so why not do it again.  What you suggested would have been the normal way of approaching a real renovation.  

The way Northwynd went about this proves to me that their true intention is to crash and burn the resort and try to grab as much cash possible from TS owners in the shortest amount of time.  

I believe Northwynd knew they were on shaky legal ground so they hoped for quick favorable petition result from the BC court which is now delayed.

What they didn't anticipate was the usually highly fractured ownership could actually join forces with 3 lawyers to counter them.  And now if they court rule Northwydn didn't have the right to charge the TS owners the reno fee, this would very likely spell the end of Nrothwynd's ownership of the resort.  Wankel by his own admission in his 2nd affidavite says the resort could not survive past Q3 2013 which is a few months or weeks from now making this alledged reno matter of a joke.

Northwynd is at a point that they can't win because even if they court rules for their petition, most owners will just abandone their TS and Northwynd won't have the resources and time to go after them.


----------



## ferrier1

*ferrier1*

You're right Darklord. More than anything the age of the internet, websites like this make for fast communications and exchange of information, made it very difficult for Northwynd. Can you imagine the pace of this before the Internet and lack of communication which now is almost instantaneous. And of course good lawyers


----------



## LookingForAnswers

Chilliaces said:


> I am right now at Fairmont for the last time. I love it here. It is such a beautiful place but the state of the resort is obvious.
> When we checked in a few days ago, the staff at the front desk were "over the top" nice. Much more than usual. I am sure they were coached on their presentation.
> The state of the resort is obviously in need of maintenance. There are so many things that need to be repaired and/or replaced it isn't funny.
> With the amount of owners paying "extremely high" maintenance fees each year, why was it allowed to get to this state? They have been pocketing a bunch of this money I am sure.



So, Chilliances....  interesting that you were able to keep your reservation for July...   did you have to pay the renovation fee, or the penalty fee to opt out of the program first?  We have a week booked in September, and just assumed we were going to have to kiss it goodbye, since we did not pay for one of their options.  

I was wondering since we did pay our 2013 maintenance fee, if we showed up for our reservation - would they honor our reservation?  It's a long drive for us, and I'd hate to show up only to be turned away with no where to go.  At this point, we are expecting to miss out on our much needed weeks vacation...   after paying $1000 for the maintenance fee, we don't have the stomach to come up with another $1000 to stay somewhere else.

Also, wondering if we would be able to deposit our week into interval at this point...  If so, what about the poor person who is unaware of what's going on at the resort and books the week... would they be allowed to stay?  Or for that matter, would we be able to trade our week for anything? 

If anyone has tried, would appreciate your update on what happened.


----------



## ferrier1

*ferrier1*

Mr Wankel has filed an affidvat with the courts stating if you have paid the 2013 maintenance fee you can stay at the resort. Phone sunchaser and confirm your reservation before you leave.


----------



## tdjanzen

ferrier1 said:


> Mr Wankel has filed an affidvat with the courts stating if you have paid the 2013 maintenance fee you can stay at the resort. Phone sunchaser and confirm your reservation before you leave.



I can confirm that this is the case.  

I called ahead several days prior to making the trip out here and confirmed our reservation and arrival time.  Not sure if check-in time has always been this late but the posted check-in time is 5:00 pm.  The agent was quite accommodating and told me that they would make a note that we would be arriving earlier but could not guarantee that the room would be ready.

We arrived at 4:00 pm and the room was ready.

We paid our maintenance fees in January 2013 but have to date refused to pay either fee.  We are registered with Docken Klym.

I too had written off this year but followed this thread and was pleasantly surprised by Mr. Wankel's affidavit that no one had been "barred" from attending the facility.  I believe we have heard from a few posters that were scheduled for May that actually were turned away.

I believe that Northwynd has determined that they probably have no legal basis to prevent entry of owners that have met the maintenance fee threshold; especially as all of this now is being sorted out in front of a judge.

I hope you take the opportunity to use your reservation.  It really is a beautiful spot and my family has had many good memories here.  It pains me though to realize that I can not trust the current management team, so my wife and I have made the decision that we're done.  Now we just wait for the judge to determine if there is a cost to get out or not.  We have not suffered any sort of damages (we were very fortunate not to participate in the Legacy for Life program) and as a result, I don't believe that there would be any point to be a part of a class-action suit.

Funny thing, is that up to 6 months ago, I was scanning Kijiji to see if I could pick up an additional annual unit for cheap.  Thank goodness for my wife's sober second thought.


----------



## StorytellerWA

Can a U.S. owner join the class action suit? I'm trying to find the post the includes a link to Form 67. Can we mail it in or does it need to be delivered in person? We just found this forum and are trying to get up to speed. Thanks.


----------



## CleoB

StorytellerWA said:


> Can a U.S. owner join the class action suit? I'm trying to find the post the includes a link to Form 67. Can we mail it in or does it need to be delivered in person? We just found this forum and are trying to get up to speed. Thanks.




Check posting #491.  http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182857&page=20


----------



## EvaS

Resort Villa Management just sent this email to collect more money. They scare people with interest charges and collection costs even though the case is still in the court. It is another prove that their intentions are cruel. How they can ask to pay maintenance fee  if the case is not finalized yet. 

Original email:
"Please find attached a copy of your outstanding maintenance fees excluding the renovation project maintenance fee.

At this time, we understand that a percentage of our timeshare members are awaiting the outcome of the BC Court Petition before determining their decision on the renovation. However, the outcome of that process has no impact on your existing maintenance fees which are in default and incurring overdue interest charges. 

We strongly urge our timeshare members to bring their accounts into good standing to avoid further interest charges and legal and collection costs in the event we have to pursue additional action.

If you have recently sent in your payment, please ignore this email and thank you. If you have any questions or concerns, or if this email has reached you in error, please contact us at the phone numbers on the statement.

Best regards,

Resort Villa Management"


----------



## Rancher

EvaS said:


> Resort Villa Management just sent this email to collect more money. They scare people with interest charges and collection costs even though the case is still in the court. It is another prove that their intentions are cruel. How they can ask to pay maintenance fee  if the case is not finalized yet.
> 
> Original email:
> "Please find attached a copy of your outstanding maintenance fees excluding the renovation project maintenance fee.
> 
> At this time, we understand that a percentage of our timeshare members are awaiting the outcome of the BC Court Petition before determining their decision on the renovation. However, the outcome of that process has no impact on your existing maintenance fees which are in default and incurring overdue interest charges.
> 
> We strongly urge our timeshare members to bring their accounts into good standing to avoid further interest charges and legal and collection costs in the event we have to pursue additional action.
> 
> If you have recently sent in your payment, please ignore this email and thank you. If you have any questions or concerns, or if this email has reached you in error, please contact us at the phone numbers on the statement.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Resort Villa Management"





I am thinking that the maintenance fees you owe have nothing to do with the renovation charges as they are separate items. You would still owe the maintenance fees no matter how the legal battle turns out.


----------



## DarkLord

Rancher said:


> I am thinking that the maintenance fees you owe have nothing to do with the renovation charges as they are separate items. You would still owe the maintenance fees no matter how the legal battle turns out.



Yes but subtle differences in that some owners think that if you don't pay the maintenance fees, you lose your right to use the timeshare.  Northwynd claims that once you buy the TS you are on the hook for 40 years of maintenance fees which is what some owners are challenging in court.

With the maintenance fee the level they are at due to the mis-management of Northwynd, I and many other owners would just rather walk away.


----------



## Spark1

DarkLord said:


> Yes but subtle differences in that some owners think that if you don't pay the maintenance fees, you lose your right to use the timeshare.  Northwynd claims that once you buy the TS you are on the hook for 40 years of maintenance fees which is what some owners are challenging in court.
> 
> With the maintenance fee the level they are at due to the mis-management of Northwynd, I and many other owners would just rather walk away.



Did anybody receive their audited statements yet? Looks like another breach of the contract. Northwynd just cannot get this right, they feel that they are above the law and they can do as they like. I took a large package to Service Alberta and they went through everything with me. They went over the cancellation form with me and said, this is not a cancellation seeing Northmont does not have to release you until they feel they want to and you are responsible for all the costs according to the contract. They do not have a problem with you as long as you keep paying them. Two hours later after they met with me they phoned and said they moved all the documents to the RCMP department which is run buy Frank Smart. A few days later i got a call from a agent from Service Alberta and she said that no one can change my agreement that we signed when we bought 12 years ago. Supreme court or no supreme court they cannot change your original agreement. Save your money Northwynd your not going to win this one. What we have to do is close our wallets and give them nothing.


----------



## DarkLord

Spark1 said:


> Northwynd just cannot get this right, they feel that they are above the law and they can do as they like.



Northwynd's action is akin to schoolyard bullying.  I can't imagine the owners want to pay them and continue to have this kind of relationship with Northwynd.

After this is over, those Northwynd employees who lied on the affidavite good luck finding new jobs in Calgary as I know a few downtown Calgary employees who had bought the Fairmont TS and are sicked of the treatment they are getting from Northwynd.


----------



## tdjanzen

DarkLord said:


> This is good news.  I gather this was the 3 owners lawyers cross examining Frey and Wankel outside of the courtroom in Calgary, was that right?
> 
> It'll be interesting to see the evidence uncovered during the cross examination that reveal Northwynd's intend to liquidate the resort instead of renovate it.




I received an email from Docken Klym this afternoon.  Anyone else?

Wow!  Is all I can say!

Always interesting to see how discovery brings out the truth.


----------



## Meow

Spark1 said:


> Did anybody receive their audited statements yet? Looks like another breach of the contract. Northwynd just cannot get this right, they feel that they are above the law and they can do as they like. I took a large package to Service Alberta and they went through everything with me. They went over the cancellation form with me and said, this is not a cancellation seeing Northmont does not have to release you until they feel they want to and you are responsible for all the costs according to the contract. They do not have a problem with you as long as you keep paying them. Two hours later after they met with me they phoned and said they moved all the documents to the RCMP department which is run buy Frank Smart. A few days later i got a call from a agent from Service Alberta and she said that no one can change my agreement that we signed when we bought 12 years ago. Supreme court or no supreme court they cannot change your original agreement. Save your money Northwynd your not going to win this one. What we have to do is close our wallets and give them nothing.



Are either the RCMP or Service Alberta intending to take some action against Northwynd and its principals or is this case closed as far as they are concerned?


----------



## jekebc

*Disgusted by Bureaucrats - it's time to hit the press*

Just received a call back from the RCMP section that was involved in the review of the Northwynd - Sunchaser Villas timeshare. They have decided there is not a sufficient basis for them to pursue an investigation.

I am very upset at the absolute lack of support from the different regulatory agencies that are supposedly there for consumer protection. Every agency I have talked to have taken the position that it is somebody else's problem or should be left to the lawyers. I've even talked to the MP for the area and zero by way of response.

So what are we getting for all the taxes we are paying. A group of 14,500 timeshare owners can be taken for almost 1/4 billion dollars and every bureaucrat can sit back, take his pay, and say 'Not my Problem'

I think it is time to let the media know that any timeshare owner in Canada can be a victim of these unscrupulous companies and no bureaucrat or politician appears to give a da!!


----------



## Takkyu

tdjanzen said:


> I received an email from Docken Klym this afternoon.  Anyone else?
> 
> Wow!  Is all I can say!
> 
> Always interesting to see how discovery brings out the truth.



May you provide us with a copy of that email?


----------



## tdjanzen

Takkyu said:


> May you provide us with a copy of that email?



Sorry, it is my understanding that documents from the lawyers are not to be shared.  IN fact, I'm pretty sure that Docken Klym clients signed that they wouldn't disclose contents of their emails.

I suspect that each of the legal entities will release the information to their clients.

I guess I probably shouldn't have referred to it but also assumed that many here would be Docken Klym clients or have other legal representation.


----------



## Takkyu

Fair enough, I've been trying to get on with Docken but haven't had much luck with communication from them.


----------



## Meow

tdjanzen said:


> Sorry, it is my understanding that documents from the lawyers are not to be shared.  IN fact, I'm pretty sure that Docken Klym clients signed that they wouldn't disclose contents of their emails.
> 
> I suspect that each of the legal entities will release the information to their clients.
> 
> I guess I probably shouldn't have referred to it but also assumed that many here would be Docken Klym clients or have other legal representation.



Anyone else with Cox, Taylor?  I haven't heard from them about all this yet.


----------



## ready2go2

Did anyone answer if a US owner can join the class action suit.  I see the links to form 67 and are also trying to get up to speed here.  First day as this was given to me as a gift from my father


----------



## ferrier1

*ferrier2*

Don't think we in Canada can give you an answer as we don't which of the firms is taking clients. Go to the following threads and e-mail the Lawyers and ask. Their Email address are on the pages
Item 178 Geldert Law Vancouver
Item 222 Cox Taylor Victoria
Item 271 Docken Klym Calgary


----------



## mmchili

Regarding unpaid maintenance fees and use of the timeshare week, I agree that the week should be forfeited; it is not fair to those who have paid their maintenance fees.  I and many other owners have paid an additional amount that was included in our 2013 maintenance fee to cover for those who have not paid their 2012 maintenance fee. I estimate this amount to be approximately $70. The issues of the maintenance fee and the renovation fee are two separate issues. The agreement requires owners to pay the maintenance fees and I believe that it is not right to exit the agreement by not paying the maintenance fee. I agree about the issue of the renovation fee which is before the Supreme Court and I expect the Court to make a decision in that regard.   
Yes, we are tied into a 40 year agreement unless we assign/sell it to someone else as allowed for in the agreement. However, the problem is the requirement by Northmont/Northwynd (lessor) of the assignor/seller to complete a waiver to the effect that if the maintenance fee is not paid by the assignee, the assignor is on the hook. This is not right and I believe is an unreasonable requirement by the lessor. This is equivalent to being held under ransom. 
I find it is unfortunate that our provincial government will not take a proactive approach regarding timeshare properties. However, all too often the government will take the matter seriously and bring in legislation after a court makes a decision or several courts make a decision on a matter or matters. In this case, it appears that we will have to work on the government with the Court decision in hand.


----------



## DarkLord

tswow said:


> The agreement requires owners to pay the maintenance fees and I believe that it is not right to exit the agreement by not paying the maintenance fee.



Beg to differ.  If an owner doesn't pay the MF, the resort, aka Northwynd, could reposses the lease and resale it.

Say I pay $20K for the lease, fail to pay the MF, I lose $20K.  Northwynd will resale the lease for another $20K.  Of course, Northwynd will pay the MF I didn't pay and I don't see how this is unfair to other owners.

The gist of it is when I buy the lease for, say, $20K, I buy the right to use the property that is OWNED by Northwynd.  I forfeit the right when I don't pay the MF.

I simply cannot agree that when I buy the lease for $20K, I also buy a liability of 40 years of MF at the same time.


----------



## Quadmaniac

DarkLord said:


> Beg to differ.  If an owner doesn't pay the MF, the resort, aka Northwynd, could reposses the lease and resale it.



They could but they are not obligated and they can come after you for it



DarkLord said:


> Say I pay $20K for the lease, fail to pay the MF, I lose $20K.  Northwynd will resale the lease for another $20K.  Of course, Northwynd will pay the MF I didn't pay and I don't see how this is unfair to other owners.



Actually it is taken as a loss of revenue and all the expenses are redistributed to the other owners. The resort does not pay the MF as they don't own it, they are the managers of the resort only.



DarkLord said:


> The gist of it is when I buy the lease for, say, $20K, I buy the right to use the property that is OWNED by Northwynd.  I forfeit the right when I don't pay the MF.
> 
> I simply cannot agree that when I buy the lease for $20K, I also buy a liability of 40 years of MF at the same time.



Actually you do, as that is what you agreed to in the contract you signed to purchase.


----------



## DarkLord

jekebc said:


> I think it is time to let the media know that any timeshare owner in Canada can be a victim of these unscrupulous companies and no bureaucrat or politician appears to give a da!!



This was disappointing but I'm not at all suprised.  The threshold for prosecuting white collar crimes is still the strigent reasonable doubt.  And in white collar crimes unless you can prove intend which is often very hard to do, it is very hard to take pre-emptive action to prevent fraud from being committed.

Short of Northwynd takes the $42M and disappears in the middle of the night, this won't be regarded as fraud.  It might be at best treated as failure to perfom theif fudiciary which isn't criminal.


----------



## heydynagirl

ready2go2 said:


> Did anyone answer if a US owner can join the class action suit.  I see the links to form 67 and are also trying to get up to speed here.  First day as this was given to me as a gift from my father



I now live in the US, I completed my affidavit, form 67 and letter to Northwynd and took them to my bank here.  They notarized them at no charge.  I couriered form 67 to the court but mailed the letters to Northwynd, management group etc with tracking.


----------



## Meow

tswow said:


> Regarding unpaid maintenance fees and use of the timeshare week, I agree that the week should be forfeited; it is not fair to those who have paid their maintenance fees.  I and many other owners have paid an additional amount that was included in our 2013 maintenance fee to cover for those who have not paid their 2012 maintenance fee. I estimate this amount to be approximately $70. The issues of the maintenance fee and the renovation fee are two separate issues. The agreement requires owners to pay the maintenance fees and I believe that it is not right to exit the agreement by not paying the maintenance fee. I agree about the issue of the renovation fee which is before the Supreme Court and I expect the Court to make a decision in that regard.
> Yes, we are tied into a 40 year agreement unless we assign/sell it to someone else as allowed for in the agreement. However, the problem is the requirement by Northmont/Northwynd (lessor) of the assignor/seller to complete a waiver to the effect that if the maintenance fee is not paid by the assignee, the assignor is on the hook. This is not right and I believe is an unreasonable requirement by the lessor. This is equivalent to being held under ransom.
> I find it is unfortunate that our provincial government will not take a proactive approach regarding timeshare properties. However, all too often the government will take the matter seriously and bring in legislation after a court makes a decision or several courts make a decision on a matter or matters. In this case, it appears that we will have to work on the government with the Court decision in hand.



There is no provision in our leases that a lessee should be responsible for unpaid maintenance fees or for the cost of the defaults of other lessees.  I believe a case could be made that Northwynd was in violation of our lease  terms when they passed on the maintenance fees of defaulting lessees to the lessees that were in good standing.  The lease is clear that the Developer is responsible for maintenance fees of all unsold timeshare lease units.  Presumably the defaulted lease units revert back to the successor of the Developer (Northwynd) as unsold timeshare lease units. As lessees we do not have any ownership rights or obligations in respect of the resort property.


----------



## aden2

ready2go2 said:


> Did anyone answer if a US owner can join the class action suit.  I see the links to form 67 and are also trying to get up to speed here.  First day as this was given to me as a gift from my father



Our good friends from U.S. bought into a Canadian Timeshare - Fairmont, so yes certainly you join any class action suit.

Regards ,


----------



## aden2

*Contents of letter sent to an offical with the Alberta Government*
"I had contacted Alberta Government Service and filed a complaint under the Fair Trading Act, but was told they couldn't help me.

In 2009 and again in 2010, I was contacted by phone here in Edmonton regarding a "Legacy for Life" program and and met the representatives from Fairmont Vacation Villas. I paid $7269.50 and my daughter  paid $8347.50. The salesperson showed slides of Fairmont Villas, and how succesful the timeshare operations were, and were told in a short time the values would double. It was strongly stated that his was once in a life time offer and would not be repeated. I was not fully convinced, so purchased even year one year and the odd year the next. Even though I bought into their sales pitched I felt we were being pressured into it.

"On March 30, 2009, Fairmont sought Companies’ Creditors Arrangements Act ("CCAA") protection as it was in default of its obligations to mortgage bondholders who had invested funds in FRPL Finance Ltd. ("FRPL").  

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench granted final approval of Northwynd’s acquisition of Fairmont’s assets on June 22, 2010 and issued an order vesting title to Fairmont’s assets with Northwynd LP, a limited partnership wholly owned by the Trust. The acquisition was completed on July 7, 2010 at which time certain acquired assets, including the property management contract and developer rights for the Resort and ownership of RVM, were transferred to Northmont LP, a limited partnership also wholly owned by the Trust."  While all of this was taking place salespersons were applying pressure fraudlently taking our money by telling lies, and misleading statements of Fairmont Villas.

It was not until May, 2013 that I found out that Fairmont Vacation had been taken over by Northwynd Resort Properties (5799 - 3rd street SE Calgary). This was only because I went to their website. We were not given yearly financial statements or even made aware of any financial problems.

During the years 2009 and 2010 this Calgary base company "Northwynd" scammed approximately $9-10 million because of a so called program called "Legacy for Life". Numerious complaints have been filed but it had fallen on deaf years. 

Any timeshare owner in Canada can be a victim of this timeshare company and I cannot get any response to my complaints!

A Calgary charter acoountant company "Collin Barrow" release a report this year (2013) that too many documents were missing to have an audite on the years 2009 and 2010. These and other documents can be found on the website Sunchasers Villas:  click on owners and go to financial reports


----------



## Albertagal

*form 67 still necessary?*

We can't sign up with Docken Klym ( no longer accepting new people) and Kellie Hamilton's goals for her class action suit are not what we want. We haven't completed a form 67 - too complicated and at this point aren't sure if this is necessary. As we are biennial TS holders we haven't actually been invoiced yet and so refuse to either pay for something we haven't been invoiced yet nor be forced to make a decision. If we don't have legal representation nor have completed a form 67 - what happens when a decision is made - are we covered or SOL? anyone have any ideas? Doesn't any decision made by the courts apply to all owners regardless of representation?


----------



## aden2

*Albertagal form 67 *

1.  I suggest that you email: Cox taylor email       reception@coxtaylor.ca
 2. Geldert Law email]                                       [email]info@geldertlaw.com


----------



## Albertagal

thanks Aden2 - I am hesitant to just send an email without knowing what their particular course of action is or just how much it may cost and there doesn't seem to be websites like Kim Hamilton or Docken Klym.... We saw an email way back on Page 8 (I think) - saying that signing up with Geldert would cost $1,000 - WAY out of our price range. Has anyone out there signed up with either of these 2?
thanks


----------



## oneworldonerace

*New info - still looking to join.*

Contact information for three current firms acting on our behalf:

Michael Geldert, B.A, LL.B, LL.L, Esq.
T: 778.330.7775   |     F:778.330.7774    |   W: www.geldertlaw..com 
2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver


Docken Klym
900, 800-6th Ave. SW
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2P 3G3
v: (403) 269-3612
f: (403) 269-8246
tf: 1-877-269-3612 Columbia, V6B 1B4


Cox Taylor
26 Bastion Square
Victoria, BC, V8W 1H9
Sunchaser@coxtaylor.ca
Att'n Lindsay LeBlanc


----------



## aden2

_


Albertagal said:



			thanks Aden2 - I am hesitant to just send an email without knowing what their particular course of action is or just how much it may cost and there doesn't seem to be websites like Kim Hamilton or Docken Klym.... We saw an email way back on Page 8 (I think) - saying that signing up with Geldert would cost $1,000 - WAY out of our price range. Has anyone out there signed up with either of these 2?
thanks
		
Click to expand...

_
*The information of $1000. is incorrect for Geldert Law. A client retainer form Geldert Law has the listing of fees on it and it is not $1000.*. In fact the retainer is very low.


----------



## gnorth16

DarkLord said:


> It might be at best treated as failure to perform their fiduciary which isn't criminal.



Actually, failure to perform a fiduciary duty (in a situation where trust or a special relationship is required) and when money is held for maintenance purposes goes unaccounted for, is a crime. Of course it depends on what "relationship" Northwyd has with the owners and whether or not intervals could be considered financial investments (at least some were told that there were when purchasing).  Alot of "ifs", but IMO, Northwyd is trying a cash grab *and *to steal the land from under the owners to recoup from their bad investment in Fairmont.  

It's like buying a box that was supposed to be filled with candy.  They opened it up and it was empty.  Now Northwyd is trying to resell that empty box because they never opened it up before buying it.


----------



## aden2

A Creditor List in the matter of Bankruptcy of Fairmont resort Properties Ltd in 2010 includes the "Calgary flames Ltd. Paternship" for $115,188.17
In the first meeting of creditors for the bankruptcy of Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. held Aug.19th in Calgary, Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd Finance put in a claim for $10,034,813. . It appears to be the same company! The mailing address is the same in Calgary.


----------



## ValHam

Good Luck to everyone.
We are fulltime owner here at Lake Okanagan Resorts and have similar issues. Our strata fees go up and repairs and maintenace gets less and less.
LOR is also owned by Northwynd previously Fairmont.... in my opinion Same Shi* different Name.... I am hoping that , if a Class action is launched by timeshare owners we will be able to follow on here.... very interested in the outcome.... Funny how the manager seems to answer all NEGATIVE postings on Tripadvisor with the same BS as we hear from our strata ...hmmm BTW Lake Okanagan Resort is for sale for a cool 14.8 Mil . Sinking slowly and not even on a boat on the lake !!


----------



## jekebc

*This notice is premature - Discussions are still underway*

To Owners that have paid cancellation Fee.

We plan to commence a second court action on behalf of owners who have paid the cancellation fee

I hope to have further details this week re a law firm that will take this case on, separate from the existing law firms.

Contact me at thebelfrys@shaw.ca and I will add you to the list of owners that I will supply to the law firm that agrees to act on behalf of those owners. 

Jim Belfry, Victoria
Sunchaser timeshare owner


----------



## oneworldonerace

I sincerely hope we are all working together cohesively.  This public forum is important to everyone involved.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Interesting company bio of Northwynd as reported in Bloomberg*

Company bio as reported Bloomberg Businessweek. Interesting how the bio here indicates Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. was formerly known as Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. Yet Northwynd claims many current problems were from the previous owners and mismanagement by Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. 


"July 30, 2013 2:16 AM ETReal Estate Management and Development
Company Overview of Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.
Snapshot

People
Company Overview
Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. develops and markets interval vacation ownership condominiums in Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Belize. Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. was formerly known as Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. and changed its name to Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. in July 2010. The company was founded in 1985 and is based in Calgary, Canada.
5799 - 3rd Street SE
Calgary, AB T2H 1K1
Canada
Founded in 1985
Phone:
403-451-1151
Fax:
403-450-0495
www.northwynd.ca
Key Executives For Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.
Mr. Patrick Fitzsimonds
Chief Executive Officer
Mr. Chris Van Der Deen
Vice President of Operations / Member Services
Ms. Eleanor Fornataro
Vice President of Communications / Corporate Services
Mr. Doug Frey
Vice President of Development


----------



## Patty Melt

*Kellie Hamilton Retainer*

I signed up with Kellie Hamilton, offices in Vancouver. The retainer was $400, and I sent a number of documents they requested. However, now I'm not reading anything about Kellie Hamilton being one of the suggested attorneys and I am getting worried about signing up. Is anyone else registered with this law firm? I got her name off a much earlier posting on this forum.


----------



## aden2

I am sure that there are Lawyers in the group of three that have a retainer fee of less than $400.


----------



## CleoB

aden2 said:


> I am sure that there are Lawyers in the group of three that have a retainer fee of less than $400.




Docken Klym was $500.  Odd that there is such a difference in the fees.  We signed up with them quite a while ago and weren't even sure what their stance was.  I assumed they were just going to file form 67 on our behalf.


----------



## ERW

Albertagal said:


> We can't sign up with Docken Klym ( no longer accepting new people) and Kellie Hamilton's goals for her class action suit are not what we want. We haven't completed a form 67 - too complicated and at this point aren't sure if this is necessary. As we are biennial TS holders we haven't actually been invoiced yet and so refuse to either pay for something we haven't been invoiced yet nor be forced to make a decision. If we don't have legal representation nor have completed a form 67 - what happens when a decision is made - are we covered or SOL? anyone have any ideas? Doesn't any decision made by the courts apply to all owners regardless of representation?



This is actually an interesting question. My thoughts on this are that if a judge finds that what Northwynd is trying to do is not in the spirit of the agreements we signed, it would apply to all individuals that signed contracts, not just to those that filed Form 67's or those that signed on with legal firms. I'm sure that is not what the people that signed on with legal firms want to hear. But my thought is that if the if the legal system finds Northwynd to be working outside the contract, anyone that signed those contracts would be entitled to same interpretation. Does this make sense?


----------



## Meow

The Cox Taylor retainer was $300.  But, the amount of the retainer doesn't really matter that much.  What matters is the final bill, which is based on the time spent,the hourly rate and the number of clients splitting the bill.  
My understanding that the three major legal groups are mostly on the same track. Kelly Hamilton seems to have chosen a different path.  From what I've read on her website, I would not support her actions.


----------



## aden2

Today I was talking to a retired investment dealer, and he wondered if Fairmont Villas - Northwynd etc. had ever been reported to the Securities Commission. Also if the auditors "Collin & Barrow" ever reported to the government the fact they could not do an audit for 2009 & 2010. because too many documents were not available.


----------



## Hotpink

*Foreclosure*

Today ( Aug 12 ,2013 )we just received a love letter from Northwynd dated Aug 6, 2013 stating 

"Subject: Bad Payment

In reference to your Installment Sales Contract with RVM the last payment of your account was returned to RVM for the following reason: Payment Stopped. Please remit payment of $200.00 to replace this payment. Additionally. send a separate cheque of $37.50 for the NSF fee. Remit payment to the address stated on this letter or you can call or send your credit card # and exp. date, so we can take your payment.

If your account is not kept current, time and usage of your villas could be restricted and if you have a current reservation, it may be cancelled. Once your account is more than 90 days in arrears, foreclosure proceedings could commence.

If you have any questions, please call toll free 1-888-663-6338 or e-mail me at jlegacy@northwynd.ca
Yours truly
Judi Legacy Accounts Administrator"

We initially paid the initial payment $299.76 on the choose to stay by May31 of this year to ensure our week in June. When we couldn't get there because of floods we put a stop payment on the EFT on a cancellation form from the bank and and as per the bank we informed Northwynd via e-mail ( writing ) that no further payments would be made untill all was settled with the courts.

The Renovation Project Fee Payment Option Form is not a sales contract and states that this authorization may be cancelled by us upon written request. We never got a response to our request, but they tried to collect $100.00 on the first of the last two months.

How do they foreclose? One (1) week at a time or if we lockoff maybe two(2)
weeks at a time


----------



## MFD

Hotpink said:


> If your account is not kept current, time and usage of your villas could be restricted and if you have a current reservation, it may be cancelled. Once your account is more than 90 days in arrears, foreclosure proceedings could commence.



Notice how they're using words like COULD and MAY, sounds like they are still trying to use scare tatics to threaten us, but really have no grounds to do anything.


----------



## den403

*Show Suites Open*

Sunchaser Riverside 800 bldg completely renovated inside and painted black on outside with 2units open as show suites. Appears to be no changes to size of  A and B units only cosmetic upgrades. Now starting on 400 bldg Riverside.
Wow must be pennies from heaven ??? 
And what happened to pending court approval????


----------



## gnorth16

den403 said:


> Sunchaser Riverside 800 bldg completely renovated inside and painted black on outside with 2units open as show suites. Appears to be no changes to size of  A and B units only cosmetic upgrades. Now starting on 400 bldg Riverside.
> Wow must be pennies from heaven ???
> And what happened to pending court approval????



Curious to see some pics....


----------



## RandRseeker

photos are here:

http://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/renovation-progress-photos/


----------



## RWC

*Show suite*

We are currently in Fairmont staying at Hillside.  We have toured the show suite that they have set up in 403.  They have obviously hired an interior decorator to set the colour scheme as the colours are shades of whites and greys (I find these to be cold colours.)  The exteriors of the 400 and 800 have been refinished with new stucco as both buildings were back to the bare boards in places when we were in Fairmont in June.  In June they were retiling the roofs of both buildings.  The floor plan in the B side has been changed slightly as they have taken out the big jacuzzi tub and put in a small shower allowing more room for a dining set in the dining area, along with putting in a full kitchen with full fridge and stove as can be seen in the photos.  The budget for the 800 building was about $1.3 million and just about $2 million for the 400 building according to the budget on the Sunchaser web site.  The 400 building must be finished as there are people in some of the units. The units do look nice, but I am sure this is just a dog and pony show to convince more people to pay the refurbishing fee without any guarantees.
We own at Marble Canyon and our unit which is about 2900 sq ft (4 bedroom) was renovated this spring for about $32,000 which included new paint throughout, new laminate where there had been linoleum and new carpet, replacement of all mattresses, all electronics, window shades and other necessary interior upgrades, the exterior was not touched.  I think we got better value for the money on this renovation.
They are currently taking reservations for next year if you pay the maintenance fee for next year (currently the amount paid last year with the final adjustment in January as has been done the last couple of years).  
Whether they will still be around next year, who knows.

I am following our lawyers (Dockens) advice and not paying a cent more until   it is finalized in the courts.  Could take years.


----------



## gnorth16

RandRseeker said:


> photos are here:
> 
> http://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/renovation-progress-photos/



Nothing special.  Kinda bland.  This reno is how much per unit?


----------



## RWC

*Building 400*

About $130,000/unit in the 800 building and close to $200,000 in the 400 building.  They are saying a major cost is the replacement of poly-b pipe with pex, work that is not visible but the reason they had to gut each unit although plumbing walls are usually only found in a portion of the walls.  The 800 building along with two or three of the other ones had renovations in the last 2 or 3 years where they took off the balconies and rebuilt them and also closed in the open stairwells.


----------



## SentimentalLady

*Very bland*



gnorth16 said:


> Nothing special.  Kinda bland.  This reno is how much per unit?



Yeah....very bland. 

Of course, even the BEFORE photos bear little resemblance to the gorgeous place we bought into 20 years ago. :annoyed:


----------



## Spark1

SentimentalLady said:


> Yeah....very bland.
> 
> Of course, even the BEFORE photos bear little resemblance to the gorgeous place we bought into 20 years ago. :annoyed:



Who cares what they do to the condos,the timeshare owners that own time do not trust Northwynn and know that if they can suck us in to renovating this complete resort they will put it up forsale just like all the other resorts. Is it true that they are painting they outside black?


----------



## RWC

*New stucco*

No, from what I saw and understand from their web page,  the building was stripped and new charcoal colour stucco has been installed.


----------



## ERW

Please correct me if I am wrong but I thought I read at one time that they were not selling any timeshares at this time? Maybe I'm incorrect, so speak up if I am. But if I did hear correctly, why is there a need for show suites?


----------



## condomama

ERW said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong but I thought I read at one time that they were not selling any timeshares at this time? Maybe I'm incorrect, so speak up if I am. But if I did hear correctly, why is there a need for show suites?


My understanding was it was to convince the owners of the need for these renovations! 
I agree that we certainly thought there would be more upgrades and design changes.

When the first model suite at 703 was unveiled a few years back, we tried it out for our annual week.  Only a few months after it opened, there was damage already to the walls behind the new table and chairs in the B side, where guests had jammed them into the wall.  Space was tight, it was going to happen.   Looks like nothing has changed in the latest 'model'.  Also, B side bedroom 'armoire' doesn't hold nearly as much as the old regular closets did.  Wish they'd kept them instead of going for so much 'style'.  Newest kitchen cupboards are an improvement over the tall ceiling ones in 703 which only a basketball player could reach (they'd put the wine glasses up there!).   We'd have needed a ladder to go with it!

When we were out in June they were painting the 400 building charcoal and I thought 'ugh' then! Part of the appeal when we bought back in the 90s was the 'California" appearance of the buildings as we came up the highway from Cranbrook.  I suppose they are trying to integrate the Riverview building, which we always thought, although beautiful inside, looked a little 'institutional' from the golf course.  Black definitely needs 'softening'.  I can't picture the whole of Riverside painted black, but I guess that's what's happening.  Good to go elsewhere.


----------



## Donsterama

*Fairmont Special Maintenance/Exit Fees*

We have a bi-annual membership at Fairmont we took over from my parents and 6 months later the special maintenance fee and/or pay to get out fee was introduced.    

We feel like they should have told us this was coming and as a result we have done nothing.  Not paid the special fee or paid to get out.   We are just sitting back and seeing what is going to happen.

Does anyone know if we need to join a class action lawsuit and pay the legal fees to be covered?   Am I not covered automatically by being an owner?  I know this is a legal question but you may be aware of this.

Obviously by doing nothing I cannot use the resort, but is anyone aware if they have started going after people yet that have not paid with claims?

Does it not make more sense just to see how it will all play out at this stage.

Appreciate any thoughts people have.


----------



## GypsyOne

Donsterama, you are asking questions to which one can only speculate.  It seems reasonable that if the courts rule in favour of the Owners and against the Companies that it will benefit all owners.  If the Companies win, the cash grab could go on forever - it will be a never-ending money pit because it appears major parts of the buildings need reconstruction and upgrading.  But, to defeat the Companies, we need legal representation.  I am aware of three law firms that are taking on clients and are working in tandem on our behalf:  Geldert Law, Cox Taylor, and Docken Klyme (see previous post for addresses.)  There is another, Kellie Hamilton, who is taking a somewhat different and independent approach on behalf of her clients.  To sign on these three law firms are asking for a retainer of from between $100 to $500.  If we want our interests protected and if we want justice done, we need to sign on and pay our share.  If the owners work co-operatively and each contribute, the cost will be minimal.  It is the right and the responsible thing to do, otherwise we lose and we pay forever for the benefit of the Companies.

I am not aware of the Companies taking legal action to collect either of their assessments.  I doubt if they will until they get a favourable court ruling.  In any case, no one should pay the Company anything until this matter is legally settled.


----------



## Meow

Well said, GypsyOne.  
If you disagree with Northwynd's actions you should 'put your money where your mouth is' and sign up with one of the legal groups.  
The numbers of timeshare owners/lessees that have joined in legal actions may even have some bearing on the judge's decision.


----------



## tdjanzen

Meow said:


> Well said, GypsyOne.
> If you disagree with Northwynd's actions you should 'put your money where your mouth is' and sign up with one of the legal groups.
> The numbers of timeshare owners/lessees that have joined in legal actions may even have some bearing on the judge's decision.



Indeed, GypsyOne and Meow make an excellent point.

Finally, it is my understanding that a judge can only make a ruling on information that is presented to them.  Therefore a ruling more than likely will not likely be a blanket statement of "Northwynd you can't do this" but rather "in these situations, Northwynd you can not do this" .  Therefore, owners that have legal representation would have already proved their circumstance and hopefully why they will not be required to pay any fee to Northwynd.  However, owners that have chosen not to have representation have not had their circumstance verified in any way.  How is a judge supposed to deal with them.  It would not surprise me that the judge won't. 

Normally, the act of doing nothing falls under the legal term "acquiescence" and could be interpreted that the terms have been agreed upon simply because the one party didn't do anything to state they didn't agree with the terms.

I hope that this works out for everyone in the long run.  I made the decision to retain legal representation because I wanted it on the record that I don't agree with Northwynd's actions or planned course of action.  I believe that in this case, relying on others to do the heavy lifting could have some negative consequences.


----------



## Rancher

I am not sure what all the lawsuits and ill feelings are about on this site as I have just skimmed through some of the postings. From what I gather owners do not wish to pay their maintenance fees and a special assessment. 
When you bought the units I am sure you were aware that maintenance fees would have to be paid on each unit. They go up every year and thats a fact. Some go up more than others but that's life.
Now no one likes a special assessment but you are not the first owners to receive one. At times they are necessary and unfortunately have to be paid. I have seen some as high as $10,000 per unit so yours is not out of line.
You also have a chance to get out of your unit forever for about $4000 I believe I think you should be happy if this is the case as many people are stuck with their timeshare for ever. At least in your case you can bring it to an end and never have to pay your maintenance fee again. This is a lot cheaper and safer than paying a PCC to take it off your hands.
I know many will not agree with me but just my thoughts.


----------



## Tacoma

Hi Rancher (I think it's Dennis but I do know we've met)

While I understand your thoughts and I do not renege on my obligations the details you seem to be missing are that we do not trust these people for many reasons.  In short and I'm sure I'm missing some of the details they did not produce financial statements for at least 2 years while they roped people into paying more for legacy for life.  They have pulled off these kind of things before and then either sold the resort(s) or let it go. They have no permission to change the terms of the existing contracts and they used scare tactics to extract as much money as possible before getting permission to do it.  I really like how they blame Fairmont for everything but in effect they are the old Fairmont group. Although I was given my week on this forum I have decided to join in a legal group to fight these people.  I would rather pay the lawyers than pay these crooks any more money.  Some people here gave away their timeshares knowing this assessment was coming. Others are letting a small group of us fight and hoping it will save them as well. Everyone has to live with their decisions.  I have paid assessments before and if I trusted this company I might have again but the trust is not there.  I believe it's important to pick your battles and this is one I have chosen to fight.

Joan


----------



## Spark1

Rancher said:


> I am not sure what all the lawsuits and ill feelings are about on this site as I have just skimmed through some of the postings. From what I gather owners do not wish to pay their maintenance fees and a special assessment.
> When you bought the units I am sure you were aware that maintenance fees would have to be paid on each unit. They go up every year and thats a fact. Some go up more than others but that's life.
> Now no one likes a special assessment but you are not the first owners to receive one. At times they are necessary and unfortunately have to be paid. I have seen some as high as $10,000 per unit so yours is not out of line.
> You also have a chance to get out of your unit forever for about $4000 I believe I think you should be happy if this is the case as many people are stuck with their timeshare for ever. At least in your case you can bring it to an end and never have to pay your maintenance fee again. This is a lot cheaper and safer than paying a PCC to take it off your hands.
> 
> 
> 
> I know many will not agree with me but just my thoughts.




What goes with owning a business like Fairmont now Northwynn is trust and that they will also respect the agreements they signed with the timeshare owners. They have not done this. I have talked to owners of legacy for life owners and they were told that the buildings were in good shape and there was lots of money in the bank for maintaining. Can you trust timeshare sales people? No you can not. I blame the lazy governments for not monitoring these agreements and there are a lot of loopholes with these agreements that crooks like Northwynn can use to screw time owners out of their money. There was a lot of time owners that paid the 100 dollar Reno fee just so they could use the resort this summer. Will they pay their next maintenance fee after seeing how Northwynn runs their business. I guess not.


----------



## tdjanzen

Rancher said:


> I am not sure what all the lawsuits and ill feelings are about on this site as I have just skimmed through some of the postings. From what I gather owners do not wish to pay their maintenance fees and a special assessment.
> When you bought the units I am sure you were aware that maintenance fees would have to be paid on each unit. They go up every year and thats a fact. Some go up more than others but that's life.
> Now no one likes a special assessment but you are not the first owners to receive one. At times they are necessary and unfortunately have to be paid. I have seen some as high as $10,000 per unit so yours is not out of line.
> You also have a chance to get out of your unit forever for about $4000 I believe I think you should be happy if this is the case as many people are stuck with their timeshare for ever. At least in your case you can bring it to an end and never have to pay your maintenance fee again. This is a lot cheaper and safer than paying a PCC to take it off your hands.
> I know many will not agree with me but just my thoughts.



I would suggest that many of the posters here have paid their maintenance fees but take exception to the special assessments

I can only speak for myself but I have the following reasons why I object to paying the special assessment fee at this time (note I have never said that I won't pay it; but I'll make that decision if and when a judge tells me that I have to pay it).

1)  My contract is from 1996.  There is no mention (not even vaguely) to a special assessment.  However, I believe that many people's contracts do; particularly the changes included in the new "Legacy for Life" documents.  I've looked at the sample contracts on the Sunchaser site and there is different language used in the newer contracts.

2)  Trust is all we have with a time-share management company; I'll list the ways that I don't believe that they are trustworthy:
a)  They continued to sell Legacy for Life while in bankruptcy and even under the name of the old management company.
b)  Many of the people involved still have significant ties to the former management company.
c)  They didn't provide financial statements for two to three years (depends on how you figure the start date).  These financial statements are actually a contractual obligation that the timeshare management company has to provide to timeshare owners.  BTW when they did release the statements two of the years could not be audited because of incompleteness of records (that is remarkably convenient).  And I get to pay back several million dollars of deficits incurred in those years even though the accounting firm can't audit them.
d)  The wording on contracts was consistently changed in newer versions that gave the timeshare management company more and more ability to enforce their current plans.

3)  Northwynd has access to all of the monies (the maintenance fees, the special assessments whether you go or whether you stay).  Don't you think that it might be important for the owners that wish to stay to have the monies in trust to guarantee payment for the renovations.  Personally, I am shocked that the contractors wouldn't want it in trust.  To date, legal representatives of Northwynd have been reluctant to put any funds in trust.

4)  Finally, there are plenty of Internet reports about Northwynd's property in Belize.  Google it and read how the owners there got treated.  They all were charged an assessment and once the funds were collected, the property was shut down.

5)  Discovery is a funny thing.  And one never knows what type of information will be dug up and put in front of you.  It's one thing to lie to 14,000 timeshare owners; it is a whole different thing to lie to a judge.

6)  Any amounts paid to a timeshare management company that shuts down will be next to impossible to collect.  Particularly a time management company that owes over $40+ million to secured bondholders (BTW those people really want their money back).  And in Canada, secured debt always gets paid before unsecured.  This means that ALL of the bond debt would have to be repaid before the timeshare owners get a cent.  

7) Maintenance fees have more than doubled in the past 10 years.  The current management is suggesting that it should more than tripled to be truly representative of actual costs.  The funny thing is that it is hard to see where they have done a ton of renovating.  Indeed, there have been a couple of significant projects but really the day-to-day repair has been duct tape cosmetic repair.  Last year, I think the maintenance budget was over $1.5 million.  Where did all the money go?  the only thing we know is that the auditors don't have enough information to tell us.

I'm lucky.  I am only out the amount of the value of the next 23 years they still owe me.  But honestly, I can rent a house in Fairmont for less than what the maintenance fees are.  However, I believe the Legacy for Life people were de-frauded.  They truly should be able to sue the timeshare management company for damages.  

It will probably take more than an  "epiphany" to make that happen.

Sadly, Northwynd will likely have folded and the characters of this drama will just switch chairs and try to trick the next set of owners.


----------



## GypsyOne

Rancher said:


> I am not sure what all the lawsuits and ill feelings are about on this site as I have just skimmed through some of the postings. From what I gather owners do not wish to pay their maintenance fees and a special assessment.
> When you bought the units I am sure you were aware that maintenance fees would have to be paid on each unit. They go up every year and thats a fact. Some go up more than others but that's life.
> Now no one likes a special assessment but you are not the first owners to receive one. At times they are necessary and unfortunately have to be paid. I have seen some as high as $10,000 per unit so yours is not out of line.
> You also have a chance to get out of your unit forever for about $4000 I believe I think you should be happy if this is the case as many people are stuck with their timeshare for ever. At least in your case you can bring it to an end and never have to pay your maintenance fee again. This is a lot cheaper and safer than paying a PCC to take it off your hands.
> I know many will not agree with me but just my thoughts.



Rancher, you are entitled to your thoughts, but I come to quite different conclusions.  I was part of a group that did a detailed review of Northwynd's proposals and the companies' performance under the contracts we signed. We identified a total of twelve breaches of contract and misrepresentations.  Our report formed the basis for a group of owners filing Affidavits and Form 67s with the B.C. Supreme Court protesting the Companies' petition.  I will cover some of the grievances.

You are wrong that we don't wish to pay maintenance fees or that we didn't expect maintenance would increase over time.  We would just love to be paying maintenance fees, but only for the services for which we contracted and for the lessor/lessee relationship we entered into. But, as a result of bad management and a prematurely deteriorating facility, the Companies are attempting to change the rules and off-load the responsibility of a failing facility to the timeshare owners.

A major breach of contract is failure of the manager to manage and maintain the Vacation Resort in a prudent and workmanlike manner.  This failure has resulted in significant loss of value to Timeshare Owners, unreasonably increased maintenance costs, diminished the quality of our vacation experience, and placed the future of the complex under doubt and uncertainty. This bad management was manifest in numerous ways, is self-evident, and is freely admitted to by Company management. This in itself could be justification for timeshare owners suing for damages.

Another misconception you have Rancher, is that the timeshare owners are owners of the resort.  By saying that we should not be surprised at special assessments, you seem to be equating our interest in a timeshare to an interest in a condominium, where the owner has fee-simple ownership along with associated benefits. We are not owners of the resort, nor do we have the rights and privileges of ownership, such as participating in management or having an equity interest in the resort.  Read the contract.  It clearly states we have entered into a lease and that the parties have a Lessor/Lessee relationship.  *Lessees are not responsible for capital improvements.*  As Lessees we have right of habitability for a fixed period of forty years and then our rights expire with zero residual value.  But, the Companies are expecting the timeshare owners to pay for capital restoration of the buildings for which we do not have an equity interest and only they, the real owners of the resort, will benefit.  Of course it has to be mentioned that the Companies attempted to shore up this little problem in saddling us with capital costs by attempting to convince timeshare owners to convert (for a price) to "Legacy for Life" contracts and thus responsible for capital restoration of the buildings.  Those that did convert claim non-disclosure of serious deficiencies in the property and contract liability for capital improvements.

Another strange interpretation you have is that somehow we should be happy the Company is prepared to take our timeshare back for a cost of about $3,200.  So for me, I paid $16,000 for the timeshare and I pay another $3,200 for the Company to take it back for a total cost of $19,200, and I am done out of about 28 years of timeshare benefits.  Could anything be any more ridiculous in its absurdity?  And they offer this deal despite Clause 13 of the contract that provides a formula for them paying me out at a discounted amount if I default, which is more the way it should work! 

I'll state once again that this Company must not be allowed to win in court.  If the precedent is court sanctioned that the timeshare owners can be charged for upgrades to capital structures, there will be a never-ending parade of requests for more money for upgrades.  And why wouldn't they?  They are the real owners of the resort and only they will benefit from a more valuable property.  We are lessees and our rights expire with zero residual value after forty years.  

This is no time for apathy.  If you haven't signed up already, sign on with one of the lawyers representing the owners.  If we work co-operatively, the cost per individual will be minimal.  If we lose this case, we all lose heavily.


----------



## jekebc

*Owners who paid Cancellation Fee*

I have been in contact with a Calgary Law firm that is prepared to start an action on behalf of Sunchaser timeshare Owners that have paid the cancellation fee. The action would be based on the Alberta Fair Trading Act and would be intended to get all cancellation fees refunded and still get an unconditional release for the Owners. The action would be started in Alberta, but the Law Firm involved would work in cooperation with the three law firms (excluding Kellie Hamilton) that are currently involved in the Petition before the BC Court. 

Please email me - thebelfrys@shaw.ca if you wish to join in this action and I will forward contact details for the law firm involved. They also require details re your timeshare - please complete the survey at:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SunchaserTimeshare

Jim Belfry, Victoria, BC


----------



## DarkLord

GypsyOne said:


> I'll state once again that this Company must not be allowed to win in court.  If the precedent is court sanctioned that the timeshare owners can be charged for upgrades to capital structures, there will be a never-ending parade of requests for more money for upgrades.  And why wouldn't they?



If this case sets the precedents, I believe the timeshare industry in Canada is doomed.  All timeshare companies will just renovate and pass the costs to owners who don't own equity interest in the property.

Wouldn't that be swell to the timeshare companies not to mention they charge certain percentage of management fees to boot?  So the higher the capital expenditure, the better.


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> Rancher, you are entitled to your thoughts, but I come to quite different conclusions.  I was part of a group that did a detailed review of Northwynd's proposals and the companies' performance under the contracts we signed. We identified a total of twelve breaches of contract and misrepresentations.  Our report formed the basis for a group of owners filing Affidavits and Form 67s with the B.C. Supreme Court protesting the Companies' petition.  I will cover some of the grievances.
> 
> You are wrong that we don't wish to pay maintenance fees or that we didn't expect maintenance would increase over time.  We would just love to be paying maintenance fees, but only for the services for which we contracted and for the lessor/lessee relationship we entered into. But, as a result of bad management and a prematurely deteriorating facility, the Companies are attempting to change the rules and off-load the responsibility of a failing facility to the timeshare owners.
> 
> 
> 
> A major breach of contract is failure of the manager to manage and maintain the Vacation Resort in a prudent and workmanlike manner.  This failure has resulted in significant loss of value to Timeshare Owners, unreasonably increased maintenance costs, diminished the quality of our vacation experience, and placed the future of the complex under doubt and uncertainty. This bad management was manifest in numerous ways, is self-evident, and is freely admitted to by Company management. This in itself could be justification for timeshare owners suing for damages.
> 
> Another misconception you have Rancher, is that the timeshare owners are owners of the resort.  By saying that we should not be surprised at special assessments, you seem to be equating our interest in a timeshare to an interest in a condominium, where the owner has fee-simple ownership along with associated benefits. We are not owners of the resort, nor do we have the rights and privileges of ownership, such as participating in management or having an equity interest in the resort.  Read the contract.  It clearly states we have entered into a lease and that the parties have a Lessor/Lessee relationship.  *Lessees are not responsible for capital improvements.*  As Lessees we have right of habitability for a fixed period of forty years and then our rights expire with zero residual value.  But, the Companies are expecting the timeshare owners to pay for capital restoration of the buildings for which we do not have an equity interest and only they, the real owners of the resort, will benefit.  Of course it has to be mentioned that the Companies attempted to shore up this little problem in saddling us with capital costs by attempting to convince timeshare owners to convert (for a price) to "Legacy for Life" contracts and thus responsible for capital restoration of the buildings.  Those that did convert claim non-disclosure of serious deficiencies in the property and contract liability for capital improvements.
> 
> Another strange interpretation you have is that somehow we should be happy the Company is prepared to take our timeshare back for a cost of about $3,200.  So for me, I paid $16,000 for the timeshare and I pay another $3,200 for the Company to take it back for a total cost of $19,200, and I am done out of about 28 years of timeshare benefits.  Could anything be any more ridiculous in its absurdity?  And they offer this deal despite Clause 13 of the contract that provides a formula for them paying me out at a discounted amount if I default, which is more the way it should work!
> 
> I'll state once again that this Company must not be allowed to win in court.  If the precedent is court sanctioned that the timeshare owners can be charged for upgrades to capital structures, there will be a never-ending parade of requests for more money for upgrades.  And why wouldn't they?  They are the real owners of the resort and only they will benefit from a more valuable property.  We are lessees and our rights expire with zero residual value after forty years.
> 
> This is no time for apathy.  If you haven't signed up already, sign on with one of the lawyers representing the owners.  If we work co-operatively, the cost per individual will be minimal.  If we lose this case, we all lose heavily.




Hello: gypsyone would you please list the 12 breaches of contract and misrepresentation that your group dug up about Northwynn. This could really help the rest of us that follow this forum. Thanks


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 As requested, here is an excerpt from our report:

Breaches:

1. The Companies breached the Contract by failing to “help create, organize, establish and thereafter maintain membership in an association of lessees of the Vacation Properties” as required by the Contract. 

1.1	The Companies were negligent in not carrying out their responsibility to organize an Association of Lessees.  If the Companies take the position that the timeshare owners are the Owners of the Resort, then the Owners were denied that one basic right of ownership, and that is a voice in management. The Companies cannot deny the Timeshare Owners that right and then expect them to step up with massive capital contributions when the Resort falls into serious neglect and financial difficulties.

2. The Companies breached the Contract term that states “The Manager shall manage and maintain the Vacation Resort in a prudent and workmanlike manner.”

2.1	Fairmont and its successors, the Companies, have failed on an on-going basis to address the repairs and replacements as required to maintain the Resort as at the condition and quality at time of entering the Contract. At time of purchasing the assets of Fairmont, the Companies knew or ought to have known, the state of disrepair of the Resort.  In a letter of December 2012, the Companies admit that the Resort had a “significant maintenance deficit” in 2010 and now “a renovation of the Resort is an absolute necessity.”  In a legal opinion dated February 5, 2013, Northwynd’s solicitor, Norton Rose states in #11 of Conclusions: “The buildings and common area at the Resort have various deferred maintenance issues which will require significant expenditures to correct.”  The Contract requires that the Companies maintain and repair the Resort throughout the period of the lease and invoice the timeshare owners for those costs on an annual basis as part of the maintenance fees. They have failed to do so.

2.2	The Companies have failed on an on-going basis to address the replacements of furniture and equipment required to maintain the standard of those items that were in the Resort at time of the Contract. The December 10, 2012 letter to timeshare owners identified required replacement of furniture, fixtures, and equipment totalling from $2.75 to $3.5 million. The Financial Reports released February 2013 revealed a deficit of $1.5 million in the Replacement Reserve. The Contract requires that the Companies establish a Replacement Reserve, conduct an annual assessment of the furnishings and fixtures, and include the necessary amount for replacements in the budget. They have failed to do so.

2.3	The Companies have failed to provide an appropriate budget for the 2013 Operating Costs, Replacement Reserves and Management Fees. The Financial Reports for 2010/11 reveal a total deficit of $3.2 million. The Contract requires that any deficit from previous periods be included in the budget for the calculation of maintenance fees. The Companies have failed to do so.

2.4	The Companies have failed in their obligation to provide audited accounting statements by the dates stipulated in the Contract. The 2010 Financial Reports due March 31, 2011 and the 2011 Financial Reports due on March 31, 2012 were not provided until February 2013.  As a result of not having the statements available, the timeshare owners were not made aware of the significant amounts of accumulated deficit and bad debt expense, thus being prevented from making timely management decisions regarding their timeshare. The 2012 Financial Reports were required to be produced by March 31, 2013 and have not been made available to the timeshare owners as at this date.

This egregious failure to manage the complex in a prudent and workmanlike manner has resulted in significant loss of value to Owners, unreasonably increased maintenance costs, diminished quality of our vacation experience, and placed the future of the complex under a cloud of doubt and uncertainty.


3.  By virtue of their position as Lessor and Manager of the Resort, the Companies are acting as Agent for the timeshare owners, and as such have failed to follow the tenets of Agency Law in their role as Agent for the Lessees. 
3.1	The Companies have failed in their obligation to adhere to the stipulated budget amounts for 2010 and 2011 in that the Financial Reports for 2011 reveal that the Companies have incurred expenses in excess of the stipulated budget to the extent of $3.2 million to the end of 2011. Due to the lack of Financial reports for 2012, there is no information available as to the deficit as at the end of 2012. There is no provision in the Contract that allows the Lessor or the Manager to expend monies in excess of the stipulated budget. As Agents for the timeshare owners, the Companies have violated Agency Law by exceeding the authority given to them as Agent.

3.2	The Companies have failed to pursue the collection of maintenance fees from timeshare owners in default. The 2009, 2010, and 2011 Financial Reports reveal that in excess of $500,000 in bad debt expense was incurred in each year. The Companies collected management fees of approximately $75,000 in relation to these unpaid fees. Furthermore, we have learned that the Companies are collecting and retaining for their own use fees of approximately $3,000 per account, which some timeshare owners have paid as a penalty to terminate their contracts. In both situations, the Companies have violated Agency Law by putting their own interests ahead of those of their Principals, the timeshare owners.

Misrepresentations:

4. The Companies misrepresented the construction quality and thus the longevity of the Resort buildings and failed to properly disclose known construction and structural problems with the buildings to potential timeshare buyers. 

4.1	Villas were constructed between 1990 and 2004. Thus, the oldest buildings are twenty-three years old and the newest ones nine years old. Well constructed buildings will easily last forty, fifty, and even sixty years without major restorations. The Lessor sold leasehold interests for a forty year term, thus implying a lifetime on structures of at least forty years. Purchasers would naturally assume that normal annual maintenance and upkeep would substantially maintain the structural quality of their facility for the term of the forty-year lease, at which point the lease expires with no residual value. But with the buildings still relatively new, major construction deficiencies are being reported. The December 10, 2012 letter from the GM states a maintenance deficit of $19 million when RVM took over. But the current estimates are for costs of $28 million to $38 million to bring the complex up to standard. There can be no other conclusion than that purchasers were deceived in the quality of the facility they were buying into.

5. The Companies misrepresented the cost effectiveness of timeshare vacation experience. The prospectus provided with the sale of timeshares emphasized how much more economical a timeshare vacation is in comparison to a traditional vacation in a hotel or motel. Furthermore, it was represented that weekly vacation costs are largely fixed by purchasing a timeshare. The prospectus stated, "Only the maid/maintenance cost can move up with the cost of living." But in actuality over the past eight years, maintenance fees have increased over 77%, which is over four times the rate of inflation (16.8%) for the same time period. Total timeshare costs on a one-week basis, including maintenance, lock-off, and exchange fee, now cost more than a one-week stay in a similar quality hotel. 

6. The Companies breached the Contract by billing, or stated intentions to bill, for capital costs related to restoring structural components of resort buildings.  The Contract does not provide for including capital costs in maintenance expenses. Asking the leaseholders to pay for capital costs violates the traditional rights and responsibilities that have long existed between the Lessor and the Lessee 

In Frequently Asked Questions (Sunchaservillas.ca website Page 2), the Companies state: “The annual maintenance fee has two components: operating costs and refurbishment reserve.  Operating costs are the day to day expenses of the resort such as housekeeping, utilities, insurance, and vacation ownership services. Refurbishment reserve has historically only addressed minor priority projects and upkeep such as the deck replacements, roof replacements and outdoor pool repairs.” 

It was our understanding, as confirmed by the wording of the Prospectus given to us at time of purchase that the Resort was to be maintained in the condition and quality as at the date we entered into the Lease. The Contract makes no provision for improvement or modernization of the quality of the buildings, the equipment, or the furnishings. By their own admission in letter of December 7, 2011, the Companies have utilized funds in the Replacement Reserve Account to pay for items that are Capital Costs. We were not made aware of the extent of these costs until the 2011 Financial Reports that were provided in February 2013 revealed a deficit of $1.5 million in the Replacement Reserve.

Hope this helps you out.
GypsyOne


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> Spark1 As requested, here is an excerpt from our report:
> 
> Breaches:
> 
> 1. The Companies breached the Contract by failing to “help create, organize, establish and thereafter maintain membership in an association of lessees of the Vacation Properties” as required by the Contract.
> 
> 1.1	The Companies were negligent in not carrying out their responsibility to organize an Association of Lessees.  If the Companies take the position that the timeshare owners are the Owners of the Resort, then the Owners were denied that one basic right of ownership, and that is a voice in management. The Companies cannot deny the Timeshare Owners that right and then expect them to step up with massive capital contributions when the Resort falls into serious neglect and financial difficulties.
> 
> 2. The Companies breached the Contract term that states “The Manager shall manage and maintain the Vacation Resort in a prudent and workmanlike manner.”
> 
> 2.1	Fairmont and its successors, the Companies, have failed on an on-going basis to address the repairs and replacements as required to maintain the Resort as at the condition and quality at time of entering the Contract. At time of purchasing the assets of Fairmont, the Companies knew or ought to have known, the state of disrepair of the Resort.  In a letter of December 2012, the Companies admit that the Resort had a “significant maintenance deficit” in 2010 and now “a renovation of the Resort is an absolute necessity.”  In a legal opinion dated February 5, 2013, Northwynd’s solicitor, Norton Rose states in #11 of Conclusions: “The buildings and common area at the Resort have various deferred maintenance issues which will require significant expenditures to correct.”  The Contract requires that the Companies maintain and repair the Resort throughout the period of the lease and invoice the timeshare owners for those costs on an annual basis as part of the maintenance fees. They have failed to do so.
> 
> 2.2	The Companies have failed on an on-going basis to address the replacements of furniture and equipment required to maintain the standard of those items that were in the Resort at time of the Contract. The December 10, 2012 letter to timeshare owners identified required replacement of furniture, fixtures, and equipment totalling from $2.75 to $3.5 million. The Financial Reports released February 2013 revealed a deficit of $1.5 million in the Replacement Reserve. The Contract requires that the Companies establish a Replacement Reserve, conduct an annual assessment of the furnishings and fixtures, and include the necessary amount for replacements in the budget. They have failed to do so.
> 
> 2.3	The Companies have failed to provide an appropriate budget for the 2013 Operating Costs, Replacement Reserves and Management Fees. The Financial Reports for 2010/11 reveal a total deficit of $3.2 million. The Contract requires that any deficit from previous periods be included in the budget for the calculation of maintenance fees. The Companies have failed to do so.
> 
> 2.4	The Companies have failed in their obligation to provide audited accounting statements by the dates stipulated in the Contract. The 2010 Financial Reports due March 31, 2011 and the 2011 Financial Reports due on March 31, 2012 were not provided until February 2013.  As a result of not having the statements available, the timeshare owners were not made aware of the significant amounts of accumulated deficit and bad debt expense, thus being prevented from making timely management decisions regarding their timeshare. The 2012 Financial Reports were required to be produced by March 31, 2013 and have not been made available to the timeshare owners as at this date.
> 
> This egregious failure to manage the complex in a prudent and workmanlike manner has resulted in significant loss of value to Owners, unreasonably increased maintenance costs, diminished quality of our vacation experience, and placed the future of the complex under a cloud of doubt and uncertainty.
> 
> 
> 3.  By virtue of their position as Lessor and Manager of the Resort, the Companies are acting as Agent for the timeshare owners, and as such have failed to follow the tenets of Agency Law in their role as Agent for the Lessees.
> 3.1	The Companies have failed in their obligation to adhere to the stipulated budget amounts for 2010 and 2011 in that the Financial Reports for 2011 reveal that the Companies have incurred expenses in excess of the stipulated budget to the extent of $3.2 million to the end of 2011. Due to the lack of Financial reports for 2012, there is no information available as to the deficit as at the end of 2012. There is no provision in the Contract that allows the Lessor or the Manager to expend monies in excess of the stipulated budget. As Agents for the timeshare owners, the Companies have violated Agency Law by exceeding the authority given to them as Agent.
> 
> 3.2	The Companies have failed to pursue the collection of maintenance fees from timeshare owners in default. The 2009, 2010, and 2011 Financial Reports reveal that in excess of $500,000 in bad debt expense was incurred in each year. The Companies collected management fees of approximately $75,000 in relation to these unpaid fees. Furthermore, we have learned that the Companies are collecting and retaining for their own use fees of approximately $3,000 per account, which some timeshare owners have paid as a penalty to terminate their contracts. In both situations, the Companies have violated Agency Law by putting their own interests ahead of those of their Principals, the timeshare owners.
> 
> Misrepresentations:
> 
> 4. The Companies misrepresented the construction quality and thus the longevity of the Resort buildings and failed to properly disclose known construction and structural problems with the buildings to potential timeshare buyers.
> 
> 4.1	Villas were constructed between 1990 and 2004. Thus, the oldest buildings are twenty-three years old and the newest ones nine years old. Well constructed buildings will easily last forty, fifty, and even sixty years without major restorations. The Lessor sold leasehold interests for a forty year term, thus implying a lifetime on structures of at least forty years. Purchasers would naturally assume that normal annual maintenance and upkeep would substantially maintain the structural quality of their facility for the term of the forty-year lease, at which point the lease expires with no residual value. But with the buildings still relatively new, major construction deficiencies are being reported. The December 10, 2012 letter from the GM states a maintenance deficit of $19 million when RVM took over. But the current estimates are for costs of $28 million to $38 million to bring the complex up to standard. There can be no other conclusion than that purchasers were deceived in the quality of the facility they were buying into.
> 
> 5. The Companies misrepresented the cost effectiveness of timeshare vacation experience. The prospectus provided with the sale of timeshares emphasized how much more economical a timeshare vacation is in comparison to a traditional vacation in a hotel or motel. Furthermore, it was represented that weekly vacation costs are largely fixed by purchasing a timeshare. The prospectus stated, "Only the maid/maintenance cost can move up with the cost of living." But in actuality over the past eight years, maintenance fees have increased over 77%, which is over four times the rate of inflation (16.8%) for the same time period. Total timeshare costs on a one-week basis, including maintenance, lock-off, and exchange fee, now cost more than a one-week stay in a similar quality hotel.
> 
> 6. The Companies breached the Contract by billing, or stated intentions to bill, for capital costs related to restoring structural components of resort buildings.  The Contract does not provide for including capital costs in maintenance expenses. Asking the leaseholders to pay for capital costs violates the traditional rights and responsibilities that have long existed between the Lessor and the Lessee
> 
> In Frequently Asked Questions (Sunchaservillas.ca website Page 2), the Companies state: “The annual maintenance fee has two components: operating costs and refurbishment reserve.  Operating costs are the day to day expenses of the resort such as housekeeping, utilities, insurance, and vacation ownership services. Refurbishment reserve has historically only addressed minor priority projects and upkeep such as the deck replacements, roof replacements and outdoor pool repairs.”
> 
> It was our understanding, as confirmed by the wording of the Prospectus given to us at time of purchase that the Resort was to be maintained in the condition and quality as at the date we entered into the Lease. The Contract makes no provision for improvement or modernization of the quality of the buildings, the equipment, or the furnishings. By their own admission in letter of December 7, 2011, the Companies have utilized funds in the Replacement Reserve Account to pay for items that are Capital Costs. We were not made aware of the extent of these costs until the 2011 Financial Reports that were provided in February 2013 revealed a deficit of $1.5 million in the Replacement Reserve.
> 
> Hope this helps you out.
> GypsyOne



Thanks GypsyOne ,this really does help and I am sure a lot more timeshare owners.


----------



## Hillside

New to this forum and I think the report is excellent. I have seen figures 18,000 leases of which approx. 14,000 leases have been sold. This would imply that the lessor should be covering the costs on 4,000 leases. Have they been paying?


----------



## GypsyOne

Hillside said:


> New to this forum and I think the report is excellent. I have seen figures 18,000 leases of which approx. 14,000 leases have been sold. This would imply that the lessor should be covering the costs on 4,000 leases. Have they been paying?



Hillside, there is strong evidence they have not been paying their fair share.  Jim Belfry, a timeshare owner who has posted on these pages, has reviewed in detail the financial statements over a number of years.  He reports that financial statements for the years 2011 and 2012 appear to show the Developer has paid nothing to the resort for the units they rent out and units they control.  Furthermore, this could account for half the accumulated deficit that they claim is the responsibility of the timeshare owners.  

Another owner reports the timeshare units at Fairmont this summer are full despite so many owners opting out. The implication being that Sunchasers is renting out the surplus space through RCI or Interval to generate extra revenue for themselves and pocketing the money previously credited as income to the resort.

These are credible observations that have yet to be proven, but it appears the companies have much to answer to.  

The three law companies are preparing our case for an October 8-10 hearing before the B.C. Supreme Court.  

Once again, it is important that as many owners as possible sign up with one of the three law firms (see previous posts) representing the owners.  Two reasons:

1. There is strength in numbers.  The Companies are using the argument that the Owners who have NOT taken a visible stand against this egregious money grab are in fact in support of one of the two assessments.  The more owners the lawyers can claim as clients, the more support and weight our case will have before the court.

2. We need lawyers to represent our interests.  The cost spread over a large number of owners is minimal - considerably less that the Companies' blackmail and most certainly significantly less than one year's maintenance cost.  

Another timeshare owner reports that Geldert Law of Victoria has informed him they are still taking clients.  You can get more information at patriciamaito@geldertlaw.com  or info@geldertlaw.com.

When resistance to this money grab started out early this year, it looked like David against Goliath.  But David is gaining strength and Goliath is worried.  

_"We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided." _J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.


----------



## TS Migraine

DarkLord said:


> If this case sets the precedents, I believe the timeshare industry in Canada is doomed.  All timeshare companies will just renovate and pass the costs to owners who don't own equity interest in the property.
> 
> Wouldn't that be swell to the timeshare companies not to mention they charge certain percentage of management fees to boot?  So the higher the capital expenditure, the better.



In effect, being able to bill TS owners for Capital Cost expenditures makes TS owners the T S ( MIS) Management's bank. Whenever they mess up their money management and need more money, they just go get it from the "bank." Since they have proven themselves incompetent in maintenance money Management precipitating their present position of bankruptcy, I expect all of the TS owners could look forward to the same plight if they keep sending them their hard earned, judiciously managed money. Come up with some retainer money instead, join a Law Firm, and  be sure your position against the Petition is Voiced audibly! You will benefit, and so will everyone else.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*New Court Update*

There is new information on the Fairmont case posted on the Sunchaser web site. Looks like the new round will be in October. 
I found this information to be important.

_7. The determinations made arising out of the hearing of the Special Case are binding on all of Leaseholders and Timeshare Owners who have been served;
a. Service of this Order and of all Orders or proceedings In this matter is
deemed to be effective by posting on the website
(www.sunchaserresort.com) and by service on counsel for the Respondents
or by service In the manner specified in filed Responses; an_


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Court Update*

In my previous post I see that the web site given in the Court Order for "service" doesn't exist.  It should be:
http://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/bc-supreme-court-petition/
I trust the lawyers will fix this.


----------



## TS Migraine

Thanks for the Heads Up Beaverjfw. So, if you have not retained legal representation to keep you posted on what is happening in the BC Court, you best be checking out the sunchaservillas.ca/renovations website in order to stay informed.


----------



## CleoB

*New Trick*

Well here's something new that Sunchaser is trying.  I'm not legal guru but I have to wonder if someone signs this are they giving up their legal right to sue them in a class action suit?  We were presented this upon check-in on Sept 7/13.  We asked for a copy so we could review it; that we weren't prepared to sign it at the front desk.  Here's what the form stated



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY

TO:        RESORT VILLA MANAGEMENT LITD. (“Releasee”)

WHEREAS:

A.	The undersigned (the “Releasor”) is an owner or guest at Sunchaser Vacation Villas, 5129 Riverview Gate Road, in Fairmont Hot Springs, British Columbia (the “Resort”).

B.	The “Resort” herine refers to any one of the multiple locations of Sunchaser Vacation Villas within Fairmont Hot Springs, British Columbia located at 5129 Riverview Gate Rd., 5052 Riverview Rd, and 5240 Riverside Dr.

C.	The Resort provides certain common property, facilities, amenities and activities for the use and enjoyment of owners and guests of the Resort (collectively, the “Amenities and Activites”), including but not limited to (i) an outdoor pool, indoor pool, waterslide, spray park, outdoor hot tubs, indoor hot tubs, a sauna, and steam room; (ii) tennis courts, basketball courts and volleyball courts; (iii) fitness centre; (iv) games room and craft room; (v) stairways and internal roadways; (vi) kid’s camp and related activities; (vii) recreation activities, both on and off the Resort; (viii) children’s playground; (ix) common BBQ area and picnic area; and (x) the use of personal or rental equipment within the Resort.

D.	The Releasor wishes to utilize some or all of the Amenities and Activities, for himself and his guests and/or family members. 

THE RELEASOR, on his own behalf and on behalf of any of his children, other individuals under the age of 18 years for whom the Releasaor is responsible (a “Minor”) and any of his guests using or participating in any of the Amenities and Activities, hereby acknowledges and agrees as follows:

1.	The Releasor herby acknowledges that at all times he will be aware of the use of the amenities and participation of activities which his guest(s) and Minor(s) will be involved in.

2.	The Releasor is aware that the use of or participation in the Amenities and Activites has risks, dangers and hazards (collectively “Risks”) and injuries resulting from these Risks, including death, may occur. The Releasor is aware of the Risks and has full knowledge of the nature and extent of the Risks associated with the use of or participation in the Amenities and Activities.

3.	In consideration of being able to use or participate in any of the Amenities and Activities, the Releasor herby voluntarily assumes full responsibility of all Risks and loss, property damage or personal injury, including death. The Releasor hereby waives any and all rights he may have against RVM and its affiliates, officers, directors, employees, representatives and agents (collectively, the “Releasee”) to claim for damages or otherwise resulting from injury to property or person arising during such times as the Releasor or his guests and/or Minors use or participate in any of the Amenities and Activities, whether such injury to property of person occurs at the Resort or elsewhere, and whether such damages may have been cause or contributed to by the negligence of any Releasee or otherwise. 

4.	The Releasor does hereby remise, release and forever discharge the Releasee of and from any and all manner of actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the Releasor every had, now has, or can, shall or may hereafter have for any cause, matter or thing in any way connected with, arising out of, or in respect of and and all use of or participation in any of the Amenities and the Activities. 

5.	The Releasor agrees to indemnify the Releasee from any costs (including but not limited to legal fees and disbursements on a solicitor and own client basis ) associated with defending or litigating any claims, demands, actions or rights of action, whether asserted by the Releasor or a third party, arising out of or in any way connected with the use or participation by the Releasor or the Releasor’s guests and/or Minors in any of the Amenities and Activities.

6.	The Releasor confirms that he has had sufficient time to read and understand this Acknowledgment and Waiver and Release of Liability in its entirety and understands that this agreement represents the entire agreement between the Releasor and the Releasee.

7.	The Releasor confirms that this Acknowledgment and Waiver and Release of Liability is binding on the Releasor and his heirs, next of kin, executors, administrators, successors and assigns and that it ensures to the benefit of the Releasee as well as to each of their respective heirs, next of kin, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.

8.	Wherever the context so requires, any term used in this Acknowledgment and Waiver and Release of Liability importing the singular number only shall include the plural and vice versa and words importing any gender shall include all other genders.

9.	This Acknowledgement and Waiver and Release of Liability shall be governed by the laws of the Province of British Columbia and the laws of Canada applicable therein.

10.	If any provision of this Acknowledgment and Waiver and Release of Liability or part thereof or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall be invalid or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this Acknowledge and Waiver and Release of Liability or the application of such covenant, obligation or agreement or part thereof to any person, party or circumstance other than those in respect of which it is held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby.  Each covenant, obligation and agreement in this Acknowledgment and Waiver and Release of Liability shall be separately valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

11.	The Releasor represents and acknowledges the following:

a)	he is the full age of 21 years;
b)	has completely read and understood this Acknowledgment and Waiver and Release of Liability;
c)	is executing this Acknowledgment and Waiver and Release of Liability freely and voluntarily without any compulsion on the part of any of the Releasee’
d)	may obtain the advice of independent legal counsel in connection with this Acknowledgment and Waiver and Release of Liability;
e)	that by signing this Acknowledgement and Waiver and Release of Liability, the Releasor is relinquishing legal rights and remedies that may have otherwise been available to the Releasor’
f)	that this Acknowledgement and Waiver and Release of Liability is mandatory;
g)	not signing the waiver does not force the Resort to re-schedule your reservation for a different timeframe.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Releasor has signed this Acknowledgment and Waiver and Release of Liability effective on,                ,            201     .




Releasor                                                           Name of Releasor






Witness                                                             Name of Witness


----------



## gnorth16

Looks like a simple liability waiver.  Nothing related to the lawsuit, just if you injure yourself on the property.  Same thing goes over in BC at the sister resort.


----------



## Quadmaniac

gnorth16 said:


> Looks like a simple liability waiver.  Nothing related to the lawsuit, just if you injure yourself on the property.  Same thing goes over in BC at the sister resort.



I would suggest re-reading items 4 and 5. I would never sign this and they can not force you to in order to check in. Why would you sign away your rights, even if it was a simple liability waiver without 4 and 5 ? No chance in hell. It would be a fair expectation to be safe if the resort and if something has not been maintained properly causing harm, you bet they are going to be liable.


----------



## GypsyOne

I would not sign a waiver without advice from a lawyer, preferably one representing owners in the legal action.

Or tell them that a release of liability is not necessary, that ordinary common law will cover legal liability and limitations in use of facilities.

Or that signing a waiver was not required or part of the agreement in purchasing the time share, why would one be required now?


----------



## LookingForAnswers

So CleoB... did you sign it?    I would think that it the form is presented to you, they expect you to sign it.... could they refuse you occupancy if you didn't sign it?

I know with a medical form at the hospital, they always give you release forms, I have crossed out portions that I did not agree to, and seemed to appease the file clerk.  

So, what would you cross off?  Just points 4 & 5?

Do you think we are starting to get a bit paranoid?   People sign this kind of waiver all the time, without even thinking about it.


----------



## MFD

LookingForAnswers said:


> So CleoB... did you sign it?    I would think that it the form is presented to you, they expect you to sign it.... could they refuse you occupancy if you didn't sign it?
> 
> I know with a medical form at the hospital, they always give you release forms, I have crossed out portions that I did not agree to, and seemed to appease the file clerk.
> 
> So, what would you cross off?  Just points 4 & 5?
> 
> Do you think we are starting to get a bit paranoid?   People sign this kind of waiver all the time, without even thinking about it.



That's true, we do sign these kinds of waivers all the time, but even Northwynd's recent behaviour and questioning trustworthiness, I would be wary of signing anything coming from them.


----------



## Quadmaniac

LookingForAnswers said:


> So CleoB... did you sign it?    I would think that it the form is presented to you, they expect you to sign it.... could they refuse you occupancy if you didn't sign it?



g)	not signing the waiver does not force the Resort to re-schedule your reservation for a different timeframe.


----------



## Spark1

Quadmaniac said:


> g)	not signing the waiver does not force the Resort to re-schedule your reservation for a different timeframe.



With Northwynn's track record I would not sign anything with these guys. I thought I read that part of our maintenance fees covered insurance for these kind of things. It would not surprise me one bit that Northwynn sees another cash cow here. Why would us timeshare owners trust these bandits?


----------



## CleoB

ERW said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong but I thought I read at one time that they were not selling any timeshares at this time? Maybe I'm incorrect, so speak up if I am. But if I did hear correctly, why is there a need for show suites?



Does anyone remember what the estimate was per unit for the repairs?  We're in Fairmont right now and dropped by to look at 803 & 807 show suites.  As far as my husband and I can tell everything is cosmetic work (except for the poly b pipe replacement).  The B side which was supposed to be reworked simply had a shower put in instead of a tub to giver a couple extra square feet to the kitchen area. Anyway, I thought is was around $400,000/unit and from what I see that's way, way overpaid.   Their spec sheet on villa enhancements include:
General
·	Poly B pipes replaced with PEX pipes.
·	Updated look that will transition well in years to come.
·	Finishes are highly durable and designed for commercial use.
·	Elimination of carpet in the living area and bedroom A side (easy cleanup and maintenance)
·	Installation of blackout blinds to provide privacy and a good night sleep
·	All Riverside  buildings will have foyers and laundry facilities
·	Coming soon: wall art featuring local scenery captured by a valley photographer

Kitchen
·	New layout to accommodate full kitchen and table in every Riverside B.
·	Non-stick frying pan
·	2 extra place settings in each one bedroom villa
·	pull down faucet for easy sink cleanup

Living
·	Flat screen TV with HDMI hookup
·	Blue ray player

Bedroom
·	New linens package to facilitate duvet cover wash after every visit
·	Decorative bed scarf
·	Dressers and armoires for clothing storage
·	Flat screen TV with HDMI hookup

Bathroom
·	A side – jetted tub replaced with a soaker tub for easy cleanup and maintenance
·	B side – jetted tub replaced with a shower to increase the square footage in the B side living space.

It's pretty and up to date decor, but it's definitely not worth $400K when the structure, electrical, roofing, walls and sub-floor are already in place.


----------



## gnorth16

Quadmaniac said:


> I would suggest re-reading items 4 and 5. I would never sign this and they can not force you to in order to check in. Why would you sign away your rights, even if it was a simple liability waiver without 4 and 5 ? No chance in hell. It would be a fair expectation to be safe if the resort and if something has not been maintained properly causing harm, you bet they are going to be liable.



I never said to sign it, just that it has nothing to do with the lawsuit.


----------



## Quadmaniac

CleoB said:


> 4.	The Releasor does hereby remise, release and forever *discharge the Releasee of and from any and all manner of actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the Releasor every had, now has, or can, shall or may hereafter have for any cause, matter or thing in any way connected with, arising out of, or in respect of and and all use of or participation in any of the Amenities and the Activities. *
> 
> 5.	The Releasor agrees to indemnify the Releasee from any costs (including but not limited to legal fees and disbursements on a solicitor and own client basis ) associated with *defending or litigating any claims, demands, actions or rights of action, whether asserted by *the Releasor or a third party, arising out of or in any way connected with the use or participation by the Releasor or the Releasor’s guests and/or Minors in any of the Amenities and Activities.



I would interpret that as possibly releasing them from any legal action.


----------



## GypsyOne

I would not sign a waiver.  How many times have you had to sign one when checking into a motel or resort?  Me - none.  Resorts do have responsibilities to the public for safety and security and I would not waive those rights.  Resorts have common law to protect their interests if they are without fault.


----------



## CleoB

gnorth16 said:


> I never said to sign it, just that it has nothing to do with the lawsuit.



I didn't say it had anything to do with the lawsuit and no we didn't sign it.  My husband told the clerk at the front desk that he would take it and read it over (he's done thousands of contracts over the years) and get back to her.


----------



## gnorth16

Quadmaniac said:


> I would interpret that as possibly releasing them from any legal action.



Regarding *amenities and activities* at the TS.  Again, nothing to do with the legal action going on right now in the BC Courts. I agree its not right, nor would I sign it.  They have a similar waiver at their resort in BC (posted by a TUGer last month).  Just trying to distinguish between the two so people don't get worked up by mixing the two up.  Feel free to get worked up on the waiver on its own merit (or lack there of)....


----------



## Meow

Fill a room with lawyers and ask them if a waiver has much validity in a courtroom.  Half will say it may have some value.  The other half will say it's not worth the paper it's written on.


----------



## GypsyOne

Meow said:


> Fill a room with lawyers and ask them if a waiver has much validity in a courtroom.  Half will say it may have some value.  The other half will say it's not worth the paper it's written on.



The problem is needing a room full of lawyers to figure that out.


----------



## gnorth16

GypsyOne said:


> The problem is needing a room full of lawyers to figure that out.



Let me know where that room is and I will run in the other direction.:rofl:


----------



## glowcolour

Can anyone tell me if it is safe to pay the maintenance fee and deposit your weeks with an exchange company?  If there is a bankruptcy will the deposits be honoured?


----------



## Duane_Meade

GypsyOne said:


> Rancher, you are entitled to your thoughts, but I come to quite different conclusions.  I was part of a group that did a detailed review of Northwynd's proposals and the companies' performance under the contracts we signed. We identified a total of twelve breaches of contract and misrepresentations.  Our report formed the basis for a group of owners filing Affidavits and Form 67s with the B.C. Supreme Court protesting the Companies' petition.  I will cover some of the grievances.
> 
> You are wrong that we don't wish to pay maintenance fees or that we didn't expect maintenance would increase over time.  We would just love to be paying maintenance fees, but only for the services for which we contracted and for the lessor/lessee relationship we entered into. But, as a result of bad management and a prematurely deteriorating facility, the Companies are attempting to change the rules and off-load the responsibility of a failing facility to the timeshare owners.
> 
> A major breach of contract is failure of the manager to manage and maintain the Vacation Resort in a prudent and workmanlike manner.  This failure has resulted in significant loss of value to Timeshare Owners, unreasonably increased maintenance costs, diminished the quality of our vacation experience, and placed the future of the complex under doubt and uncertainty. This bad management was manifest in numerous ways, is self-evident, and is freely admitted to by Company management. This in itself could be justification for timeshare owners suing for damages.
> 
> Another misconception you have Rancher, is that the timeshare owners are owners of the resort.  By saying that we should not be surprised at special assessments, you seem to be equating our interest in a timeshare to an interest in a condominium, where the owner has fee-simple ownership along with associated benefits. We are not owners of the resort, nor do we have the rights and privileges of ownership, such as participating in management or having an equity interest in the resort.  Read the contract.  It clearly states we have entered into a lease and that the parties have a Lessor/Lessee relationship.  *Lessees are not responsible for capital improvements.*  As Lessees we have right of habitability for a fixed period of forty years and then our rights expire with zero residual value.  But, the Companies are expecting the timeshare owners to pay for capital restoration of the buildings for which we do not have an equity interest and only they, the real owners of the resort, will benefit.  Of course it has to be mentioned that the Companies attempted to shore up this little problem in saddling us with capital costs by attempting to convince timeshare owners to convert (for a price) to "Legacy for Life" contracts and thus responsible for capital restoration of the buildings.  Those that did convert claim non-disclosure of serious deficiencies in the property and contract liability for capital improvements.
> 
> Another strange interpretation you have is that somehow we should be happy the Company is prepared to take our timeshare back for a cost of about $3,200.  So for me, I paid $16,000 for the timeshare and I pay another $3,200 for the Company to take it back for a total cost of $19,200, and I am done out of about 28 years of timeshare benefits.  Could anything be any more ridiculous in its absurdity?  And they offer this deal despite Clause 13 of the contract that provides a formula for them paying me out at a discounted amount if I default, which is more the way it should work!
> 
> I'll state once again that this Company must not be allowed to win in court.  If the precedent is court sanctioned that the timeshare owners can be charged for upgrades to capital structures, there will be a never-ending parade of requests for more money for upgrades.  And why wouldn't they?  They are the real owners of the resort and only they will benefit from a more valuable property.  We are lessees and our rights expire with zero residual value after forty years.
> 
> This is no time for apathy.  If you haven't signed up already, sign on with one of the lawyers representing the owners.  If we work co-operatively, the cost per individual will be minimal.  If we lose this case, we all lose heavily.


They sent me a release. It was a farce, they wanted me to personally Imdimify a group of people that I assume were the developers of the sight. for fee of $4000. The whole operation is a scam. Under the advice of my Lawyer just walk away. Washington State AG just settled a case for Millions of dollars against a time share operation out of Lacy WA for fraud.


----------



## ERW

Beaverjfw said:


> There is new information on the Fairmont case posted on the Sunchaser web site. Looks like the new round will be in October.
> I found this information to be important.
> 
> _7. The determinations made arising out of the hearing of the Special Case are binding on all of Leaseholders and Timeshare Owners who have been served;
> a. Service of this Order and of all Orders or proceedings In this matter is
> deemed to be effective by posting on the website
> (www.sunchaserresort.com) and by service on counsel for the Respondents
> or by service In the manner specified in filed Responses; an_



So is this basically stating that all leaseholders and TS owners will, whether or not they are represented by one of the legal groups, will be bound to the decision of the court? I am assuming that is what the term "who have been served" refers to (as in "served with notice" that they will have to pay the special assessment AND maintenance fees). 

Sometimes legal jargon can mean something totally opposite to what we lay people interpret it to mean. Just wanting clarification.


----------



## TS Migraine

Just Catching up after a while away from this site. Thanks a BUNCH Gypsy One for your succinct and pertinent analysis of both the Contract Breaches and ( OUR) collective grievances concerning them. You have aptly put into words all that I have innately believed and tried to make known to less informed TS owners like Rancher. Thanks again.
Now on a different note, I have deposited my Fairmont time for the last three years and so have accumulated 4 weeks of Time Share Exchange- two weeks of which expire January 1, 2014. I have recently been trying frantically to book these two weeks in Sunny California - Palm Desert area- with NO LUCK! I cannot believe that will all the TS in that area that there is nothing I can exchange for before my time expires!  I am beginning to suspect that either Interval International membership is really not helpful, or my Fairmont Resort carries NO CLOUT in the exchange world. I thought by depositing my time I could avoid the hassles of trying to use my Weeks at Fairmont under dubious relations with Management, but this FRUSTRATION in not being able to book a single week of exchange within a two to four month window makes me believe both my Time Share Maintenance/ deposit expense and my II Membership have been a complete waste of my .
money.


----------



## Pita

*Limited Availability*

Just checked Interval using a one br deposit at SDO and it only showed four units available in Palm Springs between Nov. 2 and Dec. 28.  One of them was the Westin Mission Hills!  The others were not as nice.


----------



## TS Migraine

Pita thanks for checking. I just checked again for the very same dates you did using my Fairmont 1 br full kitchen as exchange and NOTHING came up as available. What does SDO stand for? I would love to book in a Westin's Mission Hills. We stayed their once before and it is lovely. I strongly suspect that Interval no longer allows Fairmont TS Owners to exchange for their best properties. Nothing comes up for me, not Westin or any of the other 4 units between November 2, and December 28th. What week was the Westin?


----------



## gnorth16

SDO is Sheraton Desert Oasis.  Westin Mission Hills  and SDO are part of the Starwood network and there is a preference period.  For a low period, I am surprised that nothing came up.  Did you try Arizona as well?


----------



## Pita

The WMH was a 1BR Nov. 23-30.  The others were: Casitas Del Monte 2BR Dec 13-20:  Welk Reorts Desert Oasis 1BR Dec 13-20 and Dec 14-21 :  Palm Canyon Resort 2BR Dec 14-21


----------



## TS Migraine

Thanks again gnorth16 and Pita. No I didn't try Arizona. I have a medical appointment within driving distance of Palm Desert/ San Diego and I had hoped to make my travel south worthwhile and use up my TS and stay a week. AZ is too far away to work into this engagement, but I shall maybe have to see what is available elsewhere and go "wherever" just to use up my time. I can't exchange any where though, if Interval gives me nothing to choose due to the Legal Petition / Necessary RENO mess that seems to have lowered the previous 5 star exchange value of Fairmont.


----------



## Meow

I don't know if the reason is that Fairmont Sunchaser has lost trading power or it's just an overall problem with Interval, but I have found that getting good exchanges has become more difficult recently.  I have been depositing a full two bedroom in high season (The cost of locking off has become prohibitive!) and am lucky to get a studio unit in exchange in any nice vacation areas. ( eg. Hawaii or Southern Calif. Coast).  It's too much of a risk to go along with Northwynd's Reno Plan.  That's why I joined one of the Legal groups.  I don't know what our chance of success is.  Probably no better than 50%.


----------



## LookingForAnswers

I checked Interval as well... we have a time share in Wolfe Creek - used to get pretty good exchanges.... but Palm Desert has been problematic for a while.   Same units always come up for our Wolfe Creek unit as well as the Sunchasers units.  Usually only efficiency units available in the resorts we used to easily get 1 or 2 bedroom units in.

We have a couple weeks still on deposit with Interval, and am hoping that, since the dates of the stays we deposited have come and gone (so probably sold), our future attempts to use them will still be honored fairly.  But am concerned since, Interval indicates they will only release weeks if our accounts are in good standing with the home resort.... don't know how long that is going to be, considering we haven't paid the renovation fee.

Regarding the legal counsel.   We signed on as well with Geldert Law earlier this month.   I have found that the $100 retainer was easy to come up with.   Hoping though, that things settle without too much more financial commitment.  But to date we are very pleased with their weekly updates on what's going on, leaving us with the oponion that the case against Northmont's proposition is pretty substantial.  It's hard to imagine the judge will rule in their favor.  

At any rate, it has become quite apparent to us that on our own, my husband and I are not knowledgeable enough to deal with the legalities on our own.  I know most who haven't signed on with lawyers feel they will reap the benefit of the work of the lawyers working in behalf of the groups.....   personally, we were not willing to take that chance.  We can foresee scenarios that may play out well for those who have committed to legal counsel, but not necessarily include the others. 

Regarding the resort itself.   We just got back from a weeks stay.   Initially when the first letter came from Northmont came out this spring, we panicked and deposited our week into interval, thinking that since we weren't going to pay unless ordered to by the court, we would loose our week.... Then after hearing that people were still getting checked into the resort despite not paying, we paid interval to book the same week, but in Hillside Villas instead of our Riverside Villa we own!   (lost our lock off fee, and then had to pay interval to book the week.... but as a nice bonus, we were left with the lock off week deposit, which we were able to book for a week in Vegas in December.)

Anyway, back to the resort.  Check in went quite smoothly.   I told the reception clerk it was too late to read and digest the waiver agreement, so said I would take it to the room to check later....  Interesting that his reason to sign was that "all the resorts" are doing that now, and that since there was no lifeguard on duty, it was necessary to have the waiver signed.   I offered to agree not to use the pool.... (only the pool in the check in center was operating.... not the outdoor pool by the Hillside Villas where we ended up anyway)   He said, but "no, you could be hit by a golf ball or something".   That seemed funny to me, since the resort is not part of the golf course anyway.  He said bad example.   At any rate, we got off not signing the form.   Had they pushed for me to sign the next day, I would definitely have refused, as there were some maintenance issues that I was not going to release them of liability had we been hurt ( For example, the shower handle came off twice when we showered, while the hot water was pouring out.... it was very difficult to attach back on to shut water off )

We went twice to see the renovated unit open house... first time, even though we were there during the viewing hours, room was locked.   Next time, we showed up an hour early - room open and had a chance only to take a quick look at the kitchen, but we were escorted out as it wasn't viewing hours and they said the touch up paint was still wet.  But what we saw, while looking nice and refreshed, wasn't that spectacular.   The new flooring was to be "non-carpeted"... it is that kind of vinyl flooring that looks similar to long wood planks.   I suppose this will be durable and easy to replace sections as needed.  I was surprised the counter tops  weren't granite, considering the cost per unit.

The black exteriors are a nice contrast to the white trim, but I must say, wasn't my favorite.... I did prefer the color choice of Riverside Golf course beside them.... it was a rich brown color, with white trim..... but then I guess color choices are not always going to please everyone.

My husband had opportunity to talk to a couple of locals, who are working on the project.... They, are excited to have the work, and glad the resort is getting a face lift.    But then, they aren't being asked to pay for it!  In fact they seemed miffed that we didn't want to go along with the renovations.  No point trying to explain to them....


----------



## Meow

"LookingForAnswers", you mentioned the people who have not signed up with legal counsel, but expect to reap any benefits of the outcome without paying their share.  I have little respect for people expecting a free ride. Either they are "with us or 'agin us".


----------



## LookingForAnswers

Actually, I said:


> I know most who haven't signed on with lawyers feel they will reap the benefit of the work of the lawyers working in behalf of the groups..... personally, we were not willing to take that chance.



This was not intended as a slam against those who are not willing nor are in a position to pay for a lawyer.   It just occurred to me that there is a definite possibility that this situation could have different outcomes (depending on our responses) for each of us involved.   

For example - even choosing the right legal counsel can make a difference.   In our case, we almost signed on with a lawyer right at the beginning.  But backed out last minute because didn't quite get what she was trying to accomplish in our behalf.  Had we gone with her - we would be fighting a completely different case here.  

Since I am not able to handle any action on my own.... much prefer a professional to handle matters for me - we are very comfortable with the lawyer we chose and feel confident there will be a positive outcome.  

I don't know if everyone is aware, but there are people who have put in a fair bit of personal time and financial resources to force Northwind into being accountable for their actions.  All of us, regardless of whether or not we have joined a group with legal counsel should be grateful for their contribution.  And if possible - it is the only fair thing to help out with the monetary costs involved.


----------



## LookingForAnswers

TS Migraine said:


> Thanks again gnorth16 and Pita. No I didn't try Arizona. I have a medical appointment within driving distance of Palm Desert/ San Diego and I had hoped to make my travel south worthwhile and use up my TS and stay a week. AZ is too far away to work into this engagement, but I shall maybe have to see what is available elsewhere and go "wherever" just to use up my time. I can't exchange any where though, if Interval gives me nothing to choose due to the Legal Petition / Necessary RENO mess that seems to have lowered the previous 5 star exchange value of Fairmont.



Take a look - our Sunchascher will exchange  for a stay in a Marriott 1 bedroom Villa in Palm Desert Nov 30 - Dec 7th right now.  It wont last long!

Otherwise, look at Escondido, by San Diego, more dates to choose from, as well as 1 or 2 bedroom units.  Or how about Oxnard CA (near Santa Barbara - that's not too far away)  There is a villa Dec 9-16.

I don't think it's necessarily our units to exchange - but the fact that all the Sunbird's are booking their winter vacations right now.  Just keep looking each day.   Something will come up.


----------



## GypsyOne

Observation from the written response of Northmont for the Tuesday, October 8 hearing before Justice Loo:

Northmont essentially dismisses our affidavit evidence as irrelevant.

Clause 2 - “The vast majority of the affidavit evidence before the Court filed by the Respondent Owners is irrelevant to this contractual interpretation.........” 

And why would that be?  Not our fault they say.

Clause 10 - “In Northmont’s view, much of the frustration of this subset of Owners arises from the actions of the previous property manager, Fairmont,.........”

Clause 33 - “.........the Owners seem to misunderstand the effect of the CCAA proceedings and that Northmont is not liable for the actions of Fairmont........”

Okay, then the Companies Credit Arrangements Act (CCAA) proceedings invalidates the contracts and owners can simply walk away.  Not according to Northmont.

Clause 42 - “Northmont’s view was and continues to be that the Owners are required to pay their proportionate share of the cost of renovations pursuant to their obligations to pay for Operating Costs which include all administration, maintenance, repair, and replacement costs.  

That interpretation seems like the height of absurdity.  How can one have one’s contractual rights extinguished by the CCAA but still be held accountable for the obligations?  Seems like a classic case of Northmont wanting their cake and eating it too.  If that position were to be upheld, why would anyone in their right mind enter into a contract with a Timeshare Company, or enter into any contract for that matter?  The good news is that it seems improbable the Court would rule in favour of such an unbalanced and egregious interpretation.  

Northmont has some eighty odd pages of written testimony in preparation for the hearing.  Many of their other points are equally outrageous.  We have to hope our lawyers do their job and that Justice Madam Loo has a good B.S. filter and a strong sense of justice.


----------



## darklord700

GypsyOne said:


> Observation from the written response of Northmont for the Tuesday, October 8 hearing before Justice Loo:
> 
> Northmont essentially dismisses our affidavit evidence as irrelevant.



I gave up reading after 10 pages or so.  Most of Northmount responses are akin to read Wankel's affidavits.  I'm sure the justice can read Wankel's affidavits but weather the arguments hold water or not is the debate here.


----------



## Disappointed W

*Northwynd Investors Action Group*

*I came across this info tonight as I was researching online. It was posted in April 2012. It is clear to me that the underlying motive behind the "restructuring plan" is to liquidate and "start returning investors money to them" and "protect remaining assets for the investor".*

_Fairmont Resorts Is No More 

Northwynd Investors Action Group was recently established by a group of investors/unitholder that have major concerns about the dwindling assets and the questionable management and connection to the previous owners FRPL/Fairmont Resort Properties. The goal of the group is to remove all essence of FRPL / Fairmont from their new company that is floundering that it experinced under the same control before the bankruptcy, take control of their own company and start returning investors money to them.

The Action Group is presently working with the FRPL appointed Board of Trustees and management of Northwynd in a transition of control of our company and assets. Since their agreement in general, they have sent a Northwynd lawyer onto the Investors Action Group and have not backed out of their agreement to transition. The group is also reviewing business options with the CEO to explore ways to achieve the #1 goal of the group, protect remaining assets for the investor.

If anyone is interested in joining our group or commenting on their regretted investments, please email to northwyndinvestorsaction group@ymail _

*This was from another post, dated August 2011:*


_I have found out that the people named on the Northwynd website are all former Fairmont Resort Properties employees. Please help us on our quest to bring this company to justice and send its management to prison where they belong. Attached here is a current list of management from Northwynd Resort Properties and Fairmont Resort Properties.

Patrick Fitzsimonds; Chief Executive Officer
Doug Frey; Vice President, Development
Eleanor Fornataro; Vice President, Communications / Corporate Services
Chris Van Der Deen; Vice President, Operations / Member Services
Kirk Wankel; Chief Financial Officer_

*This next post is especially ironic:*

_Fairmont Resorts Is No More 

The following news item appeared in the Columbia Valley News in July:
Fairmont Resorts Acquired by Northwynd

Now, through a court-approved sale process, newly-formed Northwynd Resort
Properties Ltd. has acquired Fairmont Resort Properties (FRP) in Fairmont Hot
Springs, BC. FRP properties include Fairmont Vacation Villas and Lake Okanagan
Resort in British Columbia, along with Makaha Resort and Golf Club in Hawaii,
Costa Maya Reef Resort San Pedro in Belize and Fairmont Rancho Banderas in
Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.


The first part of the new plan will be to introduce a home owners' association
for both Fairmont Vacation Villas and Lake Okanagan Resort to promote good
communication between timeshare owners and the management company, ensuring that
owners will be consulted in the operation of their units and also be encouraged
to provide input regarding the annual budgets._

*You can check out this thread at: 
http://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=16969*


*And lastly, a link to the bankruptcy notice filed in July 2010:*

http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...t Properties Ltd/FRP - Bankruptcy Package.pdf

*It will be interesting to see what develops in court. I am in favour of Kelly Hamilton's class action to put the management in the hands of the timeshare owners. Perhaps then we can, in part, "start returning timeshare owners' money to them" and "protect remaining assets for the timeshare owners."*


----------



## Disappointed W

*The Lawyers and The Knight*

If anyone has not read the below link, please do! I think Philip Matkins lawyers should be stripped of their license to practise, and criminal charges against the lawyers and "the Knight" should follow this class action.

http://www.kelliehamiltonlaw.com/fairmont-class-action


----------



## Disappointed W

I think John Grisham may be interested in this story - or perhaps rather a nonfiction author - as the saying goes, "Truth is stranger than fiction."


----------



## Disappointed W

*Message sent to Kellie Hamilton*

Another supposed benefit of timeshare ownership with Fairmont was use of a houseboat. This was strongly marketed, and for us, was a major drawing card when we purchased in 2008. They had a houseboat elevated and parked adjacent to the highway, near the entrance to the resort, with large advertising promoting Fairmont. The houseboat benefit was no longer available by the following summer (I wonder if it was even available at the time we purchased?) It is apparent from the bankruptcy notice that this was due to unpaid account to Shuswap Lake Vacations, to the tune of $364,000. It appears that they (Sunchaser Vacation Club)acquired the houseboat, presumably by paying the account during the CCAA, but it was never again made available to timeshare owners. It is now being marketed separately for sale through timeshare weeks.

http://www.buyatimeshare.com/Suncha...nt-Houseboats/Calgary-AB-Canada/Ads/82545.htm
I hope you can use this to support the claim for misrepresentation, and loss of properties available for timeshare owners. Is compensation being sought for the loss of the properties in Hawaii, Belize and Mexico?
Thank you for pursuing this class action.


----------



## Disappointed W

*Post copied from Facebook Owners Association - Fairmont Sunchaser Northwynd Resort*

.








Fairmont and Northwynd have always treated us owners with a 2 prong 'AND" choice. While the other 3 lawyers appear to be taking the singular approach to cancel with no fee, the Kellie Hamilton group has taken a 3 prong approach to: 1) have the Court transfer ownership of the Resort to timeshare owners where a Board of Owners will hire the Trustee and Developer and Manager. That Board will be reported to and provide approval for fee increases and Resort projects. The current system of reporting oneself without any input from those affects is insane and is the reason many do not trust that Northwynd has our interests at heart. 2) since we timeshare owners paid for the Resort in full and then some, have the Court award the allocate the unused and vacated inventory (49% prior to the cancellations and approaching 56% now) profits on sale back into the Resort to offset: our original investments and/or the reno fee and/or future maintenance fees. 3) IF the Court refuses to acknowledge that timeshare owners paid over $89M in initial lump sum fees for a Resort that cost $62M in total, that we would agree with the other 3 lawyers to walk away with no fee. THE DIFFERENCE between our approach and the rest is that we WANT to stay and enjoy our Resort first and would only want to walk away a cancel as the "3rd prize".


----------



## TS Migraine

Thanks again Gypsy One for your succinct summation of matters at hand. I made mental note, as I was reading, of your pertinent observations and I concur completely with your interpretation; here's hoping Mme Justice Loo does too! Like Dark Lord, I gave up after about 10 pages of Northmont's affidavit. If their BS wins the day, I will be permanently disillusioned with Canadian justice. And YES why would anyone EVER buy a Time Share if the Vacation Interval CONTRACTS can be so seriously misconstrued to the Time owners disadvantage. Hard to think of us a 'Beneficiaries" as defined by the Trustee, who seems to be onside trying to weasel money out of us to pay for their mistakes. !


----------



## condomama

We are at Mountainside Villas right now, our "fall" vacation exchange for a few years now vs. June spent at Sunchaser. No such thing as a waiver to sign on check-in here.  In and out of reception in 30 seconds, very smooth.  Some may recall that Mountainside is the 'woodsy' resort of the two, a little more rustic and without frills, still even old style TVs and VCRs!  There is WIFI which is good.  Perhaps because of the ownership's preference for keeping things simple and not changing things for the sake of change - each time we stay, it's easy to notice things that have been refurbished.  A few years ago it was new carpeting in the villa, which still looks good.  This year, they seem to have a program going on to replace entryway steps and to enhance the old wooden porches with newer, more open railings. They look great.  This is outside of the renovations they had to do after the floods.  

Fees are openly listed in their binder as $639.00 per week for 2013.  This includes $88.00 per week for refurbishments.  Like Sunchaser, they want the maintenance fees paid before allowing an II exchange.  There is also a letter in the binder from the owner explaining the difference in management between Mountainside and Sunchaser.

Our experience recently with exchanging has been different too.  II have made a change that means one doesn't see much availability outside of 6 months, so we have to keep checking back and being patient. But California has always been difficult in the winter months - we just figured that it was because the owners used their timeshares in J-F-M.  However, we never had problems getting into the Westin, Marriott or LWR, perhaps because of the time of year we went (November). 

I wonder if part of the issue nowadays is that my husband and I aren't Gold or Platinum members of II.  20 years ago, it was simple, there was only one level of membership.  Like other memberships elsewhere, now there are different enhanced categories so they probably have us flagged!

We noticed that driving into Sunchaser this week, one has almost 4 different colours going - the orangy taupe of the entrance walls along the highway; the brown golf course buildings; the 2 black buildings at Sunchaser and the rest - white buildings at Sunchaser.  Hillside buildings are looking quite abandoned - drainage and rust marks all along the outside stucco like Sunchaser was, balconies in a similar state.  However, both complexes appear busy.

At least the golf course finished their paint job all at once, but the two complexes obviously didn't get together to create one view like it used to be.  So that's odd.  Not a fan of either brown or black paired with the adobe coloured roof tiles but at least the golf course painted their entrance doors the colour of the roof to lend some cohesion.

Looking forward to a positive outcome of the court case for the owners.  It is still nice to come to Fairmont!  Happy Canadian Thanksgiving.


----------



## Spark1

condomama said:


> We are at Mountainside Villas right now, our "fall" vacation exchange for a few years now vs. June spent at Sunchaser. No such thing as a waiver to sign on check-in here.  In and out of reception in 30 seconds, very smooth.  Some may recall that Mountainside is the 'woodsy' resort of the two, a little more rustic and without frills, still even old style TVs and VCRs!  There is WIFI which is good.  Perhaps because of the ownership's preference for keeping things simple and not changing things for the sake of change - each time we stay, it's easy to notice things that have been refurbished.  A few years ago it was new carpeting in the villa, which still looks good.  This year, they seem to have a program going on to replace entryway steps and to enhance the old wooden porches with newer, more open railings. They look great.  This is outside of the renovations they had to do after the floods.
> 
> Fees are openly listed in their binder as $639.00 per week for 2013.  This includes $88.00 per week for refurbishments.  Like Sunchaser, they want the maintenance fees paid before allowing an II exchange.  There is also a letter in the binder from the owner explaining the difference in management between Mountainside and Sunchaser.
> 
> Our experience recently with exchanging has been different too.  II have made a change that means one doesn't see much availability outside of 6 months, so we have to keep checking back and being patient. But California has always been difficult in the winter months - we just figured that it was because the owners used their timeshares in J-F-M.  However, we never had problems getting into the Westin, Marriott or LWR, perhaps because of the time of year we went (November).
> 
> I wonder if part of the issue nowadays is that my husband and I aren't Gold or Platinum members of II.  20 years ago, it was simple, there was only one level of membership.  Like other memberships elsewhere, now there are different enhanced categories so they probably have us flagged!
> 
> We noticed that driving into Sunchaser this week, one has almost 4 different colours going - the orangy taupe of the entrance walls along the highway; the brown golf course buildings; the 2 black buildings at Sunchaser and the rest - white buildings at Sunchaser.  Hillside buildings are looking quite abandoned - drainage and rust marks all along the outside stucco like Sunchaser was, balconies in a similar state.  However, both complexes appear busy.
> 
> At least the golf course finished their paint job all at once, but the two complexes obviously didn't get together to create one view like it used to be.  So that's odd.  Not a fan of either brown or black paired with the adobe coloured roof tiles but at least the golf course painted their entrance doors the colour of the roof to lend some cohesion.
> 
> Looking forward to a positive outcome of the court case for the owners.  It is still nice to come to Fairmont!  Happy Canadian Thanksgiving.



We have been travelling to Mexico ,this year will be 7years and what we see happening when we try buying getaways is resorts like Villa del Palmar,Villa Del Palmer Flamingos, Paradise Village etc are all going all-inclusive. They do not like timeshare people taking up space,buying groceries and cooking for themselves. They make a lot more money doing the all-inclusive. Most of those timeshare agreements were 20 years and resorts like the Villa Del Palmer will go the All. Timeshare owners in these resorts find it hard to exchange into these resorts. Timeshare is on its way out. They did the same thing,sold timeshare, then the point system and now the all-inclusive. Save your money and stay away from Timeshare it is so corrupt.


----------



## condomama

I think that the resorts that have kept it simple, like Mountainside Villas, are going to keep their owners happy for the long run.  Do the little things that need to be done, and let the people enjoy their facilities.  Fairmont/ Northwynd got greedy in the heady economy years ago, veering away from the intent of the original family owners at Fairmont.  They lost their way when they tried to expand overseas, buying up resorts in out of the way places no-one wanted to travel to, in order to create the Platinum Club etc.  They have been "robbing Peter to pay Paul" for so long now, one wonders if there is any money left anywhere to keep their system going.  Will they ever get out of Hawaii or Belize with their lawyer and judgement fees paid?   Do they even have money left to paint all of the buildings the same colour up at Sunchaser? One wonders...

As part of this trip, we also travelled to the Grand Okanagan Resort complex in Kelowna two weeks ago and had a wonderful experience. The Vacation Club Bldg. is where we were put 10 years ago on an exchange, in the days when they were still knocking on everyone's door to go to the presentations.  This time, we were in one of the towers, on an ordinary hotel floor.  With a one week exchange we lucked out with a 2 bedroom suite.  We had a beautiful king unit that stretched from one side of the building to the other, with two different balcony views.  Living room/dining room, full kitchen and laundry facilities connected to a 2 Q hotel room that our family used.   Of course, we ate out lots, but just as much in too.  We didn't feel out of place, there was no timeshare knock or phone call, and again just friendly staff and a hassle free check-in.  

Regarding Mexico, we know a few couples who bought down in the Mazatlan and PV areas when the timeshare/condo building market was hot 10-15 years ago.  They did it to buy in cheap and have all the perks of exchange back in to the U.S.  However, that was when All-Inclusive was only on the Mayan Coast.  Now they can't even get back in to enjoy their own resort when they want to.  As you say, on the west coast, they've caught on in a big way to the All-Inclusive 'money makers'.


----------



## DarkLord

After reading Jim Belfry's excellent summary (you can read it from the Sunchaser FB page), what appears to me is that even after Justic Loo makes her decision, this will far from being the end of it.

Both the owners and Northmount will likely appeal the decision and this counld drag on for who knows how long.  Northmount by its own admission can survive past this year in the face of adverse decision.  Ironically, if that's the case, how could Northmount successfully complete a multi year reno when these the reno surcharge isn't supposed to fund their day to day operation.

This will be a war of attrition between the owners and Northmount.  Clearly, Northmount intended back in April to pull a fast one on the owners but that didn't work according to plan.

What is absolutely clear to me without a shadow of any doubts is that Northmount is not to be trusted with my money from here on.  Between giving my money to Northmount or the lawyers, I choose my lawyers.

The initial investment is dead in the water for me and I won't throw good money after bad.  Only from the brilliant mind of Kirk Wankel, Chartered Accountant, that it makes sense to pay the cancellation fee to Northmount now because I made a bad investment sold to me by Northmount a few years back.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Belfry comments*

Would someone be kind enough to post Jim Belfry's comments. There are a few of us not on Facebook (and never plan to join  )


----------



## Quadmaniac

DarkLord said:


> After reading Jim Belfry's excellent summary (you can read it from the Sunchaser FB page), what appears to me is that even after Justic Loo makes her decision, this will far from being the end of it.
> 
> Both the owners and Northmount will likely appeal the decision and this counld drag on for who knows how long.  Northmount by its own admission can survive past this year in the face of adverse decision.  Ironically, if that's the case, how could Northmount successfully complete a multi year reno when these the reno surcharge isn't supposed to fund their day to day operation.
> 
> This will be a war of attrition between the owners and Northmount.  Clearly, Northmount intended back in April to pull a fast one on the owners but that didn't work according to plan.
> 
> What is absolutely clear to me without a shadow of any doubts is that Northmount is not to be trusted with my money from here on.  Between giving my money to Northmount or the lawyers, I choose my lawyers.
> 
> The initial investment is dead in the water for me and I won't throw good money after bad.  Only from the brilliant mind of Kirk Wankel, Chartered Accountant, that it makes sense to pay the cancellation fee to Northmount now because I made a bad investment sold to me by Northmount a few years back.



You meant Northwynd right ?


----------



## DarkLord

Quadmaniac said:


> You meant Northwynd right ?



In the affidavits, the company is referred to as Northmount.  To me Northwynd and Northmount are related so I use them interchangeably.


----------



## Quadmaniac

DarkLord said:


> In the affidavits, the company is referred to as Northmount.  To me Northwynd and Northmount are related so I use them interchangeably.



Is that a related company name they're using ?


----------



## DarkLord

Quadmaniac said:


> Is that a related company name they're using ?



http://www.kelliehamiltonlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1&limitstart=5

"Northmont which is  owned, directly or indirectly, 100% by Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust (“Northwynd REIT”). Northwynd REIT also owns, directly or indirectly, 100% of Northwynd and 100% of Northmont Limited Partnership (collectively referred to as “Northwynd”)"


----------



## Meow

How can a Reit or any other entitiy or Party own 100% of a Partnership? Doesn't a Partnership, by definition, require at least 2 Parties?  
Northwynd or whatever the parent organization is called has woven a complex web in which to capture us unspecting timeshare lessees.


----------



## darklord700

Meow said:


> How can a Reit or any other entitiy or Party own 100% of a Partnership? Doesn't a Partnership, by definition, require at least 2 Parties?
> Northwynd or whatever the parent organization is called has woven a complex web in which to capture us unspecting timeshare lessees.



I guess the REIT could indirectly own 100% of the partnership.  REIT could own Company A and Company B and Company A and B could own 100% of the Partnership so REIT owns indirectly 100% of the partnership.

Yes, there guys do weave a complex web of companies which is never a good thing for investors.


----------



## Disshelved

*Jim Belfry's comments*



Beaverjfw said:


> Would someone be kind enough to post Jim Belfry's comments. There are a few of us not on Facebook (and never plan to join  )



Here it is:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=htt...HReAQHjLLz6Hb-6RovUENAdM4lVguNQKvl7KFck5Q&s=1


----------



## RandRseeker

DarkLord said:


> The initial investment is dead in the water for me and I won't throw good money after bad.  Only from the brilliant mind of Kirk Wankel, Chartered Accountant, that it makes sense to pay the cancellation fee to Northmount now because I made a bad investment sold to me by Northmount a few years back.



I guess I have a little different take on this... We opted for the choose to leave option and paid the $3200ish.  We had grown tired of the whole timeshare thing - rising maintenance fees, difficulty in getting good exchanges, more and more timeshares going all-inclusive, etc, etc....BUT, we still had 18 years left on our lease and we felt trapped.  We never had the expectation that we'd be able to get out of our lease without paying a penalty (I think almost all leases work this way), so when they gave us an out we took it.

I hope I'm wrong, but I see this dragging out for years, and maintenance fees just going up and up.  I feel a sense of relief just to be done with this issue.   

To us, timesharing isn't what it was when we acquired our unit at Fairmont.  We can rent a really nice beachfront three bedroom condo on VRBO for about $1500-$2000 a week.  
Just our two cents worth - and probably different than a lot of others' thoughts.  

RandR


----------



## ERW

RandRseeker said:


> BUT, we still had 18 years left on our lease and we felt trapped.  We never had the expectation that we'd be able to get out of our lease without paying a penalty (I think almost all leases work this way), so when they gave us an out we took it.



The only issue I have with the fee for breaking the "lease" is that we all paid up front for our timeshares versus a month to month type lease that we would be free of in the case of a car or cell phone. I've only used 25% of my lease. 

Of course, I would agree to pay the $3000.00 if they would like to pro-rate and credit me 75% of my original purchase price, then cut me a cheque for the difference but I can't see that happening anytime soon.


----------



## Meow

Sounds reasonable to me.  I just hope that Justice Loo is capable of such clear thought.


----------



## Shywon

*Any word from Oct 10 2013 court date*

Has anyone heard anything on what happened from the Oct 10, 2013 court date.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Court Decision -still waiting*

Nothing yet, but a decision is expected any day now. When it comes out you should be able to read it here.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court/recent_Judgments.aspx
I wouldn't pay any invoices for 2014 maintenance fees until the court rules.


----------



## Shywon

*Thank you*

Thank you and will watch the link and good to know about the 2014 maintenance fee.


----------



## JustFacts

The results of the special case were released on Friday and have been placed on the resorts website.  

The conclusion is on the last page (51):

VII. CONCLUSION
[118] My conclusions on this special case are as follows:
a) Northmont is entitled to levy the Cancellation Fee;
b) Northmont is entitled to levy the Renovation Project Fee.

The reasons provide a lot of detail for the conclusions.


----------



## gnorth16

JustFacts said:


> The results of the special case were released on Friday and have been placed on the resorts website.
> 
> The conclusion is on the last page (51):
> 
> VII. CONCLUSION
> [118] My conclusions on this special case are as follows:
> a) Northmont is entitled to levy the Cancellation Fee;
> b) Northmont is entitled to levy the Renovation Project Fee.
> 
> The reasons provide a lot of detail for the conclusions.




For those searching, it  is not on the supreme court website, just http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Judgment-Summary.pdf

_We note that in addition to Justice Loo’s comments, individual litigation would lead to unnecessary emotional stress 
for our Owners. Instead of attempting to achieve a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination through this special 
case, the Respondent Owners argued the process should be terminated and Northmont should conceivably “sue 
everybody” forcing you to defend yourself personally while still not knowing the answer the questions posed in the 
special case. _

So really, Northwynd is doing you a favor by allowing you to pay to get out instead of taking them to court.  

I have no dog in this fight, but I would not pay any fee(s).  As mentioned before, Northwynd would be perfectly happy in the end if everyone walks away from their TS so they can start their condo projects.  The more people who walk, the bigger the condo project.  Any walk away fee is just icing on the cake for them.


----------



## JustFacts

The results are now posted on the BC Courts website:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/13/20/2013BCSC2071.htm


----------



## Spark1

JustFacts said:


> The results are now posted on the BC Courts website:
> 
> http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/13/20/2013BCSC2071.htm



Keep in mind that all of us timeshare owners had our contracts breached my Northwynn not sending out audited statements according to our timeshare agreements. This took away our decision whether we wanted to sell this timeshare because of the problems at this resort. They are forcing us to follow the agreement but they also have to follow the agreement. We need to take these people to court and sue them.


----------



## ERW

I think it is very clear that we now have two options - stay or go - and there are costs associated with either alternative. Unless people are going to appeal the decision, I don't see any other way to proceed. Whether you 
agree or not, she has found in favour of Northmont.


----------



## GypsyOne

How about doing nothing and just ignoring them and not paying.  Are they really going to sue for a $3,100 cancellation fee when suing will cost more than $3,100?  The fact remains they (Fairmont and Northmont) breached the contract and misrepresented in numerous ways, despite what Justice Loo says.


----------



## Soccer Canada

GypsyOne said:


> How about doing nothing and just ignoring them and not paying.  Are they really going to sue for a $3,100 cancellation fee when suing will cost more than $3,100?  The fact remains they (Fairmont and Northmont) breached the contract and misrepresented in numerous ways, despite what Justice Loo says.



They do not have to sue us is the issue. They can now take it to collections, and its completely enforceable using that means now. At least for Canadian owners. Also there is no such thing as Consumer rights when it comes to collections in Canada, they can pretty much do whatever they want, or pretty close to it.


----------



## darklord700

Soccer Canada said:


> They do not have to sue us is the issue. They can now take it to collections, and its completely enforceable using that means now. At least for Canadian owners. Also there is no such thing as Consumer rights when it comes to collections in Canada, they can pretty much do whatever they want, or pretty close to it.



Collection agent or not, Northmount is going under.  As long as some owners appeal, the decision is not final  all of us.  Would you pay a few grand just to have the collection agent not calling you?  The collection agent can call me once and I'll block their calls after that.  And I'll tell the collection agent to back off because I"m going to appeal.

Any monies you give will just end up in the crook's pocket, not going to the reno of the resort.  Northmout can't fool me on that.  Also, this is the judge's decision on Northmonut's application, it's not a trial so it is not a verdict.  Big difference in there.


----------



## TUGBrian

article this morning on it

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/decision-reached-in-b-c-timeshare-dispute-1.1549367


----------



## ERW

If you think they will not pursue this with collections, think again. All they have to do is pick 5 or 10 owners, spend the money for the collections agents and set them loose. Those 5 or 10 will be used as examples. It may "only" be $3000 or $4000, but multiply that by 2000 or 3000 owners and you end up with millions. 

I once had a collections company call me for $30.00 they thought I owed to Sirius satellite radio - if Sirius figured collections was appropriate for a $30.00 bill, $3000 or $4000 is easily justifiable by Northmont. 

In my opinion, my wife and I need to sit down and decide which route to take. I personally don't see too many options other than staying or going.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Cancellation Fee - How Much?*

Well, the court has ruled that Northwynd can charge a cancellation fee.  
No where in all these proceeding have I seen anything that addresses HOW MUCH they can charge or whether what they ask for is justified. I would have paid to walk away back in April but not the amount they have asked for. Wanting the next 20 years of management fees seems to be ridiculous given they can rent these units and keep all the revenue.
Based on the Loo decision it sounds as if they could have asked for any amount. Why not ask for as almost much as the reno fee.
I will wait for more feedback from the lawyers on this and see where it goes but I don't plan on giving them my $3100. Even if it end up in collection or court some time in the future, I will make sure Northwynd ends up with a fraction of this amount in their pockets.
Now that this case has set precedent, just wait until they do this at their other properties and every slimy timeshare outfit in Canada starts with the same BS.


----------



## Spark1

Beaverjfw said:


> Well, the court has ruled that Northwynd can charge a cancellation fee.
> No where in all these proceeding have I seen anything that addresses HOW MUCH they can charge or whether what they ask for is justified. I would have paid to walk away back in April but not the amount they have asked for. Wanting the next 20 years of management fees seems to be ridiculous given they can rent these units and keep all the revenue.
> Based on the Loo decision it sounds as if they could have asked for any amount. Why not ask for as almost much as the reno fee.
> I will wait for more feedback from the lawyers on this and see where it goes but I don't plan on giving them my $3100. Even if it end up in collection or court some time in the future, I will make sure Northwynd ends up with a fraction of this amount in their pockets.
> Now that this case has set precedent, just wait until they do this at their other properties and every slimy timeshare outfit in Canada starts with the same BS.


That agreement is not just for the timeshare owners to follow, it is also for Northwynn to follow. The judge did not comment on breaches of this agreement but I do know the only way you can get out of this contract is if Northwynn breaches our contract and they did. I still do not have audited statements for 2013 and the ones for 2010,2011, and 2012 were way to late. We have a right to know the financial situation of that resort just as they did when they took over the resort. We have to stand up to these people and not allow them to bully us. I do know if I knew the problems with this resort I would of dumped it. Blame the Alberta Government for this, this resort should of gone bankrupt instead of them writing off 43 million dollars and then turning it over to Northwynn to screw us. Now you know why Alberta Services would not take on this case.


----------



## JustFacts

Beaverjfw said:


> Well, the court has ruled that Northwynd can charge a cancellation fee.
> No where in all these proceeding have I seen anything that addresses HOW MUCH they can charge or whether what they ask for is justified.



Read lines 63, 64, and 69 of the ruling.

A collateral agreement is an agreement entered into between the parties.  It can effectively be for "any" amount provided both sides agree and it is not an "unconscionable bargain that the courts should not enforce."




Beaverjfw said:


> Why not ask for as almost much as the reno fee.



You have answered your own question about the reasonableness of the amount.  They could have charged you the renovation fee.


----------



## Beaverjfw

JustFacts said:


> Read lines 63, 64, and 69 of the ruling.
> 
> A collateral agreement is an agreement entered into between the parties.  It can effectively be for "any" amount provided both sides agree and it is not an "unconscionable bargain that the courts should not enforce."
> 
> You have answered your own question about the reasonableness of the amount.  They could have charged you the renovation fee.




The key phase here in a collateral agreement is "provided both sides agree".  Northwynd could have had my agreement with a different fee. 
What is now preventing Northwynd from rescinding their April offer for parties wanting to leave and changing it to a higher price or not offering it all. 
From this ruling they will try to enforce payment of the renovation fee, together with any delinquent annual fees. They don't care about the option to leave fee, there's no agreement in place. Anything they get is just gravy, together with the free units that are surrendered. 
Any day now expect a bill for $4100 + about $1000 for 2014 annual fees and another $900 or so if you are behind on 2013 fees. (I feel sorry for a friend with 8 weeks at this resort)


----------



## Soccer Canada

I spoke with Micheal Geldert today (seems to be the only lawyer to be committed to continuing the fight). Owners really need to get involved if they feel strongly against paying  Northwynd/Northmont/RVM etc any more money. Geldert Law's retainer is very fair (I believe he mentioned $150-$200 for new clients, that would need to be confirmed by them), I feel for myself that I am better off to give a Lawyer who wants to win another few dollars as opposed to throwing away thousands more. Just my 0.02..

Robb


----------



## darklord700

I'll fight; $4K won't put me in the poor house but what Northmount did wad morally wrong and the decision was wrong.

Assuming you bought you TS lease in 2011 and after using it one time, you got hit by the reno fee, how would you feel?

Northmount not only deceived me by buying the TS but now I have to pay to get out?

Assuming Northmount is going under all you are avoiding is a few phone calls or letters by the collection agency for a while.  And you cancellation fee is not going to help other TS owners about the reno because it goes straight to Northmount pocket and who's covering your part of the maintenance fee or reno fee?  No one and that's why the reno is destined to fail.

Lower court decision is routinely overturned by the appeal court and I think there are errors in this decision so I'll keep on fighting with Geldert.


----------



## gnorth16

darklord700 said:


> And you cancellation fee is not going to help other TS owners about the reno because it goes straight to Northmount pocket and who's covering your part of the maintenance fee or reno fee?  No one and that's why the reno is destined to fail.



Walk away fee >>>> Where does it really go? (IMO to pay back investors that lost money investing in Fairmont Properties in 2008-09)
Reno fee >>>>> May actually go towards to the reno of SOME units

All units that are "walked away" upon or signed over to the HOA/foreclosed on become property of Northwynd.  It can then be sold at a profit for their condo project.

In a perfect world for Northwynd, all owners walk away and pay the fee.  Then they have a bag full of cash and a valuable property to develop condos and make money like originally intended, way more than could be made "managing a TS property"...


----------



## jekebc

*Need to Appeal the Decision*

I had an extended conversation with Michael Geldert regarding the decision by Justice Loo. I am quite disappointed by the one-sided decision, but also not completely surprised given the conduct and actions of Justice Loo during the hearings. She appeared to have accepted Northmont’s arguments from the start and did not appear to be open to consideration of any of the arguments submitted by the lawyers for the Sunchaser Timeshare Owners (the “Owners”)

We also faced the problem that Northmont was in many ways calling the shots since they had initiated the Petition. Justice Loo would not allow arguments that Northmont may have already been in breach of the Contract. We were also unable to address the question of Northmont’s responsibility to pay maintenance fees (and Renovation Fees) on the units it controls. If we want to have those arguments heard, we must consider either commencing our own action against Northmont and RVM, or use that argument as a defence against any collection action commenced by Northmont and RVM. And I don't see paying further monies to Northmont as a viable option. I believe they will simply collect as much monies as they can, divert it to their own pockets, and close the Resort in early 2014.

In my opinion, the judgment as it stands gives cart-blanche to Northmont to proceed with their renovation plans and sets a significant precedent for other timeshare operators in BC to proceed with similar actions in other Resorts. It is apparent from reading the Judgment Summary posted on the Sunchaser website that Northmont intends to actively pursue collection of the Renovation Fee or the Cancellation Fee from all Owners. Northmont will conveniently ignore the fact that the judgment only addresses two aspects of the original petition - it does not provide approval to modify the existing contracts by reassigning units and does not provide approval to downsize the Resort. 

But also note that Northmont stresses the importance that the Owners obtain independent legal advice. I am urging all Owners to support an action to appeal this questionable decision by Justice Loo. I believe there are ample grounds for appeal on the basis of errors of fact and law in Justice Loo’s decision. Unless an appeal is filed, I believe all Owners will face aggressive collection action by Northmont. To me, the best defence against that action is to be represented by a lawyer and to direct that Northmont address all communication to that lawyer. 

I believe that Michael Geldert has demonstrated that he can provide the most cost-effective representation for the Owners and I suggest that all Owners consider signing a retainer agreement with Geldert Law. My understanding is that Michael is asking for a total retainer that is significantly less than the other firms. I also understand each of the other law firms have decided not to participate further unless the majority of the Owners that signed as their clients pay an additional retainer.

To me, the first priority is to appeal the decision. The next is to prepare a defence against any collection action that Northmont and RVM may commence. And I understand that Michael is prepared to take those actions on our behalf, providing a sufficient number of owners join in that appeal

We should also consider commencing an action for damages against Northwynd, Northmont, RVM and the Trustee based on breach of contractual obligations, but only if enough Owners elect to go that route. And we must understand that would involve significantly more legal costs. 

Please contact Geldert Law if you wish to have a lawyer represent you for the appeal and to act on your behalf in response to any collection action from Northmont.

Geldert Law - Michael Geldert 778-330-7775  Email michael@geldertlaw.com


----------



## Spark1

jekebc said:


> I had an extended conversation with Michael Geldert regarding the decision by Justice Loo. I believe Michael is as disappointed as I am by the one-sided decision, but also stated he was not completely surprised given the conduct and actions of Justice Loo during the hearings. She appeared to have accepted Northmont’s arguments from the start and did not appear to be open to consideration of any of the arguments submitted by the lawyers for the Sunchaser Timeshare Owners (the “Owners”)
> 
> We also faced the problem that Northmont was in many ways calling the shots since they had initiated the Petition. Justice Loo would not allow arguments that Northmont may have already been in breach of the Contract. We were also unable to address the question of Northmont’s responsibility to pay maintenance fees (and Renovation Fees) on the units it controls. If we want to have those arguments heard, we must consider either commencing our own action against Northmont and RVM, or use that argument as a defence against any collection action commenced by Northmont and RVM. And I don't see paying further monies to Northmont as a viable option. I believe they will simply collect as much monies as they can, divert it to their own pockets, and close the Resort in early 2014.
> 
> In my opinion, the judgment as it stands gives cart-blanche to Northmont to proceed with their renovation plans and sets a significant precedent for other timeshare operators in BC to proceed with similar actions in other Resorts. It is apparent from reading the Judgment Summary posted on the Sunchaser website that Northmont intends to actively pursue collection of the Renovation Fee or the Cancellation Fee from all Owners. Northmont will conveniently ignore the fact that the judgment only addresses two aspects of the original petition - it does not provide approval to modify the existing contracts by reassigning units and does not provide approval to downsize the Resort.
> 
> But also note that Northmont stresses the importance that the Owners obtain independent legal advice. I am urging all Owners to support an action to appeal this questionable decision by Justice Loo. I believe there are ample grounds for appeal on the basis of errors of fact and law in Justice Loo’s decision. Unless an appeal is filed, I believe all Owners will face aggressive collection action by Northmont. To me, the best defence against that action is to be represented by a lawyer and to direct that Northmont address all communication to that lawyer.
> 
> I believe that Michael Geldert has demonstrated that he can provide the most cost-effective representation for the Owners and I suggest that all Owners consider signing a retainer agreement with Geldert Law. My understanding is that Michael is asking for a total retainer of $150, significantly less than the other firms. I also understand each of the other law firms have decided not to participate further unless the majority of the Owners that signed as their clients pay an additional retainer much higher than the $150 Geldert law is requesting.
> 
> 
> To me, the first priority is to appeal the decision. The next is to prepare a defence against any collection action that Northmont and RVM may commence. And I understand that Michael is prepared to take those actions on our behalf for the $150 retainer, providing a sufficient number of owners join in that appeal
> 
> We should also consider commencing an action for damages against Northwynd, Northmont, RVM and the Trustee based on breach of contractual obligations, but only if enough Owners elect to go that route. And we must understand that would involve significantly more legal costs.
> 
> Please contact Geldert Law if you wish to have a lawyer represent you for the appeal and to act on your behalf in response to any collection action from Northmont.
> 
> Geldert Law - Michael Geldert 778-330-7775  Email michael@geldertlaw.com


Who in their right mind would give these bandits any more money. The timeshare we once owned is worth zero and once Northwynn gets all the cancellation and Reno money they will just pocket it. Remember the management fee of 15% for doing nothing. That will still create a shortage for their big Reno job. There will be no end in sight the money they will want to collect from us. I have calculated what the 18 weeks of timeshare will cost me if I pay the Reno fee after only owning this for 12 years and it works out to 245.00 dollars a day after paying 14000.00 dollars to buy two weeks and they threw in a free week,7200 dollars maintenance fees and 12300 dollars for the Reno fee.
I will be paying all this money out for a investment that is worth zero. Only in Canada justice System. These 3 weeks are going up for sale and that is what Northwynn is going to get plus the 28 weeks that is left. We all should look at appealing this.


----------



## JustFacts

jekebc said:


> I am quite disappointed by the one-sided decision, but also not completely surprised given the conduct and actions of Justice Loo during the hearings. She appeared to have accepted Northmont’s arguments from the start and did not appear to be open to consideration of any of the arguments submitted by the lawyers for the Sunchaser Timeshare Owners (the “Owners”)



I thought you posted a summary of the hearing.  Ah, I found it.


Disshelved said:


> Here it is:
> http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=htt...HReAQHjLLz6Hb-6RovUENAdM4lVguNQKvl7KFck5Q&s=1



I find it very interesting that the detailed summary you prepared immediately after the hearing did not make any mention that:
1) Justice Loo's "conduct" was inappropriate.
2) She was not open to arguments.
3) That the process was stacked against you.

In fact, nothing in your summary suggests anything except the process was thorough.  Yet now that you've lost, suddenly Justice Loo's conduct was inappropriate.  That sounds like a rationalisation and an attempt to re-write history which isn't even an opinion, let alone a fact.

Let me guess, there is noone to corroborate your claims. 

I know that had I been in your shoes and legal counsel told me we had no chance of winning because the Justice was acting inappropriately, and the process was unfairly stacked against us, I would have started immediately rallying the troops for an appeal.  I would have been yelling from the highest mountain and the 6:00 news that I had been wronged.  I would have been warning them we were going to lose and planning for it.  The one thing I would not have done is prepare a detailed summary of the proceedings that made no mention of these irreconcilable issues.

I wonder if we would have ever learned how unfair Justice Loo was if you had won...


----------



## Spark1

JustFacts said:


> I thought you posted a summary of the hearing.  Ah, I found it.
> 
> 
> I find it very interesting that the detailed summary you prepared immediately after the hearing did not make any mention that:
> 1) Justice Loo's "conduct" was inappropriate.
> 2) She was not open to arguments.
> 3) That the process was stacked against you.
> 
> In fact, nothing in your summary suggests anything except the process was thorough.  Yet now that you've lost, suddenly Justice Loo's conduct was inappropriate.  That sounds like a rationalisation and an attempt to re-write history which isn't even an opinion, let alone a fact.
> 
> Let me guess, there is noone to corroborate your claims.
> 
> I know that had I been in your shoes and legal counsel told me we had no chance of winning because the Justice was acting inappropriately, and the process was unfairly stacked against us, I would have started immediately rallying the troops for an appeal.  I would have been yelling from the highest mountain and the 6:00 news that I had been wronged.  I would have been warning them we were going to lose and planning for it.  The one thing I would not have done is prepare a detailed summary of the proceedings that made no mention of these irreconcilable issues.
> 
> I wonder if we would have ever learned how unfair Justice Loo was if you had won...


You seem to be a very happy person with the the judgement made by justice Loo. How do you think she would rule on Audited Statements being mailed out to timeshare owners in a timely fashion according to the agreement? Do you think it is important for timeshare owners to receive these statements by March 31 of each calendar year so they can decide to stay or sell this terrible investment. Is it just as important as the cancellation fee and the Reno fee?


----------



## JustFacts

Spark1 said:


> How do you think she would rule on Audited Statements being mailed out to timeshare owners in a timely fashion according to the agreement? Do you think it is important for timeshare owners to receive these statements by March 31 of each calendar year so they can decide to stay or sell this terrible investment. Is it just as important as the cancellation fee and the Reno fee?



My opinion is worthless, just like everyone else's.  Facts and law matter.

Breaches of contract must have damages to have any legal impact.  The mindset seems to be"had I got these sooner, I would have sold my timeshare", but in reality it is "had I got these sooner, I would have tried (key word) to sell my timeshare."  

The financial statement issue is a red herring because people forget that the same decision that would cause them to sell would cause people not to buy.  It is like saying "if I knew the Canucks were going to lose, I would have sold my tickets before the game."

As for the importance of each of the items, I'll pose my own questions:

If I didn't have the financial statements today, would things be different?
If I wasn't liable for the renovation fee, would things be different?
If Northmont couldn't charge me a cancellation fee, would things be different?

Alternatively,
If I had the choice of getting the financial statements on time, not paying the renovation fee, or cancelling without the cancellation fee, which would I choose?

I know my answer to each, but as I noted above, my opinion is worthless.


----------



## GypsyOne

Late financial statements is but one issue.  Compare the timeshare you were sold with the timeshare you have now.  Read the contract and ask yourself how many of those conditions have been breached.  There is no question our contracts have been breached and we have been misrepresented in a multitude of ways.  The Special Case decision is very Northmont-centric and very B.C. government-centric.  Northmont was handed a cash cow and you have to wonder how much the decision was motivated by the B.C. government not wanting a failed resort on its hands with resulting loss of tourism and a black eye for inadequate building and timeshare oversight. Northmont must not be allowed to run roughshod over the timeshare owners, so sign up with a law firm to fight this issue.  I understand Geldert Law at sunchaser@geldertlaw.com is taking a major role in reviewing appeal.


----------



## Spark1

JustFacts said:


> My opinion is worthless, just like everyone else's.  Facts and law matter.
> 
> Breaches of contract must have damages to have any legal impact.  The mindset seems to be"had I got these sooner, I would have sold my timeshare", but in reality it is "had I got these sooner, I would have tried (key word) to sell my timeshare."
> 
> The financial statement issue is a red herring because people forget that the same decision that would cause them to sell would cause people not to buy.  It is like saying "if I knew the Canucks were going to lose, I would have sold my tickets before the game."
> 
> As for the importance of each of the items, I'll pose my own questions:
> 
> If I didn't have the financial statements today, would things be different?
> If I wasn't liable for the renovation fee, would things be different?
> If Northmont couldn't charge me a cancellation fee, would things be different?
> 
> Alternatively,
> If I had the choice of getting the financial statements on time, not paying the renovation fee, or cancelling without the cancellation fee, which would I choose?
> 
> I know my answer to each, but as I noted above, my opinion is worthless.



It is not hard to tell that you are one of Northwynns  monkeys. You were probably one of the 12% investors and now you are trying to steal the money back from the timeshare owners that you lost investing in Fairmont Finance. I will tell you first hand that financial statements are very important and that we are family owners of two large companies in Alberta. We also have very good lawyers and we will prove to you the importance of these statements. We still have not received 2013 statements and Northwynn knows where to shove them.


----------



## gnorth16

Spark1 said:


> It is not hard to tell that you are one of Northwynns  monkeys. You were probably one of the 12% investors and now you are trying to steal the money back from the timeshare owners that you lost investing in Fairmont Finance. I will tell you first hand that financial statements are very important and that we are family owners of two large companies in Alberta. We also have very good lawyers and we will prove to you the importance of these statements. We still have not received 2013 statements and Northwynn knows where to shove them.




Based on the "Just Facts" handle, date of registration and pro-Northwynd agenda, it could easily be deduced as such.  I emailed 'just facts' and asked what their interest was in this situation and have yet to hear a reply.  

For these reasons I would suggest not further engaging this person AND taking what they say with a grain of salt.

The beauty of the internet is that you can pretend to be something you are not,(An employee of a certain TS company) and attempt to portray an impartial voice of reason.

BTW, If anyone is wondering, I am the King of Siam who just happens to vacation in Winnipeg because of the diverse and invigorating climate.


----------



## JustFacts

Spark1 said:


> We still have not received 2013 statements and Northwynn knows where to shove them.



Uhhh.  You do realize it is November right?


----------



## Tacoma

Looks like the cost to get out has gone up by about $600.  And you have to now pay your 2014 fees before they let you out.  I see this as a scare tactic.  You didn't pay before and now that we have won the court case we will charge you more to get out.   This company is unbelievable.  I'd rather pay a lawyer than pay them.


----------



## Tacoma

Looks like the cost to get out has gone up by about $600.  And you have to now pay your 2014 fees before they let you out.  I see this as a scare tactic.  You didn't pay before and now that we have won the court case we will charge you more to get out.   This company is unbelievable.  I'd rather pay a lawyer than pay them.


----------



## pdoff

JustFacts said:


> Uhhh.  You do realize it is November right?



What's your point?


----------



## ERW

Not taking a stand one way or the other on this statement issue. I realize they previously have not ben on time but I think 2013 statement would not come out until early 2014 when the year is complete.


----------



## ERW

Tacoma said:


> Looks like the cost to get out has gone up by about $600.  And you have to now pay your 2014 fees before they let you out.  I see this as a scare tactic.  You didn't pay before and now that we have won the court case we will charge you more to get out.   This company is unbelievable.  I'd rather pay a lawyer than pay them.



Are you saying the 2014 "stay or go" has increased since this whole deal started early this year for the 2013 owners? I haven't seen that yet - is that info on their site or have you spoken to them about it?

The time my wife and I hold is coming up to 2014 and we've been holding off on our decision pending the decision. Just curious what we are up against.


----------



## Tacoma

Yes I do not remember the exact numbers but in May the pay to leave option was $3100 approximately.  Yesterday on their site the fee is now over $3800.  I guess when the judge ruled they have the right to charge a leaving fee they saw it as carte blanche to charge whatever they want.  What do you think is going to happen to maintenance fees from now on?  They get 15% off the top for anything that they do to the resort.  There will be no stopping these guys until we band together and win in court.


----------



## GypsyOne

They get 15% off the top for anything that they do to the resort.  There will be no stopping these guys until we band together and win in court.[/QUOTE]

A large number of timeshare owners are seeing it the same way and taking action. The Justice Loo decision was a pander to Northmont and probably the B.C. government, who doesn't want a bankrupt resort on their hands with resulting loss of tourism and a black eye for inadequate building and timeshare oversight. The injustice is they think we have to provide the correction and the capital to restore a rapidly deteriorating and badly managed facility in which there was probably a lot of leakage of our money.  No question they have to be stopped or we will be their piggy bank forevermore.  Sign on with one of the law firms looking after our interests.  Geldert Law at sunchaser@geldertlaw.com is taking an active part.  The cost is very reasonable compared to the alternative.


----------



## ERW

This gets more confusing everytime I look at all the paperwork. I think I am going to have to call them to attempt to get claification, if that is even possible.

It does look like the fees have increased. Can anyone answer the following so that when I call, I at least have some semblance of sounding like I know what I am talking about? (Based on the info sent to us regarding 2013 mtce fees)

1) If you decide to stay, The renovation fee appears to be (for an annual 2 BR non-RCI) $4194.00, half of that for a biennial. Does that include the mtce fee?

2) If you decide to leave it appears, if I read this correctly, the fee is $3167.51 for an annual 2 BR, and again, roughly half for a biennial.

That is my take on this but then when I look at the Cancellation Payment November 2013 form from the website, it appears you must not only pay the cancellation fee BUT ALSO the mtce fees for 2014? If so, do the mtce fees include the reno fees as well? And if that is the case, does that give us usage rights for our 2014 period? 

My apologies if I sound confused, but I am! I'd be interested in everyone's interpretation before I phone in the next day or two.


----------



## Tacoma

ERW

Yesterday it was reported on facebook that Northmont had indeed increased their freedom to leave fees.  I went on their website and found the info under freedom to choose with no problem and the fees were over $3800 where before they were over $3100. 
Today the link is gone except I did find the old fees under letter sent or something like that.  I wonder if their lawyer decided charging more to leave was not politically astute at this time. Definitely the information that was there yesterday is gone today.
Interesting note pay to leave cheques are paid to Northmont and renovation fees are paid to Norton Rose (their legal representatives).  It has been reported that all monies in pay to leave are being pocketed by Northmont and are NOT going to renovations or upkeep.  Not only that I do not believe that they are paying the maintenance dues on the units that they have acquired over the last months and maybe years.  WHo is paying these maintenance fees?  We are.  That's why maintenance fees were around $950 last year. I haven't seen a number for 2014 yet but I predict it will be a large increase again.   
Sitting on the fence is not enough now is the time to join a group and sign up with a lawyer and fight for fairness.


----------



## ERW

Hi Tacoma, when I looked today (immediately prior to my post this afternoon) the $3800.00 number was there so it looks like it still applies?


----------



## Spark1

ERW said:


> Hi Tacoma, when I looked today (immediately prior to my post this afternoon) the $3800.00 number was there so it looks like it still applies?


There is no obligation on any owner to pay the cancellation fees,any payment of the cancellation fee is a "Collateral agreement" between Northmont and an owner,which means if you choose to voluntarily accept Northmont's cancellation offer you may do so. I was thinking more like 38cents.


----------



## sunbunny

GypsyOne said:


> The Justice Loo decision was a pander to Northmont and probably the B.C. government, who doesn't want a bankrupt resort on their hands with resulting loss of tourism and a black eye for inadequate building and timeshare oversight.



Seriously? You’re suggesting Justice Loo was not only biased but that she was manipulated by the BC government to rule against you? These attacks against Justice Loo are getting out of hand. This is Canada, not some puppet dictatorship. Our judges are not pawns. 

You don’t end up on the Supreme Court through a Craigslist ad. It takes a long history. I googled Justice Loo. She’s not just any Supreme Court Justice.

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Ann_Loo

List of judges on the BC court website:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme.../Judges_and_Masters_of_the_Supreme_Court.aspx 

From the list of rulings she’s released: This summer she ruled on a case between the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Provincial Court Judges Association.  
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/13/13/2013BCSC1302.htm

She’s a Supreme Court Justice who has been on the bench for 17! years. She’s argued and won a case before the Supreme Court of Canada. She’s a judge who presided over a case where the plaintiff was other judges!

I took the time to read the whole ruling. On the front it shows 655 timeshare owners represented by five lawyers. People here have said they paid $150-$1,000. Let’s say that’s $500 an owner. That means over $300,000 has been spent by owners already. 

Someone said Justice Loo’s ruling was one-sided. Does everyone here really believe its because a Supreme Court Justice with 17 years of experience was biased or a puppet of some government agenda?

And that the government’s agenda or Justice Loo’s is in favor of a timeshare company! Or that she wasn’t able to understand your arguments? That is insulting to Justice Loo and our legal system.

Supposidly now we can keep fighting for $150. Or maybe not. I couldn’t understand the $150, maybe, and only if enough people pay, but maybe we do something else and that will cost more. It was all very confusing.

What is enough people? We know 655 paid the first time, how many have to pay this time? More? Less? If we need $300,000 again, at $150 a pop that’s 2000 owners. What happens if we don’t get enough? Will people get their money back? What does my $150 buy? The first case took 6 months. I have no idea how long appeals take but a breach of contract suit would take years. How long before I get asked for another $150 or more? What happens if I get sued for default? Does my $150 defend me? Will my $150 pay to defend someone else if they get sued first?


----------



## gnorth16

Sunbunny = Just Facts?


----------



## JustFacts

Tacoma said:


> I'd rather pay a lawyer than pay them.





GypsyOne said:


> The cost is very reasonable compared to the alternative.



The problem with this logic is it assumes paying the lawyer will lead to victory.  

The lawyers already had six months and hundreds of thousands of dollars at their disposal and still lost an overwhelmingly one sided ruling.  Yet somehow you think it'll work out better next time because why exactly? Justice Loo's ruling was pretty thorough.

When you lose, you end up paying the lawyer AND them and it is anything but the cheap alternative.

You could have cancelled in May for $3,200.  You've already lost:

Whatever legal fees you paid.
$600 in interest on your renovation fee.
$1,000 for your 2014 maintenance fees.

Assuming you continue to default through an appeal or other lawsuit, both of which could easily take years, you'll lose:

$1,300 in interest each year on the renovation fee
$1,000 per year for maintenance fees
$300 per year in interest on the maintenance fees

That's before you pay your lawyer a penny.  I wonder how many people who cancelled in May regret their decision?


----------



## JustFacts

pdoff said:


> What's your point?



You think Northmont has breached its contract by not providing audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2013 by November, 2013?!? 

Are you kidding?  Okay, you win internet.  I concede.

If it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the reason the special case went in Northmont's favor was because Justice Loo was prejudiced against the owners or that Justice Loo was part of a BC government conspiracy to avoid bad press, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume Northmont has breached its contracts by not being capable of TIME TRAVEL.

Everyone should pay their $150.  These allegations cannot possibly be rejected by the court of appeal.  I wish you the best of luck.

I do have one question though: If this whole exercise has really been a grand BC government conspiracy, why will an appeal succeed?  Won't the government make sure the appeal goes away quietly?


----------



## Phew

*Bad news for all timeshares*

Had a bi annual we purchased on the resale market about 9 years ago. We paid 1626.36 to get out and are glad we did. Part of our reason for getting out was are at a stage of life where we don't seem using a timeshare.  As a result of this experience I tell everyone I can to stay away from timeshares completely. If you are considering buying one get advice from a lawyer about the potential liabilities before you sign anything. I feel especially bad for those who bought from the developer in the last few years. Some people seem to be mean spirited in their remarks which is unfortunate and in my opinion inappropriate.


----------



## ERW

Honestly, I am not going to be overly critical of Madame Justice Loo's decision. It is what it is. I am disappointed she did not make provisions to protect the consumers (i.e placing all reno fees in trust to ensure they are used as such, establishing a timeshare owners group for more fair representation of the owners) but then that was not the question asked of her so I'm not sure if she would have the latitude to make such rulings. That would be for another legal case. 

I think JustFacts is correct when he/she says the decision of the courts was just that-the court's decision, not the Province of BC's for "political" reasons. The other fact of life is that when you go to court, your lawyer should be saying something like "I think we have a case but remember, the courts can go in either direction and nothing is guaranteed". Any lawyer worth their weight in cash will explain it that way - I've been involved in too many court cases (no, I'm not a lawyer, just get involved with company legal issues) to believe otherwise. There are no "sure things" in law. Myself, it is time to sit down and make a decision to stay or go. Justice Loo's decision was addressing a relatively simple question posed to her as to whether or not Northmont's course of action was legal or not.  I don't like her decision, as many of us don't, but that was her decision. Appealing or launching a class action, etc. will take a long time and a lot of money. Personally, I would rather get through this and carry on, whatever my decision is. But that is a personal choice everyone needs to make and depends on your own resources, how much you have invested in your timeshares, etc. If ultimately I do decide to leave, my only regret is giving in and losing the remaining time we had purchased. But the reality is that vacations can now be bought on the internet very cheaply and maybe paying for mtce fees, deposit fees, lock-off fees, booking fees, Interval memberships just don't make it worthwhile any more.


----------



## Soccer Canada

*Just something to think about*

Here is the problem..
Justice Loo basically gave ANY Timeshare Management Company that does operations within the Province of British Columbia Carte Blanche to charge an upgrade/renovation fee whenever, and for how ever much they want.
Here are the facts:
-15% of the renovation goes straight into the Management Companies Pockets
-100% of the Cancellation Fee goes straight into downsizing, then turning those units into Condo's which Im certain they will attempt to sell for $200-250K at least.
-Northwynd has stated they DO NOT HAVE the funds to continue operations without the money they would receive from the Renovation Fee. What happens next year? or the Next? Do we keep getting a 15-20% raise in Fees, and then every other year get hit with another $1000+ assessment.
-Furthermore to all of this, why should WE pay to leave a timeshare that is already paid in full (at least I would assume most lease's have been paid out in full). And then have the Villas converted to Condo's on OUR dime.

For me the bottom line is the property is not OWNED by the Lease Holders. Give us an option to surrender the RTU and walk away, why should we in that case be required to pay a PENALTY of future maintenance requirements when you are going to downsize the resort and then turn around and sell that real estate. Those who want to stay then certainly can pay to have an upgraded unit, that is their choice how to spend their vacation dollars.


----------



## GypsyOne

_".....These attacks against Justice Loo are getting out of hand...."_

And whose water are you carrying?  Nice transition into faux timeshare ownership, however, complete with attempt to frighten and confuse the owners.


----------



## GypsyOne

Sunbunny:  ".....These attacks against Justice Loo are getting out of hand...."


And whose water are you carrying?  Nice transition into faux timeshare ownership, however, complete with attempt to frighten and confuse the owners.


----------



## tdjanzen

JustFacts said:


> The problem with this logic is it assumes paying the lawyer will lead to victory.
> 
> The lawyers already had six months and hundreds of thousands of dollars at their disposal and still lost an overwhelmingly one sided ruling.  Yet somehow you think it'll work out better next time because why exactly? Justice Loo's ruling was pretty thorough.
> 
> When you lose, you end up paying the lawyer AND them and it is anything but the cheap alternative.
> 
> You could have cancelled in May for $3,200.  You've already lost:
> 
> Whatever legal fees you paid.
> $600 in interest on your renovation fee.
> $1,000 for your 2014 maintenance fees.
> 
> Assuming you continue to default through an appeal or other lawsuit, both of which could easily take years, you'll lose:
> 
> $1,300 in interest each year on the renovation fee
> $1,000 per year for maintenance fees
> $300 per year in interest on the maintenance fees
> 
> That's before you pay your lawyer a penny.  I wonder how many people who cancelled in May regret their decision?



I had not realized that Sunchaser had already published their usurious rates of interest as punishment to owners exercising their legal right.  Or is this just supposition?

I can tell you of the dozen or so people that I know that paid to get out, not a single one of them has any regrets.  They regretted being put into such a position.  They regretted that they would NEVER spend another nickel at Fairmont Hot Springs - it is a very nice vacation spot.

But what Northmont doesn't seem to get or care about is that I didn't go into a contract to get a specific timeshare.  I entered into my contract 15 or so  years ago because it was a good destination and I trusted that the management company's interests would also be my interests.  They wanted to run a good operation so that they could sell more units to more owners.

Sadly, my reason for participating in the lawsuit is that the trust has been abused.  The manner in which all of this was carried out can only suggest a motivate other than it's good for the development so it's good for you.  I'm sorry, it isn't a good deal for any timeshare owner.  Some owners may have found it tolerable and continued but it is not a good deal.  And trust me, there will be a huge difference in the way they communicate to their friends about a tolerable deal and a good deal.

But honestly Northmont admittedly doesn't care.  If they get enough people to quit, they'll just flip them units as condos.  If they convince enough people to essentially re-purchase their units, they will continue. And then hope they can snooker enough new people to fill in the gaps.  If that doesn't work, they will just add to the maintenance fee amount over and over again because that is what Justice Loo's decision will allow them to do.

I don't regret participating in the lawsuit and honestly as another poster stated, each person will have to decide for themselves what to do.  I just feel sorry for those that decided to continue on because I can't shake the feeling that this whole money grab was designed to fleece the sheep quickly.


----------



## Spark1

ERW said:


> Honestly, I am not going to be overly critical of Madame Justice Loo's decision. It is what it is. I am disappointed she did not make provisions to protect the consumers (i.e placing all reno fees in trust to ensure they are used as such, establishing a timeshare owners group for more fair representation of the owners) but then that was not the question asked of her so I'm not sure if she would have the latitude to make such rulings. That would be for another legal case.
> 
> I think JustFacts is correct when he/she says the decision of the courts was just that-the court's decision, not the Province of BC's for "political" reasons. The other fact of life is that when you go to court, your lawyer should be saying something like "I think we have a case but remember, the courts can go in either direction and nothing is guaranteed". Any lawyer worth their weight in cash will explain it that way - I've been involved in too many court cases (no, I'm not a lawyer, just get involved with company legal issues) to believe otherwise. There are no "sure things" in law. Myself, it is time to sit down and make a decision to stay or go. Justice Loo's decision was addressing a relatively simple question posed to her as to whether or not Northmont's course of action was legal or not.  I don't like her decision, as many of us don't, but that was her decision. Appealing or launching a class action, etc. will take a long time and a lot of money. Personally, I would rather get through this and carry on, whatever my decision is. But that is a personal choice everyone needs to make and depends on your own resources, how much you have invested in your timeshares, etc. If ultimately I do decide to leave, my only regret is giving in and losing the remaining time we had purchased. But the reality is that vacations can now be bought on the internet very cheaply and maybe paying for mtce fees, deposit fees, lock-off fees, booking fees, Interval memberships just don't make it worthwhile any more.



Save your money. The cancellation form they are using is not a cancellation. I  showed service  Alberta this form and they read it and told me that this will not cancel you until they decide and you will pay until they turn you loose.
Mr Wankel said 7000 timeshare owner paid cancellation or reno fees. So 2805 paid reno and 4195 paid cancellation. So cancellation money goes to the bond holders and 15% goes off the reno money. there is not a lot left to do the 40million + reno job. The other 7500 should save their money because this reno plan will never collect 40 million to complete this major reno job.


----------



## Spark1

tdjanzen said:


> I had not realized that Sunchaser had already published their usurious rates of interest as punishment to owners exercising their legal right.  Or is this just supposition?
> 
> I can tell you of the dozen or so people that I know that paid to get out, not a single one of them has any regrets.  They regretted being put into such a position.  They regretted that they would NEVER spend another nickel at Fairmont Hot Springs - it is a very nice vacation spot.
> 
> But what Northmont doesn't seem to get or care about is that I didn't go into a contract to get a specific timeshare.  I entered into my contract 15 or so  years ago because it was a good destination and I trusted that the management company's interests would also be my interests.  They wanted to run a good operation so that they could sell more units to more owners.
> 
> Sadly, my reason for participating in the lawsuit is that the trust has been abused.  The manner in which all of this was carried out can only suggest a motivate other than it's good for the development so it's good for you.  I'm sorry, it isn't a good deal for any timeshare owner.  Some owners may have found it tolerable and continued but it is not a good deal.  And trust me, there will be a huge difference in the way they communicate to their friends about a tolerable deal and a good deal.
> 
> But honestly Northmont admittedly doesn't care.  If they get enough people to quit, they'll just flip them units as condos.  If they convince enough people to essentially re-purchase their units, they will continue. And then hope they can snooker enough new people to fill in the gaps.  If that doesn't work, they will just add to the maintenance fee amount over and over again because that is what Justice Loo's decision will allow them to do.
> 
> I don't regret participating in the lawsuit and honestly as another poster stated, each person will have to decide for themselves what to do.  I just feel sorry for those that decided to continue on because I can't shake the feeling that this whole money grab was designed to fleece the sheep quickly.


What the lawyers have to do is get them on all the breaches.
Audited statements
Fairmont finance running up a 40million+ debt which is terrible management and now Northmont has the same management
Mr. Matkin the trustee at the time of the foreclosure was also the lawyer for Northmont who obtained the order from the alberta court which may have limited the owners rights.
the "cash grab' of the cancellation fee and the revelation that northmont intended to use the cancellation funds to reimburse bond holders.
Northmont driving down the value of our timeshare investment to zero and driving up the maintenance fees causing timeshare owners to walk away from this resort and now they can resell the condos.
Poor exchange value not what we expected
Keep in mind ther is no obligation on any owner to pay the cancellation fee.


----------



## Tacoma

I for one do not question Justice Loo's decision.  The scope of the legal case was very narrow.  All she had to decide was if Northmont had the right to charge a cancellation fee and if they had the right to charge a renovation fee.  She decided yes for both of them.  Everything else about their breaches was not heard in count and will not be heard on the appeal either.

In spite of this I am willing to keep paying lawyers to fight this. I do not expect to win the appeal.  Unless we launch a suit on their breaches of contract I do not believe we will ever win.  That said I still prefer to pay lawyers than this group.

If it is true than they are now charging over $3800 to walk from over $3100 before and ridiculous interest rates on maintenance fees owing all I can say is how can this be legal in Canada?  Is their no one who can stop this group? As I and others have said if you own any timeshares in BC dump them.  This gives carte blanche to any unscrupulous management company to charge anything that they want.  Why wouldn't they?

The good news is I'm at the stage of life where a mark on my credit score is not the end of the world.


----------



## gnorth16

*Why not have a vote to have the timeshare dissolved and the assets sold.  Any proceeds from the sale would be returned to the owners...*

Q: Why was this option not given before the decision to reno by Southwynd?  

A: Because they would not get any money out of it (15% of reno fees) and would also lose their management fees.

So "Just Facts", why not?!?


----------



## Wynnvegas

*When you break a phone contract, what happens????*

Wow!!! Is all I have to say about some of these comments especially on attacks against Justice Loo and the employees of Northwynd/Northmount. People will only see and hear what they want to when it isn't what they want to hear. When you sign a 3 year contract with Telus for example, should you break that contract, you must pay out the contract, you can not simply just walk away with no penalities. It's a fair trade. Though it may sound like a phenomenal idea at the moment to purchase 40 years at a beautiful resort, things happen and in this case Northmount took over after Fairmont went bankrupt and they are giving owners two options. Stay or go. If your so unhappy and never use your timeshare or have money to pay the maintenance fee, then walk away. It's quite simple. No future obligiations, being able to break your contract for a small price. It's cheaper then paying maintenance fees for the next 40 years. I think certain people should be an adult and deal with it. This is cememted with the court ruling in Northmount's favor. I been to Fairmont as my sister owns here and it's beautiful, but it does need some work, though it wont be a 5 star like Wynn Encore--in Vegas but it has it's own unique charm and coziness. Fabulous family friendly place. My sister has already enrolled in a plan in May. She has no worries, not interest accruing on her account. Can't wait to attend in 2014. :whoopie:


----------



## Wynnvegas

You think paying a lawyer is better then cutting permanent ties with a resort that causes you so much grief knowing that you would never win? WOW!!!!!!! The lawyers are raking this up like it's Halloween!!!  ish I was a lawyer at this moment!!!The options are crystal clear. This is quite fair. When you signed on the dotted line for 40 years, you must pay maintenance fees to help upkeep the resort and over the course of 40 years it's much more expensive than $4000. As in the credit rating not affecting your score, that excuse would be valid if you were 18 years old but not everyone get's wiser as the years go by I suppose. Why do people make things difficult when it's quite SIMPLE??


----------



## Quadmaniac

Wynnvegas said:


> Wow!!! Is all I have to say about some of these comments especially on attacks against Justice Loo and the employees of Northwynd/Northmount. People will only see and hear what they want to when it isn't what they want to hear. When you sign a 3 year contract with Telus for example, should you break that contract, you must pay out the contract, you can not simply just walk away with no penalities. It's a fair trade. Though it may sound like a phenomenal idea at the moment to purchase 40 years at a beautiful resort, things happen and in this case Northmount took over after Fairmont went bankrupt and they are giving owners two options. Stay or go. If your so unhappy and never use your timeshare or have money to pay the maintenance fee, then walk away. It's quite simple. No future obligiations, being able to break your contract for a small price. It's cheaper then paying maintenance fees for the next 40 years. I think certain people should be an adult and deal with it. This is cememted with the court ruling in Northmount's favor. I been to Fairmont as my sister owns here and it's beautiful, but it does need some work, though it wont be a 5 star like Wynn Encore--in Vegas but it has it's own unique charm and coziness. Fabulous family friendly place. My sister has already enrolled in a plan in May. She has no worries, not interest accruing on her account. Can't wait to attend in 2014. :whoopie:



Couple of things, when you agree to a 3 yr contract for $XX per month for services, you don't get hit with a special fee a year down the line for an extra $300 you did not agree to when you entered that contract. If they want to charge the MF yearly, I think most would not have an issue, it is the renovation fee that is a problem.

The second thing, it is hard to believe with the number of new users joining, with no history here, in STRONG support of Northwind. It sounds like a shill to me.

Just saying....


----------



## GypsyOne

Wynnvegas said:


> You think paying a lawyer is better then cutting permanent ties with a resort that causes you so much grief knowing that you would never win? WOW!!!!!!! The lawyers are raking this up like it's Halloween!!!  ish I was a lawyer at this moment!!!The options are crystal clear. This is quite fair. When you signed on the dotted line for 40 years, you must pay maintenance fees to help upkeep the resort and over the course of 40 years it's much more expensive than $4000. As in the credit rating not affecting your score, that excuse would be valid if you were 18 years old but not everyone get's wiser as the years go by I suppose. Why do people make things difficult when it's quite SIMPLE??



You either know nothing about the issues or you have an agenda.  The timeshare owners simply want what they contracted for, not to be delivered up as the cash cow for the benefit of Northmont in a poorly constructed resort with a history of very questionable business practices.  The timeshare owners are the victims of numerous misrepresentations and breaches of contract.  Breaches of contract are ample cause for invalidating the contracts.  If not, what is the point of having a contract?


----------



## Soccer Canada

If you lease a kia for 4 years and agree to pay $450/month. Then 2 years in they send you a letter stating that you have 2 choices:
A. Pay $3200 to upgrade to a Lincoln
B. Turn in the Kia and pay a $4000 penalty for doing so.
There is no option to just keep paying $450/month, you just have the choice of A or B.
I dont care who anyone is, Northwynd Schill or not, you'd be pretty heated and you would challenge the CONTRACT in court.


----------



## DarkLord

Northwynd is trying to get this fast and quick.  I will fight this until the last day.  If we lose the group appeal or the appeal after.  Northwynd can only collect through small claim.  Assuming at that time, the amount in question is about $5000 in which they almost certain will need a lawyer and could easily rake up a few Gs in lawyers fee.  It's like spending $2K to collect $5K, if you own bi annaul, it is even worse for them.

There's no doubt in my mind Northwynd will collect the cash and declare bankrupcy.  So Wynnvegas and Justfact, you might as well start looking for other gainful employment now.


----------



## Phew

*contract interpretation*

As mentioned earlier we got out. Partly because we didn't think we would use a timeshare any more and partly because we were advised the original contracts may be interpreted to allow special assessments. Seems that is the ruling of the courts. Frankly I didn't read the contract and review it sufficiently before we bought. Like many others I just trusted that what we were told at a presentation was all there was. As it turned out we declined the offer at the presentation and subsequently bought on the resale market for a fraction of the presentation offer price. Should have been a clue that a timeshare lease is not an investment but just a prepayment for future vacations. Kind of like prepaying for your cell contract. The difference is the cell contract does not contain clauses that may be interpreted to allow special assessments based on future events. The court decision is not the problem. The problem is people not being cautious when entering into contracts without knowing the possible consequences. Partly it is the high pressure tactics used to get people to sign up and a limited time to reconsider. For me the lesson is valuable although the tuition was steep. I tell everyone to stay away from timeshares.


----------



## Spark1

jekebc said:


> I had an extended conversation with Michael Geldert regarding the decision by Justice Loo. I am quite disappointed by the one-sided decision, but also not completely surprised given the conduct and actions of Justice Loo during the hearings. She appeared to have accepted Northmont’s arguments from the start and did not appear to be open to consideration of any of the arguments submitted by the lawyers for the Sunchaser Timeshare Owners (the “Owners”)
> 
> We also faced the problem that Northmont was in many ways calling the shots since they had initiated the Petition. Justice Loo would not allow arguments that Northmont may have already been in breach of the Contract. We were also unable to address the question of Northmont’s responsibility to pay maintenance fees (and Renovation Fees) on the units it controls. If we want to have those arguments heard, we must consider either commencing our own action against Northmont and RVM, or use that argument as a defence against any collection action commenced by Northmont and RVM. And I don't see paying further monies to Northmont as a viable option. I believe they will simply collect as much monies as they can, divert it to their own pockets, and close the Resort in early 2014.
> 
> In my opinion, the judgment as it stands gives cart-blanche to Northmont to proceed with their renovation plans and sets a significant precedent for other timeshare operators in BC to proceed with similar actions in other Resorts. It is apparent from reading the Judgment Summary posted on the Sunchaser website that Northmont intends to actively pursue collection of the Renovation Fee or the Cancellation Fee from all Owners. Northmont will conveniently ignore the fact that the judgment only addresses two aspects of the original petition - it does not provide approval to modify the existing contracts by reassigning units and does not provide approval to downsize the Resort.
> 
> But also note that Northmont stresses the importance that the Owners obtain independent legal advice. I am urging all Owners to support an action to appeal this questionable decision by Justice Loo. I believe there are ample grounds for appeal on the basis of errors of fact and law in Justice Loo’s decision. Unless an appeal is filed, I believe all Owners will face aggressive collection action by Northmont. To me, the best defence against that action is to be represented by a lawyer and to direct that Northmont address all communication to that lawyer.
> 
> I believe that Michael Geldert has demonstrated that he can provide the most cost-effective representation for the Owners and I suggest that all Owners consider signing a retainer agreement with Geldert Law. My understanding is that Michael is asking for a total retainer that is significantly less than the other firms. I also understand each of the other law firms have decided not to participate further unless the majority of the Owners that signed as their clients pay an additional retainer.
> 
> To me, the first priority is to appeal the decision. The next is to prepare a defence against any collection action that Northmont and RVM may commence. And I understand that Michael is prepared to take those actions on our behalf, providing a sufficient number of owners join in that appeal
> 
> We should also consider commencing an action for damages against Northwynd, Northmont, RVM and the Trustee based on breach of contractual obligations, but only if enough Owners elect to go that route. And we must understand that would involve significantly more legal costs.
> 
> Please contact Geldert Law if you wish to have a lawyer represent you for the appeal and to act on your behalf in response to any collection action from Northmont.
> 
> Geldert Law - Michael Geldert 778-330-7775  Email michael@geldertlaw.com



Docken Klym is also appealing this and also going after Northwynn for all the breaches of our agreement.


----------



## ERW

DarkLord said:


> Northwynd is trying to get this fast and quick.  I will fight this until the last day.  If we lose the group appeal or the appeal after.  Northwynd can only collect through small claim.  Assuming at that time, the amount in question is about $5000 in which they almost certain will need a lawyer and could easily rake up a few Gs in lawyers fee.  It's like spending $2K to collect $5K, if you own bi annaul, it is even worse for them.
> 
> There's no doubt in my mind Northwynd will collect the cash and declare bankrupcy.  So Wynnvegas and Justfact, you might as well start looking for other gainful employment now.



Not saying whether you should or should not pursue this through a lawyer - that is your prerogative. But if you think for one minute that Northwynd will not pursue outstanding fees through collections then small claims, I really think you should reconsider.

If 1000 people owe them $5000.00, you are looking at $5,000,000.00. Don't for one minute think they will "write off" $5,000,000.00. They will spend $2,000,000.00 to retrieve the outstanding $5,000,000.00 and gladly pay the collections angencies and lawyers to do so. The $2,000,000.00 is then written off - that is a far cry from a $5,000,000.00 w/o. If I could "invest" $2,000.00 to put $5,000.00 in my pocket to net $3,000.00, the answer becomes pretty clear. 

Unfortunately there are some timeshare owners that read this forum that may take you seriously. Based on your statements, some of those folks are going to think that doing nothing will have no repercussions. I don't think that will be the case at all.


----------



## ERW

Wynnvegas said:


> Wow!!! Is all I have to say about some of these comments especially on attacks against Justice Loo and the employees of Northwynd/Northmount. People will only see and hear what they want to when it isn't what they want to hear. When you sign a 3 year contract with Telus for example, should you break that contract, you must pay out the contract, you can not simply just walk away with no penalities. It's a fair trade. Though it may sound like a phenomenal idea at the moment to purchase 40 years at a beautiful resort, things happen and in this case Northmount took over after Fairmont went bankrupt and they are giving owners two options. Stay or go. If your so unhappy and never use your timeshare or have money to pay the maintenance fee, then walk away. It's quite simple. No future obligiations, being able to break your contract for a small price. It's cheaper then paying maintenance fees for the next 40 years. I think certain people should be an adult and deal with it. This is cememted with the court ruling in Northmount's favor. I been to Fairmont as my sister owns here and it's beautiful, but it does need some work, though it wont be a 5 star like Wynn Encore--in Vegas but it has it's own unique charm and coziness. Fabulous family friendly place. My sister has already enrolled in a plan in May. She has no worries, not interest accruing on her account. Can't wait to attend in 2014. :whoopie:



You cannot compare a cell phone or car lease with our timeshares. The timeshares were purchased in full up front along with an agreement to pay maintenance fees. That is not the case with a phone or auto lease. If you accept the argument that the previous owners did not maintain the units, is it fair to expect those that have faithfully paid those maintenance fees to pay for the repairs/renos? The people that took over the properties should have been aware of the conditions of those properties when they acquired them and factored that into their decision to take the properites or not. If at some point the new owners decide to sell the properties, the timeshare owners will not see any benefit or profit from that sale but the selling price will be considerably higher and therefore much more profitable because of the repairs/renos paid for by the timeshare owners. 

Throughout all of this, I do not recall seeing any reference to how much, if any, Northmont is putting into the renos/repairs out of their own pocket versus what the timeshare owners are expected to pay. Anyone recall if this has ever been stated?


----------



## Soccer Canada

ERW said:


> They will spend $2,000,000.00 to retrieve the outstanding $5,000,000.00 and gladly pay the collections angencies and lawyers to do so.



I do not think they have the money to pursue things in such a heavy manner. I would think they would try and deal with things in house. Furthermore I don't know of many collections agencies that would take on such a large, labor intensive job knowing that it was still filtering through the court process, and especially knowing that the company trying to collect could become insolvent at any time.


----------



## GypsyOne

Soccer Canada said:


> I do not think they have the money to pursue things in such a heavy manner. I would think they would try and deal with things in house. Furthermore I don't know of many collections agencies that would take on such a large, labor intensive job knowing that it was still filtering through the court process, and especially knowing that the company trying to collect could become insolvent at any time.



They may or may not have the money to continue the fight, that is not the point.  Lets assume that of the $millions the timeshare owners have been sending them, they have a war chest - of our money which was intended for maintenance of the resort.  And one more reason the resort is in such poor condition.

We lost the Special Case because our lawyers could not introduce our best defence - a multitude of misrepresentations and breaches of contract.  These points that we included in our affidavits were not admissible in court.  ie. ".....that for the purpose of the statement of special case, and without prejudice, the court may assume that the agreements are valid and enforceable contracts."  (paragraph 36 of the written Decision)

Once the court made that ruling, we could not win because we could not use our best defense.  The same might also happen in the appeal.  But it will not happen if we take the fight to them and sue for breaches of contract, because then we can introduce multiple example of breaches and misrepresentations.  We will win if an enforceable contract means anything at all.  If we don't win, you have to wonder about the ability or the wish of the court to enforce justice.  

The strength of our case applies particularly to the holders of the original Vacation Villa Leases.  In the original lease we clearly have the status of lessees, and thus not responsible for capital costs or improvements.  An example is that if you lease an apartment, you are not responsible for replacement of a faulty roof.  As a lessee you are paying for quiet enjoyment and implied habitability for the term of the lease.  Habitability, meaning the apartment must meet normal standards of liveability.  That is all you have.  You have no ownership interest in the apartment, nor should you be expected to contribute towards its structural maintenance.  

Our lease agreements are no different.  But the injustice of the Northmont case is that they expect the lessees or tenants to replace and upgrade capital structure for which, we the tenants, will not benefit financially.  We do not have an ownership interest in the capital structures.  Once our 40-year fixed lease expires, we have no residual value.  The value of the capital funds Fairmont expects us to contribute, which restores and upgrades the resort, accrue to the Northmont owners.  After 40 years, we walk away with nothing and Northmont has a fully restored and very valuable resort.  With this court ruling, you can be sure they will be milking the timeshare owners for all they can get.  

Northmont/Northwynd fixed that little problem of the timeshare owners being tenants and not owners in a very clever way.  About 2009 they blitzed the timeshare owners with a campaign to convert lease agreements to ownership agreements, or from lessees to owners in fee simple.  A number of timeshare owners were convinced they were better off to be owners in perpetuity than to have a 40-year fixed lease.  But they were duped.  As well as now being implied owners, the contracts were amended to include being responsible for capital improvements.  Clause 9 (now Clause 11) was expanded to add capital costs to operating costs.  ie.  ".....and to pay the costs of capital improvements that may from time to time be required."  Adding insult to injury, the timeshare owners paid $6,000 or so for the privilege of having their rights weakened.  

Tell me this.  If being responsible for capital costs was indeed included in the original lease agreements, why did the companies feel it necessary to convert to Legacy For Life Agreements and add the capital cost clause?"  The reason is simple, responsibility for capital costs was not included in the original leases.

Bottom line - don't pay the ransom and don't continue on with this gang.  If you do, you'll be gouged one way or another for evermore.  This case cries out for justice, and the only way to obtain justice is through the courts.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*2014 Invoice from Northmont*

Received my bill for the reno fee and next years maintenance fee. Northmont has decided they are entitled to interest at >26% annual interest rate if you didn't pay up by the end of last May.
They are also stating that if you accept the cancellation agreement, you will STILL have to pay the 2014 maintenance fee of $997.  
So the choice now is pay $5,704.71 to STAY (incl. 2014 MF) or $3,822 + $997 to walk-away (wonder if you still get a week to use in 2014 on these terms?)

For those of you that decide to pay the reno fee and have a typical period of 19 yr left on your lease. You can budget your vacation costs as follows:
$5700 + $1000x 18 yrs (assumes annual fee never goes up...sure) divided by 19 yr x 7 days (133) or $178 per night. 

Oh by the way... All this comes with the promise of aggressive collections..

If this doesn't sound too appealing, consider supporting an appeal of the Supreme Court ruling.


----------



## DarkLord

I do not think that Northwynd does or does not have the resource to sue us in small claim.  What I am saying is whatever Northwynd is employing right now is purely scare mongering tactics.  Assuming our appeal fails and our new lawsuit also fails (who knows how long this will take), then Northwynd would have a much stronger case to collect.  And they'll have to go through small claim court thousands of times all over Canada.  It's an arduous tasks for them to track down these owners for many of them probably would have moved.

And in small claim we can bring on our defense once again and by that time, who knows, the entire renovation scam might have unfold or canned by Northwynd.  

My main point is this thing is far far from over just because of Justice Loo's adverse decisions against the owner.  And in the end, I admit, there might be a small chance that the owners who joint the appeal might be in a worse financial position than before.  But I think chances are the owners who appeal will not be in any worse position than we are now.  

I would like to encourage owners not to fall for the shock and awe tactics by Northwynd.  The number one thing on their minds is how to extract monies from us quickly and cleanly.

You might lose if you joint the appeal but you might win.  If you pay now, you'll only lose.


----------



## Spark1

Beaverjfw said:


> Received my bill for the reno fee and next years maintenance fee. Northmont has decided they are entitled to interest at >26% annual interest rate if you didn't pay up by the end of last May.
> They are also stating that if you accept the cancellation agreement, you will STILL have to pay the 2014 maintenance fee of $997.
> So the choice now is pay $5,704.71 to STAY (incl. 2014 MF) or $3,822 + $997 to walk-away (wonder if you still get a week to use in 2014 on these terms?)
> 
> For those of you that decide to pay the reno fee and have a typical period of 19 yr left on your lease. You can budget your vacation costs as follows:
> $5700 + $1000x 18 yrs (assumes annual fee never goes up...sure) divided by 19 yr x 7 days (133) or $178 per night.
> 
> Oh by the way... All this comes with the take you over
> If this doesn't sound too appealing, consider supporting an appeal of the Supreme Court ruling.


You have to also include what you originally paid for the timeshare and that will take it way over 200.00 dollars. I remember the sales pitch buy this timeshare and you will be staying in a nice condo much cheaper than a hotel . Not what I expected. Another breach. There is nothing in our agreement stating we have to pay the cancellation or you have to pay the maintenance fee or you have to pay the Reno fee. You might of agreed to pay a maintenance fee but where does it say you have to pay. If I am renting your condo and I agree to pay 800.00 a month and I quite paying it you can not force me to pay it but you can evict me. Northwynd can evict all of us. They are breaching our agreement and because of their breaches we do not have to pay them anything and they can release all of us. My wife and I live off of Canada pension and old age pension and we could not afford the first cancellation fee and we sure can not afford this one


----------



## no_more

*contact info for legal representation*

We are not going away and the numbers opposing this continue to grow with the biennial even owners now getting invoiced and joining this battle.    The pressure tactics and outrageous financial demands of Northwynd this month  after the judge's ruling just increase the opposition.   

Please contact Geldert Law if you wish to have a lawyer represent you for the appeal and to act on your behalf in response to any collection action from Northmont.

Geldert Law - Michael Geldert 778-330-7775 
Email sunchaser@geldertlaw.com


----------



## DarkLord

GypsyOne said:


> Northmont/Northwynd fixed that little problem of the timeshare owners being tenants and not owners in a very clever way.  About 2009 they blitzed the timeshare owners with a campaign to convert lease agreements to ownership agreements, or from lessees to owners in fee simple.  A number of timeshare owners were convinced they were better off to be owners in perpetuity than to have a 40-year fixed lease.  But they were duped.  As well as now being implied owners, the contracts were amended to include being responsible for capital improvements.  Clause 9 (now Clause 11) was expanded to add capital costs to operating costs.  ie.  ".....and to pay the costs of capital improvements that may from time to time be required."  Adding insult to injury, the timeshare owners paid $6,000 or so for the privilege of having their rights weakened.



My sympathies to the Leagcy to Life owners.  However, does that conversion apply to normal lease holders?  I bought my lease resale and I never bought into the Legacy to Life program.


----------



## GypsyOne

DarkLord said:


> My sympathies to the Leagcy to Life owners.  However, does that conversion apply to normal lease holders?  I bought my lease resale and I never bought into the Legacy to Life program.



If you have one of the original Vacation Villa Lease agreements, you are a lessee/tenant and therefore not responsible for capital improvements.  If you have a Vacation Interval Agreement you have one of the conversions to a Legacy for Life in which they added a clause to include capital improvements. (see paragraph 10. I earlier said paragraph 11, which was incorrect)  The reason they pushed for conversion is simple, they knew they were on shaky grounds in charging lessees/tenants for capital improvements.  The clever part is them charging the Legacy For Life owners for the privilege of converting and being responsible for financing restoration of a rapidly deteriorating resort. 

Justice Loo in her written decision brushes off the difference in contracts as irrelevant.  Possibly for the Special Case, but not in a legal action for breaches of contract.  Then the different contracts are very important.


----------



## Spark1

no_more said:


> We are not going away and the numbers opposing this continue to grow with the biennial even owners now getting invoiced and joining this battle.    The pressure tactics and outrageous financial demands of Northwynd this month  after the judge's ruling just increase the opposition.
> 
> Please contact Geldert Law if you wish to have a lawyer represent you for the appeal and to act on your behalf in response to any collection action from Northmont.
> 
> Geldert Law - Michael Geldert 778-330-7775
> Email sunchaser@geldertlaw.com


I have been going through justice loos interpretation and I do not agree with her on item no. 9. Northwynd said there was no Reserve fund when fairmont finance was foreclosed on why. Philip Matkin definitely knows where this money that belonged to the timeshare owners went This was our trustee that was suppose to be looking after our interests and not  fairmont or Northwynd. He is our enemy. We have to look at Audited Statements at least 10 years back. He has to be accountable for what happened with our reserve fund. This resort is in terrible condition so the reserve fund did not go to fix up the resort so where did it go?


----------



## DarkLord

GypsyOne said:


> If you have one of the original Vacation Villa Lease agreements, you are a lessee/tenant and therefore not responsible for capital improvements.  If you have a Vacation Interval Agreement you have one of the conversions to a Legacy for Life in which they added a clause to include capital improvements. (see paragraph 10. I earlier said paragraph 11, which was incorrect)  The reason they pushed for conversion is simple, they knew they were on shaky grounds in charging lessees/tenants for capital improvements.  The clever part is them charging the Legacy For Life owners for the privilege of converting and being responsible for financing restoration of a rapidly deteriorating resort.



What Northwynd did to the Legacy for Life owners was nothing short of criminal.  If you are a normal lease holder, all the more reason for you not to pay off Northwynd as you have a better argument not to pay for capital improvement.

If I were a Legacy for Life owner, I would push for more legal action as this a scam through and through.


----------



## Spark1

DarkLord said:


> What Northwynd did to the Legacy for Life owners was nothing short of criminal.  If you are a normal lease holder, all the more reason for you not to pay off Northwynd as you have a better argument not to pay for capital improvement.
> 
> If I were a Legacy for Life owner, I would push for more legal action as this a scam through and through.


Walk away From Timeshare
After years of paying maintenance fees on two contracts with the Mayan Palace ,it decided I had had enough. I could no longer get the weeks I wanted, even when I tried to book 6months away from my travel date. I had fully paid off my contract in the 90's. I didn't want that back ,only wanted to stop throwing good money after bad. When I really closely red my contract I could not see where LEGALLY said I must pay the maintenance fee. I took it that if I did not I would no longer be a member and could no longer book at the resort. Big deal. That's exactly what I wanted. I took the contacts to a lawyer who agreed with me. He sent a letter to MP that said since I was no longer able to book the weeks I wanted he considered the contract  frustrated and null and void. He also said not expecting them to agree, that we wanted my initial payment back and they had two weeks to respond or further legal action would be taken. As soon as they got that letter I was called at home asking me to explain what the issue was. I unloaded on the lady. After I was done she said  I'd be emailed two pep files for my wife and I to sign and send back to them. After that they will send me a letter stating that my contracts with the Mayan palace are over Happy Days are here again
My advice to anyone in the same position as me is to get a lawyer to send them a official legal challenge to paying any fees.


----------



## Disappointed W

*Northwynd will liquidate*

I don't think that Northwynd will restructure, I think that they are trying to collect money to try to pay off investors who are looking at a class action against them. They are attempting to collect from timeshare owners, who are easily manipulated into paying them whatever they ask. They fear the action of big money investors, and so are passing the losses to us. I think it is a matter of time before they will declare bankruptcy, and so the end of any threat of collections.
I have posted this before, found on this link:

http://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=16969

1 year ago 
Apr 26, 2012 

Hello Chris. In past years there has been a meeting in spring to update FRPL Finance investors on what's been happening with Makaha. None this year though, so in searching the web I came across your post which is the most recent I could find. Actually I was wondering whether this investment was a total write off and if so would use it on my company's year end, September 30. Looks like it's still limping along? Have there been any further updates? I'll try northwyndinvestorsaction group@ymail too.


chrisb727 wrote:
Northwynd Investors Action Group was recently established by a group of investors/unitholder that have major concerns about the dwindling assets and the questionable management and connection to the previous owners FRPL/Fairmont Resort Properties. The goal of the group is to remove all essence of FRPL / Fairmont from their new company that is floundering that it experinced under the same control before the bankruptcy, take control of their own company and start returning investors money to them.

The Action Group is presently working with the FRPL appointed Board of Trustees and management of Northwynd in a transition of control of our company and assets. Since their agreement in general, they have sent a Northwynd lawyer onto the Investors Action Group and have not backed out of their agreement to transition. The group is also reviewing business options with the CEO to explore ways to achieve the #1 goal of the group, protect remaining assets for the investor.

If anyone is interested in joining our group or commenting on their regretted investments, please email to northwyndinvestorsaction group@ymail


----------



## Spark1

Disappointed W said:


> I don't think that Northwynd will restructure, I think that they are trying to collect money to try to pay off investors who are looking at a class action against them. They are attempting to collect from timeshare owners, who are easily manipulated into paying them whatever they ask. They fear the action of big money investors, and so are passing the losses to us. I think it is a matter of time before they will declare bankruptcy, and so the end of any threat of collections.
> I have posted this before, found on this link:
> 
> http://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=16969
> 
> 1 year ago
> Apr 26, 2012
> 
> Hello Chris. In past years there has been a meeting in spring to update FRPL Finance investors on what's been happening with Makaha. None this year though, so in searching the web I came across your post which is the most recent I could find. Actually I was wondering whether this investment was a total write off and if so would use it on my company's year end, September 30. Looks like it's still limping along? Have there been any further updates? I'll try northwyndinvestorsaction group@ymail too.
> 
> 
> chrisb727 wrote:
> Northwynd Investors Action Group was recently established by a group of investors/unitholder that have major concerns about the dwindling assets and the questionable management and connection to the previous owners FRPL/Fairmont Resort Properties. The goal of the group is to remove all essence of FRPL / Fairmont from their new company that is floundering that it experinced under the same control before the bankruptcy, take control of their own company and start returning investors money to them.
> 
> The Action Group is presently working with the FRPL appointed Board of Trustees and management of Northwynd in a transition of control of our company and assets. Since their agreement in general, they have sent a Northwynd lawyer onto the Investors Action Group and have not backed out of their agreement to transition. The group is also reviewing business options with the CEO to explore ways to achieve the #1 goal of the group, protect remaining assets for the investor.
> 
> If anyone is interested in joining our group or commenting on their regretted investments, please email to northwyndinvestorsaction group@ymail


The court approved the purchase on june the 22 /2010
units will remain registered in the name of Carthew Registry Services Ltd (the trustee) which is independent of Northwynd. So the timeshare rights that are and WILL CONTINUE to be registered with the trustee, will remain FULLY PROTECTED. We are very lucky timeshare owners to have Philip Matkin looking after our interests and i am sure he knows where our reserve fund is and maybe the next time he petitions the supreme court of BC to put the screws to the timeshare owners he will have a meeting with us first. What is is position with Northwynd.


----------



## Spark1

Disappointed W said:


> I don't think that Northwynd will restructure, I think that they are trying to collect money to try to pay off investors who are looking at a class action against them. They are attempting to collect from timeshare owners, who are easily manipulated into paying them whatever they ask. They fear the action of big money investors, and so are passing the losses to us. I think it is a matter of time before they will declare bankruptcy, and so the end of any threat of collections.
> I have posted this before, found on this link:
> 
> http://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=16969
> 
> 1 year ago
> Apr 26, 2012
> 
> Hello Chris. In past years there has been a meeting in spring to update FRPL Finance investors on what's been happening with Makaha. None this year though, so in searching the web I came across your post which is the most recent I could find. Actually I was wondering whether this investment was a total write off and if so would use it on my company's year end, September 30. Looks like it's still limping along? Have there been any further updates? I'll try northwyndinvestorsaction group@ymail too.
> 
> 
> chrisb727 wrote:
> Northwynd Investors Action Group was recently established by a group of investors/unitholder that have major concerns about the dwindling assets and the questionable management and connection to the previous owners FRPL/Fairmont Resort Properties. The goal of the group is to remove all essence of FRPL / Fairmont from their new company that is floundering that it experinced under the same control before the bankruptcy, take control of their own company and start returning investors money to them.
> 
> The Action Group is presently working with the FRPL appointed Board of Trustees and management of Northwynd in a transition of control of our company and assets. Since their agreement in general, they have sent a Northwynd lawyer onto the Investors Action Group and have not backed out of their agreement to transition. The group is also reviewing business options with the CEO to explore ways to achieve the #1 goal of the group, protect remaining assets for the investor.
> 
> If anyone is interested in joining our group or commenting on their regretted investments, please email to northwyndinvestorsaction group@ymail



Disappointed has written a lot of interesting posts page 8 post 177 and post 264 page11 and posts 931 down to 935 page 38 and now on the last page. It is time for other timeshare owners to write posts. Like knowing that 5 of the major bond holders were employees of FRPL and they held top positions with FRPL and they are blaming FRPL for the way the resort was run and they were the top management before FRPL bankrupted. Would you trust these people with your money. Will you just walk and run, will you hire a lawyer and if they lose will you still walk and run or will you pay the 3800 cancellation knowing it is just going into the bond holders pockets and not the resort or will you pay the Reno fee knowing only 2005 paid Reno fees out of 7000 timeshare owners and there could be a lot of 100.00 ones in this group so they could use the home resort because they paid maintenance fees. We know this resort will never be totally renovated and the question is what will the other 7500 timeshare owners do? My question to the 5 X employees with FRPL ,what happened to the Reserve Fund? It will be nice to hear from other posters.


----------



## JustFacts

*Injunctions*



darklord700 said:


> As long as some owners appeal, the decision is not final  all of us.  Would you pay a few grand just to have the collection agent not calling you?  The collection agent can call me once and I'll block their calls after that.  And I'll tell the collection agent to back off because I"m going to appeal.


An appeal has no impact on the finality of the decision or a collection agents ability to contact you.  However, Darklord identifies an important point people should think about...

The Canadian legal system has a process called an Interlocutory Injunction.  If you want to read about the mechanics in detail you can go here:

http://www.mccarthy.ca/pubs/Urgent_Relief_BVeenstra.pdf

This is the concept Darklord *thinks* occurs by filing an appeal, but is wrong.  Injunctions which cease an activity are a specific legal process that must be filed by the lawyers.  If they don't, everything continues on as normal during a legal proceeding.

This leads to two big questions:

1) Why didn't the owners lawyers file an injunction?  

If the owners allegations were true, an injunction should have been filed because the consequences of not filing were so high.  This should have been a big clue about the lawyer's confidence in the case.

2) Did the owners lawyers explain the consequences of proceeding without an injunction?

It seems pretty evident from this forum that many owners do not understand they have been in default since the due date of the invoice and somehow thought the court case "stopped the clock."  

The owners lawyers should have explained to their clients that without an injunction, the contract continues as is until they prove in court that it has been violated.  This is a huge piece of information because it means the owners are incurring interest on overdue balances, new maintenance fees, and can be taken to court for collections.

This is true of an appeal or a future breach of contract suit.  Since a breach of contract suit would take years, it is quite likely an owner could be taken to court for payment of defaulted balances and have that suit complete long before the breach of contract.

Owners should have been told the smart thing to do was keep their account current to keep from being in default which is still true today.  Then, at least when you lose you don't end up owing thousands more than you should have.


----------



## JustFacts

*Collection costs*



ERW said:


> The $2,000,000.00 is then written off - that is a far cry from a $5,000,000.00 w/o. If I could "invest" $2,000.00 to put $5,000.00 in my pocket to net $3,000.00, the answer becomes pretty clear.



ERW's analysis makes a compelling case that Northwynd would pursue even if it cost them $2,000.  The trick is it won't cost Northwynd anything.

Owners need to read their contracts.  There is a specific indemnity clause at the end of the contract that deals with costs of enforcing the contracts.  The owner is liable for all costs of Northwynd collecting from them.

If you owe $5,000, Northwynd won't take you to court for $5,000, spend $2,000 to do it and end up with $3,000.  Northwynd will take you to court for $7,000, spend $2,000 to do it and end up with the $5,000 you originally owed.

Even if a judge doesn't award the $2,000 directly against the owner being sued, collection and legal costs still fall within "all costs of the resort" which means they'd get charged to the whole group of owners.  One way or another, Northwynd isn't paying the legal bill.


----------



## JustFacts

*Overdue bills incur interest*



Beaverjfw said:


> Northmont has decided they are entitled to interest at >26% annual interest rate if you didn't pay up by the end of last May..



To repeat my previous post.  Owners need to read their contracts.  There is a specific obligation to pay clause in the contract that states the owners are responsible for interest of 2% per month on outstanding balances.  

Northmont has not "decided they are entitled to interest at > 26%" any more than Visa has "decided they are entitled to interest at 22%" when you don't pay your bill on time.  It has formed part of your contract since the day you signed it.  Interest goes directly to the resort which offsets costs for all the owners who aren't delinquent.

If you didn't want to be charged interest, you should have paid your bill or you should have got your lawyers to file an injunction.


----------



## JustFacts

GypsyOne said:


> We lost the Special Case because our lawyers could not introduce our best defence - a multitude of misrepresentations and breaches of contract.



If breach of contract was really your "best defence", why did the owners fight the special case at all?  Are you suggesting the lawyers wasted $300,000 of owners money and six months of time fighting the wrong battle?  Because that time and money is now wasted.  None of the lawyers are offering to continue to fight for free.

If I had just spent $300,000 in legal fees and wracked up thousands of dollars in extra costs and my legal counsel had ignored my "best defence", I'd be pretty pissed off.

I would also refer to my first post today.  If Northwynd has really breached its contracts, the owners should have already filed an injunction to stop their activities.  The fact no injunction has been filed or is even being contemplated speaks volumes.

Owners who have read Justice Loo's ruling in full should be thanking her for the level of detail she provided.  Justice Loo has gone to great lengths to explain two things to the owners:

1) Pursuing further justice through a breach of contract argument would result in unnecessary litigation, be timing consuming, and expensive.

2) If you try, you'll lose.

Justice Loo included everything you could possibly need in her ruling to realize the futility of the breach of contract argument.

The largest set of allegations made by the owners are all that Fairmont were bad guys and did a bunch of damage to the resort.  The problem is those allegations are irrelevant.  Justice Loo specifically addressed this (paragraph 111) by stating "it appears to me that Northmont acquired the Foreclose Assets - including the vacation interval agreements - free and clear of any pre-existing liablities of Fairmont or any claims that the owners may have had against Fairmont." In other words, if Fairmont did bad things, the owners should have sued Fairmont 4 years ago.  

The owners argued that the deferred maintenance has caused damage.  Justice Loo specifically addressed this (paragraph 97-100) by stating "there is no evidentiary or legal basis before me to found the argument that deferred maintenance has resulted in damage" and "the owners do not cite any legal basis to found the argument that they are relieved of the obligation to pay for repair costs associated with failure to maintain, or a deferral of maintenance."  In other words, the owners *did* argue this, produced no evidence or legal basis to support their position that damage had occurred and even further, produced no legal basis to support their position that even if damage had occurred, it would somehow stop them from being liable.

Justice Loo specifically addressed the renovation plan (paragraph 95) by stating "I am satisfied that the renovation plan reflects a reasonable course of action...and the costs associated with it fall within the contractual obligations of the owners."  This means you *cannot* argue the renovation plan is wrong in any future breach of contract suit.

Lastly, Justice Loo addressed the management of the resort (paragraph 82) by stating Northmonts "contractual responsibility to manage the resort in a prudent and workmanlike manner, does not impose on it the obligation of an insurer, and necessitates only that it acts reasonably."  You might think Northmont should have done something else, like provide the financial statements sooner, but their obligation is only to have acted reasonably.

The entire breach of contract argument is summed up by paragraph 52 of Justice Loo:

"<owner> suggests that there are things that were not done by either Fairmont or Northmont, and that the project renovation fee covers damage caused by lack of maintenance in the past and contends that the owners are not liable for damage caused by lack of maintenance.  However, <owner> cannot say what damage might have been caused by lack of maintenance, or what ought to have been done and was not done by Fairmont or Northmont, and the owners concede that <owner> is not an expert"

It is one thing to make a bunch of wild accusations on the internet behind a veil of anonymity.  It is another thing to make them in a court of law and produce fact, law, and evidence to support them.



GypsyOne said:


> Bottom line - This case cries out for justice, and the only way to obtain justice is through the courts.



Justice which has been achieved through the courts at great cost to both sides.  

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/13/20/2013BCSC2071.htm

If you choose to ignore it...


----------



## DarkLord

JustFacts, my advice to you is if you at least declare your real intention is to be the month piece of Northwynd, you'll find your posts are at least worthy of responses.  

Other than that, I can only repeat my earlier advice to you of finding other gainfully employment as you know Northwynd won't be there for long.


----------



## JustFacts

DarkLord said:


> JustFacts, my advice to you is if you at least declare your real intention is to be the month piece of Northwynd, you'll find your posts are at least worthy of responses.
> 
> Other than that, I can only repeat my earlier advice to you of finding other gainfully employment as you know Northwynd won't be there for long.



I neither want or need a response to anything I post.  There are two types of owners visiting this site.  Those looking for information and those that have already made up their mind.

I am trying to provide information to the first group.  Most owners are neither for or against anything and are just looking for information.

I am not naïve enough to believe my posts will have any impact on the second group.  If you won't listen to a supreme court justice, you aren't going to listen to me.  Your response is exactly what I expect.  An inflammatory statement devoid of a counterargument designed to scare me and others which simply reinforces the validity of my statements.  

Constructive debate is healthy.  Letting people make up their own mind based on as much information as possible is healthy.  People are smart enough on their own to decide how much or how little weight to put on anyone's posts which is why I post facts, not opinions.


----------



## DarkLord

JustFacts said:


> I am trying to provide information to the first group.  Most owners are neither for or against anything and are just looking for information.



You're trying to fool people gullible enough to fall for your scare tactic for you to make a few quick bucks and then declare bankruptcy.

If you are looking for information, consult a lawyer like Geldert at sunchaser@geldertlaw.com and make your decision.  JustFacts is employeed by Northwynd to try to scam you money.


----------



## Hotpink

*Lake Okanagan Bargains*

Back in July the asking price for the resort was Just over 14 Mil. Now it is just a shade over 10 Mil. There were just a hand full of units for sale at the resort
and now there are over two dozen for sale with 20 one bedroom units ranging in price from $500.00 to the mid four figures. By comparison on the www.sellmytimeshare.com site at Fairmont there are far more depending on how you narrow you search to Riverside ,Hillside or Riverview and totals about 84 units the vast majority being 2 bedroom lock offs. the prices go from the sublime to the ridiculous and they are all basically the same units with some difference in years remaining on the lease.
When we spoke with a realtor in Invermere in 2012 he said we would be lucky to get $1,000.00 to $1,500.00 less his fee of $500.00. This year they would not take our listing as they are now considered worthless and if you can find a buyer Good Luck. 
Looks like our units at Lake Okanagan and Hillside are worth less combined than the walk away fee Mr. Wankel is demanding.
If I had a vehicle with a major mechanical problem and it would cost more to repair it than I could get for selling it or trading it on an other more reliable vehicle then I would take the bus home and let the shop have it for whatever they wanted to do with it.
We can rent over in the valley for a week for an amount that is less than the proposed 2014 maintenance fee listed for Northmont .
Our OLD contracts are very specific about what happens should you fail to pay maintenance fees.  You cease to have access to the resort(s).We have enjoyed our many years at both of these resorts and at many other trades, but I will suggest Mr. Wankel stop weaseling money from the gullible among us and will need to learn the craft of being successful at pounding sand


----------



## Tacoma

JustFacts

Joined in November and only posts under this topic.  Northwynd is getting desperate.

JustSaying


----------



## Quadmaniac

JustFacts said:


> ERW's analysis makes a compelling case that Northwynd would pursue even if it cost them $2,000.  The trick is it won't cost Northwynd anything.
> 
> Owners need to read their contracts.  There is a specific indemnity clause at the end of the contract that deals with costs of enforcing the contracts.  The owner is liable for all costs of Northwynd collecting from them.
> 
> If you owe $5,000, Northwynd won't take you to court for $5,000, spend $2,000 to do it and end up with $3,000.  Northwynd will take you to court for $7,000, spend $2,000 to do it and end up with the $5,000 you originally owed.
> 
> Even if a judge doesn't award the $2,000 directly against the owner being sued, collection and legal costs still fall within "all costs of the resort" which means they'd get charged to the whole group of owners.  One way or another, Northwynd isn't paying the legal bill.



Actually it isn't - if you go to court and a judge theoretically rules on your behalf, they will assess costs which is usually a court filing fee. You can put whatever you want in a contract, but only a court can assess costs when you take the matter there. You can only sue for the actual amount, not plumped up with "costs" which a court will disallow immediately. If you can prove that they owe $4000 for special assessment plus $1000 MF, that is what you are allowed to sue for. You can not add $2000 to it for "costs in advance".

That is the same situation as most cases where there was some sort of contract. A judge makes a ruling on who he feels is right in the matter and decides upon a judgement that he/she thinks would be fair in the situation. If the judge determines a contract or agreement was unfair, they will determine their own amount. The contract terms will be considered by a judge but they are highly unlikely to assess the fees you are suggesting. 

Even in higher courts, when they assess "court costs" such as solicitor costs, it is way less than the actual cost of a lawyer as there is a set fee schedule. On average, it's maybe 20-25% of what your real legal costs maybe. They give you a set fee for each stage you had to go through like examination for discovery, etc, etc.

This is coming from real world experience of having to sue people and guaranteed, Northwynd would not be getting close to this IF they win. They will be lucky to break even with legal costs IF they are able to collect after getting a judgement. Getting a ruling in their favor is only the start of the battle, collecting a judgement is a whole different ball game. So they're going to spend all their resources suing owners on the hope that they can pay - to only break even maybe ? Doesn't make sense.

The most likely scenario and least costly is to send it to collections which will usually take 25% off the top if they can collect. Anyways you slice it, it will not be easy for Northwynd to collect period.


----------



## DarkLord

Quadmaniac said:


> You can put whatever you want in a contract, but only a court can assess costs when you take the matter there. You can only sue for the actual amount, not plumped up with "costs" which a court will disallow immediately. If you can prove that they owe $4000 for special assessment plus $1000 MF, that is what you are allowed to sue for. You can not add $2000 to it for "costs in advance".



Quad, I didn't want to dignify JustFacts propaganda with a respond.  But as someone who had experienced in small claim court, you're absolutely right.  Actually, winning the case was easy but trying to collect was nigh on impossible.

I think my initial guesstimates (spending $2K to collect $5K) was kind of generous.  If it was up to me, anything less than $5K is not worth suing for in small claim considering the costs even if you almost are guarantee to win.

If worse come to worse for the owner, Northwynd will almost certainly give the owners a better deal than they are now.  For they know suing 10,000 owners individually in small claim is just not very wise or feasible.

Owners, if you are sitting on the fences, my advice is to contact a lawyer like Geldert.  If it was up to me, I fight until the end.  And even if I shall lose, the deal Northwyn will offer me is certainly gonna be better than what they are offering now.  That's just common sense.

The fact that Northwynd is sending their own people, like JustFacts, posting here just proves that they know they don't have a good case.


----------



## Quadmaniac

DarkLord said:


> Quad, I didn't want to dignify JustFacts propaganda with a respond.  But as someone who had experienced in small claim court, you're absolutely right.  Actually, winning the case was easy but trying to collect was nigh on impossible.
> 
> I think my initial guesstimates (spending $2K to collect $5K) was kind of generous.  If it was up to me, anything less than $5K is not worth suing for in small claim considering the costs even if you almost are guarantee to win.
> 
> If worse come to worse for the owner, Northwynd will almost certainly give the owners a better deal than they are now.  For they know suing 10,000 owners individually in small claim is just not very wise or feasible.
> 
> Owners, if you are sitting on the fences, my advice is to contact a lawyer like Geldert.  If it was up to me, I fight until the end.  And even if I shall lose, the deal Northwyn will offer me is certainly gonna be better than what they are offering now.  That's just common sense.
> 
> The fact that Northwynd is sending their own people, like JustFacts, posting here just proves that they know they don't have a good case.



Yes you are right. Justfacts is trying to create fear in people as most are not into litigation and will probably be easily convinced to avoid having to deal with the headache.

Northwynd can spend resources trying to collect, but I think there will be more people than they expect resisting payment and any "additional" charges on top of that. Diminishing return....


----------



## gnorth16

JustFacts said:


> In other words, if Fairmont did bad things, the owners should have sued Fairmont 4 years ago.



Same offices, same personnel, same investors, just a new name.  Justice Loo must have her head up the wazoo not to realize this!!!

If you choose to ignore it....


----------



## gnorth16

Hotpink said:


> When we spoke with a realtor in Invermere in 2012 he said we would be lucky to get $1,000.00 to $1,500.00 less his fee of $500.00. This year they would not take our listing as they are now considered worthless and if you can find a buyer Good Luck.



If anyone still has their heart set on staying at Sunchaser, simply look at exchanging in with a different TS  or using a getaway with II or RCI.  Combined between the two prioerties, there were over 500 units availalbe including xmas, Spring Break and summer units.  I personally like the area in June and September for golf and there are lots of units available. If you like mud season....whoa!!!! TONS!!!

Plus, you can keep tabs on the resort while continuing the fight...


----------



## GypsyOne

The timeshare industry is a snake pit.  Where else can you buy a property for say $16,000 and then pay the company another $3,200 to take it back?  But thats not all - also pay for a year's maintenance on the property you don't have.  So you've paid about $20,000 and you've lost say 2/3rds of the vacation experience you paid for.  Something like buying a car from a dealer for $16,000, then paying them another $3,000 to take it back, but also agreeing to pay for the next year's gas, oil, and repairs.  Only in the Alice in Wonderland world of the timeshare industry could that happen.

Could also happen I guess if you have a homer court decision.  Can't have a bankrupt resort on our hands.  Can't lose all that tourist money coming into the province.  Can't lose all that re-construction activity.  Gotta enrich those rich owners.  So stick it to the timeshare owners!


----------



## DarkLord

GypsyOne said:


> The timeshare industry is a snake pit.  Where else can you buy a property for say $16,000 and then pay the company another $3,200 to take it back?



That's the reason Northwynd this whole time hid behind the obscure language of the contract didn't promote dialogue with the owners.  

It is a regret that some of the owners are pensioners who'll succumb to pressure and pay Northwynd off.

I've talked to a lawyer and ask him not only to fight Northwynd about paying the cancellation or renovation fee, but to luanch the offensive to seek compensation from false advertisement.  Likely we won see a dime from this lawsuit but we'll bring the gangs of Kirk Wankel to justice.


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

*Still More Questions than Answers*

New poster here no agenda just looking for real facts.  Wondering if anyone else has received no further contact from Sunchaser since  the April 12  letter.  Most posts have referred to  a recent mailing and an increase in fees both to go and to stay. Others talked of e-mail contact in the summer. We received the letter in April and chose to ignore it. Blows my mind that the April letter came in a normal envelope and that they would pursue collections or whatever with no registered letter or further attempts to contact.  
             We had paid our 2013 maintenance fee in January and were allowed to book and use our week in July with no complications. Normally one would expect to see your 2014 maintenance fee bill about this time of the year.            
         Is our status different than most in that we have never signed any contract or agreement with FMV, Northwynd or Sunchaser. Rather we purchased from a realtor in Invermere 13 years ago and really only have a
realtors contract showing we own a leasehold interest at FMV.
          Have been following this thread since April and am still very much suspicious of throwing more funds into a sinking ship. Curious if anyone else has a similar story. Don't feel like contacting Sunchaser to raise attention if I have fallen off their map.


----------



## DarkLord

Rider Nation, I'm in the same boat as you as I bought resell.  If you received the April letter, doubt you would have fallen off the map.  Best bet is to call up Geldert, for $150, it's much cheaper and less headach to let the lawyer deal with Northwynd than doing it yourself.

I think at the stage, Northwynd is picking off the low hanging fruit first, the owners who will pay up.  Don't know how they will deal with the more indignant owners like myself later.


----------



## DarkLord

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/rafter-six-ranch-closing

Another Northmount or Northwynd's good deed.  Rafter Six Ranch had a dealing with them and is now closing shop.  Think long and hard before giving Northwynd another dime of your money.


----------



## gnorth16

DarkLord said:


> http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/rafter-six-ranch-closing
> 
> Another Northmount or Northwynd's good deed.  Rafter Six Ranch had a dealing with them and is now closing shop.  Think long and hard before giving Northwynd another dime of your money.



Very sad indeed.

Anything to add "Just Facts"? Or is everything about the Rafter Six Ranch hearsay and defamation...

If I lost my business, home and livelihood to a scam artist, I would probably have a 6x8 "timeshare" provided for me for at least the next 25 years....:ignore:


----------



## pdoff

*Dissedent Owners*

I remembered that Mr. Wenkel refered to us as "Dissenting Owners". I wasn't sure if I liked that terminology - but when I looked up that term relating to business - I thought the following quote was applicable:

 How to Deal with the Dissedent -  "The majority Shareholder or Partners must take great care to play everything by the book to avoid unnecesary claims against them. This means that they must continue to observe statuatory rules governing the management of the Company, procession of financial information and voting procedures. Otherwise the dispute that could have been reasonably quickly sorted out becomes difficult."

Sounds like good advise!


----------



## Spark1

pdoff said:


> I remembered that Mr. Wenkel refered to us as "Dissenting Owners". I wasn't sure if I liked that terminology - but when I looked up that term relating to business - I thought the following quote was applicable:
> 
> How to Deal with the Dissedent -  "The majority Shareholder or Partners must take great care to play everything by the book to avoid unnecesary claims against them. This means that they must continue to observe statuatory rules governing the management of the Company, procession of financial information and voting procedures. Otherwise the dispute that could have been reasonably quickly sorted out becomes difficult."
> 
> Sounds like good advise!



Northwynd hates timeshare owners. they made a bad investment with FRPL and they are trying to get rich off of us. this is what we got to look forward to if you get sucked into the reno fee. Type this in google NORTHWYND RESORT PROPERTIES LTD SCAMMERS FRAUD and read. They act like they are going to build you the perfect resort but they will have to down size and then they will over sell the resort and you will not get into the resort and watch out for maintenance fees they are going to sky rocket. I would not even drive into this resort because i hate this management they can not be trusted. I wonder if justice loo was a bond holder?   Hire michael@geldertlaw   Ph  17783307775


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 said:


> Northwynd hates timeshare owners. they made a bad investment with FRPL and they are trying to get rich off of us. this is what we got to look forward to if you get sucked into the reno fee. Type this in google NORTHWYND RESORT PROPERTIES LTD SCAMMERS FRAUD and read. They act like they are going to build you the perfect resort but they will have to down size and then they will over sell the resort and you will not get into the resort and watch out for maintenance fees they are going to sky rocket. I would not even drive into this resort because i hate this management they can not be trusted. I wonder if justice loo was a bond holder?   Hire michael@geldertlaw   Ph  17783307775



JustFacts says this about the good Justice's decision:

"Owners who have read Justice Loo's ruling in full should be thanking her for the level of detail she provided. Justice Loo has gone to great lengths to explain two things to the owners:

1) Pursuing further justice through a breach of contract argument would result in unnecessary litigation, be timing consuming, and expensive.

2) If you try, you'll lose.

Justice Loo included everything you could possibly need in her ruling to realize the futility of the breach of contract argument."

So according to JF we owe JLoo a great debt of gratitude because:

- She showed such patience and restraint in communicating in detail to we the dullard timeshare owners why sending more money to Northwynd for their benefit would only be the reasonable thing to do.
- That pointing out how resisting the money grab will be so annoying to the Companies and a waste of our time and money.
- That she shared with us her superior insight that further search for justice will yield the same results.

You mean she could see no merit whatsoever in the timeshare owners action, other than for simplifying her job?  "The owners must be commended for selecting three representatives..........."

I thought judges were supposed to be impartial adjudicators, not water-carriers for one side.  Me thinks the provincial Justice knows on which side her bread is buttered.


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> JustFacts says this about the good Justice's decision:
> 
> "Owners who have read Justice Loo's ruling in full should be thanking her for the level of detail she provided. Justice Loo has gone to great lengths to explain two things to the owners:
> 
> 1) Pursuing further justice through a breach of contract argument would result in unnecessary litigation, be timing consuming, and expensive.
> 
> 2) If you try, you'll lose.
> 
> Justice Loo included everything you could possibly need in her ruling to realize the futility of the breach of contract argument."
> 
> So according to JF we owe JLoo a great debt of gratitude because:
> 
> - She showed such patience and restraint in communicating in detail to we the dullard timeshare owners why sending more money to Northwynd for their benefit would only be the reasonable thing to do.
> - That pointing out how resisting the money grab will be so annoying to the Companies and a waste of our time and money.
> - That she shared with us her superior insight that further search for justice will yield the same results.
> 
> You mean she could see no merit whatsoever in the timeshare owners action, other than for simplifying her job?  "The owners must be commended for selecting three representatives..........."
> 
> I thought judges were supposed to be impartial adjudicators, not water-carriers for one side.  Me thinks the provincial Justice knows on which side her bread is buttered.



Here is another resort that Northwynd owned and operated and keep in mind that this is the biggest fraud and scam timeshare company in North America, this is where our platinum club money went and i would bet our Fairmont maintenanace fees. Type in Google  COSTA MAYA REEF AMBERGRIS CAYE FORUM. Make sure you read at least 50 forums so you get the idea what we have to look forward to. When i read this i come to the conclusion that these timeshare owners are just complainers and why did they want to take NORTHWYND TO COURT ,these are honest people just like their honest sales people and if you believe this you probability believe there is OCEAN Front property in Arizona.


----------



## freetime

not much talk on the subject what is all the owners doing


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

*@Freetime*

Tried to stimulate some conversation or input on the weekend but seems like most have surrendered. Appears most have given up the fight or left it up to the lawyers. The lack of feedback is telling me that most will just drink the Kool-Aid.  Those that stay will no doubt get to enjoy more refreshments down the road.


----------



## DarkLord

Rider Nation Rocks said:


> Tried to stimulate some conversation or input on the weekend but seems like most have surrendered. Appears most have given up the fight or left it up to the lawyers. The lack of feedback is telling me that most will just drink the Kool-Aid.  Those that stay will no doubt get to enjoy more refreshments down the road.



I never know one person who surrendered and I've talked to 5 of them.  2 will fight, 3 just ignored the letter or procrastinated.  The lack of feedback is normal for this kind of thing.  After the shock is over, people move on with more important things in life.


----------



## Hotpink

*Contract language*

Our Vacation Villa Lease from 1998 clearly states in Section 13 on page 3 
"  *Default of the Lessee in payment required under this lease*
_In the event that the Lessee should default in making any payment required to be made by the Lessee hereunder, within the time stipulated for payment , then the lessee agrees that the Lessee agrees that the Lessee's right to occupy a Villa shall be suspended until such time as all payments due have been duly paid _
_In the event that default in payment is not remedied within sixteen (16) months from the date of such default, then the Lessee shall be deemed to have offered to sell the Lessee's leasehold interest to the Lessor for an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of
(a) one-fortieth(1/40th) of the Purchase Price for an annual lease or
(b) one twentieth(1/20th) of the Purchase Price for an biennial lease
each as the case may be, multiplied by the number of lease years then remaining in this lease, less all monies owing under this Lease to the Lessor. If the lessor accepts the deemed offer as aforesaid, the Lessor shall be entitled to  the Lessee's lease hold for the duration of this Lease and upon presentation of proof of payment to the Trustee, shall be entitled to be recorded as the registered holder of this Lease _

Seeing as we bought in 1998 and our lease expires in 2039 at the discounted price of $17,000.00 plus GST, then in 2015  (16) sixteen months from now they will owe us $8,500/ 40 = $212.50 x 25 years = $5312.50 NOT INCLUDING INTEREST  and when they pay that we will celebrate BUT NOT WITH KOOL-AID .


----------



## Timeshare Cold

*Quiet for too long!*

We also wondered why this site was so quiet, then decided it was because of owners like us, who have been quietly observing and trying to make a decision. Once we received the new invoice with the increase for the "get out of jail" fee, plus 2014 Maintenance fee, we made a decision.

Originally when we contacted Northmount/Northwynd last May, we were told the "cancellation fee" was to cover the maintenance fees of the owners who left so that the owners who stayed, would not have such a huge financial burden in the future!  So it seems absurd that I now also have to pay 2014 maintenance fees. The invoice put us over the edge and the decision was made to join a group represented by one of the lawyers suggested on this site.

Thank you to those on this site who have given such good information. The ethics of this timeshare company is beyond our comprehension.  We are now sleeping much better knowing that we have not sent a cheque to Northwynd.


----------



## pdoff

*Appeal Period*

I think that some folks are waiting for the appeal period with our lawyers (Dec 15) to see how many people are going to appeal - I think lots!


----------



## Hotpink

*More Wenkel Creative language Skills*

Item 20 of our contract

Removal of the Manager  The lessee in conjunction with other holders of leasehold interest in the Project totalling not less than fifty-one (51%) of all leaseholders of Villas shall be entitled to terminate the services of the lessor as manager, provided that… We just need a list of owners from the Trustee whom hopefully can be trusted

Why is the management company not taking steps to reduce the costs?   How about a reduction in salaries, for Mr. Wankel et all, decrease the amount paid for the lease on the Water Park, which is leased from themselves, to name a couple.  According to the posted Notes to financial Statements December 31,2011, the replacement reserve had a deficiency of ($1,671,318.)  
Our contract states the following:
10. As compensation for its services the manager shall be entitled to an annual fee (the ‘Management Fee’) equal to fifteen  per cent (15%) of aggregate of the Replacement Reserves and the Operating Costs assessed in each calendar year with respect to the Project.

Management fees in 2011 were $1,435,217.  Are the management fees accurately reflecting an aggregate amount?
Especially if they are losing money

Also in the posted Notes under Replacement Reserve “Historically, the Resort has not had a replacement reserve.”   The Financial Statements from Year Ended December 31, 2003, the replacement reserve fund  balance for the year 2003 was $987,424. and for 2002 $566,255 for the Replacement Reserve.   I have a copy of that report, making the statement in the posted notes an absolute false hood. .If there are others who have kept copies of financial statements perhaps we need to share

Our Contract also states under item 10 (g)  open two separate bank accounts, one entitled ”Operating Trust Account” and the other entitled “Replacement Reserve Trust Account”, and all monies received relative to Operating Costs shall be placed in the Operating Trust Account and all monies received in connection with Replacement Reserves or collected as described in paragraph 9 (d)(ii) of this lease shall be placed in the Replacement Reserve Trust Account; and…
Would like to see that bank book
Is this being done?  If not the management is in breach of our contract 
They epitomize the Ultimate in Creative accountants


----------



## no_more

*their house of cards is collapsing*

Foreclosure lawsuit filed against northwynd for their makaha resort in Hawaii ... northwynd was unable to secure additional financing ...   gee, nobody willing to lend them money - I wonder why ???

Leeward Coast Real Estate – Foreclosure Lawsuit Filed Against Makaha Resort

Posted on March 2, 2013 by Jeff and Cathi	

Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd., a Canada based company, owns the Makaha Resort on the Leeward Coast of Oahu. In April 2011, Northwynd had partnered Pacific Links Hawaii, a golf course operator, to help upgrade the hotel and convert the 173 rooms into timeshares. Pacific Links purchased the 18-hole golf course which was part of the Makaha Resort for $2.5 million and spent $3 million upgrading the golf course. Pacific Links also agreed to loan Northwynd $6.8 million to help renovate the hotel. However, Northwynd was unable up secure additional financing and closed the hotel in October 2011. Northwynd claimed at that time that they would secure financing at a later date, upgrade the property and then reopen the Makaha Resort.

Pacific Links has recent filed a foreclosure lawsuit against Northwynd and hopes to repossess the currently closed hotel that was used to secure the loan. Chief operating officer for the Pacific Links Hawaii, Micah Kane, stated, “It is very unfortunate that Makaha Hotel and Resort was unable to secure the financing to reignite hotel operations. However, we will use this as an opportunity to pursue a more comprehensive, community-based approach to developing a truly sustainable economic plan for Makaha Valley.”


link to the article is below ...
http://hawaiirealestatenewsandblog....eclosure-lawsuit-filed-against-makaha-resort/

don't give these people a cent - their house of cards is collapsing ... they've had to give up their resorts in mexico and belize after leaving a trail of abandoned and unhappy timeshare owners where they jacked up the maintenance fees, refused exchanges, breached contract terms  and tried to pressure them for collections - sound familiar ? ... same with the worthless oasis resort in Nevada which is about to be demolished ... the lake Okanagan resort which is in worse shape than sunchaser and is on the block for a reduced price ... and ... they owe their RI REIT investors a bundle - who are threatening to sue them also ...

this B.C. judge has had rulings overturned before and made news when she was publicly rebuked by the higher court for ignoring evidence ( do a web search on judge linda loo and see for yourself )


----------



## GypsyOne

pdoff said:


> I think that some folks are waiting for the appeal period with our lawyers (Dec 15) to see how many people are going to appeal - I think lots!



My observation is similar to others who have posted about the number of timeshare owners who are continuing the fight.  The owners I have talked to are unanimous that they are not going to be extorted by this unscrupulous company.  The large number signing on to the appeal also means the cost per owner is minimal - far less than the ransom demanded and/or the ongoing request for funds that are sure to come.  

The Notice of Appeal was served on the Trustee and Northmont today by our two law firms Geldert Law and Cox Taylor. As expected, the appeal is representing a large number of owners.  In my opinion, the appeal is a step in the process.  If we win, fine; if we don't, it is a necessary step in the quest for justice.

There is a time to turn the other cheek and there is a time to fight.  The time to fight for justice is now.  The Special Case allowed very narrow evidence and argument.  Once we are allowed to present numerous misrepresentations and breaches of contract, the odds in our favour go up considerably.


----------



## GypsyOne

Hotpink, you make some good points.  I also wonder about that Clause 13 in the lease which gives a formula for paying out the timeshare owners in the event of default.  Basically, the Agreement stipulates that they will take back the remaining time on the lease at a discount of 50% (or 25% in later ones) of cost for the remaining time on the lease. From that figure is subtracted outstanding maintenance, thus you would probably have to subtract one year's maintenance fee.  Still a far cry from Northwynd's extortion demand.  

Clause 13 received almost no attention in the Special Case because of the narrow parameters of the hearing.  Northwynd dismissed the clause summarily by taking the position that it is a permissive clause - that they have the option to accept or reject the formula.  But I'm not so sure.  The buyout of remaining time at a discount still loads the figure in favour of the Lessor, which is to be expected, but it is a perfectly logical way of settling a default.  Why would the formula be included in the lease in such detail if it is meaningless?  Would not the average prospective timeshare buyer reading the lease not assume the clause was a formula for handling default?  If the prospective buyer asked the salesman what it meant, would not the salesman say it was a formula for remedying default?  The answer to these questions I think is obvious - Clause 13 was intended to be applied in the event of default.  

The validity of Clause 13 also takes us into the area of consumer protection.  Leases should not be worded such that meaningless clauses are added that in essence deceives a party to the lease, or lulls the party into a false sense of security in order to close the sale.  If consumers have rights, and particularly when the layperson/consumer is up against the timeshare industry with their vast resources, then Clause 13 should not be considered meaningless, it should be the formula for remedying default.


----------



## pdoff

GypsyOne said:


> My observation is similar to others who have posted about the number of timeshare owners who are continuing the fight.  The owners I have talked to are unanimous that they are not going to be extorted by this unscrupulous company.  The large number signing on to the appeal also means the cost per owner is minimal - far less than the ransom demanded and/or the ongoing request for funds that are sure to come.
> 
> The Notice of Appeal was served on the Trustee and Northmont today by our two law firms Geldert Law and Cox Taylor. As expected, the appeal is representing a large number of owners.  In my opinion, the appeal is a step in the process.  If we win, fine; if we don't, it is a necessary step in the quest for justice.
> 
> There is a time to turn the other cheek and there is a time to fight.  The time to fight for justice is now.  The Special Case allowed very narrow evidence and argument.  Once we are allowed to present numerous misrepresentations and breaches of contract, the odds in our favour go up considerably.



Yes we have the same lawyer - it is "just a fact" that we will not pay this bunch  of crooks!


----------



## CindyD

*Appeal Process Question*

We have already spent $ 615.00 to this point with 2 different lawyers, the last being the Cox Taylor Law Firm for the last court proceedings.  With one of the options from both lawyers being pay the choose to leave and be done with it.  My question is how many people are going through with the appeal?  How much in the end will it cost? Being on a fixed income the bottom line is a concern.


----------



## freetime

In our  Promissory note and  installment sales contact  3. Remedies on Default
The rights of usage under the vacation lease will be suspended in favour of FRP when an account is 30 days in arrears. In the event that any money owing hereunder are past due 90 days. the lessee hereby agrees to relinquish all rights and respondsibilities of the lessee and hereby irrevocably appoints FRP, its successors and assigns, as its attorney to transfer ownership of the vacation lease in such event. All moneys paid under this contract will be retained by FRP as liquidated damages, and no refund of any nature will be made to the lessee. In the event of any dispute this contract will be interpreted and enforced under the laws and courts of British Columbia.

What I read into this is that if we don't pay our time share goes back to them anyone know anything about this clause. if this is the case they can have the lease


----------



## Hotpink

*Remedies on Default*



freetime said:


> In our  Promissory note and  installment sales contact  3. Remedies on Default
> The rights of usage under the vacation lease will be suspended in favour of FRP when an account is 30 days in arrears. In the event that any money owing hereunder are past due 90 days. the lessee hereby agrees to relinquish all rights and respondsibilities of the lessee and hereby irrevocably appoints FRP, its successors and assigns, as its attorney to transfer ownership of the vacation lease in such event. All moneys paid under this contract will be retained by FRP as liquidated damages, and no refund of any nature will be made to the lessee. In the event of any dispute this contract will be interpreted and enforced under the laws and courts of British Columbia.



Freetime what you have quoted comes from the Promissory Note and Installment Sales Contract that we also signed in 1998 as we chose to pay them in installments. If we had reneged on any payments we promised to pay them then this clause would have come into effect. We have ours with a PAID IN FULL stamp and signature on it. If you are still paying installments for your original purchase then this clause would come into effect and you would need to make a decision as what to do.
However if you are paid in full then the contract you signed will be in effect
http://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/bc-supreme-court-petition/ 

We suggest you go to this website and review the Matkin affidavit of last April and carefully review Exhibits B1,B2,B3 and B4. These are the contracts that are currently in effect and depending on which one you signed. B1( section 12) And B2( section 13) ( are specific in the handling of defaults by the Lessee ( us)  but B3( section 15) and B4( section 14) are  far more nebulous .

As far as I can tell B1( four pages) was in effect from the start up to late 97 or early 98. B2 was in effect from 98 to the About 2009. B3 was used ( 11 Pages)until FRP sold to Northmont in 2010 . B4 ( 11 Pages) Came into effect after Northmont acquired the property. 

Also note the different names used  
B1  VACATION LEASE
B2  VACATION VILLA LEASE
B3  VACATION EXPERIENCE LEASE AND CO-OWNERSHIP AGREEMENT 
B4  VACATION INTERVAL AGREEMENT

B1 & B2 have the same Fairmont Address for Service
B3 & B4 have the same Calgary Address for Service

While not a Lawyer I would say any one with a B3 or a B4 contract have a deep ditch to get out of

Happy Reading


----------



## freetime

Hotpink said:


> Our Vacation Villa Lease from 1998 clearly states in Section 13 on page 3
> "  *Default of the Lessee in payment required under this lease*
> _In the event that the Lessee should default in making any payment required to be made by the Lessee hereunder, within the time stipulated for payment , then the lessee agrees that the Lessee agrees that the Lessee's right to occupy a Villa shall be suspended until such time as all payments due have been duly paid _
> _In the event that default in payment is not remedied within sixteen (16) months from the date of such default, then the Lessee shall be deemed to have offered to sell the Lessee's leasehold interest to the Lessor for an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of
> (a) one-fortieth(1/40th) of the Purchase Price for an annual lease or
> (b) one twentieth(1/20th) of the Purchase Price for an biennial lease
> each as the case may be, multiplied by the number of lease years then remaining in this lease, less all monies owing under this Lease to the Lessor. If the lessor accepts the deemed offer as aforesaid, the Lessor shall be entitled to  the Lessee's lease hold for the duration of this Lease and upon presentation of proof of payment to the Trustee, shall be entitled to be recorded as the registered holder of this Lease _
> 
> Seeing as we bought in 1998 and our lease expires in 2039 at the discounted price of $17,000.00 plus GST, then in 2015  (16) sixteen months from now they will owe us $8,500/ 40 = $212.50 x 25 years = $5312.50 NOT INCLUDING INTEREST  and when they pay that we will celebrate BUT NOT WITH KOOL-AID .



Reading this seems like Northmont will not have a leg to stand on if we don't pay the fee did I read this correctly


----------



## GypsyOne

freetime said:


> Reading this seems like Northmont will not have a leg to stand on if we don't pay the fee did I read this correctly



Unfortunately, not quite that cut and dried, Freetime.  Northmont is saying the Clause is permissive - that they have the option of accepting the clause or not, and they hang their hat on the phrase, "If the lessor accepts the deemed offer....", or more specifically on one word, "If".  But, that does not necessarily mean the Companies are correct in their interpretation because you then get into issues of misleading contracts and consumer protection.  (See my post above #1063 for another interpretation.)  There are certainly issues here upon which to sue for breaches of contract.


----------



## Hotpink

*Lessee or Owner*

As written by Gypsy one in post 1017

_Northmont/Northwynd fixed that little problem of the timeshare owners being tenants and not owners in a very clever way. About 2009 they blitzed the timeshare owners with a campaign to convert lease agreements to ownership agreements, or from lessees to owners in fee simple. A number of timeshare owners were convinced they were better off to be owners in perpetuity than to have a 40-year fixed lease. But they were duped. As well as now being implied owners, the contracts were amended to include being responsible for capital improvements. Clause 9 (now Clause 11) was expanded to add capital costs to operating costs. ie. ".....and to pay the costs of capital improvements that may from time to time be required." Adding insult to injury, the timeshare owners paid $6,000 or so for the privilege of having their rights weakened. _

Contracts entered into prior to 2009 and are exhibits B1 & B2 in Matkins affidavit call us lessees through out.  In the contracts following which are the exhibits B3 & B4 in Matkins Affidavit  the word lessee is replaced with Buyer and in section 23 of B3 and section 22 of B4 buyers become part of an Owners association NOT a Lessees Association. The latter two contracts also grew from 4 pages to 11 pages and that is normally bad for those who are paying.  

So if you are a Co-owner /Buyer as in the latter one of two contracts the word capital is now included as quoted by Gypsyone .
One should read the letter to Matkin from Wenkel in the aforementioned affidavit as to what Northmonts intent is and form your own conclusion
The next dubious question that arise is " WHAT CONSTITUTES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS" .
Is the renovation project a Capital Improvement?
Happy researches


----------



## freetime

*media coverage*

Has anyone out there been in contact with the Media again telling our side of the story 
Would this bring attention to Northmont showing how they are trying to rip off people, seems like they just make up rules to suit them. 
1. outrages interest, not even sure this is legal to charge this rate 
2. now making the owners pay the 2014 maintenance 
I think it would help to get the message out there for owners that are sitting on the fence, to show that there are still owners trying to fight these bandits.


----------



## Hotpink

*Wankels Law*

you need to read this

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Wankel-Affidavit-sworn-April-15-2013.pdf

Note item 20 which is very erroneous

Our contract which is pre 2009( signed in 98) is in section 38 an in the pre 97 is in section 37 but are 
"_MODIFICATIONS TO LEASE; The lessor reserves the right to adjust or modify this Lease from time to time for the benefit of existing or future lessees, provided that any such adjustment or modification will not in any way materially prejudice the rights of existing lessees. If any such adjustment or modification is effected, the Lessor will provide notice to each lessee setting out the nature of the adjustment or modification , the reasons giving rise to such  adjustment or modification and the effects thereof _"

Does not read like it is in their favour 

The others are similar in wording except they use their names and call us owners and added a provision to build more villas. you can read these for yourselves

We can only assume Mr Wankel is looking after our Lessees' /owners' interests
as would a Weasel guard the chicken coop

We did listen to the first pitch outlining the Legacy For Life program and if we bought that day we would get it for a bargain of only $9,000.00. We said we will look into selling our lease first and he laughed and said as it stood the lease was worthless. We asked why it would be worth something if we paid him another 9K and needless to say we were not satisfied with the response. 

Perhaps we should have smelled a member of the weasel family then . We said when it is free we will join up. 
Was the Brochure in late 2012 outlining "Exciting changes are coming to your resort in 2013...." considered notice of a change to Our contract
No mention of Pay more for a shrinking resort  That shoe did not drop until early April . Perhaps he believes by giving us notice to pay more to go or pay much more to stay as notice of change. 

These people ( at least one of them) appear to believe that the magic of a Harry Potter character and coming from the house of Slytherin will create a New Look . a New feel , a New Sunchaser


----------



## Spark1

Hotpink said:


> you need to read this
> 
> http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Wankel-Affidavit-sworn-April-15-2013.pdf
> 
> Note item 20 which is very erroneous
> 
> Our contract which is pre 2009( signed in 98) is in section 38 an in the pre 97 is in section 37 but are
> "_MODIFICATIONS TO LEASE; The lessor reserves the right to adjust or modify this Lease from time to time for the benefit of existing or future lessees, provided that any such adjustment or modification will not in any way materially prejudice the rights of existing lessees. If any such adjustment or modification is effected, the Lessor will provide notice to each lessee setting out the nature of the adjustment or modification , the reasons giving rise to such  adjustment or modification and the effects thereof _"
> 
> Does not read like it is in their favour
> 
> The others are similar in wording except they use their names and call us owners and added a provision to build more villas. you can read these for yourselves
> 
> We can only assume Mr Wankel is looking after our Lessees' /owners' interests
> as would a Weasel guard the chicken coop
> 
> We did listen to the first pitch outlining the Legacy For Life program and if we bought that day we would get it for a bargain of only $9,000.00. We said we will look into selling our lease first and he laughed and said as it stood the lease was worthless. We asked why it would be worth something if we paid him another 9K and needless to say we were not satisfied with the response.
> 
> Perhaps we should have smelled a member of the weasel family then . We said when it is free we will join up.
> Was the Brochure in late 2012 outlining "Exciting changes are coming to your resort in 2013...." considered notice of a change to Our contract
> No mention of Pay more for a shrinking resort  That shoe did not drop until early April . Perhaps he believes by giving us notice to pay more to go or pay much more to stay as notice of change.
> 
> These people ( at least one of them) appear to believe that the magic of a Harry Potter character and coming from the house of Slytherin will create a New Look . a New feel , a New Sunchaser



Let's not forget about audited statements. Conrad MacNeil writes 
I do not know why everyone is focused on appealing Justices Loo's decision. The focus should be on a breach of contract (section C (10) (c) (I) ), as Northwynd failed to provide audited financial statements in accord with the standards of timeline that were set forth.When an accredited firm finally did complete an audit we'll past the deadline,and was retrospective by including the two previous two years where an accredited audit not occurred,the information they requested was incomplete,and the fore they issued a disclaimer stating that they could not rule out fraud.
This is more sufficient grounds to make a case in contract law towards rendering the contract void. Therefore if the contract was essentially voided prior to Justice Loo's ruling,the implications of said ruling are essentially irrelevant. Her ruling would apply, unbeknownst to her, to an invalid contract.
I addressed this with Northwynd specifically and frankly was surprised that Wankel let K wetland respond. He won't reply to any communications I have sent to him directly, including a statement of claim delivered by registered mail. He acknowledges that the conditions set out in Sect C (producing audited financial statements on the due date) were violated, but tried to argue that it is a matter of interpretation. When I responded that there are no conditions set forth in the contract that require interpretation, it is very specific,there was no further response. He is also aware that I am a forensic specialist by profession,have been involved with a legal team,and have also involved with the commercial crimes unit of the Calgary detachment of the RCMP.


----------



## GypsyOne

GypsyOne said:


> Unfortunately, not quite that cut and dried, Freetime.  Northmont is saying the Clause is permissive - that they have the option of accepting the clause or not, and they hang their hat on the phrase, "If the lessor accepts the deemed offer....", or more specifically on one word, "If".  But, that does not necessarily mean the Companies are correct in their interpretation because you then get into issues of misleading contracts and consumer protection.  (See my post above #1063 for another interpretation.)  There are certainly issues here upon which to sue for breaches of contract.



Further to Clause 13 of the lease and Northmont claiming that the clause is permissive, that they don't have to accept the "deemed offer."  But they ARE accepting the deemed offer (to take back the remaining leasehold interest).  They are taking back the remaining time on the lease, thus they are accepting the deemed offer, its just that they don't want to pay up according to the terms of the lease.  And to add insult to injury, they are not only taking back remaining time on the lease, they think the timeshare owner should also pay THEM money.  Money which they think they deserve for managing the timeshare unit for us that we no longer own.  The timeshare industry really is an Alice in Wonderland kind of existence.


----------



## GypsyOne

*Capital costs*

Hotpink:  _"The next dubious question that arise is " WHAT CONSTITUTES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS" .
Is the renovation project a Capital Improvement?"_

As a property appraiser I can say that that is not always obvious.  Operating or maintenance costs are short term in nature.  Examples would be paint or replacing a broken window.  Capital costs are long term in nature and relate to the basic structure of the building.  A quick scan of the $40.8 million proposed expenditures reveals a mix, with a preponderance towards long term capital.  These are expenditures that are needed to bring the building up to what should have been the original construction standard.  Well constructed buildings should have a lifetime of at least 60 years with only normal maintenance required.  These buildings are from nine to twenty-three years old and are showing major construction deficiencies. The fact that $40.8 million expenditure is now required to bring them up to standard reveals two things.  1) That the buildings were poorly constructed, thus implying misrepresentation of what we were buying into. 2) That an expenditure of that magnitude goes far beyond normal maintenance, which is all lessees are obliged to pay.


----------



## KGB_527

CindyD said:


> We have already spent $ 615.00 to this point with 2 different lawyers, the last being the Cox Taylor Law Firm for the last court proceedings.  With one of the options from both lawyers being pay the choose to leave and be done with it.  My question is how many people are going through with the appeal?  How much in the end will it cost? Being on a fixed income the bottom line is a concern.[/QUOTE
> 
> Fighting for the just cause is priceless. I am pretty sure, it is going to cost less to keep fighting these CROOKS at Fairmont than paying off to leave them.
> How do you know that once you pay off they will not ask for more later?
> Just look back at their mgmt record over the years. How many people they ruined, how many investments failed under this MIS-MGMT Group? It is a trail that speaks for itself - train wreck. It is really appalling, the so called Honorable Judge of the BC Supreme Court did not do her research. However this is not the end of it.
> Myself, I will fight these people to my last dime. I stand by my word, and joined Geldert Law from day one .


----------



## MFD

*Booked Timeshare*

Just a quick question to those who might have an answer for me, although I already have an idea what the answer might be.  I have a reservation booked for Fairmont starting December 19th, 2013.  The judge ruled in their favour but I am already on board for an appeal, can I still use my week there?  Or will the force me to choose to stay or go and refuse me my reservation if I don't?


----------



## mossyoak

*now what*

i just got my NEW invoice for the usless timeshare i bought, now i have intrest and am required to pay 2014 maintenace fees,,,, i was going off the advice of a friend and now have found this website,, can anyone tell me what lawyer everyone is using so i can get out of this once and for all?


----------



## no_more

*legal firms*

Geldert law and cox taylor are two of the law firms involved ... both are out of BC.   

the contact info for geldert is ...

info@geldertlaw.com 
Michael Geldert, B.A, LL.B, LL.L, Esq.
T: 778.330.7775   |     F:778.330.7774    |   W: www.geldertlaw.com 
2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 1B4

Michael is continuing to take clients through December.   There is a retainer fee involved to join the group of owners involved in the appeal - hundreds have signed on.


----------



## Pursuing Truth

*lots of questions and thoughts*

Newbie here…I am so thankful to find this forum and grateful that you all have been willing to share your opinions and insights.  
I am as confused as anyone that a situation like this could continue in North America and need a few questions answered by whomever is willing. 

1.	Can someone explain to us why the court case was stated as Philip K Matkin Professional Corp. v. Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. ? We thought they were working together.
2.	The information was available that Northmont Resort Properties had been able to obtain Fairmont Resort Properties free and clear from any of Fairmont Resort Properties’ liabilities. Why did none of the lawyers realize that nothing relating to Fairmont Resort Properties, eg.  multiple breach of contracts would be admissible in court?  Some have suggested filing further action with Geldert Law. He was one of the original lawyers. If he didn’t do anything then, how or why could he now? Just asking...willing to go with him if someone can tell us what the plans are.
3.	 Why if we “surrender” our lease do we surrender it to Philip K. Matkin Professional Corp. and yet to  “cancel” it is to Northmont Resort Properties?
4.	Why if we stay are the renovation fees paid to Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, one of the largest law firms in North America?
5.	If we do pay them anything, where are the guarantees that any of the money will be used for the resort?
6.	We were lied to and sucked in by an amazing sales pitch, not once but twice. Now we look at the “Cancellation Agreement” and even if we decide to go that route, how can we be sure that it is legal and they won’t come back to try and extort more money?
7.	Nothing that we have ever signed was called a “Vacation Interval Agreement”…yet if we cancel that is what we are cancelling in the “Northmont Resort Properties Cancellation Agreement”????
8.	In the “Cancellation Agreement”,  #1 says it is “subject to payment of all amounts owing to Northmont under this Agreement and the Additional Agreements”…anyone know what the additional agreements are??

Aside from all the questions, I do have a few other suggestions/comments:
I believe we along with thousands of others have been duped into a highly professional, very intentional, fraudulent scam that continues to be perpetuated by the “current” management, who for some reason are protected by the courts and are not being held accountable for any previous liabilities…and yet, we the timeshare lessees can be held accountable for the mismanagement of  Fairmont Resort Properties (and all its other aliases, associate companies and underlings) and the liabilities of the “current management”.  Who in all this fiasco is holding them accountable…definitely not the justice system!

“In good faith” we listened to the trained sales scammers who twisted the truth and left out a lot of key information and were sucked in. Our trust was violated. We were told it was to be an investment for the future, a legacy for life…it has instead become a nightmare. Unfortunately, this management group, investment group or whomever is ultimately behind all this,  seems to have been allowed to leave their malicious footprint all over the globe.  Their track record and the debris of shattered timeshare lessees is far reaching. But to give them credit, they are smart and they know how to manipulate the law, change their company names and disguise their identity, and write twisted contracts so they can weasel their way out of being held accountable. We, and it sounds like many others, were gullible because we accepted their contracts in good faith not realizing that the contracts were open to interpretation, their interpretation, and could be changed at their whim while holding us responsible for their greed, deceitfulness and massive mismanagement of funds. 

One way or the other we have all had our trust violated and we have all lost a lot of money. But, we still have a voice. We all need to be  willing to use all avenues of social media at our disposal to share our experience. This has been an awful experience for all of us. We have watched a beautiful dream get sucked down into the sewer. But, let’s do what we can to prevent others from taking the same path. We were naive, but let’s use our experience for good in the lives of others and encourage them to:
1.	Never sign any contract unless they are allowed to take it home to read and evaluate for at least 24 hours.  Any contract where they are being pressured to sign on the spot, is not a good contract.
2.	Never sign a contract that allows the other party the right to change it for their benefit whenever they want. 
3.	Never sign a contract that is written in such a way that it is “open to interpretation”.
4.	If something seems like a “sweet deal” it probably isn’t. The only people that really care about the happiness of your family is you.
5.	If those that are selling the contract are trying to isolate you from others that are also considering buying, then red flags of warning should go up.
6.	If you are receiving a sales pitch in a dimly lit room, do not stay!

I wish I could meet each and every one of you timeshare lessees who are honest people just wanting to have a nice vacation with your family and friends. They have stolen our money, but I am grateful that they can’t steal our memories or the memories of our children.

Hoping to receive some responses to my questions!  Thanks!


----------



## Hey lady

*A client of one of the legal firms*

Nice to see new members posting. 
Is it legal to get your invoices by email? For the last 20 years I used to get in through Canada Poat delivered in January, for payment by Jan 31.  Guessing that this year none will be sent by mail - an effort to save postage.  Comments!


----------



## GypsyOne

Hey lady said:


> Nice to see new members posting.
> Is it legal to get your invoices by email? For the last 20 years I used to get in through Canada Poat delivered in January, for payment by Jan 31.  Guessing that this year none will be sent by mail - an effort to save postage.  Comments!



I got my latest statement by Canada Post.  I think delivery by email is legal, but since you are a client of one of the lawyers, you could confirm that with an email to the lawyer.


----------



## GypsyOne

*lots of questions and thoughts*

Pursuing truth said:  _"Newbie here…I am so thankful to find this forum and grateful that you all have been willing to share your opinions and insights. 
I am as confused as anyone that a situation like this could continue in North America and need a few questions answered by whomever is willing. "_

I can't answer all your questions.  I hope this will help.  You don't seem to be signed on with one of the lawyers, Geldert or Cox.  You should, and there are a number of reasons.  Firstly, the only way we are going to obtain justice is through the courts.  The more that sign on the lower the cost per individual.  So far the cost has been incredibly low, but of course we're not done yet. Secondly, any questions you have will be readily answered by the lawyer.  I have found the lawyer very accessible by phone or email.  Thirdly, unless you pay one of the extortion fees, your account will be deemed to be in default by Northmont and subject to collection action.  You will want to know what your legal rights and options are regarding collection action.  Forthly, wherever the legal action takes us and whatever is legally ruled, you will want a lawyer representing your interests, or at least that you can consult for getting what you are entitled - discharge of further liability for example. Fifthly, the lawyer will email you regular (weekly) reports about what is being done and why.

Those that think they can get a free ride by letting others carry the ball are fooling themselves.  Each owner needs legal representation when dealing with this gang.

Your questions:
#1. Philip Malkin holds beneficial title in trust for the time share owners and Northmont.  In essence, Malkin represents 14,500 time share owners.
#2. Remember this is a public forum accessible by one and all.  Reasons for taking a certain course of action are not going to be made public.  As a client of a law firm, this information will be available to you.  The objectives of the Special Case hearing were narrow - are they entitled to charge a renovation fee, a cancellation fee, and downsize the resort.  The judge ruled in their favour on the first two, and I think the third point is outstanding.  The numerous misrepresentations and breaches of contract were not admissible for the Special Case.  That will not be the case if we sue them.  I agree with you that it is strange timeshare owners rights under the original lease agreement were extinguished by the bankruptcy, but, according to Northmont, not the obligation to send them money for restoring a failing resort.  Seems like they want their cake and eat it too.  Certainly a point that can be contested.  
#3.  I don't know.
#4.  I think renovation fees sent to Norton Rose in trust, pending the outcome of the legal challenge.
#5.  No guarantees whatsoever, as history has proven.  Its like putting water into a very leaky bucket.
#6.  That's why you need a lawyer looking after your interests.
#7.  ??
#8.  No, I'm not sure, unless they mean the cancellation agreement.

In summary, there are numerous points on which this unscrupulous company can be defeated, assuming there is justice in the justice system.  But it will require timeshare owners banding together in the common pursuit of justice.  

Hope this helps.


----------



## TimesharesBlow

*New here*

Hi,

I am new to the forum and I own a couple of units in gold time, and I did not pay my 2013 maintenance fees or any fees when I got the first notice of renovation fees early this year. I was following the court case in the background and was hoping this would take care of itself, as I am infuriated on the principle of what is going on. My timeshares are only leases. 

If I want to fight this, which lawyer is the one people are going with? Do we really have a chance? I notice that they did increase the renovation project fees from the initial request(if you compare the April 2013 correspondence you will see this). Of course, they are also wanting big time interest on my unpaid maintenance fees. 

Thanks.


----------



## Spark1

TimesharesBlow said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am new to the forum and I own a couple of units in gold time, and I did not pay my 2013 maintenance fees or any fees when I got the first notice of renovation fees early this year. I was following the court case in the background and was hoping this would take care of itself, as I am infuriated on the principle of what is going on. My timeshares are only leases.
> 
> If I want to fight this, which lawyer is the one people are going with? Do we really have a chance? I notice that they did increase the renovation project fees from the initial request(if you compare the April 2013 correspondence you will see this). Of course, they are also wanting big time interest on my unpaid maintenance fees.
> 
> Thanks.



We have hired Michael Geldert. Michael was the first lawyer to appeal and than Cox Taylor lawyer firm has joined in with Michael Geldert law . They worked closely with Cox Taylor Throughout the legal proceedings to date. Phone Michael at 7783307775 and fax 7783307774.Mike is easy to talk to and he will explain to you what is happening. Hundreds have signed on at 150.00 retainer and they will take on new clients throughout Dec.


----------



## Jjareed

*Confidential info*

i received a private message from an owner looking for information.  I copied and posted his question and my response below.  Since we don't know who is legitimate I would advise everyone who has an attorney not to give out any confidential information.

QUOTE=psvenson]I am also a TS owner and would like to get out.  Any info you can provide would be helpful!  ty![/QUOTE]

I would contact one of the lawyers that is working the case.  Here is the contact information for the one I'm using.  Since you sent this private I'm wondering if you are trying to get some confidential information and may be working for the other side.  Lets hope not.

T: 778.330.7775   |     F:778.330.7774    |   W: www.geldertlaw..com 
2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 1B4


----------



## Undecided62

*Can't decide*

We can't decide what to do.  My sister and I don't want to get sued in court for failing to pay.  Kirk Wankel had photos of himself on photo bucket. But he's now made them private. Proof that a Northwynd rep is following this thread.  Someone gave him a heads-up since last night.  Perhaps they're a little nervous?  When is the other shoe going to drop?


----------



## Late2Game

As the name says, I am truly late to the game.  Perhaps a better name would be "UnderaRock" 'cause I'm just finding out about all this now. Last Monday to be precise, after opening some two week old mail. That's when I became aware of this crazy scam / fraud being orchestrated by Northwynd. UNBELIEVABLE!!!  

Some Googling brought me quickly to this site I never even new existed!  Great site, but a horrendous amount of information to wade through.  It's absolutely unconscionable what's going on here . . . .a very sad situation for so many people on fixed incomes.  I've spent hours digging through the now-44 pages and get the basic sense of where we are now.  

I WANT OUT!  BUT NOT ON NORTHWYND'S TERMS!!. . . .Having a gun held to my head is one thing, but I'll damned if they'll hold two! (Ie. Reno fee or Cancel fee . . .you get your choice of "bullets")

Okay. . .enough of the rhetoric.  What's the best path out with the least cost and risk?  

*- are any of these lawyered-up groups likely to succeed in a class action for breach of contract or some such suit?

- if so, which is the one with the strategy and critical mass needed to prevail?

- has anyone considered a forensic audit, or the potential for criminal charges?
*
We can wait for Northwynd to implode, and it just might, but will that absolve us of the accumulating charges? Something tells me there will be another entity in the wings (Northwynd-2?) waiting to pick up the pieces and we'll be right back to where we are now, with the same 40-year lease obligation and an "agreement" that can be rewritten on a whim.

Signed . . . .Late2Game (a.k.a. HoppinMad)


----------



## GypsyOne

Late2Game said:   "_Okay. . .enough of the rhetoric.  What's the best path out with the least cost and risk?  

*- are any of these lawyered-up groups likely to succeed in a class action for breach of contract or some such suit?

- if so, which is the one with the strategy and critical mass needed to prevail?

- has anyone considered a forensic audit, or the potential for criminal charges?
*
Signed . . . .Late2Game (a.k.a. HoppinMad)[/QUOTE]_

If you read the more recent posts you will have a good idea of that is going on and why.  Two law firms are handling the case on behalf of the timeshare owners - Geldert Law of Vancouver and Cox Taylor of Victoria.  Signing on with one essentially gets you both because they are working together.  Hundreds have signed onto the joint action and the numbers are increasing.  I highly recommend you join the group.  So far the cost has been very low, but of course we're not done yet.  You can find Michael Geldert's contact information in previous posts.

You ask if we can win.  We certainly think we can, but there are no guarantees when you hit the courts.  We lost the first round which was a Special Case hearing with very narrow parameters in which we were not allowed to enter numerous examples of breaches of contract and misrepresentations.  The Special Case decision is being appealed, which to my understanding, is a necessary step in the process.  Once we are allowed to enter breaches of contract and misrepresentations, the odds in our favour rise considerably.

The only way we're going to get justice is through the courts.  A large group of us timeshare owners believe this unscrupulous timeshare company should not be allowed to extort money from innocent timeshare owners who, in good faith, thought they were simply buying a vacation experience as tenants/lessees.  Restoring the resort for the benefit of the real owners was not part of the deal.  As I said earlier, the cost per owner has been very low because of the large number of timeshare owners signed on.  A small price to pay for the opportunity to seek justice.


----------



## pdoff

*there may be time*



Late2Game said:


> As the name says, I am truly late to the game.  Perhaps a better name would be "UnderaRock" 'cause I'm just finding out about all this now. Last Monday to be precise, after opening some two week old mail. That's when I became aware of this crazy scam / fraud being orchestrated by Northwynd. UNBELIEVABLE!!!
> 
> Some Googling brought me quickly to this site I never even new existed!  Great site, but a horrendous amount of information to wade through.  It's absolutely unconscionable what's going on here . . . .a very sad situation for so many people on fixed incomes.  I've spent hours digging through the now-44 pages and get the basic sense of where we are now.
> 
> I WANT OUT!  BUT NOT ON NORTHWYND'S TERMS!!. . . .Having a gun held to my head is one thing, but I'll damned if they'll hold two! (Ie. Reno fee or Cancel fee . . .you get your choice of "bullets")
> 
> Okay. . .enough of the rhetoric.  What's the best path out with the least cost and risk?
> 
> *- are any of these lawyered-up groups likely to succeed in a class action for breach of contract or some such suit?
> 
> - if so, which is the one with the strategy and critical mass needed to prevail?
> 
> - has anyone considered a forensic audit, or the potential for criminal charges?
> *
> We can wait for Northwynd to implode, and it just might, but will that absolve us of the accumulating charges? Something tells me there will be another entity in the wings (Northwynd-2?) waiting to pick up the pieces and we'll be right back to where we are now, with the same 40-year lease obligation and an "agreement" that can be rewritten on a whim.
> 
> Signed . . . .Late2Game (a.k.a. HoppinMad)



We are with Cox/Taylor, and as mentioned before they are working with M. Geldert - they are still taking people in December but not sure after that?
The appeal had to be in by December 15th and they have a few hundred people that are appealing.
Both Attorneys are very communicative and ready to fight - which suits us just fine!

Good luck with your decision


----------



## psvenson

Jjareed said:


> i received a private message from an owner looking for information.  I copied and posted his question and my response below.  Since we don't know who is legitimate I would advise everyone who has an attorney not to give out any confidential information.
> 
> QUOTE=psvenson]I am also a TS owner and would like to get out.  Any info you can provide would be helpful!  ty!



I would contact one of the lawyers that is working the case.  Here is the contact information for the one I'm using.  Since you sent this private I'm wondering if you are trying to get some confidential information and may be working for the other side.  Lets hope not.

T: 778.330.7775   |     F:778.330.7774    |   W: www.geldertlaw..com 
2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 1B4[/QUOTE]

P/Svenson here.  We are legit timeshare owners at Fairmont since 1999.  We also own a timeshare in Okanagan that was purchased through Fairmont Vacations.  Northmont says none of this impacts Okanagan but we don't want to to deal with Northmont ever again.  Does anyone know if this would impact Okanagan in any way? ty!


----------



## Beaverjfw

psvenson said:


> I would contact one of the lawyers that is working the case.  Here is the contact information for the one I'm using.  Since you sent this private I'm wondering if you are trying to get some confidential information and may be working for the other side.  Lets hope not.
> 
> T: 778.330.7775   |     F:778.330.7774    |   W: www.geldertlaw..com
> 2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 1B4



P/Svenson here.  We are legit timeshare owners at Fairmont since 1999.  We also own a timeshare in Okanagan that was purchased through Fairmont Vacations.  Northmont says none of this impacts Okanagan but we don't want to to deal with Northmont ever again.  Does anyone know if this would impact Okanagan in any way? ty![/QUOTE]

The ruling by Justice Loo may have a major impact on time share owners in any resort, although it will take some time to filter down. For now, no immediate impact on Lake Okanogan. the best news is that the project is for sale, now at 10 .5 million dollars. If Northmont sells it you will be done with them and will have a new management company.
See......
http://www.specializedassets.com/properties/lake-okanagan-resort-price-reduced


----------



## Jiggs

*Legacy for Life*

What are the legal options for Legacy for Life owners?  Can we opt for releasing our ownership with the Opt-Out form and pay the $4000.00 to get out of any further costs or assessments?


----------



## JustFacts

Jiggs said:


> What are the legal options for Legacy for Life owners?  Can we opt for releasing our ownership with the Opt-Out form and pay the $4000.00 to get out of any further costs or assessments?



Yes.  The cancellation agreement is for your ownership, regardless of type.


----------



## GypsyOne

Jiggs said:


> What are the legal options for Legacy for Life owners?  Can we opt for releasing our ownership with the Opt-Out form and pay the $4000.00 to get out of any further costs or assessments?



Why are you asking?


----------



## Jiggs

*Jiggs*



GypsyOne said:


> Why are you asking?



I want to find out what I should do.  If the cancellation of our timeshare ownership is available to Legacy for Life owners, that may be what we should do although I hate paying any assessment for this option.  I don't know any other solution unless there is a class-action that I could join to find out what the Justice System can do for owners.  Any suggestions?

Jiggs


----------



## GypsyOne

Jiggs said:


> I want to find out what I should do.  If the cancellation of our timeshare ownership is available to Legacy for Life owners, that may be what we should do although I hate paying any assessment for this option.  I don't know any other solution unless there is a class-action that I could join to find out what the Justice System can do for owners.  Any suggestions?
> 
> Jiggs



Reading previous posts would pretty much bring you up to date.  I really have nothing more to add to what has been said.  Good luck in your decision.


----------



## ClanMac

*Where is anonymous?*

I have been researching what has been going on with Northwynd and the REIT in particular, leading up to, during and after the restructuring; and uncovered a lot of things. Anonymous wrote a piece some time back and I wasn't able to find it on a quick search; however he stated that a lot of information would be made available over the net that would reveal the deceit, deception and likely illegal activity. I have pieced together some and wonder if anonymous or someone else is 'feeding' me.

I have read a lot of what you all post, and with the exception of the superficial crap JustFacts throws out to scare those who are susceptible, I commend your determination and strength. Failure to provide audited financial statements in accord with the standards of timeline that is set forth constitutes a major breach of contract, and in accord with all Securities Commission's standards sends up a major "red flag". The auditors who finally produced statements wrote a disclaimer stating that for the last half of 2010 there was substantial missing data, and they could not rule out fraud, theft etc.

When the restructuring proposal was put in place and accepted by the first mortgage bond holders, Patrick Fitzsimonds (CEO) and Dale Kearns (CFO) were heralded as the management of savior proportions, and interestingly Ricardo John Cavalli was appointed as one of the trustees to NPREIT (virtually responsible for all transactions but focused on paying at least 90% of all revenue to the unit holders (securities swap from first mortgage bonds with a new bridging loan for operating cash and money to pay off the fees associated with bankruptcy protection).

Cavalli made hundreds of thousands in commissions for selling units from the trust, but illegally; and subsequently lost his licence permanently in a disciplinary decision made by the Mutual Fund Dealers Ass'n of Canada (endorsed fully by the Alberta Securities Commission with whom reports must be filed with respect to exempt securities dealings; although exemption status allows for much less disclosure to investors and always involves a much greater degree of risk). Cavalli ripped off vulnerable investors, including the elderly who invested insurance payments, life savings, RRSP's etc. 

Wankel won't communicate with me directly, so he has his spokeswoman do so; and they have made it clear that they are not going to answer questions as to why Fitzsimonds bailed, wher and why Kearns disappeared, and the timing of Wankel's appointment as CFO. Wankel had been previously involved with Big Sky Investments, a company that went bankrupt after a lot of shady investments into defunct and non-producing oil well projects. 

In any event the story just keeps on getting better and better, or perhaps more appropriate, more and more dirty. There was obvious illegal transactions going on with NPREIT and this was behind the missing data that led to the problems and delays with the audited financial statements. Even these, now that they are out there, can be very misleading. Accounting within the trust and what is sent to us with respect to TS accounting is two different things. Olympia trust senior management reported major investment losses into NPREIT and stated they had not received audited financial statements for over six years. They were suing specific individuals with Northwynd, but have since grown quiet; and I found out that some major assets of Olympia were sold to Computershare Canada less than a month ago. Computershare is perhaps the largest of the original first mortgage bond holders.

Tell JustFacts that once in a court of law at any level one is entitled to a defence, and the details of a prepared response; particularly with examination for discovery and the undertakings that compel the production of information is not one Northwynd would like to be involved with. More is to come, but in the interim where is Anonymous?


----------



## condomama

*where is anonymous?*

I remember that persons's comment too, because it sounded intriguing.  I went looking this afternoon, right back to page 1 for their postings.  All Anonymous' postings or imbedded references have been wiped clean.  Maybe they've resurfaced under a new name?


----------



## Late2Game

*Alternate Exit*

ClanMac. . .glad to see someone is doing some investigative spadework here!!  From what you’ve uncovered, it sure sounds like there is more than enough grounds to pursue these bandits!  

My question is this: why isn’t law enforcement involved?  How can we get a formal investigation underway by the appropriate authorities?  Surely this is why we have regulators and enforcement agencies, is it not?

What is legal council saying on this matter?  It would appear timing is critical on this. . .the  lease cancellation offer comes off the table mid-January as I understand it.  So if anything is going to happen it needs to happen quickly, otherwise many leaseholders will be heading to the exits and pay the $4K ransom simply to put this nightmare behind them. . . for good!


----------



## no_more

*don't pay them a cent ..*

Late2game, read post #1089 on page 44 from GypsyOne which provides a concise answer to most of your questions.       

Law enforcement has been involved in this ... and other agencies too ...

A number of people have been performing investigative spadework on this over the past year and this information is in the hands of legal counsel.       

I've said it before, don't pay these people another cent and enable them further.     

and don't assume northwynds mid-January "deadline" means a thing - they change the "rules" all the time to suit themselves ... and have for years at this and the other resorts they used to own ..  look up rancho banderas and costa maya reef resort on the web and read all the complaints from their previously owned resorts in mexico and belize 

for those who haven't done so, contact geldert law in Vancouver or cox taylor in Victoria and get some legal representation, and join the power of a group banding together to fight these people.    both firms are still taking clients and working together.    the retainer fee is very reasonable.


----------



## GypsyOne

Legal council is recommending not to pay 2014 maintenance or either of the extortion fees at this time.  Legal council will be responding to Northmont on behalf of their clients.  An appeal of the Special Case hearing has been registered with the court.  Lawyers will be reporting to their clients again on December 31 with an update.  Reports are that there is strong support from the timeshare owners for an appeal, and they are continuing to sign on more timeshare owners.  

I cannot emphasize enough, sign on with one of the two law firms Geldert Law or Cox Taylor. Yes, our lawyers lost the first round, but the battle is far from over.  From what I heard, our lawyers represented us well and the costs have certainly been reasonable.  But we are up against an unscrupulous company that have $millions of our money to spend on lawyers to extort more money from us. We need support of the owners and the resources that a large group of owners can provide.

Individual owners doing investigative work and reporting their findings is always welcomed.  Every little bit helps.  Some owners have already done considerable research.  Jim Belfry, a timeshare owner who is well qualified, has dedicated a large part of the past summer in the search for truth.  Some of his findings are disturbing, but its one thing to uncover what appears to be malfeasance and another thing to make it stick.  Our lawyers have been able to use or will be able to use many of his findings.  The point is that if some owners are willing to contribute considerable time to the cause, the rest of us should be prepared to contribute toward the legal costs to have our case heard.

To those wondering why the law enforcement authorities are not involved, they will not intervene while a case is before the courts.  If malfeasance is proven, that is the time for law enforcement.  But remember, these characters have been to this rodeo before and they hire big time law firms with our money to keep out of trouble.  

Once again, if you haven't already, sign up and hang tough unless you like being scammed. We can win this case because we have right on our side.


----------



## Late2Game

*Jumping onboard . . .*

Thanks no_more and GypsyOne. This provides somewhat more clarity . . .certainly enough for me to jump onboard with one of the two law firms noted.  

I wonder how many hundreds or thousands of others would do likewise if they knew what was going on behind the scenes.  I suspect there are MANY others like myself just now finding out about this OR may still be unaware.  Such is the problem when nobody has a “list” of leaseholders, other than the Trustee (is that an oxymoron?).

As for the mid-January “deadline”, my understanding is that Northwynd can extend this offer as long as they please, but there’s nothing compelling them to do so.  This will create some urgency for leaseholders seeking some cost certainty and closure on this matter.  In the event our legal arguments do not prevail, we're then all saddled with the renovation fee AND another 30 years of repressive maintenance fees.  Please tell me I'm wrong on this assessment!

.


----------



## GypsyOne

Late2Game said:


> Thanks no_more and GypsyOne. This provides somewhat more clarity . . .certainly enough for me to jump onboard with one of the two law firms noted.
> 
> In the event our legal arguments do not prevail, we're then all saddled with the renovation fee AND another 30 years of repressive maintenance fees.  Please tell me I'm wrong on this assessment!
> 
> .



Sorry, you're not wrong on that assessment.  Or you can pay the cancellation fee, in which case you would have paid, say, $16,000 to acquire the timeshare and another approximately $4,000 for them to take it back.  So you would have paid a total of $20,000 and you no longer have a timeshare.  If anything is more ludicrous in its absurdity, I don't know what it is.


----------



## no_more

Our interests are much better served with legal representation within a group.    

I understood that more clearly after speaking with the lawyers earlier in the process, and before I joined the group.

I asked them a bunch of questions, and came away quite satisfied with the answers, and their subject area knowedge.


----------



## freetime

Been talking to a lawyer that reviewed the case he said that the timeshare owner may have a chance, but keep in mind its not a 100% sure thing, so if we lose what's to stop these crocks on increasing the pay out yet again.


----------



## Spark1

ClanMac said:


> I have been researching what has been going on with Northwynd and the REIT in particular, leading up to, during and after the restructuring; and uncovered a lot of things. Anonymous wrote a piece some time back and I wasn't able to find it on a quick search; however he stated that a lot of information would be made available over the net that would reveal the deceit, deception and likely illegal activity. I have pieced together some and wonder if anonymous or someone else is 'feeding' me.
> 
> I have read a lot of what you all post, and with the exception of the superficial crap JustFacts throws out to scare those who are susceptible, I commend your determination and strength. Failure to provide audited financial statements in accord with the standards of timeline that is set forth constitutes a major breach of contract, and in accord with all Securities Commission's standards sends up a major "red flag". The auditors who finally produced statements wrote a disclaimer stating that for the last half of 2010 there was substantial missing data, and they could not rule out fraud, theft etc.
> 
> When the restructuring proposal was put in place and accepted by the first mortgage bond holders, Patrick Fitzsimonds (CEO) and Dale Kearns (CFO) were heralded as the management of savior proportions, and interestingly Ricardo John Cavalli was appointed as one of the trustees to NPREIT (virtually responsible for all transactions but focused on paying at least 90% of all revenue to the unit holders (securities swap from first mortgage bonds with a new bridging loan for operating cash and money to pay off the fees associated with bankruptcy protection).
> 
> Cavalli made hundreds of thousands in commissions for selling units from the trust, but illegally; and subsequently lost his licence permanently in a disciplinary decision made by the Mutual Fund Dealers Ass'n of Canada (endorsed fully by the Alberta Securities Commission with whom reports must be filed with respect to exempt securities dealings; although exemption status allows for much less disclosure to investors and always involves a much greater degree of risk). Cavalli ripped off vulnerable investors, including the elderly who invested insurance payments, life savings, RRSP's etc.
> 
> Wankel won't communicate with me directly, so he has his spokeswoman do so; and they have made it clear that they are not going to answer questions as to why Fitzsimonds bailed, wher and why Kearns disappeared, and the timing of Wankel's appointment as CFO. Wankel had been previously involved with Big Sky Investments, a company that went bankrupt after a lot of shady investments into defunct and non-producing oil well projects.
> 
> In any event the story just keeps on getting better and better, or perhaps more appropriate, more and more dirty. There was obvious illegal transactions going on with NPREIT and this was behind the missing data that led to the problems and delays with the audited financial statements. Even these, now that they are out there, can be very misleading. Accounting within the trust and what is sent to us with respect to TS accounting is two different things. Olympia trust senior management reported major investment losses into NPREIT and stated they had not received audited financial statements for over six years. They were suing specific individuals with Northwynd, but have since grown quiet; and I found out that some major assets of Olympia were sold to Computershare Canada less than a month ago. Computershare is perhaps the largest of the original first mortgage bond holders.
> 
> Tell JustFacts that once in a court of law at any level one is entitled to a defence, and the details of a prepared response; particularly with examination for discovery and the undertakings that compel the production of information is not one Northwynd would like to be involved with. More is to come, but in the interim where is Anonymous?


This explains why the late Audited Statements. I have been following Conrad MacNeils posts on Owner Association Fairmont Sunchaser Northwynd Resort and there was another post written buy James MacKay on Dec 23. Very interesting reading. All this information will be faxed over to Geldert Law.
I have been reading over my VACATION VILLA LEASE Items 9 and 10.Justice loo can not agree with Northwynd to charge us timeshare owners that have this agreement a one time or more one time fees for capital renovation costs. Item no. 9 and 10 pertain to the breakdown of maintenance fees. Item no 10 (g) REPLACEMENT RESERVE TRUST ACCOUNT pays for Capital RENOVATION COSTS. Just because she is a Supreme Court Judge does not mean she knows everything. Item no. 13 is our cancellation agreement with this VACATION VILLA LEASE.
Item no. 38 Modifications to lease, the lessor reserves the right to adjust or modify this lease from time to time for the benefit of existing and future lessees,provided that any such adjustment or modification will not in any way MATERIALLY PREJUDICE the RIGHTS of existing lessees. If any such adjustment or modification is effected, the lessor will provide notice to each lessee setting out the nature of the adjustment or modification,the reasons giving rise to such adjustment or modification and the effects thereof. I have  not received any notice.


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> This explains why the late Audited Statements. I have been following Conrad MacNeils posts on Owner Association Fairmont Sunchaser Northwynd Resort and there was another post written buy James MacKay on Dec 23. Very interesting reading. All this information will be faxed over to Geldert Law.
> I have been reading over my VACATION VILLA LEASE Items 9 and 10.Justice loo can not agree with Northwynd to charge us timeshare owners that have this agreement a one time or more one time fees for capital renovation costs. Item no. 9 and 10 pertain to the breakdown of maintenance fees. Item no 10 (g) REPLACEMENT RESERVE TRUST ACCOUNT pays for Capital RENOVATION COSTS. Just because she is a Supreme Court Judge does not mean she knows everything. Item no. 13 is our cancellation agreement with this VACATION VILLA LEASE.
> Item no. 38 Modifications to lease, the lessor reserves the right to adjust or modify this lease from time to time for the benefit of existing and future lessees,provided that any such adjustment or modification will not in any way MATERIALLY PREJUDICE the RIGHTS of existing lessees. If any such adjustment or modification is effected, the lessor will provide notice to each lessee setting out the nature of the adjustment or modification,the reasons giving rise to such adjustment or modification and the effects thereof. I have  not received any notice.


I have to add this. Go to google and write in Norton Rose sunchaservillas.
click on and you will go to the front page. Go to the bottom of the page to summary of conclusions item no. 2.  As long term lessees and co-owners of the Resort, all of the timeshare owners, including the developer are responsible for payment of their proportionate share of all costs of administration, maintenance,repair and REPLACEMENT OF THE RESORT. Have you read in our VACATION VILLA LEASE That we have to replace the resort. I sure did not receive a notice that we have to replace the resort as a agreement modification. Nicely done up before it went to the Supreme Court. If it is so easy as this ,why didn't Colin Knight take this option and have us time owners replace his resort? Are we all co-owners now? Maybe JustFacts can answer this?


----------



## ClanMac

I did contact the Commercial Crimes Division of the Calgary RCMP detachment. They know what's going on in a general sense and commend what we are doing and hope that what is eventually uncovered, particularly with civil litigation, will provide them with enough evidence to proceed with a criminal investigation that will lead to charges without too much of a cost. They ruled out a forensic audit at this time. The cops are stretched to the limits with respect to their resources and see this one unfolding, or collapsing; and would rather wait and let it all fall into their hands. What should scare the crap out of any involved with these thieves (except for the primary psychopaths who always perceive they are invulnerable), is that a fraud conviction based on this amount of money and these many victims calls for a mandatory minimal sentence of two years. I have been following some similar cases in Alberta where the sentence is at 10 yrs. or more. Most "snakes in suits" are smart enough to get out before the trail of all the evidence starts licking at their butt; and I know the head guy at Northwynd is very smart. Problem is for him is that so are some of us, and many of my forensic friends in particular. Bring it on and let the fun and games begin. 

I hear what you say about anonymous, but I had an outside contact last night and the word was wait and be patient. There's some good hacking going
down.


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 said:


> I have to add this. Go to google and write in Norton Rose sunchaservillas.
> click on and you will go to the front page. Go to the bottom of the page to summary of conclusions item no. 2.  As long term lessees and co-owners of the Resort, all of the timeshare owners, including the developer are responsible for payment of their proportionate share of all costs of administration, maintenance,repair and REPLACEMENT OF THE RESORT. Have you read in our VACATION VILLA LEASE That we have to replace the resort. I sure did not receive a notice that we have to replace the resort as a agreement modification. Nicely done up before it went to the Supreme Court. If it is so easy as this ,why didn't Colin Knight take this option and have us time owners replace his resort? Are we all co-owners now? Maybe JustFacts can answer this?



All of the timeshare agreements up to about 2009 were Vacation Villa Leases,  timeshare owners were called lessees or tenants, and the lease did not include responsibility for costs of capital improvements.  And in common law and practice, Timeshare lessees would no more be responsible for capital improvements than the lessee of an apartment would be responsible for replacing the roof.  Then about 2009, the "new" owners being faced with a rapidly deteriorating resort and looking for ways to saddle the timeshare lessees with the costs of restoration, cleverly blitzed the timeshare lessees with a plan to convert leases to co-ownership agreements at a cost of about $6,000 to $9,000.  To the new Vacation Interval Agreements they added the phrase "....and to pay the costs of capital improvements that may from time to time be required."  Clearly the original timeshare lessees are not responsible for capital improvements or Northmont would not have seen the need to add the phrase to the new agreements. 

In her ruling, Justice Loo did not distinguish between the original lease agreements and the new "Legacy For Life" co-ownership agreements.  Clearly they are different with different rights and responsibilities.  

Justice Loo is a provincially appointed judge and the province of B.C. does not want a bankrupt major resort on its hands with resulting loss of construction and tourism revenue.  Does that affect a Judge's ruling?  I don't know, but it will be interesting to see how the B.C. Court of Appeal with Federally appointed judges handles the case.  If the case is overturned, it wouldn't be the first time for Justice Loo, and given a dressing down by the Court of Appeal judge for "egregious errors."  (Marianio personal injury case).


----------



## disillusioned

*non payment*

When I paid last years maintenance fee the lady in the office said the maintenance fee had gone up because so many owners had refused to pay it. She said it was difficult to get the money from people. It seemed like there must have been a substantial number of people not paying their fees over several years. I am concerned about every angle of this situation. If they didn't bother going after people then is there a need to worry about not paying either the freedom to choose or the reason to stay amount now? All the people that didn't pay maintenance fees and thought  they had effectively let their timeshare go do they actually still own it and could they still be taken to court? How do we know that we are actually cancelling anything if we decide to pay to get out? Maybe there will be some loophole whereby we are always responsible for whatever they ask of us! My purchase contract says that if I don't make a payment for more than six months the timeshare goes back to them. Why would I be taken to court for being in arrears for "maintenance fees" if in fact I no longer own it as my contract says! I am tired of paying lawyers (because let's face it...everyone involved in this is a lawyer). Does anyone have a response to my diatribe?


----------



## ClanMac

*Read what has already been posted...*

Disillusioned:

As the title of this reply suggests, you will know a whole lot more if you backtrack. There are essentially three groups: those who have panicked and paid the maintenance fees and the money to get out; those who did the former and decided to buy all the Northwynd crap about a new and better resort and paid the reno fees; and those of us who decided "not another penny!"

If you go through the last two to three series of posts/threads you will read about why the contract you signed isn't worth the two-ply it is written on. Failure to provide audited financial statements on the designated timeline is a major breach, and when you add in what is documented evidence of illegal securities transactions by one of the trustees that is responsible for the trust that manages all the money (including yours), how could you possibly be held liable to a contract where the contractor doesn't let you know what is happening to your money and is engaging in illegal activity with it. 

I have been in every court jurisdiction in Alberta, and now several in BC, and it still amazes me how people have anxiety attacks when a legal action is threatened or a lawyer starts pointing fingers and barking. The only thing that separates a lawyer from you is their knowledge of legal jurisprudence and the language in which to operate with it. Trust me!, I have been on the stand civilly and criminally in the most hostile of circumstances, and the bottom line is that if you are standing up for your rights and won't back down you will win.

As Spark1 says (by the way pay particular attention to where he has gone with this) some of us are doing a lot of "spade work" and the more we dig up the dirtier this whole mess gets. You make up your own mind, but at least make sure you are informed and not as disillusioned. Shake the cobwebs clear and look at all this through clear eyes and realize you are not alone.


----------



## Meow

Thank you ClanMac, I needed that. I had a hard time making up my mind about continuing the legal battle. I finally reconfirmed with Cox Taylor at the 11th Hour - this afternoon.  I am still uncertain if this effort will go anywhere.
But, what the Hell!


----------



## Rabbitman56

*Where are we at*

Hi all have not paid anything yet and am a biannual even so received letter about Maintence fee and buy out option?  have read that the BC case has sided with the timeshare at the first level and have heard that some are appealing decision?  how do we get in contact with them?  Can we just wait and see what outcome is bfore making decision to pay anything.


----------



## ClanMac

*You need to read previous posts/threads too!*

Hi Rabbitman56

You have been out of the loop. Please go back and follow at least the last two to three sets of postings under this heading.

There are a lot of us who are not going to pay Northwyn another cent. Check out no_more, GypsyOne, and Spark1. After what you read you decide whether you are with us or not.

Welcome to the show!


----------



## no_more

*Join us*

Hi Rabbitman56, I have been researching this situation for one year - started researching this soon as I got the first set of renovation information from Northmont in Dec 2012.    The more I read, the angrier I got.    

I am absolutely convinced from my experiences dealing with them during and after my timeshare purchase, and from the research and speaking with others, and their lack of cooperation when I started asking questions about the renovation early last year,  the doubling of the maintenance fees with no oversight in less than 5 years, the missing and incomplete audits, that these people are misusing funds and must be stopped.    The more you read and research, the dirtier this becomes.   

You should read the posts on this thread, at least 2-3 pages back as ClanMac mentioned, but the entire thread starting at page 1 if you have the time.    I'd make the time to read the entire thread given the amount of money involved. 

As ClanMac and GypsyOne and I say, don't pay this company a cent, and join one of the legal firms fighting this.   As a biennial even purchaser, you now are expected to cough up around $3000 to Northmont to leave, and even more if you want to stay and deal with their way of doing business.

this company has left a trail of unhappy timeshare owners in Mexico, Hawaii and Belize over the years - all resorts where they jacked up maintenance fees, refused exchanges and forced people to abandon their timeshares.   They are being sued for foreclosure in their Makaha resort in Hawaii which has been closed, and they had to sell the others.    The internet is full of stories about other timeshare owners wanting to and organizing to sue them  in other jurisdictions, but this is difficult to do in Mexico and Belize.

sign up with one of the legal firms representing hundreds of timeshare lessees fighting this, Geldert Law out of Vancouver, or Cox Taylor out of Victoria.   Gelderts retainer is $150.   the two law firms are working together.   The retainer to join the appeal process is a small fraction of the thousands you would have to pay them either to get out, or walk away.   You will also have the security of some legal representation in a group, so that you can make an informed decision as the process unfolds.    

the contact information for both cox taylor and geldert law is on previous pages on this thread.   they also have websites ...

The only thing worse than paying to leave, is paying to stay, as I am convinced that northmont plans to take over the entire resort by forcing all of the timeshare lessees out over time, by jacking up maintenance fees more as they continually shrink the size of the resort, if the BC court allows them to do that.    oh, and possibly another renovation fee in a few years time, if they can possibly scheme up another way to get more money out of your wallet, and force the remaining lessees out.


----------



## Northwynd CC

GypsyOne said:


> Justice Loo is a provincially appointed judge and the province of B.C. does not want a bankrupt major resort on its hands with resulting loss of construction and tourism revenue.  Does that affect a Judge's ruling?  I don't know, but it will be interesting to see how the B.C. Court of Appeal with Federally appointed judges handles the case.



Thank you for this post GypsyOne.  We have struggled to understand why you believe that Justice Loo has been influenced by the BC government, but now we see it is an innocent misconception.

Justice Loo is not a provincially appointed judge.  Superior court judges, like the BC Supreme Court and the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench are federally appointed by Cabinet just like the court of appeal.  

If you would like more information on the Supreme Court of British Columbia, we suggest you review the wikipedia entry which includes this information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_British_Columbia

We hope this helps with your misconception.  We will add it to our list as Misconception #20 to help others.


----------



## GypsyOne

Northwynd CC said:


> Justice Loo is not a provincially appointed judge.  Superior court judges, like the BC Supreme Court and the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench are federally appointed by Cabinet just like the court of appeal.
> 
> We hope this helps with your misconception.  We will add it to our list as Misconception #20 to help others.



Appears my original research was in error, probably because I equated B.C. Supreme Court with Provincial Court.  Thanks for the correction.

I presume because you did not take issue with the rest of my post, you agree.    

ie.  "All of the timeshare agreements up to about 2009 were Vacation Villa Leases, timeshare owners were called lessees or tenants, and the lease did not include responsibility for costs of capital improvements. And in common law and practice, Timeshare lessees would no more be responsible for capital improvements than the lessee of an apartment would be responsible for replacing the roof. Then about 2009, the "new" owners being faced with a rapidly deteriorating resort and looking for ways to saddle the timeshare lessees with the costs of restoration, cleverly blitzed the timeshare lessees with a plan to convert leases to co-ownership agreements at a cost of about $6,000 to $9,000. To the new Vacation Interval Agreements they added the phrase "....and to pay the costs of capital improvements that may from time to time be required." Clearly the original timeshare lessees are not responsible for capital improvements or Northmont would not have seen the need to add the phrase to the new agreements."

To my way of thinking, the preceding is a far more important point than some general speculation about whether the Justice may or may not be biased.

Since you would "like to help others," would you like to post your supposed list of 20 Misconceptions.  Of course that would also open up the list to fact checking, but I'm sure that's not a problem because you are interested in factual information.


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

*To add to the confusion*

Looks like  someone from Sunchaser, Northwynd or wherever has listed their 20 mis conceptions on another thread.. Makes for a long night of reading and answers some questions but also creates a whole lot more.. you need to go back to the Canadian Forums and find the posts from Sunchaser customer service. As always the road to information  on this is a muddy messy trail. Deadline sucks and more leverage being applied. if the poster of the Sunchaser thread reads this a roadmap may have been helpful.. Also how do the number of cancellations at this time compare to the number choosing to stay.


----------



## GypsyOne

Rider Nation Rocks said:


> Looks like  someone from Sunchaser, Northwynd or wherever has listed their 20 mis conceptions on another thread.. Makes for a long night of reading and answers some questions but also creates a whole lot more.. you need to go back to the Canadian Forums and find the posts from Sunchaser customer service. As always the road to information  on this is a muddy messy trail. Deadline sucks and more leverage being applied. if the poster of the Sunchaser thread reads this a roadmap may have been helpful.. Also how do the number of cancellations at this time compare to the number choosing to stay.



I just found the Northwynd post on the Canadian Forums, but haven't read it yet.


----------



## Northwynd CC

GypsyOne said:


> I presume because you did not take issue with the rest of my post, you agree.
> 
> ie.  "All of the timeshare agreements up to about 2009 were Vacation Villa Leases, timeshare owners were called lessees or tenants, and the lease did not include responsibility for costs of capital improvements. And in common law and practice, Timeshare lessees would no more be responsible for capital improvements than the lessee of an apartment would be responsible for replacing the roof. Then about 2009, the "new" owners being faced with a rapidly deteriorating resort and looking for ways to saddle the timeshare lessees with the costs of restoration, cleverly blitzed the timeshare lessees with a plan to convert leases to co-ownership agreements at a cost of about $6,000 to $9,000. To the new Vacation Interval Agreements they added the phrase "....and to pay the costs of capital improvements that may from time to time be required." Clearly the original timeshare lessees are not responsible for capital improvements or Northmont would not have seen the need to add the phrase to the new agreements."
> 
> To my way of thinking, the preceding is a far more important point than some general speculation about whether the Justice may or may not be biased.


Thank you for your response GypsyOne.  We appreciate the discussion.

However, please note that not responding is not the same as agreeing or not taking issue.  Healthy discussion is not whack-a-mole.  If someone pops up with a misconception and we do not bonk it on the head it simply means we haven’t gotten to it yet or did not think it was as significant as others.

The same is true of Justice Loo.  Her ruling was 51 pages long but could have easily been over 100 if she addressed all of the issues that were raised by the delinquent owners.  Unfortunately, that has resulted in misconceptions because people have looked at the 51 pages and said “she didn’t address this so it must be true” when in fact she did address it at the hearing, but just chose not to specifically write it in the reasons because the evidence was already overwhelming.

A great example of this is the audited financial statements.  These were brought up by the delinquent owners and dismissed by Justice Loo because the argument is without merit.  

As for your specific issue, it is a misconception that was specifically addressed by Justice Loo in lines 88 to 95 of her judgment.  However, we’ll add a bit more information.

Our position has been and continues to be that the owners are responsible for all costs of the resort and that the definition of costs is at the beginning of the cost clause of the agreements which say “the Lessee/co-owner shall be responsible for his proportionate share of all administration, maintenance and repair costs and replacement costs with respect to the project and the refurbishment of the villas, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following:”.  

The remainder of the clause, including the part that you refer to that has changed over time, is nothing more than examples of the types of costs and is not binding.  That is the effect of the phrase “without limiting the foregoing.”

Justice Loo confirmed this position specifically stating it at line 88 where she said “Although the owner’s characterization of the upgrades as extending “well beyond regular maintenance” may be accurate, the owner’s contractual liability is not limited to payment of only maintenance costs.  Under the terms of the agreements, the owners are obligated to pay operating costs as well as replacement and refurbishment costs.   Operating costs are defined to include “all administrative, maintenance, repair and replacement costs.”

We thought this issue of “capital costs” was put to bed by Justice Loo.  As it has not, we will add it as misconception #22.


----------



## Northwynd CC

Rider Nation Rocks said:


> Looks like  someone from Sunchaser, Northwynd or wherever has listed their 20 mis conceptions on another thread.. Makes for a long night of reading and answers some questions but also creates a whole lot more.. you need to go back to the Canadian Forums and find the posts from Sunchaser customer service. As always the road to information  on this is a muddy messy trail. Deadline sucks and more leverage being applied. if the poster of the Sunchaser thread reads this a roadmap may have been helpful.. Also how do the number of cancellations at this time compare to the number choosing to stay.



Hello Rider Nation Rocks.

Thank you for your inquiry.  We will do our best to provide you a short answer.

We characterize this situation as a simple issue with a lot of “white noise” because of the history of the resort.

Under any contract, there are only two questions:

1)	What does the contract say?
2)	Has either party breached the contract?

Justice Loo dealt with #1 by providing everyone three very important conclusions:

1)	The timeshare owners are responsible for all costs of operating the resort including the renovation fee.
2)	The contracts do not entitle the timeshare owners a right of termination which means any cancellation must be on terms acceptable to Northmont.
3)	Our responsibility is to act reasonably in the operation of the resort and the renovation plan is a reasonable plan.

That is all really simple, but for those delinquent owners who are unhappy with the answer, it leaves question #2 which is where it gets messy because of two major misconceptions:

1)	Any breach is a repudiary breach: We address this as Misconception #3 and recommend everyone read it.  Deliquent owners seem to be turning over every rock for dirt and looking in every closet for a skeleton incorrectly believing that any “gotcha” lets them walk away, but that is not how the law works.  Earlier in this thread, there was even a suggestion we’ve done something wrong because we emailed an owner their statement because they are "supposed to get it in the mail."

2)	Northmont is responsible for Fairmont’s actions: We address this as Misconception #9 and recommend everyone read it as well.  

Let us deal with Fairmont for a minute because it is the lightning rod.  We are not here to defend Fairmont.  On the contrary, our unitholders are probably as mad as or madder at Fairmont than you are (see Misconception #4).  Fairmont did not just put you in this situation, it put all of the employees and it put our 800 unitholders in it too.  Unfortunately, Fairmont went bankrupt.

We are all trying to clean up the situation that was put in our lap.  Nobody “deserves” this situation, but that doesn’t change the circumstances.  Our job is to make the best of a bad situation and we are trying to do that.  Being mad at Fairmont or worse, being mad at us because being mad at Fairmont is futile, only makes the situation worse.

This is why we announced the renovation a year ago.  We realized many owners would need to go through a period of being mad, then understanding, and then hopefully accepting.  We hoped five months would be long enough for that to happen and it did for most owners.  We believe 90% of our owners had accepted (not liked, we don’t expect everyone to like it) the situation in May.  However, many wanted confirmation that our interpretation of the contract was valid before making a decision.

From our experience talking to thousands of owners, those who are still in the mad phase remain there because they cannot get past Fairmont’s actions.  We believe they are mad at us as surrogates for Fairmont.

Back to the issue at hand.  We have not seen any evidence of wrongdoing by Northmont which is no surprise to us because we do not have any skeletons.  We may not be operating the resort perfectly, but no company is perfect.  Justice Loo confirmed our responsibility is to act reasonably and we have and will happily stand up in court, in front of the media, or in response to any owner stating we have done so without hesitation.

Delinquent owners who continue to fight this now have to win three, yes three, legal battles if they want to succeed in getting out of their contract.  They have to win the appeal.  Then they have to win the lawsuit when Northmont sues them for default, and then they have to win Northmont’s appeal of that suit.

In each case, they have to convince a judge or panel of judges that Justice Loo of the Supreme Court of BC was wrong, Justice Romaine of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench was wrong, and that Northmont is in breach of contract at a repudiary, not just curable, level.

While we do not think this has any chance of succeeding because we think both judges were correct and do not think we are in breach of contract, even the most militant detractor cannot believe the likelihood of victory is more than 50%.  

You have to ask yourself if spending three years (because it will probably take at least that long to fight) and whatever amount in legal fees it takes, is worth it for a fight that has a very low chance of success and very high cost (three years of maintenance fees and interest, the renovation fee, and legal costs) of failure.  

Also, please do not take our word for it.  Someone will probably say, and correctly, that we benefit from not fighting.  We do and we don't hide that fact.  Everyone loses in unnecessary legal battles except the lawyers, but there is no doubt we are conflicted.  Don't take our word for it, or the word of any other conflicted party.  The best way to answer the question is to ask an independent advisor/friend/family member/lawyer.  Ask someone who has no vested interest in the outcome to give you an honest opinion free of the emotion of the situation.

We apologize; this did not turn out short at all.  However, we hope it helps.


----------



## Hotpink

*Misconceptions*

I just found the Northwynd post on the Canadian Forums, but haven't read it yet.  

Have looked but can't seem to locate it .Would love to read it; can you point the direction Thanks


----------



## ERW

I am actually quite pleased to see Northwynd here in this forum. Helps to clear a lot of misunderstanding. You may not agree with their approach or opinions but at least there is some forum for hearing Northwynd's side of the story which is every bit as important as the lessee's and owner's opinions. 

Perhaps now is a good time to suggest a lessee/owners group be formed to work with Northwynd versus fighting with them? I am sure there are some that will classify me as a puppet, but after all is said and done, the only real opinions to date on this forum have been those of owners/lessees who feel they are being exploited. That is understandable. Reading some of the Northwynd items has for me clarified some of the issues. To most people here (including myself) $3000.00+ is a very large sum of money not to mention the investment we as individuals have made in our timeshares. I am still on the fence about staying or leaving but will review much of the Northwynd info over the weekend and try to make a decision sooner than later.


----------



## no_more

Hotpink, go up to the very top of this page, you will see a chain that says 

Timeshare user group forums - > Regions -> Canada

click on Canada hotlink and you will see that Northwynd CC has started a new thread with 22-23 posts ...


----------



## Northwynd CC

no_more said:


> Hotpink, go up to the very top of this page, you will see a chain that says
> 
> Timeshare user group forums - > Regions -> Canada
> 
> click on Canada hotlink and you will see that Northwynd CC has started a new thread with 22-23 posts ...



Thank you no_more.


----------



## Spark1

Northwynd CC said:


> Thank you for this post GypsyOne.  We have struggled to understand why you believe that Justice Loo has been influenced by the BC government, but now we see it is an innocent misconception.
> 
> Justice Loo is not a provincially appointed judge.  Superior court judges, like the BC Supreme Court and the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench are federally appointed by Cabinet just like the court of appeal.
> 
> If you would like more information on the Supreme Court of British Columbia, we suggest you review the wikipedia entry which includes this information:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_British_Columbia
> 
> We hope this helps with your misconception.  We will add it to our list as Misconception #20 to help others.



When is Northwynd sending out new agreements to us vacation villa lease owners because i do not see a cancellation part in this lease and i do not see where Northwynd can charge a huge lump sum all at once for renovations. Can Northwynd do this again next year?Do timeshare owners have any rights at all or are we suppose to shut up and just pay. In this new agreement that you will be sending out will you be listing what breaches are and will you be explaining to us that there is no way Northwynd can breach us but us lease holders can breach them. I look at this lease agreement of ours and realize that it is obsolete and it is not what we expected and i have to be careful here because that is another breach. Northwynd feels that we lease holders that hire lawyers to protect our rights are delinquents and they have everything covered. They have the money,they hire the biggest lawyer firm,the best accountants,they have justice loo on their side and the Alberta government on their side and they question us about trusting them. I said before that the Alberta Government should quite wasting the Alberta tax payers money and what a waste writing off 44 million dollars for a resort that is located in BC. Who did Colin know in Govt? The next stupid thing they did is give 800 broke bond holders a licence to take over the resort. Just because they are in government does't mean they are the brightest light bulbs on the planet. They waste the tax payers money. I said this before,i do not invest with  BBB F rated companies but our Alberta Government does. Northwynd you could save a lot of money buy getting rid of us smart lease holders that do not want anything to do with you. Your reputation is following you.


----------



## no_more

*great comment by spark1*

"Do timeshare owners have any rights at all or are we suppose to shut up and just pay ".    that comment from spark1 puts it best and is the crux of many people's concerns, including mine.  

my concerns, and why I chose to join one of the legal firms appealing this ...

1.   we had no input on the scope, cost or timing of the renovation - it was sprung on us with no warning a year ago, and tight deadlines to decide with little information.  and then when we asked questions we were stonewalled.  I have no doubt the renovation is genuine based on what I've seen on the website and heard from people visiting the resort , but ...

2.  the work was not bid out to multiple contractors via a request for proposal, so how do we know the work is being done for a competitive price.   there are no controls or oversight on what northwynd is doing ... with my professional background and experience, I can only think the worst in the absence of information ... 

3.   the controls and oversight by owners / lessees over northwynds operation are poor - an annual audit published within 3 months after the calendar year is over, I'm sorry that's not an effective control.  

4.  no owners association in place to represent our interests and foster understanding between both parties

5.   the choose to leave contract is so complicated, why ?  can't it just say an unconditional release of all obligations by both parties in exchange for a fee?   am I missing something here ?
Northwynd, comments please ?

6.   no clarity on how the resort downsizing would work, which buildings would be remediated, what are the criteria for selection ... would this come out in the next petition to the court ?
Northwynd, comments please ?

7.   how are the interests of the bondholders balanced against the interests of the timeshare lessees / owners ?  It sure looks like we are being used to fund improvements to the resort and increase its value, for the benefit of the bondholders.   and ... if I was a bondholder, I'd sure be wanting some return on my original investment which went into bankruptcy proceedings.   
Northwynd, comments here ?

and ... another bankruptcy is not going make the problem go away - I think most people with some business knowledge knows that ... somebody will own the resort ...

sincerely, no_more


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Repost from June*

Now that someone from Northwynd is responding, I would like to hear a response to a previous post I made back in June. A lot of us owners see through your intentions and can only equate that the driving factor is greed and trying to squeeze money out of us owners of time. If greed is not the underlying factor as so many of us on here feel it is, please answer the following questions:
1. Why not default the automatic 15% "management fee" from all funds received for the renovation project so that the owners are seeing each and every dollar going towards the renovation project rather than 85 cents on the dollar?
2. Why not let just let whoever wants to walk away, walk away at no cost or penalty? It would be their loss, downsize the resort for those that want to pay for the renovation and the investors of Northmont could do as they please with the remaining inits.
3. How can you justify charging an interest rate of 26.82% for those who have not paid the renovation project for a project that may take 5 to 10 years to complete? Some of us owners bought in to either Hillside or Riverview units and are quite content with the shape and condition of these units. Only two units have been renovated in the original Riverside units and another has started. My only answer to your actions thus far is...... Greed!



fairmontlvr said:


> I think a lot of people on here are failing to see the business side of things.
> 
> How did Fairmont Resort Properties prosper to where they were? It was the vision to become big, and bigger and biggest. The money and margins are not in managing a complex, the money and margins are in growth and sales of timeshares. Or coming up with schemes for the existing owners to squeeze more money out of them.
> 
> They sold timeshares to people promising them a holiday opportunity at a fraction of a cost  of ownership. The profits and margins were great as long as they could continue selling to these people. Hmmm how can we squeeze a few extra dollars out of these people? How about sign them up to something called a Platinum Club, and let them think they are getting preferential treatment and can book resorts or houseboats within the Fairmont chain without having to use II.
> 
> How does Fairmont Resort Properties continue to make money as the timeshares fill in? How about something called a management fee, sure that is it, a management fee of 15% of all the Maintenance fees collected, skim this off the top, great idea!
> 
> Next, as the property is filling in, the potential buyers are drying up, the realization that the Riverview project, although fresh and new, is quite the distance from the Rec center and the waterpark/slides up at Hillside and people are not really buying into the new Riverview project, guess we scrap the idea of another Riverview building as initially planned.
> 
> How about set up another company called FRPL Finance, we will use our collateral in our property thus far to obtain additional funds to continue our growth and develop other projects in Mexico, Hawaii, Belize and so on, we will grow and grow, because there is little money in managing a resort we want more money and the money is in the growth of other resorts. Darn the banks will not loan us money on our collateral, because we are committed to our owners that they have the right to use these places and the banks don't want to end up owning a timeshare resort. How about offer large rate of return to investors?
> 
> Things begin to turn, the economy drops, how do we now get more money? Wait, how about changing the idea of the 40 year leases to something called perpetual ownership, we will call it Legacy for Life, we will switch them over to RCI and use the point system to win them over. Great, another $5k to $8K from these people.
> 
> Things are not going according to plan, we cant pay our bills, or pay those creditors which just happen to be many of the original owners of FRP, lets declare bankrupcy, no assets, and change company names and have a plan in place to try and get our money back. Lets call it Northwynd.
> 
> Oh oh, we have raised the maintenance fees too high, people are bailing, they are realizing that the economics of owning are not as rosy as when we first hooked them. People are not paying their maintenance fees, people are dumping them on ebay for $1. What are we going to do? Hey wait a minute how about a scheme to charge them a one time fee, promising to renovate some of the units, and for those that want out, well heck lets just charge them also to get out. One way or another we will get more money. If we have to drop half our inventory, so be it, but perhaps with the inventory we drop, we can sell these units, or maybe level some of them and build new and start all over again. Afterall, that is where the money is.
> 
> You see, it is a business, Fairmont Reosrt Properties or Northwynd  are trying to do nothing more than any other business, and that is to make money. As much money as possible. Somehow, I do think the majority of people have caught on to their scheme, and are seeing through them for what they truly are.
> Greed is fine but you have to keep the tribe happy. I think this tribe of owners has spoken and you are seeing the results.


----------



## disillusioned

*I too have read all the posts*



disillusioned said:


> When I paid last years maintenance fee the lady in the office said the maintenance fee had gone up because so many owners had refused to pay it. She said it was difficult to get the money from people. It seemed like there must have been a substantial number of people not paying their fees over several years. I am concerned about every angle of this situation. If they didn't bother going after people then is there a need to worry about not paying either the freedom to choose or the reason to stay amount now? All the people that didn't pay maintenance fees and thought  they had effectively let their timeshare go do they actually still own it and could they still be taken to court? How do we know that we are actually cancelling anything if we decide to pay to get out? Maybe there will be some loophole whereby we are always responsible for whatever they ask of us! My purchase contract says that if I don't make a payment for more than six months the timeshare goes back to them. Why would I be taken to court for being in arrears for "maintenance fees" if in fact I no longer own it as my contract says! I am tired of paying lawyers (because let's face it...everyone involved in this is a lawyer). Does anyone have a response to my diatribe?



I  have read everything from the beginning and many other items as well so I am a little offended at having my questions swept under the carpet like they don't matter. 
Does the get-out contract actually set us free or does it still keep us obligated in some way? Someone posted awhile back that they showed the cancellation document to their lawyer and was told it was ambiguous.  Is that true?
The fact that the trustees and Northwynd are in fact dishonest and crook-like does not mean that they will not get what they demand. That is how big money is made in North America. The whole timeshare business is crooked. I think any judge will say "If you are stupid enough to buy a timeshare you will have to pay whatever they want." There really isn't agreement that helps us owners. They are crooks but according to the legalese they can do whatever they want. They might be proven to be embezzlers and poor managers but according to our contracts that aren't "worth the two-ply paper it is written on" we are responsible for whatever they decide we are responsible for. The only robbers that go to jail in our country are the ones that rob 7-11's! To explain further, a contractor can really make a mess of your home but as long as he put an effort in he is not responsible for how poor a job he did because who can judge one person's ability against another? Everyone has different standards. At least he tried!
Can clanman address whether the cancellation actually cancels my involvement with Northwynd? Can he tell me if those owners who let there timeshare go back to Northwynd over the last few are actually free or could Northwynd take them to court when and/or if they take others for failure to pay? Thank you


----------



## disillusioned

*sorry! I misread... To ClanMac*



disillusioned said:


> I  have read everything from the beginning and many other items as well so I am a little offended at having my questions swept under the carpet like they don't matter.
> Does the get-out contract actually set us free or does it still keep us obligated in some way? Someone posted awhile back that they showed the cancellation document to their lawyer and was told it was ambiguous.  Is that true?
> The fact that the trustees and Northwynd are in fact dishonest and crook-like does not mean that they will not get what they demand. That is how big money is made in North America. The whole timeshare business is crooked. I think any judge will say "If you are stupid enough to buy a timeshare you will have to pay whatever they want." There really isn't agreement that helps us owners. They are crooks but according to the legalese they can do whatever they want. They might be proven to be embezzlers and poor managers but according to our contracts that aren't "worth the two-ply paper it is written on" we are responsible for whatever they decide we are responsible for. The only robbers that go to jail in our country are the ones that rob 7-11's! To explain further, a contractor can really make a mess of your home but as long as he put an effort in he is not responsible for how poor a job he did because who can judge one person's ability against another? Everyone has different standards. At least he tried!
> Can clanman address whether the cancellation actually cancels my involvement with Northwynd? Can he tell me if those owners who let there timeshare go back to Northwynd over the last few are actually free or could Northwynd take them to court when and/or if they take others for failure to pay? Thank you



Sorry. I misread your name. I mean to ClanMac


----------



## Hotpink

*Misconception # 10*

Quote from Northwynd  Misconception #10: Northwynd has “done this before” at other resorts.

"_This misconception is an unfortunate result of Northwynd’s foreclosure of Fairmont’s assets. It is true that when Northwynd was created it became owner of Fairmont’s other resorts. It is also true Northwynd no longer has any real involvement in some of those resorts.

However, each of those resorts had their own specific issues resulting from Fairmont’s ownership that have nothing to do with Sunchaser or its operation_."

Unfortunately we will never know the actual story of what occurred at the time share resorts in question.

Calling the reactions of the owners of a time share lease a simple issue of “white noise” is an insult.  The history of the resort with regards to Mexico, Belize, & Hawaii in not simply “white noise”.  I would call these skeletons. when the wind blows hanging skeletons make white noise  
 Here is part of the decision made by Justice Romaine 

“It was also noteworthy that the roughly 5000 registered time-share
owners in the Fairmont Group would not be affected by the offer
and would continue to have the rights granted to them under their
original timeshare agreements (other than with respect to certain
alleged inducements or undocumented additional rights that were
repudiated during the course of CCAA proceedings). Many of the
full time employees would be retained by Northwynd;

(c) Timeshare operations and the management and administration of
the Fairmont, Lake Okanagan, Belize and Mexico resorts operated
by Fairmont would also continue without interruption; and
(d) Northwynd would take the responsibility for the repair of a key
facility which required foundation and structural repairs expected
to cost more than 2.5 million in excess of funds currently held in a
trust account on behalf of timeshare owners. The repair was
essential for the continued use of that facility.” *Unclear as to what facility is specified*With Lake Okanagan now on the sales block Northwynd is down to just one (1) Cash Cow and the udder may be shriveling. 

Our 1998 Contract does not make us responsible for renovations unless you have changed it without our agreement and knowledge .  Thanks to the decision by Justice Loo, we have now gone with a lawyer.  This is a definite breach in our contract.
Gee, where is the reserve fund? There was one in 2002/2003 now there is none-another breach of contract??
As to going through a period of “being mad”, please be aware of the saying “don’t get mad, get even”.  You also state that we have a low chance of success - not buying that, It has used oats in it. 
I do hope you cure your own misconceptions, do you really think that you will retain a position, after Northmont goes under?  Fairmont = Northmont, same players.
My understanding is that there is a owners group and they have not had concerns addressed and there has been little reply to have an open dialog.  I would love to talk to the thousands you claim to have talked to, send us the list.
As you have stated - no company is perfect, however Northwynd is not on the scale at least not with the BBB.  
Why are you now posting?  Does it have something to do with your Jan 15th deadline? 
In the words of Uncle Remus is Brer Fox ( Northwynd ) trying to make a Tarbaby( BAIT/ Scare tactics)  to catch Brer Rabbit (Lessees)  Remember Brer Fox ultimately lost
I have no misconception concerning who has signing authority on our bank account.


----------



## Hotpink

*CCAA proceedings*

Attached is the link to the site regarding the sale to Northwynd of the Fairmount properties

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb_new/public/qb/2003-NewTemplate/qb/Civil/2012/2012abqb0039.pdf

Items related to money that Northwynd has not directly addressed are in sections 6 ,11,16, 18 and 24( e) section 11 is as follows

"_The Northwynd REIT proposed to distribute at least 90% of the net income generated by these assets to holders of trust units, as well as proposing a return of capital distributions as cash became available. Bondholders were advised that, if the Fairmont Group’s projections were correct, they potentially 
could recover cash distributions over the following five years equal to or
greater than their original investment_."

I take that to mean that the Northwynd Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) would pay to their investors about $40-$50 mil( accurate numbers are unclear in this document)from net proceeds within five years from only net proceeds. 

Now this is going to be done while they collect about 40 Mil in renovation fees and or walk away fees plus maintenance fees ( lets say 10,000 lessees x $1000.00 = $1,000,000.00 per year from us lessees in 2013/2014 and continue to pay for day to day operations plus a 15 % management fee and create a reserve fund as they are required to do by my contract and they will shrink the resort while accomplishing this. Maybe the 10.15 mil from Lake Okanagan sale can accomplish a stop gap to pay some of the obligation to their investors or whatever. Then they will have to pay a collection agency a very high fee to try and collect unpaid fees from us delinquent lessees on top of regular expenses 
I wish I could conjure up the faith to put my trust and money into this dream .
And I thought Ponzi schemes were complex.  WOW Give the CFO an A+ in creative accounting.


----------



## Late2Game

*14,500 Fools?*

An interesting flurry of posts over the past few days. . . amazing what a deadline can do!

So which door will *YOU* choose?  Door #1, Door #2 or Door #3?

*Door #1*: Pay the renovation fee and stay obligated to Northwynd for another 2 or 3 decades, allowing them to rape and pillage as they see fit. Remember, there’s no termination provisions in your lease; they can modify the terms of the lease as they see fit; they will most certainly continue to escalate maintenance fees forever; and who would rule out the possibility of future cash calls for renovations and enhancements at your cost?

*Door #2*: Pay the cancellation fee and put this thing behind you, for once and for all. But does this really rid you of all future obligations? And if so, at what cost?  The costs are every bit as ambiguous as those cited in the original lease document.  "_any outstanding balances related to the VIA, including *but not limited to* outstanding maintenance fees,interest, and any payments related to acquisition of the VIA on a promissory note or security agreement, but specifically excepting balances related to the Renovation Project Maintenance Fee, *with the total amount to be determined by Northmont* concurrent with execution of this Agreement_.”  (emphasis mine)

*Door #3*: Let this mess go to the courts for settlement.  The first round went in favor of Northwynd, but appeals are routinely filed, heard and WON in courts across Canada!  I believe the courts would readily see through the shady business dealings and deception of Fairmont/Northwynd and rule in favor of the leaseholders.  We 14,500 leaseholders did NOT sign up for 40 years of booking hassles, ongoing grief, and ever-rising maintenance fees.  ONLY A FOOL WOULD!  We signed up for 40 years assurance of a quiet, relaxing vacation at a well-maintained resort, at a fraction of the cost of staying elsewhere in a hotel . . . .THAT is what was represented to us!

So, which door will you choose?


(*Note to Northwynd*: perhaps if you tightened up some of the language in your cancellation agreement you’d find a bit more appetite amongst leaseholders for that option.  The way it stands now, many are very reluctant to simply write you a blank cheque.)

.


----------



## no_more

*promises promises made during restructuring proceedings*

in their restructuring proposal from 2010, Northmont, aside from the co-ownership scheme legacy for life, also discussed selling off unsold non-prime vacation weeks to existing owners, and building 2 new buildings (8200 and 8300) next to riverview, which they had approval for. all this was estimated to raise $40+ million, obviously they have fallen far short of that.

this proposal is found in the 6th report to the monitor on the Ernst and young website ... 

I quote here from page 15 of this report ...

Northwynd's principal capital and revenue initiatives and strategies include:
• Maximize revenues from the Remainder / Conversion Program
• Monetize the two 24 condominium buildings at Lake Okanagan Resort. One will be developed as normal course time share inventory. The second will be monetized through the normal course sale of whole ownership strata interests
• Monetize existing time share inventory at Lake Okanagan Resort and Fairmont Vacation Villas
Commence development and monetization of development lands at Lake Okanagan Resort
• Develop and sell new time share product on existing development lands at Fairmont Vacation Villas. This would be financed through normal course project financing
• Develop an expanded marina at Lake Okanagan Resort, financed through pre-sale of marina slips

If successfully executed, Northwynd management expects the Northwynd Plan to produce a cumulative payout to the Northwynd Unitholders of $43.6 million over the forecast period as shown in the following analysis.

end quote ...
hmmm ... these numbers sound pretty close to HotPink's numbers in the previous post .. and Ponzi scheme analogy works for me ...


... the plans listed above in the monitor's report didn't raise near the projected amount of funds , so next onto to the renovation plan to extract more funds from the timeshare lessees, and get some money to the trust unit holders ... and eventually take over the entire resort by forcing the remaining timeshare holders out after you have shrunk the resort ... once you have made them pay for the privilege likely with another "freedom to choose" program

I'll keep beating this drum - don't pay these folks another cent ... only thing worse than paying to leave, is paying to stay, cause I have mapped out your future above ... contact Geldert Law in Vancouver or Cox Taylor in Victoria and join the people fighting this ...


----------



## disillusioned

*freedom to choose*



Spark1 said:


> Save your money. The cancellation form they are using is not a cancellation. I  showed service  Alberta this form and they read it and told me that this will not cancel you until they decide and you will pay until they turn you loose.
> Mr Wankel said 7000 timeshare owner paid cancellation or reno fees. So 2805 paid reno and 4195 paid cancellation. So cancellation money goes to the bond holders and 15% goes off the reno money. there is not a lot left to do the 40million + reno job. The other 7500 should save their money because this reno plan will never collect 40 million to complete this major reno job.


Spark1 do you still feel the same way about the freedom to choose option? Is it a no win situation?
Can anyone explain to me what happens when you don't pay and it goes to collections and I continue to refuse to pay? If it goes to court and I'm sued and I don't pay it, what will happen?
Thanks.
PS Will I eventually have to pay?! If not now, later and much more? Is it inevitable?!


----------



## ClanMac

*Disillusioned and more!*

Sorry if you felt insulted by my suggestion that you read the posts/threads disillusioned; I honestly thought you had missed some things, and your questions were not taken lightly. The Cancellation Agreement Northmont has made available is complicated in some areas, and as I understand one lawyer who reviewed it referred to it as ambiguous. That would imply that it is not clear and subject to interpretation. Northmont has definitely set it up so that if one part is deemed to be unenforceable it does not render the remainder so, and in signing the agreement you will no longer be able to take any further action against them for virtually anything; including that which may arise from third party action (including litigation). It does fairly clearly state that with full payment of the cancellation fees and any outstanding maintenance fees and accrued interest, and your sigaiture, Northmont agrees to cancel and no longer hold you liable to the conditions of your lease/ownership/Vacation Interval Agreement. I can't see them coming back at you afterwards unless they claim that billing for next year's maintenance fees and/or other expenses were to be included and were not paid. You can take care of this by contacting Vacation Ownership Services and having them state in writing what it is specifically that you owe (an e-mail would do it). I can't remember what other questions you may have posed, but I will go back and take a look. In a nutshell I think they will be happy to take your money and run, and when it is all said and done I don't think they will be around long enough to do much of anything.

It is very interesting to see posts from Northmontcc. I did make the statement that the contract wasn't worth the two ply it was written on, and regardless of what arguments are being made with respect to what constitutes a voidable breach, and Justice Loo addressed all that was necessary with respect to such; it doesn't hold any water. Same as for all the bull implying that Northwynd isn't responsible for what Fairmont left them with. It was a name change with virtually the same management, and a restructuring proposal designed to pay back the debt owed the first mortgage bond holders. There was not only illegal dealings within the trust after the so called restructuring, there were a lot of Debt Security Transactions that were not sufficiently asset-backed that could withstand the dilution that occurred with an unlimited amount of LP units being sold to investors who were misinformed and told they could expect a 12% rate of return over three years through to 2013. NPREIT was clearly in violation of the Alberta Securities Commission's regulations. A good example is 60.2(a), which states that it is necessary to maintain books and records...necessary to record properly its business transactions and financial affairs and the transactions it executes on behalf of others. Trustees of NPREIT have the power to effect payments and distributions from the trust to unit holders. Where do you think the money is coming from? Other than from investors who did not informed of the dwindling asset value, losses and accrued debt, who else??? 

There is a lot more, however I find it interesting that NorthmontCC, JustFacts or whomever else wants to address these concerns aren't talking about these issues. You want to talk about what constitutes an acceptable breach and illegal/criminal behaviour by those representing the contractor in the 'same breath', please fill me in Mr. Northwynd; I would like to be amused. I am talking about a different type of Justice proceeding; and that doesn't include what the Securities Commissions and Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada might want to take a look at!


----------



## Northwynd CC

We have reviewed the posts from the weekend and will do our best to address the concerns raised.

For the most part, the posts are the expected “yeah but” rehashing items specifically addressed or slightly altering them and confirming Misconception #19.  

To address specific items:

Spark1 raised the suggestion of the “Alberta government” making a bad decision by allowing Northwynd to be created.  Firstly, this is the same as Misconception #20.  The CCAA is a federal act and Fairmont’s was done in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench which is overseen by federally appointed justice’s.  Secondly, it made perfect sense to “allow” Northwynd to be created because it was necessary to allow 800 investors a chance to recover some of their investment and the thousands of owners who want the resort to continue the ability for the resort to do so.

We want to address this right away because it seems to be the lost part of this process.

There are three groups in this process:

1)	Timeshare owners who want the resort to continue
2)	Timeshare owners who no longer want their timeshare
3)	Northwynd unitholders who want their investment back

Each groups optimal outcome would result in damage to one or more of the other groups.  The timeshare owners who want the resort to continue could have legally demanded every owner pay their renovation fee and they could have rejected the resort realignment.

The timeshare owners who no longer want their timeshare naturally would like to walk away with no consequences, or better, be able to sell their timeshare.

Northwynd’s unitholders could have legally demanded cancelling owners to pay the full damage to Northwynd which would be the cost of remediating the unit (the renovation fee), the foregone management fees, legal fees, and the interest on the renovation fee.  All of which would currently make an annual cancellation about $8,200.

Each group represents a corner of a triangle.  There is a saying in negotiations that you know you’ve reached a good deal when every party is unhappy.  Which means everyone has given up something from their best outcome in order to make the deal.

We created the Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay program as a compromise.  We know, because we have talked to some of them, that if we asked every timeshare owner who wants the resort to continue, 2-3% of them would say “screw the other owners, they signed a contract, make em pay.”  We also know, because we’ve talked to them as well, if we asked every Northwynd unitholder, some of them would say “screw the other owners, they signed a contract, make em pay.”

This website represents the 2-3% of timeshare owners who want to walk away from their timeshare who are willing to say “screw the other owners and the Northwynd unitholders, I don’t care that I signed a contract, I shouldn’t have to pay anything.”

We created the compromise because we knew that outside the 2-3% in each group, the vast majority understood compromise was necessary.  It was not our job to help someone “win” at the expense of everyone else.  This is why the majority of the resort has already made a decision and hundreds more are doing so on a daily basis now.

No matter how “right” anyone feels their position is and which of the three groups they are a part of, the reality is that the only fair alternative is a compromise in the middle.  The question everyone should be asking is not “is this fair to me?”  Rather, it is “is this fair to everyone?” 

Perhaps it was our mistake by presenting the compromise cancellation option as part of the renovation process.  Maybe if we had offered no cancellation until now or had only offered an $8,000 cancellation, when the compromise was presented it would have seemed more reasonable because it would have made the alternative more clear.


No_more raises concerns about the renovation process.  First, the absence of input by the timeshare owners.  We would have loved to be able to have an effective input mechanism, but it was entirely impractical.  We had 14,500 timeshare owners, half of whom would rather cancel than renovate.  Some of whom would rather do no renovation and stay, regardless of the impracticality of that option.  We had thousands of owners who did not believe they were legally responsible for the renovation costs.

We actually had a meeting with a group of upset timeshare owners back in April.  Even those owners acknowledged that if they walked out of that meeting and issued a release to other owners saying “we support this” that they would just get yelled down as “puppets” or that they were “bought off”.

Lastly, the job of the property manager is much like that of an elected official.  Our responsibility is to operate the resort reasonably in accordance with the contract.  In some instances, that means doing things even if the owners do not want us to.

Even if we could have gotten consensus over time, the timeline would have been impossible or the costs excessive.  The resort is not a condo building that everyone lives in.  We cannot just hold a meeting and have everyone show up.  We either have to send mail to 14,500 people or we have to wait for them all to go to the resort which would take two years.  Even then, things would have to go back and forth, votes held, alternatives presented.  We struggle to believe any practical timeline with fair and balanced owner input that would have taken less than several years.  All the while, the poly-b pipe issue would be getting worse and the deficit remaining unaddressed.

No_more further goes on about the contracting and controls process.  All of this has been provided before but we will reiterate it for those who have not read the past information.

We can tell you the general contractor was a tender process and we evaluated multiple bidders.  We can tell you we hired multiple professional engineering firms to evaluate the resort and those evaluations led to the budget scope.  We can tell you that we put a trust agreement in place with Norton Rose to hold the renovation funds and only distribute them in accordance with the trust conditions.  Lastly, we can tell you we have a third party cost consultant, LTA, that evaluates the renovation monthly and signs off on the work completed.

We think we have gone above and beyond to ensure the work is effective and controlled.

Lastly, no_more suggests the timeshare owners are being used to fund improvements for the benefit of the Northwynd unitholders.  This is not true.  The improvements are for the benefit of the timeshare owners who stay.  The shortest remaining leases at the resort expire in 17 years and these renovations will be quite old by then.  The units that are being cancelled are not being renovated.  


Fairmontlvr raises concerns about “greed”.  Firstly, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that Northwynd’s unitholders expect us to try and make them money.  That’s business.  Secondly, the Northwynd unitholders have compromised significantly in this process.  They have been anything but greedy.  If they were greedy, they would have not allowed any cancellation option at all or at a substantially higher number.

As for Fairmontlvr’s specific examples:

15% management fee: This is part of the contract.  If Northwynd disappeared tomorrow, does anyone believe you could hire a new property manager to do the renovation for free?

Walking away without cost: In actuality, it is the people wanting to walk away with cost who are greedy.  They are asking every other timeshare owner to pick up their legal responsibilities.  It is not only the most unfair option in this situation, it is also the option that isn’t a legal right.

Charging interest: The interest fee is part of the contract and consistent with similar no credit rating interest rates. Most credit cards are at least 19%.  If someone feels the rate is unfair, they have two options.  Do not enter into the agreement in the first place, or make sure to pay their bills on time.

If we are “greedy” for expecting people to honor a contract they entered into in good faith, or accepting a substantial compromise for those who want out, then we graciously accept the label of greedy.

Dissillusioned raises a concern about the cancellation agreement.  We have seen a few of these “I heard…” posts that suggest the cancellation agreement is ambiguous.  

However, whomever the supposed law firm is that has called the agreement ambiguous, they have never contacted us so we cannot say what they think is ambiguous or what they think should change.  On the other hand, we have had dozens of law firms send in paperwork on behalf of owners without questioning the cancellation agreement or requesting it be altered.  In addition, we have already processed thousands of cancellations that have all been finalized through the trustee who is independent.  There is no legal way we could come back later.

Having said that, it appears from the posts that the confusion is because of clause 3.b which says "the total amount to be determined by Northmont" and a belief this allows us some ability to change our mind or phone a year later and say you haven't paid the next maintenance fee so it isn't finalized yet. The reason 3.b is not a specific number is because each timeshare owner can owe different amounts depending on if they have outstanding maintenance fees, a loan, etc.  

If an owner wishes to be 100% secure, they could ask us to email the "final amount" under clause 3.b so they have it documented, or they could cross out and initial 3.b (to remove it from the agreement) if they have already paid everything else.  We have had a few owners do the latter and we have no issue accepting the agreement that way once all the non-cancellation fee costs have been paid.

Building on the above.  As we said, we have dealt with dozens of law firms through this process without issue.  Only two think there is a “fight” here.  It is something to think about.


The remainder of the posts simply reject our statements and reiterate past conspiracies that have been clearly addressed by Misconception #1, #4, #5, #6 and #8.  While unfortunate, we accept a small minority will reject any reason we provide and that we will have to deal with them through statements of claim.


----------



## ClanMac

*Misconceptions*

It was very nice of Northmont cc to clear up all the misconceptions that seem to have plagued the malcontents that misinformed all the good TS owners/leaseholders who suffered the tragedy of having an umbrella contract with FRPL; and who didn't know the benefits of simply paying the > %400 increase in maintenance fees and approx. the $2000 to get out. What a relief it is to know that Northmont/Northwynd is actually concerned for our welfare and as upset as we are by the travesty that was FRPL; and that they truly had no control over what has happened. In this day and age it tends to restore one's faith that a business such as this has a heart and acts benevolently on our behalf.

It would even be more heartwarming to have perhaps these misconceptions cleared up, and I can write my cheques with a smile on my face.

There were three trustees that were appointed during the restructuring process that occurred in March, 2010; well after the period of bad bond selling which was claimed to have ended by 2009. They became trustees of NPREIT and held the power of managing the investments and affairs of the trust; including transactions involving the exempt securities (LP units) that had been 'swapped' for the first mortgage bonds formerly held by FRPL. Further loans had occurred and were again secured on the trust assets (Fairmont properties), and the unit transactions that occurred subsequently were in essence debt securities transactions; therefore very high risk as a result of the dwindling value of the assets and the dilution that had occurred with an "unlimited" amount of units being made available for sale to investors.

One of these trustees for certain engaged in securities transactions illegally, and another was/is also a director of the General Partner (Fairwynd Resort Properties Ltd./interesting two FRLP's) that provides internal management services to the trust that involves the loans and securities; and with a primary commitment to return at least 90% of all revenue to the unit holders. Is it to be said that NPREIT/Fairwynd was unaware that this trustee was engaging in such activity, and that he had made clear misrepresentations to investors regarding the rate of return they could expect and the security of their investments; and paid him huge commissions for doing so?

Is it also not true that Olympia Trust RRSP investments suffered a similar fate,  a class action law suit was filed against a specific number of senior managers for Northwynd in the summer of 2013, and by Dec. of last year Olympia's transfer agency and corporate trust assets were sold to the largest unit holder of NPREIT and there doesn't seem to a law suit pending any longer?

Could any of these and other misleading, negligent and/or illegal transactions been unaccounted for within the trust and therefore led to the accounting problems by the auditor that were encountered during their review of activities through to the end of 2010; after the restructuring?

Is it also not true that the former CEO of FRPL carried through in his new appointment as CEO for Northwynd, and much of the proposed revenue that was to be generated was predicated on TS sales and RCI conversion of the existing leaseholders; but as with what had formerly occurred with other resorts under FRPL the entire plan fell apart and the Fairmont assest deteriorated accordingly?

Can specific accounting documentation be made available that definitively shows that the TS maintenance fees were never in any way used to pay off debt or provide returns on exempt security investments into the trust?

There may be more, but would you be so kind as to clear these possible misconceptions up Northmont cc.

Thanks for all your concern for our welfare.


----------



## Northwynd CC

ClanMac said:


> the unit transactions that occurred subsequently were in essence debt securities transactions; therefore very high risk as a result of the dwindling value of the assets and the dilution that had occurred with an "unlimited" amount of units being made available for sale to investors.



Misconception #6.  Northwynd has never sold units.



ClanMac said:


> and paid him huge commissions for doing so?



Misconception #6.  No one has been pay ANY commissions, let alone huge commissions for selling Northwynd units because none have ever been sold.



ClanMac said:


> Is it also not true that Olympia Trust RRSP investments suffered a similar fate,  a class action law suit was filed against a specific number of senior managers for Northwynd in the summer of 2013, and by Dec. of last year Olympia's transfer agency and corporate trust assets were sold to the largest unit holder of NPREIT and there doesn't seem to a law suit pending any longer?



100% false.  No existing senior manager is the subject of any lawsuit.  To the best of our knowledge, no prior senior manager is subject of a lawsuit either.

You seem to misunderstand who Olympia Trust and Computershare are.  We are providing you both of their websites so that you may do some research:

http://www.olympiatrust.com/

http://www.computershare.com/ca-en/Pages/default.aspx

Both organizations are large companies with numerous lines of business.  Olympia is a large Canadian company and Computershare is a multi-billion dollar multinational company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. The transaction between Olympia and Computershare had absolutely nothing to do with Northwynd.

In addition, Computershare is not our largest unitholder.  In fact, it is not our unitholder at all.  If you review Computershares business, it is the “name of record” for stocks to facilitate public trading.  Everything you think they own is on behalf of the actual investors.  If you look at the public stock holdings of almost any public Canadian company, you will see Computershare or another similar entity owning the vast majority of shares.



ClanMac said:


> Could any of these and other misleading, negligent and/or illegal transactions been unaccounted for within the trust and therefore led to the accounting problems by the auditor that were encountered during their review of activities through to the end of 2010; after the restructuring?



No.  Not only are they not misleading, negligent or illegal transactions in the first place because they are not transactions at all, but if they were, the auditors would have disclosed them or denied their opinion.  The issues in 2010 were a direct result of poor records received from Fairmont for which, as per Misconception #9, we are not responsible.



ClanMac said:


> Can specific accounting documentation be made available that definitively shows that the TS maintenance fees were never in any way used to pay off debt or provide returns on exempt security investments into the trust?



Absolutely and it already has.  That is what an audit does.  The fact that the statements have been audited and are not materially misstated answers your concern.  See Misconception #1.


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

*@northwynd cc*

Seeing as you have almost turned this into a chat room can we get an update on how many are in and how many are out.. Somehow this number would still have an impact on those of us still deliberating as the deadline APPROACHES. I see no reason why this should be classified information if as you say we are all in this together.  
 Also is  X over 14500 with X being those choosing to stay an accurate representation of what will be left of the resort?


----------



## Northwynd CC

Rider Nation Rocks said:


> Seeing as you have almost turned this into a chat room can we get an update on how many are in and how many are out.. Somehow this number would still have an impact on those of us still deliberating as the deadline APPROACHES. I see no reason why this should be classified information if as you say we are all in this together.
> Also is  X over 14500 with X being those choosing to stay an accurate representation of what will be left of the resort?



Thanks for the question RNR (was that intentional? if not, funny coincidence).

Easy question, bit of a tricky answer.  

The Biennial Even owners were not billed until November.  Plus there were thousands of owners who chose to wait for the Justice Loo's ruling.   Both of which mean X over 14,500 doesn't really work until March when we have a better idea of final numbers.  

With the large volume of work we have had since January 2nd and only growing through the two deadlines, we really won't be able to accurately "stop and count" until we come up for air.  It took us until about the 10th of July to process all of the May paperwork because the downside of deadlines is the majority tend to wait till the last minute.  We expect the same thing here.  

As we noted in the misconceptions thread, about 7,000 (or for simplicity half the resort) owners have made a decision to date.  It has been split fairly evenly between cancellation and renovation fees.

Is this a fair expectation of the end result? Hard to say for a couple more months.  It is probably a fair expectation for the Biennial Evens.  It may not be a fair expectation for those who were waiting on Justice Loo or those who wait for us to file a statement of claim because they are different demographics (they waited for a reason).  

We hope that helps.


----------



## GypsyOne

*Reply to Northwynd CC*

Thanks Northwynd CC for your reply,  and allow me to respond.

I am disappointed that you could not have provided something more substantive for the purpose of providing clarity than a list of what amounts to little more than talking points or public relations statements.  (TUG Canada site Misconception #1 to Misconception #22).  For the most part you gave only examples of fringe “misconceptions” that serious owners may have heard in the general scuttlebutt but are not really serious issues on which to dispute the claims.  Some are little more that strawman issues where you take a fringe statement, build it up into something big, and then spend a lot of time tearing it apart, thus questioning the credibility of the resisting TS owners.  You did not comment on one substantive issue such as might be found in affidavits owners lodged with the court in disputing the two fees. 

An example is Misconception #1 where you describe a conspiracy theory allegedly believed by TS owners that involves eleven different major organizations.  Well, cool it.  No responsible TS owner is seriously alleging a conspiracy of that magnitude, and you wasted about two pages of ink debunking it.  Which is not to minimize the possibility of malfeasance, but that is a different issue.  

I will reply within the context of two premises:

1. That my comments refer to my type of contract which is a Vacation Villa Lease signed in year 2000.  This is important because as you know there are two classes of contract, the original lease contract where the TS owners are lessees or tenants, and the later or the conversions to Legacy for Life contracts where the TS owners are co-owners or owners in fee-simple.  Strangely, Justice Loo in her decision noted the two types of contracts and then proceeded to treat them as synonomous.  In fact they are far from equals as tenants have quite different rights and obligations than do owners.

As you are aware, all the early TS owners were lessees or tenants.  The agreement was pretty much a basic lease arrangement and operated well for the first ten years or so.  We got what we bargained for, which was a one or two week vacation at a quality resort, and we paid our proportionate share of operating expenses.  The lease was for fourty years, which seemed safe enough because well constructed buildings should easily last sixty years with only routine maintenance.  As tenants we were entitled to the standard right of quiet enjoyment and the implied warranty of habitability (the units must meet a certain standard of livability).  Then things started to unravel.  Buildings that should have lasted 60 years were showing major deficiencies after only nine to twenty-three years.  Between 2005 to 2007, $41.5 million of funds disappeared, and shortly after in 2009 Fairmont defaulted and went into bankruptcy.  Not to worry - not our problem.  We’re tenants and not responsible for building construction or building re-construction.  We’ll let the lawyers and the investors fight over ownership because we have our timeshare leases to protect our rights. Furthermore, the lease agreement specifies we are responsible only for maintenance or operating expenses.  There are no references to capital costs or costs to restore capital structure.  If we were responsible for capital costs, such a major item would not have been left to chance in the lease or buried in with a long list of operating expenses.  It would have been very clearly stated and probably given separate paragraph status.  

We can only assume that in about 2009 Northmont, wondering how they can saddle the TS owners with reconstruction of a failing resort and reward the REIT investors for a bad investment, realized they were on shaky grounds in asking tenants for capital funds to restore the resort for the benefit of the real owners.  So they cleverly blitzed the TS owners to convert lease agreements to co-ownership agreements to which they added the phrase to Paragraph 11 “.....and to pay the costs of capital improvements that may from time to time be required.”  That wording would not have been added if capital costs were clearly included in the original lease agreements.  To add insult to injury, the new co-owners were charged something in the vicinity of $6,000 to $9,000 for the privilege of being owners and responsible for capital reconstruction.  

Bottom line, there are two distinct classes of TS owners - lessees or tenants, and lessors or co-owners.  How Justice Loo could lump them together in one decision is one of the mysteries of the Special Case hearing.  But it certainly seems like it’s a point that could be contested.  Or perhaps you could shed some light on the matter.  

2.  My second premise is that my lease is a valid contract from inception of the agreement to the present.  Timeshare owners don’t really care if there were one or fifteen owners of the resort for the term of the lease.  A contract is a contract and the rights and responsibilities pass from one lessor to the next.  I know, Wyndy, you will claim that as part of the CCAA proceedings, Justice Romaine transferred all the assets including the VIA agreements to Northwynd free of liability.  But me residing our here in Logicville, I’ll say two things about that.  One is that another judge at another court level might see it differently.  Two is that even if we concede on the “free of liability,” that could be interpreted to mean we are unable to sue for damages, but does not preclude us from voiding the contracts for numerous  breaches of contract and misrepresentations.  In other words we simply hand back the timeshare and walk away from a breached contract.  TS owners are having a hard time understanding how rights and protection provided under the contract can be voided by the CCAA, but the obligation to pay maintenance and special assessments remain intact.  Perhaps you can explain that slight of hand to we the dullard TS owners.

To cut to the chase, I’d be pleased if you would comment specifically on these issues:

1. How can you justify the lessees or tenants being responsible for capital costs?  To use an analogy, if you were a tenant in an apartment block and the owner came to you for funds to replace the foundation, what would you tell him?  Right, your answer would be a short and sweet negative.  On the other hand if you were residing in a condominium in which you have ownership in fee simple, you would be obligated to contribute toward the capital cost of replacing the foundation.  And that basically is the difference between being a lessee and being a co-owner.  

2.  How can you justify attributing ownership responsibility to the TS owners, but the TS owners never having had a voice in management.  Paragraph 19 spells out creating a Lessee’s association, yet one was never established, which is just one more breach of contract.  The result being that TS owners never had a voice or an ear in management deliberations.  Again, using the condo analogy, if I was an owner in a condo complex I would have the opportunity to sit on the board of directors and attend all directors and annual meetings.

3.  Why does Northwynd think they have the right to ignore Paragraph 13 of the lease which provides a formula in the event of default.  As you know, basically the formula says that after a period of default the lessor can take back the timeshare and reimburse the lessee at 25% (or 50%) of the original cost for the remaining time on the lease.  The formula weighs the numbers in favour of the lessor, which is to be expected, but at least there is a fair and logical way of settling a default.  I know, you will say that the clause is permissive and that the lessor doesn’t have to accept the “deemed offer” of giving back the remaining timeshare.  But in fact you ARE accepting the deemed offer.  You are accepting the deemed offer once you agree to take back the timeshare as does happen in your cancellation proposal. Its just that you don’t want to pay up according to the terms of the lease.  I have to believe that paragraph 13 was included in the lease for a reason.  In fact there are consumer protection laws that prohibit the use of deceptive marketing practices and misleading contracts that could lull prospective purchasers into a false sense of security and have them think they have some protection when in fact the one party to the agreement can just arbitrarily change the rules to suit their interests.  

The cancellation fee agreement you have devised results in the ridiculous situation that I pay about $16,000 to acquire the timeshare, then I pay you another about $4,000 to take it back from me, plus another year of maintenance for which I get no value, for a total cost of about $21,000 and I am conned out of about 27 years of timeshare.  It would be like if I bought a car for $16,000 cash and for some reason I have to return it to the dealer.  But I not only have to return the car for no reimbursement, I also have to hand over $4,000 as well.  But we’re not done yet.  I also have to pay $1,000 for the next year’s gas, oil, and repairs on the car I no longer have.  Tell me, if someone offered you that deal, what would be your response?  Yeah, me too.  

4.  Why do you think the Fairmont CCAA proceedings have voided the TS owners rights under the lease agreement as it relates to breaches of contract, such as “to manage and maintain the Project in a prudent and workmanlike manner,” but retained the responsibility to pay maintenance and special assessments?  I touched on this question above and I would like your response, as it seems to me that you are wanting your cake and eating it too.  I don’t want a response that amounts to “because it is in our best financial interest and Justice Loo said we could.”   Greed doesn’t count.  I’m looking for logical principles to justify me shelling out hard earned money.  

5. Am I right that funds from the cancellation fee go to the REIT investors and the RPM funds less management fee go toward resort renovations?

6.  Miscon #3: Okay, there are several levels of breach of contract.  I’ll say minor, material, repudiatory, and anticipatory.  Why do you think that modifying the interpretation of a simple lease agreement into Northwynd’s and the REIT investors personal money machine is not a repudiatory breach?  Seems to me that is right up there with your example of the hairdresser reopening as a massage parlor.  

7.  Miscon #11: You say that whether or not Northwynd lives or dies, the resort will survive.  Even if Northwynd goes bankrupt, the resort carries on and the judge transfers the contracts and management of the resort to a new property manager and life goes on.  I presume you are also saying the courts would have extinguished the lessees right of legal recourse for breaches of contract (free of liability),  but have retained the lessee’s obligation to pay maintenance and special assessments.  In other words, no matter how egregious the breaches, no matter how badly we are treated, we are obliged to send in our money on demand by the owners for evermore or 40 years, whichever comes first. You say that even if we win, we lose.  I find that not only strange but bizarre.  If that were true, no person in their right mind would ever enter into a contract with a timeshare resort owner.  Or for that matter enter into any contract.  Parties to contracts should not have their rights legally extinguished so easily.  You’d better rethink that “misconception.”  

8.  Your three-legged stool includes approval of the renovation fee, the cancellation fee, and downsizing the resort.  Justice Loo approved the two fees but no mention of the downsizing.  Where does downsizing stand?  If your answer is that approval for downsizing is included in the renovation agreement, my next question is - how many TS owners have agreed to the renovation fee to date?

9.  The British Columbia Real Estate Association requires that its members complete a Property Disclosure Statement for real estate transactions.  Among the questions are the following:

G. Are you aware of any structural problems with any of the buildings?
J. Are you aware of any problems with the heating and/or central air
conditioning system?
K. Are you aware of any moisture and/or water problems in the walls, basement
or crawl space?
L. Are you aware of any damage due to wind, fire or water?
M. Are you aware of any roof leakage or unrepaired roof damage? (Age of roof
if known: ____________ years)
O. Are you aware of any problems with the plumbing system?

Was a Property Disclosure Statement completed for all Vacation Villa Leases, Vacation Interval Agreements (co-ownership agreements), and conversion to Legacy for Life Agreements?  

Thanks in advance for your response.

GypsyOne


----------



## Spark1

disillusioned said:


> Spark1 do you still feel the same way about the freedom to choose option? Is it a no win situation?
> Can anyone explain to me what happens when you don't pay and it goes to collections and I continue to refuse to pay? If it goes to court and I'm sued and I don't pay it, what will happen?
> Thanks.
> PS Will I eventually have to pay?! If not now, later and much more? Is it inevitable?!



This is the time for all timeshare owners,whether you are legacy for life or the original timeshare owners to hire a good lawyer. I have been told buy a lady that bought into legacy for life,that they asked what the buildings were like and how was the replacement reserve fund doing and the sales person said the reserve fund had lots of money and the buildings were in great shape. There are also people who bought legacy for life just before the resort was foreclosed on. This is a very corrupt business and I said it before, it is time for the federal and provincial gov'ts to do better regulations on this industry or better yet shut timeshare down.


----------



## Northwynd CC

GypsyOne said:


> GypsyOne post 1143



Apologies if any of our paraphrasing is inaccurate.  "G1" is shorthand for GypsyOne.

G1: Premise one: The two types of contracts (leasee versus co-owner) effect this process.

We already answered this for you at post #1121.  The contract types do not matter.  The leasee's have always been responsible for all costs of the resort which was confirmed by Justice Loo.

This is very common in triple net leases.  Notwithstanding, a lease can say anything (provided its legal of course).  You could even have a lease where you paid zero costs but a huge up front fee.

Using a really simple home rental example, you can have a lease that includes utilities or a lease that does not.  

With this issue, we ask people to answer the question "if not you, then who?"  There is nothing in the agreement that says the leasee is responsible for "all these costs BUT not these ones" and then also "because they are paid by" someone else. 

G1: Premise two: You can still terminate the agreement for Fairmont's breaches.

We already addressed this as Misconception #9.  CCAA law allows a Justice discretion to have parts of a contract to survive and others to not, or in this case to have the contract survive "as is" except any liability stays with the previous owner. A contract is a contract unless the courts modify the contract.

You still have the right to sue Fairmont for breach of contract.  It just would be pointless because they have no money.

The protection provided by the contract continues to exist.  Northmont is liable if we do something wrong. We are simply not responsible for what Fairmont did.

As for "another judge at another court level."  This is flawed.  Justice Romaine is at the Alberta Court of Queen's bench.  Under CCAA law, an appeal of her ruling was required three years ago.  Both of which mean two things:
1) Even if you could appeal (which you can't), it would have to be to the Supreme Court of Canada.
2) Another Justice cannot change her ruling.  In Canada, a lower court cannot overturn or change the ruling of a higher court.  If you are sued for default in small claims court, it would extraordinary for them to even consider touching Justice Romaine's decision.

Your specific issues:
G1: 1) You are responsible under the terms of your contract.

Your analogy is flawed because you are not a renter.  When you rent an apartment, your rent pays two things: operating costs of the apartment, and an additional fee to the landlord which they use for capital costs and profit.  Whether you realize it or not, the tenant is always paying for capital costs.  Otherwise, nobody would make money renting buildings.  

The difference between a renter and a direct cost recovery manager is only in who takes the risk and gets the reward related to capital costs.  If the landlord charges you $300/month buried in your rental for anticipated capital costs, the landlord wins if the capital costs are lower and loses if they are higher, but if they have budgeted correctly, you have paid all the costs.

In the case of a timeshare resort where you are billed all costs, risk is with leasee.

G1: 2) TS owners have "never had a voice in management":

If you review the written arguments we presented in the special case, you would see that condo boards have just as much trouble dealing with the different interests of members and they are very small.  It is impractical to effectively gain consensus in an effective and efficient fashion when you have 14,500 different voices.

G1: 3) The paragraph 13 buy-back clause in some contracts:

This was addressed in the special case and  you have already stated the answer.  It is a deemed offer which we are under no obligation to accept.  

Though we think it is a straight forward permissive clause, even if a Justice determined it was misleading, that would only entitle you to sue Fairmont, not terminate your agreement.

G1: 4) The CCAA has voided our responsibility.

Your statement is faulty.  We have never said the CCAA voided our responsibility.  If you reviewed our written arguments in front of Justice Loo, we specifically acknowledged our responsibility to manage the resort in a prudent and workmanlike manner and believe we have done so.

The CCAA left Fairmont's responsibility with them.  In other words, for any breach until July 6, 2010 you can sue Fairmont.  For any breach (though there aren't any) after July 6, 2010, you could sue us.

G1: 5) Where do the fees go?

With a typical annual cancellation fee, at this time roughly 20% of the fee goes to the resort to cover your share of the outstanding deficit and a reasonable accounting for the interest on your outstanding renovation fee.  The remainder stays with Northwynd as our right as developer.

100% of the renovation fee goes to the resort of which 15% is paid to us as manager for managing the renovation.

G1: 6) Why isn't modifying the interpretation of the agreement a breach?

Because we aren't. The agreements have always said what they say.

G1: 7) Bankruptcy effect.

We stand by our statement.  You are looking at the issue from your point of view as someone who no longer wants their timeshare.  There are thousands of owners who disagree with you.  Allowing the resort to collapse when it is perfectly capable of continuing would be hugely unfair to them.

The resort remains a reasonable cost if you are using your time.  A two bedroom, sleep 8 condo in a resort town would not be out of line at $250/night or $1,750 a week.  You can get a hotel room cheaper, but the equivalent isn't on hotel room, but three.

G1: 8) Status of realignment:

See our response to RNR.  We cannot comment on the legal proceedings.

G1: 9) Were disclosure statements in place?

Yes.  They existed and they disclosed the information known to the resort during the various time periods.


----------



## ClanMac

*More*

Looking forward to reading Northmont cc's responses to GypsyOne's well articulated and important questions; thanks G1!

As a rejoinder to Northmont cc's responses re: Northwynd never selling any units within the trust; are you saying that after Mr. Cavalli was appointed as trustee during the restructuring his dealings with exempt securities investments had nothing to do with NPREIT?

How can you argue that the missing financial data and the problems Collins Barrow had with their audit were due to FRPL management, when the CCAA's 6th report on the plan of arrangement (March 15, 2010) clearly stated that the financial statements of FRPL were part of the disclosure documents; and if there were missing data (i.e. missing money!!!) how could the reorganization plan be approved without clear statements of where everything went and what the current financial status was at that time. It would be like wiping the books clean, stating what the debt was and to engage in "exploitation" of the assets.

There was a change in CFO's within approx. 7 months after NPREIT took control, the CEO remained in place for two years until the last CFO replaced him as the CEO. There was much said at that time how mismanagement had led to these changes, and all the proposed plans to raise capital via TS sales and the conversion to fee simple tenure were dropped. So which management do you refer to when you talk about having inherited this mess?

Further, lets move away from the sale of exempt securities and just talk about investments into the trust. Any way you look at it there was outside investment into the trust in addition to the investments the original bond holders (now unit holders) have made. This brings up perhaps the most important question:

Are you stating that there have been no debt securities transactions involving  NPREIT; and if there have been, have those involved in the transactions on behalf of NPREIT acted in accord with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada's "Rules Notice" dated Feb. 20/13?

One last thing (for now), those of us that bought the lease don't owe any money towards a mortgage of the property that has been leased; so if I read you correctly none of the money that has come from the lessees or TS owners under any circumstances has gone to the unit holders. Where is the money coming from then?


----------



## Hotpink

*What will they do next?*

I completely agree with GypsyOne on the last post. Our contracts read as he/she has described and we feel we are being duped over the last several months. The two ( 2 )contracts prior to 2009 are not the same as  the two ( 2) contacts following that date regardless of what Miss Loo has stated.  How do you compare a four (4) page document to one that mushroomed to an eleven (11) page document. Perhaps magic mushrooms enable that to happen or is the used oats they are grown in. 

If you think they are finished fleecing lessees, owners and potential buyers take a look at the sale of the Lake Okanagan facility. I have not been able to figure out exactly what they are selling. Is it only the hotel portion and not the time share groupings. It has gone from 14.95 mil in August of last year to $10.15 Mil as of to-day. If you can figure out what they are selling please let us know.
All we know is we now have a maintenance fee request for our biennial timeshare which used to divided into two very distinct line items 
1) Maintenance fees for current year
2) Replacement reserve fund about 20% of MF
plus GST.

Now it just has one item called 2014 Maintenance Fee

Perhaps Northwynd is breaching that contact as well. As per Article V Annual use fees, section 5.7 of the Vacation Villa Lease agreement we entered into in 2002 where it states unequivocally that it must set up a separate account for a Replacement Reserve Account. 

The 2014 budget includes an item for Refurbishment at $49,383 which is about 10% of the total Budget; but nothing specified as Replacement Reserve Account. I don't believe these are interchangeable terminologies and if they are the amount is about one half of what it used to be prior to Northwynds ownership.

I'll bet a donut hole there will be a call for a renovation project to get this once very nice resort back into saleable condition 
Read the attached link on Lake Okanagan


http://www.specializedassets.ca/pro...ort-price-reduced/pages/operational-structure


----------



## Northwynd CC

ClanMac said:


> are you saying that after Mr. Cavalli was appointed as trustee during the restructuring his dealings with exempt securities investments had nothing to do with NPREIT?



For the third time, yes.  Mr. Cavalli's dealings had nothing to do with Northwynd and Northwynd has never sold any exempt securities.

Mr. Cavalli's investigation is a matter of public record and easily googlable.  You can read it here:

http://www.mfda.ca/enforcement/cases12/201259.html

The documents show the investigation relates to actions that pre-date Northwynd.




ClanMac said:


> How can you argue that the missing financial data and the problems Collins Barrow had with their audit were due to FRPL management, when the CCAA's 6th report on the plan of arrangement (March 15, 2010) clearly stated that the financial statements of FRPL were part of the disclosure documents; and if there were missing data (i.e. missing money!!!) how could the reorganization plan be approved without clear statements of where everything went and what the current financial status was at that time. It would be like wiping the books clean, stating what the debt was and to engage in "exploitation" of the assets.



It isn't an argument.  It is the truth and clear from the audit opinion.

The records of Fairmont and the records of the resort are two different things.  Notwithstanding, your logic is flawed.  By your logic, someone could avoid paying their creditors by having terrible records.  How do you think Visa would react if you told them you don't have to pay your bill because you didn't keep a copy of your receipt?

There is a process in a CCAA for creditors to step up and make a claim.  That claim is then evaluated by the justice.  A debtor could have no records whatsoever and still be reorganized in a CCAA.



ClanMac said:


> Further, lets move away from the sale of exempt securities and just talk about investments into the trust. Any way you look at it there was outside investment into the trust in addition to the investments the original bond holders (now unit holders) have made.



For the fourth time, no there wasn't.  



ClanMac said:


> Are you stating that there have been no debt securities transactions involving  NPREIT; and if there have been, have those involved in the transactions on behalf of NPREIT acted in accord with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada's "Rules Notice" dated Feb. 20/13?



As we cannot know what you think "debt securities transactions" means, we cannot answer.  A promissory note on a timeshare sale could be a debt security transaction.  However, we can say there have been no transactions that qualify as investments that would be governed by securities legislation.



ClanMac said:


> One last thing (for now), those of us that bought the lease don't owe any money towards a mortgage of the property that has been leased; so if I read you correctly none of the money that has come from the lessees or TS owners under any circumstances has gone to the unit holders. Where is the money coming from then?



You are correct. No money, other than management fees, related to the operation of the resort ends up in Northwynd for the benefit of unitholders.  The remainder of your inquiry is inappropriate and has no bearing on your lease.  The landlord renting your house would not respond if you asked them how they make money other than renting your house.


----------



## Hotpink

*Northwynd Customer Care AKA NorthwyndCC*

When we first saw the posts starting by our Customer Care Representative herein after referred to as (CCR) we felt perhaps we may see some truthful and honest information. They did not appear to be hiding their intent as they appeared to be forthright regarding where they were going with their musings.
We have in the past had great service from the CCRs we dealt with over the years especially the ones located in Fairmount. Since the closure of those we have had to deal with voices based in Calgary who for the most part have been pretty informative and willing to help especially when taking credit card information for payment of some form or other.

We now hear from the other side of the mouth 

_
"We already answered this for you at post #1121. The contract types do not matter. The leasee's have always been responsible for all costs of the resort which was confirmed by Justice Loo._"

Her ruling is being challenged so let us wait and see. 
Unless you can prove that all the leases entered into prior to 2009 were modified upon the conclusion of the CCAA to be equivalent to the latter two(2) versions, you are SOL
Here is part of the decision made by Justice Romaine 

'
"_It was also noteworthy that the roughly 5000 *registered time-share
owners in the Fairmont Group would not be affected by the offer
and would continue to have the rights granted to them under their
original timeshare agreements* (other than with respect to certain
alleged inducements or undocumented additional rights that were
repudiated during the course of CCAA proceedings). Many of the
full time employees would be retained by Northwynd]_"

If you can as our CCR who's salary is paid by 15% of lessees fees show us delinquent owners that these leases had either alleged inducements or undocumented additional rights that were repudiated during the course of the CCAA proceedings. Please come up with proof that the original contracts were modified during that conclusion.  

You have modified your tune since you first started posting from offering salient and helpful information as a CCR to now being one of calling us delinquent and taking a approach of an intolerant mentor.

You may wish to answer the questions without your newly acquired sarcastic verbiage.


----------



## darklord700

Justice Loo's decision is fools gold as she made so many factual errors in it.  It will very likely be overturned by the appeal judge.  And to Northwynd, the type of contracts don't matter, long as they got your name and address you'll hit you up for money.


----------



## Northwynd CC

Hotpink said:


> We now hear from the other side of the mouth
> 
> _
> "We already answered this for you at post #1121. The contract types do not matter. The leasee's have always been responsible for all costs of the resort which was confirmed by Justice Loo._"
> 
> You may wish to answer the questions without your newly acquired sarcastic verbiage.



We apologize if this came off sarcastic.  It was not the intent.  

The statement intended to reflect the variation in the contracts has not altered the underlying obligation for all costs.  This has been our position throughout this process and is discussed as Misconception #22. Perhaps we should have just referred the owner back to that Misconception again.


----------



## Northwynd CC

darklord700 said:


> Justice Loo's decision is fools gold as she made so many factual errors in it.  It will very likely be overturned by the appeal judge.



If Justice Loo's decision really has so many factual errors and is likely to be overturned, why haven't the lawyers presented their legal position?  We haven't seen a single post stating anything Justice Loo supposedly got incorrect that hasn't been debunked.


The undecided owners deserve to know the legal position they are being asked to trust.  Idle statements by anonymous posters absent evidence reinforce Misconception #15 and #18.


----------



## gnorth16

*[2012] New program coming for fairmont, BC 2013?*

If there are TS owners who are paying to leave, there will be units that do not have the appropriate renovation funds.  (Since NW keeps the departure fee)  Where does that share of the reno funds come from? 

For example, If 5200 TS owners leave, do 100 rooms not get renovated (buildings torn down), the other 10,000 owners pony up extra or does NW pay the Reno fees? 

Are the turned back weeks going to be resold or are lands and buildings going be subdivided and sold for profit?


Tapatalk via iPhone


----------



## GypsyOne

*Response to Northwynd*

Thanks again Northwynd CC, and I will respond.

_Wyndy:    “We already answered this for you at post #1121. The contract types do not matter. The leasee's (spelling - sheesh) have always been responsible for all costs of the resort which was confirmed by Justice Loo.”_

The contract types do matter considerably as I pointed out earlier.  The one is a lease contract the other is a co-ownership contract.  The difference is between the rights and responsibilities of tenants vs. the rights and responsibilities of owners.  The lease contract does not include capital costs, the co-ownership contract added responsibility for capital costs in Paragraph 11 as I pointed out earlier and for the obvious reasons that I pointed out in my narrative.  In brief, the reason for the attempted conversion to Legacy for Life contracts was to shore up the problem in saddling the TS owners with capital costs and capital reconstruction of significant parts of the resort buildings.  Justice Loo’s favourable ruling can mean one of two things: It wasn’t really relevant to her decision within the narrow parameters of the Special Case, or she was just plain wrong, which is why the legal system has appeals. 

You then go on to imply that the lease is triple net and you say that including all costs is very common. (Meaning the inclusion of capital costs and reconstruction) 

_Wyndy:  “This is very common in triple net leases. Notwithstanding, a lease can say anything (provided its legal of course). You could even have a lease where you paid zero costs but a huge up front fee.”_

Firstly, the TS lease is not true triple net (real estate taxes, building insurance, and building repairs in addition to normal operating expenses) because a triple net lease would state it is triple net.  But I guess you could argue it is like triple net.  However, in all the years I have been involved with real estate in various capacities, I have never seen one lease that included capital costs.  Fair to say they do not exist for the simple reason that any tenant that agreed to replace a failing building would need a saliva test.  Or any lawyer reviewing a lease and allowing his client to agree to replacing capital structure would be grossly negligent.  For the same reason, we can also assume the lawyers that reviewed the TS lease for Fairmont would not have allowed the TS owners to be saddled with the expense of capital replacement.  

I will provide excerpts from a standard triple net property lease to illustrate how the industry would handle either inclusion or exclusion of capital costs.  The standard triple net lease sets out very clearly the expenses that are included and the expenses that are not included.  Under operating costs there will be a list of about 15 items of operating very similar to our TS lease.  Then there will be a statement and list of items not included.  Eg. (I have to type this because the legal form does not allow me to copy and paste.)  

16. Operating costs will not include the following.
	b.  the costs of any capital replacements
	d.  structural repair

Under Landlord’s Repairs the lease says:

76. The Landlord covenants and agrees to effect at its expense repairs of a structural nature to the structural elements of the roof, foundation and outside walls of the Building, whether occasioned or necessitated by faulty workmanship, materials, etc, etc.  

I’ll speculate that if a tenant ever did agree to capital replacement there would be a specific dollar limitation on the expenditure, because the tenant that agreed to replace the building or parts of it at a potential cost of $millions for the benefit of the landlord would have to be crazy.  

I go into this detail, Wyndy, to give you an inkling of the detail and the specifics that would be expected by the industry in a contract if capital costs and reconstruction were to be included.  When the cost is potentially in the tens of millions, you don’t bury the item in with the operating costs or expect the miscellaneous catch-all to pick it up.  

So moving to the TS lease, Paragraph 9 covers Operating Costs and Reserve for Refurbishing.  Operating costs being items of annual expense; refurbishing being items with a somewhat longer life such as carpets and paint.  There is a miscellaneous catch-all phrase, “without limiting the generality of the foregoing,”.....  Obviously this phrase being in the section with the operating costs is referring to operating costs.  And not one word or hint of capital costs.  Let’s face it Wyndy, you’re trying to bluff a royal flush while holding a pair of two’s.  

One more point to be considered.  My TS lease is good for fourty years and then expires with zero residual value.  So what if me and thousands of other lessees were demanded of say, $20 million dollars in year 38 for structural improvements that extends the life of the building for say another 20 years, as the Special Case has so far ruled can be done.  Who gets the value of that $20 million?  Certainly not the TS owners whose leases are about to expire in two years time with no residual value.  Of course, it’s the real owners and the REIT investors who benefit and the TS lessees get screwed. Can that be right?  Of course not.  Its one more reason why lessees who have no right to residual value after 40 years are not responsible for capital costs.

Your transparent attempts to somehow have the TS lease include capital replacement or reconstruction of resort buildings at a cost of tens of millions of dollars would be laughable if it weren’t so serious and involve the scamming of thousands of innocent timeshare owners for millions of dollars.

So now that we have put the issue of capital costs to bed once and for all (ha, ha), lets move on:

_Wyndy:   “You still have the right to sue Fairmont for breach of contract. It just would be pointless because they have no money.”_

You’re probably right, suing for damages would be pointless.  You’re also probably right that overturning a court decision would be a tough slog.  But repudiating the contract and just walking away is still on the table.  The question then becomes - is there a statute of limitations? To walk away, would we have had to have done it in 2009?  My guess is that the courts would take a tolerant view.  They would say that TS owners could not possibly have known in 2009 the problems that would become apparent in 2013, and why would they simply walk away from an asset that they paid for and are getting good use from.  

_Wyndy: “The paragraph 13 buy-back clause in some contracts:    This was addressed in the special case and you have already stated the answer. It is a deemed offer which we are under no obligation to accept.”_

My point was that once you agree to take back the remaining time share, you ARE accepting the deemed offer.  Just that you decided to change the rules from what is written in the contract to a money-grab in the interests of enriching the real owners and the REIT investors. 

I also think that my car analogy very accurately depicts the absurdity of your cancellation fee proposal:  

To repeat:  _“The cancellation fee agreement you have devised results in the ridiculous situation that I pay about $16,000 to acquire the timeshare, then I pay you another about $4,000 to take it back from me, plus another year of maintenance for which I get no value, for a total cost of about $21,000 and I am conned out of about 27 years of timeshare. It would be like if I bought a car for $16,000 cash and for some reason I have to return it to the dealer. But I not only have to return the car for no reimbursement, I also have to hand over $4,000 as well. But we’re not done yet. I also have to pay $1,000 for the next year’s gas, oil, and repairs on the car I no longer have. Tell me, if someone offered you that deal, what would be your response? Yeah, me too.” _

If, or when, the legitimacy of the cancellation fee is again put before the courts where our side is not restricted by the narrow parameters of the Special Case, it would be interesting to see how the court rules.  I’m sure the issue of proportionality of justice would come up.  In other words (the judge or jury might ask), would it be reasonable justice in our day to day lives that someone should pay $16,000 for a car, give it back to the dealer for no compensation, plus also give the dealer $4,000, plus $1,000 for operating expenses for the next year.  To a person they would say, “but that is absurd, we would never allow that to happen in our own lives.”  Then they might ask, “Well, what would be reasonable compensation?  Oh yeah, its spelled out right here in the lease in Paragraph 13 covering defaults.”  I don’t think we’ve heard the last of Paragraph 13. 

_Wyndy: “TS owners have "never had a voice in management.”_

Oh, so its another TS owner’s right spelled out in the contract, but to be ignored if its inconvenient and suits management to ignore it.  You’re right though, it would be difficult to deal simultaneously with 14,500 owners.  But there are other options.  For example, if 14,500 owners each put up $10, that would provide $145,000 to pay a lawyer or chartered accountant to sit in on certain board and management meetings, represent our interests, and report back to the TS owners.

_Wyndy: “We stand by our statement. You are looking at the issue from your point of view as someone who no longer wants their timeshare. There are thousands of owners who disagree with you. Allowing the resort to collapse when it is perfectly capable of continuing would be hugely unfair to them.”_

I am looking at what is fair and just and according to the lease contract I signed in year 2000 that promised 40 years of quality vacation experiences.  I am under no obligation, materially or morally, to contribute to maintaining the resort for other TS owners who may wish to continue, but more likely are taking the path of least resistance.  I should have the right to spend my vacation dollars as I see fit, and spending it on a timeshare where the rules have been changed from when I bought in, is certainly not in my best interests.

Thanks, and I do commend you for communicating with the TS owners.

GypsyOne


----------



## Spark1

Hotpink said:


> When we first saw the posts starting by our Customer Care Representative herein after referred to as (CCR) we felt perhaps we may see some truthful and honest information. They did not appear to be hiding their intent as they appeared to be forthright regarding where they were going with their musings.
> We have in the past had great service from the CCRs we dealt with over the years especially the ones located in Fairmount. Since the closure of those we have had to deal with voices based in Calgary who for the most part have been pretty informative and willing to help especially when taking credit card information for payment of some form or other.
> 
> We now hear from the other side of the mouth
> 
> _
> "We already answered this for you at post #1121. The contract types do not matter. The leasee's have always been responsible for all costs of the resort which was confirmed by Justice Loo._"
> 
> Her ruling is being challenged so let us wait and see.
> Unless you can prove that all the leases entered into prior to 2009 were modified upon the conclusion of the CCAA to be equivalent to the latter two(2) versions, you are SOL
> Here is part of the decision made by Justice Romaine
> 
> '
> "_It was also noteworthy that the roughly 5000 *registered time-share
> owners in the Fairmont Group would not be affected by the offer
> and would continue to have the rights granted to them under their
> original timeshare agreements* (other than with respect to certain
> alleged inducements or undocumented additional rights that were
> repudiated during the course of CCAA proceedings). Many of the
> full time employees would be retained by Northwynd]_"
> 
> If you can as our CCR who's salary is paid by 15% of lessees fees show us delinquent owners that these leases had either alleged inducements or undocumented additional rights that were repudiated during the course of the CCAA proceedings. Please come up with proof that the original contracts were modified during that conclusion.
> 
> You have modified your tune since you first started posting from offering salient and helpful information as a CCR to now being one of calling us delinquent and taking a approach of an intolerant mentor.
> 
> You may wish to answer the questions without your newly acquired sarcastic verbiage.



The only people that are delinquent are Northwynd and Northmont same Money hungry  get rich idiots. You know the average age of the owners of this resort. Now put yourself in the timeshare owners shoes and you are living off of static retirement income they are. Then you receive the freedom to choose package in the mail. Most of these timeshare owners do not have 3100 for one week of cancellation not alone three weeks. They were struggling to pay the high increases with the maintenance fees as it is. Now Northwynd expects them to take out a mortgage to pay for the Reno or cancellation. Northwynd calls us owners that signed leases up to 2009 delinquents because we are protecting the agreements that we signed with Fairmont villas. They are totally wrong about our agreement. Every timeshare owner that bought up to 2009 knows that the replacement reserve fund which was a separate bank account set up by our trustee was to be used for replacing what ever according to what was in the fund.This did not mean replacing the whole Resort at once. I read this agreement over when I bought and I know what this agreement means. The agreement that Justice loo ruled on was not this agreement in whole. This is not what the timeshare owners expected and if we all knew this,none of us would of bought. I am working with Service Alberta and they went through the package I took to them. They also read over your cancellation agreement and said to me you are not canceled. Two hours after I met with them everything was moved to the RCMP. A few days later I got a call from a agent stating that nobody can change the agreement that you signed with Fairmont Villas. That means anybody including Supreme Court Judges. I will meet with Service Alberta again to discuss our agreement. The other concern I have is,us timeshare owners hope you have hired contractors at the resort that are independent from you bond holders.


----------



## Hotpink

*Justice Loo BOO BOO*

The following is a quote from her judgment pages 4 & 5 

B. Vacation Interval Agreements
[4] Fairmont leased vacation intervals or time shares in the resort. There are
basically two types of vacation interval agreements: (a) agreements entered into prior to 2009 by which vacation interval owners acquired a 40-year leasehold interest; and (b) agreements entered from 2009 forward which create co-ownership interests. Since 2009 vacation interval owners who had leasehold interests, were given the option of entering into a co-ownership interest agreement. There are approximately 18,950 time share vacation intervals registered in the name ofowners who have each executed standard forms of vacation interval agreements that have changed over time. Each agreement sets out particulars of the owner’s interest, including:
(a) the type of vacation property or villa, including the number of bedrooms;
(b) whether the agreement is an annual or biennial arrangement; and
(c) the “season” of the time share interest, that is, whether it is “prime”, “prime golf”, “golden” or “leisure” season.
[5] Each agreement contains a floating option by which the vacation interval
owner surrenders the right to use and occupy the specified vacation interval
interest in return for a floating option on the same villa type in the same season._Each agreement also contains a right of unilateral change in favour of the Fairmont, and now Northmont_.
[6] Although there have been various forms of vacation interval agreements
over the years, the owners (including Fairmont, and now Northmont, to the extent that it is also the owner of vacation interval agreements) are subject to a yearly maintenance fee to cover the budgeted cost for maintenance of the resort.
[7] During the hearing, the vacation interval owners were sometimes referred to as “owners” and at other times “leaseholders” or “co-owners”, depending I
suppose, on their respective interests. I will refer to them as owners, as that is the term most frequently used, and nothing in this proceeding turns on which term is used

Obviously Ms Loo has misinterpreted sections 37 and 38 of the older contracts contract as per her statement in section 5. The newer contracts do not give Northmont  or FRP any unilateral change capabilities in their favour (sections 44 & 45)

From page 7
"E. Current State of the Resort
[13] Fairmont never established or maintained a reserve or replacement fund to deal with long term anticipated repairs, such as roof replacement, deck
replacement, and similar repairs that are generally referred to as capital repairs because they occur less frequently than regular day to day maintenance."
*This is untrue *. We have a copy of the audited statement from Dec 31 2003that shows a replacement reserve  fund of $978424.00 after expenses. We also have a statement from Fairmont signed by Chris Van Der deen dated Dec4 2008 which shows a projection of the refurbishing fund to be 1,217,400.00 for 2008 with an increase of projected for 2009 to be increased by $57,600.
Since then what we have received from Northmont is a 2013 operating budget signed by Sol Olivas showing a budget of an income of $1,045,440.00 to the refurbishment fund and similar numbers for 2014.
SO who is lying to whom?? And where have these funds gone??

She also makes consistent mention of acknowledging that the resort will be diminished in size Pages 14 & 15
"36. _A critical step in the Resort Realignment will be for Northmont to direct
the Trustee to transfer to Northmont fee simple title to the portions of
the Resort on which villas that will not be refurbished are located. It is
not economically feasible for Northmont to allow Vacation Intervals
Owners to cancel their agreements if it cannot remove the excess villas
created by the cancellations from the Resort.
37. Upon consolidation of Vacation Interval Agreements belonging to
Northmont in villas which are not to be refurbished, those villas,
associated lands and the Vacation Interval Interests previously
attributable thereto, will no longer form part of the Resort for purposes
of the Trust Agreement and it will be the intention of Northmont to apply
for subdivision approval allowing those portions of the Resort to be
separately titled in the name of Northmont or its nominee.
38. Northmont regards the refurbishment of villas and the exclusion of
surplus buildings from the Resort as a net benefit to all remaining and
future Vacation Interval Owners because, without such a program, the
villas and amenities at the Resort will prematurely reach the end of their
useful life and the Resort will fail. In contrast, a refurbishment and
reduction in the Resort size, coupled with proper budgeting for future
repairs and replacements, as envisioned in the Resort Realignment, will
ensure continued viability of the Resort for the foreseeable future.
_

We believe they want to get as much from us as is possible and eventually sell off the resort to the benefit of the unit holders and themselves. So much for the TS lessees and particularly the businesses that are located in the valley and rely on the patronage of TS group. I can't say this is unscrupulous but it certainly is odiferous.
Looking forward to hearing the appeal


----------



## DarkLord

Occam's razor taught me the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

We know that Northwynd lost money on investment and tried to repaid angry institutional investors.

We know that Northwynd scammed the Mexico Rancho Banderas TS owners with exactly the same cash call tactic before.

We know that Northwynd fooled some original TS owners into converting into Legacy To Life when the resort was in dire financial state.

We know that Northwynd bankrupted the legendary Rafter Six Ranche.

We know that Northwynd defaulted on the Hawaii properties.

That's all that I can remember but I'm sure there's more.

Therefore, the simplest explanation to all these renovation cash call and Justice Loo's faulty decision notwithstanding is that Northwynd is trying to scam the Fairmont TS owners.  Plain and simple.


----------



## no_more

one more DarkLord - costa maya resort in Belize ... resort closed, and people having their timeshare lease transferred up to Fairmont ...


----------



## no_more

no_more said:


> "Do timeshare owners have any rights at all or are we suppose to shut up and just pay ".    that comment from spark1 puts it best and is the crux of many people's concerns, including mine.
> 
> my concerns, and why I chose to join one of the legal firms appealing this ...
> 
> 1.   we had no input on the scope, cost or timing of the renovation - it was sprung on us with no warning a year ago, and tight deadlines to decide with little information.  and then when we asked questions we were stonewalled.  I have no doubt the renovation is genuine based on what I've seen on the website and heard from people visiting the resort , but ...
> 
> 2.  the work was not bid out to multiple contractors via a request for proposal, so how do we know the work is being done for a competitive price.   there are no controls or oversight on what northwynd is doing ... with my professional background and experience, I can only think the worst in the absence of information ...
> 
> 3.   the controls and oversight by owners / lessees over northwynds operation are poor - an annual audit published within 3 months after the calendar year is over, I'm sorry that's not an effective control.
> 
> 4.  no owners association in place to represent our interests and foster understanding between both parties
> 
> 5.   the choose to leave contract is so complicated, why ?  can't it just say an unconditional release of all obligations by both parties in exchange for a fee?   am I missing something here ?
> Northwynd, comments please ?
> 
> 6.   no clarity on how the resort downsizing would work, which buildings would be remediated, what are the criteria for selection ... would this come out in the next petition to the court ?
> Northwynd, comments please ?
> 
> 7.   how are the interests of the bondholders balanced against the interests of the timeshare lessees / owners ?  It sure looks like we are being used to fund improvements to the resort and increase its value, for the benefit of the bondholders.   and ... if I was a bondholder, I'd sure be wanting some return on my original investment which went into bankruptcy proceedings.
> Northwynd, comments here ?
> 
> and ... another bankruptcy is not going make the problem go away - I think most people with some business knowledge knows that ... somebody will own the resort ...
> 
> sincerely, no_more



Northwynd, I accept your answer about the tendering process and the awarding of the contract to the general contractor VVE ... same thing with the leaving contract - fair enough.    

we can agree to disagree about advance communication about the renovation plan for the resort - there's no point debating this further ...

however, you did not address points 6 and 7 above .. maybe I missed them - and both questions go to the skepticism about your future plans for the resort and where the timeshare owners stand compared to the trust unit holders, 
sincerely, no_more


----------



## GypsyOne

*Hotpink on J Loo's Boo Boo (Sounds like something from Dr. Suess)*



Hotpink said:


> We believe they want to get as much from us as is possible and eventually sell off the resort to the benefit of the unit holders and themselves. So much for the TS lessees and particularly the businesses that are located in the valley and rely on the patronage of TS group. I can't say this is unscrupulous but it certainly is odiferous.
> Looking forward to hearing the appeal



I also was puzzled by her statement on Page 5, "Each agreement also contains a right of unilateral change in favour of the Fairmont and now Northmont."  She is only looking at part of the paragraph in the Agreements, which makes her statement inaccurate.  Could it be true that the good Justice committed another boo boo, or is at best biased?


----------



## ClanMac

*Selective answers and a condescending demeanor*

It has been interesting plowing through all the popular misconceptions we delinquents are allegedly plagued with; particularly when we are chastised by Big Brother, NCC, for not getting it. Getting what? Your statement of facts and that's the way it is; that's what the law says about contracts, that's what your stuck with and that's the way it is. Oh by the way, we really do care about you and we really wanted to be fair, and we protected you from the mean old unit/former bond holders who would have stuck it to you big time; and look what happened to the poor old woman on a fixed income who wouldn't listen and paid a lawyer 600+, and now she's out that plus; oh I didn't mention the 3/4 + grand we already put the screws to her for. But we're the good guys and no one wins except the lawyers with a fight, and we don't want that, we really want to help.

Makes me want to puke!!!!! Don't underestimate who you are dealing with. In the old days we used to call people like you 'paper hangers'. A lot of it is now electronic but the same old crap. Start with a basic legitimate premise, build on it a bit, and then start piling up the files and building one shell after another, shifting management and responsibility this way and that; but creating lots of distance and room. At least enough to give you ample warning when the first layers of straw on the outermost shells starts to collapse; and then some of you run because you don't have the guts to hang in there when you can smell it. Some with omnipotent egos who refuse to accept that anyone is smart or crafty enough to get them see the opportunity from the scraps that are left by the rats who already cleared out. Hey, we can even take over their offices. There's a lot more money to be made here, and we have a cash cow that overall is vulnerable to threats and doesn't have the courage or will to put up a fight.

Lets put up a wall of logical game playing; throw in a lot of litigation constructs associated with civil and contract law; call on previous judiciary decisions that are largely irrelevant, and when the last of the holdouts realize they are few in number, either they will cave or we won't have much to worry about. But better make sure we don't get a bad court decision before then because the precedent will have been set and then we're screwed.

Who the hell is naive enough to think that a court proceeding is strictly black and white; and that all a judge has to do is look at whats written and how it is being presented by the big guy with all the guns and it becomes as clear as  a crystal ball? You have to have been there enough to learn that it isn't as simple as that. It is an adversarial process, much is open to interpretation, and the judge seeks fairness. In fact this is what is inherent in the basic premise of what a contractual agreement is predicated upon. You think you can have some poor naive soul sign a contract that says they will pay you for the better part of their life to the point they can no longer take care of themselves and are rendered to a state of helpless suffering as a result. Give your head a shake.

You are scared man! Intellectualization is a form of psychological defensiveness often used by those who believe they are more intelligent than anyone else; and like the shell game they play with their fraudulent business activities; perhaps if you baffle them enough with your bull they will eventually  buy it.

You don't want to discuss what went on with the transition and restructuring. You want us to buy the crap that there was no carry over. You don't want to talk about the securities swap and the creation of an unlimited amount of units that diluted the existing debt on a property that was falling apart and no one wanted to buy into. Hey just say Northwynd didn't sell anything, after all the unit holders can sell them all they want using whatever assets they have in their portfolio as additional security, and we can pretend that we don't know what debt security transactions are all about (even though IIROC has all kinds of rules and regulations dealing with just that). All we have to do is manage the trust and keep bleeding the TS cash cow to keep the property the original mortgage was based upon afloat. We can even tell them that once an accredited auditor submits our financial statements for the property, that in itself means all is well.

I'm so cocky I'll play my cards out in an online forum and challenge Geldert to play his. Oh maybe I was too brash or didn't consult with more experienced legal counsel who would have told me no experienced lawyer worth his weight is going to get sucked into that game. What a lousy poker player you are. As my gambling friends say, you have an easy "tell" to spot.

Oh yeah, lets not answer any questions as to why the proposals that were laid out during the restructuring that led to Judicial approval in 2010 never materialized; or why the change in management in 2012 where the CFO who knew where all the money was going and who was dealing what with who now is the CEO; and hey, everything is better and brighter in the future. None of this was approved.

Anyways, nice to vent. Would love to meet you face to face in front of a good judge. Try to scare us with massive small claims and how easy it is for you to arrange that via a collector, and how expensive it will be and how much the court costs are going to be overwhelming (by the way it will be about $250 to $300, and even if you were to win that doesn't mean the burden of the costs are on the defendant).

Nice to put the screws to the guild you were supposed to build and protect hey big guy. You're not as smart as you think.


----------



## BWcantri

*Cancellation Agreement*

Hi all, 

I have been away  working and just got out all the papers and trying to figure out what's going on here.

I have spent the last few hours reading this forum and have one very unanswered question.

*Has anyone had closure with the cancellation agreement.* 

We honestly want out and hope that some of the units get sold to raise monies for repairs and to keep the maintenance fees down for the ones that decide to stay. We just can't do this anymore. As with a lot of us it was suppose to be something to sell off at a later date (thinking it would be worth something) or to pass onto the kids but we sure don't want to saddle them with this kind of financial burden. Timeshares are becoming a thing of the past. I hope we don't have to fake our deaths to get out of it.

Best of luck to you all in this mess... Cheers


----------



## GypsyOne

BWcantri said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I have been away  working and just got out all the papers and trying to figure out what's going on here.
> 
> I have spent the last few hours reading this forum and have one very unanswered question.
> 
> *Has anyone had closure with the cancellation agreement.*
> 
> We honestly want out and hope that some of the units get sold to raise monies for repairs and to keep the maintenance fees down for the ones that decide to stay. We just can't do this anymore. As with a lot of us it was suppose to be something to sell off at a later date (thinking it would be worth something) or to pass onto the kids but we sure don't want to saddle them with this kind of financial burden. Timeshares are becoming a thing of the past. I hope we don't have to fake our deaths to get out of it.
> 
> Best of luck to you all in this mess... Cheers




The cancellation agreement is an abomination.  Here is my opinion of the cancellation fee from post #1154 directed to Northwynd CC:

To repeat: “The cancellation fee agreement you have devised results in the ridiculous situation that I pay about $16,000 to acquire the timeshare, then I pay you another about $4,000 to take it back from me, plus another year of maintenance for which I get no value, for a total cost of about $21,000 and I am conned out of about 27 years of timeshare. It would be like if I bought a car for $16,000 cash and for some reason I have to return it to the dealer. But I not only have to return the car for no reimbursement, I also have to hand over $4,000 as well. But we’re not done yet. I also have to pay $1,000 for the next year’s gas, oil, and repairs on the car I no longer have. Tell me, if someone offered you that deal, what would be your response? Yeah, me too.” 

If, or when, the legitimacy of the cancellation fee is again put before the courts where our side is not restricted by the narrow parameters of the Special Case, it would be interesting to see how the court rules. I’m sure the issue of proportionality of justice would come up. In other words (the judge or jury might ask), would it be reasonable justice in our day to day lives that someone should pay $16,000 for a car, give it back to the dealer for no compensation, plus also give the dealer $4,000, plus $1,000 for operating expenses for the next year. To a person they would say, “but that is absurd, we would never allow that to happen in our own lives.” Then they might ask, “Well, what would be reasonable compensation? Oh yeah, its spelled out right here in the lease in Paragraph 13 covering defaults.” I don’t think we’ve heard the last of Paragraph 13. 

Don't count on proceeds from sale of units going towards building repairs or keeping maintenance fees down.  Now that Northwynd has court approval, pending appeal, they will be using the TS owners as their own personal ATM money machine.  800 REIT investors want to recoup losses from a bad investment with Fairmont.


----------



## GypsyOne

*Legacy for Life owners*

One of the side effects of pointing out the two types of Vacation Villa Agreements, namely lease agreement and co-ownership agreement, is that the owners with the Legacy for Life co-ownership agreements may feel they are being thrown under the bus.  Those with the lease agreements have no choice but to vigorously point out that there is no possible way that responsibility for paying capital costs is included in the lease agreements.  As much as Northwynd would try to convince you otherwise, there is not one word mentioning capital costs or capital replacement in the lease agreements.  On the other hand, those who bought into the Legacy for Life agreements had the phrase “to pay the costs of capital improvements” added to the new agreements.  And of course, that is the very reason for the blitz to convert to the co-ownership agreements.  Northwynd knew they were on shaky ground in asking the leaseholders for reconstruction money.  The legacy for life, by the way, is a legacy of paying for the re-construction of failing buildings for life.    

The LFL owners would seem to have a different challenge, and that is to prove misrepresentation in the lease to ownership conversion.  I did not attend the sales session so I don’t know exactly how they were conducted, but I’ve heard from several who did attend.  They report variously: No information given about changes to the expense obligation; no verbal information given about the state of the buildings, Poly B plumbing, etc.; some report that CD’s were given to take home to view that may have had disclosure information; chatty salespersons who distract you with conversation when you try to read the agreement; pressure to sign immediately in order to get the “sweetheart” deal.   

The British Columbia Real Estate Association requires that its members complete a Property Disclosure Statement for real estate transactions.  The questionnaire asks very specific questions about structural problems of various components of the building.  Holders of Legacy for Life Agreements should check to see what disclosures they were given and whether any consumer protection laws were violated.


----------



## Northwynd CC

no_more said:


> however, you did not address points 6 and 7 above .. maybe I missed them - and both questions go to the skepticism about your future plans for the resort and where the timeshare owners stand compared to the trust unit holders,
> sincerely, no_more



Hi no_more.

For the realignment, the best answer is just to quote one of the questions from the frequently asked questions on our website.

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Sunchaser-FAQ-November-2013.pdf

Q – I like building XXXX, will it be removed from the resort?

A – We cannot provide a definitive order that buildings will be removed from the resort because it is dependent on a number of variables including:
•	The total number of buildings to be removed
•	Future operational efficiency 
•	The number of Terrace Owners (as there are no Terrace units in Riverside or Riverview)
•	New information learned during the renovation.  For example, one building is on “watch” for possible foundation issues (similar to building 7000).  Should those issues prove to exist, it will go from being a good building to a bad building.

In general, the objective is to reduce the resort in a cost effective manner.  However, cost effective is not just which is the most expensive to renovate but also where the building is in relation to other buildings, long-term operational costs, unit mix, etc.

In 2014, units will be offline to reflect the smaller size but the actual final approval and removal of units from the trustee will probably not be until late in the year.

As for balancing the needs of the unitholders with the needs of the timeshare owners, we refer you back to our post #1138 with the section that starts "We want to address this right away" near the top.

We have worked very hard to strike a compromise in this process between the three distinct groups: our unitholders, our timeshare owners who want the resort to continue, and our timeshare owners who want to leave.

We believe our cancellation program and renovation program does that.  However, we respect that our view is not held by all.


----------



## DarkLord

Northwynd CC said:


> We have worked very hard to strike a compromise in this process between the three distinct groups: our unitholders, our timeshare owners who want the resort to continue, and our timeshare owners who want to leave.



You missed one as the majority of TS leaseholders simply wanted Northwynd to leave.


----------



## DarkLord

GypsyOne said:


> Now that Northwynd has court approval, pending appeal, they will be using the TS owners as their own personal ATM money machine.  800 REIT investors want to recoup losses from a bad investment with Fairmont.



That's the gist of this whole thing.  Northwynd is committing financial blackmailing of the TS owners.  They'll prey on the owners with illigetimate lawsuits and hope they'll pay up.  

Justice Loo's questionable decision was based on Northwynd's pre-emptive move.  But that's over and done with now with the pending appeal.  

Northwynd knows they are on shaky ground after they clear out the easier owners who pay to stay or cancel, they'll just disappear into the dark or morph into another creature.

I really feel sorry to the owners who paid to cancel and moreso the owners who paid to stay.


----------



## ClanMac

*Misconception #19*

We (NCC) did not cause the problems at the resort. The vast majority of our owners know that we did not cause the problems at the resort.

How can you even begin to go there when you clearly stated Dec. 10, 2012 that you shut down the TS sales and it took you two years to "reign in" normal operations. Did you have to get rid of Fitzsimonds to do so? He was your CEO through the whole proposal and restructuring that occurred with the CCAA plan of compromise (March, 2010), was still trying to pay off some who were all over him with the Fairmont (Southwynd?) Ranchero Banderos RCA conversion fraud, and remained your CEO until the end of 2012, and the "exciting" announcement that the CFO you had replace Kearns after only seven months in from the restructuring was the new CEO. (By the way Fitzsimonds and Kearns were supposed to be Northwynd's management saviours). More than two years of mismanagement and negligence contributed to the decaying state of the resort, and your current CEO was handling all the financial operations.

It's been what now, four years later and you're still putting it all on Fairmont. Blaming them for everything and yet carrying a lot of their employees with you, hell you didn't even have to warm up the office chairs they sat in. You just slid or slithered right in. And your new CEO's "experience comes from outside the timeshare industry" where he was so successful. Wasn't he neck deep in it for the past two years with you, and VP and CFO of a company that also went bankrupt at the end of 2007 (owed more than 2 million and continued to borrow money under a revolving credit agreement with the Canadian Western Bank until a Notice of Intention to Enforce Security occurred). Sounds like a superstar to me. 'All hail the chief'.

Its most hypocritical that you paint all that is wrong on Fairmont and yet wrangled your way through the CCAA process hanging onto their old contracts and making proposals and plans that fell apart under your own mismanagement. You admitted it. It's unbelievable how shallow all this is. Why do you have to leave it up to a judicial process in order to be forced into accepting responsibility for a plan that was ill conceived more than 3 1/2 years ago.

Let me point out one of your misconceptions. Why don't you do a little research on the small claims process. You really want us to believe that it would be a major lawsuit with significant ramifications just short of the public degradation ceremony that occurs with a trial? It is as about as simple as it gets. They call it "small" for a reason, and they developed the procedure specifically so that it would be least costly. You don't even involve a judge until you can't get by an impartial, appointed mediator. The statement of defense is simply filled in on the paper that is attached to the statement of claim, and the cost for filing is minimal; costs you more to have the claim served/delivered appropriately. You don't end up in court unless you want to take it that far. You're in a boardroom; and if you want your lawyer(s) there it will cost you more than the entire process from start to finish. You have to travel because this is BC based, most likely Cranbrook Law Courts. I can go into a lot of the finer details because I've been there and done it, and on the far bigger stages you don't want to go anywhere near.

I'm going to ask you nice; as your rep. likes to state: "without prejudice". I'll even go further: "without malice aforethought". As I believe you were already asked: why don't you try to compromise with a reasonable proposal for a solution that doesn't force anyone, including yourselves into a 'lose lose' situation.


----------



## Spark1

ClanMac said:


> We (NCC) did not cause the problems at the resort. The vast majority of our owners know that we did not cause the problems at the resort.
> 
> How can you even begin to go there when you clearly stated Dec. 10, 2012 that you shut down the TS sales and it took you two years to "reign in" normal operations. Did you have to get rid of Fitzsimonds to do so? He was your CEO through the whole proposal and restructuring that occurred with the CCAA plan of compromise (March, 2010), was still trying to pay off some who were all over him with the Fairmont (Southwynd?) Ranchero Banderos RCA conversion fraud, and remained your CEO until the end of 2012, and the "exciting" announcement that the CFO you had replace Kearns after only seven months in from the restructuring was the new CEO. (By the way Fitzsimonds and Kearns were supposed to be Northwynd's management saviours). More than two years of mismanagement and negligence contributed to the decaying state of the resort, and your current CEO was handling all the financial operations.
> 
> It's been what now, four years later and you're still putting it all on Fairmont. Blaming them for everything and yet carrying a lot of their employees with you, hell you didn't even have to warm up the office chairs they sat in. You just slid or slithered right in. And your new CEO's "experience comes from outside the timeshare industry" where he was so successful. Wasn't he neck deep in it for the past two years with you, and VP and CFO of a company that also went bankrupt at the end of 2007 (owed more than 2 million and continued to borrow money under a revolving credit agreement with the Canadian Western Bank until a Notice of Intention to Enforce Security occurred). Sounds like a superstar to me. 'All hail the chief'.
> 
> Its most hypocritical that you paint all that is wrong on Fairmont and yet wrangled your way through the CCAA process hanging onto their old contracts and making proposals and plans that fell apart under your own mismanagement. You admitted it. It's unbelievable how shallow all this is. Why do you have to leave it up to a judicial process in order to be forced into accepting responsibility for a plan that was ill conceived more than 3 1/2 years ago.
> 
> Let me point out one of your misconceptions. Why don't you do a little research on the small claims process. You really want us to believe that it would be a major lawsuit with significant ramifications just short of the public degradation ceremony that occurs with a trial? It is as about as simple as it gets. They call it "small" for a reason, and they developed the procedure specifically so that it would be least costly. You don't even involve a judge until you can't get by an impartial, appointed mediator. The statement of defense is simply filled in on the paper that is attached to the statement of claim, and the cost for filing is minimal; costs you more to have the claim served/delivered appropriately. You don't end up in court unless you want to take it that far. You're in a boardroom; and if you want your lawyer(s) there it will cost you more than the entire process from start to finish. You have to travel because this is BC based, most likely Cranbrook Law Courts. I can go into a lot of the finer details because I've been there and done it, and on the far bigger stages you don't want to go anywhere near.
> 
> I'm going to ask you nice; as your rep. likes to state: "without prejudice". I'll even go further: "without malice aforethought". As I believe you were already asked: why don't you try to compromise with a reasonable proposal for a solution that doesn't force anyone, including yourselves into a 'lose lose' situation.


ClanMac you have a lot of very valuable information about these Northwynd bandits and I was forwarding a lot of this information to Geldert Law. We are out of the country until later this spring and I am hoping you are sending Geldert Law and Cox Taylor this material. Our Lawyers need all the help they can get because we seen the one sided decision with the first go around.


----------



## No longer a TS owner

*BWCantri cancellation question*

*BWCantri* - I'm not sure how to reply directly to a post so hopefully you see this. My wife and I decided to submit the cancellation papers last September. Northwynd cashed the cheque a few days after we sent the docs and a few weeks later they sent back signed copies of the agreement. It pained us deeply to pay their extortion fee, but we decided to pay the $1600 cancellation fee rather than getting stuck with the 2014 maintenance fees (and ever-increasing ones for the next 28 years). I hope the rest of you who decide to stick with the battle are successful.


----------



## Late2Game

*Like that cancellation agreement?  Getting out now??  Not so fast!!*

According to recent posts, Northwynd would have you believe they are acting as an "impartial mediator”, balancing the interests of three parties: TS leaseholders wanting out; TS leaseholders wanting the reno; and 800 bond unit holders.  This is the three corners of the triangle they reference.  

But this is not a triangle. . .*Northwynd is NOT without a dog in this fight!*  They have a significant financial interest, and responsibility in all aspects of this outcome but the seem to want to obfuscate this fact.

Do you like the agreement you have with Northwynd today?  If so, then by all means sign up on one of the two proposed agreements for some *more of the same!  *

BUT . . .the reality is *EVERYONE owes it to themselves to get independent legal advice on this matter before they take ANY action.  Get someone working for YOU that will represent YOUR interests!!*

Are you still undecided?  Well, you can read these TUG blogs forever if you’d like, or you can call one of the two law firms noted in recent pages and get the straight goods on where you stand.  I did, and believe me I feel a whole lot more enlightened than I did one week ago.  

I can hardly wait until the supposed “deadline” passes and we go to appeals court!

.


----------



## Tacoma

BW Cantri

I have friends who paid the cancellation last May and got the paperwork that says they are out of their lease by around early October.  Hopefully that paperwork is worth more than their original leases which said if we defaulted they would pay us money to take back the leases.  Just remember though that all people who pay to get out the money goes directly to northwynd and they are using it to fight the rest of us.  Also we do not believe that they are paying maintenance fees on anything they have taken over so the maintenance fees to people still in just keep increasing.   

Joan


----------



## no_more

well said late2game - to remind people and keep the legal firms names up front and centre for new readers - they are geldert law in Vancouver, and cox taylor in Victoria.   both have websites with their contact information.   

Geldert law continues to take clients from both Canada and the US.   

don't pay these people another cent, as Joan says - your cancellation fees are used to fight the rest of us, and your future is even worse if you pay to stay - as you have a minimum of 17 years more misery with these people - assuming they don't force you out of the resort earlier as they get free title to more and more of the lands.


----------



## GypsyOne

Northwynd CC said:


> We have worked very hard to strike a compromise in this process between the three distinct groups: our unitholders, our timeshare owners who want the resort to continue, and our timeshare owners who want to leave.
> 
> We believe our cancellation program and renovation program does that.  However, we respect that our view is not held by all.



Still flogging the meme that you're the white knights come to rescue the resort for the TS owners, huh.  Once again - the Vacation Villa Leases do not contain one hint of being responsible for capital costs.  Lessees/tenants would never agree to underwriting the replacement of capital structure at a potential cost of tens of millions for the benefit of the lessor/owners.  It just doesn't happen. The only way it could happen is for a friendly judge to give a favourable ruling. 

And paying a total of about $21,000 for timeshare, cancellation fee, and one year's maintenance and losing around two thirds of the timeshare is reasonable? Come on!


----------



## ClanMac

Hey lets get it straight, it's not Legacy for Life, rather Leg Irons for Life!


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Escalating Cancellation Fee*

When the May extortion notices came out demanding $3100 to "leave" I was rightfully peeved. I had no intention of forking over this money without a legal opinion. The literature even suggested getting legal advice.  Once Justice Loo ruled in November I was ready to make the decision to pay and be done with Northmont but the new demands for interest at 26% and to pay 2014 maintenance fee, then have no access to a unit were too much. 
If the cancellation agreement is a entirely separate legal document, by what basis does Northmont feel its entitled to 26% when interest rates are currently the lowest most people have seen in their lifetimes. . (Don`t give me the BS about it being in our original leases. This agreement has nothing to do with that). On that note I assume Northmont intends to pocket the interest, which may be millions, for their own benefit 
Why would anyone pay for a further year of maintenance when they relinquish their rights to the resort.  Maintenance fees are paid in advance, not arrears.
Now instead of leaving for $3100, the price is now more than $4700.
My decision is to not pay and fight it out unless Northmont wants to revise their offer.  They can have my unit back but it will require a cancellation agreement that is not entirely on their own egregious terms.
Northmont CC, make me a better offer or take me to court. Warning, you cant get blood from a stone.


----------



## Late2Game

*in for the fight . . .*

Beaverjfw, great to see people like you coming around and digging in for the fight like hundreds of other TS leaseholders.

But how many other TS leaseholders haven't considered this because they are simply unaware of the option?  How many will be bullied into either option "A" or "B"?

Until less than a month ago I was not even aware of the TUG bulletin board and ongoing dialogue on this site.  

*HOW CAN WE ENSURE OTHERS ARE EQUALLY INFORMED OF THEIR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS?*

.


----------



## ClanMac

*Almost unblievable*

Ignore what was here overnight


----------



## ClanMac

I may have gone off on you prematurely no_more and I apologize. If you are who you present in this forum, then some scum used your handle and I was stupid enough to think it was you and opened up a personal message. My computer was attacked.

Looks like there are more than spies operating.

Again, sorry for going off on you, I was out of my mind angry for being attacked and having to clean out the scum and re-wire my security system.

Be careful what you take out of this forum.


----------



## Spark1

no_more said:


> well said late2game - to remind people and keep the legal firms names up front and centre for new readers - they are geldert law in Vancouver, and cox taylor in Victoria.   both have websites with their contact information.
> 
> Geldert law continues to take clients from both Canada and the US.
> 
> don't pay these people another cent, as Joan says - your cancellation fees are used to fight the rest of us, and your future is even worse if you pay to stay - as you have a minimum of 17 years more misery with these people - assuming they don't force you out of the resort earlier as they get free title to more and more of the lands.


Hello no_more
Did you send me a message pertaining about Jim Belfry. Northwynd would of just loved to have only yes people as timeshare owners. They know now that there are a lot of owners that know a awful lot about these people.


----------



## no_more

*private messages*

clanmac and spark1 - yes I did send both of you private messages.


----------



## LarcenyWhipsneed

*Fed up with Northmont/Fairmont/Sunchasers*

we have been following this thread for a while and wanted to thank everyone for  adding their opinions and facts to shed some light on these crooks.  This really helped us make the decision to sign up with one of the lawyers and fight these shysters to the end.  We have over 20 years left on our annual gold time and they can have it...for nothing. enough is enough.


----------



## RandyCDK

*Northwynd helped us out big time!!*




Beaverjfw said:


> When the May extortion notices came out demanding $3100 to "leave" I was rightfully peeved. I had no intention of forking over this money without a legal opinion. The literature even suggested getting legal advice.  Once Justice Loo ruled in November I was ready to make the decision to pay and be done with Northmont but the new demands for interest at 26% and to pay 2014 maintenance fee



We too had considered briefly paying the extortion $$ to leave and just be done with it and out of the fight once the court ruling came down.  In our case the cost would have been approximately $5000 but thankfully Northwynd came to the rescue and cleared our heads by sending us an additional must pay invoice for approximately $2500 (interest accumulated on the reno/leave options plus two weeks of 2014 maintenance fees) on top of the cost to leave.  Note we have never been in arrears or paid any interest just enjoyed the resort as we all should have done (or should be doing) so I do not view myself as a delinquent now as I am just exercising my right to choose the option that suites me best not one that is mandated by someone else who has no right to force their (Northwynd) issues on me.

We know Northwynd has offered to let us use the resort for 2 weeks this year if we pay up everything they believe they are entitled to extort but unfortunately for the local Fairmount businesses we have no intention of returning to Fairmount anytime soon and believe the resort will never recover but good luck to you (Northwynd) in liquidating all the assets off once you get rid of all the timeshare people.

I took the time to read over your misconceptions and considering we paid an initial investment in excess of $30,000 for a 40 year lease (not to own anything like the people who paid to invest into the REIT or the screwed over lease holders who were tricked into the Legacy of Life ownership) so I have a very clear conscience that I am not personally going to cause the demise of the resort when I exercise my rites personally by seeking legal advise and following the advise provided as you (Northwynd) have made the cost to high now to leave and unfortunately I would never consider staying anymore now that you feel entitled to extort as much $$ as you (Northwynd) can.

If you want to make a reasonable offer to take my lease I am listening and welcome a reasonable mutual solution otherwise we can let the courts decide (in the end it would be cheaper for me so I am prepared to be patient and let the legal system run its coarse).


----------



## Hotpink

*Actual Cost of the 7000 Building*

I am trying to find out about the actual costs of the 7000 Hillside building

Here is part of the decision made by Justice Romaine on the 2010 CCAA ruling

"(c) Timeshare operations and the management and administration of
the Fairmont, Lake Okanagan, Belize and Mexico resorts operated
by Fairmont would also continue without interruption; and
(d) _*Northwynd would take the responsibility for the repair of a key
facility which required foundation and structural repairs expected
to cost more than 2.5 million in excess of funds currently held in a
trust account on behalf of timeshare owners.*_ The repair was
essential for the continued use of that facility."

This is the only building that I can figure is the one she is referring to in her ruling and if this is factual we need to ascertain the actual costs of this repair. I believe I remember that it was around 4 mil. 
If that is the case it would appear to the delinquent lessees ( us) that there must have been 1.5 Mil in the trust account and yet they told Madame Loo there never was a trust account and she noted that there never was a reserve account in her ruling. Again who is lying??? Both Justices can't be wrong can they???

I need some help with this as I need to determine the actual or as close as possible the costs of the 7000 building.

I know the anatomical reason that certain reptiles have split tongues; but did not know it may also apply to some of the Biped variety as well.

Asking for your help with these numbers as I'm sure on of you will have that information. Thank you fellow tugers


----------



## Hotpink

*If you believe in Northwynd*

Beaverjfw and Psvenson posts 1091 and 1092



Beaverjfw said:


> P/Svenson here.  We are legit timeshare owners at Fairmont since 1999.  We also own a timeshare in Okanagan that was purchased through Fairmont Vacations.  Northmont says none of this impacts Okanagan but we don't want to to deal with Northmont ever again.  Does anyone know if this would impact Okanagan in any way? ty!



The ruling by Justice Loo may have a major impact on time share owners in any resort, although it will take some time to filter down. For now, no immediate impact on Lake Okanogan. the best news is that the project is for sale, now at 10 .5 million dollars. If Northmont sells it you will be done with them and will have a new management company.
See......
http://www.specializedassets.com/properties/lake-okanagan-resort-price-reduced[/QUOTE]

We Have tried to decipher the listing and this is our synopsis of what Northwynd is selling

Lake Okanagan Resort

Reply to post 1091 - psvenson & 1092 beaverjfw

The link to the sale is contained in post 1092.  Read the posting carefully, the Time Share units are not for sale.  

Each building stated what is included in the offering and what is not.  

Condo Bldg 1/2/3 - have a total of 6 units in each building for a total of 18 units.  3 are privately owned and 15 are TS and NOT included. 

Lakeside 1 & 2 - only 3 of 36 are included.  The 23/36  TS units are NOT included

Terrace 3 & 4 - only 8/48 units are included.  The 26/48 TS units are not included.  
 SO WHAT IS REALLY FOR SALE
We do not believe that this resort will be without the usual Northwynd actions on resorts.  The fat cat leopard is not going to change its spots. Nor will any other predator change its striping , coloring or habits . Best beware

We are not qualified buyers so we can't get any better information. You can bet there is something amiss here as it has now dropped again in price 10.15 mil.( 2 price decreases since August 2013) 
And yes we have received our Maintenance fee invoice for a biennial at just a shade under 500.00.

So if the time shares are not for sale who will be the management company and I'll give you three guesses and we trust  most of you will not need to make all three.

They want us to pay and pay but there is also an out in the lease agreement which we signed with then regarding non payment of funds. Yes sport fans they get it back and we will not attach any strings.

There was a statement in Justice Romaine's ruling of what they were to do to carry on Lake Okanagan and from what I saw last year that has not happened.

No one can clearly believe that these folks are interested in running a resort for the benefit of the lessees.


----------



## ClanMac

*Essentials of and unfair contracts 101!*

When you consider all the information that has been generated in this forum regarding the unjust, negligent and almost certainly illegal activities of Northwynd, I would feel very confident putting a case before a good judge.

Here are some basic principles that are often overlooked but are at the core of what is considered essential, just and fair in contractual obligations/liability:

First and foremost, as I noted earlier; a contract between two parties historically implies that an agreement has occurred that is based on fairness and consideration of the best interests of the parties involved. It doesn't require signed documentation; it can be an oral agreement, and traditionally closed with a smile and a handshake.

More formally, according to Consumer Contracts Regulations:

Terms of the contract must be written in plain language that is easy to understand, and the seller of the contract cannot tell you something prior to your signing that later turns out to be untrue or misleading.

In deciding if a contract is unfair the court has to look at whether it is unfairly weighted against you, whether there was unequal bargaining strength and whether the company/business behaved properly in getting you to agree to the terms of the contract.

Examples include:

- no liability by the company/business for breaches of contract
- excluding liability for poor work or management
- binding you to a contract when the business/company is at fault
- unequal cancellation rights
- making termination subject to unreasonable conditions
- binding you to hidden terms or variation clauses
- allowing the company/business to impose undue financial burden
- forcing payment for a service that is not carried out with reasonable care
   and skill in a reasonable time and for a reasonable price (grounds for breach)

I don't think it takes a Supreme Court Justice to determine much if not all of the above has been shove down our throats.

While the appeal is in progress, and knowing that it is ultimately aimed at enabling those who wish to do so to walk away from that which has been so unfair in a contractual/civil law sense. I thought it would be useful to start blowing some smoke up the trust chimney to generate a little heat on those most directly responsible to the major unit holders; so perhaps their little narcissistic fantasies of climbing up that corporate ladder into the folds of the multinationals will really be threatened. Business fact is that if you do a lousy job of taking care of our assets and can't keep the peasants in line we don't want you around.


----------



## pdoff

On this site - for the past year there have been many inspiring contributions by Time-share owners in the arguments against Northwynd's management of their resort/s.
I have been trying to summarize what has happened from the point of being one of the original lease holders (owners of a certain amount of time in a resort - nothing more).
OK - we faithfully paid maintenance fees for over 20 years as we experienced the fees rise over 150% and the integrity of the resort rapidly decline. This ended last year with Northwynd's pay to stay or pay to go fiasco!
Now Northwynd calls us dissident owners or delinquent owners (I think that I like dissident better - it can be interpreted as disagreeing with this mess. Delinquent owners has more of a negligent implication for not drinking the Sunchaser cool-aid)
It seems somewhere along the line that the last owners, Fairmont, went bankrupt - but, just before that, they offered a bunch of people 13% interest on their dollar (wow - hard to believe) to invest in their resorts? I guess these folks invested in this wonderful opportunity and it didn't work out so they took on the resort/s themselves?
The new owners want us time share investors (many on Senior Pensions now) to pay for this mess and also to lose whatever is left of their initial investment.
I have lost track of which of these Owners devastated Vacationers who bought into Mexico, Costa Rica, Belize, Arizona and Hawaii? The iconic Rafter 6 was also left in the dust.
It sounds like Lake Okanagan is also on shaky grounds?
The only resort left - is whatever is left of Fairmont...a good investment - I don't think so!
It is 'just a fact' that we are questioning Northwynd's integrity for their part in this crazy situation and that we are hiring lawyers to sort it out.


----------



## no_more

*check sunchaser website for building 7000 info*



Hotpink said:


> I am trying to find out about the actual costs of the 7000 Hillside building
> 
> Here is part of the decision made by Justice Romaine on the 2010 CCAA ruling
> 
> "(c) Timeshare operations and the management and administration of
> the Fairmont, Lake Okanagan, Belize and Mexico resorts operated
> by Fairmont would also continue without interruption; and
> (d) _*Northwynd would take the responsibility for the repair of a key
> facility which required foundation and structural repairs expected
> to cost more than 2.5 million in excess of funds currently held in a
> trust account on behalf of timeshare owners.*_ The repair was
> essential for the continued use of that facility."
> 
> This is the only building that I can figure is the one she is referring to in her ruling and if this is factual we need to ascertain the actual costs of this repair. I believe I remember that it was around 4 mil.
> If that is the case it would appear to the delinquent lessees ( us) that there must have been 1.5 Mil in the trust account and yet they told Madame Loo there never was a trust account and she noted that there never was a reserve account in her ruling. Again who is lying??? Both Justices can't be wrong can they???
> 
> I need some help with this as I need to determine the actual or as close as possible the costs of the 7000 building.
> 
> I know the anatomical reason that certain reptiles have split tongues; but did not know it may also apply to some of the Biped variety as well.
> 
> Asking for your help with these numbers as I'm sure on of you will have that information. Thank you fellow tugers



Hotpink, I found it on the sunchaser vacation villas website, check the owners section, financial reports and look at the 2011 management's discussion and analysis - there is a whole section at the end of the report about it. the number quoted is 4,540,000

make sure to save a copy, because with these people, they can remove it from the website at any time.  for example, no sign of the audit reports prior to 2011 and I know they used to be there.  

I checked my paper correspondence file and didn't see anything from them about building 7000.   

Those are "just the facts".


----------



## TimesharesBlow

Northwynd can suck it. 'Nuff said. We are going with the lawyers.


----------



## GypsyOne

Its been a good day with some informative posts.  Northwynd CC has been strangely quiet!


----------



## ClanMac

*Good on you TS'sB*

Don't dismiss S1's statement that the lawyers need as much help as we can provide them with. The likes of N_M, S1, G1, HP, L2G and many others are about as good a legal assistant team as you can get!!! There's a lot of digging going on, and the spadework on the actual numbers related to the costs, expenses for maintenance and repairs, and the overall financial status and accountability is  huge. Kudos to N_M and HP!!!

I live in the Okanagan and have made a point of visiting the resort (Lorwynd); it's a mess and a reclaimation project at best.

Dwindling decay best describes Northwyd Properties in general.


----------



## no_more

*northwynd has a permanently damaged reputation*

nobody will lend these folks money anymore - certainly not a financial institution, and I seriously doubt any private offerings offering 12% or more will attract any further investors.  

they have to try to manage their only cashflow available - the lessees (I refuse to call anybody owners) through an attempted legal mugging administered by their lawyers - and they aren't going to get $10 million for Lake Okanagan Resort - its a beautiful location, I've dropped in there on the way back from an Okanagan vacation a few years ago, but most of the resort you should just tear down and start over.   apologies for those who own there.   You could say the same thing for their former Rancho Banderas property, taken over by Marival not long ago - check it out on TripAdvisor - stunning location north of PV, but the resort needs a refresh.

over time this becomes more and more a liquidation operation - a group of  trust unit holders were close to suing almost a year ago, and backed off apparently since we haven't heard anything about them recently.  

and then there's our wonderful trustee - if we could get a hold of the timeshare registry of lessees we could organize and throw both the managers and trustee out.    its in the contract - we need 51% of the vote but you need the names and contact information for the timeshare holders and we don't have that (yet).

I could have paid these people $1600 last year and said goodbye, but after what I've read about and heard from these people over the past 9 months , well my handle here says it  NO-MORE.


----------



## Spark1

no_more said:


> nobody will lend these folks money anymore - certainly not a financial institution, and I seriously doubt any private offerings offering 12% or more will attract any further investors.
> 
> they have to try to manage their only cashflow available - the lessees (I refuse to call anybody owners) through an attempted legal mugging administered by their lawyers - and they aren't going to get $10 million for Lake Okanagan Resort - its a beautiful location, I've dropped in there on the way back from an Okanagan vacation a few years ago, but most of the resort you should just tear down and start over.   apologies for those who own there.   You could say the same thing for their former Rancho Banderas property, taken over by Marival not long ago - check it out on TripAdvisor - stunning location north of PV, but the resort needs a refresh.
> 
> over time this becomes more and more a liquidation operation - a group of  trust unit holders were close to suing almost a year ago, and backed off apparently since we haven't heard anything about them recently.
> 
> and then there's our wonderful trustee - if we could get a hold of the timeshare registry of lessees we could organize and throw both the managers and trustee out.    its in the contract - we need 51% of the vote but you need the names and contact information for the timeshare holders and we don't have that (yet).
> 
> I could have paid these people $1600 last year and said goodbye, but after what I've read about and heard from these people over the past 9 months , well my handle here says it  NO-MORE.



Northwynd has been really quite lately. I have a question for them. There has been over 600 timeshare lease owners that have converted over to SPOA which Is Sunchaser Premier Owners Association and they did not receive the freedom to choose package. We have good friends that did this. They owned two gold weeks and one prime week. They just pay a membership fee each year. With over 600 owners converting, who is paying the one time renovation costs and the maintenance fees for the condos that they were responsible for before they joined this association? Us time owners have enough to pay for.


----------



## no_more

*Some quick math*

If i do some math on spark1s question -  600 plus owners each with a week equals about 12 2 bedroom units - assuming 200K per unit to renovate by northwynds numbers that is $4.8 million dollars.

Great question - given the lack of transparency by our "elected official" Northwynd ( their term )  I can only think the worst.   At least with an elected official they have to run for re-election and these people don't.


----------



## no_more

*This is a prime challenge - getting the word out*



Late2Game said:


> Beaverjfw, great to see people like you coming around and digging in for the fight like hundreds of other TS leaseholders.
> 
> But how many other TS leaseholders haven't considered this because they are simply unaware of the option?  How many will be bullied into either option "A" or "B"?
> 
> Until less than a month ago I was not even aware of the TUG bulletin board and ongoing dialogue on this site.
> 
> *HOW CAN WE ENSURE OTHERS ARE EQUALLY INFORMED OF THEIR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS?*
> 
> .



It is difficult to get the word out - because northwynd has the registry of all lessees with their contact info and we don't.  That is their primary advantage.   I started looking on the web in late 2012 and got connected in to various discussions.   People who don't use the internet to get info are isolated because the only voice they hear is northwynd's.   There is no  homeowners  association to provide a counterbalancing voice.


----------



## Late2Game

*Getting the word out . . .*

Yes no_more. . . .obtaining THE LIST (timeshare registry of leases) is key to getting the word out to the many poor souls who have yet to discover this forum.  But don’t expect to get that anytime soon as transparency and a balanced discussion are simply not in Northwynd’s best interest.

It’s a real shame many people will be coerced into one of two bad options over the coming days.

Like many things in life, the world has far more observers than participants.  And this specific bulletin board topic is no different.  A quick scan across the TUGBBS reveals that this particular subject ([2012] New program coming for fairmont, BC 2013?) has received substantially more views than others on the BBS.  We’re talking ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more views!!!

This leads to two simple conclusions: (1) this is an issue affecting a tremendous number of people; and (2) a lot of folks are still sitting on the sidelines and have NOT made a decision on this matter yet.  

As human beings are notorious for leaving things to the last minute, many are reviewing these very pages now to help inform their decision.  That’s fine, but I’d also suggest a quick phone call to one of two law firms appealing Justice Loo’s decision.  For a small nominal fee you can join the growing list of fellow-TS leaseholders who will ultimately get justice and a much more cost-effective option for disposal for their leases.

There is a far better option than paying the extortion fee being demanded by Northwynd!!

.


----------



## Hotpink

*Split tongue speaks again*

Here is a quote from the 2011 financial statement on the Sunchaser website 
"REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Under the terms of the Vacation Interval Agreement, the Property Manager is authorized(  *my contract says SHALL article 10 (g))[/*) to set up a replacement reserve to enable furnishing and fixture replacements to be made when required. Historically, the Resort has not had a replacement reserve*( see the audited statement from 2003), *. In addition, to the best of our knowledge the Resort has never had a replacement reserve study completed.*When the resort was initiated it was not a condo or a strata project and would not require a RFS . Has the resort now been reclassified to require such an exercise?*
Leaseholders and owners should be cautioned that the financial statements of a property manager only present the receipts and disbursements related to capital replacement. As a result, they are not sufficient for the analysis of the health of a resort.(*Does this mean we should not be believing what they are telling us?*) The critical piece of information on resort health is the level of deferred maintenance in comparison to the size of the replacement reserve.(*Was this information not in the disclosure docs when they took over in 2010?*
For years, maintenance fees were not at a level appropriate for the long-term sustainability of the resort. The resort maintained operations by avoiding deferred maintenance requirements and allowing the Resort to degrade. As a result, past financial statements that showed minor replacement reserve surpluses or deficits were not indicative of the Resort’s true health.
As at December 31, 2011, the years of avoiding deferred maintenance had reached unsustainable levels. Subsequent to year-end, we engaged a third party general contractor to assess the state of the Resort and prepare a renovation plan to remediate it.*Does this not constitute  Northwynd getting  a less than complete Reserve Fund Study done for the near future?* In late 2012, the renovation project was announced with an expected renovation start sometime in 2013.
Additional information on the renovation project is available on the Resort’s website at http://www.sunchaservillas.ca/owners/renovations.asp.
Once the renovation project is complete, we intend to perform a complete replacement reserve study to enable a more effective forecasting and billing of refurbishment costs to sustain the resort into the future".(*Really!! this last sentence tells you point blank that they are going to conduct a comprehensive reserve fund study at our cost AFTER the renovation is complete and subsequently bill you to fund the reserve fund probably in addition to maintenance fees*)

Bold and underlined are my comments

If I owned a condo this is how it is but I thought I was a lessee in a time share. How silly of me to think they just want to do the right thing.

Am looking forward to our appeal


----------



## ClanMac

*Couple of things*

When I complained a few years back that that they were supposed to organize an owners association, develop and maintain an open and transparent communication network with us as was stated in the CCAA agreement, I was told by Northwynd that they had sent a letter to everyone and there was little interest. That was BS; so when I asked for a list of the lessees/owners so I could start something, they told me they would not release that information due to privacy requirements. All we had then was their lousy website. Communicating with us and doing their best to ensure their activities were also in our best interests was a major requirement that led to the judicial decision at Queen's Bench in 2010.

Hey No_More: with respect to those unit holders (original first mortgage bond holders) who had formed an action group with the intent to sue Northwynd; they represented Olympia Trust RRSP investors, and Jim Aitken (Chairman) and Chris Bryant (Ass't Chairman) spearheaded the claim that a significant amount of investments had been lost and they had not received any financial statements for six years. They specifically stated that they had targeted a number of individuals with Northwynd (May 26, 2013). I was all over this but had trouble reaching them, and not all that long ago (Dec. 12, 2013) I read that Olympia Trust had sold it's transfer agency and corporate trust assets to Computershare Trust Company of Canada for 43 million. Isn't it interesting that this amount has been circulating for the past four years and is pretty damn close to the amount of the original debt associated with the first mortgage on the Fairmont properties; and Computershare is by far the largest holder of units in the Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust. And guess w what? The law suit suddenly disappeared.

I threw this at Northwynd CC in this forum some time back, and their response  was that Northwynd is not dealing in securities or investments in and out of the trust; and no senior executive of Northwynd is being sued. Well of course not, trustees acting on behalf of the unit holders suck investments in and pay the likes of Computershare; and the law suit disappeared because the claimants from Olympia RRSP were bought out. I just hope the money went back to the poor people whose retirement dreams had gone up in smoke.

All I get from Northwynd when I ask questions or ask for explanations relating to activities of the trust is that all I need to know is in the financial statements, they did nothing wrong or illegal, and it is none of our business as TS holders what their unit holders are doing. You see these are the big nationals and multi-nationals, and Fairmont resort properties is nothing but a spit to them. Yeah they still don't want to lose more than 40 million, but as Northwynd admitted to us, these corporations bought into the reorganization plan given that they were told they would make their money back and more; and now they are so pissed off at Northwynd for ditching the original plan from 2010 and mismanaging and acting negligently with all the crap they have frantically dug up since, it can't be anything more than get the most money you can because we are about to foreclose on all this mess once again.


----------



## no_more

Late2game, I like your game.  Exactly, it would take probably a court order to pry the registry of lessees out of northwynds's hands and that isn't happening before Jan 15.   

The law firms representing us "dissidents" are Geldert law in Vancouver and cox Taylor in Victoria - they both have websites and are working together on this.


----------



## no_more

ClanMac said:


> When I complained a few years back that that they were supposed to organize an owners association, develop and maintain an open and transparent communication network with us as was stated in the CCAA agreement, I was told by Northwynd that they had sent a letter to everyone and there was little interest. That was BS; so when I asked for a list of the lessees/owners so I could start something, they told me they would not release that information due to privacy requirements. All we had then was their lousy website. Communicating with us and doing their best to ensure their activities were also in our best interests was a major requirement that led to the judicial decision at Queen's Bench in 2010.
> 
> Hey No_More: with respect to those unit holders (original first mortgage bond holders) who had formed an action group with the intent to sue Northwynd; they represented Olympia Trust RRSP investors, and Jim Aitken (Chairman) and Chris Bryant (Ass't Chairman) spearheaded the claim that a significant amount of investments had been lost and they had not received any financial statements for six years. They specifically stated that they had targeted a number of individuals with Northwynd (May 26, 2013). I was all over this but had trouble reaching them, and not all that long ago (Dec. 12, 2013) I read that Olympia Trust had sold it's transfer agency and corporate trust assets to Computershare Trust Company of Canada for 43 million. Isn't it interesting that this amount has been circulating for the past four years and is pretty damn close to the amount of the original debt associated with the first mortgage on the Fairmont properties; and Computershare is by far the largest holder of units in the Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust. And guess w what? The law suit suddenly disappeared.
> 
> I threw this at Northwynd CC in this forum some time back, and their response  was that Northwynd is not dealing in securities or investments in and out of the trust; and no senior executive of Northwynd is being sued. Well of course not, trustees acting on behalf of the unit holders suck investments in and pay the likes of Computershare; and the law suit disappeared because the claimants from Olympia RRSP were bought out. I just hope the money went back to the poor people whose retirement dreams had gone up in smoke.
> 
> All I get from Northwynd when I ask questions or ask for explanations relating to activities of the trust is that all I need to know is in the financial statements, they did nothing wrong or illegal, and it is none of our business as TS holders what their unit holders are doing. You see these are the big nationals and multi-nationals, and Fairmont resort properties is nothing but a spit to them. Yeah they still don't want to lose more than 40 million, but as Northwynd admitted to us, these corporations bought into the reorganization plan given that they were told they would make their money back and more; and now they are so pissed off at Northwynd for ditching the original plan from 2010 and mismanaging and acting negligently with all the crap they have frantically dug up since, it can't be anything more than get the most money you can because we are about to foreclose on all this mess once again.



thanks Clan Mac - that connects some more dots in this.  there was a website set up early last year related to this issue , since shut down, it is mentioned in the early pages of this thread.  Chris Bryant was posting on the site  - it is also mentioned on this thread that he was co-opted by Northwynd to support the renovation project, and he is quoted in a CBC news article last year on this story saying he supported the renovation, it was hard to write the cheque but he did it.    they didn't mention in the story that he was also an investor in the Olympia Trust RRSP related to the property under "renovation".  

Now, a couple of other questions ... there is an FRPL Finance blog out in the web dated Feb 24,2010 that talks about 3 year term 12% bonds they were issuing.   how does this fit into the mix ?   maturity would have been last year I suppose.

and ... during the bankruptcy some of the major debtors included Dunvegan Petroleum (one of the Knight brothers) and Colin Knight himself with several million dollars "owing" to them.   are they now part owners of the resort through bankruptcy and directing operations behind the scenes ?


----------



## Hotpink

*Collin Knight*

In the CCAA proceedings it showed Collin Knight as being owed a couple of million dollars as well as Dunvegan petroleum of which he was involved



no_more said:


> thanks Clan Mac - that connects some more dots in this.  there was a website set up early last year related to this issue , since shut down, it is mentioned in the early pages of this thread.  Chris Bryant was posting on the site  - it is also mentioned on this thread that he was co-opted by Northwynd to support the renovation project, and he is quoted in a CBC news article last year on this story saying he supported the renovation, it was hard to write the cheque but he did it.    they didn't mention in the story that he was also an investor in the Olympia Trust RRSP related to the property under "renovation".
> 
> Now, a couple of other questions ... there is an FRPL Finance blog out in the web dated Feb 24,2010 that talks about 3 year term 12% bonds they were issuing.   how does this fit into the mix ?   maturity would have been last year I suppose.
> 
> and ... during the bankruptcy some of the major debtors included Dunvegan Petroleum (one of the Knight brothers) and Colin Knight himself with several million dollars "owing" to them.   are they now part owners of the resort through bankruptcy and directing operations behind the scenes ?



Collin Knight was President of Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd and when he signed the original prospectus we received in 1998. He was also president of Lake Okanagan Resort Vacation Ltd up to at least 2008. I will dig out the creditor list from the CCAA ruling in 2010


----------



## ClanMac

*Great ?'s N_M!*

I remember the 3 yr. bonds and the 12%, and the tie in with FRPL Finance. FRLP was the name given to the internal management of the trust, and was responsible for managing the business affairs of Northwynd LP. The LP stands for Limited Partnership and represents the Corporation(s) and the General Partner (which was designated Fairwynd). 

On March 4th, 2010 there was an agreement (the 'arrangement') between the trust, Northwynd LP, and the General Partner to exchange the first mortgage bonds secured on the Fairmont property assets for trust units of the Trust. It was a smart but snaky move because the "trust units will be qualified units for exempt plans"; which means transactions could be free of a prospectus offering (i.e.) no longer transparent and requiring information to be made public. An unlimited number of units could be generated, but at first there were 40 million, one for each dollar of the debt.

There were three trustees who were appointed then (during the restructuring), and not only could they recommend investing, they could sell units. It is interesting that two of them specialized and had other business interests in exempt market securities transactions. One got nailed and lost his licence for good, because he fraudulently ripped off millions. One other, very interestingly was also a director of the General Partner.

I believe this is all coming together, although Northwynd CC denies anything to do with all this. You can probably say that legitimately if Northwynd technically isn't involved in the partnership.


----------



## Hotpink

*Creditor list*

Here is the creditor list from 2010 follow the link

http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...t Properties Ltd/FRP - Bankruptcy Package.pdf

You will note that the address for Collin Knight and Dunvegan petroleum are all the same 

Look how many Valley businesses were also affected .
You may also see other familiar names such as Doug Morcon. check out Cedarpointe estates, FRPL Finance and all the Fairmont names in Calgary and  Fairmont  with the same addresses Have no idea of who Lorex in Vernon is.

When do we think the house of cards will start to falter???


----------



## no_more

*hmmm ... how much dilution of the trust*



ClanMac said:


> I remember the 3 yr. bonds and the 12%, and the tie in with FRPL Finance. FRLP was the name given to the internal management of the trust, and was responsible for managing the business affairs of Northwynd LP. The LP stands for Limited Partnership and represents the Corporation(s) and the General Partner (which was designated Fairwynd).
> 
> On March 4th, 2010 there was an agreement (the 'arrangement') between the trust, Northwynd LP, and the General Partner to exchange the first mortgage bonds secured on the Fairmont property assets for trust units of the Trust. It was a smart but snaky move because the "trust units will be qualified units for exempt plans"; which means transactions could be free of a prospectus offering (i.e.) no longer transparent and requiring information to be made public. An unlimited number of units could be generated, but at first there were 40 million, one for each dollar of the debt.
> 
> There were three trustees who were appointed then (during the restructuring), and not only could they recommend investing, they could sell units. It is interesting that two of them specialized and had other business interests in exempt market securities transactions. One got nailed and lost his licence for good, because he fraudulently ripped off millions. One other, very interestingly was also a director of the General Partner.
> 
> I believe this is all coming together, although Northwynd CC denies anything to do with all this. You can probably say that legitimately if Northwynd technically isn't involved in the partnership.



Clanmac - I'm sure this explains the complicated corporate structure - a way of firewalling liabilities and facilitating any accounting deception - just saying, not "just facts"

Interesting ... just thinking aloud again ... how many units of the trust have been issued - the more units, the more debt, and the more obligations for distributions - I bet its way more than $43 Million ... which explains trying to liquidate Lake Okanagan ...  and retrench into Fairmont and try to leverage the value of that one remaining asset ... 

and I wonder who Northwynds auditor will be for the 2013 fiscal year ..  my wager is its not Collins Barrow this time -  if I were them I would turn this piece of business aside - I'd LOVE to see the audit workpapers that CB produced, the gaps - and the specifics of what led them to the qualified opinion ... that points to the money trail of any irregularities ... 

the days of easy money are over for Northwynd regardless  - they are being closely monitored and their business reputation is crap ...

all it takes is one well placed person in this house of cards to get caught in something else, and rat out his partners in exchange for some deal and the house collapses


----------



## Hotpink

*Interesting read about the Knight Boys*

Its a bit dated but definitely tells you the type of people we are dealing with

http://www.complaints.com/2011/febr...t_Properties_LTD___formerly_known__251280.htm


----------



## no_more

*Costa Maya ...*

and then there is Costa Maya reef resort in Belize ... I should say "was" - this is where they play the nice trick of transferring timeshare interests from Belize to Fairmont .. people are thrilled ... come over to the Canadian milking station people ... 

http://www.tripadvisor.ca/ShowTopic-g291961-i1457-k4954086-Costa_Maya_Reef_Resort_Ambergris_Caye-Ambergris_Caye_Belize_Cayes.html


----------



## Hotpink

*Mr Wankel*

When  Northmont goes into receivership it will not be Mr. Wankel's first rodeo 
He is listed as creditor number 153  with a undisclosed claim on the attached creditors list from Fairsky resources in Dec 2007
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_ca/...andrestructuringproceedings/fairsky/index.htm

His Biography as posted on a site giving the listing of Northwynds  2011 management list is
Kirk Wankel; Chief Financial Officer
Kirk Wankel graduated from the University of Calgary with a Bachelors of Commerce in 1995 and obtained his Chartered Accountant designation in 1998 while working for Arthur Andersen. Kirk has over a decade of industry experience including positions as the Vice President of Finance for BW Technologies Ltd., Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Fair Sky Resources Inc., and Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Blackline GPS Inc. Kirk has been the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Northwynd since November, 2010.

BW sells Gas detectors, Fairsky Resources went through bankruptcy while he was the CFO and Blackline GPS sells GPS apps primarily for Blackberry smart phones. Guess he saw the  writing on the wall for Blackberry when he decided to jump on board what must have looked like an easy game to play.

Now we as Lessees have him leading the charge as the new CEO to keep us forging ahead and hopefully afloat in these yet uncharted and turbulent seas of  timeshare changes. 

As the sports analogy goes a Coach is Hired to be Fired.


----------



## RWC

Here is the joke of the year, quote taken off of Northwynd's website. "As a chartered accountant recently told Northwynd staff, "I've worked out all the values of making this kind of investment and learned that, within five years, not only have I been paid back, but I now have quality vacations prepaid for the rest of my life. The longer I own, the better it gets!""


----------



## darklord700

No point talking to Northwynd at this point.  

To increase public awareness, should we not hold a public protest or some kind? 

Maybe we can have a 3 city protest on the same day (Van, Cal and Edm).  It doesn't need to be anything serious but perhaps like a march to some trade commission office to let people know what Northwynd is doing to the timeshare or BC tourism industry.

I'll bring this up to my lawyer to see what he can suggest us do to expose Northwynd to the public.  If nothing else at least we will let others know that there're options other than paying Northwynd's ransom.


----------



## ClanMac

*getting attacked*

Northwynd or associates obviously don't like whats being exchanged here lately.


----------



## ClanMac

*more on the dilution*

No_More you hit the nail on the head when you talked about the number of units creating a dilution. There were at least 40 million to begin with, and I have to go back to the restructuring details and pick through them again; however there was the securities swap and the bondholders exchanged their bonds for trust units in Northwynd. Northwynd then acquired the loans made by Fairmont to FRPL and the accompanying security interests in the Fairmont assets. FRPL had been in default of due payments to the bondholders(ist mortgage) since Dec., 2008. 

As of March 31, 2010 the outstanding principal owed to the bondholdrs was $41,443,449.00, and unpaid interest of $10,561,831; as well another $12,640,933.00 owed. 43,804,817 LP (Limited Partnership) units were created, each worth $1.00. Northwynd needed a "bridge financing loan" to repay CCAA financing and to provide money to operate with, and a "demand promisory note" for $43 million was made. The loan agreement included the Fairmont security (property) and general service agreements. The general security agreement was granted to FRPL by Fairmont, Lake Okanagan Resort (LOR), and LOR Villas (run by another shell - Lorwynd).

All of this established Northwynd Properties Real Estate Trust as a "mutual fund trust", which was created primarily for the purposes of investing directly or indirectly in securities of Northwynd LP "in any business involving real estate development, acquisition and OPERATION!!!!!" Five of the major bond holders were employees of FRPL.....guess who?

This dilution of the value of the securities occurs frequently when exempt status is acquired (remember, less reporting to the public, no prospectus), and  is essentially Debt Securities that can be sold. The huge problem that arises is what the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) refers to as: Over the Counter (OTC) trading with little information available to the public; a lack of systematic regulatory reporting or transparency for investors; a lack of timely pricing info (i.e. you don't know the true value of what you paid for); and no reassurance or specific valuation of the assets (i.e. Fairmont Property) that indicate that it can withstand the dilution created with the huge number of units being sold. In fact it couldn't possibly occur with the Fairmont and LOR properties and land; they are not worth anywhere near that, are mortgaged to the hilt and further loans (may as well be second or third mortgages) were taken out with the property as security. In essence it is debt on debt. Does this not set the stage for the potential emergence of a ponzi-like operation. Selling to Peter and using the proceeds to pay Paul; and then selling to Mary in order to pay Peter? There is no other way to pay the 12% guaranteed return on the investment over three years unless there is another source of revenue being gernerated.

When I specifically asked Northwynd CC where this revenue comes from, the response was essentially it is none of my business. After all we are just the TS peasantry! NCC did state that they were not involved in unit transactions and suggested they didn't know what I meant by Debt Securities transactions. Isn't it interesting that IIROC proposed requirements for Debt Securities Transactions in Feb., 2013, and they may be enforceable very soon if not already. That meant there had to be a fast scramble to get in as much $ as possible or run the risk of having to be accountable to IIROC and perhaps ultimately face charges of fraud for knowingly selling securities for way more than they are worth, and giving misleading information and promises of returns to unwitting investors.

The only other way to argue that this is not what was/is happening is to acknowledge that the principal bond/unit holders are investing their own money; and I can't see where you can add in other assets (property) as additional security; it is after all Northwynd's Real Estate and nothing else. The trustee who got busted interestingly claimed that he was investing the money he earned from sales commissions back into the trust, and he too was the victim of fraud. If I were prosecuting a criminal case based on this crap I sure as hell would be serving him with a subpoena to testify. Nothing like looking for a rat hoping to escape at least two years in the pen!


----------



## ClanMac

*Addendum*

Just a quick add on here. I will check into it to make sure if it occurs. Lets just say that massive unit holders like ComputerShare would have a trustee sell their units, and they could guarantee their value and rate of return on the billions worth of assets they own outside of the Fairmont properties. Would you want to be stuck with a real estate investment trust that requires you to have to back it up like that? The number one premise for developing and operating a business is to make $, and you don't get to be the size of ComputerShare by hanging on to dwindling assets like the Fairmont properties; and you can't be too happy with the property managers and developers who let it get this way in the first place. And like I said in a previous post, Northwynd can blame Fairmont RPL all it wants, but it has been running this ugly show for the last four years. If I were on the board of directors for ComputerShare or any of the other major unit holders, I wouldn't at all be happy with us TS peasantry digging into their business affairs and perhaps finding some grounds for questionable trading practices. Says a lot about the mismanagement and negligence of the Northwynd team.


----------



## Late2Game

Good digging *ClanMac* . . . . WOW!!  What you've uncovered sure sounds a lot like a Ponzi scheme to me. . .of Bernie Madoff proportions!  So where are the regulators, the RCMP, etc?  Oh ya. . . just like 2008 on Wall Street, many of these companies go largely UNregulated.  

Oh *darklord700*. . . .a march to the trade commission sounds like an interesting idea, though I sense you'd just encounter a lot of ambivalence there.  A more effective location would be the Northwynd/Fairmont offices at 5799 - 3rd Street SE in Calgary.  A little "information picket" *on PUBLIC PROPERTY* would certainly grab the attention of the MANY local TS leaseholders walking in with there cancellation agreements in the last few days before the January 15 "deadline".  Remember, a lot of these will be walked in as people tend to procrastinate!

BTW . . .this forum has been VERY active over the past 24 hours. . . .approximately 1500 views over that time.  Many people are still undecided and looking for information!

.


----------



## no_more

*more musings ...*

if you ever plan to visit the Northwynd offices at  5799 - 3rd Street SE - you can also drop in and compliment our trustee Philip Matkin on how well he has represented the timeshare lessees interests - his law office has the same address as Northwynd.

Matkin used to work at Macleod Dixon before he left to form his own firm.    Who was Macleod Dixon bought by a few years ago ?  - Norton Rose.   They are the lawfirm representing Northwynd.   hmmm...

who is listed as a vice president of Makaha resort in Hawaii, another property in the Northwynd stable ?  Philip Matkin.    hmmmm...   Northwynd is being sued for repossession of this resort.

people that are undecided - call Geldert Law in Vancouver or Cox Taylor in Victoria - get another view from the legal groups representing us before you decide on paying northwynd thousands of dollars either way, to stay or leave.   their websites have their contact information.   they are working together.    join a group fighting this, and have your interests protected.   

Northwynd encourages you to get legal advise, so there are two suggestions on who to talk to ...


----------



## ClanMac

*Offline personal messages*

No_More, I am not snubbing your request for a private "tete a tete"; in fact I would enjoy nothing more at this point. I am not the most computer savvy guy and don't know how to do it without opening up personal e-mails; and I believe you were tagged when I did so the last time. My computer was attacked pretty harshly, and even now I have trouble getting to where I want to go. Show me a safe way and it will be done!

As well, great job on the Matkin and Rose Norton connections; this whole thing is starting to stink so bad I think even Madam Justice Loo would have her nose turned up.

We have to be aware that a lot of this would perhaps be subject to a submission of irrelevance and "turning over rocks and looking for dirt" as NCC claimed we were doing. The appeal is focused on the contract; whether it is unfair, been irreparably breached/voided, and therefore not binding. What we have been putting together provides a lot of evidence as to who has been pulling the strings in a nasty way and why; but the particulars relating to the mismanagement and negligence of the Fairmont properties in response to the string pulling would make for a much tighter noose.

There may come a time if it isn't already upon us, to consider what Geldert and company need to know and prepare for. I definitely know they don't want it aired out in this forum; and there's a few cards, including an ace in the hole I can play (if I have the legal aspects of it worked out right). Don't think for a minute that Northwynd isn't following all this like a starving man chasing after bread crumbs. Some of you wanted to know why Northwynd CC has been suddenly quiet as D Day the 15th is upon us. It for sure is for the same reason. I chastised him (we all know who it is!) for being an idiot and putting out here what he already did. If you go back a bit you will see that I suggested his senior legal counsel would be slapping him up side of the head for doing so, and being naive enough to think that he could bait Michael Geldert into playing 'chicken' with him. There pretty well hasn't been a peep since.


----------



## no_more

*no worries clanmac*

clanmac, I used the private messaging function available on this bulletin board for talking to other members.  Apologies for any grief this has caused you.


----------



## Hotpink

*Incestuous people in Northwynd*

You may also note that in the CCAA hearing Philip Matkin is listed as accreditor being owed almost 12 K.

It would be nice to know if there is a lot of activity going on at 5799 - 3rd Street SE in Calgary on Wednesday the 15th. I am stuck up north would have gone and walked around with a placard of some nature.

Attached is a site regarding this matter in the local papers

http://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/?p=10858 

The reporter indicates a follow up story is in order and his contact info is in the story. He indicates he hasn't spoken with other owners to date.
You all can see his contact info.


----------



## Hotpink

*Private messages*

Clanmac

Left click on the persons name ( handle)
select send a private message to ?????
then you should be off to the races
Good luck


----------



## Redneckriot

I am  a new member as a result of Northwinds  ransom demands. I am wondering what are thoughts would be to message/mail/phone British Columbia's tourism minister informing him we will plan to never step foot in BC again.


----------



## ClanMac

Thanks HotPink! You have not caused me grief No_More, it is my own limitations. It will all work out. HP, what you say about Matkin and his investment/what is owed him, and his obvious position as caretaker of our $ clearly puts him in a conflict of interest. Seems the same may apply to others. This would be cause for investigation from the governing bodies that regulate their behaviour.

Redneckriot. It is a shame that you may give up visiting the beauty that is B.C., and as a result of the psychopaths who had no consideration for anything other than themselves. Give Tourism BC the notice, and when all this crap has been scraped away from you, you can see once again through unclouded eyes.


----------



## no_more

Redneckriot, I have not heard of anybody contacting the BC tourism minister, but I would not be surprised if they have been contacted by others and are aware of it.   

You might want to contact either of the lawyers working this case - Geldert Law in Vancouver or Cox Taylor in Victoria and ask that question also.


----------



## no_more

Clanmac,  you have seen my emails now.     one further tip - there is an item called User CP again at the top of the panel - if you click on that you can change the parameters of your account - for example, you can block particular registered users on TUG from sending you emails if they become a nuisance.


----------



## DarkLord

Redneckriot said:


> I am  a new member as a result of Northwinds  ransom demands. I am wondering what are thoughts would be to message/mail/phone British Columbia's tourism minister informing him we will plan to never step foot in BC again.



I'm waiting for my lawyer's suggestion about bring up this to the next level.  Contacting the BC tourism minister is a great idea.  The other one is to contact RCMP commercial fraud section.

You did the right thing coming here.  Do not pay this crooks one red cent.


----------



## GypsyOne

DarkLord said:


> I'm waiting for my lawyer's suggestion about bring up this to the next level.  Contacting the BC tourism minister is a great idea.  The other one is to contact RCMP commercial fraud section.
> 
> You did the right thing coming here.  Do not pay this crooks one red cent.



I wouldn't be surprised if members of the BC government want this resort to continue any way possible.  They don't want a failed major resort on their hands with loss of tourism and construction revenue. The RCMP have been informed and they will do nothing while the matter is being litigated.  We need to win this case in court.


----------



## Northwynd CC

ClanMac said:


> Northwynd or associates obviously don't like whats being exchanged here lately.



We continue to monitor this site regularly.  We have accepted throughout this process that some owners will reject the situation to their last breath.  What has been said here recently is neither surprising, nor of concern. 

The last week’s posts are recycled theories that were not true in 2010 when they were rejected by Justice Romaine of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, were not true in October when they were rejected by Justice Loo of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and will still not be true when they are presented to the next justice.  We have already addressed them through our customer service feedback thread in numerous places and specifically Misconception’s #1-#10.

While there are a few vocal individuals on this site, overall the site has very little activity and the last week of posts have shown it is no longer a constructive venue for information.  At the same time, if an owner has a helpful question about the process, their contract, or the resort, we will continue to provide that information. 

However, we will not engage in a war of words over recycled theories.  If an owner is unwilling to listen to two federally appointed Justices who have heard all of these theories before and rejected them because they are without merit, it is unlikely they will listen to us. That has and will continue to be done in the court of law with our legal counsel.

We are focusing our resources on the hundreds of owners we communicate with daily who have questions about the resort and their contracts.


----------



## ClanMac

*NCC theories?*

Northwynd CC: what theories are you talking about that are being recycled here? As you stated, much of the information being shared and connected is a matter of public record, and there are no theories. It is not a theory what was specifically stated with the debt, the conversion, loans, failure to follow through with the accepted plan, the decay of the Fairmont properties, negligence and mismanagement. I don't know how many times you have blamed all these troubles on mismanagement; and it wasn't limited to FRPL. You admitted to mismanagement in Dec. 2012, and you were the one who stated that it took you two years to reel the mess in and to come up with the reno project.

All the statements made about securities, swaps, exempt plans, how transactions are made, the security commissions and IIROC regulations etc. These are facts, not theories. Is it a theory that the financial status of the Fairmont properties is dire? Is it a theory that the securities of the trust are not secured on these properties? It it a theory that trustees can recommend and sell units? Is it a theory that law suits occurred and/or the plaintiffs reconciled once the threat of such existed? Is it a theory that some employees/staff/management of your organization have investments into the trust? Is it a theory that your CEO and first CFO who were heralded as the ones to lead Northwynd to financial viability are no longer there? Is it a theory that your current CEO was responsible for financial operations for virtually the past four years (or perhaps if he relegated such to someone else when he became CEO on one was told about it? 

Here is a few of your theories: Justice Romaine originally approved all the structural, financial changes you have made since 2010. Justice Loo addressed the specifics related to all the changes made since the Queens Bench ruling and approved them; and she addressed the concept of fairness, representation and equal distribution of power inherent within the contract, and specific breaches and their potential ramifications; particularly as they relate to the best interests of the TS being bound. Justice Loo ruled that ignoring Justice Romaine's decisions regarding open and honest communication and a role in the decision-making process with respect to management of the properties was appropriate; and in accord with the principles of fairness being sought with the Queens Bench ruling. 

You perhaps are referring to potential theorizing regarding who was engaging in fraudulent transactions outside of the one trustee appointed during transition, when your former CEO moved in from ashes of Fairmont, and together with your current CEO who had moved in 7 months later, combined to create even further financial and property decay. Oh sorry, that latter part wasn't a theory.

Principles of business management, securities transactions and the rules and regulations that govern such are not theories. Why don't you check with JustFacts, or are you one in the same, sort of like Fairmont and Northwynd.


----------



## ClanMac

*legal counsel*

Northwynd CC

Who is paying for your legal counsel or is that also none of my business.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Northwyndcc Arrogance*

There are many owners that are following this thread that don't submit comments but are reading  and learning from these people submitting information.  They seem very knowledgeable and must be a threat to you Northwyndcc.  Knowledge if very strong.  It is very insulting to write negative comments just because you are and know that you are loosing the battle of populatity.  And from what I can see you are loosing the battle period.  I know of at least 15 owners that will never pay you another penny and have no worries about you coming after them and those are the ones I know personally, can only imagine the many thousands out there that feel the same.  I am included.  Come and get money that we don't have.  I am
 very saddened of the position you Northwyndcc have put honest people in.  We have enjoyed our time with Fairmont, paid our increasing maintenance fees faithfully and are very upset that we are loosing everything.  But again, when you must send insulting and intimidating messages, you must be afraid of how much knowledge these people have and  that are giving out to help all of us owners that are getting screwed.


----------



## ClanMac

Thanks for your support Anxiety123. It is a tremendous virtue to stand up for the principle of what is right, just and fair, despite the heavy toll it make take for doing so. I have learned through more than 33 years of practice in the criminal justice system across Western Canada that ultimately the law will be by your side when you stay the course and don't back down no matter the money, threats and attempts at intimidation that are thrown at you. It is nice to know that you and your friends are there!!!


----------



## browger

*We stand united*

We have been sitting back quietly reading the blog.  We to have joined the fight!  We have been married over 40 years, have never had a lawyer in our life, have never been delinquent on anything, but we stand united, we will not crumble, we are not paying a dime more for this timeshare.  I hope more people come forward and show 'we are united' together.  I will not sell my car to pay these people off! Enough!!


----------



## no_more

I take tremendous encouragement from the posts of anxiety123, clanmac and browger.    Thanks to all three of you for your passionate words.   My reason for joining this board originally was to keep the name of the lawyers Geldert Law and Cox Taylor up front and centre, so people will know they can join others resisting this - and have another option.   I will keep doing that - but now for me its increasingly about much more than that -  its sharing what I have learned in almost a year researching this with others on this board, a fight for justice, standing united, and resisting evil.    

Peace be with you all


----------



## DarkLord

ClanMac said:


> Who is paying for your legal counsel or is that also none of my business.



Good catch ClanMac.  If I see legal fee on the resort budget, I'll tell my lawyer.  Northwynd can't use our maintenance fee to fight the hands that feed them.


----------



## BWcantri

*Just sayin...*

I am not writing this to start a big argument. I know there are a few that will take offence to this but here goes......

Although some say they are not paying another cent and that Northmont will never get a penny from them because they have no money I don't understand how you intend to live without money?? 

I have read statements such as "can't get blood from a stone" and "I have no money"..You have money and they will attempt to take it..The collection agencies and the such are going to be a PITA going forward. 

I don't think it is a reasonable or necessary risk to take for the sake of a few thousand dollars when in the end "if" and yes I stress *if* they honor the Cancellation Agreement as they say they will, you could and I will stress *could* be finally free from the ever decreasing popularity of timeshare ownership.

With the all inclusive market taking many of the good resorts and more to follow it seems that a chance to get out is better than this fight that could go on endlessly. 

A few truths...

This whole thing suks!
Good money after bad money!
Lawyers are in business to make money also!
Freedom of speech and choice!
We are taking what we think to be the lesser of the evils!

Just sayin...


----------



## ClanMac

Thanks again No_More, you have always stayed the course. I echo your advise to all: MAKE SURE YOU ARE WITH GELDERT/COX et. al.

I have not been forwarding what we have posted to them because frankly I don't know how to do so. Please make sure that all we have dug up gets there as Spark1 insisted.

HotPink and you hit on something very important. If any of the lawyers or other professionals contracted by Northwynd who are answerable to a Gov't required regulatory body (manditory), and who have investments/debts in the trust, now or in the past; they are clearly in a conflict of interest and subject to disciplinary action by these bodies. It not only speaks to malpractice, but given everything else the likelihood of fraud and cover-up.

A formal complaint to the Alberta Bar and other of these regulatory bodies would definitely draw a lot of negative attention to the aforementioned.


----------



## Buck man

*Fight the good fight*



browger said:


> We have been sitting back quietly reading the blog.  We to have joined the fight!  We have been married over 40 years, have never had a lawyer in our life, have never been delinquent on anything, but we stand united, we will not crumble, we are not paying a dime more for this timeshare.  I hope more people come forward and show 'we are united' together.  I will not sell my car to pay these people off! Enough!!



I too have been sitting back and reading these blogs for the past couple weeks and have decided to join the fight and are in the process of signing up with Geldert law.
Surely in a democratic society like ours these companies  shouldn't be able to get away with this type of activity.


----------



## NoMas

*Just found you folks!*

Wow lots of information here, I have been wondering if there was more to what was going on, it just wasn't feeling right somehow.  Got information from the attorneys, and most likely will sign up too, though at $250 per hour the $3000 or so Northwynd wants goes away quickly.  

Does anyone know roughly how many "owners" are joining in to the legal action?

Sorry I just haven't taken the time to read the whole thread.


----------



## no_more

Geldert law retainer is $150 to join the appeal group.    There are hundreds that have joined the appeal, the number continues to grow as people explore their options and have sticker shock at the latest cash demand.    

The number who have joined will be kept quiet until the time it must be revealed as Northwynd would love to know the number to gauge the opposition ...


----------



## GypsyOne

NoMas said:


> Wow lots of information here, I have been wondering if there was more to what was going on, it just wasn't feeling right somehow.  Got information from the attorneys, and most likely will sign up too, though at $250 per hour the $3000 or so Northwynd wants goes away quickly.
> 
> Does anyone know roughly how many "owners" are joining in to the legal action?
> 
> Sorry I just haven't taken the time to read the whole thread.



When you mention a legal cost of around $3,000, from what we have seen so far, you are way over-estimating.  I have been in the action from the beginning and so far my cost has been $350, which includes affidavits, the first Special Case hearing, and the appeal.  Remember you are splitting the costs with hundreds of other disgruntled owners.  The Special Case had 655 owners listed as clients of the lawyers.  The appeal I don't know exactly, but hundreds of TS owners have joined and more are signing on regularly.  This is some of the best money I've spent and I'm usually not a fan of legal action.  Sometimes actions perpetrated against you are so egregious that you just have to suck it up, pay for legal representation,  and fight. This is one of those cases and I hope you and others do the right thing and join up.  We may be the minority but we are the just minority and we have what is right on our side.  If there is any justice in the justice system we will win.


----------



## Late2Game

*Decision. . .*

Hey BWcanrti. . . I appreciate your perspective.  Two weeks ago I was of the same mind as you.  This whole thing is a tremendous time suck and for a few thousand dollars you just make it go away, right?  Maybe. . . .maybe not.

There is a lot of information on this site but it's also relatively devoid of solid legal opinion. . . .a lot of good "stuff" but you have to sort through youself and form your own opinion.  I'm certainly not a lawyer, but there are plenty of good ones out there. 

Before you submit to the onerous demands of Northwynd, I'd suggest you contact either Geldert or Cox-Taylor.  A brief but informative discussion costs you nothing, and you'll be better armed to make an informed decision.  If you're like me you'll be glad you did and you'll sleep soundly knowing YOUR best interests are being served.

As for ongoing legal costs, think of it this way. . . . there are hundreds of TS leaseholders signed on so your actual costs will be a small fraction of the overall legal bill. . . . .some definite economies of scale here.

At any rate, we live in a free country and the choice is ultimately yours.

Good luck!


----------



## darklord700

BWcantri said:


> We are taking what we think to be the lesser of the evils!
> 
> Just sayin...



The lesser of the two evils is to pay Geldert Law $150 retainer and then sit back and let them do the work.  

Sounds like a few grand isn't a big deal to you and honestly a few grand less won't put me in the poor house either.  But this is exactly the kind of thinking Northwynd is counting on when they hatched this scam.


----------



## no_more

Geldert and cox Taylor are working together on the appeal also.   The judge who ruled in the original case has had rulings overturned before, and in one particular case the court of appeal took the unusual step of publicly chastising her, for ignoring evidence in her original ruling and overturned her decision.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*United*

My take of the whole issue as to whether to stay and pay for the renovation fee, or to pay to cancel is ask myself a very simple question. What do I own with my timeshare? I own time... Sharing of time. A contract for a set amount of years, after which the owners of the development could do as they wish as I am not the owner of this development, I own time. Very simple. 

Yes, I fully understood that I would also be responsible to pay a yearly fee called a maintenance fee to cover the costs of utilities, wages and upkeep of the resort of which I own time. 
I don't feel I should be paying for capital improvements, nor should I have to pay to give up my time.

I do hope that many that are sitting on the fence not knowing what to do, stand up and fight for what you feel is right. 
Join one of the law firms.


----------



## Spark1

ClanMac said:


> Thanks again No_More, you have always stayed the course. I echo your advise to all: MAKE SURE YOU ARE WITH GELDERT/COX et. al.
> 
> I have not been forwarding what we have posted to them because frankly I don't know how to do so. Please make sure that all we have dug up gets there as Spark1 insisted.
> 
> HotPink and you hit on something very important. If any of the lawyers or other professionals contracted by Northwynd who are answerable to a Gov't required regulatory body (manditory), and who have investments/debts in the trust, now or in the past; they are clearly in a conflict of interest and subject to disciplinary action by these bodies. It not only speaks to malpractice, but given everything else the likelihood of fraud and cover-up.
> 
> A formal complaint to the Alberta Bar and other of these regulatory bodies would definitely draw a lot of negative attention to the aforementioned.



Good morning everyone. It is great to hear from new posters. It shows us posters that have been here almost from day one that many of you feel the same way. We have friends here in Mexico that owned at Playa Del Sol Grand and owned time there for 5years but did not like being almost in Bucercia's which is almost 30 km's from Nuevo Vallarta. They contacted their resort that they did not want to be members of that resort anymore and reasons why. The resort sent out papers for them to fill out and released them from the resort. This just took place this fall. There was no trying to steal money for a huge cancellation fee or renovation fee . They were happy to to take what time that was remaining on the contract. 
What I was doing when I was in Canada, any Post that I felt was great material for the lawyers to use I would left click the post on the number and then I would print the post. I would then fax the post over to the lawyers. There is a lot of great information , example ClanCan posts that should be sent to Geldert or Cox Law. We are in this together and this is how we will beat them. Have a great day.


----------



## Go Riders

Good morning.  We will be joining the fight as well!  We have tried to negotiate with Northmount on a lesser cancellation fee but they keep replying that it is not negotiable.  So we are in the process of signing up with one of the law firms.

We were on the fence but Northmount has pushed us to join the appeal process.  To all the other fence sitters, please join us as there will definitely be power in numbers!

Thanks to all the forum members that have posted very useful information that has encouraged our decision to join the fight.


----------



## TimesharesBlow

I have read the entire thread. I also joined in with the lawyers. I am sad to see my initial $14,000 investment go up in smoke, but it is not worth it anymore to pay these ridiculous demands. Northwynd can have it. I did not pay maintenance for 2013 when I first saw the notice. Don't pay these crooks another cent. You will only be held hostage as they will focus their efforts on people who do pay, because they will follow the money. I am sure they will come back to the current owners who want to stay in a very short time and demand even more money.


----------



## Meow

I've been following the posts on a regular basis, even though i have not had much to contrubute to the discussion.  I am grateful to ClanMac snd the others who have been researching Northwynd's infamous history.  It is also encouraging that there are newcomers to this site that have now joined the legal battle.


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> Good morning everyone. It is great to hear from new posters. It shows us posters that have been here almost from day one that many of you feel the same way. We have friends here in Mexico that owned at Playa Del Sol Grand and owned time there for 5years but did not like being almost in Bucercia's which is almost 30 km's from Nuevo Vallarta. They contacted their resort that they did not want to be members of that resort anymore and reasons why. The resort sent out papers for them to fill out and released them from the resort. This just took place this fall. There was no trying to steal money for a huge cancellation fee or renovation fee . They were happy to to take what time that was remaining on the contract.
> What I was doing when I was in Canada, any Post that I felt was great material for the lawyers to use I would left click the post on the number and then I would print the post. I would then fax the post over to the lawyers. There is a lot of great information , example ClanCan posts that should be sent to Geldert or Cox Law. We are in this together and this is how we will beat them. Have a great day.


I am sorry I was posting in bed and screwed up on ClanMac's handle. To many drinks at the Sheraton.


----------



## pdoff

The Rafter 6 Ranch folks are packing up their belongings (Global - Newscast).There was reference to their demise being caused by 'Predatory Investor Practises by Resort Developers' and should be investigated.
Also there was a reference to a possible RCMP investigation on that newscast yesterday. The newscast was repeated this morning (Jan 15) - but the reference to the RCMP was not repeated - interesting.


----------



## renoman

*go legal*



Meow said:


> I've been following the posts on a regular basis, even though i have not had much to contrubute to the discussion.  I am grateful to ClanMac snd the others who have been researching Northwynd's infamous history.  It is also encouraging that there are newcomers to this site that have now joined the legal battle.




Have joined the legal battle, and other can do so for at least a week or so yet. Open until Northmont ask the lawyers for the list of their clients.


----------



## NoMas

*We're in too!*

Thanks to all for the hard work you folks have done!  We are joining up too.  I just looked up the Rafter Six Ranch website, they have a press release describing in general terms what is happening with them.  http://www.raftersix.com


----------



## Late2Game

*Good money after bad . . .*

Link to Rafter Six story below:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1082659/rafter-six-ranch-packs-it-in-for-good/

It's a damn shame. . . .the story says it all.

Will the newly renovated Fairmont encounter a similar outcome two years from now?

.


----------



## DarkLord

http://globalnews.ca/news/1082659/rafter-six-ranch-packs-it-in-for-good/

"That came after the Cowley family made a deal with resort developers who then went into receivership, leaving the family with a massive amount of debt."

This is Northwynd's MO, leaving people with debt while they walk away.  Those who consider staying should really give it a second though after learning what happened to Rafter Six Ranch who had successuflly run for a few decades before Northwynd came alone.


----------



## INTEGRITY

TimesharesBlow said:


> I have read the entire thread. I also joined in with the lawyers. I am sad to see my initial $14,000 investment go up in smoke, but it is not worth it anymore to pay these ridiculous demands. Northwynd can have it. I did not pay maintenance for 2013 when I first saw the notice. Don't pay these crooks another cent. You will only be held hostage as they will focus their efforts on people who do pay, because they will follow the money. I am sure they will come back to the current owners who want to stay in a very short time and demand even more money.



My wife and I have just joined the Resistance.  We are dubious of the integrity of Northmont and want out.  We are confused if we join the appeal whether we will be able to get out, even if we win the appeal.  Does anyone know whether we could get out IF we win the appeal?


----------



## no_more

I drove by the Northwynd offices around lunch time today - no lineup of people at the door unlike the last time.    I didn't see a soul coming or going.   Their office building is still named Fairmont Place.


----------



## GypsyOne

INTEGRITY said:


> My wife and I have just joined the Resistance.  We are dubious of the integrity of Northmont and want out.  We are confused if we join the appeal whether we will be able to get out, even if we win the appeal.  Does anyone know whether we could get out IF we win the appeal?



Since you are signed up with a lawyer, you could get a quick opinion with an email.  Northwynd would certainly have a tough time taking collection action if they lose the appeal. I'm okay crossing that bridge when we come to it.


----------



## no_more

*another drive past Northwynd offices*



no_more said:


> I drove by the Northwynd offices around lunch time today - no lineup of people at the door unlike the last time.    I didn't see a soul coming or going.   Their office building is still named Fairmont Place.



took another drive past the northwynd offices out front at 445 this afternoon - the main office appeared closed, and maybe 6 cars in the parking lot - this in spite of their office hours now showing as 8-6 on their website.     

nobody in sight, much less people lined up outside paying the extortion fee.


----------



## NoMas

*Good!*

No_More that makes NoMas smile!


----------



## ClanMac

*So Proud*

I am so proud of all of you all, you are true Trojans. There is no defeat until you give up, and we are in it all together. 

For those of you who inquired; winning the appeal is what sets the stage for walking away from this mess without being bled for another cent. It certainly eliminates the validity of including the stay in or buy out addition to the maintenance fees; and essentially draws attention to the limits of the original contract to begin with. Justice Loo was not focused, nor was it intended for her to focus on whether the contracts carried over from the Creditor Protection agreement were still valid. This agreement in 2010 primarily focused on whether it was legal for the creditors to accept a proposed plan from Northwynd that would allow them to carry the debt, make a lot of money on TS sales and conversion of lessees to the fee simple RCI program, pay interest on the loan to the creditors, essentially have the principal paid in full by 2015, and for the creditors to start making a profit on the property. Consideration for the TS lessees was to be based on fair treatment; and included an association that was to have input into the management decision-making and an open and transparent relationship with respect to the dealings of the trust that took care of the TS equity. The ruling by Judge Romaine was that only under these circumstances would Queen's Bench approve "the arrangement".

Guess what, you already know the answer to this. The details of this arrangement were never fulfilled. The original contractual agreements made to Fairmont that were carried over on these conditions were breached, and the contract has been continually breached since.

I erred in my previous post when I suggested that the lawyers that both are/were hired by Northwynd that have/had investments into the trust were suspect of malpractice due to an obvious conflict of interest; I should have stated that they would likely be guilty of engaging in a "dual relationship", which is forbidden by the Colleges that govern our practices.

It is encouraging that No_More is perhaps witnessing first hand the last of the rats abandoning the sinking ship. Take care my friend and don't get busted for stalking, ha ha!!!


----------



## no_more

*rafter six video on global calgary*

I just watched the video on Global TV Calgary about those people losing their ranch as a result of a "predatory resort developer".

I am spitting mad over this - and more determined to fight than ever.   I hope there is a happy ending for these people, and the "resort developer"  in this high profile story gets nailed.   I think the chat with the RCMP will last more than 15 seconds this time.     

why aren't the consumer affairs reporters in western Canada reporting on these people ?    I don't get it.

Don't pay these people one cent.     Sign up with Geldert Law or Cox Taylor and let's expose these people and stop them.


----------



## no_more

*it was a drive by clanmac !!*



ClanMac said:


> I am so proud of all of you all, you are true Trojans. There is no defeat until you give up, and we are in it all together.
> 
> For those of you who inquired; winning the appeal is what sets the stage for walking away from this mess without being bled for another cent. It certainly eliminates the validity of including the stay in or buy out addition to the maintenance fees; and essentially draws attention to the limits of the original contract to begin with. Justice Loo was not focused, nor was it intended for her to focus on whether the contracts carried over from the Creditor Protection agreement were still valid. This agreement in 2010 primarily focused on whether it was legal for the creditors to accept a proposed plan from Northwynd that would allow them to carry the debt, make a lot of money on TS sales and conversion of lessees to the fee simple RCI program, pay interest on the loan to the creditors, essentially have the principal paid in full by 2015, and for the creditors to start making a profit on the property. Consideration for the TS lessees was to be based on fair treatment; and included an association that was to have input into the management decision-making and an open and transparent relationship with respect to the dealings of the trust that took care of the TS equity. The ruling by Judge Romaine was that only under these circumstances would Queen's Bench approve "the arrangement".
> 
> Guess what, you already know the answer to this. The details of this arrangement were never fulfilled. The original contractual agreements made to Fairmont that were carried over on these conditions were breached, and the contract has been continually breached since.
> 
> I erred in my previous post when I suggested that the lawyers that both are/were hired by Northwynd that have/had investments into the trust were suspect of malpractice due to an obvious conflict of interest; I should have stated that they would likely be guilty of engaging in a "dual relationship", which is forbidden by the Colleges that govern our practices.
> 
> It is encouraging that No_More is perhaps witnessing first hand the last of the rats abandoning the sinking ship. Take care my friend and don't get busted for stalking, ha ha!!!



I won't clanmac !!   That's as close as I want to be to them ever again.    I was dropping off some donations at the Worldserve thrift store which is only 3 blocks away on 58 avenue - I found it very ironic that the building was called Fairmont Place and there was also a "For Lease" sign out front of it ... must be some room at the inn ...


----------



## Northwynd CC

no_more said:


> I just watched the video on Global TV Calgary about those people losing their ranch as a result of a "predatory resort developer".
> 
> I am spitting mad over this - and more determined to fight than ever.   I hope there is a happy ending for these people, and the "resort developer"  in this high profile story gets nailed.   I think the chat with the RCMP will last more than 15 seconds this time.



Northwynd is not and has never been involved with Rafter Six.  

From Rafter Six's own website:

"As you may, or may not be aware, Stan and Gloria entered into an agreement with a Calgary resort developer in 2008 to expand Rafter Six Ranch Resort. The resort land and buildings were put into the agreement and the joint venture partner would provide the development expertise and funding. Unfortunately, it was at the beginning of the recession and our joint venture partner went into a form of receivership which left us on our own to swim in the sea of debt that was amassed during the initial stages of the agreement. We have now become a casualty of this event."

Northwynd did not exist in 2008.  Fairmont did.  Northwynd is not Fairmont (Misconception #8).


----------



## DarkLord

Northwynd CC said:


> Northwynd did not exist in 2008.  Fairmont did.  Northwynd is not Fairmont (Misconception #8).



Make no mistake and absolutely no misconception here, Northwynd IS Fairmont.


----------



## no_more

Geldert Law and Cox Taylor have advised that anyone seeking to participate in the appeal should contact them immediately.


----------



## MFD

*Questions for Northwynd*

Why couldn’t you renovate only the bare bones of what was needed (Poly B Pipes, major issues)?  Instead you also chose to renovate and replace other things  that are not yet necessary like furniture, fixtures, ect.  Was it because of the additional 15% management fee you guys get on a larger amount? Majority of us owners will only stay there one week out of the whole year, I’m sure most of us would be fine “slumming” it out with smaller TV’s and dated furniture (although they are still quite comfy and cozy and far from needing replacement).  Especially if it meant we could potentially save half the amount you would be charging us.  It’s hard for us to believe that you guys are “good guys” and are looking for a solution for us when you’re making many unnecessary updates at our expense. Was it because you had hoped that many would just cancel after seeing such a large bill?  And it seemed that the option to Cancel was just suspiciously slightly lower that the amount was to Renovate, so either way it was a win-win for you.  You would either get the amount you wanted from us, or you would get a slightly lower amount and also get our timeshares back.  

As I understand it, you guys are unit holders that invested into Fairmont and lost everything when Fairmont went under.  You keep claiming that it is Fairmont that we should be blaming and if there was someone to go after it should be them.  But it seems now that because you cannot go after Fairmont to get your money back, you have decided to go after us “owners” instead.  We did not invest into something hoping to gain more money from it.  You did.  We only invested into our timeshare in order to gain a nice relaxing vacation with our family.   You made a bad investment, and I’m sorry that happened.  We didn’t, so making us pay for your mistake is unfair and unethical.

Honestly, if you had only charged me $1000-$2000 instead of the $4000 (now over $5000) to Renovate only what was absolutely needed and perhaps taking a smaller management fee, I would’ve been upset, but I would’ve thought about it and seen that you were actually thinking about what was financially reasonable for us “owners” and considering the fact that I would be willing to pay a couple thousand for continued vacations, I would have written the cheque.


----------



## browger

*Wondering?*

Ever since I replied on this web site, I am getting the following notifications:

Web Attack:Malicious Website Accessed 2
Severity High
Activity: An intrusion attempt byxjrrpkaxz.serveftp.com was blocked
Date:  Every time I go on this site

My Security has been able to block it.

This is concerning?  

Anyone else have this problem?


----------



## ClanMac

*computer attacks*

Browger:

I was attacked pretty badly and it took me and some computer savvy friends to clean it all out, re-configure and set up a new security system. I think No_More got attacked too. I believe some of us are being targeted, and it's very clear that a lot more than general monitoring of this site is ongoing.

Don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure who might be doing this!!!


----------



## no_more

*hi browger and clanmac*



ClanMac said:


> Browger:
> 
> I was attacked pretty badly and it took me and some computer savvy friends to clean it all out, re-configure and set up a new security system. I think No_More got attacked too. I believe some of us are being targeted, and it's very clear that a lot more than general monitoring of this site is ongoing.
> 
> Don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure who might be doing this!!!



given the amount of money at stake, would not surprise me ...


----------



## ClanMac

Northwynd CC:

As much as the great lengths you go to to distance yourself from Fairmont, and granted Northwynd isn't Fairmont; Northwynd was a formed company, not a brand new entity other than in name. As a matter of fact in the original CCAA agreement Northwynd is described as newly formed. 

Formed from what? You go even further to state that all your management had nothing to do with Fairmont, and were all new. Really? Then how do you explain that Patrick Fitzsimonds who came in as your CEO was still trying to buy out a TS lessee from Fairmont as a result of the fraud that occurred with the Ranchos Banderos resort. This was before or during the settlement and is a matter of public record. 

Further, do you think we are naive enough to think the RCMP investigation into the Rafter 6 fiasco is focusing on a business. You know they are targeting individuals involved. You can't put handcuffs on a business, but you sure can on individuals who ransacked a treasure and devastated a community and a heritage!!!


----------



## browger

*"No more" Computer attacks*

I just wanted to let everyone know, there have been no more incidents on
my computer.  Our Security system has done its job.  I havn't seen any
postings and I wanted everyone to know.  

We so appreciate everyone's input, and this is what has guided us through
these very difficult times.

Thanks again to everyone for your valuable knowledge.

(PS:If there is any other activity, I will let everyone know)


----------



## browger

*Att:  No_more*

Did you send me a private message.  I won't open, as I am wary.

Sorry


----------



## no_more

yes I did Browger.   there is a private messaging service on tug bbs which I have used with several individuals.       

you are wise to be wary.  if you choose not to open, I totally understand.    I won't know either way.

regards, no_more


----------



## ClanMac

*Where is HotPink?*

Don't want to lose you, and can't begin to tell you how important the info you sent.

Take Carre


----------



## Joron10

*Premier Association?*

My friends bought in Fmt about 10 yrs after we did.  They were offered to buy into a program called Sunchaser Premier Owners Association and thru this, they no longer technically own in Fmt.  They do pay their fees but they are free from paying any of these Reno fees.  Anyone hear of this or bought into it?  I heard nothing and was wondering how Northwynd those people to offer it to.  If it wasn't for my timeshares, I could be taking some really nice vacations!


----------



## Joron10

*Premier association*

I should mention, they bought into this premiers association last year after owning for about 8 years. I would have appreciated the same offer!


----------



## Spark1

Joron10 said:


> I should mention, they bought into this premiers association last year after owning for about 8 years. I would have appreciated the same offer!



This has been brought up before and ,if you want answers join one of the two lawyers that is working on the appeal. This being Geldert Law or Cox Taylor. This is part of their agenda. I am betting that most of them golf. Most of them have belonged to this resort as long as us or longer and I am sure their golf balls have done more damage to the main structure on the 7000 building then what we did.
The question is who is paying for all the open spaces this has created and why wasn't all of us offered this. More double standards. When they say 14500TS are responsible for paying the extortion,take off almost 700 SPOA members and that means us 13800 TS will be paying for all the damage they did. Our friends that belong to this SPOA golfed out there last year and stayed at Sunchaser and you are responsible for their part of their maintenance fees and the huge Justice Loo's renovation fee. How do you feel knowing this? This is more creative accounting buy JustFacts.


----------



## Joron10

Thank you for that info and I agree!  The friends I am referring to don't golf and we don't either but the 2 times we have stayed in Hillside, there were cigarette burns on the coffee tables and carpets.  We also paid for that!  
I am going to try and speak with these lawyers about the SPOA.  That frustrates me the most in all this.  I don't like that we're not being treated equally.   I wonder if they 2 firms are working together and if one is better than the other.


----------



## SentimentalLady

Northwynd CC:

Why are we paying to fix up all the buildings when you already know that several of them will be pulled out of the timeshare pool?

I don't recall you ever saying that those buildings would be sold and the proceeds used to reduce costs for the timeshare owners.....just that they would be "removed from the timeshare pool" (quotation inexact - it was not 'pool' and I cannot immediately find it again.)


----------



## SentimentalLady

Northwynd CC:

Why was a Lessee's Association never formed, despite repeated requests from lessees since you took over?

"The Lessor agrees to cooperate with the lessees in the formation of such an association and agrees to recognize the association....." (#18 on my Vacation Lease)


----------



## SentimentalLady

Northwynd CC:

Why were the audited financial statements not completed on time for 2010 and 2011?


----------



## aden2

To Northwynd CC;
I would like to know why the "Legacy for Life" program was still being promoted after Fairmont's rights in the resort were foreclosed and transferred to Northwynd?

I was contacted in November 2010 and given a slide presentation etc. and told this "Legacy for Life" was a deal of a lifetime. 

None of this presentation was true! It would appear that the company doing this was Northwynd! I was scammed!!!

What happened to the $millions Northwynd collect?
How can I get my monies back - this was* FRAUD?*


----------



## Joron10

I have contacted Geldert Law and Cox and Taylor and am waiting for a reply.  Not sure if they are still taking clients.  I also received a 2 page response to my inquiry regrading the Sunchaser Premier Owners Assoc, whose members do not have to pay any reno fees!  I would like a lawyer to see this and find out if they were 'allowed' to only offer this to a few member and not all.

Also, on the Gelder law website it states that Mr. Geldert is only contemplating an appeal.  Anyone else a client of Geldert Law?  Are you happy with the proceedings, if any?


----------



## Spark1

Joron10 said:


> I have contacted Geldert Law and Cox and Taylor and am waiting for a reply.  Not sure if they are still taking clients.  I also received a 2 page response to my inquiry regrading the Sunchaser Premier Owners Assoc, whose members do not have to pay any reno fees!  I would like a lawyer to see this and find out if they were 'allowed' to only offer this to a few member and not all.
> 
> Also, on the Gelder law website it states that Mr. Geldert is only contemplating an appeal.  Anyone else a client of Geldert Law?  Are you happy with the proceedings, if any?



We are happy with Geldert Law. Best thing to do is phone Michael Geldert and talk to him personally.


----------



## aden2

I talked to Geldert Law this a.m. and yes they are still taking new clients, and yes there will be an appeal.


----------



## aden2

deleted same comment had been repeated.........................


----------



## ClanMac

*Hey People!*

It's finally all come together and a package is on it's way to the RCMP. I don't believe the last of the snakes will be around much longer, and I'm confident you don't have anything to worry dealing with much on a civil level.

Always proud of you!


----------



## Spark1

ClanMac said:


> It's finally all come together and a package is on it's way to the RCMP. I don't believe the last of the snakes will be around much longer, and I'm confident you don't have anything to worry dealing with much on a civil level.
> 
> Always proud of you!



This is great news. We really needed your input,hot pink, gypsyone, no-more and everyone that just never gave up. Tug also has been a major big help for us time owners. I was just going to add all the empty spaces caused buy timeshare owners that just walked away from this resort because of the high maintenance fees. Who is paying these maintenance fees and picking up the huge Reno fees for these condo's? The governments have to change the regulations so timeshare owners are totally involved with the operations of these timeshare resorts. With out any input the door is wide open allowing management and the property owners to just screw the time owners.


----------



## aden2

A good book to read: WOLF ON WALL STREET.


----------



## aden2

ClanMac said:


> It's finally all come together and a package is on it's way to the RCMP. I don't believe the last of the snakes will be around much longer, and I'm confident you don't have anything to worry dealing with much on a civil level.
> 
> Always proud of you!



I just want to add to ClanMac comment: I received confirmation last Monday from the RCMP, that the package I had sent to them two weeks prior regarding *fraud* charges will be investigated.


----------



## aden2

Fraud Legal Definition:  Deceitful or deceptive conduct designed to manipulate another person to give something of value.


----------



## Wynnvegas

Just BECAUSE my sister and I are HAPPY with our timeshare and have fond memories. You assume I work at Northwynd. I am a Registered Nurse who works 24 hour shifts at Foothill and you better hope you don't get put under my supervision. Assuming you know me and thinking that you can beat an honourable judge court ruling. This is so laughable and the people who care to listen or follow you is just as ridiculous. Should my daughter/son work here to pay bills or help an ailing family member, I fully support this 100%!!!! That is really low to think that these employees have no mind of their owns or lives outside of work. No family to feed? Taking a blow at what your unhappy about is one thing but taking a blow others you don't know? Speaks so many volumes of your character and soul. Dark obviously!!!


----------



## Wynnvegas

*Ridiculous upon ridiculousness!!!*

People appealing a court ruling?? Any person with half a brain knows that you will not win not only will you lose your time, money and more money. Why don't people focus on getting murderers, pedophiles and drug dealers off the street??? It all seems so ridiculous. Stalking the business and claiming to fight this until your flat broke!!! Watch some soap operas people. Really. GOOD LUCK!!! You will need more than that!!!


----------



## gnorth16

Wynnvegas said:


> People appealing a court ruling?? Any person with half a brain knows that you will not win not only will you lose your time, money and more money. Why don't people focus on getting murderers, pedophiles and drug dealers off the street??? It all seems so ridiculous. Stalking the business and claiming to fight this until your flat broke!!! Watch some soap operas people. Really. GOOD LUCK!!! You will need more than that!!!



Court rulings get overturned  on a regular basis, especially when there is a major oversight or new evidience.  Anyone with "half a brain knows this"!!! 

As for threatening the care of a future patient in a hospital publicly on an open forum.  The scarecrow from Oz didn't have a brain and even he is smart enough not to do that...


----------



## Pynecone

*WynnVegas ... you should be ashamed of yourself.*

WynnVegas, you are a disgrace to nurses all over the world. You should be ashamed of yourself. Regardless of how you stand on this, you should take your nursing job seriously. Most nurses I know got their degree from an accredited university, you are one of the few who got their ticket right out of a Cracker Jack box.


----------



## DarkLord

WynnVegas, I suggest you finding new gainful employment qucikly as your CEO, Chartered Accountant, Kirk Wankel testified in court that Northmount wasn't a going concern anymore.  Nursing is an honourable trade and you definately should pursue that.  I have a sinicking suspision that you are actually Krik Wankel so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree giving you career advice.


----------



## gnorth16

DarkLord said:


> WynnVegas, I suggest you finding new gainful employment qucikly as your CEO, Chartered Accountant, Kirk Wankel testified in court that Northmount wasn't a going concern anymore.  Nursing is an honourable trade and you definately should pursue that.  I have a sinicking suspision that you are actually Krik Wankel so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree giving you career advice.



Northmount (or northwynd) is not a going concern.... More details please...


----------



## Northwynd CC

gnorth16 said:


> Northmount (or northwynd) is not a going concern.... More details please...



There are no details to provide.

Mr. Wankel's affidavits have been publicly available on our resort website for months.  The only affidavit that broaches the subject of operations is the June 24th affidavit which stated that the resort would not be able to continue to operate if the renovation fees were frozen in trust during the  special case proceedings.  As the funds were not frozen, the resort continues to operate.

The resort, like every other timeshare resort, operates on the maintenance fees of its members. If those fees aren't paid, or are frozen, the resort cannot pay its bills. This is not news.


----------



## DarkLord

Duplication, deleted.............


----------



## DarkLord

Northwynd CC said:


> The resort, like every other timeshare resort, operates on the maintenance fees of its members. If those fees aren't paid, or are frozen, the resort cannot pay its bills. This is not news.



I'm glad that Northwynd agreed that it is not news that the Resort/Northwynd/Northmount is not a going concern.

To help you prove that the Resort/Northwynd/Northmount is not a going concern:

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content...led-062513.pdf

Page 13, para 65 of Kirk Wankel's 2nd affidavite states that:

..it is clear and obvious that the Resort cannot continue to operate without access to the Renovation Project Maintanenace Fees.....

..the Resort...will have to default on its financial obligations to the Contractor and close its dorrs or enter bankruptcy protection by the end of September 2013.....

The Reno funds are supposed to be used for the renovation. But Kirk Wankel is now using it to run the resort which by itself is not a going concert by Kirk Wankel's own admission to a court affidavite.

When the Northwynd/Northmount/Sunchaser or whatever name shell game these crooks used finally closes it's door, it won't be the first for CEO Kirk Wankel. For Kirk Wankel was also the CFO of the bankrupted Fairview Resources. It's just a simple fact that past behaviour predictes future behaviour.


https://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dco...rsky_UnfiledCopyAffidvtDCrook12707_121709.pdf

page 5, para 21. ..Fair Sky willcease to be a going concern and that all members of the Board of Directors and management, including Kemp and Wankel, had tendered their resignation....


----------



## gnorth16

Northwynd CC said:


> There are no details to provide.
> 
> Mr. Wankel's affidavits have been publicly available on our resort website for months.  The only affidavit that broaches the subject of operations is the June 24th affidavit which stated that the resort would not be able to continue to operate if the renovation fees were frozen in trust during the  special case proceedings.  As the funds were not frozen, the resort continues to operate.
> 
> The resort, like every other timeshare resort, operates on the maintenance fees of its members. If those fees aren't paid, or are frozen, the resort cannot pay its bills. This is not news.



Actually it is.  The reno funds *should *be separate from MF's.  The reno fees should have nothing to do with the resort maintaining itself as a going concern.  By jumbling the two should strike fear in everyone that owns at this resort.


----------



## Northwynd CC

gnorth16 said:


> Actually it is.  The reno funds *should *be separate from MF's.  The reno fees should have nothing to do with the resort maintaining itself as a going concern.  By jumbling the two should strike fear in everyone that owns at this resort.



Mr/Mrs gnorth16.  While we appreciate your interest in this subject even though you are not a timeshare owner of the resort, it is not helpful when you make incendiary statements not based on the available information.

If you had reviewed all of the information on the resort realignment, you would know the renovation fee included two components, the renovation fee itself, and our owners responsibility for past deficits. You would also know the renovation fees are being kept separate in a trust account managed by Norton Rose.

If you had read Mr. Wankel's affidavit in full,  you would have seen the statements made are in reference to the renovation fees being used to pay for the renovation which was already started when the issue of freezing funds came up, as well as the need for the deficit fees to appropriately be applied to operations.

There is no jumbling of the two.  

We would also point out the affidavit is from June of 2013.  The other lawyers had the opportunity to cross examine it.  If this was a legitimate legal issue, it would have been brought up in the special case.


----------



## DarkLord

Northwynd CC said:


> There is no jumbling of the two.



Reno funds should be used to pay for reno only.  You kept saying Northwynd didn't exist until 2010 or so so you shouldn't be responsible for past deficit.  

How about owners like me who bought in late or be fooled by you into buying well past 2010, why should those owners be responsible for past deficits steaming from a decade ago?

Kirk Wankel, a Chartered Accountant should know full well capital funds are not to be used for operating purposes.  He deliberately circumvants that it's halarious that he's the one jumbling the two and you are telling people not to.


----------



## gnorth16

Northwynd CC said:


> Mr/Mrs gnorth16.  While we appreciate your interest in this subject even though you are not a timeshare owner of the resort, it is not helpful when you make incendiary statements not based on the available information.
> 
> If you had reviewed all of the information on the resort realignment, you would know the renovation fee included two components, the renovation fee itself, and our owners responsibility for past deficits. You would also know the renovation fees are being kept separate in a trust account managed by Norton Rose.
> 
> If you had read Mr. Wankel's affidavit in full,  you would have seen the statements made are in reference to the renovation fees being used to pay for the renovation which was already started when the issue of freezing funds came up, as well as the need for the deficit fees to appropriately be applied to operations.
> 
> There is no jumbling of the two.
> 
> We would also point out the affidavit is from June of 2013.  The other lawyers had the opportunity to cross examine it.  If this was a legitimate legal issue, it would have been brought up in the special case.



It doesn't matter that I'm not an owner at Sunchaser.  This case is precedent setting in Canada and speaks volumes of how a situation like this should or shouldn't be handled for *any *timeshare.  

If management was proactive, delinquent accounts would be managed and bad debts would be included in the annual MF's, not hidden in a Reno fee.  But I am sure this is Fairmont's Fault.  

I remember being offered a  lucrative asset backed real estate investment opportunity when I lived in Edmonton.  Glad I didn't take it or I would be feeling pretty guilty on how I would be getting my money back.:annoyed:


----------



## DarkLord

Back in late 2000's in some trade shows in Calgary, the predecessor of Northwynd, Fairmont was selling some investment with very high return like 14% or 18%.  The attraction was that Fairmont was going to expand the timeshare.

Now Fairmont can't pay those investors so they changed the name to Northwynd/Northmount and are trying to scam timeshare owners in the name of renovation fees to pay back those 18% investors.  

This is the gist of this whole fiasco.  Northwynd/Northmount/Fairmont has no intention to use the funds to renovate the resort at all.


----------



## Spark1

Northwynd CC said:


> Mr/Mrs gnorth16.  While we appreciate your interest in this subject even though you are not a timeshare owner of the resort, it is not helpful when you make incendiary statements not based on the available information.
> 
> If you had reviewed all of the information on the resort realignment, you would know the renovation fee included two components, the renovation fee itself, and our owners responsibility for past deficits. You would also know the renovation fees are being kept separate in a trust account managed by Norton Rose.
> 
> If you had read Mr. Wankel's affidavit in full,  you would have seen the statements made are in reference to the renovation fees being used to pay for the renovation which was already started when the issue of freezing funds came up, as well as the need for the deficit fees to appropriately be applied to operations.
> 
> There is no jumbling of the two.
> 
> We would also point out the affidavit is from June of 2013.  The other lawyers had the opportunity to cross examine it.  If this was a legitimate legal issue, it would have been brought up in the special case.


I would like to know if there was a trust set up with Norton Rose for the money collected for cancellation fees. This money was to be used to subsidize the renovation project for the time owners who paid the renovation fee and is that money still in that trust and none of it has been touched or used for any other purpose. The owners that used the cancellation form,are they really cancelled?
The reason I ask is when I took that form to Service Alberta I had them read over the form and I asked them to tell me what they thought. They did this and they told me you would not be cancelled if you use this form, is this correct? The reason I am asking is that I met a lady in Mexico that has a friend that owned at Sunchaser and she paid over 8000.00 for cancellation fees and her friend is a sales lady at the Vida resort in Nuevo or the Mayan Palace. They checked into seeing whether or not she was actually cancelled. and they found out her name was still on the title and that she was not cancelled. She was very upset when she found this out. So are the time owners really cancelled that used this form?


----------



## GypsyOne

Wynnvegas said:


> Just BECAUSE my sister and I are HAPPY with our timeshare and have fond memories. You assume I work at Northwynd. I am a Registered Nurse who works 24 hour shifts at Foothill and you better hope you don't get put under my supervision. Assuming you know me and thinking that you can beat an honourable judge court ruling. This is so laughable and the people who care to listen or follow you is just as ridiculous. Should my daughter/son work here to pay bills or help an ailing family member, I fully support this 100%!!!! That is really low to think that these employees have no mind of their owns or lives outside of work. No family to feed? Taking a blow at what your unhappy about is one thing but taking a blow others you don't know? Speaks so many volumes of your character and soul. Dark obviously!!!



Wynnvegas, unless you know the facts of the case you probably shouldn’t post.  The timeshare owners simply want their contract rights observed or contracts invalidated for numerous breaches.  The actions of Northwynd leaves little choice but to seek to have the contracts invalidated. You seem to be concerned about the jobs of Northwynd employees.  You would see it differently if you were asked to pay a total of about $21,000 (two bedroom annual), and lose most of your vacation time purchased under a 40 year lease agreement.  Or you were asked as a lessee/tenant to give an open-ended guarantee to rebuild deteriorating capital structures for the full term of the 40 year lease.  For example, as it stands now in year 38 several thousand timeshare owners might be asked to contribute several million dollars to restore resort buildings to add another 20 years of life to the buildings for which they will not benefit or have any residual value in the resort.  Responsibility for paying  capital costs are not in our leases for good reason, nor will capital costs ever be included in lease agreements for the simple reason the tenants do not own the facility or have any rights of ownership. 

The timeshare owners who bought into the conversion to Legacy for Life at a cost of around $6,000 to $9,000 and had the clause added to pay for capital costs have a different issue. Many of these timeshare owners are claiming misrepresentation.  Several owners are reporting the RCMP are looking into whether fraud was committed.


----------



## Northwynd CC

Spark1 said:


> I would like to know if there was a trust set up with Norton Rose for the money collected for cancellation fees. This money was to be used to subsidize the renovation project for the time owners who paid the renovation fee and is that money still in that trust and none of it has been touched or used for any other purpose. The owners that used the cancellation form,are they really cancelled?
> The reason I ask is when I took that form to Service Alberta I had them read over the form and I asked them to tell me what they thought. They did this and they told me you would not be cancelled if you use this form, is this correct? The reason I am asking is that I met a lady in Mexico that has a friend that owned at Sunchaser and she paid over 8000.00 for cancellation fees and her friend is a sales lady at the Vida resort in Nuevo or the Mayan Palace. They checked into seeing whether or not she was actually cancelled. and they found out her name was still on the title and that she was not cancelled. She was very upset when she found this out. So are the time owners really cancelled that used this form?



Cancellation fees have never been for the renovation and we have never suggested they are.  The cancellation fee is a payment to Northmont as developer for agreeing to terminate  your lease/ownership.

The cancellation agreement terminates your agreement and all cancellations are terminated through the trustee once complete.  Owners are provided copies of their cancellation documents and removal by the trustee upon completion. At least one owner has confirmed this in this thread.  Given the thousands of cancellations in May, it should be clear that the process is working as intended or there would be a massive uproar.  We have processed cancellations provided by dozens of law firms without issue.

The statements made by the Mayan Palace salesperson are either false or not quite accurate.  No SVV owner is on title as the resort has a trustee system which means a title search could not have turned up your friends name.

If your friend cancelled in the last 30 days, it is quite possible and likely they are still in the trustee's database because of the volume of paperwork being processed at this time.  It can take six weeks to complete the processing of a cancellation through the trustee. However, if they believe they have an issue with their cancellation, they should contact us.


----------



## DarkLord

Please be aware that the legitimacy of Northmount/Nortywynd charging for cancellation fee is being appealed and challenged in court right now.  Don't take what they say as truth as they are doing that for their own benefits and not timeshare lease owners.

It is criminal that after timeshare lease owners have lost thousands on buying the timeshare leases that they have to pay thousand to cancel.


----------



## DaveO

Northwynd CC - Since you seem to be lurking on the forum...Can you please add to your list of BS...err Misconceptions and please validate the claim that 700 owners were hand selected for a Sunchaser Premier Owners Association? 

To which they're not affected by your ransom?


----------



## DarkLord

Since Northwynd CC is posting on behalf of Northwynd/Northmount/Fairmont, why doesn't he/she identify who he/she really is in the organization.  Is he/she Kirk Wankel, Patrick Fizsimonds, Doug Frey, Philip Matkin or the lady answer the phone for them.  

Why hide behide a handle when he/she alledgedly is trying to promote communication between Northwynd/Northmount/Fairmont and the lease owners?


----------



## Spark1

Northwynd CC said:


> Cancellation fees have never been for the renovation and we have never suggested they are.  The cancellation fee is a payment to Northmont as developer for agreeing to terminate  your lease/ownership.
> 
> The cancellation agreement terminates your agreement and all cancellations are terminated through the trustee once complete.  Owners are provided copies of their cancellation documents and removal by the trustee upon completion. At least one owner has confirmed this in this thread.  Given the thousands of cancellations in May, it should be clear that the process is working as intended or there would be a massive uproar.  We have processed cancellations provided by dozens of law firms without issue.
> 
> The statements made by the Mayan Palace salesperson are either false or not quite accurate.  No SVV owner is on title as the resort has a trustee system which means a title search could not have turned up your friends name.
> 
> If your friend cancelled in the last 30 days, it is quite possible and likely they are still in the trustee's database because of the volume of paperwork being processed at this time.  It can take six weeks to complete the processing of a cancellation through the trustee. However, if they believe they have an issue with their cancellation, they should contact us.



I have talked to the lawyer that was involved in this search to see if this lady that paid over 8000.00 in cancellation fees  was released.She knew all about Northwynd and the Rancho Banderas. I also run into another couple from Calgary that were time owners at Sunchaser and they said they phoned your office and were told that justice loo made this stupid decision and paid over 6000.00 in cancellation fees. Now that is over 14000.00 that Northwynd has collected from these time owners and you and justice loo tell me this is legal and Northwynd only has taken this resort over three years ago. Do not put words in my mouth. I phoned your office when I received this threatening bill in April and discussed this cancellation issue and I was told that the reason for this high cancellation fee was that it would not be fair for the people that stayed and paid the renovation fee and there was not enough money to complete the resort so this cancellation money would be used for that. We now know there will never be enough money to renovate this resort so why are you demanding this huge renovation fee. We all Know the answer to this. It is called fraud and scam.


----------



## Riser63

*On board as well!*



Buck man said:


> I too have been sitting back and reading these blogs for the past couple weeks and have decided to join the fight and are in the process of signing up with Geldert law.
> Surely in a democratic society like ours these companies  shouldn't be able to get away with this type of activity.



Cant sit on the fence any longer and my heated conversation with Northwynd today solidified my decision. Thanks to all those who have spent hours in researching and posting information on this site. Hope I am not too late to join!


----------



## aden2

I don't know where to start and I am referring to Northwynd CC.
Northwynd CC;
 you are speaking out of the side of your mouth. It was Northwynd that continued with the "Legacy for Life", and this was because they were raking in thousands of dollars. It is sinful that Northwynd had no conscience to relaize how dishonest their dealings were. The bottom line is greed!!! Northwynd has only one objective and that is: 1) rake in as much money as you can, and while you can regardless how you do it. 

Most of TS investors are seniors, you Northwynd/Northmount were lucky so far but when you continue on your arrogant way it all catches up.


----------



## SentimentalLady

*No reply?*



SentimentalLady said:


> Northwynd CC:
> 
> Why were the audited financial statements not completed on time for 2010 and 2011?



This was posted on Jan 21 - and no reply?


----------



## SentimentalLady

*No reply II ?*



SentimentalLady said:


> Northwynd CC:
> 
> Why was a Lessee's Association never formed, despite repeated requests from lessees since you took over?
> 
> "The Lessor agrees to cooperate with the lessees in the formation of such an association and agrees to recognize the association....." (#18 on my Vacation Lease)




This was posted on Jan 21 - and no reply?


----------



## SentimentalLady

*No reply III ?*



SentimentalLady said:


> Northwynd CC:
> 
> Why are we paying to fix up all the buildings when you already know that several of them will be pulled out of the timeshare pool?
> 
> I don't recall you ever saying that those buildings would be sold and the proceeds used to reduce costs for the timeshare owners.....just that they would be "removed from the timeshare pool" (quotation inexact - it was not 'pool' and I cannot immediately find it again.)





This was posted on Jan 21 - and no reply?


----------



## Hotpink

*The 2011 News letter*

If you follow the link attached and read the news letter in the PDF format , both are exactly the same; it sounds like they have been doing many repairs with the current MFs . They also talked about having trouble collecting the MF's in a timely fashion and are making other changes to policy regarding booking and paying MFs when you book your week . We noticed this a few years back and questioned this but did not receive an answer other than it was to assist in cash flow. In many businesses that require special orders it is always preferable to have payment up front so you are not stuck with the merchandise should the customer decline to accept once it has arrived at your facility, as it is already paid for and maybe you can sell it again. Maybe Northwynd was hoping you would pay for your MFs and they could rent it out again. This happened to us last year as we could not get over there because of the Alberta floods and road closures and once before because of a family death when we could not use the House boat. Upon contacting, explaining the situations and requesting   did we get any consideration, return of deposits or anything other than that is to bad. Do we think they left the houseboat stay moored or the Hillside unit remain vacant when we could not use them. No is our belief.

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/OwnerNewsletterFall-2011.pdf

Remember they talk about 2010 problems when they did not manage the property.

The other item they discuss is the Lessee/owners association which they claim was sent out with little response. We don't know about the other lessees but neither one of our E-mail addresses have changed since we purchased about 15 years ago and it has not appeared on any of our respective systems. So are they speaking again with forked tongue? 
But we do have a Paid In full document unless they claim that went away when Northmont took over in mid 2010.
We are not confident that as they continue to morph and slither in various directions that this is viable for any of us. We have completely enjoyed all of our experiences at Fairmont and will be saddened to see it go.

A rattlesnake stuck in a wagon rut has no where to go


----------



## no_more

*Geldert Law continuing to accept new clients*



Riser63 said:


> Cant sit on the fence any longer and my heated conversation with Northwynd today solidified my decision. Thanks to all those who have spent hours in researching and posting information on this site. Hope I am not too late to join!



Geldert law is continuing to accept new clients.   Best of success in your decision.


----------



## Pynecone

*Come on Northwynd CC*

Come on Northwynd CC, let's see your responses to Sentimental Lady's questions?


----------



## Spark1

Northwynd CC said:


> Cancellation fees have never been for the renovation and we have never suggested they are.  The cancellation fee is a payment to Northmont as developer for agreeing to terminate  your lease/ownership.
> 
> The cancellation agreement terminates your agreement and all cancellations are terminated through the trustee once complete.  Owners are provided copies of their cancellation documents and removal by the trustee upon completion. At least one owner has confirmed this in this thread.  Given the thousands of cancellations in May, it should be clear that the process is working as intended or there would be a massive uproar.  We have processed cancellations provided by dozens of law firms without issue.
> 
> The statements made by the Mayan Palace salesperson are either false or not quite accurate.  No SVV owner is on title as the resort has a trustee system which means a title search could not have turned up your friends name.
> 
> If your friend cancelled in the last 30 days, it is quite possible and likely they are still in the trustee's database because of the volume of paperwork being processed at this time.  It can take six weeks to complete the processing of a cancellation through the trustee. However, if they believe they have an issue with their cancellation, they should contact us.


NorthwyndCC would you please tell us time owners what the developer is going to use the money for after the cancellation process is complete? Correct me if I am wrong,is Northwynd serious about completing this renovation?You stated that thousands are paying the cancellation so how small will the resort be and will it be even worth it to do a small renovation?Also did you tell all the legacy for Live owners the condition of this resort before they invested? The reason I am asking is they bought into this resort with the promise that the buildings were in great shape and there was lots of money in the replacement reserve fund which was one of our bank accounts set up buy our trustee. Why did Northwynd and Fairmont do this Legacy for Life Knowing how bad the buildings were and that there was no reserve fund to fix these buildings? One last question,do you feel justice loo would be happy with the amount of money that Northwynd is charging innocent time owners?


----------



## ClanMac

*Northwynd/Fairmont REIT Finance!*

I truly don't think you are sending any messages here from Canada. Don't for a second think you are safe anywhere else! I'll say what I said before: "you're not as smart as you think you are!"


----------



## Spark1

ClanMac said:


> I truly don't think you are sending any messages here from Canada. Don't for a second think you are safe anywhere else! I'll say what I said before: "you're not as smart as you think you are!"



That is exactly what this lawyer told me here in Mexico. She said they are now out of the country and will be in a country where the Canadian authorities can not touch them. They are very will known in Mexico. I can not believe none of the cancellation money is going towards renovating the resort. I hope everyone who has not made up their mind will now see what these crooks are up to. Do not believe this resort will ever be renovated with these criminals as the developer and management. Ph Geldert Law or Cox Taylor right away because the lawyers will have to let who ever is in charge who is on the list.


----------



## gnorth16

Interesting the amount of units available in RCI right now... Is that where Northwynd is putting all the extra units???


----------



## ClanMac

*Contracts*

For those of you not familiar with the laws. If you have a contract with a company that has engaged in criminal activity the contract is voided. Given that all these contracts originated with Fairmont RPL Finance, and the criminal investigations have already begun; I know you don't have anything to worry about with Northwynd.

The task at hand is to find these SOB's and prosecute the hell out of them!


----------



## GarryH

*Misconceptions Post By Northwynd CC*

I have recently been added to the Geldert appeal and would like to feel warm and fuzzy about the outcome: that is, departing Fairmont (reluctantly) with the least possible cost.

However, I have just spent the last hour reading through Northwynd CC's list of misconceptions on this site. All I'm looking for is the truth (and, yes, Jack Nicholson, I CAN handle the truth). These statements sound truthful. Are they?


----------



## GypsyOne

GarryH said:


> I have recently been added to the Geldert appeal and would like to feel warm and fuzzy about the outcome: that is, departing Fairmont (reluctantly) with the least possible cost.
> 
> However, I have just spent the last hour reading through Northwynd CC's list of misconceptions on this site. All I'm looking for is the truth (and, yes, Jack Nicholson, I CAN handle the truth). These statements sound truthful. Are they?



Those who have been in this battle from the beginning are giving Northwynd's so-called list of misconceptions very little credibility.  Essentially it is the corporate response intended to justify transferring the cost of restoring a prematurely deteriorating resort to the timeshare owners for the benefit of the real owners and the REIT investors.  

But not once do they address the many misrepresentations and breaches of contract that is at the heart of the timeshare owners case.  Not once do they state how it is possible that lessees or tenants are responsible for capital costs when tenants/lessees are never responsible for capital costs, nor is being responsible for capital costs included in the lease contracts.  Not once do they explain how it is fair and logical that timeshare owners should not just give back remaining timeshare that they paid hard earned money for, but also pay them more money to take it back, plus pay for another year's maintenance fee which the timeshare owner will get no value.  Northmont can then resell the space once again or convert to another type of unit, which is a sweetheart deal if you can get it. 

You can get more of the timeshare owner's response to this money grab starting on about page 45, Post #1101.


----------



## ClanMac

G1:

Your logic defies any attack or defense on the basis of reason; and as clear as it is to us that are already there, it is nothing but a challenge to the lawyers that throw up the clouds that obscure that which is reasonable. That they do it from a perceived safe distance from the moral/legal consequences that rightly befalls those who have deliberately hurt innocent people, is a testament to their psychopathic nature. We rely on those who can see through these clouds of injustice to reveal what is truly there. And God willing, our trust is in a legal system that will ultimately find this truth.

GarryH, you will do well listening to the advice of G1.


----------



## SentimentalLady

GarryH said:


> I have recently been added to the Geldert appeal and would like to feel warm and fuzzy about the outcome: that is, departing Fairmont (reluctantly) with the least possible cost.
> 
> However, I have just spent the last hour reading through Northwynd CC's list of misconceptions on this site. All I'm looking for is the truth (and, yes, Jack Nicholson, I CAN handle the truth). These statements sound truthful. Are they?



My opinion:  As far as they go - probably.

My question:  Why won't they reply to the very simple questions in posts #1313, 1314 and 1315?


----------



## DarkLord

GarryH and SLady, 

In addition to what G1 had said, no once did any Northwynd executives come out and tell the lessee holder why we are responsible to repair dilapidated buildings they bought pennis on the dollar.  Northwynd simply hides behind the obscure language of the contract which is now being challenge by our lawyers or send out cronies like Northwynd CC or JustFact to spread lies in this forum. 

If you step back and think why are the reno fee almost the same as the cancellation fee (both about $4,000 for annual owners).  The only reasonable conclusion you'll arrive is that this is nothing but a scam, a money grab in the name of renovation.  Northwynd doesn't care in what name, reno fee or cancellation fee, they just want to grab $4000 from each annual owner.

And once they are done, they'll either disappear or they'll sell what little left downstream to their brother Southstorm and do this scam all over again.


----------



## ClanMac

Regardless of how often Northwynd declares that it is not Fairmont, and takes no responsibility for what transpired under Fairmont's management; the leases or contracts were established with Fairmont. When Collins Barrow finally completed audits that were in breach of the timelines established in the contracts their disclaimer stated: "risks of material misstatement of financial statements, whether due to fraud or error...etc. etc." A material breach (which is serious), let alone a criminal offence of fraud, voids the contract. Therefore if the contracts/leases were already voided by Fairmont's actions, there was no further liability regardless of Northwynd taking ownership. Taking possession of invalid contracts does not make them viable just because you make all kinds of promises to take care of things and make it all better (which never happened anyway). Unless a new agreement was struck that would require your approval and authorization, they are no better than two ply!

One of Northwynd CC's misconception claims refers to breach of contract. Their suggestion is that minor or repairable breaches are not grounds for a contract to be voided. This is far from minor and definitely not repairable, and the status of the contracts in this regard was never brought to any Justice attention. Including that with the original CCAA arrangement and more recently with Justice Loo.

You know it will be front and centre with the appeal!!!


----------



## Hotpink

*Four Sides*

As was explained to me by whom I consider a man of considerable knowledge and quite a wit.
The law was designed by man to resolve issues among mankind and it has evolved into various forms around the world based on various issues.
Even if we research into historic times we would find that decisions made by those in power would not always reflect for the good of the whole.
One exception may have been King Solomon when he ordered that the child be cut in half and split the proceeds among the two combatting women. Most of you will know the outcome
Since then we have seen decisions made particularly in modern times when the following is what occurs. 

1) the facts according to the prosecution
2) the facts according to the defence
3) What the Judge or justice hears as the facts
4 The actual story

As one justice said to me " we as lawyers take the truth/ facts and manipulate it to best suit our purposes "

Can we honestly say: if you take the time to read through the affidavits from Norton -Rose and Northwynd  last spring that ALL they wanted was to get a justice to say they needed legal permission to charge us Reno fees and escape fees for Capital costs regardless of what all of the pre 2010 contracts ( from what I can perceive) addressed regarding our lessee obligations. 

Beyond the ruling they decided that if we ( lessees) failed to pay they could collect these fees through collections and renege on what the contracts said would happen if we didn't pay ( read section 13 of the old contracts ) 

There is too many used oats in this stuff for me to even get past the smell never mind swallowing it.

It appears that Justice Loo heard only what they said and that decision is being appealed at our costs. 

If any of us believe that The misconceptions thrown up by Northwynd  have any validity, remember they will manipulate everything to make them look like the guys in white cowboys hats and we know that all the bad guys wore black ones.

Trusting our appeal will succeed


----------



## aden2

To Northwynd CC

You have done the Cardinal Sin! 

The manner that you have treated the timeshare holders is unbelieveable!!! 
I have certainly let it be known that any dealings with a timeshare company cannot be trusted. The information stated by Dorian and backed up by Collin Knight in 2007 was a joke. If I had of checked into your financial statements I would have known that Fairmont Vacation Villas was in BIG problems.

To go further your "Legacy for Life" was a desperate move to get money any way you could. In 2009 you were in bankrupcy, and 2010 you continued to promote this program. It was not until 2013 I became aware of Fairmont being dissolved and a new company with the Fairmont directors claiming victory.

I really hope that justice prevails! For myself I have sent a package to the RCMP to investigate fraud dealings.


----------



## GypsyOne

Hotpink said:


> As one justice said to me " we as lawyers take the truth/ facts and manipulate it to best suit our purposes "
> 
> 
> It appears that Justice Loo heard only what they said and that decision is being appealed at our costs.



I wouldn't rule out that Justice Loo heard only what supported her decision.  My spies at the Special Case hearing report that she appeared to favour Northwynd - she allowed them all the time they needed, she listened intently, she did not contradict.  On the other hand with our lawyers, she interrupted, she cut them short, and she was argumentative.  Our lawyer became exasperated and asked if he could just present our case without interruption, at which point she went into a snit.  

I have confidence justice will prevail.  It will cost us money, but that's how the system works.


----------



## no_more

GypsyOne said:


> I wouldn't rule out that Justice Loo heard only what supported her decision.  My spies at the Special Case hearing report that she appeared to favour Northwynd - she allowed them all the time they needed, she listened intently, she did not contradict.  On the other hand with our lawyers, she interrupted, she cut them short, and she was argumentative.  Our lawyer became exasperated and asked if he could just present our case without interruption, at which point she went into a snit.
> 
> I have confidence justice will prevail.  It will cost us money, but that's how the system works.



and the written transcript of this hearing clearly shows the judge's inappropriate behaviour.   wont be the first time this particular judge will have a ruling overturned for ignoring evidence and having made up her mind before considering all of the facts.


----------



## aden2

questionable judgements from lower courts in B.C. makes you wonder if this is what happen in the Fairmont Vacation Villas re;Northwynd transactions?


----------



## ClanMac

It is not for us to question a Judge's ruling; but rather to provide evidence in an appeal that focuses on what the Judge was not given leverage to consider with the initial ruling.


----------



## aden2

I wonder if anyone who had dealings with Fairmont's "Legacy for Life" had considered filing a complaint with the Competition Bureau? The act states the following *"The Competition Act contains provisions addressing false or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices in promoting the supply or use of a product or any business interest. All representations, in any form whatever, that are false or misleading in a material respect are subject to the Act. If a representation could influence a consumer to buy or use the product or service advertised, it is material. To determine whether a representation is false or misleading, the courts consider the "general impression" it conveys, as well as its literal meaning."*


----------



## ClanMac

*Don't Stop*

Please don't stop looking for ways to get back at Northwynd. What you have done already is incredible. That they are guilty of fraud is unmistakable, but what is criminal and civil draws a fine line!


----------



## aden2

Part of a reply from the Federal Competition Bureau  concerning Fairmont/Northwynd
- please note paragraph starting with "Due to the large of complaints ........We consider, for example, factors such as the scope of the conduct, the number of consumers and/or businesses adversely affected, the financial loss caused by the practice, the number of complaints received and the available evidence." Hopefully the Competition Bureau Canada (www.competitionbureau.gc.ca) will receive many complaints for the various contract violations.


----------



## freetime

Has anyone heard anymore is there a court date set or what is happening


----------



## GypsyOne

freetime said:


> Has anyone heard anymore is there a court date set or what is happening



May 12th has been reserved for the appeal hearing.


----------



## Tinman01

*Sunchaser resorts*

My wife and I are currently being hassled by the resort for these outrages fees and would also like to know how to be involved with this lawsuit. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## GypsyOne

Tinman01 said:


> My wife and I are currently being hassled by the resort for these outrages fees and would also like to know how to be involved with this lawsuit. Any help would be greatly appreciated.



Contact:
Michael Geldert
Geldert Law
2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1B4

www.geldertlaw.com

Phone 778-330-7774


----------



## GarryH

GypsyOne said:


> Contact:
> Michael Geldert
> Geldert Law
> 2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1B4
> 
> www.geldertlaw.com
> 
> Phone 778-330-7774


It appears as if Michael Geldert is making significant progress towards resolving this issue on behalf of the Fairmont lessees. The appeal hearing is scheduled for May 12th. 

For those still sitting on the fence, this would be a great time to contact Michael's office.


----------



## Fly525

*Question*

If my numbers are correct, approximately 3500 have paid the cancellation fees, 3500 have paid to stay and renovate and about 1000 are represented by legal counsel.  That leaves 6500 Fairmont time share owners un accounted for.  Does anyone know what is happening with this 6500?


----------



## GarryH

Fly525 said:


> If my numbers are correct, approximately 3500 have paid the cancellation fees, 3500 have paid to stay and renovate and about 1000 are represented by legal counsel.  That leaves 6500 Fairmont time share owners un accounted for.  Does anyone know what is happening with this 6500?



Although these numbers are approximate, I am surprised anyone outside of Northwynd knows how many have paid to stay or go, and who are either undecided or simply ignoring Northwynd's demands and are genuinely unaware of the seriousness of the situation. 

Since Northwynd is not making any of the Lessees/Owners names and contact information available to our "Fairmont Timeshare Owners Association", how are we to know what the actual numbers are, or how to reach those who need factual information in order to decide what course they should take?


----------



## Meow

*Fairmont Timeshare Owners Association*

I did not realize there is a "Fairmont Timeshare Owners Association", notwithstanding whether it is a legitimate entity or not.


----------



## GarryH

Meow said:


> I did not realize there is a "Fairmont Timeshare Owners Association", notwithstanding whether it is a legitimate entity or not.



Of course there is a "Fairmont Timeshare Owners Association". The executive extends an invitation to all owners to attend its Annual General Meeting each April 1 before noon.


----------



## Flaming

we went bankrupt because of this


----------



## no_more

*if you have received correspondence from Savageau and Associates ...*

with a draft notice of claim looking to collect the extortion fee ... strongly suggest you get some legal advise .... 

Michael Geldert
Geldert Law
2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1B4

www.geldertlaw.com

Phone 778-330-7774

This firm, along with Cox Taylor, is representing us in the litigation against Northwynd / Fairmont / Resorts West, or whatever the hell they plan to call themselves next.    The number who have joined the appeal is nearing 1000 owners.

Sauvageau and Associates has an entry in the ripoff report, and there is also an article about collections in the Globe and Mail dating from 2010 where he is interviewed, he talks about working on a contingency basis, with an 85% success rate.    I found this out doing a quick Google search on him.


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

*Just keeps getting more interesting*

This whole episode would be great entertainment if it wasn't my neck in the noose.   Those who have always mocked and ridiculed time share should be having a good chuckle. Its like a lot of things in life.  It is all good until its not.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/CSC-C...lection-firm-screw-over-one-of-his-cli-945393 

                                                                                                                  Sounds like this guy is on the run. Hopefully a better jogger than attorney.  Here is  hoping.


----------



## Spark1

Rider Nation Rocks said:


> This whole episode would be great entertainment if it wasn't my neck in the noose.   Those who have always mocked and ridiculed time share should be having a good chuckle. Its like a lot of things in life.  It is all good until its not.
> 
> http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/CSC-C...lection-firm-screw-over-one-of-his-cli-945393
> 
> Sounds like this guy is on the run. Hopefully a better jogger than attorney.  Here is  hoping.



This Francois Sauvageau operates just like Northwynd does. This is just another one of Northwynd's scare tactics. What we do not need is people panicking and paying Northwynd anymore money. Time owners that paid cancellation fees have hurt owners that are fighting these crooks and right now are not just concerned about the money but would like to see these crooks go to jail. We have great lawyers working on the appeal and we need to support them. There are other issues besides the appeal as indicated on posts 1285 and  1323. I have a lot of faith in ClanMac and hope to hear from him about what he has posted. Canadians have to quit being passive and close their wallets.


----------



## GypsyOne

*Collection Action*

It is more important than ever that TS owners sign on with one of the two law firms and join the battle to defeat this egregious money grab by Northmont.  Northmont has retained the law firm of Sauvageau & Associates to commence collection action against the resisting TS owners.  S & A have began serving draft Statements of Claim to TS owners in alphabetical order.  This draft is for information, probably with the intent of intimidating the TS owners into paying.  The draft has not been filed with the courts.  My guess is they hope to scare owners into contacting them and negotiating a "deal" without going through the courts.  For example, the claim against me plus costs is $8,173.  But they are also seeking interest at 26.824% from May 31, 2013 plus full costs of the action.  The total bill could be well over $10,000.  It gets crazier and crazier.  But I am speculating they are prepared to "sweeten" the deal if you pay quickly, say by knocking off the accrued interest.  I'm not buying in.  A completely unjustified money grab is still completely unjustified no matter how they tinker with the amount.   

The only way to protect our interests is to sign on with one of the two law firms and fight.  There is no free ride here.  You need legal representation.  As it stands now Northmont has unrestricted access to the TS owner's money to upgrade the resort for their financial benefit as they see fit.  For example, in year 38 of a 40 year lease, Northmont could collectively bill the TS lessees for $10 million for capital upgrades to the resort.  But the expense will not benefit the lessees because their lease expires in two years time.  This must not be allowed to happen.  

The legal cost to date is extremely low - much, much lower than the claim by Northmont.  The appeal of the Special Case ruling looks to be shaping up  really well.  Realistically we cannot expect a quick resolution.  But if there is any justice in the justice system, we will win.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Sauvageau Law Firm - What they are.*

Here's information from Linkedin about Sauvageau. They are a small law firm with their own collection agency division.  Here's what you can expect.

_"we operate an hybrid organization (law firm/collection agency) and the collection methods we use allow us to separate the legal and sensitive files from the regular collection files right from the beginning of our collection activities and not only toward the end, as a last resort measure, as would our competitors. We call this process "legal scoring". Once accounts have been qualified for legal actions, we offer what we call “Collection Through Litigation”, a service that brings together the professionalism and credibility of a law firm with the advanced techniques and collection tools used by collection agencies. By determining in the first 90 days of collection which files should go legal and which files should follow the regular collection process, we allow our clients to make better decisions, quicker, and thus to recover more money, faster, all this without the extra costs normally associated with the use of legal resources. Our clients are always amazed by the results we can deliver early in their collection process using our collection-litigation ("legal scoring") method._


----------



## GypsyOne

Beaverjfw said:


> Here's information from Linkedin about Sauvageau. They are a small law firm with their own collection agency division.  Here's what you can expect.
> 
> _"we operate an hybrid organization (law firm/collection agency) and the collection methods we use allow us to separate the legal and sensitive files from the regular collection files right from the beginning of our collection activities and not only toward the end, as a last resort measure, as would our competitors. We call this process "legal scoring". Once accounts have been qualified for legal actions, we offer what we call “Collection Through Litigation”, a service that brings together the professionalism and credibility of a law firm with the advanced techniques and collection tools used by collection agencies. By determining in the first 90 days of collection which files should go legal and which files should follow the regular collection process, we allow our clients to make better decisions, quicker, and thus to recover more money, faster, all this without the extra costs normally associated with the use of legal resources. Our clients are always amazed by the results we can deliver early in their collection process using our collection-litigation ("legal scoring") method._



I'm curious as to whether we'll be "legally scored" as sensitive or regular.  Then once it is determined what category of miscreant that we are, does "advanced techniques and collection tools" mean that we will be water-boarded?   Or, heaven forbid, does clients being amazed by the results mean thumbscrews, kneecapping, and genital electrodes?


----------



## ClanMac

Where are the financial statements for 2013. Most contracts stipulate they are to be provided by March 31st. I guess Northwynd believes it can continue to breach with impunity. Its not inconsistent with it's psychopathic nature.


----------



## heydynagirl

*Got my email from S & A*

Right on schedule as an "H", today I received a bill from S & A.  My original bill was approx. $1700, the draft document has it now at $3398.


----------



## gnorth16

heydynagirl said:


> Right on schedule as an "H", today I received a bill from S & A.  My original bill was approx. $1700, the draft document has it now at $3398.



So what are the extra fees?  That is more than 28% interest (which in itself is disgusting!!!)


----------



## heydynagirl

gnorth16 said:


> So what are the extra fees?  That is more than 28% interest (which in itself is disgusting!!!)




Apparently its all interest. Doesn't matter they aren't getting it.


----------



## Meow

I hope everyone who monitors this thread is onboard with either Cox Taylor or Geldert for the appeal.  We will need all the help we can get. I do not look forward to be hounded to my grave by a sleazy lawyer from Ontario.


----------



## heydynagirl

*Draft from S & A*

Just an update, after re-reading the draft from the lawyer, it includes "costs" of 679.00 in addition to the original amount.  Interestingly, my bill has gone from $1974 to $2718 to $3398. :ignore:


----------



## gnorth16

heydynagirl said:


> Just an update, after re-reading the draft from the lawyer, it includes "costs" of 679.00 in addition to the original amount.  Interestingly, my bill has gone from $1974 to $2718 to $3398. :ignore:



I'm sure the $679 fee goes to the sleazy suits and the 28% interest is for just over a year.  $1974 looks so much better now, which is why they do it.  People cave and try to make a deal.


----------



## GarryH

Yup. Got mine two days ago too. (I'm in the 'H' group.)

The grand total is $3,398.09 including costs of $679.02. Let's see, that's $679 times, what, 6,000 hanging on to their wallets which brings the total costs to over $400,000. And I assume there could be a further percentage collection fee on the original amount.

I think I chose the wrong profession. Do law schools accept senior citizens?


----------



## heydynagirl

GarryH said:


> Yup. Got mine two days ago too. (I'm in the 'H' group.)
> 
> The grand total is $3,398.09 including costs of $679.02. Let's see, that's $679 times, what, 6,000 hanging on to their wallets which brings the total costs to over $400,000. And I assume there could be a further percentage collection fee on the original amount.
> 
> I think I chose the wrong profession. Do law schools accept senior citizens?



I'm just really glad I signed up with the lawyers.  GarryH - you bill is exactly the same as mine.


----------



## heydynagirl

GarryH said:


> Yup. Got mine two days ago too. (I'm in the 'H' group.)
> 
> The grand total is $3,398.09 including costs of $679.02. Let's see, that's $679 times, what, 6,000 hanging on to their wallets which brings the total costs to over $400,000. And I assume there could be a further percentage collection fee on the original amount.
> 
> I think I chose the wrong profession. Do law schools accept senior citizens?



I got 4,074,000 - that's a lot of pay for little work.  Im in the wrong profession too!!!


----------



## GypsyOne

heydynagirl said:


> Just an update, after re-reading the draft from the lawyer, it includes "costs" of 679.00 in addition to the original amount.  Interestingly, my bill has gone from $1974 to $2718 to $3398. :ignore:



The bill might even be more.  See Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT

1.   Judgement in the amount of (sum named which includes cost to commencement of action.)
plus
2. Interest from May 31, 2013 (sum not named).
plus
3. Full costs of collection action (sum not named).
plus
4. Such further relief as the Court deems just and proper in the circumstance. (sum not named).

This is a collection ploy to get you to settle without them having to take you to court.  They scare the bejeezus out of you with a big bill but they will "negotiate" a lesser amount if you settle quickly.  The proper response is to ignore their collection tactics and forward the correspondence to your (our) lawyer.  I have confidence the courts will not condone this institutionalized highway robbery once our case is fully and fairly presented to the higher (and more qualified) Court of Appeal.  

What I like about our case is that we have a large number of timeshare owners determined not to let this unscrupulous timeshare company get away with a most brazen and well planned scam perpetrated on innocent people who wanted nothing more than the lease of a pre-paid vacation.  Rebuilding a failing resort for the benefit of the real owners of the property was not part of the deal.  

Our legal costs per person are minimal because of our large numbers, and if we don't fight and win we will be at the mercy of this gang forever more.


----------



## no_more

*meanwhile on the sunchaser website*



GypsyOne said:


> The bill might even be more.  See Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT
> 
> 1.   Judgement in the amount of (sum named which includes cost to commencement of action.)
> plus
> 2. Interest from May 31, 2013 (sum not named).
> plus
> 3. Full costs of collection action (sum not named).
> plus
> 4. Such further relief as the Court deems just and proper in the circumstance. (sum not named).
> 
> This is a collection ploy to get you to settle without them having to take you to court.  They scare the bejeezus out of you with a big bill but they will "negotiate" a lesser amount if you settle quickly.  The proper response is to ignore their collection tactics and forward the correspondence to your (our) lawyer.  I have confidence the courts will not condone this institutionalized highway robbery once our case is fully and fairly presented to the higher (and more qualified) Court of Appeal.
> 
> What I like about our case is that we have a large number of timeshare owners determined not to let this unscrupulous timeshare company get away with a most brazen and well planned scam perpetrated on innocent people who wanted nothing more than the lease of a pre-paid vacation.  Rebuilding a failing resort for the benefit of the real owners of the property was not part of the deal.
> 
> Our legal costs per person are minimal because of our large numbers, and if we don't fight and win we will be at the mercy of this gang forever more.



on the sunchaser website the freedom to choose cancellation forms are still there.   in the past they have been very quick to pull information off the website that compromises them.   so ...they just want money ... this is the final act of trying to intimidate people into paying them off.   what a bunch of parasites, the whole lot of them.

in fact, I think this latest stunt will motivate a lot of people who have been ignoring this or sitting on the fence to sign up with a legal firm and fight this - for a fraction of the cost.

again, the firms are geldert law and cox taylor and they both have websites with their contact information.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Paperwork to Lawyer today*

I also received  the Civil Suit notice.  For some reason I did not receive the billing that came to everyone in Nov. so call Sunchasers and my dues have now gone from $2700 to $4900 just to get out.  They included 27% interest and also 2014 Maintenance Fee and also a $500 collections fee.  After contacting the lawyer, found out that we have not been sent to collections as of yet so if I would have paid to settle and get out, I would have been scammed out of an extra $500!  Northmont/Sunchasers are not playing on the up and up.  I as of today decided to sign up with Geldert Law as to protect myself from these people that are trying to get as much money as they can out of us owners.  I could understand helping to pay for the upkeep of the resort as I have friends that own in Panorama and they pay an extra fee for future major renovations every 3 or for years but I am not sure why as owners we have to pay for the deficit that Northmont signed on for when they bought into the resort.  I am assuming that this would have been a business decision at the time.  There is one question I have never had answered.  Years ago when the Riverview building was being built, friends of ours were staying in the condo right beside the Rec. Centre.  When visiting them, I noticed that the unit were very small, rundown and concrete was crumbling.  I did find that concerning that they would be building new buildings to sell but not taking care of the buildings they already had.  I am thinking that they were just concerned at lining the pockets of the sale people that made tons of commissions  and also to keep the sales personal in the office making good salaries.  

I am now thankful we have two very good lawyers taking care of my interests in this matter.


----------



## Hotpink

*Renovation*

Copied from the Sunchaser site

_**All villas will be converted to fully equipped B-side kitchens once the renovation is completed*_

Is that replacing like for like or is this just so they will be more saleable to other gullible souls such as us if they are reselling timeshares. Or perhaps we are just paying for upgrades to their property so they can sell them as individual units as part of a condo project  

It appears that the renovation project is proceeding at a snails pace if you look at the update on the progress as od March 31 2014. Didn't see any financial postings , but based on past performance we should not be surprized that we won't have them any time soon.

Have not seen any dunning correspondence requesting monies from the Ontario collection/legal firm to date but I'm sure it will be coming and it will be forwarded to our collective legal counsel. 

If this whole project goes bust I suspect the Valley residents and businesses will be quite negatively affected. Or maybe I should say when.

I'm sure the local media in the valley are getting a handle on the shenanigans that Northwynd is pulling. A lot of valley businesses were affected by the Fairmount bankruptcy in 2010. Read those public documents if you want to see the list.

Keep fighting the good fight


----------



## ClanMac

*HP*

The only legitimate audited financial statements over the past three years came from Collins Barrow for the fiscal year 2012. They concluded that there was every reason to suspect misstatement of financial transactions, not the least of which included "Fraud". There are no audited financial statements for the year 2013; which are stipulated by contract to have been sent to us by March 31st of this year.

There is clear evidence of illegal transactions involving the REIT which holds the income generated from the leaseholders. This involved the 'Trustee' who was approved by Northwynd during the alleged bankruptcy hearings for Fairmont. There is also evidence that Fairmont did not bankrupt; rather one of their holding companies did with 0 assets to claim; whereas their international REIT continued to hold assets and another subsidiary continued to solicit investments.

Their is also a report that suggests that Fairmont was funneling funds into Barbados while the Mexican, Hawaiian and other resorts in the REIT were deteriorating. There is already a substantiated history of Canadian offshore accounts in Barbados hiding from the CRA; and there is a substantial reward for whistle blowers to provide them with information that leads to a trail.

With the kind of money we know Fairmont/Northwynd has bled from those of us mislead into buying a week or two away at a reasonable cost; the reward would be huge! I hope some of the former insiders who got screwed by their psychopathic leader decide to get greedy too!


----------



## GarryH

Clanmac,

There is substantial information provided in your last post. This raises two questions:

1. Does Michael Geldert have in his possession substantive details of the evidence you have laid out here?

2. If he does, than how much of it can he use in an appeal of Justice Loo's decision?

The Loo decision was quite narrow on the issues she was asked for her opinion. Considering evidence outside of those two specific questions seemed to be of no interest to her during that process. 

In other words, is there evidence beyond which this particular appeal will consider that would be more appropriate for criminal proceedings? Are the lessee/owners group the party that needs to pursue these allegations, now or after the appeal, or should we call the cops? From what you say, Northwynd/Northmont has a lot of scrambling to do when the light is shone in this darkened room.


----------



## darklord700

A little background info on this Sauvageau law firm, if you can call it that.  Thanks to our friends on the Suncahser facebook page for finding it out.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/CSC-C...lection-firm-screw-over-one-of-his-cli-945393


----------



## Spark1

GarryH said:


> Clanmac,
> 
> There is substantial information provided in your last post. This raises two questions:
> 
> 1. Does Michael Geldert have in his possession substantive details of the evidence you have laid out here?
> 
> 2. If he does, than how much of it can he use in an appeal of Justice Loo's decision?
> 
> The Loo decision was quite narrow on the issues she was asked for her opinion. Considering evidence outside of those two specific questions seemed to be of no interest to her during that process.
> 
> In other words, is there evidence beyond which this particular appeal will consider that would be more appropriate for criminal proceedings? Are the lessee/owners group the party that needs to pursue these allegations, now or after the appeal, or should we call the cops? From what you say, Northwynd/Northmont has a lot of scrambling to do when the light is shone in this darkened room.



It is time Service Alberta got off the fence with this case. If I was one of the lease owners and received this email from these collection crooks I would be suing Northwynd for giving out this information. There is a Personal Information Protection act enforced buy Service Alberta. The Appeal is in full force and Northwynd is carrying on like there was no appeal. Service Alberta also knows that Northwynd can not amend lease owners agreements the way they have. My signature and my spouses signature would have to be on that lease document before I would honour it. This information came right from Service Alberta right to me buy a phone call from them. Northwynd promised me that they would never give out our personal information and look what they are doing. We should all get together ,fill out the proper Service Alberta forms and get Service Alberta off their butts.


----------



## Hotpink

*Privacy*

copied from the Sunchaser site

What We Will and Will Not Do With the Information You Provide Sunchaser Vacation Villas uses information generally to compile statistical data, keep in contact with users and provide them with a better interactive experience. Sunchaser Vacation Villas may use your information specifically for the following purposes: (i) to improve the content of our Site; (ii) to personalize and/or customize the content and/or layout of our Site for each individual visitor; (iii) to notify visitors about updates to our Site; (iv) to identify our visitors’ preferences; (v) to keep you informed about product and services (both ours and third parties’) in which you have expressed an interest; (vi) to establish your eligibility for special offers and discounts; (vii) to complete business transactions; (viii) to contact you as part of a promotion; (ix) to allow you to make a posting on the Site; (x) to administer individual accounts; (xi) to provide customer support; (xii) to meet legal requirements; (xiii) to provide Internet security; and/or (xiv) to analyze the collected information; and (xv) to send you a newsletter. If you have entered and won one of Sunchaser Vacation Villas contests, Sunchaser Vacation Villas and / or its sponsors may publish your first name and city of residence.

Looks like they are trying to cover their tracks .
Go to their site under owners and read the privacy policy and the general terms located at the bottom of the page in small print.
Enjoy the read. Maybe third party collections fall under vii. but that sounds like a stretch.


----------



## Hotpink

*privacy act*

go here and pay attention to Section 20

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/P06P5.pdf

They are on a thin line if I read it correctly


----------



## ClanMac

*Response to GarryH*

Geldert is aware of what was in my last post and a whole lot more, and you ask good questions.

The focus of the appeal is limited and will in all likelihood not accommodate a lot of information outside of its rather narrow scope as defined by what Justice Loo was asked to address in the first place. Depending upon the approach taken there is an opportunity to challenge the validity of the decision based on factual information that questions the legitimacy of the contracts outside of qualifying the renovation project as an extension of maintenance fees. The question of contractual obligation is at the basis of the appeal, and if it is clear that the contracts were voided long before any demands for renovation fees were made, the dispute as to whether this obligation exists becomes moot. Northwynd/mont's consistent defensive claim is that they are not Fairmont and cannot be held responsible for Fairmont's past actions. Not only is this not entirely true it is irrelevant; as the contract was made with Fairmont and is dependent on Fairmont's as well as Northwynd's actions. Justice Romaine's ruling under the CCAA in 2010 did not involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the contracts involved in the plan of arrangement; rather assumed such and allowed for the transfer of the contractor's rights to Northwynd. It was and continues to be a false assumption and is subject to challenge; and if properly presented will be successful.

As for your second question; the police are well aware of what has transpired. In fact the commercial crimes unit has been involved and at the senior detective/investigative level. They recognize the legitimacy of the concerns that have been raised and have to balance the costs of pursing a formal investigation involving forensic audits against the likelihood of a successful prosecution for serious criminal offences involving a large number of victims for a huge amount of money. Their resources are limited and already stretched to the max, and they have confidence that civil lawsuits will be successful and perhaps lead to criminal charges. The CRA is a different story. Auditing is their business and they have no shortage of resources. In fact they have set up a special hot line for whistle blowing or information regarding offshore accounts held by Canadians or Canadian based businesses that may be avoiding tax; and they are already familiar with such in Barbados.


----------



## ClanMac

It seems that every time I make a post there is silence for some time. Responding is a good way to keep the digging going; and I am so very proud of where we have come. No one is backing down and if you keep digging you will eventually bury these sob's!!!

Take this for example:

1. 40 million owed to unit holders

2. Northwynd's stated primary goal is to "exploit" the resorts and property to pay the unit holders their principal & interest; and to leave them with an investment that would ensure profitability.

3. Northmont CC replied to me on this site and stated that "their have been no investments into the REIT under Northwynd.

4. With no other TS sales, the conversion fees/sales fiasco, there is no other money coming from anywhere other than the existing TS leases/owners.

5. There has been no financial accountability other than one Collins Barrow audited statement that clearly stated there was no accountability at transition; and the statement did not breakdown where revenue was coming from afterwards.

6. This sure as hell wasn't in my contract!!!!!


----------



## aden2

Madame Justice Loo in her summary agreed that the Fairmont/Northwynd Villas etc. were badly need of repair. What contradicts this fact is in 2009/2010 the "Legacy for Life" promotion stated just the opposite. The resort was a great investment and very profitable!


----------



## Joron10

*Sauvageau*

I received my letter from Sauvageau today.  Forwarded it to Mr. Geldert.  
Has anyone heard of II not honouring deposited weeks from 2012 or 2013?  I will use them if I am guaranteed I will not have my vacation pulled out from under me.  On the II website, it does say they will honour weeks that may be unusable in the future.  Not sure if I should trust that.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*What does Northwynd do with its surplus inventory?*

Wonder what Northwynd is doing with surplus inventory as a result of an influx of timeshare owners baling out and/or us "owners" that are fighting Northwynd through the lawsuit and not allowed to book our time this year?

I was perusing through the web googling Fairmont Sunchaser and came across a site that might give an indication of what they are doing.

tradingplaces.com may have an answer. If you go to this site and then click on Vacation Rentals and under Hot Deals then select Canada and then select Sunchaser, you will see that there are a selection of units available. Now I know that individual owners have used such sites to sale off the odd week here or there but to see the following units coming up for rent at the following prices leads one to believe this is not individual owners, but Northwynd trying to rent them:

Hillside   June 1 - June 8  1 bedroom sleeps 4   $347
Hillside   June 5 - June 12 1 bedroom sleeps 4   $347
Hillside   June 7 - June 14 1 bedroom sleeps 4   $347
Hillside   June 8 - June 15 1 bedroom sleeps 4   $416
Hillside   June 19- June 26 1 bedroom sleeps 4   $416
Hillside   June 21- June 28 1 bedroom sleeps 4   $416
Hillside   June 22- June 29 1 bedroom sleeps 4   $416

Riverside May 2 - May 9    1 bedroom sleeps 4   $249

A bit ironic the pricing is similar and increases later into June.
Note that the site does not indicate if these are A or B units of the lockoffs however, the cost is significantly less than half the price of what the Maintenance fees currently are. 

If Northwynd is indeed behind this, why would anyone continue dumping money into Northwynd and continue to pay the high Maintenance fee when they could in fact rent from a site such as this at less then the cost of the Maintenance fee? If Northwynd is indeed behind this, certainly they are paying this site for listing and/or a price for each purchase for each rental booked through this site, thus bringing the true amount Northwynd is realizing for each booking. Does this money they obtain go towards Maintenance fees or does it go towards the Northwynd creditors? Interesting.....


----------



## Spark1

fairmontlvr said:


> Wonder what Northwynd is doing with surplus inventory as a result of an influx of timeshare owners baling out and/or us "owners" that are fighting Northwynd through the lawsuit and not allowed to book our time this year?
> 
> I was perusing through the web googling Fairmont Sunchaser and came across a site that might give an indication of what they are doing.
> 
> tradingplaces.com may have an answer. If you go to this site and then click on Vacation Rentals and under Hot Deals then select Canada and then select Sunchaser, you will see that there are a selection of units available. Now I know that individual owners have used such sites to sale off the odd week here or there but to see the following units coming up for rent at the following prices leads one to believe this is not individual owners, but Northwynd trying to rent them:
> 
> Hillside   June 1 - June 8  1 bedroom sleeps 4   $347
> Hillside   June 5 - June 12 1 bedroom sleeps 4   $347
> Hillside   June 7 - June 14 1 bedroom sleeps 4   $347
> Hillside   June 8 - June 15 1 bedroom sleeps 4   $416
> Hillside   June 19- June 26 1 bedroom sleeps 4   $416
> Hillside   June 21- June 28 1 bedroom sleeps 4   $416
> Hillside   June 22- June 29 1 bedroom sleeps 4   $416
> 
> Riverside May 2 - May 9    1 bedroom sleeps 4   $249
> 
> A bit ironic the pricing is similar and increases later into June.
> Note that the site does not indicate if these are A or B units of the lockoffs however, the cost is significantly less than half the price of what the Maintenance fees currently are.
> 
> If Northwynd is indeed behind this, why would anyone continue dumping money into Northwynd and continue to pay the high Maintenance fee when they could in fact rent from a site such as this at less then the cost of the Maintenance fee? If Northwynd is indeed behind this, certainly they are paying this site for listing and/or a price for each purchase for each rental booked through this site, thus bringing the true amount Northwynd is realizing for each booking. Does this money they obtain go towards Maintenance fees or does it go towards the Northwynd creditors? Interesting.....


II have a lot of getaways for this resort and the prices are maybe 40.00 dollars higher for a 1 bedroom sleep 4. The only two months they are not showing many getaways are July and August. They are showing this resort as a 5star resort. For anyone that travels a lot knows this is not a 5 star resort. We were there two years ago and had to ask to be moved because the condo they had us scheduled to move in was so dirty you did not want to walk on the rug . This was on riverside. II should be more careful what they are calling a 5star. This resort is not worth half the maintenance fees they are asking. If you want to see all the condos that they have listed on getaways click on the small + sign at the bottem of the first page of getaways and start counting. Northwynd are small timers that think they are first and I can not wait to get rid of them forever.


----------



## fairmontlvr

Spark1 said:


> II have a lot of getaways for this resort and the prices are maybe 40.00 dollars higher for a 1 bedroom sleep 4. The only two months they are not showing many getaways are July and August. They are showing this resort as a 5star resort. For anyone that travels a lot knows this is not a 5 star resort. We were there two years ago and had to ask to be moved because the condo they had us scheduled to move in was so dirty you did not want to walk on the rug . This was on riverside. II should be more careful what they are calling a 5star. This resort is not worth half the maintenance fees they are asking. If you want to see all the condos that they have listed on getaways click on the small + sign at the bottem of the first page of getaways and start counting. Northwynd are small timers that think they are first and I can not wait to get rid of them forever.



We have never used II as we have always stayed at Fairmont, using the time we owned. We typically stayed in the Hillside Units which were fine to us, sure not five star but far from need of major renovations. 

I think the point of my post is the question as to whether Northwynd is in fact placing rentals on the market at a lower price then the maintenance fee and if so, what percent of this fee collected goes towards the pool of maintenance fees? 

If I had bought into their renovation scheme and found out that my maintenance fee is in fact subsidizing those that are renting units from an outside agency at a lower rate, I would be very pissed off.


----------



## gnorth16

Last I checked there were over 700 weeks combined for the Northwyd properties in fairmont in RCI/II.  There were also multiple weeks in July and August, but passed since we have plans this summer for Elkhorn in Manitoba. 

I scratch my head when I can rent cheaper than owning, including prime season.  It is one of my red flags for a resort and the reason I passed on a free unit. (before the reno fees).


----------



## gnorth16

*In RCI....*

RCI Silver Crown - Advanced Search Sunchaser Vacation Villas (#C158) 
Fairmont Hot Springs,  Canada  V0B 1L1  map resort

Rating:    (23)
Check-In Date Range 
27-Apr-2014 - 28-Dec-2014
1 Bedroom  2 Bedroom
*296 available units*

RCI Hospitality - Save This Search Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Riverside (#C521) 
Fairmont Hot Springs,  Canada  V0B 1L1  map resort

Rating:    (13)
Check-In Date Range 
05-Oct-2014 - 03-Jan-2015
1 Bedroom  2 Bedroom
*48 available units*


----------



## aden2

*Resorts that have achieved excellence in providing outstanding vacation experiences for RCI subscribing members receive the RCI Silver Crown Resort award. This award designates resorts that have met or exceeded specific standards in the areas of unit housekeeping, unit maintenance, resort maintenance, hospitality and check-in/check-out procedures. This award was given to Sunchaser Villas for 2013*

This is excellent for Sunchaser Villas because it's CO swore an affidavit that the resort was run down, and that Madame Justice Loo concurred.


----------



## fairmontlvr

aden2 said:


> *Resorts that have achieved excellence in providing outstanding vacation experiences for RCI subscribing members receive the RCI Silver Crown Resort award. This award designates resorts that have met or exceeded specific standards in the areas of unit housekeeping, unit maintenance, resort maintenance, hospitality and check-in/check-out procedures. This award was given to Sunchaser Villas for 2013*
> 
> This is excellent for Sunchaser Villas because it's CO swore an affidavit that the resort was run down, and that Madame Justice Loo concurred.



And on a note to owners back in 2010, Northwynd gives us the following assurance: 

http://www.northwynd.ca/pdf/Message to Owners.pdf

If you can't open this, here is the quote:

"Northwynd is a new company with new management, and with a commitment to providing our 
owners and guests with continued vacation ownership experiences and stays that meet the high 
standards to which our clients have become accustomed. 

At this time, we anticipate no changes to our owners’ benefits, rights and obligations and operations 
at our resorts will continue uninterrupted. We continue to be affiliated with the two leaders in 
timeshare exchange, RCI and Interval International. Membership and trading opportunities depend 
on the home resort affiliation. 

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for having chosen a Northwynd resort property 
and look forward to continuing to provide you with high-quality vacation experiences for you and 
your family"

... "a commitment to providing our owners and guests with continued vacation ownership experiences and stays that meet the high standards to which our clients have become accustomed. " 

"No changes to owner's benefits, rights and obligations and operations "

 I do believe these statements have been breached.


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Google Search*

Interesting how one can use google search engine with a set date range. I googled Fairmont Northwynd and set a date range from 2010 to 2012 found some interesting information regarding Northwynd. 
How about this one:
http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/8775562810

Shows that in 2011, Northwynd was calling to encourage members to upgrade to the Legacy for Life. 

Ever wonder where the name Sunchaser came from? How about this article?
http://www.insidethegate.com/gatehouse/2011/10/western-usa-october-22-2011/

 Back in 2009 the timeshare portion of the property in Hawaii was called Sunchaser Vacation Club as we know this was owned at the time by Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd.


----------



## ClanMac

Been reading the submissions and responses RE: the appeal, and will re-read to make sure I understood correctly. If so the door is being pushed to open submissions with respect to the validity of the contracts outside of consideration of the legitimacy of adding the renovation costs to the maintenance requirements.

If we can contest this armed with the history of Fairmont/Northwynd failing to meet their obligations and providing audited evidence that misstatements, fraud etc. may/likely has occurred; and there has never been any true accountability of where the money has been going other than what they have been sucking out of us, it will be a fairly damning case against them.

The principle of "fairness" which I have said is inherent in establishing a contractual agreement has been raised. 

Could you imagine what the court and the media/public would think if near a thousand of us showed up on the steps of the courthouse. It wouldn't take a whole lot to blow this wide open, and this is usually where fairness reigns!!!


----------



## Spark1

ClanMac said:


> Been reading the submissions and responses RE: the appeal, and will re-read to make sure I understood correctly. If so the door is being pushed to open submissions with respect to the validity of the contracts outside of consideration of the legitimacy of adding the renovation costs to the maintenance requirements.
> 
> If we can contest this armed with the history of Fairmont/Northwynd failing to meet their obligations and providing audited evidence that misstatements, fraud etc. may/likely has occurred; and there has never been any true accountability of where the money has been going other than what they have been sucking out of us, it will be a fairly damning case against them.
> 
> The principle of "fairness" which I have said is inherent in establishing a contractual agreement has been raised.
> 
> Could you imagine what the court and the media/public would think if near a thousand of us showed up on the steps of the courthouse. It wouldn't take a whole lot to blow this wide open, and this is usually where fairness reigns!!!


I totally agree with you about the 1000 more or less of us showing up on the steps of the courthouse. We have lived with this knot in our stomachs long enough. There is over 1000 views on this site per week so there is a lot of concern about the outcome of this appeal. Posting does not seem to be real but live mad bodies on the steps of the courthouse will be real. It would be nice if other viewers would post and let us know if you intend to show up at the courthouse and that would be real and just maybe we could meet these Northwynd  bandits.


----------



## GarryH

Spark1 said:


> I totally agree with you about the 1000 more or less of us showing up on the steps of the courthouse. We have lived with this knot in our stomachs long enough. There is over 1000 views on this site per week so there is a lot of concern about the outcome of this appeal. Posting does not seem to be real but live mad bodies on the steps of the courthouse will be real. It would be nice if other viewers would post and let us know if you intend to show up at the courthouse and that would be real and just maybe we could meet these Northwynd  bandits.



The Lessees (we are not Owners) are spread all over the country with, I presume, a high percentage in Southern Alberta. Are there even a hundred in the Lower Mainland or on The Island that could get there? That many with a few placards could get the media's attention I think. Now that would be making a statement. Where is the appeal taking place? Do we have a time?


----------



## GypsyOne

GarryH said:


> The Lessees (we are not Owners) are spread all over the country with, I presume, a high percentage in Southern Alberta. Are there even a hundred in the Lower Mainland or on The Island that could get there? That many with a few placards could get the media's attention I think. Now that would be making a statement. Where is the appeal taking place? Do we have a time?



A public demonstration would be effective in grabbing media attention.  Judges would also pay attention.  The appeal hearing is May 12.

Garry makes another good point.  We are lessees, not owners as Northmont likes to say and as Justice Loo has mistakenly lumped us all together in her ruling.  Once again, there are those who have lease agreements and there are those who have co-ownership agreements, and the two are significantly different in responsibility.  "Owners" connotes being responsible for capital reconstruction of the resort which, for the leaseholders (lessees or tenants), clearly we are not.


----------



## GarryH

I suppose any access to the current list of Lessees and Owners is beyond our reach at this point. This is one of the 'breaches' of our agreement by Fairmont/Northwynd as I understand it. Can they continue to 'breach' this clause if we insist on setting up a 'Sunchaser Lessee/Owners Association at Fairmont' right now? On what basis can they refuse if that clause (Clause #19 in my Vacation Villa Lease Agreement dated May 11, 1998) is still part of our Agreement? 

In order to establish an association, we require a complete and current list of names, addresses and contact information which, so says my Agreement, "The Lessor agrees to cooperate with the lessees in the formation of such an association and agrees to recognize the association, if it is duly constituted, provided the by-laws, rules and regulations of the association do not in any way conflict with the provisions of this Lease or in any way affects the rights of the Lessor."

I have not included the entire clause here, but everyone can read it in their agreement. There is no provision in Clause 19 as to when, during the term of the agreement, such an association must be or should be established.

My question then is this: Can Northwynd refuse to release the information and cooperation necessary to assist in setting up a Lessee's Association?


----------



## Anxiety123

*Why are so many people just waiting for an outcome??*

My concern is that there are many  owners that are just sitting back waiting to see what will happen with the owners that are helping with lawyer fees and fighting.  I personally know of three that are doing just that!

Oh well, I can feel good that I am helping with the fight.  Hope others join in or we all will be taken to Small Claims and paying them what they want.


----------



## MFD

GypsyOne said:


> A public demonstration would be effective in grabbing media attention.  Judges would also pay attention.  The appeal hearing is May 12.
> 
> Garry makes another good point.  We are lessees, not owners as Northmont likes to say and as Justice Loo has mistakenly lumped us all together in her ruling.  Once again, there are those who have lease agreements and there are those who have co-ownership agreements, and the two are significantly different in responsibility.  "Owners" connotes being responsible for capital reconstruction of the resort which, for the leaseholders (lessees or tenants), clearly we are not.



GypsyOne, I have always respected and appreciated your previous posts, however this recent one, I find slightly disappointing.  Some of us, that have also signed on with the lawyers to fight this are also co-owners, and not by choice.  Whether it happened because we bought our timeshares after Northwynd took over, or through the Legacy for Life scam (from what I've learnt, these contracts were converted from leases to co-ownership as well?), we are all in this together.  To say that those of us who have co-ownership are responsible and that the lessees aren't, only separates us, when we should stay united.  I think we can all agree that Northwynd has deceived us all, lessees and co-owners alike, making comments like this may also discourage other co-owners still sitting on the fence from joining us in this fight for what is right.


----------



## GarryH

*MFD*



MFD said:


> GypsyOne, I have always respected and appreciated your previous posts, however this recent one, I find slightly disappointing.  Some of us, that have also signed on with the lawyers to fight this are also co-owners, and not by choice.  Whether it happened because we bought our timeshares after Northwynd took over, or through the Legacy for Life scam (from what I've learnt, these contracts were converted from leases to co-ownership as well?), we are all in this together.  To say that those of us who have co-ownership are responsible and that the lessees aren't, only separates us, when we should stay united.  I think we can all agree that Northwynd has deceived us all, lessees and co-owners alike, making comments like this may also discourage other co-owners still sitting on the fence from joining us in this fight for what is right.



MFD, you are absolutely right that we are in this mess together. Northwynd/Northmont does not discriminate as to the colour of our money. They want it from anyone who has affixed their signature to any of their documents.
That being said, we come to this party by having signed different agreements which should be interpreted on their own merits (demerits?). Lessees of time within someone else's suite with a specific end date and no equity are clearly in a different league than deeded equity owners/co-owners.
Regardless of our relative positions, the only possible course of action is to join together and fight a common enemy an a level playing field. At the moment, we are at a disadvantage because we have no access to lessee and co-owner contact lists. A push to form an association should be pursued, in my opinion, to force Northwynd to release this information.


----------



## GypsyOne

MFD said:


> GypsyOne, I have always respected and appreciated your previous posts, however this recent one, I find slightly disappointing.  Some of us, that have also signed on with the lawyers to fight this are also co-owners, and not by choice.  Whether it happened because we bought our timeshares after Northwynd took over, or through the Legacy for Life scam (from what I've learnt, these contracts were converted from leases to co-ownership as well?), we are all in this together.  To say that those of us who have co-ownership are responsible and that the lessees aren't, only separates us, when we should stay united.  I think we can all agree that Northwynd has deceived us all, lessees and co-owners alike, making comments like this may also discourage other co-owners still sitting on the fence from joining us in this fight for what is right.



I also have concern about how defending our case from the point of view of the lease agreements might affect the timeshare owners with co-ownership agreements.  I probably didn't word my previous post as well as I might have.  I covered my concerns more fully in my January 8, 2014, post #1164, which I will re-post here: 

One of the side effects of pointing out the two types of Vacation Villa Agreements, namely lease agreement and co-ownership agreement, is that the owners with the Legacy for Life co-ownership agreements may feel they are being thrown under the bus. Those with the lease agreements have no choice but to vigorously point out that there is no possible way that responsibility for paying capital costs is included in the lease agreements. As much as Northwynd would try to convince you otherwise, there is not one word mentioning capital costs or capital replacement in the lease agreements. On the other hand, those who bought into the Legacy for Life agreements had the phrase “to pay the costs of capital improvements” added to the new agreements. And of course, that is the very reason for the blitz to convert to the co-ownership agreements. Northwynd knew they were on shaky ground in asking the leaseholders for reconstruction money. The legacy for life, by the way, is a legacy of paying for the re-construction of failing buildings for life. 

The Legacy For Life owners would seem to have a different challenge, and that is to prove misrepresentation in the lease to ownership conversion. I did not attend the sales session so I don’t know exactly how they were conducted, but I’ve heard from several who did attend. They report variously: No information given about changes to the expense obligation; no verbal information given about the state of the buildings, Poly B plumbing, etc.; some report that CD’s were given to take home to view that may have had disclosure information; chatty salespersons who distract you with conversation when you try to read the agreement; pressure to sign immediately in order to get the “sweetheart” deal. 

The British Columbia Real Estate Association requires that its members complete a Property Disclosure Statement for real estate transactions. The questionnaire asks very specific questions about structural problems of various components of the building. Holders of Legacy for Life Agreements should check to see what disclosures they were given and whether any consumer protection laws were violated. (end of post #1164)

The point I'd like to emphasize is that with the exception of that one difference between a lease and a co-ownership agreement, I assume our lawyers will argue our case on essentially the same issues.  Namely, numerous instances of misrepresentation and breaches of contract.  A win for one should be a win for all, regardless of the type of agreement.  But the only way to have one's case represented is to lodge affidavits with the court and to sign on with one of the lawyers.  

Just a comment on the concern raised previously by Anxiety123 about timeshare owners sitting on the sidelines.  Those that think they can get a free ride are fooling themselves.  If we win, owners will need a lawyer to see that we get a complete and unconditional discharge.  A  settlement negotiated by the lawyers is always a possibility, in which case owners will need to be clients of a law firm to get the benefits.  Because of the large number of timeshare owners on board the cost per owner is minimal.  There is strength in numbers and the more timeshare owners we have on our side the greater our chance for success.


----------



## rlaseur

Can someone forward contact info for law firm (Mr. Geldert)?


----------



## Tacoma

Post 1342 is the most recent post with Geldert's contact information.  Back 2 pages.

Joan


----------



## GarryH

rlaseur said:


> Can someone forward contact info for law firm (Mr. Geldert)?



It is May 1, 2014. In eleven days (on Tuesday the 12th), Michael Geldert heads back into court to represent the interests of those who have joined together as Lessees and Co-owners at Sunchaser to begin the process of A) appealing the decision forcing us to pay large sums of money for the exclusive use of Northmont executives, and B) more importantly, introducing significant facts to the Court regarding our Agreements not previously heard.

This is a developing situation and you cannot afford to risk being on your own (for those not in our group). For a small sum, I highly recommend you contact Michael's office and get your name on this petition. Please do not leave this to the last minute. 

I also urge those viewing this post to contact any owners or lessees you know and forward to them this information. Thank you.

Contact:
Michael Geldert
Geldert Law
2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1B4
www.geldertlaw.com
Phone 778-330-7774


----------



## Spark1

rlaseur said:


> Can someone forward contact info for law firm (Mr. Geldert)?



For you new posters there is a lot of reading to do with 56 pages. I would like to share with you some of the posts that I believe have a big impact of what we are up against. You should read post 891buy Gypsyone page 36, post 1128 buy no_more page46,post 1137 buy ClanMac Page 46, post1258 buy ClanMac page 51 and post 1323 buy ClanMac page 53. The reason I picked these posts is you new tug readers can see how badly all of us have been breached buy Fairmont and Northwynd. I hope lease owners and co-owners do not cave in and pay these guys any money if you get the phone call from the other crooked bill collector company. This appeal is just one item and I feel our lawyers are doing a great job preparing for this appeal but keep in mind we might have to deal with all the breaches and I am prepared to do this if we have to. So get off the fence and hire Geldert Law


----------



## GypsyOne

*Collection Agency*

I'm curious as to whether anyone reading these pages has been contacted directly by phone by the collection firm Sauvageau & Associates.  If so, what was the message?  Did they name a payout figure as at this date and how did it vary from their first notification by letter?  And did they offer a discount if you paid immediately?  Any information would be appreciated.


----------



## DarkLord

G1, I have only been contacted by email which I forwarded to Geldert Law and ignored.


----------



## ClanMac

*Phone contact as well as e-mail*

G1, as with Darklord I too received both an e-mail and phone call. In fact there were two phone calls, the second leaving a message stating that it was important that I get back to them (after I ignored the first one). The e-mail was forwarded to Geldert.

I would have been inclined to listen to what they had to say, however I would have been quick to inform them that I sent a Statement of Claim to Kirk Wankel over a year ago that has been registered; and in which I informed him that should a collection agency bother me with any type of contact I would make a formal complaint of criminal harassment to the RCMP. This is long before the current appeal was put in place and involved different lawyers.

As is I followed Michael's request and did not talk to them. 

There are clearly no grounds for any action, legal or otherwise to occur prior to the completion of the appeal process, and/or any court filed Statement of Claims/Defense that occurs outside the appeal.

Northwynd/mont knows this, so the only reason why they have proceeded with this nuisance is to try and get as much money as they can prior to these court outcomes, in the likely event they will lose the case and perhaps get nothing.


----------



## Donsterama

*May 12 Appeal Hearing*

Has anyone heard how the May 12 appeal hearing went or when we may hear back from the courts on a ruling?


----------



## heydynagirl

Donsterama said:


> Has anyone heard how the May 12 appeal hearing went or when we may hear back from the courts on a ruling?



The lawyer sends an email each week to his clients with any updates.


----------



## aden2

It could another 3-4 weeks. I am hoping that true prevails! The Northwymd/Northmont have ruin the name for timeshares, and a bad mark against Canada for sure for this to happen in Canada.


----------



## ClanMac

*Further Dissent!*

Northwynd/mont finally posted 2013's financial statements audited again by Collins Barrow. The statements do not provide enough detail to determine how much money is being paid to the CEO and other staff; other than > 2 million went to management, and on-site wages increased despite the downsizing. They only want us to see what came in and went out with respect to property management in a broad sense, and stated that their debt has now been paid with the $ acquired from 1/3rd who paid to get out and 1/3rd who chose to stay in and continue to pay. Most interestingly statements indicated that the developers paid their share for the units not leased/sold, but also took care of the reno costs for those who paid for the premium lifetime crap.

It was also stated that a former employee is suing Northwynd. Would be nice to find out who that is and the nature of the Statement of Claim; and given that it has been filed in court it should be accessible to the public. Said all along that the greatest ally we could find besides one another would be a former disgruntled insider who got shafted while watching the psychopaths who hired him line their pockets with millions. An earlier post with a website detailed what a former employee said while trying to pitch the Leg Irons for Life garbage. When asked what happened to Fairmont he said the owners ripped us all off for millions and declared bankruptcy.

There is a lot of dirt underneath the rock Wankel and his cohorts sit on, and it doesn't matter if a lot of it is leftovers from Fairmont and the rest with a failed transition and mismanagement. It was never a part of what any of us agreed to and regardless of the appeal outcome, the contract breaches have to be addressed if a fair outcome is ever to be achieved. If this means tying them up in court with further claims so be it; I'll never roll over to the likes of these psychopaths!


----------



## GypsyOne

Will be interesting to see what emerges as the probable trial goes forward.  Almost worth the price of admission in itself.


----------



## Spark1

ClanMac said:


> Northwynd/mont finally posted 2013's financial statements audited again by Collins Barrow. The statements do not provide enough detail to determine how much money is being paid to the CEO and other staff; other than > 2 million went to management, and on-site wages increased despite the downsizing. They only want us to see what came in and went out with respect to property management in a broad sense, and stated that their debt has now been paid with the $ acquired from 1/3rd who paid to get out and 1/3rd who chose to stay in and continue to pay. Most interestingly statements indicated that the developers paid their share for the units not leased/sold, but also took care of the reno costs for those who paid for the premium lifetime crap.
> 
> It was also stated that a former employee is suing Northwynd. Would be nice to find out who that is and the nature of the Statement of Claim; and given that it has been filed in court it should be accessible to the public. Said all along that the greatest ally we could find besides one another would be a former disgruntled insider who got shafted while watching the psychopaths who hired him line their pockets with millions. An earlier post with a website detailed what a former employee said while trying to pitch the Leg Irons for Life garbage. When asked what happened to Fairmont he said the owners ripped us all off for millions and declared bankruptcy.
> 
> There is a lot of dirt underneath the rock Wankel and his cohorts sit on, and it doesn't matter if a lot of it is leftovers from Fairmont and the rest with a failed transition and mismanagement. It was never a part of what any of us agreed to and regardless of the appeal outcome, the contract breaches have to be addressed if a fair outcome is ever to be achieved. If this means tying them up in court with further claims so be it; I'll never roll over to the likes of these psychopaths!


This is not just a very late audited statement but also a opportunity to quote the other agreement to us vacation villa lease holders and let us know that it will be our responsibility to pay Northwynd Management costs for lawyers to fight a former employee and pay for the potential settlement. This employee was not cutting grass at the resort and who knows maybe it was Kirk Wankel. It was someone important or they would not have mentioned this as part of their AD. The other item that they made sure we would be aware of is page 11 item no. 7 Replacement Reserve. There is nothing in our agreement stating they can charge two maintenance fees. Sorry Northwynd, one MF which if you had responsible management and trustee to be broken down into two bank accounts being operating and replacement reserve. For you people sitting on the fence these guys are criminals as far as i am concerned and you should cut all ties with them. It will not stop at 40 million and maintenance fees will more than double. I have been researching Diamond Resorts and you can find it on the web where owners started with 600 dollars a year for a one bedroom sleeps four and now their fees are 2200 dollars. This is where this resort is going. Hire Gildert law.


----------



## Hotpink

*Quote in the valley echo*

While the article is a bit dated it shows their appears to be some concern in the valley about the resort and its future

http://issuu.com/blackpress/docs/i20140218100927187

Go to page 3

I know if I had any business dealings with them it would be cash on or before delivery 
After reading the financials that came out immediately after the appeal hearing and you know that was not coincidental, I'm more  convinced they are just money grubbers that make Scrooge and Shylock look like nice guys


----------



## no_more

from reading the management comments that accompany the 2013 audited financial statements ... a few things stand out to me ...

1.   the going concern paragraph at the end of the document opens the door to the resort being dissolved as a going concern ... they certainly give the scenario - where they walk away with a chunk of money if it becomes too much of a nuisance (read that too many people are watching) to actually run the resort as a legitimate going concern and they have made their "easy" money thru the extortion fees 

2.   they have collected $10MM  in renovation funds, but have only spent $2.7 on the renovation so far as of the end of 2013.   I did not look at the renovation dollars for the 5-6 buildings planned for renovations and reconcile the amount budgeted for renovations to each building versus the funds collected to date ...

3.   they expect the downsized resort to have 3-4 riverside buildings, 1 hillside building with terrace units, and the 8100 riverview building .... they have a pretty good idea of what they want to renovate - the old stuff while the keep the newer ones for themselves - this in spite of not answering my earlier questions about which buildings they were going to renovate and the criteria they knew damn well what they wanted to poach but didn't want to share and invite further scrutiny 

4.   and they talk about no more renovation activity until October 2014 because there is "not enough money" to do any more work and they are coming into the "busy summer season" until they collect more $100 a month cheques .    huh ?   

5.   and the freedom to choose forms are still up on their website - 

If I was a lessee that had coughed up for the renovation fee, and now see it will be 3-5 more years until the shrunk resort is finally finished, I would not be too impressed   - especially if I get an unrenovated unit for several years


----------



## Hotpink

*Lake Okanagan Resort*

Looks like this property has been sols , so now northwynd has more money in their coffers . about 10 mil

http://www.specializedassets.com/properties/lake-okanagan-resort-price-reduced

Even though time shares were not included in the listing one wonders what they will do with the LOR lessee contracts.

When do you think we will see a for sale sign in Fairmont? probably better odds than 649 to pick when


----------



## Anxiety123

*Collections*

How many owner's paid to get out or renovate.  Are there many of us that decided to fight with a lawyer and others walking away and ignoring the collections company?   Concerned that those that have not paid and are left fighting in the end will be sued by Northmont.  Timeshare contracts seem to read so broadly that they can do and say what they want and the law is on their side.  Not paying them anything until forced to.  One concern is that they can garnishee wages.  Some sites say they can and some say they can't.  Anyone know??


----------



## ClanMac

*Prev. Point*

No More said it; they're "dissolving". I don't believe Northwynd/mont owned the complete Okanagan Resort at the time it was sold; I have vague recollection that perhaps they only owned the time shares. Can't say for sure but it is in the records. In any event they have essentially little property worth anything left; and they're bleeding whatever cash cows they can find. Patience and time is on our side, and 'hats off' to the 800 Trojans who stood their ground! Tie them up in the courts and they are done!


----------



## Anxiety123

*In for the Long Haul*

Thanks, I feel much more confident that there are 800 or so owners in on the fight with me.  I will fight until the LAW tells me to STOP!


----------



## aspen1

Is it too late to join those involved with Gildert Law at this point?


----------



## SentimentalLady

aspen1 said:


> Is it too late to join those involved with Gildert Law at this point?




You can inquire. They're also working with Cox, Taylor:


LINDSAY R. LEBLANC
Cox, Taylor - Barristers, Solicitors, Notaries
26 Bastion Square, 3rd Floor - Burnes House
Victoria - British Columbia - V8W 1H9

Telephone 250.388.4457   Facsimile 250.382.4236


----------



## Spark1

Hotpink said:


> Looks like this property has been sols , so now northwynd has more money in their coffers . about 10 mil
> 
> http://www.specializedassets.com/properties/lake-okanagan-resort-price-reduced
> 
> Even though time shares were not included in the listing one wonders what they will do with the LOR lessee contracts.
> 
> When do you think we will see a for sale sign in Fairmont? probably better odds than 649 to pick when



Pacific Links has taken over the ownership of the Makaha resort Hawaii 4 days ago because of foreclosure. I believe all that is left is a few rooms in Mesquite Nevada and that is it for the Platinum Club. What a future we have with Northwynd,they were the biggest timeshare company in Canada and what are they now? For you people paying 100.00 dollars a month save your money because this resort is going down just like all the others.


----------



## no_more

Spark1 said:


> Pacific Links has taken over the ownership of the Makaha resort Hawaii 4 days ago because of foreclosure. I believe all that is left is a few rooms in Mesquite Nevada and that is it for the Platinum Club. What a future we have with Northwynd,they were the biggest timeshare company in Canada and what are they now? For you people paying 100.00 dollars a month save your money because this resort is going down just like all the others.


Spark1, the resort you refer to in Mesquite Nevada is the Oasis resort and casino, it closed a few years ago, a victim of the 2008 recession.    It has been torn down I believe according to a newspaper article in the Mesquite newspaper.    Northwynd owned an interest in some timeshare rooms at that resort in the past, but this is now worthless.


----------



## LynnW

no_more said:


> Spark1, the resort you refer to in Mesquite Nevada is the Oasis resort and casino, it closed a few years ago, a victim of the 2008 recession.    It has been torn down I believe according to a newspaper article in the Mesquite newspaper.    Northwynd owned an interest in some timeshare rooms at that resort in the past, but this is now worthless.



Not true. The Oasis hotel is now torn down but the two timeshare buildings are still there. I don't know if Northwynd still has an interest in any of the units. Owners and exchangers still get discounts at the Casablanca and a couple of the golf courses.

Lynn


----------



## no_more

LynnW said:


> Not true. The Oasis hotel is now torn down but the two timeshare buildings are still there. I don't know if Northwynd still has an interest in any of the units. Owners and exchangers still get discounts at the Casablanca and a couple of the golf courses.
> 
> Lynn



thanks Lynn for the clarification.   This is such a tangled web.   The platinum club on sunchaser website only shows exchanges possible at Fairmont and at lake Okanagan - so I am assuming that Northwynd either no longer has any timeshare inventory at Mesquite, or if they do, they are not offering exchanges as part of the Platinum club.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Good News*

Appeal Upheld.

From the Court decision.
Summary

_The appellants hold time shares in a resort owned by the respondent. In order to fund substantial renovations the respondent gave time share holders the option of paying either a renovation project fee or a cancellation fee. The appellants disputed the respondent’s ability to impose these fees. Initially the parties sought to resolve the dispute by way of a special case (Rule 9-3) in the Supreme Court but the appellants ultimately argued that the issue was not appropriate for a special case. The chambers judge proceeded with the special case and found in the respondent’s favour.

Held: appeal allowed; the question before the court was not appropriate for a special case. The underlying facts were in dispute and the question put to the court was based on hypothetical circumstances. The result was that the special case did not lead to a just, speedy or efficient determination of the issues_.

This one went our way !


----------



## DaveO

*Assumptions*

huh wow, who would have thought that it's probably not a good idea to make assumptions...

oh wait that would  Madam Justice Linda A. Loo. They slammed her pretty good for making assumptions.

Let this be a lesson learned Northmont!! Your day of reckoning is coming!


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Full Deatils of the Court Decision*

Here's the link to the Court of Appeal Decision.

It makes for good reading.  The good stuff starts at point 33 but read the full 17 pages.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/14/02/2014BCCA0227.htm


----------



## Anxiety123

*Appeal*

Yes got my email from Geldert Law today with the Appeal Decision.  Thank you to all of you who paid their money to help in this fight.  I know too many owners personally that just sat by and were waiting for the outcome.    I hope now the rest of those owners that haven't come on board will now do so, so that we can continue to fight these guys.  My faith in justice is renewed.  I know that we still have a long fight ahead of us but will sleep better now knowing that Northmont sees they can not just do whatever they want.


----------



## DarkLord

[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## jekebc

DarkLord said:


> Congrats to the lease holders for winning a good fight.  We should go on the offensive and charge Northmount and Kirk Wankel for fraud now.



It may be difficult to prove fraud, but at least there is extensive evidence that Northmont et al are in breach of the contracts. It is time to go after them for damages re their mismanagement of the Resort.


----------



## DarkLord

jekebc said:


> It may be difficult to prove fraud, but at least there is extensive evidence that Northmont et al are in breach of the contracts. It is time to go after them for damages re their mismanagement of the Resort.



That would be fine by me.  We all paid monies to buy the timeshare and we should be awarded control the the properties due to their breaching of contracts.

The Applellant judges didn't just vacate Justice Loo's decision.  Their wording is pretty damming to Northmount in their claim that we should pay for the reno.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Where to from here?*

Those of us working with Geldert Law are waiting for further updates from them. There will be more decisions to be made as to what course of action lies ahead.  

I, for one, would welcome a settlement just to be rid of Northwynd, but of course it needs to be reasonable. To me that means relinquishing my week, with no payments other than nominal transfer fees. 

Hopefully this decision will also put the Northwynd dogs (Sauvageau & gang) back in their cages.  (This decision makes their bogus Statements of Claim look pretty lame)


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

*Transmogrified*

My belief in the system has been totally TRANSMOGRIFIED.. Beauty  See section 35 of the judgment. Never hurts to be sent back to your dictionary. Fine day here in Rider Nation.  Friday the 13th no worries.  Well done Michael Geldert et al.


----------



## no_more

Rider Nation Rocks said:


> My belief in the system has been totally TRANSMOGRIFIED.. Beauty  See section 35 of the judgment. Never hurts to be sent back to your dictionary. Fine day here in Rider Nation.  Friday the 13th no worries.  Well done Michael Geldert et al.



The dynamic of this has totally changed - instead of 1000+  lessees fighting Northwynd and who haven't paid them anything, we have 10,000 lessees who have paid Northwynd some money either to renovate or leave based on a legal decision that has now been overturned, and a significant percentage of those will want their money back.


----------



## DarkLord

Beaverjfw said:


> I, for one, would welcome a settlement just to be rid of Northwynd, but of course it needs to be reasonable. To me that means relinquishing my week, with no payments other than nominal transfer fees.



Northmount et el could potentially still come after us for the maintenance fee even thought the reno fee is now dead in the water.

I think we should sue them for breach of contract and then go after them.  They have real estate assets for us to collect on.


----------



## DarkLord

no_more said:


> The dynamic of this has totally changed - instead of 1000+  lessees fighting Northwynd and who haven't paid them anything, we have 10,000 owners who have paid Northwynd some money either to renovate or stay based on a legal decision that has now been overturned, and a significant percentage of those will want their money back.



Yes those who have paid either the cancellation or reno fees now have grounds to demand their money back.  Northwynd wouldn't volunterrily refund those monies, of course.  Now Northwynd will have to face those lawsuits as well.  

Consider that those people have paid a few Gs each, they'll go after Northwynd hard.

I think this group is now suddenly the lesser of Northwynd's problem.  A good win today on Friday the 13th but this is far from over.


----------



## no_more

DarkLord said:


> Yes those who have paid either the cancellation or reno fees now have grounds to demand their money back.  Northwynd wouldn't volunterrily refund those monies, of course.  Now Northwynd will have to face those lawsuits as well.
> 
> Consider that those people have paid a few Gs each, they'll go after Northwynd hard.
> 
> I think this group is now suddenly the lesser of Northwynd's problem.  A good win today on Friday the 13th but this is far from over.



Agree DarkLord.    Our next steps may be influenced by the actions of the larger group, how they organize and what actions they take for recompense.


----------



## DarkLord

no_more said:


> Agree DarkLord.    Our next steps may be influenced by the actions of the larger group, how they organize and what actions they take for recompense.



[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## GarryH

The way I see it, Northmont has a sufficient pool of capital (not all of it collected morally or legally) to commence an action to collect their "capital improvement costs" in order to upgrade the resort. 

However, they also have investors in the property who will want their money out and the sooner the better. How about the contractors and suppliers who have begun (or completed) the upgrades to Riverside 300, 400 and 800? They have to be paid as well.

From my limited vantage point, I don't think they will have the funds to satisfy all three drains on their bank account. Nor do they have the time to play this game any longer. Any further court action will force them to disclose details I'm sure they will want to remain firmly away from the light of day.

In order to apply pressure now to get them to do the right thing, I highly recommend the Geldert members fill out the survey in favor of commencing action against Northmont. I also suggest, now that they are vulnerable, to have those of you still on the fence to contact Michael Geldert and show Northmont et al they absolutely cannot flaunt the law and those of us who have already paid multi-thousands (up front).

Go Michael!


----------



## heydynagirl

*Pleased with the court decision*

I, for one, am extremely happy with the favorable decision of the judges.  Many thanks to Jim Belfy and our legal team for achieving this!!  I have completed the survey and stated my willingness to enter a class action lawsuit. However, at the end of the day, I just want out!  Maintenance fees are only going to go up every year, while the quality of the resort will go down if not disappear altogether. There are many other vacation options available to me which are much more cost effective than going to Fairmont.  Many thanks to everyone who fought this fight!


----------



## Tacoma

I'm also extremely happy with the outcome but kind of feel I am stuck in a tornado with no way out.  I really would like to see this be over but I will not let crooks just walk over me because I'm the little guy and they have deeper pockets.  Unlike some on this forum I am not so hopeful that people who paid to get out will now be willing to join in the fight.  Generally when people move on they do not want to go back.  Who I do hope we can pick up are people who have been waiting on the sidelines or who paid the renovation fee.  It is annoying that so many do nothing and expect the small minority of us to do the dirty work for them.  I am also hopeful that those of us in it up to this point are able to remain in the fight for the long haul because it is the right thing to do.  Every time people don't stand up to injustice it makes it easier for someone else to take advantage.  They picked the wrong girl to try and take advantage of.

Joan


----------



## DarkLord

It is entirely possible that Northwynd will deem us on the hook for the annual maintenance fees despite the appeal decision.  How hard it is to fudge the numbers and come up with, say, $1500 per each lease?  And that could easily add up after a few years to more than the $4000 reno fee.

In order to prevent Kirk Wankel from springing this on us in a few years down the road, we must take the fight to them now.  Unlike the special hearing if you are not part of the class action, you don't get to enjoy the benefits of the outcome.  

So join up everyone, this fight is far from over.


----------



## aden2

Just received an email from Northwynd and their summary of the Appeals Court. In ortherwords Northwynd does not accept the decision of the Appeals Court, and plans on business as usual.


----------



## DarkLord

[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## gnorth16

The first thing is to get an independent BOD at the resort that actually holds meetings and move forward from there.  Only then can you oust Scamwynd as the property owner and decisions that are best for the resort can be made.  Until then, all decisions are to benefit Scamwynd and not the resort/owners.  Unfortunately that won't happen if they have all the units that were turned back.  

Congrats in winning the battle, but the war has already been decided.  Scamwynd is in there and they are going to do what's best for them.  If you can turn back you deed for free, I would do it and walk away.  That would be the best case scenario.


----------



## no_more

*damage control*



DarkLord said:


> Northwynd thinks they are above the law and choose to ignore Appeal Court's decision.  Good luck giving your hard earned monies to people who think the laws don't apply to them.
> 
> Their purposes are to make people how have paid not to go after them for refund and keep paying their annual maintenance fee.



Yup, damage control to try to minimize a revolt by 10,000 investors who paid these people to stay or leave.   their easiest route to taking over the resort by shrinking the resort and eventually gaining free title to the whole property by forcing all the timeshare investors out has been thwarted, at least for now.

anyone who reads the northwynd interpretation of the judgement, and then compares it to the damning language of the judgement where the 3 judges say that due process and justice was denied to the investors, and doesn't see the blatant deception by northwynd and how they have been deceived ... and what the future holds ...  well ..not sure what else to say ...

Contact Geldert law or cox taylor, join the fight, get your interests represented in a group.   they continue to accept new clients at a very reasonable rate for the next stage of this battle.


----------



## DarkLord

gnorth16 said:


> If you can turn back you deed for free, I would do it and walk away.  That would be the best case scenario.



[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## Spark1

no_more said:


> Yup, damage control to try to minimize a revolt by 10,000 investors who paid these people to stay or leave.   their easiest route to taking over the resort by shrinking the resort and eventually gaining free title to the whole property by forcing all the timeshare investors out has been thwarted, at least for now.
> 
> anyone who reads the northwynd interpretation of the judgement, and then compares it to the damning language of the judgement where the 3 judges say that due process and justice was denied to the investors, and doesn't see the blatant deception by northwynd and how they have been deceived ... and what the future holds ...  well ..not sure what else to say ...
> 
> Contact Geldert law or cox taylor, join the fight, get your interests represented in a group.   they continue to accept new clients at a very reasonable rate for the next stage of this battle.


I can only speak for the timeshare owners that only own time. Our agreements do not have a cancellation agreement and the only item close to it is item 13 Default of the lessee in any payment required under the lease. We also do not have anything saying we are responsible for capital costs. Who tried to change this was Justice Linda Loo. Because of her ruling with the iron fists lease owners paid the cancellation and some the capital costs for renovations. These owners have a right to get this money refunded back to them. There are owners paying this 100.00 dollar a month for the renovation I feel they should have the right to stop this. If I was one of these timeshare owners that paid either cancellation or renovation I would be concerned about this company going bankrupt. Again I hope the legacy for life owners can do the same. Keep in mind that the way the cancellation forms were written you never were cancelled and if anyone was please let us know.


----------



## RainDog

Quotes from the appeal: 
"In our opinion, Northmounts argument must fail." [33]
"The prejudice to the Owners is, in our view, obvious." [36]

From Northmount's respond to the decision:
"We expect they will attempt to spin today's judgement as a victory...so they can collect a new round of higher retainer fees to continue their fight."

Time to saddle up the lawyers, folks.
There's a war on.

RainDog


----------



## gnorth16

DarkLord said:


> I think this is a great time to go on the offensive.  With the appellant court siding with us and says basically the reno and cancellation fees are scams, it is almost for certain that we can win by suing Northwynd for breaching of contract and that the trustees who were in bed with Northwynd had failed to performe their fiduciary duties to the owners.
> 
> Northwynd has valuable real estate assets that we can enforce collection on.



Northwynd will start bleeding money so they will have to distribute the 8 million collected from the Okanagan sale quickly as payments to shareholders.  As for the "valuable real estate" that they have (the TS's that were given back) will be sold to another shell company.  Even if they remain under Northwynd control, who is going to buy 2000 TS intervals at Fairmont?!?

My point is that Northwynd is organized and obviously knows how to hide, deceive and play games.  It is an uphill battle and this could go on for years if they feel it is worth fighting for.  *If you do win and Northwynd is ousted eventually, what will be the condition of the resort, its ownership situation and the reserve funds?  Would you want to be an owner at that point?*


----------



## GypsyOne

aden2 said:


> Just received an email from Northwynd and their summary of the Appeals Court. In ortherwords Northwynd does not accept the decision of the Appeals Court, and plans on business as usual.



The Northmont gang appear to be trying to put a brave face to a defeat, with their interpretation of the ruling being more wishful thinking than substance.    
ie. "We believe the Judgement provides a strong validation of our legal position.”  Seriously?  How in all honesty is it possible to turn a ruling against a legal position you have just spent a small fortune and time arguing into a win?  And they accuse our lawyers of attempting to spin the Judgement as a victory in order to collect a new round of retainer fees?  Nice try!

Or, can their interpretation really be given credibility when they contradict themselves in the same sentence?  ie. “While we would have preferred the Appeal be denied, we are pleased with the outcome.”

Or, how can they admit that Justice Loo’s decision was out to lunch then turn around and say it will continue to be your guiding principle in collection action against the timeshare owners? 
ie. “Her conclusions, while no longer binding, remain compelling and persuasive on the subject at hand. Accordingly we reiterate her conclusions that we have acted reasonably in the execution of the realignment plan and that the renovation fee forms part of our Owners responsibilities in your VIA’s”.   One way to spin this opportunistic interpretation is to reject the ruling by the Appeals Court judges and go directly for authority to the owners who have paid the extortion fees.  ie.  “This position that has been upheld by the majority of our Owners through their payment of the RPF or choosing the cancellation option.”  In other words, shop for the ruling you prefer.

To borrow a word from an Appeal Judge’s ruling  - Northmont has “transmogrified” the Appeal Court’s decision to suit their own interests.  (...to change in appearance or form, especially strangely, grotesquely, or bizarre....)

Once again, timeshare owners who have not signed on with one of the law companies, Geldert or Cox, you are urged to do so.  It is the only way justice will be served and we not be held hostage by an unscrupulous timeshare company.  We won an important legal battle but the fight is not over.  Because we are a large group, the cost per owner is minimal and far less than the ransom demanded.  Not to go forward is to lose.  To benefit from a favourable outcome, you will need to be part of the group.


----------



## ClanMac

Thank-you Michael G., J.B. and all of you who stayed the course and did not give in. You are truly 'The 800'; Trojans who stood their ground against a huge (money, accountants, lawyers & psychopaths (not mutually exclusive)) adversary and beat them back. It is comforting to know that the truth still prevails, and that justice will inevitably be served; that which I have depended upon all my career in the Criminal Justice System. 

As just recently posted, Northwynd/mont (by the way I like the scamwynd twist on these criminals) has made the effort in their statement to twist the conclusions of the Appellate Court (with three Justices ruling together) in their favour; in other words trying to deceive anyone who will listen to them that their defeat was in actuality a confirmation of Justice Loo's support of their actions/intent. Hard core primary psychopaths will often resort to this when faced with the irrefutable evidence of the illegality of their ways. With these types there is typically no way to have them accept the inevitable, as this would essentially lead to a collapse of their sense of self; the foundations that support their existence. My colleagues and I typically ignore them and tell them to get the hell out of our faces or their very existence will be in jeopardy. That they understand!

Further to this point, as I posted before the Appeal Court's decision, a win will open the legal door to contest the validity of the contracts to begin with; and not only did we win, the tripartite Judiciary specifically stated this was the major issue that needed to be addressed before anything else can be decided. It has been my contention all along that our contracts were voided long before Northwynd became involved; and their actions served further to invalidate any obligations we may have.

They are collapsing, there is absolutely no doubt about it. There will never be a trial, but they have to be served nonetheless. What we have learned and has been achieved by all of you I am so proud of, is a reaffirmation of the principles of fairness and justice that runs deep into the fiber of that which is truly virtuous; far from the snakes that lie under the rocks we tread upon.

I'll say it again. I am so proud of you all.


----------



## Meow

I am encouraged and emboldened by these previous posts.  I guess we are still a long way from winning this, but we are on the right road to a successful conclusion. 
But I am disappointed to hear that there are some who have stood on the sidelines, allowing others to foot the bill for legal expenses while they hope for a free ride. I have as much respect for these folks as I have for Northwynd.


----------



## GarryH

From Northwynd's letter I take away several key points:

First, they attach no person's name to their June 13 letter other than "Sunchaser Vacation Villas". Is no one within their management structure willing to stand up and be counted for this misguided response to the appeal decision? Shame on all of you.

Second, I am pleased they admit early on that, "Accordingly, our Owner's VIA's remain in full force and effect." Comments: Why do they keep referring to me as an Owner, when I legally own no part of their asset? My VVL (Vacation Villa Lease) says nothing about ownership whatever. 

Now that my VVL is "in full force and effect", and has not been altered by any court decision (well, it was for a couple of months but that was struck down), I fail to see anywhere that I must pay a Renovation Project Fee or any part of a capital upgrade to their Resort. (I emphasize, THEIR resort.)

It looks like Clause 13 - Default of the Lessee in any Payment Required Under This Lease, is also "in full force and effect". If I default in the payment of ANY demand of monies for a period of sixteen months, then I should be "deemed to offer to sell the Lessee's leasehold interest to the Lessor" for an amount calculated by the enclosed formula. It turns out THEY owe ME money, not the other way around.

It also looks like the folks who paid to stay will be on the hook for even more money than they have already paid due to the increased cost of "unnecessary legal fees." Who is surprised at this move? This web is turning out to be very sticky for those that simply want to enjoy a week at Fairmont each year. The entire management at Northmont et al have zero moral integrity towards their "Owners" and the BC Courts, and this letter lays bare any attempt at "fairness". 

The whole lot of them need to be shown the door, and have their rear-ends (insert your word for this if you like) kicked on the way out.

Contact Michael Geldert, our chief rear-end kicker for further instructions.


----------



## darklord700

Never Mind.


----------



## DarkLord

GarryH said:


> First, they attach no person's name to their June 13 letter other than "Sunchaser Vacation Villas". Is no one within their management structure willing to stand up and be counted for this misguided response to the appeal decision? Shame on all of you.



[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## TUGBrian

DarkLord said:


> Northmount et el could potentially still come after us for the maintenance fee even thought the reno fee is now dead in the water.
> 
> I think we should sue them for breach of contract and then go after them.  They have real estate assets for us to collect on.



article here has a quote saying they fully intend to pursue the collection of fees

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...ll-pursue-fees-despite-court-ruling-1.2676315


----------



## darklord700

TUGBrian said:


> article here has a quote saying they fully intend to pursue the collection of fees
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...ll-pursue-fees-despite-court-ruling-1.2676315



[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## GypsyOne

darklord700 said:


> They're just putting on a brave face for the moment.  The cancellation fee period has been passed so they don't even offer that anymore.  It just shows how inept the Kirk Wankel is.



Interesting how this could play out. The Special Case Hearing presided over by Justice Loo was initiated by Northmont to obtain court approval to charge the renovation fee and the cancellation fee.  Justice Loo's favourable decision was overturned by the higher Appeals Court.  In other words, Northmont *does not *have court sanctioned authority to charge the renovation fee or the cancellation fee.  But even though they did not get the court approval they sought, they continue to act as if they do have full legal authority to bill and collect the two fees.  With the Appeals Court going against them, the question must now be asked whether they can legally collect those fees or whether they must be returned.  According to Wankel in the CBC piece, they are going to continue to press for collection.  Makes you wonder if Wankel and company are in a serious state of denial.


----------



## no_more

*cancellation forms still on Northmont website*



darklord700 said:


> They're just putting on a brave face for the moment.  The cancellation fee period has been passed so they don't even offer that anymore.  It just shows how inept the Kirk Wankel is.



The cancellation forms are still on the sunchaser website.   I don't know for sure, but I suspect the threat to withdraw the cancellation offer by Jan 15, 2014 was the latest tactic to force people to choose and maximize the funds collection.   The forms are still there on purpose, they are very good at pulling stuff from their website when they don't want it there. 

They would actually prefer people to cancel rather than sign on for the reno, as part of their plan to gain free title to the entire resort eventually.   They will be happy to take your money still for either program as part of the cash grab.    Its all about monetizing their asset, and we are considered one of the assets to monetize aside from the buildings and land at Fairmont.

Down the road, they will make life difficult for the smaller number of timeshare owners who fund the renovation and stay in the shrinking resort, as part of forcing them out.

contact either law firm - geldert law and cox taylor and join the group in the next phase fighting this unilateral hijacking of our investment.  stop throwing good money after bad.


----------



## DarkLord

no_more said:


> Down the road, they will make life difficult for the smaller number of timeshare owners who fund the renovation and stay in the shrinking resort, as part of forcing them out.



[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## EvaS

*what change???*

I am not so enthusiast for the court ruling decision. This is just partially win situation. Owners still must pay maintenance fee for 2013 and 2014, plus they may pay the interest (not to mention lost vacation weeks for 2013). The renovation fee may be cancelled, but it will be replaced with much higher maintenance fees over next years. 

I am pretty sure if owners choose cancellation, there will be still high fee, unless it is ruled out by the court (but I don't think so).

In short:
a.) if you cancel ownership, you will pay maintenance fee for 2013 and 2014, maybe interest, and probably hefty cancellation fee - same as now.

b.) if you stay, the renovation fee will be cancelled, but you still must pay maintenance fee for 2013 and 2014, next your maintenance fee will go up over years drastically, and cancellation fee will still stay high - no big deal.

The only positive outcome of this case should be cancellation of the  ownership without paying anything.  Personally, I don't think this is going to happen since this will equal to Northwynd bankruptcy.  

Moreover, this case may take looonnggg months before ends, loosing another weeks of vacation.


----------



## DarkLord

EvaS said:


> Owners still must pay maintenance fee for 2013 and 2014, plus they may pay the interest (not to mention lost vacation weeks for 2013). The renovation fee may be cancelled, but it will be replaced with much higher maintenance fees over next years.



[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## Yukoner

I agree with EvaS. This victory simply voids Justice Loo's judgement, and puts us back to square one where the validity, legality intent and enforceability of our time share agreements/leases etc are at issue. 

We were in with Docken Klym for the first go round and Geldart for this one. We have enjoyed the benefits of time share ownership over the last 15 years, and in a perfect world I would like it to go back to the way it was. You pay a reasonable maintenance fee to a reputable operator and life is good.  Unfortunately we have run into this nest of vipers and our simple lives got complicated. 

I do know that I am prepared to spend a lot more money on legal fees before I give those crooks a penny. People need to seriously examine what constitutes a victory going forward, and I am sure that there is a wide spectrum of responses to that question. Consolidating those responses into a cohesive action plan is now our challenge. 

Thanks to Jim Belfry and the others who made this little victory possible.


----------



## EvaS

Basically, the court have decided that the renovation and cancellation fees are not right. That's all. The court haven't mention what to do with the interest fees, lost vacation weeks, or maintenance fees. 

The court also omitted actions to be done on Northwynd in order to satisfy owners. What about people who already paid??? In other words, Northwynd can do whatever they like with exception to charging for the renovation and cancellation fees. This is very weak.

For example, Northwynd can proceed some kind of  cancellation administration fees (lower than now, but still they will collect a lot of money), or in the worst case scenario they can still charge hefty interest fees. Let's say if that case will take one more year to proceed, yak... we will lose another year of vacation weeks; and probably pay really high interest rates (higher than cancellation fees now). Not to mention lawyers fees.

I don't think the court will rule out not to pay the maintenance fees. The rest is still unknown. This is still unclear.


----------



## DarkLord

EvaS said:


> Basically, the court have decided that the renovation and cancellation fees are not right. That's all.



It is right that the appeal court's decision is narrowed but its application could have widespread effect.  

If Northwynd goes against this decision and keep the reno fee they collected so far, we could argue that it is illegal and thus lead to breach of contract.

In civil dispute like this one, it is unlikely the court is going to lay out a plan for either side to proceed.  They often just decide on narrow issues like reno fee or not.  

If you think this is small victory, think what could have happened if the appeal court had sided with Northwynd.


----------



## EvaS

DarkLord said:


> If you think this is small victory, think what could have happened if the appeal court had sided with Northwynd.



DarkLord, think deeper.... the court is still on Northwynd side. There was no court order on anything in the court outcome. 

Now, in order to win this case we need to hire lawyer who will fight with Northwynd to:
a. cancel all fees and got out of the timeshares (low probability) 
or
b. cancel the interest on non-paid maintenance fees
c. get us back lost vacation weeks

If we don't proceed on points a. and b./c. we lost.
If we proceed on points a. and b./c., we can win or partially win, but lawyers fees will be high. 

This is why the court decision is not really on our side. This is very tricky.


----------



## DarkLord

EvaS said:


> Now, in order to win this case we need to hire lawyer who will fight with Northwynd to:



I agreed with you that the fight is not over.  I've recruited 5 investors I know of to join the appeal and I'll recruite more if I could to sue Northwynd down the road.


----------



## GypsyOne

I'll go with this being an important win, but it doesn't address all the issues.  With Justice Loo's puzzling decision in their back pocket, Northmont had almost unrestricted access to our bank accounts.  Now they don't.  That's a win.
Northmont petitioned the court to give them authority to charge owners with the renovation project fee and the cancellation fee.  They sought court approval for a reason, and that's because of the uncertainty that they could charge the two fees legally. They now don't have the backing of the court to charge the fees.  That's a win.
The Appeal Court judges recognized that the owners should have the right to present and argue evidence for the enforceability of the Agreements without restrictions imposed by the nature of the Special Case.  The appeal ruling provides a clear path for the timeshare owners to take whatever legal action they deem is appropriate, for example, class action to have the Agreements invalidated and sue for damages.  That's progress.


----------



## gnorth16

I said it before, Scamwynd want the property for themselves.  How many interests do they have and do they contain voting rights?  Could they essentially take over the vote and subdivide 2 or 3 buildings and land and sell as condos? 

Side note... IMO, the new exterior colour scheme is horrible...


----------



## Timeshare Cold

*email from Northwynd re: Court of Appeal*

I thought this paragraph from the email of "Northwynd Customer Care" regarding the outcome of the appeal to be very interesting. First of all, I don't know where the care in "Customer Care" comes from! The paragraph is:

 "The Appeal affects each Owner to varying degrees.
Cancelled Owners: The Judgment has no effect on cancelled Owners. We have noted throughout the process that the cancellation option is the only option that provides Owners future certainty. We continue to believe it is the 
most cost effective option for those whose primary objective is certainty rather than future Resort use." 

By sending their unsigned email, and this paragraph in particular, it shows that Northwynd certainly doesn't express any hope for future vacation use of the Villas. Yes, it says those who have paid the cancellation fee, have "future certainty" and it seems that is what they would like most of us to do. More money for them to do as they please. What about those who paid the renovation fee and how many more times will they be asked to pay those fees and how high will the maintenance fees go. 

Yes it seemed good at the beginning but our dream has gone to those who have no moral values.

We joined one of the law firms last year and have not thought twice about that decision. We have filled out the survey and are ready for the next round. 
Bring it on!


----------



## Hotpink

*Dwindling Resort*

Perhaps I should say swindling resort
We spent the last week ( week 23 ) in Fairmont in a rented unit and spent a lot of our time besides golfing touring the resort at various times and speaking to as many people staying at the resort, working at the resort and in the various stores in the valley. What we have to report is that most of whom we spoke with are completely unaware of what is actually going with us investors as MG describes us most aptly. We went out of our way to speak with staff, guests and store staff. The front desk and administrative staff are very cordial as we have experienced in the past , but not one familiar face was present which we noted as there have been a lot of familiar staff in our past visits over the last 17 years. They also said the low because it was low season and kids were still in school. Poppycock. We have been out in June for the last 17 years and often had a difficult time finding nearby parking to our units as the place was bulging at the seams. Not this year. Staff in the grocery outlets indicate their volumes are down considerably and some other specialized businesses are closed. Staff in the grounds force asked us why people were not coming here anymore. Our answer was perhaps the people in Calgary were the reason for the lack of guests. Nor is there is not a problem at booking tee times because of the lack of guests at the resort.
Lets look at the numbers 
Riverside 8 buildings with 80 Lock off units = 160 available units built 1990-1995
Hillside 8 buildings with 96 Lock off units = 192 available units plus 20 terrace units built 1995 -2002
Riverview 1 building with 32 Lock of units= 64 available units built in 2004

If they were at full capacity and all buildings were habitable they could have 436 units full.
As it stands the 300 & 400 buildings are not as close as they say to being ready in two weeks time so they are not available so that remove 40 available units from Riverside.
The 1000 building in Hillside is boarded up from the inside and is not in use and we were unable to get an answer from any staff other than I didn't know  that. So that removes another 28 units from their capacity. 
Leaving a total capacity 436 (-40 and - 24) = 372 available units for time share investors to utilize.

Our several tours of the resort during the week revealed a maximum count of 61 vehicles and a low of 45 and other counts in between. We eliminated apparent work vehicles in the Riverside area as they didn't appear to be paying guests.
The 7000 building appears to be utilized as a staff housing area as we saw nothing but staff going in and out at various times.
What is their real usage rate .
With 372 units available to investors and assuming 1 vehicle only per unit and with 61 vehicles maximum they are at less than 20% capacity. 
What is even more interesting is that we spoke with every guest we could and asked if they where an owner and we never met any one who was as they had either rented or traded through RCI and were astounded by what was happening.

Needless to say they cannot sustain this resort based on such low occupancy rates. That is why they keep hounding us for money cause they aren't getting much of it from the other guests  

We also toured the show suite in Riverside  803 A & B. Hardwood through out with exception of A's bedroom which is carpeted, all new modern dark furniture, dark cupboards ceramic top stoves, apartment style fridge w/o icemaker and guess what two full bathrooms in the A unit. While that may be nice we have never needed that in all the years we stayed there. However we will miss the Jacuzzi tub that has been replaced with a soaker tub. B unit also has a full kitchen with stove and fridge same dark colours.

That is why we to-day have committed to pursuing the case on the breach of our contract with Geldhart Law and we encourage all of you to do the same and see if we cannot recruit more to thwart these swindlers


----------



## ERW

The way I read the decision is that neither side has really won or lost, it is all back to square one. Northmont was wanting approval from the court that they could charge the renovation/cancellation fee. Justice Loo gave that approval. The Appeals Court has simply reversed that decision and stated that a full fledged trial will need to take place to settle the matter. That can get very costly. Northmont will likely just sit back and wait for the leasees/owners to sue. In the meantime the Appeals Court decision does not say that the reno fee/cancellation fee is right or wrong - it is simply saying the original decision was incorrect.

Northmont will simply go ahead with their plan to charge the reno/cancellation fee as well as the collections proceedings until someone sues. Then the whole process will start over and will take much longer than the original legal challenge. 

Unfortunately, the winners as usual are the lawyers.


----------



## Spark1

ERW said:


> The way I read the decision is that neither side has really won or lost, it is all back to square one. Northmont was wanting approval from the court that they could charge the renovation/cancellation fee. Justice Loo gave that approval. The Appeals Court has simply reversed that decision and stated that a full fledged trial will need to take place to settle the matter. That can get very costly. Northmont will likely just sit back and wait for the leasees/owners to sue. In the meantime the Appeals Court decision does not say that the reno fee/cancellation fee is right or wrong - it is simply saying the original decision was incorrect.
> 
> Northmont will simply go ahead with their plan to charge the reno/cancellation fee as well as the collections proceedings until someone sues.
> Unfortunately, the winners as usual are the lawyers.


Northwynd should of waited to collect the cancellation or the Reno fees after the appeal,not before the appeal. This cancellation and renovation was a big deal because Northwynd  illegally collected millions because of justice loos decision.If we are back to square one then all this money should be paid back to the timeshare owners. Many would not of paid this if justice loo would not of used the special case to rule in Northwynd's favour. Fore the timeshare owners who paid either the cancellation or the renovation fees because you felt we lost the special case contact Geldert Law.


----------



## jekebc

A very good summary of our case at this link:
http://insidethegate.com/2014/06/su...rning-november-15-2013-judgment-against-them/
Please make sure other timeshare investors you may know are made aware of this article.

We have collected a lot of evidence that Northmont and their associates have breached fundamental terms of the timeshare contracts. It is time to commence our action against them, including a claim for damages for loss of our timeshare value as a result of mismanagement of the Resort. They have improperly collected millions of dollars in cancellation fees,  excess fees for property management, and payments for services not were not contracted through a proper value for money approach. Even if the cash disappears, there is the underlying value of the real estate which is lienable to secure our claims.

I also suggest you review the 2013 financial statements, including the management comments that are posted on the website. That should give you plenty of warning that the Resort is in serious financial trouble.


----------



## DarkLord

jekebc said:


> A very good summary of our case at this link:
> http://insidethegate.com/2014/06/su...rning-november-15-2013-judgment-against-them/
> Please make sure other timeshare investors you may know are made aware of this article



[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## fairmontlvr

*Moving forward*

I am glad to have joined the fight against Northwynd. Yes this is just the first win and there will be a bigger battle ahead.

I did not pay the renovation fee nor the cancellation fee, yet last year I did pay my Maintenance fee and used my week that I own in the summer. In light of the favorable ruling handed down for us that have chosen to fight this I am wondering where we stand for this year? Could we not argue to utilize our timeshare again this year if we were to pay this years' Maintenance fee and Maintenance fee only? Yes I understand that since we did not pay up by the usual deadline that they would tack on interest on the unpaid Maintenance fee.
Thoughts?


----------



## DarkLord

fairmontlvr said:


> Could we not argue to utilize our timeshare again this year if we were to pay this years' Maintenance fee and Maintenance fee only?



If you want to use the week, renting from Interval or RCI is cheaper than the MF even in the summer weeks.


----------



## SentimentalLady

fairmontlvr said:


> I am glad to have joined the fight against Northwynd. Yes this is just the first win and there will be a bigger battle ahead.
> 
> I did not pay the renovation fee nor the cancellation fee, yet last year I did pay my Maintenance fee and used my week that I own in the summer. In light of the favorable ruling handed down for us that have chosen to fight this I am wondering where we stand for this year? Could we not argue to utilize our timeshare again this year if we were to pay this years' Maintenance fee and Maintenance fee only? Yes I understand that since we did not pay up by the usual deadline that they would tack on interest on the unpaid Maintenance fee.
> Thoughts?




We also paid our maintenance fee for 2013.....in 2012, when we booked for the following year. But remember what Sunchaser/Northmont/Northwynd did? They came up with a plan where we suddenly owed another $5000 and said if we didn't CHOOSE and PAY before May 31, we could be denied our booking.

We couldn't risk a week off work and two days travel and accommodation each way - only to arrive and be turned away. Never mind the equivalent cost and disappointment for our guests we were to meet there.

Would you seriously trust them to honour your booking?


----------



## Anxiety123

*Contract*

I have read carefully what ERW and EvaS had to say about us not winning anything.  Well we are now back where we were from the beginning but we have shown Northmont that they cannot be unreasonable and get away with it.  There are some owners willing to fight back.  I hope that both of you are involved with the fight by putting up your money, as you have benefited from the outcome.  Now, my original contract states that if I am to default for more than 16 months, my timeshare week will now be turned over to Northmont and they will calculate an amount that they owe ME.  Also I did notice the clause that stated they could unilaterally change contracts for the betterment of the owners but the changes cannot materially prejudice the owners.  The changes that Northmont wanted to make would definitely financially hurt many owners.    The issue that hurts the most is the vacations that we so enjoyed are now over, this hurts more than any money we could loose. I don't know all the legalities of the dealings Northmont had with Fairmont  but I can remember a time when I had some friends come and stay on one of the timeshare weekends.  This was during the time the new building of Riverview (I think that is what it is called)was being built.  These friends were put up in the buildings close to the Rec Centre.  When visiting them I noticed that  the staircases were crumbling and the unit was in such disrepair and  that I was embarrassed.  I thought to myself, why would they be using maintenance money on a new building when these were falling apart.  Maybe to make their salesmen and management richer??  When I bought our timeshare, Pat our salesmen, told us that the family that owned the property were good, upstanding citizens of the community and that they had money in trust for any major renovations or issues that could arise.  But in the end what they did is make themselves richer and walk away from us owners.  Good upstanding citizens they were.  I am sure they are still living in the community today happy to have their money out and all the problems not theirs.

So where do we go from here?  The only thing I can think of is either follow my contract and just stop paying them and let them have my unit or pay to get involved with the Class Action.  Well I have paid the lawyer up until now, will most likely continue and be one that has at least tried!!!


----------



## Yukoner

Anxiety 123. We too have many fond memories of time spent there with friends and family, plus all the trades we made. Our son played junior hockey in Invermere and we were in and out on a regular basis. Despite this recent tomfoolery, our timeshare experience has been a positive one.

One item that I have not seen discussed is the ramifications to the time share industry at large if this were to be a precedent setting case. On one hand it will generate substantial negative press for the time share industry, but unfortunately that will probably be likes water off a ducks back as that industry has certainly weathered a virtual hurricane of bad press and managed to survive quite nicely. On the other hand if Northwynd were to succeed, it could conceivably open every time share owners wallet to the predation of their resort. I can only assume that most time share agreements are similar in form and content, and if so every time share owner could be at risk if Northwynd were to be successful in setting a precedent.

I am thinking that there may be an opportunity to widen the scope in terms of soliciting assistance in our fight if one accepts the argument that this fight affects all time share owners, not just the Sunchaser group. This forum as been very focussed (and informative) about the issues with Northwynd, but probably of passing interest to time share owners at large. If the risk posed by Northwynd setting a precedent is real, then it would be of interest to all time share owners, and worthy of wider dissemination, perhaps by starting another thread that would highlight the risks to all. just a thought.

Last comment: Does anyone know if other Owner/Management companies have tried a similar gambit, or is this truly a Wanker's epiphany, and a one off. If so, what were the results.


----------



## fairmontlvr

DarkLord said:


> If you want to use the week, renting from Interval or RCI is cheaper than the MF even in the summer weeks.



I never did sign up with Interval and thankfully did not opt for the Legacy for Life  scam that switched over to RCI. So not being a member of either trading group is not an option.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Interval*

You just have to purchase a membership with Interval and you can purchase Getaways through them.  Have just recently and stayed in a Marriott.  Beautiful!


----------



## no_more

*"playbook" for unscrupulous timeshare operators*

[Last comment: Does anyone know if other Owner/Management companies have tried a similar gambit, or is this truly a Wanker's epiphany, and a one off. If so, what were the results.[/QUOTE]

Northwynd and their predecessor companies have used questionable tactics at their non-Canadian resorts in Belize and Punta Mita,  Mexico before they sold them.   (jacking up maintenance fees, lack of maintenance, "creative" accounting, special exchange clubs like the platinum club where you pay extra but never can get an exchange, booking the rooms on the side for paying guests when timeshare owners should have priority)    I call it the "playbook" for unscrupulous timeshare operators.   Easier to do in foreign jurisdictions where its harder to get there and see what's going on, like Mexico.    

For Canada, last year I do recall reading some articles about a troubled Ontario timeshare that had a dwindling number of investors and the maintenance fees kept increasing substantially.   

Found it - its the Horseshoe resort in Barrie.   article follows ...

Horseshoe Resort,
Barrie, Ontario
Problems for timeshare owners at The Lodges at Horseshoe Resort
began shortly after the development was acquired by Skyline International
Development in 2008. Maintenance fees rose over the next three years from $435
to $1,108. According to the management company, the increase was due to
a refurbishment to update the building, increases in wages and legal fees from
the prior lawsuit. At the Horseshoe Resort, owners only need to pay the fee if they are using
the week. After the 2011 fee was announced, 45 percent of the owners
decided not to use their weeks that year, so the other owners were re-assessed an
additional amount to make up for the shortfall, bringing the total to $1,700
per week. When only 18 owners were willing to pay that maintenance fee,
the cost of running the timeshare resort was against reassessed to $27,879.51
per week.   The settlement of a class action lawsuit, which had been brought by
owners several years prior to Skyline’s involvement, provided that the developer
is not responsible for maintenance fees on reclaimed weeks.
The Time Share Owners Association (TSOA), representing about 250 of
The Lodges leaseholders, has now filed a lawsuit against
Skyline International Development.
According to Mark Arnold, lawyer for the TSOA, Skyline has now taken over all
of the units and Skyline probably considers it to no longer be a timeshare.
“What we see is a slow but easy way to push people out,”
Arnold said.   Skyline has said it is only following the terms of the class
action settlement.  If the TSOA wins in court, timeshare
owners will get relief from forfeitures  caused as a result of misinterpretation
of the minutes of settlement or a sum of money that is enough to compensate
everyone for what they have lost, Arnold said.
“If Skyline wins, the project is dead and they can do what they want with
it,” he added


----------



## DarkLord

Yukoner said:


> or is this truly a Wanker's epiphany, and a one off. If so, what were the results.



[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## ClanMac

I am having a hard time getting through a few of the posts that have been placed here over the last two or three days. Anx123 just recently addressed this  and I am going to stress even more. What is it you don't get? What have you been reading and what is it you don't understand? THE APPEAL COURT DECISION IS HUGE!!!!! It doesn't just put us back to where we were before the BC Supreme Court decision the appeal was based on, three Judges made it abundantly clear that Northwynd/mont cannot legally proceed with the levy of the RPM or Pay to get out fees without addressing the significant concerns the TS owners have with respect to the validity of the contracts to begin with. This would have to be addressed at trial, and there is overwhelming evidence that irreparable breaches have occurred and continue to take place.

With due respect to Jim B., there is also ample evidence for fraud that would not be hard to prove; rather it has been hard to get the RCMP to commit forensic audit resources to digging through the electronic/paper trail barricades and diversions in order to be certain of an expedient conviction of the specific individuals involved. Accountants, lawyers and Real Estate scammers of this nature are very capable of throwing up a lot of crap; and most clearly in our favour a significant load was already flushed down the proverbial 'loo' by the three Appeal Court judges. I have worked with the RCMP for many years on a number of cases, and have addressed this one specifically with them over more than the past year (Commercial Crimes Unit - Calgary). Their approach is the same. They know fraud and theft is highly likely, however it is more economically efficient to wait until the civil litigation proceedings are well under way; at which time the abundant evidence produced will make it all more evident. 

Northwynd is crumbling, unfortunately like the resort they they were obligated to take care of and instead took our money for their own purposes. This organization's death is imminent but they are unlikely to expedite the inevitable by jumping off a cliff with a trial or a ton of small claims procedures.

So please stop trying to spread doubt and insecurity on the basis of what you   may not understand. Read carefully and ask questions of the right people you can trust and stop keeping the Northwynd fungus clinging on with the last of it's withering tentacles.


----------



## Spark1

ClanMac said:


> I am having a hard time getting through a few of the posts that have been placed here over the last two or three days. Anx123 just recently addressed this  and I am going to stress even more. What is it you don't get? What have you been reading and what is it you don't understand? THE APPEAL COURT DECISION IS HUGE!!!!! It doesn't just put us back to where we were before the BC Supreme Court decision the appeal was based on, three Judges made it abundantly clear that Northwynd/mont cannot legally proceed with the levy of the RPM or Pay to get out fees without addressing the significant concerns the TS owners have with respect to the validity of the contracts to begin with. This would have to be addressed at trial, and there is overwhelming evidence that irreparable breaches have occurred and continue to take place.
> 
> With due respect to Jim B., there is also ample evidence for fraud that would not be hard to prove; rather it has been hard to get the RCMP to commit forensic audit resources to digging through the electronic/paper trail barricades and diversions in order to be certain of an expedient conviction of the specific individuals involved. Accountants, lawyers and Real Estate scammers of this nature are very capable of throwing up a lot of crap; and most clearly in our favour a significant load was already flushed down the proverbial 'loo' by the three Appeal Court judges. I have worked with the RCMP for many years on a number of cases, and have addressed this one specifically with them over more than the past year (Commercial Crimes Unit - Calgary). Their approach is the same. They know fraud and theft is highly likely, however it is more economically efficient to wait until the civil litigation proceedings are well under way; at which time the abundant evidence produced will make it all more evident.
> 
> Northwynd is crumbling, unfortunately like the resort they they were obligated to take care of and instead took our money for their own purposes. This organization's death is imminent but they are unlikely to expedite the inevitable by jumping off a cliff with a trial or a ton of small claims procedures.
> 
> So please stop trying to spread doubt and insecurity on the basis of what you   may not understand. Read carefully and ask questions of the right people you can trust and stop keeping the Northwynd fungus clinging on with the last of it's withering tentacles.


This is for all the people that talk negative about how big of a win it was for us that own time at this resort. When people talk negative then i wonder are you a bond owner, or connected to Northwynd/Northmont or confused time owner. I would like to share a website with you so you can see how important it was to win this appeal.
http://www.justanswer.com/canada-law/8ew71-regards-xxxxx-xxxxx-timeshare-40-year-lease.html

We are lucky to have Geldert Law, Jim Belfry and the very informative posters and tug or we could be in trouble with these crooks.


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> This is for all the people that talk negative about how big of a win it was for us that own time at this resort. When people talk negative then i wonder are you a bond owner, or connected to Northwynd/Northmont or confused time owner. I would like to share a website with you so you can see how important it was to win this appeal.
> http://www.justanswer.com/canada-law/8ew71-regards-xxxxx-xxxxx-timeshare-40-year-lease.html
> 
> We are lucky to have Geldert Law, Jim Belfry and the very informative posters and tug or we could be in trouble with these crooks.



You will have to reply to my thread to get the proper website or google gordon and judy price renovation fee at the sunchaser resort at fairmont bc and go to this is in regards XXXXX XXXXX timeshare 40 year lease i have


----------



## heydynagirl

Spark1 said:


> You will have to reply to my thread to get the proper website or google gordon and judy price renovation fee at the sunchaser resort at fairmont bc and go to this is in regards XXXXX XXXXX timeshare 40 year lease i have



This is just one of those pre-draft letters from that collection agency.  Too bad this couple isn't aware of Michael and the recent overturning of Justice Loo's decision.


----------



## DarkLord

[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## Hotpink

*News Paper Coverage*

Notice that the Valley Echo in Invermere has an article on the outcome of the appeal. While we can't read it as we don't subscribe it will be available in the archives in the near future.

How can we get some of our other larger media outlets reporting on this situation which may assist in increasing our class action numbers. Not sure if a letter to the editor is a good tactic or not, but unless we increase our exposure to other investors we may not get a larger number of participants. We know we can't afford to be taking out large ads in any of the daily's.

Open to suggestions


----------



## Spark1

Hotpink said:


> Notice that the Valley Echo in Invermere has an article on the outcome of the appeal. While we can't read it as we don't subscribe it will be available in the archives in the near future.
> 
> How can we get some of our other larger media outlets reporting on this situation which may assist in increasing our class action numbers. Not sure if a letter to the editor is a good tactic or not, but unless we increase our exposure to other investors we may not get a larger number of participants. We know we can't afford to be taking out large ads in any of the daily's.
> 
> Open to suggestions



I emailed Geldert Law yesterday about the registry. I feel that if Northwynd can give out all our private information so their hit men Sauvageau can harass us knowing that there was an appeal happening some how our lawyers should be able to get a copy of the registry. This is very unfair,we have to use tug,face-book,some news media to inform people but it is impossible to reach everyone. Every time owner has a right to join this Class Lawsuit but because of the system this right is taken away from them. Maybe Geldert Law can use a Federal Judge to force them to give our lawyers a copy. ClanMac would know a lot more about this then I would.


----------



## gnorth16

Global and CTV each did a piece on it.  I think they would love to do a follow up on how the little guy won the first battle and where it goes from here.

Get 'r Done!


----------



## GarryH

Spark1 said:


> I emailed Geldert Law yesterday about the registry. I feel that if Northwynd can give out all our private information so their hit men Sauvageau can harass us knowing that there was an appeal happening some how our lawyers should be able to get a copy of the registry. This is very unfair,we have to use tug,face-book,some news media to inform people but it is impossible to reach everyone. Every time owner has a right to join this Class Lawsuit but because of the system this right is taken away from them. Maybe Geldert Law can use a Federal Judge to force them to give our lawyers a copy. ClanMac would know a lot more about this then I would.



Why don't we press Northwynd to establish an owners/lessees association? It's now part of our "in full force and effect" agreements (Clause 19 in my version). Northwynd is obviously in possession of the full list which would be required to canvass all owners/lessees to see if they wanted to participate in the association.

If Northwynd balks, then that's one more piece of ammunition we can use against them. We would have to form an interim association management team up front in order to make the request. Perhaps GL can comment on this tactic.


----------



## ERW

DarkLord said:


> The misconception was people thought the court was going to map out a course of action for Investors to follow.  But the court was only asked by Northwynd to approve the levy of reno and cancellation fees.  And the court did just that saying no to both reno and cancellation fee.



I am not a lawyer but the way I read this decision is the the Appeals Court has not said no to Northwynd re the reno/cancellation fee but rather said no to the "Special Case" status of this proceeding. Justice Loo's decision was faulty in that she proceeded with this as if all parties were in agreement with the evidence brought forward whereas in actual fact the Owners/Lessees were disputing the contracts which were used as the basis of classifying this as a Special Case. So, in essense, it was the process they overturned. That being said, the actual question of whether or not Northwynd can proceed has not been decided, which would explain why it appears Northwynd is moving ahead. 

Have any of the lawyers actually unequivocally stated that the decision forbids Northwynd from proceeding with the reno/cancelation fees? I am thinking that the Northwynd is just going to take the risk of proceeding with their plan and wait to see if someone actually files a lawsuit in which case a full-fledged trial will need to take place to determine the issue. 

So as I understand the situation, this is a victory in the sense that Justice Loo's decision was overturned, but there is a long legal road ahead to determine if Northwynds path is legal according to the disputed contracts or not. That long legal road could go on for 3 or 4 years (or more).


----------



## DarkLord

ERW said:


> That long legal road could go on for 3 or 4 years (or more).



I agree that this is far from over.  The application by Northwynd or our beloved trustee who were supposed to look after our interest to realign the resort still hasn't been heard.  If we do nothing, Northwynd with that application can sell off units of the resort that belong to us investors.

For investors who have been ignoring Northwynd up til now, Northwynd can file claims against us on the MF and/or the reno fee in BC court.  And individually, you'll have to fly from all over the country to BC to defend your rights.  Failure to answer to those suits will lead to judgement against you.

It is high time that for investors who have not done anything to sign up with Geldert Law.  A round trip plan ticket and a few nights of hotel to BC will cost you more than the few hundreds you pay for lawyer.

A little bird told me that majority of the investors with Geldert support the class action and it will be a go.  We are going to sue Northwynd for damages resulting from their breaching of contract.  

If you don't signup with Geldert law, you won't get the award of damages at the end.


----------



## aden2

SOME BACKGROUND ON THE SUNCHASER - NORTHWYND SITUATION
-	Including some interesting extracts from the Information Circular to Unitholders

In 2006, several hundred investors bought bonds issued by FRPL Finance Ltd. (“FRPL”), a company that had been established to secure financing for the ongoing development of timeshare properties, primarily Fairmont Vacation Villas, then under the control of Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. (Fairmont).  FRPL offered Investors a premium rate of interest if they undertook to compound their investment by accepting interest in the form of additional bonds, instead of cash.  In December 2008, Fairmont could not make the interest payments due to FRPL, which was consequently unable to pay bondholders.  In 2009, as a result of Fairmont’s ongoing inability to meet its interest obligations, the Fairmont Group was placed under protection of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).  

Quoted from Information Circular to Unitholders of Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust

“The Trust was formed on March 4, 2010 for the purposes of acquiring and developing vacation resort properties.  As a result of a Plan of Arrangement completed by FRPL Finance Limited. (“FRPL”) pursuant to the ABCA on April 22, 2010, the holders of mortgage bonds issued by FRPL exchanged their bonds for Units.  This exchange resulted in the mortgage bondholders owning 100% of the issued units of the Trust.  Concurrently, and as part of the Plan of Arrangement, the Trust acquired from FRPL certain loans and security interests in Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. and its subsidiary companies (“Fairmont”), a company operating at that time under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangements Act.  Those loans and underlying security interests were valued at $43.8 million.

On April 27, 2010, the Trust submitted a bid to purchase substantially all of the assets of Fairmont in exchange for the cancellation of $43.8 million of Fairmont debt and the assumption by the Trust of certain liabilities of Fairmont and its subsidiary companies.  The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench granted final approval of the Trust’s acquisition of Fairmont’s assets on June 22, 2010 and issued an order vesting title to Fairmont’s assets with Northwynd Limited Partnership (“Northwynd LP”), a limited partnership wholly owned by the Trust. The acquisition was completed on July 7, 2010 at which time certain assets acquired were transferred to three limited partnerships also wholly owned by the Trust.

Subsequent to July 7, 2010, the Trust attempted to stabilize and grow its business with the objective of returning to its Unitholders their $43.8 million in capital initially raised by FRPL.  Due to a number of internal and external factors, the Trust’s efforts were not successful and in the fall of 2011, the Trustees determined that alternative options needed to be pursued to maximize Unitholder value.  Management was directed to review any and all options including, but not limited to, a recapitalization of the Trust, the sale of some or all of its assets, or its sale.

During 2012, the Trust attempted to complete a transaction with Bridge Gap Konsult Inc. for a sale of all of the outstanding Trust Units.  In October 2012, that transaction failed to close and the Chief Executive Officer, Pat Fitzsimonds, resigned from Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. (the “Administrator”), a corporation wholly owned by the Trust that is responsible for the administration of the Trust.

In November 2012, Kirk Wankel was appointed Chief Executive Officer and the Trustees approved a new business plan focused on maximizing cash generation, selling non-core assets and stabilizing the long-term assets.

Effective December 31, 2012 Northwynd completed a reorganization that resulted in Northwynd LP becoming the Trust’s only directly owned limited partnership and the cancellation of certain intercompany debt.

In April, 2013, Northmont Resort Properties Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trust, embarked on a resort realignment plan (the “Realignment Plan”) for Sunchaser Vacation Villas including participation in a petition in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to validate the Realignment Plan.

In August, 2013, Northwynd entered into a purchase and sale agreement with restructured Equities Ltd. (“REL”) pursuant to which REL agreed to acquire Northwynd LP and the Administrator for total cash consideration of $28.9 million, subject to deduction and adjustment in accordance with the terms of the Purchase Agreement.  This transaction was unsuccessful and was terminated by the parties in early September, 2013.

In November, 2013, the Supreme Court of British Columbia after a Special Case held in October, 2013, ordered that the renovation fees and cancellation fees related to the Realignment Plan were valid.

From May, 2013 through May, 2014, the Trust has generated substantial cash flow from cancellation fees related to the Realignment Plan.  The cash was used to pay off the $8,150,000 in debt owed to Terrafund Financial Inc. between June, 2013 and January, 2014.

In May, 2014, the Trust sold the assets at Lake Okanagan Resort to a third party for gross proceeds of $9,100,000.

As a result of the asset sales to date, the only material non-cash or receivable assets remaining in the Trust relate to assets in and around Sunchaser Vacation Villas in Fairmont, British Columbia.”

(End of quotation)

In June, 2014, the British Columbia Appeal Court overturned the decision of November, 2013.  The decision stated in part: ”In our opinion, the chambers judge’s quest for efficiency overwhelmed her analysis and failed to give proper effect to the Rule and the rights of the time share Owners. This proceeding did not favour access to justice — it precluded it.”

The Trustees have now determined that the termination of the Trust is in the best interests of the Trust and the Unitholders.  The Trustees unanimously recommend that the Unitholders vote in favour of the Wind-Up Resolution at the annual and special meeting on July 3, 2014.


----------



## DarkLord

aden2 said:


> The Trustees unanimously recommend that the Unitholders vote in favour of the Wind-Up Resolution at the annual and special meeting on July 3, 2014.



Thanks, Aden.

Assuming the trust is wound up, who owns the Sunchaser properties?  I would image that being the unitholders who probably have lost thousands of the investment in this scam.


----------



## ERW

aden2 said:


> In June, 2014, the British Columbia Appeal Court overturned the decision of November, 2013.  The decision stated in part: ”In our opinion, the chambers judge’s quest for efficiency overwhelmed her analysis and failed to give proper effect to the Rule and the rights of the time share Owners. This proceeding did not favour access to justice — it precluded it.”
> 
> The Trustees have now determined that the termination of the Trust is in the best interests of the Trust and the Unitholders.  The Trustees unanimously recommend that the Unitholders vote in favour of the Wind-Up Resolution at the annual and special meeting on July 3, 2014.



I'm a little lost here - is the trustee indicated above Macklin? And are the "Unitholders" Northwynd or the lesses/owners? Where does this information come from?


----------



## DarkLord

ERW said:


> I'm a little lost here - is the trustee indicated above Macklin? And are the "Unitholders" Northwynd or the lesses/owners? Where does this information come from?



[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## bubbalou

*Show Me The Contract!!!*

I purchased my Riverside Timeshare in 1997 and after moving twice since then I can't locate my copy of my contract. I did not purchase the Legacy For Life option when it was introduced. I have asked Northwynd 3x in the last year send me a copy of my signed contract. I also asked them to highlight the section that states where I am responsible for Capital Projects. So far, I haven't received anything back, nor have they sent me a copy of my contract from 1997.

I also asked for this from Sauvageau & Associates over a month ago when I received an email from them to settle this "amicably" - again there was no response. 

Today, I received a registered letter from Sauvageau & Associates trying to intimidate me into paying for the reno, interest and legal fees.


----------



## DarkLord

bubbalou said:


> Today, I received a registered letter from Sauvageau & Associates trying to intimidate me into paying for the reno, interest and legal fees.



Bubbalou, Northwynd will not go throught the trouble to find you the signed contract, they probably don't even have it.  This is like a mass email scam, send out thousands of letters and see what sticks.  Like I mentioned before, this will not stop and Northwynd are planning to file in BC courts for their claim.

If you have not signed up with Geldert law, http://geldertlaw.com/, you should do so now.  The money you have to spend to just get to BC will be more than what you're paying Geldert Law for.


----------



## bubbalou

*Need People to Get Involved*



DarkLord said:


> If you have not signed up with Geldert law, http://geldertlaw.com/, you should do so now.



Thanks DarkLord, I just called Geldert and spoke with Patricia.She said that we still need at least 500 more people to get involved and contact them before July 7, 2014. The risk is that if people stand by and do nothing, then Northwynd may have greater leverage than before. 

Don't let apathy be your strategy.


----------



## GypsyOne

Sauvageau & Associates are now sending out *Draft* Statements of Claim to the timeshare owners by registered mail.  They mustn't have gotten the email that their client lost the appeal.  The strategy seems to be to shake down as much money as possible while they can - by intimidation if necessary. Northmont failed to get the court's affirmation they sought that they can charge for the renovation and the cancellation fees.  Yet they continue to act as if they have full legal authority.  They are skating on very thin ice. 

This gang will not stop until they have full court authority to take over your bank account to fund reconstruction of *their resort *for *their benefit *with *your money*.  That must not be allowed to happen.  Get on board with one of the lawyers to go the next step. 

The early indication of the survey is that nearly everyone realizes what is at stake and are doing the right thing.  Because we are a large group, the costs to date have been surprisingly low.  There is strength in numbers.  To do nothing is to lose.


----------



## DarkLord

GypsyOne said:


> Sauvageau & Associates are now sending out *Draft* Statements of Claim to the timeshare owners by registered mail.



[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## jekebc

Hotpink said:


> How can we get some of our other larger media outlets reporting on this situation which may assist in increasing our class action numbers. Not sure if a letter to the editor is a good tactic or not, but unless we increase our exposure to other investors we may not get a larger number of participants. We know we can't afford to be taking out large ads in any of the daily's.
> 
> Open to suggestions



I released a statement through Michael Geldert's office today. Our family company was the appellant on behalf of other timeshare investors in the BC Court of Appeal case that resulted in the November 2013 decision of Justice Loo being set aside.

http://members.shaw.ca/thebelfrys/statement_by_jeke_enterprises_20jun2014.pdf
The statement includes specifics as to reasons that I believe confirm that Northmont and their associates have breached fundamental terms of the timeshare contracts and as a result all investors have suffered damages from loss of value of their original timeshare investment.
It is no longer a matter of just getting out of your contract because Northmont has made it plain they will pursue everyone to collect overdue maintenance fees as well as the renovation fee. Expect the Ontario law firm to proceed with filing individual actions in the courts.
We must go after Northmont and their associates for damages and take action to prevent them from selling the Resort out from under us.
And the costs of joining in this action will be far less than trying to defend each individual collection action on your own.


----------



## DarkLord

jekebc said:


> The statement includes specifics as to reasons that I believe confirm that Northmont and their associates have breached fundamental terms of the timeshare contracts and as a result all investors have suffered damages from loss of value of their original timeshare investment.



[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## Timeshare Cold

*Info regarding FRLP Finance*

You may find this site of interest regarding FRPL Finance.

http://frplfinance.blogspot.ca/

It explains a bit more of FRPL Finance, & how Collin Knight is involved and he was the person who signed our lease with Fairmont several years ago.

A sample of the information follows:
"Collin H. Knight, RRP: President and Developer
Mr. Knight’s career in the industry began in 1980. He excelled at sales at Fairmont and the next year was moved into the sales management team. In late 1982 he set up his own marketing company and initially offered services to Fairmont and later provided services to Panorama Mountain Village, now an Intrawest development. Mr. Knight’s success took him as far south as Mexico and it was from there that he and his now partner, Doug Morcom, were convinced to return to Fairmont to buy an interest in the timeshare-development company. His love of a challenge and desire to
be the developer led to his success story of today."


Some readers on this site have also questioned whether or not there have been issues at other timeshare locations. From memory,I believe this was on this "tugbbs.com" site a while back. It discusses the problems the lease/owners had with Rancho Banderas and the connection with the same offices in Calgary.

http://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=16076
also google Rancho Banderas and interesting articles come up. Yes, similar things have happened before to innocent people like us. Go through and see how many of the same names that you recognize.


----------



## heydynagirl

*From May, 2013 through May, 2014, the Trust has generated substantial cash flow from*

"From May, 2013 through May, 2014, the Trust has generated substantial cash flow from cancellation fees related to the Realignment Plan. The cash was used to pay off the $8,150,000 in debt owed to Terrafund Financial Inc. between June, 2013 and January, 2014."

I thought the monies collected were to go towards renovations???


----------



## Tizzel

I've been following this thread since Northwynd the lawsuit stuff started
Admittedly I should have joined with a lawyer back when it first started
After the original court case, I decided to pay the renovation fee and stay. I then rejoined Interval and traded in a week and stayed in an Interval resort in Orlando in April (Had a great time)

After the original case, I figured, ok they won, carry on. I didn't know an appeal was happening because I didn't check this forum. Now that I see the appeal has been won, I wondering what recourse do I now have. 

I received the letter from Northwynd and I'm not happy with the fact that I could be on the hook for more renovation fees because someone people haven't paid. That's utter bullshit. I just contacted Geldert Law through their website.

As a note, I did pay the fee to stay, but I still owe money on the Timeshare itself. I don't ever stay at this resort, but like the face that I can trade weeks easily with Interval and stay somewhere else. But I don't like being bent over and taking it raw, because this place is tanking


----------



## DarkLord

Tizzel said:


> I received the letter from Northwynd and I'm not happy with the fact that I could be on the hook for more renovation fees because someone people haven't paid. That's utter bullshit. I just contacted Geldert Law through their website.



[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

*Join lawsuit now!*

We've been with Geldert Law since the beginning. I hope you will do the same if you haven't already. Only the courts can stop unethical timeshare developers and managers from misusing the maintenance fees that timeshare holders paid in good faith for the proper care of the home resort. 
Northwynd acquired the Fairmont resort at a bargain price knowing, or they should have reasonably known, the existing deficiencies. The discount purchase price would have reflected this. We only own the right to use a week per year at Fairmont/Sunchaser or to trade that time & stay elsewhere. We did Not agree in our contract to cover faulty construction, major infrastructure repairs, expensive redecorating, etc. 
The original developer and current owner counted on revenue from more timeshare sales to keep the boat afloat and to pay FRPL BOND/unit holders their promised high interest. Timeshare sales have tanked, Sunchaser timeshare trade value is no doubt suffering which impacts those who've tried to stick with & trust Northwynd/Northmont at Sunchaser, Northwynd's REIT investors are out $ millions plus some of them are in double jeopardy as timeshare investors, and seemingly, N/N's saviour is to be the little guy -- the timeshare investors who were sold a dream that's turned into a nightmare!


----------



## ERW

heydynagirl said:


> "From May, 2013 through May, 2014, the Trust has generated substantial cash flow from cancellation fees related to the Realignment Plan. The cash was used to pay off the $8,150,000 in debt owed to Terrafund Financial Inc. between June, 2013 and January, 2014."
> 
> I thought the monies collected were to go towards renovations???



I realize Northwynd watches this site and would like their reaction to the above quote. Silence will be telling if they decide not to speak up and explain their actions. I don't recall if it was ever specified in their communications how the reno/cancellation funds would be spent - did they specify that reno funds would be for renos and cancellation funds would be to pay back investors? Or was the impression left that all funds collected would go towards renos? I don't recall, perhaps someone else here does. 

Also, where does the above quote originate and is it available online anywhere?


----------



## GypsyOne

ERW said:


> I realize Northwynd watches this site and would like their reaction to the above quote. Silence will be telling if they decide not to speak up and explain their actions. I don't recall if it was ever specified in their communications how the reno/cancellation funds would be spent - did they specify that reno funds would be for renos and cancellation funds would be to pay back investors? Or was the impression left that all funds collected would go towards renos? I don't recall, perhaps someone else here does.
> 
> Also, where does the above quote originate and is it available online anywhere?



In Post #1143, I asked this question:

"5. _Am I right that funds from the cancellation fee go to the REIT investors and the RPM funds less management fee go toward resort renovations?_

This was the response:

G1: 5) Where do the fees go?

With a typical annual cancellation fee, at this time roughly 20% of the fee goes to the resort to cover your share of the outstanding deficit and a reasonable accounting for the interest on your outstanding renovation fee. The remainder stays with Northwynd as our right as developer.

100% of the renovation fee goes to the resort of which 15% is paid to us as manager for managing the renovation.


----------



## heydynagirl

ERW said:


> I realize Northwynd watches this site and would like their reaction to the above quote. Silence will be telling if they decide not to speak up and explain their actions. I don't recall if it was ever specified in their communications how the reno/cancellation funds would be spent - did they specify that reno funds would be for renos and cancellation funds would be to pay back investors? Or was the impression left that all funds collected would go towards renos? I don't recall, perhaps someone else here does.
> 
> Also, where does the above quote originate and is it available online anywhere?



I found the above info in post # 1493, where that poster got the info from I do not know.


----------



## aden2

heydynagirl said:


> I found the above info in post # 1493, where that poster got the info from I do not know.



The post came from a unitholder (investor) who is upset with all the scams and shared this notice of meeting with me.:whoopie:


----------



## ClanMac

*Nite Nite!*

As Northwynd/mont heads into nowhere land, let me tell them a bedtime story:

Once upon at time there was a young student in accounting who found to his joy that he could become accredited as a "Chartered Accountant" without nearly as much as was required at a Graduate and Institutional level from the not too distant past. So he studied and came to realize that accounting as much as any discipline within economics was very broadly defined and the leverage for accountability could be sustained over at least several years. Such leveraging and deferred balancing would be ideal in a speculative market, and lo and behold there was none better than in his home town of Calgary; oil central and home to the elite 'big boys' clubs'.

So he ventured into a company as a chief financial officer and came to realize that there was a huge amount of money being invested based on one producing well, another that had some potential, and at least one that was dry as desert sand. The investors didn't know this because they had been told they could expect at least double digit returns on their investment, and the initial payouts from the producing well had looked like it was heading that way.

Well guess what? The money couldn't come in fast enough to pay off the investors, and the CFO had done a good job of deferring the balance sheets for at least a year and a half; and then it all went bankrupt. It was OK though because it was a company and the executives had already been paying themselves huge salaries and bonuses, and who knows where all the remaining investment money went. Seemed like a good profit with bankruptcy.

Out of a job but still doing well with the cut he had received our more experienced  CFO realized how much investment money was coming into a more stable and reliable market with mortgage bonds, and the trends that had arisen in the US. The bundles of house mortgages that were headed for collapse in the states were nothing like what could be achieved by investments into a real estate investment trust; particularly when the bonds had already been exchanged for units so that in essence a mutual fund was set up and a prospectus indicating where all the money was going and who was receiving what did not have to be sent to the unit holders nor revealed to anyone else. Welcome to the time share industry Mr. CFO.

Deferring, leveraging, raising maintenance fees of the tenants for the properties, encouraging further investment, and ignoring what needed not to be addressed to maintain the properties for several years was the way to go... and then everything that had been restructured so you could do this when you signed on collapsed. Your unit holders demanded accountability and a major law suit had begun which you needed a buyer to take care of. 

The CEO resigned (i.e. was told to get the hell out, or more likely got what he could and disappeared before the crap hit the fan) and now your the boss. You can do this! You know everything is folding around you however you can sell off everything you can and make sure you and your buddies have ownership and control over assets and time at southern resorts and even that which is offshore in the Bahamas. You already knew this was where to funnel the money because your former CEO had already informed you of this, but he was dumb enough to tell a disgruntled TS owner at the Mexican Resort and some that are more astute have already found out. 

Hey wait, get rid of all TS sales, convince the more gullible to pay a whole lot more to own the time for life, hit the TS lessees and owners with a major renovation cost, do some cosmetic work on the Fairmont property, tell the trustee that you are doing a realignment in addition to the renos, and head to the supreme court of BC and jam it down everyone's throat before they know what hits them. And it works! You win!

Now get the scalphunter from Ontario that calls himself a lawyer and scare the hell out of the TS to either pay the reno and be stuck, or pay to get out, and if you don't do one or the other, in addition to paying your maintenance fees up front or ahead of time, we will take you to court and threaten the very foundation of all the assets you have secured for the rest of your life.

Then the worst thing happens to our new CEO, he encounters those who won't take this crap anymore. They band together and become brothers and sisters at arms, with a representative and a lawyer who helps them appeal the gross injustice of all this; most significantly the massive breaches of contract that has been occurring throughout the entire Fairmont/Northwynd history. And the biggest nightmare of all occurs, they win the appeal! With no less than three Madam Appeal Court Justices flushing everything down the 'loo'; and specifically stating that a trial was necessary in order to adjudicate the complaints of the TS lessees/owners about the breaches and miscarriage of justice that had already been occurring.

And now it's time to take what you can and run to where you think it is safe. It is not all that comforting trying to sleep with the walls caving in on you, so it's best I say "good night" little accountant boy!!!!!


----------



## GypsyOne

[
And now it's time to take what you can and run to where you think it is safe. It is not all that comforting trying to sleep with the walls caving in on you, so it's best I say "good night" little accountant boy!!!!![/QUOTE]


I like that bedtime story, but about one third of the owners paid the reno extortion, so there will be no running for the hills just yet.  There are still millions to play with and owners to shake down.


----------



## ClanMac

*Those still out there!*

I agree G1. The thousand that payed are either going to suck it up or be so ticked off at getting extorted only to find out there is no legal support to justify it they may want to jump on board the Statement of Claim vs. Northwynd bandwagon in the effort to get some restitution. 

It is the other thousand or more that have done nothing that we must appeal to. We have to try and reach as many as we can, and if you are one of those reading this or following some of these posts, please don't sit in the trees to wait until the smoke clears. Nearly as many as you all have been waging this battle since day 1, for you as well! We could use your help!!!!!

Give Michael Geldert a call and truly become one of us. You will be proud of what you have done.


----------



## DarkLord

GypsyOne said:


> [I like that bedtime story, but about one third of the owners paid the reno extortion, so there will be no running for the hills just yet.  There are still millions to play with and owners to shake down.



[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## fairmontlvr

ClanMac said:


> Deferring, leveraging, raising maintenance fees of the tenants for the properties, encouraging further investment, and ignoring what needed not to be addressed to maintain the properties for several years was the way to go...



For years we would book our week of choice in the summer exactly one year in advance in order to get a unit of our choice. Book the week and then pay the Maintenance fees about 6 months later in January. Around the year 2010 a new policy was implemented that in order to book a full year in advance, one would have to pay the entire projected maintenance fee a full year in advance.  We reluctantly did this to secure our preferred unit. We would receive a letter in the fall indicating how much more we would owe due to the increase in Maintenance fees. 

I wonder who's idea this new policy was? Nice form of receiving cash flow 6 months in advance, especially in troubling times. Were these funds appropriately set aside and accurately accounted to the following year? 

I should have know something was up....


----------



## fairmontlvr

Double post


----------



## Beaverjfw

*BACKGROUND ON THE SUNCHASER - NORTHWYND SITUATION - Questions*

Post #1493 by Aden brings up many questions about what lies ahead and what will become of Northwynd and their Trust.  I'm not fully able to follow all the corporate links. Its like Russian dolls, with another one seemingly inside everyone you open.
What is clear is that the Trust was prepared to completely bail out in September 2013 for $28.9 million by selling Northwynd LP and the Administrator. This was while they were collecting the Reno and cancellation fees. I suspect this deal fell apart when it became clear far less money was coming in than what they had forecasted when the sale was negotiated.  The deal does give an indication of what sort of haircut awaits the original bondholders given they took over Fairmont for $43 million in absolved debt in 2010.
It now seems they may eventually end up with even less money.  Based on the information in the post they received $8.15 million in cancellation fees, $9.1 from Lake Okanagan Resort, they will have roughly 55 units back ($8.15 m / $3k/ 50 wk) which they can resell (assuming the Petition actually gets Court approval) which may bring another $8 million  (guessing 55 units @$145,000 per unit) If the renovation actually goes ahead they might scam another $5 million in fees. From all this they need to deduct legal fees and collection costs. 
(btw I fear that the reno, if fully done, will be finished on the cheap, with Northwynd keeping a large chunk that is the difference between what they collect and actually spend (without oversight))
Aden's post notes that their is a recommendation to wind up the Trust.  Until this vote happens in July I don't think we will know what is to become of Northwynd and how we will be impacted. I do know that right now the smart thing to do is sign up with Geldert Law. I expect a rocky road ahead.


----------



## gnorth16

Were the construction firms hired through a bid process or was it not on the 'up and up'?  Who are the firms hired and is there any connection back to Scamwynd and Crony Bunch?  I'm sure they could find someone to overestimate the cost and somehow get a kickback in a 'consulting role'...


----------



## Anxiety123

*Shocked*

Still shocked to see the numbers that paid either to stay or get out.  Do folks have that much money or just felt that there wasn't anything  they could do to fight Northmont.   It's crazy!!  I'm just as scared as the next guy but man, I sure don't want these crooks to win.  I will continue to talk to my friends that are on the sidelines just watching and waiting,  to join in the fight.  Even if we were to loose, I would feel better for at least trying.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Paperwork from Sunchaser/Northmont*

Hey, has anyone gotten paperwork recently from Sunchasers?  Are they still demanding Reno Fees?  Or are they just now going after us for the Maintenance Fees for 2014?  Wondering how much they are wanting?


----------



## JetJock

Got our love letter from Sauvageau & Associates today.  Very sneaky, stating that it was a draft statement of claim in the covering letter but not stating that on the statement of claim itself.

I will be, and I would suggest others should too, file a complaint with the Law Society of Upper Canada regarding this unethical behaviour.  Perhaps if they get flooded with complaints about this practice they might have a little chat with Mr. Sauvageau about his legal practices.  The following is a link for your convenience...http://www.lsuc.on.ca/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=7751


----------



## gnorth16

JetJock said:


> Got our love letter from Sauvageau & Associates today.  Very sneaky, stating that it was a draft statement of claim in the covering letter but not stating that on the statement of claim itself.
> 
> I will be, and I would suggest others should too, file a complaint with the Law Society of Upper Canada regarding this unethical behaviour.  Perhaps if they get flooded with complaints about this practice they might have a little chat with Mr. Sauvageau about his legal practices.  The following is a link for your convenience...http://www.lsuc.on.ca/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=7751



Good Job.  FYI, the more times the words "Sauvageau & Associates" are on this site, the higher it goes up on the google search.  If I, got a letter from Sauvageau & Associates, the first thing I would to is type in "Sauvageau & Associates" and this site would be the first thing I click.  Then I would learn about the lawsuits and join...

Hmmmmm... I wonder how many times I can add "Sauvageau & Associates" in the same post????

Currently on page 4 of the google search.  Bring it up to page 1 and you will get more peoples attention.  

What about a facebook page for fairmont?  Anyone have any friends in the office at the resort?  I think they might be willing to give out a list of names if they know the compnay they are working for is going under soon....


----------



## ClanMac

*Sauvageau?*

How many lawyers do you know are directly involved with collections!!!!!

I would have loved to have met a lawyer like this in all the courtrooms I have been in.

The same response: "I am involved in a law suit with your solicitor, and if you continue to bother me I will contact the RCMP and file a complaint for criminal harassment."


----------



## Judythreetimes

What about a facebook page for fairmont?  Anyone have any friends in the office at the resort?  I think they might be willing to give out a list of names if they know the compnay they are working for is going under soon....

Sunchaser Northwynd Class Action Lawsuit
https://www.facebook.com/groups/193046264139928/


----------



## GypsyOne

Anxiety123 said:


> Still shocked to see the numbers that paid either to stay or get out.  Do folks have that much money or just felt that there wasn't anything  they could do to fight Northmont.   It's crazy!!  I'm just as scared as the next guy but man, I sure don't want these crooks to win.  I will continue to talk to my friends that are on the sidelines just watching and waiting,  to join in the fight.  Even if we were to loose, I would feel better for at least trying.



Everyone who is in the fight and signed on with a lawyer should do the same.  If you know one, or two, or three of the uncommitted, talk to them and convince them to get on board.  Buy them coffee and lay out the repercussions of losing this case.  Organize your thoughts and write down a couple major talking points.  My favourites:

"If these crooks win in court it will be like giving them unrestricted access to your bank account.  There will be never ending requests for special assessments to upgrade their resort for their benefit with your money.  When your lease runs out, you will have nothing and they will have a valuable resort built with your money."
or
"If you stay with this gang, your annual assessments will continue to rise to such unheard of levels you will have no choice but to pay their bloated cancellation fee to escape."

We have a couple good guys on our side working hard to win.  Give them your support.  The few hundred dollars it will cost to get on board is but a pittance compared to the cost of doing nothing and losing.

The lawyer to contact is:
Michael Geldert
Geldert Law
2704A - 930 Seymour St.
Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1B4

778-330-7775
sunchaser@geldertlaw.com


----------



## Spark1

ClanMac said:


> I agree G1. The thousand that payed are either going to suck it up or be so ticked off at getting extorted only to find out there is no legal support to justify it they may want to jump on board the Statement of Claim vs. Northwynd bandwagon in the effort to get some restitution.
> 
> It is the other thousand or more that have done nothing that we must appeal to. We have to try and reach as many as we can, and if you are one of those reading this or following some of these posts, please don't sit in the trees to wait until the smoke clears. Nearly as many as you all have been waging this battle since day 1, for you as well! We could use your help!!!!!
> 
> Give Michael Geldert a call and truly become one of us. You will be proud of what you have done.



Northwynd  trustees have decided to wind down the trust so what is going to be left to sue for? Who is going to own the properties that Northwynd would have removed out of the system because of the cancellations. I am sure if I was one of the REIT owners I would want to also sue. I feel the reason the trustees would wind down the trust is to get out of having to do the renovation of the resort. The Reno money should of been set aside and looked after buy our trustee sorry I mean Northwynd's trustee. If the money is setting in a bank account all we can sue for is the property.


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> Northwynd  trustees have decided to wind down the trust so what is going to be left to sue for? Who is going to own the properties that Northwynd would have removed out of the system because of the cancellations. I am sure if I was one of the REIT owners I would want to also sue. I feel the reason the trustees would wind down the trust is to get out of having to do the renovation of the resort. The Reno money should of been set aside and looked after buy our trustee sorry I mean Northwynd's trustee. If the money is setting in a bank account all we can sue for is the property.



I mean a bank account in the Bahamas.


----------



## DarkLord

Spark1 said:


> Northwynd  trustees have decided to wind down the trust so what is going to be left to sue for? Who is going to own the properties that Northwynd would have removed out of the system because of the cancellations.



Generally when a trust is wound down, the assets held by the trust (Sunchaser resort) are distributed to the beneficiaries (the Fairmont Bond Unitholders).

This is unlikely in the case.  What could happen is the resort will be transferred to another entity likely a partnership with the Unitholders being the owners of the partnership or whatever legal entity Northwynd proposes.

If that happens, the Unitholders are not going to directly manaqge the resort so they'll likely hire Northwynd back to run things.  What Northwynd will succeed in doing so is that the Unitholder can't sue them for damages anymore if they agree on this plan of action.


----------



## DarkLord

[_Post text removed at request of Original Poster._  -- Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator]


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Next Steps*



DarkLord said:


> Our fearless leader has confirmed today that the Class Action is a go.  Now we will get our chance to present the mountains of evidents for fraud, breach of contract and scam in court, Northwynd doesn't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> Join Geldert law if you want to share the award of damage from Northwynd's breaching of contract.



I would think it would be prudent to await the results of the July 4th vote to see if the trust is dissolved.  There would be no point going after an entity that has no assets or moves current assets into new or different companies.  An action with a shot gun approach, naming every trust, corporation, subsidiary and associated officer would work.

There's also the original Petition to deal with. Stopping the entire reorganization plan would deal a major blow to Northmont/ Northwynd.


----------



## aden2

*To MAIBUCON*
There always has to be a joker! Must be employed by Northmont gang!


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Northwynd`s future*

I have spent some time looking into the original business plan following the Fairmont failure. It outlines the Trust`s plans and options.
If makes for good (although long) reading. I think it also gives an insight into Northwynd`s options if the Trust votes to dissolve.

Have a look at http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...port of the Monitor, dated March 15, 2010.pdf

Skip the first 16 pages and look at Appendix A.  You can see what they planned and what the choices were for the bondholders.


----------



## aden2

This is from a complaint I filed June 24, 2014 with Alberta Consumer Complaints 
Reason for the complaint: Unfair Trade Practices
I was contacted here in Edmonton on two different occasions to meet with a representative from Fairmont Vacation villas. The dates were Aug 10, 2009 and Nov 29, 2010. I was told this was a new program with Fairmont Vacation Villas offering they stated “a deal of a life time – Legacy for Life.  The deals I would be given were: no expiry date; a five star rating; the value of converting points (RCI) would double in a few short years because of the high demand for Fairmont; endorsing the new contract was the same as the original contract sign for the timeshare;  the great demand of timeshares in Fairmont in general because of maintenance etc. and a excellent managed resort.
In early 2013 I became aware that Fairmont Vacation Villas became insolvent March 30, 2009, and the resort was foreclosed and assets were transferred   Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. June 22, 2010.
I was scammed out of $7,269.50 regarding Fairmont’s misleading presentation, and deceptive marketing practice. Northmont now claims they need money badly, the value of the resort has dropped considerably, and it appears it may close. During the years 2009 and 2010 there were no financial audits, and Collin Barrow auditors from Calgary stated that there were too many documents that were missing to do an audit. Today Northmont claims I am responsible for Capital Expenditures. This is a change in my timeshare contract!
If I had of been given the truth in the presentation given about Fairmont I would not I would not have been a victim to this scam. I am a senior and was taken advantage of by the Northmont Vacation Villas. We must join Geldert Law and sue for damages.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Injunction ?*

Just throwing this out.  Any legal beagles care to comment?

Given that the B.C. Court of Appeal has overturned Justice Loo's decision, I wonder whether it might be possible to obtain an injunction against Northwynd (and their Sauvegeau bloodhounds) to stop their collection practices until the validity of their fees and charges is settled.


----------



## heydynagirl

Beaverjfw said:


> Just throwing this out.  Any legal beagles care to comment?
> 
> Given that the B.C. Court of Appeal has overturned Justice Loo's decision, I wonder whether it might be possible to obtain an injunction against Northwynd (and their Sauvegeau bloodhounds) to stop their collection practices until the validity of their fees and charges is settled.



Mr. Geldert emailed all his clients June 5 with a copy of the letter he sent to Sauvegeau requesting they desist with contacting us as it was harassment.  Apparently, they cant read if people are still getting correspondence from them.


----------



## Yukoner

Beaverjfw said:


> I have spent some time looking into the original business plan following the Fairmont failure. It outlines the Trust`s plans and options.
> If makes for good (although long) reading. I think it also gives an insight into Northwynd`s options if the Trust votes to dissolve.
> 
> It is interesting reading, and I did a quick scan and came up with a couple of things I found interesting. They make no reference to the condition of the asset. caveat emptor I guess. On page 74 under the title "Risks related to Real Property Ownership" they say:
> "Northwynd  LP  will acquire  ownership  of the  Secured  Assets  following  the Arrangement,  and therefore  will  be subject to risks generally incident to the ownership of real property. The underlying value of the Secured Assets and the Trust's  income and ability to make distributions to unitholders will depend on the ability of the Northwynd LP to maintain or increase revenues from the Secured  Assets and to generate income in excess of operating  expenses. Income from the Secured  Assets  may be adversely  affected  by changes in national or local economic  conditions, changes in
> interest rates and in the availability, cost and terms of mortgage financing, the impact of present or future environmental legislation and compliance with environmental laws, the ongoing need for capital improvements, particularly in older structures, changes in real estate assessed values and taxes payable on such values (including as a result of possible increased assessments as a result of the acquisition of the Secured Assets by Northwynd LP) and other  operating  expenses,  changes in governmental  laws, regulations,  rules and fiscal policies,  changes in zoning laws, civil unrest, acts of God, including earthquakes  and other natural disasters and acts of terrorism or war (which
> may  result  in uninsured  losses)."
> 
> What do I take away from this. They own it and acknowledged that a risk of ownership can be "the ongoing need for capital improvements, particularly in older structures".
> 
> Would love to be a fly on the wall at the unitholders meeting on July 4th. Have spoken to two other owners in our community and one has paid the exit fee and tried to forget that this happened, and the other is ready to move forward like us.


----------



## GypsyOne

Many will have received the DRAFT Statement of Claim from Sauvageau.  The purpose is to shake loose more money with intimidation tactics.  If you are signed on with *Geldert Law*, you will have forwarded it to him for reply.  If you are not signed on with *Geldert* you should be because it is the only way to stop this gang.  They are trying to shake-down innocent people with court sanctioned intimidation, and they must be stopped.


----------



## DaveO

*Sauvageau & Associates*

Anytime you post you should try and have Sauvageau & Associates in your post, the more times that we can have Sauvageau & Associates in our posts the better ranked this page will be on search engines. 

We need other people that are not aware of what's going on to find this thread when they're searching Sauvageau & Associates so that they can be better informed on how to fight Scamwynd and Sauvageau & Associates.

I find myself lucky that I haven't had a letter sent to me from Sauvageau & Associates or I would tell Sauvageau & Associates to get bent.

I'm tired of hearing about Sauvageau & Associates so I hope others are to.

Yours truly,

Not a really big fan of Sauvageau & Associates.


----------



## Yukoner

We also just got our "draft" demand letter from Sauvageau and Associates. I can certainly see how a demand like this from Sauvageau and Associates would be very disconcerting and upsetting for someone without legal representation or knowledgeable about their options. Anybody who receives a demand from Sauvageau and Associates who does not have legal representation should certainly contact Geldert Law and get on board the action against Northwynd.


----------



## aden2

Bill collectors in Canada often use aggressive tactics to chase consumers, sometimes even managing to reel in payments when no credit was owed in the first place.Nearly every province or territory has a consumer protection law specifically addressing the use of bogus legal documents or false information to mislead the debtor.

 Misinformation can run the gamut from lying about the amount of debt owed to pretending to be someone different (for example, posing as a lawyer) to threatening to sue when the collection firm has no intention or authority to do so.


----------



## Tacoma

I got my letter from Sauvageau and Associates but don't think I'll even open it.  Only a morally corrupt company like Northwynd would hire another morally corrupt company like Sauvageau and Associates to do their dirty work.  Been signed on with Geldert Law since the start.  Would like to see others join us in this fight.  

also not a fan of Sauvageau and Associates


----------



## ClanMac

*Sauvageau*

Regardless if you're in with Geldert or not explicitly state to Sauvageau that litigation is in progress and as it involves you, any further communication from them will be viewed as a violation of your legal rights and you will contact the RCMP to file a formal complaint of criminal harassment.

Don't forget that if Sauvageau was anywhere near competent enough to engage in litigation procedures of any significance he wouldn't be crawling out of a dumpster to dust off what credentials he may have left in the effort to make him seem more than the bottom rung collector he really is. Don't give him or anyone left at Northwynd/mont the time of day.


----------



## Beaverjfw

Alberta has legislation called the Fair Trading Act and the Collection and Debt Repayment Practices.


There lots that pond-scum collection agencies can't do, but notice the exemption I have highlighted in the text from the Service Alberta circular.
(full details here: http://www.servicealberta.ca/pdf/tipsheets/Bill_Collection_and_Debt_Repayment.pdf )


_Alberta requires all collection agencies, collectors, debt repayment
agencies and debt repayment agents to be licensed under the Fair
Trading Act and the Collection and Debt Repayment Practices
Regulation. All locations at which collection or debt repayment activity
occurs must be registered on the licence. The agencies are responsible
for the behaviour of the collectors or agents they employ.
The legislation does not apply to businesses or people collecting debts
for which they are the original creditor or owner of the debt,* a lawyer
who is collecting a debt for a client*, a civil enforcement bailiff or agency
while seizing security or people working in the regular course of their
employment while licensed under the Insurance Act._


----------



## heydynagirl

When googling Sauvageau & Associates I came upon this little tidbit about Sauvageau Holdings.  Yup same guy, Francois Sauvageau.    It relates to his purchase of the collection agency.  Interestingly, the judge identified the actions as uncivil around section 127.  

http://www.ellynlaw.com/info_centre_3_4188675245.pdf


----------



## ClanMac

It all doesn't matter anymore. Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust is dissolving, with Northwynd trying to get unit holders 20 cents on the dollar for their original investment (and this will be hierarchically structured - guess who will be first in line. Remember Colin Knight!!!). After this Northwynd's proposal is to sell the assets (i.e. what's left of the resort) and distribute the proceeds to the owners/unit holders (whether that be money or other assets acquired in exchange: e.g. equity in other businesses). Wankel neglected to report to the unit holders that Justice Loo's decision was overturned on appeal.

Wankel and Frey are to receive severance packages on top of everything else they grabbed.

Sauvageau is working off a percentage of what he can extort from those he intimidates, but won't be around much longer. Ignore him in the interim.

So you can sit back and wash your hands of all this crap and don't worry about a share of time in nothing; and if any of the unit holders believe Northwynd can sell the TS interests to some other duck, then I have another guaranteed 18% return on investment they may be interested in as well.

If you want to put a hold on the sale of the Fairmont properties and remaining land and seek some compensation according to your % interest (TS value in relation to overall ownership), then go ahead with a statement of claim.

Northwynd currently has no legal recourse against us and has no intent to pursue action to obtain such.

The principal culprits who robbed us throughout all this (none more so than Knight & Morcom (Dunvegan Petroleum - major unit holder waiting to collect their share of what's left)) have planned their futures beyond Northwynd long before now; there are fat offshore accounts in the Barbados that FRPL-Finance was filling before the bond to unit swap. It's ironic that Wankel advises the unit holders about what is taxable with the dissolution of the trust and the Canada Revenue Agency is still trying to figure a way to get at Barbados.


----------



## GarryH

Is this just speculation (ClanMac's post) or is there some substance to it? When I hear the same story from Michael Geldert, I will believe it.


----------



## ClanMac

Believe what you want, I just hope you haven't paid for it.

What is contained in documents (e.g. CCAA March, 2010; Form 78: Statement of Affairs - Creditor List (made public Aug. 6, 2010); Class Action law suit vs. RI REIT (& various individuals associated with Northwynd) and has been reported on this site over the past year isn't speculation.

It was reported that Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. had gone bankrupt after FRPL Finance had sucked in millions in investments into the Resorts International Real Estate Investment Trust (the precursor to Northwynd Real Estate Investment Trust). There had been no audited financial statements or indication of where all the investment money had gone for more than six years, and the Chairmen of Olympia Trust (millions invested on behalf of their clients) sued; claiming that it had everything to do with REIT investments made with FRPL Finance (Knight, Morcum & Nycholat), and that it was a "planned" bankruptcy. All the resort properties assets remained in the REITand FRPL declared it had none, with Knight, Morcum (Dunvegan) being on the creditor list being owed millions more. Who the hell do you think Northwynd made a commitment to pay? do you think these are not major unit holders?; and how was it that Computershare Canada (trustee of all securities held in Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust) bought out Olympia Trust for 43 million dollars, and all of a sudden the class action evaporated.

Fitzsimonds had previously stated to a disgruntled TS owner in the Rancho Banderas (a resort property in the RI REIT) fraud who threatened a personal law suit, that he couldn't touch their money because it was offshore in Barbados. It doesn't take a detective to get a broad idea of the many millions that have been invested and gone missing.

By the way GarryH or whoever, Geldert knows all this and a lot more because I laid it all out to him. He can't go anywhere with it because of the narrow scope of the action he has taken on your behalf. It is a whole lot different with me because I work in the Criminal Justice System, and as Northwynd heads into bankruptcy (another nice job of planning and walking away with millions) I may just be getting started.


----------



## truthr

ClanMac - with all due respect those of us who have retained Michael Geldert have at least some legal representation and without him and others who have worked tirelessly on our behalf we would be lost in this mine field of legal chaos.

If you have given him any information I am confident he has reviewed and assessed it and if need be will use it moving forward.

I ask you what the purpose is of some of your comments here and particularly your last paragraph on your last post.  Are you trying to scare people?  

You say you work in the Criminal Justice System but do not say in what capacity.  If you are in a position to assist all those who are affected by this and somehow expedite this matter - why aren't you?


----------



## ClanMac

*truthr*

There is nothing to be afraid of. What you need to understand is that there is a big difference between civil and criminal law and the litigation processes involved. We haven't been successful just yet in having a formal RCMP investigation on the basis of complaints of criminal wrongdoing (i.e. fraud), largely because of the costs that would be involved that would necessitate the use of forensic auditors/accountants (their time to unravel the mess).

M. Geldhert proceeded with the appeal, and likely now with a statement of claim for damages and compensation. These are civil proceedings. If there was a criminal conviction against certain individuals associated with Northwynd/mont then all these civil proceedings would become secondary, and much unnecessary.

What I have said is that regardless of the outcome of any civil lawsuit it would be a miscarriage of justice to let these thieves walk away and be better off for it all; because suing Northwynd/mont for what is left of the Fairmont properties isn't going to make a dent in the bank accounts of these criminals, you can't get at them personally as only the business assets are liable. This is why bankruptcy fraud exists, and why I know it has occurred with Fairmont/Northwynd, and is almost a certainty to occur once the trust is dissolved.

I deal with the assessment of criminals and the courts they are tried in, that is my job. I have seen this before in various shapes and forms. That is why I don't take too kindly to white collar psychopaths walking away with a fortune after putting the screws to innocent people. I have very little at stake here financially, I cut these guys off in 2011 and never had much to begin with; it is the principle that is most important here.


----------



## truthr

ClanMac
Thank you for your reply.  I am a bit familiar with the difference in laws and litigation processes.

If the RCMP or whatever other "government" agencies have not seen fit to investigate this yet, at least the group being represented by Mr. Geldert are being proactive in attempting to protect themselves/ourselves.

I, also, would like to see the individuals responsible for this mess prosecuted and hopefully what we are doing will get some attention from whatever "government" agencies are sitting back and blaming costs for not doing their jobs.

I find it a tad condescending and distracting to say _all these civil proceedings would become secondary, and much unnecessary._

For those of us directly affected by this what we are doing is primary and very much necessary.  And although the principle is very important for some they have more than a little at stake financially.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Class Action*

ClanMac, are you saying that there is no need to follow through with a Class Action to have Northmont not proceed with collections from the remaining TS owners for Reno and or Maintenance fees?  They will go under anyway?  There will be no money to collect from them even if the Class Action was to succeed?  I do agree that these people will not hurt personally as they always protect themselves and come out financially sound.  But, will there be anything left to payout a Class Action win??


----------



## truthr

Anxiety123 said:


> ClanMac, are you saying that there is no need to follow through with a Class Action to have Northmont not proceed with collections from the remaining TS owners for Reno and or Maintenance fees?  They will go under anyway?  There will be no money to collect from them even if the Class Action was to succeed?  I do agree that these people will not hurt personally as they always protect themselves and come out financially sound.  But, will there be anything left to payout a Class Action win??



Anxiety123
I don't know about you but I am not prepared to sit idly by while our "government" agencies pussy foot around.  Whether we actually see any monies from our joint action at least we are being proactive and stop them from getting any more money from us.  The retainer we are paying is a small price to pay for sound legal advice and representation.  And peace of mind that someone is actually acting on our behalf in a timely fashion.


----------



## aden2

RE: *ClanMac* some clarification, but great insight by ClanMac.

Resorts International REIT was NOT the precursor to Northwynd REIT.  FRPL Fiance morphed into Northwynd REIT.


Nycholat and associates borrowed millions using FRPL Finance Ltd.  When Fairmont did not / could not pay Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd, that meant FRPL could not / would not pay FRPL Finance, and thus FRPL Finance could not pay its bondholders.  Through the CCAA process, FRPL Finance got control of Fairmont Vacation Villas, called it Sunchaser, and set up Northwynd.  The FRPL Finance bondholders were convinced to exchange their bonds for units in the new Northwynd REIT (of which Northwynd LP and Northmont are subsidiaries).


Resorts International REIT was set up while Nicholat was still soliciting money for FRPL Finance.  It is now virtually worthless, the funds having disappeared through bad investments, poor judgement, mismanagement, and probably a lot worse.  I think that now the only assets RI REIT has is a playground at Sunchaser.


The trustees of RI REIT and Northwynd REIT go to some pains to clarify that the two are not connected.  That may be true theoretically, but Ed Nycholat was manager of Ops for both FRPL Finance and RI REIT concurrently, and being paid handsomely by BOTH.  Later, he was in a trustee role with both Northwynd REIT and RI REIT concurrently.  Not related?  Hah!


----------



## ClanMac

*Clarification*

Thanks Aden2, here's some more:

Nycholat, who was president and director FRPL Finance was essentially working for Knight (& Morcom: Dunvegan Petroleum), and had previously been suspended from any activities involving real estate by the Real Estate Council of Alberta for obtaining a beneficial interest in a property he had been commissioned to sell.

I found out he had been active in Quebec while flogging investments into the REIT, however it drew the attention of the Autorite' des Marches financiers as late as July, 2013. He was also a member of the Board of Trustees for NPREIT, but was removed at or around this time. 

The Creditor List (Form 78: Statement of Affairs; FRPL declared "no assets" that could be liquidated) from the FRPL 'planned' bankruptcy included: Colin Knight ($2,866,691.52); Dunvegan (Knight & Morcom: $2,161476.22); FRLP Finance ($10,034,813.00); & Morcum/Morcom (bus.) ($459,050.40 in total). This represents about 20 million, and if you read the information circular scripted by Kirk Wankel re: the proposed dissolution of the REIT you can see that the 'pro rata' distribution of the cash obtained from the TS owners buyout will lead to a substantial payout even at the estimated $0.20 per unit (4 million overall). Proceeds from the sale of the Fairmont Sunchaser assets will be distributed much along the same lines. If you think they actually put their own cash into the REIT give your head a shake.

It is also interesting to note that aside from their base salaries, benefits & bonuses (ranging from approx. $200,000 to more than $300,000), the only two executives left at NRPL (Wankel & Frey) will have an additional 4 month's salary, vacation, what they have acquired in real estate capital while there, and an additional payout based on anything that starts at a minimum of $0.17 per unit (thats a minimum of $0.03/unit, so they get a cut out of just under $3,000,000). Pretty nice payout for being the front guys in this fraud and being able to walk away untouched. By the way, if you include the alleged Fairmont bankruptcy this will be the third one Wankel has been running the numbers with.

As for the sale of the Fairmont Sunchaser properties and assets. This includes the TS's. Good luck trying to unload that; it will be a liability associated with the sale. I worry about those who paid to stay in as I don't know what there will be a share of time in in the future. Those that paid to get out are out, and all Northmont has to do is foreclose on those who haven't paid their maintenance fees and those TS's are gone.


----------



## ClanMac

*More checking*

Previous posts on this site from: TravellingMom & Disillusioned have also indicated that a total of $2,081,670.94 is owing to Cedarpointe Estates in Kelowna, however there is no such/or longer an entity by this name, and the address is that associated with a bankruptcy lawyer. Behind Knight & Morcum this is the biggest creditor.

If you add up all the Fairmont/Northwynd related creditors and throw in the bankruptcy guy, the total is almost 15 million, and guess who is first in line to collect?


----------



## CleoB

Anxiety123 said:


> ClanMac, are you saying that there is no need to follow through with a Class Action to have Northmont not proceed with collections from the remaining TS owners for Reno and or Maintenance fees?  They will go under anyway?  There will be no money to collect from them even if the Class Action was to succeed?  I do agree that these people will not hurt personally as they always protect themselves and come out financially sound.  But, will there be anything left to payout a Class Action win??



I think the thing to consider is if Northwynd is successful in selling Sunchaser the new owner will assume the debt and will probably go after the timeshare owners with outrageous maintenance fees.  Look how much they have risen since 2010.


----------



## Anxiety123

CleoB, you are so correct.  Much to think about but want a Lawyer on my side looking out for my best interests.  Thanks


----------



## ClanMac

*I am out of here!*

It has been two years since I started taking these psychopaths on! I am solely focused on the criminal end of things, and am proud that you all stood your ground. You don`t have a lot to worry about regarding collections, because there is nothing to collect on. The last thing I will leave you with as I keep getting cyberattacked is:

A lawyer is a lawyer is a lawyer!

Don`t ever forget that!

Thank-you Trojans.

ClanMac


----------



## truthr

ClanMac said:


> It has been two years since I started taking these psychopaths on! I am solely focused on the criminal end of things, and am proud that you all stood your ground. You don`t have a lot to worry about regarding collections, because there is nothing to collect on. The last thing I will leave you with as I keep getting cyberattacked is:
> 
> A lawyer is a lawyer is a lawyer!
> 
> Don`t ever forget that!
> 
> Thank-you Trojans.
> 
> ClanMac



Not all lawyers are the same just as not all people are the same.

As for not having anything to worry about regarding collections - really???  You sound so sure of yourself ClanMac.
If you have been "taking" this on for the past two years and it has gotten this far; again I ask - really???  Why haven't you stopped them?


----------



## ERW

Just curious what ClanMac's title in his last message "I am out of here" refers to?


----------



## aden2

re:Truthr
I believe an investigation regarding RCMP etc. will get involved once their is a judgement againt the likes of people Wankel and Frey. Northmont/Northwynd couldn't give a dam about how they have lost many a TS customer because crooked and dishonest business pratices. A crown prosecutor only works within their framework, and the RCMP has to come forward with charges for the prosecutor to act on.


----------



## Yukoner

*Unitholders Meeting*

Has anybody heard anything coming out of the unitholders meeting yet?


----------



## ERW

Curious why this thread has gone so silent - ClanMac apparently has mysteriously departed without explanation and no other comments appear to be forthcoming from any of the other posters that have been quite vocal in the past. 

Any explanations?


----------



## truthr

ERW said:


> Curious why this thread has gone so silent - ClanMac apparently has mysteriously departed without explanation and no other comments appear to be forthcoming from any of the other posters that have been quite vocal in the past.
> 
> Any explanations?



I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been busy with other things.


----------



## Late2Game

*silent . . .or just smart*

Does anyone REALLY think it's wise to continue this discussion in public?  Do you really think it's appropriate to speculate and strategize while Northwynd is listening in?  Why should we expose our thoughts, intentions and sentiment to the other side?


----------



## GypsyOne

*Be on the winning side!*

It is encouraging that a large group of responsible timeshare owners are determined they are not going to be victimized by this white collar gang and have signed on with the litigation group.  In our adversarial legal system, justice is achieved with money.  The larger our group, the bigger our war chest, the stronger we are.  This gang will use the legal system any way they can to safeguard their Golden Goose.  For those who want justice and out of this mess but are still undecided, sign on with Geldert Law, 778-330-7775; sunchaser@geldertlaw.com.


----------



## Timeshare Cold

A note to ClanMac, we are hoping you will continue to add information to this site.  We have been very glad for your information, comments and opinions as we have for everyone else on this site.  It is the info and comments that made us do our own research into this "mess" and then made the decision to join Geldert Law last December.  Without this site, we would have been frustrated and lost but by finding it, we have been able to make the right decision for us. The thought of paying Fairmont their asking fees gave us many sleepless nights but once joining Geldert, we were able rely on the expertise of him and all of those who have worked so hard collecting data and information. Please continue ClanMac.


----------



## DarkLord

Late2Game said:


> Does anyone REALLY think it's wise to continue this discussion in public?  Do you really think it's appropriate to speculate and strategize while Northwynd is listening in?



It is important to post it here because everyone searches Sunchaser or Northwynd will find this thread and learn about the scam.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Thread has a new title*

Just noticed that our forum thread has a new title.
"Northwynd official thread with lawsuit info! "
It used to be something like "new program coming........"
Hopefully those who have not got off the fence will find this site.

I'm sure many are anxiously awaiting the results of the Trust meeting and will want to know what Northwynd/Northmont  plans next. If the project goes up for sale they indicated it would be listed through Jones Lang Lasalle .
Web site is www.jll.ca.

They listed the Lake Okanagan Resort through them as well through this site. 
http://www.specializedassets.com/

Keep your eyes open for the "For Sale" listing.


----------



## Spark1

DarkLord said:


> It is important to post it here because everyone searches Sunchaser or Northwynd will find this thread and learn about the scam.



You are right Darklord this is all we had to get important information out and we have no idea how many time owners  are using tug. I talked with a lady that owned 3 gold weeks 2bedroom sleep 8. She is a legacy for life owner and paid her 2013 maintenance fees. So she is using her RCI points to get into the resort. She was to get 2,2bedroom sleep8 in the 1000 building and 1 1bedroom sleep 4 at hillside. She was told buy Northmont all she was going to get is 3 one bedroom sleep 4 at the Building buy the airport because the 1000 hillside building was out of the system. She tried to fix the situation buy having a 3 way phone call with Northmont,RCI and herself but all she could get was 3 one bedroom sleep 4 at the building buy the airport. Timeshare owners investing into RCI points should understand that quite often you do not get what you use to before you got sucked into RCI point. So 12 of them will enjoy the 3 one bedroom sleep 4 and have to travel back to the main part of the resort to use the amenities to keep the grandchildren happy. These one bedrooms at this resort all face the parking lot, not the beautiful Columbia River. My question is why would she use her gold weeks to go back to sunchaser vacation resort? Why give the enemy one cent. We all know this Northwynd/Northmont are white collar criminals and are only interested in lining there own pockets. Look at the money Kirk Wankel and Doug Frey are putting in their pocekets so do you honestly believe this resort was ever going to be renovated. This will never happen with these criminals. Get off the fence and hire Geldert Law, because he will win this class lawsuit just like he did with the appeal.


----------



## pdoff

Amen - the only way out of this mess is to keep fighting - Geldert Law and Cox Taylor will eventually put these crooks in their place - just hope the law catches up with them too!


----------



## DarkLord

The Sunchaser Timeshare Owners webpage is up. 

http://www.sunchasertimeshareowners.com/

Lots of good information to unite the timeshare owners to join in the fight.


----------



## jekebc

DarkLord said:


> The Sunchaser Timeshare Owners webpage is up.
> 
> http://www.sunchasertimeshareowners.com/
> 
> Lots of good information to unite the timeshare owners to join in the fight.



The site will be updated regularly as we find more details in support of our claim that Northmont and their agents have breached fundamental terms of the timeshare contracts.

We are looking into why Northmont and their associates collected 27 cents out of every $1 that was paid from Resort funds in 2013. Northmont/RVM charged over $2.4 million in management fees and in addition their group charged over $1.0 million for other costs. This won't end until we get them out of our Resort.


----------



## TUGBrian

DarkLord said:


> The Sunchaser Timeshare Owners webpage is up.
> 
> http://www.sunchasertimeshareowners.com/
> 
> Lots of good information to unite the timeshare owners to join in the fight.



no link back to this thread...that is suprising.


----------



## truthr

*I Agree*



TUGBrian said:


> no link back to this thread...that is suprising.



I would like to go on record that as part of the communication committee at that time I did make that request but for reasons unknown to me that request was not implemented.


----------



## TUGBrian

makes me extremely skeptical for sure...


----------



## jekebc

TUGBrian said:


> no link back to this thread...that is suprising.



That's been corrected.

Sorry for the delay - it was being added as part of other changes on our site.


----------



## TUGBrian

Thanks, that was fast =)


----------



## truthr

DarkLord said:


> The Sunchaser Timeshare Owners webpage is up.
> 
> http://www.sunchasertimeshareowners.com/
> 
> Lots of good information to unite the timeshare owners to join in the fight.





jekebc said:


> The site will be updated regularly as we find more details in support of our claim that Northmont and their agents have breached fundamental terms of the timeshare contracts.
> 
> We are looking into why Northmont and their associates collected 27 cents out of every $1 that was paid from Resort funds in 2013. Northmont/RVM charged over $2.4 million in management fees and in addition their group charged over $1.0 million for other costs. This won't end until we get them out of our Resort.



There are many people and groups volunteering behind the scenes, the above quoted website has been put up by one of those, however if anyone has any concerns or questions contact Geldert Law directly.  I can assure you that Michael Geldert is more than receptive to answering any and all inquiries.


----------



## Chalup

*Not happy with Fairmont Sunchaser decision*

We are not happy with the constant request for more money from our timeshare company. See what other owners are saying and doing about it... Check out the latest plan of action.


----------



## Wendy T

*Recent Visit to Sunchaser*

We just spent a week in a B unit on Hillside.  Comments that I have to make include the following:

-After converting to RCI and getting sucked into the whole Legacy for Life trap (boy was that a stupid and big mistake) we have been unable to ever use our points to book more that a random B unit in Hillside despite the fact that we supposedly own a week in double unit at Riverside.  Even Getaways are limited to B units.  We have been able to exchange for other timeshares but not usually where we want to go nor in the type of resort that we used to be able to access.
-only 2 buildings at Riverside have been renovated and a 3rd is started.
-Renovated units have been updated but are not close to being of 5 star status.  In other words they look new but materials and furnishings are of only mediocre materials.  Definitely not nearly close to costing the dollars that Northmont is billing us for the renovations.
-The 1000 building has been removed from inventory, and I have heard that the 2000, 3000, and 4000 buildings will soon be removed.  It appears that the 1000 building is housing staff-many who appear to be temporary foreign workers.  (Thinking most people who live in Fairmont are refusing to work at the resort).
--Hillside units are clean but evidence of lack of maintenance is obvious (rust on buildings, BBQs are very old, nothing is new in the units, stairwells are in need of paint and repairs, building exteriors are dirty, and landscaping that is not visible from the street has not been kept up).
-Riverside Club house is in good repair but no air conditioning in games room despite 30+ degrees.
-The resort rents units at $179 a night for B sides and $199 for A sides. We inquired as we had extra visitors, but I believe we were not allowed to do this because of our status with the resort (there were empty units every where).  
-Outdoor pool was open but spray park and water slide had limited times.

All in all I believe that most buildings will be closed and then sold.

We have joined the class action, have not paid Northmont a sent for cancellation, renovation, or 2014 fees.  These guys are low down crooks of the highest level.

I urge all owners to join the suit and take a stand against this type of extortion. Many owners have been harassed and intimated into paying money to leave or stay (money that many do not have or can not afford), but it is wrong, wrong, wrong!!


----------



## truthr

*Thanks*



Wendy T said:


> We just spent a week in a B unit on Hillside.  Comments that I have to make include the following:
> 
> -After converting to RCI and getting sucked into the whole Legacy for Life trap (boy was that a stupid and big mistake) we have been unable to ever use our points to book more that a random B unit in Hillside despite the fact that we supposedly own a week in double unit at Riverside.  Even Getaways are limited to B units.  We have been able to exchange for other timeshares but not usually where we want to go nor in the type of resort that we used to be able to access.
> -only 2 buildings at Riverside have been renovated and a 3rd is started.
> -Renovated units have been updated but are not close to being of 5 star status.  In other words they look new but materials and furnishings are of only mediocre materials.  Definitely not nearly close to costing the dollars that Northmont is billing us for the renovations.
> -The 1000 building has been removed from inventory, and I have heard that the 2000, 3000, and 4000 buildings will soon be removed.  It appears that the 1000 building is housing staff-many who appear to be temporary foreign workers.  (Thinking most people who live in Fairmont are refusing to work at the resort).
> --Hillside units are clean but evidence of lack of maintenance is obvious (rust on buildings, BBQs are very old, nothing is new in the units, stairwells are in need of paint and repairs, building exteriors are dirty, and landscaping that is not visible from the street has not been kept up).
> -Riverside Club house is in good repair but no air conditioning in games room despite 30+ degrees.
> -The resort rents units at $179 a night for B sides and $199 for A sides. We inquired as we had extra visitors, but I believe we were not allowed to do this because of our status with the resort (there were empty units every where).
> -Outdoor pool was open but spray park and water slide had limited times.
> 
> All in all I believe that most buildings will be closed and then sold.
> 
> We have joined the class action, have not paid Northmont a sent for cancellation, renovation, or 2014 fees.  These guys are low down crooks of the highest level.
> 
> I urge all owners to join the suit and take a stand against this type of extortion. Many owners have been harassed and intimated into paying money to leave or stay (money that many do not have or can not afford), but it is wrong, wrong, wrong!!



Thanks for reporting for all of us to see.  If you haven't already could you please report this to Michael?  Thanks


----------



## Chalup

Last visit to that area was a get away thru II. We haven't been able to exchange or use our time anywhere. Although Diamond Resorts International said they would take it off our hands a couple if years ago in Phoenix... Only if we bought into what they were selling. Maybe a way out, but not likely. 
Just out of the frying pan into the fire.

We quit trying 2 yrs. ago and quit paying as well. 

Tried calling RCI because we have time at LOR also. You have to go thru the Sunchaser dept. before RCI will talk to you is they must still control that resort even though they supposedly sold the resort. I know some of this information is off topic and I may not really understand how it all works, but I think it might serve to characterize how things are at the moment.

We have also signed up with the class action suit...





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## avsolody

Just signed up for the class action lawsuit with Geldert Law to help with this cause.  What they are doing to timeshare owners is egregious in the highest form.


----------



## GypsyOne

avsolody said:


> Just signed up for the class action lawsuit with Geldert Law to help with this cause.  What they are doing to timeshare owners is egregious in the highest form.



Welcome aboard.  The bigger our group the stronger we are.  We can defeat this white-collar gang.


----------



## Chalup

Any of the Sunchaser timeshare owners that received the draft statement of claim from a collection company out of Ontario might want to contact Michael Geldert of Geldert Law in Vancouver if you have already paid...

 Or if that's not your thing, simply check out www.sunchasertimeshareowners.com


----------



## truthr

*Interesting Read*

Interesting read I found whilst poking around today - go to page 6 of this PDF document


http://www.law.ucalgary.ca/files/law/lawyersweekly-20140718-whitsitt-page-15.pdf


----------



## Spark1

truthr said:


> Interesting read I found whilst poking around today - go to page 6 of this PDF document
> 
> 
> http://www.law.ucalgary.ca/files/law/lawyersweekly-20140718-whitsitt-page-15.pdf



NORTHMONT STARTS FILING INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS IN BC PROVINCIAL COURTS JULY31 2014
This is from Jim Belfy.
As they have been threatening to do for some time. Northmont has commenced filing individual actions in BC Provincial Court against those who have not signed a Cancellation Contract and not paid the full maintenance fees, interest and Renovation Fees demanded by Northmont. Six actions were filed in various courts on July 30. We expect many more will be filed over the next few weeks.
If a Notice of claim is filed in BC courts against you, you have 14 days from date you receive a hard-copy in which to respond to that claim. If you fail to do so, a court order may be made against you without any further notice.
Please note that any timeshare owner that has signed a new retainer agreement with Gildert Law will be able to rely on Michael Gildert to deal with any Notice of Claim that is filed by Northmont against them providing they advise Geldert Law Immediately upon being served.
For others that have not signed a new retainer agreement, I suggest that the cost to you for defending any action brought by Norhmont against you will be far greater than the cost of the retainer requested buy Geldert Law. In my opinion,all thase that have received invoices showing that monies are owing to the Resort should be proactive and no longer simply stand by and wait. I strongly recommend you contact Michael Geldert tf you agree.
 Geldert Law sunchaser@geldertlaw.com
Tel: 778-330-7775


----------



## Meow

*Geldert Law*

A little slow off the mark, but I have now signed on with Geldert Law.  I hope all other former Cox Taylor clients do so as well.


----------



## Chalup

*Geldert Law*

We were Cox Taylor clients and we are in also....


----------



## jekebc

Spark1 said:


> NORTHMONT STARTS FILING INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS IN BC PROVINCIAL COURTS JULY31 2014
> 
> As they have been threatening to do for some time. Northmont has commenced filing individual actions in BC Provincial Court against those who have not signed a Cancellation Contract and not paid the full maintenance fees, interest and Renovation Fees demanded by Northmont. Six actions were filed in various courts on July 30. We expect many more will be filed over the next few weeks.
> If a Notice of claim is filed in BC courts against you, you have 14 days from date you receive a hard-copy in which to respond to that claim. If you fail to do so, a court order may be made against you without any further notice.
> Please note that any timeshare owner that has signed a new retainer agreement with Gildert Law will be able to rely on Michael Gildert to deal with any Notice of Claim that is filed by Northmont against them providing they advise Geldert Law Immediately upon being served.
> For others that have not signed a new retainer agreement, I suggest that the cost to you for defending any action brought by Norhmont against you will be far greater than the cost of the retainer requested buy Geldert Law. In my opinion,all thase that have received invoices showing that monies are owing to the Resort should be proactive and no longer simply stand by and wait. I strongly recommend you contact Michael Geldert tf you agree.
> Geldert Law sunchaser@geldertlaw.com
> Tel: 778-330-7775



As of Aug 01 a total of 16 claims show on the record of claims. We have updated our website www.sunchasertimeshareowners.com to provide some guidance for any timeshare ownerthat is served with a Notice of Claim.


----------



## owner1

*Are you sure you know what is BEST*

It is my understanding  they are proceeding on the premise that owners contracts are void with Northwynd.  If you are not with Northwynd you are not in Trust and are open to being sued by the companies that lost money due to the "Fairmont Bankruptcy." Everyone loved Northwynd when they stepped in and save our butts during this bankruptcy.  Do you think this company got our reserve fund if there ever was one.  No.  How do you expect them to run the resort and pay for renovations without the funds from the purchases of timeshare.  Fairmont is the bad guy!!!!    Get on board we can have the nicest resort in Canada


----------



## gnorth16

owner1 said:


> It is my understanding  they are proceeding on the premise that owners contracts are void with Northwynd.  If you are not with Northwynd you are not in Trust and are open to being sued by the companies that lost money due to the "Fairmont Bankruptcy." Everyone loved Northwynd when they stepped in and save our butts during this bankruptcy.  Do you think this company got our reserve fund if there ever was one.  No.  How do you expect them to run the resort and pay for renovations without the funds from the purchases of timeshare.  Fairmont is the bad guy!!!!    Get on board we can have the nicest resort in Canada



Who is going to sue who??? So what you are saying is that if the contracts are considered void in a court of law, Northwynd will then sue people for a contract that no longer exists???

Nice fear tactic, but you won't convince anyone around here.  Get back to mailing letters and threatening people over the phone at Sauvageau & Associates....


----------



## owner1

This resort was owned by Fairmont.  Fairmont went bankrupt.  The owners were open to being sued by the creditors.  When Northwynd bought the resort  one of the conditions of the sale was, the owners were protected from being sued by the creditors.  This condition was put in place so that new ownership could continue.  New owners would not have bought if this condition was not in place.  We were all put into trust.  If you were an owner at that time you will remember getting letters from lawyers on behalf of the creditors advising you to pay a sum or you would be sued.  The Trust protected us from the creditors taking any action against us.  If you legally are not an owner under Northwynd when they took over you would not be protected by the Trust.  This is just the facts.  It was a very scary time.  This was in 2012 I believe.  Google away.  Do you think the people that lost money will forget.


----------



## truthr

*Welcome and ???*



owner1 said:


> This resort was owned by Fairmont.  Fairmont went bankrupt.  The owners were open to being sued by the creditors.  When Northwynd bought the resort  one of the conditions of the sale was, the owners were protected from being sued by the creditors.  This condition was put in place so that new ownership could continue.  New owners would not have bought if this condition was not in place.  We were all put into trust.  If you were an owner at that time you will remember getting letters from lawyers on behalf of the creditors advising you to pay a sum or you would be sued.  The Trust protected us from the creditors taking any action against us.  If you legally are not an owner under Northwynd when they took over you would not be protected by the Trust.  This is just the facts.  It was a very scary time.  This was in 2012 I believe.  Google away.  Do you think the people that lost money will forget.



Hey Owner 1 - welcome to the forum.
I don't know where you are getting your information from or what owners you are referring to but based on what I know.  
Firstly the bankruptcy and new ownership took place before 2012, like 2009/2010.  
Secondly, we are "timeshare" owners - operative word timeshare, we own time not any part of the resort ergo not responsible for any debts.  
Thirdly, we did not receive anything from any lawyers back then advising or threatening us.  

This whole business about being responsible for anything other than yearly maintenance has just begun recently along with the threats and intimidation.


----------



## Chalup

*"Timeshare" owners*

I personally happen to disagree that the term "owner" right from the beginning when we first signed up with Fairmont many years ago was misleading then and still is today... The language has to change!

 Legal action to stop the victimization is the only avenue left for the "time share owners" to protect themselves by utilizing the courts and their "legal" interpretation of where we are today with respect to the letter of the law...

It is our "Freedom to question" the status quo if we do not agree with Nortmont's course of action that is being forced upon us....


----------



## Spark1

jekebc said:


> As of Aug 01 a total of 16 claims show on the record of claims. We have updated our website www.sunchasertimeshareowners.com to provide some guidance for any timeshare ownerthat is served with a Notice of Claim.



It would be very interesting to see how they picked these 16 owners. Are they all LEGACY FOR LIFE owners who are deeded, seeing they have not proved that the two agreements are the same or are they REIT owners who own timeshare? It would be nice to hear from these owners. Keep in mind LEGACY FOR LIFE owners, that you were breached, lied to and used as their cash cow. There never was a legacy with this resort as long as these crooks were involved. Legacy For Life owners with Gold Weeks, RCI points are finding out all they can get is condos facing the parking lots after spending thousands of dollars. There are much cheaper ways to holiday then being involved with these crooks. 
And for you owner1, what happened to all the other resorts these crooks use to own and where is all the money? What happened to all the cancellation money they robbed from innocent time owners, this money should go back to these owners because they lost the appeal. They lied to me stating that this money would be used to help the time owners that paid the reno fees. I hate to be lied to. Get off the fence and hire Geldert Law.


----------



## Hotpink

*Northmont our Saviour according to Owner 1*



truthr said:


> Hey Owner 1 - welcome to the forum.
> I don't know where you are getting your information from or what owners you are referring to but based on what I know.
> Firstly the bankruptcy and new ownership took place before 2012, like 2009/2010.
> Secondly, we are "timeshare" owners - operative word timeshare, we own time not any part of the resort ergo not responsible for any debts.
> Thirdly, we did not receive anything from any lawyers back then advising or threatening us.
> 
> This whole business about being responsible for anything other than yearly maintenance has just begun recently along with the threats and intimidation.



In Dec 0f 2011 we received a package from  letter from Lawson Lundel out of Vancouver dated Nov 18 from a Heather Ferris indicating that Fairmont in 1989 entered into a  management contract with Columbia Village  Management that all of Fairmont's obligations to us as timeshare owners were transferred to Columbia. Then it indicates that in April of 2008 Columbia entered into a lease with International and that upon termination Fairmont and us the timeshare owners ( the "Lessees") shall assume all of the obligations of Columbia.
When Fairmont entered the CCAA in 2010 it is suggested that Fairmont terminated the agreement with Columbia and we as lessees were liable for $600.00 for full and final restitution.
In the same package there were another letter signed by Patrick Fitzsimonds basically telling us that they feel we should not be concerned with this demand. Also there was a letter from MacLeod Dixon stating that we as Lessees have no contract nor obligation to Columbia or International and we as lessees have no obligation to make any payments as demanded.

Fast forward to 2013 /2014 we are now owners ( not Lessees) and Northmont our Saviour is demanding huge sums from us and we do have a contract that says we can sell back to them . Remember Clause 13.
To quote Parick Fitzsimonds from his letter of Dec. 7 2011" Unfortunately, the line between legal and illegal is a lot farther away than the line between ethical and unethical.
I think perhaps Owner  1 is listening to some mind stimulating/altering rhetoric.
Copies of all letters are available


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Claims increasing*

While looking at the BC Court claims that are being filed by Sauvageau, I see the numbers are increasing rapidly.  Last week that were about 35 claims posted at various BC courts. Today the numbers are up over 75. I spent the $12.00 to look through one filed claim.  it appears to be for a base amount of about $2100 then asked for 26.8% interest from May last year then another $529 in costs. for a total that came to $3,144.
If you want to find out if you might be in for a claim, search the BC courts site at:
https://eservice.ag.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/partySearch.do
Click "organization" and "Northmont" in the party name.

Some of the claims that come up on the list go back to 2012 but the majority are recently filed. It costs $6.00 to get particulars and another $6.00 to view  the filed statement.
I don't know whether the people that have claims filed against them have any representation or maybe Sauvageau thinks they might be easy prey.


----------



## ERW

Looking at the list of actions, there is one filed by Northmont against Phil Makin of July 30th, 2014. Am I missing something here? Not sure why they would be suing Makin, isn't that the name of the Trustee?


----------



## heydynagirl

ERW said:


> Looking at the list of actions, there is one filed by Northmont against Phil Makin of July 30th, 2014. Am I missing something here? Not sure why they would be suing Makin, isn't that the name of the Trustee?



The lawyer for Northwynd/northmont is matkin. Confused me at first too.


----------



## Chalup

*Do a little web searching*

If you do a little web searching on Sauv. & Assoc. You may be able to speculate and connect the dots as to why there is a claim filed, Northmont vs lawyer/ trustee.... All the more reason to hook up with Geldert Law and join the class action against Northmont. IMO....


----------



## ERW

Did some searching but did not find anything relevent. Would you care to enlighten us?


----------



## gnorth16

Beaverjfw said:


> While looking at the BC Court claims that are being filed by Sauvageau, I see the numbers are increasing rapidly.  Last week that were about 35 claims posted at various BC courts. Today the numbers are up over 75. I spent the $12.00 to look through one filed claim.  it appears to be for a base amount of about $2100 then asked for 26.8% interest from May last year then another $529 in costs. for a total that came to $3,144.
> If you want to find out if you might be in for a claim, search the BC courts site at:
> https://eservice.ag.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/partySearch.do
> Click "organization" and "Northmont" in the party name.
> 
> Some of the claims that come up on the list go back to 2012 but the majority are recently filed. It costs $6.00 to get particulars and another $6.00 to view  the filed statement.
> I don't know whether the people that have claims filed against them have any representation or maybe Sauvageau thinks they might be easy prey.



Is there a way to get the names and addresses of those who have claims against them?  Then do some internet sleuthing and getting a hold of them to let them know about the lawsuit?

There must be a number of people in the dark about what really is going on.  Those people are easy pray...


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Claim Count Reaches > 160*

Checking today, the claims count now shows up as 169, all filed at various courts throughout BC.

To answer some questions in the last few posts, yes it is possible to get the names and addresses of the defendants. These are now all public record, available online for a fee.  You will be looking at $12.00 minimum.

As to the question regarding a claim naming the lawyer Phillip Matlin. Note that this was dated April 2013. It is the original petition by to the court made by the trustee. Nothing unusual here.

For those that would like to see what a sample claim looks like, its here.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/95273714/SampleFairmontSmallClaim.pdf


----------



## Spark1

Beaverjfw said:


> Checking today, the claims count now shows up as 169, all filed at various courts throughout BC.
> 
> To answer some questions in the last few posts, yes it is possible to get the names and addresses of the defendants. These are now all public record, available online for a fee.  You will be looking at $12.00 minimum.
> 
> As to the question regarding a claim naming the lawyer Phillip Matlin. Note that this was dated April 2013. It is the original petition by to the court made by the trustee. Nothing unusual here.
> 
> For those that would like to see what a sample claim looks like, its here.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/95273714/SampleFairmontSmallClaim.pdf


This is a different case. This was filed at ,provincial small claims,Victoria Law Courts. Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v Makin Phil. File opened 30 July 2014. Date last updated 30 July 2014. File number 140482. 
Carthew Registry Services Ltd the trustee Phillip Makin , Trustee for who,not for the time owners.


----------



## Beaverjfw

Spark1 said:


> This is a different case. This was filed at ,provincial small claims,Victoria Law Courts. Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v Makin Phil. File opened 30 July 2014. Date last updated 30 July 2014. File number 140482.
> Carthew Registry Services Ltd the trustee Phillip Makin , Trustee for who,not for the time owners.



This claim is against Phil MAKIN.  The trustee is Phil MATKIN. Close but likely not the same person. (Although it would certainly be ironic if they were the same and our beloved trustee was a timeshare owner himself) :hysterical:

On another matter, we should soon start seeing Statements of Defense filed by some of the defendants, assuming they have actually been served by a process server. Checking over the some of the earliest filings, from about July 30, I see only one file that reports any updates. I had a look at it to see what might be involved. There was one added document to the filed noted as "Correspondence" but I did not feel like spending $10 to see what it was. What was a shock was that the claim was for $21,742. OUCH.


----------



## ERW

Beaverjfw said:


> This claim is against Phil MAKIN.  The trustee is Phil MATKIN. Close but likely not the same person. (Although it would certainly be ironic if they were the same and our beloved trustee was a timeshare owner himself) :hysterical:
> 
> On another matter, we should soon start seeing Statements of Defense filed by some of the defendants, assuming they have actually been served by a process server. Checking over the some of the earliest filings, from about July 30, I see only one file that reports any updates. I had a look at it to see what might be involved. There was one added document to the filed noted as "Correspondence" but I did not feel like spending $10 to see what it was. What was a shock was that the claim was for $21,742. OUCH.



My mistake, not watching my p's and q's close enough.


----------



## Chalup

*Northmont*

Can't help but notice how much Northmont uses the legal system...

Tried looking up how many new claims were filed today but it looks like the legal bombardment (so to speak) has subsided at the moment. Has there been a change in strategy on their side?


----------



## ClanMac

*The end*

I apologize to Mr. Kirk Wankel and Douglas Frey, Northwynd and Northmont for the posts that are of a false and defamatory nature as pointed out by your legal counsel. This includes any statements that directly or indirectly implied that you ever stole anything, committed fraud, are psychopathic in nature, deliberately deceived anyone, are incompetent as an accountant or executive, or engaged in illegal or questionable accounting practices.

I formally retract all statements or comments of this nature.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Forced Choice*

Wow, you must have gotten under their skins to be force to write a retraction!  Glad you frustrated them, sorry you have to stop your messages.


----------



## Hotpink

*Riverview*

We have just spoken with friends who rent a house on the 14th fairway at Riverside and can see the Riverview condos and they comment that they usually see lots of people on the balconies of the  Riverview unit and this year they were amazed at how few people they saw on the balconies of these units.
They also drove by the Hill side units daily and again were amazed at the few people that they saw on the balconies in early August. 
They are aware of the Northmont acts towards the timeshare lessees from our conversations with them and took note of the number of cars in the large  Riverview parking lot. In their two weeks they never counted more than 10 vehicles at any given time in that parking lot.
This was similar to our notations when we rented a unit a Hillside in June of this year. We spoke to as many people as possible and did not speak to anyone who was not a renter usually through RCI. Probably about 25 % occupancy at best.
They also commented about the lack of golfers on the course and found it very easy to get on as the Tee Sheet was very open.  Makes you wonder how the other valley businesses are faring. 
Wonder where Northmont's  cash flow is coming from if the occupancy rate is so low

Sorry Clan Mac but even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over or kicked. We are all entitled to express our opinions and we felt that what you have previously posted was very relevant and there was documentation to substantiate many of the statements and we also have access to a lot of that documentation. We are sorry you are being "cajoled" into making acquiescing statements to Northmont. Our opinions are now resting in the hands of Geldert Law


----------



## ClanMac

*Not a forced choice*

As the title implies!


----------



## Anxiety123

*Clam Mac - Not a forced choice??*

Now you have really confused me!   Not sure why you retracted your opinion if it was not forced.  Many of your point were "Right On The Money."  Anyway, sad to see you go, you made the thread interesting.  Northmont execs are making really good money and are acting like bullies.   Gerdert Law is the way to go.


----------



## GypsyOne

ClanMac said:


> As the title implies!



You bad!  But you should also retract that they are not demanding, grasping, greedy, predatory, bullies, malicious, devious, opportunistic, conniving, cunning, scheming, nor do they hate little puppies.


----------



## aden2

In a conversation this p.m. with Service Alberta I was reminded that when you are contacted more than once about owing money for your timeshare to contract Service Alberta that you are being harassed by Northmont or their collection agent etc., and they will investigate.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Clam Mac - Sarcasm!!*

Oh get it!  Got to hit this girl over the head sometimes.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Claim Count Reaches > 225*

The law firm of "Savages" now has 225 claims filed. Most of those in the last week were filed at the Golden or Cranbrook courts. What's interesting is that I'm not seeing an updates to the earlier cases filed at the end of July or early August.  This would suggest that the defendants have not yet been personally served with documents as we would start to see some Statements of Defense filed within the 14 day response period.
Has anyone out there actually been served ?


----------



## Chalup

*Served*

Not yet.... Haven't moved or anything!!


----------



## jekebc

"Has anyone out there actually been served ?"

A number of the defendants from the initial days of filing are now being served by registered mail. We have also discovered that Sauvageau is filing Claims in Alberta ans some of those served as well. There may be other claims, but we can only serach those claims thata re filed in BC. For other timeshare owners facing this situation, we need to make sure they know what help is available. Please help us by distributing the link to this website: www.sunchasertimeshareowners.com


----------



## Spark1

jekebc said:


> "Has anyone out there actually been served ?"
> 
> A number of the defendants from the initial days of filing are now being served by registered mail. We have also discovered that Sauvageau is filing Claims in Alberta ans some of those served as well. There may be other claims, but we can only serach those claims thata re filed in BC. For other timeshare owners facing this situation, we need to make sure they know what help is available. Please help us by distributing the link to this website: www.sunchasertimeshareowners.com



Geldert Law is on top of this. Everyone should be smart and hire Geldert Law. You will not be able to fight this without a good lawyer and that was proven buy the appeal.
Here is a video everyone should watch.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/video/playlist/money-minute/
500.00 dollars is cheap to keep these crooks away from your door. Mind you i would love to have that bill collector come to my door.


----------



## truthr

*What To Do?*

If you have a timeshare at Sunchaser (aka Fairmont Resort) and have just been served a Statement of Claim (Plaintiff Northwynd or Northmont) from any of the Canadian Province Courts please read everything on this thread and/or contact Michael Geldert at Geldert Law (email address sunchaser@geldertlaw.com) to find out what your options are. 

You are not alone, there are a LOT of people who have retained Geldert Law to represent them.  There are a lot of people who have been working to gather information which could assist you as well.


----------



## DarkLord

I have made several posts on this site throughout the Summer of 2014 that have caused Kirk Wankel, Northwynd Resort Properties and Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. some concern. In particular, I have made allegations of illegal and fraudulent behavior. Having made these comments based on publicly available information and solely with a view to fleshing out the relevant facts as they pertain to this resort, I do apologize to the extent that I may have overreached and in any way defamed Kirk Wankel, Northwynd Resort Properties and Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. I vow to refrain from making any written or oral statements that I know are false or defamatory in the future. 



Now, as many of you will know, on November 5, 2012, Northwynd discussed its business plan for the Resort and confirmed its intention to “Walk away from uneconomic residual assets (timeshare regime)”….and…. “Create a long-term positive cash flow producing property management asset.” I would welcome a clear and concise explanation from Mr. Wankel, Northwynd Resort Properties and Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. regarding how this is to be achieved within the parameters allowed under the timeshare contracts at the Resort. I would be particularly interested in an explanation regarding how this business plan was prudent in the circumstances, where many timeshare owners at the Resort have a leasehold contract. Such a response would certainly assist me in articulating my comments in the future.


----------



## DaveO

DarkLord said:


> I have made several posts on this site throughout the Summer of 2014 that have caused Kirk Wankel, Northwynd Resort Properties and Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. some concern. In particular, I have made allegations of illegal and fraudulent behavior. Having made these comments based on publicly available information and solely with a view to fleshing out the relevant facts as they pertain to this resort, I do apologize to the extent that I may have overreached and in any way defamed Kirk Wankel, Northwynd Resort Properties and Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. I vow to refrain from making any written or oral statements that I know are false or defamatory in the future.



I wouldn't be apologizing I'm sure the truth hurts and they can't put on their big boys pants and handle the truth. Wankel is a scumball and it is a fact that he has done this bump and dump scheme before and he's doing / assisting it again.


----------



## aden2

The *Legacy for Life* program was nothing but deceptive marketing by Fairmont and company. During the two years 2009 and 2010 Fairmont became insolvent and than foreclosed. In my situation I was given false and misleading information, and thus scammed for $7,269. for believing that I was dealing with honest people. Now I am being told I am also responsible for major renovations because we changed your contract, but did not inform you when we were doing it. Oh, Fairmont was not able to give audited yearly financial statements during the years in question.


----------



## Chalup

*Legacy for Life*



aden2 said:


> The *Legacy for Life* program was nothing but deceptive marketing by Fairmont and company. During the two years 2009 and 2010 Fairmont became insolvent and than foreclosed. In my situation I was given false and misleading information, and thus scammed for $7,269. for believing that I was dealing with honest people. Now I am being told I am also responsible for major renovations because we changed your contract, but did not inform you when we were doing it. Oh, Fairmont was not able to give audited yearly financial statements during the years in question.



Well said... We signed our Legacy for life contracts for both Fairmont and LOR outside the Province of BC. Looking back on that process, and fast forwarding to today knowing what we now know..... We were way too trusting in Fairmont! It's a blind faith actually brought on by the belief that it was all about converting our weeks to points which was the focal point of their tour presentation at that time. Totally misleading. What were we thinking? Never to trust again...


----------



## Anxiety123

Yes we were contacted way back to come to one of their meeting/presentations in Edmonton.  We fortunately didn't go as I was satisfied with  my one week per year.  But, our close friends went and bought into the program.  They didn't realize they were buying Legacy for Life, they thought they were just converting to points which for them where much easier as they travel all the time.  Northmont new what they were doing!!  They wanted as  much money as they could get and as many contracts changed to include the wording "Capital Improvements" before this new "Reno Plan" was presented to us all.  I am sure glad the Appeal was successful (glad I retained Geldert Law at the very beginning of this mess).  If you want some help with the matter at hand, I would contract Geldert Law.


----------



## GypsyOne

There are numerous people like Anxiety's friends - people who are absolutely convinced they were scammed.  But, probably the largest group of victims are those continuing to pay maintenance and special assessments.  For them the escalation of maintenance and calls for more renovation money will be an on-going saga. That will be particularly true if the Northmont gang have their way in court.

Be one of a large group of good people determined that innocent people will not be victimized.  The  gang we are up against hire the best lawyers our money can buy and use the courts to extract more money from the innocent.  Our defence is to beat them in court.  But justice takes money - for research, for laying out the case, and for presentation in court.  This is no time to let others be the solution, to wish the problem just goes away.  In short, no time for apathy.  Join the litigation group and be part of the solution. Website www.sunchasertimeshareowners.com  or email sunchaser@geldertlaw.com


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> There are numerous people like Anxiety's friends - people who are absolutely convinced they were scammed.  But, probably the largest group of victims are those continuing to pay maintenance and special assessments.  For them the escalation of maintenance and calls for more renovation money will be an on-going saga. That will be particularly true if the Northmont gang have their way in court.
> 
> Be one of a large group of good people determined that innocent people will not be victimized.  The  gang we are up against hire the best lawyers our money can buy and use the courts to extract more money from the innocent.  Our defence is to beat them in court.  But justice takes money - for research, for laying out the case, and for presentation in court.  This is no time to let others be the solution, to wish the problem just goes away.  In short, no time for apathy.  Join the litigation group and be part of the solution. Website www.sunchasertimeshareowners.com  or email sunchaser@geldertlaw.com



This is no 5Star Resort. This is what we paid for but believe me this is not what anybody is getting. We have friends that bought  2 gold weeks  2 bedroom sleep 8 and one red week 2 bedroom sleep 8. They joined SPOA and converted their time into the RCI Point System and when they went to use it all they could get is a 1 bedroom sleep 4. That is a lot of money to spend and all you can get is a one bedroom sleep 4.This has also happened to a cousin of my wife that paid a lot of money for Legacy for life. She thought she was getting a 2 bedroom sleep 8 and all they would give her is the one bedroom. She had gold weeks also. People are spending a lot of money for nothing and you could rent for a lot less. These RCI points are expense. These guys are crooks. Join Geldert Law.


----------



## SentimentalLady

*Litigation Group Closing Soon*

They anticipate closing by September 19 so don't delay if you think you might be interested in joining - whether you have paid to stay, or paid to go, or not paid at all.

Brief background: www.sunchasertimeshareowners.com

Geldert Law: info@geldertlaw.com



Of course there are no guarantees, but I really feel peace of mind being part of this litigation group. We have the numbers to make a difference.


----------



## Pita

We're at Hillside on a RCI getaway.  If the rumoured new maintenance fees are true, then we got a steal of a deal from RCI. The place is about half as busy as we usually see at this time of year.
One of the buildings have two units listed for sale.  The realtor is Kim Collens.  Her website has lots of pictures showing the renos.  Looks like a few units have been sold.


----------



## SentimentalLady

For sale as timeshares? As condos?

Can you provide a link to these listings? I cannot find them on her website.


----------



## pdoff

go to Kim Collens - Fairmont area - Condos. There they are in all their glory - 2 of them for sale. If the condo fees are raised to 
anything like the previous maintenance fees = watch out!


----------



## Bill4728

If enough people have their TS taken/given up ect  then the company holding all these weeks could "put them together" and get a full year condo out of 52 weeks of TS.  You & I can't do this but the "developer" might be able to.  Maybe this part of the end game for the developer. Get people to pay you to take back their TS weeks then put them together and sell them as full time condos.


----------



## Icefan

Likely these are the privately owned condos just below the Hillside 6000 building along the 10th fairway. There have been 2-4 of these for sale off and on for the last few years. You can rent some of these privately from the owner as well, as we did from an owner Saskatchewan about 4 years ago.


----------



## SentimentalLady

Icefan said:


> Likely these are the privately owned condos just below the Hillside 6000 building along the 10th fairway. There have been 2-4 of these for sale off and on for the last few years. You can rent some of these privately from the owner as well, as we did from an owner Saskatchewan about 4 years ago.



You're right - I recognize those.

That's why I couldn't find them. They are not timeshares.....completely unrelated to ours.


----------



## SentimentalLady

Bill4728 said:


> If enough people have their TS taken/given up ect  then the company holding all these weeks could "put them together" and get a full year condo out of 52 weeks of TS.  You & I can't do this but the "developer" might be able to.  Maybe this part of the end game for the developer. Get people to pay you to take back their TS weeks then put them together and sell them as full time condos.



No doubt. They did say that once they knew how many were paying to go, they would remove some inventory from the timeshare regime.

But oddly enough, they want timeshare lessees to pay for the capital improvements on ALL the buildings before they decide which ones are to be sold. And of course the proceeds from those sales will in no way benefit the timeshare lessees.

Yes....just a few of the many reasons we joined the litigation group.

Inquire at    info@geldertlaw.com   if you might be interested. The group is closing within the next couple of weeks.


----------



## Spark1

SentimentalLady said:


> No doubt. They did say that once they knew how many were paying to go, they would remove some inventory from the timeshare regime.
> 
> But oddly enough, they want timeshare lessees to pay for the capital improvements on ALL the buildings before they decide which ones are to be sold. And of course the proceeds from those sales will in no way benefit the timeshare lessees.
> 
> Yes....just a few of the many reasons we joined the litigation group.
> 
> Inquire at    info@geldertlaw.com   if you might be interested. The group is closing within the next couple of weeks.



It looks like this is the building below the 6000 building which is privately owned. As you see none of us trust Northwynd. Now you know the big push to get buildings removed from the lease owners agreement. It is to bad that Justice Loo made a bad decision at the special case because a lot of the time owners would not of cancelled.


----------



## Pita

It looks like they're working on two buildings at the moment.  Lots of work trucks and companies daily at the site.  The pictures look like only some cosmetic renovations were done and minimal movement of walls etc.  Just thinking if they sold the 2br one for 260,000 and received say 150,000 from 52 timeshare owners who paid to exit....pretty good profit!!  I was also wondering if they have access to the fitness facilities besides the tennis courts and kid's playground.  Nice view of the 10th fairway but no reserved parking etc.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Claims / Settlement?*

The BC claims have stayed steady at 270 for the last week or so, but I understand the "Savages" are active in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
One of my friends, who has an annual and bi-annual week at Sunchaser, was called on the phone by the SVG law firm, inquiring as to whether he wanted to "settle". He had not been served any documents other than the "draft" crap that was mailed earlier this year.
His respond was a swift NO and he then advised them we would be claiming against them through the Geldert Law firm
Unfortunately he didn't string them along long enough to find out how much they might settle for.
No listing has shown up on the JLL web sites yet so I expect Northmont is trying to squeeze every last dime from the timeshare owners before having a fire sale on what's left of the place.


----------



## TUGBrian

http://www.invermerevalleyecho.com/ourtown/274639631.html

saw this today, someone should post a link to this thread on that article =)


----------



## truthr

*Done*



TUGBrian said:


> http://www.invermerevalleyecho.com/ourtown/274639631.html
> 
> saw this today, someone should post a link to this thread on that article =)



Done


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Another News Item*

There is a second news report in the Invermere paper today about the Sunchaser issue. It has some additional comments from Michael Geldert.

View at : http://www.invermerevalleyecho.com/ourtown/275374761.html

Another 26 claims filed in BC bringing the total to 296.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Alberta Statements of Claim*

At present there is no facility for online searches for new Statements of Claim in Alberta.  There is a paid subscription service that does provide this service on a twice weekly basis. I once received the bulletins from this private company and found the information useful.

Not sure if it might be worthwhile for our litigation group to have access to these details but it is available from this company, here.
http://www.businessprospects.ca/ourservices.htm

(Disclosure: I have no interest, public or private, in this company)


----------



## Punter

*Served yesterday with $12700 claim - how to respond?*

Until yesterday, I was unaware of most of this fiasco.  I have tried to contact the lawyer and have left two messages - I would like to join the class action suit if it's not too late. 
In the meantime, how do we respond to the claim? We have 20 days and a form to submit. I was just wondering what wording to use under section 1 " I dispute the Plaintiffs claim....."
I am not giving these criminals a dime!
Thanks in advance!


----------



## Beaverjfw

Punter,
It may be too late to join the litigation group as Mr. Geldert had planned to close the group as of September 19. Hopefully he will let you in as he has prepared Statements of Defense and will file these on your behalf.  
If you are shut out you have some work to do. This issue has been ongoing for 18 months. I'm surprised you are only hearing of this now as the original invoices came out in April 2013, more were sent in November 2013, adding interest and 2014 dues. After that Northmont's lawyers sent "draft" Statements of claim and their collection monkeys have even been calling owners directly.
Start at posting 1 of this forum. You will have a lot of reading (another 1645) to do but you will be up to speed once you have finished. There should be more than enough information available for you to file your own Statement of Defense.


----------



## aden2

Punter;
Where do you live? Do you belong to a facebook group? Geldert Law is where most went, and if you are prepared to leave him a message, it may help.


----------



## SentimentalLady

Punter said:


> Until yesterday, I was unaware of most of this fiasco.  I have tried to contact the lawyer and have left two messages - I would like to join the class action suit if it's not too late.
> In the meantime, how do we respond to the claim? We have 20 days and a form to submit. I was just wondering what wording to use under section 1 " I dispute the Plaintiffs claim....."
> I am not giving these criminals a dime!
> Thanks in advance!



You'll want proper legal advice to deal with this.....whether you're still able to join the litigation group, or have to get your own lawyer.

Why join the group? Because there are almost 1000 of us sharing the cost, and our lawyer is up to speed on the whole thing - having worked on it for well over a year now.

Forget about reading the whole forum at this point. It is better summarized here:

Brief background: www.sunchasertimeshareowners.com

Geldert Law: info@geldertlaw.com

I hope it's not too late for you to join. 

If you know anyone else who has a timeshare with Sunchaser, please share this information with them too. Whether they've paid to stay, paid to go, or not paid at all, they'll want to know about this group.


----------



## pdoff

I don't think it is too late try patricia@geldertlaw.com


----------



## MFD

I signed up with Geldert the week before the September 19th deadline, but have not recieved any updates yet, were there any?  I tried emailing Patricia, but it's been 2 weeks now and she has not responded.  Just hoping I haven't missed anything.


----------



## Punter

*Thankfully, got in on the litigation group.*

Thanks to everyone for the responses.  Patricia called me shortly after I posted and we got in just under the wire.
We've been owners since '96 and are increasingly fed up with the place over the years - what happened to the 5* resort we all purchased? 

It is truly mind boggling what these crooks are trying to get away with.

I've read many posts here as well as the Sunchasers Owners site to get somewhat informed. I'll stay tuned to see what happens over the coming weeks/months.  Glad to have found this group!


----------



## Quadmaniac

So I'm suing my friend/buyer of my fairmont timeshare for renaging on our deal and subpoenaed a representative from the transfer department to testify tothe process and guess who came along to see the results of the case - Wankel !


----------



## Beaverjfw

*More Court Action*

Following a month of silence in the BC Courts, Northmont is at it again. There were about 300 claims filed in BC up until Sept.19. Then nothing for a month.
(Three more were filed on Oct. 17th.)
Following our group's claim against Northmont, filed Oct. 8th, (File 143785 JEKE ENTERPRISES LTD. v NORTHMONT RESORT PROPERTIES LTD) I now see that Northmont has fired back themselves, with a filing on Oct. 20.
#24549 (Cranbrook - Provincial Small Claims) NORTHMONT RESORT PROPERTIES LTD. v JEKE ENTERPRISES LTD

Interesting to see the outcome given the failure of the Case Planning Meeting this month.


----------



## heydynagirl

Beaverjfw said:


> Following a month of silence in the BC Courts, Northmont is at it again. There were about 300 claims filed in BC up until Sept.19. Then nothing for a month.
> (Three more were filed on Oct. 17th.)
> Following our group's claim against Northmont, filed Oct. 8th, (File 143785 JEKE ENTERPRISES LTD. v NORTHMONT RESORT PROPERTIES LTD) I now see that Northmont has fired back themselves, with a filing on Oct. 20.
> #24549 (Cranbrook - Provincial Small Claims) NORTHMONT RESORT PROPERTIES LTD. v JEKE ENTERPRISES LTD
> 
> Interesting to see the outcome given the failure of the Case Planning Meeting this month.



Has anyone got a copy of what is in the claim they filed?


----------



## ERW

Anyone know of what happened at the Case Planning Meeting?


----------



## Beaverjfw

*CPC*



ERW said:


> Anyone know of what happened at the Case Planning Meeting?



Mr. Geldert provided an update on Oct. 15 to all on the roster of his clients on this case. As usual his communication asks that his emails not be forwarded or reproduced.  
The short version is that the Trustee or Northmont got none of what they asked for.  For now, it looks like the Petition won't be heard. Northmont is stymied on their proposal for the time being.
Remember they are still pursuing people in court in various jurisdictions regardless of the Petition. 

btw. No sign of any listing activity on the resort.


----------



## GarryH

*Good News! Michael Geldert Accepting New Clients Again*

In his latest communication to those who have signed on with Michael, he has indicated that this last attempt by Northwynd to gain a foothold (or foot to throat) on Lessees has been stymied by B.C. Courts.

This opens the door once more for new clients to sign on to his firm. Michael has not indicated when this window of opportunity will close again, but it is safe to say it will in the future. 

For those who thought they had missed the train, a second one just pulled into the station. All aboard!


----------



## Meow

I'm sure everyone that visits this thread has already signed up with Geldert Law.  But I worry about those out there who are not aware of our class action.  Unfortunately, there are probably many who are trying to fight this on their own.  How do we reach these folks?


----------



## Beaverjfw

*More Claims Being Filed*

After a quiet period from the middle of September, Northmont is at it again, with another 165 claims filed in BC in the past two weeks. I believe the total is now roughly 475. I don't know what's happening in Alberta or other provinces.


----------



## ERW

Does anyone know if any actual decisions have been handed down on any of the claims that have been filed (regardless of province). Speaking specifically of claims regarding unpaid and outstanding mtce fees and renovation fees. I realize that each case could play out differently but interested to know if any judgments have been made and in whose favor. 

Also curious if anyone has received any notice of mtce fees for 2015? We're already hitting November. Anxious to find out how much the fees have increased and whether or not another reno fee is in the works.

Hope not.


----------



## Late2Game

*ERW -- you appear to be out of the loop*. . . .perhaps you're not a member of the Sunchaser litigation group?  

If not, I STRONGLY suggest you sign up to (1) stay informed on the matters such this, and (2) be represented in the courts should your lucky number be drawn!  Otherwise you're really on your own.  

Contact Geldert Law as it's not too late. . . . yet!


----------



## ERW

No, I am not part of the litigation group. I elected to pay the maintenance fees and the reno fee. I know you are rolling your eyes right now but it is what it is.

When I inquired about decisions, I was not referring to any of the challenges to Northmont's right to charge lessees the reno fees. I was referring to Northmont's small claims against individual owners for outstanding fees that have not been paid. Curious if any of those claims have been decided upon by the courts (versus out of court settlements).


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Litigation Status*



ERW said:


> No, I am not part of the litigation group. I elected to pay the maintenance fees and the reno fee. I know you are rolling your eyes right now but it is what it is.
> 
> When I inquired about decisions, I was not referring to any of the challenges to Northmont's right to charge lessees the reno fees. I was referring to Northmont's small claims against individual owners for outstanding fees that have not been paid. Curious if any of those claims have been decided upon by the courts (versus out of court settlements).



ERW, glad to see those that chose an alternate course are still following the matter. You can be sure the outcome will have a huge impact on the resort and the owners that have chosen to stay with Sunchaser.
So far as we know there have been no judgements issued on the Claims filed. I expect that many who are being served are simply coughing up the money to make things go away. (A friend of mine who is an owner was contacted about "settling". ) 
The lawyer representing the group is working to get a stay on proceedings on the multitude of claims filed in Alberta and BC so that one case can be tried and be the basis for the other ones. No sense having 1000 trials as the issues are all the same. There is also the matter of the claim that has been filed against Northmont which will have a bearing on matters.
For now Northmont can't proceed with their plans to realign the resort as the Petition has not been heard.
Can hardly wait until Northmont sends out its next maintenance fee invoices. :zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz:


----------



## ERW

Thank you for your insight, very much appreciated.

I too am interested to see the next round of mtce fee invoices. I have a feeling there will not be any reno fees but the mtce will be sky high.


----------



## aden2

Well Northmont is at it again! Claims have been filed in Edmonton Law Courts, and the Plaintiff being Sauvageau and Assoicates.


----------



## Meow

*Edmonton Law Courts*



aden2 said:


> Well Northmont is at it again! Claims have been filed in Edmonton Law Courts, and the Plaintiff being Sauvageau and Assoicates.



Is this information available online, similar to the B.C. Court filings?


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Claims Tsunami*

Northmont has opened the floodgates this month, with now over 300 claims filed in November alone, just in BC.  By my count we are now just over 600 filed BC claims since the end of July. I would expect similar numbers from Alberta if they are as just as aggressive in that province.


----------



## Late2Game

*last gasp or last grab. . .*



Beaverjfw said:


> Northmont has opened the floodgates this month, with now over 300 claims filed in November alone, just in BC.  By my count we are now just over 600 filed BC claims since the end of July. I would expect similar numbers from Alberta if they are as just as aggressive in that province.



This all makes sense. . . .it's simply one last attempt to pillage and grab as much as possible before the boom comes down in the courts and puts all this to rest for good -- at least for those that are part of the group action.  Until that happens, the "collector" is welcome to bully anyone he wishes into "negotiating" a settlement.

My heart goes out to those who've already settled and even more so to those who for whatever reason are still unaware of the group action underway.


----------



## sk8rman

ok... this is my 1st post ever here at TUG BBS

I see this discussion thread and wonder if this kind of situation is going to become more frequent in timeshare management.

I'm not about to go thru every single post of this thread, but the gist of it seems to be that an established and quality resort went downhill (over time, for whatever reasons), was reorganized and new management/investor/oversight group unexpectedly attempts to scare/strong-arm members & individual owners into immediately footing the major bills and begins denying access. When members/owners called 'foul' the management group starts suing individuals.

Does that about sum it up?

Is this going on elsewhere?


----------



## aden2

sk8rman said:


> ok... this is my 1st post ever here at TUG BBS
> 
> I see this discussion thread and wonder if this kind of situation is going to become more frequent in timeshare management.
> 
> I'm not about to go thru every single post of this thread, but the gist of it seems to be that an established and quality resort went downhill (over time, for whatever reasons), was reorganized and new management/investor/oversight group unexpectedly attempts to scare/strong-arm members & individual owners into immediately footing the major bills and begins denying access. When members/owners called 'foul' the management group starts suing individuals.
> 
> Does that about sum it up?
> 
> Is this going on elsewhere?



 Northmont would love to get a few default judgements before Geldert's case is heard.


----------



## GypsyOne

sk8rman said:


> ok... this is my 1st post ever here at TUG BBS
> 
> I see this discussion thread and wonder if this kind of situation is going to become more frequent in timeshare management.
> 
> I'm not about to go thru every single post of this thread, but the gist of it seems to be that an established and quality resort went downhill (over time, for whatever reasons), was reorganized and new management/investor/oversight group unexpectedly attempts to scare/strong-arm members & individual owners into immediately footing the major bills and begins denying access. When members/owners called 'foul' the management group starts suing individuals.
> 
> Does that about sum it up?
> 
> Is this going on elsewhere?



Yep, that about sums it up.  The present resort owners have this weird idea we are the owners of the resort when it comes to paying the bills and reconstructing a poorly constructed and failing resort and they are the owners when it comes to reaping the benefits.


----------



## pdoff

Good to hear that more folks are signing up with Geldert Law!


----------



## 2OldFarts

*Northmont's Civil Lawsuits in Edmonton*

Just filed our rebuttal to Northmont's attempt to sue us for maintenance fees, renovation fees, administration fees, and interest and was told there were 2000 cases in Edmonton alone of people who are fighting this cash grab. Just thought people should know that even those of us who have been sitting on the sidelines, feeling too old and too intimidated, are no longer sitting still.:annoyed:


----------



## ERW

*2015 Mtce Fees*

Anyone received any word on Mtce Fees for 2015? Should be out soon I would think, last year their 2014 Mtce Fee announcement came out the third week of November so they should be out soon. Curious to see what is up for next year.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Things are heating up.*

Those of you signed up with Geldert are likely sorting through the massive pdf documents sent today. With hundreds of pages to review there are certainly some very interesting facts.
Only 32% of owners have elected stay and pay the reno fee and 41% have paid to cancel. The remaining 27% are those who refuse to pay their demands. 
The result is Northmont has filed 2560 claims in Alberta and BC (as of Oct. 30). This number has been rising since the start of November

To me, its hard to see this resort surviving with just 32% showing they really still want to remain involved with Northmont. I expect the other 27% would be happy to have some type of settlement and be done with this company.
Of course its Northmont's intention to bail from the whole thing once they collect as much money as possible. They will then sell off what's left of the place to another buyer that thinks they can make a profit somehow.


----------



## skookum

*Still very confused*

For me it is difficult to sort through the legalities.  I have been contacted three times by the law firm representing Northmont saying that we need to reach an "amicable" solution.  I cannot pay the north of $8000 they are asking me to pay.  So amicable to me is let's go back to the original asking price of $2500 or so they maybe I can figure something out.  Or another option is wait it out.  What are the legalities of the 27% of people who are refusing?  All I know is what the law firm has told me.  They are saying the resort will not bend and that they don't care because it is now a legal issue.  There is no moral or common sense here, but if I have no legal ground to stand on, I am eventually going to have to pay with thousands of interest incrued.


----------



## skookum

*getting in the loop*

So I am brand new to this post.  Thanks for all the info from everyone out there, I was trying to educate myself to see if I had any rights here or if I was to just take it.  I have not signed up with (Geldert law?) and was wondering if and when the results finally come down will only the ones listed through them will be protected, or will it be a blanket decision?


----------



## Anxiety123

*Call Geldart Law*

If you have not already done so, try calling Geldart Law to see if you can join.  I am not sure if any decision will be a blanket decision.  I do know that Geldart is representing each owner inside of the Class Action Suit.  In one or two of the posting here, there are email addresses and phone numbers to contact Michael Geldart.  You can only try??  Before giving into Northmont and paying them.  We have decided that we would fight and if we lose, then and only then will we pay.  And Northmont will have to come and get it.  I will not pay easily.


----------



## GypsyOne

Skookum, why have you not signed up with a lawyer?  There have been lots of information on why, how, and who to sign up with.  Were you trying to get a free ride - get the benefit of a court decision but let others carry the load?  Of course you need a lawyer, and we need to work together.  If we win you will need a lawyer for you to get a full and unconditional release from further liability; if we lose, it will be like handing this white-collar band their own personal ATM machine.  So we have no choice but to appeal, as we had to do with the first Madam Loo decision in order to get justice.  In the more near future, if you are with Geldert Law, he will handle any demands on you from the collection company, which is considerable peace of mind.  Get signed up now, its much cheaper than the alternative.


----------



## 2OldFarts

skookum said:


> For me it is difficult to sort through the legalities.  I have been contacted three times by the law firm representing Northmont saying that we need to reach an "amicable" solution.  I cannot pay the north of $8000 they are asking me to pay.  So amicable to me is let's go back to the original asking price of $2500 or so they maybe I can figure something out.  Or another option is wait it out.  What are the legalities of the 27% of people who are refusing?  All I know is what the law firm has told me.  They are saying the resort will not bend and that they don't care because it is now a legal issue.  There is no moral or common sense here, but if I have no legal ground to stand on, I am eventually going to have to pay with thousands of interest incrued.



Skookum, my husband and I were confused as well and were considering paying what we thought was a more reasonable amount to be rid of our Fairmont timeshare. The Northmont lawyers would not bend at all, insisting that we now owed more than $12,000 whether we stay or go. They are not interested in settling anything. When we filed our papers, we were told by the court clerk at the Edmonton courthouse that there are about 2000 other cases against Northmont and that we would be contacted first about possible mediation and if necessary about a court date. We did not counter sue, asking for money from Northmont, although we feel bitter about all the money we have already given them. After many years of enjoyable holidays and an expensive upgrade to gold time so that we could take school-age granchildren, we are done with Fairmont. We will be going to court ourselves and will be our own witnesses.


----------



## Anxiety123

*One your own??*

Why would you try and fight these guys on your own???  Is it that you don't want to pay a lawyer $500 to help in the fight??  Don't want to help everyone else that is fighting them??  We have already helped you out with the first two rounds with Northmont but you still can't see yourselves joining in?  I do not understand this mind set.  Very frustrating.  And yes to the person who wants to sit back and see the outcome.  You will probably benefit from all the hard work others are doing for you. As most Class Actions benefit everyone as a whole not just the good folks that put out the money to fight!


----------



## Meow

*Are you with us?*

Well said Anxiety 123.  I hope that SkooKum represents only a small minority of disgruntled lessees/owners that are looking for a free ride.  The outcome of our class action is very uncertain, thus we need as many of us as possible to be on board. As we say out here - "Either you're with us or 'agin' us!"


----------



## Late2Game

*Get with the program!*



Meow said:


> Well said Anxiety 123.  I hope that SkooKum represents only a small minority of disgruntled lessees/owners that are looking for a free ride.  The outcome of our class action is very uncertain, thus we need as many of us as possible to be on board. As we say out here - "Either you're with us or 'agin' us!"



This blows me away.  We have amateurs out here trying to settle this themselves!!  Do you REALLY believe you can go up against the high-powered legal team of Northmont - by yourself - and win??  

By the way Skookum and 2OldFarts . . . .do you also cut your own hair?  Okay, maybe that's fine.  How about dental care?  Do you fill your own teeth, or perhaps you just pull them out yourself after they're riddled with cavities and decay!  How about brain surgery?

Northmont has very deep pockets ultimately funded with YOUR money.  You don't stand a chance on your own.  The old saying that "*the cheap and the poor always pay twice*" certainly applies here!  There is definitely some faulty logic at play here when you're too cheap to pay $500 on a legal challenge to defend your rights and instead put $10,000 at RISK!!!!

Do yourself a favour and let the professionals handle this!  At least you'll be able to sleep at night knowing you're in aligned with a thousand others' common interest AND you have responsible, professional representation!!

*GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!*

. . .


----------



## 2OldFarts

*Your lawyers might want to know.*



Late2Game said:


> This blows me away.  We have amateurs out here trying to settle this themselves!!  Do you REALLY believe you can go up against the high-powered legal team of Northmont - by yourself - and win??
> 
> By the way Skookum and 2OldFarts . . . .do you also cut your own hair?  Okay, maybe that's fine.  How about dental care?  Do you fill your own teeth, or perhaps you just pull them out yourself after they're riddled with cavities and decay!  How about brain surgery?
> 
> Northmont has very deep pockets ultimately funded with YOUR money.  You don't stand a chance on your own.  The old saying that "*the cheap and the poor always pay twice*" certainly applies here!  There is definitely some faulty logic at play here when you're too cheap to pay $500 on a legal challenge to defend your rights and instead put $10,000 at RISK!!!!
> 
> Do yourself a favour and let the professionals handle this!  At least you'll be able to sleep at night knowing you're in aligned with a thousand others' common interest AND you have responsible, professional representation!!
> 
> *GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!*
> 
> . . .



Interesting. I thought your lawyers might want to know that there is something brewing in Alberta against Northmont. If 2000 cases have been filed here in Alberta's provincial civil courts, specifically in Edmonton, there will likely be some kind of decision prior to your case in BC. Your lawyers can either build on that decision if positive or take notice of Northmont's lawyers specific tactics if negative. Either way it is a win/win for your lawyers.


----------



## GypsyOne

2OldFarts said:


> Interesting. I thought your lawyers might want to know that there is something brewing in Alberta against Northmont. If 2000 cases have been filed here in Alberta's provincial civil courts, specifically in Edmonton, there will likely be some kind of decision prior to your case in BC. Your lawyers can either build on that decision if positive or take notice of Northmont's lawyers specific tactics if negative. Either way it is a win/win for your lawyers.



2000 cases filed in Alberta's provincial courts is a lot of cases.  The number doesn't sound credible to me.  Is that a confirmed number of cases or is it speculation?


----------



## Beaverjfw

*2000 Alberta Cases*

The total of about 2000 Alberta cases is likely an accurate one.  As of the end of October the total was over 1400 and Northmont have filed more since then.
Our lawyers are fully aware of what's happening with all the claims. Statements of Defense and Counter Claims against Northmont are filed for everyone served and represented by Geldert law.
The latest update would suggest there is likely going to be cooperation between the courts in both provinces to manage all of the claims and counter claims in an orderly fashion. Once case management meetings have been done there will be  a procedure to get through these cases.  
There is not going to be a quick and easy resolution to this. Those of us that have read through thousands of pages of documents, filings and affidavits so far, realize you won't stand a chance if you are taking on Northmont alone as an individual.  There may be a chance you can ride the coat-tails of the large group represented by Geldert Law and benefit from the resulting decisions, but then again, you may be left out in the cold, on your own.


----------



## GypsyOne

"_There may be a chance you can ride the coat-tails of the large group represented by Geldert Law and benefit from the resulting decisions, but then again, you may be left out in the cold, on your own".[/_QUOTE]


All owners are eventually going to need a lawyer.  If we win in the courts you will need a lawyer to get a full and unconditional discharge of liability.  I can't see Northmont voluntarily giving that release if they lose the case.  Rather, the timeshare owner will be in perpetual limbo, perhaps not pursued by Northmont but neither released by Northmont.  Thus, the timeshare owner is vulnerable to new owners that might take over the resort and they still have these unreleased owners they can demand funds from for maintenance of the resort.  If you can find a lawyer to handle this discharge in a complex case for the cost of Geldert Law, good luck.  Better to be with the main litigation group and receive multiple services and legal insight for the very reasonable price of a retainer.


----------



## ERW

Meow said:


> Well said Anxiety 123.  I hope that SkooKum represents only a small minority of disgruntled lessees/owners that are looking for a free ride.  The outcome of our class action is very uncertain, thus we need as many of us as possible to be on board. As we say out here - "Either you're with us or 'agin' us!"



I don't think the term "looking for a free ride" is really appropriate. Individuals that have decided not to join the class action may end up benefiting if the class action wins, but there is also a lot to lose if the class action wins. It is entirely conceivable that Northmont may go into receivership if the class action wins, in which case we will all lose. If the class action loses, there will be a lot of people that will owe a great deal of money they will have to ante up with along with interest costs, legal costs, etc. Any lawyer worth their salt will state that nothing is guaranteed in the courts, no matter how certain you are of winning. You can be morally and ethically right but perhaps not legally, as strange as that may be. If this is allowed to go to trial, it will likely be in the courts for a number of years in which time Northmont may just throw in the towel and go into receivership. What would happen to the resort at that point is anyone's guess. 

My guess? I think this will be settled out of court in some fashion - perhaps an agreement to allow the class action participants to walk away with an agreed upon "exit" cost, less than that asked for by Northmont previously. But that is just my guess. And at this point, no one really knows for sure.


----------



## Anxiety123

*EWR*

Yes you may be correct about this going on for quite sometime or maybe there could be some settlement  reached so that Northmont could make this "thorn in their side" (Class Action group) go away.  If that were to happen, I would not want to be one of those timeshare owners that are "in for the free ride" as Northmont will have all the more reason to go after them---MONEY!  Join us or don't join us in the fight --  good luck on your own!!


----------



## aden2

Anxiety123 said:


> Why would you try and fight these guys on your own???  Is it that you don't want to pay a lawyer $500 to help in the fight??  Don't want to help everyone else that is fighting them??  We have already helped you out with the first two rounds with Northmont but you still can't see yourselves joining in?  I do not understand this mind set.  Very frustrating.  And yes to the person who wants to sit back and see the outcome.  You will probably benefit from all the hard work others are doing for you. As most Class Actions benefit everyone as a whole not just the good folks that put out the money to fight!


My sources in Service Alberta have stated that a Albert Government audit has been on Northmont because of all the complaints received, and there is millions of dollars not accounted for. The best advise is now to join Geldert Law, other law firms have forward there customers to this law firm. In order for those who have not joined, it will cost them more to be represented later.


----------



## verby

FYI: 2015 MF invoices coming in. Increase over 5%


----------



## jekebc

*2015 Maiintenance Fee Statement*



verby said:


> FYI: 2015 MF invoices coming in. Increase over 5%


So now we have the 2015 Maintenance Fee Statements with Northmont using their position to make a deal with the Property Manager (their associated Company) to pay a special rate of Maintenance Fees for "Inactive" units.
The timeshare contracts and the Disclosure Statement specifically sets out that all unit holders pay a specific portion of the total operating costs.
"the Proportionate Share for that Owner (lock-off unit)expressed as a fraction would be 1,000/12,581,700".
Another key example of Northmont in breach of a fundamental term of the contract.


----------



## SentimentalLady

Skookum and 2OldFarts - we who have joined Geldert receive regular, detailed updates about what's happening - but of course we are not allowed to share those.

I've read it ALL. Hundreds of pages. And while I don't always understand all the legalities of everything, it's actually fairly clear to anyone who does read it. And the more I learn, the more I am SO glad that we joined Geldert. The way Fairmont/Northmont/Sunchaser/Northwynd was all set up - it's pretty complicated for even the experts to sort out. I cannot imagine anyone seriously believing they can fight this on their own.

Realistically, on your own - you either pay to stay or pay to go. And yes, that 26% interest has been adding up fast for all of us.....but you knew that before May 31, 2013. You've had 19 months since then of dithering and hoping for the best?

It really does not matter to me what you choose to do, because there are so many of us with Geldert that I feel very comfortable. It was an end of the stress to be able to tell Sauvageau that we were represented and that was the end of the phone call. No more. And no stress when we were finally served - just turn it over to Geldert. Yes, on my own I could read the instructions and run around and pay all the fees - but what comes next? Instead, I'm stress-free and know that we are in good hands. Of course there are no guarantees of how things will turn out in the end, but I do feel confident of a WAY better result from a lawyer who's been with this since the beginning, knows what he's doing, and has the resources to do it right when he's working for over 1000 people.

I only take the time to promote joining Geldert because I feel so badly for people who are trying to go it on their own. I've heard some really sad stories, and especially feel for people who are not computer-savvy. They don't even know this group exists and that they do NOT have to go it alone.

Incidentally, people contacted "by the law firm representing Northmont saying...."  - I have the feeling you don't realize you are talking to a clerk at Sauvageau and Associates, a collection agency, which has a lawyer attached to it. And that their only interest is in collecting the money Northmont has contracted them for. For the legal fight, Northmont is using Norton Rose Fulbright.


----------



## Late2Game

SentimentalLady said:


> . . . .I only take the time to promote joining Geldert because I feel so badly for people who are trying to go it on their own. I've heard some really sad stories, and especially feel for people who are not computer-savvy. *They don't even know this group exists* and that they do NOT have to go it alone. . . .


*
There are very likely hundreds out there who are unaware of THIS forum and the timeshare owners group holding Northmont to account.*  Of course it's completely contrary to Northmont's interests to share the register of names and contact info of timeshare owners impacted.  But it's certainly not in the interest of justice to keep these uninformed folks in the dark!  This same group of uninformed timeshare owners most certainly includes a large number who have already capitulated and paid either the renovation or cancellation fee.  This is indeed sad and unfortunate.  

Does anybody have any ideas how to reach these uninformed timeshare owners?  Or will this register become available as part of the court proceedings?

...


----------



## aden2

What really frustrates me is the fact I was misled during the Legacy for Life scam that I was conned out of $7,300 approx. and this is O.K with Northmont to send me a maintenance bill plus interest for approx, same amount $7,300. Something is wrong with how Northmont perceives right from wrong! That is why I hired Geldert Law as we are dealing with a company with absolutely no morals. They are the lowest of the lowest, cheating, lying, dishonest bandits!


----------



## GypsyOne

Geldert Law is continuing to take clients. If Northmont has their way we will become court sanctioned white collar victims.  That must not be allowed to happen. There is strength in numbers.  Contact Geldert Law at: sunchaser@geldertlaw.com; phone 778-330-7775.


----------



## condomama

*Anything new at the end of December?*




ERW said:


> Anyone received any word on Mtce Fees for 2015? Should be out soon I would think, last year their 2014 Mtce Fee announcement came out the third week of November so they should be out soon. Curious to see what is up for next year.




Wondering if anyone who "stayed" has received a maintenance fee invoice for 2015?


----------



## Lostmyshirt

*2015 Maintenance fees*

My bill came to over $12K with fees, interest on unpaid past fees.  I really hope they can finish this soon.  Its criminal.  I can't pay it.


----------



## aden2

Lostmyshirt said:


> My bill came to over $12K with fees, interest on unpaid past fees.  I really hope they can finish this soon.  Its criminal.  I can't pay it.



I hope you are with Geldert Law! Court case coming up January 27th and it involves B.C. and Alberta Courts.:


----------



## Tacoma

Haven't heard from Geldert Law since Dec 19th. Have I somehow accidently been dropped off of their e-mail list or is their really no news?

Joan


----------



## Velo

Tacoma said:


> Haven't heard from Geldert Law since Dec 19th. Have I somehow accidently been dropped off of their e-mail list or is their really no news?
> 
> Joan



The last update from Geldert came on Jan 9th.
Sounds like you should call them.

                            John


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> I hope you are with Geldert Law! Court case coming up January 27th and it involves B.C. and Alberta Courts.:



The number of civil lawsuits filed in BC and Alberta is 2500. The strong anticipated number will increase buy another 5000 who will have civil lawsuits filed against them. You can see how Northmont lies about the 40% cancellation,32% paid and 28% delinquent. There are 145000 timeshare owners and 5000+25000=7500 which is 52% delinquent not 28%. Now if you add 52%+40%cancellation =92% that only leaves 8% that paid for the Reno. They want to make it look like it is a small % of delinquents that are not agreeing with Justice Loo and causes them grief. I believe a lot of those 100 dollar payers quit paying. If you have not hired Geldert Law you are making a bad mistake because these guys will not stop until they suck all the money they can from you.


----------



## Tacoma

Somehow it ended up in spam. Will try and get that glitch corrected.

Joan


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Court case news?*



aden2 said:


> I hope you are with Geldert Law! Court case coming up January 27th and it involves B.C. and Alberta Courts.:



Anyone hear about what happened at the hearing of 27 Jan?
btw Checking I see no new BC claims filed by Northmont in 2015


----------



## GypsyOne

Geldert Law is continuing to accept new clients to file responses and counterclaims on behalf of clients. Geldert Law is also resisting Northmont’s demands to close the litigation group to new timeshare owners, which would deny them legal representation in the litigation group.  

Incredibly the largest delinquent owner of timeshares is Northmont themselves.  Northmont has decided to exempt themselves from paying maintenance on timeshares they have taken back and own despite the timeshare contracts and Disclosure Statement stating that ALL timeshare owners must pay maintenance costs.  We the timeshare owners are resisting demands for reconstructing a faulty resort facility because we don't own it, and for numerous alleged breaches of contract and misrepresentation.  Northmont is not paying their portion of maintenance on their timeshare units because they just decided the rules don't apply to them.  The brass and arrogance of these guys seem to know no bounds. They must be stopped from victimizing innocent people. 

There is strength in numbers.  Contact Geldert Law at sunchaser@geldertlaw.com; phone 778-330-7775.


----------



## Punter

*Amusing read on Sunchaser Website*

Viewing the Sunchaser Website and I discovered that Northmont has decided to use the unused money in the renovation fund to cover the litigation costs!  They state that this option makes the most sense as the "funds are sitting idle"as the renovations are put on hold pending outcome of the court decision. They further qualify it by stating "the litigation is a result of delinquency directly tied to the RPF so using the RPF funds is a correlated use."

If I was one of the owners that decided to "stay and pay" and the money was going towards fighting their legal battles I would be pi$$ed.  Is that even legal?? - not that it  matters to Northmont anyways. 

Another comical tidbit: they are going to "save money" in the future building renovations by reusing/salvaging furniture from the old units.......**shaking head***
BTW 2015 maintenance fees went up by 5.7% and are $1055.


----------



## Spark1

Punter said:


> Viewing the Sunchaser Website and I discovered that Northmont has decided to use the unused money in the renovation fund to cover the litigation costs!  They state that this option makes the most sense as the "funds are sitting idle"as the renovations are put on hold pending outcome of the court decision. They further qualify it by stating "the litigation is a result of delinquency directly tied to the RPF so using the RPF funds is a correlated use."
> 
> If I was one of the owners that decided to "stay and pay" and the money was going towards fighting their legal battles I would be pi$$ed.  Is that even legal?? - not that it  matters to Northmont anyways.
> 
> Another comical tidbit: they are going to "save money" in the future building renovations by reusing/salvaging furniture from the old units.......**shaking head***
> BTW 2015 maintenance fees went up by 5.7% and are $1055.


You can thank Justice Loo and the Alberta Judge for this. I have lived in Mexico 3 to 4 months for the past 8 years. Remember that Colin Knight fell in hard times in 2008. That was just a big lie. The resort that I am in now, you can not get a room for one night and there is 400 condos and a big hotel on this site and it was always this way. Northwynd screwed the timeshare owners for millions of dollars by over selling all their platinum club resorts in Mexico , Hawaii, Belize, etc. This made it hard for the original owners to get into their home resort. Where they made their mega bucks is when the timeshare industry come up with this point system. Remember Rancho Bandaras, you could not us it threw the platinum club,you had to try and use it thew Interval. That was almost impossible. Bad times you Know and than they sold it to Marvil.  Now the door is open for them to remove all the money that 32% of the timeshare owners paid 4100 $ for every 2 bedroom sleep 8. I am sure our Justice System will give them permission to do this again because of 50$ oil. The next thing bankrupt the resort. This is business you know. Just ask Kirk Wankal he will tell you.


----------



## ERW

Trying to look at this without bias, lawyers have to be paid one way or another. "Borrowing" the money from the renovation funds is probably the only means of paying the lawyers. If they happen to win, I would assume they would have to pay it back once they start collecting delinquent accounts. However, if they lose, it would be a different story. Not sure if what they are doing is legal or not. My guess would be that their lawyers are saying use it - the cash can be replaced if you win. If you lose, you're not going to have the money to complete the renos anyway.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Spark1 - Judge in Alberta??*

What judge or situation are to referring to?  I thought it was just Justice Lou in BC that made the bad judgement for Northmont???  Was there an Alberta judge making decisions on this case?  Please clarify!


----------



## Beaverjfw

*New Claims Filed in March*

After two months of inactivity in the BC courts, Northmont is back at it. Another 102 claims have been filed from March 6 to 23rd. Hopefully more of those served will join up with Geldert Law.


----------



## gnorth16

*What's going on lately???*

Crickets...........


----------



## Tacoma

Most of us are probably just keeping up with the info we get from Geldert law. I also occasionally check the face book pages (only reason I even have facebook) for any news. Everyone is hesitant to post strategy or anything since they read what we post and use it against us. Just hoping the lawyer is going to get a solution for us sometime. The good news is a lot more people have signed up with Geldert Law. We just have to stay strong has anyone noticed a hit against their credit? I don't check mine and have no need to apply for a loan.


----------



## Hotpink

*Site Visit*

We are heading over to Fairmont this weekend and plan on spending a little time measuring activity at the actual resort while we enjoy a few rounds of golf at Riverside and Mountain side. Last year we noticed low activity at the resort ( about 25 % see post # 1468) in June, This year it will probably be less because we are a little earlier, but it will be interesting to see what the merchants in Fairmont have to say now compared to their guarded comments last year. 
We had no problem in getting all of our tee times on our specific schedule which implies those two courses are pretty open. Glad to see progress being made in the court case with Northmont  albeit still a few months away.
We plan to take many pictures and note renovation progress in particular. 
If any member wants specific details please contact us.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Sunchaser renovations*

Its been quiet here for a while but work continues in the background for trial in January 2016.  I came across the renovation Progress Draw information on the Sunchaser web site.  What I found most interesting was the budget projection and the little work that had been done since this whole mess started in 2013.  Have a look at this document, particularly page 9

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Progress-Draw-15-January-5-2015.pdf

With a budget of $34.8M they had spent only $4.8M (14%) up to January 2015. As Progress draw information is not posted after that I have no idea if any renos are proceeding. Anyone on-site have any updates?

As I recall Northmont had stated their intention to be rid of this investment by the end of 2016. I have seen no listing on JLL and its hard to see how they could market and sell this dog in 18 months. Maybe they just plan to keep the cash and skulk away into the night


----------



## ERW

I would assume they are waiting for funds from those that have not paid what they believe they are owed.

Would be interesting to know how much has been collected for renovations versus what has been actually spent.


----------



## MelodyYYC

*Updates*

Good day all,

I am new here. Can anyone please let me know if it's too late to join in Geldert Law group to against Northmont Property time share issue.  I am in Calgary, AB, and I am seeking help to get rid of this suck time share. 
Many thanks!!


----------



## Meow

*Fairmont Sunchaser lawsuit*

Unfortunately, Mr. Geldert has had to close out the group.  But I suggest you give him a call anyway (778-330-7775).  He may have some suggestions on what you can do now.  He is very committed to our cause.


----------



## MelodyYYC

*Loan*

Has anyone not paid full amount of the time share loan?


----------



## Southcom

I am in the same predicament that you are in and am facing the maintenance fee for 2016 and can't use my share because I couldn't afford to take the options in 2013.  I contacted Gelbert Law to see if I could still join and it was too late.  I am not sure what my options are either but it doesn't sound like I am the only one who opted not to pay anything.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Merry Christmas from Northwynd*

By now everyone should have their statement detailing maintenance fees for the 2016 year along with any unpaid prior year charges and the >26% interest Northwynd believes they are entitled to.  Not much of a Christmas present.
Needless to say, I don't think any will pay the bill if they are part of the ongoing litigation group.  The accompanying letter from Northwynd was certainly nauseating, saying how they expect to be successful in the trial that begins next month. I can hardly wait for the daily updates once the trial gets underway. 
I have confidence that the group will prevail but one thing is certain should the efforts fail.  Northwynd will never get a dime from me.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Settlement a better choice??*

I am hoping for a settlement between us the litigation group and Northmont to avoid the Trial.  Hoping  Northmont will just want us to go away  so they can continue on collecting money and proceed with bleeding the timeshare resort dry then sell and walk away with millions.  Any of you agree?


----------



## Southcom

*Happy New year??*

I am just wondering if there has been any updates about the court case.  I believe it was scheduled for the first or second week of January.


----------



## Tacoma

We have been getting daily reports now that the trial is on. Let's all hope that there will be an end to this someday soon.

Joan


----------



## Meow

Unfortunately this communication has been stopped because of the indiscretions of someone in our litigation group.  Some people just can't be trusted!


----------



## Bill4728

We all have been reading about your problems with the resorts management group for some time.

Please Keep us informed how things go


----------



## TUGBrian

saw this article today...hope things work out for the owners!

http://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/?p=17110


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Trial Progress*

As noted just a few posts earlier, there no longer daily trial updates. The last was at the end of week 1 of the three week trial. We are now in the final week and judging from the initial updates, the pace was running ahead of schedule. I would not be surprised if it ends a day or so before Friday the 22nd which was the originally scheduled final day.
Mr. Geldert has indicated that clients will be updated at the end of this week.
No idea how long it may take for a decision but if the BC Appeal Court decision is any indication, I'd expect it to be a few months.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Northmont Piling Up the Claims*

A check today on the BC Court online systems shows Northmont is continuing to file claims. There have been 155 added claims files just in January 2016, at various court locations and as recent as today (Jan 22). I would expect they are also clogging up the Alberta courts but I have no access to that information.
I would expect they want to be ready to press the claims if they get a favorably ruling from the current test case.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*More Northmont Claims*

Filed claims in BC courts continue to rise, with a total of 319 more in January, so far.  Having read the closing court statements from Geldert Law, I have a hard time seeing how Northmont thinks they will come out on top in this case, but I'm no lawyer, so anything could happen.


----------



## Cinnamon193

Hi Everyone, 
My parents have been stressing out about being sued. They were called today and told that Northmont was going ahead with legal action against them. 

It was only today that I discovered this forum and was made aware that there was a class action. Had I known, I'm sure they would have joined.

There is no way they can afford the 15k (or whatever it is at this point).

Is there any recourse for those who are only now finding out about this? Would love to talk via this forum, email, or phone. Any advice greatly appreciated. My parents are extremely upset about this. (They did contact a lawyer in Williams Lake a year ago regarding this, and he told my parents not to pay Northmont anything.)

Thank you,
Megan


----------



## Cinnamon193

Southcom said:


> I am in the same predicament that you are in and am facing the maintenance fee for 2016 and can't use my share because I couldn't afford to take the options in 2013.  I contacted Gelbert Law to see if I could still join and it was too late.  I am not sure what my options are either but it doesn't sound like I am the only one who opted not to pay anything.


Hi Southcom,
My parents are in the same predicament and have no idea where to turn now. Any advice? 

Thanks very much,
Megan


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Nothmont Claims*



Cinnamon193 said:


> Hi Everyone,
> My parents have been stressing out about being sued. They were called today and told that Northmont was going ahead with legal action against them.
> 
> It was only today that I discovered this forum and was made aware that there was a class action. Had I known, I'm sure they would have joined.
> 
> There is no way they can afford the 15k (or whatever it is at this point).
> 
> Is there any recourse for those who are only now finding out about this? Would love to talk via this forum, email, or phone. Any advice greatly appreciated. My parents are extremely upset about this. (They did contact a lawyer in Williams Lake a year ago regarding this, and he told my parents not to pay Northmont anything.)
> 
> Thank you,
> Megan



The trial ended in January and it will be a test case for THOUSANDS of similar actions in Alberta, B.C and elsewhere.  It looks like Northmont is going after those owners that do not have legal representation now in an attempt to have them pay up or settle before a decision is made by the BC court.
Your parents would have a much better idea of their position once the court gives it verdict on the issues. They would also have access to the decision in the public record. Any delay in the Northmont proceedings would be to their advantage.
(Not a lawyer. This is not legal advice)


----------



## Caroline S

*When is a decision expected by the courts*

My family has also received a filed claim by Northmount.  Does anyone know when a decision by the court is expected?

Thanks


----------



## BevL

If the judge has reserved, there's really no way of knowing.  It depends on her case load and the complexity of the judgment she has to write.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Hang in there!*

We all need to wait now to see what happens with this test case.  I am one of the owners that joined with Geldert.  I am hoping I put good money toward a great outcome for everyone that has not paid Northmont.  Even if the outcome isn't what we want, I am glad I put up the money to help as I was not going to just payout Northmont without a fight.  I wish those that missed  finding out about the class action could have helped financially as  more is better but the case has gone through the courts and now we must all just wait for an answer.  Hang in there.


----------



## Southcom

When I contacted Geldert in December they said they would take on new clients in February.  I emailed them last week and they said to call them on February 12/16 if you are a new client and they will give you a clearer picture of what options you have.  I will call today but I suggest you call them also and get the information first hand.


----------



## Cinnamon193

Thanks so very much for the info. My parents were in contact with Geldert Law and will be receiving all the info to join the class action. They were told by the law firm that it is NOT too late to join. Good news.

I truly hope this turns out for the best for all the timeshare owners involved.

Incidentally, we have heard of personal dealings with Matkin law before, and he is one shady lawyer 

Thanks again everyone, info greatly appreciated!


----------



## ismash55

*Civil case file on queen Elizabeth*

Anybody can help me or has the same issue . I received a civil case coming from solicitor of fairmont that i need to pay $11,000 for maintenance fee. They urges me to pay as soon as possible. On my case we never used fairmont not even once sign up on July 2006. I did call them on that year to cancel the fairmont but they don't allow me. Now i'm stock to make a decision to pay or not , or i can file a dispute for this issue. Anybody has a suggestion what will i do.


----------



## Quadmaniac

ismash55 said:


> Anybody can help me or has the same issue . I received a civil case coming from solicitor of fairmont that i need to pay $11,000 for maintenance fee. They urges me to pay as soon as possible. On my case we never used fairmont not even once sign up on July 2006. I did call them on that year to cancel the fairmont but they don't allow me. Now i'm stock to make a decision to pay or not , or i can file a dispute for this issue. Anybody has a suggestion what will i do.



Maybe take some time to read this thread - it has everything you are asking about.


----------



## BettyBoop52

Two years ago, my husband & I paid $3,000 to get out of our membership in Fairmont. We were told by Northmont that this was what we had to pay to leave as we were not interested in continuing to pay ever-increasing maintenance fees and we did not like the changes that were taking place at Fairmont. We did not know about the class action lawsuit and are wondering if it's too late to join it. We don't want anything more than our money back. How much would it cost to join at this late date? Or is it too late?


----------



## Beaverjfw

BettyBoop52 said:


> Two years ago, my husband & I paid $3,000 to get out of our membership in Fairmont. We were told by Northmont that this was what we had to pay to leave as we were not interested in continuing to pay ever-increasing maintenance fees and we did not like the changes that were taking place at Fairmont. We did not know about the class action lawsuit and are wondering if it's too late to join it. We don't want anything more than our money back. How much would it cost to join at this late date? Or is it too late?



The only one that can answer this question is Geldert Law. Get on the phone and call Mr. Geldert. He can let you know whether you can join, if it is worthwhile, the costs, and what your options might be.  The January court case lasted three weeks and was intended to set out a number issues for the court to decide.  Situations are different for many TS owners so tell Geldert Law about your circumstances to see if they can help.


----------



## BettyBoop52

Thanks, Beaverjfw. Will do.


----------



## larisa.m

*Timeshare at Northmont( Foremont BC) Alberta, Canada.*

Hello, Has anyone been taken to court for not paying their maintenance fees? We haven't paid ours for 5 years . We are already contact with Mr. Geldert. and he sent some information .


----------



## larisa.m

larisa.m said:


> Hello, Has anyone been taken to court for not paying their maintenance fees? We haven't paid ours for 5 years . We are already contact with Mr. Geldert. and he sent some information .



f you know anyone who wishes to join this Litigation Group, please ask them to contact us so we can discuss this with them.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Where to from here? Case Lost!*

The judgement is in from the BC Supreme Court and it looks like only bad news.  The full judgement can be read here. over 100 pages.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/04/2016BCSC0401.htm

Expect Northmont to begin collections and enforcement.


----------



## xplor

*Sunchasers lawsuit*

Thanks Beaverjfw for posting the final judgement.

I have been following this along since this group was formed. I was also a concerned owner and contacted Northmont about the extra fees being added to us for fixing the resort back up. I was out to Sunchasers in 2012 and seen  the issues that were concerning to the future of our resort. If they were going to be fixed, I wasn't sure if I was responsible with other owners. A few of our friends who own there and I took all of our contracts in to a very reputable lawyer I use with my business to take a look to see if Northmont had a case to be asking for the repair money. He looked it over with a number of his associate business lawyers and told us we would have absolutely no case and chance to litigate against Northmont and would never take a 'lost case' on. In fact he said Northmont has an obligation in the contract to maintain our property with other owners and it is our expense. We would have to choose an option to stay and pay (and enjoy our timeshare) or pay a pay out to leave our timeshare ownership since many were using their TS less or not at all. We all decided to do the $100. a month and it the issue was over. Didn't put any of us into ruins or Kraft dinner for 20 months. I did some research on the internet and Sunchasers were not the only timeshare faced with this problem. Many major timeshare operators were assessing owners for repairs and refurbishing that were not expected and had to pay.

So after reading the final judgement that was posted here, I am both happy we made the choice we did and pay up 3 years ago and sad for the many who choose to needlessly follow a piper into the sea. Don't know the man, never met him, but after reading the very interesting judgement transcript of the judge's decision, what was presented by Mr. Belfey and his lawyer and prime witness Chris Van der Deem, the alligations  and issues that were not only non founded, they simply honestly had no case on every single issue. Both Mr. Belfrey and his #1 witness lost all credibility with half baked or no evidence to support his case and if you take the time to read the transcript (which if you paid this guy you followed into this mess, you should read the lack of any credible evidence in his case) you will see they dropped many issues because they knew the judge lost credibility early with them in the trial. Read closely and you with read that she is saying you have wasted the courts time on this. His lawyer took you all for a very expensive ride no one should have been on. Again, I have only read the judgement, evidence that was presented and can clearly see that Mr. Belfrey never had a case to begin with. Many will not be happy after throwing money behind this guy and having this outcome, so you owe it to yourselves to read the complete judgement (about 2 hours) and you will see who you need to be collecting your money back from. 
Interestingly, speaking of money back, in the conclusion of the judgement, neither side requested their court costs be paid by the other side, but the judge was so dismayed (pissed off) that she went ahead and granted Northmont court/legal costs from Belfrey. 
Don't beat up on yourselves for following this guy. Most of us were not happy about the fact the previous operators Fairmont (which Belfreys #1 witness was the main man managing your timeshare, allowed this lack of maint. to occur and the new operators Northmont simply trying to fix the mess that was left. I could have used the $2000. on many other things but in the end (as we now see) we pay one way or the other. He simply should have read the contract and understood the situation and accepted it and not drag 'hopefuls' along with him. Sorry for everyone who lost money betting on this horse.


----------



## ERW

I have to admit that I was not happy to pay the reno fee but elected to do so and move on. Unfortunately with legal cases, there are never any guarantees. Learned that a long time ago and it has stuck with me since. Despite how right you think you are (morally, ethically and legally) the other party thinks they are just as morally, ethically and legally right. In the end it is the judge that has the final word. You can never be 100% certain how a court will decide. As the previous commenter stated, it is a risk you take, a roll of the dice so to speak. 

Unfortunately, those that joined the legal action will have some pretty big bills to settle up but perhaps we can all just move on and enjoy our timeshares?


----------



## GypsyOne

Those that think they have saved money by paying the Northmont ransom may be in for a surprise.  Effectively this court ruling provides Northmont with a blank cheque to use the timeshare owners as their personal money machine for renovating a faulty building complex for their benefit.  The buildings were not constructed according to code; buildings that should have had a lifetime of at least 50-60 years are failing after only 15 years.  Buildings will continue to fail and Northmont will have free rein to demand renovation money which they will use to upgrade, beautify, and market the complex for timeshare or condominium sale.  The TS owners will be at the mercy of unscrupulous resort owners; the TS owners do not have the protection of the courts; and they do not have representation in resort management and financial decisions.  Only the naïve or a fool would want to be part of that dismal future.  

Judge Fitzpatrick ruled that the litigation group's case was without merit, vague, etc.; that no fundamental breach had occurred.  I do wonder how many TS owners would have bought into the complex had they known the buildings were not built according to code; that there were numerous construction shortcuts; that the TS owners would be responsible for correcting deficiencies.  My guess would be about ZERO.

Further, how many think it reasonable that you pay, say $16,000, to acquire  a timeshare, then when the complex fails because of construction deficiencies, that the Management asks you to pay once again to give the timeshare back.  Ridiculous!

This is a decision of big business over the consumer. I was always uneasy that the courts in B.C. would rule against a major B.C. tourist attraction being put at risk of failure and bankruptcy.  Instead the courts backstopped some rich investors, owners, and managers from the consequences of inept construction and bad decisions in order to keep the facility alive.

The ruling repeated several times, "If the timeshare owners don't pay, then who does?"  My answer would be not the TS owners who bought into the complex in good faith, but the developers, owners, and managers who made these dumb decisions.  

The judge tipped her hand on whose side she was on when, without being asked, she awarded costs to Northmont.  Does that mean the TS owners are paying Northmont court costs twice - once when Northmont funds their court costs from TS owner's maintenance fees and again with the awarding of costs?  Is this a subliminal message from the Judge not to appeal because it will be expensive?


----------



## Punter

*Did you receive the "options" letter from Northmount?*

I am wondering how many other owners out there never received ANY correspondence from Northmont in regards to the renovation proposal, the option to pay it or the option to pay to leave the resort OR even invoices for delinquent maintenance fees?

We received a court document to pay 12K$ but were never knew about the option to pay the initial fees: we hadn't heard from the resort for 3-4 years.

There must be several others out there that are in a similar situation?


----------



## xplor

GypsyOne said:


> Those that think they have saved money by paying the Northmont ransom may be in for a surprise.  Effectively this court ruling provides Northmont with a blank cheque to use the timeshare owners as their personal money machine for renovating a faulty building complex for their benefit.  The buildings were not constructed according to code; buildings that should have had a lifetime of at least 50-60 years are failing after only 15 years.  Buildings will continue to fail and Northmont will have free rein to demand renovation money which they will use to upgrade, beautify, and market the complex for timeshare or condominium sale.  The TS owners will be at the mercy of unscrupulous resort owners; the TS owners do not have the protection of the courts; and they do not have representation in resort management and financial decisions.  Only the naïve or a fool would want to be part of that dismal future.
> 
> Judge Fitzpatrick ruled that the litigation group's case was without merit, vague, etc.; that no fundamental breach had occurred.  I do wonder how many TS owners would have bought into the complex had they known the buildings were not built according to code; that there were numerous construction shortcuts; that the TS owners would be responsible for correcting deficiencies.  My guess would be about ZERO.
> 
> Further, how many think it reasonable that you pay, say $16,000, to acquire  a timeshare, then when the complex fails because of construction deficiencies, that the Management asks you to pay once again to give the timeshare back.  Ridiculous!
> 
> This is a decision of big business over the consumer. I was always uneasy that the courts in B.C. would rule against a major B.C. tourist attraction being put at risk of failure and bankruptcy.  Instead the courts backstopped some rich investors, owners, and managers from the consequences of inept construction and bad decisions in order to keep the facility alive.
> 
> The ruling repeated several times, "If the timeshare owners don't pay, then who does?"  My answer would be not the TS owners who bought into the complex in good faith, but the developers, owners, and managers who made these dumb decisions.
> 
> The judge tipped her hand on whose side she was on when, without being asked, she awarded costs to Northmont.  Does that mean the TS owners are paying Northmont court costs twice - once when Northmont funds their court costs from TS owner's maintenance fees and again with the awarding of costs?  Is this a subliminal message from the Judge not to appeal because it will be expensive?



GypsyOne  .... I agree, it sucks buying into or something that we later find isn't what we thought. But at the end of the day, we can't return items when we ourselves made the sole choice to buy them as they were and sign contracts that maybe we shouldn't have, but did. I have been so down this road and know the regret is painful with by far more money than 6K, 16K and far higher mentioned here on these pages, because I bet on a dark horse. 

As far as Northmont using owners as a bank machine, I don't think so. They can't by any law charge owners more than what the terms of an agreement are. I hate interest and nearly never pay it by paying all my bills before the interest incurs. Many took the gamble to bet on a dark horse that had no case and by doing so, decided to allow the interest to build and compound. If you would have won, bingo, no interest on back payments or any payment. If you lose, its a gamble you took and now responsible for, no matter how we slice it up, there a judgement now and Northmont won. Sucks, but reality. 

It is human nature to be vulnerable. To support people who tell us they will slay the dragon or get what we want. We see it at the polls every 4 years. Lot of promises, little or no delivery. I don't know the extent Northmont will go in collecting, but my guess is they are holding the victory and support of the courts. Going to be pretty tough for any judge go against the ruling when they have the delinquent owner in court and the additional cost the owner will have just to pay another lucky lawyer. I am not a lawyer, just an ordinary guy that has learned some tough lessons in the pocket, be very careful listening to chest pounders who will advise against settling up, because it is these same ones that got you all messed into this. In the end, they loss nothing, its you that will pay to continue throwing your hopes behind these guys being the tough, don't pay. Try collecting the needless interest payments off of them and see what they will tell you. They don't care, they just want to rally the troops to fight on the lost fight, don't pay until every owner is financially defeated and the loud mouths have vanished. Take your own path whatever that will be and live with a responsibility of the path you take. 

We are all owners. No point beating on each other regardless the choice we made. Belfrey cost so many people a lot of money because he had an illusion that were something there that wasn't there at all and found lots of hopefully followers.


----------



## Punter

I agree Gypsyone, and you raise some good questions. The Judge may have found the case before her "without merit" however, and I may have my numbers wrong, if over 6000 owners have abandoned their investment or even paid to leave how can it be without merit? We own another timeshare and are happy to pay maintenance fees in exchange for a well-managed and comfortable place to holiday.  Northmont has/is not acting in the best interest of it's owners. 

And is it just me or does the entire tone of the ruling come across that Judge Fitzpatrick seemed annoyed that she even had to sit through the proceedings and that she had made her mind up long before they ended.  Was the plaintiff's case really that poorly presented? 

Also, the fact that Northmont is using owners funds for litigation purposes is crazy.  Why not tap into the millions of dollars they collected from people paying to get out of their lease to fund the costs.  What happened to that money? Putting that money back into the resort would have been acting in the best interest of its owners. Putting in their pocket, well enough said where their interests lie.

Stay tuned folks because I am certain this is not over.


----------



## Punter

I for one am sceptical about both [Northmont's] skill and especially their intentions.


----------



## xplor

Punter said:


> I agree Gypsyone, and you raise some good questions. The Judge may have found the case before her "without merit" however, and I may have my numbers wrong, if over 6000 owners have abandoned their investment or even paid to leave how can it be without merit? We own another timeshare and are happy to pay maintenance fees in exchange for a well-managed and comfortable place to holiday.  Northmont has/is not acting in the best interest of it's owners.
> 
> And is it just me or does the entire tone of the ruling come across that Judge Fitzpatrick seemed annoyed that she even had to sit through the proceedings and that she had made her mind up long before they ended.  Was the plaintiff's case really that poorly presented?
> 
> Also, the fact that Northmont is using owners funds for litigation purposes is crazy.  Why not tap into the millions of dollars they collected from people paying to get out of their lease to fund the costs.  What happened to that money? Putting that money back into the resort would have been acting in the best interest of its owners. Putting in their pocket, well enough said where their interests lie.
> 
> Stay tuned folks because I am certain this is not over.



I do agree she was annoyed because there was no case to support Belfrey, but she gave sounds reasons in every case and admitted the judgement was much longer than normal just to give the facts and case law for the benefit of Belfrey. It is what it is. 

Because 1000's people (or whatever) refuse to pay a bill, does that give it 'merit' that it is right or that there is in fact reasonable 'merit' not to pay the bill. She is simply saying she sees no merit (holds no water) in Belfrey's case. If 1000 people jumped off a tall bridge or followed a fool into the sea to drown, does that give it 'merit' as you indicate.

I wasn't aware Northmont is using this money to fund their legal costs on this. Is this a fact or another illusion. 

About knowing a lot, just need to read the judgement and be an TS owner. I am a TS owner and should be interested in the outcome. Just because I am fellow TS owner trying to use some common sense of all of this and with what came down which I hope most read, what the future holds for all of us as TS owners getting repairs done, doesn't make me whatever you are attempting to indicate. Of course this should interest every TS owner, shouldn't it or just the ones that threw needless money at Belfrey's lawsuit.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Xplor ...Final Words*

I agree with you that everyone should have sought Legal Council.  Well...by contacting and speaking to Geldart we did and we followed that path.  Did we make the correct choice, obviously not. ... I have friends that owned and did the same as you and not one time over the past days have they ever had the "I told you" attitude that [has been expressed here].  They are kind people.  Are they thankful that they settled, yes do I begrudge them for there position in all this mess, no.  We spent many hours reading and re-reading the paperwork with some areas very grey areas which were hard to understand for us...  I wanted to have a judge decide if Northmont was in the right to charge the fees and now we know and now we will pay.  I will be out about $3000 extra for this adventure.  I don't feel happy, am anxious about it but have learned through this, oh have I learned.  ....  Many folks are older and were scared and just wanted some help so they went in this direction.  I am not sure how Northmont will collect off these financially stress people.  I will pay my dues and learn from this but many of us come to this sight to get information...


----------



## xplor

Anxiety123 said:


> I agree with you that everyone should have sought Legal Council. Well...by contacting and speaking to Geldart we did and we followed that path. Did we make the correct choice, obviously not. ... I have friends that owned and did the same as you and not one time over the past days have they ever had the "I told you" attitude that [has been expressed here]. They are kind people. Are they thankful that they settled, yes do I begrudge them for there position in all this mess, no. We spent many hours reading and re-reading the paperwork with some areas very grey areas which were hard to understand for us... I wanted to have a judge decide if Northmont was in the right to charge the fees and now we know and now we will pay. I will be out about $3000 extra for this adventure. I don't feel happy, am anxious about it but have learned through this, oh have I learned. .... Many folks are older and were scared and just wanted some help so they went in this direction. I am not sure how Northmont will collect off these financially stress people. I will pay my dues and learn from this but many of us come to this sight to get information... .



Anxiety123 ....... sorry if anything I posted offended you. There was honestly no intent. I admit I have been in the same situation with much more than $3000. and feel for all owners whether they paid, paid to leave or in this group. I have read over my posts and I only have sharp words for Belfrey and his counsel who both should have known better than to convince people to join 'their own fight'. The judgement transcript indicated he had a career in real estate. Both he and his lawyer should have looked past the crappy situation all of us were in and understood there was nothing there (as likely many lawyers advised different owners) to provide hope to all who threw money into this. Most lawyers would not have touched this for that very reason. There are some who love 'class action suits' and can't resist them. 

If that is smug to say this should have never happened to begin with, then I am smug. Interestingly I read the judgement, gave 'my opinion' and none who where a part of this illusion has said anything about your absent leader and why this ever occurred.

You and others did what I as well was going to do, so don't beat up on yourself for doing it or on other owners for posting what happened. I feel sick that many as yourself are now in this position. I hope the best for you and all owners and that somehow, something can be worked out.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Thanks*

Thanks for that and yes we have not heard from Jim in many weeks....I am not thinking that he has any money on the line from some inside information.  Interesting.....

I have learned from this ...the hard way and have informed my kids on these types of situations and they too have learned from my mistakes.  I hope that Jim and Mr. Geldart were acting in good faith but we will never know and now I am hoping that things can be worked out quickly and I can pay up and move on.    Not knowing is also a stress but hopefully in the next week things will become clearer for everyone.

Thanks for letting me have my say........Calmness of the heart is coming...soon I hope.


----------



## xplor

Anxiety123 said:


> Thanks for that and yes we have not heard from Jim in many weeks....I am not thinking that he has any money on the line from some inside information.  Interesting.....
> 
> I have learned from this ...the hard way and have informed my kids on these types of situations and they too have learned from my mistakes.  I hope that Jim and Mr. Geldart were acting in good faith but we will never know and now I am hoping that things can be worked out quickly and I can pay up and move on.    Not knowing is also a stress but hopefully in the next week things will become clearer for everyone.
> 
> Thanks for letting me have my say........Calmness of the heart is coming...soon I hope.



Of course you can and should have your say and thank you for it. That is what this board is about.

I think Mr Belfrey was 'hopeful' at the best and good intentions. But when we are faced with what we were 3 years ago unexpectedly, it is quite natural to listen to others that we think 'must know' and have a band wagon to hop on,when offered, it is an easy way to deal with it. So no (or limited) fault of those that handed over 'go get'em ' duties and money without completely knowing what they were getting into or if there was a real bulletproof 100% case. More so, invested TS owners should question why Belfrey's lawyer took this on to begin with. Money, inexperience, class action ??? It is a pretty profound judgement and conclusion that there was no merit. Any lawyer should have seen that and advised the client as mine did. Belfrey could have simply got caught up as many of us were looking for an out in the moment and found a lawyer who told him what he wanted to hear and spent lots of time researching this pack up the hours and going to court. I just hope no one is going to be asked for more money from his lawyer since it appeared to drag out. 

All the best for a solution for everyone.......


----------



## Quadmaniac

.... Yes it did not work out, but that is the risk in any litigation. No lawyer or person can guarantee a judgement. ... People take their chances in any action. ....


----------



## MelodyYYC

*What's next?*

We were just join in the litigation group last week. 
We have never received "options" letter from Northmount. I think the majority of the timeshare owners' bill is over 10K, and we couldn't offer it. What should we do moving forward?


----------



## BettyBoop52

We contacted our own lawyer when we got notice of Northmont's increasing fees and the choice they gave to either pay up or opt out. Based on our lawyer's advice, we chose the latter course and paid $3,000 to opt out. That was three years ago. Then, a week or so ago, we found out about the court action and wondered if we should/could join. I guess we're lucky we didn't dish out another $750. My sympathies go to those who did try and do something to fight a powerful corporation. It's a tough call in a situation like that.


----------



## xplor

Anxiety123... you tweeked a wondering I now have... you mentioned you had inside source that Belfrey didn't have any of his own money into this lawsuit which would make it obvious he was for a free ride on everyone else's money. It makes sense to me now why he used his company name in the lawsuit. I have done some checking this afternoon and found that his company is a 'shell company' only. For those who are not aware what a shell company is, it is set up and registered by anyone who wants one and normally has no assets attached to it. People use these to protect themselves from lawsuits, because you can't get money from a company that has none. 

Bright idea for Belfrey to use a shell company in this lawsuit with Northmont. He is a smart man to protect himself from TS owners that might come after him. He asked everyone to give his cause money to 'test it in court' for everyone else 'of course'. If it can be proven he was careless and without 'merit' of a chance of winning, collecting money to bet on a trying to win this cause for himself (and others maybe), he could be sued by the TS owners for misrepresenting the merits of that possibility of winning this in court for everyone who paid in to it. In my opinion, maybe rightfully so. If one is going to encourage people to give money to support 'his' shell company in court, not the TS owners group who paid for the legal services, there maybe a good case to be seeking your money back since it failed. But, if its a wisely decided on 'shell company' Mr. Belfrey is well protected. Personally, I believe Belfrey misrepresented the merits of  any possibilities of winning to everyone to get your money to support his own shell company, not you. But with your money, his determination that Northmont was wrong somehow and a lawyer who is more than willing, why not give it a try because he loses absolutely nothing doing it and everyone else does.......... He walks away 'having tried', a lawyer had a great financial gig and might try and squeeze more money from all of you and everyone in this is left holding the bag that he told them to hold off paying. 

I am not smugging everyone here, trust me, but starting to figure this out as a well planned and maybe if it had any merits to win, a good intention at the most, this was a sneaky scam to get others to pay his fight as Anxiety123 posted. It was only his shell company that would have won if he had the merits to win, not the TS owners, you guys were not included. If he loses and he knew it was a long shot to ever win, it was on your coin not his and he is protected from liability by his empty shell company. Just saying, not beating up or putting down any TS owner here, it makes sense and might be why he hasn't posted anything to all of you. Lets stop being nieve that this isn't the case. When people start using shell companies, red flags should pop up, its for a reason, so they can walk away from liability. Tough lesson on everyone.


----------



## xplor

Quadmaniac said:


> Yes it did not work out, but that is the risk in any litigation. No lawyer or person can guarantee a judgement.



Your right, no lawyer can guarantee a positive judgement, but the lawyers I have dealt with didn't take long to determine there was no merit to case. As was the final judgement. So why couldn't Belfrey's lawyer see this as the others did. I can see you are not happy about being taken in on this Belfrey scam. Sorry you got taken and trusted someone else without doing your homework. The risks as you stated were your own and this is where you ended up taking the risks. ...


----------



## ERW

I am not in any position to question the integrity of Northmont, Belfrey or anyone else for that matter. We all may have our suspicions, but none of us truly know the intentions of any of the parties, we can only make educated guesses and assumptions. 

The one thing, however, that did jump out at me while reading the decision is that the judge made it very clear that the plaintiff in this case was not prepared at all with evidence to back up their claim. For better or for worse, the legal system looks at evidence and evidence only. The moral and ethical implications can only be considered if there is sufficient evidence to back the legal consideration up. That is, unfortunately, the situation everyone has to deal with.


----------



## xplor

MelodyYYC said:


> We were just join in the litigation group last week.
> We have never received "options" letter from Northmount. I think the majority of the timeshare owners' bill is over 10K, and we couldn't offer it. What should we do moving forward?



Demand your money back from the lawyer. He shouldn't have taken you on so late after the trial was over. For this reason, he no doubt knew the outcome was not going to be favorable after it completed. If he doesn't return it, get in touch with the law society of BC. That is so wrong.


----------



## Quadmaniac

xplor said:


> Your right, no lawyer can guarantee a positive judgement, but the lawyers I have dealt with didn't take long to determine there was no merit to case. As was the final judgement. So why couldn't Belfrey's lawyer see this as the others did. I can see you are not happy about being taken in on this Belfrey scam. Sorry you got taken and trusted someone else without doing your homework. The risks as you stated were your own and this is where you ended up taking the risks.



Lawyers have argued obtuse points and won, anything can happen at any time. No one has a crystal bal. ... Actually you are quite incorrect that I am unhappy as I have not complained once about the money I put out or any regret in joining...

... The lawyer was hired to do a job to the best of his ability and he did what he was supposed to. Did he do a great job ? Hard to say as we weren't there, but he did do work on behalf of many people and spent hours preparing the case. People are paying for his time.

...


----------



## Quadmaniac

...
Again, I am not upset at the process, it is what it is.

...

It doesn't matter whether the other timeshare owners are interested this case or not, people are here on the users group to share information and support each other when they are wondering what they should do, what others have done, etc.

Not every post will be about a good event - many post they have made a mistake in buying from a develop or can't afford it anymore, asking for help vs you coming on the board criticizing people for taking a chance in what they believe is an injustice. 

No one is disputing what the result is or what the judge says...

Let me explain ... in simple English "I paid for a service - a lawyer's time and efforts to challenge the actions of the resort and that is what I got". In all cases there are two sides and two lawyers, so the losing side should always ask for a refund from their lawyer and it's the lawyer's fault ? Just as a doctor can't save every patient, you are paying for his time and efforts, results are not guaranteed...


----------



## Punter

QM, I have no regrets either. I was never given the option of paying the Reno fee or paying to leave the resort so when someone showed up at my door with 12k$ claim I made the decision to join the group. Nobody coerced me and nobody promised anything. 

Complaints can continue to be filed with Service Alberta and Consumer Protection BC.  I know that they are also interested in hearing from people who paid extra $$$ to upgrade and felt that they were mislead. If you haven't filed in the past, do so now.


----------



## GypsyOne

...

Here are some of my observations about the case:

1. Those that joined the litigation group did so with eyes open, without coercion or false promises from anyone, including Jim Belfry or our lead law firm.  Jim Belfry has contributed countless time and his own money to putting together the litigation group, researching the case, assisting our legal team with preparation, and testifying in court on behalf of the TS owners.

2. So far, the cost of joining the litigation group has been extremely reasonable - about the cost of, say, a decent recreational week-end - maybe taking the kids to an NHL hockey game.  Not bad for having the legal services of two law firms in two court cases, one appeal, regular progress reports, and legal counsel and representation in collection activity. 

3. So far, those in the litigation group are the only ones who have not lost money, with the exception of the cost of legal representation.  Those who paid the cancellation extortion fee immediately lost thousands of dollars; those who paid the re-construction ransom lost thousands in the special assessment plus on-going maintenance fees.  This latter group may be the biggest losers because they are locked into a partnership with people of questionable intent for the balance of their 40-year lease (or perpetuity for those who converted), who will not hesitate to assess further re-construction costs in a poorly constructed and rapidly deteriorating complex.  For example, in year 38 these TS owners could be assessed say $5,000 for additional re-construction, but have only two years of benefits remaining.  The owners/developers, however, have a considerably value enhanced complex.  And the courts have ruled you have to pay.  Rational people do not want to be part of that institutionalized scam.   

4. Will we end up eventually paying more? Maybe, but the case is not over.  Remember we lost the first Special Case, but won on appeal.  The Judge Fitzpatrick ruling sounds very much like the Justice Loo ruling which we won on appeal.  Will this ruling be appealed? I don't know, we'll have to let it play out.  Maybe we'll find out how strong are Canadian Consumer Protection laws.

5. Me personally, I was quite aware accepting the cancellation extortion fee may have been the simplest and cheapest course to take.  But, I was not prepared to roll over and be willingly played for a sucker.  Sometimes you have to fight and pay to defend your principles and values. 

6. ... I have been a passenger on this planet for some time and can afford the hit if there is one. ...


----------



## xplor

GypsyOne said:


> XPLOR, I for one am getting very tired of your non-sensical, ill-informed, and mean-spirited ramblings.  You seem to be looking to manufacture a vendetta out of nothing.  Here are some of my observations about the case:
> 
> 1. Those that joined the litigation group did so with eyes open, without coercion or false promises from anyone, including Jim Belfry or our lead law firm.  Jim Belfry has contributed countless time and his own money to putting together the litigation group, researching the case, assisting our legal team with preparation, and testifying in court on behalf of the TS owners.
> 
> 2. So far, the cost of joining the litigation group has been extremely reasonable - about the cost of, say, a decent recreational week-end - maybe taking the kids to an NHL hockey game.  Not bad for having the legal services of two law firms in two court cases, one appeal, regular progress reports, and legal counsel and representation in collection activity.
> 
> 3. So far, those in the litigation group are the only ones who have not lost money, with the exception of the cost of legal representation.  Those who paid the cancellation extortion fee immediately lost thousands of dollars; those who paid the re-construction ransom lost thousands in the special assessment plus on-going maintenance fees.  This latter group may be the biggest losers because they are locked into a partnership with people of questionable intent for the balance of their 40-year lease (or perpetuity for those who converted), who will not hesitate to assess further re-construction costs in a poorly constructed and rapidly deteriorating complex.  For example, in year 38 these TS owners could be assessed say $5,000 for additional re-construction, but have only two years of benefits remaining.  The owners/developers, however, have a considerably value enhanced complex.  And the courts have ruled you have to pay.  Rational people do not want to be part of that institutionalized scam.
> 
> 4. Will we end up eventually paying more? Maybe, but the case is not over.  Remember we lost the first Special Case, but won on appeal.  The Judge Fitzpatrick ruling sounds very much like the Justice Loo ruling which we won on appeal.  Will this ruling be appealed? I don't know, we'll have to let it play out.  Maybe we'll find out how strong are Canadian Consumer Protection laws.
> 
> 5. Me personally, I was quite aware accepting the cancellation extortion fee may have been the simplest and cheapest course to take.  But, I was not prepared to roll over and be willingly played for a sucker.  Sometimes you have to fight and pay to defend your principles and values.
> 
> 6. XPLOR, I have been a passenger on this planet for some time and can afford the hit if there is one.  I don't need ill-informed financial or legal advise from a self-appointed keyboard lawyer.



It was all a choice of the owner. Got it. Extortion ..... don't think so. I am a co owner with other TS owners. If our building are falling apart for whatever reason, I also co own the repair bill. I can't walk away from my contract anymore than I can walk away from my car lease, rental lease or any other binding contract. Different people obviously seen this differently. I, as mentioned took my and a few other contracts in to my business lawyer and you know the results. otherwise I too could have been in this group. But I and many others didn't see this as an extortion but a responsibility as rotten as it was at the time. I didn't join because I got my wondering issue settled and dealt with it. We only have maybe 15/16 years left on the contract. As the judge stated, if the owners don't pay the repairs, who does. If I the owner of my home don't pay the repairs, who does. Nobody else. 

I read the judgement and posted my opinions. Whether they are seen as supportive, negative, positive or whatever, its what who ever what to make of them, but they are my opinions based on what I read in the judgement. I know there are some wishing they were no involved with this now in retrospect but it was the risk they accepted. Others have posted they accepted the risk. This board is for everyone to use, not just the supporters of the Belfrey group. As I haven't agreed with everything you posted above, I accept you will not agree with everything I post. That seems fair and a normal for most people. There are different opinions. 

I encourage all owners to read for themselves the judgement and try to understand, there was no merit to it to begin with as many lawyers have indicated to their clients. One can read how the judge commented how ill prepared they were in presenting their case, that they couldn't back up their evidence and what stuck me mostly is the patience the judge took giving Belfrey every opportunity to spill his case. She took longer than normal and provided a longer judgement for the benefit of Belfrey because he really had no case and she wanted him to fully understand it. I then ask myself, why did this action start to begin with if lawyers and finally the judge deem there is no merit to the case at all. Secondly, rightfully or otherwise, I really feel sorry for those that were give a false hope right from the start and wonder, how did that happen. I was there and pissed off as well, so I know the feeling people were having and lots of talk about class action. Before throwing money into a class action I wanted to know for myself and the few others, is there a chance. So I know Belfrey's wagon was circling around, gathering pissed off owners that wanted someone else to look after their issue. Then I question, should this have happened. I guess so. We are all adults and do whatever we want. Just for me, I wish Belfrey got better advice and advise others. Not provide a false hope. Now, where does everyone holding the bag go, what do they do. 

Not a keyboard lawyer, but a fellow TS owner who isn't sitting back and being smug by saying nothing, but trying to help other TS owners who now are faced with this ruling and apparent collections. 

Do I have distain for people like Belfrey and 2X maniac, you bet, because they are either in hiding or loud mouthing anyone that is trying to make sense of what the heck happened and encouraging all to read the judgement to get to know Belfrey through it.

This board is open to everyone to post, agree or disagree, ones choice. When  2X maniac starts the name calling and insults, they will return to him, like Karma.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

*Mods are going to shut this down i- IF*

Since this is in the Canadian TS  forum I assume most of the recent " cat fighting " is being done by Western Canadian owners  . 

Try not to give the rest of us Canadians a bad rep for trash talking - please .


----------



## gnorth16

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> Since this is in the Canadian TS  forum I assume most of the recent " cat fighting " is being done by Western Canadian owners  .
> 
> Try not to give the rest of us Canadians a bad rep for trash talking - please .



Trash talking is better than calling in the army for a snow storm! Try not to give Western Canadians a bad name...:rofl:


----------



## gnorth16

I feel for all owners as it is going to get worse before it gets better.  With the large amount of owners that won't/can't pay the assessment fee, I think Northwnyd is going to come around for a second wallet grab to keep their money flowing to shareholders that got the shaft from the Fairmont days.  

I wish all owners the best moving forward.


----------



## xplor

gnorth16 said:


> I feel for all owners as it is going to get worse before it gets better.  With the large amount of owners that won't/can't pay the assessment fee, I think Northwnyd is going to come around for a second wallet grab to keep their money flowing to shareholders that got the shaft from the Fairmont days.
> 
> I wish all owners the best moving forward.



Really hoping some deal can be worked out for everyone  and hope the very best conclusion.


----------



## RandyCDK

*Time to Move On*

Xplor I do have to agree with you – anyone that was part of the fight with Geldert got their butts handed to them based on the decision that has been handed down and justifiably so if the whole Geldert case was based on conjecture instead of evidence.  Northwynd won because they used the Law to validate their interests and have done a phenomenal job ensuring every action they take or have taken right from 2010 could attain a judgement in their favour that ultimately ensures a positive return for their investors (Capitalism is only a bad word when it costs you money and in this world someone is always out there to take your money and they will because they have a plan and know how to use the system to get it).

I was part of the Geldert fight and even though I feel very let down and pissed off that the judgement doesn’t work in my favour I will get over it as other options exist – clarification has been provided and definitively spells things out in the judgement that the renovation assessment is validated along with any future expenses are now the responsibility of Time Share participants.  In my opinion the judgement went way over the top and has broad implications to be used to manipulated other Canadian timeshare interest and costs associated with capital expenses or just what expenses are valid.

Two choices exist – continue with the dissention and have Timeshare owners who have decided to stay pick up the legal tab as Northwynd now has an unlimited bank account to draw from as they don’t have to pay for things themselves but if that is the choice play the game properly, real evidence needs to be attained which has the added burden of repealing the comments in the current judgement that has been handed down (which by the way spells out the rules of the game and tells you what was lacking) or take a really large pill and negotiating a settlement so everyone can move on either as a Time Share Owner or someone who has forfeited their Time Share to Northwynd so in the near future they can sell us a Fairmount condo (by the time I sum up my Timeshare purchase and the renovation assessment I probably would have had a pretty good deposit for a unit already) .  

I have asked Geldert as part of the trial summary that he is to be sending out shortly if settlement terms will be put forward for discussion (which I am reluctant I will see) as I would expect out of the current 1000 dissenting Fairmount Time Share owners (such as myself) there are some out there that are ready to move on (such as myself).

Personally I am not sorry I took a risk to validate my position that I should not be paying for capital expenses – THAT IS MY RIGHT – and accept my fate as I kind of had my day in court through this action.  Now I just want to know my options as Northwynd’s invoices are not written in stone and there is no legal judgment against me, so what is it going to cost to walk away and how do I initiate getting on with it?

Maybe Northwynd can comment or someone else may have insight as I bet there are others out there besides myself who would like to know!!!


----------



## xplor

RandyCDK said:


> Xplor I do have to agree with you – anyone that was part of the fight with Geldert got their butts handed to them based on the decision that has been handed down and justifiably so if the whole Geldert case was based on conjecture instead of evidence.  Northwynd won because they used the Law to validate their interests and have done a phenomenal job ensuring every action they take or have taken right from 2010 could attain a judgement in their favour that ultimately ensures a positive return for their investors (Capitalism is only a bad word when it costs you money and in this world someone is always out there to take your money and they will because they have a plan and know how to use the system to get it).
> 
> I was part of the Geldert fight and even though I feel very let down and pissed off that the judgement doesn’t work in my favour I will get over it as other options exist – clarification has been provided and definitively spells things out in the judgement that the renovation assessment is validated along with any future expenses are now the responsibility of Time Share participants.  In my opinion the judgement went way over the top and has broad implications to be used to manipulated other Canadian timeshare interest and costs associated with capital expenses or just what expenses are valid.
> 
> Two choices exist – continue with the dissention and have Timeshare owners who have decided to stay pick up the legal tab as Northwynd now has an unlimited bank account to draw from as they don’t have to pay for things themselves but if that is the choice play the game properly, real evidence needs to be attained which has the added burden of repealing the comments in the current judgement that has been handed down (which by the way spells out the rules of the game and tells you what was lacking) or take a really large pill and negotiating a settlement so everyone can move on either as a Time Share Owner or someone who has forfeited their Time Share to Northwynd so in the near future they can sell us a Fairmount condo (by the time I sum up my Timeshare purchase and the renovation assessment I probably would have had a pretty good deposit for a unit already) .
> 
> I have asked Geldert as part of the trial summary that he is to be sending out shortly if settlement terms will be put forward for discussion (which I am reluctant I will see) as I would expect out of the current 1000 dissenting Fairmount Time Share owners (such as myself) there are some out there that are ready to move on (such as myself).
> 
> Personally I am not sorry I took a risk to validate my position that I should not be paying for capital expenses – THAT IS MY RIGHT – and accept my fate as I kind of had my day in court through this action.  Now I just want to know my options as Northwynd’s invoices are not written in stone and there is no legal judgment against me, so what is it going to cost to walk away and how do I initiate getting on with it?
> 
> Maybe Northwynd can comment or someone else may have insight as I bet there are others out there besides myself who would like to know!!!



Agree 100% on all points. It was more about conjuring than evidence and many and nearly me got caught up in it. I am really hope a good as can be outcome for everyone. Since we took a different route, I am not sure if Northmont will send a specific letter to the TS owners in respect to this of not. Whatever happens, I am hoping for a good conclusion for everyone.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Agree*

Well said RandyCDK and Xplor thanks for your last statement.  I feel that if Northmont could come up with some kind of buyout for those who still haven't paid, meaning a  payment that is not out of reach for those folks that do not have the kind of money that Northmont is wanting, there will be a smoother finish to all of this.  If something cannot be worked out and Northmont pushes for as much money as they can get out of us all including the 26 percent interest rate, many will default as they are in poor financial situations and Northmont will not get their money from us in the long run.  I am assuming that Northmont will want all of us to pay up and move on so that they can sell the land which is worth oh so much money but many won't as the payment will too high to reach.  I know that if the original amount to buy out wasn't so high in our situation, we would have sadly paid it but would have still missed going there every year.  These vacations were priceless for our family, but money is money and when you don't have a lot of it, it hurts to pay to give something up.  We purchased the TS when our kids were little and the salesman (Pat) sold it to us by stating that  when money was tight, that at least we could have one vacation  a year that we could drive to and then just relax and enjoy.  That we didn't have to worry about anything as the family that owned the resort was well establish and well respected in the community and they have money in reserves for any large maintenance issues.  Our maintenance payments would rise very slowly  as each year maintenance will be done to keep the resort in pristine condition.  Well that upstanding family failed us and walked away with their personal money in their pockets.


I am just so sad that we have lost the great vacations we once so loved.  I have many great memories of our family vacations there.  I wish the Family that owned the resort before Northmont would have followed through on there promise to us to have 40 years of fun at their resort and that all the money that was supposedly put in accounts for the very reasons of the assessment would have followed through on their promises.   I am sure that Fairmont Family is living happy and fine on the backs of us TS owners.

As for Northmont, they are very much in it for money, their track history shows it so I can understand why everyone is scared to deal with them.  Some business people do think of their employees, co-owners and their clients when doing business with them, I know of businessmen personally that try never to step on the little guy to make a buck and are very successful but most groups like Northmont are in it for the money and that is how they proceed in any business dealing no matter who it hurts along the way.  They are not millionaires by playing nice guy.  But fortunately there are those businessmen out there that do run very sound business, make a lot of money and don't need to hurt the little guy along the way.  I am now hoping to see some fairness in Northmont with dealing with us that still owe and many of us would have paid one way or another if the amounts were not so steep.    Hard to pay if you then have large bank debts that haunt you forever.

 I don't think it was unreasonable for us to question the validity of the assessment fee and have the court decide if it was fair, so hoping Northmont isn't going to hold this process against all of us.

Waiting to see if Northmont can show the fair businessmen side to all of this and come up with a reasonable way out for us folks so as to not drag out the process. And I am hoping Northmont can see its way to being reasonable.  Thanks


----------



## Makai Guy

I have spent much time going through the more recent posts in this thread and editing out personally directed comments and insults.  Eventually I just gave up and deleted any post in its entirety containing personally directed comments.

Posting here is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the operators of this site -- a privilege that can be removed at any time for those who abuse it.

I am serving direct notice to all participants in this thread.  Either play nice or don't play at all.  Discuss the issues, not each other.


----------



## xplor

Anxiety123 said:


> Well said RandyCDK and Xplor thanks for your last statement.  I feel that if Northmont could come up with some kind of buyout for those who still haven't paid, meaning a  payment that is not out of reach for those folks that do not have the kind of money that Northmont is wanting, there will be a smoother finish to all of this.  If something cannot be worked out and Northmont pushes for as much money as they can get out of us all including the 26 percent interest rate, many will default as they are in poor financial situations and Northmont will not get their money from us in the long run.  I am assuming that Northmont will want all of us to pay up and move on so that they can sell the land which is worth oh so much money but many won't as the payment will too high to reach.  I know that if the original amount to buy out wasn't so high in our situation, we would have sadly paid it but would have still missed going there every year.  These vacations were priceless for our family, but money is money and when you don't have a lot of it, it hurts to pay to give something up.  We purchased the TS when our kids were little and the salesman (Pat) sold it to us by stating that  when money was tight, that at least we could have one vacation  a year that we could drive to and then just relax and enjoy.  That we didn't have to worry about anything as the family that owned the resort was well establish and well respected in the community and they have money in reserves for any large maintenance issues.  Our maintenance payments would rise very slowly  as each year maintenance will be done to keep the resort in pristine condition.  Well that upstanding family failed us and walked away with their personal money in their pockets.
> 
> 
> I am just so sad that we have lost the great vacations we once so loved.  I have many great memories of our family vacations there.  I wish the Family that owned the resort before Northmont would have followed through on there promise to us to have 40 years of fun at their resort and that all the money that was supposedly put in accounts for the very reasons of the assessment would have followed through on their promises.   I am sure that Fairmont Family is living happy and fine on the backs of us TS owners.
> 
> As for Northmont, they are very much in it for money, their track history shows it so I can understand why everyone is scared to deal with them.  Some business people do think of their employees, co-owners and their clients when doing business with them, I know of businessmen personally that try never to step on the little guy to make a buck and are very successful but most groups like Northmont are in it for the money and that is how they proceed in any business dealing no matter who it hurts along the way.  They are not millionaires by playing nice guy.  But fortunately there are those businessmen out there that do run very sound business, make a lot of money and don't need to hurt the little guy along the way.  I am now hoping to see some fairness in Northmont with dealing with us that still owe and many of us would have paid one way or another if the amounts were not so steep.    Hard to pay if you then have large bank debts that haunt you forever.
> 
> I don't think it was unreasonable for us to question the validity of the assessment fee and have the court decide if it was fair, so hoping Northmont isn't going to hold this process against all of us.
> 
> Waiting to see if Northmont can show the fair businessmen side to all of this and come up with a reasonable way out for us folks so as to not drag out the process. And I am hoping Northmont can see its way to being reasonable.  Thanks



Hey AnxieyOne, we purchased when the original developer (wilder Family) owned and operated it and share your sentiments about going there then. However, he sold all the properties on the west side of the highway (ours side)years ago (I think in the late 90's) to one of his salesmen Collin Knight. That is when those properties started to head south. Lots of good intentions for rapid expansions, lots of new ideas, new programs and a huge rush to sell, sell, sell and build and obviously cheap. It was this period when there was money, TS's were a hot thing to have, lots of people bought into them. His success boomed to properties away from Fairmont, like Kelowna, Mexico, Belize, Hawaii, Nevada and Florida. Way over extended himself, many bad decisions, bad deals and our properties were not being well managed and questionable management of our maint. funds. It all caught up to him in 1999 when he went into CCAA creditor protection. All the small bond holder, ordinary investor people, many TS owners bought bonds in the finance company FRPL who held the property in trust for these bondholders. The head of FRPL came up with a plan after bankruptcy to apparently save these bond holders called Northwynd, which would become the bondholders company and take over the remain left overs, multi millions of outstanding bills to pay and our property and eventually the management of our TS's

There was a lot on the internet during this period of time on this bankruptcy and one could probably still find it. I thought we TS owners were going to be effected by this, but our TS agreements are registered as our deeded property and would remain so. Northwynd (the new owners/old bond holders) understood eventually how poorly Knight has managed everything including our TS's. Lots of band aides to fix things up, there where leaking pipes from the substandard plumbing material causing tens of thousands of dollars to fix on going from previous ownership that was now bankrupt and had not been getting the repairs that should have been happening. The bondholders took it on to keep ahead of the repairs, with their own money but realized it would take much more to properly bring this resort back to it better days. One of the tactics used by likely every TS developer such as Knight, is to under value to maint. fee to new owners in order to sell the TS's. Thus, with much mishandling of our maint fees by his operators (Colombia) at the time and the chronic short fall of money to replace furniture, paint, repair whatever, by the time the bondholders had to take over this mess in CCAA creditor protection, it was progressively worse and would likely cease to operated if proper repairs and updating wasn't done over the next number of years. I know some of these bondholders that are TS owners as well and they are anything but flush and millionaire businessmen as indicated.

No sure how Northmont came up with the figures they did, the court transcript stated they had professional help to assess the repairs and reno's. Knowing what I have learned from speaking to a few of these previous bondholders/TS owners I know, that are now Northmont, they are not the result of the lack of maint and spent their own money doing the repairs. They happen to only be the messengers to report this mess to the TS owners that we all are, the actual condition of the resort and a plan to restore it. It is my understanding that these small previous bond investors and now forced to take over Knight's leftovers could get their hands on knight, they would. But like any wise slim, he protected himself behind his other company and the bankruptcy protection. Some estimate that millions in most of the internation properties where Canadian law doesn't exist, there where planned and conveniently mismanaged losses in the 3 years prior to his bankruptcy.

There is a perception here that Northmont is responsible for the damages. Until one knows the full story, Northmont just happened be the one who had to have to takeover the mess Knights and crew left and where the messengers of this mess to the TS owners and tried to solve the problem. I believe, if they had not stepped in and started the repairs after taking over this mess and had the plan which included these fees. Fairmont/Sunchasers would no doubt be closed today and everyone would own worthless worn down buildings. unable to use That is why I paid the fees because I 'co owned' the TS with thousands of other TS owners. I felt I had a responsibility to all of them as a co owner. Others obviously thought the company who 'manages' only (maint. renos, repairs) should come up with the money to repair 'our' property. That is why the judge said there was no merit in this case, because the contract says we are all the co owners and in the repairs, and in retrospect, we should have been questioning the band aide repairs and shoddy maint. when Knight was managing it and auditing the maint fund we were paying him.

These are my observations and feel they are as close to correct as they are. Some will continue to dispute that someone should fix their TS's up. 

I too wish the Wilder Family still managed the TS's. Knight was the demise of our resort condition through mismanagement, questionable use of our maint fees and under charging the real costs of the maint fees to be able to sell his TS's. Northwynd/Northmont has been picking up the pieces since the Knight/Fairmont Properties bankruptcy and trying to return and update our property to what it should have been under Knight. And as bad as the news was, we still wanted to shoot the messenger and forget about the real story why this all happened. 

From what I heard, Knight is enjoying life in Palm Springs CA.


----------



## GypsyOne

This is looking more and more like a scam with the TS owners being used as the most convenient source of funds to keep a poorly constructed resort complex from failing.  I always wondered if it was possible to get justice in a BC court when winning would probably mean a major BC resort and tourist attraction failing.  Appeal may be our best option, just as it was with the first Case Hearing, unless a very attractive settlement is offered.


----------



## xplor

GypsyOne said:


> This is looking more and more like a scam with the TS owners being used as the most convenient source of funds to keep a poorly constructed resort complex from failing.  I always wondered if it was possible to get justice in a BC court when winning would probably mean a major BC resort and tourist attraction failing.  Appeal may be our best option, just as it was with the first Case Hearing, unless a very attractive settlement is offered.



Your saying the supreme court of Canada is crooked and makes judgements based on a tourist attraction failing. Are you serious ?? This is keeping your deeded property/resort from failing. who do you think owns the TS's ?


----------



## Disheartened

We purchased in 2009. We were taken to the show room of the new building and loved it. We also had a tour of the houseboats. The houseboat is what sealed the deal for us.....
2011 rolls around and we bring family with us. We phoned the office to see if we could have a tour of one of the boats so the family could see why we were so excited to plan the next trip. What? No house boats! 
If I am a co owner where is my share of the revenu from the sale of these boats or the other resort properties? 
How can I be held liable for an old building that I have never set foot in?
When Northmont bought them out of receivership why was I not offered my pennies on the dollar?
This has been compared to a vehicle lease. O.K., so before I even have the nubs worn off the tires there is a manufacturers defect. Not my problem. The neibours down the street don't pay their bills would mine go up? The company I lease from change the deal. The crappy little car I was leasing is being upgraded on my dime and on top of that the payments will go up.


----------



## xplor

Disheartened said:


> We purchased in 2009. We were taken to the show room of the new building and loved it. We also had a tour of the houseboats. The houseboat is what sealed the deal for us.....
> 2011 rolls around and we bring family with us. We phoned the office to see if we could have a tour of one of the boats so the family could see why we were so excited to plan the next trip. What? No house boats!
> If I am a co owner where is my share of the revenu from the sale of these boats or the other resort properties?
> How can I be held liable for an old building that I have never set foot in?
> When Northmont bought them out of receivership why was I not offered my pennies on the dollar?



Because you still owned your TS as per your contract I would assume. Nothing changed with the TS's as a result of the bankruptcy because they are deeded/registered to you and all TS owners. The bankruptcy was the company that was maintaining your TS and owned TS inventory that was still at that time for sale, not the TS owners,  . Does your  contract indicate you are a co owner of the boats or is it have use trade into using the boats ?? I am not aware if they sold boat TS on an individual basis aside from the condo TS's.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Xplor ....Interesting*

Information is interesting.  I have friends that have a timeshare across the road and yes they are enjoying their resort.  They were the ones that invited us down to listen to the presentation and urged us to buy. No we didn't need out arms twisted, we were intrigued.  We are still friends and will be forever but we are all upset about this mess.  You stated that the Wilder's just decided to sell but I believe they saw the writing on the wall and decided to bail when the getting was good.  Knight was a shyster and some say a bad manager, but I believe a very very smart scammer.  He knew how to move money around and is enjoying his life on our backs.  Now I think both the Wilder family and Knight knew of the faulty buildings and did what they needed to do to walk away with money in their pockets.  Now for Northmont, they knew what they were getting into unless the are not very good businessmen, and were coming into rescue us, but rescue us with our own money, not theirs.  I would have rather seen the resort fail, at least I would have walked away without my resort, not like now losing my resort and paying money to do so.  Do you think that Northmont would have purchased the failed resort knowing that they would have to use their own money to rebuild?  No way, they saw a good way to make money using other peoples money and took it.  That is the way of business these days.  Now that this case is over, I am hoping that Northmont and the defaulted TS owners can come to some reasonable amount to settle this as if not, everyone will lose with many not being able to afford large payouts if Northmont wants to sock it to us.  I would hate to see us all going though an appeal process.  There are also many folks that were not part of the test group (as I know of three couples personally...that didn't want to help pay for the test case but were really hoping it would go their way, there are always THOSE kind of friends, ha ha) that also will need to come to some reasonable resolution.  Many may default and go bankrupt.  For me, I just want to enjoy my life and stop worrying about all of this. Hoping for some peace soon.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Xplor..one more question.*

You seem to know a bit about all of this so I have one question that no one seems to be able answer.  So when Fairmont went into receivership and Northmont decided to take over, the judge, Fairmont and Northmont all got together and came up with this settlement.  Northmont would  take over resort with all it flaws BUT it was decided that they would get all the assets, being us, and no liabilities.  So by getting us to bankroll the adventure they entered into, all is good.  But was there at any time a thought that if the TS owners were to bankroll everything, that maybe they should have been considered in the decision making at the time of the receivership hearing, at least to have a decision to stay or leave at that time? I don't understand the judicial system very well but to someone like me this doesn't seem to be very fair.  That these three groups, Fairmont who wants to get out, Northmont that want a resort to make money and a judge can decide the TS owners fate without one word from us.  If you have any background or knowledge in this process can you enlighten me.  I just can wrap my head around it and just feel "Slapped Silly" right now!  Thanks


----------



## GypsyOne

xplor said:


> Your saying the supreme court of Canada is crooked and makes judgements based on a tourist attraction failing. Are you serious ?? This is keeping your deeded property/resort from failing. who do you think owns the TS's ?



The case was heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, not the Supreme Court of Canada.  

I don't have a deeded property, I have a Lease Agreement for a fixed term and I am a lessee.  If I have a lease agreement in an apartment building, I do not have to repair the roof if it is faulty.  My obligation as a lessee is to pay rent, not maintain the capital structure.


----------



## Anxiety123

*GypsyOne..I agree*

I agree with you, I didn't think I was an owner but a lease or renter, I just don't get it.  Man!!  I wish I would have understood my obligations before entering into this. It's somewhat like owning a Condo.  If the roof leaks everyone pays.  That is not what I thought I was buying, that is not how Pat our salesman explained it to us.  Smooth talkers, trust people, should of had a lawyer look at contract...get burned.  Live and learn.   Too bad this happened so late in life for us, harder to recover from.


----------



## GypsyOne

*Anxiety 123*

I don't think giving the lease agreement to a lawyer to read would have made a difference.  About 14,500 people bought timeshares, then after the bankruptcy, the new owners changed the rules. So far as similarities to a condo complex, it is not.  With a condo you have community sharing of capital costs, but you are also an owner in fee simple, which means that when you sell your condo you get the proceeds.  Also with a condo complex, each owner has a management vote in major decisions.  With the timeshare, a TS owners association was never formed.  Thus, we were unaware of some of the problems that were occurring and some of the steps that were being taken.  With our timeshares, those of us that have lease agreements are being asked to share in capital costs, but when our 40-year leases expire we have no residual value. We just walk away.  This leads to the ridiculous situation that in say, year 39 of the lease agreement, we could be asked to share in a $10 million upgrade of which we will get no benefit.  The court has ruled we have to pay.  Some of us TS owners have lease agreements (earlier buyers) and some of us have co-ownership agreements (later buyers).  Strangely, the Judge made no distinction between the two.  She just assumed we were all owners and thus all responsible for capital costs.  Very strange assumption!!


----------



## xplor

Anxiety123 said:


> Information is interesting.  I have friends that have a timeshare across the road and yes they are enjoying their resort.  They were the ones that invited us down to listen to the presentation and urged us to buy. No we didn't need out arms twisted, we were intrigued.  We are still friends and will be forever but we are all upset about this mess.  You stated that the Wilder's just decided to sell but I believe they saw the writing on the wall and decided to bail when the getting was good.  Knight was a shyster and some say a bad manager, but I believe a very very smart scammer.  He knew how to move money around and is enjoying his life on our backs.  Now I think both the Wilder family and Knight knew of the faulty buildings and did what they needed to do to walk away with money in their pockets.  Now for Northmont, they knew what they were getting into unless the are not very good businessmen, and were coming into rescue us, but rescue us with our own money, not theirs.  I would have rather seen the resort fail, at least I would have walked away without my resort, not like now losing my resort and paying money to do so.  Do you think that Northmont would have purchased the failed resort knowing that they would have to use their own money to rebuild?  No way, they saw a good way to make money using other peoples money and took it.  That is the way of business these days.  Now that this case is over, I am hoping that Northmont and the defaulted TS owners can come to some reasonable amount to settle this as if not, everyone will lose with many not being able to afford large payouts if Northmont wants to sock it to us.  I would hate to see us all going though an appeal process.  There are also many folks that were not part of the test group (as I know of three couples personally...that didn't want to help pay for the test case but were really hoping it would go their way, there are always THOSE kind of friends, ha ha) that also will need to come to some reasonable resolution.  Many may default and go bankrupt.  For me, I just want to enjoy my life and stop worrying about all of this. Hoping for some peace soon.



I think most of the buildings in question were built by Knight after he purchased the property. really don't think Wilder's have the same issue at Mountainside. The bondholders were brought together in a meeting by FRPL Finance months after the bankruptcy, that wanted to unload their responsibility they had with the bondholders and offered them a 'pie in the sky' solution and a bunch of BS to make them believe taking over the ashes of Fairmont/Knight and crew was the only way to get their money back. Much like Belfrey did to TS owners. A vote was taken since this was 'the only way to get their money invested with this crook back' and voted to form Northwynd in the same meeting. In some ways, they really had no other option than to fire sale everything left over. Desperate people like the TS owners were/are accepting someone else's solution, which happened to be a well connected guy from the Knight gang, Ed Nycholat. So the bondholders were as nieve as the TS owners were with Belfrey and gave up their bonds for a mess and paying off multi millions of Knights bills and loans that they didn't see coming. 

Your right, right now it is water under the bridge, history of desperate people following bad advice.


----------



## xplor

Anxiety123 said:


> You seem to know a bit about all of this so I have one question that no one seems to be able answer.  So when Fairmont went into receivership and Northmont decided to take over, the judge, Fairmont and Northmont all got together and came up with this settlement.  Northmont would  take over resort with all it flaws BUT it was decided that they would get all the assets, being us, and no liabilities.  So by getting us to bankroll the adventure they entered into, all is good.  But was there at any time a thought that if the TS owners were to bankroll everything, that maybe they should have been considered in the decision making at the time of the receivership hearing, at least to have a decision to stay or leave at that time? I don't understand the judicial system very well but to someone like me this doesn't seem to be very fair.  That these three groups, Fairmont who wants to get out, Northmont that want a resort to make money and a judge can decide the TS owners fate without one word from us.  If you have any background or knowledge in this process can you enlighten me.  I just can wrap my head around it and just feel "Slapped Silly" right now!  Thanks



As mentioned in the previous post, Fairmont/knight was history after the bankruptcy. FRPL Finance that the bondholders had their agreements with had the meeting. The TS's are registered leases and not owned by Fairmont or after the 'meeting' and Northmont was formed, they are owned/leased by the registered owner/lease holders. That is why I was concerned I would loss out TS, but checked it out at the time and it was safe. However, like so many owners, mostly always trade out and hadn't been to Fairmont since 2003 and I as well was aware of these issues as many of the TS owner/bondholders were.
Northmont is the arm of Northwynd that looks after the resort, and nothing more. Most of this can be found researching on google or friends who are TS owners and were bondholders. It seems they went mostly after TS owners to become bondholders in Knight's Fairmont mess.


----------



## xplor

GypsyOne said:


> The case was heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, not the Supreme Court of Canada.
> 
> OK, Supreme Court of BC not Canada. Room for appeal on this and throw more money in this when the appeal court review the 'not merit' judgement she gave. and maybe they will find 'merit' or maybe TS owners will be further in the hole they are in today.
> 
> I don't have a deeded property, I have a Lease Agreement for a fixed term and I am a lessee.  If I have a lease agreement in an apartment building, I do not have to repair the roof if it is faulty.  My obligation as a lessee is to pay rent, not maintain the capital structure.



It all is spelled out in the contract the judge make her ruling/judgement on. It is obviously different than renting an apartment and see your rational. Why are we called TS owners and everyone uses that term ?? Ironic, its a term used across this industry, because we really are registered 40 yr. lessors. It sure makes me read the contracts I sign since this has happened, because many are in the favor of whoever you are making it with and I have so been there, done that before. Painful and costly lessons.


----------



## GypsyOne

xplor said:


> It all is spelled out in the contract the judge make her ruling/judgement on. It is obviously different than renting an apartment and see your rational. Why are we called TS owners and everyone uses that term ?? Ironic, its a term used across this industry, because we really are registered 40 yr. lessors. It sure makes me read the contracts I sign since this has happened, because many are in the favor of whoever you are making it with and I have so been there, done that before. Painful and costly lessons.



To be correct, we are lessees in a 40-year fixed term lease.  We are owners of a vacation leasehold interest, not owners of real estate.

There are two basic vacation interval agreements: 1. Lease agreements; and  2. Co-ownership agreements (or Legacy for Life agreements).  

All the early agreements were of the lease type ,approximately up until the 2009 bankruptcy.  These lease agreements did not include responsibility for paying capital costs or resort reconstruction.  Realizing this could be a problem with having the TS owners paying for capital reconstruction, the new owners sought to have the lease holders convert to co-ownership agreements, with the added clause that TS owners were responsible for paying for capital costs and reconstruction, in addition to regular maintenance.  Some listened to the "exciting new plan" and took the bait.  Most did not.  But all sales of time shares after 2009 were of the co-ownership type that included the added clause of paying for capital costs.  Turns out it was not necessary to have the "responsible for capital costs" clause added to the VIA's.  All you need is a friendly judge to rule that maintenance costs include capital costs.  Which begs the question, why then was it necessary to convert the lease agreements to co-ownership agreements and add the capital cost clause?

The injustice of having lessees (TS owners) pay for capital costs and reconstruction is that our lease agreements are for a 40-year fixed term with no residual value.  Example of the injustice:  Year 39 the lessees are asked to participate in a $20 million reconstruction that effectively adds, say, 30 years to the life of the complex.  The court has ruled we have to pay our proportional share.  The real owners, managers, and/or developers benefit from the reconstruction to the tune of about $20 million capital value, plus revenue for another 30 years.  The lessees walk away in a year's time with nothing to show for their capital investment.  Now is that fair or logical?

By the way, as about 14,500 purchasers found out, it does little good to read the contract (lease) if the rules are going to be changed upon bankruptcy and the takeover by new questionable owners.  

So far as Judge Fitzpatrick's ruling being "absolute truth" that is not the case.  It is her interpretation of the issues that are law until and unless her ruling is overturned on appeal, as happened with the earlier Judge Loo's ruling.


----------



## xplor

GypsyOne said:


> To be correct, we are lessees in a 40-year fixed term lease.  We are owners of a vacation leasehold interest, not owners of real estate.
> 
> There are two basic vacation interval agreements: 1. Lease agreements; and  2. Co-ownership agreements (or Legacy for Life agreements).
> 
> All the early agreements were of the lease type ,approximately up until the 2009 bankruptcy.  These lease agreements did not include responsibility for paying capital costs or resort reconstruction.  Realizing this could be a problem with having the TS owners paying for capital reconstruction, the new owners sought to have the lease holders convert to co-ownership agreements, with the added clause that TS owners were responsible for paying for capital costs and reconstruction, in addition to regular maintenance.  Some listened to the "exciting new plan" and took the bait.  Most did not.  But all sales of time shares after 2009 were of the co-ownership type that included the added clause of paying for capital costs.  Turns out it was not necessary to have the "responsible for capital costs" clause added to the VIA's.  All you need is a friendly judge to rule that maintenance costs include capital costs.  Which begs the question, why then was it necessary to convert the lease agreements to co-ownership agreements and add the capital cost clause?
> 
> The injustice of having lessees (TS owners) pay for capital costs and reconstruction is that our lease agreements are for a 40-year fixed term with no residual value.  Example of the injustice:  Year 39 the lessees are asked to participate in a $20 million reconstruction that effectively adds, say, 30 years to the life of the complex.  The court has ruled we have to pay our proportional share.  The real owners, managers, and/or developers benefit from the reconstruction to the tune of about $20 million capital value, plus revenue for another 30 years.  The lessees walk away in a year's time with nothing to show for their capital investment.  Now is that fair or logical?
> 
> By the way, as about 14,500 purchasers found out, it does little good to read the contract (lease) if the rules are going to be changed upon bankruptcy and the takeover by new questionable owners.
> 
> So far as Judge Fitzpatrick's ruling being "absolute truth" that is not the case.  It is her interpretation of the issues that are law until and unless her ruling is overturned on appeal, as happened with the earlier Judge Loo's ruling.



True ... 'its not over until the fat lady sings'. Your right, it could drag on and one would have to ask themselves 'where is my tolerance or line in the sand' to go on to make another long shot with an appeal or conclude this and move on. She must have seen something there that made her come to that conclusion of 'no merit' and did give a lot of case law rulings that would back up her judgement. I would think these reasons and case laws will be looked at by any appeal court for validity. If the group tries it again, hopefully they are and better prepared to make their arguments against the rulings, otherwise everyone is really screwed with much a higher bill to pay and likely less tolerance from Northmont to work something out.  

Interesting question is to define what is the 'capital' items they want us to pay and what is 'repairs'?? Capital items are normally new construction which I am not aware of. Everything was repairs and reno'ing from the lack of it being done by knight and short falls in the amount of the maint. fees being charged.


----------



## ERW

GypsyOne said:


> This is looking more and more like a scam with the TS owners being used as the most convenient source of funds to keep a poorly constructed resort complex from failing.  I always wondered if it was possible to get justice in a BC court when winning would probably mean a major BC resort and tourist attraction failing.  Appeal may be our best option, just as it was with the first Case Hearing, unless a very attractive settlement is offered.



I think that if you want to appeal, you had better be sure the lawyer has his/her ducks in a row. Based on the decision handed down, that was not the case unfortunately.


----------



## ERW

xplor said:


> As mentioned in the previous post, Fairmont/knight was history after the bankruptcy. FRPL Finance that the bondholders had their agreements with had the meeting. The TS's are registered leases and not owned by Fairmont or after the 'meeting' and Northmont was formed, they are owned/leased by the registered owner/lease holders. That is why I was concerned I would loss out TS, but checked it out at the time and it was safe. However, like so many owners, mostly always trade out and hadn't been to Fairmont since 2003 and I as well was aware of these issues as many of the TS owner/bondholders were.
> Northmont is the arm of Northwynd that looks after the resort, and nothing more. Most of this can be found researching on google or friends who are TS owners and were bondholders. It seems they went mostly after TS owners to become bondholders in Knight's Fairmont mess.



I understand where you are coming from but there is one thing I do not understand. Maybe I have missed something but hope you can offer a reasonable explanation. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge regarding this situation but you also mentioned that you do not know who Wankel is. You stated this after you read the 200 page decision where his name is mentioned numerous times. Am I missing something here?


----------



## Anxiety123

*Contracts*

I agree with GypsyOne in that "what good is reading a contract" if it can be changed after the fact.  I have one of the older contracts  that do not state Capital Costs anywhere in it just responsbile for maintenanc fee for yearly maintennace to the resort.  These contracts were changed just by using the words "in the best interest of all TS Owners"  This change was in the best interest of  Northmont.  But I wish I could trust them again and continue on with the lovely vacations I had with the Resort.  But I am afraid of that very fact as stated by GypsyOne that if after only having three or four years left on my contract I get another large bill for renos and then I have to pay and then give it up.  Or possibily in just a few years get another large bill for more renos that they would like to do....not knowing when it will end.

Not understanding the legal system that can look at how us TS Owners have been screwed over and over in this deal and morally think it is ok to just let Northmont have everything their way.  Both sides should have taken a little loss from what Knight and his crew did and from the Wilder Family allowing this to happen to folks that trusted in them,  Northmont from what I read and see how they opperate are not taking any of the hit but will come out of this with loads of money in their pockets.  That is the way of big business now, no integity. Everyone looks out or themselves.


----------



## xplor

ERW said:


> I understand where you are coming from but there is one thing I do not understand. Maybe I have missed something but hope you can offer a reasonable explanation. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge regarding this situation but you also mentioned that you do not know who Wankel is. You stated this after you read the 200 page decision where his name is mentioned numerous times. Am I missing something here?



Your right.... I never connected his name when reading the judgement transcript and I guess the name was irrelevant to me because it didn't stand out to me. Paid more attention to the meat of the judgement than names I wasn't familiar with. I do know who he is now through a posting of Quadmaniac that explained he went to his lawsuit against a friends on one of this TS's. If I took the time now to re read, I guess I would see and notice who he is in this judgment.

All TS owners should have known about all this back in 2009 and been concerned then. I was and followed it through the bankruptcy and with some research that is there for everyone can find. It was only after we all got the 'letter' to stay in or leave, is when 99% of the TS owners got involved. I started to be concerned in 2009 about my TS.


----------



## Disheartened

I purchased in June 2009 how was that even legal?


----------



## xplor

Disheartened said:


> I purchased in June 2009 how was that even legal?



I think Fairmont went into bankruptcy late in the fall of 2009. I am sure the big rush to sell was on TS's was on in 2009. Knight very likely knew what was coming and took every dime and sale he could.


----------



## ERW

xplor said:


> Your right.... I never connected his name when reading the judgement transcript and I guess the name was irrelevant to me because it didn't stand out to me. Paid more attention to the meat of the judgement than names I wasn't familiar with. I do know who he is now through a posting of Quadmaniac that explained he went to his lawsuit against a friends on one of this TS's. If I took the time now to re read, I guess I would see and notice who he is in this judgment.
> 
> All TS owners should have known about all this back in 2009 and been concerned then. I was and followed it through the bankruptcy and with some research that is there for everyone can find. It was only after we all got the 'letter' to stay in or leave, is when 99% of the TS owners got involved. I started to be concerned in 2009 about my TS.



Cool, thanks for the answer. Was something that begged to be asked and answered. Thanks for your reply.


----------



## GypsyOne

*explr*:  "It was only after we all got the 'letter' to stay in or leave, is when 99% of the TS owners got involved. I started to be concerned in 2009 about my TS."

99% of the TS owners hadn't heard about the bankruptcy until they got the extortion note from Fairmont.  That is the injustice of us not having representation on the management board.  We are being asked to take the responsibility of ownership without having information on which to act.


----------



## xplor

GypsyOne said:


> *explr*:  "It was only after we all got the 'letter' to stay in or leave, is when 99% of the TS owners got involved. I started to be concerned in 2009 about my TS."
> 
> 99% of the TS owners hadn't heard about the bankruptcy until they got the extortion note from Fairmont.  That is the injustice of us not having representation on the management board.  We are being asked to take the responsibility of ownership without having information on which to act.



True. I wouldn't have known if one of the TS owners who was a bondholder as well hadn't told me of which he was concerned for his TS as I was. It is my understanding many (far from most) were TS owners. I can see that many would have seen Northmont as Fairmont, one of the same when we all got that letter, but Fairmont was history in 2009. I don't see Northmont as being unfair in their options and making people stay in which they could have by contract. Reading the judgement they seemed pretty reasonable group despite the outcome for the remain TS holding were not expecting. It made sense when going over the contract with it with my lawyer and now reading the judgement. 
Let's hope something can be worked out because other TS owners who took the legal advice and stayed or the many who choose to stay by understanding the situation their resort was in, have been paying the bills that over a thousand haven't been for 3 years to keep their TS's going and repaired. It was the decision many took and now they have to pony up for that decision and for the time they weren't paying. Not good, but a hard reality of life's hard lessons we all have made at some point.


----------



## TUGBrian

saw this today...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...es-court-battle-over-renovation-fee-1.3493256


----------



## KGB_527

XPLOR  -- are you really one of us timeshare owners?
Just reading few of your posts it seems to me, that you are the Northwynd/Northmont.
I think your so called business lawyer is NORTON ROSE, and they represent Northmont and yourself. So, thank you for your advice, and please LEAVE this site.
We know, what we are up against and your false empathy does not help anyone.
Knowing what you are proclaiming to know for so long, why didn't you post your "smarts" 2 years, or year ago, or why didn't you contact M.Gelderts's office and have some relevant input to this issue?

Remember, just because some judge issued this opinion, it does not make it right.
Another judge can have totally different judgment.

Contracts cannot be just irrelevant piece of paper. If anyone of us TS would think like this, and if we knew that we would have to pay for capital expenses on this resort, we would never, never got into it in the first place.
Why would I pay when renting house/apartment for structural repairs?
I am  paying rent, electricity, water, cable, heat and this is it. If there is a foundation problem, or roof problem this is not my concern.

So, XPLOR please take your advice and false empathy with you and LEAVE.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Exactly my argument when Xplor "all of the sudden" appeared and started to share his "wisdom" with us. We all know he is from Northmont and it won't work! We're not caving !


----------



## xplor

KGB_527 said:


> XPLOR  -- are you really one of us timeshare owners?
> Just reading few of your posts it seems to me, that you are the Northwynd/Northmont.
> I think your so called business lawyer is NORTON ROSE, and they represent Northmont and yourself. So, thank you for your advice, and please LEAVE this site.
> We know, what we are up against and your false empathy does not help anyone.
> Knowing what you are proclaiming to know for so long, why didn't you post your "smarts" 2 years, or year ago, or why didn't you contact M.Gelderts's office and have some relevant input to this issue?
> 
> Remember, just because some judge issued this opinion, it does not make it right.
> Another judge can have totally different judgment.
> 
> Contracts cannot be just irrelevant piece of paper. If anyone of us TS would think like this, and if we knew that we would have to pay for capital expenses on this resort, we would never, never got into it in the first place.
> Why would I pay when renting house/apartment for structural repairs?
> I am  paying rent, electricity, water, cable, heat and this is it. If there is a foundation problem, or roof problem this is not my concern.
> 
> So, XPLOR please take your advice and false empathy with you and LEAVE.



1)We have owned since 1988, you have no idea and lots of guessing
2) so wrong on this Rose lawyer, as mentioned I used my own business lawyer, one of the most reputable in Alberta. This seem to bother you that other lawyer could quite easily make a assessment on an out come by reading a contract. 
3) Why would I contact Geldert's office when I had good advise and he turned out wrong anyway..  
4) Northwynd/Northmont.... listen, I have offered full permission to the TUG administrator to determine where my IP address is (where I post from). No loud mouth on this site seems to want to verify that but to keep yapping on this site I am someone else they think. Don't you 'think' for a moment that another TS owner who sees things differently, obviously got better advice than you and didn't get caught up in this Geldert lawsuit that failed terribly to make a case can post here. I don't see anywhere this is the Geldert lawsuit website. Because it wasn't the conclusion you wants, this supreme court is just some court's opinion. The 'some court' is the BC Supreme Court. You mention "another judge could have a totally different judgement", which means your saying from you legal opinion, judges don't base their judgements based on past ruling called 'case law', which she used throughout the judgement and you really think they are all over the map on coming to a decision and depends on the judge assigned to the case ?? I get it now where you are coming from, from no where and pure ignorance of the judicial process in a democratic country. 
5) your babble on about contacts are paper only, about renting, apartments, building repairs and then capital expenses not your cost. Sorry, the judge says they are based on the paper contract you signed until you can find an supreme  court appeals judge to refute her clearly backed up by case law, judgment. 
6)'Capital expense', is that the foundation repair that you are calling capital expenses ? Sorry but you  plainly don't know what you are talking about and what 'capital expenses/cost' are, is your problem. From someone who managed at one time million dollar budgets with 'capital cost', a capital cost is something 'new'. New building, new equipment, something you didn't have before. Existing foundation repairs are exactly that, repairs. The judge commented using the example that if a building burnt down and was rebuilt, that is not a 'capital cost', it is a repair. She found no merit in Geldert's definition of 'capital cost' and frankly most lawyer wouldn't either. Northmont has no capital costs that are part of these fees. This is just one example of many where you and all of the followers of Belfrey are really off the track so many times, but I guess it can happen with the right lawyer and the money provided. If you think your right long enough, based on hearsay and misinformation, then it is only you that is right, but doesn't help you or anyone in the end when all along you have been wrong and thought your right.

And lastly, I have lots of empathy for all of the very good ordinary honest people that got pulled into this started by Belfrey and aided by his lawyer when there was no case, just a long shot and a chance to make a pile of money on a class action suit. One must ask why Belfrey and Geldert couldn't back up evidence they were presenting and was poorly prepared for this trial as was stated in the judgement. If you are going to go to court with 'evidence', an experience lawyer will make sure his witnesses can back them up with fact. This wasn't the case. Did Belfrey really represent the best interests when others lawyers could plainly see there was no merit going into any lawsuit. I feel it was based on what he though it should be and misinformation. Those are the ones I have empathy for because they followed bad advice and misinformation and hoped Belfrey would fix it for them. I have no empathy for those who were involved, lost their money chasing the bad choice and long shot that want the other side of the coin exposed to stop posting the truth of the matter, because he doesn't agree with you and a hand full of Belfrey's followers that lost and somehow still think based on a very clearly explained judgement, it was wrong. Think whatever anyone wants, it is a BC supreme court ruling. And I am not leaving, because this isn't your website. _Have a great day_.


----------



## xplor

admin edit: dont be rude...


----------



## Anxiety123

*Stop poking the bear...*

Time to stop poking the bear...  It is what it is and now we must decide where to go from here.  Hopefully there will be a resolution soon.


----------



## xplor

Anxiety123 said:


> Time to stop poking the bear...  It is what it is and now we must decide where to go from here.  Hopefully there will be a resolution soon.



100% right...


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

Not sure which is worse 
this thread or Peppertree Atlantic Beach l bankruptcy thread


----------



## Meow

It is likely that xplor is a Northwynd plant whose objective is to incite people and add more confusion to a very unfortunate situation.  Perhaps it is time for the Tug Moniters to shut this thread down.  Enough misinformation is being passed around.


----------



## xplor

Meow said:


> It is likely that xplor is a Northwynd plant whose objective is to incite people and add more confusion to a very unfortunate situation.  Perhaps it is time for the Tug Moniters to shut this thread down.  Enough misinformation is being passed around.



Whatever. So I am not Northwynd.Northmont now, I'm a 'plant'. There is no way I could ever be  one of the other of the 12,000 TS owners that is trying to show those that got taken in by Belfrey, to take a few hours out of the life and read the judgment to get the fact so they know what happened for yourselves. 

The misinformation and confusion was started 3 years ago when over 1000 people jumped on the worthless lawsuit train and 'you' just don't want to accept that riding this train ended where it did and you simply don't like where you paid to be now and the ride you got. The truth of the matter is it hurts and I get it. There is nothing confusing or added confusion to a lengthy, well written and documented supreme court judgement that I have discussed here. If it incites you to know how badly Belfrey represented you in court, take that up with him. Everyone who paid into this should be reading the judgement and asking him why he couldn't back up his evidence and was ill prepared as the judge stated (not me). Asked him to refund your money because he lost 100% of the trial, a judgement of his case was 'without merit'. Nothing was in his favor. It was a wreck for him and the followers of this prophet. 

You and a hand full of others would love to block the truth from the honest TS owner looking for the truth and why Belfrey lost this for them. Keep the TS owners in the dark and advise them of more misinformation and no where to go for the other side of the story to what happened. Maybe more money from their pockets to fund another wild goose chase or a dead horse race. Any appeal court will look at this judgment, the case law that was used, her reasoning's to the case and the fact that Belfrey couldn't back up his evidence, period. 'I am sure' another judge will side with the lack of evidence and ill prepared he was as stated in the judgment and not with the supreme court judge using past case law judgements that held up in court of judgements and judicial process to determine the outcome. An appeal is not a re trial, so you would not have to worry Belfrey will screw up again, with lack of evidence or being able to back any of it up, but will be reviewing her judgement and it doesn't look good to throw more good money after another bad choice in an appeal. TUG would be doing an injustice to all of the other TS owners who want to know the truth and hear the other side of the coin by closing this thread. There is more than you and a hand full of cool aide drinkers that want to know the truth. Unless you think there is only one side to this pancake.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Hilarious...*

OK now you guys, I think you just like to egg each other on.  I am not getting anything good out of this site any more.  Just frustration.  Xplor makes me feel bad and anxious like putting salt in my wounds and making me feel like I have been screwed twice!!  And the rest just wanting to egg  him on. We thought we got legal advise went with the legal suggestion and lost.  That part is over and we move on.  Bashing is not getting any one any where.  So good luck to everyone I hope we can get this worked out soon and we can just live life in peace.  Northmont will be happy that they screw a lot of people and have a lot of money and we can just leave this behind us.   Bye


----------



## GypsyOne

XPLR You said #1808 "_The judge commented using the example that if a building burnt down and was rebuilt, that is not a 'capital cost', it is a repair_."

If the judge did say that, she really revealed her incompetence.  Take it from a real estate appraiser, a building that is rebuilt is a capital expense.  A capital expense (CAPEX) is an expense where the benefit continues over a long period.  For accounting and Revenue Canada purposes, a CAPEX is amortized or depreciated over the life of the asset in question.  On the other hand, an operating expense (OPEX) will usually be used up and costed in the year it was incurred.  

Neither is a capital expense something that is new, although it could be new, but then so could an operating expense.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Here is what everyone sees : guy suddenly joins the site and immediately starts attacking Belfry & Geldert, trying to discredit them and cast doubt over their intentions. Then tries to also attack the other members of the lawsuit by making them feel stupid, bad or incompetent for joining in by belittling them for wasting their money. 

This in turn will hopefully get some of the members to bail out and call Northmont and beg for a settlement. Sign over more 6-12K each. Even if you can convince 100 who doesn't have the gut lining to continue, as you gotten in their head, it means $600,000-$1,200,000 in Northmont's pockets. They will be thinking "we lost so instead of risking a greater loss if we continue and lose again, I better settle and be done with it. How much to buy out ?".

Of course if I was going to post under an fake "identity", I would hide my IP as well. There are numerous ways to fake the IP so it looks like it is coming from somewhere else just in case someone tries to find out my real identity. It's not hard to do. I fake my IP to make it look like I am in the US vs Canada to get US Netflix and Hulu.

Now, I vigorously attack the parties constantly and point out all conclusions of the judgements so I spell it out for everyone making it look like a lost cause. This way everyone will think twice about continuing to support Geldert and Belfry. Maybe some will turn on them causing them trouble to distract them from further litigation if their supporters bail out.

I notice that Xplor has only posted on this thread - replying and defending any challenge of the decision. Keeping the pressure on. Why else would someone defend the decision so VIGOROUSLY ? What horse does he have in the decision on the case if he has already paid the cancellation and is out ? Most who have cancelled are happy to done with it and forget about this fiasco. Sure some are keeping tabs for curiousity. If it was me who cancelled, I wouldn't care what others did as I am out. I never have to worry. Why would I now OBSESS about what is written, true or false, about me if it does not affect me ? Who cares if they think if I am Wankel ? Why would I even argue it ? It's only important if it hurts my credibility and I must prove "my new identity" so people will read and trust what I have said. I will try to "help" people with advice to get from under Belfry and Geldert.

As a member of the lawsuit and I have a vested interest in the result, I have only browsed through the judgement. I have not examined the 120 page report with a fine tooth comb as Xplor has. For what reason would a normal person do this if it he has no involvement ? Maybe if I had no life and I like wasting my time I would. So Xplor is examining the document in more detail that someone who was part of the lawsuit....hmmmm, nothing seems unusual here.... Nothing to see here as it is not suspicious at all!


----------



## TUGBrian

everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if you cant make posts like adults....ill start deleting more of them.


----------



## xplor

GypsyOne said:


> XPLR You said #1808 "_The judge commented using the example that if a building burnt down and was rebuilt, that is not a 'capital cost', it is a repair_."
> 
> If the judge did say that, she really revealed her incompetence.  Take it from a real estate appraiser, a building that is rebuilt is a capital expense.  A capital expense (CAPEX) is an expense where the benefit continues over a long period.  For accounting and Revenue Canada purposes, a CAPEX is amortized or depreciated over the life of the asset in question.  On the other hand, an operating expense (OPEX) will usually be used up and costed in the year it was incurred.
> 
> Neither is a capital expense something that is new, although it could be new, but then so could an operating expense.



Your wrong and pretty much most people are well aware of the 'real estate appraiser'. She was absolutely correct that it was repairling the building because the build once existed. That is why an insurance company will rebuild the house and not a new house that wasn't ever there existing. So as long as the cool aide drinkers keep drinkng this cool aide from Belfrey and try hard to believe, I guess to you it's a capital cost.... :whoopie:


----------



## xplor

Quadmaniac;1868390]Here is what everyone sees : guy suddenly joins the site and immediately starts attacking Belfry & Geldert, trying to discredit them and cast doubt over their intentions. Then tries to also attack the other members of the lawsuit by making them feel stupid, bad or incompetent for joining in by belittling them for wasting their money. It was fully explained in my first post why I was posting for the first time and why I was posting to encourage others to read the judgment. 4X maniac, you are one a one track mind that can't get it that the ordinary TS owners are interested with this (some more than others) and the decisions they made. As another TS owner posted here 'keep poking the bear' and you are going to hear from the bear everytime because you are attempting to discredit the supreme court ruling which proves Belfrey and Geldert were complete failures and as the case mentioned had 'no merit' in their case. This is what bothers all of the cool aide drinkers they lost terribly, without a case. Use whatever words you like about how this makes you feel and you hear the other side of the story and what went wrong from the beginning. If you feel belittled, stupid, bad or incompetent as you say you feel, sorry for you feeling this all has caused you. No one can make another feel anything, it's the person themselves who feels whatever way based on reality.
This in turn will hopefully get some of the members to bail out and call Northmont and beg for a settlement. Sign over more 6-12K each. Even if you can convince 100 who doesn't have the gut lining to continue, as you gotten in their head, it means $600,000-$1,200,000 in Northmont's pockets. They will be thinking "we lost so instead of risking a greater loss if we continue and lose again, I better settle and be done with it. How much to buy out ?".
That is a choice all TS owner will eventually have to make and hopefully come to a good conclusion for those you choose to take that step. Other kool aide drinkers will reach deeper in their pockets and follow the prophet back into the sea. 
Of course if I was going to post under an fake "identity", I would hide my IP as well. There are numerous ways to fake the IP so it looks like it is coming from somewhere else just in case someone tries to find out my real identity. So, you are the guy who sues his friend because his friend finds about the fees required to be paid to Northmont before the transfer of your at issue TS to him and now admits he lies and uses false information to fraudulently get service from the US and hide his identity, hmmmm ... I can clearly see the person you are, dishonest and using the system like you have been trying in not paying your fees, this one just didn't work for you. /COLOR]It's not hard to do. I fake my IP to make it look like I am in the US vs Canada to get US Netflix and Hulu.

Now, I vigorously attack the parties constantly and point out all conclusions of the judgements so I spell it out for everyone making it look like a lost cause. So you are the kool aide maker offering more poison kool aide by attempting to discredit the judgment you have admitted you have not fully read, just browsed it and other TS owners who are simply being shown what went wrong from the beginning. This way everyone will think twice about continuing to support Geldert and Belfry. Your right, my one purpose is to show others to 'think twice' about this and you so clearly don't want them to know about what happened and why it was a wreck. No merit' case says it all.  Maybe some will turn on them causing them trouble to distract them from further litigation if their supporters bail out.

I notice that Xplor has only posted on this thread - replying and defending any challenge of the decision. Keeping the pressure on. Why else would someone defend the decision so VIGOROUSLY ? Quit poking the bear and discrediting a court judgement and he will stopWhat horse does he have in the decision on the case if he has already paid the cancellation and is out ? Most who have cancelled are happy to done with it and forget about this fiasco. Sure some are keeping tabs for curiousity. If it was me who cancelled, I wouldn't care what others did as I am out. I never have to worry.No where here have I posted I paid to get out. I paid my fees after talking to the lawyer and getting 'correct' advice on these fees and the contract and with friends who paid because we understood the issue of our resort and the contract. I have been trading out my Sunchasers TS the last three years Why would I now OBSESS about what is written, true or false, about me if it does not affect me ? Who cares if they think if I am Wankel ? Why would I even argue it ? It's only important if it hurts my credibility and I must prove "my new identity" so people will read and trust what I have said. Believe me, I don't need a new identity like you have admitted using or that this has hurt my credibility because I solely work with facts and the judgement handed down and know where Belfrey led so many people with false hope and misinformation, not facts. That was clear in the judgement I will try to "help" people with advice to get from under Belfry and Geldert. Its a personal choice all will have to take at some point. Simple reality, this isn't going away.

As a member of the lawsuit and I have a vested interest in the result, I have only browsed through the judgement. I have not examined the 120 page report with a fine tooth comb as Xplor has. For what reason would a normal person do this if it he has no involvement ? Maybe if I had no life and I like wasting my time I would. So Xplor is examining the document in more detail that someone who was part of the lawsuit....hmmmm, nothing seems unusual here....  Or maybe he spent a career chasing fraudsters and criminals and now have the time now to examine and warn others to be careful and know why this was a wreck to begin with. Think what you want if it makes you hppierNothing to see here as it is not suspicious at all!  [/QUOTE]

Time to head for the dining room 4X maniac for breakfast. Have a great day !


----------



## GypsyOne

xplor said:


> Your wrong and pretty much most people are well aware of the 'real estate appraiser'. She was absolutely correct that it was repairling the building because the build once existed. That is why an insurance company will rebuild the house and not a new house that wasn't ever there existing. So as long as the cool aide drinkers keep drinkng this cool aide from Belfrey and try hard to believe, I guess to you it's a capital cost.... :whoopie:



Nope, any knowledgeable person in the construction or accounting fields will tell you that the house that replaced one that previously existed is a capital expenditure.  The fact it replaced another house is irrelevant.  The determinant of being capital or operating repair is the expected lifetime of the asset in question.  A well constructed dwelling built to code should have a lifetime of 50-60 years or even greater, although the Fairmont buildings were shoddily built not to code and therefore have a much shorter life, some about 15 years before becoming unusable.  

The building and real estate industries have a legal and fiduciary duty to build and market buildings according to code and normally expected building standards.  Those that bought into the Fairmont complex have every right to expect the buildings would have a lifetime of at least as long as their 40-year leases.  The fact that they did not is a serious misrepresentation by the developer of the product they were selling and therefore a fundamental breach of contract. The injustice of the Fitzpatrick ruling is that she places the blame for shoddy work, and the responsibility for correcting the shoddy work on the hands of the Timeshare owners, who rightfully thought they were simply buying vacation time in a reputable resort.  Meanwhile the real owners and managers of the resort are handed a blank cheque to make whatever corrections and enhancements they deem necessary and profitable to them.  Time will tell if there is justice in the justice system.


----------



## GypsyOne

EXPLR says #1820:
"_No where here have I posted I paid to get out. I paid my fees after talking to the lawyer and getting 'correct' advice on these fees and the contract and with friends who paid because we understood the issue of our resort and the contract. I have been trading out my Sunchasers TS the last three years_"

I was having a hard time figuring out what was your dog in the fight.  Oh, so you are a TS owner who paid the renovation project ransom and now you want the resisters to help you out?  Boy did you ever get suckered in!  Now you will be at the mercy of the gang for the remaining term of your lease, who will not hesitate to hit you up for higher and higher maintenance fees and special assessments to repair and replace shoddy workmanship.  Good luck with that!  Some of us chose not to fall in lockstep and are seeking justice.


----------



## xplor

GypsyOne said:


> Nope, any knowledgeable person in the construction or accounting fields will tell you that the house that replaced one that previously existed is a capital expenditure.  The fact it replaced another house is irrelevant.  The determinant of being capital or operating repair is the expected lifetime of the asset in question.  A well constructed dwelling built to code should have a lifetime of 50-60 years or even greater, although the Fairmont buildings were shoddily built not to code and therefore have a much shorter life, some about 15 years before becoming unusable.
> 
> The building and real estate industries have a legal and fiduciary duty to build and market buildings according to code and normally expected building standards.  Those that bought into the Fairmont complex have every right to expect the buildings would have a lifetime of at least as long as their 40-year leases.  The fact that they did not is a serious misrepresentation by the developer of the product they were selling and therefore a fundamental breach of contract. The injustice of the Fitzpatrick ruling is that she places the blame for shoddy work, and the responsibility for correcting the shoddy work on the hands of the Timeshare owners, who rightfully thought they were simply buying vacation time in a reputable resort.  Meanwhile the real owners and managers of the resort are handed a blank cheque to make whatever corrections and enhancements they deem necessary and profitable to them.  Time will tell if there is justice in the justice system.



Our building didn't burn down though and you 'may' be correct about capital costs replacing / rebuilding an existing building, but that is up to an appeal court. However our building exists and due to whatever reason and there could be many, the foundation needed to be 'repaired' not 'capital costed'. Best person to understand this is a CPA, not a real estate appraiser. In respect to the shoddy work, TS owners bought into TS buildings that had shoddy work originally. Agree.


----------



## xplor

GypsyOne said:


> EXPLR says #1820:
> "_No where here have I posted I paid to get out. I paid my fees after talking to the lawyer and getting 'correct' advice on these fees and the contract and with friends who paid because we understood the issue of our resort and the contract. I have been trading out my Sunchasers TS the last three years_"
> 
> I was having a hard time figuring out what was your dog in the fight.  Oh, so you are a TS owner who paid the renovation project ransom and now you want the resisters to help you out?  Boy did you ever get suckered in!  Now you will be at the mercy of the gang for the remaining term of your lease, who will not hesitate to hit you up for higher and higher maintenance fees and special assessments to repair and replace shoddy workmanship.  Good luck with that!  Some of us chose not to fall in lockstep and are seeking justice.



And how did it work for you so far. I am still enjoying our TS, understand the issues better that the blind following the blind. I just hope people make wise decisions going forward. When is it enough and sometimes its hard to accept and understand the recent judgement when so many thought it was going to be a different outcome. Belfrey and Geldert were a terrible failure in court. Everything you mentioned above is fully speculation and assumptions based on the kool aide you are drinking. We TS owners that stayed in haven't had any issues with Northmont and don't expect there will be either. No doubt your group will get much smaller now that people understand why this happened and the costs will become  much higher per TS owner going to an appeal that if you read the judgement and the case law she used that backs it up, your race horse is still dead and will never win a race again.


----------



## Quadmaniac

This exactly what I mean, you absolutely fight every single post that is contrary to what you believe and keep hammering on how "right and correct" the judgement is and how everyone in the suit is wrong. 

If you read all of my posts, you will note, not once have I discussed the validity of the judgement, I have only questioned your credibility as you are at the other end of the spectrum. As I said before, I have a judgement in my hands that says my friend was in the wrong, he took the timeshare way before anyone knew anything about a renovation fee and he is responsible for it period.  

I can tell you are getting frustrated as you have to insult me and everyone else to put yourself on a pedestal making it look like you are the logical person in the room. But you go ahead, I don't need to call you names to spell out the truth. Call it paranoia if you want, but you really underestimate people and you think they are going to drink your "kool-aid" you're dreaming. We know you're a fake and you can justify it all you want, we won't be following your fake propaganda. If we compare your story to my interpretation, I think we can let others decide who's sound more plausable.

The more you write, the more of an illogical user you look, as everyone can see, there is no reasonable reason to be a "bear" when you have no horse in the race except being Wankel and Northmont. Being a bully does nothing for you. You aren't going to intimidate anyone.


----------



## xplor

Quadmaniac said:


> This exactly what I mean, you absolutely fight every single post that is contrary to what you believe and keep hammering on how "right and correct" the judgement is and how everyone in the suit is wrong.
> 
> If you read all of my posts, you will note, not once have I discussed the validity of the judgement, I have only questioned your credibility as you are at the other end of the spectrum. As I said before, I have a judgement in my hands that says my friend was in the wrong, he took the timeshare way before anyone knew anything about a renovation fee and he is responsible for it period.
> 
> I can tell you are getting frustrated as you have to insult me and everyone else to put yourself on a pedestal making it look like you are the logical person in the room. But you go ahead, I don't need to call you names to spell out the truth. Its too bad that the post Tug removed would plainly explain why I or anyone would call someone an idiot. Call it paranoia if you want, but you really underestimate people and you think they are going to drink your "kool-aid" you're dreaming. We know you're a fake and you can justify it all you want, we won't be following your fake propaganda. Called it whatever you want because you and most of the other kool aide drinkers know its not fate propaganda at all, it called a Supreme Court ruling and that is my sole point. TS owners should understand that there was no merit from the beginning based on the contract everyone signed. If we compare your story to my interpretation, I think we can let others decide who's sound more plausable. Exactly,  either believe a lawsuit case that lost terribly, couldn't back up evidence and ill prepared and ended in a total wreck decision 'without merit or to someone who is warning others TS owners who were a part of this to understand 'why' this happened and to read the judgement. I have nothing to gain or loss and made the decision 3 years ago to pay up and carry on and put it behind me. I didn't jump on 'a' bandwagon and turn my concerns over to a guy who thought he knew it all and failed in the end.
> 
> The more you write, the more of an illogical user you look, as everyone can see, there is no reasonable reason to be a "bear" when you have no horse in the race except being Wankel and Northmont.


 Your right, I have no horse in this race thank God. Its still alive and using it often. This Wankel guy has really rattled you. Was it the lawsuit you had against your friend that he show up for that has you twisted on him. All the best is whatever you decide to do.


----------



## Punter

Quadmaniac, thank you for saying what everyone is thinking. Your summation highlights it perfectly.  
His insistence on checking the IP address is telling as he is assuming that the moderator knows Wankle's IP address. And how would this person know if Wankle has ever posted on this forum? Well that's an easy one to figure out. 
Let's try to steer this forum back to its purpose and ignore the person trying to hijack this thread.


----------



## truthr

*Reminder*

In case any of you who have retained counsel have forgotten we have been instructed to refrain from posting on social media.

As far as misinformation and opinions we don't like we are all adults here and can decipher for ourselves whether something is relevant or not without trying to force the moderators to either shut down this thread or prevent anyone from posting their opinions.

I, for one, appreciate and have benefited from the information presented by all sans the personal attacks, innuendos and character assassinations.


----------



## TUGBrian

last warning...im no longer deleting posts...ill just suspend your ability to post in the future.


----------



## Quadmaniac

truthr said:


> In case any of you who have retained counsel have forgotten we have been instructed to refrain from posting on social media.
> 
> As far as misinformation and opinions we don't like we are all adults here and can decipher for ourselves whether something is relevant or not without trying to force the moderators to either shut down this thread or prevent anyone from posting their opinions.
> 
> I, for one, appreciate and have benefited from the information presented by all sans the personal attacks, innuendos and character assassinations.



The only person discussing the judgement is Xplor. Nothing wrong with posting differing opinions, but when it is insults and bullying, it serves no useful purpose other than to try to provoke panic. Everyone knows what his opinion is and he is entitled to what he thinks about the outcome, but it crosses the line when you are insulting people about their decision to join in the first place "its obvious Belfry has no case" and what they should do next. 

We all have the ability to read the judgement ourselves and seek outside counsel if we have concerns or questions beyond that. There is no need for personal attacks. If our opinion has credibility, we don't have to force it down someone's throat to feel validated.


----------



## kevinjanny

My in laws paid to leave and are happy they did, but they hope the best for the everyone in this. Gloating about the outcome of the court battle would be the last thing they would ever do. My wife and I have a 3 bedroom at Lake Okanagan Resort and according to the person I spoke to when I reserved my week last July, they are going to be contacting owners this year and offer a similar option to pay and opt out of their contracts. Based on the condition of the older units, this will be what we will do, even though I hate giving them any more money.


----------



## TUGBrian

very sorry you did not heed my polite requests...enjoy your time off.


----------



## Meow

Thank you, TugBrian


----------



## weppb1

Anxiety123 said:


> Well said RandyCDK and Xplor thanks for your last statement.  I feel that if Northmont could come up with some kind of buyout for those who still haven't paid, meaning a  payment that is not out of reach for those folks that do not have the kind of money that Northmont is wanting, there will be a smoother finish to all of this.  If something cannot be worked out and Northmont pushes for as much money as they can get out of us all including the 26 percent interest rate, many will default as they are in poor financial situations and Northmont will not get their money from us in the long run.  I am assuming that Northmont will want all of us to pay up and move on so that they can sell the land which is worth oh so much money but many won't as the payment will too high to reach.  I know that if the original amount to buy out wasn't so high in our situation, we would have sadly paid it but would have still missed going there every year.  These vacations were priceless for our family, but money is money and when you don't have a lot of it, it hurts to pay to give something up.  We purchased the TS when our kids were little and the salesman (Pat) sold it to us by stating that  when money was tight, that at least we could have one vacation  a year that we could drive to and then just relax and enjoy.  That we didn't have to worry about anything as the family that owned the resort was well establish and well respected in the community and they have money in reserves for any large maintenance issues.  Our maintenance payments would rise very slowly  as each year maintenance will be done to keep the resort in pristine condition.  Well that upstanding family failed us and walked away with their personal money in their pockets.
> 
> 
> I am just so sad that we have lost the great vacations we once so loved.  I have many great memories of our family vacations there.  I wish the Family that owned the resort before Northmont would have followed through on there promise to us to have 40 years of fun at their resort and that all the money that was supposedly put in accounts for the very reasons of the assessment would have followed through on their promises.   I am sure that Fairmont Family is living happy and fine on the backs of us TS owners.
> 
> As for Northmont, they are very much in it for money, their track history shows it so I can understand why everyone is scared to deal with them.  Some business people do think of their employees, co-owners and their clients when doing business with them, I know of businessmen personally that try never to step on the little guy to make a buck and are very successful but most groups like Northmont are in it for the money and that is how they proceed in any business dealing no matter who it hurts along the way.  They are not millionaires by playing nice guy.  But fortunately there are those businessmen out there that do run very sound business, make a lot of money and don't need to hurt the little guy along the way.  I am now hoping to see some fairness in Northmont with dealing with us that still owe and many of us would have paid one way or another if the amounts were not so steep.    Hard to pay if you then have large bank debts that haunt you forever.
> 
> I don't think it was unreasonable for us to question the validity of the assessment fee and have the court decide if it was fair, so hoping Northmont isn't going to hold this process against all of us.
> 
> Waiting to see if Northmont can show the fair businessmen side to all of this and come up with a reasonable way out for us folks so as to not drag out the process. And I am hoping Northmont can see its way to being reasonable.  Thanks



Anxiety23 - They were fair in the 1st place. If you would have paid at the time you were given the options all would have been fine. I don't know what they will ask you to pay now but no doubt it will be in accordance with what they advised in their initial communication about the reno project. If you didn't pay then I assume they will ask you to pay more now...as it should be.


----------



## Frustrated61

*Not fair with everyone.*



weppb1 said:


> Anxiety23 - They were fair in the 1st place. If you would have paid at the time you were given the options all would have been fine. I don't know what they will ask you to pay now but no doubt it will be in accordance with what they advised in their initial communication about the reno project. I*f you didn't pay then I assume they will ask you to pay more now...as it should be*.



Fair? When is being underhanded and unprofessional fair?
I have spent the last couple of hours reading these entries.  That might not seem like a lot of time to some people, however, it is to me. I have  terminal cancer, so my time is valuable. I would not even be on this site had this timeshare company been honorable from the start.

I endorsed the lease with my ex in early 2007. They wrote I could have two weeks in Hawaii and one in Kelowna as an extra bonus for signing. They showed us places in Ontario and Newfoundland that we could trade for. It was a high pressure sale. 

When I went home I called to book my weeks......image my surprise when there were no places in Ontario or NFL. Seems we were shown a "old" book. I then asked to book in Fairmont, nope all booked, maybe next year. Hawaii, booked, Kelowna booked for two years.  This caused me to do more research and decide we wanted out.  I call them  *Five *days later to cancel this lease, which was in the 7 days allotted time.   They continued to take monies from my account. After numerous emails and phone calls, we drove to BC, spoke to the manager and endorsed what we were told was a release, and were told it was taken care of. 

I was then contacted in 2008, where I spent hours trying to deal with the issue.  Finally I was told that it had been dealt with. 

In early late 2012 I was again contacted, now by the new company who said they rewrote my contract and did not care what the previous company did. They said I owed 2010 and 2012 fees. I gave them the name of my bankruptcy agency and they were told the fees were written off. I requested confirmation in writing from the company and I received an email stated my account was finally fixed and we could move forward. 

In early 2015 I was contacted again and this time when I cc'd them the email they completely disregarded it. I then received a call from the collection agency/law firm about the fact I owed over $15,000.00 with interest fees, reno fees etc.  On a timeshare I had been told was finally dealt with. 

The person on the phone was a complete "ass" for lack of a better word. He was rude, insulting and did not listen. His comment was I don't care what happened before the contract was rewritten you owe this money or we are going to sue you. I have attempted to deal with this in good faith.  I have NEVER used this timeshare, I followed all the rules.  

I wrote email after email trying to deal with the company and the collection agency/law firm. *I NEVER receive any option to "pay" in 2013.* Had I, I would have paid immediately.  At that time I would have only owed 2014 and the cancellation fee.  Yet, they said they had no contact info.  Really I received their emails about collections, they had my phone number, or at least they gave it to the collection agency. 

In Feb I was again called by the same "ass". He was even more of a jerk.  I tried to tell him I could only pay $2,500.00 as even then that is my funds for palliative care. He said I don't care you have to pay it all or we will sue you and garnish your wages. i will be going on disability.  His reply is we will take that also. I hung up.

Two weeks later I got another call from someone who did not disclose his name. He said he was calling from the law office and knew nothing about the collection agent and in fact seemed very nice saying he saw no notes in the file from them.  He said he had managed to have other TS owners that day settle by paying 2 years of fees.  I told him what I could pay and that I had no idea where my ex was. He told me he would call me back the next day after talking to the timeshare company and doing his best to settle. However, when I hit redial, surprise ......it was the collection agency. 

I then wrote the company and gave them the same offer. They wrote back and said they would work with me and asked about my illness and requested  verification from my doctor. I provided it to them immediately. The next thing I get is an email saying, sorry, if you cannot provide us contact for your ex we cannot help you.  They acted like they did not know two of us were on the lease.  Then when I gave them the last know address, they said we cannot help you! So really they just wanted someone to serve.

How is it, that they could take a settlement from one TS owner for two years, and not me?  Now they say he has to agree to take on the lease?  Yet, others can settle and walk away. I cannot pay and do the same? 

And you think this is fair??? I don't.  I never used the timeshare, I never received the option to buy out. I have offered all I can............

So if anyone has any ideas, I am open to listening.  Please if you are just going to give me a negative comment.......save it. PS sorry for the long reply.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Frustrated61, I am so sorry to hear of your troubles.  I hope and pray for the best for you.  This will be resolved for all of us one way or the other but for you I'm hoping you will be considered done with it.  It's more and more in their interest to move forward.  Collection agencies are out for anything they can get but I have to admit I've never heard of anything so offside as your situation.  (Thanks for the long reply)

I guess another example of how things have been handled.

As for everyone discussing parts of the case, it has been cathartic to read some of the posts on here and I was glad to hear further astonishment over things like "who will pay?" and the definition of capital costs.  Quite honestly thanks, it helped me...but let's work with Geldert on this and follow his request.


----------



## ERW

I read the complete decision and before anyone heeds Geldert's advice, I would suggest that you check with another lawyer for another opinion. The decision handed down was not ambiguous in any way whatsoever. As a matter of fact, it was very clear that the judge did not feel there was any grey area at all. I would be reluctant to pursue further action without some further legal advice as I think you could well be throwing good money after bad. As antagonistic as xplor's comments could be, he/she did make some very good points. No one wants or likes to loose in legal matters but flogging a dead horse can be extremely expensive.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

I'm not sure if ERW is commenting on my post but my comment was to follow Geldert's request to not discuss the trial on here, or in any public way.  That should be clear.  As for heeding Geldert's advice of course everyone should seek any extra legal opinions they need.  

The first course of action is obviously to discuss the situation and clear up any questions with your paid for lawyer, Geldert.  Then you can get an informed decision from whoever else you hire.

As has already been said several times here it's obvious that some on this board are doing much more than expressing their opinions but instead are aggressively working to influence people to settle.  Why would anyone put that much effort into that position, cui bono?  

There are several things that stand out from the trial but they don't need to be discussed here, whether someone is antagonizing or not.  The judge is not infallible as we've already seen with one Supreme Court Justice, as I recall the appeals judge had a non grey, pointed response to the previous judge's efforts.  

I have not made my choice as of yet but the aggressive actions to try to get people to settle on this board make me feel like I'm being sold snake oil.  Not exactly a trusting feeling.  

The verdict was definite and overwhelmingly against.  That being said there are several issues, some noted on this thread, that don't add up and that I will be discussing with counsel.  As for extremely expensive?  No, to appeal will a cost a small percentage of what's already on the line.


----------



## kevinjanny

Frustrated61, we can only imagine the hell you've been through. When I read your post, a few things came to mind. Please don't take this as professional advice because I am in no way close to being a lawyer. You may want to first get the advice of a lawyer, as most times the initial phone call/consult is free.  Contact a few to get a feel for what they could provide. It may be something as simple as a letter drafted by your lawyer, with copies of all the documentation you have to get them to back off. The fee your lawyer would charge for this would vary, but shouldn't amount to much. My initial reaction to your post was for you  to go to the media and shame them publicly, and draw as much attention to them as you can, but first maybe try and see what a lawyer might be able to do for you. Everyone has a certain dollar amount they are willing to go, and you probably have that number in mind.  I am sure everyone here wishes you the best in this and hope it can be resolved soon.


----------



## icequeen59

*Devastated*

We seriously do not know what to do.Northmont is emailing our work emails...phoning us and generally harassing us. I have no idea how they got the work emails. We do not have the money they are requesting we pay. Nor do we have the money to get out of this disaster of a time share. Worst decision ever to buy at Fairmont. There must be some protection for the consumer? They are not going to get their money from us...so they might as well just take their timeshare back and be done with it. Never ever again!!: :


----------



## Punter

icequeen59 said:


> We seriously do not know what to do.Northmont is emailing our work emails...phoning us and generally harassing us. I have no idea how they got the work emails. We do not have the money they are requesting we pay. Nor do we have the money to get out of this disaster of a time share. Worst decision ever to buy at Fairmont. There must be some protection for the consumer? They are not going to get their money from us...so they might as well just take their timeshare back and be done with it. Never ever again!!: :


Is it Northmont calling you or a collection agency?


----------



## Punter

icequeen59 said:


> We seriously do not know what to do.Northmont is emailing our work emails...phoning us and generally harassing us. I have no idea how they got the work emails. We do not have the money they are requesting we pay. Nor do we have the money to get out of this disaster of a time share. Worst decision ever to buy at Fairmont. There must be some protection for the consumer? They are not going to get their money from us...so they might as well just take their timeshare back and be done with it. Never ever again!!: :


Is it Northmont calling you or a collection agency?


----------



## icequeen59

it seems to be northmont themselves.. if its a collection agency they are not saying....


----------



## newname

*Test message*

Very Informative


----------



## xplor

ERW said:


> I read the complete decision and before anyone heeds Geldert's advice, I would suggest that you check with another lawyer for another opinion. The decision handed down was not ambiguous in any way whatsoever. As a matter of fact, it was very clear that the judge did not feel there was any grey area at all. I would be reluctant to pursue further action without some further legal advice as I think you could well be throwing good money after bad. As antagonistic as xplor's comments could be, he/she did make some very good points. No one wants or likes to loose in legal matters but flogging a dead horse can be extremely expensive.



Ditto. That was my message. I believe many are only reading posts and listening in some cases as they did before, to misinformation. I have encouraged everyone to take the time to read the judgement completely and then make their decision as ERW has, more eloquently stated. Like the messenger (or message) or not, it is what it is now and the best step forward for everyone is to read the judgement and try to understand what happened and think about where your line is drawn in dealing with this issue.  As what appears to be to 'lone voice' of the other side of the coin, that seems to have bothered some with the truth, deal with the facts only.


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

*Not one man's war*

I joined this lawsuit with eyes wide open. I knew the risks and was in no way influenced by a misguided person. Rather, I wish I had been brave enough to play David myself to this arrogant, self-centred Goliath.  I NEEDED an outlet to scream "THIS IS WRONG! This is NOT what we were sold!"  Someone had to stand up and try to stop the real owner from steamrolling over the thousands of us who believed we bought TIME and NOT responsibility for building infrastructure. Naive?  I certainly do not think so.  Cautious and a sceptic by nature, I grilled salesman PAT at length on the meaning of "maintenance" and my responsibilities under the related annual fees. I had him walk me through the fine print and posed several "what if" questions. Only when I was completely satisfied with Pat's detailed explanations of what I would be accountable for, only then did I pen my signature to that timeshare agreement.  
Would I join ZEKE and Jim Belfry knowing what I know now? YES!! YOU BET!! A thousand times over!  And this fight is NOT over in my books!


----------



## GypsyOne

Notwhatweweresold said:


> I joined this lawsuit with eyes wide open. I knew the risks and was in no way influenced by a misguided person. Rather, I wish I had been brave enough to play David myself to this arrogant, self-centred Goliath.  I NEEDED an outlet to scream "THIS IS WRONG! This is NOT what we were sold!"  Someone had to stand up and try to stop the real owner from steamrolling over the thousands of us who believed we bought TIME and NOT responsibility for building infrastructure. Naive?  I certainly do not think so.  Cautious and a sceptic by nature, I grilled salesman PAT at length on the meaning of "maintenance" and my responsibilities under the related annual fees. I had him walk me through the fine print and posed several "what if" questions. Only when I was completely satisfied with Pat's detailed explanations of what I would be accountable for, only then did I pen my signature to that timeshare agreement.
> Would I join ZEKE and Jim Belfry knowing what I know now? YES!! YOU BET!! A thousand times over!  And this fight is NOT over in my books!



You expressed what I think the vast majority of TS owners were thinking when they bought a timeshare (not a share in a resort), and the reaction of virtually all in the litigation group.  Judge Fitzpatrick's ruling amounts to institutionalized extortion, just as Justice Loo's ruling did, which was overturned on appeal.  This ruling cries out for appeal and I think we stand a much better chance in the higher BC Court of Appeal.  The only thing that would change my mind is if Northmont comes up with a fair proposal that enables all of us to put this travesty behind us.


----------



## GypsyOne

xplor said:


> Ditto. That was my message. I believe many are only reading posts and listening in some cases as they did before, to misinformation. I have encouraged everyone to take the time to read the judgement completely and then make their decision as ERW has, more eloquently stated. Like the messenger (or message) or not, it is what it is now and the best step forward for everyone is to read the judgement and try to understand what happened and think about where your line is drawn in dealing with this issue.  As what appears to be to 'lone voice' of the other side of the coin, that seems to have bothered some with the truth, deal with the facts only.



Your "lone voice" would have much more credibility if if wasn't for the fact you paid the renovation fee, which locked you into paying higher and higher maintenance fees (covering "all costs" of the resort) and probable continuing special assessments to rebuild a failing resort infrastructure, and you want others to join in to keep your costs down over the long run.


----------



## xplor

GypsyOne said:


> Your "lone voice" would have much more credibility if if wasn't for the fact you paid the renovation fee, which locked you into paying higher and higher maintenance fees (covering "all costs" of the resort) and probable continuing special assessments to rebuild a failing resort infrastructure, and you want others to join in to keep your costs down over the long run.



Keep trash talking me and you will get kicked off this board. Perhaps it is the credibility of understanding the contract to begin with and not chasing a lost cause your are talking about. In the longer run, you 'will' pay and much more. Those that stayed in will not be paying your share for long. It's like encouraging people not to pay their Master Card or Visa for 3 years, your costs add up hugely, including making a lawyer who lost terribly for you richer.


----------



## Punter

Notwhatweweresold said:


> I joined this lawsuit with eyes wide open. I knew the risks and was in no way influenced by a misguided person. Rather, I wish I had been brave enough to play David myself to this arrogant, self-centred Goliath.  I NEEDED an outlet to scream "THIS IS WRONG! This is NOT what we were sold!"  Someone had to stand up and try to stop the real owner from steamrolling over the thousands of us who believed we bought TIME and NOT responsibility for building infrastructure. Naive?  I certainly do not think so.  Cautious and a sceptic by nature, I grilled salesman PAT at length on the meaning of "maintenance" and my responsibilities under the related annual fees. I had him walk me through the fine print and posed several "what if" questions. Only when I was completely satisfied with Pat's detailed explanations of what I would be accountable for, only then did I pen my signature to that timeshare agreement.
> Would I join ZEKE and Jim Belfry knowing what I know now? YES!! YOU BET!! A thousand times over!  And this fight is NOT over in my books!





I agree, it's certainly not over. This litigation group is not comprised of people who simply refuse to 'pay their bills'. It is made up of people who want to right a wrong. People who refuse to pay because management didn't provide financial statements, they failed to set up a home owners association and changed how they charge management fees. People who disagree with a lessee being responsible for capital costs. People who see the offering to 'pay to leave' rendering the remaining TS's worthless, as a clear intention of Northmont wanting to take back possession of the entire resort. People who were suckered into the Legacy for Life program without the disclosure of bankruptcy proceedings. The decision to appeal Judge Fitzpatrick's judgement was an easy one for me. Her judgement has provided a virtual 'blank cheque' for Northmont and even other timeshare companies that no longer want to look after the interests of the owners but rather see an opportunity to reclaim the resort and have the owners pay them to do it. 
Patience will be required to see this to an end and in the meantime it will be interesting to see how long it will take Sunchaser Villas to implode. The remaining owners will surely get nervous faced with the rising costs of maintenance fees, the ability of Northmont to impose fees and assessments as they see fit, and the shrinking of the resort until the day Northmont decides it is too small to continue and they have reached their goal.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Well said Punter!


----------



## GypsyOne

Frustrated61 said:


> Fair? When is being underhanded and unprofessional fair?
> I have spent the last couple of hours reading these entries.  That might not seem like a lot of time to some people, however, it is to me. I have  terminal cancer, so my time is valuable. I would not even be on this site had this timeshare company been honorable from the start.
> 
> I endorsed the lease with my ex in early 2007. They wrote I could have two weeks in Hawaii and one in Kelowna as an extra bonus for signing. They showed us places in Ontario and Newfoundland that we could trade for. It was a high pressure sale.
> 
> When I went home I called to book my weeks......image my surprise when there were no places in Ontario or NFL. Seems we were shown a "old" book. I then asked to book in Fairmont, nope all booked, maybe next year. Hawaii, booked, Kelowna booked for two years.  This caused me to do more research and decide we wanted out.  I call them  *Five *days later to cancel this lease, which was in the 7 days allotted time.   They continued to take monies from my account. After numerous emails and phone calls, we drove to BC, spoke to the manager and endorsed what we were told was a release, and were told it was taken care of.
> 
> I was then contacted in 2008, where I spent hours trying to deal with the issue.  Finally I was told that it had been dealt with.
> 
> In early late 2012 I was again contacted, now by the new company who said they rewrote my contract and did not care what the previous company did. They said I owed 2010 and 2012 fees. I gave them the name of my bankruptcy agency and they were told the fees were written off. I requested confirmation in writing from the company and I received an email stated my account was finally fixed and we could move forward.
> 
> In early 2015 I was contacted again and this time when I cc'd them the email they completely disregarded it. I then received a call from the collection agency/law firm about the fact I owed over $15,000.00 with interest fees, reno fees etc.  On a timeshare I had been told was finally dealt with.
> 
> The person on the phone was a complete "ass" for lack of a better word. He was rude, insulting and did not listen. His comment was I don't care what happened before the contract was rewritten you owe this money or we are going to sue you. I have attempted to deal with this in good faith.  I have NEVER used this timeshare, I followed all the rules.
> 
> I wrote email after email trying to deal with the company and the collection agency/law firm. *I NEVER receive any option to "pay" in 2013.* Had I, I would have paid immediately.  At that time I would have only owed 2014 and the cancellation fee.  Yet, they said they had no contact info.  Really I received their emails about collections, they had my phone number, or at least they gave it to the collection agency.
> 
> In Feb I was again called by the same "ass". He was even more of a jerk.  I tried to tell him I could only pay $2,500.00 as even then that is my funds for palliative care. He said I don't care you have to pay it all or we will sue you and garnish your wages. i will be going on disability.  His reply is we will take that also. I hung up.
> 
> Two weeks later I got another call from someone who did not disclose his name. He said he was calling from the law office and knew nothing about the collection agent and in fact seemed very nice saying he saw no notes in the file from them.  He said he had managed to have other TS owners that day settle by paying 2 years of fees.  I told him what I could pay and that I had no idea where my ex was. He told me he would call me back the next day after talking to the timeshare company and doing his best to settle. However, when I hit redial, surprise ......it was the collection agency.
> 
> I then wrote the company and gave them the same offer. They wrote back and said they would work with me and asked about my illness and requested  verification from my doctor. I provided it to them immediately. The next thing I get is an email saying, sorry, if you cannot provide us contact for your ex we cannot help you.  They acted like they did not know two of us were on the lease.  Then when I gave them the last know address, they said we cannot help you! So really they just wanted someone to serve.
> 
> How is it, that they could take a settlement from one TS owner for two years, and not me?  Now they say he has to agree to take on the lease?  Yet, others can settle and walk away. I cannot pay and do the same?
> 
> And you think this is fair??? I don't.  I never used the timeshare, I never received the option to buy out. I have offered all I can............
> 
> So if anyone has any ideas, I am open to listening.  Please if you are just going to give me a negative comment.......save it. PS sorry for the long reply.



Your post cannot be read without asking, "where is the justice," "where are the consumer protection laws," "where is the compassion?"  Northmont got their court compliance, which may not be right, but it is not surprising. Judge Fitzpatrick's ruling was not unlike Justice Loo's, and I wondered then if it was possible to get justice in a B.C. court.  Justice Loo's flawed ruling was overturned on appeal; Judge Fitzpatrick's flawed ruling can also be overturned.

Fitzpatrick can surely not dismiss all arguments as being without merit when 14,500 innocent misled people thought they were buying timeshare in a functioning resort and then found out they had actually bought ownership of the resort; ownership, that is, so far as paying the bills and reconstructing faulty buildings and infrastructure, not ownership for having a voice in management, sharing in the profits, or owning a valuable, marketable asset.  It is ownership for having full financial responsibility, but not ownership for having financial benefits.  Fitzpatrick revealed her bias when she ruled that the contracts (leases & co-ownership agreements) actually say that the TS owners are responsible for paying "all costs (including reconstructing faulty buildings)", and that "if it is not TS owners who pays, then who?"  I have a suggestion, and it is not rocket science - the people who are responsible are the owners, developers, and managers who had this flawed resort built or bought it out of bankruptcy and who intend to use it for their own personal gain.  This ruling is one of the most egregious, court sanctioned consumer scams that has ever been wrongfully forced upon an innocent and unsuspecting public.  It makes me wonder how the complicit can live with themselves.  

So, Frustrated61, what can you do?  Don't underestimate the court of public opinion.  Your story should be extremely important as a human interest story and for educating the public of the pitfalls of buying vacation timeshare.  A google search reveals nothing printed in the Invermere Valley Echo, which maybe shouldn't be surprising, since they don't want to publicize a story that could hurt business in the Valley.  A Calgary paper might be interested, but you would have to be prepared to give your name.  It takes courage to go public, something you have already demonstrated you have, and a lot of TS owners will be cheering you on.  An email with the story such as you provided above might get the process rolling.


----------



## xplor

GypsyOne said:


> Your post cannot be read without asking, "where is the justice," "where are the consummer protection laws," "where is the compassion?"  Northmont got their court compliance, which may not be right, but it is not surprising. Judge Fitzpatrick's ruling was not unlike Justice Loo's, and I wondered then if it was possible to get justice in a B.C. court.  Justice Loo's flawed ruling was overturned on appeal; Judge Fitzpatrick's flawed ruling can also be overturned.
> 
> Fitzpatrick can surely not dismiss all arguments as being without merit when 14,500 thought they were buying timeshare in a functioning resort and then found out they had actually bought ownership of the resort; ownership, that is, so far as paying the bills and reconstructing faulty buildings and infrastructure, not ownership for having a voice in management, sharing in the profits, or owning a valuable, marketable asset.  It is ownership for having full financial responsibility, but not ownership for having financial benefits.  Fitzpatrick revealed her bias when she ruled that the contracts (leases & co-ownership agreements) actually say that the TS owners are responsible for paying "all costs (including reconstructing faulty buildings)", and that "if it is not TS owners who pays, then who?"  I have a suggestion, and it is not rocket science - the people who are responsible are the owners, developers, and managers who had this flawed resort built or bought it out of bankruptcy and who intend to use it for their own personal gain.  This ruling is one of the most egregious, court sanctioned consummer scams that has ever been wrongfully forced upon an innocent and unsuspecting public.  It makes me wonder how the complicit can live with themselves.
> 
> So, Frustrated61, what can you do?  Don't underestimate the court of public opinion.  Your story should be extremely important as a human interest story and for educating the public of the pitfalls of buying vacation timeshare.  A google search reveals nothing printed in the Invermere Valley Echo, which maybe shouldn't be surprising, since they don't want to publicize a story that could hurt business in the Valley.  A Calgary paper might be interested, but you would have to be prepared to give your name.  It takes courage to go public, something you have already demonstrated you have, and a lot of TS owners will be cheering you on.  An email with the story such as you provided above might get the process rolling.



Many sad stories such as this one for many people in many situations, whether a TS owner (even in other resorts that should have been aware before buying), to investors of many less than honest scams who jumped at promises of gains. In many cases it is 'buyer/investor beware' in the end. Most are so well written and quickly signed by the buyer/investor based on honesty and 'what they are told', only to later to read exactly what they agreed to and signed. So been there and done it.


----------



## ERW

There are a couple of points I think should be made here. 
1) The intent, desire and cause of the people that have challenged Northmont cannot be questioned. However, I think you have to keep in mind why the action was lost. The judge made it clear that it was the evidence presented that did not substantiate the claim. Before anyone goes on about appealing, you have to ask yourself if there is any additional evidence that can be presented or are there any other arguments to be presented that can significantly change the opinion and findings of a judge. If not, everyone should think twice as there will be no point to throw good money after bad. Case in point - although the two cases are very different, the judge in the Jian Ghomeshi trial stressed that the evidence given was basically not credible which is why Ghomeshi was found not guilty. It is basically the same for Northmont trial - the evidence provided was not enough to convince the judge that Northmont had done anything wrong. I do not like what Northmont has done any more than anyone else. If trials were won or lost on emotion, Northmont would have lost in the first hour but that is not how they are conducted. So unless there is further information to be presented, please think long and hard about appealing.

2) The above being said, it is very evident that the owners of timeshares at Fairmont/Sunchasers are entitled to an owner's association. Should that not be pursued?


----------



## xplor

ERW said:


> There are a couple of points I think should be made here.
> 1) The intent, desire and cause of the people that have challenged Northmont cannot be questioned. However, I think you have to keep in mind why the action was lost. The judge made it clear that it was the evidence presented that did not substantiate the claim. Before anyone goes on about appealing, you have to ask yourself if there is any additional evidence that can be presented or are there any other arguments to be presented that can significantly change the opinion and findings of a judge. If not, everyone should think twice as there will be no point to throw good money after bad. Case in point - although the two cases are very different, the judge in the Jian Ghomeshi trial stressed that the evidence given was basically not credible which is why Ghomeshi was found not guilty. It is basically the same for Northmont trial - the evidence provided was not enough to convince the judge that Northmont had done anything wrong. I do not like what Northmont has done any more than anyone else. If trials were won or lost on emotion, Northmont would have lost in the first hour but that is not how they are conducted. So unless there is further information to be presented, please think long and hard about appealing.
> 
> 2) The above being said, it is very evident that the owners of timeshares at Fairmont/Sunchasers are entitled to an owner's association. Should that not be pursued?



Agree and excellent advise. I am not sure on an appeal whether 'new' or 'further  information' can be presented after the trial is over, if there is any.  My understanding on appeals is only the evidences presented by both sides at the trial, case judgement the judge used to form her ruling and her observations during the trial (ie; lack of being able to back up evidence and being ill prepared) the judge made. If there is 'new evidence' that would warrant a new trial and it would have to be 'new' and substantial, it is rare because they will look at it against what the evidence was in the trial that relates to the 'new' info or whether it is relevant at all to change the judgement. I reread the judgement and have to agree there is absolutely nothing that jumps out in support of Belfrey and in fact quite the opposite showed there was no case from the beginning. Agree on emotion, let down and a need to fight on to 'what is 'right'' and 'righting a wrong'. One needs to really access their own emotion on this and whether one way or the other is correct for them.


----------



## Punter

ERW said:


> There are a couple of points I think should be made here.
> 1) The intent, desire and cause of the people that have challenged Northmont cannot be questioned. However, I think you have to keep in mind why the action was lost. The judge made it clear that it was the evidence presented that did not substantiate the claim. Before anyone goes on about appealing, you have to ask yourself if there is any additional evidence that can be presented or are there any other arguments to be presented that can significantly change the opinion and findings of a judge. If not, everyone should think twice as there will be no point to throw good money after bad. Case in point - although the two cases are very different, the judge in the Jian Ghomeshi trial stressed that the evidence given was basically not credible which is why Ghomeshi was found not guilty. It is basically the same for Northmont trial - the evidence provided was not enough to convince the judge that Northmont had done anything wrong. I do not like what Northmont has done any more than anyone else. If trials were won or lost on emotion, Northmont would have lost in the first hour but that is not how they are conducted. So unless there is further information to be presented, please think long and hard about appealing.
> 
> 2) The above being said, it is very evident that the owners of timeshares at Fairmont/Sunchasers are entitled to an owner's association. Should that not be pursued?




For anyone to think that a Judge cannot be Biased and/ or misinformed is, well, misinformed. And as for the entitlement to an owners association, it's a little too late for that. Was Northmont supposed to form one? Yes. Did they? No. 

There seems to be an assumption that those on this board have not read the judgement. I have, and I am quite certain that everyone else has, read it and we are able to make our own desisions based on it.


----------



## xplor

Punter said:


> For anyone to think that a Judge cannot be Biased and/ or misinformed is, well, misinformed ( That is something that the Appeals Court would have to be convinced of based on ??? evidence in the trial and not opinions.). And as for the entitlement to an owners association, it's a little too late for that. Was Northmont supposed to form one? Yes. (are you sure on this, because it is news to me and some others or are you speculating they should have according to ... ???)Did they? No.
> 
> There seems to be an assumption that those on this board have not read the judgement (some have commented they haven't read it or only browsed it, In fact only a few stated they have read it thoroughly). I have, and I am quite certain (assumption) that everyone else has, read it and we are able to make our own desisions based on it.


That is what everyone agrees on, every TS owner has their own choice what to do based on hopefully, facts.


----------



## GypsyOne

ERW said:


> There are a couple of points I think should be made here.
> 1) The intent, desire and cause of the people that have challenged Northmont cannot be questioned. However, I think you have to keep in mind why the action was lost. The judge made it clear that it was the evidence presented that did not substantiate the claim. Before anyone goes on about appealing, you have to ask yourself if there is any additional evidence that can be presented or are there any other arguments to be presented that can significantly change the opinion and findings of a judge. If not, everyone should think twice as there will be no point to throw good money after bad. Case in point - although the two cases are very different, the judge in the Jian Ghomeshi trial stressed that the evidence given was basically not credible which is why Ghomeshi was found not guilty. It is basically the same for Northmont trial - the evidence provided was not enough to convince the judge that Northmont had done anything wrong. I do not like what Northmont has done any more than anyone else. If trials were won or lost on emotion, Northmont would have lost in the first hour but that is not how they are conducted. So unless there is further information to be presented, please think long and hard about appealing.
> 
> 2) The above being said, it is very evident that the owners of timeshares at Fairmont/Sunchasers are entitled to an owner's association. Should that not be pursued?



I'm not surprised that both you and xplor would like to discourage an appeal, since you both paid the renovation fee.  The more that agree to hand over their wallets to this gang of opportunists, the more there are to pay the never-ending cost of increasing maintenance fees and special assessments.  The cost of maintaining a poorly constructed, prematurally deteriorating facility will continue for a long time. That is why many of those who paid are having second thoughts and inquiring if they can join the litigation group.  When Judge Fitzpatrick ruled that the TS owners are responsible for "all costs", many realized there is no future to being fully responsible for propping up a failing resort.


----------



## xplor

GypsyOne said:


> I'm not surprised that both you and xplor would like to discourage an appeal, since you both paid the renovation fee.  The more that agree to hand over their wallets to this gang of opportunists, the more there are to pay the never-ending cost of increasing maintenance fees and special assessments.  The cost of maintaining a poorly constructed, prematurally deteriorating facility will continue for a long time. That is why many of those who paid are having second thoughts and inquiring if they can join the litigation group.  When Judge Fitzpatrick ruled that the TS owners are responsible for "all costs", many realized there is no future to being fully responsible for propping up a failing resort.



Makes me wonder how many paid or unpaid TS owners still wants to join the litigation and try and revive the dead horse to run again after the judgement was so out of favor of the Belfrey case. Pay money many say they don't have to further litigate the 'no merit case'. However, as everyone has agreed, TS owners will decide on whatever merit they have, to pay up now or pay up later. Their resort is what it is which ever you slice this and they are locked into a contract they signed, whether they regret it now or not.


----------



## ERW

GypsyOne said:


> I'm not surprised that both you and xplor would like to discourage an appeal, since you both paid the renovation fee.  The more that agree to hand over their wallets to this gang of opportunists, the more there are to pay the never-ending cost of increasing maintenance fees and special assessments.  The cost of maintaining a poorly constructed, prematurally deteriorating facility will continue for a long time. That is why many of those who paid are having second thoughts and inquiring if they can join the litigation group.  When Judge Fitzpatrick ruled that the TS owners are responsible for "all costs", many realized there is no future to being fully responsible for propping up a failing resort.



Nor should it be a surprise. From my perspective, the longer people hold out and do not pay, the larger the maintenance bills will be and the longer it will take to complete renovations. I still debate with myself whether I should have paid to give up the timeshare or paid the reno fee. I did not have a lot of confidence in the legal avenue - cases like this, even with the best of evidence, can go either way. 

So, yup, I honestly have to say I would prefer people pay so things can get going but I know many folks have very strong feelings about that. Ultimately that is your decision. But if you really are determined to pursue this, get the advise of a different lawyer. It is kind of like a serious illness. A second opinion is extremely valuable in cases like this.


----------



## ERW

Punter said:


> For anyone to think that a Judge cannot be Biased and/ or misinformed is, well, misinformed. And as for the entitlement to an owners association, it's a little too late for that. Was Northmont supposed to form one? Yes. Did they? No.
> 
> There seems to be an assumption that those on this board have not read the judgement. I have, and I am quite certain that everyone else has, read it and we are able to make our own desisions based on it.



I would be surprised if there was bias in the decision but it is not something that can be ruled out. Hopefully Judges are selected on their unbiased opinions, legal knowledge, etc. but they are, after all, human. That would be something only an appeal could answer but the approach of the legal group would have to be much different than that of the original case. I am not a lawyer but it was very evident in the decision that the lawyer on the side of the time share owners was not prepared. As I said before, if emotion had any influence on the outcome, Northmont would not have won. For better or worse, the Judge has to rely on factual evidence.

As far as an owners association, would you want an association formed by Northmont? I, for one, would not. I think it would have to be set up outside of the Northmont sphere of influence if it were to be credible.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

*Shame on Northmont*

at this point Im wondering if contacting a show like Marketplace or fifth Estate would be of value Northmont deserves a ton of negative publicity, and perhaps calls to Interval and RCI as well.   There is so much intrinsicly wrong here.   IF the time shares were sold and people were CLEARLY told that they would be paying any and all capital costs to the buildings I'm confident they would not have had the buyers they did I NEVER WOULD HAVE PURCHASED ANYTHING.  I rent a week!!!  thats it!!! I am NOT AN OWNER PER SE. Nobody asked me my opinion on anything.   The owners of those properties collect a very healthy maintenance fee on top of the $$$ they sold those weeks for.   How can it be my responsibility if they have mismanaged the resort??  I have no say, no owners association and no recourse to say no the the 40 million reno fee???   Does somebody know the actual math of the actual money collected yearly on top of the original investment?   That could be paying for those repairs??? and if they are quietly pulling out weeks and not covering that portion of the fees how is that my responsibility???  If they sell them do I get a portion of those funds refunded back to my costs and my timeshare??? While Northmont continues to pay themselves well for the stellar job they think they are doing???  About time those selfish idiots listened to the people.  You can't get blood from a stone.   It would have been far smarter for them to negotiate something far more realistic or offered owners the opportunity to come and have their say especially when it will affect them.  Yeah Northmont you won the case but you haven't won the war yet.  You have alienated your client base many of whom CANNOT pay and many of whom will not pay.  Because of YOUR mismanagement, those who paid still cannot trust you.     If you truly want this to succeed you are not going to do it with the bully tactics you have used in the past.   I'm willing to take the hit on my credit rating.   But I would have been willing to DISCUSS instead of been ordered to pay something I did not bargain for.   I still believe it is criminal.


----------



## MFD

Lostmyshirt said:


> at this point Im wondering if contacting a show like Marketplace or fifth Estate would be of value Northmont deserves a ton of negative publicity, and perhaps calls to Interval and RCI as well.   There is so much intrinsicly wrong here.   IF the time shares were sold and people were CLEARLY told that they would be paying any and all capital costs to the buildings I'm confident they would not have had the buyers they did I NEVER WOULD HAVE PURCHASED ANYTHING.  I rent a week!!!  thats it!!! I am NOT AN OWNER PER SE. Nobody asked me my opinion on anything.   The owners of those properties collect a very healthy maintenance fee on top of the $$$ they sold those weeks for.   How can it be my responsibility if they have mismanaged the resort??  I have no say, no owners association and no recourse to say no the the 40 million reno fee???   Does somebody know the actual math of the actual money collected yearly on top of the original investment?   That could be paying for those repairs??? and if they are quietly pulling out weeks and not covering that portion of the fees how is that my responsibility???  If they sell them do I get a portion of those funds refunded back to my costs and my timeshare??? While Northmont continues to pay themselves well for the stellar job they think they are doing???  About time those selfish idiots listened to the people.  You can't get blood from a stone.   It would have been far smarter for them to negotiate something far more realistic or offered owners the opportunity to come and have their say especially when it will affect them.  Yeah Northmont you won the case but you haven't won the war yet.  You have alienated your client base many of whom CANNOT pay and many of whom will not pay.  Because of YOUR mismanagement, those who paid still cannot trust you.     If you truly want this to succeed you are not going to do it with the bully tactics you have used in the past.   I'm willing to take the hit on my credit rating.   But I would have been willing to DISCUSS instead of been ordered to pay something I did not bargain for.   I still believe it is criminal.



I agree completely.  Just out of principle, I refuse to pay these criminals a dime and am willing to take a hit on my credit as well if a reasonable settlement cannot be reached.  And it also frustrates me how people like Explor and EWR, can come on here and start gloating and insulting the ones who've lost in the court ruling.  Rubbing it in our faces, all the while trying to pretend that it you're doing it all in good graces is extremely in bad taste.  If anything, with me at least you both managed to achieve the opposite in persuading me to "see the light".  Your rants, some of which just dragged on for too long that I couldn't even finish reading, convinced me that if I ever had doubts with Gelbert before, I certainly don't anymore.


----------



## xplor

Lostmyshirt said:


> at this point Im wondering if contacting a show like Marketplace or fifth Estate would be of value Northmont deserves a ton of negative publicity, and perhaps calls to Interval and RCI as well.(Marketplace or Fifth Estate would look at all the angles, not only the TS owners who feel they have been ripped off, they would look at the issue of the condition of the resort, the contracts that were signed and the judgement. At best, they would advise to do your homework before signing a contact, but  would outline other TS's have gone through the same issues and in the end it is the TS owners responsibility regardless the condition of the resort. Unless you could show their was something illegal which wasn't proven in the court trial. They will take on stories where there 'is a story'. The judgement would not help make this a story you want but would show there are some very frustrated TS owners who signed contacts)   There is so much intrinsicly wrong here.   IF the time shares were sold and people were CLEARLY told that they would be paying any and all capital costs to the buildings I'm confident they would not have had the buyers they did I NEVER WOULD HAVE PURCHASED ANYTHING.  I rent a week!!!  thats it!!! I am NOT AN OWNER PER SE. Nobody asked me my opinion on anything.   The owners of those properties collect a very healthy maintenance fee on top of the $$$ they sold those weeks for.   How can it be my responsibility if they have mismanaged the resort?? ( there was no proof of mismanagement in the trial I have no say, no owners association and no recourse to say no the the 40 million reno fee???   Does somebody know the actual math of the actual money collected yearly on top of the original investment?   That could be paying for those repairs??? and if they are quietly pulling out weeks and not covering that portion of the fees how is that my responsibility???  If they sell them do I get a portion of those funds refunded back to my costs and my timeshare??? (They can not sell your TS that is under a legal contact to you to the end of you contract)While Northmont continues to pay themselves well for the stellar job they think they are doing???  About time those selfish idiots listened to the people.  You can't get blood from a stone.   It would have been far smarter for them to negotiate something far more realistic or offered owners the opportunity to come and have their say especially when it will affect them.  Yeah Northmont you won the case but you haven't won the war yet.  You have alienated your client base many of whom CANNOT pay and many of whom will not pay.(many had the money to gamble with the 'no merit' litigation group, but none to pay up the fees required by contact as per the judgement)  Because of YOUR mismanagement, those who paid still cannot trust you(Biased opinion of someone who really is pissed off and doing a lot a venting misinformation).     If you truly want this to succeed you are not going to do it with the bully tactics (is it bully tactics when you haven't paid your Visa or Master Card payments for 3 years and they want their money and send collection company and lawyers to collect plus their costs ??)same thing now the judgement has been made)you have used in the past.   I'm willing to take the hit on my credit rating.   But I would have been willing to DISCUSS instead of been ordered to pay something I did not bargain for.   I still believe it is criminal.


(if you believe this to be 'criminal' report it to the police who will investigate it and find the judgment)


----------



## xplor

MFD said:


> I agree completely.  Just out of principle, I refuse to pay these criminals a dime and am willing to take a hit on my credit as well if a reasonable settlement cannot be reached.  And it also frustrates me how people like Explor and EWR, can come on here and start gloating and insulting the ones who've lost in the court ruling.  Rubbing it in our faces, all the while trying to pretend that it you're doing it all in good graces is extremely in bad taste.  If anything, with me at least you both managed to achieve the opposite in persuading me to "see the light".  Your rants, some of which just dragged on for too long that I couldn't even finish reading, convinced me that if I ever had doubts with Gelbert before, I certainly don't anymore.



There is no gloating, rubbing in your face or insults. The facts are the facts. Whether one wants to vent your frustrations and blame others for making some sense of these, go for it if it helps you. As mentioned before, do what you want, it everyone's own choice what they do and what they choose to say.  Most can't afford to take the hit on their credit rating, because eventually they will get it from your wages, pensions or any income you have,  because they have the judgement in their favor. Vent and rant, your still in the same place..


----------



## GypsyOne

ERW said:


> Nor should it be a surprise. From my perspective, the longer people hold out and do not pay, the larger the maintenance bills will be and the longer it will take to complete renovations. I still debate with myself whether I should have paid to give up the timeshare or paid the reno fee. I did not have a lot of confidence in the legal avenue - cases like this, even with the best of evidence, can go either way.
> 
> So, yup, I honestly have to say I would prefer people pay so things can get going but I know many folks have very strong feelings about that. Ultimately that is your decision. But if you really are determined to pursue this, get the advise of a different lawyer. It is kind of like a serious illness. A second opinion is extremely valuable in cases like this.



Asking for a second legal opinion at this point would be like asking for a second medical opinion when you are on the operating table hooked up to tubes and monitors.  The one bright spot in this mess is the legal counsel we have who are genuine in providing competant legal advise and reporting to us in a timely fashion.  Keep in mind that our lead lawyer, Michael Geldert, retains other experts and lawyers to handle specialized areas of litigation. When there is a large number in the litigation group, the cost per person is very reasonable.  I would gladly pay my portion of the legal costs on principle that I will not bow down to the outrageous demands of this white collar gang who are preying on innocent timeshare purchasers for their own enrichment. 

All the 14,500 or so TS owners who bought into Fairmont will be losers one way or another.  In my opinion, the biggest losers will be those who paid the capital rebuilding and renovation fee.  By doing so they have agreed to remain partners with this "gang" and will be on the hook for escalating maintenance fees and special assessments for the remaining term of their 40-year leases in the case of lessees, and into perpetuity in the case of co-owners in the new and converted co-ownership agreements.  I can't imagine a more depressing future.  These faulty buildings, not built to code, will continue to deteriorate; the "gang" with their court compliance will continue to demand higher and higher maintenance fees to maintain a deteriorating resort and fund their lifestyle; and they will continue to demand more funds to renovate, replace, and upgrade the resort to enhance the value for unit/timeshare/condominium sales.  These are units that the TS owners bought with their hard earned money to acquire, and paid more hard earned money to divest.  With a friendly judge's ruling it will all be legal and the remaining TS owners will be captive stooges.  Where is the justice?  Where is the consumer protection?  THEY MUST BE STOPPED!


----------



## xplor

GypsyOne said:


> Asking for a second legal opinion at this point would be like asking for a second medical opinion when you are on the operating table hooked up to tubes and monitors.  The one bright spot in this mess is the legal counsel we have who are genuine in providing competant legal advise and reporting to us in a timely fashion.  Keep in mind that our lead lawyer, Michael Geldert, retains other experts and lawyers to handle specialized areas of litigation. When there is a large number in the litigation group, the cost per person is very reasonable.  I would gladly pay my portion of the legal costs on principle that I will not bow down to the outrageous demands of this white collar gang who are preying on innocent timeshare purchasers for their own enrichment.
> 
> All the 14,500 or so TS owners who bought into Fairmont will be losers one way or another.  In my opinion, the biggest losers will be those who paid the capital rebuilding and renovation fee.  By doing so they have agreed to remain partners with this "gang" and will be on the hook for escalating maintenance fees and special assessments for the remaining term of their 40-year leases in the case of lessees, and into perpetuity in the case of co-owners in the new and converted co-ownership agreements.  I can't imagine a more depressing future.  These faulty buildings, not built to code, will continue to deteriorate; the "gang" with their court compliance will contine to demand higher and higher maintenance fees to maintain a deteriorating resort and fund their lifestyle; and they will contine to demand more funds to renovate, replace, and upgrade the resort to enhance the value for unit/timeshare/condominium sales.  These are units that the TS owners bought with their hard earned money to acquire, and paid more hard earned money to divest.  With a friendly judge's ruling it will all be legal and the remaining TS owners will be captive stooges.  Where is the justice?  Where is the consumer protection?  THEY MUST BE STOPPED!



Go for it. Your legal advice and litigation team worked (not so) well for you to this point as indicated in the judgement where they couldn't back up evidence and were ill prepared. Stick with the legal advice you know and don't get a second opinion, unless you think you are locked in to them because you are all over you heads in this with the losing team. Others will take a logical chose and stop the sinking and form a plan to deal with the issue they were led down. Every ones own choice.


----------



## Quadmaniac

xplor said:


> take a logical chose and stop the sinking and form a plan to deal with the issue



Logic would state that with the number who have paid to get out and the number who are defaulting, it is a matter of time before the resort goes belly up or they rape enough money for the company to bankrupt it. It has been poorly managed for years and nothing will change. Putting good money after bad money is totally what describes this resort. Anyone crazy enough to pay them a cent is out to lunch.

An appeal will take years and time is not on their side as they need the revenue to keep the resort afloat. How long can they go before the funds are exhausted ? Do you think people will continue to pay as the ask for more and more money ? You will have more people defaulting from getting fed up with increased fees and assessments or it will become unaffordable for some. The writing is clearly on the wall, the resort is a sinking operation and I would rather fight the injustice rather than cave in to these thieves.


----------



## xplor

Quadmaniac said:


> Logic would state that with the number who have paid to get out and the number who are defaulting, it is a matter of time before the resort goes belly up or they rape enough money for the company to bankrupt it. It has been poorly managed for years and nothing will change. Putting good money after bad money is totally what describes this resort. Anyone crazy enough to pay them a cent is out to lunch.
> 
> An appeal will take years and time is not on their side as they need the revenue to keep the resort afloat. How long can they go before the funds are exhausted ? Do you think people will continue to pay as the ask for more and more money ? You will have more people defaulting from getting fed up with increased fees and assessments or it will become unaffordable for some. The writing is clearly on the wall, the resort is a sinking operation and I would rather fight the injustice rather than cave in to these thieves.



That is a wild assumption of your own on all the points you are trying to make people believe, all assumptions based on nothing. People need to stop listening to assumptions and start working with facts. The company maybe doing much better they you 'think'. The resort is being repaired and functioning. It simply is a matter how long TS owners are willing to leave that bill unpaid and betting that the company will go bankrupt  (as you assume) because less that 1000 of 14,500 had refused to pay. I am making an assumption many are making the choice to settle leaving a handful that will loss much more in the end. Rightfully, they should collect 100% plus legal costs if some wish to hold out.


----------



## ERW

MFD said:


> I agree completely.  Just out of principle, I refuse to pay these criminals a dime and am willing to take a hit on my credit as well if a reasonable settlement cannot be reached.  And it also frustrates me how people like Explor and EWR, can come on here and start gloating and insulting the ones who've lost in the court ruling.  Rubbing it in our faces, all the while trying to pretend that it you're doing it all in good graces is extremely in bad taste.  If anything, with me at least you both managed to achieve the opposite in persuading me to "see the light".  Your rants, some of which just dragged on for too long that I couldn't even finish reading, convinced me that if I ever had doubts with Gelbert before, I certainly don't anymore.



At no time have I ever gloated or insulted anyone on this site. I have tried to be as reasonable and unbiased as possible. Please re-read my posts and you will see that I have respected the decisions of those that have decided to fight Northmont. It is completely up to you. The one thing I have said was before going any further, please consult another lawyer for a second opinion. It is up to you if you elect to do so. 

I didn't like paying the money for the reno fees but it was a decision I made. Sometimes I think I should have bought my way out of this whole mess, but I didn't and I will just have to live with that fact. What you decide to do is up to you. But gloat? No, I have never gloated nor have I insulted anyone. And if you think I have, let me know the message number so I can see for myself but I would be very surprised if you can come up with anything.


----------



## Quadmaniac

xplor said:


> That is a wild assumption of your own on all the points you are trying to make people believe, all assumptions based on nothing. People need to stop listening to assumptions and start working with facts. The company maybe doing much better they you 'think'. The resort is being repaired and functioning. It simply is a matter how long TS owners are willing to leave that bill unpaid and betting that the company will go bankrupt  (as you assume) because less that 1000 of 14,500 had refused to pay. I am making an assumption many are making the choice to settle leaving a handful that will loss much more in the end. Rightfully, they should collect 100% plus legal costs if some wish to hold out.



Not at all its all simple math. Yeah they are doing "better" as they are slowly draining the money out of the company so that it will have no choice but to declare bankruptcy just as Fairmont did. It's alot more than 1000, try 25%+ and that number is going up steadily. They have the money people paid to get out and the reno fees people have paid, but that will only last so long....


----------



## xplor

Quadmaniac said:


> Not at all its all simple math. Yeah they are doing "better" as they are slowly draining the money out of the company so that it will have no choice but to declare bankruptcy just as Fairmont did. It's alot more than 1000, try 25%+ and that number is going up steadily. They have the money people paid to get out and the reno fees people have paid, but that will only last so long....



Sorry for repeating this, but these are your own wild assumptions to misled TS owners to stay in. Unless you are on the inside track of this company , dealing with facts only and know something the rest doesn't and your 'math'. It is my understanding that the larger majority have dealt with the payments whether they stayed or left and the annual fees continue to pay the costs of managing the resort. So your 'math' really doesn't add up.


----------



## GypsyOne

Quadmaniac said:


> Not at all its all simple math. Yeah they are doing "better" as they are slowly draining the money out of the company so that it will have no choice but to declare bankruptcy just as Fairmont did. It's alot more than 1000, try 25%+ and that number is going up steadily. They have the money people paid to get out and the reno fees people have paid, but that will only last so long....



Without going into detail, the number of TS owners not paying is considerably larger than the number you imply.


----------



## Quadmaniac

xplor said:


> Sorry for repeating this, but these are your own wild assumptions to misled TS owners to stay in. Unless you are on the inside track of this company , dealing with facts only and know something the rest doesn't and your 'math'. It is my understanding that the larger majority have dealt with the payments whether they stayed or left and the annual fees continue to pay the costs of managing the resort. So your 'math' really doesn't add up.



The only wild assumptions is yours that people are going to roll over and do what you want them to do Wankel.


----------



## Punter

xplor said:


> That is a wild assumption of your own on all the points you are trying to make people believe, all assumptions based on nothing. People need to stop listening to assumptions and start working with facts. The company maybe doing much better they you 'think'. The resort is being repaired and functioning. It simply is a matter how long TS owners are willing to leave that bill unpaid and betting that the company will go bankrupt  (as you assume) because less that 1000 of 14,500 had refused to pay. I am making an assumption many are making the choice to settle leaving a handful that will loss much more in the end. Rightfully, they should collect 100% plus legal costs if some wish to hold out.



A full 25% have not paid. That amounts to over 3600 people. 43% paid to leave which is over 6000 people. Northmont now owns 45% of the resort.


----------



## Punter

It will be very interesting to see what kind of an offer, if any,  Northmont will come forward with. There are approximately 3600 people that haven't paid and of those 3600, how many of them will want to remain involved with Northmont?  I'm thinking few if any.  If the offer is a "pay to leave" one, remember where that money goes: directly into the management's pockets. That's right. It won't help out the future of the resort at all. 
I for one am not too excited about giving the Management any money and given the state of the economy and some Of the recent posts, the offer will have to be extremely attractive for people to consider it. 

I have stated this previously: Northmont rendered our Timeshares worthless the minute they offered the initial pay to leave option. Had they taken them back and tried to re-sell them, that would have showed an intention of wanting to remain in business. But to pocket the money and then plan to remove those units from the resort is simply greed.  6200 people paid to leave. That is around 20 million dollars IN NORTHWYNDS POCKETS and they reclaimed 43% of the units THAT THEY ARE PLANNING TO REMOVE FROM THE RESORT.


----------



## Hotpink

*that was then has anything changed*

I suggest you all read the following article 

http://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=16969

Kirk  Wankel was not yet in the drivers seat . He had just come out of a bankruptcy with Fair Sky resources.  

Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## xplor

Punter said:


> A full 25% have not paid. That amounts to over 3600 people. 43% paid to leave which is over 6000 people. Northmont now owns 45% of the resort.



Where did you get these figures ??


----------



## Hotpink

*numbers*

25% is from Justice Fitzpatrick  ruling on Page 4 which is highlighted in pink on the Sunchaser web page under the "owners" section


----------



## Just Looking Around

*Paid to Stay but regretting it.*

I own a week's use each year at this Resort. My wife paid for us to keep our week, only after she received a phone call. We never did receive anything by mail. 
At the time, I didn't pay attention to what was happening at the Resort. That's as generous as I will be to the Developer and Management, calling it a Resort. It's no longer a resort. It's not a resort by any standard by which one would measure a resort: Facility, Amenities, Activities at the Property, Customer Service, Recreational Activities in the Area, the Units themselves.
It hasn't always been this way. At the outset, when I purchased in the early 90's, it was a resort. They tried. They went bankrupt trying. They have a different plan now. I don't know what it is but, they have one.
A common thread runs through the Developers, Investors and Management from the beginning until now. All those name changes and all those company-to-newly minted company sales, they served the Developers, Investors and Management, not the TS Owners. It’s all just subterfuge. The names of the Companies change but the faces within those Companies stay much the same.
Capital Costs don't exist according to this judgement. If they do, they are synonymous with operating expenses. Any outlay of money can be charged back to the TS Owners. If this truly were the case, not a single prospective TS Owner would have bought at this Property. Not one, not ever. That's the real test. It's not a viable enterprise.
It's impossible for it to end with this judgement. The timeshare industry in Canada will collapse. Reputable TS Developers and Managers will want this judgement to be overturned on appeal. I want it overturned. I'm not stupid. I didn't win. Someone in management could right now be buying something frivolous and unrelated to the operation of the property and, I am paying my proportional share of that expense. It could be a resort in Mexico. It could be a houseboat. The Maintenance Fees are going to increase geometrically.
The only party who would welcome this judgement is the Developer, Investor or Manager. No TS Owner is happy.


----------



## Punter

Hotpink said:


> 25% is from Justice Fitzpatrick  ruling on Page 4 which is highlighted in pink on the Sunchaser web page under the "owners" section



Yup - that's where they came from. I thought that since XPLOR has read the judgement not once but twice those figures would be familiar.


----------



## Hotpink

xplor said:


> Where did you get these figures ??



Suggest you read the following  it is on page 2

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2016-RVM-Communication-Final.pdf


----------



## Punter

*Summed up Perfectly*



Just Looking Around said:


> I own a week's use each year at this Resort. My wife paid for us to keep our week, only after she received a phone call. We never did receive anything by mail.
> At the time, I didn't pay attention to what was happening at the Resort. That's as generous as I will be to the Developer and Management, calling it a Resort. It's no longer a resort. It's not a resort by any standard by which one would measure a resort: Facility, Amenities, Activities at the Property, Customer Service, Recreational Activities in the Area, the Units themselves.
> It hasn't always been this way. At the outset, when I purchased in the early 90's, it was a resort. They tried. They went bankrupt trying. They have a different plan now. I don't know what it is but, they have one.
> A common thread runs through the Developers, Investors and Management from the beginning until now. All those name changes and all those company-to-newly minted company sales, they served the Developers, Investors and Management, not the TS Owners. It’s all just subterfuge. The names of the Companies change but the faces within those Companies stay much the same.
> Capital Costs don't exist according to this judgement. If they do, they are synonymous with operating expenses. Any outlay of money can be charged back to the TS Owners. If this truly were the case, not a single prospective TS Owner would have bought at this Property. Not one, not ever. That's the real test. It's not a viable enterprise.
> It's impossible for it to end with this judgement. The timeshare industry in Canada will collapse. Reputable TS Developers and Managers will want this judgement to be overturned on appeal. I want it overturned. I'm not stupid. I didn't win. Someone in management could right now be buying something frivolous and unrelated to the operation of the property and, I am paying my proportional share of that expense. It could be a resort in Mexico. It could be a houseboat. The Maintenance Fees are going to increase geometrically.
> The only party who would welcome this judgement is the Developer, Investor or Manager. No TS Owner is happy.



Agree on all points.


----------



## Just Looking Around

Hotpink said:


> I suggest you all read the following article
> 
> http://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=16969
> 
> Kirk  Wankel was not yet in the drivers seat . He had just come out of a bankruptcy with Fair Sky resources.
> 
> Draw your own conclusions.



I see that. 

http://www.marketwired.com/press-re...d-directors-senior-tsx-venture-fsk-800537.htm

Wish I knew then what I know now. We'd have joined the litigation group. We'd have joined because we don't think it's over. That was just a battle, not the war.


----------



## xplor

Just Looking Around said:


> I see that.
> 
> http://www.marketwired.com/press-re...d-directors-senior-tsx-venture-fsk-800537.htm
> 
> Wish I knew then what I know now. We'd have joined the litigation group. We'd have joined because we don't think it's over. That was just a battle, not the war.



Since you are apparently not part of this group and standing on the sidelines without paying into it and waiting for the judgement, 'Do it', I am sure there is an appeal case in the 'no merit' judgment.


----------



## GypsyOne

Just Looking Around said:


> I see that.
> 
> http://www.marketwired.com/press-re...d-directors-senior-tsx-venture-fsk-800537.htm
> 
> Wish I knew then what I know now. We'd have joined the litigation group. We'd have joined because we don't think it's over. That was just a battle, not the war.



Ain't it sweet to be part of Kirk Wankel's financial comeback.  All he needed was a company with a large cash flow, many diverse suckers under contract, a bankruptcy and nerve to alter the contracts, weak consumer laws, and a compliant judge unwilling or incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.  Looks like appeal is the way to go.


----------



## Hotpink

*Kirk's predecessor*



GypsyOne said:


> Ain't it sweet to be part of Kirk Wankel's financial comeback.  All he needed was a company with a large cash flow, many diverse suckers under contract, a bankruptcy and nerve to alter the contracts, weak consumer laws, and a compliant judge unwilling or incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.  Looks like appeal is the way to go.



To quote Parick Fitzsimonds  (Kirk's predecessor)from his letter of Dec. 7 2011" Unfortunately, the line between legal and illegal is a lot farther away than the line between ethical and unethical. but  it appears that he was talking about those other guys from Columbia Villa Management the former manager of the resort 

Northmont entered into an 'Amended and Restated Developers Use of Inventory and Payment Agreement with RVM on November 2, 2012.  This gave them considerable flexibility in managing the inventory  

We received the new SunChaser update dated Dec 10, 2012 ( 5 pages) lauding Kirk's accomplishments and applauding his change of focus for the resort including the yet to be determined details of the program to renovate the resort. All in all it sounded like this might be a good plan and we wouldn't get any invoice until April of 2013. again it sounded plausible. But we did not know about the Amended Agreement at that time. Nor did we know or even foresee the ramification it would have on the developers expanded inventory once the RPF was implemented. 

The amended agreement became known only during the recent trial and it was noted that Northmont did not have to pay their proportionate share of maintenance fees on the 43% of the units that were returned to them.

It appears that this was done in anticipation of several lessees opting to pay to get out of Dodge for a rather large fee and Northmont would then have at their disposal and not be responsible for the maintenance fees. Great gig and perhaps that may be considered part of a financial comeback.

Section 8 of the amended agreement is most revealing.


How does this tie in to the Fitzsimonds quote?


----------



## xplor

Hotpink said:


> To quote Parick Fitzsimonds  (Kirk's predecessor)from his letter of Dec. 7 2011" Unfortunately, the line between legal and illegal is a lot farther away than the line between ethical and unethical. but  it appears that he was talking about those other guys from Columbia Villa Management [COLOR="blue[COLOR="Blue"]"](WHICH WERE CROOKS[ and a big part of the slide in maint. and skimming our maint funds in creative ways that should have kept our resort up,and eventually became a part of the  Fairmont bankruptcy)/ There are lots of stories behind these guys because they were one arm of Colin Knight's empire and he took as much as he could from everywhere within Fairmont before going into bankruptcy. Pat Fitzsimonds was hired by Knight and a part of the Knight empire Fairmont long before Wankel arrived with Northmont.[/COLOR] COLOR])the former manager of the resort
> 
> Northmont entered into an 'Amended and Restated Developers Use of Inventory and Payment Agreement with RVM on November 2, 2012.  This gave them considerable flexibility in managing the inventory
> 
> We received the new SunChaser update dated Dec 10, 2012 ( 5 pages) lauding Kirk's accomplishments and applauding his change of focus for the resort including the yet to be determined details of the program to renovate the resort. All in all it sounded like this might be a good plan and we wouldn't get any invoice until April of 2013. again it sounded plausible(it was and it is). But we did not know about the Amended Agreement at that time. Nor did we know or even foresee the ramification it would have on the developers expanded inventory once the RPF was implemented.
> 
> The amended agreement became known only during the recent trial and it was noted that Northmont did not have to pay their proportionate share of maintenance fees on the 43% of the units that were returned to them.
> 
> It appears that this was done in anticipation of several lessees opting to pay to get out of Dodge for a rather large fee and Northmont would then have at their disposal and not be responsible for the maintenance fees. Great gig and perhaps that may be considered part of a financial comeback. (With 43% (if that is the figure) not being used, there isn't the same maint. required in housekeeping, unit wear and tear repairs etc. so seems reasonable to me these costs are not there. Only costs of units that are being used should be paid to up keep them. None of this should be relevant to you as you apparently haven't being paying ??? But a good theory that supports your 'everything is crooked and against 'all TS owners'. There are many quite happy owners enjoying their TS's.)
> Section 8 of the amended agreement is most revealing.
> 
> 
> How does this tie in to the Fitzsimonds quote?



Whatever works for you, go for it....


----------



## Hotpink

*numbers*

May I suggest you read what Kirk wrote in the 2016 maintenance update

http://sunchaservillas.ca/owners/maintenance-fees/

He is very clear at the bottom of page 2 what he expects to happen.

Thus when the dust settles he says the resort will continue to operate at between 35-40% of original capacity and are planning accordingly. 
This was basically the same statement found in the 2015 maintenance statement.
However in the 2015 statement he is saying that and I quote" we will have to include some form of delinquency/ litigation fee to provide the resort sufficient cash flow to weather the delay until recovery from delinquent owners is achieved"

Does that mean the 32% that are staying get to pay that fee because as Xplor says the resort is not using any inventory so they won't have to pay just the 32% who are using their time. I could estimate some numbers but I will leave that to Chartered Accountant that is at the helm

Does this sound any where close to  the grandiose plans we were given in print on December10, 2012 or again in April 2013 with the freedom to choose options

I did not make up any numbers and all numbers come from the written communications supplied by the architect of this RPF aka the Chief Executive  Officer, Northwynd Resort Properties. 
I do keep hard copies of all correspondence

What do they call the person who comes in last in medical school ?
DOCTOR. The same statement applies to all professions


----------



## Punter

Quote : Originally posted by Xplor
_With 43% (if that is the figure) not being used, there isn't the same maint. required in housekeeping, unit wear and tear repairs etc. so seems reasonable to me these costs are not there. Only costs of units that are being used should be paid to up keep them. None of this should be relevant to you as you apparently haven't being paying ??? But a good theory that supports your 'everything is crooked and against 'all TS owners'. There are many quite happy owners enjoying their TS's._

Using your logic, if Northmont doesn't have to pay maintenance fees (MF) on the unused units because there is no expenses incurred then why would the TS owners have to pay MF's on the units they are not using? And why did Northmont not only charge people to relinquish their TS but they added a year's maintenance fees for a unit that wasn't going to be used. 

43% is correct. Kirk Wankle should know, it's stated on his website.


----------



## Just Looking Around

xplor said:


> Since you are apparently not part of this group and standing on the sidelines without paying into it and waiting for the judgement, 'Do it', I am sure there is an appeal case in the 'no merit' judgment.



Right. We're glad you agree. This judgement has no merit. 

We only found out about this after friends of ours send us a link to the judgement. We didn't join the plaintiff's' legal group because we didn't even know it existed. We will try to join.


----------



## xplor

Just Looking Around said:


> Right. We're glad you agree. This judgement has no merit.
> 
> We only found out about this after friends of ours send us a link to the judgement. We didn't join the plaintiff's' legal group because we didn't even know it existed. We will try to join.


 I am sure


Great, do it. The ' no merit judgment' was the judgment of the court ruling. It had 'no merit' at all to it's case and not that there was no merit in this judgement aa you tried to word smith it to be. Read the judgment and you will find that it is the judgement of the court 'not merit case'. Lost case terribly.


----------



## Just Looking Around

Punter said:


> Quote : Originally posted by Xplor
> _With 43% (if that is the figure) not being used, there isn't the same maint. required in housekeeping, unit wear and tear repairs etc. so seems reasonable to me these costs are not there. Only costs of units that are being used should be paid to up keep them. None of this should be relevant to you as you apparently haven't being paying ??? But a good theory that supports your 'everything is crooked and against 'all TS owners'. There are many quite happy owners enjoying their TS's._
> 
> Using your logic, if Northmont doesn't have to pay maintenance fees (MF) on the unused units because there is no expenses incurred then why would the TS owners have to pay MF's on the units they are not using? And why did Northmont not only charge people to relinquish their TS but they added a year's maintenance fees for a unit that wasn't going to be used.
> 
> 43% is correct. Kirk Wankle should know, it's stated on his website.



You've made a very logical argument, and that leads to the essential question you've posed. 

A friend who is a lawyer, not involved in this case, says one problem lies in the bankruptcy proceedings. He says that the court tried to allow those who loaned money to Fairmont to recover their money, which Fairmont had lost through bad investments. In doing so, it disregarded the interests of the leaseholders (TS unit holders).  In the end, the plan after the bankruptcy proceedings was simple.  Those who loaned Fairmont money can get their money back by charging, you guessed it, the leaseholders who had no say and no way out. 

The leaseholders have no association, and that leaves them with no voice.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I swear the governments and courts are run by the construction industry and developers. They build a substandard building, road, or a condo and whistle all the way to the bank.


----------



## GypsyOne

Just Looking Around said:


> You've made a very logical argument, and that leads to the essential question you've posed.
> 
> A friend who is a lawyer, not involved in this case, says one problem lies in the bankruptcy proceedings. He says that the court tried to allow those who loaned money to Fairmont to recover their money, which Fairmont had lost through bad investments. In doing so, it disregarded the interests of the leaseholders (TS unit holders).  In the end, the plan after the bankruptcy proceedings was simple.  Those who loaned Fairmont money can get their money back by charging, you guessed it, the leaseholders who had no say and no way out.
> 
> The leaseholders have no association, and that leaves them with no voice.
> 
> I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I swear the governments and courts are run by the construction industry and developers. They build a substandard building, road, or a condo and whistle all the way to the bank.



You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist, you just have to be a realist and to have observed too frequently how the system works.  Where there are $multi-millions at stake, there will be influence, favors, and politics.  Influence, favors, and politics can be very subtle.  A word here, a suggestion there, a lunch meeting, a benefit for the right result, a veiled threat.  The B.C. government does not want a major tourist attraction to fail and be sitting idle.  The obvious solution is to tap into the TS owners.  It is beyond comprehension that TS owners would be held responsible for fixing obviously flawed buildings not built to code.  The proof is self-evident.  Properly constructed buildings should have a useable lifetime of 50-60 or more years, not rendered un-useable in fifteen or so years.


----------



## xplor

GypsyOne said:


> You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist, you just have to be a realist and to have observed too frequently how the system works.  Where there are $multi-millions at stake, there will be influence, favors, and politics.  Influence, favors, and politics can be very subtle.  A word here, a suggestion there, a lunch meeting, a benefit for the right result, a veiled threat.  The B.C. government does not want a major tourist attraction to fail and be sitting idle.  The obvious solution is to tap into the TS owners.  It is beyond comprehension that TS owners would be held responsible for fixing obviously flawed buildings not built to code.  The proof is self-evident.  Properly constructed buildings should have a useable lifetime of 50-60 or more years, not rendered un-useable in fifteen or so years.



I can see it now, those who jump on this litigation wagon. Everyone is corrupt, politicians, judges, building code inspectors, benefiting the tourist industry all played a role in the judgment. There will be followers of this theory and others that will start to question the theorists and that a democratic govt and unbiased courts decisions doesn't work, more so in their case. People are smarter than building a story around this and believe the judgment.


----------



## ERW

Just Looking Around said:


> You've made a very logical argument, and that leads to the essential question you've posed.
> 
> A friend who is a lawyer, not involved in this case, says one problem lies in the bankruptcy proceedings. He says that the court tried to allow those who loaned money to Fairmont to recover their money, which Fairmont had lost through bad investments. In doing so, it disregarded the interests of the leaseholders (TS unit holders).  In the end, the plan after the bankruptcy proceedings was simple.  Those who loaned Fairmont money can get their money back by charging, you guessed it, the leaseholders who had no say and no way out.
> 
> The leaseholders have no association, and that leaves them with no voice.
> 
> I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I swear the governments and courts are run by the construction industry and developers. They build a substandard building, road, or a condo and whistle all the way to the bank.



I wouldn't go as far to say that the courts are run by the construction industry but they do have the money to pay for the best lawyers and accountants. Makes a huge difference when going to court. 

Further to that, I think in many cases judges will side with the little guy but you have to also have to prove you have a legitimate case. Unfortunately in this case the judge did not appear to see it that way.


----------



## Just Looking Around

xplor said:


> I can see it now, those who jump on this litigation wagon. Everyone is corrupt, politicians, judges, building code inspectors, benefiting the tourist industry all played a role in the judgment. There will be followers of this theory and others that will start to question the theorists and that a democratic govt and unbiased courts decisions doesn't work, more so in their case. People are smarter than building a story around this and believe the judgment.



Is your position that there has never been anything wrong with the buildings? Are you saying the Developer didn't get away with selling Timeshare units in buildings grievously misrepresented as having a normal useful life? 

You must be the only leaseholder who is happy. No one is satisfied with the Sunchaser experience. No one is comfortable with the consequences of this Judgement. 

My conclusion is you must be an individual in a unique position in this dispute. 

I would like you to help me. Tell why I should be happy. I spent $20,000 on a Timeshare unit. I paid my Maintenance Fees. Now I have to pay another 40% of my original investment plus, the annual Maintenance Fees. The Maintenance Fees are being calculated differently because they can be. There's no attempt at justification. It benefits the Manager so the Manager does it. That doesn't bode well for future budgets does it?

For each of the last half-dozen years, we arrive at Sunchaser and it feels like the day after a disaster. It's lonely and cold. You can see the disrepair. The staff isn't even friendly. Calling the place is like calling your kids' school when the grade six students are answering the phones. 

I never signed up to take on the onerous responsibility of backstopping a reckless Developer and incompetent Managers. Accountants like our CEO call them sunk costs and when they prove to have been ill advised you don't chase sunk costs gone bad with good money. I am not bargaining for our original investment back. But I certainly should have had the opportunity to exit. 

I accept full responsibility for having made a bad investment at Sunchaser. What I don't accept responsibility for is the buildings. I also don't accept any liability for the stupid boats or any of the other ideas Fairmont gambled on with bond-holders money. That's on the bond-holders. They should have liquidated the assets when Fairmont went bankrupt rather than extort money from lease-holders who had no choice and no options. The 'pay to leave' has rightly been identified in a previous post as the tipping point. That's when this all became worthless. 

When you used the metaphor of not having a 'horse in this race', you were more open than you meant to be.


----------



## xplor

Just Looking Around said:


> Is your position that there has never been anything wrong with the buildings? Are you saying the Developer didn't get away with selling Timeshare units in buildings grievously misrepresented as having a normal useful life?
> 
> You must be the only leaseholder who is happy. No one is satisfied with the Sunchaser experience. No one is comfortable with the consequences of this Judgement.
> 
> My conclusion is you must be an individual in a unique position in this dispute.
> 
> I would like you to help me. Tell why I should be happy. I spent $20,000 on a Timeshare unit. I paid my Maintenance Fees. Now I have to pay another 40% of my original investment plus, the annual Maintenance Fees. The Maintenance Fees are being calculated differently because they can be. There's no attempt at justification. It benefits the Manager so the Manager does it. That doesn't bode well for future budgets does it?
> 
> For each of the last half-dozen years, we arrive at Sunchaser and it feels like the day after a disaster. It's lonely and cold. You can see the disrepair. The staff isn't even friendly. Calling the place is like calling your kids' school when the grade six students are answering the phones.
> 
> I never signed up to take on the onerous responsibility of backstopping a reckless Developer and incompetent Managers. Accountants like our CEO call them sunk costs and when they prove to have been ill advised you don't chase sunk costs gone bad with good money. I am not bargaining for our original investment back. But I certainly should have had the opportunity to exit.
> 
> I accept full responsibility for having made a bad investment at Sunchaser. What I don't accept responsibility for is the buildings. I also don't accept any liability for the stupid boats or any of the other ideas Fairmont gambled on with bond-holders money. That's on the bond-holders. They should have liquidated the assets when Fairmont went bankrupt rather than extort money from lease-holders who had no choice and no options. The 'pay to leave' has rightly been identified in a previous post as the tipping point. That's when this all became worthless.
> 
> When you used the metaphor of not having a 'horse in this race', you were more open than you meant to be.



If I were you, I'd be going after the guy who signed your contract without knowing everything you included here. Have him pay your way out, if out is what you want to do. my horse paid his fees.


----------



## Just Looking Around

xplor said:


> If I were you, I'd be going after the guy who signed your contract without knowing everything you included here. Have him pay your way out, if out is what you want to do. my horse paid his fees.



I don't understand what you are trying to say; It's my fault? I said that. I signed the contract. I took full responsibility for making the bad decision to sign a lease at Sunchaser. I kissed my $20,000 Goodbye.

Do you have to ask if I want to leave? Maybe it's me or maybe it's you, but I'm surprised I haven't made myself clear.

Let me try to make this clear. I've lived up to my part of the bargain. The Developer and the Managers didn't live up to their part of the bargain. It's that simple. This fact has been lost in the myriad of details created by the litany of corporate maneuverings.  Each single move taken by itself has just enough semblance of sense. But, when you look at them together, in their entirety over time, they lose their disguise, a very thin veneer of well-intentioned purpose. What's being disguised is a progressive erosion of the interests of the lease-holders in favor of the Developer and Managers. It's a continuous exploitation of the lease-holders by holding them for ransom, for as long as this fantasy role-playing game of Northmont's is allowed to continue.

Way more people have paid to leave or not paid at all, than have paid to stay. One doesn't have to be a Supreme Court Judge to understand: "THE VOTES ARE IN, SUNCHASER SUCKS!" It's conclusive; Northmont cannot successfully manage a resort property. It's self-evident in the numbers. No explanation or interpretation is necessary.

They have a contractual obligation, a fiduciary responsibility, to serve the interests of the lease-holders. They abrogated their contractual obligation. Tell me how that isn't a material breach of the contract? That is the definition of a prima facie case.

Don't feel the need to reply. I already know what you are going to say, "You won, they lost." "Read the VIA's. Read the Judgement. The Litigation Group's Lawyer did a bad job. One in four lease-holders is a lay-about just looking for a free ride." That's all you have said.

The CEO of Northmont is an accountant. It's an old joke among the squints I know; you are only one entry away from balancing. Northmont would do well to remember that. Balance and justice can be just that close.


----------



## xplor

Just Looking Around said:


> I don't understand what you are trying to say; It's my fault? I said that. I signed the contract. I took full responsibility for making the bad decision to sign a lease at Sunchaser. I kissed my $20,000 Goodbye.
> 
> Do you have to ask if I want to leave? Maybe it's me or maybe it's you, but I'm surprised I haven't made myself clear.
> 
> Let me try to make this clear. I've lived up to my part of the bargain. The Developer and the Managers didn't live up to their part of the bargain. It's that simple. This fact has been lost in the myriad of details created by the litany of corporate maneuverings.  Each single move taken by itself has just enough semblance of sense. But, when you look at them together, in their entirety over time, they lose their disguise, a very thin veneer of well-intentioned purpose. What's being disguised is a progressive erosion of the interests of the lease-holders in favor of the Developer and Managers. It's a continuous exploitation of the lease-holders by holding them for ransom, for as long as this fantasy role-playing game of Northmont's is allowed to continue. (If this is your case, I guess it is like paying anything else, buyer beware what you are buying and signing)Way more people have paid to leave or not paid at all, than have paid to stay. One doesn't have to be a Supreme Court Judge to understand: "THE VOTES ARE IN, SUNCHASER SUCKS!" (your opinion)It's conclusive; Northmont cannot successfully manage a resort property.(these issue started long before Northmont took over the mess. They were simply the deliverer of the news of the resort and the solutions only. It seems to me it is them that are managing the issues properly and well as should have been before they took in bankruptcy.) It's self-evident in the numbers. No explanation or interpretation is necessary.[/COLOR]
> 
> They have a contractual obligation, a fiduciary responsibility, to serve the interests of the lease-holders. They abrogated their contractual obligation. Tell me how that isn't a material breach of the contract? That is the definition of a prima facie case. (tell me how it is, the judge didn't think it was)
> Don't feel the need to reply. I already know what you are going to say, "You won, they lost." "Read the VIA's. Read the Judgement. The Litigation Group's Lawyer did a bad job. One in four lease-holders is a lay-about just looking for a free ride." That's all you have said. (you said it, I didn't have to)The CEO of Northmont is an accountant. It's an old joke among the squints I know; you are only one entry away from balancing. Northmont would do well to remember that. Balance and justice can be just that close.




...............................


----------



## xplor

Just Looking Around said:


> I don't understand what you are trying to say; It's my fault? I said that. I signed the contract. I took full responsibility for making the bad decision to sign a lease at Sunchaser. I kissed my $20,000 Goodbye.
> 
> Do you have to ask if I want to leave? Maybe it's me or maybe it's you, but I'm surprised I haven't made myself clear.
> 
> Let me try to make this clear. I've lived up to my part of the bargain. The Developer and the Managers didn't live up to their part of the bargain. It's that simple. This fact has been lost in the myriad of details created by the litany of corporate maneuverings.  Each single move taken by itself has just enough semblance of sense. But, when you look at them together, in their entirety over time, they lose their disguise, a very thin veneer of well-intentioned purpose. What's being disguised is a progressive erosion of the interests of the lease-holders in favor of the Developer and Managers. It's a continuous exploitation of the lease-holders by holding them for ransom, for as long as this fantasy role-playing game of Northmont's is allowed to continue. (If this is your case, I guess it is like paying anything else, buyer beware what you are buying and signing)Way more people have paid to leave or not paid at all, than have paid to stay. One doesn't have to be a Supreme Court Judge to understand: "THE VOTES ARE IN, SUNCHASER SUCKS!" (your opinion)It's conclusive; Northmont cannot successfully manage a resort property.(these issue started long before Northmont took over the mess. They were simply the deliverer of the news of the resort and the solutions only. It seems to me it is them that are managing the issues properly and well as should have been before they took in bankruptcy.) It's self-evident in the numbers. No explanation or interpretation is necessary.[/COLOR]
> 
> They have a contractual obligation, a fiduciary responsibility, to serve the interests of the lease-holders. They abrogated their contractual obligation. Tell me how that isn't a material breach of the contract? That is the definition of a prima facie case. (tell me how it is, the judge didn't think it was)
> Don't feel the need to reply. I already know what you are going to say, "You won, they lost." "Read the VIA's. Read the Judgement. The Litigation Group's Lawyer did a bad job. One in four lease-holders is a lay-about just looking for a free ride." That's all you have said. (you said it, I didn't have to)The CEO of Northmont is an accountant. It's an old joke among the squints I know; you are only one entry away from balancing. Northmont would do well to remember that. Balance and justice can be just that close.




...............................


----------



## xplor

Just Looking Around said:


> I don't understand what you are trying to say; It's my fault? I said that. I signed the contract. I took full responsibility for making the bad decision to sign a lease at Sunchaser. I kissed my $20,000 Goodbye.
> 
> Do you have to ask if I want to leave? Maybe it's me or maybe it's you, but I'm surprised I haven't made myself clear.
> 
> Let me try to make this clear. I've lived up to my part of the bargain. The Developer and the Managers didn't live up to their part of the bargain. It's that simple. This fact has been lost in the myriad of details created by the litany of corporate maneuverings.  Each single move taken by itself has just enough semblance of sense. But, when you look at them together, in their entirety over time, they lose their disguise, a very thin veneer of well-intentioned purpose. What's being disguised is a progressive erosion of the interests of the lease-holders in favor of the Developer and Managers. It's a continuous exploitation of the lease-holders by holding them for ransom, for as long as this fantasy role-playing game of Northmont's is allowed to continue. (If this is your case, I guess it is like paying anything else, buyer beware what you are buying and signing)Way more people have paid to leave or not paid at all, than have paid to stay. One doesn't have to be a Supreme Court Judge to understand: "THE VOTES ARE IN, SUNCHASER SUCKS!" (your opinion)It's conclusive; Northmont cannot successfully manage a resort property.(these issue started long before Northmont took over the mess. They were simply the deliverer of the news of the resort and the solutions only. It seems to me it is them that are managing the issues properly and well as should have been before they took in bankruptcy.) It's self-evident in the numbers. No explanation or interpretation is necessary.[/COLOR]
> 
> They have a contractual obligation, a fiduciary responsibility, to serve the interests of the lease-holders. They abrogated their contractual obligation. Tell me how that isn't a material breach of the contract? That is the definition of a prima facie case. (tell me how it is, the judge didn't think it was)
> Don't feel the need to reply. I already know what you are going to say, "You won, they lost." "Read the VIA's. Read the Judgement. The Litigation Group's Lawyer did a bad job. One in four lease-holders is a lay-about just looking for a free ride." That's all you have said. (you said it, I didn't have to)The CEO of Northmont is an accountant. It's an old joke among the squints I know; you are only one entry away from balancing. Northmont would do well to remember that. Balance and justice can be just that close.




It is what it is and your new reality for your choice.


----------



## Maritimer

It is time to move past the mud-slinging. *We are in this together.*

The reality is that the solution proposed by Northwynd is the best alternative in a bad situation. The other options are not pretty and guarantee everyone looses. We all signed contracts and share the liabilities we never expected to become reality.

It seems like a lot of money but, it is the only reasonable alternative to excessively higher maintenance fees in the future to keep patching-up and fixing. At least this way, we will have a quality, tradable resort when the major renovations are completed. *A win-win for everyone.*


----------



## Punter

Maritimer said:


> It is time to move past the mud-slinging. *We are in this together.*
> 
> The reality is that the solution proposed by Northwynd is the best alternative in a bad situation. The other options are not pretty and guarantee everyone looses. We all signed contracts and share the liabilities we never expected to become reality.
> 
> It seems like a lot of money but, it is the only reasonable alternative to excessively higher maintenance fees in the future to keep patching-up and fixing. At least this way, we will have a quality, tradable resort when the major renovations are completed. *A win-win for everyone.*




This is far from a win-win situation. What about the people who paid to leave? How did they win?  They paid thousands of dollars to "get out",  forfeiting not only a 15-20k dollar investment but a 10-20 year investment in future family vacations. That money did not go into the resort, it went straight into Northmont/REIT's pockets - 20 million$ So just one winner there. 
And the people that paid to stay?  With Fitzpatrick's judgement, Northmont can change the the contract and spend freely under the guise of operating expenses. They wanna put in a zoo? Guess who gets to pay for the elephants. They wanna buy houseboats? Well that one's been done. Northmont can also make the decision as to when the resort is too small to operate. Current owners are getting nervous. Have you looked at the amount of Sunchaser villas for sale? On just two sites there are over 80 listings where the asking price ranges from 600$ - 15K for their week/points. Do you know what they're worth?  They're worth (minus)- 3800$ thanks entirely to Northmont's 'pay to leave' scheme. Will the people who paid to stay win? Not without a huge cost.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

*Worst investment ever.  May as well burn money*

Up until this ridiculous reno fee we paid our fees every year and on time.  We watched the resorts and boats come and go and NEVER was able to access any of it but am damn sure we contributed to it.   When the reno fee was sent out or the Pay to leave option we were pissed to say the least.  Because of a bunch of gross mismanagement we now pay to fix up something we don't own, something we don't get any proceeds back from as they sell off pieces of it, which if we did OWN the responsibilities of repairs do we not the OWN the revenues from it????.  Should all that money paid to exit then go back into the "common fund" of remaining owners???   I don't believe the majority is happily using their timeshare and whats to stop the Wankle group from slapping more and more fees on our backs.   At least when I sell my house I get the proceeds for it.  Here I have to pay them to take the fricking thing and they benefit.   They've pocketed all the exit fees to do what???? with???    Pay themselves first of course.   If you buy a rundown piece of crap house you will pay the price accordingly.  If you take on a huge resort very rundown you pay acccordingly but we sure didn't see our fees reflect that.  You don't pay high prices for something needing a ton of work.  BUT you take on the risk and expense.   You don't take it on and try to stick all the RENTERS with the costs.  If that was the case in a rental situation the RENTERS would simply move out.  RENTERS/AKA leasers do not OWN OR BENEFIT FROM OWNERSHIP of the building.  And you don't get your contracts changed without any consultation.   Something is dreadfully wrong here.  Some judge needs her friggin head examined.


----------



## xplor

Punter said:


> This is far from a win-win situation. What about the people who paid to leave? How did they win?  They paid thousands of dollars to "get out",  forfeiting not only a 15-20k dollar investment but a 10-20 year investment in future family vacations. (at least they were given a choice to leave and not pay future annual maint. fees which many had stopped using TS's altogether for whatever reasons, this made them winners because they don't own 3 years of interest now as some do) That money did not go into the resort,(wild lies and speculation yet again to make people believe what you are telling them  the truth, how can you prove this, other than another wild and false speculation. In fact the money went into the resort, if your auditor, accountant checked) it went straight into Northmont/REIT's pockets - 20 million$ So just one winner there. (again, shooting off at the mouth without facts, we know a investor of Northwynd and hasn't seen a dime of his investment from anything to do with Sunchasers and told us they are reinvesting that money into the resort as TS owners were promised)
> And the people that paid to stay?  With Fitzpatrick's judgement, Northmont can change the the contract and spend freely under the guise of operating expenses. They wanna put in a zoo? Guess who gets to pay for the elephants. They wanna buy houseboats? Well that one's been done. Northmont can also make the decision as to when the resort is too small to operate. Current owners are getting nervous. (again full 100% lies and speculation (without merit) to try to scare TS owners. If this happened, it would be a breach of the contract and a fraud. Anything to do with houseboats were under the Fairmont/Knight fiasco prior to and went into the bankruptcy., before Northmont, so you better get some facts into your posts if you are going to have any creditability other they simply spouting off).Have you looked at the amount of Sunchaser villas for sale? On just two sites there are over 80 listings where the asking price ranges from 600$ - 15K for their week/points. Do you know what they're worth?  They're worth (minus)- 3800$ thanks entirely to Northmont's 'pay to leave' scheme. Will the people who paid to stay win? Not without a huge cost.


 As we have seen others on this site try and sell their TS's without telling the perspective buyers about the fees owing to transfer the ownership. This is a fraud some they are attempting to pull off. If new owners paid the fees, they would be the winners if they got it at a good price, because they would have a TS to enjoy.


----------



## Just Looking Around

Punter said:


> This is far from a win-win situation. What about the people who paid to leave? How did they win?  They paid thousands of dollars to "get out",  forfeiting not only a 15-20k dollar investment but a 10-20 year investment in future family vacations. That money did not go into the resort, it went straight into Northmont/REIT's pockets - 20 million$ So just one winner there.
> And the people that paid to stay?  With Fitzpatrick's judgement, Northmont can change the the contract and spend freely under the guise of operating expenses. They wanna put in a zoo? Guess who gets to pay for the elephants. They wanna buy houseboats? Well that one's been done. Northmont can also make the decision as to when the resort is too small to operate. Current owners are getting nervous. Have you looked at the amount of Sunchaser villas for sale? On just two sites there are over 80 listings where the asking price ranges from 600$ - 15K for their week/points. Do you know what they're worth?  They're worth (minus)- 3800$ thanks entirely to Northmont's 'pay to leave' scheme. Will the people who paid to stay win? Not without a huge cost.



BAZINGA! Well said.


----------



## Just Looking Around

xplor said:


> As we have seen others on this site try and sell their TS's without telling the perspective buyers about the fees owing to transfer the ownership. This is a fraud some they are attempting to pull off. If new owners paid the fees, they would be the winners if they got it at a good price, because they would have a TS to enjoy.



OH THE IRONY! Are you warning a TS Owner at Sunchaser that they are legally obligated to disclose physical defects in the property and if it comes with a clear title? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
You are sounding like the Property Manager or Developer.


----------



## Just Looking Around

xplor said:


> It is what it is and your new reality for your choice.



Your response to my issues with Sunchaser is, "Buyer Beware." That's it? That's your comeback? 

That's an admission on your part that the resort is not worth what we paid. You are directly implying your agreement that we are the victims of the misrepresentation and legal maneuverings performed by Northmont and its predecessors. You've equated the succession of  Managers to a used car dealer that turns back odometers. If I buy a car from a REPUTABLE dealer, it comes with a warranty that the dealership (Property Manager) and the manufacturer (Developer) will stand behind. I don't get told 'Buyer Beware.'

You say it is only my opinion that the Sunchaser Experience Sucks! As if! Add up the number of people who have left, the number who refuse to pay and, those like me who have paid but will not ever pay another dime to Northmont. That's a veritable army. It's an army that is willing to continue this fight.

You say that Northmont is just the messenger, that these issues existed long before Northmont. ITS VIRTUALLY THE SAME PEOPLE. THEY JUST CHANGED THE CORPORATE NAMES. They morphed into yet another corporate entity to distance themselves from the past, escape legal repercussions, transfer assets and portray themselves as the savior of the Resort. (Geez, I hate to call it that, a resort. It's not a resort of course.) 

You know the background. Why don't you tell us about Dunvegan Petroleum and their involvement from day one? And, why is a petroleum company not in the petroleum business? Tell us about Mr. Knight's involvement. Please, tell me I'm wrong. Tell me the same people haven't pulled the strings from day one. Didn't Mr. Knight sell it to, Mr. Knight?


----------



## Punter

*Dear xplor: NOT wild lies and speculation*

QUOTE=Northwynd CC;1582224]Cancellation fees have never been for the renovation and we have never suggested they are.  The cancellation fee is a payment to Northmont as developer for agreeing to terminate  your lease/ownership....


That response is from Northmont themselves, post #1306. The resort did not see any of that 20 million from the cancellation fees. Where do you think it went?  
No need to comment on the rest of your post as its summed up beautifully above. Now go outside, find a patio and enjoy this beautiful spring weather with a nice cold beer.


----------



## Hotpink

*Dunvegan*

Here is the creditor list from 2010 follow the link

http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eycm... Package.pdf

 You will note that the address for Collin Knight and Dunvegan petroleum are all the same

Dunvegan petroleum  still lists  Mr. Knight as President and CEO  and MS Wong as administrative manager located in SW Calgary.

Fairmont owed a lot of money to Collin and his company. Never mind who some of the other players were.


----------



## Hotpink

*link*

hope this works

http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...t Properties Ltd/FRP - Bankruptcy Package.pdf


----------



## GypsyOne

Maritimer said:


> It is time to move past the mud-slinging. *We are in this together.*
> 
> The reality is that the solution proposed by Northwynd is the best alternative in a bad situation. The other options are not pretty and guarantee everyone looses. We all signed contracts and share the liabilities we never expected to become reality.
> 
> It seems like a lot of money but, it is the only reasonable alternative to excessively higher maintenance fees in the future to keep patching-up and fixing. At least this way, we will have a quality, tradable resort when the major renovations are completed. *A win-win for everyone.*



NO! NO! NO!  The Northmont proposal is not the best alternative.  You sound like we should all be joining hands, singing Kum Ba Yah, and jumping off the cliff together.  You must be someone who go suckered into paying the renovation fee and now you will be partners with these white collar bandits for the remaining term of your lease if you are a lessee, or forever if you are a co-owner.  Now you want more suckers to join in to keep your costs down.  The Northmont proposal is the worst possible alternative.  You're dreaming if you think this is the last money grab and then we all enjoy life at Fairmont forever more.  Ain't going to happen. Poorly constructed buildings are still poorly constructed buildings no matter how much lipstick you apply.  They will continue to rapidly deteriorate and maintenance fees and reconstruction costs will continue to escalate.  Lessees should not have the responsibility of ownership but have none of the benefits.  Similarly, lessees and co-owners should not have the responsibility of ownership but not have a voice in management.  We bought time in a time share resort, we did not buy the resort.  Northmont may temporarily have a friendly judge in their back pocket.  This horrible decision needs to be fought to the gates of hell if that's what is necessary to get justice.


----------



## Beaverjfw

*Northmont Makes a Settlement Offer!!*

If you haven't got it yet, its coming!
Yes, a settlement offer from Northmont.
Now they are offering to let you off the hook for only $11,500.(one week TS) You can walk away from your $12,000 "investment" just by giving Northmont another $11.5 and let them have the real estate for free. Add another $1000 if your overlooked paying for 2013 fees.
If you decide to stay with the resort, its actually cheaper! Just $11,000. You won't get get back those three years of missed vacations either.
This choice lets Northmont downsize the resort and re-write your contract just about anyway they want. You can then hang in there and pay your annual dues for another 15-20 years and pay "whatever it costs" as you will be solely responsible.
What fun!


----------



## Just Looking Around

Punter said:


> QUOTE=Northwynd CC;1582224]Cancellation fees have never been for the renovation and we have never suggested they are.  The cancellation fee is a payment to Northmont as developer for agreeing to terminate  your lease/ownership....
> 
> 
> Thank you, Punter, Thank you Hotpink and Thank you GypseOne. _"Cancellation fees have never been for the renovation ..." _As I mentioned we didn't get a hard copy so we don't know how cancellation fees were calculated. It would be interesting to know if it included any mention of maintenance fees. Because, if it went straight to Northmont as the Developer (notice this is Sunchaser's terminology) and not the renovation, why would there be any maintenance fee attached? I would interpret it as a blatant money grab. That is of course if the Cancellation Fee included any Maintenance Fees. $20-million. Think about it. $20-million from cancellations alone.
> I doubt there will ever be or they'd ever cooperate with a forensic audit but, the original investors have to be operating in the black now.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Beaverjfw said:


> If you haven't got it yet, its coming!
> Yes, a settlement offer from Northmont.
> Now they are offering to let you off the hook for only $11,500.(one week TS) You can walk away from your $12,000 "investment" just by giving Northmont another $11.5 and let them have the real estate for free. Add another $1000 if your overlooked paying for 2013 fees.
> If you decide to stay with the resort, its actually cheaper! Just $11,000. You won't get get back those three years of missed vacations either.
> This choice lets Northmont downsize the resort and re-write your contract just about anyway they want. You can then hang in there and pay your annual dues for another 15-20 years and pay "whatever it costs" as you will be solely responsible.
> What fun!



I got the email today and replied back they can go screw themselves! They can keep dreaming if they think they will see a cent of that.


----------



## Ty1on

What a mess.


----------



## Just Looking Around

Beaverjfw said:


> Now they are offering to let you off the hook for only $11,500.(one week TS) You can walk away from your $12,000 "investment" just by giving Northmont another $11.5 and let them have the real estate for free.
> What fun!



I have posted enough. I am going home this evening and we'll have that drink that was suggested. But just so you know we are not paying another dime to Sunchaser. Not a dime.


----------



## Punter

*Lmfao*



Beaverjfw said:


> If you haven't got it yet, its coming!
> Yes, a settlement offer from Northmont.
> Now they are offering to let you off the hook for only $11,500.(one week TS) You can walk away from your $12,000 "investment" just by giving Northmont another $11.5 and let them have the real estate for free. Add another $1000 if your overlooked paying for 2013 fees.
> If you decide to stay with the resort, its actually cheaper! Just $11,000. You won't get get back those three years of missed vacations either.
> This choice lets Northmont downsize the resort and re-write your contract just about anyway they want. You can then hang in there and pay your annual dues for another 15-20 years and pay "whatever it costs" as you will be solely responsible.
> What fun!


:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## TUGBrian

clearly didnt learn the "be polite" lesson after the first suspension....so lets have another shall we!


----------



## Hotpink

*Renting at Sunchaser*

Stage 1
In 2012 we paid our  2013 maintenance fees and had booked to go to the resort in late June and made arrangements for the reno fee. Then came the floods and no way to get there except by going up and over the Yellowhead and down to Kamloops and a lot of backtracking to get there. Or going down to number 3 through the Crowsnest and back up. Neither being a very viable alternative. Customer service was less than helpful in helping us to solve the issue and we were told if you can't get there you will lose it and there is no option for you. Okay we had no choice but to accept that they chose not to help. 

Stage 2. We have not paid any mtce fee since and have not paid either the get out of jail card or the reno feel since then.

Stage 3. We rented a unit in the 8000 building from RCI in 2014 for about $450 Cdn and the place was less than 50% occupied. The rent was about 1/2 of the mtce fee for the same week . We also took the tour of the Show suite in the 800 Building in Riverside. Our Guide was very cordial and very upbeat about the improvements in both the A& B sides. We questioned why the A side which is one bedroom needed to have TWO bathrooms. The B side had a full kitchen and was very open and airy and had an upgraded kitchen and Bathroom. The guide appeared to  know nothing about the dispute between the Northmont Calgary office and many of the lessees. We felt they were being honest as we had dealt with that individual many times in the past during our many vacations in the valley.     

Stage 4. In 2015 we rented in Panorama for about $475 through RCI and golfed a lot at RS and MS and noted the number of buildings that were already boarded up and not in use in both Hillside and River side and estimated occupancy well less than 40%.

Stage 5 We have looked at renting again through RCI and find that SCV has only TWO units available in April of 16 and ONE in May of 16 and then nothing until October. The other conditions on Rental is that the Outdoor pool will be under construction until June of 16and the indoor pool closed until July of 16.

Either they are booked solid in May, June, July, August and September and have no inventory to give to RCI for the rental pool. Or it may be that they have withdrawn their 42% completely and not paid the maintenance fees on those and have already begun to contact the resort.

Stage 6. If I understand correctly Northmont is offering a settlement of  us lessees paying upwards of $11,000 to go and or stay which I can only conclude they want the original pay to stay or pay to go fee plus up 4 FOUR years Mtce fees
and interest at 2% per month. Now that is not much of an inducement to get keen or get into. 
I do not to profess to be a financer but I do know that banks try to recoup some of their losses by selling off the possessed asset at pennies on the dollar , not at full retail price plus some kind of restocking charge. If they truly wanted to have us go away then they need to offer an incentive not an accumulative and inflated fee.

Stage 7. We will just rent elsewhere this year and take a look around again.


----------



## Scammed22

*Do we live in Canada or a third world country where's the Justice?*

It's simple we fight and we don't stop ....If we win we win....if we lose...we win...Because we're saying no to the scum that took advantage of us. We the people bought with a dream...to find peace from the stress at home, and to be with our loving family and friends. Did we get what we paid for? NO! I don't care what anyone says we didn't sign up for this, and neither would any Judge or any timeshare owners if they knew that they were signing up for a nightmare that we now face...which frankly is ridiculous to say the least. I think the more the public knows about this the better... If the justice system  doesn't protect the people, and doesn't know right from wrong...I guess that's the real loss...

I will never stop fighting...because I'm a winner even when I'm down...sometimes they don't expect the underdogs to come up from behind...those have always been my best wins...

We need to set an example, and stop this from ever happening in our great country again!


----------



## Quadmaniac

Scammed22 said:


> It's simple we fight and we don't stop ....If we win we win....if we lose...we win...Because we're saying no to the scum that took advantage of us. We the people bought with a dream...to find peace from the stress at home, and to be with our loving family and friends. Did we get what we paid for? NO! I don't care what anyone says we didn't sign up for this, and neither would any Judge or any timeshare owners if they knew that they were signing up for a nightmare that we now face...which frankly is ridiculous to say the least. I think the more the public knows about this the better... If the justice system  doesn't protect the people, and doesn't know right from wrong...I guess that's the real loss...
> 
> I will never stop fighting...because I'm a winner even when I'm down...sometimes they don't expect the underdogs to come up from behind...those have always been my best wins...
> 
> We need to set an example, and stop this from ever happening in our great country again!



Yep, well said. That's my thought. We will prevail.


----------



## Quadmaniac

TUGBrian said:


> clearly didnt learn the "be polite" lesson after the first suspension....so lets have another shall we!



Gotta give Wankel / Xplor credit for trying to beat us down with rhetoric. He doesn't give up does he ?


----------



## TUGBrian

I dont mind when folks share a different opinion, it makes for healthy debate.

however if you cant argue your point without using curse words or insults, there is no place for you here on TUG.

some folks just cant seem to understand that in an age where the internet lets you be as obnoxious as you want to be 99% of the time.


----------



## Quadmaniac

TUGBrian said:


> I dont mind when folks share a different opinion, it makes for healthy debate.
> 
> however if you cant argue your point without using curse words or insults, there is no place for you here on TUG.
> 
> some folks just cant seem to understand that in an age where the internet lets you be as obnoxious as you want to be 99% of the time.



My thoughts too. It's the people who can't win their argument with reasonable logic, proof, and overall sensibility, that have to resort to insults to distract from the weakness in their viewpoint. But if he can convince a few to bail out of the appeal by hammering his viewpoint, the resort could potentially earn tens of thousands if just a few are swayed by the "you're an idiot for joining the litigation in the first place and even more of a fool if you continue throwing more money down the toilet fighting as you will lose again." argument. It means big money in his pocket so I guess its worth the effort to be pretend to be "a concerned timeshare owner who paid their dues and enjoying the resort" giving his "honest" opinion.


----------



## Real World

*Timeshare FAQ*

The following is copy of a Timeshare FAQ.

"What is the downside to owning a timeshare?

You must continue to pay the yearly maintenance fee, which can increase over the lifetime of the resort, whether you use it or not.

You could be required to pay additional "special assessments" arising from unexpected costs of maintaining or repairing the resort.

Some people feel that owning a timeshare requires excessive advanced planning in attempts to reserve a popular floating week or to obtain a good exchange week. Planning a timeshare vacation a year in advance is not unusual.

The majority of concerns with timeshare ownership seems to center around dealing with cost and interaction with exchange companies. It's often not the straightforward process the timeshare sales staff would have you believe."

Can any TS owners outside of Sunchaser comment on what their TS Agreements say regarding "special assessments"?


----------



## GypsyOne

Real World said:


> The following is copy of a Timeshare FAQ.
> 
> "What is the downside to owning a timeshare?
> 
> You must continue to pay the yearly maintenance fee, which can increase over the lifetime of the resort, whether you use it or not.
> 
> You could be required to pay additional "special assessments" arising from unexpected costs of maintaining or repairing the resort.
> 
> Some people feel that owning a timeshare requires excessive advanced planning in attempts to reserve a popular floating week or to obtain a good exchange week. Planning a timeshare vacation a year in advance is not unusual.
> 
> The majority of concerns with timeshare ownership seems to center around dealing with cost and interaction with exchange companies. It's often not the straightforward process the timeshare sales staff would have you believe."
> 
> Can any TS owners outside of Sunchaser comment on what their TS Agreements say regarding "special assessments"?




My Lease agreement makes no mention of special assessments, except for when me or my guests negligently damages the property.  My lease says only that I am proportionately responsible for maintenance and repair (the Operating Costs).  My lease along with all the other early agreements, makes no mention of capital costs, or costs associated with replacement of deteriorating capital structure, whether due to faulty construction, not following building code, not following generally accepted industry standards for construction, or for any other reason.  Northmont, realizing the lease agreements were problematic to having the TS owners rebuild the failing buildings, had a campaign shortly after they took over to convert all the leases to co-ownership agreements (Legacy for Life) in which they added the clause "responsible for capital costs."  Clearly they were worried about the lease agreements not including capital costs, so they offered the "exciting new plan" (at a price) which on the surface looked good, only if you didn't realize you were now on the hook for capital reconstruction of failing buildings. And as you were now a co-owner, that responsibility would last into perpetuity.  In other words, from now on and for evermore, you are responsible for replacement of the buildings to keep the complex a functioning modern resort facility.  But, you do not share in the revenue of the complex, you do not own a share in the event of sale of the complex, and you do not have a voice in management.  You are an owner only for financial responsibility, not for financial benefit.  Those that took the bait and converted, claim misrepresentation and that critical information was omitted.

My lease agreement is for a fixed forty-year term.  At the end of forty years I walk away with no residual value.  But Fitzpatrick's flawed ruling says that if the managers ask me for a proportionate share of, say, a $20 million upgrade in year 39, I have to pony up, even though I will get no value.  

Fitzpatrick makes no distinction between the lease agreements and the co-ownership agreements.  She makes her ruling on the basis of the Agreement that is most favourable to Northmont, which is the converted co-ownership agreements, and jumps to the conclusion that all you TS owners are in the same boat.  And she is the one who regularly says you must follow the wording of the contract.  Fitzpatrick regularly confuses the rights and responsibilities of lessees with the rights and responsibilities of owners (or co-owners).  How many people in the civilized, everyday, work-a-day world think if you are a lessee, or tenant, that you are responsible for replacing the roof on the apartment block?  I would say about zero.  The lessee is responsible only for paying rent, and the lessor has an implied contractual responsibility to provide habitable accommodation.  Fitzpatrick seems to live in an alternate universe.    

My lease provides a formula for settlement in the event I default on paying maintenance.  Basically, the formula says that on default I forfeit my timeshare and I am reimbursed for 25% of my original cost for the remaining time on the lease.  Of course, Northmont says that that is a permissive clause, that they do not have to use that formula, but instead they rule that the defaulting TS owner not only forfeits remaining time on the lease, but also pays an arbitrarily determined lump sum of money.  And of course Fitzpatrick says in effect, "yeah I'm good with that, sounds reasonable to me."  Seems that there is, or there should be, consumer protection legislation that protects the consumer against misleading clauses in contracts.  Every TS owner that bought a timeshare and read the contract would say that that clause provides the remedy in the event of default.  Every timeshare salesman, if asked, would have confirmed the same thing. Where is the consumer protection?

Sort of like if you bought a new car for say $20,000, and shortly after purchase the wheels start falling off, nothing works, the electronics are all screwed up.  In a normal world, it's easy to draw the conclusion that it was a faultily built car, that the purchaser did not get what was contracted for, that the remedy is to give the purchaser the option of returning the car for a full refund, or providing the purchaser with a car built to normal contractual standards.  But in the Northmont/Fitzpatrick Alice in Wonderland world, you give the faulty car back, plus a sum of money to bring the car up to standard so the dealership can resell the car to another client at full price. 

Fitzpatrick has in effect awarded Northmont a blank cheque to have the TS owners reconstruct, upgrade, and remodel faulty buildings forever more.  A hundred years from now, those or their heirs with a co-ownership agreement could be asked to pay for resort infrastructure reconstruction.  Mercifully, those with a forty-year lease agreement will only be screwed for the remaining term of their forty-year leases.

I wondered from the beginning whether we could get justice in a B.C. court.  I am still wondering.  The B.C. government does not want a failed major tourist attraction on their hands. So much easier to hit up the TS owners, who may live well beyond the B.C. borders, for the capital required to keep the resort functioning.  

Going by the previous successful appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal, we stand a better chance in the higher court.  This case screams out for justice.  Court sanctioned scams should not be allowed to stand in Canada.


----------



## pdoff

Right on GypsyOne - we have the some issues exactly


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

*HOW ABOUT STARTING A CROWD SOURCING FUNDRAISER  - for legal appeal*



			
				GypsyOne;
EDITED to reduce size by T-Dot -Traveller 

My lease agreement is for a fixed forty-year term.  At the end of forty years I walk away with no residual value.  But Fitzpatrick's flawed ruling says that if the managers ask me for a proportionate share of said:
			
		

> *************
> 
> HERE ARE MY COMMENTS AS A NON - OWNER
> HOW ABOUT CROWD SOURCING - to help pay for the legal appeal
> 
> 
> I have followed this thread occasionally / and more often since the judge's
> ruling. It interests me as a Canadian and as a TS owner of RTU - non deeded
> contracts.
> 
> I would suggest a crowd sourcing fundraiser - with TUG  Brian' input
> via either a link or some other format to publicize to the TS community .
> 
> an additional thought - since the product. ( a timeshare ) was marketed to a North American customer base is it possible that legally it must "comply" with NAFTA etc.
> We have seen / heard in Canada that the Great Lakes water and agriculture marketing boards must comply to NAFTA and other international trade laws .
> 
> I certainly would contribute a small amount to help fund a legal case that helps to make sure some Mexican judge does not decide that my RTU TS / my choice to renew and a pay on use only MF - does not become a "in perpetuity TS with mandatory MF "
> 
> Thanks


----------



## Just Looking Around

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> *************
> 
> HERE ARE MY COMMENTS AS A NON - OWNER
> HOW ABOUT CROWD SOURCING - to help pay for the legal appeal
> 
> 
> I have followed this thread occasionally / and more often since the judge's
> ruling. It interests me as a Canadian and as a TS owner of RTU - non deeded
> contracts.
> 
> I would suggest a crowd sourcing fundraiser - with TUG  Brian' input
> via either a link or some other format to publicize to the TS community .
> 
> an additional thought - since the product. ( a timeshare ) was marketed to a North American customer base is it possible that legally it must "comply" with NAFTA etc.
> We have seen / heard in Canada that the Great Lakes water and agriculture marketing boards must comply to NAFTA and other international trade laws .
> 
> I certainly would contribute a small amount to help fund a legal case that helps to make sure some Mexican judge does not decide that my RTU TS / my choice to renew and a pay on use only MF - does not become a "in perpetuity TS with mandatory MF "
> 
> Thanks



That's is a great idea. My first thought is the litigation group's lawyer. They can handle any subsequent account and he would be the logical focus point of contract and dissemination of information relevant to this litigation group. And, that would really annoy xplor.


----------



## mmchili

Here is an interesting read about time shares that appeared in the New York Times. There are some similarities to Sunchaser. Just hope that Diamond does not end up buying Sunchaser when Northmont decides to sell it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/b...using-hard-sell-to-push-time-shares.html?_r=1


----------



## Real World

Thanks for your thoughts GypsyOne but I was wondering what Timeshare Agreements from resorts other than Sunchaser say in regards to 'special assessments"

Was the appeal of the Justice Loo decision successful based on procedural grounds as opposed to errors in decisions?


----------



## Just Looking Around

*Nice Try.*




Real World said:


> Thanks for your thoughts GypsyOne but I was wondering what Timeshare Agreements from resorts other than Sunchaser say in regards to 'special assessments"
> 
> Was the appeal of the Justice Loo decision successful based on procedural grounds as opposed to errors in decisions?




I'm not sure you can distinguish why Justice Loo's decision was overturned on Appeal. Wouldn't a procedural error invalidate any subsequent judgement? Fruit of a poisoned tree, so to speak.

Excuse my suspicious nature but this thread consists of basically two types of Posters. One is a TS Owner at Sunchaser who is outraged at Northwynd's management of the property; and, since the bankruptcy proceedings, their failure to respect the TS Owners' interests and the implied intent of the Property to profit off of those TS Owners. The other is ostensibly Northwynd itself. At least, they might as well be, based on their posts.

I am suspicious when a frequent poster who continually sides with Northwynd's position is suspended and, on the heels of that, a new Poster joins the group. A new Poster who, asks an innocuous question that clearly belongs on another thread. The Poster then asks a question displaying detailed knowledge of the history of this case. 

If you are going to say a lot of timeshare leases at other properties have Special Assessment Clauses and, we are obligated to pay our maintenance fees and assessment for the life of our lease, save it. If you are going to say that Justice Loo was right, her decision was only overturned on Appeal because of a technicality, save that too.

Now that's in the open, welcome. At least, your grammar is much improved over the last Northwynd sympathiser. If that is the case. We'll see soon enough.


----------



## Punter

Just Looking Around said:


> [/COLOR
> 
> At least, your grammar is much improved over the last Northwynd sympathiser.




That's almost as good as the "grade 6 kids answering the phones at Sunchaser" comment. Well done!  I'm glad you found this forum.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Real World said:


> Thanks for your thoughts GypsyOne but I was wondering what Timeshare Agreements from resorts other than Sunchaser say in regards to 'special assessments"
> 
> Was the appeal of the Justice Loo decision successful based on procedural grounds as opposed to errors in decisions?



It doesn't really matter what other resorts say in their agreements, the only relevance is what is this agreement. Bottom line it was overturned and so will this last decision.


----------



## Real World

Just Looking Around said:


> I'm not sure you can distinguish why Justice Loo's decision was overturned on Appeal. Wouldn't a procedural error invalidate any subsequent judgement? Fruit of a poisoned tree, so to speak.
> 
> Excuse my suspicious nature but this thread consists of basically two types of Posters. One is a TS Owner at Sunchaser who is outraged at Northwynd's management of the property; and, since the bankruptcy proceedings, their failure to respect the TS Owners' interests and the implied intent of the Property to profit off of those TS Owners. The other is ostensibly Northwynd itself. At least, they might as well be, based on their posts.
> 
> I am suspicious when a frequent poster who continually sides with Northwynd's position is suspended and, on the heels of that, a new Poster joins the group. A new Poster who, asks an innocuous question that clearly belongs on another thread. The Poster then asks a question displaying detailed knowledge of the history of this case.
> 
> If you are going to say a lot of timeshare leases at other properties have Special Assessment Clauses and, we are obligated to pay our maintenance fees and assessment for the life of our lease, save it. If you are going to say that Justice Loo was right, her decision was only overturned on Appeal because of a technicality, save that too.
> 
> Now that's in the open, welcome. At least, your grammar is much improved over the last Northwynd sympathiser. If that is the case. We'll see soon enough.



If you don't know why Justice Loo's decision was successfully appealed that is ok Just Looking Around. I will track down the Appeal decision and review it.

I do think you are being a little paranoid with your suspicions and would hope you would wait for a controversial post before getting your pitchfork out.

Telling someone what comments are acceptable "save that too" is also a little rude I think.

I am glad though you approve of my grammar.


----------



## Real World

Quadmaniac said:


> It doesn't really matter what other resorts say in their agreements, the only relevance is what is this agreement. Bottom line it was overturned and so will this last decision.



Thanks for your assistance Quadmaniac. Hopefully I can get my answers elsewhere.


----------



## GypsyOne

Real World said:


> Thanks for your assistance Quadmaniac. Hopefully I can get my answers elsewhere.



Nice try, but it's not working.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Real World said:


> Thanks for your assistance Quadmaniac. Hopefully I can get my answers elsewhere.



Let's say other resorts allow for special assessments, are you able to use this in court even though it's contract has nothing to do with from Sunchasers ? Let's say it doesn't, again is this applicable in court against another contract ? Both cases no, as you have to go by what the terms of the contract is in this situation specifically and how it is spelled out. Its like saying in some jurisdictions you can talk on your cell phone while driving and some you can't. This one disallows it, but since it is acceptable in other parts, I'm going to appeal my ticket for distracted driving based upon another jurisdiction's rules. Makes no sense, as the court are going to rule based upon what is applicable under your jurisdiction. 

Justice Loo errored in procedure as she did not apply the law as it was supposed to be and made a judgement without considering all the moving parts and the requirements as specified for procedural proceedings as defined by the courts as what proceedings are used in what applications. Again, how does that impact the present ? 

My question is if you have these answers, how does that change the current situation one way or another ? Of what strategic significance is either of these two questions for what is occurring now ?


----------



## Real World

Quadmaniac said:


> Let's say other resorts allow for special assessments, are you able to use this in court even though it's contract has nothing to do with from Sunchasers ? Let's say it doesn't, again is this applicable in court against another contract ? Both cases no, as you have to go by what the terms of the contract is in this situation specifically and how it is spelled out. Its like saying in some jurisdictions you can talk on your cell phone while driving and some you can't. This one disallows it, but since it is acceptable in other parts, I'm going to appeal my ticket for distracted driving based upon another jurisdiction's rules. Makes no sense, as the court are going to rule based upon what is applicable under your jurisdiction.
> 
> Justice Loo errored in procedure as she did not apply the law as it was supposed to be and made a judgement without considering all the moving parts and the requirements as specified for procedural proceedings as defined by the courts as what proceedings are used in what applications. Again, how does that impact the present ?
> 
> My question is if you have these answers, how does that change the current situation one way or another ? Of what strategic significance is either of these two questions for what is occurring now ?



I asked the questions solely for my benefit and the answers do not change the current situation at all.  There is no strategic significance for what is occurring now but I think the issues will surface down the road.

In any event the weather is great and it is time for me to focus on golf.

Take care.


----------



## ERW

Quadmaniac said:


> Let's say other resorts allow for special assessments, are you able to use this in court even though it's contract has nothing to do with from Sunchasers ? Let's say it doesn't, again is this applicable in court against another contract ? Both cases no, as you have to go by what the terms of the contract is in this situation specifically and how it is spelled out. Its like saying in some jurisdictions you can talk on your cell phone while driving and some you can't. This one disallows it, but since it is acceptable in other parts, I'm going to appeal my ticket for distracted driving based upon another jurisdiction's rules. Makes no sense, as the court are going to rule based upon what is applicable under your jurisdiction.
> 
> Justice Loo errored in procedure as she did not apply the law as it was supposed to be and made a judgement without considering all the moving parts and the requirements as specified for procedural proceedings as defined by the courts as what proceedings are used in what applications. Again, how does that impact the present ?
> 
> My question is if you have these answers, how does that change the current situation one way or another ? Of what strategic significance is either of these two questions for what is occurring now ?



I agree with you on the first point - other contracts from other timeshares have no bearing in this case as other contracts will likely be worded differently and cannot be compared directly. However, some judges will look at the "spirit" of the contract to determine the ultimate meaning of it. 

However, as far as Justice Loo's decision and subsequent overturning of that decision, I think what the poster was trying to say is that even though the decision was overturned, the decision itself was not in favour of the timeshare owners. The decision was overturned because of a procedural issue, not because of her final decision. That being said, this most recent decision was not in favour of the timeshare owners as well. So two Justices have, in essence, ruled in favour of Northmont (despite one decision having been overturned).

My only suggestion then is that some (to help spread the cost of that review) of the participating timeshare owners should perhaps take all the info you have (contracts and other documents) as well as the most recent decision and get another lawyer's opinion before pushing ahead with an appeal. I hate to see people jumping on a bandwagon and doing something that is just going to cost more money and ultimately, if the appeal is lost or not even heard, having to still pay Northmont what is owed plus interest or having their credit affected to their detriment. Another point to consider is that if an appeal is heard and found in Northmont's favour again, this time the Justice will likely award costs to Northmont as well. Northmont's lawyers will not be cheap and that cost could be significant. 

And before someone accuses me of being a Northmont supporter, please reconsider. I am trying to be objective in this and proceeding cautiously with eyes open would be a wise move. All of this legal crapola can be a spider web which most of us do not fully understand.


----------



## Quadmaniac

ERW said:


> My only suggestion then is that some (to help spread the cost of that review) of the participating timeshare owners should perhaps take all the info you have (contracts and other documents) as well as the most recent decision and get another lawyer's opinion before pushing ahead with an appeal. I hate to see people jumping on a bandwagon and doing something that is just going to cost more money and ultimately, if the appeal is lost or not even heard, having to still pay Northmont what is owed plus interest or having their credit affected to their detriment. Another point to consider is that if an appeal is heard and found in Northmont's favour again, this time the Justice will likely award costs to Northmont as well. Northmont's lawyers will not be cheap and that cost could be significant.



Nothing wrong with getting a second opinion but I don't think you are looking at the other side of the coin. If you let this go the way it is, these thieves get millions of dollars and can sell the resort for even more to line their pockets. In the event that we do nothing, Northmont has a blank cheque to take whatever they want as the judge is giving them free reign.

Even if it is a losing battle, I would rather spend the money fighting and tying it up in court than give them one dime. They are crooks pure and simple. 

Lets just do simple math, the reno fee was $4000 per annual deed x 52 weeks is $208,000 per unit. I can buy a 1000 sq ft two bedroom condo brand new. How can a reno cost more than a brand new condo when they are not rebuilding the whole thing and they aren't paying for the land ? Come on....

Even if it costs a bit of money, I'm going to do what is RIGHT to protect myself and others from this injustice. Sometimes its worth fighting for PRINCIPLES.....Are you going to lie down and be steamrolled by a bully ? I'm not.


----------



## SentimentalLady

*We can't let them get away with this*

I see we have a few new people joining our group of disgruntled lessees.  Some only recently found this page on behalf of their parents - who are not internet-savvy, and others – who paid to stay and now are NOT happy to read in the decision that they will be on the hook for all capital costs for 40 years. I’m not sure that ‘Welcome’ is the appropriate term, but you know what I mean.

It has troubled me greatly that Northmont used our inability to communicate with one another against us. I asked about forming a lessees’ group right after they took over and the manager said they hoped to do that. And nothing happened. I asked 20 years ago, too. And both those times were before there were problems.

I wonder if any paid-to-stay people might feel up to agitating for Northmont to form a group NOW. If they will form a group, all lessees can at least be made aware of the existence of our litigation group and make their own choice about joining us or not. If Northmont deliberately chooses again to not form a group, I can think of why that would be all kinds of a wrong decision – and one that could be used against them.

Here’s the math…..at the end of October 2015, of about 14,500 families involved:
32% paid   (4640)
43% cancelled    (6235)
25% delinquent/objecting   (3625)
It sure says something when fewer than 1/3 of lessees supported Northmont’s proposal of how to move forward. Some ongoing direct communication among lessees would have been desirable in the years leading up to this mess.

So if we take away the 43% who cancelled, because they are gone and FINISHED, that means the current crop of lessees is made up of the following:
56% paid to stay    (4640)
44% delinquent/objecting     (3625)

Those of us with the Geldert litigation group know how large a proportion we make up of that 3625 delinquent/objecting. And now we even have some joining us from the ‘paid to stay’ group!

I’d sure like to see another public push made to find the rest of the ‘delinquent’ lessees….those who think they are alone in fighting Northmont’s plans that are to the detriment of all lessees. 

Maybe put it out there on social media…. “Do you know someone – maybe your parents – who bought a timeshare at Fairmont and are now unhappy? If they are not internet-savvy, they may not know about the litigation group. Have them contact me (yourself) for information about this option.”


----------



## ERW

Quadmaniac said:


> Nothing wrong with getting a second opinion but I don't think you are looking at the other side of the coin. If you let this go the way it is, these thieves get millions of dollars and can sell the resort for even more to line their pockets. In the event that we do nothing, Northmont has a blank cheque to take whatever they want as the judge is giving them free reign.
> 
> Even if it is a losing battle, I would rather spend the money fighting and tying it up in court than give them one dime. They are crooks pure and simple.
> 
> Lets just do simple math, the reno fee was $4000 per annual deed x 52 weeks is $208,000 per unit. I can buy a 1000 sq ft two bedroom condo brand new. How can a reno cost more than a brand new condo when they are not rebuilding the whole thing and they aren't paying for the land ? Come on....
> 
> Even if it costs a bit of money, I'm going to do what is RIGHT to protect myself and others from this injustice. Sometimes its worth fighting for PRINCIPLES.....Are you going to lie down and be steamrolled by a bully ? I'm not.



Our opinions don't differ a great deal, just our approach. And I'm not saying throw in the towel and give up. Just consider every option available to you. While principles are worth fighting for, if you are fighting a losing battle, sometimes you have to reconsider your options. All I am saying is consult a different lawyer to see if an appeal is worth pursuing. If you don't like that lawyer's opinion, seek out another opinion if you like. But at a certain point you need to put some logic into the argument and decide how much your principles are worth. 

I went through a similar situation with a former employer. After 5 years, we settled out of court. Got most of what I was owed but by then a good portion went to my lawyer in fees. If I had stuck to my principles, I would have gone to court. My lawyer, however, explained court is always a gamble. 

I wish you luck but please consider all the options. And don't let a lawyer get you all gung-ho and tell you that you will win. No one, absolutely no one, can make that claim with any certainty.


----------



## Quadmaniac

ERW said:


> Our opinions don't differ a great deal, just our approach. And I'm not saying throw in the towel and give up. Just consider every option available to you. While principles are worth fighting for, if you are fighting a losing battle, sometimes you have to reconsider your options. All I am saying is consult a different lawyer to see if an appeal is worth pursuing. If you don't like that lawyer's opinion, seek out another opinion if you like. But at a certain point you need to put some logic into the argument and decide how much your principles are worth.
> 
> I went through a similar situation with a former employer. After 5 years, we settled out of court. Got most of what I was owed but by then a good portion went to my lawyer in fees. If I had stuck to my principles, I would have gone to court. My lawyer, however, explained court is always a gamble.
> 
> I wish you luck but please consider all the options. And don't let a lawyer get you all gung-ho and tell you that you will win. No one, absolutely no one, can make that claim with any certainty.



I'm fully aware of the risks and yes it is absolutely worth the risk. I work with lawyers on a regular basis on business deals and I've had to take people to court before as well, so I'm very well versed with what goes on in court. Here is the thing in this case specifically, with the number of people in the suit, our actual cost is minimal to fight it and even if we theoretically lose, it will also deplete Northmont's resources over time both from the lack of revenue and expenditures in fighting the case. We know they can't fight it forever either as they want to bail as soon as possible while there is still money in the coffers to steal before declaring bankruptcy. 

After the case, they would have to chase each leaseholder in small claims court to get a judgement against each individual, which takes more time and the courts will not allow for their interest penalties so already it will a lot less than what they are trying to claim as the balance. You cannot claim 30% interest as they are. If you've ever gone to court and tried to collect, you would know that it is difficult to collect from people even if you have a judgement. I would guarantee you I would not make it easy for them to collect as they will have to beat it out of me. For me, the battle is well worth the effort


----------



## Quadmaniac

FYI - this is IF they are able to win the appeal and they come after someone in small claims court, these are the interest rates that would apply to any debt that is owed to them. They can not charge whatever interest they want to try and force you to settle with them.

ALBERTA REGULATION 215/2011
Judgment Interest Act
JUDGMENT INTEREST REGULATION
Calculation of interest
1 For the purposes of section 4 of the Judgment Interest Act,
(a) the interest rate from January 1, 1993 to December 31,
1993 is prescribed at 6% per year;
(b) the interest rate from January 1, 1994 to December 31,
1994 is prescribed at 4.5% per year;
(c) the interest rate from January 1, 1995 to December 31,
1995 is prescribed at 5.25% per year;
(d) the interest rate from January 1, 1996 to December 31,
1996 is prescribed at 5.5% per year;
(e) the interest rate from January 1, 1997 to December 31,
1997 is prescribed at 3.5% per year;
(f) the interest rate from January 1, 1998 to December 31,
1998 is prescribed at 3.5% per year;
(g) the interest rate from January 1, 1999 to December 31,
1999 is prescribed at 4% per year;
(h) the interest rate from January 1, 2000 to December 31,
2000 is prescribed at 6.25% per year;
(i) the interest rate from January 1, 2001 to December 31,
2001 is 6.25% per year;
(j) the interest rate from January 1, 2002 to December 31,
2002 is prescribed at 5.25% per year;
(k) the interest rate from January 1, 2003 to December 31,
2003 is prescribed at 4.5% per year;
(l) the interest rate from January 1, 2004 to December 31,
2004 is prescribed at 3.75% per year;
(m) the interest rate from January 1, 2005 to December 31,
2005 is prescribed at 3.40% per year;
Section 2 AR 215/2011
JUDGMENT INTEREST REGULATION
2
 the interest rate from January 1, 2006 to December 31,
2006 is prescribed at 3.50% per year;
(o) the interest rate from January 1, 2007 to December 31,
2007 is prescribed at 4% per year;
(p) the interest rate from January 1, 2008 to December 31,
2008 is prescribed at 4.25% per year;
(q) the interest rate from January 1, 2009 to December 31,
2009 is prescribed at 2.75% per year;
(r) the interest rate from January 1, 2010 to December 31,
2010 is prescribed at 0.825% per year;
(s) the interest rate from January 1, 2011 to December 31,
2011 is prescribed at 1.85% per year;
(t) the interest rate from January 1, 2012 to December 31,
2012 is prescribed as 1.20% per year;
(u) the interest rate from January 1, 2013 to December 31,
2013 is prescribed at 1.40% per year;
(v) the interest rate from January 1, 2014 to December 31,
2014 is prescribed at 1.10% per year;
(w) the interest rate from January 1, 2015 to December 31,
2015 is prescribed at 1.05% per year;
(x) the interest rate from January 1, 2016 to December 31,
2016 is prescribed at 0.55% per year.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Quadmaniac - Very Interesting....and Thank You*

You know I did wonder if they could actually charge for the reno interest at a rate of 29 percent from 2013 when the judgement on whether  they could charge us the reno fee at all was in 2016.  Many said NO.  That equates to around $2900 in my case.  So with  this information you have given us just confirms information I was given from another source about the interest being charged as a whole and what the courts will actually allow them to charge. And if we do get a judgement that they are not allowed to charge reno interest until 2016, this would be a great savings.   Thank you so much for it.  My decision is starting to sway strongly to continuing fighting them for a reasonable settlement.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Anxiety123 said:


> You know I did wonder if they could actually charge for the reno interest at a rate of 29 percent from 2013 when the judgement on whether  they could charge us the reno fee at all was in 2016.  Many said NO.  That equates to around $2900 in my case.  So with  this information you have given us just confirms information I was given from another source about the interest being charged as a whole and what the courts will actually allow them to charge. And if we do get a judgement that they are not allowed to charge reno interest until 2016, this would be a great savings.   Thank you so much for it.  My decision is starting to sway strongly to continuing fighting them for a reasonable settlement.



It's a long long hard road before Northmont will ever see money and people have to see that.

1. They have to fight and win the appeal which I estimate will take 3 years till a decision will be rendered

2. They would have to then sue each deed owner one by one and win there. If they do the judgement will be for far less than the amount "owed"
     a) Interest is not 30%, its 1%
     b) In the case, Northmont argues that they can charge themselves a reduced rate as they would not be using the units they own. By that same argument, those who did not pay should have that same option as Northmont DECIDED that if you don't pay the reno fee, you can't use your unit, so essentially depriving you of the ability to use your unit. As they have control over it and there is no way an owner could have used it, it cost the resort less and maintenance fee should be the same as what they allowed themselves. Read the portion of the case where Wankel says no owner had asked for a reduced fee. In this case they KNEW it would not be used as they were not allowing it so they did not have the same expenses of maintaining the unit during those years. 
     c) I would even advance the argument that I should not be responsible for the MF as THEY prevented me from using my unit even though I was willing to pay and use the resort during this disagreement. As they withheld the usage, it frustrated the situation and they did not mitigate their losses by allowing me to pay and use the unit when that could have been done. As a result I did not get 3 years usage when there is no reasonable reason why I could not if I paid the MF and used it while we dispute the reno fee. As they deprived me of usage, if I paid for it, I still would not get the 3 yrs usage that I would paid for.

These would be the items I would be pointing out to a judge and it would impact any decision in small claims court. The lower courts are not obligated to go by the decision of the upper court if they feel the upper court did not have the ruling right. 

AFTER all of this, if they are successful through all of these hurdles, they still have to collect.

*The problem is that too many are thinking it is "a slam dunk" for Northmont, they won this battle but they haven't won the war. Settlement is not even in my radar at this point, it is still on appealing the idiotic decision. Just as Loo's decision was overturned, so can this one.*


----------



## SentimentalLady

All REALLY good points, and I particularly like 'C'. 

When this all started, we had already paid the maintenance fee and booked for June - and they put it in writing that if people hadn't paid to stay or paid to go, they risked being turned away at check-in.

First, that was not fair to everyone who had already paid their maintenance fee, but had not used their time yet that year, nor deposited it with Interval. Anyone who did so before May 31 was fine.

Second, while Northmont may claim that they did not turn people away (I don't know.....did they turn anyone away who had already paid that year's fees?), they clearly threatened to do so.

I don't know about the rest of you, but we had a family gathering planned for our first week, and had given the unit to friends for the second week. We couldn't afford two days of travel, only to risk being turned away at check-in! And then what to do with the rest of our week off work? There was no money for a week at another resort - even if we could find one! Same with all the rest of the family! And our friends who were going the second week?!

We were bullied into doing what Northmont wanted, with such short notice that there were no good choices for us. And it never even would have occurred to me to make the 'C' argument in the following years, because it was clear that they had all the power and we were at their mercy.


----------



## Just Looking Around

ERW said:


> However, as far as Justice Loo's decision and subsequent overturning of that decision, I think what the poster was trying to say is that even though the decision was overturned, the decision itself was not in favour of the timeshare owners. The decision was overturned because of a procedural issue, not because of her final decision.



That is categorically not correct. It was not a mere procedural error. 

I am very suspicious of any mention of the Litigation Group needing a new lawyer. First of all, remember there are two law firms involved. That's what, probably 5 or 6 lawyers? Despite your view that this legal team lost two decisions that's not an indictment of their abilities. You cannot blame them for Loo's decision, that was overturned. 
I believe the problem is legislation hasn't caught up to the ways of timeshare developers and management companies. Plus, courts having a difficult time understanding the myriad of issues and the subtle impacts the Developers and Management Companies legal manoeuvres have had cumulatively on TS Owners. 
Fitzpatrick's decision is pathetically devoid of any consideration whatsoever of the interests of the TS Owners. "If not them, then who?" WTF!!! She didn't hold the Lessor accountable for any obligations they originally brought to the contractual relationship.
My quick review tells me the real problem for us was born out of the bankruptcy proceedings. Again, there, the interests of TS Owners was completely ignored. Northmont said in those proceedings they were going to make money for the Trust. If I remember they said 90% of the revenues were going to go to the Trust. Who were they going to make that money from? Only one possible source, TS Owners. The assets should have been liquidated. TS Owners were given no opportunity to express their desires. Northmont had an obligation then, under our contract (VIAs) to do things that were in the collective interests of the TS Owners.

Don't forget as one reads over this thread there were at least four law firms involved originally. Why these two prevailed, I don't know. But they did and that speaks loudly for their background knowledge and understanding of the issues, the legislation and the law. Bringing a new law firm up to speed would be virtually impossible for a group as widely dispersed as the Litigation Group. Too much time and too much money would be necessary.

No siree. Like grandpa said, "You dance with who brung ya." Glad he's no longer around, by-the-way. He'd just consider them horse thieves, as he did anyone who crossed him. He'd have had his justice by now. Ours will take a little longer, that's all.


----------



## Anxiety123

*Maint Paid but Use Denied*

Yes, I have a friend that definitely paid her Maint. for that summer but was not going to pay either of the fees to stay or leave until she found out if they were able to charge them legally and she "DID" get denied use of her week.  She always paid  a year in advance and booked her week early, all set to go but was told not until she pays to stay or leave.

Can someone tell me where in the contracts is there a provision for if a timeshare owner wanted to cancel their
 contract.  What formula was used to calculate what would be owed. Or were we always and forever tied to the resort for the 40 years?    For as much as I don't want to pay  Northmont another penny, if I was offered the rate of 2013, I would probably cut my losses and get out.  But by making the offers excessive and in this economy out of reach for many, they are forcing our hand to continue on fighting.  No other way out.


----------



## Tacoma

I also want to thank Quadmaniac for the information on interest rates. I have been ill over the bill I was presented with. If it is true that once a settlement comes down this is the interest rate we may actually pay less than the extortion they are requesting now. I do know that I do not want this group to get any more money from the TS owners. My bill was over $14000 because of how they are charging interest and of course the maintenance fees of all years this has been disputed. They don't pay maintenance fees but those of us who are not able to use the resort keep getting billed for all years. Wow!

Like many of us I don't need much credit at this stage in my life. If they were ever attempting to be fair this bill with this interest rate must prove that they are only in it for one thing. It will be a very long time until they get money from me. I also stay strong through my belief in Karma. I have paid the lawyer from the very start. Money spent to keep this group from getting access to cash is money well spent.

:annoyed:


----------



## ERW

Just Looking Around said:


> That is categorically not correct. It was not a mere procedural error. QUOTE]
> 
> I don't know what you are reading but the basic reason for the reversal of the decision was that Justice Loo has allowed the litigation to be considered as  a "special case", while the appeals court reversed that. There was no mention that Justice Loo's decision was not sound. So unfortunately, you are categorically incorrect.


----------



## Quadmaniac

As I said, it's still a long road and if they can jump the hurdles and get to small claims court, they won't get their interest nor their maintenance fees in my opinion. Worse case if we theoretically lose an appeal, they will have to justify their bill and it won't be what they have brought forward.

I'm staying the course and going with our legal team. Northmont benefits by creating doubt in the group hoping to divide and conquer with suggesting she of changing legal teams, rethinking appeal,etc etc. It's pretty evident, even with a "judgement at hand" they're acting pretty desperate to get things settled.


----------



## mmchili

Quadmaniac - Interest

I'm not accepting what you seem to be implying. Firstly, the TS Agreement specifically spells out the interest that can be charged when in arrears. Secondly, it is wrong to take one section of a regulation or one section of an Act by itself. Here are portions of the Act that are relevant to the charging of interest when a judgment has been obtained.

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/J01.pdf

JUDGMENT INTEREST ACT
Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 
Chapter J-1 

Current as of January 1, 2002 

Award of interest 

2(1) Where a person obtains a judgment for the payment of money 
or a judgment that money is owing, the court shall award interest in 
accordance with this Part from the date the cause of action arose to 
the date of the judgment. 

Calculation of interest
4(2) Interest awarded under this Part on pecuniary damages and in 
debt or other actions shall be calculated, for each year or part of a 
year included in the period in respect of which the interest is payable, 
at the prescribed rate applicable to that year.


----------



## ERW

tswow said:


> Quadmaniac - Interest
> 
> I'm not accepting what you seem to be implying. Firstly, the TS Agreement specifically spells out the interest that can be charged when in arrears. Secondly, it is wrong to take one section of a regulation or one section of an Act by itself. Here are portions of the Act that are relevant to the charging of interest when a judgment has been obtained.
> 
> http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/J01.pdf
> 
> JUDGMENT INTEREST ACT
> Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000
> Chapter J-1
> 
> Current as of January 1, 2002
> 
> Award of interest
> 
> 2(1) Where a person obtains a judgment for the payment of money
> or a judgment that money is owing, the court shall award interest in
> accordance with this Part from the date the cause of action arose to
> the date of the judgment.
> 
> Calculation of interest
> 4(2) Interest awarded under this Part on pecuniary damages and in
> debt or other actions shall be calculated, for each year or part of a
> year included in the period in respect of which the interest is payable,
> at the prescribed rate applicable to that year.



This pdf document also states:

2 (2) The court shall not award interest under this Part:
      (h) where there is an agreement between the parties
            respecting interest;

If your contract states a specific interest amount on outstanding accounts, that clause may override interest calculations previously referred to. Again, this is one of those things that a lawyer might be required to comment on.


----------



## Just Looking Around

ERW said:


> Just Looking Around said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is categorically not correct. It was not a mere procedural error. QUOTE]
> 
> I don't know what you are reading but the basic reason for the reversal of the decision was that Justice Loo has allowed the litigation to be considered as  a "special case", while the appeals court reversed that. There was no mention that Justice Loo's decision was not sound. So unfortunately, you are categorically incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You used the word procedural as if Justice Loo were playing Jeopardy and forgot to formulate her answer as a question.
> 
> Justice Loo failed to qualify properly the dispute as eligible for consideration as a 'Special Case'. She was willing to expedite the judgement without ensuring the facts were not disputed. She didn't consider if the contract had been breached before making her decision. This is not the stuff of procedure. This is a fundamental lack of respect for due process and the law. Her decision was overturned on Appeal because she made errors in interpretation and judgement. In rushing to that judgement, she did not error simply in procedure.
> 
> _"Held: appeal allowed; the question before the court was not appropriate for a special case. The underlying facts were in dispute and the question put to the court was based on hypothetical circumstances. The result was that the special case did not lead to a just, speedy or efficient determination of the issues."
> 
> "[36]         The prejudice to the Owners is, in our view, obvious. Their obligations have been decided on the basis of a procedure in which there were no pleadings, no particulars, and no exchange of expert reports."_
Click to expand...


----------



## ERW

Just Looking Around said:


> ERW said:
> 
> 
> 
> You used the word procedural as if Justice Loo were playing Jeopardy and forgot to formulate her answer in the form of a question.
> 
> Justice Loo failed to qualify properly the dispute as eligible for consideration as a 'Special Case'. She was willing to expedite the judgement without ensuring the facts were not disputed. She didn't consider if the contract had been breached before making her decision. This is not the stuff of procedure. This is a fundamental lack of respect for due process and the law. Her decision was overturned on Appeal because she made errors in interpretation and judgement. In rushing to that judgement, she did not error simply in procedure.
> 
> _"Held: appeal allowed; the question before the court was not appropriate for a special case. The underlying facts were in dispute and the question put to the court was based on hypothetical circumstances. The result was that the special case did not lead to a just, speedy or efficient determination of the issues."
> 
> "[36]         The prejudice to the Owners is, in our view, obvious. Their obligations have been decided on the basis of a procedure in which there were no pleadings, no particulars, and no exchange of expert reports."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately the decision was overturned not on the merits of the case but on the fact that Justice Loo did not follow the proper procedure. It should have never been allowed to be reviewed as a "Special Case". Had it not been heard as a Special Case, the outcome may or may not have been the same.
Click to expand...


----------



## Quadmaniac

ERW said:


> This pdf document also states:
> 
> 2 (2) The court shall not award interest under this Part:
> (h) where there is an agreement between the parties
> respecting interest;
> 
> If your contract states a specific interest amount on outstanding accounts, that clause may override interest calculations previously referred to. Again, this is one of those things that a lawyer might be required to comment on.



Actually that is in reference to loan/mortgage agreements where the interest is established. I have sued people where we write down 2% monthly interest on overdue invoices and the court does not allow for it.


----------



## James Hildec

*feeling oppressed*

I've felt for a few years now that we were being cheated.  I'm very thankful for this forum and the ability to hear from others in our situation.  This is the first time in my life I haven't paid a bill, but it just seems to me that the company is extorting money from people, and if I pay them they will use that money to instill fear into others and take money away from those who can ill afford to lose it.  

The "Blank Check" issue was what put me over the edge.  Can one group unilaterally require anything they want from another?  What if they came back next year and asked for my right arm?  No, it didn't feel right.  If there was any doubt, the recent bill for $12,000 based on 20+% interest, 85% US exchange rate had to erase it.  These guys are not being fair.

I believe this is a moral decision.  I am willing to spend money on legal fees, and to deal with creditors and the loss of a credit rating.  I think I might prefer to go bankrupt than to aid their attempts to bully others.  I am part of the Geldhert group and will continue on. 

I certainly hope that justice will be given to us in the courts.  If not, It seems also very possible that Northwynd/Sunchaser will go out of business before they are able to collect.  Selling cancellations is a strategy that can only work so long.  If, in fact, more than a third cancelled, and another quarter are objecting, their income stream should be declining.  

Nope, I think they are criminals.  And I'm glad so many are fighting. 

p.s.  I've wondered if we should get other time share companies to join us, this company is giving them a terrible name and must be hurting their business.


----------



## pdoff

I was wondering about the smae thing James (other Time Shares) even the one up the hill which is not connected with Northwynd. Also I thought that I heard something about one of the TV investigative reports being interested?


----------



## Southcom

I have every confidence in the lawyers that the group has hired and I am not surprised there are more owners signing on.  I like the angle where some investigative journalism is done by either Go Public or the Fifth Estate and everything is brought forward.  I like others have an older contract and am painted with the same brush as the newer ones.  Mine is a 40 year lease and thankfully I am not putting a financial burden on my kids because at least there is a termination to this nightmare.  I wish there was a way I could counter sue for the stress and lost family holidays that were promised when I purchased my lease.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Got more propaganda BS email from Northmont whining how owners are going down the wrong road and that they are in the right. If they are that confident, there is no need to send out a message particularly in regards to the appeal. If I was that confident, I would let the other party do what they want.

Anyways, as always, the war is not over.


----------



## Just Looking Around

Quadmaniac said:


> Anyways, as always, the war is not over.



I agree with you, not just that the war is not over but, that Northmont is desperately trying to convince people to abandon the appeal; and, to pay to leave.

I wish that people weren't so irrational about being involved in legal action. There is no need to panic, be fearful and most certainly, there is no need to pay.

It's not over. Keep the resolve to fight and let's stand our ground against Northmont's tactics, threats and maneuverings.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Did you happen to note the unprofessional wording?  He takes some cheap shots but protects himself by saying it's what owner's are thinking, ie. more or less that "some owner's might think it's the lawyer's desperate attempt to save it's reputation...also some owner's might think it's just continued arrogance".  

And then actually pretends to take the high road, ie. more or less that "we are not willing to draw those conclusions yet and assume legal advice and logic is being followed and not emotion."  

I find it hard to believe that many TS lessees/owners have confidence with this group, regardless of stay/leave/protest.


----------



## GypsyOne

The latest self-righteous ramblings and weak metaphor from Northwynd are more of the same propaganda attempting to sway our resolve.  Do they really think the settlement offer was "fair and reasonable"?  That's $16,000 to acquire the time share plus $12,500 to give it back - total $28,500 and screwed out of a timeshare.  Institutionalized scam I'd say!  I'd take this to the Supreme Court of Canada it that's what it takes to prevent this white-collar gang from making us their own personal money machine.  Other timeshare owners and timeshare resorts should join our litigation because if this gang has their way it will decimate the timeshare industry in Canada, if not in North America.  What potential timeshare buyer in their right mind would buy a timeshare if they are immediately on the hook for evermore to replace the depreciating buildings, without a voice in management, and at the whim of the developers, real owners, and managers?


----------



## Punter

*Northmonts Ramblings*

Is it possible for someone to post the latest "ramblings" from Northmont?  We haven't received any communication from them since 2011, other than having been 'served in person' with the lawsuit.  Apparently even a stamp is too costly of an expenditure.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner:

As we updated you on March 18, 2016, the Resort was successful on all issues in the JEKE (the plaintiff) v. Northmont “test-case” for the benefit of all owners. With the helpful guidance of the British Columbia Supreme Court, all owners now have a clear understanding of their contractual obligations and should be resolving their delinquency.

Unfortunately, the plaintiff has chosen to appeal the action. While we had hoped to avoid this step to save delinquent owners from further cost and the Resort from unnecessary delay, it is all part of the process despite the fact that, in our opinion, it has no reasonable chance of success.
There are a few conclusions one could draw from the unnecessary appeal. We can appreciate owners who think the plaintiff‘s appeal is a desperate attempt to save its reputation and avoid lawsuits from owners they advised to default on their contractual obligations on the basis of allegations it ultimately couldn’t produce evidence in support of, let alone prove. We can also appreciate owners who think the plaintiff’s appeal is just continued arrogance and the refusal to accept a position other than its own no matter how overwhelming the evidence.

However, we are not willing to draw those conclusions yet. The plaintiff is acting on legal advice and therefore we presume the decision making is based more on logic than emotion. Legal counsel’s role is to prevent emotional decisions and to ground their clients in the legal practicalities of a situation. Further, the plaintiff’s legal bills are being paid by the delinquent owners so we expect the appeal is being driven by the collective.

As such, our position at this time is that the appeal is a negotiating tactic. The delinquent group knows that if it did not file an appeal, it would have zero leverage and summary judgments against each member were inevitable. By filing an appeal, they believe they add uncertainty back into the process to force a more favorable outcome.
The strongest evidence of this is that the appeal was not filed by their lead counsel, but by the law firm that lost the test-case in January. Based on the feedback we have seen and received, the delinquent group is livid the law firm they hired did not argue the test-case. Though in reality the test-case was lost on the facts and merits and had nothing to do with legal counsel, in their mind it is the sporting equivalent of benching their high-priced star player for the championship game.

Both sides know the lead law firm has to argue the appeal. The delinquent owners are not going to let their star player be benched again. Nor will they accept the lead law firm is acting reasonably if they lose a third time with the legal firm that argued the test-case while the lawyer they paid for watches from the sidelines.

So the appeal is a negotiating tactic and we will address it accordingly. However, it has been our position throughout this process that any fair settlement will protect our owners who honored their contractual obligations from the costs of those who did not. We have already made a fair and reasonable settlement offer that owners should accept and the filing of the appeal does not change our position.

On the positive side, the appeal provides us two great opportunities to highlight the abuse of process this entire exercise has been by the delinquent group. First, the plaintiff is forced to obtain and disclose the entire transcript of the trial in 60 days. As soon as it does so, we will be putting a copy of the transcript or at least the critical elements on the Resort website for all owners to see just how unwarranted the legal action has been. Second, if they do not settle prior to the appeal, it will give us another impenetrable judgment in our favor.
While we continue to hope for a reasonable settlement and continue to seek an alternative that is fair for all parties, we look forward to arguing the appeal if necessary because we have the fullest confidence we will be victorious.

Does the appeal alter operations?

For the most part it does not. A judgment remains in effect during an appeal unless the appellant obtains a stay (a standstill) of the judgment from the Court of Appeal. They have not attempted to do so and it is highly unlikely they would succeed given the absence of merit to their appeal. As appeals work on fairly regimented timelines, we are confident that if the appeal does get heard, judgment will be received before the 2017 maintenance fees are issued.
We will operate with the guidance provided by the test-case judgment. This will include pursuing summary judgment against owners in their individual claims and working towards a commonality of contractual rights as contemplated by the agreements. As more information becomes available, we will update owners.

Once again, we want to thank our owners who have patiently let this process work its way through the system. While we are disappointed with the possibility we may have to fight an unnecessary appeal, our resolve to defend the Resort and our owners from unwarranted legal action remains high. We look forward to another successful judgment for the Resort to bring this process to its end.

Should you have any general questions with this communication, please do not hesitate to contact our Vacation Ownership Services (VOS) team at 1-877-451-1250. Should you have any questions of a legal nature, please seek appropriate legal advice.


----------



## mmchili

Here are some links for all owners to be aware of and take advantage of to keep up to date with the situation at Sunchaser.

Firstly, all owners should ensure that their contact information is up to date/current so that they receive all communications issued by Northmont/Sunchaser.

http://sunchaservillas.ca/owners/update-owner-info/

Next, anyone (which includes current, past, delinquent and non-owners) can access Sunchaser's website to to apprise themselves of the Supreme Court decisions.

http://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/bc-supreme-court/

Next, anyone (which includes current, past, delinquent and non-owners) can access Sunchaser's website to to apprise themselves of Northmont's communications regarding their "Litigation Update".

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Litigation-Update-031816.pdf


----------



## pdoff

Gee thanks Mr. World of Warcraft..


----------



## Just Looking Around

What I find most offensive in the pathetically self-serving, self-indulgent, and self-important rambling is the suggestion that the property will operate as it has. No doubt that's true. It will. But what defies all reason is the implication that that would somehow be welcome. That we'd be relieved to hear, the property's operations won't be affected.

I don't need a tired and retired Justice to recite esoteric legal doublespeak. I don't need Wankle or any of his witting or unwitting agents posting here to remind me to be a good citizen. I know when a contract I've made has been broken.

I know this because:
1.  The Property isn't a resort. I've gone over this, but it warrants repeating. Posters have taken issue with things I've said but, the only defense to the criticism it's not a legitimate resort to which one would want to escape is, "That's your opinion." (Well, mine and thousands and thousands of others.) What does that say about your ability to manage a vacation property?

Right at check-in it starts. You go to a real resort and you are welcomed upon eye-contact by someone in a uniform that represents all the attributes of the resorts' brand that you can take to the bank. You check-in at Sunchaser and you are acknowledged by someone who'll get to you as soon as they've loaded the printer with paper; and, looks like they drove someone to school before they came to work and is right now thinking about what to make for supper when they can finally get out of there. She wouldn't bother me so much if her teenage son hadn't miscalculated the chemicals in the hot tub and bleached my families' trunks.

2.  They hired an accountant to run the place. A person trained in how to represent assets and transactions. A person who, I want to remind you, if they can represent it, they can also misrepresent it. They hired an account because the financial and corporate maneuverings are more important to them than creating a lasting guest experience for their TS Owners. Again, they took this property out of bankruptcy so they wouldn't lose money because they didn't provide the proper oversight of their investment, thereby insuring the buildings were as represented. They took it out of bankruptcy without consulting the TS Owners to rebuild the entire resort at TS Owners' expense. Now, it appears to me; they are trying to chase those owners away so they can resell it again at a huge profit. 

They don't care about me as a TS Owner; I don't care about them. I'm not paying them a dime.


----------



## Just Looking Around

*Its more obscure than Real World*



pdoff said:


> Gee thanks Mr. World of Warcraft..



but obviously not obscure enough. Good catch.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Well, I think this will soon die down, ie. the bad rhetoric, as the long appeal process begins.  Who's going to pay the offer when they're asking for insulting interest rates and payment on maintenance for unusable units when they're avoiding paying maintenance on all of their unusable units.  Not to mention cancellation fees to give up your lease, lol, whereas Fairmont paid you to take your week back.  

Everything's raw and fresh right now but we'll all fall into the haze that will be more waiting for the legal process.


----------



## owner1

*Another point of view*

You think you are getting a raw deal?  The owners that paid to leave are not being treated unfairly?  If you sign a contract and you want out you will always pay a penalty.  Try and cancel your house mortgage or your lease on your vehicle.  Of course Northmont is taking the cancellation fee, they own those leases now and will have to pay for the property tax on them until they are sold, demolished or whatever they decide to do with them.  The renovations have gone along all under budget and the resort will be downsized.  I will be finish paying  my renovation fees in 6 months.  As an owner who has stayed I am very happy with the renovations.  The cost will not be as much as not all buildings will be renovated.  We will be downsized according to our numbers.  You complain about the increase in maintenance fees but they are comparable to all the other resorts in BC.  You complain that you cannot get an exchange.  I have never had a problem exchanging my resort.  Now you are appealing again!!!   The judgment went against you, as a matter of fact it was thrown out as not having any basis at all and Northmont was awarded all the legal costs. Delinquent owners involved with the law suit have to pay not only their legal cost but also Northmont’s costs.  Now you want to add to your cost with another appeal.  The owners that honored their contracts would be the ones getting the raw deal if you got your way.   Who do you think will pay for your default?    Not I if I have a say.   I have no intention of paying for any legal cost incurred trying to get you to pay your fees.  You complain about your bill and how Northmont will have to make a better deal with you.  They will not!  They have an obligation to all the owners not just the ones that choose to be delinquent.  You are not helping yourselves or any of the parties involved by dragging this out.


----------



## GypsyOne

*Disagree with "another point of view"*

Owner1, I wonder if you'll think the same thing as time goes on, your maintenance fees continue to esculate higher than alternative vacation experiences, and you continue to be billed for deteriorating resort assets.  Not just one-time reconstruction costs on shoddily built buildings, but the cost of replacing buildings from normal ageing.  That will go on forever if you have a co-ownership agreement and for forty years if you have a lease.  Year 39 of your lease, you may be asked to contribute toward, say, a $40 million construction project, but in one year's time you will walk away with nothing.

You have to agree that what you have now is not even close to what you contracted for.  That is called fundamental breach of contract and misrepresentation.  Responsible people resist being conned by opportunists and hustlers.

- My lease agreement does not say I pay for deteriorating buildings and infrastructue, either shoddily built or normal replacement.  The co-ownership agreements that they convinced many to convert to does have the "cost of capital improvements" clause added.  Now you know why they pushed so hard to convert leases to the "exciting new plan for Fairmont," and that all new agreements after the bankruptcy were co-ownership.  
- My lease says there will be a TS Owner's association, which there is not.  Having major financial responsibility without representation is unconscionable.   
- The court ruling is that I am an owner for financial responsibility, but not for financial benefit.  That is an institutionalized scam. 
- Her Ladyship ruled that our TS leases are not like ordinary commercial leases.  Well, she got that one right.  But when I signed a lease, should I and thousands of other laymen have known a lease is not really a lease?  There is consumer protection (or should be) to safeguard the general public against shysters changing the ordinary meaning of terms in a contract.
- My lease agreement has a formula for settling in the event of my financial default.  Basicall, it says I will forfeit my timeshare and will be paid 25% of my cost of the timeshare for remaining time.  Of course, the new owners say that is a permissive clause which they don't need to follow, but rather they will charge me for giving back the timeshare.  In other words, I pay twice - once when I acquire the timeshare and once when I give it back; and I am screwed out of remaining vacation time.  If they can ignore the clause, why is it in the contract if not to once again mislead the consumer?  

Owner1, if you want to be a partner with this white collar band of opportunists that is your choice.  Thousands of other TS owners have chosen to fight for justice.


----------



## truthr

*Legacy for Life*

Does anyone remember when the "Legacy for Life" was first offered.
We went to one of the meetings in Edmonton but for the life of me I cannot remember the year.  

We didn't buy into it so I didn't keep any of the information.

Thanks


----------



## GypsyOne

truthr said:


> Does anyone remember when the "Legacy for Life" was first offered.
> We went to one of the meetings in Edmonton but for the life of me I cannot remember the year.
> 
> We didn't buy into it so I didn't keep any of the information.
> 
> Thanks



From Her Ladyship's ruling page 6-7:  

2) Vacation Interval Agreements (VIAs)

[13] Fairmont leased (and then later sold) vacation intervals, or time shares, in the Resort. There are basically two types of vacation interval agreements: (a) agreements entered into prior to 2009 by which vacation interval owners acquired a 40-year leasehold interest; and 
(b) agreements entered into from 2009 forward which create co-ownership interests. 
In addition, from 2009, vacation interval owners who held leasehold interests were given the option of entering into a co-ownership interest agreement. (Legacy for Life)


----------



## truthr

GypsyOne said:


> From Her Ladyship's ruling page 6-7:
> 
> 2) Vacation Interval Agreements (VIAs)
> 
> [13] Fairmont leased (and then later sold) vacation intervals, or time shares, in the Resort. There are basically two types of vacation interval agreements: (a) agreements entered into prior to 2009 by which vacation interval owners acquired a 40-year leasehold interest; and
> (b) agreements entered into from 2009 forward which create co-ownership interests.
> In addition, from 2009, vacation interval owners who held leasehold interests were given the option of entering into a co-ownership interest agreement. (Legacy for Life)



Thanks for the reply GypsyOne.  How did I miss that?  Maybe because I have read so much it is hard to remember where I read it.


----------



## Hotpink

*Weasel in the hen house*

Not sure how many of you have a rural background or know much about these little carnivores.

Weasels are the smaller cousin of the mink and are notorious for their killing ways. If one gains access to a chicken coup or a hen house then every bird in the location is killed. It s said they kill for sport ( can't prove it ) and there is no way they can eat that much. They usually kill by biting the head or upper neck until every bird is dead.

It appears that Northmont ( the  weasels ) are trying to gain access to our hen house with their latest missive received today.Chicken wire just keeps chickens in and not weasels out. We have much better means of keeping the vermin out of our collective house.

Arbitrarily changing all contracts and threatening to take each and every one of us to court is sounding desperate and they still have to collect IF they do WIN.

That is a very unlikely outcome considering some of our other options which I will not say in this forum.

The  Northmont missive should be in your in box by now. Happy reading


----------



## Scammed22

*All the way baby!*

We are fighting this to the bitter end.....end of story!!!!


----------



## Punter

Some of us do not receive correspondence from Northmont. Would it be possible for someone to post it here?  Thank you in advance.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

*Good luck Chuck!!*

The latest email is just unbelievable.   The irony is I can rent a week off Interval for $35 US a night!!! Why the heck would I EVER pay them $18000 to keep it or take it back????? Why would I pay anything when I was blocked immediately because I refused to participate in what was a breach of contract demanding $40 million on the backs of people who will never get any financial gain from it.    Maybe its time to overthrow the management surely there is 51% in favor of that.   These guys have happily paid themselves despite the financial hardships they have put on the backs of others.   Where was the consultation process?   where was there an opportunity to voice our concerns??


----------



## GypsyOne

*weasel in the hen house*



Hotpink said:


> Not sure how many of you have a rural background or know much about these little carnivores.
> 
> Weasels are the smaller cousin of the mink and are notorious for their killing ways. If one gains access to a chicken coup or a hen house then every bird in the location is killed. It s said they kill for sport ( can't prove it ) and there is no way they can eat that much. They usually kill by biting the head or upper neck until every bird is dead.
> 
> It appears that Northmont ( the  weasels ) are trying to gain access to our hen house with their latest missive received today.Chicken wire just keeps chickens in and not weasels out. We have much better means of keeping the vermin out of our collective house.
> 
> Arbitrarily changing all contracts and threatening to take each and every one of us to court is sounding desperate and they still have to collect IF they do WIN.
> 
> That is a very unlikely outcome considering some of our other options which I will not say in this forum.
> 
> The  Northmont missive should be in your in box by now. Happy reading



Having a rural background, I know a bit about the habits of weasels as I used to trap them for spending money.  Mink are hard to trap; weasels are easy.  The reason weasels are easy to trap is because they are greedy little bastards with a voracious appetite for blood.  Bait a trap with blood meat and you caught a weasel if there was one in the area.  Sort of like the weasels at Northmont, who now that the hen house door has been opened by Her Ladyship, they smell blood and will not stop.


----------



## Just Looking Around

*Weasel hunting.*

owner1, I am very suspicious of posts supporting Northmont's threats.  I can't possibly improve on GypsyOne's response but, I also can't keep quiet. I can't believe anyone, unless they are financially benefiting from Northmont's actions, could view them as being fair, reasonable or even in the subtlest of ways serving the interests of the TS Owners.  I looked up your previous posts. Wow! We're going to get sued by the Property's creditors? Well, what's the difference? We're paying all their bills and more now. Northmont saved us? That's almost as demented and deceitful as the entrance to Auschwitz bearing the promise, "Work sets you free.".
I don't think; I know we are getting a raw deal. The costs are more expensive than other properties in BC. Oh, unless you are talking about Lake Okanagan. Yes, well, maybe then. 
You ask, who is going to pay for our default? Then you say, _"Not I if I have a say. I have no intention of paying for any legal cost incurred trying to get you to pay your fees."_ Now you sound like us. Oh, you'll be paying it alright. When you complain to Northmont you know what they'll say? They'll say, _"If you sign a contract and you want out you will always pay a penalty. Try and cancel your house mortgage or your lease on your vehicle..."_  Sound familiar? 
Some are just less tolerant of abuse than others. Word to the wise, don't lose Geldert's contact information.


----------



## Just Looking Around

*Just call us Lucky.*



Punter said:


> Some of us do not receive correspondence from Northmont. Would it be possible for someone to post it here?  Thank you in advance.



I am in the same boat as Punter.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Just Looking Around said:


> I am in the same boat as Punter.



You can always go to the Sunchaser site and they will always post their "threats" for owners.


----------



## aden2

My biggest mistake was going to a Legacy for Life meeting in 2009 and again in 2010 here in Edmonton. I was not aware of how great Fairmont was doing until we were shown slides of their success. It was not until May of 2013 that what we were shown could have belonged to Disneyland as it was a fairy tale story!


----------



## Punter

Okay. That's just bull$hit. Why even bother having a contract  at alll?  Management can just 'email' out a revision to certain owners yet everyone has a new contract that suits Northmont? It's bull$shit. The timeshare industry will not/ cannot survive such nonsense.


----------



## Real World

Quadmaniac said:


> You can always go to the Sunchaser site and they will always post their "threats" for owners.



More importantly you can read the comments from the BC Courts without any selective biased editing by anyone.


----------



## GypsyOne

*The arrogance!*

The arrogance of this white collar band knows  no bounds.  Now they are not even pretending my lease/contract means nothing.  They are advising me that the lease I signed in 2000 is invalid, it's the lease that was signed in 2003 that counts.  With the sending of an email, they think they can nullify my contract that I signed in good faith and assumed was legally enforceable.  What I agreed to in 2000 is meaningless.  What counts is a lease signed by a complete stranger that I did not even know existed.  But by their own statement, they are not done yet.  Appears they will not be satisfied until they have, in effect, my bankcard and my pin number.  Their reason for reaching for this unprecedented power is to "remove any ambiguity" that they are masters of my bank account.  The question becomes, can this unscrupulous gang hold another group hostage for their own financial self-interests?  If you go by the last ruling, apparently they can.  All they need is a compliant Court Judge in their back pocket willing to give them everything they ask for.  This cannot be allowed to happen.  They must be stopped or they will be holding us in complete financial servitude.


----------



## Just Looking Around

Real World said:


> More importantly you can read the comments from the BC Courts without any selective biased editing by anyone.



Real World,  we knew where you were headed. We saw you as a champion of the dark-side right off. Those were, in fact, leading questions and you, you wanted us to believe they were naive questions. Your previous indignation was all a front covering your embarrassment of having been so transparent.

Your answers are all the same, "Read the Judgement." You never attempt to argue what we see as the individual wrongs. You never point out how we benefit from the each of the steps Northmont has taken to separate us from our money and the holiday time we thought we were buying. 
The Judgement to which you so desperately cling, can't see the moral forest for the legal trees. Natural law holds that law and morality are connected.  The law is not simply what is enacted in statutes, and if legislation is not moral, then it is not law, and has no authority. “An unjust law is not a true law". 
The sum of Northmont's actions speaks loudly.


----------



## Hotpink

*Legal Costs*

These folks at northmont must be forthright.
If you read their 2016 pdf on the 2016 maintenance costs there is a blurb on page two (2) about legal costs.

Condensed version is that they hope that the resolution with the bad owners ( actually lease holders ) that will generate sufficient interest and legal charges to cover all the costs that northmont has incurred on behalf of all the good owners. BUT there is a Caveat . They do say that is a risk and that may not be the outcome. HERE IT COMES.

There will be a line item  A ONE time charge to spread to ALL owners in 2017/ 2018. If I read that correctly those that paid to stay ( the good owners ) as we  had initially contemplated they are going to get hit yet again and then let us see what the delinquency rate rises to.

I think the long term plan is to sell off the assets for the original northmont investors and we believe  that crew could care less about the  people that are
/ were the backbone of the original resort.

So they are telling us to expect more hands out demands ( that is forthright) but not what will really happen in the end (that would be upright)

But weasels never tell you before they kill all your poultry


----------



## Real World

Just Looking Around said:


> Real World,  we knew where you were headed. We saw you as a champion of the dark-side right off. Those were, in fact, leading questions and you, you wanted us to believe they were naive questions. Your previous indignation was all a front covering your embarrassment of having been so transparent.
> 
> Your answers are all the same, "Read the Judgement." You never attempt to argue what we see as the individual wrongs. You never point out how we benefit from the each of the steps Northmont has taken to separate us from our money and the holiday time we thought we were buying.
> The Judgement to which you so desperately cling, can't see the moral forest for the legal trees. Natural law holds that law and morality are connected.  The law is not simply what is enacted in statutes, and if legislation is not moral, then it is not law, and has no authority. “An unjust law is not a true law".
> The sum of Northmont's actions speaks loudly.



Just Looking Around I am no one's champion; not Northmont's nor your's.

I have no idea where you come up with your comment about "previous indignation"or "embarrassment  of having been so transparent".

With regards to the comment "Your answers are all the same""read the judgement" I would invite you to show me the answers reflecting that.

The way for you to do that is to click on my name on the left hand side of my posts and select posts. You then can see all the posts made by me since I registered in 2015.

Your comment "You never point out how we benefit from the each of the steps Northmont has taken to separate us from our money and the holiday time we thought we were buying." has really got me baffled. I have never thought of being sued as a benefit but maybe I have missed something.

In any event as I indicated in my previous post I think it is important for everyone to have access to information without anyone's selective editing or hyperbole added. What anyone does with that information is their business.


----------



## GypsyOne

Real World said:


> Just Looking Around I am no one's champion; not Northmont's nor your's.
> 
> In any event as I indicated in my previous post I think it is important for everyone to have access to information without anyone's selective editing or hyperbole added. What anyone does with that information is their business.



Selective editing and hyperbole are very subjective terms.  It is not selective editing in a negative way if it is people highlighting the critical issues and being very, very, angry at the injustice of opportunists trampling on the integrity of a lease/contract for their own financial benefit.  And why are you not equally troubled by Northmont's "selective editing"?


----------



## ERW

Just Looking Around said:


> Real World,  we knew where you were headed. We saw you as a champion of the dark-side right off. Those were, in fact, leading questions and you, you wanted us to believe they were naive questions. Your previous indignation was all a front covering your embarrassment of having been so transparent.
> 
> Your answers are all the same, "Read the Judgement." You never attempt to argue what we see as the individual wrongs. You never point out how we benefit from the each of the steps Northmont has taken to separate us from our money and the holiday time we thought we were buying.
> The Judgement to which you so desperately cling, can't see the moral forest for the legal trees. Natural law holds that law and morality are connected.  The law is not simply what is enacted in statutes, and if legislation is not moral, then it is not law, and has no authority. “An unjust law is not a true law".
> The sum of Northmont's actions speaks loudly.



I don't think Just Looking Around's comment was out of line. I read it as if you don't want Sunchaser's comments, don't go to the Sunchaser site, go directly to the BC court's site and read the actual judgment. 

I think you are reading a little too much into his/her comments.


----------



## Just Looking Around

*Get real, Real World.*

Real World, who do you think you are fooling. You've done nothing but champion Northmont's cause through your leading questions and transparent comments. You telling us to go to the Sunchaser website to, "...read the comments from the BC Courts without any selective bias editing by anyone." is the same as you telling us we are wrong. It's an indirect expression of disagreement. 

WE'VE READ THE JUDGEMENT! 

Despite your implication, we are not so stupid as to form our opinions without having read the original document. You are reading our opinions, based on our reading of that original. I'm sure Punter, Hotpink, Quadmaniac, GypsyOne, aden2, Scammed22, Lostmyshirt, ERW, truthr, NotWhatIPaidFor, pdoff, Southcom, James Hildec and owner1 along with the many, many others who post and those who choose just to review, have all read it.
In case you've missed it, I'm bloody mad. So when someone chirps from the sidelines, clearly on the side of owner1, with whom I am fighting, you bet I'm going to judge. 

You want to promote Northmont's cause, send them an email.  Stroke Northmont all you want, but we don't want to witness it.


----------



## Real World

GypsyOne said:


> Selective editing and hyperbole are very subjective terms.  It is not selective editing in a negative way if it is people highlighting the critical issues and being very, very, angry at the injustice of opportunists trampling on the integrity of a lease/contract for their own financial benefit.  And why are you not equally troubled by Northmont's "selective editing"?



GypsyOne I have never stated or inferred that Northmont's summary of the BC Court Judgments were not subject to selective editing. My comment was that you could review the Judgments without selective editing and hyperbole.

In retrospect what I should have said is that you could review the Judgments without any litigants selective editing and hyperbole.


----------



## Real World

Just Looking Around said:


> Real World, who do you think you are fooling. You've done nothing but champion Northmont's cause through your leading questions and transparent comments. You telling us to go to the Sunchaser website to, "...read the comments from the BC Courts without any selective bias editing by anyone." is the same as you telling us we are wrong. It's an indirect expression of disagreement.
> 
> WE'VE READ THE JUDGEMENT!
> 
> Despite your implication, we are not so stupid as to form our opinions without having read the original document. You are reading our opinions, based on our reading of that original. I'm sure Punter, Hotpink, Quadmaniac, GypsyOne, aden2, Scammed22, Lostmyshirt, ERW, truthr, NotWhatIPaidFor, pdoff, Southcom, James Hildec and owner1 along with the many, many others who post and those who choose just to review, have all read it.
> In case you've missed it, I'm bloody mad. So when someone chirps from the sidelines, clearly on the side of owner1, with whom I am fighting, you bet I'm going to judge.
> 
> You want to promote Northmont's cause, send them an email.  Stroke Northmont all you want, but we don't want to witness it.



Just Looking Around it is obvious that you think that you can make any comments you like without having any way of substantiating the comments.

You go out of your way to make broad sweeping comments about my posts but cannot show what you based your comments on when I invite you to because you cannot.

I have been following the thread for over a year not less than month like you so you should think about who is chirping from the sidelines.

You have no clue about what my personal interest is in the dispute nor has anyone else who accuses me of me being aligned with the "Dark Side"

In closing if you don't want to witness what I have to say don't look at my posts.


----------



## Just Looking Around

Real World said:


> Just Looking Around it is obvious that you think that you can make any comments you like without having any way of substantiating the comments.
> 
> You go out of your way to make broad sweeping comments about my posts but cannot show what you based your comments on when I invite you to because you cannot.
> 
> I have been following the thread for over a year not less than month like you so you should think about who is chirping from the sidelines.
> 
> You have no clue about what my personal interest is in the dispute nor has anyone else who accuses me of me being aligned with the "Dark Side"
> 
> In closing if you don't want to witness what I have to say don't look at my posts.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## GypsyOne

*What's your point?*



Real World said:


> GypsyOne I have never stated or inferred that Northmont's summary of the BC Court Judgments were not subject to selective editing. My comment was that you could review the Judgments without selective editing and hyperbole.
> 
> In retrospect what I should have said is that you could review the Judgments without any litigants selective editing and hyperbole.



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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Hotpink

*Common Sense*

Good thoughts Gypsy One

This might help you learn the were CS went

http://www.loriborgman.com/1998/03/15/the-death-of-common-sense/

Happy reading and let me know who may be related to the survivors


----------



## pdoff

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

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


----------



## GypsyOne

*Common Sense*



Hotpink said:


> Good thoughts Gypsy One
> 
> This might help you learn the were CS went
> 
> http://www.loriborgman.com/1998/03/15/the-death-of-common-sense/
> 
> Happy reading and let me know who may be related to the survivors



Some act as if CS is a commodity that can be bought (with TS owners money), dressed up to look authentic, and kept in your back pocket until you need a judge's favourable ruling.


----------



## Real World

GypsyOne said:


> Your informing us that we can all read the judgement and form our own ideas is not exactly earth shaking.  Of course we read the judgement and formed opinions.  Then it is time to draw conclusions and summarize the salient points for public consumption in a public forum.  It is not selective editing.  Not everyone wants to wade through 106 pages of what sometimes is nothing more than legal mumbo-jumbo, which may appear learned and final, but in fact it is not.  The legalize has to be condensed to the main message and conclusion.  If you think our anger over the 100% rulings in favor of the Defendant is hyperbole, excuse us for getting angry over an egregious injustice.
> 
> You also seem to think that Fitzpatrick's ruling is somehow irrefutable truth.  But, one such as me has not been a long-time inhabitant of this spinning orb without developing some healthy skepticism.  I also know that where there is money there is influence; and where there is big money there is big influence. (Lawyers at Norton Rose tried to cosy up to our lawyer and even asked him "to join the team," and they would direct legal work his way, which of course he declined.) Judges are human, they can be biased, and they can be influenced.  I'm not saying the judge was paid off.  The Judge or Northmont would not be that stupid.  But, a luncheon meeting between a high official within Northmont and a well placed B.C. government official to lay out the problem could occur.  The B.C. government does not want a failed major tourist attraction on it's hands.  Nor would they want to pump public money into a shoddily built failing commercial facility.  The easy way out is to tap into the TS owners.  So the government official then has a meeting with a high placed person within the judicial system and advises that the B.C. government would sure hate to see Northmont fail.  The high placed person in the justice system then whispers into the Judge's ear that the Government does not want Northmont to fail.  There are some plum court assignments and promotions coming up.  Conspiracy theory? Maybe.  I don't know if this happened.  I'm only speculating.  But, as I said, I've been on this planet a long time, part at the management level within government, and I have developed some skepticism.
> 
> Even after wading through the legalize and cherry-picked case law, I find it incomprehensible that Fitzpatrick could reach the conclusions that she did. To wit:
> 
> - Fitzpatrick's ruling holds the TS owners responsible for the re-constuction of shoddily built resort buildings, in some cases not built to code.  Buildings that should have a lifetime of 50-60 years or longer are failing after only fifteen years, and Fitzpatrick says we're responsible.  The thought does not seem to occur to her that the builder has a legal and fiduciary duty to market a sound product to the public built to normal construction standards, and that when they don't, it is misrepresentation resulting in fundamental breach of contract.  Astonishing!
> - My contract is a lease.  Lessees are not responsible for capital or structural replacement.  I don't buy her arguement that ours are not like ordinary commercial leases.  A lease is a lease is a lease.
> - My lease does not specify "capital costs" in the list of expenses.  That capital replacement is somehow included in one of the other catch-all items just does not wash.  For example, a relatively minor expense such as insurance is included in a separate line item.  Surely, if it was meant to be, capital replacement or major reconstruction that could amount to, say, $50 million dollars would be front and center in the list of expenses so as to not leave any doubt.
> - Why after the bankruptcy and the takeover by the new owners, did they try to have lessees convert to co-ownership agreements with new contracts that added the clause, "pay the cost of capital improvements that may from time to time be required."  The reason is clear to everyone but Her Ladyship; the original lease agreements did not include capital costs, nor was it ever intended that lessees be responsible for capital improvements.
> - My lease gives a formula for settlement in the event I default.  Basically, I forfeit the timeshare and they pay me for remaining time at a discounted rate.  Fairmont says they don't have to follow the clause in the agreement, but rather I forfeit the timeshare AND pay them a sum of money.  In effect paying for the timeshare twice, but being done out of the timeshare.
> - Fitzpatrick takes the liberty of combining all leases and co-ownership agreements into one category which, of course, is the one most advantageous to Northmont.  Yet it is her that admonishes us to follow the ordinary wording in the agreement.  She has, in effect, made everyone financially responsible for all costs including major construction and reconstruction as if they were owners, but without having the financial benefit of ownership.  Where is the justice? Where is the common sense?
> - My lease states that a Lessee's Association would be formed, or in the case of the co-ownership agreements, an Owners' Association.  One was never formed - a breach of contract.  Major financial responsibility without representation violates all principles of business associations.
> - The latest arrogance of Northmont is, with Fitzpatrick's ruling in hand, to convert all leases prior to 2003 to the 2003 lease.  With the sending of an email they think they can nullify my lease that I signed in 2000 to that of a stranger's agreement who signed in 2003.  The arrogance is just astonishing.
> 
> So, Real World, I don't know what alternate universe you live in, but it's not the same one as me.



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


----------



## Real World

Just Looking Around said:


> No, it absolutely is you Real World who is chirping from the sidelines. What do you own? We don't even know what you are pretending to own. Why didn't you put down what you owned when you signed up? I mean it's not like Kirk Wankel is going to track you down and threaten you with a lawsuit. That's on this board. Did you read that? Who's money do you think he'll use to pay for that legal action?
> 
> You say you've been following for a year? That don't impress me much. I read a year's worth of posts in an evening.
> 
> Your first post was April 02. Since then you've posted 9-times. The last 7-post have been defending your first two posts. Those attacks weren't from just me. The best one was from GypseOne, who put a very fine point on it with, “Nice Try.”
> 
> Your first post, after reading the site for a year, was a Pollyannaish offering about the downside of owning a timeshare. But we know it was your veiled attempt to say, "You signed the contract, you have to pay the yearly fees." Yes, again, we know the Company Line. We get that formally from the World of Warcraft himself.
> 
> Your second post, despite having read this bulletin board for a year, was another Pollyannaish offering asking about special assessments and the reason Justice Loo's decision was overturned on Appeal. This was your way of saying, “Read your lease"; and, "You only won the Appeal on a technicality."
> 
> That's it. That's all you've said. A year in, that's the sum of your contribution. Sounds a lot like chirping to me. Tell us all again how you aren't championing Mr. Wankel’s cause.
> 
> Maybe either Punter or GypsyOne is from Edmonton. They could meet you for a game of golf. I've got an idea. I will fly to Edmonton and, I will pay for golf at either the Mayfair or the Glendale. To make it interesting, the loser has to accept the winner's Sunchaser timeshare interests. Don't have one to lose? No problem. If I lose, you can kick me in the nuts: the pain and indignation is a reminder I own at Sunchaser. It's the same thing. Except the pain passes, unlike "Legacy for Life". We could sell tickets to help fund the legal defence.
> 
> Don't worry, owning a vacation interval interest at Sunchaser is a great investment. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. You and owner1 can sit on the plastic deck furniture and share a whine. Why just yell across the office and ask Kirk Wankel. He'll probably tell you they are considered collector's items BECAUSE THEY AREN'T EVEN TRYING TO SELL ANY!



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

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


----------



## aden2

*Timeshare contracts in perpetuity are inherently unfair and unenforceable.*

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Hotpink

*Precedence or not?*

the previous article mentioned above  can be found here

http://www.gran-canaria-info.com/news/spanish-court-judgement-goes-against-anfi-timeshare-resort


----------



## Hotpink

*2nd one*

here is a more detailed account

http://thecanarynews.com/ground-breaking-supreme-court-ruling-on-timeshare/


----------



## mmchili

In reading the links to Anfi, I also found the following link interesting.

http://timeshareadvicebureau.com/


----------



## mmchili

tswow said:


> In reading the links to Anfi, I also found the following link interesting.
> 
> http://timeshareadvicebureau.com/


----------



## GypsyOne

Hotpink said:


> here is a more detailed account
> 
> http://thecanarynews.com/ground-breaking-supreme-court-ruling-on-timeshare/



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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Makai Guy

This thread has been little more than infighting between several individuals for some time now.  Another handful of posts has just been deleted.

Time to shut this thing down.

[Edit]

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

If you want to KEEP this open:
Discuss the issues, not each other.

Do not direct remarks to each other -- that's what the forum's Private Message capabilities are for.


----------



## TUGBrian

furthermore, no more warnings for snide comments or offtopic remarks in this thread will be given.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

*Thank you - Doug & Brian*

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

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

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

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

Thought ? Anyone .

.


----------



## GypsyOne

Makai Guy said:


> This thread has been little more than infighting between several individuals for some time now.  Another handful of posts has just been deleted.
> 
> Time to shut this thing down.
> 
> [Edit]
> 
> I've received several requests to reopen this thread, as it seems to be important to many affected TUGgers, so I have reopened it.
> 
> If you want to KEEP this open:
> Discuss the issues, not each other.
> 
> Do not direct remarks to each other -- that's what the forum's Private Message capabilities are for.



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


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

*Please -STOP THE CRAP - parts of this -  have shown ( Canadian ) values in poor light*

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

*******

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

Please use the editing function 
so that civility is shown.

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

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

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

That is why I suggest crowd sourcing some funding .

*******

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

.


----------



## Meow

*The common enemy*

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


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

*Why did Fairmont declare bankruptcy?*

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

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

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


----------



## GypsyOne

*Fairmont bankruptcy*



NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> A bit odd that they would do this considering what Northmont has done.  Why would any TS developer get in financial trouble if they had a judge's green light to charge whatever they want, ignore parts of the contract and change other parts of the contract.
> 
> I guess Fairmont hadn't yet realized the extent of the lack of consumer protection in the legal system.
> 
> I'm glad to hear that other TS users outside of this resort are taking an active stance, even willing to raise funds.  Imagine where this could go for the industry if capital cost charges and retroactive contract changes become the norm.



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

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

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

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

www.geldertlaw.com


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> From Her Ladyship's ruling page 6-7:
> 
> 2) Vacation Interval Agreements (VIAs)
> 
> [13] Fairmont leased (and then later sold) vacation intervals, or time shares, in the Resort. There are basically two types of vacation interval agreements: (a) agreements entered into prior to 2009 by which vacation interval owners acquired a 40-year leasehold interest; and
> (b) agreements entered into from 2009 forward which create co-ownership interests.
> In addition, from 2009, vacation interval owners who held leasehold interests were given the option of entering into a co-ownership interest agreement. (Legacy for Life)


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


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## ERW

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> A bit odd that they would do this considering what Northmont has done.  Why would any TS developer get in financial trouble if they had a judge's green light to charge whatever they want, ignore parts of the contract and change other parts of the contract.
> 
> I guess Fairmont hadn't yet realized the extent of the lack of consumer protection in the legal system.
> 
> I'm glad to hear that other TS users outside of this resort are taking an active stance, even willing to raise funds.  Imagine where this could go for the industry if capital cost charges and retroactive contract changes become the norm.



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


----------



## ERW

GypsyOne said:


> My understanding is that Northmont initiated the Legacy For Life program when they took over after the bankruptcy.  They knew the buildings had major problems due to shoddy construction, often built not to code or standard construction practices, and that major renovation and rebuilding would be required.  So, how do you shift the remedial construction costs to the TS owners?  The TS owners' contracts were leases, which could be problematic to Northmont, since in common business practice, lessees do not own the buildings and thus are not responsible for construction or reconstruction.  The path they chose was to sell the TS owners on a Legacy For Life conversion program, which would enable them to rewrite the contracts to co-ownership agreements and add the clause, "pay the cost of capital improvements that may from time to time be required," as well as some other modifications.  The brilliance of this program is that they also charged around $5-6,000 per TS owner for a program which resulted in shifting the cost of capital improvements to the TS owner into perpetuity.  Those that converted got ownership so far as the obligation to pay all the bills, but not ownership for equitable financial rights and benefits.  For the company, this has to be one of the biggest sweet heart deals ever imposed.  The irony is that, as it turned out, they didn't need to convert the leases to co-ownership agreements.  All they needed was a friendly judge to agree to their argument that our agreements are different from ordinary commercial leases and that we are responsible for all costs and, in the absence of a Timeshare Association, at the whim of the developer/manager.  I did not expect a judge would be party to such re-interpretation of terms in a contract.  I thought the courts had a duty to protect the consumer against such evil practices.
> 
> Spark1, I don't think the building problems started after the bankruptcy; the evidence suggests the buildings were shodilly built and inadequately maintained from the beginning.  Buildings that should have had a lifetime of 50-60 years or more were becoming unusable after fifteen years.  In other words, the lessees were sold 40-year leases in buildings that should have had a lifetime of at least 50-60 years, but rather for some buildings had only around 15 years.  That is fundamental misrepresentation and fraud.
> 
> I don't know what building inspections or disclosures were required when the co-ownership agreements were being marketed in 2009, or what disclosures were provided.  So far as I know, all provinces have laws that require disclosure of building flaws and that hiding flaws or misleading purchasers about the quality of the building is illegal. In about 2009, I was confronted with a blitz of emails, letters, and phone calls promoting the "exciting new direction for Fairmont."  I ran as hard as I could in the other direction, suspecting this exciting program was not for my benefit.  The anecdotal information I have is that a glowing picture of the future of Fairmont was given and that any building problems were either not disclosed or hidden deep in the paperwork or CDs that the buyer might read or view later.  Certainly, the amendment to include being responsible for capital improvements would not have been pointed out. The evidence strongly suggests the intent was to deceive the public about what they were buying into.  Whether the company managed to stay within the law is open to speculation.



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

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


----------



## GypsyOne

ERW said:


> I realize it may not be something that can be openly discussed, but I can't help but wonder why the leases and subsequent Legacy for Life ownerships were lumped together at the trial? They are two very different situations and the lease holders, in my opinion, would be far less likely to be held responsible for major re-construction costs than the Legacy for Life individuals.
> 
> I too went to the presentation here in Winnipeg and was sceptical from the moment they opened their mouths to talk about how great a deal this was. I also suspected this was a cash grab of some sort but did not foresee the future implications of signing up as it relates to repairs required to the property.



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

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


----------



## mmchili

*My Perspective*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## LarcenyWhipsneed

*another perspective from an OBJECTOR*

the northmont/northwynd/sunchaser management created this awful mess by trying to pull the wool over the eyes of every timeshare lessee.

In all my years of renting/leasing buying/selling property, i have never seen anyone try to get non-owners to pay for something that the owners should pay for.  this entire premise put forth by wankel et al is ridiculous.  when you rent an apartment you are not expected to cough up cash to pay for a new roof because the owner of the building can't seem to figure out how to take care of proper management of the asset.  If you buy a condo, then you are responsible for capital upkeep of the entire asset but then, you actually have title to a piece of property and equity to recover when you decide to sell.

we are not deliquents, we are strenous OBJECTORS to paying another cent to improve someone elses property who will clearly benefit when they sell out down the road.  it might make some business sense to invest in the future of this timeshare if we could enjoy the future profits as partners.  However, i do  believe that the current management has consideration only for their own interests and couldn't care a whit for the timeshare lessees.

As it is, anyone left as an owner/lessee at sunchaser will be on the hook for thousands of dollars in special levees at the whim of wankel and his partners.  in addition, the liability for annual payments and fees will carry on long past the original 40 year leases. a horrible horrible deal.

Deliquent, i think not.  
Sensible objectors is a far better term to describe the group of us that will fight this nonsense to the end.


----------



## Just Looking Around

*Tswow*

You've presented above and below, herein, ideas or facts or circumstances as you understand them. I don't agree with much of what you've presented. I want you to be clear I am questioning these ideas, facts, concepts and circumstances in the following which, is quite different than attacking you on the basis of any personal characteristics. You’ve used descriptions of other posters to this Board such as abusive, ignorant, belligerent and that they’re only input is rhetoric. I’ll try not to do the same.

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

Northmont is to blame. They are perpetuating the problem. To suggest they are somehow saving the day is ignoring the reality of the situation. That reality is that they have not added value to the 'guest experience.' They haven't invested any of their money into the property. In fact, they've changed the way Management Fees are calculated to make even more money. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. They are not selling any weeks. Where will that take the property? The value of a week has done nothing under their management but precipitously declined in value. I can only conclude that they have a longer term plan they've not shared. All Northmont has done is come in and say, _"Its all Fairmont's problem. Ok, now send us your money, because you have to. We'll reconstruct and reorganize the resort in a way where we can maximize our profits."_ If Northmont truly had intentions of serving the interests of the lease-holders, they would form an association of lease-holders through which they could vet and acquire the 'social' license for their plans.

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

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

You are right. No company known for their development and operation of vacation resorts would have taken over Fairmont; which, is why the property should have been dissolved at the time of the bankruptcy. Those reputable companies did evaluate the resort and they made the decision we would have made had we be given the choice. They understood the situation: _'Too Bad, but all is lost. It would be too expensive to rehabilitate this property.'_ Yes, we'd have lost our initial investment but why chase a bad decision, or a good decision gone bad, with more good money? 

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

Your files? What do you mean your files? I'd like to know what you mean by your files?  Do you mean Northmont's files? I categorically dispute that Fairmont or Northmont has ever made any legitimate attempt to fulfill their obligation to form an association to represent the Lessees. I, and not a single person I know, remembers ever being contacted about a home owners association. Ok then, when do your files say that was? Regardless, regardless, times have changed. I'd like to see Northmont create a lease-holders’ association now. To say well, we asked one time, and there was no interest is, just rhetoric. They are obligated to create one. From my Lease: LESSEE'S ASSOCIATION: ...Lessor agrees to cooperate with the lessees in the formation of such an association and agrees to recognize the association..." It decidedly doesn’t say the Lessor will take the temperature of the water first and jump in only if and when its lukewarm.

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

Northmont isn't to blame for the damage in the first place. Northmont isn't to blame for the poor evaluation done by the professionals they hired to assess the property. They didn't get off to a reputable start did they? You've essentially expressed my opinion. Dissolve the whole thing. The damage was too expensive to repair. We could have all bought weeks on the secondary timeshare market for virtually zero-down, and now we'd own at a Marriott, Sheraton, Welk or at any number of the credible operations. 

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

You cannot convince me the rhetoric is coming from those who haven't paid. I think the repeated, _"read your contract", “I met with my lawyer”_ is rhetoric. Unilaterally changing the lease is abusive, belligerent and ignorant all at the same time. Besides, these are your feelings, and you are casting aspersions on others. I have similar feelings for those who misrepresent and manipulate for gain but, I'll keep those feeling to myself for this Board. 

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

See you in court. 

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

Where did you get these numbers? I've not seen anything that would give me this information. And, what are you suggesting? Are you suggesting Northmont's longer term plan? How would this division benefit your maintenance fees?  Therefor I have to ask, why are you suggesting Riverside, Riverview, Hillside, etc. all be separated? What could possibly be gained? Unless ... unless … they've a different lease/owner/usage structure? Is that what you are implying? Is Northmont going to restructure the property in this manner? Because it would be good of them to tell us. If the purpose, the core structure and operation are aligned there would be no reason not to take advantage of the economy of scale available to the management company. If they downsize can they remain aligned with a reputable exchange company? Maybe that is why they aren't even attempting to sell any units. Maybe much of the property will no longer be based upon annual weekly leased intervals. Again, that would be valuable to know. Preferably before court. Otherwise, it’s you know, the ‘F’-word. ...Ok, ...I’ll say it, ...FRAUD.

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

Define rhetoric. Repeatedly saying rhetoric is, well, rhetoric. You have readily pointed out the gross mismanagement, fraud and theft of the past, albeit by Fairmont, I'd be inclined to understand the frustration and anger over the excessive financial burden Northmont has obligated the lease-holders to by reconstructing the property. No Lessee's Association. No information about the bankruptcy. No input on the reconstruction. No financial statements for extended periods beyond those specified in the lease agreements. I'd cut the lease-holders some slack. Their anger is directed at Northmont. You are acting like that is you? You are acting like you are Northmont, the target of their anger. 

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

DUH! No one is. Sorry, I guess, you are. I damn well paid to stay and I am not interested in being associated with Sunchaser, see the court filings.


----------



## Meow

Thank you 'Just Looking Around' for exposing Tswow as just another Northward proxy.


----------



## Punter

*A show of hands: Did ANYONE get this survey?*

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

We never received one. When was it sent out and why didn't all owners get it?


----------



## ERW

I actually recall getting a survey. I'll look through my documents and see if I kept it. If I find it, I'll try to post it here. I do recall the question about a lessee's association but I can't remember if there was any sort of reply to the owners with what the outcome was. Regardless, without actually seeing the surveys themselves, I'm not sure if I would trust the reported outcome. 

I think an association would be and should be formed. Whether or not that would fly is anyone's guess but it is plain as day in the contract I signed - I don't think there would be many judges that could deny that specific clause. 

I actually share some of TSWOW's sentiments. Northmont did take on property that had some serious flaws inherent with the units. Whether or not the expenses to bring that property up to snuff are the responsibility of the lessees or Legacy for Life owners or Northmont's is the question. I was not involved in the legal action but would like to see this settled on way or another, sooner than later.


----------



## aden2

The Legacy for Life's scam belongs to Northmont!!!


----------



## Punter

aden2 said:


> The Legacy for Life's scam belongs to Northmont!!!



And when that scheme didn't generate enough cash to pay back the investors, (90% of the resorts revenue was for this purpose) Northmont got into the business of selling cancelations and pocketing the cash which clearly shows their intent for the resort's future.


----------



## GypsyOne

*History*

This is my understanding of the approximate time line leading to the current issues at Fairmont:

The beginnings of the problems can be traced to the late 1990s, early 2000s when the developer, Fairmont Resort Properties, set out to build a time share resort to capitalize on the popularity of timeshare vacations that existed at the time.  What better location than Fairmont with its beautiful scenery, favourable four-season climate, and variety of vacation amenities?  The objective was to build them quickly and get them to market as soon as possible.  Quality was sacrificed in the quest for quantity and cash flow.  When new, the structures looked good, as evidenced by 14,500 buyers purchasing time share vacations in the resort.  But faulty construction, short cuts, and inadequate materials soon showed up in building failure.  Buildings that should have had a lifetime of 50-60 years were becoming unusable after only fifteen years.  

The original developer did not tap into the TS owners to correct the deficiencies, presumably for the simple reason they had marketed the time shares as leases that they knew did not include paying for capital reconstruction or capital improvements.  At this point the precedent was well established that the TS owners were responsible only for a proportionate share of the operating costs.  My understanding is that the developer attempted to correct the deficiencies by raising capital through the sale of REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts). This approach collapsed when income from the resort was insufficient to service the REITs, and bankruptcy was declared in 2009.  

The new owners took a different approach - hit up the TS owners/lessees.  One inconvenient problem, however, was that the TS owners contract was in the form of a lease that did not include being responsible for capital re-construction, as the original developer, FRP, knew from the beginning.  Soon after the takeover, they therefore sought to rewrite the contracts making them read being responsible for paying capital costs.  This was accomplished through an ambitious marketing campaign selling  conversions of leases to co-ownership agreements.  I presume they were able to make it sound as if perpetual ownership was superior to a 40-year lease.  Two objectives were met: 1) Capital was raised at approximately $5,000 - $6,000 per conversion; 2) The contracts could be re-written with a number of changes, but most importantly the clause was added: "pay the cost of capital improvements that may from time to time be required."  Mission partly accomplished.

The final hurdle was to make the remaining lessees (a majority) similarly responsible as the co-owners.  A large group of TS owners resisted the Northmont special assessment for building reconstruction.  In the subsequent court action Judge Fitzpatrick sided with Northmont.  In doing so, she basically rejected the contractual rights of the lessees, stating that it does not make sense that there be two classes of TS owners, regardless of what the contracts say.  The litigation group are convinced she erred in a number of areas, and that for justice to be done, the ruling must be overturned.  It is difficult not to conclude that this is not an activist judge advocating for those who do not want a major resort and tourist attraction in B.C. to fail.  In doing so, the consumer and legal rights of a large group of the public have been sacrificed.


----------



## Just Looking Around

*There's a reason we see all those abandoned cars in lots. Too expensive to fix.*

ERW

"I actually share some of TSWOW's sentiments. Northmont did take on property that had some serious flaws inherent with the units. Whether or not the expenses to bring that property up to snuff are the responsibility of the lessees or Legacy for Life owners or Northmont's is the question. I was not involved in the legal action but would like to see this settled on way or another, sooner than later."

There is only one reason why a lease-holder would want to participate in the rehabilitation of Fairmont. That would be because of the location. That is it. Every other reason, particularly financial, points to abandoning your investment as the only logical conclusion. And, to participate in the rehabilitation of Fairmont is at a great additional cost. You are only seeing the beginning of it now. At the end of the day, assuming Northmont doesn't have an alternative plan - and they do, it's clear - we will each have paid our initial investment twice, plus yearly maintenance fees.

As Punter has pointed out, coming out of the bankruptcy there was and remains only one goal, payback the Developers and bond-holders. All because no one represented the lease-holders' interests at the bankruptcy proceedings. No Lessees' Association. Do you trust Kirk Wankle to represent your interests over his, the bond-holders? That's most of your money going to them, bond-holders and, not to the rehabilitation or maintenance of the buildings and lands. As part of the compensation for managing the property didn't Northmont or a subsidiary of Northmont - I can't even keep the knarled corporate tree straight anymore - acquire shares of the REIT or Bonds?

Plus, the property still flounders operationally. It still deteriorates in value as a destination. 

Northmont's only motivation for assuming management of the property (I continue to refuse to call it a resort. It's more like a red-neck bed and breakfast), is to extract cash from the lease-holders based upon Northmont's understanding that they can unilaterally make these operational, capital, corporate and contractual changes - all at YOUR expense ERW. They saw an opportunity to pay back the bond-holders, reinvent the property as something with less intensive management responsibilities, as something with a greater demand of capital on the market (meaning they could sell the units for more money per unit, something longer than annual weekly intervals) all constructed at the expense of the lease-holders.

Where has all the money gone from those who have cancelled? It's as simple and transparent as that.

Why reinvent it as something with less demand for intensive management? Because they don't want to manage a property. If nothing else is clear through all of this, that one thing is clear.

What is Northmont's batting average? They've this property, Lake Whoabegone (LOR) and they struck-out with what, Mexico, Hawaii, Belize, Rafter Six, etc. I really don't know all of their past acquisitions and divestitures.

With two patients on life support and a majority of patients in the grave they are the Jack Kevorkian of Vacation Property Operators. Don't mistake these sold or closed properties as failures. Nope, this is in my humble estimation, by design. It's a manipulative and deceptive business plan but, it does produce revenue. It's a whole new world of warcraft.

I don't know but I bet Mr. World of Warcraft has flogged this scenario to other timeshare developers. Need something 'corporately euthanised' for cash? I got just what the Doctor ordered, right here.

Thankfully there are ethical operators, like Fairmont Mountainside Vacation Villas which, as TSWOW points out, emphatically wants nothing to do with Sunchaser.

Face it, for Northmont, running a Vacation Property can't possibly be their end game; and, they are good at playing games, but not property management.


----------



## Just Looking Around

*GypseOne*

That's a valuable history to have. Thank you.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Ok, the whole "who is to blame" issue is really frustrating me.  

Who is to blame?  Fairmont.  Who's accountable?  Northmont.  Northmont didn't cause the initial problems but they took them on when they took over.  When you buy a company you don't just get the assets you get liabilities also.  You factor that all into your decision, your calculations and you make a purchase decision.  

I know it's been stated that Northmont shouldn't have taken the resort on but it should be made clear that by doing so they assumed accountability of Fairmont's side of the TS relationship.  

I am amazed and appalled that anyone would purposely or unwittingly confuse 'blame' and 'accountability'.  

Unfortunately we're in a weird twilight world where an ATTEMPT at offloading that accountability onto us is underway.


----------



## pdoff

These have been posted before - but worth looking at again

www.sunchasertimeshareowners.com 

www.redweek.com/furums/messages?thread_id16969


----------



## pdoff

That last link should br

www.redweek.com/forum/messages?thread_id=16969


----------



## pdoff

Oh heck - just go to page 38 - thread 931 - the link works from there!


----------



## truthr

*Link and thanks*

here ya go:

http://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=16969

Also thank you to the admins here for reopening this thread.  All information is helpful and it is too bad that some posts had to be deleted because the posters were out of line as even some of those had some really useful information.

But again, thank you admins.


----------



## aden2

Fair Trading Act Alberta
Revised July 1, 2015

Cancelling agreement
7(1) A consumer may cancel at no cost or penalty to the consumer
a consumer transaction, whether written or oral, that was entered
into by the consumer and a supplier who engaged in an unfair
practice regarding the consumer transaction, whether the unfair
practice occurred before, during or after the time when the
consumer transaction was entered into, and in addition the
consumer is entitled to any remedy that is available at law,
including damages.
(2) Where a supplier has been found to have engaged in an unfair
practice, any consumer who entered into a consumer transaction
that was subject to the unfair practice with the supplier who
engaged in the unfair practice may cancel the consumer transaction
at no cost or penalty to the consumer.
(3) A consumer is entitled to recover the amount by which the
consumer’s payment under the consumer transaction exceeds the
value of the goods or services to the consumer, or to recover
damages, or both, if cancellation of the consumer transaction under
subsection (1) or (2) is not possible because
 (a) the return or restitution of the goods or cancellation of


----------



## Spark1

tswow said:


> After reading the responses, I am amazed and appalled at the rhetoric expressed. So, I decided to add my perspective. The way I see it, the problems at Sunchaser were created by Fairmont Resort Properties Limited (Fairmont). Northmont took on the problems when they took assignment of Sunchaser. Who is to blame?
> 
> The major issue which drove the significant renovation was the leaking plastic water piping. This issue together with a poorly maintained resort by Fairmont, who allowed a deficit to accumulate, contributed to the cost of repairing Sunchaser. And Fairmont did not pursue compensation from the class action settlement regarding the plastic plumbing.
> 
> The condition of Sunchaser was the result of Fairmont’s actions, not Northmont’s who took over the resort “as is”. If Sunchaser was taken over by someone else other than Northmont, would the situation be any different? Or if Northmont were to go broke and Sunchaser taken over by someone else, would it be operated differently? I think not.
> 
> When Northmont took over Sunchaser, they sent a survey to us owners and one of the questions asked was about the establishment of an owners association. My files show that very few owners responded and most of those who responded were not in favor of an association. So why are there complaints about not having an owners association? Was it because of the additional cost of having one? How many owners discussed the budget and maintenance fee with Fairmont or Northmont?
> 
> So, what should be done with a resort that is outdated poorly maintained and has major water line leakage? Let it leak and deteriorate or repair it? After a lot of research and consideration, I decided the best alternative was /is to repair it and upgrade it or lose it altogether. However I did not expect the cost to be as requested. I still do not like the cost but Northmont hired professionals to scope out the work and hired a credible contractor to do the repairs, etc.
> 
> I studied my contract, consulted with my lawyer, discussed with other owners and met and discussed with Northmont after which I decided to “pay and stay”. I respect the decisions made by other owners to pay and go, pay and stay or pursue legal action. The legal avenue of resolve is available to everyone. However I do not have any respect for those owners who are abusive, belligerent and ignorant in their rhetoric. And do not appreciate nor respect those owners who have decided to not pay their maintenance fee, not to pay the renovation fee and not pursue legal action. Their delinquency is increasing the maintenance fee to me and other owners who are current with their fees.
> 
> I’m assuming those owners who are part of the litigation group also have not paid the fees, for which I may have to compensate for. However, I expect these owners to either pursue their legal actions with credible claims and credible evidence without delay or pay their debt. I fully support and expect Northmont to pursue collection of the outstanding fees and related interest charges.
> 
> I note that my 2016 maintenance fee is based on approximately 5,400 timeshare weeks versus 12,750 weeks for Sunchaser as a whole. By my calculations, this means that Hillside (7038 weeks) could be separated from Sunchaser and Riverside (4,080 weeks) and Riverview (1,632 weeks) could remain as Sunchaser. However there is no mention made in the budget for delinquent maintenance fees or delinquent fees received. My calculations in reviewing prior years’ maintenance fee show that I paid $100 annually to cover delinquency.
> 
> As for the legal action; based on the rhetoric expressed on TUG, I would expect Fitzpatrick’s decision to be appealed by Jeke and/or if not, that claims would be filed by everyone else who is part of the group action. Has an appeal been filed? Have any other claims been filed? Express your feelings, accusations and allegations to the Judge and live with the consequences. I do not feel encouraged or enticed to become part of the litigation group. I am not interested in becoming part of any litigation group which includes owners who are abusive and ignorant in their rhetoric.
> 
> Also, Fairmont Mountainside Villas is not interested in being connected with Sunchaser in any way, shape or form. Go to their website and there you will see their express statement to that effect.


Northmont knowing the condition of this resort should of stayed out of this and let it go bankrupt. Do not start up Legacy for life and expect many seniors to pay millions to fix up a garbage resort. If Justice Loo would of made the right decision with her case,many lease owners would no tof paid cancellations and reno fees. All that did was gave millions for the crooks to use against us. I feel there is a connection with these two judges and that being we can not let this resort fail at any cost to the lease holders.


----------



## Spark1

Just Looking Around said:


> ERW
> 
> "I actually share some of TSWOW's sentiments. Northmont did take on property that had some serious flaws inherent with the units. Whether or not the expenses to bring that property up to snuff are the responsibility of the lessees or Legacy for Life owners or Northmont's is the question. I was not involved in the legal action but would like to see this settled on way or another, sooner than later."
> 
> There is only one reason why a lease-holder would want to participate in the rehabilitation of Fairmont. That would be because of the location. That is it. Every other reason, particularly financial, points to abandoning your investment as the only logical conclusion. And, to participate in the rehabilitation of Fairmont is at a great additional cost. You are only seeing the beginning of it now. At the end of the day, assuming Northmont doesn't have an alternative plan - and they do, it's clear - we will each have paid our initial investment twice, plus yearly maintenance fees.
> 
> As Punter has pointed out, coming out of the bankruptcy there was and remains only one goal, payback the Developers and bond-holders. All because no one represented the lease-holders' interests at the bankruptcy proceedings. No Lessees' Association. Do you trust Kirk Wankle to represent your interests over his, the bond-holders? That's most of your money going to them, bond-holders and, not to the rehabilitation or maintenance of the buildings and lands. As part of the compensation for managing the property didn't Northmont or a subsidiary of Northmont - I can't even keep the knarled corporate tree straight anymore - acquire shares of the REIT or Bonds?
> 
> Plus, the property still flounders operationally. It still deteriorates in value as a destination.
> 
> Northmont's only motivation for assuming management of the property (I continue to refuse to call it a resort. It's more like a red-neck bed and breakfast), is to extract cash from the lease-holders based upon Northmont's understanding that they can unilaterally make these operational, capital, corporate and contractual changes - all at YOUR expense ERW. They saw an opportunity to pay back the bond-holders, reinvent the property as something with less intensive management responsibilities, as something with a greater demand of capital on the market (meaning they could sell the units for more money per unit, something longer than annual weekly intervals) all constructed at the expense of the lease-holders.
> 
> Where has all the money gone from those who have cancelled? It's as simple and transparent as that.
> 
> Why reinvent it as something with less demand for intensive management? Because they don't want to manage a property. If nothing else is clear through all of this, that one thing is clear.
> 
> What is Northmont's batting average? They've this property, Lake Whoabegone (LOR) and they struck-out with what, Mexico, Hawaii, Belize, Rafter Six, etc. I really don't know all of their past acquisitions and divestitures.
> 
> With two patients on life support and a majority of patients in the grave they are the Jack Kevorkian of Vacation Property Operators. Don't mistake these sold or closed properties as failures. Nope, this is in my humble estimation, by design. It's a manipulative and deceptive business plan but, it does produce revenue. It's a whole new world of warcraft.
> 
> I don't know but I bet Mr. World of Warcraft has flogged this scenario to other timeshare developers. Need something 'corporately euthanised' for cash? I got just what the Doctor ordered, right here.
> 
> Thankfully there are ethical operators, like Fairmont Mountainside Vacation Villas which, as TSWOW points out, emphatically wants nothing to do with Sunchaser.
> 
> Face it, for Northmont, running a Vacation Property can't possibly be their end game; and, they are good at playing games, but not property management.


What gives them the power is these corrupt Supreme Court Judges of B.C. I wonder what research do they really do? Justice Loo's decision costs Lease holders millions and how is she responsible for her actions,she lost the appeal. This next judge will also lose the appeal. The people sticking together is the power not the judges. If we can not get justice in BC lets take it to the Supreme court of Canada. These judges have no respect for what this is costing for legal fees and what this cost us originally. Can you imagine a judge,just because she is a judge called power, thinks she can change agreements that we signed with witnesses. She will never be able to change my agreement that i and my spouse have signed. How many millions have these crooks stole from timeshare leases enabled by Judges and corrupt lawyers?


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

Spark1 said:


> What gives them the power is these corrupt Supreme Court Judges of B.C. I wonder what research do they really do? Justice Loo's decision costs Lease holders millions and how is she responsible for her actions,she lost the appeal. This next judge will also lose the appeal. The people sticking together is the power not the judges. If we can not get justice in BC lets take it to the Supreme court of Canada. These judges have no respect for what this is costing for legal fees and what this cost us originally. Can you imagine a judge,just because she is a judge called power, thinks she can change agreements that we signed with witnesses. She will never be able to change my agreement that i and my spouse have signed. How many millions have these crooks stole from timeshare leases enabled by Judges and corrupt lawyers?



*******
I am not a lawyer and only understand NAFTA from what I have read in media . However- we all know that such agreements have clauses that a creative lawyer could use in an appeal . 
Since the resort was likely sold and marketed south of the 49th as well as in Canada - maybe it qualifies 

Has anyone looked into it ?


----------



## Tacoma

I am assuming that many of us got the badly phrased letter from Northwynd today on the litigation. Who writes their communications? Once again they continue to state what an excellent job they are doing running the resort and how this proves they have the best interest of the timeshare owners at heart. Those of us in the legal suit are misguided and misinformed. The only time I was misguided and misinformed was when I signed a contract with them and expected them to live up to the contract. I would never call a judge corrupt but I do believe that they want the business to survive and perhaps are putting too much credibility in what Northwynd in saying.  I can not believe that they will ultimately allow the contracts that we signed in good faith to be changed in a way that puts all of the costs on lease holders. It sets a precedence that can not be allowed to happen.


----------



## aden2

Well said Tacoma!!!


----------



## Scammed22

Tacoma said:


> I am assuming that many of us got the badly phrased letter from Northwynd today on the litigation. Who writes their communications? Once again they continue to state what an excellent job they are doing running the resort and how this proves they have the best interest of the timeshare owners at heart. Those of us in the legal suit are misguided and misinformed. The only time I was misguided and misinformed was when I signed a contract with them and expected them to live up to the contract. I would never call a judge corrupt but I do believe that they want the business to survive and perhaps are putting too much credibility in what Northwynd in saying.  I can not believe that they will ultimately allow the contracts that we signed in good faith to be changed in a way that puts all of the costs on lease holders. It sets a precedence that can not be allowed to happen.



Nothing but lies and scare tactics . Nothing but smoke and mirrors like I said in my 4 page letter. I enjoyed finally having somewhat of a say and asking questions they have not answered nor will they... because that would be telling the truth and would really screw up their case . It they think this intimates us think again...I'm so ready for this!


----------



## Scammed22

Tacoma said:


> I am assuming that many of us got the badly phrased letter from Northwynd today on the litigation. Who writes their communications? Once again they continue to state what an excellent job they are doing running the resort and how this proves they have the best interest of the timeshare owners at heart. Those of us in the legal suit are misguided and misinformed. The only time I was misguided and misinformed was when I signed a contract with them and expected them to live up to the contract. I would never call a judge corrupt but I do believe that they want the business to survive and perhaps are putting too much credibility in what Northwynd in saying.  I can not believe that they will ultimately allow the contracts that we signed in good faith to be changed in a way that puts all of the costs on lease holders. It sets a precedence that can not be allowed to happen.





Just Looking Around said:


> ERW
> 
> "I actually share some of TSWOW's sentiments. Northmont did take on property that had some serious flaws inherent with the units. Whether or not the expenses to bring that property up to snuff are the responsibility of the lessees or Legacy for Life owners or Northmont's is the question. I was not involved in the legal action but would like to see this settled on way or another, sooner than later."
> 
> There is only one reason why a lease-holder would want to participate in the rehabilitation of Fairmont. That would be because of the location. That is it. Every other reason, particularly financial, points to abandoning your investment as the only logical conclusion. And, to participate in the rehabilitation of Fairmont is at a great additional cost. You are only seeing the beginning of it now. At the end of the day, assuming Northmont doesn't have an alternative plan - and they do, it's clear - we will each have paid our initial investment twice, plus yearly maintenance fees.
> 
> As Punter has pointed out, coming out of the bankruptcy there was and remains only one goal, payback the Developers and bond-holders. All because no one represented the lease-holders' interests at the bankruptcy proceedings. No Lessees' Association. Do you trust Kirk Wankle to represent your interests over his, the bond-holders? That's most of your money going to them, bond-holders and, not to the rehabilitation or maintenance of the buildings and lands. As part of the compensation for managing the property didn't Northmont or a subsidiary of Northmont - I can't even keep the knarled corporate tree straight anymore - acquire shares of the REIT or Bonds?
> 
> Plus, the property still flounders operationally. It still deteriorates in value as a destination.
> 
> Northmont's only motivation for assuming management of the property (I continue to refuse to call it a resort. It's more like a red-neck bed and breakfast), is to extract cash from the lease-holders based upon Northmont's understanding that they can unilaterally make these operational, capital, corporate and contractual changes - all at YOUR expense ERW. They saw an opportunity to pay back the bond-holders, reinvent the property as something with less intensive management responsibilities, as something with a greater demand of capital on the market (meaning they could sell the units for more money per unit, something longer than annual weekly intervals) all constructed at the expense of the lease-holders.
> 
> Where has all the money gone from those who have cancelled? It's as simple and transparent as that.
> 
> Why reinvent it as something with less demand for intensive management? Because they don't want to manage a property. If nothing else is clear through all of this, that one thing is clear.
> 
> What is Northmont's batting average? They've this property, Lake Whoabegone (LOR) and they struck-out with what, Mexico, Hawaii, Belize, Rafter Six, etc. I really don't know all of their past acquisitions and divestitures.
> 
> With two patients on life support and a majority of patients in the grave they are the Jack Kevorkian of Vacation Property Operators. Don't mistake these sold or closed properties as failures. Nope, this is in my humble estimation, by design. It's a manipulative and deceptive business plan but, it does produce revenue. It's a whole new world of warcraft.
> 
> I don't know but I bet Mr. World of Warcraft has flogged this scenario to other timeshare developers. Need something 'corporately euthanised' for cash? I got just what the Doctor ordered, right here.
> 
> Thankfully there are ethical operators, like Fairmont Mountainside Vacation Villas which, as TSWOW points out, emphatically wants nothing to do with Sunchaser.
> 
> Face it, for Northmont, running a Vacation Property can't possibly be their end game; and, they are good at playing games, but not property management.



I called them the double dippers...I call it as I see it.


----------



## GypsyOne

*Propaganda*

More blather from the propaganda department of Northmont.  However, they blew their credibility when they claimed being morally and ethically correct:

_"....However, the Resort has been morally and ethically correct as well. We have been open and honest throughout this process about our position and owners’ rights. Further, we have made fair offers at every stage of the process to try and reach an amicable resolution...."_

I might have believed them if me and numerous others hadn't been the victims of them modifying the terms of our leases; attempting to have us convert leases to co-ownership agreements so they can add the clause "pay the cost of capital improvements" and in doing so misrepresenting the state of the resort; not establishing a lessees or co-owners association as required by contract; ignoring the contractual remedy for default and instead implementing their own version; basically making us owners for paying all the bills but no voice as owners or no chance of financial benefits of ownership; nullifying leases signed prior to 1993 to have them fit the 1993 leases; etc.

Accepting their "fair offers at every stage" would be like paying the ransom in a blackmail.


----------



## pdoff

Well said - yet more condescending propaganda from whoever writes this stuff for _'Passingwynd'_.


----------



## Spark1

Tacoma said:


> I am assuming that many of us got the badly phrased letter from Northwynd today on the litigation. Who writes their communications? Once again they continue to state what an excellent job they are doing running the resort and how this proves they have the best interest of the timeshare owners at heart. Those of us in the legal suit are misguided and misinformed. The only time I was misguided and misinformed was when I signed a contract with them and expected them to live up to the contract. I would never call a judge corrupt but I do believe that they want the business to survive and perhaps are putting too much credibility in what Northwynd in saying.  I can not believe that they will ultimately allow the contracts that we signed in good faith to be changed in a way that puts all of the costs on lease holders. It sets a precedence that can not be allowed to happen.


If a judge is human believe me they sure the hell can be corrupt. Take a look at how the PM is acting. Judges are not god believe me.


----------



## Tacoma

Not being naïve here, I know they could be corrupt but I always try to trust professionals and give them the benefit of the doubt. Just don't really like to see people posting here that the judge was corrupt. I prefer to think of the judge's ruling as misinformed rather than corrupt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion however.


----------



## Spark1

Tacoma said:


> Not being naïve here, I know they could be corrupt but I always try to trust professionals and give them the benefit of the doubt. Just don't really like to see people posting here that the judge was corrupt. I prefer to think of the judge's ruling as misinformed rather than corrupt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion however.


Four Supreme court judges ruled against Justice Loo's decision. Over 10 million dollars in cancellation was paid out and how many million in reno fees. Would the leases paid this out if she would of made the right decision? Now the other judge rules against us and they are after us again hoping we will panic like the first time. This is a game about money not about having a wonderful resort for us timeshare leases. Northwynd has not kept any of the resorts they have been involved in and they will not keep this one.


----------



## Just Looking Around

*“Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.”*



GypsyOne said:


> _"....However, the Resort has been morally and ethically correct as well. We have been open and honest throughout this process about our position and owners’ rights. Further, we have made fair offers at every stage of the process to try and reach an amicable resolution...."_



'Morally and ethically correct.' Really? That's a self-aggrandizing statement.

Does Mr. Wankle believe that is something that courts determine, moral and ethical correctness? That is not what courts determine. Courts make judgements on legislated law. One exception, the court of public opinion.
So, Mr. Wankle, I know you are reading this, why don't you put your actions to the test? Why, as the Chief Executive of Northwynd, don't you form a leaseholders association? A leaseholders' association is an obligation in my lease agreement. That can't be a stretch then can it. You have nothing to fear, at least not if you are 'morally and ethically correct'. Put some weight to your words, some balance to your actions.
Until you buy yourself social license, nothing you say or do will ever carry any weight. You'll be just another corporate exploiter like, Martin Shkreli, the former hedge fund manager who woke up one day and raised the price of a cancer drug. Because he could and, it served his interest. He was obsessed with manipulative role-playing games of fantasy. Reality, as most of us know it, caught up with Martin.
Put your judgements of morality and ethics to the test. Form a leaseholders association!
Let us, the leaseholders, be the counter-balance to your Developer weighted decisions.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

*Latest Communications*

Hey, in response to the latest attacks from Northmont we got to see our new counsel hired by Geldert flex their muscles, just a little bit.  Looks like we're bringing a bazooka to a knife fight.  :whoopie:

IMO these attack letters from Northmont add even more clarity to the situation and not in Northmont's favour.  If you're in a position of legal and moral strength, as Northmont claims, why would you even bother with such negative attacks?  Instead you'd go about your business of legally bringing things to a resolution.  Why would you try to sling mud?    

As has been said in previous posts, current up to date TS renters/owners who are still hoping that they can rely on Northmont to provide a positive vacation experience should be scared.  I assume many of them hope we win because if we don't then the potential for continual capital costs in any flavour continues on.  Do you trust these guys when they handle things this way?  You'll be provided with a continually diminishing situation until they close everything up and who knows what your bill will be by that point.  Check out Northmont's other TS ventures.  How'd they pan out?


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Put another way, if we win then current TS renter's/owner's cost risks become immediately defined.  They'll know that if things continue to deteriorate they can break things off with Northmont without being further gouged.  If we don't win then their cost risks are much higher and are anyone's guess.


----------



## pdoff

*latest communications*

All I can say is Wow!! It seems that whoever is writing this attack stuff for Northmont/Northwynd/Passing Wind must be having a bit if a panic attack.
I wonder if their lawyers are a little pdoff with this unprofessional dribble??


----------



## Spark1

pdoff said:


> All I can say is Wow!! It seems that whoever is writing this attack stuff for Northmont/Northwynd/Passing Wind must be having a bit if a panic attack.
> I wonder if their lawyers are a little pdoff with this unprofessional dribble??


First of all we should be very proud of the job Michael Geldert has done. He was the only lawyer firm that would take on these bullies and Norton Rose. I personally talked to Michael after this test case and he was very upset with the outcome. He went home early and i knew he was not going to surrender to these white collar criminals. This case has been going on for more than 3 years now and my question is why. What kind of protection is there for timeshare consumers in Canada,we know none. This should not be allowed in this country. Geldert Law picked a great lawyer group Fasken Martineau Dumoulin partner David Wotherspoon to work with him and Northwynd better worry. We are going to win this appeal and our interest charges are high.


----------



## Late2Game

*Pictures worth a Thousand Words . . .*

Just saw some recent pictures of the Sunchaser properties. . . 

WOW!!  if that doesn't convince you of the severe mismanagement of the resort then nothing will.  It has been many years since I've set eye on the place and all I can say is this property has been seriously neglected.  It looks like an abandoned ghost town!  

I've followed much of the postings on this BBS, but nothing was as powerful as these recent photos.  It really left me with a sinking feeling.

I pity anyone who opted to stay . . .only throwing good money after bad.


----------



## owner1

*More spin by the spin doctors!*



Late2Game said:


> Just saw some recent pictures of the Sunchaser properties. . .
> 
> WOW!!  if that doesn't convince you of the severe mismanagement of the resort then nothing will.  It has been many years since I've set eye on the place and all I can say is this property has been seriously neglected.  It looks like an abandoned ghost town!
> 
> I've followed much of the postings on this BBS, but nothing was as powerful as these recent photos.  It really left me with a sinking feeling.
> 
> I pity anyone who opted to stay . . .only throwing good money after bad.



Why don't you post your pictures.  I was just there and the resort is as well maintained as ever.  There is also no availability for the summer.  Maybe a bunch of ghosts are renting.  That would be more believable than your supposed  pictures.


----------



## aden2

I had a friend send me some pictures of Sunchaser @ Fairmont and the place is indeed not busy! Sunchaser has listed the vacation villa on travel companies such as Travelocity in order to try filling the empty units. The prices offered are much cheaper than what Northwynd is charging the timeshare people. *Sorry Owner1 but your statement is false!
**Your comment is giving yourself away who you are, or whose pocket you are in!*


----------



## ERW

Don't know where you are getting your info from - checked Travelocity, Interval Getaway and Interval Exchange and couldn't find anything. And honestly, if they actually had empty units I would not blame them for trying to sell them off on Interval or anywhere else. Why let them sit empty during prime vacation seasons? 

And I'm not in anyone's pocket - just making an unbiased observation. 

I actually have a week of holidays from work over the summer. If I could get a week there, I'd likely go for a week to really see what's going on.


----------



## aden2

You can also try Trip Advisor for Fairmont, B.C.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Wait, did you post as "owner1" and then reply to aden2's comment as "ERW"?


----------



## Real World

owner1 said:


> Why don't you post your pictures.  I was just there and the resort is as well maintained as ever.  There is also no availability for the summer.  Maybe a bunch of ghosts are renting.  That would be more believable than your supposed  pictures.



owner1 unfortunately there is no chance there will be any pictures posted. Posting pictures would lead to people asking for the date and time they were taken and where.


----------



## ERW

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> Wait, did you post as "owner1" and then reply to aden2's comment as "ERW"?



Not sure if you are referring to me or not but if you are, no, I am not owner1.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Ok, I'll be polite and ask you to explain yourself.  Why did you reply to aden's comments that were for owner1...as if you were owner1?  You even claimed that "And I'm not in anyone's pocket...".

There's really only one explanation, that you're posting with multiple aliases, slipped up and got caught but I'll await your explanation.  Assuming there is no explanation, I'm glad there isn't another flame war on here over this, it's implications are pretty obvious.


----------



## ERW

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> Ok, I'll be polite and ask you to explain yourself.  Why did you reply to aden's comments that were for owner1...as if you were owner1?  You even claimed that "And I'm not in anyone's pocket...".
> 
> There's really only one explanation, that you're posting with multiple aliases, slipped up and got caught but I'll await your explanation.  Assuming there is no explanation, I'm glad there isn't another flame war on here over this, it's implications are pretty obvious.



Yikes! A little paranoia happening here!

I can assure you, I have no idea who owner1 is and I really don't care who owner1 is. When I comment here, I try to be as unbiased as possible. There are a lot of things said in this string of comments and many are misleading from both sides. 

First of all, aden2's comments are, in my opinion, misleading. When I looked at Travelocity, Interval (Getaways and Exchanges) and then Trip Adviser, aden2 is correct in that Sunchaser is listed. But despite trying all of the weeks and several 2 or 3 day periods, there is no availability which tells me they are busy. Maybe I missed some dates but overall there is no availability over the summer months. Can't speak to the pricing as I could not find any prices as no units were available. And even if they are cheaper than what owners are paying, better some revenue than none. That is how corporations think. Secondly, despite there being no availability, if you read the comments people are leaving, they are generally favourable. So, that being said, maybe the resort is not 100% but overall it sounds like most people that commented were positive. 

Finally, my comment about not being in anyone's back pocket - that was in reference to aden2's comment to owner1. Throughout this string of comments, there are many accusations about individuals in regards to being execs (or being in their "back pocket") at Northwynd, etc. Most of these accusations are made whenever a comment does not go with the flow of those that are involved with the litigation. Therefore my statement that I am not in anyone's back pocket. 

So there is your explanation. Like it or not, it is what it is. I think if you look at my history of comments in this matter, you will see I'm not a staunch Northwynd supporter nor am I a member of the litigation group. I have paid the reno fee as well as my mtce fees. Not 100% willingly but I was not prepared to take the risk of litigation. 
Do I agree with the direction Northwynd has gone? No. 
Am I sorry I never got involved with the litigation? No. 
Am I nervous about what the future will bring for our resort. Definitely yes. But that does not automatically make me want to join the legal action. I have seen far too many court decisions made that do not seem to make sense but that is our legal system. On average, lawyers only win 50% of their cases. There is always a winner and a loser. In my eyes, the risk of losing and having to pay the fees plus interest plus legal costs is too great. That is not something I am prepared to gamble with. Very easy to say even if the case is lost, I am not paying Northwynd a dime but we are not talking about $10.00 or $20.00. We are talking about thousands, if not 10's of thousands and Northwynd is not about to write that off. They want their pound of flesh.

Anyway, I have gone on far too long and gotten off topic, but at least I got that all off my chest!

Long answer to your short question - I am ERW and only ERW. And I imagine owner1 is laughing his/her head off.


----------



## aden2

Anytime I have checked companies like Trip Advisor and checked Sunchaser I was requested to phone Sunchaser to discuss availability of dates. Sunchaser wants you to phone them regarding any vacancies. Talking personally to friends that had gone there told me that it is like a ghost town.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Ok, ERW.  There's no explaining your quote "And I'm not in anyone's pocket - just making an unbiased observation.", absolutely a direct response.

Have a good one.


----------



## Hotpink

*Ghost town*

In 2014 we stayed at hillside in a unit rented through RCI I refer you to post # 1468. We also stayed in 2015 but rented at Radium as nothing was available at Fairmont and we learned why.  Four of the buildings in Hillside where boarded up and not in inventory to rent.  The traffic ( foot and automotive) through out the resort was even less than what we saw in 2014, but you can't see ghosts and perhaps they don't drive either.
Bottom line the pictures posted recently corroborate what we have seen since 2014. We could post pictures taken in both 14 and 15 and that would refute OWNER 1's statement from June 23 of this year.
I know that the photos I took are real and are not supposed as is stated in the June 23 post

The resort is in my opinion being systematically shrunk for what purpose I can only guess.


----------



## ERW

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> Ok, ERW.  There's no explaining your quote "And I'm not in anyone's pocket - just making an unbiased observation.", absolutely a direct response.
> 
> Have a good one.



Evidently there is no reasoning with you so as far as I am concerned, I don't need to justify my existence to you or anyone else for that matter. If you want to continue to think I am "owner1" good on ya. And if you can't see from all of my previous posts in this string that I try to see the situation from both perspectives, that is your problem, not mine. I went above and beyond to explain my position when in actual fact, I didn't have to justify anything to you.

Carry on and believe what you want.


----------



## ERW

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> Ok, ERW.  There's no explaining your quote "And I'm not in anyone's pocket - just making an unbiased observation.", absolutely a direct response.
> 
> Have a good one.



By the way, you wouldn't happen to be one of the lawyers involved in this, would you?


----------



## Spark1

ERW said:


> By the way, you wouldn't happen to be one of the lawyers involved in this, would you?


ERW did you pay the renovation fee after Justice Loo's decision? I feel because of her decision timeshare lease owners panicked. Would 43% pay the cancellation and 27% Pay the renovation if they knew Gildert Law would when the appeal. Once you paid up now you are hoping the rest of us will have to pay. It is to late for this resort. These crooks have screwed every timeshare owner from all the resorts that they owned and would sell them off. They have made millions doing this. They never wanted a resort there,all they wanted is the money then they would bankrupt it which is easy to do in Canada. The bond holders also lost millions. Do you smell a rat.


----------



## ERW

Spark1 said:


> ERW did you pay the renovation fee after Justice Loo's decision? I feel because of her decision timeshare lease owners panicked. Would 43% pay the cancellation and 27% Pay the renovation if they knew Gildert Law would when the appeal. Once you paid up now you are hoping the rest of us will have to pay. It is to late for this resort. These crooks have screwed every timeshare owner from all the resorts that they owned and would sell them off. They have made millions doing this. They never wanted a resort there,all they wanted is the money then they would bankrupt it which is easy to do in Canada. The bond holders also lost millions. Do you smell a rat.



No, I paid before Justice Loo's decision.


----------



## ERW

Spark1 said:


> ERW did you pay the renovation fee after Justice Loo's decision? I feel because of her decision timeshare lease owners panicked. Would 43% pay the cancellation and 27% Pay the renovation if they knew Gildert Law would when the appeal. Once you paid up now you are hoping the rest of us will have to pay. It is to late for this resort. These crooks have screwed every timeshare owner from all the resorts that they owned and would sell them off. They have made millions doing this. They never wanted a resort there,all they wanted is the money then they would bankrupt it which is easy to do in Canada. The bond holders also lost millions. Do you smell a rat.



It would be interesting to know how many of the 43% and 27% that you quote paid before or after Justice Loo's decision. I have a feeling most likely decided before her decision was made. And I think you have to keep in mind that Geldert's appeal was won based more on a point of procedure versus Loo's decision not being correct. And yes, I would like to see this all settled - by paying the fees while others have not, Northwynd will have added costs that will ultimately be passed on to people like myself. And without the revenue they are expecting to collect, renovation of the units will be slowed down if not stopped completely. 

But it is what it is. Ultimately the courts will decide what will happen, whether we are in favour of the outcome or not. My biggest fear if the decision is allowed to stand is that Northwynd will be given carte blanche to just bill all the lease holders whenever they want. As far as those who bought into the Legacy for Life, I don't know. As an "owner" they may not have a leg to stand on. I did not buy into that dog and pony show thankfully but that was a rat if there ever was one. Not sure why anyone would have gone that route but it was interesting to see people line up after the presentation here in Winnipeg to sign up even after people in the audience brought up very good questions which could not be answered.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

What about there being no sales office?  Instead of adding more lessees/owners it's just shut down.  Any potential financial support for the resort there is being ignored completely.  Why wouldn't they keep sales going?  

More financial stress on the existing lessees/owners, faster spiral down to the end game.


----------



## ERW

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> What about there being no sales office?  Instead of adding more lessees/owners it's just shut down.  Any potential financial support for the resort there is being ignored completely.  Why wouldn't they keep sales going?
> 
> More financial stress on the existing lessees/owners, faster spiral down to the end game.



I agree, there should be a sales office but I'm not sure how many units they have to sell considering the building/units not available due to the renos. There might not be much of a market as well, considering the controversy that has surrounded the resort in recent years. All things considered, I would not consider Sunchasers at this point in time if I were looking to buy into or lease a unit at a resort and I'm guessing there are a lot of people that feel the same way.


----------



## aden2

In reference to EWR's comment of Legacy for Life I did not find out until 2013 that I was scammed, and that was when I asked for an unconditional release because of FRAUD.  I was completely ignored. I was given very good advice regarding Alberta's Fair Trading Act, and that is all I want to say at this time.


----------



## GypsyOne

*Appeal*

I am considerably more confident we will get a fair hearing and a favourable ruling from a panel of three judges from the B.C. Court of Appeal than we got from one judge from the B.C. Supreme Court.  Seems the Lessee group of TS owners have a case for fundamental breach of contract that a panel of fair-minded judges could hardly ignore.


----------



## ERW

GypsyOne said:


> I am considerably more confident we will get a fair hearing and a favourable ruling from a panel of three judges from the B.C. Court of Appeal than we got from one judge from the B.C. Supreme Court.  Seems the Lessee group of TS owners have a case for fundamental breach of contract that a panel of fair-minded judges could hardly ignore.



I think the lessees may have more of a case than those that went for the Legacy for Life program (unfortunately). I think they are looked upon as "owners". 

Can someone clarify a question for me? Do those that went the route of "Legacy for Life" actually "own" their properties forever? Or was there a time limitation? When the presentations were made way back when, I didn't look very closely at the conditions because it seemed like a weird deal at the time.


----------



## servemeout

We attended a Legacy session after being hounded for some time.  Every time they wanted us to attend, I asked was it free, I was told no and I said no.  We did attend one session and the seedy looking sales person was trying to get us to spend $9,000.  I made the statement that we may "sell" the remaining time we had left.  We were then told by the same sales person that the unit was worth nothing.  Items we were Not told, Legacy only started after your lease expired.  If it only started after the leased years, why are they on the hook for costs now? Not told that our contract would be changed and we would become forever joined by a shared umbilical cord for additional costs.  The only change that was discussed was moving from weeks to points with RCI.   We have rented from RCI for less than the annual fees.  Renting at Sunchaser will be more difficult with half of the Hillside buildings being closed and boarded up from the inside and some of the Riverside buildings also closed.  Did you pay for ALL of the resort to be renovated?  Please read the conflicting information that Northwynd  has posted.  Pay for the whole resort to be renovated, but the resort can only exist if it is "shrunk".  Which is it?

IMO this is a land grab.  Thirty four acres will bring in a lot of cash, without timeshare leaseholders.  Will Rogers said "buy land, they ain't making any more."    I am unaware of anyone recommending that you pour your money down a rat hole!


----------



## GypsyOne

Servemeout, are you sure the co-ownership agreement starts only after the lease expires?  I didn't attend the sales pitch, but I assumed the Legacy For Life was a conversion from the lease agreement and was effective immediately.  In any case, one would think the legal obligation of a co-ownership agreement would be quite different than that of a lease agreement, and the two should be litigated separately, because the defense of each would be different.  Seems pretty basic that the lessees do not own the buildings and are therefore not responsible for their construction or re-construction.  The co-owners may have to prove misrepresentation in the conversion from lessee to co-owner.


----------



## Hotpink

*lease / co-0wnership documents*

One needs to read the exhibits attached to the affidavit of Phillip K Matkin dated April 15 of 2013.
Exhibit B1 and B2 are almost identical except for a few more or less cosmetic changes and these lease agreements where utilized from the early 1990's thru to about July 2009. These where called Vacation Lease and Vacation Villa Lease
respectively.

Lets look at Exhibit B3 and B4 on the aforesaid affidavit.
B3 is entitled                  Schedule "D"
                Disclosure Statement Amendment July 3 2009
                          Vacation interval Agreement

                             Vacation Experience Lease
                          And Co-ownership Agreement

This was entered into by FRP and the buyer and became an eleven page document from the original 4 Page lease.
This change was made after FRP had requested court approval in  March 2009  for credit protection but that is a subject for another time.

On page 4 of  exhibit B3  one must paragraph 2 and 6 to understand  how Legacy for life turns into LEG IRONS FOR LIFE. Paragraph 2 says at the last day of the lease FRP will convert the leasehold interest into simple co-ownership.
Paragraph 6 says the lease portion is for forty(40) years and further says that at the "_completion of the Term of the lease this agreement shall continue to govern the relationship of the co-owners and FRP with respect to the co-ownership interests of the buyer for as long as the buyer remains an owner_"
Also under paragraph 11 they have changed  operating costs from the earlier  leases which read "_ a yearly assessment shall be made of the furnishings and fixtures to permit replacement as required_"
It now reads "_a yearly assessment shall be made FOR CAPITAL RESERVES for replacements of the furnishings and fixtures to permit replacement as required and to pay the COSTS OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT MAY FROM TIME TO TIME BE REQUIRED_"
 If we look at Exhibit B4 under the aforesaid affidavit which came into effect after Northmont took over control there is NO mention of a Lease or a term  just  a SIMPLE CO-OWNERSHIP INTEREST  and is CONDITIONAL UPON THE OWNER PERFORMING ALL THE OBLIGATIONS PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT
The term is now defined as "_The rights of the buyer as a fee simple owner shall continue for the period of time that the buyer continues to hold his co-ownership interest_" There are No changes to the terms in the operating costs segment.
There is an interesting addition in B3 and B4 where they have added a provision for the DEATH OF A BUYER  as long as the beneficiary agrees to the LEG IRONS for Life document
I as a lay person cannot understand how a learned judge can say all of the agreements are the same.
They did not have to say anything in the presentation about the time lines as they were spelt out in B3 and completely ignored in B4
The sales agent had to sign ( for what it is worth) that he didn't tell you anything that is not in writing in the agreement that is contained in B3 and B4
 I am very concerned for those that bought the conversion from FRP or the outright fee simple co-ownership from  Passing Wind as I doubt that there will be a resort as we know it within 10 or so years.

As Will Rogers said " If stupidity got us in this mess, how come it can't get us out"


----------



## pdoff

*lease/co-ownership documents*

Good one - Will Rogers also said "the best way out of difficulty - is through it"

Hope he is right - we are sure going through it!


----------



## GypsyOne

Members of the litigation group should note on the recent Statement of Account from Geldert Law the virtually daily cost of "phone and email discussions with members of the litigation group." Members should be aware that satisfying their curiosity on some legal point is not only taking up Michael's time but is costing us all money. Nor is it likely advancing our legal case. Let's let Michael do his job, and it is quite likely his regular email updates is all the information we need at this point.


----------



## Meow

Thanks for saying that GypsyOne


----------



## pdoff

More legacy from Fairmont/Northmont etc.


http://cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/rafter-six-ranch-demolition-1.3759346


----------



## aden2

and the new owners of Rafter Six is .....Fairmont/Northmont!


----------



## LynnW

aden2 said:


> and the new owners of Rafter Six is .....Fairmont/Northmont!



And they tore it down. Wonder what their plans are.


----------



## pdoff

*Rafter Six*

If Fairmont/Passing Wind took over Rafter Six after causing it to go bankrupt - that is a double whammy for the Cowley's.
They are nice folks and don't deserve what these ruthless people have done to them!

Keep Developers and skunks at a safe distance!!


----------



## den403

*Rafter 6 *

http://frplfinance.blogspot.ca/2010/02/status-of-rafter-six-investment.html?m=1


----------



## aden2

*Appeal dates October 24 - 25 2016*

Chambers: MacKenzie, JA - Fitch, JA - Bennett, JA

10:00 am Division 1 Courtroom 50

Bauman, CJBC,; Smith, D,; Goepel, JJA

CA43568 JEKE ENTERPRISES LTD. (A) v. NORTHMONT

RESORT PROPERTIES LTD.

Hearing of Appeal    From: Fitzpatrick, J.

Day 1 of 2

The appellant appeals the court's interpretation of a time share contract.


----------



## ERW

Anything new on the horizon with the hearing?


----------



## GypsyOne

Well, the B.C. courts handed Northmont a cash cow with a win in the B.C. Court of Appeal.  The Province of British Columbia will also be very happy since they won't have a failing major tourist attraction and resort on their hands.  The big loser is consumer protection in Canada and all timeshare owners who bought timeshare in good faith that they were lessors who bought just time in a resort and not bought the resort itself.  The timeshare users will now have to maintain the capital asset for the benefit of the real owners and investors in the resort. Some timeshare owners, the timeshare owners who took the bait and paid to convert to co-ownership, will be paying to perpetuity; those that didn't convert to co-ownership will pay for the remainder of their 40-year lease.  Can you imagine a business where the users are mandated to pay the operating costs of the business, without representation, but worse, to pay for maintaining the capital value of the business itself?  That's exactly what the B.C. Courts awarded Northmont for their Fairmont investment.  By awarding capital costs, the owners and managers of the resort can now hit up the timeshare users for renovations or capital reconstruction to the resort whenever they want for whatever they want.  And the timeshare users have no legal or moral recourse.  The court has ruled the timeshare users have to pay, even without having a voice in that decision, and regardless that they were sold a timeshare in a facility with a lot of construction faults.  If the timeshare users don't like it and sue, they will be fighting the resort owners with the timeshare owners own "maintenance" money that was intended to pay day to day operating expenses.  Anyone that now buys a timeshare in Canada is crazy or very badly informed.


----------



## ERW

Wow, that is very surprising. I was not sure if those that signed up for the Legacy deal would squeak by but I thought those with the original leases would not be looked upon as having the same responsibilities as so-called owners.
Would you have a link to the decision?


----------



## GypsyOne

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/17/00/2017BCCA0038.htm


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> Well, the B.C. courts handed Northmont a cash cow with a win in the B.C. Court of Appeal.  The Province of British Columbia will also be very happy since they won't have a failing major tourist attraction and resort on their hands.  The big loser is consumer protection in Canada and all timeshare owners who bought timeshare in good faith that they were lessors who bought just time in a resort and not bought the resort itself.  The timeshare users will now have to maintain the capital asset for the benefit of the real owners and investors in the resort. Some timeshare owners, the timeshare owners who took the bait and paid to convert to co-ownership, will be paying to perpetuity; those that didn't convert to co-ownership will pay for the remainder of their 40-year lease.  Can you imagine a business where the users are mandated to pay the operating costs of the business, without representation, but worse, to pay for maintaining the capital value of the business itself?  That's exactly what the B.C. Courts awarded Northmont for their Fairmont investment.  By awarding capital costs, the owners and managers of the resort can now hit up the timeshare users for renovations or capital reconstruction to the resort whenever they want for whatever they want.  And the timeshare users have no legal or moral recourse.  The court has ruled the timeshare users have to pay, even without having a voice in that decision, and regardless that they were sold a timeshare in a facility with a lot of construction faults.  If the timeshare users don't like it and sue, they will be fighting the resort owners with the timeshare owners own "maintenance" money that was intended to pay day to day operating expenses.  Anyone that now buys a timeshare in Canada is crazy or very badly informed.


----------



## Spark1

The new owners should of had the BC inspection department doing all the different inspections. If they did not, that is their responsibility to repair the resort not ours. When you are new owners you start from day one it is now yours. Collin Knight was responsible for the resort before Northmont and how can anyone dispute poor management of the resort.


----------



## servemeout

In the opening line of the appeal decision was the statement "of two time share units in a large development in the beautiful Columbia Valley of this province", yes the valley is beautiful, however, the resort has become an eye sore.  I now feel that we have been trapped in some nightmare or some fairytale. If I had the ability I would ask Northmont to stick their head in the oven and close it like Gretel did.  That would get rid of the wicked witch & all of the others. Northmont have asked to rezone the land that buildings 1000 to 5000 are standing.  The buildings are boarded shut.  How long will it be before Hillside becomes "Mudslide Slim & the Blue Horizon" and ends up at the bottom of the hill washed away by the eroding property.  How did any judge miss the fact that timeshare lessee were asked to pay for ALL of the resort to be renovated, but that will never happen.  The rezoning request makes it clear that maintaining the resort was not the plan and never has been.  The plan has always been get all of the money out of the suckers (lessees)  however they can.    The resort will become a blight on the landscape of the "beautiful Columbia Valley".  There has been no protection for the consumer.  Northmont will claim that they won, but there are no winners in this ridiculous situation.  We all have lost.  We have lost the years remaining in our leased time of vacations.  Sunchaser will never be the NEW resort, just the falling down, leaking, crumbling skeleton of what used to be and eventually they will do what they have done with any of the other timeshares they have owned, take the money and run. 
This decision does not assure that they will be able to collect.  We have been is some of the court rooms during this legal process and the outstanding statement is never paying another penny to the crooks.  I do not agree with this statement as we would give the penny, which is no longer legal tender. Many of the members of the litigation group are seniors living on pensions.  Our understanding is that only CRA can collect debts from pensions.  So when Northmont comes to check to see if Hansel is fat enough to eat, stick a bone out and not your finger.  The fat lady has not sung yet!


----------



## Spark1

servemeout said:


> In the opening line of the appeal decision was the statement "of two time share units in a large development in the beautiful Columbia Valley of this province", yes the valley is beautiful, however, the resort has become an eye sore.  I now feel that we have been trapped in some nightmare or some fairytale. If I had the ability I would ask Northmont to stick their head in the oven and close it like Gretel did.  That would get rid of the wicked witch & all of the others. Northmont have asked to rezone the land that buildings 1000 to 5000 are standing.  The buildings are boarded shut.  How long will it be before Hillside becomes "Mudslide Slim & the Blue Horizon" and ends up at the bottom of the hill washed away by the eroding property.  How did any judge miss the fact that timeshare lessee were asked to pay for ALL of the resort to be renovated, but that will never happen.  The rezoning request makes it clear that maintaining the resort was not the plan and never has been.  The plan has always been get all of the money out of the suckers (lessees)  however they can.    The resort will become a blight on the landscape of the "beautiful Columbia Valley".  There has been no protection for the consumer.  Northmont will claim that they won, but there are no winners in this ridiculous situation.  We all have lost.  We have lost the years remaining in our leased time of vacations.  Sunchaser will never be the NEW resort, just the falling down, leaking, crumbling skeleton of what used to be and eventually they will do what they have done with any of the other timeshares they have owned, take the money and run.
> This decision does not assure that they will be able to collect.  We have been is some of the court rooms during this legal process and the outstanding statement is never paying another penny to the crooks.  I do not agree with this statement as we would give the penny, which is no longer legal tender. Many of the members of the litigation group are seniors living on pensions.  Our understanding is that only CRA can collect debts from pensions.  So when Northmont comes to check to see if Hansel is fat enough to eat, stick a bone out and not your finger.  The fat lady has not sung yet!


----------



## Spark1

I never asked Northwynd to take over the Resort nor did i sign any documents with these F*cking assholes. This was not like new owners from China that took over this resort. They were the bond holders that invested in this and lost a lot of money and this was a golden opportunity to nail the timeshare owners to the wall. This makes me wonder who else were the bond holders. I signed documents with Collin Knight and Marilyn not these crooks and i do not pay any one without my signature. Collin Knight went bankrupted therefore the paper work that we signed is toast plain and simple.


----------



## Just Looking Around

I am not part of the litigation group. I don't get any of the correspondence from their legal counsel. I would have gladly joined but by the time my wife and I were aware of it, it was too late. We have paid everything that was owed so, at the end of 2016, we were current with all of our obligations to Northmont.

*I will not pay them another dime.*

*I will not pay them another dime* regardless of the recent decision by the BC Court of Appeal. 

I know well the difficulties of winning a case, any case, in court. This case is complex and nuanced. Despite all of the corporate entities involved before Northmont, we are still dealing with the same people. They never formed an 'Owners' Association as was both promised and as I read it, required by law. (Right, they took a survey no one remembers and everyone was fine with the fox in the hen house, the hand in the cookie jar, the smile of the crocodile. "FAKE NEWS" people!) Look at the Property. Just look at the Property. Posters on here, like Real World, xplor, and owner1, can offer "Alternative Facts" in defense of Northmont all they want. They can even write grandiose reviews of the Resort, here and elsewhere. What they cannot do is convince me that my own eyes are deceiving me. Look at the Property; it is a disgrace, an unmaintained complex of uninhabitable monuments to incompetence, corruption, and greed. It has no future.

It is all on them. They failed to engage leaseholders in any real way to contribute to the Property, as would have been done if an 'Owners Association' had been formed and involved.

The Management has not prudently managed the facility, nor has the Management maintained the facility in anything resembling a workman-like condition for a vacation property.

No, *I am not paying them a dime.* I will take up the fight in any way I can. I'll send a cheque to Geldert and gladly make-up any payments I have missed. The greatest strength the leaseholders have, the only strength they have, in fighting Northmont is staying in the fight and sticking together. We cannot afford to quit now. They are stealing our money and the future of timesharing in Canada.


----------



## Anxiety123

Well...in the end, we lose and will be paying big bucks now to get out.  Northwynd wins and even Jim Belfry wins as he will never have to pay his share of all this mess.  This is much sour grapes but maybe we all should have taken the way of the owners that lined up and paid to get out in the beginning and not be now paying 4 to 5 times the initial  amount.  I had others tell us in the beginning
that the contract was binding and legal and we didn't listen but we did follow like sheep a man that will never have to pay Northwynd ever, nice to be him.  Boo Hoo for us.


----------



## Spark1

Anxiety123 said:


> Well...in the end, we lose and will be paying big bucks now to get out.  Northwynd wins and even Jim Belfry wins as he will never have to pay his share of all this mess.  This is much sour grapes but maybe we all should have taken the way of the owners that lined up and paid to get out in the beginning and not be now paying 4 to 5 times the initial  amount.  I had others tell us in the beginning
> that the contract was binding and legal and we didn't listen but we did follow like sheep a man that will never have to pay Northwynd ever, nice to be him.  Boo Hoo for us.


Judges make mistakes, look what Justice loo did which created 43% of the timeshare owners to cancel giving Northwynd over 10 million dollars. Was it right for Northwynd to carry on charging over 26% interest for this time from Justice Loo's case up to the Appeal which we won. This 26% is criminal. Do you believe if this is legal what Northmont is doing why did Collin Knight not do the same thing, He did not because he knows that the old agreements did not include capital expenses like leaking plumbing pipes in walls that should of been covered by warranty and main building beams. These agreements are not designed to replace the hole resort. This needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada. Are the politicians and the Judges in BC pushing hard to rebuild this resort at our expense because it was the largest business in Fairmont? Every one keep your money these guys are crooks and wait to see what our lawyer suggests.


----------



## GypsyOne

When 14,500 timeshare purchasers did not think for a moment they were responsible for reconstructing faultily constructed buildings; when the original developer, Fairmont Resort Properties thought the same thing but chose to declare bankruptcy rather than hit up the timeshare users for capital costs; but the new owners who were not party to the original contracts can modify and re-interpret the leases, and the B.C. judges side with the new owners that keeps a major B.C. tourist attraction from failing, then a legal degree or background is not needed to suspect something is not right. Moving forward we need to come to grips with what we’re up against. Justice in B.C. seems not possible.  The Supreme Court of Canada or civil disobedience (just not pay) are starting to look like reasonable choices.


----------



## Punter

Just Looking Around said:


> No, *I am not paying them a dime.* I will take up the fight in any way I can. I'll send a cheque to Geldert and gladly make-up any payments I have missed. The greatest strength the leaseholders have, the only strength they have, in fighting Northmont is staying in the fight and sticking together. We cannot afford to quit now. They are stealing our money and the future of timesharing in Canada.




Paying money to Northmont at this point makes absolutely no sense. The fate of the resort is sealed and I have no intention of lining their pockets any further.

Stay the course and stick together.


----------



## pdoff

I will wait and see what the latest offer is - but I agree no more money for these people.
I wonder again if an Investigation programme would be interested in this mess. (ie: Go Public, Fifth Estate etc.). 
There are so many unanswered questions from the start. Where did our maintenance fees go as the resort was running down? Were they used to invest in the many Resorts in other countries that all went broke? When Fairmont went bankrupt - did the same owners come back under another name? 
We had no idea that Fairmont went bankrupt until Northwynd came up with their crappy pay to stay or go proposal. 
We know that they left a wake of Time Share people who lost their investments as Fairmont walked away from their resorts in Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii and Costa Rica. Rafter Six Ranch was also a casualty thanks to these people.


----------



## servemeout

Article 13 of our lease states the our VIA would be repurchased for 50% of 1/40 of the purchase price x the number of years remaining on the lease.  So I did some calculation on what Northmont owes us.
$5457.12 for the 24 years remaining in our lease that we will not be able to use, as we will not pay the reno fee.  Now lets add another $250.00 per year for the time remaining, which is $6,000.  This amount is probably grossly under estimated.  We owe then fees of $2,971.97 for 2014 - 2016.  Northmont please pay us *$8485.15* that you owe us.   This amount is taking what you say we owe vs what I say you owe us according to our contract.  It is time that the gougees become the gougers. We will forgive the 26% interest rate on this amount.  Please remit within 30 days.  Northmont have stated that they do not have to honor article 13 of our contract.  Wait, when did the law state that only* SOME* of the articles in a contract have to be honored.    We looked at the MF for 2017.  At that rate, nightly cost to stay, based on 7 night is $158.43 per night.  Just Looking Around is correct, this is no longer a Resort.   The 32% that paid to remain with the SVV will probably lose more that the delinquent group, as we refused to pay the ransom.  Being a person that bets on the horses on occasion, odds of the resort do not look good.  I would not give even odds of 1:1 of SVV still being around for much longer.  Of the millions of dollars that they have fleeced from the time share lessees, what has been renovated?  The answer here is "not much", but the reno fee was for all of the resort to be done.  We have friends that owned in Belize.  When Northmont moved in, they were offered a VIA at Lake Okanagan.  They stated that LOR was a dump and left after one night at that resort.  Northmont sold the property at LOR, but they retained the timeshare interests.  So, to draw an analogy here, if the pipes break in the walls at LOR, who is responsible?  The timeshare owners or the property owners. I would bet that Northmont would tell the new owners of the property  from China, that 'that is your problem, not mine.'  So who owns SVV?  Has anyone seen their name on an ownership deed?   The justice system let us down.   Is Northmont is hurting for cash?  Wouldn't be a shame if Wankel had to take a pay cut?  The irony of the situation is that the three years of litigation that Northmont started may be their death knell, and the only tears we will shed will be crocodile tears.   Waiting to hear the bells toll.  Yes, the fate of the resort is sealed.


----------



## Scammed22

Northmont owe's us 17 years that we still had left in our now dilapidated resort...that we will never get back. How does one put a price tag on that? They have taken our dignity of the proud owners we were, and of a once beautiful resort that we (ALL) the time share owners made beautiful with our maintenance fees. They stole our money lining their pockets. They came in with one intention and only one intention to destroy the resort and rip all of us off. Their only interest is making themselves rich and slowly boarding up Fairmont so it will look like the other ghost town timeshare resorts they cleaned out and left behind. When they moved in it was in the best interest for them the delinquent management team... Northmont not our resort! *I VOTE YOUR  FIRED*! I agree with pdoff The Fifth Estate is the next step, and then back to court. They will get *NO MONEY FROM US. *I don't care what they come back with... unless of course their reimbursing me for the money I paid to have a beautiful resort to enjoy for 17 more years! They owe each, and every timeshare owner for being delinquent thieves stealing the maintenance fees and ruining our resort, and our lives. You don't have to go to law school to become a judge and figure this out. It's common sense. I'll say it again *KARMA'S A BIT$H*!!! It's not over!


----------



## Real World

Just Looking Around this is hilarious.......would you like to provide some quotes that have "alternative facts" in them to support


Just Looking Around said:


> I am not part of the litigation group. I don't get any of the correspondence from their legal counsel. I would have gladly joined but by the time my wife and I were aware of it, it was too late. We have paid everything that was owed so, at the end of 2016, we were current with all of our obligations to Northmont.
> 
> *I will not pay them another dime.*
> 
> *I will not pay them another dime* regardless of the recent decision by the BC Court of Appeal.
> 
> I know well the difficulties of winning a case, any case, in court. This case is complex and nuanced. Despite all of the corporate entities involved before Northmont, we are still dealing with the same people. They never formed an 'Owners' Association as was both promised and as I read it, required by law. (Right, they took a survey no one remembers and everyone was fine with the fox in the hen house, the hand in the cookie jar, the smile of the crocodile. "FAKE NEWS" people!) Look at the Property. Just look at the Property. Posters on here, like Real World, xplor, and owner1, can offer "Alternative Facts" in defense of Northmont all they want. They can even write grandiose reviews of the Resort, here and elsewhere. What they cannot do is convince me that my own eyes are deceiving me. Look at the Property; it is a disgrace, an unmaintained complex of uninhabitable monuments to incompetence, corruption, and greed. It has no future.
> 
> It is all on them. They failed to engage leaseholders in any real way to contribute to the Property, as would have been done if an 'Owners Association' had been formed and involved.
> 
> The Management has not prudently managed the facility, nor has the Management maintained the facility in anything resembling a workman-like condition for a vacation property.
> 
> No, *I am not paying them a dime.* I will take up the fight in any way I can. I'll send a cheque to Geldert and gladly make-up any payments I have missed. The greatest strength the leaseholders have, the only strength they have, in fighting Northmont is staying in the fight and sticking together. We cannot afford to quit now. They are stealing our money and the future of timesharing in Canada.



Just Looking Around this is hilarious.......would you like to provide some posts/quotes that have "alternative facts" in them to support your claims?

I bet a lot of people would like to see them.


----------



## Punter

Real World said:


> I bet a lot of people would like to see them.



Nope. We're good.


----------



## Scammed22

I'd be more than happy to send you everything I had......but like my maintenance fees I paid...I have no idea where they went!


----------



## Spark1

servemeout said:


> Article 13 of our lease states the our VIA would be repurchased for 50% of 1/40 of the purchase price x the number of years remaining on the lease.  So I did some calculation on what Northmont owes us.
> $5457.12 for the 24 years remaining in our lease that we will not be able to use, as we will not pay the reno fee.  Now lets add another $250.00 per year for the time remaining, which is $6,000.  This amount is probably grossly under estimated.  We owe then fees of $2,971.97 for 2014 - 2016.  Northmont please pay us *$8485.15* that you owe us.   This amount is taking what you say we owe vs what I say you owe us according to our contract.  It is time that the gougees become the gougers. We will forgive the 26% interest rate on this amount.  Please remit within 30 days.  Northmont have stated that they do not have to honor article 13 of our contract.  Wait, when did the law state that only* SOME* of the articles in a contract have to be honored.    We looked at the MF for 2017.  At that rate, nightly cost to stay, based on 7 night is $158.43 per night.  Just Looking Around is correct, this is no longer a Resort.   The 32% that paid to remain with the SVV will probably lose more that the delinquent group, as we refused to pay the ransom.  Being a person that bets on the horses on occasion, odds of the resort do not look good.  I would not give even odds of 1:1 of SVV still being around for much longer.  Of the millions of dollars that they have fleeced from the time share lessees, what has been renovated?  The answer here is "not much", but the reno fee was for all of the resort to be done.  We have friends that owned in Belize.  When Northmont moved in, they were offered a VIA at Lake Okanagan.  They stated that LOR was a dump and left after one night at that resort.  Northmont sold the property at LOR, but they retained the timeshare interests.  So, to draw an analogy here, if the pipes break in the walls at LOR, who is responsible?  The timeshare owners or the property owners. I would bet that Northmont would tell the new owners of the property  from China, that 'that is your problem, not mine.'  So who owns SVV?  Has anyone seen their name on an ownership deed?   The justice system let us down.   Is Northmont is hurting for cash?  Wouldn't be a shame if Wankel had to take a pay cut?  The irony of the situation is that the three years of litigation that Northmont started may be their death knell, and the only tears we will shed will be crocodile tears.   Waiting to hear the bells toll.  Yes, the fate of the resort is sealed.


How many timeshare owners value their vacation villa lease? Our lease agreement was signed October 9/2001. I have not received from FRPL any changes to this agreement. I have not received any changes from Northmont. If they did do any changes they had to follow item number 39 on our agreement. There is nothing in item number 39 allowing the owners of the resort to be able to do this Freedom to Choose. Freedom to choose goes against item numbers 9,10,13 and item 39 of our VACATION VILLA LEASE. This is why we hired Geldert Law. Northwynd won big time when Justice Loo ruled on a special case when she should not of. Because of this 43% of the the time owners that were part of the litigation cancelled.  This is what Northmont wanted all along, they wished we would of all cancelled. That hurt us loosing that many to fight this case because we would of had lower lawyer fees. Every one should read item numbers 9 and 10 over and over. You do not have to be a judge or lawyer to understand that these two items pertain to MAINTENANCE FEES. The manager uses these two items to figure out around Nov 15 of each year what they need to charge time owners per week to cover expenses for the new year. There is nothing in these two items giving Northmont the right to charge us a huge assessment and a huge cancellation fee. When the judges made this decision allowing Northmont to do this we no longer have vacation villa leases.This means they can do what ever they want and you will pay. What the Judges decided there is no difference between the Legacy For Life and our old LEASE AGREEMENTS. The Supreme Court in BC had no right to allow this and allow Northmont to change the meaning of item numbers 9 and 10. They got to  hung up about CAPITAL EXPENSES.All Northmont had to do is carry on using items 9 and 10 for maintenance fees and if they had to charge a extra 100.00 dollars so what. The resort would still be running and 43% would still be there using the resort and paying fees. Who in their right mind would want to be owners in this resort and if you do have your credit card handy. The only thing that i will agree with now is we will pay nothing and we will be compensated for the years lost with our timeshare. Ask this Question when the Judge in Alberta allowed Northmont to take over the resort, part of the deal was Northmont was responsible for CAPITAL EXPENSES for the 7000 building. This also means any agreements that we sign and witnesses like banks real estate, businesses. can be changed buy the supreme courts. This is not a communist country and we can not allow this.


----------



## Hotpink

It appears  or at least smells as if Northmont is going to try an end run play or something even dodgier at least in my opinion. Remember the "NEW SUNCHASER way back when. Kirk is going to take us out of the traditional time share model( their words not mine). Considering everything that has transpired since then we definitely are no longer in the traditional time share model. In April of 2016 if I read it correctly  all contracts ( regardless of vintage)  were rewritten unilaterally to give Northmont  complete control and unlimited monetary squeeze power over all classes of owner. The renovation fee was supposedly for the whole resort yet we see the have approached  the East Kootenay Regional District to rezone the resort and take at least 5 of the 8 Hillside buildings out of the resort (I'm unsure of exactly they want to do with them) and thus our resort will be shrunk by at least one third. The Riverview building is apparently under a different Stata Act and that may prove even more interesting when northmont enacts another executive order extort money from those that paid to stay and the delinquents. Hope those that paid to leave have a PAID IN FULL document properly certified so that they are of the hook. Now that the Appeal has been lost they can go back to the EKRD to have the rezoning heard. If I was a home owner on the west side of the highway I would be quite concerned. Since the appeal results being released Northmont has been very strangely quiet ( very unlike their past practices) I think northmont may try and get  more money out of the delinquents and whomever else they can browbeat.
I have been unable to ascertain what actions if any will be taken in the Alberta Civil courts regarding collections  since  actions were delayed last Sept until after the BC appeal. Again strangely quiet
Not sure what will happen in the very near future but suspect that we may hear of another action being taken in theAlberta to protect the Northmont creditors before long. I think they have misjudged the resolve of the lessees who refused and still refuse to acquiesce to Northmonts executive orders.


----------



## Spark1

Hotpink said:


> It appears  or at least smells as if Northmont is going to try an end run play or something even dodgier at least in my opinion. Remember the "NEW SUNCHASER way back when. Kirk is going to take us out of the traditional time share model( their words not mine). Considering everything that has transpired since then we definitely are no longer in the traditional time share model. In April of 2016 if I read it correctly  all contracts ( regardless of vintage)  were rewritten unilaterally to give Northmont  complete control and unlimited monetary squeeze power over all classes of owner. The renovation fee was supposedly for the whole resort yet we see the have approached  the East Kootenay Regional District to rezone the resort and take at least 5 of the 8 Hillside buildings out of the resort (I'm unsure of exactly they want to do with them) and thus our resort will be shrunk by at least one third. The Riverview building is apparently under a different Stata Act and that may prove even more interesting when northmont enacts another executive order extort money from those that paid to stay and the delinquents. Hope those that paid to leave have a PAID IN FULL document properly certified so that they are of the hook. Now that the Appeal has been lost they can go back to the EKRD to have the rezoning heard. If I was a home owner on the west side of the highway I would be quite concerned. Since the appeal results being released Northmont has been very strangely quiet ( very unlike their past practices) I think northmont may try and get  more money out of the delinquents and whomever else they can browbeat.
> I have been unable to ascertain what actions if any will be taken in the Alberta Civil courts regarding collections  since  actions were delayed last Sept until after the BC appeal. Again strangely quiet
> Not sure what will happen in the very near future but suspect that we may hear of another action being taken in theAlberta to protect the Northmont creditors before long. I think they have misjudged the resolve of the lessees who refused and still refuse to acquiesce to Northmonts executive orders.


What i recommend is hold on to your agreements and you had better believe they are legal documents. The supreme court of BC can not change your agreements and neither can Kirk. What the Supreme court of BC did is a mistake. I can not speak for all the vacation villa leases but i sure can for my lease. They used item numbers 9 and 10 to proof their point but they proved nothing and i believe the judges themselves do not understand these agreements. This last appeal was about managing the resort not about whether Northmont has the right to charge us this huge assessment or the cancellation,not according to my agreement. When the courts agreed with Northwynd that they can use this freedom to choose and Justice Loo ruled in their favor immediately the resort was down sized 43%.Yes we won the appeal over Justice Loo and now it was to late for the court to back down from there decision because the damage was already done by 43% cancelling. This resort never will be renovated and we would be nuts putting more money into this dead horse.We already have lost thousands with the years lost because of this FREEDOM TO CHOOSE. All the courts had to say to Northwynd is they have to use the agreements that are legal documents that the last owner did. Was part of managing the resort creating LEGACY FOR LIFE BUY both FRPL and NORTHWYND and trying to force the rest of us time owners to drink the same koolaide? This needs to be tried in the Supreme Court of Canada.


----------



## Spark1

How many of you feel that #19 Lessee's Association is very important and i would say one of the most important items. There is a Act called  "RESORT ASSOCIATIONS ACT" were you are asked to take part in setting up a LESSEE'S ASSOCIATION i was not phoned or emailed to be part of this association. Northwynd prove to all timeshare owners of this resort that you tried to set up this association. It would of been very easy to set up in Calgary where your head office is. There is thousands of Alberta timeshare owners including myself  would of loved to be part of this association.  
  (1) The purposes of an association are to promote,facilitate and encourage the development,maintenance and operation of a a resort promotion area.
   (2) An association may acquire and dispose of real and personal property.
I know why you did not want a association we would of been in the way of your mission. The other question why did the judges of this case so far feel that it was not important to have a LESSEE'S ASSOCIATION? If i was part of this association and was told how bad some of these building are i would tell Northwynd get rid of them why put millions in buildings of no value. The land would have more value. I know now because of the condition of the buildings that would be left in the timeshare after Northwynd removes the best buildings out of the timeshare because of the cancellations and leaves us with the garbage i will not give them one cent.
Northwynd had a blue print in how to get rid of the time owners and make millions and the justice system in BC is backing this.


----------



## Hotpink

This is beginning to look interesting. A link to a letter written by Norton Rose to Kirk Wankel is attached. It is all important but note that on the first page they equate all contracts to being "practically identical". On page 6 under section 26 they refer to section 45 and their interpretation that can only be taken from the schedule "D" which is from Matkin's  ( remember this is our TRUSTEE) affidavit Exhibit B4 . It doesn't make any sense to refer it to Exhibit B3 of the same affidavit. Bottom line they have the right to sue you annually ( and your heirs, executors, successors and permitted assigns in *PERPETUITY.
*
http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-conten...nfirmingOccupancyCostsandReplacementCosts.pdf

AND WE THOUGHT WE WOULD JUST GET A WEEK A YEAR FOR OUR INITIAL COST  PLUS REGUALAR MAINTENANCE  FEES. WHAT FOOLS WE WERE. AND SECTIN 45 IS NOT IN OUR CONTACT

Not happy with that conclusion Mr. Wankel requested our trustee to petition the courts to change the all the contracts . Remember that was the case presented to Justice Loo and has actually never really been addressed even after all the court hearings.

So what do they do in April of 2016 we get this which they

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/VIA-UPDATE-041816.pdf 

once you have read that then you need to read this

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Schedule-H-2003-Prospectus.pdf

Not having a truly definitive answer from the courts they try to change everything to us being enslaved to them or their successors in perpetuity

Read the following if you want you blood to boil

http://www.iol.co.za/personal-finance/regulator-goes-after-timeshare-contracts-1753838

We felt that it was a good deal to start with and for about 15 or so it was  and the as the Dixie Chicks say THEN AlONG CAME EARL and EARL HAS GOT TO GO


----------



## Spark1

Hotpink said:


> This is beginning to look interesting. A link to a letter written by Norton Rose to Kirk Wankel is attached. It is all important but note that on the first page they equate all contracts to being "practically identical". On page 6 under section 26 they refer to section 45 and their interpretation that can only be taken from the schedule "D" which is from Matkin's  ( remember this is our TRUSTEE) affidavit Exhibit B4 . It doesn't make any sense to refer it to Exhibit B3 of the same affidavit. Bottom line they have the right to sue you annually ( and your heirs, executors, successors and permitted assigns in *PERPETUITY.
> *
> http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-conten...nfirmingOccupancyCostsandReplacementCosts.pdf
> 
> AND WE THOUGHT WE WOULD JUST GET A WEEK A YEAR FOR OUR INITIAL COST  PLUS REGUALAR MAINTENANCE  FEES. WHAT FOOLS WE WERE. AND SECTIN 45 IS NOT IN OUR CONTACT
> 
> Not happy with that conclusion Mr. Wankel requested our trustee to petition the courts to change the all the contracts . Remember that was the case presented to Justice Loo and has actually never really been addressed even after all the court hearings.
> 
> So what do they do in April of 2016 we get this which they
> 
> http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/VIA-UPDATE-041816.pdf
> 
> once you have read that then you need to read this
> 
> http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Schedule-H-2003-Prospectus.pdf
> 
> Not having a truly definitive answer from the courts they try to change everything to us being enslaved to them or their successors in perpetuity
> 
> Read the following if you want you blood to boil
> 
> http://www.iol.co.za/personal-finance/regulator-goes-after-timeshare-contracts-1753838
> 
> We felt that it was a good deal to start with and for about 15 or so it was  and the as the Dixie Chicks say THEN AlONG CAME EARL and EARL HAS GOT TO GO


Hotpink when the freedom to choose permission to do this case took place we all had our vacation villa leases that we signed and witnessed. That case was botched by her ruling on a SPECIAL CASE . At that time all the money time owners paid out for the cancellation and renovations should of been paid back and JUSTICE LOO SHOULD of insisted on this because there was no case as far as time owners went. At that point Northmont was getting permission to enforce this freedom to choose. There would be no way of informing the people that paid because they controlled the registry. You can be sure they are charging 26.6% interest even though Geldert law won a easy appeal so when do charges start and when do they end..  This case should of been thrown out and they should of been told they have to work with the agreement time owners signed. What right do they have to use free money. This can still go to court because this money was not paid back. Northwynd had no right to assume how the next case was going to be ruled on or did they. Time owners all this is a scam.
As far as Item39 goes they are doing more than modifing. They are not modifying the agreements they are modifying the whole resort at our cost. They want another platinum club so they can carry on with where FRPL left off.These guys are making millions scamming time owners and the governments and the courts are allowing this to happen.


----------



## Just Looking Around

I have not taken any photos of the Property. I live in Vancouver, and I'm not paying my 2017 fees or, any other fees, ever. I've no reason to go Sunchaser. Its bad enough I have to live with what I've seen. I certainly wouldn't want an image in full detail. 
Real World and owner1 (strange grammar and punctuation persisting from those who side with Northmont) have both challenged those of us who have raised this issue. Why don't you post photographs? Objective photos that represent the state of the Property - still can't call it a Resort, it's not. 
My only advice is to be sure to walk a distance from your vehicle before you frame the shot. It wouldn't serve you well to have part of the Staff Parking sign in the photo.


----------



## Just Looking Around

Anxiety123 said:


> Northwynd wins and even Jim Belfry wins as he will never have to pay his share of all this mess.


That's interesting, if an incorporated enterprise owns a VIA, or say all the VIAs, ... think of the consequences.


----------



## GypsyOne

If Jim Belfry wins when we lose, why is he spending an incredible amount of time and money on this case?  I think you've fallen for the Northmont propaganda.


----------



## Real World

Just Looking Around said:


> I have not taken any photos of the Property. I live in Vancouver, and I'm not paying my 2017 fees or, any other fees, ever. I've no reason to go Sunchaser. Its bad enough I have to live with what I've seen. I certainly wouldn't want an image in full detail.
> Real World and owner1 (strange grammar and punctuation persisting from those who side with Northmont) have both challenged those of us who have raised this issue. Why don't you post photographs? Objective photos that represent the state of the Property - still can't call it a Resort, it's not.
> My only advice is to be sure to walk a distance from your vehicle before you frame the shot. It wouldn't serve you well to have part of the Staff Parking sign in the photo.



What do photos have to do with your comment "Posters on here, like Real World, xplor, and owner1, can offer "Alternative Facts" in defense of Northmont all they want."?

Are you trying to avoid providing examples of the "Alternative Facts"?


----------



## Meow

Our situation will not be improved by venting our anger towards Northward or by entering into dialogue with Northward proxies on this thread!


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

*The reason Wankel has changed his tactics, ie. losing the scare tactics, really means one thing, he needs the money, he needs to settle.  !!!! IF YOU ARE A PAID UP OWNER OR DELINQUENT DO NOT PAY  !!!!
*
He wants us all to leave, he wants as much money as possible.  You can only drag things out so long with bondholders waiting for some sort of return on their capital.  He kept growling and barking at us, trying to scare us into paying.  The holdouts are tough, they know the truth of the matter, they know right from wrong.

If you are an owner who has paid the renovation fee and are up to date you're probably pretty scared.  The court decision shows that, for now anyways, the BC courts are not protecting you.  There will be more grabs for cash all the way up until the day before they shutter everything.  Don't pay anything more to these crooks.  Join the litigation group.  

What Wankel needs is money, now.  The pressure must be on.     

If you are part of the litigation group, don't fade and don't fear.  You're doing the right thing and the financial pressure is mounting on Wankel.  He's going to try to get some money from us, soon, to help his situation.  He'll go for something more pallatible, something that makes you feel that hey, I better take this because I thought it would be worse.  Question is why is this guy changing his tactics now???  Why is he no longer so aggressive.  As much of an embarrassment to the judges and their character the ruling turned out to be, it gives Wankel even more ammo to come after the litigation group.  Why would he soften?  Why would he not push even harder?  You think he cares for a second about a reasonable offer?  Were you paying attention the last several years?  

He has softened for a reason.  He needs money now.  

Hold out because this means things are going to change soon.  He'll try to get what money he can and then events will start happening.  The resort will be shut down, the bondholders may sue Wankel.  Something is up for Wankel.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

...I should have said "You can only drag things out so long with bondholders waiting for some sort of return *OF *their capital."  No doubt they are looking at pennies on the dollar, there is no chance of return on capital.


----------



## mmchili

*Is Wankel/Northmont losing their scare tactics? What scare tactics?*

I’m a paid up owner and intend to continue my ownership and maintain my account in good standing.

I do not believe that I ‘should not pay’. Only a coward runs away from their obligations and hopes that there are no consequences.

Over the past number of years, I and many other owners have paid a premium in maintenance fees because of delinquent owners dating back to the time of Fairmont Resort Properties and subsequently Northmont Resort Properties.

I expect/demand that Northmont proceed to take whatever action is prudent to collect the delinquent maintenance fees, resort project fees and legal costs.

I am not scared by nor of Northmont nor will I be intimidated by anyone of the litigation group. I and many other paid-up owners expect Northmont to collect whatever is rightfully owing.

I have stayed at Sunchaser twice in the last two years, once in a renovated building at Riverside and once at Riverview. I have no complaints about the renovations nor of any other aspects of our stay.

I’m looking forward to having the resort down-sized and having Riverside and Riverview buildings remain as Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Fairmont. The resort will not shut down unless the paid up owners agree to do so.

I expect/demand that Northmont will deal with the delinquent owners in a fair and reasonable manner in consideration of the paid up owners, not only the delinquent owners.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

*Interesting*

An interesting response.  You definitely have a point of view.

First item of discussion, Scare Tactics.  I wasn't even going to comment on this, it's like saying "water, what water?" during a monsoon.  But, I realized, you may have no idea what's happened.  You may not have received the communications specific to the delinquent group, you may not have paid attention to what was being discussed on this board.  Individual lawsuits, tight timeline demands, 26% interest, VERY aggressive emails, VERY colourful/non professional emails, running down the litigation group's lawyer to the litigation group, aggressive, aggressive, aggressive.  Really, I don't have time or energy to debate this one, it would be foolish, there's nothing to discover here.  If you want to question what you consider scare tactics, great, good for you.  I don't think anyone will care.

Coward.  Now that I find really interesting.  No sarcasm intended.  I think it's really "neat" for lack of a better word that you would use coward as a name to emotionally label the litigation group.  A person not willing to pay, presumably because they disagree (a vast number of things), could maybe be labelled a few things.  You could dismiss the assumption of moral defiance and just call them "cheap", "irresponsible", "juvenile", "degenerate", etc.  That may or may not be correct depending on the individual but it's at least a rational attack.

Now, to throw emotional attacks at the other side, the group that paid, you could disregard the assumption that they believe and agree with all the things the resort has done, so dismiss their moral acceptance, and then the rational attacks would be "scared", "not willing to stand up", "sheep", "spineless", and of course your word, "coward".  

Fascinating that coward is the word you chose to attack people with.  

As for everyone else, each person has their own situation.  For some people they will be concerned that if they don't take an immediate deal they will be punished too severely with some additional future charge, that they can no longer take the chance to proceed further.  For most people in the litigation group, I'd assume if you've been willing to come this far, if anything your resolve has strengthened.  The type of people willing to face what we've been through aren't likely to suddenly change their convictions.  Now the people who are paid up and realize they can be made to pay anything, anytime, I would guess many are concerned.  Would they pay to leave?  Well if they want their timeshare, they've already paid the big renovation fee, so no.  But even if they want out they wouldn't pay a big fee to leave until the next big grab for money comes down the line.


----------



## den403

A very interesting read.  http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...port of the Monitor, dated March 15, 2010.pdf


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

Havent been on here for a few years. Looks like things are about to get more interesting. Is it time yet to take the muzzles off and give the real story of what the legal system has accomplished ( haha ) or do we continue to follow like lemmings to the sea.  Never did have much time/money for legal counsel and this kinda confirmed my suspicions.  So now our original  bill has grown by 350 percent and we are supposed to charge into the sea because someone  has arranged for an employees discount (think we used to get 15% at Sears). Word  on the street is there are still around 4000 delinquents   each owing about 15G. Think thats 60 mill. If people saw thru the ruse and werent willing to donate 4G each four years ago it seems hard to believe more than a handful will cave now or be able to raise the funds for that matter. Not aware that the economy in southern Alberta  has been that buoyant the last few years. Still trying to sort out who works for who or with who. That legalese is baffling. Pass the Popcorn. This  next scene should be interesting.


----------



## servemeout

A few years ago, Visa was required to place a statement on invoices, concerning making only the minimum payment each month, and the time that it would take to repay the outstanding balance.  We have been given an option to "gift" to Northmont additional monies, to achieve the third rerun of pay to stay or pay to go.  Using both my CCP & OAS every month, this is how long it would take to "gift" Northmont  the amount that they are requesting.  This is using 100% of what the government places in my bank account each month.  At the low end 6.5 years and at the high end of their offer almost 10 years.  So, TSWOW,  does this sound like fair & reasonable?  I would really miss having groceries and the other luxuries of life like a warm bed. 

When LOR was sold, none of the timeshare lease holders were contacted.  "The resort will not shut down unless the paid up owners agree to do so"  You are not an "owner", you only lease time and I feel certain that there will be no consultation of anyone, paid or not.  The hired help is rarely involved in business decisions.  The business decisions have already been made but not revealed.  Maybe Wakel needs to get a twitter account to keep us up to date. 

Northmont wants as much money as they can collect from the low hanging fruit, or the ones that are willing to pay.  This is now a case of having your "Kate & Edith too".  Collect as much as you can before the Golden Goose croaks.

The RPF was to have *ALL OF THE RESORT RENNOVATED, *not sell off the property or have it rezoned for other use.


----------



## truthr

Regarding the email sent to us from Sunchaser Vacation Villas about the "Settlement Relinquishment Agreement Reached With Geldert Group".
As a member of that group I would just like others to know that it is NOT as done a deal as the email may imply.

For anyone who is a Geldert client and is not aware I have started a closed Facebook Group which is for Geldert clients ONLY.  Anyone who requests to join will need approval.  So if you are a current client of the Geldert group, please click on the link below, then click on join, then check your FB private message area for a message.

For all the others who are still unsure of what to do Tugbbs is a great place to hang out and there is another FB group that was started years ago that is a combination of so called "delinquent" "owners", other interested parties and of course spies/moles and who knows maybe the opponent himself using a pseudo name. 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/414303892242453/


----------



## Spark1

tswow said:


> *Is Wankel/Northmont losing their scare tactics? What scare tactics?*
> 
> I’m a paid up owner and intend to continue my ownership and maintain my account in good standing.
> 
> I do not believe that I ‘should not pay’. Only a coward runs away from their obligations and hopes that there are no consequences.
> 
> Over the past number of years, I and many other owners have paid a premium in maintenance fees because of delinquent owners dating back to the time of Fairmont Resort Properties and subsequently Northmont Resort Properties.
> 
> I expect/demand that Northmont proceed to take whatever action is prudent to collect the delinquent maintenance fees, resort project fees and legal costs.
> 
> I am not scared by nor of Northmont nor will I be intimidated by anyone of the litigation group. I and many other paid-up owners expect Northmont to collect whatever is rightfully owing.
> 
> I have stayed at Sunchaser twice in the last two years, once in a renovated building at Riverside and once at Riverview. I have no complaints about the renovations nor of any other aspects of our stay.
> 
> I’m looking forward to having the resort down-sized and having Riverside and Riverview buildings remain as Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Fairmont. The resort will not shut down unless the paid up owners agree to do so.
> 
> I expect/demand that Northmont will deal with the delinquent owners in a fair and reasonable manner in consideration of the paid up owners, not only the delinquent owners.


You are an idiot. I will intimidate Wankal ,You the Judges or who ever thinks we time owners own this property. It was not Northwynd that was running this resort when we paid the majority of our Maintenance fees it was FRPL. They collected their money from us and never demanded any more money. I feel you are one of those greedy bond owners that thought you were going to receive 12% on your investment and you also bought into a timeshare or you bought into the legacy for life. It is you people that have screwed it up for us original time owners we never screwed it up for you guys. How did FRPL calculate our maintenance fees each year, they used item numbers 9 and 10. These judges brought up 9 and 10 and were not bright enough to understand that these two items are used strictly for maintenance fees not huge capital expenditures or cancellation options like freedom to choose. Did you read the freedom to choose cancellation form. Service Alberta did and the agent said you are not cancelled. Who the hell would pay the cancellation if you are not cancelled read the small print on the bottom of the page. Northwynd got lucky with this cancellation because of Justice Loos  screw up. Their was also many that paid into the the renovation that might not of because of her decision. These judges do no understand time owners in BC Canada. We pay maintenance fees figured our by the resort manager each year nothing more. We are not responsible for the original construction of that resort this is why Northwynd was responsible for the 7000 building. We live buy our agreement nothing more and because of freedom to choose it has destroyed our timeshare and Northwynd will compensate us for the years lost.


 maintenance fees each year


----------



## sad_world

I haven't had a chance to read through all 86 pages of this thread yet, and so I don't know how many other stories are similar to my aunt's situation, but here's an overview.

I've been taking care of my aunt while she slips deep into dementia. It's a brutal thing to witness a woman who was formerly a brilliant nurse, who took care of thousands of children and infants over the decades, rapidly turn into a living shell of a human. 

From what I can gather, she must have signed up for a Sunchaser timeshare in the late 90's. At that time she was already retired, and although she was a very smart and capable woman, for whatever reason she decided to sign up for one of these contracts that last for 40 years, which would have lasted until she was 108-110 years old, until the late 2030's. 

It sends me into a furious purple rage when I think of the scenario, where some cheesy salesman is encouraging an already fairly senior, sweet, passive, and submissive woman to sign such a contract, which is so obviously counter to her best interests. Of course, this was way before the internet revolution was fully in bloom, way before AirBNB was a concept, and so I can understand that timeshares were still considered a viable option for people. But still, 40 year contracts that the salesman knows you will have to buy yourself out of, say when you in your early 100's and your social security checks aren't keeping up with your wild jet-set timesharing lifestyle? Ugh. So gross, so cheesy, So 90's. 

Anyway, during the time I've been taking care of my aunt, she started to get these nasty, evil, violent phone calls from Northwynd's goons demanding a lot of money. So ridiculously much money. Like, if just went to live under a freeway bridge and ate only bark and leaves, and used the entirety of her meager social security income to pay off what Northwynd is asking of her, it would take her nearly 5 years.

At this point, the BEST case scenario is that my aunt die as soon as possible, since it seems to be the only thing that will free her from these evil, monstrous parasites. I get all torn up inside trying to picture the reprehensible people that run this sordid empire. How can this even be a thing in 2017? 

If I were independently wealthy and had the means to travel to Canada and find the CEO and all the board members of this scam, I would follow them around all day telling everyone within earshot how these despicable reptiles take advantage of old ladies. I would have a bullhorn and I would shout it as they were shopping at the grocery store, as they were at their kid's sporting events, while they tried to meet mating partners at bars, at their PTA meetings, everywhere, every day. I would hire a group of people to help me do this if necessary, one for every rotten board member. The only thing that allows people this evil to continue to function is the fact that others in their community don't know the violence they perpetuate upon innocents and the helpless in their pursuit of pure unadulterated greed. 

I don't know what the outcome will be for my aunt, but again, at this point it seems like death alone will save her from the tyrants at Northwynd. God help us all in this world of vipers.


----------



## Quadmaniac

sad_world said:


> I haven't had a chance to read through all 86 pages of this thread yet, and so I don't know how many other stories are similar to my aunt's situation, but here's an overview.
> 
> I've been taking care of my aunt while she slips deep into dementia. It's a brutal thing to witness a woman who was formerly a brilliant nurse, who took care of thousands of children and infants over the decades, rapidly turn into a living shell of a human.
> 
> From what I can gather, she must have signed up for a Sunchaser timeshare in the late 90's. At that time she was already retired, and although she was a very smart and capable woman, for whatever reason she decided to sign up for one of these contracts that last for 40 years, which would have lasted until she was 108-110 years old, until the late 2030's.
> 
> It sends me into a furious purple rage when I think of the scenario, where some cheesy salesman is encouraging an already fairly senior, sweet, passive, and submissive woman to sign such a contract, which is so obviously counter to her best interests. Of course, this was way before the internet revolution was fully in bloom, way before AirBNB was a concept, and so I can understand that timeshares were still considered a viable option for people. But still, 40 year contracts that the salesman knows you will have to buy yourself out of, say when you in your early 100's and your social security checks aren't keeping up with your wild jet-set timesharing lifestyle? Ugh. So gross, so cheesy, So 90's.
> 
> Anyway, during the time I've been taking care of my aunt, she started to get these nasty, evil, violent phone calls from Northwynd's goons demanding a lot of money. So ridiculously much money. Like, if just went to live under a freeway bridge and ate only bark and leaves, and used the entirety of her meager social security income to pay off what Northwynd is asking of her, it would take her nearly 5 years.
> 
> At this point, the BEST case scenario is that my aunt die as soon as possible, since it seems to be the only thing that will free her from these evil, monstrous parasites. I get all torn up inside trying to picture the reprehensible people that run this sordid empire. How can this even be a thing in 2017?
> 
> If I were independently wealthy and had the means to travel to Canada and find the CEO and all the board members of this scam, I would follow them around all day telling everyone within earshot how these despicable reptiles take advantage of old ladies. I would have a bullhorn and I would shout it as they were shopping at the grocery store, as they were at their kid's sporting events, while they tried to meet mating partners at bars, at their PTA meetings, everywhere, every day. I would hire a group of people to help me do this if necessary, one for every rotten board member. The only thing that allows people this evil to continue to function is the fact that others in their community don't know the violence they perpetuate upon innocents and the helpless in their pursuit of pure unadulterated greed.
> 
> I don't know what the outcome will be for my aunt, but again, at this point it seems like death alone will save her from the tyrants at Northwynd. God help us all in this world of vipers.



In your aunt's case, I wouldn't worry about it as the worst they can do is put it on her credit report which is meaningless at this stage. I would ignore the calls, and keep going on with your day. You can't extract blood from a stone and if they would like to try, let them.


----------



## Spark1

sad_world said:


> I haven't had a chance to read through all 86 pages of this thread yet, and so I don't know how many other stories are similar to my aunt's situation, but here's an overview.
> 
> I've been taking care of my aunt while she slips deep into dementia. It's a brutal thing to witness a woman who was formerly a brilliant nurse, who took care of thousands of children and infants over the decades, rapidly turn into a living shell of a human.
> 
> From what I can gather, she must have signed up for a Sunchaser timeshare in the late 90's. At that time she was already retired, and although she was a very smart and capable woman, for whatever reason she decided to sign up for one of these contracts that last for 40 years, which would have lasted until she was 108-110 years old, until the late 2030's.
> 
> It sends me into a furious purple rage when I think of the scenario, where some cheesy salesman is encouraging an already fairly senior, sweet, passive, and submissive woman to sign such a contract, which is so obviously counter to her best interests. Of course, this was way before the internet revolution was fully in bloom, way before AirBNB was a concept, and so I can understand that timeshares were still considered a viable option for people. But still, 40 year contracts that the salesman knows you will have to buy yourself out of, say when you in your early 100's and your social security checks aren't keeping up with your wild jet-set timesharing lifestyle? Ugh. So gross, so cheesy, So 90's.
> 
> Anyway, during the time I've been taking care of my aunt, she started to get these nasty, evil, violent phone calls from Northwynd's goons demanding a lot of money. So ridiculously much money. Like, if just went to live under a freeway bridge and ate only bark and leaves, and used the entirety of her meager social security income to pay off what Northwynd is asking of her, it would take her nearly 5 years.
> 
> At this point, the BEST case scenario is that my aunt die as soon as possible, since it seems to be the only thing that will free her from these evil, monstrous parasites. I get all torn up inside trying to picture the reprehensible people that run this sordid empire. How can this even be a thing in 2017?
> 
> If I were independently wealthy and had the means to travel to Canada and find the CEO and all the board members of this scam, I would follow them around all day telling everyone within earshot how these despicable reptiles take advantage of old ladies. I would have a bullhorn and I would shout it as they were shopping at the grocery store, as they were at their kid's sporting events, while they tried to meet mating partners at bars, at their PTA meetings, everywhere, every day. I would hire a group of people to help me do this if necessary, one for every rotten board member. The only thing that allows people this evil to continue to function is the fact that others in their community don't know the violence they perpetuate upon innocents and the helpless in their pursuit of pure unadulterated greed.
> 
> I don't know what the outcome will be for my aunt, but again, at this point it seems like death alone will save her from the tyrants at Northwynd. God help us all in this world of vipers.


All timeowners from outside of Canada be smart and do not pay these scam assholes one dime. Our agreements do not allow them to charge huge assessment or cancellation fees like they are doing using the Supreme Court of BC. Their cancellation forms even if you paid you are not canceled. We all have to stick together and let these crooks hang themselves. Because of this freedom to Choose they owe us for all the years lost plus interest. We all need to send them a bill plus interest and hire bill collectors to go after them. We paid in good faith and they ruined the resort not us. I do not pay for poor construction when this resort was built and we all paid our maintenance fees like required yearly and there is no mention of special assessments. Every one send them a bill. We all know once they get our money they will close down the resort or sell it like all the other resorts they took over from FRPL. This is a scam backed buy the BC justice system.


----------



## SentimentalLady

tswow said:


> *Is Wankel/Northmont losing their scare tactics? What scare tactics?*
> 
> I’m a paid up owner and intend to continue my ownership and maintain my account in good standing.
> 
> I do not believe that I ‘should not pay’. Only a coward runs away from their obligations and hopes that there are no consequences.
> 
> Over the past number of years, I and many other owners have paid a premium in maintenance fees because of delinquent owners dating back to the time of Fairmont Resort Properties and subsequently Northmont Resort Properties.
> 
> I expect/demand that Northmont proceed to take whatever action is prudent to collect the delinquent maintenance fees, resort project fees and legal costs.
> 
> I am not scared by nor of Northmont nor will I be intimidated by anyone of the litigation group. I and many other paid-up owners expect Northmont to collect whatever is rightfully owing.
> 
> I have stayed at Sunchaser twice in the last two years, once in a renovated building at Riverside and once at Riverview. I have no complaints about the renovations nor of any other aspects of our stay.
> 
> I’m looking forward to having the resort down-sized and having Riverside and Riverview buildings remain as Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Fairmont. The resort will not shut down unless the paid up owners agree to do so.
> 
> I expect/demand that Northmont will deal with the delinquent owners in a fair and reasonable manner in consideration of the paid up owners, not only the delinquent owners.




You were very brave to pay and stay, knowing that they could come up with another pay-to-stay/pay-to-leave scheme again before your 40-year contract ends. All those buildings will be that much older and you will be on the hook for all the capital costs to totally rebuild. As often as they feel like doing it. Even when your contract is about to end in a year or two, you could suddenly have a new financial obligation. Because apparently maintenance fees are not maintenance fees. They are fully-fund-new-capital-improvement fees.

You were very brave to pay and stay, knowing they never did set up a Lessee's Association despite NUMEROUS requests from many people going back 20 years. You are very trusting to not wonder what they had to fear in all of us being able to communicate with one another about the future of our (then-) beautiful resort. You are very brave to still go forward now without such an association.

You were very brave to pay and stay, when their plan clearly was fraught with unknowns. How many buildings would be left? Which ones? Would there be enough lessees left paying annual maintenance fees to still provide all the services we had - the pools, the recreation programs, etc.? How much would maintenance fees have to increase once the economies of scale were lost? What would it be like having to share the facilities with the public?

You were very brave to pay and stay when Northmont/Northwynd did not meet their own obligations to pay the fees on behalf of the returned/unsold/delinquent weeks - not back then, and not now. Did you realize that?

You were very brave to pay and stay when Northmont/Northwynd received - before the deadline - a certified cheque for the full amount to leave. They refused and returned it because it was made out to their lawyers IN TRUST instead of in their name. Oh.....but you probably didn't know about that.

You also may not have realized that Northmont/Northwynd bullied a lot of lessees with their deadline back then - people who had already booked their time and paid their maintenance fees the year before - as required. Those people would lose all that money and their vacation plans too if they chose to leave.

Like most of the "delinquents", we were always fully pre-paid with our obligations. Until this scam-without-end came along. Nope. Nope. Nope.

What they are doing is just wrong, and our opposition has nothing to do with running away from our obligations.

Call me a coward, but I cannot support any part of what Northmont/Northwynd is doing to people.....including those who chose to pay to stay.


----------



## Spark1

SentimentalLady said:


> You were very brave to pay and stay, knowing that they could come up with another pay-to-stay/pay-to-leave scheme again before your 40-year contract ends. All those buildings will be that much older and you will be on the hook for all the capital costs to totally rebuild. As often as they feel like doing it. Even when your contract is about to end in a year or two, you could suddenly have a new financial obligation. Because apparently maintenance fees are not maintenance fees. They are fully-fund-new-capital-improvement fees.
> 
> You were very brave to pay and stay, knowing they never did set up a Lessee's Association despite NUMEROUS requests from many people going back 20 years. You are very trusting to not wonder what they had to fear in all of us being able to communicate with one another about the future of our (then-) beautiful resort. You are very brave to still go forward now without such an association.
> 
> You were very brave to pay and stay, when their plan clearly was fraught with unknowns. How many buildings would be left? Which ones? Would there be enough lessees left paying annual maintenance fees to still provide all the services we had - the pools, the recreation programs, etc.? How much would maintenance fees have to increase once the economies of scale were lost? What would it be like having to share the facilities with the public?
> 
> You were very brave to pay and stay when Northmont/Northwynd did not meet their own obligations to pay the fees on behalf of the returned/unsold/delinquent weeks - not back then, and not now. Did you realize that?
> 
> You were very brave to pay and stay when Northmont/Northwynd received - before the deadline - a certified cheque for the full amount to leave. They refused and returned it because it was made out to their lawyers IN TRUST instead of in their name. Oh.....but you probably didn't know about that.
> 
> You also may not have realized that Northmont/Northwynd bullied a lot of lessees with their deadline back then - people who had already booked their time and paid their maintenance fees the year before - as required. Those people would lose all that money and their vacation plans too if they chose to leave.
> 
> Like most of the "delinquents", we were always fully pre-paid with our obligations. Until this scam-without-end came along. Nope. Nope. Nope.
> 
> What they are doing is just wrong, and our opposition has nothing to do with running away from our obligations.
> 
> Call me a coward, but I cannot support any part of what Northmont/Northwynd is doing to people.....including those who chose to pay to stay.


We bought a green week in the odd year 2001 and of course they always show you the new property not the older ones. Then in 2002 we changed it to a red week golf prime and they sold us a other red week in the even year and gave us a free red week so that gave us a golf prime in each year and another free week in the even year free what a joke. We paid maintenance fees for 12 years before freedom to choose. Did you hear Doug Frey on TV say that the fees were to low and time owners would be paying more now that they are managing the resort. So for those weeks it would cost me 123000.00 to stay that means on average we should of been paying 1000.00 plus our maintenance fees for each year. We know this was not in our agreements because if it was they would not of had to petition the courts to try to do this. The cancellation is also a scam read the small print and of course they wanted the money made out to them it was like winning the lottery and what good did it do the Resort that they own. They say they do not have to follow item 13 when you stop paying maintenance fees but they can come up with this scheme with their own cancellation and we know people that still have not been released from prison. Northwynd and what they call a justice system scam,scam,scam go to hell.


----------



## mmchili

What has not been provided are the details of Northmont’s offer; is interest being charged during the payment period and if so at what rate, etc. From a business perspective and what has been stated, the offer appears to be fair and reasonable. Is it expected that no interest charges should be charged and/or the principal amount owing should be reduced? If so, that would be a gift from Northmont.

Northmont has revealed their business decision; to renovate the buildings to accommodate the paid-to-stay owners, to sell off/dispose of the buildings not required and collect the delinquent maintenance fees and pay-to-go fees. From the outset Northmont committed to renovate that part of the resort required to accommodate the paid-to-stay owners, not renovate all of the buildings. The buildings not required would be separated from the resort and sold/disposed. Regardless of the size of the resort, each paid-to-stay owner would continue to enjoy their timeshare.

I am fully aware of the situation at Sunchaser and the events that lead to the bankruptcy of Fairmont, the takeover by Northmont, the subsequent litigation and the posts on TUGBBS. I paid-to-stay $3,775 and in looking back, am glad that I did.  I only had to sacrifice 3 months of my CPP and OAS rather than the 6 to 10 years had I not paid-to-stay or had I not chosen to-go, I would be facing a hefty outstanding balance and would feel despondent. There may be another court case which will add to the legal cost and if the decision is made against the litigation group (for the third time), I would expect Northmont to be reimbursed for their legal costs. The winners in this legal tug of war are the lawyers at the expense of the litigation group and paid-to-stay owners.

I would be interested in receiving a written reply from Service Alberta regarding their interpretation of the “freedom to choose cancellation form”. My form does not have any small print on the bottom of the page.

It did not take any bravery on my part to make my decision. I saw thru the rhetoric of the delinquent owners, which continues till this day, and realized that I did not want to part of the litigation group. Bullying, making hateful remarks, making erroneous statements, etc. are discouraging remarks. I do not like being a part of an angry and bombastic group.

Northmont sent a survey in the fall of 2011 and, amongst other items, asked owners about a HOA. The response was minimal; only 3,310 responses were received by Northmont from a total of 14,500 owners, with 25% of responses in favour of a HOA, 34% in disagreement and 40% neutral. Now there are 4,640 paid-to-stay owners and 3,625 delinquent owners, I would not agree to a HOA until the matter of the delinquent owners is resolved. In my opinion they already have a an HOA of sorts in the litigation group.

I fully expect Northmont to pursue the collection of monies owing and expect them to collect their legal costs from the litigation group. The opposition to Northmont has not been favoured by the courts; the courts do not agree with the litigation group that what Northmont is doing is wrong.


----------



## Spark1

tswow said:


> What has not been provided are the details of Northmont’s offer; is interest being charged during the payment period and if so at what rate, etc. From a business perspective and what has been stated, the offer appears to be fair and reasonable. Is it expected that no interest charges should be charged and/or the principal amount owing should be reduced? If so, that would be a gift from Northmont.
> 
> Northmont has revealed their business decision; to renovate the buildings to accommodate the paid-to-stay owners, to sell off/dispose of the buildings not required and collect the delinquent maintenance fees and pay-to-go fees. From the outset Northmont committed to renovate that part of the resort required to accommodate the paid-to-stay owners, not renovate all of the buildings. The buildings not required would be separated from the resort and sold/disposed. Regardless of the size of the resort, each paid-to-stay owner would continue to enjoy their timeshare.
> 
> I am fully aware of the situation at Sunchaser and the events that lead to the bankruptcy of Fairmont, the takeover by Northmont, the subsequent litigation and the posts on TUGBBS. I paid-to-stay $3,775 and in looking back, am glad that I did.  I only had to sacrifice 3 months of my CPP and OAS rather than the 6 to 10 years had I not paid-to-stay or had I not chosen to-go, I would be facing a hefty outstanding balance and would feel despondent. There may be another court case which will add to the legal cost and if the decision is made against the litigation group (for the third time), I would expect Northmont to be reimbursed for their legal costs. The winners in this legal tug of war are the lawyers at the expense of the litigation group and paid-to-stay owners.
> 
> I would be interested in receiving a written reply from Service Alberta regarding their interpretation of the “freedom to choose cancellation form”. My form does not have any small print on the bottom of the page.
> 
> It did not take any bravery on my part to make my decision. I saw thru the rhetoric of the delinquent owners, which continues till this day, and realized that I did not want to part of the litigation group. Bullying, making hateful remarks, making erroneous statements, etc. are discouraging remarks. I do not like being a part of an angry and bombastic group.
> 
> Northmont sent a survey in the fall of 2011 and, amongst other items, asked owners about a HOA. The response was minimal; only 3,310 responses were received by Northmont from a total of 14,500 owners, with 25% of responses in favour of a HOA, 34% in disagreement and 40% neutral. Now there are 4,640 paid-to-stay owners and 3,625 delinquent owners, I would not agree to a HOA until the matter of the delinquent owners is resolved. In my opinion they already have a an HOA of sorts in the litigation group.
> 
> I fully expect Northmont to pursue the collection of monies owing and expect them to collect their legal costs from the litigation group. The opposition to Northmont has not been favoured by the courts; the courts do not agree with the litigation group that what Northmont is doing is wrong.


Would you like a copy of the cancellation form that I took to Service Alberta? Sunchasers office sent me this form. We can not allow our agreements to be changed and their has been no litigation just test cases. The RCMP has a copy of this form the Wildrose Party has a copy and I will be talking to my MLA Ron ORR as will as Service Alberta. Do you know the history of Northwynd? There are so many different agreements out there and Legacy for Life etc. We do not want to be them. Northwynd quite trying to change our agreements. Explain to us who you are. I will tell you this I will pay Northwynd nothing and in fact I will sue them for years lost. No body tells me I have to pay money for what I already paid for plus maintenance payments. I hate these guys with a passion. Enjoy you *bleep*ed up timeshare.


----------



## Curious 1

Spark1 said:


> Would you like a copy of the cancellation form that I took to Service Alberta? Sunchasers office sent me this form. We can not allow our agreements to be changed and their has been no litigation just test cases. The RCMP has a copy of this form the Wildrose Party has a copy and I will be talking to my MLA Ron ORR as will as Service Alberta. Do you know the history of Northwynd? There are so many different agreements out there and Legacy for Life etc. We do not want to be them. Northwynd quite trying to change our agreements. Explain to us who you are. I will tell you this I will pay Northwynd nothing and in fact I will sue them for years lost. No body tells me I have to pay money for what I already paid for plus maintenance payments. I hate these guys with a passion. Enjoy you *bleep*ed up timeshare.





Spark1 said:


> Would you like a copy of the cancellation form that I took to Service Alberta? Sunchasers office sent me this form. We can not allow our agreements to be changed and their has been no litigation just test cases. The RCMP has a copy of this form the Wildrose Party has a copy and I will be talking to my MLA Ron ORR as will as Service Alberta. Do you know the history of Northwynd? There are so many different agreements out there and Legacy for Life etc. We do not want to be them. Northwynd quite trying to change our agreements. Explain to us who you are. I will tell you this I will pay Northwynd nothing and in fact I will sue them for years lost. No body tells me I have to pay money for what I already paid for plus maintenance payments. I hate these guys with a passion. Enjoy you *bleep*ed up timeshare.


Tswow. I am curious as how you have a cancellation form when you paided to stay


----------



## Spark1

Curious 1 said:


> Tswow. I am curious as how you have a cancellation form when you paided to stay


Are you on street drugs or what?


----------



## mmchili

Spark; here is a copy of the Cancellation Agreement. Now would you identify the specific area of the agreement that Service Alberta referenced when they gsve you their interpreataion? Please note, there is no small print on either page of the Agreement.

CANCELLATION AGREEMENT
THIS CANCELLATION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made effective as of the ____ day of ______________, 2013.
BETWEEN:
NORTHMONT RESORT PROPERTIES LTD.
As General Partner for Northmont Limited Partnership
(“Northmont”)
-and-
___________________________
___________________________
Print name of timeshare owner 1
Print name of timeshare owner 2
___________________________
___________________________
Print name of timeshare owner 3
Print name of timeshare owner 4
(whether one or more, the “Timeshare Owner”)
Northmont and the Timeshare Owner are sometimes referred to herein, collectively, as the “Parties” and, individually as a “Party”
RECITALS:
A. Northmont is the manager of the resort located in Fairmont, British Columbia known as Sunchaser Vacation Villas (the “Resort”).
B. The Timeshare Owner is a party to a Vacation Interval Agreement (the “VIA”) at the Resort for timeshare interval(s)
_________________________ (insert lease #’s).
C. The Timeshare Owner has the full right and authority to enter into this Agreement and that the Certificate(s) of Leasehold Interest for the VIA has not been transferred, pledged or assigned by the Timeshare Owner.
D. Northmont is also a party to the VIA either as signatory or as successor to Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. as a result of a Foreclosure Agreement dated June 15, 2010 approved by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta.
E. Northmont, in its capacity as manager, has levied a renovation project maintenance fee (the “Renovation Project Maintenance Fee”) in connection with the VIA.
F. The Timeshare Owner would like to terminate the VIA and surrender its rights to Northmont.
G. The Timeshare Owner either (i) does not own another VIA; or (ii) has entered into cancellation agreement(s) (the “Additional Agreement(s)”) for each additional VIA owned that relates to a higher priority season value based on a priority of Golden greater than Prime Golf greater than Prime greater than Leisure.
H. The VIA does not provide for termination by either Party but Northmont is prepared to permit termination on the terms and conditions set out herein.

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein set forth the Parties agree as follows:
1. Subject to payment of all amounts owing to Northmont under this Agreement and the Additional Agreement(s), if any, the VIA shall be terminated and the Timeshare Owner shall be released from all current and future obligations under the VIA as of the Effective Date (as defined below in paragraph 2).
2. The effective date (the "Effective Date") of termination of the VIA shall be the date on which the last payment required under paragraph 3 of this Agreement is received by Northmont.
3. The Timeshare Owner will pay Northmont, upon execution of this Agreement, by cheque, electronic funds transfer or money order:
a. a cancellation fee of $ __________ (the “Cancellation Fee”); and
b. any outstanding balances related to the VIA, including but not limited to outstanding maintenance fees, interest, and any payments related to acquisition of the VIA on a promissory note or security agreement, but specifically excepting balances related to the Renovation Project Maintenance Fee, with the total amount to be determined by Northmont concurrent with execution of this Agreement.
4. If the Timeshare Owner fails to make any payment under this Agreement within the time stipulated for payment, Northmont, in its sole discretion, may terminate this Agreement without notice. If this Agreement is terminated as 
 "Page 1"      

a result of a default in payment by the Timeshare Owner:
a. the VIA shall continue in full force and effect;
b. any amounts paid in respect of the Cancellation Fee, up to a maximum of 50% of the entire Cancellation Fee, shall be retained by Northmont as liquidated damages and not as a penalty; and
c. any portion of the Cancellation Fee then paid which exceeds 50% of the total Cancellation Fee shall be transferred to Resort Villa Management Ltd. applied against existing or, if insufficient existing obligations exist, future maintenance fee obligations of the Timeshare Owner within ten (10) days of the date of termination,
provided for greater certainty that no Timeshare Owner shall be entitled to the refund of any amounts paid under this Agreement.
5. The Timeshare Owner hereby absolutely and irrevocably assigns, transfers and sets over to Northmont any and all of the Owner's rights now or hereafter existing to vote or consent (or withhold consent) to any matter as an owner under the VIA.
6. Until the Effective Date, the Timeshare Owner shall remain liable for any and all amounts owing by it with respect to the VIA including, without limitation, interest on outstanding balances and new invoices such as the next year’s maintenance fee billing if it occurs.
7. The Timeshare Owner covenants with Northmont to indemnify and save harmless Northmont from any and all actions, claims, liabilities, damages, costs, losses and expenses incurred or sustained by Northmont arising from or connected with:
a. any breach, violation or non-performance of any covenant, agreement, condition or proviso in this Agreement set out and contained on the part of the Timeshare Owner to be fulfilled, kept, observed and performed;
b. any other act or omission of the Timeshare Owner.
8. The following additional terms form part of this Agreement.
a. This Agreement shall be construed, interpreted and applied in accordance with, and shall be governed by, the laws of the Province of Alberta and the laws of Canada applicable therein.
b. No Party shall be entitled to assign this Agreement or any right hereunder without the prior written consent of the other Party or Parties, as the case may be.
c. No consent or waiver, expressed or implied, by a Party to or any breach or default by another Party in the performance by such other Party of its obligations hereunder shall be deemed or construed to be a consent or waiver to or of any other breach or default in performance by such other Party hereunder. Failure on the part of a Party to complain of any act or failure to act of another Party or to declare the other Party in default, irrespective of how long such failure continues, shall not constitute a waiver by such first mentioned Party of its rights hereunder.
d. If any covenant, obligation or agreement of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such covenant, obligation or agreement to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each covenant, obligation and agreement of this Agreement shall be separately valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
e. Even though a Party may not affix its seal, this Agreement shall for all purposes be deemed to have been executed under seal.
f. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and delivered by facsimile or other electronic means.
g. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written.
Timeshare Owner 1
Per: ___________________________________
Timeshare Owner’s Signature
Timeshare Owner 2
Per: ___________________________________
Timeshare Owner’s Signature
Timeshare Owner 3
Per: ___________________________________
Timeshare Owner’s Signature
Timeshare Owner 4
Per: ___________________________________
Timeshare Owner’s Signature
NORTHMONT RESORT PROPERTIES LTD.
Per: __________________________________
Authorized Signature
2

"Page 2"


----------



## SentimentalLady

tswow said:


> What has not been provided are the details of Northmont’s offer; is interest being charged during the payment period and if so at what rate, etc. From a business perspective and what has been stated, the offer appears to be fair and reasonable. Is it expected that no interest charges should be charged and/or the principal amount owing should be reduced? If so, that would be a gift from Northmont.
> 
> Northmont has revealed their business decision; to renovate the buildings to accommodate the paid-to-stay owners, to sell off/dispose of the buildings not required and collect the delinquent maintenance fees and pay-to-go fees. From the outset Northmont committed to renovate that part of the resort required to accommodate the paid-to-stay owners, not renovate all of the buildings. The buildings not required would be separated from the resort and sold/disposed. Regardless of the size of the resort, each paid-to-stay owner would continue to enjoy their timeshare.
> 
> I am fully aware of the situation at Sunchaser and the events that lead to the bankruptcy of Fairmont, the takeover by Northmont, the subsequent litigation and the posts on TUGBBS. I paid-to-stay $3,775 and in looking back, am glad that I did.  I only had to sacrifice 3 months of my CPP and OAS rather than the 6 to 10 years had I not paid-to-stay or had I not chosen to-go, I would be facing a hefty outstanding balance and would feel despondent. There may be another court case which will add to the legal cost and if the decision is made against the litigation group (for the third time), I would expect Northmont to be reimbursed for their legal costs. The winners in this legal tug of war are the lawyers at the expense of the litigation group and paid-to-stay owners.
> 
> I would be interested in receiving a written reply from Service Alberta regarding their interpretation of the “freedom to choose cancellation form”. My form does not have any small print on the bottom of the page.
> 
> It did not take any bravery on my part to make my decision. I saw thru the rhetoric of the delinquent owners, which continues till this day, and realized that I did not want to part of the litigation group. Bullying, making hateful remarks, making erroneous statements, etc. are discouraging remarks. I do not like being a part of an angry and bombastic group.
> 
> Northmont sent a survey in the fall of 2011 and, amongst other items, asked owners about a HOA. The response was minimal; only 3,310 responses were received by Northmont from a total of 14,500 owners, with 25% of responses in favour of a HOA, 34% in disagreement and 40% neutral. Now there are 4,640 paid-to-stay owners and 3,625 delinquent owners, I would not agree to a HOA until the matter of the delinquent owners is resolved. In my opinion they already have a an HOA of sorts in the litigation group.
> 
> I fully expect Northmont to pursue the collection of monies owing and expect them to collect their legal costs from the litigation group. The opposition to Northmont has not been favoured by the courts; the courts do not agree with the litigation group that what Northmont is doing is wrong.




So.....you don't have a problem with Northmont charging you that huge pay-to-stay fee which was to cover the capital costs for renovating ALL the buildings, then selling off a bunch of them?


----------



## Spark1

tswow said:


> Spark; here is a copy of the Cancellation Agreement. Now would you identify the specific area of the agreement that Service Alberta referenced when they gsve you their interpreataion? Please note, there is no small print on either page of the Agreement.
> 
> CANCELLATION AGREEMENT
> THIS CANCELLATION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made effective as of the ____ day of ______________, 2013.
> BETWEEN:
> NORTHMONT RESORT PROPERTIES LTD.
> As General Partner for Northmont Limited Partnership
> (“Northmont”)
> -and-
> ___________________________
> ___________________________
> Print name of timeshare owner 1
> Print name of timeshare owner 2
> ___________________________
> ___________________________
> Print name of timeshare owner 3
> Print name of timeshare owner 4
> (whether one or more, the “Timeshare Owner”)
> Northmont and the Timeshare Owner are sometimes referred to herein, collectively, as the “Parties” and, individually as a “Party”
> RECITALS:
> A. Northmont is the manager of the resort located in Fairmont, British Columbia known as Sunchaser Vacation Villas (the “Resort”).
> B. The Timeshare Owner is a party to a Vacation Interval Agreement (the “VIA”) at the Resort for timeshare interval(s)
> _________________________ (insert lease #’s).
> C. The Timeshare Owner has the full right and authority to enter into this Agreement and that the Certificate(s) of Leasehold Interest for the VIA has not been transferred, pledged or assigned by the Timeshare Owner.
> D. Northmont is also a party to the VIA either as signatory or as successor to Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. as a result of a Foreclosure Agreement dated June 15, 2010 approved by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta.
> E. Northmont, in its capacity as manager, has levied a renovation project maintenance fee (the “Renovation Project Maintenance Fee”) in connection with the VIA.
> F. The Timeshare Owner would like to terminate the VIA and surrender its rights to Northmont.
> G. The Timeshare Owner either (i) does not own another VIA; or (ii) has entered into cancellation agreement(s) (the “Additional Agreement(s)”) for each additional VIA owned that relates to a higher priority season value based on a priority of Golden greater than Prime Golf greater than Prime greater than Leisure.
> H. The VIA does not provide for termination by either Party but Northmont is prepared to permit termination on the terms and conditions set out herein.
> 
> NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein set forth the Parties agree as follows:
> 1. Subject to payment of all amounts owing to Northmont under this Agreement and the Additional Agreement(s), if any, the VIA shall be terminated and the Timeshare Owner shall be released from all current and future obligations under the VIA as of the Effective Date (as defined below in paragraph 2).
> 2. The effective date (the "Effective Date") of termination of the VIA shall be the date on which the last payment required under paragraph 3 of this Agreement is received by Northmont.
> 3. The Timeshare Owner will pay Northmont, upon execution of this Agreement, by cheque, electronic funds transfer or money order:
> a. a cancellation fee of $ __________ (the “Cancellation Fee”); and
> b. any outstanding balances related to the VIA, including but not limited to outstanding maintenance fees, interest, and any payments related to acquisition of the VIA on a promissory note or security agreement, but specifically excepting balances related to the Renovation Project Maintenance Fee, with the total amount to be determined by Northmont concurrent with execution of this Agreement.
> 4. If the Timeshare Owner fails to make any payment under this Agreement within the time stipulated for payment, Northmont, in its sole discretion, may terminate this Agreement without notice. If this Agreement is terminated as
> "Page 1"
> 
> a result of a default in payment by the Timeshare Owner:
> a. the VIA shall continue in full force and effect;
> b. any amounts paid in respect of the Cancellation Fee, up to a maximum of 50% of the entire Cancellation Fee, shall be retained by Northmont as liquidated damages and not as a penalty; and
> c. any portion of the Cancellation Fee then paid which exceeds 50% of the total Cancellation Fee shall be transferred to Resort Villa Management Ltd. applied against existing or, if insufficient existing obligations exist, future maintenance fee obligations of the Timeshare Owner within ten (10) days of the date of termination,
> provided for greater certainty that no Timeshare Owner shall be entitled to the refund of any amounts paid under this Agreement.
> 5. The Timeshare Owner hereby absolutely and irrevocably assigns, transfers and sets over to Northmont any and all of the Owner's rights now or hereafter existing to vote or consent (or withhold consent) to any matter as an owner under the VIA.
> 6. Until the Effective Date, the Timeshare Owner shall remain liable for any and all amounts owing by it with respect to the VIA including, without limitation, interest on outstanding balances and new invoices such as the next year’s maintenance fee billing if it occurs.
> 7. The Timeshare Owner covenants with Northmont to indemnify and save harmless Northmont from any and all actions, claims, liabilities, damages, costs, losses and expenses incurred or sustained by Northmont arising from or connected with:
> a. any breach, violation or non-performance of any covenant, agreement, condition or proviso in this Agreement set out and contained on the part of the Timeshare Owner to be fulfilled, kept, observed and performed;
> b. any other act or omission of the Timeshare Owner.
> 8. The following additional terms form part of this Agreement.
> a. This Agreement shall be construed, interpreted and applied in accordance with, and shall be governed by, the laws of the Province of Alberta and the laws of Canada applicable therein.
> b. No Party shall be entitled to assign this Agreement or any right hereunder without the prior written consent of the other Party or Parties, as the case may be.
> c. No consent or waiver, expressed or implied, by a Party to or any breach or default by another Party in the performance by such other Party of its obligations hereunder shall be deemed or construed to be a consent or waiver to or of any other breach or default in performance by such other Party hereunder. Failure on the part of a Party to complain of any act or failure to act of another Party or to declare the other Party in default, irrespective of how long such failure continues, shall not constitute a waiver by such first mentioned Party of its rights hereunder.
> d. If any covenant, obligation or agreement of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such covenant, obligation or agreement to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each covenant, obligation and agreement of this Agreement shall be separately valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
> e. Even though a Party may not affix its seal, this Agreement shall for all purposes be deemed to have been executed under seal.
> f. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and delivered by facsimile or other electronic means.
> g. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns.
> IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written.
> Timeshare Owner 1
> Per: ___________________________________
> Timeshare Owner’s Signature
> Timeshare Owner 2
> Per: ___________________________________
> Timeshare Owner’s Signature
> Timeshare Owner 3
> Per: ___________________________________
> Timeshare Owner’s Signature
> Timeshare Owner 4
> Per: ___________________________________
> Timeshare Owner’s Signature
> NORTHMONT RESORT PROPERTIES LTD.
> Per: __________________________________
> Authorized Signature
> 2
> 
> "Page 2"


This is not the cancellation form they sent me. I took that cancellation form to service Alberta and had a agent read the form and tell me what they thought her answer was you are not cancelled. That form game from Sunchasers office. Sunchaser must of made up a new form and did not send them out to all time owners. The RCMP also have that form. How much money have you got to bet me on this issue I will match all bets on this one.


----------



## Spark1

All time owners that had enough of Northwynd's poor me and crying about how FRPL did not maintain the resort the way they should have and we still are not entitled to have a condo association so we can have some say in how our maintenance fees are spent How do we know we're all the money was spent with no one policing this. We can not trust the Trustee. So who can we trust. Was the majority of the money used to buy other resorts like the ones in Mexico,Belize, Hawaii, Kelowna etc. We will never know without a condo Association. Geldert Law should of won this case just on how are agreements have been breached.  
 Every one should use this website.      www.consumerhandbook.ca      This handbook includes all the provinces .  Email both BC and your province and explain to consumer affairs about what is happening with your timeshare. Let them know that in your agreement there is nothing stating that they can charge you this huge assessment or force you to use this freedom to Choose cancellation form. Write this out first so you have the same story for both provinces.


----------



## servemeout

tswow said:


> What has not been provided are the details of Northmont’s offer; is interest being charged during the payment period and if so at what rate, etc. From a business perspective and what has been stated, the offer appears to be fair and reasonable. Is it expected that no interest charges should be charged and/or the principal amount owing should be reduced? If so, that would be a gift from Northmont.
> 
> Northmont has revealed their business decision; to renovate the buildings to accommodate the paid-to-stay owners, to sell off/dispose of the buildings not required and collect the delinquent maintenance fees and pay-to-go fees. From the outset Northmont committed to renovate that part of the resort required to accommodate the paid-to-stay owners, not renovate all of the buildings. The buildings not required would be separated from the resort and sold/disposed. Regardless of the size of the resort, each paid-to-stay owner would continue to enjoy their timeshare.
> 
> I am fully aware of the situation at Sunchaser and the events that lead to the bankruptcy of Fairmont, the takeover by Northmont, the subsequent litigation and the posts on TUGBBS. I paid-to-stay $3,775 and in looking back, am glad that I did.  I only had to sacrifice 3 months of my CPP and OAS rather than the 6 to 10 years had I not paid-to-stay or had I not chosen to-go, I would be facing a hefty outstanding balance and would feel despondent. There may be another court case which will add to the legal cost and if the decision is made against the litigation group (for the third time), I would expect Northmont to be reimbursed for their legal costs. The winners in this legal tug of war are the lawyers at the expense of the litigation group and paid-to-stay owners.
> 
> I would be interested in receiving a written reply from Service Alberta regarding their interpretation of the “freedom to choose cancellation form”. My form does not have any small print on the bottom of the page.
> 
> It did not take any bravery on my part to make my decision. I saw thru the rhetoric of the delinquent owners, which continues till this day, and realized that I did not want to part of the litigation group. Bullying, making hateful remarks, making erroneous statements, etc. are discouraging remarks. I do not like being a part of an angry and bombastic group.
> 
> Northmont sent a survey in the fall of 2011 and, amongst other items, asked owners about a HOA. The response was minimal; only 3,310 responses were received by Northmont from a total of 14,500 owners, with 25% of responses in favour of a HOA, 34% in disagreement and 40% neutral. Now there are 4,640 paid-to-stay owners and 3,625 delinquent owners, I would not agree to a HOA until the matter of the delinquent owners is resolved. In my opinion they already have a an HOA of sorts in the litigation group.
> 
> I fully expect Northmont to pursue the collection of monies owing and expect them to collect their legal costs from the litigation group. The opposition to Northmont has not been favoured by the courts; the courts do not agree with the litigation group that what Northmont is doing is wrong.



If you do not like bombastic groups perhaps you need to place your soap box on Hillside and convince the occupants of buildings 1000 to 5000 that Northwynd is the greatest thing since sliced bread.


----------



## CleoB

I think that tswow doesn't understand that the leasees simply paid to lease "time".  They have a share of time, they do not own any of the resort property itself.  They are like the tenant in a building that leases "space" from the owner.  They agree on what the monthly/yearly lease payments are.  The tenant, like the timeshare owners, is not responsible for "capital improvements".  If the building owner wants to replace the boiler that is a "capital improvement".  Prior to replacement though part of the tenant's lease payment would go to maintain the boiler.  If the owner wanted to add a three level parking garage, again that is a "capital improvement" that would be bore by the owner not the tenant.

tswow sounds like he has been brainwashed by Northmount about the "bad deliquent owners".  When this case continues, and I believe it will, we'll see how happy you are when your maintenance fees jump because Northmount will try to suck the money out of you even though legally they can't do that.  They haven't put in their share of maintenance fees for the people that "paid to leave".  Yes, Northmount now owns those timeshares but hasn't contributed their share of the maintenance fees......you have.  We'll see how you feel the next time Northmount wants to assess you for something that is rightfully their responsibility to pay for.  Good luck tswow, you're going to need it.


----------



## pdoff

Spark1 said:


> All time owners that had enough of Northwynd's poor me and crying about how FRPL did not maintain the resort the way they should have and we still are not entitled to have a condo association so we can have some say in how our maintenance fees are spent How do we know we're all the money was spent with no one policing this. We can not trust the Trustee. So who can we trust. Was the majority of the money used to buy other resorts like the ones in Mexico,Belize, Hawaii, Kelowna etc. We will never know without a condo Association. Geldert Law should of won this case just on how are agreements have been breached.
> Every one should use this website.      www.consumerhandbook.ca      This handbook includes all the provinces .  Email both BC and your province and explain to consumer affairs about what is happening with your timeshare. Let them know that in your agreement there is nothing stating that they can charge you this huge assessment or force you to use this freedom to Choose cancellation form. Write this out first so you have the same story for both provinces.



Also lets not forget that Bondholders from FRPL are also Bondholders of Northwynd -- and when Northwynd declares that they went bankrupt - they will probably come back as Passingwynd!


----------



## Spark1

pdoff said:


> Also lets not forget that Bondholders from FRPL are also Bondholders of Northwynd -- and when Northwynd declares that they went bankrupt - they will probably come back as Passingwynd!


Every one should keep in mine that this huge assessment was not written in any agreements that is why they and their idiot trustee petitioned the Supreme Court of BC to try to make the extortion legal. Let's not fall for this and let consumer affairs you will not. They say they do not have to follow our cancellation item no. 13 but we have to use theirs if we want to cancel. Why do we sign agreements? This is a scam and they are using tax payers money to scam us.


----------



## Punter

The recent letter sent by Northmont to owners is misleading. They state that the proposed settlement is both fair and reasonable and that it is an agreement. It is neither. 
Why would Northmont think that those who refused to pay the initial 4-7k for the RPF will pay the 14-20k they are now asking?
Furthermore, they declare that this proposal removes the future maintenance fees associated with each VIA taken back. They continue to refuse to accept that they are responsible for those maintenance fees. 
Don't hold your breath that this recent proposal will resolve the financial disaster of Sunchaser.


----------



## servemeout

Who is responsible for the financial disaster?  Ask TSWOW, or is that Time Share World of Warcraft?  You have stated too many stats concerning the HOA survey and the results. Wankel = World of Warcraft.


----------



## Just Looking Around

tswow said:


> Northmont sent a survey in the fall of 2011 and, amongst other items, asked owners about a HOA. The response was minimal; only 3,310 responses were received by Northmont from a total of 14,500 owners, with 25% of responses in favour of a HOA, 34% in disagreement and 40% neutral. Now there are 4,640 paid-to-stay owners and 3,625 delinquent owners, I would not agree to a HOA until the matter of the delinquent owners is resolved. In my opinion they already have a an HOA of sorts in the litigation group.



Not one of the ten VIA Holders with whom I have had discussions can remember this survey. I do not believe there ever was a survey. You say it was distributed in 2011 well, that's more than a decade late by any measure. Management was obligated to form an association. What you present above is nothing more than a very belated and feeble attempt to camouflage the intentional efforts of Northmont to take advantage of and marginalize the Lessees. It is also an indication of Northmont's and their successor's general mismanagement. This includes but is not limited to their failure to operate the Property in the manner of 'Vacation Resort'. It can't be interpreted any other way. 

Your opinion that a litigation group, which is clearly adversarial, is equivalent to an association of Lessees who would have the opportunity for constructive input through regular and direct face-to-face discussions with Management about the past, present and future of the Property is ridiculous.


----------



## Just Looking Around

Punter said:


> Why would Northmont think that those who refused to pay the initial 4-7k for the RPF will pay the 14-20k they are now asking?



BINGO! Let's not pay them a dime. Stay the course and keep litigating.


----------



## Spark1

Just Looking Around said:


> BINGO! Let's not pay them a dime. Stay the course and keep litigating.


You are right let's not pay them a dime. How many have contacted service Alberta and Service BC. Every one should and I do not have to tell you how to write your email. Do mention that this is not a strata property. Tell them the whole story. I read on face book there is very good news from Service Alberta but please email both better than phone calls. Print off the email and keep a file. You will be pleased and please do not pay anything.


----------



## Just Looking Around

Spark1 said:


> and please do not pay anything.



That can't be said too loudly or too frequently. Do No Pay Anything.


----------



## Spark1

GOOD MORNING....PLEASE READ THIS.....ITS VERY IMPORTANT.

Your inquiry into the rules governing Time Shares was forward to my attention.  The Time Share and Points Based Contracts and Businesses Regulations has regulated Time Share sales that have occurred in Alberta since 2009.  Prior to the previous Time Share Contracts regulation established a very limited set of minimum disclosure standards for Time Share sales occurring in Alberta.
With both regulation, only the initial sales is regulated.  The operation of the Time Share after the sale is governed by the terms of the Time Share Contract.  If the Time Share operator breaches the terms of the contract, then you may have a civil case.  You would need to discuss your case with legal council and determine if the issues you have identified would be a breach of the contractual rights and obligations under your contract and what options may be available to you to pursue redress or resolution.  If you do not have legal counsel, the Law Society of Alberta offer a lawyer referral service that includes a free consultation. 
For more information on Lawyer Referral, please visit:
     Lttp://www.law society.ab.ca/public/lawyer_referral.aspx.
     Darren Thomas
     Director of Fair Trading (as delegated) Service Alberta.
     Phone (780)422-8046
     Cell (780)918-2690
     E-mail:  Darren.thomas@gov.ab.ca/

This information has been forwarded to Service Protection BC and they have promised to contact me.


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> GOOD MORNING....PLEASE READ THIS.....ITS VERY IMPORTANT.
> 
> Your inquiry into the rules governing Time Shares was forward to my attention.  The Time Share and Points Based Contracts and Businesses Regulations has regulated Time Share sales that have occurred in Alberta since 2009.  Prior to the previous Time Share Contracts regulation established a very limited set of minimum disclosure standards for Time Share sales occurring in Alberta.
> With both regulation, only the initial sales is regulated.  The operation of the Time Share after the sale is governed by the terms of the Time Share Contract.  If the Time Share operator breaches the terms of the contract, then you may have a civil case.  You would need to discuss your case with legal council and determine if the issues you have identified would be a breach of the contractual rights and obligations under your contract and what options may be available to you to pursue redress or resolution.  If you do not have legal counsel, the Law Society of Alberta offer a lawyer referral service that includes a free consultation.
> For more information on Lawyer Referral, please visit:
> Lttp://www.law society.ab.ca/public/lawyer_referral.aspx.
> Darren Thomas
> Director of Fair Trading (as delegated) Service Alberta.
> Phone (780)422-8046
> Cell (780)918-2690
> E-mail:  Darren.thomas@gov.ab.ca/
> 
> This information has been forwarded to Service Protection BC and they have promised to contact me.


Do you believe that your original agreement has been breached after reading this I do. Because of freedom to choose Northmont is breaching items 9and10 used for figuring out next years maintenance fees. Also the cancellation is being breached and what about audited statements and the condo association. Do you feel it is our responsibility to replace the resort and the leaking grey pipes who's responsibility was that and the Justice System in BC says it was mansged properly sure is was. To me there seams to be a cover up here and they call it justice no way


----------



## mmchili

Spark, I definitely would like you to post a copy of your Cancellation Agreement that you took to Service Alberta and when you do, highlite the area in fine print that you refer to. Also try using your foul and profane language at a court of law. This type of expression does not impress me nor intimidate me, just shows the quality of your character.

Interesting that there is a question about how I have a cancellation form. The forms, etc. were posted on Sunchaser’s web site which I downloaded for my review before making my final decision. I believe it is prudent to review and analyse all relevant information before making a decision. I did not make my decision haphazardly, I deliberated long and hard because I did not like having to pay either the-pay-to-stay or go fee.

Obviously, I decided to pay-to-stay fee. I spent a lot of time researching the issue on TUGBBS and other internet sites, talked to many other owners and a couple of lawyers, reviewing my lease and other relevant information and reluctantly made my decision. In hind sight, I’m happy with my decision. 4,600 owners decided to stay and 6,200 decided to go. All that is needed to accommodate the paid-to-stay are the Riverside and Riverview buildings. The rest of the buildings, that is Hillside, can be separated. I’m glad not to be part of the 3,600 delinquent owners, some of whom did not pay their maintenance fees during Fairmont’s control and did not decide to stay or go. I say, take your case to the Supreme Court and get this matter resolved. On second thought, if the case is decided in Northmonts favour, I doubt the delinquent owners would accept the decision. Then what? Continue to try to get your issues resolved thru the court of public opinion? To date, two decisions have been in favour of Northmont. Perhaps you should use different lawyers in your third appeal since you are so sure of your interpretation of the VIA.

Regarding clause 13 of the VIA, my agreement says “if the Lessor accepts the deemed offer”, the key word is “if” versus the modified VIA which says “---the Lessor may terminate---“, the key word being “may”. Neither of these words are “mandatory”, such as shall or, must. How does your lawyer interpret their meaning?

I think the delinquents should place their soap box at Hillside. As far as I am concerned, they have chosen to abandon their timeshare by not paying their fees. All they want is not to take any financial responsibility according to their VIA agreement. They want a gift from Northmont and the paid-to-stay owners who have paid extra in maintenance fees to cover for the delinquent owners.

Have you reviewed the maintenance budget for the years 2013 to 2017? Have you done a simple calculation that would show the number of timeshare weeks has decreased from 9,668 in 2013 to 5,133 in 2017. Compare the 5,133 weeks to the 8,265 delinquents. A simple calculation shows that there are 2,001 annual owners and 3,132 bi-annual owners. Also, that is significantly different from the number of weeks in 2010 and 2011 at 12,581 weeks. I believe these numbers show that Northmont has accounted for the 6,235 owners who chose to cancel their contracts (paid-to-go).


----------



## SentimentalLady

tswow said:


> What has not been provided are the details of Northmont’s offer; is interest being charged during the payment period and if so at what rate, etc. From a business perspective and what has been stated, the offer appears to be fair and reasonable. Is it expected that no interest charges should be charged and/or the principal amount owing should be reduced? If so, that would be a gift from Northmont.
> 
> Northmont has revealed their business decision; to renovate the buildings to accommodate the paid-to-stay owners, to sell off/dispose of the buildings not required and collect the delinquent maintenance fees and pay-to-go fees. From the outset Northmont committed to renovate that part of the resort required to accommodate the paid-to-stay owners, not renovate all of the buildings. The buildings not required would be separated from the resort and sold/disposed. Regardless of the size of the resort, each paid-to-stay owner would continue to enjoy their timeshare.
> 
> I am fully aware of the situation at Sunchaser and the events that lead to the bankruptcy of Fairmont, the takeover by Northmont, the subsequent litigation and the posts on TUGBBS. I paid-to-stay $3,775 and in looking back, am glad that I did.  I only had to sacrifice 3 months of my CPP and OAS rather than the 6 to 10 years had I not paid-to-stay or had I not chosen to-go, I would be facing a hefty outstanding balance and would feel despondent. There may be another court case which will add to the legal cost and if the decision is made against the litigation group (for the third time), I would expect Northmont to be reimbursed for their legal costs. The winners in this legal tug of war are the lawyers at the expense of the litigation group and paid-to-stay owners.
> 
> I would be interested in receiving a written reply from Service Alberta regarding their interpretation of the “freedom to choose cancellation form”. My form does not have any small print on the bottom of the page.
> 
> It did not take any bravery on my part to make my decision. I saw thru the rhetoric of the delinquent owners, which continues till this day, and realized that I did not want to part of the litigation group. Bullying, making hateful remarks, making erroneous statements, etc. are discouraging remarks. I do not like being a part of an angry and bombastic group.
> 
> Northmont sent a survey in the fall of 2011 and, amongst other items, asked owners about a HOA. The response was minimal; only 3,310 responses were received by Northmont from a total of 14,500 owners, with 25% of responses in favour of a HOA, 34% in disagreement and 40% neutral. Now there are 4,640 paid-to-stay owners and 3,625 delinquent owners, I would not agree to a HOA until the matter of the delinquent owners is resolved. In my opinion they already have a an HOA of sorts in the litigation group.
> 
> I fully expect Northmont to pursue the collection of monies owing and expect them to collect their legal costs from the litigation group. The opposition to Northmont has not been favoured by the courts; the courts do not agree with the litigation group that what Northmont is doing is wrong.





huh......no response to my specific question. How about this one:

Like most of the "delinquents", we were always fully pre-paid with our obligations. Until this scam-without-end came along. Nope. Nope. Nope.

You never had a problem with the fact that Northmont/Northwynd did not meet their own obligations to pay the fees on behalf of the returned/unsold/delinquent weeks - not back then, and not now?


----------



## Spark1

tswow said:


> Spark, I definitely would like you to post a copy of your Cancellation Agreement that you took to Service Alberta and when you do, highlite the area in fine print that you refer to. Also try using your foul and profane language at a court of law. This type of expression does not impress me nor intimidate me, just shows the quality of your character.
> 
> Interesting that there is a question about how I have a cancellation form. The forms, etc. were posted on Sunchaser’s web site which I downloaded for my review before making my final decision. I believe it is prudent to review and analyse all relevant information before making a decision. I did not make my decision haphazardly, I deliberated long and hard because I did not like having to pay either the-pay-to-stay or go fee.
> 
> Obviously, I decided to pay-to-stay fee. I spent a lot of time researching the issue on TUGBBS and other internet sites, talked to many other owners and a couple of lawyers, reviewing my lease and other relevant information and reluctantly made my decision. In hind sight, I’m happy with my decision. 4,600 owners decided to stay and 6,200 decided to go. All that is needed to accommodate the paid-to-stay are the Riverside and Riverview buildings. The rest of the buildings, that is Hillside, can be separated. I’m glad not to be part of the 3,600 delinquent owners, some of whom did not pay their maintenance fees during Fairmont’s control and did not decide to stay or go. I say, take your case to the Supreme Court and get this matter resolved. On second thought, if the case is decided in Northmonts favour, I doubt the delinquent owners would accept the decision. Then what? Continue to try to get your issues resolved thru the court of public opinion? To date, two decisions have been in favour of Northmont. Perhaps you should use different lawyers in your third appeal since you are so sure of your interpretation of the VIA.
> 
> Regarding clause 13 of the VIA, my agreement says “if the Lessor accepts the deemed offer”, the key word is “if” versus the modified VIA which says “---the Lessor may terminate---“, the key word being “may”. Neither of these words are “mandatory”, such as shall or, must. How does your lawyer interpret their meaning?
> 
> I think the delinquents should place their soap box at Hillside. As far as I am concerned, they have chosen to abandon their timeshare by not paying their fees. All they want is not to take any financial responsibility according to their VIA agreement. They want a gift from Northmont and the paid-to-stay owners who have paid extra in maintenance fees to cover for the delinquent owners.
> 
> Have you reviewed the maintenance budget for the years 2013 to 2017? Have you done a simple calculation that would show the number of timeshare weeks has decreased from 9,668 in 2013 to 5,133 in 2017. Compare the 5,133 weeks to the 8,265 delinquents. A simple calculation shows that there are 2,001 annual owners and 3,132 bi-annual owners. Also, that is significantly different from the number of weeks in 2010 and 2011 at 12,581 weeks. I believe these numbers show that Northmont has accounted for the 6,235 owners who chose to cancel their contracts (paid-to-go).


I would but I am out of the country right now. Not all of them have been released. My position on this is freedom to choose is a breach against all the contracts. Show me in my contract of 2001 where they can extort money from time owners. We pay maintenance fees.


----------



## Just Looking Around

Spark1 said:


> ...We pay maintenance fees.



Exactly, "Maintenance Fees". 

Every single person who purchased a VIA believed that they would be responsible for only the costs of maintaining the Property. They believed that the Capital Replacement, a very commonly used and universally understood accounting concept, was the responsibility of the Developer, the Lessor. It's only because the VIA was not clearly worded that Northmont has subsequently exploited it and used it to extract ridiculous amounts of money from the Lessees for one reason, to enrich themselves.

My contract specifically says Operating Costs. Operating costs has no meaning or context if one doesn't recognize Capital Costs.


----------



## mmchili

Regarding Northmont not paying fees on returned/unsold/delinquent weeks. What evidence do you have to support your allegation? Obviously you did not read my last post, but I challenge you to support your position.

The reply from Service Alberta says it well. Standing on your soap box and making your claims does not solve your issues. I quote from Service Alberta:

                “The operation of the Time Share *after the sale* is *governed by the terms of the Time Share Contract. If the Time Share operator breaches the terms of the contract*, then *you may have a civil case*. *You would need to discuss your case with legal council* and determine if the issues you have identified would be a breach of the contractual rights and obligations under your contract and *what options may be available to you to pursue redress or resolution*.” (Emphasis are mine)

With the claims and allegations you have made, it appears that Service Alberta has given you the path to obtain “redress and resolution”. It appears that you should proceed post-haste to have your legal council proceed to next court.


----------



## Punter

Do NOT pay anything. Any money we pay they will use in the fight against us. Do not pay a single dime.


----------



## Spark1

Just Looking Around said:


> BINGO! Let's not pay them a dime. Stay the course and keep litigating.


That survey is a survey. Many time owners could of taken it as this is great Northwynd is doing huge capital expenditures on the resort being new owners and all time owners looked at was maintenance fees,painting,repairing decks,etc not a 4100.00 bill for every 2bedroom timeshare. It is their fault they should of had a condo association. That is a breach. Do you know in the USA cases are won by the time owners just with one breach. Our problem we do not have many lawyers in Canada that understand timeshare contracts. I have received an email from both Service Alberta and BC protection and they are quite similier ,they only protect the original contract that you sign. Freedom to Choose is not part of those contracts. If it was they did not have to petition the Courts. Every one should contact these two consumer affairs departments in BC and Alberta and let them know how our contracts are being breached. This case is really not about our time share it is about how much money they can extort from us and they will bankrupt it or sell it off just like all the other resorts. We have had no litigation just test cases.


----------



## SentimentalLady

tswow said:


> Regarding Northmont not paying fees on returned/unsold/delinquent weeks. What evidence do you have to support your allegation? Obviously you did not read my last post, but I challenge you to support your position.
> 
> The reply from Service Alberta says it well. Standing on your soap box and making your claims does not solve your issues. I quote from Service Alberta:
> 
> “The operation of the Time Share *after the sale* is *governed by the terms of the Time Share Contract. If the Time Share operator breaches the terms of the contract*, then *you may have a civil case*. *You would need to discuss your case with legal council* and determine if the issues you have identified would be a breach of the contractual rights and obligations under your contract and *what options may be available to you to pursue redress or resolution*.” (Emphasis are mine)
> 
> With the claims and allegations you have made, it appears that Service Alberta has given you the path to obtain “redress and resolution”. It appears that you should proceed post-haste to have your legal council proceed to next court.






*QUOTE - Regarding Northmont not paying fees on returned/unsold/delinquent weeks. What evidence do you have to support your allegation? 
*

How about the 2011 Financial Statement? Which was over a year late.

*2011* 4(i) Maintenance fees and unit rentals charged to developer $ -
*2012* makes no mention of it.
*2013* makes no mention of it. (2014 has it again - and shows 2013 as $ -  )
*2014* 4(j) The Developer is responsible for maintenance fees on developer owned inventory provided such inventory is online and available for use by the Developer. As such, Developer maintenance fees are calculated as follows:

2014 Gross maintenance fees - Developer                                                         $ 3,360,250
Less: cost reductions associated with inactive inventory owned by the developer (2,661,457)
                                                                                                                         _________
                                                                                                                           $ 698,793

The operating costs reductions associated to inactive inventory owned by the Developer are credited to the Developer due to the change in active inventory usage per the Agreements. Included in operating costs credited are the following: operating wages and benefits, offsite wages, non-wage staff costs, direct operating, contracted services, repairs and maintenance, general and administrative, utilities, insurance, refurbishment and management fee expenditures. This calculation is prepared by the Property Manager and agreed by the Developer, an entity related by virtue of common control. These transactions are in the normal course of operations and are measured at the exchange amount which is the amount of consideration established and agreed to by the related parties.

*2015* 4(i) (i) The Developer is responsible for maintenance fees on developer owned inventory provided such inventory is online and available for use by the Developer. Where inventory is inactive, the Developer is credited to reflect the cost savings of the Resort. Developer maintenance fees after credits are as follows:

2015  Developer maintenance fees       $ 582,057

So for 2015, they're not even going to tell us the amount of the credits? hmmmm.....

*2016* No financial statements yet. Kind of late again.....



These are all easily found on the Sunchaser site. And you can dig back into your previous statements to see the rest.

Odd, don't you think, that they were never accounted for before - even though it was stated in our contracts?

Then there's the on-again, off-again accounting of the last few years since our troubles began.

Then there's the interesting way they take all the cost reductions for themselves instead of sharing them equally among all lessees - and only paying the difference.



You see, if Sunchaser/Northmont/Northwynd had been paying their fair share all along, they would have had some incentive to manage things properly, keep the Timeshare Sales operating, maximize rentals of empty units, etc. But it turns out that running it properly for the good of the lessees was never their intention - or they wouldn't have killed all goodwill and rendered future Timeshare sales and resales impossible. They've made it so our leases have zero value to us now - worse, they are a liability to lessees.

But if Sunchaser/Northmont/Northwynd succeeds in bullying us into walking away - we've given away 20 or 30 or - in too many sad, sad cases - 38 years of our vacation investments. And we're supposed to be grateful for that - and even pay for the privilege?!

Sunchaser/Northmont/Northwynd will thus re-acquire a massive inventory of properties 
FOR FREE - WITH BONUS PAYMENTS that they can simply do with as they will - sell off whole buildings, sell off as condos, convert to hotels, rent out to long-term tenants, etc. The few lingering timeshare lessees will find their vacation experiences massively altered once Sunchaser is no longer a timeshare resort.[/QUOTE]

They have deliberately misled everyone and never had any intention of honouring their side of the deal.


----------



## truthr

SentimentalLady said:


> *QUOTE - Regarding Northmont not paying fees on returned/unsold/delinquent weeks. What evidence do you have to support your allegation?
> *
> 
> How about the 2011 Financial Statement? Which was over a year late.
> 
> *2011* 4(i) Maintenance fees and unit rentals charged to developer $ -
> *2012* makes no mention of it.
> *2013* makes no mention of it. (2014 has it again - and shows 2013 as $ -  )
> *2014* 4(j) The Developer is responsible for maintenance fees on developer owned inventory provided such inventory is online and available for use by the Developer. As such, Developer maintenance fees are calculated as follows:
> 
> 2014 Gross maintenance fees - Developer                                                         $ 3,360,250
> Less: cost reductions associated with inactive inventory owned by the developer (2,661,457)
> _________
> $ 698,793
> 
> The operating costs reductions associated to inactive inventory owned by the Developer are credited to the Developer due to the change in active inventory usage per the Agreements. Included in operating costs credited are the following: operating wages and benefits, offsite wages, non-wage staff costs, direct operating, contracted services, repairs and maintenance, general and administrative, utilities, insurance, refurbishment and management fee expenditures. This calculation is prepared by the Property Manager and agreed by the Developer, an entity related by virtue of common control. These transactions are in the normal course of operations and are measured at the exchange amount which is the amount of consideration established and agreed to by the related parties.
> 
> *2015* 4(i) (i) The Developer is responsible for maintenance fees on developer owned inventory provided such inventory is online and available for use by the Developer. Where inventory is inactive, the Developer is credited to reflect the cost savings of the Resort. Developer maintenance fees after credits are as follows:
> 
> 2015  Developer maintenance fees       $ 582,057
> 
> So for 2015, they're not even going to tell us the amount of the credits? hmmmm.....
> 
> *2016* No financial statements yet. Kind of late again.....
> 
> 
> 
> These are all easily found on the Sunchaser site. And you can dig back into your previous statements to see the rest.
> 
> Odd, don't you think, that they were never accounted for before - even though it was stated in our contracts?
> 
> Then there's the on-again, off-again accounting of the last few years since our troubles began.
> 
> Then there's the interesting way they take all the cost reductions for themselves instead of sharing them equally among all lessees - and only paying the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> You see, if Sunchaser/Northmont/Northwynd had been paying their fair share all along, they would have had some incentive to manage things properly, keep the Timeshare Sales operating, maximize rentals of empty units, etc. But it turns out that running it properly for the good of the lessees was never their intention - or they wouldn't have killed all goodwill and rendered future Timeshare sales and resales impossible. They've made it so our leases have zero value to us now - worse, they are a liability to lessees.
> 
> But if Sunchaser/Northmont/Northwynd succeeds in bullying us into walking away - we've given away 20 or 30 or - in too many sad, sad cases - 38 years of our vacation investments. And we're supposed to be grateful for that - and even pay for the privilege?!
> 
> Sunchaser/Northmont/Northwynd will thus re-acquire a massive inventory of properties
> FOR FREE - WITH BONUS PAYMENTS that they can simply do with as they will - sell off whole buildings, sell off as condos, convert to hotels, rent out to long-term tenants, etc. The few lingering timeshare lessees will find their vacation experiences massively altered once Sunchaser is no longer a timeshare resort.



They have deliberately misled everyone and never had any intention of honouring their side of the deal.[/QUOTE]

So Well Stated.  Thanks SentimentalLady


----------



## teedeej

I am another dissatisfied Sunchaser owner.  It seems to me that there are one or two members on here ("I have seen the light and now love Northwynd") that are nothing more than company plants.
Northwynd agreed to purchase Fairmont Resort Properties,
Lk Okanagan Resort, and other assets after Fairmont filed for bankruptcy in 2008. Northwynd should have know about the villas' problems, including the Poly-B piping.  If they didn't,  they neglected doing their homework. Building maintenance had been minimal for years. To force villa owners to pay for major renovations is scandalous. This is not maintenance or refurbishing.
Northwynd kept the Sunchaser Villas and sold off it's other assets, like the Lake Okanagan Resort, which was purchased by a Chinese buyer in 2014. LOR's selling price wasn't published but the listing was for $10.1 million.
Northwynd has a very creative accounting department; they own half the villas but they wouldn't have to pay a cent for renovations if all the time share owners payed the $4195 renovation fee.
Clause 13 in my Fairmont lease agreement refers basically to the lessor's (Northwynd) compensation to the lessee (me) if I renege on my fees; besides my contract was with Fairmont Resort Properties, not Northwynd. At this point I don't care if I get a nickel in return. No auto dealership would refuse a returned paid-in-full vehicle if there was no expectation of compensation. But then the Sunchaser Villas are basically worthless so you can't blame Northwynd for not accepting them.


----------



## Spark1

tswow said:


> Spark, I definitely would like you to post a copy of your Cancellation Agreement that you took to Service Alberta and when you do, highlite the area in fine print that you refer to. Also try using your foul and profane language at a court of law. This type of expression does not impress me nor intimidate me, just shows the quality of your character.
> 
> Interesting that there is a question about how I have a cancellation form. The forms, etc. were posted on Sunchaser’s web site which I downloaded for my review before making my final decision. I believe it is prudent to review and analyse all relevant information before making a decision. I did not make my decision haphazardly, I deliberated long and hard because I did not like having to pay either the-pay-to-stay or go fee.
> 
> Obviously, I decided to pay-to-stay fee. I spent a lot of time researching the issue on TUGBBS and other internet sites, talked to many other owners and a couple of lawyers, reviewing my lease and other relevant information and reluctantly made my decision. In hind sight, I’m happy with my decision. 4,600 owners decided to stay and 6,200 decided to go. All that is needed to accommodate the paid-to-stay are the Riverside and Riverview buildings. The rest of the buildings, that is Hillside, can be separated. I’m glad not to be part of the 3,600 delinquent owners, some of whom did not pay their maintenance fees during Fairmont’s control and did not decide to stay or go. I say, take your case to the Supreme Court and get this matter resolved. On second thought, if the case is decided in Northmonts favour, I doubt the delinquent owners would accept the decision. Then what? Continue to try to get your issues resolved thru the court of public opinion? To date, two decisions have been in favour of Northmont. Perhaps you should use different lawyers in your third appeal since you are so sure of your interpretation of the VIA.
> 
> Regarding clause 13 of the VIA, my agreement says “if the Lessor accepts the deemed offer”, the key word is “if” versus the modified VIA which says “---the Lessor may terminate---“, the key word being “may”. Neither of these words are “mandatory”, such as shall or, must. How does your lawyer interpret their meaning?
> 
> I think the delinquents should place their soap box at Hillside. As far as I am concerned, they have chosen to abandon their timeshare by not paying their fees. All they want is not to take any financial responsibility according to their VIA agreement. They want a gift from Northmont and the paid-to-stay owners who have paid extra in maintenance fees to cover for the delinquent owners.
> 
> Have you reviewed the maintenance budget for the years 2013 to 2017? Have you done a simple calculation that would show the number of timeshare weeks has decreased from 9,668 in 2013 to 5,133 in 2017. Compare the 5,133 weeks to the 8,265 delinquents. A simple calculation shows that there are 2,001 annual owners and 3,132 bi-annual owners. Also, that is significantly different from the number of weeks in 2010 and 2011 at 12,581 weeks. I believe these numbers show that Northmont has accounted for the 6,235 owners who chose to cancel their contracts (paid-to-go).


What you do not want to do is call me a liar. I would be more than happy to meet you any where you would like and stuff that cancellation form down your throat. I will get the name of the RCMP that the material that I took to Service Alberta was sent to and have them run you off a copy. Give me your mailing address and I will have Geldert Law send it out to you. If you are not a owner of a Time Share  any more why are you so interested in what is going on and coming up with all these stupid numbers. Do not treat us like criminals and try to make us believe that Northwynd has a right to all this extortion money just because these liberal judges are protecting their own being Justice Loo. The justice system is totally wrong doing this when they think they have the right to over ride our contracts that we all signed and had witnessed. Northwynd takes over the resort knowing the condition of the resort and comes up with a way to legally steal money from time owners that paid their maintenance fees yearly calculated according to our agreements. They feel they do not have to live up to our agreements and use extortion to steal money. Their freedom to Choose had great chooses,get sucked in with that phoney cancellation form or pay that renovation fee and now they own you and Norton Rose already has a new drafted up contract for them called Northwynd's Legacy for Life. Now if we want marble floors you time owners will pay the bill and replace our resort. I believe you are one of them.


----------



## servemeout

Spark1 - Tswow is pushing you buttons!  DO NOT LET THAT HAPPEN. I am very pleased he/she has taken to the soapbox idea.  In the words of Oscar Wilde "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness" I may consider starting a new business and produce soapboxes for use by Northmont and their supporters.  I will call them "you've been had" or some other such name.  I will NOT name them "roll over and show your belly"  As to the price - how about equating that to a years' MF?  After reading all of the update to the delinquent owners this morning, I would suggest that Tswow follow something said by Mark Twain " Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please" The biggest delinquent owner is not our litigation group.


----------



## Real World

The Service Alberta Email posted by Spark1 outlines the relevant aspects for Service Alberta getting involved.

"The Time Share and Points Based Contracts and Businesses Regulations has regulated Time Share sales that have occurred in Alberta since 2009. Prior to the previous Time Share Contracts regulation established a very limited set of minimum disclosure standards for Time Share sales occurring in Alberta.
With both regulation, only the initial sales is regulated. The operation of the Time Share after the sale is governed by the terms of the Time Share Contract. If the Time Share operator breaches the terms of the contract, then you may have a civil case. You would need to discuss your case with legal council and determine if the issues you have identified would be a breach of the contractual rights and obligations under your contract and what options may be available to you to pursue redress or resolution."

Maybe someone should take their contract to a lawyer for review.

It probably would be a good idea to mention the BC litigation to the lawyer doing the review.


----------



## servemeout

On Sept. 16/2016 ACJ Young of the Alberta provincial court instructed the lawyers on both sides of the litigation to present the differences in the NINE contracts of timeshare leases that have been signed.  This case was adjourned until April 11,2017, when it will go back in front of her.  We do not need another lawyer for review and she is very aware of the BC litigation.


----------



## truthr

servemeout said:


> On Sept. 16/2016 ACJ Young of the Alberta provincial court instructed the lawyers on both sides of the litigation to present the differences in the NINE contracts of timeshare leases that have been signed.  This case was adjourned until April 11,2017, when it will go back in front of her.  We do not need another lawyer for review and she is very aware of the BC litigation.




April 11th??  It is my understanding that it is scheduled for April 7th in Edmonton.


----------



## servemeout

truthr said:


> April 11th??  It is my understanding that it is scheduled for April 7th in Edmonton.


You are correct - April 7, 2017


----------



## aden2

tswow said:


> Spark, I definitely would like you to post a copy of your Cancellation Agreement that you took to Service Alberta and when you do, highlite the area in fine print that you refer to. Also try using your foul and profane language at a court of law. This type of expression does not impress me nor intimidate me, just shows the quality of your character.
> 
> Interesting that there is a question about how I have a cancellation form. The forms, etc. were posted on Sunchaser’s web site which I downloaded for my review before making my final decision. I believe it is prudent to review and analyse all relevant information before making a decision. I did not make my decision haphazardly, I deliberated long and hard because I did not like having to pay either the-pay-to-stay or go fee.
> 
> Obviously, I decided to pay-to-stay fee. I spent a lot of time researching the issue on TUGBBS and other internet sites, talked to many other owners and a couple of lawyers, reviewing my lease and other relevant information and reluctantly made my decision. In hind sight, I’m happy with my decision. 4,600 owners decided to stay and 6,200 decided to go. All that is needed to accommodate the paid-to-stay are the Riverside and Riverview buildings. The rest of the buildings, that is Hillside, can be separated. I’m glad not to be part of the 3,600 delinquent owners, some of whom did not pay their maintenance fees during Fairmont’s control and did not decide to stay or go. I say, take your case to the Supreme Court and get this matter resolved. On second thought, if the case is decided in Northmonts favour, I doubt the delinquent owners would accept the decision. Then what? Continue to try to get your issues resolved thru the court of public opinion? To date, two decisions have been in favour of Northmont. Perhaps you should use different lawyers in your third appeal since you are so sure of your interpretation of the VIA.
> 
> Regarding clause 13 of the VIA, my agreement says “if the Lessor accepts the deemed offer”, the key word is “if” versus the modified VIA which says “---the Lessor may terminate---“, the key word being “may”. Neither of these words are “mandatory”, such as shall or, must. How does your lawyer interpret their meaning?
> 
> I think the delinquents should place their soap box at Hillside. As far as I am concerned, they have chosen to abandon their timeshare by not paying their fees. All they want is not to take any financial responsibility according to their VIA agreement. They want a gift from Northmont and the paid-to-stay owners who have paid extra in maintenance fees to cover for the delinquent owners.
> 
> Have you reviewed the maintenance budget for the years 2013 to 2017? Have you done a simple calculation that would show the number of timeshare weeks has decreased from 9,668 in 2013 to 5,133 in 2017. Compare the 5,133 weeks to the 8,265 delinquents. A simple calculation shows that there are 2,001 annual owners and 3,132 bi-annual owners. Also, that is significantly different from the number of weeks in 2010 and 2011 at 12,581 weeks. I believe these numbers show that Northmont has accounted for the 6,235 owners who chose to cancel their contracts (paid-to-go).


----------



## aden2

Does this mean that anyone buying a Sunchaser timeshare and has some serious health problems cannot get out of their timeshare?
I had heard that this timeshare company was contacting timeshare owners when they were insolvent and claiming what they had to offer was one of the best in the world etc. When my neighbour told me this I told him that this type of business is a crime in Canada.


----------



## ERW

I am curious to see how the interpretation of the various agreements will end up tomorrow. I have never understood how the lease agreements and the "owner" agreements could have ever been lumped together as one group. In a lease agreement, lessees never have the opportunity to "profit" (i.e. no return on investment as they have none) or show a "loss" as they have no vested interest to profit or lose from. There are no revenues to show as income and no expenses to write off. That applies as well to those that purchased "ownership" in their units. Would CRA ever allow them to show ownership in these units and claim revenues/expenses in the timeshares they have "purchased"? The latter might be a bit more dicey to prove but at the very least, those that have leases will never be able to even remotely have the chance to ever resemble an "owner". 
did the leagal team ever tackle that question during any of the cort presentations or appeals? Or is that the objective of tomorrow's review of the VIA's?


----------



## aden2

Lydiatt v. Banff Rocky Mountain Resort, 2008 ABPC.pdf
Interesting case!


----------



## Never Give Up

While being careful of what to say on here (they are watching us) I just want to say after Edmonton's recent court appearance (next one is May 1) I am more energized to fight for what is right, legal and proper.

Approx. 262 of us showed up for court! 
The Judge was kind enough to get us a larger court-room to hold everyone. (Filled to the max). It is important for a number of reasons that as many of us as possible show up for the next court appearance in Edmonton on May 1st. at 9am.   

The Defense Lawyers (ours) will be stating their case on May 1st. There is a lot to cover. They ran out of time last time and only the Plaintiff's case was heard. Very interesting. After the last appearance we had a very good meeting (with the Lawyer @ Geldert Group). If you are a member of this group you will be kept in the know. If you do not have a Lawyer yet and want to benefit from when we win this case you may want to contact them ASAP. 

Their email is " Sunchaser@Geldert Law . com " (I've separated the words to avoid spammers). 
Phone: 778-330-7775.
Web: www.GeldertLaw.com and www.SunchaserTimeShareOwners.com

You may also wish to phone them in order to speed up the process of joining. 
They are from Vancouver.

It is imperative that we do not allow Sunchaser to separate and divide us any more than they already have. (They were suppose to assist us in forming a Owners Association too). We need to stick together and stick up for what is morally correct! 

It has cost us very little money for the Lawyers because we are such a large group & it's certainly a lot less than what the time share wants to steal from you. 

Even if you have already paid them to get out of your time share, I would contact Michael Geldert for a free conversation.


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> Lydiatt v. Banff Rocky Mountain Resort, 2008 ABPC.pdf
> Interesting case!


Aden2 would you please redo this so we can open the PDF. This would be great if we can post this on Facebook so every one on social media can read this. Facebook has blocked me from posting this.


----------



## servemeout

If you have a timeshare at LOR, the chances of another headache maybe coming.  We have now received three calls from a debt collector.  In Alberta, there is a three strike rule.  You can not be contacted by phone more that three times after the initial contact in a seven day period.  This information is on the Service Alberta web site.  You have the right to request "snail mail" only if you are contacted more than the allowed number of times.  I would strongly suggest that if this is the case, keep a record of the number, time & date that you are contacted.   The calls we have received are from California, however it appears that they have an Edmonton branch office.  The language used in the last call was "aggressive" and they threatened to report to the credit bureau.  IT is YOUR RIGHTS.   The sale offering for LOR did not include some time shares.  I have a few questions.  Who is the owner of the time shares?  The following is from the listing of LOR before the sale in June 2014.
"*Terrace 3 and 4*
 The Terrace 3 and 4 buildings are situated just above the Lakeside buildings and are of a similar age.  Combined, these two buildings have 48 units, which are all one bedrooms with queen beds.  Of the 48 units, 8 are included with this offering, 26 are timeshare owned, and 29 are privately owned.  Forty units are within the hotel rental pool."


----------



## TUGBrian

the link to the pdf is not a valid one...if the OP can email the PDF to tug@tug2.net ill post it.


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> Lydiatt v. Banff Rocky Mountain Resort, 2008 ABPC.pdf
> Interesting case!


How do we open this PDF?


----------



## TUGBrian

you dont until a valid link to it is provided.


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> Lydiatt v. Banff Rocky Mountain Resort, 2008 ABPC.pdf
> Interesting case!


The link is invalid, aden2 needs to provide a valid link in order for anyone to access the file.


----------



## teedeej

Link to Lydiatt v. Banff Rocky Mountain Resort file.  39 KB.

[_I've checked this via Malwarebytes, and it tested okay. - Makai Guy_]


----------



## aden2

Spark1 said:


> Aden2 would you please redo this so we can open the PDF. This would be great if we can post this on Facebook so every one on social
> 
> Lydiatt v. Banff Rocky Mountain Resort, 2008 ABPC.pdf
> PDF
> DownloadPreviewUpload Revision


----------



## TUGBrian

looks like the latest link works!  I was just able to download and read it.


----------



## Spark1

teedeej said:


> Link to Lydiatt v. Banff Rocky Mountain Resort file.  39 KB.
> 
> [_I've checked this via Malwarebytes, and it tested okay. - Makai Guy_]


Thanks every time owner should read this. Albertan's fall under the Fair Trading Act. I hope BC protection is the same as Alberta. It should be the same because they would go back to the original contract that was signed when the timeshare was bought.


teedeej said:


> Link to Lydiatt v. Banff Rocky Mountain Resort file.  39 KB.
> 
> [_I've checked this via Malwarebytes, and it tested okay. - Makai Guy_]



.


----------



## servemeout

Another collection call from California today.  Violation of three strike rule in Alberta.  They were then told that contact can only be by mail now and Service Alberta would be contacted.  A complaint has been filed.  They must be licensed in Alberta to make collection calls and it appears that they are not.  The caller was Daisy.  My brother had a goat called Daisy, and the goat was smarter of the two by far.


----------



## condomama

Does anyone know which building(s) this ad in this week's Columbia Valley Pioneer newspaper refers to? I'm not familiar with lot numbers.  They want to turn some part of the Sunchaser complex into a hotel?


----------



## Alohamom

Googled the Lot and Plan # in this ad, came up with the Regional District of East Kootenay Planning and development Services meeting on April 6. Letter is 3/4 of the way down the agenda.


----------



## Hotpink

This application is different than the one submitted last August and September. It was put on hold because of the court case ( appeal) going on at the time. This time they want ( I say "_They_" and I really should say Wankel's Numbered company) wants to create a hotel in the three mentioned buildings. Which means removing the open swimming pool from the resort. Yes they will probably try and turn the 1000 thru 5000 buildings into condos and sell them off( which is what last years application was for). Doug Frey did say last August that the resort is now at 50 % . As an ordinary VIA holder( now a delinquent) and not an owner( Legacy for Life Member) I do not have a say in what Wankel is trying to do. Which from my deck chair it looks like nest feathering. In speaking with a REIT holder they have more reason to be concerned about seeing a return on their investment. Let's just accept that Wankel is going to look after himself FIRST and somehow he probably doesn't have the interests of the people who bought into the resort anywhere in his area of concern. His crosshairs appear to only on getting MONEY from anybody willing to give it to him . It is to bad that I can't be a both the court hearing in Edmonton on May 1 at 9:30 AM and make it to Fairmont for the 7:00 PM meeting. Perhaps Mr. Katz will lend us his private aircraft to fly to the Fairmont airport to attend the meeting and listen to the Engineer In Training promote this proposed Change to the previously wonderful resort.


----------



## condomama

Thanks for the replies and explanations.  Feeling glum for the Terraces owners, originals on that side, caught up in all of this too.  It will be interesting to read more from local newspapers and RDEK; perhaps local residents in the Riverside community will voice concerns or opinions. Feel as "blue" as the "black" buildings at Riverside.


----------



## condomama

Just reading through the April 6 application, according to the submitted drawings, it appears that the designated boundary of the application (pg 119-124) is outside of, and does not include the pool area.


----------



## Spark1

teedeej said:


> Link to Lydiatt v. Banff Rocky Mountain Resort file.  39 KB.
> 
> [_I've checked this via Malwarebytes, and it tested okay. - Makai Guy_]


teedeej is there a chance that you could get this link up and running again. This is very important and it shows time owners that we in Alberta can take these bandits back to court and sue them for the money they extorted from time owners using the Fair Trading Act. 
   Statutory Authority:
    "Time Share contract" is defined under the Fair Trading Act, supra:
    "s.1(1)(m) "time share contract" means a contract in which an individual acquires the right to use, occupy or possess real or personal property, whether or not it is located in Alberta,
   1) for a period of time of less than one year during an interval specified in the contract, and
    ii) as part of a plan that provides for the use of the property to circulate among persons participating in the plan
This is consistent with the terms of the agreement.
Why has this taken 4 years out of our life to resolve? It is all about Big Money and Judges that do not understand Time Share. I have been working with Darren Thomas at Service Alberta ph. 17804228046 and I feel every Albertans that have bought a time share to contact him. His email is.  darren.thomas@gov.ab.ca   Let him know the millions that will be leaving this province when that money is needed in Alberta not BC.
It would be nice if Time Share owners from BC could post how BC Protection works with them in that province. Let's hope it is the same as Alberta.


----------



## Hotpink

Condomana: Yes the pool is located in NEP 22139 District lot 46. This latest application is for NEP 71522 which encompasses the 6000-8000 buildings. However the very odd relationship between the owner of the pool and the renter of the pool will come into play at some point.  I have in my quite vast experience of staying in hotels , motels and resorts yet to see any access to pools/facilities by others that were not staying at the establishment.
If you look at their December 31 2011 notes to financial statements on page 10 under lease commitments what is stated is that THE RESORT ( SUNCHASER ) is committed under lease for $63,700.00 per year  and the note further says "_The water Park lease is with a company related to the property manager by virtue of common directors". _What does that mean? Sunchaser pays Northmont or Northwynd for the lease and if they are successful in turning 6000-8000 into a hotel and operating it as such under an undisclosed name. WHO gets to use the pool leased and paid for by Sunchaser?  

Believe me this is just another plan to extract money from the facility to the benefit of a/the director(s)  and not the lessees. Just another wonky wankel endeavour


----------



## Spark1

Hotpink said:


> Condomana: Yes the pool is located in NEP 22139 District lot 46. This latest application is for NEP 71522 which encompasses the 6000-8000 buildings. However the very odd relationship between the owner of the pool and the renter of the pool will come into play at some point.  I have in my quite vast experience of staying in hotels , motels and resorts yet to see any access to pools/facilities by others that were not staying at the establishment.
> If you look at their December 31 2011 notes to financial statements on page 10 under lease commitments what is stated is that THE RESORT ( SUNCHASER ) is committed under lease for $63,700.00 per year  and the note further says "_The water Park lease is with a company related to the property manager by virtue of common directors". _What does that mean? Sunchaser pays Northmont or Northwynd for the lease and if they are successful in turning 6000-8000 into a hotel and operating it as such under an undisclosed name. WHO gets to use the pool leased and paid for by Sunchaser?
> 
> Believe me this is just another plan to extract money from the facility to the benefit of a/the director(s)  and not the lessees. Just another wonky wankel endeavour


At this stage i do not feel the pool matters one bit. Who in their right mind would want to be a time owner in this prison under Kirk Wankel. The Time Share owners would always be his BANK with the backing of BC's court system. Can you imagine the court system feeling sorry for Collin Knight falling on hard times in 2008 and collecting maintenance fees from over 14000 time share owners at the same time. Maybe his oil company was set back some but that is Alberta i have seen bad times in Alberta at least 5 times in my life. This resort has been a scam ever since Collin Knight has taken it over. They did not give a dam about time owners we were their Bank period.


----------



## truthr

In response to those wanting to see the PDF document that someone earlier tried to link to and others have also tried - the reason that the link does not work is that someone tried to link something that is in a "Secret" Facebook group that I started and manage.  Obviously that person is a member of my group - please do not share anything from those files without my prior approval.  The PDF file is a public document and not of a confidential nature so I would be more than happy to share it here.

I have attempted to upload the PDF file directly from my laptop but get an error message.  I have sent an email to an administrator of this site.


----------



## Just Looking Around

Hotpink said:


> just another plan to extract money from the facility to the benefit of a/the director(s)  and not the lessees. Just another wonky wankel endeavour



One Director, Kirk Wankel.


----------



## Just Looking Around

_"...difficulties faced by the Resort including, but not limited to: the general state of the time share industry, rising delinquency, the Resort's aging ownership base, and the delinquency from the necessary renovation invoice."_ (Kirk Wankel, April 10, 2017, NOTICE: AMENDMENT TO ALL AGREEMENTS.)

Mr. Wankel missed three difficulties faced by the Resort. (1)The inability or unwillingness of Management (Kirk Wankel) to operate the Property in a manner that provides even an approximation of a Resort Quality Guest Experience.  (2)The failure of the Management (Kirk Wankel) to perform their timely due diligence on the structural integrity of the Property's buildings and lands. (3)The foolish, reckless and cavalier acquisition of over-valued properties (House Boats included) in disparate countries each with a different government, legal and tax framework, by a Management proven incapable of managing even one property in a country as stable and consistent as Canada, let alone Belize, Mexico, and Hawaii.

"_...necessary renovation..._"? I don't think so! It was just one option. One of the other options being to liquidate the Property and save us all from this protracted desperate dispute. Do we lose? Yes, we the VIA holders lose. But, I scientifically surveyed a sample of VIA holders and the survey says: The number one answer - there was only one answer - 100% would have preferred to liquidate the Property and pay nothing more while gladly surrendering all future vacations, which would be at a non-resort anyway, as opposed to paying an unlimited amount of money over the remaining years of the contract because of the ill-conceived renovation of Kirk Wankel's.


----------



## Just Looking Around

One of the people I surveyed was at the Geldert Town Hall in Edmonton recently. They said that one question asked was about the monies collected from those who paid to leave. My source recalled the number offered was about $22-million but, he couldn't reconstruct the calculation. The questioner at the Town Hall assumed it had gone to those who had invested in the REIT. Apparently, it didn't go to them. Some of those investors were there and they emphatically denied having either received the money or, an accounting for the money. So where did it go? Only Kirk Wankel knows for sure.


----------



## Spark1

truthr said:


> In response to those wanting to see the PDF document that someone earlier tried to link to and others have also tried - the reason that the link does not work is that someone tried to link something that is in a "Secret" Facebook group that I started and manage.  Obviously that person is a member of my group - please do not share anything from those files without my prior approval.  The PDF file is a public document and not of a confidential nature so I would be more than happy to share it here.
> 
> I have attempted to upload the PDF file directly from my laptop but get an error message.  I have sent an email to an administrator of this site.





truthr said:


> In response to those wanting to see the PDF document that someone earlier tried to link to and others have also tried - the reason that the link does not work is that someone tried to link something that is in a "Secret" Facebook group that I started and manage.  Obviously that person is a member of my group - please do not share anything from those files without my prior approval.  The PDF file is a public document and not of a confidential nature so I would be more than happy to share it here.
> 
> I have attempted to upload the PDF file directly from my laptop but get an error message.  I have sent an email to an administrator of this site.
> 
> 
> truthr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In response to those wanting to see the PDF document that someone earlier tried to link to and others have also tried - the reason that the link does not work is that someone tried to link something that is in a "Secret" Facebook group that I started and manage.  Obviously that person is a member of my group - please do not share anything from those files without my prior approval.  The PDF file is a public document and not of a confidential nature so I would be more than happy to share it here.
> 
> I have attempted to upload the PDF file directly from my laptop but get an error message.  I have sent an email to an administrator of this site.
> 
> 
> 
> truthr phone Geldert Law. He has a copy of that PDF. I will phone Patricia and ask her  to forward that PDF to you. It is very important that your group gets to read this document.
Click to expand...


----------



## Spark1

Truthr Phone Geldert Law and have Patricia forward this PDF to you


----------



## truthr

Spark1 said:


> Truthr Phone Geldert Law and have Patricia forward this PDF to you



Thanks Spark1, but I have the document and was saying that the person who tried to share it here obviously attempted to share it from my "secret" Facebook group files.
What I was referring to about uploading it is that I had attempted to upload here on Tugbbs for others to have access to it, but have now forwarded it to the Administrator Brian as his post requested so that he can make it available here on Tugbbs.


----------



## Real World

Is anyone familiar with the case "Edwards v Resort Villa Management Ltd, 2015 ABQB 424"


----------



## truthr

Real World said:


> Is anyone familiar with the case "Edwards v Resort Villa Management Ltd, 2015 ABQB 424"



Here is a link for more information about it.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb424/2015abqb424.html


----------



## Spark1

truthr said:


> Here is a link for more information about it.
> 
> https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb424/2015abqb424.html


I am still reading over our time share contract to see where special assessments are part of this legal document. I can not see where we have any legal interest in the property being buildings and land what so ever. These Time Share contracts were approved by both Service Alberta under the Fair Trading Act and in BC under service BC . In my opinion this was created by Justice Loo in BC and the Cancer has noww spread to Alberta. Why was Northwynd rewarded with this resort without having a forensic audit done on FRPL first. Why would a Alberta Judge put Time Share Owners in the position we are in now and have no respect what so ever what we paid up front just to get into this timeshare. These judges have no respect for seniors. Why do we have Time Share contracts? Wankel designed this and the perfect outcome of this having Justice Loo help with this fraud with her decision was have all of the time owners Cancel. The court rooms in Alberta and BC could be used more wisely for more important and serious cases than treating Time Share owners majority being seniors like we are criminals. We know who the criminals are. Many seniors caved in not because they did something wrong they caved in because they could not stand the pressure from all of this. Wankel new this. If the judges would of stead out of this this would of been settled by now.


----------



## GypsyOne

The more one sees this drama unfold, the more it looks like the institutionalized scam of the century. It has all the characteristics to make it very possible and very profitable for the perpetrators:

1. A valuable property in a popular vacation location where people with money are likely to visit and want to be a part of.
2. A property that generates multi-millions in revenue that the manager can rake off exorbitant management and other fees while barely staying within the intent of the contracts.
3. A large number of geographically diverse victims that makes organization and resistance to questionable business practices difficult.
4. Perpetrators who are able to use the victims’ own money to fight and further victimize the victims.
5. A compliant and arguably corrupt court system backing a Provincial government supporting a provincial business that does not want a major tourist attraction to fail.
6. A group of opportunistic resort owners and managers willing to violate their fiduciary duty to work in the best interests of the customer and with a major objective to enrich their own bank accounts at the expense of the timeshare owners.

But, one suspects they have underestimated the will of the timeshare owners to fight back for justice.


----------



## Meow

Thank you, GypsyOne, for your accurate synopsis of the situation many of us have fallen into.  We never realized the risk one takes on when buying into a timeshare.  It can be much more that just walking away from your initial investment.  The timeshare industry is rife with cheats and get rich artists.  What started out with great holidays to Fairmont and exchanges to exotic winter getaways became an overpriced encumbrance then a financial nightmare.  My only advice to people with timeshares is to have an escape plan.  The time to bail is when things are still going well.  Don't wait till things start to go downhill and the sharks take over!


----------



## Never Give Up

*SUNCHASER RESORT in FAIRMONT B.C. CANADA.*

I would caution you to investigate if this was a place you were thinking of staying at.  

FACT: The owners of this resort have harassed, threatened & now sued the "time" share owners since they bought & took this resort over.

Not only have they let the resort fall into poor condition they are now suing thousands (1,000's) of people so that they can fix up a couple of the buildings & sell them off to make themselves a tidy profit.

Yes they want to do this so they can make a profit off of other people's backs. Many of which are retired elderly people. 

FACT: Sunchaser Resort has already applied for the place to be re-zoned. 
I suggest anyone living in this area might want to look into this until you are confident it won't hurt your property values and/or lawful use and enjoyment of your own property. 

If you have relatives or friends that stay here, spread the news and let them decide on the facts.

We did not buy into the actual property here at Sunchaser. We are not owners of the buildings or the land. That was all supposed to be "supplied to us" under contract, in good faith and in good condition (a resort). 

In our opinion plus that of our Lawyers; they (Sunchaser Resort) have breeched their contracts, 1000's of them!

We bought the right to use the "time" allotted to us at this resort each year, nothing more.

The resort owner (Sunchaser Resorts & Northwynd Resorts) thinks that he does not have to pay for anything. He feels that "time" owners should pay for everything he owns even the capital costs (that are the property owner's responsibility). 

Imagine paying to stay at a resort or hotel. 
(you bought the right to use the resort or room for the days and nights specified) and this happened to you!

The resort starts to threaten you. They send bill collectors after you even when nothing has been decided in court. Then they try to sue you and 1,000's of others for millions & millions of dollars for repairs to their faulty buildings! All along while they have refused to maintain the place.

We were told by their staff (dumb I know) that we would save money on vacations for the future. 
That's what they promised us! Not just one or two of us - thousands of people! 
The fact of the matter is that now we learn it would be much cheaper to stay at a hotel at the regular rack rates.

Case Law from this court case could affect hundreds if not thousands of other resorts even outside of Canada. 
Unfortunately one resort like this can result in a reputation for the whole resort industry. Especially time share resorts.

He (the owner) wants us to pay for faulty construction repairs, issues that they knew about before they even bought the resort! 
They still bought it? 

Their previous history with other resorts in this industry is starting to become more evident. Have a look and Google them.   

FACT: He says we now owe him approx. $50 million dollars! 
He has dug himself into a deep deep hole if he thinks the rest of us are going to pay.

You can make your own decision whether this is a place (a business you want to deal with) that you want to stay at or support. 

Google their names: 
Look at their corporate and individual history with other businesses and other resorts. 
Get the full story for yourself. 

Heres one good link to start with there are many others:
http://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/?p=17110

If you want to, you could be reading about complaints and issues on this place for hours. 
Perhaps one day someone will write a book or even make a movie about this joint.

Thousands of others have made their decision about this place. 
Those sued by Sunchaser are decent people. Many of them elderly & now retired. 

Many that could potentially lose all their retirement savings! I'm told some already have.

Apparently many people have already paid him thousands & thousands of dollars already. 
They paid because of his threats, they thought they had to pay, so sad. 

Last time I drove by (2016) it was looking like a run-down ghost town. 
Besides that there are no more houseboats, no more motorhomes (to trade as promised) and the fact all the other resort locations (that they owned and offered us) are now gone too. 

Where did all this stuff go? 
It was all there when we paid our money.

Perhaps you will enjoy staying here? 
Or, perhaps you will want to find something else for your family just up the road or across the street. You decide.

If you do decide to stay here, I would recommend that you drive by first & have an actual look at the the resort. 
As a prudent consumer you want to make sure you know what you are getting into and protect your deposit.

This story gets sadder all the time & there's much more that could be added to this. 

Personally if I were staff working at this resort I would be wondering if I was going to see my next paycheque? 
It's not over, the court battles continue and likely will for some time maybe even years until Sunchaser backs off! 

WE WILL NOT EVER GIVE IN TO THEM OR COME BACK!


----------



## Alohamom

Does anyone know how the rezoning meeting went in Fairmont on May 1?


----------



## Real World

Does anyone know what the outcome of the case that Justice Young presided over?


----------



## Never Give Up

Real World said:


> Does anyone know what the outcome of the case that Justice Young presided over?


Its not finished yet. The next date will be June 28, 2017.


----------



## Never Give Up

Alohamom said:


> Does anyone know how the rezoning meeting went in Fairmont on May 1?


Last I heard a bunch of us plus our Lawyer have opposed this and expected it to be set over. Waiting to hear if that happened. I expect and hope it was set over until the court battles are settled which could be a long time.


----------



## GypsyOne

NeverGiveUp....What's happening on June 28, 2017?


----------



## Never Give Up

GypsyOne said:


> NeverGiveUp....What's happening on June 28, 2017?


I havent had it confirmed yet, but the Edmonton hearings are being continued for final arguments June 28th.


----------



## truthr

A few people tried to share a link about another case and the link did not work because it led to my "secret" Facebook group, then I sent it via email to an admin but for some reason he did not post it.  Here is the public link about the Lydiatt V Banff Rocky Mountain case in 2008

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/d...tocompleteStr=2008 ABPC 333&autocompletePos=1


----------



## servemeout

I have just had a conversation with an investigator with Service Alberta concerning the collection calls from TCM.  She has asked that if anyone else is getting collection calls from TCM that they file a complaint if you live in Alberta.  She has been in contact with them and will be following up on this situation. This was for the MF at LOR.


----------



## servemeout

Service Alberta has confirmed that TCM is not licensed in Alberta as of June 15,2017.  The agency and all collectors must be licensed in Alberta to make collection calls in Alberta.


----------



## owner1

Everyone will have their savings gone.  You talk about the poor owners that are being harassed into paying their fees.  The owners on this site are causing all of us money.  Legal fees, no annual dues paid.  You are the weasels.  You cannot find information thats on the site.   The legacy owners were given a reduction in the amount paid to leave or stay.  You are posting the bad reviews.  If you think you owe to much money now, wait till you cause the bankruptcy of YOUR PROPERTY.


----------



## servemeout

Owner1 - The Timeshare is *not* my property.  Not now or ever.  We only "share time".  The property is owned by the same "mastermind"  behind the "let's tell the time owners that they owe for ALL of the resort to be renovated", but everyone now know that that is not going to happen.  There is no chlorine in my gene pool, unlike some others.  I have paid my share of legal fees to support my views, but will not pay legal fees to have northmont take action against us. I hope you are correct on the bankruptcy issue, as this would put this situation in a different light. I can not see any CCAA protection the second time around.  Even the dumbest dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.  My opinion is bankruptcy is very possible. The court process that was started by the same no so mastermind will drag on and your maintenance fees will continue to increase.  Refusal to give our hard earned cash does not make a weasel.  My savings will not be gone, but we have been robbed of our paid "time share" and our 23 years of vacation time, all by the same "mastermind."  Let's re-phrase mastermind to something else - warped, simple, convoluted,  confused, and many others.  There will be some point were owners like you will realize that the cost is too high.  Are you willing to pay 2,3,4,5 thousand a year for your week in a property that you do not own.


----------



## Spark1

servemeout said:


> Owner1 - The Timeshare is *not* my property.  Not now or ever.  We only "share time".  The property is owned by the same "mastermind"  behind the "let's tell the time owners that they owe for ALL of the resort to be renovated", but everyone now know that that is not going to happen.  There is no chlorine in my gene pool, unlike some others.  I have paid my share of legal fees to support my views, but will not pay legal fees to have northmont take action against us. I hope you are correct on the bankruptcy issue, as this would put this situation in a different light. I can not see any CCAA protection the second time around.  Even the dumbest dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.  My opinion is bankruptcy is very possible. The court process that was started by the same no so mastermind will drag on and your maintenance fees will continue to increase.  Refusal to give our hard earned cash does not make a weasel.  My savings will not be gone, but we have been robbed of our paid "time share" and our 23 years of vacation time, all by the same "mastermind."  Let's re-phrase mastermind to something else - warped, simple, convoluted,  confused, and many others.  There will be some point were owners like you will realize that the cost is too high.  Are you willing to pay 2,3,4,5 thousand a year for your week in a property that you do not own.





owner1 said:


> Everyone will have their savings gone.  You talk about the poor owners that are being harassed into paying their fees.  The owners on this site are causing all of us money.  Legal fees, no annual dues paid.  You are the weasels.  You cannot find information thats on the site.   The legacy owners were given a reduction in the amount paid to leave or stay.  You are posting the bad reviews.  If you think you owe to much money now, wait till you cause the bankruptcy of YOUR PROPERTY.


I,f you want to blame someone blame Justice Loo. It is hard for me to believe she did not know that she could not rule on a special case. The other thing I can not believe is she did not know about consumer affairs for all the different provinces and the USA. If she did not she had know business handling this case. How many millions were paid out to these warped people which should not of and they should have to pay all that money back plus credit card interest. When Geldert Law won that appeal all that money should of been paid back. My hope is that all timeshare owners have agreement protection for timeshares like citizens do in Alberta. They all bought from a supplier in Calgary Alberta whether it was Collin Knight or Northwynd. We also have to go after them for legal fee costs. Did Justice Loo and Kirk Wankel know about The Fair Trading Act in Alberta? I feel they did and were hoping we all would cancel before the appeal buy Geldert. How crooked.


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 said:


> I,f you want to blame someone blame Justice Loo. It is hard for me to believe she did not know that she could not rule on a special case. The other thing I can not believe is she did not know about consumer affairs for all the different provinces and the USA. If she did not she had know business handling this case. How many millions were paid out to these warped people which should not of and they should have to pay all that money back plus credit card interest. When Geldert Law won that appeal all that money should of been paid back. My hope is that all timeshare owners have agreement protection for timeshares like citizens do in Alberta. They all bought from a supplier in Calgary Alberta whether it was Collin Knight or Northwynd. We also have to go after them for legal fee costs. Did Justice Loo and Kirk Wankel know about The Fair Trading Act in Alberta? I feel they did and were hoping we all would cancel before the appeal buy Geldert. How crooked.



Do you know why Geldert did not use or bring up the Fair Trading Act anywhere in our defense?


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> Do you know why Geldert did not use or bring up the Fair Trading Act anywhere in our defense?



That is a good question. I was the one that emailed him the Banff Rocky Mountain case and I do not know if he knew about that case before I sent it to him. The question I have for you pertains to the "Edwards v Resort Villa Management Ltd, 2015 ABQB 424" Two of the plaintiffs are senior members of the legal profession. Did they not know about the Fair Trading Act? I feel they all overlooked the Fair Trading Act and I do not Know why. That Act is very important and this should of been over at least two years ago. I know Service Alberta was bad for telling time owners when they phoned in that there was nothing they could do for them and to hire a Lawyer. That was not true and I told the director of the Fair Trading Act  Darren Thomas do not tell them that and explain to them how the Act protects Timeshare Owners. What did Norton Rose know about the Fair Trading Act and the BC Consumers Act? This has cost the time owners millions and no one is responsible really.


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 said:


> That is a good question. I was the one that emailed him the Banff Rocky Mountain case and I do not know if he knew about that case before I sent it to him. The question I have for you pertains to the "Edwards v Resort Villa Management Ltd, 2015 ABQB 424" Two of the plaintiffs are senior members of the legal profession. Did they not know about the Fair Trading Act? I feel they all overlooked the Fair Trading Act and I do not Know why. That Act is very important and this should of been over at least two years ago. I know Service Alberta was bad for telling time owners when they phoned in that there was nothing they could do for them and to hire a Lawyer. That was not true and I told the director of the Fair Trading Act  Darren Thomas do not tell them that and explain to them how the Act protects Timeshare Owners. What did Norton Rose know about the Fair Trading Act and the BC Consumers Act? This has cost the time owners millions and no one is responsible really.


Thanks.  Mysteries abound!


----------



## BettyBoop52

What a mess. My heart goes out to those fighting Northwynd and I wish you all the best luck possible. The Hillside units were so beautiful back in the late '90s when we bought in and it's a shame to hear that they're so derelict now. I don't know how the resort owner(s) can sleep at night knowing that they've scammed so many people. I'm glad we opted to pay the "exit fee" and are done with these cheaters (as pensioners living on fixed income, we didn't think it would be financially feasible for us to do battle with a big corporation) but it still makes me angry to think that we lost all that money and they unfairly profited from us. I hope it's true what they say about Karma.


----------



## GypsyOne

BettyBoop52 said:


> What a mess. My heart goes out to those fighting Northwynd and I wish you all the best luck possible. The Hillside units were so beautiful back in the late '90s when we bought in and it's a shame to hear that they're so derelict now. I don't know how the resort owner(s) can sleep at night knowing that they've scammed so many people. I'm glad we opted to pay the "exit fee" and are done with these cheaters (as pensioners living on fixed income, we didn't think it would be financially feasible for us to do battle with a big corporation) but it still makes me angry to think that we lost all that money and they unfairly profited from us. I hope it's true what they say about Karma.


It will be difficult to get justice in B.C. who does not want a major tourist attraction to fail and with a compliant legal system that knows the rules of the game. A much better chance for justice to prevail in the rest of Canada.


----------



## truthr

For anyone who is a client of Geldert Law and is not currently a member of the "secret" Facebook group for clients only, please contact me to find out how to become a member.


----------



## truthr

There has been some new documents posted on the Sunchaser website, here are the links for anyone who is interested:

https://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/court-proceedings/

https://sunchaservillas.ca/owners/financial-reports/


----------



## Spark1

truthr said:


> There has been some new documents posted on the Sunchaser website, here are the links for anyone who is interested:
> Northwynd and Norton Rose try to paint a picture like they did everything right. If that was the case why has this taken 4 years to resolve and who knows how many more years. Here are my reasons why this has taken so long.
> We do not trust the justice system. When there are 18000 timeshares there should of been a forensic audit done before anything else. What protection did us timeshare owners have before this resort was turned over to the new owners. We had a right to know what went on with that resort when Collin Knight owned it before there was a new owner. We are the ones paying the bills not Northwynd. When Justice Loo made her judgement on a special case and she should not of were all the time owners that paid contacted and given the option to receive their money back. I know if I paid I would of wanted that option. Northwynd are you saying that the 43% that cancelled were in favour of allowing you to move buildings out of the timeshare I do not think so. Northwynd what respect have you got for our legal documents called our contracts I know none. What respect do you have for all the consumer protection documents that we all signed and Collin Knight witnessed. I know none. Northwynd did you even care about the thousands of dollars that us time owners are out because of you greedy people. If I was running this show I would of personally worked with the timeshare owners and gave them a voice in how to turn this resort around. You think you are the only business people believe me you are not. I bet there was many successful time owners that would of made this work and I know many owners hated what you people have done and just recent you. You are discussing greedy humans. This was a great timeshare and we were paying plenty? Where did the money go?
> https://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/court-proceedings/
> 
> https://sunchaservillas.ca/owners/financial-reports/


----------



## truthr

Just want to clarify - I don't know what Spark1 is doing that doesn't separate what I said and what they said but I did not say everything that is within the above quote, for clarification please see my post above Spark1's attempt to quote me and respond.


----------



## sad_world

Greetings everyone, 

   My poor aunt's situation just went from nightmarish to potentially life-ending because of these parasites. She lives in the U.S. and has now had someone attempt to serve her papers from Northwynd. Her sister was house-sitting for her, so the papers weren't served, and we don't know what they were exactly. 

   How does a Canadian company serve papers to a U.S. citizen? Can they extradite, or do they summon you to a Canadian court? Are the papers they're currently serving a summons to court, or simply a bill? I'm hoping others here have any info or guidance for my aunt, as the amount of money that Northwynd is trying to take from her will ruin her.

   My aunt is suffering from early stages of Alzheimer's and can't really provide me much background information, so I don't know if she joined any of the class action lawsuits in the past. 

   Truthr, I would love to be able to join your facebook group but don't see any way of sending you a direct PM on this forum. 

   To others, if anyone knows what sort of paperwork they're sending to U.S. citizens and what to expect when my aunt eventually gets served, I would appreciate any information to help her avoid financial annihilation.

   To Northwynd, if any of you read this forum, I hope there's a very special place in hell for you all. What you're doing to helpless and elderly people is unconscionable. Kirk Wankel, I hope someday to make it to Canada and let everyone in your town know what a horrible, heartless piece of garbage you are. Shame on you.


----------



## truthr

sad_world said:


> Greetings everyone,
> 
> My poor aunt's situation just went from nightmarish to potentially life-ending because of these parasites. She lives in the U.S. and has now had someone attempt to serve her papers from Northwynd. Her sister was house-sitting for her, so the papers weren't served, and we don't know what they were exactly.
> 
> How does a Canadian company serve papers to a U.S. citizen? Can they extradite, or do they summon you to a Canadian court? Are the papers they're currently serving a summons to court, or simply a bill? I'm hoping others here have any info or guidance for my aunt, as the amount of money that Northwynd is trying to take from her will ruin her.
> 
> My aunt is suffering from early stages of Alzheimer's and can't really provide me much background information, so I don't know if she joined any of the class action lawsuits in the past.
> 
> Truthr, I would love to be able to join your facebook group but don't see any way of sending you a direct PM on this forum.
> 
> To others, if anyone knows what sort of paperwork they're sending to U.S. citizens and what to expect when my aunt eventually gets served, I would appreciate any information to help her avoid financial annihilation.
> 
> To Northwynd, if any of you read this forum, I hope there's a very special place in hell for you all. What you're doing to helpless and elderly people is unconscionable. Kirk Wankel, I hope someday to make it to Canada and let everyone in your town know what a horrible, heartless piece of garbage you are. Shame on you.




Hi Sad World -  I have sent you a private message, which on this site is classified as a "conversation".


----------



## Spark1

sad_world said:


> Greetings everyone,
> 
> My poor aunt's situation just went from nightmarish to potentially life-ending because of these parasites. She lives in the U.S. and has now had someone attempt to serve her papers from Northwynd. Her sister was house-sitting for her, so the papers weren't served, and we don't know what they were exactly.
> 
> How does a Canadian company serve papers to a U.S. citizen? Can they extradite, or do they summon you to a Canadian court? Are the papers they're currently serving a summons to court, or simply a bill? I'm hoping others here have any info or guidance for my aunt, as the amount of money that Northwynd is trying to take from her will ruin her.
> 
> My aunt is suffering from early stages of Alzheimer's and can't really provide me much background information, so I don't know if she joined any of the class action lawsuits in the past.
> 
> Truthr, I would love to be able to join your facebook group but don't see any way of sending you a direct PM on this forum.
> 
> To others, if anyone knows what sort of paperwork they're sending to U.S. citizens and what to expect when my aunt eventually gets served, I would appreciate any information to help her avoid financial annihilation.
> 
> To Northwynd, if any of you read this forum, I hope there's a very special place in hell for you all. What you're doing to helpless and elderly people is unconscionable. Kirk Wankel, I hope someday to make it to Canada and let everyone in your town know what a horrible, heartless piece of garbage you are. Shame on you.


Sorry to hear what is happening to your aunt. I would recommend you to get a hold of consumer affairs in the state that your aunt is from and they will be able to tell you if a company from Canada can legally do this. Find out if they need a licence in her state and if you have to talk to the governor of that state. In Canada consumer affairs is different from province to province and it might be that way in the USA. Ask Consumer Affairs in that State how Timeshare Owners are protected if they buy in another country. I feel when Justice Loo made the decision when she did and should not of many of the timeshare owners would not of paniced and paid. Northwynd immediately collected millions when they should not of. This hurt our case and it makes you wonder do judges protect judges. Be smart and keep your money. This case is far from over. Remember we own nothing but time not real estate. When they can show me my name on the land title at land titles I might consider but I do not agree with who the Alberta Judge turned the resort over to without a forensic audit.


----------



## sad_world

Question to everyone: does anyone else on this board have recent experiences with someone attempting to serve you papers from Northwynd? 

Truthr, thank you, I will check that now.

Spark1, thank you and bless you for the comforting words, which I need right now as I'm in full meltdown mode over this thing. Good reminder to take a breath, recognize that there are good people and institutions out there to protect the little person, and to remember that this sort of situation does move slowly and it's not over yet. 

I actually spent about 8 hours yesterday trying to catch up on the previous 89 pages of this thread, haha. On page 7, user THE AVENGER made a most interesting post, especially this section, which feels to me like the origin story of the metastasizing of this cancerous nightmare (emphasis mine):

http://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php?...-with-lawsuit-info.182857/page-7#post-1465396

"1. Who are we dealing with?
As I understand it!
Several years ago (6 or 7) we were offered an investment opportunity by a group from Fairmont called FRPL (Fairmont Resort Properties Limited) which promised to pay 12% on our investment. The key presenter of the scheme was Ed Nochalt. Colin Knight was there as well as others of the Fairmont group. We never invested but several people invested large sums into this plan. Some I know personally invested $100,000-$150,000 and much more. Interest payments were made for a few months then stopped. * When Fairmont went into receivership, several of these investors (whom I know personally), formed a company called Northwynd and took over the assets of Fairmont. They knew nothing about running a timeshare company so left the same administration in place (who had run it into the ground by skimming large sums into their pockets).
These investors (Northwynd), have devised a scheme (using a very clever lawyer) to recover some of their investment. The cash call for refurbishing will likely be funneled off to these investors by calling it repayment of loans or payments to creditors. This may be legal from the so called trust funds. There are no indications where the funds from those who are opting out will be allocated to. They are to go to a trust account of the lawyer. What are the conditions of this trust and what is it for? I understand it will go into the pockets of the Northwynd investors group."*


----------



## sue1947

Sad_World:
  Some perspective for you:  a woman in the early stages of Alzheimers is essentially judgement proof.   You need legal advise from a lawyer, not timeshare owners on an internet website.  An hour of time will, I believe, allay your fears and put this behind you.  The lawyer can advise you on what course is best for her given her needs for care and how bankruptcy might impact that care.  Other than the care situation, she no longer needs credit.  So first check with a lawyer and then tell Northwynd to take a flying leap (possibly on the lawyers letterhead).  
This sounds like bully tactics on Northwynds part to scare people into giving them more money.  

Sue


----------



## sad_world

Thank you Sue, it is always wise to take advice on the internet with a grain of salt. Half the people who go to WebMD with a case of the sniffles comes away convinced they have inoperable brain cancer.

Again, my main concern is what exactly the summons is. Is it simply a bill for dues owed, that Norhtwynd is sending out through certified summons agents, so they can prove that people know they owe money? Or is it an actual summons to court. That's the piece of info I was hoping to get from, perhaps others here who have actually been served.

The two points of stress here are - not knowing what the summons contains makes it difficult to consult with an attorney before my aunt is served. And the fact that my aunt's record keeping is so chaotic, I can't collate enough past information to provide an attorney so they have the full backstory.

I will also contact the lawyer who handled the class action suit in order to see if my aunt had joined that back before she lost track of reality.

I really appreciate everyone's input more than I can possibly express. This is the most horrific, Kafkaesque thing I have ever experienced within my extended family. Who would imagine that a friggin' _timeshare company_ could inflict more terror in the hearts of such a large group of people than ISIS or the Mexican drug cartels.

And again, if anyone has been served in the last week or so and has information on what the served papers contain, that would be very helpful. Feel free to message me directly if you don't want to discuss it publicly.


----------



## servemeout

After getting our last update (we are part of the rotten delinquent group), I did a few calculations.  Keep in mind all of the communications that we have been sent by Northwynd.  Renovation fees was for ALL units to be done.  Northwynd wants to remove 138 units of 250 units.  Here is the math:  138 units x $4,000 per unit x 50 weeks = $27,600,000.   We made the correct decision not to pay.  How long will the "resort" survive?

On another note, we also purchased at LOR.  On Good Friday the collection calls started from TCM for LOR fees.  After exceeding the number allowed calls in a seven day period, I contacted Service Alberta.  Presently there is a Director's Order issued by Service Alberta on June 21, 2017.  The Order focused on TCM not being licensed in Alberta.  There is no record that TCM filed an Appeal which should have been done by July 27/17.  You have rights concerning collection agencies.  The Act also allows you to demand an accounting of your account.  Part of the accounting requires that  they supply the name of the owner. The timeshare interests was not part of the initial sale of the LOR property.  So much for the baloney that we were given that the Calgary office was collecting on behalf of the new owners.  What a deal - collect the maintenance fees for LOR but do no maintenance.  We were even offered that Northwhatever would forgive the interest if we paid by a certain date.  The common theme is collect the money and do nothing.  Collect money for Sunchaser, collect money for LOR and if you do not pay we will sue you for your first born.  Personally go ahead and keep the first born, and I will not ask for a buy back residual at age 18.


----------



## LifeIsNotAVideoGameWanker

sad_world said:


> Question to everyone: does anyone else on this board have recent experiences with someone attempting to serve you papers from Northwynd?



We were served in June with a notice of civil claim that outlines the plaintiff's arguments and what they are looking for as a resolution. We ignored it because the civil claim was filed in BC Supreme Court (because we don't reside in Alberta or BC apparently) over 1 year ago, so the civil claim was expired. Haven't heard anything since. If it was for BC supreme court, you can search their online database to see when the claim was filed at https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/partySearch.do You can purchase a copy of the claim for $6.00. I think the other court have similar databases on the Internet.


----------



## truthr

If anyone here is a client of the Geldert Law litigation group and not a member of the Facebook "secret" group and would like to join the group please send me a private message either here through this site or on Facebook (Truth Renaissance).


----------



## J's Garage

Well here's the latest piece that continues to add to the setback.  It's from almost 2 weeks ago and there hasn't been much mention of it yet. 

The Alberta decision has been released and it's not good news


" _ For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the Amended Dispute Notes and Counterclaims of the Defendants should be struck for being res judicata, an abuse of process and vexatious. Further, I am prepared to grant judgment to the Plaintiff in the amounts claimed in the Amended Civil Claims, subject to the issues of costs, interest, and expiration of civil claims, as I will detail in this decision."
_
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/d...l?autocompleteStr=northmont&autocompletePos=1


----------



## J's Garage

Are there any other social media sites that group members may be discussing the reactions to the latest events?  It would be comforting to be able to know how others are planning on addressing the latest announced decision.  

Are there other consumers who are not part of the Geldert file who are trying to understand how they can be affected?


----------



## Spark1

J's Garage said:


> Are there any other social media sites that group members may be discussing the reactions to the latest events?  It would be comforting to be able to know how others are planning on addressing the latest announced decision.
> 
> Are there other consumers who are not part of the Geldert file who are trying to understand how they can be affected?


Yes we know of a club it is called Northwynd/BCJudges/AlbertaJudges/extortionClub and they are looking for members like you. They are deciding what other capital costs they need to collect on they are looking at adding a new air strip to the resort and what they need to charge each time Share owner seeing this is part of the resort. This will be easy to enforce because Northwynd was able to bypass the Time Share Contracts or VIA’s and petition the Supreme Court to pull off their Extortion and they did not even discuss this with the time Share owners. They were able to convince these judges that the last bankrupted owner did not charge enough on their maintenance fees and that is why the resort is in the condition it is in. They were able to pull this off without having a forensic audit and the time Share owners will never know where their maintenance money went. Northwynd and their Judges showed the time share owners that they did not have to breach their contracts all they had to do is petition the Supreme Court in BC have Justice Loo make a error on deciding on a special case. Have many time Share owners drink the koolaid and the rest of the judges protect her decision. The only justice time share owners will ever have is a case where a judge will understand our contracts. This might have to be done with the Supreme Court of Canada because we will never get justice in BC or Alberta unless we get the educated judge that understands consumer protection. This is my last post.


----------



## J's Garage

That's not overly helpful.  Is it not your lawyer's job (and charge) to enter into the courtroom the points of the contracts for the judge to understand them?  With the BC appeal being thrown out, what is the next action?

I have read some of the court documents.  This legal plan in action is absolutely frightening to think of it reaching the Supreme Court of Canada.  

"... I observe that the courts in this province have proceeded on the basis that the test case would resolve all liability issues. _Certain issues_, *which arguably could have been put in issue*, _were not put in issue_...."(emphasis added)


----------



## J's Garage

The recent Goldberg decision (BC) appeal that was dismissed Nov 10, 2017.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2017/2017bcca404/2017bcca404.html


----------



## DaveO

Am I reading this correctly? Because of decisions that Geldert and JEKE made now everyone is screwed??

"......The Court concluded that the judge did not err in failing to consider the parties’ intentions in circumstances at the time the agreement was made as it might have done if JEKE had pleaded that the contracts were standard form contracts. It is evident that the Courts have proceeded on a certain premise that is inconsistent with the position that the appellants now seek to advance."


----------



## Real World

DaveO said:


> Am I reading this correctly? Because of decisions that Geldert and JEKE made now everyone is screwed??
> 
> "......The Court concluded that the judge did not err in failing to consider the parties’ intentions in circumstances at the time the agreement was made as it might have done if JEKE had pleaded that the contracts were standard form contracts. It is evident that the Courts have proceeded on a certain premise that is inconsistent with the position that the appellants now seek to advance."



I am not sure that the decisions that Geldert and JEKE made screwed everyone.......it may be reasonable to think that the issues raised in  and decided by the courts with regards to the Geldert/JEKE litigation have been dealt with some finality. 

I am not a lawyer but I do expect that if there was any chance of a more favourable outcome focused around standard form contracts the respective legal councils would have advanced that issue aggressively right from the outset.

Perhaps the only course of action remaining is the Supreme Court.

"Most appeals are heard by the Court only if leave is first given. Leave to appeal is granted by the Court if, for example, the case involves a question of public importance or if it raises an important issue of law (or an issue of both law and fact) that warrants consideration by the Court. The Court’s decision whether to grant leave to appeal is based on its assessment of the public importance of the legal issues raised in the case in question. The Court thus has control over its docket and is able to supervise the growth and development of Canadian jurisprudence."


----------



## Spark1

Real World said:


> I am not sure that the decisions that Geldert and JEKE made screwed everyone.......it may be reasonable to think that the issues raised in  and decided by the courts with regards to the Geldert/JEKE litigation have been dealt with some finality.
> 
> I am not a lawyer but I do expect that if there was any chance of a more favourable outcome focused around standard form contracts the respective legal councils would have advanced that issue aggressively right from the outset.
> 
> Perhaps the only course of action remaining is the Supreme Court.
> 
> "Most appeals are heard by the Court only if leave is first given. Leave to appeal is granted by the Court if, for example, the case involves a question of public importance or if it raises an important issue of law (or an issue of both law and fact) that warrants consideration by the Court. The Court’s decision whether to grant leave to appeal is based on its assessment of the public importance of the legal issues raised in the case in question. The Court thus has control over its docket and is able to supervise the growth and development of Canadian jurisprudence."


The question is why did this get so complicated? The Lawyers got rich off of innocent time Share owners  mostly seniors. Does the Trustee have the right to petition the Supreme Court to cause this unfair practice and disrespect for our Time Share Contracts. Show me using my 2002 contract where it says I have any legal interest whatsoever in the vacation units which would give them the right to charge this Special Assessment. They talk about the Trust Agreement that was never brought up when we went over our contract at the resort. Why did we not get a copy of this. Where can we get a copy so we can read where the Trustee has the right to do this and over ride our VIA’s. Did this Trustee take part in this cancellation agreement? As a reminder,until the Cancellation Agreement is accepted and approved by Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.,you will continue to be the owner of your VIA and responsible for the obligations therein. That is great you pay all that money and never know when you are released from the resort and you do not know how much more you are going to have to pay. Did the Judges read this this can not be legal. If the VIA Contracts read this way their is no need for this Trustee to petition the Supreme Court is there? We all now have the right to a copy of that Trust Agreement. We all fall under the office in Calgary seeing BC protection and the Office of the Superindent had northing to do with this. I call this a unfair practice.   The unfair practice is made or received in Alberta and involves a supplier’s representative.   Every one should Phone Darren Thomas the Director of The Fair Trading ACT and it does not matter where you live Because Northmont’s Office is in Calgary Alberta not BC. Insist on having a investigation pertaining to this unfair practice.    Phone. Darren at  1-780-422-8046. And his email is.     darren.thomas@gov.ab.ca
I do not care how much Northmont has to pay out they own the property not me. We pay maintenance fees designed by the manager period.


----------



## Spark1

First of all I can not comment on how things are going to work out for co-owners. I have talked to a co-owner and when this person  bought she was told the buildings were in great condition and the two bank accounts were in great shape. Was that a sales pitch I do not know.  Our time is a (right-to-use)timeshare,which refers to a Lease Like Agreement. In this type of timeshare your lease expires after a specified time and you have no Property Ownership Rights in the Property. Why did the Trustee think we were responsible to pay 4100.00 per 2bedroom sleep 8 or 3100.00 per 2 bedroom we do not own the property. Who designed this cancellation agreement? You are not cancelled. If the Trustee did this what did Northmont promise him? What do these Judges Know about timeshare. I feel the Lawyers Know  little about timeshare also and it has cost us lots. Use the  CONSUMERHANDBOOK.CA and read about timeshare. Also search Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA).  1800-328-6189. Canada They say a contract is binding when the following is true.  The parties receive something(eg. the company receives money and you a service) in return for their promises. When we bought this timeshare we went though the Vacation Villa Lease and the Fairmont Vacation Villas Consumer Protection Agreement and we signed and had witnessed these document there was no mention about this Trust Agreement. We all need a copy of this Trust Agreement which this Trustee has used against us. I want to see in that Agreement where he has the right to petition the Supreme Court Of BC and over ride our Lease Agreement or Contracts? If he can we should of received this Resort Trust Agreement and been able to read and ask questions. We would never of bought into this timeshare knowing what this Trustee had the power to do. What was the point of having a Vacation Villa Lease Contract? Good luck and take care of Seniors they are being bullied by Northmont.


----------



## Meow

Spark1 - Bad mouthing our legal representation (and there is more than one lawyer involved) does little to improve our cause.  The Courts view our case on strict commercial legal principles.  Fairness and business integrity carry no weight.
We are simply victims of "caveat emptor".
I hope others will take our story into consideration before entering the sleazy and corrupt world of "Timesharing in Canada".


----------



## Spark1

Meow said:


> Spark1 - Bad mouthing our legal representation (and there is more than one lawyer involved) does little to improve our cause.  The Courts view our case on strict commercial legal principles.  Fairness and business integrity carry no weight.
> We are simply victims of "caveat emptor".
> I hope others will take our story into consideration before entering the sleazy and corrupt world of "Timesharing in Canada".


I am not bad mouthing our Lawyer. Only in this business and politics can they waste our time and money and at the end of the day we still do not have Justice. I forgot how many years has this been going on? Please say something more useful like does the Trustee have the right to petition the Supreme Court and bypass our Lease Contracts. I have the right to freedom of speech just like the legal representation has the right to assess me. This case should of been over with years ago. We are only victims if we do not fight back and I will fight back.


----------



## Just Looking Around

Understand there has been an agreement between Geldert Group and Northwynd. I'm not part of that group. I haven't paid this year and won't. Waiting to be sued. Still not paying. Final answer.


----------



## Spark1

Just Looking Around said:


> Understand there has been an agreement between Geldert Group and Northwynd. I'm not part of that group. I haven't paid this year and won't. Waiting to be sued. Still not paying. Final answer.


I call it senior abuse. I am saying this because the majority are Seniors but it will hurt every one. You buy a timeshare,you make maintenance payments which cover everything controlled by their managers every year and we owe them money ? Northmont go to hell you will never be done with me until l say you are done with me. I am over 70 and will not take shit from any one.


----------



## Punter

Was anyone at the Petition hearing yesterday, December 15th at the BC Court? I'd like to know what happened or at least what you were told about the Petition.

Geldert told us that in seeking a lower cost to exit from our VIAs, we could get a better deal by leveraging our 'ability' to oppose Northwynd's Petition to realign the Resort. 

Geldert also told us that we would have input into any settlement he agreed to on our behalf. However, he didn't exactly say we'd have an opportunity to reject this agreement. I sought clarification from Geldert's office but did not get a response. 

We now have an agreement. We don't know the details.  We've not had an opportunity for input, as promised. 

If we didn't oppose the Petition yesterday, then we no longer have any bargaining power.  Right?


----------



## Spark1

Punter said:


> Was anyone at the Petition hearing yesterday, December 15th at the BC Court? I'd like to know what happened or at least what you were told about the Petition.
> 
> Geldert told us that in seeking a lower cost to exit from our VIAs, we could get a better deal by leveraging our 'ability' to oppose Northwynd's Petition to realign the Resort.
> 
> Geldert also told us that we would have input into any settlement he agreed to on our behalf. However, he didn't exactly say we'd have an opportunity to reject this agreement. I sought clarification from Geldert's office but did not get a response.
> 
> We now have an agreement. We don't know the details.  We've not had an opportunity for input, as promised.
> 
> If we didn't oppose the Petition yesterday, then we no longer have any bargaining power.  Right?


That is not true. Do we have conditions for Northwynd,Do we have conditions for our Lawyer if he did not follow threw what he said he was going to do before you checked the little box, do we have a condo association? Do you feel it is a little one sided. There is a lot we can do like set up meetings with your Politions. Talk to Canadian Consumer Affairs and explain every thing to them eg. we have Vacation Villa Leases not agreements. Ask them how Vacation Villa Consumer Protection Agreements protects us. Do we live in Canada or do we live in Syria? It is Time that this Timeshare garbage is taken to a higher Court if we do not get Justice. Do you believe it is your responsibity to more then double pay maintenance fees for a company that got creditors Protection and now Northmont is putting the screws to us. Our Lawyer knows dam well what conditions we laid out for him to follow he had better follow them. What that means he better not try to sell us down the river. We have rights and I do not like to be treated like a criminal because we bought into a timeshare.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

I agree Spark1.  Lawyer has to consult with each of us before signing, it has to be a "fantastic" deal to not proceed to the Petition.  There's no deal if we're simply getting a discount, even a big discount on all the fees and charges and interest that we legally never should have paid regardless.  We fought this not to pay these crooks these made up capital costs that were not seriously to be used for the resort anyways...btw where did those fees go that people already paid?  Exactly.  

Why in the world would anyone accept a deal that isn't substantially below the original cost of their fabricated cancellation fee?  I mean, after years of this, paying the legal fees, we're not going to pony up and line these crook's pockets.  Geldert assured the group what deal he was going to get or no deal at all before this negotiation.  He said we could trust him.  We'll find out pretty soon.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

WOW!!!

Option 1 is going to cost a fortune for the fight group - guess a lawyer losing every real battle also makes them a pathetic negotiator.

Northwynd is getting the best Christmas present ever - not only are the people who decided to stand up screwed but so are the people who stayed as now there is nothing in the way to protect them from paying whatever management wants when they want it.

And to all a good night....


----------



## Spark1

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> WOW!!!
> 
> Option 1 is going to cost a fortune for the fight group - guess a lawyer losing every real battle also makes them a pathetic negotiator.
> 
> Northwynd is getting the best Christmas present ever - not only are the people who decided to stand up screwed but so are the people who stayed as now there is nothing in the way to protect them from paying whatever management wants when they want it.
> 
> And to all a good night....


This is a good example of Extortion. People do not fall for this. I will be meeting with our local Politician in the new year to go over this scam. Also set up meetings with the Justice Minister in your province. Our timeshare is a right to use Lease and at the end of the lease we do not own any property. Ask your Lawyer if this Trustee can legally Petition the Supreme Court. I do not see this any where in my Lease. This was the start of all this trouble. Do you feel that all the years you lost using your timeshare has cost you a lot of money then send them a bill. There is no law saying that you can not send them a bill. Also demand where they are coming up with their numbers. I will pay them nothing this is extortion and I am prepared to die to fight for my property and we did not have to extort other people to get it. Be strong and call their bluff. This is Senior Abuse at the best.


----------



## TimesharesBlow

We’re were in our 20’s when we bought a timeshare terrace unit biennial for $10,000. We were sold by a slick salesman and promised cheap vacations every couple years for our $350 maintenance fee in the years of vacation. We were smitten by the mountains(having just moved to Alberta from Ontario) and look forward to bringing our then baby girl and future family. We went a couple years and then bought another biennial unit on the resale market for $4,000. We joked that we did get ripped off for the $10k originally considering what the resale market was. 

Then the charade with the tripling of maintenance fees and then the scam of the RFP. I am so glad we never invested in their RRSP investment offering or Legacy for Life offering(we couldn’t have afforded it even if we wanted to). This was supposed to be a cheaper way to travel with the family. We have now lost years of vacationing and memories. We are in the thick of life with 3 kids and all their schooling and activity fees. They already got their money from us and more for the actual vacation time we had. We don’t even have the money to pay. 

I will never, ever, ever pay these crooks. 
Right is still right. Wrong is still wrong. This is a sophisticated con that has no value. They already got paid as far as I’m concerned. They got about $17,000 for 4-5 total weeks of vacation in a 2 bedroom unit that should have cost about $4,000 total with any Airbnb. I’d say they did pretty well.


----------



## Spark1

TimesharesBlow said:


> We’re were in our 20’s when we bought a timeshare terrace unit biennial for $10,000. We were sold by a slick salesman and promised cheap vacations every couple years for our $350 maintenance fee in the years of vacation. We were smitten by the mountains(having just moved to Alberta from Ontario) and look forward to bringing our then baby girl and future family. We went a couple years and then bought another biennial unit on the resale market for $4,000. We joked that we did get ripped off for the $10k originally considering what the resale market was.
> 
> Then the charade with the tripling of maintenance fees and then the scam of the RFP. I am so glad we never invested in their RRSP investment offering or Legacy for Life offering(we couldn’t have afforded it even if we wanted to). This was supposed to be a cheaper way to travel with the family. We have now lost years of vacationing and memories. We are in the thick of life with 3 kids and all their schooling and activity fees. They already got their money from us and more for the actual vacation time we had. We don’t even have the money to pay.
> 
> I will never, ever, ever pay these crooks.
> Right is still right. Wrong is still wrong. This is a sophisticated con that has no value. They already got paid as far as I’m concerned. They got about $17,000 for 4-5 total weeks of vacation in a 2 bedroom unit that should have cost about $4,000 total with any Airbnb. I’d say they did pretty well.


There is a lot of sad stories out there. Look what happened to the Legacy For Life Owners. They were told that the buildings had to be inspected before they could sell this and that the buildings were in great shape and there was lots of money in those two accounts. Every one should see your politician and insist on having a investigation on these crooks. Also go after the minister of Justice and let them know all you had was a Lease and you lost the right to use because of this Trustee of the resort. Also get the government to go after Northmont to find out how they come up with these crazy prices and we have no one watching over them like a condo Association. This is not over yet. They are Fear Mongering


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Well, what's the  path look like for refusing to pay?  They keep harassing you, they keep upping the amount and scaring you, you get a hit on your credit report....is that the situation?  Is that how it plays out?

Geldert said you're not bound by this agreement even if you chose option 1, he said you could fire him as counsel and free of the agreement...well it seems you can just refuse the agreement and be free of it.  

I was told we would each be individually consulted on the offer before it was agreed to.  That's not what happened.  The agreement was made and we were notified, ie. told what it was.


----------



## Timeshare Justice denied

I can only respond by saying I am extremely disappointed and hope that someday Kharma or whatever catches up to Wankel and the people who manage this fiasco. Shame on you !!!
Shame on the shady management company that bought a resort for cheap, did little to nothing to improve it and then give the illusion to want to make a go of it when we all know it is doomed to fail. Let's not kid ourselves the bulk of that money is not going towards the Resort itself. This venture was doomed to fail as soon as they took over. As soon as it happened and they started about the paying to stay or leave I wanted out.

The courts have once again been a disappointment. It does not appear as though they ever took into account the poor management practices of Sunchaser or the financial burdens this imposes on us all. What they have done is absolves Sunchaser of mismanagement and poor business practices and given them carte blanche to print money. What management company doesn't set aside monies for eventual repairs/maintenance?  that get away with not providing annual statements? ....

As for our litigation group I can only be honest and say that I am extremely upset that we were made to believe that this could be appealed based on their initial messaging and positive language. I honestly viewed this group as standing up for the individuals to do the right thing and get some justice. I never expected to not have to pay anything but what is being suggested right now is ridiculous....

I assume, like us, that most of you were initially swayed into buying by the promise of "worry free" vacationing at a reasonable price, that it would be "something to be proud of for years to come" and allow us quality vacations with our families. Based on that what was there to lose? Worst case in years to follow we turn it in if we do not use it anymore and lose our $10,000+ "investment".
Fast forward a few years, maintenance fees have more than doubled, Platinum Club (which cost an additional $!00 year) folded, Interval fees (over $100/year for gold), lock off fee of $100+ and then.... when not using Fairmont putting our weeks into Interval which amounted to very little as the resort was low demand year round so very little exchange power for other resorts.
SO a week of holiday averages to about $2500/week. And during our last stay, more than 5 years ago, the room we stayed in was pitiful condition. SO MUCH for quality and affordability.

Today, after 2+ years later of litigation and not having used the resort since 2011 (given all the aforementioned)..... I will find myself having to pay $1000+ in legal fees as well as several more years of maintenance fees and accrued interest rather than having initially paid what these vultures and absolutely crooked management company wanted.

What reasonable person wouldn't be pissed. I have felt sick every time I have to deal with this matter and am incensed at the way this has concluded. Not sure I have ever been so angry or disappointed with something in my life. I am at a loss, I will now bite my tongue. I have said my piece and if it sounds like sour grapes and whining well it is and why wouldn't it be. I have NO idea where the money is going to come from to pay for this.


----------



## Just Looking Around

Punter called it. What happened to the opportunity for Geldert's Group's members to provide input? What happened to Gelder's strategy of prolonging till they run out of cash? Why the rush to settle? What happened to the Petition before the BC Courts? If that ship sailed, we are all in big trouble. I threw good money after bad, paid to stay and am not part of Gelder's Group.

Lots of questions. Too many for Geldert's team to be considered to have done a good job communicating these complex issues. Not a legal opinion but, having been told you could provide input before it was finalized, at the very least, is misleading.

Geldert's Group doesn't yet know the terms of their agreement with Northwynd but has played their last card? How can that be a good negotiation? How does anyone know Northwynd will even honor any deal?  

The bottom line is Northwynd and all their corporate reincarnations could not, cannot and will not operate a property to today's  standards. Seems they rely on deception and act in bad faith. At some point, they will lose in court. In the meantime, they have the tens of millions they got from those who paid to leave, which wasn't  passed onto the REIT investors nor did they inject that into the Property for the benefit of VIA-holders. Plus they'll have the tens of millions from Geldert's Group, although I don't know the actual math, I am making an assumption. They'll also continue to profit from those who paid to stay, and I hate to do that math.


----------



## Spark1

Timeshare Justice denied said:


> I can only respond by saying I am extremely disappointed and hope that someday Kharma or whatever catches up to Wankel and the people who manage this fiasco. Shame on you !!!
> Shame on the shady management company that bought a resort for cheap, did little to nothing to improve it and then give the illusion to want to make a go of it when we all know it is doomed to fail. Let's not kid ourselves the bulk of that money is not going towards the Resort itself. This venture was doomed to fail as soon as they took over. As soon as it happened and they started about the paying to stay or leave I wanted out.
> 
> The courts have once again been a disappointment. It does not appear as though they ever took into account the poor management practices of Sunchaser or the financial burdens this imposes on us all. What they have done is absolves Sunchaser of mismanagement and poor business practices and given them carte blanche to print money. What management company doesn't set aside monies for eventual repairs/maintenance?  that get away with not providing annual statements? ....
> 
> As for our litigation group I can only be honest and say that I am extremely upset that we were made to believe that this could be appealed based on their initial messaging and positive language. I honestly viewed this group as standing up for the individuals to do the right thing and get some justice. I never expected to not have to pay anything but what is being suggested right now is ridiculous....
> 
> I assume, like us, that most of you were initially swayed into buying by the promise of "worry free" vacationing at a reasonable price, that it would be "something to be proud of for years to come" and allow us quality vacations with our families. Based on that what was there to lose? Worst case in years to follow we turn it in if we do not use it anymore and lose our $10,000+ "investment".
> Fast forward a few years, maintenance fees have more than doubled, Platinum Club (which cost an additional $!00 year) folded, Interval fees (over $100/year for gold), lock off fee of $100+ and then.... when not using Fairmont putting our weeks into Interval which amounted to very little as the resort was low demand year round so very little exchange power for other resorts.
> SO a week of holiday averages to about $2500/week. And during our last stay, more than 5 years ago, the room we stayed in was pitiful condition. SO MUCH for quality and affordability.
> 
> Today, after 2+ years later of litigation and not having used the resort since 2011 (given all the aforementioned)..... I will find myself having to pay $1000+ in legal fees as well as several more years of maintenance fees and accrued interest rather than having initially paid what these vultures and absolutely crooked management company wanted.
> 
> What reasonable person wouldn't be pissed. I have felt sick every time I have to deal with this matter and am incensed at the way this has concluded. Not sure I have ever been so angry or disappointed with something in my life. I am at a loss, I will now bite my tongue. I have said my piece and if it sounds like sour grapes and whining well it is and why wouldn't it be. I have NO idea where the money is going to come from to pay for this.


Always remember we have a Lease and we do not own any property. Ask them to prove that this property is registered in your name at Land Titles in Victoria. Ask them if it is legal for the Trustee,what a name,crook would be better to petition the Supreme Court to do this? THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ITEM HERE NO ONE HAS PROVED TO ME HE CAN DO THIS? I have asked our Lawyer this and he will not answer me. Let’s all lay a law suit against him. Some one will have to answer this question. We only have a Lease just like a car Lease. This Trustee updated his Trust Agreement to 2010 but I will demand that we go back to 2001 and 2002. When we bought there was no mention of a Trust Agreement and they will have to prove to me that this is legal what he did. Do not lay down and do nothing go after Service Alberta or Protection BC and demand that their investigators check this out completely. All of us must insist on the job discription of this Trustee. The Trustee can not do this,there was no mention of this when we bought, because if there was we would not of purchases this timeshare. This now involves Consumer Affairs and lets make them earn their money. This Trustee has talked about being charged and let’s make it happen.


----------



## Spark1

This is definitely my last post. I have to say, what a Christmas Present we received from Northmont and the lawye we use to belong too. We can fall for this if you believe that Judges and Lawyers can force you to accept this Special Assessment or this Cancellation Agreement where you pay and you are never released until they say you are and that might be never. Our X lawyer never could tell me if any of the Lease owners were ever released from the resort. He could never tell me if this wonderful Trustee had the right to Petition the Supreme Court of BC. We never received a trust agreement and Collin Knight never talked about it or did our sales lady. Remember every one we are consumers and we know what we bought,we do not need lawyers or Judges to tell us how to interpret lease documents. I ask myself why did maintenance fees work just fine when Collin Knight owned the resort,i know we are all Northmont's bank, so they think. Have you noticed that Northmont ,the lawyers and the judges involved in this case could care less what we paid up front. Lets remind them that we are consumers again and we paid hard earned cash for this product and we had no problem using that product until the end of the Lease. Northmont took the right to use away from us because we would not fall for this bogus cancellation fee or this Special Assessment. We have a Vacation Villa Lease and maintenance fees covered every thing. I can not tell any one what to do because i am sure Northmont's people are also on this site.    What i can tell you we already set up a date to have a meeting with our politician for our area early January 2018. We will also set up a meeting with the Justice Minister in the new year to let her know that timeshare is a product that is for sale and we are consumers and we will go after Service Alberta.  We also feel this is Extortion or Corporate Fraud. Can you imagine by buying a Timeshare and now Northmont can nail us with $16000.00 or what ever they want for each week if you want to cancel WOW. We never had a problem with Collin Knight. So why did Northwynd take over this resort? You know why.  The job i have now will be working with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police  Scams and fraud division. I have to do all my own investigating for them and move all the information to them. If you are a Timeshare Lease owner and feel you are being extorted or this is Fraud you also can do this. This might also work for co-owners. I will be emailing documents to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre. If you phone them they will ask you for all the info about you like email etc. They will also give you a file number and their email address where to send documents. I was also told not to pay any money and to contact your Local RCMP which i will be doing.   CANADIAN ANTI-FRAUD CENTRE at 1-888-495-8501   I will not be in a hurry to send documents until i receive all the documents from Northmont and i will diffently be sending the MLT AIKINS WESTERN CANADA's LAW FIRM being the TRUSTEE email. AFTER i read Northmont's collection efforts my wife and i would of ended up being street people if we had gone along with this. I will save all my emails they will come in handy. To us this is all about money and we are every ones bank. I hope this helps.


----------



## dotbuhler

Meow said:


> Spark1 - Bad mouthing our legal representation (and there is more than one lawyer involved) does little to improve our cause.  The Courts view our case on strict commercial legal principles.  Fairness and business integrity carry no weight.
> We are simply victims of "caveat emptor".
> I hope others will take our story into consideration before entering the sleazy and corrupt world of "Timesharing in Canada".


You are only a victim if you choose to let them victimize you. Rolling over and giving up is not in my blood. The courts are only one means of fighting back, and, if it gets that far, a court ordered "judgement" is just a piece of paper. There is no civil rights battle that did not involve horrific injustices along the way. BUT perseverance, determination and courage will carry us through.


----------



## J's Garage

Could this help refute back to a significantly lower statement of claim? 



https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-j-1/latest/rsa-2000-c-j-1.html


----------



## J's Garage

realizing that this may just do no more than offer some protection against "judgement" costs continuing to spiral away.

Not sure what the revised statements of claims would be able to include


----------



## dotbuhler

truthr said:


> If anyone here is a client of the Geldert Law litigation group and not a member of the Facebook "secret" group and would like to join the group please send me a private message either here through this site or on Facebook (Truth Renaissance).


Remember what JFK had to say about "secret" groups, "...the very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society..."


----------



## CleoB

Haven't been here in a while and just wondering......Spark1 have you received any feedback from Darren Thomas of Service Alberta?


----------



## servemeout

After getting the latest update, I read the Fair Practice Act.  The following is taken from the Act "
Cancelling agreement 7(1)  A consumer may cancel at no cost or penalty to the consumer a consumer transaction, whether written or oral, that was entered into by the consumer and a supplier who engaged in an unfair practice regarding the consumer transaction, whether the unfair practice occurred before, during or after the time when the consumer transaction was entered into, and in addition the consumer is entitled to any remedy that is available at law, including damages. (2)  Where a supplier has been found to have engaged in an unfair practice, any consumer who entered into a consumer transaction that was subject to the unfair practice with the supplier who engaged in the unfair practice may cancel the consumer transaction at no cost or penalty to the consumer. "   This sounds like this may apply to us.  At the time we purchased we paid over $18,000 which was paid over 7 years.  The document we signed was titled Vacation villa Lease.   Why would anyone pay almost the original purchase price for something they can not use and is now worthless.  We will follow up with Service Alberta and the Ministers' office after the holidays.    We agree to nada, ratero.  We need to fight for ourselves.


----------



## KGB_527

This is just a joke. Lawyer bringing this type of deal after 5 years of trying. Isn't this crazy? Should there be some baseline of going into this negotiations, that he should have known he CANNOT cross??? I can understand, that having pretty big group is difficult to ask everyone, what are they going to take for the deal. So, this why %% - percentage should have been there before going forward with the process. If the ZERO was not what he was aiming for, then he should have been told that 74% will not fly with pretty much anyone in this group. What a f...ing waste of time and money. Does he know what is he doing??? Does he know who is paying his bills? Does he know that after ~ 5 years of trying this is insulting to me, to bring such a deal forward, and say this is a good deal. Out of the group of over 1000 people, will there be anyone agreeing with him? If not, then what is he going to do? Paying the settlement out of his own pocket. Or may be, get a Go Fund me page going. This is not funny at all, but what is next for us the members, that will not comply with the deal he entered into without our final consent.
What is going to happened with him??? The total neglect of the process, that he should have known better, is bad for our relationship, and leave us in "interesting" predicament, but also puts him in a very difficult position with everyone involved. What do you guys think??? I am drinking again. It is Christmas Season, and New Year 2018 is just few days away. Cheers to everybody, and Happy New Year 2018.
Staying positive, and still sober.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Whether you were part of the litigation group or are still enjoying your time at the resort there has been a lot of things decided that people will have to live with from these proceedings.  If you ever draw that line in the sand in deciding it is time to part ways with your timeshare, ask yourself:

1.       Will you actually be able to get out

2.       If you can exit, how costly will it be

3.       Remember the resort management plays the legal game to win (kind of like World of Warcraft – have a comprehensive plan, play strategically, and look for an opponent’s weakness and manipulate it)

4.       The presiding judges interpret legal arguments and their decisions made have been done around the ability to reach a conclusion based on legal president, evidence, and facts – present a case the way that is expected and leave the surprises at the door, emotion and poor case presentation doesn’t = winning (a judge is not there to do a lawyers job)


The contracts have:

·      no exit provision other than the term and Legacy of Life is in perpetuity (for ever and ever)

·      the resort management can change the contract or do another assessment at any time – it doesn’t take much to validate this and most of the rebels will be culled shortly

·      the timeshare is worthless so no one is going to ever buy or want to inherit it so how much will it cost to have the resort management buy it – from what I read the going figure to dump it today is about $16,000 for someone who is all paid up.  Good luck in the future, the resort management will not need it and does not want it – it’s a liability not an asset.


Just recently in talking with members of this litigation group, there is a lot of things that don’t make sense and come to the conclusion the lawyer is either:

·      done with the group (game over) and has figured out the gravy train and groups good will is at an end perfectly coinciding with the next bigger client (suckers) out of the US who see a knight in shining armor and hearing of great wins and exploits through successfully negotiated a great release settlement for their existing clients).  Having a delay now may impede on collection of  fresh retainers

·      not sure, is this no clue, arrogant, or incompetent.  Why not just focus on actually negotiating a settlement right out of the gate like the lawyer’s clients have instructed (maybe there was, and it wasn’t shared – who knows) instead of abandoning and not presenting key evidence at trial, pissing the judge off, killing key negotiation chips, prejudicing individual clients for what has proven to be a very flawed approach, and not reading Negotiating For Dummies 101.  Reading the transcripts from super conferences to trials there has been so many breadcrumbs provided by judges you would think a follow-up strategy / roadmap would present itself for a economical solution by following the advice of these learned people who clearly are not the litigation groups lawyer / strategist but nevertheless provided a trail as they could see the righting on the wall and pending injustice.

·      Some are even suggesting collusion – haven’t seen direct evidence to support this but there has been a lot of suggestions it’s out there

Insult to injury – next the lawyer will inform everyone all the collected trust money is used up and will hit the trough up one more time to process all those huge settlement tabs and prepare the individual statement claims (or more than likely there will not be time for this as there is the new retainers to attend to so delegating tasks to discredited individuals may be more efficient and just manage efforts)

·      Ever wonder how much has been collected in the trust and has it been administered correctly and prudently – wonder how accurate the bouncing litigation group member figure is and if all have paid all the retainers  

·      Can this lawyer actually do the things properly to get a final release (so far way more losses than wins on the lawyer’s track record) or will the lawyer screw up again and allow people to be stuck with their timeshare after paying all that money out (at that point everyone needs a guarantee) – this might be an interesting strategy, if everyone is forced to pay their full invoice they are entitled to start using their timeshare again – will there be units available to use

·      Why are proceedings like the petitions that would see the resort torn apart (that also act as negotiation chips) all ready being abandoned, what’s going to happen with the two appeals that have been filed – nothing is a done deal

·      Its my understanding when appeals have been filed in Alberta and BC for the most recent trials the lawyer must request and pay for transcripts – has the litigation group members seen these recent transcripts to review the lawyers performance at these trials and get insight as to why the judge is pissed at the lawyer (might have to do with res judicata and surprise motions) as the litigation trust paid for them

·      Bet there is a tone of wasted research paid for by the litigation groups trust for things like how can a class action be achieved – unfortunately research like this needs a client who can benefit from it but if the lawyer has tainted all the exiting clients who actually stand to benefit from a future action as there is a good chance the existing trust clients cannot benefit from it so has this been a waste of money or is there another agenda that this group paid for


The best way to keep clients from demanding results is to keep them segregated and fearing being abandoned to fend for themselves (kind of like what bullies do) – do members of this litigation group ever feel this way?  Are conversations censored and manipulated, is there a feeling of being monitored, has it been said that the individual knowledge is dangerous as the individual cannot be trusted just in case they are a spy or will say something to blow up the whole case (guess it wouldn’t have mattered – how much worse could the litigation group members have made it if they spilled the non-existent beans a couple of years ago).  Enough is enough – all the rules were followed and now everyone is a big loser and in hind site probably would have been cheaper to go it alone but going this far there is only one thing to do, start questioning what has happened without worrying about repercussion (really what can be done at this point to make it worse) and start communicating and sharing – time to force accountability.


My bet is litigation members are being segregated for a reason and been appeased for years by being satisfied hearing that a settlement was around the next corner but all that is consistent is a request for another retainer and advice not to rock the boat, stay the coarse as every member matters as the numbers are what counts so sticking together benefits everyone – it’s always someone else’s fault for the failed negotiations!!

Has anyone actually been involved with providing direct input and not just played to think their voice matters – was there actually a road map and who has been driving this group?  Are there members of the litigation group who don’t have an ulterior motive like taking over the resort who are the inner circle or better yet, is there still an inner circle of people who are timeshare owners?


So how many people have been betrayed – what happened to the promise of an individual review of the offer to settle before any hard and fast decision is made as promised twice in written correspondences and verbally.  Seems anyone who was forced into choosing either option now sees they have made a terrible decision because of trust, manipulation, and coercion (remember protecting your rights made you an outcast of the group and would result your banishment).  Having no input in such a life impacting choice is wrong or being abandoned and vulnerable as you were made to believe because you disagreed with the dictatorship option was not a choice at all. 

Looking back there is many cases of manipulation all with the premise to benefit the group but did they – the most resent manipulations are to provide a smoke screen to set the lawyer up to show it is the will of the group or let the mavericks fend for themselves (hopefully everyone who became a maverick knows about what the lawyer on record must provide clients who are parting ways (pretty much a copy of everything) and the parting of the ways has been done procedurally correctly or if not, they are still part of the litigation group as the judge clearly stated the matter needed to be dealt with as a whole and not individually at this stage of the proceedings).


The judge gave direction for three options to be followed for the two sides to come to an arrangement and if talks fail they would progress from 1 to 2 and finally to 3:

1.       Mutually (this is as far as the lawyer made it before throwing in the towel) – just curious, did any member of the litigation group attend and consent or was this just what the lawyers decided?

2.       Arbitrated (could be binding or non-binding) by neutral 3rd party – sounds fair enough

3.       The judge would hear submissions and decide everyone’s fate


Does the lawyer even know what they have committed individual clients too?  Maybe not – here is an estimated real-life example as no real information has actually been passed on to affected parties as of yet so individuals need to assume and are braising for the worst

·      Get the 2018 statement for an annual + biannual prime that is in arrears for about $32,000 as it probably hasn’t been paid since the start as recommended by the lawyer which comprised of the original renovation fee *for all building to be renovated*, yearly maintenance, and lots of interest at 26% and add-in say a 20% ($6400) resort manager fee to relieve you of your liability (timeshare) brings you to just shy of $40,000

·      So let’s say there are 1000 people that will be settling – quick math = $40.000,000 (right off the bat that means $6,400,000 goes to the resort manager, wonder how much of the other $33,000,000 will end up staying in the resort as now the VIA contracts are worthless as the resort manager now can change them to suite itself the majority holder)


What can be done

1.       Express your concerns to your lawyer

2.       Contact the presiding judge (remember be respectful – they have done their job properly)

3.       Contact provincial law society (again be respectful, look up the rules, provide supporting documentation to your claims, and summarize your grievances along with how your lawyer has failed to meet the Code of Conduct all lawyers are professionally bound too)


FYI – complaining to your lawyer may get you a generic email response indicating to suck it up if you chose an option originally or invite you to leave (which by the way is not really an option because of the lawyer on record thing and judges directions to get this resolved as a whole not individually).


I am definitely not a lawyer so I cannot offer legal advice but be cautious what you post in open forums – be happy to hear from you if you have something you want to say more directly, send me an email if you like back123@shaw.ca


My intent is to ignite communications which I expect will come in many forms from positive to hostile and hope other people also exercise their right to question recent developments and send a resounding *UNACCEPTABLE* message down whatever route you are most comfortable with.


I no longer want to be isolated!!!


----------



## dotbuhler

Remember, YELP is posting Lawyer reviews, for a starter.The Provincial Law Review process is available to each and everyone, as well, at no cost to you. Being vocal is our best recourse at this point.


----------



## J's Garage

How do we get this back in front of the judge's eyes?  Either directly or through the courts.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Hi J's Garage

This was not easy to find on the internet but I found a fax number # which is 780-427-4348

Suggest providing a basic overview detailing your concern (how have you been coerced and/or other facts you feel are relevant, why does this need to be address quickly, and negative impact to you) along with any relevant supporting documentation that supports your statements.

Including the following at the top will help the court registry identify the Judge and proper case ID:

Provincial Court of Alberta Edmonton
Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Reid, 2017 ABPC 249
Registry Action Number: P1490304333
Date: October 11, 2017
Decision of the Honorable Judge L.D. Young


----------



## Spark1

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> I agree Spark1.  Lawyer has to consult with each of us before signing, it has to be a "fantastic" deal to not proceed to the Petition.  There's no deal if we're simply getting a discount, even a big discount on all the fees and charges and interest that we legally never should have paid regardless.  We fought this not to pay these crooks these made up capital costs that were not seriously to be used for the resort anyways...btw where did those fees go that people already paid?  Exactly.
> 
> Why in the world would anyone accept a deal that isn't substantially below the original cost of their fabricated cancellation fee?  I mean, after years of this, paying the legal fees, we're not going to pony up and line these crook's pockets.  Geldert assured the group what deal he was going to get or no deal at all before this negotiation.  He said we could trust him.  We'll find out pretty soon.


----------



## Scammed!

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Hi J's Garage
> 
> This was not easy to find on the internet but I found a fax number # which is 780-427-4348
> 
> Suggest providing a basic overview detailing your concern (how have you been coerced and/or other facts you feel are relevant, why does this need to be address quickly, and negative impact to you) along with any relevant supporting documentation that supports your statements.
> 
> Including the following at the top will help the court registry identify the Judge and proper case ID:
> 
> Provincial Court of Alberta Edmonton
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Reid, 2017 ABPC 249
> Registry Action Number: P1490304333
> Date: October 11, 2017
> Decision of the Honorable Judge L.D. Young


I think we should all go back to The Honourable Judge L.D. Young. Its a start....we can't give up!


----------



## servemeout

Just got our "love letter" from the non resort.  The interest on the RPF is now over $4,500.  The letter states that they are ready to begin the enforcement process.  Any guesses on how long that will take?  The legal system is presently overloaded.  The court directed that every effort be made to resolve this issue.  "the necessity of further judicial intervention.  If that does not occur, then counsel are to contact the trial co-ordinator to obtain a date to appear before me."  She instructed that every reasonable effort be made, and she specifically mentioned the issue of interest.  Every one should review the conclusion to the decision in the Alberta case.


----------



## Petus@18

J's Garage said:


> How do we get this back in front of the judge's eyes?  Either directly or through the courts.



We can send emails to the Ministers of Justice and Solicitor General of Canada, Alberta and BC.  Their addresses can be found in the web.  Include the deadline we have been given quoting some information we received from the lawyer and query:

Why our justice system grants judgement/legal power to Northmont/Mr. Wankel  so they are free to do whatever they wish and can charge every single leaseholder whatever amount they feel like charging.  Does the Trustee have the right to petition the Supreme Court and bypass our Lease Contracts?  State that this is some kind of senior abuse as the majority of the leaseholders are seniors depending only of their pensions, and that this sort of abuse cannot be tolerated/allowed in Canada.  We have rights and we should not be treated like criminals.

Lets plead for their help by reviewing the history of Northmont et al and our case, which is similar to other cases where this people have done the same; bring the fact that a settlement was reached without our input and the deadline is approaching soon.

Yes, they have already ruined our winter holidays with their news, including Xmas with our families.  We should not let them destroy our lives!

(We may even want to cc the Prime Minister, I think that it is time for him to know that this type of extortions are allowed and blessed by the courts in Canada).


----------



## Palms to pines

I just feel duped.We had a contract with Fairmont resorts from 1998’ paid our maintenance fees faithfully and used the resort, exchanged, no complaints. The pay to go or pay to stay came as a complete shock. Was our timeshare so valueless we had to pay thousands of dollars to be rid of it? Many more issues followed and then - a lawyer willing to point out all of our grievances in open court. We didn’t know who found him but we signed on.We had faith in the contract we signed. But instead he does a “ test case”. Loses. Case drags on . He asks us to write yelp reviews, and the case drags on. Tells us to write letters to Northmont regarding their poor management. Nothing comes of that. Jeke goes on and on, cash register is ringing. Then, the Legacy for Life people can save the day, stop the realignment because we are “owners! Write another letter stating our rights . Goes nowhere, the case drags on.He says he has meetings set up with the press - never happens . He tells us the court will force NM to pay maintenance fees , so, glad to hear that. They own half the resort. Nope, another dead horse and the case drags on. Also informs us that  people cancel contacts with Mountainside for a few hundred dollars.Well, we are staying in the race. .Pays a fortune for research and affidavits but doesn’t follow the procedure necessary to get it admitted. Nope, now our contracts are all identical to  Jeke and he rode that nag right to the finish line. The case drags on. Then wow, the option plan. MG tells me the group has “ significant legal and moral  currency” He has an aggressive plan for the coming petition. Has laid the groundwork for a class action. Instead, he cancels the petition, caves into Northmont and tells me we have no moral currency! He tells me he has made a settlement, not a deal. No kidding. I can’t see that having legal representation helped us at all.


----------



## Punter

A NOTE TO FULLY PAID OWNERS IN GOOD STANDING AT SUNCHASER RESORT:

The cost of getting out of your VIA has risen to $16,000.00, up from $3,167.00 back in 2013. This means your timeshare is now so worthless that YOU NEED TO PAY $16,000 to terminate your lease.

How is this justified? Maybe you should phone Northmont and ask how they arrived at this number.

As an owner, you didn't benefit from the $20,000,000 collected by Northmont from those who paid to leave back in 2013. Did they improve the property? Did your maintenance fees go down? Will you or the property gain from the tens of millions of dollars proposed to be paid by those in the Geldert Group? What about the $11-million for the sale of Hillside? Where does that money go?


----------



## J's Garage

Professional liability insurance indemnifies lawyers for client losses caused through lawyers’ negligence; 

The No. 1 cause of malpractice claims – one-third in all – are communications errors between lawyers and their clients,” said LawPRO’s Pinnington. “These errors commonly involve a real or perceived failure by a lawyer to follow a client’s instructions or other miscommunication, and even no communication at all.”

Another common lawyer/client communications error is “failing to obtain the client’s consent when taking action or not keeping them fully informed,” said Pinnington.

a lawyer’s inadequate knowledge of the law relevant to a specific case; conflicts of interest; and clerical mistakes, and there are many ways that even the best organized and most conscientious of lawyers can make mistakes

IOW - start documenting

taken from : https://www.cba.org/Publications-Resources/CBA-Practice-Link/Young-Lawyers/2016/insurance


----------



## J's Garage

Those that are now selecting option 2:  note and demand  (b) - maybe we'll know more about the "class action" (e) - 10,000 left before a few more invoices.  Another retainer or is a portion of the settlement for him.  (f) - files 



On discharge or withdrawal, a lawyer must, as soon as practicable:

(a)     notify the client in writing, stating:

(i)         the fact that the lawyer is no longer acting;

(ii)        the reasons, if any, for the withdrawal; and

(iii)       in the case of litigation, that the client should expect that the hearing or trial will proceed on the date scheduled and that the client should retain new counsel promptly;

(a.1)  notify in writing all other parties, including the Crown where appropriate, that the lawyer is no longer acting;

(b)     subject to the lawyer’s right to a lien, deliver to or to the order of the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled;

(c)     subject to any applicable trust conditions, give the client all relevant information in connection with the case or matter; 

(d)     account for all funds of the client then held or previously dealt with, including the refunding of any remuneration not earned during the representation;

(e)     promptly render an account for outstanding fees and disbursements;

(f)      co-operate with the successor lawyer in the transfer of the file so as to minimize expense and avoid prejudice to the client; and

(g)     notify in writing the court registry where the lawyer’s name appears as counsel for the client that the lawyer is no longer acting and comply with the applicable rules of court and any other requirements of the tribunal.


----------



## Petus@18

Alert to all
If you wish to withdraw from this settlement you need to confirm by reply email to MG prior to 12:00 PST on December 29, 2017 (today).  What a way to end the year!


----------



## Punter

Petus, where are you getting this from? How can this be considered legal representation when we are being forced to make this decision with zero information?


----------



## KGB_527

Palms to pines said:


> I just feel duped.We had a contract with Fairmont resorts from 1998’ paid our maintenance fees faithfully and used the resort, exchanged, no complaints. The pay to go or pay to stay came as a complete shock. Was our timeshare so valueless we had to pay thousands of dollars to be rid of it? Many more issues followed and then - a lawyer willing to point out all of our grievances in open court. We didn’t know who found him but we signed on.We had faith in the contract we signed. But instead he does a “ test case”. Loses. Case drags on . He asks us to write yelp reviews, and the case drags on. Tells us to write letters to Northmont regarding their poor management. Nothing comes of that. Jeke goes on and on, cash register is ringing. Then, the Legacy for Life people can save the day, stop the realignment because we are “owners! Write another letter stating our rights . Goes nowhere, the case drags on.He says he has meetings set up with the press - never happens . He tells us the court will force NM to pay maintenance fees , so, glad to hear that. They own half the resort. Nope, another dead horse and the case drags on. Also informs us that  people cancel contacts with Mountainside for a few hundred dollars.Well, we are staying in the race. .Pays a fortune for research and affidavits but doesn’t follow the procedure necessary to get it admitted. Nope, now our contracts are all identical to  Jeke and he rode that nag right to the finish line. The case drags on. Then wow, the option plan. MG tells me the group has “ significant legal and moral  currency” He has an aggressive plan for the coming petition. Has laid the groundwork for a class action. Instead, he cancels the petition, caves into Northmont and tells me we have no moral currency! He tells me he has made a settlement, not a deal. No kidding. I can’t see that having legal representation helped us at all.


I am in the same situation. We have been a member at Fairmont since 2002, upgraded to prime golf in 2003, paid everything on time until this. Now what? Are you going forward with this settlement by MG? I just wonder, out of ~1350 people, how many will go with it? This is such an injustice, screaming for some big time push back against it. If nobody paid, how Northmont will deal with such a big group, on individual basis?


----------



## Petus@18

Punter said:


> Petus, where are you getting this from? How can this be considered legal representation when we are being forced to make this decision with zero information?



The message from MG was sent yeterday at 9pm.  And I agree, we cannot even retain the help of another lawyer to provide us with legal advice.  My opinion, reject the proposal and hire another lawyer right away.  Lets dont make it easy for them.


----------



## Tanny13

We are being coerced into a settlement we were told we could review prior to it becoming binding.  This is NOT an “excellent” outcome and this is my plan:
Send a fax to Judge Young indicating her orders were not followed and describing the current travesty of justice.
I will seek independent legal counsel.
Confirm with Geldert that we do not accept the settlement, even though we never signed Option 1.
If we are forced to pay, I will pay my RPF and outstanding maintenance fees, under protest.  I will pay 5% interest as that is the maximum allowed per the Interest Act (my contract stated interest per month, which is illegal).
I will not pay any additional amounts and I will STAY AND FIGHT.  If we all reject this ridiculous settlement, the fight goes on and we can try to regain our leverage.


----------



## truthr

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Whether you were part of the litigation group or are still enjoying your time at the resort there has been a lot of things decided that people will have to live with from these proceedings.  If you ever draw that line in the sand in deciding it is time to part ways with your timeshare, ask yourself:
> 
> 1.       Will you actually be able to get out
> 
> 2.       If you can exit, how costly will it be
> 
> 3.       Remember the resort management plays the legal game to win (kind of like World of Warcraft – have a comprehensive plan, play strategically, and look for an opponent’s weakness and manipulate it)
> 
> 4.       The presiding judges interpret legal arguments and their decisions made have been done around the ability to reach a conclusion based on legal president, evidence, and facts – present a case the way that is expected and leave the surprises at the door, emotion and poor case presentation doesn’t = winning (a judge is not there to do a lawyers job)
> 
> 
> The contracts have:
> 
> ·      no exit provision other than the term and Legacy of Life is in perpetuity (for ever and ever)
> 
> ·      the resort management can change the contract or do another assessment at any time – it doesn’t take much to validate this and most of the rebels will be culled shortly
> 
> ·      the timeshare is worthless so no one is going to ever buy or want to inherit it so how much will it cost to have the resort management buy it – from what I read the going figure to dump it today is about $16,000 for someone who is all paid up.  Good luck in the future, the resort management will not need it and does not want it – it’s a liability not an asset.
> 
> 
> Just recently in talking with members of this litigation group, there is a lot of things that don’t make sense and come to the conclusion the lawyer is either:
> 
> ·      done with the group (game over) and has figured out the gravy train and groups good will is at an end perfectly coinciding with the next bigger client (suckers) out of the US who see a knight in shining armor and hearing of great wins and exploits through successfully negotiated a great release settlement for their existing clients).  Having a delay now may impede on collection of  fresh retainers
> 
> ·      not sure, is this no clue, arrogant, or incompetent.  Why not just focus on actually negotiating a settlement right out of the gate like the lawyer’s clients have instructed (maybe there was, and it wasn’t shared – who knows) instead of abandoning and not presenting key evidence at trial, pissing the judge off, killing key negotiation chips, prejudicing individual clients for what has proven to be a very flawed approach, and not reading Negotiating For Dummies 101.  Reading the transcripts from super conferences to trials there has been so many breadcrumbs provided by judges you would think a follow-up strategy / roadmap would present itself for a economical solution by following the advice of these learned people who clearly are not the litigation groups lawyer / strategist but nevertheless provided a trail as they could see the righting on the wall and pending injustice.
> 
> ·      Some are even suggesting collusion – haven’t seen direct evidence to support this but there has been a lot of suggestions it’s out there
> 
> Insult to injury – next the lawyer will inform everyone all the collected trust money is used up and will hit the trough up one more time to process all those huge settlement tabs and prepare the individual statement claims (or more than likely there will not be time for this as there is the new retainers to attend to so delegating tasks to discredited individuals may be more efficient and just manage efforts)
> 
> ·      Ever wonder how much has been collected in the trust and has it been administered correctly and prudently – wonder how accurate the bouncing litigation group member figure is and if all have paid all the retainers
> 
> ·      Can this lawyer actually do the things properly to get a final release (so far way more losses than wins on the lawyer’s track record) or will the lawyer screw up again and allow people to be stuck with their timeshare after paying all that money out (at that point everyone needs a guarantee) – this might be an interesting strategy, if everyone is forced to pay their full invoice they are entitled to start using their timeshare again – will there be units available to use
> 
> ·      Why are proceedings like the petitions that would see the resort torn apart (that also act as negotiation chips) all ready being abandoned, what’s going to happen with the two appeals that have been filed – nothing is a done deal
> 
> ·      Its my understanding when appeals have been filed in Alberta and BC for the most recent trials the lawyer must request and pay for transcripts – has the litigation group members seen these recent transcripts to review the lawyers performance at these trials and get insight as to why the judge is pissed at the lawyer (might have to do with res judicata and surprise motions) as the litigation trust paid for them
> 
> ·      Bet there is a tone of wasted research paid for by the litigation groups trust for things like how can a class action be achieved – unfortunately research like this needs a client who can benefit from it but if the lawyer has tainted all the exiting clients who actually stand to benefit from a future action as there is a good chance the existing trust clients cannot benefit from it so has this been a waste of money or is there another agenda that this group paid for
> 
> 
> The best way to keep clients from demanding results is to keep them segregated and fearing being abandoned to fend for themselves (kind of like what bullies do) – do members of this litigation group ever feel this way?  Are conversations censored and manipulated, is there a feeling of being monitored, has it been said that the individual knowledge is dangerous as the individual cannot be trusted just in case they are a spy or will say something to blow up the whole case (guess it wouldn’t have mattered – how much worse could the litigation group members have made it if they spilled the non-existent beans a couple of years ago).  Enough is enough – all the rules were followed and now everyone is a big loser and in hind site probably would have been cheaper to go it alone but going this far there is only one thing to do, start questioning what has happened without worrying about repercussion (really what can be done at this point to make it worse) and start communicating and sharing – time to force accountability.
> 
> 
> My bet is litigation members are being segregated for a reason and been appeased for years by being satisfied hearing that a settlement was around the next corner but all that is consistent is a request for another retainer and advice not to rock the boat, stay the coarse as every member matters as the numbers are what counts so sticking together benefits everyone – it’s always someone else’s fault for the failed negotiations!!
> 
> Has anyone actually been involved with providing direct input and not just played to think their voice matters – was there actually a road map and who has been driving this group?  Are there members of the litigation group who don’t have an ulterior motive like taking over the resort who are the inner circle or better yet, is there still an inner circle of people who are timeshare owners?
> 
> 
> So how many people have been betrayed – what happened to the promise of an individual review of the offer to settle before any hard and fast decision is made as promised twice in written correspondences and verbally.  Seems anyone who was forced into choosing either option now sees they have made a terrible decision because of trust, manipulation, and coercion (remember protecting your rights made you an outcast of the group and would result your banishment).  Having no input in such a life impacting choice is wrong or being abandoned and vulnerable as you were made to believe because you disagreed with the dictatorship option was not a choice at all.
> 
> Looking back there is many cases of manipulation all with the premise to benefit the group but did they – the most resent manipulations are to provide a smoke screen to set the lawyer up to show it is the will of the group or let the mavericks fend for themselves (hopefully everyone who became a maverick knows about what the lawyer on record must provide clients who are parting ways (pretty much a copy of everything) and the parting of the ways has been done procedurally correctly or if not, they are still part of the litigation group as the judge clearly stated the matter needed to be dealt with as a whole and not individually at this stage of the proceedings).
> 
> 
> The judge gave direction for three options to be followed for the two sides to come to an arrangement and if talks fail they would progress from 1 to 2 and finally to 3:
> 
> 1.       Mutually (this is as far as the lawyer made it before throwing in the towel) – just curious, did any member of the litigation group attend and consent or was this just what the lawyers decided?
> 
> 2.       Arbitrated (could be binding or non-binding) by neutral 3rd party – sounds fair enough
> 
> 3.       The judge would hear submissions and decide everyone’s fate
> 
> 
> Does the lawyer even know what they have committed individual clients too?  Maybe not – here is an estimated real-life example as no real information has actually been passed on to affected parties as of yet so individuals need to assume and are braising for the worst
> 
> ·      Get the 2018 statement for an annual + biannual prime that is in arrears for about $32,000 as it probably hasn’t been paid since the start as recommended by the lawyer which comprised of the original renovation fee *for all building to be renovated*, yearly maintenance, and lots of interest at 26% and add-in say a 20% ($6400) resort manager fee to relieve you of your liability (timeshare) brings you to just shy of $40,000
> 
> ·      So let’s say there are 1000 people that will be settling – quick math = $40.000,000 (right off the bat that means $6,400,000 goes to the resort manager, wonder how much of the other $33,000,000 will end up staying in the resort as now the VIA contracts are worthless as the resort manager now can change them to suite itself the majority holder)
> 
> 
> What can be done
> 
> 1.       Express your concerns to your lawyer
> 
> 2.       Contact the presiding judge (remember be respectful – they have done their job properly)
> 
> 3.       Contact provincial law society (again be respectful, look up the rules, provide supporting documentation to your claims, and summarize your grievances along with how your lawyer has failed to meet the Code of Conduct all lawyers are professionally bound too)
> 
> 
> FYI – complaining to your lawyer may get you a generic email response indicating to suck it up if you chose an option originally or invite you to leave (which by the way is not really an option because of the lawyer on record thing and judges directions to get this resolved as a whole not individually).
> 
> 
> I am definitely not a lawyer so I cannot offer legal advice but be cautious what you post in open forums – be happy to hear from you if you have something you want to say more directly, send me an email if you like back123@shaw.ca
> 
> 
> My intent is to ignite communications which I expect will come in many forms from positive to hostile and hope other people also exercise their right to question recent developments and send a resounding *UNACCEPTABLE* message down whatever route you are most comfortable with.
> 
> 
> I no longer want to be isolated!!!



Well said - but remember everyone the Judge ruled on what was presented and how it was presented.  She is not at fault.


----------



## truthr

Tanny13 said:


> We are being coerced into a settlement we were told we could review prior to it becoming binding.  This is NOT an “excellent” outcome and this is my plan:
> Send a fax to Judge Young indicating her orders were not followed and describing the current travesty of justice.
> I will seek independent legal counsel.
> Confirm with Geldert that we do not accept the settlement, even though we never signed Option 1.
> If we are forced to pay, I will pay my RPF and outstanding maintenance fees, under protest.  I will pay 5% interest as that is the maximum allowed per the Interest Act (my contract stated interest per month, which is illegal).
> I will not pay any additional amounts and I will STAY AND FIGHT.  If we all reject this ridiculous settlement, the fight goes on and we can try to regain our leverage.



Right on!!  I am with you!!


----------



## Punter

Tanny13 said:


> We are being coerced into a settlement we were told we could review prior to it becoming binding.  This is NOT an “excellent” outcome and this is my plan:
> Send a fax to Judge Young indicating her orders were not followed and describing the current travesty of justice.
> I will seek independent legal counsel.
> Confirm with Geldert that we do not accept the settlement, even though we never signed Option 1.
> If we are forced to pay, I will pay my RPF and outstanding maintenance fees, under protest.  I will pay 5% interest as that is the maximum allowed per the Interest Act (my contract stated interest per month, which is illegal).
> I will not pay any additional amounts and I will STAY AND FIGHT.  If we all reject this ridiculous settlement, the fight goes on and we can try to regain our leverage.



We could support that course of action. My questions are:

1) What is the legal implication of paying a partial amount '_under protest_'?

2) Is there really a law that says only 5% interest can be charged? We were sued in Alberta.

3) If there is a law capping interest at 5% annually, why hasn't Geldert said something about interest rates?

4) If we do pay the partial or even the full amount invoiced, and we are not part of the Geldert Group, are we 'released' from our VIA; or, do they just sue us all over again at a future date?


----------



## Tanny13

I’ll answer what I can....
1) I will find out from independent counsel.
2) Yes, but you need to check your VIA.  Mine is from 1992.  The requirement of annual interest is in the Canada Interest Act, So province doesn’t  matter.  If interest is NOT stated per annum, 5% is the max.
3) Good question.  Michael’s response has been that if he negotiated less interest then Northmont would have just added to the cancellation fee, so our total owing would be the same.  Which is why, to stay at this point would be way cheaper.  These scare tactics from our own lawyer are unconscionable, especially at this time of year, with deadlines of 15 hours when other lawyers are unreachable.
4) I don’t believe you will be released.  Again, this will be a question for another lawyer.





Punter said:


> We could support that course of action. My questions are:
> 
> 1) What is the legal implication of paying a partial amount '_under protest_'?
> 
> 2) Is there really a law that says only 5% interest can be charged? We were sued in Alberta.
> 
> 3) If there is a law capping interest at 5% annually, why hasn't Geldert said something about interest rates?
> 
> 4) If we do pay the partial or even the full amount invoiced, and we are not part of the Geldert Group, are we 'released' from our VIA; or, do they just sue us all over again at a future date?


----------



## aden2

Bought timeshare 2007 and was scammed in Legacy for Life as Fairmont became insolvent 2010. Sent demand note to Northmont in 2013 claiming violation of FTA. Referred to "Remedies on Default"in my letter to rejection May 11,2013. Filed formal complaint With Service Alberta September 9, 2014. Ha
ve not used resort since 2012 but rec'd invoice Dec 27, 2017 for $18973.50 ($9799.80 interest charges). Why am I still being billed.


----------



## heydynagirl

Punter said:


> Petus, where are you getting this from? How can this be considered legal representation when we are being forced to make this decision with zero information?


It was in the email the lawyer sent Dec 28 at approx. 21:00 PST


----------



## heydynagirl

Punter said:


> We could support that course of action. My questions are:
> 
> 1) What is the legal implication of paying a partial amount '_under protest_'?
> 
> 2) Is there really a law that says only 5% interest can be charged? We were sued in Alberta.
> 
> 3) If there is a law capping interest at 5% annually, why hasn't Geldert said something about interest rates?
> 
> 4) If we do pay the partial or even the full amount invoiced, and we are not part of the Geldert Group, are we 'released' from our VIA; or, do they just sue us all over again at a future date?




Please take a look at Alberta Limitations Act, Section 2 and 3.  Also look at Alberta Collection and Debt Repayment Act (part of the Fair Trading Act)


----------



## CleoB

Okay, the way I see it is that he only thing that was decided against us was the RPF, interest and court costs. The maintenance fees and interest can be argued under the Fair Trade Act and the Judgement Interest Act.  The JIA states that no more than 4% interest/ year can be charged.


----------



## heydynagirl

I purchased my timeshare in July 1996.  Does anyone have a copy of the back of a contract dated around that period?  I am interested in reviewing any reference to interest costs.


----------



## Punter

[


----------



## servemeout

All of the contracts were posted with affidavits of Philp Matkin in 2013.  Article 10 states 2% per month or $5.00 on items over 30 days, whichever is greater.  This was the contract used between 1992 -97.


----------



## Spark1

truthr said:


> Well said - but remember everyone the Judge ruled on what was presented and how it was presented.  She is not at fault.


I am not bashing Judges but what Justice Loo did was she started the race and set the pace. The way I see this is the timeshare owners of Time not the property, looked at this, she is a Supreme Court Judge and this is power so 43% cancelled and 27% paid the assessment. They did not check with their Lawyer to see if this would be appealed. After this there already was to much money that crossed the table and I believe because of this and the money was never offered back to the time owners,the other Judges in BC and Alberta followed suit. I feel every one of these cases should be a mistrial and us time owners majority Seniors never did get Justice. Geldert Law was the only Law firm that would take on this case in BC and Alberta. I also feel the Judges and the Lawyers here Know very little about Timeshare. In the USA and Mexico they Know a lot more than small populated Canada. What I seen in the court room, it was just a war between Judges and Lawyers and they just love bringing up similar cases,who cares, all us time owners want is justice and we did not get it. I will tell you a example of this,I was in the court room in Alberta and Justice Young was the Judge. I was setting right across from Michael Geldert. Justice Young started talking in a low voice,she was saying Albertan’s if they took this to court they well win and she also said and you Albertan’s are not going to pay one thin dime are you?She said this will not be fair for BC timeshare owners they will have to pay for all the costs of the resort. How many of these time owners that paid the Special Assessment we’re bond holders at the time? I asked Michael Geldert about Justice young’s comments and he said the Fair Trading ACT was brought up. When Justice Young ruled the same way as Judge Branch in BC,she was saying that Northmont’s Cancellation Agreement was legal for them to use and also our right to use, which is called a Vacation Villa Lease is no longer valid. She is saying that all the documents that my wife and I signed in 2001 and 2002 being my Promissory Note And Installment Sales Contract, the Fairmont Vacation Villas Consumer Protection Agreement and our Vacation Villa Lease are obsolete. Collin Knight signed these documents. She is also saying the Trustee legally could petition the Supreme Court of BC and enforce this Cancellation Agreement or the Special Assessment. I asked Geldert Law if this was legal and he never did answer me why? Is this legal what he did? We have to fine out? What Justice Young did was put a road block up so Albertan’s could not individually take this to court and tie up the Alberta Courts for years. This is called Justice never. Geldert Law said he was going to appeal the Justice Branch Decision and Justice Young’s and i heard he lost the appeal in BC and did he try in Alberta I never heard. Northwynd says it has the right to say all the VIA’s Prior to 2010 are the same. No they are not our contract is not a VIA it is a Vacation Villa Lease. I do not know how these VIA’s Read and I do not care,we never signed any VIA documents and they are not legal unless we sign which we never will. We have a (right-to-use) Timeshare,which refers to a Lease-like agreement. In this type of timeshare your lease expires after a specified time and you have no Property Ownership rights in the Property. With this we had the Lock off option. Northwynd took this right to use from us by using this Trustee to enforce this Freedom to Choose. Generally a contract is binding when the following is true. The parties receive some thing (eg. The company receives money and you a service)in return for their promises. All of this can be found in the Canadian Consumer Handbook. We all need to phone the Office of Consumer Affair at  1-800-328-6189 and ask them how we now can be protected as consumers of Canada because we have Know Protection in BC or Alberta. I am now investigating for the RMCP and working on where the RCMP are with the forensic audit.     If you are interested in working with the Canadian anti-fraud centre   Ph.     1-888-495-8501.  They will give you there email address to send your documents and a file #


----------



## Punter

As I understand it, it is 5% that they can charge. On our VIA contract, the interest listed is 5$ or 2% per month, whichever is greater. The fact that no annual amount is listed by law reverts to an annual cap of 5%


----------



## Spark1

servemeout said:


> All of the contracts were posted with affidavits of Philp Matkin in 2013.  Article 10 states 2% per month or $5.00 on items over 30 days, whichever is greater.  This was the contract used between 1992 -97.





servemeout said:


> All of the contracts were posted with affidavits of Philp Matkin in 2013.  Article 10 states 2% per month or $5.00 on items over 30 days, whichever is greater.  This was the contract used between 1992 -97.


If you are going to rescind  the email Geldert Law sent you you should of done it by 12:00 noon today. I would send it any time  today . I received this email late last night so it only gives you 12 hours to do this. This is Christmas and New Year holidays and many time owners might not be home


----------



## Scammed!

Just a thought.....everyone who's emailing, and faxing out letters next week all over Canada and the City should resend them everyday until we are heard, tired of being put under the rug to shut up, we need to get answers, and were running out of time. That's what I'm doing.


----------



## Spark1

Scammed! said:


> Just a thought.....everyone who's emailing, and faxing out letters next week all over Canada and the City should resend them everyday until we are heard, tired of being put under the rug to shut up, we need to get answers, and were running out of time. That's what I'm doing.[/QUOTEI do not have any Lawyer now and I will not receive any thing unless it is Northmont then the battle will start


----------



## easy prey

I honestly believe geldert represented our group to the best of his ability, he might have even over achieved.  Reading all of the rulings on our case gives a clear picture of how competent of a lawyer geldert is.


----------



## CleoB

easy prey said:


> I honestly believe geldert represented our group to the best of his ability, he might have even over achieved.  Reading all of the rulings on our case gives a clear picture of how competent of a lawyer geldert is.


OMG, I think you should go back and re-read the judgements.  Geldert screwed up big time.


----------



## J's Garage

Option 1 also stated - "You support responding to the petition before the court since April 2013 to determine Northmont's ability to downsize the Resort, and steps to ensure a public discussion of the state of the Resort in 2017 that impugns Northmont's management including potential claims against Northmont and the Trustee for oppression, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith contractual performance, and breach of fiduciary duty."

That was as important as the first paragraph.  He did not deliver the terms of this election.  He withdrew the group's petition response.


----------



## truthr

easy prey said:


> I honestly believe geldert represented our group to the best of his ability, he might have even over achieved.  Reading all of the rulings on our case gives a clear picture of how competent of a lawyer geldert is.


Well I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion how ever they have arrived at that opinion.


----------



## Punter

easy prey said:


> I honestly believe geldert represented our group to the best of his ability, he might have even over achieved.  Reading all of the rulings on our case gives a clear picture of how competent of a lawyer geldert is.


Yes. And Kirk Wankel will have a special place in heaven.


----------



## Tanny13

I have chosen to not accept the settlement. I will be speaking to another lawyer to figure out what the next step is. I believe we will have a hearing in front of Judge Young to determine interest and costs. I will likely keep my timeshare (thus avoiding at this this time whatever exorbitant fee Northmont chooses to charge to release me) and I will continue to fight for justice. I can't decide for anyone else, but I do think these scare tactics from our own lawyer are beyond reproach, and should be dealt with as well, at a later date.


----------



## KGB_527

easy prey said:


> I honestly believe geldert represented our group to the best of his ability, he might have even over achieved.  Reading all of the rulings on our case gives a clear picture of how competent of a lawyer geldert is.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OMG. Please.......and I believe the Earth is the Center of Universe, and Sun is moving around the Earth.
I thought for a while, that this science has been settled. WOW.


----------



## easy prey

The judges repeatedly gave geldert the equivalent of a bare bum spankings.   Our representative has failed us. In saying  I believe he did the best he could is not a compliment. I could not be more disappointed/disgusted  with our representative.


----------



## Scammed!

KGB_527 said:


> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> OMG. Please.......and I believe the Earth is the Center of Universe, and Sun is moving around the Earth.
> I thought for a while, that this science has been settled. WOW.


I don't think she calls herself easy prey for nothing.....I'm going with someone trying to be facetious and playing us.....


----------



## truthr

easy prey said:


> The judges repeatedly gave geldert the equivalent of a bare bum spankings.   Our representative has failed us. In saying  I believe he did the best he could is not a compliment. I could not be more disappointed/disgusted  with our representative.


Thanks for clarifying that.


----------



## Scammed!

easy prey said:


> The judges repeatedly gave geldert the equivalent of a bare bum spankings.   Our representative has failed us. In saying  I believe he did the best he could is not a compliment. I could not be more disappointed/disgusted  with our representative.


Thank God you had us all worried there for a moment.....


----------



## Just Looking Around

easy prey said:


> I honestly believe geldert represented our group to the best of his ability, he might have even over achieved.  Reading all of the rulings on our case gives a clear picture of how competent of a lawyer geldert is.



I wondered when the trolls would show-up to gloat.


----------



## teedeej

Tanny13 said:


> Send a fax to Judge Young indicating her orders were not followed and describing the current travesty of justice.
> I will seek independent legal counsel.



A friend of mine is a lawyer and he says that neither side can contact the judge directly without notifying the other side first

And if you are represented by a lawyer all communication has to go through the lawyer


----------



## Scammed!

teedeej said:


> A friend of mine is a lawyer and he says that neither side can contact the judge directly without notifying the other side first
> 
> And if you are represented by a lawyer all communication has to go through the lawyer


Well she will eventually hear about it when every Canadian official contacts her to inform her of whats happening, and their fax machines won't stop!


----------



## Scammed!

Just Looking Around said:


> I wondered when the trolls would show-up to gloat.


They've been here all along...............


----------



## Jack0123

Please let the Alberta group know when another lawyer gets involved, it should be a lower cost the more that are involved.


----------



## CleoB

I think the next step is up to those that never retained M. Geldert.  They need to band together, find a lawyer and go after Northmount using the Fair Trade Act of Alberta.  Something MG never did.  Unfortunately I can't be part of it as I mistakenly put my faith in MG and now all his clients (and those that paid to stay) are paying and will be paying for his mistakes.  That is why those that never/ever retained him need to proceed in a different matter with a competent lawyer.


----------



## easy prey

Last month I contacted geldert.  Specifically asked him why has he not pursued this matter through service ab and bc on our behalf.  Never got an answer to that direct question.   I voiced concerns about how it looked like we would have to pay whatever northmont was after. He advised me he would be proceding with the petition should he not achieve a settlement in the 50 % range.  Now the door is closed on the petition and settlement was no where near the 50% range.  

 I have attempted to contact Darren Thomas at service ab , direct phone number 780 422 8046 . Got his voice mail,  message says he away til Jan2.  Left an urgent message for him to call upon his return. 

 This time share thing was no where near what we bargained for.  Was supposed to be affordable.   Knowing what I know now timeshares are a scam.  A lot people have lost their  initial investments at other time shares.   Hard pill to swallow. Unfortunately,  our case is special. Not only are we loosing our initial investment but are faced with paying for it about 2 times more.   This appears to be unique. More than a hard pill swallow are not the first words that come to mind but the only ones appropriate for this site. 

   The purpose of my posts are to voice my disgust for our situation and especially how our representation handled this matter. I have reviewed all of the judges rulings and have attended some of the hearings.  Again I state our representation  failed us.  

In response to "Just Looking Around",  I  do not believe my comments troll our group. Looks like northmont will be coming after me for about $20,000.  That's not gloating either.


----------



## aden2

It is time to go to THE Canadian Human and Freedoms. All a persons rights are taken away dealing with Northmont group.


----------



## light on

Punter said:


> A NOTE TO FULLY PAID OWNERS IN GOOD STANDING AT SUNCHASER RESORT:
> 
> The cost of getting out of your VIA has risen to $16,000.00, up from $3,167.00 back in 2013. This means your timeshare is now so worthless that YOU NEED TO PAY $16,000 to terminate your lease.
> 
> How is this justified? Maybe you should phone Northmont and ask how they arrived at this number.
> 
> As an owner, you didn't benefit from the $20,000,000 collected by Northmont from those who paid to leave back in 2013. Did they improve the property? Did your maintenance fees go down? Will you or the property gain from the tens of millions of dollars proposed to be paid by those in the Geldert Group? What about the $11-million for the sale of Hillside? Where does that money go?


yes a really good best deal  from $3500.  to $ 31,000.00


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Has anyone tallied what they contributed personally to the Geldert retirement fund through the retainers paid and asked how all the work required to process the releases and outstanding invoices will be paid for or is there a cut from what is being collected going back to Geldert based on a rising scale for people who pay to settle?

Jim Belfry recruited me at the beginning of this with the premise by banding together to force Northwynd’s hand to release us at no cost – I am learning there possibly may have been another agenda to take over the resort by Jim that may have made a release for us not as valuable of a leveraging tool but needed the numbers.  That is not what I wanted or was paying for, was there conflicting goals and trial directives that has now come back to bite us all?

My losses:
Financed the timeshare purchase in 2007 for $35,000
Paid to Geldert to part ways with the timeshare (not sure – few grand I estimate)
Based on Geldert coerced settlement $35,000

My family got to enjoy 5 years of vacation time as we had some banked we lost as my wife and I were still working hard to pay it off and prioritized saving for my kids RESPs every year so that works out to what was to be 5 inexpensive vacations = $14,000 + yearly maintenance for each vacation *(I think this is the same as what a 1st class Titanic ticket was worth)*

At least I am getting a personal return on putting my kids through University but so much for ever using the prepay-ed vacation time with our grand-kids – will not be able to afford to pay again for a replacement vacation with them.  The real sad part is my oldest son, who is currently pursuing his masters, has been able to save a bit of money and offered to give it to us to help pay to settle☹ (how sad and wonderful is that)


----------



## GypsyOne

Let's say about $16,000 to buy a two-bedroom, one week timeshare for fourty years; then about $25,000 to give it back - total of about $41,000 and you no longer have a timeshare. Northmont makes $tens of millions in buy-backs and they have the units to re-sell or convert to condos. That has to be about the biggest institutionalized white-collar crimes of all time. How can that happen in a civilized country with consumer protections?


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

GypsyOne said:


> Let's say about $16,000 to buy a two-bedroom, one week timeshare for fourty years; then about $25,000 to give it back - total of about $41,000 and you no longer have a timeshare. Northmont makes $tens of millions in buy-backs and they have the units to re-sell or convert to condos. That has to be about the biggest institutionalized white-collar crimes of all time. How can that happen in a civilized country with consumer protections?


Exactly - this is a very creative new way for Northwynd to create revenue.  Bet now they have set legal president their new business plan will be to buy other timeshares as a business in Canada and repeat - the profits are better than any real business can generate.

Government will need to intervene but will need a push but we are already under the bus - anybody have friends in Provincial or Federal politics they can call?


----------



## newname

Interesting you Mention Jim funny enough that is how I got into this mess. How can I get in touch with you ?






Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Has anyone tallied what they contributed personally to the Geldert retirement fund through the retainers paid and asked how all the work required to process the releases and outstanding invoices will be paid for or is there a cut from what is being collected going back to Geldert based on a rising scale for people who pay to settle?
> 
> Jim Belfry recruited me at the beginning of this with the premise by banding together to force Northwynd’s hand to release us at no cost – I am learning there possibly may have been another agenda to take over the resort by Jim that may have made a release for us not as valuable of a leveraging tool but needed the numbers.  That is not what I wanted or was paying for, was there conflicting goals and trial directives that has now come back to bite us all?
> 
> My losses:
> Financed the timeshare purchase in 2007 for $35,000
> Paid to Geldert to part ways with the timeshare (not sure – few grand I estimate)
> Based on Geldert coerced settlement $35,000
> 
> My family got to enjoy 5 years of vacation time as we had some banked we lost as my wife and I were still working hard to pay it off and prioritized saving for my kids RESPs every year so that works out to what was to be 5 inexpensive vacations = $14,000 + yearly maintenance for each vacation *(I think this is the same as what a 1st class Titanic ticket was worth)*
> 
> At least I am getting a personal return on putting my kids through University but so much for ever using the prepay-ed vacation time with our grand-kids – will not be able to afford to pay again for a replacement vacation with them.  The real sad part is my oldest son, who is currently pursuing his masters, has been able to save a bit of money and offered to give it to us to help pay to settle☹ (how sad and wonderful is that)


----------



## CleoB

easy prey said:


> Last month I contacted geldert.  Specifically asked him why has he not pursued this matter through service ab and bc on our behalf.  Never got an answer to that direct question.   I voiced concerns about how it looked like we would have to pay whatever northmont was after. He advised me he would be proceding with the petition should he not achieve a settlement in the 50 % range.  Now the door is closed on the petition and settlement was no where near the 50% range.
> 
> I have attempted to contact Darren Thomas at service ab , direct phone number 780 422 8046 . Got his voice mail,  message says he away til Jan2.  Left an urgent message for him to call upon his return.
> 
> This time share thing was no where near what we bargained for.  Was supposed to be affordable.   Knowing what I know now timeshares are a scam.  A lot people have lost their  initial investments at other time shares.   Hard pill to swallow. Unfortunately,  our case is special. Not only are we loosing our initial investment but are faced with paying for it about 2 times more.   This appears to be unique. More than a hard pill swallow are not the first words that come to mind but the only ones appropriate for this site.
> 
> The purpose of my posts are to voice my disgust for our situation and especially how our representation handled this matter. I have reviewed all of the judges rulings and have attended some of the hearings.  Again I state our representation  failed us.
> 
> In response to "Just Looking Around",  I  do not believe my comments troll our group. Looks like northmont will be coming after me for about $20,000.  That's not gloating either.


You never got a direct reply because Geldert would have had to admit that he screwed up by telling the judges "we were the same as JEKE", which of course we weren't.  As I said the people that are looking to get out and never retained Geldert need to find a lawyer to agrue the case under the Fair Trade Act of Alberta.


----------



## Hotpink

Perhaps as the majority of us are classified as elders we should look at this site

http://www.albertaelderabuse.ca/what-is-elder-abuse/what-is-elder-abuse

This may be an avenue worth exploring as it falls under the definition of elder abuse.
I will be following this up as well as talking to Service Alberta.
We are not going to pay more to walk away from the time share lease than what we paid to buy it in the late nineties.
We could pay the invoice we just received which would  be about the same as what we originally paid for the initial lease and stay a member of the PASSING WIND consortium.
Or for only $6,000.00 additionally (give or take a dollar) we could accept the so called negotiated settlement just presented to us and get to walk away with some to be determined release form from PASSING WIND.
Now that is a real deal and we know of those who paid to leave and still have not received any thing that would constitute any form of release form.
Albeit we do have a PAID IN FULL document on the Lease form from Fairmont, but that was received was prior the PASSING WIND regime.

We also have to go to the Fair trading act as well but we are going to start with the Elder Abuse.
Here's to a prosperous New Year for us and may the SUNCHASER SCHOONER be caught in the doldrums.


----------



## easy prey

I got to thinking about settlements in general. Settlements always have conditions.   Makes me sick/sicker to think those who participate in the settlement will have to sign a release.  Given how  geldert handled our legal battle it would not be a stretch that a signed release would include a gag order.  If this is true, anyone  who signs a release would be prohibited from saying anything about this matter. I do not want this matter to go away quietly. It would be  another win for northmont.

I have not lost sight of the fact that northmont was the author of our dilemma. 
 They have  found a way to generate revenue. How anyone could come up with such a scheme in clear conscience , much less pursue it,  is beyond me.  I believe geldert's handling of this matter sealed our fate  (See court rulings. All have been very critical of geldert. Judge for yourself. At both hearings in Edmonton justice Young was extremely critical of geldert).

I didn't get a chance to look at gelderts most recent communication from a few days ago until last night.   Gave me functionally no time to consider opting out of the settlement given deadline he imposed. 

Geldert seems to have painted our group into a corner. It also appears that those who participate in the settlement will be silenced. I am not lobbying for anyone to accept or reject the settlement.  I don't know which way I will go yet either.   

I will be sending an email to Darren Thomas @ Service Alberta before he returns on Jan2. (Thanks spark1 for your dec12/17 post)

I have asked geldert on several occasions why was he not pursuing on our behalf unfair business practices through service alberta and service bc.  He never directly answered my questions or provided any guidance.  The conversation was always steered back to the coarse he was taking at the time.  Makes me wonder why he was evasive on why he wasn't pursuing that matter.  Seems like other members may have encountered the same scenario.  At the first Edmonton hearing earlier this year I had a conversation with a member.  They stated they had brought up unfair business practices to geldert and  requested that he pursue this matter through service Alberta .

 I can't think of any other other options that haven't already been brought forward by other members of our group.

If anyone has any other ideas please let us know.


----------



## CleoB

easy prey said:


> I got to thinking about settlements in general. Settlements always have conditions.   Makes me sick/sicker to think those who participate in the settlement will have to sign a release.  Given how  geldert handled our legal battle it would not be a stretch that a signed release would include a gag order.  If this is true, anyone  who signs a release would be prohibited from saying anything about this matter. I do not want this matter to go away quietly. It would be  another win for northmont.
> 
> I have not lost sight of the fact that northmont was the author of our dilemma.
> They have  found a way to generate revenue. How anyone could come up with such a scheme in clear conscience , much less pursue it,  is beyond me.  I believe geldert's handling of this matter sealed our fate  (See court rulings. All have been very critical of geldert. Judge for yourself. At both hearings in Edmonton justice Young was extremely critical of geldert).
> 
> I didn't get a chance to look at gelderts most recent communication from a few days ago until last night.   Gave me functionally no time to consider opting out of the settlement given deadline he imposed.
> 
> Geldert seems to have painted our group into a corner. It also appears that those who participate in the settlement will be silenced. I am not lobbying for anyone to accept or reject the settlement.  I don't know which way I will go yet either.
> 
> I will be sending an email to Darren Thomas @ Service Alberta before he returns on Jan2. (Thanks spark1 for your dec12/17 post)
> 
> I have asked geldert on several occasions why was he not pursuing on our behalf unfair business practices through service alberta and service bc.  He never directly answered my questions or provided any guidance.  The conversation was always steered back to the coarse he was taking at the time.  Makes me wonder why he was evasive on why he wasn't pursuing that matter.  Seems like other members may have encountered the same scenario.  At the first Edmonton hearing earlier this year I had a conversation with a member.  They stated they had brought up unfair business practices to geldert and  requested that he pursue this matter through service Alberta .
> 
> I can't think of any other other options that haven't already been brought forward by other members of our group.
> 
> If anyone has any other ideas please let us know.


By the time the first Edmonton hearing came along it was too late to pursue unfair business practices as we were (as you said) painted into a corner.   Geldert did not listen to his clients in arguing the unfair business practices which points to his mismanagement of the case and should be followed up with the BC law society.


----------



## servemeout

Bill 31 passed on Dec. 13,2017.  There are changes for consumers.  

enhanced fairness between consumers and businesses – new provisions that are now in place include:
prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts, unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract
prohibiting businesses from including clauses in contracts that prevent consumers from posting negative reviews of the business or transaction, provided the negative review is not malicious or vexatious
protection for consumers who file complaints in good faith, and are not vexatious or malicious, with a right of defense against lawsuits or other actions intended to coerce consumers to withdraw or not make complaints or publish reviews
prohibiting suppliers from enforcing mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts
expanded right to sue when a consumer has suffered a loss from a breach of the Act or regulations beyond unfair practices
allowing the government to act in the public interest by enabling the release of information about charges, convictions, and other enforcement actions taken under the Act.*  Does any of these items ring any bells?*  Service Alberta is the place to start and also the Ministers' Office.  Most of us are seniors.  All of us have lost the original purchase price of our lease and the use of our week.  Now is not the time to quite. We did not agree to the settlement.  The definition of settlement is a solution and paying more than the original purchase price is not a solution.    No to you Northmont - el ratero, your hand does not belong in my pocket.


----------



## Palms to pines

Wow. Looks like this was specially written for timeshare owners. People who have had NO association with Geldert should jump all over this. No lawyer is necessary. Wouldn’t it be a blessing if it set a precedent that could somehow be retroactive to help us. Those who can do it should register a complaint right away. Very possible Geldert people will get slapped with a gag order. These kind of agencies should have the power to really take this on


----------



## CleoB

servemeout said:


> Bill 31 passed on Dec. 13,2017.  There are changes for consumers.
> 
> enhanced fairness between consumers and businesses – new provisions that are now in place include:
> prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts, unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract
> prohibiting businesses from including clauses in contracts that prevent consumers from posting negative reviews of the business or transaction, provided the negative review is not malicious or vexatious
> protection for consumers who file complaints in good faith, and are not vexatious or malicious, with a right of defense against lawsuits or other actions intended to coerce consumers to withdraw or not make complaints or publish reviews
> prohibiting suppliers from enforcing mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts
> expanded right to sue when a consumer has suffered a loss from a breach of the Act or regulations beyond unfair practices
> allowing the government to act in the public interest by enabling the release of information about charges, convictions, and other enforcement actions taken under the Act.*  Does any of these items ring any bells?*  Service Alberta is the place to start and also the Ministers' Office.  Most of us are seniors.  All of us have lost the original purchase price of our lease and the use of our week.  Now is not the time to quite. We did not agree to the settlement.  The definition of settlement is a solution and paying more than the original purchase price is not a solution.    No to you Northmont - el ratero, your hand does not belong in my pocket.


Sounds like those not involved with Geldert have this bill as well to us against Northmount.


----------



## Scammed!

CleoB said:


> Sounds like those not involved with Geldert have this bill as well to us against Northmount.





servemeout said:


> Bill 31 passed on Dec. 13,2017.  There are changes for consumers.
> 
> enhanced fairness between consumers and businesses – new provisions that are now in place include:
> prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts, unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract
> prohibiting businesses from including clauses in contracts that prevent consumers from posting negative reviews of the business or transaction, provided the negative review is not malicious or vexatious
> protection for consumers who file complaints in good faith, and are not vexatious or malicious, with a right of defense against lawsuits or other actions intended to coerce consumers to withdraw or not make complaints or publish reviews
> prohibiting suppliers from enforcing mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts
> expanded right to sue when a consumer has suffered a loss from a breach of the Act or regulations beyond unfair practices
> allowing the government to act in the public interest by enabling the release of information about charges, convictions, and other enforcement actions taken under the Act.*  Does any of these items ring any bells?*  Service Alberta is the place to start and also the Ministers' Office.  Most of us are seniors.  All of us have lost the original purchase price of our lease and the use of our week.  Now is not the time to quite. We did not agree to the settlement.  The definition of settlement is a solution and paying more than the original purchase price is not a solution.    No to you Northmont - el ratero, your hand does not belong in my pocket.


Bill past on the 13th and settlement on the 14th of December 2017.  Maybe there is such a thing as Karma... We will fight once again! You guys were starting to grow on me anyways.


----------



## gilker

Interesting comments. And yes easy prey I caught the sarcasm in your first comment and username. Enjoyed a little humor. 
I’m in Saskatchewan and wondering if there are others in our province who can communicate on action plans


----------



## Petus@18

Is there anyone in this forum that could recommend a 'real lawyer' that could help us to finally get out of this mess; we may even be able to commence a malpractice lawsuit?We should try to regroup and keep sharing the legal costs?  Anyone?


----------



## Spark1

Hotpink said:


> Perhaps as the majority of us are classified as elders we should look at this site
> 
> http://www.albertaelderabuse.ca/what-is-elder-abuse/what-is-elder-abuse
> 
> This may be an avenue worth exploring as it falls under the definition of elder abuse.
> I will be following this up as well as talking to Service Alberta.
> We are not going to pay more to walk away from the time share lease than what we paid to buy it in the late nineties.
> We could pay the invoice we just received which would  be about the same as what we originally paid for the initial lease and stay a member of the PASSING WIND consortium.
> Or for only $6,000.00 additionally (give or take a dollar) we could accept the so called negotiated settlement just presented to us and get to walk away with some to be determined release form from PASSING WIND.
> Now that is a real deal and we know of those who paid to leave and still have not received any thing that would constitute any form of release form.
> Albeit we do have a PAID IN FULL document on the Lease form from Fairmont, but that was received was prior the PASSING WIND regime.
> 
> We also have to go to the Fair trading act as well but we are going to start with the Elder Abuse.
> Here's to a prosperous New Year for us and may the SUNCHASER SCHOONER be caught in the doldrums.


Thanks HotPink I was also thinking the same way. The Trustee that started all this has the registry and they diffently Know how many seniors belong to this resort. This is very hard on Seniors and many of us do not have this kind of money they are trying to extort from us. Many seniors do not have a fighting bone in their body and cannot deal with this. I can not believe for a minute this is backed buy Judges from Alberta and BC. How can a company that we’re the bond holders of this resort prey on innocent people that paid their maintenance fee on time because that is the waySeniors are and now we are treated like criminal because we bought a timeshare. Consumer Protection in Canada and all the Provinces especially Alberta and BC have failed us. This has been really hard on my wife because she has been fighting MS for years and last year she fought Cancer and she had 3 operations that year. I am suppose to enjoy retirement being over 70 and this has ruined everything. I am sure there are many cases like ours. I am working with the RCMP now and found out today from the RCMP how I can find out how the forensic audit is going I hope they are still working on this. It will take me weeks to get everything over to the RCMP but it will happen. The first thing send this Fax pertaining to Justice Young. The next item Senior Abuse.I also Ended up with shingles this year and I had the vaccination. Yes this is stressful.I am confused over these civil cases. No one told us that that creep was registering all our names with the Wetaskiwin courtsHe even registered our family and they had nothing to do with that resort.


----------



## truthr

As I read through all this it just sickens me to no end.  What should have been a joyous occasion of the year ruined for over 1,500 families not only because of the very people we were attempting to reveal but also by the very person who we hired to protect us.

I know everyone is on edge and still raw from all the fear and anger but I ask you all to take a good, hard look at all the facts.  Not easy when for over 4 years a weave of deception, manipulation, corruption and betrayal has culminated to financial RAPE.   But please do and get focused on the real culprits here.

IT IS NOT THE JUDGES - they have been doing their job.  When I read over ALL the documents it is evident they even tried desperately to counsel and provide guidance for how to proceed which was not heeded.  They can only come to a judgment/decision based on the facts and evidence put before them; and it certainly doesn't help when attorneys do not follow the Rules of Court or their own profession's Professional Code of Conduct.

IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT - how can it be?  They put rules, regulations and protections in place and it, again, is up to attorneys to know about and use those to assist and protect their clients.

But we can take our voice back and reach out to the authorities who have the power to investigate - and right now that would be the Alberta and British Columbia Law Societies.
You do not need a lawyer to send in a complaint, you do not need a university degree to have your concerns addressed.  What you do need is to sit down and write out how this is affecting you RIGHT NOW.  I am not going to try to control the narrative - just be yourself.   However, just a couple of pieces of advice - be courteous, be as specific as possible. You don't have to replay the past 4 years.  It does not have to be overwhelming, this is not an exam but this is your life and the lives of so many that are at stake.

YOU MATTER AND YOUR VOICE COUNTS!!

BC Law Society - professionalconduct@lsbc.org
https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/InformationConcerningALawyer_Nov2016.pdf


----------



## GypsyOne

As unjust as it is, three court decisions were lost, and that's a big hurdle to cross.  As much as we'd like to blame everyone else, the problem is that we were dealing with some mighty shrewd players who knew how to play the system and had millions (of our money) to do it with.  You can be sure the political wheels were greased where it was necessary to swing things their way. The B.C. government did not want a failing tourist attraction on it's hands that might require millions of public money to keep afloat.  What better way than to tap in to the timeshare owners to have shoddily constructed buildings fixed and reconstructed.  Basically, they convinced an easily convinced (and probably politically prompted) judicial system that we were owners  for repairing the buildings, but tenants for enjoying the benefits.  We had to play by the rules, but they could make up their own rules with the help of a compliant judicial system.  We can blame our lawyers (and it is likely they would do some things differently over again), but the fault and the problems go far deeper.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

At about 3:30 this afternoon I uploaded a new post that had the framework and would be about 4 pages long to help people prepare their own letter for the Law Society but it was removed - I have not been provided details by the Tugbbs administrator but can only assume I touched a nerve so will not try to re-post the original but rather a modified version that doesn't contain the entire letter or names - for the rest I will probably have to email it to you if you want it.

Hopefully this modified version will stay up for you to have a look at and you can decide if you want to reach out for the rest of the info.


*Part of what was posted earlier:
*
So I have had a lot of people reach out to me at back123@shaw.ca and ask if I could post something to assist them in putting together something for the Law Society and here is what I came up with alone with contact info the AB and BC Law Societies. 

Please use it as you like and customize it to fit you personally – if everyone does the same thing additional reasons why we are in harms way could be missed so please take the time to make this your own.

Again I am not a lawyer or offering legal advice just doing my part in addressing this injustice since I believe many others cannot get anywhere with who is representing us to fix this either.

Good luck to us all!!!



Contact for Alberta Law Society:
https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/

Email contract British Columbia Law Society:
professionalconduct@lsbc.org


*<<<<<<<URGENT >>>>>>>*

*To Whom it May Concern*

It is with a very trouble heart we reach out to you and we truly apologize for this intrusion as we do not know where to turn for assistance given the ultimatum with no time to consult with alternate legal counsel available as we truly believe our lawyer has put us in harms way.  Given this was in our view strategically timed over the holidays to force us to accept a settlement reached by our lawyer.

Our Lawyer has literally maneuvered all his clients into an extremely vulnerable position through lies and coercion to reach this settlement.   As far as I am concerned our Lawyer has negotiated and settled with you know who in bad faith on behalf of the litigation group without their true consent to do so.  This may seem like sour grapes as we realize that our Lawyer was able to have this case tried in front of the courts and we accept responsibility that his skill set did not meet the challenge but the way the settlement has been reached is the ultimate betrayal perpetrated by our lawyer and a travesty.

From the last trial decision the judge instructed our Lawyer  and you know who to negotiate a settlement and present it to you once accepted by our Lawyer’s litigation group – our Lawyer did negotiate with you know who and we believe the tactics he has used breaches his lawyers code of conduct and in so doing has prejudiced us all.  This settlement was not reached with the consent of the group or through any form of mediation – sole acceptance was our Lawyers doing.  Anyone opposing his decision is being cast from the group to fend for themselves.

Let me put this into context briefly and you can determine if further investigation is required – it become very common to read in our Lawyers updates over the years that he was moving closer to a settlement with you know who over the coarse of the proceedings but you know who was never prepared to come to the table and only on a couple of occasions was any information from these on-going negotiations ever pass along to the litigation group to consider but no recommendation was ever made to accept as it was advised holding out would garnish a better settlement.

Recently things looked to be progressing as it was indicated you know who was finally motivated to settle – here is snapshot of recent updates our Lawyer provide:

*I believe the info provided here was too sensitive for some people monitoring the site (our Lawyer / you know who) and possibly complained about it to the Tugbbs administrator to have it removed*

In conclusion we feel this deception has put us in a very vulnerable place as we no longer have any confidence in our Lawyer, all doors to negotiate a settlement with you know who are being closed, based on the October 11th Decision breaking and splintering the group was not to happen as the Courts wanted to see this close as badly as we do, and why did our Lawyer not use the mediation or the presiding Judge as per their direction to aid in setting you know who straight in negotiating in good faith?

Thank-you for reviewing the information I have provided and any guidance you can provide is desperately needed as the risk for such a huge settlement were never conveyed to us by our Lawyer and now we potentially stand to loss our credit, the timeshare investment, and a fortune in this settlement.


Sincerely,


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

newname said:


> Interesting you Mention Jim funny enough that is how I got into this mess. How can I get in touch with you ?


Please reach out to me at back123@shaw.ca


----------



## ecwinch

Moderator Note: I believe your previous post was put into the moderation queue as it meet certain criteria identifying it as possible spam. 



Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> *I believe the info provided here was too sensitive for some people monitoring the site (our Lawyer / you know who) and possibly complained about it to the Tugbbs administrator to have it removed*


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

ecwinch said:


> Moderator Note: I believe your previous post was put into the moderation queue as it meet certain criteria identifying it as possible spam.


Thanks for letting me know Eric - I will run with the new post and try to keep things shorter.

Also thank-you for having this forum open to us - this is one of the only ways our group can communicate at this time and as you have probably read things are not very good with our group right now.


----------



## ecwinch

It certainly sounds like a complicated situation. Best wishes that things work out.


----------



## DeniseM

[Redacted by me.]

Here are my suggestions for writing an effective business letter:

https://www.tugbbs.com/forums/index...with-lawsuit-info.182857/page-95#post-2085791


----------



## truthr

GypsyOne said:


> As unjust as it is, three court decisions were lost, and that's a big hurdle to cross.  As much as we'd like to blame everyone else, the problem is that we were dealing with some mighty shrewd players who knew how to play the system and had millions (of our money) to do it with.  You can be sure the political wheels were greased where it was necessary to swing things their way. The B.C. government did not want a failing tourist attraction on it's hands that might require millions of public money to keep afloat.  What better way than to tap in to the timeshare owners to have shoddily constructed buildings fixed and reconstructed.  Basically, they convinced an easily convinced (and probably politically prompted) judicial system that we were owners  for repairing the buildings, but tenants for enjoying the benefits.  We had to play by the rules, but they could make up their own rules with the help of a compliant judicial system.  We can blame our lawyers (and it is likely they would do some things differently over again), but the fault and the problems go far deeper.


With all due respect GypsyOne
Have you read the transcript from the SuperConference that took place in January 2015?
Have you read the 1,200+ page transcript from the JEKE hearing that took place in January 2016?
Have you read all the Judgments/Decisions from all the court proceedings?


----------



## Scammed!

*The Hon. L. D. Young*
_Assistant Chief Judge, Civil:_
*Provincial Court*
Civil
1A Sir Winston Churchill Sq.
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0R2
*Phone: *780-422-4021
*Fax: *780-422-2257


----------



## gilker

ecwinch said:


> It certainly sounds like a complicated situation. Best wishes that things work out.



Yes this is a very important issue for timeshare in Canada. This topic is now 95 pages and growing. Is that not one of the largest threads on the tugbbs site?
Lots of people affected


----------



## Scammed!

Scammed! said:


> *The Hon. L. D. Young*
> _Assistant Chief Judge, Civil:_
> *Provincial Court*
> Civil
> 1A Sir Winston Churchill Sq.
> Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0R2
> *Phone: *780-422-4021
> *Fax: *780-422-2257


I've sent the same letter to 7 different officials now, and I won't stop until I'm heard from someone that will help us. I will continue sending to everyone and everybody until their sick of me. We all need to step it up its our last chance. I can't do this without you. We've been wronged and this is the worst of abuse I have ever been a part of.... not in my country.....Don't stop, don't look back, keep fighting, and send send send. Hon, L.D YOUNG might not receive the letters but everyone else will, and maybe she will get it. How will we know if we don't try. Talk is cheap make a difference at least for yourself and your family, and I also wrote on behalf of all of us. God Bless us all. I did nothing wrong nor do I have anything to be ashamed of. Like the pin said that I wore in court "NEVER GIVE UP!" I swear I never will.........


----------



## Inquiringmind

What about the statute of limitations in the province of Alberta. It states that, to seek a remedial order against you, the claimant must have filed the remedial order within 2 years from the time they knew they had a claim or ought to have known they had a claim.


----------



## Spark1

Scammed! said:


> *The Hon. L. D. Young*
> _Assistant Chief Judge, Civil:_
> *Provincial Court*
> Civil
> 1A Sir Winston Churchill Sq.
> Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0R2
> *Phone: *780-422-4021
> *Fax: *780-422-2257





Scammed! said:


> *The Hon. L. D. Young*
> _Assistant Chief Judge, Civil:_
> *Provincial Court*
> Civil
> 1A Sir Winston Churchill Sq.
> Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0R2
> *Phone: *780-422-4021
> *Fax: *780-422-2257





truthr said:


> As I read through all this it just sickens me to no end.  What should have been a joyous occasion of the year ruined for over 1,500 families not only because of the very people we were attempting to reveal but also by the very person who we hired to protect us.
> 
> I know everyone is on edge and still raw from all the fear and anger but I ask you all to take a good, hard look at all the facts.  Not easy when for over 4 years a weave of deception, manipulation, corruption and betrayal has culminated to financial RAPE.   But please do and get focused on the real culprits here.
> 
> IT IS NOT THE JUDGES - they have been doing their job.  When I read over ALL the documents it is evident they even tried desperately to counsel and provide guidance for how to proceed which was not heeded.  They can only come to a judgment/decision based on the facts and evidence put before them; and it certainly doesn't help when attorneys do not follow the Rules of Court or their own profession's Professional Code of Conduct.
> 
> IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT - how can it be?  They put rules, regulations and protections in place and it, again, is up to attorneys to know about and use those to assist and protect their clients.
> 
> But we can take our voice back and reach out to the authorities who have the power to investigate - and right now that would be the Alberta and British Columbia Law Societies.
> You do not need a lawyer to send in a complaint, you do not need a university degree to have your concerns addressed.  What you do need is to sit down and write out how this is affecting you RIGHT NOW.  I am not going to try to control the narrative - just be yourself.   However, just a couple of pieces of advice - be courteous, be as specific as possible. You don't have to replay the past 4 years.  It does not have to be overwhelming, this is not an exam but this is your life and the lives of so many that are at stake.
> 
> YOU MATTER AND YOUR VOICE COUNTS!!
> 
> BC Law Society - professionalconduct@lsbc.org
> https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/InformationConcerningALawyer_Nov2016.pdf





truthr said:


> As I read through all this it just sickens me to no end.  What should have been a joyous occasion of the year ruined for over 1,500 families not only because of the very people we were attempting to reveal but also by the very person who we hired to protect us.
> 
> I know everyone is on edge and still raw from all the fear and anger but I ask you all to take a good, hard look at all the facts.  Not easy when for over 4 years a weave of deception, manipulation, corruption and betrayal has culminated to financial RAPE.   But please do and get focused on the real culprits here.
> 
> IT IS NOT THE JUDGES - they have been doing their job.  When I read over ALL the documents it is evident they even tried desperately to counsel and provide guidance for how to proceed which was not heeded.  They can only come to a judgment/decision based on the facts and evidence put before them; and it certainly doesn't help when attorneys do not follow the Rules of Court or their own profession's Professional Code of Conduct.
> 
> IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT - how can it be?  They put rules, regulations and protections in place and it, again, is up to attorneys to know about and use those to assist and protect their clients.
> 
> But we can take our voice back and reach out to the authorities who have the power to investigate - and right now that would be the Alberta and British Columbia Law Societies.
> You do not need a lawyer to send in a complaint, you do not need a university degree to have your concerns addressed.  What you do need is to sit down and write out how this is affecting you RIGHT NOW.  I am not going to try to control the narrative - just be yourself.   However, just a couple of pieces of advice - be courteous, be as specific as possible. You don't have to replay the past 4 years.  It does not have to be overwhelming, this is not an exam but this is your life and the lives of so many that are at stake.
> There is a lot more they could do. You live in one of the strongest Union Provinces in Canada. I am a member of the IBEW for over 50 years and had up to 1200 Electricians working with me at one time,not for me we worked on these projects as equals. They had a say on our projects when needed to.Is the government watching Northmont to make sure they have a Lessee's Association. This could be done easily. This Association could be set up in Red Deer in Alberta and do a survey where the majority of timeshare owners live in BC or Alberta and then decide where to have the meeting and the Association. This is the governments responsibility and the Association's must be set up. Who is looking over the shoulder of Kirk Wankel,no one. They are coming up with ridiculous numbers that we owe them and they do not need any accountability. This is what they want and they are ready to extort $millions and doing this under the nose of the Alberta and BC governments. This is nor acceptable. I have personally dealt with BC Protection with many Phone calls and emails and they tell me they have input with the contracts and that is it. They said the contracts are dealt with at the resort,that was true. I Had a phone call from William,Green. We talked for over 40 minutes and he explained to me all they are responsible for is the Point System with timeshare and that is it. Both departments do not want any thing to do with this and they said they had nothing to do with the Trustee petitioning the Supreme Court. .? Was this legal what he did,he was the start of this extortion and we will find out. So tell me how these two BC departments are up to majority seniors Vacation Villa Lease owners. Who is watching Wankel when he thinks he can modify our Vacation Villa Leases and change all Leases prior to 2010 to be now 2010 VIA's. His VIA's are quit similar to his Co-Owner agreements no thank you. The way I look at my Lease is this. If I Lease a warehouse for 40 years and I paid money up front and the owner of the warehouse closes the door on me and charges me $6000.00 a year plus interest per year that he denied use he will get a Hugh bill from me plus interest for the upfront money I paid when I signed the lease. Northmont will get a bill from me and we who have Leases do not allow them to change you to Wankel co-owner VIA's. So is the government watching over this No. If there was a Association we would not allow this. The Alberta government is no better,they will tell you because of JUstice Young decision their is nothing they can do until this is appealed sure. Who would ever believe that a Judge in Alberta or BC would Allow Geldert Law to when a appeal. I feel these Judges need to do some research as well as these lawyers,we are sick and tired of this court garbage that has gone on for almost 5 years and we timeshare Leases have not got justice. So how are the governments helping us. They are not. I have a lot of information about these extortion professionals with the resorts the use to own in other countries and we lived in Mexico for years and dealt with Profeco in Mexico. This is Senior abuse. The government will get involved when they can help the creditors being Northmont extort our property.
> 
> YOU MATTER AND YOUR VOICE COUNTS!!
> 
> BC Law Society - professionalconduct@lsbc.org
> https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/InformationConcerningALawyer_Nov2016.pdf


----------



## Scammed!

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Thanks for letting me know Eric - I will run with the new post and try to keep things shorter.
> 
> Also thank-you for having this forum open to us - this is one of the only ways our group can communicate at this time and as you have probably read things are not very good with our group right now.



Ultimate_Betrayal There are people that don't understand what you're trying to do, and that's to help them get motivated. The he$$ with the punctuation right now, your making a point to everyone to write a letter a.s.a.p. The Minister of Justice and all the other's will understand our letters are from regular/older people that are frantic on a deadline confused, betrayed, scared and trying to speak out for the first time, we're not college students or lawyers. Don't worry about punctuation so much as being respectful. Tell your/our story the best you can and make every sentence a point. Before you send your letters out go over it a hundred times like I did but even then you will have mistakes, we're not perfect. 
After I sent one copy to Prime Minister Trudeau yesterday I was shaking. What would he think about my letter and mistakes? I realized he's like all of us, and maybe he has a timeshare for he's family. One day he might get to meet this gentleman we speak about. He is a family man, and I doubt for one moment he would allow this to happen to him. I realized I did the Prime Minister a favour.... 
 Your letter shows exhaustion, devastation, and passion. Your trying to tell the truth, and we all are. We don't need this right now through the holidays and by the way Happy New Year!  Your letter is an example to everyone to write a letter and not be scared, and I'd like to thank you for stepping up to the plate. I told you I didn't trust talking to you or anyone a couple of days ago, yet I needed encouragement and tried to reach out on this board. Like you said we have been conditioned this way. Which is a form of abuse, our rights, and freedom of speech has been taken from us leaving us vulnerable and in this exact position. I just wanted to give you a pat on the back who ever you are...lol. Your letter and my letter won't be enough, this group needs to pull together. I was and still am terrified which has given me my fight back, and if I'm going down I will go down fighting with my pride in hand. I have nothing to lose anymore. I will fight alone if I have to, or with who ever else wants to join us. Thank you. 

Time to send more copies out......


----------



## truthr

Something to think about
If the only goal of the entire litigation group was to be released from our VIA's. Why in the hell did we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose the realignment to begin with? Only to give it away at the 11th hour? Putting all his clients in harms way and everyone else at the resort.

Would that not be using deception to the opponent and courts, rather than just use what was legally available to all of us like the FTA in Alberta? And Consumer Protection in BC?

By our attorney playing this "cat and mouse" game trying to outmaneuver the master of WOW, precedents have been set that negatively affected and tainted us and will negatively affect all timeshare owners in Canada until someone comes along and has to spend millions of dollars in litigation to set it right. Was that not what we all hired MG to do? Right what we saw as a wrong? Stop white collar crime and extortion? Not make it easier for it to happen again and again and again.


----------



## Palms to pines

Truth, I wish I could push the “ like” button a thousand times because you are absolutely 100 percent RIGHT.


----------



## JAM DOWN

truthr said:


> Something to think about
> If the only goal of the entire litigation group was to be released from our VIA's. Why in the hell did we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose the realignment to begin with? Only to give it away at the 11th hour? Putting all his clients in harms way and everyone else at the resort.
> 
> Would that not be using deception to the opponent and courts, rather than just use what was legally available to all of us like the FTA in Alberta? And Consumer Protection in BC?
> 
> By our attorney playing this "cat and mouse" game trying to outmaneuver the master of WOW, precedents have been set that negatively affected and tainted us and will negatively affect all timeshare owners in Canada until someone comes along and has to spend millions of dollars in litigation to set it right. Was that not what we all hired MG to do? Right what we saw as a wrong? Stop white collar crime and extortion? Not make it easier for it to happen again and again and again.


----------



## truthr

truthr said:


> Something to think about
> If the only goal of the entire litigation group was to be released from our VIA's. Why in the hell did we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose the realignment to begin with? Only to give it away at the 11th hour? Putting all his clients in harms way and everyone else at the resort.
> 
> Would that not be using deception to the opponent and courts, rather than just use what was legally available to all of us like the FTA in Alberta? And Consumer Protection in BC?
> 
> By our attorney playing this "cat and mouse" game trying to outmaneuver the master of WOW, precedents have been set that negatively affected and tainted us and will negatively affect all timeshare owners in Canada until someone comes along and has to spend millions of dollars in litigation to set it right. Was that not what we all hired MG to do? Right what we saw as a wrong? Stop white collar crime and extortion? Not make it easier for it to happen again and again and again.



And another point:
If any one or more of his clients at any time during this debacle were seeking direction/clarification from the court so that they could stay would that not have been a "conflict of interest" at that point in time?  Or were some of us just used as pawns or collateral damage for the means to justify the end?  And to what end?


----------



## DeniseM

If you want officials to read and understand your letter - this is how to write it:

*Topic sentence* - the first sentence should clearly and briefly state the purpose of the letter.  In the same paragraph you can introduce yourself and your relationship to the issue.

*The 2nd paragraph* should clearly and briefly state the issues/problems.  If there is more than one, make a bulleted list.

*The 3rd paragraph should *clearly and briefly state what action you are requesting.

Officials will not read a long winded letter - be as brief as you can.  Half a page is ideal.

Correct spelling and punctuation impress the reader, and they make your letter easier to understand.  Use spell check and have someone who is a good writer check you letter for you.


----------



## Scammed!

DeniseM said:


> If you want officials to read and understand your letter - this is how to write it:
> 
> *Topic sentence* - the first sentence should clearly and briefly state the purpose of the letter.  In the same paragraph you can introduce yourself and your relationship to the issue.
> 
> *The 2nd paragraph* should clearly and briefly state the issues/problems.  If there is more than one, make a bulleted list.
> 
> *The 3rd paragraph should *clearly and briefly state what action you are requesting.
> 
> Officials will not read a long winded letter - be as brief as you can.  Half a page is ideal.
> 
> Correct spelling and punctuation impresses the reader, and they make your letter easier to understand.  Use spell check and have someone who is a good writer check you letter for you.




Thank you, We need all the help and support we can get right now. Unfortunately we have a book to write not half a page. My letter was a page and a half, but if everyone, and I mean everyone writes a letter, then all our issues will come out.


----------



## DeniseM

Officials will not read a long letter.  If you use the format that I suggested, and explain the issues as a bulleted list, it will not be as long.  Cut out the pleading, emotional statements, and anything that is not crucial.


----------



## GypsyOne

truthr said:


> With all due respect GypsyOne
> Have you read the transcript from the SuperConference that took place in January 2015?
> Have you read the 1,200+ page transcript from the JEKE hearing that took place in January 2016?
> Have you read all the Judgments/Decisions from all the court proceedings?



So what's your point? I hope it isn't that you can't form an opinion without first reading thousands of repetitive pages of legal jargon and background over a period of several years.  Disclosure:  I was one of the first in the battle, but bought out reluctantly when it became painfully obvious we could not win.  After your voluminous reading, you should have come to the same conclusion and saved a lot of money. 

So who is to blame?  Needless to say primarily it is the shrewd band of white-collar opportunists known as Northmont who know how to play the system, have access to millions of our money, hire the best lawyers with our money, know which strings to pull and wheels to grease, and are completely unscrupulous. They are able to convince an easily convinced judicial system that truth is on their side and the judges can couch their decisions in impressive sounding legal jargon and precedents.  Secondly, we can probably blame the Province and a compliant legal system.  I don't know if this is true, I just don't see how we could have lost without other forces at work. I thought our case was unassailable, yet we lost unanimously on all counts. (Main points we should have won on: 1. We are lessees not owners of real estate; 2. We are not responsible for faulty buildings; 3. We are not responsible for bad decisions without having a voice in management, and clearly we did not.)

So can we blame our legal representation?  Only to a point.  Obviously things could have been done differently.  The people Geldert retained to carry the ball seemed to have fumbled the ball, but that does not necessarily lead to legal liability.  Half the cases that are litigated in court are lost by one of the parties, usually after being assured they had an iron-clad case.  

So does lodging a complaint with the B.C. Law Society do any good?  Probably not.  I doubt if losing a case is a matter they would spend much time investigating on behalf of a disgruntled losing side. Quite possibly we could have been represented by a trained monkey or The Almighty Herself and the results would have been the same.

Are the Judges or the Province innocent as Truth seems to think?  I doubt it, but I don't know for sure.  As I said earlier, our case seemed unassailable, but yet we lost unanimously on all counts.  This leads me to believe something else was in play.  I'm pretty much sure the Province of B.C. did not want a failed significant tourist attraction on their hands.  Nor did they want to prop it up with public money.  Governments have been known to lose elections on such matters.  An informal get-together with the right people, a wink and a nod, a veiled threat or a veiled benefit can go a long way toward getting a B.C. friendly decision.  Conspiracy theory?  Maybe, but I'm getting kind of cynical.


----------



## dotbuhler

gilker said:


> Interesting comments. And yes easy prey I caught the sarcasm in your first comment and username. Enjoyed a little humor.
> I’m in Saskatchewan and wondering if there are others in our province who can communicate on action plans


I am in the Yorkton area. Been here almost 10 years, but was a lifelong Albertan when I bought the headache in 1990. Someone suggested picketing the Northwynd office in Calgary the past few days. Doubt my car would have started and since the STC is gone, options are limited. (Besides, picketing is a warm weather project, as any Union organizer will agree. Freezing your butts off to a non-audience is best done at the end of the strike...)


----------



## Spark1

You are right truths. Many Seniors when they bought their timeshare your contract was either a Villa Lease or deeded and in our case our contract is a Vacation Villa Lease. That means you bought a Lease for Example 40years.  You have a [Right-to-use]timeshare,which refers to a Lease Agreement. In this type of timeshare your lease expires after a specified time and you have no Property Ownership rights in the Property. A[right-to-use] Timeshare may include Lockoff,and Floating Timeshare. Do not allow Northmont to move your timeshare prior to 2010 to 2010 just because of Jim Belfry or Jekes test case His contract in 2010 might of been called a VIA I have no idea. If some one has a 2010 contract is it a Lease contract? This is why i did not agree with Justice Young Decision. She then is saying the Trustee has the Right to do what he did and our choose being Lease Owners is Sign this Cancellation where you could never be released from the resort. So you pay the $3100 and GST and you could also be paying maintenance fees for each year,Lawyer fees and any thing else Northmont dreams up. That is decision number one for us. Decision number two you Lease Owners will have to pay the Special Assessment. That was not the case for Janet and Barrie Lydiatt who were Lease Owners at the Banff Rocky Mountain Resort Ltd. They paid Special Assessments for 3 years and took the resort to court and the Lydiatt won their case. This is what Judge J.T. McCarthy had to say. Are the vacationers required to pay the “Special Assessment”?  “Time Share”. Though the term “special assessment” might indicate otherwise,the terms of the Agreement confirm that the Vacationers do not have “any legal interest whatsoever” in the vacation units. Why did our case take so long to resolve? This is the very same as our Lease Agreement and I hope the VIA’s read this way please let me Know. Every timeshare owner that has a lease agreement tell Northmont do not be changing our contracts. This is more than modifying. These contracts are legal documents signed and witnessed and Northmont Hands Off. We would never of bought a timeshare designed by Kirk Wankel.


----------



## truthr

GypsyOne said:


> So what's your point? I hope it isn't that you can't form an opinion without first reading thousands of repetitive pages of legal jargon and background over a period of several years.  Disclosure:  I was one of the first in the battle, but bought out reluctantly when it became painfully obvious we could not win.  After your voluminous reading, you should have come to the same conclusion and saved a lot of money.
> 
> So who is to blame?  Needless to say primarily it is the shrewd band of white-collar opportunists known as Northmont who know how to play the system, have access to millions of our money, hire the best lawyers with our money, know which strings to pull and wheels to grease, and are completely unscrupulous. They are able to convince an easily convinced judicial system that truth is on their side and the judges can couch their decisions in impressive sounding legal jargon and precedents.  Secondly, we can probably blame the Province and a compliant legal system.  I don't know if this is true, I just don't see how we could have lost without other forces at work. I thought our case was unassailable, yet we lost unanimously on all counts. (Main points we should have won on: 1. We are lessees not owners of real estate; 2. We are not responsible for faulty buildings; 3. We are not responsible for bad decisions without having a voice in management, and clearly we did not.)
> 
> So can we blame our legal representation?  Only to a point.  Obviously things could have been done differently.  The people Geldert retained to carry the ball seemed to have fumbled the ball, but that does not necessarily lead to legal liability.  Half the cases that are litigated in court are lost by one of the parties, usually after being assured they had an iron-clad case.
> 
> So does lodging a complaint with the B.C. Law Society do any good?  Probably not.  I doubt if losing a case is a matter they would spend much time investigating on behalf of a disgruntled losing side. Quite possibly we could have been represented by a trained monkey or The Almighty Herself and the results would have been the same.
> 
> Are the Judges or the Province innocent as Truth seems to think?  I doubt it, but I don't know for sure.  As I said earlier, our case seemed unassailable, but yet we lost unanimously on all counts.  This leads me to believe something else was in play.  I'm pretty much sure the Province of B.C. did not want a failed significant tourist attraction on their hands.  Nor did they want to prop it up with public money.  Governments have been known to lose elections on such matters.  An informal get-together with the right people, a wink and a nod, a veiled threat or a veiled benefit can go a long way toward getting a B.C. friendly decision.  Conspiracy theory?  Maybe, but I'm getting kind of cynical.


Anyone can form an opinion but without ALL the facts it may not be a fully informed one.


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

After five years of fighting, alongside thousands of other TS lease holders, in Canada's legal system, we now expect a bill *9x* the amount NM said we had to "pay to leave" our TS contract in 2013!?!  We never should have had to pay anything more than a small administrative charge to exit our contract, especially not when the OWNER of the resort was getting back an asset for which we had prepaid 40 years in advance! 
My husband & I never missed paying a bill in our lives prior to NM demanding a special assessment of some $4100 based on a broad guesstimate renovation budget of up to $40 million. We asked to continue paying the MF while we disputed the special assessment and to continue using the TS week for which we had paid 40 years in ADVANCE. NM said no and denied us our right to use our prepaid Prime Golf week. Then NM punished us for not paying the MF by charging a ridiculously high interest penalty! Why would we pay TWICE for a service that NM forbade us to use??? How could any court determine we owed NM maintenance fees - PLUS LOAN SHARK INTEREST - when even paying those MF would not allow us access to our prepaid TS week? 
The Courts accepted NM's loose $40M reno budget plus its 15% management fee as an operational expense that had to be paid by all those holding a TS lease. Huh???? We did not buy a share in a condo! 
How could subsequent judges not rule in our favour? 
I am grateful we found other like-minded people to rally together with and a lawyer willing to represent us. No way we could have taken on the game Wizard Wankle and the Northwynd/Northmont ourselves. 
I don't regret fighting for fairness and justice - I'd do it all again to protect our rights!  I do regret not recognizing and accepting much earlier in this legal battle that we were not going to get a judge to see this matter from our perspective.  And I regret the painful realization that the timeshare industry in Canada is not well regulated to protect users who buy time.
The "blame game" will tear me up, a futile exercise in my view. The people behind Fairmont Resort Properties and Northwynd and Northmont are at fault. I hope the proper authorities are following the money!


----------



## JAM DOWN

Truthr

Not sure what you are trying to accomplish by going after the lawyer...Where were you when you read the transcript from the SuperConference that took place in January 2015? or read the 1,200+ page transcript from the JEKE hearing that took place in January 2016? or read all the Judgments/Decisions from all the court proceedings? I don't remember hearing your criticism. No doubt mistakes were made by the legal team and nobody is happy...not sure your post mortem 20/20 assessment of our legal team is the answer... at least today.
You were privy to insider information that you clearly used to"protect" our lawyer and divide the FB groups. You were clear about  "knowing things" that only you could be "trusted"to know. As the "all knowing one" you were divisive and secretive. Your agenda wasn't to lead or unite and I clearly don't trust your agenda to go after the lawyer. There is time enough to hold people accountable ... I think we should be chasing down things that can help...to me going after the lawyer means that you have given up and that you need someone to blame...or ...you know something we don't?...Maybe you can fill us in about "All the Facts" and inform us!!


----------



## truthr

JAM DOWN said:


> Truthr
> 
> Not sure what you are trying to accomplish by going after the lawyer...Where were you when you read the transcript from the SuperConference that took place in January 2015? or read the 1,200+ page transcript from the JEKE hearing that took place in January 2016? or read all the Judgments/Decisions from all the court proceedings? I don't remember hearing your criticism. No doubt mistakes were made by the legal team and nobody is happy...not sure your post mortem 20/20 assessment of our legal team is the answer... at least today.
> You were privy to insider information that you clearly used to"protect" our lawyer and divide the FB groups. You were clear about  "knowing things" that only you could be "trusted"to know. As the "all knowing one" you were divisive and secretive. Your agenda wasn't to lead or unite and I clearly don't trust your agenda to go after the lawyer. There is time enough to hold people accountable ... I think we should be chasing down things that can help...to me going after the lawyer means that you have given up and that you need someone to blame...or ...you know something we don't?...Maybe you can fill us in about "All the Facts" and inform us!!


If working with our lawyer was "protecting" him, then guilty as charged.  I was always trying to assist where I could and that also meant challenging him at times to be more transparent with his clients.  Through the years I did skim over things as others did but when the light bulb went off and that aha moment arrived and the pieces began falling together just recently I began searching through and thoroughly reading the massive amount of documents we were provided with and some we weren't that I paid to get.

I, and any other client, really should not have been "privy" to inside information - that is correct.

We should ALL have been provided with ALL the information at ALL times.

I, and I would wager others, welcome any suggestions from all in this horrible, time sensitive situation as to any and all potential solutions to stop this train wreck before it destroys people's lives any more than it already has.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Scammed! said:


> Ultimate_Betrayal There are people that don't understand what you're trying to do, and that's to help them get motivated. The he$$ with the punctuation right now, your making a point to everyone to write a letter a.s.a.p. The Minister of Justice and all the other's will understand our letters are from regular/older people that are frantic on a deadline confused, betrayed, scared and trying to speak out for the first time, we're not college students or lawyers. Don't worry about punctuation so much as being respectful. Tell your/our story the best you can and make every sentence a point. Before you send your letters out go over it a hundred times like I did but even then you will have mistakes, we're not perfect.
> After I sent one copy to Prime Minister Trudeau yesterday I was shaking. What would he think about my letter and mistakes? I realized he's like all of us, and maybe he has a timeshare for he's family. One day he might get to meet this gentleman we speak about. He is a family man, and I doubt for one moment he would allow this to happen to him. I realized I did the Prime Minister a favour....
> Your letter shows exhaustion, devastation, and passion. Your trying to tell the truth, and we all are. We don't need this right now through the holidays and by the way Happy New Year!  Your letter is an example to everyone to write a letter and not be scared, and I'd like to thank you for stepping up to the plate. I told you I didn't trust talking to you or anyone a couple of days ago, yet I needed encouragement and tried to reach out on this board. Like you said we have been conditioned this way. Which is a form of abuse, our rights, and freedom of speech has been taken from us leaving us vulnerable and in this exact position. I just wanted to give you a pat on the back who ever you are...lol. Your letter and my letter won't be enough, this group needs to pull together. I was and still am terrified which has given me my fight back, and if I'm going down I will go down fighting with my pride in hand. I have nothing to lose anymore. I will fight alone if I have to, or with who ever else wants to join us. Thank you.
> 
> Time to send more copies out......


Thanks for your strong and encouraging works of support.

I cleaned things up as best I can and have even had offers to assist in creating better more professional letters so thanks everyone for doing what you are GREAT at!!!

Lots of people have asked for the unedited version and I am hoping email boxes are getting full and faxes are running out of paper.

Keep up the good work everyone.


----------



## JAM DOWN

Truthr...please share your Aha moment...don't keep us in the dark...nothing to lose now...throw it up on your private FB page. No need to hold things close anymore...lets get it all out on the table so that we can "ALL" decide if you are on to something...looking forward to learning about what you know...logging in to FB now in anticipation...let me know when you post it.


----------



## Scammed!

JAM DOWN said:


> Truthr...please share your Aha moment...don't keep us in the dark...nothing to lose now...throw it up on your private FB page. No need to hold things close anymore...lets get it all out on the table so that we can "ALL" decide if you are on to something...looking forward to learning about what you know...logging in to FB now in anticipation...let me know when you post it.


LAY OFF! I don't even know her, and at this point it doesn't matter. Your not helping this issue. You sound like a bully!  Moving forward......


----------



## F. Hugh Wankel

Hello folks,

My wife and I have contacted the Service Alberta Consumer Investigations Unit with our concerns.

These links may be of use:
Service Alberta
https://www.servicealberta.ca/file-a-complaint.cfm
https://www.servicealberta.ca/file-a-complaint.cfm
Complaint Form
https://www.servicealberta.ca/pdf/Forms/Consumer_Complaint_Form.pdf

I wish you all the best of luck. The vile cretins of Northmont can all go to hell.


----------



## GypsyOne

truthr said:


> Anyone can form an opinion but without ALL the facts it may not be a fully informed one.



Can you give us in point form what "all of the facts" are, or at least the top ten.


----------



## ecwinch

Moderator Note:  Let's keep it civil when replying to posts. Obviously this is a contentious issue with more backstory than most of us can follow, but TUG rules still apply.

*Be Courteous*

As we read and respond to others, disagreements are inevitable. Differing points of view are welcomed, and indeed the bbs would be a dull place without them. All users are expected and required to express their disagreements civilly. Refrain from name calling and behavior lectures. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and repeated offenses could get you banned from the bbs. Lively discussion is what the board is all about, but that is no excuse for boorish behavior or bad manners. We are assumed to all be adults. If you don't like a particular thread, stop reading it!


----------



## Punter

Anyone familiar with the PANAMA PAPERS? It’s information about wealthy people with offshore accounts that are sometimes used for illegal purposes including fraud and tax evasion.


I'm posting two links. If you can't click on them, copy and paste into your browser. The first shows Sunchaser and people associated with them, listed as having money in the Barbados.


https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/101722595


This link is a frighteningly familiar account of the “questionable” activities that went on at Rancho Banderas. It's fairly long - the good part is under "Breach of Contract". Read where the GM boasts that if they were sued, they're safe because their assets are hidden in the Barbados.


Resorts West, Fairmont / Northmont / Northwynd, Fairwynd, … it is all incestuous. The same people and interests reconfigured. It’s a continuous shell game. All these properties, all eventually or essentially bankrupt and the same people always profit.

Is this not the root of all of our problems?

https://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=17251

I would think the CRA or the RCMP would be interested in this story.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Hey Everyone

This whole thing is very raw and let’s see what we can accomplish together – I don’t want to see anyone banished as we all need to express our anger and try to work collaboratively.

Unfortunately we cannot ask for a do over when it comes to the trials but we can make sure our collective voices are heard loud and clear as the settlement is *NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!*

There is many things to be done but right now we need to focus on our voices being heard – don’t direct frustration at each other and lets try to focus on the problem at hand.



I want to share something with you related to retainer agreement we all hopefully signed to be represented by Geldert as a group:

*The negotiation is not a hum drum day to day legal service to be done without client consultation*

Geldert Law shall consult with the Client with respect to major decisions or choices, pertaining to significant alternatives or financial impacts, but Geldert Law shall be expected to process the Client’s legal affairs in accordance with efficient standardized procedures without consultation, recognizing that legal services must often be performed as an art rather than a science.

I think the majority of the goals below are a *FAIL *or will soon be

Our involvement on behalf of the Litigation Group, at least initially, will include the provision of the following services:
1) We will negotiate for a group or standard cancellation of your Vacation Interval Agreement(s) (the “Agreement(s)”).
2) We will represent you in connection with the hearing of the Petition to the Court commenced by Philip K. Matkin Professional Corporation (the “Trustee”). For clarity, we will be opposing the relief sought by the Trustee:
a. To prevent Northmont from “making certain unilateral changes to your Agreement”
b. To prevent the Trustee from changing the registrar to protect Owners’ interests; and,
c. To prevent the transferring title of certain property currently part of the Resort to Northmont.

I am *not feeling the Love*

The rules of the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia require that, before we represent you jointly, we must raise certain issues with you and obtain your consent as to the course to be followed in the future if a conflict arises. The following will apply to our joint representation of you:
a) We owe each and every Client in the Litigation Group a duty of undivided loyalty. This means that we must act in each of your best interests at all times and must not favour the interests of one of you over the interests of another, or allow anything to interfere with our loyalty to each of you or our judgment on your behalf. If we are unable to fulfill this duty of undivided loyalty to each of you, we will have to withdraw.
b) No information we receive from one of you or from any other source with respect to this matter can be treated as confidential from either of you. This means that, as long as the joint retainer continues, we must disclose relevant information to both of you. However, should we receive information from any source that makes it clear we are in a conflict by acting for you jointly, or if a contentious issue arises between you, we must cease acting for all of you in the matter unless the conflict/contentious issue is resolved or the circumstances of a permitted continuing relationship apply.


----------



## Bewildered

GypsyOne said:


> Can you give us in point form what "all of the facts" are, or at least the top ten.



The fact is, this is a nightmare and will go down as the biggest 25 million dollar scam in the history of Alberta/BC. What we (all timeshare owners) need to do is phone your MLAs immediately and if we were smart there would 100s of us marching on legislature demanding that the Alberta Justice Minister take some immediate action based on us all being held ransom by THE lawyer and Northmont with this short timeframe on a life altering decision. I personally believe The lawyer no longer has his clients best interests in mind and is now really bailing on all of us. Discussed with him and he no longer seems interested. I still cannot fathom how this is all legal. People work all their lives to save their money to basically get stolen from them through a timeshare scam?
Is there no one out there with a legal background to actually let us know what would actually happen if we didn’t pay this ransom?


----------



## Bewildered

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Hey Everyone
> 
> This whole thing is very raw and let’s see what we can accomplish together – I don’t want to see anyone banished as we all need to express our anger and try to work collaboratively.
> 
> Unfortunately we cannot ask for a do over when it comes to the trials but we can make sure our collective voices are heard loud and clear as the settlement is *NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!*
> 
> There is many things to be done but right now we need to focus on our voices being heard – don’t direct frustration at each other and lets try to focus on the problem at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> I want to share something with you related to retainer agreement we all hopefully signed to be represented by Geldert as a group:
> 
> *The negotiation is not a hum drum day to day legal service to be done without client consultation*
> 
> Geldert Law shall consult with the Client with respect to major decisions or choices, pertaining to significant alternatives or financial impacts, but Geldert Law shall be expected to process the Client’s legal affairs in accordance with efficient standardized procedures without consultation, recognizing that legal services must often be performed as an art rather than a science.
> 
> I think the majority of the goals below are a *FAIL *or will soon be
> 
> Our involvement on behalf of the Litigation Group, at least initially, will include the provision of the following services:
> 1) We will negotiate for a group or standard cancellation of your Vacation Interval Agreement(s) (the “Agreement(s)”).
> 2) We will represent you in connection with the hearing of the Petition to the Court commenced by Philip K. Matkin Professional Corporation (the “Trustee”). For clarity, we will be opposing the relief sought by the Trustee:
> a. To prevent Northmont from “making certain unilateral changes to your Agreement”
> b. To prevent the Trustee from changing the registrar to protect Owners’ interests; and,
> c. To prevent the transferring title of certain property currently part of the Resort to Northmont.
> 
> I am *not feeling the Love*
> 
> The rules of the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia require that, before we represent you jointly, we must raise certain issues with you and obtain your consent as to the course to be followed in the future if a conflict arises. The following will apply to our joint representation of you:
> a) We owe each and every Client in the Litigation Group a duty of undivided loyalty. This means that we must act in each of your best interests at all times and must not favour the interests of one of you over the interests of another, or allow anything to interfere with our loyalty to each of you or our judgment on your behalf. If we are unable to fulfill this duty of undivided loyalty to each of you, we will have to withdraw.
> b) No information we receive from one of you or from any other source with respect to this matter can be treated as confidential from either of you. This means that, as long as the joint retainer continues, we must disclose relevant information to both of you. However, should we receive information from any source that makes it clear we are in a conflict by acting for you jointly, or if a contentious issue arises between you, we must cease acting for all of you in the matter unless the conflict/contentious issue is resolved or the circumstances of a permitted continuing relationship apply.





Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Hey Everyone
> 
> This whole thing is very raw and let’s see what we can accomplish together – I don’t want to see anyone banished as we all need to express our anger and try to work collaboratively.
> 
> Unfortunately we cannot ask for a do over when it comes to the trials but we can make sure our collective voices are heard loud and clear as the settlement is *NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!*
> 
> There is many things to be done but right now we need to focus on our voices being heard – don’t direct frustration at each other and lets try to focus on the problem at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> I want to share something with you related to retainer agreement we all hopefully signed to be represented by Geldert as a group:
> 
> *The negotiation is not a hum drum day to day legal service to be done without client consultation*
> 
> Geldert Law shall consult with the Client with respect to major decisions or choices, pertaining to significant alternatives or financial impacts, but Geldert Law shall be expected to process the Client’s legal affairs in accordance with efficient standardized procedures without consultation, recognizing that legal services must often be performed as an art rather than a science.
> 
> I think the majority of the goals below are a *FAIL *or will soon be
> 
> Our involvement on behalf of the Litigation Group, at least initially, will include the provision of the following services:
> 1) We will negotiate for a group or standard cancellation of your Vacation Interval Agreement(s) (the “Agreement(s)”).
> 2) We will represent you in connection with the hearing of the Petition to the Court commenced by Philip K. Matkin Professional Corporation (the “Trustee”). For clarity, we will be opposing the relief sought by the Trustee:
> a. To prevent Northmont from “making certain unilateral changes to your Agreement”
> b. To prevent the Trustee from changing the registrar to protect Owners’ interests; and,
> c. To prevent the transferring title of certain property currently part of the Resort to Northmont.
> 
> I am *not feeling the Love*
> 
> The rules of the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia require that, before we represent you jointly, we must raise certain issues with you and obtain your consent as to the course to be followed in the future if a conflict arises. The following will apply to our joint representation of you:
> a) We owe each and every Client in the Litigation Group a duty of undivided loyalty. This means that we must act in each of your best interests at all times and must not favour the interests of one of you over the interests of another, or allow anything to interfere with our loyalty to each of you or our judgment on your behalf. If we are unable to fulfill this duty of undivided loyalty to each of you, we will have to withdraw.
> b) No information we receive from one of you or from any other source with respect to this matter can be treated as confidential from either of you. This means that, as long as the joint retainer continues, we must disclose relevant information to both of you. However, should we receive information from any source that makes it clear we are in a conflict by acting for you jointly, or if a contentious issue arises between you, we must cease acting for all of you in the matter unless the conflict/contentious issue is resolved or the circumstances of a permitted continuing relationship apply.


This is all great info but dealing with Geldert may not be a priority with the deadline coming. Involving your elected officials and or the media (what Geldert promised to do) ASAP is the only way this train wreck is not happening. I don’t have all the answers but a thousand phone calls to your individual MLAs and to the legal societies of Alberta/BC would be a start. I don’t understand the Judge Young angle on this board but I guess it wouldnt hurt


----------



## Tanny13

For those FAIRMONT owners who still own and have paid the RPF and maintenance fees to date, have any of you questioned the management fee that is charged?  The contracts state that the management fee is 15% of expenses.  In the 2013 financials (all financial reports are available on Sunchaser.ca), the management fee is over $2.4 million, which is 31% of expenses!  In 2014, the management fee was over $1.6 million, which is 20% of expenses!  All of us, no matter whether you’re in the fight or not, are being robbed...


----------



## Bewildered

Scammed! said:


> I've sent the same letter to 7 different officials now, and I won't stop until I'm heard from someone that will help us. I will continue sending to everyone and everybody until their sick of me. We all need to step it up its our last chance. I can't do this without you. We've been wronged and this is the worst of abuse I have ever been a part of.... not in my country.....Don't stop, don't look back, keep fighting, and send send send. Hon, L.D YOUNG might not receive the letters but everyone else will, and maybe she will get it. How will we know if we don't try. Talk is cheap make a difference at least for yourself and your family, and I also wrote on behalf of all of us. God Bless us all. I did nothing wrong nor do I have anything to be ashamed of. Like the pin said that I wore in court "NEVER GIVE UP!" I swear I never will.........





Tanny13 said:


> For those FAIRMONT owners who still own and have paid the RPF and maintenance fees to date, have any of you questioned the management fee that is charged?  The contracts state that the management fee is 15% of expenses.  In the 2013 financials (all financial reports are available on Sunchaser.ca), the management fee is over $2.4 million, which is 31% of expenses!  In 2014, the management fee was over $1.6 million, which is 20% of expenses!  All of us, no matter whether you’re in the fight or not, are being robbed...



Thats what Geldert was hired for, again were way past the point of questioning mgmt fees. Contact your MLA, legal societies, Judge Young, etc ASAP and hopefully the media gets wind of this, we are talking over a $25 million dollar ransom thrown at over a thousand of us by Northmont and Geldert. Let’s get off our butts and do something. Get on the phone, email, etc Tuesday and get going. Sitting on this site bemoaning our situation will do zip, Geldert has kept us silent for too long based on his hollow promises. He has washed his hands of us so we are on our own. If someone from Edmonton would organize a March in front of the legislature demanding the Justice Minister do something, I’m there in a heartbeat even though I’m not from Edmonton. Let’s everyone step up or I guess we all like giving away $25,000 hard earned dollars. Most of you say your seniors so if your retired use your valuable time to bend a few ears.


----------



## Scammed!

Bewildered said:


> Thats what Geldert was hired for, again were way past the point of questioning mgmt fees. Contact your MLA, legal societies, Judge Young, etc ASAP and hopefully the media gets wind of this, Let’s get off our butts and do something. Get on the phone, email, etc Tuesday and get going. Sitting on this site bemoaning our situation will do zip, Geldert has kept us silent for too long based on his hollow promises. He has washed his hands of us so we are on our own. If someone from Edmonton would organize a March in front of the legislature demanding the Justice Minister do something, I’m there in a heartbeat even though I’m not from Edmonton. Let’s everyone step up or I guess we all like giving away $25,000 hard earned dollars. Most of you say your seniors so if your retired use your valuable time to bend a few ears.




You know what got me......QUOTE "We are talking over a $25 million dollar ransom thrown at over a thousand of us by Northmont and Geldert."  Painful to see those names together.......................


----------



## Tanny13

Bewildered said:


> Thats what Geldert was hired for, again were way past the point of questioning mgmt fees. Contact your MLA, legal societies, Judge Young, etc ASAP and hopefully the media gets wind of this, we are talking over a $25 million dollar ransom thrown at over a thousand of us by Northmont and Geldert. Let’s get off our butts and do something. Get on the phone, email, etc Tuesday and get going. Sitting on this site bemoaning our situation will do zip, Geldert has kept us silent for too long based on his hollow promises. He has washed his hands of us so we are on our own. If someone from Edmonton would organize a March in front of the legislature demanding the Justice Minister do something, I’m there in a heartbeat even though I’m not from Edmonton. Let’s everyone step up or I guess we all like giving away $25,000 hard earned dollars. Most of you say your seniors so if your retired use your valuable time to bend a few ears.



I don’t believe management fees were ever brought up by Geldert.  For those of us who are staying and fighting, we are not even CLOSE to past the point of questioning...


----------



## Bewildered

Tanny13 said:


> I don’t believe management fees were ever brought up by Geldert.  For those of us who are staying and fighting, we are not even CLOSE to past the point of questioning...


When you say those of us who are staying and fighting, please explain what your plans are? This is obviously happening outside the Geldert group as that seems to be a dead end. I’d be interested to know how questioning the mgmt fees matters at this point when Northmont according to Geldert can unilaterally charge 26% interest and no limit (presently 20%) to get out as they are presently doing with the threat of 160% if we don’t pay? I guess if you paid all the way along and don’t plan on getting out of this nightmare that might make sense?


----------



## Petus@18

heydynagirl said:


> It was in the email the lawyer sent Dec 28 at approx. 21:00 PST



It wasn't clear by MG's message if the opting out' deadline was 12 pm or am?  We sent ours at 3 pm.  Does anyone knows if they can proceed with collections/seizing assets right away? How much time do we have?  We need legal advice but will have to wait until Jan 2 when many firms are back from holidays.  Will you be fighting on your own or are you contemplating hiring someone else?  Does anyone know of any good lawyer in AB?  I know, we are so sick and tired of lawyers but what else is there? Wishing for all of us a better year, we hope to wake up someone with power that could help us get justice.


----------



## Spark1

Punter said:


> Anyone familiar with the PANAMA PAPERS? It’s information about wealthy people with offshore accounts that are sometimes used for illegal purposes including fraud and tax evasion.
> 
> 
> I'm posting two links. If you can't click on them, copy and paste into your browser. The first shows Sunchaser and people associated with them, listed as having money in the Barbados.
> 
> 
> https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/101722595
> 
> 
> This link is a frighteningly familiar account of the “questionable” activities that went on at Rancho Banderas. It's fairly long - the good part is under "Breach of Contract". Read where the GM boasts that if they were sued, they're safe because their assets are hidden in the Barbados.
> 
> 
> Resorts West, Fairmont / Northmont / Northwynd, Fairwynd, … it is all incestuous. The same people and interests reconfigured. It’s a continuous shell game. All these properties, all eventually or essentially bankrupt and the same people always profit.
> 
> Is this not the root of all of our problems?
> 
> https://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=17251
> 
> I would think the CRA or the RCMP would be interested in this story.





Punter said:


> Anyone familiar with the PANAMA PAPERS? It’s information about wealthy people with offshore accounts that are sometimes used for illegal purposes including fraud and
> 
> I'm posting two links. If you can't click on them, copy and paste into your browser. The first shows Sunchaser and people associated with them, listed as having money in the Barbados.
> 
> 
> https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/101722595
> 
> 
> This link is a frighteningly familiar account of the “questionable” activities that went on at Rancho Banderas. It's fairly long - the good part is under "Breach of Contract". Read where the GM boasts that if they were sued, they're safe because their assets are hidden in the Barbados.
> 
> 
> Resorts West, Fairmont / Northmont / Northwynd, Fairwynd, … it is all incestuous. The same people and interests reconfigured. It’s a continuous shell game. All these properties, all eventually or essentially bankrupt and the same people always profit.
> 
> Is this not the root of all of our problems?
> 
> https://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=17251
> 
> I would think the CRA or the RCMP would be interested in this story.


 Thanks Petus@18. Yes I can help you with this. I am working with the RCMP and love to help you with this. I have joined the Canadian anti-fraud centre. Phone 1-888-495-8501. They will set you up with a email address to send your documents. They will also give you a file number. Any one can do this. If you have any information that could pertain to to anti fraud and extortion join the RCMP . This could put more pressure on getting this Forensic Audit done. I will be meeting with the RCMP  next week. Keep in contact.


----------



## Petus@18

Thank you very much


----------



## TimesharesBlow

I can appreciate the amount of “Seniors” here as expressed. I am hoping some of the folks that are retired(ie. have time during the day) and have lots of life/career experience can do the appropriate leg work with research and provide guidance, as the hardest part in all of this for us younger people in the thick of life with careers and kids and all of their activities, is not having any time during the day or evenings to pursue the phone calls and letters to whoever and wherever they need to go. I reiterate, I will never pay a dime to the folks that have already robbed me and my family of years of vacations that i already paid for. It’s like your house being robbed and then getting a bill from the thieves to please pay them for providing you a “robbery” experience. They already got the money the first time we bought the timeshare. I stopped paying my maintenance fees, they get to keep their timeshare. That’s my loss. That’s it. No going back to the well and asking for more cash. Anyone who pays another dime to Northmont/Northwynd(whatever their name is) is just sending good money after bad. We need someone to break through and succeed with a process that works and then the rest of us can follow suit. This should be looked at as a criminal investigation. Please keep us posted.


----------



## Bewildered

Spark1 said:


> Thanks Petus@18. Yes I can help you with this. I am working with the RCMP and love to help you with this. I have joined the Canadian anti-fraud centre. Phone 1-888-495-8501. They will set you up with a email address to send your documents. They will also give you a file number. Any one can do this. If you have any information that could pertain to to anti fraud and extortion join the RCMP . This could put more pressure on getting this Forensic Audit done. I will be meeting with the RCMP  next week. Keep in contact.



I already registered a complaint with anti-fraud years ago, nothing happened so I think this is not going to help for anyone who has been given this upcoming deadline. Better off calling your local MLA. If i’m mistaken please explain what the RCMP are telling you Spark 1??


----------



## Bewildered

TimesharesBlow said:


> I can appreciate the amount of “Seniors” here as expressed. I am hoping some of the folks that are retired(ie. have time during the day) and have lots of life/career experience can do the appropriate leg work with research and provide guidance, as the hardest part in all of this for us younger people in the thick of life with careers and kids and all of their activities, is not having any time during the day or evenings to pursue the phone calls and letters to whoever and wherever they need to go. I reiterate, I will never pay a dime to the folks that have already robbed me and my family of years of vacations that i already paid for. It’s like your house being robbed and then getting a bill from the thieves to please pay them for providing you a “robbery” experience. They already got the money the first time we bought the timeshare. I stopped paying my maintenance fees, they get to keep their timeshare. That’s my loss. That’s it. No going back to the well and asking for more cash. Anyone who pays another dime to Northmont/Northwynd(whatever their name is) is just sending good money after bad. We need someone to break through and succeed with a process that works and then the rest of us can follow suit. This should be looked at as a criminal investigation. Please keep us posted.



It is worth your time to invest a little in phoning your elected officials, or sending emails to the legal societies society contacts on this site and anybody else that will listen. People have/will post letters you can utilize as our story is all the same. People in Edmonton should be banding together and marching on the legislature until the Justice Minister looks into this. Anybody who was involved with Geldert only has a couple weeks


----------



## Punter

Spark - are you dealing with your local RCMP?  This is a complicated case and it's in our best interest to consolidate our efforts rather than approach various branches with the same issue. I'm in the Edmonton area and it looks like you're in Ponoka. Also, do you have a file number with Anti-fraud that we can cite? You can always send me a private message too.


----------



## Spark1

Punter said:


> Spark - are you dealing with your local RCMP?  This is a complicated case and it's in our best interest to consolidate our efforts rather than approach various branches with the same issue. I'm in the Edmonton area and it looks like you're in Ponoka. Also, do you have a file number with Anti-fraud that we can cite? You can always send me a private message too.





Punter said:


> Spark - are you dealing with your local RCMP?  This is a complicated case and it's in our best interest to consolidate our efforts rather than approach various branches with the same issue. I'm in the Edmonton area and it looks like you're in Ponoka. Also, do you have a file number with Anti-fraud that we can cite? You can always send me a private message too.


No when you deal with the Canadian anti-fraud centre.  1-888-495-8501.  We deal with both. Every tug file will be moved to the head office in Ontario and that will be very easy for me to do . It is time consuming but worth it,I feel this has been very hard on Seniors and young adults who were lied to about how much cheaper timeshare vacations would be. When I deal with any Branch all I need to do is show the Local RCMP my file number. I will never just leave a file with the local police they both will get these files.


----------



## aden2

TimesharesBlow said:


> I can appreciate the amount of “Seniors” here as expressed. I am hoping some of the folks that are retired(ie. have time during the day) and have lots of life/career experience can do the appropriate leg work with research and provide guidance, as the hardest part in all of this for us younger people in the thick of life with careers and kids and all of their activities, is not having any time during the day or evenings to pursue the phone calls and letters to whoever and wherever they need to go. I reiterate, I will never pay a dime to the folks that have already robbed me and my family of years of vacations that i already paid for. It’s like your house being robbed and then getting a bill from the thieves to please pay them for providing you a “robbery” experience. They already got the money the first time we bought the timeshare. I stopped paying my maintenance fees, they get to keep their timeshare. That’s my loss. That’s it. No going back to the well and asking for more cash. Anyone who pays another dime to Northmont/Northwynd(whatever their name is) is just sending good money after bad. We need someone to break through and succeed with a process that works and then the rest of us can follow suit. This should be looked at as a criminal investigation. Please keep us posted.


*The New Consumer Protection Act protects consumers from contract changes that are done unilaterally, that a contract can be cancelled as a result. *


----------



## Spark1

Punter said:


> Spark - are you dealing with your local RCMP?  This is a complicated case and it's in our best interest to consolidate our efforts rather than approach various branches with the same issue. I'm in the Edmonton area and it looks like you're in Ponoka. Also, do you have a file number with Anti-fraud that we can cite? You can always send me a private message too.


I no Edmonton quite well we lived there for over 30 years. Let come up with a date and a time and we will do this. When you join  the Candian anti-fraud centre they will give you a email address: where you will mail your documents and you will get a file no. That file number can also be used with the Local RCMP.  I will watch for you on Tug and we will compare notes in Edmonton or Ponoka. Happy New Year to you.


----------



## Spark1

Tanny13 said:


> For those FAIRMONT owners who still own and have paid the RPF and maintenance fees to date, have any of you questioned the management fee that is charged?  The contracts state that the management fee is 15% of expenses.  In the 2013 financials (all financial reports are available on Sunchaser.ca), the management fee is over $2.4 million, which is 31% of expenses!  In 2014, the management fee was over $1.6 million, which is 20% of expenses!  All of us, no matter whether you’re in the fight or not, are being robbed...


What you need to do is show this to your Local RCMP and diffently contact Canadian anti-fraud centre PH.    1-888-495-8501. They are great to deal with and they will set up what you need to do.


----------



## Scammed!

aden2 said:


> *The New Consumer Protection Act protects consumers from contract changes that are done unilaterally, that a contract can be cancelled as a result. *





consumers@gov.mb.ca    Sent mine already.


----------



## Spark1

I received our bill from Northmont It showed the Principal being 1997.59 and the interest being 4043.45 and the tax was 99.88 and the total bill was 6140.92. Our maintenance fee in 2012 was 943.00 which we paid. I well ask Northmont how they came up with that number for 2013. I will also remind them that I own a Vacation Villa Lease. When you have a Lease type Contract you have the right to use that timeshare in our case 40 years. That right was taken away from us because we did not agree with what the Trustee did being The Cancellation Agreement and the Special Assessment. That was not part of our Lease before the freedom to choose. After the 40 years we have no claim to ownership of any of the property whatsoever. We feel they owe us because we lost the use of the timeshare for 5years because signing that cancellation Agreement did not mean you were cancelled and Special Assessments are not part of Lease Agreements. This using the Fair Trading ACT  was explained by Justice J.T. McCarthy in the  Citation:Lydiatt.Banff Rocky Mountain Resort, 2008 ABPC. 333.   Timeshare owners that have Lease agreements do not let Northmont try change this because they feel that is part of modifying the Resort. I feel every one of us are being scammed and extorted because of this we all have a responsibility to report this to the RCMP at the Canadian anti-fraud centre 1-888-495-8501. The RCMP said what they watch for if there is several files and documents involved in this case they will investigate. What I will never understand when, Justice Loo ruled on this case why did she not have any consideration for the contracts that we all signed. Since Dec13 when I wrote a post there has been 13435 hits on Tug let’s do the same with the  Canadian anti-fraud centre. 1-888-495-8501. I can not tell you not to pay but when you talk to the RCMP and explain this fraud and extortion and let them know we want the forensic audit completed on this resort so we know where all our Maintenance money went before Collin Knight went bankrupted then ask them should you pay the extortion?


----------



## easy prey

Unfortunately, geldert has ensured we have functionally no time to react.  Within weeks the settlement will be literally signed, sealed and delivered (except for those who either cannot or will not pay).  As much as it sickens me, these are the facts.

I am hopeful  some last minute intervention happens through mla's,  rcmp, prime minister etc.

A lot of roads to go down with no time.

Gelderts option 1 and option 2 strike me as similar to options northmont gave us when this all started.

I will be contacting the media with our situation at the following email addresses :
1)  gopublic@cbc.ca
2) marketplace@cbc.ca
3) fifthtips@cbc.ca

If global news and ctv news have similar news type investigators I will be contacting them as well. 

I encourage you to do the same as it's easy for them to ignore 1 person.

This gross miscarriage of justice needs to be exposed. 

I will also be contacting the Canadian Anti Fraud Center.


----------



## Tanny13

Bewildered said:


> When you say those of us who are staying and fighting, please explain what your plans are? This is obviously happening outside the Geldert group as that seems to be a dead end. I’d be interested to know how questioning the mgmt fees matters at this point when Northmont according to Geldert can unilaterally charge 26% interest and no limit (presently 20%) to get out as they are presently doing with the threat of 160% if we don’t pay? I guess if you paid all the way along and don’t plan on getting out of this nightmare that might make sense?



Will be speaking to new legal counsel this week, but the plan is to pay what’s owed - RPF and outstanding maintenance fees and the legal maximum interest allowed (4 or 5%).  Costs are included in our maintenance fees so I will fight to not pay any additional costs.  This total will be substantially less than what we have been invoiced.  The difference is yes, we are still in, but how can Northmont ever charge any additional fees when they’ve just collected over $30 million.  Then we will focus our efforts on Northmont...


----------



## Palms to pines

You’re right. Pay to stay or pay to go. The consistent part of all of it is : we pay


----------



## Hotpink

Yes the New act does that , but the old act also applies  It is an UNFAIR PRACTICE
"to charge a fee for an estimate for goods or services unless the consumer (i) is informed in advance that a fee will be charged and informed of the amount of the fee and (ii)expressly consented to charged the fee."
we must remember that we all received the glossy flyer in late 2012 outlining Exciting changes coming to the resort in 2013. There is a mention of funds being held in a segregated trust account, but no mention or even an innuendo that a fee would be charged. However in a letter to us dated Dec 10,2012 there is mention on page two(2) there will be an option to pay through a $100.00 /month with no interest but no total amount.
Clearly that is in contravention of part (i)
Shame on me I didn't see a weasel waiting out side the door so did nothing

Next section from the old act which moves us to the present
"(3)it is an unfair practice for a supplier (a) to enter into a consumer transaction if the supplier knows or ought to know the consumer is unable to receive any reasonable benefit from the goods or services;
(b) to enter into a consumer transaction if the supplier knows or ought to know that there is no reasonable  probability that the consumer is able pay the full price for the goods or services; (c) to include in consumer transaction terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one -sided;(d) to make representation that a consumer transaction involves or does not involve rights, remedies or obligations that is different from the Fact "

look at the other part of section2 and it says
"It is an unfair practice for a supplier, in a consumer transaction or proposed transaction, (a)to exert undue pressure or influence on the consumer to enter into the consumer transaction; (b)to take advantage of the consumer as a result the consumers inability to understand the character, nature, language or effect of the consumer transaction or any matter related to the transaction"

Northmont is saying we each owe a certain amount based on their calculations and they are going to try and coerce as many of us to fork out extraordinary and inflated amounts. We won't and I to do not want to advise others as to hat to do. We feel they have been acting and continue to do so in contravention of the Alberta Fair Trading Act under the old rules never mind the new Act which has  more teeth.

If you don't pay they must get a judgement in court against you. Even if they got a ruling that you must pay something  it is still just a piece of paper and they are very restricted as to what they can have seized and sold. Please check with your banker , MLA or even another lawyer to verify their restrictive abilities.

Our advice  is to contact the minister in charge of this portfolio and if you are a senior also play that card ( understand it is the same Department)

Non Illigitimi carborundum


----------



## Bewildered

Tanny13 said:


> Will be speaking to new legal counsel this week, but the plan is to pay what’s owed - RPF and outstanding maintenance fees and the legal maximum interest allowed (4 or 5%).  Costs are included in our maintenance fees so I will fight to not pay any additional costs.  This total will be substantially less than what we have been invoiced.  The difference is yes, we are still in, but how can Northmont ever charge any additional fees when they’ve just collected over $30 million.  Then we will focus our efforts on Northmont...



Actually sounds good but where I am struggling is Geldert never seemed to make any headway in the BC courts or Alberta, other than Justice Youngs concern on the interest rate, so where does the 4 or 5% interest come from? If from an original contract you realize that Wankel and Northmont have unilaterally change the contracts and again the Courts never seemed to shut that illegal move either.


----------



## den403

Does anyone have anything generic, written you can send me?
I am on vacation and have no documents with me but want to send letters today but dont know where to start


----------



## Pynecone

easy prey said:


> Unfortunately, geldert has ensured we have functionally no time to react.  Within weeks the settlement will be literally signed, sealed and delivered (except for those who either cannot or will not pay).  As much as it sickens me, these are the facts.
> 
> I am hopeful  some last minute intervention happens through mla's,  rcmp, prime minister etc.
> 
> A lot of roads to go down with no time.
> 
> Gelderts option 1 and option 2 strike me as similar to options northmont gave us when this all started.
> 
> I will be contacting the media with our situation at the following email addresses :
> 1)  gopublic@cbc.ca
> 2) marketplace@cbc.ca
> 3) fifthtips@cbc.ca
> 
> If global news and ctv news have similar news type investigators I will be contacting them as well.
> 
> I encourage you to do the same as it's easy for them to ignore 1 person.
> 
> This gross miscarriage of justice needs to be exposed.
> 
> I will also be contacting the Canadian Anti Fraud Center.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

den403 said:


> Does anyone have anything generic, written you can send me?
> I am on vacation and have no documents with me but want to send letters today but dont know where to start


I can you something if you have access to email - back123@shaw.ca


----------



## Tanny13

Bewildered said:


> Actually sounds good but where I am struggling is Geldert never seemed to make any headway in the BC courts or Alberta, other than Justice Youngs concern on the interest rate, so where does the 4 or 5% interest come from? If from an original contract you realize that Wankel and Northmont have unilaterally change the contracts and again the Courts never seemed to shut that illegal move either.



I have a contract, with interest expressed illegally.  I will get proper legal advice on “unilateral amendments” to our contract.  It is also my understanding that maximum interest that can be charged while case is in the courts is 4%.  Again, need proper legal opinion.  Not being forced into a corner when everyone is on vacation.


----------



## JAM DOWN

Tanny13 said:


> Will be speaking to new legal counsel this week, but the plan is to pay what’s owed - RPF and outstanding maintenance fees and the legal maximum interest allowed (4 or 5%).  Costs are included in our maintenance fees so I will fight to not pay any additional costs.  This total will be substantially less than what we have been invoiced.  The difference is yes, we are still in, but how can Northmont ever charge any additional fees when they’ve just collected over $30 million.  Then we will focus our efforts on Northmont...



I agree with where Tanny13 is going with this...both the illegal interest and the unilateral amendments seem to make the most sense to me as well...interested in what legal counsel has to say.

Spoke with Darren at FTA before the holiday and he was aware of our situation and unfortunately was not hopeful. He felt that the FTA could help people that recently purchased a timeshare...not us...Curious whether the changing of our agreements unilaterally can be retroactively applied to the New Consumer Protection Act and more specifically to our situation.


----------



## Punter

*With option 1, you are paying both to stay and to go. *

They are charging the RPF and an exit fee of 20% despite what KW states below. 

The following is from the BC Trial, statements from Kirk Wankel under oath:

*Q         Do you admit that the manager is treating Northmont differently by not requiring that part of the section 9 payment      called the RPF to be paid?*
*KW.      It is treating Northmont the same as anyone who wants to terminate their lease and participate in the resort *
*              realignment plan to exit. Any owner who chooses to cancel does not have to pay the RPF.*
*Q         Do you admit they have not been paid?*
*KW.     Yes.*
*Q         Are you prepared to admit that if Northmont is responsible to pay to the resort account the RPF, that Northmont is in default to the extent of approximately a $20 million payment?*
*KW.     No.*
*Q         Why not?*
*KW.     Because you can't be in default until you have been invoiced and the bill is overdue.*
*Q         And who decided whether or not to invoice Northmont?*
*KW      The manager.*
*Q         Who is the manager?*
*KW.     Northmont.*
*Q         So the only reason Northmont doesn't have a bill is that it has decided not to bill itself?*
*KW.     The manager has not billed Northmont.*
*Q         Do you admit the reason that Northmont has not billed Northmont is that Northmont expects to get some kind of approval for some kind of resort realignment in the future?*
*KW.     Yes.*


----------



## ecwinch

Not to take away from the on-going discussion, but for those of us watching this from the sidelines, I have a couple of questions:

1) Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.

2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?

3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?

Just curious.


----------



## Palms to pines

I know. The reason NM is not in arrears is because they haven’t sent themselves a bill.It has got to be one of the most absurd statements any judge has ever heard. It blew my mind when I read it originally. It would be laughable in any other circumstance.


----------



## Scammed!

Palms to pines said:


> I know. The reason NM is not in arrears is because they haven’t sent themselves a bill.It has got to be one of the most absurd statements any judge has ever heard. It blew my mind when I read it originally. It would be laughable in any other circumstance.


There's so much conflict of interest it's ridiculous!............................


----------



## easy prey

There are rules on how a plaintiff  can collect. I believe they are:

First the plaintiff must obtain judgement. As far as I  know Northmont has only obtained judgements  on Alberta and bc residents so far. Those in other jurisdictions will have an opportunity to dispute an application for judgement. 

Then they have to seek a remedy through the courts. Things like seizure of assets, garnishee, etc.

Then they can proceed with attempting to collect through the remedies the court has approved. 

 They cannot leave you penny less and in the street. I am not saying that if you don't pay your mortgage the bank can't foreclose. That's very different.   I don't believe northmont can take your primary residence. The plaintiff (northmont)  cannot garnishee all of your earnings.  They have to leave you money to live on pursuant to rules of the court.  There is also things plaintiff's cannot seize and sell such as leases assets amongst other things.  

 Those who have few assets and limited income are the hardest to collect from.  

I may be wrong on some of these points, I'm not a lawyer. 

I believe that especially for the people who have few assets and limited income to seek out legal advice as to exactly what northmont can and cannot do to them.  It may help you in making your decisions. 

You can't get blood from a stone. 

Some of us may be forced to pay but not all of us.


----------



## Bewildered

Hotpink said:


> Yes the New act does that , but the old act also applies  It is an UNFAIR PRACTICE
> "to charge a fee for an estimate for goods or services unless the consumer (i) is informed in advance that a fee will be charged and informed of the amount of the fee and (ii)expressly consented to charged the fee."
> we must remember that we all received the glossy flyer in late 2012 outlining Exciting changes coming to the resort in 2013. There is a mention of funds being held in a segregated trust account, but no mention or even an innuendo that a fee would be charged. However in a letter to us dated Dec 10,2012 there is mention on page two(2) there will be an option to pay through a $100.00 /month with no interest but no total amount.
> Clearly that is in contravention of part (i)
> Shame on me I didn't see a weasel waiting out side the door so did nothing
> 
> Next section from the old act which moves us to the present
> "(3)it is an unfair practice for a supplier (a) to enter into a consumer transaction if the supplier knows or ought to know the consumer is unable to receive any reasonable benefit from the goods or services;
> (b) to enter into a consumer transaction if the supplier knows or ought to know that there is no reasonable  probability that the consumer is able pay the full price for the goods or services; (c) to include in consumer transaction terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one -sided;(d) to make representation that a consumer transaction involves or does not involve rights, remedies or obligations that is different from the Fact "
> 
> look at the other part of section2 and it says
> "It is an unfair practice for a supplier, in a consumer transaction or proposed transaction, (a)to exert undue pressure or influence on the consumer to enter into the consumer transaction; (b)to take advantage of the consumer as a result the consumers inability to understand the character, nature, language or effect of the consumer transaction or any matter related to the transaction"
> 
> Northmont is saying we each owe a certain amount based on their calculations and they are going to try and coerce as many of us to fork out extraordinary and inflated amounts. We won't and I to do not want to advise others as to hat to do. We feel they have been acting and continue to do so in contravention of the Alberta Fair Trading Act under the old rules never mind the new Act which has  more teeth.
> 
> If you don't pay they must get a judgement in court against you. Even if they got a ruling that you must pay something  it is still just a piece of paper and they are very restricted as to what they can have seized and sold. Please check with your banker , MLA or even another lawyer to verify their restrictive abilities.
> 
> Our advice  is to contact the minister in charge of this portfolio and if you are a senior also play that card ( understand it is the same Department)
> 
> Non Illigitimi carborundum





Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I can you something if you have access to email - back123@shaw.ca





den403 said:


> Does anyone have anything generic, written you can send me?
> I am on vacation and have no documents with me but want to send letters today but dont know where to start





den403 said:


> Does anyone have anything generic, written you can send me?
> I am on vacation and have no documents with me but want to send letters today but dont know where to start


----------



## Bewildered

i will be sending a generic letter for anyone that wants to use In whole or in part and also all the contacts to send to. Your MLAs in your Province maybe the Alberta/BC  Justice Ministers are probably the only hope at this short of time and somehow if the media would catch wind of this. You think they would be interested in a 30 million dollar scam but according to Geldert there was no interest?


----------



## Petus@18

While sending more letters and noticed that:

I signed option one but checked the 2nd paragraph supporting the petition and not the settlement on my behalf without any opportunity to voice my concerns before Mr. Geldert's accepting the so called 'great cancellation offer'.

Option one, in my opinion, was misleading.  I signed to proceed with the petition and not for a settlement on my behalf without even knowing the amount of what I am supposed to be settling for.  Who does that?  In my opinion, it looks as if Mr. Geldert wrote option 1 in a way that he cannot be found liable of breaching any relationship with his clients, he acted in bad faith and now we are paying for the consequences of signing a document he created covering his unethical tactics to get more clients to sign this option.


- Do you feel the same?  is this legal?


----------



## Palms to pines

It is my understanding that Albertans were sued in Alberta. All others were sued in BC.


----------



## Petus@18

Tanny13 said:


> Will be speaking to new legal counsel this week, but the plan is to pay what’s owed - RPF and outstanding maintenance fees and the legal maximum interest allowed (4 or 5%).  Costs are included in our maintenance fees so I will fight to not pay any additional costs.  This total will be substantially less than what we have been invoiced.  The difference is yes, we are still in, but how can Northmont ever charge any additional fees when they’ve just collected over $30 million.  Then we will focus our efforts on Northmont...





Tanny13 said:


> Will be speaking to new legal counsel this week, but the plan is to pay what’s owed - RPF and outstanding maintenance fees and the legal maximum interest allowed (4 or 5%).  Costs are included in our maintenance fees so I will fight to not pay any additional costs.  This total will be substantially less than what we have been invoiced.  The difference is yes, we are still in, but how can Northmont ever charge any additional fees when they’ve just collected over $30 million.  Then we will focus our efforts on Northmont...




Who is your new lawyer?  could you provide us with his/her contact details?


----------



## Tanny13

Petus@18 said:


> Who is your new lawyer?  could you provide us with his/her contact details?



Don't have one yet.  Working on it this week.


----------



## Tanny13

ecwinch said:


> Not to take away from the on-going discussion, but for those of us watching this from the sidelines, I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1) Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.
> 
> True.
> 
> 2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?
> 
> True.  Unless the RPF AND maintenance fees were paid, owners were unable to use the resort.
> 
> 3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Just curious.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

ecwinch said:


> Not to take away from the on-going discussion, but for those of us watching this from the sidelines, I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1) Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.
> 
> 2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?
> 
> 3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?
> 
> Just curious.



Hi Eric

I will try my best to answer with some history for contest:


Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.
I guess it has not been “well-litigated” for our side but there has been a lot of time and money spent on both sides legally disputing the matters – costs for some of the trials have already been assessed and as far as I am aware paid.

Too much time has been used to go no-where and I reserve my opinion as to why but you hinted at it above related to representation.


2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?

That is correct.  Once you are 30 days in arrears on your statement of accounts you can no longer use the resort until it is paid in full and this rule was also applied to renovation fee that had been applied to all timeshare owners statements (believe there were about 14,000).

In 2013 everyone was surprised to see their yearly Maintenance invoice plus an invoice for a complete overhaul that was called a RPF Maintenance Fee which composed of capital upgrades payable within a month (my cost was $7000 + $2000 in maintenance).  An alternate option was also presented for you to give back you timeshare to resort’s owner manager for about a $3500 fee per timeshare as they had plans to realign the resort and sell off buildings/property (the buy back fee collected went directly to the owner/manager along with the timeshare lease) – myself I paid about $35,000 in 2007 for a yearly and biannual 40 year timeshare leases.

Now being most of the timeshares are 40 year leases most people did not want to pay for capital improvements as a result of various other history the owner/manager has.  These include but there may be more:

Bankrupting and closing resorts in Mexico, Hawaii, Belize, another very popular 100 year old ranch property in Alberta, and their houseboat division (people please add if I missed anything)
Selling a sister resort in Kelowna BC (I believe the new owner is already using this same tactic there)
Closing down there sales office and eliminating their prime revenue source
Few years ago basically giving weeks of timeshare away to existing timeshare holders
Introducing and selling a “Legacy of Life” program which turned your lease into an ownership right at the end of your lease for quite a large sum of money
Introduced a program to convert leaseholders from Interval to RCI also at a fee
As part of the maintenance fee management charges a management fee of 15% for their yearly cut.  This 15% was also applied to the capital improvements money collected in the year payment was made even though the project was to possibly take years to complete – estimated value of the project was in the $40 million dollar range (remember these are leases – when you are done the lease is over so all improvements made are now to the benefit of the owner).

3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?
Just curious.

Honestly we are still trying to figure all that out as we have not been given all the details related to what the lawyer has agreed to with the resort owner / manager without our involvement or consent – this is why thing are exploding right now and the timelines given we believe strategically over Christmas (the 1300 of us received a basic summary of details December 19th and had till Dec 27th to agree for huge amounts – mine is $35,000 plus the relinquishment of the timeshare).

There is more but the biggest blow is how the lawyer used unethical tactics to finalize a deal with the owner / manager of the resort.


----------



## Broke Mama

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Hi Eric
> 
> I will try my best to answer with some history for contest:
> 
> 
> Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.
> I guess it has not been “well-litigated” for our side but there has been a lot of time and money spent on both sides legally disputing the matters – costs for some of the trials have already been assessed and as far as I am aware paid.
> 
> Too much time has been used to go no-where and I reserve my opinion as to why but you hinted at it above related to representation.
> 
> 
> 2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?
> 
> That is correct.  Once you are 30 days in arrears on your statement of accounts you can no longer use the resort until it is paid in full and this rule was also applied to renovation fee that had been applied to all timeshare owners statements (believe there were about 14,000).
> 
> In 2013 everyone was surprised to see their yearly Maintenance invoice plus an invoice for a complete overhaul that was called a RPF Maintenance Fee which composed of capital upgrades payable within a month (my cost was $7000 + $2000 in maintenance).  An alternate option was also presented for you to give back you timeshare to resort’s owner manager for about a $3500 fee per timeshare as they had plans to realign the resort and sell off buildings/property (the buy back fee collected went directly to the owner/manager along with the timeshare lease) – myself I paid about $35,000 in 2007 for a yearly and biannual 40 year timeshare leases.
> 
> Now being most of the timeshares are 40 year leases most people did not want to pay for capital improvements as a result of various other history the owner/manager has.  These include but there may be more:
> 
> Bankrupting and closing resorts in Mexico, Hawaii, Belize, another very popular 100 year old ranch property in Alberta, and their houseboat division (people please add if I missed anything)
> Selling a sister resort in Kelowna BC (I believe the new owner is already using this same tactic there)
> Closing down there sales office and eliminating their prime revenue source
> Few years ago basically giving weeks of timeshare away to existing timeshare holders
> Introducing and selling a “Legacy of Life” program which turned your lease into an ownership right at the end of your lease for quite a large sum of money
> Introduced a program to convert leaseholders from Interval to RCI also at a fee
> As part of the maintenance fee management charges a management fee of 15% for their yearly cut.  This 15% was also applied to the capital improvements money collected in the year payment was made even though the project was to possibly take years to complete – estimated value of the project was in the $40 million dollar range (remember these are leases – when you are done the lease is over so all improvements made are now to the benefit of the owner).
> 
> 3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?
> Just curious.
> 
> Honestly we are still trying to figure all that out as we have not been given all the details related to what the lawyer has agreed to with the resort owner / manager without our involvement or consent – this is why thing are exploding right now and the timelines given we believe strategically over Christmas (the 1300 of us received a basic summary of details December 19th and had till Dec 27th to agree for huge amounts – mine is $35,000 plus the relinquishment of the timeshare).
> 
> There is more but the biggest blow is how the lawyer used unethical tactics to finalize a deal with the owner / manager of the resort.[/QUOTE
> 
> Has anyone tried Timeshare exit team? Or is it too late for that? Since we are in lawsuit.


----------



## Broke Mama

Has anyone talked to Timeshare exit team? Or is it too late since we are in a lawsuit?


----------



## Bewildered

ecwinch said:


> Not to take away from the on-going discussion, but for those of us watching this from the sidelines, I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1) Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.
> 
> 2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?
> 
> 3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?
> 
> Just curious.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> ecwinch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to take away from the on-going discussion, but for those of us watching this from the sidelines, I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1) Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.
> 
> 2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?
> 
> 3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?
> 
> Just curious.
Click to expand...




Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Hi Eric
> 
> I will try my best to answer with some history for contest:
> 
> 
> Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.
> I guess it has not been “well-litigated” for our side but there has been a lot of time and money spent on both sides legally disputing the matters – costs for some of the trials have already been assessed and as far as I am aware paid.
> 
> Too much time has been used to go no-where and I reserve my opinion as to why but you hinted at it above related to representation.
> 
> 
> 2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?
> 
> That is correct.  Once you are 30 days in arrears on your statement of accounts you can no longer use the resort until it is paid in full and this rule was also applied to renovation fee that had been applied to all timeshare owners statements (believe there were about 14,000).
> 
> In 2013 everyone was surprised to see their yearly Maintenance invoice plus an invoice for a complete overhaul that was called a RPF Maintenance Fee which composed of capital upgrades payable within a month (my cost was $7000 + $2000 in maintenance).  An alternate option was also presented for you to give back you timeshare to resort’s owner manager for about a $3500 fee per timeshare as they had plans to realign the resort and sell off buildings/property (the buy back fee collected went directly to the owner/manager along with the timeshare lease) – myself I paid about $35,000 in 2007 for a yearly and biannual 40 year timeshare leases.
> 
> Now being most of the timeshares are 40 year leases most people did not want to pay for capital improvements as a result of various other history the owner/manager has.  These include but there may be more:
> 
> Bankrupting and closing resorts in Mexico, Hawaii, Belize, another very popular 100 year old ranch property in Alberta, and their houseboat division (people please add if I missed anything)
> Selling a sister resort in Kelowna BC (I believe the new owner is already using this same tactic there)
> Closing down there sales office and eliminating their prime revenue source
> Few years ago basically giving weeks of timeshare away to existing timeshare holders
> Introducing and selling a “Legacy of Life” program which turned your lease into an ownership right at the end of your lease for quite a large sum of money
> Introduced a program to convert leaseholders from Interval to RCI also at a fee
> As part of the maintenance fee management charges a management fee of 15% for their yearly cut.  This 15% was also applied to the capital improvements money collected in the year payment was made even though the project was to possibly take years to complete – estimated value of the project was in the $40 million dollar range (remember these are leases – when you are done the lease is over so all improvements made are now to the benefit of the owner).
> 
> 3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?
> Just curious.
> 
> Honestly we are still trying to figure all that out as we have not been given all the details related to what the lawyer has agreed to with the resort owner / manager without our involvement or consent – this is why thing are exploding right now and the timelines given we believe strategically over Christmas (the 1300 of us received a basic summary of details December 19th and had till Dec 27th to agree for huge amounts – mine is $35,000 plus the relinquishment of the timeshare).
> 
> There is more but the biggest blow is how the lawyer used unethical tactics to finalize a deal with the owner / manager of the resort.



Excellent overview, agree that the lawyer has been less than forthcoming and that none of us agreed on   any settlement amount, how in the world could he assume he had carte blanch to make a 30 million dollar decision without discussing with his clients. Absolute hogwash and BC legal society should be looking into many of his actions.


----------



## ecwinch

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Too much time has been used to go no-where and I reserve my opinion as to why but you hinted at it above related to representation.



Thanks for the response. I was not hinting at anything - just recognizing that some have mentioned inadequate legal counsel. 

Typically when a issue like this hits TUG, it is in formative stage when posters are trying to get things organized. There is a lot of initial activity, and then the conversation goes dark without any indication that the matter is resolved. So not much in terms of legal review of the contracts involved. This thread is a little different as it spans more of the entire process.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Ok I hope everyone is still awake – *YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO DO!!!*

I can only assume our lawyer is preparing a contact list to provide Northmont with tomorrow.

Have you directly consented to this?

Probably not – during filling out the SIF options 1 and 2 we were asked to provide our contact info to update *HIS RECORDS!!!!*

I didn’t consent for my complete contact info to be passed along to Northmont and it definitely was not disclosed in the SIF email that’s what the purpose of gathering this info was for.  He has a responsibility to properly inform his clients what such info is being used for – there are no assumptions.

By handing over an accurate list it will make things super efficient for Northmont which I would expect will need to be provided soon enough but this might stall things if proper consent to release our personal information needs to be done properly.

For people who have selected Option 2, fired our lawyer, or been fired themselves this is even more important for you – do you want your info and a nice list of names provided to Northmont to make their lives easy to track you down?

*Get an email or fax off that has some form of timestamp on it that says you do not consent to having your personal information disclosed to any third party tonight!!!*

Hopefully this will stall things for a few days to give some time for all the other things we are doing to work.


----------



## Punter

Those Timeshare Exit companies are all scam artists.

And let's face it, Sunchaser Vacation Villas are so undesirable even they will turn and run!


----------



## Petus@18

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Ok I hope everyone is still awake – *YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO DO!!!*
> 
> I can only assume our lawyer is preparing a contact list to provide Northmont with tomorrow.
> 
> Have you directly consented to this?
> 
> Probably not – during filling out the SIF options 1 and 2 we were asked to provide our contact info to update *HIS RECORDS!!!!*
> 
> I didn’t consent for my complete contact info to be passed along to Northmont and it definitely was not disclosed in the SIF email that’s what the purpose of gathering this info was for.  He has a responsibility to properly inform his clients what such info is being used for – there are no assumptions.
> 
> By handing over an accurate list it will make things super efficient for Northmont which I would expect will need to be provided soon enough but this might stall things if proper consent to release our personal information needs to be done properly.
> 
> For people who have selected Option 2, fired our lawyer, or been fired themselves this is even more important for you – do you want your info and a nice list of names provided to Northmont to make their lives easy to track you down?
> 
> *Get an email or fax off that has some form of timestamp on it that says you do not consent to having your personal information disclosed to any third party tonight!!!*
> 
> Hopefully this will stall things for a few days to give some time for all the other things we are doing to work.



Thank you very much!


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> *The New Consumer Protection Act protects consumers from contract changes that are done unilaterally, that a contract can be cancelled as a result. *





aden2 said:


> *The New Consumer Protection Act protects consumers from contract changes that are done unilaterally, that a contract can be cancelled as a result. *


----------



## Scammed!

BILL 31!


----------



## Spark1

Punter said:


> Those Exit companies are all scam artists.
> 
> And let's face it, Sunchaser Vacation Villas are so undesirable even they will turn and run!


Hello Punter have you decided when we can meet in Edmonton or Ponoka? Please let me know so we can make plans. Thanks


----------



## KGB_527

I did contact this group Timeshare Exit Team more then year ago, and when I told them the issue was with Sunchaser/Northmont, she replied, thanks but not tanks.
She said, they will not take on something that is in the courts being litigated.


----------



## Palms to pines

I have had a response by email from Alberta Law Society following my letter of last week. They will inquire about Alberta lawyers only.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Palms to pines said:


> I have had a response by email from Alberta Law Society following my letter of last week. They will inquire about Alberta lawyers only.


Well that's not what we wanted to here but it was only one door we had to try - still more to knock on!!!

If we have to knock on the BC Law Society's door here is their email address:


Contract British Columbia Law Society:
professionalconduct@lsbc.org


----------



## truthr

Palms to pines said:


> I have had a response by email from Alberta Law Society following my letter of last week. They will inquire about Alberta lawyers only.


Did you mention the fact that Barry King from Strathcona Law Group is the lawyer on record for Judge Young's Decision?


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

I just learned our group has an *Alberta lawyer on record and it’s Barry King* who Michael hired to represent us here:

Strathcona Law Group
150 Chippewa Road
Sherwood Park, AB
T8A 6A2


Please follow-up with this info with the Alberta Law Society to get them back into the game.

Sorry for not knowing this earlier as it’s all very confusing for me too – thanks for sending me that email tip to correct our course


----------



## Scammed!

KGB_527 if you need a copy of a letter ask Ultimate_Betrayal he's giving away samples, sorry I couldn't help.


----------



## truthr

For anyone who Geldert is saying he is no longer representing you because you have NOT chosen Option 1 or are opting out:
If he has not sent you a formal Notice of Withdrawal, then he or the representative he retained on your behalf (Barry King of Strathcona Law Group) is still your counsel of record and has a legal obligation to keep you informed of each step he takes which may impact you.
If he has served you with his Notice of Withdrawal, then he (and the other side) are legally obligated to provide you with notice of anything they communicate or file with the Court.
They cannot communicate with the court without letting you know about it.
In addition he has to provide you with all the documents you require to move forward and make the transition as smooth as possible for you and your next attorney.


----------



## Scammed!

These letters need to go out to The Honourable Judge L.D. Young, Prime Minister Trudeau, Minister of Justice, and  Solicitor General of Canada, Minister of Justice and  Solicitor General of Alberta, Attorney General of B.C, Solicitor General of B.C., Solicitor General of Alberta, Service Alberta.....to name just a few. This is no secret and there's many many more Officials to inform. Don't forget the Media! God's speed...............


----------



## Palms to pines

The key is “Micheal hired”. Micheal needs to be investigated by B.C. Law Society
.


----------



## DAV

Should we file complaints with the BC Privacy Commission?

https://www.oipc.bc.ca/media/11778/form_oipc-privacy-complaint-fippa.pdf


----------



## Just Looking Around

easy prey said:


> Last month I contacted geldert.  Specifically asked him why has he not pursued this matter through service ab and bc on our behalf.  Never got an answer to that direct question.   I voiced concerns about how it looked like we would have to pay whatever northmont was after. He advised me he would be proceding with the petition should he not achieve a settlement in the 50 % range.  Now the door is closed on the petition and settlement was no where near the 50% range.
> 
> I have attempted to contact Darren Thomas at service ab , direct phone number 780 422 8046 . Got his voice mail,  message says he away til Jan2.  Left an urgent message for him to call upon his return.
> 
> This time share thing was no where near what we bargained for.  Was supposed to be affordable.   Knowing what I know now timeshares are a scam.  A lot people have lost their  initial investments at other time shares.   Hard pill to swallow. Unfortunately,  our case is special. Not only are we loosing our initial investment but are faced with paying for it about 2 times more.   This appears to be unique. More than a hard pill swallow are not the first words that come to mind but the only ones appropriate for this site.
> 
> The purpose of my posts are to voice my disgust for our situation and especially how our representation handled this matter. I have reviewed all of the judges rulings and have attended some of the hearings.  Again I state our representation  failed us.
> 
> In response to "Just Looking Around",  I  do not believe my comments troll our group. Looks like northmont will be coming after me for about $20,000.  That's not gloating either.




You are right. I apologize Easy Prey. Forgive me for having mistaken your identity.


----------



## CleoB

Spark1 said:


> You are right truths. Many Seniors when they bought their timeshare your contract was either a Villa Lease or deeded and in our case our contract is a Vacation Villa Lease. That means you bought a Lease for Example 40years.  You have a [Right-to-use]timeshare,which refers to a Lease Agreement. In this type of timeshare your lease expires after a specified time and you have no Property Ownership rights in the Property. A[right-to-use] Timeshare may include Lockoff,and Floating Timeshare. Do not allow Northmont to move your timeshare prior to 2010 to 2010 just because of Jim Belfry or Jekes test case His contract in 2010 might of been called a VIA I have no idea. If some one has a 2010 contract is it a Lease contract? This is why i did not agree with Justice Young Decision. She then is saying the Trustee has the Right to do what he did and our choose being Lease Owners is Sign this Cancellation where you could never be released from the resort. So you pay the $3100 and GST and you could also be paying maintenance fees for each year,Lawyer fees and any thing else Northmont dreams up. That is decision number one for us. Decision number two you Lease Owners will have to pay the Special Assessment. That was not the case for Janet and Barrie Lydiatt who were Lease Owners at the Banff Rocky Mountain Resort Ltd. They paid Special Assessments for 3 years and took the resort to court and the Lydiatt won their case. This is what Judge J.T. McCarthy had to say. Are the vacationers required to pay the “Special Assessment”?  “Time Share”. Though the term “special assessment” might indicate otherwise,the terms of the Agreement confirm that the Vacationers do not have “any legal interest whatsoever” in the vacation units. Why did our case take so long to resolve? This is the very same as our Lease Agreement and I hope the VIA’s read this way please let me Know. Every timeshare owner that has a lease agreement tell Northmont do not be changing our contracts. This is more than modifying. These contracts are legal documents signed and witnessed and Northmont Hands Off. We would never of bought a timeshare designed by Kirk Wankel.


I don't understand then why the legal teams involved in this didn't use this arguement.  I set precedence.


----------



## Just Looking Around

This is nothing less than a legal scam given license by a fragmented legal system mired in jurisprudence minutia and decades of negligent governments. Not just the current ones, governments of all stripes too afraid to upset Developers who are also political donors. Developers are not bad, but these are very sketchy. And lets face it, they aren't really Developers are they? More like un-Developers.

Panama Papers you say? Well, maybe it's something more than a legal scam.

I'm not in this fight with Geldert's Group. I am fighting this same fight on a different front by myself. It won't be long till I am where you are now.  If I ever get before a Judge, I will calmly stand and start with, _"Good Day Your Honour."_ Then I fear I'll blurt out, _"It's not a F'ng Resort! My learned friend over there represents a serial teller of untruths, a man who misrepresents facts, and a  person practicing a pretense to obtain money via deception."_ As I am dragged from the Court Room, I'll be screaming, _"They want their money for nothing. They've run all six of their properties into the ground. They ruined a 100-year-old Dude Ranch. They've sunk six houseboats. It's a pattern. They've failed in every country they've been in. It's a shell game. They sell land and buildings that are shared with a larger group, and then they keep all of the money to themselves. It's no more complex than that your Honour. Visit the property! Their pool is a square hole in the ground filled with over-chlorinated water. My brother-in-law's trailer on a weedy lakeshore in Alberta is more warm and welcoming - and he still owes me for that lawnmower.  I.T.'.S ... N.O.T ... A ... R.E.S..O...R....T!"_


----------



## CleoB

Tanny13 said:


> Will be speaking to new legal counsel this week, but the plan is to pay what’s owed - RPF and outstanding maintenance fees and the legal maximum interest allowed (4 or 5%).  Costs are included in our maintenance fees so I will fight to not pay any additional costs.  This total will be substantially less than what we have been invoiced.  The difference is yes, we are still in, but how can Northmont ever charge any additional fees when they’ve just collected over $30 million.  Then we will focus our efforts on Northmont...


Before you pay up you may want to ask your new lawyer what it will mean.  Paying up usually means a person admits to the settlement.


----------



## truthr

CleoB said:


> Before you pay up you may want to ask your new lawyer what it will mean.  Paying up usually means a person admits to the settlement.


How so?  If a person pays up on the Agreed upon Amended Statement of Claim before a judgment is issued or even after that means they are staying as a VIA holder so not agreeing to the so called "settlement" to be released.  And the way Geldert is presenting this is that anyone who did NOT choose his Option 1 is not part of the so called "settlement".  And he is no longer representing them.  He also seems to think that he is not only above court instructions/orders but doesn't have to abide by his profession's own Professional Code of Conduct nor Court Rules and Procedures.


----------



## easy prey

Darren at Service Alberta returned my call today.  Stated nothing they can do now.
1) Has been litigated. Biggest problem.
2) too much time has passed
3)contracts were signed in bc

Today I phoned the Canadian Anti Fraud Center. 1888 495 8501.  Opened a file.  They do not do any investigations.   All they do is collect information for agencies who may potentially do an investigations.   I encourage everyone to open up a file.  The lady I spoke to had a hard time looking up related files and says there weren't many.  My file was opened up under northmont properties 

Our lawyer lost our case in the courts of law. I believe Northmont would have a lot harder time escaping judgement in the court of public opinion.  Again I encourage all of you to contact as many national media's as you can.  Suggestion do one email but cc as many as you can.  Some are: gopublic@cbc.ca, marketplace@cbc.ca,  fifthtips@cbc.ca


----------



## easy prey

Just Looking Around said:


> You are right. I apologize Easy Prey. Forgive me for having mistaken your identity.


Thank you. I appreciate that.


----------



## Scammed!

easy prey said:


> Darren at Service Alberta returned my call today.  Stated nothing they can do now.
> 1) Has been litigated. Biggest problem.
> 2) too much time has passed
> 3)contracts were signed in bc
> 
> Today I phoned the Canadian Anti Fraud Center. 1888 495 8501.  Opened a file.  They do not do any investigations.   All they do is collect information for agencies who may potentially do an investigations.   I encourage everyone to open up a file.  The lady I spoke to had a hard time looking up related files and says there weren't many.  My file was opened up under northmont properties
> 
> Our lawyer lost our case in the courts of law. I believe Northmont would have a lot harder time escaping judgement in the court of public opinion.  Again I encourage all of you to contact as many national media's as you can.  Suggestion do one email but cc as many as you can.  Some are: gopublic@cbc.ca, marketplace@cbc.ca,  fifthtips@cbc.ca


Needs to be sent to Service B.C. To much time hasn't past we were just blindsided in the last week with a settlement that none of us agreed to.  Keep going don't stop!


----------



## Hotpink

Had a very informative discussion with the Bank and our financial advisor. NM can try to collect from you and threaten all kinds of actions NONE of which will  be honoured by any financial institution in Canada.
However if they take you to court and sue you for payment they cannot touch pensions, RIFFS etc EVEN  if they get a judgement against you. Their ability to collect legally is very restricted, but they can badger you relentlessly without going to court. But that amounts to Huff and Puff. I am sure that Judge Young will enjoy having all these trivial civil cases on her docket considering what I heard her say to NM'S  hard to hear mumbler
last year when he said he was still going to file individual claims.
All we wanted to do when they came up with the plan to renovate and realign was to say goodbye it is yours to do with as you please and turn it over to them as per our contact section 13 or in the worst case free of charge.
Thought that was the premise of the court case we all just went through collectively, but our representation got that objective confused by making an agreement for us ( without consultation with us) to pay more than the cost of our initial purchase of the lease.
 Still going to follow up with Service Alberta , elected MLA's and play the Elder Abuse card as well


----------



## truthr

Hotpink said:


> Had a very informative discussion with the Bank and our financial advisor. NM can try to collect from you and threaten all kinds of actions NONE of which will  be honoured by any financial institution in Canada.
> However if they take you to court and sue you for payment they cannot touch pensions, RIFFS etc EVEN  if they get a judgement against you. Their ability to collect legally is very restricted, but they can badger you relentlessly without going to court. But that amounts to Huff and Puff. I am sure that Judge Young will enjoy having all these trivial civil cases on her docket considering what I heard her say to NM'S  hard to hear mumbler
> last year when he said he was still going to file individual claims.
> All we wanted to do when they came up with the plan to renovate and realign was to say goodbye it is yours to do with as you please and turn it over to them as per our contact section 13 or in the worst case free of charge.
> Thought that was the premise of the court case we all just went through collectively, but our representation got that objective confused by making an agreement for us ( without consultation with us) to pay more than the cost of our initial purchase of the lease.
> Still going to follow up with Service Alberta , elected MLA's and play the Elder Abuse card as well


Regarding Judge Young, if you read her decision it includes ALL Geldert clients - at least that is how I read it but again I am not a lawyer.
The reason it was before her was because she was promised (by our attorney) that it would all be heard before her to not burden the courts.
In most instances there were already individual Statement of Claims filed.  So her ruling encompasses all Geldert clients.  Again that is how I read it.
Also it is impossible for any one to advise any one of us without having all the documents pertaining to this debacle.  Too many winding, intertwining webs.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

One of our group asked if something existed to gather their own information / documentation and this needs to be requested from the *"lawyer on record" *which should be *Barry King* or someone within that firm for *both Alberta and BC*.  An individual request needs to be made to provide the required documentation.

Depending on individual circumstances with timing related to when you joined the Litigation Group you will need to verify your own "Dispute Notice" to see if Barry King from Strathcona Law Group or Cox Taylor is listed as the Lawyer on Record.  If you have Cox Taylor listed send your email request to both firms - unfortunately I do not have contact info for Cox Taylor but you should be able to look it up if you have any past correspondences.

If you don't have a copy of your "Dispute Notice" request it from Barry King.



Dear Mr. King,

We are a member of the Geldert litigation group and have lost all trust and confidence in Michael Geldert's ability to represent us.

You or someone from your office is the lawyer on record for this action and our personal Dispute Notice and as such we are requesting that you send us any and all documents that pertain to these proceedings.

In addition we request that you do NOT file anything with the court nor represent us in any way without our prior consultation and permission.


His email address is: barry@strathconalawgroup.com


----------



## Tanny13

CleoB said:


> Before you pay up you may want to ask your new lawyer what it will mean.  Paying up usually means a person admits to the settlement.



Not paying the settlement.  No chance of that!  If I have to pay it will be for the RPF and outstanding maintenance fees.  Period.


----------



## Hotpink

Truth R You are correct we were all MG clients at that time , but what I heard was they had filed a number of claims both in Alberta and BC  and that several were already outdated/past expiry and would need to be refiled and that he MR S. was going to continue to file on behalf of NM individual claims. Judge Young indicated that she was unhappy about that but he did have that right  and was hopeful this current action would relieve her judicial department of that onslaught of actions.

Her decision is very specific and does not discuss any of these comments / exchanges as they would only be in trial transcripts which I do not have.
With our lawyer causing many of us to reject the "negotiated settlement" NM will have no alternative  but to sue us individually and I am sure it will please her judicial department to know they have work for the next several years. Or as Judge Young said  "I will be retired before this is over" *     *Quoted from my memory of the day.  

Remember that collection agencies only get remunerated when they collect and NM has gotten their rate with Mr. S reduced according to what we heard in the town hall meeting in Edmonton with MG present.
NM is just trying to maximize their income /profit  with no return to the consumers (us) and who knows about the investors.

They may cease to exist before they can take us all to court to sue for the inflated amounts.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

So therefore the rush to get an agreement signed?? before the end of the year??? sounds pretty suspicious to me!


----------



## Broke Mama

I'm being told to decide to sign settlement in 20 minutes or we are out.?? What are people's response.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

Broke Mama said:


> I'm being told to decide to sign settlement in 20 minutes or we are out.?? What are people's response.


how is that possible considering all the threats and deadlines we had days ago??


----------



## Broke Mama

So far we are not accepting the settlement. Does anyone else have a plan or idea what we should do next? I wrote Geldert law with my questions and did not receive a response. They told me I had 20 min to accept the settlement without answering any of my questions.


----------



## Petus@18

Broke Mama said:


> So far we are not accepting the settlement. Does anyone else have a plan or idea what we should do next? I wrote Geldert law with my questions and did not receive a response. They told me I had 20 min to accept the settlement without answering any of my questions.



20 min?? What a #@%,  MG is finally showing the real person he is and knows he has the upper hand now.  It will be difficult to find a good lawyer in such a short time.  We will keep trying.  I hope that all of the letters everyone of us is sending will open the door to seek justice.  Lets keep each other informed if anyone finds a lawyer that the rest of us could also retain.  At this point is difficult to tell how many of us will be paying the settlement??  I don't have a fax machine, is there an email for the Provincial Courts that we could use?


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

It keeps getting worse the more one digs, It appears one of the lawyers working on our file at Strathcona Law Group, Bradley J. Willis, is disbarred and I cannot see that he has been reinstated.

His name can be found on the December 19th invoice update a couple of times and has been paid about $10,000 out of our trust money.

See the links below to see the terminology for a disbarred lawyer and the notice of disbarment (it’s like reading exactly what we have going on right now only on a much smaller scale):

https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/regulation/terminology/

https://dvbat5idxh7ib.cloudfront.ne...2017/02/04232740/Willis-Notice-Disbarment.pdf


I think I am going to be sick


----------



## CleoB

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> It keeps getting worse the more one digs, It appears one of the lawyers working on our file at Strathcona Law Group, Bradley J. Willis, is disbarred and I cannot see that he has been reinstated.
> 
> His name can be found on the December 19th invoice update a couple of times and has been paid about $10,000 out of our trust money.
> 
> See the links below to see the terminology for a disbarred lawyer and the notice of disbarment (it’s like reading exactly what we have going on right now only on a much smaller scale):
> 
> https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/regulation/terminology/
> 
> https://dvbat5idxh7ib.cloudfront.ne...2017/02/04232740/Willis-Notice-Disbarment.pdf
> 
> 
> I think I am going to be sick


Wow, so Geldert hires a disbarred lawyer to do the negotiations with Northmount and hires a firm with a disbarred lawyer to handle the Edmonton trial.  Looks like Geldert was looking for us all to fail and I have to wonder if there is some payoff from Northmount for screwing this all up.


----------



## Lily123

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> It keeps getting worse the more one digs, It appears one of the lawyers working on our file at Strathcona Law Group, Bradley J. Willis, is disbarred and I cannot see that he has been reinstated.
> 
> His name can be found on the December 19th invoice update a couple of times and has been paid about $10,000 out of our trust money.
> 
> See the links below to see the terminology for a disbarred lawyer and the notice of disbarment (it’s like reading exactly what we have going on right now only on a much smaller scale):
> 
> https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/regulation/terminology/
> 
> https://dvbat5idxh7ib.cloudfront.ne...2017/02/04232740/Willis-Notice-Disbarment.pdf
> 
> 
> I think I am going to be sick



*
AS PER LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA*

NOTICE TO THE PROFESSION 

NOTICE TO: 
All Active Members and Students-at-Law,
All Executive Directors of other Law Societies in Canada,
All Justices of the Court of Appeal and Court of Queen's Bench, All Judges of the Provincial Court of Alberta,
All Masters in Chambers,
All Clerks of the Court 



Notice of Disbarment 

On May 21, 2009, a Resignation Committee appointed by the Benchers of the Law Society of Alberta granted the application of Bradley J. Willis to resign in the face of discipline, pursuant to Section 61 of the Legal Profession Act, effective immediately. Pursuant to Section 1(c) of the Act, the effect of the resignation is equivalent to a disbarment. Mr. Willis is therefore disbarred. Mr. Willis resides in Edmonton and practised in Sherwood Park until his disbarment. 

Mr. Willis faced a discipline hearing on 32 citations at the time of his resignation application. In his application for resignation, Mr. Willis admitted that he had failed to serve clients in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner, failed to fulfill representations made to a client, failed to follow accounting rules, failed to fulfill undertakings to the Law Society, and in eight instances, failed to respond to communications to the Law Society in a timely manner. 

Mr. Willis provided a written undertaking agreeing to cooperate with the Law Society regarding any future claims against him or the Assurance Fund, and agreeing to pay any deductible related to any insurance claim paid by the Law Society insurer. 
The files from Mr. Willis’s practice are being handled by: 
Barry M. King Strathcona Law Group 132 Heritage Court


----------



## truthr

CleoB said:


> Wow, so Geldert hires a disbarred lawyer to do the negotiations with Northmount and hires a firm with a disbarred lawyer to handle the Edmonton trial.  Looks like Geldert was looking for us all to fail and I have to wonder if there is some payoff from Northmount for screwing this all up.


I do not see where it says the disbarred lawyer was hired to do the negotiations or to actually handle any trial.  Although disbarred lawyers working on active files is frowned upon.
Strathcona Law Group was given Brad Willis's files when he was disbarred - so there is a connection.
David Wotherspoon is the lawyer (in good standing to my knowledge) who according to his letter and Geldert did the final negotiations with Northmont.

This train wreck is bad enough without spreading false information.  The facts are bad enough.


----------



## easy prey

Geldert is still our lawyer for now.  I don't see how he can't be and handle executing the so called settlement.    Which means he still has obligations to us.  We should be emailing him with questions and specifically instructing him to address the answers to the questions and answers to the entire group via email.  We have a right to know how this settlement was arrived at or any other questions we may have.   He is obligated to answer our questions.   Once he ceases to be our lawyer he might not be obliged to answer our questions.  

As they say,  if it's not in writing it didn't happen.

If he ignores our emails than we have a record of no response. More issues to raise with the law society.

I strongly believe  the window for getting answers out of him is quickly closing also. 

There are a lot of us.  Please take the time to time to do this.  If only a few of us do this it's pointless. 

We should be giving him a deadline to respond as well.  One that gives us sometime before  their February 15, 2018 deadline. This should be reflected in each of our emails.  I propose January 19, 2018.  If anyone prefers another date just say it.


----------



## Spark1

truthr said:


> I do not see where it says the disbarred lawyer was hired to do the negotiations or to actually handle any trial.  Although disbarred lawyers working on active files is frowned upon.
> Strathcona Law Group was given Brad Willis's files when he was disbarred - so there is a connection.
> David Wotherspoon is the lawyer (in good standing to my knowledge) who according to his letter and Geldert did the final negotiations with Northmont.
> 
> This train wreck is bad enough without spreading false information.  The facts are bad enough.


----------



## Bewildered

I don’t think anyone is going to figure this out in the short-term so my opinion is to bombard your MLA your MP and all the following contacts with emails. I am not part of the Facebook crowd on this issue but believe there is strong following there so if someone is part of that group please spread the word. I still think hundreds of us going to Edmonton taking up the cause at the  Legislature would get someone’s attention and the press but I’m not in a position to organize a rally. Come on someone from the City of Champs step up! Anyways we can all continue to post our opinions but the truth is the decisions were pretty devastating other than Judge Young allowing for discussion around interest and costs but you are still going to be stuck with this sinking ship timeshare week and a separate$16000 bill to rid yourself of it according to MG. Best is to blow the lid off this $30 some million dollar secret and get the media on it, in my opinion. 

Here are possible contacts and you can easily find your MLA and MP online. A generic letter is below, not perfect but built for impacting the elected official not to retry our lost cause case. If we don’t say something right now we won’t get another chance in my opinion. 

British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org

Alberta Law Society (link to submit form)
https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/

Alberta Consumer Protection Line
1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)

Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre toll free at 1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS).

Honourable Kathleen Ganley
Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General 
Members of Executive Council 
Executive Branch  
424 Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB
T5K 2B6
Phone: 780 427-2339 
Fax: 780 422-6621 
E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca 


BC Ministry of Attorney General
Honorable David Eby, Minister
JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca



To Whom it May Concern

One of the biggest miscarriages of justice is presently being perpetuated on thousands of citizens of Alberta and British Columbia and no one seems to know or care about it.


If someone told you one person in this country was being held for ransom unless they paid $24,000 it would be front page news. In reality there are thousands of citizens and taxpayers presently being threatened by a $24,000 demand or more to be released by Northmont timeshare in Fairmont Hot Springs, British Columbia. This is to give up their right to own a one week timeshare they have already paid tens of thousands to own (many people’s amounts are higher).


Well over a thousand people were duped into trusting Geldert Law from BC to litigate on our behalf to navigate us through the complex legalities of getting out of this timeshare mess but in the end Mr. Geldert also took our money and became implicit in this timeshare scam after promising the world and ending up negotiating an unforgivable average release fee of $24,000!!! This is only to rid ourselves all of an ever growing bill that is being charged at over 26% per annum!!


You will hear this went through the courts and I believe the Honorable Justice Young was more than concerned about the interest being applied but either due to complete incompetence or perhaps other reasons, Geldert Law and his associates failed to even try to successfully raise this as an issue. Geldert Law has now forced over 1300 people to decide on accepting this coerced settlement in a matter of weeks or as he states Northmont will be able to seize and sell peoples assets! How is this legal? I understand Property owner rights to include:


“A bundle of rights is a set of legal rights afforded to the real estate title holder. It can include the right of possession, the right of control, the right of exclusion, the right of enjoyment and the right of disposition.”


I believe every one of these rights has been violated but especially the latter; the right to dispose which people begrudgingly want to do even though they are giving up the asset they paid dearly for, just for peace of mind to remove themselves from a situation where many feel is simply a criminal scam unfolding in Western Canada. 


Northmont also has unilaterally changed our contracts which seems to be another travesty, somehow the courts never seemed to identify. I understand there is new law (Bill 31) protecting condo owners and could possibly protect us as supposed titled owners of the Sunchaser property in Fairmont BC.


We beg you to take action on behalf of the citizens of Alberta and BC that have nowhere to turn.Thousands of Alberta and BC taxpayers (seniors, young families) are being coerced to turn over large sums of money and people feel absolutely helpless with no one to turn to other than our elected officials, legal community and other organizations responsible to protect the public at large.


In closing, we understand that this situation has went through the court of law on specific issues (mainly to try to save our timeshares) not to be ultimately held ransom for an amount that will destroy lives and families. The Geldert group alone was over 1300 people along with hundreds if not thousands of owners not involved in the litigation who are in the same situation. At $24000 dollars each we are talking about a “30 million dollar” scam against the people of Alberta and BC!! We are feeling betrayed by the very system that is supposed to protect our legal rights with competent and honest legal representation and officials looking out for their citizens.


PLEASE DONT ALLOW INNOCENT TAXPAYERS TO BE DEFRAUDED OUT OF THEIR HARD EARNED DOLLARS THEY DONT EVEN HAVE!


Feel free to contact me at any time for additional information as the urgency of this situation is extremely important.


Sincerely,


----------



## CleoB

truthr said:


> I do not see where it says the disbarred lawyer was hired to do the negotiations or to actually handle any trial.  Although disbarred lawyers working on active files is frowned upon.
> Strathcona Law Group was given Brad Willis's files when he was disbarred - so there is a connection.
> David Wotherspoon is the lawyer (in good standing to my knowledge) who according to his letter and Geldert did the final negotiations with Northmont.
> 
> This train wreck is bad enough without spreading false information.  The facts are bad enough.


Wasn't trying to spread false rumours.  My understanding was that the person/lawyer that did the negotiation with Northmount was disbarred.  If that is incorrect, my apologizes.


----------



## Joe Holland

truthr said:


> For anyone who is a client of Geldert Law and is not currently a member of the "secret" Facebook group for clients only, please contact me to find out how to become a member.


Please send me the information for the Facebook page to : jholland0327@gmail.com

Thank you


----------



## Joe Holland

Is there anyone else in the US that has rejected the settlement? I am not able to justify agreeing to something without having the time to consult with additional legal, therefore, we will continue the battle one way or another.


----------



## truthr

Joe Holland said:


> Please send me the information for the Facebook page to : jholland0327@gmail.com
> 
> Thank you


I sent you a private message through the conversation section.


----------



## Joe Holland

truthr said:


> I sent you a private message through the conversation section.


Thank you


----------



## Lily123

Bewildered said:


> I don’t think anyone is going to figure this out in the short-term so my opinion is to bombard your MLA your MP and all the following contacts with emails. I am not part of the Facebook crowd on this issue but believe there is strong following there so if someone is part of that group please spread the word. I still think hundreds of us going to Edmonton taking up the cause at the  Legislature would get someone’s attention and the press but I’m not in a position to organize a rally. Come on someone from the City of Champs step up! Anyways we can all continue to post our opinions but the truth is the decisions were pretty devastating other than Judge Young allowing for discussion around interest and costs but you are still going to be stuck with this sinking ship timeshare week and a separate$16000 bill to rid yourself of it according to MG. Best is to blow the lid off this $30 some million dollar secret and get the media on it, in my opinion.
> 
> Here are possible contacts and you can easily find your MLA and MP online. A generic letter is below, not perfect but built for impacting the elected official not to retry our lost cause case. If we don’t say something right now we won’t get another chance in my opinion.
> 
> British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org
> 
> Alberta Law Society (link to submit form)
> https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/
> 
> Alberta Consumer Protection Line
> 1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)
> 
> Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre toll free at 1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS).
> 
> Honourable Kathleen Ganley
> Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
> Members of Executive Council
> Executive Branch
> 424 Legislature Building
> 10800 - 97 Avenue
> Edmonton, AB
> T5K 2B6
> Phone: 780 427-2339
> Fax: 780 422-6621
> E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca
> 
> 
> BC Ministry of Attorney General
> Honorable David Eby, Minister
> JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> To Whom it May Concern
> 
> One of the biggest miscarriages of justice is presently being perpetuated on thousands of citizens of Alberta and British Columbia and no one seems to know or care about it.
> 
> 
> If someone told you one person in this country was being held for ransom unless they paid $24,000 it would be front page news. In reality there are thousands of citizens and taxpayers presently being threatened by a $24,000 demand or more to be released by Northmont timeshare in Fairmont Hot Springs, British Columbia. This is to give up their right to own a one week timeshare they have already paid tens of thousands to own (many people’s amounts are higher).
> 
> 
> Well over a thousand people were duped into trusting Geldert Law from BC to litigate on our behalf to navigate us through the complex legalities of getting out of this timeshare mess but in the end Mr. Geldert also took our money and became implicit in this timeshare scam after promising the world and ending up negotiating an unforgivable average release fee of $24,000!!! This is only to rid ourselves all of an ever growing bill that is being charged at over 26% per annum!!
> 
> 
> You will hear this went through the courts and I believe the Honorable Justice Young was more than concerned about the interest being applied but either due to complete incompetence or perhaps other reasons, Geldert Law and his associates failed to even try to successfully raise this as an issue. Geldert Law has now forced over 1300 people to decide on accepting this coerced settlement in a matter of weeks or as he states Northmont will be able to seize and sell peoples assets! How is this legal? I understand Property owner rights to include:
> 
> 
> “A bundle of rights is a set of legal rights afforded to the real estate title holder. It can include the right of possession, the right of control, the right of exclusion, the right of enjoyment and the right of disposition.”
> 
> 
> I believe every one of these rights has been violated but especially the latter; the right to dispose which people begrudgingly want to do even though they are giving up the asset they paid dearly for, just for peace of mind to remove themselves from a situation where many feel is simply a criminal scam unfolding in Western Canada.
> 
> 
> Northmont also has unilaterally changed our contracts which seems to be another travesty, somehow the courts never seemed to identify. I understand there is new law (Bill 31) protecting condo owners and could possibly protect us as supposed titled owners of the Sunchaser property in Fairmont BC.
> 
> 
> We beg you to take action on behalf of the citizens of Alberta and BC that have nowhere to turn.Thousands of Alberta and BC taxpayers (seniors, young families) are being coerced to turn over large sums of money and people feel absolutely helpless with no one to turn to other than our elected officials, legal community and other organizations responsible to protect the public at large.
> 
> 
> In closing, we understand that this situation has went through the court of law on specific issues (mainly to try to save our timeshares) not to be ultimately held ransom for an amount that will destroy lives and families. The Geldert group alone was over 1300 people along with hundreds if not thousands of owners not involved in the litigation who are in the same situation. At $24000 dollars each we are talking about a “30 million dollar” scam against the people of Alberta and BC!! We are feeling betrayed by the very system that is supposed to protect our legal rights with competent and honest legal representation and officials looking out for their citizens.
> 
> 
> PLEASE DONT ALLOW INNOCENT TAXPAYERS TO BE DEFRAUDED OUT OF THEIR HARD EARNED DOLLARS THEY DONT EVEN HAVE!
> 
> 
> Feel free to contact me at any time for additional information as the urgency of this situation is extremely important.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,





Bewildered said:


> I don’t think anyone is going to figure this out in the short-term so my opinion is to bombard your MLA your MP and all the following contacts with emails. I am not part of the Facebook crowd on this issue but believe there is strong following there so if someone is part of that group please spread the word. I still think hundreds of us going to Edmonton taking up the cause at the  Legislature would get someone’s attention and the press but I’m not in a position to organize a rally. Come on someone from the City of Champs step up! Anyways we can all continue to post our opinions but the truth is the decisions were pretty devastating other than Judge Young allowing for discussion around interest and costs but you are still going to be stuck with this sinking ship timeshare week and a separate$16000 bill to rid yourself of it according to MG. Best is to blow the lid off this $30 some million dollar secret and get the media on it, in my opinion.
> 
> Here are possible contacts and you can easily find your MLA and MP online. A generic letter is below, not perfect but built for impacting the elected official not to retry our lost cause case. If we don’t say something right now we won’t get another chance in my opinion.
> 
> British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org
> 
> Alberta Law Society (link to submit form)
> https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/
> 
> Alberta Consumer Protection Line
> 1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)
> 
> Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre toll free at 1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS).
> 
> Honourable Kathleen Ganley
> Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
> Members of Executive Council
> Executive Branch
> 424 Legislature Building
> 10800 - 97 Avenue
> Edmonton, AB
> T5K 2B6
> Phone: 780 427-2339
> Fax: 780 422-6621
> E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca
> 
> 
> BC Ministry of Attorney General
> Honorable David Eby, Minister
> JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> To Whom it May Concern
> 
> One of the biggest miscarriages of justice is presently being perpetuated on thousands of citizens of Alberta and British Columbia and no one seems to know or care about it.
> 
> 
> If someone told you one person in this country was being held for ransom unless they paid $24,000 it would be front page news. In reality there are thousands of citizens and taxpayers presently being threatened by a $24,000 demand or more to be released by Northmont timeshare in Fairmont Hot Springs, British Columbia. This is to give up their right to own a one week timeshare they have already paid tens of thousands to own (many people’s amounts are higher).
> 
> 
> Well over a thousand people were duped into trusting Geldert Law from BC to litigate on our behalf to navigate us through the complex legalities of getting out of this timeshare mess but in the end Mr. Geldert also took our money and became implicit in this timeshare scam after promising the world and ending up negotiating an unforgivable average release fee of $24,000!!! This is only to rid ourselves all of an ever growing bill that is being charged at over 26% per annum!!
> 
> 
> You will hear this went through the courts and I believe the Honorable Justice Young was more than concerned about the interest being applied but either due to complete incompetence or perhaps other reasons, Geldert Law and his associates failed to even try to successfully raise this as an issue. Geldert Law has now forced over 1300 people to decide on accepting this coerced settlement in a matter of weeks or as he states Northmont will be able to seize and sell peoples assets! How is this legal? I understand Property owner rights to include:
> 
> 
> “A bundle of rights is a set of legal rights afforded to the real estate title holder. It can include the right of possession, the right of control, the right of exclusion, the right of enjoyment and the right of disposition.”
> 
> 
> I believe every one of these rights has been violated but especially the latter; the right to dispose which people begrudgingly want to do even though they are giving up the asset they paid dearly for, just for peace of mind to remove themselves from a situation where many feel is simply a criminal scam unfolding in Western Canada.
> 
> 
> Northmont also has unilaterally changed our contracts which seems to be another travesty, somehow the courts never seemed to identify. I understand there is new law (Bill 31) protecting condo owners and could possibly protect us as supposed titled owners of the Sunchaser property in Fairmont BC.
> 
> 
> We beg you to take action on behalf of the citizens of Alberta and BC that have nowhere to turn.Thousands of Alberta and BC taxpayers (seniors, young families) are being coerced to turn over large sums of money and people feel absolutely helpless with no one to turn to other than our elected officials, legal community and other organizations responsible to protect the public at large.
> 
> 
> In closing, we understand that this situation has went through the court of law on specific issues (mainly to try to save our timeshares) not to be ultimately held ransom for an amount that will destroy lives and families. The Geldert group alone was over 1300 people along with hundreds if not thousands of owners not involved in the litigation who are in the same situation. At $24000 dollars each we are talking about a “30 million dollar” scam against the people of Alberta and BC!! We are feeling betrayed by the very system that is supposed to protect our legal rights with competent and honest legal representation and officials looking out for their citizens.
> 
> 
> PLEASE DONT ALLOW INNOCENT TAXPAYERS TO BE DEFRAUDED OUT OF THEIR HARD EARNED DOLLARS THEY DONT EVEN HAVE!
> 
> 
> Feel free to contact me at any time for additional information as the urgency of this situation is extremely important.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,




I agree, at this point we need to get the attention of a government representative or similar who actually has the power to demand a pause in action being taken against owners and launch an appropriate investigation into this situation.  If you read Judge Youngs ruling, her hands are tied, she awarded judgement but could only offered suggestion to negotiate interest and legal fees. She did not mention any solution to an exit cost which is leaving Northmont in a very strong position. We need a higher level of intervention.

Everyone needs to write letters to their MPs and MLAs, a local rally at the Legislature would perhaps bring out the media as well. Focus your efforts on these avenues as they are likely our only chance.

If anyone is aware of a Facebook group related to this issue can you please post the name.


----------



## Spark1

truthr said:


> I do not see where it says the disbarred lawyer was hired to do the negotiations or to actually handle any trial.  Although disbarred lawyers working on active files is frowned upon.
> Strathcona Law Group was given Brad Willis's files when he was disbarred - so there is a connection.
> David Wotherspoon is the lawyer (in good standing to my knowledge) who according to his letter and Geldert did the final negotiations with Northmont.
> 
> This train wreck is bad enough without spreading false information.  The facts are bad enough.


Truth are VIA’s Contracts the same as Vacation Villa Lease Contracts. I have a Vacation Villa Lease and I Know that was the Contract I had right up to the Jeke Test case. I never received any thing from North mont saying my contract has changed. Even if they did Modification to the Lease it must not materially prejudice the rights of existing lessees. This means do not call us co-owners or VIA’s if you try to get rid of our Lease Contract. I just wanted to get your opinion because I will never allow Northmont to destroy my Lease. Besides the court cases started way before the Jeke case and they should not be able to make changes just to suit the mission Northmont is on.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Bewildered said:


> I don’t think anyone is going to figure this out in the short-term so my opinion is to bombard your MLA your MP and all the following contacts with emails. I am not part of the Facebook crowd on this issue but believe there is strong following there so if someone is part of that group please spread the word. I still think hundreds of us going to Edmonton taking up the cause at the  Legislature would get someone’s attention and the press but I’m not in a position to organize a rally. Come on someone from the City of Champs step up! Anyways we can all continue to post our opinions but the truth is the decisions were pretty devastating other than Judge Young allowing for discussion around interest and costs but you are still going to be stuck with this sinking ship timeshare week and a separate$16000 bill to rid yourself of it according to MG. Best is to blow the lid off this $30 some million dollar secret and get the media on it, in my opinion.
> 
> Here are possible contacts and you can easily find your MLA and MP online. A generic letter is below, not perfect but built for impacting the elected official not to retry our lost cause case. If we don’t say something right now we won’t get another chance in my opinion.
> 
> British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org
> 
> Alberta Law Society (link to submit form)
> https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/
> 
> Alberta Consumer Protection Line
> 1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)
> 
> Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre toll free at 1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS).
> 
> Honourable Kathleen Ganley
> Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
> Members of Executive Council
> Executive Branch
> 424 Legislature Building
> 10800 - 97 Avenue
> Edmonton, AB
> T5K 2B6
> Phone: 780 427-2339
> Fax: 780 422-6621
> E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca
> 
> 
> BC Ministry of Attorney General
> Honorable David Eby, Minister
> JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> To Whom it May Concern
> 
> One of the biggest miscarriages of justice is presently being perpetuated on thousands of citizens of Alberta and British Columbia and no one seems to know or care about it.
> 
> 
> If someone told you one person in this country was being held for ransom unless they paid $24,000 it would be front page news. In reality there are thousands of citizens and taxpayers presently being threatened by a $24,000 demand or more to be released by Northmont timeshare in Fairmont Hot Springs, British Columbia. This is to give up their right to own a one week timeshare they have already paid tens of thousands to own (many people’s amounts are higher).
> 
> 
> Well over a thousand people were duped into trusting Geldert Law from BC to litigate on our behalf to navigate us through the complex legalities of getting out of this timeshare mess but in the end Mr. Geldert also took our money and became implicit in this timeshare scam after promising the world and ending up negotiating an unforgivable average release fee of $24,000!!! This is only to rid ourselves all of an ever growing bill that is being charged at over 26% per annum!!
> 
> 
> You will hear this went through the courts and I believe the Honorable Justice Young was more than concerned about the interest being applied but either due to complete incompetence or perhaps other reasons, Geldert Law and his associates failed to even try to successfully raise this as an issue. Geldert Law has now forced over 1300 people to decide on accepting this coerced settlement in a matter of weeks or as he states Northmont will be able to seize and sell peoples assets! How is this legal? I understand Property owner rights to include:
> 
> 
> “A bundle of rights is a set of legal rights afforded to the real estate title holder. It can include the right of possession, the right of control, the right of exclusion, the right of enjoyment and the right of disposition.”
> 
> 
> I believe every one of these rights has been violated but especially the latter; the right to dispose which people begrudgingly want to do even though they are giving up the asset they paid dearly for, just for peace of mind to remove themselves from a situation where many feel is simply a criminal scam unfolding in Western Canada.
> 
> 
> Northmont also has unilaterally changed our contracts which seems to be another travesty, somehow the courts never seemed to identify. I understand there is new law (Bill 31) protecting condo owners and could possibly protect us as supposed titled owners of the Sunchaser property in Fairmont BC.
> 
> 
> We beg you to take action on behalf of the citizens of Alberta and BC that have nowhere to turn.Thousands of Alberta and BC taxpayers (seniors, young families) are being coerced to turn over large sums of money and people feel absolutely helpless with no one to turn to other than our elected officials, legal community and other organizations responsible to protect the public at large.
> 
> 
> In closing, we understand that this situation has went through the court of law on specific issues (mainly to try to save our timeshares) not to be ultimately held ransom for an amount that will destroy lives and families. The Geldert group alone was over 1300 people along with hundreds if not thousands of owners not involved in the litigation who are in the same situation. At $24000 dollars each we are talking about a “30 million dollar” scam against the people of Alberta and BC!! We are feeling betrayed by the very system that is supposed to protect our legal rights with competent and honest legal representation and officials looking out for their citizens.
> 
> 
> PLEASE DONT ALLOW INNOCENT TAXPAYERS TO BE DEFRAUDED OUT OF THEIR HARD EARNED DOLLARS THEY DONT EVEN HAVE!
> 
> 
> Feel free to contact me at any time for additional information as the urgency of this situation is extremely important.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,


Fantastic work - thanks for contributing and especially for sharing!!


----------



## Broke Mama

easy prey said:


> Geldert is still our lawyer for now.  I don't see how he can't be and handle executing the so called settlement.    Which means he still has obligations to us.  We should be emailing him with questions and specifically instructing him to address the answers to the questions and answers to the entire group via email.  We have a right to know how this settlement was arrived at or any other questions we may have.   He is obligated to answer our questions.   Once he ceases to be our lawyer he might not be obliged to answer our questions.
> 
> As they say,  if it's not in writing it didn't happen.
> 
> If he ignores our emails than we have a record of no response. More issues to raise with the law society.
> 
> I strongly believe  the window for getting answers out of him is quickly closing also.
> 
> There are a lot of us.  Please take the time to time to do this.  If only a few of us do this it's pointless.
> 
> We should be giving him a deadline to respond as well.  One that gives us sometime before  their February 15, 2018 deadline. This should be reflected in each of our emails.  I propose January 19, 2018.  If anyone prefers another date just say it.


I emailed him twice with specific questions and asked him to respond. He didn't respond to my email.


----------



## truthr

Spark1 said:


> Truth are VIA’s Contracts the same as Vacation Villa Lease Contracts. I have a Vacation Villa Lease and I Know that was the Contract I had right up to the Jeke Test case. I never received any thing from North mont saying my contract has changed. Even if they did Modification to the Lease it must not materially prejudice the rights of existing lessees. This means do not call us co-owners or VIA’s if you try to get rid of our Lease Contract. I just wanted to get your opinion because I will never allow Northmont to destroy my Lease. Besides the court cases started way before the Jeke case and they should not be able to make changes just to suit the mission Northmont is on.


Sorry Spark1 I don't have the answer to those questions.


----------



## Spark1

Just Looking Around said:


> This is nothing less than a legal scam given license by a fragmented legal system mired in jurisprudence minutia and decades of negligent governments. Not just the current ones, governments of all stripes too afraid to upset Developers who are also political donors. Developers are not bad, but these are very sketchy. And lets face it, they aren't really Developers are they? More like un-Developers.
> 
> Panama Papers you say? Well, maybe it's something more than a legal scam.
> 
> I'm not in this fight with Geldert's Group. I am fighting this same fight on a different front by myself. It won't be long till I am where you are now.  If I ever get before a Judge, I will calmly stand and start with, _"Good Day Your Honour."_ Then I fear I'll blurt out, _"It's not a F'ng Resort! My learned friend over there represents a serial teller of untruths, a man who misrepresents facts, and a  person practicing a pretense to obtain money via deception."_ As I am dragged from the Court Room, I'll be screaming, _"They want their money for nothing. They've run all six of their properties into the ground. They ruined a 100-year-old Dude Ranch. They've sunk six houseboats. It's a pattern. They've failed in every country they've been in. It's a shell game. They sell land and buildings that are shared with a larger group, and then they keep all of the money to themselves. It's no more complex than that your Honour. Visit the property! Their pool is a square hole in the ground filled with over-chlorinated water. My brother-in-law's trailer on a weedy lakeshore in Alberta is more warm and welcoming - and he still owes me for that lawnmower.  I.T.'.S ... N.O.T ... A ... R.E.S..O...R....T!"_


You are so right every one  join the Canadian anti-fraud centre.  Phone 1-888-495-8501. This is a scam and I really wonder what qualifies some of these Judges. When Justice Young ruled she said that Cancellation Agreement was legal and any one that has a Lease Agreement she is saying Lease owners have to pay the Special Assessments. Not true according to Honourable Judge J.T.McCarthy. Janet Lydiatt and Banff Rocky Mountain Resort Ltd. BC Protection and The office of the Superintendent does not want any thing to do with this they told me I have to deal with Alberta. Did any one find out if this Trustee was within his legal rights to do what he did? It looks like BC also will have to deal with Alberta. Justice Branch says we all should at least pay the cancellation. Did he ever read this Cancellation Agreement?. Does any one Know if any of theses timeshare owners ever got totally released from this disaster? I have asked my x Lawyer several times was it legal what the Trustee did and were any one released, he never answered me Why?


----------



## truthr

Spark1 said:


> You are so right every one  join the Canadian anti-fraud centre.  Phone 1-888-495-8501. This is a scam and I really wonder what qualifies some of these Judges. When Justice Young ruled she said that Cancellation Agreement was legal and any one that has a Lease Agreement she is saying Lease owners have to pay the Special Assessments. Not true according to Honourable Judge J.T.McCarthy. Janet Lydiatt and Banff Rocky Mountain Resort Ltd. BC Protection and The office of the Superintendent does not want any thing to do with this they told me I have to deal with Alberta. Did any one find out if this Trustee was within his legal rights to do what he did? It looks like BC also will have to deal with Alberta. Justice Branch says we all should at least pay the cancellation. Did he ever read this Cancellation Agreement?. Does any one Know if any of theses timeshare owners ever got totally released from this disaster? I have asked my x Lawyer several times was it legal what the Trustee did and were any one released, he never answered me Why?


Reminder:  Judges can only rule on what is presented to them and presented according to the Rules of Court.


----------



## Scammed!

Everyday we need to fight, not just yesterday or today but everyday until this ends. Our job is not done until we get back control of our lives which has been taken from us. ...God knows I want mine back!  Send Letters, emails, faxes everyday to Officials you haven't sent to yet. There's no end to the list. It only takes one person to hear us, and that one person out there could change our lives. It could be YOUR letter that catches their attention, and changes this mess we've been unfairly put in. We only fail if we don't do anything...And I have never failed.......


----------



## ecwinch

*Edit: The quote below was previously wrongly attributed to truthr, when he was just quoting Spark1. Apologies for the mistake.*


Spark1 said:


> When Justice Young ruled she said that Cancellation Agreement was legal and any one that has a Lease Agreement she is saying Lease owners have to pay the Special Assessments. Not true according to Honourable Judge J.T.McCarthy. Janet Lydiatt and Banff Rocky Mountain Resort Ltd.



Just as an FYI - this point is expressly covered in the JEKE-v.-Northmont Reasons for Judgement on page 74 para 280.

In Lydiatt, the issue was responsibility to pay for certain “capital expenditures for renovations and redevelopment”, which included re-doing kitchens and bathrooms and updating mechanical and electrical systems. There was no mention of “capital costs” in the agreement. *Judge McCarthy held that these capital costs could be properly included in a special assessment billed to owners: paras. 18-20. In the result, the owner succeeded in this litigation; however, it was only based on the fact that the special assessment was in excess of a 10% cap on annual assessment increases, circumstances not relevant here.*


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

ecwinch said:


> Just as an FYI - this point is expressly covered in the JEKE-v.-Northmont Reasons for Judgement on page 74 para 280.
> 
> In Lydiatt, the issue was responsibility to pay for certain “capital expenditures for renovations and redevelopment”, which included re-doing kitchens and bathrooms and updating mechanical and electrical systems. There was no mention of “capital costs” in the agreement. *Judge McCarthy held that these capital costs could be properly included in a special assessment billed to owners: paras. 18-20. In the result, the owner succeeded in this litigation; however, it was only based on the fact that the special assessment was in excess of a 10% cap on annual assessment increases, circumstances not relevant here.*


Eric, it's great to have your participation and even better knowing other people have an interest in our challenge.

Taking the time to review the documents and taking the time to analyze them shows you have a true interest - Eric thank-you and I can only assume you are an educated professional yourself and I just wanted to say thank-you for your participation.

Its great to see the support of at at least 2 Tugbbs moderators now who have commented and we value your input.

Unfortunately a lot of what has transpired over the last 4 years affects more than just the resort we have our own timeshare at and it's great to see that word may be getting out beyond our group.

A lot of the decisions that have been made that negatively have impacted us can now be used to affect other resorts especially if this is the beginning of a business decisions that will enable companies to see the potential to capitalize additional revenues in a similar manner.


----------



## Spark1

Hello moderator: would you please tell me what Fairmont Vacation Villas Consumer Protection Agreement Means? Also tell why the President,Fairmont Resort Properties LD Collin Knight witnessed this document with his Signature. My spouse and I had to go threw every item on this document from 1 to 18 and initial and then Collin Knight signed. This is how item number 9 reads. I understand that the annual maintenance fee is currently  $_441 gst incl per week of ownership. Said fee shall cover maid service,utilities,insurance,taxes,refurbishing and general maintenance.Fees are subject to increases as costs increase. If you cross reference this over to my 2002 Vacation Villa Lease to Item number 9 operating costs and reserve for Refurbishing it is saying the same thing. Now what won the case for Janet Lydiatt and the Banff Rocky Resort Ltd case was the knowledge of The Judge J.T. McCarthy. He used the Fair Trading ACT of Alberta to handle this case. This is not a Condominium. “Time Share Contract” is identified under the Fair Trading ACT,  “time Share Contract” means a Contract in which an individual acquires the right to us, occupy or possess real or personal property whether or not it is located in Alberta. The Time Share Regulation A.R. Came in 1999 and it replaced the Condominium ACT. Moderator please read the 2002 Vacation Villa Lease contract over and also read the Canadian Consumer Handbook over under the topic Knowing Your Options and you will see the description of a “right-to-use” Time Share. Keep in mind in my case we paid $25000.00 up front fees and used the resort,  for 12 years and paid maintenance fees. Just because we did not feel the Cancellation Agreement was designed so you might not ever get released,keep in mind majority of us are seniors quoted by Service Alberta. There is nothing in my 2002 Lease Agreement that states we have to pay Special Assessments. I was at the court June 28/2017 and what I heard in the room Justice Youngs biggest concern was Albertan’s winning their cases and this would tie up the Alberta Courts for years. I almost jumped up and said Albertan’s have the right to Justice. I also feel All Canadians and Americans have the right to justice. I bet I have talked to and emailed back and forth to BC Protection and the Office of the superintendent more than most Albertan’s. What is your opinion on the upfront money that Northmont never talks about. Do you feel there should of been a forensic Audit done on this resort so 14500 Time Share owners know where the money went?


----------



## Spark1

truthr said:


> Sorry Spark1 I don't have the answer to those questions.


I am asking you because I never read a 2010 VIA Contract.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

One of the many great people I am corresponding with has shared a fantastic letter they have sent out and consented that I post as an example of the steps they personally are taking.

Here is where this letter has been sent:
BC Ministry of the Attorney General, Honorable David Eby, Minister
The Law Society
Their MLA
Their MP

Please take the time to do what you can and reach out to the people that represent us who are there to help serve and protect us – *Your voice matters, let it be heard!!!*


Dear Sir:

I am writing to ask for help in one of the biggest miscarriages of justice that is presently being perpetrated on citizens of British Columbia and Alberta.

There are thousands of citizens and taxpayers presently being threatened by a $24,000 demand (or greater in several cases) to be released by Northmont, the company that owns Sunchaser resort at Fairmont Hot Springs.This ransom is being demanded by Northmont to surrender a fully paid one week timeshare that many have paid tens of thousands of dollars to own in the first place.

We have been misrepresented by our legal counsel who has negotiated this absurd deal with Northmont without first reviewing and receiving approval from his 1400 plus client group. He has given us just a short time (over Christmas) to accept the offer or no longer be represented. We have paid him good money to protect us and our ever increasing bill with Northmont, who is charging over 26% per annum in interest charges. Northmont has also unilaterally changed our contracts which seams to be another travesty that somehow the courts never seemed to identify. I understand there may be some support in the new law ( Bill 31) but I need to look into this further.

You will hear that this went through the courts and the lawyers were directed by the Judges to follow certain protocol in resolving this issue, and they have not done so. Instead they have negotiated (behind closed doors) a deal that will put over $30,000,000 in Northmont's coffers, force the surrender of thousands of timeshares back to Northmont and in the end leave many people in dire financial straits. The people subject to this action have already lost the right to use their time share which have many, many years of life left. Mine for example had over 20 years remaining.

Thousands of seniors and young families or being forced to turn over large sums of money with little hope of anyone to turn to. We are pleading to our elected and government officials, legal community, and other organizations responsible to protect the public for help.

We earnestly request that you take action on behalf of the citizens of BC  that have nowhere else to turn.

Sincerely


----------



## Spark1

truthr said:


> Regarding Judge Young, if you read her decision it includes ALL Geldert clients - at least that is how I read it but again I am not a lawyer.
> The reason it was before her was because she was promised (by our attorney) that it would all be heard before her to not burden the courts.
> In most instances there were already individual Statement of Claims filed.  So her ruling encompasses all Geldert clients.  Again that is how I read it.
> Also it is impossible for any one to advise any one of us without having all the documents pertaining to this debacle.  Too many winding, intertwining webs.


We would of been better off without this unexperienced Lawyer and study this case for ourselfs and saved badly spent money. I sent this man tons of material and I know I should of saved my money and time because I feel he filed it into G for garbage. What frustrates me this case should of been over in no longer than 6 months. It will be 5 years coming up and Northmont loves that because they feel they could gain 38 million more on top of the 20million they already they collected.


----------



## Spark1

I have read posts where Darren Thomas has told you it is to late and there is nothing he can do for you. I again I have talked to him several times. Darren it is not over until it is over. What you needed to is focus on what us tax payers are paying for. You know who I am and you also know that I was the one that took several documents about this resort including that Cancellation Agreement form to Service Alberta. Service Alberta went threw that material and decided to move it to the RCMP. I feel we can not totally say that the activaties were totally in BC. Both of these suppliers are from Alberta. Also I feel it is more important to Justice Young to do what ever she can to make this go away. She was very concerned about about Albertan’s tiring up the court rooms. Remember I was in that court room and I heard all of her conversation. When I heard her concerns I thought to myself,she does not care about us Albertan’s getting Justice, it is all about money and and space in the court rooms. This case must Carry on so Albertan’s can get Justice because what is going on is unfair practices which reads if the supplier or consumer lives in Alberta, the offer or acceptance is made in or sent from Alberta,or the unfair practice is made or received in Alberta and involves a supplier’s representive. I am talking about the Freedom to Choose, every document come out of Calgary. Many of the Seniors have Lease agreements and we do not Know or Care what VIA’s are.


----------



## MarcieL

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> One of the many great people I am corresponding with has shared a fantastic letter they have sent out and consented that I post as an example of the steps they personally are taking.
> 
> Here is where this letter has been sent:
> BC Ministry of the Attorney General, Honorable David Eby, Minister
> The Law Society
> Their MLA
> Their MP
> 
> Please take the time to do what you can and reach out to the people that represent us who are there to help serve and protect us – *Your voice matters, let it be heard!!!*
> 
> 
> Dear Sir:
> 
> I am writing to ask for help in one of the biggest miscarriages of justice that is presently being perpetrated on citizens of British Columbia and Alberta.
> 
> There are thousands of citizens and taxpayers presently being threatened by a $24,000 demand (or greater in several cases) to be released by Northmont, the company that owns Sunchaser resort at Fairmont Hot Springs.This ransom is being demanded by Northmont to surrender a fully paid one week timeshare that many have paid tens of thousands of dollars to own in the first place.
> 
> We have been misrepresented by our legal counsel who has negotiated this absurd deal with Northmont without first reviewing and receiving approval from his 1400 plus client group. He has given us just a short time (over Christmas) to accept the offer or no longer be represented. We have paid him good money to protect us and our ever increasing bill with Northmont, who is charging over 26% per annum in interest charges. Northmont has also unilaterally changed our contracts which seams to be another travesty that somehow the courts never seemed to identify. I understand there may be some support in the new law ( Bill 31) but I need to look into this further.
> 
> You will hear that this went through the courts and the lawyers were directed by the Judges to follow certain protocol in resolving this issue, and they have not done so. Instead they have negotiated (behind closed doors) a deal that will put over $30,000,000 in Northmont's coffers, force the surrender of thousands of timeshares back to Northmont and in the end leave many people in dire financial straits. The people subject to this action have already lost the right to use their time share which have many, many years of life left. Mine for example had over 20 years remaining.
> 
> Thousands of seniors and young families or being forced to turn over large sums of money with little hope of anyone to turn to. We are pleading to our elected and government officials, legal community, and other organizations responsible to protect the public for help.
> 
> We earnestly request that you take action on behalf of the citizens of BC  that have nowhere else to turn.
> 
> Sincerely





There are many of us who are being invoiced for much more than 24000.00 our total is close to 40,000.00 by M.G.'s latest "approximation" of 26.8% of the Nov. /16 invoice plus another 20%.  Like most we are seniors in our 70's and on a fixed income, so this means a bank loan!  I am incensed that we engaged a lawyer for 4 years and this is the result.  We could've arrived at this conclusion on our own.   M.G. and his cohorts argued convincingly only one point, at the original B.C. trial for a test case, thus all our contracts mirror Jeke!  Our counsel gave up our rights to our individual contracts in order to have the court recognize their arguments.  M.G. had promised us a test case was the way to proceed, he then failed to prove mismanagement, giving NM justification in charging us whatever they chose.  Barry King tried to submit the contract issue, at the Edmonton court hearing, but Judge Young ruled it was re-litigation of matters already covered at the Jeke trial.


----------



## newname

I have been is this fight since the begining, no matter which way I look at this it is not right what Northmont is doing. I cannot understand how they can rewrite the contracts in there favour and get away with it and not pay there proportionate share. I am quite discussed in the outcome. However even if Northmont decides to let us of with the RPF and associated interest, Northmont has the exclusive discretion to set the price of relinquishment.  I do not see how we can win that one.


----------



## Palms to pines

All of this is just a mess.I still do not understand why MG could use our money to hire no end of researchers to discover facts he didn’t have the savvy to get entered into court, numerous other lawyers to do his presenting at trials and hearings, but he didn’t hire a professional negotiator to help him in final discussions with Northmont. He gave up everything- no aggressive petition response, no proceeding to class action , and Northwynd got precisely what they wanted and with loan shark interest rates. We received our invoice yesterday - just shy of $40,000.00. Like we can spare that.


----------



## MarcieL

Hotpink said:


> Had a very informative discussion with the Bank and our financial advisor. NM can try to collect from you and threaten all kinds of actions NONE of which will  be honoured by any financial institution in Canada.
> However if they take you to court and sue you for payment they cannot touch pensions, RIFFS etc EVEN  if they get a judgement against you. Their ability to collect legally is very restricted, but they can badger you relentlessly without going to court. But that amounts to Huff and Puff. I am sure that Judge Young will enjoy having all these trivial civil cases on her docket considering what I heard her say to NM'S  hard to hear mumbler
> last year when he said he was still going to file individual claims.
> All we wanted to do when they came up with the plan to renovate and realign was to say goodbye it is yours to do with as you please and turn it over to them as per our contact section 13 or in the worst case free of charge.
> Thought that was the premise of the court case we all just went through collectively, but our representation got that objective confused by making an agreement for us ( without consultation with us) to pay more than the cost of our initial purchase of the lease.
> Still going to follow up with Service Alberta , elected MLA's and play the Elder Abuse card as well



Most pensions are deposited into bank accts online.  All banking is automated, thus if a garnishee is placed on your acct. the funds will be taken automatically.  Automation cannot discern the money source!  Cars and houses are also subject to liens, unfortunately.  Isn't this a nice predicament to face in our senior years?


----------



## Jack0123

Placing a caveat on one personal property may also be one of there options


----------



## Bewildered

Here is another example of an awesome one-off letter for your elected officials. Again I am not part of the large facebook group but please someone spread the word on that forum to get going on some political/media pressure, without it all these facebook postings of facts/non-facts mean nothing.

Dear MLA/MP


I am a local constituent in ???? and writing you today to make you aware of a white collar crime being perpetrated against thousands of Canadian citizens and yet the court system appears to have their hands tied to prevent a corporation from extorting tens of millions of dollars.


I will attach the Alberta Court papers that were filed in October 2017 and will give a brief point summary of the facts to the best of my knowledge.


Fairmont Vacation Villas in Fairmont, BC. operated a business of selling timeshare weeks. Due to poor management over the years they began to fail and applied for creditor protection in 2009.


In 2012 Northmont bought the resort in a bankruptcy acquisition and quickly further mismanaged the resort from a 5 star rating to a state of  deterioration. They made plans to sell off assets, close buildings, stopped sending the required financial statements, etc. It became very obvious that they purchased this resort knowing full well that they were planning to levy massive fees on the Owners which they did and quickly launched civil suits against thousands of people.


 In an attempt to find a resolution to this Geldert Law of Vancouver BC was hired to represent many BC and AB owners in the hopes of finding a resolution.


There were concerns that even if you paid the fees there was no guarantee that they wouldn't levy more fees or that they were planning to re-align the resort and close down many of the buildings. Many people wanted to simply get released from their timeshare and were willing to pay a fee to be legally freed from the resort.


Through these years, the owners were not permitted to use their owned weeks at the resort but Northmont was free to rent out owners week all while charging them a 27% compounded interest rate on the fees they levied. This has been happening since 2013, so the interest amounts are astounding.


However, the units that Northmont themselves own, (weeks owners paid large sums of money back to Northmont to be released from or unsold units), they are not paying any of these said fees. My understanding is they own around 40% of the units and are not paying the same fees they are suing other owners for.


When this case appeared in Alberta courts, the judge strongly suggested that a Northmont negotiate a fair settlement instead of having thousands of individual court cases coming forward. Judge Young was also very concerned about the interest and other costs and asked that this be worked out. If a reasonable agreement could not be reached then it would need to play out in the courts.


Fast forward to today:


All along the various law offices working with and on behalf of Geldert Group have been giving assurance that we should be able to get a decent settlement. In March we were offered an exit for approximately $13,800 but Geldert felt we would do better so most people continued on.


December 14, 2017 the "fair settlement" that Northmont bullied and threatened to all the owners was we are forced to pay all charges with the 27% compounded interest but then add to that total another random 20% to be released and return our asset back to them, for a total settlement of 120% of last compounded statement.  The price basically doubled since March.


If any owner does not pay in full by February 15, 2018 they will increase the 20% to 42% so the settlement is now minimally 162% of last compounded statement and they will refuse to release you or come up with any price they deem to release you.  


So basically 2000+ Albertans alone are being held hostage by Northmont who is demanding a random payment for an owner having a single week of approximately $24,000. (Some folks own multiple weeks). That is 48 Million dollars. The price of that ransom will be increased to an unknown sum if you cannot or do not make payment.  


They have also assured people that if you do not pay, not only will the ransom fee increase to whatever they determine but they will start legal proceedings via liens on our property, seizing assets etc.


Northmont has a history of doing this type of scenario, buying failing resorts at a bargain price, force owners to pay huge sums of money for renovations or pay huge sums of money to be released all while Northmont increases the value and retains their asset. It is a legal scam that steals money from the owners who have no protection.


Owners are left holding the bag. They bought their timeshare for tens of thousands of dollars on average, are unable to use it and now must pay tens of thousands again to simply give it back. How can this happen?


This does not seem like a scenario that one would see in Canada unfolding and nobody seems to be taking notice at all.


I am reaching out to you today in a last ditch effort to help. 


Sincerely,


----------



## Palms to pines

Very good. MG told me that NM owns a “ full 50percent “ of the timeshare weeks. I hope this letter writing campaign puts a stop to this extortion and NM gets investigated.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Bewildered said:


> Here is another example of an awesome one-off letter for your elected officials. Again I am not part of the large facebook group but please someone spread the word on that forum to get going on some political/media pressure, without it all these facebook postings of facts/non-facts mean nothing.
> 
> Dear MLA/MP
> 
> 
> I am a local constituent in ???? and writing you today to make you aware of a white collar crime being perpetrated against thousands of Canadian citizens and yet the court system appears to have their hands tied to prevent a corporation from extorting tens of millions of dollars.
> 
> 
> I will attach the Alberta Court papers that were filed in October 2017 and will give a brief point summary of the facts to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> 
> Fairmont Vacation Villas in Fairmont, BC. operated a business of selling timeshare weeks. Due to poor management over the years they began to fail and applied for creditor protection in 2009.
> 
> 
> In 2012 Northmont bought the resort in a bankruptcy acquisition and quickly further mismanaged the resort from a 5 star rating to a state of  deterioration. They made plans to sell off assets, close buildings, stopped sending the required financial statements, etc. It became very obvious that they purchased this resort knowing full well that they were planning to levy massive fees on the Owners which they did and quickly launched civil suits against thousands of people.
> 
> 
> In an attempt to find a resolution to this Geldert Law of Vancouver BC was hired to represent many BC and AB owners in the hopes of finding a resolution.
> 
> 
> There were concerns that even if you paid the fees there was no guarantee that they wouldn't levy more fees or that they were planning to re-align the resort and close down many of the buildings. Many people wanted to simply get released from their timeshare and were willing to pay a fee to be legally freed from the resort.
> 
> 
> Through these years, the owners were not permitted to use their owned weeks at the resort but Northmont was free to rent out owners week all while charging them a 27% compounded interest rate on the fees they levied. This has been happening since 2013, so the interest amounts are astounding.
> 
> 
> However, the units that Northmont themselves own, (weeks owners paid large sums of money back to Northmont to be released from or unsold units), they are not paying any of these said fees. My understanding is they own around 40% of the units and are not paying the same fees they are suing other owners for.
> 
> 
> When this case appeared in Alberta courts, the judge strongly suggested that a Northmont negotiate a fair settlement instead of having thousands of individual court cases coming forward. Judge Young was also very concerned about the interest and other costs and asked that this be worked out. If a reasonable agreement could not be reached then it would need to play out in the courts.
> 
> 
> Fast forward to today:
> 
> 
> All along the various law offices working with and on behalf of Geldert Group have been giving assurance that we should be able to get a decent settlement. In March we were offered an exit for approximately $13,800 but Geldert felt we would do better so most people continued on.
> 
> 
> December 14, 2017 the "fair settlement" that Northmont bullied and threatened to all the owners was we are forced to pay all charges with the 27% compounded interest but then add to that total another random 20% to be released and return our asset back to them, for a total settlement of 120% of last compounded statement.  The price basically doubled since March.
> 
> 
> If any owner does not pay in full by February 15, 2018 they will increase the 20% to 42% so the settlement is now minimally 162% of last compounded statement and they will refuse to release you or come up with any price they deem to release you.
> 
> 
> So basically 2000+ Albertans alone are being held hostage by Northmont who is demanding a random payment for an owner having a single week of approximately $24,000. (Some folks own multiple weeks). That is 48 Million dollars. The price of that ransom will be increased to an unknown sum if you cannot or do not make payment.
> 
> 
> They have also assured people that if you do not pay, not only will the ransom fee increase to whatever they determine but they will start legal proceedings via liens on our property, seizing assets etc.
> 
> 
> Northmont has a history of doing this type of scenario, buying failing resorts at a bargain price, force owners to pay huge sums of money for renovations or pay huge sums of money to be released all while Northmont increases the value and retains their asset. It is a legal scam that steals money from the owners who have no protection.
> 
> 
> Owners are left holding the bag. They bought their timeshare for tens of thousands of dollars on average, are unable to use it and now must pay tens of thousands again to simply give it back. How can this happen?
> 
> 
> This does not seem like a scenario that one would see in Canada unfolding and nobody seems to be taking notice at all.
> 
> 
> I am reaching out to you today in a last ditch effort to help.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,


Bravo


----------



## ecwinch

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Eric, it's great to have your participation and even better knowing other people have an interest in our challenge.
> 
> Taking the time to review the documents and taking the time to analyze them shows you have a true interest - Eric thank-you and I can only assume you are an educated professional yourself and I just wanted to say thank-you for your participation.



Thanks for the kind words. 

Also is does this link omit any of the salient documents covering this issue?

https://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/court-proceedings/


----------



## truthr

ecwinch said:


> Thanks for the kind words.
> 
> Also is does this link omit any of the salient documents covering this issue?
> 
> https://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/court-proceedings/


I can answer that.
Although there are a lot documents on that site it is not complete.
Just like, unfortunately our own lawyer has not provided all the documents to his clients.


----------



## ecwinch

truthr said:


> I can answer that.
> Although there are a lot documents on that site it is not complete.
> Just like, unfortunately our own lawyer has not provided all the documents to his clients.



Thanks for the quick reply. I probably should have phrased my question differently.

Does this link omit any of the salient decisions of the respective Alberta and BC courts on this matter?

As I mentioned earlier, from 50,000 ft this issue seems to have received significant review by the court. By my count, at least two bench trials spanning multiple days, with the outcome of major case being upheld on appeal.

ps. And again my apologies for mis-quoting you previously.


----------



## truthr

ecwinch said:


> Thanks for the quick reply. I probably should have phrased my question differently.
> 
> Does this link omit any of the salient decisions of the respective Alberta and BC courts on this matter?
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, from 50,000 ft this issue seems to have received significant review by the court. By my count, at least two bench trials spanning multiple days, with the outcome of major case being upheld on appeal.
> 
> ps. And again my apologies for mis-quoting you previously.


Thanks for acknowledging and correcting the mis-quote.

Oh the twists and turns in this ever confusion winding road with yes many court trials/hearings, etc. is confusing for even those who read and re-read all that has been provided by our lawyer, on the internet and even paid to get (yes I have paid to get court documents that to this day have not been revealed to the litigation group clients by their own attorney).

The significant review by the courts - unfortunately for us and the courts all was not presented and within the Canadian judicial system the judges can only rule on what is presented, when and how it is presented.

Due to all the twists and turns and missed opportunities now that the courts have ruled in favor of our opponent he feels he is in the position to demand, individually $10,000 - $100,000 and collectively over $30 million payment to him, for people to be released from the VIA's without knowing all the particulars (including the amount one would have to pay) before agreeing to this wonderful "settlement" he has concocted with the approval of our lawyers.


----------



## Lily123

Bewildered said:


> Here is another example of an awesome one-off letter for your elected officials. Again I am not part of the large facebook group but please someone spread the word on that forum to get going on some political/media pressure, without it all these facebook postings of facts/non-facts mean nothing.
> 
> Dear MLA/MP
> 
> 
> I am a local constituent in ???? and writing you today to make you aware of a white collar crime being perpetrated against thousands of Canadian citizens and yet the court system appears to have their hands tied to prevent a corporation from extorting tens of millions of dollars.
> 
> 
> I will attach the Alberta Court papers that were filed in October 2017 and will give a brief point summary of the facts to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> 
> Fairmont Vacation Villas in Fairmont, BC. operated a business of selling timeshare weeks. Due to poor management over the years they began to fail and applied for creditor protection in 2009.
> 
> 
> In 2012 Northmont bought the resort in a bankruptcy acquisition and quickly further mismanaged the resort from a 5 star rating to a state of  deterioration. They made plans to sell off assets, close buildings, stopped sending the required financial statements, etc. It became very obvious that they purchased this resort knowing full well that they were planning to levy massive fees on the Owners which they did and quickly launched civil suits against thousands of people.
> 
> 
> In an attempt to find a resolution to this Geldert Law of Vancouver BC was hired to represent many BC and AB owners in the hopes of finding a resolution.
> 
> 
> There were concerns that even if you paid the fees there was no guarantee that they wouldn't levy more fees or that they were planning to re-align the resort and close down many of the buildings. Many people wanted to simply get released from their timeshare and were willing to pay a fee to be legally freed from the resort.
> 
> 
> Through these years, the owners were not permitted to use their owned weeks at the resort but Northmont was free to rent out owners week all while charging them a 27% compounded interest rate on the fees they levied. This has been happening since 2013, so the interest amounts are astounding.
> 
> 
> However, the units that Northmont themselves own, (weeks owners paid large sums of money back to Northmont to be released from or unsold units), they are not paying any of these said fees. My understanding is they own around 40% of the units and are not paying the same fees they are suing other owners for.
> 
> 
> When this case appeared in Alberta courts, the judge strongly suggested that a Northmont negotiate a fair settlement instead of having thousands of individual court cases coming forward. Judge Young was also very concerned about the interest and other costs and asked that this be worked out. If a reasonable agreement could not be reached then it would need to play out in the courts.
> 
> 
> Fast forward to today:
> 
> 
> All along the various law offices working with and on behalf of Geldert Group have been giving assurance that we should be able to get a decent settlement. In March we were offered an exit for approximately $13,800 but Geldert felt we would do better so most people continued on.
> 
> 
> December 14, 2017 the "fair settlement" that Northmont bullied and threatened to all the owners was we are forced to pay all charges with the 27% compounded interest but then add to that total another random 20% to be released and return our asset back to them, for a total settlement of 120% of last compounded statement.  The price basically doubled since March.
> 
> 
> If any owner does not pay in full by February 15, 2018 they will increase the 20% to 42% so the settlement is now minimally 162% of last compounded statement and they will refuse to release you or come up with any price they deem to release you.
> 
> 
> So basically 2000+ Albertans alone are being held hostage by Northmont who is demanding a random payment for an owner having a single week of approximately $24,000. (Some folks own multiple weeks). That is 48 Million dollars. The price of that ransom will be increased to an unknown sum if you cannot or do not make payment.
> 
> 
> They have also assured people that if you do not pay, not only will the ransom fee increase to whatever they determine but they will start legal proceedings via liens on our property, seizing assets etc.
> 
> 
> Northmont has a history of doing this type of scenario, buying failing resorts at a bargain price, force owners to pay huge sums of money for renovations or pay huge sums of money to be released all while Northmont increases the value and retains their asset. It is a legal scam that steals money from the owners who have no protection.
> 
> 
> Owners are left holding the bag. They bought their timeshare for tens of thousands of dollars on average, are unable to use it and now must pay tens of thousands again to simply give it back. How can this happen?
> 
> 
> This does not seem like a scenario that one would see in Canada unfolding and nobody seems to be taking notice at all.
> 
> 
> I am reaching out to you today in a last ditch effort to help.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,




The court document referred to in this letter was a PDF attached to email sent out and named:
GELDERT LAW / re: update for October 30, 2017


----------



## den403

Re:       Cancellation of Lease 

            Sunchaser Vacation Villas


Good morning,


Please note that the cancellation of your lease with Sunchaser Vacation Villas has now been completed.  All financial obligations on the lease has been adjusted and the Vacation Interval Agreement is now null and void.


You will find attached a copy of the Cancellation Agreement (2 pages) and the Surrender and Indemnification Form (1 page) that has been approved by a Representative at Northwynd Resort Properties.  Please keep this for your records.


If you have any questions regarding this matter, do not hesitate to contact our Vacation Ownership Services Department at 1-877-451-1250.


Best regards,


Leanne Tucker

Project Development Manager

Northwynd Resort Properties

5799 – 3 Street SE

Calgary, Alberta

T2H 1K1

This was sent from a friend in 2013
She paid to leave
She has had no repercussions or heard from them again
She paid 1700 to leave as she had purchased years prior

MG told me to pay to stay would allow them to charge me what ever they like and change my contract
He stated if we paid to leave we would never be released as of how it was written

So I retained him!
Bad move on my part

I do believe I would have been free and clear
Of course back then he contacted you by phone


----------



## ecwinch

Spark1 said:


> Hello moderator: would you please tell me what Fairmont Vacation Villas Consumer Protection Agreement Means? Also tell why the President,Fairmont Resort Properties LD Collin Knight witnessed this document with his Signature. My spouse and I had to go threw every item on this document from 1 to 18 and initial and then Collin Knight signed. This is how item number 9 reads. I understand that the annual maintenance fee is currently  $_441 gst incl per week of ownership. Said fee shall cover maid service,utilities,insurance,taxes,refurbishing and general maintenance.Fees are subject to increases as costs increase. If you cross reference this over to my 2002 Vacation Villa Lease to Item number 9 operating costs and reserve for Refurbishing it is saying the same thing. Now what won the case for Janet Lydiatt and the Banff Rocky Resort Ltd case was the knowledge of The Judge J.T. McCarthy. He used the Fair Trading ACT of Alberta to handle this case. This is not a Condominium. “Time Share Contract” is identified under the Fair Trading ACT,  “time Share Contract” means a Contract in which an individual acquires the right to us, occupy or possess real or personal property whether or not it is located in Alberta. The Time Share Regulation A.R. Came in 1999 and it replaced the Condominium ACT. Moderator please read the 2002 Vacation Villa Lease contract over and also read the Canadian Consumer Handbook over under the topic Knowing Your Options and you will see the description of a “right-to-use” Time Share. Keep in mind in my case we paid $25000.00 up front fees and used the resort,  for 12 years and paid maintenance fees. Just because we did not feel the Cancellation Agreement was designed so you might not ever get released,keep in mind majority of us are seniors quoted by Service Alberta. There is nothing in my 2002 Lease Agreement that states we have to pay Special Assessments. I was at the court June 28/2017 and what I heard in the room Justice Youngs biggest concern was Albertan’s winning their cases and this would tie up the Alberta Courts for years. I almost jumped up and said Albertan’s have the right to Justice. I also feel All Canadians and Americans have the right to justice. I bet I have talked to and emailed back and forth to BC Protection and the Office of the superintendent more than most Albertan’s. What is your opinion on the upfront money that Northmont never talks about. Do you feel there should of been a forensic Audit done on this resort so 14500 Time Share owners know where the money went?



Spark1 - While I do have legal training, I am not a lawyer, and certainly am not a judge. And I certainly do not want to be a drag on the momentum of this group. But since you have asked my opinion (which you will probably soon regret  ), I will offer the following:

First off, my personal opinion is certainly that the group has legitimate grievances and I empathize with the situation you find yourself in. But I also cannot help to wonder if emotion is not overcoming logic in this situation. I understand the emotion this topic can foster, especially when for 3-4 years you have one picture painted for you and at trial the court views the legal issues presented completely differently.

With that as context, here is what I found regarding the Janet Lydiatt v Banff Rocky Resort case on the issues at trial (emphasis added).

_The repairs undertaken pursuant to the "special assessment fee" appeared to be properly characterized in the Agreement as part of the "Annual Use Fee" as replacement reserves - The defendant underestimated the required increase in the "Annual Use Fee" over a number of years, resulting in an insufficient replacement reserve - This did not authorize them to impose an "Annual Use Fee" that did not otherwise comply with the terms of the Agreement - *The "special assessment fee" exceeded the allowable increase in "Annual Use Fee" and there was no authority within the terms of the Agreement for imposing a retroactive "Annual Use Fee".*_

This summary is consistent with the reasoning the trial judge used in explaining why he rejected the precedent from the Lydiatt case. And when I review the VIA, I find no mention of a cap on increases in annual use fee. Absent that key clause, the court finds it reasonable that the owners should pay for the refurbishment. You might argue that unjustly enriches Northwynd as they will receive a resort in better condition they would have originally. And while that is true, that is the nature of the contract you entered into (that the property would revert to the developer).

And while I appreciate your position that this is a timeshare and not a condo, I find that is exactly the position the court took and is frequently cited as the reasoning behind their decisions. That because this is a timeshare, you have obligations to your fellow owners, and the trustee has a duty to protect the interests of your fellow owners. The court discusses this issue at length starting with para 26 - THE NATURE OF JEKE’S INTEREST.

So while I understand that some are seeking an outcome that allows them to walk away, the court is accurately pointing out that allowing such an outcome increases the burden on your fellow owners. And placed in the position of having to balance the rights of all the timeshare owners, they find the reorganization plan originally proposed in 2013 is the best outcome in that regard.  That exit options offered at that time properly balance your obligations against the rights of remaining owners. IMHO - in a more perfect world - that would have been the legal strategy your counsel would have quickly negotiated. Instead they chose the path of attempting to invalidate the contracts, and that strategy failed.

On your other two points I fail to see merit in the argument. Courts naturally have responsibility to ensure efficient use of limited judicial resources. Nothing untoward there.

Likewise on the upfront money issue, it is not talked about because Fairfield's bankruptcy extinguished any claim on that point. As with almost any claim regarding Fairfield.

Just my 2 cents. Thanks for asking.


----------



## Palms to pines

With the Fairmont contracts timeshare leases could be terminated and the property management resold them, thus ensuring high usage of the resort and the financial responsibilities continued to be shared. Northwynd closed the sales office so the costs were going to have to be shared with fewer and fewer leasees. That was just one thing that breached our contract of 1997 . To this day I do not know the contents of a 2010 contract but that is what all of our contracts became. If I had thought for one moment I was paying to have anything  defended other that what I signed my name to I would never have signed on and my biggest regret is that I didn’t get out right then. Mind you, we were told that if Jeke test case was lost we were insulated from it. Yeah, right.


----------



## ecwinch

Palms to pines said:


> With the Fairmont contracts timeshare leases could be terminated and the property management resold them, thus ensuring high usage of the resort and the financial responsibilities continued to be shared.



I thought the court addressed the termination provision. Ruling that it created a right to repossess the unit, but that Fairfield was not obligated to exercise that option. And in that regard I think being a lessee works against you, as it is well established at law that leases cannot be unilaterally terminated.


----------



## DisgustedinWA

Has the fact that a lessor has an obligation to mitigate a broken lease ever been addressed? Closing the sales office seems to make a statement that the lessor made no attempt to mitigate the leases that had defaulted.


----------



## Broke Mama

ecwinch said:


> Spark1 - While I do have legal training, I am not a lawyer, and certainly am not a judge. And I certainly do not want to be a drag on the momentum of this group. But since you have asked my opinion (which you will probably soon regret  ), I will offer the following:
> 
> First off, my personal opinion is certainly that the group has legitimate grievances and I empathize with the situation you find yourself in. But I also cannot help to wonder if emotion is not overcoming logic in this situation. I understand the emotion this topic can foster, especially when for 3-4 years you have one picture painted for you and at trial the court views the legal issues presented completely differently.
> 
> With that as context, here is what I found regarding the Janet Lydiatt v Banff Rocky Resort case on the issues at trial (emphasis added).
> 
> _The repairs undertaken pursuant to the "special assessment fee" appeared to be properly characterized in the Agreement as part of the "Annual Use Fee" as replacement reserves - The defendant underestimated the required increase in the "Annual Use Fee" over a number of years, resulting in an insufficient replacement reserve - This did not authorize them to impose an "Annual Use Fee" that did not otherwise comply with the terms of the Agreement - *The "special assessment fee" exceeded the allowable increase in "Annual Use Fee" and there was no authority within the terms of the Agreement for imposing a retroactive "Annual Use Fee".*_
> 
> This summary is consistent with the reasoning the trial judge used in explaining why he rejected the precedent from the Lydiatt case. And when I review the VIA, I find no mention of a cap on increases in annual use fee. Absent that key clause, the court finds it reasonable that the owners should pay for the refurbishment. You might argue that unjustly enriches Northwynd as they will receive a resort in better condition they would have originally. And while that is true, that is the nature of the contract you entered into (that the property would revert to the developer).
> 
> And while I appreciate your position that this is a timeshare and not a condo, I find that is exactly the position the court took and is frequently cited as the reasoning behind their decisions. That because this is a timeshare, you have obligations to your fellow owners, and the trustee has a duty to protect the interests of your fellow owners. The court discusses this issue at length starting with para 26 - THE NATURE OF JEKE’S INTEREST.
> 
> So while I understand that some are seeking an outcome that allows them to walk away, the court is accurately pointing out that allowing such an outcome increases the burden on your fellow owners. And placed in the position of having to balance the rights of all the timeshare owners, they find the reorganization plan originally proposed in 2013 is the best outcome in that regard.  That exit options offered at that time properly balance your obligations against the rights of remaining owners. IMHO - in a more perfect world - that would have been the legal strategy your counsel would have quickly negotiated. Instead they chose the path of attempting to invalidate the contracts, and that strategy failed.
> 
> On your other two points I fail to see merit in the argument. Courts naturally have responsibility to ensure efficient use of limited judicial resources. Nothing untoward there.
> 
> Likewise on the upfront money issue, it is not talked about because Fairfield's bankruptcy extinguished any claim on that point. As with almost any claim regarding Fairfield.
> 
> Just my 2 cents. Thanks for asking.


So...then if what you are saying is right. Someone who paid 10,000 for a timeshare and paid maintenance fees on time yearly that started at 600 ish and ended at 1300 ish should have to pay 5 times that amount in one year to catch up the group? And if we don't have the money to give them then we lose the money we put in to begin with by walking away? What rights do owners have even signing a contract? Also with legal counsel we were told not to pay fees and now all of it with interest is on us? Was that the gamble for us and again with an attorney how is that a settlement versus giving up? I dont know of any of us that want to screw the other owners. We just paid alot to go to this place once a year. So to have to give 3 times the amount for less is very unfair.


----------



## Spark1

ecwinch said:


> Spark1 - While I do have legal training, I am not a lawyer, and certainly am not a judge. And I certainly do not want to be a drag on the momentum of this group. But since you have asked my opinion (which you will probably soon regret  ), I will offer the following:
> 
> First off, my personal opinion is certainly that the group has legitimate grievances and I empathize with the situation you find yourself in. But I also cannot help to wonder if emotion is not overcoming logic in this situation. I understand the emotion this topic can foster, especially when for 3-4 years you have one picture painted for you and at trial the court views the legal issues presented completely differently.
> 
> With that as context, here is what I found regarding the Janet Lydiatt v Banff Rocky Resort case on the issues at trial (emphasis added).
> 
> _The repairs undertaken pursuant to the "special assessment fee" appeared to be properly characterized in the Agreement as part of the "Annual Use Fee" as replacement reserves - The defendant underestimated the required increase in the "Annual Use Fee" over a number of years, resulting in an insufficient replacement reserve - This did not authorize them to impose an "Annual Use Fee" that did not otherwise comply with the terms of the Agreement - *The "special assessment fee" exceeded the allowable increase in "Annual Use Fee" and there was no authority within the terms of the Agreement for imposing a retroactive "Annual Use Fee".*_
> 
> This summary is consistent with the reasoning the trial judge used in explaining why he rejected the precedent from the Lydiatt case. And when I review the VIA, I find no mention of a cap on increases in annual use fee. Absent that key clause, the court finds it reasonable that the owners should pay for the refurbishment. You might argue that unjustly enriches Northwynd as they will receive a resort in better condition they would have originally. And while that is true, that is the nature of the contract you entered into (that the property would revert to the developer).
> 
> And while I appreciate your position that this is a timeshare and not a condo, I find that is exactly the position the court took and is frequently cited as the reasoning behind their decisions. That because this is a timeshare, you have obligations to your fellow owners, and the trustee has a duty to protect the interests of your fellow owners. The court discusses this issue at length starting with para 26 - THE NATURE OF JEKE’S INTEREST.
> 
> So while I understand that some are seeking an outcome that allows them to walk away, the court is accurately pointing out that allowing such an outcome increases the burden on your fellow owners. And placed in the position of having to balance the rights of all the timeshare owners, they find the reorganization plan originally proposed in 2013 is the best outcome in that regard.  That exit options offered at that time properly balance your obligations against the rights of remaining owners. IMHO - in a more perfect world - that would have been the legal strategy your counsel would have quickly negotiated. Instead they chose the path of attempting to invalidate the contracts, and that strategy failed.
> 
> On your other two points I fail to see merit in the argument. Courts naturally have responsibility to ensure efficient use of limited judicial resources. Nothing untoward there.
> 
> Likewise on the upfront money issue, it is not talked about because Fairfield's bankruptcy extinguished any claim on that point. As with almost any claim regarding Fairfield.
> 
> Just my 2 cents. Thanks for asking.


 I do not agree . How many of these resorts do they have left. What happened to the resorts in Mexico Belize,Hawaii Kelowna and if you think Northmont will be around for a long time you are a dreamer. My wife's 93 year old uncle would say a hand shake is much better Contract then a written one and that is very true to Northmont run by Wankel.


----------



## DisgustedinWA

I have been in this with Geldert from the beginning. I had hoped with number of owners involved that there would be a few attorneys in the group that would have steered this down the right track. Maybe Geldert was complicit from the beginning or maybe incompetent or he was playing against a stacked deck. Irregardless, I am totally done with Canada. I can't imagine the hardship that Canadian "justice" is imposing on innocent victims of this fraud and extortion aka "the settlement". And I thought the US judicial system was a joke. I'm sorry, I just needed to vent.


----------



## Spark1

Was any Owners of Villa Lease, Vacation Villa Lease contracts told my Northmont that their contracts had modifications to the Lease done. The Lessor reserves the right to adjust or modify this Lease from time to time for the benefit of existing and future lessees,provided that any such adjustment or modification will not in any way materially prejudice the rights of existing lessees. If any such adjustment or modification is effected,the Lessor well provide notice to each lessee setting out nature of the adjustment or modification,the reasons  giving rise to such adjustment or modification and the effects thereof.


----------



## Bewildered

We all continue to try to dissect these court decisions, our fees, somebody getting out for $1700, etc,etc. I’m not sure even with some of the great information on here, that it changes our situation. I have had discussions with a number of lawyers that I know personally and the only thing still seemingly available to us is the interest argument. None of them seemed to be able to disagree with MG that there was probably nothing stopping Northmont to jack up the exit fee even if someone was successful with that argument as that is never really discussed by Judge Young. 
I hope and pray people are truly contacting their elected official because I phoned my Member of Parliament today (he wasn’t in) but his aide said this is the first he heard of it! I know there are many people in Central Alberta with Fairmont timeshares and I’m the first to call. We need to start moving on this the clock is ticking, can anybody verify the Facebook group is doing anything other than online complaining. People should also start contacting the media, somebody must see this as a story?


----------



## Scammed!

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Bravo





Bewildered said:


> Here is another example of an awesome one-off letter for your elected officials. Again I am not part of the large facebook group but please someone spread the word on that forum to get going on some political/media pressure, without it all these facebook postings of facts/non-facts mean nothing.
> 
> Dear MLA/MP
> 
> 
> I am a local constituent in ???? and writing you today to make you aware of a white collar crime being perpetrated against thousands of Canadian citizens and yet the court system appears to have their hands tied to prevent a corporation from extorting tens of millions of dollars.
> 
> 
> I will attach the Alberta Court papers that were filed in October 2017 and will give a brief point summary of the facts to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> 
> Fairmont Vacation Villas in Fairmont, BC. operated a business of selling timeshare weeks. Due to poor management over the years they began to fail and applied for creditor protection in 2009.
> 
> 
> In 2012 Northmont bought the resort in a bankruptcy acquisition and quickly further mismanaged the resort from a 5 star rating to a state of  deterioration. They made plans to sell off assets, close buildings, stopped sending the required financial statements, etc. It became very obvious that they purchased this resort knowing full well that they were planning to levy massive fees on the Owners which they did and quickly launched civil suits against thousands of people.
> 
> 
> In an attempt to find a resolution to this Geldert Law of Vancouver BC was hired to represent many BC and AB owners in the hopes of finding a resolution.
> 
> 
> There were concerns that even if you paid the fees there was no guarantee that they wouldn't levy more fees or that they were planning to re-align the resort and close down many of the buildings. Many people wanted to simply get released from their timeshare and were willing to pay a fee to be legally freed from the resort.
> 
> 
> Through these years, the owners were not permitted to use their owned weeks at the resort but Northmont was free to rent out owners week all while charging them a 27% compounded interest rate on the fees they levied. This has been happening since 2013, so the interest amounts are astounding.
> 
> 
> However, the units that Northmont themselves own, (weeks owners paid large sums of money back to Northmont to be released from or unsold units), they are not paying any of these said fees. My understanding is they own around 40% of the units and are not paying the same fees they are suing other owners for.
> 
> 
> When this case appeared in Alberta courts, the judge strongly suggested that a Northmont negotiate a fair settlement instead of having thousands of individual court cases coming forward. Judge Young was also very concerned about the interest and other costs and asked that this be worked out. If a reasonable agreement could not be reached then it would need to play out in the courts.
> 
> 
> Fast forward to today:
> 
> 
> All along the various law offices working with and on behalf of Geldert Group have been giving assurance that we should be able to get a decent settlement. In March we were offered an exit for approximately $13,800 but Geldert felt we would do better so most people continued on.
> 
> 
> December 14, 2017 the "fair settlement" that Northmont bullied and threatened to all the owners was we are forced to pay all charges with the 27% compounded interest but then add to that total another random 20% to be released and return our asset back to them, for a total settlement of 120% of last compounded statement.  The price basically doubled since March.
> 
> 
> If any owner does not pay in full by February 15, 2018 they will increase the 20% to 42% so the settlement is now minimally 162% of last compounded statement and they will refuse to release you or come up with any price they deem to release you.
> 
> 
> So basically 2000+ Albertans alone are being held hostage by Northmont who is demanding a random payment for an owner having a single week of approximately $24,000. (Some folks own multiple weeks). That is 48 Million dollars. The price of that ransom will be increased to an unknown sum if you cannot or do not make payment.
> 
> 
> They have also assured people that if you do not pay, not only will the ransom fee increase to whatever they determine but they will start legal proceedings via liens on our property, seizing assets etc.
> 
> 
> Northmont has a history of doing this type of scenario, buying failing resorts at a bargain price, force owners to pay huge sums of money for renovations or pay huge sums of money to be released all while Northmont increases the value and retains their asset. It is a legal scam that steals money from the owners who have no protection.
> 
> 
> Owners are left holding the bag. They bought their timeshare for tens of thousands of dollars on average, are unable to use it and now must pay tens of thousands again to simply give it back. How can this happen?
> 
> 
> This does not seem like a scenario that one would see in Canada unfolding and nobody seems to be taking notice at all.
> 
> 
> I am reaching out to you today in a last ditch effort to help.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,




I want to thank Bewildered for this letter. At this moment I would like to inform you all that  87 MLA's (not one missed) have received this letter in Alberta in last three hours. We will be heard! I received an email from two urging me to inform my MLA .... so I had to revise it a little to say this letter is to inform all MLA'S of Alberta what is happening to Canadians. Why did I do this?  Because there are elderly people who I saw in court and it was heart breaking. Some may be sick, don't know how to use a computer, or have zero support. I don't  know who they are or where they live but I covered every inch of Alberta. I will no longer be silenced. I have always stuck up for the under dog.....apparently that would be me right now. I can tell you that I have sent just over 100 emails so far. My work isn't finished until this is over!


----------



## Spark1

My concern about Modification to Lease is this. I down loaded the Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.  And  James Reid and Diane Reid. Decision of the Honourable Judge L.D. Young.  The Overview says there is seven-hundred and sixty timeshare owners. The Civil Claims filed against the Defendants allege that the Time Share owners have failed to pay monies owing under a timeshare agreement known as a "Vacation Interval agreement" ("VIA") This is what it says on page 2 of my lease  item 2 The Lessee is Desirous of purchasing a Vacation  leasehold interest in the Villas for the term and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.  This is my contract and it is called a Vacation Villa Lease. How many more Lease owners are called VIA's? You should check this out,how can a Provincial  Judge rule on a case against us when she does not have the right contract? Modifications to Lease is just that you are modifying but not totally destroying the Lease.


----------



## Punter

Bewildered said:


> the only thing still seemingly available to us is the interest argument. None of them seemed to be able to disagree with MG that there was probably nothing stopping Northmont to jack up the exit fee even if someone was successful with that argument as that is never really discussed by Judge Young.



If NM increases one cost (exit fee) to offset a reduced interest (actually a contractual obligation) in order to get more money, it is a perfect example of greed and arbitrarily inflated costs on NM's behalf.  I'm sure Judge Young would frown upon that as they were the two items that she had concerns with in her decision. 

I also challenge paying the RPF in option 1. NM is charging to stay and charging to go. 

Under sworn oath KW said " any owner who chooses to cancel does not have to pay the RPF" 

This further exemplifies their greed and true intention.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

IF??? I am an owner do I benefit when they start selling off the property??? .........ya right.    such a freaking joke this is


----------



## Broke Mama

DisgustedinWA said:


> I have been in this with Geldert from the beginning. I had hoped with number of owners involved that there would be a few attorneys in the group that would have steered this down the right track. Maybe Geldert was complicit from the beginning or maybe incompetent or he was playing against a stacked deck. Irregardless, I am totally done with Canada. I can't imagine the hardship that Canadian "justice" is imposing on innocent victims of this fraud and extortion aka "the settlement". And I thought the US judicial system was a joke. I'm sorry, I just needed to vent.


We're are you in Washington? I'm in spokane?


----------



## DisgustedinWA

Broke Mama said:


> We're are you in Washington? I'm in spokane?


I'm in Spokane. Unfortunately, I don't see much future in the fight.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Scammed! said:


> I want to thank Bewildered for this letter. At this moment I would like to inform you all that  87 MLA's (not one missed) have received this letter in Alberta in last three hours. We will be heard! I received an email from two urging me to inform my MLA .... so I had to revise it a little to say this letter is to inform all MLA'S of Alberta what is happening to Canadians. Why did I do this?  Because there are elderly people who I saw in court and it was heart breaking. Some may be sick, don't know how to use a computer, or have zero support. I don't  know who they are or where they live but I covered every inch of Alberta. I will no longer be silenced. I have always stuck up for the under dog.....apparently that would be me right now. I can tell you that I have sent just over 100 emails so far. My work isn't finished until this is over!


Scammed you are one person wrecking ball!!!

Your are so right - we need to keep working to share our voice for the people who are afraid or not able to speak!!!

Keep pushing everyone - when we hit that right person my bet is things will begin to happen quickly, we just need to find that right person.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Ok, there was a post here that said it was understandable for a judge to worry about tying up limited court resources.  Of course.  That doesn't take priority over the letter of the law or of the rights of taxpayers to get justice from the legal system they pay for.  When a judge says we'll probably win, then that's it, if the courts want to make things quicker or cheaper then they can expidite things they can pressure the side that will probably lose but they have no right to make decisions against the party they feel is in the legal right in order to save court time.  Baloney.


----------



## den403

Can legacy people lean the property?


----------



## Broke Mama

DisgustedinWA said:


> I'm in Spokane. Unfortunately, I don't see much future in the fight.


Are you all taking settlement offer? I would like to talk to u. We said no to settlement but are unsure what to do.we don't want to get in another lawsuit too.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

I'm signing off tonight but let's make a comprehensive list of contacts.  Let's get it together and make it easy for everyone, even you people that are too busy because of kids and activities, to call, write and email.  Got time for a coffee, some tv, then you got time to call, write and email.  It's a short amount of time we have so let's get going.  

I imagine the list will include what we've seen here and media contacts.  Let's keep a running list that gets reposted all the time so no one misses it, no one needs to find it.  We have the MLAs and MPs, I like what was done, not just your own representative but all of them.  We have the law societies.  We have the consumer fraud contact.  We have RCMP.  Like Spark1 and Scammed have done.  Let's compile that.  Scammed can you get the MLA contact info up for us?  

Also, there was a post with some media contacts.  Let's add to that.  We'll organize this and make it easy on ourselves.  Let's have categories and then you can routinely check to see if more ideas/contacts have been added.  ie. if there's a new contact in the Government category or a new category altogether.


*Media Contacts*
*

Government Contacts - Provincial Alberta


Government Contacts - Provincial BC


Government Contacts - Federal


Legal Organization Contacts*
British Columbia Law Society:   professionalconduct@lsbc.org


*???  Other Categories  ???
*

The amount of posting here is great but a bit tough to keep track  of.   If I'm struggling I think others may be too.  Let's make it as easy to be voicing our plees for help as possible.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Ok, turns out Bewildered started this.  Let's keep a running list.  Someone had some media contacts and let's just post the MLA, MP info here.  Easy to cut and past into your cc list in an email, or just start going down the list and phoning.


*Media Contacts*
*

Government Contacts - Provincial Alberta*
Alberta Consumer Protection Line:  1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)

Honourable Kathleen Ganley
Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
Members of Executive Council
Executive Branch
424 Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB
T5K 2B6
Phone: 780 427-2339
Fax: 780 422-6621
E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca

* 

Government Contacts - Provincial BC*
BC Ministry of Attorney General
Honorable David Eby, Minister
JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca
*

Government Contacts - Federal*
Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre:  1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS):  *

Legal Organization Contacts*
British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org
Alberta Law Society (link to submit form): https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/


*??? Other Categories ???*


----------



## melamike

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> Ok, turns out Bewildered started this.  Let's keep a running list.  Someone had some media contacts and let's just post the MLA, MP info here.  Easy to cut and past into your cc list in an email, or just start going down the list and phoning.
> 
> 
> *Media Contacts
> 
> 
> Government Contacts - Provincial Alberta*
> Alberta Consumer Protection Line:  1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)
> 
> Honourable Kathleen Ganley
> Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
> Members of Executive Council
> Executive Branch
> 424 Legislature Building
> 10800 - 97 Avenue
> Edmonton, AB
> T5K 2B6
> Phone: 780 427-2339
> Fax: 780 422-6621
> E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca
> 
> *
> 
> Government Contacts - Provincial BC*
> BC Ministry of Attorney General
> Honorable David Eby, Minister
> JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca
> *
> 
> Government Contacts - Federal*
> Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre:  1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS):
> 
> Here is a link to all the MP's in BC , phone numbers and email addresses
> https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members?currentOnly=true&province=BC
> *
> Legal Organization Contacts*
> British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org
> Alberta Law Society (link to submit form): https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/
> 
> 
> *??? Other Categories ???*


----------



## melamike

I just added a link to all the MP's in BC. I've written many and already had a positive phone call. Keep up the fight everybody!


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Immediate term we are looking for a halt of actions taken against us until this can be looked into.  

Medium term we are looking for any negotiations to take the path that Justice Young laid out.  I'd feel far more comfortable with a mediated deal as opposed to what's happened by MG who did not follow what he promised.  

Longer term, who knows, the new bill passed that addresses these issues may help us.  Media attention and pressure on government MLAs/MPs may do something.  Was it Spark1 who even contacted the PM.  Good for you!!  Add that contact to the list.  Let's all contact the PM.  Maybe he'll try to win some browny points by setting this obvious fraud right.  

I  think it's important, if even in a quick statement, to note this group's history of destroying resorts and grabbing money.  The fact that they are not paying anything for their units held but we have to is significant in my eyes.  It also won't hurt, especially with media and MLAs/MPs to note that this group was identified in the Panama Papers.  What government official wants to be tied to that?  Having their constituents fleeced by a group that has a record for this and was identified in something as visible globally as the Panama Papers.


----------



## Scammed!

MLA - Legislative Assembly of Alberta Click on and you have all 87 MLA's emails of Alberta. Including Premier of Alberta Rachel Notley who's very important!


----------



## Scammed!

Very proud of all of you...lets keep the fight going TEAM!


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Like has been said, we have 1300 people.  Regardless of how you are going to handle this, let's finally take some action, we didn't get it from our lawyer and if  nothing else we'll at least get the satisfaction of standing up for ourselves and doing SOMETHING.  

Phones are going to be ringing off the hook.  People will deal with us even if they don't care just to get us to shut up.  Let's do this!!


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

*CONTACTS FOR GETTING HELP - GETTING HEARD


Media Contacts


Government Contacts - Provincial Alberta*
Alberta Consumer Protection Line: 1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)

Honourable Kathleen Ganley
Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
Members of Executive Council
Executive Branch
424 Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB
T5K 2B6
Phone: 780 427-2339
Fax: 780 422-6621
E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca

Alberta MLAs:  Click Here for Alberta MLAs

*
Government Contacts - Provincial BC*
BC Ministry of Attorney General
Honorable David Eby, Minister
JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca
*

Government Contacts - Federal*
Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre: 1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS): 

Here is a link to all the MP's in BC , phone numbers and email addresses
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members?currentOnly=true&province=BC
*
Legal Organization Contacts*
British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org
Alberta Law Society (link to submit form): https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/


*??? Other Categories ???*


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

I should clarify, regardless of whether you accept the settlement or not join the campaign to get our story out there.  It could end up with the right pressure in the right place, maybe even the law societies are embarrassed and step in, media, MPs/MLAs, etc.


----------



## Scammed!

easy prey said:


> Unfortunately, geldert has ensured we have functionally no time to react.  Within weeks the settlement will be literally signed, sealed and delivered (except for those who either cannot or will not pay).  As much as it sickens me, these are the facts.
> 
> I am hopeful  some last minute intervention happens through mla's,  rcmp, prime minister etc.
> 
> A lot of roads to go down with no time.
> 
> Gelderts option 1 and option 2 strike me as similar to options northmont gave us when this all started.
> 
> I will be contacting the media with our situation at the following email addresses :
> 1)  gopublic@cbc.ca
> 2) marketplace@cbc.ca
> 3) fifthtips@cbc.ca
> 
> If global news and ctv news have similar news type investigators I will be contacting them as well.
> 
> I encourage you to do the same as it's easy for them to ignore 1 person.
> 
> This gross miscarriage of justice needs to be exposed.
> 
> I will also be contacting the Canadian Anti Fraud Center.



FOUND  IT! THANKS EASY PREY


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

*CONTACTS FOR GETTING HELP - GETTING HEARD


Media Contacts


Government Contacts - Provincial Alberta*
Alberta Consumer Protection Line: 1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)

Honourable Kathleen Ganley
Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
Members of Executive Council
Executive Branch
424 Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB
T5K 2B6
Phone: 780 427-2339
Fax: 780 422-6621
E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca

Alberta MLAs: Click Here for Alberta MLAs

*
Government Contacts - Provincial BC*
BC Ministry of Attorney General
Honorable David Eby, Minister
JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca
*

Government Contacts - Federal*
Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre: 1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS): 

Here is a link to all the MP's in BC , phone numbers and email addresses
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members?currentOnly=true&province=BC

Here is a link to all the MP's in AB, phone numbers and email addresses
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members?currentOnly=true&province=AB*


 Legal Organization Contacts*
British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org
Alberta Law Society (link to submit form): https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/


*??? Other Categories ???*


_Last Added:  Alberta MPs and Alberta MLAs_


----------



## MarcieL

I contacted my MP by snail mail in Ab. I also contacted B.C. law society by email. Heard back today could be 6 weeks until I get feedback!  Time is of the essence


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

*CONTACTS FOR GETTING HELP - GETTING HEARD


Media Contacts
gopublic@cbc.ca
marketplace@cbc.ca
fifthtips@cbc.ca


 Government Contacts - Provincial Alberta*
Alberta Consumer Protection Line: 1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)

Honourable Kathleen Ganley
Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
Members of Executive Council
Executive Branch
424 Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB
T5K 2B6
Phone: 780 427-2339
Fax: 780 422-6621
E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca

Alberta MLAs: Click Here for Alberta MLAs

*
Government Contacts - Provincial BC*
BC Ministry of Attorney General
Honorable David Eby, Minister
JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca
*

Government Contacts - Federal*
Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre: 1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS): 

Here is a link to all the MP's in BC , phone numbers and email addresses
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members?currentOnly=true&province=BC

Here is a link to all the MP's in AB, phone numbers and email addresses
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members?currentOnly=true&province=AB*


Legal Organization Contacts*
British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org
Alberta Law Society (link to submit form): https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/


*??? Other Categories ???*


 _Last Added: Media Contacts for CBC_


----------



## Scammed!

*CBC News Investigates* |Eric Rankin


Email: investigate@cbc.ca


----------



## Scammed!

newsedmonton@cbc.ca


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

My thoughts on what you should communicate, there has been a good example posted, but I would emphasize that this has been a long process, but our lawyer did not follow the group's instructions and now we are being forced into a last minute agreement that we didn't agree to and have been given no time to react with new council or proper information....all at an outrageous number.  In my opinion we want to follow Judge Young's guidance.

All the other details of the travesty that this is are important but please emphasize that we need a stay of execution and wish to follow the judge's guidance.

Other important items are having Capital Costs defined as "Operating Expenses" in defiance of GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and in defiance of the definitions set up by the Provincial Governments and Federal Government with regards to personal and business taxes.  I don't care how bad our representation was, no judge should ever make this judgement.

Also, the changing of our contracts.  

For AB and Federal contacts the fact that Judge Young said we'd likely win but she doesn't want to bother the courts....for us even though we pay for the courts.  Where does Wankel live?  Where do his lawyer's live?  Why can't AB courts work for us!!!???

The heinous fact that Northwynd owns over 50% of the units and will not pay a dime because they are waiting for us to all pay and then they admitted in court they will downsize the property and they will ignore their obligation to pay.  How they were allowed in front of judges to weazel this is an embarrassment to Alberta, BC and Canadian law and government.  They should be ashamed that something like this could be orchestrated and that they are not taking action.  They media needs to know, there needs to be pressure, those offshore accounts need to be seized, their assets need to be seized, they need to be brought to account.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Do up one letter, email it to everyone on this list.  Let's get those RCMP contacts in the list as well.  Use your letter to help you in phone conversations when you call these people.  Don't just settle for email, email is great, it's fast and it's effective but let's get on the phone.  It's much, much harder for someone to dismiss you when you are on the phone with them.


----------



## dalindy

Broke Mama said:


> Are you all taking settlement offer? I would like to talk to u. We said no to settlement but are unsure what to do.we don't want to get in another lawsuit too.


We are in Eastern Wa too, south of Spokane. We would love to get a WA group together and see if maybe a lawyer would be willing to talk to us about our options.


----------



## Spark1

ecwinch said:


> Spark1 - While I do have legal training, I am not a lawyer, and certainly am not a judge. And I certainly do not want to be a drag on the momentum of this group. But since you have asked my opinion (which you will probably soon regret  ), I will offer the following:
> 
> First off, my personal opinion is certainly that the group has legitimate grievances and I empathize with the situation you find yourself in. But I also cannot help to wonder if emotion is not overcoming logic in this situation. I understand the emotion this topic can foster, especially when for 3-4 years you have one picture painted for you and at trial the court views the legal issues presented completely differently.
> 
> With that as context, here is what I found regarding the Janet Lydiatt v Banff Rocky Resort case on the issues at trial (emphasis added).
> 
> _The repairs undertaken pursuant to the "special assessment fee" appeared to be properly characterized in the Agreement as part of the "Annual Use Fee" as replacement reserves - The defendant underestimated the required increase in the "Annual Use Fee" over a number of years, resulting in an insufficient replacement reserve - This did not authorize them to impose an "Annual Use Fee" that did not otherwise comply with the terms of the Agreement - *The "special assessment fee" exceeded the allowable increase in "Annual Use Fee" and there was no authority within the terms of the Agreement for imposing a retroactive "Annual Use Fee".*_
> 
> This summary is consistent with the reasoning the trial judge used in explaining why he rejected the precedent from the Lydiatt case. And when I review the VIA, I find no mention of a cap on increases in annual use fee. Absent that key clause, the court finds it reasonable that the owners should pay for the refurbishment. You might argue that unjustly enriches Northwynd as they will receive a resort in better condition they would have originally. And while that is true, that is the nature of the contract you entered into (that the property would revert to the developer).
> 
> And while I appreciate your position that this is a timeshare and not a condo, I find that is exactly the position the court took and is frequently cited as the reasoning behind their decisions. That because this is a timeshare, you have obligations to your fellow owners, and the trustee has a duty to protect the interests of your fellow owners. The court discusses this issue at length starting with para 26 - THE NATURE OF JEKE’S INTEREST.
> 
> So while I understand that some are seeking an outcome that allows them to walk away, the court is accurately pointing out that allowing such an outcome increases the burden on your fellow owners. And placed in the position of having to balance the rights of all the timeshare owners, they find the reorganization plan originally proposed in 2013 is the best outcome in that regard.  That exit options offered at that time properly balance your obligations against the rights of remaining owners. IMHO - in a more perfect world - that would have been the legal strategy your counsel would have quickly negotiated. Instead they chose the path of attempting to invalidate the contracts, and that strategy failed.
> 
> On your other two points I fail to see merit in the argument. Courts naturally have responsibility to ensure efficient use of limited judicial resources. Nothing untoward there.
> 
> Likewise on the upfront money issue, it is not talked about because Fairfield's bankruptcy extinguished any claim on that point. As with almost any claim regarding Fairfield.
> 
> Just my 2 cents. Thanks for asking.


I could care less about fairfield's bankruptcy. This is our money not his and if I [bleep] want to send North mont a bill I damwell will,that is my business and I do not have to have your permission

[mod: edited to remove profanity]


----------



## Spark1

Punter said:


> *With option 1, you are paying both to stay and to go. *
> 
> They are charging the RPF and an exit fee of 20% despite what KW states below.
> 
> The following is from the BC Trial, statements from Kirk Wankel under oath:
> 
> *Q         Do you admit that the manager is treating Northmont differently by not requiring that part of the section 9 payment      called the RPF to be paid?*
> *KW.      It is treating Northmont the same as anyone who wants to terminate their lease and participate in the resort *
> *              realignment plan to exit. Any owner who chooses to cancel does not have to pay the RPF.*
> *Q         Do you admit they have not been paid?*
> *KW.     Yes.*
> *Q         Are you prepared to admit that if Northmont is responsible to pay to the resort account the RPF, that Northmont is in default to the extent of approximately a $20 million payment?*
> *KW.     No.*
> *Q         Why not?*
> *KW.     Because you can't be in default until you have been invoiced and the bill is overdue.*
> *Q         And who decided whether or not to invoice Northmont?*
> *KW      The manager.*
> *Q         Who is the manager?*
> *KW.     Northmont.*
> *Q         So the only reason Northmont doesn't have a bill is that it has decided not to bill itself?*
> *KW.     The manager has not billed Northmont.*
> *Q         Do you admit the reason that Northmont has not billed Northmont is that Northmont expects to get some kind of approval for some kind of resort realignment in the future?*
> *KW.     Yes.*


Hello this is spark1 are we still going to meet up in Edmonton?


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> There are many of us who are being invoiced for much more than 24000.00 our total is close to 40,000.00 by M.G.'s latest "approximation" of 26.8% of the Nov. /16 invoice plus another 20%.  Like most we are seniors in our 70's and on a fixed income, so this means a bank loan!  I am incensed that we engaged a lawyer for 4 years and this is the result.  We could've arrived at this conclusion on our own.   M.G. and his cohorts argued convincingly only one point, at the original B.C. trial for a test case, thus all our contracts mirror Jeke!  Our counsel gave up our rights to our individual contracts in order to have the court recognize their arguments.  M.G. had promised us a test case was the way to proceed, he then failed to prove mismanagement, giving NM justification in charging us whatever they chose.  Barry King tried to submit the contract issue, at the Edmonton court hearing, but Judge Young ruled it was re-litigation of matters already covered at the Jeke trial.


They can not mirror our contracts to JEK's North mont Trustee or Northmont will be sued if they tried to do that with our Contract. We never gave MG that right to do this. Contracts are a serious item and this will be talked over when I meet our MLA on Jan08. I feel the has been a lot of mistakes made with with lawyers Judges and Northmont and I will send Northmont a bill when I find out how much money they are trying to steal from me.


----------



## Spark1

Punter said:


> If NM increases one cost (exit fee) to offset a reduced interest (actually a contractual obligation) in order to get more money, it is a perfect example of greed and arbitrarily inflated costs on NM's behalf.  I'm sure Judge Young would frown upon that as they were the two items that she had concerns with in her decision.
> 
> I also challenge paying the RPF in option 1. NM is charging to stay and charging to go.
> 
> Under sworn oath KW said " any owner who chooses to cancel does not have to pay the RPF"
> 
> This further exemplifies their greed and true intention.


Punter did you move your documents to the anti-fraud centre RCMP? And is this meeting with you not goihg to happen let me know spark1


----------



## Bohutch

dalindy said:


> We are in Eastern Wa too, south of Spokane. We are in the Settlement group but don't want to pay. We would love to get a WA group together and see if maybe a lawyer would be willing to talk to us about our options, what happens if we don't pay, what to expect if Northmont tries to collect here, etc. All the questions we wanted Geldert to answer and never were able to get answers for.



Hi,
We are on Pullman, please let us know what you have in mind. We have all the same questions.
        Thanks.    Bohutch.


----------



## melamike

Here is the list for all the MLA’S in BC. Let’s not limit the contact to your own representative. People are being hurt all over the province and you never know which MLA will step up to take action
https://www.leg.bc.ca/content-committees/Pages/MLA-Contact-Information.aspx


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> *CONTACTS FOR GETTING HELP - GETTING HEARD
> 
> 
> Media Contacts
> gopublic@cbc.ca
> marketplace@cbc.ca
> fifthtips@cbc.ca
> 
> Government Contacts - Provincial Alberta*
> Alberta Consumer Protection Line: 1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)
> 
> Honourable Kathleen Ganley
> Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
> Members of Executive Council
> Executive Branch
> 424 Legislature Building
> 10800 - 97 Avenue
> Edmonton, AB
> T5K 2B6
> Phone: 780 427-2339
> Fax: 780 422-6621
> E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca
> 
> Alberta MLAs: Click Here for Alberta MLAs
> 
> *
> Government Contacts - Provincial BC*
> BC Ministry of Attorney General
> Honorable David Eby, Minister
> JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca
> *
> 
> Government Contacts - Federal*
> Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre: 1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS):
> 
> Here is a link to all the MP's in BC , phone numbers and email addresses
> https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members?currentOnly=true&province=BC
> 
> Here is a link to all the MP's in AB, phone numbers and email addresses
> https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members?currentOnly=true&province=AB
> *
> 
> Legal Organization Contacts*
> British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org
> Alberta Law Society (link to submit form): https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/
> 
> 
> *??? Other Categories ???*
> 
> 
> _Last Added: Media Contacts for CBC_


What about a *Resource Category*.

I think by people helping themselves to understand what these organizations are and the process of what we are trying to do may *help more people feel comfortable adding their voice*.

Unfortunately this was not my idea, one of the people I have been conversing with received a call back from his MP yesterday after reading his simple and direct email there was a “Urgent” need for help and shared it with me.

After the conversation the MP emailed back the below list of resources to assist us.

*The point is:*

*We identified a problem*
*Took action*
*We are starting to be heard*
*Keep pushing*

Consumer protection contacts:
http://www.consumerhandbook.ca/en/topics/financial/contracts#related

National Fraud Centre:
http://www.antifraudcentre-centreantifraude.ca/index-eng.htm

BC Bar Association referral service:
https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/working-with-lawyers/finding-a-lawyer/

Helpful site with some similar links as well as information:
https://wiki.clicklaw.bc.ca/index.php?title=Where_to_Get_Help_for_Consumer_Law_Essentials


----------



## Scammed!

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> What about a *Resource Category*.
> 
> I think by people helping themselves to understand what these organizations are and the process of what we are trying to do may *help more people feel comfortable adding their voice*.
> 
> Unfortunately this was not my idea, one of the people I have been conversing with received a call back from his MP yesterday after reading his simple and direct email there was a “Urgent” need for help and shared it with me.
> 
> After the conversation the MP emailed back the below list of resources to assist us.
> 
> *The point is:*
> 
> *We identified a problem*
> *Took action*
> *We are starting to be heard*
> *Keep pushing*
> 
> Consumer protection contacts:
> http://www.consumerhandbook.ca/en/topics/financial/contracts#related
> 
> National Fraud Centre:
> http://www.antifraudcentre-centreantifraude.ca/index-eng.htm
> 
> BC Bar Association referral service:
> https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/working-with-lawyers/finding-a-lawyer/
> 
> Helpful site with some similar links as well as information:
> https://wiki.clicklaw.bc.ca/index.php?title=Where_to_Get_Help_for_Consumer_Law_Essentials


I told you we would be heard and that's our first step....far from done. If any calls come from the media do we have anyone willing to take that on? Emails have been sent to them we need to be prepared. DON'T STOP! DON'T STOP! DON'T STOP!


----------



## CleoB

Bewildered said:


> Here is another example of an awesome one-off letter for your elected officials. Again I am not part of the large facebook group but please someone spread the word on that forum to get going on some political/media pressure, without it all these facebook postings of facts/non-facts mean nothing.
> 
> Dear MLA/MP
> 
> 
> I am a local constituent in ???? and writing you today to make you aware of a white collar crime being perpetrated against thousands of Canadian citizens and yet the court system appears to have their hands tied to prevent a corporation from extorting tens of millions of dollars.
> 
> 
> I will attach the Alberta Court papers that were filed in October 2017 and will give a brief point summary of the facts to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> 
> Fairmont Vacation Villas in Fairmont, BC. operated a business of selling timeshare weeks. Due to poor management over the years they began to fail and applied for creditor protection in 2009.
> 
> 
> In 2012 Northmont bought the resort in a bankruptcy acquisition and quickly further mismanaged the resort from a 5 star rating to a state of  deterioration. They made plans to sell off assets, close buildings, stopped sending the required financial statements, etc. It became very obvious that they purchased this resort knowing full well that they were planning to levy massive fees on the Owners which they did and quickly launched civil suits against thousands of people.
> 
> 
> In an attempt to find a resolution to this Geldert Law of Vancouver BC was hired to represent many BC and AB owners in the hopes of finding a resolution.
> 
> 
> There were concerns that even if you paid the fees there was no guarantee that they wouldn't levy more fees or that they were planning to re-align the resort and close down many of the buildings. Many people wanted to simply get released from their timeshare and were willing to pay a fee to be legally freed from the resort.
> 
> 
> Through these years, the owners were not permitted to use their owned weeks at the resort but Northmont was free to rent out owners week all while charging them a 27% compounded interest rate on the fees they levied. This has been happening since 2013, so the interest amounts are astounding.
> 
> 
> However, the units that Northmont themselves own, (weeks owners paid large sums of money back to Northmont to be released from or unsold units), they are not paying any of these said fees. My understanding is they own around 40% of the units and are not paying the same fees they are suing other owners for.
> 
> 
> When this case appeared in Alberta courts, the judge strongly suggested that a Northmont negotiate a fair settlement instead of having thousands of individual court cases coming forward. Judge Young was also very concerned about the interest and other costs and asked that this be worked out. If a reasonable agreement could not be reached then it would need to play out in the courts.
> 
> 
> Fast forward to today:
> 
> 
> All along the various law offices working with and on behalf of Geldert Group have been giving assurance that we should be able to get a decent settlement. In March we were offered an exit for approximately $13,800 but Geldert felt we would do better so most people continued on.
> 
> 
> December 14, 2017 the "fair settlement" that Northmont bullied and threatened to all the owners was we are forced to pay all charges with the 27% compounded interest but then add to that total another random 20% to be released and return our asset back to them, for a total settlement of 120% of last compounded statement.  The price basically doubled since March.
> 
> 
> If any owner does not pay in full by February 15, 2018 they will increase the 20% to 42% so the settlement is now minimally 162% of last compounded statement and they will refuse to release you or come up with any price they deem to release you.
> 
> 
> So basically 2000+ Albertans alone are being held hostage by Northmont who is demanding a random payment for an owner having a single week of approximately $24,000. (Some folks own multiple weeks). That is 48 Million dollars. The price of that ransom will be increased to an unknown sum if you cannot or do not make payment.
> 
> 
> They have also assured people that if you do not pay, not only will the ransom fee increase to whatever they determine but they will start legal proceedings via liens on our property, seizing assets etc.
> 
> 
> Northmont has a history of doing this type of scenario, buying failing resorts at a bargain price, force owners to pay huge sums of money for renovations or pay huge sums of money to be released all while Northmont increases the value and retains their asset. It is a legal scam that steals money from the owners who have no protection.
> 
> 
> Owners are left holding the bag. They bought their timeshare for tens of thousands of dollars on average, are unable to use it and now must pay tens of thousands again to simply give it back. How can this happen?
> 
> 
> This does not seem like a scenario that one would see in Canada unfolding and nobody seems to be taking notice at all.
> 
> 
> I am reaching out to you today in a last ditch effort to help.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,


The word owner should read "leasee" as we are not owners.


----------



## CleoB

Grea


Scammed! said:


> I want to thank Bewildered for this letter. At this moment I would like to inform you all that  87 MLA's (not one missed) have received this letter in Alberta in last three hours. We will be heard! I received an email from two urging me to inform my MLA .... so I had to revise it a little to say this letter is to inform all MLA'S of Alberta what is happening to Canadians. Why did I do this?  Because there are elderly people who I saw in court and it was heart breaking. Some may be sick, don't know how to use a computer, or have zero support. I don't  know who they are or where they live but I covered every inch of Alberta. I will no longer be silenced. I have always stuck up for the under dog.....apparently that would be me right now. I can tell you that I have sent just over 100 emails so far. My work isn't finished until this is over!


Great letter but if others are going to use it perhaps you may want to include some of these other points.

The tactics used to claim the ridiculous fees tNorthmount demands are Unfair Practices. As a result of successfully hiding the fact that the RPF, and forcing payment for services never provided - MFees on weeks we can’t use, and unilateral changes to our Contracts are serious violations of Consumer law granting abused Contract owners immediate cancellation of their contracts for free. They have successfully labeled us ( in the eyes of the Court) as the “delinquents” implying their efforts to “ save” the resort are honourable and supported by all the “other” good standing TS owners. They don’t reveal that they have illegally demanded this money from us and are now charging usually interest on money they have extorted from innocent, but poorly represented formerly payment punctual VIA participants. NM owns at least half of the units and aren’t paying that share, but they are using their “majority” ownership to label us the bad guys- delinquents delaying the renovation of the “well managed” beautiful resort. Somehow the corruption lurking beneath the falsely painted honourable exterior must be exposed. MLA’s , MPs, Media, need to know that NWynd and NM and KW have used illegal methods to gain our Court awarded money.


----------



## CleoB

den403 said:


> Can legacy people lean the property?


That's a question for a lawyer but maybe the moderator might have some thoughts.


----------



## ecwinch

CleoB said:


> That's a question for a lawyer but maybe the moderator might have some thoughts.


Thanks... but having stuck my opinion in where it obviously is not wanted, I’ll pass. And just for clarity, that was my personal opinion and has nothing to do with my moderator role.


----------



## Palms to pines

L for L was a cash grab and fraudulent at that. I think I can safely say that no one in the two presentations we went to thought they were buying a piece of a building so that we could pay to renovate it until the end of time. I think that would have to have been mentioned. No, it was strictly to convert to RCI points because most companies were changing to points  and you could leave your timeshare to your heirs. We were told what great shape Fairmont was in, how high demand was , finances were great. Thing is, we were happy with our timeshare for twelve years by this point, so all the papers we signed were Fairmont letter head , nothing to make us suspicious. However, what we signed was not a new contract, just an add on . We got one week of vacation with our points in RCI. After that we had to go through Sunchaser and of course we were delinquents, so no booking for us . Then we paid another150.00 to keep the points we had in RCI one more year, booked San Diego, family emergency came up, had to cancel. Sooo, after paying out another $5,600.00 we got one week vacation in California. mG dangled the whole ownership thing a while ago and I wrote a letter like he said to, went nowhere of course. But, your mention of this made me think: I will write a letter now to Interval and RCI.


----------



## CleoB

ecwinch said:


> Thanks... but having stuck my opinion in where it obviously is not wanted, I’ll pass. And just for clarity, that was my personal opinion and has nothing to do with my moderator role.


Thanks and I understand your position.


----------



## torqued

Looks like we are untouchable as far as other attorneys helping us at this point. The two I have contacted said they could not help me. I bought this when I lived in montana now live back east. I wrote the montana senators and Virginia senator and representatives.  The senator said it’s a legal matter I can’t help you. Have not heard back from the montana politicians. The interest rate is ridiculous and is what I refuse to pay.


----------



## aden2

I have not used the timeshare since 2012, but I am charge a yearly fee of more than $1000. plus %26.82 interest. I wrote a demand note to Northmont in 2013 demanding release from timeshare because I was scammed in 2009-10.
during those years Fairmont became insolvent and we did not become aware of it till 2013. I have spent $29,529.50 and Have used this timeshare only about five times (5 weeks) total. Just rece'd a bill dated for Dec.30, 2017 requesting $18,973.50.
We are not using this place since 2012. The stress and harassement  for our family is terrible. If I do not pay total by Feburary 15, 2017 I will be charged 162% of total! How can we be charged for a place that we do not use and requested cancellation in 2013 when we were paid up. I want to fill out a notice of appeal once I receive the judgement from the Court. I will not submit to personal information to NW.
We are seniors, all our money will be gone!


----------



## heydynagirl

Spark1 said:


> I could care less about fairfield's bankruptcy. This is our money not his and if I [bleep] want to send North mont a bill I damwell will,that is my business and I do not have to have your permission
> 
> [mod: edited to remove profanity]


Moderator ecwinch - emotions are running high with the debacle.  While someone is obviously overwrought (as we all are), please continue to provide your comments.


----------



## heydynagirl

ecwinch said:


> Thanks... but having stuck my opinion in where it obviously is not wanted, I’ll pass. And just for clarity, that was my personal opinion and has nothing to do with my moderator role.


Emotions are running high regarding this topic.  Please continue to add your comments, despite others comments.


----------



## Palms to pines

Just wrote letters to Interval International and RCI timeshare exchanges. Thought they might be interested to know that if timeshares ever had a sketchy reputation before, it is about to get a whole lot worse because of exhorbanant fees and loan shark interest rates to end up with nothing.


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> I have not used the timeshare since 2012, but I am charge a yearly fee of more than $1000. plus %26.82 interest. I wrote a demand note to Northmont in 2013 demanding release from timeshare because I was scammed in 2009-10.
> during those years Fairmont became insolvent and we did not become aware of it till 2013. I have spent $29,529.50 and Have used this timeshare only about five times (5 weeks) total. Just rece'd a bill dated for Dec.30, 2017 requesting $18,973.50.
> We are not using this place since 2012. The stress and harassement  for our family is terrible. If I do not pay total by Feburary 15, 2017 I will be charged 162% of total! How can we be charged for a place that we do not use and requested cancellation in 2013 when we were paid up. I want to fill out a notice of appeal once I receive the judgement from the Court. I will not submit to personal information to NW.
> We are seniors, all our money will be gone!


Aden do you have a Vacation Villa Lease contract? What I found when I downloaded the Northmont Resort Properties Ltd and James Reid and Diane Reid.   I noticed that we Lease Owners are now all VIA’S. No one told me this,they can Modify but they can not wipe the hole Lease Contract. This is unilateral amendments to Contracts,unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract. This is called Consumer Protection Changes.  PH. 18774274088 This is also covered on item number 38 of my Vacation Villa Lease. The other thing they are doing is making changes on Contracts to suit the next case. Was Justice Young told before her case that Northmont made unilateral amendments to Contracts. This will affect all lease Contracts. They have not followed threw with  their obligations with item#38 Modifications. We are now in the process of sending every Politician in Alberta a heads up on what is happening to many Seniors and how they are violating our Contracts.  Join the Canadian anti-fraud centre. 1-888-495-8501. Inspect for them.


----------



## Scammed!

People we need to get to THE HONOURABLE JUDGE L.D. YOUNG A.S.A.P.!!!!


----------



## Lostmyshirt

Do the math.  50% have left and paid a min of say $5K?   Thats a min 37,500,000.   If they truly needed $40,000,000 wouldn't that buy the whole freaking property out?  Never mind the ones who paid to stay, 22%?  thats easily 18,000,000.   No wonder they want this money, to get people out FFS???  how is this legal??? how did this get by the courts??  We've been had people.   Big time.   Keep sending out those letters.   An audit is needed.   Where is all the money actually going????


----------



## Lostmyshirt

Punter said:


> If NM increases one cost (exit fee) to offset a reduced interest (actually a contractual obligation) in order to get more money, it is a perfect example of greed and arbitrarily inflated costs on NM's behalf.  I'm sure Judge Young would frown upon that as they were the two items that she had concerns with in her decision.
> 
> I also challenge paying the RPF in option 1. NM is charging to stay and charging to go.
> "" where was this from?" what KW said
> Under sworn oath KW said " any owner who chooses to cancel does not have to pay the RPF"
> 
> This further exemplifies their greed and true intention.


----------



## MarcieL

Scammed! said:


> People we need to get to THE HONOURABLE JUDGE L.D. YOUNG A.S.A.P.!!!!





Scammed! said:


> People we need to get to THE HONOURABLE JUDGE L.D. YOUNG A.S.A.P.!!!!



M.G. mismanaged his arguments affecting all our contracts, we were all classed as Jeke and the courts agreed so we are screwed plain an simple.   Check the transcripts of the test case in B.C.  

This resort is run by "one person" there is NO mgmt., NO boards, No budgets, NO audited financial statements combine that with the absence of an effective lawyer and here we are today!


----------



## dalindy

Bohutch said:


> Hi,
> We are on Pullman, please let us know what you have in mind. We have all the same questions.
> Thanks.    Bohutch.


I think first someone needs to find a lawyer in WA that is willing to talk to us. We have tried local ones and a couple of Western WA ones that specialize in Timeshares & they all said they couldn't help us. If anyone can find a lawyer, let us know.


----------



## MarcieL

Scammed! said:


> People we need to get to THE HONOURABLE JUDGE L.D. YOUNG A.S.A.P.!!!!


How do we do that???


----------



## Lostmyshirt

so then, give up? give in? hand over the extortion amount demanded?   I only pay 2.5% interest annually on my mortgage I'd like it to go back to court to negotiate fair costs.   I don't want to pay for weeks I did not use, and another 26.82% annually on those fees.   Somebody has to be able to stop them.  If we were screwed since Jeke should we not have bowed out at that point?  After all I was under the impression I was contributing to an end goal of a class action suit, not to a singular defense.


----------



## Scammed!

MarcieL said:


> How do we do that???


I faxed her at 780-422-2257. EVERYONE FAX YOUR LETTERS!!!!! THIS IS OUR ONLY HOPE. HER ORDERS WERE DISMISSED! STAY FOCUSED ONLY ON THIS RIGHT NOW. WE NEED HER TO HEAR US AND GET HER ATTENTION.....THEN AFTER YOU SEND YOUR LETTER TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE L.D. YOUNG YOU CAN GET BACK AND DEAL WITH THE OTHER ISSUES. A lawyer representing us would also be a positive miracle right now.


----------



## Bewildered

Scammed! said:


> I want to thank Bewildered for this letter. At this moment I would like to inform you all that  87 MLA's (not one missed) have received this letter in Alberta in last three hours. We will be heard! I received an email from two urging me to inform my MLA .... so I had to revise it a little to say this letter is to inform all MLA'S of Alberta what is happening to Canadians. Why did I do this?  Because there are elderly people who I saw in court and it was heart breaking. Some may be sick, don't know how to use a computer, or have zero support. I don't  know who they are or where they live but I covered every inch of Alberta. I will no longer be silenced. I have always stuck up for the under dog.....apparently that would be me right now. I can tell you that I have sent just over 100 emails so far. My work isn't finished until this is over!



You should be contacting your federal MP too as this is bigger than just one province. We need this story to break in the Alberta/BC media, any ideas?


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> M.G. mismanaged his arguments affecting all our contracts, we were all classed as Jeke and the courts agreed so we are screwed plain an simple.   Check the transcripts of the test case in B.C.
> 
> This resort is run by "one person" there is NO mgmt., NO boards, No budgets, NO audited financial statements combine that with the absence of an effective lawyer and here we are today!


That is not true we never ever signed our Vacation Villa Lease over to Michael Geldert or any one. Those are legal Documents and the courts can not do this. The courts will have to show me where I agreed to sign over our Lease contract. Geldert Law was dealing with all kinds of clients with different contracts. Read item 38 Modifications to Lease. We had  a right to the only Lawyer that would take this case on but that does not mean they can screw around with our contracts.


----------



## Bewildered

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> Ok, turns out Bewildered started this.  Let's keep a running list.  Someone had some media contacts and let's just post the MLA, MP info here.  Easy to cut and past into your cc list in an email, or just start going down the list and phoning.
> 
> 
> *Media Contacts
> 
> 
> Government Contacts - Provincial Alberta*
> Alberta Consumer Protection Line:  1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)
> 
> Honourable Kathleen Ganley
> Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
> Members of Executive Council
> Executive Branch
> 424 Legislature Building
> 10800 - 97 Avenue
> Edmonton, AB
> T5K 2B6
> Phone: 780 427-2339
> Fax: 780 422-6621
> E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca
> 
> *
> 
> Government Contacts - Provincial BC*
> BC Ministry of Attorney General
> Honorable David Eby, Minister
> JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca
> *
> 
> Government Contacts - Federal*
> Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre:  1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS):
> *
> Legal Organization Contacts*
> British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org
> Alberta Law Society (link to submit form): https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/
> 
> 
> *??? Other Categories ???*


I started it but there is a long way to go! I am including my invoice to my Member if Parliament (redacted address, etc if you want) just to show how asinine the interest charges are. I think it may be a lightbulb moment for him when he sees it. Maybe Judge Young would give her head a shake too when she sees we’ve been abandoned and sees that amount of interest. I am sending a copy to her too. For those that don’t have a scanner just take cellphone photo of the invoice and add as an attachment to your letter.


----------



## Bewildered

I just want ask again, has anybody made any headway with the Facebook group as I believe it is much bigger than the Tugs group? Alberta (Edmonton and Calgary area) have tons of people with Fairmont timeshares and they should be able to really get momentum with the elected officials. Time is of the essence.


----------



## CleoB

Bewildered said:


> I just want ask again, has anybody made any headway with the Facebook group as I believe it is much bigger than the Tugs group? Alberta (Edmonton and Calgary area) have tons of people with Fairmont timeshares and they should be able to really get momentum with the elected officials. Time is of the essence.


I believe the closed Facebook group knows and is writing letters as well.


----------



## Palms to pines

One would think  that know the departments of justice would have to take notice of this. Would they not be the ones obligated to see that a judge’s instructions are carried out?? If not them , who? I have contacted them,confirmation they received the letter, nothing further . In the overall picture I am astounded by what these companies are able to get away with! It’s like nothing touches them! No wonder there are off shore accounts.


----------



## Bewildered

CleoB said:


> I believe the closed Facebook group knows and is writing letters as well.


Awesome news and apologies to everyone that’s not from Alberta and BC were all in this together but unfortunately we will get most traction with Alberta and BC elected officials and yes your federal MPs and maybe even Trudeau you never know. For Americans I’m thinking BC because that’s where you own your asset if that is what we want to call it at this point.


----------



## Broke Mama

dalindy said:


> We are in Eastern Wa too, south of Spokane. We are in the Settlement group but don't want to pay. We would love to get a WA group together and see if maybe a lawyer would be willing to talk to us about our
> 
> 
> dalindy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are also in Pullman. I think first someone needs to find a lawyer in WA that is willing to talk to us. We have tried the Pullman ones and a couple of Western WA ones that specialize in Timeshares & they all said they couldn't help us. If anyone can find a lawyer, let us
> options, what happens if we don't pay, what to expect if Northmont tries to collect here, etc. All the questions we wanted Geldert to answer and never were able to get answers for.[/QUOTE
Click to expand...




dalindy said:


> We are in Eastern Wa too, south of Spokane. We are in the Settlement group but don't want to pay. We would love to get a WA group together and see if maybe a lawyer would be willing to talk to us about our options, what happens if we don't pay, what to expect if Northmont tries to collect here, etc. All the questions we wanted Geldert to answer and never were able to get answers for.


I would like to talk to you further. My number is 5099530749 we live in spokane washington


----------



## Scammed!

Bewildered said:


> You should be contacting your federal MP too as this is bigger than just one province. We need this story to break in the Alberta/BC media, any ideas?


----------



## melamike

melamike said:


> Here is the list for all the MLA’S in BC. Let’s not limit the contact to your own representative. People are being hurt all over the province and you never know which MLA will step up to take action
> https://www.leg.bc.ca/content-committees/Pages/MLA-Contact-Information.aspx



Can someone post these MLA contacts to the master list and re-fresh it for all to see and use in sending out letters? Sorry I don't know how to do that


----------



## MarcieL

Spark1 said:


> That is not true we never ever signed our Vacation Villa Lease over to Michael Geldert or any one. Those are legal Documents and the courts can not do this. The courts will have to show me where I agreed to sign over our Lease contract. Geldert Law was dealing with all kinds of clients with different contracts. Read item 38 Modifications to Lease. We had  a right to the only Lawyer that would take this case on but that does not mean they can screw around with our contracts.



Michael argued as I've stated before we were all mirrors of the Jeke contract, courts accepted this.  This is why when Barry King tried to introduce our contracts back in at the Edmonton Prov. Court, Judge Young declared it was re litigation of matters already covered within Jeke.  They unilaterally amended our contracts, and the judges approved.  The courts did it so what do you see as the solution?


----------



## MarcieL

Lostmyshirt said:


> so then, give up? give in? hand over the extortion amount demanded?   I only pay 2.5% interest annually on my mortgage I'd like it to go back to court to negotiate fair costs.   I don't want to pay for weeks I did not use, and another 26.82% annually on those fees.   Somebody has to be able to stop them.  If we were screwed since Jeke should we not have bowed out at that point?  After all I was under the impression I was contributing to an end goal of a class action suit, not to a singular defense.



How could we bow out when for years we were given false promises?  We were all under the impression we were contributing to an end goal in fact M.G. referenced in an email something to the affect if I cannot at least get a 50% reduction in the invoices we will be considering a class action, this is not a quote.  I have no intention of giving up we have a settlement bordering on 40,000.00 as seniors in our late 70's, the injustice makes me ill to my stomach.  I'm just saying we cannot litigate the contracts again as per Judge Young.  We need a new case, before the court with a competent lawyer.


----------



## melamike

Filing a complaint with the law society of BC - IMPORTANT!

As I was filling out the form and referencing back to the SIF we signed to have MG negotiate for us, I noticed something interesting. The form give MG permission to sign on our behalf if the settlement is reached by mediation or arbitration - no question there. However he clarified this in an email to us on Nov 6, ''_Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms_.'' So he had 3 options. Negotiate and come back to us for input. Use a mediator. Use an arbitrator. Those are the conditions under which we signed the agreement. I don't believe he had the authority to sign for us (under the circumstances he did) and therefore do we really have a deal with Northmont?  This will be a big part of my complaint to the law society. Please join in!!


----------



## Joe Holland

dalindy said:


> I think first someone needs to find a lawyer in WA that is willing to talk to us. We have tried local ones and a couple of Western WA ones that specialize in Timeshares & they all said they couldn't help us. If anyone can find a lawyer, let us know.


I am in Spokane and have been referred to a couple of attorneys that I have left messages for. I will keep you posted as I am able to talk to them, keeping our fingers crossed!


----------



## Bewildered

MarcieL said:


> Michael argued as I've stated before we were all mirrors of the Jeke contract, courts accepted this.  This is why when Barry King tried to introduce our contracts back in at the Edmonton Prov. Court, Judge Young declared it was re litigation of matters already covered within Jeke.  They unilaterally amended our contracts, and the judges approved.  The courts did it so what do you see as the solution?



In part but what she didn’t have the courage to do and left totally in the air was the interest issue and any cost to get out. I think you are most likely right that M.G. did a poor enough job that we are most likely left to only battle on these points but they are expensive points. 
I believe justice is not served when a judge is more worried about multiple cases coming to Alberta than ruling on a 26.8% interest charged and being charged maintenance fees on years we never received.


----------



## ecwinch

melamike said:


> I don't believe he had the authority to sign for us (under the circumstances he did) and therefore do we really have a deal with Northmont?  This will be a big part of my complaint to the law society. Please join in!!



In the US the answer is generally no, but apparently that does not hold true in Canada. But I thought I saw a post where he provided the option to opt out of his representation.

http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/lawyer-create-binding-claim-settlement-consent


----------



## JeffinWA

Broke Mama said:


> I would like to talk to you further. My number is 5099530749 we live in spokane washington


I too live in Eastern Washington down in the Tri-Cities and would be interested in participating in any group from Washington.  I have not yet decided what I am going to do.  We are completely at a loss how this has spiraled so out of control.  I can remember sitting in a sales pitch back in 2000 and what I was sold is no where near what I'm now being told I bought.


----------



## DisgustedinWA

Joe Holland said:


> I am in Spokane and have been referred to a couple of attorneys that I have left messages for. I will keep you posted as I am able to talk to them, keeping our fingers crossed!


Joe, please let us know if you get a response from attorney. I would participate $$ to get some answers to: Can we withdraw from MG "settlement"? Can we wait until NW files suit on us and then argue our position individually? In BC or US? Can we wait til they get judgement then argue the collection in US? Can we get WA consumer protection involved to protect us as WA residents? Not to mention all the other relevant questions. Thanks


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

melamike said:


> Filing a complaint with the law society of BC - IMPORTANT!
> 
> As I was filling out the form and referencing back to the SIF we signed to have MG negotiate for us, I noticed something interesting. The form give MG permission to sign on our behalf if the settlement is reached by mediation or arbitration - no question there. However he clarified this in an email to us on Nov 6, ''_Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms_.'' So he had 3 options. Negotiate and come back to us for input. Use a mediator. Use an arbitrator. Those are the conditions under which we signed the agreement. I don't believe he had the authority to sign for us (under the circumstances he did) and therefore do we really have a deal with Northmont?  This will be a big part of my complaint to the law society. Please join in!!




Okay I was having a no Tug's night but this topic is a real hot button for me and I love the fact "meamike" brought this up!!!

The SIF is a very contentious document for everyone but some people have been more betrayed by it.

Many people (me included through a friend) submitted a modified version which was posted on one of the private Facebook group pages and many people submitted this modified document with changes limiting Michael's abilities to only negotiate a settlement but required approval from the individual who signed the SIF for final acceptance of a settlement (face it the SIF gave Michael the blank check which by him cashing it created this prejudicial settlement).  

People who submitted this modified version immediately caused Michael to fire back through emails and phone calls that they could not modify the document in any way and if they did then it was as if they had selected option 2.

This scared the crap out of people and forced them into believing there was no alternative and combined with following their instincts that, built over the past 4 years, a trust exited that Micheal's advice was safe to follow and allowed them to drop their natural instincts, let their natural guards down, and did as instructed.

Through coercion, the original document option 1 was endorsed and re-submitted replacing the one that protected them with the threat they would be abandoned so near to the end which created it's own extortion pf all of us.  

On my phone call with Micheal I was empathized with and told this was a required formality to enter into the negotiation but ultimately I would have the final approval to accept or decline any negotiated agreement if it was reached. With the conversation followed up with the the written statement below in the November 6th update I felt it was safe to drop my guard and re-submit:

_“Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.”_

This is my biggest mistake and now motivation to fight as this is 100% not the spirit of why I signed the SIF - by being betrayed in this manner it can be manipulated to appear I willingly signed the original SIF and possibly interpreted he had my consent in a legal context to sign a binding settlement agreement on my behalf.

Do these same tactics remind you of anyone else?  Looks to me like someone has learned something from the oppositions playbook!!


----------



## J's Garage

Ultimate

I completely agree.

A question I plan to look at from the minutes of the settlement meeting (which we probably won't see) - Was this strictly negotiation? Was it through mediation (mediator)? Was it binding arbitration (arbitrator)?  Who was the third party in the negotiations?  We asked but it was never revealed.

Therefore do we not essentially have an if/then logic statement.  If (IF) these negotiations proceed by mediation (condition) or binding arbitration (alternative condition),..., we have instructions to sign minutes of settlement on your behalf. 

Maybe for readability we can reverse the statement at the comma.  We have instructions to sign minutes of settlement on your behalf IF these negotiations proceed by mediation or binding arbitration,....

In logic programming - If condition A or B are met, then proceed to outcome.  we got the outcome, but were conditions met.  Was there an unbiased professional 3rd party managing the negotiations.

Additionally, Option 1 also stated "You support responding to the Petition before the court...."  If that direction cannot be met, how is option 1 fulfilled?


----------



## truthr

ecwinch said:


> In the US the answer is generally no, but apparently that does not hold true in Canada. But I thought I saw a post where he provided the option to opt out of his representation.
> 
> http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/lawyer-create-binding-claim-settlement-consent


Yes, however the Judge's ruling made it very clear that it included all the defendants' listed (some 700+).
This legal team has continually made out to the courts that they are following client instructions wherein all client instructions have been obtained through "my way or the highway" which really is not an option if opting out of his representation prejudices the client.

Also from the link you provided:

_[11] While I realize that this creates an unfortunate situation for the plaintiffs, there is no doubt that (their lawyer) settled this matter before the court by the plaintiff agreeing to withdraw and discontinue their action and the defendants waiving their costs.  The plaintiffs’ recourse now is against (their lawyer) for failure to follow instructions, if that indeed is the case._

I would really hate to see it get to this point and lawyers should take care to not have situations escalate to this point when the client(s) have clearly voiced their concerns and/or discontent.

Again this situation is very complicated and not the norm at all.


----------



## ecwinch

If you were successful in rejecting the settlement, what would you do next? NM has a disincentive to negotiate separate terms with each party.


----------



## truthr

ecwinch said:


> If you were successful in rejecting the settlement, what would you do next? NM has a disincentive to negotiate separate terms with each party.


NM is not really at liberty to negotiate separately with anyone who is attached to the group decisions by the Judge and she has given her instructions.  In other words those who have rejected the settlement outright have to have representation to go before the judge again, but she is ruling on a group, not individuals.  Then there are those who signed the SIF because they were scared not to and are now rejecting the little they know about the "settlement".  

But then again neither side of this issue is playing by the rules.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

ecwinch said:


> In the US the answer is generally no, but apparently that does not hold true in Canada. But I thought I saw a post where he provided the option to opt out of his representation.
> 
> http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/lawyer-create-binding-claim-settlement-consent


Hi Eric - thanks for joining us.

There was an opt out option in the SIF document that I refer too in my recent post but there are some issues with opting out at this time:

two options were presented in this doc - sign a blank check with the assurance it would never be cashed as it was stated to us as being required to enter the negotiation or be fired as a client and be cast out of the group on your own
this one is something I am learning about so forgive me if I am not 100% accurate - if a client releases or is released the lawyer on record must submit paperwork to the courthouse to reflect this to finalize the parting of the ways.  Given the timeline there is potentially a risk for anyone who select option 2 (release the lawyer or was released) that they will be still be bound by the settlement as they will still be considered part of the group.  Also the judge stated in their decision they wanted the entire group to settle and not to fracture the group to force individual claims (wrap everything up in one package)
Hope this makes sense


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

J's Garage said:


> Ultimate
> 
> I completely agree.
> 
> A question I plan to look at from the minutes of the settlement meeting (which we probably won't see) - Was this strictly negotiation? Was it through mediation (mediator)? Was it binding arbitration (arbitrator)?  Who was the third party in the negotiations?  We asked but it was never revealed.
> 
> Therefore do we not essentially have an if/then logic statement.  If (IF) these negotiations proceed by mediation (condition) or binding arbitration (alternative condition),..., we have instructions to sign minutes of settlement on your behalf.
> 
> Maybe for readability we can reverse the statement at the comma.  We have instructions to sign minutes of settlement on your behalf IF these negotiations proceed by mediation or binding arbitration,....
> 
> In logic programming - If condition A or B are met, then proceed to outcome.  we got the outcome, but were conditions met.  Was there an unbiased professional 3rd party managing the negotiations.
> 
> Additionally, Option 1 also stated "You support responding to the Petition before the court...."  If that direction cannot be met, how is option 1 fulfilled?


Hi J

From what I have read and was indicated by Michael only he and David Wotherspoon completed and endorsed the negotiation on our behalf


----------



## truthr

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Hi Eric - thanks for joining us.
> 
> There was an opt out option in the SIF document that I refer too in my recent post but there are some issues with opting out at this time:
> 
> two options were presented in this doc - sign a blank check with the assurance it would never be cashed as it was stated to us as being required to enter the negotiation or be fired as a client and be cast out of the group on your own
> this one is something I am learning about so forgive me if I am not 100% accurate - if a client releases or is released the lawyer on record must submit paperwork to the courthouse to reflect this to finalize the parting of the ways.  Given the timeline there is potentially a risk for anyone who select option 2 (release the lawyer or was released) that they will be still be bound by the settlement as they will still be considered part of the group.  Also the judge stated in their decision they wanted the entire group to settle and not to fracture the group to force individual claims (wrap everything up in one package)
> Hope this makes sense


I will add to this, when the judge stated she wanted the entire group to settle she was referring to settling on the amount of interest and costs related to the Statement of Claims.
To my knowledge a release settlement is a separate issue beyond the scope of what she was ruling on or will rule on for judgments, which would mean that person would still be a VIA holder and not be released.


----------



## ecwinch

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Hi Eric - thanks for joining us.
> 
> There was an opt out option in the SIF document that I refer too in my recent post but there are some issues with opting out at this time:
> 
> two options were presented in this doc - sign a blank check with the assurance it would never be cashed as it was stated to us as being required to enter the negotiation or be fired as a client and be cast out of the group on your own
> this one is something I am learning about so forgive me if I am not 100% accurate - if a client releases or is released the lawyer on record must submit paperwork to the courthouse to reflect this to finalize the parting of the ways.  Given the timeline there is potentially a risk for anyone who select option 2 (release the lawyer or was released) that they will be still be bound by the settlement as they will still be considered part of the group.  Also the judge stated in their decision they wanted the entire group to settle and not to fracture the group to force individual claims (wrap everything up in one package)
> Hope this makes sense



It does make sense.

In terms of the SIF options presented - NM clearly did not want to enter into negotiations with a party (MG) powerless to agree to terms. So that part is natural.

And in terms of counsel withdrawing from case, your recollection is correct.

IMHO -  as truthr mentioned, this is a complicated situation. And while I see potential for continued litigation - based on the judges decision to bind all of MG's clients to her decision - I just keep coming back to "What it will accomplish?". The trial strategy appears to have gone "all in" on the hope the court would find capital costs are the responsibility of the lessor, and three different judges have affirmed that (reasonable) capital costs are responsibility of the lessee/owners. So the primary question at law seems pretty clear and settled, and that creates a very high bar to overcome.

And while I understand that there are multiple versions of the VIA (contract) in play here, it seems like they are very similar to the JEEK VIA on the key provisions the court has ruled on.

Said another way - if you had not joined the legal group, nor signed off to cancel or stay, what would then do?  Almost every issue I have seen raised here was ruled on in the JEEK case, and upheld on appeal. Leaving very little ground for a new legal strategy to gain traction.

Again - not a lawyer - and this is my personal opinion.


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> There are many of us who are being invoiced for much more than 24000.00 our total is close to 40,000.00 by M.G.'s latest "approximation" of 26.8% of the Nov. /16 invoice plus another 20%.  Like most we are seniors in our 70's and on a fixed income, so this means a bank loan!  I am incensed that we engaged a lawyer for 4 years and this is the result.  We could've arrived at this conclusion on our own.   M.G. and his cohorts argued convincingly only one point, at the original B.C. trial for a test case, thus all our contracts mirror Jeke!  Our counsel gave up our rights to our individual contracts in order to have the court recognize their arguments.  M.G. had promised us a test case was the way to proceed, he then failed to prove mismanagement, giving NM justification in charging us whatever they chose.  Barry King tried to submit the contract issue, at the Edmonton court hearing, but Judge Young ruled it was re-litigation of matters already covered at the Jeke trial.


They can not do that. You have to deal with modification rules according to the lease contracts. MG did not pay for that timeshare and he did not sign the documents nor did we verbally give him permission to do this. It would be like us saying Justice Loo you lost the appeal now this case is over,we win. Do the right thing and send this information to the Law society in BC and Alberta. A test is not letigation. I was surprised when I read about the Reid case that the front page said we were all VIA’S. You know why they did this it almost mirrors the CO-Owners contract. I do nor care what the Judge said this is a cover up again because of mistakes. When my name is on there as a VIA I am being tried using a different contract instead of being a VACATION VILLA LEASE. I was never notified that Northmont made modification to my contract and I sure the hell never signed a VIA contract and never would. I already made a complaint with this Judge and now because of this we are writing again,


----------



## Palms to pines

The truly sad thing about this is I only know what my contract signed in 1997 with Fairmont Resort Properties. I do not know what the contracts morphed into by 2010; if that is indeed when Jim Belfry signed his. MG knew about all the different types of contracts but when he allowed them all to be the same as Jeke it was the beginning of the end right there. If only he had told us we were doomed then.stringing us along for years has lead to severe stress and now severe financial hardship as well. Sure, now we are pouring over documents , but we are not lawyers. MG is and I think people have an expectation that they know how to handle legal matters just as you expect a dentist can properly check your teeth and an accountant can fill out your tax form.


----------



## gilker

ecwinch said:


> It does make sense.
> 
> In terms of the SIF options presented - NM clearly did not want to enter into negotiations with a party (MG) powerless to agree to terms. So that part is natural.
> 
> And in terms of counsel withdrawing from case, your recollection is correct.
> 
> IMHO -  as truthr mentioned, this is a complicated situation. And while I see potential for continued litigation - based on the judges decision to bind all of MG's clients to her decision - I just keep coming back to "What it will accomplish?". The trial strategy appears to have gone "all in" on the hope the court would find capital costs are the responsibility of the lessor, and three different judges have affirmed that (reasonable) capital costs are responsibility of the lessee/owners. So the primary question at law seems pretty clear and settled, and that creates a very high bar to overcome.
> 
> And while I understand that there are multiple versions of the VIA (contract) in play here, it seems like they are very similar to the JEEK VIA on the key provisions the court has ruled on.
> 
> Said another way - if you had not joined the legal group, nor signed off to cancel or stay, what would then do?  Almost every issue I have seen raised here was ruled on in the JEEK case, and upheld on appeal. Leaving very little ground for a new legal strategy to gain traction.
> 
> Again - not a lawyer - and this is my personal opinion.




Thank you for your honest observations. I'm wishing we would have had some opinions like this a few years ago. 
Obviously we have a legal system, not a justice system, and we have been beaten up legally. There are only 2 entities that are coming out ahead with all this, and unfortunately its not the 'owners' (us leaseholders)
It seems we own nothing but the liability.

I am not sure who is driving this train wreck.  I believe it started with JB and a few 'owners' and the legal team of the day.  But after that, I don't know who is 'leading that charge' so to speak.  Is it simply MG who we followed with his opinions that this was not fair and we deserve a better outcome? And we bought in to that hoping he was right?

A question I have is do very many timeshares these days have 'owner associations' for the Timeshare they are a part of.  According to our original lease there was to be such an association for us but it was never set up. And this association had the power with a vote to remove the management, who in fact is I thought to be managing the resort in the favour of the timeshare 'owners'.  Such an association brings a level of accountability that we have not had. But we as the 'owners' are handcuffed with the ability to contact others and set this up.


----------



## Scammed!

gilker said:


> Thank you for your honest observations. I'm wishing we would have had some opinions like this a few years ago.
> Obviously we have a legal system, not a justice system, and we have been beaten up legally. There are only 2 entities that are coming out ahead with all this, and unfortunately its not the 'owners' (us leaseholders)
> It seems we own nothing but the liability.
> 
> I am not sure who is driving this train wreck.  I believe it started with JB and a few 'owners' and the legal team of the day.  But after that, I don't know who is 'leading that charge' so to speak.  Is it simply MG who we followed with his opinions that this was not fair and we deserve a better outcome? And we bought in to that hoping he was right?
> 
> A question I have is do very many timeshares these days have 'owner associations' for the Timeshare they are a part of.  According to our original lease there was to be such an association for us but it was never set up. And this association had the power with a vote to remove the management, who in fact is I thought to be managing the resort in the favour of the timeshare 'owners'.  Such an association brings a level of accountability that we have not had. But we as the 'owners' are handcuffed with the ability to contact others and set this up.


We are not handcuffed. We are victims yes, and I am alone to right now. We need to trust that we will ALL fight as a team. If you don't reach out and send letters to everyone then yes you are handcuffed. 
Also I don't own this timeshare. I just leased it for 40 years and have to walk away in the end. My name is on no title of ownership or owner by my own doing.


----------



## melamike

Palms to pines said:


> The truly sad thing about this is I only know what my contract signed in 1997 with Fairmont Resort Properties. I do not know what the contracts morphed into by 2010; if that is indeed when Jim Belfry signed his. MG knew about all the different types of contracts but when he allowed them all to be the same as Jeke it was the beginning of the end right there. If only he had told us we were doomed then.stringing us along for years has lead to severe stress and now severe financial hardship as well. Sure, now we are pouring over documents , but we are not lawyers. MG is and I think people have an expectation that they know how to handle legal matters just as you expect a dentist can properly check your teeth and an accountant can fill out your tax form.



Report him to the law society. If they get hundreds of complaints it will be hard to ignore. It only takes a half hour out of your life to fill in the form and provide a description of your complaint and copy a few supporting docs.


----------



## gilker

Scammed! said:


> We are not handcuffed. We are victims yes, and I am alone to right now. We need to trust that we will ALL fight as a team. If you don't reach out and send letters to everyone then yes you are handcuffed.
> Also I don't own this timeshare. I just leased it for 40 years and have to walk away in the end. My name is on no title of ownership or owner by my own doing.



Yes what i meant by handcuffed was in regard to setting up the association. We don't have access to all the leaseholders to set it up.  In regards to ownership I agree with you, we don't own it.  But this seems to be lost somehow in our case.


----------



## Tacoma

I am more than willing to file a complaint against our lawyer. I am however staying in and paying to get out (I know my costs this way and will finally have closure) so I am worried about filing a complaint before I have my get out of jail card for only $25000 (aprox). Is anyone else in a similar situation? I have actively sent letters to people in AB/BC government and at the federal level so don't think I'm meek or mild. Only one response so far- not her problem- but she did forward it to someone else. When I contact MG I will be stating how I feel I was  lead like a lamb to the slaughter because of his false promises. I almost paid the $13800 in March but because of this advice directly from my lawyer I changed my mind.

"I consider the payment of the Scaled Settlement Fee a reasonable option only where the individual VIA Owner has determined that they prefer to pay their way out of this Resort, can afford to do so prior to May 9, 2017, and do not want to risk being responsible for future Resort costs. Where the individual VIA Owner is not in a position to afford to pay the price Northmont requires or where they prefer to have the managerial decisions made by Northmont scrutinized before making a decision, I consider the Scaled Settlement Fee wholly unreasonable." MG's e-mail of Mar 13th

Sorry I don't know how to correctly format this but it is advice from MG on Mar 13th about whether we should settle or not. Then on Mar 22nd we received an update that can only be seen as an attempt to convince us to move forward with the court case. I do not want to copy it all (if you are members of the litigation group I hope you saved your emails) where there were statements made that lead myself (and probably many others) to believe we still had a very strong case. It mainly discussed the fact that Northmont had to pay their share of the fees and they own 50% of the resort. 

Before signing the SIF (option 1) our lawyer stated "Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. " I maintain this is absolutely false as the previous e-mails continued to give us false hope (to keep us in the group) and he deliberately mislead Northmont  as to how many clients were actually taking the settlement offered in March. I remember his glee at the fact that he had led them to believe the numbers paying to get out would be much higher so they had to frantically serve new documents before our court case in Edmonton in April. He acted like a kid who had pulled a great joke over on everyone.

Then as you know the group was reassured that by signing option 1 on the SIF we would still have an opportunity to reject it before an agreement was finalized. This promise also has not been kept. 

So I guess my comment is I am willing to file a complaint but am nervous to do so until after I have my release. It seems that because of the way this case was dealt with we have "no moral currency left" to negotiate a better deal. Unless the judge or someone decides this is wrong and acts quickly to save us I fear things will only get worse. 

Tacoma


----------



## Floyd55

I have been following this forum for several years now but felt that I needed to start participating. I have sent many emails to MP's/MLA's in Alberta, so far no response whatsoever. I have read many of the judgements that have been handed down in both BC and Alberta. As far as I can tell, we have few legal options left. One that gives me some hope is to at least have the sum that we are going to be charged reduced substantially, that is if all of our efforts to get a political leader on our side fail. Judge Young in Alberta referred to serious concerns about the level of interest and costs that Northmont was asking for. I have copied some of the statements from this Alberta judgement from October 2017.

Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Reid, 2017 ABPC 249 (CanLII) Date: 2017-10-11 Citation:Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Reid, 2017 ABPC 249 (CanLII), , retrieved on 2017-10-20

[86] As was also the case in Edwards, I do have some concern with respect to the interest and costs as claimed by the Plaintiff because the different versions of the VIAs do not have identical language as to the interest that can be claimed. As to costs in each of the SLG Actions, the Plaintiff’s Amended Civil Claims are for “full costs of this action” and it is unclear to the Court precisely what costs are being claimed by the Plaintiff. Again, the specific wording of the VIAs may govern the costs ultimately awarded to the Plaintiff with respect to each Judgment obtained against the Defendants. In Edwards, the Court allowed for the submission of “written argument on the issue of interest and costs” but the parties “were able to agree on the interest.” Most of Edwards deals with costs but specifically with reference to the wording in the “Edwards VIA.”

[87] Given the foregoing, the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against each Defendant in the SLG Actions for the amount set out in each Amended Civil Claim (the “Judgments”), except as to interest and costs, for which I am prepared to hear argument from the parties if they cannot agree.

[91] Although counsel has been given leave to attend before me once again to deal with the outstanding issues as listed above, I would urge counsel, given the already extensive use of judicial resources both in Alberta and British Columbia, that they make every reasonable effort to resolve these outstanding issues without the necessity of further judicial intervention. If that does not occur, then counsel are to contact the trial co-ordinator to obtain a date to appear before me. It would be my expectation that this occur as soon as possible, and hopefully, within thirty days after the date this decision is issued.

I have written a letter to MG quoting the same and indicated that I am not on board with his "settlement agreement" with NM and expect him to follow Judge Youngs lead and do some actual good faith negotiating on our behalf for a change.


----------



## truthr

Floyd55 said:


> I have been following this forum for several years now but felt that I needed to start participating. I have sent many emails to MP's/MLA's in Alberta, so far no response whatsoever. I have read many of the judgements that have been handed down in both BC and Alberta. As far as I can tell, we have few legal options left. One that gives me some hope is to at least have the sum that we are going to be charged reduced substantially, that is if all of our efforts to get a political leader on our side. Judge Young in Alberta referred to serious concerns about the level of interest and costs that Northmont was asking for. I have copied some of the statements from this Alberta judgement from October 2017.
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Reid, 2017 ABPC 249 (CanLII) Date: 2017-10-11 Citation:Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Reid, 2017 ABPC 249 (CanLII), , retrieved on 2017-10-20
> 
> [86] As was also the case in Edwards, I do have some concern with respect to the interest and costs as claimed by the Plaintiff because the different versions of the VIAs do not have identical language as to the interest that can be claimed. As to costs in each of the SLG Actions, the Plaintiff’s Amended Civil Claims are for “full costs of this action” and it is unclear to the Court precisely what costs are being claimed by the Plaintiff. Again, the specific wording of the VIAs may govern the costs ultimately awarded to the Plaintiff with respect to each Judgment obtained against the Defendants. In Edwards, the Court allowed for the submission of “written argument on the issue of interest and costs” but the parties “were able to agree on the interest.” Most of Edwards deals with costs but specifically with reference to the wording in the “Edwards VIA.”
> 
> [87] Given the foregoing, the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against each Defendant in the SLG Actions for the amount set out in each Amended Civil Claim (the “Judgments”), except as to interest and costs, for which I am prepared to hear argument from the parties if they cannot agree.
> 
> [91] Although counsel has been given leave to attend before me once again to deal with the outstanding issues as listed above, I would urge counsel, given the already extensive use of judicial resources both in Alberta and British Columbia, that they make every reasonable effort to resolve these outstanding issues without the necessity of further judicial intervention. If that does not occur, then counsel are to contact the trial co-ordinator to obtain a date to appear before me. It would be my expectation that this occur as soon as possible, and hopefully, within thirty days after the date this decision is issued.
> 
> I have written a letter to MG quoting the same and indicated that I am not on board with his "settlement agreement" with NM and expect him to follow Judge Youngs lead and do some actual good faith negotiating on our behalf for a change.


I also wrote a detailed letter with supporting documentation to MG cced to the two other lawyers mid December quoting both the BC Code of Conduct, AB Rules of Court and Canada Interest Act where applicable to make my points.  I also pointed out that to my knowledge "a judge's instructions are not a suggestion".  This was just days prior to the ill fated "settlement" meeting.


----------



## MgolferL

Floyd55 said:


> I have been following this forum for several years now but felt that I needed to start participating. I have sent many emails to MP's/MLA's in Alberta, so far no response whatsoever. I have read many of the judgements that have been handed down in both BC and Alberta. As far as I can tell, we have few legal options left. One that gives me some hope is to at least have the sum that we are going to be charged reduced substantially, that is if all of our efforts to get a political leader on our side fail. Judge Young in Alberta referred to serious concerns about the level of interest and costs that Northmont was asking for. I have copied some of the statements from this Alberta judgement from October 2017.
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Reid, 2017 ABPC 249 (CanLII) Date: 2017-10-11 Citation:Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Reid, 2017 ABPC 249 (CanLII), , retrieved on 2017-10-20
> 
> [86] As was also the case in Edwards, I do have some concern with respect to the interest and costs as claimed by the Plaintiff because the different versions of the VIAs do not have identical language as to the interest that can be claimed. As to costs in each of the SLG Actions, the Plaintiff’s Amended Civil Claims are for “full costs of this action” and it is unclear to the Court precisely what costs are being claimed by the Plaintiff. Again, the specific wording of the VIAs may govern the costs ultimately awarded to the Plaintiff with respect to each Judgment obtained against the Defendants. In Edwards, the Court allowed for the submission of “written argument on the issue of interest and costs” but the parties “were able to agree on the interest.” Most of Edwards deals with costs but specifically with reference to the wording in the “Edwards VIA.”
> 
> [87] Given the foregoing, the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against each Defendant in the SLG Actions for the amount set out in each Amended Civil Claim (the “Judgments”), except as to interest and costs, for which I am prepared to hear argument from the parties if they cannot agree.
> 
> [91] Although counsel has been given leave to attend before me once again to deal with the outstanding issues as listed above, I would urge counsel, given the already extensive use of judicial resources both in Alberta and British Columbia, that they make every reasonable effort to resolve these outstanding issues without the necessity of further judicial intervention. If that does not occur, then counsel are to contact the trial co-ordinator to obtain a date to appear before me. It would be my expectation that this occur as soon as possible, and hopefully, within thirty days after the date this decision is issued.
> 
> I have written a letter to MG quoting the same and indicated that I am not on board with his "settlement agreement" with NM and expect him to follow Judge Youngs lead and do some actual good faith negotiating on our behalf for a change.



I am basically the same. Followed the site for years. Did participate a number of years ago, but had to rejoin as of today because none of the previous log-in stuff worked..

I spoke with MG, who seems to be done with this and felt he was within his right to "negotiate" without approval from the group. Also says the ONLY people who have been released from the resort were ones he did back in March. No others that he is aware of. Thinks for our own "piece of mind" it's best to just pay and get out. I said based on following his direction, optimism and advice...I went from a $1600 payout to what will likely be just over 10K, to which his response...paraphrasing..."At least you will be out"....to which I responded...IF they had negotiated in good faith when this started AND I TRIED...I would still be in, because I liked going there...! Last comments here...MG said the "Manager" (KW?) is out for blood, so don't expect and leniency from them. And finally, the agreements will be a full release...them from us and us from them, so we can't go back after.

BTW, on the settlements (?), any money owing the legal firms will also be indicated charged for on the settlement statement we get...supposedly Tuesday.

I copied one of the posted letters yesterday, made amendments and sent it to ALL...MLA's in AB and BC. I have received over 12 responses, some with suggestions to other Ministers...Service AB for example, to which I sent them off as well. Jason Kenney is my MLA and I sent him one directly in capital letters.

I agree with a lot of comments previously listed that all of this is too little, too late, and we will likely (sadly & sickening) have to start writing cheques. IF there is no leniency, within the full letter of the law, I want to be one of the people helping Karma along to bring some justice to this travesty....Really...all they had to do was say "goodbye and get out" and we could have all gone on our merry ways.


----------



## CleoB

MarcieL said:


> How could we bow out when for years we were given false promises?  We were all under the impression we were contributing to an end goal in fact M.G. referenced in an email something to the affect if I cannot at least get a 50% reduction in the invoices we will be considering a class action, this is not a quote.  I have no intention of giving up we have a settlement bordering on 40,000.00 as seniors in our late 70's, the injustice makes me ill to my stomach.  I'm just saying we cannot litigate the contracts again as per Judge Young.  We need a new case, before the court with a competent lawyer.


Keep that email where Geldert said if he couldn't at least a 50% reduction he will consider a class action.  We're going to need it.


----------



## MarcieL

BTW, on the settlements (?), any money owing the legal firms will also be indicated charged for on the settlement statement we get...supposedly Tuesday.

Great news that is. ours is already 40 grand.


----------



## Tacoma

Remember way back at the beginning when MG was recommending we fight since he did not feel that their offer of a release upon payment could be trusted. I just want you to know personal friends of mine paid to get out and have heard absolutely nothing since. So his answer the ONLY people who have been released from the resort were ones he did back in March is categorically not true. I am also going to see if I can get my friends who paid to stay and I believe bought legacy for life to call the resort and find out what it would cost them to get out. I do not believe that they are asking $16000 from a member in good standing to get out or there would be an uproar from the people who stayed. This is the best PONZI scheme ever. Pay to join, pay more for more flexibilty (points) or more years (legacy for life) pay to renovate resort at costs that could have seen the entire buildings rebuilt from the ground up and then if you paid to stay and now that they have made the value of this timeshare in the negative pay a ridiculous amount to get out of your contract.

I just want you to know I own and enjoy many other timeshares and will not let this sour me on all of them. This is my 14th year of timesharing and except for this debacle it has been 14 good years. I even paid a special assessment on 2 timeshares in the past(BRMR) as I did the math and felt the numbers were reasonable.


----------



## J's Garage

I'm quite certain that MG was asked to clarify the role of a timeshare trustee.  The best research that I can understand is simply stated Trustees  (such as a bank or a trust company) or group of individuals who hold timeshare properties and leisure facilities in trust on behalf of the owners.  A timeshare buyer's right to use agreement is granted through the Trustees through a license or a Certificate of Ownership.

Trustee is Phillip Matkin: Phil's primary practice encompasses all aspects of commercial real estate law. In particular, Phil focuses on recreational property and resort development. He has extensive experience assisting clients in the development, financing and securitization of resort and recreational properties and in helping them meet real estate and securities disclosure requirements. Phil's experience extends beyond Alberta to include numerous projects in British Columbia, the Caribbean, Mexico, Belize and Hawaii. Phil co-founded the firm known as SMBP LAWYERS, now GREENFIELDS LAW,  in 2004 after having spent the previous twenty three years with the Calgary based law firm of Macleod Dixon LLP, now Norton Rose Fulbright.

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT

*Oh BTW: In the JEKE actions, and the Trustee actions in BC, Counsel for Northmont Resort Properties Ltd was Jud Virtue.  *

From the firm's information Jud Virtue has been with Norton Rose Fulbright from Feb 1999.

IOW: From the biographies, Philip Matkin and Jud Virtue both worked at what is now referenced as Norton Rose Fulbright for around 5 years

Norton Rose Fulbright was created out of buyout's and mergers.  So it may not have been the common name to identify these lawyer's from.  So notice from Phillip Matkin's experience it is shared that he spent 23 years with Macleod Dixon LLP (later merged into/renamed Norton Rose Fulbright). 

This is counsel information from a past court filing (but outside the overlapping dates - still searching): 
*Counsel*
Judson E. Virtue

*Address*
MacLeod Dixon LLP
3700 Canterra Tower
400 - 3rd Ave S.W.
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 4H2
Telephone: (403) 267-9541
FAX: (403) 264-5973
E-mail: jud.virtue@macleoddixon.com


----------



## Tanny13

I have been in touch with another lawyer, reviewing our predicament. If you have chosen to not accept the settlement and want to pursue a different avenue to reduce interest and costs please email me with your contact info to thebestboy@me.com.  We are trying to get an idea of the number involved.


----------



## CleoB

Tanny13 said:


> I have been in touch with another lawyer, reviewing our predicament. If you have chosen to not accept the settlement and want to pursue a different avenue to reduce interest and costs please email me with your contact info to thebestboy@me.com.  We are trying to get an idea of the number involved.


What about the cancellation cost?  I'm sure the judge would reduce the 26.82% as that's unreasonable but the exit fee is reportedly $16000.


----------



## melamike

Tacoma said:


> I am more than willing to file a complaint against our lawyer. I am however staying in and paying to get out (I know my costs this way and will finally have closure) so I am worried about filing a complaint before I have my get out of jail card for only $25000 (aprox). Is anyone else in a similar situation? I have actively sent letters to people in AB/BC government and at the federal level so don't think I'm meek or mild. Only one response so far- not her problem- but she did forward it to someone else. When I contact MG I will be stating how I feel I was  lead like a lamb to the slaughter because of his false promises. I almost paid the $13800 in March but because of this advice directly from my lawyer I changed my mind.
> 
> "I consider the payment of the Scaled Settlement Fee a reasonable option only where the individual VIA Owner has determined that they prefer to pay their way out of this Resort, can afford to do so prior to May 9, 2017, and do not want to risk being responsible for future Resort costs. Where the individual VIA Owner is not in a position to afford to pay the price Northmont requires or where they prefer to have the managerial decisions made by Northmont scrutinized before making a decision, I consider the Scaled Settlement Fee wholly unreasonable." MG's e-mail of Mar 13th
> 
> Sorry I don't know how to correctly format this but it is advice from MG on Mar 13th about whether we should settle or not. Then on Mar 22nd we received an update that can only be seen as an attempt to convince us to move forward with the court case. I do not want to copy it all (if you are members of the litigation group I hope you saved your emails) where there were statements made that lead myself (and probably many others) to believe we still had a very strong case. It mainly discussed the fact that Northmont had to pay their share of the fees and they own 50% of the resort.
> 
> Before signing the SIF (option 1) our lawyer stated "Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. " I maintain this is absolutely false as the previous e-mails continued to give us false hope (to keep us in the group) and he deliberately mislead Northmont  as to how many clients were actually taking the settlement offered in March. I remember his glee at the fact that he had led them to believe the numbers paying to get out would be much higher so they had to frantically serve new documents before our court case in Edmonton in April. He acted like a kid who had pulled a great joke over on everyone.
> 
> Then as you know the group was reassured that by signing option 1 on the SIF we would still have an opportunity to reject it before an agreement was finalized. This promise also has not been kept.
> 
> So I guess my comment is I am willing to file a complaint but am nervous to do so until after I have my release. It seems that because of the way this case was dealt with we have "no moral currency left" to negotiate a better deal. Unless the judge or someone decides this is wrong and acts quickly to save us I fear things will only get worse.
> 
> Tacoma



Dear Tacoma:
Complaining does not make you guilty of anything!  I'm in the same boat as you and I sent my complaint into the BC Law Society today. Retaliation of any sort by MG ( if he were to find out) would be further proof to the Society about the character of the man we have asked them to investigate. Please complain!


----------



## Spark1

Tacoma said:


> I am more than willing to file a complaint against our lawyer. I am however staying in and paying to get out (I know my costs this way and will finally have closure) so I am worried about filing a complaint before I have my get out of jail card for only $25000 (aprox). Is anyone else in a similar situation? I have actively sent letters to people in AB/BC government and at the federal level so don't think I'm meek or mild. Only one response so far- not her problem- but she did forward it to someone else. When I contact MG I will be stating how I feel I was  lead like a lamb to the slaughter because of his false promises. I almost paid the $13800 in March but because of this advice directly from my lawyer I changed my mind.
> 
> "I consider the payment of the Scaled Settlement Fee a reasonable option only where the individual VIA Owner has determined that they prefer to pay their way out of this Resort, can afford to do so prior to May 9, 2017, and do not want to risk being responsible for future Resort costs. Where the individual VIA Owner is not in a position to afford to pay the price Northmont requires or where they prefer to have the managerial decisions made by Northmont scrutinized before making a decision, I consider the Scaled Settlement Fee wholly unreasonable." MG's e-mail of Mar 13th
> 
> Sorry I don't know how to correctly format this but it is advice from MG on Mar 13th about whether we should settle or not. Then on Mar 22nd we received an update that can only be seen as an attempt to convince us to move forward with the court case. I do not want to copy it all (if you are members of the litigation group I hope you saved your emails) where there were statements made that lead myself (and probably many others) to believe we still had a very strong case. It mainly discussed the fact that Northmont had to pay their share of the fees and they own 50% of the resort.
> 
> Before signing the SIF (option 1) our lawyer stated "Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. " I maintain this is absolutely false as the previous e-mails continued to give us false hope (to keep us in the group) and he deliberately mislead Northmont  as to how many clients were actually taking the settlement offered in March. I remember his glee at the fact that he had led them to believe the numbers paying to get out would be much higher so they had to frantically serve new documents before our court case in Edmonton in April. He acted like a kid who had pulled a great joke over on everyone.
> 
> Then as you know the group was reassured that by signing option 1 on the SIF we would still have an opportunity to reject it before an agreement was finalized. This promise also has not been kept.
> 
> So I guess my comment is I am willing to file a complaint but am nervous to do so until after I have my release. It seems that because of the way this case was dealt with we have "no moral currency left" to negotiate a better deal. Unless the judge or someone decides this is wrong and acts quickly to save us I fear things will only get worse.
> 
> Tacoma


What kind of Contract did you sign when you bought into the resort. Was it a Lease contract or a VIA.


----------



## torqued

Are we as a group going to know how many in the group accepted the settlement?  I would still like to know what my “settlement” figure is even though I rejected it just to confirm it is in fact 120% of my outstanding fees plus outrageous interest. If some accept will that mean it can’t go in front of judge Young for review??


----------



## ecwinch

gilker said:


> A question I have is do very many timeshares these days have 'owner associations' for the Timeshare they are a part of.  According to our original lease there was to be such an association for us but it was never set up. And this association had the power with a vote to remove the management, who in fact is I thought to be managing the resort in the favour of the timeshare 'owners'.  Such an association brings a level of accountability that we have not had. But we as the 'owners' are handcuffed with the ability to contact others and set this up.



Yes, most timeshares are governed by a homeowners association.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

*“My Story”*

This is something that has been on my mind for a couple of days now and to be truthful I was hoping somebody else would initiate the idea as I didn’t really want to do this as it resonates very personally with me, but I feel we need to get prepared and personalize our story. 

There are lots of things happing in a very short time as a result of us banding together and no offence intended but one person resonates with me who set the bar high and I like to think of her in my mind as “The Raging Granny”.

I may be totally off on who this person is as I don’t even know how old she is or personal details about her, but she is an inspiration to us all – spunk, tenacious, lacking fear, and compassionate are the best ways I can describe her from the short time we have corresponded.  A real wrecking ball!!

There is soon going to be a call for people to speak on our behalf in front of our elected officials and the media so this is in preparation for this.  We need to show how average people have been affected and there is minimal personal information I will be asking for but don’t feel you need to provide it if you are not comfortable doing so.  Your *“My Story”* could potentially be shared with politicians, media, legal people, or others than may help move our story forward – if you have reservation and still want to share your story specify your conditions and they will be respected.  These *“My Story”* documents are only intended to aid in our plight and hopefully can be somewhat therapeutic – do not do one if you are not comfortable doing so.

Personal information that could be included and why:

Name (knowing there is a real person is important and is most scary thing to include as we have all been conditioned not to trust anymore)
Where you live (city / town – this should be basic stuff)
Riding with MLA / MP information (political motivation is a powerful thing – I am asking for this as it would help summarize information to politicians they have people effected in their ridings if they haven’t got the message already)

Before I begin here are what I think are good ground rules:

These will not be posted on Tugs
This is intended to be very personal and a chance for you to say what the timeshare meant or means to you
When you are writing your story imaging you are saying or writing it to someone you care about
Write in the format that suits you – I am evidence grammar and spelling are not always right
The legalese stuff is not needed – that’s someone else’s job right now
You do not need to be the timeshare owner – you could be a son, daughter, spouse, friend, or caregiver to the timeshare owner but this has somehow impacted you.

*Submit to:
my_story@shaw.ca*


Food for thought:

Why did you buy your timeshare
Did you feel good and safe about your purchase
Did you feel proud you invested in your future and confident your vacations could be taken at a 5-star resort yearly while staying with-in your budget
When was the last time you used your timeshare
Who accompanied you on your vacations
Did use the golf course
Did you like to exchange
Did you go to the other Fairmont resorts or get to use a houseboat
How many years was this your go to vacation place
Did you put money back into the local economies
Was this a place for you to meet up with relatives and friends
Did you have fun
Do you miss it
What is the burden on you now for having a timeshare

Please see my own *“My Story”* in my next post.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

What does our timeshare me to me – *Family and Memories!!*

Our family only got about 5 years use out of our vacation investment but we packed them full of adventures and the great memories have not faded in the least.  These vacations are often talked about around the table or when we see relatives or friends who experienced the fun with us.

Relatives especially who we brought along on our adventures are deeply saddened and concerned for us that firstly this has cost us so much in so many ways.  More years of fun were expected by all and we made the Rockies the go to vacations for our relatives literally from all over the world.  Pictures of time spent with us there are on many mantles and the faces in the pictures show everything that needs to be said.

Even though we only got about 5 years of use out of the 40 we did so much and had even more planned – here are some of the places we visited and what 1st comes to my mind when I think about it:

Fairmont – lazy river floats, extreme hiking (nothing was ever too steep and who uses paths anyway), and hot springs
Kelowna – wine tours, searching for Ogopogo, and being launched from the “Blob”
Hawaii – body surfing (mostly slamming) in the big waves on the North Shore, Luaus, exploring
By far my most memorable adventure was our Houseboat trip on Shuswap Lake – explained more below
There are so many memories it’s incredible to remember and be able to package them to share but below are events I recall when I started to think back – they probably will not resonate with everyone but hey these are mine:

Another trip down the lazy river where the challenge was to see who got the most golf balls
Extreme hiking up that big hill north of Columbia Lake / south of Fairmont
Watching the deer on a peaceful morning grazing the golf course with no bigger care than retrieving a coffee
Being the one with the wackiest frozen hair in the hot springs
Having the kids learn their fingers get hurt if they put them in the way on the shuffleboard table and root beer floats at the rec center
The perfect game of golf (perfection for me is based on number of balls lost – I had a zero game)
Thinking we could retire in the valley (we actually owned property there for awhile for that purpose)
Hiking to different areas around Fairmont to find those free hot springs
How great is it when you can buy fireworks at the corner variety store (yes I raised a mini group of pyromaniacs who love fireworks)
Seeing our kids make new friends and seeing how awkward it is was when they got older and meet someone a little more special
Sunday brunch up on the mountain
Chartering a plane in Invermere for a special 25th anniversary sightseeing flight
Going to the water park - again
Spending a fantastic vacation with a loved one for the last time
What has and is this timeshare costing me:

Most importantly lost time with my immediate and extended family to celebrate life
Lost opportunities
Stress, anxiety, guilt, and friction within my marriage
About $70,000 conservatively if I was to pay out now with this settlement and the fear it could cost even more if we don’t (about half for the initial investment + half for the settlement)
*Above I mentioned our Houseboat trip is one of the best memories I have that I hold most valuable in my life.  Here is a summary of our voyage:*

My mother and stepdad (Peter) came in from Ontario along with the invited kid’s friends the day before and we packed up and headed to the Shuswap.  The entire trip the weather was perfect and started with the being captain of your boat orientation attended by yours truly and Peter and neither of us had a clue how to drive what seamed like a 100’ (greatly exaggerated) houseboat.

Peter became a professionally trained chef after his retirement as an engineer, certified boat captain sailing large sailboats on the Great Lakes, and a member of the family who’s laugh and spirit resonated throughout life and the entire voyage (other than when our learned captain crashed the boat and was demoted to 1st mate).

Some of the best meals got prepared with our catch of the day by Peter and it also relates to our greatest fish story and the catch that escaped.

Peter tried for days to catch a fish - the reason this is so comical in the evenings we had our own small inflatable dinghies and would go out to catch fish.  Everyone caught fish but Peter – he would force us to move to his spot and take our fishing gear but never caught a thing while we continued to reel them in.

On one-day Peter and I attempted to fish from a rented jet ski – Peter was successful finally catching not one but two beautiful lake trout.  On our way back to camp tragedy struck and we lost both his fish.  To this day no one believes he caught any fish and he made the story up.

As expected we did have fireworks and a whole lot more adventures on our voyage but the voyage itself is not the reason our Houseboat trip has such impact for me and our family.

A couple months later Peter was diagnosed with terminal cancer and only lasted a short time with us after that – Grampa Pete’s final instruction before leaving us was to get back out there and bring those fish to justice to his grandkids which has imprinted a powerful image on all our minds to this day.


This is “My Story”


----------



## Tanny13

CleoB said:


> What about the cancellation cost?  I'm sure the judge would reduce the 26.82% as that's unreasonable but the exit fee is reportedly $16000.



I don’t think that exit fee is accurate.  My plan is to reduce our costs and then stay and fight.


----------



## MarcieL

CleoB said:


> I think the next step is up to those that never retained M. Geldert.  They need to band together, find a lawyer and go after Northmount using the Fair Trade Act of Alberta.  Something MG never did.  Unfortunately I can't be part of it as I mistakenly put my faith in MG and now all his clients (and those that paid to stay) are paying and will be paying for his mistakes.  That is why those that never/ever retained him need to proceed in a different matter with a competent lawyer.


I agree jack.


----------



## truthr

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> *“My Story”*
> 
> This is something that has been on my mind for a couple of days now and to be truthful I was hoping somebody else would initiate the idea as I didn’t really want to do this as it resonates very personally with me, but I feel we need to get prepared and personalize our story.
> 
> There are lots of things happing in a very short time as a result of us banding together and no offence intended but one person resonates with me who set the bar high and I like to think of her in my mind as “The Raging Granny”.
> 
> I may be totally off on who this person is as I don’t even know how old she is or personal details about her, but she is an inspiration to us all – spunk, tenacious, lacking fear, and compassionate are the best ways I can describe her from the short time we have corresponded.  A real wrecking ball!!
> 
> There is soon going to be a call for people to speak on our behalf in front of our elected officials and the media so this is in preparation for this.  We need to show how average people have been affected and there is minimal personal information I will be asking for but don’t feel you need to provide it if you are not comfortable doing so.  Your *“My Story”* could potentially be shared with politicians, media, legal people, or others than may help move our story forward – if you have reservation and still want to share your story specify your conditions and they will be respected.  These *“My Story”* documents are only intended to aid in our plight and hopefully can be somewhat therapeutic – do not do one if you are not comfortable doing so.
> 
> Personal information that could be included and why:
> 
> Name (knowing there is a real person is important and is most scary thing to include as we have all been conditioned not to trust anymore)
> Where you live (city / town – this should be basic stuff)
> Riding with MLA / MP information (political motivation is a powerful thing – I am asking for this as it would help summarize information to politicians they have people effected in their ridings if they haven’t got the message already)
> 
> Before I begin here are what I think are good ground rules:
> 
> These will not be posted on Tugs
> This is intended to be very personal and a chance for you to say what the timeshare meant or means to you
> When you are writing your story imaging you are saying or writing it to someone you care about
> Write in the format that suits you – I am evidence grammar and spelling are not always right
> The legalese stuff is not needed – that’s someone else’s job right now
> You do not need to be the timeshare owner – you could be a son, daughter, spouse, friend, or caregiver to the timeshare owner but this has somehow impacted you.
> 
> *Submit to:
> my_story@shaw.ca*
> 
> 
> Food for thought:
> 
> Why did you buy your timeshare
> Did you feel good and safe about your purchase
> Did you feel proud you invested in your future and confident your vacations could be taken at a 5-star resort yearly while staying with-in your budget
> When was the last time you used your timeshare
> Who accompanied you on your vacations
> Did use the golf course
> Did you like to exchange
> Did you go to the other Fairmont resorts or get to use a houseboat
> How many years was this your go to vacation place
> Did you put money back into the local economies
> Was this a place for you to meet up with relatives and friends
> Did you have fun
> Do you miss it
> What is the burden on you now for having a timeshare
> 
> Please see my own *“My Story”* in my next post.


What a great idea and I have personally found it to be very therapeutic and helped me to get past the emotional part and focus on the details of what has transpired over the past 4 years and how we need to take back our voice and put a human experience on this catastrophe once again.
You know the voice that has been taken away from us.  And the "we are stronger together" message that we all bought in to at the beginning only to be separated and silenced.

TAKE BACK YOUR VOICE AND BAND TOGETHER AGAIN!!!


----------



## Spark1

Tacoma said:


> I am more than willing to file a complaint against our lawyer. I am however staying in and paying to get out (I know my costs this way and will finally have closure) so I am worried about filing a complaint before I have my get out of jail card for only $25000 (aprox). Is anyone else in a similar situation? I have actively sent letters to people in AB/BC government and at the federal level so don't think I'm meek or mild. Only one response so far- not her problem- but she did forward it to someone else. When I contact MG I will be stating how I feel I was  lead like a lamb to the slaughter because of his false promises. I almost paid the $13800 in March but because of this advice directly from my lawyer I changed my mind.
> 
> "I consider the payment of the Scaled Settlement Fee a reasonable option only where the individual VIA Owner has determined that they prefer to pay their way out of this Resort, can afford to do so prior to May 9, 2017, and do not want to risk being responsible for future Resort costs. Where the individual VIA Owner is not in a position to afford to pay the price Northmont requires or where they prefer to have the managerial decisions made by Northmont scrutinized before making a decision, I consider the Scaled Settlement Fee wholly unreasonable." MG's e-mail of Mar 13th
> 
> Sorry I don't know how to correctly format this but it is advice from MG on Mar 13th about whether we should settle or not. Then on Mar 22nd we received an update that can only be seen as an attempt to convince us to move forward with the court case. I do not want to copy it all (if you are members of the litigation group I hope you saved your emails) where there were statements made that lead myself (and probably many others) to believe we still had a very strong case. It mainly discussed the fact that Northmont had to pay their share of the fees and they own 50% of the resort.
> 
> Before signing the SIF (option 1) our lawyer stated "Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. " I maintain this is absolutely false as the previous e-mails continued to give us false hope (to keep us in the group) and he deliberately mislead Northmont  as to how many clients were actually taking the settlement offered in March. I remember his glee at the fact that he had led them to believe the numbers paying to get out would be much higher so they had to frantically serve new documents before our court case in Edmonton in April. He acted like a kid who had pulled a great joke over on everyone.
> 
> Then as you know the group was reassured that by signing option 1 on the SIF we would still have an opportunity to reject it before an agreement was finalized. This promise also has not been kept.
> 
> So I guess my comment is I am willing to file a complaint but am nervous to do so until after I have my release. It seems that because of the way this case was dealt with we have "no moral currency left" to negotiate a better deal. Unless the judge or someone decides this is wrong and acts quickly to save us I fear things will only get worse.
> 
> Tacoma


I sent mind in also and I also sent in the Matkin letter.17.11.03.pdf. We will be doing this all over again because my wife and I were tried by Justice Young as VIA’s. We have no idea what a VIA contract is and our contract is Vacation Villa Lease. This does not make any sense we emailed Geldert Law Dec 13 and explained to him what our contract was and he never said we now are VIA. I am happy that we keep these emails.


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> I agree jack.


No you could of Opped-Out. MG offered if you wanted to rescind.


----------



## MarcieL

Spark1 said:


> No you could of Opped-Out. MG offered if you wanted to rescind.



Spark this is what Jack posted that I agreed to:


I think the next step is up to those that never retained M. Geldert. They need to band together, find a lawyer and go after Northmount using the Fair Trade Act of Alberta. Something MG never did.


----------



## CleoB

Tanny13 said:


> I don’t think that exit fee is accurate.  My plan is to reduce our costs and then stay and fight.


That is what Geldert is reporting it will cost those in good standing (those that paid to stay) who want out.


----------



## CleoB

Spark1 said:


> No you could of Opped-Out. MG offered if you wanted to rescind.


When was that?  I don't remember receiving anything like that.  Do you have a date of the email please?


----------



## Floyd55

Just got off the phone with MG in response to my email to him today. He appreciates our frustration with the process. :]  He said in response to my concerns about interest rates that they are continuing to work on that aspect but with all judgements going against us it has put NM in a position to charge almost whatever they want. He said that they are working with Judge Young on the interest rate and cost aspect of the proposed settlement details right now. I guess we will see what the details are when we get the settlement email next week. The reason that he gave for not pursuing the proposed action to take NM to task on the realignment of the resort and their not paying their proportion of fees is that the resulting litigation would likely end up costing us more than if we just pay to get out now with this deal. That is his opinion and that is why he is pushing us in this direction. Not good news I'm afraid!


----------



## Scammed!

CleoB said:


> When was that?  I don't remember receiving anything like that.  Do you have a date of the email please?


We had 16 hours on the 28th of December 8:04 p.m. until noon December 29. We haven't decided yet, and I need to talk to a lawyer.


----------



## truthr

Floyd55 said:


> Just got off the phone with MG in response to my email to him today. He appreciates our frustration with the process. :]  He said in response to my concerns about interest rates that they are continuing to work on that aspect but with all judgements going against us it has put NM in a position to charge almost whatever they want. He said that they are working with Judge Young on the interest rate and cost aspect of the proposed settlement details right now. I guess we will see what the details are when we get the settlement email next week. The reason that he gave for not pursuing the proposed action to take NM to task on the realignment of the resort and their not paying their proportion of fees is that the resulting litigation would likely end up costing us more than if we just pay to get out now with this deal. That is his opinion and that is why he is pushing us in this direction. Not good news I'm afraid!


Consider the source, not you Floyd55 but where you got the information.  How many times have we been told something that turned out to be less than truthful?
Call me a skeptic but unless I see something with Judge Young's (AB) and/or Judge Branch's (BC) seal of approval I don't believe it.

As far as his opinion - how accurate, truthful and reliable have they been in the past?  Just sayin


----------



## Floyd55

truthr said:


> Consider the source, not you Floyd55 but where you got the information.  How many times have we been told something that turned out to be less than truthful?
> Call me a skeptic but unless I see something with Judge Young's (AB) and/or Judge Branch's (BC) seal of approval I don't believe it.



Oh believe me, I agree! Just passing on directly what I was just told on the phone for your general info.


----------



## Scammed!

truthr said:


> Consider the source, not you Floyd55 but where you got the information.  How many times have we been told something that turned out to be less than truthful?
> Call me a skeptic but unless I see something with Judge Young's (AB) and/or Judge Branch's (BC) seal of approval I don't believe it.
> 
> As far as his opinion - how accurate, truthful and reliable have they been in the past?  Just sayin




Totally with you on that truthr. I'm not doing nothing unless I hear instructions from The Honourable Judge Young! Very Interesting if Judge Young is truly involved...that would mean our letters are working or we're hearing nothing but Fairy dust, Unicorns, and Santa Clause again to shut us up! God knows we all believed in all that once before, and look were that got us. It sounds dissappointing so going to continue with my letters now......


----------



## MarcieL

I'd like to know how he is working with her, teleconference, email, face to face???  Very, very dehumanizing ordeal, tired of the lip service and false promises.  I hope it is factual and she makes her decision with some compassion.  I am sure she has had much feed back even though I was told the only contact should be through our lawyer.  I did what I felt appropriate as it is my invoice!


----------



## aden2

Sunchaser's official site regarding Owners Timeshare Agreements schedule #2003 Prospectus article #13. Default of the Buyer "that the lessee hereby to relinquish all rights and responsibilities of the lessee and hereby irrevocably appoints FRP, its successors and assigns, as its attorneys to transfer ownership of the vacation lease in such event". Further "The terms of this contract shall be binding on the Lessee(s)". It is #14 in my contract.  does anyone have an opinion of the article?


----------



## Spark1

CleoB said:


> Keep that email where Geldert said if he couldn't at least a 50% reduction he will consider a class action.  We're going to need it.





CleoB said:


> When was that?  I don't remember receiving anything like that.  Do you have a date of the email please?


It was sent Thursday,December 28, 2017 11:20 PM. Had to reply by 12:00 PM PST on Dec29,2017. I was working on my computer until midnight and MG email around 11:45. That only gave you around 12 hrs to act.  Great Christmas Present.


----------



## Spark1

Scammed! said:


> We had 16 hours on the 28th of December 8:04 p.m. until noon December 29. We haven't decided yet, and I need to talk to a lawyer.


What kind of Contract do yo have. Is it a Lease Contract?


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> What kind of Contract do yo have. Is it a Lease Contract?


----------



## Hotpink

It would be a most unusual for the judge to be in conversation with either party in an informal manner. Please read her conclusions in the judgement and they are very specific as to what the parties are to do.
If they could not agree then they were to appear before her again.
She did not rule in our favour nor did she grant an amount that NM could charge nor the rate of interest that could be applied.
If you do not agree with what the amount "Negotiated" NM does not have a Certificate of Judgement against the group. 

If you refuse to pay they (NM) must take you back to Civil court and prove their claim before they can get any kind of judgement against you. that will take Eons to accomplish and take Judge Young well into her retirement.


----------



## Bewildered

truthr said:


> Consider the source, not you Floyd55 but where you got the information.  How many times have we been told something that turned out to be less than truthful?
> Call me a skeptic but unless I see something with Judge Young's (AB) and/or Judge Branch's (BC) seal of approval I don't believe it.
> 
> As far as his opinion - how accurate, truthful and reliable have they been in the past?  Just sayin


Don’t believe a word M.G. says, I have personally spoken to him a half dozen times, a couple times in the past week. He can’t keep his story straight in the same conversation, your not getting Judge Youngs ear unless your in court and I see no evidence M.G. and his clowns are doing that. Judge Young really hung us out to dry on those half finished decisions and then saying for everyone to play nice on the interest issue! Didn’t she look at the poor peoples invoice with over 10 Grand of interest in a couple years! Sorry call me a skeptic but it was in the cards because there was no way that the BC courts were going to allow the whole Fairmont area to economically collapse after this place was mothballed as it should have been. Unfortunately Judge Young did us no favours n Alberta. Lost faith in the Justice system.


----------



## CleoB

Floyd55 said:


> Just got off the phone with MG in response to my email to him today. He appreciates our frustration with the process. :]  He said in response to my concerns about interest rates that they are continuing to work on that aspect but with all judgements going against us it has put NM in a position to charge almost whatever they want. He said that they are working with Judge Young on the interest rate and cost aspect of the proposed settlement details right now. I guess we will see what the details are when we get the settlement email next week. The reason that he gave for not pursuing the proposed action to take NM to task on the realignment of the resort and their not paying their proportion of fees is that the resulting litigation would likely end up costing us more than if we just pay to get out now with this deal. That is his opinion and that is why he is pushing us in this direction. Not good news I'm afraid!


Yes, Northmount is in the position to charge whatever they want because Geldert didn't do his job and put us in this terrible position.


----------



## CleoB

Scammed! said:


> We had 16 hours on the 28th of December 8:04 p.m. until noon December 29. We haven't decided yet, and I need to talk to a lawyer.


I was referring to what I thought was an email from Geldert long ago before all this fiasco started, not the Dec email.


----------



## justiceisajoke

I have been following this thread since inception. It takes all the courage I have in me to finally post after all these years.

If I sound naive and unversed regarding this entire situation, it's because I am. (I would like to place that blame on my legal counsel, alas, it's too late to point fingers now. I thought I hired him to educate me and keep me well informed throughout this entire process ).
Unfortunately we all had the opportunity to walk away from this litigation group, I chose not to. MG advised that we had a chance, it was worth staying the course. So I stayed the course, funny, I had a bad feeling in my gut way back then even. The feeling is much worse now.

So here I sit, between this rock and this hard place with a gut ache that's been festering for years....
I have decided the best option for me at this point is to settle and walk away once and for all (at least I HOPE it's once and for all, I don't really know who to trust or believe anymore).
If I've learned anything throughout this entire debacle, it's that it has only gotten more costly for me as time has dragged on.
What has made this difficult decision resolute in my mind is a brief conversation I had with MG. He only had five minutes to spare for me...only five.
I want to share. Words of wisdom in response, or any guidance to offer would be appreciated.

MG advised (this is NOT worded verbatim) that if we were NOT going to agree to this "blind faith settlement" (as I call it) that essentially Northwynd would be able to charge us whatever they wished as an exit fee in the future. Our only guarantee to a "cap" on the cost to walk away is this "settlement offer". Otherwise Northwynd has free reign to charge whatever they wish as an exit fee. Unfortunately the courts sided with Northwynd and have agreed to as much. I don't like that risk. Is it a risk? Or is it a "scare tactic"?

MG also hinted (strongly) that NO judge would want to hear this case again as it's already been tried and adjudicated. No point in trying to "go it on our own" and seek alternative legal counsel. This was discouraging to hear (and was also backed up by guidance we obtained from alternative legal counsel).
This same lawyer we sought out, also advised that it would be almost impossible for us to find *any* lawyer that would be willing to take this case on. Even if we did, the cost to employ a lawyer to research this entire litigation and pour over years of documents and trial transcripts to prepare a proper defense would be astronomical.

One more thing, (and this is for you *Spark1*).
I signed up for a Lease.
Similar to your lease...I think. (I purchased mine in 2007).
I did not know I became an "Owner" or a "VIA Holder". I had never been advised as such.  (I think maybe my legal counsel "forgot" to tell me this a LONG time ago . It just might have altered my "legal path" years ago. Imagine the dollars I could have saved!!!.....)
I found out only last week, that I was indeed an owner.
I asked MG how this was possible?? My contract states* I am a lessee, NOT an owner!!  *His response? The courts have ruled that as a lessee you *are* an owner, you are the owner of ..."the right to use".  (Those words ARE verbatim).

Anyways, my five minutes was up....I didn't get an explanation...


Y'all keep sending your emails, and I'll keep sending mine!! Someone *will *listen.


----------



## Petus@18

Scammed! said:


> Totally with you on that truthr. I'm not doing nothing unless I hear instructions from The Honourable Judge Young! Very Interesting if Judge Young is truly involved...that would mean our letters are working or we're hearing nothing but Fairy dust, Unicorns, and Santa Clause again to shut us up! God knows we all believed in all that once before, and look were that got us. It sounds disappointing so going to continue with my letters now......



I see unicorns for sure.  MG continues manipulating us!  He is trying to psych us out over and over until he gets what he wants, right now he wants us all to accept the 'crazy settlement' he reached.  Don't forget he is presently charging us for every call he is answering, ridiculous!


----------



## justiceisajoke

Petus@18 said:


> I see unicorns for sure.  MG continues manipulating us!  He is trying to psych us out over and over until he gets what he wants, right now he wants us all to accept the 'crazy settlement' he reached.  Don't forget he is presently charging us for every call he is answering, ridiculous!




How much is a five minute phone call worth? I want my money back....


----------



## Scammed!

Petus@18 said:


> I see unicorns for sure.  MG continues manipulating us!  He is trying to psych us out over and over until he gets what he wants, right now he wants us all to accept the 'crazy settlement' he reached.  Don't forget he is presently charging us for every call he is answering, ridiculous!




OH MY GOD STOP CALLING!!!! It's 120%+20%+26.82%+162% per call...it's criminal get my point......and getting no answers! If I get one call this isn't going to be the one.


----------



## Joel Reed

Joe Holland said:


> I am in Spokane and have been referred to a couple of attorneys that I have left messages for. I will keep you posted as I am able to talk to them, keeping our fingers crossed!





Joe Holland said:


> I am in Spokane and have been referred to a couple of attorneys that I have left messages for. I will keep you posted as I am able to talk to them, keeping our fingers crossed!


I am also from Eastern Wa and will be interested in your findings


----------



## ecwinch

What was MG's advice on paying your m/f - dues during the period the legal action was running?


----------



## Palms to pines

Please , everyone. I have heard that the 2010 contract with Northwynd is called a CO-OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE. Can anyone vouch for this? Is this in fact what Jim Belfry had signed? Is this what we have been defending all these years?? We have a lease agreement from 1997. I was unaware anyone had any contract with ownership in the title.


----------



## Palms to pines

Moderator Eric - We were told not to pay them .


----------



## Inquiringmind

Palms to pines said:


> Moderator Eric - We were told not to pay them .


I am  interested in the end Game . I am pretty sure MG  Will send me a statement on January 9 saying that I owe over $70,000 for 2 1/2 timeshares. I won’t be able to pay that and I won’t pay that . So what happens after that and how long does it take? Will NM file a statement of claim and will it be served to me? Will I have an opportunity to respond to the claim? My defence will be stuff that has already been litigated, so dubious defence.Will there be arbitration prior to a court case? How long will all of this take? Will the judge do anything else but award judgement in favour of NM for full amount? Plus costs? If the judge awards in favour of an NM., what happens next if I don’t pay? Will NM
 send this to collections? Will they try to attach to my assets? If so, what can they attach to and how long will it take? Will this still be going on long after I have departed this Life.
. I’m 74 and living on canada pension and Riff. Consider that there are thousands of you in the same boat, how long will this all take?


----------



## Spark1

Scammed! said:


> We had 16 hours on the 28th of December 8:04 p.m. until noon December 29. We haven't decided yet, and I need to talk to a lawyer.


I said this before ,there is no Law stating that you can not give them a bill . You bought a product in good faith and to this day they have proven that this is legal what the Trustee did. They used a bogas Cancellation Agreement. They are feeding the Judges the wrong information when they go in the court,like the status of your timeshare contracts eg what VIA, Vacation Villa Lease. Co-owner etc. They are not using the Modification to Leases and they are making unilateral amendments to contracts. I hope no one pays this and it is not our fault that MG was the only Lawyer that would take this case on. He was up against the same people that played this same game In Mexico Belize and Hawaii. This a scam and they are using the court system to steal millions off of innocent people.


----------



## torqued

I found an attorney who would at least talk to me.  I should have more particulars next week.  He was at least considering helping me with the payment situation.  He has dealt with NM before so has experience in this matter.  He is a timeshare attorney.  I expect an email from him this coming week.  I will keep you posted.  I would be interested in what the Washington state folks come up with.  I was in Montana when I bought this nightmare (maybe Stephen King would like to use this as a back drop to a new book).  
Would appear to me that the courts screwed  all the unfortunates in timeshares across Canada and the industry as a whole.  As word gets out about the how the courts have ruled to give timeshares a blank check with your name on it, who in their right mind would ever want to buy into a timeshare.  Even if we go down fighting, at the very least I'm hopeful the legislators in Canada will regulate these crooks so others don't have t go thru what we have.  I'm feeling like a lost dog in the street right now.  This will all come around and some lost dog(s)  bite Wankel and his buddies at some point in the butt.  Right is right and wrong is wrong.  Justice will be served, just hope I will be around to witness it though may not be able to benefit from it.  As for Gildert, if he won he would be a hero, he lost so he's a zero.  Well I am starting to question his integrity as an attorney.  There are so many questions lingering out there which makes one really question whether he has done his job because if he has done his job we wouldn't be pounding away on this forum looking for answers.  Its his job to give us answers isn't it? Were we just lead along so he could belly up to the $$ trough time and time again??   As a surgeon friend of mine once said, "you will always be judged by your last failure."  Well Mr. Gildert you will have to tuck this one way back in your portfolio of accomplishments in order to save face as an attorney.  He and Witherspoon really lost my trust in the settlement negotiations.  I emailed him and asked him what exactly he thought he gained with this settlement as most are not able to afford it.  His response was NM was initially not willing to let us out of the timeshare, but at least with this settlement they are willing to charge us to get out.  Really??!  Back to my original point, most can't afford it so what's the point.  He said ones obligation to pay and ones ability to pay are often at odds.  Then again, how can you even come to us with this as a so called "settlement??"  I have always heard the sign of a successful negotiation is when neither side is happy with the result.  That is certainly not the case here!!  NM got him at the table and said Mikey boy you and your group of hold outs are screwed.  Here's what we want....period.  Any leverage we may have had as a group, he let go as he suffered one loss after another in the courts.  If he some how turns this around so the settlement is reasonable, I will eat every word and send him a written apology.  Hard to be a loser, but even harder when you know have been LEGALLY  taken advantage of.  Gods speed to this group!!


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> Sunchaser's official site regarding Owners Timeshare Agreements schedule #2003 Prospectus article #13. Default of the Buyer "that the lessee hereby to relinquish all rights and responsibilities of the lessee and hereby irrevocably appoints FRP, its successors and assigns, as its attorneys to transfer ownership of the vacation lease in such event". Further "The terms of this contract shall be binding on the Lessee(s)". It is #14 in my contract.  does anyone have an opinion of the article?


This is similar to item number 13 of our Iease agree. MG said he had TS owners release for $1.00 at the Kelowna Resort. Our resort is being used to extort millions because of its size and they they got away with this before same people.


----------



## Spark1

melamike said:


> Filing a complaint with the law society of BC - IMPORTANT!
> 
> As I was filling out the form and referencing back to the SIF we signed to have MG negotiate for us, I noticed something interesting. The form give MG permission to sign on our behalf if the settlement is reached by mediation or arbitration - no question there. However he clarified this in an email to us on Nov 6, ''_Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms_.'' So he had 3 options. Negotiate and come back to us for input. Use a mediator. Use an arbitrator. Those are the conditions under which we signed the agreement. I don't believe he had the authority to sign for us (under the circumstances he did) and therefore do we really have a deal with Northmont?  This will be a big part of my complaint to the law society. Please join in!!


And Alberta. This is unfair practices and this Supplier is from Alberta KW  the unfair practice is made in Alberta and involves a supplier’s representative.


----------



## melamike

I have two comments - I'll do two posts

A lady from the facebook group suggested applying for an injunction to hold of the collection of this money until a reasonable settlement can be reached at least on the interest rate issue. A judge would hopefully be empathetic to a plea that there was not enough time allowed to seek legal advise or to ponder the decision of whether to join the MG settlement group or go out on our own. I don't know if this could be done as a group or after the fact ( getting the invoice from MG, not paying it and then applying for an injunction and try to get a reasonable settlement at least for the interest charged.) Thoughts?


----------



## melamike

I did some research into interest rates, what can be charged, what is enforceable etc. The laws in Canada state that for particular interest to be enforceable the contract must state the annualized amount of the interest charged not just a monthly, daily or weekly amount. If this annualized amount is not on the contract then the standard rate that can be charged (and enforced) according to law is 5% per annum. My lease agreement that I signed in 1994 states 2% per month but there is no annualized rate. I'm guessing many of you are in the same boat. 
So I think the best move is this:
Receive the invoice from MG
Remove the RPF - that KM said under oath we do not have to pay
Pay your maintenance fees owed with the rate of 5% per annum, not compounded
Send in your cheque and wait for the fan to start spinning and see what hits it.
Cheers
Mike


----------



## CleoB

justiceisajoke said:


> I have been following this thread since inception. It takes all the courage I have in me to finally post after all these years.
> 
> If I sound naive and unversed regarding this entire situation, it's because I am. (I would like to place that blame on my legal counsel, alas, it's too late to point fingers now. I thought I hired him to educate me and keep me well informed throughout this entire process ).
> Unfortunately we all had the opportunity to walk away from this litigation group, I chose not to. MG advised that we had a chance, it was worth staying the course. So I stayed the course, funny, I had a bad feeling in my gut way back then even. The feeling is much worse now.
> 
> So here I sit, between this rock and this hard place with a gut ache that's been festering for years....
> I have decided the best option for me at this point is to settle and walk away once and for all (at least I HOPE it's once and for all, I don't really know who to trust or believe anymore).
> If I've learned anything throughout this entire debacle, it's that it has only gotten more costly for me as time has dragged on.
> What has made this difficult decision resolute in my mind is a brief conversation I had with MG. He only had five minutes to spare for me...only five.
> I want to share. Words of wisdom in response, or any guidance to offer would be appreciated.
> 
> MG advised (this is NOT worded verbatim) that if we were NOT going to agree to this "blind faith settlement" (as I call it) that essentially Northwynd would be able to charge us whatever they wished as an exit fee in the future. Our only guarantee to a "cap" on the cost to walk away is this "settlement offer". Otherwise Northwynd has free reign to charge whatever they wish as an exit fee. Unfortunately the courts sided with Northwynd and have agreed to as much. I don't like that risk. Is it a risk? Or is it a "scare tactic"?
> 
> MG also hinted (strongly) that NO judge would want to hear this case again as it's already been tried and adjudicated. No point in trying to "go it on our own" and seek alternative legal counsel. This was discouraging to hear (and was also backed up by guidance we obtained from alternative legal counsel).
> This same lawyer we sought out, also advised that it would be almost impossible for us to find *any* lawyer that would be willing to take this case on. Even if we did, the cost to employ a lawyer to research this entire litigation and pour over years of documents and trial transcripts to prepare a proper defense would be astronomical.
> 
> One more thing, (and this is for you *Spark1*).
> I signed up for a Lease.
> Similar to your lease...I think. (I purchased mine in 2007).
> I did not know I became an "Owner" or a "VIA Holder". I had never been advised as such.  (I think maybe my legal counsel "forgot" to tell me this a LONG time ago . It just might have altered my "legal path" years ago. Imagine the dollars I could have saved!!!.....)
> I found out only last week, that I was indeed an owner.
> I asked MG how this was possible?? My contract states* I am a lessee, NOT an owner!!  *His response? The courts have ruled that as a lessee you *are* an owner, you are the owner of ..."the right to use".  (Those words ARE verbatim).
> 
> Anyways, my five minutes was up....I didn't get an explanation...
> 
> 
> Y'all keep sending your emails, and I'll keep sending mine!! Someone *will *listen.


Yes we are owners of a "right to use" which is called a lease.  Something the judges didn't understand.


----------



## CleoB

ecwinch said:


> What was MG's advice on paying your m/f - dues during the period the legal action was running?


He recommended we "NOT" pay them.


----------



## Spark1

justiceisajoke said:


> I have been following this thread since inception. It takes all the courage I have in me to finally post after all these years.
> 
> If I sound naive and unversed regarding this entire situation, it's because I am. (I would like to place that blame on my legal counsel, alas, it's too late to point fingers now. I thought I hired him to educate me and keep me well informed throughout this entire process ).
> Unfortunately we all had the opportunity to walk away from this litigation group, I chose not to. MG advised that we had a chance, it was worth staying the course. So I stayed the course, funny, I had a bad feeling in my gut way back then even. The feeling is much worse now.
> 
> So here I sit, between this rock and this hard place with a gut ache that's been festering for years....
> I have decided the best option for me at this point is to settle and walk away once and for all (at least I HOPE it's once and for all, I don't really know who to trust or believe anymore).
> If I've learned anything throughout this entire debacle, it's that it has only gotten more costly for me as time has dragged on.
> What has made this difficult decision resolute in my mind is a brief conversation I had with MG. He only had five minutes to spare for me...only five.
> I want to share. Words of wisdom in response, or any guidance to offer would be appreciated.
> 
> MG advised (this is NOT worded verbatim) that if we were NOT going to agree to this "blind faith settlement" (as I call it) that essentially Northwynd would be able to charge us whatever they wished as an exit fee in the future. Our only guarantee to a "cap" on the cost to walk away is this "settlement offer". Otherwise Northwynd has free reign to charge whatever they wish as an exit fee. Unfortunately the courts sided with Northwynd and have agreed to as much. I don't like that risk. Is it a risk? Or is it a "scare tactic"?
> 
> MG also hinted (strongly) that NO judge would want to hear this case again as it's already been tried and adjudicated. No point in trying to "go it on our own" and seek alternative legal counsel. This was discouraging to hear (and was also backed up by guidance we obtained from alternative legal counsel).
> This same lawyer we sought out, also advised that it would be almost impossible for us to find *any* lawyer that would be willing to take this case on. Even if we did, the cost to employ a lawyer to research this entire litigation and pour over years of documents and trial transcripts to prepare a proper defense would be astronomical.
> 
> One more thing, (and this is for you *Spark1*).
> I signed up for a Lease.
> Similar to your lease...I think. (I purchased mine in 2007).
> I did not know I became an "Owner" or a "VIA Holder". I had never been advised as such.  (I think maybe my legal counsel "forgot" to tell me this a LONG time ago . It just might have altered my "legal path" years ago. Imagine the dollars I could have saved!!!.....)
> I found out only last week, that I was indeed an owner.
> I asked MG how this was possible?? My contract states* I am a lessee, NOT an owner!!  *His response? The courts have ruled that as a lessee you *are* an owner, you are the owner of ..."the right to use".  (Those words ARE verbatim).
> 
> Anyways, my five minutes was up....I didn't get an explanation...
> 
> 
> Y'all keep sending your emails, and I'll keep sending mine!! Someone *will *listen.


This is according to the Canadian Consumer Handbook.  They are talking about Timeshares-Entire Collection.  1 was deeded timeshares and 2. You can also have the “right-to-use” timeshare,which refers to a Lease-like Agreement agreement. In this type of timeshare your lease expires after a specified time and you have no Property ownership rights in the property. A right to use property can include Floating timeshare Lock,points-based programs.


----------



## CleoB

torqued said:


> I found an attorney who would at least talk to me.  I should have more particulars next week.  He was at least considering helping me with the payment situation.  He has dealt with NM before so has experience in this matter.  He is a timeshare attorney.  I expect an email from him this coming week.  I will keep you posted.  I would be interested in what the Washington state folks come up with.  I was in Montana when I bought this nightmare (maybe Stephen King would like to use this as a back drop to a new book).
> Would appear to me that the courts screwed  all the unfortunates in timeshares across Canada and the industry as a whole.  As word gets out about the how the courts have ruled to give timeshares a blank check with your name on it, who in their right mind would ever want to buy into a timeshare.  Even if we go down fighting, at the very least I'm hopeful the legislators in Canada will regulate these crooks so others don't have t go thru what we have.  I'm feeling like a lost dog in the street right now.  This will all come around and some lost dog(s)  bite Wankel and his buddies at some point in the butt.  Right is right and wrong is wrong.  Justice will be served, just hope I will be around to witness it though may not be able to benefit from it.  As for Gildert, if he won he would be a hero, he lost so he's a zero.  Well I am starting to question his integrity as an attorney.  There are so many questions lingering out there which makes one really question whether he has done his job because if he has done his job we wouldn't be pounding away on this forum looking for answers.  Its his job to give us answers isn't it? Were we just lead along so he could belly up to the $$ trough time and time again??   As a surgeon friend of mine once said, "you will always be judged by your last failure."  Well Mr. Gildert you will have to tuck this one way back in your portfolio of accomplishments in order to save face as an attorney.  He and Witherspoon really lost my trust in the settlement negotiations.  I emailed him and asked him what exactly he thought he gained with this settlement as most are not able to afford it.  His response was NM was initially not willing to let us out of the timeshare, but at least with this settlement they are willing to charge us to get out.  Really??!  Back to my original point, most can't afford it so what's the point.  He said ones obligation to pay and ones ability to pay are often at odds.  Then again, how can you even come to us with this as a so called "settlement??"  I have always heard the sign of a successful negotiation is when neither side is happy with the result.  That is certainly not the case here!!  NM got him at the table and said Mikey boy you and your group of hold outs are screwed.  Here's what we want....period.  Any leverage we may have had as a group, he let go as he suffered one loss after another in the courts.  If he some how turns this around so the settlement is reasonable, I will eat every word and send him a written apology.  Hard to be a loser, but even harder when you know have been LEGALLY  taken advantage of.  Gods speed to this group!!


Torqued, the courts could only decide based on what our lawyer provided.  He hung us all when he said all our contracts were a mirror of JEKE's contract, which of course, wasn't true.  So that opened the door to Northmount.  Since then Geldert has been trying to correct his mistake and in the end we will be paying for his  mistake.


----------



## Scammed!

CleoB said:


> He recommended we "NOT" pay them.


On that note we were instructed not to pay, and then he misinformed the judges, mislead us, did not inform us, or consult us. Now were being convicted like criminals that we are not. Charged for money we don't owe. I'm now someone the judges think that I am not.. a OWNER. We own to lease nothing more. It's like losing one's identity. This is no different then being in a framed movie, and I HATE those!...I never excepted to be one of the characters. But the endings are awesome................................


----------



## aden2

Further to the comments about an injunction till a reasonable settlement can be reached on interest rates, I would like to see included maintenance fees. Why should there be a 100% charge on these fees when we were not using the timeshare? A cell phone contract has no cancellation fees after two years!


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> This is according to the Canadian Consumer Handbook.  They are talking about Timeshares-Entire Collection.  1 was deeded timeshares and 2. You can also have the “right-to-use” timeshare,which refers to a Lease-like Agreement agreement. In this type of timeshare your lease expires after a specified time and you have no Property ownership rights in the property. A right to use property can include Floating timeshare Lock,points-based programs.


Sorry I wanted to add this . I emailed MG and I explained this to Michael Using the Canadian Handbook on timeshares on Dec/8. 2017 and he had no comment and this was not the first time I talked to him about Lease Agreements. I feel these are the same people that screwed the timeshare people in the other countries connected with the Trustee of this resort. I also feel MG did no research eg. This Canadian Consumer Handbook


----------



## Spark1

melamike said:


> I did some research into interest rates, what can be charged, what is enforceable etc. The laws in Canada state that for particular interest to be enforceable the contract must state the annualized amount of the interest charged not just a monthly, daily or weekly amount. If this annualized amount is not on the contract then the standard rate that can be charged (and enforced) according to law is 5% per annum. My lease agreement that I signed in 1994 states 2% per month but there is no annualized rate. I'm guessing many of you are in the same boat.
> So I think the best move is this:
> Receive the invoice from MG
> Remove the RPF - that KM said under oath we do not have to pay
> Pay your maintenance fees owed with the rate of 5% per annum, not compounded
> Send in your cheque and wait for the fan to start spinning and see what hits it.
> Cheers
> Mike


Good idea.


----------



## torqued

CleoB said:


> Torqued, the courts could only decide based on what our lawyer provided.  He hung us all when he said all our contracts were a mirror of JEKE's contract, which of course, wasn't true.  So that opened the door to Northmount.  Since then Geldert has been trying to correct his mistake and in the end we will be paying for his  mistake.


Our contracts were a mirror of Jeke entirely or just in regard to having to pay for capital expenses which was what was being litigated?


----------



## torqued

Spark1 said:


> Good idea.


Certainly seems reasonable to me


----------



## justiceisajoke

ecwinch said:


> What was MG's advice on paying your m/f - dues during the period the legal action was running?



I was advised by MG not to pay the m/f's as this would essentially be a conflict of interest in a sense. I did not pay them. 
In saying this, I *knew* by not paying the fees, there *was* a risk involved.  

I was well aware of the fact that if I opted not to ante up, and chose to remain a part of this group that the maintenance fees would be accruing and the interest on the missed payments would also be accruing during the course of the litigation. (What I NEVER anticipated back then, was that this would drag on for years).  There was only a 50% chance of us ever winning this case.  I was informed that *if* the courts sided with Northmont (I was shocked to find out there was an individual judgement passed against me, I thought this was a test case???...but that's a whole new topic) there was a chance based on a judge's findings, that Northmont *could potentially* have the right to charge us the missed payments and the interest on top of it. 
I cannot remember if Northmont told me this and I passed it off as scare tactics at the time, or if MG told me this and I felt he was being honest and up front, doing what a good and competent lawyer would do. 
Either way, it doesn't matter now. I remember thinking at the time that it was a risk worth taking. Again, no one could have guessed that this would have lasted in the courts as long as it did.
This is only what I personally was aware of, I cannot speak for anyone else.

Hindsight is such a cruel thing...


----------



## justiceisajoke

CleoB said:


> Yes we are owners of a "right to use" which is called a lease.  Something the judges didn't understand.



 A very sad fact I am well aware of...I wanted MG to explain to me how this happened. How was it possible that the judges were not provided the evidence to MAKE them understand? 
But, as I mentioned before, he did not have time to discuss further.
Once again, I hung up the phone with more questions than answers.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

melamike said:


> I did some research into interest rates, what can be charged, what is enforceable etc. The laws in Canada state that for particular interest to be enforceable the contract must state the annualized amount of the interest charged not just a monthly, daily or weekly amount. If this annualized amount is not on the contract then the standard rate that can be charged (and enforced) according to law is 5% per annum. My lease agreement that I signed in 1994 states 2% per month but there is no annualized rate. I'm guessing many of you are in the same boat.
> So I think the best move is this:
> Receive the invoice from MG
> Remove the RPF - that KM said under oath we do not have to pay
> Pay your maintenance fees owed with the rate of 5% per annum, not compounded
> Send in your cheque and wait for the fan to start spinning and see what hits it.
> Cheers
> Mike


Related to this,

Michael is not done billing us individually and will use the next part of the settlement arrangement to collect additional revenues as part of the January 9th release docs to force payment for his services at his determination as to what he wants to charge.

If you don't pay - you don't get a release and then you immediately fall in the 162% default category.

Like I said before - using the other teams playbook can be profitable.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

justiceisajoke said:


> I was advised by MG not to pay the m/f's as this would essentially be a conflict of interest in a sense. I did not pay them.
> In saying this, I *knew* by not paying the fees, there *was* a risk involved.
> 
> I was well aware of the fact that if I opted not to ante up, and chose to remain a part of this group that the maintenance fees would be accruing and the interest on the missed payments would also be accruing during the course of the litigation. (What I NEVER anticipated back then, was that this would drag on for years).  There was only a 50% chance of us ever winning this case.  I was informed that *if* the courts sided with Northmont (I was shocked to find out there was an individual judgement passed against me, I thought this was a test case???...but that's a whole new topic) there was a chance based on a judge's findings, that Northmont *could potentially* have the right to charge us the missed payments and the interest on top of it.
> I cannot remember if Northmont told me this and I passed it off as scare tactics at the time, or if MG told me this and I felt he was being honest and up front, doing what a good and competent lawyer would do.
> Either way, it doesn't matter now. I remember thinking at the time that it was a risk worth taking. Again, no one could have guessed that this would have lasted in the courts as long as it did.
> This is only what I personally was aware of, I cannot speak for anyone else.
> 
> Hindsight is such a cruel thing...


It was actually Northmont offering the advice when they were allowed to actually present something to us.

MG also indicated part of this strategy was to limit the cash flow and force a quicker more reasonable settlement arrangement at the time and it was a very long time ago so easily was pushed out of our minds (I forgot about this as well).

The game plan should have been revisited, risks re-assessed and identified, communicated, and a new game plan strategy communicated to us.

By having the failures accrue MG should have re-iterated the risk expressed by Northmont as he strictly limited all their communications and ours to solely go through his office so our warnings were very few and far between.

Yes - Hindsight is truly cruel but not limited us entirely as we may still have options and we will need to re-assess, strategize, and realign our focus at a new target - MG may have thrown us under the bus but I think there is room for one more to join us.


----------



## Bewildered

If somebody knows of how an injunction could occur it would only be beneficial before anybody starts paying the ransom as many (including me) are very much afraid of what results may occur opting out of the ransom at this point.  M.G. will have to send me some legal document saying that I am free and clear forever of this albatross before he gets one nickle from me, as I hear people paid in March and didn’t get anything verifying they are out. That’s scary.


----------



## teedeej

melamike said:


> My lease agreement that I signed in 1994 states 2% per month but there is no annualized rate. I'm guessing many of you are in the same boat.



I have a friend who is a lawyer and I asked him about that. He confirmed that there is no annual rate stated but in Alberta that is only required for loans, which this is not


----------



## CleoB

teedeej said:


> I have a friend who is a lawyer and I asked him about that. He confirmed that there is no annual rate stated but in Alberta that is only required for loans, which this is not


You should ask your lawyer friend to refer to the Judgement Interest Act of Alberta.


----------



## CleoB

justiceisajoke said:


> I was advised by MG not to pay the m/f's as this would essentially be a conflict of interest in a sense. I did not pay them.
> In saying this, I *knew* by not paying the fees, there *was* a risk involved.
> 
> I was well aware of the fact that if I opted not to ante up, and chose to remain a part of this group that the maintenance fees would be accruing and the interest on the missed payments would also be accruing during the course of the litigation. (What I NEVER anticipated back then, was that this would drag on for years).  There was only a 50% chance of us ever winning this case.  I was informed that *if* the courts sided with Northmont (I was shocked to find out there was an individual judgement passed against me, I thought this was a test case???...but that's a whole new topic) there was a chance based on a judge's findings, that Northmont *could potentially* have the right to charge us the missed payments and the interest on top of it.
> I cannot remember if Northmont told me this and I passed it off as scare tactics at the time, or if MG told me this and I felt he was being honest and up front, doing what a good and competent lawyer would do.
> Either way, it doesn't matter now. I remember thinking at the time that it was a risk worth taking. Again, no one could have guessed that this would have lasted in the courts as long as it did.
> This is only what I personally was aware of, I cannot speak for anyone else.
> 
> Hindsight is such a cruel thing...


Actually if Geldert would have used the FTA (Fair Trade Act) of Alberta we probably wouldn't have had to pay the maintenance fees.  The FTA stated that a person did not have to pay for products or services not rendered and Northmount denied people access unless they paid the RPF. The FTA has now been revised to Bill 31.


----------



## CleoB

torqued said:


> Our contracts were a mirror of Jeke entirely or just in regard to having to pay for capital expenses which was what was being litigated?


I believe he said all the contracts mirrored JEKE, so if JEKE was a legacy for life the judges decided he was an "owner", hence so were we all.


----------



## CleoB

ecwinch said:


> What was MG's advice on paying your m/f - dues during the period the legal action was running?


Moderator, why do you ask?


----------



## CleoB

Is there anyone here that is not part of the "secret" FB group?  Anyone that isn't a client of Geldert that can take up the fight against Northmount based on the Fair Trade Act (now Bill 31)?


----------



## Imout

Bewildered said:


> If somebody knows of how an injunction could occur it would only be beneficial before anybody starts paying the ransom as many (including me) are very much afraid of what results may occur opting out of the ransom at this point.  M.G. will have to send me some legal document saying that I am free and clear forever of this albatross before he gets one nickle from me, as I hear people paid in March and didn’t get anything verifying they are out. That’s scary.


We did receive notification that we were released. Two letters from Wankel to the trustee stating our VIA’s were terminated and that we complied with The relinquishment agreement.  I have not heard from them since.


----------



## ecwinch

Just trying to wrap my head around why the dollar amounts being mentioned are so high. Now I am scratching my head on what outcome MG promised to secure. I understand from the JEKE filing that JEKE wanted to invalidate the contract and walk away.

But is that true of everyone? No one wanted to stay and just wanted to stop the realignment? 

Also what has been going on at the resort during all this mess? Has NM started the refurbishments?


----------



## Scammed!

You can't stop the waves....but you can learn to surf...~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## Scammed!

ecwinch said:


> Just trying to wrap my head around why the dollar amounts being mentioned are so high. Now I am scratching my head on what outcome MG promised to secure. I understand from the JEKE filing that JEKE wanted to invalidate the contract and walk away.
> 
> But is that true of everyone? No one wanted to stay and just wanted to stop the realignment?
> 
> Also what has been going on at the resort during all this mess? Has NM started the refurbishments?



Yes they did! I'm personally not into the use of plywood as it gives it a rustic look....I'm more into modern contemporary design.


----------



## justiceisajoke

CleoB said:


> Actually if Geldert would have used the FTA (Fair Trade Act) of Alberta we probably wouldn't have had to pay the maintenance fees.  The FTA stated that a person did not have to pay for products or services not rendered and Northmount denied people access unless they paid the RPF. The FTA has now been revised to Bill 31.



The saddest part for me right now is this...I'm starting to wonder if I don't trust Northmont more at this point. (I'm sorry, but it's true).  At least they were always upfront, even if they were upfront about being "sleazy" and "screwing" us over.
Looking back now, I'm starting to wonder if I couldn't have devised a better legal defense strategy on my own. It would appear that some pretty "basic" and "vital" key points were neglected. 

We have personal friends, that settled with Northmont and walked away paying nothing other than what they put in initially. They have never heard from  Northmont since.  The key is, they retained legal counsel and had it all wrapped up before a ruling was made in the JEKE case. I believe we were "screwed" back then. I suppose I trusted that my legal counsel would have advised me of such back then too? Shame on me.

It's all a case of "shoulda, coulda, woulda's" now....


----------



## justiceisajoke

ecwinch said:


> Just trying to wrap my head around why the dollar amounts being mentioned are so high. Now I am scratching my head on what outcome MG promised to secure. I understand from the JEKE filing that JEKE wanted to invalidate the contract and walk away.
> 
> But is that true of everyone? No one wanted to stay and just wanted to stop the realignment?
> 
> Also what has been going on at the resort during all this mess? Has NM started the refurbishments?




Commencement of refurbishments confirmed, 2/3 of the time we had in our short relationship with Fairmont was spent in rundown units with black mold in the showers and construction chaos all around us. Construction usually started at about 7 a.m.
And, to the best of my recollection the hot tub was not NOT in operation during ANY of our visits, there was a "square concrete hole full of over chlorinated hot water" outside at our disposal however....


----------



## Palms to pines

I think not Legacy for Life, an actual contract that is called a Coownership Certificate. If that is what Jeke had ,the title alone would have mislead the judges.If MG failed to describe clearly the different types of agreements he let all of us with leases become something we are not. Where is an authority with some clout to halt this and have justice department or RCMP investigate? How can we cash in our TFSAs to hand over to Northmont. It is unconscionable.


----------



## CleoB

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> *CONTACTS FOR GETTING HELP - GETTING HEARD
> 
> 
> Media Contacts
> gopublic@cbc.ca
> marketplace@cbc.ca
> fifthtips@cbc.ca
> 
> Government Contacts - Provincial Alberta*
> Alberta Consumer Protection Line: 1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)
> 
> Honourable Kathleen Ganley
> Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
> Members of Executive Council
> Executive Branch
> 424 Legislature Building
> 10800 - 97 Avenue
> Edmonton, AB
> T5K 2B6
> Phone: 780 427-2339
> Fax: 780 422-6621
> E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca
> 
> Alberta MLAs: Click Here for Alberta MLAs
> 
> *
> Government Contacts - Provincial BC*
> BC Ministry of Attorney General
> Honorable David Eby, Minister
> JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca
> *
> 
> Government Contacts - Federal*
> Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre: 1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS):
> 
> Here is a link to all the MP's in BC , phone numbers and email addresses
> https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members?currentOnly=true&province=BC
> 
> Here is a link to all the MP's in AB, phone numbers and email addresses
> https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members?currentOnly=true&province=AB
> *
> 
> Legal Organization Contacts*
> British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org
> Alberta Law Society (link to submit form): https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/
> 
> 
> *??? Other Categories ???*
> 
> 
> _Last Added: Media Contacts for CBC_


Bringing this forward


----------



## CleoB

Palms to pines said:


> I think not Legacy for Life, an actual contract that is called a Coownership Certificate. If that is what Jeke had ,the title alone would have mislead the judges.If MG failed to describe clearly the different types of agreements he let all of us with leases become something we are not. Where is an authority with some clout to halt this and have justice department or RCMP investigate? How can we cash in our TFSAs to hand over to Northmont. It is unconscionable.


From my understanding we were supposed to be shielded from the JEKE decision until Geldert opened his mouth and said ALL the contracts mirrored JEKE.  Belfry's initial thought was to take over the resort and punt out Northmount.  I believe Geldert/Belfry acted in Belfry's interest and not in Geldert's entire clientele.


----------



## Huckleberry

Who was it who said they were engaging the RCMP Fraud department?  Please contact me I have a few files I'd like to share with you.

I was wondering, since our contracts were all converted by the law to JEKE's.  I never did get a copy of what my contract now looks like.  My original contract stated what Maintenance was (strangely renovations wasn't listed) but I am to understand it doesn't matter anymore.


----------



## Jack0123

Tacoma said:


> I am more than willing to file a complaint against our lawyer. I am however staying in and paying to get out (I know my costs this way and will finally have closure) so I am worried about filing a complaint before I have my get out of jail card for only $25000 (aprox). Is anyone else in a similar situation? I have actively sent letters to people in AB/BC government and at the federal level so don't think I'm meek or mild. Only one response so far- not her problem- but she did forward it to someone else. When I contact MG I will be stating how I feel I was  lead like a lamb to the slaughter because of his false promises. I almost paid the $13800 in March but because of this advice directly from my lawyer I changed my mind.
> 
> "I consider the payment of the Scaled Settlement Fee a reasonable option only where the individual VIA Owner has determined that they prefer to pay their way out of this Resort, can afford to do so prior to May 9, 2017, and do not want to risk being responsible for future Resort costs. Where the individual VIA Owner is not in a position to afford to pay the price Northmont requires or where they prefer to have the managerial decisions made by Northmont scrutinized before making a decision, I consider the Scaled Settlement Fee wholly unreasonable." MG's e-mail of Mar 13th
> 
> Sorry I don't know how to correctly format this but it is advice from MG on Mar 13th about whether we should settle or not. Then on Mar 22nd we received an update that can only be seen as an attempt to convince us to move forward with the court case. I do not want to copy it all (if you are members of the litigation group I hope you saved your emails) where there were statements made that lead myself (and probably many others) to believe we still had a very strong case. It mainly discussed the fact that Northmont had to pay their share of the fees and they own 50% of the resort.
> 
> Before signing the SIF (option 1) our lawyer stated "Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. " I maintain this is absolutely false as the previous e-mails continued to give us false hope (to keep us in the group) and he deliberately mislead Northmont  as to how many clients were actually taking the settlement offered in March. I remember his glee at the fact that he had led them to believe the numbers paying to get out would be much higher so they had to frantically serve new documents before our court case in Edmonton in April. He acted like a kid who had pulled a great joke over on everyone.
> 
> Then as you know the group was reassured that by signing option 1 on the SIF we would still have an opportunity to reject it before an agreement was finalized. This promise also has not been kept.
> 
> So I guess my comment is I am willing to file a complaint but am nervous to do so until after I have my release. It seems that because of the way this case was dealt with we have "no moral currency left" to negotiate a better deal. Unless the judge or someone decides this is wrong and acts quickly to save us I fear things will only get worse.
> 
> Tacoma


Only 25,000? are you joking only


----------



## Tacoma

Unfortunately not. I leased a one week annually. My bill is around $20000 and add the 20% so $24000. I'm sure there will be more lawyer fees to pay so I assume around $25000. At least I had already paid the 2013 maintenance fees or it likely would have been at least $3500 more.


----------



## Tacoma

I never call Geldert but can someone please ask what type of contract JEKE had. Does anyone else think it's ridiculous that we're this far in and none of us seem to actually know.


----------



## CleoB

ecwinch said:


> Just trying to wrap my head around why the dollar amounts being mentioned are so high. Now I am scratching my head on what outcome MG promised to secure. I understand from the JEKE filing that JEKE wanted to invalidate the contract and walk away.
> 
> But is that true of everyone? No one wanted to stay and just wanted to stop the realignment?
> 
> Also what has been going on at the resort during all this mess? Has NM started the refurbishments?


Yes JEKE wanted to invalidate the contract but at first it wasn't to walk away but I think to take over the resort.  I personally wasn't looking to stay or leave (wasn't sure) but to refute the RPF.  I didn't feel as leasees that we were responsible for capital improvements and told Geldert as much.


----------



## CleoB

Huckleberry said:


> Who was it who said they were engaging the RCMP Fraud department?  Please contact me I have a few files I'd like to share with you.
> 
> I was wondering, since our contracts were all converted by the law to JEKE's.  I never did get a copy of what my contract now looks like.  My original contract stated what Maintenance was (strangely renovations wasn't listed) but I am to understand it doesn't matter anymore.


Correct, you have been painted with the JEKE contract.


----------



## Palms to pines

We signed on with MG because we did not see that leasing time made us responsible for anything more than general maintenance, replacement of broken dishes, lawn care etc. We did not buy buildings, why would we pay to reconstruct them?? Also, we were concerned having to pay over $3,000.00 to get rid of our timeshare seemed to mean that what we thought was an asset now was far less than worthless. Never did we think we were trying to take over the resort or just walk away. We loved our timeshare- Fairmont and exchanges.


----------



## ecwinch

Tacoma said:


> I never call Geldert but can someone please ask what type of contract JEKE had. Does anyone else think it's ridiculous that we're this far in and none of us seem to actually know.



The bulk of JEKE's contract is on pg 115 of the JEKE v NM judgement. It is referenced as a VIA, but based on the court's reasoning I believe every contract has the same or similar paragraph 9 - which is what the court ruled as making lessee's responsible for refurbishment costs.

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/JEKE-v.-Northmont-Judgment-Highlighted.pdf


----------



## Scammed!

CleoB said:


> Bringing this forward


Forward it is!


----------



## Scammed!

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> *CONTACTS FOR GETTING HELP - GETTING HEARD
> 
> 
> Media Contacts
> 
> 
> Government Contacts - Provincial Alberta*
> Alberta Consumer Protection Line: 1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)
> 
> Honourable Kathleen Ganley
> Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
> Members of Executive Council
> Executive Branch
> 424 Legislature Building
> 10800 - 97 Avenue
> Edmonton, AB
> T5K 2B6
> Phone: 780 427-2339
> Fax: 780 422-6621
> E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca
> 
> Alberta MLAs:  Click Here for Alberta MLAs
> 
> *
> Government Contacts - Provincial BC*
> BC Ministry of Attorney General
> Honorable David Eby, Minister
> JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca
> *
> 
> Government Contacts - Federal*
> Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre: 1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS):
> 
> Here is a link to all the MP's in BC , phone numbers and email addresses
> https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members?currentOnly=true&province=BC
> *
> Legal Organization Contacts*
> British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org
> Alberta Law Society (link to submit form): https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/
> 
> 
> *??? Other Categories ???*


There it is....Be willing to defend your rights it's the only truth out there.


----------



## Palms to pines

I have just read the above. What we have is a vacation villa lease from Feb. 1997. This lease does have a paragraph 9 similar but reference still maintenance and repairs, annual assessment of things like furniture, window coverings etc requiring replacement. From what I read and could comprehend the JB case is a vacation interval agreement. It appears the contracts were all amended to be this one. No mention of wanting to take over the resort but this is not the transcript of the initial test case. JB contract  is prior to 2009.


----------



## Scammed!

Palms to pines said:


> I have just read the above. What we have is a vacation villa lease from Feb. 1997. This lease does have a paragraph 9 similar but reference still maintenance and repairs, annual assessment of things like furniture, window coverings etc requiring replacement. From what I read and could comprehend the JB case is a vacation interval agreement. It appears the contracts were all amended to be this one. No mention of wanting to take over the resort but this is not the transcript of the initial test case.


Ours is older then that and it states lessees all over it......The judges have been mislead that we are of the same as JEKE and now owners. There's a word for it but I'm getting old and can't think of it right now....Anyways that's what maintenance fees are for to fix up the place....that is if the monies are not mismanaged.............


----------



## Petus@18

Other suggested contacts:

info@ethicscommissioner.ab.ca
wildrosecaucus@assembly.ab.ca
committees@assembly.ab.ca
communications@cfcj-fcjc.org
Intake@eclc.ca


----------



## Late2Game

Well, it’s really quite the debacle we have here, no question.  Lot’s of interesting thoughts and ideas have been floated.  But to be honest the last several days have been a bit like “groundhog day” -- a lot of noise and EMOTION but little new substance.

Yes, MG has not given us a lot of time to think through our options, BUT it has been one week. In that timeframe, has anyone sought out new legal counsel, successfully retained counsel, AND received an *OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT* (stripped of emotion) of our options and odds of improving on the "negotiated" settlement?

Or how about some legal opinions from WITHIN the group?  God knows in group of 1300+ people you will have business people, teachers, homemakers, engineers, garbage collectors, preachers, programmers AND some *LAWYERS* and even JUDGES!  So where are the latter two in this group for a legal opinion of *where we stand today*??  Noticeably silent, or just absent as they wisely left the scene of this debacle a long time ago!!

.


----------



## Petus@18

Tanny13 said:


> I have been in touch with another lawyer, reviewing our predicament. If you have chosen to not accept the settlement and want to pursue a different avenue to reduce interest and costs please email me with your contact info to thebestboy@me.com.  We are trying to get an idea of the number involved.




Do you have an update?


----------



## melamike

CleoB said:


> You should ask your lawyer friend to refer to the Judgement Interest Act of Alberta.



IMHO - your lawyer friend is not correct

Case in Point
In April 2004, the Supreme Court ordered Enbridge Gas Distribution to pay back late payment penalties charged to gas customers that exceeded the limit on interest rates in the _Criminal Code_. This decision provides a reminder that companies that are not careful in setting interest rates can get into trouble.


*Rules on interest rates*

There are two sets of federal rules on interest rates. The first is found in the _Interest Act_. It says that:


Parties are free to set any interest rate or discount.
If an agreement provides for interest, but does not say in what amount, the rate is 5% per annum.
If interest is expressed as a rate over a period of less than a year (eg, daily, weekly, or monthly rates), the equivalent _annual_ rate must also be stated, otherwise the rate is 5%. This rule does not apply to mortgages.

_From the Canadian Interest Act_

*When per annum rate not stipulated
4* Except as to mortgages on real property or hypothecs on immovables, whenever any interest is, by the terms of any written or printed contract, whether under seal or not, made payable at a rate or percentage per day, week, month, or at any rate or percentage for any period less than a year, no interest exceeding the rate or percentage of five per cent per annum shall be chargeable, payable or recoverable on any part of the principal money unless the contract contains an express statement of the yearly rate or percentage of interest to which the other rate or percentage is equivalent.


R.S., 1985, c. I-15, s. 4;
 2001, c. 4, s. 91.


----------



## Broke Mama

Jack0123 said:


> Only 25,000? are you joking only


Some of us in Washington state are grouping together if you want to talk.


----------



## Broke Mama

Tacoma said:


> Unfortunately not. I leased a one week annually. My bill is around $20000 and add the 20% so $24000. I'm sure there will be more lawyer fees to pay so I assume around $25000. At least I had already paid the 2013 maintenance fees or it likely would have been at least $3500 more.


Me too the same amount.


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> Is there anyone here that is not part of the "secret" FB group?  Anyone that isn't a client of Geldert that can take up the fight against Northmount based on the Fair Trade Act (now Bill 31)?[/QUOTE  I fired Geldert as my lawyer via email and registered letter. I was kicked out of the "secret" fb group for belonging to the other group. But I suspect you are looking for someone who never signed on to the Geldert gravy train. I have already emailed the B.C. Law Society re: misrepresentation and other issues regarding MG. I have notified the Barry King law firm in Sherwood Park, AB. as well.


----------



## aden2

To our American friends; I hope you contact the Canadian Ambassador about this shameful time share business. Don't forget to mention their headquarters is in Calgary. Here in Alberta we have some type of consumer protection but toget our politicians to move on it is another thing. Years agot there was an audit done and turned over to the RCMP, a Supt. Frank Smart was in charge. He now is now in charge of southern Alberta located in Taber, AB. Why is there a 20% fee added on, contract is 15%; another contract change!


----------



## Scammed!

Do you know with 1,300 people if 100 letters are sent out per family that equals *130,000 emails and faxes! *Please don't sit and do nothing.  I'm going to be sentenced on the 9th of January for a crime I did not commit. I am not an owner....I have been misrepresented. I'm just a mother that wanted to spend quality time with my family leasing a timeshare.


----------



## torqued

aden2 said:


> To our American friends; I hope you contact the Canadian Ambassador about this shameful time share business. Don't forget to mention their headquarters is in Calgary. Here in Alberta we have some type of consumer protection but toget our politicians to move on it is another thing. Years agot there was an audit done and turned over to the RCMP, a Supt. Frank Smart was in charge. He now is now in charge of southern Alberta located in Taber, AB. Why is there a 20% fee added on, contract is 15%; another contract change!


That’s a good idea. I’ll send a letter to the American Ambassador to Canada and the Canadian Ambassador to America. Likely response will be that it’s a legal matter and we can’t help


----------



## melamike

ecwinch said:


> The bulk of JEKE's contract is on pg 115 of the JEKE v NM judgement. It is referenced as a VIA, but based on the court's reasoning I believe every contract has the same or similar paragraph 9 - which is what the court ruled as making lessee's responsible for refurbishment costs.
> 
> http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/JEKE-v.-Northmont-Judgment-Highlighted.pdf


Thanks for this Eric - it is very obvious to me that our lease agreement is different than the one M.G. brought to court. He did us such a disservice. The one thing I noticed right away ( because i’ve done some research on interest rate law and posted my findings on this page) is that they fixed the interest rate clause in JEKE version on the contract. The interest rate now shows the annualized rates where the old ones do not, and therefore are limited to 5% interest not 26%
Does anyone have the same version that M.G. used in court? Could you post it so we can see where else it differs?
I’m considering 2 actions in small claims court against M.G. on breach of contract  and against Northmont on the illegal interest rate charges.


----------



## Bewildered

Late2Game said:


> Well, it’s really quite the debacle we have here, no question.  Lot’s of interesting thoughts and ideas have been floated.  But to be honest the last several days have been a bit like “groundhog day” -- a lot of noise and EMOTION but little new substance.
> 
> Yes, MG has not given us a lot of time to think through our options, BUT it has been one week. In that timeframe, has anyone sought out new legal counsel, successfully retained counsel, AND received an *OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT* (stripped of emotion) of our options and odds of improving on the "negotiated" settlement?
> 
> Or how about some legal opinions from WITHIN the group?  God knows in group of 1300+ people you will have business people, teachers, homemakers, engineers, garbage collectors, preachers, programmers AND some *LAWYERS* and even JUDGES!  So where are the latter two in this group for a legal opinion of *where we stand today*??  Noticeably silent, or just absent as they wisely left the scene of this debacle a long time ago!!
> 
> .



My thoughts exactly, I personally have sent my letters, talked to my MPs aide and plan on phoning my MLA again, spoke to 3 Lawyers I know and I have come up empty. The TUGS group is obviously spread out between Canada and US so we have a bit of a split group to begin with and by the amount of posting on here it doesn’t look like we have a lot of horsepower to tell you the truth. Maybe all this talk about interest rate can be ruled on later in another lawsuit but right now if nothing changes I see no option other than paying the ransom to the Northmont frauds. It’s outrageous when you think about it.


----------



## Palms to pines

Yes, I have sent letters too. Some get no response at all. Interval International and RCI both responded to say basically that they sympathize with our situation but they have no influence over timeshare companies conduct,  they just search out vacations. Alberta Law Society only handles issues with lawyers hired in Alberta. We did not hire Alberta lawyers, Micheal Geldert did. Of course, we paid for them.


----------



## Jack0123

Tacoma said:


> Unfortunately not. I leased a one week annually. My bill is around $20000 and add the 20% so $24000. I'm sure there will be more lawyer fees to pay so I assume around $25000. At least I had already paid the 2013 maintenance fees or it likely would have been at least $3500 more.


By Chance if we get a bill for additional lawyer fees and don't pay, do you think he will sue us?


----------



## torqued

I agree. The group has a lot of great ideas but the courts have ruled. They won we lost. Now the question is how much $, and do we as a group or as individuals have any legal leverage or rights with regard to the interest rate charged. The rest as I see it is exposing NW to the public and gov in order to put them on notice. I would love to decree a mistrial and go back and put the screws to them but I can’t.


----------



## torqued

Jack0123 said:


> By Chance if we get a bill for additional lawyer fees and don't pay, do you think he will sue us?


Don’t know but he probably won’t process the paperwork for your payment. Bent over the barrel once again


----------



## Scammed!

torqued said:


> I agree. The group has a lot of great ideas but the courts have ruled. They won we lost. Now the question is how much $, and do we as a group or as individuals have any legal leverage or rights with regard to the interest rate charged. The rest as I see it is exposing NW to the public and gov in order to put them on notice. I would love to decree a mistrial and go back and put the screws to them but I can’t.


Yes they did win due to lies deceit and misrepresentation. No the question is not how much money yet.....its who have you forgotten to report this to? I'm not going to roll over and die giving up my hard earned money to the biggest scam in Canadian History, until I have turned ever stone to find that one rock beneath, that will stand up for our rights and put a stop to this. I'm trying to stay positive in the worst circumstances, and I believe there is someone out there that can do something......As a group we are all over the place just the way they wanted us to be.... so we have to stay focused and continue fighting this battle. I just wrote another letter and I'm emailing them now.... 100 emails x 1300 people = 13,000.00 people who will hear our story. Stay focused......fight till the end.


----------



## Tacoma

This was sort of recommended on the other site so not entirely my idea but here goes. Let's say we pull a play from MG's playbook where we say we are going to pay but don't. (Like he led Northmont to believe many were settling in March) Then they have to come after us individually to collect expensive and time consuming and the collection agency takes a hefty fee. Can they collect more than the judgement is for now? Can they ever collect more? Most of us are past the time in our lives where a good credit rating makes a lot of difference. What can they do to us even if we signed option 1? I do not believe my lawyer negotiated in good faith.


----------



## torqued

I don’t think he negotiated in good faith either. A case study for a Canadian law school could be written on how not to litigate a class action law suit. However at this point what are our options and what are the possible repercussions with each option. Pay, don’t pay, partial pay.


----------



## Bewildered

torqued said:


> I agree. The group has a lot of great ideas but the courts have ruled. They won we lost. Now the question is how much $, and do we as a group or as individuals have any legal leverage or rights with regard to the interest rate charged. The rest as I see it is exposing NW to the public and gov in order to put them on notice. I would love to decree a mistrial and go back and put the screws to them but I can’t.



Torqued, I would just say continue to phone and send emails because I personally know of some people that are getting a little traction with their MLAs. If we make a big enough stink maybe the elected officials will start getting nervous and do something. Plus I am amazed and enraged that the media in this country of Canada wouldn’t be interested in this, I guess they prefer to be spoonfed the BS they put on the news every night, like how many followers a travelling pot belly big is getting on his trip with his owners - pathetic, while a 40,50,60? million dollar fraud is unfolding right in front of them?
If anybody has a media contact, Monday is the day you will be getting your actual bill (ransom) from Geldert. Our last chance.


----------



## Bewildered

Scammed! said:


> Yes they did win due to lies deceit and misrepresentation. No the question is not how much money yet.....its who have you forgotten to report this to? I'm not going to roll over and die giving up my hard earned money to the biggest scam in Canadian History, until I have turned ever stone to find that one rock beneath, that will stand up for our rights and put a stop to this. I'm trying to stay positive in the worst circumstances, and I believe there is someone out there that can do something......As a group we are all over the place just the way the wanted us to be.... so we have to stay focused and continue fighting this battle. I just wrote another letter and I'm emailing them now.... 100 emails x 1300 people = 13,000.00 people who will hear our story. Stay focused......fight till the end.


Thats the spirit, that’s all we have unless someone steps up, disappointed that the Facebook group hasn’t joined forces somewhat but I understand their concerns, Northmont and M.G. for that matter most likely monitoring and aware of everything being discussed.


----------



## justiceisajoke

torqued said:


> I don’t think he negotiated in good faith either. A case study for a Canadian law school could be written on how not to litigate a class action law suit. However at this point what are our options and what are the possible repercussions with each option. Pay, don’t pay, partial pay.



I did not know we were a class action law suit, I was under the impression we were a litigation group trying to determine if there was *basis* for a class action law suit. 
Am I wrong? I don't know much anymore.


----------



## justiceisajoke

Tacoma said:


> This was sort of recommended on the other site so not entirely my idea but here goes. Let's say we pull a play from MG's playbook where we say we are going to pay but don't. (Like he led Northmont to believe many were settling in March) Then they have to come after us individually to collect expensive and time consuming and the collection agency takes a hefty fee. Can they collect more than the judgement is for now? Can they ever collect more? Most of us are past the time in our lives where a good credit rating makes a lot of difference. What can they do to us even if we signed option 1? I do not believe my lawyer negotiated in good faith.



Sounds "fun"!! The only person at this point that can answer ANY of these questions is a *RELIABLE* lawyer.


----------



## Bewildered

Tacoma said:


> This was sort of recommended on the other site so not entirely my idea but here goes. Let's say we pull a play from MG's playbook where we say we are going to pay but don't. (Like he led Northmont to believe many were settling in March) Then they have to come after us individually to collect expensive and time consuming and the collection agency takes a hefty fee. Can they collect more than the judgement is for now? Can they ever collect more? Most of us are past the time in our lives where a good credit rating makes a lot of difference. What can they do to us even if we signed option 1? I do not believe my lawyer negotiated in good faith.



If you don’t mind me asking what’s the other site, would like to see what discussion is happening there. As for your question, thats the last worry is my credit rating but speaking with lawyers I know, the collection agency can make your life very miserable after a court decision like we are facing and I have yet to hear that there is not a possibility of trying to garnishee wages etc??


----------



## torqued

justiceisajoke said:


> I did not know we were a class action law suit, I was under the impression we were a litigation group trying to determine if there was *basis* for a class action law suit.
> Am I wrong? I don't know much anymore.


I may have misspoke in my ignorance  about the class action law suit. I’m not sure what we were in other than it ended in a mess


----------



## torqued

justiceisajoke said:


> Sounds "fun"!! The only person at this point that can answer ANY of these questions is a *RELIABLE* lawyer.


I agree. Would be nice to have the legal questions answered


----------



## Tanny13

Petus@18 said:


> Do you have an update?



I’m hoping to hear something tomorrow.  He is reviewing documents.


----------



## Late2Game

Bewildered said:


> My thoughts exactly, I personally have sent my letters, talked to my MPs aide and plan on phoning my MLA again, spoke to 3 Lawyers I know and I have come up empty. The TUGS group is obviously spread out between Canada and US so we have a bit of a split group to begin with and by the amount of posting on here it doesn’t look like we have a lot of horsepower to tell you the truth. Maybe all this talk about interest rate can be ruled on later in another lawsuit but right now if nothing changes I see no option other than paying the ransom to the Northmont frauds. It’s outrageous when you think about it.



"Empty" you say?  As in no opinion OR no merit in continuing along legal avenues?  

Is it just me or does anyone else here wonder why when this dispute first arose, three law firms readily jumped to service and then two of them quickly retreated to the side?  Was this a matter of "professional courtesy" or just good judgement?

.


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> To our American friends; I hope you contact the Canadian Ambassador about this shameful time share business. Don't forget to mention their headquarters is in Calgary. Here in Alberta we have some type of consumer protection but toget our politicians to move on it is another thing. Years agot there was an audit done and turned over to the RCMP, a Supt. Frank Smart was in charge. He now is now in charge of southern Alberta located in Taber, AB. Why is there a 20% fee added on, contract is 15%; another contract change!


Thanks Aden I went to Service Alberta with documents including the Pay the cancellation and you are not cancelled Agreement and they went threw the documents and 2 hours later they moved every thing to the RCMP. I will be phoning him. My documents were moved Jan 2013 but Service Alberta Sat on it.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

There have been many people comment related to conversation they have had with MG and one indicated MG was actually in contact with Judge Young related to costs and interest rates which was pointed out to be totally irregular for the courts to do so by another individual.  Is there anyone who thinks he may come back with a last minute hail mary revised settlement offer that say removes the 20% surcharge and the initial sticker shock was to make us more compliant to accept a marginally better settlement?

Has anyone received a copy of the actual settlement agreement?

This would have been the document our council and Northmont’s representative would have signed to create the settlement agreement and lays out exactly what we are bound to through the terms negotiated and mutually accepted between the two parties.  This should not be a secret and I am not referring to Dec 19th update with David Wotherspoon opinion how good of a job the two of them did.


*This is very important as it is the key to everything and if you have it please email it to me back123@shaw.ca as soon as you can*.


I have requested this and the reply back was answered with "you must be confused and have been provided everything" type of response.  My second request that spells out exactly what I want has gone unanswered.  I get a real sense of avoidance.

We need to demand this and if you have any follow-up with him limit the narrative to just this one subject request.  Do not allow him to change the narrative of your request as I truly believe he will play you and tell you something different to avoid providing this document.

I cannot see in any way he acted truly on behalf of his clients or at the direction of his clients with what he has done and provided us. His SIF form is serverily tainted so at this point I think he is relying totally on this as his consent from us. Pretty sure he now realizes this and there is no course he can take to fix things so must ride it out and worry about repercussions later with the hope we will give up or has his own exit plan thought out already.

What if he screwed up in the interpretation of these executed documents and things are actually worst or better for us which was missed - I should have the opportunity to judge for myself and seek advice (something else he is denying all of us by keeping them secret)


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> To our American friends; I hope you contact the Canadian Ambassador about this shameful time share business. Don't forget to mention their headquarters is in Calgary. Here in Alberta we have some type of consumer protection but toget our politicians to move on it is another thing. Years agot there was an audit done and turned over to the RCMP, a Supt. Frank Smart was in charge. He now is now in charge of southern Alberta located in Taber, AB. Why is there a 20% fee added on, contract is 15%; another contract change!


Aden were you in the court room on May1/2017. They Reid’s against Northmont and the bill collector the civil case. Justice Young on May 1 was talking about us Albertan’s would win your case and you Albertan’s will not pay one thin dime and it would not be fair BC timeshare owners would have to pay every thing at the resort. Then she commented about Tieing up the courts in Alberta. I wonder if this is the reason she decided to give her fellow Albertan’s a multi million dollar bill. Was any of you at that trail in Edmonton. This is what screwed us and at that trail they already in April,which I did not know,made unilateral amendments to contracts. MG never told me this and I emailed him Dec13 to tell him what a Lease Agreement was according to the Canadian Consumer Handbook and he still did not tell me. I found out when I down loaded the Read Case and there it was 700+ VIA’s. This is Fraud and Northmont must use the Modification item of our Lease Contract. If Justice Young ruled the other way we would of been able to use the Fair Trading ACT. I asked MG why she was mumbling in court and he said the FTA was bought up. This is not right. My contract is a lease contract and by them using Fraud to change it I have no contract.


----------



## Bewildered

I don’t think there is a Hail Mary coming as I know someone who is leaving for vacation and was told straight out by M.G. the cheque needed was $24 G


----------



## aden2

Yes, I was at the hearings in Edmonton. I opted out of MG deal. I am waiting for the judgement so I can file an appeal. In the meantime I have asked to have an appointment with the minister for Service Alberta.


----------



## Spark1

CleoB said:


> From my understanding we were supposed to be shielded from the JEKE decision until Geldert opened his mouth and said ALL the contracts mirrored JEKE.  Belfry's initial thought was to take over the resort and punt out Northmount.  I believe Geldert/Belfry acted in Belfry's interest and not in Geldert's entire clientele.


That does not matter. Your contract is yours not the Lawyer. MG did not sign those you did. They can Modify but that doen’t Mean your original Lease is gone. They have to follow the Modification to Lease and they did not. This bill 31 passed Dec.31 prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts, unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract. Every one should download Alberta. Consumer Protection changes.


----------



## Spark1

Punter said:


> Those Timeshare Exit companies are all scam artists.
> 
> And let's face it, Sunchaser Vacation Villas are so undesirable even they will turn and run!


Punter what happened I would like to meet you so we can compare notes.


----------



## Punter

Spark1 said:


> Punter what happened I would like to meet you so we can compare notes.


Spark check you private message available in your profile page


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> Yes, I was at the hearings in Edmonton. I opted out of MG deal. I am waiting for the judgement so I can file an appeal. In the meantime I have asked to have an appointment with the minister for Service Alberta.


If you bought a new car and stopped making payments they take the car back so we now stop payments to Northmont and they can have their worthless junk back. Stop paying we own nothing. Every one should file a Injunction against Northmont.   This is a judicial order that restrains a party from continuing a action threatening or invading the rights of another,or that compels a person or persons to make restitution to the defendant.


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> Yes, I was at the hearings in Edmonton. I opted out of MG deal. I am waiting for the judgement so I can file an appeal. In the meantime I have asked to have an appointment with the minister for Service Alberta.


Did you hear her? I filed a compliant against her. I new at that time we would loose the case with tainted contracts.


----------



## MarcieL

Spark1 said:


> That does not matter. Your contract is yours not the Lawyer. MG did not sign those you did. They can Modify but that doen’t Mean your original Lease is gone. They have to follow the Modification to Lease and they did not. This bill 31 passed Dec.31 prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts, unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract. Every one should download Alberta. Consumer Protection changes.


I know a lady who contacted Service Canada she was told there was a file opened in 2013 investigation was done as all was kosher a forensic audit no less. He blew her off saying it was a civil matter. I hope you have better luck. The bureaucracy is alive and well.


----------



## Spark1

Broke Mama said:


> Me too the same amount.


File a injunction against Northmont. See page 110


----------



## Spark1

Punter said:


> Spark check you private message available in your profile page


Thanks


----------



## Spark1

Who posted all the Judges and Lawyers in B.C. and how they were connected to the Trustee and Norton Rose?


----------



## Inquiringmind

dotbuhler said:


> Remember, YELP is posting Lawyer reviews, for a starter.The Provincial Law Review process is available to each and everyone, as well, at no cost to you. Being vocal is our best recourse at this point.


  If 12,000 lessees  paid   $10,000 each to get out of this debacle the total amount paid would be 1 hundred20 million $. It was $15  Thousand each it would be 1 hundred eighty million $ why wouldn’t NM Go for that. They could do anything they wanted with that amount of money with the resort


----------



## Spark1

Timeshare Justice denied said:


> I can only respond by saying I am extremely disappointed and hope that someday Kharma or whatever catches up to Wankel and the people who manage this fiasco. Shame on you !!!
> Shame on the shady management company that bought a resort for cheap, did little to nothing to improve it and then give the illusion to want to make a go of it when we all know it is doomed to fail. Let's not kid ourselves the bulk of that money is not going towards the Resort itself. This venture was doomed to fail as soon as they took over. As soon as it happened and they started about the paying to stay or leave I wanted out.
> 
> The courts have once again been a disappointment. It does not appear as though they ever took into account the poor management practices of Sunchaser or the financial burdens this imposes on us all. What they have done is absolves Sunchaser of mismanagement and poor business practices and given them carte blanche to print money. What management company doesn't set aside monies for eventual repairs/maintenance?  that get away with not providing annual statements? ....
> 
> As for our litigation group I can only be honest and say that I am extremely upset that we were made to believe that this could be appealed based on their initial messaging and positive language. I honestly viewed this group as standing up for the individuals to do the right thing and get some justice. I never expected to not have to pay anything but what is being suggested right now is ridiculous....
> 
> I assume, like us, that most of you were initially swayed into buying by the promise of "worry free" vacationing at a reasonable price, that it would be "something to be proud of for years to come" and allow us quality vacations with our families. Based on that what was there to lose? Worst case in years to follow we turn it in if we do not use it anymore and lose our $10,000+ "investment".
> Fast forward a few years, maintenance fees have more than doubled, Platinum Club (which cost an additional $!00 year) folded, Interval fees (over $100/year for gold), lock off fee of $100+ and then.... when not using Fairmont putting our weeks into Interval which amounted to very little as the resort was low demand year round so very little exchange power for other resorts.
> SO a week of holiday averages to about $2500/week. And during our last stay, more than 5 years ago, the room we stayed in was pitiful condition. SO MUCH for quality and affordability.
> 
> Today, after 2+ years later of litigation and not having used the resort since 2011 (given all the aforementioned)..... I will find myself having to pay $1000+ in legal fees as well as several more years of maintenance fees and accrued interest rather than having initially paid what these vultures and absolutely crooked management company wanted.
> 
> What reasonable person wouldn't be pissed. I have felt sick every time I have to deal with this matter and am incensed at the way this has concluded. Not sure I have ever been so angry or disappointed with something in my life. I am at a loss, I will now bite my tongue. I have said my piece and if it sounds like sour grapes and whining well it is and why wouldn't it be. I have NO idea where the money is going to come from to pay for this.


File a injunction. You can do it yourself.


----------



## MarcieL

Spark1 said:


> That does not matter. Your contract is yours not the Lawyer. MG did not sign those you did. They can Modify but that doen’t Mean your original Lease is gone. They have to follow the Modification to Lease and they did not. This bill 31 passed Dec.31 prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts, unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract. Every one should download Alberta. Consumer Protection changes.





Spark1 said:


> Aden were you in the court room on May1/2017. They Reid’s against Northmont and the bill collector the civil case. Justice Young on May 1 was talking about us Albertan’s would win your case and you Albertan’s will not pay one thin dime and it would not be fair BC timeshare owners would have to pay every thing at the resort. Then she commented about Tieing up the courts in Alberta. I wonder if this is the reason she decided to give her fellow Albertan’s a multi million dollar bill. Was any of you at that trail in Edmonton. This is what screwed us and at that trail they already in April,which I did not know,made unilateral amendments to contracts. MG never told me this and I emailed him Dec13 to tell him what a Lease Agreement was according to the Canadian Consumer Handbook and he still did not tell me. I found out when I down loaded the Read Case and there it was 700+ VIA’s. This is Fraud and Northmont must use the Modification item of our Lease Contract. If Justice Young ruled the other way we would of been able to use the Fair Trading ACT. I asked MG why she was mumbling in court and he said the FTA was bought up. This is not right. My contract is a lease contract and by them using Fraud to change it I have no contract.



Being fraud that is an entire different case.


----------



## MarcieL

Bewildered said:


> I don’t think there is a Hail Mary coming as I know someone who is leaving for vacation and was told straight out by M.G. the cheque needed was $24 G



24 k sounds good to me, mine is 40 k on a fixed income in our late 70's!


----------



## Bewildered

Bewildered said:


> I don’t think there is a Hail Mary coming as I know someone who is leaving for vacation and was told straight out by M.G. the cheque needed was $24 G





MarcieL said:


> 24 k sounds good to me, mine is 40 k on a fixed income in our late 70's!


I sure hope you have emailed, phoned everyone you can with a simple message of how you are being held ransom for something you paid good money for, haven’t even been allowed to use, charged 27% compounding interest and now being asked for additional 10 of thousands to get out. Sounds criminal to me.


----------



## MarcieL

I have contacted many people.  It is criminal, I also spoke with a criminal lawyer!  Only problem he charges 500.00 per hour and i cannot afford anymore legal fees.


----------



## easy prey

Do I think this will have a positive outcome for us?  No.  Do I think northmont/wankel must be exposed? Yes.  

I am reposting some email addresses for some media outlets and adding another, mclaughlinonyourside@ctv.ca marketplace@cbc.ca fifthtips@cbc.ca gopublic@cbc.ca

I also believe geldert should also be investigated by whatever governing body oversees lawyer's conduct.  

Again, I am appealing to the members of this group to take these actions as well as any other actions they see fit i.e. contacting m.p.'s, m.l.a.'s, filing with RCMP,  cdn anti faud center.


----------



## TimesharesBlow

Where can we join the secret Facebook group for Alberta? Would like to talk to other Albertans in this mess.


----------



## Jack0123

not sure If I really believe M.G has been in touch with Judge Young regarding the interest charges, sounds like that may be fake news?


----------



## Scammed!

Jack0123 said:


> not sure If I really believe M.G has been in touch with Judge Young regarding the interest charges, sounds like that may be fake news?


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> Yes, I was at the hearings in Edmonton. I opted out of MG deal. I am waiting for the judgement so I can file an appeal. In the meantime I have asked to have an appointment with the minister for Service Alberta.


Just remember every one they stop us from using the resort. We had full extensions of using this resort for years. They took the right to use the resort from using the vacation Villa Lease Contracts that we signed. So now they want Hugh Maintenance fees for something as consumers we did not get. This is why I fired MG. We did not ask him to do what he is doing. You can not hold us ransom because we did not swallow their pills. Remember the fony Cancellation. Remember the scam modification and us going in the court room in Edmonton not knowing we were VIA’s. I feel they even got the courts bought of. I am happy Aden new where the RCMP Frank Smart is located and it would drive out to talk to him. I am not falling for this scam or their insane numbers. What screwed us were the the time owners that paid and many will pay more with that cancellation.


----------



## Spark1

If you pay the cancer will carry on and other innocent people are going to get hurt. We can not be Lazy let’s get after all governments so they realize how crooked the timeshare industry is. I will next go after the MP’s of the federal government. Stop the Cancer.


----------



## dotbuhler

My next trial needs to be a jury matter. Seems that would be much more productive given the miscarriage of justice we have suffered thus far.


----------



## MarcieL

not sure If I really believe M.G has been in touch with Judge Young regarding the interest charges, sounds like that may be fake news?

Totally concur!


----------



## CleoB

CleoB said:


> Bringing this forward


Adding the Minister of Seniors and Housing in Alberta
Honourable Lori Sigurdson
edmonton.riverview@assembly.ab.ca


----------



## MarcieL

One must have all the facts and be ready to go on record with any media sources.  One explained they were instructed not to entertain anymore Timeshare stories!


----------



## CleoB

Scammed! said:


> Yes they did win due to lies deceit and misrepresentation. No the question is not how much money yet.....its who have you forgotten to report this to? I'm not going to roll over and die giving up my hard earned money to the biggest scam in Canadian History, until I have turned ever stone to find that one rock beneath, that will stand up for our rights and put a stop to this. I'm trying to stay positive in the worst circumstances, and I believe there is someone out there that can do something......As a group we are all over the place just the way they wanted us to be.... so we have to stay focused and continue fighting this battle. I just wrote another letter and I'm emailing them now.... 100 emails x 1300 people = 13,000.00 people who will hear our story. Stay focused......fight till the end.


The lies, deceit and misrepresentation that did us the most harm came from Geldert himself.


----------



## Bewildered

MarcieL said:


> One must have all the facts and be ready to go on record with any media sources.  One explained they were instructed not to entertain anymore Timeshare stories!


How about seeing one timeshare story, haven’t seen one yet on Fairmont, how deep does this coverup run?


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

I am not making any public conclusions or judgments on the legal counsel they are entering into an agreement with other than maybe this has something to do with wrapping up our groups litigation ASAP but I will let you make your own conclusion:

https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info

https://gwynethedwards.com/ci/


----------



## Scammed!

MarcieL said:


> One must have all the facts and be ready to go on record with any media sources.  One explained they were instructed not to entertain anymore Timeshare stories!


Corruption!


----------



## MgolferL

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I am not making any public conclusions or judgments on the legal counsel they are entering into an agreement with other than maybe this has something to do with wrapping up our groups litigation ASAP but I will let you make your own conclusion:
> 
> https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info
> 
> https://gwynethedwards.com/ci/


....CIOG Volunteers surveyed many lawyers and identified Geldert Law, located in Vancouver, as a good fit for CI/Embarc members.  Geldert Law has a proven track record of experience and passion for consumer protection related to timeshares....record is pretty short not sure about the passion part...that train has left our station.....


----------



## Been Around Awhile

ecwinch said:


> Just trying to wrap my head around why the dollar amounts being mentioned are so high. Now I am scratching my head on what outcome MG promised to secure. I understand from the JEKE filing that JEKE wanted to invalidate the contract and walk away.
> 
> But is that true of everyone? No one wanted to stay and just wanted to stop the realignment?
> 
> Also what has been going on at the resort during all this mess? Has NM started the refurbishments?


YES. It is pretty much true of everyone. They wanted to invalidate their contract and walk away. A significant number, something north of 40%, is reputed to have paid to walk away. An injunction by Justice Clarkson in Alberta Provincial Court forced Northmont to allow VIAs to use the property if, they had paid their m/f but not their RPF. Few knew of this decision. Thanks, Mr. G. There were those who were still paying for their purchase, and they felt if they ever wanted annual vacations, they had no choice but to stay with the property. I do not know of one person who said, _“…be a darn fool to walk away from all this.” _I could go on, but then I would just be repeating someone else on this board, ITS NOT A RESORT: Plastic patio furniture, cheap BBQs, poor and undersized common facilities, poor service, poor maintenance, poor cleaning, poor utensils, poor disposables in the units, bathroom tissue, soap, detergent, etc. On its best day, I would give it 3-stars. On average, I would give it 2-stars. Please remember, they promised a 5-star resort. As a trade on Interval International, it became virtually worthless.

Justice Loo, in the JEKE trial, did make mistakes. A better legal argument would have helped her see clearly. First, the failure to establish an owners association was a material breach. It was material because at the CCAA proceedings, Bankruptcy here in Canada, they directly lied saying that the VIA holders were in favor of the Renovation Plan. They weren't. They didn't even know about the proceedings. They didn't know the Property was in bankruptcy.  At least three times owners were thwarted in their attempts to form an owners association. This was contrary to Northmont's contractual obligations. And, why didn't the VIAs know about the bankruptcy proceedings? No, owners association.

If you read the VIA, it does not contemplate a multi-year renovation project as part of the maintenance fees. Nowhere in the listing of what could be included as maintenance fees is there anything that could be construed as or is anywhere near similar in context to a $40-miliion multi-year renovation. Because it is not specifically excluded does not mean it is included within the scope of the agreement.

The illest informed utterance I have ever heard from a judge is, "If not the VIA holders then who is going to pay for the Renovation.?" Oh, I don't know, how about the party that built it originally? The party that pocketed the original purchase payments? The party that pocketed $20-million people paid to leave?

This is a scheme or a scam. It purports to be one thing but is actually something different. It operates on a different mechanism but is exactly as deceiving as a Ponzi scheme. Costa Maya, Rancho Banderas, Mahaka in Hawaii, Vegas, Lake Okanagan, House Boats, Fairmont Vacation Villas, all bankrupt or extremely distressed demonstrably prove that these people are not in the business of operating vacation resorts.

They convinced the Bankruptcy Court to support the Renovation Plan by saying they were going to ramp-up marketing. Instead, they closed sales. That alone indicates they aren't in the resort business. What did they say was their most valuable asset? Selling Cancelations. If closing sales didn't say they aren't in the resort business, monetizing cancelations sure does.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

ecwinch said:


> What was MG's advice on paying your m/f - dues during the period the legal action was running?



In written correspondence, MG’s advice was to NOT pay the m/f.


----------



## Scammed!

I'm exhausted, but I am not alone! We are all together fighting for our lives, and what I didn't say you did, and what you didn't say I did. We have a *MASTERPIECE OF A LETTER* out there in the public eye! Great job everyone! Don't stop, stay focused, keep writing, keep emailing...stay positive. WE DEMAND OUR *ROCK* TO STEP FORWARD, AND PROTECT OUR RIGHTS!


----------



## Bewildered

Just spoke to consumer protection in Alberta, a forensic audit was done and results were passed on to the RCMP long ago. He says they have no other jurisdiction. Looks like the RCMP have also let us down as they obviously have done nothing with this fraud.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

Unbelievable!   Thats a pretty glaring error on counsels part.   IF we could have used our time by paying our MF's we would have instead of let this stupid outrageous interest upon interest pile up, as per his direction!! We tried through Northmont and were told if the RPF not paid that we could not use our time.  So if we can't use why in the hell would we want to pay for it.  Something is dreadfully wrong here, none of this should have taken so many years, the contracts are different, I am a LEASEE only.....not a freaking owner.   I may have to go, but I don't plan on going quietly.  I have sent out over 100 letters myself.   Somebody has to hold all these people accountable.   I cannot believe we have been made prisoner to this garbage.  Its like Hotel California.........You can never truly leave and they keep milking you for all the money they can get.   I wonder if the original pay to stay are happy with whats left of it, most of its boarded up looks like a ghost town.  What an embarassment for the town of Fairmont too.  Couldn't pay me to ever step foot there again.


----------



## Bewildered

Have talked to David Eby’s office, you need to send your emails to his  Attorney Generals Office at AG.minister@gov.bc.ca
The aide at the attorney generals office told me first he’s heard of it? Come on people no traction unless we start acting. 
Talked to some at Justice Minister Ganleys office, they have definitely been getting calls/emails and are preparing a response. Let your voice be heard, forget about continuing to discuss on this site the past injustices we have been dealt.
But I will say be prepared for the “nothing we can do because it went through the courts”, my response is the courts have basically refused to rule on the interest and release fee so don’t buy that argument and Justice Young did all of us a disservice by leaving that situation unresolved and telling everybody to play nice.


----------



## Bewildered

Bewildered said:


> Have talked to David Eby’s office, you need to send your emails to his  Attorney Generals Office at AG.minister@gov.bc.ca
> The aide at the attorney generals office told me first he’s heard of it? Come on people no traction unless we start acting.
> Talked to some at Justice Minister Ganleys office, they have definitely been getting calls/emails and are preparing a response. Let your voice be heard, forget about continuing to discuss on this site the past injustices we have been dealt.
> But I will say be prepared for the “nothing we can do because it went through the courts”, my response is the courts have basically refused to rule on the interest and release fee so don’t buy that argument and Justice Young did all of us a disservice by leaving that situation unresolved and telling everybody to play nice.


Sorry email above doesn’t seem to work for Attorney General Eby try
david.eby.MLA@leg.bc.ca


----------



## Scammed!

JAG.Minister@gov.bc.ca I received this from the Honourable Prime Minster Trudeau's office today. SEND SEND SEND!


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Good to see so much going on.  Keep working.  We need to get feedback from Justice Young on the fact that here instructions weren't followed and we're being coerced.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

*CONTACTS FOR GETTING HELP - GETTING HEARD


Media Contacts
gopublic@cbc.ca
marketplace@cbc.ca
fifthtips@cbc.ca
investigate@cbc.ca

newsedmonton@cbc.ca
mclaughlinonyourside@ctv.ca



Government Contacts - Provincial Alberta*
Alberta Consumer Protection Line: 1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)

Honourable Kathleen Ganley
Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
Members of Executive Council
Executive Branch
424 Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB
T5K 2B6
Phone: 780 427-2339
Fax: 780 422-6621
E-mail:* ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca*

Alberta MLAs: *Click Here for Alberta MLAs*
*http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index...l&conoffice=True&legoffice=True&mememail=True*


Here is a link to Minister of Seniors and Housing in AB
Honourable Lori Sigurdson
*
edmonton.riverview@assembly.ab.ca
*
Other AB links
* info@ethicscommissioner.ab.ca
wildrosecaucus@assembly.ab.ca
committees@assembly.ab.ca


Government Contacts - Provincial BC*
BC Ministry of Attorney General
Honorable David Eby, Minister
*[EMAIL]david.eby.MLA@leg.bc.ca[/EMAIL]*
...and* JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca

*
Here is a link to all the MLA's in BC 
*https://www.leg.bc.ca/content-committees/Pages/MLA-Contact-Information.aspx



Government Contacts - Federal*
Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre: *1-888-495-8501* or through the *Fraud Reporting System (FRS)*

Here is a link to all the MP's in BC , phone numbers and email addresses
*https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members?currentOnly=true&province=BC*

Here is a link to all the MP's in AB, phone numbers and email addresses
*https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members?currentOnly=true&province=AB


Legal Organization Contacts*
British Columbia Law Society: *professionalconduct@lsbc.org*
Alberta Law Society (link to submit form): *https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/*



*Uncategorized Contacts
communications@cfcj-fcjc.org
Intake@eclc.ca*


*??? Other Categories ???*


*Last Added: Lots of Stuff - Check all areas for NEW Contacts*


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Just to comment on MG.  I couldn't believe what he was asking with this settlement, ie. for all of us to be bound.  There were so many concerns before but his insistence that we trust him, ie. here's a lawyer that has been paid for years and then instead of protection for us he wants us to just quickly give him a blank cheque.  

The Petition to contest reallignment....there was no reason to cancel that and that was completely against his client's instructions and his agreement.  

As far as I see it, we should work with the county/board and demand the petition be re-instated as our lawyer breached our trust and went against our instructions.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

As far as media, much more than the cbc needs to be contacted.  global news in Calgary and elsewhere.  CTV. 
It's very unusual that such a large financial issue isn't being reported on.  We need more than the cbc.

Also, didn't someone say they were contacting the mayor of Calgary?


----------



## Sheeptoslaughter

Look up calgarys ctv article on the  timeshare so skewed its not even funny 7000???undecided?? Would that be northmonts 7000 they own???


----------



## aden2

I had a call from Service Alberta today, as a result of letter writing. The reply being it was a Civil Matter, and why in the beginning wasn't the matter dealt with the FTA. The act had been violated and what was wrong with your lawyer?


----------



## Palms to pines

Oh man. I have just been reading some of the MG updates to us. On 2015 now. Unbelievable how he strung us along! Played us like a violin.


----------



## torqued

Do you really think NW is going to look at all of us who can’t afford the ransom on an individual basis and determine what we can pay. No way in hell am I sending them them a list of my assets and bank statements. This would have to be performed by a neutral third party or the courts. There must be some sort of process for this but highly doubt it will be utilized by them. Of course that’s if I decide to give them anything at all.


----------



## melamike

Palms to pines said:


> Oh man. I have just been reading some of the MG updates to us. On 2015 now. Unbelievable how he strung us along! Played us like a violin.



Does anybody know how MG got involved with this case in the first place? ( the more embarrassing question is how did we get involved with him). Sometimes I think this was all a set up for him to rake in tons of money - perhaps he's on Northmont's Christmas list.....


----------



## Petus@18

Scammed! said:


> JAG.Minister@gov.bc.ca I received this from the Honourable Prime Minster Trudeau's office today. SEND SEND SEND!



What did the PM said in his reply?


----------



## Bewildered

Scammed! said:


> JAG.Minister@gov.bc.ca I received this from the Honourable Prime Minster Trudeau's office today. SEND SEND SEND!


Please explain what/who you sent to? JAG is BC Justice Minister, your also talking PM Trudeau?? Unless we are all on the same page this just confuses things. Please give contact instructions for PM Trudeau if you are serious.


----------



## CleoB

TimesharesBlow said:


> Where can we join the secret Facebook group for Alberta? Would like to talk to other Albertans in this mess.





Lostmyshirt said:


> Unbelievable!   Thats a pretty glaring error on counsels part.   IF we could have used our time by paying our MF's we would have instead of let this stupid outrageous interest upon interest pile up, as per his direction!! We tried through Northmont and were told if the RPF not paid that we could not use our time.  So if we can't use why in the hell would we want to pay for it.  Something is dreadfully wrong here, none of this should have taken so many years, the contracts are different, I am a LEASEE only.....not a freaking owner.   I may have to go, but I don't plan on going quietly.  I have sent out over 100 letters myself.   Somebody has to hold all these people accountable.   I cannot believe we have been made prisoner to this garbage.  Its like Hotel California.........You can never truly leave and they keep milking you for all the money they can get.   I wonder if the original pay to stay are happy with whats left of it, most of its boarded up looks like a ghost town.  What an embarassment for the town of Fairmont too.  Couldn't pay me to ever step foot there again.


I thought someone posted pictures of the resort and it's all been re-painted?????  You've sent 100 letters?  To whom?


----------



## Imout

melamike said:


> Does anybody know how MG got involved with this case in the first place? ( the more embarrassing question is how did we get involved with him). Sometimes I think this was all a set up for him to rake in tons of money - perhaps he's on Northmont's Christmas list.....



Jim Belfry of JEKE


----------



## CleoB

Been Around Awhile said:


> YES. It is pretty much true of everyone. They wanted to invalidate their contract and walk away. A significant number, something north of 40%, is reputed to have paid to walk away. An injunction by Justice Clarkson in Alberta Provincial Court forced Northmont to allow VIAs to use the property if, they had paid their m/f but not their RPF. Few knew of this decision. Thanks, Mr. G. There were those who were still paying for their purchase, and they felt if they ever wanted annual vacations, they had no choice but to stay with the property. I do not know of one person who said, _“…be a darn fool to walk away from all this.” _I could go on, but then I would just be repeating someone else on this board, ITS NOT A RESORT: Plastic patio furniture, cheap BBQs, poor and undersized common facilities, poor service, poor maintenance, poor cleaning, poor utensils, poor disposables in the units, bathroom tissue, soap, detergent, etc. On its best day, I would give it 3-stars. On average, I would give it 2-stars. Please remember, they promised a 5-star resort. As a trade on Interval International, it became virtually worthless.
> 
> Justice Loo, in the JEKE trial, did make mistakes. A better legal argument would have helped her see clearly. First, the failure to establish an owners association was a material breach. It was material because at the CCAA proceedings, Bankruptcy here in Canada, they directly lied saying that the VIA holders were in favor of the Renovation Plan. They weren't. They didn't even know about the proceedings. They didn't know the Property was in bankruptcy.  At least three times owners were thwarted in their attempts to form an owners association. This was contrary to Northmont's contractual obligations. And, why didn't the VIAs know about the bankruptcy proceedings? No, owners association.
> 
> If you read the VIA, it does not contemplate a multi-year renovation project as part of the maintenance fees. Nowhere in the listing of what could be included as maintenance fees is there anything that could be construed as or is anywhere near similar in context to a $40-miliion multi-year renovation. Because it is not specifically excluded does not mean it is included within the scope of the agreement.
> 
> The illest informed utterance I have ever heard from a judge is, "If not the VIA holders then who is going to pay for the Renovation.?" Oh, I don't know, how about the party that built it originally? The party that pocketed the original purchase payments? The party that pocketed $20-million people paid to leave?
> 
> This is a scheme or a scam. It purports to be one thing but is actually something different. It operates on a different mechanism but is exactly as deceiving as a Ponzi scheme. Costa Maya, Rancho Banderas, Mahaka in Hawaii, Vegas, Lake Okanagan, House Boats, Fairmont Vacation Villas, all bankrupt or extremely distressed demonstrably prove that these people are not in the business of operating vacation resorts.
> 
> They convinced the Bankruptcy Court to support the Renovation Plan by saying they were going to ramp-up marketing. Instead, they closed sales. That alone indicates they aren't in the resort business. What did they say was their most valuable asset? Selling Cancelations. If closing sales didn't say they aren't in the resort business, monetizing cancelations sure does.


How do you know there was an injunction?  Was it mentioned in one of the court transcripts?


----------



## Hey lady

Bewildered said:


> Sorry email above doesn’t seem to work for Attorney General Eby try
> david.eby.MLA@leg.bc.ca


Do not email the Attorney General or Minister of Justice or Premier using their MLA email address. It gets low priority. The premier and attorney general each have an MLA email address and an official Ministerial email address.  Use their official titled email address.  
David Eby, Attornney General of BC is AG.Minister@gov.bc.ca and Kathleen Ganley Alberta Minister of Justice is ministerofjustice@gov.ab.ca


----------



## truthr

Here is a link to the first of a series of videos I am doing.  Please share it on your social media platforms - let's get the message out there.


----------



## truthr

CleoB said:


> How do you know there was an injunction?  Was it mentioned in one of the court transcripts?


It is in the transcripts from the January 2015 SuperConference.


----------



## den403

Write your complaint form to The Office of the BC Ombudsperson
bcombudsperson.ca


----------



## Scammed!

Bewildered said:


> Please explain what/who you sent to? JAG is BC Justice Minister, your also talking PM Trudeau?? Unless we are all on the same page this just confuses things. Please give contact instructions for PM Trudeau if you are serious.


There is nothing confusing. I sent probably 140 emails 87 MLA'S in Alberta, plus MLA'S in B.C. every email that was posted on here, plus the Honourable Justin Trudeau has been mentioned numerous times. Instead of talking about it I did it.
justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca

His office gave me the email that is posted to email to. They were very nice, and then I wrote a new personal email back responding to their email. Maybe everyone should be doing the same.....


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

truthr said:


> Here is a link to the first of a series of videos I am doing.  Please share it on your social media platforms - let's get the message out there.


Truth - thank-you for putting yourself out there in such a creative way and I look forward to your future videos.  I would have never thought of this!!!

Everyday new ways are being found to get our message out there thanks to the creativity of the people around us.

Keep up the great work and sharing with others ways to get our message heard.


----------



## MgolferL

Scammed! said:


> There is nothing confusing. I sent probably 140 emails 87 MLA'S in Alberta, plus MLA'S in B.C. every email that was posted on here, plus the Honourable Justin Trudeau has been mentioned numerous times. Instead of talking about it I did it.
> justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
> 
> His office gave me the email that is posted to email to. They were very nice, and then I wrote a new personal email back responding to their email. Maybe everyone should be doing them same.....




I have also sent over 100 letters to many of the same people...all MLA's for AB & BC plus. Have received a number of replies...some stating they have received other letters. I have sent off a thank you for their response and a request for any questions. Keep sending them people. 

Also in terms of where did MG come from? I though Dockyn Klym in AB passed it over to MG to do the JEKE court work as they were in BC.... I just read in a previous post that someone is taking to Dokyn Klym again?

Lastly, someone should get ahold of Danielle Smith on 770 in Calgary. She did a number on the City of Calgary about the trailer park they were shutting and appears to like getting involved in stories that have an injustice side to them. People would know who Northmont/Sunchaser/Northwynd are in a hurry.


----------



## Hey lady

Article from local Fairmont newspaper, May 2107. Town wants Northmont to do something as buildings sit empty. Do the judges know that money paid by timeshare people is not going to improve the 'resort' as a timeshare but to Northmont's bank account. What a scam!


----------



## Scammed!

I AM NOT AN OWNER! DO NOT CHANGE MY IDENTITY TO SOMEONE OR SOMETHING I AM NOT, NOR HAVE EVER BEEN.


----------



## MarcieL

Share Truth's Video people we have to get the message out.  I have written several letters with no response, we need the media a face to the people.  I went into Y tube and brought it up and shared it that way.  SHARE, SHARE, SHARE, if you don't know how ask!


----------



## aden2

Service Alberta questioned me yesterday why in our Court proceedings The Fair Trading Act wasn't used against NM?


----------



## Just Looking Around

Been Around Awhile said:


> YES. It is pretty much true of everyone. They wanted to invalidate their contract and walk away. A significant number, something north of 40%, is reputed to have paid to walk away. An injunction by Justice Clarkson in Alberta Provincial Court forced Northmont to allow VIAs to use the property if, they had paid their m/f but not their RPF. Few knew of this decision. Thanks, Mr. G. There were those who were still paying for their purchase, and they felt if they ever wanted annual vacations, they had no choice but to stay with the property. I do not know of one person who said, _“…be a darn fool to walk away from all this.” _I could go on, but then I would just be repeating someone else on this board, ITS NOT A RESORT: Plastic patio furniture, cheap BBQs, poor and undersized common facilities, poor service, poor maintenance, poor cleaning, poor utensils, poor disposables in the units, bathroom tissue, soap, detergent, etc. On its best day, I would give it 3-stars. On average, I would give it 2-stars. Please remember, they promised a 5-star resort. As a trade on Interval International, it became virtually worthless.
> 
> Justice Loo, in the JEKE trial, did make mistakes. A better legal argument would have helped her see clearly. First, the failure to establish an owners association was a material breach. It was material because at the CCAA proceedings, Bankruptcy here in Canada, they directly lied saying that the VIA holders were in favor of the Renovation Plan. They weren't. They didn't even know about the proceedings. They didn't know the Property was in bankruptcy.  At least three times owners were thwarted in their attempts to form an owners association. This was contrary to Northmont's contractual obligations. And, why didn't the VIAs know about the bankruptcy proceedings? No, owners association.
> 
> If you read the VIA, it does not contemplate a multi-year renovation project as part of the maintenance fees. Nowhere in the listing of what could be included as maintenance fees is there anything that could be construed as or is anywhere near similar in context to a $40-miliion multi-year renovation. Because it is not specifically excluded does not mean it is included within the scope of the agreement.
> 
> The illest informed utterance I have ever heard from a judge is, "If not the VIA holders then who is going to pay for the Renovation.?" Oh, I don't know, how about the party that built it originally? The party that pocketed the original purchase payments? The party that pocketed $20-million people paid to leave?
> 
> This is a scheme or a scam. It purports to be one thing but is actually something different. It operates on a different mechanism but is exactly as deceiving as a Ponzi scheme. Costa Maya, Rancho Banderas, Mahaka in Hawaii, Vegas, Lake Okanagan, House Boats, Fairmont Vacation Villas, all bankrupt or extremely distressed demonstrably prove that these people are not in the business of operating vacation resorts.
> 
> They convinced the Bankruptcy Court to support the Renovation Plan by saying they were going to ramp-up marketing. Instead, they closed sales. That alone indicates they aren't in the resort business. What did they say was their most valuable asset? Selling Cancelations. If closing sales didn't say they aren't in the resort business, monetizing cancelations sure does.


You repeated my Phrase.: It Not a Resort. Although I can't claim I originated it. Maybe we can get it trending.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

CleoB said:


> How do you know there was an injunction?  Was it mentioned in one of the court transcripts?


The Edwards group sought and recieved the injunction. I do know of people who were not allowed to book or use time while the Edwards were allowed to use their's. Maybe the injunction was limited to the Edwards Plantiffs or maybe Northmont chose to ignore its application to others.


----------



## ready2go2

Petus@18 said:


> What did the PM said in his reply?


I didnt see his reply, are you able to post it.  I have sent so many letters, but not any response, maybe because i am in the states and they dont care.


----------



## KGB_527

Hi guys. Does anyone feel comfortable to phone in Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver Radio Talk Shows? In Calgary we have this fantastic talk show host Daniele Smith on AM770 from 8:30 till 12:30. It is worth trying.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

truthr said:


> Here is a link to the first of a series of videos I am doing.  Please share it on your social media platforms - let's get the message out there.


OK - this took me a few minutes to figure out but I have added a comment to Truth's video with a link back to Tug's thinking anyone who is still sending out letters and emails may be able to share the You Tube link to give people some additional context - seems to work okay when I tried it but definitely test it out to be sure.


Link to Truth's You Tube video:
https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiSBwJlXexs&t=91s

Okay - a space was added after "https" that needs to be removed before the link is active (without the space all you get is the video like the initial post and I'm not sure how to get the link otherwise)


----------



## torqued

I rejected the settlement so I don’t know if I will getting a ransom note from MG or not. Has anyone gotten anything today from MG?


----------



## Scammed!

torqued said:


> I rejected the settlement so I don’t know if I will getting a ransom note from MG or not. Has anyone gotten anything today from MG?


No, The minute I do, I have a couple of letters ready to go, to 140 emails and growing. I will continue to exercise my Freedom Of Speech since I wasn't able to since this mess started. This will not stop until I am treated fairly as the good citizen I have been to this country helping others..... now I'm in need. I have been misrepresented, and falsely accused of someone I am not..... an OWNER. Worst part I didn't understand this until lately. JUSTICE FOR ALL!


----------



## Scammed!

aden2 said:


> Service Alberta questioned me yesterday why in our Court proceedings The Fair Trading Act wasn't used against NM?


That is not a question to ask us. We had a lawyer who was instructed, and now it will be up to him to answer all their questions.


----------



## truthr

Tune in tomorrow, Wednesday, January 10th, 2018 to Global News Radio 770 CHQR Danielle Smith at 11:00 am Mountain Standard Time

Here is the link to listen live on the internet - but don't just listen call in - have YOUR VOICE heard

https://globalnews.ca/calgary/program/danielle-smith


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> Service Alberta questioned me yesterday why in our Court proceedings The Fair Trading Act wasn't used against NM?


We all know why now. It was the decision Justice Young made on us. I was in the court room on May1/2017 and really it was decided than and not Oct. You just had to lesson to the confersation of the Judge. She gives millions to these bandits and is screwing all us white haired seniors in Alberta. I seen walkers ,canes very old people in the court room and many worried how they were going to pay this. They were also concerned about this bill going to their children and grandchildren. With this justice system in Alberta and BC we would never when a appeal. That puts a road block up so we can not use the Fair Trading ACT. Just over a dam Lease contract they are flea sing millions out of innocent people. They are treating us worth than hard core criminals. We have to stop this.


----------



## Bewildered

KGB_527 said:


> Hi guys. Does anyone feel comfortable to phone in Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver Radio Talk Shows? In Calgary we have this fantastic talk show host Daniele Smith on AM770 from 8:30 till 12:30. It is worth trying.


Absolutely worth trying in fact I think the media is our only hope. If the question of being through the courts arises always remember that Judge Young specific instructions on the rulings including “subject to further argument and a determination respecting ithe issues of interest and costs of each action and the expiration of certain civil claims” also that “counsel make every reasonable effort to resolve these outstanding issues without the necessity of further judicial intervention”
NEITHER OF THESE THINGS OCCURRED SO THAT MEANS THE JUDGES INSTRUCTIONS WERE NOT FOLLOWED


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Bewildered said:


> Absolutely worth trying in fact I think the media is our only hope. If the question of being through the courts arises always remember that Judge Young specific instructions on the rulings including “subject to further argument and a determination respecting ithe issues of interest and costs of each action and the expiration of certain civil claims” also that “counsel make every reasonable effort to resolve these outstanding issues without the necessity of further judicial intervention”
> NEITHER OF THESE THINGS OCCURRED SO THAT MEANS THE JUDGES INSTRUCTIONS WERE NOT FOLLOWED


Actually one kind of did if you add a word

resolve these outstanding issues without *CONSENT*


----------



## truthr

Bewildered said:


> Absolutely worth trying in fact I think the media is our only hope. If the question of being through the courts arises always remember that Judge Young specific instructions on the rulings including “subject to further argument and a determination respecting ithe issues of interest and costs of each action and the expiration of certain civil claims” also that “counsel make every reasonable effort to resolve these outstanding issues without the necessity of further judicial intervention”
> NEITHER OF THESE THINGS OCCURRED SO THAT MEANS THE JUDGES INSTRUCTIONS WERE NOT FOLLOWED


Live tomorrow (Wednesday, January 10th, 2017) 11 am MST - Danielle Smith's talk show 
Global News Radio 770 CHQR Danielle Smith at 11:00 am Mountain Standard Time


----------



## teedeej

truthr said:


> Live tomorrow (Wednesday, January 10th, 2017) 11 am MST - Danielle Smith's talk show
> Global News Radio 770 CHQR Danielle Smith at 11:00 am Mountain Standard Time



Give em hell, Truth!


----------



## Just Looking Around

truthr said:


> Tune in tomorrow, Wednesday, January 10th, 2018 to Global News Radio 770 CHQR Danielle Smith at 11:00 am Mountain Standard Time
> 
> Here is the link to listen live on the internet - but don't just listen call in - have YOUR VOICE heard
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/calgary/program/danielle-smith


If you are on a radio program, you have to focus on one thing. Northmont is greedy. They exploited a vague contract to hold leasees for ransom. 

Northmont owns and built the property. Leasees paid 20,000$ up front and together all the operating costs plus, a management fee to Northmont. Then Northmont says they want the leasees to pay for a $40,000,000 renovation. 

If we start talking about the problems with the lawyers or it being the lawyers' fault, we'll sound like a bunch of whiners.

Northmont is greedy. Mention the Panama Papers. That'll get them listening.


----------



## easy prey

Has anyone received settlement email from geldert yet?


----------



## Floyd55

easy prey said:


> Has anyone received settlement email from geldert yet?



Just got an email indicating that the email bills are coming tomorrow.


----------



## Newbie2

Just Looking Around said:


> If you are on a radio program, you have to focus on one thing. Northmont is greedy. They exploited a vague contract to hold leasees for ransom.
> 
> Northmont owns and built the property. Leasees paid 20,000$ up front and together all the operating costs plus, a management fee to Northmont. Then Northmont says they want the leasees to pay for a $40,000,000 renovation.
> 
> If we start talking about the problems with the lawyers or it being the lawyers' fault, we'll sound like a bunch of whiners.
> 
> Northmont is greedy. Mention the Panama Papers. That'll get them listening.


I talked to a lawyer last night who said a forensic audit/review could be completed for about 10,000.  Not by him but he could refer me.  I do not have 10,000 but if 10 people had 1,000 or 20 people 500.  Does anyone think this is feasible?


----------



## Tacoma

I'm fairly sure if people felt it would help that if a go fund me page was started up we could raise the money.


----------



## Joe Holland

Tacoma said:


> I'm fairly sure if people felt it would help that if a go fund me page was started up we could raise the money.


Agreed... I would jump in with others


----------



## Newbie2

Joe Holland said:


> Agreed... I would jump in with others


I want to get more clarification as a comment has been made inquiring if an audit would have to be done by a lawyer representing the group or ordered by the court.  Does anyone have an answer regarding this?


----------



## Broke Mama

easy prey said:


> Has anyone received settlement email from geldert yet?


No, it's not 11:30 pm yet.


----------



## marcthe12

we should call the CRA to do an audit on them because i believe they are not following the rules of contracts and obligations to lease holders and who knows where all the money is going


----------



## marcthe12

all court proceeding for me are done, with the JEKE test case that should of been a class action on all behalf of MG members


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

truthr said:


> Tune in tomorrow, Wednesday, January 10th, 2018 to Global News Radio 770 CHQR Danielle Smith at 11:00 am Mountain Standard Time
> 
> Here is the link to listen live on the internet - but don't just listen call in - have YOUR VOICE heard
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/calgary/program/danielle-smith



I'm sure you'll get your points across well, Truth. Not sure how much experience you have being interviewed on talk radio, so may I humbly offer a few tips:
>Be clear you are representing only yourself;
>Prepare well, including writing out your three key points and supporting messages;
>Anticipate the likely - and unlikely - questions and write out your responses;
>Be clear on your goal in doing this. What do you hope to gain? What specific action do you want to happen? Ex. Canada needs stronger consumer protection laws regarding timeshares...
>Prepare for criticism, dissenting views. Obviously the courts have spoken to this matter numerous times. An effective talk radio host, as you can expect Danielle Smith to be, will have researched this matter well and has likely lined up others (easy to think of one or two Calgary folks...) to address your points on air. 
>Don't repeat a negative question in your reply. Redirect back to your key message. 
>Be brief, succinct. State your key message then stop talking. 
Good luck


----------



## Scammed!

The Timeshare Story

We are ordinary people who gave our family/children what we never had. We were proud of how hard we worked in our lives, and how far we had come. We gave them memories they will forever remember. The times we all sat together at the supper table after a day of golf. We eagerly put all our savings into a week vacation that we would have for our retirement, to watch our grandchildren enjoy what we gave our children. The moments with our husbands and wife's drinking coffee, and staring at the majestic mountains in the morning. That was then.....

Now our timeshare is no more, paid for, boarded up, and no longer allowed to use. Our retirement money will soon be gone, our family time no more, our quiet time, our safe place we called our second home ...where our children grew up...we will never see again.

Today our "timesharing" is spent not with our family, but with strangers on line who have become family. Like the neighbour next door to us throughout those years...The guy we said hi to as we unpacked our car that was full to the top. The woman we held the door for at the rec centre. The family of kids we let go ahead of us for pancake breakfast. No, we never expected these people to become our family, but God or someone knew we would need each other one day for support in this crises. This has given timesharing a new meaning. Together we will stand strong for what is right and fair. No matter what happens we are the winners in this battle, and can hold our heads high knowing we are good people, and kind. We would never bully or take away our fellow man's money or home. It's a honor timesharing with you...NEVER GIVE UP!


----------



## Spark1

Scammed! said:


> The Timeshare Story
> 
> We are ordinary people who gave our family/children what we never had. We were proud of how hard we worked in our lives, and how far we had come. We gave them memories they will forever remember. The times we all sat together at the supper table after a day of golf. We eagerly put all our savings into a week vacation that we would have for our retirement, and to watch our grandchildren enjoy what we gave our children. The moments with our husbands and wife's drinking coffee, and staring at the majestic mountains in the morning. That was then.....
> 
> Now our timeshare is no more, paid for, boarded up, and no longer allowed to use. Our retirement money will soon be gone, our family time no more, our quiet time, our safe place we called our second home ...where our children grew up...we will never see again.
> 
> Today our "timesharing" is spent not with our family, but with strangers on line who have become family. Like the neighbour next door to us throughout those years...The guy we said hi to as we unpacked our car that was full to the top. The woman we held the door for at the rec centre. The family of kids we let go ahead of us for pancake breakfast. No, we never expected these people to become our family, but God or someone knew we would need each other one day for support in this crises. This has given timesharing a new meaning. Together we will stand strong for what is right and fair. No matter what happens we are the winners in this battle, and can hold our heads high knowing we are good people, and kind. We would never bully or take away our fellow man's money or home. It's a honor timesharing with you...NEVER GIVE UP!


Does any one know what happened to that post showing the same Judges,Lawyers Norton Rose and the Trustee in Corrupt BC that destroyed the timeshare contacts in Mexico Belize, and Hawaii.


----------



## aden2

I wonder how Robin Campbell former judge in Calgary, would do as a lawyer for timeshare group?


----------



## CleoB

marcthe12 said:


> we should call the CRA to do an audit on them because i believe they are not following the rules of contracts and obligations to lease holders and who knows where all the money is going


I like this idea but will the CRA does this kind of thing?


----------



## CleoB

Newbie2 said:


> I talked to a lawyer last night who said a forensic audit/review could be completed for about 10,000.  Not by him but he could refer me.  I do not have 10,000 but if 10 people had 1,000 or 20 people 500.  Does anyone think this is feasible?


Funny how Geldert said it was way too expensive to do an audit.  Have to wonder who he's working for.


----------



## Sheeptoslaughter

Great program i hope you all are listening.  And we have to keep our voices heard its wrong so much is wrong here


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Please take the time to call in during the open part of Daniel's segment coming up soon 403-974-8255

Tell your story!!!


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

Sheeptoslaughter said:


> Great program i hope you all are listening.  And we have to keep our voices heard its wrong so much is wrong here



Kudos to Truth Renaissance for being in the spotlight! You highlighted our problem well. Caller Ryan made an excellent point re major problem: judge finding we TS lease holders must pay for ALL costs! My heart goes out to the daughter who has landed into this horrific mess while her mom is in palliative care. 
I don't care what the Courts say the law allows, Northwynd/Northmont must show compassion...


----------



## MgolferL

Notwhatweweresold said:


> Kudos to Truth Renaissance for being in the spotlight! You highlighted our problem well. Caller Ryan made an excellent point re major problem: judge finding we TS lease holders must pay for ALL costs! My heart goes out to the daughter who has landed into this horrific mess while her mom is in palliative care.
> I don't care what the Courts say the law allows, Northwynd/Northmont must show compassion...


----------



## MgolferL

Good job to the people who called in. Danielle seemed to grasp what was going on. Too bad we didn't do this months ago...

IF Northmont showed compassion at this point it would be a "burning bush" moment...but according to MG, they are out for blood, so don't expect that is going to happen.


----------



## DisgustedinWA

Can it be verified that a financial statement audit was never done by our legal council? Does Canada have a right to appeal on the basis of ineffective council for civil cases? I would hope the courts would find a way to show some compassion for the commoners. This is the beginning of the end of the time share industry in Canada. Even Mexico protects their time share industry. I wonder which resort NW has next in their sights. I bet it's in Canada. Might be a good idea to warn Vancouver.


----------



## DisgustedinWA

I forgot to ask if anyone could post pictures of what the resort looks like today?


----------



## CleoB

Notwhatweweresold said:


> Kudos to Truth Renaissance for being in the spotlight! You highlighted our problem well. Caller Ryan made an excellent point re major problem: judge finding we TS lease holders must pay for ALL costs! My heart goes out to the daughter who has landed into this horrific mess while her mom is in palliative care.
> I don't care what the Courts say the law allows, Northwynd/Northmont must show compassion...


Where did you go to listen to this?  I'm on their website and it just shows a little of 14 minutes of conversation with Truth.


----------



## easy prey

Thank you truthr.  I think you did a fantastic job in presenting the issues.  Clear, concise, objective. Wish they would have allowed more time to be spent on our issues. I think you should be very proud of yourself. 

I hope this motivates all of our group to continue contacting the media and government.   

Our predicament definitely doesn't pass the smell test.  Unfortunately, there is no right and wrong for k.w. and northmont.  There is merely what they can get away with.


----------



## aden2

DisgustedinWA said:


> Can it be verified that a financial statement audit was never done by our legal council? Does Canada have a right to appeal on the basis of ineffective council for civil cases? I would hope the courts would find a way to show some compassion for the commoners. This is the beginning of the end of the time share industry in Canada. Even Mexico protects their time share industry. I wonder which resort NW has next in their sights. I bet it's in Canada. Might be a good idea to warn Vancouver.


There was an audit ordered and done by Service Alberta, and turned over to the RCMP. Calgary RCMP was in charge of the investigation. Supt. Frank Smart was in charge of the investigation but has moved to Taber RCMP.


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

CleoB said:


> Where did you go to listen to this?  I'm on their website and it just shows a little of 14 minutes of conversation with Truth.


I clicked the "Listen Live" button on Danielle Smith's page at globalnews.ca


----------



## DisgustedinWA

I'd like to thank the Canadian friends for their efforts in this. Not knowing the Canadian legal system puts us in the USA at a disadvantage. I'll be doing everything I can from this side of the border to pressure our politicians to put pressure on your politicians. Good Luck!


----------



## truthr

CleoB said:


> Where did you go to listen to this?  I'm on their website and it just shows a little of 14 minutes of conversation with Truth.


Just choose Wednesday, January 10, 2018, 11 AM to listen to the aired interview. Also, you can hear the open comment period for further discussion at 12 PM to 12:30.

http://store.corusradio.com/audio-vault/avWidget/?s=chqram&styleon=000000&styleoff=95a5a6


----------



## J's Garage

Spark1 said:


> Who posted all the Judges and Lawyers in B.C. and how they were connected to the Trustee and Norton Rose?


I may have not have had the information you are asking for.  I posted some of my findings based on notes I had seen.  It's post 2608 on page 105.  I hope it has some of what you were asking for.

https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...ith-lawsuit-info.182857/page-105#post-2088170


----------



## torqued

DisgustedinWA said:


> I'd like to thank the Canadian friends for their efforts in this. Not knowing the Canadian legal system puts us in the USA at a disadvantage. I'll be doing everything I can from this side of the border to pressure our politicians to put pressure on your politicians. Good Luck!


Same goes for me. You guys are great. Thanks for having our backs!  Doing all I can this side of the border


----------



## torqued

Have any of the US folks looked at any consumer protection law or fair trade??


----------



## DisgustedinWA

torqued said:


> Have any of the US folks looked at any consumer protection law or fair trade??


I am waiting for the final "settlement" docs and invoice. Then I'll take my "package" to every state and federal official that will give me the time of day.


----------



## J's Garage

I've thought a few times about how this doesn't seem like it could be real life.  I wouldn't call this my epiphany, but I thought that there are some things I could help some in a red flag that some may not have understood in some of the background.

Reference has been made to a book authored by Kirk Wankel.  "WoW Factor: an Insider's Look at the Real Skills Developed in the Virtual World of Warcraft".  I'm going to C&P a few lines from the synopsis.  It tells what I want it to tell so here is a full reference. 

https://books.google.ca/books/about/WoW_Factor.html?id=opqlcQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=en

From the overview :

-  "Every day players develop valuable skills in the virtual World of Warcraft. The raid leader that helped your guild complete the latest expansion could be training to become the next great CEO."
-  "The player cornering the gem market on the Auction House is preparing for a career as a Wall Street commodities broker"
-  "WoW Factor helped me realize the wealth of experience I had at my fingertips as a World of Warcraft raid leader."
-  " It connects examples from the real world and World of Warcraft, through a strong narrative approach, which enables the reader to relate to the World of Warcraft player and the skills and experience they are generating from their time spent online."

In the overview above, how do you like that word "raid"?

I'm going to oversimplify and I also need to admit my experience and exposure to the game is only fairly modest. 

But understand this - World of Warcraft is a game.  So I think that reference may have been misunderstood by a very large part of the demographic group involved in this time-share dispute. 

World of Warcraft is what's called a massively multiplayer online role-playing game or MMORPG.  In it you develop a character chosen from character classes.  Each class has different strengths and potential roles. You add secondary skills and functions to your character. Most of the gameplay itself centers around quests.  Completing quests usually reward with a combination of money, items, and experience points. 

There are a couple avenues that gameplay is accomplished.  We can summarize these as PVE and PVP.  PVE is player versus environment.  PVP is player versus player.  I am no longer familiar enough to know which battlegrounds have become most prevalent in the game environment.  However, PVP is very much a battleground that has a set objective, such as capturing a flag or defeating an opposing general, that must be completed to win the battleground.  It very much be set to a player making themselves attackable to players of the opposite faction.  Many of the quests you can complete in the game call for a raid. 

So let me end with a line from our last maintenance fee communication.  Maybe these are entirely different things.  But this line angered me just the same.  "As we have now successfully *defeated* the delinquent group...."  My original intention in pursuing litigation was because I questioned the validity of the RPF.  That's my right.  That's an avenue that our society has developed to address disagreements.  And while I may have to accept the judgements that were not in my favor, it's nothing but vindictive actions I see with the super inflating of the monies being sought.


----------



## CleoB

DisgustedinWA said:


> I'd like to thank the Canadian friends for their efforts in this. Not knowing the Canadian legal system puts us in the USA at a disadvantage. I'll be doing everything I can from this side of the border to pressure our politicians to put pressure on your politicians. Good Luck!


Yes, please do.   If our politicians decide to ignore us they won't be able to ignore your politician.s


----------



## MgolferL

J's Garage said:


> I've thought a few times about how this doesn't seem like it could be real life.  I wouldn't call this my epiphany, but I thought that there are some things I could help some in a red flag that some may not have understood in some of the background.
> 
> Reference has been made to a book authored by Kirk Wankel.  "WoW Factor: an Insider's Look at the Real Skills Developed in the Virtual World of Warcraft".  I'm going to C&P a few lines from the synopsis.  It tells what I want it to tell so here is a full reference.
> 
> https://books.google.ca/books/about/WoW_Factor.html?id=opqlcQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=en
> 
> From the overview :
> 
> -  "Every day players develop valuable skills in the virtual World of Warcraft. The raid leader that helped your guild complete the latest expansion could be training to become the next great CEO."
> -  "The player cornering the gem market on the Auction House is preparing for a career as a Wall Street commodities broker"
> -  "WoW Factor helped me realize the wealth of experience I had at my fingertips as a World of Warcraft raid leader."
> -  " It connects examples from the real world and World of Warcraft, through a strong narrative approach, which enables the reader to relate to the World of Warcraft player and the skills and experience they are generating from their time spent online."
> 
> In the overview above, how do you like that word "raid"?
> 
> I'm going to oversimplify and I also need to admit my experience and exposure to the game is only fairly modest.
> 
> But understand this - World of Warcraft is a game.  So I think that reference may have been misunderstood by a very large part of the demographic group involved in this time-share dispute.
> 
> World of Warcraft is what's called a massively multiplayer online role-playing game or MMORPG.  In it you develop a character chosen from character classes.  Each class has different strengths and potential roles. You add secondary skills and functions to your character. Most of the gameplay itself centers around quests.  Completing quests usually reward with a combination of money, items, and experience points.
> 
> There are a couple avenues that gameplay is accomplished.  We can summarize these as PVE and PVP.  PVE is player versus environment.  PVP is player versus player.  I am no longer familiar enough to know which battlegrounds have become most prevalent in the game environment.  However, PVP is very much a battleground that has a set objective, such as capturing a flag or defeating an opposing general, that must be completed to win the battleground.  It very much be set to a player making themselves attackable to players of the opposite faction.  Many of the quests you can complete in the game call for a raid.
> 
> So let me end with a line from our last maintenance fee communication.  Maybe these are entirely different things.  But this line angered me just the same.  "As we have now successfully *defeated* the delinquent group...."  My original intention in pursuing litigation was because I questioned the validity of the RPF.  That's my right.  That's an avenue that our society has developed to address disagreements.  And while I may have to accept the judgements that were not in my favor, it's nothing but vindictive actions I see with the super inflating of the monies being sought.



You are exactly right in your assessment...defeating the "delinquents" became the number one goal of NM (at any cost). The statements we are to receive shall be the punishment we are to endure. NM will then enjoy the spoils of war as any (?) victor would and shall feast upon the souls and flesh of the defeated in great celebration.


----------



## Scammed!

I personally want to thank Truthr for speaking out and being my voice today! Also Ryan and Jim, great points were brought up. This is not over..........Just the way NM responded shows their true colours, and that was not professional at all! Did they really win? We'll see.....


----------



## TimesharesBlow

Ok. I listened to the whole radio show. Now that we have Danielle Smith’s attention, I’m wondering if we should all flood her inbox thanking her for hosting Truth on the show and then sharing our personal stories. If she gets inundated, global news will probably pick it up as a major story. danielle@newstalk770.com - Let’s not let the radio show be one and done.


----------



## Scammed!

I think I found the right lawyer....and he just received a email from me.


----------



## melamike

TimesharesBlow said:


> Ok. I listened to the whole radio show. Now that we have Danielle Smith’s attention, I’m wondering if we should all flood her inbox thanking her for hosting Truth on the show and then sharing our personal stories. If she gets inundated, global news will probably pick it up as a major story. danielle@newstalk770.com - Let’s not let the radio show be one and done.


Already done!

Hi Danielle:

I'm writing to say thank you for giving the timeshare owners at Sunchaser a spot on your radio show today. I live in Kelowna and so I could not hear the entire show with the phone in's however from what I heard in the 15 minutes on the internet, you did a great job of grasping our dilemma and bringing it to light - thank you!!!

I bought a timeshare from Fairmont in 1994 and signed a ''lease agreement'' and we very much enjoyed vacationing there as well as trading it through Interval International for places warmer in the winter months. You've heard most of the story except perhaps about the greed of Northmont that we are finding most difficult to accept. Their price tag for someone in good standing to leave the resort is now $16,000 and keep in mind that you give up your timeshare with that. A timeshare that's been fully paid for and in my case had 20 years remaining when this all started is surrendered to Northmont and we have to pay to do that!

So for the past 4 years our family has been unable to use or trade our timeshare because of this disagreement and they have continued to charge maintenance fees and credit card interest on these fees. In 3 years a debt doubles at these rates! I have been billed about $8,000 but with interest my account is now over $21,000 and we are being treated like criminals.

Hard to believe this type of thing can happen in Canada, but as sad as it is, I guess greed is everywhere.

Again thank you for your help. I hope you have opened the door for further exposure on this travesty! I think public awareness is our only hope to put pressure on the system that allows this to happen.

Cheers


----------



## justiceisajoke

Hello??!.....
Mr. G??? You there? 
...we’re waiting!!....


----------



## Jjareed

Danielle,

I just wanted to reach out and thank you for discussing the time share dilemma on your program that is affecting so many of us with the hope the story could reach more people.

First, I would like to give you a little bit of information on our personal situation.  We purchased a leasehold interest in a timeshare in Canada at Farimont in 1997 for $11,770 Canadian dollars.  We have always paid our fees on time until 2013.  In 2013, the resort under new ownership claimed they needed an additional $4,000 from us to do major rebuilding. This amount varied depending on the amount of interest you had at the resort.
Many of us rejected this and hired an attorney.  At one time there were over 1,300 of us being represented by Michael Geldert from Vancouver Canada.

On our attorney’s advice we were told not to pay anything else to the resort, which turned out to be a mistake. This has been in the Canadian Courts for some time.  We had one favorable outcome but lost twice.  There was going to be another court hearing in December 2017, but that didn’t happen. Sunchaser, the resort owners who never wanted to negotiate in good faith decided they were ready to settle.  Sunchaser’s only stipulation was that they would negotiate only if Mr. Geldert had the authority to settle on everyone’s behalf. Mr Geldert, sent us a letter to sign giving him the authority to settle for us.  I believe the vast majority of his clients agreed to this. We also agreed to let him settle in good faith.

However, we did not get a favorable outcome.  From the time we hired Mr. Geldert he always stressed that any settlement had to be fair and reasonable so we assumed if there was a settlement it would be fair.  But we don’t believe the settlement was fair because it is showing us owing them over $25,000CAD, which $11,432 is interest on past due amounts.  The interest rate is 26.82% which seems excessive. Also, an additional 20% was added to the final amount. Upon receiving this information from Mr. Geldert, I promptly reminded him that in 2013, the resort gave us the option to buy out of the resort for $3,822CAD and on your advice we refused the offer because he felt we could do better.

How this has gotten to this point is crazy and unimaginable.  My wife and I and many other people were never told by our lawyer that we could potentially give Sunchaser a blank check.

Thank you


----------



## ready2go2

DisgustedinWA said:


> I'd like to thank the Canadian friends for their efforts in this. Not knowing the Canadian legal system puts us in the USA at a disadvantage. I'll be doing everything I can from this side of the border to pressure our politicians to put pressure on your politicians. Good Luck!


 I am also in the USA, and i dont know who else to reach out too.  i was transferred this from my dad, 4 months before fiasco because he was 90 and couldnt deal with the payments or anything anymore.  i contacted the ambassador in canada, and left unanswered. - is there a brief outline you have or someone we should be contacting here?


----------



## F. Hugh Wankel

So we received our December 2017 invoice from Northmont and our "settlement" is $1,000 more!!!! Where is the settlement???  Anyone else have the same??


----------



## melamike

Geldert has learned well from the crooks he's been dealing with. He want's another $250 to settle the claim for each of 1295 people in his group. That's another $323,750 in this pocket - not bad for the week work!  How can I possibly pay him for screwing my out of my hard earned money.  I'm too upset to say much more right now.....


----------



## Jjareed

melamike said:


> Geldert has learned well from the crooks he's been dealing with. He want's another $250 to settle the claim for each of 1295 people in his group. That's another $323,750 in this pocket - not bad for the week work!  How can I possibly pay him for screwing my out of my hard earned money.  I'm too upset to say much more right now.....


Did you get a message from him recently???


----------



## CleoB

melamike said:


> Geldert has learned well from the crooks he's been dealing with. He want's another $250 to settle the claim for each of 1295 people in his group. That's another $323,750 in this pocket - not bad for the week work!  How can I possibly pay him for screwing my out of my hard earned money.  I'm too upset to say much more right now.....


Ask for a detailed statement indicating where the $500 he requested back in September went to.


----------



## Petus@18

Don't forget to send your concerns to the law society 
professionalconduct@lsbc.org

This is a clear case of professional misconduct, corruption and malice. There are so many unethical serious issues in all of this that should be investigated.  Don't let him get away for what he has done to us.


----------



## Petus@18

Scammed! said:


> I think I found the right lawyer....and he just received a email from me.



Who is the lawyer? We are having problems finding someone that wants to help us.  Very frustrating!


----------



## melamike

Jjareed said:


> Did you get a message from him recently???


I got an invoice today with the documents I never agreed to but I'm expected to sign. Looking for a way out of this!!


----------



## Scammed!

melamike said:


> I got an invoice today with the documents I never agreed to but I'm expected to sign. Looking for a way out of this!![/QUOT
> 
> 
> Petus@18 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the lawyer? We are having problems finding someone that wants to help us.  Very frustrating!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't panic....Danielle Smith said who on the radio which you should listen to.
Click to expand...


----------



## aden2

I think that the so called "Legacy for Life" was to make one to think it was a timeshare thing when it was more like a "PONZI SCHEME". It raised more than $23 million and wonder if they could be charged with this. It was nothing but a FRAUD SCHEME! Between 2009 and 2012, when Del Rosario was working as an accounting clerk for the Worker’s Compensation Board, she tricked her victims into handing over $1.8 million, under the guise of buying into an ‘investment plan’. She was sentenced January 5, 2018. 

Ponzi scheme is a scam investment designed to separate investors from their money. Everything NM has done is to scam more money. It was the bond deal $40 million, the legacy deal $23 million, the renovation scheme, the millions in collecting maintenance fees, the selling of Hillside for $11million etc. NM has no intention of running a resort it is a Ponzi Scheme and they should be criminally charged.


----------



## Tacoma

Time for bed and still no letter with details from my lawyer. Apparently the bill is more than we expect and comes with a gag order. Great these crooks will be able to do it again.


----------



## Scammed!

Tacoma said:


> Time for bed and still no letter with details from my lawyer. Apparently the bill is more than we expect and comes with a gag order. Great these crooks will be able to do it again.


If there is a gag order no one stop doing what your doing....Keep emailing calling OFFICIALS and reporting what is happening to you. You all know who to call. Don't give up!!!


----------



## torqued

Did NW phone into the radio talk show yesterday?  If so what did they have to say?  Have not received anything from MG though I told him I rejected the settlement. Washed his hands of me?


----------



## Inquiringmind

[ got my documents from Geldert yesterday. In the settlement documents it says that if I don’t pay it goes to 162% by “consent to judgment”. What is consent to judgement in this context Did we agree to this. Or did a judge rule this. What are the implications?  I think the implication may be that you have a greed to the debt and the plaintiff and start attaching to your assets. Correct me if I’m wrong on this.


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

torqued said:


> Did NW phone into the radio talk show yesterday?  If so what did they have to say?  Have not received anything from MG though I told him I rejected the settlement. Washed his hands of me?


Talk show host Danielle Smith said Northmont declined to be interviewed but sent her links to the court decisions in their favour.  She described their message as implying "Too bad, so sad."  I received the email from MG with the settlement docs attached at 11:45 p.m. last night. He is dealing with more than 1,000 clients still on a tight deadline so it's likely those who rejected the settlement won't hear from him, at least not until he processes our final papers.


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

Inquiringmind said:


> [ got my documents from Geldert yesterday. In the settlement documents it says that if I don’t pay it goes to 162% by “consent to judgment”. What is consent to judgement in this context Did we agree to this. Or did a judge rule this. What are the implications?  I think the implication may be that you have a greed to the debt and the plaintiff and start attaching to your assets. Correct me if I’m wrong on this.


MG said one reason he agreed to the settlement offer was that KW was intent on coming after us for 162% of what NM states we owe and that would then also include charges for 2018 MF plus interest to date at over 26%/year! Once the Appeal Court agreed NM could charge us the project reno fee, a cancellation fee, plus interest, well, we were backed into a corner.  MG fought for 5% interest, which is what the law states is the maximum we can be charged under our particular TS lease contract as it does not specify a "per annum" rate, but NM said they would then up the cancellation fee to extract the same amount of money from each of us. Totally unfair all around IMHO.


----------



## MgolferL

FYI...Danielle Smith is discussing it again on her show this morning.


----------



## CleoB

Notwhatweweresold said:


> MG said one reason he agreed to the settlement offer was that KW was intent on coming after us for 162% of what NM states we owe and that would then also include charges for 2018 MF plus interest to date at over 26%/year! Once the Appeal Court agreed NM could charge us the project reno fee, a cancellation fee, plus interest, well, we were backed into a corner.  MG fought for 5% interest, which is what the law states is the maximum we can be charged under our particular TS lease contract as it does not specify a "per annum" rate, but NM said they would then up the cancellation fee to extract the same amount of money from each of us. Totally unfair all around IMHO.


So if NM was going to up the cancellation fee how did they bargain in good faith?  Or is MG b.s. us?  He does have another group that he needs to work on so I'm guessing he wants to be rid of us.   https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info


----------



## Scammed!

I have a question this is *not* the certificate of judgement from the Honourable Judge Young correct? Correct......Now this is what I do know. I do not trust my lawyer at all due to all the issues mentioned and why we need a middle man. I do not trust NM. I will not send one dollar to either of these people which I don't have anyways. I suggest we write Judge Young to see if she is allowing this mess and if we have been convicted of a crime we did not commit and if she is allowing our lawyer and NM to deny her orders. Why does she need our lawyer whom she knows has misrepresented, denied her orders, and received our letters which should in itself get some sort of legal procedure in place?  Also where does she see fit to send any money what so ever in trust? I don't trust this process.


----------



## torqued

Need another attorney to navigate all that. Judge Young is done with us unless forced to deal with us by some sort of legal procedure. MG isn’t going to do it for us


----------



## Scammed!

torqued said:


> Need another attorney to navigate all that. Judge Young is done with us unless forced to deal with us by some sort of legal procedure. MG isn’t going to do it for us


Well start looking everyone! We need that legal procedure to take place and if not. What says we can't all go to the court house and do it ourselves. Get out your banners people!

And on that note why would our lawyer not do it for us? Think about that for one moment.....HE WAS NEVER ON OUR SIDE HE HAS MISREPRESENTED US! I paid him to defend my rights and at this moment that is not taking place. Who in there right mind would send money to him?


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

CleoB said:


> So if NM was going to up the cancellation fee how did they bargain in good faith?  Or is MG b.s. us?  He does have another group that he needs to work on so I'm guessing he wants to be rid of us.   https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info


If one side holds the power, is it ever in good faith? When court decisions supported NM's position that all costs are chargeable to TS holders and agreed NM can charge a cancellation fee...  I feel angry, frustrated, sad, disillusioned, but my practical side says this gig's up. I just don't see an avenue that will result in cost savings and can't afford to risk an even higher bill down the road.


----------



## torqued

As I said before the sign of a fair settlement is where neither side is happy. Surely not the case here. The only leverage we have is having them come after each of us individually.


----------



## Scammed!

torqued said:


> As I said before the sign of a fair settlement is where neither side is happy. Surely not the case here. The only leverage we have is having them come after each of us individually.


Then so it will be. ....


----------



## Just Looking Around

Newbie2 said:


> I talked to a lawyer last night who said a forensic audit/review could be completed for about 10,000.  Not by him but he could refer me.  I do not have 10,000 but if 10 people had 1,000 or 20 people 500.  Does anyone think this is feasible?


I'm in for $1,000. I don't think you can do one now that the court case is over. The Lawyer looks at fault to me. What was he thinking?


----------



## Petus@18

Inquiringmind said:


> [ got my documents from Geldert yesterday. In the settlement documents it says that if I don’t pay it goes to 162% by “consent to judgment”. What is consent to judgement in this context Did we agree to this. Or did a judge rule this. What are the implications?  I think the implication may be that you have a greed to the debt and the plaintiff and start attaching to your assets. Correct me if I’m wrong on this.



Is the amount being asked higher than the amount from the invoice we got from Northmont?  Or is it lower?


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

Petus@18 said:


> Is the amount being asked higher than the amount from the invoice we got from Northmont?  Or is it lower?


Ours is higher.


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> I think that the so called "Legacy for Life" was to make one to think it was a timeshare thing when it was more like a "PONZI SCHEME". It raised more than $23 million and wonder if they could be charged with this. It was nothing but a FRAUD SCHEME! Between 2009 and 2012, when Del Rosario was working as an accounting clerk for the Worker’s Compensation Board, she tricked her victims into handing over $1.8 million, under the guise of buying into an ‘investment plan’. She was sentenced January 5, 2018.
> 
> Ponzi scheme is a scam investment designed to separate investors from their money. Everything NM has done is to scam more money. It was the bond deal $40 million, the legacy deal $23 million, the renovation scheme, the millions in collecting maintenance fees, the selling of Hillside for $11million etc. NM has no intention of running a resort it is a Ponzi Scheme and they should be criminally charged.


 You are right and I hope no one pays for this scam. Remember every one of you ,you bought a product that was legal to sell in Canada. The governments have a responsibity to protect Consumers from this. My Contract signed by Collin Knight was the Contract listed on the Canadian Consumers Handbook. This contract was simple to under stand. It was the right to use Lease and you own no Property . The Freedom to Choose was not in my Contract. We have a right to protect ourselfs from these scammers using consumer affairs in the provinces as well as in Canada that is our right if they are changing our contracts. We all have to get after all the politicians Federal and Provincial politicians and demand protection from these scammers. Only they can make changes. Do not allow any politician tell you there is nothing they can do for you because it is a timeshare. It is these two governments that are allowing Timeshare to be sold in Canada. We demand that the Contracts that they list under the Canadian Consumer Handbook are protected by both governments. We had a terrible Lawyer but we still can demand Justice. I would never trust a thing MG did ,you still might not be released and if you decide to pay you better Know where the numbers are coming from. I feel the judicial system were just as big as scammers as Northmont.


----------



## Spark1

Remember this is no different than with your bank. Say a new owner takes over your bank and you have a 30 year contract with the bank. Then all of a sudden the new owner can change your contract and say you did not pay enough interest to the bank for the last 20 years and we are going to charge you another 5% compounded for those years. Boy I bet Consumer Affairs Canada would be disputing this right away.  You can not be lazy I have contacted every MP in Alberta and I Will be sending a 10 page letter now to the top politicians demanding justice using Consumer Protection from a product that they allowed to be sold in Canada and we demand protection from these Scammers.


----------



## MgolferL

Petus@18 said:


> Is the amount being asked higher than the amount from the invoice we got from Northmont?  Or is it lower?


Ours is much higher.


----------



## easy prey

I encourage everyone to also contact the mla and mp that represent the area in which the resort is actually located being fairmont hot springs.

Mp is Wayne Stetski
Email: wayne.stetski@parl.gc.ca
Phone (250) 417 2250 

Mla is Doug Clovchok
doug.clovechok.mla@leg.bc.ca 
Phone (250) 432 2300 & (250) 356 0963


----------



## Floyd55

Notwhatweweresold said:


> If one side holds the power, is it ever in good faith? When court decisions supported NM's position that all costs are chargeable to TS holders and agreed NM can charge a cancellation fee...  I feel angry, frustrated, sad, disillusioned, but my practical side says this gig's up. I just don't see an avenue that will result in cost savings and can't afford to risk an even higher bill down the road.



At this point I am afraid I have to agree. We have dug our heels in and refused to pay over the past 4 years of litigation hoping that in the end someone would see things from our perspective. Now we are stuck paying our original fee plus interest plus four years of maintenance fees plus a fee to exit! My fear is that if we duck out of this deal the end result will only be more expensive. Seems hard to believe that it could get worse than it is, but I'm afraid it would.


----------



## ihavetheworstluck

I am paying 4 times the amount now of my purchase price of my timeshare in the year 2000.  I don't even know how to secure a loan for that amount. This has been the biggest nightmare. Why is NW bill almost 5000 less than the overall bill I am getting? I am going to have to decide to pay for my medical treatments or the settlement because I can not do both.


----------



## ihavetheworstluck

I will be paying for four years of maintenance fees to a resort i could not access during that time or deposit those weeks. This just seems wrong


----------



## LilMaggie

Notwhatweweresold said:


> Ours is higher.


Ours is a few thousand dollars higher.  We must have to pay an extra fee to cancel our Fairmont lease and to pay MG a bonus.


----------



## Huckleberry

Well, we are here now.  But we can sit and moan or stand up and do something about it.  Have you got to the article by Danielle Smith and commented or at least liked the good posts?  Have you written your MLA and the MLA's in the areas affected?  Have your written your Premiere?  The opposition?  CBC? Service Canada?  RCMP Fraud department?  Have you E-mailed something to every address posted in this thread?

If the answer is "no", then take a good hard look in the mirror.  Think about whether you want to just complain, or if you want to do something about it.  We collectively didn't act before, but right now if you want something done, it's time to do it yourself.

Geldert, Northmont, and everyone else wants us to just roll over and complain.  They don't want us to do something about it, or to help ourselves.

What are you going to do about it?


----------



## Punter

We received the following letter today from the Provincial Court of Alberta.

January 8th, 2018


Re: Correspondence Address to Honourable Judge Young.

I take this opportunity to respond to your letter to Judge Young.

Judge Young has issued a written decision on this matter (2017 ABPC 249), and we understand an appeal of the decision has been filed. Accordingly, Judge's Young's authority is now exhausted with respect to everything except the issues of interests and costs, which are subject of a forthcoming decision. She has no power to revisit anything in the aforementioned written decision and has received submissions from counsel on the other matter, which is under consideration.

When a litigant is represented, any communications to and from Judge Young can only occur through counsel, with copies to all parties. If you are unhappy with your current legal representation, you may wish to seek alternative legal advice as to the appropriate steps to take. You may also wish to contact the Law Society of British Columbia and/or the Law Society of Alberta, as they are the organizations that govern the behavior of lawyers. If you have complaints or concerns they will be able to assist you.

Sincerely yours,

Kim Palichuk
Executive Legal Counsel


----------



## Petus@18

Punter said:


> We received the following letter today from the Provincial Court of Alberta.
> 
> January 8th, 2018
> 
> 
> Re: Correspondence Address to Honourable Judge Young.
> 
> I take this opportunity to respond to your letter to Judge Young.
> 
> Judge Young has issued a written decision on this matter (2017 ABPC 249), and we understand an appeal of the decision has been filed. Accordingly, Judge's Young's authority is now exhausted with respect to everything except the issues of interests and costs, which are subject of a forthcoming decision. She has no power to revisit anything in the aforementioned written decision and has received submissions from counsel on the other matter, which is under consideration.
> 
> When a litigant is represented, any communications to and from Judge Young can only occur through counsel, with copies to all parties. If you are unhappy with your current legal representation, you may wish to seek alternative legal advice as to the appropriate steps to take. You may also wish to contact the Law Society of British Columbia and/or the Law Society of Alberta, as they are the organizations that govern the behavior of lawyers. If you have complaints or concerns they will be able to assist you.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> 
> Kim Palichuk
> Executive Legal Counsel



Thanks for sharing, at least we know she acknowledged our trying to communicate with her.  Hopefully we will find some other lawyer to help us.


----------



## Scammed!

I would suggest all of you contact *Mathew J.N. Farrell *by phone the minute you can at
(403) 457-7778. No promises. The more that call the better. As stated above we need legal counsel to do the proper steps.... A.S.A.P.!


----------



## Petus@18

Scammed! said:


> I would suggest all of you contact *Mathew J.N. Farrell *by phone the minute you can at
> (403) 457-7778. No promises. The more that call the better. As stated above we need legal counsel to do the proper steps.... A.S.A.P.!




Thanks for this information, the office is closed now but we will call him tomorrow morning.

My hope is that all sites from FB (secret and no so secret) unite forces with us ASAP, and retain a lawyer that will be able to communicate with Judge Young our concerns about the ridiculous settlement Geldert sent.  This is the time we all should be together!


----------



## Scammed!

Petus@18 said:


> Thanks for this information, the office is closed now but we will call him tomorrow morning.
> 
> My hope is that all sites from FB (secret and no so secret) unite forces with us ASAP, and retain a lawyer that will be able to communicate with Judge Young our concerns about the ridiculous settlement Geldert sent.  This is the time we all should be together!


This information was open to all on the radio.  He may or may not be able to help...Don't know. I think everyone is entitled to legal advise of some kind at this moment, and everyone has to make their own decisions.


----------



## Spark1

Punter said:


> We received the following letter today from the Provincial Court of Alberta.
> 
> January 8th, 2018
> 
> 
> Re: Correspondence Address to Honourable Judge Young.
> 
> I take this opportunity to respond to your letter to Judge Young.
> 
> Judge Young has issued a written decision on this matter (2017 ABPC 249), and we understand an appeal of the decision has been filed. Accordingly, Judge's Young's authority is now exhausted with respect to everything except the issues of interests and costs, which are subject of a forthcoming decision. She has no power to revisit anything in the aforementioned written decision and has received submissions from counsel on the other matter, which is under consideration.
> 
> When a litigant is represented, any communications to and from Judge Young can only occur through counsel, with copies to all parties. If you are unhappy with your current legal representation, you may wish to seek alternative legal advice as to the appropriate steps to take. You may also wish to contact the Law Society of British Columbia and/or the Law Society of Alberta, as they are the organizations that govern the behavior of lawyers. If you have complaints or concerns they will be able to assist you.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> 
> Kim Palichuk
> Executive Legal Counsel


 I just finished emailing my MP as well as the Premier of Alberta Rachael Notlely, Stephanie McLean the minister of Service Alberta and Kathleen Ganley Minister of Justice.    Every one please write your MP and insist on action from all governments federal or Provincial and tell them what happened to us was Consumer. Affairs in Canada as well as all the provinces that created a Monster From Calgary Alberta that is robbing innocent Canadians Life Savings. It is the Canadian Governments responsibly  as well as Consumer Affairs in all the provinces to protect all consumers from White Collar Crime. They did not and if they did this would not be happening. Timeshare got a bad name because the politicians are not doing their jobs. There should of been guide lines set out what and what they can not do if you are a owner of a timeshare resort. This means you can not Rob innocent hard working Canadians. Tell the politicians that you want protection from these Scammers it is our right to get this Protection. My contract is from the Canadian Consumer Handbook just a simple Lease Agreement just like several timeshare lease Canadians. Timeshare is no different than any other service you have a right to be protected and if the government does not want to this make it illegal to sell timeshares in Canada. Wake up Governments. This is not a dictatorship this is Canada and it is not a communist Country. This war is not over yet,we are feed up with all the abuse they have given us.


----------



## melamike

Can someone please help me?  I've filed a complaint against MG with the BC Law Society but I want to expand my complaint and offer some more material for them to review. I seem to recall at some point that MG was asked about defending the VIA's when so many had Vacation Leases. He said in an update that he would address that issue at a late date - but he never did as far as I know. I can't seem to find that transmission - does anyone have it?  As we all know he has lumped us all into one group even though our agreements vary and I want to bring this to the Society's attention.


----------



## Lily123

Punter said:


> We received the following letter today from the Provincial Court of Alberta.
> 
> January 8th, 2018
> 
> 
> Re: Correspondence Address to Honourable Judge Young.
> 
> I take this opportunity to respond to your letter to Judge Young.
> 
> Judge Young has issued a written decision on this matter (2017 ABPC 249), and we understand an appeal of the decision has been filed. Accordingly, Judge's Young's authority is now exhausted with respect to everything except the issues of interests and costs, which are subject of a forthcoming decision. She has no power to revisit anything in the aforementioned written decision and has received submissions from counsel on the other matter, which is under consideration.
> 
> When a litigant is represented, any communications to and from Judge Young can only occur through counsel, with copies to all parties. If you are unhappy with your current legal representation, you may wish to seek alternative legal advice as to the appropriate steps to take. You may also wish to contact the Law Society of British Columbia and/or the Law Society of Alberta, as they are the organizations that govern the behavior of lawyers. If you have complaints or concerns they will be able to assist you.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> 
> Kim Palichuk
> Executive Legal Counsel



I wonder when this "forthcoming decision" will be made, it needs to be made prior to our payment deadline?  Is she aware of this date? No wonder the release they are wanting to enforce was so insistent that only BC courts decision was valid as Her decision could impact them.  Punter, any idea? What address did you write to?


----------



## ecwinch

torqued said:


> Need another attorney to navigate all that. Judge Young is done with us unless forced to deal with us by some sort of legal procedure. MG isn’t going to do it for us



Agree. From the number of times that the conduct of the attorney is discussed by the court - which is rare in the US - it is clear to me that MG's tactics have alienated the court and MG likely is trying to mitigate his exposure and/or possible censure by avoiding going in front of Judge Young again.

If MG had his clients best interest in mind he would have mitigated their exposure by advising them to continuing to pay m/f while the contractual issue was being litigated. As another group apparently did. Instead he took the exact opposite position - advising clients to withhold the dues - which others have said was intended to drive NM to the settlement table. That is a very risky strategy as it ballooned the bad debt expense the resort incurred. Which is easily converted to monetary damages, and compounded given how long this has dragged on. Given NM a good case for explaining to the Judge why the original $3-4k cancellation offer is no longer on the table.


----------



## Beelzebub

I am not one to organize as I am not living in Canada at the moment but could a protest not be organized on HIway 93 at the entrance to the resort (I use that word lightly) and get some press and bad publicity for these pricks who will be trying to sell our rentals to other unsuspecting fish?


----------



## Beelzebub

Beelzebub said:


> I am not one to organize as I am not living in Canada at the moment but could a protest not be organized on HIway 93 at the entrance to the resort (I use that word lightly) and get some press and bad publicity for these pricks who will be trying to sell our rentals to other unsuspecting fish?


it would feel good if nothing else. You should not be raped monetarily and stay silent.


----------



## CleoB

ihavetheworstluck said:


> I am paying 4 times the amount now of my purchase price of my timeshare in the year 2000.  I don't even know how to secure a loan for that amount. This has been the biggest nightmare. Why is NW bill almost 5000 less than the overall bill I am getting? I am going to have to decide to pay for my medical treatments or the settlement because I can not do both.


What do you mean NW bill is almost 5000 less than the overall bill?  Does MG show what NW has paid?  I declined this settlement so have not received any emails from MG since.


----------



## Beelzebub

does anyone know what they can go after? I am retired, can they go after my pension or rrsp?


----------



## Hey lady

Beelzebub said:


> does anyone know what they can go after? I am retired, can they go after my pension or rrsp?


My understanding is pensions and RRSP cannot be touched. Keep in mind that the minute pension monies are deposited into your bank account your bank account is "game". Keep your money under your pillow.


----------



## Hey lady

CleoB said:


> What do you mean NW bill is almost 5000 less than the overall bill?  Does MG show what NW has paid?  I declined this settlement so have not received any emails from MG since.


The invoice dated Dec 30, 2017 is less than the amount Geldert reached in the "settlement " with Northmont. Paying the Dec 30, 2017 amount entitles one to stay, not leave. However, you would still receive an additional invoice  from Northmont for a share of the legal fees against each contract. So it isn't cheaper to pay the Dec 30, 2017 invoice instead of the "settlement".


----------



## #deceived

We shouldn't have to pay either of them! 

We called MG's office today....don't you know he is 'not taking any calls' today. Surprise surprise.


----------



## rlaseur

anyone part of the latest Northmont's settlement offer posted Jan 10?


----------



## rlaseur

So are people sending to their own MLA/MP in AB? or to all MLAs/MPs?


----------



## marcthe12

Hey lady said:


> My understanding is pensions and RRSP cannot be touched. Keep in mind that the minute pension monies are deposited into your bank account your bank account is "game". Keep your money under your pillow.


change banks asap


----------



## Scammed!

rlaseur said:


> So are people sending to their own MLA/MP in AB? or to all MLAs/MPs?


All...


----------



## Punter

_



			What address did you write to?
		
Click to expand...

_
*We faxed a letter and then dropped another at the Courthouse. 

FAX - 780 427 4348


#NAFR!*


----------



## #deceived

Unfortunately, yes, we are a part of the lawsuit.


----------



## #deceived

Punter said:


> We faxed a letter and then dropped another one off at the Courthouse.
> Fax -780 427 4348
> 
> #NAFR!


Which courthouse? Where?


----------



## Punter

#deceived said:


> Which courthouse? Where?


Edmonton Provincial Court Civil Case. That's where the trial took place.


----------



## #deceived

Petus@18 said:


> Thanks for this information, the office is closed now but we will call him tomorrow morning.
> 
> My hope is that all sites from FB (secret and no so secret) unite forces with us ASAP, and retain a lawyer that will be able to communicate with Judge Young our concerns about the ridiculous settlement Geldert sent.  This is the time we all should be together!


Please let us know what you find out!


----------



## aden2

We were scammed by Northmont in 2010 of $7269.50, forward to 2017 at 26.82% equals $25,540.26. This is my counterclaim against NW.


----------



## Petus@18

aden2 said:


> We were scammed by Northmont in 2010 of $7269.50, forward to 2017 at 26.82% equals $25,540.26. This is my counterclaim against NW.



Did you file a counterclaim on your own?  I understand we need a lawyer?


----------



## aden2

MG would never present this to NM, even when he claimed he negotiated a deal, so I told him to quit playing games!
When I get my judgement I will file a dispute note claiming what they owe me because of 2009-10 Fraud Scheme. In the meantime I will go in detail today and send them a DEMAND BILL for this amount..


----------



## Bewildered

dotbuhler said:


> I am in the Yorkton area. Been here almost 10 years, but was a lifelong Albertan when I bought the headache in 1990. Someone suggested picketing the Northwynd office in Calgary the past few days. Doubt my car would have started and since the STC is gone, options are limited. (Besides, picketing is a warm weather project, as any Union organizer will agree. Freezing your butts off to a non-audience is best done at the end of the strike...)


----------



## Bewildered

Anti-fraud has my complaint from 2013 I even have my case number - nothing! Consumer protection in Alberta, talked with them years ago, I was told directly by their office last week that they investigated and did a forensic audit and passed it on to the RCMP. I said that would mean there were concerns if they passed it on to the RCMP and he said yeah. Of course M.G. wouldn’t have the brains to look into this but maybe Judge Youngs office should be, the Justice Minister, etc. All will be getting additional calls from me again. Judge Youngs office deserves a 24/7 call line for how she left us hanging in my opinion on the interest. Total bailout by her. 
KEEP THE MOMENTUM GOING


----------



## Lily123

Ok posters, send Judge Young a fax reminding her of her ruling regarding interest and costs.  Also, the fact that they are threatening an unknown penalty if we do not immediately accept their "deal" and thereby not allow her to hear us individually as she said in document below.  Isn't that extortion??

Her fax number: 780 427 4348

Here is court document.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

I hope everyone is okay after receiving their recent update and wish you all the best while you digest it.

I myself have not brought myself to read the entire thing yet but I am understanding enough to know this is not what my directions were to Michael Geldert and wanted to share with you what I am going to do this morning.

If you decide to follow suit with what I am going to do in sharing my opinion I do not recommend you outright fire Michael, threaten, or try to ask him what his motives are if you want to share your own opinion.

You may even want to ask that he respond to you in writing if he feels the need to respond.

Be courteous, professional, and as indicated email him as directed – here is a few emails that might work to ensure he receives your concerns.
sunchaser@geldertlaw.com
patricia@geldertlaw.com
accounting@geldertlaw.com
info@geldertlaw.com
michael@geldertlaw.com
intrawest@geldertlaw.com


Mr. Geldert

I have started my reviewed of your most recent update sent January 11th but I am still working my way thru it. 

Thank-you for ‎finally providing the details of your negotiated settlement that was signed by yourself December 14th and now that I have finally received full details of the negotiated settlement there are particular areas of the settlement agreement I do not agree with.  These related to the settlement you alone have had in your possession for almost a month and failed to share until now related directly to the settlement cost, the limited time to prepare to pay these costs, and some of the conditions stipulated.  I had to rely on your past updates that only provided vague details and only after receiving this most recent update began to understand the full magnitude of your settlement negotiation.

The SIF form I submitted for November 10th was only provided based on the fact you were only directed to enter into discussions with Northmont reaffirmed by your comments below that implied you understood your direction to take on behalf in the November 6th update.

“Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.”

As we also had a personal phone call related to the modified SIF I found on Facebook that you refused to accept you clearly indicated the understanding of the limited scope of the directions you had from me and verbally reaffirmed acknowledged you would not finalize the negotiations without my approval.  You also indicated you could be trusted not to use this SIF document as a PIN to my bank account and this was just part of the process to get Northmont to the table.

This negotiated settlement is very one sided to the sole benefit of Northmont and not what you were instructed to do on my behalf – your interpretation may differ but at the end of the day you are only offering an opinion that is paid for by the client who should ultimately decide the proper course of action.

As you are more than likely aware a great many members of the litigation group are not in agreement with your decision and the terms you have negotiated.  As a result they are exercising their rites to ensure their interests are heard and will be fairly looked after.

Part of these exercises have been directed towards Judge Young who has replied to members of the litigation group there are judicial protocols she must follow.  This included a comment to the effect counsel must initiate contact with her and all parties involved so all parties can be involved to ensure no one party can stand in front of her without the other allowing all sides to speak to the matter mutually at hand.

Now that we have heard from Judge Young as to what the process is to be heard, Michael you need to initiate contact with Judge Young as our existing council.  This more than likely will cause you to check your ego at the door but you need to re-open the negotiations with Northmont to discuss options moving forward to serve the interests of everyone involved.

Michael you should have understood if you followed the direction of the court an arbitrator or a ruling from Judge Young would aid in the negations with Northmont as I believe Judge Young believed you were out of your league in entering negotiations with Northmont.  She provided you the guidance to assist in reaching something closer to an amical negotiation on behalf of your clients in her decisions’ conclusions and now you must act on this guidance.

You have caused severe distress especially given the timing of the year, lack of transparency, and slow timing of information provided which forced most people to take some form of action to see your decision was not endorsed by the courts as it is not in our own personal best interest, best interests of other member of the litigation group, or the timeshare industry as a whole.

You had a lot of people relying on you who are still forced to rely on you that you have failed so there is limited time for you to right this wrong so seize the opportunity and fix your mistake.

Northmont will not be in favor of returning to the table as they already have the golden egg(s - actually you have done well in give them pretty much all of them) so this will be very difficult for you to do but you created the current situation alone and it is up to you to initiate corrective action based on your clients instructions not your opinion.

‎Regards,


----------



## torqued

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I hope everyone is okay after receiving their recent update and wish you all the best while you digest it.
> 
> I myself have not brought myself to read the entire thing yet but I am understanding enough to know this is not what my directions were to Michael Geldert and wanted to share with you what I am going to do this morning.
> 
> If you decide to follow suit with what I am going to do in sharing my opinion I do not recommend you outright fire Michael, threaten, or try to ask him what his motives are if you want to share your own opinion.
> 
> You may even want to ask that he respond to you in writing if he feels the need to respond.
> 
> Be courteous, professional, and as indicated email him as directed – here is a few emails that might work to ensure he receives your concerns.
> sunchaser@geldertlaw.com
> patricia@geldertlaw.com
> accounting@geldertlaw.com
> info@geldertlaw.com
> michael@geldertlaw.com
> intrawest@geldertlaw.com
> 
> 
> Mr. Geldert
> 
> I have started my reviewed of your most recent update sent January 11th but I am still working my way thru it.
> 
> Thank-you for ‎finally providing the details of your negotiated settlement that was signed by yourself December 14th and now that I have finally received full details of the negotiated settlement there are particular areas of the settlement agreement I do not agree with.  These related to the settlement you alone have had in your possession for almost a month and failed to share until now related directly to the settlement cost, the limited time to prepare to pay these costs, and some of the conditions stipulated.  I had to rely on your past updates that only provided vague details and only after receiving this most recent update began to understand the full magnitude of your settlement negotiation.
> 
> The SIF form I submitted for November 10th was only provided based on the fact you were only directed to enter into discussions with Northmont reaffirmed by your comments below that implied you understood your direction to take on behalf in the November 6th update.
> 
> “Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.”
> 
> As we also had a personal phone call related to the modified SIF I found on Facebook that you refused to accept you clearly indicated the understanding of the limited scope of the directions you had from me and verbally reaffirmed acknowledged you would not finalize the negotiations without my approval.  You also indicated you could be trusted not to use this SIF document as a PIN to my bank account and this was just part of the process to get Northmont to the table.
> 
> This negotiated settlement is very one sided to the sole benefit of Northmont and not what you were instructed to do on my behalf – your interpretation may differ but at the end of the day you are only offering an opinion that is paid for by the client who should ultimately decide the proper course of action.
> 
> As you are more than likely aware a great many members of the litigation group are not in agreement with your decision and the terms you have negotiated.  As a result they are exercising their rites to ensure their interests are heard and will be fairly looked after.
> 
> Part of these exercises have been directed towards Judge Young who has replied to members of the litigation group there are judicial protocols she must follow.  This included a comment to the effect counsel must initiate contact with her and all parties involved so all parties can be involved to ensure no one party can stand in front of her without the other allowing all sides to speak to the matter mutually at hand.
> 
> Now that we have heard from Judge Young as to what the process is to be heard, Michael you need to initiate contact with Judge Young as our existing council.  This more than likely will cause you to check your ego at the door but you need to re-open the negotiations with Northmont to discuss options moving forward to serve the interests of everyone involved.
> 
> Michael you should have understood if you followed the direction of the court an arbitrator or a ruling from Judge Young would aid in the negations with Northmont as I believe Judge Young believed you were out of your league in entering negotiations with Northmont.  She provided you the guidance to assist in reaching something closer to an amical negotiation on behalf of your clients in her decisions’ conclusions and now you must act on this guidance.
> 
> You have caused severe distress especially given the timing of the year, lack of transparency, and slow timing of information provided which forced most people to take some form of action to see your decision was not endorsed by the courts as it is not in our own personal best interest, best interests of other member of the litigation group, or the timeshare industry as a whole.
> 
> You had a lot of people relying on you who are still forced to rely on you that you have failed so there is limited time for you to right this wrong so seize the opportunity and fix your mistake.
> 
> Northmont will not be in favor of returning to the table as they already have the golden egg(s - actually you have done well in give them pretty much all of them) so this will be very difficult for you to do but you created the current situation alone and it is up to you to initiate corrective action based on your clients instructions not your opinion.
> 
> ‎Regards,


That is an awesome letter!  As they say you took the words out of my mouth!!!


----------



## servemeout

A few years ago, I discussed my personal finances with a financial planner.  Based on the present situation I would be able to support my self until age 93.  Based on the amount NM want to coerce, I have one question - Who is going to support me when my funds run out?  This is the question that I will be asking every government official I contact.   We opted out of the MG group and are, as he put it, on our own.  

The movement against NM is just starting.  Judge Young did not state that they are free to extort any price they ask.


----------



## RippedOff

Thank goodness I just found this thread!  What is the consensus?  Are people contacting the new lawyer (Mathew Farrell)?  Is he qualified or is he going to screw us over too?  Or can we file a counterclaim on our own?  Do we have to submit something before the Feb.13 deadline?  Aden2 and Ultimate_Betrayal do you have any suggestions?


----------



## greyskies

So if we are part of the lawsuit, can you still file a counterclaim? I'm concerned about the timeline as set out by Geldert to finalize everything by Feb 15th.


----------



## MgolferL

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I hope everyone is okay after receiving their recent update and wish you all the best while you digest it.
> 
> I myself have not brought myself to read the entire thing yet but I am understanding enough to know this is not what my directions were to Michael Geldert and wanted to share with you what I am going to do this morning.
> 
> If you decide to follow suit with what I am going to do in sharing my opinion I do not recommend you outright fire Michael, threaten, or try to ask him what his motives are if you want to share your own opinion.
> 
> You may even want to ask that he respond to you in writing if he feels the need to respond.
> 
> Be courteous, professional, and as indicated email him as directed – here is a few emails that might work to ensure he receives your concerns.
> sunchaser@geldertlaw.com
> patricia@geldertlaw.com
> accounting@geldertlaw.com
> info@geldertlaw.com
> michael@geldertlaw.com
> intrawest@geldertlaw.com
> 
> 
> Mr. Geldert
> 
> I have started my reviewed of your most recent update sent January 11th but I am still working my way thru it.
> 
> Thank-you for ‎finally providing the details of your negotiated settlement that was signed by yourself December 14th and now that I have finally received full details of the negotiated settlement there are particular areas of the settlement agreement I do not agree with.  These related to the settlement you alone have had in your possession for almost a month and failed to share until now related directly to the settlement cost, the limited time to prepare to pay these costs, and some of the conditions stipulated.  I had to rely on your past updates that only provided vague details and only after receiving this most recent update began to understand the full magnitude of your settlement negotiation.
> 
> The SIF form I submitted for November 10th was only provided based on the fact you were only directed to enter into discussions with Northmont reaffirmed by your comments below that implied you understood your direction to take on behalf in the November 6th update.
> 
> “Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.”
> 
> As we also had a personal phone call related to the modified SIF I found on Facebook that you refused to accept you clearly indicated the understanding of the limited scope of the directions you had from me and verbally reaffirmed acknowledged you would not finalize the negotiations without my approval.  You also indicated you could be trusted not to use this SIF document as a PIN to my bank account and this was just part of the process to get Northmont to the table.
> 
> This negotiated settlement is very one sided to the sole benefit of Northmont and not what you were instructed to do on my behalf – your interpretation may differ but at the end of the day you are only offering an opinion that is paid for by the client who should ultimately decide the proper course of action.
> 
> As you are more than likely aware a great many members of the litigation group are not in agreement with your decision and the terms you have negotiated.  As a result they are exercising their rites to ensure their interests are heard and will be fairly looked after.
> 
> Part of these exercises have been directed towards Judge Young who has replied to members of the litigation group there are judicial protocols she must follow.  This included a comment to the effect counsel must initiate contact with her and all parties involved so all parties can be involved to ensure no one party can stand in front of her without the other allowing all sides to speak to the matter mutually at hand.
> 
> Now that we have heard from Judge Young as to what the process is to be heard, Michael you need to initiate contact with Judge Young as our existing council.  This more than likely will cause you to check your ego at the door but you need to re-open the negotiations with Northmont to discuss options moving forward to serve the interests of everyone involved.
> 
> Michael you should have understood if you followed the direction of the court an arbitrator or a ruling from Judge Young would aid in the negations with Northmont as I believe Judge Young believed you were out of your league in entering negotiations with Northmont.  She provided you the guidance to assist in reaching something closer to an amical negotiation on behalf of your clients in her decisions’ conclusions and now you must act on this guidance.
> 
> You have caused severe distress especially given the timing of the year, lack of transparency, and slow timing of information provided which forced most people to take some form of action to see your decision was not endorsed by the courts as it is not in our own personal best interest, best interests of other member of the litigation group, or the timeshare industry as a whole.
> 
> You had a lot of people relying on you who are still forced to rely on you that you have failed so there is limited time for you to right this wrong so seize the opportunity and fix your mistake.
> 
> Northmont will not be in favor of returning to the table as they already have the golden egg(s - actually you have done well in give them pretty much all of them) so this will be very difficult for you to do but you created the current situation alone and it is up to you to initiate corrective action based on your clients instructions not your opinion.
> 
> ‎Regards,


Fantastic letter. We should all send one to MG as soon as possible stating the facts as Ultimate Betrayal has done above. We have less than one month to get this thing re=opened.


----------



## RippedOff

aden2 said:


> MG would never present this to NM, even when he claimed he negotiated a deal, so I told him to quit playing games!
> When I get my judgement I will file a dispute note claiming what they owe me because of 2009-10 Fraud Scheme. In the meantime I will go in detail today and send them a DEMAND BILL for this amount..


----------



## RippedOff

I'm not sure retaining Geldert is the answer.  He is clearly out of his league.  Even when the judge advised him, he did not act in our best interest.


----------



## aden2

Resort Villa Management Ltd
unit 170, 550 71 avenue SE
Calgary, AB, T2H 0S6
CUSTOMER CARE


IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED TO AVOID FURTHER COSTS:

STATEMENT

AMOUNT OWING FROM 2009-2010 FRAUDLENT SALES SCAM

TOTAL AMOUNT PAID $7269.50 IN 2010
INTEREST @26.82% FOR YEARS 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017

TOTAL OWING INCLUDING INTEREST $31,926.32

THIS MATTER HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH SERVICE ALBERTA, AND AS A RESULT THIS STATEMENT IS BEING SENT TO YOU FOR IMMEDIATE PAYMENT AND ATTENTION.

YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED EVERY YEAR SINCE 2013  OF THE FRAUDLENT SALES IN 2009-2010.

PLEASE PAY THIS AMOUNT $31,926.32 TO AVOID FURTHER COSTS.

sincerely,


----------



## truthr

A member of our litigation group has put together a survey for those who wish to participate, here is the link 

https://s.surveyplanet.com/B1wQpSUEf


----------



## jovially

Scammed! said:


> All...


I am new to this forum and I'm very glad I found it. Many people even angrier than myself. I too joined MG's class action with every confidence that even the most inept lawyer would be able to drive a bus through the illegal and immoral actions of NM. At that time in 2013 it would have cost me about $5000 to get out of Sunchaser. I now wish I'd taken that offer as my buy out is now double that (I realize this is a pittance compared to the mess some are in, but theft is theft no-matter what the amount). My biggest beef, aside from the outrageous interest rates, is the fact that we have to pay the annual maintenance fees for weeks that we have no way of recovering or getting any value for. This after MG advised us not to pay anything while the case was ongoing. In effect we are being punished by NM for exercising our legal and democratic right to dispute, retain counsel and sue.  Yesterday I wrote to Danielle Smith thanking her for her show - pity it hasn't been followed up. I also emailed my story to my Calgary MP and MLA. My MLA's office called me back within minutes, to say they were already aware of the issue. The advice she gave me (her husband is a practicing lawyer incidentally) was for all of us to contact our own MP and MLA directly, but not by mass emailing all of, say, Calgary or Edmonton or Vancouver MLA's. Mass emails are sent by irate people all the time and tend to get little notice. So each of us should contact just our own representatives, in person if possible, and we will get much more traction. Also, if we are dissatisfied with MG in any way (which seems to be the case...!), definitely contact the Law Societies of BC and Alberta (and other provinces) as this service is free and if enough of us do this he will be investigated. Thanks a lot all and let's keep this going. Collectively we can do much in the 4 weeks prior to Feb 15.


----------



## little frog

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I hope everyone is okay after receiving their recent update and wish you all the best while you digest it.
> 
> I myself have not brought myself to read the entire thing yet but I am understanding enough to know this is not what my directions were to Michael Geldert and wanted to share with you what I am going to do this morning.
> 
> If you decide to follow suit with what I am going to do in sharing my opinion I do not recommend you outright fire Michael, threaten, or try to ask him what his motives are if you want to share your own opinion.
> 
> You may even want to ask that he respond to you in writing if he feels the need to respond.
> 
> Be courteous, professional, and as indicated email him as directed – here is a few emails that might work to ensure he receives your concerns.
> sunchaser@geldertlaw.com
> patricia@geldertlaw.com
> accounting@geldertlaw.com
> info@geldertlaw.com
> michael@geldertlaw.com
> intrawest@geldertlaw.com
> 
> 
> Mr. Geldert
> 
> I have started my reviewed of your most recent update sent January 11th but I am still working my way thru it.
> 
> Thank-you for ‎finally providing the details of your negotiated settlement that was signed by yourself December 14th and now that I have finally received full details of the negotiated settlement there are particular areas of the settlement agreement I do not agree with.  These related to the settlement you alone have had in your possession for almost a month and failed to share until now related directly to the settlement cost, the limited time to prepare to pay these costs, and some of the conditions stipulated.  I had to rely on your past updates that only provided vague details and only after receiving this most recent update began to understand the full magnitude of your settlement negotiation.
> 
> The SIF form I submitted for November 10th was only provided based on the fact you were only directed to enter into discussions with Northmont reaffirmed by your comments below that implied you understood your direction to take on behalf in the November 6th update.
> 
> “Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.”
> 
> As we also had a personal phone call related to the modified SIF I found on Facebook that you refused to accept you clearly indicated the understanding of the limited scope of the directions you had from me and verbally reaffirmed acknowledged you would not finalize the negotiations without my approval.  You also indicated you could be trusted not to use this SIF document as a PIN to my bank account and this was just part of the process to get Northmont to the table.
> 
> This negotiated settlement is very one sided to the sole benefit of Northmont and not what you were instructed to do on my behalf – your interpretation may differ but at the end of the day you are only offering an opinion that is paid for by the client who should ultimately decide the proper course of action.
> 
> As you are more than likely aware a great many members of the litigation group are not in agreement with your decision and the terms you have negotiated.  As a result they are exercising their rites to ensure their interests are heard and will be fairly looked after.
> 
> Part of these exercises have been directed towards Judge Young who has replied to members of the litigation group there are judicial protocols she must follow.  This included a comment to the effect counsel must initiate contact with her and all parties involved so all parties can be involved to ensure no one party can stand in front of her without the other allowing all sides to speak to the matter mutually at hand.
> 
> Now that we have heard from Judge Young as to what the process is to be heard, Michael you need to initiate contact with Judge Young as our existing council.  This more than likely will cause you to check your ego at the door but you need to re-open the negotiations with Northmont to discuss options moving forward to serve the interests of everyone involved.
> 
> Michael you should have understood if you followed the direction of the court an arbitrator or a ruling from Judge Young would aid in the negations with Northmont as I believe Judge Young believed you were out of your league in entering negotiations with Northmont.  She provided you the guidance to assist in reaching something closer to an amical negotiation on behalf of your clients in her decisions’ conclusions and now you must act on this guidance.
> 
> You have caused severe distress especially given the timing of the year, lack of transparency, and slow timing of information provided which forced most people to take some form of action to see your decision was not endorsed by the courts as it is not in our own personal best interest, best interests of other member of the litigation group, or the timeshare industry as a whole.
> 
> You had a lot of people relying on you who are still forced to rely on you that you have failed so there is limited time for you to right this wrong so seize the opportunity and fix your mistake.
> 
> Northmont will not be in favor of returning to the table as they already have the golden egg(s - actually you have done well in give them pretty much all of them) so this will be very difficult for you to do but you created the current situation alone and it is up to you to initiate corrective action based on your clients instructions not your opinion.
> 
> ‎Regards,




I am new to this forum and wish that I had found it a long time ago. I fired MG early this week but he still emailed me the settlement invoice on January 10th. Naturally for him, he then omitted sending me the January 11th email. is there a way that I can contact you to forward it to my email?


----------



## greyskies

little frog said:


> I am new to this forum and wish that I had found it a long time ago. I fired MG early this week but he still emailed me the settlement invoice on January 10th. Naturally for him, he then omitted sending me the January 11th email. is there a way that I can contact you to forward it to my email?



I'm assuming you plan to find another lawyer?


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

*I have just received a warning!!*

This potentially affects anyone who:

are not paid to date on their Geldert retainers
selected option 2
parted ways with Geldert
did not submit the SIF at all
Michael has initiated *Withdrawal of Services on individual statement of claims* as early as the beginning of December and is not properly notifying clients he has done so.

The individual reached out to the Edmonton Court House in order to start to put their own legal affairs in order and learned of this action.

Also missed in the filing was there was no Dispute Notice of Interest and Costs submitted which left the individual very financially vulnerable.

The paperwork filed was also done incorrectly so the address on record was not given correctly to be entered so anything being served to the individual would be going to the wrong place.

*Document everything for your complaint to the Law Society.* *This is a clear violation of the Professional Code of Conduct.*

This is very significant and had the individual not checked they may have never known about the filing and address error.  As a result of not receiving this notice and it being filed improperly by Michael or his representatives from Strathcona Law Group they would not have received important documents related to their on-going legal matters with Northmont.  In this case documents could have been filed such as a Judgement against them to allow Northmont to seek restitution without dispute and they would have never known.

If you have parted ways with Michael or he has parted ways with you, he should be notifying you as to the steps related to the Withdrawal of Service but you may want to check yourself with your local Court House where the Statement of Claim was filed to ensure your proper address is on file and to verify what has been filed.


----------



## MgolferL

little frog said:


> I am new to this forum and wish that I had found it a long time ago. I fired MG early this week but he still emailed me the settlement invoice on January 10th. Naturally for him, he then omitted sending me the January 11th email. is there a way that I can contact you to forward it to my email?


I only received one on the 9th stating they would be sent out on the 10th, and then the one on the 10th with the statement. Didn't kbnow there was an 11th one?


----------



## MgolferL

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> *I have just received a warning!!*
> 
> This potentially affects anyone who:
> 
> are not paid to date on their Geldert retainers
> selected option 2
> parted ways with Geldert
> did not submit the SIF at all
> Michael has initiated *Withdrawal of Services on individual statement of claims* as early as the beginning of December and is not properly notifying clients he has done so.
> 
> The individual reached out to the Edmonton Court House in order to start to put their own legal affairs in order and learned of this action.
> 
> Also missed in the filing was there was no Dispute Notice of Interest and Costs submitted which left the individual very financially vulnerable.
> 
> The paperwork filed was also done incorrectly so the address on record was not given correctly to be entered so anything being served to the individual would be going to the wrong place.
> 
> *Document everything for your complaint to the Law Society.* *This is a clear violation of the Professional Code of Conduct.*
> 
> This is very significant and had the individual not checked they may have never known about the filing and address error.  As a result of not receiving this notice and it being filed improperly by Michael or his representatives from Strathcona Law Group they would not have received important documents related to their on-going legal matters with Northmont.  In this case documents could have been filed such as a Judgement against them to allow Northmont to seek restitution without dispute and they would have never known.
> 
> If you have parted ways with Michael or he has parted ways with you, he should be notifying you as to the steps related to the Withdrawal of Service but you may want to check yourself with your local Court House where the Statement of Claim was filed to ensure your proper address is on file and to verify what has been filed.


I assume that means going to the courthouse in person? Probably not something that can be done on the net?


----------



## truthr

MgolferL said:


> I assume that means going to the courthouse in person? Probably not something that can be done on the net?


You can phone the court where your Statement of Claim was filed.  Just say the word Northmont and then your Statement of Claim number.


----------



## greyskies

So what happens if you don't send the required documents to Geldert? It would be like before and NM would still come back to us for the statement balance? Could we negotiate this?


----------



## RippedOff

Did anyone get in touch with the other lawyer, Farrell?  All this is above my expertise and would like it handled properly.  Or did anyone find another lawyer?  If so, what did they say?


----------



## LilMaggie

I would just like to speak to someone who understands that we are being required to pay for services (vacation weeks) that we have not been allowed to use for five years, being required to pay an inordinate amount of interest on unpaid fees (which we were advised not to pay by legal counsel) and that we have paid for poor guidance for all these years.  We certainly all get it! Had MG said from the beginning that he thought it was best to suck it up and pay NM to get out when they originally offered a buy out, I likely would have paid the $4000ish and been done with this in 2013. If they offered the same now, I might take them up on it as the 5 year state of limbo is over and I am no longer inclined to blindly follow our legal advisement.


----------



## melamike

torqued said:


> That is an awesome letter!  As they say you took the words out of my mouth!!!



Well Done!!


----------



## melamike

An email update dated Feb 19th is also interesting.

Q: What is the worst case scenario for the JEKE v. Northmont test case?
A: Worst case scenario is that the court does not agreement that Northmont has fundamentally breached the JEKE timeshare agreements.

Q: How will this impact the litigation group?
A: Part of the reasoning in putting forward a test-case was to insulate the litigation group from a negative decision. There is no direct negative impact on the members of the litigation group, other than JEKE.

My question is how did we get from here to being guilty and in debt? This just adds more ammo for my update to the law society of BC


----------



## MgolferL

truthr said:


> You can phone the court where your Statement of Claim was filed.  Just say the word Northmont and then your Statement of Claim number.


I don't have any of that...have never received anything.


----------



## heydynagirl

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> *I have just received a warning!!*
> 
> This potentially affects anyone who:
> 
> are not paid to date on their Geldert retainers
> selected option 2
> parted ways with Geldert
> did not submit the SIF at all
> Michael has initiated *Withdrawal of Services on individual statement of claims* as early as the beginning of December and is not properly notifying clients he has done so.
> 
> The individual reached out to the Edmonton Court House in order to start to put their own legal affairs in order and learned of this action.
> 
> Also missed in the filing was there was no Dispute Notice of Interest and Costs submitted which left the individual very financially vulnerable.
> 
> The paperwork filed was also done incorrectly so the address on record was not given correctly to be entered so anything being served to the individual would be going to the wrong place.
> 
> *Document everything for your complaint to the Law Society.* *This is a clear violation of the Professional Code of Conduct.*
> 
> This is very significant and had the individual not checked they may have never known about the filing and address error.  As a result of not receiving this notice and it being filed improperly by Michael or his representatives from Strathcona Law Group they would not have received important documents related to their on-going legal matters with Northmont.  In this case documents could have been filed such as a Judgement against them to allow Northmont to seek restitution without dispute and they would have never known.
> 
> If you have parted ways with Michael or he has parted ways with you, he should be notifying you as to the steps related to the Withdrawal of Service but you may want to check yourself with your local Court House where the Statement of Claim was filed to ensure your proper address is on file and to verify what has been filed.



I contacted the Golden BC court @ 250-344-7581 where my initial NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM was filed in November 2014.  Got voice mail.  I did a search on line but couldn't find anything with my name and Northmonts name on it.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Lily123 said:


> Ok posters, send Judge Young a fax reminding her of her ruling regarding interest and costs.  Also, the fact that they are threatening an unknown penalty if we do not immediately accept their "deal" and thereby not allow her to hear us individually as she said in document below.  Isn't that extortion??
> 
> Her fax number: 780 427 4348
> 
> Here is court document.
> 
> 
> View attachment 5397




...in paragraph 87, just after your circle it discusses expired claims.  Can someone help me with this?  Something that NM would have had to address within a year but didn't?


----------



## #deceived

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> ...in paragraph 87, just after your circle it discusses expired claims.  Can someone help me with this?  Something that NM would have had to address within a year but didn't?


Can you post the entire court document for us? Or where do we find it..? Thanks!


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

#deceived said:


> Can you post the entire court document for us? Or where do we find it..? Thanks!



If you drop down the post I quoted you should see "View attachment 5397" at the bottom.  This works for me to bring up the image that Lily123 posted.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

RippedOff said:


> Did anyone get in touch with the other lawyer, Farrell?  All this is above my expertise and would like it handled properly.  Or did anyone find another lawyer?  If so, what did they say?



I tried later this afternoon, left a message.  Anyone who's talked with him, please give us an update.


----------



## Lily123

#deceived said:


> Can you post the entire court document for us? Or where do we find it..? Thanks!



You'll need to refer to the AB Decision PDF attachment from the email:
GELDERT LAW / re: update for October 30, 2017


----------



## #deceived

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> If you drop down the post I quoted you should see "View attachment 5397" at the bottom.  This works for me to bring up the image that Lily123 posted.



Thanks.


----------



## #deceived

Lily123 said:


> You'll need to refer to the AB Decision PDF attachment from the email:
> GELDERT LAW / re: update for October 30, 2017


Thanks.


----------



## #deceived

Got info from previous post thx.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

We need legal councel to be contacting Judge Young's office.  As far as we know,  that hasn't been successfully done by legal councel yet.  Let's get some representation, let's get Judge young contacted and request determining the costs, interest and expired claims happen by the judge.  

Also, if there's anyway we can have councel ask her about her comments on the FTA during proceedings, why she brought it up and why our group was not handled that way.  Even if our lawyer didn't do the right thing and use the FTA for our defence, why wouldn't Justice Loo be forced to refer to this?  It's absolutely relevant to our case, it's not evidence, it's the law of the land.  The judge would know this, and if councel left it out altogether, a judge would be required to refer to it wouldn't they?  It's the relevant law and that's part of the judge's job, isn't it?  I would like to know legal opinions on this, and I would like to see several idependant opinions on this seeing as how we've had such poor legal info in the past.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Costs??

Ok, the interest needs to be determined, understood.  The expired claims need to be ruled on....don't know what this is.

The costs, is it just the amount of the costs or the actual items that can be charged for that needs to still be determined?  Is it definite that NM will charge for the RPF and a cancellation fee?  Is it definite that we have to pay for past maintenance fees for weeks we weren't allowed to use?


----------



## Spark1

rlaseur said:


> So are people sending to their own MLA/MP in AB? or to all MLAs/MPs?


I sent to them all.


----------



## torqued

Someone posted that KW said at trial if we were canceling we didn’t have to pay the special assessment?  If he said that under oath then why are we???!!and please correct me if i misunderstood something


----------



## truthr

truthr said:


> A member of our litigation group has put together a survey for those who wish to participate, here is the link
> 
> https://s.surveyplanet.com/B1wQpSUEf



Please take the time to participate in this survey.


----------



## Petus@18

Punter said:


> We received the following letter today from the Provincial Court of Alberta.
> 
> January 8th, 2018
> 
> 
> Re: Correspondence Address to Honourable Judge Young.
> 
> I take this opportunity to respond to your letter to Judge Young.
> 
> Judge Young has issued a written decision on this matter (2017 ABPC 249), and we understand an appeal of the decision has been filed. Accordingly, Judge's Young's authority is now exhausted with respect to everything except the issues of interests and costs, which are subject of a forthcoming decision. She has no power to revisit anything in the aforementioned written decision and has received submissions from counsel on the other matter, which is under consideration.
> 
> When a litigant is represented, any communications to and from Judge Young can only occur through counsel, with copies to all parties. If you are unhappy with your current legal representation, you may wish to seek alternative legal advice as to the appropriate steps to take. You may also wish to contact the Law Society of British Columbia and/or the Law Society of Alberta, as they are the organizations that govern the behavior of lawyers. If you have complaints or concerns they will be able to assist you.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> 
> Kim Palichuk
> Executive Legal Counsel




Please note that the letter mentions that an appeal of Judge Young's decision was filed.  Was the appeal done by Geldert or any of his hired group of dopes?.  Does anyone has a copy or seen it?  I understand Judge Young cannot submit her recommendations regarding interest and costs until this appeal is heard. My feeling is that Geldert/Northmont are using their scare tactics once again to make us pay their crazy settlement right away.  Waiting for an appeal takes time, and they are making sure we don't have more time to think what to do next.  Would this be right?


----------



## Scammed!

I don't know how the law works. But with this public out cry and emails of truth out there, doesn't the Judge have to, or someone in office have to inform the Judge to appoint us all a public lawyer to represent us or someone to represent us? This would be regarding the issues she has not exhausted, like the interest rates and costs? It is no secret that all the officials have been notified that we do not have our lawyer representing us at this time. We have paid money to a lawyer and are out in the cold, and with everything that is happening to all of us this is so serious and the first to happen in *Canadian History*. We are under totally different circumstances here, as we are the first Canadian timeshare "*OWNERS" (wrong)* that are fighting for our rights and our lives. I challenge our *ROCK* to step up and break the rules. This coming from a citizen that broke all the rules banging on everyone's door including the Judge's....which we all know now is not the proper steps. But guess what... it sure as heck got everyone's attention...... Great job everyone getting the word out! Don't leave one stone uncovered, for under one of them is our Rock...


----------



## CleoB

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> *I have just received a warning!!*
> 
> This potentially affects anyone who:
> 
> are not paid to date on their Geldert retainers
> selected option 2
> parted ways with Geldert
> did not submit the SIF at all
> Michael has initiated *Withdrawal of Services on individual statement of claims* as early as the beginning of December and is not properly notifying clients he has done so.
> 
> The individual reached out to the Edmonton Court House in order to start to put their own legal affairs in order and learned of this action.
> 
> Also missed in the filing was there was no Dispute Notice of Interest and Costs submitted which left the individual very financially vulnerable.
> 
> The paperwork filed was also done incorrectly so the address on record was not given correctly to be entered so anything being served to the individual would be going to the wrong place.
> 
> *Document everything for your complaint to the Law Society.* *This is a clear violation of the Professional Code of Conduct.*
> 
> This is very significant and had the individual not checked they may have never known about the filing and address error.  As a result of not receiving this notice and it being filed improperly by Michael or his representatives from Strathcona Law Group they would not have received important documents related to their on-going legal matters with Northmont.  In this case documents could have been filed such as a Judgement against them to allow Northmont to seek restitution without dispute and they would have never known.
> 
> If you have parted ways with Michael or he has parted ways with you, he should be notifying you as to the steps related to the Withdrawal of Service but you may want to check yourself with your local Court House where the Statement of Claim was filed to ensure your proper address is on file and to verify what has been filed.


Where did you get his warning from?


----------



## Punter

torqued said:


> Someone posted that KW said at trial if we were canceling we didn’t have to pay the special assessment?  If he said that under oath then why are we???!!and please correct me if i misunderstood something



Because, our legal representation negotiated an “excellent settlement” that failed to recognize our rights on interest, costs, and NM’s neglect on contributing their proportionate share.

Oh, and they didn’t run it by us prior to settling.


----------



## CleoB

truthr said:


> You can phone the court where your Statement of Claim was filed.  Just say the word Northmont and then your Statement of Claim number.


Where do I find my Statement of Claim number?


----------



## Hey lady

torqued said:


> Someone posted that KW said at trial if we were canceling we didn’t have to pay the special assessment?  If he said that under oath then why are we???!!and please correct me if i misunderstood something


I believe MG said it was only for 2013.


----------



## Scammed!

It could be way worse....we could be living in a third world country where there is misrepresentation, contracts changed without your knowledge, framed stating your someone your not, not being informed of what's really going on by your lawyer, told not to pay a fee you always paid faithfully! That's only to name a few nightmares! I can't imagine what that would be like........


Responding to Punter's post


----------



## Hey lady

CleoB said:


> Where do I find my Statement of Claim number?


To find your Statement of Claim number check the document you were served from Sauvageau in 2014.  It is the document stating the judgement against you in small claims court.  If Sauvageau was unable to serve you, your notice of claim may be with Geldert.
Without your Notice of Claim you do not know which court house to go to.


----------



## CleoB

aden2 said:


> MG would never present this to NM, even when he claimed he negotiated a deal, so I told him to quit playing games!
> When I get my judgement I will file a dispute note claiming what they owe me because of 2009-10 Fraud Scheme. In the meantime I will go in detail today and send them a DEMAND BILL for this amount..


How are you going to prove fraud?


----------



## Broke Mama

Hey lady said:


> To find your Statement of Claim number check the document you were served from Sauvageau in 2014.  It is the document stating the judgement against you in small claims court.  If Sauvageau was unable to serve you, your notice of claim may be with Geldert.
> Without your Notice of Claim you do not know which court house to go to.


Is this for the owners in the US too?


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I hope everyone is okay after receiving their recent update and wish you all the best while you digest it.
> 
> I myself have not brought myself to read the entire thing yet but I am understanding enough to know this is not what my directions were to Michael Geldert and wanted to share with you what I am going to do this morning.
> 
> If you decide to follow suit with what I am going to do in sharing my opinion I do not recommend you outright fire Michael, threaten, or try to ask him what his motives are if you want to share your own opinion.
> 
> You may even want to ask that he respond to you in writing if he feels the need to respond.
> 
> Be courteous, professional, and as indicated email him as directed – here is a few emails that might work to ensure he receives your concerns.
> sunchaser@geldertlaw.com
> patricia@geldertlaw.com
> accounting@geldertlaw.com
> info@geldertlaw.com
> michael@geldertlaw.com
> intrawest@geldertlaw.com
> 
> 
> Mr. Geldert
> 
> I have started my reviewed of your most recent update sent January 11th but I am still working my way thru it.
> 
> Thank-you for ‎finally providing the details of your negotiated settlement that was signed by yourself December 14th and now that I have finally received full details of the negotiated settlement there are particular areas of the settlement agreement I do not agree with.  These related to the settlement you alone have had in your possession for almost a month and failed to share until now related directly to the settlement cost, the limited time to prepare to pay these costs, and some of the conditions stipulated.  I had to rely on your past updates that only provided vague details and only after receiving this most recent update began to understand the full magnitude of your settlement negotiation.
> 
> The SIF form I submitted for November 10th was only provided based on the fact you were only directed to enter into discussions with Northmont reaffirmed by your comments below that implied you understood your direction to take on behalf in the November 6th update.
> 
> “Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.”
> 
> As we also had a personal phone call related to the modified SIF I found on Facebook that you refused to accept you clearly indicated the understanding of the limited scope of the directions you had from me and verbally reaffirmed acknowledged you would not finalize the negotiations without my approval.  You also indicated you could be trusted not to use this SIF document as a PIN to my bank account and this was just part of the process to get Northmont to the table.
> 
> This negotiated settlement is very one sided to the sole benefit of Northmont and not what you were instructed to do on my behalf – your interpretation may differ but at the end of the day you are only offering an opinion that is paid for by the client who should ultimately decide the proper course of action.
> 
> As you are more than likely aware a great many members of the litigation group are not in agreement with your decision and the terms you have negotiated.  As a result they are exercising their rites to ensure their interests are heard and will be fairly looked after.
> 
> Part of these exercises have been directed towards Judge Young who has replied to members of the litigation group there are judicial protocols she must follow.  This included a comment to the effect counsel must initiate contact with her and all parties involved so all parties can be involved to ensure no one party can stand in front of her without the other allowing all sides to speak to the matter mutually at hand.
> 
> Now that we have heard from Judge Young as to what the process is to be heard, Michael you need to initiate contact with Judge Young as our existing council.  This more than likely will cause you to check your ego at the door but you need to re-open the negotiations with Northmont to discuss options moving forward to serve the interests of everyone involved.
> 
> Michael you should have understood if you followed the direction of the court an arbitrator or a ruling from Judge Young would aid in the negations with Northmont as I believe Judge Young believed you were out of your league in entering negotiations with Northmont.  She provided you the guidance to assist in reaching something closer to an amical negotiation on behalf of your clients in her decisions’ conclusions and now you must act on this guidance.
> 
> You have caused severe distress especially given the timing of the year, lack of transparency, and slow timing of information provided which forced most people to take some form of action to see your decision was not endorsed by the courts as it is not in our own personal best interest, best interests of other member of the litigation group, or the timeshare industry as a whole.
> 
> You had a lot of people relying on you who are still forced to rely on you that you have failed so there is limited time for you to right this wrong so seize the opportunity and fix your mistake.
> 
> Northmont will not be in favor of returning to the table as they already have the golden egg(s - actually you have done well in giving them pretty much all of them) so this will be very difficult for you to do but you created the current situation alone and it is up to you to initiate corrective action based on your clients instructions not your opinion.
> 
> ‎Regards,


I was just asked in a private message if this was a letter in jest or if this was actually something worth doing - sorry if I have caused some confusion.

*It is actually something worth doing sooner rather than later in your own way.*

Late this afternoon I contacted Judge Young's office to inquire about my own letter being received and learned that *there is a meeting scheduled sometime next week with herself, Northmont, and Michael to discuss court costs.*  I am certain the topic of conversation will not be just procedural as according to her assistant Judge Young is not to happy with all the faxes she has received so the message is getting thru to her office something is very wrong.

Right now Michael could be confident in the fact that he has your signed SIF form which can say is your consent and potentially will say it was never disputed by you especially now that all his clients have received all the information related to the settlement agreement.  

If he hears no one challenging the SIF they have signed he can twist this to mean acceptance of the negotiated settlement agreement in front of the Judge.

The negotiated settlement document is a very restrictive document that has been very well crafted - from my initial interpretation my opinion is it will severely limit peoples legal rites and remedies in more ways that just a gag order in the future.

Please take the time and email Michael to state your consent was coerced, your real instructions and that they were not followed, and that you have not provided your consented to the negotiated settlement agreement.  I am not a lawyer but I think I have put everything in the initial post's letter to cover the bases but definitely open the floor for improvements.

*This correspondence can also be used as an opportunity to state to the Judge your instructions were not followed and you have not consented to the negotiated settlement agreement so the message does not get ignored.*


----------



## torqued

The settlement amount should not exceed 50% of our original lease amount. Period. We should not pay a dime until a forensic audit is performed. This should be ordered by judge young. NM can pay for the audit performed by a neutral third party.


----------



## Inquiringmind

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I was just asked in a private message if this was a letter in jest or if this was actually something worth doing - sorry if I have caused some confusion.
> 
> *It is actually something worth doing sooner rather than later in your own way.*
> 
> Late this afternoon I contacted Judge Young's office to inquire about my own letter being received and learned that *there is a meeting scheduled sometime next week with herself, Northmont, and Michael to discuss court costs.*  I am certain the topic of conversation will not be just procedural as according to her assistant Judge Young is not to happy with all the faxes she has received so the message is getting thru to her office something is very wrong.
> 
> Right now Michael could be confident in the fact that he has your signed SIF form which can say is your consent and potentially will say it was never disputed by you especially now that all his clients have received all the information related to the settlement agreement.
> 
> If he hears no one challenging the SIF they have signed he can twist this to mean acceptance of the negotiated settlement agreement in front of the Judge.
> 
> The negotiated settlement document is a very restrictive document that has been very well crafted - from my initial interpretation my opinion is it will severely limit peoples legal rites and remedies in more ways that just a gag order in the future.
> 
> Please take the time and email Michael to state your consent was coerced, your real instructions and that they were not followed, and that you have not provided your consented to the negotiated settlement agreement.  I am not a lawyer but I think I have put everything in the initial post's letter to cover the bases but definitely open the floor for improvements.
> 
> *This correspondence can also be used as an opportunity to state to the Judge your instructions were not followed and you have not consented to the negotiated settlement agreement so the message does not get ignored.*





Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I was just asked in a private message if this was a letter in jest or if this was actually something worth doing - sorry if I have caused some confusion.
> 
> *It is actually something worth doing sooner rather than later in your own way.*
> 
> Late this afternoon I contacted Judge Young's office to inquire about my own letter being received and learned that *there is a meeting scheduled sometime next week with herself, Northmont, and Michael to discuss court costs.*  I am certain the topic of conversation will not be just procedural as according to her assistant Judge Young is not to happy with all the faxes she has received so the message is getting thru to her office something is very wrong.
> 
> Right now Michael could be confident in the fact that he has your signed SIF form which can say is your consent and potentially will say it was never disputed by you especially now that all his clients have received all the information related to the settlement agreement.
> 
> If he hears no one challenging the SIF they have signed he can twist this to mean acceptance of the negotiated settlement agreement in front of the Judge.
> 
> The negotiated settlement document is a very restrictive document that has been very well crafted - from my initial interpretation my opinion is it will severely limit peoples legal rites and remedies in more ways that just a gag order in the future.
> 
> Please take the time and email Michael to state your consent was coerced, your real instructions and that they were not followed, and that you have not provided your consented to the negotiated settlement agreement.  I am not a lawyer but I think I have put everything in the initial post's letter to cover the bases but definitely open the floor for improvements.
> 
> *This correspondence can also be used as an opportunity to state to the Judge your instructions were not followed and you have not consented to the negotiated settlement agreement so the message does not get ignored.*





Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I was just asked in a private message if this was a letter in jest or if this was actually something worth doing - sorry if I have caused some confusion.
> 
> *It is actually something worth doing sooner rather than later in your own way.*
> 
> Late this afternoon I contacted Judge Young's office to inquire about my own letter being received and learned that *there is a meeting scheduled sometime next week with herself, Northmont, and Michael to discuss court costs.*  I am certain the topic of conversation will not be just procedural as according to her assistant Judge Young is not to happy with all the faxes she has received so the message is getting thru to her office something is very wrong.
> 
> Right now Michael could be confident in the fact that he has your signed SIF form which can say is your consent and potentially will say it was never disputed by you especially now that all his clients have received all the information related to the settlement agreement.
> 
> If he hears no one challenging the SIF they have signed he can twist this to mean acceptance of the negotiated settlement agreement in front of the Judge.
> 
> The negotiated settlement document is a very restrictive document that has been very well crafted - from my initial interpretation my opinion is it will severely limit peoples legal rites and remedies in more ways that just a gag order in the future.
> 
> Please take the time and email Michael to state your consent was coerced, your real instructions and that they were not followed, and that you have not provided your consented to the negotiated settlement agreement.  I am not a lawyer but I think I have put everything in the initial post's letter to cover the bases but definitely open the floor for improvements.
> 
> *This correspondence can also be used as an opportunity to state to the Judge your instructions were not followed and you have not consented to the negotiated settlement agreement so the message does not get ignored.*


----------



## Inquiringmind

Great letter. We will write MG something along the same lines. Everybody should. Can we cc Judge Young. Does the fact that Jeke was overturned in the later cord have any consequence here.


----------



## Hey lady

My lawyer asked me why I signed option 1 on the SIF, as it is binding. The reason is that Geldert said in private emails to myself and others that we


Broke Mama said:


> Is this for the owners in the US too?


I was personally served so I have my notice of claim, therefore I know the court house and the file number. Some people were not personally served, even in Canada, and I understand that Geldert  may have accepted service on your behalf.


----------



## aden2

Booklet "Commencing a Claim in Provincial Court Civil page 12 dispute note filing "any claim you may have against the plaintiff if you feel that
 the plaintiff owes you money....... The judge will look at both claims at the same time and decide who owes money to whom."


----------



## greyskies

Hey lady said:


> My lawyer asked me why I signed option 1 on the SIF, as it is binding. The reason is that Geldert said in private emails to myself and others that we
> 
> I was personally served so I have my notice of claim, therefore I know the court house and the file number. Some people were not personally served, even in Canada, and I understand that Geldert  may have accepted service on your behalf.


So if we opted for option 1,there is no recourse? 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Spark1

Inquiringmind said:


> Great letter. We will write MG something along the same lines. Everybody should. Can we cc Judge Young. Does the fact that Jeke was overturned in the later cord have any consequence here.


Why would anyone pay this extortion? We never finished the first case.  What Northmont did is they highjacked the owners that have LEASE CONTRACTS which sows we are not responsible for Special Assessments!  We also would never sign a Cancellation Agreement like theirs neither.  This is what an agent said at Service Alberta said——-“you are not cancelled”.  This is the e-mail I received from Michael Geldert on November 6/2017 and MLT AIKINS on page 2, item 3.  This is David Wotherspoon’s interpretation of the Trustees rights and obligations.  David is a very good Lawyer.
-  Item no.3, Northmont’s Unilateral Amendments to the VIAs are Unauthorized.  Northmont has unilaterally imposed two seperate amendments of the VIAs: First of all they are amending not VIAs, Northmont is amending my Vacation Villa Lease.
     1/. An April 18/2016 Amendment to all VIAs entered into prior to January 1/2003 are to 
          have the pre-2003 VIAs mirror the JEK VIA (The “2016 Amendment”) and
      2/. An April 10/2017 Amendment to all VIAs to insert a “Modification to Lands and Resort 
          Development” provision allowing Northmont to unilaterally modify the “Lands and Resort 
          Development” as it sees fit (The “2017 Amendment”), collectively, the “Unilateral 
           Amendments”.  This does not prove that Vacation Villa Leases a re r esponsible to pay
           “Special Assessments”.  This is why we hired Michael Geldert.  I had no idea this even
            happened and I first found out on November 06/2017.  My contract when I put it close.      
            to a mirror - mirrors itself.  I have no idea what JEKs contract looks like and how it 
            reads, an I am sure it mirrors itself.  Then there’s Michael Geldert, yes he wanted out
            of this case but I do not like the idea that he became Northmont’s “Bill Collector”.            
           What  we have to do is look at the situation where it was when we hired Michael
             Geldert over 4 years ago.  We can not include the illegal move that Northmont made 
             with our Lease Contracts.  That does not prove that at the time we hired Michael
             Geldert that our LEASE CONTRACTS stated that we had to pay “Special Assessments”.
What Northmont is doing is manipulating the case and is changing the reason why we hired Michael Geldert, that was to protect our Lease Contract.  That being said we have a “right-to-use” timeshare, which refers to a Lease-Like Agreement.  In this type of timeshare your lease expires after a specified time and you have no Property Ownership therefore no rights in the       Property.  Without all Northmont’s distractions this is still what our case was all about.  We should have never been pressured into paying this amount of money in this case, which is very easy to understand.  Why did Northmont want this case to take so long, the answer is the huge bills they are sending out.  We have to impress on SERVICE ALBERTA and the JUSTICE MINISTER that this is foul-play by Northmont and they still have not proven that Timeshare Owners of Vacation Villa Leases are required to pay “Special Assessments”.  I feel that because of how they brought in the unilateral contracts before they could even prove our Lease Contracts included “Special Assessments”.   This is Unauthorized!

Bill 31, which was passed December 13/2017 states “A Better Deal For Consumers and Businesses.  This amends the “Fair Trading ACT”.  This bill prohibited Businesses from making 
“Unilateral Ammendments” to Contracts, unless the Consumer is provided advance notice and is given the right to cancel the Contract.  Service Alberta is going to say NO, You can’t use this because we just passed the bill onDecember 13/2017.  This does not matter.  We are talking about JUSTICE here for thousands of Timeshare Leases that did not get Justice.  Do not blame the Consumers of Timeshares, it is the RESPONSIBILTY OF “GOVERNMENTS”, to protect Consumers from “”SCAM,FRAUD, SENIORS ABUSE & WHITE COLLAR CRIME””.  The door was left wide open for this new owner of Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. to extort Consumers that bought a product that is legal to sell in Canada.  Because of this, Northmont stands to make $200 Million after they extort all that money and sell off the buildings.  Timeshare Owners are not criminals - we are consumers, and there was nothing wrong until Northmont came on the scene.


----------



## Spark1

Hey lady said:


> My lawyer asked me why I signed option 1 on the SIF, as it is binding. The reason is that Geldert said in private emails to myself and others that we
> 
> I was personally served so I have my notice of claim, therefore I know the court house and the file number. Some people were not personally served, even in Canada, and I understand that Geldert  may have accepted service on your behalf.


Every one should wait for a subpoena and go to the court house and fill out the paper at the court house and represent yourself. You have a right to do this and this will load the courts up for years.


----------



## Hey lady

torqued said:


> Someone posted that KW said at trial if we were canceling we didn’t have to pay the special assessment?  If he said that under oath then why are we???!!and please correct me if i misunderstood something


Geldert said it only applied in 2013, not today.


----------



## Palms to pines

I agree with you Spark 1 and I know you have devoted literally years to this and I sympathize so much. What has surprised me greatly  is that no agency, no authority has stepped up to support us in this. As far as I can tell, only one young woman with her talk show. I have written many letters - nothing. We are hung out to dry. Wrong and right had no place in our legal system. Double speak, vague language, manipulation in court is what counted. I would have thought Canada was better than this. I was wrong.


----------



## Spark1

Inquiringmind said:


> Great letter. We will write MG something along the same lines. Everybody should. Can we cc Judge Young. Does the fact that Jeke was overturned in the later cord have any consequence here.


Absolutely it does. If this is true this means they can not try to mirror the 2003 and contracts prior to. That means the Vacation Villa Leases are not mirrored to JKEs Contract which was ridiculous. Is this for sure? How can we find this out. Is it true they are also adding on to the Timeshare owners that cancelled and also charging the Special Assessment. Can you copy this and put on Tug or Facebook. I will be working for weeks with the anti fraud division with the RCMP and it would be nice to also report this Thank you. We all have to get after the government they are the ones that created this by not having regulations in place what these New owners have to follow. We are not criminals because we bought a timeshare. They are part of the Canadian Consumer Handbook and we are consumers and do not be afraid of government and demand that you are looked after. They created this by leaving the door opened for these criminals to scam innocent Canadians and Americans for millions. The other product that the government should never allowed was the Legacy for Life. These type of timeshares are illegal in every country except for Canada. How could they sell this saying the buildings were in great shape and 3 years later start the Freedom to Choose. Buy the end of the day we will have sent out many documents and letters to the top government MPS and we start at 4:30 am. So get mad and do not let up with these governments.


----------



## Tanny13

For those still willing to fight, have a look at the last few years of financial statements from Northmont.  There are huge amounts for legal fees.  So legal fees are not only included in our maintenance fees, we are also paying our manager 15% of those legal fees, as a management fee.  If any costs are to be paid out now, the amount should be deducted from what was included in the maintenance fees.


----------



## mmchili

Re: Post #2940 (re: par.87), the full decision of Justice Young is posted on www.sunchaservillas.ca (Young, re Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Reid – October 11, 2017 – PDF) together with one subsequent decision and six prior decisions.


----------



## torqued

Tanny13 said:


> For those still willing to fight, have a look at the last few years of financial statements from Northmont.  There are huge amounts for legal fees.  So legal fees are not only included in our maintenance fees, we are also paying our manager 15% of those legal fees, as a management fee.  If any costs are to be paid out now, the amount should be deducted from what was included in the maintenance fees.


Do you think the 26.8% is a way of charging us legal fees and then we are getting charged again as you stated in your post?


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

torqued said:


> Do you think the 26.8% is a way of charging us legal fees and then we are getting charged again as you stated in your post?


I think every way NM is going after us - including the 20% surcharge to settle - is about collecting money to pay its huge debts of which legal fees are a portion.


----------



## ihavetheworstluck

I have no legal experience and I am lost in this whole situation.  I live in the States so going to the court house is not an option for me.  Can someone walk me through what I need to do and can do from here in the States. I am panicking I am sure, but I can not afford to pay this settlement. If someone walks me through what I need to do I will do it. Thank you


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

ihavetheworstluck said:


> I have no legal experience and I am lost in this whole situation.  I live in the States so going to the court house is not an option for me.  Can someone walk me through what I need to do and can do from here in the States. I am panicking I am sure, but I can not afford to pay this settlement. If someone walks me through what I need to do I will do it. Thank you


What about consulting a lawyer who knows about handling a statement of claim filed against you in Canada and whether a judgment in Canada can be enforced against you in the USA.


----------



## CleoB

Spark1 said:


> Absolutely it does. If this is true this means they can not try to mirror the 2003 and contracts prior to. That means the Vacation Villa Leases are not mirrored to JKEs Contract which was ridiculous. Is this for sure? How can we find this out. Is it true they are also adding on to the Timeshare owners that cancelled and also charging the Special Assessment. Can you copy this and put on Tug or Facebook. I will be working for weeks with the anti fraud division with the RCMP and it would be nice to also report this Thank you. We all have to get after the government they are the ones that created this by not having regulations in place what these New owners have to follow. We are not criminals because we bought a timeshare. They are part of the Canadian Consumer Handbook and we are consumers and do not be afraid of government and demand that you are looked after. They created this by leaving the door opened for these criminals to scam innocent Canadians and Americans for millions. The other product that the government should never allowed was the Legacy for Life. These type of timeshares are illegal in every country except for Canada. How could they sell this saying the buildings were in great shape and 3 years later start the Freedom to Choose. Buy the end of the day we will have sent out many documents and letters to the top government MPS and we start at 4:30 am. So get mad and do not let up with these governments.


I wasn't part of the Legacy for Life but if you have documentation on when they were selling the LFL and documentation that in 2012/13 they were asking for the RPF, I would certainly think that is fraud.


----------



## den403

greyskies said:


> So if we opted for option 1,there is no recourse?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


But if we know someone that signed option 1 with 3 emails from MG stating he would not sign on their behalf and got their papers anyhow....where does that leave them?
They also told him they would not agree to any settlement until they had their invoice in their hands and had a chance to review it as that was good business practice. Still got them
They think they have some letters to write


----------



## torqued

ihavetheworstluck said:


> I have no legal experience and I am lost in this whole situation.  I live in the States so going to the court house is not an option for me.  Can someone walk me through what I need to do and can do from here in the States. I am panicking I am sure, but I can not afford to pay this settlement. If someone walks me through what I need to do I will do it. Thank you


I’m in the states as well. I have a time share attorney reviewing this for me. I should know by early next week if he is willing to help me with this or not. I told his legal assistant that there may be several of us that may utilize his services. I’ll keep you posted


----------



## ihavetheworstluck

torqued said:


> I’m in the states as well. I have a time share attorney reviewing this for me. I should know by early next week if he is willing to help me with this or not. I told his legal assistant that there may be several of us that may utilize his services. I’ll keep you posted


Thank you! I really appreciate how willing people are to help.  It means  a lot.


----------



## mmchili

If you want officials to read and understand your letter - this is how to write it:

*Topic sentence* - the first sentence should clearly and briefly state the purpose of the letter. In the same paragraph you can introduce yourself and your relationship to the issue.

*The 2nd paragraph* should clearly and briefly state the issues/problems. If there is more than one, make a bulleted list.

*The 3rd paragraph should *clearly and briefly state what action you are requesting.

Officials will not read a long winded letter - be as brief as you can. Half a page is ideal, two pages should be maximum.

Correct spelling and punctuation impress the reader, and they make your letter easier to understand. Use spell check and have someone who is a good writer check your letter for you.


----------



## den403

Can you please post Judge Youngs contact info again 
Thx


----------



## Broke Mama

torqued said:


> I’m in the states as well. I have a time share attorney reviewing this for me. I should know by early next week if he is willing to help me with this or not. I told his legal assistant that there may be several of us that may utilize his services. I’ll keep you posted


We are also looking for timeshare attorney in spokane washington. We have a group of us interested in talking to someone about our rights.


----------



## Newbie2

den403 said:


> Can you please post Judge Youngs contact info again
> Thx


Provincial Court of Alberta
1A Sir Winston Churchill Square
Edmonton, Alberta

Fax - 780-427-4348


----------



## Tanny13

torqued said:


> Do you think the 26.8% is a way of charging us legal fees and then we are getting charged again as you stated in your post?



I think 26.8% is just a total money grab, then legal fees and costs on top of that...


----------



## ecwinch

From my law school days, I am reminded of the saying "while every case has a winner or loser, the attorneys always get paid".


----------



## Hey lady

greyskies said:


> So if we opted for option 1,there is no recourse?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


My lawyer is confused by the SIF.  By signing the SIF option 1, on the face it is binding. Yet Geldert gave a deadline of Dec 27 to opt out. Communication from G


Spark1 said:


> Every one should wait for a subpoena and go to the court house and fill out the paper at the court house and represent yourself. You have a right to do this and this will load the courts up for years.


Spark1 Northmont sought approval from the court to bind everyone together (there is a better term) so that we are all lumped together - we cannot go to court independently, Northmont won.   Where are you getting your information from that we can tie up the courts for years with independent cases. Spark1, I hope you are right - show me the ruling.


----------



## Hey lady

CleoB said:


> I wasn't part of the Legacy for Life but if you have documentation on when they were selling the LFL and documentation that in 2012/13 they were asking for the RPF, I would certainly think that is fraud.


I bought a VIA in 2010, which is a Legacy for Life - it's a point base system. Of course I got an invoice t
o stay or leave.


----------



## Hey lady

Notwhatweweresold said:


> I think every way NM is going after us - including the 20% surcharge to settle - is about collecting money to pay its huge debts of which legal fees are a portion.


It's about greed and corruption.


----------



## Hey lady

den403 said:


> But if we signed option 1 with 3 emails from MG stating he would not sign on our behalf and got our papers anyhow....where does that leave us?
> We also told him we would not agree to any settlement until we had our invoice in our hands and had a chance to review it as that was good business practice. Still got them
> I got some letters to write


To me, Geldert was "grasping at straws" to have people in the option 1 category to the point of taking verbal instructions, instead of confirming written email instructions.


----------



## marcthe12

The courts desision will affect all time owners in Canada in the future
We need to lobby the political system to have check and balances like a condo board does


----------



## marcthe12

Everytime we email or call Geldert he will charge us for it


----------



## Petus@18

marcthe12 said:


> Everytime we email or call Geldert he will charge us for it



Well, he has stabbed us so many times, in this year alone, that there is no more blood in our bodies left for him to take.  

Sorry MG there is no more blood supply! @ #


----------



## Beelzebub

my money ? from these cold dead hands....


----------



## Spark1

den403 said:


> But if we signed option 1 with 3 emails from MG stating he would not sign on our behalf and got our papers anyhow....where does that leave us?
> We also told him we would not agree to any settlement until we had our invoice in our hands and had a chance to review it as that was good business practice. Still got them
> I got some letters to write


Take this to Service Alberta or B.C. Protection


----------



## Spark1

Palms to pines said:


> I agree with you Spark 1 and I know you have devoted literally years to this and I sympathize so much. What has surprised me greatly  is that no agency, no authority has stepped up to support us in this. As far as I can tell, only one young woman with her talk show. I have written many letters - nothing. We are hung out to dry. Wrong and right had no place in our legal system. Double speak, vague language, manipulation in court is what counted. I would have thought Canada was better than this. I was wrong.


I truly feel the Judges Lawyers Norton Rose and the Trustee are the same people in B.C. that took the Rancho Banderas in Mexico timeshare people down. Every one what is important is your Contracts and this unilateral amendment of contracts. I have no Lawyer so the only one that can represent is me. Every one send them a bill if they took the right to use from you and charge them for the years you lost because of Freedom to Choose. We do not live in a dictatorship and do not let Wankel abuse you. I am surprised something has no happened with all the pressure this has created. Blame the government timeshare is controlled by the government and ask them where is my protection from the Supplier Fraud and Scam?


----------



## mmchili

Re: Post 2948 & 2950 - It does not make sense that Northmont would charge both a Cancellation Fee and a Renovation project Fee. It is one or the other plus maintenance fees in arrears prior to 2013 and after 2013 plus interest.


----------



## melamike

marcthe12 said:


> The courts desision will affect all time owners in Canada in the future
> We need to lobby the political system to have check and balances like a condo board does



Write again to the MP's and MLA's. ( MPP's in Ontario) - don't just write to your own representative, send to as many as you can but address and send each person as if it is a personal letter, not a mass email.

 I wrote to several already and have had some written responses and phone calls, but basically I've been told that they can't get involved. Well......I'm going to write again and strongly remind them that *yes they can get involved *and in fact it *IS* their job to do so. They write the laws that allow these things to happen, they for sure need to be involved in the resolution. That's supposedly why we voted them in and why we pay their wages - they work for us.


----------



## Hotpink

This is for the US people as I don't think this firm is in Canada. Perhaps up until the Canmore issue and more recently what Northmont fiasco there has not been a niche for such a law firm.
Regardless it is a good read for a Sunday morning with a cup of coffee.
https://www.finnlawgroup.com/tag/7-consumer-protection?limit=20&limitstart=0


----------



## Scammed!

Hotpink said:


> This is for the US people as I don't think this firm is in Canada. Perhaps up until the Canmore issue and more recently what Northmont fiasco there has not been a niche for such a law firm.
> Regardless it is a good read for a Sunday morning with a cup of coffee.
> https://www.finnlawgroup.com/tag/7-consumer-protection?limit=20&limitstart=0


Thank you gave me a great idea, and have already sent out my letter... we will see.


----------



## Scammed!

Hotpink said:


> This is for the US people as I don't think this firm is in Canada. Perhaps up until the Canmore issue and more recently what Northmont fiasco there has not been a niche for such a law firm.
> Regardless it is a good read for a Sunday morning with a cup of coffee.
> https://www.finnlawgroup.com/tag/7-consumer-protection?limit=20&limitstart=0





melamike said:


> Write again to the MP's and MLA's. ( MPP's in Ontario) - don't just write to your own representative, send to as many as you can but address and send each person as if it is a personal letter, not a mass email.
> 
> I wrote to several already and have had some written responses and phone calls, but basically I've been told that they can't get involved. Well......I'm going to write again and strongly remind them that *yes they can get involved *and in fact it *IS* their job to do so. They write the laws that allow these things to happen, they for sure need to be involved in the resolution. That's supposedly why we voted them in and why we pay their wages - they work for us.



Good work! Someone mentioned to only send to your MLA/MP...other wise it looks like irate people. The point is to get the message out there to everyone. Don't isolate this issue. Being on the radio is not  irate people its informing the public who need to know. Letters are informing all government officials that we are standing up saying this is wrong! I did the same sent professional letters and addressed them to the person I mailed to. Lots of emails and calls back. They were very kind and helpful. You don't know what happens behind closed doors....


Here is an example: Thank you for bringing this forward to us. We have received a number of these e-mails so far and will be consulting with consumer protections about this.


----------



## Petus@18

Another contact: 
The Federation of Law Societies of Canada 
*CONTACT US*
info@flsc.ca


----------



## Hey lady

melamike said:


> Write again to the MP's and MLA's. ( MPP's in Ontario) - don't just write to your own representative, send to as many as you can but address and send each person as if it is a personal letter, not a mass email.
> 
> I wrote to several already and have had some written responses and phone calls, but basically I've been told that they can't get involved. Well......I'm going to write again and strongly remind them that *yes they can get involved *and in fact it *IS* their job to do so. They write the laws that allow these things to happen, they for sure need to be involved in the resolution. That's supposedly why we voted them in and why we pay their wages - they work for us.



When the politician replies they can't get involved because it is a legal matter *they need to know that the courts do not run the government* - it is up to the government to make policies that protect the people and the court to enforce the policy


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Did you have a chance to send Michael your email this weekend that your SIF Option 1 signature was obtained under false pretense and coerced?

Did you send this email to Judge Young's office with a note you did not consent to the Settlement Agreement along with the opinion you are being extorted?

Did you have a chance to forward the SIF message on to your friends on Facebook who also can do this?

*If you don't speak up for yourself than accept you have selected Option 1 of the SIF and pay!!!*

The message Michael is going to tell Judge Young is we did accept unless she hears otherwise as Michael isn't going to tell her he has a mutiny on his hands.


Judge Young, Northmont, and Michael have a meeting scheduled this week to discuss costs - what message do you think Judge Young will hear?

If you don't speak up to dispute the Settlement Agreement you just received it's the one Michael and Northmont will tell for you!!!


I know people are afraid be singled out and Michael has told you by not accepting "You're Fired!!!"  This is what THEY want.

Unite and send a message these are not your instructions - he cannot fire us all or any of us under these pretenses but he can bully and intimidate us to think he can.

People who think this is the right thing to do today help encourage everyone else by putting up a post - *UNITE and FIGHT!!!!*


----------



## truthr

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Did you have a chance to send Michael your email this weekend that your SIF Option 1 signature was obtained under false pretense and coerced?
> 
> Did you send this email to Judge Young's office with a note you did not consent to the Settlement Agreement along with the opinion you are being extorted?
> 
> Did you have a chance to forward the SIF message on to your friends on Facebook who also can do this?
> 
> *If you don't speak up for yourself than accept you have selected Option 1 of the SIF and pay!!!*
> 
> The message Michael is going to tell Judge Young is we did accept unless she hears otherwise as Michael isn't going to tell her he has a mutiny on his hands.
> 
> 
> Judge Young, Northmont, and Michael have a meeting scheduled this week to discuss costs - what message do you think Judge Young will hear?
> 
> If you don't speak up to dispute the Settlement Agreement you just received it's the one Michael and Northmont will tell for you!!!
> 
> 
> I know people are afraid be singled out and Michael has told you by not accepting "You're Fired!!!"  This is what THEY want.
> 
> Unite and send a message these are not your instructions - he cannot fire us all or any of us under these pretenses but he can bully and intimidate us to think he can.
> 
> People who think this is the right thing to do today help encourage everyone else by putting up a post - *UNITE and FIGHT!!!!*


Ultimate Betrayal is so correct on all points.

Although it is important that people continue to write to the various politicians and Law Societies, the one who needs to know if you are not being represented by your representative in court is the Judge.  This should not have to happen, a legal representative should be representing their clients in the most favorable, honest way; however if that is not happening what other recourse do you have??

We have been silenced for too long while our representative has misrepresented us to the courts and the courts to us. 
Find your voice and speak up, but please be courteous - this is* NOT* the Judge's fault.


----------



## CleoB

Notwhatweweresold said:


> I think every way NM is going after us - including the 20% surcharge to settle - is about collecting money to pay its huge debts of which legal fees are a portion.


If you look at NM financial statements their legal fees are included in the maintenance fees.


----------



## torqued

Correct me if I’m wrong but the only thing I’m being told I have to pay by the court is the special assessment. The rest is what NM “thinks” we should pay.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

torqued said:


> Correct me if I’m wrong but the only thing I’m being told I have to pay by the court is the special assessment. The rest is what NM “thinks” we should pay.


I am not 100% sure of your circumstances but if you are one of Michael's 1300 represented clients you should have received his email dated around Jan 10th with the amount you potentially need to pay - my special assessment was about $5,500 at the time - Michael has agreed on my behalf to over $35,000 as a result of his settlement negotiations which if left unchallenged could be binding if I sign the final documents.

The courts in this case never ruled on a settlement amount - if you are fighting a different battle I would like to be back fighting for that cost for myself.


----------



## torqued

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I am not 100% sure of your circumstances but if you are one of Michael's 1300 represented clients you should have received his email dated around Jan 10th with the amount you potentially need to pay - my special assessment was about $5,500 at the time - Michael has agreed on my behalf to over $35,000 as a result of his settlement negotiations which if left unchallenged could be binding if I sign the final documents.
> 
> The courts in this case never ruled on a settlement amount - if you are fighting a different battle I would like to be back fighting for that cost for myself.


Well I signed option one but rejected it and have never received the Jan 9th settlement figures. I requested he send them but have not received anything. My frustration with MG is not letting me know where I stand. I cannot afford to “assume” I’m on my own at this point especially if he is going to going back to the table with NM. He needs to be more professional than that.


----------



## Newbie2

Since there is supposed to be a meeting this coming week between MG, NM and Judge Young I would suggest that anyone that signed option 1 and feels they were coerced into signing but do not agree with the terms....email or fax Judge Young so she knows how you feel. Otherwise MG and NM will present this to her as everyone is in total agreement. MG has made your bed but do you want to lie in it?
Provincial Court of Alberta Fax 780-427-4348


----------



## Petus@18

torqued said:


> Well I signed option one but rejected it and have never received the Jan 9th settlement figures. I requested he send them but have not received anything. My frustration with MG is not letting me know where I stand. I cannot afford to “assume” I’m on my own at this point especially if he is going to going back to the table with NM. He needs to be more professional than that.



We are having the same issue as you.  We have not seen what would our settlement figures look like. Geldert is not responding to our calls/messages.  Assuming he has probably removed himself as our lawyer?
but has not let us know yet. We will be checking with the court house on Monday.   If that is the case, I imagine we can contact the Judge directly as we have not find any other lawyer?  Wondering if this is correct? Unless the court appoint us a new legal counsel?  Does anyone know?


----------



## Floyd55

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Did you have a chance to send Michael your email this weekend that your SIF Option 1 signature was obtained under false pretense and coerced?
> 
> Did you send this email to Judge Young's office with a note you did not consent to the Settlement Agreement along with the opinion you are being extorted?
> 
> Did you have a chance to forward the SIF message on to your friends on Facebook who also can do this?
> 
> *If you don't speak up for yourself than accept you have selected Option 1 of the SIF and pay!!!*
> 
> The message Michael is going to tell Judge Young is we did accept unless she hears otherwise as Michael isn't going to tell her he has a mutiny on his hands.
> 
> 
> Judge Young, Northmont, and Michael have a meeting scheduled this week to discuss costs - what message do you think Judge Young will hear?
> 
> If you don't speak up to dispute the Settlement Agreement you just received it's the one Michael and Northmont will tell for you!!!
> 
> 
> I know people are afraid be singled out and Michael has told you by not accepting "You're Fired!!!"  This is what THEY want.
> 
> Unite and send a message these are not your instructions - he cannot fire us all or any of us under these pretenses but he can bully and intimidate us to think he can.
> 
> People who think this is the right thing to do today help encourage everyone else by putting up a post - *UNITE and FIGHT!!!!*



Just thought that I should publicly indicate that I have sent a letter to both MG and Judge Young indicating that we are not on board with this "settlement" and that the issues of costs and interest rates needs to be addressed by her. I asked that someone finally stand up to the bully KW and his legal thugs and make things right. I instructed MG that it was now time that he finally did some real defending for his clients and fight for a real settlement, not just what KW and Northmont are insisting upon. Hopefully Judge Young steps in and forces their hand this week. Fingers crossed!


----------



## torqued

If he’s going back to the table on the same issue how can he not be our attorney?  And if he goes back and negotiates a settlement is he once again going to not give us the exact figures and sign on the dotted line for us and expect us to open wide and swallow??  He has to give us the facts the figures and a reasonable time frame to decide what to do. Certainly the pressure to pay now is coming from NM not MG.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

torqued said:


> Well I signed option one but rejected it and have never received the Jan 9th settlement figures. I requested he send them but have not received anything. My frustration with MG is not letting me know where I stand. I cannot afford to “assume” I’m on my own at this point especially if he is going to going back to the table with NM. He needs to be more professional than that.


Definitely professionalism and proper legal etiquette have left the building.

Have you been severed with a Withdrawal of Service notice and provided with any information as you are required to be severed as part of the procedure for Michael to follow to withdraw service along with providing the information you will need to represent yourself?  If you have not been severed and believe you should have been there is the possibility paperwork has been filed with wrong contact information.  You or a new legal representative will need to check the court house where your individual Statement of Claim has been filed what has been recently added to your case file.

Another part of what needs to be done by probably Strathcona Law Group is a filing additional documentation (cannot remember the name of this filing - help anyone?) also at your court house that if not filed doesn't actually release your legal representation procedurally so you and your current legal representation would remain bond to each other.

Sorry I don't know much about this yet and what gears are in motion for people who are in your current situation at this time but people who have been severed in the last couple of days are already trying to find out the answers to the same of the same questions you must have.  This is just a new development and just another thing we find ourselves needing to educate ourselves about when we should have been properly informed / educated on the various options Michael has forced upon us.

The entire thing is a total mess with everything associated and nothing is being done properly by our lawyer!!!

There are clear guidelines that a lawyer needs to follow when a client is released and I understand these are not properly being followed.  It is a clear violation of the Code of Conduct which Michael and the other firms he has engaged to represent you (like the Strathcona Law Group) who also have the same duty to follow and by association may get negatively caught us in these events and negatively impacted considering they are the Lawyer's on Record for most or all of us.

Document everything and hopefully more answers will be available soon as we all learn more - you are still tied to the large group so don't feel abandoned!!!


----------



## Jjareed

I contacted a farily good sized lawyers office in Washignton State who I have used in the past and wanted to pass along what they told me.

Our office does have the skill set to work on breach of contract and litigation type matters as you mentioned below.  However, one area that we don't practice in is potential malpractice claims against other attorneys.  Based upon the below, it sounds like you may have a claim against the attorney that represented you if he negotiated a settlement that was not consistent with your authority or if he made misrepresentations that induced you to pursue settlement.

The other concern I have is that this matter may involve Canadian laws and courts, rather than Washington or even US laws.  If that is the case, then we may have some issues even addressing the contract side of the situation.  For example, while the interest rate seems high (and could be unlawful in Washington on consumer transactions), it may be allowable by Canadian standards.  Without viewing the underlying documents and having more information, its hard for me to figure that out. 


If you signed a binding agreement that you would pay or participate in the settlement, then your failure to pay would be a breach of the agreement.  They could treat this as an individual breach against you (of the settlement agreement), or a failure of the settlement as a whole against all parties.  That would just depend on how it is structured.  If it has the effect of revoking the settlement, then presumably the company could sue or continue with the lawsuit to enforce the debt against the class.  If construed as a personal breach of the agreement, the company would have the ability to sue you personally.  

The statute of limitations on a breach of contract action in Washington is 6 years from the date of breach.  However, I do not know what the statute of limitations would be if Canadian law applies.  If there is no tolling agreement in place while the settlements are pending, and a lawsuit has not already been filed, then the clock is running.  But, if there is a tolling agreement, the clock may be "frozen" for a period and will preserve the claims that would have expired in absence of the tolling agreement.   

The statute  of limitations in Washington for legal malpractice is 3 years.  This is something to keep in mind if you think you may have a claim against your attorney. 

Have other members expressed concern that the settlement is unfair?  If so, what have they done to object?  Do you know if any of them have been able to reach individual settlements that are more favorable than what was proposed to your class?  If so, you might see if you can separately negotiate a buy out, even if its at the $3,000 price that was initially rejected.  This could be cheaper than continuing to protest the action. 

Once you have had an opportunity to review this information, please let me know if you have questions and/or would like further assistance from our office.


----------



## torqued

I see Judge a Young’s fax number post but could someone please repost her email address.


----------



## Mason

Hello I’m new to the group. I live in the States. I have written our representatives. I would like to send Judge Young a e-mail too, does anyone have her e-mail? All I could find was her Fax. Nobody has mentioned the hardship option MG has given, the paperwork is extensive and must be given by Jan 24th. I dont know if giving them all that personal information is advisable, I dont know who to trust. I feel so taken advantage of. I hope the meeting between MG, NM and Judge Young this week will help.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

torqued said:


> I see Judge a Young’s fax number post but could someone please repost her email address.


I've tried many times to get this from her office and haven't had any luck - I'd love to have it to


----------



## Scammed!

*UNITE and FIGHT!!!!*
*
*


----------



## servemeout

Keep in mind that your personal information belongs to YOU.  The PIPA Act outlines what information is protected.  The Act can be read on line.   The Act is almost identical for both Alberta & BC.  I was told once the BC stood for "bring cash" - that is what Northwhatever wants. This is the same scam, only the location has changed.


----------



## Lily123

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Did you have a chance to send Michael your email this weekend that your SIF Option 1 signature was obtained under false pretense and coerced?
> 
> Did you send this email to Judge Young's office with a note you did not consent to the Settlement Agreement along with the opinion you are being extorted?
> 
> Did you have a chance to forward the SIF message on to your friends on Facebook who also can do this?
> 
> *If you don't speak up for yourself than accept you have selected Option 1 of the SIF and pay!!!*
> 
> The message Michael is going to tell Judge Young is we did accept unless she hears otherwise as Michael isn't going to tell her he has a mutiny on his hands.
> 
> 
> Judge Young, Northmont, and Michael have a meeting scheduled this week to discuss costs - what message do you think Judge Young will hear?
> 
> If you don't speak up to dispute the Settlement Agreement you just received it's the one Michael and Northmont will tell for you!!!
> 
> 
> I know people are afraid be singled out and Michael has told you by not accepting "You're Fired!!!"  This is what THEY want.
> 
> Unite and send a message these are not your instructions - he cannot fire us all or any of us under these pretenses but he can bully and intimidate us to think he can.
> 
> People who think this is the right thing to do today help encourage everyone else by putting up a post - *UNITE and FIGHT!!!!*




How did you get confirmation about this meeting?  Is there a reference number of any kind to include on a fax to Judge Young regarding this case?


----------



## torqued

Jjareed said:


> I contacted a farily good sized lawyers office in Washignton State who I have used in the past and wanted to pass along what they told me.
> 
> Our office does have the skill set to work on breach of contract and litigation type matters as you mentioned below.  However, one area that we don't practice in is potential malpractice claims against other attorneys.  Based upon the below, it sounds like you may have a claim against the attorney that represented you if he negotiated a settlement that was not consistent with your authority or if he made misrepresentations that induced you to pursue settlement.
> 
> The other concern I have is that this matter may involve Canadian laws and courts, rather than Washington or even US laws.  If that is the case, then we may have some issues even addressing the contract side of the situation.  For example, while the interest rate seems high (and could be unlawful in Washington on consumer transactions), it may be allowable by Canadian standards.  Without viewing the underlying documents and having more information, its hard for me to figure that out.
> 
> 
> If you signed a binding agreement that you would pay or participate in the settlement, then your failure to pay would be a breach of the agreement.  They could treat this as an individual breach against you (of the settlement agreement), or a failure of the settlement as a whole against all parties.  That would just depend on how it is structured.  If it has the effect of revoking the settlement, then presumably the company could sue or continue with the lawsuit to enforce the debt against the class.  If construed as a personal breach of the agreement, the company would have the ability to sue you personally.
> 
> The statute of limitations on a breach of contract action in Washington is 6 years from the date of breach.  However, I do not know what the statute of limitations would be if Canadian law applies.  If there is no tolling agreement in place while the settlements are pending, and a lawsuit has not already been filed, then the clock is running.  But, if there is a tolling agreement, the clock may be "frozen" for a period and will preserve the claims that would have expired in absence of the tolling agreement.
> 
> The statute  of limitations in Washington for legal malpractice is 3 years.  This is something to keep in mind if you think you may have a claim against your attorney.
> 
> Have other members expressed concern that the settlement is unfair?  If so, what have they done to object?  Do you know if any of them have been able to reach individual settlements that are more favorable than what was proposed to your class?  If so, you might see if you can separately negotiate a buy out, even if its at the $3,000 price that was initially rejected.  This could be cheaper than continuing to protest the action.
> 
> Once you have had an opportunity to review this information, please let me know if you have questions and/or would like further assistance from our office.


Thank you for sharing that information.


----------



## Palms to pines

Jjarreed .    It was nice to read a straight forward letter from an attorney, quite unlike the clear as mud letters we have been getting these past four years.


----------



## Floyd55

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I've tried many times to get this from her office and haven't had any luck - I'd love to have it to



It is actually remarkable that we have a fax number for a Judge. Typically there is limited access for the general public to have contact with a judge directly. The fact that we seem to have a fax number to get documents directly to her is a bit unique. So please find a way to send a fax to her with your concerns asap! Tomorrow at the latest.


----------



## Broke Mama

Jjareed said:


> I contacted a farily good sized lawyers office in Washignton State who I have used in the past and wanted to pass along what they told me.
> 
> Our office does have the skill set to work on breach of contract and litigation type matters as you mentioned below.  However, one area that we don't practice in is potential malpractice claims against other attorneys.  Based upon the below, it sounds like you may have a claim against the attorney that represented you if he negotiated a settlement that was not consistent with your authority or if he made misrepresentations that induced you to pursue settlement.
> 
> The other concern I have is that this matter may involve Canadian laws and courts, rather than Washington or even US laws.  If that is the case, then we may have some issues even addressing the contract side of the situation.  For example, while the interest rate seems high (and could be unlawful in Washington on consumer transactions), it may be allowable by Canadian standards.  Without viewing the underlying documents and having more information, its hard for me to figure that out.
> 
> 
> If you signed a binding agreement that you would pay or participate in the settlement, then your failure to pay would be a breach of the agreement.  They could treat this as an individual breach against you (of the settlement agreement), or a failure of the settlement as a whole against all parties.  That would just depend on how it is structured.  If it has the effect of revoking the settlement, then presumably the company could sue or continue with the lawsuit to enforce the debt against the class.  If construed as a personal breach of the agreement, the company would have the ability to sue you personally.
> 
> The statute of limitations on a breach of contract action in Washington is 6 years from the date of breach.  However, I do not know what the statute of limitations would be if Canadian law applies.  If there is no tolling agreement in place while the settlements are pending, and a lawsuit has not already been filed, then the clock is running.  But, if there is a tolling agreement, the clock may be "frozen" for a period and will preserve the claims that would have expired in absence of the tolling agreement.
> 
> The statute  of limitations in Washington for legal malpractice is 3 years.  This is something to keep in mind if you think you may have a claim against your attorney.
> 
> Have other members expressed concern that the settlement is unfair?  If so, what have they done to object?  Do you know if any of them have been able to reach individual settlements that are more favorable than what was proposed to your class?  If so, you might see if you can separately negotiate a buy out, even if its at the $3,000 price that was initially rejected.  This could be cheaper than continuing to protest the action.
> 
> Once you have had an opportunity to review this information, please let me know if you have questions and/or would like further assistance from our office.


We live in spokane. We haven't found a lawyer to talk to that knows Canadian law. We do need to know our rights. No one has settled with Northmont that I know of.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

Broke Mama said:


> We live in spokane. We haven't found a lawyer to talk to that knows Canadian law. We do need to know our rights. No one has settled with Northmont that I know of.



I have no legal knowledge . but if it was sold across the border I would have the lawyer explore NAFTA  ( clauses & violations ) etc


----------



## Spark1

When Collin Knight owned the resort we signed a Vacation Villa Lease Contract with him for 40 years. When Collin Knight went Bankruped that ended all connections to the resort. Now we have a brand new owner just like when we signed a Lease contract with Collin Knight. I feel we should of had the opportunity to sign a new Lease contract with Northwynd because when Collin Bankruped that ended the Lease. I feel we have no contract with this resort. I will check this out because this is how it works in other businesses why should it be any different  with this business?


----------



## Scammed!

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I hope the hell I'm wrong.... I'm probably wrong.....last thing I want to do is start rumours. I'm just getting these light bulb moments here because we were left in the dark for so long. So we got served on March 7 2013....Is this why, I was told there was no time to negotiate further....because after 5 years it expires? So they milked us for this long on purpose to get as much interests and costs on us just before the expired contracts would take place? Threw us to the wolves with no legal recourse. If this is true that would mean 3 more weeks after February 15 we would have been freed? Nahhhh can't be.   I'm starting to sound like a scam artist....but what a concept that would be to make money.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Lily123 said:


> How did you get confirmation about this meeting?  Is there a reference number of any kind to include on a fax to Judge Young regarding this case?


Fax 780-422-2257

File Information for Alberta:
Provincial Court of Alberta Edmonton
Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Reid, 2017 ABPC 249
Registry Action Number: P1490304333
Date: October 11, 2017
Decision of the Honourable Judge L.D. Young

I talked with Judge Young's assistant on Friday to follow up if my own letter had been received and she mentioned the meeting was scheduled but she did not provide the date


----------



## melamike

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Fax 780-422-2257
> 
> File Information for Alberta:
> Provincial Court of Alberta Edmonton
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Reid, 2017 ABPC 249
> Registry Action Number: P1490304333
> Date: October 11, 2017
> Decision of the Honourable Judge L.D. Young
> 
> I talked with Judge Young's assistant on Friday to follow up if my own letter had been received and she mentioned the meeting was scheduled but she did not provide the date



Hi UB  That is a different fax number than what has been posted for the Judge - is this a direct line?
Cheers


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

This is one I took from the Canadian Law List - didn't realize it was different that one we had listed here

http://www.canadianlawlist.com/listingdetail/contact/l-d-young-635909/

*The Hon. L. D. Young*
_Assistant Chief Judge, Civil:_
*Provincial Court*
Civil
1A Sir Winston Churchill Sq.
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0R2
*Phone: *780-422-4021
*Fax: *780-422-2257


----------



## Jjareed

Scammed! said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, and I hope the hell I'm wrong.... I'm probably wrong.....last thing I want to do is start rumours. I'm just getting these light bulb moments here because we were left in the dark for so long. So we got served on March 7 2013....Is this why, I was told there was no time to negotiate further....because after 5 years it expires? So they milked us for this long on purpose to get as much interests and costs on us just before the expired contracts would take place? Threw us to the wolves with no legal recourse. If this is true that would mean 3 more weeks after February 15 we would have been freed? Nahhhh can't be.   I'm starting to sound like a scam artist....but what a concept that would be to make money.


I have asked MG twice regarding whether there are any time limits on unpaid debt and he never has answered me.


----------



## Scammed!

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> This is one I took from the Canadian Law List - didn't realize it was different that one we had listed here
> 
> http://www.canadianlawlist.com/listingdetail/contact/l-d-young-635909/
> 
> *The Hon. L. D. Young*
> _Assistant Chief Judge, Civil:_
> *Provincial Court*
> Civil
> 1A Sir Winston Churchill Sq.
> Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0R2
> *Phone: *780-422-4021
> *Fax: *780-422-2257



These are the numbers I called and faxed over two weeks ago their correct!


----------



## aden2

I hope that Hon L.D. Young gets enough negative remarks about MG that somehow it is declared a mistrial!


----------



## truthr

If you haven't participated in the survey yet, please do as I believe it closes on January 17th, 2018.
Thank you for those who already have and we will post the results once we have them.

Here is the link
https://s.surveyplanet.com/B1wQpSUEf


----------



## Spark1

Scammed! said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, and I hope the hell I'm wrong.... I'm probably wrong.....last thing I want to do is start rumours. I'm just getting these light bulb moments here because we were left in the dark for so long. So we got served on March 7 2013....Is this why, I was told there was no time to negotiate further....because after 5 years it expires? So they milked us for this long on purpose to get as much interests and costs on us just before the expired contracts would take place? Threw us to the wolves with no legal recourse. If this is true that would mean 3 more weeks after February 15 we would have been freed? Nahhhh can't be.   I'm starting to sound like a scam artist....but what a concept that would be to make money.


.         These are professional scammers look what happened in Mexico,Belize and Hawaii.


----------



## aden2

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> This is one I took from the Canadian Law List - didn't realize it was different that one we had listed here
> 
> http://www.canadianlawlist.com/listingdetail/contact/l-d-young-635909/
> 
> *The Hon. L. D. Young*
> _Assistant Chief Judge, Civil:_
> *Provincial Court*
> Civil
> 1A Sir Winston Churchill Sq.
> Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0R2
> *Phone: *780-422-4021
> *Fax: *780-422-2257



T*he numbers for Civil Law are: phone 780-427-1289;  fax 780-427-4348*


----------



## Lily123

2092539, member: 68856"]T*he numbers for Civil Law are: phone 780-427-1289;  fax 780-427-4348*[/QUOTE]

Use this one: (called and confirmed)





 [QUOTE="aden2, post:


----------



## truthr

*URGENT - *Danielle Smith is covering this issue again today, live at 10 AM (AB time)

here is the link to her on the air right now

For the taped version of this scroll down to my next post.

Or 
For anyone who missed Danielle Smith's coverage of this issue again today.

Try this link - today's date, 10 am, click the arrow on the left to start it, the timeshare issue starts at about 8:21 minutes in

http://store.corusradio.com/audio-vault/avWidget/?s=chqram&styleon=000000&styleoff=95a5a6


----------



## LilMaggie

Thanks so much truthr!


----------



## melamike

Spark1 said:


> .         These are professional scammers look what happened in Mexico,Belize and Hawaii.



You are right Spark1.. I did a quick search and it seems like the problems started before the insolvency of Fairmont. There's appears to be a wake of destruction that's for sure. There's also a connection between Northwyn and Fairmont and it's people  that's more than just a company picking up the assets a bankrupt company - I smell corruption!!


----------



## aden2

This is to advise Civil Court that we did not agree to any agreement that Geldert Law was forcing on us. We had agreeded to have Geldert negoitate for us, but when Geldert phoned and told us that he could not give us the amount until he was sure that we agreeded. The answer sent back to Geldert was  NO. We did not agree to what was not known but to send a blank cheque to him!
We were forced into a fraudlent timeshare sales August 12, 2009. Fairmont was in receivership and later insolvent, but the phony slides and sales was a deliberate scam. Every year since January 2013 we demanded release. How can we have a contract since it was FRAUD. Service Alberta has stated many times that Northmont was in violation of the Fair Trading Act, but Michael Geldert has continually refused to listen to our instruction. How can we be charged FEES ANNUALLY when Fairmont/Northmont committed FRAUD? Where has Michael Geldert been these last few years?.


----------



## greyskies

I listened to the episode. Danielle Smith did say to contact the following individuals:
Angela Pitt - MLA (Airdrie)
Minister of Justice
Minister of Service Alberta
Judge Young.

I didnt catch the names for Justice or Service Alberta. Sorry, if this was posted previously in this thread. 

Greatful that she is doing this though.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Inquiringmind

Statute of limitations in Alberta is two years.  That means that the claimant has two years from the time they knew they had a claim or ought to have known they had a claim to file a statement of claim.I think that Northmont knew they had a claim against delinquent lessees   When they failed to pay their annual maintenance. So two years later from that date they wouldn’t be able to file a claim, Based on the statute of limitations. And wouldn’t that limitation slide forward till 2 years ago from the judgment?


----------



## mmchili

*Alberta statute of limitations*
British Columbia - Section 3 (5) of the BC *Limitation Act* sets 6 years as the limit for debt. Alberta - The Alberta Limitations Act sets 2 years as the term which is extended to 10 years if there is a judgement.

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/L12.pdf
Limitation periods
3(1)  Subject to subsections (1.1) and (1.2) and sections 3.1 and 11, if a claimant does not seek a remedial order within 
     (a) 2 years after the date on which the claimant first knew, or in the circumstances ought to have known, 
        (i) that the injury for which the claimant seeks a remedial order had occurred, 
        (ii) that the injury was attributable to conduct of the defendant, and 
        (iii) that the injury, assuming liability on the part of the defendant, warrants bringing a proceeding,   or 
     (b) 10 years after the claim arose,
whichever period expires first, the defendant, on pleading this Act as a defence, is entitled to immunity from liability in respect of the claim


----------



## Inquiringmind

tswow said:


> *Alberta statute of limitations*
> British Columbia - Section 3 (5) of the BC *Limitation Act* sets 6 years as the limit for debt. Alberta - The Alberta Limitations Act sets 2 years as the term which is extended to 10 years if there is a judgement.
> 
> http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/L12.pdf
> Limitation periods
> 3(1)  Subject to subsections (1.1) and (1.2) and sections 3.1 and 11, if a claimant does not seek a remedial order within
> (a) 2 years after the date on which the claimant first knew, or in the circumstances ought to have known,
> (i) that the injury for which the claimant seeks a remedial order had occurred,
> (ii) that the injury was attributable to conduct of the defendant, and
> (iii) that the injury, assuming liability on the part of the defendant, warrants bringing a proceeding,   or
> (b) 10 years after the claim arose,
> whichever period expires first, the defendant, on pleading this Act as a defence, is entitled to immunity from liability in respect of the claim


 So do you think this would apply in our effort to reduce the total cost that Northmonte seeking?


----------



## truthr

For anyone who missed Danielle Smith's coverage of this issue again today.

Try this link - today's date, 10 am, click the arrow on the left to start it, the timeshare issue starts at about 8:21 minutes in
http://store.corusradio.com/audio-vault/avWidget/...


----------



## servemeout

It is interesting to note that during the 4 years of this dispute we could not get anyone to hear our side of the story.  We did not get to tell our story in front of Judge Young. We were told by MG that we needed to go public, and now thanks to NM 's greed it has.  I am hoping that this "settlement" will take them down, much like the decaying buildings of Hillside.  I am sure that loss of revenue has hurt the valley merchants, thanks to fleecing us. The 11 years girl who lied about having her head covering cut made the national news, but people who *PURCHASED TIME* has had to fight to get their story out.


----------



## fairmontlovers

melamike said:


> You are right Spark1.. I did a quick search and it seems like the problems started before the insolvency of Fairmont. There's appears to be a wake of destruction that's for sure. There's also a connection between Northwyn and Fairmont and it's people  that's more than just a company picking up the assets a bankrupt company - I smell corruption!!



I recently spoke to a sales person that was working in Sunchaser's sales office in Fairmont during the takeover of Fairmont by Northwynd. He told me they were doing well, profitable, making their sales targets, then one day they came in and laid everyone off and closed the sales center.
My question is why? Would it not be in Northwynd's best interest to continue selling off the inventory they had? Selling the timeshares that had turned delinquent? Does the agreement not state that Northwynd would be responsible to pay the maintenance fees of any unsold inventory? So why would they shut the sales center down?

About the same time many Sunchaser timeshares started to appear on Ebay for the sum of $1.00. I wonder who placed them there? Was this a plan?


----------



## greyskies

The Danielle Smith is on iTunes as well. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## RippedOff

Has anyone emailed or contacted the Minister of Justice in Alberta?  I'm hoping we'll get a mistrial.  This can't be our Canadian legal system that allows innocent people to be scammed like this.

_ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca_


----------



## Tacoma

The names mentioned by Danielle Smith were 

Angela Pitt(s) UCP might bring it up in the leg next week if we can find out when we could go up is anyone one of her constituents? If they called that would be great because we could plan to go up. My MLA has not responded to me.  They are a member of the NDP.

Kathleen Ganley Minister of Justice AB

Stephanie McLean - minister for service AB

Honourable Judge Young -apparently not impressed with the number of emails etc.

Let's keep up the pressure with those we are gaining traction on. Danielle said she had received around 50 letters last week. Let's double that number this week. It's not hard to write a letter explaining how this has affected you personally even if you don't know all of the steps you should mention at least the  interest rate, the maintenance fees for all the years we have been fighting in the courts with the interest fees, maybe the original cost and the cost now etc. One personal letter also goes farther than a bulk mailing list. I have tried to slightly modify all of my letters. We are gaining some traction we do need to keep going.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

truthr said:


> For anyone who missed Danielle Smith's coverage of this issue again today.
> 
> Try this link - today's date, 10 am, click the arrow on the left to start it, the timeshare issue starts at about 8:21 minutes in
> http://store.corusradio.com/audio-vault/avWidget/...



I did listen - but for others you do need to set time to 10 am 
I first enjoyed the Mary Queen of Scots " update " from the midnight hour .


----------



## Tanny13

For those who are agreeing to this settlement, take note...
1.  If you do not pay the entire amount by Feb. 28/18, you have signed a judgement for 162%, plus interest from Nov/17, which they can then come after you for.
2.  Once you sign it, even if a different truth comes out at a later date, you are bound to it.
3.  Northmont is not giving up its rights and remedies under the VIA.
4.  You are gagged and cannot sue anyone.


----------



## Petus@18

We received a reply from an MP suggesting to contact Wendy Booth who lives in Fairmont and is the local government Director for the area.  From his perspective this unfortunate issue is a civil dispute and a class-action lawsuit by the investors would be the order of the day, rather than trying for a political resolution.
...........

Believe me, I understand that this is a civil matter; however,  how can any of us continue defending our interests and rights if no lawyer wants to represent us?   

Shouldn't the government be able to appoint someone that could investigate this case? There are so many issues in this case RE Northmont's fraud and corruption. Also,  the legal malpractice from a lawyer representing over 1000 clients, that we feel it should be looked at by both federal and provincial governments. The property is in BC, but Northmont's offices are all located in Alberta.  

We will be contacting her, if you wish to send her a note as well, here is an address: ubcm@ubcm.ca


----------



## Lostmyshirt

Has anyone reported them to the Better Business Bureau ?  At the very least they deserve 1800 complaints.


----------



## mmchili

*Draft From Northmont Resort Prop Regarding Maintenance Fees*
https://www.justanswer.com/canada-l...t-resort-prop-regarding-maintenance-fees.html


----------



## greyskies

Tanny13 said:


> For those who are agreeing to this settlement, take note...
> 1.  If you do not pay the entire amount by Feb. 28/18, you have signed a judgement for 162%, plus interest from Nov/17, which they can then come after you for.
> 2.  Once you sign it, even if a different truth comes out at a later date, you are bound to it.
> 3.  Northmont is not giving up its rights and remedies under the VIA.
> 4.  You are gagged and cannot sue anyone.


Regarding point 1. Is the payment date February 15th or February 28th?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lostmyshirt

https://www.secretflight.org/northwynd.ca


----------



## mmchili

*Hearing for the class-action against Sunchaser Villas begins *Posted on: _January 20, 2016_
https://www.timeshareconsumerassoci...class-action-against-sunchaser-villas-begins/


----------



## Tanny13

greyskies said:


> Regarding point 1. Is the payment date February 15th or February 28th?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


Sorry Feb. 15 to MG, Feb. 28 to Northmont


----------



## KGB_527

This is very old news. I was just talking today to the court clerk after faxing my letter to Judge Young, and she told me there are no hearings scheduled.
Does anyone know, what is the process with these letters she receives? Does she collect them, and put them into the bottom of the file and ...........???
Does she reply? What happens to it. Can someone enlighten me please? Thanks.
ooops this was reply to msg #3063


----------



## Petus@18

Tanny13 said:


> For those who are agreeing to this settlement, take note...
> 1.  If you do not pay the entire amount by Feb. 28/18, you have signed a judgement for 162%, plus interest from Nov/17, which they can then come after you for.
> 2.  Once you sign it, even if a different truth comes out at a later date, you are bound to it.
> 3.  Northmont is not giving up its rights and remedies under the VIA.
> 4.  You are gagged and cannot sue anyone.




How can this be a good thing for anyone to sign?  If we can't find another lawyer then we should represent ourselves.  Maybe we should start getting that information on how to proceed without a lawyer??


----------



## Bewildered

truthr said:


> Ultimate Betrayal is so correct on all points.
> 
> Although it is important that people continue to write to the various politicians and Law Societies, the one who needs to know if you are not being represented by your representative in court is the Judge.  This should not have to happen, a legal representative should be representing their clients in the most favorable, honest way; however if that is not happening what other recourse do you have??
> 
> We have been silenced for too long while our representative has misrepresented us to the courts and the courts to us.
> Find your voice and speak up, but please be courteous - this is* NOT* the Judge's fault.





torqued said:


> If he’s going back to the table on the same issue how can he not be our attorney?  And if he goes back and negotiates a settlement is he once again going to not give us the exact figures and sign on the dotted line for us and expect us to open wide and swallow??  He has to give us the facts the figures and a reasonable time frame to decide what to do. Certainly the pressure to pay now is coming from NM not MG.


----------



## Bewildered

I also talked to Judge Youngs office today the Judge is reviewing things but doesn’t know when this will be complete. I explained the urgency, the lady said she can only recommend complaining to both Alberta and BC law societies about what has occurred with M.G. and Norton Rose. Please people continue the pressure, surprised the Judges office is actually taking calls and send her your faxes. Plus phone the Law Societies. We are making headway!!!!
Being on the Danielle Smith show in Calgary twice in a week is impressive and I think this scam is starting to be uncovered. But short term are only hope is for the Judge to do something before our deadline in February. Anybody have news from the Facebook group? Are they participating in our letter and phone campaign? I would hope so.


----------



## truthr

Bewildered said:


> I also talked to Judge Youngs office today the Judge is reviewing things but doesn’t know when this will be complete. I explained the urgency, the lady said she can only recommend complaining to both Alberta and BC law societies about what has occurred with M.G. and Norton Rose. Please people continue the pressure, surprised the Judges office is actually taking calls and send her your faxes. Plus phone the Law Societies. We are making headway!!!!
> Being on the Danielle Smith show in Calgary twice in a week is impressive and I think this scam is starting to be uncovered. But short term are only hope is for the Judge to do something before our deadline in February. Anybody have news from the Facebook group? Are they participating in our letter and phone campaign? I would hope so.


Thanks for the update on your phone call.
I have been encouraging people from the "secret" facebook group to participate here on Tugbbs and I believe they are.  And very much so with the letter and phoning campaigns.


----------



## #deceived

This is from MG in final statement:

Do *not* send any of the Settlement Documents to Northmont. We are sending them to Northmont on your behalf and are not providing them with any of your personal information


Huh? If we are supposedly ‘timeshare owners’ with Northmont… surely they have our personal information already!? 
Why would we pay MG?
So he could take  off with all our money, and we would still owe Northmont? Why wouldn’t we pay Northmont directly? 
Just another mystery in this scam!


----------



## FairSun

#deceived said:


> This is from MG in final statement:
> 
> Do *not* send any of the Settlement Documents to Northmont. We are sending them to Northmont on your behalf and are not providing them with any of your personal information
> 
> 
> Huh? If we are supposedly ‘timeshare owners’ with Northmont… surely they have our personal information already!?
> Why would we pay MG?
> So he could take  off with all our money, and we would still owe Northmont? Why wouldn’t we pay Northmont directly?
> Just another mystery in this scam!


NM does not have my new address nor my phone # and I want to keep it that way.


----------



## #deceived

FairSun said:


> NM does not have my new address nor my phone # and I want to keep it that way.


But How do that you own something with them if they don’t have your info?


----------



## FairSun

Tanny13 said:


> For those who are agreeing to this settlement, take note...
> 1.  If you do not pay the entire amount by Feb. 28/18, you have signed a judgement for 162%, plus interest from Nov/17, which they can then come after you for.
> 2.  Once you sign it, even if a different truth comes out at a later date, you are bound to it.
> 3.  Northmont is not giving up its rights and remedies under the VIA.
> 4.  You are gagged and cannot sue anyone.


Seems Northmont will file for 162% of whatever the current dollar amount is, the 2018 maintenance fee included and interest, and not release from the contract though.


----------



## FairSun

#deceived said:


> But How do that you own something with them if they don’t have your info?


Moved over the years


----------



## Petus@18

We didn't receive any of the documents regarding the poor settlement because we opted out on Dec 29.  We also sent Geldert a message prohibiting to disclose to any third party, any of the updated contact information we provided to him when the SIF was signed.  Some of you are talking about a gag order and relinquishing you rights in the future; are these part of the settlement document or a separate one?.  As for us, we wiil be facing paying the highest interest rate ever recorded in Canada,  I think?? This is unreal and we are physically ill thanks to a corrupted company and the malpractice of a "lawyer"  Well, we will keep trying until the end and praying for a lifeline.


----------



## Spark1

fairmontlovers said:


> I recently spoke to a sales person that was working in Sunchaser's sales office in Fairmont during the takeover of Fairmont by Northwynd. He told me they were doing well, profitable, making their sales targets, then one day they came in and laid everyone off and closed the sales center.
> My question is why? Would it not be in Northwynd's best interest to continue selling off the inventory they had? Selling the timeshares that had turned delinquent? Does the agreement not state that Northwynd would be responsible to pay the maintenance fees of any unsold inventory? So why would they shut the sales center down?
> 
> About the same time many Sunchaser timeshares started to appear on Ebay for the sum of $1.00. I wonder who placed them there? Was this a plan?


Remember every one do not ask the RCMP tell them you are joining the anti-fraud department it is your right to report fraud scam and senior abuse and white Collar Crime. Service Alberta have sent their files to the RCMP. I was working with the RCMP Today and I will get Service Alberta’s file number and if they do not give to me I will have the RCMP Do it for me. I need this so I can set up a file close to my home .I want to work as close as I can with the RCMP. They are the only friends that we have left. I will be talking with Darren Thomas tomorrow and I want to be guaranteed all the files that are sent to Service Alberta are sent to that file that Service Alberta has. I am done for today we start at 4:30AM and these been frustrating days just like for all of us but let’s keep up the fight.


----------



## Bewildered

Spark1 said:


> Remember every one do not ask the RCMP tell them you are joining the anti-fraud department it is your right to report fraud scam and senior abuse and white Collar Crime. Service Alberta have sent their files to the RCMP. I was working with the RCMP Today and I will get Service Alberta’s file number and if they do not give to me I will have the RCMP Do it for me. I need this so I can set up a file close to my home .I want to work as close as I can with the RCMP. They are the only friends that we have left. I will be talking with Darren Thomas tomorrow and I want to be guaranteed all the files that are sent to Service Alberta are sent to that file that Service Alberta has. I am done for today we start at 4:30AM and these been frustrating days just like for all of us but let’s keep up the fight.


Spark 1 I can tell you Darren Thomas has passed a file on years ago based on a forensic audit done by his department, obviously issues otherwise wouldn’t have been passed on. Not sure the RCMP is suddenly going to get moving on this? My humble opinion Judge Young is our only really good shot, if you haven’t contacted her office and faxed her a letter you should. By the time the RCMP gets around to anything Wankel will be long gone.


----------



## Bewildered

Petus@18 said:


> We received a reply from an MP suggesting to contact Wendy Booth who lives in Fairmont and is the local government Director for the area.  From his perspective this unfortunate issue is a civil dispute and a class-action lawsuit by the investors would be the order of the day, rather than trying for a political resolution.
> ...........
> 
> Believe me, I understand that this is a civil matter; however,  how can any of us continue defending our interests and rights if no lawyer wants to represent us?
> 
> Shouldn't the government be able to appoint someone that could investigate this case? There are so many issues in this case RE Northmont's fraud and corruption. Also,  the legal malpractice from a lawyer representing over 1000 clients, that we feel it should be looked at by both federal and provincial governments. The property is in BC, but Northmont's offices are all located in Alberta.
> 
> We will be contacting her, if you wish to send her a note as well, here is an address: ubcm@ubcm.ca


The judge and her incomplete ruling is the key, I was told today she is studying the situation??? With no timeline available to us. My NDP MLA supposedly has no opinion and passed it on to the Justice Minister


----------



## Bewildered

truthr said:


> Thanks for the update on your phone call.
> I have been encouraging people from the "secret" facebook group to participate here on Tugbbs and I believe they are.  And very much so with the letter and phoning campaigns.


All I know is that the Judge is considering something, she and everybody else on the call list should be getting hundreds of calls if people really want this. Keep up the good work


----------



## CleoB

fairmontlovers said:


> I recently spoke to a sales person that was working in Sunchaser's sales office in Fairmont during the takeover of Fairmont by Northwynd. He told me they were doing well, profitable, making their sales targets, then one day they came in and laid everyone off and closed the sales center.
> My question is why? Would it not be in Northwynd's best interest to continue selling off the inventory they had? Selling the timeshares that had turned delinquent? Does the agreement not state that Northwynd would be responsible to pay the maintenance fees of any unsold inventory? So why would they shut the sales center down?
> 
> About the same time many Sunchaser timeshares started to appear on Ebay for the sum of $1.00. I wonder who placed them there? Was this a plan?


Seems to me that Northmount must have been planning this all along.  They would purchased the resort from bankruptcy (aren't some of the people with Northmount the same ones affiliated with Fairmont Resort Prperties?) send out their RPF demand and recoup their lost money.


----------



## CleoB

Spark1 said:


> Remember every one do not ask the RCMP tell them you are joining the anti-fraud department it is your right to report fraud scam and senior abuse and white Collar Crime. Service Alberta have sent their files to the RCMP. I was working with the RCMP Today and I will get Service Alberta’s file number and if they do not give to me I will have the RCMP Do it for me. I need this so I can set up a file close to my home .I want to work as close as I can with the RCMP. They are the only friends that we have left. I will be talking with Darren Thomas tomorrow and I want to be guaranteed all the files that are sent to Service Alberta are sent to that file that Service Alberta has. I am done for today we start at 4:30AM and these been frustrating days just like for all of us but let’s keep up the fight.


You're right Spark.  If they closed the office they never had any intent on continuing on with the resort.  This RPF scam was simply a way to recoup the money they lost when Fairmont Resort Properties filed for bankruptcy.


----------



## Bewildered

Lostmyshirt said:


> Has anyone reported them to the Better Business Bureau ?  At the very least they deserve 1800 complaints.


1800 calls and faxes to the judge and to the Justice Minister would have a lot more value. You think Wankel cares about the BBB when he gets $50 million?


----------



## KGB_527

CleoB said:


> Seems to me that Northmount must have been planning this all along.  They would purchased the resort from bankruptcy (aren't some of the people with Northmount the same ones affiliated with Fairmont Resort Prperties?) send out their RPF demand and recoup their lost money.


Most of the mgmt heads in Northmont, are from Fairmont. The really new face is Kirk Wankle. He joined the Northwynd/Norhmont wagon in November 2012. He is the brain behind the "Freedom to choose, Reason to stay" Our problems started early into 2013.


----------



## KGB_527

If anyone is interested how this mess started, see attached. There is a plan, how to get out of financial ruin and make money of this. The read is only for the brave people 137 pgs.


----------



## CleoB

KGB_527 said:


> Most of the mgmt heads in Northmont, are from Fairmont. The really new face is Kirk Wankle. He joined the Northwynd/Norhmont wagon in November 2012. He is the brain behind the "Freedom to choose, Reason to stay" Our problems started early into 2013.


Yes, but maybe the talk around the lunch table was about how to get money from the owners.  In 2012 KW had an "epiphany" and the Freedom to choose was born.


----------



## truthr

As many of you know Danielle Smith had another one of our group on today and did another great job of shining the light on this issue.
I could not find anything on today's show in print but here is a link to the one from the other day.  Please take a moment to click on the link and leave a comment in the comment section.  Even if to just thank her for her continuous coverage.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3957452/danielle-smith-timeshare-laws-need-to-change/


----------



## Spark1

Bewildered said:


> Spark 1 I can tell you Darren Thomas has passed a file on years ago based on a forensic audit done by his department, obviously issues otherwise wouldn’t have been passed on. Not sure the RCMP is suddenly going to get moving on this? My humble opinion Judge Young is our only really good shot, if you haven’t contacted her office and faxed her a letter you should. By the time the RCMP gets around to anything Wankel will be long gone.


The documents that Service Alberta turned over were my documents and I also let a agent read the crooked Cancellation form and she said you are not cancelled. My documents went over to Frank Smart when he was in Calgary. The problem Service Alberta did not follow follow up with  this because of the change of government. The government has been one of the worst supporters. Darren Thomas is just a yes man for service Alberta. I was on the phone for at least 40 minutes giving him shit. I told him it is all the governments fault this is happening. This timeshare business is in the  Canadian Consumer Handbook. Timeshare is a business that should have regulations on these owners just like any other business. Blame this government and do not let them off the hook. Northmont are predictors Darren Thomas is another MG and a yes man. We all now have to focus on the RCMP.


----------



## Huckleberry

tswow said:


> *Draft From Northmont Resort Prop Regarding Maintenance Fees*
> https://www.justanswer.com/canada-l...t-resort-prop-regarding-maintenance-fees.html


Mr. Wankel.  Nice of you to join in on the discussion.  Slow raid day?


----------



## Inquiringmind

Punter said:


> We received the following letter today from the Provincial Court of Alberta.
> 
> January 8th, 2018
> 
> 
> Re: Correspondence Address to Honourable Judge Young.
> 
> I take this opportunity to respond to your letter to Judge Young.
> 
> Judge Young has issued a written decision on this matter (2017 ABPC 249), and we understand an appeal of the decision has been filed. Accordingly, Judge's Young's authority is now exhausted with respect to everything except the issues of interests and costs, which are subject of a forthcoming decision. She has no power to revisit anything in the aforementioned written decision and has received submissions from counsel on the other matter, which is under consideration.
> 
> When a litigant is represented, any communications to and from Judge Young can only occur through counsel, with copies to all parties. If you are unhappy with your current legal representation, you may wish to seek alternative legal advice as to the appropriate steps to take. You may also wish to contact the Law Society of British Columbia and/or the Law Society of Alberta, as they are the organizations that govern the behavior of lawyers. If you have complaints or concerns they will be able to assist you.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> 
> Kim Palichuk
> Executive Legal Counsel


----------



## Inquiringmind

Punter said:


> We received the following letter today from the Provincial Court of Alberta.
> 
> January 8th, 2018
> 
> 
> Re: Correspondence Address to Honourable Judge Young.
> 
> I take this opportunity to respond to your letter to Judge Young.
> 
> Judge Young has issued a written decision on this matter (2017 ABPC 249), and we understand an appeal of the decision has been filed. Accordingly, Judge's Young's authority is now exhausted with respect to everything except the issues of interests and costs, which are subject of a forthcoming decision. She has no power to revisit anything in the aforementioned written decision and has received submissions from counsel on the other matter, which is under consideration.
> 
> When a litigant is represented, any communications to and from Judge Young can only occur through counsel, with copies to all parties. If you are unhappy with your current legal representation, you may wish to seek alternative legal advice as to the appropriate steps to take. You may also wish to contact the Law Society of British Columbia and/or the Law Society of Alberta, as they are the organizations that govern the behavior of lawyers. If you have complaints or concerns they will be able to assist you.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> 
> Kim Palichuk
> Executive Legal Counsel


 This letter from Kim Palichuk executive legal counsel suggests that an appeal was filed in this case.  As per provincial court appeal rules, an appeal creates a stay of proceedings.  The judges decision cannot be enforced until the appeal is heard and ruled on. Does this mean our payment deadline would be postponed at least until the appeal is heard?


----------



## Spark1

tdjanzen said:


> *Q3 Bankruptcy*
> 
> Actually, I think Mr. Wankel is probably be quite accurate that Northwynd is sucking wind.  However, it is not the "minority owners" that created that situation.
> 
> If I read the document correctly, he is saying that they must have access to the Project Maintenance Fees paid to date (~$5-6,000,000; based on the GST calc.) or they won't be able to pay the contractor (that is already working on work that may or may not be approved) or pay outstanding amounts to Northwynd.  I understand the first issue but not sure that I am particularly sympathetic to Northwynd's management fee being delayed. I find it particularly galling that this deficit was hidden from timeshare owners for over 3 years, because there were no published financial statements.  Then suddenly, tada, we're presented with statements that we owe them over $4,000,000 for costs incurred over the last 3 years.
> 
> I do find it interesting that I believe we "the minority owners" could make exactly the same argument that he does.  If the Project Maintenance Fees are not put in trust (i.e. Northwynd can spend it at their will), we will NEVER see a dime of it, even if our action succeeds.  They need the money to continue operating the resort and financing the construction.
> 
> Finally, did he just say that Northwynd is planning to use the funds designated for the new construction project to fund Q3 and Q4 operations?
> 
> Anyone that has been sitting on the fence about whether to inject cash (Reasons to Stay) or run away (Freedom to Choose), should look at that statement.  Some (all) of the money you give them could wind up being used for things other than "re-furbishing"  the facilities.  And Northwynd decides how and when it gets used.  The prospect is terrifying.
> 
> I honestly believe that there may be a point of compromise where the renovation amounts should be held in trust.  I can see that the deficit repayment could be used to do exactly that; pay off outstanding amounts.  I would have way more faith in Northwynd if they indicated a willingness to delay repayment to them as well.  There are going to receive $6,000,000 if they can make the whole project move ahead.
> 
> I just know that I will say my goodbyes to the resort this summer.  I have loved going there and spending time with my family.  But Mr. Wankel's affidavit has proven to me that there is no winning this battle.  He is correct, Northwynd is quite likely to go bankrupt and the mere mention of this fact (through his affidavit) will likely make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.  No one in their right mind is going to give these guys any money for a long, long time.


I agree and look what happened to the ones that cancelled now Northwynd are also charging them the Special Assessment. What crooks. You can not stop this craziness by putting good money into a business they will bankrupt any how. It is very easy to do this. In 2013 I phoned BBB Calgary and the agent there said why would you put money into some thing like this that will Bankruped any way and it is very easy to bankrupt. This is exactly what they did in Mexico,Belize Hawaii.  The timeshare people in those countries lost millions because of these same people. I know that these are the same Judges ,Norton Rose Lawyers and Trustee that scammed millions of timeshare owners and now we can include Sevice Alberta and our Judges. Every one phone service Alberta and ask them why they are supporting the fraud,scam Senior Abusers and White Collar professionals. Do not back down from these people. Also tell them you want the right to use the new bill 31 that is legal now which is prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts,unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract. Tell them Northmont’s Unilateral Amendments to the VIAs are Unauthorized in 2016 and ask them why Service Alberta did not put this in place in 2016 instead of 2017. Ask them why they are now bill collectors for Northwynd seeing it is this government that did not protect timeshare owners that bought timeshares that are listed in the Canadian Consumer Handbook and we have the right to be ptotected from owners like Northwynd. Ask them why they are acting on bills after the fact or the damage is done to consumers of timeshare. Ask them is that because they are smarter than this government but by doing these bills after makes the government look good.


----------



## CleoB

Spark1 said:


> The documents that Service Alberta turned over were my documents and I also let a agent read the crooked Cancellation form and she said you are not cancelled. My documents went over to Frank Smart when he was in Calgary. The problem Service Alberta did not follow follow up with  this because of the change of government. The government has been one of the worst supporters. Darren Thomas is just a yes man for service Alberta. I was on the phone for at least 40 minutes giving him shit. I told him it is all the governments fault this is happening. This timeshare business is in the  Canadian Consumer Handbook. Timeshare is a business that should have regulations on these owners just like any other business. Blame this government and do not let them off the hook. Northmont are predictors Darren Thomas is another MG and a yes man. We all now have to focus on the RCMP.


Doesn't matter if there was a change in government.  The employees (other than perhaps Deputy Ministers) stay the same.


----------



## CleoB

Petus@18 said:


> We received a reply from an MP suggesting to contact Wendy Booth who lives in Fairmont and is the local government Director for the area.  From his perspective this unfortunate issue is a civil dispute and a class-action lawsuit by the investors would be the order of the day, rather than trying for a political resolution.
> ...........
> 
> Believe me, I understand that this is a civil matter; however,  how can any of us continue defending our interests and rights if no lawyer wants to represent us?
> 
> Shouldn't the government be able to appoint someone that could investigate this case? There are so many issues in this case RE Northmont's fraud and corruption. Also,  the legal malpractice from a lawyer representing over 1000 clients, that we feel it should be looked at by both federal and provincial governments. The property is in BC, but Northmont's offices are all located in Alberta.
> 
> We will be contacting her, if you wish to send her a note as well, here is an address: ubcm@ubcm.ca


This is no longer a civil dispute.  No lawyer is willing to take this fight on so it has become a government issue.  Don't let the politician sweep this under the rug.  We have to continue to be aggressive on this.


----------



## CleoB

Spark1 said:


> I agree and look what happened to the ones that cancelled now Northwynd are also charging them the Special Assessment. What crooks. You can not stop this craziness by putting good money into a business they will bankrupt any how. It is very easy to do this. In 2013 I phoned BBB Calgary and the agent there said why would you put money into some thing like this that will Bankruped any way and it is very easy to bankrupt. This is exactly what they did in Mexico,Belize Hawaii.  The timeshare people in those countries lost millions because of these same people. I know that these are the same Judges ,Norton Rose Lawyers and Trustee that scammed millions of timeshare owners and now we can include Sevice Alberta and our Judges. Every one phone service Alberta and ask them why they are supporting the fraud,scam Senior Abusers and White Collar professionals. Do not back down from these people. Also tell them you want the right to use the new bill 31 that is legal now which is prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts,unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract. Tell them Northmont’s Unilateral Amendments to the VIAs are Unauthorized in 2016 and ask them why Service Alberta did not put this in place in 2016 instead of 2017. Ask them why they are now bill collectors for Northwynd seeing it is this government that did not protect timeshare owners that bought timeshares that are listed in the Canadian Consumer Handbook and we have the right to be ptotected from owners like Northwynd. Ask them why they are acting on bills after the fact or the damage is done to consumers of timeshare. Ask them is that because they are smarter than this government but by doing these bills after makes the government look good.


I believe Bill 31 replaces the Fair Trade Act.


----------



## Scammed!

Inquiringmind said:


> This letter from Kim Palichuk executive legal counsel suggests that an appeal was filed in this case.  As per provincial court appeal rules, an appeal creates a stay of proceedings.  The judges decision cannot be enforced until the appeal is heard and ruled on. Does this mean our payment deadline would be postponed at least until the appeal is heard?



The only way to find out is to call Kim Palichuk and get some answers....We are all getting the same letter.


----------



## CleoB

tdjanzen said:


> *Q3 Bankruptcy*
> 
> Actually, I think Mr. Wankel is probably be quite accurate that Northwynd is sucking wind.  However, it is not the "minority owners" that created that situation.
> 
> If I read the document correctly, he is saying that they must have access to the Project Maintenance Fees paid to date (~$5-6,000,000; based on the GST calc.) or they won't be able to pay the contractor (that is already working on work that may or may not be approved) or pay outstanding amounts to Northwynd.  I understand the first issue but not sure that I am particularly sympathetic to Northwynd's management fee being delayed. I find it particularly galling that this deficit was hidden from timeshare owners for over 3 years, because there were no published financial statements.  Then suddenly, tada, we're presented with statements that we owe them over $4,000,000 for costs incurred over the last 3 years.
> 
> I do find it interesting that I believe we "the minority owners" could make exactly the same argument that he does.  If the Project Maintenance Fees are not put in trust (i.e. Northwynd can spend it at their will), we will NEVER see a dime of it, even if our action succeeds.  They need the money to continue operating the resort and financing the construction.
> 
> Finally, did he just say that Northwynd is planning to use the funds designated for the new construction project to fund Q3 and Q4 operations?
> 
> Anyone that has been sitting on the fence about whether to inject cash (Reasons to Stay) or run away (Freedom to Choose), should look at that statement.  Some (all) of the money you give them could wind up being used for things other than "re-furbishing"  the facilities.  And Northwynd decides how and when it gets used.  The prospect is terrifying.
> 
> I honestly believe that there may be a point of compromise where the renovation amounts should be held in trust.  I can see that the deficit repayment could be used to do exactly that; pay off outstanding amounts.  I would have way more faith in Northwynd if they indicated a willingness to delay repayment to them as well.  There are going to receive $6,000,000 if they can make the whole project move ahead.
> 
> I just know that I will say my goodbyes to the resort this summer.  I have loved going there and spending time with my family.  But Mr. Wankel's affidavit has proven to me that there is no winning this battle.  He is correct, Northwynd is quite likely to go bankrupt and the mere mention of this fact (through his affidavit) will likely make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.  No one in their right mind is going to give these guys any money for a long, long time.


I heard that Wankel bought Northmount so not sure what that means if NM goes bankrupt.  Does Wankel get the money?


----------



## Scammed!

We need someone representing us in front of The Honourable Judge Young....and that might mean one of us. Anyone with a little lawyer know how. I'll be there for back up.


----------



## TimesharesBlow

OK. In my opinion, here's where MG and legal team screwed up and what should have happened. When the RPF and freedom to choose reason to stay came out, MG should have advised everyone to choose that they would cancel their timeshare and leave the resort, but we would be disputing the CANCELLATION FEE in court. That way, instruction would have been given that everyone does in fact want to CANCEL but doesnt agree that they will have to pay to leave, and most likely we would have settled on a reduced cancellation fee or admin fee. There would have been no grounds for billing ongoing maintenance fees because we all would have rescinded the timeshare. It would have been only a loss on that which you have already paid.  MG took the case the other way and fought the validity of the RPF. Big mistake. The problem now is if you pay the bills Northwynd is sending out, you are agreeing to stay, and giving them carte blanche forever. Northwynd, should have just let people walk who didn't want to pay the RPF(or offered a very small admin fee to leave), and then Once they had numbers of who wanted to stay, come up with the proportionate RPF to those who wanted to stay, and then give a round 2 exit. Everyone would have left(because RPF would have been too high), Northwynd would bring in investors to renovate and/or condo the units, and they could have sold those off or started a new timeshare entity. Bottom line, the cancellation fee should have been the court battle, not the RPF. Now it’s a mess for everyone and Northwynd is not smart because no one will pay these astronomical numbers in cash that gives you nothing in return. It’s turned into a total $hit show and we need to keep pressuring government now to not let this happen or get a good lawyer/mediator that can go to back to Northwynd and reiterate that everyone just wants out and maybe, only maybe, they will pay a modest admin/cancellation fee to do so.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

TimesharesBlow said:


> OK. In my opinion, here's where MG and legal team screwed up and what should have happened. When the RPF and freedom to choose reason to stay came out, MG should have advised everyone to choose that they would cancel their timeshare and leave the resort, but we would be disputing the CANCELLATION FEE in court. That way, instruction would have been given that everyone does in fact want to CANCEL but doesnt agree that they will have to pay to leave, and most likely we would have settled on a reduced cancellation fee or admin fee. There would have been no grounds for billing ongoing maintenance fees because we all would have rescinded the timeshare. It would have been only a loss on that which you have already paid.  MG took the case the other way and fought the validity of the RPF. Big mistake. The problem now is if you pay the bills Northwynd is sending out, you are agreeing to stay, and giving them carte blanche forever. Northwynd, should have just let people walk who didn't want to pay the RPF(or offered a very small admin fee to leave), and then Once they had numbers of who wanted to stay, come up with the proportionate RPF to those who wanted to stay, and then give a round 2 exit. Everyone would have left(because RPF would have been too high), Northwynd would bring in investors to renovate and/or condo the units, and they could have sold those off or started a new timeshare entity. Bottom line, the cancellation fee should have been the court battle, not the RPF. Now it’s a mess for everyone and Northwynd is not smart because no one will pay these astronomical numbers in cash that gives you nothing in return. It’s turned into a total $hit show and we need to keep pressuring government now to not let this happen or get a good lawyer/mediator that can go to back to Northwynd and reiterate that everyone just wants out and maybe, only maybe, they will pay a modest admin/cancellation fee to do so.


I cannot disagree with that at all - well said!!

All I ever wanted was to leave and was willing to forfeit the timeshare I had purchase a few years earlier $35k.

After that I would not have cared!!


----------



## Bewildered

Spark1 said:


> The documents that Service Alberta turned over were my documents and I also let a agent read the crooked Cancellation form and she said you are not cancelled. My documents went over to Frank Smart when he was in Calgary. The problem Service Alberta did not follow follow up with  this because of the change of government. The government has been one of the worst supporters. Darren Thomas is just a yes man for service Alberta. I was on the phone for at least 40 minutes giving him shit. I told him it is all the governments fault this is happening. This timeshare business is in the  Canadian Consumer Handbook. Timeshare is a business that should have regulations on these owners just like any other business. Blame this government and do not let them off the hook. Northmont are predictors Darren Thomas is another MG and a yes man. We all now have to focus on the RCMP.


Fair enough but I phoned around to local and Invermere RCMP and they were clueless although they patiently listened to the horror story. I put a fraud complaint in with anti-fraud in 2013 and nada.
I hear FS is now in Taber, worth trying to get a hold of him? Otherwise no idea who in the RCMP is a legit contact? Spark1 I can tell you there is some heat on the judges office just by talking to them, I believe our chance for some sort of reprieve lies with her.


----------



## CleoB

Don't know if this has been posted here before, so sorry if I'm reposting.  The lawyer on this MG.  Apparently the Supreme Court ruled that Club Intrawest was "not" an owner.  https://www.newswire.ca/news-releas...deral-court-of-appeal-decision-635276573.html


----------



## CleoB

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I cannot disagree with that at all - well said!!
> 
> All I ever wanted was to leave and was willing to forfeit the timeshare I had purchase a few years earlier $35k.
> 
> After that I would not have cared!!


I don't recall there being a cancellation fee initially.  It was "pay to stay or pay to leave".


----------



## LilMaggie

TimesharesBlow said:


> OK. In my opinion, here's where MG and legal team screwed up and what should have happened. When the RPF and freedom to choose reason to stay came out, MG should have advised everyone to choose that they would cancel their timeshare and leave the resort, but we would be disputing the CANCELLATION FEE in court. That way, instruction would have been given that everyone does in fact want to CANCEL but doesnt agree that they will have to pay to leave, and most likely we would have settled on a reduced cancellation fee or admin fee. There would have been no grounds for billing ongoing maintenance fees because we all would have rescinded the timeshare. It would have been only a loss on that which you have already paid.  MG took the case the other way and fought the validity of the RPF. Big mistake. The problem now is if you pay the bills Northwynd is sending out, you are agreeing to stay, and giving them carte blanche forever. Northwynd, should have just let people walk who didn't want to pay the RPF(or offered a very small admin fee to leave), and then Once they had numbers of who wanted to stay, come up with the proportionate RPF to those who wanted to stay, and then give a round 2 exit. Everyone would have left(because RPF would have been too high), Northwynd would bring in investors to renovate and/or condo the units, and they could have sold those off or started a new timeshare entity. Bottom line, the cancellation fee should have been the court battle, not the RPF. Now it’s a mess for everyone and Northwynd is not smart because no one will pay these astronomical numbers in cash that gives you nothing in return. It’s turned into a total $hit show and we need to keep pressuring government now to not let this happen or get a good lawyer/mediator that can go to back to Northwynd and reiterate that everyone just wants out and maybe, only maybe, they will pay a modest admin/cancellation fee to do so.


----------



## mmchili

"I agree and look what happened to the ones that cancelled now Northwynd are also charging them the Special Assessment."
Is this an accurate statement?

"""CANCELLATION AGREEMENT"""
""H. The VIA does not provide for termination by either Party but Northmont is prepared to permit termination on the terms and conditions set out herein.

1. Subject to payment of all amounts owing to Northmont under this Agreement and the Additional Agreement(s), if any, the VIA shall be terminated and the Timeshare Owner shall be released from all current and future obligations under the VIA as of the Effective Date (as defined below in paragraph 2).

4. If the Timeshare Owner fails to make any payment under this Agreement within the time stipulated for payment, Northmont, in its sole discretion, may terminate this Agreement without notice.  If this Agreement is terminated as a result of a default in payment by the Timeshare Owner:

    a. the VIA shall continue in full force and effect;

    b. any amounts paid in respect of the Cancellation Fee, up to a maximum of 50% of the entire Cancellation Fee, shall be retained by Northmont as liquidated damages and not as a penalty; and  

    c. any portion of the Cancellation Fee then paid which exceeds 50% of the total Cancellation Fee shall be transferred to Resort Villa Management Ltd. applied against existing or, if insufficient existing obligations exist, future maintenance fee obligations of the Timeshare Owner within ten (10) days of the date of termination, provided for greater certainty that no Timeshare Owner shall be entitled to the refund of any amounts paid under this Agreement.""


----------



## LilMaggie

Hindsight being 20-20, I would have definitely paid to cancel my lease back in 2013, however, it didn't seem fair then and it doesn't seem right now.  That being said, I totally agree with TsBlow.  It appears that we were ill advised by our legal team. Perhaps hubris motivated the attempt to win the unwinnable case. Five years on, we are faced with a huge bill, which many can not pay and some of us refuse to pay because we feel that we have been royally shafted. (As you can see, I am trying very hard to use decent language) I personally don't want the group to pay millions of dollars to a group who never planned to continue the timeshare business or to improve upon the resort and will now walk away with pockets bulging with our hard earned money. Like most of you, I faithfully paid the maintenance fees as they skyrocketed over the years...until I was advised not to.  I am not a clever person.  I have no knowledge of the law and so, my mistake was to rely entirely upon MG for what to do moving forward.  Now, I am a bit hesitant to seek other counsel...should we be hiring lawyers individually?


----------



## MarcieL

RippedOff said:


> Has anyone emailed or contacted the Minister of Justice in Alberta?  I'm hoping we'll get a mistrial.  This can't be our Canadian legal system that allows innocent people to be scammed like this.
> 
> _ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca_


I had a reply from the premier's office saying my letter had been sent onto the premier and justice minister.


----------



## MarcieL

Bewildered said:


> The judge and her incomplete ruling is the key, I was told today she is studying the situation??? With no timeline available to us. My NDP MLA supposedly has no opinion and passed it on to the Justice Minister



Never heard a word from my NDP MLA whose name is Lorne Dack.  I may send another email off and ask if this how he treats his constituents,


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

MarcieL said:


> Never heard a word from my NDP MLA whose name is Lorne Dack.  I may send another email off and ask if this how he treats his constituents,


Call their office directly and follow-up that they received your correspondence - if they said they haven't seen it well gives you the opportunity to have them watch their in-box or fax machine while you have a chat with them. 

We have been doing things this way and have talked with a lot of assistance and even the odd official who have said they are hearing from a lot of people.

By personalizing the fight we should all get better information and results - if we just keep blasting emails it starts to look like spam and we all know what happens to that.

Good luck with making a few calls - we have about 8 places to follow-up on calls we made on Friday for emails we sent to see if they understood what we said or would like additional information.


----------



## FairSun

CleoB said:


> Don't know if this has been posted here before, so sorry if I'm reposting.  The lawyer on this MG.  Apparently the Supreme Court ruled that Club Intrawest was "not" an owner.  https://www.newswire.ca/news-releas...deral-court-of-appeal-decision-635276573.html


The Appeal Court found Intrawest TS holders only had a "right to occupancy" and not an ownership interest. We should be so lucky! Yet in their case the TS members who formed an owners group disagree with that position.


----------



## RippedOff

So thankful we have this group working hard for justice!

We need to use social media to spread the word of this catastrophe! Use Twitter etc.


----------



## Scammed!

I called Judge Young's assistant or someone who answers the phone in the office. I knew she couldn't give me legal advice but asked since we don't know if we will be notified by our lawyer and I made it clear no lawyer wants this mess. What do we all do? I informed her the law society is aware of this. She stated we can bring in our *own application*. Which there are how many hundreds that don't live here? But if she makes a decision on one maybe that would affect all of us.....She had no information on how long that would take to be in front of The Honourable Judge Young but will be getting back to me this afternoon. We need to focus on this as time is ticking...this is important and we need to get on board....unless we hear of facts that something is in the works for sure!

This is a boat I cannot afford to miss, and neither can any of you! Get on Board!


----------



## Bewildered

*People what is going on? Followed up on my email to Stephanie McLean MLA, Minister Of Service Alberta. The lady that answered was very cordial and was surprised 1300 people were affected and said next to none calls received an appreciated me calling. This Ministry is ultimately dealing with this from the government you side of things (will be handling all ministry of justice responses also according to her). Come on people get on the phones, very simple to make a call, told her we have an impending critical deadline.
If you have time to post on this site you got time to make a phone call!

Legislature Office*
103 Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue NW
Edmonton, AB
Canada T5K 2B6
Phone:
780.422.6880
Fax:
780.422.2496


----------



## mmchili

RE: TSBlow-Post #3098;
I agree that one of the two options should have been chosen. Also, that the fee for the chosen option and the respective agreement together with a letter stating that the payment, agreement, and the letter are being submitted "Without Prejudice" and that the payment be placed in a trust account pending resolution of the legality of the two options, that is to ask the courts to make a ruling on legality of the two options.


----------



## LilMaggie

Just wrote the Minister of Justice an email, reminding her that there are over 1000 individuals being affected by this and that we are still waiting for a decision from Judge Young. 
I will get on the phone ASAP!


----------



## Scammed!

LilMaggie said:


> Just wrote the Minister of Justice an email, reminding her that there are over 1000 individuals being affected by this and that we are still waiting for a decision from Judge Young.  I will get on the phone ASAP!
> Regarding the previous post by Scammed!, are we able to bring an application to the judge without a lawyer?!


I'm working on that right now on the phone.


----------



## Scammed!

Bewildered said:


> *People what is going on? Followed up on my email to Stephanie McLean MLA, Minister Of Service Alberta. The lady that answered was very cordial and was surprised 1300 people were affected and said next to none calls received an appreciated me calling. This Ministry is ultimately dealing with this from the government you side of things (will be handling all ministry of justice responses also according to her). Come on people get on the phones, very simple to make a call, told her we have an impending critical deadline.
> If you have time to post on this site you got time to make a phone call!
> 
> Legislature Office*
> 103 Legislature Building
> 10800 - 97 Avenue NW
> Edmonton, AB
> Canada T5K 2B6
> Phone:
> 780.422.6880
> Fax:
> 780.422.2496


I just called to make sure. They know me personally by my emails, and are very aware of all your letters. And yes my letters were all different not spam mail. Also got a tip.


----------



## RippedOff

I just called Service Alberta and the lady I spoke to said that someone would get back to me in a few days....so in government time not sure that will be soon enough!  She said she couldn't comment on what was going on on the Service Alberta end of things so that doesn't help either.  Going to call the Minister of Justice again.


----------



## RippedOff

Called the Minister of Justice's office and the lady there said they would be emailing out a statement at the END OF THE MONTH!  I'm afraid that's going to be too late.


----------



## RippedOff

Scammed! said:


> I just called to make sure. They know me personally by my emails, and are very aware of all the letters. And yes they were all different letters not spam mail. Also got a tip.



What was the tip?


----------



## Scammed!

RippedOff said:


> I just called Service Alberta and the lady I spoke to said that someone would get back to me in a few days....so in government time not sure that will be soon enough!  She said she couldn't comment on what was going on on the Service Alberta end of things so that doesn't help either.  Going to call the Minister of Justice again.


Service Aberta can't do anything.


----------



## Scammed!

RippedOff said:


> What was the tip?


Would that be smart right now?


----------



## MgolferL

TimesharesBlow said:


> OK. In my opinion, here's where MG and legal team screwed up and what should have happened. When the RPF and freedom to choose reason to stay came out, MG should have advised everyone to choose that they would cancel their timeshare and leave the resort, but we would be disputing the CANCELLATION FEE in court. That way, instruction would have been given that everyone does in fact want to CANCEL but doesnt agree that they will have to pay to leave, and most likely we would have settled on a reduced cancellation fee or admin fee. There would have been no grounds for billing ongoing maintenance fees because we all would have rescinded the timeshare. It would have been only a loss on that which you have already paid.  MG took the case the other way and fought the validity of the RPF. Big mistake. The problem now is if you pay the bills Northwynd is sending out, you are agreeing to stay, and giving them carte blanche forever. Northwynd, should have just let people walk who didn't want to pay the RPF(or offered a very small admin fee to leave), and then Once they had numbers of who wanted to stay, come up with the proportionate RPF to those who wanted to stay, and then give a round 2 exit. Everyone would have left(because RPF would have been too high), Northwynd would bring in investors to renovate and/or condo the units, and they could have sold those off or started a new timeshare entity. Bottom line, the cancellation fee should have been the court battle, not the RPF. Now it’s a mess for everyone and Northwynd is not smart because no one will pay these astronomical numbers in cash that gives you nothing in return. It’s turned into a total $hit show and we need to keep pressuring government now to not let this happen or get a good lawyer/mediator that can go to back to Northwynd and reiterate that everyone just wants out and maybe, only maybe, they will pay a modest admin/cancellation fee to do so.



I totally agree as well. We paid over 10K for a bi-annual used it once and then had to pick stay or go. I was prepared to go and call it a day and a bad decision. Now it's a fight...for what? They want us to go...we want to go...and they still have a saleable property meaning they are still going to cash in after we are all gone. Pride and ego is preventing KW from waking up and putting an end to this which could be fast and amicable...too bad. It's also too bad that someone hasn't totally figured out it isn't over yet and there is still fighting to do....


----------



## LilMaggie

Scammed! said:


> I'm working on that right now on the phone.


Perfect! Thanks Scammed!


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Anyone else tiered of hearing *"It's not our problem - call these guys"*?

It's time for us to step up our game and get someone who can put a story in print for us!!!

Been searching for a good local reporter and I think I found one:

*Rick Bell from the Calgary Sun*

rick.bell@sunmedia.ca

He sounds like the right guy from his bio:
"Rick Bell is the Page Five columnist at the Calgary Sun. He *delights in tormenting those in authority* at the city and provincial levels *when they've taken their power for granted* and run roughshod over those paying the bills. Born and schooled for much of his early years in Winnipeg, he is a former army brat, university philosophy student, teacher and principal.The past 22 years, he has covered the Alberta legislature, Calgary's city hall, elections at all levels along with special sports assignments including Mike Tyson fights, soccer hooligans at the World Cup and Mark McGwire's swing of the bat. He has won honours from the Royal Canadian Legion, Alberta's civil trial lawyers, the Radio-Television News Directors Association and received the Sun's J. Douglas Creighton Award for editorial excellence."

*Let's share our stories and see if some more media attention can help us get our Political and Judicial peoples attention!!! *


----------



## RippedOff

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Anyone else tiered of hearing *"It's not our problem - call these guys"*?
> 
> It's time for us to step up our game and get someone who can put a story in print for us!!!
> 
> Been searching for a good local reporter and I think I found one:
> 
> *Rick Bell from the Calgary Sun*
> 
> rbell@postmedia.com
> 
> He sounds like the right guy from his bio:
> "Rick Bell is the Page Five columnist at the Calgary Sun. He *delights in tormenting those in authority* at the city and provincial levels *when they've taken their power for granted* and run roughshod over those paying the bills. Born and schooled for much of his early years in Winnipeg, he is a former army brat, university philosophy student, teacher and principal.The past 22 years, he has covered the Alberta legislature, Calgary's city hall, elections at all levels along with special sports assignments including Mike Tyson fights, soccer hooligans at the World Cup and Mark McGwire's swing of the bat. He has won honours from the Royal Canadian Legion, Alberta's civil trial lawyers, the Radio-Television News Directors Association and received the Sun's J. Douglas Creighton Award for editorial excellence."
> 
> *Let's share our stories and see if some more media attention can help us get our Political and Judicial peoples attention!!! *


----------



## Scammed!

Stating not a valid email.....Ultimate Betrayal


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Scammed! said:


> Stating not a valid email.....Ultimate Betrayal


Sorry looks like he has changed addresses

rick.bell@sunmedia.ca


----------



## Lily123

Bewildered said:


> *People what is going on? Followed up on my email to Stephanie McLean MLA, Minister Of Service Alberta. The lady that answered was very cordial and was surprised 1300 people were affected and said next to none calls received an appreciated me calling. This Ministry is ultimately dealing with this from the government you side of things (will be handling all ministry of justice responses also according to her). Come on people get on the phones, very simple to make a call, told her we have an impending critical deadline.
> If you have time to post on this site you got time to make a phone call!
> 
> Legislature Office*
> 103 Legislature Building
> 10800 - 97 Avenue NW
> Edmonton, AB
> Canada T5K 2B6
> Phone:
> 780.422.6880
> Fax:
> 780.422.2496



Her email is:
ministersa@gov.ab.ca  Email and call. 

We need to stop rehashing what went wrong or somebody's opinion of what should have happened. It doesn't matter, the courts have decided. Our focus needs to be on speaking to people such as Ms. McLean and Judge Young to be able to put a pause on this and potentially look at interests and other costs.

Use your voice for a purpose!!


----------



## Scammed!

I'll tell you whats disheartening. There are comments on here that I have called myself to find out are false for what ever reasons! The judge will not be sending any documentation what so ever! It would have to come from MG to us. At this time there should be no secrets everything should be on the up and up. Makes you wonder what information is being withheld from us on line. Well I'm not playing the game, I'm not that person.  I don't need to be misinformed. I don't have time for games. This is what I have been informed by the higher ups that I have spoken to in the last week.....which is truly sad. Wow calling to find out we are being lied to by our own, or imposters doesn't make this group look good....


----------



## truthr

Scammed! said:


> I'll tell you whats disheartening. There are comments on here that I have called myself to find out are false for what ever reasons! The judge will not be sending any documentation what so ever! It would have to come from MG to us. At this time there should be no secrets everything should be on the up and up. Makes you wonder what information is being withheld from us on line. Well I'm not playing the game, I'm not that person.  I don't need to be misinformed. I don't have time for games. This is what I have been informed by the higher ups that I have spoken to in the last week.....which is truly sad. Wow calling to find out we are being lied to by our own, or imposters doesn't make this group look good....


Not sure if people are purposing lying, are misinformed, repeating what they have heard or simply throwing out ideas.
Now as far as anything coming from MG that may apply to those who chose Option 1 but what about all the others that he has literally kicked to the curb?
And what about all the misinformation or lack of information from MG himself?


----------



## Been Around Awhile

tswow said:


> """CANCELLATION AGREEMENT"""
> ""H. The VIA does not provide for termination by either Party but Northmont is prepared to permit termination on the terms and conditions set out herein.



Every contract must have a lawful purpose, capacity, consideration, and consent. In this contract, the Lessor has the capacity to provide facilities and a determined time of use. The Lessee provides the consideration, money. If the contract doesn't, as you've pointed-out, provide for either party to terminate the contract, how is it that Northmont is providing a termination? How is it that they provided the pay to go and pay to stay option previously. How is that they let people exit at all.


----------



## Scammed!

truthr said:


> Not sure if people are purposing lying, are misinformed, repeating what they have heard or simply throwing out ideas.
> Now as far as anything coming from MG that may apply to those who chose Option 1 but what about all the others that he has literally kicked to the curb?
> And what about all the misinformation or lack of information from MG himself?


Not sure if option 1 is getting notified....doesn't sound like it, we haven't. Just because your in a different group be it option one or two we are still painted with the same brush and fighting the same battle....remember. Bottom line we all need legal counsel period, and sooner than later. I must say I didn't fall for a lot of requests and I'm glad I didn't. Everyone be smart think before you act. I hope we all get out of this in one piece, and not in smithereens.


----------



## truthr

Scammed! said:


> Not sure if option 1 is getting notified....doesn't sound like it, we haven't. Just because your in a different group be it option one or two we are still painted with the same brush and fighting the same battle....remember. Bottom line we all need legal counsel period, and sooner than later. I must say I didn't fall for a lot of requests and I'm glad I didn't. Everyone be smart think before you act. I hope we all get out of this in one piece, and not in smithereens.


I understand we are all painted with the same brush and need to support each other.
My comment was about any information coming from MG because according to the SIF in his mind only Option 1 people are still his clients (in his mind) so he (in his mind) does NOT need to communicate anything to anyone else.  Such as a minor detail of having Strathcona Law Group withdrawing as counsel on record since early December and not informing the clients that this is happening and using outdated client addresses so they are not being served correctly.  And also not supplying those (in his mind) former clients with the information and documentation to protect themselves.  Ya know those kind of minor details .


----------



## Scammed!

truthr said:


> I understand we are all painted with the same brush and need to support each other.
> My comment was about any information coming from MG because according to the SIF in his mind only Option 1 people are still his clients (in his mind) so he (in his mind) does NOT need to communicate anything to anyone else.  Such as a minor detail of having Strathcona Law Group withdrawing as counsel on record since early December and not informing the clients that this is happening and using outdated client addresses so they are not being served correctly.  And also not supplying those (in his mind) former clients with the information and documentation to protect themselves.  Ya know those kind of minor details .


I agree....but again people are stating from both groups they are not getting any response what so ever!


----------



## Floyd55

Just received this reply from Service Alberta to my request that they pursue our plight with a full investigation. Not good news on this avenue I'm afraid. Seems to me that Judge Young is still in best position to impact us in a positive way. It's just frustrating that we can't really interact with her directly on this matter. 

Re: Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. / Sunchaser Premier Owners Association

Service Alberta, Consumer Investigations Unit (CIU), administers a variety of consumer statutes and may conduct an investigation when it appears that a breach of an Act under our authority may have occurred and that an investigation and enforcement action is warranted. Not all complaints result in the opening of an investigation.

 Thank you for your recent correspondence. Service Alberta is aware of the concerns presented. In 2012, a complete review into the consumer contracts, financial transactions and other operating irregularities of this business (and their predecessors) was conducted. The stated review resulted in a finding that the matters were outside the mandate and jurisdiction of the Service Alberta’s Consumer Investigations Unit. In 2013, the matters were forwarded to the RCMP for consideration. The RCMP did not find enough evidence to open a criminal investigation into the matters and declined to investigate those concerns. 

Since 2012 to present, additional reviews have been conducted by the CIU. The findings of this department remain the same; the concerns presented are civil in nature. The burden of proof in the regulatory and criminal court is substantially higher than the expectations in the civil court. Contractual disputes are not ongoing Fair Trading Act (Consumer Protection Act) contraventions. These matters are best resolved in the civil court due to the subjective nature of the disputes. I note that the civil courts have presented some findings with regards to the concerns presented. It would be inappropriate for Service Alberta to take any further action or to comment on the findings of the court. The CIU has no lawful oversight on the findings of the courts and we can provide no legal advice or opinion. Based on the information above, no further action will be taken by this department.


----------



## truthr

Floyd55 said:


> Just received this reply from Service Alberta to my request that they pursue our plight with a full investigation. Not good news on this avenue I'm afraid. Seems to me that Judge Young is still in best position to impact us in a positive way. It's just frustrating that we can't really interact with her directly on this matter.
> 
> Re: Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. / Sunchaser Premier Owners Association
> 
> Service Alberta, Consumer Investigations Unit (CIU), administers a variety of consumer statutes and may conduct an investigation when it appears that a breach of an Act under our authority may have occurred and that an investigation and enforcement action is warranted. Not all complaints result in the opening of an investigation.
> 
> Thank you for your recent correspondence. Service Alberta is aware of the concerns presented. In 2012, a complete review into the consumer contracts, financial transactions and other operating irregularities of this business (and their predecessors) was conducted. The stated review resulted in a finding that the matters were outside the mandate and jurisdiction of the Service Alberta’s Consumer Investigations Unit. In 2013, the matters were forwarded to the RCMP for consideration. The RCMP did not find enough evidence to open a criminal investigation into the matters and declined to investigate those concerns.
> 
> Since 2012 to present, additional reviews have been conducted by the CIU. The findings of this department remain the same; the concerns presented are civil in nature. The burden of proof in the regulatory and criminal court is substantially higher than the expectations in the civil court. Contractual disputes are not ongoing Fair Trading Act (Consumer Protection Act) contraventions. These matters are best resolved in the civil court due to the subjective nature of the disputes. I note that the civil courts have presented some findings with regards to the concerns presented. It would be inappropriate for Service Alberta to take any further action or to comment on the findings of the court. The CIU has no lawful oversight on the findings of the courts and we can provide no legal advice or opinion. Based on the information above, no further action will be taken by this department.


Thank you for sharing this with all of us.

Have you sent this to Danielle Smith?
If not please do consider doing so - her email address is Danielle.smith@corusent.com


----------



## greyskies

So you fall into option 1 and you don't plan to complete the requests by Feb 15th? 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## greyskies

Scammed! said:


> Not sure if option 1 is getting notified....doesn't sound like it, we haven't. Just because your in a different group be it option one or two we are still painted with the same brush and fighting the same battle....remember. Bottom line we all need legal counsel period, and sooner than later. I must say I didn't fall for a lot of requests and I'm glad I didn't. Everyone be smart think before you act. I hope we all get out of this in one piece, and not in smithereens.


So you fall into option 1 and you don't plan to complete the requests by Feb 15th?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Floyd55

truthr said:


> Thank you for sharing this with all of us.
> 
> Have you sent this to Danielle Smith?
> If not please do consider doing so - her email address is Danielle.smith@corusent.com



I have not sent it to her yet, just received it a few minutes ago. But good idea, I will send it to her right now.


----------



## Appauled

One question that nobody has ever answered for me from the beginning is, How can Sunchaser/Northwynd even go after time share owners who purchased prior to 2010 when the ORIGINAL owner went bankrupt in 2009?
Should that alone not have cancelled everyone's commitment? Wouldn't have Sunchaser/Northwynd as a different company have to approach all the timeshare owners and sign NEW agreements??


----------



## truthr

Appauled said:


> One question that nobody has ever answered for me from the beginning is, How can Sunchaser/Northwynd even go after time share owners who purchased prior to 2010 when the ORIGINAL owner went bankrupt in 2009?
> Should that alone not have cancelled everyone's commitment? Wouldn't have Sunchaser/Northwynd as a different company have to approach all the timeshare owners and sign NEW agreements??


Not sure about that.   I have many contracts with various companies (ie., insurance) that the companies have been sold and they just "grandfather" my contract.  I would think they only require you to sign if they make changes that are not within the original contract, but from my understanding that is part of what the Trustee's Petition was about.  You know the one we have been fighting for the past four years only to have our lawyer walk away at the 11th hour to get the wonderful settlement for some of his clients.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

TimesharesBlow said:


> OK. In my opinion, here's where MG and legal team screwed up ...


I don't disagree. I would remind you of the proper contexts. Kirk Wankel had an epiphany. That is what started this travesty. They needed money. Who could they possibly get money from? They couldn't start another REIT; people already knew they weren't good investors. They couldn't run a resort so grinding it out year-over-year through a profitable business wasn't going to work. Their only real stream of income was from the lessees. How could they extract one time payments from lessees? Big repairs! Something major like water pipes and foundations. If the lessees don't want to pay it, they can pay to leave. They decided to monetize the lease. Either way, leave or stay, Northmont got a one-time payment from each lessee. All the rest was just camouflaging their true intent.

Don't forget they never formed an association to sincerely run the property for the betterment of the lessees and other paying guests.

Don't forget they didn't consult anyone with real credentials on the redesign they performed on the renovated units.

It is not a resort. They don't focus on processes or improving the guest experience. They think they can simply redesign the units and do everything else the same and it will somehow be different. Or, they think these redesigned units can be repurposed as condos after they have jettisoned all of the lessees, which is probably coming.

This has all the earmarks of someone playing a digital game, not someone who wants to roll-up their sleeves and work with the staff and lessees to create valued guest experiences and, over time, make a resort. It has the earmarks of an accountant.
#NAFR


----------



## Scammed!

greyskies said:


> So you fall into option 1 and you don't plan to complete the requests by Feb 15th?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


 Did I say that??????? Don't you think we already have enough rumours going around right now? I would advise you not to put words in my mouth.


----------



## LilMaggie

Floyd55 said:


> Just received this reply from Service Alberta to my request that they pursue our plight with a full investigation. Not good news on this avenue I'm afraid. Seems to me that Judge Young is still in best position to impact us in a positive way. It's just frustrating that we can't really interact with her directly on this matter.
> 
> Re: Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. / Sunchaser Premier Owners Association
> 
> Service Alberta, Consumer Investigations Unit (CIU), administers a variety of consumer statutes and may conduct an investigation when it appears that a breach of an Act under our authority may have occurred and that an investigation and enforcement action is warranted. Not all complaints result in the opening of an investigation.
> 
> Thank you for your recent correspondence. Service Alberta is aware of the concerns presented. In 2012, a complete review into the consumer contracts, financial transactions and other operating irregularities of this business (and their predecessors) was conducted. The stated review resulted in a finding that the matters were outside the mandate and jurisdiction of the Service Alberta’s Consumer Investigations Unit. In 2013, the matters were forwarded to the RCMP for consideration. The RCMP did not find enough evidence to open a criminal investigation into the matters and declined to investigate those concerns.
> 
> Since 2012 to present, additional reviews have been conducted by the CIU. The findings of this department remain the same; the concerns presented are civil in nature. The burden of proof in the regulatory and criminal court is substantially higher than the expectations in the civil court. Contractual disputes are not ongoing Fair Trading Act (Consumer Protection Act) contraventions. These matters are best resolved in the civil court due to the subjective nature of the disputes. I note that the civil courts have presented some findings with regards to the concerns presented. It would be inappropriate for Service Alberta to take any further action or to comment on the findings of the court. The CIU has no lawful oversight on the findings of the courts and we can provide no legal advice or opinion. Based on the information above, no further action will be taken by this department.


Thank you for this valuable information.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

Appauled said:


> One question that nobody has ever answered for me from the beginning is, How can Sunchaser/Northwynd even go after time share owners who purchased prior to 2010 when the ORIGINAL owner went bankrupt in 2009?
> Should that alone not have cancelled everyone's commitment? Wouldn't have Sunchaser/Northwynd as a different company have to approach all the timeshare owners and sign NEW agreements??



Well yes, but no. During bankruptcy, they convinced the court that everyone was supportive of their plans to make a bigger and better resort. They misled the court into thinking 'everyone' when they meant the Developer and bond-holders. They didn't ask those who were paying for the $40,000,000 renovation. Had they asked me I'd have said sell the properties and pay the creditors. I wouldn't have thrown good money after bad. _"Know when to hold 'em. Know when to fold 'em."
#NAFR_


----------



## Been Around Awhile

Scammed! said:


> We need someone representing us in front of The Honourable Judge Young....and that might mean one of us. Anyone with a little lawyer know how. I'll be there for back up.



I think at this point the Judge would rather hear from you than a lawyer.
#NAFR


----------



## greyskies

Scammed! said:


> Did I say that??????? Don't you think we already have enough rumours going around right now? I would advise you not to put words in my mouth.


The purpose of my replay was not to make accusations, but only to get clarity of your previous statement. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Appauled

MG has failed us miserably.
The original Fairmont Resort Company that sold me my 8100 building time share in 2006, also had Houseboats in the Shushwap, (they had one parked next to the Recreation Center for viewing), and timeshares in Kelowna, Hawaii and Belize, that were are exclusive to Fairmont Resort Timeshare owners and all part of the original Fairmont Resort Company that went Bankrupt and sold off by Sunchaser/Northwynd. Along with promises of more buildings going up around the LONE 8100 building and the addition of an other pool in that area! They were also supposed to put a bowling alley in the lower level of the 8000 building.
Sunchaser/Northwynd has not followed through with those things. Shouldn't have the sale of those other assets along with the closure of the timeshare sales center put them in breach of contract and expecting the remaining owners to carry all the costs and more with crooked Fees, interest and court judgments, all  when the righting is on the wall, that Sunchaser will still not be able to keep operating when they have no new owners coming in to replace the ones that Sunchaser allowed people to buy out of their contracts? All while Sunchaser is not even paying the maintenance fees for the Timeshares they got back???
How can any judge say this is not a breach of any contract on Sunchasers behalf?


----------



## LilMaggie

Been Around Awhile said:


> Well yes, but no. During bankruptcy, they convinced the court that everyone was supportive of their plans to make a bigger and better resort. They misled the court into thinking 'everyone' when they meant the Developer and bond-holders. They didn't ask those who were paying for the $40,000,000 renovation. Had they asked me I'd have said sell the properties and pay the creditors. I wouldn't have thrown good money after bad. _"Know when to hold 'em. Know when to fold 'em."
> #NAFR_


I am most certainly done with throwing good money after bad.
The courts have ruled, on more than one occasion, that the shenanigans Northwynd has pulled over the years are legal. Yay for big business 
Now what protection do we have from the random interest rates that we have been assessed.  We do not owe a credit card company...where did these 26%+ rates originate from and who can reduce them down to a reasonable level?


----------



## KGB_527

Been Around Awhile said:


> Well yes, but no. During bankruptcy, they convinced the court that everyone was supportive of their plans to make a bigger and better resort. They misled the court into thinking 'everyone' when they meant the Developer and bond-holders. They didn't ask those who were paying for the $40,000,000 renovation. Had they asked me I'd have said sell the properties and pay the creditors. I wouldn't have thrown good money after bad. _"Know when to hold 'em. Know when to fold 'em."
> #NAFR_


Yes , this is the golden principle to investing.
Unfortunately you need a lot of internal dicipline to NOT succumb to your emotions. FEAR or GREED.
I also received the same letter from Service Alberta as in msg#3144. I guess politicians, judges, law enforcement likes to keep their heads in the sand, collect their fat pay, and don't associate themselves with some fringe group of 1300 Albertans. If they just came in to this country as refugees, then it would be an opportunity for them to shine, to score some big political points. Like our PM.


----------



## Floyd55

LilMaggie said:


> I am most certainly done with throwing good money after bad.
> The courts have ruled, on more than one occasion, that the shenanigans Northwynd has pulled over the years are legal. Yay for big business
> Now what protection do we have from the random interest rates that we have been assessed.  We do not owe a credit card company...where did these %26+ rates originate from and who can reduce them down to a reasonable level?



I believe that Judge Young has the power to take that one on, if she will decide to do so. We certainly deserve to have something go our way in this whole mess!


----------



## Broke Mama

truthr said:


> I understand we are all painted with the same brush and need to support each other.
> My comment was about any information coming from MG because according to the SIF in his mind only Option 1 people are still his clients (in his mind) so he (in his mind) does NOT need to communicate anything to anyone else.  Such as a minor detail of having Strathcona Law Group withdrawing as counsel on record since early December and not informing the clients that this is happening and using outdated client addresses so they are not being served correctly.  And also not supplying those (in his mind) former clients with the information and documentation to protect themselves.  Ya know those kind of minor details .


Yes, we said no to the information about the settlement and we haven't heard a word since. We had chose option 1 but when we go email on November 28th we weren't happy about how he chose to figure out settlement so we had questions and emailed him with no response to a few emails to explain the settlement we said no. So we don't know where we stand either. I guess we are on our own. Thanks for ?? Nothing??


----------



## LilMaggie

Floyd55 said:


> I believe that Judge Young has the power to take that one on, if she will decide to do so. We certainly deserve to have something go our way in this whole mess!


Floyd55, I truly hope you are right!


----------



## MarcieL

Floyd55 said:


> I believe that Judge Young has the power to take that one on, if she will decide to do so. We certainly deserve to have something go our way in this whole mess![/QUOTE
> 
> for those that have the settlement agreement that is final I doubt the judge will intervene.


----------



## Tanny13

Petus@18 said:


> We didn't receive any of the documents regarding the poor settlement because we opted out on Dec 29.  We also sent Geldert a message prohibiting to disclose to any third party, any of the updated contact information we provided to him when the SIF was signed.  Some of you are talking about a gag order and relinquishing you rights in the future; are these part of the settlement document or a separate one?.  As for us, we wiil be facing paying the highest interest rate ever recorded in Canada,  I think?? This is unreal and we are physically ill thanks to a corrupted company and the malpractice of a "lawyer"  Well, we will keep trying until the end and praying for a lifeline.



You have company.  We will fight together.


----------



## LilMaggie

Is it final if we don't sign the papers?  I am afraid to sign anything now since I have learned from this experience that contracts are arbitrary.


----------



## ohcanadajr

Hello Everyone,
First time here; Is this thread in regards to the settlement agreement with Northmont properties - fairmont - Resort villa management?
Gerldert law - Sunchaser? I received my final statement due balance - due in a couple weeks for almost 36K.  Am i in the right place?


----------



## truthr

ohcanadajr said:


> Hello Everyone,
> First time here; Is this thread in regards to the settlement agreement with Northmont properties - fairmont - Resort villa management?
> Gerldert law - Sunchaser? I received my final statement due balance - due in a couple weeks for almost 36K.  Am i in the right place?


Yes you are in the right place.


----------



## LilMaggie

ohcanadajr said:


> Hello Everyone,
> First time here; Is this thread in regards to the settlement agreement with Northmont properties - fairmont - Resort villa management?
> Gerldert law - Sunchaser? I received my final statement due balance - due in a couple weeks for almost 36K.  Am i in the right place?


Welcome


----------



## ohcanadajr

truthr said:


> Yes you are in the right place.


Thank you!
So, I have recieved the 35K + statement to pay.  What will happen if I do not pay.


----------



## Tanny13

truthr said:


> Yes you are in the right place.



I think it's actually the wrong place that we are all in, together.


----------



## aden2

Make sure you file a dispute with Civil court, main reason this was not the contract you had signed, you had not been using the Villas and interest is toooo high for a starter!


----------



## ohcanadajr

Tanny13 said:


> I think it's actually the wrong place that we are all in, together.


aint that the truth!


----------



## ohcanadajr

aden2 said:


> Make sure you file a dispute with Civil court, main reason this was not the contract you had signed, you had not been using the Villas and interest is toooo high for a starter!


Is everyone filing with the civil court? Is there a link for this? How do we go about this?
Oh boy,,, I'm behind.  
What happened to the threat that Geldert law has made regarding discussing this case with anyone or seeking legal representation other than geldert law? Is anyone else seeking personal legal representation?


----------



## ohcanadajr

I was about to cash in my RRSP's to just pay this amount (35K ish) to end it all...... wrong decision ?! file bankruptcy maybe?


----------



## FairSun

aden2 said:


> Make sure you file a dispute with Civil court, main reason this was not the contract you had signed, you had not been using the Villas and interest is toooo high for a starter!


We are not lawyers on here. I'm moving cautiously reading and thinking about what everyone is saying cause lots of emotional words and free advice that might cost us plenty more.


----------



## ohcanadajr

FairSun said:


> We are not lawyers on here. I'm moving cautiously reading and thinking about what everyone is saying cause lots of emotional words and free advice that might cost us plenty more.


Have you filed a dispute with civil court?


----------



## aden2

I question Strathcona Law Group had filed dispute notes in December, 2017. I was informed of this by Civil Court Monday.


----------



## Appauled

ohcanadajr said:


> I was about to cash in my RRSP's to just pay this amount (35K ish) to end it all...... wrong decision ?! file bankruptcy maybe?


I am in the same boat, I have to pay 35k ish as well. From most of the post of read several people are around the same amount. Taking into account at least 1300 timeshare owners pay a conservative average of 30k each that would give Sunchaser $390 Million! And 2/3 of that is INTREST charges! CROOKS!!! how do they get away with that? Mafia and Loan sharks probably charge better rates!!!! 
I'm considering bankruptcy as well.


----------



## Appauled

Appauled said:


> I am in the same boat, I have to pay 35k ish as well. From most of the post of read several people are around the same amount. Taking into account at least 1300 timeshare owners pay a conservative average of 30k each that would give Sunchaser $390 Million! And 2/3 of that is INTREST charges! CROOKS!!! how do they get away with that? Mafia and Loan sharks probably charge better rates!!!!
> I'm considering bankruptcy as well.


Sorry, Correction. They will collect $39 million


----------



## FairSun

ohcanadajr said:


> Thank you!
> So, I have recieved the 35K + statement to pay.  What will happen if I do not pay.


Did you read the Dec. 19 email and all attachments like letter from David Wotherspoon


ohcanadajr said:


> Have you filed a dispute with civil court?


We went with Geldert Law to file the legal response to the Civil Claim that Norhmont Resort Properties Ltd. filed against us on Oct. 15 2014. The B.C., Alberta courts supported Northmont.  Since Judge Young in Edmonton agreed they could go ahead with their judgment against us soon as questions are dealt with about Northmont's legal costs and interest rates on some of the contracts, we have nowhere else to turn. We're signing the settlement agreement unless some better news comes soon from Judge Young. I don't see how Northmont will cut anyone a better deal than what's in the settlement now and too risky to see if they'll actually come after us for 162% like they state in writing they will do.


----------



## Appauled

FairSun said:


> Did you read the Dec. 19 email and all attachments like letter from David Wotherspoon
> 
> We went with Geldert Law to file the legal response to the Civil Claim that Norhmont Resort Properties Ltd. filed against us on Oct. 15 2014. The B.C., Alberta courts supported Northmont.  Since Judge Young in Edmonton agreed they could go ahead with their judgment against us soon as questions are dealt with about Northmont's legal costs and interest rates on some of the contracts, we have nowhere else to turn. We're signing the settlement agreement unless some better news comes soon from Judge Young. I don't see how Northmont will cut anyone a better deal than what's in the settlement now and too risky to see if they'll actually come after us for 162% like they state in writing they will do.


How can the courts allow 162% charge to those who cant pull around $35K out of the air by Feb 15, 2018???


----------



## servemeout

We will not sign the settlement and presently do not have a lawyer.  The deal was accept the offer or you are on your own.  They can state anything they want - they still have to collect.  The settlement was not court ordered.  Collection agencies are very regulated in Alberta and will take a share of the funds collected.  You will have difficulty getting money out of the bank of beautyrest or simmons.


----------



## ohcanadajr

servemeout said:


> We will not sign the settlement and presently do not have a lawyer.  The deal was accept the offer or you are on your own.  They can state anything they want - they still have to collect.  The settlement was not court ordered.  Collection agencies are very regulated in Alberta and will take a share of the funds collected.  You will have difficulty getting money out of the bank of beautyrest or simmons.


best thread point I've seen in years....


----------



## FairSun

Appauled said:


> How can the courts allow 162% charge to those who cant pull around $35K out of the air by Feb 15, 2018???


Exactly! Can't understand it at all. Courts said they can charge the reno fee, cancellation fee, court costs, interest at whatever your lease says. Thats why big backlash.


----------



## MarcieL

ohcanadajr said:


> best thread point I've seen in years....


You realize Mr. Savageau NM lawyer has a collections agency in Toronto.  Google it.  We will be paying the 35 grand settlement. We cannot afford the 162 per cent threatened interest if we go on our own plus the 500.00 am hour for another lawyer.  It is outright theft but NM seems to have the courts on his side and can charge what he wants.


----------



## Bewildered

New people to the site are exactly what is needed to continue the pressure but the need for calls and emails to all the elected officials already shown on this site is paramount:Alberta and BC Justice Ministers, Judge Youngs Office, the Service Alberta Minister, the AB and BC legal societies etc.


----------



## Bewildered

MarcieL said:


> You realize Mr. Savageau NM lawyer has a collections agency in Toronto.  Google it.  We will be paying the 35 grand settlement. We cannot afford the 162 per cent threatened interest if we go on our own plus the 500.00 am hour for another lawyer.  It is outright theft but NM seems to have the courts on his side and can charge what he wants.


Don’t give up get on the phone, emails, I guarantee it is starting to make a difference, you can tell when you mention Northmont Timeshares, etc, they absolutely are getting calls. Can you imagine 1300 calls, I guess some people with Geldert don’t care enough to spend some time to try and save 30 Grand. I do, every morning a couple of hours reviewing new news on Tuggs and then phoning and sending emails.


----------



## KGB_527

Bewildered said:


> Don’t give up get on the phone, emails, I guarantee it is starting to make a difference, you can tell when you mention Northmont Timeshares, etc, they absolutely are getting calls. Can you imagine 1300 calls, I guess some people with Geldert don’t care enough to spend some time to try and save 30 Grand. I do, every morning a couple of hours reviewing new news on Tuggs and then phoning and sending emails.



Well I did exactly the same, but today after this email from Service Alberta, and some email replays from MLA, and after few phone conversations with Justice Dept, Alberta Service, another lawyer, I am not sure that anybody cares. I mean, they are really sympathetic, they just cannot understand what happened, they node their heads with disbelief, some suggest more legal action, but legal action cost more money, and to mount new legal action we need time and lawyer. It looks like the lawyers seeing almost 5 years of litigation gone against us, are all staying away from this. Nobody wants to touch this. Until something dramatic happens? Hail Mary...... I don't know what else.


----------



## Roxanne

Thanks Bewildered for your hard work! I am positive it will pay off and make a big difference.


----------



## FairSun

servemeout said:


> We will not sign the settlement and presently do not have a lawyer.  The deal was accept the offer or you are on your own.  They can state anything they want - they still have to collect.  The settlement was not court ordered.  Collection agencies are very regulated in Alberta and will take a share of the funds collected.  You will have difficulty getting money out of the bank of beautyrest or simmons.


Wish we had zero assets they can come after


----------



## Joe Holland

Tanny13 said:


> You have company.  We will fight together.


Ditto


----------



## mmchili

RE: Post 3142; 
Water Leaks; in what shape would the resort be in if the water leaks and repairs are not done? There would have been complaints about the condition of the resort. The exterior of Riverside looked awful in addition to the interior. I found that those who stayed in a renovated unit have posted positive reviews
on Sunchaser's website and other travel sites.

Association; A survey was done by Northmont in late 2011 with very few respondents and very few in agreement with having an association. Were the timeshare owners afraid of having to pay increased maintenance fees to fund an Association?

Credentials; What facts are there to support the claim of "real credentials"? Have a look at the drawings and check out the credentials.

Re-designed units repurposed as condos; Northmont committed to renovate, redesign, repair those units which remained as timeshares to accommodate those who "paid to stay". Those units not required because of those who "paid to leave" would not be renovated, etc. and would be separated/realigned from the resort.
I have stayed in a renovated unit in Riverside and found it to be very nicely redone; inside and outside. I fully support Northmont's plan of realignment.


----------



## wagga2650

tswow said:


> RE: Post 3142;
> Water Leaks; in what shape would the resort be in if the water leaks and repairs are not done? There would have been complaints about the condition of the resort. The exterior of Riverside looked awful in addition to the interior. I found that those who stayed in a renovated unit have posted positive reviews
> on Sunchaser's website and other travel sites.
> 
> Association; A survey was done by Northmont in late 2011 with very few respondents and very few in agreement with having an association. Were the timeshare owners afraid of having to pay increased maintenance fees to fund an Association?
> 
> Credentials; What facts are there to support the claim of "real credentials"? Have a look at the drawings and check out the credentials.
> 
> Re-designed units repurposed as condos; Northmont committed to renovate, redesign, repair those units which remained as timeshares to accommodate those who "paid to stay". Those units not required because of those who "paid to leave" would not be renovated, etc. and would be separated/realigned from the resort.
> I have stayed in a renovated unit in Riverside and found it to be very nicely redone; inside and outside. I fully support Northmont's plan of realignment.


Thanks Wankel for your unbiased assessment.But don't shed a tear for thousands of families you have financially destroyed!


----------



## Huckleberry

tswow said:


> RE: Post 3142;
> Water Leaks; in what shape would the resort be in if the water leaks and repairs are not done? There would have been complaints about the condition of the resort. The exterior of Riverside looked awful in addition to the interior. I found that those who stayed in a renovated unit have posted positive reviews
> on Sunchaser's website and other travel sites.
> 
> Association; A survey was done by Northmont in late 2011 with very few respondents and very few in agreement with having an association. Were the timeshare owners afraid of having to pay increased maintenance fees to fund an Association?
> 
> Credentials; What facts are there to support the claim of "real credentials"? Have a look at the drawings and check out the credentials.
> 
> Re-designed units repurposed as condos; Northmont committed to renovate, redesign, repair those units which remained as timeshares to accommodate those who "paid to stay". Those units not required because of those who "paid to leave" would not be renovated, etc. and would be separated/realigned from the resort.
> I have stayed in a renovated unit in Riverside and found it to be very nicely redone; inside and outside. I fully support Northmont's plan of realignment.


When you stayed did they give you your special VIP bed of money from the millions you've stolen?


----------



## Floyd55

FairSun said:


> Wish we had zero assets they can come after



I'm afraid that I am in the same boat. I am categorically against this settlement and especially since I know that most of the funds collected will only go to enrich Kirk Wankel and his cronies! Having said that, I also recognize the real legal situation that we are in, and I am not willing to risk being held in the future to paying 162% more than I am now. Every time over the past 4 years when we have been faced with a decision whether to pay or continue fighting in court with another of MG's brilliant defense strategies we have elected to continue on. It feels different this time to me. I am not a legal expert by any stretch so I don't know what the debt collectors would be able to access or place liens on, and quite frankly, I am not prepared to find out. If Judge Young doesn't come through with a fair solution to this whole settlement fiasco and come Feb. 15th we are still where we are now, I will just have to bite the bullet and fork over the settlement cash. End of story. But until that time, I will continue to fight, make calls, send letters, etc. Not giving up yet!


----------



## aden2

The powers to be at Northmont could enlighten the VIA's how they scammed millions during the time they were in insolvent and showed slides and high sales pitches that was fraudlent. I ask is this something to be proud of? How the hell can Northmont say that these type sales tactics are legal contracts. All of these contracts should be rescinded immediately!


----------



## Bewildered

KGB_527 said:


> Well I did exactly the same, but today after this email from Service Alberta, and some email replays from MLA, and after few phone conversations with Justice Dept, Alberta Service, another lawyer, I am not sure that anybody cares. I mean, they are really sympathetic, they just cannot understand what happened, they node their heads with disbelief, some suggest more legal action, but legal action cost more money, and to mount new legal action we need time and lawyer. It looks like the lawyers seeing almost 5 years of litigation gone against us, are all staying away from this. Nobody wants to touch this. Until something dramatic happens? Hail Mary...... I don't know what else.


Exactly what I’m getting other than very secretive about Judge Young reviewing/deciding on 
something/sometime. She is the key because she knows she left us hanging on the interest. Maybe she will somehow do the right thing. I have lost a lot of faith in our justice system, little respect I had for elected officials and trust for decency is completely gone thanks to Wank and M.G.


----------



## den403

I went to the Calgary courthouse yesterday. They know who we are. They told me they have a separate room just for our case. I was placed in option 1 without my consent and with documentation between myself and my lawyer stating this. The courts told me there was a note on my file stating I settled and the case was closed for me. I was told that there is no more appeals and that Judge Young is still addressing the costs and interest for all clients and that only our lawyer knows that date as  Judge would have told him the date for this. I was told our deadline and Judge Youngs are independent of each other and could possibly be why we have a deadline.  I was also told the only recourse I have is to go to the BC Law Society.
People I encourage you to go to the courthouse yourself and talk to them on the 6th and 7th floor if you don't know where you stand and need information. Take your Civil claim or dispute note with you and give them the action number from it. This is my scenario I cannot speak for yours. 
Wow I am just blown away. Dead end for me!


----------



## Newbie2

Huckleberry said:


> When you stayed did they give you your special VIP bed of money from the millions you've stolen?



tswow - Clearly you don't know the horror story behind this travesty or else you know/are associated with Wankel.


----------



## wagga2650

Newbie2 said:


> tswow - Clearly you don't know the horror story behind this travesty or else you know/are associated with Wankel.


He knows alright, just follow what he has been saying on this forum for years.I know there is a thing called Karma, Gods judgment etc and I believe it is coming Wankel's way sooner or later.His company has destroyed peoples vacations, Finances and in some cases relationships so whatever comes this guys way is well deserved.


----------



## mmchili

RE: Post #3145;
I'm not convinced that if the property was sold to someone other than Northmont that the situation would be any different than it is now. There are several instances where a resort was sold and the timeshare owners were faced with an extra assessment. Currently, ckeck out what happened when Intrawest sold Club Intrawest to Diamond resorts; the timeshare owners are not happy with how the club is being operated.


----------



## Bewildered

Scammed! said:


> The only way to find out is to call Kim Palichuk and get some answers....We are all getting the same letter.


I am unable to get an email through to Kim gets rejected, Left a message by getting transferred (because I can’t find her number) Got a return message from her of about two minutes of mumbling about the decision. Tried numerous numbers listed for her all wrong numbers to call her back. Anyone have the number because now I’m getting pissed off. High ranking jobs like hers and she gives me some cock and bull response a 12 year old could do better.


----------



## Sheeptoslaughter

Tswow really??? Or wankel  did you really think what you were doing was such a great deal for everybody clearly it's not 50% exited quickly already 25% tried to stand up to you in less than 25% decided to stay what a great business model that is you have inspired people with your dishonesty and at the end of the day you pay  yourself your 15% on all monies collected and the rest goes into your company what a joke the resorts a joke the last time I was thru there all those buildings were boarded up looks like crap I didn't see any fancy renovations going on most of the resort looks like crap I enjoyed my many years there until you came in the picture with the scam to take money from everybody so it didn't cost you a dime to do any of this work  I do believe in karma and I do believe there's a special place in hell for people like you who are destroying many peoples lives with these ridiculous bills if you really wanted people out you should've honoured the original contracts and let people go we already lost 20 -30 or more years of our investments but clearly you're all about the money all of itinstead of letting all the interest accumulated while people were seeking justice as is their right.  If you truly cared about the resort you would've gone about this a completely different way instead of crapping on people the way you have.    Maybe once people settle there's a gag order in effect but until then I'm pretty sure most of them aren't going to go quietly and you don't deserve that because you didn't think this through how it could affect people's lives they already paid a pretty substantial investment to be there some of them as recently as well The company went bankrupt how you can demand money from everybody in that manner is beyond me.   If I buy a rundown piece of property it is my responsibility to fix it up it is not my renters responsibility to fix it up.    I don't see your name on any charitable donations site where you're some great human being I'm sure you're really happy put in all that money in your pocket and taking it from people that have to remortgage their home or give up the last of their retirement savings.  Outstanding way to do business hope you're proud of yourself.    If done in a completely different manner all these people would still be part of that resort paying their fees on time like they had for many years instead of a bunch of boarded up rundown buildings.    Classy real classy.  With the resort of that size essentially folding to 25% of its original size what a huge economic impact that had on the town of Fairmont bet your real popular there.


----------



## Sheeptoslaughter

I also failed to mention that you're left with the asset when everybody else is renovated it for you I don't even understand how that could be legal


----------



## mmchili

Re: Post #3148;
The houseboats, Kelowna timeshare, Hawaii timeshare, Belize timeshare were not exclusive to Fairmont (FRPL) Resort timeshare owners unless they were members of the Platinum Club.

Sunchaser timeshare owners have no say on how the developer does business; timeshare owners have an agreement for time, whether there are 5,000 villas or 12,500 villas in the resort. They do not have a proportionate interest in the real property.

The 2018 budget for the 2018 maintenance fee is based on approximately 4,852 timeshare weeks, not the full 12,500 timeshare weeks. The timeshare weeks of those owners who chose to cancel their contracts have been placed "off line". These weeks are not in use for the resort.


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> You realize Mr. Savageau NM lawyer has a collections agency in Toronto.  Google it.  We will be paying the 35 grand settlement. We cannot afford the 162 per cent threatened interest if we go on our own plus the 500.00 am hour for another lawyer.  It is outright theft but NM seems to have the courts on his side and can charge what he wants.


I just want to ask you are you sure you well be released? I just want to tell every one that because of every one sending in tons of mail into Service Alberta, Sevice Alberta has now set up a Consumer Investigation Unit in Calgary. In other words they have set up a file with the Canadian antifraud centre in Ontario. What would be great if every one of us now contact your Local RCMP and tell them you want to report fraud and this is your right to do this. If you feel you paid out money for a product and you are not receiving it because of the Freedom to Choose report it to the RCMP. Tell your Local RCMP that Service Alberta are now doing Consumer Investigation in Calgary. The RCMP might ask you to phone them and get the file number for them. You can not do that only the RCMP  Can get that number. So have the RCMP phone Mike Erishanko at  403-297-8387 and they will give them the file no. Now your Local RCMP will give you a file Number. This took me 15 minutes and it was all set up. The RCMP will ask you to start from scratch and write out your whole story about how Northwynd Frauded you. If you paid money up front and now you are not allowed to use the resort because of the freedom to Choose this is Fraud. Their cancellation agreement is ambiguous and they talk about VIAS,that is not in my Contract we have a Vacation Villa Lease Contract . The other Special Assessments is not in a Lease Agreement. Ours is a right to use and at the end of the lease you have no ownership rights in the property. We are getting Hugh maintenance bills and we have not been able to use the resort for almost 5 years,how does that work. Geldert Law said he tried to make some kind of deal so we could use the resort but Northwynd did not want any part of that. We paid thousands of dollars up front so we could use that resort for 40 years with our simple Lease Contract and Northmont closed the door on us to force us to pick one of their chooses. The one that they were hoping we all would pick was to cancel. So this is Fraud when you pay out all that money and you can not use that service. Timeshare is in the Canadian Consumer Handbook and it is legal to sell this product and let’s demand protection from these governments and tell them to close the door to Fraud with this timeshare industry. My so called maintenance fees doubled from 2016 to 2017 what would of it been if we used the resort. We never had a problem for 12 years until the Northwynds greed set in. We need every one to do this and this well help the Investigation. Remember what we hired the Lawyer for,that was to protect our Contract. I do not care what Northmont calls it now this is not the case our contract was what we had in 2013. They quickly made changes to make it look like our contract is different from what we had in 2013 do not allow them to do this. We are going to be busy working with The RCMP and have a meeting with them on Jan29. Carry on the great work that you have been doing.


----------



## LarcenyWhipsneed

tswow said:


> Re: Post #3148;
> The houseboats, Kelowna timeshare, Hawaii timeshare, Belize timeshare were not exclusive to Fairmont (FRPL) Resort timeshare owners unless they were members of the Platinum Club.
> 
> Sunchaser timeshare owners have no say on how the developer does business; timeshare owners have an agreement for time, whether there are 5,000 villas or 12,500 villas in the resort. They do not have a proportionate interest in the real property.
> 
> The 2018 budget for the 2018 maintenance fee is based on approximately 4,852 timeshare weeks, not the full 12,500 timeshare weeks. The timeshare weeks of those owners who chose to cancel their contracts have been placed "off line". These weeks are not in use for the resort.



*wow, right from the horses mouth.  "They do not have a proportionate interest in the real property."*

*thats exactly why we should not be forced to pay this exhorbitant fee to fix someone elses property.*

we signed an agreement to have a right of occupancy (not to own) in some random unit in the resort for 1 week annually. 

we don't have title to anything and if we did we would share in the profits along with the losses.  
we do not have 'beneficial ownership' and as it is, we have all been treated as a cash cow for some unscrupulous developers who i am sure will dissolve the entire resort and take the money and run. 

enough is enough.


----------



## Palms to pines

Tswow. That we have no poportinate interest in the physical property and only an agreement to use time in the property has been our position since we signed our leases.


----------



## wagga2650

tswow said:


> Re: Post #3148;
> The houseboats, Kelowna timeshare, Hawaii timeshare, Belize timeshare were not exclusive to Fairmont (FRPL) Resort timeshare owners unless they were members of the Platinum Club.
> 
> Sunchaser timeshare owners have no say on how the developer does business; timeshare owners have an agreement for time, whether there are 5,000 villas or 12,500 villas in the resort. They do not have a proportionate interest in the real property.
> 
> The 2018 budget for the 2018 maintenance fee is based on approximately 4,852 timeshare weeks, not the full 12,500 timeshare weeks. The timeshare weeks of those owners who chose to cancel their contracts have been placed "off line". These weeks are not in use for the resort.


Just what I would expect from you no sympathy for people just money money money!If we had a decent lawyer who knew what to argue this would be a different story.Anyway, if you had not added such ridiculous interest as to bankrupt some of us then maybe you would get so much hate coming your way.Just remember you live by the sword you die by it.May not be today or tomorrow but it will get you!


----------



## truthr

tswow said:


> Re: Post #3148;
> The houseboats, Kelowna timeshare, Hawaii timeshare, Belize timeshare were not exclusive to Fairmont (FRPL) Resort timeshare owners unless they were members of the Platinum Club.
> 
> Sunchaser timeshare owners have no say on how the developer does business; timeshare owners have an agreement for time, whether there are 5,000 villas or 12,500 villas in the resort. They do not have a proportionate interest in the real property.
> 
> The 2018 budget for the 2018 maintenance fee is based on approximately 4,852 timeshare weeks, not the full 12,500 timeshare weeks. The timeshare weeks of those owners who chose to cancel their contracts have been placed "off line". These weeks are not in use for the resort.


You seem to have a lot of inside information and some here think you are Kirk Wankel.
Are you?  Or aren't you?
We sure wouldn't want any falsehoods circulating - now would we?


----------



## Just Looking Around

tswow said:


> RE: Post 3142;
> Water Leaks; in what shape would the resort be in if the water leaks and repairs are not done? There would have been complaints about the condition of the resort. The exterior of Riverside looked awful in addition to the interior. I found that those who stayed in a renovated unit have posted positive reviews
> on Sunchaser's website and other travel sites.
> 
> Association; A survey was done by Northmont in late 2011 with very few respondents and very few in agreement with having an association. Were the timeshare owners afraid of having to pay increased maintenance fees to fund an Association?
> 
> Credentials; What facts are there to support the claim of "real credentials"? Have a look at the drawings and check out the credentials.
> 
> Re-designed units repurposed as condos; Northmont committed to renovate, redesign, repair those units which remained as timeshares to accommodate those who "paid to stay". Those units not required because of those who "paid to leave" would not be renovated, etc. and would be separated/realigned from the resort.
> I have stayed in a renovated unit in Riverside and found it to be very nicely redone; inside and outside. I fully support Northmont's plan of realignment.




Kirk, can I call you Kirk? I'll call you Kirk. I'd like to make it personal, Kirk. I prefer that to an impersonal transactional relationship. Every person with a shred of humanity would be more comfortable making it a personal relationship, but then you are the only one on this bulletin board who refers to recent posts by their sequential number, rather than quoting the actual wording. I bet you also use keyboard shortcuts rather than the touchpad or mouse, am I right?

Of course, you have to fix a water leak. That doesn't entitle you to take the units down to their studs and redesign them. $40-million divided by the number of units or even the square footage is extravagant. The redesign is a material breach of the lease agreement. Incidentally, that price tag is the only extravagance in the history of the property. The renovated units didn't cost near what the $40-million figure would imply. Every accessory and appliance is a cheap inexpensive version. I have seen the pictures. They aren't nice. If you are so proud of them why are the only images of them on the Sunchaservillas.ca website just a few fleeting glimpses on an RCI video tour?  Let's be serious, some Director's wife did this, am I right? They are spartan, unwelcoming, cold, loud empty spaces with the furniture around the outside walls. All of these an anathema to hospitality accommodations, interior design mistakes 101. I just looked at Trip Advisor for Sunchaser, and the first two reviews are 1/5 - _'Terrible.'_

You've used this pathetic survey excuse before to defend the indefensible. My lease agreement says the Lessor _"...shall..."_ form an association. Shall, as in must. Not having formed an association is a material breach of the lease agreement. No one was surveyed, ever, am I right?

Management, Kirk Wankel, and his predecessors don't know what they are doing, and they know they don't know what they are doing. That is why they don't want an association because their failings would be exposed at every meeting.

When you say lessees didn't want an association because of the cost are you suggesting that Northmont was concerned about what the lessees would have had to pay in maintenance fees? That would be the ultimate hypocrisy: Northmont trying to save us nickles whiles it extorts tens of thousands of dollars, am I right?

You said, _"Northmont committed to renovate, redesign ..."_ Committed to whom? Kirk Wankel didn't have a meeting and invite the lessees and say, _"Friends, I am committing to you Northmont will renovate, redesign ..."_ They cooked it up as a scheme among themselves to extort money, am I right?

I am fascinated by the people who remain lessees at a property with no sales. There's another material breach of the lease agreement. How has the property benefitted from the monies that people paid to stay? I know three buildings have been renovated. I am talking about the rest of the money from those who paid to stay. Is it in reserve? The lessees that stayed pay maintenance fees but Northmont has not and is not? The monies from those who paid to go, $20-million I have heard, where is that money? Barbados, am I right?

You and I here, we're just discussing insignificant details. The truth is people will kill themselves because of these judgments. The truth is families will be ruined because of these judgments. The truth is peoples' holidays, and health has been ruined because of these judgments. And Kirk Wankel could seemingly care less. Its a game to him. Imagine knowing him, being related to him, being him. The legacy of Arthur Andersen lives.

The original renovation was a pretext to extort money from every lessee. The truth is that renovation will never be completed, but the price tag on paper remains the same. The truth is Kirk Wankel has at every opportunity escalated the cost to people who paid Northmont good money, at the outset and for every year after that. Most of these people are owed 20-years of vacations, but Wankel seized the opportunity to raise the exit fee and arbitrary cost - 27% interest - to maximize his gain.

The truth is, it's *N*ot *A* *F*$%^&*! *R*esort. (#NAFR)


----------



## KGB_527

tswow said:


> Re: Post #3148;
> The houseboats, Kelowna timeshare, Hawaii timeshare, Belize timeshare were not exclusive to Fairmont (FRPL) Resort timeshare owners unless they were members of the Platinum Club.
> 
> *"Sunchaser timeshare owners have no say on how the developer does business; timeshare owners have an agreement for time, whether there are 5,000 villas or 12,500 villas in the resort. They do not have a proportionate interest in the real property"
> *
> Wankle (Tswow) - If this is the case, why the hell we pay to leave, we pay even more to stay, we pay for your so called RENO PROJECT, on the top of that we have already paid initial investment of ~ $14K, if we do not have a proportionate interest in the real property??? You know, I have been thinking about doing some reno project on my house. Can I send you a bill for let's say 30% of the project? I know you would pay because, *YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST IN MY REAL PROPERTY*. At least not yet. Will you? Please answer.


----------



## LilMaggie

truthr said:


> You seem to have a lot of inside information and some here think you are Kirk Wankel.
> Are you?  Or aren't you?
> We sure wouldn't want any falsehoods circulating - now would we?


truthr...you are so right! I read this TUG member's very first post in March 2013.  tswow "knew" that the owners didn't respond to a survey regarding redeveloping the resort or that we didn't show any interest in forming an association.  Clearly this individual is someone who knows a whole lot more than I ever did at the time, or even now.  If you are a TUG moderator, please leave this forum to those of us who have a horse in this race. We are trying to find solutions to a very large problem.


----------



## CleoB

den403 said:


> I went to the Calgary courthouse yesterday. They know who we are. They told me they have a separate room just for our case. I was placed in option 1 without my consent and with documentation between myself and my lawyer stating this. The courts told me there was a note on my file stating I settled and the case was closed for me. I was told that there is no more appeals and that Judge Young is still addressing the costs and interest for all clients and that only our lawyer knows that date as  Judge would have told him the date for this. I was told our deadline and Judge Youngs are independent of each other and could possibly be why we have a deadline.  I was also told the only recourse I have is to go to the BC Law Society.
> People I encourage you to go to the courthouse yourself and talk to them on the 6th and 7th floor if you don't know where you stand and need information. Take your Civil claim or dispute note with you and give them the action number from it. This is my scenario I cannot speak for yours.
> Wow I am just blown away. Dead end for me!


Did you receive the settlement paperwork from MG?  I would email him back (on the email you sent him indicating you were not accepting) and ask him why he told the court house that you settled.


----------



## Newbie2

LilMaggie said:


> truthr...you are so right! I read this TUG member's very first post in March 2013.  tswow "knew" that the owners didn't respond to a survey regarding redeveloping the resort or that we didn't show any interest in forming an association.  Clearly this individual is someone who knows a whole lot more than I ever did at the time, or even now.  If you are a TUG moderator, please leave this forum to those of us who have a horse in this race. We are trying to find solutions to a very large problem.



Wankel, This is just a game to you right? WOW.  However, these are real people with real families and responsibilities that do not have the millions you are extorting.  Does it not register with you that you are destroying people for your gain?


----------



## dotbuhler

Spark1 said:


> Every one should wait for a subpoena and go to the court house and fill out the paper at the court house and represent yourself. You have a right to do this and this will load the courts up for years.


I figure that I can do a far better and honest effort than MG ever did. I really feel that a jury trial is more favourable to the situation, as well.


----------



## Appauled

In response to all, YES I agree!!!
Suspiciously TSWOW knows a lot of information regarding the inner workings of Sunchaser/Northwynd and *TSWOW must be Kirk Wankel* or a close insider to him!
How was he able to give such detailed yet completely skewed responses to my POST #3148???
By responding with the actual number of time shares Sunchaser has conveniently "taken offline"??? 
And for the record, TSWOW aka Kirk Wankel, I AM A PLATINUM CLUB member along with hundred's of others who paid top dollar in excess of $30,000.00 when we signed up for the privilege of being RIPPED OFF, and that doesn't put any of the people/Timeshare owners who did not opt for the Platinum Club at any less consideration for what has occurred!


----------



## Shake Down

New to the forum and a bi-annual gold member, trying to get my head wrapped around this “Sunchaser _Bait and switch selling contract_” 

A question come up _“Is Timeshare Ownership an Investment Product?” _After some discussion, the conclusion is that the purchaser outlays funds for economic benefit, thus timeshare fits well within the definition of an _investment product._

Are there other avenues of investment laws or acts in Canada we should also consider getting involved?


----------



## mmchili

*May it be known to everyone that I am not Kirk Wankel nor am I affiliated with Northwynd and Northmont.
*
I am an timeshare owner who "paid to stay" and am current with my maintenance fees. I do not appreciate having to pay additional maintenance fees to cover for those who are in arears and to possibly pay for some of the legal costs associated with litigation process. Nor do I appreciate and do not agree with the litigants group opposition to the realignment of the resort, this is being obstructionist and mischievous.

The rude and personal remarks do not make your plight any easier to resolve. The matter is legal and factual and will be resolved by Judge Young.


----------



## Petus@18

We just received this message:

On behalf of Premier Notley, thank you for your email. I’m sorry to hear about the hardships this case is causing for you. I have shared your comments with the Premier, and with the ministry of justice for response.        

Regards,

*Sonya McAdam*
Communications Advisor
Premier’s Correspondence
Communications and Public Engagement
Government of Alberta


----------



## wagga2650

tswow said:


> *May it be known to everyone that I am not Kirk Wankel nor am I affiliated with Northwynd and Northmont.
> *
> I am an timeshare owner who "paid to stay" and am current with my maintenance fees. I do not appreciate having to pay additional maintenance fees to cover for those who are in arears and to possibly pay for some of the legal costs associated with litigation process. Nor do I appreciate and do not agree with the litigants group opposition to the realignment of the resort, this is being obstructionist and mischievous.
> 
> The rude and personal remarks do not make your plight any easier to resolve. The matter is legal and factual and will be resolved by Judge Young.


Yeah right!!!if you are not Wankel you know a lot or you are not and if you paid to stay you will end up with no resort.Oh, wait a minute it is not a resort!!Also, you won't be paying any legal costs as we the sheep are paying 26% per year for you!


----------



## Petus@18

tswow said:


> Re: Post #3148;
> The houseboats, Kelowna timeshare, Hawaii timeshare, Belize timeshare were not exclusive to Fairmont (FRPL) Resort timeshare owners unless they were members of the Platinum Club.
> 
> Sunchaser timeshare owners have no say on how the developer does business; timeshare owners have an agreement for time, whether there are 5,000 villas or 12,500 villas in the resort. They do not have a proportionate interest in the real property.
> 
> The 2018 budget for the 2018 maintenance fee is based on approximately 4,852 timeshare weeks, not the full 12,500 timeshare weeks. The timeshare weeks of those owners who chose to cancel their contracts have been placed "off line". These weeks are not in use for the resort.



Your comments/opinions are of no interest to us, go back to "party city" in Fairmont and stop wasting our time.


----------



## Tanny13

tswow said:


> *May it be known to everyone that I am not Kirk Wankel nor am I affiliated with Northwynd and Northmont.
> *
> I am an timeshare owner who "paid to stay" and am current with my maintenance fees. I do not appreciate having to pay additional maintenance fees to cover for those who are in arears and to possibly pay for some of the legal costs associated with litigation process. Nor do I appreciate and do not agree with the litigants group opposition to the realignment of the resort, this is being obstructionist and mischievous.
> 
> The rude and personal remarks do not make your plight any easier to resolve. The matter is legal and factual and will be resolved by Judge Young.



You are not happy paying additional maintenance fees for those in arrears?  Why are you?  Why didn't Northmont just take those units back and resell them?  Then those who wanted to leave would have, quietly, and those who wanted to stay could have continued to enjoy the property without any additional fees.  You have no problem putting millions into Northmont's pockets (Kirk Wankel)?  We are paying maintenance fees from the last 4 years and we've had no use of our timeshare.  Perhaps if those who chose to pay and stay would step up and voice their displeasure, not with those of us who are being charged exorbitant fees just because we were trying to right a wrong, but with those in management who have totally taken advantage of ALL of us who bought a lease for time only, we would all be in a better place.

By the way, where did you get all this information that no one else seems to be privy to?


----------



## torqued

Just received a response from MG regarding an email I sent him as to whether I was still being represented by him or not. I rejected the settlement figures (option 1).  He said an update for those of us who rejected the settlement would come out tonight and options for further representation from Barry Kings office??  Can’t stand the suspense!


----------



## Tanny13

torqued said:


> Just received a response from MG regarding an email I sent him as to whether I was still being represented by him or not. I rejected the settlement figures (option 1).  He said an update for those of us who rejected the settlement would come out tonight and options for further representation from Barry Kings office??  Can’t stand the suspense!



Don't hold your breath.


----------



## dotbuhler

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I am not making any public conclusions or judgments on the legal counsel they are entering into an agreement with other than maybe this has something to do with wrapping up our groups litigation ASAP but I will let you make your own conclusion:
> 
> https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info
> 
> https://gwynethedwards.com/ci/


"....Geldert Law has a proven track record of experience and passion for consumer protection related to timeshares..."  Yeah, right! Suckers!!


----------



## DisgustedinWA

Had some friends from Michigan ask me to join them in a hunting club in BC. Fortunately, I was able to scare them off before they put any money in. Nobody I know is going to trust anything near BC. Burned once is enough.


----------



## FairSun

tswow said:


> RE: Post #3145;
> I'm not convinced that if the property was sold to someone other than Northmont that the situation would be any different than it is now. There are several instances where a resort was sold and the timeshare owners were faced with an extra assessment. Currently, ckeck out what happened when Intrawest sold Club Intrawest to Diamond resorts; the timeshare owners are not happy with how the club is being operated.


Interesting that the judge in the Intrawest case found that the timeshare "owners" had only a "right to occupancy" and not any ownership. I wonder if that judge would therefore find the Intrawest TS lease holders NOT responsible to pay for capital expenditures like our Building 7000 foundation repairs...


----------



## Palms to pines

TSWOW. Okay, you are a paid up owner that obviously has a good understanding that you, and also those of us in the legal dispute, only have an agreement to use time in the buildings. None have a property interest, only the developer has any say in how business is conducted on the resorts they own. It could be very helpful to us if you , and any other paid up “owners”  that you are aware of, would make that known to the of the MLAs, Justice Minister, Danielle Smith etc. It could really help us out now and could be a benefit to you too at a later time.


----------



## InShock

And what happened to Platinum Club?


----------



## FairSun

tswow said:


> Re: Post #3148;
> The houseboats, Kelowna timeshare, Hawaii timeshare, Belize timeshare were not exclusive to Fairmont (FRPL) Resort timeshare owners unless they were members of the Platinum Club.
> 
> Sunchaser timeshare owners have no say on how the developer does business; timeshare owners have an agreement for time, whether there are 5,000 villas or 12,500 villas in the resort. They do not have a proportionate interest in the real property.
> 
> The 2018 budget for the 2018 maintenance fee is based on approximately 4,852 timeshare weeks, not the full 12,500 timeshare weeks. The timeshare weeks of those owners who chose to cancel their contracts have been placed "off line". These weeks are not in use for the resort.


"No proportionate interest in the real property" yet Northmont  convinced BC judges that those of us who rent time at Sunchaser via our "right to use" contracts are on the hook for millions of dollars in capital expenditures that will increase the value of this resort when they put it up for sale!


----------



## Been Around Awhile

tswow said:


> *May it be known to everyone that I am not Kirk Wankel nor am I affiliated with Northwynd and Northmont.
> *
> I am an timeshare owner who "paid to stay" and am current with my maintenance fees. I do not appreciate having to pay additional maintenance fees to cover for those who are in arears and to possibly pay for some of the legal costs associated with litigation process. Nor do I appreciate and do not agree with the litigants group opposition to the realignment of the resort, this is being obstructionist and mischievous.
> 
> The rude and personal remarks do not make your plight any easier to resolve. The matter is legal and factual and will be resolved by Judge Young.



I don't appreciate your complicity and connivance in Northmont's many breaches of the lease agreement. I don't appreciate you blaming me for the shortfall in maintenance fees. I have one to pay. Northmont has many. They've been delinquent for decades probably. How obtuse to accept, _"We aren't behind in paying maintenance fees. We haven't invoiced ourselves." (paraphrasing Kirk Wankel)_

Mischevious? We didn't litigate to be mischevious. We litigated because of grievous harm resulting from Northmont's actions. The gravity of their reprehensible conduct is mounting. 

Obstructionist? You make it sound like its a beneficial plan to all of the lessees. If it weren't beneficial to all lessees then it's a breach of the lease agreement. If it were beneficial to all the lessees where would Northmont house all of them? This was a plan to extort money from lessees, reduce their number and the size of the property. 

Notice I called it property. You know why?

#NAFR


----------



## Been Around Awhile

Shake Down said:


> New to the forum and a bi-annual gold member, trying to get my head wrapped around this “Sunchaser _Bait and switch selling contract_”
> 
> A question come up _“Is Timeshare Ownership an Investment Product?” _After some discussion, the conclusion is that the purchaser outlays funds for economic benefit, thus timeshare fits well within the definition of an _investment product._
> 
> Are there other avenues of investment laws or acts in Canada we should also consider getting involved?



That is a darn good idea. Late to the table my friend but, a darn good idea. Wish certain legal counsel had thought like that two years ago.


----------



## FairSun

tswow said:


> *May it be known to everyone that I am not Kirk Wankel nor am I affiliated with Northwynd and Northmont.
> *
> I am an timeshare owner who "paid to stay" and am current with my maintenance fees. I do not appreciate having to pay additional maintenance fees to cover for those who are in arears and to possibly pay for some of the legal costs associated with litigation process. Nor do I appreciate and do not agree with the litigants group opposition to the realignment of the resort, this is being obstructionist and mischievous.
> 
> The rude and personal remarks do not make your plight any easier to resolve. The matter is legal and factual and will be resolved by Judge Young.


I'm glad you clarified that. I respect your right to pay the reno fee and to continue paying MF. Were legal fees not already included in the resort's annual budget in certain recent years? I've read that the resort does not command the 5-star exchange value it once did. Is this true? 
My family loved both our stays at Fairmont/Sunchaser and exchanges to great sunny winter vacation spots. We were devastated to be denied use of our prepaid week as a result of protesting the special assessment RPF. We wanted to pay the annual MF and exchange our week, but Northmont refused unless we paid both the MF and reno fee. We understood our TS lease did not permit special assessments so we held solid to our position and continued our protest in the Courts. We never imagined a judge would determine that RPF was part of regular maintenance and thus we had to pay it. 
We never missed paying a bill ever before this. The cost - financially, emotionally and physically - to take this stand and fight has been enormous. We are now retired so the hit is even more damaging to us.


----------



## Huckleberry

tswow said:


> *May it be known to everyone that I am not Kirk Wankel nor am I affiliated with Northwynd and Northmont.
> *
> I am an timeshare owner who "paid to stay" and am current with my maintenance fees. I do not appreciate having to pay additional maintenance fees to cover for those who are in arears and to possibly pay for some of the legal costs associated with litigation process. Nor do I appreciate and do not agree with the litigants group opposition to the realignment of the resort, this is being obstructionist and mischievous.
> 
> The rude and personal remarks do not make your plight any easier to resolve. The matter is legal and factual and will be resolved by Judge Young.



You know, although you are completely soulless I actually had respect for you.  The way you had a plan and executed it so well and made the other Lawyer look like a drooling gimp in court was impressive.  Then you start posting in here.  And I just have to do a facepalm.


----------



## DisgustedinWA

Hope these pages from Fairmont Prospectus in 1996 might help some of your contacts in Canada understand what was promised in 1996. It seems pretty obvious to me, but I can only read the words.


----------



## MgolferL

Tanny13 said:


> You are not happy paying additional maintenance fees for those in arrears?  Why are you?  Why didn't Northmont just take those units back and resell them?  Then those who wanted to leave would have, quietly, and those who wanted to stay could have continued to enjoy the property without any additional fees.  You have no problem putting millions into Northmont's pockets (Kirk Wankel)?  We are paying maintenance fees from the last 4 years and we've had no use of our timeshare.  Perhaps if those who chose to pay and stay would step up and voice their displeasure, not with those of us who are being charged exorbitant fees just because we were trying to right a wrong, but with those in management who have totally taken advantage of ALL of us who bought a lease for time only, we would all be in a better place.
> 
> By the way, where did you get all this information that no one else seems to be privy to?



Agree totally with Tanny13... especially the part about leaving quietly and letting life go on...TSWOW, why are you wasting everyone's time by participating? A diversion perhaps to stop people from doing the work we have set out to do because of being surrounded by ineptness and greed to this point? Why not just sign off, think your comments to yourself and have a nice life. I was involved in another company...not vacation related, where a conniving  accountant who thought he could rule the world destroyed the company many others spent a life time building. HE destroyed many people, most of which have not recovered 15 years later. Any comments on how to move ahead to prevent this travesty are welcome. Any others are merely taking up space....so speaking for myself...TSWOW...GO AWAY ...PLEASE!!


----------



## Petus@18

We received this message from a MLA today:

Thank you for writing to me on this matter. I am so sorry to hear about what you are going through. You are not alone in this; we have been receiving numerous letters.

As you are no doubt aware, courts in both Alberta and British Columbia have found that Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. was within its contractual rights to charge the renovation fees requested. The court’s judgement also allows Northmont to collect interest and costs from owners. I understand that this is not the result that you and other owners were hoping to obtain from the legal proceedings and how stressful this is financially. Again, I am so sorry to hear about this. Because the courts are independent from the government, the government cannot overrule a court decision.

If you are concerned about the legal advice you had received throughout the process, you might consider contacting the Law Society in the province where your lawyer practices. Law Societies regulate the legal profession and enforce standards of professional conduct. If they receive a complaint, they have the authority to investigate the conduct and competence of the lawyer in question. Following are the links to the Law Societies in Alberta and British Columbia with more information:

https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/

https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/complaints-lawyer-discipline-and-public-hearings/

Furthermore, while I recognize this would unfortunately not help in your individual case, if you think the laws addressing the area of timeshare ownership are in need of change to better protect consumers in the future, I would encourage you to contact Stephanie McLean, the Minister for Service Alberta. I will also pass on your concerns to the Minister to ensure that she is aware of the issue.
------
Same all same, nobody seems to want to take action!


----------



## Machete

Legacy for Life co-owners and others like myself who bought at Sunchaser in 2010 or later supposedly obtained a "fee simple co-ownership interest" in Sunchaser Resort Villas.  Fee simple ownership is defined as following: "In this system you purchase an actual deeded interest in real estate, which is recorded with the land court or other proper authorities and for which you receive a title in perpetuity."  So according to this, Sunchaser sold me an actual piece of property at Sunchaser.  Thats odd, because according to other sources, Sunchaser Resort is owned by NP Reit unit holders and/or Kirk Wankel in his numbered company.  Owners interests are registered with the trustee, Philip Matkin.  So in other words, they sold the same property multiple times?  How many people can have deeded interest in the same property?  Seems kind of like me offering my car for sale, so someone come s along, gives me the money and says he'll pick it up tomorrow once he gets his plates.  In the meantime, another person comes along and wants to buy it, so I take his money too, and he drives away with the car.  I think that's called fraud and you can bet I'll be charged for it.  So has anyone pursued this line of action yet?


----------



## Appauled

Spark1 said:


> I just want to ask you are you sure you well be released? I just want to tell every one that because of every one sending in tons of mail into Service Alberta, Sevice Alberta has now set up a Consumer Investigation Unit in Calgary. In other words they have set up a file with the Canadian antifraud centre in Ontario. What would be great if every one of us now contact your Local RCMP and tell them you want to report fraud and this is your right to do this. If you feel you paid out money for a product and you are not receiving it because of the Freedom to Choose report it to the RCMP. Tell your Local RCMP that Service Alberta are now doing Consumer Investigation in Calgary. The RCMP might ask you to phone them and get the file number for them. You can not do that only the RCMP  Can get that number. So have the RCMP phone Mike Erishanko at  403-297-8387 and they will give them the file no. Now your Local RCMP will give you a file Number. This took me 15 minutes and it was all set up. The RCMP will ask you to start from scratch and write out your whole story about how Northwynd Frauded you. If you paid money up front and now you are not allowed to use the resort because of the freedom to Choose this is Fraud. Their cancellation agreement is ambiguous and they talk about VIAS,that is not in my Contract we have a Vacation Villa Lease Contract . The other Special Assessments is not in a Lease Agreement. Ours is a right to use and at the end of the lease you have no ownership rights in the property. We are getting Hugh maintenance bills and we have not been able to use the resort for almost 5 years,how does that work. Geldert Law said he tried to make some kind of deal so we could use the resort but Northwynd did not want any part of that. We paid thousands of dollars up front so we could use that resort for 40 years with our simple Lease Contract and Northmont closed the door on us to force us to pick one of their chooses. The one that they were hoping we all would pick was to cancel. So this is Fraud when you pay out all that money and you can not use that service. Timeshare is in the Canadian Consumer Handbook and it is legal to sell this product and let’s demand protection from these governments and tell them to close the door to Fraud with this timeshare industry. My so called maintenance fees doubled from 2016 to 2017 what would of it been if we used the resort. We never had a problem for 12 years until the Northwynds greed set in. We need every one to do this and this well help the Investigation. Remember what we hired the Lawyer for,that was to protect our Contract. I do not care what Northmont calls it now this is not the case our contract was what we had in 2013. They quickly made changes to make it look like our contract is different from what we had in 2013 do not allow them to do this. We are going to be busy working with The RCMP and have a meeting with them on Jan29. Carry on the great work that you have been doing.



Perhaps Spark1 has the right solution and we all report to the RCMP since the government doesn't want to get involved!


----------



## Inquiringmind

Called provincial court this morning in Edmonton. Asked if they were any appeals on the 149030-4333 court case. Was told that an appeal was filed  November 8, 2017 By James Reid.  I believe James Reed was the original adversary with Northmont in the court case. The  appeal number is court of Queens bench 170322524.   I asked the clerk for particulars of the appeal and she went to look for the file and then informed me that the file was checked out to Judge Young. Sidenote,  when an action is under appeal,  it may or will create a stay of proceedings until the appeal is heard


----------



## Tacoma

TSWOW if you truly are a happy owner you are lucky now. Many of us loved this timeshare and the valley it was in. We spent a lot of money there and I'm sure it was a regular vacation spot for many of us. I hope you will continue to enjoy your time but unfortunately this is what I see in your future- increasing maintenance fees in spite of the major cash the company is going to get, less availability of good trades if you like to trade to different places since no one will want to go there, more cash grabs in the future since no $ amount seems to be enough for this company, and if you need to get out for any reason are you aware there is no exit clause in your contract? Plan to try and sell it or even give it away -good luck anyone who has any knowledge will never touch this property again. Legacy for Life you will NEVER get out. If you have children please do them a favor and tell that that when you die they can refuse any of your assets. Tell them to not accept this "gift" if you have children and love them.


----------



## torqued

I’m confused. This is an appeal to what particular decision??


----------



## Inquiringmind

torqued said:


> I’m confused. This is an appeal to what particular decision??


 Court case number P1490304333. This is the main court case  we are talking about. Look up the number at court of Queens bench Edmonton.


----------



## truthr

Inquiringmind said:


> Called provincial court this morning in Edmonton. Asked if they were any appeals on the 149030-4333 court case. Was told that an appeal was filed  November 8, 2017 By James Reid.  I believe James Reed was the original adversary with Northmont in the court case. The  appeal number is court of Queens bench 170322524.   I asked the clerk for particulars of the appeal and she went to look for the file and then informed me that the file was checked out to Judge Young. Sidenote,  when an action is under appeal,  it may or will create a stay of proceedings until the appeal is heard


That is very interesting that they would give you that information over the phone and good that they did.
I called that same court house on November 20th and was told there was an appeal filed but they could not tell me anymore over the phone I would have to go to the court which I couldn't because I am not in AB anymore.
So I had someone go to the courthouse to request what they call a "Procedure Card"
According to the Procedure Card the appeal was filed on November 15th, 2017.  And a transcript of the court proceedings were ordered.
Why have we not received a copy of the transcripts???  It would appear that someone in our "legal" team has them.

Also for the BC people - an appeal was filed and subsequently "squashed" on November 10th, 2017.  Not just dismissed but SQUASHED!!
Which means that the transcripts from the Judge Branch hearing should also be with our "legal" team.  Has anyone seen those??


----------



## aden2

Confirmed today than an appeal was filed. There is a concern that not all the contracts that Northmont claims are valid. How were the contracts administered, was it when Fairmont was insolvent? This would make those contracts invalid, and perhaps criminal chargers forthcoming.


----------



## Palms to pines

Machete said:


> Legacy for Life co-owners and others like myself who bought at Sunchaser in 2010 or later supposedly obtained a "fee simple co-ownership interest" in Sunchaser Resort Villas.  Fee simple ownership is defined as following: "In this system you purchase an actual deeded interest in real estate, which is recorded with the land court or other proper authorities and for which you receive a title in perpetuity."  So according to this, Sunchaser sold me an actual piece of property at Sunchaser.  Thats odd, because according to other sources, Sunchaser Resort is owned by NP Reit unit holders and/or Kirk Wankel in his numbered company.  Owners interests are registered with the trustee, Philip Matkin.  So in other words, they sold the same property multiple times?  How many people can have deeded interest in the same property?  Seems kind of like me offering my car for sale, so someone come s along, gives me the money and says he'll pick it up tomorrow once he gets his plates.  In the meantime, another person comes along and wants to buy it, so I take his money too, and he drives away with the car.  I think that's called fraud and you can bet I'll be charged for it.  So has anyone pursued this line of action yet?[.              Not sure if this is exactly how to do a reply. Legacy for Life was a money grab and a scam. The promotion was an add- on to your existing lease to convert your time to points and you could will it to your heirs. They weren’t even saying we bought land or buildings, or a piece of land or buildings. If they had and said we were responsible to renovate and reconstruct those buildings until the end of time no one would have gone for that deal. I have registered at Canada Fraud agency.


----------



## Palms to pines

Machete: I didn’t know how to do the quote/reply properly, sorry. My response is on the lower part of your text.


----------



## Scammed!

Inquiringmind said:


> Called provincial court this morning in Edmonton. Asked if they were any appeals on the 149030-4333 court case. Was told that an appeal was filed  November 8, 2017 By James Reid.  I believe James Reed was the original adversary with Northmont in the court case. The  appeal number is court of Queens bench 170322524.   I asked the clerk for particulars of the appeal and she went to look for the file and then informed me that the file was checked out to Judge Young. Sidenote,  when an action is under appeal,  it may or will create a stay of proceedings until the appeal is heard


Sidenote: We need confirmation on this.....very interesting


----------



## KGB_527

Judging from the couple of postings here and from the email from Alberta Premier's office we can draw some conclusion that there is something in the works. What is it is anybody's guess?
Will this be to stop this nightmare entirely, probably not? For this to happen, it would have to be pretty strong order coming from Justice Minister to overrule decision of Justice Young.
I do not want to get my hopes too high, however I think that someone, somewhere is coming to his/her senses saying; we really have to help these people. This 5 years case smells really bad.
I hope my prayers will be answered, ... thanks God.


----------



## Bewildered

Petus@18 said:


> We received this message from a MLA today:
> 
> Thank you for writing to me on this matter. I am so sorry to hear about what you are going through. You are not alone in this; we have been receiving numerous letters.
> 
> As you are no doubt aware, courts in both Alberta and British Columbia have found that Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. was within its contractual rights to charge the renovation fees requested. The court’s judgement also allows Northmont to collect interest and costs from owners. I understand that this is not the result that you and other owners were hoping to obtain from the legal proceedings and how stressful this is financially. Again, I am so sorry to hear about this. Because the courts are independent from the government, the government cannot overrule a court decision.
> 
> If you are concerned about the legal advice you had received throughout the process, you might consider contacting the Law Society in the province where your lawyer practices. Law Societies regulate the legal profession and enforce standards of professional conduct. If they receive a complaint, they have the authority to investigate the conduct and competence of the lawyer in question. Following are the links to the Law Societies in Alberta and British Columbia with more information:
> 
> https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/
> 
> https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/complaints-lawyer-discipline-and-public-hearings/
> 
> Furthermore, while I recognize this would unfortunately not help in your individual case, if you think the laws addressing the area of timeshare ownership are in need of change to better protect consumers in the future, I would encourage you to contact Stephanie McLean, the Minister for Service Alberta. I will also pass on your concerns to the Minister to ensure that she is aware of the issue.
> ------
> Same all same, nobody seems to want to take action!


Exact same crap I heard from Kim Palichuk, she was even worse. What none of these government bureaucrats fail to accept is that Judge Young DID NOT decide on interest, in fact gave direction on that if you look at the decision in Alberta and I don’t think she was thinking 26.8% was acceptable. I’m embarrassed to be an Albertan, NDP showing it’s useless and our provincial judicial system looking like a joke.


----------



## Bewildered

tswow said:


> RE: Post 3142;
> Water Leaks; in what shape would the resort be in if the water leaks and repairs are not done? There would have been complaints about the condition of the resort. The exterior of Riverside looked awful in addition to the interior. I found that those who stayed in a renovated unit have posted positive reviews
> on Sunchaser's website and other travel sites.
> 
> Association; A survey was done by Northmont in late 2011 with very few respondents and very few in agreement with having an association. Were the timeshare owners afraid of having to pay increased maintenance fees to fund an Association?
> 
> Credentials; What facts are there to support the claim of "real credentials"? Have a look at the drawings and check out the credentials.
> 
> Re-designed units repurposed as condos; Northmont committed to renovate, redesign, repair those units which remained as timeshares to accommodate those who "paid to stay". Those units not required because of those who "paid to leave" would not be renovated, etc. and would be separated/realigned from the resort.
> I have stayed in a renovated unit in Riverside and found it to be very nicely redone; inside and outside. I fully support Northmont's plan of realignment.


Come on tswow the little that has been done was easily covered by people paying the first ransom and others that have bailed since. How about the $50 million or so Wankel and his friends (you?) will be disappearing with. Read the facts, he’s done this before, he’s doing it again and up to now BC and Alberta are allowing it to happen. Seriously you don’t really think you’re going to live happily ever after do you? The day they asked for the first cash call and I said what’s stopping you from asking for another a year or two down the road and the answer was “nothing” I knew we were doomed. Thanks to M.G. the issue has just compounded much like our 26.8% interest.


----------



## Jack0123

Tacoma said:


> TSWOW if you truly are a happy owner you are lucky now. Many of us loved this timeshare and the valley it was in. We spent a lot of money there and I'm sure it was a regular vacation spot for many of us. I hope you will continue to enjoy your time but unfortunately this is what I see in your future- increasing maintenance fees in spite of the major cash the company is going to get, less availability of good trades if you like to trade to different places since no one will want to go there, more cash grabs in the future since no $ amount seems to be enough for this company, and if you need to get out for any reason are you aware there is no exit clause in your contract? Plan to try and sell it or even give it away -good luck anyone who has any knowledge will never touch this property again. Legacy for Life you will NEVER get out. If you have children please do them a favor and tell that that when you die they can refuse any of your assets. Tell them to not accept this "gift" if you have children and love them.





Bewildered said:


> Come on tswow the little that has been done was easily covered by people paying the first ransom and others that have bailed since. How about the $50 million or so Wankel and his friends (you?) will be disappearing with. Read the facts, he’s done this before, he’s doing it again and up to now BC and Alberta are allowing it to happen. Seriously you don’t really think you’re going to live happily ever after do you? The day they asked for the first cash call and I said what’s stopping you from asking for another a year or two down the road and the answer was “nothing” I knew we were doomed. Thanks to M.G. the issue has just compounded much like our 26.8% interest.


----------



## Jack0123

Spoke to  a Bankrupt trustee today, being senior citizens on a limited income they suggested if there was no exit clause to give the until back we are certainly in  a position to declare bankruptcy, which will have a bad effect on our credit rating but at age 75 does it really matter?


----------



## Timesharewhoas

Tomorrow is twitter day.

Twitter.com
Get an account
Find Sunchaser northwynd timeshare bc
@timesharewhoa 
Tweet and retweet
Never done it? Either had I. All the people to send tweets to will be available.  Then make your own and send them out.  The more retweets, the more noticed we get.  #changecanadiantimesharelaw


----------



## KGB_527

Timesharewhoas said:


> Tomorrow is twitter day.
> 
> Twitter.com
> Get an account
> Find Sunchaser northwynd timeshare bc
> @timesharewhoa
> Tweet and retweet
> Never done it? Either had I. All the people to send tweets to will be available.  Then make your own and send them out.  The more retweets, the more noticed we get.  #changecanadiantimesharelaw



How about different hashtag like "#Stopthistimeshareripoof".?


----------



## Wankel=crook

Bewildered said:


> New people to the site are exactly what is needed to continue the pressure but the need for calls and emails to all the elected officials already shown on this site is paramount:Alberta and BC Justice Ministers, Judge Youngs Office, the Service Alberta Minister, the AB and BC legal societies etc.


I'm  new not easy to figure this site


----------



## Wankel=crook

I'm  new in here just trying figure out how to get around


----------



## greyskies

Wankel=crook said:


> I'm  new in here just trying figure out how to get around


Welcome! 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Spark1

Bewildered said:


> Exact same crap I heard from Kim Palichuk, she was even worse. What none of these government bureaucrats fail to accept is that Judge Young DID NOT decide on interest, in fact gave direction on that if you look at the decision in Alberta and I don’t think she was thinking 26.8% was acceptable. I’m embarrassed to be an Albertan, NDP showing it’s useless and our provincial judicial system looking like a joke.


Send it back and say you do not need these form letters. Tell them to get off their ass and do something. They are responsible to protect us from this timeshare Fraud. They work for us and this is Canadian Consumer Protection which we never got. Let’s sue the government. Right now there is no one to vote for in Alberta 2019.


----------



## Spark1

Appauled said:


> Perhaps Spark1 has the right solution and we all report to the RCMP since the government doesn't want to get involved!


Who cares about Service Alberta. I have some choice words for them. Yes every one should file Fraud Report because that is what it is.And it is not these governments freaks money it is ours. That is your right not these government high paid big pension money drain on tax payers business what we do,they are no help they like to load up the crimmals pockets and cramp on hard working Canadians. We are a imbarrassment for how they treated our American Friends and I do not blame them for never wanting to come back to Canada.


----------



## Wankel=crook

Anything new on the legal front?


----------



## Machete

truthr said:


> That is very interesting that they would give you that information over the phone and good that they did.
> I called that same court house on November 20th and was told there was an appeal filed but they could not tell me anymore over the phone I would have to go to the court which I couldn't because I am not in AB anymore.
> So I had someone go to the courthouse to request what they call a "Procedure Card"
> According to the Procedure Card the appeal was filed on November 15th, 2017.  And a transcript of the court proceedings were ordered.
> Why have we not received a copy of the transcripts???  It would appear that someone in our "legal" team has them.
> 
> Also for the BC people - an appeal was filed and subsequently "squashed" on November 10th, 2017.  Not just dismissed but SQUASHED!!
> Which means that the transcripts from the Judge Branch hearing should also be with our "legal" team.  Has anyone seen those??



Court Transcripts are very expensive and lengthy to reproduce.  If someone orders a transcript, the court tapes go to a transcription service and can run to hundreds of pages.  A half day of court costs about $300 for transcript to be produced.  Imagine what ours would cost that went on for what... a couple of weeks.  Would cost about $6,000 per transcript by my calculations.  I imagine MG ordered a copy and our fees paid for it.  Definitely not something you would copy and send out to everyone.


----------



## truthr

I understand that transcripts are lengthy and expensive and are usually only ordered when filing an appeal.  
But two appeals have been filed - the one in BC squashed and the one in AB unknown as to the status so the transcripts should have been ordered and the clients paid for them so they are entitled to have them.  Just like we were entitled to have the ones from the JEKE trial in BC which was the lengthy trial and some of us did receive them although we had to request them.  Once our lawyer has them they don't have to copy them just email them in the form they come in which the ones I have came in PDF form.

The AB hearings were three (3) days not a couple of weeks.


----------



## torqued

Spark1 said:


> Who cares about Service Alberta. I have some choice words for them. Yes every one should file Fraud Report because that is what it is.And it is not these governments freaks money it is ours. That is your right not these government high paid big pension money drain on tax payers business what we do,they are no help they like to load up the crimmals pockets and cramp on hard working Canadians. We are a imbarrassment for how they treated our American Friends and I do not blame them for never wanting to come back to Canada.


Just for the record as an American I don’t hold any of this against your great country or any of you. You all are what make Canada a great country!!  I’m proud to call you all my neighbors to the north. I’ve felt like you’ve had my back during this and I thank you from the bottom of my red white and blue heart!  Let’s keep swinging. It ain’t over till it’s over!


----------



## GypsyOne

torqued said:


> Just for the record as an American I don’t hold any of this against your great country or any of you. You all are what make Canada a great country!!  I’m proud to call you all my neighbors to the north. I’ve felt like you’ve had my back during this and I thank you from the bottom of my red white and blue heart!  Let’s keep swinging. It ain’t over till it’s over!


Unfortunately White Collar criminals know no boundaries.


----------



## CleoB

Machete said:


> Court Transcripts are very expensive and lengthy to reproduce.  If someone orders a transcript, the court tapes go to a transcription service and can run to hundreds of pages.  A half day of court costs about $300 for transcript to be produced.  Imagine what ours would cost that went on for what... a couple of weeks.  Would cost about $6,000 per transcript by my calculations.  I imagine MG ordered a copy and our fees paid for it.  Definitely not something you would copy and send out to everyone.


Would be easy to have MG staff scan and send everyone a pdf copy.


----------



## LilMaggie

CleoB said:


> Would be easy to have MG staff scan and send everyone a pdf copy.


At what point in time is there negligence on the part of a lawyer...not sharing information with clients and/or causing financial damages, not returning phone calls or emails, firing clients for no reason?  Does any of this sound familiar?


----------



## Appauled

LilMaggie said:


> At what point in time is there negligence on the part of a lawyer...not sharing information with clients and/or causing financial damages, not returning phone calls or emails, firing clients for no reason?  Does any of this sound familiar?


I feel as if MG has been bought off by Kirk Wankel and company!


----------



## RippedOff

It sure seems like everyone is working against us so anything is a possibility!

I looked it up yesterday and 1 appeal was lost in BC and 1 was lost in AB.  It seems as though there may be a third appeal from the previous posts - not sure.  All of these appeals have been quashed because they are based on the test JEKE case which was horribly represented by our side.  I don't see that this third appeal would have any impact unless they go about it in another direction, if that's even a possibility.  I was foolishly under the impression that this was a class action lawsuit but from what I can comprehend reading all the legal wording, it's not the case.  The Judge even suggested something along those lines and Geldert declined - unbelievable!!!  This is my interpretation - I may be wrong.  I think, as stated many times before, the only hope lies with Judge Young.

You can look up the cases here: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/index.html , use "Northmont" as your search.


----------



## Appauled

RippedOff said:


> It sure seems like everyone is working against us so anything is a possibility!
> 
> I looked it up yesterday and 1 appeal was lost in BC and 1 was lost in AB.  It seems as though there may be a third appeal from the previous posts - not sure.  All of these appeals have been quashed because they are based on the test JEKE case which was horribly represented by our side.  I don't see that this third appeal would have any impact unless they go about it in another direction, if that's even a possibility.  I was foolishly under the impression that this was a class action lawsuit but from what I can comprehend reading all the legal wording, it's not the case.  The Judge even suggested something along those lines and Geldert declined - unbelievable!!!  This is my interpretation - I may be wrong.  I think, as stated many times before, the only hope lies with Judge Young.
> 
> You can look up the cases here: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/index.html , use "Northmont" as your search.



If I recall correctly, MG sent out a communication back in around Sept/Oct 2017 that said they where considering having *Higgerty Law* with their _Class Action Lawyer_ *Clint Docken* out of Calgary partner with them. I contacted Higgerty Law and they said they have not heard from MG in months. I also asked if Higgerty Law would consider helping me and the other people left in a lurch by MG and they said they can not as MG approached them first and the request would have to come from MG!


----------



## wagga2650

RippedOff said:


> It sure seems like everyone is working against us so anything is a possibility!
> 
> I looked it up yesterday and 1 appeal was lost in BC and 1 was lost in AB.  It seems as though there may be a third appeal from the previous posts - not sure.  All of these appeals have been quashed because they are based on the test JEKE case which was horribly represented by our side.  I don't see that this third appeal would have any impact unless they go about it in another direction, if that's even a possibility.  I was foolishly under the impression that this was a class action lawsuit but from what I can comprehend reading all the legal wording, it's not the case.  The Judge even suggested something along those lines and Geldert declined - unbelievable!!!  This is my interpretation - I may be wrong.  I think, as stated many times before, the only hope lies with Judge Young.
> 
> You can look up the cases here: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/index.html , use "Northmont" as your search.


We could push it to the supreme court but everyone needs to be on board for that to happen, and new legal counsel as well.


----------



## LilMaggie

All BC lawyers in private practice carry professional liability insurance for negligence.

If you believe you have a claim for negligence, you should notify your lawyer without delay about your claim. You may also want to seek independent legal advice.
Just saying...


----------



## truthr

On right now Timeshare Exit Team, then tomorrow Friday at 11 am (AB time) a lawyer about our situation
https://globalnews.ca/radio/newstalk770/player/?gref=newstalk770&cmpid=other#/


----------



## LilMaggie

truthr said:


> On right now Timeshare Exit Team, then tomorrow Friday at 11 am (AB time) a lawyer about our situation
> https://globalnews.ca/radio/newstalk770/player/?gref=newstalk770&cmpid=other#/


Thanks again truthr.  Listening right now. Thank you Danielle for continuing to bring our situation to light.


----------



## Velo

truthr said:


> On right now Timeshare Exit Team, then tomorrow Friday at 11 am (AB time) a lawyer about our situation
> https://globalnews.ca/radio/newstalk770/player/?gref=newstalk770&cmpid=other#/


Thanks Truth.
Only heard the last part, the "Timeshare Exit Team" spokesman Greg Chris (?) talked a lot but never actually answered anything he was asked, he sounded like a timeshare salesman.


----------



## KGB_527

Well, I did phone these guys ~2 years ago, and I was told, they were not interested in the case that was in the courts. Now, this guy Chris is telling just to the contrary.
It is worth trying.


----------



## Broke Mama

truthr said:


> On right now Timeshare Exit Team, then tomorrow Friday at 11 am (AB time) a lawyer about our situation
> https://globalnews.ca/radio/newstalk770/player/?gref=newstalk770&cmpid=other#/


I listened today. She is great. It sounded like timeshare exit team said we have to one on one work with Northmont and have a lawyer represent us when we do it? How is that different than geldert representing all?


----------



## #deceived

We asked Geldert for a copy of the court transcript. (So we could see in writing how we were represented). 
His office replied (not him) that he will only reply to emails that HE has sent out already. No new questions. 

Of course not.


----------



## aden2

I have a contract signed Fairmont Vacation Villas stationary dated Nov 29, 2010.

Fairmont became solvent June 10, 2010.

I call this FRAUD!


----------



## truthr

#deceived said:


> We asked Geldert for a copy of the court transcript. (So we could see in writing how we were represented).
> His office replied (not him) that he will only reply to emails that HE has sent out already. No new questions.
> 
> Of course not.


If you want a copy, please send me a private message in the conversation section here and I will provide you with a copy.


----------



## truthr

Actually let's see if this works - this is the transcript from the JEKE


----------



## Just Looking Around

tswow said:


> I do not appreciate having to pay additional maintenance fees to cover for those who are in arears and to possibly pay for some of the legal costs associated with litigation process. Nor do I appreciate and do not agree with the litigants group opposition to the realignment of the resort, this is being obstructionist and mischievous.
> 
> The rude and personal remarks do not make your plight any easier to resolve. The matter is legal and factual and will be resolved by Judge Young.



_"...legal and factual..."_ Sorry, you've been inconvenienced by the Geldert Group seeking a legal affirmation of their Lease Agreement. But this is Canada and while justice doesn't always prevail, we do retain the right to seek resolution of commercial disputes through the courts of law.

Northmont won their BC Court case because they were lucky. They couldn't have imagined that Michael Geldert would swing and miss at the capital cost / operating cost issue in court (Jeke, 262-265). Actually, He didn't even swing. He stood in the dugout watching, oblivious to what was of fundamental importance. Michael Geldert doesn't understand the _'inside baseball'_ of litigation. From the transcripts, it appears he failed even to notice the Judge pointing to where he should take his case. Failing to establish that the lease agreements restrict the expenses to be covered by Maintenance Fees to: repairs, maintenance and other 'operating costs' necessary to execute ONLY the annual operation of the property _(remember its a property, #*NAFR*)_ as validated by past operating practice was, in my opinion, complete incompetence. Not to mention failing to pursue other aspects of the CCAA, Northmont's disregard for Judge Loo's directions, and failing to establish how the RPF was not a commercially viable solution to Fairmont's problems.

When I bought in 1999, not a single Director of Fairmont, not a manager for Fairmont, not a sale person for Fairmont and certainly not a lessee imagined the contract would be interpreted to allow for lessees to pay for repairs and renovations that cost into the tens of millions and spanned multiple years to complete. Not a one.

What we have here is some Wonk, ignoring the cooperative spirit of the lease, parsed it down to fragments of clauses, seized upon and exploited the Lease's vague wording. All this came years after it was written and, despite years of operation wherein the cooperative spirit, two parties working toward a common goal, of the lease and the operation of the property (*#NAFR*) were aligned.

I'll tell you what is not factual. The whole darn thing. The statements of claim, from $20,000 to $100,000 payable to Northmont, are not compensating Northmont for money they could have earned. It's not compensating Northmont for money they were forced to spend. The statements are mostly interest charges. Some of that interest is based on a trumped-up estimate of work that in its entirety never was intended to be and will never be completed. Besides interest on a project that was never to be completed, there is the arbitrary exit fee. The actual Maintenance Fee is a small part. Northmont is getting their money for nothing.

Know what else is factual? Its a fact Northmont failed to do as they committed to do while negotiating under the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act.

Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to establish a lessees association as they were instructed to and committed to doing while negotiating under the CCAA and, again by Judge Loo.

Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to pay their share of Maintenance Fees as directed by Judge Loo. Not just for one year, but all years.

Know what else is factual? Most of this money will not go to the benefit of the property (*#NAFR*). That's right Judge Loo; it will only line the pockets of Developers. It will go to Wankel and Sunchaser in Barbados. I mean, _"IF NOT THEM THEN WHO?"_, am I right?

If Northmont were truly in the resort business they would drastically lower the statements of claim to levels that are reasonable and that people can afford to pay and, they would work to rebuilding the public's trust of and confidence in timeshare developers. The second they closed their sales department their motives were obvious. The second they charged people to leave their motives were obvious. Seriously, what is to be gained by a corporation (its just Wankel I know but a corporation nonetheless) invoicing people for amounts of money they know they will never collect anyway? Why? What is to be gained by ruining these lives? What kind of person wants this on their conscience? And, Judge Young, are you really going to let this gross misconduct, this gross abuse of the judicial system, to happen in your courtroom?

This is a final act. Wankel will go away and Northmont will go away. Having perpetrated this heinous injustice they do not have the moral Freedom to Choose to Stay. They have to leave the Columbia Valley, Western Canada, the entire Country most likely. This is a naked, unabashed covetous craven cash grab, that signals what's to come next for the TSWOWs. I can hear the call now: _"Hello this is Diamond Resorts." "Hello, this is Kirk Wankel, have I got a deal for you, ..."_

Unfortunately for all of us, TSWOW included, that appears _"legal and factual."_

#*NAFR*


----------



## truthr

Just Looking Around said:


> _"...legal and factual..."_ Sorry, you've been inconvenienced by the Geldert Group seeking a legal affirmation of their Lease Agreement. But this is Canada and while justice doesn't always prevail, we do retain the right to seek resolution of commercial disputes through the courts of law.
> 
> Northmont won their BC Court case because they were lucky. They couldn't have imagined that Michael Geldert would swing and miss at the capital cost / operating cost issue in court (Jeke, 262-265). Actually, He didn't even swing. He stood in the dugout watching, oblivious to what was of fundamental importance. Michael Geldert doesn't understand the _'inside baseball'_ of litigation. From the transcripts, it appears he failed even to notice the Judge pointing to where he should take his case. Failing to establish that the lease agreements restrict the expenses to be covered by Maintenance Fees to: repairs, maintenance and other 'operating costs' necessary to execute ONLY the annual operation of the property _(remember its a property, #NAFR)_ as validated by past operating practice was, in my opinion, complete incompetence. Not to mention failing to pursue other aspects of the CCAA, Northmont's disregard for Judge Loo's directions, and failing to establish how the RFP was not a commercially viable solution to Fairmont's problems.
> 
> When I bought in 1997, not a single Director of Fairmont, not a manager for Fairmont, not a sale person for Fairmont and certainly not a lessee imagined the contract would be interpreted to allow for lessees to pay for repairs and renovations that cost into the tens of millions and spanned multiple years to complete. Not a one.
> 
> What we have here is some Wonk, ignoring the cooperative spirit of the lease, parsed it down to fragments of clauses, seized upon and exploited the Lease's vague wording. All this came years after it was written and, despite years of operation wherein the cooperative spirit, two parties working toward a common goal, of the lease and the operation of the property (*#NAFR*) were aligned.
> 
> I'll tell you what is not factual. The whole darn thing. The statements of claim, from $20,000 to $100,00 payable to Northmont, are not compensating Northmont for money they could have earned. It's not compensating Northmont for money they were forced to spend. The statements are mostly interest charges. Some of that interest is based on a trumped-up estimate of work that in its entirety never was intended to be and will never be completed. Besides interest on a project that was never to be completed, there is the arbitrary exit fee. The actual Maintenance Fee is a small part. Northmont is getting their money for nothing.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Its a fact Northmont failed to do as they committed to do while negotiating under the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to establish a lessees association as they were instructed to and committed to doing while negotiating under the CCAA and, again by Judge Loo.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to pay their share of Maintenance Fees as directed by Judge Loney Loo. Not just for one year, but all years.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Most of this money will not go to the benefit of the property (*#NAFR*). That's right Judge Loo; it will only line the pockets of Developers. It will go to Wankel and Sunchaser in Barbados. I mean, _"IF NOT THEM THEN WHO?"_, am I right?
> 
> If Northmont were truly in the resort business they would drastically lower the statements of claim to levels that are reasonable and that people can afford to pay and, they would work to rebuilding the public's trust of and confidence in timeshare developers. The second they closed their sales department their motives were obvious. The second they charged people to leave their motives were obvious. Seriously, what is to be gained by a corporation (its just Wankel I know but a corporation nonetheless) invoicing people for amounts of money they know they will never collect anyway? Why? What is to be gained by ruining these lives? What kind of person wants this on their conscience? And, Judge Young, are you really going to let this gross misconduct, this gross abuse of the judicial system, to happen in your courtroom?
> 
> This is a final act. Wankel will go away and Northmont will go away. Having perpetrated this heinous injustice they do not have the moral Freedom to Choose to Stay. They have to leave the Columbia Valley, Western Canada, the entire Country most likely. This is a naked, unabashed covetous craven cash grab, that signals what's to come next for the TSWOWs. I can hear the call now: _"Hello Diamond Resorts." "Hello, this is Kirk Wankel, have I got a deal for you, ..."_
> 
> Unfortunately for all of us, TSWOW included, that appears _"legal and factual."_
> 
> #*NAFR*


 WELL SAID!!!


----------



## MgolferL

truthr said:


> WELL SAID!!!





Just Looking Around said:


> _"...legal and factual..."_ Sorry, you've been inconvenienced by the Geldert Group seeking a legal affirmation of their Lease Agreement. But this is Canada and while justice doesn't always prevail, we do retain the right to seek resolution of commercial disputes through the courts of law.
> 
> Northmont won their BC Court case because they were lucky. They couldn't have imagined that Michael Geldert would swing and miss at the capital cost / operating cost issue in court (Jeke, 262-265). Actually, He didn't even swing. He stood in the dugout watching, oblivious to what was of fundamental importance. Michael Geldert doesn't understand the _'inside baseball'_ of litigation. From the transcripts, it appears he failed even to notice the Judge pointing to where he should take his case. Failing to establish that the lease agreements restrict the expenses to be covered by Maintenance Fees to: repairs, maintenance and other 'operating costs' necessary to execute ONLY the annual operation of the property _(remember its a property, #NAFR)_ as validated by past operating practice was, in my opinion, complete incompetence. Not to mention failing to pursue other aspects of the CCAA, Northmont's disregard for Judge Loo's directions, and failing to establish how the RFP was not a commercially viable solution to Fairmont's problems.
> 
> When I bought in 1997, not a single Director of Fairmont, not a manager for Fairmont, not a sale person for Fairmont and certainly not a lessee imagined the contract would be interpreted to allow for lessees to pay for repairs and renovations that cost into the tens of millions and spanned multiple years to complete. Not a one.
> 
> What we have here is some Wonk, ignoring the cooperative spirit of the lease, parsed it down to fragments of clauses, seized upon and exploited the Lease's vague wording. All this came years after it was written and, despite years of operation wherein the cooperative spirit, two parties working toward a common goal, of the lease and the operation of the property (*#NAFR*) were aligned.
> 
> I'll tell you what is not factual. The whole darn thing. The statements of claim, from $20,000 to $100,00 payable to Northmont, are not compensating Northmont for money they could have earned. It's not compensating Northmont for money they were forced to spend. The statements are mostly interest charges. Some of that interest is based on a trumped-up estimate of work that in its entirety never was intended to be and will never be completed. Besides interest on a project that was never to be completed, there is the arbitrary exit fee. The actual Maintenance Fee is a small part. Northmont is getting their money for nothing.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Its a fact Northmont failed to do as they committed to do while negotiating under the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to establish a lessees association as they were instructed to and committed to doing while negotiating under the CCAA and, again by Judge Loo.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to pay their share of Maintenance Fees as directed by Judge Loney Loo. Not just for one year, but all years.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Most of this money will not go to the benefit of the property (*#NAFR*). That's right Judge Loo; it will only line the pockets of Developers. It will go to Wankel and Sunchaser in Barbados. I mean, _"IF NOT THEM THEN WHO?"_, am I right?
> 
> If Northmont were truly in the resort business they would drastically lower the statements of claim to levels that are reasonable and that people can afford to pay and, they would work to rebuilding the public's trust of and confidence in timeshare developers. The second they closed their sales department their motives were obvious. The second they charged people to leave their motives were obvious. Seriously, what is to be gained by a corporation (its just Wankel I know but a corporation nonetheless) invoicing people for amounts of money they know they will never collect anyway? Why? What is to be gained by ruining these lives? What kind of person wants this on their conscience? And, Judge Young, are you really going to let this gross misconduct, this gross abuse of the judicial system, to happen in your courtroom?
> 
> This is a final act. Wankel will go away and Northmont will go away. Having perpetrated this heinous injustice they do not have the moral Freedom to Choose to Stay. They have to leave the Columbia Valley, Western Canada, the entire Country most likely. This is a naked, unabashed covetous craven cash grab, that signals what's to come next for the TSWOWs. I can hear the call now: _"Hello Diamond Resorts." "Hello, this is Kirk Wankel, have I got a deal for you, ..."_
> 
> Unfortunately for all of us, TSWOW included, that appears _"legal and factual."_
> 
> #*NAFR*



THANKYOU!


----------



## torqued

Just Looking Around said:


> _"...legal and factual..."_ Sorry, you've been inconvenienced by the Geldert Group seeking a legal affirmation of their Lease Agreement. But this is Canada and while justice doesn't always prevail, we do retain the right to seek resolution of commercial disputes through the courts of law.
> 
> Northmont won their BC Court case because they were lucky. They couldn't have imagined that Michael Geldert would swing and miss at the capital cost / operating cost issue in court (Jeke, 262-265). Actually, He didn't even swing. He stood in the dugout watching, oblivious to what was of fundamental importance. Michael Geldert doesn't understand the _'inside baseball'_ of litigation. From the transcripts, it appears he failed even to notice the Judge pointing to where he should take his case. Failing to establish that the lease agreements restrict the expenses to be covered by Maintenance Fees to: repairs, maintenance and other 'operating costs' necessary to execute ONLY the annual operation of the property _(remember its a property, #*NAFR*)_ as validated by past operating practice was, in my opinion, complete incompetence. Not to mention failing to pursue other aspects of the CCAA, Northmont's disregard for Judge Loo's directions, and failing to establish how the RFP was not a commercially viable solution to Fairmont's problems.
> 
> When I bought in 1997, not a single Director of Fairmont, not a manager for Fairmont, not a sale person for Fairmont and certainly not a lessee imagined the contract would be interpreted to allow for lessees to pay for repairs and renovations that cost into the tens of millions and spanned multiple years to complete. Not a one.
> 
> What we have here is some Wonk, ignoring the cooperative spirit of the lease, parsed it down to fragments of clauses, seized upon and exploited the Lease's vague wording. All this came years after it was written and, despite years of operation wherein the cooperative spirit, two parties working toward a common goal, of the lease and the operation of the property (*#NAFR*) were aligned.
> 
> I'll tell you what is not factual. The whole darn thing. The statements of claim, from $20,000 to $100,00 payable to Northmont, are not compensating Northmont for money they could have earned. It's not compensating Northmont for money they were forced to spend. The statements are mostly interest charges. Some of that interest is based on a trumped-up estimate of work that in its entirety never was intended to be and will never be completed. Besides interest on a project that was never to be completed, there is the arbitrary exit fee. The actual Maintenance Fee is a small part. Northmont is getting their money for nothing.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Its a fact Northmont failed to do as they committed to do while negotiating under the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to establish a lessees association as they were instructed to and committed to doing while negotiating under the CCAA and, again by Judge Loo.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to pay their share of Maintenance Fees as directed by Judge Loney Loo. Not just for one year, but all years.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Most of this money will not go to the benefit of the property (*#NAFR*). That's right Judge Loo; it will only line the pockets of Developers. It will go to Wankel and Sunchaser in Barbados. I mean, _"IF NOT THEM THEN WHO?"_, am I right?
> 
> If Northmont were truly in the resort business they would drastically lower the statements of claim to levels that are reasonable and that people can afford to pay and, they would work to rebuilding the public's trust of and confidence in timeshare developers. The second they closed their sales department their motives were obvious. The second they charged people to leave their motives were obvious. Seriously, what is to be gained by a corporation (its just Wankel I know but a corporation nonetheless) invoicing people for amounts of money they know they will never collect anyway? Why? What is to be gained by ruining these lives? What kind of person wants this on their conscience? And, Judge Young, are you really going to let this gross misconduct, this gross abuse of the judicial system, to happen in your courtroom?
> 
> This is a final act. Wankel will go away and Northmont will go away. Having perpetrated this heinous injustice they do not have the moral Freedom to Choose to Stay. They have to leave the Columbia Valley, Western Canada, the entire Country most likely. This is a naked, unabashed covetous craven cash grab, that signals what's to come next for the TSWOWs. I can hear the call now: _"Hello this is Diamond Resorts." "Hello, this is Kirk Wankel, have I got a deal for you, ..."_
> 
> Unfortunately for all of us, TSWOW included, that appears _"legal and factual."_
> 
> #*NAFR*


You my friend are spot on. You could represent the interests of this group better than MG on a bad day!


----------



## wagga2650

Just Looking Around said:


> _"...legal and factual..."_ Sorry, you've been inconvenienced by the Geldert Group seeking a legal affirmation of their Lease Agreement. But this is Canada and while justice doesn't always prevail, we do retain the right to seek resolution of commercial disputes through the courts of law.
> 
> Northmont won their BC Court case because they were lucky. They couldn't have imagined that Michael Geldert would swing and miss at the capital cost / operating cost issue in court (Jeke, 262-265). Actually, He didn't even swing. He stood in the dugout watching, oblivious to what was of fundamental importance. Michael Geldert doesn't understand the _'inside baseball'_ of litigation. From the transcripts, it appears he failed even to notice the Judge pointing to where he should take his case. Failing to establish that the lease agreements restrict the expenses to be covered by Maintenance Fees to: repairs, maintenance and other 'operating costs' necessary to execute ONLY the annual operation of the property _(remember its a property, #*NAFR*)_ as validated by past operating practice was, in my opinion, complete incompetence. Not to mention failing to pursue other aspects of the CCAA, Northmont's disregard for Judge Loo's directions, and failing to establish how the RFP was not a commercially viable solution to Fairmont's problems.
> 
> When I bought in 1997, not a single Director of Fairmont, not a manager for Fairmont, not a sale person for Fairmont and certainly not a lessee imagined the contract would be interpreted to allow for lessees to pay for repairs and renovations that cost into the tens of millions and spanned multiple years to complete. Not a one.
> 
> What we have here is some Wonk, ignoring the cooperative spirit of the lease, parsed it down to fragments of clauses, seized upon and exploited the Lease's vague wording. All this came years after it was written and, despite years of operation wherein the cooperative spirit, two parties working toward a common goal, of the lease and the operation of the property (*#NAFR*) were aligned.
> 
> I'll tell you what is not factual. The whole darn thing. The statements of claim, from $20,000 to $100,00 payable to Northmont, are not compensating Northmont for money they could have earned. It's not compensating Northmont for money they were forced to spend. The statements are mostly interest charges. Some of that interest is based on a trumped-up estimate of work that in its entirety never was intended to be and will never be completed. Besides interest on a project that was never to be completed, there is the arbitrary exit fee. The actual Maintenance Fee is a small part. Northmont is getting their money for nothing.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Its a fact Northmont failed to do as they committed to do while negotiating under the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to establish a lessees association as they were instructed to and committed to doing while negotiating under the CCAA and, again by Judge Loo.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to pay their share of Maintenance Fees as directed by Judge Loney Loo. Not just for one year, but all years.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Most of this money will not go to the benefit of the property (*#NAFR*). That's right Judge Loo; it will only line the pockets of Developers. It will go to Wankel and Sunchaser in Barbados. I mean, _"IF NOT THEM THEN WHO?"_, am I right?
> 
> If Northmont were truly in the resort business they would drastically lower the statements of claim to levels that are reasonable and that people can afford to pay and, they would work to rebuilding the public's trust of and confidence in timeshare developers. The second they closed their sales department their motives were obvious. The second they charged people to leave their motives were obvious. Seriously, what is to be gained by a corporation (its just Wankel I know but a corporation nonetheless) invoicing people for amounts of money they know they will never collect anyway? Why? What is to be gained by ruining these lives? What kind of person wants this on their conscience? And, Judge Young, are you really going to let this gross misconduct, this gross abuse of the judicial system, to happen in your courtroom?
> 
> This is a final act. Wankel will go away and Northmont will go away. Having perpetrated this heinous injustice they do not have the moral Freedom to Choose to Stay. They have to leave the Columbia Valley, Western Canada, the entire Country most likely. This is a naked, unabashed covetous craven cash grab, that signals what's to come next for the TSWOWs. I can hear the call now: _"Hello this is Diamond Resorts." "Hello, this is Kirk Wankel, have I got a deal for you, ..."_
> 
> Unfortunately for all of us, TSWOW included, that appears _"legal and factual."_
> 
> #*NAFR*


Fantastic letter and exactly what is happening and is goi9ng to happen.


----------



## ready2go2

[QUOTE="MgolferL, post: 2094066, member: 102108"


----------



## KGB_527

torqued said:


> You my friend are spot on. You could represent the interests of this group better than MG on a bad day!



\


Just Looking Around said:


> _"...legal and factual..."_ Sorry, you've been inconvenienced by the Geldert Group seeking a legal affirmation of their Lease Agreement. But this is Canada and while justice doesn't always prevail, we do retain the right to seek resolution of commercial disputes through the courts of law.
> 
> Northmont won their BC Court case because they were lucky. They couldn't have imagined that Michael Geldert would swing and miss at the capital cost / operating cost issue in court (Jeke, 262-265). Actually, He didn't even swing. He stood in the dugout watching, oblivious to what was of fundamental importance. Michael Geldert doesn't understand the _'inside baseball'_ of litigation. From the transcripts, it appears he failed even to notice the Judge pointing to where he should take his case. Failing to establish that the lease agreements restrict the expenses to be covered by Maintenance Fees to: repairs, maintenance and other 'operating costs' necessary to execute ONLY the annual operation of the property _(remember its a property, #*NAFR*)_ as validated by past operating practice was, in my opinion, complete incompetence. Not to mention failing to pursue other aspects of the CCAA, Northmont's disregard for Judge Loo's directions, and failing to establish how the RFP was not a commercially viable solution to Fairmont's problems.
> 
> When I bought in 1999, not a single Director of Fairmont, not a manager for Fairmont, not a sale person for Fairmont and certainly not a lessee imagined the contract would be interpreted to allow for lessees to pay for repairs and renovations that cost into the tens of millions and spanned multiple years to complete. Not a one.
> 
> What we have here is some Wonk, ignoring the cooperative spirit of the lease, parsed it down to fragments of clauses, seized upon and exploited the Lease's vague wording. All this came years after it was written and, despite years of operation wherein the cooperative spirit, two parties working toward a common goal, of the lease and the operation of the property (*#NAFR*) were aligned.
> 
> I'll tell you what is not factual. The whole darn thing. The statements of claim, from $20,000 to $100,00 payable to Northmont, are not compensating Northmont for money they could have earned. It's not compensating Northmont for money they were forced to spend. The statements are mostly interest charges. Some of that interest is based on a trumped-up estimate of work that in its entirety never was intended to be and will never be completed. Besides interest on a project that was never to be completed, there is the arbitrary exit fee. The actual Maintenance Fee is a small part. Northmont is getting their money for nothing.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Its a fact Northmont failed to do as they committed to do while negotiating under the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to establish a lessees association as they were instructed to and committed to doing while negotiating under the CCAA and, again by Judge Loo.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to pay their share of Maintenance Fees as directed by Judge Loney Loo. Not just for one year, but all years.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Most of this money will not go to the benefit of the property (*#NAFR*). That's right Judge Loo; it will only line the pockets of Developers. It will go to Wankel and Sunchaser in Barbados. I mean, _"IF NOT THEM THEN WHO?"_, am I right?
> 
> If Northmont were truly in the resort business they would drastically lower the statements of claim to levels that are reasonable and that people can afford to pay and, they would work to rebuilding the public's trust of and confidence in timeshare developers. The second they closed their sales department their motives were obvious. The second they charged people to leave their motives were obvious. Seriously, what is to be gained by a corporation (its just Wankel I know but a corporation nonetheless) invoicing people for amounts of money they know they will never collect anyway? Why? What is to be gained by ruining these lives? What kind of person wants this on their conscience? And, Judge Young, are you really going to let this gross misconduct, this gross abuse of the judicial system, to happen in your courtroom?
> 
> This is a final act. Wankel will go away and Northmont will go away. Having perpetrated this heinous injustice they do not have the moral Freedom to Choose to Stay. They have to leave the Columbia Valley, Western Canada, the entire Country most likely. This is a naked, unabashed covetous craven cash grab, that signals what's to come next for the TSWOWs. I can hear the call now: _"Hello this is Diamond Resorts." "Hello, this is Kirk Wankel, have I got a deal for you, ..."_
> 
> Unfortunately for all of us, TSWOW included, that appears _"legal and factual."_
> 
> #*NAFR*




OMG!!! This is awesome. Thank you. You are hired. We just fired MG.


----------



## KGB_527

_After this great summary of the issues on hand by_ *Just Looking Around, *_it really drives home the incompetence, how this case was litigated. From the very beginning. Despite of some hints from the court MG was just clueless. In my case I was so hands off, I just kept sending more money as retainer when the call came in, because the litigation was in Vancouver and Edmonton. I just could not afford to take time off work, and go there and see it. I thought at that time, this is why I hired a lawyer, and he will take care of it. OMG!!! I was so WRONG. _
_He just added insult to injury. Was he really our lawyer working for us, or..................? Now when I have more time on my hand, it is probably too little too late. Reading thru some court documents NOW, it is just pure incompetence, and I am not a lawyer. _


----------



## Machete

Just Looking Around said:


> _"...legal and factual..."_ Sorry, you've been inconvenienced by the Geldert Group seeking a legal affirmation of their Lease Agreement. But this is Canada and while justice doesn't always prevail, we do retain the right to seek resolution of commercial disputes through the courts of law.
> 
> Northmont won their BC Court case because they were lucky. They couldn't have imagined that Michael Geldert would swing and miss at the capital cost / operating cost issue in court (Jeke, 262-265). Actually, He didn't even swing. He stood in the dugout watching, oblivious to what was of fundamental importance. Michael Geldert doesn't understand the _'inside baseball'_ of litigation. From the transcripts, it appears he failed even to notice the Judge pointing to where he should take his case. Failing to establish that the lease agreements restrict the expenses to be covered by Maintenance Fees to: repairs, maintenance and other 'operating costs' necessary to execute ONLY the annual operation of the property _(remember its a property, #*NAFR*)_ as validated by past operating practice was, in my opinion, complete incompetence. Not to mention failing to pursue other aspects of the CCAA, Northmont's disregard for Judge Loo's directions, and failing to establish how the RFP was not a commercially viable solution to Fairmont's problems.
> 
> When I bought in 1999, not a single Director of Fairmont, not a manager for Fairmont, not a sale person for Fairmont and certainly not a lessee imagined the contract would be interpreted to allow for lessees to pay for repairs and renovations that cost into the tens of millions and spanned multiple years to complete. Not a one.
> 
> What we have here is some Wonk, ignoring the cooperative spirit of the lease, parsed it down to fragments of clauses, seized upon and exploited the Lease's vague wording. All this came years after it was written and, despite years of operation wherein the cooperative spirit, two parties working toward a common goal, of the lease and the operation of the property (*#NAFR*) were aligned.
> 
> I'll tell you what is not factual. The whole darn thing. The statements of claim, from $20,000 to $100,00 payable to Northmont, are not compensating Northmont for money they could have earned. It's not compensating Northmont for money they were forced to spend. The statements are mostly interest charges. Some of that interest is based on a trumped-up estimate of work that in its entirety never was intended to be and will never be completed. Besides interest on a project that was never to be completed, there is the arbitrary exit fee. The actual Maintenance Fee is a small part. Northmont is getting their money for nothing.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Its a fact Northmont failed to do as they committed to do while negotiating under the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to establish a lessees association as they were instructed to and committed to doing while negotiating under the CCAA and, again by Judge Loo.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to pay their share of Maintenance Fees as directed by Judge Loney Loo. Not just for one year, but all years.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Most of this money will not go to the benefit of the property (*#NAFR*). That's right Judge Loo; it will only line the pockets of Developers. It will go to Wankel and Sunchaser in Barbados. I mean, _"IF NOT THEM THEN WHO?"_, am I right?
> 
> If Northmont were truly in the resort business they would drastically lower the statements of claim to levels that are reasonable and that people can afford to pay and, they would work to rebuilding the public's trust of and confidence in timeshare developers. The second they closed their sales department their motives were obvious. The second they charged people to leave their motives were obvious. Seriously, what is to be gained by a corporation (its just Wankel I know but a corporation nonetheless) invoicing people for amounts of money they know they will never collect anyway? Why? What is to be gained by ruining these lives? What kind of person wants this on their conscience? And, Judge Young, are you really going to let this gross misconduct, this gross abuse of the judicial system, to happen in your courtroom?
> 
> This is a final act. Wankel will go away and Northmont will go away. Having perpetrated this heinous injustice they do not have the moral Freedom to Choose to Stay. They have to leave the Columbia Valley, Western Canada, the entire Country most likely. This is a naked, unabashed covetous craven cash grab, that signals what's to come next for the TSWOWs. I can hear the call now: _"Hello this is Diamond Resorts." "Hello, this is Kirk Wankel, have I got a deal for you, ..."_
> 
> Unfortunately for all of us, TSWOW included, that appears _"legal and factual."_
> 
> #*NAFR*


Excellent Summary!  You have a gift with words, expressing what we all feel.  Thanks!


----------



## JAM DOWN

Machete said:


> Excellent Summary!  You have a gift with words, expressing what we all feel.  Thanks!



Are we sending messages directly to Judge Young's email or are we faxing and phoning?? Can't remember seeing and email address fro her?


----------



## Appauled

JAM DOWN said:


> Are we sending messages directly to Judge Young's email or are we faxing and phoning?? Can't remember seeing and email address fro her?


This is what number that Ultimate_Betrayal shared a few days ago:  

http://www.canadianlawlist.com/listingdetail/contact/l-d-young-635909/

*The Hon. L. D. Young*
_Assistant Chief Judge, Civil:_
*Provincial Court*
Civil
1A Sir Winston Churchill Sq.
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0R2
*Phone: *780-422-4021
*Fax: *780-422-2257

I called today and it worked ok. However Judge Young's assistant was away for the rest of the day and they told me to call back tomorrow:


----------



## SAV

I have read all these postings over the past days. And am new to the forum. I too have been assesses $42K and as all of you am totally surprised by this outcome.  As someone said previously this seemed like such an unbelievable situation that i paid for a timeshare in 1994 (can't quite remember when) then the place goes into bankruptcy (presumably all of my entitlement for the time i paid for is gone) and then i assumed that would b e the end of it...i would just loose my investment. But then it gets bought out of bankruptcy and then they are asking me to pay to release myself...just seemed like an illegal ask. Then this reno fee...I own a timeshare not an interest in this property so how can they ask me to pay for the renovation fees...im thinking cmon that is impossible. All through this time I'm thinking this has just got to go away soon cuz someone will challenge North mount in some lower court to show how crazy this situation is and our legal system and "timeshare law" would protect consumers from this sort of injustice. But to my surprise this actually keeps going. Well OK then the legal battle starts...all of us hire Gilbert and then I'm thinking OK this will soon be over. Then all the years go by and Northmount actually wins this thing in our Canadian court system. Wow they must have good lawyers. OK well then I thought I will be charged the $8000 fee that was assessed to be in 2013 and that would be the end of it.  Which is completely unfair but well thats how legal battles go sometimes (I've been involved with many over my business career and you just never know how it can go). But then they actually are able to charge for the fees every year (of a time i was prohibited from using jousting this time) and then charged 27% compounded interested for it all. It just seemed so wrong on so many levels and so illegal on so many levels that this actually can't be happening to us in this country. (i get this if it was Mexico or something)

I live in Calgary and my guess is that there are many of us who live here as well. I would like to suggest that we get together in person next week Tuesday evening to further discuss this and to see if there may be some solutions we can still pursue. I read with interest the appeal that has been started. The letters people have been writing to the Judge. The consumer affairs possibility. The RCMP angle. Anyway i think we should just get ourselves organized and see there is something we can do. 

I am willing to pay for and book a room at the Carriage House in Calgary this coming Tuesday at 7:00. Lets get the word out to as many people as we can on this forum, twitter and Facebook. Let Danielle from the talk show know we are getting together so she can get the word out.  Lets get the news channels know we are getting together. I don't have access to all of these things (twitter Facebook etc) so can you all help to get this moving forward. I would also be willing to reach out to some legal firms to see if someone can help us well.  I have some experience in litigation and may be able to bring someone forward (or if anyone has any suggestions for legal firms)

If i get enough positive response i will confirm the meeting room. Let me know what you all think. Others from BC or Edmonton could come as well. Lets get as many people involved as possible. 

I don't have huge time as i have my own business to run so any help would  be great. This needs a lot of urgency as we are running very thin on time.


----------



## greyskies

SAV said:


> I have read all these postings over the past days. And am new to the forum. I too have been assesses $42K and as all of you am totally surprised by this outcome.  As someone said previously this seemed like such an unbelievable situation that i paid for a timeshare in 1994 (can't quite remember when) then the place goes into bankruptcy (presumably all of my entitlement for the time i paid for is gone) and then i assumed that would b e the end of it...i would just loose my investment. But then it gets bought out of bankruptcy and then they are asking me to pay to release myself...just seemed like an illegal ask. Then this reno fee...I own a timeshare not an interest in this property so how can they ask me to pay for the renovation fees...im thinking cmon that is impossible. All through this time I'm thinking this has just got to go away soon cuz someone will challenge North mount in some lower court to show how crazy this situation is and our legal system and "timeshare law" would protect consumers from this sort of injustice. But to my surprise this actually keeps going. Well OK then the legal battle starts...all of us hire Gilbert and then I'm thinking OK this will soon be over. Then all the years go by and Northmount actually wins this thing in our Canadian court system. Wow they must have good lawyers. OK well then I thought I will be charged the $8000 fee that was assessed to be in 2013 and that would be the end of it.  Which is completely unfair but well thats how legal battles go sometimes (I've been involved with many over my business career and you just never know how it can go). But then they actually are able to charge for the fees every year (of a time i was prohibited from using jousting this time) and then charged 27% compounded interested for it all. It just seemed so wrong on so many levels and so illegal on so many levels that this actually can't be happening to us in this country. (i get this if it was Mexico or something)
> 
> I live in Calgary and my guess is that there are many of us who live here as well. I would like to suggest that we get together in person next week Tuesday evening to further discuss this and to see if there may be some solutions we can still pursue. I read with interest the appeal that has been started. The letters people have been writing to the Judge. The consumer affairs possibility. The RCMP angle. Anyway i think we should just get ourselves organized and see there is something we can do.
> 
> I am willing to pay for and book a room at the Carriage House in Calgary this coming Tuesday at 7:00. Lets get the word out to as many people as we can on this forum, twitter and Facebook. Let Danielle from the talk show know we are getting together so she can get the word out.  Lets get the news channels know we are getting together. I don't have access to all of these things (twitter Facebook etc) so can you all help to get this moving forward. I would also be willing to reach out to some legal firms to see if someone can help us well.  I have some experience in litigation and may be able to bring someone forward (or if anyone has any suggestions for legal firms)
> 
> If i get enough positive response i will confirm the meeting room. Let me know what you all think. Others from BC or Edmonton could come as well. Lets get as many people involved as possible.
> 
> I don't have huge time as i have my own business to run so any help would  be great. This needs a lot of urgency as we are running very thin on time.


I would be interested in meeting next Tuesday. Danielle Smith did say that on her show tomorrow, she would have a lawyer that had reviewed the court documents for our case. It might give as a better indication of what our options are, if any. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## LilMaggie

My friend just called me to say that she believes that she successfully got out of her timeshare agreement with a resort company in Alberta.  She said that she called the TS company, explained how the timeshare was no longer of use to her and they sent her papers to sign and charged her $1000.00 to leave.  They even let her out just prior to having to pay her Jan 31st maintenance fees.  I hope that she is truly rid of her timeshare, and if she is, it becomes crystal clear what the motivation has been for Northmont all this time (I think we all get it by now).  It appears that a legitimate vacation company is willing to work with its clients. Hmmm...


----------



## Floyd55

Hate to be the bearer of bad news again.....but I just got this reply from MG in response to my email to him earlier today asking if he was in fact meeting with Judge Young and Northmont this week to discuss the settlement details. Several posts have referred to the fact that Judge Young was reviewing costs and interest for our settlement and was to meet with lawyers from both sides. I was suspicious since we hadn't heard anything from MG, so I emailed him this morning to ask. Response below:

The “grapevine” is replete with falsehoods which I caution all my clients against putting any stock in. We are not scheduled to meet with or discussion the Settlement Agreement with Judge Young or Justice Branch. They will be informed by us regarding the settlement of the claims on behalf of those who are party to it to ensure these courts know what has happened. That will be in due course.

Please ensure you have reviewed the Settlement Documents in full to ensure you return what is required to secure your full and final release under this Settlement Agreement. Please also ensure all communications are in reply to an email from our office. As we have indicated throughout, our communications are confidential and not to be reproduced without the permission of the writer.


----------



## Tanny13

Floyd55 said:


> Hate to be the bearer of bad news again.....but I just got this reply from MG in response to my email to him earlier today asking if he was in fact meeting with Judge Young and Northmont this week to discuss the settlement details. Several posts have referred to the fact that Judge Young was reviewing costs and interest for our settlement and was to meet with lawyers from both sides. I was suspicious since we hadn't heard anything from MG, so I emailed him this morning to ask. Response below:
> 
> The “grapevine” is replete with falsehoods which I caution all my clients against putting any stock in. We are not scheduled to meet with or discussion the Settlement Agreement with Judge Young or Justice Branch. They will be informed by us regarding the settlement of the claims on behalf of those who are party to it to ensure these courts know what has happened. That will be in due course.
> 
> Please ensure you have reviewed the Settlement Documents in full to ensure you return what is required to secure your full and final release under this Settlement Agreement. Please also ensure all communications are in reply to an email from our office. As we have indicated throughout, our communications are confidential and not to be reproduced without the permission of the writer.



I believe Judge Young will be reviewing the submission for costs and interest only for those who did not settle. The settlement amount will not change as it has been "agreed to" by both sides.


----------



## MarcieL

LilMaggie said:


> My friend just called me to say that she believes that she successfully got out of her timeshare agreement with a resort company in Alberta.  She said that she called the TS company, explained how the timeshare was no longer of use to her and they sent her papers to sign and charged her $1000.00 to leave.  They even let her out just prior to having to pay her Jan 31st maintenance fees.  I hope that she is truly rid of her timeshare, and if she is, it becomes crystal clear what the motivation has been for Northmont all this time (I think we all get it by now).  It appears that a legitimate vacation company is willing to work with its clients. Hmmm...



We are in the process of getting out of Panorama resort up the road from Fairmont, only because due to health issues we are not using it.  It actually has a board and volunteers that assist, very well run, cost to leave is around 3 grand.


----------



## truthr

Floyd55 said:


> Hate to be the bearer of bad news again.....but I just got this reply from MG in response to my email to him earlier today asking if he was in fact meeting with Judge Young and Northmont this week to discuss the settlement details. Several posts have referred to the fact that Judge Young was reviewing costs and interest for our settlement and was to meet with lawyers from both sides. I was suspicious since we hadn't heard anything from MG, so I emailed him this morning to ask. Response below:
> 
> The “grapevine” is replete with falsehoods which I caution all my clients against putting any stock in. We are not scheduled to meet with or discussion the Settlement Agreement with Judge Young or Justice Branch. They will be informed by us regarding the settlement of the claims on behalf of those who are party to it to ensure these courts know what has happened. That will be in due course.
> 
> Please ensure you have reviewed the Settlement Documents in full to ensure you return what is required to secure your full and final release under this Settlement Agreement. Please also ensure all communications are in reply to an email from our office. As we have indicated throughout, our communications are confidential and not to be reproduced without the permission of the writer.


As I and others have said many times, including many times to MG - to avoid the "grapevine" being replete with falsehoods - rather than cautioning your clients maybe send out an update informing ALL of your clients of what the truths are rather than waste valuable resources responding to individual emails and phone calls.  In other words put it in writing in simple terms that are easily understood and provide whatever documents you have to confirm what you are saying.


----------



## MarcieL

Floyd55 said:


> Hate to be the bearer of bad news again.....but I just got this reply from MG in response to my email to him earlier today asking if he was in fact meeting with Judge Young and Northmont this week to discuss the settlement details. Several posts have referred to the fact that Judge Young was reviewing costs and interest for our settlement and was to meet with lawyers from both sides. I was suspicious since we hadn't heard anything from MG, so I emailed him this morning to ask. Response below:
> 
> The “grapevine” is replete with falsehoods which I caution all my clients against putting any stock in. We are not scheduled to meet with or discussion the Settlement Agreement with Judge Young or Justice Branch. They will be informed by us regarding the settlement of the claims on behalf of those who are party to it to ensure these courts know what has happened. That will be in due course.
> 
> Please ensure you have reviewed the Settlement Documents in full to ensure you return what is required to secure your full and final release under this Settlement Agreement. Please also ensure all communications are in reply to an email from our office. As we have indicated throughout, our communications are confidential and not to be reproduced without the permission of the writer.



Just as I assumed Floyd55.


----------



## LilMaggie

Floyd55 said:


> Hate to be the bearer of bad news again.....but I just got this reply from MG in response to my email to him earlier today asking if he was in fact meeting with Judge Young and Northmont this week to discuss the settlement details. Several posts have referred to the fact that Judge Young was reviewing costs and interest for our settlement and was to meet with lawyers from both sides. I was suspicious since we hadn't heard anything from MG, so I emailed him this morning to ask. Response below:
> 
> The “grapevine” is replete with falsehoods which I caution all my clients against putting any stock in. We are not scheduled to meet with or discussion the Settlement Agreement with Judge Young or Justice Branch. They will be informed by us regarding the settlement of the claims on behalf of those who are party to it to ensure these courts know what has happened. That will be in due course.
> 
> Please ensure you have reviewed the Settlement Documents in full to ensure you return what is required to secure your full and final release under this Settlement Agreement. Please also ensure all communications are in reply to an email from our office. As we have indicated throughout, our communications are confidential and not to be reproduced without the permission of the writer.


Oooops...guess you reproduced this communication without the writer's permission


----------



## LilMaggie

MarcieL said:


> We are in the process of getting out of Panorama resort up the road from Fairmont, only because due to health issues we are not using it.  It actually has a board and volunteers that assist, very well run, cost to leave is around 3 grand.


Sorry about your health issues, but that is great that there are TS companies that have boards and HOAs and are reasonable about relinquishing the lease!  I hope you have an easy time getting out of Panorama.


----------



## Appauled

SAV said:


> I have read all these postings over the past days. And am new to the forum. I too have been assesses $42K and as all of you am totally surprised by this outcome.  As someone said previously this seemed like such an unbelievable situation that i paid for a timeshare in 1994 (can't quite remember when) then the place goes into bankruptcy (presumably all of my entitlement for the time i paid for is gone) and then i assumed that would b e the end of it...i would just loose my investment. But then it gets bought out of bankruptcy and then they are asking me to pay to release myself...just seemed like an illegal ask. Then this reno fee...I own a timeshare not an interest in this property so how can they ask me to pay for the renovation fees...im thinking cmon that is impossible. All through this time I'm thinking this has just got to go away soon cuz someone will challenge North mount in some lower court to show how crazy this situation is and our legal system and "timeshare law" would protect consumers from this sort of injustice. But to my surprise this actually keeps going. Well OK then the legal battle starts...all of us hire Gilbert and then I'm thinking OK this will soon be over. Then all the years go by and Northmount actually wins this thing in our Canadian court system. Wow they must have good lawyers. OK well then I thought I will be charged the $8000 fee that was assessed to be in 2013 and that would be the end of it.  Which is completely unfair but well thats how legal battles go sometimes (I've been involved with many over my business career and you just never know how it can go). But then they actually are able to charge for the fees every year (of a time i was prohibited from using jousting this time) and then charged 27% compounded interested for it all. It just seemed so wrong on so many levels and so illegal on so many levels that this actually can't be happening to us in this country. (i get this if it was Mexico or something)
> 
> I live in Calgary and my guess is that there are many of us who live here as well. I would like to suggest that we get together in person next week Tuesday evening to further discuss this and to see if there may be some solutions we can still pursue. I read with interest the appeal that has been started. The letters people have been writing to the Judge. The consumer affairs possibility. The RCMP angle. Anyway i think we should just get ourselves organized and see there is something we can do.
> 
> I am willing to pay for and book a room at the Carriage House in Calgary this coming Tuesday at 7:00. Lets get the word out to as many people as we can on this forum, twitter and Facebook. Let Danielle from the talk show know we are getting together so she can get the word out.  Lets get the news channels know we are getting together. I don't have access to all of these things (twitter Facebook etc) so can you all help to get this moving forward. I would also be willing to reach out to some legal firms to see if someone can help us well.  I have some experience in litigation and may be able to bring someone forward (or if anyone has any suggestions for legal firms)
> 
> If i get enough positive response i will confirm the meeting room. Let me know what you all think. Others from BC or Edmonton could come as well. Lets get as many people involved as possible.
> 
> I don't have huge time as i have my own business to run so any help would  be great. This needs a lot of urgency as we are running very thin on time.



I am willing to meet and bring a friend who also has a Fairmont Timeshare, if there is enough response and there is some course of action we can all figure out.


----------



## LilMaggie

I look forward to hearing what Danielle Smiths guest has to say tomorrow.  Please tune in to AM770 in the AM and continue to text and email her with information about our situation.  She is keeping this in the media and I certainly appreciate her efforts.


----------



## Floyd55

I'm confused that MG is saying no meeting going on with him and Judge Young and yet there have been posts here indicating that someone in Judge Young's office said they were meeting this week! How are we getting such erroneous info being shared on this site? Is Judge Young reviewing costs and interest fees in our proposed settlement or isn't she? Does anyone really know this for sure? I know that a lot of letters have been faxed to her office, including one from me. Anyone?


----------



## wagga2650

Tanny13 said:


> I believe Judge Young will be reviewing the submission for costs and interest only for those who did not settle. The settlement amount will not change as it has been "agreed to" by both sides.


I don't think any of us agreed to anything.We were supposed to see the agreement first then decide.MG decide for us and screwed us all.


----------



## Punter

Velo said:


> talked a lot but never actually answered anything he was asked, he sounded like a timeshare salesman.


Or our lawyer....


----------



## Scammed!

Well that's all good that it was agreed upon by both sides (two men with the same interest)......but they just forgot the third party which is me. I never got to examine, or have any input into the so called settlement. How can that be legally valid? It's misrepresentation of my legal rights. I'm forced into a settlement which I never accepted or consented to.


----------



## KGB_527

SAV said:


> I have read all these postings over the past days. And am new to the forum. I too have been assesses $42K and as all of you am totally surprised by this outcome.  As someone said previously this seemed like such an unbelievable situation that i paid for a timeshare in 1994 (can't quite remember when) then the place goes into bankruptcy (presumably all of my entitlement for the time i paid for is gone) and then i assumed that would b e the end of it...i would just loose my investment. But then it gets bought out of bankruptcy and then they are asking me to pay to release myself...just seemed like an illegal ask. Then this reno fee...I own a timeshare not an interest in this property so how can they ask me to pay for the renovation fees...im thinking cmon that is impossible. All through this time I'm thinking this has just got to go away soon cuz someone will challenge North mount in some lower court to show how crazy this situation is and our legal system and "timeshare law" would protect consumers from this sort of injustice. But to my surprise this actually keeps going. Well OK then the legal battle starts...all of us hire Gilbert and then I'm thinking OK this will soon be over. Then all the years go by and Northmount actually wins this thing in our Canadian court system. Wow they must have good lawyers. OK well then I thought I will be charged the $8000 fee that was assessed to be in 2013 and that would be the end of it.  Which is completely unfair but well thats how legal battles go sometimes (I've been involved with many over my business career and you just never know how it can go). But then they actually are able to charge for the fees every year (of a time i was prohibited from using jousting this time) and then charged 27% compounded interested for it all. It just seemed so wrong on so many levels and so illegal on so many levels that this actually can't be happening to us in this country. (i get this if it was Mexico or something)
> 
> I live in Calgary and my guess is that there are many of us who live here as well. I would like to suggest that we get together in person next week Tuesday evening to further discuss this and to see if there may be some solutions we can still pursue. I read with interest the appeal that has been started. The letters people have been writing to the Judge. The consumer affairs possibility. The RCMP angle. Anyway i think we should just get ourselves organized and see there is something we can do.
> 
> I am willing to pay for and book a room at the Carriage House in Calgary this coming Tuesday at 7:00. Lets get the word out to as many people as we can on this forum, twitter and Facebook. Let Danielle from the talk show know we are getting together so she can get the word out.  Lets get the news channels know we are getting together. I don't have access to all of these things (twitter Facebook etc) so can you all help to get this moving forward. I would also be willing to reach out to some legal firms to see if someone can help us well.  I have some experience in litigation and may be able to bring someone forward (or if anyone has any suggestions for legal firms)
> 
> If i get enough positive response i will confirm the meeting room. Let me know what you all think. Others from BC or Edmonton could come as well. Lets get as many people involved as possible.
> 
> I don't have huge time as i have my own business to run so any help would  be great. This needs a lot of urgency as we are running very thin on time.



Yes, sign me in. Let us know exactly when/where. Thank you. If you can, just follow Danielle Smith tomorrow and phone in to let her know. She will spread the info about the meeting.


----------



## Tanny13

Scammed! said:


> Well that's all good that it was agreed upon by both sides (two men with the same interest)......but they just forgot the third party which is me. I never got to examine, or have any input into the so called settlement. How can that be legally valid? It's misrepresentation of my legal rights. I'm forced into a settlement which I never accepted or consented to. It's no different then being raped by ( two men with the same interest) and not giving my consent. Does that make it ok in this country?



Did you sign the settlement agreement?


----------



## Petus@18

Just Looking Around said:


> _"...legal and factual..."_ Sorry, you've been inconvenienced by the Geldert Group seeking a legal affirmation of their Lease Agreement. But this is Canada and while justice doesn't always prevail, we do retain the right to seek resolution of commercial disputes through the courts of law.
> 
> Northmont won their BC Court case because they were lucky. They couldn't have imagined that Michael Geldert would swing and miss at the capital cost / operating cost issue in court (Jeke, 262-265). Actually, He didn't even swing. He stood in the dugout watching, oblivious to what was of fundamental importance. Michael Geldert doesn't understand the _'inside baseball'_ of litigation. From the transcripts, it appears he failed even to notice the Judge pointing to where he should take his case. Failing to establish that the lease agreements restrict the expenses to be covered by Maintenance Fees to: repairs, maintenance and other 'operating costs' necessary to execute ONLY the annual operation of the property _(remember its a property, #*NAFR*)_ as validated by past operating practice was, in my opinion, complete incompetence. Not to mention failing to pursue other aspects of the CCAA, Northmont's disregard for Judge Loo's directions, and failing to establish how the RPF was not a commercially viable solution to Fairmont's problems.
> 
> When I bought in 1999, not a single Director of Fairmont, not a manager for Fairmont, not a sale person for Fairmont and certainly not a lessee imagined the contract would be interpreted to allow for lessees to pay for repairs and renovations that cost into the tens of millions and spanned multiple years to complete. Not a one.
> 
> What we have here is some Wonk, ignoring the cooperative spirit of the lease, parsed it down to fragments of clauses, seized upon and exploited the Lease's vague wording. All this came years after it was written and, despite years of operation wherein the cooperative spirit, two parties working toward a common goal, of the lease and the operation of the property (*#NAFR*) were aligned.
> 
> I'll tell you what is not factual. The whole darn thing. The statements of claim, from $20,000 to $100,00 payable to Northmont, are not compensating Northmont for money they could have earned. It's not compensating Northmont for money they were forced to spend. The statements are mostly interest charges. Some of that interest is based on a trumped-up estimate of work that in its entirety never was intended to be and will never be completed. Besides interest on a project that was never to be completed, there is the arbitrary exit fee. The actual Maintenance Fee is a small part. Northmont is getting their money for nothing.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Its a fact Northmont failed to do as they committed to do while negotiating under the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to establish a lessees association as they were instructed to and committed to doing while negotiating under the CCAA and, again by Judge Loo.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to pay their share of Maintenance Fees as directed by Judge Loney Loo. Not just for one year, but all years.
> 
> Know what else is factual? Most of this money will not go to the benefit of the property (*#NAFR*). That's right Judge Loo; it will only line the pockets of Developers. It will go to Wankel and Sunchaser in Barbados. I mean, _"IF NOT THEM THEN WHO?"_, am I right?
> 
> If Northmont were truly in the resort business they would drastically lower the statements of claim to levels that are reasonable and that people can afford to pay and, they would work to rebuilding the public's trust of and confidence in timeshare developers. The second they closed their sales department their motives were obvious. The second they charged people to leave their motives were obvious. Seriously, what is to be gained by a corporation (its just Wankel I know but a corporation nonetheless) invoicing people for amounts of money they know they will never collect anyway? Why? What is to be gained by ruining these lives? What kind of person wants this on their conscience? And, Judge Young, are you really going to let this gross misconduct, this gross abuse of the judicial system, to happen in your courtroom?
> 
> This is a final act. Wankel will go away and Northmont will go away. Having perpetrated this heinous injustice they do not have the moral Freedom to Choose to Stay. They have to leave the Columbia Valley, Western Canada, the entire Country most likely. This is a naked, unabashed covetous craven cash grab, that signals what's to come next for the TSWOWs. I can hear the call now: _"Hello this is Diamond Resorts." "Hello, this is Kirk Wankel, have I got a deal for you, ..."_
> 
> Unfortunately for all of us, TSWOW included, that appears _"legal and factual."_
> 
> #*NAFR*



I received this message today in reply to my message to the Honourable Paul Crampton
----
Good morning

Upon review of your correspondence, I do not consider it appropriate for the Office of the Chief Justice to intervene in this matter, which appears to relate to solicitor-client relations in the context of settlement discussions in a private civil matter (which would not be in the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in any event).  

In passing, I note that although you suggest that your lawyer has settled the case without your consent, the document that you provided me suggests that he is, in fact, seeking his clients’ consent for the proposed settlement. This is, I think, standard practice to settle a legal dispute (i.e., to get the consent of the parties). If you disagree with your counsel’s proposal, you may wish to attempt to resolve the matter with him directly, or possibly get independent legal advice on the proposed terms of settlement. That said, it is not possible for the Office of the Chief Justice to conduct a detailed review or provide legal advice on this matter.

Regards, Andrew

*Andrew Baumberg*
Legal Counsel / Conseiller juridique
Federal Court / Cour fédérale
(613) 947-3177
andrew.baumberg@fct-cf.gc.ca
------
I sent him another message making it clear how MG obtained everyone's signatures by concocting a document that will help him to cover his lies and unethical behavior.  I also provided him with more information about Northmont and Wankel's history of scams and that Justice Loo made a mistake in her ruling because of our "lawyer"'s incompetence.

I would like to invite you and everyone in this forum to send him a message as well, that way we will demonstrate that is not only 2 individuals venting but in fact, we are over one thousand people being affected.  Ask that your message be forwarded to The Honorable Paul Crampton. I hope you think this is worth doing.


----------



## Petus@18

Appauled said:


> I am willing to meet and bring a friend who also has a Fairmont Timeshare, if there is enough response and there is some course of action we can all figure out.



Could we join by phone?


----------



## Scammed!

Tanny13 said:


> Did you sign the settlement agreement?


No I have not signed the agreement yet.


----------



## Punter

KGB_527 said:


> .... follow Danielle Smith tomorrow and phone in to let her know. She will spread the info about the meeting.


Good advice. Call in to her show @ 403 974 8255.


----------



## fairmontlovers

Count me in for the meeting Tuesday night. I am looking forward to hearing what the lawyer has to say tomorrow on Danielle's show.

My bill for 1 Annual Gold and 1 Biennial Prime Golf is $35,000. Of note, I bought my Biennial Prime Golf in 2011 off of Ebay for the sum of $1.00. Used only once. Thinking, what have I got to lose?  Afterall, it is only a Leasehold Interest....  Had no idea of the place going into receivership or the forthcoming scheme by Northwynd.


----------



## CleoB

Scammed! said:


> Well that's all good that it was agreed upon by both sides (two men with the same interest)......but they just forgot the third party which is me. I never got to examine, or have any input into the so called settlement. How can that be legally valid? It's misrepresentation of my legal rights. I'm forced into a settlement which I never accepted or consented to. It's no different then being raped by ( two men with the same interest) and not giving my consent. Does that make it ok in this country?


Complain to the law society.


----------



## CleoB

LilMaggie said:


> My friend just called me to say that she believes that she successfully got out of her timeshare agreement with a resort company in Alberta.  She said that she called the TS company, explained how the timeshare was no longer of use to her and they sent her papers to sign and charged her $1000.00 to leave.  They even let her out just prior to having to pay her Jan 31st maintenance fees.  I hope that she is truly rid of her timeshare, and if she is, it becomes crystal clear what the motivation has been for Northmont all this time (I think we all get it by now).  It appears that a legitimate vacation company is willing to work with its clients. Hmmm...


Would your friend be willing to call into Danielle Smith show tomorrow and explain her situation?  It would sure let others know why Northmount is really in this.....money grab.


----------



## CleoB

Petus@18 said:


> I received this message today in reply to my message to the Honourable Paul Crampton
> ----
> Good morning
> 
> Upon review of your correspondence, I do not consider it appropriate for the Office of the Chief Justice to intervene in this matter, which appears to relate to solicitor-client relations in the context of settlement discussions in a private civil matter (which would not be in the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in any event).
> 
> In passing, I note that although you suggest that your lawyer has settled the case without your consent, the document that you provided me suggests that he is, in fact, seeking his clients’ consent for the proposed settlement. This is, I think, standard practice to settle a legal dispute (i.e., to get the consent of the parties). If you disagree with your counsel’s proposal, you may wish to attempt to resolve the matter with him directly, or possibly get independent legal advice on the proposed terms of settlement. That said, it is not possible for the Office of the Chief Justice to conduct a detailed review or provide legal advice on this matter.
> 
> Regards, Andrew
> 
> *Andrew Baumberg*
> Legal Counsel / Conseiller juridique
> Federal Court / Cour fédérale
> (613) 947-3177
> andrew.baumberg@fct-cf.gc.ca
> ------
> I sent him another message making it clear how MG obtained everyone's signatures by concocting a document that will help him to cover his lies and unethical behavior.  I also provided him with more information about Northmont and Wankel's history of scams and that Justice Loo made a mistake in her ruling because of our "lawyer"'s incompetence.
> 
> I would like to invite you and everyone in this forum to send him a message as well, that way we will demonstrate that is not only 2 individuals venting but in fact, we are over one thousand people being affected.  Ask that your message be forwarded to The Honorable Paul Crampton. I hope you think this is worth doing.


I don't know what your original letter was to Crampton but if you do reply again you should tell them that Canada is not protecting the timeshare consumers.  Provide them with these two links. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Hope-for-timeshare-victims...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Timeshare-horrors-fresh...

https://www.insidethegate.com/2018/...-alleged-elder-abuse-against-senior-citizens/


----------



## CleoB

Just a thought.  Instead of meeting you may want to consider staging a rally/demonstration at the Provincial Courthouse in Calgary.


----------



## DisgustedinWA

What would happen if all or some of the owners involved in this "settlement" decided to pay our statements in full and not opt out of the resort? Wouldn't that money (along with all the interest and fees paid by the others) have to go to the trustee to be put in the operating fund for the resort?  Then we organize these owners and get an attorney to advise us on how to form lessee's association. We would insist on an independent auditor to monitor the money we paid in. If we can get 51% of the lessees to agree, we could replace the lessor as the manager and trustee. Then we could improve the resort to a real 5 star resort and run it like a real time share. Any excess money we paid  for interest (after legal fees of course) could  be used to lower future maintenance fees. At least we'd be getting something for our money. Any thoughts? Time is of the essence of course.
 I asked MG this last night and he said what I am suggesting would have come together years ago if it were possible. The reality is that the vast majority of this group had one objective – to get out as inexpensively as possible. The majority have been pleading with his office for over a year to get that done? Obviously, we didn't think we would be working with these $ amounts. I'd like to know if this is legally possible. 
I appreciate your efforts as we haven't got anywhere to go down here.


----------



## F. Hugh Wankel

Hello folks,

we did hear back from Service Alberta - not sure what reviewing will entail?  The positive is that they are receiving a high volume of emails. I'd encourage everyone that has not already done so to contact Stephanie McLean's office.


"We are getting a high volume of emails and calls with regards to this topic. I am emailing you to let you know that we did receive your email and will be reviewing it soon.

Thank you for your email.

Sincerely,

Joelle Lyn
ARTS Coordinator for
Service Alberta & Status of Women
780-422-6880"


----------



## FairSun

MarcieL said:


> We are in the process of getting out of Panorama resort up the road from Fairmont, only because due to health issues we are not using it.  It actually has a board and volunteers that assist, very well run, cost to leave is around 3 grand.


I hope your health improves soon! Your resort at Panorama sounds well run. Five years ago we could have paid $3,000 to leave Sunchaser. However, back then that amount seemed atrocious, absolutely wrong and contrary to what our lease agreement stated. Oh to turn back time, knowing what we know today about the company and the character of the ruthless, conniving people behind it.


----------



## Hey lady

DisgustedinWA said:


> What would happen if all or some of the owners involved in this "settlement" decided to pay our statements in full and not opt out of the resort? Wouldn't that money (along with all the interest and fees paid by the others) have to go to the trustee to be put in the operating fund for the resort?  Then we organize these owners and get an attorney to advise us on how to form lessee's association. We would insist on an independent auditor to monitor the money we paid in. If we can get 51% of the lessees to agree, we could replace the lessor as the manager and trustee. Then we could improve the resort to a real 5 star resort and run it like a real time share. Any excess money we paid  for interest (after legal fees of course) could  be used to lower future maintenance fees. At least we'd be getting something for our money. Any thoughts? Time is of the essence of course.
> I asked MG this last night and he said what I am suggesting would have come together years ago if it were possible. The reality is that the vast majority of this group had one objective – to get out as inexpensively as possible. The majority have been pleading with his office for over a year to get that done? Obviously, we didn't think we would be working with these $ amounts. I'd like to know if this is legally possible.
> I appreciate your efforts as we haven't got anywhere to go down here.



I've thought of the same approach. I don't think that all timeshare people wanted out initially. Many expected clarification from the legal people so that people could make a decision.  About MG's statement that if this was possible it would have come together years ago is part of the same spin he's been giving us since day 1.


----------



## Petus@18

CleoB said:


> I don't know what your original letter was to Crampton but if you do reply again you should tell them that Canada is not protecting the timeshare consumers.  Provide them with these two links.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Hope-for-timeshare-victims...
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Timeshare-horrors-fresh...
> 
> https://www.insidethegate.com/2018/...-alleged-elder-abuse-against-senior-citizens/



My original letter was fine and I did sent a reply. My post was mainly to share the contact information so others in this forum can follow up with their own letters (if they wish) to demonstrate that there is no just 2 people showing the facts of this scam but in fact, this corrupted company and lawyer's malpractice have affected thousands of us. If you want you can send them the links. Thanks.


----------



## Bewildered

SAV said:


> I have read all these postings over the past days. And am new to the forum. I too have been assesses $42K and as all of you am totally surprised by this outcome.  As someone said previously this seemed like such an unbelievable situation that i paid for a timeshare in 1994 (can't quite remember when) then the place goes into bankruptcy (presumably all of my entitlement for the time i paid for is gone) and then i assumed that would b e the end of it...i would just loose my investment. But then it gets bought out of bankruptcy and then they are asking me to pay to release myself...just seemed like an illegal ask. Then this reno fee...I own a timeshare not an interest in this property so how can they ask me to pay for the renovation fees...im thinking cmon that is impossible. All through this time I'm thinking this has just got to go away soon cuz someone will challenge North mount in some lower court to show how crazy this situation is and our legal system and "timeshare law" would protect consumers from this sort of injustice. But to my surprise this actually keeps going. Well OK then the legal battle starts...all of us hire Gilbert and then I'm thinking OK this will soon be over. Then all the years go by and Northmount actually wins this thing in our Canadian court system. Wow they must have good lawyers. OK well then I thought I will be charged the $8000 fee that was assessed to be in 2013 and that would be the end of it.  Which is completely unfair but well thats how legal battles go sometimes (I've been involved with many over my business career and you just never know how it can go). But then they actually are able to charge for the fees every year (of a time i was prohibited from using jousting this time) and then charged 27% compounded interested for it all. It just seemed so wrong on so many levels and so illegal on so many levels that this actually can't be happening to us in this country. (i get this if it was Mexico or something)
> 
> I live in Calgary and my guess is that there are many of us who live here as well. I would like to suggest that we get together in person next week Tuesday evening to further discuss this and to see if there may be some solutions we can still pursue. I read with interest the appeal that has been started. The letters people have been writing to the Judge. The consumer affairs possibility. The RCMP angle. Anyway i think we should just get ourselves organized and see there is something we can do.
> 
> I am willing to pay for and book a room at the Carriage House in Calgary this coming Tuesday at 7:00. Lets get the word out to as many people as we can on this forum, twitter and Facebook. Let Danielle from the talk show know we are getting together so she can get the word out.  Lets get the news channels know we are getting together. I don't have access to all of these things (twitter Facebook etc) so can you all help to get this moving forward. I would also be willing to reach out to some legal firms to see if someone can help us well.  I have some experience in litigation and may be able to bring someone forward (or if anyone has any suggestions for legal firms)
> 
> If i get enough positive response i will confirm the meeting room. Let me know what you all think. Others from BC or Edmonton could come as well. Lets get as many people involved as possible.
> 
> I don't have huge time as i have my own business to run so any help would  be great. This needs a lot of urgency as we are running very thin on time.



If people would put their effort into making all the calls some of us have (Justice Minister, Service Alberta, AB and BC legal, etc,etc we would have 1000 calls and something would be done. I applaud your effort but you realize that you're going to have 200-300 people with the same problem all wanting to vent (because it feels good). People should be venting on the government and Judge Youngs office for leaving us in no mans land. Our US friends should be doing the same with the BC officials.
Unless you are looking to band together with new legal for a Hail Mary or have the media, the UCP Calgary representative or other MLAs, what will be accomplished?
I said from the beginning there is enough people probably in Edmonton alone to demonstrate at the legislature or maybe the Calgary courthouse if there is enough of you. Times a tickin


----------



## Bewildered

Hey lady said:


> I've thought of the same approach. I don't think that all timeshare people wanted out initially. Many expected clarification from the legal people so that people could make a decision.  About MG's statement that if this was possible it would have come together years ago is part of the same spin he's been giving us since day 1.



What would happen if a bunch of us got proper legal and proposed our own settlement to get out of this nightmare? Change my 26.8% to the legal 5.5% that Judge Young should have ruled on during all this litigation and I’d be out in a heartbeat. The Fairmont timeshare ship is sinking fast!


----------



## fairmontlovers

RIght from Kirk Wankels LinkedIn page:

"Envisioned, developed, and implemented an industry redefining business plan. Took over a floundering organization on the brink of receivership and turned the business around to generate a substantial recovery of investors funds. Created and implemented the legal strategy for the business plan including pro-actively taking the resort realignment plan to the Supreme Court of British Columbia."

I think it should read more like:

"Envisioned and developed a plan to take a previously known 5 star timeshare resort and allowing it to deteriorate to the point that unsuspecting timeshare lease holders would be required to foot the bill for capital improvements. For those in disagreement, give them an option to leave taking those funds back to the investors. Create a legal strategy for those electing to fight/disagree with this plan to drag the process through the courts for 4 years and then charge them a large exit fee and also charge almost criminal interest rate on maintenance fees. Causing great hardship, mental stress and financial ruin for thousands"


----------



## truthr

Here is the results of the survey we did


----------



## aden2

It is confusing what country we live in as I thought we have freedom to speech.


----------



## Petus@18

truthr said:


> Here is the results of the survey we did



I would like to ask what was the purpose for the survey?  What are your plans now (eg were the results obtained of any use that could help our case? would these results be incorporated in any way and into a plan that your secret group may be working on?)  Why was the need of having so many different groups when we all are in the same mess?
Thanks for sharing.


----------



## truthr

Petus@18 said:


> I would like to ask what was the purpose for the survey?  What are your plans now (eg were the results obtained of any use that could help our case? would these results be incorporated in any way and into a plan that your secret group may be working on?)  Why was the need of having so many different groups when we all are in the same mess?
> Thanks


The survey was available here on Tugbbs as well, not just for any FB group.
What are the plans?  No definitive ones yet, just did it to get a feel for what people are thinking/doing/feeling.
I did not do put it together just posting it for the one who did.


----------



## truthr

*REMINDER:*  Tune in tomorrow Friday January 19th at 11 am (MST/AB time) to the Danielle Smith Radio Show.


----------



## little frog

SAV said:


> I have read all these postings over the past days. And am new to the forum. I too have been assesses $42K and as all of you am totally surprised by this outcome.  As someone said previously this seemed like such an unbelievable situation that i paid for a timeshare in 1994 (can't quite remember when) then the place goes into bankruptcy (presumably all of my entitlement for the time i paid for is gone) and then i assumed that would b e the end of it...i would just loose my investment. But then it gets bought out of bankruptcy and then they are asking me to pay to release myself...just seemed like an illegal ask. Then this reno fee...I own a timeshare not an interest in this property so how can they ask me to pay for the renovation fees...im thinking cmon that is impossible. All through this time I'm thinking this has just got to go away soon cuz someone will challenge North mount in some lower court to show how crazy this situation is and our legal system and "timeshare law" would protect consumers from this sort of injustice. But to my surprise this actually keeps going. Well OK then the legal battle starts...all of us hire Gilbert and then I'm thinking OK this will soon be over. Then all the years go by and Northmount actually wins this thing in our Canadian court system. Wow they must have good lawyers. OK well then I thought I will be charged the $8000 fee that was assessed to be in 2013 and that would be the end of it.  Which is completely unfair but well thats how legal battles go sometimes (I've been involved with many over my business career and you just never know how it can go). But then they actually are able to charge for the fees every year (of a time i was prohibited from using jousting this time) and then charged 27% compounded interested for it all. It just seemed so wrong on so many levels and so illegal on so many levels that this actually can't be happening to us in this country. (i get this if it was Mexico or something)
> 
> I live in Calgary and my guess is that there are many of us who live here as well. I would like to suggest that we get together in person next week Tuesday evening to further discuss this and to see if there may be some solutions we can still pursue. I read with interest the appeal that has been started. The letters people have been writing to the Judge. The consumer affairs possibility. The RCMP angle. Anyway i think we should just get ourselves organized and see there is something we can do.
> 
> I am willing to pay for and book a room at the Carriage House in Calgary this coming Tuesday at 7:00. Lets get the word out to as many people as we can on this forum, twitter and Facebook. Let Danielle from the talk show know we are getting together so she can get the word out.  Lets get the news channels know we are getting together. I don't have access to all of these things (twitter Facebook etc) so can you all help to get this moving forward. I would also be willing to reach out to some legal firms to see if someone can help us well.  I have some experience in litigation and may be able to bring someone forward (or if anyone has any suggestions for legal firms)
> 
> If i get enough positive response i will confirm the meeting room. Let me know what you all think. Others from BC or Edmonton could come as well. Lets get as many people involved as possible.
> 
> I don't have huge time as i have my own business to run so any help would  be great. This needs a lot of urgency as we are running very thin on time.



My husband and I are on board with your suggestion but we need everyone to bring credentials to keep this meeting private from Wankel et al. Suggestion - bring photo ID plus a copy of your 2018 fee statement that was attached to the Geldert email on 18 January. I will send you a note in conversations to volunteer for screening at the door.


----------



## Wankel=crook

CleoB said:


> Just a thought.  Instead of meeting you may want to consider staging a rally/demonstration at the Provincial Courthouse in Calgary.


I tried to set up a rally not much interest


----------



## Wankel=crook

little frog said:


> My husband and I are on board with your suggestion but we need everyone to bring credentials to keep this meeting private from Wankel et al. Suggestion - bring photo ID plus a copy of your 2018 fee statement that was attached to the Geldert email on 18 January. I will send you a note in conversations to volunteer for screening at the door.


I'm in


----------



## tuguser_14

little frog said:


> My husband and I are on board with your suggestion but we need everyone to bring credentials to keep this meeting private from Wankel et al. Suggestion - bring photo ID plus a copy of your 2018 fee statement that was attached to the Geldert email on 18 January. I will send you a note in conversations to volunteer for screening at the door.


----------



## #deceived

KGB_527 said:


> Yes, sign me in. Let us know exactly when/where. Thank you. If you can, just follow Danielle Smith tomorrow and phone in to let her know. She will spread the info about the
> 
> 
> Can’t make the meeting but applaud your idea(s). We have to all align!


----------



## wagga2650

All I can say Is Wankel you have paper thin skin.If you cant take whats being said on this forum run away.You have screwed so many lives up and now you say we are being complicit, whatever that means.Trying to bully us around again through your lawyer.Why don't you just set up a town hall and face the people you have robbed?


----------



## Inquiringmind

Punter said:


> [


 In the decision of Judge Young dated October 11, 2017 page 25 conclusion paragraph 89 it states the plaintiff is entitled  to costs of this application and if the parties cannot agree on those costs, then they can be spoken to when the parties appear before me with respect to the other issues. The clerk of the court will not be preparing certificates of judgement until the outstanding issues have been resolved. 

 Are the outstanding issues resolved.? If they are not then why are we being asked to sign off and pay at this point?


----------



## MarcieL

Inquiringmind said:


> In the decision of Judge Young dated October 11, 2017 page 25 conclusion paragraph 89 it states the plaintiff is entitled  to costs of this application and if the parties cannot agree on those costs, then they can be spoken to when the parties appear before me with respect to the other issues. The clerk of the court will not be preparing certificates of judgement until the outstanding issues have been resolved.
> 
> Are the outstanding issues resolved.? If they are not then why are we being asked to sign off and pay at this point?



The way I understand it, those that signed off on a settlement are done, negotiations are finished.  The settlement has nothing to do with interest rates.


----------



## wagga2650

MarcieL said:


> The way I understand it, those that signed off on a settlement are done, negotiations are finished.  The settlement has nothing to do with interest rates.


The problem with saying we signed off is that we signed off before the negotiations started.The only reason most of us signed option 1 was on the agreement we got to see the settlement before agreeing.


----------



## Inquiringmind

MarcieL said:


> The way I understand it, those that signed off on a settlement are done, negotiations are finished.  The settlement has nothing to do with interest rates.


 With all due respect, can you post a copy of the certificate of judgement on this case P1 4 9 030-4333?


wagga2650 said:


> The problem with saying we signed off is that we signed off before the negotiations started.The only reason most of us signed option 1 was on the agreement we got to see the settlement before agreeing.


Show me a copy of the certificate of judgementOn Northmont versus Reid case number P1490304333


----------



## Spark1

Punter  use page 96 and you will find what you are looking for.


----------



## Scammed!

MarcieL said:


> The way I understand it, those that signed off on a settlement are done, negotiations are finished.  The settlement has nothing to do with interest rates.




If that is the case we need a lawyer. This needs to be brought up today on Danielle Smith as there is a large portion of people in this category and they need to be properly informed of their options.


----------



## MarcieL

Don't shoot the messenger.  I am relating what myself and many have been told by lawyers.  The settlement was based on our invoice plus 20% this was an exit method they chose.  They could've just picked another method out of the air!  I totally agree, we as well as many, signed option 1 due to the specification, we would view the agreement after negotiation, did not happen.


----------



## MarcieL

Pose this question to teh lawyer on Danielle's show today.  I will not be able to listen to the show, report back please.


----------



## FairSun

Inquiringmind said:


> In the decision of Judge Young dated October 11, 2017 page 25 conclusion paragraph 89 it states the plaintiff is entitled  to costs of this application and if the parties cannot agree on those costs, then they can be spoken to when the parties appear before me with respect to the other issues. The clerk of the court will not be preparing certificates of judgement until the outstanding issues have been resolved.
> 
> Are the outstanding issues resolved.? If they are not then why are we being asked to sign off and pay at this point?


I'm no lawyer, but what I understand is that with the settlement agreement, once the conditions of that settlement are completed, NM agrees not to pursue the judgment against that person(s) holding the lease agreement. The lawyers for the two sides would inform the court they have agreed to terms on costs and interest and the case is closed. If you don't agree to settle outside of court, I think NM will seek the costs and interest the same as in the settlement agreement. If the individual successfully disputes those terms and the contract allows 5% annual interest, then NM has stated they will also claim a cancellation fee (potentially $16,000), the 2018 maintenance fee and interest to that date. 
I calculated our bill to Dec. 31, 2017 using compound interest of 5% and our total savings would be $16,049.55. Hmmm, plus $16,000 cancellation fee? Plus 2018 fees and fees of a new lawyer, never mind the never-ending grief.  Every way we have looked at this, we just don't see a way to lower our out-of-pocket payout now with those court decisions favouring NM's interpretation of our contract.


----------



## Scammed!

I guess my question is was the settlement completed legally if we didn't see it, and we're informed we would?


----------



## Tanny13

FairSun said:


> I'm no lawyer, but what I understand is that with the settlement agreement, once the conditions of that settlement are completed, NM agrees not to pursue the judgment against that person(s) holding the lease agreement. The lawyers for the two sides would inform the court they have agreed to terms on costs and interest and the case is closed. If you don't agree to settle outside of court, I think NM will seek the costs and interest the same as in the settlement agreement. If the individual successfully disputes those terms and the contract allows 5% annual interest, then NM has stated they will also claim a cancellation fee (potentially $16,000), the 2018 maintenance fee and interest to that date.
> I calculated our bill to Dec. 31, 2017 using compound interest of 5% and our total savings would be $16,049.55. Hmmm, plus $16,000 cancellation fee? Plus 2018 fees and fees of a new lawyer, never mind the never-ending grief.  Every way we have looked at this, we just don't see a way to lower our out-of-pocket payout now with those court decisions favouring NM's interpretation of our contract.



The hearing for cost and interest is only for those who are NOT in the settlement.  I believe most of those are taking their chances and staying on with the resort, and fighting.  Perhaps we will end up paying less, perhaps not.  The settlement agreement will not change based on Judge Young's decision regarding interest and costs.  The amount in your settlement is what you owe, and must be paid by the due date, or Northmont has a judgement against you for an even higher amount (162%).  Unfortunately, that's the case if you signed the settlement agreement.


----------



## Bewildered

Tanny13 said:


> The hearing for cost and interest is only for those who are NOT in the settlement.  I believe most of those are taking their chances and staying on with the resort, and fighting.  Perhaps we will end up paying less, perhaps not.  The settlement agreement will not change based on Judge Young's decision regarding interest and costs.  The amount in your settlement is what you owe, and must be paid by the due date, or Northmont has a judgement against you for an even higher amount (162%).  Unfortunately, that's the case if you signed the settlement agreement.


Where are you getting this from?? Like everything MG spouts off, these are just numbers he has been threatened with by NM there is no judgement for the 162%. And I take objection to you assuming that people that checked Option 1 which by the way is all based on 26.8% interest plus the 20% tip MG famously negotiated, feel that is in any way binding if Judge Young decided tomorrow or next week that interest is 5.5%. I would be telling MG to stick it in one call. Your confusing settlements with judgements. The fact is the damn judge never ruled on interest.


----------



## Tanny13

Bewildered said:


> Where are you getting this from?? Like everything MG spouts off, these are just numbers he has been threatened with by NM there is no judgement for the 162%. And I take objection to you assuming that people that checked Option 1 which by the way is all based on 26.8% interest plus the 20% tip MG famously negotiated, feel that is in any way binding if Judge Young decided tomorrow or next week that interest is 5.5%. I would be telling MG to stick it in one call. Your confusing settlements with judgements. The fact is the damn judge never ruled on interest.



Read the settlement agreement - 162% is in there.  There is no ruling on interest or costs if you’ve agreed to the settlement.  Just the Messenger...


----------



## MgolferL

SAV said:


> I have read all these postings over the past days. And am new to the forum. I too have been assesses $42K and as all of you am totally surprised by this outcome.  As someone said previously this seemed like such an unbelievable situation that i paid for a timeshare in 1994 (can't quite remember when) then the place goes into bankruptcy (presumably all of my entitlement for the time i paid for is gone) and then i assumed that would b e the end of it...i would just loose my investment. But then it gets bought out of bankruptcy and then they are asking me to pay to release myself...just seemed like an illegal ask. Then this reno fee...I own a timeshare not an interest in this property so how can they ask me to pay for the renovation fees...im thinking cmon that is impossible. All through this time I'm thinking this has just got to go away soon cuz someone will challenge North mount in some lower court to show how crazy this situation is and our legal system and "timeshare law" would protect consumers from this sort of injustice. But to my surprise this actually keeps going. Well OK then the legal battle starts...all of us hire Gilbert and then I'm thinking OK this will soon be over. Then all the years go by and Northmount actually wins this thing in our Canadian court system. Wow they must have good lawyers. OK well then I thought I will be charged the $8000 fee that was assessed to be in 2013 and that would be the end of it.  Which is completely unfair but well thats how legal battles go sometimes (I've been involved with many over my business career and you just never know how it can go). But then they actually are able to charge for the fees every year (of a time i was prohibited from using jousting this time) and then charged 27% compounded interested for it all. It just seemed so wrong on so many levels and so illegal on so many levels that this actually can't be happening to us in this country. (i get this if it was Mexico or something)
> 
> I live in Calgary and my guess is that there are many of us who live here as well. I would like to suggest that we get together in person next week Tuesday evening to further discuss this and to see if there may be some solutions we can still pursue. I read with interest the appeal that has been started. The letters people have been writing to the Judge. The consumer affairs possibility. The RCMP angle. Anyway i think we should just get ourselves organized and see there is something we can do.
> 
> I am willing to pay for and book a room at the Carriage House in Calgary this coming Tuesday at 7:00. Lets get the word out to as many people as we can on this forum, twitter and Facebook. Let Danielle from the talk show know we are getting together so she can get the word out.  Lets get the news channels know we are getting together. I don't have access to all of these things (twitter Facebook etc) so can you all help to get this moving forward. I would also be willing to reach out to some legal firms to see if someone can help us well.  I have some experience in litigation and may be able to bring someone forward (or if anyone has any suggestions for legal firms)
> 
> If i get enough positive response i will confirm the meeting room. Let me know what you all think. Others from BC or Edmonton could come as well. Lets get as many people involved as possible.
> 
> I don't have huge time as i have my own business to run so any help would  be great. This needs a lot of urgency as we are running very thin on time.



A few points:
1. I am scheduled to be in Edmonton on Tuesday night as I am giving a talk to an industry Association on Wednesday. I can't cancel the hotel room (just checked) but could drive up after the meeting, so let me know.
2. Agree that ID and statements would have to be presented. Bear in mind though a statement can be counterfeited, so one would need to go off MG's list to see if the person actually had an account.
3. I'm not sure I have agreed to anything UNTIL the sign the papers and send them in. We also ONLY selected Option 1, because we were supposed to see what was negotiated and then approve it. In no way did we approve for MG to give the farm away.
4. He was correct in someone's statement that we didn't organize years ago to take over the resort. That was because... IF EVERYONE... remembers he said we would get out cheap and prevent them from levying costs for the next unknown years. Many of us wanted to stay, but as the future was completely unknown AND undefined it was too risky. Appears this was as well.

 I for one would be prepared to stay at the resort and make life hell for KW and staff. I have been asked a couple of times to sit on the Association Board for our TS in CA, but not into the commitment AND it is being run exceptionally well. I would though commit to this one. If we had a decent number of very committed people, it could work. We may never be able to pull this "resort" totally out, but it likely could be turned into a viable vacation spot. From the inside, all sorts of interesting things could transpire...audits, job descriptions, buyouts, etc. could actually be a lot of fun.


----------



## Tanny13

MgolferL said:


> A few points:
> 1. I am scheduled to be in Edmonton on Tuesday night as I am giving a talk to an industry Association on Wednesday. I can't cancel the hotel room (just checked) but could drive up after the meeting, so let me know.
> 2. Agree that ID and statements would have to be presented. Bear in mind though a statement can be counterfeited, so one would need to go off MG's list to see if the person actually had an account.
> 3. I'm not sure I have agreed to anything UNTIL the sign the papers and send them in. We also ONLY selected Option 1, because we were supposed to see what was negotiated and then approve it. In no way did we approve for MG to give the farm away.
> 4. He was correct in someone's statement that we didn't organize years ago to take over the resort. That was because... IF EVERYONE... remembers he said we would get out cheap and prevent them from levying costs for the next unknown years. Many of us wanted to stay, but as the future was completely unknown AND undefined it was too risky. Appears this was as well.
> 
> I for one would be prepared to stay at the resort and make life hell for KW and staff. I have been asked a couple of times to sit on the Association Board for our TS in CA, but not into the commitment AND it is being run exceptionally well. I would though commit to this one. If we had a decent number of very committed people, it could work. We may never be able to pull this "resort" totally out, but it likely could be turned into a viable vacation spot. From the inside, all sorts of interesting things could transpire...audits, job descriptions, buyouts, etc. could actually be a lot of fun.



Let’s do it..


----------



## FairSun

Tanny13 said:


> Read the settlement agreement - 162% is in there.  There is no ruling on interest or costs if you’ve agreed to the settlement.  Just the Messenger...


The "Minutes of Settlement" at point 14 states: "Should any of the Geldert Group Owners, excluding the Deferred Geldert Group Owners, fail to pay by February 28, 2018, Northmont may enter and enforce the executed consent judgment as against that Geldert Group Owner, without further notice."


----------



## FairSun

Tanny13 said:


> Read the settlement agreement - 162% is in there.  There is no ruling on interest or costs if you’ve agreed to the settlement.  Just the Messenger...


Also, in the "Minutes of Settlement" point 8 states: "The Geldert Group Owners shall each consent to judgment in the amount of 162% of the Current Statements, plus contractual interest from November 30, 2017, as set out in each individual Geldert Group Owners' Vacation Interval Agreement."


----------



## truthr

FairSun said:


> Also, in the "Minutes of Settlement" point 8 states: "The Geldert Group Owners shall each consent to judgment in the amount of 162% of the Current Statements, plus contractual interest from November 30, 2017, as set out in each individual Geldert Group Owners' Vacation Interval Agreement."


Are they ACTUAL minutes?  Recorded by a neutral third party?  Or simply a synopsis of what they WANT you to know?
Considering the amount of money involved there should have been much more transparency, 3 arbitrators (1 for them, 1 for us, 1 neutral), members of the litigation group who ACTUALLY knew what was going on, attorneys for both sides, etc., etc.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

*Is our Council being extorted (manipulated) somehow to throw us under the bus??*

If you have information you think would be helpful and want it brought forward but don’t know how send me an email (anonymously if you like) and we can figure it out.  back123@shaw.ca


Back in 2013 a group of about 4000 started out to contest Northmont plan to levy a special assessment, which also allowed Northmont to receive their 15% management fee, to pay for extensive upgrades to the tune of $40,000,000 for all of the older Fairmont buildings in Fairmont using the Poly B issue as their primary catalyst to initiate this upgrade which actually doesn’t affect all of the Fairmont structures.

*This brought our group together but as we have moved along Counsel has a conscientious effort to keep us segregated – why is this and why is it such a threat to Counsel to keep us together?*

A lot of money was spent and work went into preparation of the trial but key evidence related to structural content and an accounting analysis were dropped and Counsel instead “threw the kitchen sink at the Judge to see what would stick” during the trial instead of presenting the facts and work done by the various committees involved in helping Jim Belfry and Counsel prepare for trial.

One thing that has always resonated with me is I questioned why a real financial audit was never done and I was told because of cost being a couple of hundred thousand dollars at the time but with say 1,600 people paying into the fund this only worked out to $125ea. and if it was so critical that was a pretty cheap investment.

Fast forward to today, we actually don’t know the real number of the group left and it could still be as high as 1600 members as it has recently been severely fractured in a course of action taken by council that started at the end of October after the latest trial loss and our council finally felt it was time to enter into negotiations with Northmont at the direction of Judge Young which no one denied was the right thing to do.

We don’t know why but our council fast-tracked an extremely prejudicial settlement agreement that is allowing Northmont to punitively capitalize on the group or forced members to leave and face Northmont on their own head on.

*We continue to receive useless advice along with messages not to discuss amongst ourselves and when we ask questions we are not getting answers from Council just BS and threats we are being watched – why are we not being provided proper advice and what is being hid?*

Negotiations on our side were not entered into in good faith and our council decided our fate without consent. This is why we are fighting as our right to decide was taken from us and other remedies as instructed by Judge Young were not followed so the clock is ticking down quickly for us to get help.


*How was false consent obtained, let me explain to people who may not know,*
In October a document was sent out called the SIF (Sunchaser Instructions Form) by our Counsel requesting an update on contact info and our consent to enter into negotiations with Northmont which was one of Northmonts conditions due to be handed in by November 10th to Counsel.

Our Counsel grievously is misrepresenting this SIF document as our individual consent and alone signed what appears to be a binding prejudicial negotiation settlement agreement with Northmont executed on December 14th.

Now Counsel did gave an option for people to opt out of negotiated settlement agreement up to December 29 and if they did not they would be bond to the terms of the executed agreement.

Fair enough it appears people had 15 days to make their decision – well no, the terms of the negotiated settlement agreement were only presented to the group members on January 10th so how can anyone have made a decision to consent or leave without knowing any facts?

The negotiated settlement agreement document itself is so well crafted it is a work of legal and suppressive art that goes far beyond your typical gag type agreement typically engaged in when people settle a dispute. It is far above beyond the capacity of the work our Counsel could have produced but Counsel too is protected by law and any legislation means if found Counsel itself has made a mistake.

The fate of our splintered group is being decided as we speak first to the tune of about 1300 people having to pay approximately $45,000,000 by mid February to be released and if they don’t our council allowed a further penalty to be applied to a judgement that goes into effect immediately.

The other part of our splintered group is in a much more vulnerable position as council has already initiated steps at the beginning of December for people to fend for themselves without following proper court procedures so many are being left exposed.

People from the both groups have been very active and we believe council is now in self-preservation mode and desperately trying to backtrack and initiate damage control to give the impression things have been done correctly for the smaller group but dates on filings and emails show how disastrously they dropped the ball for these individuals and continue to do so.  Documents being provided are not being sent out with court seals – what is real or not?

Much irreparable damage has already occurred as a result of councils actions and they also forfeited key negotiation factors by abandoning costly Petitions on December 15th that Northmont required to move their plan forward to realign the Fairmont properties and contest the single contract all lease holders have been grouped under even though 8 or 9 different contracts actually exist.


----------



## Bewildered

Wow what a complete moron that lawyer was on Danielle Smith show, doesn’t know whether NM should have to pay maintenance and RFP costs on units they have stolen back???. And judgement on interest? What judgement, Judge Youngs judgement recommending everyone play nice and come to a reasonable   agreement, yeah still at the reasonable 26.8%!
Come on Judge let’s hear some news on what your supposedly pondering!!
Now if people aren’t getting the message that everyone of the 1300 MG clients and all the rest of you don’t think that gov. officials and the courts have some responsibility to close the loop on this, then I guess continuing to call them is a waste. Personally, with very few options I think now is the time for all you sitting on the fence to make those calls because Judge Young, Service Alberta and the Justice Minister are our last chance.


----------



## Tacoma

Ironic that the only one that gets this is Danielle Smith and for many years I was not a fan. I have very much changed my tune she is intelligent and willing to tackle the tough issues. I too was not impressed by the lawyer talked a bit like a politician not easy to follow his point. However still very good of him to attempt to understand this train wreck.


----------



## truthr

Over the years we have been instructed by MG to not talk amongst ourselves because there were spies.  The latest correspondence that some of us have received from MG is attempting to reinforce that.

So just so we all understand.
It is okay for NM to extort money from us and threaten us with the assistance of our lawyer but it is not okay for us to talk about it.
There is a word for that - bullying.
And to add insult to injury our lawyer not only goes along with this rather than stand up to the bully, he endorses this behaviour - now who is complicit in what?

Have I got this right?? If not could someone please enlighten me.


----------



## NotImpressed

Does anyone know for sure if Hillside has been sold and if so when? Was it really sold for 11 million dollars? How could that happen if they never had permission from the courts to downsize or realign? If it is sold and we own weeks at Hillside, where is my portion from this sale? This amount would be way more then what they think i owe them.


----------



## KGB_527

OMG!!! This lawyer on Danielle's show. Was he stoned, or what? Maybe he was just avoiding real answer, because he wants people to give him a call and setup personal session for $500-$1000 dollars a pop. This was just total waste of time with him on the air. However, I still think Danielle is / was the only one so far to give us time and exposure of our problems.

Where are our government officials, MP's, MLA's, Justice Minister, Consumer Protection??? They are all numb, and silent. When they have a real problem to solve, not some dreamt crap (climate change) where are they???
What are we paying them for? We DO NOT need a sympathy, we need SOLUTION!!!
Why are there so many of them? When we need someone to step up to the plate and show some leadership in tackling the difficult issues there is NO ONE, JUST NO ONE willing and able to stick his  / her head out??? Why are we as taxpayers wasting so much money on so many useless dimwits? We could save the money by slashing this bureaucratic crap in half and that would still be generous. I just needed to vent out of desperation. Enough......


----------



## Appauled

I found a Law firm in Calgary with a Lawyer that has Sunchaser clients that never joined the MG Group.
Unfortunately they can NOT take clients that have used MG!!!!


----------



## Appauled

Appauled said:


> I found a Law firm in Calgary with a Lawyer that has Sunchaser clients that never joined the MG Group.
> Unfortunately they can only take clients that have used MG!!!!


SORRY TYPO!!!
Unfortunately they can NOT take clients that have used MG!!!!


----------



## LilMaggie

Appauled said:


> I found a Law firm in Calgary with a Lawyer that has Sunchaser clients that never joined the MG Group.
> Unfortunately they can only take clients that have used MG!!!!


I wonder what that group is being told.


----------



## truthr

Appauled said:


> SORRY TYPO!!!
> Unfortunately they can NOT take clients that have used MG!!!!


You can edit your original post, Look for the blue edit to the right of your name and the time you posted right under your last post, click it and make your changes to your post.


----------



## LilMaggie

Appauled said:


> SORRY TYPO!!!
> Unfortunately they can NOT take clients that have used MG!!!!


No worries.  We knew what you meant.  We are left out in the cold.


----------



## Appauled

truthr said:


> You can edit your original post, Look for the blue edit to the right of your name and the time you posted right under your last post, click it and make your changes to your post.


Thanks


----------



## Petus@18

Did you receive the letter from the Strathcona Group? It looks like much of the fault to make matters worst for us (besides our "lawyer's incompetence) was the assistance of John Alexander from Cox Taylor.  During a case conference that preceded the JEKE trial, with the Alberta and BC Judges, he indicated that Cox Taylor did not intend to raise defences individual to each VIA owner.  This statement has now been relied upon by judge Branch and judge Young in their decisions relating to the Golberg in BC case and Reid in Alberta, to dismiss the amended defences that were filed on our behalf by their office. The judge in BC expressed that our amended defences were "too little, too late" so the BC action was quashed.

There are no meetings scheduled with judge Young, The settlement obtained by Geldert with "our consent" has only left the judge's decision of cost and interest.  The appeal to the Reid case is still open but it looks like in light of previous decisions made in this case, it is unlikely that the court of Queen's Bench will overturn these decisions. We could proceed with the appeal but unless God is representing us, I don't see how can we win this appeal.  We are pretty much on our own.  This firm offered a 30 min individual consultations for a retainer of 250.00


----------



## tuguser_14

\


----------



## CorruptionExtortion

We owned our Fairmont timeshare for 20 years.  We exchanged it around the world for amazing vacations we otherwise would not have been able to enjoy with our family.  Disney World, Phoenix, Mexico, Scottland, Portugal, Spain, Zanzibar, Big Island of Hawaii, Maui, Kauai, and others, so fortunately we were able to find great value in our ownership even with increased maintenance fees.  I am appalled with the Northwynd takeover and the pride Kirk Wankel has taken on his linked in page with what he considers a successful business turn around for his investors.  This is a multi-million dollar extortion that is not a business model to be proud of.  He has done it before and will continue to do this.  I have no answers only thoughts in hindsight on this matter.

Attatched below is a link I found that summarizes our Court Cases.  Perhaps some GL clients have read through it before.  If you are able to take the time to read it through to the end, it does answer many of the questions I had and provides clarity as to why we lost judgement.  While it doesn't allow for much in terms of recourse, it is a clear indication of what was given up and when.

I was not in favour of the JEKE test case.  While I was concerned about the resort alignment fee to stay or to go for $3,000.00, I wanted to walk away from my contract signed in 1994.  I believed in contract law and my contract stated we could simply relenquish our unit at no charge and after 3 months of non-payment of maintence our unit would belong to Fairmont. I have met a couple of people that hired contract lawyers in Alberta and negotiated settlements long before ours was presented to Judge Young in the Alberta Court. Because I had already signed on with Geldert I decided to see it through with the group.  I have been lumped into this case and extortion of thousands of dollars much to my dismay.  I paid my resort fees for the first year without paying the alignment fee and used the timeshare with Interval so that helped eliminate one year of interest charges.  I regret taking Geldert's council to not to pay any future resort fees as I will be paying them now plus interest and no weeks to exchange.  I am chosing to pay the settlement fee and be released from my timeshare with Fairmont.  I am putting this up to Lesson Learned - I thought it would be less expensive to do this as a group. Was I misguided or what lol?

In the Provincial Court of Alberta - Sunchaser Villas


----------



## Hate Being Scammed

I was doing some math and if I pay the current invoice sent by NM , due January 31,2018, I can save about $2500.00, as MG is asking for 20% on money that is not yet due.

Can I do this??


----------



## truthr

Petus@18 said:


> Did you receive the letter from the Strathcona Group? It looks like much of the fault to make matters worst for us (besides our "lawyer's incompetence) was the assistance of John Alexander from Cox Taylor.  During a case conference that preceded the JEKE trial, with the Alberta and BC Judges, he indicated that Cox Taylor did not intend to raise defences individual to each VIA owner.  This statement has now been relied upon by judge Branch and judge Young in their decisions relating to the Golberg in BC case and Reid in Alberta, to dismiss the amended defences that were filed on our behalf by their office. The judge in BC expressed that our amended defences were "too little, too late" so the BC action was quashed.
> 
> There are no meetings scheduled with judge Young, The settlement obtained by Geldert with "our consent" has only left the judge's decision of cost and interest.  The appeal to the Reid case is still open but it looks like in light of previous decisions made in this case, it is unlikely that the court of Queen's Bench will overturn these decisions. We could proceed with the appeal but unless God is representing us, I don't see how can we win this appeal.  We are pretty much on our own.  This firm offered a 30 min individual consultations for a retainer of 250.00


You all know that Michael Geldert and Vincent Tong were present at that SuperConference?  So if Mr. Alexander made some errors they could have corrected them at the time.  Same with the JEKE trial.

Not that I am absolving any of the attorneys who have worked on and/or represented us in any of these actions - however there is enough blame to go around but the one we retained, paid our retainers to and continually reassured us that he was IN CHARGE is Michael Geldert.  Granted more seasoned lawyers might have or should have challenged him about his so called strategy and I do hold them accountable as well to uphold their profession's code of conduct and the rules of the courts but again what reputable lawyer would actually put in writing the kind of nonsense we keep getting.  

They should ALL grow a set of balls, put on their big boy pants and step up to the plate to admit their role in this heinous situation they have put their clients in and at least attempt to stop this train wreck rather than try to suck more money out of us by charging to "consult".  The open wounds haven't even begun to heal yet and they want to suck more blood?

In addition it was Barry King himself who annoyed Judge Young by not filing the Amended Disputes before the day of the first hearing and then when the Judge brought up the issue of interest:

May 1, 2017:
Court: But are you saying the interest rate - it doesn't matter whether it breaches the federal Interest Act or not; its just onerous because it's too much?
Barry King: Correct.

No small wonder we never receive transcripts of court hearings or minutes of meetings.


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

Hate Being Scammed said:


> I was doing some math and if I pay the current invoice sent by NM , due January 31,2018, I can save about $2500.00, as MG is asking for 20% on money that is not yet due.
> 
> Can I do this??


Sure I believe you can save the money claimed but at the end of the day you will still own your timeshare and all the benefits that accrue with that. Proverbial rock and hard place for all of us. Especially those of us without the said funds readily available or available under any circumstances.


----------



## Tanny13

I wouldn't pay it until Judge Young has ruled on costs and interest.  It may be reduced even more if she rules in our favour.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

Tacoma said:


> Ironic that the only one that gets this is Danielle Smith ... .



What is important about Danielle's support is she is a libertarian, always wanting less government regulation & oversight, never more. Yet here she keeps calling for more. This irony isn't lost on politicians and the public. If she's calling out a corporate citizen, it must be bad.

I was not impressed by that lawyer. He obviously did not register the salient points from the JEKE ruling.

I was in the call-waiting cue. I wanted to scream that everyone seems to be missing not just that the lease ends and the lessee walks away with nothing, a point Danielle did articulate but, that Northmont received for their sole benefit: upfront purchase money, pay to stay money, pay to leave money, Legacy for Life money and now they'll receive for their sole benefit most of if not all of this new money. How is it that everyone forgets Northmont too has to bring something to the table, like a resort (except its *#NAFR*)?


----------



## Been Around Awhile

I can't remember if it was Danielle Smith or her guest but one of them suggested paying and then pursuing subsequent litigation. Can you imagine paying these guys a dime and expecting to ever get any of it back? Even if we were successful, their money would be in Barbados long before the judge dropped the gavel. We'd have a better chance of finding Jimmy Hoffa than finding our money.

*#NAFR*


----------



## FairSun

Hate Being Scammed said:


> I was doing some math and if I pay the current invoice sent by NM , due January 31,2018, I can save about $2500.00, as MG is asking for 20% on money that is not yet due.
> 
> Can I do this??


My question would be what about the court costs? The judge awarded costs to Northmont. Would they bill all those who took them to court a share of the costs even if they now choose to stay? I think Northmont's court costs may be included in that 20% Northmont is charging people in the Geldert Group.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

FairSun said:


> My question would be what about the court costs?



I could be wrong but I was to believe that Northmont has already included at least some legal fees in the Maintenance Fees.

*#NAFR*


----------



## FairSun

Been Around Awhile said:


> I can't remember if it was Danielle Smith or her guest but one of them suggested paying and then pursuing subsequent litigation. Can you imagine paying these guys a dime and expecting to ever get any of it back? Even if we were successful, their money would be in Barbados long before the judge dropped the gavel. We'd have a better chance of finding Jimmy Hoffa than finding our money.





Been Around Awhile said:


> I could be wrong but I was to believe that Northmont has already included at least some legal fees in the Maintenance Fees.
> 
> *#NAFR*


I heard that too but didn't look at the budget documents to confirm.


----------



## Tanny13

Been Around Awhile said:


> I could be wrong but I was to believe that Northmont has already included at least some legal fees in the Maintenance Fees.
> 
> *#NAFR*



If you look at the last few years of budgets, the maintenance fees include I believe over $2M in legal fees.  #NAFR


----------



## LilMaggie

CorruptionExtortion said:


> We owned our Fairmont timeshare for 20 years.  We exchanged it around the world for amazing vacations we otherwise would not have been able to enjoy with our family.  Disney World, Phoenix, Mexico, Scottland, Portugal, Spain, Zanzibar, Big Island of Hawaii, Maui, Kauai, and others, so fortunately we were able to find great value in our ownership even with increased maintenance fees.  I am appalled with the Northwynd takeover and the pride Kirk Wankel has taken on his linked in page with what he considers a successful business turn around for his investors.  This is a multi-million dollar extortion that is not a business model to be proud of.  He has done it before and will continue to do this.  I have no answers only thoughts in hindsight on this matter.
> 
> Attatched below is a link I found that summarizes our Court Cases.  Perhaps some GL clients have read through it before.  If you are able to take the time to read it through to the end, it does answer many of the questions I had and provides clarity as to why we lost judgement.  While it doesn't allow for much in terms of recourse, it is a clear indication of what was given up and when.
> 
> I was not in favour of the JEKE test case.  While I was concerned about the resort alignment fee to stay or to go for $3,000.00, I wanted to walk away from my contract signed in 1994.  I believed in contract law and my contract stated we could simply relenquish our unit at no charge and after 3 months of non-payment of maintence our unit would belong to Fairmont. I have met a couple of people that hired contract lawyers in Alberta and negotiated settlements long before ours was presented to Judge Young in the Alberta Court. Because I had already signed on with Geldert I decided to see it through with the group.  I have been lumped into this case and extortion of thousands of dollars much to my dismay.  I paid my resort fees for the first year without paying the alignment fee and used the timeshare with Interval so that helped eliminate one year of interest charges.  I regret taking Geldert's council to not to pay any future resort fees as I will be paying them now plus interest and no weeks to exchange.  I am chosing to pay the settlement fee and be released from my timeshare with Fairmont.  I am putting this up to Lesson Learned - I thought it would be less expensive to do this as a group. Was I misguided or what lol?
> 
> In the Provincial Court of Alberta - Sunchaser Villas


Yep...just you and a few thousand others of us


----------



## Lostmyshirt

what has been most frustrating over the last few years is interval renting out weeks there for 35$ US a night??? How am I on the hook for such a disgusting bill when interval can secure and rent these same places for an absolute pittance??? Time that we are supposed to keep paying for?  Oh ya.........its not a 5 star resort anymore!!!


----------



## torqued

FairSun said:


> My question would be what about the court costs? The judge awarded costs to Northmont. Would they bill all those who took them to court a share of the costs even if they now choose to stay? I think Northmont's court costs may be included in that 20% Northmont is charging people in the Geldert Group.


I’m thinking the December invoice to be paid by January 31 does not include court cost that they will assess you “unexpectedly” later.


----------



## Scammed!

*Fifth Estate Fax:* (416) 205-6668............. *Market Place* -marketplace@cbc.ca...........................*60 minutes* - 60m@cbsnews.com.

Get up and dust yourself off....we have work to do.


----------



## LilMaggie

Scammed! said:


> *Fifth Estate Fax:* (416) 205-6668............. *Market Place* -marketplace@cbc.ca...........................*60 minutes* - 60m@cbsnews.com.
> 
> Get up and dust yourself off....we have work to do.


Cool!  Thanks for the contact information.


----------



## Spark1

truthr said:


> Over the years we have been instructed by MG to not talk amongst ourselves because there were spies.  The latest correspondence that some of us have received from MG is attempting to reinforce that.
> 
> So just so we all understand.
> It is okay for NM to extort money from us and threaten us with the assistance of our lawyer but it is not okay for us to talk about it.
> There is a word for that - bullying.
> And to add insult to injury our lawyer not only goes along with this rather than stand up to the bully, he endorses this behaviour - now who is complicit in what?
> 
> Have I got this right?? If not could someone please enlighten me.


You are right


----------



## Petus@18

Tanny13 said:


> The hearing for cost and interest is only for those who are NOT in the settlement.  I believe most of those are taking their chances and staying on with the resort, and fighting.  Perhaps we will end up paying less, perhaps not.  The settlement agreement will not change based on Judge Young's decision regarding interest and costs.  The amount in your settlement is what you owe, and must be paid by the due date, or Northmont has a judgement against you for an even higher amount (162%).  Unfortunately, that's the case if you signed the settlement agreement.



You know that you still have the right to refuse to sign the bloody settlement and go to court and defend yourself. 

Remember, you will not be alone! there are many of us that opted out.  We just need to be prepared and plan what are we going to say.  It is frightening but what else is there for us.  Maybe Judge Young will realize that these delinquents along with their Bill Collector aka D..b A.s, orchestrating this malicious scam against all of us a long time ago and, if God help us, she could be more sympathetic to our individual case.  Who knows we may even be granted a monthly payment plan option!! 

You know that the power of prayer together is very strong.  Together, we are strengthened and blessed.


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

Can someone direct me to a copy of schedule A from the debt claim proceedings in BC. It seems to be with the other things my BC attorney failed to provide during this never ending debacle. Just curious if  we made the naughty list. I have seen the decisions that continually reference Schedule A but don't include it as an attachment. Thanks in advance.


----------



## greyskies

Tanny13 said:


> I wouldn't pay it until Judge Young has ruled on costs and interest.  It may be reduced even more if she rules in our favour.


Do we have any idea when that will be? 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Punter

[QUOTE="  Oh ya.........its not a 5 star resort anymore!!![/QUOTE]

#*NAFR*


----------



## aden2

The information that I have regarding this Legacy for Life, was  approximately $23 million was raised..

March 30, 2009 Fairmont was granted creditor protection and June 10, 2010 Fairmont became insolvent. I was contacted

 August 10, 2009 and again November 29, 2010 here in Edmonton. The presentations were a slide show and high pressure sales

pitch.  The sales people bragged about a five star resort. I did not find out until May 2013 that the Legacy for Life was a scam.

I bought an odd and even year.. In reference to 2010 June 10th Fairmont became insolvent (company is gone) I was contacted 

Nov 29th, 2010 and was told I only bought an odd year thus went through the same thing again.

Please note that this was Nov 29th, 2010 and Fairmont became insolvent June 10th, 2010. I have a contract dated Nov 29, 2010  

and on Fairmont stationary, but Fairmont was dissolved June 10, 2010! 

It is my opinion that this is  F R A U D. AND MY CONTRACT AS WELL AS MANY OTHER DURING THIS TIME FRAME ARE ILLEGAL.


I rejection option 1 because Geldert would not disclose what he had negotiated for. Once I get my judgement I will be going to the RCMP

and demand charges be laid regarding theft!! Each year since 2012 I had sent Northmont a letter stating I had been scammed.


----------



## Scammed!

Disappointed W said:


> *Legal counsel is available with Mr. Geldert for $275/hourly or $1000 "All in"*
> 
> I have emailed Mr. Michael Geldert. Please see the response below, as well as the email address:
> <info@geldertlaw.com>
> Thank you for your email. As you know, many time-share owners are working together to contest the efforts being made by Northwynd. Many of those have either retained Mr. Geldert for an all-in amount of $1,000 CAD or are being advised on an ad-hoc basis as they represent themselves at his hourly rate of $275. You may choose either option. There is not a class-action against Northwynd at this time but this will be discussed moving forward.
> 
> 
> 
> At Mr. Geldert's request, the following is for your review:
> 
> 
> 
> Your legal obligations are covered exclusively by the contract(s) you have signed. To that end, owing to the vague language in the various time-share contracts, Northwynd has initiated a court application in an attempt to confirm its ability to do two things:
> 
> 
> 1.Unilaterally amend the time-share agreements to allow them to charge owners/lease-holders for their desired renovations; and,
> 
> 
> 2.To unilaterally transfer portions of the properties currently available to owners/lease-holders outside of the Resort.
> 
> 
> 
> What this is really about then is their attempt to obtain court sanctioned permission to effect unilateral changes to their contractual relationship with each owner/lease-holder. It is a risky proposition however, because should they fail to do so they will not have the legal standing to effect what they are currently proposing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Geldert is advising every owner/lease-holder to prepare submissions in reply to this court application. He is also advising that our firm be provided an opportunity to review those submissions to ensure they are ready to be filed with the court and served on Northwynd. Full copies of the associated court documents can be obtained on the Sunchaservillas.ca website should you wish to review the entire package of documents.
> 
> 
> 
> Should you retain Mr. Geldert, he will assist you in preparing, filing and serving the necessary submissions. He will also canvas the legal arguments that are available, including, most readily, that what Northwynd is proposing to do fundamentally alters the Agreement(s) and prejudices the rights of the owners/lease-holders.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are interested in retaining Mr. Geldert please complete and return the attached information sheet to me by email to (patricia@geldertlaw.com) along with copies of (2) pieces of government issued identification. We would ask that you also provide us with a copy of your time-share agreement and the most recent correspondences that relate to it. Once in receipt of these documents I will schedule a time for you to speak with Mr. Geldert on the phone to confirm the foregoing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patricia Maiato, Legal Assistant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T: 778.330.7775   |     F:778.330.7774    |   W: www.geldertlaw.com
> 
> 2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 1B4







Just reminiscing about the good old days dated May 10, 2013 and found an old post........If we could turn back time....If we could find a way.......


----------



## truthr

All those who got the email update last night did you bother to check the documents attached? Or print them out?
Well if you didn't you should - check to see which do or don't have a dated court seal or stamp on the first page of each document (where it actually says "court seal" - is there one there?).






 One of the things that MG got right back in the beginning when NM was sending out a bunch of bogus Statement of Claims is that- if it doesn't have a court seal or stamp
IT AIN'T REAL!!!

Also in order to move forward and defend yourself (with or without new counsel) the transcripts of the hearings from Judge Branch and/or Judge Young would be vital for your next move.

To my knowledge and actually reading the Notice of Appeal Instructions to the Appellant sheet provided in the AB notice of appeal attachment refers to how and when those transcripts should be available. Read that sheet carefully.

Now according to the "Procedure Card" I ordered, received and paid for from the AB court in late November - that was all done November 15th, 2017. Like 2 months ago.

So you might want to request those documents ASAP and any other documents MG may be in possession of that you are unaware of.


----------



## Petus@18

truthr said:


> All those who got the email update last night did you bother to check the documents attached? Or print them out?
> Well if you didn't you should - check to see which do or don't have a dated court seal or stamp on the first page of each document (where it actually says "court seal" - is there one there?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the things that MG got right back in the beginning when NM was sending out a bunch of bogus Statement of Claims is that- if it doesn't have a court seal or stamp
> IT AIN'T REAL!!!
> 
> Also in order to move forward and defend yourself (with or without new counsel) the transcripts of the hearings from Judge Branch and/or Judge Young would be vital for your next move.
> 
> To my knowledge and actually reading the Notice of Appeal Instructions to the Appellant sheet provided in the AB notice of appeal attachment refers to how and when those transcripts should be available. Read that sheet carefully.
> 
> Now according to the "Procedure Card" I ordered, received and paid for from the AB court in late November - that was all done November 15th, 2017. Like 2 months ago.
> 
> So you might want to request those documents ASAP and any other documents MG may be in possession of that you are unaware of.



Thanks for your note.  Q: were you already aware, back in Nov, that all of this was happening and being delivered to the rest of us in Dec? If you did, were you then threatened by Geldert in any way if you were to disclose any of this information to the group?  You may be a great witness in all our cases as it can be proof that Geldert acted with malice and took advantage of his position by notifying his clients of this "settlement arragement" during the holidays.  He knew everyone will not be checking their emails during this time therefore, many couldn't opt out of it or seek legal advice.

Could this be true?  Would you be willing to provide an Affidavit?  Please forgive me if I am misinterpreting your previous cautionary message.  If I am, my apologies.


----------



## easy prey

It's obvious that this situation has changed all of our lives for the worse.

We all need to vent but I would encourage all of us to also take time to bring this story to the attention to as many media outlets and government officials as possible as well.


I am making an assumption that not all of us have done that.  If I am wrong, I apologize.   I am not trying offend any of us. This mess is hard enough as it is.

I am attempting to motivate as many people as possible to bring this injustice out into the open.  The more of us who bring this story out, the harder it is to ignore.

There is a lot of time being spent on this site.   My hope is that a significant amount of time is also spent on contacting your local mla's, mp's, media outlets, etc.  Again, the more they hear from us the harder it is to ignore.

For those of us that have contacted whoever you thought could make a difference, thank you.

If there are any of us who haven't taken time to reach out, please do.  We need to take this story to them.

Doug Clovechok is the mla for the Fairmont area.  His email address is
doug.clovechok.MLA@leg.bc.ca
Phone (250) 432 2300
Toll free 1 844 432 3200
Fax (250) 344 4815

Some media outlets to consider contacting are:
gopublic@cbc.ca
marketplace@cbc.ca
fifthtips@cbc.ca
mclaughlinonyourside@ctv.ca

If you can think of any others, please share them with the group so we can participate as well.


----------



## Timesharewhoas

easy prey said:


> I am attempting to motivate as many people as possible to bring this injustice out into the open.  The more of us who bring this story out, the harder it is to ignore.



Please everyone please get your twitter account.  @Timesharewhoa is hitting many targets for #awareness to this issue.  You retweet my tweet and I yours, someone else does,etc and we’ve hit them 100 times.  #changeCanadianTimeshareLaws is picking up attention.  We need more politicians as the pc party is the only one caring.   Let’s take it to them!  Then we hit the tv shows. I’ve started a few towards them .  Let them hear you! No one is around for the weekend in the courts.  So hit the tv and the polititians as they drink their morning coffee.  And if any polititians are reading this.... sorry!  But we thank you for paying attention to our $39 million issue!


----------



## CleoB

Appauled said:


> I found a Law firm in Calgary with a Lawyer that has Sunchaser clients that never joined the MG Group.
> Unfortunately they can NOT take clients that have used MG!!!!


Actually that's probably a good thing.  These people that never have been associated with MG can take a different approach in court, like the Fair Trade Act that MG was advised about but never used.


----------



## CleoB

aden2 said:


> The information that I have regarding this Legacy for Life, was  approximately $23 million was raised..
> 
> March 30, 2009 Fairmont was granted creditor protection and June 10, 2010 Fairmont became insolvent. I was contacted
> 
> August 10, 2009 and again November 29, 2010 here in Edmonton. The presentations were a slide show and high pressure sales
> 
> pitch.  The sales people bragged about a five star resort. I did not find out until May 2013 that the Legacy for Life was a scam.
> 
> I bought an odd and even year.. In reference to 2010 June 10th Fairmont became insolvent (company is gone) I was contacted
> 
> Nov 29th, 2010 and was told I only bought an odd year thus went through the same thing again.
> 
> Please note that this was Nov 29th, 2010 and Fairmont became insolvent June 10th, 2010. I have a contract dated Nov 29, 2010
> 
> and on Fairmont stationary, but Fairmont was dissolved June 10, 2010!
> 
> It is my opinion that this is  F R A U D. AND MY CONTRACT AS WELL AS MANY OTHER DURING THIS TIME FRAME ARE ILLEGAL.
> 
> 
> I rejection option 1 because Geldert would not disclose what he had negotiated for. Once I get my judgement I will be going to the RCMP
> 
> and demand charges be laid regarding theft!! Each year since 2012 I had sent Northmont a letter stating I had been scammed.


Actually I believe Fairmont was insolvent before that.  Northmount was granted the takeover in June/2010 though I don't recall the exact date.


----------



## SAV

I offered to have a meeting at the Carriage House on Tuesday. I have decided not to go forward with this.  I have read even more of the judgement from Judge Young. Even though this has been complete fraud basically we decided to hook our train to the wrong law firm.  Its clear to me that he was really not anywhere in the same league as the Northmount lawyers. And he just kept making things worse and worse the longer he tied things up. If you read the judgement she says he was basically frustrating her as well as frustrating the court system. She had no choice but to rule in favour of Northmount as they had clear and concise arguments for their case and obviously a very good legal strategy.

And this is basically what Mathew Farrell was saying on Danille Smiths talk show today as well.  The contracts we signed and the fact that there is not any legislation to protect timeshare purchasers in Alberta and BC means that companies like Northmount can write anything they want into these contracts we signed. Like 2% per month compounded monthly on delinquent fees is legal. Gilbert was also not successful in convincing the judge that we are renters not owners. The way our contract were written left the door open to interpretation as to whether we are owners of the resort or renters. The Northmount lawyers convinced the judge we were owners and consequently responsible for the renovations of the resort. Again no laws in Alberta and BC to protect timeshare owners of this. The fact that Northmount does not have to pay its proportion of the renovation fee is also the fault of Gilbert. He missed his chance to properly argue this and then it was too late. 

I will write to the above noted entities to tell our story but I'm afraid we are all screwed. And hope that the government get their act together to write some laws to protect future timeshare purchasers in our provinces.

Im sick about it all. But I'm gonna move. $42,683 given to Northmount and their slick lawyers. Wow what a tragedy


----------



## Bewildered

Appauled said:


> SORRY TYPO!!!
> Unfortunately they can NOT take clients that have used MG!!!!


I wonder why that would matter, I spoke to a lawyer and he didn’t see any problem with moving forward as this settlement is so bogus from the point we agreed to it which we didnt (my silence to MG didnt mean I agreed) seems strange other than one lawyer not wanting to step on another toes maybe?


----------



## TimesharesBlow

I will never pay. Maybe we need a new hashtag called #JudgeYoungLegacy ? 
I am not going to pay money for something I already paid for and have considered lost and put my family at a further financial loss. Total BS. Need a new lawyer that needs to argue way different talking points. Anyone who pays has more money than brains.


----------



## Petus@18

Bewildered said:


> I wonder why that would matter, I spoke to a lawyer and he didn’t see any problem with moving forward as this settlement is so bogus from the point we agreed to it which we didnt (my silence to MG didnt mean I agreed) seems strange other than one lawyer not wanting to step on another toes maybe?



Can we retain this lawyer, could you please send us his contact info?


----------



## torqued

Petus@18 said:


> Can we retain this lawyer, could you please send us his contact info?


Be cautious with lawyers  that may be voicing an opinion without knowing all the facts in this mess. Remember it was stated on this forum “win or lose the lawyers all get paid”.  I’m becoming more and more interested in staying with the resort and making Mr Wankel’s life a living HELL. Mr Wankel be careful what you wish for you may just get it!  Once we are all back on his door step in good standing we can be that burning bag of dog shit he has to stomp on day in and day out. Maybe we need to start thinking more along the lines of legal maneuvers once we are back in good graces. Take their leverage away that being money and they got nothing on us. We then use legislation and the courts to right this wrong. We are not going away ‍!!  Justice will be served and I WILL be there to see it!


----------



## FairSun

Petus@18 said:


> Thanks for your note.  Q: were you already aware, back in Nov, that all of this was happening and being delivered to the rest of us in Dec? If you did, were you then threatened by Geldert in any way if you were to disclose any of this information to the group?  You may be a great witness in all our cases as it can be proof that Geldert acted with malice and took advantage of his position by notifying his clients of this "settlement arragement" during the holidays.  He knew everyone will not be checking their emails during this time therefore, many couldn't opt out of it or seek legal advice.
> 
> Could this be true?  Would you be willing to provide an Affidavit?  Please forgive me if I am misinterpreting your previous cautionary message.  If I am, my apologies.


----------



## aden2

In our VIA's contract Fairmont was to pay back $ based on a percent of years that were not used when returning the timeshare. Can this payback money be used to offset the pay out amount demanded by Northmont? I paid a total of $29,500. for timeshare and I am will to give that back to NM, and this is not enough $$$ for NM ....Can't believe it!


----------



## torqued

aden2 said:


> In our VIA's contract Fairmont was to pay back $ based on a percent of years that were not used when returning the timeshare. Can this payback money be used to offset the pay out amount demanded by Northmont? I paid a total of $29,500. for timeshare and I am will to give that back to NM, and this is not enough $$$ for NM ....Can't believe it!


The wording is vague as it says if they accept leasee timeshare doesn’t say they will or are obligated to.  I just wonder how much teeth that clause has?  I have the same in my contract.


----------



## Palms to pines

Our contract has that too, but does Belfry’s? The way things have gone down, I predict it is totally toothless. What a tragedy is right.


----------



## torqued

Read the Alberta submission the recent email from MG, page5 about half way down.  Look at Barry Kings response. Omg. We had dumb and dumber representing us.  We did not have a snowballs chance in hell!!


----------



## Floyd55

Palms to pines said:


> Our contract has that too, but does Belfry’s? The way things have gone down, I predict it is totally toothless. What a tragedy is right.



Funny you should mention Jim Belfry....haven't heard from him in a long, long time. I have to wonder if he didn't orchestrate some kind of exit deal after the test case failed miserably. Meanwhile the rest of us kept on being strung along by MG to our ultimate demise! Thanks a lot Jim! Could have at least given the rest of us a heads up when you slipped out of this mess! Maybe I'm wrong and he is in this with us to the bitter end, but I doubt it. Interesting irony since he was the one that rallied us all together at the beginning to fight this injustice. But ultimately he became a big part of our downfall since all of our leases became his VIA, not cool. Hindsight is 20/20!


----------



## Misled

SAV said:


> I offered to have a meeting at the Carriage House on Tuesday. I have decided not to go forward with this.  I have read even more of the judgement from Judge Young. Even though this has been complete fraud basically we decided to hook our train to the wrong law firm.  Its clear to me that he was really not anywhere in the same league as the Northmount lawyers. And he just kept making things worse and worse the longer he tied things up. If you read the judgement she says he was basically frustrating her as well as frustrating the court system. She had no choice but to rule in favour of Northmount as they had clear and concise arguments for their case and obviously a very good legal strategy.
> 
> And this is basically what Mathew Farrell was saying on Danille Smiths talk show today as well.  The contracts we signed and the fact that there is not any legislation to protect timeshare purchasers in Alberta and BC means that companies like Northmount can write anything they want into these contracts we signed. Like 2% per month compounded monthly on delinquent fees is legal. Gilbert was also not successful in convincing the judge that we are renters not owners. The way our contract were written left the door open to interpretation as to whether we are owners of the resort or renters. The Northmount lawyers convinced the judge we were owners and consequently responsible for the renovations of the resort. Again no laws in Alberta and BC to protect timeshare owners of this. The fact that Northmount does not have to pay its proportion of the renovation fee is also the fault of Gilbert. He missed his chance to properly argue this and then it was too late.
> 
> I will write to the above noted entities to tell our story but I'm afraid we are all screwed. And hope that the government get their act together to write some laws to protect future timeshare purchasers in our provinces.
> 
> Im sick about it all. But I'm gonna move. $42,683 given to Northmount and their slick lawyers. Wow what a tragedy


To correct one thing mentioned in this post there are in fact consumer protection laws in Alberta that are designed to prevent unfair commercial practices such as those used by Northmont.  These are detailed within the Alberta Fair Trading Act (now called the Alberta Consumer Protection Act).  For example, the unilateral contract amendments and the imposition of arbitrary cancellation fees are both defined as unfair and illegal practices in Alberta legislation.  The problem is that the Geldert group Lawyer’s did not use these consumer protection laws in their arguments to judge Young in Alberta.  To that end the Geldert group Lawyer’s were grossly incompetent.  Regardless of judge Young’s ill informed decision the fact remains that these 2 practices of Northmont are illegal under Alberta law. This egregious non compliance with Alberta law needs to be reported to your MLA, judge young, and Service Alberta who has done nothing to enforce these laws to protect consumers.


----------



## LilMaggie

SAV said:


> I offered to have a meeting at the Carriage House on Tuesday. I have decided not to go forward with this.  I have read even more of the judgement from Judge Young. Even though this has been complete fraud basically we decided to hook our train to the wrong law firm.  Its clear to me that he was really not anywhere in the same league as the Northmount lawyers. And he just kept making things worse and worse the longer he tied things up. If you read the judgement she says he was basically frustrating her as well as frustrating the court system. She had no choice but to rule in favour of Northmount as they had clear and concise arguments for their case and obviously a very good legal strategy.
> 
> And this is basically what Mathew Farrell was saying on Danille Smiths talk show today as well.  The contracts we signed and the fact that there is not any legislation to protect timeshare purchasers in Alberta and BC means that companies like Northmount can write anything they want into these contracts we signed. Like 2% per month compounded monthly on delinquent fees is legal. Gilbert was also not successful in convincing the judge that we are renters not owners. The way our contract were written left the door open to interpretation as to whether we are owners of the resort or renters. The Northmount lawyers convinced the judge we were owners and consequently responsible for the renovations of the resort. Again no laws in Alberta and BC to protect timeshare owners of this. The fact that Northmount does not have to pay its proportion of the renovation fee is also the fault of Gilbert. He missed his chance to properly argue this and then it was too late.
> 
> I will write to the above noted entities to tell our story but I'm afraid we are all screwed. And hope that the government get their act together to write some laws to protect future timeshare purchasers in our provinces.
> 
> Im sick about it all. But I'm gonna move. $42,683 given to Northmount and their slick lawyers. Wow what a tragedy


Funny...the heading on my agreement says "Vacation Lease", and I am referred to as a "lessee" throughout.  What is so complicated?  I have leasehold interest only according to my contract.


----------



## Misled

LilMaggie said:


> Funny...the heading on my agreement says "Vacation Lease", and I am referred to as a "lessee" throughout.  What is so complicated?  I have leasehold interest only according to my contract.


Absolutely correct you are not a owner you are a lease holder (or renter ) for a fixed term


----------



## ecwinch

torqued said:


> The wording is vague as it says if they accept leasee timeshare doesn’t say they will or are obligated to.  I just wonder how much teeth that clause has?  I have the same in my contract.


The court ruled that was an option, and not an obligation. As it lacks the express language that they are required to do so.


----------



## Tanny13

ecwinch said:


> The court ruled that was an option, and not an obligation. As it lacks the express language that they are required to do so.



Not only were we led to believe in the sales presentation that we could walk at any time, we were told we would get PAID to walk.  Our scenario is slightly different than that now...


----------



## ecwinch

Tanny13 said:


> Not only were we led to believe in the sales presentation that we could walk at any time, we were told we would get PAID to walk.  Our scenario is slightly different than that now...



But the legal entity that made those representations is no more. Time and time again the court has come back on that key issue. I know you (and others) want to view Fairmont and Northwind as the same legal entity, but in the eyes of the court that argument is moot.


----------



## Palms to pines

I think sometimes it would be good if there was some common sense. What would a reasonable person think?? There is a clause in the contract from 1997 that quotes a formula for refund should the leasee default on payments and essentially loose rights to the timeshare. Pretty sure that was the intent or why even put it in the contract at all? All of this hair splitting and everything going Northmont’s way has given me a headache. As has paying for years of maintenance fees when we were advised not to pay and interest rates that loan sharks would use! Do I want to pay another $34,000.00 on top of the $5,600.00 we were scammed out of for Legacy For Life to have nothing? Hell no! Sunchaser Timeshares - pay your money for nothing and get your ulcers for free!


----------



## Misled

Alberta has consumer protection laws that do apply to this situation.  Therefore everyone involved should read the Alberta Fair Trading Act and focus on section 6 (3) unfair practices section 7(1) cancelling agreements also look at  Bill 31 amendments, section 6.1 unilateral changes to contracts, section 6.2 (4) cancellation following notice of unilateral change.  The above are defined as unfair and illegal practices under Alberta law, so why is the government not holding Northmont accountable for violating these laws??? Call your MLA and demand to know why Service Alberta is not enforcing these laws.


----------



## Scammed!

Misled said:


> Alberta has consumer protection laws that do apply to this situation.  Therefore everyone involved should read the Alberta Fair Trading Act and focus on section 6 (3) unfair practices section 7(1) cancelling agreements also look at  Bill 31 amendments, section 6.1 unilateral changes to contracts, section 6.2 (4) cancellation following notice of unilateral change.  The above are defined as unfair and illegal practices under Alberta law, so why is the government not holding Northmont accountable for violating these laws??? Call your MLA and demand to know why Service Alberta is not enforcing these laws.


Which I mentioned before. The settlement was signed on December 14 without our consent or input and Bill 31 was passed on the 13 of December 2017. The judge made her judgement in October but due to interest and cost issues they ignored her orders this case should follow under this bill and quash this crime.


----------



## CleoB

Floyd55 said:


> Funny you should mention Jim Belfry....haven't heard from him in a long, long time. I have to wonder if he didn't orchestrate some kind of exit deal after the test case failed miserably. Meanwhile the rest of us kept on being strung along by MG to our ultimate demise! Thanks a lot Jim! Could have at least given the rest of us a heads up when you slipped out of this mess! Maybe I'm wrong and he is in this with us to the bitter end, but I doubt it. Interesting irony since he was the one that rallied us all together at the beginning to fight this injustice. But ultimately he became a big part of our downfall since all of our leases became his VIA, not cool. Hindsight is 20/20!


I've heard that Belfry had his timeshares in his company name and that his company went bankrupt so he didn't have to pay anything.  Not sure if that's true but it would explain him not being around anymore.


----------



## GypsyOne

Palms to pines said:


> I think sometimes it would be good if there was some common sense. What would a reasonable person think?? There is a clause in the contract from 1997 that quotes a formula for refund should the leasee default on payments and essentially loose rights to the timeshare. Pretty sure that was the intent or why even put it in the contract at all? All of this hair splitting and everything going Northmont’s way has given me a headache. As has paying for years of maintenance fees when we were advised not to pay and interest rates that loan sharks would use! Do I want to pay another $34,000.00 on top of the $5,600.00 we were scammed out of for Legacy For Life to have nothing? Hell no! Sunchaser Timeshares - pay your money for nothing and get your ulcers for free!




The clause you are referring to is the Default clause, which is #13 in my lease.  I made that very point several times when we were preparing our case, but that interpretation was denyed by the courts on the basis of one little word - "IF" - "If the Lessor accepts the deemed offer."  My common sense interpretation is that the Default clause comes into play if the Lessor chooses to take back the timeshare as remedy for default of payment.  Then the Lessor will take back the timeshare and reimburse the timeshare owner at one third the value of remaining timeshare, which seems like a reasonable remedy for default of payment.  Or the Lessor could choose not to accept the deemed offer and seek remedy some other way.  The key point being that if the Lessor takes back the timeshare, the Lessee is reimburse for a fraction of remaining time.  I don't see how the courts could completely ignore a lengthy default formula in the lease as having no purpose or meaning and instead allow an altogether different arbitrary formula (or money grab). 

Another common sense interpretation I found strange is in the list of operating expenses, which is Clause 5 in my lease.  First of all the expenses are categorized as "Operating Costs" and not "Capital Costs."  Then there is a list of sixteen operating expenses that includes items as trivial as say, "garbage disposal."  Wouldn't you think that if we were intended to replace walls, roofs, plumbing pipes, etc. costing upward of $40 million that expenses of such magnitude would be covered in much more detail and description than lumping them in with the miscellaneous? 

No question in my mind that influential people didn't want this popular tourist destination with its flawed buildings to fail, and that the timeshare owners would be the sacrificial lambs to hold it together.


----------



## GypsyOne

CleoB said:


> I've heard that Belfry had his timeshares in his company name and that his company went bankrupt so he didn't have to pay anything.  Not sure if that's true but it would explain him not being around anymore.


There could be other reasons.


----------



## LilMaggie

Misled said:


> Alberta has consumer protection laws that do apply to this situation.  Therefore everyone involved should read the Alberta Fair Trading Act and focus on section 6 (3) unfair practices section 7(1) cancelling agreements also look at  Bill 31 amendments, section 6.1 unilateral changes to contracts, section 6.2 (4) cancellation following notice of unilateral change.  The above are defined as unfair and illegal practices under Alberta law, so why is the government not holding Northmont accountable for violating these laws??? Call your MLA and demand to know why Service Alberta is not enforcing these laws.


Many of us have written the Minister of Alberta Services, Stephanie McLean.  She is a lawyer and should be well aware that we have been subjected to unfair practices and yet her office has dismissed us.


----------



## Tanny13

ecwinch said:


> But the legal entity that made those representations is no more. Time and time again the court has come back on that key issue. I know you (and others) want to view Fairmont and Northwind as the same legal entity, but in the eyes of the court that argument is moot.



Well then our contracts should have been null and void.


----------



## Scammed!

GypsyOne said:


> The clause you are referring to is the Default clause, which is #13 in my lease.  I made that very point several times when we were preparing our case, but that interpretation was denyed by the courts on the basis of one little word - "IF" - "If the Lessor accepts the deemed offer."  My common sense interpretation is that the Default clause comes into play if the Lessor chooses to take back the timeshare as remedy for default of payment.  Then the Lessor will take back the timeshare and reimburse the timeshare owner at one third the value of remaining timeshare, which seems like a reasonable remedy for default of payment.  Or the Lessor could choose not to accept the deemed offer and seek remedy some other way.  The key point being that if the Lessor takes back the timeshare, the Lessee is reimburse for a fraction of remaining time.  I don't see how the courts could completely ignore a lengthy default formula in the lease as having no purpose or meaning and instead allow an altogether different arbitrary formula (or money grab).
> 
> Another common sense interpretation I found strange is in the list of operating expenses, which is Clause 5 in my lease.  First of all the expenses are categorized as "Operating Costs" and not "Capital Costs."  Then there is a list of sixteen operating expenses that includes items as trivial as say, "garbage disposal."  Wouldn't you think that if we were intended to replace walls, roofs, plumbing pipes, etc. costing upward of $40 million that expenses of such magnitude would be covered in much more detail and description than lumping them in with the miscellaneous?
> 
> No question in my mind that influential people didn't want this popular tourist destination with its flawed buildings to fail, and that the timeshare owners would be the sacrificial lambs to hold it together.




What the "Officials" are missing is there is nothing that will hold it together ever! The money isn't going into the "resort" (NAFR)....all the money will be gone into this scam....0ver 1300 lives will be devastated. Tumbleweeds will roll around as the wind blows through the once beautiful resort, that is now a skeleton of families, love, and laughter of years gone by.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

Scammed! said:


> What the "Officials" are missing is there is nothing that will hold it together ever! The money isn't going into the "resort" (NAFR)....all the money will be gone into this scam....0ver 1300 lives will be devastated. Tumbleweeds will roll around as the wind blows through the once beautiful resort, that is now a skeleton of families, love, and laughter of years gone by.




YES!


----------



## Sheeptoslaughter

Yes its very sad take such a nice place and strip it down to a skeleton of whAt it was.  Its always been about money.   Never about improving for the lessees and working with the 15,000 who had invested a substantial chunk of their money already for 40 + years. Its all about greed and look whats left.  A bunch of boarded up buildings and the rest look rundown.  Now its destroying another 1300+ lives to punish people for attempting to right a wrong to their contracts.  Throw out the 26.82% interest, replace it with something more in line like 5%.   theyve already lost years of usage,maintenance fees charged when resort was barely being used should more than cover court fees and legal fees.  Hell in good faith give them a year or two back if they paid???? A little goodwill goes a long way.  KW may have succeeded in the courts but as a human being running a resort sucking people life savings to punish yes punish them !!!! For having an opinion different than him.  I hope it was worth it to throw 75% of it away i bet KW thought theyd all be thrilled to pay 1000'S more in fees to stay. Kw may have succeeded in collecting millions upon millions but Id be willing to bet 5 years from now most of property has been sold off, not improved and hes living life offshore somewhere with all the money he paid himself to manage.  Like all lawyers who are well paid despite the outcome kw been paying himself well through all of this.  All 15,000 lessees have lost their money some 2-3 times the investment, the town of fairmont has surely lost a ton of business and its left such a sour taste that nobody wants to go near that area.  The economic impact is huge as there is always a ripple effect   Anyone who remains has a fraction of what it once was.    Thanks to all who  participated in this fiasco to suck more money out of people who had already been paying in good faith.  Had they not been blocked from resort while sorting it out maintenance fees would have been paid too and??? Bringing money into the Resort Perhaps,just perhaps they may have decided then to pay or get out.    JMO.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

ecwinch said:


> But the legal entity that made those representations is no more. Time and time again the court has come back on that key issue. I know you (and others) want to view Fairmont and Northwind as the same legal entity, but in the eyes of the court that argument is moot.



But they are the same entity for the purposes of the contract, are they not? Otherwise, why does the contract survive the bankruptcy? Is Northmont not due the same rights under the contract that were due Fairmont? Is Northmont not still obligated to deliver the same elements of the contractual exchange as was Fairmont? The lessees certainly are.

I think the bankruptcy court made a grievous mistake not insuring 18,000 interests were represented during these deliberations.


----------



## Plus454

Statute of Limitations? Hi all, I've found the question asked on here and some guessed answers but I haven't found a definitive answer on how Alberta Statute of Limitations laws affect this claim. In particular, when does the clock start? Did getting involved in this fruitless legal maneuver restart the clock?


----------



## GypsyOne

Scammed! said:


> What the "Officials" are missing is there is nothing that will hold it together ever! The money isn't going into the "resort" (NAFR)....all the money will be gone into this scam....0ver 1300 lives will be devastated. Tumbleweeds will roll around as the wind blows through the once beautiful resort, that is now a skeleton of families, love, and laughter of years gone by.




I see no reason to expect the Resort will fail.  Yes, the white-collar gang of perpetrators will probably skim off millions for themselves, but they will also spend tens of millions of our money on maintaining and enhancing the value of the property because it will be profitable to do so.  Fairmont in the Columbia Valley is one of the more beautiful pieces of real estate on the planet with many recreational activities in the area and a ready and willing customer base in two countries and in four directions prepared to buy in, just as over 15,000 timeshare customers thought they were buying a dream vacation for themselves for the rest of their lives, or an asset to bequeath to family.  A new generation of vacation seekers unaware of what went before will come along with descretionary money to spend.  The problem with the timeshare model is that it has the elements that can attract the white collar gang of opportunists - control of an attractive property in a beautiful area; a cash flow of tens of millions of dollars; a widespread and diverse customer base that makes organization difficult; a provincial government that does not want a popular tourist destination to fail, nor do they want to inject government funds into the resort to prop it up, along with a compliant judicial system (McLeans Magazine, February 11, 2017 "Welcome to British Columbia, Where You 'Pay to Play.'); very little or vague oversight and consumer protection; lease agreements that apparently a compliant judicial system can unilaterally interpret or change to suit the desired result.  Over 15,000 timeshare owners have been fleeced, including those that paid to stay, probably making this the biggest white-collar heist in Canadian history.  We await to see if anyone in authority has the courage and the will to do something about it.


----------



## Scammed!

GypsyOne said:


> I see no reason to expect the Resort will fail.  Yes, the white-collar gang of perpetrators will probably skim off millions for themselves, but they will also spend tens of millions of our money on maintaining and enhancing the value of the property because it will be profitable to do so.  Fairmont in the Columbia Valley is one of the more beautiful pieces of real estate on the planet with many recreational activities in the area and a ready and willing customer base in two countries and in four directions prepared to buy in, just as over 15,000 timeshare customers thought they were buying a dream vacation for themselves for the rest of their lives, or an asset to bequeath to family.  A new generation of vacation seekers unaware of what went before will come along with descretionary money to spend.  The problem with the timeshare model is that it has the elements that can attract the white collar gang of opportunists - control of an attractive property in a beautiful area; a cash flow of tens of millions of dollars; a widespread and diverse customer base that makes organization difficult; a provincial government that does not want a popular tourist destination to fail, nor do they want to inject government funds into the resort to prop it up, along with a compliant judicial system (McLeans Magazine, February 11, 2017 "Welcome to British Columbia, Where You 'Pay to Play.'); very little or vague oversight and consumer protection; lease agreements that apparently a compliant judicial system can unilaterally interpret or change to suit the desired result.  Over 15,000 timeshare owners have been fleeced, including those that paid to stay, probably making this the biggest white-collar heist in Canadian history.  We await to see if anyone in authority has the courage and the will to do something about it.



Canmore said the same thing at first and in the end went bankrupt .........we lost what we had just put into that one. Used it three times.  Thank God they didn't come for more money!!!!..........so we lost two timeshares in same time frame....."INWTSAFTA" (I NEVER WANT TO SEE ANOTHER $UC$$%^ TIMESHARE AGAIN!)


----------



## GypsyOne

Scammed! said:


> Canmore said the same thing at first and in the end went bankrupt .........we lost what we had just put into that one. Used it three times.  Thank God they didn't come for more money!!!!..........so we lost two timeshares in same time frame....."INWTSAFTA" (I NEVER WANT TO SEE ANOTHER $UC$$%^ TIMESHARE AGAIN!)



The difference being that Canmore didn't come for more money to prop it up.  I presume they thought they could never get away with such a brazen act of contract violation.  They probably regret not hiring Wankel to explain how it could be done.


----------



## Inquiringmind

Plus454 said:


> Statute of Limitations? Hi all, I've found the question asked on here and some guessed answers but I haven't found a definitive answer on how Alberta Statute of Limitations laws affect this claim. In particular, when does the clock start? Did getting involved in this fruitless legal maneuver restart the clock?


I don’t know the answer to this question, but it is an excellent one. If applicable , Staute of Limitations, 2 years in Alberta, would dramatically reduce my amount owing. Can someone give a legal opinion?


----------



## Been Around Awhile

The money that is being ordered to be paid to Northmont by the courts is out of all proportion to any harm caused by the lessees or any damage resulting from the delays in the renovation. Firstly, those who paid to stay contributed millions to the renovation plan and all of that money has yet to be spent. Thus, there is no material harm to date. Secondly, Northmont advanced and is getting judgments on an estimated plan that is both extravagant in price per-square-foot and for twice the number of units remaining within the property (*#NAFR*). The courts, Loo, Fitzpatrick and Young have not even taken into consideration that the property  (*#NAFR*) is half of what it was when the Renovation Plan was advanced. Yet Northmont is not being reasonable and is charging for everything they possibly can, undermining any possible trust remaining lessees or creditors or even the Columbia Valley as a whole would have in Northmont. They aren't selling vacation intervals. Northmont is going to cash-out and dash for the Carribean. Thanks Judges.

Further, Northmont failed to act reasonably regarding expenses and mitigate the consequences of the greatly reduced occupancy of the property 
(*#NAFR*). They made no effort to reduce or control Maintenance Fees.

Northmont made no effort to work cooperatively with the lessees, none. They said here's the plan, don't like it? Then you can pay your share or, you can pay to leave. Northmont and Northmont alone caused this protracted dispute. 

The courts, the Judges, they facilitated this theft. They've made no effort whatsoever to insure the money will in fact benefit the property (*#NAFR*). It's their responsibility to enforce the law, not just declare a winner in the debate between lawyers.


----------



## LilMaggie

Sheeptoslaughter said:


> Yes its very sad take such a nice place and strip it down to a skeleton of whAt it was.  Its always been about money.   Never about improving for the lessees and working with the 15,000 who had invested a substantial chunk of their money already for 40 + years. Its all about greed and look whats left.  A bunch of boarded up buildings and the rest look rundown.  Now its destroying another 1300+ lives to punish people for attempting to right a wrong to their contracts.  Throw out the 26.82% interest, replace it with something more in line like 5%.   theyve already lost years of usage,maintenance fees charged when resort was barely being used should more than cover court fees and legal fees.  Hell in good faith give them a year or two back if they paid???? A little goodwill goes a long way.  KW may have succeeded in the courts but as a human being running a resort sucking people life savings to punish yes punish them !!!! For having an opinion different than him.  I hope it was worth it to throw 75% of it away i bet KW thought theyd all be thrilled to pay 1000'S more in fees to stay. Kw may have succeeded in collecting millions upon millions but Id be willing to bet 5 years from now most of property has been sold off, not improved and hes living life offshore somewhere with all the money he paid himself to manage.  Like all lawyers who are well paid despite the outcome kw been paying himself well through all of this.  All 15,000 lessees have lost their money some 2-3 times the investment, the town of fairmont has surely lost a ton of business and its left such a sour taste that nobody wants to go near that area.  The economic impact is huge as there is always a ripple effect   Anyone who remains has a fraction of what it once was.    Thanks to all who  participated in this fiasco to suck more money out of people who had already been paying in good faith.  Had they not been blocked from resort while sorting it out maintenance fees would have been paid too and??? Bringing money into the Resort Perhaps,just perhaps they may have decided then to pay or get out.    JMO.


We went to Radium BC last month, because like the rest of you, we love the Columbia valley.  For kicks and giggles, we decided to take a drive into Sunchaser.  Someone put lipstick on that pig.  Riverside buildings have been painted and look not too bad.  The pics on Interval world website show the updated suites, which look quite nice.  So my question is...are they getting them fixed up to sell off as condos or making an attempt to look like they have gone ahead with the original renovations?  Don't get me wrong,  there is nothing 5 star about that property. So if we did pay NM to stay or pay MG to leave...who is going to guarantee that our monies go toward running and upgrading Fairmont/ Sunchaser Villas for all those who want to use the units in the future.  Who ensures that our 40 millions dollars goes toward what we paid for?


----------



## LilMaggie

Been Around Awhile said:


> The money that is being ordered to be paid to Northmont by the courts is out of all proportion to any harm caused by the lessees or any damage resulting from the delays in the renovation. Firstly, those who paid to stay contributed millions to the renovation plan and all of that money has yet to be spent. Thus, there is no material harm to date. Secondly, Northmont advanced and is getting judgments on an estimated plan that is both extravagant in price per-square-foot and for twice the number of units remaining within the property (*#NAFR*). The courts, Loo, Fitzpatrick and Young have not even taken into consideration that the property  (*#NAFR*) is half of what it was when the Renovation Plan was advanced. Yet Northmont is not being reasonable and is charging for everything they possibly can, undermining any possible trust remaining lessees or creditors or even the Columbia Valley as a whole would have in Northmont. They aren't selling vacation intervals. Northmont is going to cash-out and dash for the Carribean. Thanks Judges.
> 
> Further, Northmont failed to act reasonably regarding expenses and mitigate the consequences of the greatly reduced occupancy of the property
> (*#NAFR*). They made no effort to reduce or control Maintenance Fees.
> 
> Northmont made no effort to work cooperatively with the lessees, none. They said here's the plan, don't like it? Then you can pay your share or, you can pay to leave. Northmont and Northmont alone caused this protracted dispute.
> 
> The courts, the Judges, they facilitated this theft. They've made no effort whatsoever to insure the money will in fact benefit the property (*#NAFR*). It's their responsibility to enforce the law, not just declare a winner in the debate between lawyers.


All true and well stated...let's face it.  No one cares but us! (and maybe Danielle Smith) Had we just paid to get out at the onset, we would have been much further ahead. Right now I am left wondering why we have to pay for our lawyers hubris or negligence. The settlement is...wait for it...maintenance fees for the past five years, restructuring fees, legal fees, fees to cancel lease and 27% interest...nice negotiating! So where do we go from here??


----------



## LilMaggie




----------



## dotbuhler

LilMaggie said:


> All true and well stated...let's face it.  No one cares but us! (and maybe Danielle Smith) Had we just paid to get out at the onset, we would have been much further ahead. Right now I am left wondering why we have to pay for our lawyers hubris or negligence. The settlement is...wait for it...maintenance fees for the past five years, restructuring fees, legal fees, fees to cancel lease and 27% interest...nice negotiating! So where do we go from here??[/QUOTE
> Start a case file with the B.C. Law Society, you can contact via email and they will send you a hard copy with the case #. Legal fees paid out when M.G. was aware that Cox Taylor had already nailed the coffin shut on each of us able to proceed individually (info NOT relayed to us) indicates that he was not acting in your or my best interests. That's fraud! There is no requirement to pay him any more money, knowing this.


----------



## dotbuhler

Misled said:


> To correct one thing mentioned in this post there are in fact consumer protection laws in Alberta that are designed to prevent unfair commercial practices such as those used by Northmont.  These are detailed within the Alberta Fair Trading Act (now called the Alberta Consumer Protection Act).  For example, the unilateral contract amendments and the imposition of arbitrary cancellation fees are both defined as unfair and illegal practices in Alberta legislation.  The problem is that the Geldert group Lawyer’s did not use these consumer protection laws in their arguments to judge Young in Alberta.  To that end the Geldert group Lawyer’s were grossly incompetent.  Regardless of judge Young’s ill informed decision the fact remains that these 2 practices of Northmont are illegal under Alberta law. This egregious non compliance with Alberta law needs to be reported to your MLA, judge young, and Service Alberta who has done nothing to enforce these laws to protect consumers.


Don't forget, and this is BIG: The B.C. Law Society and the Alberta Law Society. Post a lawyer review on Yelp. Sign the petition circulating on Facebook and Twitter. Heck, start your own petition!


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> I've heard that Belfry had his timeshares in his company name and that his company went bankrupt so he didn't have to pay anything.  Not sure if that's true but it would explain him not being around anymore.


..and it looks like we were suckered into paying his legal bills with our money....


----------



## Sheeptoslaughter

Gold plated paint job??? For all that $$$???


----------



## Late2Game

CleoB said: "I_'ve heard that Belfry had his timeshares in his company name and that his company went bankrupt so he didn't have to pay anything. Not sure if that's true but it would explain him not being around anymore_."



dotbuhler said:


> ..and it looks like we were suckered into paying his legal bills with our money....



Okay, so let me understand this.

Fairmont goes bankrupt and sails to the Caribbean with MILLIONS of timeshare owners 40-yr investment and maintenance fees.  *NO liability* because they are incorporated.
Northmont buys the property for pennies on the dollar, and retains the upside/rights in the TS contracts, including right to stick lessees with capital improvement fees, 27% interest, and ability to rewrite your contract in whatever way, shape or form they wish.  Like Fairmont, Northmont is also incorporated and therefore faces *NO liability*.
Now what I'm hearing -- _and yet to be confirmed_ -- Belfry was able to walk from his fees because his TS contract was held by his corporate entity, and therefore *NO liability*
Oh, and BTW -- any lawyer worth his salt is also incorporated, ensuring they incur *NO liability*!
*OKAY!!  Looks like there is only one set of suckers here  --- and that's the rest of us!*

*THERE'S a pattern here folks . . . .INCORPORATE!!!*

I've heard plenty of sad stories here.  Ones that stick in my mind are the poor souls who inherited a TS from their parents and are now *STUCK with the liability*.  OR the people of bought their TS on eBay or Kijiji for $1.00 and are now *STUCK with the liability*.


*HERE'S A POTENTIAL SOLUTION:*
What if some entrepreneur was to start up a business -- a LLC - LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION -- and BUY all of our timeshares for a small fee.  Perhaps $1.00 would do.  They may also need to charge us a small one-time "facilitation fee" of say $250 to cover the registration transfer and so forth.  BUT WE ARE NOW EX-TS LESSEES, with *NO LIABILITY*.  And a year or two from now the LLC goes under with *NO LIABILITY* either.  *NO PROBLEM!!*

*COULD WE DO THAT??  Don't think for one moment Northnmont wouldn't do this if they were in our shoes!!*

.


----------



## DisgustedinWA

i would pay up my delinquency if I knew where the money is going. I'd pay money to find out where the money would go, if we can force an owner's oversight committee, can we hire a new trustee and manager with 51% of the owners, would NM have any votes if they're not paying maintenance fees ? This would take a resident with the time and energy to spearhead hiring a knowledgeable attorney to guide us through this process.  Maybe we could get an injunction to delay this "settlement" until we can get an alternate legal opinion of this option. Then we would have a real* choice to pay to stay or pay to go.* We've been out lawyered, so the only hope I see is working from the inside for change. It seems like we could have a nice resort with all the money being raised. The reit would have to wait until our leases expire to cash in.


----------



## MarcieL

Good idea but we cannot sell our T.S. without the approval of Northmont.  Incorporate is definitely the way to go, put the company into bankruptcy and walk away, after we've paid the legal fees.  This entire scam has put people into personal bankruptcy, seniors on fixed incomes having to take out loans, mtge their homes, cash in RRSP's all in the name of greed.  This is happening in Canada, folks un believable.


----------



## LilMaggie

Late2Game said:


> CleoB said: "I_'ve heard that Belfry had his timeshares in his company name and that his company went bankrupt so he didn't have to pay anything. Not sure if that's true but it would explain him not being around anymore_."
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so let me understand this.
> 
> Fairmont goes bankrupt and sails to the Caribbean with MILLIONS of timeshare owners 40-yr investment and maintenance fees.  *NO liability* because they are incorporated.
> Northmont buys the property for pennies on the dollar, and retains the upside/rights in the TS contracts, including right to stick lessees with capital improvement fees, 27% interest, and ability to rewrite your contract in whatever way, shape or form they wish.  Like Fairmont, Northmont is also incorporated and therefore faces *NO liability*.
> Now what I'm hearing -- _and yet to be confirmed_ -- Belfry was able to walk from his fees because his TS contract was held by his corporate entity, and therefore *NO liability*
> Oh, and BTW -- any lawyer worth his salt is also incorporated, ensuring they incur *NO liability*!
> *OKAY!!  Looks like there is only one set of suckers here  --- and that's the rest of us!*
> 
> *THERE'S a pattern here folks . . . .INCORPORATE!!!*
> 
> I've heard plenty of sad stories here.  Ones that stick in my mind are the poor souls who inherited a TS from their parents and are now *STUCK with the liability*.  OR the people of bought their TS on eBay or Kijiji for $1.00 and are now *STUCK with the liability*.
> 
> 
> *HERE'S A POTENTIAL SOLUTION:*
> What if some entrepreneur was to start up a business -- a LLC - LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION -- and BUY all of our timeshares for a small fee.  Perhaps $1.00 would do.  They may also need to charge us a small one-time "facilitation fee" of say $250 to cover the registration transfer and so forth.  BUT WE ARE NOW EX-TS LESSEES, with *NO LIABILITY*.  And a year or two from now the LLC goes under with *NO LIABILITY* either.  *NO PROBLEM!!*
> 
> *COULD WE DO THAT??  Don't think for one moment Northnmont wouldn't do this if they were in our shoes!!*
> 
> .


I love the way you think... So does that mean that NM would have to sue the LLC to get any money?  Is that even legal...bahaha?!


----------



## fairmontlovers

I made an inquiry with MG if we could save a few dollars of not paying the exit fee and only pay for the original renovation fee and also outstanding maintenance fees. My thought on this is that they should not be able to charge 26.8% interest on the renovation project since they have not done any further renovations. How do you charge interest for work not done?  I was told that Northwynd will not allow this, getting back in is not an option. So now all of a sudden we are NOT delinquent owners? How can they on one hand refuse to allow us to pay up to get back in to use the remainder of our lease, and on the other hand threaten to charge for 2018 maintenance fees if we don't pay by Feb 15? This defies logic and indicates to me that this is purely a cash grab.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

Late2Game said:


> CleoB said: "I_'ve heard that Belfry had his timeshares in his company name and that his company went bankrupt so he didn't have to pay anything. Not sure if that's true but it would explain him not being around anymore_."
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so let me understand this.
> 
> Fairmont goes bankrupt and sails to the Caribbean with MILLIONS of timeshare owners 40-yr investment and maintenance fees.  *NO liability* because they are incorporated.
> Northmont buys the property for pennies on the dollar, and retains the upside/rights in the TS contracts, including right to stick lessees with capital improvement fees, 27% interest, and ability to rewrite your contract in whatever way, shape or form they wish.  Like Fairmont, Northmont is also incorporated and therefore faces *NO liability*.
> Now what I'm hearing -- _and yet to be confirmed_ -- Belfry was able to walk from his fees because his TS contract was held by his corporate entity, and therefore *NO liability*
> Oh, and BTW -- any lawyer worth his salt is also incorporated, ensuring they incur *NO liability*!
> *OKAY!!  Looks like there is only one set of suckers here  --- and that's the rest of us!*
> 
> *THERE'S a pattern here folks . . . .INCORPORATE!!!*
> 
> I've heard plenty of sad stories here.  Ones that stick in my mind are the poor souls who inherited a TS from their parents and are now *STUCK with the liability*.  OR the people of bought their TS on eBay or Kijiji for $1.00 and are now *STUCK with the liability*.
> 
> 
> *HERE'S A POTENTIAL SOLUTION:*
> What if some entrepreneur was to start up a business -- a LLC - LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION -- and BUY all of our timeshares for a small fee.  Perhaps $1.00 would do.  They may also need to charge us a small one-time "facilitation fee" of say $250 to cover the registration transfer and so forth.  BUT WE ARE NOW EX-TS LESSEES, with *NO LIABILITY*.  And a year or two from now the LLC goes under with *NO LIABILITY* either.  *NO PROBLEM!!*
> 
> *COULD WE DO THAT??  Don't think for one moment Northnmont wouldn't do this if they were in our shoes!!*
> 
> .



You know what really sucks? We have no say in them changing our contract but, they can deny any title transfer by a lessee.


----------



## aden2

I was checking the BANKRUPTCY and INSOLVENT ACT  for Alberta. It is a crime to be selling goods or services when you have declared bankruptcy or being insolvent . Therefore anyone that bought in 2009-10 it was illegal for Fairmont to be conducting business without disclosure!


----------



## LilMaggie

aden2 said:


> I was checking the BANKRUPTCY and INSOLVENT ACT  for Alberta. It is a crime to be selling goods or services when you have declared bankruptcy or being insolvent . Therefore anyone that bought in 2009-10 it was illegal for Fairmont to be conducting business without disclosure!


That would be great if someone would uphold that law.  I was wondering if a person could terminate the contract for breach or fraud or something.


----------



## Tanny13

fairmontlovers said:


> I made an inquiry with MG if we could save a few dollars of not paying the exit fee and only pay for the original renovation fee and also outstanding maintenance fees. My thought on this is that they should not be able to charge 26.8% interest on the renovation project since they have not done any further renovations. How do you charge interest for work not done?  I was told that Northwynd will not allow this, getting back in is not an option. So now all of a sudden we are NOT delinquent owners? How can they on one hand refuse to allow us to pay up to get back in to use the remainder of our lease, and on the other hand threaten to charge for 2018 maintenance fees if we don't pay by Feb 15? This defies logic and indicates to me that this is purely a cash grab.



Getting back in is not an option??  If you haven't signed the settlement agreement, then you are still an owner.  And, if you pay your outstanding account, including the interest and costs to be determined, then you should have full use of your timeshare.  If not, Northmont is in default.  It truly does defy logic and it's hard to believe that MG, as representative of this group, would pass on this kind of information.


----------



## LilMaggie

Tanny13 said:


> Getting back in is not an option??  If you haven't signed the settlement agreement, then you are still an owner.  And, if you pay your outstanding account, including the interest and costs to be determined, then you should have full use of your timeshare.  If not, Northmont is in default.  It truly does defy logic and it's hard to believe that MG, as representative of this group, would pass on this kind of information.


I defies logic indeed!


----------



## Scammed!

Bottom line we need a lawyer to bring this all before The Honourable Judge Young. Easier said then done. Funny I received a letter from an MLA that stated we should find a lawyer to represent us and call the law society. I emailed back and mentioned that we are unable to find a lawyer which we find unusual. Never did hear back. It's almost like an email went out to all lawyers to disregard any timeshare calls, kind of like how the news was told the same......funny how that is....now who would do that?


----------



## Late2Game

Scammed! said:


> Bottom line we need a lawyer to bring this all before The Honourable Judge Young. Easier said then done. Funny I received a letter from an MLA that stated we should find a lawyer to represent us and call the law society. I emailed back and mentioned that we are unable to find a lawyer which we find unusual. Never did hear back. It's almost like an email went out to all lawyers to disregard any timeshare calls, kind of like how the news was told the same......funny how that is....now who would do that?



AMAZING EH?  Well, maybe not.  Lots of folks here have said "let's get a lawyer" and yet to no avail.  Why, you say?  Perhaps for the very same reason 3-4 years ago we could only find the ONE lawyer to take this on.  Perhaps because the odds are not on our side now, and perhaps they never were 3-4 years ago either.  

Law firms are a business, and they are generally open to bringing on new business if there's an opportunity to make a case that will benefit the client.  What are the odds they are ALL too busy these days and don't want any new clients?  I'd suggest any lawyer that scratched the surface of this TUGBBS forum and saw the lynch mob forming would just keep on walking . . . . just sayin'.

BTW, there was ONE lawyer who offered his services 3-4 years ago, and we all followed him like the children that followed the "Pied Piper". 
.


----------



## CleoB

Been Around Awhile said:


> The money that is being ordered to be paid to Northmont by the courts is out of all proportion to any harm caused by the lessees or any damage resulting from the delays in the renovation. Firstly, those who paid to stay contributed millions to the renovation plan and all of that money has yet to be spent. Thus, there is no material harm to date. Secondly, Northmont advanced and is getting judgments on an estimated plan that is both extravagant in price per-square-foot and for twice the number of units remaining within the property (*#NAFR*). The courts, Loo, Fitzpatrick and Young have not even taken into consideration that the property  (*#NAFR*) is half of what it was when the Renovation Plan was advanced. Yet Northmont is not being reasonable and is charging for everything they possibly can, undermining any possible trust remaining lessees or creditors or even the Columbia Valley as a whole would have in Northmont. They aren't selling vacation intervals. Northmont is going to cash-out and dash for the Carribean. Thanks Judges.
> 
> Further, Northmont failed to act reasonably regarding expenses and mitigate the consequences of the greatly reduced occupancy of the property
> (*#NAFR*). They made no effort to reduce or control Maintenance Fees.
> 
> Northmont made no effort to work cooperatively with the lessees, none. They said here's the plan, don't like it? Then you can pay your share or, you can pay to leave. Northmont and Northmont alone caused this protracted dispute.
> 
> The courts, the Judges, they facilitated this theft. They've made no effort whatsoever to insure the money will in fact benefit the property (*#NAFR*). It's their responsibility to enforce the law, not just declare a winner in the debate between lawyers.


"It's their responsibility to enforce the law, not just declare a winner in the debate between lawyers"
You are so right about that.  I couldn't have said it better.


----------



## Living Real

fairmontlovers said:


> I made an inquiry with MG if we could save a few dollars of not paying the exit fee and only pay for the original renovation fee and also outstanding maintenance fees. My thought on this is that they should not be able to charge 26.8% interest on the renovation project since they have not done any further renovations. How do you charge interest for work not done?  I was told that Northwynd will not allow this, getting back in is not an option. So now all of a sudden we are NOT delinquent owners? How can they on one hand refuse to allow us to pay up to get back in to use the remainder of our lease, and on the other hand threaten to charge for 2018 maintenance fees if we don't pay by Feb 15? This defies logic and indicates to me that this is purely a cash grab.


Hi, I'm new on the site, but a lessee, and feeling like this, this is just a cash grab. The settlement offer doesn't make sense to me, we gave up the leverage of blocking the downsizing of the resort for this? I consulted legally on my personal situation and was asked why this didn't go to the Supreme Court of Canada. With the uncertainty and confusion around timeshares it was thought it would have been a great opportunity. If I were a rich man.........


----------



## Living Real

MarcieL said:


> Good idea but we cannot sell our T.S. without the approval of Northmont.  Incorporate is definitely the way to go, put the company into bankruptcy and walk away, after we've paid the legal fees.  This entire scam has put people into personal bankruptcy, seniors on fixed incomes having to take out loans, mtge their homes, cash in RRSP's all in the name of greed.  This is happening in Canada, folks un believable.


Yes, having to cash in RRSPs, money I saved for those extras in my senior years, thought I had my vacationed covered, promises of great vacations at that day pricing, oh well, karma.......


----------



## ecwinch

Been Around Awhile said:


> But they are the same entity for the purposes of the contract, are they not? Otherwise, why does the contract survive the bankruptcy? Is Northmont not due the same rights under the contract that were due Fairmont? Is Northmont not still obligated to deliver the same elements of the contractual exchange as was Fairmont? The lessees certainly are.
> 
> I think the bankruptcy court made a grievous mistake not insuring 18,000 interests were represented during these deliberations.



In terms of the contractual rights/obligations explicitly stated in the lease/VIA, it is true that Northmont has assumed those obligations/rights. But Northmont did not assume any of liabilities of Fairmont. The court explicitly states this in para 161 of the JEKE v Northmont

_[161] The Foreclosure Agreement also specifically addressed which Fairmont liabilities were being assumed, or more importantly, not being assumed. The following definition from the Foreclosure Agreement applies: “Fairmont Retained Liabilities" means each and every obligation, indebtedness (Including all of the debt obligations, trade payables and other liabilities related to the ownership or operation of the Fairmont Foreclosed Assets, to Fairmont or to the Fairmont Business) or other liability or accrued liability of Fairmont and whether existing or contingent, in tort or by way of any contract, permit, licence or other agreement, any deed or instrument, any judgement order of a court or other authority having jurisdiction, any statute, regulation, order-in-council, bylaw, policy or other decision of act of any Authority, any rule or operation of law or in any other way arising, whether similar to any of the foregoing or otherwise, but excludes any liabilities expressly assumed by the Creditor pursuant to section 2.3(c). (para. 1.1(zzz))_


----------



## Scammed!

A big week ahead....don't stop.


----------



## MarcieL

Hi, I'm new on the site, but a lessee, and feeling like this, this is just a cash grab. The settlement offer doesn't make sense to me, we gave up the leverage of blocking the downsizing of the resort for this? I consulted legally on my personal situation and was asked why this didn't go to the Supreme Court of Canada. With the uncertainty and confusion around timeshares it was thought it would have been a great opportunity. If I were a rich man.........

Was there ever any doubt it is just a cash grab?   We were kept hanging with the promise of a class action.  We were then told it would take too long and imagine what our invoices would be by then??  Were you consulted, nor was I, however considering the history, perhaps a wise decision. The Supreme court probably a good idea with different representation!


----------



## Petus@18

MarcieL said:


> Hi, I'm new on the site, but a lessee, and feeling like this, this is just a cash grab. The settlement offer doesn't make sense to me, we gave up the leverage of blocking the downsizing of the resort for this? I consulted legally on my personal situation and was asked why this didn't go to the Supreme Court of Canada. With the uncertainty and confusion around timeshares it was thought it would have been a great opportunity. If I were a rich man.........
> 
> Was there ever any doubt it is just a cash grab?   We were kept hanging with the promise of a class action.  We were then told it would take too long and imagine what our invoices would be by then??  Were you consulted, nor was I, however considering the history, perhaps a wise decision. The Supreme court probably a good idea with different representation!



We still have the appeal open Re Northmont vs Reid,  but we don't have legal representation?  As for the civil claims against all of us, we each need to follow up and prepare to appear in Court.  Get all of your documents from Geldert and ensure he is not charging you for all the work he is doing for Northmont. Collecting money for Northmont was not part of our retainers. He needs to account for everything he is charging us.


----------



## Bewildered

My fear is that the release is so poorly documented by MG that even if we pay to get out, the nightmare continues and we’re not out! Anybody have a lawyer with a real brain look at this? I am because someone smarter than me looked at it and doesn’t like how it reads. What part guarantees we are truly out? I am not counting on the legal system after the fact to fix a reoccurring nightmare.


----------



## wagga2650

Just a thought why not donate our timeshares to some major charity like kids with cancer so the kids can use it as a camp for families etc.Then if NM goes after them public opinion would crucify them.


----------



## GypsyOne

wagga2650 said:


> Just a thought why not donate our timeshares to some major charity like kids with cancer so the kids can use it as a camp for families etc.Then if NM goes after them public opinion would crucify them.


Since when has this gang shown any remorse, conscience, or concern for public opinion?


----------



## MarcieL

Google, Resorts west management group offshore.  Then Google  Collin Knight,


----------



## MgolferL

Tanny13 said:


> Getting back in is not an option??  If you haven't signed the settlement agreement, then you are still an owner.  And, if you pay your outstanding account, including the interest and costs to be determined, then you should have full use of your timeshare.  If not, Northmont is in default.  It truly does defy logic and it's hard to believe that MG, as representative of this group, would pass on this kind of information.



1. How can we NOT still be "owners", when we (At least I) received an invoice from Northmont... Dated Nov 30, 2017...asking for payment going back to 2013? I am going to call them and ask them what happens IF I pay this invoice today...

2. Spoke thru an intermediator to one the original attorneys prior to MG, who backed out early because they didn't like the strategy MG and gang were going to use. They are looking into as they have been contacted by several people. They mainly are interested in the interest rates as they "think" they may illegal based on a couple of class action suits. 

3. MG advised us NOT to pay maintenance fees. I have retained all the emails and have several with that claim. The PROPER procedure would have been to put the fees into a trust pending judgement and the interest would have stopped...according to a lawyer, as well as.... All attorneys have to carry insurance in case they make an error in advice costing they clients money. As MG has totally messed this up, we ALL need to file with the legal boards. Because of his advice, we are all out thousands, and don't know for sure, but may have a claim against him that his insurance might have to cover. It is worth a try people, don't sit on the fence.

4. Lastly, if NM were to settle as in point 1 above, I would stay JUST TO MAKE THEIR LIFE HELL FROM THE INSIDE...Just sayin'


----------



## MgolferL

Misled said:


> Alberta has consumer protection laws that do apply to this situation.  Therefore everyone involved should read the Alberta Fair Trading Act and focus on section 6 (3) unfair practices section 7(1) cancelling agreements also look at  Bill 31 amendments, section 6.1 unilateral changes to contracts, section 6.2 (4) cancellation following notice of unilateral change.  The above are defined as unfair and illegal practices under Alberta law, so why is the government not holding Northmont accountable for violating these laws??? Call your MLA and demand to know why Service Alberta is not enforcing these laws.



We need to get more letters out to Ms Stephanie McLean this week. She is in the news again this morning championing women's rights and there are a lot of women being hurt by this, whose rights are being stomped on by greedy, unethical white accountants... She was appointed Minister of Service _Alberta_ and Status of Women on February 2, 2016. seems she should have several interests with this...


----------



## aden2

ecwinch said:


> In terms of the contractual rights/obligations explicitly stated in the lease/VIA, it is true that Northmont has assumed those obligations/rights. But Northmont did not assume any of liabilities of Fairmont. The court explicitly states this in para 161 of the JEKE v Northmont
> 
> _[161] The Foreclosure Agreement also specifically addressed which Fairmont liabilities were being assumed, or more importantly, not being assumed. The following definition from the Foreclosure Agreement applies: “Fairmont Retained Liabilities" means each and every obligation, indebtedness (Including all of the debt obligations, trade payables and other liabilities related to the ownership or operation of the Fairmont Foreclosed Assets, to Fairmont or to the Fairmont Business) or other liability or accrued liability of Fairmont and whether existing or contingent, in tort or by way of any contract, permit, licence or other agreement, any deed or instrument, any judgement order of a court or other authority having jurisdiction, any statute, regulation, order-in-council, bylaw, policy or other decision of act of any Authority, any rule or operation of law or in any other way arising, whether similar to any of the foregoing or otherwise, but excludes any liabilities expressly assumed by the Creditor pursuant to section 2.3(c). (para. 1.1(zzz))_


*But according to the "Bankruptcy and Insolvent Act" business cannot be done unless their is full disclosure other wise I think it could be called* *FRAUD*!!!


----------



## Spark1

LilMaggie said:


> All true and well stated...let's face it.  No one cares but us! (and maybe Danielle Smith) Had we just paid to get out at the onset, we would have been much further ahead. Right now I am left wondering why we have to pay for our lawyers hubris or negligence. The settlement is...wait for it...maintenance fees for the past five years, restructuring fees, legal fees, fees to cancel lease and 27% interest...nice negotiating! So where do we go from here??


who stoped you


Living Real said:


> Hi, I'm new on the site, but a lessee, and feeling like this, this is just a cash grab. The settlement offer doesn't make sense to me, we gave up the leverage of blocking the downsizing of the resort for this? I consulted legally on my personal situation and was asked why this didn't go to the Supreme Court of Canada. With the uncertainty and confusion around timeshares it was thought it would have been a great opportunity. If I were a rich man.........





MarcieL said:


> Good idea but we cannot sell our T.S. without the approval of Northmont.  Incorporate is definitely the way to go, put the company into bankruptcy and walk away, after we've paid the legal fees.  This entire scam has put people into personal bankruptcy, seniors on fixed incomes having to take out loans, mtge their homes, cash in RRSP's all in the name of greed.  This is happening in Canada, folks un believable.


----------



## fairmontlovers

MgolferL said:


> 1. How can we NOT still be "owners", when we (At least I) received an invoice from Northmont... Dated Nov 30, 2017...asking for payment going back to 2013? I am going to call them and ask them what happens IF I pay this invoice today...
> '



Adding to this. If we ask to come back in, how could they justify demanding us to pay 26.8% interest on the renovation project? They only renovated 3 of the buildings as far as I understand. The funds from the 4,000 that decided to stay would have covered the costs of these renovations. How can you charge interest on work not done?


----------



## Spark1

THEPETITIONSITE.COM.       Every one should go to Facebook on the search for people,places and things and sign Dorthy Zazelenckuk. Northwynd Class Action Lawsuit.   Dorthy needs you help we need 1000 signers.  Thanks


----------



## LilMaggie

I need someone to clarify the default clause 13 in my lease that states "In the event that default in payment in not remedied within 16 months from the date of such default, then the Lessee shall be deemed to have offered to sell the Lessee's leasehold interest to the Lessor for an amount equal to fifty percent of one fortieth of the purchase price..."  It goes on to say how much the Lessor would owe the Lessee if they sold it within a year of taking it back. How do we get NM to take back our leases, as I am offering mine back to them?  I have been in default now for almost five years, thanks to the advice of one who shall go unnamed. My lease also specifically sets out a late charge of 2% per month of the amount past due.  So 24%.  That may not seem like much difference from 26.8%, however that is not a rate I ever agreed to pay.


----------



## LilMaggie

MgolferL said:


> 1. How can we NOT still be "owners", when we (At least I) received an invoice from Northmont... Dated Nov 30, 2017...asking for payment going back to 2013? I am going to call them and ask them what happens IF I pay this invoice today...
> 
> 2. Spoke thru an intermediator to one the original attorneys prior to MG, who backed out early because they didn't like the strategy MG and gang were going to use. They are looking into as they have been contacted by several people. They mainly are interested in the interest rates as they "think" they may illegal based on a couple of class action suits.
> 
> 3. MG advised us NOT to pay maintenance fees. I have retained all the emails and have several with that claim. The PROPER procedure would have been to put the fees into a trust pending judgement and the interest would have stopped...according to a lawyer, as well as.... All attorneys have to carry insurance in case they make an error in advice costing they clients money. As MG has totally messed this up, we ALL need to file with the legal boards. Because of his advice, we are all out thousands, and don't know for sure, but may have a claim against him that his insurance might have to cover. It is worth a try people, don't sit on the fence.
> 
> 4. Lastly, if NM were to settle as in point 1 above, I would stay JUST TO MAKE THEIR LIFE HELL FROM THE INSIDE...Just sayin'


We are still owners/lessees.  If we pay the invoice they sent out, we would continue to be in.  Please let us know if you find out otherwise.


----------



## Roxanne

Spark1 said:


> THEPETITIONSITE.COM.       Every one should go to Facebook on the search for people,places and things and sign Dorthy Zazelenckuk. Northwynd Class Action Lawsuit.   Dorthy needs you help we need 1000 signers.  Thanks


Just signed the petition. Thanks for sharing this with all of us.


----------



## MgolferL

LilMaggie said:


> We are still owners/lessees.  If we pay the invoice they sent out, we would continue to be in.  Please let us know if you find out otherwise.



I spoke with customer "care" at NM. They (customer "care") do not know specific details BUT in regards to the two items...
1. If you have received a previous invoice and IF you are with MG, they have been advised by their mgmt. to tell the "customer" to contact Geldert and have been given instructions not to accept payment directly.

2. IF you wanted to stay in at this point, AND if you are with MG, they again (customer "care"), not knowing specifics, have been told by their mgmt. to have the person(s) enquiring contact MG.

In other words, they do NOT want to talk with, be associated with, or have anything to do with us going forward and would like to rid their life of us as soon as quickly as possible...with money in hand of course. Talk about a bad divorce... (all my words BTW, but I think a fair assessment)

Last comment - the lady at customer "care" was very nice and professional...not at all like the b**** that actually talked us into moving to the "dark-side" 5 years ago. She could have hung up and moved on and not answered any questions (which in reality she didn't anyway) but chose to stay on the line....point being...she was nice, they are still scum bags and according to them MG is the answer man....and no, they will not take our money to stay now.


----------



## MgolferL

Roxanne said:


> Just signed the petition. Thanks for sharing this with all of us.


 I signed it as well.


----------



## LilMaggie

MgolferL said:


> I spoke with customer "care" at NM. They (customer "care") do not know specific details BUT in regards to the two items...
> 1. If you have received a previous invoice and IF you are with MG, they have been advised by their mgmt. to tell the "customer" to contact Geldert and have been given instructions not to accept payment directly.
> 
> 2. IF you wanted to stay in at this point, AND if you are with MG, they again (customer "care"), not knowing specifics, have been told by their mgmt. to have the person(s) enquiring contact MG.
> 
> In other words, they do NOT want to talk with, be associated with, or have anything to do with us going forward and would like to rid their life of us as soon as quickly as possible...with money in hand of course. Talk about a bad divorce... (all my words BTW, but I think a fair assessment)
> 
> Last comment - the lady at customer "care" was very nice and professional...not at all like the b**** that actually talked us into moving to the "dark-side" 5 years ago. She could have hung up and moved on and not answered any questions (which in reality she didn't anyway) but chose to stay on the line....point being...she was nice, they are still scum bags and according to them MG is the answer man....and no, they will not take our money to stay now.


Wow.  Thanks so much for that information. So now NM will only take our money to leave unless we work out something with MG if we want to stay.


----------



## MgolferL

LilMaggie said:


> Wow.  Thanks so much for that information. So now NM will only take our money to leave unless we work out something with MG if we want to stay.



Unfortunately this confirms what "Fairmont lovers" posted in post 3483. They got their info from MG and I got basically the same answer from NM.

They know they have "won" in the courts so we of no consequence to them any longer as the clock is ticking down. With the under-whelming support of politicians and even courts they know they can have a "no prisoners" attitude. 

Perhaps we could have a town-hall meeting and have KW present the NM business model...think he would show up?


----------



## Sheeptoslaughter

MgolferL said:


> 1. How can we NOT still be "owners", when we (At least I) received an invoice from Northmont... Dated Nov 30, 2017...asking for payment going back to 2013? I am going to call them and ask them what happens IF I pay this invoice today...
> 
> 2. Spoke thru an intermediator to one the original attorneys prior to MG, who backed out early because they didn't like the strategy MG and gang were going to use. They are looking into as they have been contacted by several people. They mainly are interested in the interest rates as they "think" they may illegal based on a couple of class action suits.
> 
> 3. MG advised us NOT to pay maintenance fees. I have retained all the emails and have several with that claim. The PROPER procedure would have been to put the fees into a trust pending judgement and the interest would have stopped...according to a lawyer, as well as.... All attorneys have to carry insurance in case they make an error in advice costing they clients money. As MG has totally messed this up, we ALL need to file with the legal boards. Because of his advice, we are all out thousands, and don't know for sure, but may have a claim against him that his insurance might have to cover. It is worth a try people, don't sit on the fence.
> 
> 4. Lastly, if NM were to settle as in point 1 above, I would stay JUST TO MAKE THEIR LIFE HELL FROM THE INSIDE...Just sayin'





I asked about paying and the accumulating interest as well easily 2 possibly 3 times in the past directly to MG and i do have his replies to not pay.  Im not a lawyer i relied on his advice in this mess.  If it was more appropriate to advise payment we would have.  And i dont consider this an excellent deal when there was no neutral mediator or arbitrator present basically we've been thrown under the bus.   And lastly theres no way in hell NM has been put out by this much money id like to see the financial statements to show this.  Without all these weeks in use theyve saved a ton of money from it.  So really its mostly punitive.


----------



## Tacoma

Why would any of us want to stay? They can charge whatever exit fee and maintenance fee that they want. Basically court sanctioned. We are just an open wallet to this company. I LOVED that valley but now I drive farther and vacation in the okanagan. If time is limited it is a very quick flight to Kelowna. If I do go to the valley I take all of my groceries and adult drinks. There are so many beautiful places around us I refuse to give that valley much of my time or money. I'd like to be able to stop going to BC over this but I realize I can't so I just go further or to Fernie. Same distance different MLA. The only thing anyone understands is $. Don't give them yours. 

Does anyone really believe they are working to make the resort better? Or just put more $ in their pockets? I predict they will go bankrupt or sell the resort soon. They do not want to run a resort. They only want the $ from a group that has lots of members and don't have an effective way to communicate with each other.That's why they never set up an HOA, they would have had to answer to someone.

If you absolutely have to go use any other timeshare to trade in to Fairmont with. I'm sure it won't be a hard trade and you have a much better chance of dealing with an ethical company. Or better yet use an airbnb. Anything that protects your assets from this group. I really, really, really need to believe in karma. How anyone can associate with this group without feeling utter repulsion is beyond me. How do they hold their heads up in public? I've always said I would love my children no matter what they do but if they became people who would ruin thousands of people just because they can I likely would rarely communicate with them. Anyone can make a mistake but no one should enjoy feeding off of the weak. I will be the better person I will pay them what the courts say I owe and then I will never communicate with them again.


----------



## dotbuhler

Roxanne said:


> Just signed the petition. Thanks for sharing this with all of us.


Thank you for signing, and please share the petition with everyone you can think of! One way or another we WILL prevail!


----------



## dotbuhler

Spark1 said:


> THEPETITIONSITE.COM.       Every one should go to Facebook on the search for people,places and things and sign Dorthy Zazelenckuk. Northwynd Class Action Lawsuit.   Dorthy needs you help we need 1000 signers.  Thanks


It's a mouthful, that last name...correct spelling is Dorothy Zazelenchuk....thepetitionsite.com and thanks for getting it out there!


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> "It's their responsibility to enforce the law, not just declare a winner in the debate between lawyers"
> You are so right about that.  I couldn't have said it better.


That's why I plan to represent myself on appeal. An ex-lawyer awarding points over two lawyers in a pissing contest means that the reality and context of our issue is lost in the legal posturing. We need to put a human face to this, speak from the heart, and probably spark some interest in an otherwise dull day for a presiding Judge.


----------



## LilMaggie

Sheeptoslaughter said:


> I asked about paying and the accumulating interest as well easily 2 possibly 3 times in the past directly to MG and i do have his replies to not pay.  Im not a lawyer i relied on his advice in this mess.  If it was more appropriate to advise payment we would have.  And i dont consider this an excellent deal when there was no neutral mediator or arbitrator present basically we've been thrown under the bus.   And lastly theres no way in hell NM has been put out by this much money id like to see the financial statements to show this.  Without all these weeks in use theyve saved a ton of money from it.  So really its mostly punitive.


What enrages me even more, if that is possible...is that we paid for this advice and continue to if we sign the settlement.


----------



## LilMaggie

Tacoma said:


> Why would any of us want to stay? They can charge whatever exit fee and maintenance fee that they want. Basically court sanctioned. We are just an open wallet to this company. I LOVED that valley but now I drive farther and vacation in the okanagan. If time is limited it is a very quick flight to Kelowna. If I do go to the valley I take all of my groceries and adult drinks. There are so many beautiful places around us I refuse to give that valley much of my time or money. I'd like to be able to stop going to BC over this but I realize I can't so I just go further or to Fernie. Same distance different MLA. The only thing anyone understands is $. Don't give them yours.
> 
> Does anyone really believe they are working to make the resort better? Or just put more $ in their pockets? I predict they will go bankrupt or sell the resort soon. They do not want to run a resort. They only want the $ from a group that has lots of members and don't have an effective way to communicate with each other.That's why they never set up an HOA, they would have had to answer to someone.
> 
> If you absolutely have to go use any other timeshare to trade in to Fairmont with. I'm sure it won't be a hard trade and you have a much better chance of dealing with an ethical company. Or better yet use an airbnb. Anything that protects your assets from this group. I really, really, really need to believe in karma. How anyone can associate with this group without feeling utter repulsion is beyond me. How do they hold their heads up in public? I've always said I would love my children no matter what they do but if they became people who would ruin thousands of people just because they can I likely would rarely communicate with them. Anyone can make a mistake but no one should enjoy feeding off of the weak. I will be the better person I will pay them what the courts say I owe and then I will never communicate with them again.


I just read Collin Knight's business profile (or brag sheet) which stated that we had a rather successful HOA, or whatever that statement meant.
• HOA’s at Fairmont, BC are doing in excess of $15 million annually.


----------



## LilMaggie

MarcieL said:


> Google, Resorts west management group offshore.  Then Google  Collin Knight,


So Mr. Knight is a "gun for hire"?  All this research is making me feel more ill by the minute.  They majorly ripped off the Fairmont Rancho Banderas folks in Mexico as well.


----------



## MgolferL

Sheeptoslaughter said:


> I asked about paying and the accumulating interest as well easily 2 possibly 3 times in the past directly to MG and i do have his replies to not pay.  Im not a lawyer i relied on his advice in this mess.  If it was more appropriate to advise payment we would have.  And i dont consider this an excellent deal when there was no neutral mediator or arbitrator present basically we've been thrown under the bus.   And lastly theres no way in hell NM has been put out by this much money id like to see the financial statements to show this.  Without all these weeks in use theyve saved a ton of money from it.  So really its mostly punitive.



That is why it is necessary to file a complaint with the Law Society of BC and AB. His replies to "do not pay" are important as they cost us money...along with showing his lack of understanding of the complexities with cases like this. As mentioned before, perhaps we can go after his insurance company to reimburse us what his ignorance cost us.


----------



## MgolferL

Tacoma said:


> Why would any of us want to stay? They can charge whatever exit fee and maintenance fee that they want. Basically court sanctioned. We are just an open wallet to this company. I LOVED that valley but now I drive farther and vacation in the okanagan. If time is limited it is a very quick flight to Kelowna. If I do go to the valley I take all of my groceries and adult drinks. There are so many beautiful places around us I refuse to give that valley much of my time or money. I'd like to be able to stop going to BC over this but I realize I can't so I just go further or to Fernie. Same distance different MLA. The only thing anyone understands is $. Don't give them yours.
> 
> Does anyone really believe they are working to make the resort better? Or just put more $ in their pockets? I predict they will go bankrupt or sell the resort soon. They do not want to run a resort. They only want the $ from a group that has lots of members and don't have an effective way to communicate with each other.That's why they never set up an HOA, they would have had to answer to someone.
> 
> If you absolutely have to go use any other timeshare to trade in to Fairmont with. I'm sure it won't be a hard trade and you have a much better chance of dealing with an ethical company. Or better yet use an airbnb. Anything that protects your assets from this group. I really, really, really need to believe in karma. How anyone can associate with this group without feeling utter repulsion is beyond me. How do they hold their heads up in public? I've always said I would love my children no matter what they do but if they became people who would ruin thousands of people just because they can I likely would rarely communicate with them. Anyone can make a mistake but no one should enjoy feeding off of the weak. I will be the better person I will pay them what the courts say I owe and then I will never communicate with them again.



The ONLY reason to stay is to make changes from the inside...however that doesn't look like it will be possible at this point...

In terms of "how do they hold their heads up in public?"...evil is alive and thriving in many places...one could argue NM offices for example...


----------



## Palms to pines

I thought HOA stood for home owner’s association . We certainly had nothing resembling that at Sunchaser.


----------



## GypsyOne

LilMaggie said:


> I need someone to clarify the default clause 13 in my lease that states "In the event that default in payment in not remedied within 16 months from the date of such default, then the Lessee shall be deemed to have offered to sell the Lessee's leasehold interest to the Lessor for an amount equal to fifty percent of one fortieth of the purchase price..."  It goes on to say how much the Lessor would owe the Lessee if they sold it within a year of taking it back. How do we get NM to take back our leases, as I am offering mine back to them?  I have been in default now for almost five years, thanks to the advice of one who shall go unnamed. My lease also specifically sets out a late charge of 2% per month of the amount past due.  So 24%.  That may not seem like much difference from 26.8%, however that is not a rate I ever agreed to pay.



This is how I would interpret Clause 13, and I will explain by use of an example:

Let's say you bought a two bedroom, one week timeshare in year 2000 for $16,000 on a 40-year Lease agreement.  One year is then deemed to have cost 1/40 x $16,000 = $400.

Then let's say you default in year 2013, which means you have used 13 years and there are 27 years remaining, valued at 27 x $400 = $10,800. 

According to Clause 13 you have deemed to have offered to sell your leasehold interest to the Lessor for 50% of value of remaining time or 50% of $10,800 = $5,400.(The percent varies for different time periods)  In other words, you give the timeshare back and they reimburse you $5,400, which is half the value of remaining time.  Seems like a reasonable deal for both sides.

But they have latched onto the part that says, "If the Lessor accepts the deemed offer.....etc."  In other words, they are saying they can choose to pay you for a fractional value of remaining timeshare or they can choose not to pay you..its up to them to decide..., and the Courts have sided with them. 

In my opinion, this is an obvious miss-representation of the Clause, and a serious breach of the Lease agreement for these reasons:
1. Why is there a lengthy formula for remedy of default in the lease if the formula was not intended to be used?  And why instead can they arbitrarily make up their own formula for default, which is not in the Lease, and to which we have not agreed?  If nothing else, that is a deceptive lease-writing practice and should be illegal. 
2. They have taken the position that the meaning of "If the Lessor accepts the deemed offer...." is that they can choose not to pay you if they so decide.  But that's not what the Clause says.  It says that if they accept the deemed offer to take back the timeshare as remedy for default, then they have to pay you a fractional value of remaining timeshare, less "all monies then owing under the Lease to the Lessor."  Simply put, if they decide to take back the timeshare, they owe you money.

This is one more point that our defense team seems to have given little attention, but one that seems perfectly clear and a serious breach of our contracts. 

It almost seems Northmont's legal dream team have convinced an easily convinced, if not complicit, court system that the timeshare owners will pay for re-construction of a faulty product that we bought in good faith would meet normal construction standards, and our leases are meaningless. This is a Third-World court decision and we need someone in authority with the will to do something about it.


----------



## truthr

GypsyOne said:


> This is how I would interpret Clause 13, and I will explain by use of an example:
> 
> Let's say you bought a two bedroom, one week timeshare in year 2000 for $16,000 on a 40-year Lease agreement.  One year is then deemed to have cost 1/40 x $16,000 = $400.
> 
> Then let's say you default in year 2013, which means you have used 13 years and there are 27 years remaining, valued at 27 x $400 = $10,800.
> 
> According to Clause 13 you have deemed to have offered to sell your leasehold interest to the Lessor for 50% of value of remaining time or 50% of $10,800 = $5,400.(The percent varies for different time periods)  In other words, you give the timeshare back and they reimburse you $5,400, which is half the value of remaining time.  Seems like a reasonable deal for both sides.
> 
> But they have latched onto the part that says, "If the Lessor accepts the deemed offer.....etc."  In other words, they are saying they can choose to pay you for a fractional value of remaining timeshare or they can choose not to pay you..its up to them to decide..., and the Courts have sided with them.
> 
> In my opinion, this is an obvious miss-representation of the Clause, and a serious breach of the Lease agreement for these reasons:
> 1. Why is there a lengthy formula for remedy of default in the lease if the formula was not intended to be used?  And why instead can they arbitrarily make up their own formula for default, which is not in the Lease, and to which we have not agreed?  If nothing else, that is a deceptive lease-writing practice and should be illegal.
> 2. They have taken the position that the meaning of "If the Lessor accepts the deemed offer...." is that they can choose not to pay you if they so decide.  But that's not what the Clause says.  It says that if they accept the deemed offer to take back the timeshare as remedy for default, then they have to pay you a fractional value of remaining timeshare, less "all monies then owing under the Lease to the Lessor."  Simply put, if they decide to take back the timeshare, they owe you money.
> 
> This is one more point that our defense team seems to have given little attention, but one that seems perfectly clear and a serious breach of our contracts.
> 
> It almost seems Northmont's legal dream team have convinced an easily convinced, if not complicit, court system that the timeshare owners will pay for re-construction of a faulty product that we bought in good faith would meet normal construction standards, and our leases are meaningless. This is a Third-World court decision and we need someone in authority with the will to do something about it.


Great points that I pondered and mentioned to our lawyer many times over the years.
Another is that they want to re-align and take buildings out to sell but rather than offer to buy us out they not only want us to give it up, they want us to pay for it and silence us in the process.


----------



## LilMaggie

GypsyOne said:


> This is how I would interpret Clause 13, and I will explain by use of an example:
> 
> Let's say you bought a two bedroom, one week timeshare in year 2000 for $16,000 on a 40-year Lease agreement.  One year is then deemed to have cost 1/40 x $16,000 = $400.
> 
> Then let's say you default in year 2013, which means you have used 13 years and there are 27 years remaining, valued at 27 x $400 = $10,800.
> 
> According to Clause 13 you have deemed to have offered to sell your leasehold interest to the Lessor for 50% of value of remaining time or 50% of $10,800 = $5,400.(The percent varies for different time periods)  In other words, you give the timeshare back and they reimburse you $5,400, which is half the value of remaining time.  Seems like a reasonable deal for both sides.
> 
> But they have latched onto the part that says, "If the Lessor accepts the deemed offer.....etc."  In other words, they are saying they can choose to pay you for a fractional value of remaining timeshare or they can choose not to pay you..its up to them to decide..., and the Courts have sided with them.
> 
> In my opinion, this is an obvious miss-representation of the Clause, and a serious breach of the Lease agreement for these reasons:
> 1. Why is there a lengthy formula for remedy of default in the lease if the formula was not intended to be used?  And why instead can they arbitrarily make up their own formula for default, which is not in the Lease, and to which we have not agreed?  If nothing else, that is a deceptive lease-writing practice and should be illegal.
> 2. They have taken the position that the meaning of "If the Lessor accepts the deemed offer...." is that they can choose not to pay you if they so decide.  But that's not what the Clause says.  It says that if they accept the deemed offer to take back the timeshare as remedy for default, then they have to pay you a fractional value of remaining timeshare, less "all monies then owing under the Lease to the Lessor."  Simply put, if they decide to take back the timeshare, they owe you money.
> 
> This is one more point that our defense team seems to have given little attention, but one that seems perfectly clear and a serious breach of our contracts.
> 
> It almost seems Northmont's legal dream team have convinced an easily convinced, if not complicit, court system that the timeshare owners will pay for re-construction of a faulty product that we bought in good faith would meet normal construction standards, and our leases are meaningless. This is a Third-World court decision and we need someone in authority with the will to do something about it.


Thank you for that excellent explanation.


----------



## torqued

truthr said:


> Great points that I pondered and mentioned to our lawyer many times over the years.
> Another is that they want to re-align and take buildings out to sell but rather than offer to buy us out they not only want us to give it up, they want us to pay for it and silence us in the process.


I had similar wording in a partnership which stated we have the right but are not obligated to buy your share of the partnership out. Another way to legally screw the little guy!!


----------



## MarcieL

Tacoma said:


> Why would any of us want to stay? They can charge whatever exit fee and maintenance fee that they want. Basically court sanctioned. We are just an open wallet to this company. I LOVED that valley but now I drive farther and vacation in the okanagan. If time is limited it is a very quick flight to Kelowna. If I do go to the valley I take all of my groceries and adult drinks. There are so many beautiful places around us I refuse to give that valley much of my time or money. I'd like to be able to stop going to BC over this but I realize I can't so I just go further or to Fernie. Same distance different MLA. The only thing anyone understands is $. Don't give them yours.
> 
> Does anyone really believe they are working to make the resort better? Or just put more $ in their pockets? I predict they will go bankrupt or sell the resort soon. They do not want to run a resort. They only want the $ from a group that has lots of members and don't have an effective way to communicate with each other.That's why they never set up an HOA, they would have had to answer to someone.
> 
> If you absolutely have to go use any other timeshare to trade in to Fairmont with. I'm sure it won't be a hard trade and you have a much better chance of dealing with an ethical company. Or better yet use an airbnb. Anything that protects your assets from this group. I really, really, really need to believe in karma. How anyone can associate with this group without feeling utter repulsion is beyond me. How do they hold their heads up in public? I've always said I would love my children no matter what they do but if they became people who would ruin thousands of people just because they can I likely would rarely communicate with them. Anyone can make a mistake but no one should enjoy feeding off of the weak. I will be the better person I will pay them what the courts say I owe and then I will never communicate with them again.


 

I totally agree Tacoma, well said.


----------



## groundhog

truthr said:


> You can phone the court where your Statement of Claim was filed.  Just say the word Northmont and then your Statement of Claim number.


How can I join the secret facebook group?


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

I do understand that Geldert's litigation strategy was nonexistent. I don't understand how no one, not Geldert, not King, not Alexander, not Loo, not Fitzpatrick and not Young ever took into consideration the $100+ millions that were used to purchase the vacation leases? How does the very existence of that money not being credited against the operation of the property (I get it, *#NAFR*), not appearing in the *Annual Operating Statement*, not define *Capital Costs*? It is logical that capital costs are not mentioned, not defined and not included in the Lease Agreements. They weren't part of the Lease Agreements. That is a very large part of the consideration the Lessor provided. The Lessor, separate from any contribution of the Lessees, had to have the capacity to initially provide the property and the time intervals being leased. The Lessees offset *Annual Operating Costs* through the Maintenance Fees.

What am I missing? I witnessed it and still don't believe we are where we are.

As alluded to in a previous post every one of us, somewhere between 12,000 and 18,000 leases (x2, most were purchased by a couple) or at least 24,000-consumers, knew this when they signed.


----------



## CleoB

torqued said:


> I had similar wording in a partnership which stated we have the right but are not obligated to buy your share of the partnership out. Another way to legally screw the little guy!!


Hmmm, does that mean we can pool all this money and buy NM out?


----------



## ecwinch

GypsyOne said:


> This is one more point that our defense team seems to have given little attention, but one that seems perfectly clear and a serious breach of our contracts.
> 
> It almost seems Northmont's legal dream team have convinced an easily convinced, if not complicit, court system that the timeshare owners will pay for re-construction of a faulty product that we bought in good faith would meet normal construction standards, and our leases are meaningless. This is a Third-World court decision and we need someone in authority with the will to do something about it.



The reason the argument got little attention is - in terms of contract law - the meaning of certain terms is well settled. IF, MAY, SHALL, WILL are some of those words. 

So while I believe you had horrendous legal representation - so bad that a law school should do a case study on it - this is not an argument that even Perry Mason could win.


----------



## lost faith in justice

I am new to this group - but not to this MESS!  I, too am wondering 'what did we miss'?  How can this happen?  Am wondering how many might be considering NOT paying by Feb. 15?  We owe $45,000 plus - very difficult to come up with that money in 1 month!


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

ecwinch said:


> So while I believe you had horrendous legal representation - so bad that a law school should do a case study on it - this is not an argument that even Perry Mason could win.



I accept that the Lessor does not have to accept the Lease 'offered for purchase' in Clause 13. I do not accept that there exists within the contract any mechanism by which the Lessor can charge the Lessee for anything other than Maintenance Fees and a Special Assessment. This Special Assessment is strictly limited to damages resulting from a tenant's occupancy. 

If Northmont had of started renovating and included the extra costs in the Annual Maintenance Fees, I would have thought they'd have had a better argument for the work being within the scope of and contemplated by the terms of the contract.

I know how the courts saw it. I just don't believe it.


----------



## LilMaggie

lost faith in justice said:


> I am new to this group - but not to this MESS!  I, too am wondering 'what did we miss'?  How can this happen?  Am wondering how many might be considering NOT paying by Feb. 15?  We owe $45,000 plus - very difficult to come up with that money in 1 month!


Welcome.  The more brains we have working on this, the better.


----------



## Stung

I too am new to this site and am one of the unlucky pawns in this fiasco.  Unbelievable that Both the BC and Alberta courts have ruled with this outcome.  NO justice has been served here for if it had there would not be 1200+ bewildered and angry timeshare users (Not Owners!).  Lawyers will get paid regardless of the outcome but in the end it will be us that are left with the sour taste.  KW, what goes around, comes around...


----------



## aden2

"JUDGMENT INTEREST REGULATION" for Alberta should be visited. It is under 5% that can be charged, so where is NM now?


----------



## CleoB

aden2 said:


> "JUDGMENT INTEREST REGULATION" for Alberta should be visited. It is under 5% that can be charged, so where is NM now?


Let's hope our crack legal team (puke) uses this.


----------



## LilMaggie

aden2 said:


> "JUDGMENT INTEREST REGULATION" for Alberta should be visited. It is under 5% that can be charged, so where is NM now?


There are prejudgment and post judgement interest rates and I am not sure which would apply. Either way, it is not compounded and it isn't more than 5% annually.  MG obviously agreed to the 27% interest rates


----------



## torqued

So are we basically waiting around for the Reid appeal and judge Young’s view on interest?  So if by some sort of Devine intervention the appeal is favorable what then?  Is MG only working for those who settled at this point (my answer to that question is yes). Is there a time frame an attorney has to send out withdrawal of service papers to their clients??  He’ll be coming up on 30 days here real soon.


----------



## Tanny13

ecwinch said:


> The reason the argument got little attention is - in terms of contract law - the meaning of certain terms is well settled. IF, MAY, SHALL, WILL are some of those words.
> 
> So while I believe you had horrendous legal representation - so bad that a law school should do a case study on it - this is not an argument that even Perry Mason could win.



So NM had the option to NOT pay us for the remaining time in our lease.  If they did not accept it, why can’t it be interpreted that we could then just walk.  That clause gives the impression that there is some value left in our lease, so is it not a fair conclusion to assume that if NM didn’t pay, you could then choose to walk and forfeit the residual value?


----------



## Appauled

Lets keep hammering out there for some exposure to the public and help from the media, etc.!!!!!
As per the advise of others on this forum, I fired off an email briefly explaining our situation to:

marketplace@cbc.ca
Calgarynews@bellmedia.ca
mclaughlinonyourside@ctv.ca
fifthtips@cbc.ca
gopublic@cbc.ca

Lets keep emailing, calling and reaching out to whom ever may be able to hear our horror story and help!!!
If there is anything else anyone can suggest we all do please post or re-post your suggestions!


----------



## truthr

Tanny13 said:


> So NM had the option to NOT pay us for the remaining time in our lease.  If they did not accept it, why can’t it be interpreted that we could then just walk.  That clause gives the impression that there is some value left in our lease, so is it not a fair conclusion to assume that if NM didn’t pay, you could then choose to walk and forfeit the residual value?


Let us also consider the fact that they needed so many to cancel so they could realign the resort and sell it off.  So would those be their units in those buildings?  Meaning they don't have to share any of the profits (cancellation fees and sale of Hillside) with the rest of the resort?  Yet we can't sell our timeshare unit without their permission?  This is more and more one sided as we peel the layers.


----------



## Late2Game

Appauled said:


> Lets keep hammering out there for some exposure to the public and help from the media, etc.!!!!!
> As per the advise of others on this forum, I fired off an email briefly explaining our situation to:
> 
> marketplace@cbc.ca
> Calgarynews@bellmedia.ca
> mclaughlinonyourside@ctv.ca
> fifthtips@cbc.ca
> gopublic@cbc.ca
> 
> Lets keep emailing, calling and reaching out to whom ever may be able to hear our horror story and help!!!
> If there is anything else anyone can suggest we all do please post or re-post your suggestions!




Appauled, that's a great list, but perhaps we should also include some AMERICAN media channels here too, perhaps "60 Minutes", for example.  

We have plenty of American friends that have been screwed over like everyone else.  They face challenges in dealing with the official courts of justice here in Canada, so perhaps an alternate approach would be to go through the "court of public opinion".  

Who knows, maybe our judicial and political system just might wake up to a public shaming from south of the 49th!

.


----------



## GypsyOne

ecwinch said:


> The reason the argument got little attention is - in terms of contract law - the meaning of certain terms is well settled. IF, MAY, SHALL, WILL are some of those words.
> 
> So while I believe you had horrendous legal representation - so bad that a law school should do a case study on it - this is not an argument that even Perry Mason could win.



I think you may have a point, but I'm not sure what it is.  Contract law is written in ordinary English language with words having their common every day meaning.  So why does use of the word "If" in our lease nullify our case and why does the Clause not mean what it says?  Perhaps you could elaborate.


----------



## Bewildered

Anybody talk to a real lawyer yet whether MGs “fabulous settlement” is even good enough to ensure we are actually out once and for all. I’m waiting for a legal review because the whole thing still has an odour to it. I just don’t see a strong and decisive part saying you are “now and forevermore” removed from this scam. I just don’t see strong enough language to 100% guarantee we are out. Scares the crap out of me!


----------



## GypsyOne

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> I accept that the Lessor does not have to accept the Lease 'offered for purchase' in Clause 13. I do not accept that there exists within the contract any mechanism by which the Lessor can charge the Lessee for anything other than Maintenance Fees and a Special Assessment. This Special Assessment is strictly limited to damages resulting from a tenant's occupancy.
> 
> If Northmont had of started renovating and included the extra costs in the Annual Maintenance Fees, I would have thought they'd have had a better argument for the work being within the scope of and contemplated by the terms of the contract.
> 
> I know how the courts saw it. I just don't believe it.



Okay, you accept that the Lessor does not have to accept the Lease 'offered for purchase' in Clause 13. But, the Lessor DID accept the deemed offer to sell because they are taking back remaining timeshare (and payment of money) - "......then the Lessee shall be deemed to have offered to sell the Lessee's leasehold interest to the Lessor for an amount equal to......."   ".....If the Lessor accepts the deemed offer as afore said, the Lessor shall be entitlfed to the Lessee's leasehold interest......"

Bottom line: By virtue of the default, a deemed offer to sell did occur. By taking back the timeshare (from those who accepted the negotiated offer) the Lessor accepted the deemed offer.  The Lessor owes us a fractional amount of the value of remaining timeshare as per Clause 13.  We should be holding the lawyers feet to the fire, theirs and ours, and insisting on the integrity of a contract.  Somehow we got out snookered.


----------



## ecwinch

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> I accept that the Lessor does not haveI do not accept that there exists within the contract any mechanism by which the Lessor can charge the Lessee for anything other than Maintenance Fees and a Special Assessment.
> 
> *I know how the courts saw it. I just don't believe it.*



From an objective standpoint, I think the court explained the reasoning behind it's decision(s) in great detail. 

_Lessee shall be responsible for his proportionate share of all administration, maintenance and repair costs (the "Operating Costs") and replacement costs_ 

If you are responsible for maintenance, repair, and replacement costs - what are you being asked to pay that is not in that category?

If Northmont - as you seem to suggest -  had simply baked the refurbishment project onto the maintenance fees on a multi-year basis - what would be the difference?


----------



## GypsyOne

ecwinch said:


> From an objective standpoint, I think the court explained the reasoning behind it's decision(s) in great detail.
> 
> _Lessee shall be responsible for his proportionate share of all administration, maintenance and repair costs (the "Operating Costs") and replacement costs_
> 
> If you are responsible for maintenance, repair, and replacement costs - what are you being asked to pay that is not in that category?
> 
> If Northmont - as you seem to suggest -  had simply baked the refurbishment project onto the maintenance fees on a multi-year basis - what would be the difference?



We agree we are responsible for paying operating costs, but nowhere does it say we are responsible for paying capital costs.  Those are two distinct categories of costs. Granted sometimes the two can blur together, but for the most part they are identifiable.  An operating cost is usually used up immediately or approximately within a year. eg garbage removal, accounting costs.  A capital cost is a more major expense. It usually relates to the super structure of the building, or is fixed to real estate.  Replacement of a few shingles that the wind blew off is maintenance; replacement of the total roof that is part of the superstructure of the building is capital and becomes a depreciating asset over about 30 years.  Replacement of faulty Poly B plumbing pipes is part of the original capital structure and cost of the building. Lessees are not responsible for paying for capital structure.  We paid for capital structure when we bought our timeshare and we have an expectation that the structure would not be flawed and would last for at least as long as our 40-year leases.  (Buildings constructed according to code should last for considerably longer than 40 years.)  The fact that the buildings had major construction deficiencies and were failing in many ways after about 15 years does not make us culpable and responsible for major repairs.  In fact we are victims of sales missrepresentation because buildings had to be taken out of service with loss of trading value and we should be compensated.


----------



## ecwinch

Tanny13 said:


> So NM had the option to NOT pay us for the remaining time in our lease.  If they did not accept it, why can’t it be interpreted that we could then just walk.  That clause gives the impression that there is some value left in our lease, so is it not a fair conclusion to assume that if NM didn’t pay, you could then choose to walk and forfeit the residual value?



The court explained that in para 37:
_Finally, there are no termination provisions to be found in the JEKE VIAs which can be unilaterally exercised by JEKE as a lessee._


----------



## ecwinch

GypsyOne said:


> We agree we are responsible for paying operating costs, but nowhere does it say we are responsible for paying capital costs.  Those are two distinct categories of costs. Granted sometimes the two can blur together, but for the most part they are identifiable.  An operating cost is usually used up immediately or approximately within a year. eg garbage removal, accounting costs.  A capital cost is a more major expense. It usually relates to the super structure of the building, or is fixed to real estate.  Replacement of a few shingles that the wind blew off is maintenance; replacement of the total roof that is part of the superstructure of the building is capital and becomes a depreciating asset over about 30 years.  Replacement of faulty Poly B plumbing pipes is part of the original capital structure and cost of the building. Lessees are not responsible for paying for capital structure.  We paid for capital structure when we bought our timeshare and we have an expectation that the structure would not be flawed and would last for at least as long as our 40-year leases.  (Buildings constructed according to code should last for considerably longer than 40 years.)  The fact that the buildings had major construction deficiencies and were failing in many ways after about 15 years does not make us culpable and responsible for major repairs.  In fact we are victims of sales missrepresentation because buildings had to be taken out of service with loss of trading value and we should be compensated.



The court considered that argument, but disagreed. And not one judge, but multiple judges reviewing the contract and reached (or sustained) that decision:

_[258] Accordingly, I conclude that the plain reading of paragraph 9 is that all costs relating to the operation of the Resort, whether in the nature of capital costs or not, are to be borne by the owners. This applies even in the event of reconstruction of parts of the Resort as needed, whether from deferred maintenance issues or otherwise. There is no basis upon which the JEKE VIAs can be said to limit the responsibility to pay costs only for “regular maintenance” or “reasonable wear and tear”, as JEKE argues. 

[259] This same issue was raised by many owners (including JEKE, by its present counsel) in the Special Case. It was not described as a “capital cost” issue there but, rather, one going “beyond regular maintenance”: see Special Case (BCSC) at para. 87. In any event, Loo J. was interpreting the VIAs based on the document itself, just as JEKE now suggests I should do, an approach that I endorse. Loo J.’s analysis is found the Special Case (BCSC) at paras. 86-89.



GypsyOne said:



			The fact that the buildings had major construction deficiencies and were failing in many ways after about 15 years does not make us culpable and responsible for major repairs.  In fact we are victims of sales missrepresentation because buildings had to be taken out of service with loss of trading value and we should be compensated.
		
Click to expand...

_
I agree that Fairmont probably could be sued. But to what outcome - they are a bankrupt company.


----------



## CleoB

ecwinch said:


> The court considered that argument, but disagreed. And not one judge, but multiple judges reviewing the contract and reached (or sustained) that decision:
> 
> _[258] Accordingly, I conclude that the plain reading of paragraph 9 is that all costs relating to the operation of the Resort, whether in the nature of capital costs or not, are to be borne by the owners. This applies even in the event of reconstruction of parts of the Resort as needed, whether from deferred maintenance issues or otherwise. There is no basis upon which the JEKE VIAs can be said to limit the responsibility to pay costs only for “regular maintenance” or “reasonable wear and tear”, as JEKE argues.
> 
> [259] This same issue was raised by many owners (including JEKE, by its present counsel) in the Special Case. It was not described as a “capital cost” issue there but, rather, one going “beyond regular maintenance”: see Special Case (BCSC) at para. 87. In any event, Loo J. was interpreting the VIAs based on the document itself, just as JEKE now suggests I should do, an approach that I endorse. Loo J.’s analysis is found the Special Case (BCSC) at paras. 86-89.
> 
> 
> _
> I agree that Fairmont probably could be sued. But to what outcome - they are a bankrupt company.


You are correct in that is how the judges looked at it.  Unfortunately our legal team did not bring in anybody from the commercial part of real estate to explain to the judges exactly what capital costs are.  Anyone in property management could have explained it and Gypsyone's analogy is very accurate.  If an elevator in a building needs servicing or repair that is part of maintenance costs.  If you need a new elevator because it fell and is all busted up, that's capital costs.  The judges failed to understand this probably because they are not familiar with commercial real estate.


----------



## Petus@18




----------



## Stung

Below is an article from CTV Calgary from June of 2013 when this was in its infancy.  Potential lawyer names are listed at the end of the article.

*Owners of Fairmont timeshares face dilemma*
CTV Calgary
Published Monday, June 10, 2013 5:33PM MDT
Last Updated Tuesday, June 11, 2013 12:26PM MDT

More than 15,000 timeshare holders are being asked to pay thousands of dollars to either renovate the complex or vacate their timeshares in Fairmont, British Columbia.

Tina and Matt Balsom say they were never thrilled with the ‘Sunchaser Vacation Villa’ they purchased in Fairmont four years ago for $11,000.

Now, the Balsom’s have grown to hate the property because of the bind it has left them in.

Northwynd, the resort owner, sent all timeshare owners a letter stating they either had to pay $4,000 to help renovate the resort or $3,000 to get out of their timeshare contract and the decision needed to be made in only a matter of weeks.  Owners who failed to make their choice would be considered in default as of June 1, 2013.

The Balsom’s and many Calgary-based owners have asked CTV Calgary Consumer Specialist Lea Williams-Doherty to help them understand their options.

Lea investigated the property and learned the timeshare has had its share of problems.

Fairmont, the company that built the resort, went into bankruptcy in 2008.  Fairmont's creditors then took over the resort and became Northwynd, the current owner and management company.

Northwynd says it inherited two major problems: leaky plastic pipes throughout the resort and neglected maintenance.

The estimated repair cost is $40 million and Northwynd came up with the idea of a ‘pay to stay, pay to go’ program.

Several timeshare owners have hired lawyers to challenge whether Worthwynd has the legal authority to charge them a $3,000 cancellation fee.

Other timeshare owners, wanting to keep their timeshares, are challenging Northwynd's right to charge for the renovations.

There are concerns amongst the owners that Northwynd will make similar calls for cash down the road.

“I can't guarantee it'll never come again,” says Northwynd’s Doug Frey, “but I can tell you that never again will there be a deferred maintenance problem of the scope we're dealing with right now.”

Timeshare owners have several options to dispute Northwynd’s demands:


Choosing one of Northwynd's provided options
Hiring legal representation and waiting on the outcome of the case
Submitting a letter to the B.C. court hearing the case stating that you don’t believe Northwynd has the right to require a choice, and will wait for the court to determine the parties rights
BC Court Address:


Supreme Court of British Columbia
800 Smithe Street, Vancouver BC V6Z 2E1
Phone:  604-660-2847
Case Number:  S132760
There are several lawyers in B.C. and Alberta representing timeshare owners in the B.C. court action:


Docken Klym www.docken.com (403) 269-3612
Lindsay LeBlancLeblanc@coxtaylor.ca(250) 388-4457
Kellie HamiltonKh@kelliehamilton.com(604) 685-7111
_With files from Lea Williams-Doherty_

*PHOTOS*


----------



## Misled

MarcieL said:


> Hi, I'm new on the site, but a lessee, and feeling like this, this is just a cash grab. The settlement offer doesn't make sense to me, we gave up the leverage of blocking the downsizing of the resort for this? I consulted legally on my personal situation and was asked why this didn't go to the Supreme Court of Canada. With the uncertainty and confusion around timeshares it was thought it would have been a great opportunity. If I were a rich man.........
> 
> Was there ever any doubt it is just a cash grab?   We were kept hanging with the promise of a class action.  We were then told it would take too long and imagine what our invoices would be by then??  Were you consulted, nor was I, however considering the history, perhaps a wise decision. The Supreme court probably a good idea with different representation!


This is a orchestrated well planned and executed extortion shakedown of innocent and trusting consumers.


----------



## GypsyOne

ecwinch said:


> The court considered that argument, but disagreed. And not one judge, but multiple judges reviewing the contract and reached (or sustained) that decision:
> 
> _[258] Accordingly, I conclude that the plain reading of paragraph 9 is that all costs relating to the operation of the Resort, whether in the nature of capital costs or not, are to be borne by the owners. This applies even in the event of reconstruction of parts of the Resort as needed, whether from deferred maintenance issues or otherwise. There is no basis upon which the JEKE VIAs can be said to limit the responsibility to pay costs only for “regular maintenance” or “reasonable wear and tear”, as JEKE argues.
> 
> [259] This same issue was raised by many owners (including JEKE, by its present counsel) in the Special Case. It was not described as a “capital cost” issue there but, rather, one going “beyond regular maintenance”: see Special Case (BCSC) at para. 87. In any event, Loo J. was interpreting the VIAs based on the document itself, just as JEKE now suggests I should do, an approach that I endorse. Loo J.’s analysis is found the Special Case (BCSC) at paras. 86-89.
> 
> 
> _
> I agree that Fairmont probably could be sued. But to what outcome - they are a bankrupt company.



Yes, the judges decreed that the TS owners would pay all costs relating to the resort including reconstruction of faulty buildings.  But they had to take great liberties with the Lease Agreement and apply their own faulty knowledge of real estate or bias in order to draw that conclusion.  I've had a career in real estate that includes financing, appraisal, management, and ownership.  I can also read a contract.  I think I know better than the judges what is operating and what is capital when it comes to buildings and real estate.  I have never seen where Lessees were responsible for paying for capital structure or capital costs of a property in which they were simply leasing use in the property for a finite period of time.  Nor does it make sense that they would.  It is well understood that if you rent an apartment you are responsible for paying rent, which in some cases could be tied to operating costs.  But you would never be responsible for paying for the cost of replacing the roof.  The unfairness of doing so in the case of Fairmont would be, for example, being charged a large sum of money in year 39 of a 40 year lease for a major capital expenditure which significantly enhances the value of the property, but which you would get almost no use from.  What I'm not certain is whether the judges are incompetent or complicit.

But it's more than just about operating costs and capital costs.  A Lessee's Association was supposed to be formed and never was, thus TS owners were kept from knowing what was going on with the resort.  Then Northmont decided we were owners for purposes of paying for capital reconstruction of the resort, but tenants for enjoying the benefits. The courts also decided leases could be unilaterally modified to suit the interests of Northmont.  

As for sueing Fairmont Resort Properties, that doesn't interest me.  What does concern me is having my Lease blatantly miss-interpreted and modified to serve the interests of the other party.  And I wonder how deep the scam goes.  I keep thinking that the Province of B.C., and possibly Alberta do not want a popular tourist destination to fail, nor do they want to prop it up with government money.  What better way than to offload the costs to the TS owners.


----------



## ecwinch

GypsyOne said:


> What I'm not certain is whether the judges are incompetent or complicit.



I hope this is the correct count, but from the court records it appears that nine different judges have heard arguments on the merits of this case in one form or another. On four different court cases, and three appeals.  I could understand the point of judicial bias or incompetence if two or three judges had been involved. The key issue they all have agreed on is that you did not enter into a commercial lease - but that you entered into a timeshare plan.

At some point is the point at law not well settled?

The Honourable Madam Justice Kirkpatrick
The Honourable Madam Justice D. Smith
The Honourable Madam Justice Garson
The Honourable Madam Justice Loo
The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman
The Honourable Madam Justice D. Smith
The Honourable Mr. Justice Goepel
The Honourable Mr. Justice Branch
The Honourable Judge L.D. Young

Do you honestly believe so many judges in your court system are incompetent or on the take?

From the court:
_In my view, there is absolutely no support for JEKE’s argument beyond the common fact that both types of relationship are governed by contract. However, unlike a time share, a commercial tenancy involves a one-on-one relationship between a landlord and a tenant that bears little resemblance to the contracts here which govern the collective nature of the interests held by the participants in a time share. The fundamental nature of a time share interest involves not only the creation of a contractual relationship between an owner and the developer, but also a relationship between all owners in the time share. This is evident in many ways._


----------



## lost and confused

ecwinch said:


> I hope this is the correct count, but from the court records it appears that nine different judges have heard arguments on the merits of this case in one form or another. On four different court cases, and three appeals.  I could understand the point of judicial bias or incompetence if two or three judges had been involved. The key issue they all have agreed on is that you did not enter into a commercial lease - but that you entered into a timeshare plan.
> 
> At some point is the point at law not well settled?
> 
> The Honourable Madam Justice Kirkpatrick
> The Honourable Madam Justice D. Smith
> The Honourable Madam Justice Garson
> The Honourable Madam Justice Loo
> The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman
> The Honourable Madam Justice D. Smith
> The Honourable Mr. Justice Goepel
> The Honourable Mr. Justice Branch
> The Honourable Judge L.D. Young
> 
> Do you honestly believe so many judges in your court system are incompetent or on the take?
> 
> From the court:
> _In my view, there is absolutely no support for JEKE’s argument beyond the common fact that both types of relationship are governed by contract. However, unlike a time share, a commercial tenancy involves a one-on-one relationship between a landlord and a tenant that bears little resemblance to the contracts here which govern the collective nature of the interests held by the participants in a time share. The fundamental nature of a time share interest involves not only the creation of a contractual relationship between an owner and the developer, but also a relationship between all owners in the time share. This is evident in many ways._


I don't think the judges were incompetent....infact, I am sure they are very fine and respected judges.  Judges can only rule on the information presented before them and the arguments made.   As I am doing more reading and educating myself, in my opinion, it appears that the litigation strategy and legal counsel may have been sub-par and breached many code of ethics in the process.  The judges may have come to their decisions as a result of the info presented to them......which sadly was not very well presented by legal counsel (again, in my opinion).

ecwinch -   thanks so much for following this thread and our saga.   Appreciate and respect your insights and the time you have put in.   Sincere thank you.


----------



## ecwinch

lost and confused said:


> I don't think the judges were incompetent....infact, I am sure they are very fine and respected judges.  Judges can only rule on the information presented before them and the arguments made.   As I am doing more reading and educating myself, in my opinion, it appears that the litigation strategy and legal counsel may have been sub-par and breached many code of ethics in the process.  The judges may have come to their decisions as a result of the info presented to them......which sadly was not very well presented by legal counsel (again, in my opinion).
> 
> ecwinch -   thanks so much for following this thread and our saga.   Appreciate and respect your insights and the time you have put in.   Sincere thank you.



You are correct, courts can only decide on the case presented. And please understand where I am coming from. Some battles have been fought and the no one likes the outcome. But what the settlement is, who it is binding upon, and the rights of those who are not represented by MG are unclear. Energy is better spent on attacking the issues the court has not ruled on, over fighting battles lost IMHO.


----------



## torqued

So why can’t we demand our share of any profits made by NM in this scam. I’m an owner and paid to fix up this dump so where’s my check?


----------



## torqued

ecwinch said:


> I hope this is the correct count, but from the court records it appears that nine different judges have heard arguments on the merits of this case in one form or another. On four different court cases, and three appeals.  I could understand the point of judicial bias or incompetence if two or three judges had been involved. The key issue they all have agreed on is that you did not enter into a commercial lease - but that you entered into a timeshare plan.
> 
> At some point is the point at law not well settled?
> 
> The Honourable Madam Justice Kirkpatrick
> The Honourable Madam Justice D. Smith
> The Honourable Madam Justice Garson
> The Honourable Madam Justice Loo
> The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman
> The Honourable Madam Justice D. Smith
> The Honourable Mr. Justice Goepel
> The Honourable Mr. Justice Branch
> The Honourable Judge L.D. Young
> 
> Do you honestly believe so many judges in your court system are incompetent or on the take?
> 
> From the court:
> _In my view, there is absolutely no support for JEKE’s argument beyond the common fact that both types of relationship are governed by contract. However, unlike a time share, a commercial tenancy involves a one-on-one relationship between a landlord and a tenant that bears little resemblance to the contracts here which govern the collective nature of the interests held by the participants in a time share. The fundamental nature of a time share interest involves not only the creation of a contractual relationship between an owner and the developer, but also a relationship between all owners in the time share. This is evident in many ways._


So therefore NM pay your share and so will I!!


----------



## torqued

Every which way you turn NM has a double standard. That’s what stinks like the south end of a skunk headed north!


----------



## Floyd55

ecwinch said:


> You are correct, courts can only decide on the case presented. And please understand where I am coming from. Some battles have been fought and the no one likes the outcome. But what the settlement is, who it is binding upon, and the rights of those who are not represented by MG are unclear. Energy is better spent on attacking the issues the court has not ruled on, over fighting battles lost IMHO.



What annoys me to no end is that it seems that all of the judges have held the same opinion on our role as timeshare owners all the way through this process. They have all ruled that we have to pay for these renovations to the poorly built buildings. My question then is if it was so obvious to all of these judges, who should be the legal masterminds in their profession, why didn't our lawyer just tell us from the outset that our case had no merit? We would have begrudgingly paid our $3,000 and gotten out right at the outset. Now because of the poor legal advice that we have been given for the past 4 years we are left holding the bag and paying almost 10 times that amount!


----------



## aden2

Is there a time limit on having Fraud charges being laid, as there has been no restitution for the money taken during 2009-10? The presentation of slide shows and high sales tactics was truly dishonest.


----------



## teedeej

Floyd55 said:


> why didn't our lawyer just tell us from the outset that our case had no merit?



Because our lawyer didn't thoroughly investigate the case before he took it on.  At no time during the four years did he re-examine his options.


----------



## greyskies

teedeej said:


> Because our lawyer didn't thoroughly investigate the case before he took it on.  At no time during the four years did he re-examine his options.


The writing was on the wall when he lost the test case. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Roxanne

aden2 said:


> Is there a time limit on having Fraud charges being laid, as there has been no restitution for the money taken during 2009-10? The presentation of slide shows and high sales tactics was truly dishonest.


It's called aggressive marketing and if you're a victim of this marketing tactic you can walk away without any further liabilities in US, not sure how this being treated in Canada.


----------



## Floyd55

greyskies said:


> The writing was on the wall when he lost the test case.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk



I don't know about anyone else in this discussion, but at no time up until a few months ago did I have any idea that we could end up liable for paying the full amount that NM was invoicing us for, even if we lost the case! I have always assumed that if we lost the case in the end that the judge would have us pay our original bill to leave plus interest (5%) plus maybe some of NM's legal fees. The worst case scenario that I could imagine would have been having to pay maybe 5 or 6 grand in the end. If anyone would have told me at the beginning of this case that we could end up on the hook for paying for all of the years of unused maintenance fees and 27% compounding interest I would have laughed and walked away! Seems that this should have been our lawyers responsibility to inform us of the risks involved up front. Don't worry, already have sent in my complaint to the law society.


----------



## Roxanne

Floyd55 said:


> I don't know about anyone else in this discussion, but at no time up until a few months ago did I have any idea that we could end up liable for paying the full amount that NM was invoicing us for, even if we lost the case! I have always assumed that if we lost the case in the end that the judge would have us pay our original bill to leave plus interest (5%) plus maybe some of NM's legal fees. The worst case scenario that I could imagine would have been having to pay maybe 5 or 6 grand in the end. If anyone would have told me at the beginning of this case that we could end up on the hook for paying for all of the years of unused maintenance fees and 27% compounding interest I would have laughed and walked away! Seems that this should have been our lawyers responsibility to inform us of the risks involved up front. Don't worry, already have sent in my complaint to the law society.


So true!


----------



## wagga2650

If you signed option one out of duress or believing we would be able to see the settlement first before agreeing, The only option for us is to pay up and then sue MG for incompetence etc etc.That's the way I see it.


----------



## Floyd55

wagga2650 said:


> If you signed option one out of duress or believing we would be able to see the settlement first before agreeing, The only option for us is to pay up and then sue MG for incompetence etc etc.That's the way I see it.



That is my feeling as well. When I do the math of what my court sanctioned settlement amount would become the day after Feb. 15th I have to say that I am not willing to take on that level of risk going forward. At 162% summary judgement as it is stated in Judge Young's final statements on this matter, that would my amount owing to NM to the mid $30,000 range. Then I would have ongoing legal bills to try and fight this, and then I would have to rely on the courts treating my case favorably at some point in the future. That is what I have been doing up to this point, and this is where we are now. I am done with putting my trust in lawyers and judges! No more risk taking and relying on our legal system to bring me justice. I am paying and getting out. I will rely on carma coming back to bite Kirk Wankel at some point in the future. I can only hope that he ends up in jail for all that he has done to so many people!


----------



## FairSun

Floyd55 said:


> That is my feeling as well. When I do the math of what my court sanctioned settlement amount would become the day after Feb. 15th I have to say that I am not willing to take on that level of risk going forward. At 162% summary judgement as it is stated in Judge Young's final statements on this matter, that would my amount owing to NM to the mid $30,000 range. Then I would have ongoing legal bills to try and fight this, and then I would have to rely on the courts treating my case favorably at some point in the future. That is what I have been doing up to this point, and this is where we are now. I am done with putting my trust in lawyers and judges! No more risk taking and relying on our legal system to bring me justice. I am paying and getting out. I will rely on carma coming back to bite Kirk Wankel at some point in the future. I can only hope that he ends up in jail for all that he has done to so many people!


Well said, Floyd55!  Ditto to your earlier point that our lawyer at no time quantified our potential personal $$$risk of continuing legal action.  If we had any inkling our bill could double from the relinquishment offer in March 2017 to December 2017 and the final settlement and release agreements in NO way would we have stayed in this battle.


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

GypsyOne said:


> Okay, you accept that the Lessor does not have to accept the Lease 'offered for purchase' in Clause 13. But, the Lessor DID accept the deemed offer to sell ....



I agree. No argument from me. The contract specifically states what is to happen if and when Northmont accepts the offer to sell. It is a contract with binding terms or, it is not. Black & white. I know someone will say, "But they didn't accept those terms. They created different terms ... " But, it's a binding contract. This is my same point about the RPF. There is no mechanism in the contract to charge a lessee for anything other than their proportional share of annual operating costs or for damages that result from that lessee's occupancy of a unit. Therefor, Northmont did not have the right to charge the RPF. Not to mention the fact that redesigning the units is neither repairs nor maintenance.


----------



## LilMaggie

FairSun said:


> Well said, Floyd55!  Ditto to your earlier point that our lawyer at no time quantified our potential personal $$$risk of continuing legal action.  If we had any inkling our bill could double from the relinquishment offer in March 2017 to December 2017 and the final settlement and release agreements in NO way would we have stayed in this battle.


I think it would be fair and an excellent settlement if MG pays the interest for all of us.


----------



## dotbuhler

Appauled said:


> Lets keep hammering out there for some exposure to the public and help from the media, etc.!!!!!
> As per the advise of others on this forum, I fired off an email briefly explaining our situation to:
> 
> marketplace@cbc.ca
> Calgarynews@bellmedia.ca
> mclaughlinonyourside@ctv.ca
> fifthtips@cbc.ca
> gopublic@cbc.ca
> 
> Lets keep emailing, calling and reaching out to whom ever may be able to hear our horror story and help!!!
> If there is anything else anyone can suggest we all do please post or re-post your suggestions!


there is a petition circulating that you can sign on thepetitionsite.com search under People: Dorothy Zazelenchuk.  1000 signature target.


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

ecwinch said:


> _ However, unlike a time share, a commercial tenancy involves a one-on-one relationship between a landlord and a tenant that bears little resemblance to the contracts here which govern the collective nature of the interests held by the participants in a time share. The fundamental nature of a time share interest involves not only the creation of a contractual relationship between an owner and the developer, but also a relationship between all owners in the time share. This is evident in many ways._



I disagree, I could be wrong. Also, weren't at least four of the Judges' listed above decisions regarding procedural considerations only and not on the facts of the case? Again, I could be wrong.

Yes, I know what the courts said. My response is the argument quoted above, advanced by a number of Judges is at best, ill-informed. They talk about there being no resemblance between a commercial lease and a timeshare plan. That's crazy talk. How are the timeshare lessees - would everyone stop calling them owners, please! - related in any way different than in the way that tenants sharing a building in a commercial lease are related? The time you can be in your unit and that you share the operating cost and management cost of the property, that's it. Those are the only material differences.

The courts misunderstood who is paying for what and who brought what to the contractual arrangement. How are the lessees related? No say in planning. No say in operations. No say in redevelopment. No say in asset acquisition and deployment. They are tenants in a building who pay the building's operating costs and management costs. The courts are vastly overthinking the situation and I think it is because the word 'owner' is used.

You can't say that the courts can only rule on what is presented; and, then say that those issues have been examined in detail by the courts. It is one or the other. Either the Defense didn't present the necessary evidence to prove their case; or, the Defense did present the necessary evidence and the court ruled against them. I very much think the Defense didn't present the necessary evidence to prove their case.

Everyone has to concede that  judges can get it wrong. Juries, usually 12-people, can get it wrong.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

FairSun said:


> Well said, Floyd55!  Ditto to your earlier point that our lawyer at no time quantified our potential personal $$$risk of continuing legal action.  If we had any inkling our bill could double from the relinquishment offer in March 2017 to December 2017 and the final settlement and release agreements in NO way would we have stayed in this battle.



true story......where would the value have been to keep paying MG for 4.5 years for this "excellent" result.............as the point had been asked by numerous people on numerous occasions what if???  agree with a previous point of putting the money in trust to proceed therefore stopping the ridiculous interest rate that NM feels so entitled too.


----------



## Hotpink

Perhaps we needed a Judge with the common sense of the one  in the Merchant of Venice. Yes Shylock could have his pound of flesh , but he could  shed no Blood. At least that's how I remember reading it in Grade 9 nearly six decades ago. It may be the training for Judges once they are appointed says to forget about common sense altogether.


----------



## torqued

To say I have some unique responsibility to other time share Lessee’s is crazy. My contract is with NW not any of my fellow time share lesses. My only responsibility is to pay my maintenance fees and not destroy the resort when I’m there. The rest falls on proper management of operations to ensure our time share experience is what we paid for and what we were told we would receive.


----------



## Appauled

I want to circle back right to the beginning when *Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties* filed for bankruptcy.

No one including MG has ever answered the following:

How can our timeshare contracts even be valid, when the company we signed with (Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties) is Bankrupt and gone?

Yet by filing for bankruptcy (Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties) I’m sure was able to avoid paying any bill's it owed to suppliers, contractors, maintenance people, etc. and should have made all timeshare contracts null and void as they are BANKRUPT.

Then the new owners (we know them as Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont) come in, and I’m sure are able to dis-associate themselves from the now bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties and are also able to avoid all these same above mentioned people that were owed money by the now bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties.

Yet Kirk Wankel/ Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont is able  to access the files of the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, with the names and contracts of all the people who bought with Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties. *(Is this not a breach of privacy?)*

Then once the new owners have access to all the names and timeshare contracts that belonged to Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, the new owners claim them as their own,  even though not a single person was approached and asked if they wanted to sign up with the NEW owners. *(Is this legal?)*

After the new owners (Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont) self-proclaim these Bankrupt timeshare contracts as their own, they are able to magically modify and enforce these timeshare contracts with unjust improvement fees, criminal amounts of compounded 26.8% interest and try to collect from all the timeshare owners that were only involved with the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, all while avoiding to pay money owed by the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties to its to suppliers, contractors, maintenance people, etc.???!!! *(How is this legal???)*

We have never been given the how and why Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont were able to take over and if it was legal.

*WE DID NOT SIGN TIMESHARE CONTRACTS WITH SUNCHASER/NORTHWYND/NORTHMONT!!! OUR TIMESHARE COMPANY FAIRMONT VACATION VILLAS/PROPERTIES WENT BANKRUPT!!!*

*
Where were these most basic facts missed by the lawyers and the courts and allowed to escalate to this outright FRAUD???*


----------



## LilMaggie

torqued said:


> To say I have some unique responsibility to other time share Lessee’s is crazy. My contract is with NW not any of my fellow time share lesses. My only responsibility is to pay my maintenance fees and not destroy the resort when I’m there. The rest falls on proper management of operations to ensure our time share experience is what we paid for and what we were told we would receive.


My contract is with Fairmont Vacation Villas.  Not even NM.


----------



## Spark1

wagga2650 said:


> If you signed option one out of duress or believing we would be able to see the settlement first before agreeing, The only option for us is to pay up and then sue MG for incompetence etc etc.That's the way I see it.


What are you paying for and when you do are you released. The bill come this way pay example $40000.00. Nothing is itemized. Pay by Credit Card. Be careful take this to the Canadian anti-fraud centre. You might  be only paying the maintenance fee for the time they took the right to use from you and they will send you another bill that you have to pay to get out of the resort. Be careful.


----------



## Floyd55

Spark1 said:


> What are you paying for and when you do are you released. The bill come this way pay example $40000.00. Nothing is itemized. Pay by Credit Card. Be careful take this to the Canadian anti-fraud centre. You might  be only paying the maintenance fee for the time they took the right to use from you and they will send you another bill that you have to pay to get out of the resort. Be careful.



The legal wording of the settlement clearly states that there will be a severance of all ties to Northmont and the resort as a result of paying the settlement fee. I am not worried about that aspect personally. I am just super choked that I have to pay this ridiculous settlement amount to these crooks! Appears to be no way around it from where I am standing without taking on huge risk in the future. Fortunately for me, I can pay to get out, but I'm not happy about it! I won't be paying until the last possible minute. Still praying for a miracle!


----------



## Roxanne

Floyd55 said:


> That is my feeling as well. When I do the math of what my court sanctioned settlement amount would become the day after Feb. 15th I have to say that I am not willing to take on that level of risk going forward. At 162% summary judgement as it is stated in Judge Young's final statements on this matter, that would my amount owing to NM to the mid $30,000 range. Then I would have ongoing legal bills to try and fight this, and then I would have to rely on the courts treating my case favorably at some point in the future. That is what I have been doing up to this point, and this is where we are now. I am done with putting my trust in lawyers and judges! No more risk taking and relying on our legal system to bring me justice. I am paying and getting out. I will rely on carma coming back to bite Kirk Wankel at some point in the future. I can only hope that he ends up in jail for all that he has done to so many people!





Floyd55 said:


> The legal wording of the settlement clearly states that there will be a severance of all ties to Northmont and the resort as a result of paying the settlement fee. I am not worried about that aspect personally. I am just super choked that I have to pay this ridiculous settlement amount to these crooks! Appears to be no way around it from where I am standing without taking on huge risk in the future. Fortunately for me, I can pay to get out, but I'm not happy about it! I won't be paying until the last possible minute. Still praying for a miracle!


Our plan is exactly the same, won't b paying till the last minute and pray for a miracle.


----------



## Tanny13

Appauled said:


> I want to circle back right to the beginning when *Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties* filed for bankruptcy.
> 
> No one including MG has ever answered the following:
> 
> How can our timeshare contracts even be valid, when the company we signed with (Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties) is Bankrupt and gone?
> 
> Yet by filing for bankruptcy (Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties) I’m sure was able to avoid paying any bill's it owed to suppliers, contractors, maintenance people, etc. and should have made all timeshare contracts null and void as they are BANKRUPT.
> 
> Then the new owners (we know them as Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont) come in, and I’m sure are able to dis-associate themselves from the now bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties and are also able to avoid all these same above mentioned people that were owed money by the now bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties.
> 
> Yet Kirk Wankel/ Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont is able  to access the files of the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, with the names and contracts of all the people who bought with Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties. *(Is this not a breach of privacy?)*
> 
> Then once the new owners have access to all the names and timeshare contracts that belonged to Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, the new owners claim them as their own,  even though not a single person was approached and asked if they wanted to sign up with the NEW owners. *(Is this legal?)*
> 
> After the new owners (Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont) self-proclaim these Bankrupt timeshare contracts as their own, they are able to magically modify and enforce these timeshare contracts with unjust improvement fees, criminal amounts of compounded 26.8% interest and try to collect from all the timeshare owners that were only involved with the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, all while avoiding to pay money owed by the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties to its to suppliers, contractors, maintenance people, etc.???!!! *(How is this legal???)*
> 
> We have never been given the how and why Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont were able to take over and if it was legal.
> 
> *WE DID NOT SIGN TIMESHARE CONTRACTS WITH SUNCHASER/NORTHWYND/NORTHMONT!!! OUR TIMESHARE COMPANY FAIRMONT VACATION VILLAS/PROPERTIES WENT BANKRUPT!!!*
> 
> *
> Where were these most basic facts missed by the lawyers and the courts and allowed to escalate to this outright FRAUD???*



Great questions!  I recall, in reading the CCAA documents, that part of the justification for the judges allowing Northmont to take over our contracts was to PROTECT the rights of the owners and ensure we all still have access to the resort for the remainder of our contracts.  Kind of ironic, isn't it?


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

ecwinch said:


> The court considered that argument, but disagreed. And not one judge, but multiple judges reviewing the contract and reached (or sustained) that decision:
> 
> _[258] Accordingly, I conclude that the plain reading of paragraph 9 is that all costs relating to the operation of the Resort, whether in the nature of capital costs or not, are to be borne by the owners. This applies even in the event of reconstruction of parts of the Resort as needed, whether from deferred maintenance issues or otherwise. There is no basis upon which the JEKE VIAs can be said to limit the responsibility to pay costs only for “regular maintenance” or “reasonable wear and tear”, as JEKE argues. _


_
ECWINCH, thank you for your posts, they are very informative and I wish you had started sooner.  Please continue to contribute with your views as they can be very helpful understanding this mess._

_I wish I understood this point more.  First, we are not owners, we have leases.  As said by the judges, capital costs are to be borne by owners.  We, as renters, own nothing and have no input into the decisions.  How can we be responsible for all costs when we have no decision in the costs.  To take this to the extreme, what keeps me from getting a bill in year 40 of my 40 year lease for future renovations.  As mentioned by someone else, can they plan to pave the parking lots with gold in year 40, and bill me?  They can then sell and pocket the money.  This makes no sense.  There could be no end to the costs to the lease holders.  Normally, costs are constrained by an owners association as they determine what is reasonable, but we lease holders do not have one.  Please let me know what I am missing.

When I purchased my lease, I was told (yea, I know) that they could not hold me responsible for renovation costs or other capital costs, hence the advantage of a 40 year lease verses actually owning.  The buildings were new, well built to require minimal maintenance, and would last through the 40 years.  This made sense at the time.

I have some background in rental contracts with rental real estate and do not know how the judges could make this decision.  Capital costs are treated entirely different than operating expenses, costs being taken as depreciation over time.  It has been said that the judges ruled that we own the buildings, not the land.  Does someone know where and how they ruled this?_


----------



## Appauled

_I want to circle back right to the beginning when *Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties* filed for bankruptcy.

No one including MG has ever answered the following:

How can our timeshare contracts even be valid, when the company we signed with (Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties) is Bankrupt and gone?

Yet by filing for bankruptcy (Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties) I’m sure was able to avoid paying any bill's it owed to suppliers, contractors, maintenance people, etc. and should have made all timeshare contracts null and void as they are BANKRUPT.

Then the new owners (we know them as Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont) come in, and I’m sure are able to dis-associate themselves from the now bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties and are also able to avoid all these same above mentioned people that were owed money by the now bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties.

Yet Kirk Wankel/ Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont is able to access the files of the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, with the names and contracts of all the people who bought with Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties. *(Is this not a breach of privacy?)*

Then once the new owners have access to all the names and timeshare contracts that belonged to Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, the new owners claim them as their own, even though not a single person was approached and asked if they wanted to sign up with the NEW owners. *(Is this legal?)*

After the new owners (Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont) self-proclaim these Bankrupt timeshare contracts as their own, they are able to magically modify and enforce these timeshare contracts with unjust improvement fees, criminal amounts of compounded 26.8% interest and try to collect from all the timeshare owners that were only involved with the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, all while avoiding to pay money owed by the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties to its to suppliers, contractors, maintenance people, etc.???!!! *(How is this legal???)*

We have never been given the how and why Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont were able to take over and if it was legal.

*WE DID NOT SIGN TIMESHARE CONTRACTS WITH SUNCHASER/NORTHWYND/NORTHMONT!!! OUR TIMESHARE COMPANY FAIRMONT VACATION VILLAS/PROPERTIES WENT BANKRUPT!!!*
_
*
 Where were these most basic facts missed by the lawyers and the courts and allowed to escalate to this outright FRAUD???*



Tanny13 said:


> Great questions!  I recall, in reading the CCAA documents, that part of the justification for the judges allowing Northmont to take over our contracts was to PROTECT the rights of the owners and ensure we all still have access to the resort for the remainder of our contracts.  Kind of ironic, isn't it?



Yes, ironic indeed. Where is the protection in that? Who has the money to access timeshares at the criminal price range of $20,000 to $100,000+ for maintenance, improvement and interest fees? This is FRAUD!


----------



## LilMaggie

Appauled said:


> _I want to circle back right to the beginning when *Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties* filed for bankruptcy.
> 
> No one including MG has ever answered the following:
> 
> How can our timeshare contracts even be valid, when the company we signed with (Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties) is Bankrupt and gone?
> 
> Yet by filing for bankruptcy (Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties) I’m sure was able to avoid paying any bill's it owed to suppliers, contractors, maintenance people, etc. and should have made all timeshare contracts null and void as they are BANKRUPT.
> 
> Then the new owners (we know them as Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont) come in, and I’m sure are able to dis-associate themselves from the now bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties and are also able to avoid all these same above mentioned people that were owed money by the now bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties.
> 
> Yet Kirk Wankel/ Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont is able to access the files of the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, with the names and contracts of all the people who bought with Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties. *(Is this not a breach of privacy?)*
> 
> Then once the new owners have access to all the names and timeshare contracts that belonged to Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, the new owners claim them as their own, even though not a single person was approached and asked if they wanted to sign up with the NEW owners. *(Is this legal?)*
> 
> After the new owners (Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont) self-proclaim these Bankrupt timeshare contracts as their own, they are able to magically modify and enforce these timeshare contracts with unjust improvement fees, criminal amounts of compounded 26.8% interest and try to collect from all the timeshare owners that were only involved with the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, all while avoiding to pay money owed by the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties to its to suppliers, contractors, maintenance people, etc.???!!! *(How is this legal???)*
> 
> We have never been given the how and why Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont were able to take over and if it was legal.
> 
> *WE DID NOT SIGN TIMESHARE CONTRACTS WITH SUNCHASER/NORTHWYND/NORTHMONT!!! OUR TIMESHARE COMPANY FAIRMONT VACATION VILLAS/PROPERTIES WENT BANKRUPT!!!*
> _
> *
> Where were these most basic facts missed by the lawyers and the courts and allowed to escalate to this outright FRAUD???*
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, ironic indeed. Where is the protection in that? Who has the money to access timeshares at the criminal price range of $20,000 to $100,000+ for maintenance, improvement and interest fees? This is FRAUD!


It protected the owners alright...us lessees...not so much!!


----------



## Been Around Awhile

ecwinch said:


> From an objective standpoint, I think the court explained the reasoning behind it's decision(s) in great detail.
> 
> _Lessee shall be responsible for his proportionate share of all administration, maintenance and repair costs (the "Operating Costs") and replacement costs_
> 
> If you are responsible for maintenance, repair, and replacement costs - what are you being asked to pay that is not in that category?
> 
> If Northmont - as you seem to suggest -  had simply baked the refurbishment project onto the maintenance fees on a multi-year basis - what would be the difference?



One has to come down on one side or the other. The long list of Judges enumerated heard all the facts and fully examined the issue. Or, the Defense Legal Team did a poor job of presenting the facts upon which the Judges could deliberate and render a decision which, makes that decision suspect. One cannot say both are true.

How could Loo have not understood the concept of Capital Costs? Capital Costs are one time, fixed charges often spread over more than one operating year. Like the Renovation Plan. Capital costs are initially Capitalized as an asset on a balance sheet. Over the useful life of the asset, it gets expensed through depreciation on the annual operating statement. No business approaching the size and scope of Fairmont / Northmont does not list capital costs in their financial statements. If Lessees were meant to pay for capital costs they'd be identified in the Lease Agreement. It is that simple. Otherwise it is intentionally deceptive. It was 1999 after all, not prior to the Industrial Revolution.

How could this not have been made clear by our collection of lawyers? Fairmont and Northmont both would have depreciation on their annual statements. It's not like they could say, _"Capital Costs, never heard of the concept."_ Wankel is an accountant when he's not playing World of Warcraft. He is more than capable of understanding Capital Budgets,  Balance Sheets, Operating Budgets and Operating Statements which, are also called Profit and Loss Statements (P&L) or Income Statements and report the revenue and expenses over a reporting period - almost always 12-months or 1-year.

My 1999 Lease Agreement puts the repairs and maintenance in the context of work that can be done during one year's time, a reporting period. The replacement reserve is also clearly referring to the refurbishing of furniture and fixtures within each unit, in my version of the Lease Agreement anyway.

The financial statements describe the operation of the property and the value of the property. The corporate documents, the corporate structure, and the contracts to which Northmont is a party describe the 'Project' as Loo calls it. Nowhere in all of those documents are lessees characterized as having an investment in nor ownership of the property or its assets. If it's sold, they get nothing, as evidenced by the bankruptcy sale of Fairmont to Northmont. If a wall falls on a passerby they aren't responsible. They don't own the wall that fell, the roof or foundation that didn't hold it in place and, they don't manage the property. They cannot even effect a change in management. Not their problem.

It is an insult that Northmont is allowed do so many things not provided for in the terms and conditions of the contract. I'm sorry, and maybe it's our lawyers' fault, but the courts didn't get it. Ok, now I'll shut-up.


----------



## MgolferL

LilMaggie said:


> I think it would be fair and an excellent settlement if MG pays the interest for all of us.



IF we are going to pursue something like that, we better start the process now. I have to go thru the release in more detail, but think, once it's signed we are also releasing the lawyer and agreeing to a gag order against ALL parties.

We may have to go after him thru his insurance company....ALL lawyers have to carry it, just for this this reason... He gave BAD advice (do not pay) which cost us individually...... ... and most of us have emails to substantiate that. I think those complaints have to be done before paying and signing off though.

As well, spoke to someone who was familiar as to the start of this. It seems that young Mr. MG was extremely green and had never tried a major case before AKA... this was his first. The rest of the lawyers walked away because no one was playing nice in the sandbox and he had all sorts of "fresh out of school" ideas, but little to no practical experience... hence our dilemma and misguided legal advice.


----------



## MgolferL

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> I disagree, I could be wrong. Also, weren't at least four of the Judges' listed above decisions regarding procedural considerations only and not on the facts of the case? Again, I could be wrong.
> 
> Yes, I know what the courts said. My response is the argument quoted above, advanced by a number of Judges is at best, ill-informed. They talk about there being no resemblance between a commercial lease and a timeshare plan. That's crazy talk. How are the timeshare lessees - would everyone stop calling them owners, please! - related in any way different than in the way that tenants sharing a building in a commercial lease are related? The time you can be in your unit and that you share the operating cost and management cost of the property, that's it. Those are the only material differences.
> 
> The courts misunderstood who is paying for what and who brought what to the contractual arrangement. How are the lessees related? No say in planning. No say in operations. No say in redevelopment. No say in asset acquisition and deployment. They are tenants in a building who pay the building's operating costs and management costs. The courts are vastly overthinking the situation and I think it is because the word 'owner' is used.
> 
> You can't say that the courts can only rule on what is presented; and, then say that those issues have been examined in detail by the courts. It is one or the other. Either the Defense didn't present the necessary evidence to prove their case; or, the Defense did present the necessary evidence and the court ruled against them. I very much think the Defense didn't present the necessary evidence to prove their case.
> 
> Everyone has to concede that  judges can get it wrong. Juries, usually 12-people, can get it wrong.


You are right... Defense didn't present the necessary evidence AND information and ignored the suggested direction of the judges. Apparently he knew more than the judge.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Unfortunately the Courts did get it – what they got was a well researched and executed plan by Northmont.

Geldert did have a chance to properly contest the RPF that created the reason to stay or leave in many different ways but during the initial trial became constrained with what he could put in front of the Judge – I believe I may have a reason why and am currently working on validating that.

But this set off the downward spiral along with taking no alternative path that has let us here to where we are.

Northmont can take full advantage of Geldert’s which I am loosely calling errors at this point and is going to fully capitalize on them.

At this point there is no trying to fight the contract (whichever one it is), or Northmont as Geldert has given them everything and then some.

It is definitely not fair and is the reason we all need to ensure we have individually contacted by email and phone the Law Societies with our grievances toward Geldert and the Judge’s office, every Minister, and Politician with a concise detailing of how a Canadian Corporation has been allowed by the Canadian Courts to take advantage there is no protection and reap huge profits off our backs while virtually giving nothing more in return then the termination of a prepaid lease.

I cannot take credit for finding this but please post it on your Facebook groups or other places:
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...stin-trudeau-to-hold-edmonton-town-hall-feb-1

Might be a good time for Raging Grannies and Grandpa’s to send a National message – maybe the Prime Minister will give some quality time to hard working Canadians who aren’t liars, sex offenders, or terrorists.


----------



## LilMaggie

MgolferL said:


> IF we are going to pursue something like that, we better start the process now. I have to go thru the release in more detail, but think, once it's signed we are also releasing the lawyer and agreeing to a gag order against ALL parties.
> 
> We may have to go after him thru his insurance company....ALL lawyers have to carry it, just for this this reason... He gave BAD advice (do not pay) which cost us individually...... ... and most of us have emails to substantiate that. I think those complaints have to be done before paying and signing off though.
> 
> As well, spoke to someone who was familiar as to the start of this. It seems that young Mr. MG was extremely green and had never tried a major case before AKA... this was his first. The rest of the lawyers walked away because no one was playing nice in the sandbox and he had all sorts of "fresh out of school" ideas, but little to no practical experience... hence our dilemma and misguided legal advice.


He was called to the bar in 2006...not a very long time to practice, but he notes on his website that he is experienced in corporate and real estate law/litigation. A more experienced lawyer would likely have known when he was out of his depth.


----------



## LilMaggie

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Unfortunately the Courts did get it – what they got was a well researched and executed plan by Northmont.
> 
> Geldert did have a chance to properly contest the RPF that created the reason to stay or leave in many different ways but during the initial trial became constrained with what he could put in front of the Judge – I believe I may have a reason why and am currently working on validating that.
> 
> But this set off the downward spiral along with taking no alternative path that has let us here to where we are.
> 
> Northmont can take full advantage of Geldert’s which I am loosely calling errors at this point and is going to fully capitalize on them.
> 
> At this point there is no trying to fight the contract (whichever one it is), or Northmont as Geldert has given them everything and then some.
> 
> It is definitely not fair and is the reason we all need to ensure we have individually contacted by email and phone the Law Societies with our grievances toward Geldert and the Judge’s office, every Minister, and Politician with a concise detailing of how a Canadian Corporation has been allowed by the Canadian Courts to take advantage there is no protection and reap huge profits off our backs while virtually giving nothing more in return then the termination of a prepaid lease.
> 
> I cannot take credit for finding this but please post it on your Facebook groups or other places:
> http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...stin-trudeau-to-hold-edmonton-town-hall-feb-1
> 
> Might be a good time for Raging Grannies and Grandpa’s to send a National message – maybe the Prime Minister will give some quality time to hard working Canadians who aren’t liars, sex offenders, or terrorists.


How I would love to rage at that town hall meeting!


----------



## MgolferL

Appauled said:


> _I want to circle back right to the beginning when *Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties* filed for bankruptcy.
> 
> No one including MG has ever answered the following:
> 
> How can our timeshare contracts even be valid, when the company we signed with (Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties) is Bankrupt and gone?
> 
> Yet by filing for bankruptcy (Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties) I’m sure was able to avoid paying any bill's it owed to suppliers, contractors, maintenance people, etc. and should have made all timeshare contracts null and void as they are BANKRUPT.
> 
> Then the new owners (we know them as Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont) come in, and I’m sure are able to dis-associate themselves from the now bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties and are also able to avoid all these same above mentioned people that were owed money by the now bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties.
> 
> Yet Kirk Wankel/ Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont is able to access the files of the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, with the names and contracts of all the people who bought with Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties. *(Is this not a breach of privacy?)*
> 
> Then once the new owners have access to all the names and timeshare contracts that belonged to Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, the new owners claim them as their own, even though not a single person was approached and asked if they wanted to sign up with the NEW owners. *(Is this legal?)*
> 
> After the new owners (Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont) self-proclaim these Bankrupt timeshare contracts as their own, they are able to magically modify and enforce these timeshare contracts with unjust improvement fees, criminal amounts of compounded 26.8% interest and try to collect from all the timeshare owners that were only involved with the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties, all while avoiding to pay money owed by the bankrupt Fairmont Vacation Villas/Properties to its to suppliers, contractors, maintenance people, etc.???!!! *(How is this legal???)*
> 
> We have never been given the how and why Kirk Wankel / Sunchaser/ Northwynd/ Northmont were able to take over and if it was legal.
> 
> *WE DID NOT SIGN TIMESHARE CONTRACTS WITH SUNCHASER/NORTHWYND/NORTHMONT!!! OUR TIMESHARE COMPANY FAIRMONT VACATION VILLAS/PROPERTIES WENT BANKRUPT!!!*
> _
> *
> Where were these most basic facts missed by the lawyers and the courts and allowed to escalate to this outright FRAUD???*
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, ironic indeed. Where is the protection in that? Who has the money to access timeshares at the criminal price range of $20,000 to $100,000+ for maintenance, improvement and interest fees? This is FRAUD!



You are 100% correct the we DID NOT sign contracts with Sunchaser (+). When Fairmont went down, KW went on board in 2010 as VP & CFO. HE would have access to the files prior to Sunchaser taking it over as that would have been one of the tangible assets along  with the land and buildings. In 2012 he became CEO.

ALL of this was not presented remotely well in the courts. In the test case it seems all that was argued was whether it was operational cost and/or capital cost....NOT whether contracts were ever signed and/or binding. We ALL should have been given a new contract and an option at the time of the new "owner" to which was not done, and their resistance to a Board of users to help direct the #NAFR.

MG should have been arguing on the validity of the contracts and that the contracts could not arbitrarily be lumped in together as there were many different contracts, so an infringement of many consumer protection clauses.  He decided to put all the eggs into one basket (unfortunately the wrong one) to which was the start of where we are today. It was illegal on a lot of levels (including moral), but our council kept going down the wrong path.


----------



## LilMaggie

MgolferL said:


> IF we are going to pursue something like that, we better start the process now. I have to go thru the release in more detail, but think, once it's signed we are also releasing the lawyer and agreeing to a gag order against ALL parties.
> 
> We may have to go after him thru his insurance company....ALL lawyers have to carry it, just for this this reason... He gave BAD advice (do not pay) which cost us individually...... ... and most of us have emails to substantiate that. I think those complaints have to be done before paying and signing off though.
> 
> As well, spoke to someone who was familiar as to the start of this. It seems that young Mr. MG was extremely green and had never tried a major case before AKA... this was his first. The rest of the lawyers walked away because no one was playing nice in the sandbox and he had all sorts of "fresh out of school" ideas, but little to no practical experience... hence our dilemma and misguided legal advice.


https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/compla...ek-compensation/claims-for-lawyer-negligence/


----------



## torqued

Would it help our case against MG if we all were citing the SAME specific reasons for bringing his name to the law society.  In other words here are three or four reasons why we feel he was negligent in carrying out his duties as our attorney.  Otherwise it may just look like a bunch of scattered complaints from people who lost a case?  Comments or suggestions?


----------



## GypsyOne

ecwinch said:


> I hope this is the correct count, but from the court records it appears that nine different judges have heard arguments on the merits of this case in one form or another. On four different court cases, and three appeals.  I could understand the point of judicial bias or incompetence if two or three judges had been involved. The key issue they all have agreed on is that you did not enter into a commercial lease - but that you entered into a timeshare plan.
> 
> At some point is the point at law not well settled?
> 
> The Honourable Madam Justice Kirkpatrick
> The Honourable Madam Justice D. Smith
> The Honourable Madam Justice Garson
> The Honourable Madam Justice Loo
> The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman
> The Honourable Madam Justice D. Smith
> The Honourable Mr. Justice Goepel
> The Honourable Mr. Justice Branch
> The Honourable Judge L.D. Young
> 
> Do you honestly believe so many judges in your court system are incompetent or on the take?
> 
> From the court:
> _In my view, there is absolutely no support for JEKE’s argument beyond the common fact that both types of relationship are governed by contract. However, unlike a time share, a commercial tenancy involves a one-on-one relationship between a landlord and a tenant that bears little resemblance to the contracts here which govern the collective nature of the interests held by the participants in a time share. The fundamental nature of a time share interest involves not only the creation of a contractual relationship between an owner and the developer, but also a relationship between all owners in the time share. This is evident in many ways._



I sure hope the nine judges are not incompetent or complicit, but the logic they followed in arriving at their decision is disturbing.  Not because the TS Users (TSU) lost the case, but because the judges departed so far from the terms of the contracts/leases.  Nine justices being in unanimous agreement does not strengthen the case, it weakens it.  How is it possible that nine justices could review a mountain of evidence and not one find one point in favour of the TSU?  Not one!  It defies logic.  Seems the decision had already been made in favour of the resort owners, and the duty of the justices was to dress it up in pretty sounding legalese. 

I think it was Justice Loo who asked the rhetorical question, "if the timeshare owners don't pay, then who" - and inadvertently revealed her legal myopia. 

You say a key issue they have agreed on is that you (we) did not enter into a commercial lease - but that we entered into a timeshare plan.  Well so what?  In other words, they say we do not have a lease we have a timeshare plan.  The justices had to draw that distinction - it was vital to their flawed decision.  The reason being that leases, lessors, and lessees have well established legal rights and responsibilities.  Definition of a lease:  "A contract by which one party (Lessor) conveys land, property, services, etc. to another (Lessee) for a specified time, usually in return for a periodic payment."  Sounds to me like we have leases. But I know for sure I have a lease because my contract says it is a lease, and throughout the contract the resort owner is referred to as the Lessor and the TSU the Lessee.  Here are some important characteristics of leases that can be found in any real estate law textbook or online: "The Lessor is bound to deliver the leased property to the Lessee in good condition."  "The Lessee is not liable for loss or damage resulting from proper use."  Clearly Northmont had a legal right to supply the Lessees with a property in good condition and it is their responsibility to maintain it in good condition.  So what is the legal recourse if the Lessor breaches his responsibility to deliver and maintain the property in good condition:  "In case the leased property is not delivered in a condition suitable for the purpose on which it is leased, the Lessee may terminate the contract."  So at this point we can give credit to the nine justices for being competent because they knew the established rights and responsibilities of Lessors and Lessees was going to be problematic to their decision.  So nine justices unanimously concluded that it was not really a lease in the usual sense of the word, it was a timeshare plan. 

Now that the justices have rebranded the contract, they can proceed to run roughshod over its clauses, the most egregious being adding capital costs to the list of operating costs.  Clause 9 lists the operating costs, but nowhere are capital costs to be found.  An item as trivial as garbage disposal is included but capital costs for reconstruction of faulty buildings amounting to $40 million are not.  How then do the justices conclude that we are responsible for reconstruction of faulty buildings?  They simply say it is so:  "_I conclude that the plain reading of paragraph 9 is that all costs relating to the operation of the Resort, whether in the nature of capital costs or not, are to be borne by the owners. This applies even in the event of reconstruction of parts of the Resort as needed, whether from deferred maintenance issues or otherwise."  _Voila, the TSU are now stuck for maintaining the property in pristine condition - some forever and some for the remainder of their 40 year leases, unless they pay the ransom to get out. 

Clause 13 in my lease, Default Of The Lessee In Any Payment, seems to be completely ignored by the justices in favour of Northmont's creative cash grab.  But Clause 13 clearly states that if the Lessor takes back the timeshare, they pay the Lessee a fractional amount of the value of remaining timeshare. 

Clause 38, Modification To Lease which is supposed to prevent unilateral changes to the Lease "if changes in any way prejudice the rights of existing lessees" is similarly ignored, and the courts have allowed modifications to the lease to correspond to the test case lease. 

So no, I hope our judges are not complicit in a flawed decision.  But were the courts somehow influenced by the Province of B.C. and possibly Alberta who don't want a major tourist destination to fail. Nor do they want to pump in public money, which has been known to defeat governments?  I can't help but wonder.


----------



## CleoB

ecwinch said:


> You are correct, courts can only decide on the case presented. And please understand where I am coming from. Some battles have been fought and the no one likes the outcome. But what the settlement is, who it is binding upon, and the rights of those who are not represented by MG are unclear. Energy is better spent on attacking the issues the court has not ruled on, over fighting battles lost IMHO.


Yes you are totally correct on that point.  I have to say though that my husband that has over 35 years of experience in property management said "we are not paying capital costs".....so it was what was presented to the first few judges that a decision was made.....and the other judges just followed suit.  They were not going to over-ride the first decisions, not matter that they were wrong. IMHO.


----------



## CleoB

GypsyOne said:


> I sure hope the nine judges are not incompetent or complicit, but the logic they followed in arriving at their decision is disturbing.  Not because the TS Users (TSU) lost the case, but because the judges departed so far from the terms of the contracts/leases.  Nine justices being in unanimous agreement does not strengthen the case, it weakens it.  How is it possible that nine justices could review a mountain of evidence and not one find one point in favour of the TSU?  Not one!  It defies logic.  Seems the decision had already been made in favour of the resort owners, and the duty of the justices was to dress it up in pretty sounding legalese.
> 
> I think it was Justice Loo who asked the rhetorical question, "if the timeshare owners don't pay, then who" - and inadvertently revealed her legal myopia.
> 
> You say a key issue they have agreed on is that you (we) did not enter into a commercial lease - but that we entered into a timeshare plan.  Well so what?  In other words, they say we do not have a lease we have a timeshare plan.  The justices had to draw that distinction - it was vital to their flawed decision.  The reason being that leases, lessors, and lessees have well established legal rights and responsibilities.  Definition of a lease:  "A contract by which one party (Lessor) conveys land, property, services, etc. to another (Lessee) for a specified time, usually in return for a periodic payment."  Sounds to me like we have leases. But I know for sure I have a lease because my contract says it is a lease, and throughout the contract the resort owner is referred to as the Lessor and the TSU the Lessee.  Here are some important characteristics of leases that can be found in any real estate law textbook or online: "The Lessor is bound to deliver the leased property to the Lessee in good condition."  "The Lessee is not liable for loss or damage resulting from proper use."  Clearly Northmont had a legal right to supply the Lessees with a property in good condition and it is their responsibility to maintain it in good condition.  So what is the legal recourse if the Lessor breaches his responsibility to deliver and maintain the property in good condition:  "In case the leased property is not delivered in a condition suitable for the purpose on which it is leased, the Lessee may terminate the contract."  So at this point we can give credit to the nine justices for being competent because they knew the established rights and responsibilities of Lessors and Lessees was going to be problematic to their decision.  So nine justices unanimously concluded that it was not really a lease in the usual sense of the word, it was a timeshare plan.
> 
> Now that the justices have rebranded the contract, they can proceed to run roughshod over its clauses, the most egregious being adding capital costs to the list of operating costs.  Clause 9 lists the operating costs, but nowhere are capital costs to be found.  An item as trivial as garbage disposal is included but capital costs for reconstruction of faulty buildings amounting to $40 million are not.  How then do the justices conclude that we are responsible for reconstruction of faulty buildings?  They simply say it is so:  "_I conclude that the plain reading of paragraph 9 is that all costs relating to the operation of the Resort, whether in the nature of capital costs or not, are to be borne by the owners. This applies even in the event of reconstruction of parts of the Resort as needed, whether from deferred maintenance issues or otherwise." _Voila, the TSU are now stuck for maintaining the property in pristine condition - some forever and some for the remainder of their 40 year leases, unless they pay the ransom to get out.
> 
> Clause 13 in my lease, Default Of The Lessee In Any Payment, seems to be completely ignored by the justices in favour of Northmont's creative cash grab.  But Clause 13 clearly states that if the Lessor takes back the timeshare, they pay the Lessee a fractional amount of the value of remaining timeshare.
> 
> Clause 38, Modification To Lease which is supposed to prevent unilateral changes to the Lease "if changes in any way prejudice the rights of existing lessees" is similarly ignored, and the courts have allowed modifications to the lease to correspond to the test case lease.
> 
> So no, I hope our judges are not complicit in a flawed decision.  But were the courts somehow influenced by the Province of B.C. and possibly Alberta who don't want a major tourist destination to fail. Nor do they want to pump in public money, which has been known to defeat governments?  I can't help but wonder.


Well the Federal Court of Appeal in the ruling against Club Intrawest (of which Geldert represented) ruled that the Timeshare owners merely own a right of occupancy.   https://www.newswire.ca/news-releas...deral-court-of-appeal-decision-635276573.html   So how is it that these judges decided we were "owners that had to pay for capital costs"?


----------



## CleoB

Floyd55 said:


> The legal wording of the settlement clearly states that there will be a severance of all ties to Northmont and the resort as a result of paying the settlement fee. I am not worried about that aspect personally. I am just super choked that I have to pay this ridiculous settlement amount to these crooks! Appears to be no way around it from where I am standing without taking on huge risk in the future. Fortunately for me, I can pay to get out, but I'm not happy about it! I won't be paying until the last possible minute. Still praying for a miracle!


Yes the agreement is with NM but KW bough the assets from NM and NM is still a standing company....so are you fully released from all parties associated with NM?


----------



## CleoB

MgolferL said:


> IF we are going to pursue something like that, we better start the process now. I have to go thru the release in more detail, but think, once it's signed we are also releasing the lawyer and agreeing to a gag order against ALL parties.
> 
> We may have to go after him thru his insurance company....ALL lawyers have to carry it, just for this this reason... He gave BAD advice (do not pay) which cost us individually...... ... and most of us have emails to substantiate that. I think those complaints have to be done before paying and signing off though.
> 
> As well, spoke to someone who was familiar as to the start of this. It seems that young Mr. MG was extremely green and had never tried a major case before AKA... this was his first. The rest of the lawyers walked away because no one was playing nice in the sandbox and he had all sorts of "fresh out of school" ideas, but little to no practical experience... hence our dilemma and misguided legal advice.


So then why didn't the other lawyers advise their clients on why there weren't pursuing the case.  Before we joined Geldert we were with another firm and when they backed out they indicated that MG was going forward but never indicated MG was inexperienced.


----------



## ecwinch

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> *You can't say that the courts can only rule on what is presented; and, then say that those issues have been examined in detail by the courts. It is one or the other.* Either the Defense didn't present the necessary evidence to prove their case; or, *the Defense did present the necessary evidence and the court ruled against them.* I very much think the Defense didn't present the necessary evidence to prove their case.
> 
> Everyone has to concede that  judges can get it wrong. Juries, usually 12-people, can get it wrong.



It is not "one or the other".  As you later state, the Defense can have presented all the necessary evidence AND have the court rule against them.

Which is exactly what happened based on the court records.  I never said NOT everything was presented, only that court can only consider what WAS presented. Which it appears they did.


----------



## CleoB

ecwinch said:


> It is not "one or the other".  As you later state, the Defense can have presented all the necessary evidence AND have the court rule against them.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened based on the court records.  I never said NOT everything was presented, only that court can only consider what WAS presented. Which it appears they did.


Yes and this is where our lawyer failed us.  He did not present what his clients said he should have......rather he choose to go his own way and we are now paying for it.


----------



## MgolferL

torqued said:


> Would it help our case against MG if we all were citing the SAME specific reasons for bringing his name to the law society.  In other words here are three or four reasons why we feel he was negligent in carrying out his duties as our attorney.  Otherwise it may just look like a bunch of scattered complaints from people who lost a case?  Comments or suggestions?


I would agree with that. Items could include:
1. Told us not to pay anything. If we had at least paid the money in trust the interest would have stopped.
2. Supplied fragmented, incomplete information throughout the process.
3. Did not allow us to see the "negotiated" agreement and vote on it.
4. Imposed an unrealistic time-frame in which to interpret the agreement.
5. Agreed to an unrealistic time-frame to complete the agreement.
6. Dropped the appeal. Without agreement from the group.
7. Not responding to clients.
8. Ignored advice throughout the process.

Any more?


----------



## MgolferL

CleoB said:


> So then why didn't the other lawyers advise their clients on why there weren't pursuing the case.  Before we joined Geldert we were with another firm and when they backed out they indicated that MG was going forward but never indicated MG was inexperienced.


Don't know why... and would love to know.


----------



## ecwinch

NeverNeverAgain said:


> _I wish I understood this point more.  First, we are not owners, we have leases.    Please let me know what I am missing.
> .....
> Does someone know where and how they ruled this?_



It simply comes down to the court's decision that:
"_In summary, JEKE’s interest, under the JEKE VIAs, is not that of a commercial tenant, but is a part of a substantial number of other interests in the Resort which are to be collectively managed for the benefit of all owners or lessees."_

AKA that you are members of a timeshare plan and not the lessee's of commercial property. That ruling was made by Judge Loo in the first case, and Judge Fitzpatrick reached the same conclusion. Decisions sustained on appeal.

Judge Fitzpatrick's reasons for that decision run from pg 27 - 31, paragraphs 99 to 115. They do not reflect that the court only engaged in a cursory review of circumstances when reaching that decision.  http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/JEKE-v.-Northmont-Judgment-Highlighted.pdf

If you have not done so, I would encourage everyone who questions the court's decision to read those sections. For those not inclined I would summarize those elements as:

1) That the fundamental nature of a time share plan is in creating an interest that is not specific, but is to be used generally in conjunction with other time share owners; as your agreement outlines. As opposed to a lease, which is for a specific property.

2) That the project was formed and regulated under the timeshare provisions of the Real Estate Act as noted in the prospectus document which contained the following bolded statement: TIME SHARING INVOLVES A CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP WITH A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF OWNERS OF EACH TIME SHARE INTEREST. And the essence of this disclosure is also outlined in paragraph 13 of the VIA's.

3) That your usage rights "floated" as opposed to being assigned a specific unit for a specific period of time


----------



## truthr

MgolferL said:


> I would agree with that. Items could include:
> 1. Told us not to pay anything. If we had at least paid the money in trust the interest would have stopped.
> 2. Supplied fragmented, incomplete information throughout the process.
> 3. Did not allow us to see the "negotiated" agreement and vote on it.
> 4. Imposed an unrealistic time-frame in which to interpret the agreement.
> 5. Agreed to an unrealistic time-frame to complete the agreement.
> 6. Dropped the appeal. Without agreement from the group.
> 7. Not responding to clients.
> 8. Ignored advice throughout the process.
> 
> Any more?


Can anyone say "bait and switch" more than once?
Strongly discouraged clients from interacting with each other.
Instilling fear of each other and the opponent.
#6 should be dropped the Opposition to the Trustee's Petition without our consent.
Did not take instruction but rather made demands and then passed them off as client instructions.
Not providing documents for ease of transition for clients who he defaulted to "proceed on their own".
Not revealing and providing documents for ALL court proceedings, ie., Appeal in BC and AB.
Not providing court documents in a timely fashion, ie., Judge Young's decision was available on the internet on October 20th, 2017 and not provided to us by him until October 30th.
Not providing proper accounting of joint trust account.
Treating clients differently by providing information to some and not to others.
Creating situations that caused individual emails and telephone conversations rather than putting it in an email to the entire group.

I could go on.


----------



## DisgustedinWA

MgolferL said:


> I would agree with that. Items could include:
> 1. Told us not to pay anything. If we had at least paid the money in trust the interest would have stopped.
> 2. Supplied fragmented, incomplete information throughout the process.
> 3. Did not allow us to see the "negotiated" agreement and vote on it.
> 4. Imposed an unrealistic time-frame in which to interpret the agreement.
> 5. Agreed to an unrealistic time-frame to complete the agreement.
> 6. Dropped the appeal. Without agreement from the group.
> 7. Not responding to clients.
> 8. Ignored advice throughout the process.
> 
> Any more?



So. if MG boxes us in with this "settlement" complete with the punitive 162% summary judgement if we don't pay the ransom, we can't pursue damages against him or his cohorts due to the gag order and he get's one more turn at the trough. Now I understand his legal strategy. I asked him what I was getting for my last $500 retainer. Now I now. This settlement was structured for his protection only. If he hadn't bound us to this "settlement" the worst we could have done was wait for a judgement on interest (that could only have been less) and we would have had the option of paying our statement and getting our timeshare back. This is my complaint.


----------



## Broke Mama

DisgustedinWA said:


> So. if MG boxes us in with this "settlement" complete with the punitive 162% summary judgement if we don't pay the ransom, we can't pursue damages against him or his cohorts due to the gag order and he get's one more turn at the trough. Now I understand his legal strategy. I asked him what I was getting for my last $500 retainer. Now I now. This settlement was structured for his protection only. If he hadn't bound us to this "settlement" the worst we could have done was wait for a judgement on interest (that could only have been less) and we would have had the option of paying our statement and getting our timeshare back. This is my complaint.


Except for us that said no to settlement we don't know where we stand either. MG won't talk to us and NM won't talk to us. We don't know what we owe. NM won't give us a statement owed and MG won't write us back. So then What? Wait to get served?


----------



## Scammed!

It's been mental torture for me in the last few weeks, and throughout the years not knowing or understanding what was happening, and not knowing what everyone else was doing or thinking. Not being able to talk to anyone who could explain this to me. Today I'm fighting this battle in fear and desperation, its like a movie, and I've been framed!.... Who can I trust? We were definitley brainwashed, the fear was put into each, and everyone of us, and that's how they won their game....they kept us silent. We didn't speak as the well behaved little children we were, or else, there were those threats. We all believed in one person throughout this whole dilemma no different then being in a cult. There is so much more to this injustice we have all found ourselves in. We will continue to *fight united, as the strangers in the dark!* Maybe one day we will all see the faces behind the masks we wear. Maybe one day our voices will be heard..........


----------



## FairSun

.


----------



## fairmontlovers

ecwinch said:


> It simply comes down to the court's decision that:
> "_In summary, JEKE’s interest, under the JEKE VIAs, is not that of a commercial tenant, but is a part of a substantial number of other interests in the Resort which are to be collectively managed for the benefit of all owners or lessees."_
> 
> AKA that you are members of a timeshare plan and not the lessee's of commercial property. That ruling was made by Judge Loo in the first case, and Judge Fitzpatrick reached the same conclusion. Decisions sustained on appeal.
> 
> Judge Fitzpatrick's reasons for that decision run from pg 27 - 31, paragraphs 99 to 115. They do not reflect that the court only engaged in a cursory review of circumstances when reaching that decision.  http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/JEKE-v.-Northmont-Judgment-Highlighted.pdf
> 
> If you have not done so, I would encourage everyone who questions the court's decision to read those sections. For those not inclined I would summarize those elements as:
> 
> 1) That the fundamental nature of a time share plan is in creating an interest that is not specific, but is to be used generally in conjunction with other time share owners; as your agreement outlines. As opposed to a lease, which is for a specific property.
> 
> 2) That the project was formed and regulated under the timeshare provisions of the Real Estate Act as noted in the prospectus document which contained the following bolded statement: TIME SHARING INVOLVES A CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP WITH A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF OWNERS OF EACH TIME SHARE INTEREST. And the essence of this disclosure is also outlined in paragraph 13 of the VIA's.
> 
> 3) That your usage rights "floated" as opposed to being assigned a specific unit for a specific period of time



Okay, we can all argue and be upset with the judges decision, we all feel the judge(s) were wrong. Going past that and accepting the judgement for what it is, what troubles me is how can Northwynd justify that we all owe 26.8% interest for the past 4 years on the Renovation Project? The only argument I could see in their favor is IF they had gone ahead with renovating the buildings that reflected the numbers of those who chose to stay Plus those of us that chose to fight this. There are 8 buildings in the Riverside area, 8 buildings in the Hillside area (plus two smaller terrace buildings that have several units wholly owned), plus the Riverview building. From my knowledge only 4 of the buildings in the Riverside area have had renovations completed. It should be noted also that these Riverside buildings are much smaller in the number of units as compared to the Hillside buildings. Approximately 4000 timeshare owners chose to stay and paid the Renovation Project. 4000 out of 14000 timeshare owners is not proportional to the amount of work done thus far.

From Sunchasers' website on the renovation project the buildings completed are buildings 300, 400, 500 and 800. They are 13,263 sq ft each for a total of 53,052 sq ft. The total square footage of ALL the buildings originally planned for the renovation project amounts to 188,442 sq ft.  Thus to date, 28.15 % of the planned work to the buildings has been completed. This clearly shows that there has been absolutely NO renovation work completed by those of us that chose to fight the renovation project. Again, how can they justify interest on work not done?


----------



## truthr

Scammed! said:


> It's been mental torture for me in the last few weeks, and throughout the years not knowing or understanding what was happening, and not knowing what everyone else was doing or thinking. Not being able to talk to anyone who could explain this to me. Today I'm fighting this battle in fear and desperation, its like a movie, and I've been framed!.... Who can I trust? We were definitley brainwashed, the fear was put into each, and everyone of us, and that's how they won their game....they kept us silent. We didn't speak as the well behaved little children we were, or else, there were those threats. We all believed in one person throughout this whole dilemma no different then being in a cult. There is so much more to this injustice we have all found ourselves in. We will continue to *fight united, as the strangers in the dark!* Maybe one day we will all see the faces behind the masks we wear. Maybe one day our voices will be heard..........


You summed it up and you are not alone!!
*WE HEAR YOU!!*


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

ecwinch said:


> It simply comes down to the court's decision that:
> "_In summary, JEKE’s interest, under the JEKE VIAs, is not that of a commercial tenant, but is a part of a substantial number of other interests in the Resort which are to be collectively managed for the benefit of all owners or lessees."_



Again, thank you for the response, I never understood this argument before.  It looks like GypsyOne had a good post on this as well.

So the court ruled we do not have leases, we have a time share interest?  I don't understand that since my contract clearly states it is a lease.  How does the court re-defining my contract from "lessee" to "time share interest" change my rights as a lessee?  Is there a law that changes these rights.  I could not figure this out from reading the decision.  If the intent is to best collectively manage the resort for the benefit of the owners or lesses's, it is obvious they failed miserably based on the current situation, and even done unbelievable harm to most.

When reading the court decision, I found myself in disagreement with many of their points.  As GypsyOne said, their reasoning is disturbing.  The courts interpretation of the contract is by no means what I would consider a plain and common interpretation.  How would anyone be able to predict the logic of the court when buying a time share?  How could this be my fault as a ordinary consumer?  It appears that my goal should be to be to never sign another contract ever again.

I know it was mentioned that we should focus on things that have not been decided yet by the courts.  However, I feel it is important to understand how we ended up in this mess and learn for those going forward.  For me (I was option 1), with the help of my lawyer committing me to an "excellent settlement", it seems I no longer have any legal options other than pursue my lawyer (yea, figure that one out).  Short or a miracle, it may be too late for me and many others, but I can speculate that there will be thousands still affected by this in the near future (some who stayed and want out, those that can't pay, option 2 people, those with another lawyer,  those who ignored this mess so far) and this is by no means over.  Everyone please continue to contact those lawmakers and anyone who can get laws changed to protect the consumers rights going forward.  Insist they do something.  Can someone that knows how update the contact list and re-post?


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

MG's liability.  You guys have got it wrong, as I see it.

Yes, the way he handled things in the last several months, the binding, not giving us the promised input on the settlement, the cancelation of the petition, all seem like fair game.  In fact these seem less like incompetence and more like not acting in our interests.

Some of the other stuff, his poor handling of communication, there may be things there but I would guess those issues may get him in trouble but wouldn't merit any $$ being paid.

What is important are 

The mistakes he made in strategy, especially when instructed by the Judges!
Procedural mistakes, being late, etc. that cost us to be lumped in with JEKE's contract and also caused evidence to not be submitted to the Alberta trial.
The big mistake, it sounds like, which was to not pursue the Fair Trade Act.  (I still think this is grounds for appeal.  What the heck was Judge Young doing whispering this to MG during the trial?  For the love of all things good and righteous, how do judges that know the law ignore it?  It's not evidence for a bad legal team to submit, it's the law, it stands and if not used correctly in a trial then this should mean mistrial, appeal, etc.)


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

We need a laywer to talk to Judge Young.  We can't do it.  She has to hear from legal counsel.  Then we can find out if she will rule on costs, interests and these items that are about expirations.  That is what we need RIGHT NOW!!!  WE NEED LAWYERS TO TALK TO THE JUDGE!!!

That's it right now.  That's the big priority.  The rest can wait.  We need to have legal representation talk to the judge.  We can also understand more about the apeal through that dialog but the priority is to have legal counsel say that the group is fragmented and does not all agree with the settlement.  She needs to get the sides together, with us there hopefully (yes, anyone willing to drive there), but regardless the judge and the sides need to be together as she handles the decisions on the costs, interest and expirations.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Pray to the dear Lord that something turns for us.  Pray that it goes our way.


----------



## torqued

So possibly a dumb question but would the Alberta consumer protection act only apply to residents of Alberta in this case?  Those of us in the states or BC it would not apply?


----------



## wagga2650

After reading page after page of great dialog, unanswered questions and in general hearing how our case was totally screwed up.The only recourse
 is to take it to the supreme court.Not sure how we can do this but someone must have ani idea how to do this?


----------



## Late2Game

ecwinch said:


> You are correct, courts can only decide on the case presented. And please understand where I am coming from. Some battles have been fought and the no one likes the outcome. But what the settlement is, who it is binding upon, and the rights of those who are not represented by MG are unclear. Energy is better spent on attacking the issues the court has not ruled on, over fighting battles lost IMHO.



I tend to agree with this.  I can not find fault with the judge (noun). Their role and responsibility is to weigh the arguments (ie. "JUDGE") presented and make a decision, not to take sides or advocate for one side or the other. 

As an example, a judge in BAKING contest is to judge the pies presented and only those presented at that time.  To put this is a different context, the judge cannot say "Pie-A is better than Pie-B BUT I think the baker of Pie-B left out a key ingredient that would have made it the clear winner, therefore I decide in favour of Pie-B".  The judge must decide only on what's in front of them, not on what could-have or should-have been "baked" and presented.  Furthermore, you can't go back after the contest with a different pie and expect to re-open the contest (appeal) unless there is some error on behalf of the judge, for example the decision was based on the key requirement that all pies must be gluten-free when that was not the case.

In this regard I believe the judge did her job. The baker?  Well if he either didn't understand the contest rules, was baking for 1000+ people using experience gained from a neighbourhood bakeshop, or he decided to bring soup rather than pie, and it was both cold and late, then that's a whole different kettle of fish. How could you fault a judge for weighing in on the other side?

.


----------



## Timeshare Justice denied

Spark1 said:


> THEPETITIONSITE.COM.       Every one should go to Facebook on the search for people,places and things and sign Dorthy Zazelenckuk. Northwynd Class Action Lawsuit.   Dorthy needs you help we need 1000 signers.  Thanks



I signed the petition however suggest that this matter would fall short to result in a criminal investigation given it is contractual (civil), would take years and at great cost to investigate and, most importantly, would be almost impossible to prove criminal wrongdoing "beyond a reasonable doubt". This fiasco is a civil matter and unfortunately the lawyers that we had absolute faith in failed to get ANY positive results INCLUDING reasonable interest rates and costs given the 3-4 year it took for us to see this through the courts as is our given right (in search of a just and reasonable outcome). I never imagined walking away without some form of payment but what they are asking of us to walk away, as echoed by almost everyone, is RIDICULOUS and will go down as one of the biggest miscarriages of justice I have ever been part of.


----------



## Tanny13

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> We need a laywer to talk to Judge Young.  We can't do it.  She has to hear from legal counsel.  Then we can find out if she will rule on costs, interests and these items that are about expirations.  That is what we need RIGHT NOW!!!  WE NEED LAWYERS TO TALK TO THE JUDGE!!!
> 
> That's it right now.  That's the big priority.  The rest can wait.  We need to have legal representation talk to the judge.  We can also understand more about the apeal through that dialog but the priority is to have legal counsel say that the group is fragmented and does not all agree with the settlement.  She needs to get the sides together, with us there hopefully (yes, anyone willing to drive there), but regardless the judge and the sides need to be together as she handles the decisions on the costs, interest and expirations.



The judge has received written arguments from SLG and NM regarding interest and costs.  She will rule on it - there is no decision yet.  Once she has ruled, those who did not accept Option 1, can either pay their invoices, with the interest & costs as decided by JY, or they can appeal.  I am told there is not much else we can do at this point.


----------



## MgolferL

Tanny13 said:


> The judge has received written arguments from SLG and NM regarding interest and costs.  She will rule on it - there is no decision yet.  Once she has ruled, those who did not accept Option 1, can either pay their invoices, with the interest & costs as decided by JY, or they can appeal.  I am told there is not much else we can do at this point.


Just to understand... people who chose Option 2...not continuing with MG will get a decision from JY on interest and costs and then choose to pay or wait. People who chose Option 1 are bound by the "release docs" and have to have pay as outlined. The only recourse for Option 1 at that point is to file for remuneration from MG.

Correct?


----------



## greyskies

MgolferL said:


> Just to understand... people who chose Option 2...not continuing with MG will get a decision from JY on interest and costs and then choose to pay or wait. People who chose Option 1 are bound by the "release docs" and have to have pay as outlined. The only recourse for Option 1 at that point is to file for remuneration from MG.
> 
> Correct?


I think this is correct from what I've read. As for renumeration from MG, that ain't going to happen. Just my opinion. I think we can only complain to the law society about MG. I'm waiting until the very end before I pay, hoping for a miracle. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## MarcieL

Have you people not registered your complaints with the law society of B.C. yet? I did this in early January as have many others. This appears to be our only hope.


----------



## LilMaggie

Does anyone know of a good, trustworthy lawyer that could speak to Judge Young on our behalf?


----------



## LilMaggie

torqued said:


> So possibly a dumb question but would the Alberta consumer protection act only apply to residents of Alberta in this case?  Those of us in the states or BC it would not apply?


BC also has consumer protection laws. Not sure how they stack up against the new Alberta laws though.


----------



## Gingerpie

Late2Game said:


> I tend to agree with this.  I can not find fault with the judge (noun). Their role and responsibility is to weigh the arguments (ie. "JUDGE") presented and make a decision, not to take sides or advocate for one side or the other.
> 
> As an example, a judge in BAKING contest is to judge the pies presented and only those presented at that time.  To put this is a different context, the judge cannot say "Pie-A is better than Pie-B BUT I think the baker of Pie-B left out a key ingredient that would have made it the clear winner, therefore I decide in favour of Pie-B".  The judge must decide only on what's in front of them, not on what could-have or should-have been "baked" and presented.  Furthermore, you can't go back after the contest with a different pie and expect to re-open the contest (appeal) unless there is some error on behalf of the judge, for example the decision was based on the key requirement that all pies must be gluten-free when that was not the case.
> 
> In this regard I believe the judge did her job. The baker?  Well if he either didn't understand the contest rules, was baking for 1000+ people using experience gained from a neighbourhood bakeshop, or he decided to bring soup rather than pie, and it was both cold and late, then that's a whole different kettle of fish. How could you fault a judge for weighing in on the other side?
> 
> .


Th


----------



## Gingerpie

That is an incredible analogy.  My husband teaches law and I am going to show him this so he can explain the process to his students.


----------



## Gingerpie

Late2Game said:


> I tend to agree with this.  I can not find fault with the judge (noun). Their role and responsibility is to weigh the arguments (ie. "JUDGE") presented and make a decision, not to take sides or advocate for one side or the other.
> 
> As an example, a judge in BAKING contest is to judge the pies presented and only those presented at that time.  To put this is a different context, the judge cannot say "Pie-A is better than Pie-B BUT I think the baker of Pie-B left out a key ingredient that would have made it the clear winner, therefore I decide in favour of Pie-B".  The judge must decide only on what's in front of them, not on what could-have or should-have been "baked" and presented.  Furthermore, you can't go back after the contest with a different pie and expect to re-open the contest (appeal) unless there is some error on behalf of the judge, for example the decision was based on the key requirement that all pies must be gluten-free when that was not the case.
> 
> In this regard I believe the judge did her job. The baker?  Well if he either didn't understand the contest rules, was baking for 1000+ people using experience gained from a neighbourhood bakeshop, or he decided to bring soup rather than pie, and it was both cold and late, then that's a whole different kettle of fish. How could you fault a judge for weighing in on the other side?
> 
> .


----------



## Gingerpie

Yes...in that case you can and should sue the baker.


----------



## LilMaggie

Gingerpie said:


> That is an incredible analogy.  My husband teaches law and I am going to show him this so he can explain the process to his students.


Yes.  An excellent analogy.  MG brought soup to a pie baking contest.  Is that not incompetence?  Many of us encouraged him to at least bring a pie.  The courts even hinted...young man, bring a pie to be judged.  He did not.


----------



## MgolferL

Here are some interesting links..go to ... http:documentCentre.eycan.com

Scroll down to Fairmont... when it opens, search Moore. ALL of 2010 history of Fairmont appears... I pasted a couple of links... it follows the history of bankruptcy... which if I read correctly, Fairmont followed the courts carefully and was actually doing well and then NM made an offer.

http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...idavit of M.Moore, dated January 22, 2010.pdf

http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...Ninth Stay Extension, sworn June 16, 2010.pdf


----------



## RippedOff

Why can't Judge Young declare a mistrial?!!!!!!  She knew Geldert wasn't representing us competently!!! She HAS to know that these interest charges are scandalous!!!  For heaven's sake does anyone care? 

You can't tell me that judges have to go by what is presented to them - they should know and understand and follow the law of the land when coming to a conclusion and making a decision.  Seems like they need to take a few business courses!!!!  Even I know the difference between operational costs and capital costs!!!

Can we ALL as a group complain to the Law Society of Alberta/BC since we were represented as a group?


----------



## RippedOff

We need Judge Judy!  She would have set everyone straight!


----------



## servemeout

When the "settlement" was revealed we replied NO.  Exsanguination is not a settlement, it is an attempt to grab low hanging fruit.  Easy pickings.  NM got the ruling, but they still have to collect.  Did not everyone get the letter that the whole resort was to be renovated?  The RPF was based on that amount.  Lets fast forward - 55%of the #NAFR is now removed, but the amount NM claims you owe has remained the same and you are being charged interest on the inflated amount.  Judge Young will base her decision on the incorrect RPF.  Is there something wrong with the math?  We also want to be compensated for the remaining years of the LEASE.  We were all given conflicting information 
1. The entire "resort" was to be done
2. The #NAFR can only survive if it is shrunk
3. NM does not have to pay their share, as they did not invoice themselves. 
This has been a money grab from day one.  Remember the Norton Rose letter from Feb 5,2013 which outlined the rights and obligations of the developer.  There are too many conflicts in the information or should I say misinformation in what we have been feed.


----------



## Tanny13

MgolferL said:


> Just to understand... people who chose Option 2...not continuing with MG will get a decision from JY on interest and costs and then choose to pay or wait. People who chose Option 1 are bound by the "release docs" and have to have pay as outlined. The only recourse for Option 1 at that point is to file for remuneration from MG.
> 
> Correct?



I believe that is correct, except that people who chose Option 2 (or no option at all) will have to pay once JY gives her decision on interest and costs, or continue the fight (I.e. continue the appeal).


----------



## Tanny13

servemeout said:


> When the "settlement" was revealed we replied NO.  Exsanguination is not a settlement, it is an attempt to grab low hanging fruit.  Easy pickings.  NM got the ruling, but they still have to collect.  Did not everyone get the letter that the whole resort was to be renovated?  The RPF was based on that amount.  Lets fast forward - 55%of the #NAFR is now removed, but the amount NM claims you owe has remained the same and you are being charged interest on the inflated amount.  Judge Young will base her decision on the incorrect RPF.  Is there something wrong with the math?  We also want to be compensated for the remaining years of the LEASE.  We were all given conflicting information
> 1. The entire "resort" was to be done
> 2. The #NAFR can only survive if it is shrunk
> 3. NM does not have to pay their share, as they did not invoice themselves.
> This has been a money grab from day one.  Remember the Norton Rose letter from Feb 5,2013 which outlined the rights and obligations of the developer.  There are too many conflicts in the information or should I say misinformation in what we have been feed.



There is an appeal in place regarding JY's decision.  For those not part of the settlement, the fight can continue.  These are all good points and perhaps we can use them if they were not presented in our first trial.


----------



## Timesharepain

Appauled said:


> Lets keep hammering out there for some exposure to the public and help from the media, etc.!!!!!
> As per the advise of others on this forum, I fired off an email briefly explaining our situation to:
> 
> marketplace@cbc.ca
> Calgarynews@bellmedia.ca
> mclaughlinonyourside@ctv.ca
> fifthtips@cbc.ca
> gopublic@cbc.ca
> 
> Lets keep emailing, calling and reaching out to whom ever may be able to hear our horror story and help!!!
> If there is anything else anyone can suggest we all do please post or re-post your suggestions!


Let us try and flood these emails and others who may b able to get word out


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Late2Game said:


> I tend to agree with this.  I can not find fault with the judge (noun). Their role and responsibility is to weigh the arguments (ie. "JUDGE") presented and make a decision, not to take sides or advocate for one side or the other.
> 
> As an example, a judge in BAKING contest is to judge the pies presented and only those presented at that time.  To put this is a different context, the judge cannot say "Pie-A is better than Pie-B BUT I think the baker of Pie-B left out a key ingredient that would have made it the clear winner, therefore I decide in favour of Pie-B".  The judge must decide only on what's in front of them, not on what could-have or should-have been "baked" and presented.  Furthermore, you can't go back after the contest with a different pie and expect to re-open the contest (appeal) unless there is some error on behalf of the judge, for example the decision was based on the key requirement that all pies must be gluten-free when that was not the case.
> 
> In this regard I believe the judge did her job. The baker?  Well if he either didn't understand the contest rules, was baking for 1000+ people using experience gained from a neighbourhood bakeshop, or he decided to bring soup rather than pie, and it was both cold and late, then that's a whole different kettle of fish. How could you fault a judge for weighing in on the other side?
> 
> .



You are missing some important parts of the analogy.  If the FTA (Fair Trade Act) was applicable for the ruling, ie. was the applicable law, then the judge should know this and refer to this regardless of the lawyer's mistakes.  If a lawyer tried to argue something for his client that was against some law that wasn't presented wouldn't you expect the Judge to step in and say, "you can't do that, Act so and so appllies and therefore your arguement is not considered"?  And in this case the applicable Act not being referred to is a help to us.  It is the relevant law and is applicable.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

*How I see this playing out:*
Judge Young will not be made aware of the details of Michael’s settlement agreement by either of the counsels involved when they approach her in the future probably scheduled for after March 1st.  The message she will receive is just that “X” number of people consented to the terms of the settlement agreement on their own accord.

Based on court procedure the Judge will then say these parties have reached an amical agreement and will move to clear the active files out of the court system.

She will not be asked, specifically in the case of Option 1 people, to decide on interest or costs or what the actual cost of the settlements are based on because as far as she knows an amical settlement agreement has already been reached by all parties involved to settle their dispute which the courts were never asked to make a decision on.  The actual cost of the individual components should have been detailed out in the minutes for a better understanding but individual component costs is not the objective Northmont wants documented as this will allow them to disperse the awarded revenues as they see fit from individual settlements.

Michael created an environment where all of us have been misrepresented in the negotiations but did sign the settlement agreement on our behalf with Northmont and as far as Northmont is concerned the negotiations were a done in good faith by Michael on our behalf.

Has anyone specifically asked or can they ask their lawyer that is reviewing things on their behalf if any true remedy is available to get immediate judicial intervention or is everyone left with:

*Paying the negotiated settlement agreement preferably directly to Norton Rose in trust based on a proper release from Northmont as per the settlement*
*Walking away from Michael’s settlement agreement which could potentially force Northmont back to the negotiation table*
Any future for Michael will probably see a new action put in place against him where his business, his insurance, and the Law Society Lawyers funds will be held liable through future litigations as a result of actions taken during these proceedings.  The crappy part is Judge Young’s court will be tied up with new individual claims and the lawyers who likes to hunt other lawyers will be the only winners at the end of the day.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

So we have SLG presenting arguements to the judge for interest and costs.  Not good.

I hope people that have faxed the judge put relevant info in there about the costs and how NM is trying to get paid for everything under the sun.  Didn't anyone put in their fax that the resort is being cut in half and that should affect the RPF?  That is at least something the judge could use to do some good here.  My hope is that the Judge will try to do as much good as possible.  Considering how she was frustrated by our lawyers' bad work, was concerned about costs and interest and is getting pressure from our faxes and hopefully the government....maybe she'll do what she can.


----------



## GypsyOne

If you were going to pull off the great Canadian legally sanctioned heist, where would you do it?  According to Macleans Magazine February 11, 2017 issue, it would be B.C..  Welcome to British Columbia, Where You 'Pay to Play'.
Some excerpts:
- B.C. has become a Wild West of political donations. Critics worry it’s slowly eroding public confidence.
- Last year, the British Columbia Liberal Party raised more money than any ruling party in any other province in the country.
- Now consider that in the three years since Christy Clark’s majority win, the Liberals have added some $32.5 million to their war chest.
- British Columbians’ faith in democracy is being undermined by the vast sums flooding the system, and there’s a growing concern that their government is essentially being bought and paid for by a wealthy clique.
- B.C. political fundraising is a free-for-all. Parties can accept any amount of money, property or services from any corporation, union or person living anywhere in the world.
- It’s so bad that the _New York Times_ last month went to B.C. to write a scathing piece on the Clark government’s “unabashedly cozy relationship between private interests and government officials.”
- Unlike Ontario, however, lobbyists in B.C. can shower almost anyone except an MLA with gifts and benefits of any value, as often as they want.
- “No one is breaking any rules or laws or doing anything criminal,” the lobbyist is quick to add. “B.C. has no rules, so everything goes. It’s like the Wild West: only the fittest survive.”
-  “I have to tell my bosses, ‘In B.C., you have to pay to play.’ ” If your client doesn’t donate, it puts you at a competitive disadvantage, he adds.
- on Jan. 23, Clark dined with Kelowna’s elite at a $5,000-a-plate event at the Mission Hill Winery, which has pumped $200,000 into B.C. Liberal coffers since 2005. (The next day, the premier refused to name her guests, who were shuttled into the winery in dark vehicles, cloaked in secrecy.)
- Clark is widely expected to cruise to a second majority in B.C. in the coming May election, giving the Liberals a record fifth term.
Note:
Clark won a narrow minority election vote but soon after lost a confidence vote.  John Horgan's NDP government with support from the Green party became the ruling government party. Will John Horgan be any better than Christie Clark? 
- “If I have someone who wants to sit down and talk to me and they want to give me 50 grand,” Horgan told the Globe and Mail last year, “I’ll take that.”

B.C., where you're more likely to survive if you grease the political wheels.  Even though government is supposed to be independent of the judiciary, don't think for a moment word can't filter down.


----------



## Appauled

Lets keep hammering out there for some exposure to the public and help from the media, etc.!!!!!
As per the advise of others on this forum, I fired off an email briefly explaining our situation to:

marketplace@cbc.ca
Calgarynews@bellmedia.ca
mclaughlinonyourside@ctv.ca
fifthtips@cbc.ca
gopublic@cbc.ca

Lets keep emailing, calling and reaching out to whom ever may be able to hear our horror story and help!!!
If there is anything else anyone can suggest we all do please post or re-post your suggestions!

Appauled, Monday at 5:39 PM Report


Late2Game said:


> Appauled, that's a great list, but perhaps we should also include some AMERICAN media channels here too, perhaps "60 Minutes", for example.
> 
> We have plenty of American friends that have been screwed over like everyone else.  They face challenges in dealing with the official courts of justice here in Canada, so perhaps an alternate approach would be to go through the "court of public opinion".
> 
> Who knows, maybe our judicial and political system just might wake up to a public shaming from south of the 49th!
> 
> .



After reaching out to several Network News shows I have finally received my first response from Chris Epp Senior Reporter/Anchor CTV Calgary News and he has asked me to give him my contact details ASAP I assume to discuss and share what is transpiring with all of us. I will share this TUGG BBS Thread with him when he contacts me.
ALL OF YOU - Let me know if there is anything you want to share or if we should interview with him as a group should you be able to meet anywhere in Calgary.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Judge Young will not be made aware of the details of Michael’s settlement agreement by either of the counsels involved when they approach her in the future probably scheduled for after March 1st.



Hey UB, I've missed the significance of after March 1st, how is that the likely timeframe?


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

ecwinch said:


> 1) That the fundamental nature of a time share plan is in creating an interest that is not specific, but is to be used generally in conjunction with other time share owners; as your agreement outlines. As opposed to a lease, which is for a specific property.
> 
> 2) That the project was formed and regulated under the timeshare provisions of the Real Estate Act as noted in the prospectus document which contained the following bolded statement: TIME SHARING INVOLVES A CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP WITH A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF OWNERS OF EACH TIME SHARE INTEREST. And the essence of this disclosure is also outlined in paragraph 13 of the VIA's.
> 
> 3) That your usage rights "floated" as opposed to being assigned a specific unit for a specific period of time



What does the above mean? It's just rambling. Interest that is not specific? How much more specific can it be than, _"You get one week a year in this unit, don't break anything. Pools over there."_? Floating means nothing. It's simply a booking parameter. It describes nothing about the relationship between lessees, as the Judges would have us believe. I get one week between week 1 and week 18. If everyone wants week 12, guess what, most people will be disappointed. How does floating create or demonstrate a relationship between lessees? My paragraph 13 is about default and doesn't disclose any essence of the continuing relationship with a ... blah, blah, blah, blah.

It's the big picture that is really disturbing. Its the progressive creep, one small wrong added to another, that is the proof.

I want to point out that you've said things that I find contradictory. You've said that _"... you had horrendous legal representation - so bad that a law school should do a case study on it."_ And at every turn you remind us, _"... courts can only decide on the case presented."_ Yet you continually defend the courts' decisions, quoting them at length. The conclusion I've drawn from your posts is that despite horrendous legal representation, despite courts making decisions only on the cases presented; they somehow arrived at the correct conclusion. I don't see it that way.

You state, _"If you are responsible for maintenance, repair, and replacement costs - what are you being asked to pay that is not in that category?"_ That's a good question. It begs perspective first. The original Renovation Plan so readily accepted as necessary and appropriate by your extolled Judges, is double the 2017 average cost per square foot of a custom built home in Canada. VIRTUALLY DOUBLE! It is equivalent to the cost of building a new hotel in Canada in 2017. Believe me, the cost per square foot evident in the Fairmont Villas never approached that of a new hotel. Moreover, that cost was for a new structure where you aren't utilizing roofs, walls, all of the concrete, etc. So yes, you've asked a good question, ... *what are we paying for?*

Major caveat 1, Replacement Cost in my lease contract is strictly limited to furniture and fixtures within a unit, for which a Replacement Reserve is established and funded annually through Maintenance Fees.

Major caveat 2, The Renovation Plan will never be completed. Firstly because the number of units has been reduced by half. Secondly, they aren't spending anywhere near as much on the 25% they've renovated per square foot as originally budgeted. Our $4,000 bill should now be no more than $1,300. Plus, there shouldn't be interest charged on money that was never spent. How is that even reasonable? How could a Judge agree to that? The renovation of 25% of the units completed thus far was more than paid for by those who choose to stay.

Maintenance is the collection of planned activities necessary to perpetuate and sustain the life and purposeful use of assets. Nothing in the Renovation Plan is or was Maintenance.

That brings us to Repairs. The repairs that prompted the Renovation Plan were at least one building's foundation but, I believe that building was taken out of the equation at bankruptcy. I'm honestly not sure about this detail.

This leaves the other purported precipitating event, the problems with Poly-B piping. Poly-B is in as many as 30% of the homes in Western Canada. As many as 90% of the homes built in the 80's and 90's contain Poly-B. The problem with Poly-B is almost exclusively a result of the piping laying out in the sun for an extended period before installation. The general thinking is if after 10-years there have been no leaks it is probably best to leave it and replace it as opportunities or necessities present themselves. When Poly-B does fail, it is usually pin-hole leaks that become evident rather than catastrophic failures. Nothing indicates that all of the Poly-B in all of the building necessitated such an immediate, extensive and disruptive solution.

To make it worse, the Judges cast nary a glance at Northmont when they redesigned the units as part of the renovation. A redesign is nowhere near a repair. Let me put a fine point on it; The Judges were both naive and ill-informed.

This whole thing was cooked-up simply to extort money for the lessees paying to stay or paying to go, period. The fact that the Judges can't see that amazes me.

Just two examples of the many errors the Judges made, in my opinion: From the Jeke ruling,  _"[113] That these are long-term contractual relationships is more than evident; the leases are for 40 years, and later VIAs would create permanent ownership interests."_ Categorically not true.

_"[112] All of the above provisions confirm the fundamental nature of a time share plan in creating an interest that is not specific, but is to be used generally in conjunction with other time share owners. This, in essence, creates not only a relationship as between the lessor and lessee, but one between all of the time share owners, whose interests are to be managed in a manner that gives effect to their collective interests."_

When I purchase my lease interest a 'time share plan' absolutely was defined by the acquisition of ownership in property and land. I am not a party to a time share plan. Furthermore, please, someone explain the essential interest between the time share 'owners'? The Judges sure didn't. I absolutely have only one contractual relationship, one-on-one, with the Lessor, period. The Judges are wrong. I am not a party to a time share just because they call it one; I don't have a relationship with the lessee in the unit next to me, just because they say I do; and, I am not an owner just because they and the Lessor call me an owner.

Now I am going to finish this martini and I'm done. *#NAFR*


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> Hey UB, I've missed the significance of after March 1st, how is that the likely timeframe?


Northmont will be receiving all the trust funds presumably on or about February 28th from Michael to finalize the settlement agreement for Option 1 clients.

My assumption is neither side will now want to voluntarily meet with Judge Young as a result of the Judge's office being notified there potentially could be an issue with the settlement agreement and being questioned about it prior to this date but they will need to meet in front of her to indicate a settlement had been reached so she can sign off on the arrangement for Option 1 clients.

Again an assumption but Option 2 people will also need to be addressed with the Judge that they are now self represented and both counsels have different reasons but want to move towards closure on this group as well which can wait till the Option 1 clients are out of the way.


----------



## Floyd55

I just got a letter back from the BC Law Society in response to my complaint about MG and the handling of our case. It doesn't sound like they have much power to have any impact on our behalf. To quote from the info that they sent me, here is the list of what they CANNOT do for us -
1. regulate the amount of a lawyers bill
2. give legal advice
3. pay compensation
4. intervene in a court proceeding
5. change the decision of a court
6. insist that a lawyer take a case, remain on or withdraw from a case, or do something specific in a case
7. make a finding that a lawyer was negligent
8. review a judge's conduct

I am left wondering what they do have any power to do? Not much of anything it would appear!


----------



## truthr

My first video in a series entitled - The Casualties
This is a link to the blog I just created a couple of days ago where I will be sharing people's personal experiences to give a voice to this.

https://truths2cents.blogspot.ca/


----------



## Tanny13

MgolferL said:


> I would agree with that. Items could include:
> 1. Told us not to pay anything. If we had at least paid the money in trust the interest would have stopped.
> 2. Supplied fragmented, incomplete information throughout the process.
> 3. Did not allow us to see the "negotiated" agreement and vote on it.
> 4. Imposed an unrealistic time-frame in which to interpret the agreement.
> 5. Agreed to an unrealistic time-frame to complete the agreement.
> 6. Dropped the appeal. Without agreement from the group.
> 7. Not responding to clients.
> 8. Ignored advice throughout the process.
> 
> Any more?



Gave up the realignment petition on December 15 as leverage to get the “great” deal, without our approval.


----------



## CleoB

Floyd55 said:


> I just got a letter back from the BC Law Society in response to my complaint about MG and the handling of our case. It doesn't sound like they have much power to have any impact on our behalf. To quote from the info that they sent me, here is the list of what they CANNOT do for us -
> 1. regulate the amount of a lawyers bill
> 2. give legal advice
> 3. pay compensation
> 4. intervene in a court proceeding
> 5. change the decision of a court
> 6. insist that a lawyer take a case, remain on or withdraw from a case, or do something specific in a case
> 7. make a finding that a lawyer was negligent
> 8. review a judge's conduct
> 
> I am left wondering what they do have any power to do? Not much of anything it would appear!


Why don't you reply and ask them what they can do?  I'm very surprised about #7.


----------



## Petus@18

Tanny13 said:


> Gave up the realignment petition on December 15 as leverage to get the “great” deal, without our approval.




MG wrote option 1 in a way that he cannot be found liable of breaching any relationship with his clients, he acted in bad faith and now we are paying for the consequences of signing a document he created covering his unethical tactics to get more clients to sign this option.


----------



## ecwinch

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> What does the above mean? It's just rambling. Interest that is not specific? How much more specific can it be than, _"You get one week a year in this unit, don't break anything. Pools over there."_? Floating means nothing. It's simply a booking parameter. It describes nothing about the relationship between lessees, as the Judges would have us believe. I get one week between week 1 and week 18. If everyone wants week 12, guess what, most people will be disappointed. How does floating create or demonstrate a relationship between lessees? My paragraph 13 is about default and doesn't disclose any essence of the continuing relationship with a ... blah, blah, blah, blah.



Ok - you maintain that you have a lease for a specific interest in #NAFR. But you acknowledge that you need to reserve your usage and that you might not get it, because other lessees have reserved that usage. Having to reserve your usage and the potential to not receive what you want, that sounds a lot more like a timeshare plan than a commercial tenant leasing a specific interest in property.

And that goes to the crux of the courts decision. Because you essentially are asking the court to ignore all the information that demonstrates that this is a timeshare plan. Like the bolded statement in the prospectus:

TIME SHARING INVOLVES A CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP WITH A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF OWNERS OF EACH TIME SHARE INTEREST ...

So what you want is for the court to solely rely on that fact that your Vacation Interval Agreement (VIA) uses the terms lease, lessor, lessee and to make your interest strictly one of a commercial tenant. That they should ignore that the project was formed under timeshare provisions, that you received a prospectus with timeshare disclosures, that you have the collective right to fire the manager, right to deposit your unit with a timeshare exchange company, that you share expenses for the operation and upkeep of the entire resort and not just the common areas - i.e. bad debt expense from defaulting "leases", legal bills of the manager, etc, etc.  Are any of those elements common in a commercial property lease?

So on that point I think the court did reach the right decision in saying this is a timeshare plan. If nothing else I would anecdotally point to the fact that we are having this discussion on a TIMESHARE forum and numerous posters have referred to this as a timeshare.

As the saying goes - "When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck".

Even if the bird is wearing a big sign around it's neck that says "LESSEE".


----------



## Shake Down

This may have been shared already.
An old news clip March 11, 2013 ~ by Kathy Fitzpatrick· CBC News"
"*Saskatoon man with B.C. timeshare frustrated over fees"*


----------



## RippedOff

Does anyone know the people who were represented by other lawyers and what happened to them?  Maybe they can give us some advice?


----------



## GypsyOne

ecwinch said:


> Ok - you maintain that you have a lease for a specific interest in #NAFR. But you acknowledge that you need to reserve your usage and that you might not get it, because other lessees have reserved that usage. Having to reserve your usage and the potential to not receive what you want, that sounds a lot more like a timeshare plan than a commercial tenant leasing a specific interest in property.
> 
> And that goes to the crux of the courts decision. Because you essentially are asking the court to ignore all the information that demonstrates that this is a timeshare plan. Like the bolded statement in the prospectus:
> 
> TIME SHARING INVOLVES A CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP WITH A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF OWNERS OF EACH TIME SHARE INTEREST ...
> 
> So what you want is for the court to solely rely on that fact that your Vacation Interval Agreement (VIA) uses the terms lease, lessor, lessee and to make your interest strictly one of a commercial tenant. That they should ignore that the project was formed under timeshare provisions, that you received a prospectus with timeshare disclosures, that you have the collective right to fire the manager, right to deposit your unit with a timeshare exchange company, that you share expenses for the operation and upkeep of the entire resort and not just the common areas - i.e. bad debt expense from defaulting "leases", legal bills of the manager, etc, etc.  Are any of those elements common in a commercial property lease?
> 
> So on that point I think the court did reach the right decision in saying this is a timeshare plan. If nothing else I would anecdotally point to the fact that we are having this discussion on a TIMESHARE forum and numerous posters have referred to this as a timeshare.
> 
> As the saying goes - "When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck".
> 
> Even if the bird is wearing a big sign around it's neck that says "LESSEE".




You are stretching to justify these activist Judges basically nullifying our type of contracts because the contracts don't meet the characteristics of some other type of contract/lease.  Leases can take different forms for different contract relationships, but that does not mean they are not leases.  Ours are Vacation Villa Leases with certain characteristics common to all leases and they have certain well established rights and obligations.
Common definition of a lease:    "A contract by which one party (Lessor) conveys land, property, services, etc. to another (Lessee) for a specified time, usually in return for a periodic payment."   Our contract sure quacks like a lease.
Common well established obligation of a Lessor (owner of the property): "The Lessor is bound to deliver the leased property to the Lessee in good condition."   Translation: Northmont as the owner of the property is obligated to provide we the Lessees with a property to carry out the activity we contracted for.
Common well established responsibility of a Lessee (tenant):   "The Lessee is not liable for loss or damage resulting from proper use."  Translation:  We the Lessees are not responsible for the capital structure and land on which the structure is attached unless it is malicious damage.  (Clause #12 Special Assessment in my lease)

These activist Judges had to take the focus away from Lease and go through their legal dance to rebrand our contracts "timeshare plans" because Lease would be problematic to their decision.  Seems like they had a decision searching for evidence.

A sparrow is not a canary but they are both birds.


----------



## Machete

GypsyOne said:


> If you were going to pull off the great Canadian legally sanctioned heist, where would you do it?  According to Macleans Magazine February 11, 2017 issue, it would be B.C..  Welcome to British Columbia, Where You 'Pay to Play'.
> Some excerpts:
> - B.C. has become a Wild West of political donations. Critics worry it’s slowly eroding public confidence.
> - Last year, the British Columbia Liberal Party raised more money than any ruling party in any other province in the country.
> - Now consider that in the three years since Christy Clark’s majority win, the Liberals have added some $32.5 million to their war chest.
> - British Columbians’ faith in democracy is being undermined by the vast sums flooding the system, and there’s a growing concern that their government is essentially being bought and paid for by a wealthy clique.
> - B.C. political fundraising is a free-for-all. Parties can accept any amount of money, property or services from any corporation, union or person living anywhere in the world.
> - It’s so bad that the _New York Times_ last month went to B.C. to write a scathing piece on the Clark government’s “unabashedly cozy relationship between private interests and government officials.”
> - Unlike Ontario, however, lobbyists in B.C. can shower almost anyone except an MLA with gifts and benefits of any value, as often as they want.
> - “No one is breaking any rules or laws or doing anything criminal,” the lobbyist is quick to add. “B.C. has no rules, so everything goes. It’s like the Wild West: only the fittest survive.”
> -  “I have to tell my bosses, ‘In B.C., you have to pay to play.’ ” If your client doesn’t donate, it puts you at a competitive disadvantage, he adds.
> - on Jan. 23, Clark dined with Kelowna’s elite at a $5,000-a-plate event at the Mission Hill Winery, which has pumped $200,000 into B.C. Liberal coffers since 2005. (The next day, the premier refused to name her guests, who were shuttled into the winery in dark vehicles, cloaked in secrecy.)
> - Clark is widely expected to cruise to a second majority in B.C. in the coming May election, giving the Liberals a record fifth term.
> Note:
> Clark won a narrow minority election vote but soon after lost a confidence vote.  John Horgan's NDP government with support from the Green party became the ruling government party. Will John Horgan be any better than Christie Clark?
> - “If I have someone who wants to sit down and talk to me and they want to give me 50 grand,” Horgan told the Globe and Mail last year, “I’ll take that.”
> 
> B.C., where you're more likely to survive if you grease the political wheels.  Even though government is supposed to be independent of the judiciary, don't think for a moment word can't filter down.


BC, and Vancouver in particular is considered the money laundering capital of the world right now


----------



## Petus@18

Floyd55 said:


> I just got a letter back from the BC Law Society in response to my complaint about MG and the handling of our case. It doesn't sound like they have much power to have any impact on our behalf. To quote from the info that they sent me, here is the list of what they CANNOT do for us -
> 1. regulate the amount of a lawyers bill
> 2. give legal advice
> 3. pay compensation
> 4. intervene in a court proceeding
> 5. change the decision of a court
> 6. insist that a lawyer take a case, remain on or withdraw from a case, or do something specific in a case
> 7. make a finding that a lawyer was negligent
> 8. review a judge's conduct
> 
> I am left wondering what they do have any power to do? Not much of anything it would appear!



They will open a file with your complaint and will conduct an investigation.  If more of us send a complaint to the Law Society of BC, they might treat our concerns very seriously as we are no just 2 or 5 angry people venting, but there is really hundreds of people being coerced/threatened, by our own lawyer to sign a document that we never agreed for him to negotiate.

If you decide to go with the settlement offered, perhaps you can send a complaint before you sign and are gagged.


----------



## MarcieL

CleoB said:


> Why don't you reply and ask them what they can do?  I'm very surprised about #7.


You have to include evidence I sent in a couple emails one of which said we would be consulted prior to the final settlement.  Cleo I tried to respond to the post you sent me but could not find a post button in the private messages could you enlighten me?


----------



## CleoB

MarcieL said:


> You have to include evidence I sent in a couple emails one of which said we would be consulted prior to the final settlement.  Cleo I tried to respond to the post you sent me but could not find a post button in the private messages could you enlighten me?


In the email there should be something saying "view conversation".  It will take you to the link and you can respond....then check off that it is private.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

ecwinch said:


> Ok - you maintain that you have a lease for a specific interest in #NAFR. But you acknowledge that you need to reserve your usage and that you might not get it, because other lessees have reserved that usage. Having to reserve your usage and the potential to not receive what you want, that sounds a lot more like a timeshare plan than a commercial tenant leasing a specific interest in property.
> 
> And that goes to the crux of the courts decision. Because you essentially are asking the court to ignore all the information that demonstrates that this is a timeshare plan. Like the bolded statement in the prospectus:
> 
> TIME SHARING INVOLVES A CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP WITH A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF OWNERS OF EACH TIME SHARE INTEREST ...
> 
> So what you want is for the court to solely rely on that fact that your Vacation Interval Agreement (VIA) uses the terms lease, lessor, lessee and to make your interest strictly one of a commercial tenant. That they should ignore that the project was formed under timeshare provisions, that you received a prospectus with timeshare disclosures, that you have the collective right to fire the manager, right to deposit your unit with a timeshare exchange company, that you share expenses for the operation and upkeep of the entire resort and not just the common areas - i.e. bad debt expense from defaulting "leases", legal bills of the manager, etc, etc.  Are any of those elements common in a commercial property lease?
> 
> So on that point I think the court did reach the right decision in saying this is a timeshare plan. If nothing else I would anecdotally point to the fact that we are having this discussion on a TIMESHARE forum and numerous posters have referred to this as a timeshare.



Hello ECWINCH,

Again, thank you for the comments.  Please continue as most of us never understood any of this, we are just now learning.  This should have been explained to us much sooner.

I think none of us would argue that we are not part of a time share plan.  What I don't understand is why we are not also lessee's as our contract states and why we also don't have those rights.  Are we not both?

I do not understand, and don't know where it is explained, that because we are time share users, they can charge us for all expenses without any representation.  By the lease, as outlined in great detail, we are to pay:

1. Operation costs
2. Management Fee
3. Contribute to a reserve fund for refurbishment of furniture and fixtures.
4. Damages due to occupancy of the Lessee (Special Assessment).

I think most any real estate accountant would say capital costs are not included in the above 4 categories.  How, as time share users, can it be ruled by the courts that we must also pay capital expenses.  Is there a "time share user" document or something that can be referenced.  The only thing I am getting is we time share users all have a common relationship and therefore we can all be billed anything to maintain the overall good of that relationship.  This seems like a weak argument in order to throw away what I would consider a common interpretation of our lease agreements.  It also violates all common sense and this mess is evidence that there has been no overall good as a result.

As a side note, I was once told that nothing in the prospectus matters, only our contract.  However, right below the statement quoted above, it also says in caps "THE PURCHASER AGREES TO HELP CREATE, ORGANIZE, ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN MEMBERSHIP IN AN ASSOCIATION OF LESSEES OF THE VILLAS SITUATED ON THE LANDS.  THIS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE FORMED AND ORGANIZED TO PROMOTE A MEANS OF RESOLVING PROBLEMS BETWEEN LESSEES OR A LESEE AND THE LESSOR.  THE DEVELOPER AGREES TO CO-OPERTATE WITH THE LESSEES IN THE FORMATION OF SUCH AN ASSOCIATION AND AGREES TO RECOGNIZE THE ASSOCIATION ..."


----------



## ecwinch

NeverNeverAgain said:


> What I don't understand is why we are not also lessee's as our contract states and why we also don't have those rights.  Are we not both?
> 
> I think most any real estate accountant would say capital costs are not included in the above 4 categories.



The court explains their reasoning on the issue of "Capital Costs" on pg. 67-81, para 255 to 304. While it is difficult to summarize 14 pages of their reasoning in this space, I would offer the following:

The concept that "capital costs" are the exclusively the responsibility of the lessor is overstated. It certainly is true in relation to "capital costs" as fixed, one-time expenses incurred on the purchase of land, buildings, construction, and furnishings needed to bring the #NAFR project to a commercially operable status. So Northmont cannot decide to build a new building and bill that to the lessee.

However once a project is established, capital costs can then be divided into two broad categories - capital repairs and capital improvements. Clearly from the VIA's the lessee is responsible for capital repairs to the existing structures as stated in:

_para 9(i) - repairs to both the exterior and interior of the Villas

para 9  - All maintenance and repairs to the Vacation Properties will be apportioned equally between the lessees in accordance with the number of weeks and the type of Vacation Property specified on page 1 of this Lease_

What lessee's are not generally responsible for is "capital improvements" - and in the view of the court nothing in the Renovation Plan was held to be excessive enough to be considered a capital improvement.



NeverNeverAgain said:


> I do not understand, and don't know where it is explained, that because we are time share users, they can charge us for all expenses without any representation.
> 
> As a side note, I was once told that nothing in the prospectus matters, only our contract.  However, right below the statement quoted above, it also says in caps "THE PURCHASER AGREES TO HELP CREATE, ORGANIZE, ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN MEMBERSHIP IN AN ASSOCIATION OF LESSEES OF THE VILLAS SITUATED ON THE LANDS.  THIS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE FORMED AND ORGANIZED TO PROMOTE A MEANS OF RESOLVING PROBLEMS BETWEEN LESSEES OR A LESEE AND THE LESSOR.  THE DEVELOPER AGREES TO CO-OPERTATE WITH THE LESSEES IN THE FORMATION OF SUCH AN ASSOCIATION AND AGREES TO RECOGNIZE THE ASSOCIATION ..."



Good point. The concept of "taxation without representation" is one that certainly resonates with US citizens, and I would imagine the same applies to some extent in Canada.

Unfortunately MG did little to advance that argument as noted by the court:
_That Northmont failed to assist the owners in creation of a homeowners’ association. Para. 235: Not pursued in argument and abandoned at only when JEKE’s counsel was asked by court if they were pursuing_

But at the end of the day, I think if they had pursued it, it would not have altered the outcome. First, breaches of contract occur all the time. The court notes this on pg 109 when they say:

_"A mere breach of contract does not terminate the contract." 
"The failure in performance must substantially deprive the other party of what was bargained for. This concept is referred to as substantial nonperformance or as a requirement that a breach go to the “root” of the contract._"

So did their failure to assist in forming the association result in you being deprived of your right to use the resort? I think it would be a stretch to suggest it did.

In addition, there is the concept of "timeliness" when asserting your rights. At law, when a breach has occurred, and a party does not assert their rights to enforce the contract, the court can rule that a "constructive waiver" of that provision of the contract has occurred. This frequently happens when the breach is well-known and has existed for a considerable period of time. And I find there is no indication in the legal record that anyone legally notified Northmont that they were in breach of contract prior to the court case.

As such, I think it is likely that the court would have ruled that it was not a material breach. So at best they direct Northmont to cure the breach by forming the association.


----------



## ecwinch

As a footnote to my last post.

IMHO this tragedy reveals some serious gaps in Canadian law related to a timeshare projects, as your situation certainly is a perfect storm of adverse consequences. One where consumers were not being provided adequate disclosure when entering into a contract of adherence and now find their retirements threatened.

That is a powerful message. Hopefully some change will come of it.


----------



## wagga2650

ecwinch said:


> As a footnote to my last post.
> 
> IMHO this tragedy reveals some serious gaps in Canadian law related to a timeshare projects, as your situation certainly is a perfect storm of adverse consequences. One where consumers were not being provided adequate disclosure when entering into a contract of adherence and now find their retirements threatened.
> 
> That is a powerful message. Hopefully some change will come of it.


Thanks for your insight , it does help to clear up a few things but I do have a question on the option one I signed.I only signed this because MG assured us that we could look at the settlement first before agreeing to it.This did not happen.Also as to the question of interest, Should we be waiting for Judge young to decide on interest charges?


----------



## FairSun

truthr said:


> My first video in a series entitled - The Casualties





wagga2650 said:


> Thanks for your insight , it does help to clear up a few things but I do have a question on the option one I signed.I only signed this because MG assured us that we could look at the settlement first before agreeing to it.This did not happen.Also as to the question of interest, Should we be waiting for Judge young to decide on interest charges?


From what I understand, those of us who signed Option 1 are now bound by its terms and conditions as set out in the Settlement Agreement. If we fail to comply, then NM has a Consent Judgment against us for 162% of the amount of our invoice at November 30, 2017 plus interest to date, plus then we'd owe 2018 MF and we would not be released from our contract.  Those who are going it on their own may face difficulty negotiating for a full release from NM after settling their debt to date following Judge Young's decision on interest and NM's court costs.
Much as we hate the situation we are now in, we want out. Totally out. I didn't have the good sense to follow my gut instinct last March and now our bill has doubled. We took a risk then that failed miserably. Not going down that pricey path again.


----------



## Floyd55

FairSun said:


> From what I understand, those of us who signed Option 1 are now bound by its terms and conditions as set out in the Settlement Agreement. If we fail to comply, then NM has a Consent Judgment against us for 162% of the amount of our invoice at November 30, 2017 plus interest to date, plus then we'd owe 2018 MF and we would not be released from our contract.  Those who are going it on their own may face difficulty negotiating for a full release from NM after settling their debt to date following Judge Young's decision on interest and NM's court costs.
> Much as we hate the situation we are now in, we want out. Totally out. I didn't have the good sense to follow my gut instinct last March and now our bill has doubled. We took a risk then that failed miserably. Not going down that pricey path again.



Unfortunately I think what you have described is my understanding as well. This whole thing stinks so bad that I can hardly stand to think about it anymore. We are getting out and done with this whole mess! We'll have to see about getting some kind of compensation or judgement against MG down the road, but I won't be holding my breath. Our legal system sucks!


----------



## den403

Appauled said:


> Lets keep hammering out there for some exposure to the public and help from the media, etc.!!!!!
> As per the advise of others on this forum, I fired off an email briefly explaining our situation to:
> 
> marketplace@cbc.ca
> Calgarynews@bellmedia.ca
> mclaughlinonyourside@ctv.ca
> fifthtips@cbc.ca
> gopublic@cbc.ca
> 
> Lets keep emailing, calling and reaching out to whom ever may be able to hear our horror story and help!!!
> If there is anything else anyone can suggest we all do please post or re-post your suggestions!
> 
> Appauled, Monday at 5:39 PM Report
> 
> 
> After reaching out to several Network News shows I have finally received my first response from Chris Epp Senior Reporter/Anchor CTV Calgary News and he has asked me to give him my contact details ASAP I assume to discuss and share what is transpiring with all of us. I will share this TUGG BBS Thread with him when he contacts me.
> ALL OF YOU - Let me know if there is anything you want to share or if we should interview with him as a group should you be able to meet anywhere in Calgary.


This is fabulous! So many want there voices heard but are afraid.Please update your plan moving forward


----------



## MarcieL

Why is it we had two other time shares with leases that are run properly, boards, budgets, yearly financial statements etc.  These people unilaterally changed our leases, due to poor counsel and definitions in interrupting the wording of the lease we are responsible for Capitol costs.  Judges do not know the difference perhaps they should be required to take business 101. All the letters that landed on Judge Y's desk and there is nothing she can do?  Great justice system we have costing seniors to cash in TFSA's plus loans, mtged on their homes time to leave this country.


----------



## MgolferL

Floyd55 said:


> Unfortunately I think what you have described is my understanding as well. This whole thing stinks so bad that I can hardly stand to think about it anymore. We are getting out and done with this whole mess! We'll have to see about getting some kind of compensation or judgement against MG down the road, but I won't be holding my breath. Our legal system sucks!



I unfortunately am going to do the same thing and be thankful our settlement is one of the lowest mentioned. As you all, I have countless hours going over this mess, reading the re-hashing daily and not sleeping at night. It's not because of the money so much (amount is relatively small) but because of the greedy injustice being done to people who entered into this mess when all they wanted was some quality time with family and friends in a nice place.  KW, you are an admitted lowlife and while you sit smugly somewhere rubbing your hands together and spouting glee at the lives you have destroyed, remember you will be brought to justice eventually and it won't be pretty. This may not bring down your house, but your ego is big enough and won't let you quit, so  you will keep going and at some point make a stupid mistake. Obviously to you it's not the money but the power over other souls. Bad news is...guys like you don't do jail well. MG, you are ONLY slightly above that and have had many opportunities to help this group but failed to do so. In many you ways are more guilty that KW as people put their faith in you only to be crapped on. KW is all about greedy power, what's your motive MG?

Before I go though (which will be at the last minute trust me), I will follow thru with letters one more time, another complaint to Service AB, and the Law Society. Tomorrow I am sending an impartial lawyer (familiar with the case) all the trial transcripts at his request to review them.... along with some of the "do not pass on emails".  IF anything turns out of it, I will be the first to pass it on to the group.

Good luck to us all, but it seems justice ONLY happens in the movies.


----------



## Spark1

ecwinch said:


> As a footnote to my last post.
> 
> IMHO this tragedy reveals some serious gaps in Canadian law related to a timeshare projects, as your situation certainly is a perfect storm of adverse consequences. One where consumers were not being provided adequate disclosure when entering into a contract of adherence and now find their retirements threatened.
> 
> That is a powerful message. Hopefully some change will come of it.


. Where is the money going to come from? Many of us do not have this kind of money to replace the resort. This unilateral movement on our Lease contracts without Northwynd informing us is diffently a area where we have to say no you have gone to far with this as well as the modification of the resort. Northmont has to talk to each timeshare owner and be open why they are ding this and it should not be a surprise 20 months later they did this. In Alberta bill 31 will change this. We need the government to grandfather this back to Jan 2016. This to me is failure with the court system as well as failure with Consumer affairs on all fronts. Do not tell me that any government want this to happen to the citizens of Canada. BC Protection and Service Alberta and the Canadian Consumer Handbook has to step up and say we can not allow this to happen. Why did Collin Knight do this or is he part of this? What is this Fairmont Vacations Villas Consumer Protection Agreement all about. My wish is nobody should pay this and we need to hammer on the Politicians both Federal and Provincial. The only reason Northmont did their Unilateral movement on the Contracts was the high interest they think they can Charge. We have to push every one over Bill 31 there is no difference what is happening to us. I will not allow them to change my Vacation Villa Lease without having any input and they never contacted me in any way with either Modification or unilateral ammendments. With bill 31 when they do this there is no contract. Every one personally talk to your MLAs and tell them you are not accepting this in Canada.


MarcieL said:


> Why is it we had two other time shares with leases that are run properly, boards, budgets, yearly financial statements etc.  These people unilaterally changed our leases, due to poor counsel and definitions in interrupting the wording of the lease we are responsible for Capitol costs.  Judges do not know the difference perhaps they should be required to take business 101. All the letters that landed on Judge Y's desk and there is nothing she can do?  Great justice system we have costing seniors to cash in TFSA's plus loans, mtged on their homes time to leave this country.


There is some thing we can do. We will have to get a more powerful lawyer to fight this. Who was notified a head of time my Northmont that they were going to use Modification of Lease to do a unilateral movement on our leases. Have you seen the contract that they are pushing on you. Did you go over this contract at the resort like we did in 2001 with Collin Knight. Did you have a say how this materially prejudice the rights of existing lessees. No we had no say and I have not seen the new fraud contract and tell I have my say in court I will never pay. This is Fraud. Every one join the Canadian anti-fraud centre.   1-888-495-8501.   Do not allow any rcmp tell you this does not pertain to fraud they is your right to file fraud papers. Phone Service Alberta and talk to Darren Thomas.


----------



## MarcieL

Appauled said:


> Lets keep hammering out there for some exposure to the public and help from the media, etc.!!!!!
> As per the advise of others on this forum, I fired off an email briefly explaining our situation to:
> 
> marketplace@cbc.ca
> Calgarynews@bellmedia.ca
> mclaughlinonyourside@ctv.ca
> fifthtips@cbc.ca
> gopublic@cbc.ca
> 
> Lets keep emailing, calling and reaching out to whom ever may be able to hear our horror story and help!!!
> If there is anything else anyone can suggest we all do please post or re-post your suggestions!
> 
> Appauled, Monday at 5:39 PM Report
> 
> 
> After reaching out to several Network News shows I have finally received my first response from Chris Epp Senior Reporter/Anchor CTV Calgary News and he has asked me to give him my contact details ASAP I assume to discuss and share what is transpiring with all of us. I will share this TUGG BBS Thread with him when he contacts me.
> ALL OF YOU - Let me know if there is anything you want to share or if we should interview with him as a group should you be able to meet anywhere in Calgary.



Appauled someone who has all the facts has to do this.  CTV is not going to air this without factual evidence.   They could be directed to Danielle's Smith's site to glean some of it.


----------



## dotbuhler

...and PLEASE sign the petition at the petitionsite.com as one of the targets is the RCMP, as well as the Justice System...it only takes a minute, but can make a world of difference...and share, share, share...


----------



## den403

Appauled said:


> Lets keep hammering out there for some exposure to the public and help from the media, etc.!!!!!
> As per the advise of others on this forum, I fired off an email briefly explaining our situation to:
> 
> marketplace@cbc.ca
> Calgarynews@bellmedia.ca
> mclaughlinonyourside@ctv.ca
> fifthtips@cbc.ca
> gopublic@cbc.ca
> 
> Lets keep emailing, calling and reaching out to whom ever may be able to hear our horror story and help!!!
> If there is anything else anyone can suggest we all do please post or re-post your suggestions!
> 
> Appauled, Monday at 5:39 PM Report
> 
> 
> After reaching out to several Network News shows I have finally received my first response from Chris Epp Senior Reporter/Anchor CTV Calgary News and he has asked me to give him my contact details ASAP I assume to discuss and share what is transpiring with all of us. I will share this TUGG BBS Thread with him when he contacts me.
> ALL OF YOU - Let me know if there is anything you want to share or if we should interview with him as a group should you be able to meet anywhere in Calgary.


Did anyone see your post, I am ecstatic! Great work!!  Can you post this again with any updates please. I know many friends who want their story told and will be wherever in a heartbeat but outside of work time if possible. Thanks


----------



## dotbuhler

Floyd55 said:


> I just got a letter back from the BC Law Society in response to my complaint about MG and the handling of our case. It doesn't sound like they have much power to have any impact on our behalf. To quote from the info that they sent me, here is the list of what they CANNOT do for us -
> 1. regulate the amount of a lawyers bill
> 2. give legal advice
> 3. pay compensation
> 4. intervene in a court proceeding
> 5. change the decision of a court
> 6. insist that a lawyer take a case, remain on or withdraw from a case, or do something specific in a case
> 7. make a finding that a lawyer was negligent
> 8. review a judge's conduct
> 
> I am left wondering what they do have any power to do? Not much of anything it would appear!


MISREPRESENTATION they can handle, and there is my issue with MG. He KNEW from the git-go that Cox Taylor had already blocked our chance of addressing the numerous different contracts in play, as we would not be allowed to proceed individually on that front. Had I known this, I would never have joined. Dangling the carrot of a "class action suit" was another. Need I continue (not having my best interests, either).


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

ecwinch said:


> The court explains their reasoning on the issue of "Capital Costs" on pg. 67-81, para 255 to 304. While it is difficult to summarize 14 pages of their reasoning in this space, I would offer the following:
> 
> The concept that "capital costs" are the exclusively the responsibility of the lessor is overstated. It certainly is true in relation to "capital costs" as fixed, one-time expenses incurred on the purchase of land, buildings, construction, and furnishings needed to bring the #NAFR project to a commercially operable status. So Northmont cannot decide to build a new building and bill that to the lessee.
> 
> However once a project is established, capital costs can then be divided into two broad categories - capital repairs and capital improvements. Clearly from the VIA's the lessee is responsible for capital repairs to the existing structures as stated in:



OK, after reading this many times, I am finally starting to understand this court decision now, and it seems very flawed.  I will try to briefly summarize my thoughts, please correct me if I am wrong on any of this.

1. We signed a "Lease" agreement.  We are the Lessee (renter) and Fairmont was the Lessor (owner).  As previously pointed out, Lessee and Lessor obligations are pretty well known and documented and set in law, see the GypsyOne post.  I do not understand how they can be ignored.

2. The court ruled that we have a time share plan and the resort must be managed for the benefit of all lessees.  This somehow re-defined our rights as lessees or renters.  The result was that the court started referring to us, the renters, as the owners.  This turned the situation upside down and caused much confusion.  I found no where that the court address how our rights as lesses were changed or lost which was the common and plain interpretation of contract.

3. The court had no understanding of basic accounting principles in real estate.  As an example in the decision:

[265] At best, JEKE’s counsel was only able to give their own opinions on what constituted a “capital cost” or not, submissions that were largely unhelpful. For example, JEKE’s counsel suggested, in argument, that replacement of a deck would be a “capital cost”, versus replacement of the floor of a deck which would be a “wear and tear” cost. This distinction is lost on me. I fail to see how the “replacement” in either event would not be covered under the general phrase of “replacement costs”, or the detailed reference to “repairs to the exterior” found in paragraph 9(i) of the JEKE VIAs.

A capital expense is defined as an expense that extends the life of the structure and must be depreciated, not just repairing something that is broke.  Agreed that there are some grey areas in capital costs verses repairs, but there is little room for interpretation for the renovation project.  I have never heard of capital expenses being divided up into two categories as mentioned above (repairs and improvements).  The court was constantly confusing the refurbishment and replacement fund, arguing that this clause also gave them the right to charge capital expenses.

4. The court ignored standard common sense practices for the lessor, lessee relationship, instead saying that it "defies logic" that these practices were not addressed in the lease. Again, this confusion is a result of the lessees being called owners and the lessor is not attributed as the owner.  As an example from the decision:

[277] It defies logic that the parties intended any uncertainty regarding who would pay to fix the Resort buildings and infrastructure when faced with maintenance issues of this magnitude. If JEKE is right, but the Lessor was unable or unwilling to pay and contribute to such expenses (assuming no express liability), then no one would pay to repair the resort, which would inevitably result in a decline in the Resort.

By existing lessor/lessee laws, the Lessor (owner) is required to provide infrastructure in a reasonable condition.  Fairmont understood this which is why they went bankrupt.  If the resort had been allowed to go bankrupt, the lessees would be much better off today, not stuck with bills that are bankrupting them.

5. Our lawyer did not bring in expert witnesses to explain the lessor, lessee relationship to the court.  Our lawyer did not bring in expert witnesses to explain capital costs to the court.  For points this important, it is hard to believe the lawyer would not have brought in experts in these fields.  Did he bring any documentation at all?  I do realize that it would be impractical if not impossible to bring in experts for every point, but these point was important for the court to understand.



ecwinch said:


> But at the end of the day, I think if they had pursued it, it would not have altered the outcome. First, breaches of contract occur all the time. The court notes this on pg 109 when they say:
> 
> _"A mere breach of contract does not terminate the contract."
> "The failure in performance must substantially deprive the other party of what was bargained for. This concept is referred to as substantial nonperformance or as a requirement that a breach go to the “root” of the contract._"
> 
> So did their failure to assist in forming the association result in you being deprived of your right to use the resort? I think it would be a stretch to suggest it did.
> n addition, there is the concept of "timeliness" when asserting your rights. At law, when a breach has occurred, and a party does not assert their rights to enforce the contract, the court can rule that a "constructive waiver" of that provision of the contract has occurred. This frequently happens when the breach is well-known and has existed for a considerable period of time. And I find there is no indication in the legal record that anyone legally notified Northmont that they were in breach of contract prior to the court case.
> 
> As such, I think it is likely that the court would have ruled that it was not a material breach. So at best they direct Northmont to cure the breach by forming the association.



I think there were many requests to form the association when the renovation fee was levied, I know I did.  After almost 5 years, still nothing.  The association was suppose to help resolve these disputes, but instead we were forced to court.  I think it safe to speculate this was a strategy, as it is nearly impossible for the average time share consumer to take a dispute to court against a large corporation, as proven in this case.  The average consumer does not have the time, money, resources, energy to do so.  It is not a stretch to suggest this is a material breach of contract as evidence that we HAVE been denied access to the resort for the last 4 years. 

Again, much of the blame for breach of contract appears to rest with our lawyer as he did not follow up on the breaches of contract that can be easily proven.  However, I am still having trouble accepting that if the court knew the law, how can they ignore it.  Not having audited financial statements is huge since we have no idea where our money went and should have been ruled a fundamental breach.

Are there any real estate accountants that can contribute here.  Correct me if I am wrong.  Surely there must be some in this group that practice and can say with certainty what is correct on capital expenses and lessor/lessee relationships.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Tanny13 said:


> Gave up the realignment petition on December 15 as leverage to get the “great” deal, without our approval.



Good one.  That seems like a smoking gun.  It removed all leverage and we didn't sign on it.  What's even worse, and baffles me, is that MG put the petition in Option 1, ie. that by signing Option 1 you approve of 'responding' to the petition.  He asks us to commit to the petition and then he removes it?

And for the Option 2, they at least should have been warned that he could cancel the petition.  ie. you've paid for his services, part of which was to pursue the Petition.

... which leads to why was it necessary that Option 2 people not be represented by MG?  If they didn't want to be part of the binding settlement but wanted to continue with him outside of that I'd assume he'd be happy with that, unless that messed with other 'plans'??


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Has a group been started to represent people not accepting the settlement agreement, people who selected option 2 or no option at all that want to just negotiate a reasonable settlement and move on?


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Petus@18 said:


> MG wrote option 1 in a way that he cannot be found liable of breaching any relationship with his clients, he acted in bad faith and now we are paying for the consequences of signing a document he created covering his unethical tactics to get more clients to sign this option.



Hey Petus@18, could you explain more about how you see this?  As I read Option 1, it talks about 'responding' to the petition.  Are you saying Option 1 gave him the authorization to cancel the petition?


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

OK what about *GO FUND ME  !!??*

I don't want to take people away from things, for now we have a fight in front of us.  After that, depending where things end up, how about a Go Fund Me, or some other type of website?  This is for the people really affected, the Seniors who have been really hurt.  Truthr seems pretty up on the social media stuff, I would be willing to help, I know a guy who's a part time pro photographer / video guy.  

For those that don't know about these type of sites, there are sites where you can tell your story and people will give you donations.  When something is especially horrible, sometimes it goes crazy and people from all over the world find out about it and donate.  Sometimes 100's of thousands of dollars are raised for people.  I would think some of the stories in our group of 1300+ could get some attention.

I considered not mentioning this until after the legalities are all finsihed with so people don't get side tracked but I think many people will stop visiting this board at that time.  I want to get this idea out there and let people know they should regularly check back to this site, keep a watch for what's happening.

We could even approach people like Notley, Trudeau, etc. for individual, public donations.


----------



## truthr

The first in a series of YouTube videos I am doing to give a voice and validate the casualties.
The majority of the words are from Scammed's Post#3568 on this site.


----------



## RippedOff

https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...ith-lawsuit-info.182857/page-146#post-2096883


----------



## RippedOff

MgolferL said:


> I unfortunately am going to do the same thing and be thankful our settlement is one of the lowest mentioned. As you all, I have countless hours going over this mess, reading the re-hashing daily and not sleeping at night. It's not because of the money so much (amount is relatively small) but because of the greedy injustice being done to people who entered into this mess when all they wanted was some quality time with family and friends in a nice place.  KW, you are an admitted lowlife and while you sit smugly somewhere rubbing your hands together and spouting glee at the lives you have destroyed, remember you will be brought to justice eventually and it won't be pretty. This may not bring down your house, but your ego is big enough and won't let you quit, so  you will keep going and at some point make a stupid mistake. Obviously to you it's not the money but the power over other souls. Bad news is...guys like you don't do jail well. MG, you are ONLY slightly above that and have had many opportunities to help this group but failed to do so. In many you ways are more guilty that KW as people put their faith in you only to be crapped on. KW is all about greedy power, what's your motive MG?
> 
> Before I go though (which will be at the last minute trust me), I will follow thru with letters one more time, another complaint to Service AB, and the Law Society. Tomorrow I am sending an impartial lawyer (familiar with the case) all the trial transcripts at his request to review them.... along with some of the "do not pass on emails".  IF anything turns out of it, I will be the first to pass it on to the group.
> 
> Good luck to us all, but it seems justice ONLY happens in the movies.



We feel the same way - no idea what is going on and the 162% interest if we don't pay.  Are these appeal cases still being heard?  What came of them?  Most I read came to the same conclusion in which the judge sided with Northmont.

MgolferL please let us know what you find out from the other lawyer.


----------



## Appauled

MarcieL said:


> Appauled someone who has all the facts has to do this.  CTV is not going to air this without factual evidence.   They could be directed to Danielle's Smith's site to glean some of it.



Not to worry, unfortunately I didn't reply fast enough and they got an interview with someone else. Apparently they had several emails from a lot of people.


----------



## truthr

Just a thought.
When Geldert and Wotherspoon entered into and signed the so called "settlement" agreements on behalf of their clients were they aware that the majority of their clients would not be able to meet the terms ie., not enough liquid assets to pay?
How can someone, anyone commit another to pay something they cannot pay?
Then by the clients actually signing their individual document knowing they cannot pay?????  What a position for a lawyer to put their client in.
So you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.


----------



## Appauled

den403 said:


> Did anyone see your post, I am ecstatic! Great work!!  Can you post this again with any updates please. I know many friends who want their story told and will be wherever in a heartbeat but outside of work time if possible. Thanks


Unfortunately I didn't reply fast enough and they got an interview with someone else. Apparently they had several emails from a lot of people.


----------



## greyskies

truthr said:


> Just a thought.
> When Geldert and Wotherspoon entered into and signed the so called "settlement" agreements on behalf of their clients were they aware that the majority of their clients would not be able to meet the terms ie., not enough liquid assets to pay?
> How can someone, anyone commit another to pay something they cannot pay?
> Then by the clients actually signing their individual document knowing they cannot pay?????  What a position for a lawyer to put their client in.
> So you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.


I think MG knew of the situation a while ago, but waited till the last minute so we wouldn't have much of a chance to fight it. Just my opinion. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Appauled said:


> Unfortunately I didn't reply fast enough and they got an interview with someone else. Apparently they had several emails from a lot of people.



Can you find out from them when / where the story will happen?


----------



## Appauled

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> Can you find out from them when / where the story will happen?



I did ask when it will be aired when they let me know they had enough people for the interview that responded before I did. They did not know when it will be aired. 
They just said IF they air a story about this, to keep an eye on both the 6 pm and 11:30 editions of CTV News Calgary over the next week.  
I am disappointed that I didn't get a chance to say anything. I hope they have some decent interviews.


----------



## teedeej

wagga2650 said:


> Also as to the question of interest, Should we be waiting for Judge young to decide on interest charges?



Those that choose option #1 are screwed. My lawyer has told me that the settlement that Geldert signed on your behalf is final, interest and all.


----------



## den403

Appauled said:


> Unfortunately I didn't reply fast enough and they got an interview with someone else. Apparently they had several emails from a lot of people.


Who? I wonder


----------



## LilMaggie

I would be willing to sign up for that $100 a month payment plan. I did not know that "as legal experts figure out who's right, owners with outstanding accounts are being charged interest by the property management company". Don't remember MG ever telling us that.  
https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/news/court-appeal-doesnt-deter-sunchaser-property-owners/


----------



## ecwinch

NeverNeverAgain said:


> *A capital expense is defined as an expense that extends the life of the structure and must be depreciated, not just repairing something that is broke.*  Agreed that there are some grey areas in capital costs verses repairs, but there is little room for interpretation for the renovation project.
> 
> Are there any real estate accountants that can contribute here.  Correct me if I am wrong.  Surely there must be some in this group that practice and can say with certainty what is correct on capital expenses and lessor/lessee relationships.



I do believe most accountants would agree with that definition of capital expense, and I would agree that there are some grey areas. But the VIA is clear that the lessee is responsible for "replacement costs" vs limiting responsibility to just repair costs.

_OPERATING COSTS AND RESERVE FOR REFURBISHING: In addition to the Management Fee described in paragraph 10 of this Lease, the [Lessee] shall be responsible for his proportionate share of all administration[,] maintenance and repair costs (the "Operating Costs") *and replacement costs* incurred with respect to the Vacation Resort and the Vacation Properties including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following:_

So what part of the Renovation Plan is not repairing or replacing some element of the #NAFR as originally delivered?




NeverNeverAgain said:


> 5. Our lawyer did not bring in expert witnesses to explain the lessor, lessee relationship to the court.  Our lawyer did not bring in expert witnesses to explain capital costs to the court.  For points this important, it is hard to believe the lawyer would not have brought in experts in these fields.  Did he bring any documentation at all?



As I stated earlier, the theory that "capital costs" are NEVER the responsibility of the lessee is overstated. For starters, can anyone point to a law that says "Capital costs" are NEVER the responsibility of the lessee?

I dont think you will find that. So at best I think MG could have produced expert testimony that "capital expenses are generally the responsibility of the lessor, subject to the terms of the lease".

And the VIA is clear that replacement costs are the responsibility of the lessee. I dont think that clause is defeated by the fact that replacement inherently extends the life of the structure.


----------



## fairmontlovers

NeverNeverAgain said:


> OK, after reading this many times, I am finally starting to understand this court decision now, and it seems very flawed.  I will try to briefly summarize my thoughts, please correct me if I am wrong on any of this.
> 
> 1. We signed a "Lease" agreement.  We are the Lessee (renter) and Fairmont was the Lessor (owner).  As previously pointed out, Lessee and Lessor obligations are pretty well known and documented and set in law, see the GypsyOne post.  I do not understand how they can be ignored.
> 
> 2. The court ruled that we have a time share plan and the resort must be managed for the benefit of all lessees.  This somehow re-defined our rights as lessees or renters.  The result was that the court started referring to us, the renters, as the owners.  This turned the situation upside down and caused much confusion.  I found no where that the court address how our rights as lesses were changed or lost which was the common and plain interpretation of contract.
> 
> 3. The court had no understanding of basic accounting principles in real estate.  As an example in the decision:
> 
> [265] At best, JEKE’s counsel was only able to give their own opinions on what constituted a “capital cost” or not, submissions that were largely unhelpful. For example, JEKE’s counsel suggested, in argument, that replacement of a deck would be a “capital cost”, versus replacement of the floor of a deck which would be a “wear and tear” cost. This distinction is lost on me. I fail to see how the “replacement” in either event would not be covered under the general phrase of “replacement costs”, or the detailed reference to “repairs to the exterior” found in paragraph 9(i) of the JEKE VIAs.
> 
> A capital expense is defined as an expense that extends the life of the structure and must be depreciated, not just repairing something that is broke.  Agreed that there are some grey areas in capital costs verses repairs, but there is little room for interpretation for the renovation project.  I have never heard of capital expenses being divided up into two categories as mentioned above (repairs and improvements).  The court was constantly confusing the refurbishment and replacement fund, arguing that this clause also gave them the right to charge capital expenses.
> 
> 4. The court ignored standard common sense practices for the lessor, lessee relationship, instead saying that it "defies logic" that these practices were not addressed in the lease. Again, this confusion is a result of the lessees being called owners and the lessor is not attributed as the owner.  As an example from the decision:
> 
> [277] It defies logic that the parties intended any uncertainty regarding who would pay to fix the Resort buildings and infrastructure when faced with maintenance issues of this magnitude. If JEKE is right, but the Lessor was unable or unwilling to pay and contribute to such expenses (assuming no express liability), then no one would pay to repair the resort, which would inevitably result in a decline in the Resort.
> 
> By existing lessor/lessee laws, the Lessor (owner) is required to provide infrastructure in a reasonable condition.  Fairmont understood this which is why they went bankrupt.  If the resort had been allowed to go bankrupt, the lessees would be much better off today, not stuck with bills that are bankrupting them.
> 
> 5. Our lawyer did not bring in expert witnesses to explain the lessor, lessee relationship to the court.  Our lawyer did not bring in expert witnesses to explain capital costs to the court.  For points this important, it is hard to believe the lawyer would not have brought in experts in these fields.  Did he bring any documentation at all?  I do realize that it would be impractical if not impossible to bring in experts for every point, but these point was important for the court to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> I think there were many requests to form the association when the renovation fee was levied, I know I did.  After almost 5 years, still nothing.  The association was suppose to help resolve these disputes, but instead we were forced to court.  I think it safe to speculate this was a strategy, as it is nearly impossible for the average time share consumer to take a dispute to court against a large corporation, as proven in this case.  The average consumer does not have the time, money, resources, energy to do so.  It is not a stretch to suggest this is a material breach of contract as evidence that we HAVE been denied access to the resort for the last 4 years.
> 
> Again, much of the blame for breach of contract appears to rest with our lawyer as he did not follow up on the breaches of contract that can be easily proven.  However, I am still having trouble accepting that if the court knew the law, how can they ignore it.  Not having audited financial statements is huge since we have no idea where our money went and should have been ruled a fundamental breach.
> 
> Are there any real estate accountants that can contribute here.  Correct me if I am wrong.  Surely there must be some in this group that practice and can say with certainty what is correct on capital expenses and lessor/lessee relationships.



Just to clarify on point 4. Farimont did not go into bankruptcy as a result of maintenance concerns at our property. They went bankrupt as a result of setting up FRPL finance company that had the vision of expanding the timeshare model of Fairmont at other places such as Hawaii, Belize, Mexico etc. They offered bonds at 12% interest. When the economy and plans started going not as expected they could not fulfill the obligation to these bondholders. These bondholders formed a company to get their money back, thus Northmount or Northwynd came into the picture. Many of the investors were part of the original Fairmont group and as a result this is why the same people were given positions of the new company after bankruptcy. With the new company they could place blame on the previous company and start making excuses about poor maintenance and the need of upgrades. KW comes along and has a vision as to how to get the bondholders their money. Bingo, the renovation project. It should be noted that those that paid to leave the money did not go back into the resort. The funds from this went to the bondholders, just as I suspect much of the money they acquire from this court ruling will go back to the bondholders and not back into the resort. 
http://frplfinance.blogspot.ca/


----------



## Ohnoyoudont

The Lawyers Insurance Fund manages the Law Society’s insurance program for BC lawyers. 

We are 14 lawyers, a paralegal and 6 administrative assistants, dedicated to maintaining the program’s exemplary standards and achieving exceptional results for our insured lawyers. The majority of our work involves claims-handling in relation to the negligence claims and potential claims lawyers report under the program’s professional liability insurance. Ten of our lawyers act as Claims Counsel, investigating and managing claims, in relation to the 1,000 or so reports we receive each year. 

*Coverage and underwriting*
We evaluate the risk of paying claims under the policy on behalf of the lawyers we insure. Through accurate and comprehensive claim file statistics and payment information, we monitor trends and specific risks. We keep a close eye on legal and other developments that may create new liability exposure for lawyers. We give lots of information about the scope and limits of our insurance coverage, so lawyers understand how coverage operates and when they may need to buy additional insurance on the private market.

*Risk management*
We help lawyers protect themselves from the risk of a negligence claim.  With our unique position as the single insurer for all lawyers in the province, we have detailed information relating to every matter reported since 1986.  That data, as well as our ongoing monitoring and analysis of specific risks, allows us to publish and speak to lawyers on how to practice safely.

*Fraud prevention*
Fraud prevention services help lawyers protect themselves from becoming the tool, dupe or victim of a fraudster. We know the risks to lawyers of a real estate or promoter fraudsters using a lawyer to facilitate their scheme. We also know that lawyer's trust accounts have become the targets of other fraudsters through stings such as the 'bad cheque' scam. We alert the profession to new frauds we discover, and offer a wealth of tips to help lawyers manage the risk.

*Compensation program for lawyer theft*
We also manage the Law Society's compensation program for lawyer theft. As the Law Society uses its own captive insurance company to underwrite the risk and pay claims, the program has full control over claims and coverage. This ensures that we are able to implement initiatives designed to respond to the needs of BC lawyers, as directed by the Benchers.

*Mission Statement*
The Lawyers Insurance Fund protects the profession and the public from the risks associated with the practice of law by providing high quality professional liability and defalcation insurance. We draw on our knowledge and skill as experienced lawyers in providing claims and risk management, and underwriting services. Our professional and cost-effective services have been recognized as a best practice model for other professional liability insurance programs worldwide.


1 604 605-5373


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

So, this settlement doesn't release people from NM?  They can still come back at you for any funds they want or dream up in the future?


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Thank you Spark1.  The RCMP is the way to go.  Maybe the apeal amounts to something but otherwise I think you're bang on.  If you want to meet in person I'd be happy to.


----------



## fairmontlovers

fairmontlovers said:


> Just to clarify on point 4. Farimont did not go into bankruptcy as a result of maintenance concerns at our property. They went bankrupt as a result of setting up FRPL finance company that had the vision of expanding the timeshare model of Fairmont at other places such as Hawaii, Belize, Mexico etc. They offered bonds at 12% interest. When the economy and plans started going not as expected they could not fulfill the obligation to these bondholders. These bondholders formed a company to get their money back, thus Northmount or Northwynd came into the picture. Many of the investors were part of the original Fairmont group and as a result this is why the same people were given positions of the new company after bankruptcy. With the new company they could place blame on the previous company and start making excuses about poor maintenance and the need of upgrades. KW comes along and has a vision as to how to get the bondholders their money. Bingo, the renovation project. It should be noted that those that paid to leave the money did not go back into the resort. The funds from this went to the bondholders, just as I suspect much of the money they acquire from this court ruling will go back to the bondholders and not back into the resort.
> http://frplfinance.blogspot.ca/



Further to this, from the link to the creditor list during the bankruptcy proceedings. The total amount from the debitor list is 19.6 million. Which includes FRPL 10 million, and a few notable names, Colin Knight 2.87 million, Dunvegan & Dunvegan Petroleum 2.3 million ( same address as given as for Colin Knight). A lot of small businesses in the Invermere/Fairmont area are also listed. 
FRPL would consist of the bondholders. It would be interesting to see how many claimants on the debitor list were paid up or offered shares in Northmount/Northwynd. Hypothetically, Colin Knight could be still a part of this whole thing.

http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...t Properties Ltd/FRP - Bankruptcy Package.pdf


----------



## CleoB

fairmontlovers said:


> Just to clarify on point 4. Farimont did not go into bankruptcy as a result of maintenance concerns at our property. They went bankrupt as a result of setting up FRPL finance company that had the vision of expanding the timeshare model of Fairmont at other places such as Hawaii, Belize, Mexico etc. They offered bonds at 12% interest. When the economy and plans started going not as expected they could not fulfill the obligation to these bondholders. These bondholders formed a company to get their money back, thus Northmount or Northwynd came into the picture. Many of the investors were part of the original Fairmont group and as a result this is why the same people were given positions of the new company after bankruptcy. With the new company they could place blame on the previous company and start making excuses about poor maintenance and the need of upgrades. KW comes along and has a vision as to how to get the bondholders their money. Bingo, the renovation project. It should be noted that those that paid to leave the money did not go back into the resort. The funds from this went to the bondholders, just as I suspect much of the money they acquire from this court ruling will go back to the bondholders and not back into the resort.
> http://frplfinance.blogspot.ca/


Don't be so sure about that.  I've heard the shareholders are going to get a penny.....so where will the money go then?


----------



## Shake Down

I wonder what resort is next on the hit list? 
Sunchaser and back in 2007 Rancho Banderas Resort, Mexico they raised assessments by over 200% even though the owners had contracts that state assessments may not be raised by more than 15% The company scammed owners out of rental weeks and resold units that persons have forfeited. Northwynd Resort Properties and Fairmont Resort Properties were accused of using assessment money to fund new construction projects.

It will just continue to happen, they found a loop hole in the system - after all it’s a Money Monster!


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Ohnoyoudont said:


> The Lawyers Insurance Fund manages the Law Society’s insurance program for BC lawyers.
> 
> We are 14 lawyers, a paralegal and 6 administrative assistants, dedicated to maintaining the program’s exemplary standards and achieving exceptional results for our insured lawyers. The majority of our work involves claims-handling in relation to the negligence claims and potential claims lawyers report under the program’s professional liability insurance. Ten of our lawyers act as Claims Counsel, investigating and managing claims, in relation to the 1,000 or so reports we receive each year.
> 
> *Coverage and underwriting*
> We evaluate the risk of paying claims under the policy on behalf of the lawyers we insure. Through accurate and comprehensive claim file statistics and payment information, we monitor trends and specific risks. We keep a close eye on legal and other developments that may create new liability exposure for lawyers. We give lots of information about the scope and limits of our insurance coverage, so lawyers understand how coverage operates and when they may need to buy additional insurance on the private market.
> 
> *Risk management*
> We help lawyers protect themselves from the risk of a negligence claim.  With our unique position as the single insurer for all lawyers in the province, we have detailed information relating to every matter reported since 1986.  That data, as well as our ongoing monitoring and analysis of specific risks, allows us to publish and speak to lawyers on how to practice safely.
> 
> *Fraud prevention*
> Fraud prevention services help lawyers protect themselves from becoming the tool, dupe or victim of a fraudster. We know the risks to lawyers of a real estate or promoter fraudsters using a lawyer to facilitate their scheme. We also know that lawyer's trust accounts have become the targets of other fraudsters through stings such as the 'bad cheque' scam. We alert the profession to new frauds we discover, and offer a wealth of tips to help lawyers manage the risk.
> 
> *Compensation program for lawyer theft*
> We also manage the Law Society's compensation program for lawyer theft. As the Law Society uses its own captive insurance company to underwrite the risk and pay claims, the program has full control over claims and coverage. This ensures that we are able to implement initiatives designed to respond to the needs of BC lawyers, as directed by the Benchers.
> 
> *Mission Statement*
> The Lawyers Insurance Fund protects the profession and the public from the risks associated with the practice of law by providing high quality professional liability and defalcation insurance. We draw on our knowledge and skill as experienced lawyers in providing claims and risk management, and underwriting services. Our professional and cost-effective services have been recognized as a best practice model for other professional liability insurance programs worldwide.
> 
> 
> 1 604 605-5373


https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/suppor...ntact-us/contact-us-by-types-of-inquiries-en/

Some of the people that work there:
Kaflin Lee who is the Senior Assistant to Susan Forbes, QC (Director of Insurance)

Kaflin’s # 604-605-5326


----------



## MgolferL

What is said:


> Is there update on this?


http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...Ninth Stay Extension, sworn June 16, 2010.pdf

I posted these links yesterday. These are the links to the bankruptcy proceedings by Fairmont and the monthly reports they had to file. Things like the manager making 30K per month (25while the proceedings were underway) for example may have been the root of the problems. There is also info about NM taking the place over.

Once again go to
http: documentcentre.eycan.com
Scroll down and you will see Fairmont
Click on that and when you go to that page... search Moore and presto... how this whole mess started.


----------



## Frustrated fairmont

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> Hey UB, I've missed the significance of after March 1st, how is that the likely timeframe?


Because we have to submit payment to MG on Feb 15 and he will submit to Northmont on Feb 28. One day later they see the judge ????? Seem fishy to me. A little late for anything to change for those that chosenoption 1.


----------



## Jack0123

LilMaggie said:


> I would be willing to sign up for that $100 a month payment plan. I did not know that "as legal experts figure out who's right, owners with outstanding accounts are being charged interest by the property management company". Don't remember MG ever telling us that.
> https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/news/court-appeal-doesnt-deter-sunchaser-property-owners/


You would think the lawyer acting of behalf of the timeshares would have advised the clients there was a payment arrangement


----------



## teedeej

MgolferL said:


> I would agree with that. Items could include:
> 1. Told us not to pay anything. If we had at least paid the money in trust the interest would have stopped.
> 2. Supplied fragmented, incomplete information throughout the process.
> 3. Did not allow us to see the "negotiated" agreement and vote on it.
> 4. Imposed an unrealistic time-frame in which to interpret the agreement.
> 5. Agreed to an unrealistic time-frame to complete the agreement.
> 6. Dropped the appeal. Without agreement from the group.
> 7. Not responding to clients.
> 8. Ignored advice throughout the process.
> 
> Any more?



9. Kept his clients in the dark about his strategy as he didn’t want his plans “leaked” to Northmont


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> So, this settlement doesn't release people from NM?  They can still come back at you for any funds they want or dream up in the future?


*Only if Michael at Geldert Law doesn't screw up or leave the country with a cool  $45,000,000.

Both scenarios seem plausible - defiantly given it's a one man band and we have all been maneuvered by him that it has to be done this way for an additional $250 ea.

That in itself is a cool $320,000 signing bonus for Michael and his wife Patricia.

Pretty scary given there is no over site and has he actually done anything correctly lately for his clients?*


----------



## Petus@18

If anyone knows of a good lawyer that could help us right now, but cannot afford the retainer, please let us know.  We may want to form a small group and help each other pay his/her legal fee! FYI,  Strathcona Group has filed a notice to withdraw as our attorneys on record regarding the civil claims yesterday.


----------



## truthr

On CTV tonight click on the link

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video?clipId=1312683


----------



## Ohnoyoudont

Did everyone send to Service B.C.? What a copout by Service A.B. I'm impressed that it finally got on CTV great job everyone! *BUT LET IT BE KNOWN I DID NOT AGREE TO ANY REPAIRS NEEDED(IN THE MILLIONS) IN MY INITIAL CONTRACT LIKE THE NM SPOKESMAN STATED. I AGREED TO A MAINTENANCE FEE THAT WAS GROWING TO 1000.00 A YEAR AND I PAID IN FULL. FAKE NEWS IN CANADA BEING LEAKED TO CTV, CROOKS!*


----------



## ecwinch

truthr said:


> On CTV tonight click on the link
> 
> https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video?clipId=1312683


Excellent job creating additional awareness of the problem!


----------



## FairSun

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> So, this settlement doesn't release people from NM?  They can still come back at you for any funds they want or dream up in the future?


I recommend you talk to Michael Geldert if you signed Option 1.  I am 100% confident that complying with the steps he has outlined by the deadline DOES secure us a full release.


----------



## Bewildered

Petus@18 said:


> If anyone knows of a good lawyer that could help us right now, but cannot afford the retainer, please let us know.  We may want to form a small group and help each other pay his/her legal fee! FYI,  Strathcona Group has filed a notice to withdraw as our attorneys on record regarding the civil claims yesterday.





teedeej said:


> Those that choose option #1 are screwed. My lawyer has told me that the settlement that Geldert signed on your behalf is final, interest and all.


Exactly what I was told, Option 1 peoples bill is what MG sent you, but additionally he also said the release is weak. Can you imagine, MG the timeshare lawyer expert has a release that may not be strong enough to ensure we are truly out! Anybody else get this opinion, if so anyone in option 1 needs to phone MG and demand why this release is not 110% foolproof!!!


----------



## FairSun

Jack0123 said:


> You would think the lawyer acting of behalf of the timeshares would have advised the clients there was a payment arrangement


That $100/month payment was offered by NM to those who chose "Pay to stay" and opted to pay that nearly $4100 reno fee. It had nothing to do with Michael Geldert.


----------



## Bewildered

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> So, this settlement doesn't release people from NM?  They can still come back at you for any funds they want or dream up in the future?





FairSun said:


> I recommend you talk to Michael Geldert if you signed Option 1.  I am 100% confident that complying with the steps he has outlined by the deadline DOES secure us a full release.


Why are you 100% confident, did you get a legal opinion, it’s just a release from Northmont, how about all it’s subsidiaries, employees, etc not named??? I hope your right fairsun but I wpould like hear your proof as MG hasn’t quite got my confidence at the moment.


----------



## FairSun

ecwinch said:


> Excellent job creating additional awareness of the problem!


Canadian laws and regulations governing the timeshare industry will ultimately be changed thanks in large part to those of us who stood up to Northwynd and brought this situation to light!


----------



## marcthe12

fairmontlovers said:


> Just to clarify on point 4. Farimont did not go into bankruptcy as a result of maintenance concerns at our property. They went bankrupt as a result of setting up FRPL finance company that had the vision of expanding the timeshare model of Fairmont at other places such as Hawaii, Belize, Mexico etc. They offered bonds at 12% interest. When the economy and plans started going not as expected they could not fulfill the obligation to these bondholders. These bondholders formed a company to get their money back, thus Northmount or Northwynd came into the picture. Many of the investors were part of the original Fairmont group and as a result this is why the same people were given positions of the new company after bankruptcy. With the new company they could place blame on the previous company and start making excuses about poor maintenance and the need of upgrades. KW comes along and has a vision as to how to get the bondholders their money. Bingo, the renovation project. It should be noted that those that paid to leave the money did not go back into the resort. The funds from this went to the bondholders, just as I suspect much of the money they acquire from this court ruling will go back to the bondholders and not back into the resort.
> http://frplfinance.blogspot.ca/


Exactly


----------



## FairSun

Bewildered said:


> Why are you 100% confident, did you get a legal opinion, it’s just a release from Northmont, how about all it’s subsidiaries, employees, etc not named??? I hope your right fairsun but I wpould like hear your proof as MG hasn’t quite got my confidence at the moment.


Just my opinion after discussing this at length with MG. I view going this route at this point is far less risky than trying to negotiate a better deal with KW that gets me out of our contract. Last March we rolled the dice and continued fighting for what my husband and I believed was right, fair and just. Double or nothing, as it turned out. We pay double because of even more court decisions against our position. I firmly believe KW and NM will not give any of us a better break. Right or wrong, I am not taking any more chances with our limited finances. 
Each of us has to come to terms in our own way with this ghastly situation. We each have to live with our decision.  I respect anyone who seeks their own path here, no matter how different from mine. After countless sleepless, anxious nights; searching and surfing for hours on end; scouring and analyzing every related document I could find; my husband and I have concluded Option 1 is our best option.


----------



## Misled

FairSun said:


> Just my opinion after discussing this at length with MG. I view going this route at this point is far less risky than trying to negotiate a better deal with KW that gets me out of our contract. Last March we rolled the dice and continued fighting for what my husband and I believed was right, fair and just. Double or nothing, as it turned out. We pay double because of even more court decisions against our position. I firmly believe KW and NM will not give any of us a better break. Right or wrong, I am not taking any more chances with our limited finances.
> Each of us has to come to terms in our own way with this ghastly situation. We each have to live with our decision.  I respect anyone who seeks their own path here, no matter how different from mine. After countless sleepless, anxious nights; searching and surfing for hours on end; scouring and analyzing every related document I could find; my husband and I have concluded Option 1 is our best option.


Well do what you want they are all feeding from the trough ! Extorting $$ and our hard earned $$ at that and realize it’s after tax $$ they are getting
It does not pass the smell test
But hey do what you want
Remember Power coruptes and absolute power corrupts absolutely
They are not nice people the whole lot of them !


----------



## Bewildered

FairSun said:


> Just my opinion after discussing this at length with MG. I view going this route at this point is far less risky than trying to negotiate a better deal with KW that gets me out of our contract. Last March we rolled the dice and continued fighting for what my husband and I believed was right, fair and just. Double or nothing, as it turned out. We pay double because of even more court decisions against our position. I firmly believe KW and NM will not give any of us a better break. Right or wrong, I am not taking any more chances with our limited finances.
> Each of us has to come to terms in our own way with this ghastly situation. We each have to live with our decision.  I respect anyone who seeks their own path here, no matter how different from mine. After countless sleepless, anxious nights; searching and surfing for hours on end; scouring and analyzing every related document I could find; my husband and I have concluded Option 1 is our best option.


Not questioning your reasons just questions being 100% sure because MG told you. MG being 100% anything other than being 100% wrong so far scares me.


----------



## FairSun

Bewildered said:


> Not questioning your reasons just questions being 100% sure because MG told you. MG being 100% anything other than being 100% wrong so far scares me.


No guarantees, that's for sure.


----------



## Scammed!

FairSun said:


> No guarantees, that's for sure.



You have got to be kidding me! Soooooooooo were being set up again? Who gives 25,000.00 with no guarantees.....us? And if we don't we go to slaughter. There are *No officials * stepping in to protect this from happening again? This is so crazy that its beyond words.


----------



## FairSun

Scammed! said:


> You have got to be kidding me! Soooooooooo were being set up again? Who gives 25,000.00 with no guarantees.....us? And if we don't we go to slaughter. There are *No officials * stepping in to protect this from happening again? This is so crazy that its beyond words.


I trust that the two lawyers who negotiated the settlement and release agreements for us are honest and will not disappear with our money. I trust the lawyer for NM will uphold the deal as negotiated. They are all lawyers and I have to put my trust somewhere. But as we have seen over the past 5-6 years, there are no guarantees that what you understood you bought is actually the same as what the courts understood you bought.


----------



## Petus@18

Option 1 was put in our faces under false pretences,  the document we signed was created by our "lawyer" through intentional misrepresentation. Options 1 & 2 are the same now if you decide not to sign the settlement.  We opted out of it (Option 2) and those who did not sign the SIF (Option 3.. maybe?) will be facing Northmont's punishment.  According to MG, Northmont will put a judgement in  motion for 162%, plus interest from Nov/17, against everyone The only difference is that (Option 1) will be gagged if the settlement is signed.

Q: does anyone know where the figure of 162% judgement came from?  I can only see it in MG's emails, but cannot find it in any court documents? Is this even legal? Is there a court judgement referencing this type of interest?

We are still waiting for Judge Young to decide on interests & costs, so why the rush to settle by giving us an ultimate deadline? Geldert/Strathcona Group are no longer our legal counsel.  MG is using the same scare tactics Northmont has used for years.   By "thunders and lightning" he is injecting fear in all of us to get as many to sign the bloody settlement. 

For those who still believe in the tooth fairy, you are right by following MG's advice, after all, he has demonstrated a formidable way of caring for his clients' interests.

2 cents


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

FairSun said:


> I recommend you talk to Michael Geldert if you signed Option 1.  I am 100% confident that complying with the steps he has outlined by the deadline DOES secure us a full release.


Hi FairSun

My opinion differs significantly and wouldn't encourage people to talk with Michael unless they have a specific agenda laid out, limit the conversation to a narrow scope, and stick strictly to your agenda.

Don't let the conversation go in a direction not on your agenda.

If you are phishing for information is the only time you want to encourage Michael to talk as he is more than willing to fill the gaps with his own voice.  

In Canada there is no consent required to record a phone conversation if you are recording yourself talking to someone else - if you can, record your next call and listen to it afterwords with someone else who can be objective (taking yourself out of the moment and having someone else objectively critique is a great way to identify specific traits in the other person's side of the conversation).


I am not a psychologist but I interact with a lot of very professional people so I need to be able to read them in order to adjust my own interaction style to ensure an efficient and productive interaction occurs.

With Michael very early on I identified specific traits very well defined in this article by Help Guide:

https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder.htm


----------



## FairSun

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Hi FairSun
> 
> My opinion differs significantly and wouldn't encourage people to talk with Michael unless they have a specific agenda laid out, limit the conversation to a narrow scope, and stick strictly to your agenda.
> 
> Don't let the conversation go in a direction not on your agenda.
> 
> If you are phishing for information is the only time you want to encourage Michael to talk as he is more than willing to fill the gaps with his own voice.
> 
> In Canada there is no consent required to record a phone conversation if you are recording yourself talking to someone else - if you can, record your next call and listen to it afterwords with someone else who can be objective (taking yourself out of the moment and having someone else objectively critique is a great way to identify specific traits in the other person's side of the conversation).
> 
> 
> I am not a psychologist but I interact with a lot of very professional people so I need to be able to read them in order to adjust my own interaction style to ensure an efficient and productive interaction occurs.
> 
> With Michael very early on I identified specific traits very well defined in this article by Help Guide:
> 
> https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder.htm


Can't say that's been my experience but then I've only talked to MG twice.
 I did find the article interesting and couldn't help but think it exactly captured a certain prominent politician in the news daily.


----------



## Plus454

CTV Calgary reported on it.

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?cl...Num=1#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=yFqDfiT


----------



## Scammed!

Someone needs to call Judge Young's OffICE AND THE MINSTER Of JUSTICE TODAY! I would but at work sent more emails this morning. We need protection!


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

At this point I am preparing myself to pay the money for an option 1 release but I see significant risks related to Geldert’s ability to have the release processed and the manor in which we are to get our release.

When you buy a house the lawyer or a representative of the lawyer sits down with you to ensure you:

*You know exactly what you are signing!!*
Does anyone really understand the Settlement Agreement, you may have paid for another legal opinion but Michael is actually responsible for this and to my knowledge has not provided any form of follow-up email to the group to explain the Settlement Agreement which a lot of people have requested.  He has continued to take some calls and respond to some emails for the past two weeks which can be converted to billable time but why no “Question and Answer” follow up to everyone which is much more efficient as there would be many common questions.

   2. *Before you leave the lawyers office you or your real-estate agent has the keys – the deal is done!! *
With this deal we pay and wait to receive a release from Northmont who by the nature of this arrangement has been given final authority – there is not a clear consensual relationship of exchange which means until you receive your release there is no guarantee you will get one.  
Say for example you have a Riverside Lease and they only want Hillside as these are the ones that will move them closer to the Realignment – we are not making the rules and we are expected to continue to follow Michael blindly again.  I for one have learnt a very expensive lesson on that already and not willing to learn another one!!

With such a large sum of money and such a small boutique law firm processing the final release there is too much at stake for us all individually especially when you look at this collectively.

*If we are going be be forced to pay I feel it is in our best interest to ensure a third party oversight is assigned!!

We need intervention so if you haven’t already put in your plea for HELP to the Law Society, other agencies, or media DO IT TODAY!!  *

*If you have already asked for HELP do follow-up calls/emails and point out the risk you are taking in paying part of a collective large sum of money and no longer have trust in your lawyer to manage the trust account or to process your final release without some form of oversight.  *

If you need another example of where the Law Society can intervene, Michael has on more than one occasion been requested for a "reconciliation of the joint trust account" statements and has said all accounting including all invoices will be available once this is all over – that is not the way this works as trust accounts need to be reconciled monthly I believe and if you have any doubt about the trust account tell them (have a look at the December invoice alone and it points to money paid to a disbarred lawyer who was a former Strathcona Law Group partner or a large amount of money paid for a class action Geldert clients cannot even participate in - the question could be asked was this to drain the fund). 

Still don't rule out contacting the Politicians and Court Offices you have already talked with today - by reviewing how we have been forced into this settlement we can *plead for their HELP* for oversight.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

*WHO I FEEL IS NOW OUR BEST HOPE FOR INTERVENTION *
In BC Lawyers have a group insurance and they also contribute to a fund in order to deal with large claims against a bad lawyer – when a risk occurs especially a significant one lawyers are to notify of their potential liability as any insurance group will want to try and mitigate their loss.

*If you are sending in a complaint to the BC Law Society do a follow-up call or email to this group to help expedite some action given the scale of their potential exposure and make them realize how many complaints there are may prioritize an immediate investigation.*

https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/suppor...ntact-us/contact-us-by-types-of-inquiries-en/
There is a complete list of contact people listed with emails and phone numbers on the right side of the page about ½ way down – please call / email them as our intervention options are getting less by the day.


*The Law Societies*
British Columbia
Email contract for British Columbia Law Society:
professionalconduct@lsbc.org

File Information for British Columbia
Northmont Resort Properties v. Brian Golbert and Collette Goldberg
No. S159447, Vancouver Registry (the "Goldbert Action")
Decision of Mr. Justice Branch


Alberta
Contact link for Alberta Law Society:
https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/
Alberta Lawyer on Record is Barry King / Vincent Tong
Strathcona Law Group
150 Chippewa Road
Sherwood Park, AB
T8A 6A2

File Information for Alberta:
Provincial Court of Alberta Edmonton
Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Reid, 2017 ABPC 249
Registry Action Number: P1490304333
Date: October 11, 2017
Decision of the Honorable Judge L.D. Young


----------



## CleoB

Bewildered said:


> Exactly what I was told, Option 1 peoples bill is what MG sent you, but additionally he also said the release is weak. Can you imagine, MG the timeshare lawyer expert has a release that may not be strong enough to ensure we are truly out! Anybody else get this opinion, if so anyone in option 1 needs to phone MG and demand why this release is not 110% foolproof!!!


I asked my lawyer/friend and he said he wasn't sure as he didn't know the full details on the fact that NM has been sold to KW.  NW may not be able to come after you but what about KW?


----------



## CleoB

FairSun said:


> Just my opinion after discussing this at length with MG. I view going this route at this point is far less risky than trying to negotiate a better deal with KW that gets me out of our contract. Last March we rolled the dice and continued fighting for what my husband and I believed was right, fair and just. Double or nothing, as it turned out. We pay double because of even more court decisions against our position. I firmly believe KW and NM will not give any of us a better break. Right or wrong, I am not taking any more chances with our limited finances.
> Each of us has to come to terms in our own way with this ghastly situation. We each have to live with our decision.  I respect anyone who seeks their own path here, no matter how different from mine. After countless sleepless, anxious nights; searching and surfing for hours on end; scouring and analyzing every related document I could find; my husband and I have concluded Option 1 is our best option.


Did you get anything in writing from Geldert or was this just over the phone so that he can deny saying any of this to you?


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

ecwinch said:


> As I stated earlier, the theory that "capital costs" are NEVER the responsibility of the lessee is overstated. For starters, can anyone point to a law that says "Capital costs" are NEVER the responsibility of the lessee?



This is true.  Looks like there are a lot of legal issues to be found concerning this issue and some leases can be written such that they are included.  However, I still strongly believe ours was not.



ecwinch said:


> I do believe most accountants would agree with that definition of capital expense, and I would agree that there are some grey areas. But the VIA is clear that the lessee is responsible for "replacement costs" vs limiting responsibility to just repair costs.
> 
> _OPERATING COSTS AND RESERVE FOR REFURBISHING: In addition to the Management Fee described in paragraph 10 of this Lease, the [Lessee] shall be responsible for his proportionate share of all administration[,] maintenance and repair costs (the "Operating Costs") *and replacement costs* incurred with respect to the Vacation Resort and the Vacation Properties including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following:_
> 
> So what part of the Renovation Plan is not repairing or replacing some element of the #NAFR as originally delivered?



When reading the lease in regard to "replacement costs", it is always referenced in respect to the reserve fund for furniture and fixtures, not the whole building.  However, looks like this was argued in court, and of course we lost.  Hard for me to figure that one out.  Bottom line, NEVER sign another contract, and especially those when you are on vacation and on weekends away from lawyers (not that it would have helped).

For all those who corrected me when I indicated that Fairmont went bankrupt because they knew they could not charge these fees, my apologies and thank you.  Would it be correct to say that if Fairmont have been given the current court decisions, they would not have needed to pursue bankruptcy because they could have charged the renovation fee, or anything they want, and clearly paid any/all liabilities?

This brings me to the situation at hand today and maybe hinted to above.  Many of us are now committed to pay a huge sum of money by court order and/or the workings of our lawyer.  I suspect the rest will soon will be committed to paying extreme sums of money.  It is my understanding this money was specifically billed (as presented to the court) for the renovation of the resort and would therefore be committed to stay at the resort for this purpose.  Is this not true?  If so, what happens if it is not used for renovation, would that be illegal and a criminal case to be made?  With this forced settlement, it is estimated there will be 10's of millions of dollars flowing in.  There are other posts speculating this money would flow elsewhere, but I would assume it will need to be accounted for on future audited financial statements, assuming they are made.

Is there any ability to figure out what has happened to what must be 10's of millions of dollars that have already been paid by the people who paid to stay or have settled.  This money also, as specifically stated, should have been committed to the renovation/operation of the resort and must be on the current audited financial statements, correct?  Can this be figured out, or has someone figured it out?  There have been posts indicating much of the resort is still run down and boarded up.  Again, if the money was not used for this purpose, would that not be illegal and criminal charges filed?  Is a forensic audit required to figure this out?  I know our lawyer determined that a forensic audit was not practical for cost reasons, but ironic where we are now.  Is it legal for the buildings to be sold and the money pocketed even if the money is spent for operations and renovations, or does that also need to stay with the resort?  Anyone with legal or accounting knowledge in this area that can say with confidence?


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Petus@18 said:


> Option 1 was put in our faces under false pretences,  the document we signed was created by our "lawyer" through intentional misrepresentation. Options 1 & 2 are the same now if you decide not to sign the settlement.  We opted out of it (Option 2) and those who did not sign the SIF (Option 3.. maybe?) will be facing Northmont's punishment.  According to MG, Northmont will put a judgement in  motion for 162%, plus interest from Nov/17, against everyone The only difference is that (Option 1) will be gagged if the settlement is signed.
> 
> Q: does anyone know where the figure of 162% judgement came from?  I can only see it in MG's emails, but cannot find it in any court documents? Is this even legal? Is there a court judgement referencing this type of interest?
> 
> We are still waiting for Judge Young to decide on interests & costs, so why the rush to settle by giving us an ultimate deadline? Geldert/Strathcona Group are no longer our legal counsel.  MG is using the same scare tactics Northmont has used for years.   By "thunders and lightning" he is injecting fear in all of us to get as many to sign the bloody settlement.
> 
> For those who still believe in the tooth fairy, you are right by following MG's advice, after all, he has demonstrated a formidable way of caring for his clients' interests.
> 
> 2 cents


Hey Petus@18

This was negotiated for Option 1 takers by Michael when he gave away the farm for everyone in the Settlement Agreement.

It is in Schedule "B" page 30 of the 41 page Settlement Agreement.

It is a figure NM came up with to add as a further punitive judgement measure to ensure anyone paying after the February due date could be immediately penalized further which Michael alone agreed to for Option 1 individuals.

This does not need to be endorsed by the Courts and allows NM to immediately seek restitution on the judgement if an individual is in default.


----------



## MgolferL

FairSun said:


> Just my opinion after discussing this at length with MG. I view going this route at this point is far less risky than trying to negotiate a better deal with KW that gets me out of our contract. Last March we rolled the dice and continued fighting for what my husband and I believed was right, fair and just. Double or nothing, as it turned out. We pay double because of even more court decisions against our position. I firmly believe KW and NM will not give any of us a better break. Right or wrong, I am not taking any more chances with our limited finances.
> Each of us has to come to terms in our own way with this ghastly situation. We each have to live with our decision.  I respect anyone who seeks their own path here, no matter how different from mine. After countless sleepless, anxious nights; searching and surfing for hours on end; scouring and analyzing every related document I could find; my husband and I have concluded Option 1 is our best option.



The reply I received from MG about the release...

We will send you the release on the final processing of the account for this file. If you need a soft-copy of it after February 28, 2018, please email us.


Please ensure you have reviewed the Settlement Documents in full to ensure you return what is required to secure your full and final release under this Settlement Agreement. Please also ensure all communications are in reply to an email from our office.


----------



## Tanny13

NeverNeverAgain said:


> This is true.  Looks like there are a lot of legal issues to be found concerning this issue and some leases can be written such that they are included.  However, I still strongly believe ours was not.
> 
> 
> 
> When reading the lease in regard to "replacement costs", it is always referenced in respect to the reserve fund for furniture and fixtures, not the whole building.  However, looks like this was argued in court, and of course we lost.  Hard for me to figure that one out.  Bottom line, NEVER sign another contract, and especially those when you are on vacation and on weekends away from lawyers (not that it would have helped).
> 
> For all those who corrected me when I indicated that Fairmont went bankrupt because they knew they could not charge these fees, my apologies and thank you.  Would it be correct to say that if Fairmont have been given the current court decisions, they would not have needed to pursue bankruptcy because they could have charged the renovation fee, or anything they want, and clearly paid any/all liabilities?
> 
> This brings me to the situation at hand today and maybe hinted to above.  Many of us are now committed to pay a huge sum of money by court order and/or the workings of our lawyer.  I suspect the rest will soon will be committed to paying extreme sums of money.  It is my understanding this money was specifically billed (as presented to the court) for the renovation of the resort and would therefore be committed to stay at the resort for this purpose.  Is this not true?  If so, what happens if it is not used for renovation, would that be illegal and a criminal case to be made?  With this forced settlement, it is estimated there will be 10's of millions of dollars flowing in.  There are other posts speculating this money would flow elsewhere, but I would assume it will need to be accounted for on future audited financial statements, assuming they are made.
> 
> Is there any ability to figure out what has happened to what must be 10's of millions of dollars that have already been paid by the people who paid to stay or have settled.  This money also, as specifically stated, should have been committed to the renovation/operation of the resort and must be on the current audited financial statements, correct?  Can this be figured out, or has someone figured it out?  There have been posts indicating much of the resort is still run down and boarded up.  Again, if the money was not used for this purpose, would that not be illegal and criminal charges filed?  Is a forensic audit required to figure this out?  I know our lawyer determined that a forensic audit was not practical for cost reasons, but ironic where we are now.  Is it legal for the buildings to be sold and the money pocketed even if the money is spent for operations and renovations, or does that also need to stay with the resort?  Anyone with legal or accounting knowledge in this area that can say with confidence?



This is exactly why some of us are needed to stay!  We will then have access to statements, etc. and have the option to do the audit that should have been done years ago.  There seem to be many issues still outstanding that have not been brought before the courts.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

We can't forget that MG told us that our contracts, and their individuality, would be protected from the JEKE test case, even though cox-taylor told the judges prior to court that we wouldn't be arguing the different contracts in the future.  As someone said, that was probably the nail in the coffin right there and if MG had told us that his promise was broken and explained the consequences to our case and risk many of us would have stopped the case right there and not been hit with these massive costs.


----------



## FairSun

CleoB said:


> Did you get anything in writing from Geldert or was this just over the phone so that he can deny saying any of this to you?


Yes, I have written responses to two emails with several questions each that I sent MG.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

NeverNeverAgain said:


> This is true.  Looks like there are a lot of legal issues to be found concerning this issue and some leases can be written such that they are included.  However, I still strongly believe ours was not.
> 
> 
> 
> When reading the lease in regard to "replacement costs", it is always referenced in respect to the reserve fund for furniture and fixtures, not the whole building.  However, looks like this was argued in court, and of course we lost.  Hard for me to figure that one out.  Bottom line, NEVER sign another contract, and especially those when you are on vacation and on weekends away from lawyers (not that it would have helped).
> 
> For all those who corrected me when I indicated that Fairmont went bankrupt because they knew they could not charge these fees, my apologies and thank you.  Would it be correct to say that if Fairmont have been given the current court decisions, they would not have needed to pursue bankruptcy because they could have charged the renovation fee, or anything they want, and clearly paid any/all liabilities?
> 
> This brings me to the situation at hand today and maybe hinted to above.  Many of us are now committed to pay a huge sum of money by court order and/or the workings of our lawyer.  I suspect the rest will soon will be committed to paying extreme sums of money.  It is my understanding this money was specifically billed (as presented to the court) for the renovation of the resort and would therefore be committed to stay at the resort for this purpose.  Is this not true?  If so, what happens if it is not used for renovation, would that be illegal and a criminal case to be made?  With this forced settlement, it is estimated there will be 10's of millions of dollars flowing in.  There are other posts speculating this money would flow elsewhere, but I would assume it will need to be accounted for on future audited financial statements, assuming they are made.
> 
> Is there any ability to figure out what has happened to what must be 10's of millions of dollars that have already been paid by the people who paid to stay or have settled.  This money also, as specifically stated, should have been committed to the renovation/operation of the resort and must be on the current audited financial statements, correct?  Can this be figured out, or has someone figured it out?  There have been posts indicating much of the resort is still run down and boarded up.  Again, if the money was not used for this purpose, would that not be illegal and criminal charges filed?  Is a forensic audit required to figure this out?  I know our lawyer determined that a forensic audit was not practical for cost reasons, but ironic where we are now.  Is it legal for the buildings to be sold and the money pocketed even if the money is spent for operations and renovations, or does that also need to stay with the resort?  Anyone with legal or accounting knowledge in this area that can say with confidence?


Hey NeverNeverAgain

As much as the people who remained at the resort would like to see a $40,000,000+ injection they will probable see none of it and are liable to have to contribute again down the road.

Existing timeshare people in good standing have been paying the legal fees through their maintenance fees so that expense is covered and the resort is scaling back to a 1/3 it's size and money to do those renovations has already been collected with the people that paid to stay so that should be covered so no major variances will occur on the Resort Villa Management books.

Your Interest, RPF costs, and yearly Maintenance Fees on your statement is not what is being collected by NM - we are selling our Timeshare Lease liability back to Northmont the same way it was done back in 2013 by the people who settled then.

That money did not go back into the resort and neither does this money have to go back into the resort.

The cost to sell it back was leveraged and determined by the amount due in your annual statement as an easy way for us to relate to starting point with NM but means nothing to the resort itself.

This is not going to be seen or endorsed by the Courts to ensure the invoice covers your overdue invoice with Resort Villa Management as it is an amical negotiation between NM and yourself to reach an agreement to settle a dispute where they now have bought your lease.

There is an underlying corporate shell game that will allow this to occur - we had better bet the Michael has ensured that the debt on the Resort Villa Management books is expunged by NM as part of the shell game as it potentially could be sold to a creditor like Sauvageau & Associates to pursue the outstanding debt.

*I only see a release of my Timeshare Lease to NM in the Settlement Agreement but nothing as to the relief of the debt with Resort Villa Management for the delinquent account itself - I cannot afford to assume this is all taken care of and definitely cannot afford to pay double!!

The Minutes of the agreement are incomplete and there is nothing to say I am relinquishing my timeshare to cover the existing debt - all I see is a release of future debt related to still owning the timeshare.*


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

Ultimate_Betrayal is bang on.  The way this payment is being handled is concerning and we all know what happened last time MG told us to "trust him".  He's a lawyer, we shouldn't have to "trust him", it should be handled properly with our safety absolutely guaranteed.  Do what Ultimate_Betrayal said and make those calls.  The insurance company cares about their liability.


----------



## Petus@18

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Hey Petus@18
> 
> This was negotiated for Option 1 takers by Michael when he gave away the farm for everyone in the Settlement Agreement.
> 
> It is in Schedule "B" page 30 or the 41 page Settlement Agreement.
> 
> It is a figure NM came up with to add as a further punitive judgement measure to ensure anyone paying after the February due date could be immediately penalized further which Michael alone agreed to for Option 1 individuals.
> 
> This does not need to be endorsed by the Courts and allows NM to immediately seek restitution on the judgement if an individual is in default.



Thanks for letting me know.  Sorry, we didn't see the settlement so we were unaware of this further penalty.  Do you know what happens now with the individual civil claims?  Are they part of the settlement?  Will Northmont be discontinuing these claims after you sign?  Or, was there ever a court decision that these claims be bundled into the Reid's case? Is your release being certified by a third party? Can you opt out of the settlement now on the basis that you were coerced by MG into signing the SIF?  We are all witnesses to that fact and can sign an Affidavit to that effect.

It seems just too easy how MG et al are getting away with this scam!


----------



## LilMaggie

OK...so we lost in court and our lawyer led down the garden path.  How can anyone think that it is fair, just or reasonable to charge us almost 7 times the amount we could have paid to get out of NM a mere 5 years ago?  Apparently, the interest was accruing the entire time we were in litigation.  I still don't remember MG telling me that.  I don't recall the "if we lose in court, you are going to lose your shirt" conversation.  It appears purely punitive but no one wants to offer any real help.  And yes, many of us were duped into signing for an excellent settlement.  A settlement that could bankrupt many, but who cares? 
Does KW want to take 1000 people to court for this money? Maybe, but he can continue to bilk the current paid up lessees out of their hard earned money and could even charge another restructuring fee...now that he has the courts blessing to do so.


----------



## MgolferL

This is the letter I am sending to the Law Society again

Feel free to copy and paste and/or change it ...but regardless SEND SOMETHING...


January 26, 2017

Law Society of British Columbia

Request for Intervention and Investigation

Northmont Resort Properties v. Brian Golbert and Collette Goldberg
No. S159447, Vancouver Registry (the "Goldbert Action")
Decision of Mr. Justice Branch



I have been a client of Geldert Law through the process of Northmont Resort Properties (aka Sunchaser) seeking and being awarded judgements against some 1400 time share contracts. Unfortunately, as this case has been totally skewed and misrepresented on many levels however, we are now coming down to the final days to having to pay the “settlement” that was “negotiated” by Mr. Geldert. Both are in quotations as the “settlement” was supposed to be approved by the clients that retained Mr. Geldert, to which that never happened, and the “negotiation” was considerably higher that the statement Northmont had issued several weeks prior.

Concerns that I have regarding this include, but are not limited to:

1.      ALL clients were told not to pay statements we received. Consequently we never did, nor paid the money in trust. The result of this was that Northmont has charged us interest individually on these accounts at 26% interest. This means that the interest on all statements is more than the base amounts owing.

2.      Supplied fragmented, incomplete information throughout the process on the auspices of guarding information from Northmont, however prevented a collective forum of over several hundred clients to discuss our options.

3.      Did not allow us to see the "negotiated" agreement and vote on it, and accepted it on our behalf, knowing the financial hardship could incur on many people.

4.      Imposed an unrealistic time-frame in which to interpret the potential agreement as this was done over Christmas. People were on vacation, travelling, etc and only had a couple of days in which to respond.

5.      Agreed to an unrealistic time-frame to complete agreements.

6.      Dropped an ongoing appeal without agreement from the group, and in essence eliminated any negotiating opportunity.

7.      Complaints from many clients of no response to pertinent questions has been a common theme.

We are now bound by the agreement we are being forced to pay, or accept additional fees in the amount of 162% as also "negotiated" by Mr. Geldert. Consequently, I will be following the settlement instructions as outlined by Geldert Law because I cannot risk further liability in this matter. I am concerned however that when I submit these funds, that I will actually receive a Release and that the money will be allocated as indicated. Consequently, I would submit that an Intervention by the Law Society to ensure the funds are allocated in the correct manner, and appropriate releases are sent to clients would be warranted and in order to prevent further injustice in this case.


I am aware that you should have received other letters of concern from other clients of Geldert Law that are dealing with the same issues and mistrust of the handling of this matter on our (and their) behalf. I would suggest that an investigation by the Law Society should be held as this entire matter has been a travesty of justice on many levels, and I have retained ALL documentation that can substantiate the above claims and comments.


Thank you.


----------



## #deceived

Excellent!  Thank you!



MgolferL said:


> This is the letter I am sending to the Law Society again
> 
> Feel free to copy and paste and/or change it ...but regardless SEND SOMETHING...
> 
> 
> January 26, 2017
> 
> Law Society of British Columbia
> 
> Request for Intervention and Investigation
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties v. Brian Golbert and Collette Goldberg
> No. S159447, Vancouver Registry (the "Goldbert Action")
> Decision of Mr. Justice Branch
> 
> 
> 
> I have been a client of Geldert Law through the process of Northmont Resort Properties (aka Sunchaser) seeking and being awarded judgements against some 1400 time share contracts. Unfortunately, as this case has been totally skewed and misrepresented on many levels however, we are now coming down to the final days to having to pay the “settlement” that was “negotiated” by Mr. Geldert. Both are in quotations as the “settlement” was supposed to be approved by the clients that retained Mr. Geldert, to which that never happened, and the “negotiation” was considerably higher that the statement Northmont had issued several weeks prior.
> 
> Concerns that I have regarding this include, but are not limited to:
> 
> 1.      ALL clients were told not to pay statements we received. Consequently we never did, nor paid the money in trust. The result of this was that Northmont has charged us interest individually on these accounts at 26% interest. This means that the interest on all statements is more than the base amounts owing.
> 
> 2.      Supplied fragmented, incomplete information throughout the process on the auspices of guarding information from Northmont, however prevented a collective forum of over several hundred clients to discuss our options.
> 
> 3.      Did not allow us to see the "negotiated" agreement and vote on it, and accepted it on our behalf, knowing the financial hardship could incur on many people.
> 
> 4.      Imposed an unrealistic time-frame in which to interpret the potential agreement as this was done over Christmas. People were on vacation, travelling, etc and only had a couple of days in which to respond.
> 
> 5.      Agreed to an unrealistic time-frame to complete agreements.
> 
> 6.      Dropped an ongoing appeal without agreement from the group, and in essence eliminated any negotiating opportunity.
> 
> 7.      Complaints from many clients of no response to pertinent questions has been a common theme.
> 
> We are now bound by the agreement we are being forced to pay, or accept additional fees in the amount of 162% as also "negotiated" by Mr. Geldert. Consequently, I will be following the settlement instructions as outlined by Geldert Law because I cannot risk further liability in this matter. I am concerned however that when I submit these funds, that I will actually receive a Release and that the money will be allocated as indicated. Consequently, I would submit that an Intervention by the Law Society to ensure the funds are allocated in the correct manner, and appropriate releases are sent to clients would be warranted and in order to prevent further injustice in this case.
> 
> 
> I am aware that you should have received other letters of concern from other clients of Geldert Law that are dealing with the same issues and mistrust of the handling of this matter on our (and their) behalf. I would suggest that an investigation by the Law Society should be held as this entire matter has been a travesty of justice on many levels, and I have retained ALL documentation that can substantiate the above claims and comments.
> 
> Thank you.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> As much as the people who remained at the resort would like to see a $40,000,000+ injection they will probable see none of it and are liable to have to contribute again down the road.
> 
> Existing timeshare people in good standing have been paying the legal fees through their maintenance fees so that expense is covered and the resort is scaling back to a 1/3 it's size and money to do those renovations has already been collected with the people that paid to stay so that should be covered so no major variances will occur on the Resort Villa Management books.
> 
> Your Interest, RPF costs, and yearly Maintenance Fees on your statement is not what is being collected by NM - we are selling our Timeshare Lease liability back to Northmont the same way it was done back in 2013 by the people who settled then.
> 
> That money did not go back into the resort and neither does this money have to go back into the resort.
> 
> The cost to sell it back was leveraged and determined by the amount due in your annual statement as an easy way for us to relate to starting point with NM but means nothing to the resort itself.
> 
> This is not going to be seen or endorsed by the Courts to ensure the invoice covers your overdue invoice with Resort Villa Management as it is an amical negotiation between NM and yourself to reach an agreement to settle a dispute where they now have bought your lease.
> 
> There is an underlying corporate shell game that will allow this to occur - we had better bet the Michael has ensured that the debt on the Resort Villa Management books is expunged by NM as part of the shell game as it potentially could be sold to a creditor like Sauvageau & Associates to pursue the outstanding debt.
> 
> *I only see a release of my Timeshare Lease to NM in the Settlement Agreement but nothing as to the relief of the debt with Resort Villa Management for the delinquent account itself - I cannot afford to assume this is all taken care of and definitely cannot afford to pay double!!
> 
> The Minutes of the agreement are incomplete and there is nothing to say I am relinquishing my timeshare to cover the existing debt - all I see is a release of future debt related to still owning the timeshare.*



Hello Unltimate_Betrayal,

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that we are about to be scammed yet again by our lawyer, correct?  Do you have third party opinions to support this (that you can mention?)  There is no way I can afford to not be out of this and need to know.  I have written many, many letters, some replied, most not.  Most replies saying there is nothing they can do.  It should be noted that there are some positive responses still going, so everyone please continue doing everything you know to do, everyone get involved to the end.  What else can be done so we can get away from this?

It sounds like you believe the money we all have paid, and are going to pay, has had and will have no benefit to the resort.  It is not required by the courts to be spent on the resort, correct?  Wow! So were is the money going and how can it be proved?  Again, this must be illegal, but maybe there is still more to be learned by us about our rights.  If what you are saying is true, how can any of those who paid to stay not get involved in the fight, as this would seem to be proof positive that NM is not looking for the overall good of the resort.  This should invalidate every court decision.  It also would imply that those who stayed will, in the future, be in the same situation we are in.


----------



## truthr

MgolferL said:


> This is the letter I am sending to the Law Society again
> 
> Feel free to copy and paste and/or change it ...but regardless SEND SOMETHING...
> 
> 
> January 26, 2017
> 
> Law Society of British Columbia
> 
> Request for Intervention and Investigation
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties v. Brian Golbert and Collette Goldberg
> No. S159447, Vancouver Registry (the "Goldbert Action")
> Decision of Mr. Justice Branch
> 
> 
> 
> I have been a client of Geldert Law through the process of Northmont Resort Properties (aka Sunchaser) seeking and being awarded judgements against some 1400 time share contracts. Unfortunately, as this case has been totally skewed and misrepresented on many levels however, we are now coming down to the final days to having to pay the “settlement” that was “negotiated” by Mr. Geldert. Both are in quotations as the “settlement” was supposed to be approved by the clients that retained Mr. Geldert, to which that never happened, and the “negotiation” was considerably higher that the statement Northmont had issued several weeks prior.
> 
> Concerns that I have regarding this include, but are not limited to:
> 
> 1.      ALL clients were told not to pay statements we received. Consequently we never did, nor paid the money in trust. The result of this was that Northmont has charged us interest individually on these accounts at 26% interest. This means that the interest on all statements is more than the base amounts owing.
> 
> 2.      Supplied fragmented, incomplete information throughout the process on the auspices of guarding information from Northmont, however prevented a collective forum of over several hundred clients to discuss our options.
> 
> 3.      Did not allow us to see the "negotiated" agreement and vote on it, and accepted it on our behalf, knowing the financial hardship could incur on many people.
> 
> 4.      Imposed an unrealistic time-frame in which to interpret the potential agreement as this was done over Christmas. People were on vacation, travelling, etc and only had a couple of days in which to respond.
> 
> 5.      Agreed to an unrealistic time-frame to complete agreements.
> 
> 6.      Dropped an ongoing appeal without agreement from the group, and in essence eliminated any negotiating opportunity.
> 
> 7.      Complaints from many clients of no response to pertinent questions has been a common theme.
> 
> We are now bound by the agreement we are being forced to pay, or accept additional fees in the amount of 162% as also "negotiated" by Mr. Geldert. Consequently, I will be following the settlement instructions as outlined by Geldert Law because I cannot risk further liability in this matter. I am concerned however that when I submit these funds, that I will actually receive a Release and that the money will be allocated as indicated. Consequently, I would submit that an Intervention by the Law Society to ensure the funds are allocated in the correct manner, and appropriate releases are sent to clients would be warranted and in order to prevent further injustice in this case.
> 
> 
> I am aware that you should have received other letters of concern from other clients of Geldert Law that are dealing with the same issues and mistrust of the handling of this matter on our (and their) behalf. I would suggest that an investigation by the Law Society should be held as this entire matter has been a travesty of justice on many levels, and I have retained ALL documentation that can substantiate the above claims and comments.
> 
> 
> Thank you.


Just to clarify #6 - it was the Petition Hearing to be held December 15th, 2017 that they dropped out of without our instructions/permission to do so.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

MgolferL said:


> This is the letter I am sending to the Law Society again
> 
> Feel free to copy and paste and/or change it ...but regardless SEND SOMETHING...
> 
> 
> January 26, 2017
> 
> Law Society of British Columbia
> 
> Request for Intervention and Investigation
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties v. Brian Golbert and Collette Goldberg
> No. S159447, Vancouver Registry (the "Goldbert Action")
> Decision of Mr. Justice Branch
> 
> 
> 
> I have been a client of Geldert Law through the process of Northmont Resort Properties (aka Sunchaser) seeking and being awarded judgements against some 1400 time share contracts. Unfortunately, as this case has been totally skewed and misrepresented on many levels however, we are now coming down to the final days to having to pay the “settlement” that was “negotiated” by Mr. Geldert. Both are in quotations as the “settlement” was supposed to be approved by the clients that retained Mr. Geldert, to which that never happened, and the “negotiation” was considerably higher that the statement Northmont had issued several weeks prior.
> 
> Concerns that I have regarding this include, but are not limited to:
> 
> 1.      ALL clients were told not to pay statements we received. Consequently we never did, nor paid the money in trust. The result of this was that Northmont has charged us interest individually on these accounts at 26% interest. This means that the interest on all statements is more than the base amounts owing.
> 
> 2.      Supplied fragmented, incomplete information throughout the process on the auspices of guarding information from Northmont, however prevented a collective forum of over several hundred clients to discuss our options.
> 
> 3.      Did not allow us to see the "negotiated" agreement and vote on it, and accepted it on our behalf, knowing the financial hardship could incur on many people.
> 
> 4.      Imposed an unrealistic time-frame in which to interpret the potential agreement as this was done over Christmas. People were on vacation, travelling, etc and only had a couple of days in which to respond.
> 
> 5.      Agreed to an unrealistic time-frame to complete agreements.
> 
> 6.      Dropped an ongoing appeal without agreement from the group, and in essence eliminated any negotiating opportunity.
> 
> 7.      Complaints from many clients of no response to pertinent questions has been a common theme.
> 
> We are now bound by the agreement we are being forced to pay, or accept additional fees in the amount of 162% as also "negotiated" by Mr. Geldert. Consequently, I will be following the settlement instructions as outlined by Geldert Law because I cannot risk further liability in this matter. I am concerned however that when I submit these funds, that I will actually receive a Release and that the money will be allocated as indicated. Consequently, I would submit that an Intervention by the Law Society to ensure the funds are allocated in the correct manner, and appropriate releases are sent to clients would be warranted and in order to prevent further injustice in this case.
> 
> 
> I am aware that you should have received other letters of concern from other clients of Geldert Law that are dealing with the same issues and mistrust of the handling of this matter on our (and their) behalf. I would suggest that an investigation by the Law Society should be held as this entire matter has been a travesty of justice on many levels, and I have retained ALL documentation that can substantiate the above claims and comments.
> 
> 
> Thank you.


Hey, make sure you add that we were guaranteed verbally that MG would allow us to see the agreement before approval.  Not just that we didn't get to see it ahead of time but that he told us verbally we would be able to see it first.


----------



## truthr

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> Hey, make sure you add that we were guaranteed verbally that MG would allow us to see the agreement before approval.  Not just that we didn't get to see it ahead of time but that he told us verbally we would be able to see it first.


Actually not only verbally but in writing.


----------



## aden2

It is official, just received a register that I am not being represented by a Lawyer anymore...


----------



## OK_Calm_Down

*WARNING - (difference between being released and not being released)*
*-----------*

OK, I've been on here reading, trying to understand, get direction and the release / cancellation questions are a big concern.  Sorry for my board name, don't mean to insult people.  There's little trust on here so I don't expect people to blindly trust me.  Please confirm for yourselves.

I hope this helps some people here.  I can't speak towards Ultimate_Betrayal's comment about are we released from Resort Villa Management's debt or only NM's debt, maybe someone can ask Michael about this.  But as far as NM what we've negotiated is a release, that's what we gave up the petition for.  If you went on your own (Option 2) then you're on your own as far as getting a release.  If you're Option 1 and you don't pay when you're supposed to then not only are you paying the higher amount....you WON'T get a release.

That's what we are getting here, a full release.  By all means, get everything answered about the release (like the Resort Villa Management concern) so we can all be sure.  Also, if the topics I covered are wrong please let me know.

For those not settling, this is your danger.  You may get a better decision on costs from the Judge and if your original number is high it might be worth it for the chance to cut your bill in half or so on the interest.  But will you get a release?  I hope you do.

If you're Option 1 you won't just be hunted down for more cash you'll lose your release.  THIS IS IMPORTANT, I imagine we could have got a better deal on the interest / costs but what you're paying for is the release.  It would be horrible to be in this group and not pay.  You are charged more to get the release, you don't make the payment, now your bill goes way up....not just on the hypothetical lower amount you would have paid without the release but you'll be charged a percentage of the  amount you paid to be released (ie. charged again for the release)...AND THEN you LOSE THE RELEASE.

The situation sucks for sure.  I hope this helps a few people.


----------



## MarcieL

A few people on the face book site have consulted seperate counsel who have verified the release looks fine, one suggested we add a note saying we understand this to be a final release with our signatures. This is not a quote but of similar meaning .


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

NeverNeverAgain said:


> Hello Unltimate_Betrayal,
> 
> If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that we are about to be scammed yet again by our lawyer, correct?  Do you have third party opinions to support this (that you can mention?)  There is no way I can afford to not be out of this and need to know.  I have written many, many letters, some replied, most not.  Most replies saying there is nothing they can do.  It should be noted that there are some positive responses still going, so everyone please continue doing everything you know to do, everyone get involved to the end.  What else can be done so we can get away from this?
> 
> It sounds like you believe the money all have paid, and are going to pay, has had and will have no benefit to the resort.  It is not required by the courts to be spent on the resort, correct?  Wow! So were is the money going and how can it be proved?  Again, this must be illegal, but maybe there is still more to be learned by us about our rights.  If what you are saying is true, how can any of those who paid to stay not get involved in the fight, as this would seem to be proof positive that NM is not looking for the overall good of the resort.  This should invalidate every court decision.  It also would imply that those who stayed will, in the future, be in the same situation we are in.


Hi NeverNeverAgain

My interpretation of the Settlement Agreement has been confirmed that it is correct so yes there is potential for a double hit on all of us to have to pay for the "past" obligation.  There are several other parts written into the Settlement Agreement that also make more sense if you think of this scenario being applied this way for example read Schedule "D" section 2.

Moving forward if this is not defined prior to the Feb 15th deadline when we initiate the signing of the Settlement Agreement it will become a Sealed Settlement Document within the courts once it is accepted by the courts.  This means if you are then called upon by Resort Villa Management to pay your outstanding statement you could be on the hook to have to do so and not have a timeshare to enjoy as you sold it to NM to assume your future timeshare liability.  

This debt which will continue to grow exponentially given the 26.8% interest rates and in your defense you will not be able to use the Settlement Agreement with its attached a gag order and further bond as a Sealed Settlement Document to say you you have satisfied the debt (NM and Resort Villa Management are two separate legal entities).  It remains as an asset within Resort Villa Management so even if the resort is sold the value of the debt remains.

This is our own individual debt that is accrued with Resort Villa Management and you have only sold your timeshare liability interest to NM - NM is not going to assume the debt on your behalf with the transfer and there is no provision in the Settlement Agreement to state otherwise it will be expunged.

Since there are no true Minutes of the Negotiation or a neutral 3rd party all the courts will have is MG and MN intended interpretation to relay on and how many years will that take to figure out.  With no written documentation as to the true intent or a 3rd party it will come down to who presents the best case in the future.

Alternately in writing from MG and endorsed by NM as part of the Settlement Agreement in very simple and clear terms paying the Settlement Agreement amount sought is in exchange for any past, current, and future liabilities that exist are in exchange for our timeshare leases.

This needs to be endorses and binding to both sides - if it is only endorsed by MG is it worthless as it NM needs to agree this is the intent of the settlement.

Unfortunately our lawyer is NOT protecting us and these steps must be taken to ensure our release is done with no strings attached.


----------



## Sheeptoslaughter

Perhaps a list of questions for MG are due with an expectation of a group email answers as per what was always done prev.  The release and its wording is a huge concern.  What is resort villa managents role to northmont?? I spoke with someone who paid last spring to get out and has not received any form of a release???    Mg needs!!! To address the concerns of the large group he single handedly made this decision that will annihilate 100's of ppl.   I also had asked would we be able to review it and he said yes.  We needed that option and the petition should have been heard.  I want an immediate release !! in my mind mg should have signed paperwork releasing lessees from all named company and any individuals from any further claims and be able to give it to us instantly upon receipt of payment??? I would be willing to hand deliver it in order to get my release.   I am beyond angry at this whole mess.  I recall a comment mg made years ago.  To kw its only money, its not personal.   Wow.


----------



## MarcieL

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Hi NeverNeverAgain
> 
> My interpretation of the Settlement Agreement has been confirmed that it is correct so yes there is potential for a double hit on all of us to have to pay for the "past" obligation.  There are several other parts written into the Settlement Agreement that also make more sense if you think of this scenario being applied this way for example read Schedule "D" section 2.
> 
> Moving forward if this is not defined prior to the Feb 15th deadline when we initiate the signing of the Settlement Agreement it will become a Sealed Settlement Document within the courts once it is accepted by the courts.  This means if you are then called upon by Resort Villa Management to pay your outstanding statement you could be on the hook to have to do so and not have a timeshare to enjoy as you sold it to NM to assume your future timeshare liability.
> 
> This debt which will continue to grow exponentially given the 26.8% interest rates and in your defense you will not be able to use the Settlement Agreement with its attached a gag order and further bond as a Sealed Settlement Document to say you you have satisfied the debt (NM and Resort Villa Management are two separate legal entities).  It remains as an asset within Resort Villa Management so even if the resort is sold the value of the debt remains.
> 
> This is our own individual debt that is accrued with Resort Villa Management and you have only sold your timeshare liability interest to NM - NM is not going to assume the debt on your behalf with the transfer and there is no provision in the Settlement Agreement to state otherwise it will be expunged.
> 
> Since there are no true Minutes of the Negotiation or a neutral 3rd party all the courts will have is MG and MN intended interpretation to relay on and how many years will that take to figure out.  With no written documentation as to the true intent or a 3rd party it will come down to who presents the best case in the future.
> 
> Alternately in writing from MG and endorsed by NM as part of the Settlement Agreement in very simple and clear terms paying the Settlement Agreement amount sought is in exchange for any past, current, and future liabilities that exist are in exchange for our timeshare leases.
> 
> This needs to be endorses and binding to both sides - if it is only endorsed by MG is it worthless as it NM needs to agree this is the intent of the settlement.
> 
> Unfortunately our lawyer is NOT protecting us and these steps must be taken to ensure our release is done with no strings attached.


Have you addressed your concerns with MG time is of the essence.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

Northmont/Northwynd/Resort Villa Management.   They should ALL be named on the release,  or perhaps?  there is a chance to go back to the courts against Northwynd....... or Resort Villa Management???   I just don't trust any of it anymore........


----------



## FairSun

OK_Calm_Down said:


> *WARNING - (difference between being released and not being released)*
> *-----------*
> 
> OK, I've been on here reading, trying to understand, get direction and the release / cancellation questions are a big concern.  Sorry for my board name, don't mean to insult people.  There's little trust on here so I don't expect people to blindly trust me.  Please confirm for yourselves.
> 
> I hope this helps some people here.  I can't speak towards Ultimate_Betrayal's comment about are we released from Resort Villa Management's debt or only NM's debt, maybe someone can ask Michael about this.  But as far as NM what we've negotiated is a release, that's what we gave up the petition for.  If you went on your own (Option 2) then you're on your own as far as getting a release.  If you're Option 1 and you don't pay when you're supposed to then not only are you paying the higher amount....you WON'T get a release.
> 
> That's what we are getting here, a full release.  By all means, get everything answered about the release (like the Resort Villa Management concern) so we can all be sure.  Also, if the topics I covered are wrong please let me know.
> 
> For those not settling, this is your danger.  You may get a better decision on costs from the Judge and if your original number is high it might be worth it for the chance to cut your bill in half or so on the interest.  But will you get a release?  I hope you do.
> 
> If you're Option 1 you won't just be hunted down for more cash you'll lose your release.  THIS IS IMPORTANT, I imagine we could have got a better deal on the interest / costs but what you're paying for is the release.  It would be horrible to be in this group and not pay.  You are charged more to get the release, you don't make the payment, now your bill goes way up....not just on the hypothetical lower amount you would have paid without the release but you'll be charged a percentage of the  amount you paid to be released (ie. charged again for the release)...AND THEN you LOSE THE RELEASE.
> 
> The situation sucks for sure.  I hope this helps a few people.


Some people have questioned whether our lawyer has confirmed in writing that Option 1 secures for us a full release.  Perhaps rereading the letter dated December 19, 2017 from lawyer David Wotherspoon of MLT Aikins law firm in Vancouver to "Geldert Group Member", which was included as an attachment to the email from Michael Geldert sent on Dec. 19th, may provide further reassurance. The stated purpose of the letter was to explain the rationale for settlement that our lawyers, David Wotherspoon and Michael Geldert, negotiated on behalf of Geldert Group members who committed to Option 1. At least three times in that letter Mr. Wotherspoon confirms payment of the settlement "includes all retroactive fees, registry update fee, interest and costs;" "[relinquishes] you from your VIA(s), including all associated fees and costs;" "will be released from their VIA in return for the payment described above, with payment due February 15, 2018."


----------



## OK_Calm_Down

Ultimate_Betrayal please tell us if you plan on contacting MG about this immediately.  If not the rest of us need to.


----------



## FairSun

Lostmyshirt said:


> Northmont/Northwynd/Resort Villa Management.   They should ALL be named on the release,  or perhaps?  there is a chance to go back to the courts against Northwynd....... or Resort Villa Management???   I just don't trust any of it anymore........


If you reread the Release Agreement, you'll see it states at Clause 3 that the Parties to the agreement "release, remise and forever discharge each of the other Parties and Related Parties of and from the Claims..." Note that the Release Agreement defines "Claims" as "means all claims, proceedings, liabilities, obligations, demands, costs, and expenses whatsoever, including legal fees, known or unknown, which any of the Parties now has or may hereafter have in law or in equity, whether jointly or separately, with respect to anything arising directly or indirectly from or by reason of or related to the VIAs or the subject matter of the VIAs or the Litigation;"


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

FairSun said:


> Some people have questioned whether our lawyer has confirmed in writing that Option 1 secures for us a full release.  Perhaps rereading the letter dated December 19, 2017 from lawyer David Wotherspoon of MLT Aikins law firm in Vancouver to "Geldert Group Member", which was included as an attachment to the email from Michael Geldert sent on Dec. 19th, may provide further reassurance. The stated purpose of the letter was to explain the rationale for settlement that our lawyers, David Wotherspoon and Michael Geldert, negotiated on behalf of Geldert Group members who committed to Option 1. At least three times in that letter Mr. Wotherspoon confirms payment of the settlement "includes all retroactive fees, registry update fee, interest and costs;" "[relinquishes] you from your VIA(s), including all associated fees and costs;" "will be released from their VIA in return for the payment described above, with payment due February 15, 2018."


Unfortunately that letter is not part of the settlement agreement and is only an opinion to help the Settlement Agreement sell better by someone who didn't sign the Settlement Agreement document paid for by our Trust money at Michael's need to make the Settlement Agreement appear legit - as far as I am concerned if it is not in the agreement it is not part of the agreement.  

This experience has taught me to ensure the "i" is dotted and "t" is crossed.

Remember the SIF - there was an email Nov 6th that relaxed everyone into signing that document that landed us here today that was not included in the original SIF.
_“Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.”
_
Please feel free to call Michael and discuss, do let us know what he says if you don't mind.


----------



## truthr

The Casualties


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

OK_Calm_Down said:


> Ultimate_Betrayal please tell us if you plan on contacting MG about this immediately.  If not the rest of us need to.


This was brought up along with other questions over a week ago and that evening I got a call from his office but didn't take it as I want everything in writing - I still have not seen an email reply that satisfies my inquiry as this seems to be the norm for everyone.

Definitely more voices the better - my voice on future matters related to Geldert are going to the Law Society.


----------



## FairSun

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Unfortunately that letter is not part of the settlement agreement and is only an opinion to help the Settlement Agreement sell better by someone who didn't sign the Settlement Agreement document paid for by our Trust money at Michael's need to make the Settlement Agreement appear legit - as far as I am concerned if it is not in the agreement it is not part of the agreement.
> 
> This experience has taught me to ensure the "i" is dotted and "t" is crossed.
> 
> Remember the SIF - there was an email Nov 6th that relaxed everyone into signing that document that landed us here today that was not included in the original SIF.
> _“Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.”
> _
> Please feel free to call Michael and discuss, do let us know what he says if you don't mind.


I've already discussed that exact point with him. I was satisfied that KW/NM were serious about 162% had MG walked away without signing. Thanks to court decisions, they held the power. Should MG have played chicken on our behalf? Would we have a better deal today had he walked away? Certainly at least a few people think so and I don't blame them for that. There is nothing black and white about this matter. I know I have wrestled at length numerous times in 5 years over what was the right thing to do. 
  Note too that the Release Agreement includes the same definition of "Claims" as David Wotherspoon detailed in his letter. The Release Agreement also defines "Related Parties" as "current and former directors, officers, employees, agents, principals, representatives, partners, insurers, administrators, shareholders, members, subsidiaries, affiliates, related corporations, predecessors, successors and assigns."


----------



## Bewildered

MarcieL said:


> A few people on the face book site have consulted seperate counsel who have verified the release looks fine, one suggested we add a note saying we understand this to be a final release with our signatures. This is not a quote but of similar meaning .


Sorry to completely disagree with you , had an opinion from both a lawyer and a experienced contract negotiator. Both say it’s less than stellar and in fact possibly leaves us open to future issues


----------



## CorruptionExtortion

Kirk Wankel is becoming an expert at insolvency at no expense to him.  Timeshare contracts around the world appear to be vague in the courts.  I had one friend that bought a timeshare and the company went bankrupt before they booked their first week.  It appears KW may have found his niche with high returns, no recourse for timeshare owners and sociopathic tendancies beneficial only to him.  Kirk Wankel was involved and named in 2007 court documents as CFO with a bankruptcy involving Fairsky Resources vs Canadian Western Bank.  This bankruptcy left creditors with a loss of over SEVEN MILLION dollars. He promotes himself on Linkedin as successfully winning in the Supreme Court of BC and successfully business turn-around payed shareholders their investment back (I am paraphrasing).  Good business practices and financial success are not made off the backs of others with what we thought was a  lawful contract.

Kirk Wankel is a member of the Chartered Accountants/Chartered Professional Accountants of Alberta.  There is a very strict code of ethics that come with that designation.

Anyone interested in contacting CPA Alberta:
Chartered Professional Accountants of Alberta
800-444 7 Avenue SW
Calgary Alberta, T2P 0X8
T: 403 299 1339


----------



## truthr

I have not read through the entire document yet but was just made aware of this regarding the December 15, 2017 Petition hearing, here is a link to Oral Reasons for Judgement
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/d...tocompleteStr=philip matkin&autocompletePos=3


----------



## Bewildered

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> Ultimate_Betrayal is bang on.  The way this payment is being handled is concerning and we all know what happened last time MG told us to "trust him".  He's a lawyer, we shouldn't have to "trust him", it should be handled properly with our safety absolutely guaranteed.  Do what Ultimate_Betrayal said and make those calls.  The insurance company cares about their liability.


Please tell me more about the insurance company and liability not getting what this is relating to?


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

FairSun said:


> If you reread the Release Agreement, you'll see it states at Clause 3 that the Parties to the agreement "release, remise and forever discharge each of the other Parties and Related Parties of and from the Claims..." Note that the Release Agreement defines "Claims" as "means all claims, proceedings, liabilities, obligations, demands, costs, and expenses whatsoever, including legal fees, known or unknown, which any of the Parties now has or may hereafter have in law or in equity, whether jointly or separately, with respect to anything arising directly or indirectly from or by reason of or related to the VIAs or the subject matter of the VIAs or the Litigation;"


Yes it directly relates to a claim NM would have over me - Resort Villa Management is it's own entity and their is no mention of subsidiaries of NM being part of the release so my obligations to them related to "claims, proceedings, liabilities, obligations, demands, costs, and expenses" have not been absolved based on this clause.

It's pretty easy to fix if parties agree to it and add it to the settlement agreement.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Bewildered said:


> Please tell me more about the insurance company and liability not getting what this is relating to?


Have a look at this article - our circumstances are not the same but for a case gone wrong provisions are in place to make people whole again in the event a lawyer has acted improperly - by notifying the insurance company they already have a team of litigators as any insurance company has and will try and mitigate their losses if they can.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-pleads-guilty-to-40m-mortgage-fraud-1.832540


----------



## aden2

The advice I had received was "if you had been scammed or had fraudlent sales tactics, and Nm had not made any attempt to correct their fraudlent actions, then FRAUD still exists. The only time Fraud does not exists is when a retribution has taken place, and that is not the case with NM.


----------



## Tanny13

truthr said:


> I have not read through the entire document yet but was just made aware of this regarding the December 15, 2017 Petition hearing, here is a link to Oral Reasons for Judgement
> https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc2478/2017bcsc2478.html?autocompleteStr=philip matkin&autocompletePos=3



So even though MG dropped this petition on our behalf as "leverage" for our "great" settlement, JY did not explicitly say the realignment can go through.  She specifically states that Par. 8 and 10 have to be relied upon - Par. 8 states that 66 2/3% of VIA owners have to approve the realignment and Par. 10 - that the realignment is not inconsistent with the rights of the owners.  For those who will remain owners, I'm hoping we still have some fight left.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

FairSun said:


> I've already discussed that exact point with him. I was satisfied that KW/NM were serious about 162% had MG walked away without signing. Thanks to court decisions, they held the power. Should MG have played chicken on our behalf? Would we have a better deal today had he walked away? Certainly at least a few people think so and I don't blame them for that. There is nothing black and white about this matter. I know I have wrestled at length numerous times in 5 years over what was the right thing to do.
> Note too that the Release Agreement includes the same definition of "Claims" as David Wotherspoon detailed in his letter. The Release Agreement also defines "Related Parties" as "current and former directors, officers, employees, agents, principals, representatives, partners, insurers, administrators, shareholders, members, subsidiaries, affiliates, related corporations, predecessors, successors and assigns."


Unfortunately we didn't know we were playing chicken with MG when we signed the SIF and got totally splattered all over the road as a result.


----------



## Scammed!

Ok So I called Lawyers Insurance Fund in B.C. just now. Yes they protect the lawyers, but after hearing what has happened to all of us this persons comment was we have to protect ourselves. This person helped me so much and I've found a lawyer which I already called and waiting for a call back.  I mentioned the gag order, and that we were forced to make a decision in a matter of hours just to mention a few. This person stated this is not how they operate! This person said there are issues with this settlement! Also mentioned that it sounds like all these people are in duress, and should not sign anything until you speak to a lawyer. This person informed me that our lawyer should have explained everything to all of us as we don't know what were signing for sure, or if its concrete and now we don't trust him which is a big problem. I thanked him/her for their kindness its been so long I forgot how good it felt.


----------



## FairSun

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Unfortunately we didn't know we were playing chicken with MG when we signed the SIF and got totally splattered all over the road as a result.


That I agree with.


----------



## Bewildered

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Yes it directly relates to a claim NM would have over me - Resort Villa Management is it's own entity and their is no mention of subsidiaries of NM being part of the release so my obligations to them related to "claims, proceedings, liabilities, obligations, demands, costs, and expenses" have not been absolved based on this clause.
> 
> It's pretty easy to fix if parties agree to it and add it to the settlement agreement.



Again exactly what I was told, didn’t talk about subsidiaries and is one of the holes in this release. There are others as already mentioned. Wake-up Michael!!


----------



## FairSun

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Yes it directly relates to a claim NM would have over me - Resort Villa Management is it's own entity and their is no mention of subsidiaries of NM being part of the release so my obligations to them related to "claims, proceedings, liabilities, obligations, demands, costs, and expenses" have not been absolved based on this clause.
> 
> It's pretty easy to fix if parties agree to it and add it to the settlement agreement.


"Subsidiaries" is included in the definition of "Related Parties" in the Release Agreement.


----------



## FairSun

Bewildered said:


> Sorry to completely disagree with you , had an opinion from both a lawyer and a experienced contract negotiator. Both say it’s less than stellar and in fact possibly leaves us open to future issues


Gawd, how are we non-legal types supposed to be able to determine the right action when lawyers can't even agree???!


----------



## Tanny13

Per Northmont’s Dec 2016 financial statements, this is what has been paid to related companies. Check it out.  $3.5 MILLION!  In 2 years...


----------



## FairSun

Bewildered said:


> Again exactly what I was told, didn’t talk about subsidiaries and is one of the holes in this release. There are others as already mentioned. Wake-up Michael!!


The Release Agreement does include "subsidiaries"


----------



## Scammed!

Does it or doesn't it? Well I have a lawyer looking at it so hopefully we'll find out how safe we really are.


----------



## FairSun

Tanny13 said:


> Per Northmont’s Dec 2016 financial statements, this is what has been paid to related companies. Check it out.  $3.5 MILLION!  In 2 years...


What struck me when I first saw this was the line for litigation charges. Are we being double billed? We have to pay outstanding maintenance fees which include legal cost AND contribute to NM's court costs.


----------



## Tanny13

FairSun said:


> What struck me when I first saw this was the line for litigation charges. Are we being double billed? We have to pay outstanding maintenance fees which include legal cost AND contribute to NM's court costs.



At least double billed!  Maintenance fees have included over $2.4 million in the last 2 years AND KW collected a 15% management fee on those charges, ALSO included in our maintenance fees.


----------



## Tanny13

Tanny13 said:


> At least double billed!  Maintenance fees have included over $2.4 million in the last 2 years AND KW collected a 15% management fee on those charges, ALSO included in our maintenance fees.



Check out the financial statements.  The charges in my post are only those charges that have been billed by a related company (think KW).  This does NOT include actual legal fees, as I mentioned above.


----------



## FairSun

Tanny13 said:


> Check out the financial statements.  The charges in my post are only those charges that have been billed by a related company (think KW).  This does NOT include actual legal fees, as I mentioned above.


"Screwed, blewed and tattooed!" Nice gig


----------



## JeffinWA

Question for any Option 1 people living in the States who plan to pay the settlement.  How are you paying to ensure that you send sufficient funds?  I inquired with MG and he told me that a bank check drawn on US funds was fine, but if I estimated wrong and there weren't sufficient funds then I would not have satisfied the settlement and I would be in default and subject to the 162%.  Even told me not to trust the bank to estimate it for me.  Any ideas on what others are doing would be appreciated.


----------



## Petus@18

FairSun said:


> Some people have questioned whether our lawyer has confirmed in writing that Option 1 secures for us a full release.  Perhaps rereading the letter dated December 19, 2017 from lawyer David Wotherspoon of MLT Aikins law firm in Vancouver to "Geldert Group Member", which was included as an attachment to the email from Michael Geldert sent on Dec. 19th, may provide further reassurance. The stated purpose of the letter was to explain the rationale for settlement that our lawyers, David Wotherspoon and Michael Geldert, negotiated on behalf of Geldert Group members who committed to Option 1. At least three times in that letter Mr. Wotherspoon confirms payment of the settlement "includes all retroactive fees, registry update fee, interest and costs;" "[relinquishes] you from your VIA(s), including all associated fees and costs;" "will be released from their VIA in return for the payment described above, with payment due February 15, 2018."



Forgive me for my honesty, but you sound so much like Geldert in all your posts, are you related to him by any chance?  If you do, that explains why you are 100% certain that he is an honest lawyer and that this settlement is 100% guaranteed!  Though, if you re-read all of Geldert's communications you will see that 99.9%of his messages are untrue.


----------



## Bewildered

Scammed! said:


> Ok So I called Lawyers Insurance Fund in B.C. just now. Yes they protect the lawyers, but after hearing what has happened to all of us this persons comment was we have to protect ourselves. This person helped me so much and I've found a lawyer which I already called and waiting for a call back.  I mentioned the gag order, and that we were forced to make a decision in a matter of hours just to mention a few. This person stated this is not how they operate! This person said there are issues with this settlement! Also mentioned that it sounds like all these people are in duress, and should not sign anything until you speak to a lawyer. This person informed me that our lawyer should have explained everything to all of us as we don't know what were signing for sure, or if its concrete and now we don't trust him which is a big problem. I thanked him/her for her kindness its been so long I forgot how good it felt.


Interesting, but maybe they should be calling MG and tell him that there are issues with the release as it stands, I am fearful that you talking to another lawyer will only verify what I have already been told by a lawyer that I actually trust. He said it is a weak release. Unless MG gets enough pressure to go back and eat some crow, that even now he is being out lawyered, this nightmare may not end. He needs to tell Norton Rose that his clients cannot accept this release because it does not guarantee an end.


----------



## MarcieL

Bewildered said:


> Sorry to completely disagree with you , had an opinion from both a lawyer and a experienced contract negotiator. Both say it’s less than stellar and in fact possibly leaves us open to future issues


So what solution do you suggest?


----------



## Petus@18

Scammed! said:


> Ok So I called Lawyers Insurance Fund in B.C. just now. Yes they protect the lawyers, but after hearing what has happened to all of us this persons comment was we have to protect ourselves. This person helped me so much and I've found a lawyer which I already called and waiting for a call back.  I mentioned the gag order, and that we were forced to make a decision in a matter of hours just to mention a few. This person stated this is not how they operate! This person said there are issues with this settlement! Also mentioned that it sounds like all these people are in duress, and should not sign anything until you speak to a lawyer. This person informed me that our lawyer should have explained everything to all of us as we don't know what were signing for sure, or if its concrete and now we don't trust him which is a big problem. I thanked him/her for kindness its been so long I forgot how good it felt.



Could you please share with us their contact details so that we can call them as well?  Thanks so much


----------



## Petus@18

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Yes it directly relates to a claim NM would have over me - Resort Villa Management is it's own entity and their is no mention of subsidiaries of NM being part of the release so my obligations to them related to "claims, proceedings, liabilities, obligations, demands, costs, and expenses" have not been absolved based on this clause.
> 
> It's pretty easy to fix if parties agree to it and add it to the settlement agreement.



If they need to fix this, wouldn't we want them to discuss and fix the interest rate as well? Or better, why not fix the entire settlement instead?


----------



## Scammed!

Petus@18 said:


> Could you please share with us their contact details so that we can call them as well?  Thanks so much


They protect the lawyers not us, nothing they can do for us. But I kept talking and I told her my personal issues of concern then mentioned the 1300 out there in the same situation and we're giving this kind of money and she was kind enough to tell me to find a lawyer IMMEDIATELY! Which I did as I haven't talked to one yet. But she cleared a few issues of how things should be done and we should not feel forced to make a decision or pressured. I've been overwhelmed. We should understand what we're signing and what it means, and know what the outcome will be after we sign.......and that I don't know and neither do any of you which made me realize I had to do something. I don't have this kind of money and I want this to END!


----------



## MarcieL

JeffinWA said:


> Question for any Option 1 people living in the States who plan to pay the settlement.  How are you paying to ensure that you send sufficient funds?  I inquired with MG and he told me that a bank check drawn on US funds was fine, but if I estimated wrong and there weren't sufficient funds then I would not have satisfied the settlement and I would be in default and subject to the 162%.  Even told me not to trust the bank to estimate it for me.  Any ideas on what others are doing would be appreciated.


----------



## MarcieL

A person on our Facebook site said she was able to get a Canadian draft at her U.S. bank which makes sense as our Cad. Banks sell U. S. Drsfts.


----------



## dalindy

JeffinWA said:


> Question for any Option 1 people living in the States who plan to pay the settlement.  How are you paying to ensure that you send sufficient funds?  I inquired with MG and he told me that a bank check drawn on US funds was fine, but if I estimated wrong and there weren't sufficient funds then I would not have satisfied the settlement and I would be in default and subject to the 162%.  Even told me not to trust the bank to estimate it for me.  Any ideas on what others are doing would be appreciated.



Ask your bank to do a Foreign Draft.  It will get you a check made in Canadian funds. It can take several days for them to get it made for you, so you'll want to check with your bank on how long it will take.


----------



## FairSun

Petus@18 said:


> Forgive me for my honesty, but you sound so much like Geldert in all your posts, are you related to him by any chance?  If you do, that explains wdhy you are 100% certain that he is an honest lawyer and that this settlement is 100% guaranteed!  Though, if you re-read all of Geldert's communications you will see that 99.9%of his messages are untrue.


Oh Lord, NO! Honest! I'm in the same boat as you are here.
I am just someone who tries to see all sides of an issue. Just trying to be honest, fact-focussed, and bring perspective. I don't want to see any of us mired deeper in this horrific quicksand.
I am not afraid to challenge, to ask hard questions, or to admit I'm wrong. I try to carefully read all the info we're sent - including from Wankel over the years. Sadly, my emotions too often overrule my gut instincts. I knew we should have gotten out in March, and even before that. The early court decisions against us shocked me. I refused to believe our unjust circumstance could be supported by Canadian law. Then I was further motivated to challenge this obvious (to me) travesty of justice by the loud rallying cry of like-minded TS peeps "Strength in numbers! Stay strong! Keep fighting!" David vs Goliath! We WILL win! Someone, somewhere will make this right!
I'm an optimist, but also pragmatic and a realist. Time's up, is how I read the tea leaves today in terms of getting what I think is fair. It's time to cut our losses and run! I will, however, still advocate for stronger contract and consumer protection laws!!


----------



## CleoB

FairSun said:


> Yes, I have written responses to two emails with several questions each that I sent MG.


Wonderful.  I hope you have filed a complaint against him with the BC Law Society and included those emails.


----------



## Misled

FairSun said:


> I trust that the two lawyers who negotiated the settlement and release agreements for us are honest and will not disappear with our money. I trust the lawyer for NM will uphold the deal as negotiated. They are all lawyers and I have to put my trust somewhere. But as we have seen over the past 5-6 years, there are no guarantees that what you understood you bought is actually the same as what the courts understood you bought.


If you have that much trust, that’s refreshing, but if that is the case I have a ocean front property for sale in Arizona.. are you interested ?? Kindly provide me your Visa card number


----------



## truthr

Thanks to all the People who worked on this project.  You all know who you are. 

http://truths2cents.blogspot.ca/2018/01/northmont-sunchaser-scandal-untold-story.html


----------



## Misled

FairSun said:


> Oh Lord, NO! Honest! I'm in the same boat as you are here.
> I am just someone who tries to see all sides of an issue. Just trying to be honest, fact-focussed, and bring perspective. I don't want to see any of us mired deeper in this horrific quicksand.
> I am not afraid to challenge, to ask hard questions, or to admit I'm wrong. I try to carefully read all the info we're sent - including from Wankel over the years. Sadly, my emotions too often overrule my gut instincts. I knew we should have gotten out in March, and even before that. The early court decisions against us shocked me. I refused to believe our unjust circumstance could be supported by Canadian law. Then I was further motivated to challenge this obvious (to me) travesty of justice by the loud rallying cry of like-minded TS peeps "Strength in numbers! Stay strong! Keep fighting!" David vs Goliath! We WILL win! Someone, somewhere will make this right!
> I'm an optimist, but also pragmatic and a realist. Time's up, is how I read the tea leaves today in terms of getting what I think is fair. It's time to cut our losses and run! I will, however, still advocate for stronger contract and consumer protection laws!!


Please provide a barf  bag for this incoherent rant of defeatism.  Real life has always been populated by wolves and sheep.  The only difference now is people who are confused about who is the wolf and who are the sheep.  Get a cup of coffee and wake up !


----------



## FairSun

Misled said:


> Please provide a barf  bag for this incoherent rant of defeatism.  Real life has always been populated by wolves and sheep.  The only difference now is people who are confused about who is the wolf and who are the sheep.  Get a cup of coffee and wake up !


Believe me, I know well who the wolves are. You should see my files. I was an early entry in this fight and have stayed in for the long haul - til now.  I wish you well.


----------



## Stung

truthr said:


> Thanks to all the People who worked on this project.  You all know who you are.
> 
> http://truths2cents.blogspot.ca/2018/01/northmont-sunchaser-scandal-untold-story.html



Well summarized Truthr!  THIS is the story thats needs to get out to the media, CBC Marketplace, The Fifth Estate, etc. for a thorough investigation on those responsible for this mess, specifically Kirk Wankel.  Where has all the money collected up to this point gone?  And if we pay where will all of our money then go,  back into the Resort?  Don't hold your breath.  So many unanswered questions...


----------



## Beelzebub

i am related to the lawyer and yes he is young, and was slugging it out in the big leagues,when he was only one guy, small office, no experience, you all went with him because someone suggested it and here we stand, defeated and at a loss for answers. we want to crucify him. that wont happen. I have hired a voodoo priest who does good work. Wankel will be ill soon and he wont know why, but my voodoo priest insisted though I said no, dont do that, but he did. i never learned his name (my voodoo high priest) but he seemed to know what i was dealing with, and in his pining of a doll, he said Wankels name. I hope nothing bad happens but i don't know these dark arts. I am feeling Mr Wankle will be feeling very bad in the next year, and I am truly sorry for that. The voodoo man said many bad things about the negative energy the doll was emitting, and that many bad health things were about to happen. i don't want him less sick than he is, i hope he is okay, i want no cancer to get him before we get a chance to get to him in the courts.


----------



## torqued

Who on earth are you and what on earth are you talking about??!!if you are serious go away back into your dark world with your voodoo priest. We need no more evil or darkness from you. As for Wankel I pray he turns from his unjust ways. I wish him no harm. Just know you will someday be judged by the FATHER as will I.  I pray the Holy Spirit gives this group strength and courage. My Jesus is greater than any debt any court judgement any problem I’ll ever encounter including this one. Whatever happens I will praise GOD!  I bind any and all darkness and evil associated with this situation and declare and decree justice be served by the power glory and blood of JESUS!!!!
After reading the last post I felt this needed to be done. Besides it’s all I have left. Peace be with you all!


----------



## Spark1

JeffinWA said:


> Question for any Option 1 people living in the States who plan to pay the settlement.  How are you paying to ensure that you send sufficient funds?  I inquired with MG and he told me that a bank check drawn on US funds was fine, but if I estimated wrong and there weren't sufficient funds then I would not have satisfied the settlement and I would be in default and subject to the 162%.  Even told me not to trust the bank to estimate it for me.  Any ideas on what others are doing would be appreciated.


Are you sure this 162% is legal this is just a scare tactic. How much money are you leaving at the resort that you paid for the 40 year lease. That is part of the lose besides freedom to Choose.


----------



## torqued

I would suggest a dump truck full of pennies on their door step!


----------



## Scammed!

Ok so we found a couple wolves in the middle of the night who are trying to discredit this group of good people. Move forward, we don't have time for this, and continue what your doing. Like I said many posts ago, it could be your email, or letter, or your phone call that will make the difference for all of us, and our voices *WILL* be heard. Keep up the great work!


----------



## RippedOff

FairSun you really trust MG?  Really?!!! After this WHOLE DISASTER?!!!!  Wow....

Is there anyway we can attend the next court meeting?  When is it?  The judge needs to hear us!

We have no money for another lawyer.


----------



## RippedOff

If we can't speak to Judge Young, maybe we can get a hold of the Chief Judge of Alberta:

*Office of the Chief Judge*

Chief Judge The Honourable T.J. Matchett Edmonton
Deputy Chief Judge The Honourable L.K. McLellan Calgary

https://albertacourts.ca/provincial-court/judges/judges_list


----------



## tuguser_14

JeffinWA said:


> Question for any Option 1 people living in the States who plan to pay the settlement.  How are you paying to ensure that you send sufficient funds?  I inquired with MG and he told me that a bank check drawn on US funds was fine, but if I estimated wrong and there weren't sufficient funds then I would not have satisfied the settlement and I would be in default and subject to the 162%.  Even told me not to trust the bank to estimate it for me.  Any ideas on what others are doing would be appreciated.


Hey JeffinWA,
I don't know if this might help you, but I am a Canadian and have made payments in US Dollars to US Companies, by going to my Canadian Bank and getting a Bank Draft in US Funds. My Bank will do the foreign exchange based on that day's rates and take those Canadian Funds out of my account. Then they draw up the Bank Draft made out to the payee in US Funds.
Hoping this helps you in the 'reverse' manner for buying a Bank Draft made out in Canadian Funds using your US Dollars.


----------



## RippedOff

Here's the head off the Civil Division:
*Civil Division*

Assistant Chief Judge The Honourable G.W. Sharek Edmonton

Trying to figure out how to get in contact with these people.


----------



## Bewildered

torqued said:


> Who on earth are you and what on earth are you talking about??!!if you are serious go away back into your dark world with your voodoo priest. We need no more evil or darkness from you. As for Wankel I pray he turns from his unjust ways. I wish him no harm. Just know you will someday be judged by the FATHER as will I.  I pray the Holy Spirit gives this group strength and courage. My Jesus is greater than any debt any court judgement any problem I’ll ever encounter including this one. Whatever happens I will praise GOD!  I bind any and all darkness and evil associated with this situation and declare and decree justice be served by the power glory and blood of JESUS!!!!
> After reading the last post I felt this needed to be done. Besides it’s all I have left. Peace be with you all!


Good for you torqued in this world of increasing evilness, what you said above is really what let’s us sleep at night. God bless you and all the other honest and good people on this site. For those getting out I pray the release is sufficient, for those not I pray you find some justice.


----------



## GypsyOne

truthr said:


> Thanks to all the People who worked on this project.  You all know who you are.
> 
> http://truths2cents.blogspot.ca/2018/01/northmont-sunchaser-scandal-untold-story.html



This is the story that Northmont want to gag.  It should not be allowed to die.


----------



## Petus@18

RippedOff said:


> If we can't speak to Judge Young, maybe we can get a hold of the Chief Judge of Alberta:
> 
> *Office of the Chief Judge*
> 
> Chief Judge The Honourable T.J. Matchett Edmonton
> Deputy Chief Judge The Honourable L.K. McLellan Calgary
> 
> https://albertacourts.ca/provincial-court/judges/judges_list



Do you have a fax # or email address?


----------



## LilMaggie

Honourable T J Matchett fax# 780-427-2077. Phone #780-427-6330
Hon L K McLellan fax# 403-355-4541
I hope these numbers are current.


----------



## LilMaggie

RippedOff said:


> Here's the head off the Civil Division:
> *Civil Division*
> 
> Assistant Chief Judge The Honourable G.W. Sharek Edmonton
> 
> Trying to figure out how to get in contact with these people.


Hon Gordon Sharek phone #780-422-4021. Fax #780-422-2257


----------



## truthr

Someone else found these and I am just sharing for everyone.

Check out these two articles - first one is dated October 21, 2011
Second one is dated October 7, 2014

Same property

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/honolulu-star-advertiser/20111021/283077001018172

https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific...otel-and-resort-to-be-demolished-pacific.html


----------



## LilMaggie

truthr said:


> Someone else found these and I am just sharing for everyone.
> 
> Check out these two articles - first one is dated October 21, 2011
> Second one is dated October 7, 2014
> 
> Same property
> 
> https://www.pressreader.com/usa/honolulu-star-advertiser/20111021/283077001018172
> 
> https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific...otel-and-resort-to-be-demolished-pacific.html


Northwynd looks like they are in the business of closing properties.


----------



## MarcieL

First they extort $$$ from the people, invest off shore, then put the properties into receivership.


----------



## Plus454

LilMaggie said:


> Hon Gordon Sharek phone #780-422-4021. Fax #780-422-2257


The Hon.L.D. Young is Assistant Chief Judge, civil
1A Sir Winston Churchill Sq. Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0R2


----------



## Plus454

As suggested by Daniel Smith QR77
Today I sent letters to:
Judge L.D. Young snail mail
MLA Drew Barnes
MLA Kathleen Ganley Minister of Justice
MLA Angela Pitt
MLA Stephanie McLean Minister Service Alberta
Plus,
CBC fifth estate
Calgary lawyer i have experience with Steven Robertson
And i'm not done yet


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

aden2 said:


> The advice I had received was "if you had been scammed or had fraudlent sales tactics, and Nm had not made any attempt to correct their fraudlent actions, then FRAUD still exists. The only time Fraud does not exists is when a retribution has taken place, and that is not the case with NM.


aden2, in your case you were sold a TS when they were already going under and they completely misrepresented the sale to you, so fraud.  I don't think  you're settling  so I don't follow your  post.  If you are settling then are you saying that even if you sign this settlement with all  the gag  orders  and  protections  for  NM,  if they are later to be found fraudelent then the settlement gag order can't protect NM?

You, and there must be others like you who bought during that time, have a special case.  I imagine NM wishes they were on the ball and didn't serve any of you, hoping to not poke the bear.  I don't know how serious the consequences could be for NM and KW on this but maybe they'll get what's coming to them.


----------



## NotWhatIPaidFor

It would be nice for someone, Judge, MP, Premier, Prime Minister, someone to acknowledge the big picture here.  If you step back  from it all, it's clear what's going on.  The other destroyed resorts, the tactics of finding ways to get money from the lessees without accountability to put the  money in  the  resort,  off shore accounts, linkedin profile stating that this is precisely the strategy,  comments from this group of this to another TS lessee at another resort saying,  I  paraphrase "go ahead and sue us, our money is  held offshore", these should give someone with authority enough to show real concern,  voice they're concern and say they need to look into this.  It may or  may not affect our  situation but it should be clear to our  leaders what is going  on in the big picture here. 

Maybe these officials were focused on the immediate issue, some have said there's nothing they can do BUT they should be stepping up and saying that this is a concern  for all Canadians and the possibility that Canadian law has allowed a business strategy that directly targets innocent Canadians for large amounts of  money has to be investigated and necessary measures to correct any issues will be taken.


----------



## BettyBoop52

The most recent update on the Sunchaser/Fairmont/Northwynd mess:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId...binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=2


----------



## teedeej

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> aden2, If you are settling then are you saying that even if you sign this settlement with all  the gag  orders  and  protections  for  NM ...



Wankel’s gag order is useless as it  takes effect only when owners have signed the settlement and details have already been loaded onto the internet.  It’s also easy to hide behind false user names


----------



## So sick of this mess

I consulted an attorney from the US and one question that he had was if I was actually named in the lawsuit. Does Northmont have a judgement against me, JEKE or the Geldert group? Are we actually named in the lawsuit? He wants me to call the Canadian courts and ask if there is a suit filed against me personally. Any ideas or thoughts on this?


----------



## aden2

NotWhatIPaidFor said:


> aden2, in your case you were sold a TS when they were already going under and they completely misrepresented the sale to you, so fraud.  I don't think  you're settling  so I don't follow your  post.  If you are settling then are you saying that even if you sign this settlement with all  the gag  orders  and  protections  for  NM,  if they are later to be found fraudelent then the settlement gag order can't protect NM?
> 
> You, and there must be others like you who bought during that time, have a special case.  I imagine NM wishes they were on the ball and didn't serve any of you, hoping to not poke the bear.  I don't know how serious the consequences could be for NM and KW on this but maybe they'll get what's coming to them.


*I have not settled but have requested  investigation of NM regarding FRAUD. I filed a complaint with the Competition Bureau.*


----------



## Misled

FairSun said:


> Believe me, I know well who the wolves are. You should see my files. I was an early entry in this fight and have stayed in for the long haul - til now.  I wish you


----------



## Misled

FairSun said:


> Believe me, I know well who the wolves are. You should see my files. I was an early entry in this fight and have stayed in for the long haul - til now.  I wish you well.


i do not think so ...your comments indicate that you are prepared to capitulate very unclear


----------



## Petus@18

I read that property settlement agreements can be invalidated due to: Mistakes,  Fraud, Coercion or Undue Influence?  I think this one meets all of the above 

Shouldn't we check into this?


----------



## Spark1

I just read item numbers 9 and 10 again. Every one of us new what our responsibilities were with these 2 items on our Vacation Villa Lease Contracts. Did we need this bully called the Trustee to petition the Supreme Court of BC to change our contract 1/Well designed Cancellation,are any of these time owners cancelled without having to pay more. 2/ This is not Special Assessment it is Capital expenditure. 50 weeks per condo times $4100=$215000.00 +GST. When you read over 9and10 do you see where the Trustee is responsible to calculate next years maintenance fees I do not? That is the job of the manager not the Trustee or the Judges. Why did they need freedom to Choose if the Special Assessment was part of 9/10. The Trustee had no right to do this. When we bought we went over our contract as well as the Fairmont Vacation Villas Consumer Protection Agreement . Was this agreement put in place to protect us From the Trustee and Northmont? I say Yes.When all of us bought did any one bring up the Trust Agreement and what the Trustee was all about? MG would never answer that question was it legal what the Trustee did?. Trustee your new 2010 Trust Agreement does not count I am talking about the agreement that was in place when I bought in 2001 and how do we know when this 2010 Agreement was written not that we do not Trust a Trustee. Is it legal to go back on maintenance payments that we paid years ago now a bankrupted resort? We all like your phoney Modification saying all Lease contracts mirror the JEK Contract. This is not a modification it is a unilateral amendment to our Lease Contracts. Both of these items you are to contact each one of us before you do this and this does not materially prejudice the rights of existing lessees. Every thing you and the Judges do materially prejudices the rights of existing lessees. Every one should email Premier Notley.    premier@gov.ab.ca.         Also email  John Horgan. Premier of BC.     premier@gov.bc.ca.       Tell the Premier that you feel bill 31 should be grandfathered in because the tactics that Northmont are using is totally against our Lease contract and 2016 Modification was their illegal unilateral ammendments to our contracts. This is all Fraud and none of us would of bought a timeshare knowing that the Trustee had the right to do what he did. My email was sent over to the Justice department.  It is your right to belong to the Canadian Anti-Fraud centre and you tell the RCMP that if necessary . Ph 1888-495-8501. I am not paying ever. The next time we are going to hire the best lawyer in Canada.


----------



## #deceived

Petus@18 said:


> I read that property settlement agreements can be invalidated due to: Mistakes,  Fraud, Coercion or Undue Influence?  I think this one meets all of the above
> 
> Shouldn't we check into this?


Where did you see/read that?


----------



## aden2

Spark1 said:


> I just read item numbers 9 and 10 again. Every one of us new what our responsibilities were with these 2 items on our Vacation Villa Lease Contracts. Did we need this bully called the Trustee to petition the Supreme Court of BC to change our contract 1/Well designed Cancellation,are any of these time owners cancelled without having to pay more. 2/ This is not Special Assessment it is Capital expenditure. 50 weeks per condo times $4100=$215000.00 +GST. When you read over 9and10 do you see where the Trustee is responsible to calculate next years maintenance fees I do not? That is the job of the manager not the Trustee or the Judges. Why did they need freedom to Choose if the Special Assessment was part of 9/10. The Trustee had no right to do this. When we bought we went over our contract as well as the Fairmont Vacation Villas Consumer Protection Agreement . Was this agreement put in place to protect us From the Trustee and Northmont? I say Yes.When all of us bought did any one bring up the Trust Agreement and what the Trustee was all about? MG would never answer that question was it legal what the Trustee did?. Trustee your new 2010 Trust Agreement does not count I am talking about the agreement that was in place when I bought in 2001 and how do we know when this 2010 Agreement was written not that we do not Trust a Trustee. Is it legal to go back on maintenance payments that we paid years ago now a bankrupted resort? We all like your phoney Modification saying all Lease contracts mirror the JEK Contract. This is not a modification it is a unilateral amendment to our Lease Contracts. Both of these items you are to contact each one of us before you do this and this does not materially prejudice the rights of existing lessees. Every thing you and the Judges do materially prejudices the rights of existing lessees. Every one should email Premier Notley.    premier@gov.ab.ca.         Also email  John Horgan. Premier of BC.     premier@gov.bc.ca.       Tell the Premier that you feel bill 31 should be grandfathered in because the tactics that Northmont are using is totally against our Lease contract and 2016 Modification was their illegal unilateral ammendments to our contracts. This is all Fraud and none of us would of bought a timeshare knowing that the Trustee had the right to do what he did. My email was sent over to the Justice department.  It is your right to belong to the Canadian Anti-Fraud centre and you tell the RCMP that if necessary . Ph 1888-495-8501. I am not paying ever. The next time we are going to hire the best lawyer in Canada.


*I would urgent as many as possible to follow up on Spartk1's advice and go  and file a complaint,  "competition bureau.gc.ca"*


----------



## dotbuhler

Scammed! said:


> They protect the lawyers not us, nothing they can do for us. But I kept talking and I told her my personal issues of concern then mentioned the 1300 out there in the same situation and we're giving this kind of money and she was kind enough to tell me to find a lawyer IMMEDIATELY! Which I did as I haven't talked to one yet. But she cleared a few issues of how things should be done and we should not feel forced to make a decision or pressured. I've been overwhelmed. We should understand what we're signing and what it means, and know what the outcome will be after we sign.......and that I don't know and neither do any of you which made me realize I had to do something. I don't have this kind of money and I want this to END!


Totally fits the description of Elder Abuse, and that's a CRIME! Yeah, I AM playing the "old lady card" on this!


----------



## MarcieL

Misled said:


> i do not think so ...your comments indicate that you are prepared to capitulate very unclear



Some of us are at our capacity financially.  We cannot afford anymore lawyer 's fees or another 10 thousand in interest.  We cannot afford the downside, as it is we have to get a loan for 40 grand in our 70's.  Wish we had exited long ago, this is outright fraud and extortion but can no longer afford the fight.


----------



## Anxiety123

Marciel.   40 Grand!  How many weeks do you own?  If multiples, Northmont or MG should be able to negotiate something for you??   That is ridiculous that something can’t be worked out so you don’t need to get a loan to pay that amount.   This whole thing is a mess.  Northmont is trying to get revenge and it sounds like MG is just wanting out of this and to move on.  Don’t understand how MG can again charge more to do the settlements and pretty much saying pay me or I won’t help you!  Thinking he has made a lot on this whole mess.  All the lawyers made a lot of money on our backs


----------



## MarcieL

We had an annual and biannual, the interest is the killer.  There is no negotiating with these people. Many people on f.b. owe this, some less, some more, one guy owes 100 grand had 5 weeks. This is devastating many people financially.  Many of us are retired and many are young couples having to cash in their kid's RESP's.


----------



## LilMaggie

MarcieL said:


> We had an annual and biannual, the interest is the killer.  There is no negotiating with these people. Many people on f.b. owe this, some less, some more, one guy owes 100 grand had 5 weeks. This is devastating many people financially.  Many of us are retired and many are young couples having to cash in their kid's RESP's.


This settlement is breaking most of us financially and emotionally.  Could MG not have negotiated a payment plan, like paying in installments or some way that we don't have to pay the enormous lump sum within such a short period of time?


----------



## Petus@18

#deceived said:


> Where did you see/read that?



I couldn't sleep last night so I found it in the internet. This is what it said:
*Can a Property Settlement Agreement Be Invalidated?*
Yes. A court may declare any property settlement agreement to be invalid if the following are at issue:


Mistake: If the agreement contains mistakes that would seriously affect the distribution of property, a court may order the couple to redraft the agreement. States may vary in terms of how they treat mistakes that are mutually understood by the parties versus mistakes known to only one party
Fraud: The property settlement agreement must not be made under circumstances of fraud. Fraud in this context can include the use of deception or concealment to mislead the other party
Coercion or Undue Influence: The agreement must be mutually agreed upon. One party cannot force the other to sign the document under threat of physical harm or financial pressure
Unconscionable agreement: A settlement agreement is considered to be unconscionable if it is so unfair to one party as to require a re-drafting. Unconscionability is determined using many different factors, including the financial disposition of each individual.
Also if you look under contracts in Canada, these are some results:

In just the same way as contracts require offer, acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations, agreements reached in mediation are no different. However, it is not always that simple in practice. Post mediation a party may, rather than becoming embroiled in arguments around setting aside any alleged agreement entered into, argue that no binding contract was ever reached between the parties. This may be on the basis that one or more of the constituent elements required for the formation of a contract are absent. Practically, to help avoid this issue arising, most standard mediation agreements provide that the parties will not be bound until the agreement is signed.

Illegality and mistake
A settlement agreement entered into between the parties may be declared void due to illegality (for example a contract that unlawfully fixes prices) or be unenforceable as being contrary to public policy (for example it amounts to a contract in restraint of trade). Equally, depending on its nature and effect, where the parties have made a fundamental mistake about some fact, this can result in the settlement agreement entered into being declared void.

Duress.
A contract which has been entered as the result of duress may be avoided by the party who was threatened. In each case, the wrongful or illegitimate threat must have had some causal effect on the decision to enter into the contract. It is important to remember that in commercial transactions, pressure and "hard bargaining" are commonplace and perfectly proper. Indeed many agreements are entered into under pressure (sometimes overwhelming). In these circumstances it will be important to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate forms of pressure.

Negligence
A successful action in negligence against a mediator would require a party to establish that the mediator:
•    owed a duty of care to the claimant
•    breached the duty owed to the claimant
•    in breach of his/her duty caused the claimant to suffer recoverable loss

Claims for breach of fiduciary duty
•    In light of the relationship of trust between the parties and the mediator, there is a possibility that a party may bring a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the mediator. Fiduciary duties which may be owed by a mediator to the parties (and therefore may be breached) may include a duty not to be biased, to be trustworthy and to be diligent. For example, a mediator may be in breach of those duties if s/he, in breach of any instructions received, withheld important information from a party to the mediation.

All of these seem to have occurred in the settlement that MG "the mediator" obtained for us, don't you think?  Couldn't we do something about it instead of signing it and paying?  Could anyone check with their friends that may have some legal knowledge?  We can also send a message to Judge Young letting her know this agreement was forced on all of us, there is nothing amicable here!


----------



## little frog

Petus@18 said:


> I couldn't sleep last night so I found it in the internet. This is what it said:
> *Can a Property Settlement Agreement Be Invalidated?*
> Yes. A court may declare any property settlement agreement to be invalid if the following are at issue:
> 
> 
> Mistake: If the agreement contains mistakes that would seriously affect the distribution of property, a court may order the couple to redraft the agreement. States may vary in terms of how they treat mistakes that are mutually understood by the parties versus mistakes known to only one party
> Fraud: The property settlement agreement must not be made under circumstances of fraud. Fraud in this context can include the use of deception or concealment to mislead the other party
> Coercion or Undue Influence: The agreement must be mutually agreed upon. One party cannot force the other to sign the document under threat of physical harm or financial pressure
> Unconscionable agreement: A settlement agreement is considered to be unconscionable if it is so unfair to one party as to require a re-drafting. Unconscionability is determined using many different factors, including the financial disposition of each individual.
> Also if you look under contracts in Canada, these are some results:
> 
> In just the same way as contracts require offer, acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations, agreements reached in mediation are no different. However, it is not always that simple in practice. Post mediation a party may, rather than becoming embroiled in arguments around setting aside any alleged agreement entered into, argue that no binding contract was ever reached between the parties. This may be on the basis that one or more of the constituent elements required for the formation of a contract are absent. Practically, to help avoid this issue arising, most standard mediation agreements provide that the parties will not be bound until the agreement is signed.
> 
> Illegality and mistake
> A settlement agreement entered into between the parties may be declared void due to illegality (for example a contract that unlawfully fixes prices) or be unenforceable as being contrary to public policy (for example it amounts to a contract in restraint of trade). Equally, depending on its nature and effect, where the parties have made a fundamental mistake about some fact, this can result in the settlement agreement entered into being declared void.
> 
> Duress.
> A contract which has been entered as the result of duress may be avoided by the party who was threatened. In each case, the wrongful or illegitimate threat must have had some causal effect on the decision to enter into the contract. It is important to remember that in commercial transactions, pressure and "hard bargaining" are commonplace and perfectly proper. Indeed many agreements are entered into under pressure (sometimes overwhelming). In these circumstances it will be important to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate forms of pressure.
> 
> Negligence
> A successful action in negligence against a mediator would require a party to establish that the mediator:
> •    owed a duty of care to the claimant
> •    breached the duty owed to the claimant
> •    in breach of his/her duty caused the claimant to suffer recoverable loss
> 
> Claims for breach of fiduciary duty
> •    In light of the relationship of trust between the parties and the mediator, there is a possibility that a party may bring a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the mediator. Fiduciary duties which may be owed by a mediator to the parties (and therefore may be breached) may include a duty not to be biased, to be trustworthy and to be diligent. For example, a mediator may be in breach of those duties if s/he, in breach of any instructions received, withheld important information from a party to the mediation.
> 
> All of these seem to have occurred in the settlement that MG "the mediator" obtained for us, don't you think?  Couldn't we do something about it instead of signing it and paying?  Could anyone check with their friends that may have some legal knowledge?  We can also send a message to Judge Young letting her know this agreement was forced on all of us, there is nothing amicable here!




Thank you, Petus, for sharing this great research!!! It seems to tick many of the boxes!! I wrote to JY 10 days ago and haven't been able to get any response yet but will write again and copy your research. Let's all do that!!


----------



## torqued

And might I add flies in the face of the Alberta consumer protection act (the issue we are being forced to settle).


----------



## torqued

Does this issue fall under a property settlement?


----------



## Tanny13

Undue influence can also occur when there is a _fiduciary relationship_ between the contracting parties. A fiduciary relationship exists when one party is in a position of trust in relation to the other, such as a family member, or someone with a certain professional relationship with the influenced party. Courts scrutinize contracts that involve fiduciary relationships much more closely than other contracts.


----------



## Tanny13

*Unconscionability*
If a party was wrongly induced to enter into the contract or if the terms are grossly unfair to one party, the contract may not be enforced by the court. This usually occurs when one party is in a much stronger bargaining position than the other party. Often, the stronger party will know that the weaker party is unable to reasonably protect his interests and the resulting contract may be unconscionable and a court may determine it to be invalid.


----------



## aden2

Petus@18 said:


> I couldn't sleep last night so I found it in the internet. This is what it said:
> *Can a Property Settlement Agreement Be Invalidated?*
> Yes. A court may declare any property settlement agreement to be invalid if the following are at issue:
> 
> 
> Mistake: If the agreement contains mistakes that would seriously affect the distribution of property, a court may order the couple to redraft the agreement. States may vary in terms of how they treat mistakes that are mutually understood by the parties versus mistakes known to only one party
> Fraud: The property settlement agreement must not be made under circumstances of fraud. Fraud in this context can include the use of deception or concealment to mislead the other party
> Coercion or Undue Influence: The agreement must be mutually agreed upon. One party cannot force the other to sign the document under threat of physical harm or financial pressure
> Unconscionable agreement: A settlement agreement is considered to be unconscionable if it is so unfair to one party as to require a re-drafting. Unconscionability is determined using many different factors, including the financial disposition of each individual.
> Also if you look under contracts in Canada, these are some results:
> 
> In just the same way as contracts require offer, acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations, agreements reached in mediation are no different. However, it is not always that simple in practice. Post mediation a party may, rather than becoming embroiled in arguments around setting aside any alleged agreement entered into, argue that no binding contract was ever reached between the parties. This may be on the basis that one or more of the constituent elements required for the formation of a contract are absent. Practically, to help avoid this issue arising, most standard mediation agreements provide that the parties will not be bound until the agreement is signed.
> 
> Illegality and mistake
> A settlement agreement entered into between the parties may be declared void due to illegality (for example a contract that unlawfully fixes prices) or be unenforceable as being contrary to public policy (for example it amounts to a contract in restraint of trade). Equally, depending on its nature and effect, where the parties have made a fundamental mistake about some fact, this can result in the settlement agreement entered into being declared void.
> 
> Duress.
> A contract which has been entered as the result of duress may be avoided by the party who was threatened. In each case, the wrongful or illegitimate threat must have had some causal effect on the decision to enter into the contract. It is important to remember that in commercial transactions, pressure and "hard bargaining" are commonplace and perfectly proper. Indeed many agreements are entered into under pressure (sometimes overwhelming). In these circumstances it will be important to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate forms of pressure.
> 
> Negligence
> A successful action in negligence against a mediator would require a party to establish that the mediator:
> •    owed a duty of care to the claimant
> •    breached the duty owed to the claimant
> •    in breach of his/her duty caused the claimant to suffer recoverable loss
> 
> Claims for breach of fiduciary duty
> •    In light of the relationship of trust between the parties and the mediator, there is a possibility that a party may bring a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the mediator. Fiduciary duties which may be owed by a mediator to the parties (and therefore may be breached) may include a duty not to be biased, to be trustworthy and to be diligent. For example, a mediator may be in breach of those duties if s/he, in breach of any instructions received, withheld important information from a party to the mediation.
> 
> All of these seem to have occurred in the settlement that MG "the mediator" obtained for us, don't you think?  Couldn't we do something about it instead of signing it and paying?  Could anyone check with their friends that may have some legal knowledge?  We can also send a message to Judge Young letting her know this agreement was forced on all of us, there is nothing amicable here!


*Also when Fairmont lessees went to Northmont each individual should of had the choice to accept under Northmont or not! This did not happen why?*


----------



## truthr

Another Casualty video up and running to share


----------



## aden2

Under contract law, a plaintiff can recover compensatory damages against a defendant when a court finds that the defendant has committed fraudulent misrepresentation. Courts will typically find that a defendant has committed fraudulent misrepresentation when six factors have been met:


a representation was made
the representation was false 
that when made, the defendant knew that the representation was false or that the defendant made the statement recklessly without knowledge of its truth
that the fraudulent misrepresentation was made with the intention that the plaintiff rely on it
that the plaintiff did rely on the fraudulent misrepresentation
that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the fraudulent misrepresentation


----------



## Spark1

I was going to mention one more thing. Did you


MarcieL said:


> Some of us are at our capacity financially.  We cannot afford anymore lawyer 's fees or another 10 thousand in interest.  We cannot afford the downside, as it is we have to get a loan for 40 grand in our 70's.  Wish we had exited long ago, this is outright fraud and extortion but can no longer afford the fight.


Are you released and who can you trust? Will they say the $40000.00 is just for your maintenance fees and interest and you could a bill two months later saying now let’s talk about your release from the resort. This happened at the Rancho Bandaras in Mexico with these White Collar Crooks And after What MG pulled off can you trust him? Be careful.


----------



## tuguser_14

MarcieL said:


> Some of us are at our capacity financially.  We cannot afford anymore lawyer 's fees or another 10 thousand in interest.  We cannot afford the downside, as it is we have to get a loan for 40 grand in our 70's.  Wish we had exited long ago, this is outright fraud and extortion but can no longer afford the fight.





Misled said:


> i do not think so ...your comments indicate that you are prepared to capitulate very unclear





FairSun said:


> Believe me, I know well who the wolves are. You should see my files. I was an early entry in this fight and have stayed in for the long haul - til now.  I wish you well.


Misled,
Like FairSun, we have been an early entry in this fight too, and I believe FairSun is fatigued beyond all reason! I read extreme frustration in your posts but I say, don't be too harsh to judge as you have not walked in FairSun's shoes (nor have any of us for that matter walked in each others shoes).
As you read MarcieL's post, there is the same feeling of frustration, anger, and fatigue at the prospects of pragmatically addressing a perceived solution that requires accessing sufficient funding to satisfy this so-called 'excellent settlement'. We too are seniors and are struggling with these options. I believe yourself, FairSun, MarcieL and many others on this bulletin board are good people. It has been extremely stressful for all of the good people on so many fronts. It's obviously financially stressful, stressful on relationships, stressful on one physically too when one cannot sleep or eat proper meals at normal times because of being on the keyboard at all hours of the day and night.
Rest assured that there are many who are investing time, effort, money and whatever other resources can be afforded for this cause.
It is NM and KW that are perpetrating tyranny and evil. It has been said that the only requirement for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Let's keep in mind who the real wolves are.


----------



## teedeej

aden2 said:


> *Also when Fairmont lessees went to Northmont each individual should of had the choice to accept under Northmont or not! This did not happen why?*



I have a friend who is a lawyer and I asked him about that. He said that the Lessee contracts are considered part of the Resorts assets and a new contract is not required. New contracts would be required if the timeshare contracts contained a bankruptcy clause.


----------



## Bewildered

truthr said:


> Another Casualty video up and running to share


Hello Truth Renaissance, the video is almost an exact replica to our situation, Northmont telling me no guarantee it would only be a one-time cash grab, getting involved with MG through the other firm, to the amount of 24G. The only differences, I very  early on put in a fraud complaint and received a file number, no success, calls to the RCMP including Invermere who couldn’t believe what was happening and verified the place is looking rough. Service Alberta early on also, only to be told they passed on a file to the RCMP due to concerns. Also all the others, MPS, MLAs, Justice Minister,, BC, etc. NOTHING. 
Never in a million years did I think someone could pull off a heist like this and have the backing of the court and justice system and elected officials. My opinion they didn’t want Fairmont and the whole region to fail. They’re in for a surprise when it happens anyways and they have walked away with the cash. Last call for me, BC Law society because I don’t trust for those getting out, that the release is 100% foolproof and MG should have to answer to someone.


----------



## FairSun

tuguser_14 said:


> Misled,
> Like FairSun, we have been an early entry in this fight too, and I believe FairSun is fatigued beyond all reason! I read extreme frustration in your posts but I say, don't be too harsh to judge as you have not walked in FairSun's shoes (nor have any of us for that matter walked in each others shoes).
> As you read MarcieL's post, there is the same feeling of frustration, anger, and fatigue at the prospects of pragmatically addressing a perceived solution that requires accessing sufficient funding to satisfy this so-called 'excellent settlement'. We too are seniors and are struggling with these options. I believe yourself, FairSun, MarcieL and many others on this bulletin board are good people. It has been extremely stressful for all of the good people on so many fronts. It's obviously financially stressful, stressful on relationships, stressful on one physically too when one cannot sleep or eat proper meals at normal times because of being on the keyboard at all hours of the day and night.
> Rest assured that there are many who are investing time, effort, money and whatever other resources can be afforded for this cause.
> It is NM and KW that are perpetrating tyranny and evil. It has been said that the only requirement for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Let's keep in mind who the real wolves are.


Thank you, Tuguser_14! I had decided to let the rude comments go, knowing the myriad strained emotions the poster must be feeling. We are all riding the ups and downs of this looooong, not-fun roller coaster but may hit the highs and lows at different times and speeds and react in different ways.


----------



## So sick of this mess

I have a few thoughts: 1) is there anyway of finding out if any of the Judges own at Northmont/Sunchaser? I would think if they do, that they should not have heard the case and it should be dismissed for prejudice.  2) I was reading the Alberta ruling and the judge referred to the question of "expired claims" .  See the following: 87]           Given the foregoing, the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against each Defendant in the SLG Actions for the amount set out in each Amended Civil Claim (the “Judgments”), except as to interest and costs, for which I am prepared to hear argument from the parties if they cannot agree, and also subject to one issue which has been raised by the Defendants.  That issue is one of “expired Claims.”  The Defendants argue that some of the Plaintiff’s Civil Claims have expired in the SLG Actions because they were not served within one year from the date of issuance of the Civil Claim.[28]  There was no argument on this issue during the application proceedings before the Court.  Consequently, this issue must be specifically addressed before me, unless the parties come to agreement on it, and that is to occur when the parties come before me to argue the interest and costs to be payable to the Plaintiff with respect to the Judgments.
I know a claim was filed against us in 2014, but I don't remember ever being "served". Doesn't that mean they have to hand deliver it to me?  If I wasn't served, isn't the claim expired?


----------



## MarcieL

That would also apply to us. MG told us when it came to settling people not served and expired 
Claims would be treated differently.  Before we received this wonderful settlement I inquired about this.  His reply was this was considered in our settlement, yeah right.


----------



## FairSun

MarcieL said:


> That would also apply to us. MG told us when it came to settling people not served and expired
> Claims would be treated differently.  Before we received this wonderful settlement I inquired about this.  His reply was this was considered in our settlement, yeah right.


I believe we received our Statement of Claim by mail in 2014 from Mr Sauvageau. It's in my files & I recall seeing the date stamp on it from the Court. I don't think we received a hard copy of the Amended Statement of Claim (presumably amended to reflect more maintenance fees & interest) from him or NM, but of course by then we had instructed NM to only contact us through our lawyer.


----------



## Spark1

teedeej said:


> I have a friend who is a lawyer and I asked him about that. He said that the Lessee contracts are considered part of the Resorts assets and a new contract is not required. New contracts would be required if the timeshare contracts contained a bankruptcy clause.


That may be true but they have to respect the contract that you work by and do not abuse the meaning of your contract eg doing unilateral ammendments to our contracts and saying they mirror each other.They have to work with the timeshare owners just like we have to work with them but Northwynd thinks they can do what ever they want.


----------



## Spark1

Petus@18 said:


> I read that property settlement agreements can be invalidated due to: Mistakes,  Fraud, Coercion or Undue Influence?  I think this one meets all of the above
> 
> Shouldn't we check into this?


Yes.


----------



## CleoB

Spark1 said:


> That may be true but they have to respect the contract that you work by and do not abuse the meaning of your contract eg doing unilateral ammendments to our contracts and saying they mirror each other.They have to work with the timeshare owners just like we have to work with them but Northwynd thinks they can do what ever they want.


You can thank MG for saying they "mirror" each other.


----------



## Shake Down

Dig Deeper- I really wish the news would pick up the HUGE back story behind Northwynd’s Mafia like contracts, the fact they purchase resorts broadcast to investors a restructuring /realignment plan resulting in a temporary closer, during this time changing client contracts. They never really do much for resort improvements it’s just a front- A look good move from the outside. Meantime the _“Boiler Room”_ is cooking, collecting millions on peoples high hopes, then simply walk away with the loot! They found a huge loop hole look at their former resorts what was really going on behind closed doors? Mexico-Rancho Banderas, Hawaii-Makaha Resort Fairmont-Sunchaser to mention a few. This is their business it’s been going for a long time and has impacted many more people then just Fairmont holders- I recall this plot in a movie called _“The Untouchables” _rings a bell here.


----------



## truthr




----------



## LilMaggie

Shake Down said:


> Dig Deeper- I really wish the news would pick up the HUGE back story behind Northwynd’s Mafia like contracts, the fact they purchase resorts broadcast to investors a restructuring /realignment plan resulting in a temporary closer, during this time changing client contracts. They never really do much for resort improvements it’s just a front- A look good move from the outside. Meantime the _“Boiler Room”_ is cooking, collecting millions on peoples high hopes, then simply walk away with the loot! They found a huge loop hole look at their former resorts what was really going on behind closed doors? Mexico-Rancho Banderas, Hawaii-Makaha Resort Fairmont-Sunchaser to mention a few. This is their business it’s been going for a long time and has impacted many more people then just Fairmont holders- I recall this plot in a movie called _“The Untouchables” _rings a bell here.


Just in case you have a chance to do some light reading.  It is funny that the owners of Rancho Banderas now are also of the Rizzuto family...different distant branch, however, there were some hinky dealings going on with fraud and government contracts.
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/how-canada-enabled-the-rise-of-mafia-boss-vito-rizzuto/


----------



## fairmontlovers

I would like to know how many of you are in the same situation that I am in. I signed Option 1 and received the email in late December from MG advising us that a settlement had been reached and a decision would be required whether to accept the agreement for go on our own. I wanted to see the agreement so I did not respond by the deadline that MG indicated. In early January I received my email and read it over and was shocked by not only the dollar amount but also the detailed statement from Northwynd indicating the high interest rate on not only the original renovation project but also the past maintenance fees. Also the threat that if we do not pay this amount (35K) for me, that another 162% would be added on.
We all know this is a scam by Northywnd to try to suck as much money out of us as possible.
The judge in Alberta asked for the two parties to come up with a settlement with interest and costs considered.
I am sure we all feel our lawyer let us down.

So I/we are faced with some hard decisions.

1. Pay this amount. For me, it will mean cashing in close to 50K of RRSP's to obtain an equivalent of after tax dollars and rid myself of this whole experience. If so, and somehow the judge in Alberta does not agree with the costs or interests rate charged can this amount be reduced? Does Judge Young have the power to do this? Or does she merely rubber stamp the fact that the two sides signed off on an agreement? If so, does she then allow judgement for Northwynd against those that did not pay?

2. Not make the payment and face the supposedly 162% judgement against us? How can Northwynd justify charging us for 2018 Maintenance fees when I asked MG if an option would be to pay the Maintenance fees and Renovation project and continue to use the timeshare. His answer was that Northwynd would not allow us back in.

3. If I do not pay, it sounds like MG is wiping his hands clean from us, do we then need to get a lawyer to represent us? Are we obligated to court costs as a result of having MG represent us?

I am struggling with my decision, I would love to get in front of a judge and argue my points,the Maintenance fees on something we could not use, the outlandish interest rates charged and the fact that although the courts have ruled against us in regards to the renovation project, how can Northwynd justify charging for the renovation project plus outlandish compounded interest rates on work not done?

I am sure many of you are in the same situation and would like those to offer an insight to help assist me/us in making our decision.


----------



## Hotpink

*GREAT NEWS

Look what we just got.
*
"Effective Jan. 1, 2018, CPP payments will increase by 1.5 per cent for those already receiving benefits. For 2018, the maximum CPP retirement benefit for new recipients age 65 will be $1,134.17 per month, which represents a $20 increase from the beginning of 2017.

OAS benefits, which consist of the basic OAS pension, the guaranteed income supplement and allowances, will rise by 0.2 per cent for the first quarter of 2018 in comparison to the end of last year. As of Jan. 1, 2018, the basic OAS pension will be $586.66 per month, which represents an increase of $8.13 over the  at normal bank rates  first quarter of last year.

Maybe we should reconsider our decision of paying the negotiated settlement because we can now afford to take out a loan at prime plus 1% (3.2 & 1 ) and still feed ourselves. Haven't figured out the heat part just yet.

The Judge in the Merchant of Venice would probably say the Negotiated settlement is tata mount to Elder Abuse and extortion. That card will be played


----------



## truthr

fairmontlovers said:


> I would like to know how many of you are in the same situation that I am in. I signed Option 1 and received the email in late December from MG advising us that a settlement had been reached and a decision would be required whether to accept the agreement for go on our own. I wanted to see the agreement so I did not respond by the deadline that MG indicated. In early January I received my email and read it over and was shocked by not only the dollar amount but also the detailed statement from Northwynd indicating the high interest rate on not only the original renovation project but also the past maintenance fees. Also the threat that if we do not pay this amount (35K) for me, that another 162% would be added on.
> We all know this is a scam by Northywnd to try to suck as much money out of us as possible.
> The judge in Alberta asked for the two parties to come up with a settlement with interest and costs considered.
> I am sure we all feel our lawyer let us down.
> 
> So I/we are faced with some hard decisions.
> 
> 1. Pay this amount. For me, it will mean cashing in close to 50K of RRSP's to obtain an equivalent of after tax dollars and rid myself of this whole experience. If so, and somehow the judge in Alberta does not agree with the costs or interests rate charged can this amount be reduced? Does Judge Young have the power to do this? Or does she merely rubber stamp the fact that the two sides signed off on an agreement? If so, does she then allow judgement for Northwynd against those that did not pay?
> 
> 2. Not make the payment and face the supposedly 162% judgement against us? How can Northwynd justify charging us for 2018 Maintenance fees when I asked MG if an option would be to pay the Maintenance fees and Renovation project and continue to use the timeshare. His answer was that Northwynd would not allow us back in.
> 
> 3. If I do not pay, it sounds like MG is wiping his hands clean from us, do we then need to get a lawyer to represent us? Are we obligated to court costs as a result of having MG represent us?
> 
> I am struggling with my decision, I would love to get in front of a judge and argue my points,the Maintenance fees on something we could not use, the outlandish interest rates charged and the fact that although the courts have ruled against us in regards to the renovation project, how can Northwynd justify charging for the renovation project plus outlandish compounded interest rates on work not done?
> 
> I am sure many of you are in the same situation and would like those to offer an insight to help assist me/us in making our decision.


One point - the judge did not instruct them to come up with a "settlement", she instructed them to come to an agreement about interest and costs related to the "Statement of Claims" so she can rendered her judgment regarding only that.  To my knowledge she has no involvement in the "Settlement".  Those who pay the Statement of Claim Judgments will be remaining with the resort. 
It is my understanding that the "Settlement" agreement is to release you from the resort.

It sounds like MG has wiped his hands clean of all his clients and is now only in the business of collecting.  With so many unanswered questions from so many people where the hell is he????

I know for the rest of us who did not succumb to his demands back in November he has literally abandoned us, although he did send some documents (no court seal/stamp) and a letter from Barry King wherein BK has offered to pick up the slack at a cost of course.


----------



## LilMaggie

I certainly don't want sound like a conspiracy theorist or cast dispursions on anyone, but it starts to become more clear why nobody wants to get involved to help us, fine citizens of Canada and the US.  How in good conscience, could anyone see our settlements as being fair or appropriate?  What's the rush to make us pay? If Northwynd was planning to stick around, why wouldn't they offer a payment plan like they did for the folks who chose to stay back in the day?


----------



## LilMaggie

Hotpink said:


> *GREAT NEWS
> 
> Look what we just got.
> *
> "Effective Jan. 1, 2018, CPP payments will increase by 1.5 per cent for those already receiving benefits. For 2018, the maximum CPP retirement benefit for new recipients age 65 will be $1,134.17 per month, which represents a $20 increase from the beginning of 2017.
> 
> OAS benefits, which consist of the basic OAS pension, the guaranteed income supplement and allowances, will rise by 0.2 per cent for the first quarter of 2018 in comparison to the end of last year. As of Jan. 1, 2018, the basic OAS pension will be $586.66 per month, which represents an increase of $8.13 over the  at normal bank rates  first quarter of last year.
> 
> Maybe we should reconsider our decision of paying the negotiated settlement because we can now afford to take out a loan at prime plus 1% (3.2 & 1 ) and still feed ourselves. Haven't figured out the heat part just yet.
> 
> The Judge in the Merchant of Venice would probably say the Negotiated settlement is tata mount to Elder Abuse and extortion. That card will be played


Wow Hotpink!!! A 0.2% increase?  Try not to spend it all in one place .


----------



## Hopeful_One

Hi. I am new here. Before joining this forum I read a copy of a letter someone posted earlier on this forum. I would like to send a similar letter to Alberta Law Society and my MLA. Unfortunately I cannot see the letter anymore. Can someone please point me to the link ?


----------



## Anxiety123

Marciel,  we left the fight back when NM offered a settlement in 2016, after being involved from the very first payment to MG which included dealings with Jim Belfry (who is nowhere to be found as he doesn’t have to pay anything to NM with his purchase of timeshare being protected by his now closed company - smart guy) because I spent my days worrying, not sleeping and in tears and my kids finally said “get out now for your health sake!”  As you can remember settlement then  was more than 3 times what was originally offered to get out.  I can’t understand how they can come up with charging folks $30-40 Grand now.  Outrageous !!!   I too have harsh feeling and words for both NM and MG as at that time I was trying to decide what to do, MG was outright mad, rude and  annoyed at me for not staying and even after paying MG the next installment  payment he said needed to be paid for all of us to carry on in the fight,  he would not help me with my dealings with NM.  I had to go to another lawyer to look over the paperwork to be sure that once I paid NM it completely released me from any more issues with them.  MG was way over his head on this one and I can't understand why he didn't see it and just admit it way back before this got so out-of-hand.  (Maybe the money was too good?)  My heart hurts for you and can't believe how many seniors and young families this settlement will affect.  I am not sure how this is called a settlement, doesn't seem that there was any negotiation being  done.  From what it sounds like, NM is getting reno fee, maintenance payments that were not paid, interest and a lot of money for their court costs.  Man what a deal MG came up with!!  I didn't get any deal either at the time I paid out, Michael couldn't and didn't do anything for me then and he didn't do anything now to help bring costs down for those that stayed in the fight, .......BUT HE WAS PAID WELL.(


----------



## Petus@18

Retrieved from the FB group

You may contact Higgerty Law if you have been served with claims by the lawyers for Northmont/Northwynd or if you have previously paid out a claim. You may also contact us if you have not opted into the settlement with Mr. Geldert's Group.
www.higgertylaw.ca

We should contact them to see how can we go forward


----------



## LilMaggie

Hopeful_One said:


> Hi. I am new here. Before joining this forum I read a copy of a letter someone posted earlier on this forum. I would like to send a similar letter to Alberta Law Society and my MLA. Unfortunately I cannot see the letter anymore. Can someone please point me to the link ?


Welcome.  Many of the members of our group have posted excellent letters.  This may be the one you are talking about as I think it the most recent. Look at post #3698 by MgolferL


----------



## Petus@18

Anxiety123 said:


> Marciel,  we left the fight back when NM offered a settlement in 2016, after being involved from the very first payment to MG which included dealings with Jim Belfry (who is nowhere to be found as he doesn’t have to pay anything to NM with his purchase of timeshare being protected by his now closed company - smart guy) because I spent my days worrying, not sleeping and in tears and my kids finally said “get out now for your health sake!”  As you can remember settlement then  was more than 3 times what was originally offered to get out.  I can’t understand how they can come up with charging folks $30-40 Grand now.  Outrageous !!!   I too have harsh feeling and words for both NM and MG as at that time I was trying to decide what to do, MG was outright mad, rude and  annoyed at me for not staying and even after paying MG the next installment  payment he said needed to be paid for all of us to carry on in the fight,  he would not help me with my dealings with NM.  I had to go to another lawyer to look over the paperwork to be sure that once I paid NM it completely released me from any more issues with them.  MG was way over his head on this one and I can't understand why he didn't see it and just admit it way back before this got so out-of-hand.  (Maybe the money was too good?)  My heart hurts for you and can't believe how many seniors and young families this settlement will affect.  I am not sure how this is called a settlement, doesn't seem that there was any negotiation being  done.  From what it sounds like, NM is getting reno fee, maintenance payments that were not paid, interest and a lot of money for their court costs.  Man what a deal MG came up with!!  I didn't get any deal either at the time I paid out, Michael couldn't and didn't do anything for me then and he didn't do anything now to help bring costs down for those that stayed in the fight, .......BUT HE WAS PAID WELL.(



You can still report MG's unethical behavior and malpractice to the Law Society of BC.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

fairmontlovers said:


> I would like to know how many of you are in the same situation that I am in. I signed Option 1 and received the email in late December from MG advising us that a settlement had been reached and a decision would be required whether to accept the agreement for go on our own. I wanted to see the agreement so I did not respond by the deadline that MG indicated. In early January I received my email and read it over and was shocked by not only the dollar amount but also the detailed statement from Northwynd indicating the high interest rate on not only the original renovation project but also the past maintenance fees. Also the threat that if we do not pay this amount (35K) for me, that another 162% would be added on.
> We all know this is a scam by Northywnd to try to suck as much money out of us as possible.
> The judge in Alberta asked for the two parties to come up with a settlement with interest and costs considered.
> I am sure we all feel our lawyer let us down.
> 
> So I/we are faced with some hard decisions.
> 
> 1. Pay this amount. For me, it will mean cashing in close to 50K of RRSP's to obtain an equivalent of after tax dollars and rid myself of this whole experience. If so, and somehow the judge in Alberta does not agree with the costs or interests rate charged can this amount be reduced? Does Judge Young have the power to do this? Or does she merely rubber stamp the fact that the two sides signed off on an agreement? If so, does she then allow judgement for Northwynd against those that did not pay?
> 
> 2. Not make the payment and face the supposedly 162% judgement against us? How can Northwynd justify charging us for 2018 Maintenance fees when I asked MG if an option would be to pay the Maintenance fees and Renovation project and continue to use the timeshare. His answer was that Northwynd would not allow us back in.
> 
> 3. If I do not pay, it sounds like MG is wiping his hands clean from us, do we then need to get a lawyer to represent us? Are we obligated to court costs as a result of having MG represent us?
> 
> I am struggling with my decision, I would love to get in front of a judge and argue my points,the Maintenance fees on something we could not use, the outlandish interest rates charged and the fact that although the courts have ruled against us in regards to the renovation project, how can Northwynd justify charging for the renovation project plus outlandish compounded interest rates on work not done?
> 
> I am sure many of you are in the same situation and would like those to offer an insight to help assist me/us in making our decision.





truthr said:


> One point - the judge did not instruct them to come up with a "settlement", she instructed them to come to an agreement about interest and costs related to the "Statement of Claims" so she can rendered her judgment regarding only that.  To my knowledge she has no involvement in the "Settlement".  Those who pay the Statement of Claim Judgments will be remaining with the resort.
> It is my understanding that the "Settlement" agreement is to release you from the resort.
> 
> It sounds like MG has wiped his hands clean of all his clients and is now only in the business of collecting.  With so many unanswered questions from so many people where the hell is he????
> 
> I know for the rest of us who did not succumb to his demands back in November he has literally abandoned us, although he did send some documents (no court seal/stamp) and a letter from Barry King wherein BK has offered to pick up the slack at a cost of course.



Okay I took the weekend off and read nothing timeshare as I needed a timeout and now playing catch up but the week has not started as positively as I had hoped.

1.  Called the Judges Chambers at lunch time (the one we have been calling to reach the judges and sending faxes too) - I was told to stop calling and no one wants to talk to people who have a MG or NM issue especially JY who is aware there may be an issue but is not going to do anything about it.

*So I take this as kind of passive aggressive acknowledgement that they are hearing us but not quite ready to listening yet - guess I will just have to try again*

2.  For option 2 people, anyone who had the satisfaction of firing MG, or people who think the grass is greener for the Option 2 people from the Option 1 group I think MG has not informed us that there potentially could be no appeal.

In a past update from MG when things were getting started for the AB trial the VIA contract # for the Reid's who Michael convinced to represent the group in the Alberta trial is stated in one of the schedules - this save VIA # also appears on the list of Option 1 people who are bond to MG Settlement Agreement so that would indicate to me they are caught up in the Option 1 mess like most of us.

*So this probably means there can be no appeal based on the existing Alberta Trial and not sure if this will also limit the topic of costs and interests for this group.  If there is someone who can help find out that would be great - I will see what I can come up with as well.*

Has anyone heard from MG that an appeal is not possible given these circumstances?  The info we are getting is very limited and not very consistent from his office and I wonder if it might be worth somehow documenting our individual interactions somehow so we all have it collectively - any ideas?

*Now all that is left for me is to figure out is what can I do that will help us all today?*


----------



## Appauled

Petus@18 said:


> Retrieved from the FB group
> 
> You may contact Higgerty Law if you have been served with claims by the lawyers for Northmont/Northwynd or if you have previously paid out a claim. You may also contact us if you have not opted into the settlement with Mr. Geldert's Group.
> www.higgertylaw.ca
> 
> We should contact them to see how can we go forward



You can call Jimmy with Higgerty Law directly and he will be able to advise you if they can help you, at 403-512-3890 or Email jimmy@higgertylaw.ca


----------



## Tanny13

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Okay I took the weekend off and read nothing timeshare as I was feeling like I was going to explode last week and now playing catch up but I just figured out more bad news for us all (should have taken today off too)
> 
> 1.  Called the Judges Chambers at lunch time (the one we have been calling to reach the judges and sending faxes too) - I was told to stop calling and no one wants to talk to people who have a MG or NM issue especially JY who is aware there may be an issue but is not going to do anything about it.
> 
> 2.  For option 2 people, anyone who had the satisfaction of firing MG, or people who think the grass is greener for the Option 2 people from the Option 1 group I think MG has screwed that group too as there can be no appeal!!!
> 
> In a past update from MG when things were getting started for the AB trial the VIA contract # for James and Diane Reid is stated in one of the schedules - this # also appears on the list of Option 1 people who are bond to MG Settlement Agreement which means they are out (don't blame them - I cannot afford to stay or go either).
> 
> I never wanted a law degree but maybe we can all earn together collectively - doesn't that mean the appeal and anything case related to the Reid's trial is *DEAD?*
> 
> Has anyone heard from MG this is the case?
> 
> The Option 1 list was formed a month ago and no disclosure of this????????????????????  WTF
> 
> Can anyone else back up my logic - if a settlement is reached an appeal and all the submissions around the appeal are *DEAD? *
> 
> I feel so beat - can someone just shot me now?
> 
> I am turning my computer off again




I don't believe you are correct that we cannot appeal.  I am told we can even appeal the ruling on costs and interest, once the ruling is made.  Hang tough - I am waiting on calls from 2 lawyers...not ready to roll over yet.


----------



## Hopeful_One

LilMaggie said:


> Welcome.  Many of the members of our group have posted excellent letters.  This one may be the one you are talking about as I think it the most recent. Look at post #3698 by MgolferL


Thanks. That's what I was looking for.


----------



## Hopeful_One

This is how CEO Kirk Wankel introduces his profile on linkedin: Colleague: "You are not just outside the box. You do not live in the same neighborhood as the box."
"Creativity, vision and leadership can solve any problem. I solve the impossible and live for the puzzle. If you cannot succeed under the assumptions, change the assumptions.
Specialties: The Impossible, Reorganizations and Realignment, Strategic Planning, Technology, Growth, Mergers and Acquisitions, Corporate Governance, Manufacturing, Real Estate, Property Management. "

I think he has used all the witchy techniques he learned from WOW Craft to play us pretty good, may be even putting spells on people (kidding). We are dealing with a man who has no milk of human kindness. Those WOW Craft games have a way of possessing some players. So just be aware the forces of darkness you are dealing with in this case. NW Sunchaser management is a money hungry group that has no empathy for hurting human beings. No wonder they chose the Witch name Sun-Chaser for their reborn business.


----------



## Huckleberry

I'm surprised that people here aren't trying to organize for the town hall in Edmonton this Thursday.  The prime minister, media and a lot of people will be there and it seems the perfect opportunity to really bring attention to this.  Unless I am missing something?


----------



## Huckleberry

Ok people.  Crunch time.  

We can all implode and run around whining about this and that.  Yes, this situation sucks.  Yes, KW is a bad guy.  Yes, MG messed up.  Yes, the courts turned a blind eye.  STOP complaining about it.

Focus and use our diversity of talent and numbers to make it count.  Look at Truth's blog and the information there putting together the pieces, and describing the impact to people.  Look at the list of contacts of people in the media and MLA's who can do something if they are armed with the right information and have enough people poking them.

If you stop on your first "no, I can't help" you'll never get to your "Yes, I will help".

Everyone here knows someone who is in a position to help.  If you don't, I guarantee you know someone who knows someone.  Has there ever been a better time to start calling those chips in?

But make sure you come in with the right information about what is going on.  Just ranting is NOT going to help.

And for heaven's sake - get yourself out to the town hall on Thursday and be prepared to speak on a few key points and get their curiosity peaked to anyone who will listen.


----------



## Stung

Huckleberry said:


> Ok people.  Crunch time.
> 
> We can all implode and run around whining about this and that.  Yes, this situation sucks.  Yes, KW is a bad guy.  Yes, MG messed up.  Yes, the courts turned a blind eye.  STOP complaining about it.
> 
> Focus and use our diversity of talent and numbers to make it count.  Look at Truth's blog and the information there putting together the pieces, and describing the impact to people.  Look at the list of contacts of people in the media and MLA's who can do something if they are armed with the right information and have enough people poking them.
> 
> If you stop on your first "no, I can't help" you'll never get to your "Yes, I will help".
> 
> Everyone here knows someone who is in a position to help.  If you don't, I guarantee you know someone who knows someone.  Has there ever been a better time to start calling those chips in?
> 
> But make sure you come in with the right information about what is going on.  Just ranting is NOT going to help.
> 
> And for heaven's sake - get yourself out to the town hall on Thursday and be prepared to speak on a few key points and get their curiosity peaked to anyone who will listen.


----------



## Hopeful_One

torqued said:


> Who on earth are you and what on earth are you talking about??!!if you are serious go away back into your dark world with your voodoo priest. We need no more evil or darkness from you. As for Wankel I pray he turns from his unjust ways. I wish him no harm. Just know you will someday be judged by the FATHER as will I.  I pray the Holy Spirit gives this group strength and courage. My Jesus is greater than any debt any court judgement any problem I’ll ever encounter including this one. Whatever happens I will praise GOD!  I bind any and all darkness and evil associated with this situation and declare and decree justice be served by the power glory and blood of JESUS!!!!
> After reading the last post I felt this needed to be done. Besides it’s all I have left. Peace be with you all!


Amen. God is greater than any Satanic or demonic forces that are involved in this case. Let God bind any demonic forces that are involved this case. Satan came to steal kill and destroy and that is what He (Satan) is trying to do using the lawyers (whether they know it or not) and the Sunchaser management. Let God destroy every evil altar that any one has erected during any midnight meetings or otherwise to make this evil case go forward to destroy the lives of so many people. Let God work on the spirits of KW, MG and others to cause them do what is right and just !


----------



## Hopeful_One

,


----------



## Hopeful_One

I agree. Thanks. I am out of town and hopefully I will be back in time join the rest in the City Hall (Town Hall ?)- Edmonton.


----------



## Petus@18

Huckleberry said:


> I'm surprised that people here aren't trying to organize for the town hall in Edmonton this Thursday.  The prime minister, media and a lot of people will be there and it seems the perfect opportunity to really bring attention to this.  Unless I am missing something?



Could you please provide more information? 
Thanks


----------



## CleoB

Anxiety123 said:


> Marciel,  we left the fight back when NM offered a settlement in 2016, after being involved from the very first payment to MG which included dealings with Jim Belfry (who is nowhere to be found as he doesn’t have to pay anything to NM with his purchase of timeshare being protected by his now closed company - smart guy) because I spent my days worrying, not sleeping and in tears and my kids finally said “get out now for your health sake!”  As you can remember settlement then  was more than 3 times what was originally offered to get out.  I can’t understand how they can come up with charging folks $30-40 Grand now.  Outrageous !!!   I too have harsh feeling and words for both NM and MG as at that time I was trying to decide what to do, MG was outright mad, rude and  annoyed at me for not staying and even after paying MG the next installment  payment he said needed to be paid for all of us to carry on in the fight,  he would not help me with my dealings with NM.  I had to go to another lawyer to look over the paperwork to be sure that once I paid NM it completely released me from any more issues with them.  MG was way over his head on this one and I can't understand why he didn't see it and just admit it way back before this got so out-of-hand.  (Maybe the money was too good?)  My heart hurts for you and can't believe how many seniors and young families this settlement will affect.  I am not sure how this is called a settlement, doesn't seem that there was any negotiation being  done.  From what it sounds like, NM is getting reno fee, maintenance payments that were not paid, interest and a lot of money for their court costs.  Man what a deal MG came up with!!  I didn't get any deal either at the time I paid out, Michael couldn't and didn't do anything for me then and he didn't do anything now to help bring costs down for those that stayed in the fight, .......BUT HE WAS PAID WELL.(


I don't ever remember received a settlement offer from NM through Geldert in 2016.....just the first one in March 2017.  Did you get an offer directly from NM?


----------



## Petus@18

*Ratings & Reviews - Geldert Law*
*@yellowpages.ca*

This business has requested that no ratings & reviews or any third party content be displayed.

I wonder why MG doesn't want any reviews displayed??  ..“L”...


----------



## Bewildered

Please, more information on the town Hall (City Hall?) meeting in Edmonton for people? Agree with Huckelberry, bows the time for everyone to give it another strong push. JY’s Office doesn’t like the calls, isn’t that terrible after a 50 million dollar decision against 1300 innocent victims!


----------



## Hopeful_One

Petition to
*Demand the R.C.M.P. and the Canadian Government fully investigate the activities of the timeshare located in Fairmont, B.C., (formerly Fairmont Resort Properties, now known as Northmont). https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/544/391/659/?taf_id=49556986&cid=fb_na#bbfb=908435885*


----------



## LilMaggie

Bewildered said:


> Please, more information on the town Hall (City Hall?) meeting in Edmonton for people? Agree with Huckelberry, bows the time for everyone to give it another strong push. JY’s Office doesn’t like the calls, isn’t that terrible after a 50 million dollar decision against 1300 innocent victims!


The last info I read was that there was no location announced for the town hall yet.  It is on Feb 1.  Will keep checking for updates.


----------



## LilMaggie

Petus@18 said:


> *Ratings & Reviews - Geldert Law*
> *@yellowpages.ca*
> 
> This business has requested that no ratings & reviews or any third party content be displayed.
> 
> I wonder why MG doesn't want any reviews displayed??  ..“L”...


Please feel free to leave your reviews on Yelp!


----------



## lost and confused

LilMaggie said:


> The last info I read was that there was no location announced for the town hall yet.  It is on Feb 1.  Will keep checking for updates.


https://www.macewan.ca/wcm/MacEwanNews/STORY_PM_TOWNHALL


----------



## Newbie2

Hopeful_One said:


> This is how CEO Kirk Wankel introduces his profile on linkedin: Colleague: "You are not just outside the box. You do not live in the same neighborhood as the box."
> "Creativity, vision and leadership can solve any problem. I solve the impossible and live for the puzzle. If you cannot succeed under the assumptions, change the assumptions.
> Specialties: The Impossible, Reorganizations and Realignment, Strategic Planning, Technology, Growth, Mergers and Acquisitions, Corporate Governance, Manufacturing, Real Estate, Property Management. "
> 
> I think he has used all the witchy techniques he learned from WOW Craft to play us pretty good, may be even putting spells on people (kidding). We are dealing with a man who has no milk of human kindness. Those WOW Craft games have a way of possessing some players. So just be aware the forces of darkness you are dealing with in this case. NW Sunchaser management is a money hungry group that has no empathy for hurting human beings. No wonder they chose the Witch name Sun-Chaser for their reborn business.




It is interesting that TSWOW hasn't posted on here lately.  Wonder where he is


----------



## #deceived

Newbie2 said:


> It is interesting that TSWOW hasn't posted on here lately.  Wonder where he is



The Bahamas probably.


----------



## Newbie2

#deceived said:


> The Bahamas probably.


In the counting house counting all his money


----------



## Petus@18

LilMaggie said:


> Please feel free to leave your reviews on Yelp!



*LawyerRatingz.com*
*You can provide reviews on this site too.  Lets check to see if there are anymore and keep posting.*


----------



## Stung

Indeed, it is crunchtime!

 If you haven't already, please show your support by doing something!  It may just be YOUR story or comment that draws enough attention to this injustice and to have this unbelievable situation investigated.  If there are other options not listed, please post, or re-post to ensure our collective voices get the word out there.

1) Supporting Dorothy Zazelenchuck's petition at https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/544/391/659/

2) Write a little (or a lot) about this scheme and how it is impacting you to CBC News MarketPlace at marketplace@cbc.ca

3) Write a little (or a lot) about this scheme and how it is impacting you to gopublic@cbc.ca

4) View / forward on the 'Northmont Sunchaser Scandal - The Untold Story at http://truths2cents.blogspot.ca/

5) Submit a report to the Government of Canada  - Canada Anti-Fraud Center website http://www.antifraudcentre-centreantifraude.ca/victim-victime/index-eng.htm

6) Submit a report to The Law Society of British Columbia. https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/compla...-hearings/complaints/how-to-file-a-complaint/


Keep coming back to this tugbbs forum to stay informed...

They want us to be quiet and just pay which is just not right!


----------



## dotbuhler

Huckleberry said:


> Ok people.  Crunch time.
> 
> We can all implode and run around whining about this and that.  Yes, this situation sucks.  Yes, KW is a bad guy.  Yes, MG messed up.  Yes, the courts turned a blind eye.  STOP complaining about it.
> 
> Focus and use our diversity of talent and numbers to make it count.  Look at Truth's blog and the information there putting together the pieces, and describing the impact to people.  Look at the list of contacts of people in the media and MLA's who can do something if they are armed with the right information and have enough people poking them.
> 
> If you stop on your first "no, I can't help" you'll never get to your "Yes, I will help".
> 
> Everyone here knows someone who is in a position to help.  If you don't, I guarantee you know someone who knows someone.  Has there ever been a better time to start calling those chips in?
> 
> But make sure you come in with the right information about what is going on.  Just ranting is NOT going to help.
> 
> And for heaven's sake - get yourself out to the town hall on Thursday and be prepared to speak on a few key points and get their curiosity peaked to anyone who will listen.


AND PLEASE sign the petition at thepetitionsite.com under Dorothy Zazelenchuk. If you have already signed urge as many of your friends, family and in any social media networks to do so, as well. THANK YOU!


----------



## Huckleberry

Yes, I signed the petition as well.  It should be well over a thousand by now as I'm sure many of us have shared our story with family and friends.  Have they all signed as well?  If you haven't asked them, please do.  

Please register for the town hall:

http://asohi.liberal.ca/events/ 
http://rboissonnault.liberal.ca/events/

https://www.macewan.ca/wcm/MacEwanNews/STORY_PM_TOWNHALL
MacEwan University’s David Atkinson Gymnasium will serve as the host venue for the event.

Here’s what you need to know to attend the event.


Check-in for the event begins at 5 p.m. on the second floor of the Robbins Health Learning Centre
Large coats, jackets and bags will not be permitted at the event, and a mandatory coat check will be in place
Check-in process


Arrive at the check-in area on the second floor of the Robbins Health Learning Centre (10910 104 Ave) to check your belongings and receive your entry wristband
Once you have your wristband, you may proceed to the David Atkinson Gymnasium. Enter the gym through the doors on the pedway level. You must have a wristband to enter the event.
Event begins at 7 p.m.
I know it's a big commitment - but with so much riding on this consider if it's worth the time and inconvenience.  Get there super early as it's first come first serve.  Print off the Northmont story and bring a copy of your bill in a file folder. Be prepared to speak to the impact to thousands of Canadians and the many questionable activities happening.  If you have the chance to speak to it keep it to 30 seconds and ask if this is the PM's vision of Canada, one where good people and seniors can be financially destroyed by greed and corruption.

Talk to the Media while you are there.  Tell them your story.  Get their E-mail addresses and afterwards send them everything.  Post them here, some of us have even more "interesting" information we can send.

To those of you taking action here, good luck.  Make it count.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Huckleberry said:


> Yes, I signed the petition as well.  It should be well over a thousand by now as I'm sure many of us have shared our story with family and friends.  Have they all signed as well?  If you haven't asked them, please do.
> 
> Please register for the town hall:
> 
> http://asohi.liberal.ca/events/
> http://rboissonnault.liberal.ca/events/
> 
> https://www.macewan.ca/wcm/MacEwanNews/STORY_PM_TOWNHALL
> MacEwan University’s David Atkinson Gymnasium will serve as the host venue for the event.
> 
> Here’s what you need to know to attend the event.
> 
> 
> Check-in for the event begins at 5 p.m. on the second floor of the Robbins Health Learning Centre
> Large coats, jackets and bags will not be permitted at the event, and a mandatory coat check will be in place
> Check-in process
> 
> 
> Arrive at the check-in area on the second floor of the Robbins Health Learning Centre (10910 104 Ave) to check your belongings and receive your entry wristband
> Once you have your wristband, you may proceed to the David Atkinson Gymnasium. Enter the gym through the doors on the pedway level. You must have a wristband to enter the event.
> Event begins at 7 p.m.
> I know it's a big commitment - but with so much riding on this consider if it's worth the time and inconvenience.  Get there super early as it's first come first serve.  Print off the Northmont story and bring a copy of your bill in a file folder. Be prepared to speak to the impact to thousands of Canadians and the many questionable activities happening.  If you have the chance to speak to it keep it to 30 seconds and ask if this is the PM's vision of Canada, one where good people and seniors can be financially destroyed by greed and corruption.
> 
> Talk to the Media while you are there.  Tell them your story.  Get their E-mail addresses and afterwards send them everything.  Post them here, some of us have even more "interesting" information we can send.
> 
> To those of you taking action here, good luck.  Make it count.


Okay today is a new day and we now have information related to the Justin Trudeau Town Hall coming up in a couple of days along with some great advice from "Huckleberry" on how to get prepared.

Let's focus energy today on two things:

How can we help people prepare for the Town Hall by providing support that helps to move our experiences forward in a positive narrative
Providing accurate content for press interactions in handouts so there is a consistent message coming from our group
We cannot be to technical or overwhelming and must rely on the human element to open the doors on the National Stage.

Truth's Blog is a great start and stories are needed now more than ever to get our message out how a Canadian Corporation is taking advantage of and negatively affecting ordinary Canadians because of huge flaws within our Justice System.  Contributing to this is the glacial pace of Politicians and Agencies who have so far failed to step in and help.

Hindsight does not need to be 20/20 - we have figured out the big story and how a business plan is to only add to a corporations bottom line by manipulating contracts and systems in place to make it appear they are working in the best interests of others but at the end of the day taking everything for themselves.

Our own story is just part of a larger scheme and has the potential to become a *Canadian National Black Eye* when it is potentially identified as one of the biggest Canadian frauds on record which in the process will destroy an industry that was built to provide an affordable means for everyday Canadians to wind down and have some fun with their families once a year for a week!!


----------



## tssuck

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Okay today is a new day and we now have information related to the Justin Trudeau Town Hall coming up in a couple of days along with some great advice from "Huckleberry" on how to get prepared.
> 
> Let's focus energy today on two things:
> 
> How can we help people prepare for the Town Hall by providing support that helps to move our experiences forward in a positive narrative
> Providing accurate content for press interactions in handouts so there is a consistent message coming from our group
> We cannot be to technical or overwhelming and must rely on the human element to open the doors on the National Stage.
> 
> Truth's Blog is a great start and stories are needed now more than ever to get our message out how a Canadian Corporation is taking advantage of and negatively affecting ordinary Canadians because of huge flaws within our Justice System.  Contributing to this is the glacial pace of Politicians and Agencies who have so far failed to step in and help.
> 
> Hindsight does not need to be 20/20 - we have figured out the big story and how a business plan is to only add to a corporations bottom line by manipulating contracts and systems in place to make it appear they are working in the best interests of others but at the end of the day taking everything for themselves.
> 
> Our own story is just part of a larger scheme and has the potential to become a *Canadian National Black Eye* when it is potentially identified as one of the biggest Canadian frauds on record which in the process will destroy an industry that was built to provide an affordable means for everyday Canadians to wind down and have some fun with their families once a year for a week!!




I am not able to attend the Town Hall meeting. A bit of information that I received from my lawyer has to do with our American friends caught up in this ugly business. According to my lawyer, Alberta or BC judgments to no automatically apply to the US. NM would have to get a separate and individual judgment against each American owner in their State in order to collect any monies at all. To all Americans, DO NOT make a payment until you check out what your States policies are with regards to Time Shares. NM would have to file in each State and win their case in that State before they can even begin to collect. Do not deal with their collection agency as they have no legal rights in the US. Besides, if there is an appeal, 
you need not pay attention to anything NM or MG send your way.


----------



## Scammed!

Just got a call from Karen at the law society who I had left a message on Friday she was away. She had no idea about any of this. I informed her of everything and she was very surprised and apologized for what is happening to us. Please call EVERYONE! Talk personally or leave a long detailed message. I have talked to a couple of others at the law society throughout the weeks and sent emails and they are well aware. But it looks like its just not enough!


----------



## Bewildered

I want to talk to Law Society of BC directly but can’t seem to find an actual phone number. Tired of sending emails/forms etc. Anybody have a number?


----------



## Bewildered

Scammed! said:


> Just got a call from Karen at the law society who I had left a message on Friday she was away. She had no idea about any of this. I informed her of everything and she was very surprised and apologized for what is happening to us. Please call EVERYONE! Talk personally or leave a long detailed message. I have talked to a couple of others at the law society throughout the weeks and sent emails and they are well aware. But it looks like its just not enough!


Good timing, you have a number?


----------



## Scammed!

Bewildered said:


> Good timing, you have a number?


She called me from 1-604-669-2533


----------



## Broke Mama

tssuck said:


> I am not able to attend the Town Hall meeting. A bit of information that I received from my lawyer has to do with our American friends caught up in this ugly business. According to my lawyer, Alberta or BC judgments to no automatically apply to the US. NM would have to get a separate and individual judgment against each American owner in their State in order to collect any monies at all. To all Americans, DO NOT make a payment until you check out what your States policies are with regards to Time Shares. NM would have to file in each State and win their case in that State before they can even begin to collect. Do not deal with their collection agency as they have no legal rights in the US. Besides, if there is an appeal,
> you need not pay attention to anything NM or MG send your way.


I am from US. Can i get the number of the lawyer to talk to him about US people.  Can you email it to Me?


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Bewildered said:


> Good timing, you have a number?


BC Law Society
Telephone 604-669-2533
Fax 604-669-5232
Toll-free 800-903-5300
TTY 604-443-5700
lawsociety.bc.ca

If you have emailed them and they have replied to your submission they will have provided you with a File No. and possibly a direct line for someone to talk with in a follow-up Canada Post snail mail.


----------



## CleoB

Broke Mama said:


> I am from US. Can i get the number of the lawyer to talk to him about US people.  Can you email it to Me?


I would reach out to your State Attorney's office.  They should be able to advise you on what is collectable or not, in your state.  I don't think Canadian law has any weight in the U.S. as tssuck noted.


----------



## Petus@18

Interested in writing a review for MG, here is another site: fyple.ca

(if you know of any others sites besides yelp, LawyerRatingz, where we can provide a review, please let us know)

FYI - It looks like MG is now trying to stop all of our reviews and adding some giving him a 5 star rating...Lol....


----------



## tssuck

Broke Mama said:


> I am from US. Can i get the number of the lawyer to talk to him about US people.  Can you email it to Me?


I am a Canadian and spoke to our Canadian lawyer on behalf of an American friend caught up in this mess. You may be better off talking to an American lawyer in our State.


----------



## Bewildered

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> BC Law Society
> Telephone 604-669-2533
> Fax 604-669-5232
> Toll-free 800-903-5300
> TTY 604-443-5700
> lawsociety.bc.ca
> 
> If you have emailed them and they have replied to your submission they will have provided you with a File No. and possibly a direct line for someone to talk with in a follow-up Canada Post snail mail.


So I just spoke to Karen as mentioned above, using the 2533 number, to get her directly go to the directory when prompted and punch in her name on the phone and the first Karen of two is the person. She is very aware of the situation so no need to explain the nightmare to her but you can have your name added to the complaint file without sending everything in. It sounds like there is or will be an investigation


----------



## Bewildered

Don’t waste your time with anti-fraud (what a joke and waste of taxpayers money). I called today and inquired whether anything was ever done with my complaint/file# from 2013!!! He said he had no access to them as they have been put in archives if over 3 years old! Recommended to call my local RCMP- been there done that!
The more I think about this the more I believe the RCMP really let us down also with this as they had a lot of information on this scam,


----------



## Scammed!

Bewildered said:


> So I just spoke to Karen as mentioned above, using the 2533 number, to get her directly go to the directory when prompted and punch in her name on the phone and the first Karen of two is the person. She is very aware of the situation so no need to explain the nightmare to her but you can have your name added to the complaint file without sending everything in. It sounds like there is or will be an investigation


Good to hear she is now aware! They must of had a meeting updating her on the current events.  Everyone should have a file number. Thanks for following up and calling, that keeps them focused on the issue at hand.


----------



## MarcieL

Call RCMP HQ in Edmonton and ask to speak with someone that directly works in the Fraud section then arrange a meeting with evidence in hand.  This IMO is more effective than having 10 seperate files open in various outlying detachments.


----------



## Hopeful_One

To Kirk Wankel, MG Law and MLT Aikins Law. I know you or your spies are following these postings to prepare your defense. But let me assure you, this is not a war you can win in the end, not when you have purposed to ruin the lives of hundreds of citizens many of whom are struggling to survive. I pray for your eyes to be open and see this evil you are perpetuating, and by chance follow a path of love and fairness. I remember, how agents from Kirk Wankel's office have been making intimidating calls to timeshare owners; is this admissible by your professional body of Chartered Accountants ? I thought you are bound by specific code of ethics to treat your clients with fairness. You think you have power to harass people because somehow you are connected to some who pull power strings. But be sure those strings will give way, it is just a matter of time. When that time comes, the tricks based on WOW craft will not work.
Really pissed off and hurting !!


----------



## torqued

tssuck said:


> I am not able to attend the Town Hall meeting. A bit of information that I received from my lawyer has to do with our American friends caught up in this ugly business. According to my lawyer, Alberta or BC judgments to no automatically apply to the US. NM would have to get a separate and individual judgment against each American owner in their State in order to collect any monies at all. To all Americans, DO NOT make a payment until you check out what your States policies are with regards to Time Shares. NM would have to file in each State and win their case in that State before they can even begin to collect. Do not deal with their collection agency as they have no legal rights in the US. Besides, if there is an appeal,
> you need not pay attention to anything NM or MG send your way.


I hope this is true but I’m not sure how accurate this is  I’ll be consulting an American attorney who specializes in timeshare. I’ll keep my USA friends posted. Thanks for the information though. Much appreciated!!


----------



## Spark1

Bewildered said:


> I want to talk to Law Society of BC directly but can’t seem to find an actual phone number. Tired of sending emails/forms etc. Anybody have a number?


Law Society.     1800.903.5300.     604.605.5367


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> Call RCMP HQ in Edmonton and ask to speak with someone that directly works in the Fraud section then arrange a meeting with evidence in hand.  This IMO is more effective than having 10 seperate files open in various outlying detachments.


 Please get a email address if you can. I have sent a lot to the anti-fraud centre  1888-495-8501. I have all the files ready to go if we can get a email address. Thanks


----------



## aden2

Scammed! said:


> Needs to be sent to Service B.C. To much time hasn't past we were just blindsided in the last week with a settlement that none of us agreed to.  Keep going don't stop!


*Check the "competitionbureau.gc.ca" You can do your complaint on line and also attach files to it. Their job is to investigate marketing practices
False or misleading representations:
When materially false or misleading representations are made knowingly or recklessly to the public.. Just recently they brought charges against Ticketmaster.  *


----------



## Bewildered

MarcieL said:


> Call RCMP HQ in Edmonton and ask to speak with someone that directly works in the Fraud section then arrange a meeting with evidence in hand.  This IMO is more effective than having 10 seperate files open in various outlying detachments.



MarcieL has anyone had success in doing this because I’ve done local and BC RCMP and was also told by Service Alberta that their investigation was passed on to the RCMP because of concerns, also someone mentioned the fella from Calgary RCMP fraud that has now transferred. Nothing from any of this??


----------



## MarcieL

Spark1 said:


> Please get a email address if you can. I have sent a lot to the anti-fraud centre  1888-495-8501. I have all the files ready to go if we can get a email address. Thanks



Spark it says on K Division H.Q. site for Commerical crime that they do not accept complaints by email.  I tried.


----------



## Bewildered

Hopeful_One said:


> To Kirk Wankel, MG Law and MLT Aikins Law. I know you or your spies are following these postings to prepare your defense. But let me assure you, this is not a war you can win in the end, not when you have purposed to ruin the lives of hundreds of citizens many of whom are struggling to survive. I pray for your eyes to be open and see this evil you are perpetuating, and by chance follow a path of love and fairness. I remember, how agents from Kirk Wankel's office have been making intimidating calls to timeshare owners; is this admissible by your professional body of Chartered Accountants ? I thought you are bound by specific code of ethics to treat your clients with fairness. You think you have power to harass people because somehow you are connected to some who pull power strings. But be sure those strings will give way, it is just a matter of time. When that time comes, the tricks based on WOW craft will not work.
> Really pissed off and hurting !!



For the sake of the people taking the settlement I surely hope MLT Aikins know what they are doing because they crafted the crucial release.


----------



## Bewildered

Not seeing much momentum or plan for Thursday in Edmonton with the Town Hall meeting? Someone specifically leading this?


----------



## MarcieL

Bewildered said:


> MarcieL has anyone had success in doing this because I’ve done local and BC RCMP and was also told by Service Alberta that their investigation was passed on to the RCMP because of concerns, also someone mentioned the fella from Calgary RCMP fraud that has now transferred. Nothing from any of this??



Bewildered have you gone into a detachment with your evidence? I wish they would quit referring back to 2013, much has changed since then.  The cards are stacked against us though, due to three lost court cases.


----------



## JeffinWA

tssuck said:


> I am a Canadian and spoke to our Canadian lawyer on behalf of an American friend caught up in this mess. You may be better off talking to an American lawyer in our State.


I spoke to an attorney here in Washington.  She is not a TS attorney and told me that she could not give me a lot of advice on that aspect but she did say that due to reciprical agreements between the US and Canada the states recognizes judgements in Canada and that it isn't too difficult to enforce them in the states.  She didn't know the exact process but did think that they could bring a judgement across the border and get it enforced here.


----------



## Stung

Stung said:


> Indeed, it is crunchtime!
> 
> If you haven't already, please show your support by doing something!  It may just be YOUR story or comment that draws enough attention to this injustice and to have this unbelievable situation investigated.  If there are other options not listed, please post, or re-post to ensure our collective voices get the word out there.
> 
> 1) Supporting Dorothy Zazelenchuck's petition at https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/544/391/659/
> 
> 2) Write a little (or a lot) about this scheme and how it is impacting you to CBC News MarketPlace at marketplace@cbc.ca
> 
> 3) Write a little (or a lot) about this scheme and how it is impacting you to gopublic@cbc.ca
> 
> 4) View / forward on the 'Northmont Sunchaser Scandal - The Untold Story at http://truths2cents.blogspot.ca/
> 
> 5) Submit a report to the Government of Canada  - Canada Anti-Fraud Center website http://www.antifraudcentre-centreantifraude.ca/victim-victime/index-eng.htm
> 
> 6) Submit a report to The Law Society of British Columbia. https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/compla...-hearings/complaints/how-to-file-a-complaint/
> 
> 
> Keep coming back to this tugbbs forum to stay informed...
> 
> They want us to be quiet and just pay which is just not right!



Another option to make our voices known...  https://www.consumerprotectionbc.ca/contact-us/


----------



## torqued

JeffinWA said:


> I spoke to an attorney here in Washington.  She is not a TS attorney and told me that she could not give me a lot of advice on that aspect but she did say that due to reciprical agreements between the US and Canada the states recognizes judgements in Canada and that it isn't too difficult to enforce them in the states.  She didn't know the exact process but did think that they could bring a judgement across the border and get it enforced here.


That has been my understanding with my research as well.


----------



## Timeshare Justice denied

Spark1 said:


> Please get a email address if you can. I have sent a lot to the anti-fraud centre  1888-495-8501. I have all the files ready to go if we can get a email address. Thanks


At the risk of repeating my previous comments and with the hopes of saving some of you time, effort and frustration: This matter is all about our contracts with the resort and is therefore CIVIL law. While we may say it is criminal what they are doing, by the letter of the law, at this point, it is NOT and would NOT be investigated as a fraud. Now if Wankel and co. take all the money and vanish in a year from now then a case could be made. However our society does not arrest for future offences. SO I believe the best recourse is town halls, law society petitions, public pressure or, as many are entertaining, throw in the towel to get rid of this poor investment and to ensure the bill doesn't continue to grow. That said, I think we all need to continue to denounce this, keep up the pressure and get involved as needed (although I don't expect to EVER get any money back).
I was recently in the US at a resort booked through Expedia and on day 2 we got hit up to "attend a 2 hour presentation...." the poor lady got an earful and I told her not to expect to EVER sell any type of timeshare (no matter how much lipstick is put on the pig) to ANY Canadian. Warn your family and friends and let's *make sure that this industry in Canada becomes obsolete*. Let the other Canadian timeshare companies go after Northmont for killing the industry by engaging in shitty business and management practices.


----------



## Roxanne

Stung said:


> Another option to make our voices known...  https://www.consumerprotectionbc.ca/contact-us/


Just submitted complaint.


----------



## aden2

Timeshare Justice denied said:


> At the risk of repeating my previous comments and with the hopes of saving some of you time, effort and frustration: This matter is all about our contracts with the resort and is therefore CIVIL law. While we may say it is criminal what they are doing, by the letter of the law, at this point, it is NOT and would NOT be investigated as a fraud. Now if Wankel and co. take all the money and vanish in a year from now then a case could be made. However our society does not arrest for future offences. SO I believe the best recourse is town halls, law society petitions, public pressure or, as many are entertaining, throw in the towel to get rid of this poor investment and to ensure the bill doesn't continue to grow. That said, I think we all need to continue to denounce this, keep up the pressure and get involved as needed (although I don't expect to EVER get any money back).
> I was recently in the US at a resort booked through Expedia and on day 2 we got hit up to "attend a 2 hour presentation...." the poor lady got an earful and I told her not to expect to EVER sell any type of timeshare (no matter how much lipstick is put on the pig) to ANY Canadian. Warn your family and friends and let's *make sure that this industry in Canada becomes obsolete*. Let the other Canadian timeshare companies go after Northmont for killing the industry by engaging in shitty business and management practices.


*It is my opinion that Northmont Vacation villas must be collecting a few times at the same time on the same villas, and charging former timeshare customers also....*


----------



## Meow

Thank you 'Timeshare Justice denied' for telling us where we stand, even though it is disappointing.


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

Further to justice denied. Doing my best to spread the word here in Aruba the TS capital of the Caribbean. Folks mostly unaware but when I tell them there are 155 dedicated pages on tugbbs they do take notice. The folks yesterday were pretty sure they could get us out till they contacted their lawyers. Not good news for us Canadians but their opinion was any U.S. folks could not be held to a Canadian judgment. One of our biggest problems is the TS industry has been plagued by crooks like wankel since its inception. For every half a dozen we'll run financially stable timeshares there seems to be one financially doomed by poor management/ business plan and one run by crooked corrupt individuals whose business plan is to destroy the  business from the beginning. This has brought us to where we are at today.


----------



## LilMaggie

Of course they are crooks but why are we mad at NM for completely out lawyering us?  My issue now is with our settlement. Our lawyer gave us poor advice all around and can possibly be sued for negligence.  I truly believe that MG should pay our interest as it was on his advisement that we not pay for all these years. Can you have a class action against a lawyer??  Their insurance pays up to a few million dollars a year.  That might be the only way to see any money back.
A friend was just released from her timeshare contract two weeks ago in Alberta for the price of one year of maintenance fees (of course I advised her to keep every shred of paperwork they sent her). So how is that allowed?  No laws in Canada I guess.


----------



## MgolferL

Hopeful_One said:


> This is how CEO Kirk Wankel introduces his profile on linkedin: Colleague: "You are not just outside the box. You do not live in the same neighborhood as the box."
> "Creativity, vision and leadership can solve any problem. I solve the impossible and live for the puzzle. If you cannot succeed under the assumptions, change the assumptions.
> Specialties: The Impossible, Reorganizations and Realignment, Strategic Planning, Technology, Growth, Mergers and Acquisitions, Corporate Governance, Manufacturing, Real Estate, Property Management. "
> 
> I think he has used all the witchy techniques he learned from WOW Craft to play us pretty good, may be even putting spells on people (kidding). We are dealing with a man who has no milk of human kindness. Those WOW Craft games have a way of possessing some players. So just be aware the forces of darkness you are dealing with in this case. NW Sunchaser management is a money hungry group that has no empathy for hurting human beings. No wonder they chose the Witch name Sun-Chaser for their reborn business.



Wondering if all of us who are on LinkedIn should get KW on our page. We could send him a message every day (maybe a few hundred or more)...spiritual in nature of course, so as not to contravene the gag order, etc... the people who have endorsed him on his page obviously don't know his ethical and moral standpoints. Perhaps if they did...just sayin'


----------



## LilMaggie

MgolferL said:


> Wondering if all of us who are on LinkedIn should get KW on our page. We could send him a message every day (maybe a few hundred or more)...spiritual in nature of course, so as not to contravene the gag order, etc... the people who have endorsed him on his page obviously don't know his ethical and moral standpoints. Perhaps if they did...just sayin'


Yes, "inside the box" is working within the law...he lives in a completely different zip code from the box. I think that his cronies are quite impressed by his unscrupulous tactics.  Wankel is a freakin' genius...just ask him, he'll tell you.


----------



## tssuck

JeffinWA said:


> I spoke to an attorney here in Washington.  She is not a TS attorney and told me that she could not give me a lot of advice on that aspect but she did say that due to reciprical agreements between the US and Canada the states recognizes judgements in Canada and that it isn't too difficult to enforce them in the states.  She didn't know the exact process but did think that they could bring a judgement across the border and get it enforced here.



From what I have discerned is that the judgement has to comply with the laws of the state where you live. I would actually talk to a lawyer who would know about timeshares. Leave nothing to chance or uncertainty. Found out for sure. NM is counting on everyone taking what they say as law when in fact most of it bullying.


----------



## CorruptionExtortion

Higgerty Law office called me back today and referred me to:

Mathew Farrell 
Guardian Law Group if you have chosen Option 1 with MG.
403 457-7778

 Higgerty is not working with MG clients that chose Option 1.


----------



## LilMaggie

CorruptionExtortion said:


> Higgerty Law office called me back today and referred me to:
> 
> Mathew Farrell
> Guardian Law Group if you have chosen Option 1 with MG.
> 403 457-7778
> 
> Higgerty is not working with MG clients that chose Option 1.


Thank you for that information.


----------



## CleoB

CorruptionExtortion said:


> Higgerty Law office called me back today and referred me to:
> 
> Mathew Farrell
> Guardian Law Group if you have chosen Option 1 with MG.
> 403 457-7778
> 
> Higgerty is not working with MG clients that chose Option 1.


Who is Higgerty Law?  Are they familiar with the history of this litigation?  Also, why would one go to Farrell if they have selected option one with Geldert?  What am I missing here?


----------



## Meow

After listening to Farrell on Danielle Smiths show, I am not sure he would do anything for us.


----------



## So sick of this mess

US people: Truth's blog was forwarded to the Federal Trades Commission. Please write or contact them with your story!
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20580
www.ftc.gov
(202) 382-4357


----------



## RippedOff

Meow said:


> After listening to Farrell on Danielle Smiths show, I am not sure he would do anything for us.



Oh really?  What did he say?  I was going to consider it, but now maybe not.


----------



## MarcieL

I agree Meow, skirted around every issue!


----------



## MarcieL

Read Appauled's post on page 154.  Higgerity law is accepting clients who chose option 2.


----------



## dotbuhler

Bewildered said:


> I want to talk to Law Society of BC directly but can’t seem to find an actual phone number. Tired of sending emails/forms etc. Anybody have a number?


604-669-2533, TOLL FREE 1-800-903-5300


----------



## dotbuhler

Petus@18 said:


> *LawyerRatingz.com*
> *You can provide reviews on this site too.  Lets check to see if there are anymore and keep posting.*


Too bad "1" is the least you can give him.


----------



## Meow

RippedOff, you can also refer back to posts #3349 and #3350 on page 134 and post #3353 on page 135.


----------



## RippedOff

Meow said:


> RippedOff, you can also refer back to posts #3349 and #3350 on page 134 and post #3353 on page 135.



Got it - thank you.  Great.....what to do now?


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

ecwinch said:


> I do believe most accountants would agree with that definition of capital expense, and I would agree that there are some grey areas. But the VIA is clear that the lessee is responsible for "replacement costs" vs limiting responsibility to just repair costs.
> 
> _OPERATING COSTS AND RESERVE FOR REFURBISHING: In addition to the Management Fee described in paragraph 10 of this Lease, the [Lessee] shall be responsible for his proportionate share of all administration[,] maintenance and repair costs (the "Operating Costs") *and replacement costs* incurred with respect to the Vacation Resort and the Vacation Properties including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following:_
> 
> So what part of the Renovation Plan is not repairing or replacing some element of the #NAFR as originally delivered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated earlier, the theory that "capital costs" are NEVER the responsibility of the lessee is overstated. For starters, can anyone point to a law that says "Capital costs" are NEVER the responsibility of the lessee?
> 
> I dont think you will find that. So at best I think MG could have produced expert testimony that "capital expenses are generally the responsibility of the lessor, subject to the terms of the lease".
> 
> And the VIA is clear that replacement costs are the responsibility of the lessee. I dont think that clause is defeated by the fact that replacement inherently extends the life of the structure.



Now you're just making stuff up. Capital Improvements? 

I am not part of a time share plan. You know why? Nothing I ever signed used or referred to either a 'time share' or 'prospectus'. I was never shown a prospectus when I signed the Vacation Villa Lease. In BC before 2005, I signed in 1999; time share plans required ownership of land or property. Notice the difference? Now it is an interest in land or property.

You justify the court's rulings by, quoting the courts rulings. What in the BC time share real estate act, really just a definition, overrides my lease? Nothing. Loo and Fitzpatrick are wrong.

In the beginning, Fairmont started a side business, leveraging the Fairmont property, to start a real estate investment business. That's not what a time share does. If its a timeshare it is a violation of the Trust. 

The CCAA did not consider the lessees to be part of a time share plan. So not only is it #NAFR it is also #NAFTS.

"Swims like a duck." Really? This is how time shares you've been involved with conduct business? You'd know, wouldn't you? Afterall you are a Moderator. You are a moderator who thinks that the nearly 4,000 posts on this thread are nothing but complainers complaining. You think they are wrong and Northmont and its predecessor Fairmont are good people doing good time share work. 

Some duck this is.


----------



## MgolferL

Does anyone know about when JY is supposed to rule on interest?


----------



## Punter

For anyone wondering where the payments are NOT going...

"200 Alberta" = KW who now appears to be the sole owner of #NAFR #NAFTS



*NOTICE*​

To: *Former Trust Unitholders of Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust       (“Northwynd REIT”)*


From:* 2008164 Alberta Ltd. (“200 Alberta”)*


Reference is made to (i) the Final Notice of Wind-up and Termination of Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust dated January 16th, 2017 previously delivered to you by Computershare Investor Services Inc.; and (ii) Promissory Note dated January 03rd, 2017 delivered by 200 Alberta to Northwynd REIT (the “*Promissory Note*”) pursuant to the Purchase and Sale Agreement dated December 08th, 2016 between Northwynd REIT and 200 Alberta (the “*PSA*”). All capitalized terms used in this Notice, unless otherwise indicated, shall have the same meaning as set out in the PSA.


Pursuant to section 3(c)(ii) Promissory Note, notice is hereby given by 200 Alberta that the Principal Amount of the Promissory Note as calculated in accordance with its terms is $NIL as of December 31st, 2017, and accordingly the First Payment Amount and the Second Payment Amount (as both terms are defined in the Promissory Note) are $NIL. As a consequence 200 Alberta is deemed to have satisfied its obligations under the Promissory Note. No further distributions will be made to former holders of trust units of Northwynd REIT in connection with the wind-up and termination of the Northwynd REIT.


*DATED* at the City of Calgary in the Province of Alberta this 15th day of January 2018.


----------



## Petus@18

Punter said:


> For anyone wondering where the payments are NOT going...
> 
> "200" Alberta = KW who now appears to be the sole owner of #NAFR #NAFTS
> 
> 
> 
> *NOTICE*​
> 
> To: *Former Trust Unitholders of Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust       (“Northwynd REIT”)*
> 
> 
> From:* 2008164 Alberta Ltd. (“200 Alberta”)*
> 
> 
> Reference is made to (i) the Final Notice of Wind-up and Termination of Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust dated January 16th, 2017 previously delivered to you by Computershare Investor Services Inc.; and (ii) Promissory Note dated January 03rd, 2017 delivered by 200 Alberta to Northwynd REIT (the “*Promissory Note*”) pursuant to the Purchase and Sale Agreement dated December 08th, 2016 between Northwynd REIT and 200 Alberta (the “*PSA*”). All capitalized terms used in this Notice, unless otherwise indicated, shall have the same meaning as set out in the PSA.
> 
> 
> Pursuant to section 3(c)(ii) Promissory Note, notice is hereby given by 200 Alberta that the Principal Amount of the Promissory Note as calculated in accordance with its terms is $NIL as of December 31st, 2017, and accordingly the First Payment Amount and the Second Payment Amount (as both terms are defined in the Promissory Note) are $NIL. As a consequence 200 Alberta is deemed to have satisfied its obligations under the Promissory Note. No further distributions will be made to former holders of trust units of Northwynd REIT in connection with the wind-up and termination of the Northwynd REIT.
> 
> 
> *DATED* at the City of Calgary in the Province of Alberta this 15th day of January 2018.



Did you get this in the mail? How can they do that?


----------



## Petus@18

From FB
To all those who say "1st time aware of this", from the beginning there were 4 distinct groups that went before Judge Loo way back in 2013. 2 of them did a lot of talking, while 2 did not. Without reliving the history or pointing fingers, a CLASS action is for the benefit of ALL the members of a group or class. Where this fell off the rails from the outset was that this group with MG who hailed itself a "class action" was in truth a special interest group created for only those that had held their leasehold interest for a period of time and wanted "out". Mistake #1 as now the group was fractionalized and motivated to get behind and spend money on a lawyer that was destined to lose when NOT serving the entire class of 15,000 leaseholds (all of us). This special group went on to be fractionalized more than once after that - always creating more division and weakness while mysterious 50 to 80 vested interested parties of Northwind REIT (a TRUST not a corporation so it could hide its identity) got stronger. It even hired professionals like Kirk Wankel and Doug Frey and Jud Virtue to kick our asses. Ranting at Mr Wankel for doing the job he was paid to do is pointless ... I myself would not take on scumbag clients like Northwind, but if I lacked a moral code and ethics, I would surely do my job just as well as he did and is doing. YES, we did a lot of research and spent a lot of time ($10,000 out of pocket and in excess of 200 hours that I would bill my clients for had I been working for them instead of this). On June 25, 2013, you can find S-134766 still listed as an active court filing (Lee Merriman V Northmont et al). Admittedly this filing was not well written by Kellie Hamilton (limited time) on behalf of myself, my wife, and perhaps the smartest man I know, Adam Hedayat. BUT at least it laid out the issues we ALL faced and formed the requisite information to BE A CLASS ACTION as we cared about ALL of you, not just some of you. Since Riverview is already a registered Strata property and our lease was exclusive to Riverview, the best course of action then and now was to ALL band against Northwind REIT, take our resort back, set up a Board, and manage it ourselves - allowing folks to buy in and out of it like a Strata / Condo property should. What I think is simply this ... when you folks can quit fighting amongst yourselves and going in multiple directions, we would be willing to help out with an already put together Corporate structure that will blow your socks off. This "deception" by lawyers started way back in 1994 with a Firm called McLeod Dixon that is now TWO Firms .. Norton Rose and Shinnour Matkin ... yes thats right .. our "trustee" and the Northmont lawyers have slept in bed together way back in 1994. Another little tidbit of information for you folks ... PRE Bankruptcy .. Our good old Trustee Philip Matkin had his wife and 2 other wives of his Firm owning 75% of Farimont thru a Company called 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Right again folks, our own Trustee had his wife PUT Fairmont into bankruptcy by calling a loan that was backed by our very own "capital investments" (ours was $35,000 paid in full) that were never recorded as income in Fairmont as they were funneled out to the FRPL Companies owned by 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Accordingly, you ALL have heard this before as I have posted more than once ... you just just chose to ignore it while riding the JEKE/MG train into oblivion. I was even aware that JEKE was a shell company that held only 1 thing, the Belfrey family leasehold interst and accordingly bore no financial risk that you all did. Even directors liability wouldn't apply as the debt would not be a CRA witholding debt. As Sandy has mentioned, we are out of the Country Feb 4 to 18 (we are every year). Upon our return, IF this group can UNITE, we will be glad to help as best we can however, I am aware that by letting JEKE waste our time and your money, this is an even more uphill battle than it would have been had we all united 4 years ago.


----------



## LilMaggie

Punter said:


> For anyone wondering where the payments are NOT going...
> 
> "200 Alberta" = KW who now appears to be the sole owner of #NAFR #NAFTS
> 
> 
> 
> *NOTICE*​
> 
> To: *Former Trust Unitholders of Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust       (“Northwynd REIT”)*
> 
> 
> From:* 2008164 Alberta Ltd. (“200 Alberta”)*
> 
> 
> Reference is made to (i) the Final Notice of Wind-up and Termination of Northwynd Properties Real Estate Investment Trust dated January 16th, 2017 previously delivered to you by Computershare Investor Services Inc.; and (ii) Promissory Note dated January 03rd, 2017 delivered by 200 Alberta to Northwynd REIT (the “*Promissory Note*”) pursuant to the Purchase and Sale Agreement dated December 08th, 2016 between Northwynd REIT and 200 Alberta (the “*PSA*”). All capitalized terms used in this Notice, unless otherwise indicated, shall have the same meaning as set out in the PSA.
> 
> 
> Pursuant to section 3(c)(ii) Promissory Note, notice is hereby given by 200 Alberta that the Principal Amount of the Promissory Note as calculated in accordance with its terms is $NIL as of December 31st, 2017, and accordingly the First Payment Amount and the Second Payment Amount (as both terms are defined in the Promissory Note) are $NIL. As a consequence 200 Alberta is deemed to have satisfied its obligations under the Promissory Note. No further distributions will be made to former holders of trust units of Northwynd REIT in connection with the wind-up and termination of the Northwynd REIT.
> 
> 
> *DATED* at the City of Calgary in the Province of Alberta this 15th day of January 2018.


After reading the post from Petus@18...I have no words.


----------



## CleoB

Petus@18 said:


> From FB
> To all those who say "1st time aware of this", from the beginning there were 4 distinct groups that went before Judge Loo way back in 2013. 2 of them did a lot of talking, while 2 did not. Without reliving the history or pointing fingers, a CLASS action is for the benefit of ALL the members of a group or class. Where this fell off the rails from the outset was that this group with MG who hailed itself a "class action" was in truth a special interest group created for only those that had held their leasehold interest for a period of time and wanted "out". Mistake #1 as now the group was fractionalized and motivated to get behind and spend money on a lawyer that was destined to lose when NOT serving the entire class of 15,000 leaseholds (all of us). This special group went on to be fractionalized more than once after that - always creating more division and weakness while mysterious 50 to 80 vested interested parties of Northwind REIT (a TRUST not a corporation so it could hide its identity) got stronger. It even hired professionals like Kirk Wankel and Doug Frey and Jud Virtue to kick our asses. Ranting at Mr Wankel for doing the job he was paid to do is pointless ... I myself would not take on scumbag clients like Northwind, but if I lacked a moral code and ethics, I would surely do my job just as well as he did and is doing. YES, we did a lot of research and spent a lot of time ($10,000 out of pocket and in excess of 200 hours that I would bill my clients for had I been working for them instead of this). On June 25, 2013, you can find S-134766 still listed as an active court filing (Lee Merriman V Northmont et al). Admittedly this filing was not well written by Kellie Hamilton (limited time) on behalf of myself, my wife, and perhaps the smartest man I know, Adam Hedayat. BUT at least it laid out the issues we ALL faced and formed the requisite information to BE A CLASS ACTION as we cared about ALL of you, not just some of you. Since Riverview is already a registered Strata property and our lease was exclusive to Riverview, the best course of action then and now was to ALL band against Northwind REIT, take our resort back, set up a Board, and manage it ourselves - allowing folks to buy in and out of it like a Strata / Condo property should. What I think is simply this ... when you folks can quit fighting amongst yourselves and going in multiple directions, we would be willing to help out with an already put together Corporate structure that will blow your socks off. This "deception" by lawyers started way back in 1994 with a Firm called McLeod Dixon that is now TWO Firms .. Norton Rose and Shinnour Matkin ... yes thats right .. our "trustee" and the Northmont lawyers have slept in bed together way back in 1994. Another little tidbit of information for you folks ... PRE Bankruptcy .. Our good old Trustee Philip Matkin had his wife and 2 other wives of his Firm owning 75% of Farimont thru a Company called 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Right again folks, our own Trustee had his wife PUT Fairmont into bankruptcy by calling a loan that was backed by our very own "capital investments" (ours was $35,000 paid in full) that were never recorded as income in Fairmont as they were funneled out to the FRPL Companies owned by 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Accordingly, you ALL have heard this before as I have posted more than once ... you just just chose to ignore it while riding the JEKE/MG train into oblivion. I was even aware that JEKE was a shell company that held only 1 thing, the Belfrey family leasehold interst and accordingly bore no financial risk that you all did. Even directors liability wouldn't apply as the debt would not be a CRA witholding debt. As Sandy has mentioned, we are out of the Country Feb 4 to 18 (we are every year). Upon our return, IF this group can UNITE, we will be glad to help as best we can however, I am aware that by letting JEKE waste our time and your money, this is an even more uphill battle than it would have been had we all united 4 years ago.


Was not aware of any of this.  What do you propose in doing?


----------



## Petus@18

More from FB
Ms Stoner .. its not "ignorant" to have trust in people or a contract. We live in an age where the "wolf in sheep's clothing" seems to be more than children's story. Only 2 of us attended the depositions in Calgary in July 2013 .. Mr Hedayat and myself where I saw first hand Lindsey LeBlanc of Cox Taylor agree with Jud Virtue to hide the indenties of those in Northwind REIT. In Court you are entitled to face your accuser ... but the BC Court system has allowed Northwind REIT to remain a "secret society" using its minions to do the dirty work while Judge Loo denied us the email list to each other so we could band all 15,000 of us together. Judges are lawyers first and it is quite possible that NO ONE wants this thing to get out into the public eye. Even Justice Romaine way back 2008 / 2009 failed on the due diligence to ascertain that Fairmont had over $40,000,000 in un-allocated deferred revenue (our capital investments) that would not have allowed the Bankruptcy in the first place.


----------



## Petus@18

CleoB said:


> Was not aware of any of this.  What do you propose in doing?



All of these findings are overwhelming, we need to check with someone with some legal knowledge.  For now, let's share it with everyone (ie Law Societies, Justice Minister, etc.)  What do you think?


----------



## Lamplit

Thank you for confirming your identity.

Now that you have identified yourself as a non-client of MG, are you going to discuss what your motivations are for being here? I think as you have so much to say and are so keen to comment on the motivations of others, you should be happy to come clean. 



Petus@18 said:


> More from FB
> Ms Stoner .. its not "ignorant" to have trust in people or a contract. We live in an age where the "wolf in sheep's clothing" seems to be more than children's story. Only 2 of us attended the depositions in Calgary in July 2013 .. Mr Hedayat and myself where I saw first hand Lindsey LeBlanc of Cox Taylor agree with Jud Virtue to hide the indenties of those in Northwind REIT. In Court you are entitled to face your accuser ... but the BC Court system has allowed Northwind REIT to remain a "secret society" using its minions to do the dirty work while Judge Loo denied us the email list to each other so we could band all 15,000 of us together. Judges are lawyers first and it is quite possible that NO ONE wants this thing to get out into the public eye. Even Justice Romaine way back 2008 / 2009 failed on the due diligence to ascertain that Fairmont had over $40,000,000 in un-allocated deferred revenue (our capital investments) that would not have allowed the Bankruptcy in the first place.


ink


----------



## Petus@18

Lamplit said:


> Thank you for confirming your identity.
> 
> Now that you have identified yourself as a non-client of MG, are you going to discuss what your motivations are for being here? I think as you have so much to say and are so keen to comment on the motivations of others, you should be happy to come clean.
> 
> 
> ink




What?? Who are you??
Does anyone knows who is this person? He started to follow me and others?


----------



## Petus@18

Petus@18 said:


> What?? Who are you??
> Does anyone knows who is this person? He started to follow me and others?



LilMaggie
This person is following you too.  I think two others?


----------



## ecwinch

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> You are a moderator who thinks that the nearly 4,000 posts on this thread are nothing but complainers complaining. You think they are wrong and Northmont and its predecessor Fairmont are good people doing good time share work.
> 
> Some duck this is.



No, I THINK this a large group of people were given false hope for years and now are in a horrible mess. That is the danger in listening to uninformed opinions and only listening to those who have no clue on the legal issues the court considered.

I HOPE this case will lead to some legal reform in Canada, protecting consumers from situations like this and requiring timeshare plans to implement some of the protections that would have prevented it... aka requiring homeowner associations, approval of members on special assessments, elected leadership, etc. Some are doing great work toward that end, while some are still stuck in the early stages of the grieving process, and can’t move past the denial phase.

Direct your angst elsewhere, my only role in this tragedy is helping people understand how the court ruled on the issues before them.

NOTE: As previously stated, this is my personal opinion, and has nothing to do with my role as a moderator on this forum.


----------



## Petus@18

Lamplit
FYI  many in this site are no longer clients of Geldert as he was fired or filed a withdrawal to discontinue his "legal" services? Are you by any chance one of his staff/family?


----------



## LilMaggie

Petus@18 said:


> LilMaggie
> This person is following you too.  I think two others?


Thanks Petus@18...I am being followed by this person.


----------



## ecwinch

Lamplit said:


> Thank you for confirming your identity.
> 
> Now that you have identified yourself as a non-client of MG, are you going to discuss what your motivations are for being here? I think as you have so much to say and are so keen to comment on the motivations of others, you should be happy to come clean.
> 
> 
> ink



*As a moderator:*

Lamplit,

Since you are reporting multiple posts on this forum as being "hate speech", please take a moment to introduce yourself. It would also help posters (and moderators) here if you likewise discuss your motivations for being here and participating in this discussion.

Thanks


----------



## Meow

I am now finding it difficult to determine who should be believed or followed on this thread.  This whole experience has been a nightmare.  There are posts questioning the integrity and competence of MG, Cox Taylor and the effectiveness of the judicial, legal and regulatory systems.  Probably most of these criticisms are justified.  I have not seen anyone put forward any course of action that will move us towards avoiding a significant financial loss.  CBC Marketplace, more lawyers and litigation, politicians, RCMP fraud squad, Service Alberta bureaucrats, law societies - I am not optimistic that any of these will avoid the inevitable - that I will eventually have to pay up. The Settlement we have in front of us is not what I had hoped for, but I am not prepared to prolong the agony of more uncertainty and possibly face more serious financial and emotional consequences.  I don't want Sauvageau and his soldiers banging down my door.
I am close to capitulating.  I will be turning 76 in a few days.  I don't want my last memories to be this quagmire.  Time to pay up, walk away and try to enjoy the rest of my life.


----------



## Hopeful_One

What is the plan for Thursday's meeting at the Edmonton Town Hall. Time is running out. Can we all gather the information we have and walk to the Justice Minister's office next week as a group. Atleast we can ask that the February 15 deadline be pushed back until things are sorted out. At this point there seems to be no clear plan of action among us the victims of this fraud.


----------



## Petus@18

Hopeful_One said:


> What is the plan for Thursday's meeting at the Edmonton Town Hall. Time is running out. Can we all gather the information we have and walk to the Justice Minister's office next week as a group. Atleast we can ask that the February 15 deadline be pushed back until things are sorted out. At this point there seems to be no clear plan of action among us the victims of this fraud.



We may need to make an appointment, don't we?  I like your idea of going as a group.  We should also invite people from the FB sites, don't know if the secret group may be interested?


----------



## Spark1

Meow said:


> I am now finding it difficult to determine who should be believed or followed on this thread.  This whole experience has been a nightmare.  There are posts questioning the integrity and competence of MG, Cox Taylor and the effectiveness of the judicial, legal and regulatory systems.  Probably most of these criticisms are justified.  I have not seen anyone put forward any course of action that will move us towards avoiding a significant financial loss.  CBC Marketplace, more lawyers and litigation, politicians, RCMP fraud squad, Service Alberta bureaucrats, law societies - I am not optimistic that any of these will avoid the inevitable - that I will eventually have to pay up. The Settlement we have in front of us is not what I had hoped for, but I am not prepared to prolong the agony of more uncertainty and possibly face more serious financial and emotional consequences.  I don't want Sauvageau and his soldiers banging down my door.
> I am close to capitulating.  I will be turning 76 in a few days.  I don't want my last memories to be this quagmire.  Time to pay up, walk away and try to enjoy the rest of my life.


What has this got to do with buying a timeshare that is a business allowed to be sold in Canada. All the victims as far as timeshare goes bought in good faith and never new all the fraud and scam that went on behind close doors. Now we know why there was not many Lawyer firms that would not take this case on. Throwing good money against bad money will not protect Consumers and all Governments have to get their Act together and not just say Consumer Protection but also know what it means. What was this document Fairmont Vacation Villas Consumer Protection Agreement all about. Do not blame Consumers. Freedom to Choose sure the hell did not give you any choice. You could see from day one the end of the Vacation Villa Leases. This was set up this way to scam time owners to replace KWs Resort. Do not tell me there was nothing wrong with that Cancellation Agreement.


----------



## dotbuhler

Petus@18 said:


> What?? Who are you??
> Does anyone knows who is this person? He started to follow me and others?


MG TROLL ALERT!! Timing of threats of libel against myself this a.m. Looks like we've exposed a nerve. I was "warned" that I was being "watched" on facebook and in this forum.


----------



## dotbuhler

ecwinch said:


> *As a moderator:*
> 
> Lamplit,
> 
> Since you are reporting multiple posts on this forum as being "hate speech", please take a moment to introduce yourself. It would also help posters (and moderators) here if you likewise discuss your motivations for being here and participating in this discussion.
> 
> Thanks


I'll put money on this being MG or KW!!


----------



## dotbuhler

Meow said:


> I am now finding it difficult to determine who should be believed or followed on this thread.  This whole experience has been a nightmare.  There are posts questioning the integrity and competence of MG, Cox Taylor and the effectiveness of the judicial, legal and regulatory systems.  Probably most of these criticisms are justified.  I have not seen anyone put forward any course of action that will move us towards avoiding a significant financial loss.  CBC Marketplace, more lawyers and litigation, politicians, RCMP fraud squad, Service Alberta bureaucrats, law societies - I am not optimistic that any of these will avoid the inevitable - that I will eventually have to pay up. The Settlement we have in front of us is not what I had hoped for, but I am not prepared to prolong the agony of more uncertainty and possibly face more serious financial and emotional consequences.  I don't want Sauvageau and his soldiers banging down my door.
> I am close to capitulating.  I will be turning 76 in a few days.  I don't want my last memories to be this quagmire.  Time to pay up, walk away and try to enjoy the rest of my life.


HANG TOUGH! I am getting a sense of desperation on the part of MG and probably KW, as well. Direct email threats telling me to "keep my mouth shut" or face legal consequences  (when MG has not been my lawyer since end of December and I do not fall under the "gag" order) have indicated we are ahead of these gamers!


----------



## wagga2650

Pretty sure its KW as he has been on here before and even pretended to be an owner.


----------



## CleoB

Petus@18 said:


> All of these findings are overwhelming, we need to check with someone with some legal knowledge.  For now, let's share it with everyone (ie Law Societies, Justice Minister, etc.)  What do you think?


I think...."why didn't this come up earlier? Why are you just now bringing this up?"


----------



## Late2Game

CleoB said:


> I think...."why didn't this come up earlier? Why are you just now bringing this up?"





Petus@18 said:


> From FB
> To all those who say "1st time aware of this", from the beginning there were 4 distinct groups that went before Judge Loo way back in 2013. 2 of them did a lot of talking, while 2 did not. Without reliving the history or pointing fingers, a CLASS action is for the benefit of ALL the members of a group or class. Where this fell off the rails from the outset was that this group with MG who hailed itself a "class action" was in truth a special interest group created for only those that had held their leasehold interest for a period of time and wanted "out". Mistake #1 as now the group was fractionalized and motivated to get behind and spend money on a lawyer that was destined to lose when NOT serving the entire class of 15,000 leaseholds (all of us). This special group went on to be fractionalized more than once after that - always creating more division and weakness while mysterious 50 to 80 vested interested parties of Northwind REIT (a TRUST not a corporation so it could hide its identity) got stronger. It even hired professionals like Kirk Wankel and Doug Frey and Jud Virtue to kick our asses. Ranting at Mr Wankel for doing the job he was paid to do is pointless ... I myself would not take on scumbag clients like Northwind, but if I lacked a moral code and ethics, I would surely do my job just as well as he did and is doing. YES, we did a lot of research and spent a lot of time ($10,000 out of pocket and in excess of 200 hours that I would bill my clients for had I been working for them instead of this). On June 25, 2013, you can find S-134766 still listed as an active court filing (Lee Merriman V Northmont et al). Admittedly this filing was not well written by Kellie Hamilton (limited time) on behalf of myself, my wife, and perhaps the smartest man I know, Adam Hedayat. BUT at least it laid out the issues we ALL faced and formed the requisite information to BE A CLASS ACTION as we cared about ALL of you, not just some of you. Since Riverview is already a registered Strata property and our lease was exclusive to Riverview, the best course of action then and now was to ALL band against Northwind REIT, take our resort back, set up a Board, and manage it ourselves - allowing folks to buy in and out of it like a Strata / Condo property should. What I think is simply this ... when you folks can quit fighting amongst yourselves and going in multiple directions, we would be willing to help out with an already put together Corporate structure that will blow your socks off. This "deception" by lawyers started way back in 1994 with a Firm called McLeod Dixon that is now TWO Firms .. Norton Rose and Shinnour Matkin ... yes thats right .. our "trustee" and the Northmont lawyers have slept in bed together way back in 1994. Another little tidbit of information for you folks ... PRE Bankruptcy .. Our good old Trustee Philip Matkin had his wife and 2 other wives of his Firm owning 75% of Farimont thru a Company called 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Right again folks, our own Trustee had his wife PUT Fairmont into bankruptcy by calling a loan that was backed by our very own "capital investments" (ours was $35,000 paid in full) that were never recorded as income in Fairmont as they were funneled out to the FRPL Companies owned by 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Accordingly, you ALL have heard this before as I have posted more than once ... you just just chose to ignore it while riding the JEKE/MG train into oblivion. I was even aware that JEKE was a shell company that held only 1 thing, the Belfrey family leasehold interst and accordingly bore no financial risk that you all did. Even directors liability wouldn't apply as the debt would not be a CRA witholding debt. As Sandy has mentioned, we are out of the Country Feb 4 to 18 (we are every year). Upon our return, IF this group can UNITE, we will be glad to help as best we can however, I am aware that by letting JEKE waste our time and your money, this is an even more uphill battle than it would have been had we all united 4 years ago.





Petus@18 said:


> More from FB
> Ms Stoner .. its not "ignorant" to have trust in people or a contract. We live in an age where the "wolf in sheep's clothing" seems to be more than children's story. Only 2 of us attended the depositions in Calgary in July 2013 .. Mr Hedayat and myself where I saw first hand Lindsey LeBlanc of Cox Taylor agree with Jud Virtue to hide the indenties of those in Northwind REIT. In Court you are entitled to face your accuser ... but the BC Court system has allowed Northwind REIT to remain a "secret society" using its minions to do the dirty work while Judge Loo denied us the email list to each other so we could band all 15,000 of us together. Judges are lawyers first and it is quite possible that NO ONE wants this thing to get out into the public eye. Even Justice Romaine way back 2008 / 2009 failed on the due diligence to ascertain that Fairmont had over $40,000,000 in un-allocated deferred revenue (our capital investments) that would not have allowed the Bankruptcy in the first place.



WOW . . . all this looks VERY damning!  Where did all this come from? (FB supposedly, but I'm not a member).

A lot of interesting insights here, but is it "real" or "fake news"?  Have these "facts" been verified and vetted or are they pure speculation and hearsay?  Keep in mind that wrongful accusations just serve to undermine our case.  Once the media, a judge or whatever find some misstated facts then the whole set of facts become very questionable.  So be careful unless you want this to devolve into conspiracy theory!

Here's a real head-scratcher:  *does anyone here know of ANY other similar contract ANYWHERE?*

a 40-year commitment, WITHOUT a termination provision
allows for UNILATERAL changes by ONE party (ie rewrite the whole thing if they please)
a 27% interest rate, in perpetuity
This is nothing less than *PREDATORY*!!!!

*HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE ENFORCEABLE???*


----------



## tssuck

Have any of the US people contacted the Attorney General's office of their state to see if these rulings have merit in their particular state. If so, what did you find out?


----------



## Petus@18

CleoB said:


> I think...."why didn't this come up earlier? Why are you just now bringing this up?"



LOL, because we just find out!!


----------



## aden2

Gosh NM is coming across as if they are part of the Mifia!


----------



## Hopeful_One

dotbuhler said:


> I'll put money on this being MG or KW!!


I think ya right or may be their minion! And for MG to pretend he is a Christian with his family is atrocious. Man go to your church and repent if peradventure you may find mercy from the Lord you confess to love and serve. You collude with KW, who is still playing WOW Craft game, to defraud us and then set tight pay-out timelines to intimidate us, fixing a gag order to ensure there will be no time to dig out the truth. Whatever is hidden in darkness will come to light; you can take this to the bank. In the mean time, Edmonton Town Hall is the place to be later today for all those who can make it. I will try my best to be there in time. Come armed with all relevant documentation, cameras and sound recorders. This fraud must be dealt with once and for all. Next week we should march to Justice Ministers office for those who are available. In the mean time make sure you have all signed the petition, sent letters/ emails and/or called your MLAs, Prime Ministers office, Justice Minister office, RCMP. Also print out all email exchanges between yourself and MG and NM. NEVER AGAIN IN CANADA !!!!! This fraud MUST STOP whatever it takes. Where are you WHISTLE BLOWER ?


----------



## Tanny13

I have found a good litigation lawyer, in Edmonton, who is willing to represent those who have received the notice of withdrawal of service from SLG.  If you are subject to Judge Young's decision, he will represent you.  He would look at the submissions of cost and interest before JY (if the decision has not yet been handed down) and he would try to submit additional evidence (I.e. costs that were included in maintenance fees).  If he could not submit additional evidence, he could represent us in an appeal of JY's original decision and/or her decision on cost and interest.  He admitted it will be a tough road.  I need to know asap if you are interested in moving forward in this group.   Please email me asap at thebestboy@me.com to let me know.  I will know, hopefully by the end of the week, what retainer he requires and how we can move forward.  Following is the information he will require (please don't send anything yet):
Your notice of withdrawal from SLG
Copy of your driver's license with photo.

Here we go....


----------



## servemeout

We may be interested.  There are a few issues that were NOT stressed that contributed to our court loss.  The RPF was based on* THE WHOLE RESORT* being done.  How can we be charged the amount claimed when only a fraction of the #NAFR has been done, plus the inflated interest.  NM was also responsible to pay for the *RPF and MAINTENANCE FEES* on the units that they own.  They have not paid their share. It is my understanding that three units at Riverside and Riverview are the only building done.  Of the eight Hillside buildings, only three are to remain - Is that the whole resort?  Judge Young has been given "alternative facts".  The odds of any more work being done is probably slim to nil.  This was a scam from the get go.  If we would have gone the Pay to Stay, the out come would have been the same.  There will be no resort, only a massive eye sore caused by our legal system and white collar criminals.  Where is our compensation for the 23 years we had left on our 40 year lease? The Consumer protection Act did not come onto play, and that should have been part of our case. There has been one demographic group targeted - the retired.  Kiss my grits!


----------



## Punter

MgolferL said:


> Does anyone know about when JY is supposed to rule on interest?



No, but how hard can it be for a Judge to make this decision, especially knowing the implications of February 15th?


----------



## Been Around Awhile

ecwinch said:


> No, I THINK this a large group of people were given false hope for years and now are in a horrible mess. That is the danger in listening to uninformed opinions and only listening to those who have no clue on the legal issues the court considered.
> 
> I HOPE this case will lead to some legal reform in Canada, protecting consumers from situations like this and requiring timeshare plans to implement some of the protections that would have prevented it... aka requiring homeowner associations, approval of members on special assessments, elected leadership, etc. Some are doing great work toward that end, while some are still stuck in the early stages of the grieving process, and can’t move past the denial phase.
> 
> Direct your angst elsewhere, my only role in this tragedy is helping people understand how the court ruled on the issues before them.
> 
> NOTE: As previously stated, this is my personal opinion, and has nothing to do with my role as a moderator on this forum.




Northmont's behavior establishes a pattern that exposes the bigger picture. For nearly ten years Bernie Madoff escaped having his fraud detected. He was investigated numerous times by the SEC. In the end, his true intention was exposed, as will be Northmont's.

Northmont has fooled the courts, but in time, their behavior will tell the whole story.


----------



## Lorene Keitch

My name is Lorene Keitch, I'm the editor of the Columbia Valley Pioneer newspaper in Invermere, British Columbia. I'm looking to do a story on the latest court decision and am looking for reaction from timeshare owners and / or lawyers representing your interests. Can someone please direct me to who I could phone for further information? Thank you for your time.


----------



## Petus@18

Tanny13 said:


> I have found a good litigation lawyer, in Edmonton, who is willing to represent those who have received the notice of withdrawal of service from SLG.  If you are subject to Judge Young's decision, he will represent you.  He would look at the submissions of cost and interest before JY (if the decision has not yet been handed down) and he would try to submit additional evidence (I.e. costs that were included in maintenance fees).  If he could not submit additional evidence, he could represent us in an appeal of JY's original decision and/or her decision on cost and interest.  He admitted it will be a tough road.  I need to know asap if you are interested in moving forward in this group.   Please email me asap at thebestboy@me.com to let me know.  I will know, hopefully by the end of the week, what retainer he requires and how we can move forward.  Following is the information he will require (please don't send anything yet):
> Your notice of withdrawal from SLG
> Copy of your driver's license with photo.
> 
> Here we go....




We would be interested, who is the lawyer?


----------



## Stung

How many of us average Joes and Janes are familiar with the document (see link) below.  I suspect very few.  Our legal representatives know this information.  Below are a few excerpts from the document.

http://flsc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Model-Code-as-amended-March-2017-Final.pdf



Federation of Law Societies of Canada, Model Code of Professional Conduct, as amended March 14, 2017

… CHAPTER 2 – STANDARDS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION


2.1 INTEGRITY


2.1-1 A lawyer has a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity.


Commentary

[1]  Integrity is the fundamental quality of any person who seeks to practise as a member of the legal profession. If a client has any doubt about his or her lawyer’s trustworthiness, the essential element in the true lawyer-client relationship will be missing. If integrity is lacking, the lawyer’s usefulness to the client and reputation within the profession will be destroyed, regardless of how competent the lawyer may be.


[2] Public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal profession may be eroded by a lawyer’s irresponsible conduct. Accordingly, a lawyer’s conduct should reflect favourably on the legal profession, inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and of the community, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.


[3]  Dishonourable or questionable conduct on the part of a lawyer in either private life or professional practice will reflect adversely upon the integrity of the profession and the administration of justice. Whether within or outside the professional sphere, if the conduct is such that knowledge of it would be likely to impair a client’s trust in the lawyer, the Society may be justified in taking disciplinary action. …



…3.2 QUALITY OF SERVICE


Examples of expected practices

[5] The quality of service to a client may be measured by the extent to which a lawyer maintains certain standards in practice. The following list, which is illustrative and not exhaustive, provides key examples of expected practices in

this area:

(a)  keeping a client reasonably informed;

(b)  answering reasonable requests from a client for information;

(c)  responding to a client’s telephone calls;

(d)  keeping appointments with a client, or providing a timely explanation or apology when unable to keep such an appointment;

(e)  taking appropriate steps to do something promised to a client, or informing or explaining to the client when it is not possible to do so;

(f)  ensuring, where appropriate, that all instructions are in writing or confirmed in writing;

(g) answering, within a reasonable time, any communication that requires a reply;

(h) ensuring that work is done in a timely manner so that its value to the client is maintained;

(i) providing quality work and giving reasonable attention to the review of documentation to avoid delay and unnecessary costs to correct errors or omissions;

(j) maintaining office staff, facilities and equipment adequate to the lawyer’s practice;

(k) informing a client of a proposal of settlement, and explaining the proposal properly;

(l) providing a client with complete and accurate relevant information about a matter;

(m) making a prompt and complete report when the work is finished or, if a

final report cannot be made, providing an interim report when one might reasonably be expected;

 avoiding the use of intoxicants or drugs that interferes with or prejudices the lawyer’s services to the client;

(o) being civil.


[6]  A lawyer should meet deadlines, unless the lawyer is able to offer a reasonable explanation and ensure that no prejudice to the client will result. Whether or not a specific deadline applies, a lawyer should be prompt in handling a matter, *responding to communications and reporting developments to the client. In the absence of developments, contact with the client should be maintained to the extent the client reasonably expects*….



I would like to believe the legal representatives have fully adhered to this document as part of their legal professions.   There are many reasons thousands of us clients are feeling betrayed and let down by this whole process in the legal system and the judgments leading up to this point.  If anyone should question it, just look at the 158 pages of documentation…


----------



## Appauled

CleoB said:


> Who is Higgerty Law?  Are they familiar with the history of this litigation?  Also, why would one go to Farrell if they have selected option one with Geldert?  What am I missing here?


Higgerty Law has the Lawyer named Clint Dokken at their firm. He is a Class action Specialist and I understand he has been working with clients since 2013 on the Sunchaser/Northmont case that are not involved with Geldert Law


----------



## truthr

Tanny13 said:


> I have found a good litigation lawyer, in Edmonton, who is willing to represent those who have received the notice of withdrawal of service from SLG.  If you are subject to Judge Young's decision, he will represent you.  He would look at the submissions of cost and interest before JY (if the decision has not yet been handed down) and he would try to submit additional evidence (I.e. costs that were included in maintenance fees).  If he could not submit additional evidence, he could represent us in an appeal of JY's original decision and/or her decision on cost and interest.  He admitted it will be a tough road.  I need to know asap if you are interested in moving forward in this group.   Please email me asap at thebestboy@me.com to let me know.  I will know, hopefully by the end of the week, what retainer he requires and how we can move forward.  Following is the information he will require (please don't send anything yet):
> Your notice of withdrawal from SLG
> Copy of your driver's license with photo.
> 
> Here we go....


For what it is worth I endorse this.


----------



## Petus@18

CleoB said:


> Who is Higgerty Law?  Are they familiar with the history of this litigation?  Also, why would one go to Farrell if they have selected option one with Geldert?  What am I missing here?



We selected Option 1 because MG lied to us! If we don't sign his bloody settlement, we can do whatever we want.  So that is what you are missing!


----------



## Hey lady

Lorene Keitch said:


> My name is Lorene Keitch, I'm the editor of the Columbia Valley Pioneer newspaper in Invermere, British Columbia. I'm looking to do a story on the latest court decision and am looking for reaction from timeshare owners and / or lawyers representing your interests. Can someone please direct me to who I could phone for further information? Thank you for your time.


Truth Renaissance did a fabulous job on a Calgary radio station recently.  Check out her posts and make contact with her.


----------



## SAV

Lorene Keitch said:


> My name is Lorene Keitch, I'm the editor of the Columbia Valley Pioneer newspaper in Invermere, British Columbia. I'm looking to do a story on the latest court decision and am looking for reaction from timeshare owners and / or lawyers representing your interests. Can someone please direct me to who I could phone for further information? Thank you for your time.



I would be happy to talk to you. I am not up to speed on the legal issues but can fill you in on what my perspective is.  My phone number is 403 607 7479. Name is stephen


----------



## terminator

servemeout said:


> We may be interested.  There are a few issues that were NOT stressed that contributed to our court loss.  The RPF was based on* THE WHOLE RESORT* being done.  How can we be charged the amount claimed when only a fraction of the #NAFR has been done, plus the inflated interest.  NM was also responsible to pay for the *RPF and MAINTENANCE FEES* on the units that they own.  They have not paid their share. It is my understanding that three units at Riverside and Riverview are the only building done.  Of the eight Hillside buildings, only three are to remain - Is that the whole resort?  Judge Young has been given "alternative facts".  The odds of any more work being done is probably slim to nil.  This was a scam from the get go.  If we would have gone the Pay to Stay, the out come would have been the same.  There will be no resort, only a massive eye sore caused by our legal system and white collar criminals.  Where is our compensation for the 23 years we had left on our 40 year lease? The Consumer protection Act did not come onto play, and that should have been part of our case. There has been one demographic group targeted - the retired.  Kiss my grits!



A file has been opened with a police service. Too early to forecast expectations but optimistic. Got ourselves into a fraud situation in '15 with a MX TS, which was the slickest one I had ever been exposed to (have to say that). Took me 7 mos but was refunded all of the 40,000 from Visa...yeah I know. Will be checking in here on a regular basis and may need some help.


----------



## ecwinch

servemeout said:


> We may be interested.  There are a few issues that were NOT stressed that contributed to our court loss.  The RPF was based on* THE WHOLE RESORT* being done.  How can we be charged the amount claimed when only a fraction of the #NAFR has been done, plus the inflated interest.  NM was also responsible to pay for the *RPF and MAINTENANCE FEES* on the units that they own.  They have not paid their share.



These issues were raised with court. The court ruled that it was reasonable for NM to take out inventory that they held and to convert the building into a condo under the Resort Realignment Plan. Decision was upheld on appeal.

_Para. 382: that Northmont was in breach of its obligation to pay its portion of the Renovation Project Fee. Para. 381: No merit

[384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements). [385] In my view, it is within the discretion of the Manager to do so in an appropriate fashion. Further, I consider that this is a reasonable approach until it is determined whether Step 4 of the Resort Realignment Plan will come to pass. JEKE’s counsel makes the somewhat vague assertion that if Northmont had paid its portion of the Renovation Project Fee, “we would not be here”. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, to the extent that the renovations have been completed by the Resort using the Renovation Project Fee, this has allowed time share owners, including JEKE, to use these renovated units, just as contemplated by the VIAs._


----------



## Bewildered

SAV said:


> I would be happy to talk to you. I am not up to speed on the legal issues but can fill you in on what my perspective is.  My phone number is 403 607 7479. Name is stephen


If your not up to speed on the legal then you would  be doing this group a dis-service. Your also new and have little input to this group. I agree Truth-renaissance seems to have a good handle and probably the background required.


----------



## Bewildered

terminator said:


> A file has been opened with a police service. Too early to forecast expectations but optimistic. Got ourselves into a fraud situation in '15 with a MX TS, which was the slickest one I had ever been exposed to (have to say that). Took me 7 mos but was refunded all of the 40,000 from Visa...yeah I know. Will be checking in here on a regular basis and may need some help.


What???? Please explain otherwise I call BS especially on the police file (well the $40G Visa too). Had too many discussions with RCMP all dead ends for this to now be happening.


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

ecwinch said:


> These issues were raised with court. The court ruled that it was reasonable for NM to take out inventory that they held and to convert the building into a condo under the Resort Realignment Plan. Decision was upheld on appeal.
> 
> _Para. 382: that Northmont was in breach of its obligation to pay its portion of the Renovation Project Fee. Para. 381: No merit
> 
> [384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements). [385] In my view, it is within the discretion of the Manager to do so in an appropriate fashion. Further, I consider that this is a reasonable approach until it is determined whether Step 4 of the Resort Realignment Plan will come to pass. JEKE’s counsel makes the somewhat vague assertion that if Northmont had paid its portion of the Renovation Project Fee, “we would not be here”. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, to the extent that the renovations have been completed by the Resort using the Renovation Project Fee, this has allowed time share owners, including JEKE, to use these renovated units, just as contemplated by the VIAs._



Are you serious? Is there no limit to what you will do or say to justify the Courts' decision? So they decide they don't have to pay and thats ok with you? Please moderate but, we don't need your capitulation with the Justices. If you've no skin in the game we'd prefer you didn't play.


----------



## Tanny13

ecwinch said:


> These issues were raised with court. The court ruled that it was reasonable for NM to take out inventory that they held and to convert the building into a condo under the Resort Realignment Plan. Decision was upheld on appeal.
> 
> _Para. 382: that Northmont was in breach of its obligation to pay its portion of the Renovation Project Fee. Para. 381: No merit
> 
> [384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements). [385] In my view, it is within the discretion of the Manager to do so in an appropriate fashion. Further, I consider that this is a reasonable approach until it is determined whether Step 4 of the Resort Realignment Plan will come to pass. JEKE’s counsel makes the somewhat vague assertion that if Northmont had paid its portion of the Renovation Project Fee, “we would not be here”. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, to the extent that the renovations have been completed by the Resort using the Renovation Project Fee, this has allowed time share owners, including JEKE, to use these renovated units, just as contemplated by the VIAs._



The RPF was based on renovating all the units.  Why then wasn't the RPF reduced to reflect those units that were removed?


----------



## Beelzebub

kaput


----------



## Been Around Awhile

Beelzebub said:


> everyone venting, feels good, but anything concrete is lacking as we have been through the courts and lost. That bloody well it.



Have you heard of punctuation? If you are who you say you are, go to Hades.


----------



## ecwinch

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> Are you serious? Is there no limit to what you will do or say to justify the Courts' decision? So they decide they don't have to pay and thats ok with you? Please moderate but, we don't need your capitulation with the Justices. If you've no skin in the game we'd prefer you didn't play.



And I think you need a dose of reality. You can live in that echo chamber, but it clearly did not help you in the numerous court proceedings.


----------



## Punter

ecwinch said:


> These issues were raised with court. The court ruled that it was reasonable for NM to take out inventory that they held and to convert the building into a condo under the Resort Realignment Plan. Decision was upheld on appeal.
> 
> _Para. 382: that Northmont was in breach of its obligation to pay its portion of the Renovation Project Fee. Para. 381: No merit
> 
> [384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. *Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated* (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements). [385] In my view, it is within the discretion of the Manager to do so in an appropriate fashion. Further, I consider that this is a reasonable approach until it is determined whether Step 4 of the Resort Realignment Plan will come to pass. JEKE’s counsel makes the somewhat vague assertion that if Northmont had paid its portion of the Renovation Project Fee, “we would not be here”. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, to the extent that the renovations have been completed by the Resort using the Renovation Project Fee, this has allowed time share owners, including JEKE, to use these renovated units, just as contemplated by the VIAs._



Please offer your opinion on how/why NM can charge the RPF in this ‘settlement’, along with 26% compounded interest (interest alone in our case is 18k$) for something they have admitted in court has not been, and will never be, completed.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

ecwinch said:


> And I think you need a dose of reality. You can live in that echo chamber, but it clearly did not help you in the numerous court proceedings.



You're just posting to hear yourself.


----------



## Just Looking Around

ecwinch said:


> These issues were raised with court. The court ruled that it was reasonable for NM to take out inventory that they held and to convert the building into a condo under the Resort Realignment Plan. Decision was upheld on appeal.
> 
> _Para. 382: that Northmont was in breach of its obligation to pay its portion of the Renovation Project Fee. Para. 381: No merit
> 
> [384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements). [385] In my view, it is within the discretion of the Manager to do so in an appropriate fashion. Further, I consider that this is a reasonable approach until it is determined whether Step 4 of the Resort Realignment Plan will come to pass. JEKE’s counsel makes the somewhat vague assertion that if Northmont had paid its portion of the Renovation Project Fee, “we would not be here”. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, to the extent that the renovations have been completed by the Resort using the Renovation Project Fee, this has allowed time share owners, including JEKE, to use these renovated units, just as contemplated by the VIAs._



Please answer Punter"s question.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

ecwinch said:


> These issues were raised with court. The court ruled that it was reasonable for NM to take out inventory that they held and to convert the building into a condo under the Resort Realignment Plan. Decision was upheld on appeal.
> 
> _Para. 382: that Northmont was in breach of its obligation to pay its portion of the Renovation Project Fee. Para. 381: No merit
> 
> [384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements). [385] In my view, it is within the discretion of the Manager to do so in an appropriate fashion. Further, I consider that this is a reasonable approach until it is determined whether Step 4 of the Resort Realignment Plan will come to pass. JEKE’s counsel makes the somewhat vague assertion that if Northmont had paid its portion of the Renovation Project Fee, “we would not be here”. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, to the extent that the renovations have been completed by the Resort using the Renovation Project Fee, this has allowed time share owners, including JEKE, to use these renovated units, just as contemplated by the VIAs._





Sunchaser Barbados said:


> Are you serious? Is there no limit to what you will do or say to justify the Courts' decision? So they decide they don't have to pay and thats ok with you? Please moderate but, we don't need your capitulation with the Justices. If you've no skin in the game we'd prefer you didn't play.



I assume ecwinch is just pointing out where we no longer have legal standing, not specifically if he agrees with the decision.  I hope he does continue to post as it helps me understand this mess from the courts point of view and might make clear where there is still valid legal standing.

As stated in previous posts, the settlement is based on our bill which includes:
1. The renovation fee, which is not being done on our units since we are leaving.
2. Maintenance fees, for services we were denied.
3. Interest at 27% on these amounts, when they did not spend the money.
4. Plus an added amount, presumably an exit fee for our lease agreement.

They are double dipping or worse, and there is no way the damages could be this much.  Also, I think the court did rule that they were responsible for their share of the Maintenance fees, which is likely what was being referred to.  If their share of maintenance fees had been paid, the bill would have been less (half) for that portion.

It has been said that we are not actually paying for the above items, it is just an amount.  My question still remains, does anyone know where this money is legally suppose to go?  Does it need to be spent on the resort?  From a previous post, it looks like it will not be going to the REIT investors.  Shouldn't it show as income on the books and then have to be shown as an expense when the money is spent?  Someone please help me understand this from the legal perspective.  If the money is spent on the resort, it is in great shape.  If not, things are not going to be looking good for the resort going forward or those still involved.


----------



## terminator

Bewildered said:


> What???? Please explain otherwise I call BS especially on the police file (well the $40G Visa too). Had too many discussions with RCMP all dead ends for this to now be happening.



The first and last time I will reply to you. This is a criminal case - fraud! The civil case was lost, at least the first one. The court is as guilty as NM. For the most part I don't get involved in these scrums...I don't need the crap from people like you, after investing hours upon hours on this. Seldom cohesive and organized is
 forum content, that's why NM gets away with this. You think I come here to brag? Better things to do. The point I was making was I (with some help from other victims) took on fraudsters and proved our case. It can be done if you know what the hell you're talking about. Actually, it was more than 40,000. Then again, I don't need to prove anything to you. Hasta luego!


----------



## ecwinch

Tanny13 said:


> The RPF was based on renovating all the units.  Why then wasn't the RPF reduced to reflect those units that were removed?



The short answer is it was reduced, but since the number units decreased also, the amount each unit week pays remains the same.

As example, as I understand it the resort has/had a total of 250 units. I dont know the exact amount of the total RPF originally, but lets say $52million covering 250 units or $208k per unit. If you remove 128 units from the timeshare plan, the total amount of the RPF then goes down to $25.376 million covering 122 units. So the total cost of the project has decreased, but so has the number of units paying the RPF. 

So your individual bill is still same.


----------



## Stung

Lorene Keitch said:


> My name is Lorene Keitch, I'm the editor of the Columbia Valley Pioneer newspaper in Invermere, British Columbia. I'm looking to do a story on the latest court decision and am looking for reaction from timeshare owners and / or lawyers representing your interests. Can someone please direct me to who I could phone for further information? Thank you for your time.



Please do us justice with your (our) story and make it count!  Certainly contact Truth-renaissance.  You can also get a summary here  http://truths2cents.blogspot.ca/search/label/Northmont Sunchaser Scandal


----------



## ecwinch

Punter said:


> Please offer your opinion on how/why NM can charge the RPF in this ‘settlement’, along with 26% compounded interest (interest alone in our case is 18k$) for something they have admitted in court has not been, and will never be, completed.



Where do you find that they admitted in court that the work will not be completed?


----------



## ecwinch

Been Around Awhile said:


> You're just posting to hear yourself.


You are entitled to your opinion. But based on the PM's I have received thanking me for helping people understand the court rulings, it is clear that is not all I am doing.

If you find it so difficult to hear facts that do not align with your belief system, please use the ignore feature to ignore my posts and you will not be subjected to that information.


----------



## Petus@18




----------



## Punter

ecwinch said:


> Where do you find that they admitted in court that the work will not be completed?



_[384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. *Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated* (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements)._

The settlement is to get out - to cancel. Why would NM renovate units that have no "Lessees"?


----------



## ecwinch

How does what you are quoting differ with this example:

250 units
Total Reno budget = $52 million
Reno budget per unit = $208k
Reno budget per unit week = $4k

Remove 128 units from the RFP

Total Reno Budget has to decrease, as you avoid having to renovate entire buildings as NM retires those weeks from the timeshare plan. So the number cannot be $52 million anymore.

The court fully understood that certain buildings were not to be renovated at owners expense. But why should NM pay RFP on units that will not be renovated under the RFP? What is the legal basis for arguing that?

EDIT: If MG had his eye on the ball he would have suggested you band together to get the same deal that NM was taking - the ability to take a entire building out of the timeshare plan. Then just sell the building or bulldoze it. With 1400 owners in the group that would seem to translate to at least one building at the resort.


----------



## wagga2650

Question for someone smarter than me.We are in option 1 but we were duped into thinking we could review before accepting.Can we join the option 2 as it sits now?


----------



## Spark1

wagga2650 said:


> Question for someone smarter than me.We are in option 1 but we were duped into thinking we could review before accepting.Can we join the option 2 as it sits now?


 Ihave talked to the RCMP and explained to them what is happening and they said they can not see this being legal. Talk to your RCMP and explain every thing with them. I can not see this being legal There is so much going on with this case that I feel is Fraud


----------



## CleoB

ecwinch said:


> These issues were raised with court. The court ruled that it was reasonable for NM to take out inventory that they held and to convert the building into a condo under the Resort Realignment Plan. Decision was upheld on appeal.
> 
> _Para. 382: that Northmont was in breach of its obligation to pay its portion of the Renovation Project Fee. Para. 381: No merit
> 
> [384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements). [385] In my view, it is within the discretion of the Manager to do so in an appropriate fashion. Further, I consider that this is a reasonable approach until it is determined whether Step 4 of the Resort Realignment Plan will come to pass. JEKE’s counsel makes the somewhat vague assertion that if Northmont had paid its portion of the Renovation Project Fee, “we would not be here”. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, to the extent that the renovations have been completed by the Resort using the Renovation Project Fee, this has allowed time share owners, including JEKE, to use these renovated units, just as contemplated by the VIAs._


I think our side should have argued that the units/building shuttered were actually from the timeshare owners that paid to leave so would not be responsible for maintenance fees or RPF.  If they could use the agreement so should we.


----------



## CleoB

Punter said:


> Please offer your opinion on how/why NM can charge the RPF in this ‘settlement’, along with 26% compounded interest (interest alone in our case is 18k$) for something they have admitted in court has not been, and will never be, completed.


Can you please point me to the document, page and paragraph that indicates NM "never will complete the renos"?  Thanks


----------



## aden2

wagga2650 said:


> Question for someone smarter than me.We are in option 1 but we were duped into thinking we could review before accepting.Can we join the option 2 as it sits now?[/
> *This is why I changed from option one, because MG would not disclose how much I would have to pay before hand even though I had it in writing that he would never agree to something without the VIA's knowing what he wanted to agree on. I told MG he was playing games and was not getting my money without knowing his agreement!*


----------



## aden2

wagga2650 said:


> Question for someone smarter than me.We are in option 1 but we were duped into thinking we could review before accepting.Can we join the option 2 as it sits now?


Send a letter to MG with your thoughts! I opted out of option one......


----------



## CleoB

Here's the latest decision on the appeal in B.C.  https://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-conte...t-Resort-Properties-Ltd.-v.-Golberg-01-31.pdf


----------



## truthr

CleoB said:


> Here's the latest decision on the appeal in B.C.  https://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-conte...t-Resort-Properties-Ltd.-v.-Golberg-01-31.pdf


To my knowledge the appeal was squashed in November 2017.

From the looks of this document it is the BC Supplementary Reasons for Judgment
I haven't read it all the way through yet but from I read it looks like it is dealing with the issue of cost and interest for the BC defendants


----------



## Jjareed

CleoB said:


> Here's the latest decision on the appeal in B.C.  https://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-conte...t-Resort-Properties-Ltd.-v.-Golberg-01-31.pdf



*So do you have exhibit B and C.  I would like to know the total damages for the 370 defendants.   B below works out to $900, but I don't know what a and c are?



IV. CONCLUSION 

*
[57] I make the following orders:

a) the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the amounts set out in Exhibit "B" of the Wankel Affidavit #3, plus interest;

b) the plaintiff is entitled to special costs in a total fixed amount of $333,000 to be divided severally across the defendant actions in proportion to the interim statements of account for fees set out in Exhibit "C" to the Wankel Affidavit #3; and

c) the plaintiff is entitled to disbursements in the amounts set out in Exhibit "C" to the Wankel Affidavit #3, save that any disbursements attributable to the Rule 9-5 application shall be divided severally and in the same manner as the special costs award.


----------



## Jjareed

truthr said:


> To my knowledge the appeal was squashed in November 2017.
> 
> From the looks of this document it is the BC Supplementary Reasons for Judgment
> I haven't read it all the way through yet but from I read it looks like it is dealing with the issue of cost and interest for the BC defendants



This is dated 1-31-18


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

CleoB said:


> Here's the latest decision on the appeal in B.C.  https://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-conte...t-Resort-Properties-Ltd.-v.-Golberg-01-31.pdf



Wow, only read part so far.  Anyone know how to get the Exhibits?


----------



## MgolferL

NeverNeverAgain said:


> I assume ecwinch is just pointing out where we no longer have legal standing, not specifically if he agrees with the decision.  I hope he does continue to post as it helps me understand this mess from the courts point of view and might make clear where there is still valid legal standing.
> 
> As stated in previous posts, the settlement is based on our bill which includes:
> 1. The renovation fee, which is not being done on our units since we are leaving.
> 2. Maintenance fees, for services we were denied.
> 3. Interest at 27% on these amounts, when they did not spend the money.
> 4. Plus an added amount, presumably an exit fee for our lease agreement.
> 
> They are double dipping or worse, and there is no way the damages could be this much.  Also, I think the court did rule that they were responsible for their share of the Maintenance fees, which is likely what was being referred to.  If their share of maintenance fees had been paid, the bill would have been less (half) for that portion.
> 
> It has been said that we are not actually paying for the above items, it is just an amount.  My question still remains, does anyone know where this money is legally suppose to go?  Does it need to be spent on the resort?  From a previous post, it looks like it will not be going to the REIT investors.  Shouldn't it show as income on the books and then have to be shown as an expense when the money is spent?  Someone please help me understand this from the legal perspective.  If the money is spent on the resort, it is in great shape.  If not, things are not going to be looking good for the resort going forward or those still involved.



I agree with everything you have said...and in reading your post along with every other post several times again this morning, I just wanted to throw out a few points....I may be incorrect but as this mess is evidence, it wouldn't be the first time.
Regarding your Point #1...
1. The RFP (renovation fee) IS this "term" what has and is causing us all this grief? In going thru things this morning, yet once again...including my 2007 "Vacation Experience Lease" it occurred to me that there was no "EXIT" clause, with the exception that if you were 90 days in arrears (Section 13), they could in essence terminate the Lease. I can't find it, but I also think if they changed things around and kicked anyone out, they would have even been required to pay for that decision.
2. When Fairmont went "broke" and Northmont picked it up, they received our leases in the "purchase". In other words, they bought (very cheaply) upwards of 14000 leases and wanted to get rid of half or more.
3. Had they just announced they were going to downsize the resort, and/or sell off buildings, people would have screamed bloody blue murder.
4. Consequently, they came up with the RFP, and told us our share was $$$. They just wanted people to leave, hence the POS Stay/Go Program. Thinking people weren't going to pay for repairs, the assumption may have been...a lot of people would just pay and go, but they also underestimated the amount that thought it was unfair...aka...us. 
5. Perhaps by continually fighting and focusing on the "renovation battle" knowing that they are Not going to renovate and Never intended to renovate" we missed opportunity to fight the "they are kicking us out battle" , so in other words NOT fighting the changes they made to our contracts. 
6. My thought in this is that the reno battle can't and will not be won (appears to be obvious at this point). The strategy was poor from the start. In going into the next round, perhaps the strategy has to change significantly.
7. BTW, everyone questions interest which has escalated our invoices to what they are...(Thanks MG)...the original 07 contract (Section 11), it shows that interest rate, which we never read because we were so excited to start making memories. I doubt that is something that can be fought.

To sum it up...we went to a "gunfight" with a "knife". I was so majorly focused on why I was not going to pay for renovations, and so minor focused on my "exit" cost my bill is 84% higher that it was in '13 due to interest and other costs...as I followed MG down the garden path.  

I may not have worded this entirely coherently, but think i think the contract battle may be the one to fight. My original one shows it was a "Vacation Experience Lease" and I never received a new one with the "new owners" and being lumped in with JEKE screwed us ALL...also thanks for that MG. In other words, I am being punished based on a piece of paper that I have NEVER seen, signed or have been made aware of.

I am Option 1 and still deciding what to do, but there are a couple of lawyers in Edmonton that are looking at fighting a "new" fight. That fight (in my opinion only) has to take a new direction if it can...just throwing it out there...and lastly...DON't let anyone who is not up to speed on this do ANY interviews. The CTV one which could have major...was an example of a waste of time. Let Truth Renaissance speak for the group.


----------



## Shake Down

MgolferL said:


> I am being punished based on a piece of paper that I have NEVER seen, signed or have been made aware of.



Yes I agree!


----------



## truthr

NeverNeverAgain said:


> Wow, only read part so far.  Anyone know how to get the Exhibits?


Something maybe our lawyer should be providing as he receives them???  And the one the judge is referring to is dated September 30, 2017.


----------



## Lorene Keitch

Bewildered said:


> If your not up to speed on the legal then you would  be doing this group a dis-service. Your also new and have little input to this group. I agree Truth-renaissance seems to have a good handle and probably the background required.


But Stephen is the only one who has reached out to me to comment. Truth is unavailable to speak to me at this time. If anyone else would like to go on record with their comments about this situation, please feel free to call me at 250-341-6299 ext. 110


----------



## MarcieL

Anyone have a link for the facebook group?


----------



## MarcieL

https://globalnews.ca/news/3957452/danielle-smith-timeshare-laws-need-to-change/


----------



## Tanny13

ecwinch said:


> The short answer is it was reduced, but since the number units decreased also, the amount each unit week pays remains the same.
> 
> As example, as I understand it the resort has/had a total of 250 units. I dont know the exact amount of the total RPF originally, but lets say $52million covering 250 units or $208k per unit. If you remove 128 units from the timeshare plan, the total amount of the RPF then goes down to $25.376 million covering 122 units. So the total cost of the project has decreased, but so has the number of units paying the RPF.
> 
> So your individual bill is still same.



The settlement amount is to leave the resort.  ALL the settlements include the RPF.  Can you explain that with logical reasoning?  And the original amount per unit was ridiculous, as it continues to be.


----------



## truthr

Tanny13 said:


> The settlement amount is to leave the resort.  ALL the settlements include the RPF.  Can you explain that with logical reasoning?  And the original amount per unit was ridiculous, as it continues to be.


The settlement dollar amounts may be based on the RPF, past maintenance, interest, costs, etc.  but I wonder if the resort itself will ever see the monies collected from the "settlement" agreements.


----------



## Machete

The basis for an appeal in res judicata, are limited to discovery of fraud, error in fact or important new facts, not reasonably discoverable by due diligence at the time the case was argued. Other basis include judicial error or judicial bias. The judge must be seen to have empathy towards the aggrieved parties.

1. Error in fact: the timeshare interest owners were stated as the "owners" of the resort for purposes of capital costs.
In Jeke v Northmont, paragraph 17 "Vacation interval owners are sometimes referred to as owners or lessees depending on the type of their respective interests. As I will describe below, Jeke's interest is as a lessee. I will refer to them as *owners*." REALLY!?
 Note in the same case, paragraph 45; "...Fairmont's operations at the resort continued until mid-2010 when the CCAA proceedings resulted in Fairmont's secured creditors through *a new ownership* structure, which included Northmont taking over the assets of Fairmont. These assets included Fairmont's interests under the Jeke VIA's."

Timeshare owner interests form only a small portion of Northmont's assets at Sunchaser, about 38.5% including Northmont's reversionary interests.

Note paragraph 47, "Northmont *inherited* a resort with significant maintenance and structural issues." So again, Northmont LP is stated as the *primary owner* of the resort.  NW has made millions from the resort as they have done in other resorts around the world. They did this through sales of Legacy for Life, through firesale timeshares in 2010, through management fees of 15%, through RVM, through income from NP REIT secured against Sunchaser properties, as well as numerous fees and commissions on the REIT sales. There is no question that Sunchaser under NW LP is a for profit business and not a break even cost recovery operation like a strata property.  So in summary, who are the real owners?! NOT the timeshare lessees. This was error in fact, judicial error, and in the background, significant fraud.

 How on earth did the judge view the lessees as the only owners responsible for capital renovations. I'm not just talking about cancelled timeshare interests reverting to NM, but the fact they owned *all* the assets of the resort and will still profit from the sale of units removed from the resort in the downsizing.

One more argument to judicial bias and/or error;
Paragraph 273, "...the logical question that arises is - if the *owners* are not required to pay for these types of costs, whether they are in the nature of capital or not, then who is?" The right answer is *ALL the owners!*

She goes on in paragraph 287 to argue , "There is nothing in the prospectus that imposes an obligation on any other person to pay such capital costs..." 
The judge shows bias or error in her conclusion that absence of a contract statement about who shares costs means ONLY the timeshare owners. Contract interpretation is not the only factor the judge needed to consider. A more logical conclusion is that the developer *and true owner* of the resort should be responsible for at least the portion of the renovations that are over and above normal repairs and maintenance. Who wouldn't want to run a for profit business where the owner gets all the profits yet gets to pass off all his expenses onto someone else?! The judge is flip flopping throughout between between strata and non strata type arguments to favour NM's side. Judicial bias.

Just throwing this out there as possible fodder  to those still fighting this battle.  My fight is over. Good Luck!


----------



## FairSun

Machete said:


> The basis for an appeal in res judicata, are limited to discovery of fraud, error in fact or important new facts, not reasonably discoverable by due diligence at the time the case was argued. Other basis include judicial error or judicial bias. The judge must be seen to have empathy towards the aggrieved parties.
> 
> 1. Error in fact: the timeshare interest owners were stated as the "owners" of the resort for purposes of capital costs.
> In Jeke v Northmont, paragraph 17 "Vacation interval owners are sometimes referred to as owners or lessees depending on the type of their respective interests. As I will describe below, Jeke's interest is as a lessee. I will refer to them as *owners*." REALLY!?
> Note in the same case, paragraph 45; "...Fairmont's operations at the resort continued until mid-2010 when the CCAA proceedings resulted in Fairmont's secured creditors through *a new ownership* structure, which included Northmont taking over the assets of Fairmont. These assets included Fairmont's interests under the Jeke VIA's."
> 
> Timeshare owner interests form only a small portion of Northmont's assets at Sunchaser, about 38.5% including Northmont's reversionary interests.
> 
> Note paragraph 47, "Northmont *inherited* a resort with significant maintenance and structural issues." So again, Northmont LP is stated as the *primary owner* of the resort.  NW has made millions from the resort as they have done in other resorts around the world. They did this through sales of Legacy for Life, through firesale timeshares in 2010, through management fees of 15%, through RVM, through income from NP REIT secured against Sunchaser properties, as well as numerous fees and commissions on the REIT sales. There is no question that Sunchaser under NW LP is a for profit business and not a break even cost recovery operation like a strata property.  So in summary, who are the real owners?! NOT the timeshare lessees. This was error in fact, judicial error, and in the background, significant fraud.
> 
> How on earth did the judge view the lessees as the only owners responsible for capital renovations. I'm not just talking about cancelled timeshare interests reverting to NM, but the fact they owned *all* the assets of the resort and will still profit from the sale of units removed from the resort in the downsizing.
> 
> One more argument to judicial bias and/or error;
> Paragraph 273, "...the logical question that arises is - if the *owners* are not required to pay for these types of costs, whether they are in the nature of capital or not, then who is?" The right answer is *ALL the owners!*
> 
> She goes on in paragraph 287 to argue , "There is nothing in the prospectus that imposes an obligation on any other person to pay such capital costs..."
> The judge shows bias or error in her conclusion that absence of a contract statement about who shares costs means ONLY the timeshare owners. Contract interpretation is not the only factor the judge needed to consider. A more logical conclusion is that the developer *and true owner* of the resort should be responsible for at least the portion of the renovations that are over and above normal repairs and maintenance. Who wouldn't want to run a for profit business where the owner gets all the profits yet gets to pass off all his expenses onto someone else?! The judge is flip flopping throughout between between strata and non strata type arguments to favour NM's side. Judicial bias.
> 
> Just throwing this out there as possible fodder  to those still fighting this battle.  My fight is over. Good Luck!


Wish I had deep pockets to argue your excellent points with a scary-good lawyer!!!


----------



## MFD

ecwinch said:


> The short answer is it was reduced, but since the number units decreased also, the amount each unit week pays remains the same.
> 
> As example, as I understand it the resort has/had a total of 250 units. I dont know the exact amount of the total RPF originally, but lets say $52million covering 250 units or $208k per unit. If you remove 128 units from the timeshare plan, the total amount of the RPF then goes down to $25.376 million covering 122 units. So the total cost of the project has decreased, but so has the number of units paying the RPF.
> 
> So your individual bill is still same.



I don't understand your logic.  The RPF was based on each "Owner" paying their portion of renovating 250 units, which will cost $52 million.  Let's say 14000 Owners had to pay their share of the $52 million RPF.    If the Owner paid the RFP to leave, that money should still go towards renovating all 250 units, because that's how the RPF was calculated.  If Northmount decides to remove some units from the renovations, now they are only renovating 128 units at $25 million. 14000 Owners now pay their portion of $25 million.  So your individual bill is not the same, it's almost half the amount.  Do the math, it's pretty basic.


----------



## MarcieL

MFD said:


> I don't understand your logic.  The RPF was based on each "Owner" paying their portion of renovating 250 units, which will cost $52 million.  Let's say 14000 Owners had to pay their share of the $52 million RPF.    If the Owner paid the RFP to leave, that money should still go towards renovating all 250 units, because that's how the RPF was calculated.  If Northmount decides to remove some units from the renovations, now they are only renovating 128 units at $25 million. 14000 Owners now pay their portion of $25 million.  So your individual bill is not the same, it's almost half the amount.  Do the math, it's pretty basic.




Everything is complex in this case to confuse the hell out of us.


----------



## truthr

MarcieL said:


> Everything is complex in this case to confuse the hell out of us.


Does this sound familiar?:
"Play on the weaknesses of the sucker, take them through the twists and turns of meaningless distractions that go nowhere, then grab their cash".

Not my words but so appropriate.  Not that we are weak or suckers, just regular, innocent people seeking answers, trusting our lawyer and following his instructions which were suppose to protect and benefit all of us.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Whether you are in BC or AB and particularly if you are Option 2 people there are documents you are entitled to and really should not have to ask for that give you incredible insight to what you have paid for and you need to move forward!!

Here is a list documents you are entitle too I am aware of:

Notice of Appeal
Status of said Appeal
Transcripts from the Judge Branch (BC) or Judge Young (AB) hearings
Any accompanying documents, ie., Affidavits with schedules related to the hearings and appeals
Arguments from both sides for quantum (interest and costs)

Remember, these documents should have a court seal/stamp showing what day they were actually filed with the appropriate court.

*These are part of what you paid for already and you are entitled to have all of these documents for your personal files as they affect all Geldert clients.*

I guess in MG eyes some of us get preferential treatment as they have been provided to some people but not all.


----------



## teedeej

truthr said:


> Something maybe our lawyer should be providing as he receives them???  And the one the judge is referring to is dated September 30, 2017.



Geldert is too busy getting glowing reviews posted on Yelp to offset the negative ones.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

teedeej said:


> Geldert is too busy getting glowing reviews posted on Yelp to offset the negative ones.


Well I am sure we can all help him get those huge *5 STAR *reviews he is looking for to get his next client feeling the warm and fuzzies by saying how much we appreciated what he was able to do for us:
*https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info

*
*Let's let everyone know he has 5 thumbs up from us*


*Take some time and share your experience so everyone knows how you feel*

*https://www.yelp.ca/biz/geldert-law-vancouver

https://www.fyple.ca/company/geldert-law-3thwj8q/

http://www.lawyerlookup.review/british-columbia-vancouver/business/189809/Geldert-Law.html

https://www.facebook.com/GeldertLaw/

https://ca.lynkos.com/company/geldert-law/reviews

http://www.bigreddirectory.ca/geldert-law-vancouver

https://www.canlisting.com/firm/geldert-law-865917

https://www.capointfinder.com/index.php/listing/geldert-law/

https://www.canadapages.com/geldert-law-vancouver-bc-7783307775/

https://www.bubblemortgage.com/geldertlaw.com
*


----------



## truthr

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Well I am sure we can all help him get those huge *5 STAR *reviews he is looking for to get his next client feeling the warm and fuzzies by saying how much we appreciated what he was able to do for us:
> *https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info
> 
> *
> *Let's let everyone know he has 5 thumbs up from us*
> 
> 
> *Take some time and share your experience so everyone knows how you feel*
> 
> *https://www.yelp.ca/biz/geldert-law-vancouver
> 
> https://www.fyple.ca/company/geldert-law-3thwj8q/
> 
> http://www.lawyerlookup.review/british-columbia-vancouver/business/189809/Geldert-Law.html
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/GeldertLaw/
> 
> https://ca.lynkos.com/company/geldert-law/reviews
> 
> http://www.bigreddirectory.ca/geldert-law-vancouver
> 
> https://www.canlisting.com/firm/geldert-law-865917
> 
> https://www.capointfinder.com/index.php/listing/geldert-law/
> 
> https://www.canadapages.com/geldert-law-vancouver-bc-7783307775/
> 
> https://www.bubblemortgage.com/geldertlaw.com*


I see on one of review sites that some reviews/comments/ratings did not get approved because they violated the sites rules so be sure you follow the sites rules.


----------



## Petus@18

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Well I am sure we can all help him get those huge *5 STAR *reviews he is looking for to get his next client feeling the warm and fuzzies by saying how much we appreciated what he was able to do for us:
> *https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info
> 
> *
> *Let's let everyone know he has 5 thumbs up from us*
> 
> 
> *Take some time and share your experience so everyone knows how you feel*
> 
> *https://www.yelp.ca/biz/geldert-law-vancouver
> 
> https://www.fyple.ca/company/geldert-law-3thwj8q/
> 
> http://www.lawyerlookup.review/british-columbia-vancouver/business/189809/Geldert-Law.html
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/GeldertLaw/
> 
> https://ca.lynkos.com/company/geldert-law/reviews
> 
> http://www.bigreddirectory.ca/geldert-law-vancouver
> 
> https://www.canlisting.com/firm/geldert-law-865917
> 
> https://www.capointfinder.com/index.php/listing/geldert-law/
> 
> https://www.canadapages.com/geldert-law-vancouver-bc-7783307775/
> 
> https://www.bubblemortgage.com/geldertlaw.com*



Sending messages......Thanks UB


----------



## CleoB

Machete said:


> The basis for an appeal in res judicata, are limited to discovery of fraud, error in fact or important new facts, not reasonably discoverable by due diligence at the time the case was argued. Other basis include judicial error or judicial bias. The judge must be seen to have empathy towards the aggrieved parties.
> 
> 1. Error in fact: the timeshare interest owners were stated as the "owners" of the resort for purposes of capital costs.
> In Jeke v Northmont, paragraph 17 "Vacation interval owners are sometimes referred to as owners or lessees depending on the type of their respective interests. As I will describe below, Jeke's interest is as a lessee. I will refer to them as *owners*." REALLY!?
> Note in the same case, paragraph 45; "...Fairmont's operations at the resort continued until mid-2010 when the CCAA proceedings resulted in Fairmont's secured creditors through *a new ownership* structure, which included Northmont taking over the assets of Fairmont. These assets included Fairmont's interests under the Jeke VIA's."
> 
> Timeshare owner interests form only a small portion of Northmont's assets at Sunchaser, about 38.5% including Northmont's reversionary interests.
> 
> Note paragraph 47, "Northmont *inherited* a resort with significant maintenance and structural issues." So again, Northmont LP is stated as the *primary owner* of the resort.  NW has made millions from the resort as they have done in other resorts around the world. They did this through sales of Legacy for Life, through firesale timeshares in 2010, through management fees of 15%, through RVM, through income from NP REIT secured against Sunchaser properties, as well as numerous fees and commissions on the REIT sales. There is no question that Sunchaser under NW LP is a for profit business and not a break even cost recovery operation like a strata property.  So in summary, who are the real owners?! NOT the timeshare lessees. This was error in fact, judicial error, and in the background, significant fraud.
> 
> How on earth did the judge view the lessees as the only owners responsible for capital renovations. I'm not just talking about cancelled timeshare interests reverting to NM, but the fact they owned *all* the assets of the resort and will still profit from the sale of units removed from the resort in the downsizing.
> 
> One more argument to judicial bias and/or error;
> Paragraph 273, "...the logical question that arises is - if the *owners* are not required to pay for these types of costs, whether they are in the nature of capital or not, then who is?" The right answer is *ALL the owners!*
> 
> She goes on in paragraph 287 to argue , "There is nothing in the prospectus that imposes an obligation on any other person to pay such capital costs..."
> The judge shows bias or error in her conclusion that absence of a contract statement about who shares costs means ONLY the timeshare owners. Contract interpretation is not the only factor the judge needed to consider. A more logical conclusion is that the developer *and true owner* of the resort should be responsible for at least the portion of the renovations that are over and above normal repairs and maintenance. Who wouldn't want to run a for profit business where the owner gets all the profits yet gets to pass off all his expenses onto someone else?! The judge is flip flopping throughout between between strata and non strata type arguments to favour NM's side. Judicial bias.
> 
> Just throwing this out there as possible fodder  to those still fighting this battle.  My fight is over. Good Luck!


The other arguable point is that the Federal Court of Appeal judged Club Intrawest timeshare owners as merely owning a right of occupancy in exchange for their resort points.  The Federal decision could be held up as point out the mistake the B.C. and AB judges made.  https://www.newswire.ca/news-releas...deral-court-of-appeal-decision-635276573.html


----------



## So sick of this mess

tssuck said:


> Have any of the US people contacted the Attorney General's office of their state to see if these rulings have merit in their particular state. If so, what did you find out?


Yes I have and they responded that all they could do is reach out to Northmont with the complaint and see if they respond. They did, however, forward the complaint on to the Federal Trade Commission. I think anything that happens will be too late to help us, but the complaints are on record now so hopefully some other poor souls won't fall for this travesty in the future.


----------



## Tanny13

Machete said:


> The basis for an appeal in res judicata, are limited to discovery of fraud, error in fact or important new facts, not reasonably discoverable by due diligence at the time the case was argued. Other basis include judicial error or judicial bias. The judge must be seen to have empathy towards the aggrieved parties.
> 
> 1. Error in fact: the timeshare interest owners were stated as the "owners" of the resort for purposes of capital costs.
> In Jeke v Northmont, paragraph 17 "Vacation interval owners are sometimes referred to as owners or lessees depending on the type of their respective interests. As I will describe below, Jeke's interest is as a lessee. I will refer to them as *owners*." REALLY!?
> Note in the same case, paragraph 45; "...Fairmont's operations at the resort continued until mid-2010 when the CCAA proceedings resulted in Fairmont's secured creditors through *a new ownership* structure, which included Northmont taking over the assets of Fairmont. These assets included Fairmont's interests under the Jeke VIA's."
> 
> Timeshare owner interests form only a small portion of Northmont's assets at Sunchaser, about 38.5% including Northmont's reversionary interests.
> 
> Note paragraph 47, "Northmont *inherited* a resort with significant maintenance and structural issues." So again, Northmont LP is stated as the *primary owner* of the resort.  NW has made millions from the resort as they have done in other resorts around the world. They did this through sales of Legacy for Life, through firesale timeshares in 2010, through management fees of 15%, through RVM, through income from NP REIT secured against Sunchaser properties, as well as numerous fees and commissions on the REIT sales. There is no question that Sunchaser under NW LP is a for profit business and not a break even cost recovery operation like a strata property.  So in summary, who are the real owners?! NOT the timeshare lessees. This was error in fact, judicial error, and in the background, significant fraud.
> 
> How on earth did the judge view the lessees as the only owners responsible for capital renovations. I'm not just talking about cancelled timeshare interests reverting to NM, but the fact they owned *all* the assets of the resort and will still profit from the sale of units removed from the resort in the downsizing.
> 
> One more argument to judicial bias and/or error;
> Paragraph 273, "...the logical question that arises is - if the *owners* are not required to pay for these types of costs, whether they are in the nature of capital or not, then who is?" The right answer is *ALL the owners!*
> 
> She goes on in paragraph 287 to argue , "There is nothing in the prospectus that imposes an obligation on any other person to pay such capital costs..."
> The judge shows bias or error in her conclusion that absence of a contract statement about who shares costs means ONLY the timeshare owners. Contract interpretation is not the only factor the judge needed to consider. A more logical conclusion is that the developer *and true owner* of the resort should be responsible for at least the portion of the renovations that are over and above normal repairs and maintenance. Who wouldn't want to run a for profit business where the owner gets all the profits yet gets to pass off all his expenses onto someone else?! The judge is flip flopping throughout between between strata and non strata type arguments to favour NM's side. Judicial bias.
> 
> Just throwing this out there as possible fodder  to those still fighting this battle.  My fight is over. Good Luck!



Thank you for this!


----------



## ecwinch

Tanny13 said:


> The settlement amount is to leave the resort.  ALL the settlements include the RPF.  Can you explain that with logical reasoning?



That short answer is because that what your attorney has negotiated. The court is not directing the terms of the settlement, they only ruled that the NM is entitled to a judgement to collect the RFP.  That represents a starting point, where you end up is entirely up to your lawyer and NM. The court has been explicitly clear they are willing to hear arguments if the parties cannot reach an agreement. MG is apparently making the decision to give up rather than go back before the judge again. Given his 0% success rate in the trial cases and since he is not paying any part of the settlement, I can understand his motivation on that point.

FROM NM v. Reid - Alberta Court:

_[87] Given the foregoing, the *Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against each Defendant in the SLG Actions for the amount set out in each Amended Civil Claim (the “Judgments”), except as to interest and costs, for which I am prepared to hear argument from the parties if they cannot agree, *and also subject to one issue which has been raised by the Defendants. That issue is one of “expired Claims.” The Defendants argue that some of the Plaintiff’s Civil Claims have expired in the SLG Actions because they were not served within one year from the date of issuance of the Civil Claim. [28] There was no argument on this issue during the application proceedings before the Court. Consequently, this issue must be specifically addressed before me, unless the parties come to agreement on it, and that is to occur when the parties come before me to argue the interest and costs to be payable to the Plaintiff with respect to the Judgments._


----------



## ecwinch

MFD said:


> I don't understand your logic.  The RPF was based on each "Owner" paying their portion of renovating 250 units, which will cost $52 million.  Let's say 14000 Owners had to pay their share of the $52 million RPF.    If the Owner paid the RFP to leave, that money should still go towards renovating all 250 units, because that's how the RPF was calculated.  If Northmount decides to remove some units from the renovations, now they are only renovating 128 units at $25 million. 14000 Owners now pay their portion of $25 million.  So your individual bill is not the same, it's almost half the amount.  Do the math, it's pretty basic.



If the unit weeks (what you call owners) remained that same and the total project cost was reduced, that would be correct math.

But a sizable chunk of owners paid the termination fee to exit the timeshare plan, and NM took over those unit weeks.  NM intends to take out all those unit weeks plus ones they held. So there are no longer 14000 unit weeks.


----------



## J's Garage

If I knew how to display the file within the message itself, I would.  But please have a look at the attached pdf


----------



## Machete

CleoB said:


> The other arguable point is that the Federal Court of Appeal judged Club Intrawest timeshare owners as merely owning a right of occupancy in exchange for their resort points.  The Federal decision could be held up as point out the mistake the B.C. and AB judges made.  https://www.newswire.ca/news-releas...deral-court-of-appeal-decision-635276573.html


Excellent point! Should definitely be part of any strategy going forward. Obviously the judge in the Intrawest case didn't follow the poor precedent set by the judges in our cases.


----------



## CleoB

Machete said:


> Excellent point! Should definitely be part of any strategy going forward. Obviously the judge in the Intrawest case didn't follow the poor precedent set by the judges in our cases.


Oh, but the lawyer that represented Club Intrawest was M. Geldert, and the judges "judge" based on what's presented to them.


----------



## CleoB

ecwinch said:


> That short answer is because that what your attorney has negotiated. The court is not directing the terms of the settlement, they only ruled that the NM is entitled to a judgement to collect the RFP.  That represents a starting point, where you end up is entirely up to your lawyer and NM. The court has been explicitly clear they are willing to hear arguments if the parties cannot reach an agreement. MG is apparently making the decision to give up rather than go back before the judge again. Given his 0% success rate in the trial cases and since he is not paying any part of the settlement, I can understand his motivation on that point.
> 
> Yes, he's not paying any part of the settlement, plus.............MG wants nothing more to do with us.....yet he's so surprised that he's had complaints filed against him with the B.C. Law Society.


----------



## greyskies

Anyone hear more about Judge Young's decision? 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

J's Garage said:


> If I knew how to display the file within the message itself, I would.  But please have a look at the attached pdf


Hi J's Garage
Thanks for this - thought it was worth putting it out there in an easy to read format for everyone:


_*Barristers' and Solicitors' Oath

Do you sincerely promise and swear (or affirm)
that you will diligently, faithfully and to the best
of your execute the offices of Barrister and 
Solicitor; that you will not promote suits upon
frivolous pretences; that you will not pervert the
law to favour or prejudice anyone; but in all
things conduct yourselves truly and with
integrity; and that you will uphold the rule of law
and the rights and freedoms of all persons
according to the laws of Canada and of the
Province of British Columbia.*_


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> Oh, but the lawyer that represented Club Intrawest was M. Geldert, and the judges "judge" based on what's presented to them.


Solicitors of Record: Tetrault and Drouin   Don't see M.Geldert anywhere.


----------



## Petus@18

From FB
If we all reread Sandy N Lee Merriman's posts, you would notice that they are trying to help us all.  They already have a class action suit filed and ready for court.  Why don't we join them? This is the best scenario we could have ever dreamed for. Option 1 will need to decide to relinquish the settlement and everyone else without a lawyer could join forces in a real class action suit with them.

To all those who say "1st time aware of this", from the beginning there were 4 distinct groups that went before Judge Loo way back in 2013. 2 of them did a lot of talking, while 2 did not. Without reliving the history or pointing fingers, a CLASS action is for the benefit of ALL the members of a group or class. Where this fell off the rails from the outset was that this group with MG who hailed itself a "class action" was in truth a special interest group created for only those that had held their leasehold interest for a period of time and wanted "out". Mistake #1 as now the group was fractionalized and motivated to get behind and spend money on a lawyer that was destined to lose when NOT serving the entire class of 15,000 leaseholds (all of us). This special group went on to be fractionalized more than once after that - always creating more division and weakness while mysterious 50 to 80 vested interested parties of Northwind REIT (a TRUST not a corporation so it could hide its identity) got stronger. It even hired professionals like Kirk Wankel and Doug Frey and Jud Virtue to kick our asses. Ranting at Mr Wankel for doing the job he was paid to do is pointless ... I myself would not take on scumbag clients like Northwind, but if I lacked a moral code and ethics, I would surely do my job just as well as he did and is doing. YES, we did a lot of research and spent a lot of time ($10,000 out of pocket and in excess of 200 hours that I would bill my clients for had I been working for them instead of this). On June 25, 2013, you can find S-134766 still listed as an active court filing (Lee Merriman V Northmont et al). Admittedly this filing was not well written by Kellie Hamilton (limited time) on behalf of myself, my wife, and perhaps the smartest man I know, Adam Hedayat. BUT at least it laid out the issues we ALL faced and formed the requisite information to BE A CLASS ACTION as we cared about ALL of you, not just some of you. Since Riverview is already a registered Strata property and our lease was exclusive to Riverview, the best course of action then and now was to ALL band against Northwind REIT, take our resort back, set up a Board, and manage it ourselves - allowing folks to buy in and out of it like a Strata / Condo property should. What I think is simply this ... when you folks can quit fighting amongst yourselves and going in multiple directions, we would be willing to help out with an already put together Corporate structure that will blow your socks off. This "deception" by lawyers started way back in 1994 with a Firm called McLeod Dixon that is now TWO Firms .. Norton Rose and Shinnour Matkin ... yes thats right .. our "trustee" and the Northmont lawyers have slept in bed together way back in 1994. Another little tidbit of information for you folks ... PRE Bankruptcy .. Our good old Trustee Philip Matkin had his wife and 2 other wives of his Firm owning 75% of Farimont thru a Company called 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Right again folks, our own Trustee had his wife PUT Fairmont into bankruptcy by calling a loan that was backed by our very own "capital investments" (ours was $35,000 paid in full) that were never recorded as income in Fairmont as they were funneled out to the FRPL Companies owned by 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Accordingly, you ALL have heard this before as I have posted more than once ... you just just chose to ignore it while riding the JEKE/MG train into oblivion. I was even aware that JEKE was a shell company that held only 1 thing, the Belfrey family leasehold interst and accordingly bore no financial risk that you all did. Even directors liability wouldn't apply as the debt would not be a CRA witholding debt. As Sandy has mentioned, we are out of the Country Feb 4 to 18 (we are every year). Upon our return, IF this group can UNITE, we will be glad to help as best we can however, I am aware that by letting JEKE waste our time and your money, this is an even more uphill battle than it would have been had we all united 4 years ago.

Remember you can't file a claim if you don't have evidence to backup your statements.


----------



## LilMaggie

Is it too late for Option 1 people to relinquish the settlement?


----------



## Roxanne

LilMaggie said:


> Is it too late for Option 1 people to relinquish the settlement?


We are Option 1 as well and now wondering if it's possible and how to relinquish the settlement obligations....Any help on this?


----------



## Petus@18

Your consent to the settlement was obtained with false pretenses and now you are forced to sign a settlement that is one sided.  Get free legal advice and ensure to mention the new option to join a class action suit.


----------



## Petus@18

You probably already have this information, but I thought I should share it with Option 1 people 

The BC branch of the Canadian Bar Association has a Lawyer Referral Service which offers an initial 30 minute consultation with a lawyer for $25 plus taxes. If you are interested in finding a lawyer in BC to represent you, you could get in touch with them:

Tel: 604.687.3221
Toll Free: 1.800.663.1919
http://cbabc.org/For-the-Public/Lawyer-Referral-Service

Alternatively, if you are looking for a lawyer in Alberta you can contact the Alberta branch of the CBA:

Phone: 403 263 3707
Email: mail@cba-alberta.org
http://www.cba-alberta.org


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Please have a look at the MG update of March 8, 2017.

This relates to a scaled relinquishment agreement NM presented to MG and MG presented to us strongly advocating it was not acceptable and far from a fair deal.

*MG did have clients from our group who did decide to accept this relinquishment agreement, paid as directed by MG, and have yet to receive their release.  The couple who I am talking about sent in their relinquishment payment in April of 2017.*

The typical way any release needs to be done and has been done through other lawyers representing people like us is you pay your relinquishment fee in trust and the money is held until NM completes and sends the signed release paperwork back.   At this point the money in trust is then released once everything is 100% in place to satisfy both parties involved.  If it is not done this way there is no incentive or reason for NM to provide the release until they want to complete the release.

If you participated in this March 2017 relinquishment agreement and have not received your NM release please send me an email and I will be using this info to following up with the BC Law Society related to a file I have already opened with them.  This is additional proof that goes to the heart of the my complaint that MG will not handle the 1285 releases properly after we have provided $45,000,000 for this to end based on the Michael Geldert settlement agreement.

Please email me at back123@shaw.ca if you are one of these people who have paid and not received their release or if you are someone who has paid money into trust with another lawyer and received your release before the money was released to NM is also an important part of this argument.

*If you are a person who paid MG to be released in the past and has not received your release you should also put in your own written complaint with the BC Law Society professionalconduct@lsbc.org right away so a file can be opened on your behalf – if the money was or wasn’t sent in by MG to NM already for your release and you have not received it, a breach exists for the trust account MG has on our behalf and a breach of the trust account is a reason for the Law Society to intervene on all our behalves.  The increased numbers of complaints related to the MG trust account will aid in the Law Society expediting an audit of the MG trust account.*

I for one have no trust MG can handle any type of release properly as a result of his constant lies, failing to represent us properly going back to the 1st BC Jeke trial where he suddenly withdrew the prepared evidence), administratively, or having any incentive to do the required work promptly.  He has seen to it that we are the ones at risk based on a Settlement Agreement Michael Geldert alone committed us to without our consent that prejudices and penalizes us far beyond what a reasonable settlement would have looked like if he truly negotiated in our best interests.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

This is exactly what I am trying to do with my complaint into the BC Law Society - they have a lot of power and trying to get their intervention based on the way the SIF was manipulated and that other people who MG was to help settle have not been released only shows there is a serious problem within his practice.

Everyone affected by this needs to put pressure on the Society next week to intervene - we all know the circumstances and tones of information exists for you to make a submission within these pages that are factual and the truth.

The BC Lawyers insurance people are another great spot to reach out to

Petus@18 - thanks for the new avenue as I had not thought of this group.


Petus@18 said:


> You probably already have this information, but I thought I should share it with Option 1 people
> 
> The BC branch of the Canadian Bar Association has a Lawyer Referral Service which offers an initial 30 minute consultation with a lawyer for $25 plus taxes. If you are interested in finding a lawyer in BC to represent you, you could get in touch with them:
> 
> Tel: 604.687.3221
> Toll Free: 1.800.663.1919
> http://cbabc.org/For-the-Public/Lawyer-Referral-Service
> 
> Alternatively, if you are looking for a lawyer in Alberta you can contact the Alberta branch of the CBA:
> 
> Phone: 403 263 3707
> Email: mail@cba-alberta.org
> http://www.cba-alberta.org





LilMaggie said:


> Is it too late for Option 1 people to relinquish the settlement?





Roxanne said:


> We are Option 1 as well and now wondering if it's possible and how to relinquish the settlement obligations....Any help on this?





Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> *WHO I FEEL IS NOW OUR BEST HOPE FOR INTERVENTION *
> In BC Lawyers have a group insurance and they also contribute to a fund in order to deal with large claims against a bad lawyer – when a risk occurs especially a significant one lawyers are to notify of their potential liability as any insurance group will want to try and mitigate their loss.
> 
> *If you are sending in a complaint to the BC Law Society do a follow-up call or email to this group to help expedite some action given the scale of their potential exposure and make them realize how many complaints there are may prioritize an immediate investigation.*
> 
> https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/suppor...ntact-us/contact-us-by-types-of-inquiries-en/
> There is a complete list of contact people listed with emails and phone numbers on the right side of the page about ½ way down – please call / email them as our intervention options are getting less by the day.
> 
> 
> *The Law Societies*
> British Columbia
> Email contract for British Columbia Law Society:
> professionalconduct@lsbc.org
> 
> File Information for British Columbia
> Northmont Resort Properties v. Brian Golbert and Collette Goldberg
> No. S159447, Vancouver Registry (the "Goldbert Action")
> Decision of Mr. Justice Branch
> 
> 
> Alberta
> Contact link for Alberta Law Society:
> https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/
> Alberta Lawyer on Record is Barry King / Vincent Tong
> Strathcona Law Group
> 150 Chippewa Road
> Sherwood Park, AB
> T8A 6A2
> 
> File Information for Alberta:
> Provincial Court of Alberta Edmonton
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Reid, 2017 ABPC 249
> Registry Action Number: P1490304333
> Date: October 11, 2017
> Decision of the Honorable Judge L.D. Young


----------



## qb_bc

I have been following this thread with interest because a friend was involved in this scheme. *The comments I am making are just thoughts, and should be asked of  lawyer. 
*
My heart goes out to each of you, It is a travesty when a contract is written so that legality supersedes morality.

1. It appears that there are two sets of judgements, one in Alberta and one in BC that will impact people. The lists of people are likely different, and one should find out which, or even if you are affected by one of these lists.
2. The BC list appears to apply to about 370 people, and in J. Branch's judgement from January 31, 2018 the costs are identified in the Exhibits which were not included with the document I saw. I suspect that people on this list are not impacted by the SIF, unless somehow the SIF is less (how could that be?) than the court judgement.
3. The people that are on the Alberta SLG list before J. Young have already had a decision against them, and are just waiting for a decision on interest and costs (this has already been given in the BC case before J. Branch). *Separation from the lawyer does not remove you from the decision,* but it does remove you from the SIF that will be presented to J. Young.
4. When the SIF settlement is presented, J. Young will have a decision to make. She may decide to apply the settlement to everyone, she may accept the larger settlement (162%) and apply it to those outside of the SIF, or she may choose to use a lower settlement for those on the list not included in the SIF. *However, a judgement will probably be issued against everyone on the SLG list regardless of which option was chosen (ask a lawyer for clarification). It appears to be so for the 370 on the BC list.*
5. A question for those that have not accepted the SIF is whether it is possible to have a new lawyer, or representative, present at the hearing regarding cost and interest.
6. It is possible that whichever path you choose to go forward, you will still have a judgement against you as a result of either the BC or Alberta cases.

There is so much wrong.


----------



## truthr

Petus@18 said:


> From FB
> If we all reread Sandy N Lee Merriman's posts, you would notice that they are trying to help us all.  They already have a class action suit filed and ready for court.  Why don't we join them? This is the best scenario we could have ever dreamed for. Option 1 will need to decide to relinquish the settlement and everyone else without a lawyer could join forces in a real class action suit with them.
> 
> To all those who say "1st time aware of this", from the beginning there were 4 distinct groups that went before Judge Loo way back in 2013. 2 of them did a lot of talking, while 2 did not. Without reliving the history or pointing fingers, a CLASS action is for the benefit of ALL the members of a group or class. Where this fell off the rails from the outset was that this group with MG who hailed itself a "class action" was in truth a special interest group created for only those that had held their leasehold interest for a period of time and wanted "out". Mistake #1 as now the group was fractionalized and motivated to get behind and spend money on a lawyer that was destined to lose when NOT serving the entire class of 15,000 leaseholds (all of us). This special group went on to be fractionalized more than once after that - always creating more division and weakness while mysterious 50 to 80 vested interested parties of Northwind REIT (a TRUST not a corporation so it could hide its identity) got stronger. It even hired professionals like Kirk Wankel and Doug Frey and Jud Virtue to kick our asses. Ranting at Mr Wankel for doing the job he was paid to do is pointless ... I myself would not take on scumbag clients like Northwind, but if I lacked a moral code and ethics, I would surely do my job just as well as he did and is doing. YES, we did a lot of research and spent a lot of time ($10,000 out of pocket and in excess of 200 hours that I would bill my clients for had I been working for them instead of this). On June 25, 2013, you can find S-134766 still listed as an active court filing (Lee Merriman V Northmont et al). Admittedly this filing was not well written by Kellie Hamilton (limited time) on behalf of myself, my wife, and perhaps the smartest man I know, Adam Hedayat. BUT at least it laid out the issues we ALL faced and formed the requisite information to BE A CLASS ACTION as we cared about ALL of you, not just some of you. Since Riverview is already a registered Strata property and our lease was exclusive to Riverview, the best course of action then and now was to ALL band against Northwind REIT, take our resort back, set up a Board, and manage it ourselves - allowing folks to buy in and out of it like a Strata / Condo property should. What I think is simply this ... when you folks can quit fighting amongst yourselves and going in multiple directions, we would be willing to help out with an already put together Corporate structure that will blow your socks off. This "deception" by lawyers started way back in 1994 with a Firm called McLeod Dixon that is now TWO Firms .. Norton Rose and Shinnour Matkin ... yes thats right .. our "trustee" and the Northmont lawyers have slept in bed together way back in 1994. Another little tidbit of information for you folks ... PRE Bankruptcy .. Our good old Trustee Philip Matkin had his wife and 2 other wives of his Firm owning 75% of Farimont thru a Company called 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Right again folks, our own Trustee had his wife PUT Fairmont into bankruptcy by calling a loan that was backed by our very own "capital investments" (ours was $35,000 paid in full) that were never recorded as income in Fairmont as they were funneled out to the FRPL Companies owned by 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Accordingly, you ALL have heard this before as I have posted more than once ... you just just chose to ignore it while riding the JEKE/MG train into oblivion. I was even aware that JEKE was a shell company that held only 1 thing, the Belfrey family leasehold interst and accordingly bore no financial risk that you all did. Even directors liability wouldn't apply as the debt would not be a CRA witholding debt. As Sandy has mentioned, we are out of the Country Feb 4 to 18 (we are every year). Upon our return, IF this group can UNITE, we will be glad to help as best we can however, I am aware that by letting JEKE waste our time and your money, this is an even more uphill battle than it would have been had we all united 4 years ago.
> 
> Remember you can't file a claim if you don't have evidence to backup your statements.


The following link is interesting information about a Class Action.  As for the Merrimans I have a copy of their filed Class Action from back in 2013 - question is was it ever certified?  If not can it still be?  If yes would the Geldert Clients be able to be part of it?

https://www.mckenzielake.com/assets/pdf/Steps_in_a_Class_Action.pdf


----------



## Petus@18

qb_bc said:


> I have been following this thread with interest because a friend was involved in this scheme. *The comments I am making are just thoughts, and should be asked of  lawyer.
> *
> My heart goes out to each of you, It is a travesty when a contract is written so that legality supersedes morality.
> 
> 1. It appears that there are two sets of judgements, one in Alberta and one in BC that will impact people. The lists of people are likely different, and one should find out which, or even if you are affected by one of these lists.
> 2. The BC list appears to apply to about 370 people, and in J. Branch's judgement from January 31, 2018 the costs are identified in the Exhibits which were not included with the document I saw. I suspect that people on this list are not impacted by the SIF, unless somehow the SIF is less (how could that be?) than the court judgement.
> 3. The people that are on the Alberta SLG list before J. Young have already had a decision against them, and are just waiting for a decision on interest and costs (this has already been given in the BC case before J. Branch). *Separation from the lawyer does not remove you from the decision,* but it does remove you from the SIF that will be presented to J. Young.
> 4. When the SIF settlement is presented, J. Young will have a decision to make. She may decide to apply the settlement to everyone, she may accept the larger settlement (162%) and apply it to those outside of the SIF, or she may choose to use a lower settlement for those on the list not included in the SIF. *However, a judgement will probably be issued against everyone on the SLG list regardless of which option was chosen (ask a lawyer for clarification). It appears to be so for the 370 on the BC list.*
> 5. A question for those that have not accepted the SIF is whether it is possible to have a new lawyer, or representative, present at the hearing regarding cost and interest.
> 6. It is possible that whichever path you choose to go forward, you will still have a judgement against you as a result of either the BC or Alberta cases.
> 
> There is so much wrong.



Well that is your opinion and since you don't stand in our shoes, it does not matter.  If the purpose of your comments is to scare those who are undecided as to what to do, you are probably doing a good job.  We still have evidence of MG's professional misconduct and we will ensure the Law Societies know about it.  We have now a class action suit in place, so yes, we have now options to appeal in court.  Really, we don't need your thoughts/comments.  Thanks


----------



## Petus@18

truthr said:


> The following link is interesting information about a Class Action.  As for the Merrimans I have a copy of their filed Class Action from back in 2013 - question is was it ever certified?  If not can it still be?  If yes would the Geldert Clients be able to be part of it?
> 
> https://www.mckenzielake.com/assets/pdf/Steps_in_a_Class_Action.pdf



The Class Action has been opened for almost 5 yrs.  It is valid and ready for Court. I understand that Mr and Mrs Merriman want to help everyone, it doesn't matter what group you belonged to.  Just contact them and let them know you wish to join them.


----------



## Stung

J's Garage said:


> If I knew how to display the file within the message itself, I would.  But please have a look at the attached pdf



Lot of good an oath is when a lawyer can't even uphold it. What a joke.


----------



## truthr

qb_bc said:


> I have been following this thread with interest because a friend was involved in this scheme. *The comments I am making are just thoughts, and should be asked of  lawyer.
> *
> My heart goes out to each of you, It is a travesty when a contract is written so that legality supersedes morality.
> 
> 1. It appears that there are two sets of judgements, one in Alberta and one in BC that will impact people. The lists of people are likely different, and one should find out which, or even if you are affected by one of these lists.
> 2. The BC list appears to apply to about 370 people, and in J. Branch's judgement from January 31, 2018 the costs are identified in the Exhibits which were not included with the document I saw. I suspect that people on this list are not impacted by the SIF, unless somehow the SIF is less (how could that be?) than the court judgement.
> 3. The people that are on the Alberta SLG list before J. Young have already had a decision against them, and are just waiting for a decision on interest and costs (this has already been given in the BC case before J. Branch). *Separation from the lawyer does not remove you from the decision,* but it does remove you from the SIF that will be presented to J. Young.
> 4. When the SIF settlement is presented, J. Young will have a decision to make. She may decide to apply the settlement to everyone, she may accept the larger settlement (162%) and apply it to those outside of the SIF, or she may choose to use a lower settlement for those on the list not included in the SIF. *However, a judgement will probably be issued against everyone on the SLG list regardless of which option was chosen (ask a lawyer for clarification). It appears to be so for the 370 on the BC list.*
> 5. A question for those that have not accepted the SIF is whether it is possible to have a new lawyer, or representative, present at the hearing regarding cost and interest.
> 6. It is possible that whichever path you choose to go forward, you will still have a judgement against you as a result of either the BC or Alberta cases.
> 
> There is so much wrong.


Thanks for chiming in however you definitely have a lot of the FACTS incorrect which hey even some who are directly impacted by this don't fully understand because there are so many moving parts and unclear information to distract us from those FACTS.

But for starters the SIF is not the same as the "settlement", it was the form that led up to people either being included in the settlement or proceeding on their own (either by choice or default).
Both courts have made their decision - Judge Branch has now ruled on cost and interest and we are awaiting Judge Young to rule on interest and cost as well which then will give NM the ability to proceed to Judgments on the Statement of Claims (some have already been amended and some not).
To my knowledge neither Judges have any say in the Settlement Agreement because this is not a Class Action and does not require the courts approval for the parties to enter into what is called "Consent" or "Settlement" Judgment, just both lawyers have to sign off on it for their respective clients.
Regarding having a new lawyer, again to my knowledge, both sides have presented their arguments regarding cost and interest and the BC has been ruled on and we are awaiting the AB one.  The Geldert Group has been "shackled" together since the JEKE trial and because of our "legal" team's strategy/actions we may be pretty much stuck with that.  Again this is just to my knowledge and I am awaiting clarification with regards to whether the Option 2 people can move forward separately.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

qb_bc said:


> I have been following this thread with interest because a friend was involved in this scheme. *The comments I am making are just thoughts, and should be asked of  lawyer.
> *
> My heart goes out to each of you, It is a travesty when a contract is written so that legality supersedes morality.
> 
> 1. It appears that there are two sets of judgements, one in Alberta and one in BC that will impact people. The lists of people are likely different, and one should find out which, or even if you are affected by one of these lists.
> 2. The BC list appears to apply to about 370 people, and in J. Branch's judgement from January 31, 2018 the costs are identified in the Exhibits which were not included with the document I saw. I suspect that people on this list are not impacted by the SIF, unless somehow the SIF is less (how could that be?) than the court judgement.
> 3. The people that are on the Alberta SLG list before J. Young have already had a decision against them, and are just waiting for a decision on interest and costs (this has already been given in the BC case before J. Branch). *Separation from the lawyer does not remove you from the decision,* but it does remove you from the SIF that will be presented to J. Young.
> 4. When the SIF settlement is presented, J. Young will have a decision to make. She may decide to apply the settlement to everyone, she may accept the larger settlement (162%) and apply it to those outside of the SIF, or she may choose to use a lower settlement for those on the list not included in the SIF. *However, a judgement will probably be issued against everyone on the SLG list regardless of which option was chosen (ask a lawyer for clarification). It appears to be so for the 370 on the BC list.*
> 5. A question for those that have not accepted the SIF is whether it is possible to have a new lawyer, or representative, present at the hearing regarding cost and interest.
> 6. It is possible that whichever path you choose to go forward, you will still have a judgement against you as a result of either the BC or Alberta cases.
> 
> There is so much wrong.


Hi qb_bc

We are very happy that people outside our group are seeing our plight that the business of Timeshares selling now has a new revenue opportunity where the resort owner / manager can manipulated things to create an environment where people need to buy an expensive release of their timeshare - that's what this is all about!!!

To comment on your comments above:
1.  Unfortunately for a lot of people the MG Settlement Agreement will circumvent any decisions made by the AB or BC Courts as it does not have to be sanctioned by the Courts - it will be shown as an amical agreement reached between the two parties for people bond to it by Michael Geldert without their consent.  Anyone not part of this settlement are being maneuvered to deal with things moving forward on their own.
2.  The SIF was put in place prior to the ruling so there is no benefit from the ruling
3.  Yes and no - given the timing of the SIF binds you even if you don't accept the terms even though they were only provided about a month after the deal was done but you were already bond to the agreement
4.  JY will not ever see the Settlement Agreement - no lawyer in BC or AB want to have their name associated with this shipwreck so it has been almost impossible to find one to offer any help other than a paid for option
5.  This is in the works but again non of the lawyers contacted appear to want any Geldert clients
6.  Michael Geldert has handed his clients over to Northmont as a gift wrapped package with a bow - the options available are so limited it is hard to conceive this was not some part of a bigger plan


----------



## torqued

Please correct me with a willow stick if you feel I’m wrong but even my very superficial understanding of law would lead me to believe that the judgement I just muddled thru by Justice Branch implies we the defendants (every time the word defendant was used I substituted  MG’s name) abused the court by pushing this issue forward in the courts without any legal merit behind it thereby wasting the precious resources of the courts and all involved. If I’m reading this correctly then does this judgement with its explainations basically state MG is in fact incompetent and without a doubt due to his actions led this group to the edge of a legal cliff.  It seemed that Branch was pissed off at Gelderts group and as a result was more than happy to side with NM.  And it would appear that Barry King rides the same horse Geldert does as he basically had no argument for interest costs other than it was too much. My dog could have argued that!  Lord help us all!


----------



## qb_bc

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> We are very happy that people outside our group are seeing our plight that the business of Timeshares selling now has a new revenue opportunity where the resort owner / manager can manipulated things to create an environment where people need to buy an expensive release of their timeshare - that's what this is all about!!!


Thank you for your comments. Following this fiasco, I realize now how fortunate I was when a time share I owned here in BC went bankrupt and I was given the option to walk away or to join VI. Losing what I paid originally was a good option to me.

After reading JY's decision I would have though the agreement (SIF - settlement in full?) would need to be presented to her according to;
_
[89]           The Plaintiff is entitled to costs of this application and if the parties cannot agree on those costs, then they can be spoken to when the parties appear before me with respect to the other issues. The Clerk of the Court will not be preparing Certificates of Judgment until the outstanding issues have been resolved._

whatever the other issues were. I would also have expected the other party to appear against those who have not settled, to request judgement on the costs.

Realizing how tender the subject is, I apologize if my comments caused upset. I was only attempting to suggest some contexts to consider, correct or incorrect, within the present court situation that might cause issues going forward.

Henceforth, I will quietly watch and pray that this group arrives at a correct result. This abuse of contract language, while maybe legal, is a travesty and is frightening to all of us that do not understand legal vocabulary. I know I will not be naïve in signing contracts in the future.


----------



## FairSun

CleoB said:


> Who is Higgerty Law?  Are they familiar with the history of this litigation?  Also, why would one go to Farrell if they have selected option one with Geldert?  What am I missing here?


A familiar name I assume to some early on in this debacle, Clint Docken, is principal counsel with Higgerty Law. If you look at the last invoice from MG you'll note MG consulted him on this matter and re research into a possible class action. https://www.higgertylaw.ca/about/clint-docken/


----------



## sad_world

For a couple years now I've been wanting to put a face to the monster Kirk Wankel, but had never seen this globalnews.ca report before. https://globalnews.ca/news/596669/thousands-of-timeshare-owners-face-unexpected-repair-bill/

I desperately want Kirk Wankel to become a pariah in his community, for everyone who sees him in public to know what a monster he is and how he's destroying so many lives because of his greed. Please use this screenshot whenever you post publicly so he cannot remain comfortably anonymous, thank you.


----------



## truthr

qb_bc said:


> Thank you for your comments. Following this fiasco, I realize now how fortunate I was when a time share I owned here in BC went bankrupt and I was given the option to walk away or to join VI. Losing what I paid originally was a good option to me.
> 
> After reading JY's decision I would have though the agreement (SIF - settlement in full?) would need to be presented to her according to;
> _
> [89]           The Plaintiff is entitled to costs of this application and if the parties cannot agree on those costs, then they can be spoken to when the parties appear before me with respect to the other issues. The Clerk of the Court will not be preparing Certificates of Judgment until the outstanding issues have been resolved._
> 
> whatever the other issues were. I would also have expected the other party to appear against those who have not settled, to request judgement on the costs.
> 
> Realizing how tender the subject is, I apologize if my comments caused upset. I was only attempting to suggest some contexts to consider, correct or incorrect, within the present court situation that might cause issues going forward.
> 
> Henceforth, I will quietly watch and pray that this group arrives at a correct result. This abuse of contract language, while maybe legal, is a travesty and is frightening to all of us that do not understand legal vocabulary. I know I will not be naïve in signing contracts in the future.


For Geldert clients SIF refers to Sunchaser Instruction Form wherein we were given two options at the end of October 2017.
Option 1 - give Geldert carte blanc to reach some type of settlement agreement to release the clients without any of the clients present and we were not privy to who when this meeting would take place, who would be there, what the starting or ending points would be, etc., etc.
Option 2 - proceed on your own (which was directly contrary to what the two Judges ordered for working out the interest and costs for the Statement of Claims leading to a Judgment of said Statement of Claims (these clients would not be released)

I see no where in either the BC or AB Judgement/Decision directing a Settlement Judgement releasing anyone from the resort.


----------



## truthr

FairSun said:


> A familiar name I assume to some early on in this debacle, Clint Docken, is principal counsel with Higgerty Law. If you look at the last invoice from MG you'll note MG consulted him on this matter and re research into a possible class action. https://www.higgertylaw.ca/about/clint-docken/


check this out on their website - fairly new on their website. In just the past week or so they had been looking for Option 2 Geldert Clients but have since said no to all Geldert clients
https://www.higgertylaw.ca/class-action-lawsuits/sunchaser-vacation-villas-class-action/


----------



## Bewildered

truthr said:


> check this out on their website - fairly new on their website. In just the past week or so they had been looking for Option 2 Geldert Clients but have since said no to all Geldert clients
> https://www.higgertylaw.ca/class-action-lawsuits/sunchaser-vacation-villas-class-action/


Hey truthr, you have done a lot of work for this group, much appreciation, can’t think of anybody else that could do justice with the Invermere reporter? Not interested or is it not legit?
And does anybody know if there was any traction made in Edmonton at the townhall meeting?


----------



## truthr

Bewildered said:


> Hey truthr, you have done a lot of work for this group, much appreciation, can’t think of anybody else that could do justice with the Invermere reporter? Not interested or is it not legit?
> And does anybody know if there was any traction made in Edmonton at the townhall meeting?


Thanks.  As far as the reporter - just not the right time for now and she understands why.
But this atrocity is far from over.


----------



## FairSun

truthr said:


> check this out on their website - fairly new on their website. In just the past week or so they had been looking for Option 2 Geldert Clients but have since said no to all Geldert clients
> https://www.higgertylaw.ca/class-action-lawsuits/sunchaser-vacation-villas-class-action/


Interesting! No cost to clients as info states there is only a contingency fee if Higgerty Law wins the class action. I hope the Merrimans comment on this. I'm not sure from reading link if you could participate if you have bought your way out already.


----------



## ecwinch

truthr said:


> In just the past week or so they had been looking for Option 2 Geldert Clients but have since said no to all Geldert clients



So not an option to anyone that MG was representing and/or were subject to the judgement?


----------



## FairSun

truthr said:


> For Geldert clients SIF refers to Sunchaser Instruction Form wherein we were given two options at the end of October 2017.
> Option 1 - give Geldert carte blanc to reach some type of settlement agreement to release the clients without any of the clients present and we were not privy to who when this meeting would take place, who would be there, what the starting or ending points would be, etc., etc.
> Option 2 - proceed on your own (which was directly contrary to what the two Judges ordered for working out the interest and costs for the Statement of Claims leading to a Judgment of said Statement of Claims (these clients would not be released)
> 
> I see no where in either the BC or AB Judgement/Decision directing a Settlement Judgement releasing anyone from the resort.


Reading again through BC Justice Branch's Supplementary Reasons for Judgment. Have I got this right?  Justice Branch allowed judgment on the individual amount of each of the 370 invoices at September 30, 2017 that NM/KW filed in BC, PLUS interest at 26.82% per annum, PLUS a "special costs" lump sum award of $333,000 or about $900 per each of the 370 claims, PLUS the specific costs of disbursements related to each of the 370 claims. However, the individual judgments are for the above debt only owed to NM. So NM can now proceed to actions to collect on this judgment. But, collecting this debt does not release the defendant(s) from the timeshare lease. Therefore the 2018 maintenance fee would still be due and payable and interest would kick in once again on any unpaid balance. 
Would a class action stay this judgment while the class action suit proceeds? Would it halt further annual maintenance fees and interest from accruing? If unsuccessful, would NM be allowed costs plus collecting on the debt today or at the time the CA suit ends? 
Time is running out and I don't want to look back with more regrets. What to do, what to do?!


----------



## FairSun

ecwinch said:


> So not an option to anyone that MG was representing and/or were subject to the judgement?


If all those were to be excluded, how many possible clients could Higgerty Law expect to involve?


----------



## Petus@18

truthr said:


> check this out on their website - fairly new on their website. In just the past week or so they had been looking for Option 2 Geldert Clients but have since said no to all Geldert clients


----------



## fairmontlovers

Roxanne said:


> We are Option 1 as well and now wondering if it's possible and how to relinquish the settlement obligations....Any help on this?


I am option 1 also, and the more I read and learn, something is not right with this whole thing. I did not reply to Geldert by the Dec 28 deadline but don't feel like paying by Feb 15. I am thinking I have to inform Geldert to remove me from his list. I think I/we need to let him know the following:
1. We wanted to see the actual dollar amounts and details of the settlement before deciding.
2. Are not in agreement with the settlement
3. Are not happy how with him with this offer and the lack of communication he promised he would give us.
4. Request that he does not provide Northmont with our Lease ID, names or contact information.
5. Question why we would have to pay BOTH the Renovation Project fee with compounded interest Plus the exit fee when originally it was one or the other. 
6. On a personal note  I asked MG if I could save the $10,000 exit fee if I decided to pay the Statement amounts Northwynd is claiming. His answer was that Northwynd said this was not an option that Northwynd would give. How can they then justify to charge for 2018 Mainatenance fees if we do not pay by Feb 15? Either we are still an owner or not an owner.

Thoughts for those of us in Option 1 but don't want to pay the ransom by Feb 15?


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

ecwinch said:


> How does what you are quoting differ with this example:
> 
> 250 units
> Total Reno budget = $52 million
> Reno budget per unit = $208k
> Reno budget per unit week = $4k
> 
> Remove 128 units from the RFP
> 
> Total Reno Budget has to decrease, as you avoid having to renovate entire buildings as NM retires those weeks from the timeshare plan. So the number cannot be $52 million anymore.
> 
> The court fully understood that certain buildings were not to be renovated at owners expense. But why should NM pay RFP on units that will not be renovated under the RFP? What is the legal basis for arguing that?
> 
> EDIT: If MG had his eye on the ball he would have suggested you band together to get the same deal that NM was taking - the ability to take a entire building out of the timeshare plan. Then just sell the building or bulldoze it. With 1400 owners in the group that would seem to translate to at least one building at the resort.




To whom are you referring when you say, owner?

So now its a renovation. I thought it was repair and maintenance. That's what you said it was. A renovation isn't allowed in my lease. $200,000+ per unit? That's some freaking repair.

Each lease was an asset. You know a lot about the law, what do you know about accounting? Assuming this is a time share plan, which it is not because Northmont has not conducted themselves as a Developer would in a time share plan, but let's not worry about trivial details now. Assuming it is a time share plan under the BC legislation regarding time shares, how are assets to be treated?
Let me give you a short answer. It doesn't entitle the Developer to remove them from the books without any benefit accruing to the other Lessees. I would quote Justice Loo, but I can't type and hold my nose at the same time.

You never answered Punter's question. Because Kirk Wankel is on record, under oath, as saying that people who pay to leave do not have to pay the RPF, but apparently they do.

#NAFR #NAFTS


----------



## Petus@18

FairSun said:


> Reading again through BC Justice Branch's Supplementary Reasons for Judgment. Have I got this right?  Justice Branch allowed judgment on the individual amount of each of the 370 invoices at September 30, 2017 that NM/KW filed in BC, PLUS interest at 26.82% per annum, PLUS a "special costs" lump sum award of $333,000 or about $900 per each of the 370 claims, PLUS the specific costs of disbursements related to each of the 370 claims. However, the individual judgments are for the above debt only owed to NM. So NM can now proceed to actions to collect on this judgment. But, collecting this debt does not release the defendant(s) from the timeshare lease. Therefore the 2018 maintenance fee would still be due and payable and interest would kick in once again on any unpaid balance.
> Would a class action stay this judgment while the class action suit proceeds? Would it halt further annual maintenance fees and interest from accruing? If unsuccessful, would NM be allowed costs plus collecting on the debt today or at the time the CA suit ends?
> Time is running out and I don't want to look back with more regrets. What to do, what to do?!



I thought you already made up your mind about paying??  Remember the 2 trusting lawyers that got us the great settlement!  Why you keep posting?  Is it your job to keep reminding Option 1 people that they don't have a choice? Well they do!  I am calling you again "have you been hired by MG to scare as many people as you can?; he sure likes to continue playing dirty"  Shame on you!!

Ps I wonder if we can add MG's name to the Class Action??? Uhmmm what to do?  what to do!!!!


----------



## Petus@18

fairmontlovers said:


> I am option 1 also, and the more I read and learn, something is not right with this whole thing. I did not reply to Geldert by the Dec 28 deadline but don't feel like paying by Feb 15. I am thinking I have to inform Geldert to remove me from his list. I think I/we need to let him know the following:
> 1. We wanted to see the actual dollar amounts and details of the settlement before deciding.
> 2. Are not in agreement with the settlement
> 3. Are not happy how with him with this offer and the lack of communication he promised he would give us.
> 4. Request that he does not provide Northmont with our Lease ID, names or contact information.
> 5. Question why we would have to pay BOTH the Renovation Project fee with compounded interest Plus the exit fee when originally it was one or the other.
> 6. On a personal note  I asked MG if I could save the $10,000 exit fee if I decided to pay the Statement amounts Northwynd is claiming. His answer was that Northwynd said this was not an option that Northwynd would give. How can they then justify to charge for 2018 Mainatenance fees if we do not pay by Feb 15? Either we are still an owner or not an owner.
> 
> Thoughts for those of us in Option 1 but don't want to pay the ransom by Feb 15?



You have very valid points.  You should join us in court and don't sign the bloody ransom. You're not alone!!

Or better lets contact this firm:check this out on their website - fairly new on their website. In just the past week or so they had been looking for Option 2 Geldert Clients but have since said no to all Geldert clients
https://www.higgertylaw.ca/class-action-lawsuits/sunchaser-vacation-villas-class-action/


----------



## fairmontlovers

Petus@18 said:


> You have very valid points, screw MG.  You should join us in court and don't sign the bloody ransom. You're not alone!!
> 
> Or better lets contact this firm:check this out on their website - fairly new on their website. In just the past week or so they had been looking for Option 2 Geldert Clients but have since said no to all Geldert clients
> https://www.higgertylaw.ca/class-action-lawsuits/sunchaser-vacation-villas-class-action/



I checked their site, no where does it say they are saying no to Geldert clients. It just asks if you have joined another contingency agreement with another law firm. I signed up.

As far as not paying by February 15. Geldert states that failing to pay the ransom  "*failure by you to provide what is required to us carries a 162% consent to judgment sum*." I think we must communicate and request to him that we do not agree to the Settlement Agreement and give the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.


----------



## ecwinch

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> To whom are you referring when you say, owner?
> 
> So now its a renovation. I thought it was repair and maintenance. That's what you said it was. A renovation isn't allowed in my lease. $200,000+ per unit? That's some freaking repair.
> 
> Each lease was an asset. You know a lot about the law, what do you know about accounting? Assuming this is a time share plan, which it is not because Northmont has not conducted themselves as a Developer would in a time share plan, but let's not worry about trivial details now. Assuming it is a time share plan under the BC legislation regarding time shares, how are assets to be treated?
> Let me give you a short answer. It doesn't entitle the Developer to remove them from the books without any benefit accruing to the other Lessees. I would quote Justice Loo, but I can't type and hold my nose at the same time.
> 
> You never answered Punter's question. Because Kirk Wankel is on record, under oath, as saying that people who pay to leave do not have to pay the RPF, but apparently they do.
> 
> #NAFR #NAFTS



You really need to quit shooting the messenger. I empathize greatly with the horrible situation the group finds itself in, but all I have tried to do is help people understand how the court has ruled - and usually by citing the exact words of the court.

As I have said before, your anger is misdirected. But I have no problem serving as a punching bag by proxy if it helps you deal with your angst.

You will find my answer to Punter's question is in part of what you quoted above and in this post https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...cial-thread-with-lawsuit-info.182857/page-160

EDIT: Kirk Wankel's testimony is that people who decided to leave in 2013 by paying the cancellation fee would not have to pay the RPF. Not that anyone who paid to leave as a result of a negotiated settlement in 2018 would not have to pay the RPF.


----------



## truthr

fairmontlovers said:


> I checked their site, no where does it say they are saying no to Geldert clients. It just asks if you have joined another contingency agreement with another law firm. I signed up.
> 
> As far as not paying by February 15. Geldert states that failing to pay the ransom  "*failure by you to provide what is required to us carries a 162% consent to judgment sum*." I think we must communicate and request to him that we do not agree to the Settlement Agreement and give the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.




On Monday January 29th, one of the lawyers working on the Class Action at Higgerty Law had posted in the Sunchaser Northwynd Class Action Facebook Group:_"You may contact Higgerty Law if you have been served with claims by the lawyers for Northmont/Northwynd or if you have previously paid out a claim.  You may also contact us if you have not opted into the settlement with Mr. Geldert's Group."_

Originally they were looking for Geldert Option 2 clients and non Geldert clients, I spoke with two lawyers (one of them being Mr. Docken) working on the Class Action at the firm on Monday, January 29th and they were examining who they could assist.

Then someone contacted them and was told they could only take non Geldert clients and Geldert Option 2, not Option 1

Then someone else contacted them and was told they could not take any Geldert clients AT ALL

I spoke to one of the lawyers working on the Class Action again on Friday, February 2nd late afternoon and was told that they cannot represent ANY Geldert clients - period.

Mr. Docken is to call me early next week (I hope Monday) to clear this up.


----------



## truthr

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> To whom are you referring when you say, owner?
> 
> So now its a renovation. I thought it was repair and maintenance. That's what you said it was. A renovation isn't allowed in my lease. $200,000+ per unit? That's some freaking repair.
> 
> Each lease was an asset. You know a lot about the law, what do you know about accounting? Assuming this is a time share plan, which it is not because Northmont has not conducted themselves as a Developer would in a time share plan, but let's not worry about trivial details now. Assuming it is a time share plan under the BC legislation regarding time shares, how are assets to be treated?
> Let me give you a short answer. It doesn't entitle the Developer to remove them from the books without any benefit accruing to the other Lessees. I would quote Justice Loo, but I can't type and hold my nose at the same time.
> 
> You never answered Punter's question. Because Kirk Wankel is on record, under oath, as saying that people who pay to leave do not have to pay the RPF, but apparently they do.
> 
> #NAFR #NAFTS


Here is the play on words:  _Kirk Wankel is on record, under oath, as saying that people who pay to leave do not have to pay the RPF
_
The amount the people who are settling is confusing because it is based on the "invoice" which has a charge for "RPF", "Maintenance", interest and now they are adding an exit fee.
But the amount is just that "an amount" so in reality those who are settling are not necessarily paying for the RPF because in reality those units that those who leave become part of NM inventory which will probably be part of the buildings that are in Hillside that will be sold off.

Again the amount those who settle pay appears to be pure cash to NM.  Now if they were actually acting in the best interest of the resort the delinquent maintenance would be accounted for on the units that are delinquent that the other lessees have been paying for on their maintenance fees, same with the legal/court costs that they recoup.  As for the interest that is a pure cash cow and again, if they were actually acting in the best interest of the resort they could put that in a special trust fund for a reserve thereby reducing the future maintenance fees of the ones who stay.  That would just be good business for the resort.


----------



## FairSun

Petus@18 said:


> I thought you already made up your mind about paying??  Remember the 2 trusting lawyers that got us the great settlement!  Why you keep posting?  Is it your job to keep reminding Option 1 people that they don't have a choice? Well they do!  I am calling you again "have you been hired by MG to scare as many people as you can?; he sure likes to continue playing dirty"  Shame on you!!
> 
> Ps I wonder if we can add MG's name to the Class Action??? Uhmmm what to do?  what to do!!!!


Of course we all have a choice. I exercised my right to keep my options open in case new info came to light. I have until Feb. 13 to sign and send. I had made up my mind and it will still take a lot to choose otherwise. But I'd be foolish not to consider the new info like what the courts are saying about NM's right to charge 26.82% interest (ours is a pre-2004 contract so no per annum rate was specified) and now this class action by Higgerty Law/Clint Docken who has expertise in this area. NO I am NOT anything other than a victim like you and a client of MG. I am a senior with health issues and not enough money to lose $1000s for nothing! I ask questions to try to figure out fact from fake, risk vs reward. I try to listen and learn, but with all the emotion, sensitivities, and voices chiming in, it's no easy task figuring this all out.


----------



## ecwinch

truthr said:


> Mr. Docken is to call me early next week (I hope Monday) to clear this up.



So for those who took Option #1 and [want] to separate from the settlement on the basis of MG's misrepresentations - they need to be looking for different legal representation?

Because it seems like Docken was never intending to represent them, and it is easy for people to get confused when they hear the words "Class Action". Automatically assuming they will be included in this class.

When that is one of the toughest hurdles to cross when it comes to class action lawsuits.

Again this is my personal opinion, and not in any role as a Moderator.


----------



## truthr

ecwinch said:


> So for those who took Option #1 and [want] to separate from the settlement on the basis of MG's misrepresentations - they need to be looking for different legal representation?
> 
> Because it seems like Docken was never intending to represent them, and it is easy for people to get confused when they hear the words "Class Action". Automatically assuming they will be included in this class.
> 
> When that is one of the toughest hurdles to cross when it comes to class action lawsuits.
> 
> Again this is my personal opinion, and not in any role as a Moderator.



ecwinch says:
_it seems like Docken was never intending to represent them_

I can't speak for Mr. Docken but during my conversation with him and the other lawyer on Monday I did not get that impression.

I actually got the opposite impression - that he was looking at all options for all people affected by this.


----------



## Beelzebub

Q     *By signing the SIF indicating Option 1, are we agreeing to a settlement without knowing the terms of the settlement?*

A     Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.


----------



## Beelzebub

Beelzebub said:


> Q     *By signing the SIF indicating Option 1, are we agreeing to a settlement without knowing the terms of the settlement?*
> 
> A     Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.



How come according to this email we did not get a "confirm these terms before arriving at a final settlement"???


----------



## Petus@18

FairSun said:


> Of course we all have a choice. I exercised my right to keep my options open in case new info came to light. I have until Feb. 13 to sign and send. I had made up my mind and it will still take a lot to choose otherwise. But I'd be foolish not to consider the new info like what the courts are saying about NM's right to charge 26.82% interest (ours is a pre-2004 contract so no per annum rate was specified) and now this class action by Higgerty Law/Clint Docken who has expertise in this area. NO I am NOT anything other than a victim like you and a client of MG. I am a senior with health issues and not enough money to lose $1000s for nothing! I ask questions to try to figure out fact from fake, risk vs reward. I try to listen and learn, but with all the emotion, sensitivities, and voices chiming in, it's no easy task figuring this all out.



Good enough, but honestly for someone looking for options, like everyone else here, you seem to always bring the worst negative comments on everything.  You also seem to have the information and figures but your opinions, always revolve around the option 1 people having no option but to sign the settlement.  As for any Class Action suit, I hope all leaseholders are included, no matter what option they were forced to take. I also hope that we can prove that all of this was a very well orchestrated fraudulent business scheme.

My opinion so I will move on.


----------



## ecwinch

Currently you guys have one big thread and there is a lot of cross-talk on different topics. Does it make sense for separate threads for those actively looking for options?


----------



## Shake Down

ecwinch said:


> Currently you guys have one big thread and there is a lot of cross-talk on different topics. Does it make sense for separate threads for those actively looking for options?



 Something like “PLAN B” I am sure other seasoned folks will chime in on this. I am coming in a bit late! And seeing another battle awaiting before courts with (Lee Merriman V Northmont et al) active court filling # S-134766 ~ and has requisite for a _Class Action_ and willing to help others.


----------



## LilMaggie

fairmontlovers said:


> I am option 1 also, and the more I read and learn, something is not right with this whole thing. I did not reply to Geldert by the Dec 28 deadline but don't feel like paying by Feb 15. I am thinking I have to inform Geldert to remove me from his list. I think I/we need to let him know the following:
> 1. We wanted to see the actual dollar amounts and details of the settlement before deciding.
> 2. Are not in agreement with the settlement
> 3. Are not happy how with him with this offer and the lack of communication he promised he would give us.
> 4. Request that he does not provide Northmont with our Lease ID, names or contact information.
> 5. Question why we would have to pay BOTH the Renovation Project fee with compounded interest Plus the exit fee when originally it was one or the other.
> 6. On a personal note  I asked MG if I could save the $10,000 exit fee if I decided to pay the Statement amounts Northwynd is claiming. His answer was that Northwynd said this was not an option that Northwynd would give. How can they then justify to charge for 2018 Mainatenance fees if we do not pay by Feb 15? Either we are still an owner or not an owner.
> 
> Thoughts for those of us in Option 1 but don't want to pay the ransom by Feb 15?


Its crazy, I know.  I want out of option 1 also.  When I heard people say that MG informed them that NM wouldn't take our payment for the bill they sent out late last year, I thought...how strange...we are still lease holders.  Don't they have to take our payment?  If not, and they are not allowing us back in, are they foreclosing on our leases?  Go ahead NM take my lease and sell it like a real vacation business would.  Don't forget to pay me the monies owing on the years left on my lease and enjoy your 25% commission (article 12 in my lease agreement)


----------



## truthr

ecwinch said:


> Currently you guys have one big thread and there is a lot of cross-talk on different topics. Does it make sense for separate threads for those actively looking for options?


I can certainly understand why you would think that might be a good idea, however once the Settlement due date of February 15th comes and goes those people will be done.
There is so much valuable information in this thread and having a separate one would just make it more cumbersome for those of us who continue and people coming in late to the battle.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

ecwinch said:


> So for those who took Option #1 and [want] to separate from the settlement on the basis of MG's misrepresentations - they need to be looking for different legal representation?
> 
> Because it seems like Docken was never intending to represent them, and it is easy for people to get confused when they hear the words "Class Action". Automatically assuming they will be included in this class.



I think for option 1 people, it is settled.  We no longer have a case against NM, we can only go after MG for mis-representing us, correct?  We can only go after NM if criminal charges are filed or fraud has been proven, which will likely be after Feb 15th at this point.  The more I think about how this ended, the more I think there is more going on here.  Are option 1 people looking for another lawyer for this purpose, or just waiting for MG to get reviewed by BC Law Society at this point?



NeverNeverAgain said:


> I assume ecwinch is just pointing out where we no longer have legal standing, not specifically if he agrees with the decision.  I hope he does continue to post as it helps me understand this mess from the courts point of view and might make clear where there is still valid legal standing.
> 
> As stated in previous posts, the settlement is based on our bill which includes:
> 1. The renovation fee, which is not being done on our units since we are leaving.
> 2. Maintenance fees, for services we were denied.
> 3. Interest at 27% on these amounts, when they did not spend the money.
> 4. Plus an added amount, presumably an exit fee for our lease agreement.
> 
> They are double dipping or worse, and there is no way the damages could be this much.  Also, I think the court did rule that they were responsible for their share of the Maintenance fees, which is likely what was being referred to.  If their share of maintenance fees had been paid, the bill would have been less (half) for that portion.
> 
> It has been said that we are not actually paying for the above items, it is just an amount.  My question still remains, does anyone know where this money is legally suppose to go?  Does it need to be spent on the resort?  From a previous post, it looks like it will not be going to the REIT investors.  Shouldn't it show as income on the books and then have to be shown as an expense when the money is spent?  Someone please help me understand this from the legal perspective.  If the money is spent on the resort, it is in great shape.  If not, things are not going to be looking good for the resort going forward or those still involved.



After many sleepless nights, I may have finally answered some of my own questions.  I know this is complicated, and for some, I think the answers to these questions are obvious and I must seem stupid.  However, until recently, I did not even know what a REIT was.  Let me see if I understand this now and maybe provide clarity this for others like me.  Please correct me on those points I am wrong.

1. NM (the real owner) is a separate entity from the resort management.
2. Those that paid the renovation fee back in 2013, that money goes toward the resort management and any renovations.
3. For all that settled, or paid to leave, that money goes to NM, free and clear.  All the money that is about to be paid in this last "excellent settlement", will go to NM free and clear with no obligations.  The settlement is based on "resort management costs", but is nothing more than a "number" to be paid to NM.
4.  The financial statements we see are only for the resort management, and have nothing to do with NM.  We have no access to NM financial statements.
5.  From previous posts, it sound like an audit of NM was done back in about 2012, but non of us know what the result was and there have been no audits of NM since?
6.  KW owns NM (and everthing else to do with the resort) and therefore will have all of this money free and clear.  He is free to sell the buildings once everyone has paid to leave.

If the above is correct, this is just so, so wrong.  We all know this is not what we agreed to purchase and was represented to us.  Everything has been turned upside down when it was somehow determined by the courts that the leases were the "owners".


----------



## dotbuhler

NeverNeverAgain said:


> I think for option 1 people, it is settled.  We no longer have a case against NM, we can only go after MG for mis-representing us, correct?  We can only go after NM if criminal charges are filed or fraud has been proven, which will likely be after Feb 15th at this point.  The more I think about how this ended, the more I think there is more going on here.  Are option 1 people looking for another lawyer for this purpose, or just waiting for MG to get reviewed by BC Law Society at this point?
> 
> 
> 
> After many sleepless nights, I may have finally answered some of my own questions.  I know this is complicated, and for some, I think the answers to these questions are obvious and I must seem stupid.  However, until recently, I did not even know what a REIT was.  Let me see if I understand this now and maybe provide clarity this for others like me.  Please correct me on those points I am wrong.
> 
> 1. NM (the real owner) is a separate entity from the resort management.
> 2. Those that paid the renovation fee back in 2013, that money goes toward the resort management and any renovations.
> 3. For all that settled, or paid to leave, that money goes to NM, free and clear.  All the money that is about to be paid in this last "excellent settlement", will go to NM free and clear with no obligations.  The settlement is based on "resort management costs", but is nothing more than a "number" to be paid to NM.
> 4.  The financial statements we see are only for the resort management, and have nothing to do with NM.  We have no access to NM financial statements.
> 5.  From previous posts, it sound like an audit of NM was done back in about 2012, but non of us know what the result was and there have been no audits of NM since?
> 6.  KW owns NM (and everthing else to do with the resort) and therefore will have all of this money free and clear.  He is free to sell the buildings once everyone has paid to leave.
> 
> If the above is correct, this is just so, so wrong.  We all know this is not what we agreed to purchase and was represented to us.  Everything has been turned upside down when it was somehow determined by the courts that the leases were the "owners


    Interestingly Justice Young refers to us within the group as "owners or leesees", over and over again. So she is actually making the distinction herself.


----------



## dotbuhler

torqued said:


> Please correct me with a willow stick if you feel I’m wrong but even my very superficial understanding of law would lead me to believe that the judgement I just muddled thru by Justice Branch implies we the defendants (every time the word defendant was used I substituted  MG’s name) abused the court by pushing this issue forward in the courts without any legal merit behind it thereby wasting the precious resources of the courts and all involved. If I’m reading this correctly then does this judgement with its explainations basically state MG is in fact incompetent and without a doubt due to his actions led this group to the edge of a legal cliff.  It seemed that Branch was pissed off at Gelderts group and as a result was more than happy to side with NM.  And it would appear that Barry King rides the same horse Geldert does as he basically had no argument for interest costs other than it was too much. My dog could have argued that!  Lord help us all!


NAILED IT!!


----------



## Late2Game

Petus@18 said:


> From FB
> If we all reread Sandy N Lee Merriman's posts, you would notice that they are trying to help us all.  They already have a class action suit filed and ready for court.  Why don't we join them? This is the best scenario we could have ever dreamed for. Option 1 will need to decide to relinquish the settlement and everyone else without a lawyer could join forces in a real class action suit with them.
> 
> To all those who say "1st time aware of this", from the beginning there were 4 distinct groups that went before Judge Loo way back in 2013. 2 of them did a lot of talking, while 2 did not. Without reliving the history or pointing fingers, a CLASS action is for the benefit of ALL the members of a group or class. Where this fell off the rails from the outset was that this group with MG who hailed itself a "class action" was in truth a special interest group created for only those that had held their leasehold interest for a period of time and wanted "out". Mistake #1 as now the group was fractionalized and motivated to get behind and spend money on a lawyer that was destined to lose when NOT serving the entire class of 15,000 leaseholds (all of us). This special group went on to be fractionalized more than once after that - always creating more division and weakness while mysterious 50 to 80 vested interested parties of Northwind REIT (a TRUST not a corporation so it could hide its identity) got stronger. It even hired professionals like Kirk Wankel and Doug Frey and Jud Virtue to kick our asses. Ranting at Mr Wankel for doing the job he was paid to do is pointless ... I myself would not take on scumbag clients like Northwind, but if I lacked a moral code and ethics, I would surely do my job just as well as he did and is doing. YES, we did a lot of research and spent a lot of time ($10,000 out of pocket and in excess of 200 hours that I would bill my clients for had I been working for them instead of this). On June 25, 2013, you can find S-134766 still listed as an active court filing (Lee Merriman V Northmont et al). Admittedly this filing was not well written by Kellie Hamilton (limited time) on behalf of myself, my wife, and perhaps the smartest man I know, Adam Hedayat. BUT at least it laid out the issues we ALL faced and formed the requisite information to BE A CLASS ACTION as we cared about ALL of you, not just some of you. Since Riverview is already a registered Strata property and our lease was exclusive to Riverview, the best course of action then and now was to ALL band against Northwind REIT, take our resort back, set up a Board, and manage it ourselves - allowing folks to buy in and out of it like a Strata / Condo property should. What I think is simply this ... when you folks can quit fighting amongst yourselves and going in multiple directions, we would be willing to help out with an already put together Corporate structure that will blow your socks off. This "deception" by lawyers started way back in 1994 with a Firm called McLeod Dixon that is now TWO Firms .. Norton Rose and Shinnour Matkin ... yes thats right .. our "trustee" and the Northmont lawyers have slept in bed together way back in 1994. Another little tidbit of information for you folks ... PRE Bankruptcy .. Our good old Trustee Philip Matkin had his wife and 2 other wives of his Firm owning 75% of Farimont thru a Company called 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Right again folks, our own Trustee had his wife PUT Fairmont into bankruptcy by calling a loan that was backed by our very own "capital investments" (ours was $35,000 paid in full) that were never recorded as income in Fairmont as they were funneled out to the FRPL Companies owned by 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Accordingly, you ALL have heard this before as I have posted more than once ... you just just chose to ignore it while riding the JEKE/MG train into oblivion. I was even aware that JEKE was a shell company that held only 1 thing, the Belfrey family leasehold interst and accordingly bore no financial risk that you all did. Even directors liability wouldn't apply as the debt would not be a CRA witholding debt. As Sandy has mentioned, we are out of the Country Feb 4 to 18 (we are every year). Upon our return, IF this group can UNITE, we will be glad to help as best we can however, I am aware that by letting JEKE waste our time and your money, this is an even more uphill battle than it would have been had we all united 4 years ago.
> 
> Remember you can't file a claim if you don't have evidence to backup your statements.



*Petus@18, as I replied to your earlier - almost identical post - where is all this coming from?  *Some parallel universe - (FB) I guess - to which I am not a participant.

*Can you please give me and others a bit more context?*  I'd love the idea of unearthing the fraud this may well be and *getting some TRUE JUSTICE* for all TS members. But in this public forum it's become very difficult to separate fact from fiction!

We've all been strung along for 4-5 years on the promise of a "reasonable" / "fair" settlement and *this CLASS ACTION smells a lot like Deja Vu all over again*!

Unless something TANGIBLE and REAL -- with legal representation -- presents itself very quickly, I plan on settling Feb-15. WHY? Because I have absolutely NO appetite for throwing away another 42% (162%-120%) and prolonging this ordeal.


----------



## Petus@18

Late2Game said:


> *Petus@18, as I replied to your earlier - almost identical post - where is all this coming from?  *Some parallel universe - (FB) I guess - to which I am not a participant.
> 
> *Can you please give me and others a bit more context?*  I'd love the idea of unearthing the fraud this may well be and *getting some TRUE JUSTICE* for all TS members. But in this public forum it's become very difficult to separate fact from fiction!
> 
> We've all been strung along for 4-5 years on the promise of a "reasonable" / "fair" settlement and *this CLASS ACTION smells a lot like Deja Vu all over again*!
> 
> Unless something TANGIBLE and REAL -- with legal representation -- presents itself very quickly, I plan on settling Feb-15. WHY? Because I have absolutely NO appetite for throwing away another 42% (162%-120%) and prolonging this ordeal.



Late2Game, first of all, I don't appreciate your tone.  You can take the information I posted as you wish. It is of course your choice if you want to throw away more money by signing an agreement prepared by a lawyer that specializes in "entertaining law", is incompetent and failed to adhere to the code of ethics.  The Class Action lawsuit filed by the Merriman's is public record and is registered at the Vancouver Registry, so you can certainly obtain a copy and get the details of the information I posted.  As you know, you couldn't file a class action if you didn't have tangible evidence.  The document is active and can be progressed at any time.


----------



## Petus@18

NeverNeverAgain said:


> I think for option 1 people, it is settled.  We no longer have a case against NM, we can only go after MG for mis-representing us, correct?  We can only go after NM if criminal charges are filed or fraud has been proven, which will likely be after Feb 15th at this point.  The more I think about how this ended, the more I think there is more going on here.  Are option 1 people looking for another lawyer for this purpose, or just waiting for MG to get reviewed by BC Law Society at this point?
> 
> 
> 
> After many sleepless nights, I may have finally answered some of my own questions.  I know this is complicated, and for some, I think the answers to these questions are obvious and I must seem stupid.  However, until recently, I did not even know what a REIT was.  Let me see if I understand this now and maybe provide clarity this for others like me.  Please correct me on those points I am wrong.
> 
> 1. NM (the real owner) is a separate entity from the resort management.
> 2. Those that paid the renovation fee back in 2013, that money goes toward the resort management and any renovations.
> 3. For all that settled, or paid to leave, that money goes to NM, free and clear.  All the money that is about to be paid in this last "excellent settlement", will go to NM free and clear with no obligations.  The settlement is based on "resort management costs", but is nothing more than a "number" to be paid to NM.
> 4.  The financial statements we see are only for the resort management, and have nothing to do with NM.  We have no access to NM financial statements.
> 5.  From previous posts, it sound like an audit of NM was done back in about 2012, but non of us know what the result was and there have been no audits of NM since?
> 6.  KW owns NM (and everthing else to do with the resort) and therefore will have all of this money free and clear.  He is free to sell the buildings once everyone has paid to leave.
> 
> If the above is correct, this is just so, so wrong.  We all know this is not what we agreed to purchase and was represented to us.  Everything has been turned upside down when it was somehow determined by the courts that the leases were the "owners".



Believe it or not, Northmont Resort Properties Ltd is 100% owned by Northwynd Limited Partnership.  Northwynd owns or hold shares in a number of other companies including, Sunchaser Vacation Villas.  Resort Villa Management Ltd. is a single entity and should be treated as such when signing a release agreement.  KW does not own Northmont, he was just hired to get rid of us, realign the resort and to get as much money as he can.  He has done his job with the help of our "lawyer".  Philip Matkin, the Trustee, is involved with all of these companies including, FRPL Finance and FRPL Management owned by Collin Knight (25%).

I call this an orchestrated $million dollar Ponzi scheme, wouldn't you?


----------



## ecwinch

NeverNeverAgain said:


> 3. For all that settled, or paid to leave, that money goes to NM, free and clear.  All the money that is about to be paid in this last "excellent settlement", will go to NM free and clear with no obligations.  The settlement is based on "resort management costs", but is nothing more than a "number" to be paid to NM.



Does anyone here have information that this is statement is NOT correct?

At a minimum it would seem that the past due maintenance fees (plus interest on said amount) have to go the resort.


----------



## So sick of this mess

truthr said:


> Thanks for chiming in however you definitely have a lot of the FACTS incorrect which hey even some who are directly impacted by this don't fully understand because there are so many moving parts and unclear information to distract us from those FACTS.
> 
> But for starters the SIF is not the same as the "settlement", it was the form that led up to people either being included in the settlement or proceeding on their own (either by choice or default).
> Both courts have made their decision - Judge Branch has now ruled on cost and interest and we are awaiting Judge Young to rule on interest and cost as well which then will give NM the ability to proceed to Judgments on the Statement of Claims (some have already been amended and some not).
> To my knowledge neither Judges have any say in the Settlement Agreement because this is not a Class Action and does not require the courts approval for the parties to enter into what is called "Consent" or "Settlement" Judgment, just both lawyers have to sign off on it for their respective clients.
> Regarding having a new lawyer, again to my knowledge, both sides have presented their arguments regarding cost and interest and the BC has been ruled on and we are awaiting the AB one.  The Geldert Group has been "shackled" together since the JEKE trial and because of our "legal" team's strategy/actions we may be pretty much stuck with that.  Again this is just to my knowledge and I am awaiting clarification with regards to whether the Option 2 people can move forward separately.


So, you are saying the option 1 people are just stuck with it and can't join the class action? Also, do you know how to find out who was part of the 370 listed on the BC claim? I thought all of us that are part of the delinquent group are named in this.


----------



## teedeej

sad_world said:


> For a couple years now I've been wanting to put a face to the monster Kirk Wankel, but had never seen this globalnews.ca report before. https://globalnews.ca/news/596669/thousands-of-timeshare-owners-face-unexpected-repair-bill/
> 
> I desperately want Kirk Wankel to become a pariah in his community, for everyone who sees him in public to know what a monster he is and how he's destroying so many lives because of his greed. Please use this screenshot whenever you post publicly so he cannot remain comfortably anonymous, thank you.
> 
> View attachment 5612



It’s too bad that the Royal Canadian Air Farce wasn’t still on CBC.  That’s a face that deserves to get plastered by the Air Farce’s chicken cannon


----------



## truthr

truthr said:


> Thanks for chiming in however you definitely have a lot of the FACTS incorrect which hey even some who are directly impacted by this don't fully understand because there are so many moving parts and unclear information to distract us from those FACTS.
> 
> But for starters the SIF is not the same as the "settlement", it was the form that led up to people either being included in the settlement or proceeding on their own (either by choice or default).
> Both courts have made their decision - Judge Branch has now ruled on cost and interest and we are awaiting Judge Young to rule on interest and cost as well which then will give NM the ability to proceed to Judgments on the Statement of Claims (some have already been amended and some not).
> To my knowledge neither Judges have any say in the Settlement Agreement because this is not a Class Action and does not require the courts approval for the parties to enter into what is called "Consent" or "Settlement" Judgment, just both lawyers have to sign off on it for their respective clients.
> Regarding having a new lawyer, again to my knowledge, both sides have presented their arguments regarding cost and interest and the BC has been ruled on and we are awaiting the AB one.  The Geldert Group has been "shackled" together since the JEKE trial and because of our "legal" team's strategy/actions we may be pretty much stuck with that.  Again this is just to my knowledge and I am awaiting clarification with regards to whether the Option 2 people can move forward separately.





So sick of this mess said:


> So, you are saying the option 1 people are just stuck with it and can't join the class action? Also, do you know how to find out who was part of the 370 listed on the BC claim? I thought all of us that are part of the delinquent group are named in this.



First, from what I have read on various posts here and on FB it would appear that the Option 1 Settlement Agreement has a clause about not being able to sue NM so only a lawyer would be able to tell those people whether they can be part of any Class Action against NM or its subsidiaries and/or representatives.

As for the list for either the BC or AB claim there was a schedule attached to both those claims of the names of the additional defendants for both those provinces and if memory serves me it was to be updated to include all Geldert clients (from the date of the JEKE trial and onwards) whether their Statement of Claims were expired or not and whether  they were still Geldert clients or not after the JEKE trial.


----------



## Late2Game

Petus@18 said:


> Late2Game, first of all, I don't appreciate your tone.  You can take the information I posted as you wish. It is of course your choice if you want to throw away more money by signing an agreement prepared by a lawyer that specializes in "entertaining law", is incompetent and failed to adhere to the code of ethics.  The Class Action lawsuit filed by the Merriman's is public record and is registered at the Vancouver Registry, so you can certainly obtain a copy and get the details of the information I posted.  As you know, you couldn't file a class action if you didn't have tangible evidence.  The document is active and can be progressed at any time.



Petus@18, sorry you don't like my tone.  But this whole discussion should not be about tone, but rather substance.  

You post this item -- not once, but twice -- and it certainly sounds full of steamy details.  But this is the FIRST I'm hearing of it.

*If it's on public record, that's fantastic . . . . please share the document*, not only with me, but *for EVERYONE on this forum*?  

Sharing this document would be in the best interests of everyone on this thread, if your intent is to bring TS members together in a constructive manner.  ("_when you folks can quit fighting amongst yourselves and going in multiple directions, we would be willing to help . . ."_)

We ALL need to see this, to evaluate for ourselves whether this has possibilities for our specific situation.


----------



## So sick of this mess

fairmontlovers said:


> I am option 1 also, and the more I read and learn, something is not right with this whole thing. I did not reply to Geldert by the Dec 28 deadline but don't feel like paying by Feb 15. I am thinking I have to inform Geldert to remove me from his list. I think I/we need to let him know the following:
> 1. We wanted to see the actual dollar amounts and details of the settlement before deciding.
> 2. Are not in agreement with the settlement
> 3. Are not happy how with him with this offer and the lack of communication he promised he would give us.
> 4. Request that he does not provide Northmont with our Lease ID, names or contact information.
> 5. Question why we would have to pay BOTH the Renovation Project fee with compounded interest Plus the exit fee when originally it was one or the other.
> 6. On a personal note  I asked MG if I could save the $10,000 exit fee if I decided to pay the Statement amounts Northwynd is claiming. His answer was that Northwynd said this was not an option that Northwynd would give. How can they then justify to charge for 2018 Mainatenance fees if we do not pay by Feb 15? Either we are still an owner or not an owner.
> 
> Thoughts for those of us in Option 1 but don't want to pay the ransom by Feb 15?


I am having the same struggles. I did call Northmont directly and ask them if I could pay my invoice, they said no, since I am a client of MG, I have to contact him. He had already said no, Northmont won't accept it. So, Northmont already has the list of the Geldert group.


----------



## So sick of this mess

truthr said:


> First, from what I have read on various posts here and on FB it would appear that the Option 1 Settlement Agreement has a clause about not being able to sue NM so only a lawyer would be able to tell those people whether they can be part of any Class Action against NM or its subsidiaries and/or representatives.
> 
> As for the list for either the BC or AB claim there was a schedule attached to both those claims of the names of the additional defendants for both those provinces and if memory serves me it was to be updated to include all Geldert clients (from the date of the JEKE trial and onwards) whether their Statement of Claims were expired or not and whether  they were still Geldert clients or not after the JEKE trial.


Where do I find this claim and the attachments? Is it on your blog?


----------



## Petus@18

Late2Game said:


> Petus@18, sorry you don't like my tone.  But this whole discussion should not be about tone, but rather substance.
> 
> You post this item -- not once, but twice -- and it certainly sounds full of steamy details.  But this is the FIRST I'm hearing of it.
> 
> *If it's on public record, that's fantastic . . . . please share the document*, not only with me, but *for EVERYONE on this forum*?
> 
> Sharing this document would be in the best interests of everyone on this thread, if your intent is to bring TS members together in a constructive manner.  ("_when you folks can quit fighting amongst yourselves and going in multiple directions, we would be willing to help . . ."_)
> 
> We ALL need to see this, to evaluate for ourselves whether this has possibilities for our specific situation.



I don't have it, but we are trying to get one. Maybe it would help if you could also try to obtain it and share it with everyone as you suggested.  I think Truth mentioned, in one of her posts earlier, that she had a copy?  Why don't you check with her?


----------



## Petus@18

Late2Game said:


> Petus@18, sorry you don't like my tone.  But this whole discussion should not be about tone, but rather substance.
> 
> You post this item -- not once, but twice -- and it certainly sounds full of steamy details.  But this is the FIRST I'm hearing of it.
> 
> *If it's on public record, that's fantastic . . . . please share the document*, not only with me, but *for EVERYONE on this forum*?
> 
> Sharing this document would be in the best interests of everyone on this thread, if your intent is to bring TS members together in a constructive manner.  ("_when you folks can quit fighting amongst yourselves and going in multiple directions, we would be willing to help . . ."_)
> 
> We ALL need to see this, to evaluate for ourselves whether this has possibilities for our specific situation.





truthr said:


> The following link is interesting information about a Class Action.  As for the Merrimans I have a copy of their filed Class Action from back in 2013 - question is was it ever certified?  If not can it still be?  If yes would the Geldert Clients be able to be part of it?
> 
> https://www.mckenzielake.com/assets/pdf/Steps_in_a_Class_Action.pdf



This was her post


----------



## truthr

truthr said:


> First, from what I have read on various posts here and on FB it would appear that the Option 1 Settlement Agreement has a clause about not being able to sue NM so only a lawyer would be able to tell those people whether they can be part of any Class Action against NM or its subsidiaries and/or representatives.
> 
> As for the list for either the BC or AB claim there was a schedule attached to both those claims of the names of the additional defendants for both those provinces and if memory serves me it was to be updated to include all Geldert clients (from the date of the JEKE trial and onwards) whether their Statement of Claims were expired or not and whether  they were still Geldert clients or not after the JEKE trial.





So sick of this mess said:


> Where do I find this claim and the attachments? Is it on your blog?



No it is not on my blog.  I believe both are in the August 19, 2016 update.


----------



## truthr

This is what I have regarding the Merriman's 2013 filed document - I have no idea what has happened with it since.


----------



## Spark1

LilMaggie said:


> Its crazy, I know.  I want out of option 1 also.  When I heard people say that MG informed them that NM wouldn't take our payment for the bill they sent out late last year, I thought...how strange...we are still lease holders.  Don't they have to take our payment?  If not, and they are not allowing us back in, are they foreclosing on our leases?  Go ahead NM take my lease and sell it like a real vacation business would.  Don't forget to pay me the monies owing on the years left on my lease and enjoy your 25% commission (article 12 in my lease agreement)


That money you paid up front to Fairmont Resort Properties LD is part of the deal when Northmont was awarded the timeshare contracts. This is what we all paid to be part of that resort signed by Collin Knight. They owe me money when I calculate what was left of our initial payment and now I have to use 26.7% interest per year. These bastards probably paid very little for this run down neglected resort because of poor management. Fairmont Resort Property LD probably got paid out under warranty for that leaking grey pipe and pocketed the money. Fraud,Scam, Abuse to innocent Seniors that only wanted a resort and Professional White Collar Crime assholes that did this before and the Justice System is letting them get away with it. Not if we say we had enough. What do you think what would of happened to these crooks in the Wild West days you know?


----------



## Petus@18

Late2Game, you see Truth knew about all of this since 2013, so it is not new news.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

Petus@18 said:


> Believe it or not, Northmont Resort Properties Ltd is 100% owned by Northwynd Limited Partnership.  Northwynd owns or hold shares in a number of other companies including, Sunchaser Vacation Villas.  Resort Villa Management Ltd. is a single entity and should be treated as such when signing a release agreement.  KW does not own Northmont, he was just hired to get rid of us, realign the resort and to get as much money as he can.  He has done his job with the help of our "lawyer".  Philip Matkin, the Trustee, is involved with all of these companies including, FRPL Finance and FRPL Management owned by Collin Knight (25%).
> 
> I call this an orchestrated $million dollar Ponzi scheme, wouldn't you?



Thank you for the response, but I am still confused.  Who owns Northwynd Limited Partnership?  Is it private, or are there stock holders and financial reports?  What do you mean saying Resort Villa Management is a single entity?  I believe this is who sends us our statements and who we currently owe money to.  Previous posts have indicated that the option 1 people have only sold back their lease to NM and could still be on on the hook for the monies owed to Resort Villa Management.  I have not seen a good resolution to this question yet.

Do you agree that Resort Villa Management will not see any of our "excellent settlement" monies or any of the monies that were paid to leave?  Either Northmont (the Developer, right?) or Northwynd benefit for those monies but I still do not understand who's pockets we are filling.  I think this is important because the courts ruled that we were all "owners" since we had a mutual relationship and it was for the benefit of everyone.  However, the monies we are paying to settle/leave appear to have no benefit to those still at the resort and look to benefit only a few. From what you said, it looks like it is not KW, but Phillip Matkin and Collin Knight that are primary owners and whose pockets we are filling.

I know, so many questions and so confusing.


----------



## truthr

Petus@18 said:


> Late2Game, you see Truth knew about all this since 2013, so it is not new news.


With all due respect Petus@18 not everyone knew everything about what was going on and a lot still don't as there are so many twists, turns and distractions.

MG used that filing as a reason for not filing a Class Action for us because one was already filed and something about not being able to have two for the same action.
Back then I didn't know a lot about class actions and how they work and am still no expert but from things I have read online about Canadian Class Actions there is a process that one has to go through to file and get it certified, etc., etc. so we may have had a chance to do so considering the judges at the SuperConference even made mention that our counsel should consider that route.


----------



## Petus@18

NeverNeverAgain said:


> Thank you for the response, but I am still confused.  Who owns Northwynd Limited Partnership?  Is it private, or are there stock holders and financial reports?  What do you mean saying Resort Villa Management is a single entity?  I believe this is who sends us our statements and who we currently owe money to.  Previous posts have indicated that the option 1 people have only sold back their lease to NM and could still be on on the hook for the monies owed to Resort Villa Management.  I have not seen a good resolution to this question yet.
> 
> Do you agree that Resort Villa Management will not see any of our "excellent settlement" monies or any of the monies that were paid to leave?  Either Northmont (the Developer, right?) or Northwynd benefit for those monies but I still do not understand who's pockets we are filling.  I think this is important because the courts ruled that we were all "owners" since we had a mutual relationship and it was for the benefit of everyone.  However, the monies we are paying to settle/leave appear to have no benefit to those still at the resort and look to benefit only a few. From what you said, it looks like it is not KW, but Phillip Matkin and Collin Knight that are primary owners and whose pockets we are filling.
> 
> I know, so many questions and so confusing.



 You should check the document posted by Truth just now, it will give you  some answers 



truthr said:


> This is what I have regarding the Merriman's 2013 filed document - I have no idea what has happened with it since.


----------



## LilMaggie

NeverNeverAgain said:


> Thank you for the response, but I am still confused.  Who owns Northwynd Limited Partnership?  Is it private, or are there stock holders and financial reports?  What do you mean saying Resort Villa Management is a single entity?  I believe this is who sends us our statements and who we currently owe money to.  Previous posts have indicated that the option 1 people have only sold back their lease to NM and could still be on on the hook for the monies owed to Resort Villa Management.  I have not seen a good resolution to this question yet.
> 
> Do you agree that Resort Villa Management will not see any of our "excellent settlement" monies or any of the monies that were paid to leave?  Either Northmont (the Developer, right?) or Northwynd benefit for those monies but I still do not understand who's pockets we are filling.  I think this is important because the courts ruled that we were all "owners" since we had a mutual relationship and it was for the benefit of everyone.  However, the monies we are paying to settle/leave appear to have no benefit to those still at the resort and look to benefit only a few. From what you said, it looks like it is not KW, but Phillip Matkin and Collin Knight that are primary owners and whose pockets we are filling.
> 
> I know, so many questions and so confusing.


Can anyone verify that Northmont recently attempted to charge an annual VIA "owner in good standing" a $16,000 cancellation fee?  How can they charge that much when our leases are practically worthless? Kind of sounds like the money is going into NM pockets.


----------



## LilMaggie

truthr said:


> This is what I have regarding the Merriman's 2013 filed document - I have no idea what has happened with it since.


The document is fascinating.  Thanks for posting it!


----------



## Late2Game

truthr said:


> With all due respect Petus@18 not everyone knew everything about what was going on and a lot still don't as there are so many twists, turns and distractions.
> 
> MG used that filing as a reason for not filing a Class Action for us because one was already filed and something about not being able to have two for the same action.
> Back then I didn't know a lot about class actions and how they work and am still no expert but from things I have read online about Canadian Class Actions there is a process that one has to go through to file and get it certified, etc., etc. so we may have had a chance to do so considering the judges at the SuperConference even made mention that our counsel should consider that route.



Thanks for posting the filing, Truthr.  You're absolutely spot-on re: twists, turns and distractions.  

So where did this end up? This was filed over 4 years ago, actually quite timely with respect to when the original storm began brewing.  BUT, what happened of it?  Did it have merit?  Did it proceed?  Did the Merrimans succeed?  WHAT HAPPENED, WHAT WAS THE RESULT?

And if it DID succeed, why were the rest of us all left on the sidelines?  

And Petus@18, where is the rest of this stuff documented so we all derive a better understanding?  Is this all accepted as fact or evidenced in agreed-upon statements?  Without knowing this or understanding sources and context I don't derive a lot of confidence this wouldn't lead us to another 2-3 years of legal fees, interest and headaches.  Can you please help me / us all better understand this better?

ps . . . . does anyone see a resemblance between the image of Wanker and Seinfeld?


----------



## Scammed!

I'm reading posts but then I'm distracted. I stare in the eyes of a man that has gotten away with the unthinkable, torturing innocent people, us, his victims ...with lots of help..... I will never forget this face that ruined my life. I will never forget this face that destroyed my faith in the law. I will never forget this face that took away our family vacation home (our roof over our heads) and then threw us out. I will never forget this face that tore my family apart. I will never forget this face that took the bread and butter from my table, when we hardly had enough for ourselves.  I will never ever forget this face.......

Then again, I will never forget there are good people out there, and good always prevails the bad in the end... I am proud of how I was brought up, and who I've become. To be kind, giving, and hard working never taking what's not mine. We must never forget who we are, our beliefs, morals, and respect of others. I can look in the mirror...
What's important is when people look at me I want them to say "I will never forget this face..he/she made a positive difference in my life, and it had nothing to do with money!"

Back to reading more posts..........


----------



## Petus@18

truthr said:


> With all due respect Petus@18 not everyone knew everything about what was going on and a lot still don't as there are so many twists, turns and distractions.
> 
> MG used that filing as a reason for not filing a Class Action for us because one was already filed and something about not being able to have two for the same action.
> Back then I didn't know a lot about class actions and how they work and am still no expert but from things I have read online about Canadian Class Actions there is a process that one has to go through to file and get it certified, etc., etc. so we may have had a chance to do so considering the judges at the SuperConference even made mention that our counsel should consider that route.



Truth, may I ask you, did you get this document from the registrar office in Vancouver in 2013? or from MG?  The reason I am asking this is, if from MG, he should have shared this information with all of his clients, don't you think? Maybe we could have chosen a different path and changed the whole direction of this mess.




Late2Game said:


> Thanks for posting the filing, Truthr.  You're absolutely spot-on re: twists, turns and distractions.
> 
> So where did this end up? This was filed over 4 years ago, actually quite timely with respect to when the original storm began brewing.  BUT, what happened of it?  Did it have merit?  Did it proceed?  Did the Merrimans succeed?  WHAT HAPPENED, WHAT WAS THE RESULT?
> 
> And if it DID succeed, why were the rest of us all left on the sidelines?
> 
> And Petus@18, where is the rest of this stuff documented so we all derive a better understanding?  Is this all accepted as fact or evidenced in agreed-upon statements?  Without knowing this or understanding sources and context I don't derive a lot of confidence this wouldn't lead us to another 2-3 years of legal fees, interest and headaches.  Can you please help me / us all better understand this better?
> 
> ps . . . . does anyone see a resemblance between the image of Wanker and Seinfeld?



Late2Game, I know we are all frustrated but really the tone you have used towards me is absurd and I don't appreciate it.  I have nothing else to say.  Truth had this document for many years, and as you and Truth said with "so many twists, turns and distractions" who knows?? So I can't help you.

I just posted these comments retrieved from FB, thinking this information will help everyone in this site.   As I can see from your comments, I will know better next time.


----------



## ecwinch

I wonder how does the fact that K. Hamilton is listed as a co-counsel (with MG) on the Judge Loo Special Case impact the status of this class action.

_Counsel for the 112 Owners:

M. Geldert
K. Hamilton_


----------



## truthr

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Please have a look at the MG update of March 8, 2017.
> 
> This relates to a scaled relinquishment agreement NM presented to MG and MG presented to us strongly advocating it was not acceptable and far from a fair deal.
> 
> *MG did have clients from our group who did decide to accept this relinquishment agreement, paid as directed by MG, and have yet to receive their release.  The couple who I am talking about sent in their relinquishment payment in April of 2017.*
> 
> The typical way any release needs to be done and has been done through other lawyers representing people like us is you pay your relinquishment fee in trust and the money is held until NM completes and sends the signed release paperwork back.   At this point the money in trust is then released once everything is 100% in place to satisfy both parties involved.  If it is not done this way there is no incentive or reason for NM to provide the release until they want to complete the release.
> 
> If you participated in this March 2017 relinquishment agreement and have not received your NM release please send me an email and I will be using this info to following up with the BC Law Society related to a file I have already opened with them.  This is additional proof that goes to the heart of the my complaint that MG will not handle the 1285 releases properly after we have provided $45,000,000 for this to end based on the Michael Geldert settlement agreement.
> 
> Please email me at back123@shaw.ca if you are one of these people who have paid and not received their release or if you are someone who has paid money into trust with another lawyer and received your release before the money was released to NM is also an important part of this argument.
> 
> *If you are a person who paid MG to be released in the past and has not received your release you should also put in your own written complaint with the BC Law Society professionalconduct@lsbc.org right away so a file can be opened on your behalf – if the money was or wasn’t sent in by MG to NM already for your release and you have not received it, a breach exists for the trust account MG has on our behalf and a breach of the trust account is a reason for the Law Society to intervene on all our behalves.  The increased numbers of complaints related to the MG trust account will aid in the Law Society expediting an audit of the MG trust account.*
> 
> I for one have no trust MG can handle any type of release properly as a result of his constant lies, failing to represent us properly going back to the 1st BC Jeke trial where he suddenly withdrew the prepared evidence), administratively, or having any incentive to do the required work promptly.  He has seen to it that we are the ones at risk based on a Settlement Agreement Michael Geldert alone committed us to without our consent that prejudices and penalizes us far beyond what a reasonable settlement would have looked like if he truly negotiated in our best interests.


*HEY PEEPS - **REMINDER - If this relates to you or anyone you know please reach out to Ultimate Betrayal as soon as possible.  *


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> Solicitors of Record: Tetrault and Drouin   Don't see M.Geldert anywhere.


https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info


----------



## Stung

truthr said:


> ecwinch says:
> _it seems like Docken was never intending to represent them_
> 
> I can't speak for Mr. Docken but during my conversation with him and the other lawyer on Monday I did not get that impression.
> 
> I actually got the opposite impression - that he was looking at all options for all people affected by this.




It would appear Higgerty Law is accepting clients as part of the Class Action Lawsuit...

https://www.higgertylaw.ca/class-action-lawsuits/sunchaser-vacation-villas-class-action/


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info


Geldert recently got on as the "timeshare lawyer for the Intrawest Group", but was not part of the ACTUAL court case.


----------



## Timeshare Justice denied

Stung said:


> It would appear Higgerty Law is accepting clients as part of the Class Action Lawsuit...
> 
> https://www.higgertylaw.ca/class-action-lawsuits/sunchaser-vacation-villas-class-action/



For those in Option 1, even if we are apparently "bound" to pay the settlement, could we not also join the class action regardless of whether we pay or not?  I completed the form and expect I'll get a call or e-mail back from them but thought I read they would *not* take Geldert clients who are bound by Option 1.


----------



## fairmontlovers

Timeshare Justice denied said:


> For those in Option 1, even if we are apparently "bound" to pay the settlement, could we not also join the class action regardless of whether we pay or not?  I completed the form and expect I'll get a call or e-mail back from them but thought I read they would *not* take Geldert clients who are bound by Option 1.


We exercised our right to view the settlement document, I doubt we are bound by it unless we sign the settlement agreement. I am not signing the agreement and will contest any judgement against me.


----------



## Huckleberry

fairmontlovers said:


> We exercised our right to view the settlement document, I doubt we are bound by it unless we sign the settlement agreement. I am not signing the agreement and will contest any judgement against me.



I'm not super happy that the "Option 1" peeps are being tagged and pushed out into the cold.  Are we bound by the settlement if we do not sign it and cannot participate in further action against Northmont?  I feel like we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.  Can anyone actually clarify what our state is as second class citizens if we don't actually sign?  Will we be able to escape the Gulag?


----------



## Lostmyshirt

To me option 1 is a form of punishment for daring to stand up to the big guys, interesting reading all their documentation regarding the delinquents (real professional) we have never been a delinquent in our lives, but constant reference is made to the MG group holding up renos and costing current owners more etc etc.  I call bullsh**t, with all the hillside buildings sitting empty, waiting to be sold off not costing them more than a very small amount.   I wonder what will happen if option 1 LESSEES not owners pay, that $ I don't believe will go into the resorts books at all, its $$ that goes directly into NM pockets to continue to pay themselves.   Current owners (the few left standing) I truly hope you watch these slimy business people because they aren't done.   We enjoyed many holidays over the years, I can't believe what a joke it turned into with the pay to stay or go program.   It was never about renos, it was all about getting rid of as many people as they can and selling off the property.  If they truly cared they would have gone about this completely differently.    when 50% dump the investment quickly that speaks to their concerns about the whole management issue.


----------



## LilMaggie

Huckleberry said:


> I'm not super happy that the "Option 1" peeps are being tagged and pushed out into the cold.  Are we bound by the settlement if we do not sign it and cannot participate in further action against Northmont?  I feel like we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.  Can anyone actually clarify what our state is as second class citizens if we don't actually sign?  Will we be able to escape the Gulag?


Picking option 1 was a way to get the numbers to go to the negotiation table with NM.  I don't know how we are bound to the settlement if we do not sign it.  I am going to consult with a lawyer on that.
"Take the time to understand any settlement documents you are signing, even if your attorney says it’s ok. Once you sign, only a time machine will let you undo the deal."


----------



## RippedOff

CleoB said: ↑
https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info




dotbuhler said:


> Geldert recently got on as the "timeshare lawyer for the Intrawest Group", but was not part of the ACTUAL court case.



What the heck?!!!! How is this not conflict of interest?!!!! Does Judge Young know about this?  Start faxing or calling her immediately!!!  This has to be grounds for a mistrial!!!!

This should be a movie!!!!


----------



## servemeout

https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/232795/index.do

This is the link to the ruling of Intrawest concerning GST of fees charged.  Our statement from RVM states* GST is included in the Balance*.  The original balance has interest charged.  Gee, is the GST amount also subject to the 26.82% interest?  Is RVM paying the correct GST to the federal government?  Where in the Tax Act does it allow for interest to be charged on GST?  Does CRA need to look at this case?  This was also the case that ruled that TS were not OWNERS they only had the right to occupy time.


----------



## tssuck

Having signed the Option 1 form but not a settlement form, I do not see that anything needs to be paid. The Feb 15 date is an arbitrary date set by NM and MG as a form of bullying in order to get money paid to them before JY has made a ruling on the interest rate. If there is an appeal going forward, then one needs not pay anything until that is settled, as for as I know. Please correct me if I am wrong about the appeal. We are still "leasees" as far as I can tell and should not be responsible for "owners" charges. As I understand it, if one does not pay their "maintanance fees" for 3 months, then the contract is null and void and the "leasee" relinquishes all and any rights to the timeshare. Again,please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Teeshka

Hi. New here and not sure if this is right place to ask. Anyhow we bought a timeshare at Fairmont back in 2000. Two weeks. We spend much of our time out of the country and made good use of exchanges. In 2012 they convinced us to convert one week lease into "deeded" ownership. Cost us $7700 to do so. Also gave them a few more thousand to take the other week off our hands. I've heard some news reports about the problems at Fairmont but not much else until I found this forum.
I was never sent a bill for renovations, that is why I didn't realize much what has been happening. But our maintenance fees have been rising and we are now paying about $2000 annually.  Our financial situation has changed and that $2000 is getting to be a burden especially when added to exchange fees, etc. I have tried skimming through 164 pages of this forum but there is an awful lot to read. All I am wondering is if there is any way out of this timeshare? If you refuse to pay, they probably sue you. They won't buy it back. You can't sell it. I don't even know if bankruptcy will get you off the hook. Does anyone have a solution?


----------



## tssuck

Teeshka said:


> Hi. New here and not sure if this is right place to ask. Anyhow we bought a timeshare at Fairmont back in 2000. Two weeks. We spend much of our time out of the country and made good use of exchanges. In 2012 they convinced us to convert one week lease into "deeded" ownership. Cost us $7700 to do so. Also gave them a few more thousand to take the other week off our hands. I've heard some news reports about the problems at Fairmont but not much else until I found this forum.
> I was never sent a bill for renovations, that is why I didn't realize much what has been happening. But our maintenance fees have been rising and we are now paying about $2000 annually.  Our financial situation has changed and that $2000 is getting to be a burden especially when added to exchange fees, etc. I have tried skimming through 164 pages of this forum but there is an awful lot to read. All I am wondering is if there is any way out of this timeshare? If you refuse to pay, they probably sue you. They won't buy it back. You can't sell it. I don't even know if bankruptcy will get you off the hook. Does anyone have a solution?




If you are not from BC or Alberta or Canada, I would consult with lawyer in your country as to whether any of this applies to you. Each State has different rules that govern Timeshares.


----------



## Teeshka

tssuck said:


> If you are not from BC or Alberta or Canada, I would consult with lawyer in your country as to whether any of this applies to you. Each State has different rules that govern Timeshares.


I'm in Saskatchewan, unfortunately.


----------



## Floyd55

Stung said:


> It would appear Higgerty Law is accepting clients as part of the Class Action Lawsuit...
> 
> https://www.higgertylaw.ca/class-action-lawsuits/sunchaser-vacation-villas-class-action/



Just followed this link and it certainly does look like Mr. Docken is pursuing a strategy for a class action against Northmont and is actively trying to attract Geldert Group clients. Not sure what his strategy is or how it will impact our deadline to have to pay by the 15th or face the 162% increased penalty being added to our bill. I called and talked to the receptionist and was told to leave a voicemail message for his assistant and send an email with some of the details of my situation. I have done that so now we wait to hear back from them. The good news is that they say no fees from us, only payment is a percentage of anything that they win back for us. So my only concern is whether he can orchestrate a halt to our deadline of Feb. 15th until this class action can have a chance to proceed. Some glimmer of hope at least. Will keep you posted.


----------



## Petus@18

Another interesting site to send your complaints against "our honest lawyer, always caring about his clients' best interests"
http://flsc.ca/about-us/council-of-the-federation/

Not sure if someone else had already posted this contract?


----------



## CleoB

Teeshka said:


> I'm in Saskatchewan, unfortunately.


I would still check with a lawyer as there is a time limit on being served in a civil case.


----------



## CleoB

RippedOff said:


> CleoB said: ↑
> https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck?!!!! How is this not conflict of interest?!!!! Does Judge Young know about this?  Start faxing or calling her immediately!!!  This has to be grounds for a mistrial!!!!
> 
> This should be a movie!!!!


Please explain on why you think this is a conflict of interest.


----------



## little frog

http://flsc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Model-Code-as-amended-March-2017-Final.pdf

Federation of Law societies of Canada, Model Code of Professional conduct.


----------



## aden2

*Was notified today that the Competition Bureau, will follow up on my complaint of FRAUD!*


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> *Was notified today that the Competition Bureau, will follow up on my complaint of FRAUD!*


That is great news Aden. I also got great news from the Prime Ministers Office this Morning. Every one email the Prime Minister and tell them your story. If you are getting these massive bills that MG has negotiated for you send a copy to the Prime Ministers Office. This is good news and I do not want to say to much. Seniors we are being abused by Northwynd and we are a easy target. They have the registry we do not and they are banking on time owners caving in. Darren Thomas told me the problem with this case is the borders and the Federal Government will have to get involved. I still say this Supplier is out of Calgary and the Unfair Practice came from them when this Trustee did what he did.   Email justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca


----------



## RippedOff

aden2 said:


> *Was notified today that the Competition Bureau, will follow up on my complaint of FRAUD!*



But how long will they take to resolve this?  Years???

Anyway, at least they're looking into it.  

And what advice from the Prime Minister's Office?


----------



## MarcieL

SUCCESSFULLY APPEALED ALRIGHT.  Perhaps we should let them know the fantastic deal that was brokered for us!

"Geldert Law had already successfully appealed an unfair special assessment for Sunchaser owners, and was representing 3200 individual members in that class action." This comes from the Club Intrawest/Embarc web site.

"The legal fees will be generated by members signing up with Geldert Law with an initial fee off $100.00. If 1000 members from this group signed a Joint Retainer agreement with Geldert Law that would generate $100,000 for legal services to be undertaken by Geldert Law, which would be held in a trust account."


----------



## RippedOff

Here are the executives at Northwynd if anyone is interested:

*Real Estate Management and Development*

*Company Overview of Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.*

*Company Overview*
Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. develops and markets interval vacation ownership condominiums in Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Belize. Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. was formerly known as Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. and changed its name to Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. in July 2010. The company was founded in 1985 and is based in Calgary, Canada.

5799 - 3rd Street SE

Calgary, AB T2H 1K1

Canada

Founded in *1985*

Phone:

403-451-1151

Fax:

403-450-0495
www.northwynd.ca



*Key Executives For Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.*
Mr. Patrick Fitzsimonds
Chief Executive Officer

Mr. Chris Van Der Deen
Vice President of Operations / Member Services

Ms. Eleanor Fornataro
Vice President of Communications / Corporate Services

Mr. Doug Frey
Vice President of Development

Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2017.

*Recent Private Companies Transactions*
Type
Date Target
No transactions available in the past 12 months.


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

RippedOff said:


> Here are the executives at Northwynd if anyone is interested:
> 
> *Real Estate Management and Development*
> 
> *Company Overview of Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.*
> 
> Snapshot
> 
> People
> 
> *Company Overview*
> Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. develops and markets interval vacation ownership condominiums in Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Belize. Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. was formerly known as Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. and changed its name to Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. in July 2010. The company was founded in 1985 and is based in Calgary, Canada.
> 
> 5799 - 3rd Street SE
> 
> Calgary, AB T2H 1K1
> 
> Canada
> 
> Founded in *1985*
> 
> Phone:
> 
> 403-451-1151
> 
> 
> 
> Fax:
> 
> 403-450-0495
> 
> 
> 
> www.northwynd.ca
> 
> 
> 
> *Key Executives For Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.*
> Mr. Patrick Fitzsimonds
> Chief Executive Officer
> 
> Mr. Chris Van Der Deen
> Vice President of Operations / Member Services
> 
> Ms. Eleanor Fornataro
> Vice President of Communications / Corporate Services
> 
> Mr. Doug Frey
> Vice President of Development
> 
> Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2017.
> 
> 
> *Similar Private Companies By Industry*
> Company Name Region
> 0990756 B.C. Ltd. Americas
> 1587182 Alberta Ltd. Americas
> 1623703 Alberta Inc. Americas
> 1869521 Ontario Inc. Americas
> 190 Lees Avenue LP Americas
> *Recent Private Companies Transactions*
> Type
> Date Target
> No transactions available in the past 12 months.


What date was this this info posted? Not sure these people are still in these same positions today.


----------



## Stung

aden2 said:


> *Was notified today that the Competition Bureau, will follow up on my complaint of FRAUD!*



This is great news!  Ok everyone, if you haven't yet sent a complaint about your injustice to the Competition Bureau NOW is the time to do it. 

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/frm-eng/GHÉT-7TDNA5

There is strength in numbers!  The more of us that send our story the more it will send up red flags.  Even if you send a short note, it will be added to the total number of complaints.

Also, do send a message to our leader at justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca!  Include our deadline of Feb. 15 in your response to those that  read it to make them aware of the urgency for action!  With enough responses, we will get noticed!

To be silent and do nothing but pay is exactly what MG & KW want which is just not right!


----------



## RippedOff

I have been re-reading some of the documents that Geldert has asked us to sign.
The Option 1 vs Option 2 form is just asking if you want Geldert to be your lawyer (Option 1 - yes, Option 2 - no).
So what if I didn't want Geldert to be my lawyer anymore after I chose Option 1.  There's nothing stopping me from getting another lawyer or releasing him as my lawyer.

So in other words, does it really matter what option you chose?  You could get out of Option 1.

This is my understanding but correct me if I'm wrong.  Aden2 you referenced this quite a few times and I now understand your point.  Were you successful in getting out of option 1?


----------



## ecwinch

MarcieL said:


> Geldert Law that would generate $100,000 [in revenue] for legal services to be undertaken by Geldert Law, which would be held in a trust account [that will be slowly drained]."



What amazed me is that two lawyers make up the leadership of their owners group. I always thought that sharks ate their young.


----------



## dotbuhler

I, too am from SK, I started the on-line petition at thepetitionsite.com Search under Dorothy Zazelenchuk. I have forwarded to Cathay Wagantall, Yorkton, and other sitting members some in Calgary, Edmonton and St. Albert, as well as the bc.ombudsperson.ca, media@consumerprotectionbc.ca,Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General Canada. This is just the beginning, I will do this every day for a few hours. Please continue to sign and share the petition. It has 338 signatures in under 3 weeks. The target is 1000. Family and friends who see you caught up in this ordeal can also sign. EVERY signature helps. Thank you and STAY STRONG.


Teeshka said:


> I'm in Saskatchewan, unfortunately.


----------



## MarcieL

Notwhatweweresold said:


> What date was this this info posted? Not sure these people are still in these same positions today.


I agree it is my understanding K.W. is the man of all seasons, total ownership.


----------



## Petus@18

Q: do we know when exactly the settlement was obtained?  Was it December 19th or earlier?


----------



## Palms to pines

MG emailed us on Dec. 14  that the settlement had been reached. He sounded sooo excited, just had to let us know! Also, he had cancelled the petition for the next morning. So, that was the night he reached the “excellent settlement “, threw in the towel and threw us under the bus. Merry Christmas!!


----------



## LilMaggie

MarcieL said:


> I agree it is my understanding K.W. is the man of all seasons, total ownership.


Don't know if he owns it, but he sure as heck runs it.
*Kirk Wankel*
Chief Executive Officer at Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.

Location
Calgary, Canada Area
Industry
Accounting
Kirk has been the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Northwynd since November, 2010.


----------



## LilMaggie

Petus@18 said:


> Q: do we know when exactly the settlement was obtained?  Was it December 19th or earlier?


Bill 31 passed on Dec 13, 2017.  Might that help us somehow?


----------



## CleoB

LilMaggie said:


> Bill 31 passed on Dec 13, 2017.  Might that help us somehow?


Bill 31 simply added upon the Fair Trade Act of Alberta.....something that Geldert should have used from the get-go but didn't even though many of his clients pointed this out to him.


----------



## aden2

Thank you for the information you provided to the Competition Bureau regarding Northwynd Resort Properties.

The role of the Competition Bureau ("Bureau"), as an independent law enforcement agency, is to ensure that Canadian businesses and consumers prosper in a competitive and innovative marketplace. In carrying out our mandate, information brought to our attention by consumers, businesses and other market participants is very important as it contributes to the identification and analysis of potentially anti-competitive practices in the marketplace.

The Bureau will treat the information you have provided in accordance with the confidentiality provisions of the _Competition Act_ ("Act"), and the Bureau's Information Bulletin on the Communication of Confidential Information Under the _Competition Act_.

The Bureau takes all allegations of anti-competitive conduct and deceptive marketing practices seriously. The information you have provided will be recorded and entered into our database and it may be used to develop or support future enforcement activities under the laws we enforce. As a law enforcement agency, the Bureau is required to conduct its investigations in private. A Bureau representative may contact you if further information is needed.


----------



## Petus@18

Palms to pines said:


> MG emailed us on Dec. 14  that the settlement had been reached. He sounded sooo excited, just had to let us know! Also, he had cancelled the petition for the next morning. So, that was the night he reached the “excellent settlement “, threw in the towel and threw us under the bus. Merry Christmas!!



I  wonder why he waited until December 28 to give us the option to relinquish the settlement?  He probably did it on purpose.  I am sending follow up letters to the Law Societies.  I am planning to add this info.  He gave us less than 24 hrs to opt out, isn't this illegal?  Maybe not, but it sure sounds he did it for a purpose.  See the answer he gave to someone who phoned him:

“Lawyers make decisions because that is what they are hired to do.  Sometimes the settlement is not always great.  Northmont gave Mr Geldert the gears and said “this is our offer, you either accept it or else”; as such he would not have possibly had the time to consult with all of us to make sure we approved.  We signed option 1 giving him permission to make decisions for us.  His words: "They are not happy that they were forced to leave money on the table by this Settlement Agreement. The number for those who are not party to the Settlement Agreement will only go up"; when I asked how they possibly left money on the table since we are being charged fees from past years as well as a hefty interest, he replied "Northmont prefers that people pay to stay and later, that they pay even more to cancel. The aggregate will be significantly more for them over time."

So I guess Option 2 or people that opted out were "the money that was left on the table".  This to me proves that his message on December 28 was deliberately sent that late to ensure less people could opted out!


----------



## LilMaggie

If they want us to stay and charge us more to leave later, why won't NM accept our payment for the bill they sent out?  Is it in any way legal for them to charge $16000 to cancel a lease in good standing or can they "charge anything they want to" per MG?
I know their methods are not ethical.


----------



## Plus454

Stung said:


> This is great news!  Ok everyone, if you haven't yet sent a complaint about your injustice to the Competition Bureau NOW is the time to do it.
> 
> http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/frm-eng/GHÉT-7TDNA5
> 
> There is strength in numbers!  The more of us that send our story the more it will send up red flags.  Even if you send a short note, it will be added to the total number of complaints.
> 
> Also, do send a message to our leader at justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca!  Include our deadline of Feb. 15 in your response to those that  read it to make them aware of the urgency for action!  With enough responses, we will get noticed!
> 
> To be silent and do nothing but pay is exactly what MG & KW want which is just not right!



Done and Done
I also have a meeting with my MLA in one week.


----------



## Shake Down

RippedOff said:


> So what if I didn't want Geldert to be my lawyer anymore after I chose Option 1. There's nothing stopping me from getting another lawyer or releasing him as my lawyer.
> 
> So in other words, does it really matter what option you chose? You could get out of Option 1.



Questioned this as well.
Could it be argued the MG letter from Oct/2017 Re Choose: Option #1 or Option #2, was a merely a voting ballot? After all it states “Please confirm the following, you *elect* “Option 1 or Option 2.  

Check off a box, cast a vote! Now held hostage as "Option 1 client" and its fallout? Crazy and now that I think of it, that’s how politics work.


----------



## ladybug2

Floyd55 said:


> Just followed this link and it certainly does look like Mr. Docken is pursuing a strategy for a class action against Northmont and is actively trying to attract Geldert Group clients. Not sure what his strategy is or how it will impact our deadline to have to pay by the 15th or face the 162% increased penalty being added to our bill. I called and talked to the receptionist and was told to leave a voicemail message for his assistant and send an email with some of the details of my situation. I have done that so now we wait to hear back from them. The good news is that they say no fees from us, only payment is a percentage of anything that they win back for us. So my only concern is whether he can orchestrate a halt to our deadline of Feb. 15th until this class action can have a chance to proceed. Some glimmer of hope at least. Will keep you posted.



I just spoke with Higgerty Law and they clarified a few things to me. Their website says "people who have been subject to collection procedures on the part of Sauvageau & Associates" and they are not actively trying to attract Geldert Group clients and that their class action is not against Northmont. I was advised to speak to Geldert because I'm part of the Geldert group.


----------



## RippedOff

ladybug2 said:


> I just spoke with Higgerty Law and they clarified a few things to me. Their website says "people who have been subject to collection procedures on the part of Sauvageau & Associates" and they are not actively trying to attract Geldert Group clients and that their class action is not against Northmont. I was advised to speak to Geldert because I'm part of the Geldert group.




Great....I guess everyone is avoiding us like the plague.  We totally got screwed.


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

Interesting.  Analysis of the Jeke appeal in "The Lawyer's Daily", a website that "provides Canadian legal news, analysis and current awareness for lawyers and legal professionals...."

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/arti...reements-interpretation-time-share-agreements


----------



## Wankel=crook

RippedOff said:


> Here are the executives at Northwynd if anyone is interested:
> 
> *Real Estate Management and Development*
> 
> *Company Overview of Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.*
> 
> *Company Overview*
> Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. develops and markets interval vacation ownership condominiums in Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Belize. Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. was formerly known as Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. and changed its name to Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. in July 2010. The company was founded in 1985 and is based in Calgary, Canada.
> 
> 5799 - 3rd Street SE
> 
> Calgary, AB T2H 1K1
> 
> Canada
> 
> Founded in *1985*
> 
> Phone:
> 
> 403-451-1151
> 
> Fax:
> 
> 403-450-0495
> www.northwynd.ca
> 
> 
> 
> *Key Executives For Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.*
> Mr. Patrick Fitzsimonds
> Chief Executive Officer
> 
> Mr. Chris Van Der Deen
> Vice President of Operations / Member Services
> 
> Ms. Eleanor Fornataro
> Vice President of Communications / Corporate Services
> 
> Mr. Doug Frey
> Vice President of Development
> 
> Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2017.
> 
> *Recent Private Companies Transactions*
> Type
> Date Target
> No transactions available in the past 12 months.
> [/QUOTE


----------



## Wankel=crook

Have to go to the Bank today 

puke


----------



## Wankel=crook

RippedOff said:


> Here are the executives at Northwynd if anyone is interested:
> 
> *Real Estate Management and Development*
> 
> *Company Overview of Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.*
> 
> *Company Overview*
> Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. develops and markets interval vacation ownership condominiums in Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Belize. Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. was formerly known as Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd. and changed its name to Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd. in July 2010. The company was founded in 1985 and is based in Calgary, Canada.
> 
> 5799 - 3rd Street SE
> 
> Calgary, AB T2H 1K1
> 
> Canada
> 
> Founded in *1985*
> 
> Phone:
> 
> 403-451-1151
> 
> Fax:
> 
> 403-450-0495
> www.northwynd.ca
> 
> 
> 
> *Key Executives For Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd.*
> Mr. Patrick Fitzsimonds
> Chief Executive Officer
> 
> Mr. Chris Van Der Deen
> Vice President of Operations / Member Services
> 
> Ms. Eleanor Fornataro
> Vice President of Communications / Corporate Services
> 
> Mr. Doug Frey
> Vice President of Development
> 
> Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2017.
> 
> *Recent Private Companies Transactions*
> Type
> Date Target
> No transactions available in the past 12 months.


how do you post in here


----------



## Reaper

Has anyone been called by collection agencies or SERV-IT...?


----------



## FairNot

Does anyone here know what happened to the people who converted their weeks to points? Did they get billed the reno fee too, or are they not considered "owners"?


----------



## F. Hugh Wankel

one more complaint filed...

 http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/frm-eng/GHÉT-7TDNA5


----------



## ecwinch

LilMaggie said:


> If they want us to stay and charge us more to leave later, why won't NM accept our payment for the bill they sent out?  Is it in any way legal for them to charge $16000 to cancel a lease in good standing or can they "charge anything they want to" per MG?
> I know their methods are not ethical.



To “cancel your lease” the unfortunate truth is that they CAN charge anything they want. The court has ruled that the lease has no termination provision, so they are free to extort whatever they desire to free you from your obligations.


----------



## LilMaggie

ecwinch said:


> To “cancel your lease” the unfortunate truth is that they CAN charge anything they want. The court has ruled that the lease has no termination provision, so they are free to extort whatever they desire to free you from your obligations.


Yikes...that is scary!  Thanks for your insight.


----------



## Tanny13

ecwinch said:


> To “cancel your lease” the unfortunate truth is that they CAN charge anything they want. The court has ruled that the lease has no termination provision, so they are free to extort whatever they desire to free you from your obligations.




Instead of creating more fear in people who have been put in horribly desperate situations, how about the spin of remaining in the resort?  Take the remaining years you have on your lease, and multiply it by approximately $1,000 (maintenance fees for those years).  If that number is close to what the 20% charge would be to be free, then why not remain?  If you don’t want to go to Fairmont because of the bad taste it leaves, you can exchange for another resort.  You will not have a gag order and you perhaps can continue to fight the injustices that are being served to us.  The resort should be in GREAT shape after all this money is collected and some of us will ensure the money is used properly.  Or perhaps Fairmont will suffer the same fate as all the other timeshares this company has owned, and they will close down.  At which point our contracts will be cancelled, with no additional fees.


----------



## fairmontlovers

Tanny13 said:


> Instead of creating more fear in people who have been put in horribly desperate situations, how about the spin of remaining in the resort?  Take the remaining years you have on your lease, and multiply it by approximately $1,000 (maintenance fees for those years).  If that number is close to what the 20% charge would be to be free, then why not remain?  If you don’t want to go to Fairmont because of the bad taste it leaves, you can exchange for another resort.  You will not have a gag order and you perhaps can continue to fight the injustices that are being served to us.  The resort should be in GREAT shape after all this money is collected and some of us will ensure the money is used properly.  Or perhaps Fairmont will suffer the same fate as all the other timeshares this company has owned, and they will close down.  At which point our contracts will be cancelled, with no additional fees.



I agree, why pay hard earned extra dollars to leave to get out? We all know Northwynd wants us all out. They have plans that do not include us. They want money, and the ability to do what they want with the remaining inventory. They have used the court decisions to their benefit. Why pay an exit fee of about $7000 per week you own? This could cover Maintenance fees for the next 6 to 7 years. Many of us us with original 40 year lease hold interests will only have 20 years remaining once this is settled. I still think there is good basis to fight the compounded interest rate they are charging on the renovation project. They have only completed the renovations proportionate to the amount of people that paid to stay. How can they justify charging interest on work not done? Can anyone answer this?


----------



## tssuck

A point to consider. When you were asked to sign any papers with NM or MG, both people who are listed as "leasees" must sign in order for the contract or agreement to be valid. If only 1 of you signed, then the contract or agreement is invalid. 
Another point to consider, if you did not pay your maintenance fee before the ruling, then you are delinquent and have relinquished your "lease". You "own" nothing and are responsible nothing. Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Bewildered

truthr said:


> Something maybe our lawyer should be providing as he receives them???  And the one the judge is referring to is dated September 30, 2017.


After reading this decision, Wouldn’t this be all the BC Law Society needs to decide whether there was competence shown by MG and any and all other related legal minds he brought on to argue this injustice? The judge must mention a dozen times how there was opportunity to raise issues but it wasn’t done and now it’s too late. Including INTEREST! How could that not have been brought up (5% legal interest) but also how does the judge allow thousands of people continue down a road with no true legal representation only to tell us after the fact that this needed to be brought up earlier? How can a judge accept we are mirrored to JEKE when none of us ever gave permission for our legal to take that approach and we weren’t even aware until after the fact? 
Without being negative, how does this decision not verify without some criminal case being brought forward, that the courts are definitely not on our side? I’m looking for something positive but if you read this J. Branch is more than a little miffed with the Geldert Groups representation and unless somebody took a Supreme Court of Canada run at this, our legal has dug a very very deep hole for us that I think most people with a high school diploma could have done a better job of representing us.


----------



## Bewildered

tssuck said:


> A point to consider. When you were asked to sign any papers with NM or MG, both people who are listed as "leasees" must sign in order for the contract or agreement to be valid. If only 1 of you signed, then the contract or agreement is invalid.
> Another point to consider, if you did not pay your maintenance fee before the ruling, then you are delinquent and have relinquished your "lease". You "own" nothing and are responsible nothing. Please correct me if I am wrong.


Your second point is not valid, please read the decisions of the courts, who/where does it say you can walk away? If it was that easy a lot of us wouldn’t be considering cutting a sizeable cheque next week!


----------



## nest egg

Bewildered said:


> After reading this decision, Wouldn’t this be all the BC Law Society needs to decide whether there was competence shown by MG and any and all other related legal minds he brought on to argue this injustice? The judge must mention a dozen times how there was opportunity to raise issues but it wasn’t done and now it’s too late. Including INTEREST! How could that not have been brought up (5% legal interest) but also how does the judge allow thousands of people continue down a road with no true legal representation only to tell us after the fact that this needed to be brought up earlier? How can a judge accept we are mirrored to JEKE when none of us ever gave permission for our legal to take that approach and we weren’t even aware until after the fact?
> Without being negative, how does this decision not verify without some criminal case being brought forward, that the courts are definitely not on our side? I’m looking for something positive but if you read this J. Branch is more than a little miffed with the Geldert Groups representation and unless somebody took a Supreme Court of Canada run at this, our legal has dug a very very deep hole for us that I think most people with a high school diploma could have done a better job of representing us.



I would like to share the emails I had with Geldert Law.
I had stated to Geldert Law 
 'We may be persuaded to join your group if it was possible that the settlement would be under $10,000.00'
They replied with,
 'The sole purpose of the ongoing efforts it to confirm the lease expensive option to terminate your affiliation to this Resort. The leverage this group has offers the best opportunity to do so.
What the final settlement number will be for each person remains to be seen but I will not be agreeing to an arbitrary sum that fails to consider the tremendous value to the Resort in resolving the litigation that will otherwise continue. Continuing with the group does not commit you to paying more than 10,000 as you will have the opportunity to accept or reject a settlement if an agreement in principle was achieved.'
I replied and resent paperwork for option 1 two days after I sent paperwork choosing option 2 and stated to Geldert Law.
 'Thank you for clarifying that we will have an opportunity to reject a settlement that we find is not fair to our particular circumstances.
If that is the case we have changed our decision to option 1.
The bill sent to me was $24161.57CAD
I will not be paying


----------



## nest egg

I would also like to add I have an appointment with my MLA today at 15:00 hrs and hope to get him on board to put pressure on our justice system in BC to take a closer look at this case.


----------



## SAV

nest egg said:


> I would also like to add I have an appointment with my MLA today at 15:00 hrs and hope to get him on board to put pressure on our justice system in BC to take a closer look at this case.



can i join you


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

Tanny13 said:


> Instead of creating more fear in people who have been put in horribly desperate situations, how about the spin of remaining in the resort?  Take the remaining years you have on your lease, and multiply it by approximately $1,000 (maintenance fees for those years).  If that number is close to what the 20% charge would be to be free, then why not remain?  If you don’t want to go to Fairmont because of the bad taste it leaves, you can exchange for another resort.  You will not have a gag order and you perhaps can continue to fight the injustices that are being served to us.  The resort should be in GREAT shape after all this money is collected and some of us will ensure the money is used properly.  Or perhaps Fairmont will suffer the same fate as all the other timeshares this company has owned, and they will close down.  At which point our contracts will be cancelled, with no additional fees.



For those option 1 people, I don't think there is an option to stay anymore, a negotiated release was made by MG with an "excellent settlement".  If not paid on time, there will be a consent judgement against you for a higher amount and new charges may continue to accrue.  Someone correct me if this is incorrect.  Those option 2 people and those who did not go with MG still have this option, but it is risky.

As far as the $1,000 maintenance fee, that is a big assumption as the court has given NM the right to charge whatever they want.  The resort is NOT in great shape because all the release money for those that are leaving (the majority) is NOT going to the resort, look at the resort villa management financial reports.  The math indicates that the only money collected for the resort, other than maintenance fees, was from those that originally payed the renovation fee with some additional collected from some overdue fees.  Someone correct me if you see otherwise.  The money is going to NM which then goes to ???  Those that paid to stay may have many more surprises to come.

You can hope that the resort will close down and go bankrupt, but the leases will likely continue with the new (or same) owners, and this mess will again repeat.   The hope would be the bad court decisions are overturned, criminal charges would be brought, or some government agency would finally get involved to protect the consumer.  I think something will eventually happen as this mess is likely to continue and even get worse as there are still many thousands that have stayed or can not pay.  I think many in government are now becoming aware of just how bad the injustice is due to our efforts over the last couple months.  Thanks to the many who started the fight much sooner.

Sorry if this seems negative, but this is a sad, sad, situation, just trying to be honest.  It is totally unbelievable it could be allowed to happen.  This really hurts personally and hope that some help will come before thousands of more lives are ruined.  I have not given in yet, still fighting and hopeful for a miracle, but time is quickly running out for me.


----------



## SAV

So just so i am clear. I do not have an option to keep my time share weeks? I have to pay the fees and loose the time share as well? How can i keep my weeks after i pay this scam?


----------



## rustyp

So we finally did call Lawyer Matthew Farrell @ Guardian Law Group ( Calgary) yesterday. He is well versed on these issues . He listened to our particular circumstances and was able to give us his legal opinion, our options, and what he thought our chances would be for each option. At least we now have some peace of mind as to where we stand and he did not give us a bunch of legalize - just good plain talk that we could understand. If you actually haven't talked to a Lawyer yet, now may be the time giving the looming deadline.


----------



## Shake Down

Tanny13 said:


> Instead of creating more fear in people who have been put in horribly desperate situations, how about the spin of remaining in the resort?  Take the remaining years you have on your lease, and multiply it by approximately $1,000 (maintenance fees for those years).  If that number is close to what the 20% charge would be to be free, then why not remain?  If you don’t want to go to Fairmont because of the bad taste it leaves, you can exchange for another resort.  You will not have a gag order and you perhaps can continue to fight the injustices that are being served to us.  The resort should be in GREAT shape after all this money is collected and some of us will ensure the money is used properly.  Or perhaps Fairmont will suffer the same fate as all the other timeshares this company has owned, and they will close down.  At which point our contracts will be cancelled, with no additional fees.



Funny you mention this, I had recently heard that 4 years ago a small group proposed taking the resort back from NM and running the place themselves ... turning the entire thing into a strata/condo project that people could buy in and out of as they pleased. Their Class action was deeply researched and was going to suite everyone involved. Those who wanted to stay, those who wanted to go, and those who like stopping by every now and then.
BUT along came the Geldert Group falsely advertising itself as a class action when it was really a “Special Interest Group” of only those that wanted to LEAVE! Now the distraction of Geldert is over, maybe this still has some value?


----------



## Hopeful_One

Picked this up from facebook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/193...Ydy0J6n1ggn--zHxhdLJnUiy2E7lqpC7qGguedu5g7kes
----Always remember there is strength in numbers. Especially for those who stand up strong together for fairness, protection and justice against greed, unfair predatory practices and fear-inducing bullying tactics. For those of us who are still deciding what to do before February 15, I strongly suggest we meet soon to strategize how best to deal with this issue......
----Count me in. Name the place and time. Calgary, Edmonton, Banff or another central small town along the Highway. Latest this Sunday afternoon ? In a rented hall, a school, church ? For those not able to come can a telephone conference call be arranged ? Also can we involve the media ?


----------



## MgolferL

SAV said:


> So just so i am clear. I do not have an option to keep my time share weeks? I have to pay the fees and loose the time share as well? How can i keep my weeks after i pay this scam?


You are  correct. I have checked it out...thinking I may want to stay to facilitate change by staying in. Spoke to MG and NM and they both said no way. So we lose it all as well...thanks MG.


----------



## wagga2650

rustyp said:


> So we finally did call Lawyer Matthew Farrell @ Guardian Law Group ( Calgary) yesterday. He is well versed on these issues . He listened to our particular circumstances and was able to give us his legal opinion, our options, and what he thought our chances would be for each option. At least we now have some peace of mind as to where we stand and he did not give us a bunch of legalize - just good plain talk that we could understand. If you actually haven't talked to a Lawyer yet, now may be the time giving the looming deadline.


Are you option 1 or 2?Iam 1 but really having a hard time sending our hard earned money to Wankell which we cannot afford.Did you get a clear answer as to if should pay up if your option 1?


----------



## Tanny13

SAV said:


> So just so i am clear. I do not have an option to keep my time share weeks? I have to pay the fees and loose the time share as well? How can i keep my weeks after i pay this scam?



If you did not choose option 1 then, by default, you still own your timeshare.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

we are currently three law firms working around the clock to bring down the number Northmont is seeking, negotiate a settlement if Northmont is willing to be reasonable while also setting up to hold them accountable for trying to realign the Resort as a mechanism to circumvent the litigation horrors they have put my client through.

Tune sure changed in that negotiation room that day.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

MgolferL said:


> You are  correct. I have checked it out...thinking I may want to stay to facilitate change by staying in. Spoke to MG and NM and they both said no way. So we lose it all as well...thanks MG.



I believe that was the intention all along.  The more gone the better esp in this settlement which I believe will go into someone's pocket but I have trouble believing a dime goes back to the "resort" despite being presented as outstanding fees for the "resort".


----------



## Petus@18

Lostmyshirt said:


> we are currently three law firms working around the clock to bring down the number Northmont is seeking, negotiate a settlement if Northmont is willing to be reasonable while also setting up to hold them accountable for trying to realign the Resort as a mechanism to circumvent the litigation horrors they have put my client through.
> 
> Tune sure changed in that negotiation room that day.



Are you one of the firms or you have 3 firms working for you, sorry I didn't understand your message,  could you please explain?  Thanks


----------



## Floyd55

Lostmyshirt said:


> we are currently three law firms working around the clock to bring down the number Northmont is seeking, negotiate a settlement if Northmont is willing to be reasonable while also setting up to hold them accountable for trying to realign the Resort as a mechanism to circumvent the litigation horrors they have put my client through.
> 
> Tune sure changed in that negotiation room that day.



Can you elaborate? Are you saying that there are lawyers working for you to re-negotiate the settlement with Northmont? I don't see how that is even possible at this point. And if it is possible, how can the rest of us get involved?


----------



## Sheeptoslaughter

Was a reply found in the mountain of paperwork received.  What 3 firms??? I wondered


----------



## Spark1

Bewildered said:


> Your second point is not valid, please read the decisions of the courts, who/where does it say you can walk away? If it was that easy a lot of us wouldn’t be considering cutting a sizeable cheque next week!


This is OPTION #1  Read this at the bottom of option#1   Does this sound familiar?  You understand that unless ordered by the court,only Northmont can release you from your VIA interests(s) Our primary Objective shell be to secure the least expensive proposal to permit you to opt-out of the Resort. This sounds quite familiar to the cancellation agreement. Once they have your money you are probably done with MG. Then what? Are you released? Time owners that paid the relinquish in March of 2017 are they released. Good Luck you will need it.


----------



## Spark1

Sheeptoslaughter said:


> Was a reply found in the mountain of paperwork received.  What 3 firms??? I wondered


These thieves are banking on that most of us seniors will be dead in the next 5 to 10 years and with the help of the judges they will screw us for every cent they can get. They have no compassion for any human beings it is all about money.


----------



## truthr

Check it out - just released - more media coverage

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local...sers-crying-foul-over-predatory-payment-order


----------



## Huckleberry

What they fail to mention in the article is that many people fought to avoid realignment of the resort, and that the payments coming from these people will not go to the resort renovation but straight into their offshore accounts.


----------



## CleoB

MgolferL said:


> You are  correct. I have checked it out...thinking I may want to stay to facilitate change by staying in. Spoke to MG and NM and they both said no way. So we lose it all as well...thanks MG.


Have you asked another lawyer about this?  Seems to me that Geldert mislead everyone with the promise that "we would have final approval" on accepting the settlement.....then he backtracks and says everyone that signed is "committed".  I think that means many signed under duress......and is that legal?


----------



## Stung

truthr said:


> Check it out - just released - more media coverage
> 
> http://calgaryherald.com/news/local...sers-crying-foul-over-predatory-payment-order



Here is another way to make our collective voices heard!  Below is the email address of the author of the article.  Let's send him our stories, a little or a lot to bring more awareness to him and our injustice.
BKaufmann@postmedia.com


----------



## rustyp

Lostmyshirt said:


> we are currently three law firms working around the clock to bring down the number Northmont is seeking, negotiate a settlement if Northmont is willing to be reasonable while also setting up to hold them accountable for trying to realign the Resort as a mechanism to circumvent the litigation horrors they have put my client through.
> 
> Tune sure changed in that negotiation room that day.


----------



## Spark1

Floyd55 said:


> Can you elaborate? Are you saying that there are lawyers working for you to re-negotiate the settlement with Northmont? I don't see how that is even possible at this point. And if it is possible, how can the rest of us get involved?


Floyd55 are you a lawyer yourself? Keep us informed and can you tell us what city or cities you operate out of. I am very interested.


Stung said:


> Here is another way to make our collective voices heard!  Below is the email address of the author of the article.  Let's send him our stories, a little or a lot to bring more awareness to him and our injustice.
> BKaufmann@postmedia.com


timeshare is not a investment all that we had was a lease we do not own property. Get it straight.


----------



## Spark1

For the time owners that are paying or have the extortion amount please send a copy of this extortion to Honourable Navdeep Bain’s, Minister of innovation,Science and Economic Development. This Minister is responsible for Consumer Affairs. Let him Know that your Lease contract is in the Canadian Consumer Handbook  which is a right to use and when your lease is done you do not own any property or right to any property. Send him a copy of this extortion. This has now gone to the Prime Ministers Office and now over to Honourable Navdeep Bain’s. Thanks   Email.   Navdeep.Bains@parl.gc.ca     PH 613-995-7784.         Constituency 1-905-564-0228.    We are all hoping we can help each other and hope they have to pay this extortion back to innocent human beings.


----------



## melamike

This is copied right from the consumers handbook - MG used these unfair practices as I have underlined. He needs to be held accountable ....off the the BC law society I go once again 

*Unfair or Deceptive Business Practices*

Consumer Information
Contacts For This Topic
Most provinces and territories have laws that protect consumers from unfair or deceptive business practices. Generally, an unfair or deceptive practice takes the form of a claim that would likely mislead the average person or a claim taking advantage of a person's inability to protect their interests during negotiations.

When you believe you have been deceived, contact the Competition Bureau, the Better Business Bureau or your provincial or territorial consumer affairs office. When the complaint relates to labelling or advertising of food, contact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

Consumers are also protected against Misleading Advertising.


----------



## Bewildered

Spark1 said:


> This is OPTION #1  Read this at the bottom of option#1   Does this sound familiar?  You understand that unless ordered by the court,only Northmont can release you from your VIA interests(s) Our primary Objective shell be to secure the least expensive proposal to permit you to opt-out of the Resort. This sounds quite familiar to the cancellation agreement. Once they have your money you are probably done with MG. Then what? Are you released? Time owners that paid the relinquish in March of 2017 are they released. Good Luck you will need it.


If anybody had thrown out a well established legal firm willing to actually help us, I would maybe have a different opinion but the firms I have seen floated so far haven’t shown to be ready to offer up anything to this TUGs group. Not sure why you think possible Option 1 people are somehow undermining your efforts. Agree it’s not a 100% surety even with option 1 but does not the Court say that 162% will apply otherwise? Option 2 is no cakewalk either Spark!


----------



## servemeout

Bewildered the courts have had nothing to do with the settlement.  The 162% is coming from the owner of the #NAFR.  The settlement is aimed at picking off the low hanging fruit and putting it in KW's "basket".  The only amount has been from Branch in the BC case.  Remember that Hillside is closed and will probably be sold off.  Where will that money go - into the same fruit basket.


----------



## Bewildered

servemeout said:


> Bewildered the courts have had nothing to do with the settlement.  The 162% is coming from the owner of the #NAFR.  The settlement is aimed at picking off the low hanging fruit and putting it in KW's "basket".  The only amount has been from Branch in the BC case.  Remember that Hillside is closed and will probably be sold off.  Where will that money go - into the same fruit basket.


So what in J. Branch’s decision or any court decision so far, showing any positive position for any of us? Somewhere along the line some judge or an elected official will have to agree with our plight for it to become a positive result. MG thought he could wait NM out and it didn’t work so I am still trying to understand where we go next regardless of the  Feb 15 extortion date?


----------



## Floyd55

Spark1 said:


> Floyd55 are you a lawyer yourself? Keep us informed and can you tell us what city or cities you operate out of. I am very interested.
> 
> timeshare is not a investment all that we had was a lease we do not own property. Get it straight.



Sorry, I'm not a lawyer, just like the rest of you, trying to investigate all options before I have to send in my blood money! I thought that Clint Docken was going to be a possible legal answer for us but since I first contacted their office on Monday I have yet to hear anything from them. Left voice message for his assistant and I have sent two emails that were supposed to be forwarded to him. Doesn't seem like he is interested. It is looking more like seeking damages from MG for malpractice will be our only viable avenue to try and recoup some of our losses. I don't think that those of us who are option 1 and are paying to get out of this mess will have any other legal recourse due to the wording of the awesome settlement that has been rammed down our throats!


----------



## truthr

Another article just out today 

https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/opinion/no-happy-ending-for-sunchaser/


----------



## Spark1

Bewildered said:


> If anybody had thrown out a well established legal firm willing to actually help us, I would maybe have a different opinion but the firms I have seen floated so far haven’t shown to be ready to offer up anything to this TUGs group. Not sure why you think possible Option 1 people are somehow undermining your efforts. Agree it’s not a 100% surety even with option 1 but does not the Court say that 162% will apply otherwise? Option 2 is no cakewalk either Spark!


I am not saying that. Timeowners believed in both MG and and the MLT AIKINS PDF by David Wotherspoon. I talked on the phone with MG and he even had me convinced this was a done deal getting Northmont to the table and they would have to pay that 25.4 million and this would bankrupt them. He was also protecting moving buildings out of the timeshare. What happened and if you read the MLT AIKINS PDF, this document totally protected our Lease Contract. Why did MG change over night and became a bill collector? What we have to do now is have every one that have paid the extortion or decided not to pay please send a copy to Honourable Navdeep Bains. This Minister is the man that we have to deal with CONSUMER PROTECTION. Did we ever sign anything with NORTHMONT? We have not. What is Northmonts Consumer Protection? I have sent many documents to the PRIME MINISTERS OFFICE and now the Executive Correspondence Officer for the PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE has moved the file to the HONOURABLE NAVDEEP BAINS.  We all have to work together and when the Minister sees the millions being extorted, how can he not see there is no CONSUMER PROTECTION. Timeshare is no different than any other business and Consumer Protection is very important. If need be i am willing to meet with the PM and MR BAINS.  email   Navdeep.Bains@parl.gc.ca     Ph. 613-995-7784   Constituency 1-905-564-0228


----------



## CleoB

Spark1 said:


> For the time owners that are paying or have the extortion amount please send a copy of this extortion to Honourable Navdeep Bain’s, Minister of innovation,Science and Economic Development. This Minister is responsible for Consumer Affairs. Let him Know that your Lease contract is in the Canadian Consumer Handbook  which is a right to use and when your lease is done you do not own any property or right to any property. Send him a copy of this extortion. This has now gone to the Prime Ministers Office and now over to Honourable Navdeep Bain’s. Thanks   Email.   Navdeep.Bains@parl.gc.ca     PH 613-995-7784.         Constituency 1-905-564-0228.    We are all hoping we can help each other and hope they have to pay this extortion back to innocent human beings.


Can you please provide me with page and paragraph that spells out "the right to use" so I can reference it in the letter?  Thanks


----------



## Bewildered

Spark1 said:


> I am not saying that. Timeowners believed in both MG and and the MLT AIKINS PDF by David Wotherspoon. I talked on the phone with MG and he even had me convinced this was a done deal getting Northmont to the table and they would have to pay that 25.4 million and this would bankrupt them. He was also protecting moving buildings out of the timeshare. What happened and if you read the MLT AIKINS PDF, this document totally protected our Lease Contract. Why did MG change over night and became a bill collector? What we have to do now is have every one that have paid the extortion or decided not to pay please send a copy to Honourable Navdeep Bains. This Minister is the man that we have to deal with CONSUMER PROTECTION. Did we ever sign anything with NORTHMONT? We have not. What is Northmonts Consumer Protection? I have sent many documents to the PRIME MINISTERS OFFICE and now the Executive Correspondence Officer for the PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE has moved the file to the HONOURABLE NAVDEEP BAINS.  We all have to work together and when the Minister sees the millions being extorted, how can he not see there is no CONSUMER PROTECTION. Timeshare is no different than any other business and Consumer Protection is very important. If need be i am willing to meet with the PM and MR BAINS.  email   Navdeep.Bains@parl.gc.ca     Ph. 613-995-7784   Constituency 1-905-564-0228[/QUOTE


----------



## Bewildered

Thanks for the additional info, your discussion with MG mirrors my discussions with him. Sounds like this Minister is a good step to take.


----------



## RippedOff

American Friends - why not report this to the IRS (they probably have not reported income generated in the USA), the SEC (not sure if they're private or public), and other regulatory bodies over there?  Tell them he's the current Canadian Bernie Madoff.  Tell them about Mexico, Hawaii, and all the other scams.  I'm afraid the Canadian politicians/government and legal system are incompetent, useless, and full of bureaucracy/red tape.  At least you may be able to save yourselves.


----------



## RippedOff

Now that I think about it - you could just post a tweet (Twitter) for the above.


----------



## FairSun

CleoB said:


> Can you please provide me with page and paragraph that spells out "the right to use" so I can reference it in the letter?  Thanks


This link to the Canadian Consumer Handbook section on timeshares mentions both "right to occupy" and "right to use".
http://www.consumerhandbook.ca/en/topics/housing/timeshares


----------



## FairSun

CleoB said:


> Can you please provide me with page and paragraph that spells out "the right to use" so I can reference it in the letter?  Thanks


This might be of interest by comparison with USA protections: American Resort Development Association's definition of "right to use".  Also note, "_*Home Owners Association (HOA) *_– The group of owners that administer the rules and regulations of a resort.  *Creation of an HOA is often required by **state laws*."(Emphasis added)  We would have had greater protection from the Fairmont/Northwynd developer (and resort owner) had such an association been mandatory in BC, AB!
http://www.arda.org/news-information/industryinformation/glossaryofterms/overview.aspx


----------



## Bewildered

Did everyone in Alberta get their lovely form letter:”Sent on behalf of Mary MacDonald, Assistant Deputy Minister, Resolution and Court Administration Services”
Passing the buck because the property is in BC. Cc’d to the Premier, big deal.


----------



## in total shock

melamike said:


> This is copied right from the consumers handbook - MG used these unfair practices as I have underlined. He needs to be held accountable ....off the the BC law society I go once again
> 
> *Unfair or Deceptive Business Practices*
> 
> Consumer Information
> Contacts For This Topic
> Most provinces and territories have laws that protect consumers from unfair or deceptive business practices. Generally, an unfair or deceptive practice takes the form of a claim that would likely mislead the average person or a claim taking advantage of a person's inability to protect their interests during negotiations.
> 
> When you believe you have been deceived, contact the Competition Bureau, the Better Business Bureau or your provincial or territorial consumer affairs office. When the complaint relates to labelling or advertising of food, contact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
> 
> Consumers are also protected against Misleading Advertising.


----------



## CleoB

Bewildered said:


> Did everyone in Alberta get their lovely form letter:”Sent on behalf of Mary MacDonald, Assistant Deputy Minister, Resolution and Court Administration Services”
> Passing the buck because the property is in BC. Cc’d to the Premier, big deal.


Yup, sure did.


----------



## Stung

Bewildered said:


> Did everyone in Alberta get their lovely form letter:”Sent on behalf of Mary MacDonald, Assistant Deputy Minister, Resolution and Court Administration Services”
> Passing the buck because the property is in BC. Cc’d to the Premier, big deal.



Forward them all on to our Honorable Navdeep Bains to add to his armor.  After all, he should ultimately be looking out for us as consumers.  Navdeep.Bains@parl.gc.ca


----------



## Petus@18

Bewildered said:


> Did everyone in Alberta get their lovely form letter:”Sent on behalf of Mary MacDonald, Assistant Deputy Minister, Resolution and Court Administration Services”
> Passing the buck because the property is in BC. Cc’d to the Premier, big deal.



We got it too.  Same letter is being sent by MLA's as well!


----------



## in total shock

Nor sure if this is something but was just a thought. 
Are we being charged GST and for B.C residents PST on the Resort Villa Management LTD bills? If so does Revenue Canada allow companies to charge 26% on delinquent GST pymts? Does NM pay Revenue Canada this money?


----------



## Spark1

CleoB said:


> Can you please provide me with page and paragraph that spells out "the right to use" so I can reference it in the letter?  Thanks


Go to the Canadian Consumer Handbook and all the timeshares are listed in that document.


----------



## MgolferL

CleoB said:


> Have you asked another lawyer about this?  Seems to me that Geldert mislead everyone with the promise that "we would have final approval" on accepting the settlement.....then he backtracks and says everyone that signed is "committed".  I think that means many signed under duress......and is that legal?


 Haven't asked another lawyer... other people on this thread have and got the same answer. NM did say directly... no you are unable to do that and need to speak to MG.


----------



## MgolferL

Bewildered said:


> Did everyone in Alberta get their lovely form letter:”Sent on behalf of Mary MacDonald, Assistant Deputy Minister, Resolution and Court Administration Services”
> Passing the buck because the property is in BC. Cc’d to the Premier, big deal.


We got ours... don 't think they are going to like the response.
Also, got the letter from the Law Society OF BC. Said they will be in touch within 4 weeks... so basically 3 weeks after this pile of crap is supposed to close. They did however thank me for my patience...


----------



## torqued

For the USA folks I spoke with a timeshare attorney in the states. He said they would have to come to the states and sue us. They would have to start all over. They could not use any of the judgements made in the Canadian courts. They would have to start from scratch.  They can turn the debt over to a USA collection firm but they would have (the collection firm) to prove that they have the legal right to go after that debt. Which they don’t have. If they persist they can be sued for violating a fair claims debt collection act. Not sure I got the name of the act exactly right. I would rather spend my money in the USA with my contract with my attorney before I gave NW a dime!!!!


----------



## torqued

FDCPA 
Fair debt collection practice act is what I was referring to in the last post


----------



## So sick of this mess

torqued said:


> For the USA folks I spoke with a timeshare attorney in the states. He said they would have to come to the states and sue us. They would have to start all over. They could not use any of the judgements made in the Canadian courts. They would have to start from scratch.  They can turn the debt over to a USA collection firm but they would have (the collection firm) to prove that they have the legal right to go after that debt. Which they don’t have. If they persist they can be sued for violating a fair claims debt collection act. Not sure I got the name of the act exactly right. I would rather spend my money in the USA with my contract with my attorney before I gave NW a dime!!!!



So it sounds like you are comfortable ignoring the Feb 15th deadline. I am from the US as well, and did talk to a US attorney, but he made it sound like they would not have to sue us, but would have to hand deliver a collection notice. He said that there were international laws that allowed rulings in one country to be imposed in another country. Now I am so confused and not sure what to do! I am only a few hours from the Canadian border, so I fear they would have no problems coming down here to enforce it.


----------



## torqued

So sick of this mess said:


> So it sounds like you are comfortable ignoring the Feb 15th deadline. I am from the US as well, and did talk to a US attorney, but he made it sound like they would not have to sue us, but would have to hand deliver a collection notice. He said that there were international laws that allowed rulings in one country to be imposed in another country. Now I am so confused and not sure what to do! I am only a few hours from the Canadian border, so I fear they would have no problems coming down here to enforce it.


I will run that by the attorney I spoke with again tomorrow but he seemed to know what he was talking about. He specializes in timeshare law and has dealt with NW in the past. I would ask your attorney to show you the international law he is specifically referring to and explain how it would apply to you in this situation. I don’t think he’s right. Also the Feb 15th deadline is for the option 1 people. I opted out of the settlement or option one. So I’m not part of that group. But I will try to clarify the above for the both of us.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

ecwinch said:


> This is not to say it will easy for them to enforce the judgement, only that is will not require them to retry the case in the US.
> 
> http://www.mcmillan.ca/101564
> 
> And for Washington State in particular:
> 
> [EDITED TO REFLECT CORRECT LINK: http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=6.40A]



From my understanding, some states have mutual agreements with Canada.  A judgement in Canada is also good in some US states.  I think Washington has the mutual agreement.  Torqued, I noticed you are in VA and I suspect they do not, so you are in a much better position than those in WA and many other boarder states.


----------



## ecwinch

My original post had the wrong link for WA state (though it does not matter for Torqued in VA). Here is the correct one:

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=6.40A


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

This link provides a list of states that are on the recognition act.  Torqued, note that VA is on the list, so I am unsure why the lawyer gave you that advice.  Maybe BC judgements are different than Ontario?  Would not think so.

http://www.gilbertsondavis.com/enforcement-ontario-judgment-us-u-s-american-states/


----------



## torqued

Looks like there is variation from state to state. I’ll send both of these to the attorney I spoke with and get his comment. Do we technically have a judgement by a court against us at this point?


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

torqued said:


> Looks like there is variation from state to state. I’ll send both of these to the attorney I spoke with and get his comment. Do we technically have a judgement by a court against us at this point?



I assume you were sued in BC, so yes.  If in Alberta, still waiting on costs.  However, it is my understanding if you do not live in Alberta, you were sued in BC.  MG should be able to confirm if he had not previously sent you the court docs.


----------



## torqued

Unfortunately I think you are right.  I read the Uniform  Foreign Money-Judgements Recognition Act and it would appear your interpretation is correct.  I am sending the act to the attorney I spoke with and see what his response is.  Might be moving to West Virginia next week!  So sorry my American friends for the misinformation.


----------



## SAV

Spark1 said:


> I am not saying that. Timeowners believed in both MG and and the MLT AIKINS PDF by David Wotherspoon. I talked on the phone with MG and he even had me convinced this was a done deal getting Northmont to the table and they would have to pay that 25.4 million and this would bankrupt them. He was also protecting moving buildings out of the timeshare. What happened and if you read the MLT AIKINS PDF, this document totally protected our Lease Contract. Why did MG change over night and became a bill collector? What we have to do now is have every one that have paid the extortion or decided not to pay please send a copy to Honourable Navdeep Bains. This Minister is the man that we have to deal with CONSUMER PROTECTION. Did we ever sign anything with NORTHMONT? We have not. What is Northmonts Consumer Protection? I have sent many documents to the PRIME MINISTERS OFFICE and now the Executive Correspondence Officer for the PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE has moved the file to the HONOURABLE NAVDEEP BAINS.  We all have to work together and when the Minister sees the millions being extorted, how can he not see there is no CONSUMER PROTECTION. Timeshare is no different than any other business and Consumer Protection is very important. If need be i am willing to meet with the PM and MR BAINS.  email   Navdeep.Bains@parl.gc.ca     Ph. 613-995-7784   Constituency 1-905-564-0228




thanks for posting this.  I just wrote him a letter.  I also just sent in my $42,630 to our scam artist Geldert. Just sickening!!


----------



## SAV

Hopeful_One said:


> Picked this up from facebook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/193...Ydy0J6n1ggn--zHxhdLJnUiy2E7lqpC7qGguedu5g7kes
> ----Always remember there is strength in numbers. Especially for those who stand up strong together for fairness, protection and justice against greed, unfair predatory practices and fear-inducing bullying tactics. For those of us who are still deciding what to do before February 15, I strongly suggest we meet soon to strategize how best to deal with this issue......
> ----Count me in. Name the place and time. Calgary, Edmonton, Banff or another central small town along the Highway. Latest this Sunday afternoon ? In a rented hall, a school, church ? For those not able to come can a telephone conference call be arranged ? Also can we involve the media ?



So has something been organized for people to get together this weekend?


----------



## Broke Mama

torqued said:


> I will run that by the attorney I spoke with again tomorrow but he seemed to know what he was talking about. He specializes in timeshare law and has dealt with NW in the past. I would ask your attorney to show you the international law he is specifically referring to and explain how it would apply to you in this situation. I don’t think he’s right. Also the Feb 15th deadline is for the option 1 people. I opted out of the settlement or option one. So I’m not part of that group. But I will try to clarify the above for the both of us.


What law firm in the states?


----------



## dotbuhler

Stung said:


> Forward them all on to our Honorable Navdeep Bains to add to his armor.  After all, he should ultimately be looking out for us as consumers.  Navdeep.Bains@parl.gc.ca
> Please remember that we NEED all the exposure we can get, and every time our concerns are forwarded it is not merely "passing the buck", but actually a step in the right direction. The more "eyes on" the better. Worse case scenario: NO RESPONSE.


----------



## Palms to pines

Has anyone not involved with the doomed Geldert group contacted service Alberta or whomever to try and fight Northwynd with the consumer laws ?


----------



## So sick of this mess

torqued said:


> Looks like there is variation from state to state. I’ll send both of these to the attorney I spoke with and get his comment. Do we technically have a judgement by a court against us at this point?


I do not believe we have an individual judgement against us, but we are considered part of the Geldert group that the judgements refer to. I did choose option 1. Did your attorney say anything about those of us that choose option 1?


----------



## torqued

So sick of this mess said:


> I do not believe we have an individual judgement against us, but we are considered part of the Geldert group that the judgements refer to. I did choose option 1. Did your attorney say anything about those of us that choose option 1?


No I didn’t discuss that with him


----------



## torqued

Unfortunately he is out of the office today so I won’t be able to get a response until next week


----------



## MgolferL

Sent both my letter outlining my experience and the letter from the INTERIM AB government.  Do it people before you are gagged forever by these scumbags.
Now on the way to send a check to the black lord and his bill collector. This is wrong on so many levels AND IF there is one person on this thread that stills wants to defend Northwynd/Northmont/Sunchaser/MG/KW...please contact me through the email link contained herein. I would love to meet you in person and discuss this...INSTEAD of you hiding behind anonymous postings.
Lastly KW doesn't look like Seinfeld..looks more like a cartoon rat...but I am not an art critic.


----------



## aden2

The question that is confusing is how can NM ask for full payment on yearly maintenance fees when VIA's did not use vacation villas, and if all the VIA's were to have used the vacation villas NM would not been able to accommodate us. This type of action by NM would indicate that NM does not want to continue in the timeshare business, it is all about how much money they can get regardless how  they do it.


----------



## LilMaggie

Excerpt from Calgary Herald article:
Northwynd CEO Kirk Wankel was reluctant to comment due to the possibility of further legal action.
But he said the two court decisions made it clear the complainants were bound by contracts and should have cut their losses five year ago.
“The courts have done their best to explain to the owners that under their contractual obligations they should have accepted this resolution years ago,” said a seemingly frustrated Wankel.
He said 80 per cent of lease-holders accepted one of the two offers, with many of them now at the mercy of a small minority of holdouts.
“What’s lost in this process are the people who want to see this resort survive,” said Wankel.
He wouldn’t say how many resort units are involved in the renovation or affected by the dispute.

What a crock!  The 20% of us are ruining it for everybody? I think that we are just causing frustration for KW.
It's that cavalier attitude that makes a person want to press on against NM.


----------



## melamike

CleoB said:


> Have you asked another lawyer about this?  Seems to me that Geldert mislead everyone with the promise that "we would have final approval" on accepting the settlement.....then he backtracks and says everyone that signed is "committed".  I think that means many signed under duress......and is that legal?



I spoke with my lawyer this morning and after a cursory review of the court case he did not have anything good to say about MG. He called MG a contractor who used other firms to do his work and we paid handsomely for that. He also said we lost big time, really lost in court and so MG went into negotiation with NM with nothing to bargain with. He also said the MG was negligent is so many things but especially not bringing the agreement back to us and in painting us all with the same brush when there are so many different contracts out there. He said you can't fight the settlement because NM would have entered the negotiation with the understanding and assurance that MG had our authority to act on our behalf. The courts would not even entertain looking at that.  The only recourse is to sue MG for negligence - is it worth it? Not alone but as a group it could be....


----------



## LilMaggie

melamike said:


> I spoke with my lawyer this morning and after a cursory review of the court case he did not have anything good to say about MG. He called MG a contractor who used other firms to do his work and we paid handsomely for that. He also said we lost big time, really lost in court and so MG went into negotiation with NM with nothing to bargain with. He also said the MG was negligent is so many things but especially not bringing the agreement back to us and in painting us all with the same brush when there are so many different contracts out there. He said you can't fight the settlement because NM would have entered the negotiation with the understanding and assurance that MG had our authority to act on our behalf. The courts would not even entertain looking at that.  The only recourse is to sue MG for negligence - is it worth it? Not alone but as a group it could be....


I think that there are several people here who would seriously consider that course of action.


----------



## Stung

Is this an option your lawyer is willing to take on?  It sounds like your lawyer understands the position MG has knowingly put us into.  I'm sure I speak for many, if not all of us victims that no one is in agreement with the 'settlement' MG made for us.  There would be strength in numbers and I suspect many would be willing to proceed...


----------



## tssuck

NeverNeverAgain said:


> From my understanding, some states have mutual agreements with Canada.  A judgement in Canada is also good in some US states.  I think Washington has the mutual agreement.  Torqued, I noticed you are in VA and I suspect they do not, so you are in a much better position than those in WA and many other boarder states.



For all Americans, read the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgement Recognition Act as written for your State. Pay special attention to the Personal Jurisdiction of the Act. I found my reading to be very interesting. It seems that NM would have to bring their case to court in the State and prove that they have jurisdiction over you in order to proceed. Let us know what you find out.


----------



## Petus@18

melamike said:


> I spoke with my lawyer this morning and after a cursory review of the court case he did not have anything good to say about MG. He called MG a contractor who used other firms to do his work and we paid handsomely for that. He also said we lost big time, really lost in court and so MG went into negotiation with NM with nothing to bargain with. He also said the MG was negligent is so many things but especially not bringing the agreement back to us and in painting us all with the same brush when there are so many different contracts out there. He said you can't fight the settlement because NM would have entered the negotiation with the understanding and assurance that MG had our authority to act on our behalf. The courts would not even entertain looking at that.  The only recourse is to sue MG for negligence - is it worth it? Not alone but as a group it could be....



We are definitely in.  Can your lawyer represent us? If so, how can we retain him/her?  This option is the best option we have seen since this Geldert's fiasco. BTW The group in FB is scheduling a meeting this Sunday.  No definite details yet, we may be able to join by phone or Skype, will keep you posted


----------



## torqued

tssuck said:


> For all Americans, read the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgement Recognition Act as written for your State. Pay special attention to the Personal Jurisdiction of the Act. I found my reading to be very interesting. It seems that NM would have to bring their case to court in the State and prove that they have jurisdiction over you in order to proceed. Let us know what you find out.


I’m not sure what this would entail or what it actually means. But I will try to get clarification. It also mentions something about fraud but I’m sure the burden is on us to prove it to the courts


----------



## tssuck

torqued said:


> I’m not sure what this would entail or what it actually means. But I will try to get clarification. It also mentions something about fraud but I’m sure the burden is on us to prove it to the courts



If the Personal Jurisdiction applies then we don't have to worry about proving fraud. Please check it out. Keep us posted.


----------



## torqued

tssuck said:


> If the Personal Jurisdiction applies then we don't have to worry about proving fraud. Please check it out. Keep us posted.


I just left a message with the attorneys office. Will let you know as soon as I learn something hopefully Monday or Tuesday


----------



## groundhog

Petus@18 said:


> We are definitely in.  Can your lawyer represent us? If so, how can we retain him/her?  This option is the best option we have seen since this Geldert's fiasco. BTW The group in FB is scheduling a meeting this Sunday.  No definite details yet, we may be able to join by phone or Skype, will keep you posted


I would be in.


----------



## LilMaggie

Petus@18 said:


> We are definitely in.  Can your lawyer represent us? If so, how can we retain him/her?  This option is the best option we have seen since this Geldert's fiasco. BTW The group in FB is scheduling a meeting this Sunday.  No definite details yet, we may be able to join by phone or Skype, will keep you posted


Yes, please keep us posted re: the meeting!


----------



## Can't_Give_Up

In case everyone is not aware of the appeal status, below is a copy from the Court of Queen's bench. I'm also including the letter indicating the date the appeal will be heard. I'm not on Facebook, but if anyone wants to share this there that would be great. Thanks.


----------



## torqued

torqued said:


> I just left a message with the attorneys office. Will let you know as soon as I learn something hopefully Monday or Tuesday


I read the definition of personal jurisdiction and it would seem they would have a difficult time proving this but it’s over my head.


----------



## MgolferL

LilMaggie said:


> I think that there are several people here who would seriously consider that course of action.


Include me in the list...As I send off this cheque, I have less respect for MG than KW. As much as a scumbag KW is, he was a scumbag from the start. MG sold us on what a noble, concerned individual he was only to find out he was only the court jester...I have all the emails going back as to how he "was the guy" and was going to stand up for the rights of us commoners...

If nothing else from here on in, I plan on continuing this fight so these clowns can not do this again to innocent people. There are many ways to do it, within the letter of the law...even with this BS "gag" order...so don't think for a minute KW you are done with us yet!!


----------



## Appauled

melamike said:


> I spoke with my lawyer this morning and after a cursory review of the court case he did not have anything good to say about MG. He called MG a contractor who used other firms to do his work and we paid handsomely for that. He also said we lost big time, really lost in court and so MG went into negotiation with NM with nothing to bargain with. He also said the MG was negligent is so many things but especially not bringing the agreement back to us and in painting us all with the same brush when there are so many different contracts out there. He said you can't fight the settlement because NM would have entered the negotiation with the understanding and assurance that MG had our authority to act on our behalf. The courts would not even entertain looking at that.  The only recourse is to sue MG for negligence - is it worth it? Not alone but as a group it could be....


I would be willing to consider joining as well! MG has been completely negligent an misleading to all of us involved and putting us in a position of no options other than paying extortion loanshark amounts of money to NM or claiming bankruptcy!!!


----------



## Roxanne

melamike said:


> I spoke with my lawyer this morning and after a cursory review of the court case he did not have anything good to say about MG. He called MG a contractor who used other firms to do his work and we paid handsomely for that. He also said we lost big time, really lost in court and so MG went into negotiation with NM with nothing to bargain with. He also said the MG was negligent is so many things but especially not bringing the agreement back to us and in painting us all with the same brush when there are so many different contracts out there. He said you can't fight the settlement because NM would have entered the negotiation with the understanding and assurance that MG had our authority to act on our behalf. The courts would not even entertain looking at that.  The only recourse is to sue MG for negligence - is it worth it? Not alone but as a group it could be....


Please count me in. I'd like to join the group as I feel this all happened due to MG's negligence.


----------



## Petus@18

Can't_Give_Up said:


> In case everyone is not aware of the appeal status, below is a copy from the Court of Queen's bench. I'm also including the letter indicating the date the appeal will be heard. I'm not on Facebook, but if anyone wants to share this there that would be great. Thanks.



It looks like we can still appeal this, I didn't know? Thanks Can't Give Up.  I was also reminded that we have to get our act together if we want to stop getting the short end of the stick.  We continue being divided (FB groups, including the 'secret one' plus TUGBBS)  We are not united and that is part of the problem.  I wonder if Truths group already retained someone?  At this point in time, there isn't a need for having different groups, don't you think?  Again, I didn't know of this appeal and would like to know how many of us would like to join forces, with better legal representation, and continue with the appeal?  We rather spend our money fighting than hand it to the bill collector!!  Ps we can still start an action against MG as we appeal the judgement at the same time


----------



## truthr

Can't_Give_Up said:


> In case everyone is not aware of the appeal status, below is a copy from the Court of Queen's bench. I'm also including the letter indicating the date the appeal will be heard. I'm not on Facebook, but if anyone wants to share this there that would be great. Thanks.


Thanks.  I have shared it on the FB groups.
Now here is the question:  If Strathcona Law Group has "Withdrawn as the Lawyer on Record" who are they appealing for?  In other words who are they representing?
Remember the letter all Option 2 people received from Barry King or Vincent Tong?


----------



## Tanny13

Can't_Give_Up said:


> In case everyone is not aware of the appeal status, below is a copy from the Court of Queen's bench. I'm also including the letter indicating the date the appeal will be heard. I'm not on Facebook, but if anyone wants to share this there that would be great. Thanks.



So who is Barry King representing in the appeal? I imagine only those who are in the settlement, as he no longer represents anyone else. But an appeal won't affect those in the settlement, so is he just not going to show up??


----------



## Floyd55

melamike said:


> I spoke with my lawyer this morning and after a cursory review of the court case he did not have anything good to say about MG. He called MG a contractor who used other firms to do his work and we paid handsomely for that. He also said we lost big time, really lost in court and so MG went into negotiation with NM with nothing to bargain with. He also said the MG was negligent is so many things but especially not bringing the agreement back to us and in painting us all with the same brush when there are so many different contracts out there. He said you can't fight the settlement because NM would have entered the negotiation with the understanding and assurance that MG had our authority to act on our behalf. The courts would not even entertain looking at that.  The only recourse is to sue MG for negligence - is it worth it? Not alone but as a group it could be....



I would definitely be on board with suing MG, but only if we had a lawyer who would act for us with the understanding that he is paid a percentage of the amount of money he is able to win for us. Not interested in any more legal fees!


----------



## NotImpressed

Also, so everyone is aware, Judge Young has already ruled in favor of Northmont. The only thing she is deciding at the moment is interests and costs. Her ruling impacts all of us as stated in her decision, which if you haven't read it yet is located here: 

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/d...ash=AAAAAQAJbm9ydGhtb250AAAAAAE&resultIndex=9

At the very bottom under Conclusion #88: "The Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against each of the *Defendants in the SLG Actions* for the amount claimed in the corresponding *Amended Civil Claims*, subject to further argument and a determination respecting the issues of  interest and costs in each action, and the expiration of certain Civil Claims."

In order to find out how much you are ordered to pay Northmont depends on your own personal Amended Civil Claim. This can easily be found out by going to the Provincial Law Courts in Edmonton and having them pull up your file, ie) give them the court file number that your initial civil claim was filed under. You might be able to contact them over the phone to get that information or call your local provincial court house if you can't make it to Edmonton.

Again, if anyone wants to post on Facebook feel free. Thanks


----------



## Petus@18




----------



## truthr

NotImpressed said:


> Also, so everyone is aware, Judge Young has already ruled in favor of Northmont. The only thing she is deciding at the moment is interests and costs. Her ruling impacts all of us as stated in her decision, which if you haven't read it yet is located here:
> 
> https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/d...ash=AAAAAQAJbm9ydGhtb250AAAAAAE&resultIndex=9
> 
> At the very bottom under Conclusion #88: "The Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against each of the *Defendants in the SLG Actions* for the amount claimed in the corresponding *Amended Civil Claims*, subject to further argument and a determination respecting the issues of  interest and costs in each action, and the expiration of certain Civil Claims."
> 
> In order to find out how much you are ordered to pay Northmont depends on your own personal Amended Civil Claim. This can easily be found out by going to the Provincial Law Courts in Edmonton and having them pull up your file, ie) give them the court file number that your initial civil claim was filed under. You might be able to contact them over the phone to get that information or call your local provincial court house if you can't make it to Edmonton.
> 
> Again, if anyone wants to post on Facebook feel free. Thanks



Thanks for sharing this valuable information.  Interesting not everyone has an Amended Civil Claim filed against them - I know I don't cause I check periodically with the court house where mine was filed - that is how I found out that Strathcona Law Group had filed the Notice of Withdrawal and with an incorrect address for me.



Petus@18 said:


> Why would we want to post this???? Are you from Geldert's office?  This is why we feel continuing the appeal is a good option. We are so 'f' tired of all MG's trolls and their reminders.   These guys are all over, how?



Why would you think that just because someone shares information that they are from Geldert's office??  Sheesh you are getting overly touchy.


----------



## Can't_Give_Up

Truthr and Tanny 13: Strathcona Law is not representing anyone regarding the appeal. They filed the appeal because we only had a 30 day window to appeal Judge Young's ruling. They also needed to file the transcripts (of the 3 days we spent in court) before the middle of February, which luckily has also been done. Because of the settlement agreement offers and under the direction of Geldert, SLG will not be pursuing with the appeal.

SLG is going to show up in court on that date and inform the Judge that they are no longer pursuing the appeal on anyone's behalf. If we want to continue pursuing the appeal, it is up to us to do so on our own individually or as a group. Anyone willing to continue with the appeal should be ready to appear in court that day or have someone represent you.

If you can't open up the pdf file I attached earlier, the court date is set in the Court of Queen's Bench for *March 8, 2018 @ 10:00am* at the Law courts building, 1A Sir Winston Churchill Square, Edmonton, Alberta

The Provincial Court Action Number is P1490304333 and The Court of Queen's Bench Action Number is 1703 22524

The court date could change, so everyone should be aware and continue to check up on the file.

Truthr, you can also post this on Facebook if you like.


----------



## Petus@18

Why would you think that just because someone shares information that they are from Geldert's office??  Sheesh you are getting overly touchy.[/QUOTE]

You are probably right!


----------



## LilMaggie

Petus@18 said:


> Why would you think that just because someone shares information that they are from Geldert's office??  Sheesh you are getting overly touchy.



You are probably right![/QUOTE]
I think many of us are on edge and a bit paranoid at this point!


----------



## truthr

Can't_Give_Up said:


> Truthr and Tanny 13: Strathcona Law is not representing anyone regarding the appeal. They filed the appeal because we only had a 30 day window to appeal Judge Young's ruling. They also needed to file the transcripts (of the 3 days we spent in court) before the middle of February, which luckily has also been done. Because of the settlement agreement offers and under the direction of Geldert, SLG will not be pursuing with the appeal.
> 
> SLG is going to show up in court on that date and inform the Judge that they are no longer pursuing the appeal on anyone's behalf. If we want to continue pursuing the appeal, it is up to us to do so on our own individually or as a group. Anyone willing to continue with the appeal should be ready to appear in court that day or have someone represent you.
> 
> If you can't open up the pdf file I attached earlier, the court date is set in the Court of Queen's Bench for *March 8, 2018 @ 10:00am* at the Law courts building, 1A Sir Winston Churchill Square, Edmonton, Alberta
> 
> The Provincial Court Action Number is P1490304333 and The Court of Queen's Bench Action Number is 1703 22524
> 
> The court date could change, so everyone should be aware and continue to check up on the file.
> 
> Truthr, you can also post this on Facebook if you like.


Thanks I have shared this with the FB groups I have access to.  I kinda knew that about SLG, my question/comment was rhetorical.

I am aware (right from the court) that they ordered the transcripts on November 15th, 2017 but don't have confirmation that they have filed them and served them to the other side.


----------



## NotImpressed

My last post was just to provide information regarding our case. The reason I was mentioning b/c people who are not completely aware of the situation would take notice of Can't_Give_Up's information regarding the appeal. The appeal is the only thing that is preventing us from being ordered to pay Northmont. Also, so that people realize that Geldert's settlement is not mandated by the courts. We are not legally obligated to pay the settlement. Regardless of which Option you signed, you can always change your mind. The settlement is to relinquish your lease and be free of any further legal action from Northmont (supposedly). *BUT, *at this moment in time the only thing we are bound by the courts to pay is listed under Judge Young's ruling. If we are successful in the appeal, then her decision would be overturned. Finally, Northmont's threat to charge us additional interest if we do not take the settlement, is not legally mandated by the courts.


----------



## truthr

NotImpressed said:


> My last post was just to provide information regarding our case. The reason I was mentioning b/c people who are not completely aware of the situation would take notice of Can't_Give_Up's information regarding the appeal. The appeal is the only thing that is preventing us from being ordered to pay Northmont. Also, so that people realize that Geldert's settlement is not mandated by the courts. We are not legally obligated to pay the settlement. Regardless of which Option you signed, you can always change your mind. The settlement is to relinquish your lease and be free of any further legal action from Northmont (supposedly). *BUT, *at this moment in time the only thing we are bound by the courts to pay is listed under Judge Young's ruling. If we are successful in the appeal, then her decision would be overturned. Finally, Northmont's threat to charge us additional interest if we do not take the settlement, is not legally mandated by the courts.


In as much as I appreciate you sharing information and I do but are you a lawyer?  Or have you consulted with a lawyer who is prepared to back everything you have said?

The reason I ask these questions is because you may be giving people advice that may not be entirely correct.

From information I have gathered Consent and Settlement judgments, although may be not legally MANDATED by the courts can be enforceable.  People who chose Option 1 have already reported that they have gone to the court house to check on and get a copy of their personal file only to be told it is "settled" and the Consent Judgment is just waiting to be filed against them.

I have heard there is confusion as to whether MG really had the authority to bind his clients into the settlement agreement and they are NOT bound by it until they sign the documents personally and that may be the case in a "normal" world of legalities but we must all remember that NOTHING about what we have experienced in the past 5 years and are still experiencing falls under the "normal" world of legalities.  We are not only dealing with an opponent who lives in an alternative universe our legal representatives seem to as well, particularly the one we signed and paid retainers to.

So although I am sure you are just trying to be helpful only a lawyer who is FULLY informed about the past cases/twists/turns can give appropriate advice.


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

Stung said:


> Is this an option your lawyer is willing to take on?  It sounds like your lawyer understands the position MG has knowingly put us into.  I'm sure I speak for many, if not all of us victims that no one is in agreement with the 'settlement' MG made for us.  There would be strength in numbers and I suspect many would be willing to proceed...


This is worth considering. However, the next lawyer I'll ever be involved with will need to prove up front his/her credentials and successful track record related to this specific legal issue. I will also demand an honest assessment of the actual potential cost to my family of a legal decision against my position.


----------



## Petus@18

NotImpressed said:


> My last post was just to provide information regarding our case. The reason I was mentioning b/c people who are not completely aware of the situation would take notice of Can't_Give_Up's information regarding the appeal. The appeal is the only thing that is preventing us from being ordered to pay Northmont. Also, so that people realize that Geldert's settlement is not mandated by the courts. We are not legally obligated to pay the settlement. Regardless of which Option you signed, you can always change your mind. The settlement is to relinquish your lease and be free of any further legal action from Northmont (supposedly). *BUT, *at this moment in time the only thing we are bound by the courts to pay is listed under Judge Young's ruling. If we are successful in the appeal, then her decision would be overturned. Finally, Northmont's threat to charge us additional interest if we do not take the settlement, is not legally mandated by the courts.



All of this chaos has sucked dry all my mental and emotional strength, I would like to apologize for my reaction to your earlier post.  We appreciate the information you are sharing.  I think I should take a little break this weekend so I can dedicate some time for myself.  Thanks


----------



## torqued

Floyd55 said:


> I would definitely be on board with suing MG, but only if we had a lawyer who would act for us with the understanding that he is paid a percentage of the amount of money he is able to win for us. Not interested in any more legal fees!


----------



## torqued

AMEN!!!


----------



## torqued

To my American friends. We all know under the layers of crap that has transpired behind closed doors this is nothing but but fraud by KW and NW. if we feel we are victims of fraud can we not let the FBI know about it and the authorities at the State Dept. Your thoughts please.


----------



## torqued

The FBI does investigate international money laundering schemes. Can we get together Americans and Canadians and send the FBI a letter with as much FACT as we can find that would give them reason to investigate this as a money laundering scheme. NW history with other resorts so a pattern is evident. I need help in order to make this happen. If the Canadian authorities are not going to recognize this for what it is possibly the US will.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

I am looking for info related to the recent January 31st *Supplementary Reasons for Judgment* handed down by Justice Branch,

In the *“Conclusion”* section Justice Branch refers to several exhibits and affidavits detailed below.

Does anyone have these documents they can forward to me or post to Tug’s?

*IV. CONCLUSION*
_[57] I make the following orders:
a) the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the amounts set out in *Exhibit “B”* of
the Wankel *Affidavit #3*, plus interest;
b) the plaintiff is entitled to special costs in a total fixed amount of $333,000
to be divided severally across the defendant actions in proportion to the
interim statements of account for fees set out in *Exhibit “C”* to the *Wankel
Affidavit #3*; and
c) the plaintiff is entitled to disbursements in the amounts set out in *Exhibit
“C” to the Wankel Affidavit #3*, save that any disbursements attributable to
the Rule 9-5 application shall be divided severally and in the same manner
as the special costs award._


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I am looking for info related to the recent January 31st *Supplementary Reasons for Judgment* handed down by Justice Branch,
> 
> In the *“Conclusion”* section Justice Branch refers to several exhibits and affidavits detailed below.
> 
> Does anyone have these documents they can forward to me or post to Tug’s?
> 
> *IV. CONCLUSION*
> _[57] I make the following orders:
> a) the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the amounts set out in *Exhibit “B”* of
> the Wankel *Affidavit #3*, plus interest;
> b) the plaintiff is entitled to special costs in a total fixed amount of $333,000
> to be divided severally across the defendant actions in proportion to the
> interim statements of account for fees set out in *Exhibit “C”* to the *Wankel
> Affidavit #3*; and
> c) the plaintiff is entitled to disbursements in the amounts set out in *Exhibit
> “C” to the Wankel Affidavit #3*, save that any disbursements attributable to
> the Rule 9-5 application shall be divided severally and in the same manner
> as the special costs award._


Think we have all been looking for the same thing  since the judgment was released. Heard from folks they were 800 pages and no money left to send. Just keeps  getting sillier. If your an option two kind of guy you have no idea of your legal standing or where to turn for advice.  Curious how many of us are still out there. Or for that matter how many are out there outside of the MG group.


----------



## aden2

Cancelling agreement 7(1)  A consumer may cancel at no cost or penalty to the consumer a consumer transaction, whether written or oral, that was entered into by the consumer and a supplier who engaged in an unfair practice regarding the consumer transaction, whether the unfair practice occurred before, during or after the time when the consumer transaction was entered into, and in addition the consumer is entitled to any remedy that is available at law, including damages. (2)  Where a supplier has been found to have engaged in an unfair practice, any consumer who entered into a consumer transaction that was subject to the unfair practice with the supplier who engaged in the unfair practice may cancel the consumer transaction at no cost or penalty to the consumer.


----------



## dotbuhler

...a


aden2 said:


> Cancelling agreement 7(1)  A consumer may cancel at no cost or penalty to the consumer a consumer transaction, whether written or oral, that was entered into by the consumer and a supplier who engaged in an unfair practice regarding the consumer transaction, whether the unfair practice occurred before, during or after the time when the consumer transaction was entered into, and in addition the consumer is entitled to any remedy that is available at law, including damages. (2)  Where a supplier has been found to have engaged in an unfair practice, any consumer who entered into a consumer transaction that was subject to the unfair practice with the supplier who engaged in the unfair practice may cancel the consumer transaction at no cost or penalty to the consumer.


And the "unfair practice" would apply to the unilateral changing of contracts behind our backs and without consultation that occurred in the Bankruptcy proceedings.


----------



## So sick of this mess

torqued said:


> The FBI does investigate international money laundering schemes. Can we get together Americans and Canadians and send the FBI a letter with as much FACT as we can find that would give them reason to investigate this as a money laundering scheme. NW history with other resorts so a pattern is evident. I need help in order to make this happen. If the Canadian authorities are not going to recognize this for what it is possibly the US will.


I did write a letter to our states attorney general and it was forwarded to the Federal trade commission. Neither response was very helpful. The complaint  will be on file and available if anyone searches for problems with Northmont. Hopefully, it will save others in the future from the same scam.


----------



## tssuck

dotbuhler said:


> ...a
> 
> And the "unfair practice" would apply to the unilateral changing of contracts behind our backs and without consultation that occurred in the Bankruptcy proceedings.



Where did this "Cancelling  agreement 7 (1)come from, which document is it in? Does it apply to all that signed the Sunchaser lease?


----------



## truthr

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I am looking for info related to the recent January 31st *Supplementary Reasons for Judgment* handed down by Justice Branch,
> 
> In the *“Conclusion”* section Justice Branch refers to several exhibits and affidavits detailed below.
> 
> Does anyone have these documents they can forward to me or post to Tug’s?
> 
> *IV. CONCLUSION*
> _[57] I make the following orders:
> a) the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the amounts set out in *Exhibit “B”* of
> the Wankel *Affidavit #3*, plus interest;
> b) the plaintiff is entitled to special costs in a total fixed amount of $333,000
> to be divided severally across the defendant actions in proportion to the
> interim statements of account for fees set out in *Exhibit “C”* to the *Wankel
> Affidavit #3*; and
> c) the plaintiff is entitled to disbursements in the amounts set out in *Exhibit
> “C” to the Wankel Affidavit #3*, save that any disbursements attributable to
> the Rule 9-5 application shall be divided severally and in the same manner
> as the special costs award._





Rider Nation Rocks said:


> Think we have all been looking for the same thing  since the judgment was released. Heard from folks they were 800 pages and no money left to send. Just keeps  getting sillier. If your an option two kind of guy you have no idea of your legal standing or where to turn for advice.  Curious how many of us are still out there. Or for that matter how many are out there outside of the MG group.



Are you friggin kidding me???  No money left to send???  It is a friggin PDF!!!

We are all entitled to ALL the documents, like Affidavits and particularly those that are referenced in a Judge's decision and particularly since MG kicked all those to the curb who would not succumb to his demands to blindly sign off.  This leaves his clients vulnerable and without pertinent information.  Makes one wonder what is in those documents that MG doesn't want anyone to see!

Just another issue for the Law Society.


----------



## Spark1

dotbuhler said:


> ...a
> 
> And the "unfair practice" would apply to the unilateral changing of contracts behind our backs and without consultation that occurred in the Bankruptcy proceedings.


Also the illegal modification, moving humans like buildings. Did they contact you and did it materially prejudice the older lessees? How could you ever trust these bandits? They only use the part of the contract that benefits them and the hell with the time owners.


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> ...a
> 
> And the "unfair practice" would apply to the unilateral changing of contracts behind our backs and without consultation that occurred in the Bankruptcy proceedings.


How did they change our contracts during the bankruptcy proceedings?


----------



## aden2

Article 7.1 Alberta Fair Trading Act


----------



## J's Garage

truthr said:


> Are you friggin kidding me???  No money left to send???  It is a friggin PDF!!!
> 
> We are all entitled to ALL the documents, like Affidavits and particularly those that are referenced in a Judge's decision and particularly since MG kicked all those to the curb who would not succumb to his demands to blindly sign off.  This leaves his clients vulnerable and without pertinent information.  Makes one wonder what is in those documents that MG doesn't want anyone to see!
> 
> Just another issue for the Law Society.




So what about the information that we've never seen about the "class action" research that was "happening" before he decided to instigate the trainwreck.

50k + .  He's essentially turned it into toilet paper.


----------



## CleoB

J's Garage said:


> So what about the information that we've never seen about the "class action" research that was "happening" before he decided to instigate the trainwreck.
> 
> 50k + .  He's essentially turned it into toilet paper.


without prejudice
I've emailed and asked for the findings by Higgerty Law about this class action but typical Geldert...hasn't replied.  With wasting 50K, Geldert must have thought he could pick our pockets whenever he wanted with whatever he wanted.  In case Geldert is spying..... without prejudice.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Has any non-Geldert clients (or anyone else) ever received a form letter from Northwynd cancelling their timeshare interest?


----------



## dotbuhler

For scheduled mtg. re: facebook... will be contacting interested parties re: today's meeting in Calgary; it will be held between 1-3 p.m. at his office near 16 Ave. and Edmonton Trail. Bring phones and laptops and hopefully someone can help with the Skype setup for those of us relying on phones and computer link. he will give an exact address to you privately. Thanks to Lila Lila Angeles for the update.


----------



## dotbuhler

tssuck said:


> Where did this "Cancelling  agreement 7 (1)come from, which document is it in? Does it apply to all that signed the Sunchaser lease?


Alberta Fair Trading Act This is a law in Alberta and was done by an Alberta company.


----------



## aden2

Just completed  Dispute Note for Edmonton appeal...


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> Michael Gretton will be contacting interested parties re: today's meeting in Calgary; it will be held between 1-3 p.m. at his office near 16 Ave. and Edmonton Trail. Bring phones and laptops and hopefully someone can help with the Skype setup for those of us relying on phones and computer link. Mr.Gretton will give an exact address to you privately. Thanks to Lila Lila Angeles for the update.


Who is Michael Gretton and what does he have to do with Sunchaser?


----------



## NoMas

I'm down in Montana, an "option one-er", trying to make sense of this all. The big immediate question is our likely outcome if we decide to just not pay the outrageous crooks.  We only have one unit, but unfortunately my 89 year old Mom has one too.  I have had near zero luck finding an attorney who will even look at it down here, but one has promised to have an answer to the pay/no-pay question by Monday at least. I'll report what I find tomorrow.......Down to the wire!   Thanks for all the work everyone has done.

And we are certainly interested in a class action scenario with old Kirk Madoff, and all the Fairmont succssors, but would need to know it isn't another geldert rathole!


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> Who is Michael Gretton and what does he have to do with Sunchaser?


Facebook group.


----------



## dotbuhler

aden2 said:


> Just completed  Dispute Note for Edmonton appeal...


Did you get it mailed to you, or did you go down to the Clerk of the Court at the Law Courts  in Edmonton to get it? And if so, did you wait long for it? Or did you get it through your lawyer?


----------



## SAV

dotbuhler said:


> Facebook group.



Can anyone give more details. What is the address of Michael Gretton


----------



## tssuck

NoMas said:


> I'm down in Montana, an "option oner", trying to make sense of this all. The big immediate question is our likely outcome if we decide to just not pay the outrageous crooks.  We only have one unit, but unfortunately my 89 year old Mom has one too.  I have had near zero luck finding an attorney who will even look at it down here, but one has promised to have an answer to the pay/no-pay question by Monday at least. I'll report what I find tomorrow.......Down to the wire!   Thanks for all the work everyone has done.
> 
> And we are certainly interested in a class action scenario with old Kirk Madoff, and all the Fairmont succssors, but would need to know it isn't another geldert rathole!



Be sure to check out your states Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgement Recognition Act. You should be able to find it online. For our part, we are not paying. They will have to spend money to get money from us. This may well bring the FBI into the picture.


----------



## dotbuhler

SAV said:


> Can anyone give more details. What is the address of Michael Gretton


If you are a member of the Sunchaser Class Action group on facebook he will contact you if you gave him your details.


----------



## Bewildered

So the Facebook group is moving ahead with a class-action with this Gretton fella and this TUGs group is doing what......getting secondhand info about this. I’m still bewildered how people with the same goal are still split into 2 or 3 groups and don’t want to directly share info. I think the time of worrying about anybody listening in, are long over as they probably are anyways and we haven’t been able to figure out a plan for the 15th deadline. Too bad as many people after that date will pay and never want to hear the words NM, KW or MG ever again.


----------



## SAV

dotbuhler said:


> If you are a member of the Sunchaser Class Action group on facebook he will contact you if you gave him your details.



 For some reason I can't get on with the Facebook group.  I have requested to be added but just says "pending". I have sent Michael a note on his personal Facebook page.  Anyway if this is being organized to chase this scam down i would like to go to the meeting. Can you help with the details?


----------



## Appauled

dotbuhler said:


> If you are a member of the Sunchaser Class Action group on facebook he will contact you if you gave him your details.


I don't have a Facebook account, any other way of getting info on where and when of meeting?


----------



## Petus@18

Those Skyping will need to provide your Skype ID to Michael so that group chats can be set up.


----------



## Petus@18

Michael Gretton is in Facebook, send him a message or post your ID so we can forward it to him.

Mtg today 1-3 in Calgary


----------



## torqued

tssuck said:


> Be sure to check out your states Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgement Recognition Act. You should be able to find it online. For our part, we are not paying. They will have to spend money to get money from us. This may well bring the FBI into the picture.


We need to bring this to the attention of the FBI now. But we need evidence or at least enough suspicion of fraud to go to them and present a case. This case has become so twisted fragmented and convoluted it is now very difficult to separate fact from fiction. 
1. The pattern of abuse by NW. the Belize Hawai  and Mexico timeshares they have done similar money grabs on??  Do we know this for sure?
2. Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is Fairmont and NW have been in bed together thru this entire fiasco. NW buys the resort with the intent of getting rid of as many leassees as possible in order to pull units out of the resort charge us a renovation fee so we have to pay for the repairs so they can sell them off as condos?  And pocket the remaining money. Then in time run the resort into bankruptcy or just sell to another entity and move onto another resort. So they are flipping resorts on the backs of timeshare folks by abusing contract law and the courts with their army of thug attorneys. 
If I have this wrong please correct me. Please all send me all the pertinent information you can that would convince the FBI this deserves their attention. Fire me a draft letter with links if you want. I have an FBI office where I live. 
Thanks for your help


----------



## tssuck

dotbuhler said:


> Alberta Fair Trading Act This is a law in Alberta and was done by an Alberta company.



Thank you for this information. Can be very helpful.


----------



## LilMaggie

torqued said:


> We need to bring this to the attention of the FBI now. But we need evidence or at least enough suspicion of fraud to go to them and present a case. This case has become so twisted fragmented and convoluted it is now very difficult to separate fact from fiction.
> 1. The pattern of abuse by NW. the Belize Hawai  and Mexico timeshares they have done similar money grabs on??  Do we know this for sure?
> 2. Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is Fairmont and NW have been in bed together thru this entire fiasco. NW buys the resort with the intent of getting rid of as many leassees as possible in order to pull units out of the resort charge us a renovation fee so we have to pay for the repairs so they can sell them off as condos?  And pocket the remaining money. Then in time run the resort into bankruptcy or just sell to another entity and move onto another resort. So they are flipping resorts on the backs of timeshare folks by abusing contract law and the courts with their army of thug attorneys.
> If I have this wrong please correct me. Please all send me all the pertinent information you can that would convince the FBI this deserves their attention. Fire me a draft letter with links if you want. I have an FBI office where I live.
> Thanks for your help


Couldn't have said it better myself!! Someone who posted on here previously (L.M.) has a class action filed and has done extensive research on NM.  He might be very helpful.


----------



## torqued

So if my statement of claim is in BC can the Alberta fair trading act apply to me or only Alberta residents?


----------



## tssuck

tssuck said:


> Be sure to check out your states Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgement Recognition Act. You should be able to find it online. For our part, we are not paying. They will have to spend money to get money from us. This may well bring the FBI into the picture.



When checking the UF-CMJRA, be sure to pay attention to the "personal jurisdiction" section and the "taxes and interest" section. The last one may pertain to the GST and 162% interest that NM and MG say thay are going to charge


----------



## dotbuhler

SAV said:


> For some reason I can't get on with the Facebook group.  I have requested to be added but just says "pending". I have sent Michael a note on his personal Facebook page.  Anyway if this is being organized to chase this scam down i would like to go to the meeting. Can you help with the details?[/Quote
> If you sent through his fb contact there will be followups done. We are aware of your concerns and that's why the info was shared here. Please do not get upset, we are all in this together.


----------



## dotbuhler

torqued said:


> So if my statement of claim is in BC can the Alberta fair trading act apply to me or only Alberta residents?


This was a Calgary, AB. based company with offices in that city, so yes you have Rights under this, as well.


----------



## dotbuhler

Bewildered said:


> So the Facebook group is moving ahead with a class-action with this Gretton fella and this TUGs group is doing what......getting secondhand info about this. I’m still bewildered how people with the same goal are still split into 2 or 3 groups and don’t want to directly share info. I think the time of worrying about anybody listening in, are long over as they probably are anyways and we haven’t been able to figure out a plan for the 15th deadline. Too bad as many people after that date will pay and never want to hear the words NM, KW or MG ever again.


Feb. 15th is only a date MG stuck in your head, remember that there is an appeal process that has been set up for us. So prior to March 8, 2018 fill out the paperwork at the Edmonton Law Courts and be there in person or be represented by Counsel with the intent of seeing that the actions against you are stayed due to Appeal.
.


----------



## torqued

LilMaggie said:


> Couldn't have said it better myself!! Someone who posted on here previously (L.M.) has a class action filed and has done extensive research on NM.  He might be very helpful.


Do you know what page his post is on?


----------



## aden2

dotbuhler said:


> Did you get it mailed to you, or did you go down to the Clerk of the Court at the Law Courts  in Edmonton to get it? And if so, did you wait long for it? Or did you get it through your lawyer?


I down loaded the Dispute Note  from Alberta Court Provincial Division (http://www.schuettlaw.com/course/course materials/Reference Materials/Dispute Note.pdf).


----------



## Spark1

torqued said:


> So if my statement of claim is in BC can the Alberta fair trading act apply to me or only Alberta residents?


Check with Protection BC and please let us all know?


----------



## LilMaggie

torqued said:


> Do you know what page his post is on?


Petus@18 posted it from FB.  Truth is familiar with this as well.  
Page 157
Posts #3904 and #3907


----------



## dotbuhler

Sometime after 5 pm today there will be info released about what was discussed today. Patience everyone, we do care about your/our issues.


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> Who is Michael Gretton and what does he have to do with Sunchaser?


Another victim trying to help us out...


----------



## dotbuhler

aden2 said:


> I down loaded the Dispute Note  from Alberta Court Provincial Division (http://www.schuettlaw.com/course/course materials/Reference Materials/Dispute Note.pdf).


thank you


----------



## truthr

LilMaggie said:


> Petus@18 posted it from FB.  Truth is familiar with this as well.  L.M. is a credible source.
> Page 157
> Posts #3904 and #3907


Just to clarify - in as much as I may be aware of L.M. I have never stated whether they are a credible source or not as I have yet to confirm that either way.


----------



## LilMaggie

truthr said:


> Just to clarify - in as much as I may be aware of L.M. I have never stated whether they are a credible source or not as I have yet to confirm that either way.


I apologize.  I noted that you were familiar with this information.  Sorry that it appeared that you deemed him credible.  I will retract that statement.


----------



## truthr

truthr said:


> Just to clarify - in as much as I may be aware of L.M. I have never stated whether they are a credible source or not as I have yet to confirm that either way.





LilMaggie said:


> I apologize.  I noted that you were familiar with this information.  Sorry that it appears that you deemed him credible.  I will retract that statement.



No harm, no foul, I just wanted to clarify.


----------



## Petus@18

LilMaggie said:


> I apologize.  I noted that you were familiar with this information.  Sorry that it appeared that you deemed him credible.  I will retract that statement.



We believe that the Merriman's have verifiable evidence to proceed with their Class Action lawsuit.  They have indicated their good intentions to help everyone affected, meaning we can all be part of this action.  Unfortunately, they are back on Feb 18th, so option 1 will need to make a decision and don't sign the settlement agreement. There is also the appeal on March 8th; these are choices that we need to consider if we don't want or can't pay the ransom.


----------



## Frau Blucher

col·lu·sion

kəˈlo͞oZHən/

noun


secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

“While there is a fee to be paid ... it represents a material compromise on the part of Northmont allowing you to pay a reduced fee below what it was seeking as compensation for maintenance, legal fees, interest and so on.”


Michael Geldert

This wasn’t a “compromise”!

If anything there might have been collusion between Geldert and Northmount. Geldert’s clients got a steaming load of crap that Michael tried to gift wrap and present it to us as an “excellent deal”.  He had no moral right to sign on our behalf. It sure wasn’t a negotiation in the accepted sense as a “negotiation is a discussion aimed at reaching an agreement”; it does not mean one party (Sauvageau) dictating all the terms to the other party (Geldert). Geldert didn’t even try binding arbitration!


I hope Geldert realized that by accepting the settlement each of his clients now have to pay tens of thousands of dollars; one client owes almost $100,000! For something that they don’t own?! Why should anyone have to cash in their savings, take out a second mortgage, or sell their house to satisfy Wankel’s greed? Though Geldert denies it, negotiations were rushed through so that the petition against the resort realignment could be dropped. The realignment was the only bargaining chip that we had left but Michael gave it up for nothing.

Will Geldert get a plumb job from Northmont or Sauvageau years down the road when people have forgotten about Sunchaser? I wouldn’t be surprised if Geldert gets some sort of recognition for a job well done from Wankel and friends. In the end, what goes around, comes around; Geldert and Wankel will get what they deserve. I just hope I’m around to see it.


----------



## Petus@18

From FB
VERY IMPORTANT EVERYONE: do not cash in any RRSP, LIRA, any pension to make payment. You would be throwing money away. Debt collectors can not touch pensions.


----------



## truthr

Petus@18 said:


> From FB
> VERY IMPORTANT EVERYONE: do not cash in any RRSP, LIRA, any pension to make payment. You would be throwing money away. Debt collectors can not touch pensions.


First, everyone should be very careful as to what they share from one group to another without the original poster's specific permission especially from a closed and/or secret group.

Second, although pensions may not be able to be touched at source, once they are in your bank account that may be a different case.


----------



## Palms to pines

Geldert should get recognition from Wankle for a job well done. No one could have done better. And now he is Wankle’s bill collector. We are the ones he threw under the bus so that Northwynd could get everything they wanted. Not sure what Northwynd could ever do to thank Geldert enough. Oh wait, they could share the millions of dollars we have sent in with him.


----------



## F. Hugh Wankel

How does one get access to the Facebook groups?

My wife and I want to explore any last second options before cashing in our RRSPs... 

And Wankel, EFF off and die.


----------



## CleoB

Petus@18 said:


> We believe that the Merriman's have verifiable evidence to proceed with their Class Action lawsuit.  They have indicated their good intentions to help everyone affected, meaning we can all be part of this action.  Unfortunately, they are back on Feb 18th, so option 1 will need to make a decision and don't sign the settlement agreement. There is also the appeal on March 8th; these are choices that we need to consider if we don't want or can't pay the ransom.


If someone has paid the settlement why can't they still be part of the class action?  Geldert is telling people that if they signed option one they are bound to pay.  Waiting for the March 8 appeal just means more interest added to the 2017 statement and 2018 maintenance fees that will need to be paid.  I think we are being charged enough without increasing it more.


----------



## Appauled

I don't understand why the secrecy of meeting this afternoon and only sharing the meeting with Facebook people.
I didn't have Facebook and specifically tried creating account and never got a accepted and a reply in time for this meeting. Still Waiting!
Come on people, what are we all afraid of??? If spies are a concern we could have easily vetted each other with a drivers license and a copy of your Sunchaser Extortion bill for 2017.


----------



## CleoB

Appauled said:


> I don't understand why the secrecy of meeting this afternoon and only sharing the meeting with Facebook people.
> I didn't have Facebook and specifically tried creating account and never got a accepted and a reply in time for this meeting. Still Waiting!
> Come on people, what are we all afraid of??? If spies are a concern we could have easily vetted each other with a drivers license and a copy of your Sunchaser Extortion bill for 2017.


I agree Appauled.  We have been disbanded for too long and in the end I think that worked against us.  Divide and conquer worked here.


----------



## CleoB

I've seen people posting about being followed....how can you tell you're being followed here?  What should I look for?


----------



## ecwinch

CleoB said:


> I've seen people posting about being followed....how can you tell you're being followed here?  What should I look for?



You can see this on your profile page -  on the left hand side you will see a link that will show you who is following you.


----------



## Petus@18

Appauled said:


> I don't understand why the secrecy of meeting this afternoon and only sharing the meeting with Facebook people.
> I didn't have Facebook and specifically tried creating account and never got a accepted and a reply in time for this meeting. Still Waiting!
> Come on people, what are we all afraid of??? If spies are a concern we could have easily vetted each other with a drivers license and a copy of your Sunchaser Extortion bill for 2017.



I understand that Truth is the admin of the secret FB group.  Maybe you should ask her.


----------



## Reaper

So...

After all that has been said and done...

What is the ultimate solution...?


----------



## truthr

Appauled said:


> I don't understand why the secrecy of meeting this afternoon and only sharing the meeting with Facebook people.
> I didn't have Facebook and specifically tried creating account and never got a accepted and a reply in time for this meeting. Still Waiting!
> Come on people, what are we all afraid of??? If spies are a concern we could have easily vetted each other with a drivers license and a copy of your Sunchaser Extortion bill for 2017.





Petus@18 said:


> I understand that Truth is the admin of the secret FB group.  Maybe you should ask her.



The meeting of this afternoon had nothing to do with the secret Facebook group I started and administer.  It was not and has not been discussed in that group.

It was put together by someone in the "closed" Facebook group, which for clarity purposes the "closed" Facebook group is not vetted nor monitored by anyone from the Geldert Group.  It was started in 2012 by the admin Ernie Kelley about a different property that if I remember correctly was owned by Northwynd/Northmont.  Then Ernie Kelley let it be used and changed the name to Sunchaser Northwynd Class Action, but he has remained the only Administrator.

As for any meeting or group, people have a choice as to the who, what, where, why and when.
As for being afraid - fear or caution?


----------



## So sick of this mess

NoMas said:


> I'm down in Montana, an "option one-er", trying to make sense of this all. The big immediate question is our likely outcome if we decide to just not pay the outrageous crooks.  We only have one unit, but unfortunately my 89 year old Mom has one too.  I have had near zero luck finding an attorney who will even look at it down here, but one has promised to have an answer to the pay/no-pay question by Monday at least. I'll report what I find tomorrow.......Down to the wire!   Thanks for all the work everyone has done.
> 
> And we are certainly interested in a class action scenario with old Kirk Madoff, and all the Fairmont succssors, but would need to know it isn't another geldert rathole!


I am from Washington and having the same struggles as you. I wonder how likely it would be that they would pursue us down here. I have talked to 2 attorneys here, one says pay, one says not. I would be very interested in what you find out as I will need to send the extortion money off tomorrow.


----------



## Meow

This mess has become more confusing as time goes on.  Secret Facebook groups, secret meetings in Calgary, people afraid of being 'followed'  -It's like a plot of a Harlan Coben crime novel.  I am not sure who to believe or trust anymore.  We are no longer a cohesive group trying to get a fair solution.  I'm not interested in exacting revenge from Wankel or Geldert.  I just want to avoid an unfair financial loss.  There seems to be nowhere to turn anymore.  How can we have a class action initiative if we don't have a common cause.  It is very depressing.


----------



## torqued

NoMas said:


> I'm down in Montana, an "option one-er", trying to make sense of this all. The big immediate question is our likely outcome if we decide to just not pay the outrageous crooks.  We only have one unit, but unfortunately my 89 year old Mom has one too.  I have had near zero luck finding an attorney who will even look at it down here, but one has promised to have an answer to the pay/no-pay question by Monday at least. I'll report what I find tomorrow.......Down to the wire!   Thanks for all the work everyone has done.
> 
> And we are certainly interested in a class action scenario with old Kirk Madoff, and all the Fairmont succssors, but would need to know it isn't another geldert rathole!


I was living in Great Falls when I bought this nightmare. I don’t know what city you are in but a very smart attorney in GF is Steven Potts. He also has a CPA degree. My attorney friends there say he’s the smartest attorney in town. He’s a pit bull in court from what I here. Just thought I’d throw it out there for you


----------



## So sick of this mess

tssuck said:


> When checking the UF-CMJRA, be sure to pay attention to the "personal jurisdiction" section and the "taxes and interest" section. The last one may pertain to the GST and 162% interest that NM and MG say thay are going to charge


Interesting. Any idea what personal jurisdiction could mean? Does that mean if they did not hand deliver the civil claim to me they did not have personal jurisdiction?


----------



## torqued

So sick of this mess said:


> Interesting. Any idea what personal jurisdiction could mean? Does that mean if they did not hand deliver the civil claim to me they did not have personal jurisdiction?


I’ve got the feeling that if you’ve been a part of this litigation they can claim personal jurisdiction over you but not sure I’m getting that clarified this coming week.


----------



## ecwinch

torqued said:


> I’ve got the feeling that if you’ve been a part of this litigation they can claim personal jurisdiction over you but not sure I’m getting that clarified this coming week.



I would agree - involvement with MG would probably prejudice that issue. That you are subject to the judgement since you defended yourself in Canadian court. 

Also - if you were in the military service during this timeframe - you want to make sure that any interest charges conform with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

https://www.justice.gov/servicemembers/servicemembers-civil-relief-act-scra

Just throwing that out there since you bought this in Great Falls and now show Virginia as your location. Spent many a summers in Great Falls.


----------



## NoMas

torqued said:


> I was living in Great Falls when I bought this nightmare. I don’t know what city you are in but a very smart attorney in GF is Steven Potts. He also has a CPA degree. My attorney friends there say he’s the smartest attorney in town. He’s a pit bull in court from what I here. Just thought I’d throw it out there for you


In Helena, and I have someone looking at it here, but this is certainly not his expertise. I should know something in the morning.  Will keep Mr Potts in mind, thank you.
The other thing I thought about is not paying and not ever being able to visit Canada again without fear of being picked up by a crooked lawyer or something!
And by the way, has anyone else done the math on MG's last "retainer"?  About 1250 clients times $250 is around $315,000.........


----------



## Mason

Ugg I live in Montana, Ive written so many letters to Canada and the U.S Politicians and Gov Protection office, Prime Minister, HOnorable David EBY B.C. I cant find a lawyer here in the states that knows anything about Canadian laws, or any Lawyer that wants to help. We purchased in 1996, our contract states after 120 days of non payment the TS goes back to FRP. Beacause of disability reasons that’s what we thought we did. Now with time so short my head is like in a tennis match, should we send that money, or not. I dont know. I talked to a lawyer in Kalispell this morning he said he wouldn’t pay, but “I dont know enough about the Canadian law” I feel so bad for that couple in Cardston having a $100,000.payment. What a scam..


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Michael Geldert

Thank you for your recent update dated February 12th received like a thief in the night while I slept.

It clarified a lot of things and I will address them based on the how they appeared in the update.

*Wow, over 2000 emails and phone calls in just a couple of weeks!!*
You must feel very special to be in such high demand and think of the billable time you are wracking up.  I guess intentionally failing to provide proper consultation on what you have done or fail to do is profitable when you create an opportunity to correspond with people individually opposed to efficiently summarizing common questions for entire group in an update.

Oh ya – question for you, the email I sent with questions was never answered and you just sent me a BS reply about Facebook conspiracy posts, is it ‎included in the sum or was there thousands more you just chose to ignore if the questions were to difficult to answer or are you trying to hide something?

Related to this you created a distinct grouping and as such I hope you have initiated dividing billing appropriately.  Any services you are now providing to Option 2 people like all their filings, consultations, and work you are having SLG do on their behalf are no longer billable to Option 1 people as their fate is already sealed and vise versa – please ensure to send them appropriate  billing as our group is not responsible for paying for them from what we have paid already and the additional $250 fee you are charging as part of the Settlement Agreement.

Don’t forget to make some time to complete an account reconciliation for us all – we do want to know what we paid for and will be asking for the associated documentation for our files as our accounts will be paid in full so no denying us this information as we have paid in full then some.


*Dispute with Northmont is guaranteed over for Option 1 people*
I have my finger crossed as this is about as good as it gets and many people have come to the same conclusion there may be wholes in your date with David Wotherspoon to reach our settlement with Northmont.

Why because it is not spelled out 100% in the Settlement Agreement or provided as part of the Settlement Minutes as none of your clients have seen these to know the entire scope and tone of the negotiations.

It still doesn’t say in our update we are free of the Resort Villa Management debt just clear of our obligation to Northmont – can you get it right and just say that if that is what it means!!!  If I still owe this debt I would be better off declaring bankruptcy now then just swirly around the outer edge of it.


*Get those document in by Feb 15th *
I liked this answer – at least it appears the exchange of our hard earned money withdrawn from RRSPs, borrowed from family members, and sums up over two years of after tax earnings for us has been done without giving Northmont the upper hand for the release of what should be an asset already paid in full Northmont needs to complete their plans to move forward.

Must admit the Settlement Agreement was quite confusing on this point and it definitely appeared it was a pay and pray sort of relationship to get our releases.


*How did Michael Geldert own the negotiations at the Settlement Agreement Negotiations*
In intense negotiations which lasted less than a day but took almost 5 years to get to he solely negotiated:

Hardship for everyone
A paltry 120% of our current outstanding bills to sell our lease back to the developer / resort manager
Cancellation of Petitions that now allow Northmont to move forward with realignment and unilateral changes to our VIA contracts
Unacceptable terms
A built in 162% penalty if we don’t comply
What are we getting:

An extra 2 weeks to pay millions of collective dollars
The benefits of not using a negotiator or the Courts to act on our behalf if the two parties failed to arrive at amical terms
Knowledge that Michael Geldert has screwed the entire Canadian Timeshare Industry based on the Court legal precedents he has set and totally abused the Courts to get us here
*
The Settlement Agreement is yours people – Own it!!!*
Northmont has accepted Michael Geldert as our sole representative and neither party thought it wise for even one person from the litigation group to attend the negotiations or actually approve the Settlement Agreement minutes at the time they were created and actually participate in signing them with the parties involved while at the negotiations.  Nothing like creating a potential conflict of interest and no wonder people are not lining up to sign for something they had no representation or part of and have been coerced to accept (if they actually do).

Ever wonder is this could be just one of many chinks in the armour of this eventually all falling apart?

Not that Michael has ever lied to us before but why is it even as late as last week Northmont has still allowed people to opt into the Settlement Agreement – Michael is there someone else doing your job so you don’t know this or are you just trying to scare us again into compliance?

Funny how we are bond to a Settlement Agreement completed December 14th and had the opportunity to opt out of by December 29th but only received it January 10th – still don’t believe you can consent to something before you receive it and then use extortion for people to accept it.


*Failure to comply is not an option (sounds like something from Doctor Who)*
Threats and penalties – so tired of hearing about these, time for a new line Michael.  What about telling us the next part of the strategic plan.

Strategically for Northmont to move forward with their realignment they still need to get peoples VIAs and don’t want anyone with a backbone to remain at the resort – I bet a plan is in the works to send out notices to the effect that Northmont will provide individual notice your via has been terminated for people who fought this or are just sitting on the sidelines.  Michael Gelder just gift wrapped a group of us with the negotiated Settlement Agreement and fired clients but the “delinquent” debt for everyone still exists so is it really a threat anymore not being able to get out?


*Go figure – people are making mistakes*
Guess there is a bit of complexity that should have been explained related to the Settlement Agreement and some lack of continuity in the January 10th update with all the details – no worries the billable time clock is running to answer the over 2000 calls and inquiries about this over the past couple of weeks (poor Michael probably hasn’t gotten any sleep – I didn’t trying to figure out if I would or could pay).

Kudos to the people who are making cheques out to “Resort Villa Management” not because they are making a mistake - they don't trust Michael Geldert or that his settlement includes this debt to Resort Villa Management people as being part of the settlement amount.

Others are trying to apply their own ingenuity by not signing or adding in comments to the effect they don’t agree and are doing so under duress – guess more billable time tracking down these people and trying to get them to comply (hope they unload on you and call you out for the type of person you are – you have their money and in my opinion are fare game to loss a strip or two while they still have your attention).


*Hardship Clients *
There are no acceptations, everyone is suffering hardship as a result of Michael Geldert’s actions.

What happened in the Jeke trial that caused you to remove key pieces of evidence?
What happened in the Super Conference where Justices told you this was better suited as a Class Action?
What happened when Justice Branch or Judge Young spelled out deficiencies and you ignored them?
What strategic purpose prompted Michael Geldert to maximise his own business returns by feedings us lies and mixed messages for his clients maximum loss?
So there are 128 people (about 10%) who have come forward and asked for help but I would bet the number is a lot higher.  The people who are not coming forward are probably intimidated by the forms you want them to fill out detailing their assets and debts but you have put the fear of Northmont into them over the past 4 years and do you think they want them knowing everything financially about them?

For the 128 people who have applied is Michael Geldert going to make them complicate in a fraud as he has done with all of us who don’t pay because we could not pay – we were never asked if we could pay by Michael Geldert but he signed a negotiated Settlement Agreement that we could and would pay.


*Questions for you Michael Geldert:*
People are realizing that you have totally screwed them no matter what option they took and some are actually opting back in so at least they can have finally have closure with Northmont something you continually told us all along we would not get when it was previously offered.
*How do you justify throwing people under the bus as a result of a 7 hour negotiation after taking almost 5 years to get everyone to this point?*

People are not going to forgive and forget what you have done and a lot are just coming to the realization what you have done or failed to do but don’t worry a group of us are already working on that.  Through educating others by meeting in small groups and detailing your failures others realize quickly this was not all the big bad monster out to get us but a failure to be represented properly.
Whatever Michael Geldert’s perception is – he has failed all his clients.
*Given the nature of this group do you really think this is over?


My Regards,
UB*


----------



## aden2

Mason said:


> Ugg I live in Montana, Ive written so many letters to Canada and the U.S Politicians and Gov Protection office, Prime Minister, HOnorable David EBY B.C. I cant find a lawyer here in the states that knows anything about Canadian laws, or any Lawyer that wants to help. We purchased in 1996, our contract states after 120 days of non payment the TS goes back to FRP. Beacause of disability reasons that’s what we thought we did. Now with time so short my head is like in a tennis match, should we send that money, or not. I dont know. I talked to a lawyer in Kalispell this morning he said he wouldn’t pay, but “I dont know enough about the Canadian law” I feel so bad for that couple in Cardston having a $100,000.payment. What a scam..


*You should put your concerns in a dispute note regarding your contract. My dispute note has the violations of my contract as reasons for not paying.
(http://www.schuettlaw.com/course/course materials/Reference Materials/Dispute Note.pdf)*


----------



## torqued

Mason said:


> Ugg I live in Montana, Ive written so many letters to Canada and the U.S Politicians and Gov Protection office, Prime Minister, HOnorable David EBY B.C. I cant find a lawyer here in the states that knows anything about Canadian laws, or any Lawyer that wants to help. We purchased in 1996, our contract states after 120 days of non payment the TS goes back to FRP. Beacause of disability reasons that’s what we thought we did. Now with time so short my head is like in a tennis match, should we send that money, or not. I dont know. I talked to a lawyer in Kalispell this morning he said he wouldn’t pay, but “I dont know enough about the Canadian law” I feel so bad for that couple in Cardston having a $100,000.payment. What a scam..


Tester and Daines didn’t even answer my email. Of course I am no longer a constituent.  Have you tried going to one of their offices with your complaint?


----------



## tssuck

torqued said:


> I’ve got the feeling that if you’ve been a part of this litigation they can claim personal jurisdiction over you but not sure I’m getting that clarified this coming week.



From what I have read, the Courts in your State has to determine if they (the Court) have personal jurisdiction over you before you can be sued. It does not have anything to do with any interaction you may have had to do with previous litigation. Please let me know if I have this wrong. It may vary from State to State.


----------



## CleoB

aden2 said:


> *You should put your concerns in a dispute note regarding your contract. My dispute note has the violations of my contract as reasons for not paying.
> (http://www.schuettlaw.com/course/course materials/Reference Materials/Dispute Note.pdf)*


Isn't that what Geldert used in the JEKE trial which flopped?


----------



## Mason

torqued said:


> Tester and Daines didn’t even answer my email. Of course I am no longer a constituent.  Have you tried going to one of their offices with your complaint?


I wrote both and received a response from Tester office to contact the Consumer Protection, which I did they said this was out of their jurisdiction. Prime Minister’s office responded with contact Honorable Eby, so I wrote him, no response. Pres Trump No response.


----------



## tssuck

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Michael Geldert
> 
> Thank you for your recent update dated February 12th received like a thief in the night while I slept.
> 
> It clarified a lot of things and I will address them based on the how they appeared in the update.
> 
> *Wow, over 2000 emails and phone calls in just a couple of weeks!!*
> You must feel very special to be in such high demand and think of the billable time you are wracking up.  I guess intentionally failing to provide proper consultation on what you have done or fail to do is profitable when you create an opportunity to correspond with people individually opposed to efficiently summarizing common questions for entire group in an update.
> 
> Oh ya – question for you, the email I sent with questions was never answered and you just sent me a BS reply about Facebook conspiracy posts, is it ‎included in the sum or was there thousands more you just chose to ignore if the questions were to difficult to answer or are you trying to hide something?
> 
> Related to this you created a distinct grouping and as such I hope you have initiated dividing billing appropriately.  Any services you are now providing to Option 2 people like all their filings, consultations, and work you are having SLG do on their behalf are no longer billable to Option 1 people as their fate is already sealed and vise versa – please ensure to send them appropriate  billing as our group is not responsible for paying for them from what we have paid already and the additional $250 fee you are charging as part of the Settlement Agreement.
> 
> Don’t forget to make some time to complete an account reconciliation for us all – we do want to know what we paid for and will be asking for the associated documentation for our files as our accounts will be paid in full so no denying us this information as we have paid in full then some.
> 
> 
> *Dispute with Northmont is guaranteed over for Option 1 people*
> I have my finger crossed as this is about as good as it gets and many people have come to the same conclusion there may be wholes in your date with David Wotherspoon to reach our settlement with Northmont.
> 
> Why because it is not spelled out 100% in the Settlement Agreement or provided as part of the Settlement Minutes as none of your clients have seen these to know the entire scope and tone of the negotiations.
> 
> It still doesn’t say in our update we are free of the Resort Villa Management debt just clear of our obligation to Northmont – can you get it right and just say that if that is what it means!!!  If I still owe this debt I would be better off declaring bankruptcy now then just swirly around the outer edge of it.
> 
> 
> *Get those document in by Feb 15th *
> I liked this answer – at least it appears the exchange of our hard earned money withdrawn from RRSPs, borrowed from family members, and sums up over two years of after tax earnings for us has been done without giving Northmont the upper hand for the release of what should be an asset already paid in full Northmont needs to complete their plans to move forward.
> 
> Must admit the Settlement Agreement was quite confusing on this point and it definitely appeared it was a pay and pray sort of relationship to get our releases.
> 
> 
> *How did Michael Geldert own the negotiations at the Settlement Agreement Negotiations*
> In intense negotiations which lasted less than a day but took almost 5 years to get to he solely negotiated:
> 
> Hardship for everyone
> A paltry 120% of our current outstanding bills to sell our lease back to the developer / resort manager
> Cancellation of Petitions that now allow Northmont to move forward with realignment and unilateral changes to our VIA contracts
> Unacceptable terms
> A built in 162% penalty if we don’t comply
> What are we getting:
> 
> An extra 2 weeks to pay millions of collective dollars
> The benefits of not using a negotiator or the Courts to act on our behalf if the two parties failed to arrive at amical terms
> Knowledge that Michael Geldert has screwed the entire Canadian Timeshare Industry based on the Court legal precedents he has set and totally abused the Courts to get us here
> *
> The Settlement Agreement is yours people – Own it!!!*
> Northmont has accepted Michael Geldert as our sole representative and neither party thought it wise for even one person from the litigation group to attend the negotiations or actually approve the Settlement Agreement minutes at the time they were created and actually participate in signing them with the parties involved while at the negotiations.  Nothing like creating a potential conflict of interest and no wonder people are not lining up to sign for something they had no representation or part of and have been coerced to accept (if they actually do).
> 
> Ever wonder is this could be just one of many chinks in the armour of this eventually all falling apart?
> 
> Not that Michael has ever lied to us before but why is it even as late as last week Northmont has still allowed people to opt into the Settlement Agreement – Michael is there someone else doing your job so you don’t know this or are you just trying to scare us again into compliance?
> 
> Funny how we are bond to a Settlement Agreement completed December 14th and had the opportunity to opt out of by December 29th but only received it January 10th – still don’t believe you can consent to something before you receive it and then use extortion for people to accept it.
> 
> 
> *Failure to comply is not an option (sounds like something from Doctor Who)*
> Threats and penalties – so tired of hearing about these, time for a new line Michael.  What about telling us the next part of the strategic plan.
> 
> Strategically for Northmont to move forward with their realignment they still need to get peoples VIAs and don’t want anyone with a backbone to remain at the resort – I bet a plan is in the works to send out notices to the effect that Northmont will provide individual notice your via has been terminated for people who fought this or are just sitting on the sidelines.  Michael Gelder just gift wrapped a group of us with the negotiated Settlement Agreement and fired clients but the “delinquent” debt for everyone still exists so is it really a threat anymore not being able to get out?
> 
> 
> *Go figure – people are making mistakes*
> Guess there is a bit of complexity that should have been explained related to the Settlement Agreement and some lack of continuity in the January 10th update with all the details – no worries the billable time clock is running to answer the over 2000 calls and inquiries about this over the past couple of weeks (poor Michael probably hasn’t gotten any sleep – I didn’t trying to figure out if I would or could pay).
> 
> Kudos to the people who are making cheques out to “Resort Villa Management” not because they are making a mistake - they don't trust Michael Geldert or that his settlement includes this debt to Resort Villa Management people as being part of the settlement amount.
> 
> Others are trying to apply their own ingenuity by not signing or adding in comments to the effect they don’t agree and are doing so under duress – guess more billable time tracking down these people and trying to get them to comply (hope they unload on you and call you out for the type of person you are – you have their money and in my opinion are fare game to loss a strip or two while they still have your attention).
> 
> 
> *Hardship Clients *
> There are no acceptations, everyone is suffering hardship as a result of Michael Geldert’s actions.
> 
> What happened in the Jeke trial that caused you to remove key pieces of evidence?
> What happened in the Super Conference where Justices told you this was better suited as a Class Action?
> What happened when Justice Branch or Judge Young spelled out deficiencies and you ignored them?
> What strategic purpose prompted Michael Geldert to maximise his own business returns by feedings us lies and mixed messages for his clients maximum loss?
> So there are 128 people (about 10%) who have come forward and asked for help but I would bet the number is a lot higher.  The people who are not coming forward are probably intimidated by the forms you want them to fill out detailing their assets and debts but you have put the fear of Northmont into them over the past 4 years and do you think they want them knowing everything financially about them?
> 
> For the 128 people who have applied is Michael Geldert going to make them complicate in a fraud as he has done with all of us who don’t pay because we could not pay – we were never asked if we could pay by Michael Geldert but he signed a negotiated Settlement Agreement that we could and would pay.
> 
> 
> *Questions for you Michael Geldert:*
> People are realizing that you have totally screwed them no matter what option they took and some are actually opting back in so at least they can have finally have closure with Northmont something you continually told us all along we would not get when it was previously offered.
> *How do you justify throwing people under the bus as a result of a 7 hour negotiation after taking almost 5 years to get everyone to this point?*
> 
> People are not going to forgive and forget what you have done and a lot are just coming to the realization what you have done or failed to do but don’t worry a group of us are already working on that.  Through educating others by meeting in small groups and detailing your failures others realize quickly this was not all the big bad monster out to get us but a failure to be represented properly.
> Whatever Michael Geldert’s perception is – he has failed all his clients.
> *Given the nature of this group do you really think this is over?
> 
> 
> My Regards,
> UB*




I notice that MG made no mention of the appeal in Edmonton on March 8 and the interest judgment that we are supposed to get on May 1. Whoever stated that MG has gone from being (supposedly) our lawyer to NM's money collector is right. Way to go MG!!


----------



## truthr

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Michael Geldert
> 
> Thank you for your recent update dated February 12th received like a thief in the night while I slept.
> 
> It clarified a lot of things and I will address them based on the how they appeared in the update.
> 
> *Wow, over 2000 emails and phone calls in just a couple of weeks!!*
> You must feel very special to be in such high demand and think of the billable time you are wracking up.  I guess intentionally failing to provide proper consultation on what you have done or fail to do is profitable when you create an opportunity to correspond with people individually opposed to efficiently summarizing common questions for entire group in an update.
> 
> Oh ya – question for you, the email I sent with questions was never answered and you just sent me a BS reply about Facebook conspiracy posts, is it ‎included in the sum or was there thousands more you just chose to ignore if the questions were to difficult to answer or are you trying to hide something?
> 
> Related to this you created a distinct grouping and as such I hope you have initiated dividing billing appropriately.  Any services you are now providing to Option 2 people like all their filings, consultations, and work you are having SLG do on their behalf are no longer billable to Option 1 people as their fate is already sealed and vise versa – please ensure to send them appropriate  billing as our group is not responsible for paying for them from what we have paid already and the additional $250 fee you are charging as part of the Settlement Agreement.
> 
> Don’t forget to make some time to complete an account reconciliation for us all – we do want to know what we paid for and will be asking for the associated documentation for our files as our accounts will be paid in full so no denying us this information as we have paid in full then some.
> 
> 
> *Dispute with Northmont is guaranteed over for Option 1 people*
> I have my finger crossed as this is about as good as it gets and many people have come to the same conclusion there may be wholes in your date with David Wotherspoon to reach our settlement with Northmont.
> 
> Why because it is not spelled out 100% in the Settlement Agreement or provided as part of the Settlement Minutes as none of your clients have seen these to know the entire scope and tone of the negotiations.
> 
> It still doesn’t say in our update we are free of the Resort Villa Management debt just clear of our obligation to Northmont – can you get it right and just say that if that is what it means!!!  If I still owe this debt I would be better off declaring bankruptcy now then just swirly around the outer edge of it.
> 
> 
> *Get those document in by Feb 15th *
> I liked this answer – at least it appears the exchange of our hard earned money withdrawn from RRSPs, borrowed from family members, and sums up over two years of after tax earnings for us has been done without giving Northmont the upper hand for the release of what should be an asset already paid in full Northmont needs to complete their plans to move forward.
> 
> Must admit the Settlement Agreement was quite confusing on this point and it definitely appeared it was a pay and pray sort of relationship to get our releases.
> 
> 
> *How did Michael Geldert own the negotiations at the Settlement Agreement Negotiations*
> In intense negotiations which lasted less than a day but took almost 5 years to get to he solely negotiated:
> 
> Hardship for everyone
> A paltry 120% of our current outstanding bills to sell our lease back to the developer / resort manager
> Cancellation of Petitions that now allow Northmont to move forward with realignment and unilateral changes to our VIA contracts
> Unacceptable terms
> A built in 162% penalty if we don’t comply
> What are we getting:
> 
> An extra 2 weeks to pay millions of collective dollars
> The benefits of not using a negotiator or the Courts to act on our behalf if the two parties failed to arrive at amical terms
> Knowledge that Michael Geldert has screwed the entire Canadian Timeshare Industry based on the Court legal precedents he has set and totally abused the Courts to get us here
> *
> The Settlement Agreement is yours people – Own it!!!*
> Northmont has accepted Michael Geldert as our sole representative and neither party thought it wise for even one person from the litigation group to attend the negotiations or actually approve the Settlement Agreement minutes at the time they were created and actually participate in signing them with the parties involved while at the negotiations.  Nothing like creating a potential conflict of interest and no wonder people are not lining up to sign for something they had no representation or part of and have been coerced to accept (if they actually do).
> 
> Ever wonder is this could be just one of many chinks in the armour of this eventually all falling apart?
> 
> Not that Michael has ever lied to us before but why is it even as late as last week Northmont has still allowed people to opt into the Settlement Agreement – Michael is there someone else doing your job so you don’t know this or are you just trying to scare us again into compliance?
> 
> Funny how we are bond to a Settlement Agreement completed December 14th and had the opportunity to opt out of by December 29th but only received it January 10th – still don’t believe you can consent to something before you receive it and then use extortion for people to accept it.
> 
> 
> *Failure to comply is not an option (sounds like something from Doctor Who)*
> Threats and penalties – so tired of hearing about these, time for a new line Michael.  What about telling us the next part of the strategic plan.
> 
> Strategically for Northmont to move forward with their realignment they still need to get peoples VIAs and don’t want anyone with a backbone to remain at the resort – I bet a plan is in the works to send out notices to the effect that Northmont will provide individual notice your via has been terminated for people who fought this or are just sitting on the sidelines.  Michael Gelder just gift wrapped a group of us with the negotiated Settlement Agreement and fired clients but the “delinquent” debt for everyone still exists so is it really a threat anymore not being able to get out?
> 
> 
> *Go figure – people are making mistakes*
> Guess there is a bit of complexity that should have been explained related to the Settlement Agreement and some lack of continuity in the January 10th update with all the details – no worries the billable time clock is running to answer the over 2000 calls and inquiries about this over the past couple of weeks (poor Michael probably hasn’t gotten any sleep – I didn’t trying to figure out if I would or could pay).
> 
> Kudos to the people who are making cheques out to “Resort Villa Management” not because they are making a mistake - they don't trust Michael Geldert or that his settlement includes this debt to Resort Villa Management people as being part of the settlement amount.
> 
> Others are trying to apply their own ingenuity by not signing or adding in comments to the effect they don’t agree and are doing so under duress – guess more billable time tracking down these people and trying to get them to comply (hope they unload on you and call you out for the type of person you are – you have their money and in my opinion are fare game to loss a strip or two while they still have your attention).
> 
> 
> *Hardship Clients *
> There are no acceptations, everyone is suffering hardship as a result of Michael Geldert’s actions.
> 
> What happened in the Jeke trial that caused you to remove key pieces of evidence?
> What happened in the Super Conference where Justices told you this was better suited as a Class Action?
> What happened when Justice Branch or Judge Young spelled out deficiencies and you ignored them?
> What strategic purpose prompted Michael Geldert to maximise his own business returns by feedings us lies and mixed messages for his clients maximum loss?
> So there are 128 people (about 10%) who have come forward and asked for help but I would bet the number is a lot higher.  The people who are not coming forward are probably intimidated by the forms you want them to fill out detailing their assets and debts but you have put the fear of Northmont into them over the past 4 years and do you think they want them knowing everything financially about them?
> 
> For the 128 people who have applied is Michael Geldert going to make them complicate in a fraud as he has done with all of us who don’t pay because we could not pay – we were never asked if we could pay by Michael Geldert but he signed a negotiated Settlement Agreement that we could and would pay.
> 
> 
> *Questions for you Michael Geldert:*
> People are realizing that you have totally screwed them no matter what option they took and some are actually opting back in so at least they can have finally have closure with Northmont something you continually told us all along we would not get when it was previously offered.
> *How do you justify throwing people under the bus as a result of a 7 hour negotiation after taking almost 5 years to get everyone to this point?*
> 
> People are not going to forgive and forget what you have done and a lot are just coming to the realization what you have done or failed to do but don’t worry a group of us are already working on that.  Through educating others by meeting in small groups and detailing your failures others realize quickly this was not all the big bad monster out to get us but a failure to be represented properly.
> Whatever Michael Geldert’s perception is – he has failed all his clients.
> *Given the nature of this group do you really think this is over?
> 
> 
> My Regards,
> UB*




2,000 emails and calls - wonder how many of those are clients requesting documents/information that they are entitled to and get the run around from MG wherein he could provide it right away but goes back and forth, back and forth trying to evade and divert - wasting precious resources.


----------



## NoMas

Well we heard back from the Helena lawyer this afternoon.  He said we really have no standing to not pay, they can bring their judgement here and have it satisfied, and that of course cost will keep increasing since we won't be released from the timeshare. Will have a sit down with him in the AM, but we are still leaning not to pay.  By the way, our bank can't do Canadian certified checks, that may be a problem too if we decide that way.  

Is there a class action likelihood?  Would be on that in an instant!


----------



## ecwinch

Is this the current situation:

If you want to just put this behind you, MG is the only option that will terminate your obligations.

The other approach is to continue to ride this out and hope that a decision is reached that lessen's the interest due on the judgement. Or some other relief occurs.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

ecwinch said:


> Is this the current situation:
> 
> If you want to just put this behind you, MG is the only option that will terminate your obligations.
> 
> The other approach is to continue to ride this out and hope that a decision is reached that lessen's the interest due on the judgement. Or some other relief occurs.



Let me try to briefly summarize this very complex situation as I understand it for any casual readers.  This is just a summary of data from previous posts.

The answer is, it depends on who you are.

1. If you had MG  as a lawyer and selected option 1, you have settled and need to pay 120% of your bill by Feb 15th.  This is suppose to terminate you from your NM lease, but it is not certain if you are released from Resort Villa Management, an independent entity, as they may be able to still come after you for your current bill.
2. If you had MG and selected option 1 and don't pay by Feb 15th, MG will file a consent judgement against you for 162% of your current bill, and you will not be released from NM, meaning the charges and interest with Resort Villa Management will just keep going.
3. If you had MG and selected option 2, you probably don't have a lawyer anymore (nobody wants to touch this) and NM will not release you at this time.  You can pay the current bill plus court costs (ruled on in BC but not yet in Alberta) and continue on.  I am not sure if you will have the chance to actually defend yourselves in court on the appeal in Alberta, depends on what the judge does.  Those sued in BC now have a completed judgement against them.
4. If you did not have MG, you can join a class action that appears to be forming, but interest and fees continue.  There is hope that when this group has the chance to actually present a case in court, they can win.  Otherwise they can pay their current bill and continue on.  It is unclear if NM is currently allowing them a release.  It has been said that the last known release fee was $16K.
5. Those that payed to stay can continue to pay what is demanded until their lease is up, or for the legacy for life, forever.  The court has given NM the right to demand almost anything it wants.  It is unclear if they will be offered any release from NM.
6. Everyone else is in hiding?  Did I forget a group?

Not a good situation for anyone at the moment.  I am hopeful the class action proceeds with a good lawyer and the crazy court decisions get overturned for the thousands that are still trapped in this mess.  Maybe those in government will eventually decide to protect the average consumer and do something.  Maybe the courts will someday realize that they should rule based on known laws and common understanding of contracts, not just bad lawyer arguments and behavior.  Maybe someday criminal charges will be filed or collusion will be proven.  Some day, justice will be served.


----------



## ecwinch

NeverNeverAgain said:


> .
> 1. If you had MG  as a lawyer and selected option 1, you have settled and need to pay 120% of your bill by Feb 15th.  This is suppose to terminate you from your NM lease, but it is not certain if you are released from Resort Villa Management, an independent entity, as they may be able to still come after you for your current bill.


Understood. i.e. "_If you want to just put this behind you, MG is the only option that will terminate your obligations._"



> 2. If you had MG and selected option 1 and don't pay by Feb 15th, MG will file a consent judgement against you for 162% of your current bill, and you will not be released from NM, meaning the charges and interest with Resort Villa Management will just keep going.
> 
> 3. If you had MG and selected option 2, you probably don't have a lawyer anymore (nobody wants to touch this) and NM will not release you at this time.  You can pay the current bill plus court costs (ruled on in BC but not yet in Alberta) and continue on.  I am not sure if you will have the chance to actually defend yourselves in court on the appeal in Alberta, depends on what the judge does.  Those sued in BC now have a completed judgement against them.
> 
> Not a good situation for anyone at the moment.  I am hopeful the class action proceeds with a good lawyer and the crazy court decisions get overturned for the thousands that are still trapped in this mess.  Maybe those in government will eventually decide to protect the average consumer and do something.  Maybe the courts will someday realize that they should rule based on known laws and common understanding of contracts, not just bad lawyer arguments and behavior.  Maybe someday criminal charges will be filed or collusion will be proven.  Some day, justice will be served.



Understood. i.e. _The other approach is to continue to ride this out and hope that a decision is reached that lessen's the interest due on the judgement. Or some other relief occurs.
_
So in terms of the decision someone has to make, there are only two doors - write  a check or ride it out.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

ecwinch said:


> Understood. i.e. "_If you want to just put this behind you, MG is the only option that will terminate your obligations._"
> 
> 
> 
> Understood. i.e. _The other approach is to continue to ride this out and hope that a decision is reached that lessen's the interest due on the judgement. Or some other relief occurs._



To further clarify, for option 1 people (Groups 1 and 2), there is no option anymore.  The option 1 people have been decided and set in stone last year.  My understanding is no one can leave option 1 or join option 1.  There is no hope of any further decisions from the court, the settlement is done and no relief can occur short of criminal charges.  The courts can not decide on anything related to the settlement.

For option 2 people (Group 3), it is possible that the Alberta court can reduce the interest for those sued in Alberta, but I think unlikely due to the BC court decision.  Again, the BC court is done and judgement determined, no chance of relief for those sued in BC, short of criminal charges.  It has been posted that NM is not providing a release for this group at this time.

Only those that did not have MG as their lawyer (Groups 4 to 6) have a reasonable chance of interest reduction or preferably relief in a court decision that delivers justice.  It seems the MG group was lead to the slaughter.  Yes MG did (maybe) release a subset of his clients from their obligations if that is the point being made.  However, it was at a very high cost, a cost too high for many to deal with, and effectively lost all options but to pay or go bankrupt due to the judgements.


----------



## torqued

NoMas said:


> Well we heard back from the Helena lawyer this afternoon.  He said we really have no standing to not pay, they can bring their judgement here and have it satisfied, and that of course cost will keep increasing since we won't be released from the timeshare. Will have a sit down with him in the AM, but we are still leaning not to pay.  By the way, our bank can't do Canadian certified checks, that may be a problem too if we decide that way.
> 
> Is there a class action likelihood?  Would be on that in an instant!


Since lm in the same sinking ship you are in my question is can we even join a class action suit since the BC courts have already made a judgement against us??


----------



## Shake Down

In regards to MG clients Selecting Option 1 on the SIF (Sunchaser Information Form) issued back in Oct 27th on what MG referred to as an “Agreement” and this is noted on this form (elect 1 or 2 ) vs Signing the later December "Settlement" as I see this being more the contract.

Agreement Vs Contract _(not my words just researched)_ 

_If an agreement is, any understanding or arrangement reached between two or more parties and is typically not enforced by the law._

_A contract is a specific type of agreement that, by its terms and elements, is legally binding and enforceable in a court of law. _

_Contracts need to be executed properly in order to be legally binding, must have the element of consideration (a price or value) exchanged in the agreement. Consideration is not limited to money, and can include a right, interest, or benefit. Both parties must benefit in some form._

_The two basic elements of a valid contract are “offer” and “acceptance”. One party makes an offer (outlines what is provided), and the other party accepts the terms of the offer (usually in writing). Acceptance can take time, whereby the negotiation process takes place until an agreement is reached._

_Reasons contracts are void or voidable are due to the illegal nature of the document, being taken advantage of by another party, or being presented with false information._

* So is the Oct/SIF Agreement binding people automatically into the "MG Option 1", who had never went any further then just only electing 1 on the agreement?


----------



## tssuck

Shake Down said:


> In regards to MG clients Selecting Option 1 on the SIF (Sunchaser Information Form) issued back in Oct 27th on what MG referred to as an “Agreement” and this is noted on this form (elect 1 or 2 ) vs Signing the later December "Settlement" as I see this being more the contract.
> 
> Agreement Vs Contract _(not my words just researched)_
> 
> _If an agreement is, any understanding or arrangement reached between two or more parties and is typically not enforced by the law._
> 
> _A contract is a specific type of agreement that, by its terms and elements, is legally binding and enforceable in a court of law. _
> 
> _Contracts need to be executed properly in order to be legally binding, must have the element of consideration (a price or value) exchanged in the agreement. Consideration is not limited to money, and can include a right, interest, or benefit. Both parties must benefit in some form._
> 
> _The two basic elements of a valid contract are “offer” and “acceptance”. One party makes an offer (outlines what is provided), and the other party accepts the terms of the offer (usually in writing). Acceptance can take time, whereby the negotiation process takes place until an agreement is reached._
> 
> _Reasons contracts are void or voidable are due to the illegal nature of the document, being taken advantage of by another party, or being presented with false information._
> 
> * So is the Oct/SIF Agreement binding people automatically into the "MG Option 1", who had never went any further then just only electing 1 on the agreement?



Please correct me if I am wrong. The option 1 people signed  in good faith believing that MG was working for them. In fact, he as really working for himself and NM. As the above information indicates "both parties did not benefit in some form". MG and NM benfitted but Option 1 people did not. The last paragraph sums up what happened. In my mind, the contract for the Option 1 people is void as due to the illegal nature of the document. MG's latest information package sent on Feb 12th is a continuation of the bulllying tactics that have become MG and NM's pattern to get money from us that they are not deserving of. For all Americans, NM will have to hire lawyers, pay fees to sue you. They have to do this on an individual basis for every American involved which will take time and monies from their pockets.


----------



## Petus@18

I understand from the Merriman's that anyone who has been affected by this mess is welcome to join their Class Action lawsuit.  No matter if you are options 1 or 2 from Geldert's group, or not.  You should connect with them before you "actually sign your agreement to MG' settlement", after that you are double screwed because you would have agreed to the gag order and cannot be part of any other actions against Northmont and Geldert.  We cannot afford to pay the amount Geldert negotiated for us, so you are right, we will continue to handle this bumpy ride until we find a better solution or declare bankruptcy.  I also agree that the SIF is not a contract; Geldert opted to enter into this settlement on his own, he didn't consider if his clients had the resources to pay the extravagant amounts he agreed to pay 'on our behalf'.  We should have the right to opt out of this settlement even now.  The SIF is not legally binding, in our opinion,  we did not agree to this settlement period.  Geldert is using the threat of an automatic judgement for 162%.  How can we not appeal? Why are we accepting this as our only option? Geldert keeps manipulating us like 'puppets on a string'.  We wouldn't accept his BS  10, 20 years ago but unfortunately the older we get the easier is for others to take advantage of us!  Reality sucks!  We can't let him get away with this scam. You may not agree but we still have choices.


----------



## Spark1

Did I understand this right? Did the Merriman’s say Collin Knight only owned 25% of Fairmont Resort Properties LD? And the other 75% of the Resort was owned by the Trustee’s 3 X wife’s ? That being 25% each. Is this not a conflict-of-interest? What does Trustee mean? You can not Trust this son of a bitch for nothing . This is all Fraud.


----------



## SAV

Here is the note i included with my $43,600 payment to Geldert...


Mr. Geldert,



Attached are the agreements you have requested for us to sign.


For the record you are the worst lawyer I have ever encountered in my life.  This was the easiest case in the world to fight and win and somehow you completely mismanaged this file.


You had no strategy. You had no business accepting this file. You are a one man law firm with no credentials to take this on. Then you just got smoked by the Northmount legal team.


At the VERY LEAST you should have done is told us at the beginning in 2013 to pay the amounts into trust to stop the interest. Any lawyer with any intuition about this case could figure that out. Says to me you had no comprehension of the file. No idea of the legal system in Canada.  And were only interested in your fees. So we all loose thousands of dollars. You make millions.


I can afford to pay this but there are so many who cant or for whom this will create severe financial hardship. I feel sorry for them and for all of us for picking you to represent us.


You are a disgrace to the legal system we have in Canada.


Pathetic!!!


I hope you get all that is coming to you.


SAV


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

Spark1 said:


> Did I understand this right? Did the Merriman’s say Collin Knight only owned 25% of Fairmont Resort Properties LD? And the other 75% of the Resort was owned by the Trustee’s 3 X wife’s ? That being 25% each. Is this not a conflict-of-interest? What does Trustee mean? You can not Trust this son of a bitch for nothing. This is all Fraud.



Spark 1, of all people, you need to be told NOW it's a Fraud? Are you surprised? You do know Collin Knight sold a resort to his brother and they didn't even change the phone number for the head office in Canada, right? They then immediately told the Leasees that they'd have to raise their maintenance fees because of the poor condition of the 'PROPERTY' - it wasn't a _bleeping_ Resort either (#NAFR) - which they blamed on the previous bad management. If that sounds familiar, then yes, it's a FRAUD?


----------



## Petus@18

From FB
Thanks for posting the link for this article https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/news/proposed-rezoning-for-sunchaser-vacation-villas/

The comment made by Wankel, quote:
“The realignment of the timeshare resort is  to shrink the timeshare resort to its operational capacity and to utilize the remaining buildings in a different fashion and this opens up more flexibility into what those buildings can be used for,”

It looks to me that before they can make all these changes, they need to get rid of ALL of us!  That explains why we have been trapped in this mess.  With the help of MG, we are now being  forced to relinquish our timeshares and pay large sums of money to help Northmont with the renovations.  Yes, we have been hit hard. Really the 162% threat is deadly and it is also their way to scare everyone to pay the ransom. MG has done a great job ensuring Northmont gets what it wants/needs.  All of this makes you wonder "why did our lawyer agree to such a settlement?" It is very unethical and questionable.  I know he is convincing many of us to sign, pay and get out; "he is a great communicator when he wants something"

Again, everyone should make their own decisions and follow their instincts.  For those of us that cannot pay or have decided to rescind the settlement agreement, get ready for court.  Remember, "they need to rennovate and want to get rid of us" Could we have a better hand later? Who knows!  God help us all.
====
Would this explain why Geldert continues sending us reminders?  Is his threats of the 162% judgement legal or just another way to make us sign the settlement like he did with the SIF?  Could we not appeal this since the SIF was obtained with false pretenses and this bloody document is not a contract?

The owners are Northmont/Northwynd/Sunchaser.  They are restructuring the resort into condos and a hotel-like facility.  Northmont wants us out and they need us to relinquish our leases, so that they can resell the new resort to new buyers. 

We will continue fighting and that is our choice!


----------



## Appauled

Here is a thought, if enough people come forward to claim bankruptcy as I am sure many have been left with out an other choice given the FANTASTIC deal by our sharp negotiator and lawyer MG. Could this not force MG & NM to negotiate a better settlement or deal with the consequences of working with bankruptcy companies for several hundred timeshare owners? Is this not what is shaping up to be real outcome?


----------



## Shake Down

Spark1 said:


> Did I understand this right? Did the Merriman’s say Collin Knight only owned 25% of Fairmont Resort Properties LD? And the other 75% of the Resort was owned by the Trustee’s 3 X wife’s ? That being 25% each. Is this not a conflict-of-interest? What does Trustee mean? You can not Trust this son of a bitch for nothing . This is all Fraud.



Ya dig into FRPL Finance Collin Knight, more pieces and names start to fall into place. Here is an interesting link to check out.
http://frplfinance.blogspot.ca/2010/02/key-personnel-frpl-finance.html


----------



## Spark1

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> Spark 1, of all people, you need to be told NOW it's a Fraud? Are you surprised? You do know Collin Knight sold a resort to his brother and they didn't even change the phone number for the head office in Canada, right? They then immediately told the Leasees that they'd have to raise their maintenance fees because of the poor condition of the 'PROPERTY' - it wasn't a _bleeping_ Resort either (#NAFR) - which they blamed on the previous bad management. If that sounds familiar, then yes, it's a FRAUD?


I feel you are talking about the Rancho Bandaras Resort in Punta Mita area Mexico. Am I right? I was staying at the Villa del Palmar Flamingos that year and we were in the hot tub and there was some lady’s that were from that resort and they were very upset about the high increases in maintenance fees. At that time I never new any thing about these White Collar Crooks. I can not remember what year that was. The brothers name I believe was Bryon.


----------



## Timesharepain

Stung said:


> This is great news!  Ok everyone, if you haven't yet sent a complaint about your injustice to the Competition Bureau NOW is the time to do it.
> 
> http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/frm-eng/GHÉT-7TDNA5
> 
> There is strength in numbers!  The more of us that send our story the more it will send up red flags.  Even if you send a short note, it will be added to the total number of complaints.
> 
> Also, do send a message to our leader at justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca!  Include our deadline of Feb. 15 in your response to those that  read it to make them aware of the urgency for action!  With enough responses, we will get noticed!
> 
> To be silent and do nothing but pay is exactly what MG & KW want which is just not right!


So is complaint regarding Gelbert or Northmont??  Not good at figuring all this out!!


----------



## dotbuhler

Timesharepain said:


> So is complaint regarding Gelbert or Northmont??  Not good at figuring all this out!!


Competition Bureau is for NM, you need B.C. Law Society to pass on info about Geldert.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

So the time to have put your payment in the mail is pretty much at an end and I for one don’t feel real secure knowing we mailed our hard earned money to what I assume is Michael’s apartment where he must live with his wife Patricia.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/93...4d9881ef5689b!8m2!3d49.2790699!4d-123.1208517

I can bet the concierge at the building has been told to expect to receive our individual package along with the other 1284 registered Canada Post packages coming and will do their best to look after a building tenants needs.

I can only expect since the concierge doesn’t work for Michael that these packages will probably be just left sitting around as the concierge runs around doing their expected concierge stuff for everyone else who resides in the building.  Just think all these packages are of no importance to them and with so many showing up all at once will become a real nuisance as this is not a business place where things could actually be handled professionally.

Wonder if the concierge or janitor are bonded?

Too bad we were specifically directed on how to pay – if Canada still had pennies it might have been fun to dig up and send 3,500,000 pennies delivered with a dump truck that can handle the 35,000lbs or 70,000 rolls it would take.

Alternately since pennies are now out of favour in Canada I could have made Michael’s life interesting by using an alternate denomination:
Denomination | Coins Required | # of Pounds | # of rolls
Nickels      |  700,000 Coins  |     6096lbs   | 17500 Rolls
Dimes      |   350000 Coins |     1350lbs   |  7000 Rolls
Quarters    |  140000 Coins  |    1358lbs    |  3500 Rolls
Loonies      |   35000 Coins  |     484lbs    |  1400 Rolls
Toonies      |    17500 Coins  |      267lbs    |   175 Rolls

Moving beyond the payment stage maybe we should look at hiring this guy as our investigator because maybe he can help to track down the real rodent in this mess.


----------



## Spark1

Include Andrew Scheer with all your email to the governments. You can go back on your emails and send to Andrew.     andrewscheer@parl.gov.ca.       We need him to get after Trudeau to do something.


----------



## Spark1

Correction    andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

Spark1 said:


> I feel you are talking about the Rancho Bandaras Resort in Punta Mita area Mexico. Am I right? I was staying at the Villa del Palmar Flamingos that year and we were in the hot tub and there was some lady’s that were from that resort and they were very upset about the high increases in maintenance fees. At that time I never new any thing about these White Collar Crooks. I can not remember what year that was. The brothers name I believe was Bryon.



That I am my friend, that I am.

But it could be any one of the many properties they've failed at managing as a vacation resort. For example, the colossal failure Rafter Six Ranch. It's colossal because it was a quaint dude ranch that hosted the royalty of entertainment for decades. It was the poster child for the Western Canadian pioneering spirit. It prospered humbly for three decades. Always family owned and operated. But what happens? Wearing white hats and riding white horses along comes Collin Knight and Douglas Morcom. They are singing that city slicker song that goes like this, _"Why shucks, there's hardly no tellin' what this here place 'il do when we bring our expert marketing and sales team to this here rodeo. Why yo'all 'ill have to start-up the Pony Express to get all yer money to the bank." _ And with illusions of bountiful prosperity, they convince the Crowleys, the couple that owned Rafter Six, to become world-class because, that's what Collin Knight and Douglas Morcom do, they convince people to spend their own money, they sell.

Knight and Morcom both started their skullduggery in 1980 in sales at Fairmont. They are world-class at convincing; but, they are NOT  world-class at operating.

Fairmont Canada financed by FRPL Finance, I know you've heard of them before, partner with Rafter Six to create a world-class resort.

And guess what happens? Anyone? It's easy. You've seen this before. That's right, little did Rafter Six know that back in town at the saloon sat the rest of the Knight Gang, the FRPL Finance Boys. Well, one boy anyway and three girls. Actually, the three girls weren't there either cause you wouldn't find them in a saloon. They never get too close to the dirty work. They don't really do any work at all. They're there just to throw 'em dam _'Revenoors'_ off the scent. They even use their maiden names to confuse the Sheriff.

The boys in the saloon they're wearing black hats and have black horses hitched up outside. On cue, they mount those black horses and FRPL Finance rides into Rafter Six and forces Fairmont Canada into receivership, just like they forced Fairmont Vacation Villas into bankruptcy protection. This, of course, forces Rafter Six and the poor Crowley's into foreclosure. You know why? The Contract. The Crowleys, in reading their contract with Fairmont Canada realize they committed the land and buildings to the deal, never having even entertained the idea that it could go this far south.

And we Sunchaser people think we got screwed.

The Sheriff, he doesn't know what to do. He thinks its all just too bad. A _'dag gone shame.'_ he's overheard to have said at the barbershop. But the Sheriff, he didn't know about Rancho Banderas, Makaha, Costa Maya, Portofino, Oasis Resort, Lake Okanagan, 26-Houseboats and a caravan of RVs. He certainly didn't know about such things as Series A, B, 1 and 2 Mortgage Bonds.

There you have it. All over again. Same story. Mostly the same characters. Different Sheriff naturally. And why did Rancho Banderas, Makaha, Costa Maya, Fairmont Vacation Villas, etc. all end up distressed and sold? It's certainly not because they weren't viable. Its because _'There's gold in them thar contracts"_. You just have to know how to write 'em, how to use 'em and, be willing to foreclose on widows and evict orphans.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

One would think you'd only have to say, Your Honour, "I submit into evidence: Rancho Banderas, Makaha, Costa Maya, Portofino, Oasis Resort, Lake Okanagan, Banff Rocky Mountain Resort, 26-Houseboats, a caravan of RVs & motorcycles, Fairmont Vacation Villas, Fairmont Platinum Vacation Club, FRPL REIT, Northwynd REIT. All bankrupt. Tens if not Hundreds of millions of investor dollars lost. Yet these people prosper. Your Honour the prosecution rests."


----------



## truthr

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> That I am my friend, that I am.
> 
> But it could be any one of the many properties they've failed at managing as a vacation resort. For example, the colossal failure Rafter Six Ranch. It's colossal because it was a quaint dude ranch that hosted the royalty of entertainment for decades. It was the poster child for the Western Canadian pioneering spirit. It prospered humbly for three decades. Always family owned and operated. But what happens? Wearing white hats and riding white horses along comes Collin Knight and Douglas Morcom. They are singing that city slicker song that goes like this, _"Why shucks, there's hardly no tellin' what this here place 'il do when we bring our expert marketing and sales team to this here rodeo. Why yo'all 'ill have to start-up the Pony Express to get all yer money to the bank." _ And with illusions of bountiful prosperity, they convince the Crowleys, the couple that owned Rafter Six, to become world-class because, that's what Collin Knight and Douglas Morcom do, they convince people to spend their own money, they sell.
> 
> Knight and Morcom both started their skullduggery in 1980 in sales at Fairmont. They are world-class at convincing; but, they are NOT  world-class at operating.
> 
> Fairmont Canada financed by FRPL Finance, I know you've heard of them before, partner with Rafter Six to create a world-class resort.
> 
> And guess what happens? Anyone? It's easy. You've seen this before. That's right, little did Rafter Six know that back in town at the saloon sat the rest of the Knight Gang, the FRPL Finance Boys. Well, one boy anyway and three girls. Actually, the three girls weren't there either cause you wouldn't find them in a saloon. They never get too close to the dirty work. They don't really do any work at all. They're there just to throw 'em dam _'Revenoors'_ off the scent. They even use their maiden names to confuse the Sheriff.
> 
> The boys in the saloon they're wearing black hats and have black horses hitched up outside. On cue, they mount those black horses and FRPL Finance rides into Rafter Six and forces Fairmont Canada into receivership, just like they forced Fairmont Vacation Villas into bankruptcy protection. This, of course, forces Rafter Six and the poor Crowley's into foreclosure. You know why? The Contract. The Crowleys, in reading their contract with Fairmont Canada realize they committed the land and buildings to the deal, never having even entertained the idea that it could go this far south.
> 
> And we Sunchaser people think we got screwed.
> 
> The Sheriff, he doesn't know what to do. He thinks its all just too bad. A _'dag gone shame.'_ he's overheard to have said at the barbershop. But the Sheriff, he didn't know about Rancho Banderas, Makaha, Costa Maya, Portofino, Oasis Resort, Lake Okanagan, 26-Houseboats and a caravan of RVs. He certainly didn't know about such things as Series A, B, 1 and 2 Mortgage Bonds.
> 
> There you have it. All over again. Same story. Mostly the same characters. Different Sheriff naturally. And why did Rancho Banderas, Makaha, Costa Maya, Fairmont Vacation Villas, etc. all end up distressed and sold? It's certainly not because they weren't viable. Its because _'There's gold in them thar contracts"_. You just have to know how to write 'em, how to use 'em and, be willing to foreclose on widows and evict orphans.


So they sharpened their skills on all the other properties not thinking for one minute that there would finally be a group that would fight back and expose what is behind the curtain.


----------



## Huckleberry

truthr said:


> So they sharpened their skills on all the other properties not thinking for one minute that there would finally be a group that would fight back and expose what is behind the curtain.



Fight back, yes.  Exposed them... not yet.


----------



## MgolferL

Huckleberry said:


> Fight back, yes.  Exposed them... not yet.


But we will... and with any luck the next judge might be known as Judge Roy Bean... and as I have said before... these types don't do well in jail...


----------



## GypsyOne

Just a heads up that may or may not be relevant.  I bought out in May 2017 and so far as I know a clean legal release from any liability.  But I'm now getting phone calls from what is probably a scavenger hoping to horn in on the action.  The call says that this is a serious time sensitive legal matter and that I have to return the call immediately to stop any further legal action against me.  I don't return the calls because I don't want to open up communication with crooks, but if I did, I expect the message would be that they can stop any further action against me by sending them a sum of money.  This wouldn't be Northmont, but possibly scavengers who have somehow got names of those who bought out.  And of course it may not be tied to Northmont at all.  But, a warning, and I'm wondering if anyone else has received similar calls.


----------



## melamike

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> So the time to have put your payment in the mail is pretty much at an end and I for one don’t feel real secure knowing we mailed our hard earned money to what I assume is Michael’s apartment where he must live with his wife Patricia.
> 
> https://www.google.ca/maps/place/93...4d9881ef5689b!8m2!3d49.2790699!4d-123.1208517
> 
> I can bet the concierge at the building has been told to expect to receive our individual package along with the other 1284 registered Canada Post packages coming and will do their best to look after a building tenants needs.
> 
> I can only expect since the concierge doesn’t work for Michael that these packages will probably be just left sitting around as the concierge runs around doing their expected concierge stuff for everyone else who resides in the building.  Just think all these packages are of no importance to them and with so many showing up all at once will become a real nuisance as this is not a business place where things could actually be handled professionally.
> 
> Wonder if the concierge or janitor are bonded?
> 
> Too bad we were specifically directed on how to pay – if Canada still had pennies it might have been fun to dig up and send 3,500,000 pennies delivered with a dump truck that can handle the 35,000lbs or 70,000 rolls it would take.
> 
> Alternately since pennies are now out of favour in Canada I could have made Michael’s life interesting by using an alternate denomination:
> Denomination | Coins Required | # of Pounds | # of rolls
> Nickels      |  700,000 Coins  |     6096lbs   | 17500 Rolls
> Dimes      |   350000 Coins |     1350lbs   |  7000 Rolls
> Quarters    |  140000 Coins  |    1358lbs    |  3500 Rolls
> Loonies      |   35000 Coins  |     484lbs    |  1400 Rolls
> Toonies      |    17500 Coins  |      267lbs    |   175 Rolls
> 
> Moving beyond the payment stage maybe we should look at hiring this guy as our investigator not based on his violent side but because he has a particular set of skills and experience that might help us track down our money down the road even when it gets moved off-shore.


----------



## melamike

I like your creativity and also share some of your concerns even though they were presented 'cheek in mouth' the underlying fear is real. I think the release statement is not very clear and I'm not sure if Northwyn or Sunchaser management could come after us in the future - just not Northmont? The other thing that really concerns me is MG makes his own ''rules''. I mistakenly send the wrong document with my payment and so I emailed him and said I would send the right one. He wants it by tomorrow - not going to happen no matter what I do. I brought to his attention that Clause 9 in the agreement that say the document can be executed by email. In fact in can be executed by email by everyone on separate forms and in different places and when all the forms are together then it's collectively one document. At least that's how I read it. He insists he must have the form with original signatures. So here's my concern - if that clause is not holding up and executable then are there others that are not worth the paper they are written on? Just thinkin....


----------



## melamike

melamike said:


> I like your creativity and also share some of your concerns even though they were presented 'cheek in mouth' the underlying fear is real. I think the release statement is not very clear and I'm not sure if Northwyn or Sunchaser management could come after us in the future - just not Northmont? The other thing that really concerns me is MG makes his own ''rules''. I mistakenly send the wrong document with my payment and so I emailed him and said I would send the right one. He wants it by tomorrow - not going to happen no matter what I do. I brought to his attention that Clause 9 in the agreement that say the document can be executed by email. In fact in can be executed by email by everyone on separate forms and in different places and when all the forms are together then it's collectively one document. At least that's how I read it. He insists he must have the form with original signatures. So here's my concern - if that clause is not holding up and executable then are there others that are not worth the paper they are written on? Just thinkin....



Meant to say ''tongue in cheek'' - it's been a long day!!!


----------



## Stung

Anyone that has been held ransom for the Northmont TS payment looked into this site?  www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/informant-leads-program.html.  It happens to be a whistle blower program set up by the CRA for those wanting to report others that evade taxes - and you can remain anonymous.  I would encourage all of us to send a small 'whistle' on the two that most need it.  A nice little audit of the financial doings...


----------



## dotbuhler

Stung said:


> Anyone that has been held ransom for the Northmont TS payment looked into this site?  www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/informant-leads-program.html.  It happens to be a whistle blower program set up by the CRA for those wanting to report others that evade taxes - and you can remain anonymous.  I would encourage all of us to send a small 'whistle' on the two that most need it.  A nice little audit of the financial doings...


CRA conducted major raids Feb. 14, 2018 on those named in PANAMA PAPERS!!! Trending news story, guys. Looks like if I wasn't hit yesterday, and my name was in the Panama Papers, I would be in a cold sweat right now. CALGARY and Greater Toronto Area were targets!


----------



## torqued

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> That I am my friend, that I am.
> 
> But it could be any one of the many properties they've failed at managing as a vacation resort. For example, the colossal failure Rafter Six Ranch. It's colossal because it was a quaint dude ranch that hosted the royalty of entertainment for decades. It was the poster child for the Western Canadian pioneering spirit. It prospered humbly for three decades. Always family owned and operated. But what happens? Wearing white hats and riding white horses along comes Collin Knight and Douglas Morcom. They are singing that city slicker song that goes like this, _"Why shucks, there's hardly no tellin' what this here place 'il do when we bring our expert marketing and sales team to this here rodeo. Why yo'all 'ill have to start-up the Pony Express to get all yer money to the bank." _ And with illusions of bountiful prosperity, they convince the Crowleys, the couple that owned Rafter Six, to become world-class because, that's what Collin Knight and Douglas Morcom do, they convince people to spend their own money, they sell.
> 
> Knight and Morcom both started their skullduggery in 1980 in sales at Fairmont. They are world-class at convincing; but, they are NOT  world-class at operating.
> 
> Fairmont Canada financed by FRPL Finance, I know you've heard of them before, partner with Rafter Six to create a world-class resort.
> 
> And guess what happens? Anyone? It's easy. You've seen this before. That's right, little did Rafter Six know that back in town at the saloon sat the rest of the Knight Gang, the FRPL Finance Boys. Well, one boy anyway and three girls. Actually, the three girls weren't there either cause you wouldn't find them in a saloon. They never get too close to the dirty work. They don't really do any work at all. They're there just to throw 'em dam _'Revenoors'_ off the scent. They even use their maiden names to confuse the Sheriff.
> 
> The boys in the saloon they're wearing black hats and have black horses hitched up outside. On cue, they mount those black horses and FRPL Finance rides into Rafter Six and forces Fairmont Canada into receivership, just like they forced Fairmont Vacation Villas into bankruptcy protection. This, of course, forces Rafter Six and the poor Crowley's into foreclosure. You know why? The Contract. The Crowleys, in reading their contract with Fairmont Canada realize they committed the land and buildings to the deal, never having even entertained the idea that it could go this far south.
> 
> And we Sunchaser people think we got screwed.
> 
> The Sheriff, he doesn't know what to do. He thinks its all just too bad. A _'dag gone shame.'_ he's overheard to have said at the barbershop. But the Sheriff, he didn't know about Rancho Banderas, Makaha, Costa Maya, Portofino, Oasis Resort, Lake Okanagan, 26-Houseboats and a caravan of RVs. He certainly didn't know about such things as Series A, B, 1 and 2 Mortgage Bonds.
> 
> There you have it. All over again. Same story. Mostly the same characters. Different Sheriff naturally. And why did Rancho Banderas, Makaha, Costa Maya, Fairmont Vacation Villas, etc. all end up distressed and sold? It's certainly not because they weren't viable. Its because _'There's gold in them thar contracts"_. You just have to know how to write 'em, how to use 'em and, be willing to foreclose on widows and evict orphans.


Can you help me put together a letter to USAFederal law enforcement regarding investigating this as a fraud money laundering scheme. You seem to have a very good understanding of their methods of extorting money from unsuspecting innocent people.


----------



## Spark1

Was Michael Geldert the bill collector for Northmont asking personal questions eg.,how much money do you have in the bank,do you own a house,do you have a mortgage, do you own land, RRSP, Tax free saving accounts etc. I thought I read a post stating that was one of the pages you had to fill out if you picked item#1. Michael Geldert should be ashamed of himself having all of us believe that he had Northmont at the table and they will have to pay this $25.4 million and this would bankrupted them. How can you look in the mirror after you were part of taking $millions off of clients that trusted him? This is so corrupt and I have never experienced any thing like this in over 70 years.


----------



## Appauled

GypsyOne said:


> Just a heads up that may or may not be relevant.  I bought out in May 2017 and so far as I know a clean legal release from any liability.  But I'm now getting phone calls from what is probably a scavenger hoping to horn in on the action.  The call says that this is a serious time sensitive legal matter and that I have to return the call immediately to stop any further legal action against me.  I don't return the calls because I don't want to open up communication with crooks, but if I did, I expect the message would be that they can stop any further action against me by sending them a sum of money.  This wouldn't be Northmont, but possibly scavengers who have somehow got names of those who bought out.  And of course it may not be tied to Northmont at all.  But, a warning, and I'm wondering if anyone else has received similar calls.



IGNORE THIS CALL. That has nothing to do with this timeshare fiasco.
It sounds like the CRA Scam thats  been going on for a few years. If you call back, they tell you CRA is owed money and if you don't pay the will commence legal action against you. Don't return the call and Ignore it.


----------



## Shake Down

torqued said:


> Can you help me put together a letter to USAFederal law enforcement regarding investigating this as a fraud money laundering scheme. You seem to have a very good understanding of their methods of extorting money from unsuspecting innocent people.



Its a long shot, anyone know if the corporate structure of companies they own are in some way connected to US security regulations/publicly traded even if they were Canadian and cross listed to US markets? 
The (SOX) act or Sarbanes-Oxley Act may be something to look into. US Congress passed this act back in 2002 The (SOX ACT) is designed to protect investors from the possibility of fraudulent accounting activities by corporations. The SOX Act mandated strict reforms to improve financial disclosures from corporations and prevent accounting fraud.
Section 802 of the Act contains the three rules that affect record keeping. The first deals with destruction and falsification of records. The second strictly defines the retention period for storing records. The third rule outlines the specific types of business records that need to be stored, which includes electronic communications. This new Act had a lot to do with the ENRON and WorldCom scandals.


----------



## torqued

So was Collin knight the original builder/developer of Fairmont?


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

dotbuhler said:


> CRA conducted major raids Feb. 14, 2018 on those named in PANAMA PAPERS!!! Trending news story, guys. Looks like if I wasn't hit yesterday, and my name was in the Panama Papers, I would be in a cold sweat right now. CALGARY and Greater Toronto Area were targets!


So there are quite a few articles this morning about the Panama Papers but unfortunately this specific Sunchaser company no longer files taxes so basically no longer exists.  

Companies like this are essentially shell companies and as we know assets and money moves from one to another sometimes with and sometimes without the all the assets.

The unfortunate part is gets difficult to track assets when changes occur through shells, geographical locations, and time so this probably will not help us unless someone can show how everything is linked together.

News Article
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...s-raids-in-the-gta-calgary-and-vancouver.html


Panama Paper Information – searchable website
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/101722595

Sunchaser Resort Inc.
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=6181147

Sunchaser Vacation Club Inc.
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/Cor...1518710474804&crpNm=sunchaser&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=


----------



## LilMaggie

http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/search-the-panama-papers-database-1.3573994
This is possibly where your money is going kids.  Plug some names into the search.
Check the connections to Resorts West Management Group LTD and find some very familiar names and multiple intermediaries.  To be clear.  This is all legal...until it isn't.


----------



## Spark1

LilMaggie said:


> http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/search-the-panama-papers-database-1.3573994
> This is possibly where your money is going kids.  Plug some names into the search.
> Check the connections to Resorts West Management Group LTD and find some very familiar names and multiple intermediaries.  To be clear.  This is all legal...until it isn't.


Go to page 96 and you will be able to see where time owners money is.


----------



## tssuck

Can anyone direct


Petus@18 said:


> I understand from the Merriman's that anyone who has been affected by this mess is welcome to join their Class Action lawsuit.  No matter if you are options 1 or 2 from Geldert's group, or not.  You should connect with them before you "actually sign your agreement to MG' settlement", after that you are double screwed because you would have agreed to the gag order and cannot be part of any other actions against Northmont and Geldert.  We cannot afford to pay the amount Geldert negotiated for us, so you are right, we will continue to handle this bumpy ride until we find a better solution or declare bankruptcy.  I also agree that the SIF is not a contract; Geldert opted to enter into this settlement on his own, he didn't consider if his clients had the resources to pay the extravagant amounts he agreed to pay 'on our behalf'.  We should have the right to opt out of this settlement even now.  The SIF is not legally binding, in our opinion,  we did not agree to this settlement period.  Geldert is using the threat of an automatic judgement for 162%.  How can we not appeal? Why are we accepting this as our only option? Geldert keeps manipulating us like 'puppets on a string'.  We wouldn't accept his BS  10, 20 years ago but unfortunately the older we get the easier is for others to take advantage of us!  Reality sucks!  We can't let him get away with this scam. You may not agree but we still have choices.



Can anyone direct me to a site for the Merriman Class Action lawsuit so I may look at joining in their action.  Thank you


----------



## LilMaggie

tssuck said:


> Can anyone direct
> 
> 
> Can anyone direct me to a site for the Merriman Class Action lawsuit so I may look at joining in their action.  Thank you


The FB post stated that the Merrimans will be retuning home on Feb 18.  You will likely be able to get more info at that time.


----------



## LilMaggie

dotbuhler said:


> CRA conducted major raids Feb. 14, 2018 on those named in PANAMA PAPERS!!! Trending news story, guys. Looks like if I wasn't hit yesterday, and my name was in the Panama Papers, I would be in a cold sweat right now. CALGARY and Greater Toronto Area were targets!


----------



## MarcieL

D day for option 1 people.  The last thing I ever thought would happen in my 70's, being extorted of 36000.00.  A life changer.


----------



## Frau Blucher

On Feb 28, Kirk Wankel receives settlement funds from Michael Geldert.

Some people might consider this a defamation of character, so ...
I apologize to Jerry Maquire


----------



## Petus@18

If you signed the settlement agreement for fear to what can happen next, may I ask you, did you fully understand what the consent order is all about?  I still don't?

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
1. Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. does hereby and shall have judgment against the
Defendant(s) and Plaintiff(s) by Counterclaim jointly and
severally] in the amount of$ ______ _
2. This Consent Judgment in no way derogates from the rights and remedies of Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. under the Vacation Interval Agreement(s) executed between ------ and , (the "Vacation Interval Agreement(s)") and Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. is not in any way precluded at a later date from pursuing remedy to enforce its contractual rights under the Vacation Interval Agreement(s).
3. Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. does hereby and shall have judgment against the
Defendant(s) and Plaintiff(s) by Counterclaim _____ Jointly and severally] for
interest from November 30, 2017 to the date of Judgment and post-judgment interest from the date of Judgment, on the above amounts at the rate permitted pursuant to each Vacation Interval Agreement.
4. This Order may be signed by electronic means and in counterpart.

To me this means you have to give your consent for Northmont to enter a judgement against you? I thought the judgement was automatic after default payment? Why they need your consent?  Did I misunderstand why this order was attached? What about our rights to protect ourselves if Northmont does not provide us with a signed release? Was it another form attached to protect our interests?  I hope you wrote on the form the day you signed and added 'signed under duress.  Why 'our lawyer' is aggressively protecting Northmont's interests and not ours?  We were just 'an account #'.  I wonder how many hours he will ended charging us?

I doubt he will reimburse any money from our retainers. We will have to wait for his final invoice and if it doesn't make sense, perhaps we should share it with the Law Society of BC.

What about rates permitted under each of our agreements? Could this confirm that MG and Northmont have always known that each agreement is not a mirror image of the Jeke's contract?  And the Hardship form is insane!  A few desperate people may have completed this form, but is this legal?  Did anyone check on this?  I really don't know who is worst Geldert or Wankel?  BFF's?

Also noted are the documents Geldert sent RE Northmont's WRITTEN REPLY OF THE APPLICANT and INTEREST AND COSTS SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT; they do not have the Court's seal stamped.  He should have provided us with true filed copies.


----------



## Petus@18

Frau Blucher said:


> View attachment 5722 On Feb 28, Kirk Wankel receives settlement funds from Michael Geldert.
> 
> Some people might consider this a defamation of character, so ...
> I apologize to Jerry Maquire



LOL, you should post this funny picture in Facebook.   The perfect dartboard image ever!!!
  Do you have one of Geldert??


----------



## CleoB

Petus@18 said:


> If you signed the settlement agreement for fear to what can happen next, may I ask you, did you fully understand what the consent order is all about?  I still don't?
> 
> IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
> 1. Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. does hereby and shall have judgment against the
> Defendant(s) and Plaintiff(s) by Counterclaim jointly and
> severally] in the amount of$ ______ _
> 2. This Consent Judgment in no way derogates from the rights and remedies of Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. under the Vacation Interval Agreement(s) executed between ------ and , (the "Vacation Interval Agreement(s)") and Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. is not in any way precluded at a later date from pursuing remedy to enforce its contractual rights under the Vacation Interval Agreement(s).
> 3. Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. does hereby and shall have judgment against the
> Defendant(s) and Plaintiff(s) by Counterclaim _____ Jointly and severally] for
> interest from November 30, 2017 to the date of Judgment and post-judgment interest from the date of Judgment, on the above amounts at the rate permitted pursuant to each Vacation Interval Agreement.
> 4. This Order may be signed by electronic means and in counterpart.
> 
> To me this means you have to give your consent for Northmont to enter a judgement against you? I thought the judgement was automatic after default payment? Why they need your consent?  Did I misunderstand why this order was attached? What about our rights to protect ourselves if Northmont does not provide us with a signed release? Was it another form attached to protect our interests?  I hope you wrote on the form the day you signed.
> 
> What about rates permitted under each of our agreements? Could this confirm that MG and Northmont have always known that each agreement is not a mirror image of the Jeke's contract?  And the Hardship form is insane!  A few desperate people may have completed this form, but is this legal?  Did anyone check on this?  I really don't know who is worst Geldert or Wankel?  BFF's?


without prejudice    Isn't it so comforting to know that your lawyer explained all of this to his clients.  Excuse me......but I have to go puke.   without prejudice.


----------



## Petus@18

MarcieL said:


> D day for option 1 people.  The last thing I ever thought would happen in my 70's, being extorted of 36000.00.  A life changer.



It doesn't make sense, I hope you sent your complaint to the Law Society of BC


----------



## MarcieL

Petus@18 said:


> It doesn't make sense, I hope you sent your complaint to the Law Society of BC


I certainly did early January.


----------



## Petus@18

CleoB said:


> without prejudice    Isn't it so comforting to know that your lawyer explained all of this to his clients.  Excuse me......but I have to go puke.   without prejudice.



Why did we hire this incompetent and dubious lawyer.  Everything feels so wrong!    I feel like puking too


----------



## Shake Down

Petus@18 said:


> I hope you wrote on the form the day you signed and added 'signed under duress.



For anyone that did this, MG contacted people back and said "This indicates you have not provided your informed consent to sign. without a properly executed Release Agreement Northmont will not accept your settle agreement. Please ensure we have a Release agreement on or before February 15, 2018  
So if you held off to the last minute to pay, I guess your now kicked off the Geldert Island!


----------



## NoMas

We ended up sending our money in, option 1, and not writing anything special on it.  It was definitely signed under EXTREME duress. I'm sure when the time comes to help out on a true class action or action against MG for incompetence, "collusion" or whatever he has been up to, that it will be pretty easy to show the 'contract' was signed under extreme duress and is thus null and void.


----------



## So sick of this mess

Shake Down said:


> For anyone that did this, MG contacted people back and said "This indicates you have not provided your informed consent to sign. without a properly executed Release Agreement Northmont will not accept your settle agreement. Please ensure we have a Release agreement on or before February 15, 2018
> So if you held off to the last minute to pay, I guess your now kicked off the Geldert Island!


Yes, I am now in this "boat". Problem in, MG has my money too....


----------



## CleoB

Petus@18 said:


> Why did we hire this incompetent and dubious lawyer.  Everything feels so wrong!    I feel like puking too


Well now I am hearing after the fact how Geldert came to be our lawyer and it is not what I expected.  I thought he was continuing on with the class action against Northmount and then find out that he had screwed us all in the super conference.  I didn't find that out until a few months ago.  I've asked for documents from him but of course he has never replied after 3 requests.


----------



## LilMaggie

I used to work in a profession where we all had each other's back, unless someone did something unethical or negligent...then we would toss you under the bus faster than you could say Mike G.  Perhaps there is a lawyer out there somewhere that still takes pride in his/her profession that would like to hold a (possibly and without prejudice) negligent lawyer to account.  From the very beginning, many of us took the advice we were given and ended up here.  Who wants to see someone held to account for this fiasco?!


----------



## MarcieL

CleoB said:


> Well now I am hearing after the fact how Geldert came to be our lawyer and it is not what I expected.  I thought he was continuing on with the class action against Northmount and then find out that he had screwed us all in the super conference.  I didn't find that out until a few months ago.  I've asked for documents from him but of course he has never replied after 3 requests.



We were never informed of so much, like mushrooms fed sh-t and kept in the dark, amid all the positive updates.  I believe T.R. has the transcripts of the super conference.


----------



## truthr

MarcieL said:


> We were never informed of so much, like mushrooms fed sh-t and kept in the dark, amid all the positive updates.  I believe T.R. has the transcripts of the super conference.


Everyone who was a Geldert client receiving updates has the transcripts of the SuperConference, although they are not obvious they are there.


----------



## Appauled

Just wondering if anyone knows an answer to this, if you are unable to pay under option 1 as of yesterday and have no assets or savings, your only recourse is bankruptcy? Or is there any other option, such as, now that the deadline has past, will Northwynd Sunchaser talk to you or do you have to talk to Sauvignon Law firm or do you just have to suck it up and claim bankruptcy?


----------



## wagga2650

Appauled said:


> Just wondering if anyone knows an answer to this, if you are unable to pay under option 1 as of yesterday and have no assets or savings, your only recourse is bankruptcy? Or is there any other option, such as, now that the deadline has past, will Northwynd Sunchaser talk to you or do you have to talk to Sauvignon Law firm or do you just have to suck it up and claim bankruptcy?


I wouldn't do anything just yet.Wait for judge young and see if there is a class action.


----------



## torqued

NoMas said:


> We ended up sending our money it, option 1, and not writing anything special on it.  It was definitely signed under EXTREME duress. I'm sure when the time comes to help out on a true class action or action against MG for incompetence, "collusion" or whatever he has been up to, that it will be pretty easy to show the 'contract' was signed under extreme duress and is thus null and void.


Sorry it came to that for you. Hope there’s some sense of an “end” for you and your family. Hope the light shines in this darkness soon.


----------



## Appauled

Did anyone get the letter below the other day?


*STRATHCONA*

LAW GROUP LLP

_Providing Direction_

132 Heritage Court

150 Chippewa Road

Sherwood Park, AS T8A 6A2

(780) 417-9222

(780) 449-1222

Vincent Tong. Barrister and Solicitor

Extension 218

14 February 2018



*Re: Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. timeshare litigation*

You are receiving this letter because you have recently contacted our office with questions regarding your involvement in the captioned matter. Please appreciate that these inquires have been quite numerous and it has not been possible to respond to your individual inquiries up to this point.

Attached to this letter is a copy of our 18 January 2018 letter which we understood was distributed by Geldert Law to you already. That letter should have answered most of your questions.

We reiterate that we were retained by Geldert Law to act as agent in the court applications commenced by Northmont in both Alberta and in BC. If you retained Geldert Law and an action was commenced against you in Alberta, we filed a Dispute Note on your behalf. If you would like a copy of the same, Mr. Geldert has indicated that one should have been sent to you previously, but you can contact him if you have further questions.

In our argument before Assistant Chief Judge Young, we argued that Amended Dispute Notes would need to be filed. As part of her judgment, Judge Young ordered that we must file the Amended Dispute Notes for those actions where one had not yet been filed. We are still awaiting the return of filed copies of the Amended Dispute Notes. Once they have been received, they will also be sent to Geldert Law, and then passed on to you, on request to Geldert Law directly.

All of that said, please note that the Dispute Notes and the Amended Dispute Notes were all template documents. The only differences between the individual documents filed were the names of the defendants and the applicable action numbers.

Some of you have also inquired about the appeal of Judge Young's judgment. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 8 November 2017. However, for several reasons, our firm will not argue the appeal. Primarily, most of parties for whom Geldert Law acts have settled with Northmont.

Secondly, it will be difficult for our firm to argue the appeal given the findings made by Judge Young. Specifically, as Judge Young found that the continued defense of the claims amounted to abuse of the court process, it will be extremely difficult for our firm to argue the appeal without Northmont advancing the argument that the appeal is a further abuse of process.

We have taken the necessary steps to preserve the appeal by filing the appeal as well as the transcripts of the hearings before Judge Young. The next step is to speak to the appeal list from the Court of Queen's Bench, which will occur at 10:00am on 8 March 2018 at the Edmonton Law Courts. We will be attending that further hearing, but do not expect to be involved thereafter. In the event you wish to pursue the appeal on your own behalf, you should attend the hearing, or have counsel attend on your behalf.

However, note that the only parties who will be affected by the appeal are those parties who are not settling with Northmont, or who have not confirmed that they wish to continue to be represented by Geldert Law.

Note also that the appeal was filed only in Northmont v. Reid action number P 1490304333. All of the other Provincial Court claims against Geldert Law clients by Northmont were consolidated into that action, making it the sole action in which the judgment was issued, even though it applied to all Northmont claims. As a result of the consolidation Order, this was the action in which all arguments were heard. However, because the Reids have also settled with Northmont, there will need to be some procedural discussions to ensure an appeal can proceed even though the Reids will not be part of the appeal.

Given our comments regarding our continued involvement in the appeal, those who wish to 'take up the torch' should take proactive steps to ensure their interests in proceeding with the appeal is protected.

Another question that has been asked by some is whether there can be some relief from the terms of the settlement agreement reached with Northmont. For the settling defendants, the agreement is final and binding. Whilst we understand that there may be some scope for extended time to pay, which is dependent on individual circumstances, you should discuss with Geldert Law whether your particular circumstances will apply.

A further question raised by some was whether there could be relief from the rate of interest set out in the timeshare agreements themselves. If you are partaking in the settlement, then the amount to be paid is inclusive of interest. For non-settling defendants, Judge Young has not yet released her judgment on court costs and interest. However, it is expected that she will do so soon.

Finally, we reiterate that if you wish to discuss more specific questions, we are happy to do so on the basis of a separate retainer on the terms set out in the letter dated 18 January 2018.

Yours truly,

*STRATHCONA LAW GROUP LLP*

*VINCENT TONG *


----------



## Appauled

Appauled said:


> Did anyone get the letter below the other day?
> 
> 
> *STRATHCONA*
> 
> LAW GROUP LLP
> 
> _Providing Direction_
> 
> 132 Heritage Court
> 
> 150 Chippewa Road
> 
> Sherwood Park, AS T8A 6A2
> 
> (780) 417-9222
> 
> (780) 449-1222
> 
> Vincent Tong. Barrister and Solicitor
> 
> Extension 218
> 
> 14 February 2018
> 
> 
> 
> *Re: Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. timeshare litigation*
> 
> You are receiving this letter because you have recently contacted our office with questions regarding your involvement in the captioned matter. Please appreciate that these inquires have been quite numerous and it has not been possible to respond to your individual inquiries up to this point.
> 
> Attached to this letter is a copy of our 18 January 2018 letter which we understood was distributed by Geldert Law to you already. That letter should have answered most of your questions.
> 
> We reiterate that we were retained by Geldert Law to act as agent in the court applications commenced by Northmont in both Alberta and in BC. If you retained Geldert Law and an action was commenced against you in Alberta, we filed a Dispute Note on your behalf. If you would like a copy of the same, Mr. Geldert has indicated that one should have been sent to you previously, but you can contact him if you have further questions.
> 
> In our argument before Assistant Chief Judge Young, we argued that Amended Dispute Notes would need to be filed. As part of her judgment, Judge Young ordered that we must file the Amended Dispute Notes for those actions where one had not yet been filed. We are still awaiting the return of filed copies of the Amended Dispute Notes. Once they have been received, they will also be sent to Geldert Law, and then passed on to you, on request to Geldert Law directly.
> 
> All of that said, please note that the Dispute Notes and the Amended Dispute Notes were all template documents. The only differences between the individual documents filed were the names of the defendants and the applicable action numbers.
> 
> Some of you have also inquired about the appeal of Judge Young's judgment. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 8 November 2017. However, for several reasons, our firm will not argue the appeal. Primarily, most of parties for whom Geldert Law acts have settled with Northmont.
> 
> Secondly, it will be difficult for our firm to argue the appeal given the findings made by Judge Young. Specifically, as Judge Young found that the continued defense of the claims amounted to abuse of the court process, it will be extremely difficult for our firm to argue the appeal without Northmont advancing the argument that the appeal is a further abuse of process.
> 
> We have taken the necessary steps to preserve the appeal by filing the appeal as well as the transcripts of the hearings before Judge Young. The next step is to speak to the appeal list from the Court of Queen's Bench, which will occur at 10:00am on 8 March 2018 at the Edmonton Law Courts. We will be attending that further hearing, but do not expect to be involved thereafter. In the event you wish to pursue the appeal on your own behalf, you should attend the hearing, or have counsel attend on your behalf.
> 
> However, note that the only parties who will be affected by the appeal are those parties who are not settling with Northmont, or who have not confirmed that they wish to continue to be represented by Geldert Law.
> 
> Note also that the appeal was filed only in Northmont v. Reid action number P 1490304333. All of the other Provincial Court claims against Geldert Law clients by Northmont were consolidated into that action, making it the sole action in which the judgment was issued, even though it applied to all Northmont claims. As a result of the consolidation Order, this was the action in which all arguments were heard. However, because the Reids have also settled with Northmont, there will need to be some procedural discussions to ensure an appeal can proceed even though the Reids will not be part of the appeal.
> 
> Given our comments regarding our continued involvement in the appeal, those who wish to 'take up the torch' should take proactive steps to ensure their interests in proceeding with the appeal is protected.
> 
> Another question that has been asked by some is whether there can be some relief from the terms of the settlement agreement reached with Northmont. For the settling defendants, the agreement is final and binding. Whilst we understand that there may be some scope for extended time to pay, which is dependent on individual circumstances, you should discuss with Geldert Law whether your particular circumstances will apply.
> 
> *A further question raised by some was whether there could be relief from the rate of interest set out in the timeshare agreements themselves. If you are partaking in the settlement, then the amount to be paid is inclusive of interest. For non-settling defendants, Judge Young has not yet released her judgment on court costs and interest. However, it is expected that she will do so soon.*
> 
> Finally, we reiterate that if you wish to discuss more specific questions, we are happy to do so on the basis of a separate retainer on the terms set out in the letter dated 18 January 2018.
> 
> Yours truly,
> 
> *STRATHCONA LAW GROUP LLP*
> 
> *VINCENT TONG *




The way I read it is *IF* your are OPTION 1 with Geldert, you are commited to the 26.8% Interest + 20% up to yesterday and 162% there after, as you were BULLIED to sign under EXTREME duress into OPTION 1,  whatever Judge Young decides on interest and  fees does not apply for OPTION 1 people?


----------



## MarcieL

LilMaggie said:


> I used to work in a profession where we all had each other's back, unless someone did something unethical or negligent...then we would toss you under the bus faster than you could say Mike G.  Perhaps there is a lawyer out there somewhere that still takes pride in his/her profession that would like to hold a (possibly and without prejudice) negligent lawyer to account.  From the very beginning, many of us took the advice we were given and ended up here.  Who wants to see someone held to account for this fiasco?!





Appauled said:


> Just wondering if anyone knows an answer to this, if you are unable to pay under option 1 as of yesterday and have no assets or savings, your only recourse is bankruptcy? Or is there any other option, such as, now that the deadline has past, will Northwynd Sunchaser talk to you or do you have to talk to Sauvignon Law firm or do you just have to suck it up and claim bankruptcy?


If it were me with no assets I would claim and walk away. Contact a bankruptCy trustee. I suppose you could try and negotiate with Savangeau but he is a master .


----------



## aden2

MarcieL said:


> If it were me with no assets I would claim and walk away. Contact a bankruptCy trustee. I suppose you could try and negotiate with Savangeau but he is a master .


Unless there was a violation regarding the Fair trading Act and you quote it in your Dispute Note!


----------



## LilMaggie

Appauled said:


> The way I read it is *IF* your are OPTION 1 with Geldert, you are commited to the 26.8% Interest + 20% up to yesterday and 162% there after, as you were BULLIED to sign under EXTREME duress into OPTION 1,  whatever Judge Young decides on interest and  fees does not apply for OPTION 1 people?


Yup...that's what I got out of all that.  Could be wrong but as per usual, Option 1 folks are persona non grata.


----------



## melamike

Appauled said:


> Just wondering if anyone knows an answer to this, if you are unable to pay under option 1 as of yesterday and have no assets or savings, your only recourse is bankruptcy? Or is there any other option, such as, now that the deadline has past, will Northwynd Sunchaser talk to you or do you have to talk to Sauvignon Law firm or do you just have to suck it up and claim bankruptcy?



In what I have gleaned from my lawyer is that if you do not pay or did not pay as the case is now then Northmont has a judgement against you. The challenge for them is that they have to find assets that they can efficiently get their hands on. In other words they still have to collect the money and if there is none (or you are good at hiding it -which I truly hope is the case) then the judgement is useless. Like the old say goes "you can't get blood from a stone".  I would not declare bankruptcy, that's not a nice process, just make sure there's nothing for the Vultures to take and they will hopefully flock off to another feeding ground.


----------



## MarcieL

aden2 said:


> Unless there was a violation regarding the Fair trading Act and you quote it in your Dispute Note!


If you were an M.G. client that ship sailed under Jeke. He never introduced the Fair Trade Act thus it is considered relitigation as I understand .


----------



## Petus@18

MarcieL said:


> If you were an M.G. client that ship sailed under Jeke. He never introduced the Fair Trade Act thus it is considered relitigation as I understand .



We're are now on our own, I think we can appeal what "our lawyer' neglected to do.  It looks like there are a few of us continuing the fight this way.  Filing a dispute note like aden2 has mentioned makes sense.   There are also other options less drastic than opting for bankruptcy. You should  discuss the best option for you with a bankruptcy lawyer/advisor.  We hope the class action suit goes ahead so that we can join it.  Let's keep searching and praying.


----------



## Frau Blucher

Shake Down said:


> For anyone that did this, MG contacted people back and said "This indicates you have not provided your informed consent to sign. without a properly executed Release Agreement Northmont will not accept your settle agreement. Please ensure we have a Release agreement on or before February 15, 2018



I asked a friend who is a lawyer about adding “under duress” and this is what he told me...

“Duress is a legal term that means the person is not signing of their own free will and refers to situations such as someone has been threatened with Violence
It legally invalidates the document signed
So Writing that on the Release would probably invalidate it and probably leave Option 1 people liable to the 162 percent Consent Judgment Geldert agreed to”


----------



## Petus@18




----------



## Petus@18




----------



## MarcieL

Petus@18 said:


> Now that I have seen the settlement documents,  I feel option 1 clients are no different than option 2, only difference is option 1 gets a release.
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong?  Again, option 1 was threatened with an automatic judgment of 162% but why Geldert still needed your consent for judgement? If you didn't sign the settlement and the SIF was obtained by Geldert with false pretenses, how can he enter a judgment?.   Option 1 paid the ridiculous sum of money,  was gagged, relinquished their timeshare investment and paid 250.00 more to Geldert for collecting the money for Northmont.  Yes, option 1 got a release but at what cost though!  Thanks to our honest, non-corrupted lawyer!
> 
> I have been thinking, say, you continue fighting,  the judge hopefully grants a lesser interest and cost or not? we can always plead for clemency, the judge may be more receptive than Northmont and Geldert without a doubt!  Now, we get to keep our timeshare investment and timeshare leaseholders rights, correct?  If Northmont is transforming the resort,  how they will be honoring our rights? Or accommodating the vacation weeks for those of us that remain? Geldert threatened us by saying Northmont will charge us whatever they want?  Well, when we appeal, we need to ask that a timeshare association be formed, no matter how many few people remain, to ensure Northmont doesn't charge us at their pleasure,  we also need to ask the judge how Northmont will continue with our timeshare rights if they are planning to have condos and a hotel like accommodations? Wouldn't Northmont still want us out?  I am interested in your comments.  Anyone?


Does the interest still keep accumulating while you are before the courts?  Will NM charge 16000.00 to release one week as M.G. said was now happening.  They seem to be able to do as the wish. Many of us chose 1 as we could no longer afford the downside.  40 grand was a hit we could not afford either had to cash in all TFSA's and borrow. Sick, sick, situation


----------



## MgolferL

Petus@18 said:


> Now that I have seen the settlement documents,  I feel option 1 clients are no different than option 2, only difference is option 1 gets a release.
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong?  Again, option 1 was threatened with an automatic judgment of 162% but why Geldert still needed your consent for judgement? If you didn't sign the settlement and the SIF was obtained by Geldert with false pretenses, how can he enter a judgment?.   Option 1 paid the ridiculous sum of money,  was gagged, relinquished their timeshare investment and paid 250.00 more to Geldert for collecting the money for Northmont.  Yes, option 1 got a release but at what cost though!  Thanks to our honest, non-corrupted lawyer!
> 
> I have been thinking, say, you continue fighting,  the judge hopefully grants a lesser interest and cost or not? we can always plead for clemency, the judge may be more receptive than Northmont and Geldert without a doubt!  Now, we get to keep our timeshare investment and timeshare leaseholders rights, correct?  If Northmont is transforming the resort,  how they will be honoring our rights? Or accommodating the vacation weeks for those of us that remain? Geldert threatened us by saying Northmont will charge us whatever they want?  Well, when we appeal, we need to ask that a timeshare association be formed, no matter how many few people remain, to ensure Northmont doesn't charge us at their pleasure,  we also need to ask the judge how Northmont will continue with our timeshare rights if they are planning to have condos and a hotel like accommodations? Wouldn't Northmont still want us out?  I am interested in your comments.  Anyone?



My comments would be:
1. Both Option 1&2 have been threatened with the 162%.
2. The ONLY reasons I paid was that my number was less than I actually paid originally for the place. I am tired of fighting a battle with a lawyer that is accused of everything under the sun except sexual harassment... but who knows about that.
3. I feel the pain of the people who are in the tens of thousands... and we aren't done fighting... even with the BS gag order. All that means is they have to come after us if they have reason.
4. I looked at the staying in part, hoping to do so, forming an association and changing it from the inside. I was told by NM, that being a client (present or former) of MG they would NOT accept the payment of the 2017 invoice and I had to deal through MG or the courts... so it is not likely they will let you stay.
5. We need to get organized as a group, have a bit of a Board to keep things on track... hire a lawyer that likes Class Actions (I know of one that is on the fence interested), and go for the gold. To piece meal and each fight an individual battle is too time consuming and has got us no where to this point....
6. And it is important for our cause that people keep contacting the BC Law Assn and register their concerns. It may be a way to have MG pony up to the bar to pay for some of this and adds additional fuel to a Class Action, that we were poorly (understatement) represented.


----------



## Plus454

Given the date I see there must be a bunch of people who haven't paid the settlement and are still looking for options to turn this around. We as a group need a lawyer that can take us all on as clients and fix what happened here, or we need someone of authority to recognize this is wrong. I have put the word out to a few. We need a safe way of finding out who this group consists of in order to band together.
I haven't read every page on here but I'm looking for where someone says "I'LL BE DRAGGED OFF MY PROPERTY IN HANDCUFFS BEFORE I GIVE ONE RED CENT TO THESE CROOKS"


----------



## Frau Blucher

Michael Geldert


----------



## tssuck

Plus454 said:


> Given the date I see there must be a bunch of people who haven't paid the settlement and are still looking for options to turn this around. We as a group need a lawyer that can take us all on as clients and fix what happened here, or we need someone of authority to recognize this is wrong. I have put the word out to a few. We need a safe way of finding out who this group consists of in order to band together.
> I haven't read every page on here but I'm looking for where someone says "I'LL BE DRAGGED OFF MY PROPERTY IN HANDCUFFS BEFORE I GIVE ONE RED CENT TO THESE CROOKS"



We were classified as Option 1 but because only 1 person that was listed as "leasee" signed the Option 1 paper, we do not believe that the option 1 classification is valid. Right now we consider ourselves an Option 2 and have not, and will not pay a "RED CENT" to either MG nor NM. The appeal has not been settled and Judge Young has not brought down her ruling on interest as yet. We are very much interested in any Class Action lawsuit. They will have to spend the money to come after me. After all is said and done, there is NO way I want to be part of this organization. The timeshare program under these people is a sham and we will never enter into another situation of timeshare again. We will be spreading the word about timeshares and what can/has happened.


----------



## Petus@18




----------



## dotbuhler

Plus454 said:


> Given the date I see there must be a bunch of people who haven't paid the settlement and are still looking for options to turn this around. We as a group need a lawyer that can take us all on as clients and fix what happened here, or we need someone of authority to recognize this is wrong. I have put the word out to a few. We need a safe way of finding out who this group consists of in order to band together.
> I haven't read every page on here but I'm looking for where someone says "I'LL BE DRAGGED OFF MY PROPERTY IN HANDCUFFS BEFORE I GIVE ONE RED CENT TO THESE CROOKS"


As someone who has been on here since way back, I can say that that has been my stance since these crooks first started their extortion bids. To date, outside of Jim Belfry sucking me in to hire Michael Geldert who I fired on Dec.29, 2017, I have not and will not pay Kirk Wankel one red cent. So I have very little faith in lawyers. This is a CIVIL Court matter, not a criminal matter thus far. Civil Court was designed to actually promote not having to use lawyers, and you can expect to be treated fairly and respectfully when you self-represent. There are too many various contracts entered into for one lawyer to represent us all adequately, imho. However, a CLASS ACTION SUIT is something that will work for all of us. (Just my 2 red cents worth.)


----------



## Petus@18




----------



## mudslide

I am new to this forum and was a part of the MG lawsuit, we have been out of country since October and will not be returning till September, can we have someone else represent us at the appeal process in alberta, just got our statements on Feb 12th as we do not have very good access to internet, telling us that we have to pay by the 15th of Feb. Did'nt happen, not even sure how we could get the money if we wanted to.
Would be interested in anything we could do to for class action, appeals, writing letters, could someone give us links etc to start these actions, maybe file to fair trading act for service alberta, etc. We definitely have to fight in numbers and quickly.


----------



## Spark1

Petus@18 said:


> The reason I mentioned forming a timeshare association, if we were to pay and continue in the bloody resort, is because that could be part of our appeal.  How Northmont will deal with us? We know Northmont has other plans and we are not part of them.  To those who signed the settlement and paid large sums of money, the only thing you got was 'a release'. Don't take me wrong, many wanted out of this 'f' scam and freeing yourselves from Northmont it was worth it!
> 
> We know the whole agreement was one sided and by signing you relinquished your only asset, the timeshare agreement, why? Northmont needs/has to get rid of all of us first to continue with their plans.  Our timeshare agreements is our best weapon right now.
> 
> Also, Justice Young did not place a court order on anyone to pay. Really all she did was tell Wankel and Geldert they had to get together and negotiate a fair interest rate. That part of her decision tells me she did not think 26.82% was fair.  As for her statement that they could charge whatever they wanted, Wankel arrived at 162%, Geldert successfully "negotiated" it down to 120%. So the question remains, why is the AB decision, or lack of a decision, being applied to everyone? The answer is that Wankel is allowed to, no one (the courts), requires him to do different.  By having accepted the settlement,  it will be harder to convince the courts the settlement was signed under duress.  If Northmont chooses to pursue its claims against the rest of us instead of negotiating with us, because of our timeshare agreement, let them be.  I really think we may have 'a good hand' but lets not stop doing what we have been doing.  Continue pressing the Law Society and yes, the justice minister.  Don't forget to file your own dispute notice if you are in AB and attending the appeal, even if you don't have a lawyer willing to help, you can represent yourself.  I bet you will do much better than Geldert did!
> 
> PS  If we pay Northmont's claim and were not part of the settlement, Northmont has no choice but let us stay, don't they? Unless the buy back our agreement? Don't you think?


Remember in order for us to have a Lease Contract we all had to pay X.  Amount of Dollars and if those Dollars went down the tube to Colin Knight 25% and the Crooked Trustee’s triplets 75% we do not have a contract. If all that money is now in their Off shore bank accounts we should be suing them. This is why they come up with this 40 Million. These crooks bankrupted with 40 million in their jeans. The court system treats us worth than bank robbers. They are thieves they wanted every one to pay the cancellation when Justice Loo made her decision and could care less about a resort. This timeshare is worthless just like Northwynd and they will be dealt with. White Collar Crime is here because of our useless governments and that will have to change. That will be the first item on my list when I talk to Jason Kenney when we meet in May. We have two corrupt Provinces in the west now because of these crooks from Calgary.


----------



## Petus@18

Hello, I deleted some of my recent comments as I realized that I am being followed by a weirdo.  Besides,  whatever I say now it means nothing, as almost everyone following this thread have already settled their claims and are done with all of this.  If we connected before in a private conversation and want to touch base with me, please do so.  We can exchange ideas, plans going forward without letting our 'groupies' know what is going on!  God help us all


----------



## LilMaggie

Petus@18 said:


> Hello, I deleted some of my recent comments as I realized that I am being followed by a weirdo.  Besides,  whatever I say now it means nothing, as almost everyone following this thread have already settled their claims and are done with all of this.  If we connected before in a private conversation and want to touch base with me, please do so.  We can exchange ideas, plans going forward without letting our 'groupies' know what is going on!  God help us all



Thanks for letting us know what's going on.  I was concerned!  We'll talk soon


----------



## dotbuhler

Petus@18 said:


> Hello, I deleted some of my recent comments as I realized that I am being followed by a weirdo.  Besides,  whatever I say now it means nothing, as almost everyone following this thread have already settled their claims and are done with all of this.  If we connected before in a private conversation and want to touch base with me, please do so.  We can exchange ideas, plans going forward without letting our 'groupies' know what is going on!  God help us all


Anyone else being followed by "Lamplit"? He has 4 of us so far. The moderator called him out already because "LAMPLIT" had alleged that we were involved in "hate speech". BEWARE!!


----------



## truthr

Can't_Give_Up said:


> In case everyone is not aware of the appeal status, below is a copy from the Court of Queen's bench. I'm also including the letter indicating the date the appeal will be heard. I'm not on Facebook, but if anyone wants to share this there that would be great. Thanks.


All Option 2 or Option 2 by default that are still receiving "updates" from Geldert.
If you haven't already done so, check out the attachments on the most recent update and then check out the ones provided by Can't_Give_Up supplied here on February 9th (post #4213).
Notice any difference?  Because there are differences.
Also read the letter from Vincent Tong very, very carefully and if it makes you wonder - you are not alone.  Did he supply Geldert with something that Geldert failed to share with us?

Now why would Geldert continue to provide us with outdated, incomplete court documents??  And not supply us with ALL the documents we require to move forward?
Does he not have enough work to do processing all those "Settlement Agreements" and money?
Does his office really need to continue to play "cat and mouse", "hide and seek" with back and forth emails with "former" clients requesting what they are entitled to immediately not when he decides to release them?
Does he not know that not only has there been numerous complaints filed with the BC Law Society but there is an investigation?

One would think that a lawyer who wants to continue to practice law would be on his best behaviour in assisting and protecting ALL his clients (current and former).
One would think 

Has anyone seen any minutes from the "Settlement Agreement" meeting - were there any taken by a neutral court reporter or other type of person to ensure accountability and transparency about how that all went down?
Who knows how many really accepted the "Settlement Agreement"?  Is there a list?  Who has that list?
I know we, the Option 2, clients weren't provided with it, just some mention of how many accepted.
I, for one, question that number and for that matter any numbers we have been provided with in the past.

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## marcthe12

It would be better to email each other from now on


----------



## aden2

mudslide said:


> I am new to this forum and was a part of the MG lawsuit, we have been out of country since October and will not be returning till September, can we have someone else represent us at the appeal process in alberta, just got our statements on Feb 12th as we do not have very good access to internet, telling us that we have to pay by the 15th of Feb. Did'nt happen, not even sure how we could get the money if we wanted to.
> Would be interested in anything we could do to for class action, appeals, writing letters, could someone give us links etc to start these actions, maybe file to fair trading act for service alberta, etc. We definitely have to fight in numbers and quickly.


*FAIR TRADING ACT *
*Cancelling agreement 7(1)  A consumer may cancel at no cost or penalty to the consumer a consumer transaction, whether written or oral, that was entered into by the consumer and a supplier who engaged in an unfair practice regarding the consumer transaction, whether the unfair practice occurred before, during or after the time when the consumer transaction was entered into, and in addition the consumer is entitled to any remedy that is available at law, including damages. (2)  Where a supplier has been found to have engaged in an unfair practice, any consumer who entered into a consumer transaction that was subject to the unfair practice with the supplier who engaged in the unfair practice may cancel the consumer transaction at no cost or penalty to the consumer. 
  RSA 2000 Section*


----------



## MarcieL

Where are the post numbers located I cannot see any .


----------



## truthr

MarcieL said:


> Where are the post numbers located I cannot see any .


They are on the bottom right hand side of the post
#post   Like    +Quote   Reply


----------



## PATRON

Watch on Netflix DURTY MOUNI episode 2 Paiday loans Similar like NM Thay were not be able to be convicted by judge  because Thay still according to low Senetor convict them for running UNETICAL business and send them 16 years bichaind bars


----------



## MarcieL

Petus@18 said:


> We're are now on our own, I think we can appeal what "our lawyer' neglected to do.  It looks like there are a few of us continuing the fight this way.  Filing a dispute note like aden2 has mentioned makes sense.   There are also other options less drastic than opting for bankruptcy. You should  discuss the best option for you with a bankruptcy lawyer/advisor.  We hope the class action suit goes ahead so that we can join it.  Let's keep searching and praying.


Have you checked with your own lawyer on this?


----------



## MarcieL

truthr said:


> They are on the bottom right hand side of the post
> #post   Like    +Quote   Reply


Not on my phone wonder why?


----------



## Petus@18

In retrospective, Jim Belfry, was very deceitful, he convinced all of us to join forces with him and Geldert by making false claims (i.e. there was never a class action lawsuit being litigated; but merely, it was ‘his own claim’ being brought forward to the courts as a test case, that ultimately was financed by all of us!).  We were influenced by Jim Belfry to hire Geldert; I remember one of Jim's comments being that "Michael Geldert, as an attorney, was ‘one of the best’.   What a joke!


----------



## Frau Blucher

Petus@18 said:


> We were influenced by Jim Belfry to hire Geldert; I remember one of Jim's comments being that "Michael Geldert, as an attorney, was ‘one of the best’.   What a joke!



It speaks volumes of Geldert’s incompetence when he ignores the Judges suggestions at the super conference


----------



## lost and confused

BC Law Society -  taken directly from their website -
*Protecting the public interest*
Ensuring the independence, integrity, honour and competence of BC lawyers.

The BC Law Society has system in place for accepting feedback.   Have you spoken up?  Filed a complaint?  Provided feedback?


----------



## CleoB

lost and confused said:


> BC Law Society -  taken directly from their website -
> *Protecting the public interest*
> Ensuring the independence, integrity, honour and competence of BC lawyers.
> 
> The BC Law Society has system in place for accepting feedback.   Have you spoken up?  Filed a complaint?  Provided feedback?


You bet.  Filed a complaint.  If there's anyone here that hasn't, why are you waiting?


----------



## GypsyOne

Petus@18 said:


> In retrospective, Jim Belfry, was very deceitful, he convinced all of us to join forces with him and Geldert by making false claims (i.e. there was never a class action lawsuit being litigated; but merely, it was ‘his own claim’ being brought forward to the courts as a test case, that ultimately was financed by all of us!).  We were influenced by Jim Belfry to hire Geldert; I remember one of Jim's comments being that "Michael Geldert, as an attorney, was ‘one of the best’.   What a joke!



Did you have a better alternative at the time?  Jim Belfy stepped up at a time when no one else was doing anything and worked tirelessly for well over a year to marshall an effective opposition to Northmont.  The fact the case was lost in court was a surprise and a shock to everyone including Jim and Michael, because it seemed certain we had overwhelming right on our side.  It's easy to blame the front-line people for a loss, although it does appear that significant mistakes were made, but I'm not certain the Almighty Herself could have won this case against this opposition (with the aid of millions of our dollars) and this court system.


----------



## Petus@18

GypsyOne said:


> Did you have a better alternative at the time?  Jim Belfy stepped up at a time when no one else was doing anything and worked tirelessly for well over a year to marshall an effective opposition to Northmont.  The fact the case was lost in court was a surprise and a shock to everyone including Jim and Michael, because it seemed certain we had overwhelming right on our side.  It's easy to blame the front-line people for a loss, although it does appear that significant mistakes were made, but I'm not certain the Almighty Herself could have won this case against this opposition (with the aid of millions of our dollars) and this court system.



 Really???? The reason Jim worked tirelessly for well over a year was because he needed a 'bunch of foolish people' to pay for his defense!  We could have retained a real lawyer and would not be in this mess.  Jim harmed all of us, including our families,  by referring us to the 'entertainment lawyer'.  I can assure you that based on the incompetence of this lawyer,  we lost big time!   If thinking the way you do makes you happy, good for you  

Amen. I am moving on.


----------



## ecwinch

IMHO the fault here is in doubling and tripling down after the Special case ruled on the major issue. As the court observed - the kitchen sink approach. That just made a bad situation worse and gave people false hope.

I don’t see in any of the posts where MG took the step of informing clients on what might happen if he failed. Given the fees he was collecting for “managing” the case, you have wonder where his interest truly lied.


----------



## lost and confused

ecwinch said:


> IMHO the fault here is in doubling and tripling down after the Special case ruled on the major issue. As the court observed - the kitchen sink approach. That just made a bad situation worse and gave people false hope.
> 
> I don’t see in any of the posts where MG took the step of informing clients on what might happen if he failed. Given the fees he was collecting for “managing” the case, you have wonder where his interest truly lied.


I put my faith and trust in a lawyer.  The “rosey” updates were always so positive.  Information was not transparent and shared in a timely manner (and is still not being shared upon withdrawal despite several requests).  The legal realm is not my area of familiarity, and that is why I hired a lawyer to help navigate and provide counsel.   I feel misled and that I was misinformed and not given the legal counsel that I hired. I now feel like I am in a worse predicament.  Now that I have read more and with the sharing of info from this group and others, I have come across numerous harsh cristicisms by other legal professionals.  Many descriptions like abuse of process, vexatious, throwing the kitchen sink hoping something will stick, lawyer antics, etc.   The lawyer never shared this side...and in my opinion did not head warnings about failures or action. More retainers were requested with more promise....and of litigation strategy that did not materialize (ie class action).


----------



## CleoB

ecwinch said:


> IMHO the fault here is in doubling and tripling down after the Special case ruled on the major issue. As the court observed - the kitchen sink approach. That just made a bad situation worse and gave people false hope.
> 
> I don’t see in any of the posts where MG took the step of informing clients on what might happen if he failed. Given the fees he was collecting for “managing” the case, you have wonder where his interest truly lied.


Without prejudice
Oh we now know exactly where it lies.....his pocketbook.  You're right though MG wasn't informing his clients on what might happen, he just sent out emails about how unfair things were and that he had "an ace up his sleeve".  He kept leading us on with his lies.  He's a con man, not a lawyer.  Without prejudice


----------



## Stung

lost and confused said:


> I put my faith and trust in a lawyer.  The “rosey” updates were always so positive.  Information was not transparent and shared in a timely manner (and is still not being shared upon withdrawal despite several requests).  The legal realm is not my area of familiarity, and that is why I hired a lawyer to help navigate and provide counsel.   I feel misled and that I was misinformed and not given the legal counsel that I hired. I now feel like I am in a worse predicament.  Now that I have read more and with the sharing of info from this group and others, I have come across numerous harsh cristicisms by other legal professionals.  Many descriptions like abuse of process, vexatious, throwing the kitchen sink hoping something will stick, lawyer antics, etc.   The lawyer never shared this side...and in my opinion did not head warnings about failures or action. More retainers were requested with more promise....and of litigation strategy that did not materialize (ie class action).




We all placed our trust in the legal system.  It is why we agreed to proceed.  MG was a Shepard with a flock and who I personally thought had a heart.  A true caring for his clients is what he portrayed but seemingly overnight turned into a ferocious wolf/shark with no heart at all.  His interests became one of serving his clients to serving KW and Northmont with no further regard for negotiations or an acceptable settlement on our behalf.  

In the BC Law Society Code of Profesional Conduct.:
https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/suppor...standards-of-the-legal-profession-–-an/#2.1-3

References are made to honor and integrity which I have seen severely lacking in MG since late last year.  Honestly, lawyers exist to provide fair justice and to help those that are not able to help themselves on their own. 

It is the hope of myself and many others he be investigated and reprimanded for his questionable 'professional' conduct.


----------



## SAV

As I have mentioned before.  MG at the beginning of this this should have gotten all of us to pay the renovation fee into trust.  And convinced the judge that the fees would be held there until the dispute is resolved. And that the interest should not have been accumulating. Any judge would have agreed to that and likely NM would have as well. At this point when we have all lost this case we all would have been happy to just pay the renovation fee back in 2013. Also he should have argued straight away that the maintenance fees should also stop as we were in this dispute. Or that we the fees should have been paid in to trust again until the dispute was resolved.  The thing that killed us all was the interest. My renovation fee was $8000, my maintenance fees over 5 years were $5000, and the interest on this craziness was $31,000. Total for me was $44,000. I'm sure we were all in the same boat.  MG is a one man legal firm and is like 32 years old. He had no right to take this on and NM lawyers ran circles around him. But he made $3 million on it. Just totally inexperienced and a fool. Not sure who picked him but what a mistake. Well onward and upward!!


----------



## ecwinch

Completely agree with the post above.

So if he is 32 now, then in 2013 he would have been 28 or so. Assuming a standard university and law school program of seven years, that would seem to indicate that he was a year or two out of law school when he took on this complex case. Assuming he passed the bar on first try.

Does anyone know if MG has ever tried a case in front of judge?


----------



## greyskies

SAV said:


> As I have mentioned before.  MG at the beginning of this this should have gotten all of us to pay the renovation fee into trust.  And convinced the judge that the fees would be held there until the dispute is resolved. And that the interest should not have been accumulating. Any judge would have agreed to that and likely NM would have as well. At this point when we have all lost this case we all would have been happy to just pay the renovation fee back in 2013. Also he should have argued straight away that the maintenance fees should also stop as we were in this dispute. Or that we the fees should have been paid in to trust again until the dispute was resolved.  The thing that killed us all was the interest. My renovation fee was $8000, my maintenance fees over 5 years were $5000, and the interest on this craziness was $31,000. Total for me was $44,000. I'm sure we were all in the same boat.  MG is a one man legal firm and is like 32 years old. He had no right to take this on and NM lawyers ran circles around him. But he made $3 million on it. Just totally inexperienced and a fool. Not sure who picked him but what a mistake. Well onward and upward!!


We should have hired you as our lawyer. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Spark1

We can blame who ever we want but the true blame is the Trustee of the resort. The unfair practice was the Freedom to Choose done by the Supplier in Calgary Alberta. Where in our Lease Contract does it say we have to accept their Cancellation? Where in the Lease does it say we have to accept Capital Expenditure like $4100 to replace the condo’s? Special assessment was meant for maintenance not replacing the condo. They sure would not use the only cancellation that was in our contract if you owed money after 16 months so they decided to come up with their own phoney one and you were not cancelled. The bottom line here is we bought because of the lease contact which was the right to use and at the end of the lease you do not own any property. If I leased a new Truck fo 5years and the dealership takes the truck from me and still charges me monthly fees am I going to keep on paying for the lease ,hell no. Why does Northwynd feel they have the right to stop us from using the resort when we paid for that right to use when we bought the timeshare and what gives them the right to charge any interest on something that we paid for and they stopped us from using. Look at their phoney Unilateral ammendments to our Contract. Use the modification part of our lease contract and saying all lease contracts prior to 2003 are now VIA’s. That is a modication bull shit. Your phoney Cancellation Agreement called us all VIA’s in 2013. We signed the Fairmont Consumer Protection document witnessed by Collin Knight and we sure the hell did not see anything pertaining to the Freedom To Choose. Northwynd you know we’re you can shove this.


----------



## CleoB

Spark1 said:


> We can blame who ever we want but the true blame is the Trustee of the resort. The unfair practice was the Freedom to Choose done by the Supplier in Calgary Alberta. Where in our Lease Contract does it say we have to accept their Cancellation? Where in the Lease does it say we have to accept Capital Expenditure like $4100 to replace the condo’s? Special assessment was meant for maintenance not replacing the condo. They sure would not use the only cancellation that was in our contract if you owed money after 16 months so they decided to come up with their own phoney one and you were not cancelled. The bottom line here is we bought because of the lease contact which was the right to use and at the end of the lease you do not own any property. If I leased a new Truck fo 5years and the dealership takes the truck from me and still charges me monthly fees am I going to keep on paying for the lease ,hell no. Why does Northwynd feel they have the right to stop us from using the resort when we paid for that right to use when we bought the timeshare and what gives them the right to charge any interest on something that we paid for and they stopped us from using. Look at their phoney Unilateral ammendments to our Contract. Use the modification part of our lease contract and saying all lease contracts prior to 2003 are now VIA’s. That is a modication bull shit. Your phoney Cancellation Agreement called us all VIA’s in 2013. We signed the Fairmont Consumer Protection document witnessed by Collin Knight and we sure the hell did not see anything pertaining to the Freedom To Choose. Northwynd you know we’re you can shove this.


If the true blame is the Trustee of the Resort then why didn't Geldert pick up on that?  Why didn't he use the Fair Trade Act or Consumer Protection Act as an arguement.  Northmount say how inexperienced Geldert was and used that to there advantage.  Geldert should not have taken on this case period.


----------



## CleoB

ecwinch said:


> Completely agree with the post above.
> 
> So if he is 32 now, then in 2013 he would have been 28 or so. Assuming a standard university and law school program of seven years, that would seem to indicate that he was a year or two out of law school when he took on this complex case. Assuming he passed the bar on first try.
> 
> Does anyone know if MG has ever tried a case in front of judge?


I wondered that as well.


----------



## CleoB

ecwinch said:


> Completely agree with the post above.
> 
> So if he is 32 now, then in 2013 he would have been 28 or so. Assuming a standard university and law school program of seven years, that would seem to indicate that he was a year or two out of law school when he took on this complex case. Assuming he passed the bar on first try.
> 
> Does anyone know if MG has ever tried a case in front of judge?


I've just checked the BC Law Society website and Geldert started practicing Sept 19/2006 but it doesn't say anything about whether he has litigated or not.


----------



## CleoB

Without prejudice
From the Government of Canada website. 
http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/ccc/srch/nvgt.do? lang=eng&prtl=1&sbPrtl=&estblmntNo=234567123735&profile=cmpltPrfl&profileId=501&app=sold

Geldert Law Corporation is an international full-service law firm operating from its head office in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Geldert Law provides the full range of legal services permitted by the Law Society of British Columbia. In particular, the firm focuses on providing Immigration and Entertainment legal services.

Full service International law firm......talk about false advertising.
Without prejudice


----------



## Shake Down

_ Brings us back to this still open file from what I understand S-134766 Merriman & Heyadat vs Northwynd June 25/2013_

72. *Misrepresentation: *The defendants _(Northwynd & listed companies)_ entered into Timeshare agreements knowing that they will not able to fulfill the terms.

73. *The Trustee: *Philip Matkin failed to exercise its obligations as a trustee for all the Timeshare Owners. Starting from 2004, almost all companies involved in the Fairmont Resort have its registered office and Records Office at the MATKIN LAW OFFICE. The Trustee filed a petition on April 16, 2013 where he is so personally involved as the Petitioner, Trustee and Respondent.

_* *Poly B issue?*_

63. The defendants _(Northwynd & listed companies) _state that 14 of 17 buildings the Fairmont Resort were built using pipes constructed with a type of plastic known as polybutylene ("Poly B").

64. The defendants _(Northwynd & listed companies)_ now allege that the primary reason the renovation project needs to go forward is the Poly B issue. A class action was commenced against the company, Dupont and the action was subsequently settled in 2007.

65. Dupont agrees to pay compensation for the repair costs as well as the damages caused by its defect products.

66. The defendants failed to take any action seeking compensation from Dupont on behalf of the Fairmont Resort.

And I like this one #67. The defendants owed a duty of care to act in the interest of the Timeshare Owners and the Fairmont Resort.

It just makes you bang your head against a wall


----------



## LilMaggie

CleoB said:


> I've just checked the BC Law Society website and Geldert started practicing Sept 19/2006 but it doesn't say anything about whether he has litigated or not.


MG is on record as being called to the bar in BC in 2006.  He appears to have graduated high school in 1993, so he is a tad more than 32 years of age.  I will need to do more research re: litigation experience.


----------



## Spark1

CleoB said:


> If the true blame is the Trustee of the Resort then why didn't Geldert pick up on that?  Why didn't he use the Fair Trade Act or Consumer Protection Act as an arguement.  Northmount say how inexperienced Geldert was and used that to there advantage.  Geldert should not have taken on this case period.


You are right but there was no need for any Lawyer,all Northwynd had to do is respect our Contracts that were signed and witnessed. I am from the old school and I do not allow any one to mess with our Contract that my spouse and I signed and had witnessed. We could not do that against them. Justice should not be one sided in a court room. The reason this Trustee did what he did was this was not allowed according to our Contracts. Why have a contract if the bullies on the other side do not respect the contracts? You seen how they did the phoney Modification to the Contracts . The Alberta Government knew what they did in April/2016 and in Dec17 Bill 31 was passed. If you do not notify the other party there is no contract. If that was a modification they were to notify you and go over the modification. And any Modification can not Materially prejudice existing Lessees and we know it does. I was after MG many times to use the Fair Trading ACT and sent him a very similar case that was done in Calgary Alberta. He said to me he would use that case. I have a email that I sent him in DEC2017 explaining the FTA just before he became a bill collector . The B.C. Law Society will have to figure that one out. Every one should differently write them about your concerns.


----------



## Palms to pines

I hear you and we are banging our heads as well. The injustice of this situation is hard to bear.Our financial circumstance will never recover. Somehow our initial $20,800.00 that we paid in 1997 is completely overlooked. With all the years we had left to use ,we far from got our money’s worth. The stress from it, all just terrible, terrible.


----------



## Spark1

Palms to pines said:


> I hear you and we are banging our heads as well. The injustice of this situation is hard to bear.Our financial circumstance will never recover. Somehow our initial $20,800.00 that we paid in 1997 is completely overlooked. With all the years we had left to use ,we far from got our money’s worth. The stress from it, all just terrible, terrible.


‘‘Tis has caused several health issues with time owners. I had the shingles shot and still ended up with Shingles. These Northwynd people are nor human. This young couple was given two weeks of timeshare from their older neighbors and paid around $700 to do the paper work. They used it for 5 days in Vegas in around 2010. Their bill done by MG was over $37000.00. They were a young couple just starting out. White Collar Crime.


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

I am part of the Geldert Litigation Group. Having said that, I am obviously not objective in evaluating Mr. Geldert's performance in this litigation. He lost the litigation and he cost me tens of thousands of dollars. I had one early-on strained telephone conversation with Mr. Geldert. He was evasive in responding to a couple of simple questions. Even then I didn't yet recognize that he was incapable of successfully litigating this dispute. I should have simply read his webpage. 

_"... an international full-service law firm operating from its head office ..."_  If that is what it said (I am only going by what has been reported here in multiple posts), that single sentence fragment tells you all that you need to know. To me, it demonstrates a potentially precarious coloring of the truth and a willingness to embellish. Most people wouldn't think of trying to get away with such an embellishment. Take that to a courtroom and you'll lose; which, he did and you, me and everyone who has a lease or operates a timeshare in Canada lost.

Spark1 is correct, Phillip K. Matkin is in an _'interesting'_ position.


----------



## qb_bc

A question to those that have filed complaints with the Law Society. Have you / should you also include the other two firms that were involved in the matter arguing on your behalf? Perhaps @ecwinch might provide guidance.

My experience with E&O insurance is in another profession, but my thinking is;
- there was a lead firm that acted as the project manager for the case.
- the other two firms did the arguing in the court cases
- it is not known whether the lead firm developed the strategy in its entirety, and prepared the arguments to be used?
- is it possible the other firms developed the strategy recommendations and did the research so they could argue in court, made recommendations to the lead firm that were followed.

This does not absolve the lead firm from responsibility, but if the other firms were involved in developing strategy, research, court preparation and arguing, they also have responsibility for the outcome. If/when negligence, etc. is determined the work of all participants that professionally have E&O insurance should be included. Possibly including them will help avoid them passing the buck with respect to the dreadful outcome.

Good luck.


----------



## aden2

December 8, 2017 2018 MAINTENANCE FEE COMMUNICATION
Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner: MAINTENANCE FEE UPDATE 2017 update:
2017 continued the “status quo” environment due to the court processes delaying resolution with the delinquent Owners.  Managing the Resort continues to be a significant challenge as a result of the effect of delinquency. 
2018 budget:
The 2018 effects are similar to 2017.  Inflation and wage pressure continue to remain low which benefits operating costs.  However, utility costs continue to increase substantially. In addition, the effects of delinquency continue to weigh on individual Owner costs. 
As we have now successfully defeated the delinquent group in court (see below or you can review the judgments on the Resorts website) a further four times in 2017, including three times since the beginning of September, we are hopeful that the drag on operations caused by their delinquency will be reduced in 2018 either through a group settlement, or the enforcement of individual judgments.  However, as there is no guarantee what the results are over the coming months, the budget presumes the delinquent owner group remains delinquent in 2018.
The gross (after tax) maintenance fee increase on an individual basis for 2018 is 5.14%.  Specific items are noted below.
Operating wages: Current cost of living rates for British Columbia are approximately 2.0%.  However, in Alberta the rate is 1.3%.  We have reflected both in our wage planning.
Utilities: With the rise in oil prices, propane (which is used to heat the buildings) prices have risen substantially.  Our 2018 fixed price rate is 29% over 2017.  Propane prices will continue to be volatile and risk a significant increase in future years if the price of oil rises significantly.
Legal costs: As a result of the Resorts success in the January BC Court of Appeal decision, the Resort reached settlement with a small percentage of the delinquent Owners to offset some of the legal costs incurred on your behalf.  As a result and in consideration of the additional favorable court rulings of the past few months, we are not charging additional legal costs in 2018.  As with previous years, we will need to revisit the issue next year based on the status of legal proceedings and legal cost recoveries during the year.
Off-site costs: Off-site costs continue to be impacted by the costs of addressing the ongoing delinquency.  Costs have also been impacted by a reduction in Resort costs previously absorbed by Northwynd.
Payment methods for 2017 maintenance fees: *** Credit Card Payments are not available at this time*** In November our credit card processor cancelled our services.


----------



## dotbuhler

aden2 said:


> December 8, 2017 2018 MAINTENANCE FEE COMMUNICATION
> Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner: MAINTENANCE FEE UPDATE 2017 update:
> 2017 continued the “status quo” environment due to the court processes delaying resolution with the delinquent Owners.  Managing the Resort continues to be a significant challenge as a result of the effect of delinquency.
> 2018 budget:
> The 2018 effects are similar to 2017.  Inflation and wage pressure continue to remain low which benefits operating costs.  However, utility costs continue to increase substantially. In addition, the effects of delinquency continue to weigh on individual Owner costs.
> As we have now successfully defeated the delinquent group in court (see below or you can review the judgments on the Resorts website) a further four times in 2017, including three times since the beginning of September, we are hopeful that the drag on operations caused by their delinquency will be reduced in 2018 either through a group settlement, or the enforcement of individual judgments.  However, as there is no guarantee what the results are over the coming months, the budget presumes the delinquent owner group remains delinquent in 2018.
> The gross (after tax) maintenance fee increase on an individual basis for 2018 is 5.14%.  Specific items are noted below.
> Operating wages: Current cost of living rates for British Columbia are approximately 2.0%.  However, in Alberta the rate is 1.3%.  We have reflected both in our wage planning.
> Utilities: With the rise in oil prices, propane (which is used to heat the buildings) prices have risen substantially.  Our 2018 fixed price rate is 29% over 2017.  Propane prices will continue to be volatile and risk a significant increase in future years if the price of oil rises significantly.
> Legal costs: As a result of the Resorts success in the January BC Court of Appeal decision, the Resort reached settlement with a small percentage of the delinquent Owners to offset some of the legal costs incurred on your behalf.  As a result and in consideration of the additional favorable court rulings of the past few months, we are not charging additional legal costs in 2018.  As with previous years, we will need to revisit the issue next year based on the status of legal proceedings and legal cost recoveries during the year.
> Off-site costs: Off-site costs continue to be impacted by the costs of addressing the ongoing delinquency.  Costs have also been impacted by a reduction in Resort costs previously absorbed by Northwynd.
> Payment methods for 2017 maintenance fees: *** Credit Card Payments are not available at this time*** In November our credit card processor cancelled our services.


REALLY!!?? "In November our credit card processor cancelled our services." THIS IS BIG! Wonder how far your credit rating has to sink before THAT happens?? Guess the funnelling of $$$$ into those offshore accounts is picking up speed!


----------



## LilMaggie

LilMaggie said:


> MG is on record as being called to the bar in BC in 2006.  He appears to have graduated high school in 1993, so he is a tad more than 32 years of age.  I will need to do more research re: litigation experience.


From what I can find...well, let's just say immigration and refugee appeals haven't worked out so well either.  It's public record...if you look at CanLII under BC, you will find our sad appeal history also.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/#search/jId=ca&text=michael geldert&origJId=ca
So we collectively made a whopper of a mistake...now, where do we find an excellent lawyer?!


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Just a summary where we are today:

So all Michael Geldert clients whether Option 1, 2, or elsewhere have been abused and misrepresented equally.
Northmont is capitalizing fully of their legal advantage as sanctioned by the Courts to monetize on Michael Geldert’s poor representation and abandonment of his clients and who, from all appearances, is also Michael Geldert’s puppet master or bill collector if you prefer (I keep envisioning Michael Geldert with Kirk Wankel’s hand up his butt making Michael’s lips and arms move).
Federally, that government only wants to pay out terrorists, have photo ops with criminals and lairs, and appears to only want to support Aboriginals but actually do little more than lip service for them either.
Provincially, the Alberta Minister of Justice and Alberta Service Minister are hiding behind this being an on-going legal matter to escape all accountability while saying they already did an investigation after the Fairmont bankruptcy which is prior to the real controversy being the Northmont's Freedom to Choose.
Judicially, Judge Young’s is portraying that her hands are tied while hiding behind her bench even though she is aware key elements of our case presented by Michael Geldert, Vincent Tong, and Barry King was prepared by a disbarred lawyer through Strathcona Law Group and she is relying on all the BC decisions to be able to copy and complete her own decisions in an effort to use resources efficiently (why did we bother with an Alberta trial if she intends to just use the BC decisions to complete her own summaries?).
New lawyers, are being paid to provide objective legal advice that we have been screwed by Michael Geldert and have affirmed such a destructive job has been done in this case that there is little chance for a successful appeal based on the information we can provide.  Unfortunately we cannot provide the entire picture as Michael Geldert appears to be strategically holding back paid for documents for the appeal or to allow people to create their own costs and interest arguments probably as an opportunity to further capitalize on selling them to his clients (most people have more common sense and don't want to surprise the judge like Michael Geldert likes to do as part of his trial maneuvers with last minute submissions at the start of a proceeding).
*I think we have a lot to say but the time for being polite is long over and it’s time to send a message we are not ready to roll over and die yet!!!!!!*

Suggestion on where I think we can go in the short term:

Do a direct in-person follow-up at the Court of Queen’s Bench hearing of all the ignored letters we sent to Judge Young to show we aren't going away.
We can make sure our crappy lawyers, the Northmont lawyers, the politicians, and the Judge are introduced to some invited media.
Time to play our Elder Abuse card possibly through some civil disobedience to show the only thing that has been decided legally and politically is corporate greed exists to extort us of our heath, savings, and beliefs Canada is a fair place for its citizens.
How bad would the evening news headlines look for Judge Young and politicians to have Raging Grandparents thrown into jail or punitively penalized further for contempt after allowing them to already be legally victimized by smart white collar crime and an incompetent lawyer.
Our wise parents used to tell us to "Be seen and not heard" - guess what, now our wisdom has grown and affords us to be "Seen and Heard" as we have learnt it is our right and responsibility to challenge something that is unjust!!!

*Anyone interested in making lots of noise inside and outside of the courtroom to tell their story.  All we have asked for is fairness and help to which we have only have received Judicial, Provincial, and Federal abandonment!!!*

Might also be fun to use the Wankal picture from post 4357 for petition posters and re-caption different messages if someone has the original – I bet a 100 of these would be a pretty flattering national news image.


----------



## Petus@18

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Just a summary where we are today:
> 
> So all Michael Geldert clients whether Option 1, 2, or elsewhere have been abused and misrepresented equally.
> Northmont is capitalizing fully of their legal advantage as sanctioned by the Courts to monetize on Michael Geldert’s poor representation and abandonment of his clients and who, from all appearances, is also Michael Geldert’s puppet master or bill collector if you prefer (I keep envisioning Michael Geldert with Kirk Wankel’s hand up his butt making Michael’s lips and arms move).
> Federally, that government only wants to pay out terrorists, have photo ops with criminals and lairs, and appears to only want to support Aboriginals but actually do little more than lip service for them either.
> Provincially, the Alberta Minister of Justice and Alberta Service Minister are hiding behind this being an on-going legal matter to escape all accountability while saying they already did an investigation after the Fairmont bankruptcy which is prior to the real controversy being the Northmont's Freedom to Choose.
> Judicially, Judge Young’s is portraying that her hands are tied while hiding behind her bench even though she is aware key elements of our case presented by Michael Geldert, Vincent Tong, and Barry King was prepared by a disbarred lawyer through Strathcona Law Group and she is relying on all the BC decisions to be able to copy and complete her own decisions in an effort to use resources efficiently (why did we bother with an Alberta trial if she intends to just use the BC decisions to complete her own summaries?).
> New lawyers, are being paid to provide objective legal advice that we have been screwed by Michael Geldert and have affirmed such a destructive job has been done in this case that there is little chance for a successful appeal based on the information we can provide.  Unfortunately we cannot provide the entire picture as Michael Geldert appears to be strategically holding back paid for documents for the appeal or to allow people to create their own costs and interest arguments probably as an opportunity to further capitalize on selling them to his clients (most people have more common sense and don't want to surprise the judge like Michael Geldert likes to do as part of his trial maneuvers with last minute submissions at the start of a proceeding).
> *I think we have a lot to say but the time for being polite is long over and it’s time to send a message we are not ready to roll over and die yet!!!!!!*
> 
> Suggestion on where I think we can go in the short term:
> 
> Do a direct in-person follow-up at the Court of Queen’s Bench hearing of all the ignored letters we sent to Judge Young to show we aren't going away.
> We can make sure our crappy lawyers, the Northmont lawyers, the politicians, and the Judge are introduced to some invited media.
> Time to play our Elder Abuse card possibly through some civil disobedience to show the only thing that has been decided legally and politically is corporate greed exists to extort us of our heath, savings, and beliefs Canada is a fair place for its citizens.
> How bad would the evening news headlines look for Judge Young and politicians to have Raging Grandparents thrown into jail or punitively penalized further for contempt after allowing them to already be legally victimized by smart white collar crime and an incompetent lawyer.
> Our wise parents used to tell us to "Be seen and not heard" - guess what, now our wisdom has grown and affords us to be "Seen and Heard" as we have learnt it is our right and responsibility to challenge something that is unjust!!!
> 
> *Anyone interested in making lots of noise inside and outside of the courtroom to tell their story.  All we have asked for is fairness and help to which we have only have received Judicial, Provincial, and Federal abandonment!!!*
> 
> Might also be fun to use the Wankal picture from post 4357 for petition posters and re-caption different messages if someone has the original – I bet a 100 of these would be a pretty flattering national news image.



We have to attend the appeal, would be happy to carry some posters.


----------



## LilMaggie

Funny...if some jerk snatches an elderly person's wallet or steals her wheelchair, the media and kind citizenry would be up in arms and demanding to put the thief's head on a platter.  Well, that is what has happened to many of us. We have been abused for years and then divested of our life savings.
I am disgusted with our laws.  I am sick of the apathy and the "not my problem" responses we have received.
While the Taj Mahal is shut down for the PM and his fam to get the ultimate photo ops, I am looking through job sites to see if anyone will hire this poor old baby seal.  Beat me some more crappy laws and courts!!!
Sorry...just needed to vent.
Continue fighting people!


----------



## LilMaggie

Spark1 said:


> ‘‘Tis has caused several health issues with time owners. I had the shingles shot and still ended up with Shingles. These Northwynd people are nor human. This young couple was given two weeks of timeshare from their older neighbors and paid around $700 to do the paper work. They used it for 5 days in Vegas in around 2010. Their bill done by MG was over $37000.00. They were a young couple just starting out. White Collar Crime.


Spark, I am truly sorry for your health problems. This has caused illness, both physical and mental for many young and old. 
It is a travesty of justice all around.


----------



## Petus@18

LilMaggie said:


> From what I can find...well, let's just say immigration and refugee appeals haven't worked out so well either.  It's public record...if you look at CanLII under BC, you will find our sad appeal history also.
> https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/#search/jId=ca&text=michael geldert&origJId=ca
> So we collectively made a whopper of a mistake...now, where do we find an excellent lawyer?!



I wonder if he hired someone to pass his Bar exam?  We all know that Geldert hired different lawyers to screw our case. I don't think he did anything other than contracting others, did he ever appear once in court?  I don't think so!  It is unclear if he also hired Wotherspoon to negotiate the settlement on his own?   What about the expenses he incurred and the work done was never used (ie Class Action investigation by Higgerty Law, who they are not accepting Geldert's clients to join the action)  The only thing our lawyer did was to bill us for the time he spent subcontracting other morons!!


----------



## Appauled

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Just a summary where we are today:
> 
> So all Michael Geldert clients whether Option 1, 2, or elsewhere have been abused and misrepresented equally.
> Northmont is capitalizing fully of their legal advantage as sanctioned by the Courts to monetize on Michael Geldert’s poor representation and abandonment of his clients and who, from all appearances, is also Michael Geldert’s puppet master or bill collector if you prefer (I keep envisioning Michael Geldert with Kirk Wankel’s hand up his butt making Michael’s lips and arms move).
> Federally, that government only wants to pay out terrorists, have photo ops with criminals and lairs, and appears to only want to support Aboriginals but actually do little more than lip service for them either.
> Provincially, the Alberta Minister of Justice and Alberta Service Minister are hiding behind this being an on-going legal matter to escape all accountability while saying they already did an investigation after the Fairmont bankruptcy which is prior to the real controversy being the Northmont's Freedom to Choose.
> Judicially, Judge Young’s is portraying that her hands are tied while hiding behind her bench even though she is aware key elements of our case presented by Michael Geldert, Vincent Tong, and Barry King was prepared by a disbarred lawyer through Strathcona Law Group and she is relying on all the BC decisions to be able to copy and complete her own decisions in an effort to use resources efficiently (why did we bother with an Alberta trial if she intends to just use the BC decisions to complete her own summaries?).
> New lawyers, are being paid to provide objective legal advice that we have been screwed by Michael Geldert and have affirmed such a destructive job has been done in this case that there is little chance for a successful appeal based on the information we can provide.  Unfortunately we cannot provide the entire picture as Michael Geldert appears to be strategically holding back paid for documents for the appeal or to allow people to create their own costs and interest arguments probably as an opportunity to further capitalize on selling them to his clients (most people have more common sense and don't want to surprise the judge like Michael Geldert likes to do as part of his trial maneuvers with last minute submissions at the start of a proceeding).
> *I think we have a lot to say but the time for being polite is long over and it’s time to send a message we are not ready to roll over and die yet!!!!!!*
> 
> Suggestion on where I think we can go in the short term:
> 
> Do a direct in-person follow-up at the Court of Queen’s Bench hearing of all the ignored letters we sent to Judge Young to show we aren't going away.
> We can make sure our crappy lawyers, the Northmont lawyers, the politicians, and the Judge are introduced to some invited media.
> *Time to play our Elder Abuse card* possibly through some civil disobedience to show the only thing that has been decided legally and politically is corporate greed exists to extort us of our heath, savings, and beliefs Canada is a fair place for its citizens.
> How bad would the evening news headlines look for Judge Young and politicians to have Raging Grandparents thrown into jail or punitively penalized further for contempt after allowing them to already be legally victimized by smart white collar crime and an incompetent lawyer.
> Our wise parents used to tell us to "Be seen and not heard" - guess what, now our wisdom has grown and affords us to be "Seen and Heard" as we have learnt it is our right and responsibility to challenge something that is unjust!!!
> 
> *Anyone interested in making lots of noise inside and outside of the courtroom to tell their story.  All we have asked for is fairness and help to which we have only have received Judicial, Provincial, and Federal abandonment!!!*
> 
> Might also be fun to use the Wankal picture from post 4357 for petition posters and re-caption different messages if someone has the original – I bet a 100 of these would be a pretty flattering national news image.



One valid comment that comes up from time to time is there are a great number of retired folks and seniors on fixed incomes that are part of this group that are commenting ELDER ABUSE should be thrown out there as an argument in this Timeshare RIPPOFF. I have great respect and empathy for not just our elder victims, but for all of us in this. We need to unify as one voice for all of us, and work on a strategy that helps us ALL, not just certain demographics of us.
I don't consider myself any different than anyone else in this mess. I am a single parent trying to raise two children and on a fixed income and can barely make ends meet as it is. All while also blindly sending off money to MG to work in our best interest, only to be thrown under the bus to pay Sunchaser/Northmont insane crooked fees and interest with money and assets I don't have. I live paycheck to paycheck and have not slept properly, I  have been barely able to function at work, while trying to keep a brave face in front of my co-workers and my unsuspecting children, as I am now scared to death of having those paychecks being garnished by these CROOKS!!!!!
*EVERYONE involved in this has their own story, respectfully, not just elders.
Again I re-iterate we need to unify as one voice for all of us, and work on a strategy that helps us ALL.*


----------



## LilMaggie

Petus@18 said:


> I wonder if he hired someone to pass his Bar exam?  We all know that Geldert hired different lawyers to screw our case. I don't think he did anything other than contracting others, did he ever appear once in court?  I don't think so!  It is unclear if he also hired Wotherspoon to negotiate the settlement on his own?   What about the expenses he incurred and the work done was never used (ie Class Action investigation by Higgerty Law, who they are not accepting Geldert's clients to join the action)  The only thing our lawyer did was to bill us for the time he spent subcontracting other morons!!


----------



## Petus@18

Does anyone know exactly what were the unilateral changes to our contracts and where to find them?

Also, does anyone have or know where to find Jeke's original timeshare contract?

Who is Mr Alexander that was part of the super conference?


----------



## torqued

If a unilateral change in our contracts was made then why isn’t NW OBLIGATED to send us all the amended contract. Without it can we not argue we are unable to defend ourselves in court as we  have no idea what it reads. How can we be liable for any judgement if we don’t have a contract in hand???


----------



## dotbuhler

Appauled said:


> One valid comment that comes up from time to time is there are a great number of retired folks and seniors on fixed incomes that are part of this group that are commenting ELDER ABUSE should be thrown out there as an argument in this Timeshare RIPPOFF. I have great respect and empathy for not just our elder victims, but for all of us in this. We need to unify as one voice for all of us, and work on a strategy that helps us ALL, not just certain demographics of us.
> I don't consider myself any different than anyone else in this mess. I am a single parent trying to raise two children and on a fixed income and can barely make ends meet as it is. All while also blindly sending off money to MG to work in our best interest, only to be thrown under the bus to pay Sunchaser/Northmont insane crooked fees and interest with money and assets I don't have. I live paycheck to paycheck and have not slept properly, I  have been barely able to function at work, while trying to keep a brave face in front of my co-workers and my unsuspecting children, as I am now scared to death of having those paychecks being garnished by these CROOKS!!!!!
> *EVERYONE involved in this has their own story, respectfully, not just elders.
> Again I re-iterate we need to unify as one voice for all of us, and work on a strategy that helps us ALL.*


Unfortunately  "elder abuse" is recognized as a specific crime under the laws of Canada. And yes, there are many stories of hardship across all demographics. But being able to add a further criminal activity to those like fraud and unfair trade practices to strengthen our case does not in any way make your situation diminished. I wish there was a category of crime that applied to people like yourself also facing this huge battle, but we have to go with what we can use that is recognized by the laws of Canada. Please don't think that we are not in complete empathy with you.


----------



## dotbuhler

torqued said:


> If a unilateral change in our contracts was made then why isn’t NW OBLIGATED to send us all the amended contract. Without it can we not argue we are unable to defend ourselves in court as we  have no idea what it reads. How can we be liable for any judgement if we don’t have a contract in hand???


Not only are they obligated, but under the Unfair Practices and Other Offenses of the Time Share and Points-Based Contract Regs is required to notify us AND GET OUR CONSENT IN WRITING ...


----------



## Petus@18

torqued said:


> If a unilateral change in our contracts was made then why isn’t NW OBLIGATED to send us all the amended contract. Without it can we not argue we are unable to defend ourselves in court as we  have no idea what it reads. How can we be liable for any judgement if we don’t have a contract in hand???



The reference of unilateral changes in our leases is mentioned on the Reid's case. You're right what were those changes?  Geldert is in his island right now too busy counting the money he just 'earned as a bill collector'  He has this information, did he ever share it with anyone?


----------



## CleoB

Petus@18 said:


> The reference of unilateral changes in our leases is mentioned on the Reid's case. You're right what were those changes?  Geldert is in his island right now too busy counting the money he just 'earned as a bill collector'  He has this information, did he ever share it with anyone?


Has he ever shared any information with his clients?  I found most of mine on the Sunchaser website.


----------



## NoMas

I just got an email from the Geldster tonight saying he hadn't gotten my signed papers,
( the option 1 stuff) and that now there is another NEW Deadline, you guessed it, it is TOMORROW!  According to the registered mail tracking, he received it on the morning of the 16th..... It looked like a shotgunned mailing out to everyone, just wondering if anyone else got one of these.  I told him he better look again, and I said it nicely!


----------



## aden2

*You can’t waive your rights under the Consumer Protection Act. If a consumer contract is vague, the terms of the contract are interpreted in favour of the consumer.*

The _Consumer Protection Act _(PDF, 124 pages)


----------



## greyskies

NoMas said:


> I just got an email from the Geldster tonight saying he hadn't gotten my signed papers,
> ( the option 1 stuff) and that now there is another NEW Deadline, you guessed it, it is TOMORROW!  According to the registered mail tracking, he received it on the morning of the 16th..... It looked like a shotgunned mailing out to everyone, just wondering if anyone else got one of these.  I told him he better look again, and I said it nicely!


It was one day beyond his deadline, and they wasn't good enough for him? 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Timesharepain

NoMas said:


> I just got an email from the Geldster tonight saying he hadn't gotten my signed papers,
> ( the option 1 stuff) and that now there is another NEW Deadline, you guessed it, it is TOMORROW!  According to the registered mail tracking, he received it on the morning of the 16th..... It looked like a shotgunned mailing out to everyone, just wondering if anyone else got one of these.  I told him he better look again, and I said it nicely!


We did but h ad to paid


----------



## Timesharepain

Timesharepain said:


> We did but had not paid


K


----------



## Spark1

That me


dotbuhler said:


> Not only are they obligated, but under the Unfair Practices and Other Offenses of the Time Share and Points-Based Contract Regs is required to notify us AND GET OUR CONSENT IN WRITING ...


That means we have no contract. This is Law in Alberta on Dec17/2017. When we fight this in 2018 it is now law That they have to talk to us first or there is no contract. Who cares if it is 2016 or now. They tried to hide this by calling it a modification.


----------



## LilMaggie

Petus@18 said:


> Does anyone know exactly what were the unilateral changes to our contracts and where to find them?
> 
> Also, does anyone have or know where to find Jeke's original timeshare contract?
> 
> Who is Mr Alexander that was part of the super conference?


Mr. Alexander was counsel for the plaintiff.
https://www.coxtaylor.ca/our-lawyers/john-alexander

J.B purchased his timeshare in 2004, so this may or not have been in his contract.  It was not in mine.

Over the years the forms of agreements have changed slightly.  By the time of the April 3, 2004 Vacation Experience Lease, para. 13 had changed to provide:

13    DEFAULT OF THE LESSEE IN ANY PAYMENT REQUIRED UNDER THIS LEASE:  In the event that the Lessee should default in making any payment required to be made by the Lessee hereunder, within the time stipulated for payment, then the Lessee agrees that the Lessee’s right to occupy a Vacation Property shall be suspended until such time as all payments due have been duly paid.

If a default in any payment required to be paid according to this lease has not been remedied within 90 days from the date of such default, and the Lessee has been given a minimum of one written notice of such default, the Lessor may terminate this Lease upon written notice to the Lessee, and from the date of such notice all of the Lessee’s rights to the Vacation Property pursuant to the provisions of this Lease shall be terminated. Furthermore, from the date of such notice of termination, the Lessor shall be entitled to the full and exclusive right to use and occupy the Vacation Property free and clear of all rights of the Lessee pursuant to this Lease or otherwise and Lessor may grant the right to use the Vacation Property during the week period to which the Lessee is entitled hereunder to another person or may retain it for any other purpose. The monies received by Lessor on account of rights of occupation or otherwise following such default or termination shall be retained by the Lessor as its sole and exclusive property as liquidated damages and not as a penalty. In the event of termination or hereinbefore provided, the Lessee shall, following such termination, be released from all obligations hereunder except for any monies then owing to the Lessor, or any other liabilities then outstanding of the Lessee, under this Lease.


----------



## dotbuhler

Spark1 said:


> That me
> 
> That means we have no contract. This is Law in Alberta on Dec17/2017. When we fight this in 2018 it is now law That they have to talk to us first or there is no contract. Who cares if it is 2016 or now. They tried to hide this by calling it a modification.


This is PRIOR to the amendment of 2017 December. It was already the law while they were trying to modify our contracts. Make sure you file a Dispute Notice if you are not Appealing the Decision. It costs $125.00 at the Edmonton Law Courts and is for a counterclaim of up to $50,000.00.


----------



## Spark1

LilMaggie said:


> Mr. Alexander was counsel for the plaintiff.
> https://www.coxtaylor.ca/our-lawyers/john-alexander
> 
> J.B purchased his timeshare in 2004, so this may or not have been in his contract.  It was not in mine.
> Over the years the forms of agreements have changed slightly.  By the time of the April 3, 2004 Vacation Experience Lease, para. 13 had changed to provide:
> 
> 13    DEFAULT OF THE LESSEE IN ANY PAYMENT REQUIRED UNDER THIS LEASE:  In the event that the Lessee should default in making any payment required to be made by the Lessee hereunder, within the time stipulated for payment, then the Lessee agrees that the Lessee’s right to occupy a Vacation Property shall be suspended until such time as all payments due have been duly paid.
> 
> If a default in any payment required to be paid according to this lease has not been remedied within 90 days from the date of such default, and the Lessee has been given a minimum of one written notice of such default, the Lessor may terminate this Lease upon written notice to the Lessee, and from the date of such notice all of the Lessee’s rights to the Vacation Property pursuant to the provisions of this Lease shall be terminated. Furthermore, from the date of such notice of termination, the Lessor shall be entitled to the full and exclusive right to use and occupy the Vacation Property free and clear of all rights of the Lessee pursuant to this Lease or otherwise and Lessor may grant the right to use the Vacation Property during the week period to which the Lessee is entitled hereunder to another person or may retain it for any other purpose. The monies received by Lessor on account of rights of occupation or otherwise following such default or termination shall be retained by the Lessor as its sole and exclusive property as liquidated damages and not as a penalty. In the event of termination or hereinbefore provided, the Lessee shall, following such termination, be released from all obligations hereunder except for any monies then owing to the Lessor, or any other liabilities then outstanding of the Lessee, under this Lease.


This explains why they wanted to do their illegal unilateral ammendments to the contracts prior to 2003. We never seen their new ammendments  or do we care. We have never signed anything with this new owner and we never will. You can not deal with people like this and they can not be trusted. Talk to the time owners that got taken at the Rancho Banderas. Timeshare is in the Canadian Consumer Protection Handbook and let’s demand from all politicians how are we protected. I got this from a Judge that is connected to Justice Young and he said the only way to change this is get after all politicians they have to change this to prevent White Collar Crime. I believe there has been many mistakes made and the ones in power are passing the buck. It is great MG is no longer part of this. If he was as bad as the Judges say than that is proof that we never got Justice. I do not believe the judges expected MG to collect up to $140000.00 off of a real old man. Did MG tell the man that I have known for years the truth or was that a scare tactic? This will hurt timeshare and lease contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. Did this company or the company that went bankrupted ever have a problem with the majority of us time owners paying maintenance fees before the Trustee’s Freedom To Choose no they did not? Freedom to Choose was not in our Lease Contract and that is what MG was to protect.


----------



## Shake Down

looking into a few related news stories Re: Class Action/Breach of contract etc. found this one interesting.

_Caravanserai Beach Resort- St Maarten,_ Endless Vacation NV (the timeshare company)

The resort got into financial trouble, Scotiabank held the mortgage on the resort, and eventually foreclosed on it. The bank was left owning the resort and continuing to run the operations. As time went by, conditions deteriorated. The elevators were broken for months, the hot water was unreliable, and the AC was sometimes out of service. In August 2014, Scotiabank sold the Caravanserai Beach Resort to Alegria at a public auction. Alegria paid $14 million US for the property.

After Alegria purchased the property, they said that Endless Vacation NV (the timeshare company) was no longer involved in the hotel and timeshare operations. They further stated that Alegria would not be bound by any of the timeshare agreements that Endless Vacation made.

The new owner Alegria sent about 2,200 timeshare owners at the resort a letter, saying their ownership rights were nullified!

Alegria denied any responsibility for this loss of ownership, but said they sympathised with the owners. They offered disenfranchised owners "a hotel room usage agreement, which would allow usage of a hotel room and facilities at the resort against an annual fee to cover part of the operational cost of the resort." _(The Alegria offer sounds a lot like a timeshare, so what's the difference between this and what the owners had before?)_

_One client stated..."in November we received an e-mail from new owner Sidholm/Alegria telling us our timeshare rights were null and void. He plans to "tear down" the existing facilities and build a luxury hotel - oh, and too bad for the 2,200 timeshare owners"_

In 2014 The owners quickly created a group called TOCA (Timeshare Owners at Caravanserai Beach Resort) hastily filed an injunction just days before the deadline, to try to protect their rights. However, the court sided with the new owner, Alegria, because the timeshare owners' agreements were not with Alegria, or with the former property owner, but with Endless Vacations NV. The judge said that Alegria was not bound by any agreements that Endless Vacation made and was entitled to nullify the people's ownership rights like they did.

 After losing a previous injunction in November 2014, the association TOCA filed a new case in July 2015 in a renewed effort by timeshare owners to get their units back. TOCA deemed the immediate annulment of clients' timeshare agreements unjust, as these constituted a breach of contract. The association is of the opinion that timeshare agreements are, in fact, rental agreements that, as such, should be legally protected.

This time, the Court ruled in the timeshare owners' favour, as it held their agreements closed with the resort's former owner Kildare, its subsidiary company Endless Vacation, or any other, to be rental agreements, which are protected by law. The Court ordered Alegría to allow timeshare owners access to their properties within five days, providing they pay the required maintenance fees. In case of non-compliance, Alegría would have to pay a daily fine of US $1,000 per TOCA-member, to a maximum of $25,000 per member.

The resort owner also was ordered to pay each of the individual owners the amount of $27,589, with interest. Alegría also will have to pay the cost of the legal proceedings.

_* Interesting how the rental agreement came into play on this one.. _


----------



## tssuck

The lett


NoMas said:


> I just got an email from the Geldster tonight saying he hadn't gotten my signed papers,
> ( the option 1 stuff) and that now there is another NEW Deadline, you guessed it, it is TOMORROW!  According to the registered mail tracking, he received it on the morning of the 16th..... It looked like a shotgunned mailing out to everyone, just wondering if anyone else got one of these.  I told him he better look again, and I said it nicely!



The letter he sent out not only gave us less than 24 hours to get everything in to him, he also wanted our  financial information sent along as well.
No way in h--l is he getting any of my money as well as my financial info so they can they can continue to scam us. Without a contract that tells us exactly what changes NM made to our contracts, as far as I am concerned, there is no contract and no liability, therefore no money to be paid out by me. Both NM and MG screwed up by not sending us the amended contracts. They knew that the amended contracts would be invalid.


----------



## Just Looking Around

aden2 said:


> December 8, 2017 2018 MAINTENANCE FEE COMMUNICATION
> Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner: MAINTENANCE FEE UPDATE 2017 update:
> ... the Resort reached settlement with a small percentage of the delinquent Owners to offset some of the legal costs incurred on your behalf.  ...



Geldert isn't the only one good a 'colouring' the truth. Wankel, who if you were paying attention to Punter's post earlier (#3902), is the sole owner of the #NAFR adds some shading to the truth by suggesting this legal dispute is him defending leasees from the leasees.


----------



## Jack0123

I still have trouble understanding how anyone can change a contract with out advising the other parties involved. try that on a residential lease, a vehicle lease on any other type and it could not pass the courts.


----------



## Petus@18

Was the trustee responsible for sending the notification of Fairmont's bankruptcy? Or was it NM?  NM did not notify any of us of its ownership of the resort after the bankruptcy.  We only knew of these changes when we received their BS letter with the freedom to choose, right ?


----------



## torqued

I did get a letter notifying me of their take over of the resort.


----------



## Appauled

Jack0123 said:


> I still have trouble understanding how anyone can change a contract with out advising the other parties involved. try that on a residential lease, a vehicle lease on any other type and it could not pass the courts.



Break it down a bit more, on a car lease you are responsible for scheduled maintenance costs, HOWEVER on a residential lease such as a house or condo, if the roof or the POLY B pipes, etc. needed to be repaired or replaced, then it is the responsibility of the PROPERTY OWNER to repair, not the leaser. And in both cases, IF you wanted to exit the lease and were unable to find someone to take over, the most you would be bound to and responsible for, would be the balance of the lease for the monthly/annual cost remaining for the term of the lease without any penalties or interest charges.
HOW in blazes does this not apply in this timeshare?????


----------



## dotbuhler

torqued said:


> I did get a letter notifying me of their take over of the resort.


But the Act specifically states that you must agree to it in writing. Did you do that?


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

Appauled said:


> Break it down a bit more, on a car lease you are responsible for scheduled maintenance costs, HOWEVER on a residential lease such as a house or condo, if the roof or the POLY B pipes, etc. needed to be repaired or replaced, then it is the responsibility of the PROPERTY OWNER to repair, not the leaser. And in both cases, IF you wanted to exit the lease and were unable to find someone to take over, the most you would be bound to and responsible for, would be the balance of the lease for the monthly/annual cost remaining for the term of the lease without any penalties or interest charges.
> HOW in blazes does this not apply in this timeshare?????



It certainly should.

Unfortunately whatever Northmont did the Courts approved of it. The Courts are wrong in that. How could the Courts have said, _'If not the VIAs then who is going to pay for it.'_ without it ever crossing their mind that the Developer, the Owner of the Buildings and Land, has paid zero? How could the Courts have said, _'Can't blame a business for wanting to make money.'_ We don't blame Northmont for wanting to make money. They had a contract that described exactly how they are to make their money. We blame Northmont for making money outside the provisions of the contract.

Oh, I'm still on it.

The Courts were wrong. Geldert et. al. screwed-up but that was compounded by the Courts. How, how, could Loo and Fitzpatrick not asked the simple question, _"Who pocketed the money from timeshare sales?"_ Or, how about this question, _"If, as the Courts call it, it's a timeshare. Then if this timeshare chooses willfully to stop selling vacation intervals, is it still a timeshare?" _Because God knows they had the inventory. Then, then, the Courts accepts that they have to reduce the number of buildings because ... too much inventory, like it's not the result of Northmont's actions. Well, Northmont stopped sales. That's what happens when you operate a #NAFR and fully 75% of the Leasees choose to pay-to-leave or not pay at all. 

I can see Loo and Fitzpatrick eating salads in their chambers saying,
_"25% chose to stay that sounds like it's a decent place."
"Oh, unhuh, we stayed at this place last summer that had a four-star rating on Tripadvisor and it was crap. So, you can't really tell by percentages and numbers and such." 
"Oh ya, that Kirk fella he looks like he didn't have any friends I feel kinda bad for him."
"I hear ya, he is an accountant you know. They're good with those numbers and that long-division."
"Lordy, I had trouble with that in school. Good thing Daddy was tight with the former Premier or who knows what I'd be doing now."
"You'd probably be staying in some shabby timeshare."
...both laugh._

And, and, why did the Courts not scrutinize the overall behaviour of Northmont and their failures to comply with the Bankruptcy provisions? Don't know, well, neither do I.


----------



## torqued

Nope. The letter was a warm fuzzy introduction by the CEO Patrick Fitzgerald that they obtained the resort from Fairmont. Nothing else. No mention of contracts etc


----------



## Petus@18

torqued said:


> Nope. The letter was a warm fuzzy introduction by the CEO Patrick Fitzgerald that they obtained the resort from Fairmont. Nothing else. No mention of contracts etc



We never received this letter? I wonder why? But what about the bankruptcy?  We were not told of this? Didn't the Trustee have to let all leaseholders know?


----------



## torqued

The trustee wouldn’t want us to know. Wasn’t it the trustee that called up a note and put the resort in bankruptcy so they could funnel off our lease money to a shell Corp and then hand the scam off to NW to put the icing on the ?​


----------



## servemeout

Any personal information even your name belongs to you under the Personal Information Protection Act. (PIPA) The rule in the act is it "reasonable" to share information with others.  Excuse me,  no one at the #NAFR needs to have my visa information or anything else.  The PIPA investigators take privacy complaints seriously.  Can you imagine the backlash from the people that paid to stay, when they can not get "time" in their own TS.  How much trading power are they going to have?  Remember the hog wash we have been handed over the years.  Here is a quote from Dec 12,2012. "Kirk has completely changed the focus of our organization with a simple vision:if we provide our owners value for their money, everyone wins".  It continues on with the negative aspects of the timeshare industry.  Now I know the negative aspect, it was the person with the simple vision.  Or is that the blurred myopic vision of GRAB the lands and GRAB their money.  Also in the same Sunchaser love letter is removal of shackles of the traditional timeshare model.  Does anyone want to place the shackles on someone else?  Did anyone say include cement boots at no additional charge ?  We do not feel like "winners" and I'm sure that most of the people that paid do not feel like they won.


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> But the Act specifically states that you must agree to it in writing. Did you do that?


I suspect that no reply to it would mean one approved.  Not sure though if one didn't receive notice if that would apply.


----------



## CleoB

Appauled said:


> Break it down a bit more, on a car lease you are responsible for scheduled maintenance costs, HOWEVER on a residential lease such as a house or condo, if the roof or the POLY B pipes, etc. needed to be repaired or replaced, then it is the responsibility of the PROPERTY OWNER to repair, not the leaser. And in both cases, IF you wanted to exit the lease and were unable to find someone to take over, the most you would be bound to and responsible for, would be the balance of the lease for the monthly/annual cost remaining for the term of the lease without any penalties or interest charges.
> HOW in blazes does this not apply in this timeshare?????


It does but Geldert didn't bring this information (along with other info given him) to the judges attention.  They can only rule on what is presented to them.  Face it, Geldert was in over his head.  He should never have taken this case on.  I think he watched to many tv shows about lawyers bring in "surprise" evidence and in real life judges don't like that.


----------



## dotbuhler

torqued said:


> Nope. The letter was a warm fuzzy introduction by the CEO Patrick Fitzgerald that they obtained the resort from Fairmont. Nothing else. No mention of contracts etc


Then you did not sign anything agreeing to the new owners, ergo your contract is void under the Act.


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> I suspect that no reply to it would mean one approved.  Not sure though if one didn't receive notice if that would apply.


NO! "you must agree in writing", you did not do that!


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> But the Act specifically states that you must agree to it in writing. Did you do that?


Would you please provide me to the link on this?  I'd like my new lawyer to check this out.


----------



## Frau Blucher

Here’s a better picture of ol’ KW come moneyday


----------



## LilMaggie

Shake Down said:


> looking into a few related news stories Re: Class Action/Breach of contract etc. found this one interesting.
> 
> _Caravanserai Beach Resort- St Maarten,_ Endless Vacation NV (the timeshare company)
> 
> The resort got into financial trouble, Scotiabank held the mortgage on the resort, and eventually foreclosed on it. The bank was left owning the resort and continuing to run the operations. As time went by, conditions deteriorated. The elevators were broken for months, the hot water was unreliable, and the AC was sometimes out of service. In August 2014, Scotiabank sold the Caravanserai Beach Resort to Alegria at a public auction. Alegria paid $14 million US for the property.
> 
> After Alegria purchased the property, they said that Endless Vacation NV (the timeshare company) was no longer involved in the hotel and timeshare operations. They further stated that Alegria would not be bound by any of the timeshare agreements that Endless Vacation made.
> 
> The new owner Alegria sent about 2,200 timeshare owners at the resort a letter, saying their ownership rights were nullified!
> 
> Alegria denied any responsibility for this loss of ownership, but said they sympathised with the owners. They offered disenfranchised owners "a hotel room usage agreement, which would allow usage of a hotel room and facilities at the resort against an annual fee to cover part of the operational cost of the resort." _(The Alegria offer sounds a lot like a timeshare, so what's the difference between this and what the owners had before?)_
> 
> _One client stated..."in November we received an e-mail from new owner Sidholm/Alegria telling us our timeshare rights were null and void. He plans to "tear down" the existing facilities and build a luxury hotel - oh, and too bad for the 2,200 timeshare owners"_
> 
> In 2014 The owners quickly created a group called TOCA (Timeshare Owners at Caravanserai Beach Resort) hastily filed an injunction just days before the deadline, to try to protect their rights. However, the court sided with the new owner, Alegria, because the timeshare owners' agreements were not with Alegria, or with the former property owner, but with Endless Vacations NV. The judge said that Alegria was not bound by any agreements that Endless Vacation made and was entitled to nullify the people's ownership rights like they did.
> 
> After losing a previous injunction in November 2014, the association TOCA filed a new case in July 2015 in a renewed effort by timeshare owners to get their units back. TOCA deemed the immediate annulment of clients' timeshare agreements unjust, as these constituted a breach of contract. The association is of the opinion that timeshare agreements are, in fact, rental agreements that, as such, should be legally protected.
> 
> This time, the Court ruled in the timeshare owners' favour, as it held their agreements closed with the resort's former owner Kildare, its subsidiary company Endless Vacation, or any other, to be rental agreements, which are protected by law. The Court ordered Alegría to allow timeshare owners access to their properties within five days, providing they pay the required maintenance fees. In case of non-compliance, Alegría would have to pay a daily fine of US $1,000 per TOCA-member, to a maximum of $25,000 per member.
> 
> The resort owner also was ordered to pay each of the individual owners the amount of $27,589, with interest. Alegría also will have to pay the cost of the legal proceedings.
> 
> _* Interesting how the rental agreement came into play on this one.. _


If only Canadian courts were as intelligent as the Dutch when it comes to understanding what renting property entails!


----------



## LilMaggie

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> It certainly should.
> 
> Unfortunately whatever Northmont did the Courts approved of it. The Courts are wrong in that. How could the Courts have said, _'If not the VIAs then who is going to pay for it.'_ without it ever crossing their mind that the Developer, the Owner of the Buildings and Land, has paid zero? How could the Courts have said, _'Can't blame a business for wanting to make money.'_ We don't blame Northmont for wanting to make money. They had a contract that described exactly how they are to make their money. We blame Northmont for making money outside the provisions of the contract.
> 
> Oh, I'm still on it.
> 
> The Courts were wrong. Geldert et. al. screwed-up but that was compounded by the Courts. How, how, could Loo and Fitzpatrick not asked the simple question, _"Who pocketed the money from timeshare sales?"_ Or, how about this question, _"If, as the Courts call it, it's a timeshare. Then if this timeshare chooses willfully to stop selling vacation intervals, is it still a timeshare?" _Because God knows they had the inventory. Then, then, the Courts accepts that they have to reduce the number of buildings because ... too much inventory, like it's not the result of Northmont's actions. Well, Northmont stopped sales. That's what happens when you operate a #NAFR and fully 75% of the Leasees choose to pay-to-leave or not pay at all.
> 
> I can see Loo and Fitzpatrick eating salads in their chambers saying,
> _"25% chose to stay that sounds like it's a decent place."
> "Oh, unhuh, we stayed at this place last summer that had a four-star rating on Tripadvisor and it was crap. So, you can't really tell by percentages and numbers and such."
> "Oh ya, that Kirk fella he looks like he didn't have any friends I feel kinda bad for him."
> "I hear ya, he is an accountant you know. They're good with those numbers and that long-division."
> "Lordy, I had trouble with that in school. Good thing Daddy was tight with the former Premier or who knows what I'd be doing now."
> "You'd probably be staying in some shabby timeshare."
> ...both laugh._
> 
> And, and, why did the Courts not scrutinize the overall behaviour of Northmont and their failures to comply with the Bankruptcy provisions? Don't know, well, neither do I.


Hey Barbados!  That lunch conversation gave the best laugh I've had in a very long time!  Thank you


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> Would you please provide me to the link on this?  I'd like my new lawyer to check this out.


Consumer Protection Act


----------



## MarcieL

Just Looking Around said:


> Geldert isn't the only one good a 'colouring' the truth. Wankel, who if you were paying attention to Punter's post earlier (#3902), is the sole owner of the #NAFR adds some shading to the truth by suggesting this legal dispute is him defending leasees from the leasees.


What is NAFR?


----------



## Petus@18

Recent update received!!!


----------



## Can't_Give_Up

Even though the transcripts have been filed for the appeal, the 'appeal book' has not. After obtaining some legal advice, they informed me that an appeal book or a trial book would have to be filed indicating the case/statutory laws and precedents the lawyers intended to argue on our behalf. But  SLG has no intention of pursuing the appeal and have made it unclear as to how we can proceed without the Reids involvement due to the fact that they have already settled. The advice they gave me was that each of us who plan to appeal Judge Young's decision needs to be in court that day so that we can be heard. A large group of numbers will show the court that something has gone awry and we may be able to get an extension to file a new appeal (without SLG or Geldert's involvement) or more time to prepare the appeal that has already been filed. I cannot stress this enough; if we want any chance of proceeding with the appeal, we need to show up in force on that day. Do not let the lawyers steam roll the conversation with the Judge b/c they no longer represent us. We need to stand up and articulate to the judge the circumstances of the appeal (not being properly notified of it, how to proceed, withdrawal of lawyer on record, ask the judge for direction, etc). 

This event is also a good time for all of us to meet up in person and actually discuss our case and how to move forward. We also need to discuss which legal firm we can use to represent us.  Geldert has mislead us too many times to believe anything he says or sends out in an email; many people think that we are now 2 groups or even 3, but the reality is that we are still one group. If you have no intention of paying the settlement, then you need to move forward with the appeal regardless of which option you signed. In one of Geldert's last emails, he states that you can no longer opt out of the settlement agreement because you could have opted out at any time up until December 29th. In reality, the December 28th email was the only reference of opting out of the settlement after Geldert negotiated it without the group's input. The same email is also the first time (2 weeks after negotiation) that he mentioned how to "calculate' what you owe; which only works if Northmont sent you out a November 2016 statement. All in all, there are too many discrepancies with what he was said/written and what he has done to enforce his settlement.

We need to contact everyone that was a part of the group to make sure they will be present in court that day; spread the word through social media, other websites, etc. In one of the actions filed under Northmont vs. Reid, it lists over 650 Alberta members that are part of the Geldert group, it also lists which city they live in; however, it doesn't list their phone numbers. Over the course of the next 2 weeks I am going to try and search for their numbers and contact them about the appeal. If anyone wants to help with this endeavor, they can send me a PM. Remember *March 8, 2018 @ 10am at the Edmonton Law Courts.*


----------



## Petus@18

Can't_Give_Up said:


> Even though the transcripts have been filed for the appeal, the 'appeal book' has not. After obtaining some legal advice, they informed me that an appeal book or a trial book would have to be filed indicating the case/statutory laws and precedents the lawyers intended to argue on our behalf. But  SLG has no intention of pursuing the appeal and have made it unclear as to how we can proceed without the Reids involvement due to the fact that they have already settled. The advice they gave me was that each of us who plan to appeal Judge Young's decision needs to be in court that day so that we can be heard. A large group of numbers will show the court that something has gone awry and we may be able to get an extension to file a new appeal (without SLG or Geldert's involvement) or more time to prepare the appeal that has already been filed. I cannot stress this enough; if we want any chance of proceeding with the appeal, we need to show up in force on that day. Do not let the lawyers steam roll the conversation with the Judge b/c they no longer represent us. We need to stand up and articulate to the judge the circumstances of the appeal (not being properly notified of it, how to proceed, withdrawal of lawyer on record, ask the judge for direction, etc).
> 
> This event is also a good time for all of us to meet up in person and actually discuss our case and how to move forward. We also need to discuss which legal firm we can use to represent us.  Geldert has mislead us too many times to believe anything he says or sends out in an email; many people think that we are now 2 groups or even 3, but the reality is that we are still one group. If you have no intention of paying the settlement, then you need to move forward with the appeal regardless of which option you signed. In one of Geldert's last emails, he states that you can no longer opt out of the settlement agreement because you could have opted out at any time up until December 29th. In reality, the December 28th email was the only reference of opting out of the settlement after Geldert negotiated it without the group's input. The same email is also the first time (2 weeks after negotiation) that he mentioned how to "calculate' what you owe; which only works if Northmont sent you out a November 2016 statement. All in all, there are too many discrepancies with what he was said/written and what he has done to enforce his settlement.
> 
> We need to contact everyone that was a part of the group to make sure they will be present in court that day; spread the word through social media, other websites, etc. In one of the actions filed under Northmont vs. Reid, it lists over 650 Alberta members that are part of the Geldert group, it also lists which city they live in; however, it doesn't list their phone numbers. Over the course of the next 2 weeks I am going to try and search for their numbers and contact them about the appeal. If anyone wants to help with this endeavor, they can send me a PM. Remember *March 8, 2018 @ 10am at the Edmonton Law Courts.*



We can help and will pm our email address to you!!  Thank you very much


----------



## truthr

Can't_Give_Up said:


> Even though the transcripts have been filed for the appeal, the 'appeal book' has not. After obtaining some legal advice, they informed me that an appeal book or a trial book would have to be filed indicating the case/statutory laws and precedents the lawyers intended to argue on our behalf. But  SLG has no intention of pursuing the appeal and have made it unclear as to how we can proceed without the Reids involvement due to the fact that they have already settled. The advice they gave me was that each of us who plan to appeal Judge Young's decision needs to be in court that day so that we can be heard. A large group of numbers will show the court that something has gone awry and we may be able to get an extension to file a new appeal (without SLG or Geldert's involvement) or more time to prepare the appeal that has already been filed. I cannot stress this enough; if we want any chance of proceeding with the appeal, we need to show up in force on that day. Do not let the lawyers steam roll the conversation with the Judge b/c they no longer represent us. We need to stand up and articulate to the judge the circumstances of the appeal (not being properly notified of it, how to proceed, withdrawal of lawyer on record, ask the judge for direction, etc).
> 
> This event is also a good time for all of us to meet up in person and actually discuss our case and how to move forward. We also need to discuss which legal firm we can use to represent us.  Geldert has mislead us too many times to believe anything he says or sends out in an email; many people think that we are now 2 groups or even 3, but the reality is that we are still one group. If you have no intention of paying the settlement, then you need to move forward with the appeal regardless of which option you signed. In one of Geldert's last emails, he states that you can no longer opt out of the settlement agreement because you could have opted out at any time up until December 29th. In reality, the December 28th email was the only reference of opting out of the settlement after Geldert negotiated it without the group's input. The same email is also the first time (2 weeks after negotiation) that he mentioned how to "calculate' what you owe; which only works if Northmont sent you out a November 2016 statement. All in all, there are too many discrepancies with what he was said/written and what he has done to enforce his settlement.
> 
> We need to contact everyone that was a part of the group to make sure they will be present in court that day; spread the word through social media, other websites, etc. In one of the actions filed under Northmont vs. Reid, it lists over 650 Alberta members that are part of the Geldert group, it also lists which city they live in; however, it doesn't list their phone numbers. Over the course of the next 2 weeks I am going to try and search for their numbers and contact them about the appeal. If anyone wants to help with this endeavor, they can send me a PM. Remember *March 8, 2018 @ 10am at the Edmonton Law Courts.*


And there again our legal team makes US look bad and puts us in harms way. Why do they need to control the information and not release it until the very last minute if at all.  Why??  After the fiasco with doing that to the judges again WHY?? 

Why do they continue to play these games.  These are peoples' lives they are messing with, not just us the clients, but all those employees as well, all the lawyers that have been contacted to try to find someone to represent a group that is scattered.  Why were the Option 2s not provided with a list so we could contact each other to regroup and find new representation???  WHY??

I can't imagine that the court wants a whole whack of confused, desperate people descending upon it but that is exactly what is going to happen and unfortunately there does not seem to be another option.

Never in all my years have I heard of one lawyer causing such havoc and turning the judicial system in TWO provinces upside down because of his shenanigans; the main city courthouses, the small town courthouses in both BC and AB are over run and over worked and WHY???  Well because for some reason Geldert feels this need to force his clients to have to first, ask then almost beg for documents we should have had all along and then when he doesn't relent and supply them people are calling the courthouses to get whatever they can.  Putting even more pressure on the already over taxed courthouses by this madness. 

Oh and let us not forget all the complaints going into the law society - they are overwhelmed as well with the ongoing complaints due to the ONGOING shenanigans.

Michael Geldert - Please just give your "former" clients what they need to move forward.  We don't need you, or your instructions, or your demands masquerading as "instructions", we need the documents, reports, affidavits, etc that you should have been providing all along and we need current documents and then you can step aside while the "adults" clean up your mess before it gets worse.


----------



## Frau Blucher

MarcieL said:


> What is NAFR?



NAFR - Not A *bleep*ing Resort


----------



## Petus@18

Can't_Give_Up said:


> Even though the transcripts have been filed for the appeal, the 'appeal book' has not. After obtaining some legal advice, they informed me that an appeal book or a trial book would have to be filed indicating the case/statutory laws and precedents the lawyers intended to argue on our behalf. But  SLG has no intention of pursuing the appeal and have made it unclear as to how we can proceed without the Reids involvement due to the fact that they have already settled. The advice they gave me was that each of us who plan to appeal Judge Young's decision needs to be in court that day so that we can be heard. A large group of numbers will show the court that something has gone awry and we may be able to get an extension to file a new appeal (without SLG or Geldert's involvement) or more time to prepare the appeal that has already been filed. I cannot stress this enough; if we want any chance of proceeding with the appeal, we need to show up in force on that day. Do not let the lawyers steam roll the conversation with the Judge b/c they no longer represent us. We need to stand up and articulate to the judge the circumstances of the appeal (not being properly notified of it, how to proceed, withdrawal of lawyer on record, ask the judge for direction, etc).
> 
> This event is also a good time for all of us to meet up in person and actually discuss our case and how to move forward. We also need to discuss which legal firm we can use to represent us.  Geldert has mislead us too many times to believe anything he says or sends out in an email; many people think that we are now 2 groups or even 3, but the reality is that we are still one group. If you have no intention of paying the settlement, then you need to move forward with the appeal regardless of which option you signed. In one of Geldert's last emails, he states that you can no longer opt out of the settlement agreement because you could have opted out at any time up until December 29th. In reality, the December 28th email was the only reference of opting out of the settlement after Geldert negotiated it without the group's input. The same email is also the first time (2 weeks after negotiation) that he mentioned how to "calculate' what you owe; which only works if Northmont sent you out a November 2016 statement. All in all, there are too many discrepancies with what he was said/written and what he has done to enforce his settlement.
> 
> We need to contact everyone that was a part of the group to make sure they will be present in court that day; spread the word through social media, other websites, etc. In one of the actions filed under Northmont vs. Reid, it lists over 650 Alberta members that are part of the Geldert group, it also lists which city they live in; however, it doesn't list their phone numbers. Over the course of the next 2 weeks I am going to try and search for their numbers and contact them about the appeal. If anyone wants to help with this endeavor, they can send me a PM. Remember *March 8, 2018 @ 10am at the Edmonton Law Courts.*



I just posted your message in one of the Facebook groups.  Maybe Truth can post it in the secret one?


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> Consumer Protection Act


That's not a link.  If you truly know of what you speak please provide me with a link so I can provide it to my lawyer......otherwise I have to assume you are blowing smoke.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

truthr said:


> And there again our legal team makes US look bad and puts us in harms way. Why do they need to control the information and not release it until the very last minute if at all.  Why??  After the fiasco with doing that to the judges again WHY??
> 
> Why do they continue to play these games.  These are peoples' lives they are messing with, not just us the clients, but all those employees as well, all the lawyers that have been contacted to try to find someone to represent a group that is scattered.  Why were the Option 2s not provided with a list so we could contact each other to regroup and find new representation???  WHY??
> 
> I can't imagine that the court wants a whole whack of confused, desperate people descending upon it but that is exactly what is going to happen and unfortunately there does not seem to be another option.
> 
> Never in all my years have I heard of one lawyer causing such havoc and turning the judicial system in TWO provinces upside down because of his shenanigans; the main city courthouses, the small town courthouses in both BC and AB are over run and over worked and WHY???  Well because for some reason Geldert feels this need to force his clients to have to first, ask then almost beg for documents we should have had all along and then when he doesn't relent and supply them people are calling the courthouses to get whatever they can.  Putting even more pressure on the already over taxed courthouses by this madness.
> 
> Oh and let us not forget all the complaints going into the law society - they are overwhelmed as well with the ongoing complaints due to the ONGOING shenanigans.
> 
> Michael Geldert - Please just give your "former" clients what they need to move forward.  We don't need you, or your instructions, or your demands masquerading as "instructions", we need the documents, reports, affidavits, etc that you should have been providing all along and we need current documents and then you can step aside while the "adults" clean up your mess before it gets worse.


Unfortunately I believe Michael Geldert is doing this possibly for two reasons:

1) Timing - by controlling the flow of information he believes or is committed himself to protect the information based on the deal he has made with Northmont which is all part of the overall settlement.  If the Option 2 people cannot properly prepare there is the potential this all gets swept nicely under the judicial carpet - that's why the next court date is after Option 1 is supposed to be out of the way so the SIF cannot be challenged in front of Judge Young now that everyone from that camp is gagged and bonded.
My bet is down the road he will try and say he was doing this to protect his clients from themselves because other lawyers are giving bad advice or its too complex.

2) Money - hopefully everyone has come to realize Michael Geldert dragged this out to maximize profit and capitalize from us monetarily and who knows maybe he did take the job this time Northmont offered him a while back (he should have figured out the writing was on the wall as people were starting to asked direct questions to continue on any further).

The question you really need to ask him is what the cost is to sell you the documents that you want or need - he made it pretty evident you aren't his clients anymore so now he has one more opportunity to make it cost you (a smart and ethical lawyer who followed their code of conduct as a lawyer wouldn't put themselves or their clients at risk or in this position as they realize the ramifications of eventually being disbarred and sued).
Option 1 people - there isn't a chance anyone will get anything back from the $250 you just paid (or $300,000 (1285 x $250) collectively) for Michael to process the releases (fingers crossed correctly)


----------



## lost and confused

I have requested ALL documents from MG and requested a comprehensive file of all info so that I can process, move on and transition to the next phase.  He has not yet provided the info.....has said they will look into it early March and there will be a cost associated   (say what????).  This is not fair and ethical in my opinion.  All documents are likely in digital format and need to be shared and accessed by all.  This sharing of info should have been done all along as it is part of effective communication an good legal counsel.   As part of a withdraw, info should be shared in a timely manner.   I have stressed that the hearing is scheduled March 8....and there is most certainly a timeline and crunch to get info...especially as withdrawal of service was initiated in January.  There are guidelines associated with withdrawal as per BC Law Society

https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/suppor...ia/chapter-3-–-relationship-to-clients/#3.7-8

I believe it is our right to request the legal info. It is our right to receive it in a timely manner.  If you have not requested it, you may want to consider doing so.   If you have not yet received all info, then perhaps feedback needs to be made to the Law Society....just my two cents.   If you don't speak up for your rights, who will?    Take action


----------



## ecwinch

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Unfortunately I believe Michael Geldert is doing this possibly for two reasons:



I would add.... To protect his relationship with his next “client”.

The court has taken him task multiple times. He wants to put this one to bed as to not endanger his next engagement with the Club Intrawest Owners Group.

https://www.citheownersgroup.org/single-post/2017/10/31/Next-Steps

_On October 24th, Michel Berthiaume updated members on behalf of the Volunteer Coordinating Committe (VCC), about what our group had been doing since Konrad's election to the board in June. My purpose today is to give members some insight as to our "next steps" for the coming weeks.

The VCC has a full-day meeting planned for the end of November. One of the highlights of the day is expected to *be a conference call with Michael Geldert to discuss his legal opinion / litigation proposals*.  This will allow the VCC to develop an Operational Plan based on his findings._


----------



## LilMaggie

lost and confused said:


> I have requested ALL documents from MG and requested a comprehensive file of all info so that I can process, move on and transition to the next phase.  He has not yet provided the info.....has said they will look into it early March and there will be a cost associated   (say what????).  This is not fair and ethical in my opinion.  All documents are likely in digital format and need to be shared and accessed by all.  This sharing of info should have been done all along as it is part of effective communication an good legal counsel.   As part of a withdraw, info should be shared in a timely manner.   I have stressed that the hearing is scheduled March 8....and there is most certainly a timeline and crunch to get info...especially as withdrawal of service was initiated in January.  There are guidelines associated with withdrawal as per BC Law Society
> 
> https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/suppor...ia/chapter-3-–-relationship-to-clients/#3.7-8
> 
> I believe it is our right to request the legal info. It is our right to receive it in a timely manner.  If you have not requested it, you may want to consider doing so.   If you have not yet received all info, then perhaps feedback needs to be made to the Law Society....just my two cents.   If you don't speak up for your rights, who will?    Take action


Any one who has any concerns about your legal representation, or lack thereof, needs to file a complaint with the BC law society NOW.  It is free and easy.  Please add to the growing list of complaints so that they can't ignore us!


----------



## LilMaggie

CleoB said:


> That's not a link.  If you truly know of what you speak please provide me with a link so I can provide it to my lawyer......otherwise I have to assume you are blowing smoke.


http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=c26p3.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779801640&display=html
http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADD...egislature_29/session_3/20170302_bill-031.pdf
Here you go.  Give this to your lawyer to peruse.


----------



## LilMaggie

Frau Blucher said:


> NAFR - Not A *bleep*ing Resort


Thanks Frau for telling it like it is!!


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> That's not a link.  If you truly know of what you speak please provide me with a link so I can provide it to my lawyer......otherwise I have to assume you are blowing smoke.


"ass   u  me" we all know what happens when we assume....if your lawyer that you are paying good money for can't read I'd suggest you are wasting your money. This thread going back to 2013 has numerous details as to specific parts of the the Act that are applicable. Check Aden2's postings, for example. The Fair Trading Act (Alberta) was referred to numerous times by Justice Young. Ask yourself "WHY"....any lawyer worth his beans will be all over this.


----------



## dotbuhler

LilMaggie said:


> Any one who has any concerns about your legal representation, or lack thereof, needs to file a complaint with the BC law society NOW.  It is free and easy.  Please add to the growing list of complaints so that they can't ignore us!


Remember that Judge Young's Decision was primarily directed at our lawyer, Michael Geldert and his "vexatious behavior and abuse of process". Bring those confirmation letters with you from the B.C. Law Society stating the case # regarding the Michael Geldert Complaint  to Court on March 8. THIS IS IMPORTANT!!


----------



## Frau Blucher

Someone is having a running battle on Vancouver’s Craiglist under personals - rant & raves.  Someone is continually posting “reviews” of Geldert’s dismal performance as someone keeps flagging it for removal (probably Michael or Patricia).  We should all start posting bad reviews to increase the Gelderts’ workload. I wonder if Michael or Patricia could charge for billable hours for the time they spend flagging the ads?


----------



## Petus@18

Frau Blucher said:


> Someone is having a running battle on Vancouver’s Craiglist under personals - rant & raves.  Someone is continually posting “reviews” of Geldert’s dismal performance as someone keeps flagging it for removal (probably Michael or Patricia).  We should all start posting bad reviews to increase the Gelderts’ workload. I wonder if Michael or Patricia could charge for billable hours for the time they spend flagging the ads?



Do you have a link?  We could also post a review to the Club Intrawest Owners Group.

*Our Facebook group is found at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/clubintrawestowners/
Our email is:ci.theownersgroup@gmail.com

These are the correct links*


----------



## Frau Blucher

Petus@18 said:


> Do you have a link?  We could also tweet to the Club Intrawest Owners Group.
> 
> Link provided by Ecwinch:
> https://www.citheownersgroup.org/single-post/2017/10/31/Next-Steps



https://vancouver.craigslist.ca/van/rnr/6505914517.html


----------



## torqued

dotbuhler said:


> "ass   u  me" we all know what happens when we assume....if your lawyer that you are paying good money for can't read I'd suggest you are wasting your money. This thread going back to 2013 has numerous details as to specific parts of the the Act that are applicable. Check Aden2's postings, for example. The Fair Trading Act (Alberta) was referred to numerous times by Justice Young. Ask yourself "WHY"....any lawyer worth his beans will be all over this.


Why? Wouldn’t be able to drag out the case  All about money!


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Frau Blucher said:


> Someone is having a running battle on Vancouver’s Craiglist under personals - rant & raves.  Someone is continually posting “reviews” of Geldert’s dismal performance as someone keeps flagging it for removal (probably Michael or Patricia).  We should all start posting bad reviews to increase the Gelderts’ workload. I wonder if Michael or Patricia could charge for billable hours for the time they spend flagging the ads?





Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Well I am sure we can all help him get those huge *5 STAR *reviews he is looking for to get his next client feeling the warm and fuzzies by saying how much we appreciated what he was able to do for us:
> *https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info
> 
> *
> *Let's let everyone know he has 5 thumbs up from us*
> 
> 
> *Take some time and share your experience so everyone knows how you feel*
> 
> *https://www.yelp.ca/biz/geldert-law-vancouver
> 
> https://www.fyple.ca/company/geldert-law-3thwj8q/
> 
> http://www.lawyerlookup.review/british-columbia-vancouver/business/189809/Geldert-Law.html
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/GeldertLaw/
> 
> https://ca.lynkos.com/company/geldert-law/reviews
> 
> http://www.bigreddirectory.ca/geldert-law-vancouver
> 
> https://www.canlisting.com/firm/geldert-law-865917
> 
> https://www.capointfinder.com/index.php/listing/geldert-law/
> 
> https://www.canadapages.com/geldert-law-vancouver-bc-7783307775/
> 
> https://www.bubblemortgage.com/geldertlaw.com*



Very clever!!

Don't forget there are lots of other places to leave your thoughts and well wishes.


----------



## truthr

Petus@18 said:


> Recent update received!!! View attachment 5775


An update??  For Option 1 or 2??


----------



## CleoB

LilMaggie said:


> http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=c26p3.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779801640&display=html
> http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADD...egislature_29/session_3/20170302_bill-031.pdf
> Here you go.  Give this to your lawyer to peruse.


Thank you.


----------



## Petus@18

truthr said:


> An update??  For Option 1 or 2??



Didn't you see the cartoon?  Just for laughs that is all


----------



## Frau Blucher

KW’s *epiphany*



 

*
*


----------



## truthr

Petus@18 said:


> Recent update received!!! View attachment 5775





truthr said:


> An update??  For Option 1 or 2??





Petus@18 said:


> Didn't you see the cartoon?  Just for laughs that is all


I did but wondered if he was sending out an update attempting to "gag" those who are speaking out.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

-Law and Order-
Year after year of being subjected to circular reasoning, gaslighting, deception, manipulation, intimidation and threats – that’s the sound of the clients’ dignity and self esteem circling the bowl and the hand that is on the flusher belongs to the man who committed these offences, the man we put our trust and faith in.


-Cherilyn Clough-
If you give a Narc an apology, he’ll want some groveling to go with it.
He’ll say you owe him and ask you to pick up the pieces for all the messes he’s made.
If you give a Narc an apology, he will always ask you to play a game you can never win.

https://littleredsurvivor.com/narci...t-never-forget/if-you-give-a-narc-an-apology/


----------



## truthr

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> -Law and Order-
> Year after year of being subjected to circular reasoning, gaslighting, deception, manipulation, intimidation and threats – that’s the sound of the clients’ dignity and self esteem circling the bowl and the hand that is on the flusher belongs to the man who committed these offences, the man we put our trust and faith in.
> 
> 
> -Cherilyn Clough-
> If you give a Narc an apology, he’ll want some groveling to go with it.
> He’ll say you owe him and ask you to pick up the pieces for all the messes he’s made.
> If you give a Narc an apology, he will always ask you to play a game you can never win.
> 
> https://littleredsurvivor.com/narci...t-never-forget/if-you-give-a-narc-an-apology/


 Here is another one:

You can't be the arsonist and the firefighter who gets paid to put out the fire.


----------



## MarcieL

lost and confused said:


> I have requested ALL documents from MG and requested a comprehensive file of all info so that I can process, move on and transition to the next phase.  He has not yet provided the info.....has said they will look into it early March and there will be a cost associated   (say what????).  This is not fair and ethical in my opinion.  All documents are likely in digital format and need to be shared and accessed by all.  This sharing of info should have been done all along as it is part of effective communication an good legal counsel.   As part of a withdraw, info should be shared in a timely manner.   I have stressed that the hearing is scheduled March 8....and there is most certainly a timeline and crunch to get info...especially as withdrawal of service was initiated in January.  There are guidelines associated with withdrawal as per BC Law Society
> 
> https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/suppor...ia/chapter-3-–-relationship-to-clients/#3.7-8
> 
> I believe it is our right to request the legal info. It is our right to receive it in a timely manner.  If you have not requested it, you may want to consider doing so.   If you have not yet received all info, then perhaps feedback needs to be made to the Law Society....just my two cents.   If you don't speak up for your rights, who will?    Take action


----------



## MarcieL

How can he refuse to release these documents if your attorney is requesting them?


----------



## CleoB

MarcieL said:


> How can he refuse to release these documents if your attorney is requesting them?


He's not refusing, he's just taking his sweet old time doing it.  I've added this complaint to my original complaint filed with the B.C. Law Society.


----------



## Frau Blucher

There’s a scene in the first “Iron Man” movie where Jim Cramer (from Mad Money) rants about Stark’s Industries and it was reminded me of when Northmont closed the sales office ...

(Jim Cramer ranting)
“New Stark’s business 
plan ...
Look, that’s a weapon company that doesn’t make weapons!!!”

(whereas with Northmont)
“New Sunchaser’s business 
plan ... 
Look, that’s a timeshare company that doesn’t sell timeshares!!!”


----------



## MarcieL

CleoB said:


> He's not refusing, he's just taking his sweet old time doing it.  I've added this complaint to my original complaint filed with the B.C. Law Society.


Wow how unethical.


----------



## truthr

From the BC law society code of professional conduct:

Suspended or disbarred lawyers
6.1-4 Without the express approval of the lawyer’s governing body, a lawyer must not retain, occupy office space with, use the services of, partner or associate with or employ in any capacity having to do with the practice of law any person who, in any jurisdiction,

(a) has been disbarred and struck off the Rolls,

(b) is suspended,

(c) has undertaken not to practise,

(d) has been involved in disciplinary action and been permitted to resign and has not been reinstated or readmitted,

(e) has failed to complete a Bar admission program for reasons relating to lack of good character and repute or fitness to be a member of the Bar,

(f) has been the subject of a hearing ordered, whether commenced or not, with respect to an application for enrolment as an articled student, call and admission, or reinstatement, unless the person was subsequently enrolled, called and admitted or reinstated in the same jurisdiction, or

(g) was required to withdraw or was expelled from a Bar admission program.


*Why am I posting this - check the last couple of financials for the name Bradley Willis
https://dvbat5idxh7ib.cloudfront.ne...2017/02/04232740/Willis-Notice-Disbarment.pdf

What are the chances Geldert asked for and received "express approval of the lawyer's governing body" prior to using our "trust" money to retain a disbarred lawyer.*


----------



## Shake Down

Was Geldhart was focusing on his new calling “Timeshare exit lawyer” as other evidence piled up in front of him?  

_and what about that darn contract ....._
The Law of Tort ~ Fraudulent Misrepresentation

From *1018429 Ontario Inc. v Fea Investments Ltd., (1999) CanLII 1741 (Ont. C.A.)*, a company entered into a contract for the purchase of a residential complex, which stated the amount of rent allowed to be collected. Shortly after, the plaintiffs received notice from the Ministry of Housing that their rent was too high and that this amount could not be collected. The Court of Appeal cited the following passage with regards to remedies for fraudulent misrepresentation with approval (para 51):

_“A fraudulent misrepresentation is one which is made with knowledge that it is untrue and with the intent to deceive.  It may constitute a term of the contract. Whether it does or not is immaterial, since fraud gives rise to effects in law of contract and the law of tort.” A contract resulting from a fraudulent misrepresentation may be avoided by the victim of the fraud. In such instances, the consent is not real consent. [underlining added]_

In other words, rescission may also be granted, but the equitable remedy of rescission is discretionary.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

truthr said:


> _From the BC law society code of professional conduct:
> 
> Suspended or disbarred lawyers
> 6.1-4 Without the express approval of the lawyer’s governing body, a lawyer must not retain, occupy office space with, use the services of, partner or associate with or employ in any capacity ..._



Prima Facia evidence, Geldert committed a fundamental breach of the BC Law Society Code of Professional Conduct. Or, as they used to say, "Birds of a feather flock together." How about, "Careful of the company you keep". And, "Show me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are."


----------



## Frau Blucher

Its ironic that Geldert eventually joined the Northmont team as he mentioned at the ‘townhall’ meeting in Edmonton that he had rejected a job offer to join Northmont/Sauvignon. Knowing how Geldert’s survival instincts operate, I’m sure he didn’t slam the ‘door’ on Northmont’s offer. In the end MG was only concerned about himself during the rushed negotiations.
Thanks Michael, for throwing us under the bus to save your hide.


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

Frau Blucher said:


> Its ironic that Geldert eventually joined the Northmont team as he mentioned at the ‘townhall’ meeting in Edmonton that he had rejected a job offer to join Northmont/Sauvignon. Knowing how Geldert’s survival instincts operate, I’m sure he didn’t slam the ‘door’ on Northmont’s offer. In the end MG was only concerned about himself during the rushed negotiations.
> Thanks Michael, for throwing us under the bus to save your hide.



_What? Geldert was offered a job by Kirk Wankel and Francois Sauvageau? During the negotiations? While he was the lawyer for the Geldert Group? Are you sure? And, he said this with his outside voice?_

That would be a big deal for the BC Law Society. Anyone who heard this needs to both report it to the BC Law Society and Judge Young. I'm not sure this qualifies for a mistrial but it does provide "prima facia" evidence to question and examine Geldert's motives. Especially if he has not reported it. It is a violation of both the Law Society and Charter Accountants professional code of conduct. Wholly Mother of ....


----------



## truthr

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> _What? Geldert was offered a job by Kirk Wankel and Francois Sauvageau? During the negotiations? While he was the lawyer for the Geldert Group? Are you sure? And, he said this with his outside voice?_
> 
> That would be a big deal for the BC Law Society. Anyone who heard this needs to both report it to the BC Law Society and Judge Young. I'm not sure this qualifies for a mistrial but it does provide "prima facia" evidence to question and examine Geldert's motives. Especially if he has not reported it. It is a violation of both the Law Society and Charter Accountants professional code of conduct. Wholly Mother of ....


Check the April 1st, 2016 update


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> _What? Geldert was offered a job by Kirk Wankel and Francois Sauvageau? During the negotiations? While he was the lawyer for the Geldert Group? Are you sure? And, he said this with his outside voice?_
> 
> That would be a big deal for the BC Law Society. Anyone who heard this needs to both report it to the BC Law Society and Judge Young. I'm not sure this qualifies for a mistrial but it does provide "prima facia" evidence to question and examine Geldert's motives. Especially if he has not reported it. It is a violation of both the Law Society and Charter Accountants professional code of conduct. Wholly Mother of ....


*Geldert UPDATE* | *April 1, 2016 *

*"Let me be clear* – Mr. Wankel asked me in Calgary to “join the team” as Northmont would be prepared to steer owners and lessees who are desperate to get out of this Resort to my office. I said *NO*."


----------



## ecwinch

Seems like he might have wanted to mention that in the court proceedings..... since he threw everything else against the wall to see if it stuck.


----------



## CleoB

truthr said:


> Check the April 1st, 2016 update


Even though he reported it in his update don't you think it would be a cause for mistrial seeing as the settlement offer was so outlandish and one sided?


----------



## Punter

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> _What? Geldert was offered a job by Kirk Wankel and Francois Sauvageau? During the negotiations? While he was the lawyer for the Geldert Group? Are you sure? And, he said this with his outside voice?_
> 
> That would be a big deal for the BC Law Society. Anyone who heard this needs to both report it to the BC Law Society and Judge Young. I'm not sure this qualifies for a mistrial but it does provide "prima facia" evidence to question and examine Geldert's motives. Especially if he has not reported it. It is a violation of both the Law Society and Charter Accountants professional code of conduct. Wholly Mother of ....


Witnessed in person at the Edmonton town hall meeting following day 1 of the Reid hearing......
MG: "Northmont offered to make me a rich man"
ME: WTF?
And yes, it has been reported to the BC Law society.

And, when we received the 'excellent settlement agreement" my very FIRST thought was - yup, MG was bought off.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

Punter said:


> Witnessed in person at the Edmonton town hall meeting following day 1 of the Reid hearing......
> MG: "Northmont offered to make me a rich man"
> ME: WTF?
> And yes, it has been reported to the BC Law society.
> 
> And, when we received the 'excellent settlement agreement" my very FIRST thought was - yup, MG was bought off.



I had heard this said before about NM and MG, but did not know it was in writing in an update.

Punter, did you report it to the BC Law society, or are you saying the MG told you he had reported it?

Seems like this is huge and should cast serious doubt on the settlement process, if there was not any doubt before.  If MG really said NO, it still seems like a total violation of any legal process and standards of conduct on NM, kind of like bribing a witness.

Anyone with expertise in legal matters heard of anything like this happening before and know what it could mean?  Can we register a complaint (other than the BC Law society) to get this investigated?  This should be criminal.


----------



## Punter

NeverNeverAgain said:


> I had heard this said before about NM and MG, but did not know it was in writing in an update.
> 
> Punter, did you report it to the BC Law society, or are you saying the MG told you he had reported it?
> 
> Seems like this is huge and should cast serious doubt on the settlement process, if there was not any doubt before.  If MG really said NO, it still seems like a total violation of any legal process and standards of conduct on NM, kind of like bribing a witness.
> 
> Anyone with expertise in legal matters heard of anything like this happening before and know what it could mean?  Can we register a complaint (other than the BC Law society) to get this investigated?  This should be criminal.


We, and others that witnessed it, have reported it to the Law Society.
MG  SHOULD have reported it, as it is a violation of his professional code of conduct (and KW's too).

Yes,  this is 'huge' as is all the other overlooked, disregarded behaviour of Northmont / Fairmont et. al. And, that of our own legal representation.


----------



## SentimentalLady

dotbuhler said:


> But the Act specifically states that you must agree to it in writing. Did you do that?


What Act is that?


----------



## SentimentalLady

dotbuhler said:


> Then you did not sign anything agreeing to the new owners, ergo your contract is void under the Act.


I read that act before, and I re-read again. I cannot see where it says that.


----------



## aden2

*Consumer protection changes*
Changes to Alberta's consumer protection legislation include:


a new name - Alberta’s primary legislation to protect consumers from unfair practices and businesses from unfair competition was renamed to the _Consumer Protection Act_
a new preamble to the Act – a plain language preamble was added to the _Consumer Protection Act_ to further explain the intention and purpose of the act, and to help the courts interpret any provisions that may be unclear
an authority for the Minister-responsible to make publically available a Consumer Bill of Rights
as required by the new legislation, a Consumer Bill of Rights will be established as a general guideline to recognize and protect consumer rights and to help consumers understand their rights and make well-informed decisions

enhanced fairness between consumers and businesses – new provisions that are now in place include:
*prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts, unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract*
prohibiting businesses from including clauses in contracts that prevent consumers from posting negative reviews of the business or transaction, provided the negative review is not malicious or vexatious
protection for consumers who file complaints in good faith, and are not vexatious or malicious, with a right of defense against lawsuits or other actions intended to coerce consumers to withdraw or not make complaints or publish reviews
prohibiting suppliers from enforcing mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts
expanded right to sue when a consumer has suffered a loss from a breach of the Act or regulations beyond unfair practices
allowing the government to act in the public interest by enabling the release of information about charges, convictions, and other enforcement actions taken under the Act


----------



## dotbuhler

SentimentalLady said:


> Skookum and 2OldFarts - we who have joined Geldert receive regular, detailed updates about what's happening - but of course we are not allowed to share those.
> 
> I've read it ALL. Hundreds of pages. And while I don't always understand all the legalities of everything, it's actually fairly clear to anyone who does read it. And the more I learn, the more I am SO glad that we joined Geldert. The way Fairmont/Northmont/Sunchaser/Northwynd was all set up - it's pretty complicated for even the experts to sort out. I cannot imagine anyone seriously believing they can fight this on their own.
> 
> Realistically, on your own - you either pay to stay or pay to go. And yes, that 26% interest has been adding up fast for all of us.....but you knew that before May 31, 2013. You've had 19 months since then of dithering and hoping for the best?
> 
> It really does not matter to me what you choose to do, because there are so many of us with Geldert that I feel very comfortable. It was an end of the stress to be able to tell Sauvageau that we were represented and that was the end of the phone call. No more. And no stress when we were finally served - just turn it over to Geldert. Yes, on my own I could read the instructions and run around and pay all the fees - but what comes next? Instead, I'm stress-free and know that we are in good hands. Of course there are no guarantees of how things will turn out in the end, but I do feel confident of a WAY better result from a lawyer who's been with this since the beginning, knows what he's doing, and has the resources to do it right when he's working for over 1000 people.
> 
> I only take the time to promote joining Geldert because I feel so badly for people who are trying to go it on their own. I've heard some really sad stories, and especially feel for people who are not computer-savvy. They don't even know this group exists and that they do NOT have to go it alone.
> 
> Incidentally, people contacted "by the law firm representing Northmont saying...."  - I have the feeling you don't realize you are talking to a clerk at Sauvageau and Associates, a collection agency, which has a lawyer attached to it. And that their only interest is in collecting the money Northmont has contracted them for. For the legal fight, Northmont is using Norton Rose Fulbright.


Is this someone who is working for Michael Geldert. ....perhaps with the first name of "Patricia? ...last name "Mateo"????


----------



## dotbuhler

SentimentalLady said:


> I read that act before, and I re-read again. I cannot see where it says that.


Sentimental Lady, I read your posts going back to June 2014. You were REALLY pushing Micheal Geldert just like Jim Belfry (JEKE). I am wondering if you are on here on behalf of him to find out what our defense will be when we see you and your husband at the next Court date. Or maybe I should refer to you by the name Patricia Mateo? Any relation to "Lamplit"???


----------



## dotbuhler

Chilliaces said:


> *Update*
> 
> For a short time in the 90's, I sold these timeshares. I was taught to tell people that each unit was sold 51 times. 1 week per year was set aside for maintenance that could not be done when people are in the units. I am quite sure these places are used 52 weeks per year. As I sit here and look around my unit, nothing has been changed or upgraded since they were built. Same pictures, same furniture, same crappy hide-a-beds, same crappy bent up shades on all the windows, etc. There is bubbled wallpaper, cracked window sills, poor lighting, old TV's, baseboards that need replacing, etc. Our fridge and freezer don't work very well. We put water in the ice tray the night we got here and the next morning there was a small layer of ice on top but mostly still water.
> I do realized they they are well used and livable, but I guarantee you that our maintenance fees have not been used as intended.
> They did upgrade the WiFi and it is much better.
> I was here the first week of July last year and it is not near as busy this year. Last year you couldn't get a lounger by the pool unless you got there early. Yesterday 3/4 of the chairs were empty at 1:30 in the afternoon.
> Most people I have talked to have chosen to buy their way out. There are a lot of bitter people and most who paid thought they had no choice. They didn't know about this site and didn't do any research. Thus Northwynds claim as to how many have paid.
> FRP/Northwynd management must have learned their business management skills from the government, collect all the money, and then expect that the people who paid the taxes/fees just trust that the money is used wisely, even though we all know that is not the case.
> I have signed up with Docken and have given his name and number to a few people although I dont know if he or any of the other lawyers are still taking clients.


Looking back and came across this gem.....


----------



## dotbuhler

spirits said:


> *Hmmmmm*
> 
> Do not own at Fairmount but everytime I get a new and improved program at work it either costs me more time and effort or it costs me money out of my pocket.  This does not sound good either....good luck owners, I hope I am wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDITED BY MODERATOR
> SINCE THIS POST AS OF JULY 2014 IS OVER 64 PAGES AND 1600 POSTS HERE IS THE BACKROUND


...this is definitely worth a read, go to the post on page 1 and read the synopsis that is posted there...


----------



## Petus@18

dotbuhler said:


> Is this someone who is working for Michael Geldert. ....perhaps with the first name of "Patricia? ...last name "Mateo"????



OMG, you may be absolutely right!  'The first lady' Patricia-Maiato Geldert!!!


----------



## Petus@18

Frau Blucher said:


> Its ironic that Geldert eventually joined the Northmont team as he mentioned at the ‘townhall’ meeting in Edmonton that he had rejected a job offer to join Northmont/Sauvignon. Knowing how Geldert’s survival instincts operate, I’m sure he didn’t slam the ‘door’ on Northmont’s offer. In the end MG was only concerned about himself during the rushed negotiations.
> Thanks Michael, for throwing us under the bus to save your hide.



Thanks for reminding us of all of this!. We have sent a follow-up message to the LS to ensure they have this information again. "Collusion with Wankel" very possible. We have also made the LS aware that Geldert has not provided us with true copies of the documents we need for the appeal (apparently electronic copies have a price that he will determine closer to March 8th!). Geldert has violated so many rules and all the wrong actions he has taken upon himself; hopefully the LS will intervene sooner than later and rectify this situation, but can't hold our breath for very long.


----------



## torqued

I’m tellin ya right now you can’t make this stuff up!!!. Like the country song says “God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy!!


----------



## CleoB

aden2 said:


> *Consumer protection changes*
> Changes to Alberta's consumer protection legislation include:
> 
> 
> a new name - Alberta’s primary legislation to protect consumers from unfair practices and businesses from unfair competition was renamed to the _Consumer Protection Act_
> a new preamble to the Act – a plain language preamble was added to the _Consumer Protection Act_ to further explain the intention and purpose of the act, and to help the courts interpret any provisions that may be unclear
> an authority for the Minister-responsible to make publically available a Consumer Bill of Rights
> as required by the new legislation, a Consumer Bill of Rights will be established as a general guideline to recognize and protect consumer rights and to help consumers understand their rights and make well-informed decisions
> 
> enhanced fairness between consumers and businesses – new provisions that are now in place include:
> *prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts, unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract*
> prohibiting businesses from including clauses in contracts that prevent consumers from posting negative reviews of the business or transaction, provided the negative review is not malicious or vexatious
> protection for consumers who file complaints in good faith, and are not vexatious or malicious, with a right of defense against lawsuits or other actions intended to coerce consumers to withdraw or not make complaints or publish reviews
> prohibiting suppliers from enforcing mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts
> expanded right to sue when a consumer has suffered a loss from a breach of the Act or regulations beyond unfair practices
> allowing the government to act in the public interest by enabling the release of information about charges, convictions, and other enforcement actions taken under the Act


One would have to ask a lawyer if the trial outcome overrides this "right to cancel the contract".  However this may not cancel the amount we owe for maintenance fees and RPF.


----------



## Huckleberry

ecwinch said:


> I would add.... To protect his relationship with his next “client”.
> 
> The court has taken him task multiple times. He wants to put this one to bed as to not endanger his next engagement with the Club Intrawest Owners Group.
> 
> https://www.citheownersgroup.org/single-post/2017/10/31/Next-Steps
> 
> _On October 24th, Michel Berthiaume updated members on behalf of the Volunteer Coordinating Committe (VCC), about what our group had been doing since Konrad's election to the board in June. My purpose today is to give members some insight as to our "next steps" for the coming weeks.
> 
> The VCC has a full-day meeting planned for the end of November. One of the highlights of the day is expected to *be a conference call with Michael Geldert to discuss his legal opinion / litigation proposals*.  This will allow the VCC to develop an Operational Plan based on his findings._



I think you hit the nail on the head Ecwinch.  I think Geldert is trying to sweep this under the rug as quickly as possible to move on to start milking his next cash cow.  He's happy to leave this one stuck in the mud flailing in its death twitches.


----------



## Huckleberry

CleoB said:


> Thank you.



The key word is company.  Geldert allowed the judges to amend our contract, which is why were are all so screwed the second he told he judges that all contracts can be considered the same as JEKE.  This is the key mistake that was made that lead down the road to here.


----------



## tssuck

Huckleberry said:


> The key word is company.  Geldert allowed the judges to amend our contract, which is why were are all so screwed the second he told he judges that all contracts can be considered the same as JEKE.  This is the key mistake that was made that lead down the road to here.




I just read Page 1. When our friends in the US received papers from NM after they took over and sent out the "modified" contract, what they received was so poorly printed off with the majority of it unreadable. In "good faith" they signed the papers without realizing the full ramifications of what they had signed because they could not read the majority of it. They fully expected to get a copy back with all signatures on it. This did not happen. Something MG did not address or even look into. At this point in time, the "modified contract" is not worth the piece of paper it was written on as the writing was not readable. They had no full knowledge of what they had signed.


----------



## Jack0123

dotbuhler said:


> Is this someone who is working for Michael Geldert. ....perhaps with the first name of "Patricia? ...last name "Mateo"????


I think Particia is his wife and the only other person who is working in the office, which is there own condo


----------



## SentimentalLady

dotbuhler said:


> Is this someone who is working for Michael Geldert. ....perhaps with the first name of "Patricia? ...last name "Mateo"????


No. And if you'd read all my posts, that would be clear to you. What I wrote then was the truth at the time - he WAS giving us very detailed updates. That changed drastically. And back then I DID feel very comfortable with our choice of action, or I would not have continued. And apparently you must have felt equally comfortable at the time too, as you also stayed with him? Until things changed drastically and the truth came out at the end.....


----------



## SentimentalLady

dotbuhler said:


> Sentimental Lady, I read your posts going back to June 2014. You were REALLY pushing Micheal Geldert just like Jim Belfry (JEKE). I am wondering if you are on here on behalf of him to find out what our defense will be when we see you and your husband at the next Court date. Or maybe I should refer to you by the name Patricia Mateo? Any relation to "Lamplit"???


See also my reply in #4538. Not pushing him - like the rest of the group, I was at that time happy with him and was simply trying to help an uncertain person to gain some peace of mind. Now, to the point - your reply is really just deflecting from the simple question I asked. I have read and re-read that Act and cannot find the part you are referring to. I know that the updated Act no longer allows unilateral changes to contracts without agreement - but I hardly think they'll be backdating that to contracts signed way back in 1992. Though they certainly should. And I notice somebody else has been pressing you on this, too. If you have some public knowledge facts we should know about, quit acting like you know it all and just give us the details.


----------



## Petus@18

Late2Game said:


> *ERW -- you appear to be out of the loop*. . . .perhaps you're not a member of the Sunchaser litigation group?
> 
> If not, I STRONGLY suggest you sign up to (1) stay informed on the matters such this, and (2) be represented in the courts should your lucky number be drawn!  Otherwise you're really on your own.
> 
> Contact Geldert Law as it's not too late. . . . yet!



By reading some of the earlier messages this person "Late2Game" posted (like the one quoted above),  I'm realizing more and more that Geldert was most likely behind all of this.  He has had many 'cheerleaders' posing as one of us trying to convince more people in retaining Geldert and fight Northmont since the beginning.  This person was not alone, there were and are others still amongst us.   Their motives are not different now than they were before, trying to stop us from talking and confusing our statements. No wonder why this person was bullying me not very long ago; his purpose was to make me angry; others like Lamplit are trying to inject fear.  I almost let them get away with this cyberbullying! So this message is for our former lawyer,  your threats and intimidation tactics will not work against the facts.


----------



## LilMaggie

SentimentalLady said:


> See also my reply in #4538. Not pushing him - like the rest of the group, I was at that time happy with him and was simply trying to help an uncertain person to gain some peace of mind. Now, to the point - your reply is really just deflecting from the simple question I asked. I have read and re-read that Act and cannot find the part you are referring to. I know that the updated Act no longer allows unilateral changes to contracts without agreement - but I hardly think they'll be backdating that to contracts signed way back in 1992. Though they certainly should. And I notice somebody else has been pressing you on this, too. If you have some public knowledge facts we should know about, quit acting like you know it all and just give us the details.


As for backdating our contracts from the early 1990's for Bill 31 to apply is not impossible as we have/had ongoing 40 year contracts with Fairmont/Northmont, or whomever.  Ongoing contracts might have different rules that apply...I don't know.  I need a good lawyer to explain this all to me please!


----------



## dotbuhler

SentimentalLady said:


> See also my reply in #4538. Not pushing him - like the rest of the group, I was at that time happy with him and was simply trying to help an uncertain person to gain some peace of mind. Now, to the point - your reply is really just deflecting from the simple question I asked. I have read and re-read that Act and cannot find the part you are referring to. I know that the updated Act no longer allows unilateral changes to contracts without agreement - but I hardly think they'll be backdating that to contracts signed way back in 1992. Though they certainly should. And I notice somebody else has been pressing you on this, too. If you have some public knowledge facts we should know about, quit acting like you know it all and just give us the details.


"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."
If you have a different contract than mine (from 1994) and you can not make this work for you, then that may be the problem. There may be up to 8 or more different contracts over the years, and let us not even get into the "leg irons for life" (shudder). This is, therefore, not a 'one size fits all'. Aden2 has outlined specifically what applies to his contract, I have found my reason to file a Notice of Dispute as well. It is not up to me to seek to convince anyone on this forum. None of us are lawyers and therefore we can only offer friendly advice. After lots of research I have decided what fits MY case. I am self-litigating. That means that the onus is on me, with courage and conviction and passion, to convince the person who will make a decision in the Court. I am willing to put money on the fact that won't be you. That being said, however, it does not mean that you won't find an answer on here. You just have to keep looking.


----------



## dotbuhler

SentimentalLady said:


> No. And if you'd read all my posts, that would be clear to you. What I wrote then was the truth at the time - he WAS giving us very detailed updates. That changed drastically. And back then I DID feel very comfortable with our choice of action, or I would not have continued. And apparently you must have felt equally comfortable at the time too, as you also stayed with him? Until things changed drastically and the truth came out at the end.....


I fired him on Dec.29, 2017 and laid a Complaint with the B.C. Law Society? Have you done either of those things? Because that may be something you want to be able to prove in Court when you Appeal or Dispute.


----------



## LilMaggie

Happy Sunday all! Here's your Bible verse for the day...
*1 Peter 3:8*  Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.
Can we please all just get together to get this done.  Dot said it...we are not legal professionals.  We are all doing our best to explain this mess and try to rectify it for the benefit of everyone.  We need to unite and conquer.


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> I fired him on Dec.29, 2017 and laid a Complaint with the B.C. Law Society? Have you done either of those things? Because that may be something you want to be able to prove in Court when you Appeal or Dispute.


If you were a client of Geldert's then good luck in court.  The judges have decided that our contracts are all the same as Jeke's and may find you are trying to re-litigate.  BTW there are/were 9 different timeshare contracts.


----------



## Petus@18

Reminder

Don't forget to leave your reviews at 
*LawyerRatingz.com*

Reviews can also be posted in Google's Maps.

Happy Posting!!!!


----------



## Roxanne

Petus@18 said:


> Reminder
> 
> Don't forget to leave your reviews at
> *LawyerRatingz.com*
> 
> Reviews can also be posted in Google's Maps.
> 
> Happy Posting!!!!


DONE!


----------



## Frau Blucher

Petus@18 said:


> Reminder
> 
> Don't forget to leave your reviews at
> *LawyerRatingz.com*
> 
> Reviews can also be posted in Google's Maps.
> 
> Happy Posting!!!!




Don’t forget these sites too!!


https://www.yelp.ca/biz/geldert-law-vancouver


https://www.fyple.ca/company/geldert-law-3thwj8q/


http://www.lawyerlookup.review/british-columbia-vancouver/business/189809/Geldert-Law.html


https://www.facebook.com/GeldertLaw/


https://ca.lynkos.com/company/geldert-law/reviews


http://www.bigreddirectory.ca/geldert-law-vancouver 


https://www.canlisting.com/firm/geldert-law-865917 


https://www.capointfinder.com/index.php/listing/geldert-law/ 


https://www.canadapages.com/geldert-law-vancouver-bc-7783307775/



https://www.bubblemortgage.com/geldertlaw.com


----------



## J's Garage

Disappointed W said:


> *Legal counsel is available with Mr. Geldert for $275/hourly or $1000 "All in"*
> 
> I have emailed Mr. Michael Geldert. Please see the response below, as well as the email address:
> <info@geldertlaw.com>
> Thank you for your email. As you know, many time-share owners are working together to contest the efforts being made by Northwynd. Many of those have either retained Mr. Geldert for an all-in amount of $1,000 CAD or are being advised on an ad-hoc basis as they represent themselves at his hourly rate of $275. You may choose either option. There is not a class-action against Northwynd at this time but this will be discussed moving forward.
> 
> 
> 
> At Mr. Geldert's request, the following is for your review:
> 
> 
> 
> Your legal obligations are covered exclusively by the contract(s) you have signed. To that end, owing to the vague language in the various time-share contracts, Northwynd has initiated a court application in an attempt to confirm its ability to do two things:
> 
> 
> 1.Unilaterally amend the time-share agreements to allow them to charge owners/lease-holders for their desired renovations; and,
> 
> 
> 2.To unilaterally transfer portions of the properties currently available to owners/lease-holders outside of the Resort.
> 
> 
> 
> What this is really about then is their attempt to obtain court sanctioned permission to effect unilateral changes to their contractual relationship with each owner/lease-holder. It is a risky proposition however, because should they fail to do so they will not have the legal standing to effect what they are currently proposing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Geldert is advising every owner/lease-holder to prepare submissions in reply to this court application. He is also advising that our firm be provided an opportunity to review those submissions to ensure they are ready to be filed with the court and served on Northwynd. Full copies of the associated court documents can be obtained on the Sunchaservillas.ca website should you wish to review the entire package of documents.
> 
> 
> 
> Should you retain Mr. Geldert, he will assist you in preparing, filing and serving the necessary submissions. He will also canvas the legal arguments that are available, including, most readily, that what Northwynd is proposing to do fundamentally alters the Agreement(s) and prejudices the rights of the owners/lease-holders.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are interested in retaining Mr. Geldert please complete and return the attached information sheet to me by email to (patricia@geldertlaw.com) along with copies of (2) pieces of government issued identification. We would ask that you also provide us with a copy of your time-share agreement and the most recent correspondences that relate to it. Once in receipt of these documents I will schedule a time for you to speak with Mr. Geldert on the phone to confirm the foregoing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patricia Maiato, Legal Assistant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T: 778.330.7775   |     F:778.330.7774    |   W: www.geldertlaw.com
> 
> 2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 1B4




From the BC Law Society: Code of Professional Conduct

*3.6-4  *If a lawyer acts for two or more clients in the same matter, the lawyer must divide the fees and disbursements equitably between them, unless there is an agreement by the clients otherwise.

So how many clients knew (to even agree) about different fees.  Did these original clients remain at the all-in $1000 for the duration.


----------



## J's Garage

While we are near that section how about:

3.6-6 If a lawyer refers a matter to another lawyer because of the expertise and ability of the other lawyer to handle the matter, and the referral was not made because of a conflict of interest, the referring lawyer may accept, and the other lawyer may pay, a referral fee, provided that:

(a) the fee is reasonable and does not increase the total amount of the fee charged to the client; and

(b) the client is informed and consents.


Were the clients informed prior (or even afforded opportunity to give consent) to the other lawyers brought on board?


----------



## J's Garage

Of course it just keeps getting murky waters:

3.6-7 A lawyer must not:

(a) directly or indirectly share, split or divide his or her fees with any person other than another lawyer; or

(b) give any financial or other reward for the referral of clients or client matters to any person other than another lawyer.

There was information posted (link below) a few days ago about section 6 in regards to a payments to a disbarred lawyer.  But (a) seems to indicate another section that shows a breach of that payment.  (b) this might be well worth a discussion since a client (Belfry) reportedly had his fees covered both during the trial and the appeal.  He was ultimately rewarded with a lot different settlement than some or the rest of us received.

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


----------



## Petus@18

J's Garage said:


> While we are near that section how about:
> 
> 3.6-6 If a lawyer refers a matter to another lawyer because of the expertise and ability of the other lawyer to handle the matter, and the referral was not made because of a conflict of interest, the referring lawyer may accept, and the other lawyer may pay, a referral fee, provided that:
> 
> (a) the fee is reasonable and does not increase the total amount of the fee charged to the client; and
> 
> (b) the client is informed and consents.
> 
> 
> Were the clients informed prior (or even give consent) to the other lawyers brought on board?



Yes, we were never consulted.   We were not expecting Geldert would be subcontracting other lawyers to do ALL the work! I believe Geldert was only collecting our money and monitoring our behavior online.   One more wrong to add to the list.  Did he ever do anything right?


----------



## CleoB

J's Garage said:


> From the BC Law Society: Code of Professional Conduct
> 
> *3.6-4  *If a lawyer acts for two or more clients in the same matter, the lawyer must divide the fees and disbursements equitably between them, unless there is an agreement by the clients otherwise.
> 
> So how many clients knew (to even agree) about different fees.  Did these original clients remain at the all-in $1000 for the duration.


What??????  $1000 all-in..........we paid around $2100 in total.  How did some get in at $1000?  We were told that anyone joining late or after the trials started would have to pay the same as those that started with him to "catch up" to what we paid.


----------



## J's Garage

Petus@18 said:


> Yes, we were never consulted.   We were not expecting Geldert would be subcontracting other lawyers to do ALL the work! I believe Geldert was only collecting our money and monitoring our behavior online.   One more wrong to add to the list.  Did he ever do anything right?



Monitoring our behavior..  What a crock - and we bought it

The spin was that we should not be discussing the updates so that the opponent would not know our strategy (Another crock since every initiated action in litigation is allowed a rebuttal anyway)  Nope.  Not that.

No, the instruction to avoid the discussion of updates would seem intended to keep the clients in the dark.  So they didn't know what was going on or become aware of the mis-steps that were happening.


----------



## dotbuhler

ClanMac said:


> Regardless of how often Northwynd declares that it is not Fairmont, and takes no responsibility for what transpired under Fairmont's management; the leases or contracts were established with Fairmont. When Collins Barrow finally completed audits that were in breach of the timelines established in the contracts their disclaimer stated: "risks of material misstatement of financial statements, whether due to fraud or error...etc. etc." A material breach (which is serious), let alone a criminal offence of fraud, voids the contract. Therefore if the contracts/leases were already voided by Fairmont's actions, there was no further liability regardless of Northwynd taking ownership. Taking possession of invalid contracts does not make them viable just because you make all kinds of promises to take care of things and make it all better (which never happened anyway). Unless a new agreement was struck that would require your approval and authorization, they are no better than two ply!
> 
> One of Northwynd CC's misconception claims refers to breach of contract. Their suggestion is that minor or repairable breaches are not grounds for a contract to be voided. This is far from minor and definitely not repairable, and the status of the contracts in this regard was never brought to any Justice attention. Including that with the original CCAA arrangement and more recently with Justice Loo.
> 
> You know it will be front and centre with the appeal!!!


I remember how helpful ClanMac was to the forum until certain parties caused him so much frustration that he ended up totally withdrawing. But these words are as true today as they were when first posted. That's why, if you are not Appealing Judge Young's Decision, you should be filing a Dispute Note. Go to the Alberta Law Courts website and look under Civil Claims...If You Are Being Sued....for more information. It will cost you $125.00, well worth it IMHO!


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> I remember how helpful ClanMac was to the forum until certain parties caused him so much frustration that he ended up totally withdrawing. But these words are as true today as they were when first posted. That's why, if you are not Appealing Judge Young's Decision, you should be filing a Dispute Note. Go to the Alberta Law Courts website and look under Civil Claims...If You Are Being Sued....for more information. It will cost you $125.00, well worth it IMHO!


Was it ever proven, what Colin Barrow stated.....that there was material misstatement of financial statements due to fraud?  If you're going to appeal it had better be proven or at least can be proven now, right?


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> Was it ever proven, what Colin Barrow stated.....that there was material misstatement of financial statements due to fraud?  If you're going to appeal it had better be proven or at least can be proven now, right?[/QUOTE
> Since I don't know what will happen with the filed Appeal due to the Reid's settlement, I took Aden2's advice and am filing a Dispute Note. It is quite different from an Appeal.


----------



## aden2

"We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained in our audits is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our qualified audit opinion.
*Basis for Qualified Opinion*
For the flrst six months of the year ended December 31, 2010, the Resort was managed by a different property manager than the current manager.* We were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in respect of the completeness of related party transactions with the previous property manager due to a lack of information in respect of entities related to it. Consequently, we are unable to determine whether any adjustments to these disclosures are necessary.*
Due to a change in property manager and accounting systems changes, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence about the recorded values of deferred revenue and accounts receivable as at December 31,2010 and 2009. As a result, there may have been a misclassification of bad debt expense between the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years, and the deficit as at December 31, 2009. We were unable to determine whether any adjustments to the amounts reported in these years were necessary.
*Qualified Opinion*
ln our opinion, except for the possible effects of the matters described in the Basis for Qualified Opinion paragraph, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the receipts and expenditures and deficit of The Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Riverside, Hillside and Riverview for the years ended December 31,2011 and December 31, 201A in accordance with the receipts and expenditures basis of accounting described in note 2.
Basis of Accounting
Without modifying our opinion, we draw attention to note 2 to the financial statements, which describes the basis of accounting. The financial statements are prepared to provide information to the Leaseholders of The Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Riverside, Hillside and Riverview. As a result, the statements may not be suitable for other purposes. 6ll; g"-,,*, cfu.uf
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
Calgary, Canada February 12,2013" from Collin Barrow  audit report....


----------



## aden2

Lessee's obligation for payment #11 .."For payments received after 30 days, a late charge of 10% of the amount past due or (2%) per month (being 26.824% per year) of the amount past due (which ever is greater) will be assessed."
*There is no mention or referral to compound interest. * *Is NM* *charging compound interest?*


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

Huckleberry said:


> Geldert allowed the judges to amend our contract,



*Where can I read that a judge changed or allowed for the change in all the VIA leases?*

I understand that Northmont, Kirk Wankel, acts and talks as if all leases have been changed. I understand that those who paid to stay, the sheep waiting to be shorn, actually agreed to have their leases changed. I understand the Trustee petitioned in BC for this change to apply to all leases. But I cannot find a decision or ruling that confirms all leases have been changed.

I cannot even find a court decision that #NAFR has been realigned. If Sunchaser/Northmont sent out new leases or a notification of the change to the leases, I've not received it. This bears a striking resemblance to Geldert's updates, in that I've also have not received these. Did Patricia learn her office management skills while working summers at #NAFR? No, probably not but, it's a rumor worth starting. It wouldn't be a bigger lie or exaggeration than those Michael spun himself, as the _Managing Partner_ of his _Full Service_, _International Law Firm_, from his _Head Office_ - I wonder if its a one bedroom or a two bedroom head office - in downtown Vancouver. Given he lives in his office, do you think there is any sex in the workplace at Geldert Law? It's just a question. Hey, I just paid tens of thousands of dollars, don't expect me to be politically correct. It's fun to imagine Patricia spanking Michael and saying, "Michael's been a very bad lawyer. Bad lawyer."

Also, in light of this (not the spanking, the previous stuff about the change in the leases), it is interesting that Judge Young alluded to differences in the leases in her decision. On the surface, it would seem she intends on taking these differences into consideration when she makes her final determination on interest and costs, which hopefully will be sometime before The Second Coming (insert your own joke here). This suggests that Judge Young at least, either isn't aware of the change or is choosing not to recognize the change or, the leases have not been changed.

It is particularly interesting that Savageau did not draw Judge Young's attention to a court having changed the leases.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

If I ever meet him I will have to say, "Michael you bad lawyer. Bad lawyer." 

After you finished laughing at the above post, do yourself a favor and go back and read page 1 of this thread. Yes, 182-pages back. It really does simplify and put all these deceiving twists and turns into context. Read especially post #16 by Jjareed - yes, maybe those Reeds. _*"...meaning she implied that they can do what they want."*_


----------



## Frau Blucher

Someone has been politely posting ads on Craigslist to warn  Vancouverites about Geldert Law  but someone has been busy flagging them for removal (probably Michael or his wife Patricia).  Judging by the latest rant, I think the person is really pissed ...


----------



## truthr

WOW some people!
I get that we are all frustrated and angry.

But seriously??  Character assassinations and lewd comments which have nothing to do with his performance as a lawyer?

Seriously?? 

Don't we have enough facts and evidence about our legal team's missteps? 

Come on people - we are better than this.  Or at least most of us are - aren't we??


----------



## teedeej

truthr said:


> WOW some people!
> I get that we are all frustrated and angry.
> 
> But seriously??  Character assassinations and lewd comments which have nothing to do with his performance as a lawyer?
> 
> Seriously??
> 
> Don't we have enough facts and evidence about our legal team's missteps?
> 
> Come on people - we are better than this.  Or at least most of us are - aren't we??



It seems that MG wants to be known as the “successful negotiator in representing 3200 individuals in a class action”. I saw one of the craiglist postings that warned people to stay away from Geldert Law but it was quickly flagged by someone. 
MG doesn’t want “the facts and evidence about our legal team's missteps” known


----------



## teedeej

I just checked Craigslist’s and the original ad was back up, at least for now


----------



## servemeout

MG is yesterday's horse race.  We need to move forward.  Is there anyone that know how to check to see if you name is on the list of people that MG, or that should be SLG represented?  Yes there were too many items that were not presented by any of the lawyers.  We did do a consult with another lawyer - he couldn't stop shaking his head in disbelief.  However, we are still shaking our heads in disbelief and with age it get harder to shake anything.


----------



## Frau Blucher

servemeout said:


> MG is yesterday's horse race.  We need to move forward.



Unfortunately a lot of MG’s former clients are out of options thanks to him, except for one: suing MG


----------



## Appauled

Frau Blucher said:


> Unfortunately a lot of MG’s former clients are out of options thanks to him, except for one: suing MG



The other option is personal Bankruptcy.


----------



## Hotpink

I would suggest that personal bankruptcy is not a real good solution here is a quote from the bankruptcy page
_In plain language, the concept behind personal bankruptcy in Canada is this: you assign (surrender) everything you own to a Licensed Insolvency Trustee in exchange for the elimination of your debts. Certain exceptions that vary by province allow you to keep some minimum necessities.
_
That means if you own your home you must give it up to the trustee. Mortgages and collateral based loans are exempt for the most part.
You must look long and hard before you take that step, because KW would be considered a creditor ( albeit alleged) and would be in line with his hand out and if he was the only creditor ( albeit alleged) you had, then he would be in line for the his pound of flesh.

Not a step I could take; when there are so many other ways that KW will ultimately lose his waxed on wings as he flies closer to the sun.  Remember Icarus falling into the sea.


----------



## torqued

Do you physically have to go to the court house to file a dispute note and what potential gain is there in doing so.


----------



## aden2

torqued said:


> Do you physically have to go to the court house to file a dispute note and what potential gain is there in doing so.


Then your Dispute note has the civil court stamp on it, there is not much time to get a dispute note filed.


----------



## Frau Blucher

Dr Evil (KW) and the gag order


*Dr. Evil*: Let me tell you a little story about a man named Sh! Sh! even before you start. That was a pre-emptive "sh!" Now, I have a whole bag of "sh!" with your name on it.


----------



## Timesharepain

Frau Blucher said:


> Unfortunately a lot of MG’s former clients are out of options thanks to him, except for one: suing MG





MarcieL said:


> How can he refuse to release these documents if your attorney is requesting them?


----------



## Timesharepain

Can't_Give_Up said:


> Even though the transcripts have been filed for the appeal, the 'appeal book' has not. After obtaining some legal advice, they informed me that an appeal book or a trial book would have to be filed indicating the case/statutory laws and precedents the lawyers intended to argue on our behalf. But  SLG has no intention of pursuing the appeal and have made it unclear as to how we can proceed without the Reids involvement due to the fact that they have already settled. The advice they gave me was that each of us who plan to appeal Judge Young's decision needs to be in court that day so that we can be heard. A large group of numbers will show the court that something has gone awry and we may be able to get an extension to file a new appeal (without SLG or Geldert's involvement) or more time to prepare the appeal that has already been filed. I cannot stress this enough; if we want any chance of proceeding with the appeal, we need to show up in force on that day. Do not let the lawyers steam roll the conversation with the Judge b/c they no longer represent us. We need to stand up and articulate to the judge the circumstances of the appeal (not being properly notified of it, how to proceed, withdrawal of lawyer on record, ask the judge for direction, etc).
> 
> This event is also a good time for all of us to meet up in person and actually discuss our case and how to move forward. We also need to discuss which legal firm we can use to represent us.  Geldert has mislead us too many times to believe anything he says or sends out in an email; many people think that we are now 2 groups or even 3, but the reality is that we are still one group. If you have no intention of paying the settlement, then you need to move forward with the appeal regardless of which option you signed. In one of Geldert's last emails, he states that you can no longer opt out of the settlement agreement because you could have opted out at any time up until December 29th. In reality, the December 28th email was the only reference of opting out of the settlement after Geldert negotiated it without the group's input. The same email is also the first time (2 weeks after negotiation) that he mentioned how to "calculate' what you owe; which only works if Northmont sent you out a November 2016 statement. All in all, there are too many discrepancies with what he was said/written and what he has done to enforce his settlement.
> 
> We need to contact everyone that was a part of the group to make sure they will be present in court that day; spread the word through social media, other websites, etc. In one of the actions filed under Northmont vs. Reid, it lists over 650 Alberta members that are part of the Geldert group, it also lists which city they live in; however, it doesn't list their phone numbers. Over the course of the next 2 weeks I am going to try and search for their numbers and contact them about the appeal. If anyone wants to help with this endeavor, they can send me a PM. Remember *March 8, 2018 @ 10am at the Edmonton Law Courts.*


----------



## Timesharepain

We sent letter to Gelert saying we did not need him any longer, the settlement was ridiculous and felt he did not represent our interests,  ( we had chose option 1) He sent email back asking why we did t fill out hardship form and then sent consent claim naming us and Northmont for $12,000 more than original settlement...We are in BC and can't find where our Orignal claim is ...we were never served..I looked in court services and civil claims...Any ideas or suggestions??


----------



## dotbuhler

Timesharepain said:


> We sent letter to Gelert saying we did not need him any longer, the settlement was ridiculous and felt he did not represent our interests,  ( we had chose option 1) He sent email back asking why we did t fill out hardship form and then sent consent claim naming us and Northmont for $12,000 more than original settlement...We are in BC and can't find where our Orignal claim is ...we were never served..I looked in court services and civil claims...Any ideas or suggestions??


I hope you have lodged a COMPLAINT with the B.C. Law Society against Geldert. As qb_bc pointed out #4430 : don't forget to mention Cox Taylor and their part along with Michael Geldert, in asserting that none of us would be claiming MISREPRESENTATION when we purchased the original time share leases. That, right there, was a nail in our coffin. The entire premise of MY defense was nullified without advising me! Not mentioning Cox Taylor will be a loophole that the slime master known as Michael Geldert could conceivably slip through.


----------



## Shake Down

dotbuhler said:


> don't forget to mention Cox Taylor



Ya, and that interesting information in a (FB) Post.



Petus@18 said:


> Only 2 of us attended the depositions in Calgary in July 2013 .. Mr Hedayat and myself where *I saw first hand Lindsey LeBlanc of Cox Taylor agree with Jud Virtue to hide the indenties of those in Northwind REIT.* In Court you are entitled to face your accuser ... but the BC Court system has allowed Northwind REIT to remain a "secret society" using its minions to do the dirty work while Judge Loo denied us the email list to each other so we could band all 15,000 of us together.


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> I hope you have lodged a COMPLAINT with the B.C. Law Society against Geldert. As qb_bc pointed out #4430 : don't forget to mention Cox Taylor and their part along with Michael Geldert, in asserting that none of us would be claiming MISREPRESENTATION when we purchased the original time share leases. That, right there, was a nail in our coffin. The entire premise of MY defense was nullified without advising me! Not mentioning Cox Taylor will be a loophole that the slime master known as Michael Geldert could conceivably slip through.


Sorry, I don't follow your comment.  Would you please elaborate "in asserting that none of us would be claiming misrepresentation when we purchased the original timeshare leases.  The entire premise of my defense was  nullified without advising me!"


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> Sorry, I don't follow your comment.  Would you please elaborate "in asserting that none of us would be claiming misrepresentation when we purchased the original timeshare leases.  The entire premise of my defense was  nullified without advising me!"


Check #4577 then understand that I was told that because it was "Crown land", it could NEVER be owned. When the salesman told me this in 1993 I had no reason to think otherwise. Fast forward to 2010, to 2013, when suddenly we were informed that we were now "owners". That, my dear, is misrepresentation in my book.


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> Check #4577 then understand that I was told that because it was "Crown land", it could NEVER be owned. When the salesman told me this in 1993 I had no reason to think otherwise. Fast forward to 2010, to 2013, when suddenly we were informed that we were now "owners". That, my dear, is misrepresentation in my book.


Yes, that is misrepresentation but how are you going to prove what the salesman told you?  If you don't have it recorded or in writing isn't it a he said, she said?


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

Frau Blucher said:


> View attachment 5813 Dr Evil (KW) and the gag order ...



In this analogy, does that make our former Barrister Mr. Bigglesworth?  Which I wish I'd known years ago because I'm not a cat person, as you can guess. What was that famous line of Dr. Evil's, "(He) would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims like he _was managing partner of a full-service international law firm with a head office in Vancouver._"


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> Yes, that is misrepresentation but how are you going to prove what the salesman told you?  If you don't have it recorded or in writing isn't it a he said, she said?


Since he won't be there I expect that my sworn testimony will stand. So, no, not "he said, she said". And since Wankel and company were not around at the time they can't prove otherwise. I'll bet others who bought at the same time may have also been told this.


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> Since he won't be there I expect that my sworn testimony will stand. So, no, not "he said, she said". And since Wankel and company were not around at the time they can't prove otherwise. I'll bet others who bought at the same time may have also been told this.


Well from my understanding we are now owners of the buildings, not the land.


----------



## NotImpressed

LilMaggie said:


> As for backdating our contracts from the early 1990's for Bill 31 to apply is not impossible as we have/had ongoing 40 year contracts with Fairmont/Northmont, or whomever.  Ongoing contracts might have different rules that apply...I don't know.  I need a good lawyer to explain this all to me please!


I talked to a lawyer about this he told me that it has always been there bill 31 is just making it more clear


----------



## Shake Down

Speaking of making it more clear.... come across this info, an interesting and simple breakdown.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation: A contract is not considered valid unless all parties are in agreement to the terms. If the expressed terms are not accurate, then any agreement is based on a false premise and the contract is invalid. Knowingly making false statements -- whether in writing, verbally, through a simple gesture, or even silence -- constitutes false misrepresentation if it has a material effect on the deal.

Even if the representation was made without knowledge of whether it was true, it can give rise to a fraudulent misrepresentation claim if it was made in a reckless way. In such instances, the party making the representation is acting recklessly solely to induce the other party into the contract.

Other types include:

Negligent Misrepresentation, which one party failed to adequately ensure the accuracy of the representation.
Innocent Representation, which is neither fraudulent nor negligent.
* Keep in mind that a misrepresentation that does not have a material effect on the contract does not give rise to a legal action.
In order to prevail in a lawsuit for Fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must be able to prove the following six elements:

A representation was made (in contract law, a representation is any action or conduct that can be turned into a statement of fact).
The representation was false.
The representation, when made, was either known to be false or made recklessly without knowledge of its truth.
The representation was made with the intention that the other party rely on it.
The other party did, in fact, rely on the representation.
The other party suffered damages as a result of relying on the representation.
Remedies for Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Depending on the nature of the case, remedies for fraudulent misrepresentation can include _*rescission*__* of the contract and damages*. _Rescission of the contract is the most common remedy, since _fraudulent misrepresentation renders it __voidable_ (as opposed to simply "void"). Therefore, the parties may choose not to rescind the contract -- which restores the parties to their pre-contractual positions -- if this is not possible. With respect to damages, only actual losses stemming from the misrepresentation may be claimed.


----------



## NotImpressed

NM & KW have totally screwed us all. I think it's only fair that we do the same. How you may ask by emailing faxing or writing letters to both the judge in the petition case as it sounded in his ruling he had questions unanswered about us via lessees, also to the town or county of Fairmont stating that we as vias do not support the application for rezoning (our) the resort. I think it is time we put the screws to them for a change. All via lessees option 1 or 2 or between.


----------



## Appauled

I HATE Facebook!
Never had an account and never cared for it, but forced to create one specifically so I can participate with all the people who have suggested I do so and keep in touch and try to collaborate and find a solution to this mess! I tried to create a Facebook account with same profile on this website and got kicked off Facebook cause they need my real name. SO then I tried to do that with my real name and started to get my friends connected on Facebook with me and all the other stuff about myself on there and now it doesn't work either!!!
ALL this hiding behind profiles on this page and people using Facebook to connect to work together makes me feel like an outsider of some exclusive club and all I want is to get help and contribute help to change the laws, get out of paying ransom money to Sunchaser & KW  %@#! crooks and get them AND MG taken to task !!!
I live in Calgary. STRENGTH IN NUMBERS PEOPLE! If anybody wants to meet face to face over coffee and bring me up to speed and help me join the group of organizers, send me a private message. Otherwise consider me and two other friends who are also victims in the Sunchaser scam out on our own and three less people that could have helped here.


----------



## NotImpressed

I personally don't think MG had a plan or any strategy for us and anytime someone would question this or talk about anything on line he would come up with ( be careful  of  the spies) . I doubt if there was any spies but him. Since he had no game plan except for keeping us apart and divided. I can't believe a lot of us are still falling for his old tricks. Especially now when it is so important for us to stick together. Well agree with me or not I'm hoping everyone who didn't pay the ransom and are included under judge Young decision shows up on  March 8 for the appeal.  I can't stress enough how important this is as it maybe the last kick at the can for us. Hopefully at least we can agree on this please spread the word to everyone.


----------



## PATRON

Unfortunately government of Canada und Justis sistem protect big Busnesis und Reach people New is Thay start protecting white Calor thiefs All those Jujes have to take some classes haw capitalism work IF YOU HAVE NO CASTEMER TO PURCHASE GOODS YOU CANT EXIST Mayby Justis Loo wanted to protect Timsheare industry but she did just opposite SHE DISTROIT


----------



## dotbuhler

NotImpressed said:


> I personally don't think MG had a plan or any strategy for us and anytime someone would question this or talk about anything on line he would come up with ( be careful  of  the spies) . I doubt if there was any spies but him. Since he had no game plan except for keeping us apart and divided. I can't believe a lot of us are still falling for his old tricks. Especially now when it is so important for us to stick together. Well agree with me or not I'm hoping everyone who didn't pay the ransom and are included under judge Young decision shows up on  March 8 for the appeal.  I can't stress enough how important this is as it maybe the last kick at the can for us. Hopefully at least we can agree on this please spread the word to everyone.


The other thing we need to consider is this: As long as KirkWankel / Fairmont / Northwynd / Northmont kept us tied up in the CIVIL Courts, the Criminal Justice system could not kick into gear. Was this the game plan all along? It was successful beyond belief. What was the response from the RCMP when trying to get criminal charges of fraud laid? "As long as it's before the Civil courts we can't get involved or lay any charges." This was a cult of ultimate control. They knew the Canadian Justice system from the git go, and used it full force against us. If ever there was a more aggressive case of "divide and conquer", I've yet to see it. Was Cox Taylor and Michael Geldert  two more pieces that the opposition already had in their game box to pull out to serve this disingenuous plan? At this point I believe so.


----------



## Plus454

To me right now the big challenge is being able to form a group. This forum and Facebook could be tools but are currently not the answer to finding a way with this world wide web to get hooked up as a group.


----------



## Frau Blucher

Plus454 said:


> To me right now the big challenge is being able to form a group. This forum and Facebook could be tools but are currently not the answer to finding a way with this world wide web to get hooked up as a group.




Unfortunately thanks to MG, there are now two distinct groups: Option 1 and the the rest.  Option 1 have their hands tied and can not carry on the legal fight except for suing our little grease ball of a lawyer.


----------



## Plus454

Appauled said:


> I HATE Facebook!
> Never had an account and never cared for it, but forced to create one specifically so I can participate with all the people who have suggested I do so and keep in touch and try to collaborate and find a solution to this mess! I tried to create a Facebook account with same profile on this website and got kicked off Facebook cause they need my real name. SO then I tried to do that with my real name and started to get my friends connected on Facebook with me and all the other stuff about myself on there and now it doesn't work either!!!
> ALL this hiding behind profiles on this page and people using Facebook to connect to work together makes me feel like an outsider of some exclusive club and all I want is to get help and contribute help to change the laws, get out of paying ransom money to Sunchaser & KW  %@#! crooks and get them AND MG taken to task !!!
> I live in Calgary. STRENGTH IN NUMBERS PEOPLE! If anybody wants to meet face to face over coffee and bring me up to speed and help me join the group of organizers, send me a private message. Otherwise consider me and two other friends who are also victims in the Sunchaser scam out on our own and three less people that could have helped here.




We are all "outsiders" at this point. and meeting face to face is clearly not possible for 1000 to 2000 people. I continue to watch and listen for ideas.
Like if we could catch the ear of a law firm that could see a case here. Having sent letters to a lawyer and several politicians I'm not sure what to do next, so I wait and watch.


----------



## aden2

March 8th, at 10 AM  at the Law Courts Building, Edmonton, AB. ( 97 st. and 102A ave.) ;  CIVIL  CLAIMS APPEAL in the Queen's Bench. Action # 1703 22524


----------



## Plus454

Today I found information I didn't realize i had.
Turns out we all have each others names already.
Burred in a barrage of attachments in the Aug 18/2016 update are 2 lists of names, Court application Cranbrook (all the BC defendants 475) and court application Edmonton ( all the Alberta defendants 753). Adds up to 1228 defendants. 
And surprise surprise on the list is a friend of mine who builds websites. He said its possible to build a site that people could access only with permission  of an administrator. If your name's not on one of those lists you wouldn't get in. 
Please give me some feedback on if you think this could be a tool.


----------



## Petus@18

I wonder how much longer will it take for judge Young to rule on the interests and costs?  The delay may be that she doesn't see the need in providing a decision since the majority has already settled their claims with Northmont? Or, if we're lucky, she has reviewed the letters we all sent her and 'hopefully', she may be contemplating in changing her mind?

“So long as the order has not been perfected the judge has a power of re-considering the matter, but, when once the order has been completed, the jurisdiction of the judge over it has come to an end.”



Plus454 said:


> Today I found information I didn't realize i had.
> Turns out we all have each others names already.
> Burred in a barrage of attachments in the Aug 18/2016 update are 2 lists of names, Court application Cranbrook (all the BC defendants 475) and court application Edmonton ( all the Alberta defendants 753). Adds up to 1228 defendants.
> And surprise surprise on the list is a friend of mine who builds websites. He said its possible to build a site that people could access only with permission  of an administrator. If your name's not on one of those lists you wouldn't get in.
> Please give me some feedback on if you think this could be a tool.



Having a website for everyone affected seems like a wonderful idea as long as we all have the right to voice our concerns freely and are not arbitrarily controlled like in previous secret or private groups.  How long would it take to have one in place?


----------



## Plus454

Having a website for everyone affected seems like a wonderful idea as long as we all have the right to voice our concerns freely and are not arbitrarily controlled like in previous secret or private groups.  How long would it take to have one in place?[/QUOTE]

Not sure how long it would take to build the website, also how long would it take to round up interested parties. 
This just surfaced as an option today so I'm looking for input.


----------



## Petus@18

Plus454 said:


> Having a website for everyone affected seems like a wonderful idea as long as we all have the right to voice our concerns freely and are not arbitrarily controlled like in previous secret or private groups.  How long would it take to have one in place?



Not sure how long it would take to build the website, also how long would it take to round up interested parties.
This just surfaced as an option today so I'm looking for input.[/QUOTE]

Are you attending the appeal?  We are attending, maybe we can share your idea with those in attendance for their feedback.   We like it!  Since there are many who have settled already and don't want/feel they cannot pursue anything else due to the gag order.  It would be interesting to see how many will actually be willing to join the new site?  I guess it will not matter if not all 1228 sign in, right?  Let us know how can we help.


----------



## Jack0123

Petus@18 said:


> I wonder how much longer will it take for judge Young to rule on the interests and costs?  The delay may be that she doesn't see the need in providing a decision since the majority has already settled their claims with Northmont? Or, if we're lucky, she has reviewed the letters we all sent her and 'hopefully', she may be contemplating in changing her mind?
> 
> “So long as the order has not been perfected the judge has a power of re-considering the matter, but, when once the order has been completed, the jurisdiction of the judge over it has come to an end.”
> 
> 
> Plus454 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today I found information I didn't realize i had.
> Turns out we all have each others names already.
> Burred in a barrage of attachments in the Aug 18/2016 update are 2 lists of names, Court application Cranbrook (all the BC defendants 475) and court application Edmonton ( all the Alberta defendants 753). Adds up to 1228 defendants.
> And surprise surprise on the list is a friend of mine who builds websites. He said its possible to build a site that people could access only with permission  of an administrator. If your name's not on one of those lists you wouldn't get in.
> Please give me some feedback on if you think this could be a tool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a website for everyone affected seems like a wonderful idea as long as we all have the right to voice our concerns freely and are not arbitrarily controlled like in previous secret or private groups.  How long would it take to have one in place?
Click to expand...


We were sued in Calgary and di not appear on either of the two lists. strange as it may seem


----------



## Plus454

Jack0123 said:


> We were sued in Calgary and di not appear on either of the two lists. strange as it may seem



Well that's just weird, there will be more on a Calgary list somewhere.


----------



## tssuck

Plus454 said:


> Well that's just weird, there will be more on a Calgary list somewhere.




Are the US leasee names on any of the lists?  How do we find out if our name is on the list, either BC or Alberta.


----------



## servemeout

We have never been served and our names are not on the lists.  We paid for a search to be done on our names at the court house and our names were not included.  We did not continue with MG on Dec 29.17.  The BC list will have the Goldberg judgement apply and the Reid ruling in Alberta.  If you have not been served with a suit against you - you have dodged that bullet.  That does not mean the NM may not reload and fire another round, however the cost of doing so may not be economically sound and cost effective.  NM now has the land, which is what was wanted from the beginning.  The remaining TS still using the #NAFR can have the door closed on them and the previous owners can ride off into the sunset with more money than will fit into the saddlebags.


----------



## aden2

Since the March 8th hearing is held in the Court of Queen's Bench by a different Judge, it is essential that reference is made to the "DISPUTE NOTES" filed.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

servemeout said:


> We have never been served and our names are not on the lists.  We paid for a search to be done on our names at the court house and our names were not included.  We did not continue with MG on Dec 29.17.  The BC list will have the Goldberg judgement apply and the Reid ruling in Alberta.  If you have not been served with a suit against you - you have dodged that bullet.  That does not mean the NM may not reload and fire another round, however the cost of doing so may not be economically sound and cost effective.  NM now has the land, which is what was wanted from the beginning.  The remaining TS still using the #NAFR can have the door closed on them and the previous owners can ride off into the sunset with more money than will fit into the saddlebags.



Just curious, does anyone know why some were not served?  If not served, NM can still come after you for some of the past and all future maintenance fees, right?  With the 27% interest, it seems it may be worth their while.  We were served but it just came standard snail mail, not registered as claimed in the papers.  Maybe we should have just ignored it instead of getting MG to respond.  Would have been nice to have some legal advice on that point.  Also note that there are multiple lists of names.  The one previously mentioned, sent in August 2016, is for the summary judgement and I think contained only had those MG clients that reside in Alberta and BC.  I suspect there is not a single list or location to get all of the names of those affected.  This is why it has been so difficult to organize.  NM is the only one with complete information and still refuses to help organize a lessees association as specified in our lease agreements, as it works greatly to their advantage.

Seems to me this is a long way from being over with thousands still trapped in this mess.  It still remains less than certain that those that settled (forced to settle) or paid to leave are actually free.


----------



## servemeout

At one point the mumbling bill collector Frenchman sent out papers that were not stamped by the courts.  The statement of claims were done by regular mail.  Yes this is FAR from a done deal.  We are going by one and only one list, the one with the Court in Alberta.  The group with MG was an easy target, someone had already rounded up the herd.  If you attended the last session with Judge Young, she does not want to have courts loaded with NM actions.  Her comment was "..the necessity of further judicial intervention."  Once the land is sold off or converted to what ever they want - condo, hotel ,giant cesspool, asking for more maintenance fees for a few units at Riverside & Riverview will make keeping the lights on difficult.  Here is the quote from the Norton Rose letter to Wankel dated Feb 5,2013.
" 2. As long term lessess and co-owners of the resort, all of the timeshare owners, including the developer, are responsible for payment of their proportionate share of all costs of administration, maintenance, repair and replacement of the resort."  That has not happened.


----------



## Petus@18

NeverNeverAgain said:


> Just curious, does anyone know why some were not served?  If not served, NM can still come after you for some of the past and all future maintenance fees, right?  With the 27% interest, it seems it may be worth their while.  We were served but it just came standard snail mail, not registered as claimed in the papers.  Maybe we should have just ignored it instead of getting MG to respond.  Would have been nice to have some legal advice on that point.  Also note that there are multiple lists of names.  The one previously mentioned, sent in August 2016, is for the summary judgement and I think contained only had those MG clients that reside in Alberta and BC.  I suspect there is not a single list or location to get all of the names of those affected.  This is why it has been so difficult to organize.  NM is the only one with complete information and still refuses to help organize a lessees association as specified in our lease agreements, as it works greatly to their advantage.
> 
> Seems to me this is a long way from being over with thousands still trapped in this mess.  It still remains less than certain that those that settled (forced to settle) or paid to leave are actually free.



Do you know if those who settled received their releases yet?  I wonder how Geldert is dealing with enforcing the automatic judgement for 162% for those who didn't sign the settlement??  This has to go to court don't you think?

I understand the appeal on March 8th and the civil claims filed against us are two different things.   That's why, if you are not Appealing Judge Young's Decision, you should be filing a Dispute Note.  You can certainly do both but we were told that during the appeal the disputes are not necessary at this time?  Did you check with both, Provincial and Queen's Bench Courts? 
If we are unsuccessful in the appeal on March 8th, we will need to wait for Judge Young' decision on the interests and costs, this decision can also be appealed. Again, the individual civil claims will be pending.  All of this is so confusing!!!


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

Petus@18 said:


> Do you know if those who settled received their releases yet?  I wonder how Geldert is dealing with enforcing the automatic judgement for 162% for those who didn't sign the settlement??  This has to go to court don't you think?



Have not yet got a settlement release.  I don't know when to expect it or how it will come.  Be interesting to see exactly what it says.  As for the 162%, I think MG just signs the consent judgement, it is done, case is finished.  I know this does not seem legal, but it is my understanding that since MG was our representative (expecting some good responses here), those he represented at the time agreed to the excellent settlement.  NM still needs to collect on the judgement, the same as any other judgement.  Just my understanding, I am no lawyer.  For those MG clients that did not select option 1 and are in Alberta, the appeal should be a very high priority for you.


----------



## Huckleberry

NeverNeverAgain said:


> Just curious, does anyone know why some were not served?  If not served, NM can still come after you for some of the past and all future maintenance fees, right?  With the 27% interest, it seems it may be worth their while.  We were served but it just came standard snail mail, not registered as claimed in the papers.  Maybe we should have just ignored it instead of getting MG to respond.  Would have been nice to have some legal advice on that point.  Also note that there are multiple lists of names.  The one previously mentioned, sent in August 2016, is for the summary judgement and I think contained only had those MG clients that reside in Alberta and BC.  I suspect there is not a single list or location to get all of the names of those affected.  This is why it has been so difficult to organize.  NM is the only one with complete information and still refuses to help organize a lessees association as specified in our lease agreements, as it works greatly to their advantage.
> 
> Seems to me this is a long way from being over with thousands still trapped in this mess.  It still remains less than certain that those that settled (forced to settle) or paid to leave are actually free.



There is a statute of limitations.  In my humble opinion if I was in your situation I would have sat tight and as quietly as possible.


----------



## MarcieL

Same with us Huckleberry.
We got M.G. involved cost us near 40 grand. Hindsight should've sat tight. Releases to be implemented by May.


----------



## Plus454

Petus@18 said:


> Are you attending the appeal? We are attending, maybe we can share your idea with those in attendance for their feedback. We like it! Since there are many who have settled already and don't want/feel they cannot pursue anything else due to the gag order. It would be interesting to see how many will actually be willing to join the new site? I guess it will not matter if not all 1228 sign in, right? Let us know how can we help.



I won't be attending the appeal, I'm curious to see where it leads though.


----------



## aden2

Northmont Resort Properties Ltd is using the agrument in filed court documents "as per provisions of the agreement ". What about the signed agreement that has been changed, or there was misrepresentation when the agreement was signed (fraud). Today it is urgent to deal with the facts concerning "the agreement".


----------



## MarcieL

That ship sailed with Jeke Aden, we were all lumped into one, which has been previously stated many times.  The judge claimed " Res Judicia" when Barry King tried to reintroduce the contractual issue.


----------



## Petus@18

Is it a 2 year time limitation we have to sue Geldert?  We should start planning now how to commence a class action lawsuit against him and all of the other morons he hired! If a new website is available for everyone to join, this would be ideal!  I think it will be easier to find a law firm that could work with us on a contingency fee retainer agreement.   Anyone knows how we can find out what kind of insurance Geldert et al have available?


----------



## aden2

MarcieL said:


> That ship sailed with Jeke Aden, we were all lumped into one, which has been previously stated many times.  The judge claimed " Res Judicia" when Barry King tried to reintroduce the contractual issue.


*That is why we file a dispute note stating why we do not owe the money!*


----------



## LilMaggie

Petus@18 said:


> Do you know if those who settled received their releases yet?  I wonder how Geldert is dealing with enforcing the automatic judgement for 162% for those who didn't sign the settlement??  This has to go to court don't you think?
> 
> I understand the appeal on March 8th and the civil claims filed against us are two different things.   That's why, if you are not Appealing Judge Young's Decision, you should be filing a Dispute Note.  You can certainly do both but we were told that during the appeal the disputes are not necessary at this time?  Did you check with both, Provincial and Queen's Bench Courts?
> If we are unsuccessful in the appeal on March 8th, we will need to wait for Judge Young' decision on the interests and costs, this decision can also be appealed. Again, the individual civil claims will be pending.  All of this is so confusing!!!


So very confusing!!
Still waiting on the release.  I would also love to know how MG is proceeding with the 162% bill collecting.


----------



## LilMaggie

Petus@18 said:


> Is it a 2 year time limitation we have to sue Geldert?  We should start planning now how to commence a class action lawsuit against him and all of the other morons he hired! If a new website is available for everyone to join, this would be ideal!  I think it will be easier to find a law firm that could work with us on a contingency fee retainer agreement.   Anyone knows how we can find out what kind of insurance Geldert et al have available?


There is info re: that on the lawyers insurance website.  I think it covers a couple million per lawyer per year...if I remember correctly.  I reckon  anything over and above that would have to come out of his pocket!  You know I’m in!!!


----------



## LilMaggie

Anybody hear anything back from the B.C. law society regarding the multiple complaints filed?  Do they need more info from us?


----------



## MarcieL

Nothing from the law society.

If anyone finds a GOOD Lawyer that takes on litigation malpractice on contingency please let me know. We presently cannot afford anymore $$ on our pensions, after this 40 grand slaughter.


----------



## dotbuhler

LilMaggie said:


> Anybody hear anything back from the B.C. law society regarding the multiple complaints filed?  Do they need more info from us?


Letter stating that they will contact me if they require more information.


----------



## LilMaggie

dotbuhler said:


> Letter stating that they will contact me if they require more information.


Same.


----------



## MarcieL

LilMaggie said:


> So very confusing!!
> Still waiting on the release.  I would also love to know how MG is proceeding with the 162% bill collecting.[/QE]
> 
> It was specified the release would be by the end of May.


----------



## Floyd55

dotbuhler said:


> Letter stating that they will contact me if they require more information.



Same with me. Just waiting to hear back from them. I'm all over the idea of a lawsuit against MG for malpractice if it is done on retainer.


----------



## Petus@18

Really? Geldert paid Northmont on February 28th or so and he doesn't provide the releases until May!!  What kind of a lawyer does that?  A complete idiot  or someone who may now be working for them 

Under normal circumstances and with a competent lawyer looking after his clients' interests, the money is released at the same time the release documents are provided.   Why is he taking 3 months????  Did he provide a reason?


----------



## MarcieL

NM has to sign all the releases as well.  Many of us engaged lawyers to go over the documents, all appeared to be in order.  We had time constraints but not so for them.  I will be happy to have it in the rear view mirror, horrendous experience to have to go through in your 8th decade.


----------



## CleoB

Petus@18 said:


> Really? Geldert paid Northmont on February 28th or so and he doesn't provide the releases until May!!  What kind of a lawyer does that?  A complete idiot  or someone who may now be working for them
> 
> Without prejudice
> Under normal circumstances and with a competent lawyer looking after his clients' interests, the money is released at the same time the release documents are provided.   Why is he taking 3 months????  Did he provide a reason?


If Geldert provided a list to NM of those that were settling NM should have the release documents drawn up and signed....then they should sit down with Geldert and exchange money/documents.  What Geldert is doing is another stupid thing.
Without prejudice


----------



## LilMaggie

MarcieL said:


> NM has to sign all the releases as well.  Many of us engaged lawyers to go over the documents, all appeared to be in order.  We had time constraints but not so for them.  I will be happy to have it in the rear view mirror, horrendous experience to have to go through in your 8th decade.


Exactly! The release dang well better be in order.
Perhaps I should start emailing NM demanding my release papers by a certain date, say March 28, or else they can pay me back all the interest I paid them!  That would give them a whole month to get the thing done.  
This is far from behind me.  Look out MG!


----------



## CleoB

I thought Judge Young was going to make the decision on interest and costs on March 8 but I receive a copy of her decision dated February 28.  So what is March 8?


----------



## LilMaggie

CleoB said:


> I thought Judge Young was going to make the decision on interest and costs on March 8 but I receive a copy of her decision dated February 28.  So what is March 8?


March 8 is the appeal.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

So has Michael Geldert provided anyone with Judge Young's current Supplemental Decision related to the Alberta trials costs and interest?
(Specifically the people who fired or were fired by Michael that now have to represent themselves as it's most important for them i.e. Option 2)

Probably not as most of us didn't even know this meeting had occurred right around the time he was throwing us all into the SIF shackles - well guess we were all misdirected again as its already a done deal.  You might get it in your Micheal Geldert divorce package or if you pay for it probably sometime after it would be helpful for you to prepare or know what the court says you need to pay.

This Decision was just filed February 28th related to the James and Diane Reid action after our defense team and Northmont presented their argument Nov 16th to Judge Young - pretty interesting that Geldert never mentioned this or even provided any documentation related to it like the "Simovonian Affidavit" which is important to anyone who still has to pay as it tells what the individuals principal amount is for each of us.

Just a quick synopses of the Judge Young Supplemental decision:

interest was determined (very beneficial to people who purchased prior to 2004 only because Judge Young protected them with the Interest Act - good thing she did as Strathcona Law Groups Barry King didn't think it was important and felt 25% was okay during the trial)
costs - Judge Young granted a penalty for enhanced costs because our lawyers like to abuse the system
Expired Claims - Geldert was too lazy to prepare a list of these in the written submissions so blew an opportunity to save a few of us thousands of dollars and again painted everyone with the same brush

If you want a copy I would suggest asking Michael Geldert for it:
michael@geldertlaw.com
patricia@geldertlaw.com
sunchaser@geldertlaw.com
intrawest@geldertlaw.com


----------



## Petus@18

I received her decision as well via Geldert (6 days after she filed).

The judgment awarded to the Plaintiff in each SLG Action is the principal amount as set out in the Simovonian Affidavit. Interest is to be calculated on those principal amounts at the rate of 5% per annum for those VIAS that pre-date 2004 and at the rate of 26.824% per annum for all other VIAs.
[23]    Counsel for the Plaintiff is directed to prepare a "judgment roll" for each of the SLG Actions, specifying on one page for each action: action number, style of cause, VIA date, principal sum, rate of interest, calculation of interest including dates from which interest begins to the date of this decision and a per diem thereafter, applicable Federal Goods and Services Tax and costs of $1,162.50 (the "Judgment Rolls"). The Judgment Rolls are to be provided to Counsel for the Defendants within 30 days of the date of this decision. Counsel for the
Defendant will then have 21 days from receipt of the Judgment Rolls to review them and advise Counsel for the Plaintiff, in writing, whether there are any concerns with the Judgment Rolls.

Judge Young's decision was also based on Geldert's absolute incompetence,  quote "I am satisfied that as a result of my findings of resjudicata, abuse of process and vexatious proceedings in the Decision, the Plaintiff is entitled to costs on an enhanced basis"

*Judgment roll* refers to collection of papers filed by the clerk of the court where the action or proceeding is in a court of record. It is filed when the clerk enters *judgment*. It includes every part of the action or proceeding, or such parts as the statute may specify.

If we don't have a lawyer now, who are they seving? Geldert?  how can we object?  We have to attend the appeal on Thursday.


----------



## Timesharepain

servemeout said:


> We have never been served and our names are not on the lists.  We paid for a search to be done on our names at the court house and our names were not included.  We did not continue with MG on Dec 29.17.  The BC list will have the Goldberg judgement apply and the Reid ruling in Alberta.  If you have not been served with a suit against you - you have dodged that bullet.  That does not mean the NM may not reload and fire another round, however the cost of doing so may not be economically sound and cost effective.  NM now has the land, which is what was wanted from the beginning.  The remaining TS still using the #NAFR can have the door closed on them and the previous owners can ride off into the sunset with more money than will fit into the saddlebags.


I can't seem to find the list of those served in BC..can someone tell me how to search for it...I tried civil claims under Goldberg or under our name but nothing...we were with Gelert...Thanks


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Petus@18 said:


> I received her decision as well via Geldert (6 days after she filed).
> 
> The judgment awarded to the Plaintiff in each SLG Action is the principal amount as set out in the Simovonian Affidavit. Interest is to be calculated on those principal amounts at the rate of 5% per annum for those VIAS that pre-date 2004 and at the rate of 26.824% per annum for all other VIAs.
> [23]    Counsel for the Plaintiff is directed to prepare a "judgment roll" for each of the SLG Actions, specifying on one page for each action: action number, style of cause, VIA date, principal sum, rate of interest, calculation of interest including dates from which interest begins to the date of this decision and a per diem thereafter, applicable Federal Goods and Services Tax and costs of $1,162.50 (the "Judgment Rolls"). The Judgment Rolls are to be provided to Counsel for the Defendants within 30 days of the date of this decision. Counsel for the
> Defendant will then have 21 days from receipt of the Judgment Rolls to review them and advise Counsel for the Plaintiff, in writing, whether there are any concerns with the Judgment Rolls.
> 
> Judge Young's decision was also based on Geldert's absolute incompetence,  quote "I am satisfied that as a result of my findings of resjudicata, abuse of process and vexatious proceedings in the Decision, the Plaintiff is entitled to costs on an enhanced basis"
> 
> *Judgment roll* refers to collection of papers filed by the clerk of the court where the action or proceeding is in a court of record. It is filed when the clerk enters *judgment*. It includes every part of the action or proceeding, or such parts as the statute may specify.
> 
> If we don't have a lawyer now, who are they seving? Geldert?  how can we object?  We have to attend the appeal on Thursday.


Glad you heard from him as I was getting worried he might skip town with the $40 million he just took in from the Option 1 people as I didn't think anyone had heard from him.

Maybe Strathcona Law Group will be forced into some pro bono work as directed by the court as they are the Lawyer's on Record!!


----------



## CleoB

LilMaggie said:


> March 8 is the appeal.





Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Glad you heard from him as I was getting worried he might skip town with the $40 million he just took in from the Option 1 people as I didn't think anyone had heard from him.
> 
> Maybe Strathcona Law Group will be forced into some pro bono work as directed by the court as they are the Lawyer's on Record!!


Nothing saying he hasn't skipped town.  With the internet it's very easy to send out emails.


----------



## greyskies

Does this apply to everyone? Regardless of whether you chose option 1 or 2? Is there anything that can be done if we've already paid? 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Timesharepain

LilMaggie said:


> So very confusing!!
> Still waiting on the release.  I would also love to know how MG is proceeding with the 162% bill collecting.


When we said we were not paying he sent us a counter claim document for $36000 rather than initial 27,000.. Plus some other interest...or was court form but not stamped or signed or anything


----------



## CleoB

greyskies said:


> Does this apply to everyone? Regardless of whether you chose option 1 or 2? Is there anything that can be done if we've already paid?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


I don't believe so as those that have sent in their cheques basically are saying "yes we agree to the 26.82% and here's my money"


----------



## greyskies

CleoB said:


> I don't believe so as those that have sent in their cheques basically are saying "yes we agree to the 26.82% and here's my money"


I should have listened to the forum! 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## CleoB

Timesharepain said:


> When we said we were not paying he sent us a counter claim document for $36000 rather than initial 27,000.. Plus some other interest...or was court form but not stamped or signed or anything


Who sent it to you?  Geldert?


----------



## Petus@18

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Glad you heard from him as I was getting worried he might skip town with the $40 million he just took in from the Option 1 people as I didn't think anyone had heard from him.
> 
> Maybe Strathcona Law Group will be forced into some pro bono work as directed by the court as they are the Lawyer's on Record!!



Are you attending the appeal?


----------



## MarcieL

Most of is option 1 people at least us paid because we could not afford any more interest charges.  We are in our 8th decade and as it was had to borrow to pay the 40 grand.  Had we owed less we would have endured the pain.


----------



## Can't_Give_Up

Went to the court house today and they informed me that we should file an affidavit to be heard/make the judge aware that we want to continue with the appeal. It is also a way to formally inform the judge about the circumstances of our case (i.e. Lawyers withdrawal, not enough time to prepare for an appeal, lawyers not providing info to us in a timely basis, other circumstances of our case, issues with Judge Young’s ruling, etc). Everyone should try to file an affidavit even if they are going to be present that day in court. First print off the attached affidavit or download it from the Alberta Court website: 

https://albertacourts.ca/qb/areas-of-law/civil/forms

About ¾ down the page listed as Generic Affidavit CTS3819.

Only original copies will be accepted.

If you live in Edmonton, it is super easy. Fill out the affidavit and take it to the Court of Queen’s Bench. You will need to get it signed by a commissioner and then they will file it for you. It is free to get it commissioned and to file it. The wait time depends on how many people are there. The first time I went to find out about the appeal date, I waited an hour; today I was in and out in 15 minutes.

If you live elsewhere in the province: Fill out the affidavit and take it to any Provincial Court and get it commissioned for free (the Edmonton law court advised me that all courts should have a commissioner of oaths, but you may want to call before you go). Then you will have to take the original and send it via mail (check with Canada Post to see if it will make it there on time through Express/Next day shipping). Another option is to have a lawyer fax it for you. Apparently only lawyers can fax affidavits to the court house. This shouldn’t cost you too much, but again you will have to call one and find out how much they charge.

If you live outside of the province: Fill out the affidavit and get it notarized. Your local court house may have a notary (for a small fee, again call before you go) or you can take it to a lawyer to get it notarized. Then you can either send it via mail or have a lawyer fax it for you.

If you can’t mail or fax it in time, you may be able to scan and email a copy to someone else through tugs or Facebook to present it for you on your behalf. There is no guarantee that the judge will look at it since it hasn’t been filed and is not the original, but it could be an option for those that can’t make it.

I will be filling out mine tonight and taking it in tomorrow. If anyone wants to send me theirs, I will bring it with me on March 8th. My email address is cantgiveup99@gmail.com

Everyone in attendance that day should meet up afterwards so we can at least exchange contact info and also to discuss how to proceed with the appeal. Thanks.


----------



## Petus@18

Would anyone attending the appeal wants to get together afterwards?  In the cafeteria maybe? I know Truth's secret group have already a plan, but they don't really need anyone else to go ahead with it.  It is too bad that they continue to be divided from the rest of us.  After all, we all got screwed by the same morons.  We all know that the more people you can gather into one group the better and the less money each person needs to pay for legal fees.  This sort of nonsense will continue hurting us all.  I truly hope that the new site being created could keep us together.  Maybe we can recoup our losses by going after the dopey 'lawyer' as soon as possible.


----------



## Petus@18

MarcieL said:


> Most of is option 1 people at least us paid because we could not afford any more interest charges.  We are in our 8th decade and as it was had to borrow to pay the 40 grand.  Had we owed less we would have endured the pain.



You did what it was best for your family.  No worries,  we will sue Geldert and company and we may get back what it was taken from us by force and illegally.


----------



## Petus@18

Google's Maps another great way to leave our reviews about our lawyer's conduct!


----------



## truthr

Petus@18 said:


> Would anyone attending the appeal wants to get together afterwards?  In the cafeteria maybe? I know Truth's secret group have already a plan, but they don't really need anyone else to go ahead with it.  It is too bad that they continue to be divided from the rest of us.  After all, we all got screwed by the same morons.  We all know that the more people you can gather into one group the better and the less money each person needs to pay for legal fees.  This sort of nonsense will continue hurting us all.  I truly hope that the new site being created could keep us together.  Maybe we can recoup our losses by going after the dopey 'lawyer' as soon as possible.


Whether my "secret" groups have a plan already or not does not hinder anyone else from proceeding with whatever plan they wish.  To my knowledge no one is being held captive in any of the other groups.

As for the more people in any one group the better - not necessarily the case as we have all experienced in this fiasco; some people work better together than others.  Not a slight on any of the individuals or groups just a fact of life.  It may be that the more people the less money each person needs to pay for legal fees; however it is a LOT more complicated than that as those who have been in contact with lawyers have discovered.

"This sort of nonsense will continue hurting us all" - again incorrect and shortsighted as anyone, whether an individual or group, can do whatever they wish without it affecting anyone else other than the members of whatever group gather together.

If you or anyone else wants to start a site of your own, guess what?  You can and I encourage you to do so rather than complain or attempt to ride others' coattails that have worked diligently and tirelessly for years.


----------



## Timesharepain

CleoB said:


> Who sent it to you?  Geldert?


Yes it was from him once we let him know we were very unhappy with settlement and were not paying it.


----------



## CleoB

Timesharepain said:


> Yes it was from him once we let him know we were very unhappy with settlement and were not paying it.


I hope you have filed a complaint with the B.C. Law Society and have forwarded that email to them.


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

The plot thickens again.  Anyone have any idea if the Pre 2004 VIA decision from the judge in Edmonton will have any impact on what transpired with the Branch decision in BC??  Still have not been able to track down a Schedule A or Schedule B from the WanKel Affidavit  referenced in the Branch decision. Us option 2  people really left flapping in the wind. Anyone else get a letter from Sunchaser informing them that there VIA had been terminated but they still want there sweet moolah. Just keeps getting curiouser every day.  Feel that the Young supplemental rulings were the closest thing to a win we have had lately.


----------



## CleoB

Rider Nation Rocks said:


> The plot thickens again.  Anyone have any idea if the Pre 2004 VIA decision from the judge in Edmonton will have any impact on what transpired with the Branch decision in BC??  Still have not been able to track down a Schedule A or Schedule B from the WanKel Affidavit  referenced in the Branch decision. Us option 2  people really left flapping in the wind. Anyone else get a letter from Sunchaser informing them that there VIA had been terminated but they still want there sweet moolah. Just keeps getting curiouser every day.  Feel that the Young supplemental rulings were the closest thing to a win we have had lately.


Have there been people that have received a signed termination to their VIA's that are option 2 people?   I think option 2 is hoping to get in there and change things according to the contract.  Change the manager, set up a homeowners association (which is what NM said they would do in the CCAA hearings) and just basically make NM life a living hell.


----------



## Petus@18

truthr said:


> Whether my "secret" groups have a plan already or not does not hinder anyone else from proceeding with whatever plan they wish.  To my knowledge no one is being held captive in any of the other groups.
> 
> As for the more people in any one group the better - not necessarily the case as we have all experienced in this fiasco; some people work better together than others.  Not a slight on any of the individuals or groups just a fact of life.  It may be that the more people the less money each person needs to pay for legal fees; however it is a LOT more complicated than that as those who have been in contact with lawyers have discovered.
> 
> "This sort of nonsense will continue hurting us all" - again incorrect and shortsighted as anyone, whether an individual or group, can do whatever they wish without it affecting anyone else other than the members of whatever group gather together.
> 
> If you or anyone else wants to start a site of your own, guess what?  You can and I encourage you to do so rather than complain or attempt to ride others' coattails that have worked diligently and tirelessly for years.



Thank you, I appreciate your perspective.


----------



## MarcieL

Petus@18 said:


> You did what it was best for your family.  No worries,  we will sue Geldert and company and we may get back what it was taken from us by force and illegally.


Please let me know when you plan this.


----------



## Petus@18

Plus454 said:


> Today I found information I didn't realize i had.
> Turns out we all have each others names already.
> Burred in a barrage of attachments in the Aug 18/2016 update are 2 lists of names, Court application Cranbrook (all the BC defendants 475) and court application Edmonton ( all the Alberta defendants 753). Adds up to 1228 defendants.
> And surprise surprise on the list is a friend of mine who builds websites. He said its possible to build a site that people could access only with permission  of an administrator. If your name's not on one of those lists you wouldn't get in.
> Please give me some feedback on if you think this could be a tool.





MarcieL said:


> Please let me know when you plan this.



Plus454's quote above, he is trying to setup a website where we can all join and pursue a claim against Geldert.  I think this is a great idea!! Just give him your feedback.  The sooner we can get in we could start making decisions to go forward.  I am looking forward to start rightaway!  For now let's see what happens on Thursday.


----------



## MarcieL

CleoB said:


> Have there been people that have received (and signed) termination to their VIA's that are option 2 people?   I think option 2 is hoping to get in there and change things according to the contract.  Change the manager, set up a homeowners association (which is what NM said they would do in the CCAA hearings) and just basically make NM life a living hell.


Good luck with that.


----------



## aden2

Regarding  the Northmont v Reid with Judge Young, during a break a remark was made to KW/Sauvgeau, which delayed the hearing because Judge Young had to deal with their complaint. It appeared that Judge Young took a dislike towards us from that point.
So if we pay what KW claims we owe are we released from this nightmare?


----------



## servemeout

There are some VERY interesting statement that NM has included in their communications.  April 12,2013 " Enclosed, you will find your Renovation Project Fee("RPF") invoice for your share of the renovation project and the deficit of the resort."  There are a few issues here 
1. Why would we be responsible for any company's deficit?  
2. The amount was for ALL of the resort to be done. 
3. The interest for the RPF is based on that amount for ALL of the resort to be done.  55% of units have been removed, hence the RPF is an grossly inflated amount.  How much of the amount was RPF and how much was to cover deficit?
4. NM did not pay their share.  Wankel stated in court it was because they did not send themselves an invoice. 
5. The finial ruling of the appeal was Jan. 25 2017concerning the RPF.  So why are we being charged interest of 26.82% starting the announcement date of April 12,2013.
6. Having "X" number of years left on leases - why is not some credit due to the persons that paid for the use of that time. Using the 20 years in this "Freedom" document you would have had to purchase in 1993.  What was the freedom in that communication?  We do not call 5 years of litigation freedom.  

"In order to allow Timeshare Members to cancel their Vacation Interval Agreements, we developed a cancellation option that fairly compensates the Developer for the lost property management fees, ensures the deficit is properly recovered, and recovers some of the administrative and trustee costs of the process."  FAIR?  Sorry this is not FAIR as you now get to sell the land.  Fair means that both parties benefit and there is only one party that will rake in $$$$. Why are we responsible of YOUR cost of doing business.  

Also on page 2 is discussed the Current operating deficit.  The 7000 is given as part of the problem.  Was this not part of the CCAA ruling?  Also stated was the Limited Subsidy Agreement between Northmont and RVM.  The arrangement between parts of the same company is not our problem.  

We will not be in court tomorrow, but feel free to use any of the above items.  Photos of the #NAFR need to be included.  Every time I read what NM has sent to us I find something else that was misrepresented to us.  I have also kept copies of the ACE inspection of the dump which have now been removed from the Sunchaser web site.


----------



## CleoB

aden2 said:


> Regarding  the Northmont v Reid with Judge Young, during a break a remark was made to KW/Sauvgeau, which delayed the hearing because Judge Young had to deal with their complaint. It appeared that Judge Young took a dislike towards us from that point.
> So if we pay what KW claims we owe are we released from this nightmare?


What was the remark?  Did you hear it?  If she was influenced by the remark then she wasn't unbiased in her decision and it could be appealed.


----------



## aden2

CleoB said:


> What was the remark?  Did you hear it?  If she was influenced by the remark then she wasn't unbiased in her decision and it could be appealed.


A VIA told KW/Sauvgeau something to the effect that he would rather spend time in jail then give them any money.


----------



## Hotpink

One needs to understand  the definitions of some of the terms that we use in thus instance. Depending on the source where we find them.
In looking at the Devils Dictionary we find the following.

Litigant -A person about to give up his skin for the hope of retaining his bones.

Litigation -A machine which you go into as a pig and come out as a sausage.

Lawyer- One skilled in circumvention of the law.

What we all have been  thru since KW came on the scene,  I'm sure many of us believe those definitions may be more accurate than those found 
in either the Oxford or Webster versions


----------



## CleoB

aden2 said:


> A VIA told KW/Sauvgeau something to the effect that he would rather spend time in jail then give them any money.


Well, quite frankly, I don't understand why KW/Sauvgeau complained about that type of comment.  It's not like this person threatened to harm either KW/Sauvgeau.


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> *Where can I read that a judge changed or allowed for the change in all the VIA leases?*
> 
> ... This suggests that Judge Young at least, either isn't aware of the change or is choosing not to recognize the change or, the leases have not been changed.



No one answered my question until Judge Young answered it. Her answer is, the leases have not been changed by any court or judicial body that she recognizes.


----------



## torqued

Anyone understand how your interest on what you owe actually is since BC court and Alberta court have ruled differently.  My contract is pre-2004. Does it depend on what province you were served in??


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

greyskies said:


> Does this apply to everyone? Regardless of whether you chose option 1 or 2? Is there anything that can be done if we've already paid?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


No, those who chose option 1 settled out of court so this decision by Judge Young has no impact. However, as I understand things, those who did not choose option 1 and NM filed a claim against them in Alberta, will be ordered to pay the principal amount owing as presented to Judge Young, plus annual  interest at either 5% (pre-2004 lease) or 26.82% to the date they pay up, plus court costs, and then they will still owe the 2018 maintenance fee plus interest until that's paid, plus they continue to be subject to the terms of their VIA lease/contract and the whims of NM et al. No idea what NM will charge to be released from the VIA/contract once the claim has been paid up - IF NM will even agree to release them. Big bucks either way, sadly, as far as I can tell, and extreme stress. Hard to believe! Of course the above doesn't address the potential outcome of the appeal of Judge Young's decisions. More twists and turns (sigh).


----------



## servemeout

If you were included in the BC group, BC and if in Alberta it will be Alberta.  If you live in Virginia the collection of the debt may become more difficult.  In Alberta collection agencies must be licensed by Alberta. F Sauvageau may not be allowed to act as a collection agency in your state. 
I have done some calculations on the interest that RVM is charging.  Judge Young's ruling greatly reduces the amount due.  The difference in 2013 is $1487.40 vs $262.27.  Her ruling will reduce the interest only by $2,598.22 for the years 2013/14/15/16/17.  That amount of interest is a far cry from the settlement amount.  Yet we were told that it was a "good deal" - NOT


----------



## aden2

CleoB said:


> Well, quite frankly, I don't understand why KW/Sauvgeau complained about that type of comment.  It's not like this person threatened to harm either KW/Sauvgeau.


I think it was an attempted to make us all look bad, and that we were picking on them!


----------



## LilMaggie

Kind of sad to be penalized so much for wanting this nonsense to be over with .  Carry on brave ones!!!


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

servemeout said:


> If you were included in the BC group, BC and if in Alberta it will be Alberta.  If you live in Virginia the collection of the debt may become more difficult.  In Alberta collection agencies must be licensed by Alberta. F Sauvageau may not be allowed to act as a collection agency in your state.
> I have done some calculations on the interest that RVM is charging.  Judge Young's ruling greatly reduces the amount due.  The difference in 2013 is $1487.40 vs $262.27.  Her ruling will reduce the interest only by $2,598.22 for the years 2013/14/15/16/17.  That amount of interest is a far cry from the settlement amount.  Yet we were told that it was a "good deal" - NOT


Those who settled under option 1 and had a pre-2004 VIA do pay a lot more in interest, but their charges stop as of Nov. 30, 2017 and they are fully released from the terms of their VIA. The alternative to settling under option 1 means the interest clock is still ticking and 2018 maintenance fees are due and accruing interest, on top of the continued stress of trying to fight this horrible fight and/or stave off the actions of the ruthless debt collectors. No easy decisions or answers for any of us


----------



## LilMaggie

aden2 said:


> I think it was an attempted to make us all look bad, and that we were picking on them!


Clearly. We must have come across as a bunch of dullards.  It is also clear that some lawyers are much more sophisticated than others!


----------



## LilMaggie

Notwhatweweresold said:


> Those who settled under option 1 and had a pre-2004 VIA do pay a lot more in interest, but their charges stop as of Nov. 30, 2017 and they are fully released from the terms of their VIA. The alternative to settling under option 1 means the interest clock is still ticking and 2018 maintenance fees are due and accruing interest, on top of the continued stress of trying to fight this horrible fight and/or stave off the actions of the ruthless debt collectors. No easy decisions or answers for any of us


Very well stated.  There are no easy answers.  We all will do and have done what seemed best in our minds at the time. 
Thankfully we have a cohesive group that support each other's decisions!!


----------



## Frau Blucher

I’m mad as hell at Geldert.  He essentially threw in the towel and bailed on us.  Sure we had to pay the RPF and overdue maintenance fees plus 27% interest plus at least we’ll be rid of KW and the NAFR.


----------



## LilMaggie

Its Appeal Day!  Best of luck team


----------



## MarcieL

Who is appealing what?


----------



## dotbuhler

MarcieL said:


> Who is appealing what?


Justice Young's Decision. 10:00 a.m. Edmonton Law Courts.


----------



## aden2

The presiding Judge at the hearing in Edmonton with Northmond permitted all VIAs present to express their views before the courts. KW and Jud virtue were also present for the hearing. there 76 persons who have not signed the release papers. The next date for hearing is May 10, 2018 @9:00 A.M.


----------



## dotbuhler

aden2 said:


> The presiding Judge at the hearing in Edmonton with Northmond permitted all VIAs present to express their views before the courts. KW and Jud virtue were also present for the hearing. there 76 persons who have not signed the release papers. The next date for hearing is May 10, 2018 @9:00 A.M.


Thank you Aden2 for telling us the great news! Maybe for a change things will start looking up for those of us who are continuing this crazy journey!


----------



## tssuck

dotbuhler said:


> Thank you Aden2 for telling us the great news! Maybe for a change things will start looking up for those of us who are continuing this crazy journey!



Thank you very much for the information. Glad that our side of the truth is being heard. No more BS from MG.
By 76 not signed the release papers, does that mean there are 76 of us who have not paid?


----------



## aden2

tssuck said:


> Thank you very much for the information. Glad that our side of the truth is being heard. No more BS from MG.
> By 76 not signed the release papers, does that mean there are 76 of us who have not paid?


*YES HAVE NOT PAID!*


----------



## Frau Blucher

tswow has been AWOL for quite some time.  I wonder why that is?


----------



## servemeout

Our guess is that there are more than 76 that have not paid.  Time may increase that number.  Like the guy that stayed too late in the bar, then called home and said don't pay the ransom - I got loose!


----------



## aden2

_It was interesting to note today (March 8th) that the Queen's Bench is not bound by any gag order that may have been sign by VIAs with Northmont!_


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

I want to say a big *Thanks You* to everyone who took the time to have their voice heard the last few months - I believe this added to the favorable information provided in Judge Young's recent supplemental decision and at today's hearing.

*These are both WINS for us!!*

People have heard us and are starting to do what they can to help - now we just need to put all the pieces they have given us together ourselves to move forward as I truly believe these Judges see we have been taken advantage of on many levels.

*IT'S HUGE* - Everyone has been given the opportunity to appeal the recent decision including Option 1 clients who Micheal Geldert and Northmont felt they already defeated.

Now along with complaining to the Law Society about Michael Geldert actions there is another opportunity to set things right related to Northmont.

Kirk was pretty pissed and left early after being ignored by his lawyer so in no way did he get his way today and hopefully the Court saw the real person who is treating us like a part of his game - that in itself was worth watching.

Both Counsel's lost and looked small today - today definitely didn't go their way and they had to tuck those tails in while they walked away defeated.

To the four people who stood up today and spoke - *Thank You* for your courage and representing all of us with your words!!!

Barry King - thanks for the pro bono work and we will make sure you are held accountable to follow the courts request and your offer to contact everyone to consent to release individual contact info in aiding us to get organized.  If I were you it might be just easier and faster to just get Michael Geldert to send out an email with the entire contact list you conveniently didn't bring with you today.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abls/doc/2010/2010abls9/2010abls9.html?resultIndex=20

 I guess the real message is - we started a fight we believed in and are not going to give up


----------



## truthr

Hey Peeps - What an exciting couple of days. Someone who was in attendance today sent me this to share with you all - thanks to all who were there and especially those who spoke.

March 8th, 2018 - In Court today a Judge, whose name I didn't catch, discussed the manner in which the Appeal of Young's decision would proceed. If the Appeal does proceed, this Judge will be presiding. The principal reason for this session was because Barry King, who filed the Appeal, was giving notice that he was withdrawing as legal counsel for all of the Geldert clients.

Jud Virtue (Norton Rose Law), representing Northmont, opened with two points.
1) He suggested that since the Reids had settled with Northmont the Appeal should not proceed.
2) That all of the 640-Geldert clients who have settled with Northmont should be "dismissed" from this Appeal.

On the first point, the Judge said that an Appeal could proceed without the Reids.

On the second point, Northmont had argued that having settled, it made no sense for these defendants be included. Virtue also argued that Northmont was obligated in the Settlement Agreement to release those in Option 1 from any further legal action. The Judge wasn't prepared, at this time, to exclude those who had settled.

Before today, Virtue and King agreed that there were either 76 or 77 defendants who had not settled with Northmont. One lawyer had listed a defendant as not having settled; and, the other lawyer had that same defendant as having settled.

King is going to write each of the 77 and ask for their permission to share their contact information. Sharing their contact information will give this group an opportunity to join together and seek a lawyer. Everyone intending on appealing must notify Virtue before May 3rd. If no one contacts Virtue before May 3rd, there will not be an Appeal.

The Judge made it clear that he was not making any decisions today but did allow every defendant to address the Court. Five defendants spoke. Some read prepared statements, and some made impromptu remarks.

The next session in Court will be May 10th. This will not be the Appeal but a further discussion on if and how to proceed.


----------



## Petus@18

The judge seemed so very nice and was shocked when he was told that Geldert has been withholding information and documents from us in order to screw us with the appeal. The judge suggested to report him with the law society. We should send them a follow-up message referring the judge's comments. King got up of his chair at that point and he said that it would be impossible to provide everyone with copies of all documents. Our answer to this stupid comment was, it is possible if they send this information electronically. The judge couldn't believe Geldert is doing this to all of us. He indicated he couldn't do anything about it but again, he suggested we contact the law society.   Does anyone attending knows the name of the judge?  I believe that there were 4 gentlemen and a very nice lady that stood up and told the judge what we have endured for so many years under the negligence of our 'entertainment lawyer'.  Bravo!!


----------



## Floyd55

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I want to say a big *Thanks You* to everyone who took the time to have their voice heard the last few months - I believe this added to the favorable information provided in Judge Young's recent supplemental decision and at today's hearing.
> 
> *These are both WINS for us!!*
> 
> People have heard us and are starting to do what they can to help - now we just need to put all the pieces they have given us together ourselves to move forward as I truly believe these Judges see we have been taken advantage of on many levels.
> 
> *IT'S HUGE* - Everyone has been given the opportunity to appeal the recent decision including Option 1 clients who Micheal Geldert and Northmont felt they already defeated.
> 
> Now along with complaining to the Law Society about Michael Geldert actions there is another opportunity to set things right related to Northmont.
> 
> Kirk was pretty pissed and left early after being ignored by his lawyer so in no way did he get his way today and hopefully the Court saw the real person who is treating us like a part of his game - that in itself was worth watching.
> 
> Both Counsel's lost and looked small today - today definitely didn't go their way and they had to tuck those tails in while they walked away defeated.
> 
> To the four people who stood up today and spoke - *Thank You* for your courage and representing all of us with your words!!!
> 
> Barry King - thanks for the pro bono work and we will make sure you are held accountable to follow the courts request and your offer to contact everyone to consent to release individual contact info in aiding us to get organized.  If I were you it might be just easier and faster to just get Michael Geldert to send out an email with the entire contact list you conveniently didn't bring with you today.
> 
> https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abls/doc/2010/2010abls9/2010abls9.html?resultIndex=20
> 
> I guess the real message is - we started a fight we believed in and are not going to give up




I sure hope that you are right that option 1 people are allowed to be included in this appeal! We were coerced into paying by MG's scare tactics and threats along with the ridiculous timeline that he agreed to. It was not a fair settlement and if there is a way to fight it we are on board. I would only hope that whatever legal team is agreed to this time is willing to work on the principle that they recieve payment as a percentage of what funds they are able to reclaim for option 1 people and what they are able to save others from their original bill from Northmont. I can't afford to put more money into this effort right now.


----------



## MarcieL

It appears this judge due to people having a voice today perhaps sees these people for who they are. Encouraging that option 1 people may even be allowed to appeal however contingency would be favorable as we are also on the E for further cash.


----------



## Floyd55

I could be missing something, but the problem that I see is that there is a deadline to inform Virtue of our intent to appeal by May 3rd but the details of the appeal proceeding and whether option 1's will be included will not likely be known until May 10th. Also, it sounds like option 1's won't be included in the email list that is provided, only the 77 who did not settle. How are the rest of us supposed to get ourselves included in this appeal if it goes forward?


----------



## tssuck

MarcieL said:


> It appears this judge due to people having a voice today perhaps sees these people for who they are. Encouraging that option 1 people may even be allowed to appeal however contingency would be favorable as we are also on the E for further cash.



Great job done by those who were in court for us. Thank you so very much. Finally someone who is looking at all the facts. NM and MG - BEWARE


----------



## MarcieL

Frau Blucher said:


> tswow has been AWOL for quite some time.  I wonder why that is?



He's counting his millions.


----------



## appealerforsure

Been waiting for this great news for years!!! We were blindly led off the cliff by MG like so many others and now after paying the extortion fee to escape we finally have hope on our side. We want to appeal this and be part of a group that will sue MG also.I suggest all the others that have paid the unwarranted fees should do the same.I have wondered why after being held to such a strict deadline to pay to get out why I wasn't receiving the release from MG and now know why.MG and KW are delaying paperwork because of what is taking place in court,that is now so obvious.MG has intentionally avoided my questions or gave incomplete info when asked about upcoming appeals and the effect of them on the settlement reached.This message has to get out to all that have settled as many do not know of the existence of these posts.Complaint to BC law will be put in shortly and I want to appeal this ridiculous settlement.Can someone post an outline of what exactly needs to be done to help all others,step 1 appeal process and proper way to do it and step 2 information on how to set up a group to sue MG. I have read every post and want to thank everyone from the bottom of my heart for taking the time out of their busy lives to take on these white collar criminals. We will win and get peace of mind finally after soooo many years of stress because of this battle.When I ever have to use a lawyer again I will be much more aggressive in how I deal with them and as for timeshares,well KW you have  destroyed the integrity and honesty of all timeshare ownership because of your evil corrupted ways and the industry will suffer because of your greed. JUST TO LET YOU KNOW KW and MG IT IS VERY HOT IN HELL.


----------



## Petus@18

What we understood was that anyone who has not paid the settlement is entitled to continue with the appeal.   It did not matter what option (or not option) you selected in December.  Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Hotpink

It was very interesting to note that Virtue not Sauvignon was representing NM . Virtue's law practice is also the one that told NM in a 2013 letter to NM that they are responsible for paying their share of the fees that all the rest of the lessees/ owners were being ask to pay. To date they have not; at least to my knowledge, and now they are trying to quash the revolt of the honest folk.
If KW is going to continue to act as a spoilt brat by taking his ball and going home  because not everyone wants to play by his rules; it brings to mind an old statement I've heard.

If he was to suffer from a case of spontaneous combustion , I could not bring it upon myself to micturate upon that person suffering from such an inflammation

I could put it in a more vernacular language , but will wait until we see him in court again and tell him in person.

Lets see if all the parties actually follow through with what they are suppose to do.
Question about Judge Young's ruling from Feb 28. Does NW have to provide the information demanded in her decision in the timeframe she provided or is every thing on hold until this portion is completed.
If the appeal is heard and her original ruling is over turned what happens then.
This is becoming even muddier than the Mississippi in the spring.


----------



## waikikibound

Petus@18 said:


> What we understood was that anyone who has not paid the settlement is entitled to continue with the appeal.   It did not matter what option (or not option) you selected in December.  Please correct me if I am wrong.



That is what I heard as well...those who haven’t settled (in either options) can continue with the appeal. 

Jud Virtue asked that those who have already settled should be released and the Justice did not agree or disagree. BUT the Justice didn’t see a necessity to do the release yesterday and wanted to adjourn all matters to deal with on May 10.


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

Hotpink said:


> If he was to suffer from a case of spontaneous combustion , I could not bring it upon myself to micturate upon that person suffering from such an inflammation



It's Friday and this is my third martini. I'm pretty sure I am going to have to micturate soon. Getting back to your point. I'll do it. In court, on the street, a Russian hotel room, anywhere really, on fire or not. Generally though, I prefer hydrants.


----------



## CleoB

waikikibound said:


> That is what I heard as well...those who haven’t settled (in either options) can continue with the appeal.
> 
> Jud Virtue asked that those who have already settled should be released and the Justice did not agree or disagree. BUT the Justice didn’t see a necessity to do the release yesterday and wanted to adjourn all matters to deal with on May 10.


I suspect that is because he wants to get familiar with the case.  He has a lot of reading to do.


----------



## truthr

I have some news from the Edmonton courthouse as I just got off the phone with a supervisor there who I have spoken to before.

I had heard that the judge presiding yesterday was Justice JJ Gill but after doing some research online could not find his name in the AB Appeal Justices names, hence my call to the courthouse for clarification.  First, according to the person I spoke with, this is how the appeal process works.  When something is appealed it is not just elevated to the Appeal Court, it is elevated to the next level of court.  What that means for us is that Judge Young's decision was from the Provincial Court of AB so the appeal was elevated to the AB Court of Queen's Bench which is where the Honourable Mr. Justice JJ Gill is listed.  If you google his name you can see some of the press releases of cases he has presided over.

Second, regarding transcripts of yesterday's hearing - that can be done through the transcript management office (phone number removed).  Our group will be contacting them today to inquire as to the cost and time to get them and if anyone who is not part of my FB group would like a copy and is willing to pay for it please private message me.  Of course we won't know the cost per person until we know how much it will be and how many people are contributing.  Edited to add:  I called the number that the courthouse gave me and have since deleted because the person at that number told me that all transcripts have to be ordered online (I will provide the link) and all offices except Calgary are closing in a couple of weeks.
The link https://www.alberta.ca/order-courtroom-transcript.aspx

Third, I also found out that there is a way for us to get any and all court documents, orders, affidavits that MG and BK are not providing us with that we may need but again that will cost money - usually $1.00 per page and some of the documents are quite lengthy.  One would think that since MG and BK should have these documents that they should be providing them to all the clients but alas that is not the case.  Complaining about it accomplishes nothing and gets us nowhere but frustrated so I suggest some pro activity.  Please don't misunderstand one should be requesting these from MG and BK and certainly reporting to the Law Society if they are not forthcoming.


----------



## torqued

My sincere THANK YOU for those who stood up and spoke for us all. Sounds like the judge was not just hearing but listening. A glimmer of hope!!


----------



## truthr

Well, well, well things just keep getting more and more interesting.  Just when you think we have seen everything another twist to this sordid tale appears.

Has anyone else received this?   Wonder if they are going to do this to all of us eventually?  Wonder if this could be considered new evidence?  


Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.
#170, 551 - 71 Ave SE
Calgary, Alberta
T2H 0S6

Customer Service:
Telephone : 1-877-451-1250
Fax: 1-888-378-4477
Payments:
Telephone : 1-866-663-6338

February 1, 2018

NOTICE OF TERMINATION

Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner

RE: Notice of Termination of Vacation Interval Agreements

You are hereby provided notice that the contracts ("VIAs") tied to the Vacation Interval Interests listed on the enclosed statement of account are hereby  terminated effective February 1st, 2018.

As a reminder, this termination has no effect on your currently outstanding  obligations and outstanding claim, as appropriate, against you for your current default.


You remain liable for all obligations under your VIAs for all outstanding balances and interest to the date of termination, including but not limited to, the 2018 maintenance fees.

Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.


----------



## aden2

torqued said:


> My sincere THANK YOU for those who stood up and spoke for us all. Sounds like the judge was not just hearing but listening. A glimmer of hope!!


I was in touch with Civil court in Edmonton today, and was informed that at present there is a template of a Dispute Note" on file regarding NM. I filed my own "Dispute Note" as I wanted the real reason for the dispute registered (violation of the FTA 7.1). My dispute note will be on file as long as there is a judgement against me.


----------



## aden2

CONCERNS/ERRORS WITH JUDGE YOUNG'S DECISION:

1. The $1162.50 amount assessed each of the 740 people = $860,250.
None of the names were mention in the hearing!

2.Payments requested from Northmont is not a final payment!
There is no clause in our contract that requires a pay out payment of any amount, now such 162%. 

3. Why is 100% charge for maintenance each year when the resort has not been used.

4.The resort has been downsized.

5. The contracts have been changed when Fairmont became bankrupt and finally insolvent.
Each contract should have been consulted to see if they want to stay and continue.


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

truthr said:


> Well, well, well things just keep getting more and more interesting.  Just when you think we have seen everything another twist to this sordid tale appears.
> 
> Has anyone else received this?   Wonder if they are going to do this to all of us eventually?  Wonder if this could be considered new evidence?
> 
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.
> #170, 551 - 71 Ave SE
> Calgary, Alberta
> T2H 0S6
> 
> Customer Service:
> Telephone : 1-877-451-1250
> Fax: 1-888-378-4477
> Payments:
> Telephone : 1-866-663-6338
> 
> February 1, 2018
> 
> NOTICE OF TERMINATION
> 
> Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner
> 
> RE: Notice of Termination of Vacation Interval Agreements
> 
> You are hereby provided notice that the contracts ("VIAs") tied to the Vacation Interval Interests listed on the enclosed statement of account are hereby  terminated effective February 1st, 2018.
> 
> As a reminder, this termination has no effect on your currently outstanding  obligations and outstanding claim, as appropriate, against you for your current default.
> 
> 
> You remain liable for all obligations under your VIAs for all outstanding balances and interest to the date of termination, including but not limited to, the 2018 maintenance fees.
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.


Wow, you've been terminated! So, no further interest charges by NM/KW after Feb. 1, 2018 and NO $16,000 cancellation fee? Also, NO 120% upcharge and certainly NO 162% extortion charge - only the Judge Young-assessed court fee. I like the sounds of that for those who held out compared to the "Settlement" deal that 100s of us in AB paid under pressure and in fear.  I'm thinking this pending appeal has KW/NM nervous.


----------



## Frau Blucher

aden2 said:


> CONCERNS/ERRORS WITH JUDGE YOUNG'S DECISION:
> 
> 5. The contracts have been changed when Fairmont became bankrupt and finally insolvent.
> Each contract should have been consulted to see if they want to stay and continue.



There is no requirement for the new ‘owners’ to contact every Lessee unless there was a bankruptcy clause in the original contact


----------



## Frau Blucher

MarcieL said:


> He's counting his millions.



After yesterday’s court session, he might be watching some of his millions disappearing ...


----------



## MarcieL

I hope you are correct .


----------



## dotbuhler

truthr said:


> Well, well, well things just keep getting more and more interesting.  Just when you think we have seen everything another twist to this sordid tale appears.
> 
> Has anyone else received this?   Wonder if they are going to do this to all of us eventually?  Wonder if this could be considered new evidence?
> 
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.
> #170, 551 - 71 Ave SE
> Calgary, Alberta
> T2H 0S6
> 
> Customer Service:
> Telephone : 1-877-451-1250
> Fax: 1-888-378-4477
> Payments:
> Telephone : 1-866-663-6338
> 
> February 1, 2018
> 
> NOTICE OF TERMINATION
> 
> Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner
> 
> RE: Notice of Termination of Vacation Interval Agreements
> 
> You are hereby provided notice that the contracts ("VIAs") tied to the Vacation Interval Interests listed on the enclosed statement of account are hereby  terminated effective February 1st, 2018.
> 
> As a reminder, this termination has no effect on your currently outstanding  obligations and outstanding claim, as appropriate, against you for your current default.
> 
> 
> You remain liable for all obligations under your VIAs for all outstanding balances and interest to the date of termination, including but not limited to, the 2018 maintenance fees.
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.


So this was sent out February 1, over a month ago, and this is the first time it shows up? Or did anyone else see this before it was posted today?


----------



## MarcieL

What the hell option 1 people pay thousands to be released, so he doesn't require anymore $$, others are just being terminated!


----------



## GypsyOne

truthr said:


> Well, well, well things just keep getting more and more interesting.  Just when you think we have seen everything another twist to this sordid tale appears.
> 
> Has anyone else received this?   Wonder if they are going to do this to all of us eventually?  Wonder if this could be considered new evidence?
> 
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.
> #170, 551 - 71 Ave SE
> Calgary, Alberta
> T2H 0S6
> 
> Customer Service:
> Telephone : 1-877-451-1250
> Fax: 1-888-378-4477
> Payments:
> Telephone : 1-866-663-6338
> 
> February 1, 2018
> 
> NOTICE OF TERMINATION
> 
> Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner
> 
> RE: Notice of Termination of Vacation Interval Agreements
> 
> You are hereby provided notice that the contracts ("VIAs") tied to the Vacation Interval Interests listed on the enclosed statement of account are hereby  terminated effective February 1st, 2018.
> 
> As a reminder, this termination has no effect on your currently outstanding  obligations and outstanding claim, as appropriate, against you for your current default.
> 
> 
> You remain liable for all obligations under your VIAs for all outstanding balances and interest to the date of termination, including but not limited to, the 2018 maintenance fees.
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.



Has anyone asked for a legal opinion as to why Northmont is doing this, what is the legal basis, or has their own opinion as to why they are doing this; and what are the implications for past and present settlements.  It seems very arbitrary and very heavy handed, but I'm certain they have their reasons and are doing it after legal consultation.  Can't help but wonder if they are backing themselves into a corner which will cost them dearly.


----------



## Frau Blucher

truthr said:


> Well, well, well things just keep getting more and more interesting.  Just when you think we have seen everything another twist to this sordid tale appears.
> 
> Has anyone else received this?   Wonder if they are going to do this to all of us eventually?  Wonder if this could be considered new evidence?
> 
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.
> #170, 551 - 71 Ave SE
> Calgary, Alberta
> T2H 0S6
> 
> Customer Service:
> Telephone : 1-877-451-1250
> Fax: 1-888-378-4477
> Payments:
> Telephone : 1-866-663-6338
> 
> February 1, 2018
> 
> NOTICE OF TERMINATION
> 
> Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner
> 
> RE: Notice of Termination of Vacation Interval Agreements
> 
> You are hereby provided notice that the contracts ("VIAs") tied to the Vacation Interval Interests listed on the enclosed statement of account are hereby  terminated effective February 1st, 2018.
> 
> As a reminder, this termination has no effect on your currently outstanding  obligations and outstanding claim, as appropriate, against you for your current default.
> 
> 
> You remain liable for all obligations under your VIAs for all outstanding balances and interest to the date of termination, including but not limited to, the 2018 maintenance fees.
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.



Does this appear legit or could it be one of Northmont’s tricks?  It appears to be a form letter without names or signatures.

If it is legit, could this be a way for Northmont to get lessees to pay their overdue RPF and maintenance fees at the 27% interest?  Pay now and get out of jail for free, sort of thing


----------



## Petus@18

If they are terminating our leases using the termination clause in our agreements,  then they should have done it in 2013, don't you think?
'If a default in any payment required to be paid according to this Lease has not been remedied within 90 days from the date of such default, and the Lessee has been given a minimum of one written notice ot such default. the Lessor may terminate this Lease upon written notice to the Lessee. and from the date of such notice all of the Lessee's rights to the Vacation Property pursuant to the provisions of this Lease shall be terminated'

They cannot use our agreement's termination clause at their convenience, or worst, use their own without notice or explanation. Either they apply the clause as written in the leases or don't.  They may want to sell the property and for that reason, they needed all of us to setttle and relinquish our timeshares. No one has received a written notice and the fact that your termination is already one month old, makes you wonder if they felt the appeal on March 8th was going to be dismissed and they jumped the gun too soon by sending these letters.  We haven't received anything but if the termination is effective in February why are we obligated to pay maintenance fees for this year? Are they nuts!  Definitely a time to research why are they doing this now?, I don't think this is legal, let's bring it up on May 10th.  We already filed our affidavit and will file a supplemental one if we receive such a termination letter.

Filing an Affidavit for the appeal is free of charge.  Something to consider for those who settled and paid already.  You may want to check with a lawyer or not to see if the settlement agreement is invalid since it was signed by force, false pretenses, with malice, possible collusion between Northmont and Geldert,  threats, etc.  We all have evidence in writing to prove all of this (ie e-mails from Geldert) these e-mails must be attached to your Affidavit if filing one. This document should be filed sooner than later,  at the Court of Queen's Bench.  You should ask the judge that your name don't be removed from the appeal as you wish to continue with the appeal, the basis of your Affidavit is to present the settlement agreement as new evidence of corruption from the part of Northmont with the assistance of our former 'lawyer'.  My thoughts only, you should take the opportunity of the extension granted. It wouldn't hurt trying if you are prepared to continue fighting and (Edit: share the legal costs with the rest of us).  This action has been very disturbing and has been handled it in the worst manner.   Requesting the judge to nullify the settlement and the refund of your money, if granted, this will be setting a legal precedent when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.  This will stop other scammers like Northmont trying to commit fraud and getting away with it.
Thinking out loud.


----------



## CleoB

truthr said:


> Well, well, well things just keep getting more and more interesting.  Just when you think we have seen everything another twist to this sordid tale appears.
> 
> Has anyone else received this?   Wonder if they are going to do this to all of us eventually?  Wonder if this could be considered new evidence?
> 
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.
> #170, 551 - 71 Ave SE
> Calgary, Alberta
> T2H 0S6
> 
> Customer Service:
> Telephone : 1-877-451-1250
> Fax: 1-888-378-4477
> Payments:
> Telephone : 1-866-663-6338
> 
> February 1, 2018
> 
> NOTICE OF TERMINATION
> 
> Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner
> 
> RE: Notice of Termination of Vacation Interval Agreements
> 
> You are hereby provided notice that the contracts ("VIAs") tied to the Vacation Interval Interests listed on the enclosed statement of account are hereby  terminated effective February 1st, 2018.
> 
> As a reminder, this termination has no effect on your currently outstanding  obligations and outstanding claim, as appropriate, against you for your current default.
> 
> 
> You remain liable for all obligations under your VIAs for all outstanding balances and interest to the date of termination, including but not limited to, the 2018 maintenance fees.
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.


I don't think it means anything as it isn't signed, plus on what grounds can they terminate timeshare leasees?  They have to have a reason.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> So has Michael Geldert provided anyone with Judge Young's current Supplemental Decision related to the Alberta trials costs and interest?
> (Specifically the people who fired or were fired by Michael that now have to represent themselves as it's most important for them i.e. Option 2)
> 
> Probably not as most of us didn't even know this meeting had occurred right around the time he was throwing us all into the SIF shackles - well guess we were all misdirected again as its already a done deal.  You might get it in your Micheal Geldert divorce package or if you pay for it probably sometime after it would be helpful for you to prepare or know what the court says you need to pay.
> 
> This Decision was just filed February 28th related to the James and Diane Reid action after our defense team and Northmont presented their argument Nov 16th to Judge Young - pretty interesting that Geldert never mentioned this or even provided any documentation related to it like the "Simovonian Affidavit" which is important to anyone who still has to pay as it tells what the individuals principal amount is for each of us.
> 
> Just a quick synopses of the Judge Young Supplemental decision:
> 
> interest was determined (very beneficial to people who purchased prior to 2004 only because Judge Young protected them with the Interest Act - good thing she did as Strathcona Law Groups Barry King didn't think it was important and felt 25% was okay during the trial)
> costs - Judge Young granted a penalty for enhanced costs because our lawyers like to abuse the system
> Expired Claims - Geldert was too lazy to prepare a list of these in the written submissions so blew an opportunity to save a few of us thousands of dollars and again painted everyone with the same brush
> 
> If you want a copy I would suggest asking Michael Geldert for it:
> michael@geldertlaw.com
> patricia@geldertlaw.com
> sunchaser@geldertlaw.com
> intrawest@geldertlaw.com


I had a couple of people who are trying to get this document related to Judge Young's Supplemental Decision but have been unsuccessfully so far and given it now has a lot more bearing after the court counsel spanking the other day thought it a good idea to post it so people get it sooner rather than later.

We all have new hope and need to get ready for the next court date scheduled for May 10th so the more stuff we can share to be prepared the better!!!


----------



## dotbuhler

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I had a couple of people who are trying to get this document related to Judge Young's Supplemental Decision but have been unsuccessfully so far and given it now has a lot more bearing after the court counsel spanking the other day thought it a good idea to post it so people get it sooner rather than later.
> 
> We all have new hope and need to get ready for the next court date scheduled for May 10th so the more stuff we can share to be prepared the better!!!


THANK YOU! We NEED to share anything and everything that pertains to our case. Secrecy has been our worst enemy thus far. Keeping us isolated from each other is the old "Divide and Conquer"  strategy that wins wars for the other side. Only by openly sharing any ideas and knowledge can we set a fire to these crooks' asses! So, once again, I am asking you to go to thepetitionsite.com, search under Dorothy Zazelenchuk, bring up the petition "Demand the RCMP and the Canadian Government fully investigate the Activities of the timeshare located in Fairmont, B.C., (formerly Fairmont Resort Properties, now known as Northmont) that threatens the financial and mental wellbeing of so many." We have 367 signers to date. Have you told your story?
Signed under duress and accepted the "settlement", worried about a "gag order? Use a pen name, have a friend or a relative sign on your behalf, then use the Comments to tell your story. This will be given to Justice J.J. Gill to peruse come May 10th. An affidavit in my name that tells our story, ........ #4707, Petus@18, that is "BANG ON"!


----------



## loulubell

dotbuhler said:


> So this was sent out February 1, over a month ago, and this is the first time it shows up? Or did anyone else see this before it was posted today?


I JUST RECIEVED THIS UPON WAKING UP THIS MORNING.


----------



## dotbuhler

Petus@18 said:


> If they are terminating our leases using the termination clause in our agreements,  then they should have done it in 2013, don't you think?
> 'If a default in any payment required to be paid according to this Lease has not been remedied within 90 days from the date of such default, and the Lessee has been given a minimum of one written notice ot such default. the Lessor may terminate this Lease upon written notice to the Lessee. and from the date of such notice all of the Lessee's rights to the Vacation Property pursuant to the provisions of this Lease shall be terminated'
> 
> They cannot use our agreement's termination clause at their convenience, or worst, use their own without notice or explanation. Either they apply the clause as written in the leases or don't.  They may want to sell the property and for that reason, they needed all of us to setttle and relinquish our timeshares. No one has received a written notice and the fact that your termination is already one month old, makes you wonder if they felt the appeal on March 8th was going to be dismissed and they jumped the gun too soon by sending these letters.  We haven't received anything but if the termination is effective in February why are we obligated to pay maintenance fees for this year? Are they nuts!  Definitely a time to research why are they doing this now?, I don't think this is legal, let's bring it up on May 10th.  We already filed our affidavit and will file a supplemental one if we receive such a termination letter.
> 
> Filing an Affidavit for the appeal is free of charge.  Something to consider for those who settled and paid already.  You may want to check with a lawyer or not to see if the settlement agreement is invalid since it was signed by force, false pretenses, with malice, possible collusion between Northmont and Geldert,  threats, etc.  We all have evidence in writing to prove all of this (ie e-mails from Geldert) these e-mails must be attached to your Affidavit if filing one. This document should be filed sooner than later,  at the Court of Queen's Bench.  You should ask the judge that your name don't be removed from the appeal as you wish to continue with the appeal, the basis of your Affidavit is to present the settlement agreement as new evidence of corruption from the part of Northmont with the assistance of our former 'lawyer'.  My thoughts only, you should take the opportunity of the extension granted. It wouldn't hurt trying if you are prepared to continue fighting and can afford to pay more legal fees like the rest of us.  This action has been very disturbing and has been handled it in the worst manner.   Requesting the judge to nullify the settlement and the refund of your money, if granted, this will be setting a legal precedent when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.  This will stop other scammers like Northmont trying to commit fraud and getting away with it.
> Thinking out loud.


And remember that self-litigation is a possibility if you can not afford or are unable to find a lawyer to represent you. There are resources available for you at the Law Courts Building in Edmonton, PLUS if you fall within the financial guideline LEGAL AID! There are numerous avenues available to each and every one of us, regardless of our situation. Don't lose the fight in your own mind before you have even entered the courtroom. Remember the child's storybook, The Little Engine That Could? Psychologically telling yourself" I CAN do this" is your first step. We've been through hell. Many of us are older folk, thought we were on 'easy street' with retirement and all...just sit back and smell the roses, pay the bills, play with the grandkids... Well we can, let's just put these conmen and crooks in their place for once and for all. So we can get back to enjoying our lives again. And for you younger folks, let's do this so you know, for once and for all, these creeps aren't going to slime out from under some rock to make your lives a living hell ever again!


----------



## MarcieL

loulubell said:


> I JUST RECIEVED THIS UPON WAKING UP THIS MORNING.


Who did you receive this from NM or their lawyers?


----------



## MarcieL

Many are reporting this morning they have received their Option1 releases electronically, too date I have not.


----------



## MarcieL

Anyone option 1 clients receive your Release electronically?


----------



## Floyd55

MarcieL said:


> Many are reporting this morning they have received their Option1 releases electronically, too date I have not.



I received my electronic confirmation of release from my "VIA" this morning. It came on official letterhead from Norton Fulbright, KW's lawyer. It also stated that a signed paper copy would be coming in the mail.


----------



## Petus@18

Interesting! Geldert is sending the releases 2 months ahead of time?  I wonder if Wankel is pressing him to do this so you can't dispute the settlement?  

Edit: So Virtue is the one sending them?  He must have realized that the comments that were made this week regarding the settlement would really hurt Northmont with the appeal.  Very clever.


----------



## tssuck

Petus@18 said:


> Interesting! Geldert is sending the releases 2 months ahead of time?  I wonder if Wankel is pressing him to do this so you can't dispute the settlement?
> 
> Edit: So Virtue is the one sending them?  He must have realized that the comments that were made this week regarding the settlement would really hurt Northmont with the appeal.  Very clever.



Are the people who are getting the termination letter part of the UNPAID 76?


----------



## dotbuhler

Petus@18 said:


> Interesting! Geldert is sending the releases 2 months ahead of time?  I wonder if Wankel is pressing him to do this so you can't dispute the settlement?
> 
> Edit: So Virtue is the one sending them?  He must have realized that the comments that were made this week regarding the settlement would really hurt Northmont with the appeal.  Very clever.[/QUOTE
> Do not underestimate the opposition, we've got them scrambling, obviously. And since they are under fire and desperate I think we are going to see a ton of hinky stuff coming down the pike. Let's agree to post immediately whatever they do, a "heads up" to everyone.
> They were banking on us not being informed, well the tide has turned. SOLIDARITY! We are in this together!


----------



## dotbuhler

tssuck said:


> Are the people who are getting the termination letter part of the UNPAID 76?


They don't have my updated email if it is NM and Wankel or Geldert, so I can not speak to that. They only have my snail mail address. And again, I have not paid nor will I ever!


----------



## dotbuhler

tssuck said:


> Are the people who are getting the termination letter part of the UNPAID


This would be important to know. It sheds great light on their "strategy" if it is.


----------



## LilMaggie

MarcieL said:


> Anyone option 1 clients receive your Release electronically?


Nope. Still waiting.


----------



## waikikibound

Petus@18 said:


> Interesting! Geldert is sending the releases 2 months ahead of time?  I wonder if Wankel is pressing him to do this so you can't dispute the settlement?
> 
> Edit: So Virtue is the one sending them?  He must have realized that the comments that were made this week regarding the settlement would really hurt Northmont with the appeal.  Very clever.



On Thursday Virtue spoke to releasing all those who have already settled to Justice Gill at least twice from what I recall. I’m pretty certain that since Justice Gill didn’t feel the need to act on that immediately, these “termination letters” were produced earlier than expected...in the hopes to prevent more appeals. This is just my speculation but I can bet that it’s pretty close to the truth


----------



## waikikibound

tssuck said:


> Are the people who are getting the termination letter part of the UNPAID 76?



I’m guessing those only receiving these termination letters have already settled. I am part of the UNPAID 76 group and have NOT received anything.


----------



## Frau Blucher

truthr said:


> Well, well, well things just keep getting more and more interesting.  Just when you think we have seen everything another twist to this sordid tale appears.
> 
> Has anyone else received this?   Wonder if they are going to do this to all of us eventually?  Wonder if this could be considered new evidence?
> 
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.
> #170, 551 - 71 Ave SE
> Calgary, Alberta
> T2H 0S6
> 
> Customer Service:
> Telephone : 1-877-451-1250
> Fax: 1-888-378-4477
> Payments:
> Telephone : 1-866-663-6338
> 
> February 1, 2018
> 
> NOTICE OF TERMINATION
> 
> Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner
> 
> RE: Notice of Termination of Vacation Interval Agreements
> 
> You are hereby provided notice that the contracts ("VIAs") tied to the Vacation Interval Interests listed on the enclosed statement of account are hereby  terminated effective February 1st, 2018.
> 
> As a reminder, this termination has no effect on your currently outstanding  obligations and outstanding claim, as appropriate, against you for your current default.
> 
> 
> You remain liable for all obligations under your VIAs for all outstanding balances and interest to the date of termination, including but not limited to, the 2018 maintenance fees.
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.



This has to covered by the FTA.  Wankel can’t have his cake and eat it to; he can’t tell one group to pay to go and tell another group they’re free to go.  The only thing consistent in both cases is that the lessees don’t get compensated for their equity.  
The NAFR saga continues ...


----------



## Petus@18

Just to show you that not even Wankel believes in Geldert's legal abilities if he is asking Virtue to send the releases instead!

Would Geldert be getting his pink slip?


----------



## F. Hugh Wankel

We received ours as well - 

*UPDATE | Settlement Agreement / Termination of Vacation Interval Agreement*

In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, we transmitted your signed Release Agreement and individual settlement amount to Northmont and have received and confirmed the executed Release Agreement by Northmont. Please see the attached letter confirming your account has been terminated as of March 1, 2018.

We will be email your individual executed Release Agreement to you early next week. 

If anyone is suing Geldert, please let us know. We paid, but did so under duress. Wankel and Geldert may you rot in hell. To everyone else enduring this mess, good luck.


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

GypsyOne said:


> Has anyone asked for a legal opinion as to why Northmont is doing this, what is the legal basis, or has their own opinion as to why they are doing this; and what are the implications for past and present settlements.  It seems very arbitrary and very heavy handed, but I'm certain they have their reasons and are doing it after legal consultation.  Can't help but wonder if they are backing themselves into a corner which will cost them dearly.


And one would expect at least a reason from Northmont for terminating a VIA. Truth's letter of termination from Northmont gives no explanation. Can a lessor arbitrarily end a contract without advance notice and without a written reason? 
As for the date on Truth's termination letter of February 1, 2018, my guess is that it was just added this week following the hearing in Edmonton on Thursday. Also, it seems not everyone who opted out of the MG settlement agreement may have received a Feb. 1st termination letter from Northmont. I wonder if those non-Option 1 lease holders who receive a termination letter from Northmont have their VIA registered against a unit in a Hillside building? You know, those buildings the owner is working hard to consolidate and realign under his control outside of the timeshare end of the resort.
Apparently, those in the Option 1 Settlement Group received via email today from MG a letter from Northmont's lawyer Jud Virtue providing notice of termination of their VIA(s) effective March 1, 2018. 
Curiouser and curiouser...


----------



## LilMaggie

Plus454 said:


> Today I found information I didn't realize i had.
> Turns out we all have each others names already.
> Burred in a barrage of attachments in the Aug 18/2016 update are 2 lists of names, Court application Cranbrook (all the BC defendants 475) and court application Edmonton ( all the Alberta defendants 753). Adds up to 1228 defendants.
> And surprise surprise on the list is a friend of mine who builds websites. He said its possible to build a site that people could access only with permission  of an administrator. If your name's not on one of those lists you wouldn't get in.
> Please give me some feedback on if you think this could be a tool.


Still think this is an awesome plan!


----------



## Still_Hope

New to this forum, but have been following it for awhile. We chose option 2, so are part of the group of 76. As indicated above by some, I suspect that Northmont needs to obtain ownership of sufficient leases in order to sell off the Hillside units. That's probably why they are now choosing to initiate the cancellation of the option 2 leases rather than wait for the appeal process (which is not looking as good for them now).


----------



## aden2

CONCERNS FOR OPTION TWO PEOPLE AND FUTURE CONCERNS:

1. The $1162.50 amount assessed each of the 740 people = $860,250.
None of the names were mention in the hearing!

2.Payments requested from Northmont is not a final payment! It is not over
There is no clause in our contract that requires a pay out payment of any amount, now demanding  162%.

3. Why is 100% charge for maintenance each year when the resort has not been used.

4.The resort has been downsized.

5. The contracts have been changed when Fairmont became bankrupt and finally insolvent  i.e. contract broken, contract changed with new company.
Each contract should have been consulted to see if they want to stay and continue. 

6. Thousands of dollars have been paid to lease a villa for minimum of one week per year, what happens to all this money that has been paid for a 40 year lease, but NM is demanding thousand of dollars to cancel a lease.

7. Contracts have a 90 day default clause where the lease is turned back to lesser, and compensation work out for the number of unused years left.

8. Northmont  is applying a 26.82% for over due accounts, but is ignoring other parts of the contract. In todays world the interest rate is adjusted to the present market i.e. 5%.

9. Never before in all the years of operation has a high interest rate been applied and interrupted to be used against persons wanting to cancel their contracts, why now. 

10. Over the years 41.5 million from bonds issued, 12  million from Rafter Six, 10 milliom from from legacy, 40 million buy outs/cancellations. What is happening with all this money? 

11. The Plantiff (Sauvgeau) was continually interrupting the Defence (King).


----------



## MarcieL

Floyd55 said:


> I received my electronic confirmation of release from my "VIA" this morning. It came on official letterhead from Norton Fulbright, KW's lawyer. It also stated that a signed paper copy would be coming in the mail.


So every one is different I got what you did but did not verify a paper copy in the mail. Others in the Facebook group received a letter from M.G. as well I did not. So unprofessional right to the end.


----------



## MarcieL

Here is what I need to know can those of us that have settled appeal?  If so by when and how do I find out?  Our contract was 1994 thus 5% interest is applicable, 60% of the invoice was interest.


----------



## aden2

MarcieL said:


> Here is what I need to know can those of us that have settled appeal?  If so by when and how do I find out?  Our contract was 1994 thus 5% interest is applicable, 60% of the invoice was interest.


Justice Gill had no objection of anyone that was not satisfied for whatever reason should have the right to appeal.


----------



## MarcieL

Petus@18 said:


> Just to show you that not even Wankel believes in Geldert's legal abilities if he is asking Virtue to send the releases instead!
> 
> Would Geldert be getting his pink slip?


Many people received a letter from MG with Virtue 's as an attachment . I did not I just received Virtues as well as the list of Option 1 clients that succumbed to the extortion.


----------



## appealerforsure

MG and company know their backs are against the wall now as an email was received at 1:29am last night indicating that KWt has released me and the paperwork to follow next week. These white collar criminals are fast tracking this now to prevent appeals but I am going to appeal FOR SURE and get my money back.I am going to seek council this week and get a decent lawyer to represent a group that will look at the best way to appeal or sue as a group to deal with this


F. Hugh Wankel said:


> We received ours as well -
> 
> *UPDATE | Settlement Agreement / Termination of Vacation Interval Agreement*
> 
> In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, we transmitted your signed Release Agreement and individual settlement amount to Northmont and have received and confirmed the executed Release Agreement by Northmont. Please see the attached letter confirming your account has been terminated as of March 1, 2018.
> 
> We will be email your individual executed Release Agreement to you early next week.
> 
> If anyone is suing Geldert, please let us know. We paid, but did so under duress. Wankel and Geldert may you rot in hell. To everyone else enduring this mess, good luck.


----------



## MarcieL

Floyd55 said:


> I sure hope that you are right that option 1 people are allowed to be included in this appeal! We were coerced into paying by MG's scare tactics and threats along with the ridiculous timeline that he agreed to. It was not a fair settlement and if there is a way to fight it we are on board. I would only hope that whatever legal team is agreed to this time is willing to work on the principle that they recieve payment as a percentage of what funds they are able to reclaim for option 1 people and what they are able to save others from their original bill from Northmont. I can't afford to put more money into this effort right now.


Floyd how about the condition in our fabulous S.A. that stated we could not sue NM for any reason.????


----------



## MarcieL

Would the judge's ruling over ride this anyone know?


----------



## MarcieL

appealerforsure said:


> MG and company know their backs are against the wall now as an email was received at 1:29am last night indicating that KWt has released me and the paperwork to follow next week. These white collar criminals are fast tracking this now to prevent appeals but I am going to appeal FOR SURE and get my money back.I am going to seek council this week and get a decent lawyer to represent a group that will look at the best way to appeal or sue as a group to deal with this


This is the letter I did not get.


----------



## appealerforsure

How can Northmont release owners that didn't pay the settlement fees? This stinks to high heaven, and I am pissed about it and hope all others that paid the settlement under duress and intimidation are going to follow up with an appeal. Now that they have lost their way in court it is obvious that they are scrambling to complete the paperwork but this IS FAR FROM OVER MG AND WK as I know you are watching these posts everyday like myself . Im going to make your lives as stressful as possible like you have done to me for the last several years! if the appeal doesn't work I have plenty of ammo for suing you MG for neglect and improper guidance as you have demonstrated over the years,also thanks for all of your emails MG they have provided me with all I need to take you on, unanswered questions or vague answers, settling an outrageous settlement without our true consent and sinking our ship are just the start to my appeal.Beware your world is closing in on you MG and NW.


----------



## LilMaggie

MarcieL said:


> Many people received a letter from MG with Virtue 's as an attachment . I did not I just received Virtues as well as the list of Option 1 clients that succumbed to the extortion.


I couldn't find mine initially because it came in my junk email box...how appropriate!
Like a thief in the night, the email from MG came in a 0240h this AM.
My letter from MG stated that the individual release agreement will be emailed later...
"We will be email your individual executed Release Agreement to you early next week."  Grammar much?


----------



## Floyd55

LilMaggie said:


> Nope. Still waiting.



Yes, I received my notification of release this morning electronically with the promise that a hard copy with be coming in the mail.


----------



## Tanny13

For those in Option 2, if you receive a letter of termination, then the clause in your contract with the buyback option kicks in and Northmont will owe you money to take back the unit.  I would like to receive that letter because that is a whole new fight.


----------



## Floyd55

MarcieL said:


> Here is what I need to know can those of us that have settled appeal?  If so by when and how do I find out?  Our contract was 1994 thus 5% interest is applicable, 60% of the invoice was interest.



We bought in 1994 as well, and would love to find a way to appeal if possible and reverse at least some of these exit fees that were extorted from us!


----------



## Petus@18

The same way we wrote letters to Judge Young, all of us should  file Affidavits letting the new Judge know how this case has wrongly been dealt with by our former lawyer, including the possible collusion between Northmont and Geldert and how everyone was coerced to sign the settlement.  Let's don't forget the new evidence 'the termination letter', we should all be able to continue with the appeal and finally get justice.  Would this work? Hopefully.  Would the judge read the filed affidavits? Definitely as they will be part of the appeal. Would we have to pay more legal fees? Unfortunately yes, but we can share the expenses as soon as we know if we can all unite again.  Is this a done deal? No.  Is it worth it? I think so, but each of us need to make that decision.


----------



## CleoB

appealerforsure said:


> How can Northmont release owners that didn't pay the settlement fees? This stinks to high heaven, and I am pissed about it and hope all others that paid the settlement under duress and intimidation are going to follow up with an appeal. Now that they have lost their way in court it is obvious that they are scrambling to complete the paperwork but this IS FAR FROM OVER MG AND WK as I know you are watching these posts everyday like myself . Im going to make your lives as stressful as possible like you have done to me for the last several years! if the appeal doesn't work I have plenty of ammo for suing you MG for neglect and improper guidance as you have demonstrated over the years,also thanks for all of your emails MG they have provided me with all I need to take you on, unanswered questions or vague answers, settling an outrageous settlement without our true consent and sinking our ship are just the start to my appeal.Beware your world is closing in on you MG and NW.


Why do you assume that Northmount has released people that didn't pay the settlement fee?


----------



## MarcieL

aden2 said:


> Justice Gill had no objection of anyone that was not satisfied for whatever reason should have the right to appeal.


Our fantastic settlement agreement stated we could not sue NM for any reason. I wonder if the judge can over rule that?


----------



## Frau Blucher

MarcieL said:


> Our fantastic settlement agreement stated we could not sue NM for any reason. I wonder if the judge can over rule that?



The settlement was illegally obtained as far as I’m concerned. I would file an appeal just to be on the safe side.


----------



## Saving Grace

We did a search at the Civil Court after the Mar 8 hearing and found that NM had filed a Claim against us in 2014.  They duplicated the Claims and doubled up the remedy sought, they also submitted false statement to the Court claiming we had entered into several of the Agreements but in fact we only had the Vacation Villas Agreement signed in 1994.  We are filing our dispute note on Monday based on 1) Fundamental Breach of Contract by unilaterally changing the Agreement, 2) Oppressive, Excessively One-sided Condition & 3)Undue Pressure/Influence....in our notes, we wrote "The settlement deadline of Feb 15 had jumped ahead of the judge's decision on interest rate of Feb 28 and had successfully collected settlements with 26.82% interest across the broad from 90% of the "Test Case" Lessees in Alberta.  Isn't it logical to conclude that such a move was with malicious intent to induce undue pressure/influence??"


----------



## Floyd55

Saving Grace said:


> We did a search at the Civil Court after the Mar 8 hearing and found that NM had filed a Claim against us in 2014.  They duplicated the Claims and doubled up the remedy sought, they also submitted false statement to the Court claiming we had entered into several of the Agreements but in fact we only had the Vacation Villas Agreement signed in 1994.  We are filing our dispute note on Monday based on 1) Fundamental Breach of Contract by unilaterally changing the Agreement, 2) Oppressive, Excessively One-sided Condition & 3)Undue Pressure/Influence....in our notes, we wrote "The settlement deadline of Feb 15 had jumped ahead of the judge's decision on interest rate of Feb 28 and had successfully collected settlements with 26.82% interest across the broad from 90% of the "Test Case" Lessees in Alberta.  Isn't it logical to conclude that such a move was with malicious intent to induce undue pressure/influence??"



I want to be on your team! Sign me up!


----------



## Saving Grace

We need to dispute them ASAP as the Claim was filed way back in 2014.  I think NM was just too busy with the Test Case so they spared us for the past but once the "collection" procedure is done, they will come chase us...we've decided to stand up for ourselves in Court...we pray every day that God would grand us peace of mind and wisdom to deal with this and we pray for our fellow Lessees too ...most importantly we have to keep calm when we face them in Court, we can't afford to be emotional, only facts and truth can help us win our case and truth is on our side.  As my husband said they lied to the Court and it's a serious offense.  
Although we are not among the 76, we are all in the same boat and we give respect to all of you for your bravery and courage to keep on fighting this injustice.


----------



## Petus@18

Saving Grace said:


> We did a search at the Civil Court after the Mar 8 hearing and found that NM had filed a Claim against us in 2014.  They duplicated the Claims and doubled up the remedy sought, they also submitted false statement to the Court claiming we had entered into several of the Agreements but in fact we only had the Vacation Villas Agreement signed in 1994.  We are filing our dispute note on Monday based on 1) Fundamental Breach of Contract by unilaterally changing the Agreement, 2) Oppressive, Excessively One-sided Condition & 3)Undue Pressure/Influence....in our notes, we wrote "The settlement deadline of Feb 15 had jumped ahead of the judge's decision on interest rate of Feb 28 and had successfully collected settlements with 26.82% interest across the broad from 90% of the "Test Case" Lessees in Alberta.  Isn't it logical to conclude that such a move was with malicious intent to induce undue pressure/influence??"



If you didn't sign the settlement agreement filing a dispute note and counterclaim (as suggested by Aden2 earlier) against the civil claims Northmont filed is the way to go if you are not part of the appeal.  Many will be self-representing themselves as well.  For those who settled,  the civil claims are being discontinued.  Since Northmont has sent the releases two months ahead of time, they may file discontinuance of actions right away to prevent further disputes.   If you are filing a dispute before Northmont file a discontinuance, you should do it asap, include fresh evidence to your defense facts.


----------



## MarcieL

Since Northmont has sent the releases two months ahead of time, they may file discontinuance of actions right away to prevent further disputes.

Would this mean option 1 people could not appeal?  My knowledge of the law is lacking but is increasing after these few months.


----------



## LilMaggie

truthr said:


> Well, well, well things just keep getting more and more interesting.  Just when you think we have seen everything another twist to this sordid tale appears.
> 
> Has anyone else received this?   Wonder if they are going to do this to all of us eventually?  Wonder if this could be considered new evidence?
> 
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.
> #170, 551 - 71 Ave SE
> Calgary, Alberta
> T2H 0S6
> 
> Customer Service:
> Telephone : 1-877-451-1250
> Fax: 1-888-378-4477
> Payments:
> Telephone : 1-866-663-6338
> 
> February 1, 2018
> 
> NOTICE OF TERMINATION
> 
> Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner
> 
> RE: Notice of Termination of Vacation Interval Agreements
> 
> You are hereby provided notice that the contracts ("VIAs") tied to the Vacation Interval Interests listed on the enclosed statement of account are hereby  terminated effective February 1st, 2018.
> 
> As a reminder, this termination has no effect on your currently outstanding  obligations and outstanding claim, as appropriate, against you for your current default.
> 
> 
> You remain liable for all obligations under your VIAs for all outstanding balances and interest to the date of termination, including but not limited to, the 2018 maintenance fees.
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.


I'm still wondering who received one of these letters.


----------



## owner1

CleoB said:


> Why do you assume that Northmount has released people that didn't pay the settlement fee?


 
The document they have posted is releasing your units from an agreement with Interval (the timeshare trading company).  It is NOT anything to do with your timeshare contract with Sunchaser.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

Thanks Kirk.

#NAFR


----------



## Saving Grace

Petus@18 said:


> If you didn't sign the settlement agreement filing a dispute note and counterclaim (as suggested by Aden2 earlier) against the civil claims Northmont filed is the way to go if you are not part of the appeal.  Many will be self-representing themselves as well.  For those who settled,  the civil claims are being discontinued.  Since Northmont has sent the releases two months ahead of time, they may file discontinuance of actions right away to prevent further disputes.   If you are filing a dispute before Northmont file a discontinuance, you should do it asap, include fresh evidence to your defense facts.


Can't agree more!


----------



## Saving Grace

ir 





LilMaggie said:


> I'm still wondering who received one of these letters.


The termination notice is based on the VIA wherein NM has the right to issue a termination notice after 90 days of default.  I think their intention is to take all the land back first, with this notice, they have concluded the necessary step to remove those units from everyone.  Their next step more than likely is to come after the outstanding balance (as they claim) from us all.


----------



## truthr

LilMaggie said:


> I'm still wondering who received one of these letters.





truthr said:


> Well, well, well things just keep getting more and more interesting.  Just when you think we have seen everything another twist to this sordid tale appears.
> 
> Has anyone else received this?   Wonder if they are going to do this to all of us eventually?  Wonder if this could be considered new evidence?
> 
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.
> #170, 551 - 71 Ave SE
> Calgary, Alberta
> T2H 0S6
> 
> Customer Service:
> Telephone : 1-877-451-1250
> Fax: 1-888-378-4477
> Payments:
> Telephone : 1-866-663-6338
> 
> February 1, 2018
> 
> NOTICE OF TERMINATION
> 
> Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner
> 
> RE: Notice of Termination of Vacation Interval Agreements
> 
> You are hereby provided notice that the contracts ("VIAs") tied to the Vacation Interval Interests listed on the enclosed statement of account are hereby  terminated effective February 1st, 2018.
> 
> As a reminder, this termination has no effect on your currently outstanding  obligations and outstanding claim, as appropriate, against you for your current default.
> 
> 
> You remain liable for all obligations under your VIAs for all outstanding balances and interest to the date of termination, including but not limited to, the 2018 maintenance fees.
> 
> Northmont Resort Properties Ltd.



In as much as I can appreciate peoples' curiosity surrounding this and other things that are shared, please consider that with all the fear mongering, coercion and threats over the past few years some people prefer to remain anonymous.  We should be grateful that they at least have shared something they have received that could potentially affect and/or assist us.

I did not receive this letter directly from Northmont, however I personally know people who have and they are legitimate and NO I will not reveal those who wish to remain anonymous.


----------



## MarcieL

owner1 said:


> The document they have posted is releasing your units from an agreement with Interval (the timeshare trading company).  It is NOT anything to do with your timeshare contract with Sunchaser.



No, read Truth's post again.  Some people have received notice, others not that their VIA has been terminated and they are responsible for their latest invoice.


----------



## LilMaggie

truthr said:


> In as much as I can appreciate peoples' curiosity surrounding this and other things that are shared, please consider that with all the fear mongering, coercion and threats over the past few years some people prefer to remain anonymous.  We should be grateful that they at least have shared something they have received that could potentially affect and/or assist us.
> 
> I did not receive this letter directly from Northmont, however I personally know people who have and they are legitimate and NO I will not reveal those who wish to remain anonymous.


I am most certainly grateful to everyone who has shared information over these past months. I was not asking for names. It is useful to know if it is Option 2 folks, Option 1 folks who didn't pay...like that.
Also, just enough was shared to get people sniping and upset.  How does this help us?


----------



## truthr

LilMaggie said:


> I am most certainly grateful to everyone who has shared information over these past months. I was not asking for names. It is useful to know if it is Option 2, Option 1 who didn't pay...like that.
> Also, just enough was shared to get people sniping and upset.  How does this help us?



How does this help us?  Well it certainly indicates NM's conceivable intent to get rid of us one way or the other and if that was/is their intent why did they not just activate the "termination" clause in our contracts (I know different contracts, different termination clauses).  Could be because they would have had to pay us money instead of the other way around?

If they had executed those clauses when we were first "delinquent" we would not have been put through this mess for all these years and been labelled the "abuse of process/vexatious" ones and been forced to pay out HUGE sums of money.


----------



## servemeout

From what I have been reading, the letter that Truth posted terminates the arrangement with Interval International.  Not sure if that is correct or not.  The ones that did not pay the ransom probably do not care as they have has nothing to trade, but the ones that paid to stay and only have II membership - what's the expression about being with out a paddle?  We agree that this has been a land grab from the start.  What a deal, get the suckers to pay for renovations and then take away the ability to exchange.  Who would do such a thing? Someone that would profit by more VIA leases being turned over.  When will the tie be cut with RCI?  Here is a quote from one of the communication sent to us "For each timeshare interval or RCI conversion sold, 50% of the sale price will go to RVM to help with the operation of the resort.  In line with our new vision, if we provide our owners value for their money, everyone wins."  How many do not feel like a WINNER?  
Handy definition for this situation:
B.S - we all know what that means
M.S - more of same
Ph.D.  - piled high and deep


----------



## truthr

servemeout said:


> From what I have been reading, the letter that Truth posted terminates the arrangement with Interval International.  Not sure if that is correct or not.  The ones that did not pay the ransom probably do not care as they have has nothing to trade, but the ones that paid to stay and only have II membership - what's the expression about being with out a paddle?  We agree that this has been a land grab from the start.  What a deal, get the suckers to pay for renovations and then take away the ability to exchange.  Who would do such a thing? Someone that would profit by more VIA leases being turned over.  When will the tie be cut with RCI?  Here is a quote from one of the communication sent to us "For each timeshare interval or RCI conversion sold, 50% of the sale price will go to RVM to help with the operation of the resort.  In line with our new vision, if we provide our owners value for their money, everyone wins."  How many do not feel like a WINNER?
> Handy definition for this situation:
> B.S - we all know what that means
> M.S - more of same
> Ph.D.  - piled high and deep


Please read the actual letter that I posted and will upload here once again - it is NOT from Interval International - it is from Sunchaser/Northmont Resort Properties and it is to terminate the VIA contract with them, not Interval International.


----------



## newname

aden2 I need to talk with you pleas e-mail alan.wilson@yourlink.ca


----------



## SuperBar

Good afternoon everyone,

I have been following this thread for quite sometime though not contributing as there wasn't much I could add to the already resounding chorus of anger and frustration over how things have transpired over the past years but especially over the past few months.  I want to personally thank those of you who have been so active in fighting this and looking for answers and have taken the time to share on this forum. It was based on the feedback of those on this thread that I become aware of and eventually joined the group using Geldert Law to fight NM.  I too found myself increasingly discouraged and confused by the strategic approach and what transpired in the courts as a result.  After much deliberation and in the face of dire consternation I choose Option 1 as I felt, as many other have expressed on this thread, that paying the extortionate amount and being free was better than facing the unknown future. 

Leading up to that February deadline I was frequently checking this thread to see if there were any glimmers of hope or more importantly, definitive actions that would result in not having to pay.  Alas there was nothing substantial and the cheque and papers were sent at the 11th hr.

I have received my email from Norton Rose Fulbright via Geldert that my VIA has been terminated. 

Over the past day or so I have caught up on the posts on this thread and I'm cautiously bouyed by the fact that there is a legitimate opportunity to gain redress against the perpetrators of this extortion.  Having said that I am currently confused by what the impact of this appeal process,who it may actually benefit and what steps are required by each of to ensure our participation in the ongoing fight.

As I see it there continues to be 3 distinct groups of people: Group 1 - Option 1 (people who continued to retain Geldert and participated in the Settlement Agreement; Group 2 - Option 2 (people who dropped Geldert and decided to pursue on their own); Group 3 - people who were never part of Geldert and who decided to fight on their own.  Of course within these groups we also have the geographical groups (BC litigants, Alberta litigants, US litigants, and others).

Is it possible to one of who has the very good grasp on things to summarize what impact this current appeal process has on each of these groups and what course of action is required or even available to each including the implied time constraints if we need to be a part of the appeal?  To be honest the disjointed nature of this forum can make it difficult at times to distill the facts from the conjecture.

Thanks again to all those who are contributing and willing to fight the good, and just fight.


----------



## Notwhatweweresold

owner1 said:


> The document they have posted is releasing your units from an agreement with Interval (the timeshare trading company).  It is NOT anything to do with your timeshare contract with Sunchaser.


What gives you the idea the letter posted by Truthr is about Interval International? II is not even mentioned. My read of the letter is NM has terminated the lessee(s)' interest in the VIA(s) to which the statement pertains.


----------



## Floyd55

SuperBar said:


> Good afternoon everyone,
> 
> I have been following this thread for quite sometime though not contributing as there wasn't much I could add to the already resounding chorus of anger and frustration over how things have transpired over the past years but especially over the past few months.  I want to personally thank those of you who have been so active in fighting this and looking for answers and have taken the time to share on this forum. It was based on the feedback of those on this thread that I become aware of and eventually joined the group using Geldert Law to fight NM.  I too found myself increasingly discouraged and confused by the strategic approach and what transpired in the courts as a result.  After much deliberation and in the face of dire consternation I choose Option 1 as I felt, as many other have expressed on this thread, that paying the extortionate amount and being free was better than facing the unknown future.
> 
> Leading up to that February deadline I was frequently checking this thread to see if there were any glimmers of hope or more importantly, definitive actions that would result in not having to pay.  Alas there was nothing substantial and the cheque and papers were sent at the 11th hr.
> 
> I have received my email from Norton Rose Fulbright via Geldert that my VIA has been terminated.
> 
> Over the past day or so I have caught up on the posts on this thread and I'm cautiously bouyed by the fact that there is a legitimate opportunity to gain redress against the perpetrators of this extortion.  Having said that I am currently confused by what the impact of this appeal process,who it may actually benefit and what steps are required by each of to ensure our participation in the ongoing fight.
> 
> As I see it there continues to be 3 distinct groups of people: Group 1 - Option 1 (people who continued to retain Geldert and participated in the Settlement Agreement; Group 2 - Option 2 (people who dropped Geldert and decided to pursue on their own); Group 3 - people who were never part of Geldert and who decided to fight on their own.  Of course within these groups we also have the geographical groups (BC litigants, Alberta litigants, US litigants, and others).
> 
> Is it possible to one of who has the very good grasp on things to summarize what impact this current appeal process has on each of these groups and what course of action is required or even available to each including the implied time constraints if we need to be a part of the appeal?  To be honest the disjointed nature of this forum can make it difficult at times to distill the facts from the conjecture.
> 
> Thanks again to all those who are contributing and willing to fight the good, and just fight.



Very well stated. I am option 1 also and have similar questions. I paid the extortion as required because I didn't dare face the possiblity of being forced pay even more down the road. But if this appeal process could possibly reverse some of this injustice there would be hundreds of us in option 1 who would want to join in. Hopefully this will all become more clear in the near future.


----------



## tssuck

Floyd55 said:


> Very well stated. I am option 1 also and have similar questions. I paid the extortion as required because I didn't dare face the possiblity of being forced pay even more down the road. But if this appeal process could possibly reverse some of this injustice there would be hundreds of us in option 1 who would want to join in. Hopefully this will all become more clear in the near future.



We are of option 1 that did not pay. To date we have received no communication from NM, MG, Virtue or King.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

truthr said:


> Please read the actual letter that I posted and will upload here once again - it is NOT from Interval International - it is from Sunchaser/Northmont Resort Properties and it is to terminate the VIA contract with them, not Interval International.


This letter that Truth received and posted for all of us is a very important piece to our puzzle - my assumption is this is probably not the only one that was sent out.

Collectively we are a network of people with different people we can reach out to personally or via other social media platforms such as those private Facebook groups different people belong too - please grab a copy of the letter and share it.  Ask your network of people if they have received this and if not ask them to send it to their network of people - let's try and reach out to as many people as we can.

What would be important to find out is if there are more people who have received this and also when they received it is going to be very important - if we can track down other people we might be able to see a pattern and some may also be willing to share this.  Moving down the road if this can be submitted as evidence it becomes very important as this is "new evidence" we all need for an appeal.

What this shows me and I would hope shows the Court is Northmont's goal was all about terminating Vias so they could get out of being a timeshare business and reclaim the land/buildings.  If that is the case this should have been done in 2013 or 2014 for all the people who apposed the renovations and realignment as an option when we contested the cost to leave instead of allowing 5 years of interest and maintenance to accrue which is now just a bonus to Northmont and Geldert at our expense as a result of how badly Geldert represented us.

We could make a very strong case that Northmont should not be able to be the beneficiaries of our via's at our expense, 10's of millions of bonus dollars, and the land which would be free and clear for them to do as they please - the scale of who benefits from our Via terminations is so far tipped to one side it's completely prejudicial to us all no matter what group you are in.


----------



## Bewildered

tssuck said:


> We are of option 1 that did not pay. To date we have received no communication from NM, MG, Virtue or King.



Option 1 means you paid to get out.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

Bewildered said:


> Option 1 means you paid to get out.



I am not an expert, but I take option 1 people as those that retained Gildert for the settlement.  Within option 1 people are two groups, those that actually paid to settle (120%) and those that did not pay the settlement (168% on consent judgement).  There are also another two groups of option 1 people, those sued in BC (no further court action in process) and those sued in Alberta (still maybe have the appeal going).  This makes 4 sets of option 1 people.  Everyone should figure out their exact situation to know if the information/advice provided is relevant to their situation.  The next plan of action for most is still unclear to me.


----------



## Punter

If I were to guess the reason that Sunchaser sent the "Notice of Termination of Vacation Interval Agreement", it would be for the purpose of gaining 66 2/3 % of the total number of VIA's. When they have that percentage of NAFR, they can then direct the Trustee, Mr 'Conflict of Interest' Matkin, to realign the resort.

I would also guess that they sent these out to 'delinquent' lessees that were not part of the Geldert group. 

It's just my guess. Perhaps owner1 can enlighten me. I'm not distracted by the "Interval International" red herring.


----------



## truthr

Punter said:


> If I were to guess the reason that Sunchaser sent the "Notice of Termination of Vacation Interval Agreement", it would be for the purpose of gaining 66 2/3 % of the total number of VIA's. When they have that percentage of NAFR, they can then direct the Trustee, Mr 'Conflict of Interest' Matkin, to realign the resort.
> 
> I would also guess that they sent these out to 'delinquent' lessees that were not part of the Geldert group.
> 
> It's just my guess. Perhaps owner1 can enlighten me. I'm not distracted by the "Interval International" red herring.


Totally agree with the first paragraph.

Second paragraph partially correct, partially incorrect.  

I am not an Option 1 but can certainly enlighten you. The letter has nothing to do with the company Interval International (the letterhead is Sunchaser/Northmont)  From what I have been told by many is that even those who are no longer associated with Sunchaser can remain a member of Interval International - not to trade, obviously, but to purchase "get aways".


----------



## CleoB

Bewildered said:


> Option 1 means you paid to get out.


Without prejudice
Not necessarily.....there were people in option one that Geldert bullied saying "by signing they committed themselves to paying" and they can't afford to pay.
Without prejudice


----------



## tssuck

CleoB said:


> Without prejudice
> Not necessarily.....there were people in option one that Geldert bullied saying "by signing they committed themselves to paying" and they can't afford to pay.
> Without prejudice



We are in option 1 and did NOT pay. I believe that makes us part of the "76" who are going to appeal


----------



## aden2

The Albert decision by Judge Young, " dispute notes and counterclaims are abuse of process." The trial was decided before it was started. The pamphlet from Alberta Justice Court Services "Commencing a claim in Provincial Court Civil page 12 " - If you feel that there are some facts in your favour, do not be reluctant to defend yourself. You do this by completing the form called a Dispute Note .... You may include in the dispute Note any claim you may have against the plaintiff ..."

*I checked with Civil Division and their are 3 JUDGEMENTS FILED against me but Judge Young would not allow SLG to make one amendment!*


----------



## CleoB

tssuck said:


> We are in option 1 and did NOT pay. I believe that makes us part of the "76" who are going to appeal


You chose not to pay or couldn't afford to pay?  There are 3 groups, option 1 that paid, option 1 that couldn't afford to pay and option 2 that were punted by Geldert/fired Geldert/chose not to pay.


----------



## tssuck

CleoB said:


> You chose not to pay or couldn't afford to pay?  There are 3 groups, option 1 that paid, option 1 that couldn't afford to pay and option 2 that were punted by Geldert/fired Geldert/chose not to pay.



Option 1 that chose Not to pay. With Geldert and chose NOT to pay.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

tssuck said:


> We are in option 1 and did NOT pay. I believe that makes us part of the "76" who are going to appeal



I believe the 76 (or 77) meet ALL THREE of the following conditions:

1. Were Gildert clients
2. Sued in Alberta
3. Fired Gildert (option 2) before the latest settlement deadline.

If you are option 1, I DON'T think you are part of the 76.  If you were sued in Alberta, you may still have a chance to appeal, that is not clear to me.  Some may consider themselves option 1 even though they fired Gildert before the latest settlement deadline (Dec 29?), because they initially selected option 1.  However, I think they are actually option 2 if you fired Gildert by then.  It was never clear to me that you could leave option 1, but I think some did.   I know this is confusing.


----------



## tssuck

NeverNeverAgain said:


> I believe the 76 (or 77) meet ALL THREE of the following conditions:
> 
> 1. Were Gildert clients
> 2. Sued in Alberta
> 3. Fired Gildert (option 2) before the latest settlement deadline.
> 
> If you are option 1, I DON'T think you are part of the 76.  If you were sued in Alberta, you may still have a chance to appeal, that is not clear to me.  Some may consider themselves option 1 even though they fired Gildert before the latest settlement deadline (Dec 29?), because they initially selected option 1.  However, I think they are actually option 2 if you fired Gildert by then.  It was never clear to me that you could leave option 1, but I think some did.   I know this is confusing.




We signed option 1, never fired Geldert and never paid. We live in the US and have an enquiry into Barry King to find out what list we are on, if we are on a list. We need to know this last part to determine if we are part of the 76/77.


----------



## LilMaggie

Could someone in the know please clarify who is able to do what so that we can find solutions to our dilemma. Who is eligible to join the May 10 appeal in Edmonton?  Who would benefit, or is eligible to write a dispute notice and/or counterclaim? Who is eligible to sue MG, etc...? Sadly, it appears that we may be more confused than ever.


----------



## aden2

It would appear that anyone that is not happy should join the hearing. A commitment must be made before May 3rd. Apparently the contract that NM has been successful with seems to be illegal and has imposed  the  Courts to accept. *There is no pay out clause in our contracts! Under Judge Young's decision No Dispute Notes were Accepted.*


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

truthr said:


> Second paragraph partially correct, partially incorrect.
> 
> I am not an Option 1 but can certainly enlighten you.



One part is correct and one part isn't? That's it, you aren't going to be any more helpful than that?

Punter said "owner1" as in the person posting, not Option 1. Most of us think that if owner1 isn't Wankel, they might as well be. There is no more Kool-Aid left because between owner1 and TSWOW, also Wankel or a sycophant, they've drank it all.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

tssuck said:


> We signed option 1, never fired Geldert and never paid. We live in the US and have an enquiry into Barry King to find out what list we are on, if we are on a list. We need to know this last part to determine if we are part of the 76/77.





LilMaggie said:


> Could someone in the know please clarify who is able to do what so that we can find solutions to our dilemma. Who is eligible to join the May 10 appeal in Edmonton?  Who would benefit, or is eligible to write a dispute notice and/or counterclaim? Who is eligible to sue MG, etc...? Sadly, it appears that we may be more confused than ever.



As a rule of thumb, those that live in Alberta were sued in Alberta.  Those that do not live in Alberta, were sued in BC.  There are exceptions, so everyone should be asking their lawyer if they do not know for sure or find their case in a court.  There were some posts a long ways back that gave links to the many actions filed.

Those sued in Alberta still have the appeal.  Those sued in BC are kind of stuck at the moment other than suing MG and waiting for the BC Law society investigation.  NM and MG did a good job dividing us, which could be both good and bad.  There are groups forming for each individual situation, just need to figure out your situation and try to locate that group.  If there is no group, try to form one.  By dividing us, there will be many fronts to this battle now.

Surprising, when judge Young ruled in Alberta on interest, it made the amount owed half in some cases for those in Alberta verses those in BC, making it a little unfair.  I think this is a long ways from being over.  I believe there is benefit for EVERYONE to send their stories to the Alberta appeal judge as I think this will continue and maybe re-open for BC people eventually, depending on the Alberta outcome.  I settled and in BC, so I am not the one to address the specifics of the Alberta appeal, dispute notes, etc.  Someone else please try to help in this area.

For those that hired MG to just take care of this, that did not happen.  As many have discovered now, you will need to put in some effort, find others in your situation to help, and figure out the best plan to move forward.  For those that did not hire MG and did not pay, the battle may just be starting.


----------



## Shake Down

NeverNeverAgain said:


> Within option 1 people are two groups, those that actually paid to settle (120%) and those that did not pay the settlement (168% on consent judgement).



I had replied to Geldert's so called "Election" held late October he called it (SIF) Sunchaser Information Form, It said* "You Elect"* Option 1 or 2, I punched Opt 1 on his election ballot but the chad it did not fall, it was a "hanging chad"   I also missed the opt-out date during the holidays and never paid the settlement!

I told MG regardless of how your brain thinks, I am out!  Geldert replied, that my choice during his election _"is a condition of the settlement and No right of withdrawal from the Settlement Agreement."  _

Ya ok Mikey G what do you know about breach of contract?......Now it's game on!


----------



## Lostmyshirt

truthr said:


> How does this help us?  Well it certainly indicates NM's conceivable intent to get rid of us one way or the other and if that was/is their intent why did they not just activate the "termination" clause in our contracts (I know different contracts, different termination clauses).  Could be because they would have had to pay us money instead of the other way around?
> 
> If they had executed those clauses when we were first "delinquent" we would not have been put through this mess for all these years and been labelled the "abuse of process/vexatious" ones and been forced to pay out HUGE sums of money.





Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> This letter that Truth received and posted for all of us is a very important piece to our puzzle - my assumption is this is probably not the only one that was sent out.
> 
> Collectively we are a network of people with different people we can reach out to personally or via other social media platforms such as those private Facebook groups different people belong too - please grab a copy of the letter and share it.  Ask your network of people if they have received this and if not ask them to send it to their network of people - let's try and reach out to as many people as we can.
> 
> What would be important to find out is if there are more people who have received this and also when they received it is going to be very important - if we can track down other people we might be able to see a pattern and some may also be willing to share this.  Moving down the road if this can be submitted as evidence it becomes very important as this is "new evidence" we all need for an appeal.
> 
> What this shows me and I would hope shows the Court is Northmont's goal was all about terminating Vias so they could get out of being a timeshare business and reclaim the land/buildings.  If that is the case this should have been done in 2013 or 2014 for all the people who apposed the renovations and realignment as an option when we contested the cost to leave instead of allowing 5 years of interest and maintenance to accrue which is now just a bonus to Northmont and Geldert at our expense as a result of how badly Geldert represented us.
> 
> We could make a very strong case that Northmont should not be able to be the beneficiaries of our via's at our expense, 10's of millions of bonus dollars, and the land which would be free and clear for them to do as they please - the scale of who benefits from our Via terminations is so far tipped to one side it's completely prejudicial to us all no matter what group you are in.




****Could not agree more!!!!!!!!!!!! OMFG  #NAFR we said all along this was their plan but somehow we got stung viciously/financially also I am positive it was their ultimate goal.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

I would be game to continue on, as all this stinks, has from day 1.  Just no idea how/when/where.


----------



## Petus@18

Note:
"When considering the terms of a settlement, as part of his or her role as counsel and advocate, your lawyer will analyze whether the settlement is actually in your best interest. In rare instances a lawyer might seek quick finality to a case and pressure a client to accept a settlement, but a good lawyer will weigh all aspects of the proposed settlement and whether it will adequately compensate the client's losses. A good lawyer will also recognize that the ultimate decision on whether or not to settle belongs to the client'

*'A settlement* is a *contract* between the parties to a lawsuit that ends the case without a trial. ... Once the parties reach a *settlement agreement*, it becomes a binding *contract*, which *can* only be *rescinded* for limited reasons, such as fraud by one of the parties.'

Again, if you settled you have a reason to appeal.  If you are part of the Reid's action, file an Affidavit requesting that your name don't be removed from the appeal as you wish to continue.  Respectfully request that the settlement you signed be entered as a new evidence and be rescinded due to the way it was obtained by our former lawyer.
"To_ have a settlement set aside or voided, the defendants must have been unfairly induced to accept the settlement or release, and that the settlement or release must also be grossly unfair or grossly inadequate"
_
If you selected option 1 and did not pay, check with Barry King to see if you are part of the 76 defendants, if not, follow the suggestion made in Facebook:

'To all of you who have not paid, did you select option 2? If not, you should send Geldert an email or a letter indicating that you are changing your mind and are now selecting option 2. You can indicate that he did not provide you with enough information or time to make an informed decision, anything else you want to include, etc. By sending him this change in status, you should be able to continue on with the appeal. Keep a copy of the email or letter for your records. Right now 76 people are included in the appeal, those people are the ones that selected option 2. If you want to make sure you are a part of that appeal, you have to ensure that you are option 2. Neither lawyer in court stated how many of the people that "settled" actually paid.'

Whether you settled or not, but are part of the Goldbergs' action, you should file a dispute note and counterclaim as per Aden2's suggestion.  The same for those who settled and will be filing (or not filing) an Affidavit and are part of the Reid's action, you should also file a dispute note and counterclaim RE the civil claims before they are discontinued.

Just my opinion. You should get legal advice to confirm what is best for you.


----------



## dotbuhler

So, asking once again, has anybody other than the one person who received the Northmont letter that Truth posted gotten an exact same copy of that letter? Or is this the only known one in existence?


----------



## SuperBar

NeverNeverAgain said:


> As a rule of thumb, those that live in Alberta were sued in Alberta.  Those that do not live in Alberta, were sued in BC.  There are exceptions, so everyone should be asking their lawyer if they do not know for sure or find their case in a court.  There were some posts a long ways back that gave links to the many actions filed.
> 
> Those sued in Alberta still have the appeal.  Those sued in BC are kind of stuck at the moment other than suing MG and waiting for the BC Law society investigation.  NM and MG did a good job dividing us, which could be both good and bad.  There are groups forming for each individual situation, just need to figure out your situation and try to locate that group.  If there is no group, try to form one.  By dividing us, there will be many fronts to this battle now.
> 
> Surprising, when judge Young ruled in Alberta on interest, it made the amount owed half in some cases for those in Alberta verses those in BC, making it a little unfair.  I think this is a long ways from being over.  I believe there is benefit for EVERYONE to send their stories to the Alberta appeal judge as I think this will continue and maybe re-open for BC people eventually, depending on the Alberta outcome.  I settled and in BC, so I am not the one to address the specifics of the Alberta appeal, dispute notes, etc.  Someone else please try to help in this area.
> 
> For those that hired MG to just take care of this, that did not happen.  As many have discovered now, you will need to put in some effort, find others in your situation to help, and figure out the best plan to move forward.  For those that did not hire MG and did not pay, the battle may just be starting.



I totally agree with your summary and perspective.  A few questions for you and everyone else. 
1) In light of the appeal developments in Alberta, have you gained any legal advice as to how this may affect you as one who is sued in BC?  If not yet has anyone else in this forum done so and if so, could you please share your insights? 
2) For those sued in BC is there any effort to consolidate under a single legal representative, notably one not named Geldert (while we are each responsible for seeking our own legal advice, it seems that we are potentially spending a lot more money individually to answer essentially the same questions)? 
3) You reference 'groups forming' for each situation.  Where are these groups to be found?  Facebook? I know there were support groups formed on Facebook (Thx Truthr) and I know some of you have met in person either at court or elsewhere to discuss but based on the comments here there is a consistent response to these developments - we are isolated, somewhat confused and not sure where to turn for the right.  Say what will about how Geldert handled things, at least we were all receiving the same communication and felt somewhat plugged in to the process.  We need to get that back some how.


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> So, asking once again, has anybody other than the one person who received the Northmont letter that Truth posted gotten an exact same copy of that letter? Or is this the only known one in existence?


Good question....one that I would like to know as well.  Seems odd that is was not signed by anyone to validate it.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

SuperBar said:


> I totally agree with your summary and perspective.  A few questions for you and everyone else.
> 1) In light of the appeal developments in Alberta, have you gained any legal advice as to how this may affect you as one who is sued in BC?  If not yet has anyone else in this forum done so and if so, could you please share your insights?
> 2) For those sued in BC is there any effort to consolidate under a single legal representative, notably one not named Geldert (while we are each responsible for seeking our own legal advice, it seems that we are potentially spending a lot more money individually to answer essentially the same questions)?
> 3) You reference 'groups forming' for each situation.  Where are these groups to be found?  Facebook? I know there were support groups formed on Facebook (Thx Truthr) and I know some of you have met in person either at court or elsewhere to discuss but based on the comments here there is a consistent response to these developments - we are isolated, somewhat confused and not sure where to turn for the right.  Say what will about how Geldert handled things, at least we were all receiving the same communication and felt somewhat plugged in to the process.  We need to get that back some how.



I understand your feelings and frustration and isolation, we can all relate.

I do not have personal legal advice on the BC court decision.  I think it is too early yet, waiting on the BC Law society investigation and further developments in Alberta.  EVERYONE needs to send their stories and complaints to the BC Law society if not done so already.  EVERYONE should send their stories to the Alberta court, maybe they will be heard.  EVERYONE should send their stories to the MLA's and MP's to let them all know how many of us this has affected and it is not over yet. The first step is to take the time to write down your personal story and situation.  Second, send your story to get it out to those that are in a position to help.  I know the big push for this was a few months ago before the MG excellent settlement, but I dont think it is to late.  There are still many trapped in this mess that have not paid.  Many that did pay still consider this not over so please do so, if not done already, in this time as things are getting redefined and reset.

The groups I know of are mainly on Facebook, but there does seem to be a networks of people that know each other as well.  As Truth said in a post above, I think the groups are still struggling to form and get information on their options and best path to proceed.  This will take more time and effort, and I am sure the admins will reach out and open these groups when paths are known, a direction is established, and the time is right.  For now, this forum is the only spot I know of everyone can access and share common information, so we should continue to take advantage of this forum to share common information.  There may not yet be groups for every situation, the 76 (or 77) Alberta option 2 people for instance (this is so complicated not even the lawyers can agree).  Someone needs to take charge to consolidate this group and find the best path to proceed.  If the group ends up being redundant with another, I suspect they will merge with time.  Unfortunately, because we have different legal situations now, I don't think it is possible to all consolidate as one.  Consolidating into groups with the same of similar legal situations will still save money and effort for those group of people.


----------



## Saving Grace

We filed the dispute and counter claim yesterday and were told that many disputes had been filed and it would take months before it comes to our turn for the Court appearance.
Imagine there were 14,500 leases, 22% in dispute = 3,190, of which 1228 were in the "Test Case", so there should still be roughly 1,962 outstanding. 

BTW, does anyone have any idea the total number of time share units are at the Resort?  My husband is thinking there's a possibility of the time share units being oversold..


----------



## truthr

Saving Grace said:


> We filed the dispute and counter claim yesterday and were told that many disputes had been filed and it would take months before it comes to our turn for the Court appearance.
> Imagine there were 14,500 leases, 22% in dispute = 3,190, of which 1228 were in the "Test Case", so there should still be roughly 1,962 outstanding.
> 
> BTW, does anyone have any idea the total number of time share units are at the Resort?  My husband is thinking there's a possibility of the time share units being oversold..


To my knowledge anyone who is/was a Geldert client at the time of the hearings in both AB and BC are governed by the decision/judgment of both Judge Young (AB) and Judge Branch (BC) and the only legal course of action is the appeal in AB.  The one in BC was squashed in November 2017, however the Supplementary Judgment of Judge Branch was just handed down on January 31, 2018 so although the statute of limitation on an appeal of that later judgment may have expired - some experienced lawyer in BC may be able to do something.

As for AB the "speak to" for the appeal that was held Thursday, March 8th, 2018 was regarding Judge Young's original decision handed down in October 2017, not the Supplementary Judgment of February 28th, 2018 (that one I suspect NM will be appealing given her ruling on the interest).

Whatever clerk you are speaking to at the courthouse are just that "clerks", they are not lawyers and although they may have heard of our "case" they may not know all the ins and outs and twists and turns.  Judge Young already ruled on the "amended dispute notes" our legal team tried to sneak in at the eleventh hour.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV or stage and I am certainly not trying to discourage anyone from doing whatever they can to assist themselves in this mess just sharing my perspective.


----------



## Saving Grace

truthr said:


> To my knowledge anyone who is/was a Geldert client at the time of the hearings in both AB and BC are governed by the decision/judgment of both Judge Young (AB) and Judge Branch (BC) and the only legal course of action is the appeal in AB.  The one in BC was squashed in November 2017, however the Supplementary Judgment of Judge Branch was just handed down on January 31, 2018 so although the statute of limitation on an appeal of that later judgment may have expired - some experienced lawyer in BC may be able to do something.
> 
> As for AB the "speak to" for the appeal that was held Thursday, March 8th, 2018 was regarding Judge Young's original decision handed down in October 2017, not the Supplementary Judgment of February 28th, 2018 (that one I suspect NM will be appealing given her ruling on the interest).
> 
> Whatever clerk you are speaking to at the courthouse are just that "clerks", they are not lawyers and although they may have heard of our "case" they may not know all the ins and outs and twists and turns.  Judge Young already ruled on the "amended dispute notes" our legal team tried to sneak in at the eleventh hour.
> 
> I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV or stage and I am certainly not trying to discourage anyone from doing whatever they can to assist themselves in this mess just sharing my perspective.


Yes, you are right. The lady who made the comment obviously don't know all the ins and outs.  Her comment basically reflects the fact that she and her colleagues notice a lot of disputes being filed against NM lately, which in our view is a good thing.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

I am guessing Saving Grace was not a MG client.  I am also guessing that all non MG clients could still do dispute notes and still have their day in court, at least in Alberta, correct?  If so, they have some bad rulings to overcome.  However, they can learn from the MG mistakes. I would guess a good lawyer might have an easy time of this for that group.  I think the 1,962 number might be a little high, but point taken that there are likely more than 1,000 in this position.  Anyone out there that than can fill in some details to help this group?

For those former Alberta MG clients, it appears dispute notes are being accepted for the appeal, and maybe from all Alberta people, option 1 or option 2.  However, this is not clear to me.


----------



## truthr

Here is a link to another casualty of this mess.  I do not know this person and suspect he is not part of the Geldert Group.  Since he has shared his story publicly on his personal Facebook wall I am sharing the link to it here.


https://www.facebook.com/kgdunham/posts/10156005105100170


----------



## torqued

Would be interested in what my American friends that have not paid are doing or if you have a plan. We were likely all served in BC?


----------



## Broke Mama

torqued said:


> Would be interested in what my American friends that have not paid are doing or if you have a plan. We were likely all served in BC?


We are from the US and we are all thinking the same thing. We dont know what to do! We owned before 2004 and we didnt take settlement, Geldert wont talk to us, so we thought Geldert had said if we didnt take settlement we would be option 2 and not have him as a lawyer. We have not heard anything from Northmont either!


----------



## aden2

Interest rate concern:
Prior to Northmont taking over the resort the interest charge was 26.82% per year for persons behind on the maintenance payments. This was to encourage those staying at the resort to pay their dues in a timely manner.
When a VIA wished to cancel to their timeshare there was a humane approach in which this was handled. Fairmont would honor the request to cancel. Based on the number of years left on the lease a refund was given.
The resort was aware that at some point some VIA's will not be able to stay the 40 years. There was no interest payment charge for leaving the resort, and the resort acknowledged all requests and did not charge a pay out fee. 
Today with Northwynd/Northmont in charge there is no honoring the request of VIAS's wanting to cancel the lease. In fact the request to cancel is ignored and the resort continues to charge a yearly maintenance fees and 26.82% interest. I have personally each year since 2013 sent  requests to have my lease cancelled.
This is a change in the contract and should be challenged, as this was not the intend of the Vacation Villas under Fairmont. If Fairmont did not explain in their sales presentation how they would handle cancellations they would not have been sucessful in running the resort. The yearly maintenance is charged, but resort is not used. Northmont leases out the same units, thus it is possibly collecting more than once. Units are being renovated and units are being sold. MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE COLLECTED, but no independent AUDIT is requested by the Courts.


----------



## aden2

Broke Mama said:


> We are from the US and we are all thinking the same thing. We dont know what to do! We owned before 2004 and we didnt take settlement, Geldert wont talk to us, so we thought Geldert had said if we didnt take settlement we would be option 2 and not have him as a lawyer. We have not heard anything from Northmont either!


*You should immediately file a Dispute Note with The law court in Edmonton, AB. disputing the judgement!  *


----------



## Broke Mama

aden2 said:


> *You should immediately file a Dispute Note with The law court in Edmonton, AB. disputing the judgement!  *


even though we were on the BC court we should file in Edmonton,AB?


----------



## MarcieL

can option 1 people that paid the SA agreement file?  Did judge Gil comment on this?


----------



## truthr

I have ordered the transcript for the Thursday, March 8th, 2018 Appeal Speak to Appeal in AB and expect to receive them tomorrow.

If anyone is interested in contributing to the cost and receiving a copy please send me a private conversation here on Tugbbs.

The cost per person is $30.00.


----------



## aden2

[


----------



## Lostmyshirt

I am confused as well.  Option 1's can still file a dispute note (not that I truly understand what that is)?


----------



## Floyd55

aden2 said:


> Justice Gill mentioned that anyone not happy about the forced signing could be part of the appeal.



Could someone please review for me how one would go about becoming part of this appeal in Alberta as a member of group 1? Is there a place online to download a document that needs to be filled out? Do you have to have a lawyer in order to participate? I figure that I have already paid my money to MG and NM but if there is a chance of getting some of it back through this appeal process, why not try? I just don't know what the process is or if there is any point to it?


----------



## aden2

Floyd55 said:


> Could someone please review for me how one would go about becoming part of this appeal in Alberta as a member of group 1? Is there a place online to download a document that needs to be filled out? Do you have to have a lawyer in order to participate? I figure that I have already paid my money to MG and NM but if there is a chance of getting some of it back through this appeal process, why not try? I just don't know what the process is or if there is any point to it?


*I would suggest that you contact "Civil Chambers Office ph. 780-415-6604 Provincial Court Action # P1490304333. The point to keep in mind is to relate to things like misrepresentation, scam, fraud etc. in your dispute note. The change of management (Fairmont to Northmont) is a big issue and VIA's should have been notified of change of contract.  *


----------



## torqued

I called the number above. They said filing a despite on that case number isn’t possible. It’s a done deal??  The number was relative to the Reid’s and I’m not the Reid’s. Unless I’ve been served in an Alberta court there is nothing he could do for me. Any suggestions?


----------



## aden2

corrected


----------



## truthr

torqued said:


> I called the number above. They said filing a despite on that case number isn’t possible. It’s a done deal??  The number was relative to the Reid’s and I’m not the Reid’s. Unless I’ve been served in an Alberta court there is nothing he could do for me. Any suggestions?





aden2 said:


> *OK, but you could still be part of the appeal. If you could find error in Judge Young's decision, it might be able to bring up in the appeal. *



I don't think anyone who was not sued in AB and part of the "Reid" Action would have anything to do with the appeal.


----------



## tssuck

truthr said:


> I don't think anyone who was not sued in AB and part of the "Reid" Action would have anything to do with the appeal.



A question please - for the Americans who signed option 1 but did not pay, would we not be able to enter a Dispute Note in the AB.appeal action? We were contacted by MG with the same info that all the Canadians got.


----------



## truthr

tssuck said:


> A question please - for the Americans who signed option 1 but did not pay, would we not be able to enter a Dispute Note in the AB.appeal action? We were contacted by MG with the same info that all the Canadians got.


To my knowledge unless you were sued in AB you cannot be part of the appeal in AB as your personal individual court file would not be in AB hence you would not be part of the "Reid"action.


----------



## tssuck

truthr said:


> I don't think anyone who was not sued in AB and part of the "Reid" Action would have anything to do with the appeal.



As I understand it, we all, Americans and Canadians got the same info from MG as to whether we wanted to sign option 1 or option 2. For those of us who signed option 1 but did not pay, whether we are American or Canadian, are now considered option 2 people. To confirm this one way or another we have sent an to Barry King to see what list we are on. As yet no reply. Whether we get a reply or not from Barry King, we are going to notify Jud Virtue that we are going to be part of the appeal. Please correct me if any if the above info is incorrect. It will help clarify things, I think.


----------



## Scammed!

There should be no reason why we can't appeal we were forced to pay and I can prove that. No matter what you are option 1 to 25 were in the same boat. Just because we paid doesn' make it ok. We need more info into what our rights are.


----------



## Fraud1

aden2 said:


> *OK, but you could still be part of the appeal. If you could find error in Judge Young's decision, it might be able to bring up in the appeal. *


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

truthr said:


> I have ordered the transcript for the Thursday, March 8th, 2018 Appeal Speak to Appeal in AB and expect to receive them tomorrow.
> 
> If anyone is interested in contributing to the cost and receiving a copy please send me a private conversation here on Tugbbs.
> 
> The cost per person is $30.00.


Thank you so much for taking the initiative to order these and I will definitely be looking for my own copy as I want to truly know what the Judge said opposed to the selective "Coles Notes" version we get from any Counsel who participated.

Related to past documentation, many people have requested missing documentation from Michael Geldert to review in preparation for the May court date either via their new Counsel or are taking the initiative to self litigate because there is new hope to continue which should be of great concern to Northmont who have lost their puppet's ability to control his X-clients.

Given there are rules a divorced lawyer is supposed to be adhering to when a client transitions away Michael is grievously failing to meet his Code of Conduct as a lawyer in this area and should be realizing by now complaints have and continue to be filed with the Law Society which he must think is a joke and that the Law Society has no teeth.  

If that doesn't matter maybe the realization he is in the cross hairs himself to be sued which should be of great concern to Northmont and any lawyers he has worked with on this case as discovery tends to bring out the worst or best in people depending on what they are hiding or want to share - hope he has let his insurance company know as other people already have and they are the ones who will be on the hook to settle any proven malpractice claims!!

People have been told they cannot have missing documentation because possibly they didn't pay a retainer or Michael is using the BS the info is privileged - well that's BS based on our retainer agreement and the way the system works.  What should have been happening, as does in any other regular group client litigation, is we should have been receiving every piece of documentation as it came available as it is our litigation not his which would have kept us properly informed and we could have identified his deceptions sooner.  All I see now is that he was trying to hide things and control narrative in hindsight so we only see what he wants us to see instead of what is truly occurring - even today he is still desperately trying to control our destinies and limit the information to either keep us dependent on him or he needs to protect himself or Northmont from us learning the entire truth.

Now the question that keeps popping up in my mind is "Who is Michael Geldert really working for, protecting, and representing?" as it is very hard to figure out as it isn't me.

All I can say is keep asking and when he wants to talk with you record the call - the more evidence he provides creates a stronger malpractice claim.

Not sure how the new facts based, people friendly Judge will see this in May when we are forced to ask for a continuance given we failed to get prepare - guess it will depend on how our answer is present to him - sure doesn't sound like present Counsels posturing and objections are going to work either from the plaintiff or defendant sides.  

Maybe this new Judge will be willing to provide a court order for us to secure the documentation and further allow for a court sanctioned injunction against Northmont to put a hold on the Option 1 settlement funds as long as this remains in front of the courts given the circumstances related to the binding of the Option 1 people might be viewed as being fraudulently obtained given it was an only Michael negotiated settlement agreement (FYI - consent was far from mutual on our end as we were misrepresented by Michael but given this looks like a backroom deal with no 3rd party neutrality present to dispute this had occurred or settlement minutes available it will easily be made to look bad for both parties in this "negotiation" if we are still calling it that).

Getting back to the missing documentation - what we received all along has been selective so it begs to be questioned "why".  Even now Michael is trying to control the flow of information even after the divorce and we only expect what we are entitled to that has already been paid for which is governed by every lawyers Code of Conduct.  Moving forward people are smart enough to procure future court documents and as proof can acquire our own transcripts like these ones for things moving forward after the divorce and we are beyond Michael's false cheers to boast his ego and suck more money from us. 

Moving forward we all need to put the pressure on Michael Geldert for a full detailed reconciliation of the millions of dollars that made up the trust fund account from day 1.  As part of the reconciliation it needs to separately identify Michael's and Barry King's work related to the Option 2 group versus what the Option 1 group needed to pay for along with any past due accounts recognized as part of the Geldert receivables associated with the trust (why should anyone who has paid be subsidizing individuals or group services for someone who has not paid for them but continued to received the benefits of the services - this is Michael's problem to differentiate and proportionately bill each of his represented clients properly not mine).  

Group 1 members should expect a refund of unused trust funds which should be plentiful given Michael's $500 retainer request in May of 2017 for funds that were to be allocated for settlement costs and the additional funds secured in the Settlement Agreement should have given him a budget just shy of $1 million.  

Not our fault he created a very distinct divide in the way he now uniquely has to represent independent groups he finalized creating on December 29th which become a huge conflict of interest for all involved.  This resulting circus (mess) Michael and Barry King continue to move forward with is not payable by either Option group as Option 1 people are out and Option 2 people didn't sign their own new retainer agreement asking for it to be done this way .  Anyone who still wants Michael's service would need to pay their own way with him or Barry King as there cannot be a conflict of interest which would be created using the money from the original trust account to pay for individual services beyond the required documentation, processing the Option 1 settlement, or payment of past collective invoices.  This might have worked if he stuck to the all or nothing relationship moving forward introduced as part of the SIF he buried us with so why is he still allowed to rack up the costs and be a demi lawyer to all - Michael should have been prepared to allow Option 2 people to move on in November / December and given them everything required but here we are months later and nothing but  or an option to a few Option 2 people to have to pay for things moving forward.  

No group should be compensating for work done for another group or individual unless it is of benefit equally to the entire group if the cost is tied back to the original trust fund to pay for services.  If something is being provided from Geldert it needs to be to all especially if the cost is being picked up from the $250 extorted from each of the Option 1 members in the negotiated settlement as these funds are not there for Michael to use to go up going down his rabbit hole or to cover his own butt moving forward.

Although, good luck collecting from any of the Option 2 group of people in default though - they kicked Geldert's butt to the curb or Geldert kicked theirs but there is no going back on these actions so welcome to the world of pro bono (denoting work undertaken without charge by an attorney) and I bet other lawyers you continue to hide behind who are also stuck in your rabbit hole want to be paid from the pro bono funds you are collecting.

I think this pretty much summarizes any future relationship with Michael and gang - we are done with you and the only thing left is when and how much money each of us sue our former Counsel for related to their incompetence and deception (take your pick or pick both).  Pretty sure when all Michael's lawyer buddies share a place as a listed participant on a notice of claim they will want bury Michael in his hole and will be very willing to provide documentation to drop them at the curb but can you imagine a 1000 of these over the next couple of years and the time it will take to get through this instead of making money - hence the reason for everyone to work together to either group of preferably self litigate (we saw how easy things got for lawyers to have us all squished through Jeke - so we are not to old learn from our mistakes, will Michael learn from his? - I sure hope not).

It's not even to expensive to get started:
http://www.self-counsel.com/representing-yourself-in-court-can.html

I can only imagine Northmont is very concerned this entire thing is about to explode and are probably concerned what is out there to throw them under the bus to save one's butt especially now that there is a chance for a real appeal with the new evidence Northmont provided us all on February 1st.

Man, I hope this doesn't screw up anyone's bonuses or professional accreditations


----------



## truthr

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Thank you so much for taking the initiative to order these and I will definitely be looking for my own copy as I want to truly know what the Judge said opposed to the selective "Coles Notes" version we get from any Counsel who participated.
> 
> Related to past documentation, many people have requested missing documentation from Michael Geldert to review in preparation for the May court date either via their new Counsel or are taking the initiative to self litigate because there is new hope to continue which should be of great concern to Northmont who have lost their puppet's ability to control his X-clients.
> 
> Given there are rules a divorced lawyer is supposed to be adhering to when a client transitions away Michael is grievously failing to meet his Code of Conduct as a lawyer in this area and should be realizing by now complaints have and continue to be filed with the Law Society which he must think is a joke and that the Law Society has no teeth.
> 
> If that doesn't matter maybe the realization he is in the cross hairs himself to be sued which should be of great concern to Northmont and any lawyers he has worked with on this case as discovery tends to bring out the worst or best in people depending on what they are hiding or want to share - hope he has let his insurance company know as other people already have and they are the ones who will be on the hook to settle any proven malpractice claims!!
> 
> People have been told they cannot have missing documentation because possibly they didn't pay a retainer or Michael is using the BS the info is privileged - well that's BS based on our retainer agreement and the way the system works.  What should have been happening, as does in any other regular group client litigation, is we should have been receiving every piece of documentation as it came available as it is our litigation not his which would have kept us properly informed and we could have identified his deceptions sooner.  All I see now is that he was trying to hide things and control narrative in hindsight so we only see what he wants us to see instead of what is truly occurring - even today he is still desperately trying to control our destinies and limit the information to either keep us dependent on him or he needs to protect himself or Northmont from us learning the entire truth.
> 
> Now the question that keeps popping up in my mind is "Who is Michael Geldert really working for, protecting, and representing?" as it is very hard to figure out as it isn't me.
> 
> All I can say is keep asking and when he wants to talk with you record the call - the more evidence he provides creates a stronger malpractice claim.
> 
> Not sure how the new facts based, people friendly Judge will see this in May when we are forced to ask for a continuance given we failed to get prepare - guess it will depend on how our answer is present to him - sure doesn't sound like present Counsels posturing and objections are going to work either from the plaintiff or defendant sides.
> 
> Maybe this new Judge will be willing to provide a court order for us to secure the documentation and further allow for a court sanctioned injunction against Northmont to put a hold on the Option 1 settlement funds as long as this remains in front of the courts given the circumstances related to the binding of the Option 1 people might be viewed as being fraudulently obtained given it was an only Michael negotiated settlement agreement (FYI - consent was far from mutual on our end as we were misrepresented by Michael but given this looks like a backroom deal with no 3rd party neutrality present to dispute this had occurred or settlement minutes available it will easily be made to look bad for both parties in this "negotiation" if we are still calling it that).
> 
> Getting back to the missing documentation - what we received all along has been selective so it begs to be questioned "why".  Even now Michael is trying to control the flow of information even after the divorce and we only expect what we are entitled to that has already been paid for which is governed by every lawyers Code of Conduct.  Moving forward people are smart enough to procure future court documents and as proof can acquire our own transcripts like these ones for things moving forward after the divorce and we are beyond Michael's false cheers to boast his ego and suck more money from us.
> 
> Moving forward we all need to put the pressure on Michael Geldert for a full detailed reconciliation of the millions of dollars that made up the trust fund account from day 1.  As part of the reconciliation it needs to separately identify Michael's and Barry King's work related to the Option 2 group versus what the Option 1 group needed to pay for along with any past due accounts recognized as part of the Geldert receivables associated with the trust (why should anyone who has paid be subsidizing individuals or group services for someone who has not paid for them but continued to received the benefits of the services - this is Michael's problem to differentiate and proportionately bill each of his represented clients properly not mine).
> 
> Group 1 members should expect a refund of unused trust funds which should be plentiful given Michael's $500 retainer request in May of 2017 for funds that were to be allocated for settlement costs and the additional funds secured in the Settlement Agreement should have given him a budget just shy of $1 million.
> 
> Not our fault he created a very distinct divide in the way he now uniquely has to represent independent groups he finalized creating on December 29th which become a huge conflict of interest for all involved.  This resulting circus (mess) Michael and Barry King continue to move forward with is not payable by either Option group as Option 1 people are out and Option 2 people didn't sign their own new retainer agreement asking for it to be done this way .  Anyone who still wants Michael's service would need to pay their own way with him or Barry King as there cannot be a conflict of interest which would be created using the money from the original trust account to pay for individual services beyond the required documentation, processing the Option 1 settlement, or payment of past collective invoices.  This might have worked if he stuck to the all or nothing relationship moving forward introduced as part of the SIF he buried us with so why is he still allowed to rack up the costs and be a demi lawyer to all - Michael should have been prepared to allow Option 2 people to move on in November / December and given them everything required but here we are months later and nothing but  or an option to a few Option 2 people to have to pay for things moving forward.
> 
> No group should be compensating for work done for another group or individual unless it is of benefit equally to the entire group if the cost is tied back to the original trust fund to pay for services.  If something is being provided from Geldert it needs to be to all especially if the cost is being picked up from the $250 extorted from each of the Option 1 members in the negotiated settlement as these funds are not there for Michael to use to go up going down his rabbit hole or to cover his own butt moving forward.
> 
> Although, good luck collecting from any of the Option 2 group of people in default though - they kicked Geldert's butt to the curb or Geldert kicked theirs but there is no going back on these actions so welcome to the world of pro bono (denoting work undertaken without charge by an attorney) and I bet other lawyers you continue to hide behind who are also stuck in your rabbit hole want to be paid from the pro bono funds you are collecting.
> 
> I think this pretty much summarizes any future relationship with Michael and gang - we are done with you and the only thing left is when and how much money each of us sue our former Counsel for related to their incompetence and deception (take your pick or pick both).  Pretty sure when all Michael's lawyer buddies share a place as a listed participant on a notice of claim they will want bury Michael in his hole and will be very willing to provide documentation to drop them at the curb but can you imagine a 1000 of these over the next couple of years and the time it will take to get through this instead of making money - hence the reason for everyone to work together to either group of preferably self litigate (we saw how easy things got for lawyers to have us all squished through Jeke - so we are not to old learn from our mistakes, will Michael learn from his? - I sure hope not).
> 
> It's not even to expensive to get started:
> http://www.self-counsel.com/representing-yourself-in-court-can.html
> 
> I can only imagine Northmont is very concerned this entire thing is about to explode and are probably concerned what is out there to throw them under the bus to save one's butt especially now that there is a chance for a real appeal with the new evidence Northmont provided us all on February 1st.
> 
> Man, I hope this doesn't screw up anyone's bonuses or professional accreditations


----------



## MarcieL

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Thank you so much for taking the initiative to order these and I will definitely be looking for my own copy as I want to truly know what the Judge said opposed to the selective "Coles Notes" version we get from any Counsel who participated.
> 
> Related to past documentation, many people have requested missing documentation from Michael Geldert to review in preparation for the May court date either via their new Counsel or are taking the initiative to self litigate because there is new hope to continue which should be of great concern to Northmont who have lost their puppet's ability to control his X-clients.
> 
> Given there are rules a divorced lawyer is supposed to be adhering to when a client transitions away Michael is grievously failing to meet his Code of Conduct as a lawyer in this area and should be realizing by now complaints have and continue to be filed with the Law Society which he must think is a joke and that the Law Society has no teeth.
> 
> If that doesn't matter maybe the realization he is in the cross hairs himself to be sued which should be of great concern to Northmont and any lawyers he has worked with on this case as discovery tends to bring out the worst or best in people depending on what they are hiding or want to share - hope he has let his insurance company know as other people already have and they are the ones who will be on the hook to settle any proven malpractice claims!!
> 
> People have been told they cannot have missing documentation because possibly they didn't pay a retainer or Michael is using the BS the info is privileged - well that's BS based on our retainer agreement and the way the system works.  What should have been happening, as does in any other regular group client litigation, is we should have been receiving every piece of documentation as it came available as it is our litigation not his which would have kept us properly informed and we could have identified his deceptions sooner.  All I see now is that he was trying to hide things and control narrative in hindsight so we only see what he wants us to see instead of what is truly occurring - even today he is still desperately trying to control our destinies and limit the information to either keep us dependent on him or he needs to protect himself or Northmont from us learning the entire truth.
> 
> Now the question that keeps popping up in my mind is "Who is Michael Geldert really working for, protecting, and representing?" as it is very hard to figure out as it isn't me.
> 
> All I can say is keep asking and when he wants to talk with you record the call - the more evidence he provides creates a stronger malpractice claim.
> 
> Not sure how the new facts based, people friendly Judge will see this in May when we are forced to ask for a continuance given we failed to get prepare - guess it will depend on how our answer is present to him - sure doesn't sound like present Counsels posturing and objections are going to work either from the plaintiff or defendant sides.
> 
> Maybe this new Judge will be willing to provide a court order for us to secure the documentation and further allow for a court sanctioned injunction against Northmont to put a hold on the Option 1 settlement funds as long as this remains in front of the courts given the circumstances related to the binding of the Option 1 people might be viewed as being fraudulently obtained given it was an only Michael negotiated settlement agreement (FYI - consent was far from mutual on our end as we were misrepresented by Michael but given this looks like a backroom deal with no 3rd party neutrality present to dispute this had occurred or settlement minutes available it will easily be made to look bad for both parties in this "negotiation" if we are still calling it that).
> 
> Getting back to the missing documentation - what we received all along has been selective so it begs to be questioned "why".  Even now Michael is trying to control the flow of information even after the divorce and we only expect what we are entitled to that has already been paid for which is governed by every lawyers Code of Conduct.  Moving forward people are smart enough to procure future court documents and as proof can acquire our own transcripts like these ones for things moving forward after the divorce and we are beyond Michael's false cheers to boast his ego and suck more money from us.
> 
> Moving forward we all need to put the pressure on Michael Geldert for a full detailed reconciliation of the millions of dollars that made up the trust fund account from day 1.  As part of the reconciliation it needs to separately identify Michael's and Barry King's work related to the Option 2 group versus what the Option 1 group needed to pay for along with any past due accounts recognized as part of the Geldert receivables associated with the trust (why should anyone who has paid be subsidizing individuals or group services for someone who has not paid for them but continued to received the benefits of the services - this is Michael's problem to differentiate and proportionately bill each of his represented clients properly not mine).
> 
> Group 1 members should expect a refund of unused trust funds which should be plentiful given Michael's $500 retainer request in May of 2017 for funds that were to be allocated for settlement costs and the additional funds secured in the Settlement Agreement should have given him a budget just shy of $1 million.
> 
> Not our fault he created a very distinct divide in the way he now uniquely has to represent independent groups he finalized creating on December 29th which become a huge conflict of interest for all involved.  This resulting circus (mess) Michael and Barry King continue to move forward with is not payable by either Option group as Option 1 people are out and Option 2 people didn't sign their own new retainer agreement asking for it to be done this way .  Anyone who still wants Michael's service would need to pay their own way with him or Barry King as there cannot be a conflict of interest which would be created using the money from the original trust account to pay for individual services beyond the required documentation, processing the Option 1 settlement, or payment of past collective invoices.  This might have worked if he stuck to the all or nothing relationship moving forward introduced as part of the SIF he buried us with so why is he still allowed to rack up the costs and be a demi lawyer to all - Michael should have been prepared to allow Option 2 people to move on in November / December and given them everything required but here we are months later and nothing but  or an option to a few Option 2 people to have to pay for things moving forward.
> 
> No group should be compensating for work done for another group or individual unless it is of benefit equally to the entire group if the cost is tied back to the original trust fund to pay for services.  If something is being provided from Geldert it needs to be to all especially if the cost is being picked up from the $250 extorted from each of the Option 1 members in the negotiated settlement as these funds are not there for Michael to use to go up going down his rabbit hole or to cover his own butt moving forward.
> 
> Although, good luck collecting from any of the Option 2 group of people in default though - they kicked Geldert's butt to the curb or Geldert kicked theirs but there is no going back on these actions so welcome to the world of pro bono (denoting work undertaken without charge by an attorney) and I bet other lawyers you continue to hide behind who are also stuck in your rabbit hole want to be paid from the pro bono funds you are collecting.
> 
> I think this pretty much summarizes any future relationship with Michael and gang - we are done with you and the only thing left is when and how much money each of us sue our former Counsel for related to their incompetence and deception (take your pick or pick both).  Pretty sure when all Michael's lawyer buddies share a place as a listed participant on a notice of claim they will want bury Michael in his hole and will be very willing to provide documentation to drop them at the curb but can you imagine a 1000 of these over the next couple of years and the time it will take to get through this instead of making money - hence the reason for everyone to work together to either group of preferably self litigate (we saw how easy things got for lawyers to have us all squished through Jeke - so we are not to old learn from our mistakes, will Michael learn from his? - I sure hope not).
> 
> It's not even to expensive to get started:
> http://www.self-counsel.com/representing-yourself-in-court-can.html
> 
> I can only imagine Northmont is very concerned this entire thing is about to explode and are probably concerned what is out there to throw them under the bus to save one's butt especially now that there is a chance for a real appeal with the new evidence Northmont provided us all on February 1st.
> 
> Man, I hope this doesn't screw up anyone's bonuses or professional accreditations


----------



## MarcieL

Option 1 people have paid their millions, releases were 2 months early I would assume due to the March 8 hearing.  If option 1 people have the option to appeal that would be positive however I fear our$$ maybe off shore by the time any appeals should take place.  Thoughts?


----------



## CleoB

MarcieL said:


> Option 1 people have paid their millions, releases were 2 months early I would assume due to the March 8 hearing.  If option 1 people have the option to appeal that would be positive however I fear our$$ maybe off shore by the time any appeals should take place.  Thoughts?


Has anyone in option 1 asked Geldert what has happened with the money in light of what happened March 8?


----------



## truthr

Here is a thought - if lil'ol me, who has never ordered transcripts before, can manage to do it and receive them in less than a week just about anyone can and one would think definitely a law office that should already have an account set up with the transcript service and know exactly what information is required to order them.  Oh and gather and coordinate names and email addresses and process etransfers and get the transcript out to people who have paid the day I receive it (like within minutes) - well what can I say maybe I should be running a law office!!!

Does it cost money?  Sure does but at least by providing them to the clients they can read FIRST HAND what was or was not said - not some watered down, pie in the sky version.  Sure could have saved a lot of confusion and possibly wasted time and money over the years with us having to make decisions without having ALL the facts.

Do all you who were Geldert clients have ALL the transcripts from ALL the hearings/trial/discoveries, etc?  Or only some who have known to request them only to receive some but not all depending on what someone decided he would ALLOW his clients to see?  Isn't it the clients who have paid for all these documents?

We may not be lawyers but we are adults who can read and comprehend and although there may be a lot of legal talk - IT IS STILL ENGLISH!!

IMO whatever they have - we should have had the minute or at least the day they had it.  Why did we get some and not others??


----------



## CleoB

truthr said:


> Here is a thought - if lil'ol me, who has never ordered transcripts before, can manage to do it and receive them in less than a week just about anyone can and one would think definitely a law office that should already have an account set up with the transcript service and know exactly what information is required to order them.  Oh and gather and coordinate names and email addresses and process etransfers and get the transcript out to people who have paid the day I receive it (like within minutes) - well what can I say maybe I should be running a law office!!!
> 
> Does it cost money?  Sure does but at least by providing them to the clients they can read FIRST HAND what was or was not said - not some watered down, pie in the sky version.  Sure could have saved a lot of confusion and possibly wasted time and money over the years with us having to make decisions without having ALL the facts.
> 
> Do all you who were Geldert clients have ALL the transcripts from ALL the hearings/trial/discoveries, etc?  Or only some who have known to request them only to receive some but not all depending on what someone decided he would ALLOW his clients to see?  Isn't it the clients who have paid for all these documents?
> 
> We may not be lawyers but we are adults who can read and comprehend and although there may be a lot of legal talk - IT IS STILL ENGLISH!!
> 
> IMO whatever they have - we should have had the minute or at least the day they had it.  Why did we get some and not others??


Never mind receiving some and not others.  I don't recall receiving anything, found most on Sunchaser website.  BTW, how much did the transcript from last Thursday cost?


----------



## truthr

CleoB said:


> Never mind receiving some and not others.  I don't recall receiving anything, found most on Sunchaser website.  BTW, how much did the transcript from last Thursday cost?


WOW, in all fairness some of the needed documents were sent to us in the updates; however not all.
As for the transcript from last Thursday I have sent you a private conversation if you wish to order it from me.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

truthr said:


> To my knowledge unless you were sued in AB you cannot be part of the appeal in AB as your personal individual court file would not be in AB hence you would not be part of the "Reid"action.



Those sued in BC probably can not be a part of the appeal by doing the dispute notes, etc.  However, they can still fax their story to the court house and it may be presented to the judge.  Any thoughts?  It may work to strengthen the Alberta appeal and if successful, I would think the BC decision would be in question as this is not turning out to be fair already with the Alberta interest decision.  It may be elevated up to the federal level with conflicting judgements.  Any thoughts and does someone have a fax number for the appeal judge?


----------



## truthr

For anyone considering participating in the appeal in AB, here is a link to some helpful information about the Alberta Courts Appeals 

https://albertacourts.ca/docs/default-source/ca/appeals-at-the-court-of-appeal.pdf?sfvrsn=df45d980_0


----------



## dotbuhler

DaveO said:


> *Email this if you are an owner!!*
> 
> It has been suggested that all owners send the email noted below to Resort Villa Management (as long as you are comfortable in doing so).
> 
> We suspect that Petitioner and Respondent will be arguing that because some owners managed to file a response before May 31st that this is an indication that everyone had sufficient time to do so.
> 
> In order to provide the owners with a viable argument in rebuttal, a wave of emails from as many owners as possible would be of great value going forward (even if they have filed and served their Response). We want to have as many people who are willing do this in advance of May 31st.
> 
> They can do so by sending an email to the lawyers of record for both Trustee and Northmont:
> 
> Respondent (Northmont) / Judson E. Virtue: jud.virtue@nortonrose.com
> RVM Email Address: resortvillamanagement@northwynd.ca
> Petitioner (Trustee) / Warren B. Milman:  wmilman@mccarthy.ca
> ScumBag Northwynd CEO: kwankel@northwynd.ca
> 
> Copy and paste the following to the email:
> 
> As an Owner of a timeshare at Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Riverside, Hillside and Riverview in Fairmont BC that is affected by the Petition between Philip K. Matkin Professional Corporation and Northmont Resort properties Ltd., I/We  hereby request: and provide notice:
> 
> 1) That the hearing be adjourned to a later date to allow more owners to prepare for it;
> 2) That the current amount of time scheduled for the hearing is not sufficient to allow the owners to make their submissions before the court;
> 3) That their May 31st deadline to file Form 67 with their affidavit has not allowed them sufficient time to hire a lawyer and ensure that their submissions are complete;
> 4) That the “Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay” letter has effectively put the owners under duress with respect and has not allowed owners to make a fair and reasoned decision.


Going forward, here's a "blast from the past" that actually addressed the B.C. Court case and is worth getting in front of Justice Gill's eyes. Can everyone say "AFFIDAVIT"!!!


----------



## aden2

The big issue with the appeal would be that the Reid vs Northmont people did not sign the amendments to the contract that Northmont keeps saying they are following the contract. In my contract there is no charge to terminate Vacation Lease, the 26.82% interest charge was intended to VIA/s that were staying at the resort. NM is charging me the interest because they refused to accept my letter of termination in 2013.


----------



## dotbuhler

GypsyOne said:


> *Reply to Northwynd CC*
> 
> Thanks Northwynd CC for your reply,  and allow me to respond.
> 
> I am disappointed that you could not have provided something more substantive for the purpose of providing clarity than a list of what amounts to little more than talking points or public relations statements.  (TUG Canada site Misconception #1 to Misconception #22).  For the most part you gave only examples of fringe “misconceptions” that serious owners may have heard in the general scuttlebutt but are not really serious issues on which to dispute the claims.  Some are little more that strawman issues where you take a fringe statement, build it up into something big, and then spend a lot of time tearing it apart, thus questioning the credibility of the resisting TS owners.  You did not comment on one substantive issue such as might be found in affidavits owners lodged with the court in disputing the two fees.
> 
> An example is Misconception #1 where you describe a conspiracy theory allegedly believed by TS owners that involves eleven different major organizations.  Well, cool it.  No responsible TS owner is seriously alleging a conspiracy of that magnitude, and you wasted about two pages of ink debunking it.  Which is not to minimize the possibility of malfeasance, but that is a different issue.
> 
> I will reply within the context of two premises:
> 
> 1. That my comments refer to my type of contract which is a Vacation Villa Lease signed in year 2000.  This is important because as you know there are two classes of contract, the original lease contract where the TS owners are lessees or tenants, and the later or the conversions to Legacy for Life contracts where the TS owners are co-owners or owners in fee-simple.  Strangely, Justice Loo in her decision noted the two types of contracts and then proceeded to treat them as synonomous.  In fact they are far from equals as tenants have quite different rights and obligations than do owners.
> 
> As you are aware, all the early TS owners were lessees or tenants.  The agreement was pretty much a basic lease arrangement and operated well for the first ten years or so.  We got what we bargained for, which was a one or two week vacation at a quality resort, and we paid our proportionate share of operating expenses.  The lease was for fourty years, which seemed safe enough because well constructed buildings should easily last sixty years with only routine maintenance.  As tenants we were entitled to the standard right of quiet enjoyment and the implied warranty of habitability (the units must meet a certain standard of livability).  Then things started to unravel.  Buildings that should have lasted 60 years were showing major deficiencies after only nine to twenty-three years.  Between 2005 to 2007, $41.5 million of funds disappeared, and shortly after in 2009 Fairmont defaulted and went into bankruptcy.  Not to worry - not our problem.  We’re tenants and not responsible for building construction or building re-construction.  We’ll let the lawyers and the investors fight over ownership because we have our timeshare leases to protect our rights. Furthermore, the lease agreement specifies we are responsible only for maintenance or operating expenses.  There are no references to capital costs or costs to restore capital structure.  If we were responsible for capital costs, such a major item would not have been left to chance in the lease or buried in with a long list of operating expenses.  It would have been very clearly stated and probably given separate paragraph status.
> 
> We can only assume that in about 2009 Northmont, wondering how they can saddle the TS owners with reconstruction of a failing resort and reward the REIT investors for a bad investment, realized they were on shaky grounds in asking tenants for capital funds to restore the resort for the benefit of the real owners.  So they cleverly blitzed the TS owners to convert lease agreements to co-ownership agreements to which they added the phrase to Paragraph 11 “.....and to pay the costs of capital improvements that may from time to time be required.”  That wording would not have been added if capital costs were clearly included in the original lease agreements.  To add insult to injury, the new co-owners were charged something in the vicinity of $6,000 to $9,000 for the privilege of being owners and responsible for capital reconstruction.
> 
> Bottom line, there are two distinct classes of TS owners - lessees or tenants, and lessors or co-owners.  How Justice Loo could lump them together in one decision is one of the mysteries of the Special Case hearing.  But it certainly seems like it’s a point that could be contested.  Or perhaps you could shed some light on the matter.
> 
> 2.  My second premise is that my lease is a valid contract from inception of the agreement to the present.  Timeshare owners don’t really care if there were one or fifteen owners of the resort for the term of the lease.  A contract is a contract and the rights and responsibilities pass from one lessor to the next.  I know, Wyndy, you will claim that as part of the CCAA proceedings, Justice Romaine transferred all the assets including the VIA agreements to Northwynd free of liability.  But me residing our here in Logicville, I’ll say two things about that.  One is that another judge at another court level might see it differently.  Two is that even if we concede on the “free of liability,” that could be interpreted to mean we are unable to sue for damages, but does not preclude us from voiding the contracts for numerous  breaches of contract and misrepresentations.  In other words we simply hand back the timeshare and walk away from a breached contract.  TS owners are having a hard time understanding how rights and protection provided under the contract can be voided by the CCAA, but the obligation to pay maintenance and special assessments remain intact.  Perhaps you can explain that slight of hand to we the dullard TS owners.
> 
> To cut to the chase, I’d be pleased if you would comment specifically on these issues:
> 
> 1. How can you justify the lessees or tenants being responsible for capital costs?  To use an analogy, if you were a tenant in an apartment block and the owner came to you for funds to replace the foundation, what would you tell him?  Right, your answer would be a short and sweet negative.  On the other hand if you were residing in a condominium in which you have ownership in fee simple, you would be obligated to contribute toward the capital cost of replacing the foundation.  And that basically is the difference between being a lessee and being a co-owner.
> 
> 2.  How can you justify attributing ownership responsibility to the TS owners, but the TS owners never having had a voice in management.  Paragraph 19 spells out creating a Lessee’s association, yet one was never established, which is just one more breach of contract.  The result being that TS owners never had a voice or an ear in management deliberations.  Again, using the condo analogy, if I was an owner in a condo complex I would have the opportunity to sit on the board of directors and attend all directors and annual meetings.
> 
> 3.  Why does Northwynd think they have the right to ignore Paragraph 13 of the lease which provides a formula in the event of default.  As you know, basically the formula says that after a period of default the lessor can take back the timeshare and reimburse the lessee at 25% (or 50%) of the original cost for the remaining time on the lease.  The formula weighs the numbers in favour of the lessor, which is to be expected, but at least there is a fair and logical way of settling a default.  I know, you will say that the clause is permissive and that the lessor doesn’t have to accept the “deemed offer” of giving back the remaining timeshare.  But in fact you ARE accepting the deemed offer.  You are accepting the deemed offer once you agree to take back the timeshare as does happen in your cancellation proposal. Its just that you don’t want to pay up according to the terms of the lease.  I have to believe that paragraph 13 was included in the lease for a reason.  In fact there are consumer protection laws that prohibit the use of deceptive marketing practices and misleading contracts that could lull prospective purchasers into a false sense of security and have them think they have some protection when in fact the one party to the agreement can just arbitrarily change the rules to suit their interests.
> 
> The cancellation fee agreement you have devised results in the ridiculous situation that I pay about $16,000 to acquire the timeshare, then I pay you another about $4,000 to take it back from me, plus another year of maintenance for which I get no value, for a total cost of about $21,000 and I am conned out of about 27 years of timeshare.  It would be like if I bought a car for $16,000 cash and for some reason I have to return it to the dealer.  But I not only have to return the car for no reimbursement, I also have to hand over $4,000 as well.  But we’re not done yet.  I also have to pay $1,000 for the next year’s gas, oil, and repairs on the car I no longer have.  Tell me, if someone offered you that deal, what would be your response?  Yeah, me too.
> 
> 4.  Why do you think the Fairmont CCAA proceedings have voided the TS owners rights under the lease agreement as it relates to breaches of contract, such as “to manage and maintain the Project in a prudent and workmanlike manner,” but retained the responsibility to pay maintenance and special assessments?  I touched on this question above and I would like your response, as it seems to me that you are wanting your cake and eating it too.  I don’t want a response that amounts to “because it is in our best financial interest and Justice Loo said we could.”   Greed doesn’t count.  I’m looking for logical principles to justify me shelling out hard earned money.
> 
> 5. Am I right that funds from the cancellation fee go to the REIT investors and the RPM funds less management fee go toward resort renovations?
> 
> 6.  Miscon #3: Okay, there are several levels of breach of contract.  I’ll say minor, material, repudiatory, and anticipatory.  Why do you think that modifying the interpretation of a simple lease agreement into Northwynd’s and the REIT investors personal money machine is not a repudiatory breach?  Seems to me that is right up there with your example of the hairdresser reopening as a massage parlor.
> 
> 7.  Miscon #11: You say that whether or not Northwynd lives or dies, the resort will survive.  Even if Northwynd goes bankrupt, the resort carries on and the judge transfers the contracts and management of the resort to a new property manager and life goes on.  I presume you are also saying the courts would have extinguished the lessees right of legal recourse for breaches of contract (free of liability),  but have retained the lessee’s obligation to pay maintenance and special assessments.  In other words, no matter how egregious the breaches, no matter how badly we are treated, we are obliged to send in our money on demand by the owners for evermore or 40 years, whichever comes first. You say that even if we win, we lose.  I find that not only strange but bizarre.  If that were true, no person in their right mind would ever enter into a contract with a timeshare resort owner.  Or for that matter enter into any contract.  Parties to contracts should not have their rights legally extinguished so easily.  You’d better rethink that “misconception.”
> 
> 8.  Your three-legged stool includes approval of the renovation fee, the cancellation fee, and downsizing the resort.  Justice Loo approved the two fees but no mention of the downsizing.  Where does downsizing stand?  If your answer is that approval for downsizing is included in the renovation agreement, my next question is - how many TS owners have agreed to the renovation fee to date?
> 
> 9.  The British Columbia Real Estate Association requires that its members complete a Property Disclosure Statement for real estate transactions.  Among the questions are the following:
> 
> G. Are you aware of any structural problems with any of the buildings?
> J. Are you aware of any problems with the heating and/or central air
> conditioning system?
> K. Are you aware of any moisture and/or water problems in the walls, basement
> or crawl space?
> L. Are you aware of any damage due to wind, fire or water?
> M. Are you aware of any roof leakage or unrepaired roof damage? (Age of roof
> if known: ____________ years)
> O. Are you aware of any problems with the plumbing system?
> 
> Was a Property Disclosure Statement completed for all Vacation Villa Leases, Vacation Interval Agreements (co-ownership agreements), and conversion to Legacy for Life Agreements?
> 
> Thanks in advance for your response.
> 
> GypsyOne


EXCELLENT REBUTTAL!!


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

truthr said:


> I have ordered the transcript for the Thursday, March 8th, 2018 Appeal Speak to Appeal in AB and expect to receive them tomorrow.
> 
> If anyone is interested in contributing to the cost and receiving a copy please send me a private conversation here on Tugbbs.
> 
> The cost per person is $30.00.


I would love to share this entire transcript but feel it only fair to share some highlights with my own narrative out of respect for it costing Truth so much money to purchase it - the transcript is a short read but a telling tale in my opinion how two lawyers are collaboratively working a Judge for a collective goal.


In doing an initial read of the Reid Vs Northmont_March 8, 2018_Transcript I am finding it very informative as to the attitude our own counsel has taken towards us, their clients, which I would have thought would have come more from the Northmont lawyer MR. VIRTUE than someone who is payed to serve and protect our interests.

I will post a few exerts starting with these that in my opinion appear to imply that we all look at this matter with Northmont as a trivial in nature and are embarrassed as to what Michael Geldert coerced us into paying via the extorted settlement agreement amount to Northmont who he negotiated us to quite handsomely sell out our future memories and investments as expressed by Barry King from Strathcona Law Group below who at this point still continues to represent us in front of the Courts in public and behind closed doors to prevent us from hearing everything he has to say.

I would imagine anyone who was put in a position to move forward with self-litigation and was present at this hearing should have had the right to attend the private session at the end of this proceeding – seems inappropriate you were asked to leave and shown the door by the Dream Team!!

Action No.: 170322524
Presiding, Judge Gill – Court of Queen’s Bench


*Exert 1:*
Page 28

3 Ms. -- Ms. Avery will make that a priority. And
4 they will get a copy of the affidavit. It doesn't have anyone's contact information because
5 in my view, I agree with my friend, that's -- some of these people, even if they're non-
6 settling, may not want to talk to anybody about this, you know? This is -- *this is not
7 probably the highlight of their lives*, Sir. And so, I -- the information can be made available
8 as its filed, and I'm prepared to continue to do that.

*Option 2 people – is this issue with Northmont important to you?*


*Exert 2:*
Pg 42
MR. KING talking,
29 .... there are also privacy issues which prevail I
30 think, in terms of my individual clients who have settled, that *this is not what they would
31 consider a high point in their lives and they would just assume that the general public wasn't
32 aware of what it cost them* to extract themselves from this situation which many of them
33 have described in similar manners as the folks in front of you today.
*
Option 1 people – are you suffering as a result of this issue with Northmont and if you could, would you scream from the top of a hill how badly you have been abused?*


Next up – Who was best prepared for this hearing to provide “Precedent” and “Rules of the Court” information to the Judge.


----------



## LilMaggie

I appears that the actual paper copy of the release agreements will not be sent out until May 31 as they are waiting for the hardship request folks to pay up as well and send them all out at once?
That's the way I understand it.


----------



## torqued

dotbuhler said:


> EXCELLENT REBUTTAL!!


Wow. You are hired. If you argued this case we’d be celebrating in the streets!!


----------



## GypsyOne

torqued said:


> Wow. You are hired. If you argued this case we’d be celebrating in the streets!!



I wrote that post in TUG BBS some time ago when for a short time Northmont was openly discussing the case in open forum with TS owners.  The conversation didn't last long, probably because they found themselves on the losing end of the logic and merit discussion. At that time life seemed much simpler.  We assumed that contracts and leases meant something, words meant what they said, the courts were fair arbitrators of truth, cases were won and lost on the merits of your arguement, not on your influence and the size of your war chest, and enough people had integrity to assure that truth would prevail.  That has all proven to be terribly naive.  Not only did we lose several times in court, but not one snippet of our case was found to have merit by the judges.  I find it almost incredible that the courts could be so one-sided and myopic.  I bought out when it became painfully obvious that we could not win, at least with the JEKE test case approach.  However, I continue to follow the case and I'm hoping that those currently carrying on the battle have found an approach that works.  Perhaps an honest judge will be found who believes in the integrity of a contract and justice will prevail.  Good luck to those fighting on.


----------



## MarcieL

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I would love to share this entire transcript but feel it only fair to share some highlights with my own narrative out of respect for it costing Truth so much money to purchase it - the transcript is a short read but a telling tale in my opinion how two lawyers are collaboratively working a Judge for a collective goal.
> 
> 
> In doing an initial read of the Reid Vs Northmont_March 8, 2018_Transcript I am finding it very informative as to the attitude our own counsel has taken towards us, their clients, which I would have thought would have come more from the Northmont lawyer MR. VIRTUE than someone who is payed to serve and protect our interests.
> 
> I will post a few exerts starting with these that in my opinion appear to imply that we all look at this matter with Northmont as a trivial in nature and are embarrassed as to what Michael Geldert coerced us into paying via the extorted settlement agreement amount to Northmont who he negotiated us to quite handsomely sell out our future memories and investments as expressed by Barry King from Strathcona Law Group below who at this point still continues to represent us in front of the Courts in public and behind closed doors to prevent us from hearing everything he has to say.
> 
> I would imagine anyone who was put in a position to move forward with self-litigation and was present at this hearing should have had the right to attend the private session at the end of this proceeding – seems inappropriate you were asked to leave and shown the door by the Dream Team!!
> 
> Action No.: 170322524
> Presiding, Judge Gill – Court of Queen’s Bench
> 
> 
> *Exert 1:*
> Page 28
> 
> 3 Ms. -- Ms. Avery will make that a priority. And
> 4 they will get a copy of the affidavit. It doesn't have anyone's contact information because
> 5 in my view, I agree with my friend, that's -- some of these people, even if they're non-
> 6 settling, may not want to talk to anybody about this, you know? This is -- *this is not
> 7 probably the highlight of their lives*, Sir. And so, I -- the information can be made available
> 8 as its filed, and I'm prepared to continue to do that.
> 
> *Option 2 people – is this issue with Northmont important to you?*
> 
> 
> *Exert 2:*
> Pg 42
> MR. KING talking,
> 29 .... there are also privacy issues which prevail I
> 30 think, in terms of my individual clients who have settled, that *this is not what they would
> 31 consider a high point in their lives and they would just assume that the general public wasn't
> 32 aware of what it cost them* to extract themselves from this situation which many of them
> 33 have described in similar manners as the folks in front of you today.
> *
> Option 1 people – are you suffering as a result of this issue with Northmont and if you could, would you scream from the top of a hill how badly you have been abused?*
> 
> 
> Next up – Who was best prepared for this hearing to provide “Precedent” and “Rules of the Court” information to the Judge.


Omg who is King working for?   This is something ,heart breaking after settling for 40 grand I would like everyone to know about this abuse and extortion.  Option 1 people cannot appeal however why not,prior to 2003, judge young declared 5% interest on  contracts during the Feb 28. hearing. Our releases are dated March 1. I think we should all collectively appeal as she obviously did not recognize the unilateral changes to those of us that purchased prior to 2003, ours was 1994.


----------



## Petus@18

dotbuhler said:


> Going forward, here's a "blast from the past" that actually addressed the B.C. Court case and is worth getting in front of Justice Gill's eyes. Can everyone say "AFFIDAVIT"!!!



Hopefully this time people in this forum will get your message Dotbuhler!  If anyone wants to make their voice be heard by Judge Gill, then file an Affidavit and tell him your story.  If you are part of the Reid's action, get involved in the appeal even if you settled.  The chances of getting back and fight to get your money back is worth a try.   Chances of succeding with this judge are 30/70, but that can change if the court receives hundreds of affidavits filed before May 10th.   If you were sued in BC, helping the AB appeal, by filing your Affidavits, you would be helping yourself as well.  If God help us and we win this appeal, then you all can appeal as well. 

As Dotbuhler said, can you say AFFIDAVIT?  
I can A F F I D A V I T  yayyyyy


----------



## truthr

If you want to know what REALLY happened in Edmonton on March 8th, 2018 - I have the official transcripts.
Although there were people there - thanks to those who showed up and spoke - a transcript is recorded by a neutral party sans personal feelings, biases and prejudices.

If you want a copy just send me a message here in the conversation section.

Cost to you - $30.00.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

*Who was best prepared for this hearing to provide “Precedent” and “Rule of the Court” information to Judge Gill?*

*Non other than Barry King from Strathcona Law Group - MR. VIRTUE only needed to be a bobble head doll and nod his head to show the Judge his consent as **Barry provided everything that was needed to seal the deal* _(wonder it he brought this info with him to the court or if someone gave it too him?  Kind of stinks of collaboration in my opinion)_

Funny how Barry conveniently forgot the most important document for this court date which was the "non-settling client list" which naturally Judge Gill requested as this was the primary reason everyone was getting together _(da)_ and it wasn't filed with everything else _(I guess it isn't a big surprise for the Court this time but go figure it wasn't filed)_ but that's worth another whole highlight _(looking back to our other trial transcripts this seems to be a convenient presentation trend / strategy of Barry's - wonder it this worked for him much in grade school - next court date I wonder if his dog will have ate something he needs to present)_

Context - this exclusive and private conversation occurred after the court was cleared between the Dream Team and Judge Gill to have the Court suppress records both Counsels do not want as part of the court records to prevent it becoming available to the media.

*Exert 1:*
Page 41
37 MR. KING: My Lord, there -- there is an issue and as you can
38 tell from some of the questions that were addressed to you, these people who continue to
39 defend this matter, to some extent, have a perception that they have an interest in what
40 transpired between my settling clients and Northmont. And the difficulty that we want to
41 address is that *there is an affidavit that has been filed which sets out in some degree of*
Page 42 <con’t>
1* detail, those settlement terms, the amounts paid, and even attaches an exhibit of the actual*
2* cheque that went from Mr. Geldert to Northmont.*
3
4 *My friend and I have talked* about this, he's -- we filled the gap by doing the reverse image
5 which is to say these are the 76 people who haven't settled. And -- and so, the evidence
6 before you today is simply Ms. Avery's _(FYI this person works for Barry King)_ affidavit as opposed to *the larger more omnibus*
7* affidavit. *And *I was going to bring an application (a) to seal that affidavit so that nobody*
8* could obtain a copy *from the clerk, and secondly, have it withdrawn from the court record
9 and returned to my friend. And my friend as I understand it, is content to have the affidavit
10 withdrawn.
11
12 *The difficulty with sealing of course, is that --*
13
14 THE COURT: Got to give notice and all sorts of things.
15
16 MR. VIRTUE: Yeah.
17
18 MR. KING: -- *there's notice to the media, there's -- pretty*
19* soon everybody knows about it before you seal it and then you have a problem.* Now I
20 know there are *decisions by some such as former Chief Justice Wachowich in which*
21 *sealing happened on an ex-parte basis but that was a pretty narrow issue*.

35 THE COURT:* Okay I'm just going through my mind here in*
36* terms of what might be the -- you know, something that's been filed, un-filing it, it sounds*
37* -- sounds like Harry Potter or something. I don’t know if I can do that.*
38
39 MR. VIRTUE: Yeah. _(__not agreeing this is  Harry Potter – agreeing with Barry’s Chief Justice stuff)_
40
41 MR. KING: There --43
1
2 THE COURT: But what I --
3
4 *MR. KING: There is precedent --*
5
6 THE COURT: Well what I --
7
8 MR. KING: -- for that, Sir.
9
10 THE COURT: There is hey?
11
12* MR. KING: But it **is from Ontario. *_(how long did it take to find this I wonder)_


*Exert 2:*
Page 44
23 MR. KING: *Under the Rules Sir, you have the authority under*
24* 368(4) to strike out all or any part of an affidavit that contains frivolous, irrelevant or*
25* improper information.* And I'm not going to characterize the information in question --
26
27 MR. VIRTUE: The --
28
29 MR. KING: -- *but you could issue an order sealing that so the*
30* clerk can't disseminate it, and then the order would also require them to remove the exhibits*
31* as being filed -- basically irrelevant to the matters before you*


*Next up – Barry King is late*


----------



## dotbuhler

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> *Who was best prepared for this hearing to provide “Precedent” and “Rule of the Court” information to Judge Gill?*
> 
> *Non other than Barry King from Strathcona Law Group - MR. VIRTUE only needed to be a bobble head doll and nod his head to show the Judge his consent as **Barry provided everything that was needed to seal the deal* _(wonder it he brought this info with him to the court or if someone gave it too him?  Kind of stinks of collaboration in my opinion)_
> 
> Funny how Barry conveniently forgot the most important document for this court date which was the "non-settling client list" which naturally Judge Gill requested as this was the primary reason everyone was getting together _(da)_ and it wasn't filed with everything else _(I guess it isn't a big surprise for the Court this time but go figure it wasn't filed)_ but that's worth another whole highlight _(looking back to our other trial transcripts this seems to be a convenient presentation trend / strategy of Barry's - wonder it this worked for him much in grade school - next court date I wonder if his dog will have ate something he needs to present)_
> 
> Context - this exclusive and private conversation occurred after the court was cleared between the Dream Team and Judge Gill to have the Court suppress records both Counsels do not want as part of the court records to prevent it becoming available to the media.
> 
> *Exert 1:*
> Page 41
> 37 MR. KING: My Lord, there -- there is an issue and as you can
> 38 tell from some of the questions that were addressed to you, these people who continue to
> 39 defend this matter, to some extent, have a perception that they have an interest in what
> 40 transpired between my settling clients and Northmont. And the difficulty that we want to
> 41 address is that *there is an affidavit that has been filed which sets out in some degree of*
> Page 42 <con’t>
> 1* detail, those settlement terms, the amounts paid, and even attaches an exhibit of the actual*
> 2* cheque that went from Mr. Geldert to Northmont.*
> 3
> 4 *My friend and I have talked* about this, he's -- we filled the gap by doing the reverse image
> 5 which is to say these are the 76 people who haven't settled. And -- and so, the evidence
> 6 before you today is simply Ms. Avery's _(FYI this person works for Barry King)_ affidavit as opposed to *the larger more omnibus*
> 7* affidavit. *And *I was going to bring an application (a) to seal that affidavit so that nobody*
> 8* could obtain a copy *from the clerk, and secondly, have it withdrawn from the court record
> 9 and returned to my friend. And my friend as I understand it, is content to have the affidavit
> 10 withdrawn.
> 11
> 12 *The difficulty with sealing of course, is that --*
> 13
> 14 THE COURT: Got to give notice and all sorts of things.
> 15
> 16 MR. VIRTUE: Yeah.
> 17
> 18 MR. KING: -- *there's notice to the media, there's -- pretty*
> 19* soon everybody knows about it before you seal it and then you have a problem.* Now I
> 20 know there are *decisions by some such as former Chief Justice Wachowich in which*
> 21 *sealing happened on an ex-parte basis but that was a pretty narrow issue*.
> 
> 35 THE COURT:* Okay I'm just going through my mind here in*
> 36* terms of what might be the -- you know, something that's been filed, un-filing it, it sounds*
> 37* -- sounds like Harry Potter or something. I don’t know if I can do that.*
> 38
> 39 MR. VIRTUE: Yeah. _(__not agreeing this is  Harry Potter – agreeing with Barry’s Chief Justice stuff)_
> 40
> 41 MR. KING: There --43
> 1
> 2 THE COURT: But what I --
> 3
> 4 *MR. KING: There is precedent --*
> 5
> 6 THE COURT: Well what I --
> 7
> 8 MR. KING: -- for that, Sir.
> 9
> 10 THE COURT: There is hey?
> 11
> 12* MR. KING: But it **is from Ontario. *_(how long did it take to find this I wonder)_
> 
> 
> *Exert 2:*
> Page 44
> 23 MR. KING: *Under the Rules Sir, you have the authority under*
> 24* 368(4) to strike out all or any part of an affidavit that contains frivolous, irrelevant or*
> 25* improper information.* And I'm not going to characterize the information in question --
> 26
> 27 MR. VIRTUE: The --
> 28
> 29 MR. KING: -- *but you could issue an order sealing that so the*
> 30* clerk can't disseminate it, and then the order would also require them to remove the exhibits*
> 31* as being filed -- basically irrelevant to the matters before you*
> 
> 
> *Next up – Barry King is late*


Speaking to Barry King and the non-settling client list, has anybody had any communication from his office? No acknowledgement of emails, no response to voice mail messages! What kind of a shyster is he? Oh, right...birds of a feather!!


----------



## CleoB

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> I would love to share this entire transcript but feel it only fair to share some highlights with my own narrative out of respect for it costing Truth so much money to purchase it - the transcript is a short read but a telling tale in my opinion how two lawyers are collaboratively working a Judge for a collective goal.
> 
> 
> In doing an initial read of the Reid Vs Northmont_March 8, 2018_Transcript I am finding it very informative as to the attitude our own counsel has taken towards us, their clients, which I would have thought would have come more from the Northmont lawyer MR. VIRTUE than someone who is payed to serve and protect our interests.
> 
> I will post a few exerts starting with these that in my opinion appear to imply that we all look at this matter with Northmont as a trivial in nature and are embarrassed as to what Michael Geldert coerced us into paying via the extorted settlement agreement amount to Northmont who he negotiated us to quite handsomely sell out our future memories and investments as expressed by Barry King from Strathcona Law Group below who at this point still continues to represent us in front of the Courts in public and behind closed doors to prevent us from hearing everything he has to say.
> 
> I would imagine anyone who was put in a position to move forward with self-litigation and was present at this hearing should have had the right to attend the private session at the end of this proceeding – seems inappropriate you were asked to leave and shown the door by the Dream Team!!
> 
> Action No.: 170322524
> Presiding, Judge Gill – Court of Queen’s Bench
> 
> 
> *Exert 1:*
> Page 28
> 
> 3 Ms. -- Ms. Avery will make that a priority. And
> 4 they will get a copy of the affidavit. It doesn't have anyone's contact information because
> 5 in my view, I agree with my friend, that's -- some of these people, even if they're non-
> 6 settling, may not want to talk to anybody about this, you know? This is -- *this is not
> 7 probably the highlight of their lives*, Sir. And so, I -- the information can be made available
> 8 as its filed, and I'm prepared to continue to do that.
> 
> *Option 2 people – is this issue with Northmont important to you?*
> 
> 
> *Exert 2:*
> Pg 42
> MR. KING talking,
> 29 .... there are also privacy issues which prevail I
> 30 think, in terms of my individual clients who have settled, that *this is not what they would
> 31 consider a high point in their lives and they would just assume that the general public wasn't
> 32 aware of what it cost them* to extract themselves from this situation which many of them
> 33 have described in similar manners as the folks in front of you today.
> *
> Option 1 people – are you suffering as a result of this issue with Northmont and if you could, would you scream from the top of a hill how badly you have been abused?*
> 
> 
> Next up – Who was best prepared for this hearing to provide “Precedent” and “Rules of the Court” information to the Judge.




Is there anything in the settlement agreement that states option one people that settled can not file an appeal?


----------



## CleoB

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> *Who was best prepared for this hearing to provide “Precedent” and “Rule of the Court” information to Judge Gill?*
> 
> *Non other than Barry King from Strathcona Law Group - MR. VIRTUE only needed to be a bobble head doll and nod his head to show the Judge his consent as **Barry provided everything that was needed to seal the deal* _(wonder it he brought this info with him to the court or if someone gave it too him?  Kind of stinks of collaboration in my opinion)_
> 
> Funny how Barry conveniently forgot the most important document for this court date which was the "non-settling client list" which naturally Judge Gill requested as this was the primary reason everyone was getting together _(da)_ and it wasn't filed with everything else _(I guess it isn't a big surprise for the Court this time but go figure it wasn't filed)_ but that's worth another whole highlight _(looking back to our other trial transcripts this seems to be a convenient presentation trend / strategy of Barry's - wonder it this worked for him much in grade school - next court date I wonder if his dog will have ate something he needs to present)_
> 
> Context - this exclusive and private conversation occurred after the court was cleared between the Dream Team and Judge Gill to have the Court suppress records both Counsels do not want as part of the court records to prevent it becoming available to the media.
> 
> *Exert 1:*
> Page 41
> 37 MR. KING: My Lord, there -- there is an issue and as you can
> 38 tell from some of the questions that were addressed to you, these people who continue to
> 39 defend this matter, to some extent, have a perception that they have an interest in what
> 40 transpired between my settling clients and Northmont. And the difficulty that we want to
> 41 address is that *there is an affidavit that has been filed which sets out in some degree of*
> Page 42 <con’t>
> 1* detail, those settlement terms, the amounts paid, and even attaches an exhibit of the actual*
> 2* cheque that went from Mr. Geldert to Northmont.*
> 3
> 4 *My friend and I have talked* about this, he's -- we filled the gap by doing the reverse image
> 5 which is to say these are the 76 people who haven't settled. And -- and so, the evidence
> 6 before you today is simply Ms. Avery's _(FYI this person works for Barry King)_ affidavit as opposed to *the larger more omnibus*
> 7* affidavit. *And *I was going to bring an application (a) to seal that affidavit so that nobody*
> 8* could obtain a copy *from the clerk, and secondly, have it withdrawn from the court record
> 9 and returned to my friend. And my friend as I understand it, is content to have the affidavit
> 10 withdrawn.
> 11
> 12 *The difficulty with sealing of course, is that --*
> 13
> 14 THE COURT: Got to give notice and all sorts of things.
> 15
> 16 MR. VIRTUE: Yeah.
> 17
> 18 MR. KING: -- *there's notice to the media, there's -- pretty*
> 19* soon everybody knows about it before you seal it and then you have a problem.* Now I
> 20 know there are *decisions by some such as former Chief Justice Wachowich in which*
> 21 *sealing happened on an ex-parte basis but that was a pretty narrow issue*.
> 
> 35 THE COURT:* Okay I'm just going through my mind here in*
> 36* terms of what might be the -- you know, something that's been filed, un-filing it, it sounds*
> 37* -- sounds like Harry Potter or something. I don’t know if I can do that.*
> 38
> 39 MR. VIRTUE: Yeah. _(__not agreeing this is  Harry Potter – agreeing with Barry’s Chief Justice stuff)_
> 40
> 41 MR. KING: There --43
> 1
> 2 THE COURT: But what I --
> 3
> 4 *MR. KING: There is precedent --*
> 5
> 6 THE COURT: Well what I --
> 7
> 8 MR. KING: -- for that, Sir.
> 9
> 10 THE COURT: There is hey?
> 11
> 12* MR. KING: But it **is from Ontario. *_(how long did it take to find this I wonder)_
> 
> 
> *Exert 2:*
> Page 44
> 23 MR. KING: *Under the Rules Sir, you have the authority under*
> 24* 368(4) to strike out all or any part of an affidavit that contains frivolous, irrelevant or*
> 25* improper information.* And I'm not going to characterize the information in question --
> 26
> 27 MR. VIRTUE: The --
> 28
> 29 MR. KING: -- *but you could issue an order sealing that so the*
> 30* clerk can't disseminate it, and then the order would also require them to remove the exhibits*
> 31* as being filed -- basically irrelevant to the matters before you*
> 
> 
> *Next up – Barry King is late*


OMG, whose side is King on?????????  This is something that I would expect to come out of the mouth of Virtue not King.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

CleoB said:


> Is there anything in the settlement agreement that states option one people that settled can not file an appeal?


Let us take the opportunity to present it to the Judge in May via an Affidavit and he can decide what he is willing to accept.

We cannot ask our current (or past counsel) as they have done and continuing to do everything to obstruct us so whatever they say is mute.  

An example, has any Option 2 people received their Geldert/King request to release contact info or documentation care packages yet?  Didn't think so - guess this speaks for itself.

The settlement agreement was obtained fraudulently in my opinion and is not mutually beneficial to any of the Option 1 people compared to what Northmont received in return - as people who can self represent, we have a more latitude to ask for the Court's direction then what lawyers are bond to when presenting and trust me, we will not be working mutually to bury stuff other parties want stifled.

Appealing may not immediately get Option 1 peoples money back but it's a stepping stone and possibly an opportunity to get the truth heard which is a goal in itself for something monetarily beneficial down the road.

I can pretty much bet on Northmont not thinking the Option 1 people would still want to support Option 2 people in the appeal but we are still all comrades, there is new evidence, a new Judge, and a retired legal team that will not be able mess things up or hinder us any longer which are being replaced by people with the motivation to succeed who still have a lot going for them.

If we don't try, we truly have lost!!


----------



## truthr

My apologies to all who have asked me to be their voice for taking so long to get back to this very important task but I am back at it and will get to all of them - one day at a time.

Please everyone - share this on your various social media pages.


----------



## CleoB

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Let us take the opportunity to present it to the Judge in May via an Affidavit and he can decide what he is willing to accept.
> 
> We cannot ask our current (or past counsel) as they have done and continuing to do everything to obstruct us so whatever they say is mute.
> 
> An example, has any Option 2 people received their Geldert/King request to release contact info or documentation care packages yet?  Didn't think so - guess this speaks for itself.
> 
> The settlement agreement was obtained fraudulently in my opinion and is not mutually beneficial to any of the Option 1 people compared to what Northmont received in return - as people who can self represent, we have a more latitude to ask for the Court's direction then what lawyers are bond to when presenting and trust me, we will not be working mutually to bury stuff other parties want stifled.
> 
> Appealing may not immediately get Option 1 peoples money back but it's a stepping stone and possibly an opportunity to get the truth heard which is a goal in itself for something monetarily beneficial down the road.
> 
> I can pretty much bet on Northmont not thinking the Option 1 people would still want to support Option 2 people in the appeal but we are still all comrades, there is new evidence, a new Judge, and a retired legal team that will not be able mess things up or hinder us any longer which are being replaced by people with the motivation to succeed who still have a lot going for them.
> 
> If we don't try, we truly have lost!!


Yes, you are very right and I follow your thoughts.  What new evidence are you referring to?  If you do not want to post here, please pm me.


----------



## Shake Down

Everyone has shown each other their goodies now, lots of new info. Its about filtering out the noise during presentation! Hard facts and evidence to overwhelm them!    

Quick question: Whatever came about “Lease Hold Interest Certificates” some of us still have?  I understood these must be legally transferred back to Northmont or must have your written consent to surrender, a court order etc. No mention of them, or just swept up.

Also from my 1992 Lease #37-Modification to lease; 
_"The lessor reserves the right to modify this lease from time to time for the benefit of existing and future lessees, provided that any such adjustment or modification will not in any way materially prejudice the rights of existing lessees. If any such adjustment or modification is effected, the Lessor will provide notice to each Lessee setting out the nature of the adjustment or modification, the reasons of giving rise to such adjustment or modification and the effects thereof" 
_
Did the landlord breach a material obligation? 
_   man _is it 5:00 yet.... lol


----------



## MarcieL

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> *Who was best prepared for this hearing to provide “Precedent” and “Rule of the Court” information to Judge Gill?*
> 
> *Non other than Barry King from Strathcona Law Group - MR. VIRTUE only needed to be a bobble head doll and nod his head to show the Judge his consent as **Barry provided everything that was needed to seal the deal* _(wonder it he brought this info with him to the court or if someone gave it too him?  Kind of stinks of collaboration in my opinion)_
> 
> Funny how Barry conveniently forgot the most important document for this court date which was the "non-settling client list" which naturally Judge Gill requested as this was the primary reason everyone was getting together _(da)_ and it wasn't filed with everything else _(I guess it isn't a big surprise for the Court this time but go figure it wasn't filed)_ but that's worth another whole highlight _(looking back to our other trial transcripts this seems to be a convenient presentation trend / strategy of Barry's - wonder it this worked for him much in grade school - next court date I wonder if his dog will have ate something he needs to present)_
> 
> Context - this exclusive and private conversation occurred after the court was cleared between the Dream Team and Judge Gill to have the Court suppress records both Counsels do not want as part of the court records to prevent it becoming available to the media.
> 
> *Exert 1:*
> Page 41
> 37 MR. KING: My Lord, there -- there is an issue and as you can
> 38 tell from some of the questions that were addressed to you, these people who continue to
> 39 defend this matter, to some extent, have a perception that they have an interest in what
> 40 transpired between my settling clients and Northmont. And the difficulty that we want to
> 41 address is that *there is an affidavit that has been filed which sets out in some degree of*
> Page 42 <con’t>
> 1* detail, those settlement terms, the amounts paid, and even attaches an exhibit of the actual*
> 2* cheque that went from Mr. Geldert to Northmont.*
> 3
> 4 *My friend and I have talked* about this, he's -- we filled the gap by doing the reverse image
> 5 which is to say these are the 76 people who haven't settled. And -- and so, the evidence
> 6 before you today is simply Ms. Avery's _(FYI this person works for Barry King)_ affidavit as opposed to *the larger more omnibus*
> 7* affidavit. *And *I was going to bring an application (a) to seal that affidavit so that nobody*
> 8* could obtain a copy *from the clerk, and secondly, have it withdrawn from the court record
> 9 and returned to my friend. And my friend as I understand it, is content to have the affidavit
> 10 withdrawn.
> 11
> 12 *The difficulty with sealing of course, is that --*
> 13
> 14 THE COURT: Got to give notice and all sorts of things.
> 15
> 16 MR. VIRTUE: Yeah.
> 17
> 18 MR. KING: -- *there's notice to the media, there's -- pretty*
> 19* soon everybody knows about it before you seal it and then you have a problem.* Now I
> 20 know there are *decisions by some such as former Chief Justice Wachowich in which*
> 21 *sealing happened on an ex-parte basis but that was a pretty narrow issue*.
> 
> 35 THE COURT:* Okay I'm just going through my mind here in*
> 36* terms of what might be the -- you know, something that's been filed, un-filing it, it sounds*
> 37* -- sounds like Harry Potter or something. I don’t know if I can do that.*
> 38
> 39 MR. VIRTUE: Yeah. _(__not agreeing this is  Harry Potter – agreeing with Barry’s Chief Justice stuff)_
> 40
> 41 MR. KING: There --43
> 1
> 2 THE COURT: But what I --
> 3
> 4 *MR. KING: There is precedent --*
> 5
> 6 THE COURT: Well what I --
> 7
> 8 MR. KING: -- for that, Sir.
> 9
> 10 THE COURT: There is hey?
> 11
> 12* MR. KING: But it **is from Ontario. *_(how long did it take to find this I wonder)_
> 
> 
> *Exert 2:*
> Page 44
> 23 MR. KING: *Under the Rules Sir, you have the authority under*
> 24* 368(4) to strike out all or any part of an affidavit that contains frivolous, irrelevant or*
> 25* improper information.* And I'm not going to characterize the information in question --
> 26
> 27 MR. VIRTUE: The --
> 28
> 29 MR. KING: -- *but you could issue an order sealing that so the*
> 30* clerk can't disseminate it, and then the order would also require them to remove the exhibits*
> 31* as being filed -- basically irrelevant to the matters before you*
> 
> 
> *Next up – Barry King is late*


Question and pardon my ignorance, but he wants the affidavit concerning the S.A. and it's contents struck from the record is that what King is saying?  Alwayer for someone must've filed this if it has a copy of the cheque from M. G. to N.M.   Please enlighten me?


----------



## J's Garage

I've been just in read only mode for a while, but once again Ultimate_Betrayal posts something that I hope we all pay attention to.



Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> The settlement agreement was obtained fraudulently in my opinion and is not mutually beneficial to any of the Option 1 people compared to what Northmont received in return - as people who can self represent, we have a more latitude to ask for the Court's direction then what lawyers are bond to when presenting and trust me, we will not be working mutually to bury stuff other parties want stifled.
> 
> ...
> 
> If we don't try, we truly have lost!!



What I have given up trying to understand is how our "lawyer" thinks it's reasonable for him to have only ever provided the information "he" thinks we need.  That's how you coerce or manipulate someone into unfavorable.  In what country do we grant law degrees, where one would ever expect to be bound to a contract that has not been reviewed by the "signee".  Am I naive to believe, that reputable lawyers would expect to review the document with the client, after the client has reviewed on their own?

From a government of Canada website:

Before signing a contract there are a few things to keep in mind:


Always read the contract carefully, including the fine print.
Only sign if you understand and agree with everything in the contract.
...

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/oca-bc.nsf/eng/ca02654.html

We aren't lawyers, but was it really unreasonable to expect that we ought to review the agreement before signing in.

Is not what the "lawyer" did to his clients also an unfair trade practice?  Paraphrasing a concept from the regulations states, that if something is vague or uncertain, the terms are to be interpreted to favor the consumer.

In western society law, there is also the concept of "intention to be legally bound".  As I understand it, the concept would mean that if parties wish to form an enforceable agreement, it becomes enforceable only if the (both) parties intended it to be an enforceable contract.

"Is an agreement the same thing as a contract?
A contract is a written or verbal agreement that is enforceable by law.  An agreement is the same, however it is typically not enforced by the law."


MG - made several documented notes that led us to understand that we would be able to review the settlement agreement before a commitment was required.
MG - failed to provide ALL (or even arguably most) pertinent information that his clients could require to make their each informed decisions.
MG - has stated something along the lines that certain individuals failed to provide the instructions he sought. (Yeah, does that even sound like he was taking instructions from the retainer owners
One instance I read up on was where reference was made to having an unassociated bystander given the facts, background, and conditions to which an agreement was reached.  Then the bystander is asked what they felt was the intent of the agreement entered into.

I know lawyers have been asked about the SA itself.  What about the agreement upon which MG has signed on the clients behalf?  I think the importance of signing the agreement to alleviate solicitor responsibility can be noted in the attempts of MG to still get signatures through the hardship waiver's.  Unfortunately, my best guess is that by signing the settlement agreement, (directly or through the hardship waiver), contesting the conditions in which the settlement agreement was presented to the clients will produce some difficulty.


----------



## J's Garage

I needed levity.

Do you need some levity?  (just read through the questions if you want)


https://www.counseling-office.com/surveys/test_psychopathy.phtml


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

MarcieL said:


> Question and pardon my ignorance, but he wants the affidavit concerning the S.A. and it's contents struck from the record is that what King is saying?  Alwayer for someone must've filed this if it has a copy of the cheque from M. G. to N.M.   Please enlighten me?


You hit the nail right on the head!!!

Reading this transcript and the last one is very disconcerting to me that Geldert and SLG were supposed to be on our side.

What's telling is what was said and we are told over time - there definitely is a HUGE grey area these guys are using that keep us in the dark.

No wonder they don't want us to review the documentation and are trying hard to filter/prevent us from getting it using things like litigation privilege or confidentiality - it's a load of BS.

Our retainer agreement clarifies the confidentiality part and the lawyer client relationship eliminates the privilege (we payed for it and are entitled to everything but say my individual correspondences with Geldert - anything that related to the group should have been presented to the group)


----------



## MarcieL

Why is King doing this to the very people he was paid to defend?  The settlement agreement had a gag is that why. The Judge shouldn't be aware of the extortion that was inflicted upon us to leave. I am disgusted with B.K.  I thought he was dropping the option 2 clients why is he involved?  Why did he get his associate to post an affadavit can someone clarify I do not understand .


----------



## MarcieL

Edited to the judge Should be aware.


----------



## truthr




----------



## truthr

_When people go out of their way to concoct a lie on a checkable thing,_
_whether or not you care about them lying,_
_you should probably look more closely at the thing they are lying about._
_Not just the fact that they lied but what they lied about. _
~ direct quote ~ Rachel Maddow, March 16, 2018


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> I wrote that post in TUG BBS some time ago when for a short time Northmont was openly discussing the case in open forum with TS owners.  The conversation didn't last long, probably because they found themselves on the losing end of the logic and merit discussion. At that time life seemed much simpler.  We assumed that contracts and leases meant something, words meant what they said, the courts were fair arbitrators of truth, cases were won and lost on the merits of your arguement, not on your influence and the size of your war chest, and enough people had integrity to assure that truth would prevail.  That has all proven to be terribly naive.  Not only did we lose several times in court, but not one snippet of our case was found to have merit by the judges.  I find it almost incredible that the courts could be so one-sided and myopic.  I bought out when it became painfully obvious that we could not win, at least with the JEKE test case approach.  However, I continue to follow the case and I'm hoping that those currently carrying on the battle have found an approach that works.  Perhaps an honest judge will be found who believes in the integrity of a contract and justice will prevail.  Good luck to those fighting on.


Thanks GypsyOne These Judges are working together ever since Justice Loo ruled wrongly right at the start of this scam. I would of ruled that this corrupt Trustee had Know right to petition the Supreme Court of B.C.,that is not in our Lease contract. Show me where judges,where this Trustee had the right to do this unfair practice against time owners? We  all know now none of these Lawyers representing us were qualified to be involved in this case. I feel the same way about these Judges. It appears to me they are working for Northmont. What is the most they can do to us throw us in jail. That would be a great story in the newspapers. Time owners refuse to pay the extortion for a worthless time Share resort. Time owners were not paying proper amount of money for years because of poor management by the resort managers but it is still the responsiblity of the time owners to catch this and now they are going to pay. I suppose this is also the way our contract reads. It is pretty bad Judges when you think a Special Assessment means replacing the resort and not general maintenance. This shows me you know nothing about time Share. This also shows me you have no respect for innocent people’s money. Shame on all you people that have abused the justice system.


----------



## LilMaggie

Spark1 said:


> Thanks GypsyOne These Judges are working together ever since Justice Loo ruled wrongly right at the start of this scam. I would of ruled that this corrupt Trustee had Know right to petition the Supreme Court of B.C.,that is not in our Lease contract. Show me where judges,where this Trustee had the right to do this unfair practice against time owners? We  all know now none of these Lawyers representing us were qualified to be involved in this case. I feel the same way about these Judges. It appears to me they are working for Northmont. What is the most they can do to us throw us in jail. That would be a great story in the newspapers. Time owners refuse to pay the extortion for a worthless time Share resort. Time owners were not paying proper amount of money for years because of poor management by the resort managers but it is still the responsiblity of the time owners to catch this and now they are going to pay. I suppose this is also the way our contract reads. It is pretty bad Judges when you think a Special Assessment means replacing the resort and not general maintenance. This shows me you know nothing about time Share. This also shows me you have no respect for innocent people’s money. Shame on all you people that have abused the justice system.


Welcome back Spark!


----------



## aden2

*A trial de novo*
In general, de novo is a Latin phrase that means something along the lines of anew, beginning again, afresh, or from the beginning. In a legal context is most commonly used in a trial de novo, or a new trial. In a trial de novo, a different tribunal is used, often by the authority of the appellate court. A trial de novo is most often ordered when the original court did not properly make a determination in a case in the way that is appropriate by the law.

Unlike an appeals court, a trial de novo is tried as though there was never any prior trial, although it is a form of an appeal. New evidence cannot be submitted in a trial de novo. However, if is often done in a small claims court. A trial de novo may not only be requested by an individual who was involved in arbitration, but it can also be requested by someone involved in an administrative agency decision.

The general rule of the court is that appeal must be based only on the points of law instead of the points of fact. Appeals are usually rely on the claim that the judge or jury did not look at all the facts. If this claim is found to be true, the appeal judge often will order a trial de novo. The important issue is protecting an individual's rights against being tried for the same crime twice, or double jeopardy.

In order to apply for a trial de novo, an application is often required. The application can be given to the clerk associated to the circuit judge within 10 days of the when the first judgment was rendered in order to secure a trial de novo.

The application for a trial de novo application also gets mailed to the opposing party or his or her attorney by the clerk, or it can also be served as provided by the law for the service of notices up to 15 days after the rendered judgment

A trial de novo application often cannot be served until the applicant is approved by the associate circuit judge. This must be performed within the time given before the circuit judge to the adverse party. A sufficient fee is also needed to secure the payment of the costs of another judgment, all under the condition that an applicant will carry through the prosecution for trial de novo with due diligence to a decision.

If the trial de novo judgment is found against the individual, the defendant must pay for the judgment, and if the application for trial de novo is dismissed, the individual will pay also the judgment rendered by the circuit judge, in addition to the costs.


----------



## dotbuhler

Looks like Mr. Barry King is itching to get back into the sights of The Alberta Law Society Disciplinary Board. If there is NO list forthcoming after more than a week, NO reply to emails, NO response from voice mails, he is guilty of an obstruction of Justice.


----------



## truthr

Dot shared a link to this earlier but it appears the link has disappeared
No worries I downloaded it onto my laptop from the original source.

Here it is for those who may be interested - It is about Litigation Privilege.


----------



## aden2

Maximum allowable cost of borrowing 124.61(1)  A payday lender shall not charge, require or accept a total cost of borrowing that exceeds 15% of the principal amount of the payday loan. (2)  The maximum total cost of borrowing under subsection (1) must include the fees for all mandatory and optional services provided by the payday lender in relation to a payday loan and any other fees or charges set out in the regulations. (3)  In addition to the cost set out in subsection (1), if a borrower fails to repay the amount specified in the payday loan agreement, the payday lender may charge the following:  (a) *interest at a rate of 2.5% per month, not to be compounded;  (b) *a one-time fee in an amount determined by the Director for each dishonoured cheque or dishonoured pre-authorized debit. 2016 cE-9.5 s8


----------



## CleoB

If you wrote a letter to Geldert which was to be forwarded to Northmount saying that you reject their amendments then include that in your dispute note.


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> If you wrote a letter to Geldert which was to be forwarded to Northmount saying that you reject their amendments then include that in your dispute note.


Any correspondence  which notifies Northmont of your objections (and Geldert directed us as his clients to do so twice in the past 2 or 3 years) are also an IMPORTANT addition to those Affidavits you are in the process of, or have already filed. Judge Young specifically speaks to this as part of her Decision. As such, they are absolutely relevant to the Appeal that will be decided upon on May 10, 2018. Remember that May 3, 2018 is the date on which the Court should have that documentation in hand. Justice Gill needs to see them BEFORE May 10th!
I know that prior to my retaining Geldert I personally wrote two other letters to Wankel and ASSociates pointing out my objections.


----------



## Petus@18

Believe it or not, we are still receiving reply letters such as this one:

"The issue you have raised falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Attorney General. We have, therefore, taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence to the minister responsible, the Honourable David Eby, for his review and consideration"

Should you wish to contact Minister Eby directly, you may reach him at:

Honourable David Eby
Attorney General
PO Box 9044 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
Email: AG.Minister@gov.bc.ca

Did you send this minister a letter?  You probably did already,  if not here is his contact information.


----------



## Petus@18

Sunday's humour
Q: What's the difference between a bad lawyer and Geldert?
A: A bad lawyer makes your case drag on for a couple of years.  Geldert makes it last even longer!!!

Let's continue phoning B King requesting the contact list.
Enjoy your evening!


----------



## dotbuhler

STRATEGY #1 *This week everyone phones Barry King's office asking for the List of 76. Phone # 780-417-9222, Barry King ext. #201, Carla Avery ext. # 209. YEAH, IT'LL PROBABLY BE A VOICE MAIL RESPONSE. RECORD YOUR MESSAGE LEAVING CONTACT DETAILS. If there is no response from either of those two and the list is NOT actually in some of our hands by Thursday, March 22, a full 2 weeks since Court, we move on to the second stage. At a date unknown to SLG we fill those 2 voice mailboxes to the nubs. No clients getting through, no messages other than ours on there. Not a good thing for any business.*


----------



## MgolferL

We have been gone for a while and I started reading the posts form Page 185, where I left off. Sounds like some good work going on and some people still rehashing opinions of injustice, which is I guess is a form of dealing with it....

Some points, perhaps someone can comment on...
1. I took Option 1 and paid. Got an email notification...not EVEN personalized that KW had signed the papers and apparently we are no longer on the NM family...thank God.
2. I am reading that Option 1, although a bit of a long-shot can file a dispute (?) with Justice Gill which may be heard?
3. The money will probably be long gone to get anything back from NM, but I am going after MG and have sent letters to the BC LS and got back replies they are looking at it.
4. I will (as BB mentioned in a post) be interested to help Option 2 people fight this...in other words stand as a united front against NM & MG. I MAY have a gag order, but didn't sign anywhere that I couldn't support someone else in their fight against the Dark Lord.

SOOOOOO...
1. Question 2 above...for those in the know today...is that the way to go, and there is a lot of "you should do,s" out there, but has anyone gone thru the entire process and be willing to put down the steps from1+ so those of late can still be in the game to help and/or...?
2. Have any meetings been scheduled...Calgary and/or Edmonton that we could collectively meet and chart a course to accomplish numerous filings with Judge Gill, and the best ways to support Option 2 people moving forward. 

What I had to pay did not break the bank and I could walk away and call it a day. I am over the emotional crap I was going thru a month ago though...however, the BS perpetuated by NM, KW and MG needs to be dealt with and justice brought to all by THIS group. The government(s) who so desperately lie to get votes have cut the rope and cast us away....ON A SIDE NOTE...I actually got a call from the NDP party doing a survey wondering what people thought of their progress to date...which was apparently recorded.  I named ALL the NDP members I sent letters to and how ineffective and useless they have been in this process, even though they wanted to talk free light bulbs and shower-heads. They couldn't end it fast enough...

And Lastly...Even though I support the UCP, Jason Kenney and the gang, their LACK OF RESPONSE has been deafening as well. We, as a group need to bring down the house of cards.

Cheers and glad to be back...


----------



## MarcieL

Call Kenny's office he is now in opposition this maybe helpful.  I am option 1 also, paid 40 grand to get out. Cannot continue the fight in our 70's and had to take out a bank loan.


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

Am I correct in understanding there are two groups, Option 1's and Option 2's, each of whom is contemplating legal action against Michael W. Geldert? This is of course in addition to the complaints many of us have filed regarding Mr. Geldert with the BC Law Society.

Why two groups? How much sense does this make? So there are now what, three Facebook groups? Someone isn't playing well with others.

I don't fully understand the paranoia about Geldert, or Northmont for that matter, finding out our strategy. Sure it would be great if we pulled a Geldert and surprised them with our position at the 11th hour. But we can't be worried about surprising them, it means little. Besides, how'd that work out for Geldert?

As has been pointed out here so wisely, facts are facts. What we are relying upon as evidence is in the past, so knowing our strategy is virtually moot to Geldert. He can't change his past actions.

What's next then, the pre-2004 leasees splitting from the 2004-plus leasees? Damn, me and my big mouth. Watch that will happen.

This all makes as much sense to me as the left-handers splitting from the right-handers. It will cost $200,000 anyway, probably more to fight this fight once, let alone twice. Mark my martini slurred words, both groups will fizzle due to lack of funds.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

*Barry King, is he late or does he just have different priorities?*

During the March 8th “Speak To” Barry King from Strathcona Law Group made a ton of reference his obligation to getting documentation out to clients and that his office was in the process of completing all the withdrawal of counsel notices as he recognized it was his duty in getting things wrapped up so his clients could move forward with their own appeals (*or more like it was being said as lip service to the Court as this is what he needed to say on record*).

The Court recognized there was an issue related to *how do Option 2 people get in touch with each other to continue* and Barry King was to run with getting consent (step 1) and create a list with contact info (step 2) to facilitate Option 2 people being able to communicate with each other.  Now from my interpretation below this consent and info gathering should have started at the very latest a week after the March 8th instructions Barry King agreed to with Justice Gill summarized in the transcripts below.

Now in my opinion there is no excuse Option 2 people have not been contacted yet as this should be a very easy undertaking.

Barry King’s office as per Carla Avery’s affidavit already has all of your names and from what I understand their office contacted several, if not all, non-settling individuals weeks ago trying to solicit you for SLG services (believe the offer was for a $250 consultation) so to the best of my knowledge this leads me to believe they already have basic contact info for everyone so what is the hold up?  

The clock is ticking so everyday move’s everyone closer to prepare for May 3rd and May 10th – this also means it’s moving closer for a new round of complaints to the Alberta Law Society and Justice Gill via an affidavit stating as part time was eroded by another failure getting the job accepted by Counsel done.

Unfortunately this has happened before with Barry King (link below) but don’t get discouraged as in the transcript Justice Gill recognized people’s distain for Barry King as Counsel and that this could appeared to be an efficient process to move forward but Justice Gill appears to be a very reasonable person so this shortcoming will just need to be conveyed to his Lordship and a new process set if required.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abls/doc/2010/2010abls9/2010abls9.html?resultIndex=20

FYI - Carla Avery works for Barry King and prepared a list of name’s as an affidavit that was not yet filed with the courts that day but was provided to MR. VIRTUE and the Court Marth 8th.


Pg 32
2 THE COURT: And those are the two first -- the premise of the -
3 - going forward is that the 76 people still in at this point, until they tell us otherwise. There's
4 so many who are out. And in terms of how we move forward with the appeal and the best
5 interests of the 76, we want them to have an opportunity to be able to work collectively,
6 they can't do that unless they have information, so we'll get that information -- or that
7 opportunity for them to share their information, I appreciate that, Mr. King, you'll do that.
8 And that letter will also then have a direction as to a comeback date. I -- you know, I think
9 we may have to take a few steps here before we're ready to actually begin the appeal
10 process.

20 THE COURT: Okay so we have either -- okay so today's -- so
21 Mr. King, if you send -- *if it took you about a week to send out that letter --*
22
23 MR. KING: *Yeah*

Pg 34
23 THE COURT:  there are approximately 76 people still part of the -- the appeal that's been filed. Mr. King
24 will -- I'm just going to suggest something here, Mr. King, maybe there's two documents
25 you -- you sent out maybe two separate documents*, one that is to be returned immediately,
26 perhaps to advise if -- if you're prepared to consent to the release of your personal contact
27 information to the other 76*, and upon you receiving those consents, you will send out that
28 information, Mr. King, is that reasonable to -- to say that?
29
30 *MR. KING: That's absolutely reasonable, Sir, that would be*
31 *certainly appropriate.*

Pg 37
1 MR. KING: It will be served through my office, Sir, if that's
2 acceptable and --
3
4 THE COURT: Okay, that's fine.
5
6 MR. KING: -- I mean we have, I think, the most current
7 contact information for people.


*Based on their priority (MR. VIRTUE, MR. KING, and Geldert) things can happen quickly though – this was in reference to getting an “Order” filed immediately to have the settling parties suppressed and an incriminating Affidavit pulled from record which Barry King wanted to see to personally and had filed the same day negotiated during the close door meeting between the Dream Team and Justice Gill (again initiated by MR.KING).*

Pg 46
14 MR. KING: And Sir, with respect to that order, because Mr.
15 Virtue is going to be traveling back to Calgary, I'd like to get that *order *filed today. Can I
16 -- can you dispense with his approval of the order as long as it's signed by you, and I'll send
17 my student down to get it signed?


Next up – *“So what did people say about Michael Geldert and Barry King?”*


----------



## MarcieL

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> *Barry King, is he late or does he just have different priorities?*
> 
> During the March 8th “Speak To” Barry King from Strathcona Law Group made a ton of reference his obligation to getting documentation out to clients and that his office was in the process of completing all the withdrawal of counsel notices as he recognized it was his duty in getting things wrapped up so his clients could move forward with their own appeals (*or more like it was being said as lip service to the Court as this is what he needed to say on record*).
> 
> The Court recognized there was an issue related to *how do Option 2 people get in touch with each other to continue* and Barry King was to run with getting consent (step 1) and create a list with contact info (step 2) to facilitate Option 2 people being able to communicate with each other.  Now from my interpretation below this consent and info gathering should have started at the very latest a week after the March 8th instructions Barry King agreed to with Justice Gill summarized in the transcripts below.
> 
> Now in my opinion there is no excuse Option 2 people have not been contacted yet as this should be a very easy undertaking.
> 
> Barry King’s office as per Carla Avery’s affidavit already has all of your names and from what I understand their office contacted several, if not all, non-settling individuals weeks ago trying to solicit you for SLG services (believe the offer was for a $250 consultation) so to the best of my knowledge this leads me to believe they already have basic contact info for everyone so what is the hold up?
> 
> The clock is ticking so everyday move’s everyone closer to prepare for May 3rd and May 10th – this also means it’s moving closer for a new round of complaints to the Alberta Law Society and Justice Gill via an affidavit stating as part time was eroded by another failure getting the job accepted by Counsel done.
> 
> Unfortunately this has happened before with Barry King (link below) but don’t get discouraged as in the transcript Justice Gill recognized people’s distain for Barry King as Counsel and that this could appeared to be an efficient process to move forward but Justice Gill appears to be a very reasonable person so this shortcoming will just need to be conveyed to his Lordship and a new process set if required.
> 
> https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abls/doc/2010/2010abls9/2010abls9.html?resultIndex=20
> 
> FYI - Carla Avery works for Barry King and prepared a list of name’s as an affidavit that was not yet filed with the courts that day but was provided to MR. VIRTUE and the Court Marth 8th.
> 
> 
> Pg 32
> 2 THE COURT: And those are the two first -- the premise of the -
> 3 - going forward is that the 76 people still in at this point, until they tell us otherwise. There's
> 4 so many who are out. And in terms of how we move forward with the appeal and the best
> 5 interests of the 76, we want them to have an opportunity to be able to work collectively,
> 6 they can't do that unless they have information, so we'll get that information -- or that
> 7 opportunity for them to share their information, I appreciate that, Mr. King, you'll do that.
> 8 And that letter will also then have a direction as to a comeback date. I -- you know, I think
> 9 we may have to take a few steps here before we're ready to actually begin the appeal
> 10 process.
> 
> 20 THE COURT: Okay so we have either -- okay so today's -- so
> 21 Mr. King, if you send -- *if it took you about a week to send out that letter --*
> 22
> 23 MR. KING: *Yeah*
> 
> Pg 34
> 23 THE COURT:  there are approximately 76 people still part of the -- the appeal that's been filed. Mr. King
> 24 will -- I'm just going to suggest something here, Mr. King, maybe there's two documents
> 25 you -- you sent out maybe two separate documents*, one that is to be returned immediately,
> 26 perhaps to advise if -- if you're prepared to consent to the release of your personal contact
> 27 information to the other 76*, and upon you receiving those consents, you will send out that
> 28 information, Mr. King, is that reasonable to -- to say that?
> 29
> 30 *MR. KING: That's absolutely reasonable, Sir, that would be*
> 31 *certainly appropriate.*
> 
> Pg 37
> 1 MR. KING: It will be served through my office, Sir, if that's
> 2 acceptable and --
> 3
> 4 THE COURT: Okay, that's fine.
> 5
> 6 MR. KING: -- I mean we have, I think, the most current
> 7 contact information for people.
> 
> 
> *Based on their priority (MR. VIRTUE, MR. KING, and Geldert) things can happen quickly though – this was in reference to getting an “Order” filed immediately to have the settling parties suppressed and an incriminating Affidavit pulled from record which Barry King wanted to see to personally and had filed the same day negotiated during the close door meeting between the Dream Team and Justice Gill (again initiated by MR.KING).*
> 
> Pg 46
> 14 MR. KING: And Sir, with respect to that order, because Mr.
> 15 Virtue is going to be traveling back to Calgary, I'd like to get that *order *filed today. Can I
> 16 -- can you dispense with his approval of the order as long as it's signed by you, and I'll send
> 17 my student down to get it signed?
> 
> 
> Next up – *“So what did people say about Michael Geldert and Barry King?”*


I am lost here what was this affidavit Kong filed in Avery 's name?


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

MarcieL said:


> I am lost here what was this affidavit Kong filed in Avery 's name?


Carla Avery on behalf of Barry King as an employee of SLG prepared a list of names of the people who Michael Geldert indicated opted out of the settlement agreement (somewhere between 75 and 77 people) - the info she put together is intended to be entered as a court document and a copy was given to Mr. Virtue once it was prepared but before it was filed as an affidavit.

Justice Gill was able to look at the list off Mr. Virtue's copy as it had yet to be filed at the time of March 8th Speak To and Barry King had conveniently left his copy at the office so at the end of the day a different version may be filed at some point - it only means something once there is filed and a court seal put on it.

This will be the list of people Barry King will need to reach out to at the Courts direction to eventually put together a contact list for Option 2 people.

Hope this helps


----------



## MarcieL

Thanks so much for the explanation Ultimate _Betrayal, appreciate.


----------



## J's Garage

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> Why two groups? How much sense does this make? So there are now what, three Facebook groups? Someone isn't playing well with others.



I think in stating this it may be presumptuous, as well an application of some tunnel vision. Also this seems to be a veiled attempt to criticize an individual who had every right to establish a group according to specific rules that some may not have agreed with.  

Firstly, right now while it may look like people may be divided, I think it has more to do with various points of emphasis and results of decisions that have been made.  I know the groups are likely to work on some common areas and share points of interest.  But there are too many differences right now to try to cover everything in one big circus tent.  

For instance, at this moment the only group that could sue MG, is the Option 1 group who has settled and paid.  Neither the Option 1 default, nor the Option 2 clients have established "damages".   Right now the only group that is ensured the opportunity to proceed with the appeal are the option 2 clients.   

The option 1 default clients need to review the possibility of contesting the consent judgment.  Hypothetically, if the consent judgement  can be refuted and negated,.... or even if the whole Settlement Agreement can be fought,.... one group of clients would have a fight to get their money refunded, another group is only out their retainer, and another group was not subjected to the agreement.

So it does make sense.  Aside from the fact that if there were only a singular action, that would commit everyone participating into an agreement that not everyone may agree with.  Doesn't that sound familiar, even "deja vu"ish?


----------



## dotbuhler

J's Garage said:


> I think in stating this it may be presumptuous, as well an application of some tunnel vision. Also this seems to be a veiled attempt to criticize an individual who had every right to establish a group according to specific rules that some may not have agreed with.
> 
> Firstly, right now while it may look like people may be divided, I think it has more to do with various points of emphasis and results of decisions that have been made.  I know the groups are likely to work on some common areas and share points of interest.  But there are too many differences right now to try to cover everything in one big circus tent.
> 
> For instance, at this moment the only group that could sue MG, is the Option 1 group who has settled and paid.  Neither the Option 1 default, nor the Option 2 clients have established "damages".   Right now the only group that is ensured the opportunity to proceed with the appeal are the option 2 clients.
> 
> The option 1 default clients need to review the possibility of contesting the consent judgment.  Hypothetically, if the consent judgement  can be refuted and negated,.... or even if the whole Settlement Agreement can be fought,.... one group of clients would have a fight to get their money refunded, another group is only out their retainer, and another group was not subjected to the agreement.
> 
> So it does make sense.  Aside from the fact that if there were only a singular action, that would commit everyone participating into an agreement that not everyone may agree with.  Doesn't that sound familiar, even "deja vu"ish?


Misrepresentation and lying to clients, not working in your best interests, the list against Michael Geldert is long and ugly. His professional ethics are nonexistent! EVERY person whom he "represented" in this fiasco CAN and SHOULD sue Michael Geldert. Some of us have proof of threats against us. So, I find your statement regarding suing a little disingenuous. Unless you have personal knowledge of each and every aspect of our cases you can only relate your own personal experience.


----------



## dotbuhler

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/how-to-sue-your-lawyer


----------



## MarcieL

dotbuhler said:


> Misrepresentation and lying to clients, not working in your best interests, the list against Michael Geldert is long and ugly. His professional ethics are nonexistent! EVERY person whom he "represented" in this fiasco CAN and SHOULD sue Michael Geldert. Some of us have proof of threats against us. So, I find your statement regarding suing a little disingenuous. Unless you have personal knowledge of each and every aspect of our cases you can only relate your own personal experience.


Small problem since paying the 40 grand many of us are not financially able to do this.  I wish those well that are able to pursue the fight.  One has to keep in mind though that the Law Society from the lawyer I spoke with, provide the best counsel for their people. I hope whomever option 1 people have retained is up to the task.


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> Misrepresentation and lying to clients, not working in your best interests, the list against Michael Geldert is long and ugly. His professional ethics are nonexistent! EVERY person whom he "represented" in this fiasco CAN and SHOULD sue Michael Geldert. Some of us have proof of threats against us. So, I find your statement regarding suing a little disingenuous. Unless you have personal knowledge of each and every aspect of our cases you can only relate your own personal experience.


I think the problem may lie with the lawyer.  From my understanding the lawyer may see the issues as being three distinct problems and not willing to take on the whole group for conflict of issue concerns.......something MG should have done.


----------



## J's Garage

dotbuhler said:


> Misrepresentation and lying to clients, not working in your best interests, the list against Michael Geldert is long and ugly. His professional ethics are nonexistent! EVERY person whom he "represented" in this fiasco CAN and SHOULD sue Michael Geldert. Some of us have proof of threats against us. So, I find your statement regarding suing a little disingenuous. Unless you have personal knowledge of each and every aspect of our cases you can only relate your own personal experience.



You are trying to read something into my comment that wasn't there.  Perhaps that is a failure in my message.  I was brief on certain points.

Simply put. Pay more attention to the "*at this moment*".

What was meant was this.  For the most part, particularly in the case of being able to get access to the law society special fund, they will only cover the monetary losses.  *AT this moment*, the only group that has established monetary losses is those paid to settle.  The default group thus far only has threats of a consent judgement, while most likely to be put in place sooner than later.  The option 2 clients have not had the final documents for judgement on the outstanding statement of claims.  Plus there is a potential appeal.

Unless they are only suing for the retainer paid to MG, the point I made was in the timing.

I'm not the one that claimed to have personal knowledge of each and every aspect.  I was suggesting a reason why I thought it was appropriate that there be separate groups.

It is divisive to be pointing out the fault's you found with my message in other groups.  Especially, when your claim against me was not one that I actually made.  But hey, I would be the disingenuous one.


----------



## truthr

dotbuhler said:


> Misrepresentation and lying to clients, not working in your best interests, the list against Michael Geldert is long and ugly. His professional ethics are nonexistent! EVERY person whom he "represented" in this fiasco CAN and SHOULD sue Michael Geldert. Some of us have proof of threats against us. So, I find your statement regarding suing a little disingenuous. Unless you have personal knowledge of each and every aspect of our cases you can only relate your own personal experience.





J's Garage said:


> You are trying to read something into my comment that wasn't there.  Perhaps that is a failure in my message.  I was brief on certain points.
> 
> Simply put. Pay more attention to the "*at this moment*".
> 
> What was meant was this.  For the most part, particularly in the case of being able to get access to the law society special fund, they will only cover the monetary losses.  *AT this moment*, the only group that has established monetary losses is those paid to settle.  The default group thus far only has threats of a consent judgement, while most likely to be put in place sooner than later.  The option 2 clients have not had the final documents for judgement on the outstanding statement of claims.  Plus there is a potential appeal.
> 
> Unless they are only suing for the retainer paid to MG, the point I made was in the timing.
> 
> I'm not the one that claimed to have personal knowledge of each and every aspect.  I was suggesting a reason why I thought it was appropriate that there be separate groups.
> 
> It is divisive to be pointing out the fault's you found with my message in other groups.  Especially, when your claim against me was not one that I actually made.  But hey, I would be the disingenuous one.



When speaking to *experienced *group litigation lawyers they have *all* concurred that although there are commonalities there are also distinct differences creating obvious conflicts, not only within the "groups" but within individuals themselves.

I suspect J's Garage was only trying to point that out to prevent anymore unnecessary infighting within our original litigation group.  It is only human nature to be attracted to and connect with like minded individuals - doesn't mean any one person is playing "nicer" than the others, just makes being in a group setting more efficient.

IMO we have come to a distinct crossroads wherein there are individuals who want to approach the upcoming appeal in AB differently for different reasons.  If some of those individuals wish to self represent or ban together to retain counsel - why should any of us judge any of them??  What I would suggest is that those who choose to ban together, make sure you are clear about your expectations of not only the end result you are seeking but how the group should function.


----------



## Just Looking Around

J's Garage said:


> ... at this moment the only group that could sue MG, is the Option 1 group who has settled and paid.  Neither the Option 1 default, nor the Option 2 clients have established "damages".



I don't understand how you conclude Option 2s aren't in a position to sue Michael Geldert? ACJ L.D. Young armed Northmont with a Judgement against Option 2s, and Option 1s in default, based on Northmont's amended statement of claim. If the Option 1s submitted their paperwork but not their money, then they have a Consent Judgement against them.



J's Garage said:


> ... Right now the only group that is ensured the opportunity to proceed with the appeal are the option 2 clients.



I agree but, this Appeal has nothing to do with litigation against Michael Geldert. Option 2s could have sued Geldert yesterday and they could sue him tomorrow.



J's Garage said:


> The option 1 default clients need to review the possibility of contesting the consent judgment. Hypothetically, if the consent judgement can be refuted and negated,.... or even if the whole Settlement Agreement can be fought,.... one group of clients would have a fight to get their money refunded, another group is only out their retainer, and another group was not subjected to the agreement.



_"Contesting the consent judgement",_  is the least likely litigation to succeed. They agreed to the debt.
_
"Hypothetically"_? Hypothetically Wankel is going to go full-on Grinch, grow a heart, and give all the Whos back their money. It's not going to happen. Do you seriously think Norton Rose Fulbright, with 4,000+ lawyers on staff, arguably the largest law firm in the world, wrote a Settlement Agreement you can refute?

I am so disappointed in the division of interests against both Geldert and Northmont. You've divided yourselves and you will be conquered. You all missed Sunchaser Barbados point. 30-people? Who you going to sue with, say even $1,000 each? Nobody. Take the Geldert's group action against Sunchaser, what did that cost? Now divide that by 30. Or, divide it by 70 or 100, 200. You're lucky if you've enough money for one kick at the can. If you can't put your differences, which are not material, aside you won't get even one kick at the can. Why do you think the lawyer wants a limited number of people? He's reducing the denominator. Geldert isn't the Royal Bank, he only has so much insurance. He doesn't even own his World Headquarters, he rents, probably.


----------



## dotbuhler

MarcieL said:


> Small problem since paying the 40 grand many of us are not financially able to do this.  I wish those well that are able to pursue the fight.  One has to keep in mind though that the Law Society from the lawyer I spoke with, provide the best counsel for their people. I hope whomever option 1 people have retained is up to the task.


Money is definitely a mitigating factor. My heart breaks for the many that caved to the pressure, but could not afford it. FEAR is a self-limiting emotion. Sadly, once fear takes over, logic goes out the door. At some point in time maybe we will even see a class action suit against Michael Geldert for what he has done. Anything is possible. My point was simply to not let anyone discourage those who are well within their legal rights to pursue lawyers who orchestrate such grief among those who paid for their representation.


----------



## Been Around Awhile

truthr said:


> When speaking to *experienced *group litigation lawyers they have *all* concurred that although there are commonalities there are also distinct differences creating obvious conflicts, not only within the "groups" but within individuals themselves.
> 
> I suspect J's Garage was only trying to point that out to prevent anymore unnecessary infighting within our original litigation group.  It is only human nature to be attracted to and connect with like minded individuals - doesn't mean any one person is playing "nicer" than the others, just makes being in a group setting more efficient.
> 
> IMO we have come to a distinct crossroads wherein there are individuals who want to approach the upcoming appeal in AB differently for different reasons.  If some of those individuals wish to self represent or ban together to retain counsel - why should any of us judge any of them??  What I would suggest is that those who choose to ban together, make sure you are clear about your expectations of not only the end result you are seeking but how the group should function.



It's about money. It's about paying for a lawsuit. Self-Represent = Self-Funded. Think about that.


----------



## truthr

To my knowledge there are currently these distinct groups:

Option 1 - who have settled, signed the required documents and paid
Option 1 - who received the documents and have not signed the documents nor paid
Option 1 - who received the documents, signed them but have yet to pay as they applied for the hardship
Option 1 - who received the documents, signed them but have yet to pay as they applied for the hardship and may not pay

Option 2 - from BC and will have judgments filed against them as all their options regarding NM may well be exhausted
Option 2 - from AB who may have a chance at an appeal and/or trial de novo, also NM may be appealing Judge Young's Supplementary Decision on interest and cost

Within all the groups they may or may not have a valid claim against the "legal" team, however at this moment the only ones who can prove actual damages would be those who have paid or have a judgment against them.  Kinda challenging to prove damages when it is still in litigation.

To my knowledge there has always been a division in interest regarding this litigation but our "legal" team went for the "strength in numbers", keep us separated to the detriment of all.  Just my opinion based on lengthy communication with various members of the litigation group throughout the years.

So again there are commonalities but distinct differences and always have been.


----------



## dotbuhler

J's Garage said:


> You are trying to read something into my comment that wasn't there.  Perhaps that is a failure in my message.  I was brief on certain points.
> 
> Simply put. Pay more attention to the "*at this moment*".
> 
> What was meant was this.  For the most part, particularly in the case of being able to get access to the law society special fund, they will only cover the monetary losses.  *AT this moment*, the only group that has established monetary losses is those paid to settle.  The default group thus far only has threats of a consent judgement, while most likely to be put in place sooner than later.  The option 2 clients have not had the final documents for judgement on the outstanding statement of claims.  Plus there is a potential appeal.
> 
> Unless they are only suing for the retainer paid to MG, the point I made was in the timing.
> 
> I'm not the one that claimed to have personal knowledge of each and every aspect.  I was suggesting a reason why I thought it was appropriate that there be separate groups.
> 
> It is divisive to be pointing out the fault's you found with my message in other groups.  Especially, when your claim against me was not one that I actually made.  But hey, I would be the disingenuous one.


Behind the scenes are many scenarios, none of us privy to them all. So, making a blanket statement about who may or may not sue at this point seems to be "jumping the gun".


----------



## Frau Blucher

Petus@18 said:


> Believe it or not, we are still receiving reply letters such as this one:
> 
> "The issue you have raised falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Attorney General. We have, therefore, taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence to the minister responsible, the Honourable David Eby, for his review and consideration"
> 
> Should you wish to contact Minister Eby directly, you may reach him at:
> 
> Honourable David Eby
> Attorney General
> PO Box 9044 Stn Prov Govt
> Victoria BC V8W 9E2
> Email: AG.Minister@gov.bc.ca
> 
> Did you send this minister a letter?  You probably did already,  if not here is his contact information.



I’m sorry but I have yet to receive a reply from his office, like all the other BC officials.  At least I got a “Sorry, not our problem” from the Alberta and Federal offices.


----------



## Frau Blucher

“How to Destroy a Timeshare, and Win at World of Warcraft”  by K Wankel

Unfortunately the Mustard Seed was willed one of Wankel’s gems


----------



## aden2

_I understand that there is a call out for persons wanting to join the Appeal group May 10 th hearing to respond this week._


----------



## PATRON

Canadian Justis system is lot worst than in Zimbabwe All jujes surf Rich people and big corporation Thay will alwais take there side It was our mistake we hire LOYER to defend us He is also part of KV team


----------



## Frau Blucher

Just Looking Around said:


> I am so disappointed in the division of interests against both Geldert and Northmont...Take the Geldert's group action against Sunchaser, what did that cost?



Geldert deomonstrated numerous times how NOT to run a case.  Geldert didn’t know how to argue a case correctly, he didn’t know when to give up, and he communicated so poorly with his clients that they were individually phoning him to ask the same questions.


----------



## dotbuhler

Frau Blucher said:


> Geldert deomonstrated numerous times how NOT to run a case.  Geldert didn’t know how to argue a case correctly, he didn’t know when to give up, and he communicated so poorly with his clients that they were individually phoning him to ask the same questions.


....and of course, every phone call meant MORE money in his pocket... The fact that elements were in play regarding "secret fb groups", and every tool he used at his disposal to keep us separated and in the dark, also created this perfect storm!


----------



## dotbuhler

J's Garage said:


> You are trying to read something into my comment that wasn't there.  Perhaps that is a failure in my message.  I was brief on certain points.
> 
> Simply put. Pay more attention to the "*at this moment*".
> 
> What was meant was this.  For the most part, particularly in the case of being able to get access to the law society special fund, they will only cover the monetary losses.  *AT this moment*, the only group that has established monetary losses is those paid to settle.  The default group thus far only has threats of a consent judgement, while most likely to be put in place sooner than later.  The option 2 clients have not had the final documents for judgement on the outstanding statement of claims.  Plus there is a potential appeal.
> 
> Unless they are only suing for the retainer paid to MG, the point I made was in the timing.
> 
> I'm not the one that claimed to have personal knowledge of each and every aspect.  I was suggesting a reason why I thought it was appropriate that there be separate groups.
> 
> It is divisive to be pointing out the fault's you found with my message in other groups.  Especially, when your claim against me was not one that I actually made.  But hey, I would be the disingenuous one.


The preamble to posting an article for the "common good" of everyone involved is hardly  a great tactic to divide anyone. This IS a public forum and we are many. Sharing is how we keep ahead of the game. If I post something I feel is less than helpful, I will remove it.( If, however, someone chooses to repost it and in so doing mentions my name, I have no control over that!) However, be forewarned that if you consider the term "somebody" to be you specifically, I see a Don Quixote future looming for you.


----------



## J's Garage

Whatever.  Clearly it's more important that you get things your way.  It's pretty ironic being that you have already stated the point that I made, yet assumed details that I purposely omitted from a brief post.   

But this is what you posted on the other site. 

 "Somebody on TUG posted a comment saying only a few people in this fiasco could sue Geldert. This article clearly shows the error of his reasoning. Sadly, there are still too many divisive elements at work among us!"

I have multiple times posted information about suing a lawyer.  I have provided specific code of conduct sections that are broken.  

But I'll concede. The context of my post that we are bantering about was never to suggest that the lawyer should not be sued. It was my thoughts on why a "one size fits all group" could be problematic.


----------



## Spark1

dotbuhler said:


> The preamble to posting an article for the "common good" of everyone involved is hardly  a great tactic to divide anyone. This IS a public forum and we are many. Sharing is how we keep ahead of the game. If I post something I feel is less than helpful, I will remove it.( If, however, someone chooses to repost it and in so doing mentions my name, I have no control over that!) However, be forewarned that if you consider the term "someone" to be you specifically, I see a Don Quixote future looming for you.


Can you remove a forum and if you can how.


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> _I understand that there is a call out for persons wanting to join the Appeal group May 10 th hearing to respond this week._


It would be nice to hear from the BC Law Society before any appeal.


----------



## aden2

I have a 90 day default  in my VIA signed  agreement, if this is not resolved then I would lose all rights to the vacation villa and my contract is cancelled. I would still owe for the past and with interest, but adding on maintenance fees year and year is not right. In my Notice of Civil Claim #11 "a per the provisions of the Agreement". This is not the agreement that I signed and the court was misled by false information.


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

truthr said:


> Within all the groups they may or may not have a valid claim against the "legal" team, however at this moment the only ones who can prove actual damages would be those who have paid or have a judgment against them.  Kinda challenging to prove damages when it is still in litigation.



How is _"...those who have paid or have a judgment against them."_ not everyone sued by Northmont in Alberta and BC? Filing an Appeal of a Decision does not prevent enforcement of a Judgment. To prevent enforcement of a Judgment, you'd have to obtain a Stay. Has anybody in Option 2 done that?

The bottom line is everyone was damaged by Northmont's gross and repeated violations of the leases and by Geldert's incompetence. To parse it beyond that only serves to distract and muddy the waters. It's just a version of Geldert's Kitchen Sink approach. Courts hate that.

One needs to focus on Geldert's and Northmont's wrongdoings, not on Option 1 and Option 2 differences, which are just artificial constructs of Geldert's. They mean nothing to the courts other than how we chose to mitigate the damages. For example, Geldert came up with this Option 1 & 2 and then lied about final input. It doesn't matter what option we each chose. The wrongdoing came before the choosing.

Or, another example, this martini which I have shaken. That's just wrong. It doesn't matter if I choose to drink it. It's not the drinking or the not drinking; it's the shaking that makes it wrong. Ok, well, not drinking would be wrong too.

The transcripts from March 8th indicate Gill considers Young's Supplementary Reasons as part of her decision, so there is no separate Appeal.


----------



## truthr

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> How is _"...those who have paid or have a judgment against them."_ not everyone sued by Northmont in Alberta and BC? Filing an Appeal of a Decision does not prevent enforcement of a Judgment. To prevent enforcement of a Judgment, you'd have to obtain a Stay. Has anybody in Option 2 done that?
> 
> The bottom line is everyone was damaged by Northmont's gross and repeated violations of the leases and by Geldert's incompetence. To parse it beyond that only serves to distract and muddy the waters. It's just a version of Geldert's Kitchen Sink approach. Courts hate that.
> 
> One needs to focus on Geldert's and Northmont's wrongdoings, not on Option 1 and Option 2 differences, which are just artificial constructs of Geldert's. They mean nothing to the courts other than how we chose to mitigate the damages. For example, Geldert came up with this Option 1 & 2 and then lied about final input. It doesn't matter what option we each chose. The wrongdoing came before the choosing.
> 
> Or, another example, this martini which I have shaken. That's just wrong. It doesn't matter if I choose to drink it. It's not the drinking or the not drinking; it's the shaking that makes it wrong. Ok, well, not drinking would be wrong too.
> 
> The transcripts from March 8th indicate Gill considers Young's Supplementary Reasons as part of her decision, so there is no separate Appeal.


Do you have a law degree or have you spoken to any lawyers experienced in this area of litigation (ie., suing lawyers for malpractice or misrepresentation)?

I don't see in any posts here that anyone is suggesting that our "legal" team cannot or should not be sued just that there are distinct differences of how an experienced litigation lawyer will approach it dependent on the circumstances.  The wrongdoing may have begun before the choosing but the individual case will be different depending on what choice the person made.

As for whether there will or will not be any appeal hearing (separate/cross or not) that will be up to Judge Gill to decide.

As for the Judgments for the AB "Option 2", "non settling" defendants a Judgment has not been filed yet as Judge Young instructed NM to provide the Judgment Roll and then we (the defendants) have 21 days to respond to it.  So again, the extent of the damages are not determined yet.


----------



## dotbuhler

Spark1 said:


> Can you remove a forum and if you can how.


I don't think you can remove a forum, that'd be an admin decision. But you can edit any post you do place, up to and including complete removal of said post.


----------



## dotbuhler

J's Garage said:


> Whatever.  Clearly it's more important that you get things your way.  It's pretty ironic being that you have already stated the point that I made, yet assumed details that I purposely omitted from a brief post.
> 
> But this is what you posted on the other site.
> 
> "Somebody on TUG posted a comment saying only a few people in this fiasco could sue Geldert. This article clearly shows the error of his reasoning. Sadly, there are still too many divisive elements at work among us!"
> 
> I have multiple times posted information about suing a lawyer.  I have provided specific code of conduct sections that are broken.
> 
> But I'll concede. The context of my post that we are bantering about was never to suggest that the lawyer should not be sued. It was my thoughts on why a "one size fits all group" could be problematic.


...mistake noted, and corrected...


----------



## Shake Down

aden2 said:


> I have a 90 day default in my VIA signed agreement, if this is not resolved then I would lose all rights to the vacation villa and my contract is cancelled. I would still owe for the past and with interest, but adding on maintenance fees year and year is not right. In my Notice of Civil Claim #11 "a per the provisions of the Agreement". This is not the agreement that I signed and the court was misled by false information.



Wankel must have disliked those old contracts, I bet he got a big Twankel in his eye when the judge grouped all in together. 
Me it's like....

and MG could not find anything even in the _Real Estate Development Marketing Act_.? Stuff like "A purchase agreement is not enforceable against a purchaser by a developer who has breached the Act"

*:Time share interests*
*(7)*  A developer must not market a time share interest unless

(a) the land, accommodations and facilities that are subject to the time share plan can be lawfully used or occupied by a purchaser.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

In hindsight we all definitely would have made different choices and decisions if we knew all the twist and turns that initially brought us together through Geldert but today we just need to deal with the hand we still have to work with.

Recently all of us have been forced down paths but the bottom line is a companies greed and our Counsel directly put us all in our current individual circumstances and as a by-product of there resent efforts have in a way brought us together potentially stronger as a group and now we just need to figure out the ground rules on working together or we can simply choose to allow their efforts to drive a deeper wedge between us which would be another win for them as they would like nothing better than to see us kept apart.

If you think of this from Northmont point of view they have an agenda and came into this with a strategy from the start – unfortunately for us they lucked out big time with Geldert.  For the most recent part of their strategy our Geldert group needed to be broken as it was a very powerful obstacle that stood in the way of their overall plan.  My bet is initially they thought Fairmont would be as easy as the other resorts they cut their teeth with to bury but no one would have ever expected today's growing movement and building opposition from a fractured group of people who have great potential to rally and put up a real fight with a drive for solidarity but right now no one knows exactly where to turn (our start was with all our efforts after Christmas letters and phone calls looking for justice – I like to thing these efforts paid off and we have been rewarded with Justice Gill so now how do we prepare for the legal fight we have been afforded).

I think we just need to be patient while different people and groups try and figure out what there is to work with but I don’t believe anyone is actively trying to slight anyone else but I can pretty much bet Option 1 and Option 2 will be in Court in May which will help mend the resulting fragments of our initial group – let’s look at this as an opportunity for a new beginning.

It may not seem like it to everyone but everyone who wants to fight Geldert and Northmont can still together, on their own, or collectively from the different groups that have spawned – what is wrong with multiple ideas being considered and explored as options.  There will always be different opinions and we just need to allow them to be expressed – there is nothing wrong with clarifying a point made and none of us always gets along with our spouses, friends, or families let alone complete strangers so we just need to try and understand different points of view as they are.  No one should be suppressed from speaking freely out of fear of saying something that may offend as discussions are meant to bring forward ideas and these ideas to be challenged constructively – you never know one of these ideas may be the precipice to the smoking gun we need but it also needs to be challenged as our opposition will definitely do that down the road.


Now the big questions I feel that needs to be identified is how was the power of the initial group squandered and its potential not realized? 

My hope is collectively we can find some form of collusion that exists between our Counsel and Northmont that shows a fraud of some kind exists and as a result this whole situation would become a who lot more favourable to every one of us.

I have an underlying hypothesis our whole fight was over before the 1st trial occurred now that I have worked to become informed and as a result, a mutual strategy was created years ago that has lead all of us down a path that intentionally keep us segregated to prevent us from realizing our potential, maximize our legal costs, frustrated the courts, and significantly increased the penalties against us.

To support this I know of different pieces but no real smoking gun as of yet but karma has a way of working itself to the surface or alternately we just find the rock stuff has been hidden under – this might not occur until the settlement agreement Option 1 paying members initiates their lawsuit against Geldert as they currently are the ones who have suffered the most monetary damages to date as a result of Michael Geldert’s sole decision to hastily settle without consent with Northmont’s and as a result have actual monetary figures to back up their damage claims.  Who thinks the timeline was recently fast-tracked initiated by the SIF to divide us and resulting settlement agreement was built as part of Northmont’s roadmap.  I keep coming back to what is in this for Geldert and King to be working so hard to suppress us and I know Geldert wasn’t smart enough to come up with this plan on his own.  My bet is when push comes to shove when we get organized to start pushing someone from our Counsel group will cave to save their own butts.

Moving forward we still have different fights that for some will be vary in difficultly and stress levels that will also require unique representation but there is nothing saying that we cannot work collectively for common goals – for example if Option 1 people who can sue Geldert now for damages and win then once the damages can be calculated for Option 1 opt outs or Option 2 people the road might already be built for them to go down or even made easier if the BC Special Lawyers Fund is initiated to cover damages for everyone.

All Option 1 people did what they had to do and hopefully there may be less stress for them as they have a line in the sand and can move on if they want to but I feel very sympathetic towards the Option 2 people who still have a tremendous burden while this all gets worked out as no one knows what the future holds for them.  Nether group had a choice about getting to where we are at today but by working towards collaboration everyone can benefit and that is why I still choose to remain involved.


----------



## Spark1

Just Looking Around said:


> I don't understand how you conclude Option 2s aren't in a position to sue Michael Geldert? ACJ L.D. Young armed Northmont with a Judgement against Option 2s, and Option 1s in default, based on Northmont's amended statement of claim. If the Option 1s submitted their paperwork but not their money, then they have a Consent Judgement against them.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree but, this Appeal has nothing to do with litigation against Michael Geldert. Option 2s could have sued Geldert yesterday and they could sue him tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Contesting the consent judgement",_  is the least likely litigation to succeed. They agreed to the debt.
> _
> "Hypothetically"_? Hypothetically Wankel is going to go full-on Grinch, grow a heart, and give all the Whos back their money. It's not going to happen. Do you seriously think Norton Rose Fulbright, with 4,000+ lawyers on staff, arguably the largest law firm in the world, wrote a Settlement Agreement you can refute?
> 
> I am so disappointed in the division of interests against both Geldert and Northmont. You've divided yourselves and you will be conquered. You all missed Sunchaser Barbados point. 30-people? Who you going to sue with, say even $1,000 each? Nobody. Take the Geldert's group action against Sunchaser, what did that cost? Now divide that by 30. Or, divide it by 70 or 100, 200. You're lucky if you've enough money for one kick at the can. If you can't put your differences, which are not material, aside you won't get even one kick at the can. Why do you think the lawyer wants a limited number of people? He's reducing the denominator. Geldert isn't the Royal Bank, he only has so much insurance. He doesn't even own his World Headquarters, he rents, probably.


Everyone has a right to a lawyer. Many that paid had to borrow money to pay this extortion set up by Michael Geldert. He lied to us about getting Northmont to the table and now they will have to pay the 25.4 million. He also said he had the situation about moving buildings from the timeshare under control. He never gave the time owners who checked no. 1 enough time to resend what he said they would have to pay. If you can not afford a lawyer the law has to supply you with a lawyer. We are talking about millions being extorted here. I hope everyone who paid sent a letter to the BC Law Society and tell them what you paid for something that is worthless. Ask Protection BC and Service Alberta if you are required to pay up to $140000.00 for something that went bankrupt and has made your timeshare worthless. Ask them what you are getting for your money. Take your contracts to these consumer affair offices that Trudeau says are responsible to look after you and let them read your contract and show you where you have to pay this kind of money for nothing. We are not Northmonts Bank.


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

truthr said:


> Do you have a law degree or have you spoken to any lawyers experienced in this area of litigation (ie., suing lawyers for malpractice or misrepresentation)?



That's just pejorative. Which is fine except where, in a previous post, you lectured, _"...we are better than this." _Besides, lots of people here have spoken to lawyers and read documents, and they still don't understand. So one is right, or one is wrong, it's not just if they've spoken to the best authority.

_"I don't see in any posts here that anyone is suggesting that our "legal" team cannot or should not be sued, ..."_ You directly imply that they can't be sued at this time in the quote below. 

_"...however at this moment the only ones who can prove actual damages would be those who have paid or have a judgment against them. Kinda challenging to prove damages when it is still in litigation."_

Damages are always changing, take the amended statements of claim in our case. You don't have to wait for a final number. Besides, with interest and the passage of time, the quantification of damages is never final and is often somewhat arbitrary.

_"As for whether there will or will not be any appeal hearing (separate/cross or not) that will be up to Judge Gill to decide."_

Gill did decide. He said it's one Decision, one Appeal.

_"As for the Judgments for the AB "Option 2", "non settling" defendants a Judgment has not been filed yet as Judge Young instructed NM to provide the Judgment Roll and then we (the defendants) have 21 days to respond to it. So again, the extent of the damages are not determined yet."_

Right, and if there's a strategic advantage in waiting to sue fine; but, you repeatedly imply that they can't sue until the damages are enumerated in total.

In a previous post, you identified six distinct groups: Four distinct Option 1's and, Two distinct Option 2's. The implication is that there should be six lawsuits against Geldert. The differences are all immaterial in a lawsuit against Geldert; and, six lawsuits are nothing but vexatious and a prescription for failure. This whole discussion is vexatious, so I'm done on this subject.


----------



## MarcieL

In a previous post, you identified six distinct groups: Four distinct Option 1's and, Two distinct Option 2's. The implication is that there should be six lawsuits against Geldert. The differences are all immaterial in a lawsuit against Geldert; and, six lawsuits are nothing but vexatious and a prescription for failure. This whole discussion is vexatious, so I'm done on this subject.

If M.G. only has so much liability insurance the first ones in, maybe the winners.


----------



## LilMaggie

...and...this is when we talk and nothing gets done.  I can't believe that we are still discussing distinctions within our litigation group.  We all know what was imposed upon us. This is the kind of soap opera that you don't watch for a year, then come back and nothing's changed.  Anyone that was represented by MG can sue him if they so desire.  If you don't want to go that route, fine...but at least join the appeal.  Judge Gill gave the green light for some folks to appeal.


----------



## Spark1

Why does it take so long for the Law Society to give us a report on all the lawyers that have been reported. Should the appeal be before this report?


----------



## Frau Blucher

Spark1 said:


> Why does it take so long by the Law Society to give us a report on all the lawyers that have been reported. Should the appeal be before this report?



Some investigations of the Law Society of BC have taken years to resolve


----------



## truthr

*HEADS UP - very important announcement for all "non settling" AB Appellants*

If and when you receive your "package" from Strathcona Law Group - which should be today but hey who knows, please pay close attention to the attachments.

There should be more than one "Order" - one with a court stamp date of March 13th, 2018 and one with a court stamp date of March 22nd, 2018.

When my "package" arrived it was missing the second "Order", I just happened to suspect there was another one due to communications between SLG and myself wherein they were using the reason for us not receiving said "package" earlier as they were waiting for the "Order" to be filed and we all know the "other", more pressing order for the suppression/retraction/sealing of exhibits was done real quick.  So I quickly requested it.

Anyway when you get the March 22nd, 2018 "Order" pay close attention to both points number 5 & 7.
Also the March 22nd, 2018 "Order" was not signed by Judge Gill - he was apparently out of town that day - just a coincidence that is the day our former legal counsel choose to have it signed and filed????


----------



## aden2

Consumer Protection Act Highlights: 
Consumer Protection Act
Unfair practices page 15
(3)  It is an unfair practice for a supplier   (a) to enter into a consumer transaction if the supplier knows or ought to know that the consumer is unable to receive any reasonable benefit from the goods or services;
Interpretation of documents 4.   If a consumer and a supplier enter into a consumer transaction, or an individual enters into a contract with a licensee and the licensee agrees to supply something to the individual in the normal course of the licensee’s business, and  (a) all or any part of the transaction or contract is evidenced by a document provided by the supplier or licensee, and  (b) a provision of the document is ambiguous, the provision must be interpreted against the supplier or licensee, as the case may be. 1998 cF-1.05 s4
Regulations
section 6  Chapter C-26.3
 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 
page18
 (t.1) a supplier’s representation regarding an agreement for continuing provision of services if the supplier fails to provide prominent and full disclosure of the details of the agreement, including duration, changes in price, renewals, extensions or amendments, or if the supplier fails to obtain the consumer’s express consent to renewals, extensions or amendments of the agreement; 
Cancelling agreement 7(1)  A consumer may cancel at no cost or penalty to the consumer a consumer transaction, whether written or oral, that was entered into by the consumer and a supplier who engaged in an unfair practice regarding the consumer transaction, whether the unfair practice occurred before, during or after the time when the consumer transaction was entered into, and in addition the consumer is entitled to any remedy that is available at law, including damages. (2)  Where a supplier has been found to have engaged in an unfair practice, any consumer who entered into a consumer transaction that was subject to the unfair practice with the supplier who engaged in the unfair practice may cancel the consumer transaction at no cost or penalty to the consumer.
(3)  Notice may be delivered by any means, but if notice is delivered other than by personal service it is deemed to have been given when sent.
Powers of Court 7.2(1)  In an action commenced under this Division, the Court of Queen’s Bench may award exemplary or punitive damages in addition to any other remedy the Court considers proper. (2)  In the trial of an issue under this Division, oral evidence respecting an unfair practice is admissible despite the existence of a written agreement under the consumer transaction and despite the fact that the oral evidence pertains to a representation in respect of a term, condition or undertaking that is not provided for in the agreement. (3)  The Court of Queen’s Bench may disregard the requirement that the consumer give notice under section 7.1 or any requirement relating to the notice if the Court considers that it is in the interest of justice to do so. 2005 c9 s6
8   An unfair practice may occur before, during or after a consumer transaction, and is an unfair practice for all the purposes of this Part even if no consumer transaction is entered into or concluded. 1998


----------



## lost and confused

Received my email package from SLG.    Appears I may not have received a complete package and am missing a document.    If you received a package, you may want to check that you have received everything.  Appears the flow and sharing of information is not uniform in nature.   

Interesting to note that the Authorization to Release Confidential Information is due on/before May 3.   The purpose of this release is to allow the group of 76/77 to connect, share information, etc. as this is the group that has the speak to follow up in court on May 10th.   With the deadline of May 3 to submit this form, SLG will then need to compile the list of those who authorize their contact info to be shared, and then share this list for those involved.  Even if SLG were to have this completed on May 3 and have it mailed out, that is clearly not enough time for a group to connect with one another in preparation for May 10.   

To further cloud things, The Notice of Intent to Appeal is also due on this same day, May 3.   This form would indicate one’s intent to appeal, and indicate any lawyer representation, if any.    Well, given that one will not have received the list of the other 76/77 with their contact info, it certainly makes it difficult.   These two deadlines of May 3rd for both forms certainly defies logic.   I am pretty sure that Judge Gill was wanting more logic and efficiencies to help the group of 76/77 prepare for the May 10 speak to.   SLG and Jud Virtue may have some explaining to do.   It is my thought that it appears that they are working together, trying to hinder and obstruct opportunities to do their tasks efficiently and effectively, clearly to our detriment. 

In my e-mail package from SLG, I also received another Notice of Withdrawal of Lawyer on record.  I received one in January 2018 via registered mail.   This new copy was filed on March 21, 2018 and was stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Queen’s Bench.    Why the duplication of Notice of Withdrawal?   One was already served and sent registered mail.   Why go thru the process of sending another -  and tying up the court system and valuable resources? 

Appears the Judgment Rolls will be forthcoming this week. 

I am still awaiting information from MG as part of transition.  My withdrawal was January 2018.   

There is lots going on.  May 10th is getting closer and closer.  *Are you happy with where you are at in your plans on proceeding?  Time is ticking.   What are you doing?*


----------



## dotbuhler

https://www.lawnow.org/interveners-in-human-rights-cases/    For those who suddenly discovered that they were not part of the Alberta action, thanks to Geldert's misrepresentation, there is a recourse.


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> https://www.lawnow.org/interveners-in-human-rights-cases/    For those who suddenly discovered that they were not part of the Alberta action, thanks to Geldert's misrepresentation, there is a recourse.


Don't know if this would apply for those that settled and are gagged.


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> Don't know if this would apply for those that settled and are gagged.


Best used by those of us suddenly confronted with the reality of never having been included in the Alberta case. But those who have paid and signed in Alberta are filing Affidavits as we speak. Their names do appear on the Alberta rolls, and many are pointing out that they signed under duress.


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> Best used by those of us suddenly confronted with the reality of never having been included in the Alberta case. But those who have paid and signed in Alberta are filing Affidavits as we speak. Their names do appear on the Alberta rolls, and many are pointing out that they signed under duress.


If there are people not including in the Alberta case, are they out of Northmount's reach because of the time limit in filing against them?


----------



## Petus@18

dotbuhler said:


> Best used by those of us suddenly confronted with the reality of never having been included in the Alberta case. But those who have paid and signed in Alberta are filing Affidavits as we speak. Their names do appear on the Alberta rolls, and many are pointing out that they signed under duress.



Will never be defeated, glad you're back!!


----------



## Petus@18

We got our package today!!, Finally and Crazy!!!.
Edit: we are 76 people left for this appeal!
Anyone here would like to have a skype or tel conference?  R you thinking in hiring a lawyer or representing yourselves? Best way to share our contact info?  I propose you send your phone, name and email to me!  Or Aden2?  Ok w/you Aden2? We will create a phone list and with your permission will share it with everyone.  Please feel free to to suggest other means of exchanging this info.  Thanks!!


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> If there are people not including in the Alberta case, are they out of Northmount's reach because of the time limit in filing against them?


Some of us were served and had Judgements placed against us in B.C. as part of the JEKE action. This was not something that many of us were aware of. My case was so empirically different from Jim Belfry's I NEVER would have stood for that. Did Geldert inform us who was listed on the B.C. Rolls? Not that I am aware of. Instead, as one of his regular one size fits all communiques which were more involved with "SHHHH", I see the actual court papers filed by Sauvauge in Cranbrook, B.C. Court. When Geldert continued to take our money, carry us a clients, have us write continuing letters of Objection to Fairmont/Northmont/Wankel, fill out forms and surveys, meanwhile never pointing out the obvious fact that we LOST, it becomes abundantly clear that he was merely hanging on to us to make sure he could collect our money for Wankel! Besides increasing his own coffers!


----------



## Spark1

dotbuhler said:


> Some of us were served and had Judgements placed against us in B.C. as part of the JEKE action. This was not something that many of us were aware of. My case was so empirically different from Jim Belfry's I NEVER would have stood for that. Did Geldert inform us who was listed on the B.C. Rolls? Not that I am aware of. Instead, as one of his regular one size fits all communiques which were more involved with "SHHHH", I see the actual court papers filed by Sauvauge in Cranbrook, B.C. Court. When Geldert continued to take our money, carry us a clients, have us write continuing letters of Objection to Fairmont/Northmont/Wankel, fill out forms and surveys, meanwhile never pointing out the obvious fact that we LOST, it becomes abundantly clear that he was merely hanging on to us to make sure he could collect our money for Wankel! Besides increasing his own coffers!


How true.


----------



## lost and confused

Has anybody received their Judgement Rolls?  As per Judge Youngs' Feb 28, 2018 decision, Judgement rolls should be out and once received,  the clock on responding starts.  I am concerned that the time on the clock may start ticking soon!!! (and I also do not trust who measures when the clock starts to tick....it should be once received).  It may be time to speak up again if Judge Young's instructions are not carried out in the timeframe specified, thus putting us in more of a pinch.  We are to have 21 days from receipt of Judgement rolls...I will ensure that my 21 days have not started yet as I have officially not received anything.  Has anybody received their judgment roll?


----------



## dotbuhler

Would anyone who is NOT on the Alberta Judgement Rolls and has found themselves on the Judgement in B.C. from 2016 please p.m. me. Thank you!


----------



## heydynagirl

I wasn't sure how to PM you, but I was sued in Golden BC so I assume I am on a judgment roll somewhere.


----------



## truthr

The list, oh the list.  For those of us who were sued in AB and classified as non-settling, Barry King assured Judge Gill he would be contacting all of us "forthwith" to have us sign a release form to provide all of us providing such release with a list of all of us to be able to contact each other.

Well to date some have received this so called "package" of documents, albeit not in a timely fashion but provided nonetheless.

A couple of us sent an email to Carla (cause Barry King is on holidays, don't ya know) and this is her reply.

_Good morning,

Please be advised that as of today 2 April 2018, of the 76 appellants, we have only received 2 Consent Release forms.

Kind regards,
*Carla Avery*
Legal Assistant
_

Well, considering I know of at *least *3 people personally who have sent in the release forms - I call BS. 

Now about the Judgment Roll that Judge Young instructed NM's attorney to draw up and provide for us within 30 days - 30 days is up.  Where is it??  Or maybe they still think they are working with our former legal counsel (MG & BK).  I say NOT and have sent an email to Jud Virtue requesting the Judgment Roll.  If I don't have it soon guess I will just have to write another letter to Judge Young informing her.


----------



## CleoB

Does anyone have a copy of the new VIA that they could send me?


----------



## dotbuhler

truthr said:


> The list, oh the list.  For those of us who were sued in AB and classified as non-settling, Barry King assured Judge Gill he would be contacting all of us "forthwith" to have us sign a release form to provide all of us providing such release with a list of all of us to be able to contact each other.
> 
> Well to date some have received this so called "package" of documents, albeit not in a timely fashion but provided nonetheless.
> 
> A couple of us sent an email to Carla (cause Barry King is on holidays, don't ya know) and this is her reply.
> 
> _Good morning,
> 
> Please be advised that as of today 2 April 2018, of the 76 appellants, we have only received 2 Consent Release forms.
> 
> Kind regards,
> *Carla Avery*
> Legal Assistant
> _
> 
> Well, considering I know of at *least *3 people personally who have sent in the release forms - I call BS.
> 
> Now about the Judgment Roll that Judge Young instructed NM's attorney to draw up and provide for us within 30 days - 30 days is up.  Where is it??  Or maybe they still think they are working with our former legal counsel (MG & BK).  I say NOT and have sent an email to Jud Virtue requesting the Judgment Roll.  If I don't have it soon guess I will just have to write another letter to Judge Young informing her.


Truly, it appears that every obstacle that can be imagined is being thrown our way. If only we had the opportunity to compare notes a couple of years ago, for those of us who, under Geldert's reign, are suddenly now realizing that we were not even part of the Alberta case this nightmare just keeps getting more and more horrendous.


----------



## Spark1

CleoB said:


> Does anyone have a copy of the new VIA that they could send me?[/QUOTE





dotbuhler said:


> Truly, it appears that every obstacle that can be imagined is being thrown our way. If only we had the opportunity to compare notes a couple of years ago, for those of us who, under Geldert's reign, are suddenly now realizing that we were not even part of the Alberta case this nightmare just keeps getting more and more horrendous.


I do not have a copy.  Modification, unilateral amendments of My contract falls under item #37 called Notices: Notices under this Lease shall be deemed to be validly given when deposited postage prepaid in a postal box in Canada and addressed to the Lessee at the Address in the register maintained by the Trustee as contemplated by paragraph 18 hereof,except during any interruption of postal service when notice shall be given only when delivered by hand or acknowledged as received by the Address. Unilateral Amendments to our Contracts when you read Notices in my Lease Contract is the Same as Bill 31 passed Dec 17/2017 which states you have to contact the owner of the contract first before you do a unilateral Amendment and if you do not there than is no Contract. This is now the Law under the Fair Trading ACT. We have never signed any documents. I first seen Northwynd did this when a friend of mine should me a email he received Nov06/2017. This should of been looked after before Judge Young’s Case. They were saying we are all VIAs under JEKs Contract 2010. It was mentioned that Judge Young said our Contracts did not change. If that is the case why the Capital  renovation of $4100 plus GST when there is no mention of Capital expenses in our Lease Contract. MLT AIKINS David Wotherspoon says Northmont’s Unilateral Amendments to the VIAs are Unauthorized. Every one should read page 2 of David’s report.


----------



## dotbuhler

heydynagirl said:


> I wasn't sure how to PM you, but I was sued in Golden BC so I assume I am on a judgment roll somewhere.


Send me a message via "conversations" is what I mean for this site. Pardon the fb speak. And if you were served anywhere in B.C. (so far: Vancouver, Nelson, Cranbrook and now, Golden Registries) you will probably be on the B.C. Roll. Alternatively, if you do not see your name on the Alberta Judgement Rolls, you are *probably* on the B.C. Rolls. Any lawyer worth his salt would have made a point of being explicit on this. Ours, however, was once again *M.I.A.*.


----------



## Spark1

dotbuhler said:


> Send me a message via "conversations" is what I mean for this site. Pardon the fb speak. And if you were served anywhere in B.C. (so far: Vancouver, Nelson, Cranbrook and now, Golden Registries) you will probably be on the B.C. Roll. Alternatively, if you do not see your name on the Alberta Judgement Rolls, you are *probably* on the B.C. Rolls. Any lawyer worth his salt would have made a point of being explicit on this. Ours, however, was once again *M.I.A.*.


This is another reason why we have to hear from the Law Society of B.C. before a appeal. Northmont’s Lawyer MG Made a lot of money jumping on the other side of the fence. We need the governments to get of their asses and do something this is Fraud.


----------



## CleoB

Spark1 said:


> I do not have a copy.  Modification, unilateral amendments of My contract falls under item #37 called Notices: Notices under this Lease shall be deemed to be validly given when deposited postage prepaid in a postal box in Canada and addressed to the Lessee at the Address in the register maintained by the Trustee as contemplated by paragraph 18 hereof,except during any interruption of postal service when notice shall be given only when delivered by hand or acknowledged as received by the Address. Unilateral Amendments to our Contracts when you read Notices in my Lease Contract is the Same as Bill 31 passed Dec 17/2017 which states you have to contact the owner of the contract first before you do a unilateral Amendment and if you do not there than is no Contract. This is now the Law under the Fair Trading ACT. We have never signed any documents. I first seen Northwynd did this when a friend of mine should me a email he received Nov06/2017. This should of been looked after before Judge Young’s Case. They were saying we are all VIAs under JEKs Contract 2010. It was mentioned that Judge Young said our Contracts did not change. If that is the case why the Capital  renovation of $4100 plus GST when there is no mention of Capital expenses in our Lease Contract. MLT AIKINS David Wotherspoon says Northmont’s Unilateral Amendments to the VIAs are Unauthorized. Every one should read page 2 of David’s report.



I found what you are referring to in the letter dated Nov 3/17.


----------



## aden2

_NEW)_ ABQB Order of Justice Gill, Appeal of Northmont v. Reid, March 22, 2018 –  go to Sunchaser Website
Click on Renovation at the top and then down to Court Proceeding  and then to ABQB Order of Justice Gill


----------



## aden2

All Fairmont VIA's have a default clause #13 on most contracts. After the ,usually 90 day default, the time share contract may be terminated. Consumer Protection Act #4 (b) "a provision of the contract is ambiguous, the provision must be interpreted against the supplier or licensee, as the case may be." Dated 1998 Alberta.


----------



## CleoB

aden2 said:


> All Fairmont VIA's have a default clause #13 on most contracts. After the ,usually 90 day default, the time share contract may be terminated. Consumer Protection Act #4 (b) "a provision of the contract is ambiguous, the provision must be interpreted against the supplier or licensee, as the case may be." Dated 1998 Alberta.


It's too bad that Geldert didn't fight this in court.  The key word being "may" in the contract is overruled by the CP Act favoring the consumer.  But can that be now argued in court?


----------



## aden2

Most Time Share Contracts should have been terminated in 2013! Therefore no further charges of yearly maintenance fees legally would have been charged...


----------



## dotbuhler

So, March 21, 2018 Northmont filed an Appeal against Judge Young's Decision that has pre-2004 leases to be charged at 5% interest. What dirty buggers!


----------



## Stung

aden2 said:


> _NEW)_ ABQB Order of Justice Gill, Appeal of Northmont v. Reid, March 22, 2018 –  go to Sunchaser Website
> Click on Renovation at the top and then down to Court Proceeding  and then to ABQB Order of Justice Gill



https://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/court-proceedings/
https://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018-03-08-Order-Redacted.pdf


----------



## Spark1

CleoB said:


> It's too bad that Geldert didn't fight this in court.  The key word being "may" in the contract is overruled by the CP Act favoring the consumer.  But can that be now argued in court?


What is the CP ACT ?


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> What is the CP ACT ?


When any of these Judges can show me in my Vacation Villa Lease Contract that a new owner can go after me for past maintenance fees that we paid before this Freedom To Choose and say we did not pay enough maintenance fees on all the years before the bankruptcy. That is Fraud. Also every one should not forget how much money we are out because of the bankruptcy and we lost the right to use this resort as explained in the Canadian Consumer Protection Handbook. Northwynd we do not need to accept your bullshit Freedom to Choose it is not in my Contract but Item #13 is. You will never get 1cent from me and you will regret trying.


----------



## aden2

Consumer Protection Act  of Alberta takes priority and protection regarding contracts!


----------



## CleoB

Spark1 said:


> What is the CP ACT ?


Consumer Protection Act now known as Bill 31.


----------



## Spark1

CleoB said:


> Consumer Protection Act now known as Bill 31.


The Fair Trading act put it into writing because of the abuse by Northwynd with our contracts but really it always has been there for contracts. It can not be one sided or what is the use of having a contract. Many of us took part in this Justice Youngs case and we were tried like criminals under a new contract that I do not know anything about and never even seen it. Was any one sent this contract with register mail. My contract and my only Vacation Villa Lease Contract states under-item #13 NOTICES: this Lease shall be deemed to be validly given when deposited postage prepaid in a postal box in Canada and addressed to the Lessee at the Address set forth in the register maintained by the Trustee  as contemplated by paragraph 18 hereof,and if there is a interruption of postal service it must be delivered by hand or acknowledged as received by the address. Did any one receive a notice of the modification by mail? Again any adjustment or modification will not in any way materially prejudice the rights of existing lessees. If any such adjustment or modification is effected  the Lessor will provide notice to each lessee setting out the nature of the adjustment or modification,the reasons giving rise to such adjustment or modification  and the effects thereof. We know the answer to all of this. Make all time owners to be responsible for all Capital expenses and you will replace the resort. This is why the 4100 dollars for each 1 bedroom sleep 8. We are replacing the resort and that is how it is worded with the Legacy for Life Contracts. We are owners of a Lease Contract and Northwynd will never change this.


----------



## Spark1

Go to CanLll-2018ABPC49(CanLll) this is Justice Youngs decision changing interest rates?  Every one that paid the high interest rates should report this to the Law society. I do not believe any one should of paid anything from day one. This is all Fraud. This is what Was written on Facebook. So,the plan all along 2010,was declare bankruptcy,take advantage of the proposed (June2011)Crown Land Sales Amendments,and change the (face of the traditional timeshare industry) (in the words of Kirk Wankel), and build hotels (As Justice Fitzpatrick said “if there is approval from 66 2/3% of the owners” the trustee would be free to do whatever they choose) Download The Columbia Vally Pioneer Newspaper at COLUMBIAVALLEYPIONEER.COM   And read the story Proposed rezoning For Sunchaser Vacation Villas-The Columbia Vally Pioneer.  Notice of the 5 responses only two were in favour.


----------



## LilMaggie

Spark1 said:


> The Fair Trading act put it into writing because of the abuse by Northwynd with our contracts but really it always has been there for contracts. It can not be one sided or what is the use of having a contract. Many of us took part in this Justice Youngs case and we were tried like criminals under a new contract that I do not know anything about and never even seen it. Was any one sent this contract with register mail. My contract and my only Vacation Villa Lease Contract states under-item #13 NOTICES: this Lease shall be deemed to be validly given when deposited postage prepaid in a postal box in Canada and addressed to the Lessee at the Address set forth in the register maintained by the Trustee  as contemplated by paragraph 18 hereof,and if there is a interruption of postal service it must be delivered by hand or acknowledged as received by the address. Did any one receive a notice of the modification by mail? Again any adjustment or modification will not in any way materially prejudice the rights of existing lessees. If any such adjustment or modification is effected  the Lessor will provide notice to each lessee setting out the nature of the adjustment or modification,the reasons giving rise to such adjustment or modification  and the effects thereof. We know the answer to all of this. Make all time owners to be responsible for all Capital expenses and you will replace the resort. This is why the 4100 dollars for each 1 bedroom sleep 8. We are replacing the resort and that is how it is worded with the Legacy for Life Contracts. We are owners of a Lease Contract and Northwynd will never change this.


Does anyone know what MG did for us in response to the changes in our VIAs in April 2016?  He must of done something, I just don't recall.
As many have so eloquently stated, MG was taking our money for years, only to increase the monies we had to pay to NM and to line his pockets!​The preamble to NM's new Schedule H prospectus made it very clear that the judgments were firmly on their side. Any VIA prior to 2003 was revised and the courts appeared to support this. I don't know how the law supported this, but it did.
This is a game to NM at this point and KW loves to win.  I strongly encourage everyone who is continuing this fight, to find the right hill to die on!
One problem at a time, but I for one, still need to hold MG accountable for his part in this.


----------



## MarcieL

Our contracts were changed to mirror Jeke  as per John Alexander and M.G. I forget now what transcript this is in but it is there   IMO M.G. fought the battle for J.B.  Jeke contract allowed interest of 2% per month thus the reason for the rate is my understanding.  We paid the extortion and now much of this I have lost on the passage of time. I will however never forget how this 40 grand extortion had changed our lives forever.


----------



## dotbuhler

ftp:ftp.rdek.bc.ca/planningbylaws/fhs/Bylaw2779_Fairmont_Ho_Springs_and_Columbia_Lake_Area_OCP.pdf
In 2017 this replaced the 2004 Bylaw relating to Fairmont Hot Springs and what the resort must do.
Check out page 9-10, and 5.3 Policies (p.11) pertaining to the housing of workers AT the resort. These are some pretty interesting developments that Wankel and Northmont are LEGALLY required to adhere to.


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> Our contracts were changed to mirror Jeke  as per John Alexander and M.G. I forget now what transcript this is in but it is there   IMO M.G. fought the battle for J.B.  Jeke contract allowed interest of 2% per month thus the reason for the rate is my understanding.  We paid the extortion and now much of this I have lost on the passage of time. I will however never forget how this 40 grand extortion had changed our lives forever.


Northmont’s Unilateral Amendments to the VIAs are Unauthorized.


----------



## MarcieL

Spark1 said:


> Northmont’s Unilateral Amendments to the VIAs are Unauthorized.


Certainly they were unauthorized. but the courts approved such.  When B.K. tried to reintroduce the contractual issue it was termed relitigation and rejected. I wish you well, nothing I would like to see more than these people having a little misery bestowed upon them.


----------



## dotbuhler

MarcieL said:


> Certainly they were unauthorized. but the courts approved such.  When B.K. tried to reintroduce the contractual issue it was termed relitigation and rejected. I wish you well, nothing I would like to see more than these people having a little misery bestowed upon them.


That is why showing that Wankel and Northmont's plans were NEVER about the timeshare. That, in fact, they wanted to REPLACE the timeshares with something completely different. Once the Courts are forced to understand this, the entire fiasco falls apart like the house of cards that it is. I found it extremely telling that present day Fairmont users mention that management is very "secretive" about present and future plans. One woman from the 8000 building worries that the 'hotel guests' will interfere with her usage of the "resort pool"!


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> Certainly they were unauthorized. but the courts approved such.  When B.K. tried to reintroduce the contractual issue it was termed relitigation and rejected. I wish you well, nothing I would like to see more than these people having a little misery bestowed upon them.[/QUOTE This is what has been written on Facebook. Item #9 on my 2001 lease contract agreement lists “operating costs and Reserve for Refurbishing” and lists 16 items of expense. capital costs or costs of replacing the main structure of the buildings or grounds or parts of the structure are not included in the list, but a mundane item such as garbage disposal is included . Don’t you think a major item such as replacing capital structure costs $30-40 million would be included if a minor item such as garbage disposal is included? In fact you would think that if timeshare owners were responsible for replacing a failing superstructure that it would be given separate paragraph status,so as there not be any doubt.  Remember when Northwynd was awarded this resort by Justice Romaine , Northmont was responsible for the main Structure Beams for the 7000 building and we do not know whelther they ever completed this building and now the time owners have to complete it because of the improper ruling of these Judges. Our politicians will have to get involved with this case,we are talking about millions being extorted because of wrong rulings. The Judges were more concerned about the Freedom To Choose and not our contracts. Where in our contracts does it say the trustee has the right to do what he did. This was the Unfair Practice by the Alberta Supplier Northmont that breached all of the Vacation Villa Leases. This might also of breached the VIAs also sorry i do not know any thing about these contracts and if this is a breach of your contracts please let us know. I feel Legacy for Life was sold immediately after Northwynd told over the resort in 2010 because that contract includes capital expenses as well it says you will replace the resort. Why are these perpetuity timeshares allowed in Canada?Tell me in what other Country in the world are they allowed. This is why Northmont had to do their Unauthorized Unilateral Amendments to the VIAs. Why did they have to do this if The Vacation Villa Lease Contracts were responsible for Capital Expenses? I bit they have now included Legacy for Life in the VIA contracts because it is the only contract that has capital expenses. When i hired MG he was to protect our Lease Contract nothing else. But after that the Judges changed the hole landscape that was not part of the case when we hired MG. This case is Fraud,Scam,Extortion and White Collar Crime.


----------



## aden2

When did FRP announce to their timeshare holders that they were bankrupt?


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> When did FRP announce to their timeshare holders that they were bankrupt?


That is a good question i was never notified that they went bankrupted?


----------



## truthr




----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> When did FRP announce to their timeshare holders that they were bankrupt?


Were they selling Legacy for Life and none of us Knew Fairmont Resort Properties LD went Bankrupted? I know a lady that bought Legacy for Life in the spring of 2010 and never received the contract papers. She ended up paying $47000.00 because she was panicking over the 162% if you did not pay now. This is why i say what is the hurry to have a appeal because we all want to know what the Law Society of BC has tho say. She was told the buildings had to be inpected before they could sell Legacy for Life and she was told the buildings were in excellent condition and they hand lots of money in the two bank accounts. Than they steal another $47000.00 and how many dollars did she loose when she bought her gold weeks. They say this is legal, no this is Fraud,Scam,Extortion,and White Collar Crime


----------



## aden2

It would be great to have a affidavit signed and presented to Justice Gill regarding this FRAUD for May 10th,2018.


----------



## ecwinch

CleoB said:


> Does anyone have a copy of the new VIA that they could send me?


From the Sunchaser site:
http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/VIA-UPDATE-041816.pdf


----------



## truthr




----------



## Spark1

ecwinch said:


> From the Sunchaser site:
> http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/VIA-UPDATE-041816.pdf


You have to know more than what Northmont did. What do you know about the Vacation Villa Lease contract? Northmont can not just say they did a modification or a unilateral ammendments to our Contracts without contacting the time owners first. Read items 37,38 and this is what they had to follow before they sent out emails. They did not and this is a breach of our Lease contracts. Many time owners do not own computers and would not even know how to turn one on. I never new about this until I received a email from MG which pertained to MLT AIKINS report Nov.06/2017. Our contracts were signed and witnessed and are legal documents that must also be honoured my Northmont as well as ourselves. The new law in Alberta Bill 31 was probably acted on because of companies like Northmont Northwynd. Check things out before you comment please.


----------



## ecwinch

Spark1 said:


> You have to know more than what Northmont did. What do you know about the Vacation Villa Lease contract? Northmont can not just say they did a modification or a unilateral ammendments to our Contracts without contacting the time owners first. Read items 37,38 and this is what they had to follow before they sent out emails. They did not and this is a breach of our Lease contracts. Many time owners do not own computers and would not even know how to turn one on. I never new about this until I received a email from MG which pertained to MLT AIKINS report Nov.06/2017. Our contracts were signed and witnessed and are legal documents that must also be honoured my Northmont as well as ourselves. The new law in Alberta Bill 31 was probably acted on because of companies like Northmont Northwynd. *Check things out before you comment please.*



Spark1 ....  All I did was respond to Cleo's request for a copy of the VIA - without any other comment - so I am not sure why your argumentative post is called for. Because I made no comment.

And while you are entitled to your opinion on the legality of the situation, as I have said before - the issues you raise have utterly failed in the court of law. But you are entitled to your opinion. Now there is my comment, if you want to argue the fine points.


----------



## Spark1

ecwinch said:


> Spark1 ....  All I did was respond to Cleo's request for a copy of the VIA - without any other comment - so I am not sure why your argumentative post is called for. Because I made no comment.
> 
> And while you are entitled to your opinion on the legality of the situation, as I have said before - the issues you raise have utterly failed in the court of law. But you are entitled to your opinion. Now there is my comment, if you want to argue the fine points.


This issue has not been raised? I only know one contract and that is the one we signed when we bought this timeshare.


----------



## Tanny13

In light of Northmont's appeal of Judge Young's decision re interest and costs, I am meeting with a well versed litigation lawyer, in Edmonton, this week.  As those of you in Option 2 should know, we were supposed to receive the names of all the 76 people who have not yet settled, so that we could potentially go to court on May 10, as a group, and fight our case.  It seems that May 3 is now the deadline for sending our forms allowing Strathcona Law to release our information to the others, which does not leave us any time to try to work together.  I have a partial list to which I sent an email today.  If you did not receive an email and you are interested in joining a group to work with a lawyer on our appeal of Judge Young's original decision (trying to find a way to present new evidence lacking in our original trials) and Northmont's appeal of Judge Young's decision on interest and costs, please respond to "thebestboy@me.com".  Thanks!


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> ftp:ftp.rdek.bc.ca/planningbylaws/fhs/Bylaw2779_Fairmont_Ho_Springs_and_Columbia_Lake_Area_OCP.pdf
> In 2017 this replaced the 2004 Bylaw relating to Fairmont Hot Springs and what the resort must do.
> Check out page 9-10, and 5.3 Policies (p.11) pertaining to the housing of workers AT the resort. These are some pretty interesting developments that Wankel and Northmont are LEGALLY required to adhere to.


Your link doesn't work.


----------



## ecwinch

Spark1 said:


> This issue has not been raised? I only know one *contract* and that is the one we signed when we bought this timeshare.



And the court has ruled that when you signed that contract you also entered into a timeshare estate that allows your rights to be modified without your specific consent. In multiple cases and on appeal.

One datapoint might be that we are having this discussion on the Timeshare Users Group website. Not the Commercial Property forum of Realtor.com.


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> Your link doesn't work
> sorry, I guess www.rdek.bc.ca/bylaws/ocp_zoning_landuse/ocp/fairmontocp/ works better. 71 pages. Click on Bylaw Regulations at the top under the Title.


----------



## Spark1

ecwinch said:


> And the court has ruled that when you signed that contract you also entered into a timeshare estate that allows your rights to be modified without your specific consent. In multiple cases and on appeal.
> 
> One datapoint might be that we are having this discussion on the Timeshare Users Group website. Not the Commercial Property forum of Realtor.com.


 Your Wrong.


----------



## CleoB

MarcieL said:


> Our contracts were changed to mirror Jeke  as per John Alexander and M.G. I forget now what transcript this is in but it is there   IMO M.G. fought the battle for J.B.  Jeke contract allowed interest of 2% per month thus the reason for the rate is my understanding.  We paid the extortion and now much of this I have lost on the passage of time. I will however never forget how this 40 grand extortion had changed our lives forever.


At the super conference John Alexander persuaded the judges that for all purposes *at trial *every contract mirrored JEKE so judges only had to look at JEKE contract.  In order to expedient the trial our contracts were looked at as mirroring JEKE but that does not give Northmount the right to *change* our contract without our approval.


----------



## CleoB

Aren't they referring to the Resort that's to the east of Mountainside golf course, regarding the expansion?


----------



## Huckleberry

Spark1 said:


> Your Wrong.



Spark1 please stop beating up on ecwinch.  I for one appreciate his points he brings up on this and find them helpful.

It's ok to disagree with him, but please do it in a respectful way and through reasoning and logical points.  Just saying "your wrong" seems confrontational and doesn't explain or represent a point of view.


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> Aren't they referring to the Resort that's to the east of Mountainside golf course, regarding the expansion?


The resort areas are indicated on the map that is included. Because zoning affects all the designated resort types it only makes sense that the existing timeshares are included.


----------



## LilMaggie

Hi Eric.  Deja vu or Groundhog Day 100 pages back?  Thanks for checking back in.

Tanny13 is getting folks together that are working on an active appeal relating to interest and costs and that sounds like a great place to put some collective energy about now.  The appeal is only 1 month away!


----------



## MarcieL

Does this include people that paid the extortion ?


----------



## truthr




----------



## MgolferL

For NO other reason than it just showed up.

Dear Mr. .....



Thank you for your correspondence regarding the timeshare special assessment/exit fees being levied by Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. in Fairmont Springs, British Columbia (BC).   

 While I very much understand the pressing concerns facing you at this time, most issues related to the terms and conditions of the sale of services and goods, including timeshares, fall under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction.


I understand, as well, that this issue has already been subject to judicial determination in the BC courts. If you have not yet done so, you may wish to share your concerns with members of the Legislative Assembly of BC.

Once again, thank you for writing, and please accept my best wishes.



Sincerely,










The Honourable Bardish Chagger, P.C., M.P.


----------



## CleoB

Tanny13 said:


> In light of Northmont's appeal of Judge Young's decision re interest and costs, I am meeting with a well versed litigation lawyer, in Edmonton, this week.  As those of you in Option 2 should know, we were supposed to receive the names of all the 76 people who have not yet settled, so that we could potentially go to court on May 10, as a group, and fight our case.  It seems that May 3 is now the deadline for sending our forms allowing Strathcona Law to release our information to the others, which does not leave us any time to try to work together.  I have a partial list to which I sent an email today.  If you did not receive an email and you are interested in joining a group to work with a lawyer on our appeal of Judge Young's original decision (trying to find a way to present new evidence lacking in our original trials) and Northmont's appeal of Judge Young's decision on interest and costs, please respond to "thebestboy@me.com".  Thanks!


So is this for post-2004 people arguing the 26.82%?  The pre-2004 people were judged at 5%.


----------



## MarcieL

The 5% now being appealed by NM?


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> So is this for post-2004 people arguing the 26.82%?  The pre-2004 people were judged at 5%.


You are aware that Wankel/Northmont has also launched an Appeal against Judge Young's Decision re: the interest charges?!


----------



## Hey lady

MgolferL said:


> For NO other reason than it just showed up.
> 
> Dear Mr. .....
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your correspondence regarding the timeshare special assessment/exit fees being levied by Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. in Fairmont Springs, British Columbia (BC).
> 
> While I very much understand the pressing concerns facing you at this time, most issues related to the terms and conditions of the sale of services and goods, including timeshares, fall under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> I understand, as well, that this issue has already been subject to judicial determination in the BC courts. If you have not yet done so, you may wish to share your concerns with members of the Legislative Assembly of BC.
> 
> Once again, thank you for writing, and please accept my best wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Honourable Bardish Chagger, P.C., M.P.


Received the same letter today - HOWEVER, I did write to this MP at New Years. Took him 4 moths to reply.


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> You are aware that Wankel/Northmont has also launched an Appeal against Judge Young's Decision re: the interest charges?!


Yes, but this is where it confuses me.....am I then appealing NM appeal?


----------



## dotbuhler

CleoB said:


> Yes, but this is where it confuses me.....am I then appealing NM appeal?


No, you are appealing under different grounds because they want the interest rates increased, and you don't. Plus you are appealing the Decision based on an error in facts on the Judge's part.


----------



## dotbuhler

Interestingly, the Appeal launched by NM/Wankel may be a delaying tactic on their part. As long as this matter is tied up in Civil litigation, the RCMP are essentially hogtied as to laying criminal fraud charges on a "matter that is before the Courts". There is a statute for limitations that applies here and the more protracted and drawn out this becomes, the better for the REAL crooks involved. JMHO.


----------



## CleoB

dotbuhler said:


> No, you are appealing under different grounds because they want the interest rates increased, and you don't. Plus you are appealing the Decision based on an error in facts on the Judge's part.


Would you please send me a private message on the "error in facts" on the judge's part?


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> It would be great to have a affidavit signed and presented to Justice Gill regarding this FRAUD for May 10th,2018.


Aden did you buy into the Legacy for Life? IF you did,did you know who you bought this from Northwynd at the time or did you think you bought this from Fairmont Resort Properties LD? This lady that i was trying to help said she bought in the spring of 2010 and could not tell me who she bought from? She found some information and said she did buy from Northwynd. She said she never received any documents from Northwynd including contract etc and she contacted them several times and never received them. Fairmont Resort Properties should of sent out a Notice to all of us Time Owners according to our Vacation Villa Lease called Item #37 NOTICES: This does not mean email. How would we know they went bankrupt?


----------



## dotbuhler

tssuck said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong. The option 1 people signed  in good faith believing that MG was working for them. In fact, he as really working for himself and NM. As the above information indicates "both parties did not benefit in some form". MG and NM benfitted but Option 1 people did not. The last paragraph sums up what happened. In my mind, the contract for the Option 1 people is void as due to the illegal nature of the document. MG's latest information package sent on Feb 12th is a continuation of the bulllying tactics that have become MG and NM's pattern to get money from us that they are not deserving of. For all Americans, NM will have to hire lawyers, pay fees to sue you. They have to do this on an individual basis for every American involved which will take time and monies from their pockets.


And for those of us sued in the B.C. Courts, the Judgments only are for alleged monies owed to NM at the start of the JEKE Action, or "test case". It does not include anything except proposed interest on that and costs assigned by the Court. Therefore, Wankel would have to start a new action in the B.C. Courts to get all those maintenance fees they wanted for 2014 on, plus their crazy interest.


----------



## dotbuhler

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> *Geldert UPDATE* | *April 1, 2016 *
> 
> *"Let me be clear* – Mr. Wankel asked me in Calgary to “join the team” as Northmont would be prepared to steer owners and lessees who are desperate to get out of this Resort to my office. I said *NO*."


Let's think about this...was there some reason that NM/Wankel thought he was a sellout? Were they right?! I know what my gut is telling me.


----------



## aden2

Action No: 0901-04199 court of Queens Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Calgary in the matter of companies Creditors arrangement Act, in the matter of Fairmont Resort Properties LTD..."Affidavit of Gary L. Bentham (sworn March 30, 2009). Check page 5 #15; page 6 #20; page 8; page 29. This would appear to be reason for the false presentation of sales especially 2009 and 2010.


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

dotbuhler said:


> And for those of us sued in the B.C. Courts, the Judgments only are for alleged monies owed to NM at the start of the JEKE Action, or "test case". It does not include anything except proposed interest on that and costs assigned by the Court. Therefore, Wankel would have to start a new action in the B.C. Courts to get all those maintenance fees they wanted for 2014 on, plus their crazy interest.


Sorry Dot but that is just wrong, misleading information. The judgments are (or will be) based on the statements from Nov of  2017 the same ones that were used by Northmont to determine the settlement amounts for MG. This info was provided by SLG when asked for in a professional courteous manner.


----------



## aden2

Spark1 said:


> Aden did you buy into the Legacy for Life? IF you did,did you know who you bought this from Northwynd at the time or did you think you bought this from Fairmont Resort Properties LD? This lady that i was trying to help said she bought in the spring of 2010 and could not tell me who she bought from? She found some information and said she did buy from Northwynd. She said she never received any documents from Northwynd including contract etc and she contacted them several times and never received them. Fairmont Resort Properties should of sent out a Notice to all of us Time Owners according to our Vacation Villa Lease called Item #37 NOTICES: This does not mean email. How would we know they went bankrupt?


*Yes I bought into Legacy for Life and it was on Fairmont Stationary! What is #37 Notices?*


----------



## dotbuhler

Rider Nation Rocks said:


> Sorry Dot but that is just wrong, misleading information. The judgments are (or will be) based on the statements from Nov of  2017 the same ones that were used by Northmont to determine the settlement amounts for MG. This info was provided by SLG when asked for in a professional courteous manner.


Hmmm, my Judgement in B.C. says otherwise. They are listed on the B.C Judgement Rolls with a $ amount.


----------



## CleoB

Are all of you here aware that the Strathcona Law Group has sent out forms for the Alberta non-settling people to see if they want their information shared among the other 76 people?  If you are one of them and wish to hookup with the others please get ahold of the SLG.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

dotbuhler said:


> Hmmm, my Judgement in B.C. says otherwise. They are listed on the B.C Judgement Rolls with a $ amount.



What is the best way to find yourself in the BC judgement roles and find if there was a judgement against you.


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

dotbuhler said:


> Hmmm, my Judgement in B.C. says otherwise. They are listed on the B.C Judgement Rolls with a $ amount.


I am Sorry.My bad. I apologize if I spoke out of turn. Good for you I guess.                                                  In our case the amount owing according to Exhibit B and C of the Justice Branch conclusion of Northmont VS Golberg dated Jan 31 2018, was within a few dollars of the settlement figure negotiated by MG over the Christmas holidays. Actual judgment to follow I assume. Where could one peruse the judgment rolls you alluded  to.


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> *Yes I bought into Legacy for Life and it was on Fairmont Stationary! What is #37 Notices?*


Page4 of my Vacation Villa Lease Contract 2001 item #37 Notices: Notices under this Lease shall be deemed to be validly given when deposited postage prepaid in a postal box in Canada and addressed to the Lessee at the address set forth in the register maintained by the Trustee as contemplated by paragraph 18 hereof, except during any interruption of postal service when notice shall be givan only when delivered by hand or acknowledged as received by the addressee. This is how we should of been notified that Fairmont Resort Properties LD went Bankrupt. How could Northmont sell Legacy for Life that soon after they took over the resort in 2010 and i bet many time owners did not know Collin Knight went bankrupt. This is why i say the new law Bill 31 unilateral amendments to our contracts is the same as our Contract as well as modifications of our contract. We were never notified according to item37.


----------



## dotbuhler

Rider Nation Rocks said:


> I am Sorry.My bad. I apologize if I spoke out of turn. Good for you I guess.                                                  In our case the amount owing according to Exhibit B and C of the Justice Branch conclusion of Northmont VS Golberg dated Jan 31 2018, was within a few dollars of the settlement figure negotiated by MG over the Christmas holidays. Actual judgment to follow I assume. Where could one peruse the judgment rolls you alluded  to.


Go to your emails Geldert sent you. You will find one titled Served in the heading. My copy is stamped Nov. 10, 2014 Supreme Court Cranbrook, B.C. Registry, page 3 of 6 will have your personal amount owing, broken down by amount owed to "Villa" and court costs. Also 26.828% interest advisement from My 31, 2013 to the date of the judgement. Or you can go to the B.C. Law Courts for the Judgement Rolls, search under Judgments in the Supreme Court by your last name. Doesn't give the breakdown, though. Their website is a bit of a landmine.  Of course, I was a 1993 lessee, so my amount may be vastly different from say, Legacy for Life, or other of the half dozen or more different contracts out there.


----------



## dotbuhler

NeverNeverAgain said:


> What is the best way to find yourself in the BC judgement roles and find if there was a judgement against you.


Look in your emails from Geldert, if you had him as a lawyer. Nov. 10, 2014 is stamped on my Notice of Civil Claim.


----------



## CleoB

NeverNeverAgain said:


> What is the best way to find yourself in the BC judgement roles and find if there was a judgement against you.


You should be able to contact the local courthouse and see if they have a copy.  If not, they should be able to tell you which city it was filed in, the civil claim number and give you a phone number to call.  When you call give them the claim number and ask them to fax or mail you a copy.


----------



## aden2

Consumer Protection Act:
enhanced fairness between consumers and businesses – new provisions that are now in place include:

prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts, unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract
.


----------



## Spark1

CleoB said:


> You should be able to contact the local courthouse and see if they have a copy.  If not, they should be able to tell you which city it was filed in, the civil claim number and give you a phone number to call.  When you call give them the claim number and ask them to fax or mail you a copy.


Can you imagine the bill collector charging 108000.00 and all he did is send a registered letter to our mail box. We have not had a email or a phone call nothing and he is charging this amount. He well have to break down all the costs properly and prove to me that he is worthy of these costs. This is fraud,scam,extortion and white collar crime. The court judges should be demanding where they are coming up with what they are charging. I heard they did the same thing when MG collected off of Otion#1 time owners. How are they getting away with this? Time to talk to the anti fraud devision with the RCMP again. Every one stop this from happening.


----------



## Tanny13

I have found a lawyer who will represent us in fighting Northmont's appeal of the 5% interest for pre-2004 contracts.  Please note that this only applies to:

a) Those who did NOT sign Option 1
b) Your contract is prior to 2004, AND
c) You were sued in Alberta.

Note that if Northmont is successful in this appeal, your amount owing will be significantly higher than if we fight this appeal and win.

Please contact me asap at thebestboy@me.com if you are part of the above group and are interested in joining with the lawyer to defend against Northmont's appeal of Judge Young's decision on interest and costs.


----------



## LilMaggie

Tanny13 said:


> I have found a lawyer who will represent us in fighting Northmont's appeal of the 5% interest for pre-2004 contracts.  Please note that this only applies to:
> 
> a) Those who did NOT sign Option 1 AND
> b) Your contract is prior to 2004.
> 
> Note that if Northmont is successful in this appeal, your amount owing will be significantly higher than if we fight this appeal and win.
> 
> Please contact me asap at thebestboy@me.com if you are part of the above group and are interested in joining with the lawyer to defend against Northmont's appeal of Judge Young's decision on interest and costs.


That's so great Tanny13!
When you guys get all this nonsense resolved, please ask your lawyer if he/she has any compunctions about suing another lawyer for negligence;-)


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> Consumer Protection Act:
> enhanced fairness between consumers and businesses – new provisions that are now in place include:
> 
> prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts, unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract
> .


Aden this is why I am saying this has always been this way. They can not modify,do unilateral amendments or even bankruptcy, we should have been given notice before they do any of this explained on item 37 Notices of my Lease Contract. We all have to fight to protect our contracts from Judges and fraudsters like Northwynd. Modifications  can not materially prejudice the right of existing lessees. We know this will now,we would be responsible to replace all the buildings. I have said all along when I started to keep your money in your pocket and we know what happened when Justice Loo ruling incorrectly and it has been a scam ever since ,including Our Lawyer MG. We need to hear from the Law Society first before we do any thing. It seems to me the cart is always in front of the horse,the time owners again that paid Knew that Justice Young was going to rule on interest rates and many time owners paid why? I sure hope many did not because of MG’s fraudulent way he handled this right before Christmas and again not giving time owners time to go over the document or have the right to rescind. All of this should be reported to the RCMP also. They can not just send out a bill. Every thing must be itemized justifying the cost. I was told MG did not do this so Why Pay and what are you getting for your money?


----------



## teedeej

I think KW is telling Sauvageau to intimidate Option #1 Geldert clients concerning the gag order.

This email was addressed to my personal email account that I use for Facebook and TUGBBS postings.


----------



## CleoB

Spark1 said:


> Can you imagine the bill collector charging 108000.00 and all he did is send a registered letter to our mail box. We have not had a email or a phone call nothing and he is charging this amount. He well have to break down all the costs properly and prove to me that he is worthy of these costs. This is fraud,scam,extortion and white collar crime. The court judges should be demanding where they are coming up with what they are charging. I heard they did the same thing when MG collected off of Otion#1 time owners. How are they getting away with this? Time to talk to the anti fraud devision with the RCMP again. Every one stop this from happening.


The RCMP will not investigate as this is before the courts.  If you want a breakdown of the charges contact Sunchaser and have them send you a bill.  I'm surprised they haven't so far.


----------



## heydynagirl

Who on here was sued in BC and did not pay?  Has anyone heard anything other than having a withdrawal of service letter filed with the courts in BC?  Just looking for input / advice / possible actions.


----------



## dotbuhler

heydynagirl said:


> Who on here was sued in BC and did not pay?  Has anyone heard anything other than having a withdrawal of service letter filed with the courts in BC?  Just looking for input / advice / possible actions.


I know of 7 people, and suspect that anyone with an other-than-Alberta address were proceeded against in B.C. Lumped in with the 300 named in the 'JEKE test case'. When the B.C. Courts send you the Order of Judgement (Writ of Execution) you can request an Appointment to dispute that. Of course that'll probably be in B.C....


----------



## aden2

Anyone that is part of the 76 must let Justice Gill and Northmont (Jud Virtue) that you will be attending otherwise you may get a default judgement against you. If there is a concern that you want to be heard at the hearing you must submit it to Justice Gill before May 3rd. I wrote to Justice Gill and received a reply back stating I can bring up my concerns.


----------



## LilMaggie

teedeej said:


> View attachment 6195 I think KW is telling Sauvageau to intimidate Option #1 Geldert clients concerning the gag order.
> 
> This email was addressed to my personal email account that I use for Facebook and TUGBBS postings.


Tim...that is messed up!!!


----------



## aden2

To Mr. Jud Virtue 
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
3700, 400 -3rd Avenue SW
Calgary, AB. T2P 4H2


Please take note that this Notice of Intention to Proceed with the Appeal is being sent to with regarding:

NORTHMONT RESORT PROPERTIES LTD. APPEAL ACTION NO 1703 22524


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> Anyone that is part of the 76 must let Justice Gill and Northmont (Jud Virtue) that you will be attending otherwise you may get a default judgement against you. If there is a concern that you want to be heard at the hearing you must submit it to Justice Gill before May 3rd. I wrote to Justice Gill and received a reply back stating I can bring up my concerns.


Aden is the legacy for Life legal to sell in Canada? A lease contract means this, you have the “ right-to-use” timeshare, which refers to a lease like agreement. In this type of timeshare your lease expires after a specified  time and you have no property ownership rights in the property. How could they sell perpetuity timeshares with the buildings being in the condition they say they are in? What other country sells this type of Leg irons for life? I would question all governments to see if they had a license to sell that product. I am going to Question every government about Lease Contracts, that being Protection BC, Service Alberta and the Federal government. I want to know if there is such a thing as having a timeshare lease contract that is responsible for Capital Expenses and who polices this. If there is that is not explained in the Canadian Consumer Handbook.


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> Aden is the legacy for Life legal to sell in Canada? A lease contract means this, you have the “ right-to-use” timeshare, which refers to a lease like agreement. In this type of timeshare your lease expires after a specified  time and you have no property ownership rights in the property. How could they sell perpetuity timeshares with the buildings being in the condition they say they are in? What other country sells this type of Leg irons for life? I would question all governments to see if they had a license to sell that product. I am going to Question every government about Lease Contracts, that being Protection BC, Service Alberta and the Federal government. I want to know if there is such a thing as having a timeshare lease contract that is responsible for Capital Expenses and who polices this. If there is that is not explained in the Canadian Consumer Handbook.


I have read on Tug that time owners that agreed to pay that fraud cancellation when Justice Loo made her decision ended up also paying the renovation of $4100 on top of the $3100. Please let us know if this happened to you. I am setting up a meeting with the Top RCMP that deals with fraud and I would like  to show them how Northmont always keeps you on the hook to pay more when you think you are going to be released. My Question for the ones that paid MGs fraud set up will you be released from this poor excuse of a resort? We now see what he did with interest rates. This is all Fraud.


----------



## LilMaggie

Spark1 said:


> I have read on Tug that time owners that agreed to pay that fraud cancellation when Justice Loo made her decision ended up also paying the renovation of $4100 on top of the $3100. Please let us know if this happened to you. I am setting up a meeting with the Top RCMP that deals with fraud and I would like  to show them how Northmont always keeps you on the hook to pay more when you think you are going to be released. My Question for the ones that paid MGs fraud set up will you be released from this poor excuse of a resort? We now see what he did with interest rates. This is all Fraud.


Maybe if we had an itemized statement, we could tell you definitively.  I, for one, paid approx. $4200.00 over and above the cost of the "delinquent" maintenance fees and the exorbitant interest fees that were on my NM statement.


----------



## aden2

So why are time share people being forced to pay annual maintenance fees each year beyond their default period? According to the Vacation lease agreements the contracts are to be terminated once their default period is expired. This should have happened around 2013! The contract should have been terminated according to the Alberta Consumer Protection Act. The word may in the contract to deal with default is defined as "shall".


----------



## aden2

Question for Spark : are you one of the 76 non-settlements? Will you be attending the May 10th hearing?


----------



## Petus@18

aden2 said:


> So why are time share people being forced to pay annual maintenance fees each year beyond their default period? According to the Vacation lease agreements the contracts are to be terminated once their default period is expired. This should have happened around 2013! The contract should have been terminated according to the Alberta Consumer Protection Act. The word may in the contract to deal with default is defined as "shall".



Agreed.  Q: do we know if Geldert et al did ever formally bring forward the Fair Trading Act during the Jeke's fiasco, or the Golbergs' and Reids' actions? Was this act ever mentioned or is referenced in any of the transcripts/ trials' records? What was the Court's position when the act was introduced, if ever brought up.
Is there anyone in this forum that could answer this query?

Edit: has anyone received Geldert's final invoice yet?


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> Question for Spark : are you one of the 76 non-settlements? Will you be attending the May 10th hearing?


Yes i am. I fired MG so i was not option 1 or 2. Yes i will be at the appeal. I talked to MG several times about the Fair Trading Act and explained to him that the Freedom to Choose was the Unfair Practice done by the supplier being from Calgary And we should of been able to use The FAir Trading Act to fight this. I questioned him about using the Janet Lydiatt case in Alberta May01/2017 and he said that would be the case he would be using,i emailed him that case. I just sent him a email explaining to him about the Fair Trading Act and why we should be using this last Nov. 21/2017. I received a email from him Nov22. And this is what he said,Thank you for your email. As always your input is always appreciated. My regards. I could not believe he became a bill collector for the enemy. Those SIF documents have no signatures how can that be legal. Every one has been taken advantage of sad.


----------



## aden2

I hope these are some of the issues to be discussed May 10, 2018 hearing. 1. misrepresentation and false info. told during the Legacy sales 2009 & 2010; 2. Remedies on Default which is on all contracts is how contracts are terminated, there is no extra fee to be applied ; 3. charging maintenance beyond default period; 4. enforcing a contract that was not the contract we signed.


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 said:


> I have read on Tug that time owners that agreed to pay that fraud cancellation when Justice Loo made her decision ended up also paying the renovation of $4100 on top of the $3100. Please let us know if this happened to you. I am setting up a meeting with the Top RCMP that deals with fraud and I would like  to show them how Northmont always keeps you on the hook to pay more when you think you are going to be released. My Question for the ones that paid MGs fraud set up will you be released from this poor excuse of a resort? We now see what he did with interest rates. This is all Fraud.



For your information, I accepted the relinquishment agreement negotiated by MG as at January 2017.  The formula turned out to be 85% of RPF (RPF about $4,000), plus four years maintenance fees, plus interest - total $13,800.  I think the amount the fall of 2017 would have been about double, so the relinquishment agreement turned out to be the best deal, if paying extortion can ever be considered to be a good deal. As far as I'm concerned, any payment giving up your timeshare, and/or paying to reconstruct faulty buildings violates the lease agreement in a number of ways. But losing several court decisions is a tough hurdle to clear. (Although there seems to be a few things starting to fall our way?) These court decisions are so egregious, that I sometimes wonder if we're not up against corruption and collusion at high levels.


----------



## truthr

Looks like Hillside has already been sold and is now called Mountain View Villas.
http://www.mountainviewvillas.ca/


----------



## servemeout

"Welcome to Mountain View Villas" - this was the plan from the beginning.  I know that our contract was for a unit at Hillside.  What a deal, sell the units as timeshares, screw the time share "owners", and now let's sell them again.  They are offering rent or purchase.*  BUYER BEWARE*.  Hope there is an established condo board without the shyster KW.  Does anyone think that this is only a NEW numbered company.  All of the judges that ruled against us should have a copy of this.  Get the legal system to rule that TS " owners" can be charge everything for anything.  Our decision not to pay the buy out was the right decision for us.  I do hope someone that has been part of the delinquent group has a contract with the unit number that is being sold again.  Question - would we have the right to kick out the "new second owner" to retain our week as stated in our contract.  The can of worms! The can of worms!   There are others that did not pay that were not part of the MG group. Did any notice go out to existing owners?  This is really getting to be like wiping your A-- on a wagon wheel, there is no end to it.


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

truthr said:


> Looks like Hillside has already been sold and is now called Mountain View Villas.
> http://www.mountainviewvillas.ca/


  Sorry I need a minute. I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth. What a country!! You folks in B.C. have quite a justice system. Not sure its any better here but this defies description. Beyond Belief!! I am outta here. It is like  WE or our $$$ never existed. Peace be the Journey.


----------



## aden2

*Fairness between consumers and business*
More than 75% of survey respondents and numerous open house attendees agreed with the proposed regulatory solutions for:


preventing businesses from changing a contract unless consumers are provided advance notice
allowing consumers the right to sue if a seller is operating unfairly or against consumer protection legislation
protecting consumers who file honest complaints or from being sued by businesses when publishing negative review
informing consumers if a business has been charged or convicted under consumer protection legislation
improving access to mediation programs
There was less support (64%) for prohibiting suppliers from forcing consumers into mandatory arbitration.

Industry representatives expressed support for ensuring that fairness between businesses and consumers is maintained for both parties. They also emphasized the importance of looking into a best practice or a process of controlling intentionally defamatory or false business reviews published online.

The business community also supported the creation of an alternative mediation program and improving access for consumers, instead of using the courts.


----------



## dotbuhler

from fb yesterday, Ricky Schenkel posted....
"I strongly suggest that everyone who has not paid the settlement should write to Justice Gill at Court of Queen's Bench, 6th floor, Edmonton Law Courts, Edmonton, AB, T5J 0R2. Include the file# 170322524, Reid v Northmont. Also Mr. Jud Virtue, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Suite 3700, 400 - 3rd Ave.SW, Calgary, AB, T2P 4H2. Stating that you never paid the settlement and want to be included in this Appeal. It says on the list of 76 not settled, if your name is not on that list and you have not settled, I would ask them why? MG, SLG, and Northmont have told the Courts you are among the ones who paid and settled. Since that is not correct I would demand that you be allowed to be part of this Appeal. I can't stress enough how important this is since Judge Young has already ruled in favor of Northmont on the amount of dispute notes (which is about two and one half times more) so I'm assuming that would be the same for everyone. So, no matter where you are from Alberta, SK, other parts of Canada, the U.S., England, I urge you to write and voice your concerns in this matter ASAP. Just my suggestion."


----------



## Spark1

dotbuhler said:


> from fb yesterday, Ricky Schenkel posted....
> "I strongly suggest that everyone who has not paid the settlement should write to Justice Gill at Court of Queen's Bench, 6th floor, Edmonton Law Courts, Edmonton, AB, T5J 0R2. Include the file# 170322524, Reid v Northmont. Also Mr. Jud Virtue, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Suite 3700, 400 - 3rd Ave.SW, Calgary, AB, T2P 4H2. Stating that you never paid the settlement and want to be included in this Appeal. It says on the list of 76 not settled, if your name is not on that list and you have not settled, I would ask them why? MG, SLG, and Northmont have told the Courts you are among the ones who paid and settled. Since that is not correct I would demand that you be allowed to be part of this Appeal. I can't stress enough how important this is since Judge Young has already ruled in favor of Northmont on the amount of dispute notes (which is about two and one half times more) so I'm assuming that would be the same for everyone. So, no matter where you are from Alberta, SK, other parts of Canada, the U.S., England, I urge you to write and voice your concerns in this matter ASAP. Just my suggestion."


Hopefully they are not trying to gather up all the sheep and strike it again. Reason why this has happened MG,which it really makes me wonder is was he ever our Lawyer and how much money did he take from us and what kind of back room deals were there? The Law Society really must do a proper job with their investagation because this is really important. We had no representation. He never tried to use the FTA in Alberta Why.


----------



## LilMaggie

Spark1 said:


> Hopefully they are not trying to gather up all the sheep and strike it again. Reason why this has happened MG,which it really makes me wonder is was he ever our Lawyer and how much money did he take from us and what kind of back room deals were there? The Law Society really must do a proper job with their investagation because this is really important. We had no representation. He never tried to use the FTA in Alberta Why.


It wouldn't hurt to contact the Law Society again...just to keep a bug in their ear. We are not done with any of this.


----------



## LilMaggie

Re: Mountain View Villas. Did NM actually sell it or are we paying for them to renovate the hotel and condos?
Did they inform any of the TS lessees of this?


----------



## lost and confused

LilMaggie said:


> Re: Mountain View Villas. Did they actually sell it or are we paying for them to renovate the "hotel" and condos?
> Did they inform any of the TS lessees of this?


As their website was unveiled and online bookings are available starting next month at the "hotel" and "five buildings", it appears that things are in full swing.  Information has been difficult to locate online in terms of a sale, transfer of ownership, etc.  I would perhaps suggest that if we want answers, we start phoning directly and getting information straight from the source.  Momentum needs to continue to build in anticipation for May 10th.   Those directly affectedly in this have a role and responsibility to play.   We cannot just think that others will speak up on our behalf or that we can benefit from doing nothing.   Keep moving forward.  Keep sharing information.  Keep asking for answers from the source.   Don't stay quiet and sit still.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

Inf**kingcredible.    KW needed how much to "renovate" and repair yet magically they sat empty for years, only to reopen after the hostage taking settlement was forced, and under a new name, were they even renovated??????   This stinks beyond belief.   Totally disgusted at every part of this horrendous nightmare process.


----------



## LilMaggie

Lostmyshirt said:


> Inf**kingcredible.    KW needed how much to "renovate" and repair yet magically they sat empty for years, only to reopen after the hostage taking settlement was forced, and under a new name, were they even renovated??????   This stinks beyond belief.   Totally disgusted at every part of this horrendous nightmare process.


According to the website the hotel will be closed for renovations in the 2018 fall season.  Don't think they did anything to spruce up Hillside yet.


----------



## aden2

to write to Justice Gill prior to May 3rd you can email:
Patricia.Copeman@albertacourts.ca
*Subject: *Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. - 1703 22524 
Pat Copeman
Judicial Assistant to
Justice Hillier, Justice Gill
and Justice Yungwirth
Court of Queen's Bench
6th Floor, Edmonton Law Courts
Edmonton, AB T5J 0R2


----------



## aden2

There are two distinct areas at Sunchaser Vacation Villas:


*Riverside* is home to our Front Desk, Recreation Centre and buildings 100 through 800.
*Riverview* (8100 building) is our newest building, located approximately 1 km south of the other resort buildings. Resort amenities are a short drive away, or can be accessed via walking path along the highway shoulder and into the Riverside neighbourhood (use caution if walking).


----------



## LilMaggie

aden2 said:


> There are two distinct areas at Sunchaser Vacation Villas:
> 
> 
> *Riverside* is home to our Front Desk, Recreation Centre and buildings 100 through 800.
> *Riverview* (8100 building) is our newest building, located approximately 1 km south of the other resort buildings. Resort amenities are a short drive away, or can be accessed via walking path along the highway shoulder and into the Riverside neighbourhood (use caution if walking).


Yes...there is no mention of Hillside on the Sunchaser website anymore.


----------



## servemeout

We will not be able to attend the May 10th court session but I will write a letter, concerning how we have been cheated, lied to and misled.  The best ammo we have are the communications from Northmont.  The RPF was for the whole resort to be done.  There are so many inconsistences in the communication that we all received.  Our opinion is that Northmont owes us for the years that they have robbed from our time contract.  Look at some of the other issues, like paying to have plans and color palettes done for the renovations of Hillside. Remember Samantha Pinksen? Here is a Northmont quote " Vacation Experience Costs: Our project designer, Samantha Pinksen, has done a great job evaluating the Resort and the units with the understanding that our objective is renovation a timeshare appropriate Resort, not creating a lavish or overly expensive property.  ..., her primary focus has been on in-suite use and Resort durability."  How about we have the right to shutter up building, the resort can only exist if it is reduced in size, we have the right to change your contract, discussion of future owners ( no sales office so what future owners), the list goes on and on.  I LOVE the comment from the Budget Commentary April 2013.  "Final budgetbased on a full resort renovation. Actual budget will reduce based on Freedom to Choose uptake)"  Was any judge informed that the extent of the RPF included catch basins capacity of storm lines and failing curb and gutters, not to mention the plumbing.  Our contract does not mention the reconstruction of the property.  Also Norton Rose told KW that the developer are also responsible for payment of their proportionate share of all cost.
KW stated under oath that they did not send themselves an invoice therefore they did not pay.  I am sure there are other examples that need to be included and I will review the file we have put together by date from the time this started six years ago.


----------



## aden2

Section 7.2  Chapter C-26.3
 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
21
Powers of Court 7.2(1)  In an action commenced under this Division, the Court of Queen’s Bench may award exemplary or punitive damages in addition to any other remedy the Court considers proper. (2)  In the trial of an issue under this Division, oral evidence respecting an unfair practice is admissible despite the existence of a written agreement under the consumer transaction and despite the fact that the oral evidence pertains to a representation in respect of a term, condition or undertaking that is not provided for in the agreement. (3)  The Court of Queen’s Bench may disregard the requirement that the consumer give notice under section 7.1 or any requirement relating to the notice if the Court considers that it is in the interest of justice to do so. 2005


----------



## servemeout

The communication from 04/2013 is full of comments concerning the structural issues, including that the problem was increased in the Hillside buildings.  Also mentioned is the freeze - thaw cycles and mold.  Are timeshare people responsible for what mother nature does?  They are aware of the Hillside problems and are going to sell them again.  From the day RVM gave us the RPF they started to charge the illegal interest before any court ruled that it could be charged.  #8 of this document concerns the structural and foundation problems of the rec building and the pool.  The April 12/2013 "Freedom" crap communication states on the final page. "Renovation focused on the best building while the worst are removed."  Was the Hillside buildings the ones that KW wanted to have rezoned before the courts ruled on the issue.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Unfortunately there may be another a new discussion topic to bring up to Justice Gill on May 10th that just came to light.

It appears Michael Geldert, as part of his Option 1 negotiated Settlement, has allowed Northmont to cancel an individuals RCI memberships even if you have been paying the membership in order to take advantage of their trip getaway program.

As far as I am aware this was never discussed or brought to our attention and definitely did not appear in the Settlement or was contemplated as being part of of it.

Looks like just another way the "Boys" club found to screw us but in so doing in such a deceitful manor is now new evidence that Northmont has provided for the appeal and that can be used to show Geldert is incompetent or is further acting as a complicit member of Northmont's overall plans.

If you are an Option 1 person try logging into your RCI to verify or better yet give RCI a call to verify Northmont has cancelled your membership - apparently a refund check is in the mail for the balance of the paid RCI membership subscriptions.

Please let your Facebook groups know about this to bring it to the attention of everyone and if you get confirmation your RCI membership has been cancelled pleased post to the group.


----------



## aden2

An order was granted by Justice J.J. Gill March 8, 2018: "4. In the event any Non-settling appellant has not confirmed its intention to pursue the appeal in accordance with paragraph 5 below, prior to May 3, 2018, this appeal shall be dismissed in respect to that Non-settling Appellant. 5. A copy of this order shall be served by Strathcona Law group LLP on each Non-settling Appellant, together with a Form of Notice referencing to return date set in paragraph 3 hereof, and requesting that each Non-settling appellant(s) who intends to pursue the Appeal confirm to counsel for the Respondent that they intend to do so, and provide an electronic or post office address  at which they can be served .........."


----------



## LilMaggie

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Unfortunately there may be another a new discussion topic to bring up to Justice Gill on May 10th that just came to light.
> 
> It appears Michael Geldert, as part of his Option 1 negotiated Settlement, has allowed Northmont to cancel an individuals RCI memberships even if you have been paying the membership in order to take advantage of their trip getaway program.
> 
> As far as I am aware this was never discussed or brought to our attention and definitely did not appear in the Settlement or was contemplated as being part of of it.
> 
> Looks like just another way the "Boys" club found to screw us but in so doing in such a deceitful manor is now new evidence that Northmont has provided for the appeal and that can be used to show Geldert is incompetent or is further acting as a complicit member of Northmont's overall plans.
> 
> If you are an Option 1 person try logging into your RCI to verify or better yet give RCI a call to verify Northmont has cancelled your membership - apparently a refund check is in the mail for the balance of the paid RCI membership subscriptions.
> 
> Please let your Facebook groups know about this to bring it to the attention of everyone and if you get confirmation your RCI membership has been cancelled pleased post to the group.


If you no longer own a timeshare, how would you be entitled to have a membership with an exchange company?  At least you know your timeshare was cancelled.


----------



## MarcieL

LilMaggie said:


> If you no longer own a timeshare, how would you be entitled to have a membership with an exchange company?  At least you know your timeshare was cancelled.


Many people pay their memberships and use getaways.  IMO K.W. is just being vindictive, by notifying the exchange companies.  We have another time share and exchange RCI weeks and use purchase getaways. Was Sunchaser somehow involved with your points or weeks, that they felt the need to let them know that you no longer own your units?  Were they informed  we were extorted out of thousands to rescind such, just another reprehensible act.


----------



## servemeout

There are lots of thinks that we did not know at the time they happened.  On May 5,2017, Northmont obtained third reading of bylaw 2777, which allowed the rezoning of part of the Hillside buildings.  This is before Judge Young ruled against us.  The justice system failed to protect us from having our timeshares taken for KW to control the lands.  The trustee was not a trustee.  Everything was in place before the court ruling.  Scammed.  Our lawyer, at the time should have been on top of this and objected to the bylaw change.  Here is the quote from the proposal dated March 28,2017. " Amend the Upper Columbia Valley Zoning Bylaw designation from R-4, Multiple Family Residential - High Density Zone to RES-3, Resort Lodge Zone to permit hotel use in the three existing buildings. A central check-in facility is proposed for Building 8000.  The current total number of dwelling units is 60.  No new structures are proposed."

As for the RCI issue, we have rented from RCI, including one week at Hillside.  At that time it was cheaper to rent for a week than pay for the maintenance fees.  

Any guess as to when there will be no resort.  It is becoming clear that the ones that paid the RPF may not be pleased with their decision down the road, or should I call it the slippery slope.


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> Many people pay their memberships and use getaways.  IMO K.W. is just being vindictive, by notifying the exchange companies.  We have another time share and exchange RCI weeks and use purchase getaways. Was Sunchaser somehow involved with your points or weeks, that they felt the need to let them know that you no longer own your units?  Were they informed  we were extorted out of thousands to rescind such, just another reprehensible act.


You do not need a timeshare to belong to Interval World. If we want to stay with Interval World you are grandfathered in period.


----------



## LilMaggie

servemeout said:


> There are lots of thinks that we did not know at the time they happened.  On May 5,2017, Northmont obtained third reading of bylaw 2777, which allowed the rezoning of part of the Hillside buildings.  This is before Judge Young ruled against us.  The justice system failed to protect us from having our timeshares taken for KW to control the lands.  The trustee was not a trustee.  Everything was in place before the court ruling.  Scammed.  Our lawyer, at the time should have been on top of this and objected to the bylaw change.  Here is the quote from the proposal dated March 28,2017. " Amend the Upper Columbia Valley Zoning Bylaw designation from R-4, Multiple Family Residential - High Density Zone to RES-3, Resort Lodge Zone to permit hotel use in the three existing buildings. A central check-in facility is proposed for Building 8000.  The current total number of dwelling units is 60.  No new structures are proposed."
> 
> As for the RCI issue, we have rented from RCI, including one week at Hillside.  At that time it was cheaper to rent for a week than pay for the maintenance fees.
> 
> Any guess as to when there will be no resort.  It is becoming clear that the ones that paid the RPF may not be pleased with their decision down the road, or should I call it the slippery slope.


Sounds about right! 
It seems clear that the settlement money we paid NM will be going toward renovating their hotel in the fall. 
Our lawyer must have known what was going on regarding the rezoning of the timeshare to RES-3.  KW said that NM had "been working on addressing the concerns with the timeshare resort going back to 2013 and the rezoning is part of that realignment process".  I never agreed to pay for their hotel. How does this in any way benefit the timeshare owners?  Do they get free pet friendly suites at Mountain View now as part of their timeshare week?...nope...they get a crummy, run down "resort".


----------



## dotbuhler

So, the last time I was in a courtroom with Kirk Wankel there was Michael Geldert telling the 'troops' that some of us had "threatened" Wankel and that wasn't nice. Wonder who will have Kirky-boy's back when we see him again in May? Or will have hired bodygaurds this time? And will Geldert show his true face as to who he was working for all along, and be one of them?!


----------



## Palms to pines

Serve me out- I could not agree more with what you have said. This whole fiasco has been so sketchy right from the start. The law failed us, the trustee failed us and Geldert failed us. All the letters I wrote to BC agencies and government officials, not even a response 99 percent of the time. It really is like it was a grand design to extort our money ,get rid of us and move on to a totally new agenda . Looks like everything is just going swimmingly at Fairmont now. I don’t get it. The courts just enabled Wankle to do as he liked . Sometimes I still can’t believe how it all went down. Will the BC Law Society really investigate?? Will they really challenge the way Geldert handled this? I wonder.


----------



## MarcieL

Palms to pines said:


> Serve me out- I could not agree more with what you have said. This whole fiasco has been so sketchy right from the start. The law failed us, the trustee failed us and Geldert failed us. All the letters I wrote to BC agencies and government officials, not even a response 99 percent of the time. It really is like it was a grand design to extort our money ,get rid of us and move on to a totally new agenda . Looks like everything is just going swimmingly at Fairmont now. I don’t get it. The courts just enabled Wankle to do as he liked . Sometimes I still can’t believe how it all went down. Will the BC Law Society really investigate?? Will they really challenge the way Geldert handled this? I wonder.


Well said Palms to Pines such a miscarriage of justice.  The 40 grand we had to pay in retirement has affected our lifestyle immeasurably.  The corruption and extortion abounds but not one court could see through this.  In the end the best Lawyers won and we were all screwed out of thousands, as many before us.  I have lost all faith in the court system and it's players.


----------



## MarcieL

dotbuhler said:


> So, the last time I was in a courtroom with Kirk Wankel there was Michael Geldert telling the 'troops' that some of us had "threatened" Wankel and that wasn't nice. Wonder who will have Kirky-boy's back when we see him again in May? Or will have hired bodygaurds this time? And will Geldert show his true face as to who he was working for all along, and be one of them?!


Actually it was Barry King who mentioned K.W. had received threats.  I am sure he will be there May 10 smug and proud as ever for winning 3 court cases. Danielle Smith wanted him to comment on her radio show in Calgary, he would not, stating for her to refer to the court records.


----------



## dotbuhler

MarcieL said:


> Actually it was Barry King who mentioned K.W. had received threats.  I am sure he will be there May 10 smug and proud as ever for winning 3 court cases. Danielle Smith wanted him to comment on her radio show in Calgary, he would not, stating for her to refer to the court records.


Also, the Calgary Sun Postmedia reporter told me that when he talked to Wankel he could not believe how mad Kirky-boy was getting because he considered himself the victim in all this. The guy was laughing so hard as he described the encounter to me. 
So you say Barry King also came on in Wankel's defense. I was only there for the first day when they had to find us a larger venue, and I left well before the townhall meeting, so I missed that. Geldert's address was a preamble and not everyone had relocated to the new room yet.


----------



## MarcieL

No Barry King  an Alberta lawyer from Strathcona  Law group presented on our behalf, M.G. was there but never presented.


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> No Barry King  an Alberta lawyer from Strathcona  Law group presented on our behalf, M.G. was there but never presented.


I am surprised that this has not happened. People have died for a lot less than this. We are lease owners and do not own this property. When I hear MG turned down getting a very old time owner out of a resort for the amount of $150000.00 you have to wonder. Blame the legal system for this. This is extortion and they are getting away with this because the majority of us are seniors.


----------



## MarcieL

150,000.00 am I reading this correctly? What do you mean turned him down?  I do not understand.


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> 150,000.00 am I reading this correctly? What do you mean turned him down?  I do not understand.


Maybe this is what the old guy offered and MG wanted more. Or maybe MG told the two time owners i personally know  this to convince them to accept option no.1. A friend of mind said he received a email from MG stating this. The other time owner that paid $37000.00 said MG told him this on the phone. What ever this is it is all fraud. The one that paid said all he got for a bill was pay this. He said there was nothing showing him what he was paying for? What business can send a bill out without showing the person paying the bill what you are paying for. Why pay this? If i get this email sent to me i will post it on the internet.


----------



## dotbuhler

MarcieL said:


> No Barry King  an Alberta lawyer from Strathcona  Law group presented on our behalf, M.G. was there but never presented.


Which of the 4 dates in 2017 did you attend? Barry King has Mr. Tong there, but was not there himself. And Michael Geldert was definitely there and gave the warning to us prior to the Judge coming in.


----------



## MarcieL

We were there 2 days in May cannot remember exact dates.  The day we were there Barry gave the warning prior to the proceedings.


----------



## servemeout

The dates that we have are Sept 15/15 with Tong. April 7/17 and May 1/17.  King did give a warning as KW was told that the person would rather go to jail than give him another penny.  Picture all of the delinquent seniors being put in jail. Then someone can explain why grandma is not around to bake cookies as she wanted to have a vacation once a year.


----------



## dotbuhler

MarcieL said:


> We were there 2 days in May cannot remember exact dates.  The day we were there Barry gave the warning prior to the proceedings.


Don't think I've ever seen Barry King, but I wasn't there in May, only on April 7th. I guess they were tag-teaming for each other, then.


----------



## dotbuhler

servemeout said:


> The dates that we have are Sept 15/15 with Tong. April 7/17 and May 1/17.  King did give a warning as KW was told that the person would rather go to jail than give him another penny.  Picture all of the delinquent seniors being put in jail. Then someone can explain why grandma is not around to bake cookies as she wanted to have a vacation once a year.


...too funny...our "lawyer" being oh, so protective of everyone's rights but ours...
(June 28th, and Aug. 11th was the final argument, but coming from Saskatchewan, I only made one...)


----------



## truthr

The court dates in Edmonton were:  

Sept 15, 2015 Application to Consolidate and Stay Proceedings - could be the one Vincent Tong attended on behalf of the AB defendants;
April 7th, 2017 First day of court - Barry King representing the AB defendants;
May 1st, 2017 Second day of court - Barry King representing the AB defendants;
June 28th, 2017 Last day of court - Barry King representing the AB defendants.


----------



## truthr




----------



## Beaverjfw

*Wonderful Irony - Sauvageau & Assoc. Sues Northmont for $5.76M
Defendants*
Resort Villa Management Ltd. and Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. and a general partner to Northmont LP
*Plaintiffs*
CTL Recovery Ltd. and CTL Legal Professional Corp., previously operating as Sauvageau & Assoc.
Claim - $5.76 million for debt

Seems Northmont plans to screw everyone !!


----------



## truthr

Beaverjfw said:


> *Wonderful Irony - Sauvageau & Assoc. Sues Northmont for $5.76M
> Defendants*
> Resort Villa Management Ltd. and Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. and a general partner to Northmont LP
> *Plaintiffs*
> CTL Recovery Ltd. and CTL Legal Professional Corp., previously operating as Sauvageau & Assoc.
> Claim - $5.76 million for debt
> 
> Seems Northmont plans to screw everyone !!


Here is a link to the page where this is quoted:

https://biv.com/article/2018/04/whos-getting-sued-april-24-2018


----------



## Frustrated YEG

truthr said:


> If you want to know what REALLY happened in Edmonton on March 8th, 2018 - I have the official transcripts.
> Although there were people there - thanks to those who showed up and spoke - a transcript is recorded by a neutral party sans personal feelings, biases and prejudices.
> 
> If you want a copy just send me a message here in the conversation section.
> 
> Cost to you - $30.00.


----------



## GypsyOne

Beaverjfw said:


> *Wonderful Irony - Sauvageau & Assoc. Sues Northmont for $5.76M
> Defendants*
> Resort Villa Management Ltd. and Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. and a general partner to Northmont LP
> *Plaintiffs*
> CTL Recovery Ltd. and CTL Legal Professional Corp., previously operating as Sauvageau & Assoc.
> Claim - $5.76 million for debt
> 
> Seems Northmont plans to screw everyone !!



It's little solace that the millions they are fighting over is our money.


----------



## truthr

Further to the recent discovery here is the official court documents filed:


----------



## servemeout

Today has been a day of chuckles and cheers! Do you think we could get Sauvageau to testify for the "delinquents"  on May 10th.
One of the statement made by Sauvageau in front of Judge Young on the September 15/15 hearing comes to mine, he said "we are not trying to fool anybody".​There is a book that I have had since childhood, Aesop's Fables.  Here are a couple that seems to fit what is going on today.
"No kindness will force gratitude from the wicked." "Only a cur would bite the hand that tries to save it."


----------



## LilMaggie

Per court documents.
3. "Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. (“Northmont”) is a sophisticated company with access to substantial financial resources and lead by Kirk Wankel, an equally sophisticated businessman and Chartered Accountant.
4. Northmont owns and manages a time share resort property, the “Sunchaser Vacation Villas”, located in Fairmont Hot Springs, British Columbia (the “Resort”). There are approximately 14,500 owners (the “Owners”) holding time share interests in the Resort via a vacation interval agreement (“VIA)".
Are there really that many "owners" left at Sunchaser? If so, how will the little resort accommodate everyone who wants to use their weeks there with Hillside gone and what has NM been doing with all the maintenance money from those several thousand folks??
Yes...we all got Wankeled!


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

truthr said:


> Further to the recent discovery here is the official court documents filed:



Wow, interesting.  If Sauvageau is really going after NM, it will be interesting to see what happens.  I think Sauvaguau has a good case, and if he wins, he may need to use his collection skills against NM.  If NM has their money over seas, how will he collect, or maybe NM just files for bankruptcy?  There is still potential money going in the pot from those that have not yet paid.  Will Sauvageau get to keep 100% of everything he collects if NM does not pay up on a court judgement?  If so, NM may not see any new money so why would they care about any actions going forward.  Frustrating to see all of our money hard at work funding all the lawyers.


----------



## fairmontlovers

Been out of the loop for a bit, just read Sauvageaus' claim against Resort Villa Managment (RVM), interestingly that Sauvageau stated in point 50 "  RVM has not only, ungratefully, deprived the plaintiff of legitimate compensation,
as previously negotiated, it has been given an unjustified windfall "  
So even Sauvageau is admitting this amount collected is a windfall!


----------



## appealerforsure

Think about it,if Kirk Wrongkal is being sued by the entity that he used as an inforcer to collect extortion fees,who now is representing this criminal?I honestly think those that didnt pay are going to be left untouched after this next round in court. If I would have known that hillside is no longer part of the resort as it is now up for rent or for sale under a new shell company Mountianview villas and and Kirks bill collecter is sueing him before we settled I would have never paid a cent.We do fell so cheated and dismayed at the court and lawyer legal system.This is not the Canada I grew up in and it is only getting worse under this so called liberal government. What was said in the previous video is sooo true I feel raped by the whole system.As for our lawyer who pocketed only god knows how much and I cant even get a hard copy of the settlement.Kirk and Mikey enjoy your spoils now as judgement day is a lot closer than you can ever believe,you will all be under gods judgement for all of your deeds on this planet good or bad,how do you think your going to fair in his eyes....To the rest of you that havent settled keep faith as things are going to get better in Gills court,especially after all that has recently taken place,Kirk foolishly jumped the gun by making a move on hillside,what an idiot!Like I said who will Wronkel get to collect off of you now? there isnt a bill collecter in Canada who will represent him now after he screwed his own.To all of you that havent paid,dont pay a cent,fight this ass in court and kick it to the curb,use this opinion in court and other comments off this site as evidence.Watch out Mikey G, law suit is coming your way so you better get ready for the finanial aduit,we know your good at at the gift of the gab but your emails that incriminate you and monetary numbers dont lie.When this next round of court is over and Gill finally sees what has recently taken place one can only hope that he is a reasonable decent judge,not like Loo.Special thanks must go out to all who have been involved trying to get this rectified and shame on the previous judges and government entities that just sit on their hands saying they cant help because it in the courts. Contacted a friend who still uses the resort  and Northmont did not let any existing owners know about the hillside sale,lady told him that they havent been taking bookings for a long time to hillside so another shame on you Geldirt for not informing our group of the upcoming sell off which you abviously HAD to have known about.Again, Im sure it is hot in hell,hope you realize the extend of the emotional and finanial damage that your corruption has caused,but oh ya I forgot your too busy playing your devil war craft games........


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

appealerforsure said:


> Think about it,if Kirk Wrongkal is being sued by the entity that he used as an inforcer to collect extortion fees,who now is representing this criminal?I honestly think those that didnt pay are going to be left untouched after this next round in court.



Actually, I believe Sauvageau still has the collection contract and will still be looking to collect from his previous efforts.  I don't think NM can legally hire anyone else.  Sauvageau is going to court for his right to collect past settlement funds and I assume the future ones as well.  I think the relationship between parties is now more complicated, trying to figure out enemies and friends.  Sauvageau will still want to collect but NM may have little or nothing to gain, depending on how this plays out.  Not sure how or when this will ever end.

This does seem to expose on the public record the conditions of our forced excellent settlement, of which none of us that settled can talk about.  Might open up the corruption of this case to the judge for the Alberta appeal.


----------



## servemeout

Collection agencies must be licensed by the province.  Agencies must be licensed in Alberta to collect in Alberta.  The only exception is if the collector is a lawyer.  If you do get collection calls, document everything, including the name of the person calling, the time of the call, and the number they are calling from.  In Alberta there are definite rules and regulations.  Part of the rules include asking for detailed accounting of your account.  There is a practice of selling the debt to others and I am sure KW knows about this.  Keep in mind that Judge Young has made her ruling, (step 1) and the next is collecting(step2), pending the appeal.  As Tong stated getting the ruling is one thing, collecting is another.  We agree that KW is going to be hard pressed to find another enforcer or sell the "alleged debit".

Hillside has been boarded up for some time.  1000 - 5000 were closed in 2015.  The only open buildings were 6000 - 8000.  Does anyone think that there was a plan for the Hillside buildings in 2015?


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

fairmontlovers said:


> Been out of the loop for a bit, just read Sauvageaus' claim against Resort Villa Managment (RVM), interestingly that Sauvageau stated in point 50 "  RVM has not only, ungratefully, deprived the plaintiff of legitimate compensation,
> as previously negotiated, it has been given an unjustified windfall "
> So even Sauvageau is admitting this amount collected is a windfall!



Looked up the definition of a windfall: a piece of unexpected good fortune, typically one that involves receiving a large amount of money.

And Sauvageau admits that it was unjust and they achieved "a final result which was far beyond any of their admitted expectations." How can anybody associated with the legal and justice system able to read this and not take note of this injustice that has occurred?


----------



## truthr

I shared the PDF document yesterday regarding the Sauvageau vs Northmont Claim.
I have now uploaded it into a blog post for anyone who would like to share it on their FB page and/or other social media sites.

Just click on the link below, which will take you to the actual post, scroll down the post to the end of the post and you will see a row of "boxes"of the various sites, like Facebook, etc., click on it and share.

http://truths2cents.blogspot.ca/2018/04/the-plot-thickens.html

Share it far and wide.


----------



## MarcieL

Perhaps someone could share it with judge Gill.  I am sure he already knows what he is dealing with.  I would like to see justice NOW not rely on the hereafter!


----------



## ecwinch

I dont think Sauvageau's case is a winner. The core issue appears to be a desire to horn in on the "exit fee" NM charged owners to leave, not the past due maintenance fees that the resort mgr (RVM) contracted with them to collect. I think it gets tossed on a privity of contract basis, as there was no contract between NM and Sauvageau.


----------



## truthr

ecwinch said:


> I dont think Sauvageau's case is a winner. The core issue appears to be a desire to horn in on the "exit fee" NM charged owners to leave, not the past due maintenance fees that the resort mgr (RVM) contracted with them to collect.


Interesting viewpoint; however the settlement agreement was based on past due maintenance, renovation, interest and exit fees and the majority did have Statement of Claims filed against them (all fees except the exit one) with Sauvageau's firm listed as Northmont's attorney.  If nothing else it will be interesting to watch it play out.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

ecwinch said:


> I dont think Sauvageau's case is a winner. The core issue appears to be a desire to horn in on the "exit fee" NM charged owners to leave, not the past due maintenance fees that the resort mgr (RVM) contracted with them to collect. I think it gets tossed on a privity of contract basis, as there was no contract between NM and Sauvageau.



I dont think we have access to the original agreement between Sauvageau and RVM, other than the claim says it was a CFA for a collection of debts and applies to all amounts collected.  Certainly, this goes back to the Freedom to Choose letter to collect either the amount to stay OR the amount to leave.  I would think the collections would apply to both cases, but again I don't know the details.  Could be part of the reason our settlement amount was said to be "just an amount" even though it was based on the last bill from RVM for past due maintenance fees.

I agree it gets more confusing because the agreement was with RMV, but I am sure our settlement money went to NM.  Will need to wait for the audited financial statements from RVM to know (they are still not out there for 2017 that I can find, another breach of contract?)  Assuming the money went to the NM books, not the RVM books, then your point is taken. Be interesting to see how it plays out in a court of law since NM and RVM are basically the same.

One other thought, since the agreement was between RVM and Sauvageau, and if RVM looses the court case, they can simply just bill the remaining time share leases for the $8M.  It has been ruled that the time share leases are responsible for ALL costs, including legal costs.  If this happens, it will end up being just one more technique they can use to bill the remaining time share leases for more money.  Probably jumping to premature conclusions, but just trying to think through some of the possible outcomes.


----------



## ecwinch

truthr said:


> Interesting viewpoint; however the settlement agreement was based on past due maintenance, renovation, interest and exit fees and the majority did have Statement of Claims filed against them (all fees except the exit one) with Sauvageau's firm listed as Northmont's attorney.  If nothing else it will be interesting to watch it play out.



I dont see that in the complaint - perhaps you have another document.

What I see in the document - and what I believe to be the key element of their dispute is the following (key words bolded by me):

7. On February 13th, 2012, on behalf of and for the benefit of all Owners, RVM entered
into a contingency fee agreement (the “CFA”) with WDW for the *collection of debts*.
8. The CFA contemplated that RVM was to pay to WDW a fee of 25% of *all amounts*
recovered on its behalf.

To me, that says that RVM - in 2012 - contracted with Sauvageau to collect the past due assessements/dues presumably plus interest. Obviously this would exclude the exit fee, as that is not a debt anyone owned in 2012.

Now in 2017-2018, NM gets a huge windfall in owners paying the exit fee to leave. And Sauvegeau is wondering "how do I get 20% of that pie". So they file this action.

Also note in item #8 above, that it does not say the CFA stated that they would get 25% of all amounts, only that it contemplated. Which is lawyer speak for "one party believes". If it was explicit - then it would have been cited specifically.


----------



## truthr

ecwinch said:


> I dont see that in the complaint - perhaps you have another document.
> 
> What I see in the document - and what I believe to be the key element of their dispute is the following (key words bolded by me):
> 
> 7. On February 13th, 2012, on behalf of and for the benefit of all Owners, RVM entered
> into a contingency fee agreement (the “CFA”) with WDW for the *collection of debts*.
> 8. The CFA contemplated that RVM was to pay to WDW a fee of 25% of *all amounts*
> recovered on its behalf.
> 
> To me, that says that RVM - in 2012 - contracted with Sauvageau to collect the past due assessements/dues presumably plus interest. Obviously this would exclude the exit fee, as that is not a debt anyone owned in 2012.
> 
> Now in 2017-2018, NM gets a huge windfall in owners paying the exit fee to leave. And Sauvegeau is wondering "how do I get 20% of that pie". So they file this action.
> 
> Also note in item #8 above, that it does not say the CFA stated that they would get 25% of all amounts, only that it contemplated. Which is lawyer speak for "one party believes". If it was explicit - then it would have been cited specifically.


All very interesting viewpoints to ponder - thanks for sharing them with us.


----------



## Hotpink

NeverNeverAgain said:


> Actually, I believe Sauvageau still has the collection contract and will still be looking to collect from his previous efforts.  I don't think NM can legally hire anyone else.  Sauvageau is going to court for his right to collect past settlement funds and I assume the future ones as well



 If you read the claim  under section 26 it is quite explicit that they have treated him just like any other Mushroom. First they kept him and his collection firm in the dark for a few months ( from Mid December until Feb. of this year  probably fed him on what most of us would have recognized  as manure and like any other good mushroom they canned him.
Yes his contract is terminated.

His claim also brings out other information some of we knew but didn't heed.
NM contracted him and they told us in a communication that as delinquencies  had risen considerably in 2011 they were going to use an outside agencies to collect at that time maintenance fees. section 7of the claim
NM assigned him a large number of claims in October of 2013 from an anticipated LARGE DEBT portfolio. section 10 of the claim. Not clear what the make up of the file was( probably included the RFP)
In section 18 it is clear that NM put him on the bench and he is cut off in sections 22, 45 and 46
What he really appears to be miffed about is they(NM) in section 50 are ungratefully depriving him and the rest of his pack of H____s from sharing in the UNJUSTIFIED WINDFALL.

So he is suing for breach of contract and we all know how well NM deals with contacts .

He describes NM and KW as sophisticated. most of us would probably roll our eyes and mutter disbeliefs. However if you take the time to research the word and lawyers are trained to use words not just for their usual lay meaning but for more of the obscure alternate  and less common meanings
Sophisticated ( adj)
such as "not in a natural, pure or original state  ie adulterated  OR deprived of native or original simplicity ie highly complicated OR mislead or pervert ie to take a meaning beyond recognition

These are when looked at as an adjective as it was in this case . Meanings get expanded when it is used as an adverb or a noun.

He described us in a like manner as well as well.

What team to we cheer for: or just hope they fight like cobras to the ultimate  sacrifice.

[Quoting removed by moderator as it was incorrectly attributed to another user]
[Quote reinstated with proper attribution]


----------



## Shake Down

Anyone else just receive this email from Northwynd?

*Sent: *April 23/2018 
*From:* "Northwynd Customer Care" <customercare@Northwynd.ca>
*Subject:* Consent Judgment

_Good morning,_
_Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement you entered into with the Resort through Geldert Law, you were responsible for paying the Settlement Amount by February 28, 2018 or Consent Judgment would be ordered against you.  The Consent Judgment has now been signed and ordered by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench._

_Please find attached your finalized consent judgment issued by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.  In addition, attached is a copy of your Statement of Account as of today which reflects: 1) the base consent judgment; 2) interest from November 30, 2017 pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and paragraph 3 of the Consent Judgment; and 3) your 2018 maintenance fees pursuant to your continuing obligations under your VIA(s).  Interest continues to accrue on a daily basis. _

_Please contact customer service  at 1-877-451-1250 or customercare@northwynd.ca to reach an agreement on payment of your judgment and outstanding fees so that your judgment is not turned over for enforcement pursuant to the Civil Enforcement Act._

_Please confirm receipt of this email._
_Best Regards,_
_Vacation Ownership Services_
_Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd._

Invoice attachment is block billing no breakdown just one big old Number!


----------



## aden2

I would suggest that you send an email to(Justice Gill prior to May 3rd )you can email:
Patricia.Copeman@albertacourts.ca
*Subject: *Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. - 1703 22524 
Pat Copeman
Judicial Assistant to
Justice Hillier, Justice Gill
and Justice Yungwirth
Court of Queen's Bench
6th Floor, Edmonton Law Courts
Edmonton, AB T5J 0R2 
* My suggestion is that Geldert has stated in an email that he would let everyone know the amount then they could decide if they would pay it. Well people that were told the amount Geldert sent word that they had agreed to pay but did not send the money . Once they found out the amount Geldert was told they would not pay and sent the wrong info to NM. *


----------



## Petus@18

Shake Down said:


> Anyone else just receive this email from Northwynd?
> 
> *Sent: *April 23/2018
> *From:* "Northwynd Customer Care" <customercare@Northwynd.ca>
> *Subject:* Consent Judgment
> 
> _Good morning,_
> _Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement you entered into with the Resort through Geldert Law, you were responsible for paying the Settlement Amount by February 28, 2018 or Consent Judgment would be ordered against you.  The Consent Judgment has now been signed and ordered by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench._
> 
> _Please find attached your finalized consent judgment issued by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.  In addition, attached is a copy of your Statement of Account as of today which reflects: 1) the base consent judgment; 2) interest from November 30, 2017 pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and paragraph 3 of the Consent Judgment; and 3) your 2018 maintenance fees pursuant to your continuing obligations under your VIA(s).  Interest continues to accrue on a daily basis. _
> 
> _Please contact customer service  at 1-877-451-1250 or customercare@northwynd.ca to reach an agreement on payment of your judgment and outstanding fees so that your judgment is not turned over for enforcement pursuant to the Civil Enforcement Act._
> 
> _Please confirm receipt of this email._
> _Best Regards,_
> _Vacation Ownership Services_
> _Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd._
> 
> Invoice attachment is block billing no breakdown just one big old Number!



Check the documents you received and ensure they are filed (does the judgement have a stamp from the court?).  Geldert has the  habit of sending 'draft copies' and calling them 'true filed copies'.  If it is legit, follow up with the Clerk's office to see what you need to do next.  I agree with Aden's suggestion; file an Affidavit for the forthcoming appeal and bring up this issue to the Judge's attention.


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

_"46. RVM *deceitfully waited* almost 2 months after the December 14th Settlement, until
satisfied of a substantial level of anticipated participation in that settlement by
members of the Geldert Group, prior to advising the plaintiffs of its position and
*refusal to pay*, under the CFA and Subsequent Clarifications or the Alleged
Alternate Agreement." 

-from _Sauvageau Vs Resort Villa Management Northmont.


For me, this is it. This confirms an established pattern of deceitful behavior by KMFW; and, his propensity to be playing a game with a hidden objective rather than running a business with an obvious and stated purpose. He contrives bogus circumstances like the plumbing problem. He conjures up transactions like you need to pay me for replacing the plumbing which, he never does in Hillside. Then he sells Hillside as is without any of the promised plumbing improvements.

When he bought the Resort from his Barbados buddies and the poor suckered bondholders, what did he pay? Anyone?

Lecture me all you guys want about the turn of a damn legal phrase. This was a not a legitimate business. #NAFR. It was a precisely orchestrated effort to leverage control, inflate liabilities, devalue assets and facilitate transactions.

It can be as simple as he took in money on the promise to do work but he never did do that work. What do you call that?

The Bankruptcy Court was told they were going to emphasize marketing and were shown a grand plan. Then once they got their debt reduced to pennies on the dollar and gained control of the property, they closed their sales office. Some marketing push.

His treatment of Sauvageau (not that I give a S**t) underscores that KMFW continues to exhibit social inadequacies. He fails to acknowledge that there is supposed to be 'Honor among thieves.' In my opinion, that's what they are, a pair of thieves. You can point out that thus far they are legal thieves but, they are thieves nonetheless.

So just do the simple math. Even a judge should be able to do this equation. KMFW came in an employee and leaves as owner and very rich man. We invested money and came away with zip. How does that add up in a country that is governed by the rule of law. The courts lost sight of the ball. It was all subterfuge dressed-up and paraded around like a legitimate business.


----------



## Spark1

Sunchaser Barbados said:


> _"46. RVM *deceitfully waited* almost 2 months after the December 14th Settlement, until
> satisfied of a substantial level of anticipated participation in that settlement by
> members of the Geldert Group, prior to advising the plaintiffs of its position and
> *refusal to pay*, under the CFA and Subsequent Clarifications or the Alleged
> Alternate Agreement."
> 
> -from _Sauvageau Vs Resort Villa Management Northmont.
> 
> 
> For me, this is it. This confirms an established pattern of deceitful behavior by KMFW; and, his propensity to be playing a game with a hidden objective rather than running a business with an obvious and stated purpose. He contrives bogus circumstances like the plumbing problem. He conjures up transactions like you need to pay me for replacing the plumbing which, he never does in Hillside. Then he sells Hillside as is without any of the promised plumbing improvements.
> 
> When he bought the Resort from his Barbados buddies and the poor suckered bondholders, what did he pay? Anyone?
> 
> Lecture me all you guys want about the turn of a damn legal phrase. This was a not a legitimate business. #NAFR. It was a precisely orchestrated effort to leverage control, inflate liabilities, devalue assets and facilitate transactions.
> 
> It can be as simple as he took in money on the promise to do work but he never did do that work. What do you call that?
> 
> The Bankruptcy Court was told they were going to emphasize marketing and were shown a grand plan. Then once they got their debt reduced to pennies on the dollar and gained control of the property, they closed their sales office. Some marketing push.
> 
> His treatment of Sauvageau (not that I give a S**t) underscores that KMFW continues to exhibit social inadequacies. He fails to acknowledge that there is supposed to be 'Honor among thieves.' In my opinion, that's what they are, a pair of thieves. You can point out that thus far they are legal thieves but, they are thieves nonetheless.
> 
> So just do the simple math. Even a judge should be able to do this equation. KMFW came in an employee and leaves as owner and very rich man. We invested money and came away with zip. How does that add up in a country that is governed by the rule of law. The courts lost sight of the ball. It was all subterfuge dressed-up and paraded around like a legitimate business.


 Will said


----------



## truthr

If any of the BC defendants are wondering what is in their file at the BC courts you can click on the link I will be providing and fill in the blanks.
Yes it will cost you money to view the file and then more to access each document within your file.  It is not very expensive and it is instantaneous - so if you are curious about the status of your file, here ya go.

https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/partySearch.do


----------



## lost and confused

Is anyone here a Hillside owner that is all paid up and in "good standing"?   If you are, just wondering if you have received any updates from Northmont?  Have you tried to book your 2018 week at Hillside?   Or do you have an upcoming week booked at Hillside that you reserved earlier this year?


----------



## aden2

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that is enforceable by law.   • In order for a contract to be considered valid, there must be: 

1. Offer and acceptance 2. Consideration 3. Capacity 4. Consent 5. Lawful purpose 
Canadian Law 40S R. Schroeder 2

Offer, Acceptance, Consideration 
• In every valid contract, offer, acceptance and consideration are vital aspects.    First: An offer is made that contains all of the important and relevant terms of the contract. 

 Second: Another party agrees to, or accepts, the offer. 

 Third: After the offer is accepted, something of value (an item or service) is exchanged between the parties involved in the contract.  This is called consideration. 
Canadian Law 40S R. Schroeder 3 
 90 
Capacity, Consent, Lawful Purpose 
• In every valid contract, both parties must have the ability, or capacity, to understand the terms and nature of the contract. • Each party involved in the contract must also freely consent, or agree, to the terms in the agreement. • Finally, every contract that is negotiated in Canada must have a lawful purpose or objective; in other words, no contract can violate  any law. 
Canadian Law 40S R. Schroeder 4 
 90 
Types of Contracts 
• An express contract is a legal agreement in which the terms are transparent and known to all the parties involved (e.g. a mortgage with a bank) • An implied contract is a contract that is implied, or inferred by the parties' conduct.  (e.g. at a restaurant, it is implied that after eating dinner the customer will pay the bill) • Most contracts are under seal – a formal, written contract that is signed, witnessed, and marked with a seal. • A simple contract is a contract that is not under seal (verbal, written, or implied). 
Canadian Law 40S R. Schroeder 5 
 90 
Elements of a Contract 
• In an offer and acceptance, the party who initiates, or makes the offer, is known as the offeror; the party to whom the offer is made is  known as the offeree. • In valid contract offers, there must be serious intent on the part of the offeror. • The offer must also contain definite terms, or details.  Some terms are clearly defined while others are implied. • When a company or business encourages the purchase of a product or service through advertising, this is an invitation to treat.  A contract occurs when the product or service has actually been purchased. 
Canadian Law 40S R. Schroeder 6
Communicating & Terminating 
• Part of an offer includes communicating the proposed contract to the offeree. • Common methods include communicating in person, by mail, courier, fax, and e-mail. • Communication is not successful unless it is received by the offeree. • An offer can be terminated, or cancelled, for various reasons. • A lapse occurs when an offer is not accepted within a period of time and the offer ends. • An offer may also be revoked, or cancelled, by the offeror before it can be accepted. 
Canadian Law 40S R. Schroeder 7 
 90 
Acceptance 
• Similarly, the offeree has a responsibility to clearly communicate its acceptance of the proposed agreement. • Offers may be accepted using the same methods of communication (e.g. mail, courier). • An acceptance must occur before a specified time limit on the offer expires. • The offeree may decide to make a counteroffer, which is a new offer, or amendment to the original offer. • Any counteroffer ends the original offer. 


Canadian Law 40S R. Schroeder 8 
 90 
Consideration 
• After an offer is accepted, something of value must be exchanged between the parties who are involved in the contract. • The actual value or amount exchanged between the two parties (consideration) does not matter to the courts.  A contract can appear to clearly favour one side over the other. • A court simply wants to see that there is some degree of exchange or consideration involved in the contract. 
Canadian Law 40S R. Schroeder 9 
 90 
Capacity 
• A contract will only be considered valid in court if the offeror and offeree had the capacity to understand what they were agreeing to. • Anyone with a developmental disability, impaired judgment, or who is under the age of majority in Canada (18 or 19 years) does not have the capacity to enter into a valid contract. • A minor may enter into a valid contract if it is considered necessary to ensure his or her health and welfare (e.g. an employment contract). • If a contract is not considered to be in the minor’s best interests, it is declared void. 
Canadian Law 40S R. Schroeder 10 
 90 
Consent 
• In general, each party in a contract must freely agree, or consent, to the contract.   • An offeree must completely understand the terms of the contract.   • There are some situations that may prevent consent from occurring: – misrepresentation – mistake – undue influence – duress 
Canadian Law 40S R. Schroeder 11


----------



## Shake Down

Yes and if you view similar types of lawsuits like ours from around the globe most real lawyers win them simply through Breach of contract! Many people assume that they are permanently bound by these contracts. That is not true if the time-share provider breaches the contract, simply it’s unlawful in the first place.


----------



## LilMaggie

Question:  If we actually are/were "owners" of timeshare property at Fairmont, would we not have had a say in what happens to said property?  I have not heard of anyone who was consulted regarding the changes to Hillside.  So we "own" Sunchaser enough to pay for renovations, but not enough to get any remuneration from the newly developed hotel and condos on our property. Select Hillside buildings are set to be renovated in the fall this year.  We are all paying for that in one way or another I'm quite sure!
As to Aden2's case for contract acceptance, we were clearly not offered the option to consider and consent to our revised NM contracts.
Who knows a good contract lawyer?


----------



## servemeout

The RPF was based on ALL of the resort being renovated.  The money that KMFW demanded, was done under False Pretenses.  Also the interest charged on the grossly inflated amount for renovations was therefore, not correct.  Going back to the NM communications concerning the PFR, where were the three quotes for the work to be done?  NM requested that the trustee seek direction from the courts on April 8,2013.  This was before "freedom" communication on April 12,2013.  Does the word concealment come to mind?
*FALSE PRETENSES* - Acts or behaviors by a person with the intent to deceive another person.  It can also be part of Fraud.  This has been more than a breach of contract.  If you have paid any of the ransoms you have been deceived.  
We are hoping that some of these issues will come to light on May 10th.


----------



## MarcieL

Good luck, many of us took the extortionist S.A. as we could no longer afford the fight, 40 grand to this crook that has been a life changer. Deceitful, ruthless thief that hired counsel who is now suing him, for a slice of the pie.  Wait for the interesting revelations when these two crooks square off. He has already said NM got much more than they ever imagined, due to great negotiations by MG and DW. You cannot make this stuff up. what a nightmare of white collar crime!


----------



## GypsyOne

LilMaggie said:


> Question:  If we actually are/were "owners" of timeshare property at Fairmont, would we not have had a say in what happens to said property?  I have not heard of anyone who was consulted regarding the changes to Hillside.  So we "own" Sunchaser enough to pay for renovations, but not enough to get any remuneration from the newly developed hotel and condos on our property. Select Hillside buildings are set to be renovated in the fall this year.  We are all paying for that in one way or another I'm quite sure!
> As to Aden2's case for contract acceptance, we were clearly not offered the option to consider and consent to our revised NM contracts.
> Who knows a good contract lawyer?



Owners for taking responsibility for repairing poorly constructed buildings but tenants for enjoying the benefits from those buildings. I cannot believe we lost this case. White collar crime with a complicit legal system.


----------



## Petus@18

The legal system is no the problem, the damage was caused by our own 'legal dream team'.  Geldert hired only  morons to do his dirty work.  Geldert himself concocted the entire plot and arranged to have Cox T create the 'f' SIF ensuring it was written in a way to screw everyone of us!  The worst is that 90+% felt trapped and paid the ransom. From the 76 defendants left, only 19 have contacted SLG.  Where are the others?  Do they even know what is happening?  Smaller groups have formed to fight the latest interests' appeal.  We continue moving in different directions and again, no lawyer is available, they all believe that the forthcoming appeal is a battle that we cannot win!  They are probably right but we have no choice but to defend ourselves. Again, thanks Michael Geldert, to you and all of your MF 'L'Friends for ruining our lives; your actions are never to be forgotten.

I wonder how many of us would be attending the May 10th hearing?


----------



## lost and confused

I encourage everyone to attend court. Option 1's, Option 2.....there has been much suffering and loss.  Strength in numbers and visible support.

Thursday, May 10th, 2018
Edmonton Court House - Judge Gill 
9 AM start time.  Arrive early to get through security.
Hope to see LOTS of people there.

Feeling lost and confused?   It will be a good time to connect with others, be active in the court process, learn and share, start planning and organizing depending on outcomes, etc.   We are not merely individuals who have experienced this....we are several hundred, several thousands of people that have been impacted.  There is strength in numbers and we all collectively have a role to play.   JFK once said "One person can make a difference and everyone should try."


----------



## truthr

Hotpink said:


> Truth R You are correct we were all MG clients at that time , but what I heard was they had filed a number of claims both in Alberta and BC  and that several were already outdated/past expiry and would need to be refiled and that he MR S. was going to continue to file on behalf of NM individual claims. Judge Young indicated that she was unhappy about that but he did have that right  and was hopeful this current action would relieve her judicial department of that onslaught of actions.
> 
> Her decision is very specific and does not discuss any of these comments / exchanges as they would only be in trial transcripts which I do not have.
> With our lawyer causing many of us to reject the "negotiated settlement" NM will have no alternative  but to sue us individually and I am sure it will please her judicial department to know they have work for the next several years. Or as Judge Young said  "I will be retired before this is over" *     *Quoted from my memory of the day.
> 
> Remember that collection agencies only get remunerated when they collect and NM has gotten their rate with Mr. S reduced according to what we heard in the town hall meeting in Edmonton with MG present.
> NM is just trying to maximize their income /profit  with no return to the consumers (us) and who knows about the investors.
> 
> They may cease to exist before they can take us all to court to sue for the inflated amounts.



It is always so interesting to go back and read old posts that didn't seem to mean much at the time but with new information a new light is shed on it.
Like this one talking about Mr. S having his rate reduced by NM - if MG was the one who said that kinda makes one wonder how he knew what NM was up to way back then. 
I have always wondered why MG had so much "inside" information.

And now with the new information that was uncovered just this week not only did they reduce his rate looks like they cut him out entirely.


----------



## Shake Down

Replied to NM's e-mail Re: my post #5074,

Today they returned bunch of threats, although this was interesting!
_
If Geldert Law acted without instructions from you, this is an issue between yourself and Geldert Law, but does not invalidate the agreement and consent judgment.  If you have any questions about the effect of a settlement entered into by your legal counsel, you should seek legal advice.

 The courts have affirmed that the Resort has acted reasonably and you are responsible for the charges you have been invoiced.  If you have any questions, you should seek legal advice._
 

*I contacted Justice Gill's office to be included in the appeal and fwd to Mr. Virtue & Mr. King I received a reply very quickly from Mr Gills office.

_"Your email will be addressed at the next court Hearing (May 10, 2018 at 9 AM). If you wish to speak to the matters raised in your email you will have to be present at that hearing._


----------



## Palms to pines

Yeah, seek legal advice. We did that and the result was abysmal. It pleases me to no end that those of you who did not give in to the extortion have this chance to speak for yourselves. You will be far more sincere than geldert and his hired hands ever were. We were threatened with having to pay $55,000 if we didn’t accept the “ excellent settlement”. We simply could not have paid that, what we paid was a terrible financial blow. I wrote letters upon letters - all just a truckload of disappointment. I wish all of you great success at the hearing. I have no doubt you can explain the meaning of the word “ lease”, which is a concept that geldert and all those he hired with our money never were able to get across to the judges.


----------



## GypsyOne

Palms to pines said:


> Yeah, seek legal advice. We did that and the result was abysmal. It pleases me to no end that those of you who did not give in to the extortion have this chance to speak for yourselves. You will be far more sincere than geldert and his hired hands ever were. We were threatened with having to pay $55,000 if we didn’t accept the “ excellent settlement”. We simply could not have paid that, what we paid was a terrible financial blow. I wrote letters upon letters - all just a truckload of disappointment. I wish all of you great success at the hearing. I have no doubt you can explain the meaning of the word “ lease”, which is a concept that geldert and all those he hired with our money never were able to get across to the judges.




I wonder why our smart lawyers could not get across to the smart judges the ordinary meaning of the word "lease", unless the judges didn't want to accept the ordinary commonly understood concept of a lease.


----------



## MarcieL

Our lawyer fought the wrong case, by the time B.K. tried to introduce the lease discrepancy, the battle had already been fought and lost under the Jeke test case thus rejudica stated by Judge young. A comedy of errors over 4 years but Jeke escaped unscathed under the guise of a numbered company.


----------



## GypsyOne

MarcieL said:


> Our lawyer fought the wrong case, by the time B.K. tried to introduce the lease discrepancy, the battle had already been fought and lost under the Jeke test case thus rejudica stated by Judge young. A comedy of errors over 4 years but Jeke escaped unscathed under the guise of a numbered company.



If JEKE could get away unscathed, why did he (Jim Belfry) spend two years of his life fighting Northmont?


----------



## Palms to pines

My understanding is that the Geldert group paid for Belfry’s test case legal fees . It is also my understanding that the Belfry’s timeshare was not purchased by an individual but rather by a little family - member owned company .That was what was billed for the fees from Northmont so they just declared it to be bankrupt. Perhaps the timeshare was the company’s only asset.


----------



## GypsyOne

Palms to pines said:


> My understanding is that the Geldert group paid for Belfry’s test case legal fees . It is also my understanding that the Belfry’s timeshare was not purchased by an individual but rather by a little family - member owned company .That was what was billed for the fees from Northmont so they just declared it to be bankrupt. Perhaps the timeshare was the company’s only asset.



That's one explanation but I think there are others.


----------



## MarcieL

Perhaps you could apprise us of the others Gypsy1.  I am not aware of any other explanation this was the one provided to the Geldert group .


----------



## GypsyOne

MarcieL said:


> Perhaps you could apprise us of the others Gypsy1.  I am not aware of any other explanation this was the one provided to the Geldert group .



I do wonder why Jim Belfry would spend two years fighting Northmont if he was untouchable.   The reservation I have accepting the explanation you give is based on speculation not proof and I don't wish to publicly speculate.


----------



## truthr

Just a friendly reminder that tomorrow is the deadline to submit that form to Jud Virtue, you know the one giving him the heads up you want to proceed with the appeal.
I have attached the PDF here.


----------



## CleoB

GypsyOne said:


> I do wonder why Jim Belfry would spend two years fighting Northmont if he was untouchable.   The reservation I have accepting the explanation you give is based on speculation not proof and I don't wish to publicly speculate.


I suspect he fought because he wanted to toss out Northmount and have the leasees take over running the resort.  He was the one that directed Geldert on proving "incompetence" by Northmount, which of course failed......yet he lied in court and said that Geldert was directing the way the trial was going.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

So the May 10th Court date is now just around the corner.

I am hoping Option 1 survivors plan to support those still affected by Northmont at the hearing as the opportunity to be in front of a Judge in this manner is very rare or possibly unprecedented.  I truly believe our voices were heard by the Courts and they have a plan to help as result of the outcry earlier this year. 

If given an opportunity to speak I hope someone can respectfully portray we are the victims not Northmont who, in the eyes of the Courts, have crafted themselves as victims and saviors of ‎a once great place to create family memories.

Our legal team failed miserably on many levels and in the end victimized us more than Northmont did through their breaches in trust.  I for one am working towards holding them accountable for their incompetence, pirateering, and collusive actions.

Looking at the victims of Fairmont we now have:

Anyone who purchased a timeshare at Fairmont
The different types of Fairmont REIT investors 
The community of Fairmont
Other Canadians who have a timeshare their developer decides it is time to monetize and sell cancellations or even an honest developer who wants to sell timeshares
‎Possibly new to the list – Francis Sauvageau and Associates

Mr. Sauvageau may seem strange to be added to my list as a victim with so many of us knowing him as an adversary these past years but I think it's very important to recognize this next move Northmont's is engaging in.

Mr. Sauvageau expanded his business because of taking on Northmont as a client which means he is supporting families and the economy to do a job everyone hates but is a necessity in today’s world.  As a business owner who gets bad debt from time to time I don’t have the knowledge or resources to do collections effectively so would really on someone who has the competency and a thick enough skin to get the job done to help me with my bottom line.

Optimistically I look at how events pre-dating Northmont strategically created a playbook with a roadmap for its own WOW game to conquer all the games treasure (our money and properties).  This would require allies to be used in defeating us, but allies don’t get to read the playbook so are just strategic pieces to the game.  Allies are expendable and Mr. Sauvageau if under the pretense of initially being engaged to assist in collecting bad debt for Northmont so had a legit purpose in doing business with Northmont.  This relationship was initiated ahead of the realignment plan but if a participant didn’t understand the consequences of their involvement would have evolved in pretty much the same way the Courts got involved and misunderstood the big picture.  Northmont, as part of its plan, was just getting someone to do the heavy lifting and allowed their pawn to wade to deep just touching the treasure which Northmont quickly pulling away.   I don’t see the Courts or Mr. Sauvageau as being unsophisticated but they have both have been possibly fooled by Northmont and are just casualties like a pawn in a game of chess in Northmonts game.

Without Mr. Sauvageau being good at his craft Northmont would not have such a strong position but it was Geldert and Northmont who ensured the conflict went on as long as possible to maximize profits at our expense.  For Mr. Sauvageau’s part he built Northmont a foundation to collect a bad debt and yes he was to profit from those efforts but this is what is supposed to happen when hired to do a job.  At the end of the day his company was meeting their obligations of their relationship with Northmont.

Having the opportunity to have read Mr. Sauvageau’s claim against Northmont and knowing it exists is extremely important and you can be rest assured Northmont will be desperate to have this sealed as quickly as possible possibly using the guise to keep details of resent settlement confidential.  Mr. Sauvageau has a team or people who by nature of their occupations know how to dig for info the average lay person would have a hard time finding or knowing how to present this info in Court – he may also already have knowledge of Northmont and Geldert’s skeletons given the time he has spent working with them.  What could be available and presented through Mr. Sauvageau fight with Northmont may end up being very damaging to Northmont but of great benefit to all of us.

Collectively the litigation group and Mr. Sauvageau now appear to have a mutual fight against Northmont and may have information and resources that would benefit each other’s causes.

For the resort timeshare owners Northmont, the developer, has always claimed to operate the resort in a “prudent and workmanlike manner” for the benefit of these owners as a huge part of its own defense – so what happens if Mr. Sauvageau goes the distance and wins against Northmont?  From my perspective the Courts have already made clear that the timeshare owners are going to foot the legal costs of an action but Northmont will also put themselves into a position that the cost of a settlement will also be on the backs of timeshare owners.  Northmont has positioned itself as having no risk and just needs to appear to “act” in the resorts best interests for it to be a resort expense allowing Northmont profit as it gets to keep what was denied Mr. Sauvageau as his part of the recent settlement agreement – this becomes a cost of business to the resort which the remaining timeshare owners pay for.

Pessimistically maybe this is the plan to strategically have all cost born by timeshare owners if both Northmont and Mr. Sauvageau are actually authors of different chapters of the same playbook.  My logic above shows how both Northmont and Mr. Sauvageau can eventually end up both being winners through the courts if they appear to be in opposing camps to gain insights or strategic alliances to weaken whatever opposition still exists to the overall roadmap down the road.  Possibly the sustained opposition that is occurring now has created a chink in the Northmont armor they are trying to mend or it is just simple greed.  Both Northmont and Mr. Sauvageau are very complex individuals and have a profound way to look at various angles so all aspects need to be considered.

Anyone left at the resort needs to wonder:

Where has the millions collected in maintenance, renovation fees, interest, penalties, or any sale of lands have gone? 
Northmont legal fees are built into and paid as part of the yearly maintenance fee – ever wish you could see a deep dive into what else is built into these fees?
What is up with the money collected for the renovations?  The big fight is technically over with the huge settlement reached, shouldn’t they be under way?
What buildings will be prioritized in getting their differed maintenance addressed and face-lifts this fall?  Sounds like Hillside is 1st up, ever wonder what the priorities will be and who is footing the bill for the new hotel?
Will more neglect in getting things done in what is left of the Fairmont Resort result in new differed maintenance adding to the existing problems and what will the additional costs be if Northmont gets around to completing the original renovation project again or is this an opportunity to extort the next round of treasure?

With the millions already collected Fairmont should be on track to be “5 Star Resort”, with a huge reserve fund, and low maintenance fees but does anyone see that fairy tail rainbow in the skies ahead?

As a timeshare owner either in good standing or currently delinquent one needs to know how many other things is Northmont complicit in passing on related to the costs or operating the resort which is born by timeshare owners without a true disclosure of the costs of its actions – how can something like this be viewed as provoking a lawsuit be working in a prudent and workman manner for timeshare owners when lawsuits against the resort are allowed to sealed and concealed from it's owners?

There is a huge need to keep this from becoming sealed and possibly Mr. Sauvageau and Associates can help unveil the truth about what lies in the Northmont dungeons and peel back the mask so if we can find a way to collaborate I think we could have an adversary who becomes an alley but how do we develop a mutual trust given all we have been through already?


----------



## truthr

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> So the May 10th Court date is now just around the corner.
> 
> I am hoping Option 1 survivors plan to support those still affected by Northmont at the hearing as the opportunity to be in front of a Judge in this manner is very rare or possibly unprecedented.  I truly believe our voices were heard by the Courts and they have a plan to help as result of the outcry earlier this year.
> 
> If given an opportunity to speak I hope someone can respectfully portray we are the victims not Northmont who, in the eyes of the Courts, have crafted themselves as victims and saviors of ‎a once great place to create family memories.
> 
> Our legal team failed miserably on many levels and in the end victimized us more than Northmont did through their breaches in trust.  I for one am working towards holding them accountable for their incompetence, pirateering, and collusive actions.
> 
> Looking at the victims of Fairmont we now have:
> 
> Anyone who purchased a timeshare at Fairmont
> The different types of Fairmont REIT investors
> The community of Fairmont
> Other Canadians who have a timeshare their developer decides it is time to monetize and sell cancellations or even an honest developer who wants to sell timeshares
> ‎Possibly new to the list – Francis Sauvageau and Associates
> 
> Mr. Sauvageau may seem strange to be added to my list as a victim with so many of us knowing him as an adversary these past years but I think it's very important to recognize this next move Northmont's is engaging in.
> 
> Mr. Sauvageau expanded his business because of taking on Northmont as a client which means he is supporting families and the economy to do a job everyone hates but is a necessity in today’s world.  As a business owner who gets bad debt from time to time I don’t have the knowledge or resources to do collections effectively so would really on someone who has the competency and a thick enough skin to get the job done to help me with my bottom line.
> 
> Optimistically I look at how events pre-dating Northmont strategically created a playbook with a roadmap for its own WOW game to conquer all the games treasure (our money and properties).  This would require allies to be used in defeating us, but allies don’t get to read the playbook so are just strategic pieces to the game.  Allies are expendable and Mr. Sauvageau if under the pretense of initially being engaged to assist in collecting bad debt for Northmont so had a legit purpose in doing business with Northmont.  This relationship was initiated ahead of the realignment plan but if a participant didn’t understand the consequences of their involvement would have evolved in pretty much the same way the Courts got involved and misunderstood the big picture.  Northmont, as part of its plan, was just getting someone to do the heavy lifting and allowed their pawn to wade to deep just touching the treasure which Northmont quickly pulling away.   I don’t see the Courts or Mr. Sauvageau as being unsophisticated but they have both have been possibly fooled by Northmont and are just casualties like a pawn in a game of chess in Northmonts game.
> 
> Without Mr. Sauvageau being good at his craft Northmont would not have such a strong position but it was Geldert and Northmont who ensured the conflict went on as long as possible to maximize profits at our expense.  For Mr. Sauvageau’s part he built Northmont a foundation to collect a bad debt and yes he was to profit from those efforts but this is what is supposed to happen when hired to do a job.  At the end of the day his company was meeting their obligations of their relationship with Northmont.
> 
> Having the opportunity to have read Mr. Sauvageau’s claim against Northmont and knowing it exists is extremely important and you can be rest assured Northmont will be desperate to have this sealed as quickly as possible possibly using the guise to keep details of resent settlement confidential.  Mr. Sauvageau has a team or people who by nature of their occupations know how to dig for info the average lay person would have a hard time finding or knowing how to present this info in Court – he may also already have knowledge of Northmont and Geldert’s skeletons given the time he has spent working with them.  What could be available and presented through Mr. Sauvageau fight with Northmont may end up being very damaging to Northmont but of great benefit to all of us.
> 
> Collectively the litigation group and Mr. Sauvageau now appear to have a mutual fight against Northmont and may have information and resources that would benefit each other’s causes.
> 
> For the resort timeshare owners Northmont, the developer, has always claimed to operate the resort in a “prudent and workmanlike manner” for the benefit of these owners as a huge part of its own defense – so what happens if Mr. Sauvageau goes the distance and wins against Northmont?  From my perspective the Courts have already made clear that the timeshare owners are going to foot the legal costs of an action but Northmont will also put themselves into a position that the cost of a settlement will also be on the backs of timeshare owners.  Northmont has positioned itself as having no risk and just needs to appear to “act” in the resorts best interests for it to be a resort expense allowing Northmont profit as it gets to keep what was denied Mr. Sauvageau as his part of the recent settlement agreement – this becomes a cost of business to the resort which the remaining timeshare owners pay for.
> 
> Pessimistically maybe this is the plan to strategically have all cost born by timeshare owners if both Northmont and Mr. Sauvageau are actually authors of different chapters of the same playbook.  My logic above shows how both Northmont and Mr. Sauvageau can eventually end up both being winners through the courts if they appear to be in opposing camps to gain insights or strategic alliances to weaken whatever opposition still exists to the overall roadmap down the road.  Possibly the sustained opposition that is occurring now has created a chink in the Northmont armor they are trying to mend or it is just simple greed.  Both Northmont and Mr. Sauvageau are very complex individuals and have a profound way to look at various angles so all aspects need to be considered.
> 
> Anyone left at the resort needs to wonder:
> 
> Where has the millions collected in maintenance, renovation fees, interest, penalties, or any sale of lands have gone?
> Northmont legal fees are built into and paid as part of the yearly maintenance fee – ever wish you could see a deep dive into what else is built into these fees?
> What is up with the money collected for the renovations?  The big fight is technically over with the huge settlement reached, shouldn’t they be under way?
> What buildings will be prioritized in getting their differed maintenance addressed and face-lifts this fall?  Sounds like Hillside is 1st up, ever wonder what the priorities will be and who is footing the bill for the new hotel?
> Will more neglect in getting things done in what is left of the Fairmont Resort result in new differed maintenance adding to the existing problems and what will the additional costs be if Northmont gets around to completing the original renovation project again or is this an opportunity to extort the next round of treasure?
> 
> With the millions already collected Fairmont should be on track to be “5 Star Resort”, with a huge reserve fund, and low maintenance fees but does anyone see that fairy tail rainbow in the skies ahead?
> 
> As a timeshare owner either in good standing or currently delinquent one needs to know how many other things is Northmont complicit in passing on related to the costs or operating the resort which is born by timeshare owners without a true disclosure of the costs of its actions – how can something like this be viewed as provoking a lawsuit be working in a prudent and workman manner for timeshare owners when lawsuits against the resort are allowed to sealed and concealed from it's owners?
> 
> There is a huge need to keep this from becoming sealed and possibly Mr. Sauvageau and Associates can help unveil the truth about what lies in the Northmont dungeons and peel back the mask so if we can find a way to collaborate I think we could have an adversary who becomes an alley but how do we develop a mutual trust given all we have been through already?



Well said.  It brings to mind an old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" (*an* ancient proverb which suggests that two opposing parties can or should work together against a common *enemy*).

Not that I ever considered Sauvageau an actual enemy as I agree with Ultimate Betrayal that he and his staff were just doing what they were hired to do and unless we had proof that they were part of the "Wankel game", again they were just doing the job they were hired to do.

When you put things into perspective we were and some still are - his clients!!  He was hired to represent the "resort", all of us; those who paid to stay and those who are still fighting are HIS CLIENTS, Kirk Wankel may have hired him but who has paid for his services?  If Mr. Sauvageau is not paid out of the "settlement funds" that which he is owed for the work done, then who will pay?  And who is paying for all these additional court/legal fees because Wankel has decided to renege on a legitimate deal?

And how can we ever find out how much monies were transferred from our so called counsel to the opposing side since our so called counsel in Alberta ensured that number and anything relating to the so called "Settlement Agreement" was sealed?

_"Secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought never to be the system of a regular government"_ (and in our case corporation that is suppose to be looking out for their clients' best interest)  ~ Jeremy Bentham, Philosopher (1748 - 1832)

I will find out more about this as to when the "hearing" will take place or whether NM is going to try to have a ban put on it so WE can ensure that anyone and everyone who still has an interest/stake in this resort can be present.


----------



## truthr

Please feel free to share this with any media outlets you know and all your social media.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

truthr said:


> When you put things into perspective we were and some still are - his clients!!  He was hired to represent the "resort", all of us; those who paid to stay and those who are still fighting are HIS CLIENTS, Kirk Wankel may have hired him but who has paid for his services?  If Mr. Sauvageau is not paid out of the "settlement funds" that which he is owed for the work done, then who will pay?  And who is paying for all these additional court/legal fees because Wankel has decided to renege on a legitimate deal?





Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> So the May 10th Court date is now just around the corner.
> 
> Pessimistically maybe this is the plan to strategically have all cost born by timeshare owners if both Northmont and Mr. Sauvageau are actually authors of different chapters of the same playbook.  My logic above shows how both Northmont and Mr. Sauvageau can eventually end up both being winners through the courts if they appear to be in opposing camps to gain insights or strategic alliances to weaken whatever opposition still exists to the overall roadmap down the road.  Possibly the sustained opposition that is occurring now has created a chink in the Northmont armor they are trying to mend or it is just simple greed.  Both Northmont and Mr. Sauvageau are very complex individuals and have a profound way to look at various angles so all aspects need to be considered.



I am somewhat skeptical of the NM/RVM vs Sauvageau turn of events, but am also somewhat hopeful that it is real and will expose the truth.  I would not rule anything out at this point.  I would speculate this could be a very complex and well thought out game being played.  Keeping in mind a previous judges decision, if the lease holders do not pay, than who?  It may not be NM, the legal owners, again.  RVM can bill for all expenses.  This should be interesting and I look forward to see how it plays out.  Lets hope for the best.


----------



## Hotpink

*PULL THE WOOL OVER YOUR EYES. *Goes back to the days when all gentlemen wore powdered wigs like the ones still worn by the judges in British courts. ... The *expression* '*pull the wool over his eyes*' came from the practice of tilting a man's wig *over his eyes*, so he couldn't see what was going on."  For those that may consider the actions by Sauvageau against NM as trying to “pull the wool over our eyes”, here is some excellent reading material. 
This was just filed yesterday and it appears KW is being portrayed as a victim.

This was prepared by person in the Vancouver office who is an associate in the intellectual property group, working primarily on contentious matters regarding intellectual property rights.

Pay particular attention to item 36 which states "An order preserving the confidentiality of information is particularly justifiable in these circumstances, as “the order sought only minimally impairs the open court principle, […] whereas if confidentiality is not protected, it is lost forever.”  The information that would be protected by a sealing order and is not of any public interest, but its disclosure would result in irreparable harm to the Northmont Defendants. Magnotta, supra, at para 26"

What FS is after, in Northmonts eyes is not in the publics interest  and WOULD (( not could ) a real difference in inference) cause irreparable harm to Northmonts business.
Notice how many affidavits  of KW are referenced in this filing and also take note  of the concern on the behalf of Northmont  of the disclosure by FS on the specific " secrets " he knows about the  affairs of the organization he has been serving since 2012. Me thinks this a to keep this under wraps.  Doubt that it will stop the FS's claim against Northmont.
But you Judge for yourself, just be careful of the BIG WHITE WIG


----------



## Petus@18

Hotpink said:


> *PULL THE WOOL OVER YOUR EYES. *Goes back to the days when all gentlemen wore powdered wigs like the ones still worn by the judges in British courts. ... The *expression* '*pull the wool over his eyes*' came from the practice of tilting a man's wig *over his eyes*, so he couldn't see what was going on."  For those that may consider the actions by Sauvageau against NM as trying to “pull the wool over our eyes”, here is some excellent reading material.
> This was just filed yesterday and it appears KW is being portrayed as a victim.
> 
> This was prepared by person in the Vancouver office who is an associate in the intellectual property group, working primarily on contentious matters regarding intellectual property rights.
> 
> Pay particular attention to item 36 which states "An order preserving the confidentiality of information is particularly justifiable in these circumstances, as “the order sought only minimally impairs the open court principle, […] whereas if confidentiality is not protected, it is lost forever.”  The information that would be protected by a sealing order and is not of any public interest, but its disclosure would result in irreparable harm to the Northmont Defendants. Magnotta, supra, at para 26"
> 
> What FS is after, in Northmonts eyes is not in the publics interest  and WOULD (( not could ) a real difference in inference) cause irreparable harm to Northmonts business.
> Notice how many affidavits  of KW are referenced in this filing and also take note  of the concern on the behalf of Northmont  of the disclosure by FS on the specific " secrets " he knows about the  affairs of the organization he has been serving since 2012. Me thinks this a to keep this under wraps.  Doubt that it will stop the FS's claim against Northmont.
> But you Judge for yourself, just be careful of the BIG WHITE WIG



How can we get a copy of the second claim or of Wankel's affidavit? does anyone know? 
Northmont alleging abuse of process!! FS vs JV!!  @#$ priceless


----------



## Shake Down

Hotpink said:


> contentious matters regarding intellectual property rights


 
Wanklel should have filed a patents on his formula to Resort Management in fraud, money laundering, extortion and racketeering. Could benefit a 26.824% in royalties from any others using his secret formula!


----------



## Hotpink

Petus
As long as the document or file is in the system and has NOT been sealed as Northmont is attempting to do with this file just go in and search using the file number indicated on the posted filings or even by name and you can start to see things. However TANSTAAFL There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. In order to access much of what is in the system it will cost you. But its just money and I don't remember seeing pockets on Funeral shrouds. Good Luck


----------



## servemeout

https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/file/caseBasics.do?fileID=2889002

Here is the link to locate the court info.  Cost $6.00


----------



## servemeout

The first cancellation of your VIA was approx. $3,200.  That amount was valid until May 31,2013.  Consequently the amount moved upward.  $3,800/$11,500/ then a range between $9,750 to $13,800.  Then the final amount of 162% of the invoice from Nov 2017.  Over the last five years we were not allowed to use any time and the term of the lease has decreased.  Our courts gave KMFW the right to charge what ever he wanted to charge. The one thing that the courts did not ensure, and that is that the NAFR would be renovated as the stated.  One thing the MG was correct about, all they wanted is your money and now that is what Sauvageau wants is his money or should I say, his portion of the blood money.  The amount of money claimed that NM got was $35,190,000.  I would be fighting for 20% of that amount and he did not have to make a phone call or file any papers! Such a deal.


----------



## LilMaggie

servemeout said:


> https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/file/caseBasics.do?fileID=2889002
> 
> Here is the link to locate the court info.  Cost $6.00


Thank you!


----------



## MarcieL

It appears K.W. is reading online stuff when it is referred to in his court documents. I thought he would be far to busy to engage in this menial exercise


----------



## aden2

The Consumer Protection Act of Alberta:  allowing the government to act in the public interest by enabling the release of information about charges, convictions, and other enforcement actions taken under the Act.


----------



## Petus@18

Solicitor and Barrister defined: In England and some other Commonwealth jurisdictions, a legal distinction is made between solicitors and barristers. A solicitor has exclusive privileges of giving oral or written legal advice. A barrister has exclusive privileges of preparing and conducting litigation in the courts

We just find out why Geldert hired all of his buddies (the other moron lawyers who formed part of our 'legal dream team') to represent us in court.  It seems like Geldert is not a barrister so he has not experience in appearing in front of a judge. Barristers mostly specialise in courtroom advocacy and litigation. (correct me if this is wrong)

Makes you wonder why did we retain this inept lawyer?  He never appeared in court in front of a judge during hearings or trials; then he gave us the wrong advice during all these years resulting in an absurd amount of interest to be accumulated; the large sums of money just in interests added to whatever amount Northmont, Geldert and Wotherspoon decided it on a whim we owe as a final settlement.  Yes! Geldert as a lawyer did not know anything but to delegate the work, bill us and ultimately betrayed us by collecting the 'windfall profits' for his new boss aka KMFW!.


----------



## Sunchaser Barbados

MarcieL said:


> It appears K.W. is reading online stuff when it is referred to in his court documents. I thought he would be far to busy to engage in this menial exercise



If KMFW is reading this he should know that figuratively speaking, I have the same respect for him I have for a fire hydrant.

Except, a fire hydrant hasn't run a property into the ground. We all know it's #NAFR. A fire hydrant didn't tell the bankruptcy court that it was going to launch a marketing initiative to Make the Resort Great Again, then close it's Sales Division. A fire hydrant didn't charge everyone for new plumbing and then never actually replace all of the plumbing. A fire hydrant didn't, ... ah, piss on it.


----------



## lost and confused

Keep moving forward.   United we stand.  Nice to see a good turnout today in court.....and much support on other fronts as well.  Staying strong and united as a wide variety of people with different circumstances (i.e. Option 1, Option 2, etc).  Things are certainly unravelling and more info being uncovered.   The saga continues.....


----------



## aden2

The NM hearing today with Justice Gill was disappointing because it was only a hearing and to hears stories from seniors that have medical and financial problems tell there sad stores in front of KW and JV was tearful. The only purpose that NM has is to get as much as they can suck out of you and then want more and think this is business way...


----------



## MarcieL

I found it disappointing as well as no one got to speak in their own defense.  It was all about appeals, never heard of the one, that a lady mentioned. People came from the Island, Saskatoon, Calgary and other points in S.Ab. And I felt little was accomplished but discussion of various appeals most court time was taken up by J.V.  I was somewhat amazed when the justice announced court time would only be an hour.


----------



## GypsyOne

MarcieL said:


> I found it disappointing as well as no one got to speak in their own defense.  It was all about appeals, never heard of the one, that a lady mentioned. People came from the Island, Saskatoon, Calgary and other points in S.Ab. And I felt little was accomplished but discussion of various appeals most court time was taken up by J.V.  I was somewhat amazed when the justice announced court time would only be an hour.



So where does it go from here?


----------



## aden2

GypsyOne said:


> So where does it go from here?


If NM loses the battle on the interest ruling of Judge Young it opens the door further to other Consumer Protection Act violations. In my opinion there is a few violations including the "default remedy".


----------



## GypsyOne

aden2 said:


> If NM loses the battle on the interest ruling of Judge Young it opens the door further to other Consumer Protection Act violations. In my opinion there is a few violations including the "default remedy".


I agree completely. Strange the default clause didn't get more attention in the first court hearing.


----------



## dotbuhler

I think the fact that a number of us were able to apply to appeal after Thursday's hearing was a major concession. Mind you, a toe in the door is not a foot in the door, but it's a start. It was more than I had before I ended up in Court yesterday, so for me, this was a major deal. If you were one of the "76" you had already been where I have my sights set on. Small victories are still incredibly precious in this soul-grinding exercise. For everyone who will be filing an Affidavit for the right to be added to the Appellants list, please remember that the Affidavit *must be filed by May 31, 2018. You will want to explain your reason(s) for having your name included with those already on the list.* And only those present at the May 10th hearing were granted this concession.


----------



## MarcieL

And only those present at the May 10th hearing were granted this concession.

I think this is totally unfair, what happens to the others that were not notified, should they be located?


----------



## appealerforsure

We couldnt make it to the hearing like many others who paid kw thousands.We think all option 1 manipulated mg settlement folks should be included in any final judgement or appeal. If anyone has formed a group or is considering sueing your former useless lawyer mg let me and others know.After learning that hillside was sold off and now the theives own goon squad are sueing them for millons this soap opera never seems to end. Is this Canada or some 3rd worldcountry where there is no law.kw should be looking at doing some time for all of his fraudulant dealings with the once beautiful and fun to go to resort.Hopefully this latest judge has  enough intelligence to see thru this whole manipulated mess for what it really is,a scam!


----------



## Frau Blucher

Petus@18 said:


> ... It seems like Geldert is not a barrister so he has not experience in appearing in front of a judge. Barristers mostly specialise in courtroom advocacy and litigation. (correct me if this is wrong)
> 
> Makes you wonder why did we retain this inept lawyer?  He never appeared in court in front of a judge during hearings or trials; then he gave us the wrong advice during all these years resulting in an absurd amount of interest to be accumulated; the large sums of money just in interests added to whatever amount Northmont, Geldert and Wotherspoon decided it on a whim we owe as a final settlement.  Yes! Geldert as a lawyer did not know anything but to delegate the work, bill us and ultimately betrayed us by collecting the 'windfall profits' for his new boss aka KMFW!.




MG ignored all advise and kept arguing that the resort was mismanaged. It was almost as if
Sauvageau was pulling his strings. The reason for MG’s tunnel vision must have been that his head was so far up his own ass that he couldn’t see anything else.  It’s amazing that someone so cocky could be so inept.  I still can’t believe that bad lawyers like him can get rich on the tens of thousands of dollars that his clients have to shell out.

All provincial law societies should be overhauled so that the law society pays out damages when their investigation reveals that a lawyer is at fault instead of the lawyer’s ex-clients having to hire another lawyer to suit the first lawyer.


----------



## truthr

For anyone who wishes to know EXACTLY what was said by everyone at the May 10th proceeding in Edmonton. I will be ordering the transcripts sometime next week and depending on how many wish to receive a copy and how much the cost is will determine how much each individual will be required to pay to order it from me. Please send me a private message through conversation here if you are interested in obtaining a copy.

By obtaining a copy of the transcript you will know first hand what you are required to do (if anything) moving forward.


----------



## teedeej

Frau Blucher said:


> MG ignored all advise and kept arguing that the resort was mismanaged. It was almost as if
> Sauvageau was pulling his strings. The reason for MG’s tunnel vision must have been that his head was so far up his own ass that he couldn’t see anything else.  It’s amazing that someone so cocky could be so inept.  I still can’t believe that bad lawyers like him can get rich on the tens of thousands of dollars that his clients have to shell out...



MG cautioned me about the SA’s disclosure clause when I mentioned that “his clients had to pay tens of thousands of dollars” in a online review about his crappy “boutique law firm”.

That isn’t even close to disclosing information from the SA.


----------



## aden2

The most money ever made at a Vacation Villa is what NM is doing. Yearly maintenance fees and 26.82% being charged when the lessee are not using the resort. Each lessee has a default clause in their contract and all of these contracts should have been cancelled in 2013, go to page 14; 4(b) of the Consumer Protection Act of Alberta. *THIS IS CRIMINAL IN NATURE!*


----------



## appealerforsure

truthr said:


> For anyone who wishes to know EXACTLY what was said by everyone at the May 10th proceeding in Edmonton. I will be ordering the transcripts sometime next week and depending on how many wish to receive a copy and how much the cost is will determine how much each individual will be required to pay to order it from me. Please send me a private message through conversation here if you are interested in obtaining a copy.
> 
> By obtaining a copy of the transcript you will know first hand what you are required to do (if anything) moving forward.


Count me in,let me know how much but us option 1  people who couldnt attend the hearing are we still too be included,I tried to get thru to jills office before rhe hearing but for some reason they werent available ,couldnt even leave a message.faxed something to their office but heard nothing back.


----------



## waikikibound

appealerforsure said:


> Count me in,let me know how much but us option 1  people who couldnt attend the hearing are we still too be included,I tried to get thru to jills office before rhe hearing but for some reason they werent available ,couldnt even leave a message.faxed something to their office but heard nothing back.



Unfortunately no. Justice Gill made it clear that *ONLY* those in attendance on Thursday (May 10) can file an affidavit and be heard at the next appearance date of July 4. Those of us who were not a part of the 76 group and want to be added to the appeal had to provide our names to Jud Virtue (mostly Option 1 non-settled people). We did try and argue that many couldn’t make it to court that day but Gill repeatedly said no. It was very frustrating.


----------



## CleoB

waikikibound said:


> Unfortunately no. Justice Gill made it clear that *ONLY* those in attendance on Thursday (May 10) can file an affidavit and be heard at the next appearance date of July 4. Those of us who were not a part of the 76 group and want to be added to the appeal had to provide our names to Jud Virtue (mostly Option 1 non-settled people). We did try and argue that many couldn’t make it to court that day but Gill repeatedly said no. It was very frustrating.


Yeah, I found that odd.  It was like Justice Gill figured EVERYONE knew about this court hearing because King said he contacted everyone, yet a few people stood up and spoke that they knew of people that "weren't" contacted.  Ohhhh, poor Barry was offended.


----------



## MarcieL

He hated hearing the truth, weasels one and all.


----------



## aden2

So the likes of KW/Northmont/ JV/ MG truly believe that they have not violated any part of the Consumer Protection Act! 1. "the supplier fails to obtain the consumer's express consent to renewals, extensions or amendments of the agreement."( changing the contract against our consent); 2."if the supplier fails to provide prominent and full disclosure of the details of the agreement." (Fairmont financial problems date back to 2005); 3. "a provision of the document is ambiguous, the provision must be interpreted against the supplier", (remedies on default the word *may* terminate to* shall* terminate);copy of Ultimation April 29, 2013 (page 15, 6(2) changing contract.
Civil claims are wrong because they are being charged maintenance and interest fees beyond the default period. The timeshare have not been used for many years ..2012.; so what was the cost to the Resort for not using it?


----------



## Spark1

We also had to pay the Ransom and if we did not we were not allowed to use the resort. Lease Contracts are right to use contracts and we pepaid for this right. If you paid the cancellation part of the ransom you should of been released immediately and i have heard time owners complain that they were held long enough so they also had to pay the renovation fee. This is fraud.


----------



## MarcieL

It is all fraud, white collar crime at its finest.


----------



## truthr

We attended court in Vancouver on Tuesday, May 15th to voice our opposition to Northmont's request to have the matter of CTL Legal (Sauvageau) vs Northmont sealed.

The judge was kind enough to allow me to speak to the matter and even requested more information from Northmont's lawyer who presented it after the lunch break.

When all was said and done the judge ruled for the matter to be sealed from May 15th forward.

It was a long shot due to the "client/attorney" privilege which although disappointing is not surprising.


----------



## Spark1

The court system has relied on the social media to organize everything.Let the courts send out what is required of us as will as Northmont to each individual threw registered mail. My vacation villa lease contract states any notice like bankrupcy,modification to contracts,unilateral amendments etc shall be deemed to be validly given when deposited postage prepaid in a postal box in Canada and addressed to the  lessee at the address set forth in the register maintained by the Trustee as contemplated by paragraph 18 hereof,except during any interruption of postal service when notice shall be given only  when delivered by hand or acknowledged as received by the addressee. Justice Young said our Contracts have not changed and she is correct. Northmont 
no one changes my Contract and that includes BC corrupt Judges. It is OK for us to exchange information but let the courts contact us. We seen how Barry King and MG Run things and we do not need any more of this.


----------



## Timeshare Justice denied

Have any of the Option 1 people who have paid received anything official in the mail yet? Only received an e-mail saying we were released back in March but a recent credit bureau check still shows a "lien" by Northmont's Vacation Resort Management ???!


----------



## MarcieL

I have not checked my credit bureau. Damn it anyway can they not do any thing properly .the should be deleted when our releases were sent out by email. Hard copy apparently now June 1. Someone else mentioned a month or so ago that their bureau still showed a lein. They called MG. and he said he would take care of it. Perhaps he could do that for all his clients.


----------



## CleoB

truthr said:


> We attended court in Vancouver on Tuesday, May 15th to voice our opposition to Northmont's request to have the matter of CTL Legal (Sauvageau) vs Northmont sealed.
> 
> The judge was kind enough to allow me to speak to the matter and even requested more information from Northmont's lawyer who presented it after the lunch break.
> 
> When all was said and done the judge ruled for the matter to be sealed from May 15th forward.
> 
> It was a long shot due to the "client/attorney" privilege which although disappointing is not surprising.


It may be sealed, but can one attend court to hear what's going on or is that a closed trial?


----------



## Spark1

These crooks never give up fleasing time owners. Now they are sending out letters from NW to give them 3500.00 to terminate their Legacy for Life ownership. This question can someone please explain in easy to understand terms what this means to individual owners of Hillside lease vacation owners. This is Fraud again Kirk Wankel's sales pitch to suck time owners to convert their Lease timeshares into Leg Irons for Life so they can have a contract that can nail us for Capital expenses because Lease contracts do not have this and now give them a bill for 3500.00 to get released from Legacy For Life. Kirk Wankel is still sending out threating collection letters and would like us to settle before the interest rate court case is settled. My question will the bills that time owners paid with their bill collector Michael Geldert have to be adjusted to 5% being MG knew Justice Young did not rule yet and did he know she was ruling Feb.15/2018?


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 said:


> These crooks never give up fleasing time owners. Now they are sending out letters from NW to give them 3500.00 to terminate their Legacy for Life ownership. This question can someone please explain in easy to understand terms what this means to individual owners of Hillside lease vacation owners. This is Fraud again Kirk Wankel's sales pitch to suck time owners to convert their Lease timeshares into Leg Irons for Life so they can have a contract that can nail us for Capital expenses because Lease contracts do not have this and now give them a bill for 3500.00 to get released from Legacy For Life. Kirk Wankel is still sending out threating collection letters and would like us to settle before the interest rate court case is settled. My question will the bills that time owners paid with their bill collector Michael Geldert have to be adjusted to 5% being MG knew Justice Young did not rule yet and did he know she was ruling Feb.15/2018?




I have no answers, just an observation that the greed and avarice of these crooks knows no bounds in gaining complete control of a valuable real estate asset for a multi-million dollar windfall, aided by a complicit or compliant court system.  But, is it possible that the time share owners with a Legacy for Life co-ownership agreement stand in their way of gaining complete equity ownership, and they will eventually have to be dealt with in order for NM to claim complete control?  In their topsy turvey way of doing business, NM will try to make it another huge windfall gain, probably by making it so expensive to stay that the time share owners will have no choice but to pay the extortion.  But, is it possible that if the Legacy for Life co-owners hang tough, they will eventually have to be paid to leave?  Another observation is that it is just astonishing how legal lease agreements could be rendered so useless when the one party has the millions to hire the best legal counsel and influence to tilt the system their way. It is a sad commentary on our weak oversight institutions.


----------



## CleoB

GypsyOne said:


> I have no answers, just an observation that the greed and avarice of these crooks knows no bounds in gaining complete control of a valuable real estate asset for a multi-million dollar windfall, aided by a complicit or compliant court system.  But, is it possible that the time share owners with a Legacy for Life co-ownership agreement stand in their way of gaining complete equity ownership, and they will eventually have to be dealt with in order for NM to claim complete control?  In their topsy turvey way of doing business, NM will try to make it another huge windfall gain, probably by making it so expensive to stay that the time share owners will have no choice but to pay the extortion.  But, is it possible that if the Legacy for Life co-owners hang tough, they will eventually have to be paid to leave?  Another observation is that it is just astonishing how legal lease agreements could be rendered so useless when the one party has the millions to hire the best legal counsel and influence to tilt the system their way. It is a sad commentary on our weak oversight institutions.


My understanding is that they have already been sending out letters to the LFL telling them that for a small price they can turn over their timeshare lease.


----------



## GypsyOne

CleoB said:


> My understanding is that they have already been sending out letters to the LFL telling them that for a small price they can turn over their timeshare lease.


This would be a good time for Legacy for Life timeshare owners with a co-ownership agreement to get competent legal advice as to just what their co-ownership interest really means.


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> This would be a good time for Legacy for Life timeshare owners with a co-ownership agreement to get competent legal advice as to just what their co-ownership interest really means.


First they had to create Leg Irons for Life inorder to have a contract that includes capital expenses so they can destroy all the Lease contracts with their illegal modification of contracts so we are now all the same as far as capital expenses go and now they want to charge time owners that got sucked into buying Legacy for Life another $3500.00 to get out of that contract. Does that mean there now will be no contracts that have capital expenses and we go back to the true meaning of our Lease Contracts?


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 said:


> First they had to create Leg Irons for Life inorder to have a contract that includes capital expenses so they can destroy all the Lease contracts with their illegal modification of contracts so we are now all the same as far as capital expenses go and now they want to charge time owners that got sucked into buying Legacy for Life another $3500.00 to get out of that contract. Does that mean there now will be no contracts that have capital expenses and we go back to the true meaning of our Lease Contracts?



I'd be interested in whether the co-ownership VIAs actually give the holder an equity interest in the complex.  In other words, if the Wankster succeeds in gaining control of Hillside or whatever, and increases it's value by converting to condos or hotel (with our money of course), are the holders of co-ownership agreements in partnership with Wankel? If so, I doubt he wants to share the wealth with anyone, particularly timeshare owners.  That might explain his offer to the Legacy For Life holders for them to buy out of their VIAs.  Of course, him offering to buy out their co-ownership interest would be antithetical to his way of doing business.  Much more profitable to gouge them until they throw in the towel. Ah the joy and profitability of being completely without scruples and having a compliant legal system in tow!


----------



## truthr

I have finally received the transcript from the May 10th, 2018 proceeding in Edmonton.

I have emailed some who indicated they wish a copy - the cost per is $30.00

If you want a copy and have not received an email from me please private message me your email address so I can send you the email with instructions.


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> I'd be interested in whether the co-ownership VIAs actually give the holder an equity interest in the complex.  In other words, if the Wankster succeeds in gaining control of Hillside or whatever, and increases it's value by converting to condos or hotel (with our money of course), are the holders of co-ownership agreements in partnership with Wankel? If so, I doubt he wants to share the wealth with anyone, particularly timeshare owners.  That might explain his offer to the Legacy For Life holders for them to buy out of their VIAs.  Of course, him offering to buy out their co-ownership interest would be antithetical to his way of doing business.  Much more profitable to gouge them until they throw in the towel. Ah the joy and profitability of being completely without scruples and having a compliant legal system in tow!


I feel the time owners that bought LFL at Hiilside think they are totally released when they decided to pay using Option1. Do you think they still have a interst being LFL after they paid tens of thousands already? When legacy for life is gone all there will be is Lease Contracts.


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 said:


> I feel the time owners that bought LFL at Hiilside think they are totally released when they decided to pay using Option1. Do you think they still have a interst being LFL after they paid tens of thousands already? When legacy for life is gone all there will be is Lease Contracts.


If they paid the extortion they should be out free and clear and have no further interest in the resort. But I'm wondering for those that didn't pay, do they have an equity interest that increases in value as the value of the resort increases?


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> If they paid the extortion they should be out free and clear and have no further interest in the resort. But I'm wondering for those that didn't pay, do they have an equity interest that increases in value as the value of the resort increases?


Good Question.


----------



## truthr

* Alberta Legislative Assembly - June 4th, 2018 *

On Monday, June 4th, 2018 at the Alberta Legislative Assembly, Richard Gotfried MLA Fish Creek Calgary brought up the timeshare Northmont to Stephanie McLean Minister of Service Alberta

Have a listen - Is someone finally taking this issue seriously???


----------



## Tacoma

Final release papers were promised by the end of May. I have not received mine. What kind of lawyer hands over millions without the release documents first?


----------



## CleoB

Tacoma said:


> Final release papers were promised by the end of May. I have not received mine. What kind of lawyer hands over millions without the release documents first?


An incompetent one.


----------



## torqued

Does anyone have any information about any business dealings in the states relative to nw??  Especially anything questionable. Please please let me know. Thanks


----------



## dotbuhler

truthr said:


> * Alberta Legislative Assembly - June 4th, 2018 *
> 
> On Monday, June 4th, 2018 at the Alberta Legislative Assembly, Richard Gotfried MLA Fish Creek Calgary brought up the timeshare Northmont to Stephanie McLean Minister of Service Alberta
> 
> Have a listen - Is someone finally taking this issue seriously???


...for anyone wishing to contact the Honourable Stephanie McLean her email is calgary.varsity@assembly.ab.ca, her legislative phone # is 780-422-6880, her fax is 780-422-2496. If you'd like to thank Richard Gotfried, MLA for Fish Creek, Calgary, his leg. #s are phone: 780-643-6541 and his fax is 780-415-0968. His email is: calgary.fishcreek@assembly.ab.ca.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

truthr said:


> On Monday, June 4th, 2018 at the Alberta Legislative Assembly, Richard Gotfried MLA Fish Creek Calgary brought up the timeshare Northmont to Stephanie McLean Minister of Service Alberta
> 
> Have a listen - Is someone finally taking this issue seriously???



Stephanie McLean claims few or no letters to Service Alberta, really?  For those of us who are still reading this and sent letters to Service Alberta, please forward them again. Also we should ask that she respond to the questions, why is there no interest in enforcing the consumer protection act?  For some it is probably too late.  But for many, this mess is still going and will for a long time.


----------



## servemeout

Glad to see this come up in Question Period.  At one time we had a friend that asked why do they call it "Question Period".  The reply - there are no answers.  I called Service Alberta in Jan. and was told that there was nothing they could do.  Did some underling not give or call attention that many letters that went to Stephanie McLean's office.  There is something WRONG with the minister that is responsible for Consumer Protection not being completely informed of the actions of Northmont and the utter lack of consumer protection in this case.


----------



## GypsyOne

servemeout said:


> Glad to see this come up in Question Period.  At one time we had a friend that asked why do they call it "Question Period".  The reply - there are no answers.  I called Service Alberta in Jan. and was told that there was nothing they could do.  Did some underling not give or call attention that many letters that went to Stephanie McLean's office.  There is something WRONG with the minister that is responsible for Consumer Protection not being completely informed of the actions of Northmont and the utter lack of consumer protection in this case.


For the Minister of CP to take this on she would be up against court decisions in two provinces.  And the unspoken question is how much of those court decisions were politically motivated or influenced?  Does she have the gonads to take that on?


----------



## dotbuhler

I forwarded my original email to Premier Notley to both Richard and Stephanie. Attached was the Petition that you have all been so great in signing and commenting in. I must say that I found the quick response from Mr. Gotfried's office to be absolutely encouraging. Looks like we may have a 'bull-terrier' taking up our cause. Let's use this to our advantage! Once again here is the contact info for Richard Gotfried:
T: 403-278-4444   C: 403-860-1162
E: calgary.fishcreek@assembly.ab.ca
www.RichardGotfried.ca


----------



## LilMaggie

Tacoma said:


> Final release papers were promised by the end of May. I have not received mine. What kind of lawyer hands over millions without the release documents first?


I am still waiting on mine as well.  
Our lawyer was/is totally in cahoots with NM!


----------



## LilMaggie

NeverNeverAgain said:


> Stephanie McLean claims few or no letters to Service Alberta, really?  For those of us who are still reading this and sent letters to Service Alberta, please forward them again. Also we should ask that she respond to the questions, why is there no interest in enforcing the consumer protection act?  For some it is probably too late.  But for many, this mess is still going and will for a long time.


I just sent my letter again to Ms. McLean (the exact one I sent Jan 16).
I know many of us wrote letters to her back in January when we were a larger, more vocal group.  She must have received dozens of letters and phone calls at that time.  
Please resend your letters or compose a new one to the minister. Ask her why we have no protection in this province.


----------



## dotbuhler

LilMaggie said:


> I just sent my letter again to Ms. McLean (the exact one I sent Jan 16).
> I know many of us wrote letters to her back in January when we were a larger, more vocal group.  She must have received dozens of letters and phone calls at that time.
> Please resend your letters or compose a new one to the minister. Ask her why we have no protection in this province.


...good advice, Mags...Today's sitting saw McLean pull out the old saw that " it's been dealt with in the Courts...", after once again claiming that it is B.C.'s jurisdiction. Richard has advised her that he won't just let this lie. Whereupon McLean suggests that Gotfried and his position are "a scam". Looks like SHE wouldn't recognize a scam if it came along and bit her in the ass! Glad to see Gotfried address the senior abuse aspect.


----------



## truthr

dotbuhler said:


> ...good advice, Mags...Today's sitting saw McLean pull out the old saw that " it's been dealt with in the Courts...", after once again claiming that it is B.C.'s jurisdiction. Richard has advised her that he won't just let this lie. Whereupon McLean suggests that Gotfried and his position are "a scam". Looks like SHE wouldn't recognize a scam if it came along and bit her in the ass! Glad to see Gotfried address the senior abuse aspect.


I will be posting the video of the part of the Legislative session regarding this later today/tonight.
Yes the senior abuse aspect is an important component of this fiasco - not to minimize the affect this has had on everyone.


----------



## truthr

As MLA Richard Gotfield tries again to get Stephanie McLean, the Alberta Minister of Service Alberta, to take this issue seriously he is shot down again and not in a nice way.  Keep watching as she is taken to task.


----------



## GypsyOne

Richard Gotfield's comments were a scam??? What parallel universe is she living in?  I'd like to know if McLean was receiving campaign contributions from Northmont! Now that would be a scam - our money being used to grease the wheels of Consumer Protection against we the consumer.


----------



## dotbuhler

GypsyOne said:


> Richard Gotfield's comments were a scam??? What parallel universe is she living in?  I'd like to know if McLean was receiving campaign contributions from Northmont! Now that would be a scam - our money being used to grease the wheels of Consumer Protection against we the consumer.


Maybe the fact that she is spread too thin, being also Minister on the Status of Women, has not given her sufficient time to peruse the Alberta Fair Trading Act/ Alberta Consumer Protection Act, wherein it states that protection is afforded to the Alberta consumer regardless of where they bought, and especially since the seller was also doing business in Alberta out of their office in Alberta. The location of the timeshare is not relevant. (McLean will not be seeking re-election as she has decided to concentrate on her Law career.)


----------



## Huckleberry

GypsyOne said:


> Richard Gotfield's comments were a scam??? What parallel universe is she living in?  I'd like to know if McLean was receiving campaign contributions from Northmont! Now that would be a scam - our money being used to grease the wheels of Consumer Protection against we the consumer.



Please once you have re-forwarded your original message to McLean forward the entire thread to Richard Gotfield.  And thank him to being the only one to care in the entire government.


----------



## LilMaggie

Did everybody get their sorry we can't do anything this is a legal matter email back from the minister McLean's office?  I had a response by the afternoon.  Funny how quickly her office responded after the matter was brought up in the Legislature!
Great idea Huckleberry, to send the thread to Mr. Gotfried. I'm on it!


----------



## LilMaggie

Emailed response from Stephanie McLean's office.
"Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding Northmont Resort. I am disheartened to hear about the financial burden and hardship that you and many other Albertans are facing.
For too long, Alberta’s consumer laws lagged behind the rest of Canada, and Alberta families were often left in the lurch over bad contracts or unfair deals. That’s why we took action and strengthened our consumer laws so that hardworking Albertans are protected whether they are buying a new home or condo, tickets to their favourite concert, or getting work done on the family car.
When it comes to this particular case, our government has been actively monitoring the situation since it was first raised with us. As Justice and Solicitor General has indicated, court matters are outside of the influence of government and are protected by judicial independence.  Ministers of the Crown, including myself, the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General for Alberta, the Premier of Alberta, or even the Prime Minister of Canada, cannot interfere with or comment on court outcomes.  These are private legal matters that have been heard and determined in two provinces and are, outside of possible appeals, closed. However, we will continue to listen to Albertans impacted regarding their concerns and provide any other supports that may be available through other avenues.
Sincerely,
Honourable Stephanie McLean
Minister for Service Alberta and Status of Women"

The only reason that this whole mess became a "private legal matter" was because we had to fight for our rights as consumers as clearly our laws or politicians had no ability to protect us.  Listen away minister...that doesn't help us one bit!


----------



## LilMaggie

dotbuhler said:


> Maybe the fact that she is spread too thin, being also Minister on the Status of Women, has not given her sufficient time to peruse the Alberta Fair Trading Act/ Alberta Consumer Protection Act, wherein it states that protection is afforded to the Alberta consumer regardless of where they bought, and especially since the seller was also doing business in Alberta out of their office in Alberta. The location of the timeshare is not relevant. (McLean will not be seeking re-election as she has decided to concentrate on her Law career.)


OK...I'm a woman that has no status.  It is a weirdly combined portfolio!
You are absolutely right Dot!


----------



## Spark1

The Scam is both the Justice System and Service Alberta which is suppose to protect consumers. Stephanie is a lair. My partner and i Email every member of Parliament do you not remember Stephanie it was Scam,Fraud,Extortion,White Collar Crime, and Seniors abuse. You should resign from your position and you should be ashamed of yourself allowing bullies like Northwynd to steal money from the innocent seniors and any other people that had a right to use timeshare being a lease contract. This is now a 400 million dollar nightmare because you didnot do your job. I talked with a Judge That happens to be my daugher in laws second cousine and a first cousine of her dad. He could not comment on the case because he was connected to Justice Young. He did say that every weekend he reads the paper and there is at least 6 white collar crimes going on all the time. He said the only way we can change this is we have to go after the Politicians. That was alot of work and all we got back from you people was form letters. You did not take this seriously, it was your job to do so. You are the Scam not Richard Gotfried. I met with Ron Orr at his office in Lacombe and i am sure he could give you a copy if you conveniently forgot.


----------



## dotbuhler

LilMaggie said:


> Emailed response from Stephanie McLean's office.
> "Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding Northmont Resort. I am disheartened to hear about the financial burden and hardship that you and many other Albertans are facing.
> For too long, Alberta’s consumer laws lagged behind the rest of Canada, and Alberta families were often left in the lurch over bad contracts or unfair deals. That’s why we took action and strengthened our consumer laws so that hardworking Albertans are protected whether they are buying a new home or condo, tickets to their favourite concert, or getting work done on the family car.
> When it comes to this particular case, our government has been actively monitoring the situation since it was first raised with us. As Justice and Solicitor General has indicated, court matters are outside of the influence of government and are protected by judicial independence.  Ministers of the Crown, including myself, the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General for Alberta, the Premier of Alberta, or even the Prime Minister of Canada, cannot interfere with or comment on court outcomes.  These are private legal matters that have been heard and determined in two provinces and are, outside of possible appeals, closed. However, we will continue to listen to Albertans impacted regarding their concerns and provide any other supports that may be available through other avenues.
> Sincerely,
> Honourable Stephanie McLean
> Minister for Service Alberta and Status of Women"
> 
> The only reason that this whole mess became a "private legal matter" was because we had to fight for our rights as consumers as clearly our laws or politicians had no ability to protect us.  Listen away minister...that doesn't help us one bit!


Gee whiz...a word for word duplicate of my reply from her office. Makes one feel SO special!


----------



## servemeout

Brian Mason was a bus driver.  If the bus got a flat tire, and I was a passenger, would I be responsible to pay the cost to repair the tire?  This is the same scam that Northmont had done to the VIA holders when we were told that it was our responsibility to repair the sidewalks, catch basins, the faulty plumbing, and on ad nausea.  Also when you ride the bus or other public transportation you are restricted by the amount of time you can ride - does this sound the same as a *time share*?   If you need a lawyer down the road, concerning a time share, steer clear of the present Minister of Consumer Affairs.


----------



## Spark1

dotbuhler said:


> Gee whiz...a word for word duplicate of my reply from her office. Makes one feel SO special!


So Stephanie you are saying Fraud and Scam is legal in Alberta. You also said this case is handled by Protection BC. You are wrong. I contacted Protection BC several times and they told me because the Supplier is from Calgary Alberta and the unfair practice being the Freedom To Choose was done in Calgary and you are from Alberta sorry but you have to deal with Service Alberta. That is you and you did nothing to protect Alberta Consumers from these crooks. You talk about the unilateral amendments to contracts that became Law Dec17/2017 the reason this happened was because of this case. What you did wrong was not grandfathering it back to Jan01/2016. Again your effects that you think is so important does not help Albertans dealing with this case. Did you even talk to Protection BC? What is your opinion on Geldert Law becoming one of them and using the Gag order to steal more money from seniors and treating time owners if they do not pay the 27% compounded interest plus 20% on top of that he will than nail us with 162% interest. The SIF forms he is using have no signatures and nothing is itemized when you get the bill all it says is pay this. Stephanie do not bull shit me because I am much older than you and much smarter we sure the hell have not come along way when it comes to consumer Protection. This NDP Government is very disappointing for Alberta Consumers. Stephanie seeing you are the top person for Service Alberta tell us what we are paying for and what are we getting. Also tell me where I have this property that Northwynd says I own registered in BC. if I do not have this property registered in B.C. they know what they can do with their Capital expenses.


----------



## Palms to pines

servemeout said:


> Brian Mason was a bus driver.  If the bus got a flat tire, and I was a passenger, would I be responsible to pay the cost to repair the tire?  This is the same scam that Northmont had done to the VIA holders when we were told that it was our responsibility to repair the sidewalks, catch basins, the faulty plumbing, and on ad nausea.  Also when you ride the bus or other public transportation you are restricted by the amount of time you can ride - does this sound the same as a *time share*?   If you need a lawyer down the road, concerning a time share, steer clear of the present Minister of Consumer Affairs.


.        Perhaps Mr. Mason, as driver and operator of the bus, could hand his passenger an amended ticket that made said passenger responsible to pay for everything involving the bus along with the information that, as a very clever bus driver, he had decided he was not going to take any passengers the full forty miles that they had paid for in advance either.


----------



## Richard Gotfried

Dear TUGBBS Members:  I am feeling empowered to be able to make a difference in this dispute, with my only regret being I did not take up the gauntlet on this earlier.  It did take me some time, thanks to a few principled and stubborn hold-outs, to get my head around all of the issues here, but now that I have, I am on board to do what I can do ensure you all get a fair shake with respect to objective, independent review of the "mandate and jurisdiction" issue, which in my mind is the first hurdle to overcome.  In the meantime, I will work with Truth, and a few other very diligent, principled and stubborn people (including several of my own constituents) to bring my years of business (12 years in the building and development industry, 20 in the international airline industry and now in legislative issues!) , community and persistent, stubborn activist (I was going to use another word here, but in case I might offend anyone I will keep it tame) experience to the table!  And note to team....I don't like losing!  Let's stay focused on the issues step by step and open some doors of hope for justice, noting we may not like all of the answers we get at each step of the way...but we must take the steps!  Follow and LIKE my FB page for updates, with apologies that I have a nomination in play and you may learn more about me and my passion for serving Albertans than you bargained for!

Copy and paste this into your web browser:  facebook.com/GotfriedMLA


----------



## Richard Gotfried

By the way, I am trying to collate as much direct correspondence between Timeshare Unit Holders and either or any of Service Alberta, Minister McLean, Alberta Justice or Minister Ganley on this issue.  As we work on this over the summer (to get a meeting AND a review), my plan will be to table a virtual MOUNTAIN of correspondence in support of the issue, or at the very least to show that the Minister was misleading Albertans in saying that she had not been made aware of this issue!  Facts and truth will prevail.  Thank you!

PS if you could send me as succinct and collated correspondence as possible, scanned letters if available, then that would be great - calgary.fishcreek@assembly.ab.ca


----------



## truthr

Richard Gotfried said:


> Dear TUGBBS Members:  I am feeling empowered to be able to make a difference in this dispute, with my only regret being I did not take up the gauntlet on this earlier.  It did take me some time, thanks to a few principled and stubborn hold-outs, to get my head around all of the issues here, but now that I have, I am on board to do what I can do ensure you all get a fair shake with respect to objective, independent review of the "mandate and jurisdiction" issue, which in my mind is the first hurdle to overcome.  In the meantime, I will work with Truth, and a few other very diligent, principled and stubborn people (including several of my own constituents) to bring my years of business (12 years in the building and development industry, 20 in the international airline industry and now in legislative issues!) , community and persistent, stubborn activist (I was going to use another word here, but in case I might offend anyone I will keep it tame) experience to the table!  And note to team....I don't like losing!  Let's stay focused on the issues step by step and open some doors of hope for justice, noting we may not like all of the answers we get at each step of the way...but we must take the steps!  Follow and LIKE my FB page for updates, with apologies that I have a nomination in play and you may learn more about me and my passion for serving Albertans than you bargained for!
> 
> Copy and paste this into your web browser:  facebook.com/GotfriedMLA


Welcome to Tugbbs and a HUGE thank you for taking up the gauntlet. 
For those who don't know Richard Gotfried asked for members of our group to attend the legislative assembly on Wednesday, June 6th and a few made themselves available on very short notice.
Thank you to those who represented us and our plight.


----------



## LilMaggie

Spark1 said:


> So Stephanie you are saying Fraud and Scam is legal in Alberta. You also said this case is handled by Protection BC. You are wrong. I contacted Protection BC several times and they told me because the Supplier is from Calgary Alberta and the unfair practice being the Freedom To Choose was done in Calgary and you are from Alberta sorry but you have to deal with Service Alberta. That is you and you did nothing to protect Alberta Consumers from these crooks. You talk about the unilateral amendments to contracts that became Law Dec17/2017 the reason this happened was because of this case. What you did wrong was not grandfathering it back to Jan01/2016. Again your effects that you think is so important does not help Albertans dealing with this case. Did you even talk to Protection BC? What is your opinion on Geldert Law becoming one of them and using the Gag order to steal more money from seniors and treating time owners if they do not pay the 27% compounded interest plus 20% on top of that he will than nail us with 162% interest. The SIF forms he is using have no signatures and nothing is itemized when you get the bill all it says is pay this. Stephanie do not bull shit me because I am much older than you and much smarter we sure the hell have not come along way when it comes to consumer Protection. This NDP Government is very disappointing for Alberta Consumers. Stephanie seeing you are the top person for Service Alberta tell us what we are paying for and what are we getting. Also tell me where I have this property that Northwynd says I own registered in BC. if I do not have this property registered in B.C. they know what they can do with their Capital expenses.


Spark, if you haven't already, please send this letter to minister McLean!


----------



## Spark1

LilMaggie said:


> Spark, if you haven't already, please send this letter to minister McLean!


I sent her more than this letter.


----------



## aden2

Richard Gotfried said:


> By the way, I am trying to collate as much direct correspondence between Timeshare Unit Holders and either or any of Service Alberta, Minister McLean, Alberta Justice or Minister Ganley on this issue.  As we work on this over the summer (to get a meeting AND a review), my plan will be to table a virtual MOUNTAIN of correspondence in support of the issue, or at the very least to show that the Minister was misleading Albertans in saying that she had not been made aware of this issue!  Facts and truth will prevail.  Thank you!
> 
> PS if you could send me as succinct and collated correspondence as possible, scanned letters if available, then that would be great - calgary.fishcreek@assembly.ab.ca


*If Service Alberta would step forward Northmont Resort Properties would have to be accountable, but since elected in 2015 what has Service Alberta done but state they can not help us.*


----------



## dotbuhler

Richard Gotfried said:


> View attachment 7031


...sorry Richard, but I only get an "error page" when I click on the 'view attachment 7031'....is my computer just messing with me or could something need fixing?!


----------



## truthr

Richard Gotfried said:


> View attachment 7031





dotbuhler said:


> ...sorry Richard, but I only get an "error page" when I click on the 'view attachment 7031'....is my computer just messing with me or could something need fixing?!



It seemed okay last night.  I have reported it to admin/moderator.


----------



## aden2

We must lobby to have time share contracts for Five (5) years with option to renew. At present these 40 yr contracts are insane. There would be more effort by companies managing the Villas if there was an option to renew every 5 yrs.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

I have letters back and forth to her back in March 2017.  Nobody was listening then.  However she WAS aware of this issue for some time.


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> We must lobby to have time share contracts for Five (5) years with option to renew. At present these 40 yr contracts are insane. There would be more effort by companies managing the Villas if there was an option to renew every 5 yrs.


Aden 2 what is the best way for me to send you a email or meet with you in Edmonton? Thanks


----------



## LilMaggie

We now have a new Minister to help protect our rights as consumers in Alberta.
Perhaps we should all introduce ourselves to Mr. Brian Malkinson!
http://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...malkinson-moved-up-as-notley-shuffles-cabinet


----------



## Spark1

LilMaggie said:


> We now have a new Minister to help protect our rights as consumers in Alberta.
> Perhaps we should all introduce ourselves to Mr. Brian Malkinson!
> http://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...malkinson-moved-up-as-notley-shuffles-cabinet


There is a reason why this has happened. Service Alberta did not protect Albertans one bit. Northwynd totally tried to destroy our Lease Contracts by illegal Modifications and Unilateral Amendments to our Contracts and Stephanie McLean allowed this. She allowed this because she should never have been in this position she was in over her head and innocent Lease Time Owners that do not have this property registered in their names at land titles in B.C. got screwed out of millions. This is a big NDP Screw UP.


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> Aden 2 what is the best way for me to send you a email or meet with you in Edmonton? Thanks


Aden2 my internet dish was down. Did you receive my email?


----------



## torqued

I had over an hour with the FBI. Very interesting. What’s happening with Mr Gotfried and Alberta consumer protection??


----------



## aden2

Spark1 said:


> Aden2 my internet dish was down. Did you receive my email?


I received references to Merriam and had to research it.


----------



## LilMaggie

I'm still waiting on my release papers!


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> I received references to Merriam and had to research it.


Aden 2 I will try sending it again.


----------



## Spark1

aden2 said:


> I received references to Merriam and had to research it.


I used the cloud so it shows that you received the PDF so please let me know and what you think about that one big happy family.


----------



## Spark1

torqued said:


> I had over an hour with the FBI. Very interesting. What’s happening with Mr Gotfried and Alberta consumer protection??


The Service Alberta Minister resigned. It was to hot in the Kitchen now that we have a United Conservative Party  Member fighting on our behave in the House of Commons for us. He was going after her about the unilateral amendments and Modifications to our Contracts. He also was going after her about the unfair Practice was done in Alberta, that being the Freedom to Choose. It does not matter where the resort is located.  The Supplier is from Calgary Alberta and the Trustee’s Office is in Calgary. It was a Alberta Judge that gave Fairmont Resort Properties Creditors Protection. This same Judge Awarded the resort to Northwynd. This system they had in place and they are all connected that being Fairmont Resort Properties, the Trusty’s Lawyer Firm, The bond holders that being Northwynd are all connected. Our Trustee was also connected to the owners of the Fairmont Resort thew his Lawyer Firm. One big happy family making Millions. It is simple bankrupt Fairmont and Rafter6, have the resort awarded to the bond holders,set up a trust company being  Northwynd. Have Doug Frey go on CTV News and say the Resort was in terrible shape because the Vacation Villa Lease Owners did not pay enough yearly on their maintenance fees. Get our Lawyer Michael Geldert to become their bill collector using the gag order. This brought in millions for Northwynd and their share holders being maybe some of the same names on the Panama papers or the Barbados. Now the millions are coming in make a loan to Kirk Wanko’s numbered company to buy the Hillside buildings. And the Alberta Government says this has nothing to do with them and you have to go after Protection BC and not Service Alberta. The Alberta Government Loves to brag about their Consumer Protection. What Protection? We are Lease Owners not owners of the property. We paid thousands up front to have this right to use timeshare,which refers to a lease-like Agreement. In this type of timeshare your lease expires after a specified time and you have no property ownership rights in the property. The Legacy For Life was set up not so you had a share in the property, it was set up to have a contract that you were responsible for Capital Expenses. This gave Northwynd a location to move our Lease contracts using unilateral amendments and modification without giving us notice according to our Lease Contracts. Now Kirk Wankel wants to charge Legacy owners $3500.00 to get out of this contract because he does not want you as a partner in his extorted Hillside buildings. The Alberta Government failed us and we should of been able to fight this using the Fair Trading ACT.


----------



## Meow

Spark1 said:


> The Service Alberta Minister resigned. It was to hot in the Kitchen now that we have a United Conservative Party  Member fighting on our behave in the House of Commons for us. He was going after her about the unilateral amendments and Modifications to our Contracts. He also was going after her about the unfair Practice was done in Alberta, that being the Freedom to Choose. It does not matter where the resort is located.  The Supplier is from Calgary Alberta and the Trustee’s Office is in Calgary. It was a Alberta Judge that gave Fairmont Resort Properties Creditors Protection. This same Judge Awarded the resort to Northwynd. This system they had in place and they are all connected that being Fairmont Resort Properties, the Trusty’s Lawyer Firm, The bond holders that being Northwynd are all connected. Our Trustee was also connected to the owners of the Fairmont Resort thew his Lawyer Firm. One big happy family making Millions. It is simple bankrupt Fairmont and Rafter6, have the resort awarded to the bond holders,set up a trust company being  Northwynd. Have Doug Frey go on CTV News and say the Resort was in terrible shape because the Vacation Villa Lease Owners did not pay enough yearly on their maintenance fees. Get our Lawyer Michael Geldert to become their bill collector using the gag order. This brought in millions for Northwynd and their share holders being maybe some of the same names on the Panama papers or the Barbados. Now the millions are coming in make a loan to Kirk Wanko’s numbered company to buy the Hillside buildings. And the Alberta Government says this has nothing to do with them and you have to go after Protection BC and not Service Alberta. The Alberta Government Loves to brag about their Consumer Protection. What Protection? We are Lease Owners not owners of the property. We paid thousands up front to have this right to use timeshare,which refers to a lease-like Agreement. In this type of timeshare your lease expires after a specified time and you have no property ownership rights in the property. The Legacy For Life was set up not so you had a share in the property, it was set up to have a contract that you were responsible for Capital Expenses. This gave Northwynd a location to move our Lease contracts using unilateral amendments and modification without giving us notice according to our Lease Contracts. Now Kirk Wankel wants to charge Legacy owners $3500.00 to get out of this contract because he does not want you as a partner in his extorted Hillside buildings. The Alberta Government failed us and we should of been able to fight this using the Fair Trading ACT.


Our issue is very low on Service Alberta's priority list.  McLean got dumped because she was unable to move effectively on renegotiation of the Alberta SuperNet contract.  Now 250,000 rural Albertans are at risk of losing internet service as of June 30.  The NDP government and especially Service Alberta is inexperienced and totally inept.  We can't expect any improvements to Consumer Protection in Alberta without a government change at next year's election


----------



## Petus@18

KMFW swears in a recent affidavit that we were all given the chance to opt out of the settlement negotiated by Geldert 'Northmont's Bill Collector' during Dec 29 to Jan 8??? We only received one message with the Dec 29th deadline. Apparently, there were 3 other communications from Geldert extending the opt out's deadline (Dec 30, Jan 2 and Jan 8).  If this was the truth, more of us would have been still fighting this scam.  Did anyone here has knowledge of these alleged deadline extensions?  or is it KMFW's statement a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive the judge that we were given enough time to decide to proceed to settle or opt out of the settlement???


----------



## Spark1

Petus@18 said:


> KMFW swears in a recent affidavit that we were all given the chance to opt out of the settlement negotiated by Geldert 'Northmont's Bill Collector' during Dec 29 to Jan 8??? We only received one message with the Dec 29th deadline. Apparently, there were 3 other communications from Geldert extending the opt out's deadline (Dec 30, Jan 2 and Jan 8).  If this was the truth, more of us would have been still fighting this scam.  Did anyone here has knowledge of these alleged deadline extensions?  or is it KMFW's statement a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive the judge that we were given enough time to decide to proceed to settle or opt out of the settlement???


You are paying the bill. It is your right to approve the final amount but what are you paying for. This was a planned Bankruptcy. It is all Fraud and the Trustee is in on this. Crooked lawyers.


----------



## LilMaggie

Petus@18 said:


> KMFW swears in a recent affidavit that we were all given the chance to opt out of the settlement negotiated by Geldert 'Northmont's Bill Collector' during Dec 29 to Jan 8??? We only received one message with the Dec 29th deadline. Apparently, there were 3 other communications from Geldert extending the opt out's deadline (Dec 30, Jan 2 and Jan 8).  If this was the truth, more of us would have been still fighting this scam.  Did anyone here has knowledge of these alleged deadline extensions?  or is it KMFW's statement a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive the judge that we were given enough time to decide to proceed to settle or opt out of the settlement???


I most certainly did NOT receive more than one deadline to opt out. Just the Dec 29th...one whole day to decide over the holidays if I recall. But wait...I can look at all the emails I kept over the years from MG to prove this. So who's lying??  MG or KMFW or both...


----------



## Petus@18

It would be great if we could put together an Affidavit for Judge Gill's eyes, with a list of names of all the leaseholders that did not receive the alleged opt out extensions as KMFW is stating in his affidavit.  By doing this, it will prove that KMFW is lying.  I am willing to put together this document unfortunately, everyone who has paid the ransom, don't want or can't do anything for fear of the gag clause.  Thanks Michael, you really screwed everyone! Can't wait to see you having your day in Court and explain all of your fraudulent actions.


----------



## Spark1

Petus@18 said:


> It would be great if we could put together an Affidavit for Judge Gill's eyes, with a list of names of all the leaseholders that did not receive the alleged opt out extensions as KMFW is stating in his affidavit.  By doing this, it will prove that KMFW is lying.  I am willing to put together this document unfortunately, everyone who has paid the ransom, don't want or can't do anything for fear of the gag clause.  Thanks Michael, you really screwed everyone! Can't wait to see you having your day in Court and explain all of your fraudulent actions.


The issue here is theft of innocent Canadians and Americans that owned Lease timeshares that had no value. That no value was created by the owners of resorts. The Judges Knew damm well that you could not even give these timeshares away or pay someone to take them. How can you screw Time owners out of their timeshare for millions then  turn around and screw them out of millions to opt out. This whole plan was to do this called Freedom to Choose and if it was not they did not need the Cancellation Agreement as part of the Freedom To Choose. They wanted every one to cancel and than also nail them the Reno fee on top of the Cancellation. The courts were one sided and being B.C. one of the most corrupt Provinces
 in Canada and now you can add Alberta thanks to Northwynd and Michael Geldert They had the help of do nothing Service Alberta. They did not know what the Fair Trading ACT meant. When there is millions involved who is on the take?


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 said:


> The issue here is theft of innocent Canadians and Americans that owned Lease timeshares that had no value. That no value was created by the owners of resorts. The Judges Knew damm well that you could not even give these timeshares away or pay someone to take them. How can you screw Time owners out of their timeshare for millions then  turn around and screw them out of millions to opt out. This whole plan was to do this called Freedom to Choose and if it was not they did not need the Cancellation Agreement as part of the Freedom To Choose. They wanted every one to cancel and than also nail them the Reno fee on top of the Cancellation. The courts were one sided and being B.C. one of the most corrupt Provinces
> in Canada and now you can add Alberta thanks to Northwynd and Michael Geldert They had the help of do nothing Service Alberta. They did not know what the Fair Trading ACT meant. When there is millions involved who is on the take?


They got away with the perfect crime, lubricated by our $Millions.


----------



## dotbuhler

Petus@18 said:


> KMFW swears in a recent affidavit that we were all given the chance to opt out of the settlement negotiated by Geldert 'Northmont's Bill Collector' during Dec 29 to Jan 8??? We only received one message with the Dec 29th deadline. Apparently, there were 3 other communications from Geldert extending the opt out's deadline (Dec 30, Jan 2 and Jan 8).  If this was the truth, more of us would have been still fighting this scam.  Did anyone here has knowledge of these alleged deadline extensions?  or is it KMFW's statement a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive the judge that we were given enough time to decide to proceed to settle or opt out of the settlement???


Having fired Geldert on the 29th of Dec. I received no further correspondence from him other than threats.  I would LOVE to sign any Affidavit that supports Geldert and MFKW's outright lying. For too long these crooks have abused us and the Justice system. (Perhaps that is partially explained by the blindfold she wears!)


----------



## LilMaggie

dotbuhler said:


> Having fired Geldert on the 29th of Dec. I received no further correspondence from him other than threats.  I would LOVE to sign any Affidavit that supports Geldert and MFKW's outright lying. For too long these crooks have abused us and the Justice system. (Perhaps that is partially explained by the blindfold she wears!)


Having paid the ransom and supposedly submitting to a BS gag clause...I would more than LOVE to sign that Affidavit.  I think that if information comes out after the fact that suggests or proves that much of our case has been based upon lies, the gag order should be null and void!  Just my opinion ! 
Still don't have my release papers so...


----------



## dotbuhler

Kirk Wankel is quoted in this June 28th article about the new hotel...Interesting that the SECRET buyers are from Calgary, Edmonton and Nova Scotia! And STILL, with all the monies collected the renos at Riverside and Riverview are NOT DONE. Or at the new hotel either. A forensic audit is LONG OVERDUE!!
You may have to put this manually into your search, as the link seems to not work.  https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/business/a-new-hotel-with-mountain-views-from-each-suite-opens-in-fairmont/


----------



## torqued

Received a attorney release from Barry king office last week. 6months late?!!


----------



## torqued

Would be interested in what the USA folks are doing with this mess.


----------



## dotbuhler

torqued said:


> Received a attorney release from Barry king office last week. 6months late?!!


Was it from the B.C. or Alberta Courts, and was it signed by Vincent Tong? Was it sent regular mail or registered?


----------



## torqued

From tong. Sent regular mail. I need to look again but I think there was something on there about BC court


----------



## dotbuhler

torqued said:


> From tong. Sent regular mail. I need to look again but I think there was something on there about BC court


Thanks!


----------



## heydynagirl

torqued said:


> Would be interested in what the USA folks are doing with this mess.


I'm not doing anything.


----------



## heydynagirl

dotbuhler said:


> Thanks!


----------



## heydynagirl

torqued said:


> Received a attorney release from Barry king office last week. 6months late?!!


I looked online at the bc court system and saw King had filed a notice of withdrawal mid June.  If he mailed it, he sent it to an address I haven't lived at for 2 years.


----------



## LilMaggie

I guess that the hard copy of our release from Sunchaser (that was promised in writing) is now the emailed copy that was sent out months ago.  If we want a hard copy we have to pay MG or ask Northmont.
How silly of me to think that I would actually receive something as promised from MG.  Just more crap to add to the pile!
I still don't have the stomach to look at the accounting attachment.


----------



## MgolferL

LilMaggie said:


> Having paid the ransom and supposedly submitting to a BS gag clause...I would more than LOVE to sign that Affidavit.  I think that if information comes out after the fact that suggests or proves that much of our case has been based upon lies, the gag order should be null and void!  Just my opinion !
> Still don't have my release papers so...


I also paid the ransom, but would definitely sign the affidavit. There was no extensions, just sign today...meaning that someone is full of it...KW and MG to name a few. Obviously with them lying about that (along with everything else), I could say I lied about the "gag" order.


----------



## Meow

This whole experience has been a nightmare.  It has left many of us emotionally and perhaps financially bankrupt.  Those of us that have "settled" have kissed goodbye to a lot of money that we will never see again.
My question is - has anyone (Canadian) looked at the possibility of recovering some of our losses by claiming a capital loss for income tax purposes?  It would be nice if this is possible.  The courts seem to believe that we owned a capital property and held us liable for all the responsibilities that came with it.


----------



## torqued

Any updates on Mr Gotfried??  Has the RCMP looked at this further. The FBI is very well aware of what KW is doing. I had a long conversation with them and they are aware of the situation


----------



## LilMaggie

Meow said:


> This whole experience has been a nightmare.  It has left many of us emotionally and perhaps financially bankrupt.  Those of us that have "settled" have kissed goodbye to a lot of money that we will never see again.
> My question is - has anyone (Canadian) looked at the possibility of recovering some of our losses by claiming a capital loss for income tax purposes?  It would be nice if this is possible.  The courts seem to believe that we owned a capital property and held us liable for all the responsibilities that came with it.


Yes Meow!  We are devastated by this.
There is no way that KMFW will be paying a red cent for taxes on the monies he extorted from us...can you say off shore accounts... Canada is aware of, but can seemingly do nothing...
Would be nice to find someone in the know at CRA that could tell us if the lease we owed/physical properties that the courts say we owned are eligible for a tax claim.  We had to pay to rid ourselves of depreciated units. 
I think that our EX legal team owes us for all the money we paid in interest to NM over the years related directly to bad advice.  Still haven't heard anything further from the law society in BC.


----------



## Spark1

Meow said:


> This whole experience has been a nightmare.  It has left many of us emotionally and perhaps financially bankrupt.  Those of us that have "settled" have kissed goodbye to a lot of money that we will never see again.
> My question is - has anyone (Canadian) looked at the possibility of recovering some of our losses by claiming a capital loss for income tax purposes?  It would be nice if this is possible.  The courts seem to believe that we owned a capital property and held us liable for all the responsibilities that came with it.


Which Land Titles Office are you registered at in BC or Alberta if you own the property.


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> Which Land Titles Office are you registered at in BC or Alberta if you own the property.


Let’s work with Richard and many paid because of The back stabbing Lawyer Michael Geldert and his 162% treat. The world is not big enough Geldert and I believe in Karma. It will happen and I have seen it many times.


----------



## Spark1

heydynagirl said:


> I looked online at the bc court system and saw King had filed a notice of withdrawal mid June.  If he mailed it, he sent it to an address I haven't lived at for 2 years.


You should write a letter to Your president and let him know about the abuse you are getting in Canada and you are not a land owner. You are actually being robbed here in Canada and this would be a good time to do it with NAFTA happening. Let him know the Prime Minister will not even protect you.You are a US citizen and should not be treated this way. This is abuse.


----------



## dotbuhler

...so, the "offering for standing" I attended on July 4th was just another reinforcement that the "old boys club" is alive and well...and that "justice" as it is called in this country, no longer exists... I could not stay and listen to any more of the lies that Jud Virtue and Justice Gill were throwing around! Instead, my sister and I headed off to get a bottle of champagne to celebrate that I had just been given my life back. Refusal of "standing" to most of us, was the usual well-played out repeat of past court appearances. Looks like the only court in the land that *might *see justice done, is the Supreme Court of Canada. In the meantime I am celebrating my big win! KMFW and Michael Geldert will NEVER see a red cent from me. Wankel is going to have to go through the B.C. Courts again, against everyone served in B.C. with judgments against them, if he plans on collecting on any more "outstanding debts". When the last bit of the drastically downsized remaining resort is sold off, let's see what happens. GREED will be his ultimate comedown. A smart con man *KNOWS *when to pack up and run. And I'll bet the fallout from Sauvagues' court case will definitely work against him.
In the meantime, I am allowing myself to walk away from the fray: looks like the cherries will be cropping hard this year, the roses need my attention and my energies will be concentrated on those areas that have suffered over the past 5 years since I first got involved in the Belfry-Geldert scenario. As I said, once again I've gotten my life back.


----------



## torqued

So what happened in court on the 4th of July??  Can anyone fill me in please??


----------



## servemeout

*Interest Act.
*

*R.S., c. I-18, s. 1.*
*Rate of Interest*
*Marginal note:No restriction except by statute
2 Except as otherwise provided by this Act or any other Act of Parliament, any person may stipulate for, allow and exact, on any contract or agreement whatever, any rate of interest or discount that is agreed on.*


*R.S., c. I-18, s. 2.*
*Marginal note:Interest rate when none provided
3 Whenever any interest is payable by the agreement of parties or by law, and no rate is fixed by the agreement or by law, the rate of interest shall be five per cent per annum.*


*R.S., c. I-18, s. 3.*
*Marginal note:When per annum rate not stipulated
4 Except as to mortgages on real property or hypothecs on immovables, whenever any interest is, by the terms of any written or printed contract, whether under seal or not, made payable at a rate or percentage per day, week, month, or at any rate or percentage for any period less than a year, no interest exceeding the rate or percentage of five per cent per annum shall be chargeable, payable or recoverable on any part of the principal money unless the contract contains an express statement of the yearly rate or percentage of interest to which the other rate or percentage is equivalent.*


*R.S., 1985, c. I-15, s. 4;*
* 2001, c. 4, s. 91.*
*Marginal note:Recovery of sums paid otherwise
5 If any sum is paid on account of any interest not chargeable, payable or recoverable under section 4, the sum may be recovered back or deducted from any principal or interest payable under the contract.*


*R.S., c. I-18, s. 5.*
Maybe this is the reason for the reduction of the amount of interest that can be charged on contracts before 2004.  Does this make you smile?


----------



## Meow

Spark1 said:


> Which Land Titles Office are you registered at in BC or Alberta if you own the property.


Not sure what this has to do with claiming a capital loss?


----------



## LilMaggie

servemeout said:


> *Interest Act.
> *
> 
> *R.S., c. I-18, s. 1.*
> *Rate of Interest*
> *Marginal note:No restriction except by statute
> 2 Except as otherwise provided by this Act or any other Act of Parliament, any person may stipulate for, allow and exact, on any contract or agreement whatever, any rate of interest or discount that is agreed on.*
> 
> 
> *R.S., c. I-18, s. 2.*
> *Marginal note:Interest rate when none provided
> 3 Whenever any interest is payable by the agreement of parties or by law, and no rate is fixed by the agreement or by law, the rate of interest shall be five per cent per annum.*
> 
> 
> *R.S., c. I-18, s. 3.*
> *Marginal note:When per annum rate not stipulated
> 4 Except as to mortgages on real property or hypothecs on immovables, whenever any interest is, by the terms of any written or printed contract, whether under seal or not, made payable at a rate or percentage per day, week, month, or at any rate or percentage for any period less than a year, no interest exceeding the rate or percentage of five per cent per annum shall be chargeable, payable or recoverable on any part of the principal money unless the contract contains an express statement of the yearly rate or percentage of interest to which the other rate or percentage is equivalent.*
> 
> 
> *R.S., 1985, c. I-15, s. 4;*
> * 2001, c. 4, s. 91.*
> *Marginal note:Recovery of sums paid otherwise
> 5 If any sum is paid on account of any interest not chargeable, payable or recoverable under section 4, the sum may be recovered back or deducted from any principal or interest payable under the contract.*
> 
> 
> *R.S., c. I-18, s. 5.*
> Maybe this is the reason for the reduction of the amount of interest that can be charged on contracts before 2004.  Does this make you smile?


If a person has already paid the 27%, how is he/she supposed to recover the overpaid interest?


----------



## servemeout

How to recover the overpaid interest?  Do not know.  The interest paid as part of a "settlement" probably  is not under the Interest Act.  Our opinion is that the Geldert group was targeted.  It is also our opinion that KMFW will not get his appeal on the interest rate, which will cut the amounts outstanding by a large amount.  My logic tells me that I would not sue for $100.00 if it was going to cost $1000.00 to get it.  It has been said many times, MG gave very poor legal advise and much of his farmed out crap put fear into people.  Sauvageau is a lawyer and did not need to have a license in every province in Canada to be a collection agent.


----------



## LilMaggie

servemeout said:


> How to recover the overpaid interest?  Do not know.  The interest paid as part of a "settlement" probably  is not under the Interest Act.  Our opinion is that the Geldert group was targeted.  It is also our opinion that KMFW will not get his appeal on the interest rate, which will cut the amounts outstanding by a large amount.  My logic tells me that I would not sue for $100.00 if it was going to cost $1000.00 to get it.  It has been said many times, MG gave very poor legal advise and much of his farmed out crap put fear into people.  Sauvageau is a lawyer and did not need to have a license in every province in Canada to be a collection agent.


The settlement folks paid the same interest that everyone owes NM (those who were part of MG's litigation group and were advised to not pay the fees over the years).  
Every statement from NM included this interest amount added to the yearly maintenance fees.


----------



## servemeout

Yes you are correct, however the contracts are different.  The contracts before 2004 did not give a stated amount per year, hence the 5% by law.  Remember the unilateral change to* ALL* contracts that KMFW wanted to change.  At the Sept.15/15 court date with Young, she asked to have copies of all of the different contracts.


----------



## dotbuhler

torqued said:


> So what happened in court on the 4th of July??  Can anyone fill me in please??


Only Mr. Olsen was allowed Standing in the Appeal, and that was because a clerical error had been made that left his name off the original list of appellants. Wankel was not present, but Virtue and Barry King were both there. King excused himself at the very beginning as he said everything was covered in the documents  (that Geldert had directed him to file with the court) and he was not prepared to argue over dates for the Appeal and cross-appeal. We were allowed to address the court on Standing but it was plain from the arguments filed prior by Virtue and King that they were severely opposed to anyone other than Mr. Olsen being included. Interestingly, the fact that King was even allowed a say, given his (Geldert's) history with us, kind of boggled my mind.
At the point when Jud Virtue turned to the survey the 10 or so of us and told Justice Gill: "There were 1300 people who were fighting this originally, and this is all that's left..." I had to leave. My "stupidity limit" had reached saturation point and I knew if I stayed one second longer I would probably be charged with contempt of court. (Or maybe it was after Virtue referred to me as 'Zazelenski' for the fourth or fifth time...) So, from that point on Mr. Hobbs, the Vaughters, and the others present will have to fill you in. 
When I was coming to court this time I realized that if I won I lost, and if I lost, I won. Winning meant more paperwork, it has been a long 5 years! Research, study, travel, always on my mind. If I  "lost", I get my life back. Get my drift?!
Because I was Served and I hear there is a Judgement in the B.C Courts, but I still theoretically have about 15 years left on the lease, that means I will be sued again in B.C. if Wankel wants to keep playing this game. BUT this time I will be aware. (I wonder if Virtue will be suing Wankel for 'breach of contract' like his last lawyer is doing, at that time??) Anyway, I am enjoying my breathing space. Life is great and I still haven't, nor will I ever, give the extortionists one red cent. I have no "gag order" in place and I am free as a bird to bear witness to the fraud perpetrated against us by the unholy duo of Wankel and Geldert. (Gee, that felt good!)


----------



## LilMaggie

servemeout said:


> Yes you are correct, however the contracts are different.  The contracts before 2004 did not give a stated amount per year, hence the 5% by law.  Remember the unilateral change to* ALL* contracts that KMFW wanted to change.  At the Sept.15/15 court date with Young, she asked to have copies of all of the different contracts.


My contract was signed in 1992 and it stated that the per month charge was 2% for overdue accounts. Clearly there were others contracts at some point that did not specify that.  
Sadly, many people paid over $10,000 in interest charges.  Pretty expensive lesson to learn.


----------



## LilMaggie

dotbuhler said:


> Only Mr. Olsen was allowed Standing in the Appeal, and that was because a clerical error had been made that left his name off the original list of appellants. Wankel was not present, but Virtue and Barry King were both there. King excused himself at the very beginning as he said everything was covered in the documents  (that Geldert had directed him to file with the court) and he was not prepared to argue over dates for the Appeal and cross-appeal. We were allowed to address the court on Standing but it was plain from the arguments filed prior by Virtue and King that they were severely opposed to anyone other than Mr. Olsen being included. Interestingly, the fact that King was even allowed a say, given his (Geldert's) history with us, kind of boggled my mind.
> At the point when Jud Virtue turned to the survey the 10 or so of us and told Justice Gill: "There were 1300 people who were fighting this originally, and this is all that's left..." I had to leave. My "stupidity limit" had reached saturation point and I knew if I stayed one second longer I would probably be charged with contempt of court. (Or maybe it was after Virtue referred to me as 'Zazelenski' for the fourth or fifth time...) So, from that point on Mr. Hobbs, the Vaughters, and the others present will have to fill you in.
> When I was coming to court this time I realized that if I won I lost, and if I lost, I won. Winning meant more paperwork, it has been a long 5 years! Research, study, travel, always on my mind. If I  "lost", I get my life back. Get my drift?!
> Because I was Served and I hear there is a Judgement in the B.C Courts, but I still theoretically have about 15 years left on the lease, that means I will be sued again in B.C. if Wankel wants to keep playing this game. BUT this time I will be aware. (I wonder if Virtue will be suing Wankel for 'breach of contract' like his last lawyer is doing, at that time??) Anyway, I am enjoying my breathing space. Life is great and I still haven't, nor will I ever, give the extortionists one red cent. I have no "gag order" in place and I am free as a bird to bear witness to the fraud perpetrated against us by the unholy duo of Wankel and Geldert. (Gee, that felt good!)


Yaaaaay for freedom and "winning"!!!


----------



## Petus@18

LilMaggie said:


> Yaaaaay for freedom and "winning"!!!



Yayyy


----------



## Spark1

I


Meow said:


> Not sure what this has to do with claiming a capital loss?


If you are not registered as a land or property owner any where in BC why are you replacing the resort or paying for Capital expenses. Why was maintenance fees planned by the manager of the resort just fine according to the Lease contracts and after Northwynd takes over the Resort we are treated like we are the owners when all we own is time not property? Every one should not of paid them one thin dime. They are extorters.


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 said:


> I
> 
> If you are not registered as a land or property owner any where in BC why are you replacing the resort or paying for Capital expenses. Why was maintenance fees planned by the manager of the resort just fine according to the Lease contracts and after Northwynd takes over the Resort we are treated like we are the owners when all we own is time not property? Every one should not of paid them one thin dime. They are extorters.


Unfortunately they are "extorters" with the blessing of at least two Court decisions, and I'm not ruling out that there may have been provincial influence in those Court decisions. We could be right in all respects but in the courts, and that's a tough hurdle to clear.


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> Unfortunately they are "extorters" with the blessing of at least two Court decisions, and I'm not ruling out that there may be provincial influence in those Court decisions. We could be right in all respects but in the courts, and that's a tough hurdle to clear.


Yes and for some reason the Alberta Government was just as responsible for this. Was it that they did not want to protect us because of the costs or are they that incompetent with timeshare. If that is the case and the federal government is counting on Protection BC and Service Alberta to do their Consumer Protection and they totally failed than do not allow timeshares to be sold in Canada. But really look at these corrupt Lawyers and Judges,this needs to be looked at. The Law Society of BC should not be taking this long to come up with a decision with MG. He is a extortionist also. He should be disbarred. His clients were sucked in by this 162% interest. Any one trying to collect this off of me would have to do this in person I do not pay any one without meeting them in person and they would have to explain to me what I am paying for. I do not trust lawyers. I bet after MG a lot of people do not trust lawyers


----------



## Tanny13

servemeout said:


> *Interest Act.
> *
> 
> *R.S., c. I-18, s. 1.*
> *Rate of Interest*
> *Marginal note:No restriction except by statute
> 2 Except as otherwise provided by this Act or any other Act of Parliament, any person may stipulate for, allow and exact, on any contract or agreement whatever, any rate of interest or discount that is agreed on.*
> 
> 
> *R.S., c. I-18, s. 2.*
> *Marginal note:Interest rate when none provided
> 3 Whenever any interest is payable by the agreement of parties or by law, and no rate is fixed by the agreement or by law, the rate of interest shall be five per cent per annum.*
> 
> 
> *R.S., c. I-18, s. 3.*
> *Marginal note:When per annum rate not stipulated
> 4 Except as to mortgages on real property or hypothecs on immovables, whenever any interest is, by the terms of any written or printed contract, whether under seal or not, made payable at a rate or percentage per day, week, month, or at any rate or percentage for any period less than a year, no interest exceeding the rate or percentage of five per cent per annum shall be chargeable, payable or recoverable on any part of the principal money unless the contract contains an express statement of the yearly rate or percentage of interest to which the other rate or percentage is equivalent.*
> 
> 
> *R.S., 1985, c. I-15, s. 4;*
> * 2001, c. 4, s. 91.*
> *Marginal note:Recovery of sums paid otherwise
> 5 If any sum is paid on account of any interest not chargeable, payable or recoverable under section 4, the sum may be recovered back or deducted from any principal or interest payable under the contract.*
> 
> 
> *R.S., c. I-18, s. 5.*
> Maybe this is the reason for the reduction of the amount of interest that can be charged on contracts before 2004.  Does this make you smile?




This is precisely the reason why Judge Young ruled in the favour of those who have pre-2004 contracts.  The interest rate was indicated per month, not by year, on our contracts.


----------



## Spark1

Tanny13 said:


> This is precisely the reason why Judge Young ruled in the favour of those who have pre-2004 contracts.  The interest rate was indicated per month, not by year, on our contracts.


MG knew that Justice Young did not rule on interest rates yet so what was it in it for him by working with KW? What did he get paid under the table from KW my scaring time owners with 162% rates if they backed out of Option No. 1. Were these SIF Documents Legal? I did not see any Signatures. How many more millions were paid because of these heartless Assholes. Many people are living from cheque to cheque now days as it is. He is a liar if he is saying that this is what we wanted for a settlement to get out of our Lease Contracts. We know what we want and that is to see you two put in jail for the rest of your life.


----------



## Spark1

servemeout said:


> Yes you are correct, however the contracts are different.  The contracts before 2004 did not give a stated amount per year, hence the 5% by law.  Remember the unilateral change to* ALL* contracts that KMFW wanted to change.  At the Sept.15/15 court date with Young, she asked to have copies of all of the different contracts.


You can not just do unilateral amendments to contracts until all items of the different contracts are satisfied. This is where the Judge failed all of us. I will never fall for this just because they are judges. We paid big money for this 40 year contract and signed in good faith with Collin Knight, Ben their Manager and Their Sales Lady Marylyn. All the items are important and I have brought up item no. 37 before. The reason item no. 37 was part of this contract is it is the same as the new bill 37 that was passed Dec. 2017. You have to give notice to Lease Time Owners by Registered Mail for all events such as bankruptcy,Modifications,unilateral amendments,new owners etc. We have never received any registered postal mail informing us of any of these events. These are all breaches of our contract. Why did none of these judges see any breaches to our contracts because there was many? The condo Association and the same email addresses and phone numbers Northwynd used would of helped also instead of Just Social media. I have sent tons of information to Richard and will set up a meeting with him. I am a UCP member and there are other Lease owners that want to meet with him. We have to stop this not just for us but also future lease owners taken over by White Collar Crime.


----------



## Meow

In an earlier post I had hoped to attract the attention of someone knowledgeable in Canadian Income Tax law.  My question is - those of us that have walked away from our timeshares - did we suffer a capital property loss that can be carried back 3 years or forward to offset capital gains?  I paid X$ for the timeshare a few years ago and disposed of it for 0$ this year.  Do the B.C. and Alberta court decisions support an argument that we disposed of a Capital Property when we "settled" with Northmont?


----------



## GypsyOne

Meow said:


> In an earlier post I had hoped to attract the attention of someone knowledgeable in Canadian Income Tax law.  My question is - those of us that have walked away from our timeshares - did we suffer a capital property loss that can be carried back 3 years or forward to offset capital gains?  I paid X$ for the timeshare a few years ago and disposed of it for 0$ this year.  Do the B.C. and Alberta court decisions support an argument that we disposed of a Capital Property when we "settled" with Northmont?



My tax preparer said that the loss on my timeshare is not deductible for the reason that losses from the sale of a personal use timeshare are deemed to be personal losses and are not deductible. You should check your own situation with your own tax preparer.


----------



## Meow

GypsyOne, I'm not sure I understand your tax preparer's point.  If you dispose of a recreational property that you own in addition to your principal residence you are subject to capital gains rules.  I would expect in most cases the recreational property would be for personal  use.  I believe the issue is if the timeshare is deemed to be a capital asset like any other real estate asset.  Did the courts not treat the timeshare leases like capital properties when they ruled that we had to pay our share of capital improvements?  Perhaps we wouldn't have the answer without a tax ruling from CRA.


----------



## bizaro86

With the caveat that I'm not providing tax advice, it seems likely that your timeshare is personal use property. That is thr same category as recreational real estate/cottages/RV.

This document: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...se-property/personal-use-property-losses.html

From the tax folks says that losses aren't deductible but gains are taxable.


----------



## LilMaggie

Meow said:


> GypsyOne, I'm not sure I understand your tax preparer's point.  If you dispose of a recreational property that you own in addition to your principal residence you are subject to capital gains rules.  I would expect in most cases the recreational property would be for personal  use.  I believe the issue is if the timeshare is deemed to be a capital asset like any other real estate asset.  Did the courts not treat the timeshare leases like capital properties when they ruled that we had to pay our share of capital improvements?  Perhaps we wouldn't have the answer without a tax ruling from CRA.


OK.  Tomorrow I am going to see if there is anyone available to talk about this from the CRA.  As we all know, the courts treated our timeshare properties as capital assets and ordered us to pay expenses.  
I will bet however, that the CRA deems timeshare as personal property, as Gypsy stated and as I understood is while reading through the property loss business. 
CRA has it's rules and the courts have theirs and timeshare lessees get shafted.


----------



## bizaro86

LilMaggie said:


> OK.  Tomorrow I am going to see if there is anyone available to talk about this from the CRA.  As we all know, the courts treated our timeshare properties as capital assets and ordered us to pay expenses.
> I will bet however, that the CRA deems timeshare as personal property, as Gypsy stated and as I understood is while reading through the property loss business.
> CRA has it's rules and the courts have theirs and timeshare lessees get shafted.



Lots of capital property is also personal property for tax reasons. 

On the other hand, if you've been renting your unit (and declaring the revenue/deducting MF) you'd have a great case for a business loss.

**again not tax advice


----------



## GypsyOne

Meow said:


> GypsyOne, I'm not sure I understand your tax preparer's point.  If you dispose of a recreational property that you own in addition to your principal residence you are subject to capital gains rules.  I would expect in most cases the recreational property would be for personal  use.  I believe the issue is if the timeshare is deemed to be a capital asset like any other real estate asset.  Did the courts not treat the timeshare leases like capital properties when they ruled that we had to pay our share of capital improvements?  Perhaps we wouldn't have the answer without a tax ruling from CRA.



True, the disposition of recreational property is subject to capital gains rules.  But, the rules are stacked in favour of Revenue Canada.  If you sell a recreational property for a gain, the gain is subject to capital gains tax.  If you sell for a loss, you can only write that loss off against gains on other recreational property. So, for example, if you had sold a recreational cottage for a gain, you could reduce the gain on the cottage by the loss on the time share property (Assuming the timeshare is deemed to be property, and assuming you have not converted your time share to a rental property, which is probably not likely.)  You could confirm this by phoning Information at your local Revenue Canada office, or any accountant or tax preparer as I am not in the business of giving tax advice.)


----------



## bizaro86

GypsyOne said:


> True, the disposition of recreational property is subject to capital gains rules.  But, the rules are stacked in favour of Revenue Canada.  If you sell a recreational property for a gain, the gain is subject to capital gains tax.  *If you sell for a loss, you can only write that loss off against gains on other recreational property*. So, for example, if you had sold a recreational cottage for a gain, you could reduce the gain on the cottage by the loss on the time share property (Assuming the timeshare is deemed to be property, and assuming you have not converted your time share to a rental property, which is probably not likely.)  You could confirm this by phoning Information at your local Revenue Canada office, or any accountant or tax preparer as I am not in the business of giving tax advice.)



This isn't correct. A loss on the disposal of personal property can't be offset against the sale of like-kind personal property, unless it is Listed Personal Property. 

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...ting-schedule-3/listed-personal-property.html

and 


_"However, if you have a capital loss, you usually *cannot* deduct that loss when you calculate your income for the year. In addition, you cannot use the loss to decrease capital gains on other personal-use property."_
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...se-property/personal-use-property-losses.html


----------



## GypsyOne

bizaro86 said:


> This isn't correct. A loss on the disposal of personal property can't be offset against the sale of like-kind personal property, unless it is Listed Personal Property.
> 
> See: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...ting-schedule-3/listed-personal-property.html
> 
> and
> 
> 
> _"However, if you have a capital loss, you usually *cannot* deduct that loss when you calculate your income for the year. In addition, you cannot use the loss to decrease capital gains on other personal-use property."_
> https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...se-property/personal-use-property-losses.html



Conflicting information and different situations. That's why I suggest that you check with Revenue Canada for your own personal situation.


----------



## bizaro86

GypsyOne said:


> Conflicting information and different situations. That's why I suggest that you check with Revenue Canada for your own personal situation.



The CRA is specifically not bound by things their agents say on the phone. It's goofy, but that's the rules. Their written communication,  which I've cited above, is much more reliable.


----------



## GypsyOne

bizaro86 said:


> The CRA is specifically not bound by things their agents say on the phone. It's goofy, but that's the rules. Their written communication,  which I've cited above, is much more reliable.


It's a moot point if there are no capital gains on other personal property. The loss on our timeshare will not be tax deductible for the vast majority of us. But check with CRA if not certain.


----------



## Fredflintstone

I have been watching this saga for quite some time and I am truly sorry to those leasees, owners or whatever they are. I guess this goes to show that it is best to rent and never sign a timeshare contract.


----------



## LilMaggie

Fredflintstone said:


> I have been watching this saga for quite some time and I am truly sorry to those leasees, owners or whatever they are. I guess this goes to show that it is best to rent and never sign a timeshare contract.


Yes, if we only had a crystal ball!


----------



## mudslide

I have been out of the country backpacking overseas since October 2017, I had signed at last minute from abroad to let MG  negotiate a settlement for us. That was the last I heard from him as he did not update my email address that we sent him, Then suddenly in February I am being asked to pay a settlement agreement amount, somehow he figured out he had the wrong email address. I replied that I could not afford that so he indicated that I should fill out a hardship form, I explained that internet access was limited and explained in an email why I could not afford the settlement amount. All of a sudden I was approved as a hardship case and given an extension to pay when I get back in the country.
So could some one explain to me since this is all new to me, as we had bought a 1993 resale contract is the interest rate of 26% now 5% and is this being appealed? Is this our last option
and is all the other appeal exhausted now? Trying to catch up on what has happened.
Any suggestions on what to do next. Have not signed or paid anything yet. Am nowing being offered a revised settlement amount


----------



## Spark1

mudslide said:


> I have been out of the country backpacking overseas since October 2017, I had signed at last minute from abroad to let MG  negotiate a settlement for us. That was the last I heard from him as he did not update my email address that we sent him, Then suddenly in February I am being asked to pay a settlement agreement amount, somehow he figured out he had the wrong email address. I replied that I could not afford that so he indicated that I should fill out a hardship form, I explained that internet access was limited and explained in an email why I could not afford the settlement amount. All of a sudden I was approved as a hardship case and given an extension to pay when I get back in the country.
> So could some one explain to me since this is all new to me, as we had bought a 1993 resale contract is the interest rate of 26% now 5% and is this being appealed? Is this our last option
> and is all the other appeal exhausted now? Trying to catch up on what has happened.
> Any suggestions on what to do next. Have not signed or paid anything yet. Am nowing being offered a revised settlement amount


You have to ask yourself was the Freedom to Choose a Unfair Practice to our Lease Contracts? Than ask yourself why was MG in a big hurray to collect money from time owners at 26.8% interest and the threat of 162% if you did not pay the 26.8% when he knew Justice Young was ruling on interest rates by Feb15/2017? This is White Collar Crime. What was he being paid by Kirk Wankel to stab us in the back? You have to ask yourself was this a planned Bankruptcy. The most important were they breaching your contract and did they give you notice in writing sent as registered mail of any changes to your contract like unilateral amendments and modifications to your contract. Are you aware that Richard Gotfried the UCP member of Fish Creek in Calgary is working with us. If not check out page 208 and send Richard the offers MG is proposing so he can see how this poor excuse of a lawyer operates. This is all Fraud.


----------



## mudslide

So could some one explain to me , as we had bought a 1993 resale contract is the interest rate of 26% now 5% and is this being appealed? Is this our last option
and is all the other appeal exhausted now? Trying to catch up on what has happened.
Any suggestions on what to do next. Have not signed or paid anything yet.


----------



## Hey lady

Re-read Spark1's post - it sums it up the situation in a nutshell, perfectly. If it is too brief for you read the posts from page 100 to current to get a better understanding of what has happened to those of us involved and what still is going on.


----------



## torqued

It’s my understanding that Colin knight and his fairmont cronies are in bed with Wankle and company. Some names have changed but the same players. Absolutely a planned bankruptcy. Then take advantage of a liberal court in BC and contract law and bingo ya got a money tree!!  I went to the FBI and they saw the stink all over this pile of poop!!


----------



## Spark1

torqued said:


> It’s my understanding that Colin knight and his fairmont cronies are in bed with Wankle and company. Some names have changed but the same players. Absolutely a planned bankruptcy. Then take advantage of a liberal court in BC and contract law and bingo ya got a money tree!!  I went to the FBI and they saw the stink all over this pile of poop!!


You have to understand that Collin Knight was not the only owner of the Fairmont Resort Properties LD. He also had 3 women that owned 25% each of that resort and Collin Knight owned the other 25%. One of these women was our Trustee’s X-wife and the other two were connected to his Lawyer Firm. Should we assume there is a conflict of interest here. This Trustee also designed the Freedom to Choose which we all know had nothing to do with our contracts. Why did he have to use the Supreme Court of BC to inforce this White Collar Crime on us. This was a unfair Practice and Albertan’s should of been Protected by Service Alberta and been able to use the Fair Trading ACT To fight this. BC owners should of been able to use Protection BC. The Government of Canada and these Two provinces proved there is no Canadian Consumer Protection for Lease Time Owners in this country. The owners of Rafter Six also lost everything because of this planned bankruptcy. My first phone call pertaining to this white collar crime was made to BBB in Calgary and they told me when this all started why would you pay anything,it is so easy to go bankrupted in this country. Was he so right. We all should be working with Richard Gotfried and give him all the information we can that he can use in the House of Commons. Because the owners are from Calgary there are two departments that failed us that being The Justice Minister and The Service Alberta Minister. The Service Alberta Minister resigned and I can not wait until May 2019 to say good by to this NDP party. Also 2019 so we can get rid of this terrible Prime Minister. Canadian Consumer Protection for Timeshare Lease Owners means nothing to these two governments.


----------



## LilMaggie

torqued said:


> It’s my understanding that Colin knight and his fairmont cronies are in bed with Wankle and company. Some names have changed but the same players. Absolutely a planned bankruptcy. Then take advantage of a liberal court in BC and contract law and bingo ya got a money tree!!  I went to the FBI and they saw the stink all over this pile of poop!!


It's just too bad that the FBI, RCMP, the Canadian courts, et al. can know about this and watch it go down without somehow intervening.


----------



## dotbuhler

I see the "new hotel" formerly known as Hilltop is now offering Villa Sales on the Mountain View Villas website. Looks like the sins of the past are about to be reintroduced to a whole new set of victims!


----------



## Spark1

torqued said:


> It’s my understanding that Colin knight and his fairmont cronies are in bed with Wankle and company. Some names have changed but the same players. Absolutely a planned bankruptcy. Then take advantage of a liberal court in BC and contract law and bingo ya got a money tree!!  I went to the FBI and they saw the stink all over this pile of poop!!


Torqued if you can send me a email address I have a court case I would like to send you. I am looking for a American Citizen that will show the proper authorities this planned bankruptcy which was used for this White Collar Crime. It was majority Seniors that were extorted millions now paying for the new mountainside Resort.


----------



## torqued

How do we do this outside this forum?  Would love to see it


----------



## Spark1

torqued said:


> How do we do this outside this forum?  Would love to see it


Can you use a friends email address?


----------



## torqued

Spark I’ll get an email address to you tonight. Thanks for the suggestion


----------



## torqued

Spark send your information to 
Jeffswift1@msn.com


----------



## J's Garage

I'm seeing this trailer for season 4 of this series several times a day lately.  

And each time, the first 5 seconds brings to mind a few possible names.  

I'm thinking that if we can find a way to laugh once in a while through this tragedy.


----------



## CleoB

Meow said:


> This whole experience has been a nightmare.  It has left many of us emotionally and perhaps financially bankrupt.  Those of us that have "settled" have kissed goodbye to a lot of money that we will never see again.
> My question is - has anyone (Canadian) looked at the possibility of recovering some of our losses by claiming a capital loss for income tax purposes?  It would be nice if this is possible.  The courts seem to believe that we owned a capital property and held us liable for all the responsibilities that came with it.


Meow I think this is brilliant.  If all of us that paid used this as a capital loss the government would become very interested.....after all the judge decided we were "owners" and owners are entitled to capital losses of property.


----------



## Spark1

CleoB said:


> Meow I think this is brilliant.  If all of us that paid used this as a capital loss the government would become very interested.....after all the judge decided we were "owners" and owners are entitled to capital losses of property.


Who would be interested in reading how the Trustee of the resort was totally involved with the owners of Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd and why I feel this could be a conflict of interest. This is why I feel the Bankruptcy could of been a planned Bankruptcy after reading this.


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 said:


> Who would be interested in reading how the Trustee of the resort was totally involved with the owners of Fairmont Resort Properties Ltd and why I feel this could be a conflict of interest. This is why I feel the Bankruptcy could of been a planned Bankruptcy after reading this.


One can observe Collusion, but how do you prove malfeasance?The problem all along is that everybody is in bed with everybody else; the objective being that a popular tourist destination shall not fail and that the timeshare owners will pay the price of shoddy workmanship and failing buildings. One would hope for strong consumer protection and the Integrity of a contract, but it did not happen and an innocent public pays the price.


----------



## Spark1

Thanks GypsyOne I would like to send you a court case with Lee and  Sandy Merriman to prove to you how our Trustee was in bed with the owners of Fairmont Resort Properties Owners in my opinion. If you could give me a email address I can forward it to you. Use any email address if you do not want to use yours like a friend.


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 said:


> Thanks GypsyOne I would like to send you a court case with Lee and  Sandy Merriman to prove to you how our Trustee was in bed with the owners of Fairmont Resort Properties Owners in my opinion. If you could give me a email address I can forward it to you. Use any email address if you do not want to use yours like a friend.


I'll take your word for it and pass on the email.


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> I'll take your word for it and pass on the email.


That’s fine. This case was never ruled on and the last I heard Lee Charles Merriman,and Sandy Lynn Merriman and Adam Heyadat are trying to get court time to carry on with this case. The stamp on this document Supreme Court of British Columbia Vancouver Registry June 25/2013. 
   The defendants were Northwynd Limited Partnership and a Fairmont Resort Properties LTD
   Fairmont Resort Properties LTD
   Fairmont Funding INC.
     Fairmont Marketing Corp
    FRPL Finance LTD
     FRPL Management LTD
     LL Developments LTD.
     Dunvegan Petroleums LTD
     Philip Matkin professional Corporation
      Northwynd Limited Partnership
      Northmont Resort Properties Ltd
     Resort Villa Management Ltd.
      Northwynd Properties Real Estate investment Trust.
     Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Riverside, Hill Side and Riverview.
     Lake Okanagan Resort 2001 LTD.
Page 8 The Wives and the Knight
51/ FRPL Finance and FRPL Management are 75% owned by a company belonging to the 3 Wives of the MATKIN LAW OFFICE, and 25% owned by the Company belonging to Collin Knight.
 I only dealt with Collin Knight When we bought. I feel our Trustee was to involved with the owners of the resort. These 3 Wives were they all his X Wives and how were they connected to our Trustees Law Firm. With this situation it is very easy to plan a bankruptcy. I feel this is all Fraud and extortion and this case should of been ruled on and no Freedom To Choose.


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> One can observe Collusion, but how do you prove malfeasance?The problem all along is that everybody is in bed with everybody else; the objective being that a popular tourist destination shall not fail and that the timeshare owners will pay the price of shoddy workmanship and failing buildings. One would hope for strong consumer protection and the Integrity of a contract, but it did not happen and an innocent public pays the price.


You will agree that Freedom to Choose Freedom to Leave was designed to look after the bond holders and kill the Vacation Villa Lease Contracts. I would bet not one Supreme Court Judge in BC read a Vacation Villa Lease. This is my last Post and hope justice 
is done against crooked Judges and Lawyers.


----------



## Ning55

My husband and I are one of the victims in Geldert group.  We feel ripped off by Northmont and betrayed by our own attorney.  We live in Spokane, Washington State and purchased the Fairmount timeshare in 1999.  When we got the ridiculous settlement of $36,000 early this year, we talked to several attorneys here.  They all said: "nobody would pay that kind of settlements, don't pay until they contact you". So we did not pay at the time, but just got a bill of $56,000 from Northmont on Sept 6th.  That day happened to be my husband's birthday and he joked that was the "biggest" gift he ever got.  
We consulted with one bankruptcy attorney yesterday and she suggested us not to file bankruptcy but try to negotiate with Northmont to get the bill lower.  She was not sure if we could get it lower but would try.  Otherwise, she said that Northmont could put a lien against our property. 
Both my husband and I searched on the internet all day yesterday and finally found TUG BBS with good postings. We got on the petition started by Dorothy Zazelenchuck and noticed that there are only 385 people signed up including us, but we need 1000.  We saw the June video from Truth's blog and liked Richard Gotfried's arguments on the Northmont scandal. 
Now we want to know if people from the Geldert Group are willing to fight against our unfair settlements.  Are there any groups that are hiring attorneys or working with politicians to help us out?  We are in America, and there are not many people here who purchased Canadian timeshares, so we can not get any support from the local timeshare holders.  Anybody in the forum please give us the updated information, and we really appreciate it!


----------



## Spark1

Ning55 said:


> My husband and I are one of the victims in Geldert group.  We feel ripped off by Northmont and betrayed by our own attorney.  We live in Spokane, Washington State and purchased the Fairmount timeshare in 1999.  When we got the ridiculous settlement of $36,000 early this year, we talked to several attorneys here.  They all said: "nobody would pay that kind of settlements, don't pay until they contact you". So we did not pay at the time, but just got a bill of $56,000 from Northmont on Sept 6th.  That day happened to be my husband's birthday and he joked that was the "biggest" gift he ever got.
> We consulted with one bankruptcy attorney yesterday and she suggested us not to file bankruptcy but try to negotiate with Northmont to get the bill lower.  She was not sure if we could get it lower but would try.  Otherwise, she said that Northmont could put a lien against our property.
> Both my husband and I searched on the internet all day yesterday and finally found TUG BBS with good postings. We got on the petition started by Dorothy Zazelenchuck and noticed that there are only 385 people signed up including us, but we need 1000.  We saw the June video from Truth's blog and liked Richard Gotfried's arguments on the Northmont scandal.
> Now we want to know if people from the Geldert Group are willing to fight against our unfair settlements.  Are there any groups that are hiring attorneys or working with politicians to help us out?  We are in America, and there are not many people here who purchased Canadian timeshares, so we can not get any support from the local timeshare holders.  Anybody in the forum please give us the updated information, and we really appreciate it!


Are you sure the bill was from Northmont or was it from Northwynd.


----------



## servemeout

Ning55 This is my opinion.  By not paying the settlement, you did not agree to the "excellent" deal made by the lawyers.  There has been a ruling in the Alberta courts on the interest rate that Northmont, Northwynd is trying to collect which your 1999 contract would be under.  The ruling has been appealed by Northmont and will be ruled on shortly and my opinion is that Northmont will loose.  You can read the ruling by Judge Young on the Sunchaser web site.  The amount of the settlement was based on the 26.82% interest rate. You may want to look into the consumer protection laws in Washington.  The Alberta consumer protection law has changed and the North what ever company falls under Alberta law.  Our contract states that we "own" at Hillside which has been "sold" to another numbered company, yet the new company is going to sell them again, which may make for some interesting court cases.  Think about the Legacy for Life - that "ownership" starts at the end of their 40 year lease.  KW is going to be busy defending the breach of contract with his ex lawyer and collection agent.  There are a number of people that paid to stay, and most of them do not know what has happened.


----------



## Ning55

https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php?threads/2012-fairmont-sunchaser-


heydynagirl said:


> I'm not doing anything.




Do you also live in US? Which state? I live in Washington State, and want to know if we could contact our state department of consumer protection. Many Canadians have already got liens and we might get the liens anytime soon.


----------



## Ning55

Spark1 said:


> Are you sure the bill was from Northmont or was it from Northwynd.



The bill is from Northwynd.  We thought Northmont is Northwynd, they are the same company.


----------



## Ning55

servemeout said:


> Ning55 This is my opinion.  By not paying the settlement, you did not agree to the "excellent" deal made by the lawyers.  There has been a ruling in the Alberta courts on the interest rate that Northmont, Northwynd is trying to collect which your 1999 contract would be under.  The ruling has been appealed by Northmont and will be ruled on shortly and my opinion is that Northmont will loose.  You can read the ruling by Judge Young on the Sunchaser web site.  The amount of the settlement was based on the 26.82% interest rate. You may want to look into the consumer protection laws in Washington.  The Alberta consumer protection law has changed and the North what ever company falls under Alberta law.  Our contract states that we "own" at Hillside which has been "sold" to another numbered company, yet the new company is going to sell them again, which may make for some interesting court cases.  Think about the Legacy for Life - that "ownership" starts at the end of their 40 year lease.  KW is going to be busy defending the breach of contract with his ex lawyer and collection agent.  There are a number of people that paid to stay, and most of them do not know what has happened.




Thank you very much for your advice and updated info. My husband and I were just thinking this morning about contacting our state department of consumer protection, then I saw your reply. That is great advice and we are doing it right now and will let this forum know the result. Thanks again for your reply and advice!


----------



## Ning55

I just talked to somebody in Washington State Department of Consumer Protection.  He said I could file complaint against Northwynd on their website to let them know and they would appreciate it.  He said they would send something over to Northwynd but didn’t think Northwynd would care much since they have got the court judgement and consent settlement in favor of them.  He said they could do nothing about it if we get lien against us.  He also thought I should file complaints with BC and Alberta consumer protection departments and get help from them.


----------



## Spark1

Ning55 said:


> I just talked to somebody in Washington State Department of Consumer Protection.  He said I could file complaint against Northwynd on their website to let them know and they would appreciate it.  He said they would send something over to Northwynd but didn’t think Northwynd would care much since they have got the court judgement and consent settlement in favor of them.  He said they could do nothing about it if we get lien against us.  He also thought I should file complaints with BC and Alberta consumer protection departments and get help from them.


Freedom to Choose Freedom to Leave was set up by Northwynd and our Trustee to bring in millions to look after the Bond holders and were the Judges bond holders? I have a very interesting court case that took place in 2013 which will show you how connected Northwynd and Northmont where and read page 8 that will show you how connected our trustee of the resort Philip Matkin, Matkin Law Office was with Fairmont Resort Properties Limited Finance and the FRPL Management. THE WIVES AND THE KNIGHT (COLLIN Knight). You will see when you read this why i see this was a planned BANKRUPTCY. Send me a email and i will email it to you. Maybe you can help other great neighbors to the south that need it.


----------



## servemeout

Ning55 the amount of your invoice is for the Settlement amount, NOT what Judge Young ruled.  The courts did not grant the amount of the invoice.  Good luck with North whatever getting a US court to enforce a settlement amount.  The big issue is going to be the interest amount.  Do they have a US lien against you?  Why does "take a flying leap" sound correct.


----------



## Ning55

Spark1 said:


> Freedom to Choose Freedom to Leave was set up by Northwynd and our Trustee to bring in millions to look after the Bond holders and were the Judges bond holders? I have a very interesting court case that took place in 2013 which will show you how connected Northwynd and Northmont where and read page 8 that will show you how connected our trustee of the resort Philip Matkin, Matkin Law Office was with Fairmont Resort Properties Limited Finance and the FRPL Management. THE WIVES AND THE KNIGHT (COLLIN Knight). You will see when you read this why i see this was a planned BANKRUPTCY. Send me a email and i will email it to you. Maybe you can help other great neighbors to the south that need it.


Thank you for your attention and reply. How can I find your email address?


----------



## torqued

Spark1 said:


> You have to understand that Collin Knight was not the only owner of the Fairmont Resort Properties LD. He also had 3 women that owned 25% each of that resort and Collin Knight owned the other 25%. One of these women was our Trustee’s X-wife and the other two were connected to his Lawyer Firm. Should we assume there is a conflict of interest here. This Trustee also designed the Freedom to Choose which we all know had nothing to do with our contracts. Why did he have to use the Supreme Court of BC to inforce this White Collar Crime on us. This was a unfair Practice and Albertan’s should of been Protected by Service Alberta and been able to use the Fair Trading ACT To fight this. BC owners should of been able to use Protection BC. The Government of Canada and these Two provinces proved there is no Canadian Consumer Protection for Lease Time Owners in this country. The owners of Rafter Six also lost everything because of this planned bankruptcy. My first phone call pertaining to this white collar crime was made to BBB in Calgary and they told me when this all started why would you pay anything,it is so easy to go bankrupted in this country. Was he so right. We all should be working with Richard Gotfried and give him all the information we can that he can use in the House of Commons. Because the owners are from Calgary there are two departments that failed us that being The Justice Minister and The Service Alberta Minister. The Service Alberta Minister resigned and I can not wait until May 2019 to say good by to this NDP party. Also 2019 so we can get rid of this terrible Prime Minister. Canadian Consumer Protection for Timeshare Lease Owners means nothing to these two governments.


----------



## torqued

Call or send a letter to your local FBI office. Also look up the foreign monetary recognition act and how Washington state looks at claims against you out of the USA. I’m in the USA as well.


----------



## Ning55

servemeout said:


> Ning55 the amount of your invoice is for the Settlement amount, NOT what Judge Young ruled.  The courts did not grant the amount of the invoice.  Good luck with North whatever getting a US court to enforce a settlement amount.  The big issue is going to be the interest amount.  Do they have a US lien against you?  Why does "take a flying leap" sound correct.



Thank you very much for your reply.  As of yesterday, we have not got the lien against us yet while checking with the credit bureau, but the bankruptcy attorney we consulted with said Northwynd could just pay $50 to transfer the judgement over and put a lien against us.  I am going to our county government today to confirm that information.  I sent a letter to Richard Gotfried’s Office yesterday and Christina replied right away saying that Richard is collecting the information and we should send her the details.  I just talked to her this morning and asked how much and when Richard could help us.  She said the election will be next spring not this fall and she was not sure if he could be elected.  Even though, she said, he is elected, amends the leslation but not sure that would affect the cases before that.


----------



## Spark1

Ning55 said:


> Thank you for your attention and reply. How can I find your email address?


It would work matter if you can give me your email address and if you do not want to do that can you use a friend, neighbour etc. Iknow torqued has that file but no problem let me know and i can send it to you right away or maybe torqued can but we will get it to you.


----------



## Ning55

Spark1 said:


> It would work matter if you can give me your email address and if you do not want to do that can you use a friend, neighbour etc. Iknow torqued has that file but no problem let me know and i can send it to you right away or maybe torqued can but we will get it to you.



Please send it to me, my email address is nancyningchen@gmail.com. Thanks.

We just consulted with another attorney friend who was very angry to hear our story.  He looked at Item 13 in our 1999 lease contract which says: “In the event that default in payment is not remedied within 16 months from the date of such default, then the Lessee shall be deemed to have offered to sell the Lessee’s leasehold interest to the Lessor for an amount equal to 50% of 1/40 of the purchase price for an annual lease or 1/20 of the purchase price for a biennial lease”.  He said: “you do not owe them any money according to this contract; it is illegal for them to change the contract without your acknowledgment and signature; and I will be more than happy to help you to sue Northwynd if they put a lien against you”.  It will cost them money, he also said, to hire a local attorney or to come up here to defend themselves, and that is why you have not got the lien yet”.  OMG, such a relief after talking to him and you, helpful people in this forum! I could not sleep after we got this outrageous $56,000 bill on 9/6/18.  Thank you very much again for helping us isolated Americans!  God bless us all!


----------



## torqued

I will contact you by email if it’s okay and give you my contact information. Hopefully we can share information/resources


----------



## Ning55

torqued said:


> I will contact you by email if it’s okay and give you my contact information. Hopefully we can share information/resources



Please do, my email is nancyningchen@gmail.com


----------



## Ning55

Ning55 said:


> Please do, my email is nancyningchen@gmail.com



Hi Torqued, I missed your reply this morning. You also live in the US so we are in the same boat. Please contact me by email so that we can talk! Thank you very much!


----------



## Spark1

Ning55 said:


> Hi Torqued, I missed your reply this morning. You also live in the US so we are in the same boat. Please contact me by email so that we can talk! Thank you very much!


Sorry I went ahead and sent you the email but I just went to the near bottom of page and missed your conversation with each other and happy to see you working together to fight these crooks. I have sent many documents to Richard Gotfried and was happy to see he won the nomination for the United Conservative Party. I have suggested on Facebook that when the PC’s win this election which they will and Richard will win,that he gets the Service Alberta Minister Job. Of course that will be up to Jason Kenny the new Premier but hears hoping. He is the only Minister to step up and help us. If the last Minister would of done her job we would not of had to put up with this. She does not even know 
what Consumer Protection Means, sad. Michael Geldert is a back stabber. I talked with him just before he decided to be Northwynd’s bill collector and he convinced me that we had this won in our favour. He told me he finally got Northwynd to the table and now they will have to pay the 25.4 million they owed and they will not be able to sell the timeshare building and i did believe him so I checked item number one. When I found out he became their bill collector I fired him. He should go to jail. Justice Young will win the appeal pertaining to interest rates. Can you imagine them charging 26.8% each year compounded and this money needs to be paid back to Vacation Villa Lease Owners.


----------



## Ning55

Spark1 said:


> Sorry I went ahead and sent you the email but I just went to the near bottom of page and missed your conversation with each other and happy to see you working together to fight these crooks. I have sent many documents to Richard Gotfried and was happy to see he won the nomination for the United Conservative Party. I have suggested on Facebook that when the PC’s win this election which they will and Richard will win,that he gets the Service Alberta Minister Job. Of course that will be up to Jason Kenny the new Premier but hears hoping. He is the only Minister to step up and help us. If the last Minister would of done her job we would not of had to put up with this. She does not even know
> what Consumer Protection Means, sad. Michael Geldert is a back stabber. I talked with him just before he decided to be Northwynd’s bill collector and he convinced me that we had this won in our favour. He told me he finally got Northwynd to the table and now they will have to pay the 25.4 million they owed and they will not be able to sell the timeshare building and i did believe him so I checked item number one. When I found out he became their bill collector I fired him. He should go to jail. Justice Young will win the appeal pertaining to interest rates. Can you imagine them charging 26.8% each year compounded and this money needs to be paid back to Vacation Villa Lease Owners.



Got your email and replied already. Thank you very very much for all your info, support and help!!! Feel so fortunate to find this forum.


----------



## Spark1

Ning55 said:


> Got your email and replied already. Thank you very very much for all your info, support and help!!! Feel so fortunate to find this forum.


You should also become a member of Sunchaser Northwynd Class Action Lawsuit Group. Ernie Kelley the ADMIN Indiana University (Bloomington) will allow you to join. He got took by Northwynd when he had a timeshare at Belize. We have close to 600 members. Go to friends on Facebook and on the top right hand corner of the page you can request to join. It would be nice to have more of our great neighbours to the south join.


----------



## Spark1

servemeout said:


> Ning55 the amount of your invoice is for the Settlement amount, NOT what Judge Young ruled.  The courts did not grant the amount of the invoice.  Good luck with North whatever getting a US court to enforce a settlement amount.  The big issue is going to be the interest amount.  Do they have a US lien against you?  Why does "take a flying leap" sound correct.


I feel every one should read over the SIF document that MG was having Vacation Villa Lease owners check option number one or two. Read this document over again and see if you see if MG mentions Northwynd even once. No he does not. All he mentions is Northmont. For the lease owners that paid where did the money go. There can be another company named Northmont. As far as I am concerned that document is not legal. We owe Northmont nothing. Why was it so important for MG to collect from Lease owners when he new Justice Young was ruling on interest rates around the same time. MG also new Northwynd had a sale for the Hillside Villas so why did he come up with this scheme to collect millions from us. What did Kirk Wankel pay MG to be their bill collector because he needed MG badly because there was problems with Kirk Wankel and Sauvageau. Francois Sauvageau has a lawsuit against Northwynd he feels he is not getting enough of the extortion money. 
     I see there is 350 hits on Tug every day and not many posts. Do many of you fall under the gag order yet? It would be nice to see more posts. Paying these extorters is not the answer.


----------



## heydynagirl

Ning55 said:


> https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php?threads/2012-fairmont-sunchaser-
> 
> 
> Do you also live in US? Which state? I live in Washington State, and want to know if we could contact our state department of consumer protection. Many Canadians have already got liens and we might get the liens anytime soon.


Yes, I live in the US.  And I have received no correspondence, not even a copy of the withdrawal of service document filed by the lawyers this summer.


----------



## Ning55

Spark1 said:


> You should also become a member of Sunchaser Northwynd Class Action Lawsuit Group. Ernie Kelley the ADMIN Indiana University (Bloomington) will allow you to join. He got took by Northwynd when he had a timeshare at Belize. We have close to 600 members. Go to friends on Facebook and on the top right hand corner of the page you can request to join. It would be nice to have more of our great neighbours to the south join.



I just sent a message to him, thank you very much!


----------



## Ning55

Spark1 said:


> I feel every one should read over the SIF document that MG was having Vacation Villa Lease owners check option number one or two. Read this document over again and see if you see if MG mentions Northwynd even once. No he does not. All he mentions is Northmont. For the lease owners that paid where did the money go. There can be another company named Northmont. As far as I am concerned that document is not legal. We owe Northmont nothing. Why was it so important for MG to collect from Lease owners when he new Justice Young was ruling on interest rates around the same time. MG also new Northwynd had a sale for the Hillside Villas so why did he come up with this scheme to collect millions from us. What did Kirk Wankel pay MG to be their bill collector because he needed MG badly because there was problems with Kirk Wankel and Sauvageau. Francois Sauvageau has a lawsuit against Northwynd he feels he is not getting enough of the extortion money.
> I see there is 350 hits on Tug every day and not many posts. Do many of you fall under the gag order yet? It would be nice to see more posts. Paying these extorters is not the answer.



Cannot agree more! This is not just the money issue, it is the fight between justice and crime.


----------



## Ning55

heydynagirl said:


> Yes, I live in the US.  And I have received no correspondence, not even a copy of the withdrawal of service document filed by the lawyers this summer.



Lucky you! However, they might be behind on collecting. The consent judgment notice we just received has the B.C. court seal dated June 26, 2018 for lower amount, then they added interest (at 26.82%) $9,000 to the current total amount of $56,000. In the notice, they threatened that the interest is accruing on the daily basis, we should pay them right away to avoid the enforcement of the Judgement.


----------



## Ning55

I called FBI and filed a complaint with them on Northwynd today, and it has been recorded.  They encourage American victims to call their Public Access at (855) 324-7257 to report this scam.


----------



## Spark1

Is there anyone that paid the Geldert extortion released from the wonderful resort? If so does that mean all the hardship cases have been dealt with? Is the gag order over now? If Justice Young wins the appeal against her will you now sue to get your money back from that 26.8% high interest?


----------



## Floyd55

Spark1 said:


> Is there anyone that paid the Geldert extortion released from the wonderful resort? If so does that mean all the hardship cases have been dealt with? Is the gag order over now? If Justice Young wins the appeal against her will you now sue to get your money back from that 26.8% high interest?



I haven't been on here for months, just checked back in to see if anything new was happening. I paid the extortion fee to get out but haven't totally given up hope that justice will one day be done. I did receive my release from the resort, by email mind you, not hard copy as promised. My hope and expectation would be if the extortion interest rates that we were charged were ever overturned by a judge in this case, we would all be notified by the court so that we could apply to be refunded what is owed back to us. Probably a pipe dream, but hey, we can always dream!


----------



## Spark1

Floyd55 said:


> I haven't been on here for months, just checked back in to see if anything new was happening. I paid the extortion fee to get out but haven't totally given up hope that justice will one day be done. I did receive my release from the resort, by email mind you, not hard copy as promised. My hope and expectation would be if the extortion interest rates that we were charged were ever overturned by a judge in this case, we would all be notified by the court so that we could apply to be refunded what is owed back to us. Probably a pipe dream, but hey, we can always dream!


I do not know what Jim Belfry’s interest rate was stated on his Timeshare Contract. When the Judges ruled against him when he went after Northwynd about their management of the resort. That’s when Kirk Wankel went after every one connected to the Jake case and said all the contracts are the same. By Justice Young asking for all the timeshare contracts and when she ruled on her case that Interest will be according to individual contracts that proved that contracts are not the same. Therefore it was illegal for Northwynd to collect that high interest from many of you and that money should be paid back. Northwynd is appealing her decision of course they are extortionist . Why did Geldert go after every one to settle when he knew Justice Young Was going to rule on interest rates middle of February /2017. Even maintenance fees they were asking 26.8% compounded. Greed and I hope they someday hang themselves they are crooks. Always protect your contract. Do not ever believe that Judges and Lawyers can not be corrupt and look what has happened with Churches. I do not care what career that humans are in there is corruption everywhere nowadays. Normal human being would feel we lost enough with that rigged bankruptcy being our timeshares and would not expect Vacation Villa Lease Owners to also replace the crooked owners resort. Only in CANADA. Go UCP. Any one that knows every thing about Justice Youngs Case would you please send to Richard Gotfried  member of Parlament Alberta UCP Party Thank you. I have sent many documents to Richard but Young’s Case no I do not have documents for that case.You could never pay Maintenance fees because they would never accept it but they sure will accept compounded 26.8% interest fees say for the last 7 years.


----------



## MarcieL

I haven't been on here for months, just checked back in to see if anything new was happening. I paid the extortion fee to get out but haven't totally given up hope that justice will one day be done. I did receive my release from the resort, by email mind you, not hard copy as promised. My hope and expectation would be if the extortion interest rates that we were charged were ever overturned by a judge in this case, we would all be notified by the court so that we could apply to be refunded what is owed back to us. Probably a pipe dream, but hey, we can always dream!

I would like to think so as well Floyd 55, but think due to the S.A. that we were forced into signing or the threat of 162 % interest,we are screwed.  I will never darken another court proceeding, as the very sight of this monster, makes me hurl!  Our lives have been permanently altered as seniors living on a fixed income, by these ruthless crooks.


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> I haven't been on here for months, just checked back in to see if anything new was happening. I paid the extortion fee to get out but haven't totally given up hope that justice will one day be done. I did receive my release from the resort, by email mind you, not hard copy as promised. My hope and expectation would be if the extortion interest rates that we were charged were ever overturned by a judge in this case, we would all be notified by the court so that we could apply to be refunded what is owed back to us. Probably a pipe dream, but hey, we can always dream!
> 
> I would like to think so as well Floyd 55, but think due to the S.A. that we were forced into signing or the threat of 162 % interest,we are screwed.  I will never darken another court proceeding, as the very sight of this monster, makes me hurl!  Our lives have been permanently altered as seniors living on a fixed income, by these ruthless crooks.


I feel Michael Geldert was one of them all along. The reason I say this is look at the lawyer firms he picked in BC and Alberta. He Knew about Justice Young. Kirk Wankel and MG had to move quickly the busiest time of the year to pull this off because they knew Justice Youngs decision could cost them millions. I bet Justice Young will win the appeal in December. Why did Wankel not use Sauvageau in stead of MG? Greed is the answer. MG lost to much and the way he conducted himself was deliberate and it was very easy for the Judges to make their decisions,all against us. Michael Geldert got rich off of innocent Vacation Villa Lease Owners majority Seniors. He did not work for us to get a Condo Association why,that is in our Lease Contracts. I do not feel any one should of paid until the LAW SOCIETY of B.C. gave their report on Michael Geldert. BC is so Corrupt when it comes to justice and let’s hope the Law Society finds the corruption that we Lease Owners See.


----------



## Spark1

Every one that did not write the Law Society of B.C. you should. Send them a copy of the SIF they were using. Should them the 162% threat. I wrote them months ago and am waiting for their answer. I have to know if this is legal how this case has been handled. Send them a copy of your Bill from MG and explain to them that you had no say in the final numbers that he wanted you to pay. If you do not complain how will they know?


----------



## MarcieL

I understand the law Society is still investigating, this could take years!

Is Young's appeal in Dec. I thought it was Oct.   There's something in Oct. in Edmonton.


----------



## MarcieL

I do not feel any one should of paid until the LAW SOCIETY of B.C. gave their report on Michael Geldert. BC is so Corrupt when it comes to justice and let’s hope the Law Society finds the corruption that we Lease Owners See.

We could not afford the downside with the high interest rates.  We would now have owed what Ning does, as it was, we had to obtain a loan.


----------



## teedeej

Friends of my in-laws still own at Sunchaser and they stayed at Hillside about a month ago, and the staff told them that they weren’t allowed to use the rec building’s swimming pool.  Has anyone heard of similar stories?


----------



## Tacoma

Teedee

It sounds like your friends rented at hillside since it was taken out of the timeshare. This year they rented them and supposedly they are going to renovate the suites and then either sell or rent them out. The rent on these units in July/August was about what maintenance fees are so once again screws the timeshare owners that stayed. Hillside can use the outdoor pool with slides up the hill. The people who stayed in the timeshare can use the rec center but I believe they only have a hot tub. Maybe an indoor pool but no outdoor pool. If they own at Sunchaser I don't think they could have stayed at hillside only riverside or riverview. I drove by and it does look like they renovated most of riverside but nothing in hillside. Those of us who had their ownership at hillside were sent papers in March approximately stating we were out of our ownership there. It of course did not include getting us out of our financial obligations based on a corrupt system with slick lawyers. Next year the cycle will begin again with people naïve enough to buy or rent from people who only care about their own financial bottom line.


----------



## GypsyOne

Because of the flawed Court decisions it looks as if Northmont can pretty much do what they want, financed by the timeshare owners past and present. What a sweetheart deal they were awarded by the courts.  How in a civilized country like Canada can the courts completely ignore key Clauses in a legal contract to the benefit of the Developers and detriment to the timeshare owners.  The degree of corruption in high places is astonishing.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

GypsyOne said:


> ..... How in a civilized country like Canada can the courts completely ignore key Clauses in a legal contract .....  .



Hi GypsyOne
I think some of the judges must have totally slept through their contract law class ..... / then been "awarded" a judgeship based on being someone's friend .

Over the last couple of years I have read most of this thread .

As a Canadian - I am appalled


----------



## MAT1

Tacoma said:


> Teedee
> 
> It sounds like your friends rented at hillside since it was taken out of the timeshare. This year they rented them and supposedly they are going to renovate the suites and then either sell or rent them out. The rent on these units in July/August was about what maintenance fees are so once again screws the timeshare owners that stayed. Hillside can use the outdoor pool with slides up the hill. The people who stayed in the timeshare can use the rec center but I believe they only have a hot tub. Maybe an indoor pool but no outdoor pool. If they own at Sunchaser I don't think they could have stayed at hillside only riverside or riverview. I drove by and it does look like they renovated most of riverside but nothing in hillside. Those of us who had their ownership at hillside were sent papers in March approximately stating we were out of our ownership there. It of course did not include getting us out of our financial obligations based on a corrupt system with slick lawyers. Next year the cycle will begin again with people naïve enough to buy or rent from people who only care about their own financial bottom line.



Teedee, "Mountain View Villas" was created in the spring when RDEK gave 3rd and final reading to bylaw 2777 on May 5/18.  That bylaw changed the original designation from R4 multiple family residential (high density) to Res-3 Resort Lodge zone.  Attached to the minutes of RDEK meeting May 5, 2018, details of the bylaw are outlined.  3 bldgs and 60 units are in this new parcel; 8000 is the check-in bldg.  It includes the waterpark exclusive to this new development, but not the Terrace bldgs.   When we visited the area in June, we noticed that the new name was already on the entrance to this old Hillside area and a new webpage was up and running as well.


----------



## Spark1

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> Hi GypsyOne
> I think some of the judges must have totally slept through their contract law class ..... / then been "awarded" a judgeship based on being someone's friend .
> 
> Over the last couple of years I have read most of this thread .
> 
> As a Canadian - I am appalled


Document Exhibit——————(Received Jan 2018 Geldert Law)
Settlement Instructions. Due to strick timelines set by (Northmont) again on page 2 Do not send any of the Settlement Documents to NORTHMONT. We are sending them to NORTHMONT page 4. We will transfer your payment to (NORTHMONT’S LAWYER) Aden2 and I were working together and he has proof that Northmont sold him Legacy for Life and they were already bankrupted. A document this important, you do not make those kind of error and are they errors? I read this document over and there is no break down of what you are paying. This is another breach but not with the Judges that handled this case. Who can proof that Northwynd does not still excess and the same people are envolved? I would never pay this. Millions being collected and is there another Northmont?


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> Document Exhibit——————(Received Jan 2018 Geldert Law)
> Settlement Instructions. Due to strick timelines set by (Northmont) again on page 2 Do not send any of the Settlement Documents to NORTHMONT. We are sending them to NORTHMONT page 4. We will transfer your payment to (NORTHMONT’S LAWYER) Aden2 and I were working together and he has proof that Northmont sold him Legacy for Life and they were already bankrupted. A document this important, you do not make those kind of error and are they errors? I read this document over and there is no break down of what you are paying. This is another breach but not with the Judges that handled this case. Who can proof that Northwynd does not still excess and the same people are envolved? I would never pay this. Millions being collected and is there another Northmont?


Is this Northmont the same as Northmont Properties LD? Is this Northmont a new company that the extorted Vacation Villa Lease Owners paid into? Take this to the RCMP and have this investigated.


----------



## dotbuhler

...for those who paid, I wish you would have not been feeling as if that was your only alternative. At least I can still look myself in the mirror and know that I will never pay. As a timeshare leessee, with a decade or so left on my contract, I will continue to ignore the 'Resort Villa Management' envelopes and whatever they have inside that show up here every so often. Having worked within the law as long as possible I am thinking that personal bankruptcy along the lines of Colin Knight is looking very attractive. Of course I don't have 3 ex-wives and a current spouse in whose maiden names to bury my assets, but the template he has provided certainly leaves room for creativity!


----------



## Spark1

dotbuhler said:


> ...for those who paid, I wish you would have not been feeling as if that was your only alternative. At least I can still look myself in the mirror and know that I will never pay. As a timeshare leessee, with a decade or so left on my contract, I will continue to ignore the 'Resort Villa Management' envelopes and whatever they have inside that show up here every so often. Having worked within the law as long as possible I am thinking that personal bankruptcy along the lines of Colin Knight is looking very attractive. Of course I don't have 3 ex-wives and a current spouse in whose maiden names to bury my assets, but the template he has provided certainly leaves room for creativity!





dotbuhler said:


> ...for those who paid, I wish you would have not been feeling as if that was your only alternative. At least I can still look myself in the mirror and know that I will never pay. As a timeshare leessee, with a decade or so left on my contract, I will continue to ignore the 'Resort Villa Management' envelopes and whatever they have inside that show up here every so often. Having worked within the law as long as possible I am thinking that personal bankruptcy along the lines of Colin Knight is looking very attractive. Of course I don't have 3 ex-wives and a current spouse in whose maiden names to bury my assets, but the template he has provided certainly leaves room for creativity!


sorry false. Alarm. I was thinking about Fairmont Resort Property LD. Northmont is their management of the Sunchaser Resort . Time to quit.


----------



## Spark1

dotbuhler said:


> ...for those who paid, I wish you would have not been feeling as if that was your only alternative. At least I can still look myself in the mirror and know that I will never pay. As a timeshare leessee, with a decade or so left on my contract, I will continue to ignore the 'Resort Villa Management' envelopes and whatever they have inside that show up here every so often. Having worked within the law as long as possible I am thinking that personal bankruptcy along the lines of Colin Knight is looking very attractive. Of course I don't have 3 ex-wives and a current spouse in whose maiden names to bury my assets, but the template he has provided certainly leaves room for creativity!


But again we know none of that money will be spent on the Sunchaser Resort


Spark1 said:


> sorry false. Alarm. I was thinking about Fairmont Resort Property LD. Northmont is their management of the Sunchaser Resort . Time to quit.


But many of those millions are going to be invested in the Sunchaser Resort. It is all Fraud withe the big help of the corrupt Judges.


----------



## Spark1

dotbuhler said:


> ...for those who paid, I wish you would have not been feeling as if that was your only alternative. At least I can still look myself in the mirror and know that I will never pay. As a timeshare leessee, with a decade or so left on my contract, I will continue to ignore the 'Resort Villa Management' envelopes and whatever they have inside that show up here every so often. Having worked within the law as long as possible I am thinking that personal bankruptcy along the lines of Colin Knight is looking very attractive. Of course I don't have 3 ex-wives and a current spouse in whose maiden names to bury my assets, but the template he has provided certainly leaves room for creativity!


Everyone should look up    Sunchaser Resort Timeshare Owners are successful over turning November 15, 2013 Judgment against them. This Judge warned Northmont about abusing our contracts. Why did MG allow Northmont to think they can abuse our contracts. Everyone of us and I said this many times do not allow any one to abuse our contracts and that includes Judges. Let’s stand up to our rights.


----------



## GypsyOne

Spark1 said:


> Everyone should look up    Sunchaser Resort Timeshare Owners are successful over turning November 15, 2013 Judgment against them. This Judge warned Northmont about abusing our contracts. Why did MG allow Northmont to think they can abuse our contracts. Everyone of us and I said this many times do not allow any one to abuse our contracts and that includes Judges. Let’s stand up to our rights.


Our rights are ultimately determined by the courts, and unfortunately the judges have the last word.


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> Our rights are ultimately determined by the courts, and unfortunately the judges have the last word.


Maybe in a dictatorship. The case that we won in 2014 that judge warned Northmont not to use unilateral amendments without notice to the owners of the contract and they didnot. They also had to follow instructions according to individual contracts and if they did not that was breach of contract. This case should of ended right there. Why did it go on for years. After the case in 2014 you basically had judges ruling over judges crazy. After our appeal the courts were totally against us why?


----------



## GypsyOne

Basically the 2014 favorable ruling was a ruling on procedure - that justice was not served by Special Case procedure in Judge's chambers. Justice would be served in full court procedure with cross-examination, etc. Then we lost in the BC Supreme Court and the BC Court of Appeal.  Because we lost fundamental contract rights so decisively on all points, that decision is highly questionable. The Province of BC did not want a popular tourist destination to fail, nor have to prop it up with public money. One can suspect the thumb of justice was firmly on the side of the rich and influential real estate developers. The Developers know how to play the game.


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> Basically the 2014 favorable ruling was a ruling on procedure - that justice was not served by Special Case procedure in Judge's chambers. Justice would be served in full court procedure with cross-examination, etc. Then we lost in the BC Supreme Court and the BC Court of Appeal.  Because we lost fundamental contract rights so decisively on all points, that decision is highly questionable. The Province of BC did not want a popular tourist destination to fail, nor have to prop it up with public money. One can suspect the thumb of justice was firmly on the side of the rich and influential real estate developers. The Developers know how to play the game.


I agree but we all know that Service Alberta did not do their job to protect all timeshare owners because of the unfair practice that took place that being The Freedom To Choose or the Freedom to Leave. That was done in Alberta by a Alberta Supplier and it does not matter where the resort is located. I do not believe for one minute this Ministers reason for resigning. We know her reason for resigning that being not protecting all of us using the Fair Trading ACT. Also Protection BC and Service Alberta is to work with the federal government to make sure there is consumer protection and they did not. They all said they can not do anything to override the judges after it was to late. We should all know what the Canadian Consumer Handbook has to say about Vacation Villa Lease timeshares. They took the right to use away from all of us after we all paid millions into that resort and we all know after the end of the lease we own nothing. By allowing Northmont to do this Service Alberta,Protection BC,The Canadian Consumer Handbook and the Fairmont Consumer Protection is meaningless. The reason this all happened was for sure to protect the bond holders. We did not force these people to buy these bonds with the promise of 12% interest that was their decision not ours. Also the greedy interest rates they were charging,we will see if their wonderful crooked lawyer willbe able to use another judge to override Justice Youngs decision on interest rates in December. Every one should read the Merriman case to see how the Trustee of the resort operates and to me and I will never change my mind on this that being This Was A Planned Bankruptcy.


----------



## GypsyOne

We can rail all we want against inadequate BC and Alberta consumer protection legislation, but why should we? Me and numerous others had perfectly legal, and we thought, enforceable lease agreements that should have protected our rights. But, turns out that lease agreements are meaningless if the courts want to rule otherwise. Seems it is not difficult to find compliant judges able to frame flawed decisions in complex legalese and thereby fool most of the people. The system let us down badly.


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> I haven't been on here for months, just checked back in to see if anything new was happening. I paid the extortion fee to get out but haven't totally given up hope that justice will one day be done. I did receive my release from the resort, by email mind you, not hard copy as promised. My hope and expectation would be if the extortion interest rates that we were charged were ever overturned by a judge in this case, we would all be notified by the court so that we could apply to be refunded what is owed back to us. Probably a pipe dream, but hey, we can always dream!
> 
> I would like to think so as well Floyd 55, but think due to the S.A. that we were forced into signing or the threat of 162 % interest,we are screwed.  I will never darken another court proceeding, as the very sight of this monster, makes me hurl!  Our lives have been permanently altered as seniors living on a fixed income, by these ruthless crooks.


This sums up a lot that happened to innocent humans that the BC court system and Justice Youngs Case tried to make it sound like we are criminals because we bought a Vacation Villa Lease timeshare that also guaranteed Fairmont Consumer Protection. Every one should read     
     Truths2Cents: Nothmont Sunchaser Scandal- The Untold Story


----------



## MarcieL

...for those who paid, I wish you would have not been feeling as if that was your only alternative. At least I can still look myself in the mirror and know that I will never pay. As a timeshare leessee, with a decade or so left on my contract, I will continue to ignore the 'Resort Villa Management' envelopes and whatever they have inside that show up here every so often. Having worked within the law as long as possible I am thinking that personal bankruptcy along the lines of Colin Knight is looking very attractive. Of course I don't have 3 ex-wives and a current spouse in whose maiden names to bury my assets, but the template he has provided certainly leaves room for creativity!

If you will never pay they will seize your assets, put a lein on your house.  We did not exactly fall off the turnip truck yesterday.  My husband is well educated, we could not risk losing our home or assets, as previously mentioned the judge ruled in THEIR favour.


----------



## MarcieL

I would never pay this. Millions being collected and is there another Northmont?

What will you do when they register a judgment against your property?


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> I would never pay this. Millions being collected and is there another Northmont?
> 
> What will you do when they register a judgment against your property?


Has Justice Young made a decision on Interest Rates? If She did that is news to me. She made a decision on Feb.15/2017 and I believe it was for the amount that is in your contract but that was appealed by greedy Northmont and could be heard this December. The greedy bill collector from Ontario got his wrists slapped because of the way He was dealing with time owners back in 2014. So the bills they have been sending out are illegal. If the time owners settled for what MG was asking I would sure go after the lower rate, if you are willing to pay they will love you.


----------



## MarcieL

I don't think many of us wanted to pay for an asset we purchased, but we lost all court cases.  The judges ruled in Northmont's favour, so rather than risk living under a bridge we paid, we do not have a money tree in our back yard.


----------



## GypsyOne

One can suspect a deeply flawed Court decision and complicity with the province of BC who did not want a popular tourist destination to fail nor have to prop it up with public money. What better solution for them then to have the unorganized timeshare owners pay the cost of unethical management and shoddily-constructed buildings. The developers know how the "pay to play" game works in BC and they probably played it to the fullest with our money. Having said that and as improper as it might be, we lost two Court decisions, so do you want to risk holding a debt that is compounding at 26% interest? That is a life changing call that we never should have had to make.


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> One can suspect a deeply flawed Court decision and complicity with the province of BC who did not want a popular tourist destination to fail nor have to prop it up with public money. What better solution for them then to have the unorganized timeshare owners pay the cost of unethical management and shoddily-constructed buildings. The developers know how the "pay to play" game works in BC and they probably played it to the fullest with our money. Having said that and as improper as it might be, we lost two Court decisions, so do you want to risk holding a debt that is compounding at 26% interest? That is a life changing call that we never should have had to make.


Yes I know all of what you are saying, my question is what has this got to do with MG waiting for the Judge to decide what interest rate he was allowed to charge. Any one that thinks a court judge is going to rule against another court judge should give their head a shake. That is also a gamble. Justice Young made her decision and she will win the appeal. Karma will happen.


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> Yes I know all of what you are saying, my question is what has this got to do with MG waiting for the Judge to decide what interest rate he was allowed to charge. Any one that thinks a court judge is going to rule against another court judge should give their head a shake. That is also a gamble. Justice Young made her decision and she will win the appeal. Karma will happen.


This is a great story to read done by Truth
Truths 2 Cents: Northmont Sunchaser Scandel-The Untold Story


----------



## MarcieL

I understand people are in court today in Edmonton appealing the 26.5% interest rate.  I wish you all success in this tireless fight!


----------



## Appauled

MarcieL said:


> ...for those who paid, I wish you would have not been feeling as if that was your only alternative. At least I can still look myself in the mirror and know that I will never pay. As a timeshare leessee, with a decade or so left on my contract, I will continue to ignore the 'Resort Villa Management' envelopes and whatever they have inside that show up here every so often. Having worked within the law as long as possible I am thinking that personal bankruptcy along the lines of Colin Knight is looking very attractive. Of course I don't have 3 ex-wives and a current spouse in whose maiden names to bury my assets, but the template he has provided certainly leaves room for creativity!
> 
> If you will never pay they will seize your assets, put a lein on your house.  We did not exactly fall off the turnip truck yesterday.  My husband is well educated, we could not risk losing our home or assets, as previously mentioned the judge ruled in THEIR favour.



I haven't been on here for a long while and wanted to see if there has been any new developments.
As much as I wanted to continue the fight against this mis-justice, I could no longer stay on this merry-go-round and continue to get screwed by crooked lawyers, a corrupt justice system and suffer many sleepless nights.
I chose to file a consumer proposal rather than a personal bankruptcy and did not pay the ridiculous bill of $60,000+ "Excellent Deal" that MG negotiated on our behalf.
As sick to my stomach it made me to go that route after a lifetime of impeccable credit, there was NO WAY IN HECK I was going to pay those crooks their ill gotten crooked judgement!
So if it is of any help to those interested out there, that is an option that any reputable Bankruptcy Trustee can go over with you and they usually will give you a free 1 hour consultation to go over your options.
Again I stress that if you go this route, make sure that your are dealing with a reputable Bankruptcy Trustee, there are several out there that are not all that they say they are. I did my homework and found a good one to help me.
That's just my 2 cents for anyone out there.
I wish you all justice and good luck.


----------



## dotbuhler

MarcieL said:


> ...for those who paid, I wish you would have not been feeling as if that was your only alternative. At least I can still look myself in the mirror and know that I will never pay. As a timeshare leessee, with a decade or so left on my contract, I will continue to ignore the 'Resort Villa Management' envelopes and whatever they have inside that show up here every so often. Having worked within the law as long as possible I am thinking that personal bankruptcy along the lines of Colin Knight is looking very attractive. Of course I don't have 3 ex-wives and a current spouse in whose maiden names to bury my assets, but the template he has provided certainly leaves room for creativity!
> 
> If you will never pay they will seize your assets, put a lein on your house.  We did not exactly fall off the turnip truck yesterday.  My husband is well educated, we could not risk losing our home or assets, as previously mentioned the judge ruled in THEIR favour.


In Saskatchewan the first $50,000.00 on your home is untouchable, so my house is less than that... You are allowed $2400.00 monthly in your bank account before they can touch anything, again okay. RRSPS and pensions and TFSAs ditto. Of course this is Saskatchewan guidelines and every province is different. Being less well advantaged under these circumstances is definitely working in my favour. Oh, and a personal vehicle up to $20,000.00, I think my 2003 Focus is safe...lol! Before they can put a lien on your property you are afforded the opportunity in B.C. to raise an objection in spite of the Judgement. So I figure I have nothing to fear but fear itself.


----------



## dotbuhler

Appauled said:


> I haven't been on here for a long while and wanted to see if there has been any new developments.
> As much as I wanted to continue the fight against this mis-justice, I could no longer stay on this merry-go-round and continue to get screwed by crooked lawyers, a corrupt justice system and suffer many sleepless nights.
> I chose to file a consumer proposal rather than a personal bankruptcy and did not pay the ridiculous bill of $60,000+ "Excellent Deal" that MG negotiated on our behalf.
> As sick to my stomach it made me to go that route after a lifetime of impeccable credit, there was NO WAY IN HECK I was going to pay those crooks their ill gotten crooked judgement!
> So if it is of any help to those interested out there, that is an option that any reputable Bankruptcy Trustee can go over with you and they usually will give you a free 1 hour consultation to go over your options.
> Again I stress that if you go this route, make sure that your are dealing with a reputable Bankruptcy Trustee, there are several out there that are not all that they say they are. I did my homework and found a good one to help me.
> That's just my 2 cents for anyone out there.
> I wish you all justice and good luck.


I am so with you on your decision and appreciate your sharing with us!


----------



## MarcieL

You are allowed $2400.00 monthly in your bank account before they can touch anything, again okay.

That's great but having worked in a bank, I have seen "a requirement to pay" put on people's accounts before the client even knows it has been implemented, the money is withdrawn, all is done electronically today.  Just saying i would keep an eye on your acct.!


----------



## GypsyOne

MarcieL said:


> I understand people are in court today in Edmonton appealing the 26.5% interest rate.  I wish you all success in this tireless fight!


Marcie, do you know who is representing the timeshare owners?


----------



## dotbuhler

MarcieL said:


> You are allowed $2400.00 monthly in your bank account before they can touch anything, again okay.
> 
> That's great but having worked in a bank, I have seen "a requirement to pay" put on people's accounts before the client even knows it has been implemented, the money is withdrawn, all is done electronically today.  Just saying i would keep an eye on your acct.!


Well, unless the bank makes a big mistake and credits my account mistakenly, it will not happen.


----------



## truthr

Hey everyone 
Did ya all miss me? 

It has been awhile and I see things have been a bit busy lately on here.  I would like to clarify a point or two.

Yesterday there was a hearing in Edmonton, but it was not what some may think.  It was NOT Judge Young defending her Supplemental Decision of February 28th, 2018 regarding interest and cost.  It was those of us who have pre 2004 contracts defending it as Northmont filed a Cross Appeal.

It was also some presenting regarding the original Appeal filed in November 2017 - those who did present were self representing whereas those who were part of the Cross Appeal (2 groups) had legal representation (2 lawyers, one for each group).

The morning was about the Cross Appeal and the afternoon was the Appeal.  Justice Gill was very patient with all and gave everyone the time they needed to present.

He said that he will have a decision in the next few weeks.

I will have more to report soon, just need to take some time to relax, regenerate and regroup.


----------



## GypsyOne

Very briefly, what was the Cross appeal about?


----------



## truthr

GypsyOne said:


> Very briefly, what was the Cross appeal about?


In Judge Young's Supplemental Decision (February 28th, 2018) she ruled that all contracts post 2004 would pay the 26.82% interest and the pre2004 contracts would pay 5% in accordance with the Canada Interest Act.  The pre2004 contracts had only a monthly interest of 2% with no yearly amount which is in violation of the Canada Interest Act.  Northmont appealed that decision, hence the cross appeal. The reason there was a Supplemental Decision in AB was because the judge in the original Decision had instructed both sides to work out the interest and cost and if they couldn't it would be before the judge again to make that decision.

To my knowledge it is considered a cross appeal because the Geldert Group had already filed an appeal on the original Decision from October 11, 2017.  Some of us who have pre2004 contracts hired attorneys to defend the ruling of 5%.


----------



## GypsyOne

truthr said:


> In Judge Young's Supplemental Decision (February 28th, 2018) she ruled that all contracts post 2004 would pay the 26.82% interest and the pre2004 contracts would pay 5% in accordance with the Canada Interest Act.  The pre2004 contracts had only a monthly interest of 2% with no yearly amount which is in violation of the Canada Interest Act.  Northmont appealed that decision, hence the cross appeal. The reason there was a Supplemental Decision in AB was because the judge in the original Decision had instructed both sides to work out the interest and cost and if they couldn't it would be before the judge again to make that decision.
> 
> To my knowledge it is considered a cross appeal because the Geldert Group had already filed an appeal on the original Decision from October 11, 2017.  Some of us who have pre2004 contracts hired attorneys to defend the ruling of 5%.


Thanks.


----------



## Spark1

“Justice Gill’s, Appeal Court, Decision will be given in less than two weeks regarding Oct 10th hearing.”
So if people are leaning towards paying please WAIT for the decision. A comment made by Jud Virtue that was overheard was “I feel like I am tying to SWIM up the RIVER”.


----------



## MarcieL

Thanks for the update Spark 1.


----------



## truthr

Spark1 said:


> “Justice Gill’s, Appeal Court, Decision will be given in less than two weeks regarding Oct 10th hearing.”
> So if people are leaning towards paying please WAIT for the decision. A comment made by Jud Virtue that was overheard was “I feel like I am tying to SWIM up the RIVER”.


First, Justice Gill said the decision would not take days but weeks.  I do not recall him ever saying it will be in less than two weeks.

Second, to my knowledge this decision only affects those in Alberta in the non settling Geldert group with pre2004 contracts. If you are in BC, are part of the non settling Geldert group and have not paid and think this may affect the judgment against you if I were you I would contact a lawyer before making that assumption as the interest is still accumulating.

Third, to my knowledge this will not affect those with a Consent Judgment already filed against them - whether in AB or BC.

Again, this is just my opinion and I am not a lawyer.


----------



## Spark1

truthr said:


> First, Justice Gill said the decision would not take days but weeks.  I do not recall him ever saying it will be in less than two weeks.
> 
> Second, to my knowledge this decision only affects those in Alberta in the non settling Geldert group with pre2004 contracts. If you are in BC, are part of the non settling Geldert group and have not paid and think this may affect the judgment against you if I were you I would contact a lawyer before making that assumption as the interest is still accumulating.
> 
> Third, to my knowledge this will not affect those with a Consent Judgment already filed against them - whether in AB or BC.
> 
> Again, this is just my opinion and I am not a lawyer.


First of all it should not matter whether you are from Alberta or B.C. what this so called Justice System with this case has done for me is who do you Trust? I supplied a lot of information to Geldert Law. It was my documents that I supplied to Service Alberta and the RCMP. My Question is how long was MG working with the enemy? My last discussion with him was he finally got Northmont to the table and now they are going to have to pay the 25.4 million they owe the resort. He also talked to me about moving the buildings out of the resort would not be happening. The other question is what was the MLT AIKINS Letter All about and the big waste of Money it cost all of us. Why did this all change over night, I know it was all about big money not Justice. How does a Lawyer change from great news to The SIF 26.8% interest with the threat of 162% interest  over night. I sent him a email in November talking to him about the Fair Trading ACT and what I got back from him is my regards. I still have that email. Who can forget the mad rush in Dec/2017. 
     The way I look at this case is if you shut down the timeshare office and you screw with our contracts and conveniently change them all to the the contract that Jim Belfry had which I bet very high interest compared to my 2%, Northmont is all about greed. They never wanted a resort,they wanted every one to cancel. That is where it started with me with their phoney cancellation. I will always feel that the Justice System was totally one sided and never considered on bit how much money every one lost by losing their investment buying their Vacation Villa Lease. Not having a CONDO-ASSOCIATION is a Hugh Breach and this is what the Merrimans we’re pushing for so we could of worked with the resort owners to save the resort. When we won the appeal ,what did the judge say? The Judge warned owners of the resort about the unilateral movement of contracts and encouraged them to work with the time owners and was not empressed about the Ontario bill collector year 2014. I will always feel this was a planned Bankruptcy.


----------



## MarcieL

First of all it should not matter whether you are from Alberta or B.C. what this so called Justice System with this case has done for me is who do you Trust?

Excellent point!


----------



## GypsyOne

No question the justice system let we the lessees with our rock-solid contracts down. The impression I got was of a court system that had its decision before the evidence was presented, and ultimately supported with cherry-picked legalese. I sometimes wonder if our lawyers either defended on the wrong points or defended inadequately on the right points. Or perhaps it didn't matter what our lawyers presented; the court already knew what it had to do and that was to favor the Province and the land developers of a popular tourist destination the Province didn't want to see fail or have to prop up with public funds.


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> First of all it should not matter whether you are from Alberta or B.C. what this so called Justice System with this case has done for me is who do you Trust?
> 
> Excellent point!


The Suppliers and the 3 Wives  are from Alberta therefore even the Supreme Court cases should of been in Alberta. If you talk to Protection BC they know very little about our Lease Contracts. Service Alberta knew more but this service Alberta Minister did us a great favour by passing Bill 31 Unilateral Amendments to Contracts but those bright Dim light bulbs should of passed it Jan2/2016 not Dec 13/2017. In Mexico if you are a tourist and you bought a timeshare there citizens and tourists are treated as equals when it comes to consumer Affairs. It should not matter one bit what country you are from or what Province you are from we are all being screwed by Northmont and the Justice System. Things have to change. It would be like Northmont to charge our American friends 26.8%. I hope you Americans believe in Karma because I do.


----------



## MarcieL

At the May hearing I was astounded, when I witnessed people personally talking to KW and his lawyer.  I'm not about to converse with someone that unilaterally changed my contract and charged me nearly 40,000.00 to exit, different strokes for different folks, there are just somethings I will NEVER understand.


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> At the May hearing I was astounded, when I witnessed people personally talking to KW and his lawyer.  I'm not about to converse with someone that unilaterally changed my contract and charged me nearly 40,000.00 to exit, different strokes for different folks, there are just somethings I will NEVER understand.


 I do not understand that myself. I was told by someone that after Justice Gill’s appeal court Truth went over and hugged Kirk Wankel. Why, after What Geldert pulled off who do you trust? This man Wankel has hurt a lot of innocent Vacation Villa Lease Owners.


----------



## truthr

Spark1 said:


> I do not understand that myself. I was told by someone that after Justice Gill’s appeal court Truth went over and hugged Kirk Wankel. Why, after What Geldert pulled off who do you trust? This man Wankel has hurt a lot of innocent Vacation Villa Lease Owners.



Are you F**KING kidding me!!!! I don't know who supposedly told you that but you should maybe check your source and the accuracy of the information you receive before making such a public statement about something you and no one else personally witnessed because it did not F**KING happen.

Not that I owe anyone an explanation but here ya go.

First, Kirk Wankel was sick that day and did not even shake anyone's hand because he did not want to spread germs, let alone hug me.  And I hugged him???  Seriously???

Second, Kirk Wankel approached me and asked if he could have a few minutes of my time.  Which I obliged because quite frankly I saw no reason not to as the decision is in Justice Gill's hands now.

Here is a novel concept - if you hear something about someone, maybe get in touch with that person rather than make a fool of yourself by spreading false rumors.


----------



## Cheemo

Spark1 said:


> I do not understand that myself. I was told by someone that after Justice Gill’s appeal court Truth went over and hugged Kirk Wankel. Why, after What Geldert pulled off who do you trust? This man Wankel has hurt a lot of innocent Vacation Villa Lease Owners.



What an asinine accusation!

 I realize that we all feel hurt and bitter about an injustice done to us and that we feel the need to lash out.  But there comes a time when we must face reality and accept that - it is what it is - and to stoop to defaming someone’s character through false rumours and innuendos is not right!

For more than 5 years now, Truth has been relentlessly fighting for us - challenging our lawyer, researching information, providing us with any documents we needed, and most importantly, providing us with a shoulder (often a wet one).   C’mon, Peeps,  let’s not besmirch her reputation, let’s not get into that sandbox.  This alleged hugging incident is not true and should be put to rest.

I trust Truth and I thank Truth.


----------



## MarcieL

This man Wankel has hurt a lot of innocent Vacation Villa Lease Owners.

That is an understatement, each month I am reminded when the bank debits the loan payment.  Others have had to declare bankruptcy, secure consumer protection proposals, have had their life styles deeply affected due to this injustice, this is not someone I care to talk or associate with.  Your damn right I feel hurt and bitter, that I will never be able to redeem my former life style!


----------



## servemeout

We were in the court room with the last round and we did not see ANYONE hug anyone else.  There were some that would have liked to inflict other forms of physical attention, but did not.  When we read the "hug lie" this morning, it brought to mine that yesterday was legal pot day.  With some critters hugs are not appropriate - use your imagination, and if you lack imagination, pot may help.


----------



## Spark1

truthr said:


> Are you F**KING kidding me!!!! I don't know who supposedly told you that but you should maybe check your source and the accuracy of the information you receive before making such a public statement about something you and no one else personally witnessed because it did not F**KING happen.
> 
> Not that I owe anyone an explanation but here ya go.
> 
> First, Kirk Wankel was sick that day and did not even shake anyone's hand because he did not want to spread germs, let alone hug me.  And I hugged him???  Seriously???
> 
> Second, Kirk Wankel approached me and asked if he could have a few minutes of my time.  Which I obliged because quite frankly I saw no reason not to as the decision is in Justice Gill's hands now.
> 
> Here is a novel concept - if you hear something about someone, maybe get in touch with that person rather than make a fool of yourself by spreading false rumors.


Seeing you know Kirk that well why don’t you ask poor Kirk what happened to the Resorts Condo Association instead of forcing us to use Social Media. That is a Hugh Breach of our Contract. We know why he did not want this important part of our Contract. How could he hid all his crooked business from us by treating us like humans. Many of us had no intentions of leaving this resort but that was not Kirks intentions. Kirk made a lot of people sick and he is very greedy with other people’s money.


----------



## truthr

People bring up this "Resort Condo Association" thing quite frequently and I have often wondered:

How many people would have stepped up to the plate and volunteered their time to be part of it? Considering how challenging it is for Condo Associations where people actually live full time have getting people to participate in the meetings and hard decisions that need to be made.  Ask yourself the hard question - Would you have?  Or would you have sat on the sidelines expecting someone else to do all the hard work only to bitch and complain?

We can't go backward only forward for those who originally chose to stay and now those who are choosing to stay because for some - if they have to pay they might as well stay.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out but one thing is for sure is that there will be no answers nor resolution if people are not willing to come together and have a conversation.  

This situation, as many in life, have a lot of coulda, woulda, shouldas.  

Of course these are all just my opinions but hopefully provide some food for thought for those who actually think.


----------



## GypsyOne

Having sat on a Condo Board Association, I have wondered the same thing about the logistics of having a functioning Timeshare Owners Association (TOA). I think it would be difficult to get say a seven-member board to actively participate in management meetings and report to the timeshare members. But, there are alternatives: you could, for example, have say a seven-member board with members from different regions of the country who would keep in touch through email and subsequently report to the timeshare owners through email. But, the TOA would not actually sit in on management meetings; they would hire a representative such as a lawyer or a qualified real estate manager to represent them at management meetings and report to them. 15000 timeshare owners at $5 each added to the annual timeshare management fee should be able to hire a well-qualified individual to represent them at meetings and report to the TOA. The TOA would be apprised of relevant issues being discussed at management meetings and could vote by email on  relevant issues and subsequently report to the timeshare owners. The point is there are ways of doing it if there is the genuine willingness to meet the contractual obligation.


----------



## truthr

GypsyOne said:


> Having sat on a Condo Board Association, I have wondered the same thing about the logistics of having a functioning Timeshare Owners Association (TOA). I think it would be difficult to get say a seven-member board to actively participate in management meetings and report to the timeshare members. But, there are alternatives: you could, for example, have say a seven-member board with members from different regions of the country who would keep in touch through email and subsequently report to the timeshare owners through email. But, the TOA would not actually sit in on management meetings; they would hire a representative such as a lawyer or a qualified real estate manager to represent them at management meetings and report to them. 15000 timeshare owners at $5 each added to the annual timeshare management fee should be able to hire a well-qualified individual to represent them at meetings and report to the TOA. The TOA would be apprised of relevant issues being discussed at management meetings and could vote by email on  relevant issues and subsequently report to the timeshare owners. The point is there are ways of doing it if there is the genuine willingness to meet the contractual obligation.


Thank you for sharing GypsyOne.

Certainly food for thought for those who are still in the resort and watching this thread.  If we choose to pay to stay I will certainly present your suggestions. 
After all we have been through I certainly hope that willingness is there from both ends - developer/management and timeshare owners/lessees.

Again thank you for sharing.


----------



## servemeout

When we attended court in Sept 2015 with Justice Young, one of the items that she requested was the number of contracts that existed and differences between them.  The lease used between 1992 - 1997 under section 17 states that all lessees agree to recognize the association.  This contract was pre Wankel.  Quote" The Lessor agrees that, in the event that an association should be formed and has a membership of over fifty percent (50%) of the holders..."  There was no association under Fairmont.  There are somethings that cannot be placed on Wankel.  To continue to make reference to the lack of an association is like beating a dead horse, it is a non issue.  So Sparky did you try to form one?  What is the old saying about closing the barn door?


----------



## Spark1

servemeout said:


> When we attended court in Sept 2015 with Justice Young, one of the items that she requested was the number of contracts that existed and differences between them.  The lease used between 1992 - 1997 under section 17 states that all lessees agree to recognize the association.  This contract was pre Wankel.  Quote" The Lessor agrees that, in the event that an association should be formed and has a membership of over fifty percent (50%) of the holders..."  There was no association under Fairmont.  There are somethings that cannot be placed on Wankel.  To continue to make reference to the lack of an association is like beating a dead horse, it is a non issue.  So Sparky did you try to form one?  What is the old saying about closing the barn door?[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> servemeout said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we attended court in Sept 2015 with Justice Young, one of the items that she requested was the number of contracts that existed and differences between them.  The lease used between 1992 - 1997 under section 17 states that all lessees agree to recognize the association.  This contract was pre Wankel.  Quote" The Lessor agrees that, in the event that an association should be formed and has a membership of over fifty percent (50%) of the holders..."  There was no association under Fairmont.  There are somethings that cannot be placed on Wankel.  To continue to make reference to the lack of an association is like beating a dead horse, it is a non issue.  So Sparky did you try to form one?  What is the old saying about closing the barn door?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> servemeout said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we attended court in Sept 2015 with Justice Young, one of the items that she requested was the number of contracts that existed and differences between them.  The lease used between 1992 - 1997 under section 17 states that all lessees agree to recognize the association.  This contract was pre Wankel.  Quote" The Lessor agrees that, in the event that an association should be formed and has a membership of over fifty percent (50%) of the holders..."  There was no association under Fairmont.  There are somethings that cannot be placed on Wankel.  To continue to make reference to the lack of an association is like beating a dead horse, it is a non issue.  So Sparky did you try to form one?  What is the old saying about closing the barn door?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry the Timeshare Office was under lockdown and I did talk to our famous Lawyer about the registry and we could each phone 100 or more Lease owners to get the ball rolling. What do you know about barns because I own one and I got horses that can kick ass too. I know one thing I can not lower myself to protect the enemy that harmed so many. That resort did not need to bankrupt?? I suppose you believe there are no crooks in this world. Think again. Why even have a contract? But first you have to be able to read it and understand it servemeout. Would you poor hard working people please buy a get well card for Poor sick  Kirk and get the registry so we can all sign it for him
Click to expand...


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

servemeout said:


> When we attended court in Sept 2015 with Justice Young, one of the items that she requested was the number of contracts that existed and differences between them.  The lease used between 1992 - 1997 under section 17 states that all lessees agree to recognize the association.  This contract was pre Wankel.  Quote" The Lessor agrees that, in the event that an association should be formed and has a membership of over fifty percent (50%) of the holders..."  There was no association under Fairmont.  There are somethings that cannot be placed on Wankel.  To continue to make reference to the lack of an association is like beating a dead horse, it is a non issue.  So Sparky did you try to form one?  What is the old saying about closing the barn door?



Just a couple of comments.

1. I don't think any of us could have formed an association if we tried.  I believe NM is the only one with the information that can.  I was thinking that uniting behind MG would have forced the issue, but it did not.
2. Based on events in the last 5 years, I think there would have been way more than enough people volunteering to be on the association.  It would have had significant support.
3. If the association would have been formed, I don't believe this situation with NM would have happened.  Things would have gone down a LOT differently assuming the association would have had its rightful influence into the resort operations and decisions.
4. For those still caught up in this mess (not being forced out with the excellent deal or otherwise), I think it is still vital to form the association somehow and make it work.  I assume NM would not let that happen though.

Just my two cents worth.


----------



## servemeout

Glad to hear that you have a barn and horses.  The degree granted to me by U of A attests to my cognitive skills - Muchas gracias.  
There was one timeshare in Canmore that formed a owners group and got rid of the management and owner during the CCAA proceedings.  They now manage and control the timeshare.  I was told that the Canmore owners had a very good lawyer.  The contracts says that they must accept the association if they have over 50% membership.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Spark1 said:


> I do not understand that myself. I was told by someone that after Justice Gill’s appeal court Truth went over and hugged Kirk Wankel. Why, after What Geldert pulled off who do you trust? This man Wankel has hurt a lot of innocent Vacation Villa Lease Owners.



Okay Spark1 – you made my day and drove me into a fit of laughter that just about made me pee myself with one of your latest posts!!

You definitely are focusing on a very short sighted idea and your interpretation of two mature adults having the opportunity to have a conversation needs to be channeled to understand why a person would want to talk with Wankel.

Wankel is a very strategic individual who put the pieces in place to serve his interests be it personal or professional but at the end of the day it was our lawyer Michael Geldert who allowed us to become fattened for slaughter in Wankel’s game.

Could Truth also be strategic?  She too has personally been affected by this and her actions have assisted many people to understand past, present, and future aspects of this whole sorted tale.  Could she not be strategically working on something in a one on one meeting with Wankel for herself and others?  I bet if someone like Truth was at the negotiating table the MG settlement would have looked very different as I believe some of the info she has shared has allowed people to reach a different settlements than most of us were strapped with as a result of that work of art.

Seems to me the MG meetings were more of a hidden from view thing and who do you think is protected most by the non-disclosure (I don’t think it was a primary goal of Northmont in the beginning to have this as it could have been used as a tool to educate people on the cost of not settling but my bet is they got way more than ever thought they could get all packaged up for them by MG – guess we will never know as not one of us took part in the negotiation).  If Truth and Wankel met in person in front of everyone with people in earshot it would be pretty hard to create a new secret society or deal and I am pretty sure both parties have available to them other means of communications – besides, who is Truth acting on the behalf of – not like she can change the direction of the courts at this part of the game?  Could she be viewed as a Wankel adversary or alley at this point in the game?

As you have already guessed, I put most of my grievances on the shoulders of MG who for now can boast on his resume about his successful resolution (just a second, had a little vomit come up there) for us with Northmont and is enjoying his financial gains acquired at our expense.  If I had gone with my gut I would have paid in 2013 one way or the other but I, like many others, got blinded by anger that Wankel could so easily take away something I worked hard to get but I failed to understand how he could legally take it so I fell into a trap that snarled a lot of us where we were poorly advised and represented – in hindsight what happened was not designed to *SERVE OUR INTERESTS* and at the end of the day cost us dearly.

We lost horribly in the courts because the courts needed things done a specific way which we failed to do but there are people today that still require some form of resolution to all this.  As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with people talking with Wankel if it can help them put this behind them – they need a resolution and closure.   It is not going to come from the courts – that ship has sailed.

I thought about having my own conversation with Wankel a couple of times as this dragged on and because I didn’t I suffer the consequences for trusting in a legal system my representative used for their own benefit instead of mine.  I think Wankel would still welcome a conversation from people who still have this hanging over their heads as he wants closure just as much as they do but the worst part is at what cost as the cost just grows.  So who takes the 1st step now?

From that fateful decision to stay or pay where we decided to stand up and challenge it, the cost has only escalated as there is no ceiling (another MG mistake – I think fees could have been put in trust and released at the time of the court decision or a cap negotiated early on) but if you look closely Wankel has actually been active in trying to settle throughout as it directly served his interests and indirectly ours:

Of late he has assisted some with leaving or staying at the resort (the adversarial court process we had in place prevented him from doing this until recently)
In the past told us on a couple of occasions we would loose and offered a way out – if you recall MG told us he would do better and those offers were not safe
At the beginning presented his strategic plan based on having payed his lawyers to find the faults and strengths in our mutual contract that were interpreted for his gain based on legal decisions – I can't say I agree with what he did morally but he looked at this from a business standpoint about how he could monetize a return for a non-revenue producing asset.  We had the emotional fire and brimstone but were already behind the eight ball waiting for someone to take more of our money by saying what we wanted to hear before this all began
I am now sleeping at night again (probably because I have to work harder and longer each day to pay off the MG settlement debt and maybe because I am not following this on social medial as closely anymore as I was force to settle) but I had to come to accept that the courts assigned a pretty clear winner where *HE WON AND I LOST!!!*

Maybe Truth or someone like Truth has a plan to help with a new negotiation that potentially could aid in closure for both sides – ever wonder if that was what they could have been talking about?

Having Wankel open that door would be beneficial to a lot of people and let’s face it, MG was not a challenging opponent for Wankel – maybe starting with someone like Truth who knows lots of people is a great door to knock on!!

Now back to the beginning - as soon as you stated Truth gave Wankel a big burly bear hug the image that that immediately flashed in my mind was an image of Bart Simpson getting a Homer hug.


----------



## GypsyOne

From what I have seen of Wankel, there is nothing whatsoever to admire about the man. He is a manipulator, an opportunist, motivated by greed, and completely lacking in any moral rectitude whatsoever. Geldert on the other hand at least started out trying to win justice for the timeshare owners. Did things change later? I just don't know.


----------



## MarcieL

Totally agree GypsyOne, how anyone could converse with a person, who has ruined so many people's lives is beyond comprehension.


----------



## MarcieL

Could Truth also be strategic? She too has personally been affected by this and her actions have assisted many people to understand past, present, and future aspects of this whole sorted tale. Could she not be strategically working on something in a one on one meeting with Wankel for herself and others? I bet if someone like Truth was at the negotiating table the MG settlement would have looked very different as I believe some of the info she has shared has allowed people to reach a different settlements than most of us were strapped with as a result of that work of art.

Several people, educated in finance, one a C.A. offered to be part of the negotiating team but their offers went unanswered!  All done secretly and behind closed doors!  How many times have you paid 40 grand to dispose of an asset you paid 25000.00 for?  Despicable!


----------



## truthr

_From what I have seen of Wankel, there is nothing whatsoever to admire about the man. He is a manipulator, an opportunist, motivated by greed, and completely lacking in any moral rectitude whatsoever. Geldert on the other hand at least started out trying to win justice for the timeshare owners. Did things change later? I just don't know. ~ GypsyOne
_
From what you have personally seen?  Or from what we have been led to believe?  Personally I prefer to make my own determination as to a person's character rather than the spoon feeding we have endured these past 4+ years by someone who we put our trust in to win justice when it is now painfully obvious the law was not on our side right from the get go.  Or if the law was on our side who is responsible for not presenting it?

_Several people, educated in finance, one a C.A. offered to be part of the negotiating team but their offers went unanswered! All done secretly and behind closed doors! How many times have you paid 40 grand to dispose of an asset you paid 25000.00 for? Despicable! ~ MarcieL_

Who did their offers go unanswered by?  Geldert told me in September 2017 that Kirk Wankel had requested my presence at a January 2017 meeting (probably requested me because I have been so openly vocal).  Now whether I am qualified to have represented the litigation group or whether I would have agreed to it is irrelevant - I was not told about the request until some 9 months later.  When I asked Geldert as to why he did not tell me at the time the request was made, his response was that he would not subject any of his clients to a meeting with Wankel.  Seriously, what harm could it have done to have some of us at a meeting?  What was Geldert so afraid of?  So again who did their offers go unanswered by?

I have spoken to several people who volunteered their expertise and time in many areas to Geldert throughout the past 4+ years only to be denied involvement by the very person who should have been bringing us together, not separating us with conjecture, fear and intimidation.


----------



## truthr

MarcieL said:


> At the May hearing I was astounded, when I witnessed people personally talking to KW and his lawyer.  I'm not about to converse with someone that unilaterally changed my contract and charged me nearly 40,000.00 to exit, different strokes for different folks, there are just somethings I will NEVER understand.


At the May 2018 speak to, if that is the May you are referring to, we were no longer represented by counsel so why wouldn't those "people" take that opportunity to introduce themselves to KW and his lawyer?  

At the last hearing (October 2018) Justice Gill made it clear to at least one person that if she wanted any kind of consideration for her personal situation she would have to speak directly to Northmont and as a matter of fact she did just that by interrupting KW and I just as we were beginning to chat.  No harm, no foul as I understood her "need" to speak with him so I stepped aside until she was done.  

Interesting that the person who supposedly saw something that never actually happened between KW and me failed to mention this other person initiating and engaging in conversation with KW.


----------



## GypsyOne

My conclusion of character is based on manifest action and results, not "spoon-fed" opinion as you (truthr) imply. Manifest results: legal contracts that were trampled on, modified, and misinterpreted; lessees that were held accountable for capital improvements to real estate; lessees that were hoodwinked into converting leases to co-ownership agreements and thus being responsible for capital improvements for life; and as Marcie said, for example, paying $40,000 to give back an asset that you bought for $25,000, and that is but one of thousands of egregious examples that dramatically changed peoples' lives and welfare for the worse.  Those are despicable actions and I don't need to meet  the person responsible in person to draw those conclusions.

I can think of several reasons why Wankel might want to meet with Truth, or have her attend a meeting, and not one of those reasons is to represent the timeshare owners' interests.  This saga has a history of advocates of timeshare owners being manipulated and muted, and I wonder how and why.  So as the joke goes, once you have spoken to the man, check for your watch and wallet.


----------



## NeverNeverAgain

GypsyOne said:


> My conclusion of character is based on manifest action and results, not "spoon-fed" opinion as you (truthr) imply. Manifest results: legal contracts that were trampled on, modified, and misinterpreted; lessees that were held accountable for capital improvements to real estate; lessees that were hoodwinked into converting leases to co-ownership agreements and thus being responsible for capital improvements for life; and as Marcie said, for example, paying $40,000 to give back an asset that you bought for $25,000, and that is but one of thousands of egregious examples that dramatically changed peoples' lives and welfare for the worse.  Those are despicable actions and I don't need to meet  the person responsible in person to draw those conclusions.
> 
> I can think of several reasons why Wankel might want to meet with Truth, or have her attend a meeting, and not one of those reasons is to represent the timeshare owners' interests.  This saga has a history of advocates of timeshare owners being manipulated and muted, and I wonder how and why.  So as the joke goes, once you have spoken to the man, check for your watch and wallet.



GypsyOne, I agree with everything you said.  I know we were lied to when we purchased my "Lease".  I was specifically told we could not be held responsible for capital expenses, unlike other perpetual time share agreements, and that the lease agreement was the only way to go.  I was also told they would always be willing to purchase it back for the agreement amount, it would be the best and cheapest vacation deal ever, etc, etc.  I don't think anyone could have imagined that we would be treated this way.

However, we should all keep in mind that Truth and others still caught in this mess and have no choice but to deal with those people.  Truth is right that our lawyer has lied to us, and I think most question which side he was actually fighting for.  I know what I am thinking.

I think we can bring up blame for others as well.  What about the judge(s) that ruled on our "Lease" contracts.  We lost on arguments such as "If we don't pay, who will" and we must pay for the good of everyone in the timeshare.  What about the politicians and all those in government whose job it is to protect us and did nothing?  It seems that we are trying to make the case of  "Who are the worst Bad Guys?"  I know we are frustrated, mad, and still unable to get over the injustice of this case.  However, I think there could be less discussion about our decisions, right or wrong, on what we have done personally trying to defend ourselves.  I continue to read this to see if there is anything new and helpful and see how this mess continues to play out.  I hope those still in the know will feel like they are free to share, and will continue to share information or ideas that could help in the future.  I keep hoping that by some chance, there would be some justice for all of us.


----------



## GypsyOne

NeverNeverAgain said:


> GypsyOne, I agree with everything you said.  I know we were lied to when we purchased my "Lease".  I was specifically told we could not be held responsible for capital expenses, unlike other perpetual time share agreements, and that the lease agreement was the only way to go.  I was also told they would always be willing to purchase it back for the agreement amount, it would be the best and cheapest vacation deal ever, etc, etc.  I don't think anyone could have imagined that we would be treated this way.
> 
> However, we should all keep in mind that Truth and others still caught in this mess and have no choice but to deal with those people.  Truth is right that our lawyer has lied to us, and I think most question which side he was actually fighting for.  I know what I am thinking.
> 
> I think we can bring up blame for others as well.  What about the judge(s) that ruled on our "Lease" contracts.  We lost on arguments such as "If we don't pay, who will" and we must pay for the good of everyone in the timeshare.  What about the politicians and all those in government whose job it is to protect us and did nothing?  It seems that we are trying to make the case of  "Who are the worst Bad Guys?"  I know we are frustrated, mad, and still unable to get over the injustice of this case.  However, I think there could be less discussion about our decisions, right or wrong, on what we have done personally trying to defend ourselves.  I continue to read this to see if there is anything new and helpful and see how this mess continues to play out.  I hope those still in the know will feel like they are free to share, and will continue to share information or ideas that could help in the future.  I keep hoping that by some chance, there would be some justice for all of us.



I agree with most of what you say but I'm not as quick to jump on Geldert as being one of the bad guys. I think Geldert's defense of our position was well-intentioned and I think he thought we had a rock-solid case that, based on the evidence, we would easily win; just as all of us thought similarly. Then when we got blindsided by what appears to be a corrupt court decision, Geldert was left having to make the best of a bad situation. But being wrong does not equate to lying; lying implies intentionally intending to misled, which I don't think was the case.


----------



## Meow

Thank you GypsyOne.  It is refreshing to hear a rational voice for a change.  After all we've been through we look for heroes and villains.  Geldert is certainly no hero, but I've see no evidence that proves his is a villain either.  But Wankel - that another matter.


----------



## den403

*MarcieLGuest*
At the May hearing I was astounded, when I witnessed people personally talking to KW and his lawyer. I'm not about to converse with someone that unilaterally changed my contract and charged me nearly 40,000.00 to exit, different strokes for different folks, there are just somethings I will NEVER understand.


As one of ‘these’ people I will explain the facts......
For anyone who attended the court hearing in May and those especially speaking negitively here......
Please recall that Judge Gill let everyone in the courtroom speak that day including: those that were not part of the appeal but wanted to join, those who defaulted on their settlements and wanted to join and even option 1s that had paid and wanted to join.

So before you accuse others of speaking to the otherside and how dare they??....

Please also recall Judge Gill stating from his bench “all those interested parties that stated their name in the courtroom to join the appeal and wishing to join the appeal were to meet with Virtue outside the courtroom after session had ended to get your name on the list.”

Many people spoke with Virtue in the lobby that day and got their names on that list to join the appeal as requested by Judge Gill and note KW was an earshot from Virtue but not sitting beside him at the time. KW was more specifically standing on the other side of the couch Virtue on the couch and writing on the coffee table and they did and could simply talk over the couch.


----------



## lost and confused

Hard to fathom that more than half a dozen respected Judges and Justices in two provinces rendered corrupt decisions yet a very inexperienced lawyer was just trying to make the best of a bad situation which resulted in not only many reprimands, court losses but people losing their life savings (past and future).

Not knowing much about the law I trusted Geldert's website that he was what he professed to be "a leading global law firm" and furthermore how could the number of clients possibly be wrong about him.  A lot of the clients are either professionals or retired professionals.

As time went by we discovered that Geldert is a "one man show" with little to no litigation experience let alone business/contract and negotiation expertise.  By then we were already part of the "Geldert group" with no way out but to give in to Northmont's demands - demands that Geldert assured us he would untangle us from, we just had to be patient as his plan came to fruition.  A plan that none of us was privy to, a plan that obviously had no legal basis.  He kept feeding us what we wanted to hear so we would keep the "group" together to fight Northmont - strength in numbers and all that bs.  MG kept requesting more retainer money from us and encouraged us to “stay the fight"….we kept paying as he led us to believe we were close to an end.  And right to the end there was talk of a class action…we paid for research into it and were led to believe that would be the course of action…but it never materialized.   When MG withdrew as our lawyer, I started reading transcripts and court decisions -  multiple judges slapped him (and us) with *abuse of process, vexatious and res judicata*.   He prolonged and delayed matters in the court with no valid legal grounds.  Meanwhile, as we took his advice and initially stopped paying maintenance fees (placing us in breech of contract), the years accumulated with not only maintenance fees but interest as well.  We originally retained MG to investigate if the RPF was something valid that Northmont could charge us with and then give us the option to stay or go.

KW….he is a business man who assumed a position in what was perhaps a failing resort with lots of challenges.  Although we may not have initially liked his “plan” and perhaps deemed it to be unfair (the RPF), the courts did decide that he WAS able to charge the RPF and he was not doing anything wrong.  KW WON every court case infront of him…..we/MG lost all.  At no time has the court system deemed KW actions to be inappropriate, but yet he has been vilified.   Who has vilified him?  MG and many others…..just read previous posts here.  Has this been justified?  KW has faced many years of litigation AGAINST him, won all of them.  He has been demonized and vilified.  He has a resort to run, filled with people who did not cause all this grief and expensive litigation.  KW has the ability to charge the RPF.  We lost on several occasions.,,,many courts decided.  We had our days in court……sadly our YEARS in court!  It was our own representation that was labelled on many occasions as being vexatious, abuse of process and res judicata.  Period.  We lost.   So what would you have KW to do??.......just let us walk away?

Many of us believed MG.  It was presented as us vs KW.  The big challenge now is to take a look at the FACTS.  Remove emotions (I know it is hard).  Remove “opinions” and personal bias, assumptions, what we were told and “believed” to be true.  Logic and facts should take center stage.

Perhaps my frustration now comes taking a look objectively at the path I went down with MG.  I have read, done research, chatted with people, sought additional legal advice and tried to look objectively at the situation in hindsight. I wish I knew then what I know now.  I believe I was lied to on several occasions, by my own legal counsel – someone I placed trust in, paid and looked to guidance for.

For those who say MG didn't lie?  What about the last whopper promise "Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms"?  Did anyone actually receive a copy for final input?  Or just some formula for the financial part, plus, plus but no terms?  Minutes of the meeting?  I know that I specifically asked MG for the minutes on multiple occasions and to this date, have not received them.  For me, this was one of the biggest lies in the process.  

I can say that KW never lied to me.  He is a business man hired to run a resort and take care of the owners.  He has been litigated against over several years and won and has not been proven guilty in a court of law of doing anything wrong.  He has been demonized and faced many unproven accusations.  There have been “theories” of fraud, collusion and “corruptness”.   None of these theories have been proven with hard facts.  I have read much name calling, assumptions, opinions, personal biases….but come on, we need FACTS and rationale.  As the old saying goes, anything short of facts can be assumptions….and that makes one look like an ass___  

Do I feel financially abused?  Most definitely!!  I am financially devastated over this.  Ironically, the FACTS do not primarily point to the hands of KW/Northmont.

If you feel the need to respond or comment, please keep it FACTUAL and real.   I think it is fair to say that we have all been touched through this situation by inaccurate information, assumptions, perception……just read many posts here and emails received.  Keep it FACTS based and in reality.


----------



## dotbuhler

lost and confused said:


> Hard to fathom that more than half a dozen respected Judges and Justices in two provinces rendered corrupt decisions yet a very inexperienced lawyer was just trying to make the best of a bad situation which resulted in not only many reprimands, court losses but people losing their life savings (past and future).
> 
> Not knowing much about the law I trusted Geldert's website that he was what he professed to be "a leading global law firm" and furthermore how could the number of clients possibly be wrong about him.  A lot of the clients are either professionals or retired professionals.
> 
> As time went by we discovered that Geldert is a "one man show" with little to no litigation experience let alone business/contract and negotiation expertise.  By then we were already part of the "Geldert group" with no way out but to give in to Northmont's demands - demands that Geldert assured us he would untangle us from, we just had to be patient as his plan came to fruition.  A plan that none of us was privy to, a plan that obviously had no legal basis.  He kept feeding us what we wanted to hear so we would keep the "group" together to fight Northmont - strength in numbers and all that bs.  MG kept requesting more retainer money from us and encouraged us to “stay the fight"….we kept paying as he led us to believe we were close to an end.  And right to the end there was talk of a class action…we paid for research into it and were led to believe that would be the course of action…but it never materialized.   When MG withdrew as our lawyer, I started reading transcripts and court decisions -  multiple judges slapped him (and us) with *abuse of process, vexatious and res judicata*.   He prolonged and delayed matters in the court with no valid legal grounds.  Meanwhile, as we took his advice and initially stopped paying maintenance fees (placing us in breech of contract), the years accumulated with not only maintenance fees but interest as well.  We originally retained MG to investigate if the RPF was something valid that Northmont could charge us with and then give us the option to stay or go.
> 
> KW….he is a business man who assumed a position in what was perhaps a failing resort with lots of challenges.  Although we may not have initially liked his “plan” and perhaps deemed it to be unfair (the RPF), the courts did decide that he WAS able to charge the RPF and he was not doing anything wrong.  KW WON every court case infront of him…..we/MG lost all.  At no time has the court system deemed KW actions to be inappropriate, but yet he has been vilified.   Who has vilified him?  MG and many others…..just read previous posts here.  Has this been justified?  KW has faced many years of litigation AGAINST him, won all of them.  He has been demonized and vilified.  He has a resort to run, filled with people who did not cause all this grief and expensive litigation.  KW has the ability to charge the RPF.  We lost on several occasions.,,,many courts decided.  We had our days in court……sadly our YEARS in court!  It was our own representation that was labelled on many occasions as being vexatious, abuse of process and res judicata.  Period.  We lost.   So what would you have KW to do??.......just let us walk away?
> 
> Many of us believed MG.  It was presented as us vs KW.  The big challenge now is to take a look at the FACTS.  Remove emotions (I know it is hard).  Remove “opinions” and personal bias, assumptions, what we were told and “believed” to be true.  Logic and facts should take center stage.
> 
> Perhaps my frustration now comes taking a look objectively at the path I went down with MG.  I have read, done research, chatted with people, sought additional legal advice and tried to look objectively at the situation in hindsight. I wish I knew then what I know now.  I believe I was lied to on several occasions, by my own legal counsel – someone I placed trust in, paid and looked to guidance for.
> 
> For those who say MG didn't lie?  What about the last whopper promise "Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms"?  Did anyone actually receive a copy for final input?  Or just some formula for the financial part, plus, plus but no terms?  Minutes of the meeting?  I know that I specifically asked MG for the minutes on multiple occasions and to this date, have not received them.  For me, this was one of the biggest lies in the process.
> 
> I can say that KW never lied to me.  He is a business man hired to run a resort and take care of the owners.  He has been litigated against over several years and won and has not been proven guilty in a court of law of doing anything wrong.  He has been demonized and faced many unproven accusations.  There have been “theories” of fraud, collusion and “corruptness”.   None of these theories have been proven with hard facts.  I have read much name calling, assumptions, opinions, personal biases….but come on, we need FACTS and rationale.  As the old saying goes, anything short of facts can be assumptions….and that makes one look like an ass___
> 
> Do I feel financially abused?  Most definitely!!  I am financially devastated over this.  Ironically, the FACTS do not primarily point to the hands of KW/Northmont.
> 
> If you feel the need to respond or comment, please keep it FACTUAL and real.   I think it is fair to say that we have all been touched through this situation by inaccurate information, assumptions, perception……just read many posts here and emails received.  Keep it FACTS based and in reality.


I've often said that this lawyer should be held for HIS abuse of process, etc. There are, in fact, several cases recently where the guilty party, a.k.a. "the lawyer" has been the one found guilty by the Judge; was fined and professionally censured. Geldert NEEDS to be made an example for this!
.


----------



## newname

lost and confused said:


> Hard to fathom that more than half a dozen respected Judges and Justices in two provinces rendered corrupt decisions yet a very inexperienced lawyer was just trying to make the best of a bad situation which resulted in not only many reprimands, court losses but people losing their life savings (past and future).
> 
> Not knowing much about the law I trusted Geldert's website that he was what he professed to be "a leading global law firm" and furthermore how could the number of clients possibly be wrong about him.  A lot of the clients are either professionals or retired professionals.
> 
> As time went by we discovered that Geldert is a "one man show" with little to no litigation experience let alone business/contract and negotiation expertise.  By then we were already part of the "Geldert group" with no way out but to give in to Northmont's demands - demands that Geldert assured us he would untangle us from, we just had to be patient as his plan came to fruition.  A plan that none of us was privy to, a plan that obviously had no legal basis.  He kept feeding us what we wanted to hear so we would keep the "group" together to fight Northmont - strength in numbers and all that bs.  MG kept requesting more retainer money from us and encouraged us to “stay the fight"….we kept paying as he led us to believe we were close to an end.  And right to the end there was talk of a class action…we paid for research into it and were led to believe that would be the course of action…but it never materialized.   When MG withdrew as our lawyer, I started reading transcripts and court decisions -  multiple judges slapped him (and us) with *abuse of process, vexatious and res judicata*.   He prolonged and delayed matters in the court with no valid legal grounds.  Meanwhile, as we took his advice and initially stopped paying maintenance fees (placing us in breech of contract), the years accumulated with not only maintenance fees but interest as well.  We originally retained MG to investigate if the RPF was something valid that Northmont could charge us with and then give us the option to stay or go.
> 
> KW….he is a business man who assumed a position in what was perhaps a failing resort with lots of challenges.  Although we may not have initially liked his “plan” and perhaps deemed it to be unfair (the RPF), the courts did decide that he WAS able to charge the RPF and he was not doing anything wrong.  KW WON every court case infront of him…..we/MG lost all.  At no time has the court system deemed KW actions to be inappropriate, but yet he has been vilified.   Who has vilified him?  MG and many others…..just read previous posts here.  Has this been justified?  KW has faced many years of litigation AGAINST him, won all of them.  He has been demonized and vilified.  He has a resort to run, filled with people who did not cause all this grief and expensive litigation.  KW has the ability to charge the RPF.  We lost on several occasions.,,,many courts decided.  We had our days in court……sadly our YEARS in court!  It was our own representation that was labelled on many occasions as being vexatious, abuse of process and res judicata.  Period.  We lost.   So what would you have KW to do??.......just let us walk away?
> 
> Many of us believed MG.  It was presented as us vs KW.  The big challenge now is to take a look at the FACTS.  Remove emotions (I know it is hard).  Remove “opinions” and personal bias, assumptions, what we were told and “believed” to be true.  Logic and facts should take center stage.
> 
> Perhaps my frustration now comes taking a look objectively at the path I went down with MG.  I have read, done research, chatted with people, sought additional legal advice and tried to look objectively at the situation in hindsight. I wish I knew then what I know now.  I believe I was lied to on several occasions, by my own legal counsel – someone I placed trust in, paid and looked to guidance for.
> 
> For those who say MG didn't lie?  What about the last whopper promise "Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms"?  Did anyone actually receive a copy for final input?  Or just some formula for the financial part, plus, plus but no terms?  Minutes of the meeting?  I know that I specifically asked MG for the minutes on multiple occasions and to this date, have not received them.  For me, this was one of the biggest lies in the process.
> 
> I can say that KW never lied to me.  He is a business man hired to run a resort and take care of the owners.  He has been litigated against over several years and won and has not been proven guilty in a court of law of doing anything wrong.  He has been demonized and faced many unproven accusations.  There have been “theories” of fraud, collusion and “corruptness”.   None of these theories have been proven with hard facts.  I have read much name calling, assumptions, opinions, personal biases….but come on, we need FACTS and rationale.  As the old saying goes, anything short of facts can be assumptions….and that makes one look like an ass___
> 
> Do I feel financially abused?  Most definitely!!  I am financially devastated over this.  Ironically, the FACTS do not primarily point to the hands of KW/Northmont.
> 
> If you feel the need to respond or comment, please keep it FACTUAL and real.   I think it is fair to say that we have all been touched through this situation by inaccurate information, assumptions, perception……just read many posts here and emails received.  Keep it FACTS based and in reality.





lost and confused said:


> Hard to fathom that more than half a dozen respected Judges and Justices in two provinces rendered corrupt decisions yet a very inexperienced lawyer was just trying to make the best of a bad situation which resulted in not only many reprimands, court losses but people losing their life savings (past and future).
> 
> Not knowing much about the law I trusted Geldert's website that he was what he professed to be "a leading global law firm" and furthermore how could the number of clients possibly be wrong about him.  A lot of the clients are either professionals or retired professionals.
> 
> As time went by we discovered that Geldert is a "one man show" with little to no litigation experience let alone business/contract and negotiation expertise.  By then we were already part of the "Geldert group" with no way out but to give in to Northmont's demands - demands that Geldert assured us he would untangle us from, we just had to be patient as his plan came to fruition.  A plan that none of us was privy to, a plan that obviously had no legal basis.  He kept feeding us what we wanted to hear so we would keep the "group" together to fight Northmont - strength in numbers and all that bs.  MG kept requesting more retainer money from us and encouraged us to “stay the fight"….we kept paying as he led us to believe we were close to an end.  And right to the end there was talk of a class action…we paid for research into it and were led to believe that would be the course of action…but it never materialized.   When MG withdrew as our lawyer, I started reading transcripts and court decisions -  multiple judges slapped him (and us) with *abuse of process, vexatious and res judicata*.   He prolonged and delayed matters in the court with no valid legal grounds.  Meanwhile, as we took his advice and initially stopped paying maintenance fees (placing us in breech of contract), the years accumulated with not only maintenance fees but interest as well.  We originally retained MG to investigate if the RPF was something valid that Northmont could charge us with and then give us the option to stay or go.
> 
> KW….he is a business man who assumed a position in what was perhaps a failing resort with lots of challenges.  Although we may not have initially liked his “plan” and perhaps deemed it to be unfair (the RPF), the courts did decide that he WAS able to charge the RPF and he was not doing anything wrong.  KW WON every court case infront of him…..we/MG lost all.  At no time has the court system deemed KW actions to be inappropriate, but yet he has been vilified.   Who has vilified him?  MG and many others…..just read previous posts here.  Has this been justified?  KW has faced many years of litigation AGAINST him, won all of them.  He has been demonized and vilified.  He has a resort to run, filled with people who did not cause all this grief and expensive litigation.  KW has the ability to charge the RPF.  We lost on several occasions.,,,many courts decided.  We had our days in court……sadly our YEARS in court!  It was our own representation that was labelled on many occasions as being vexatious, abuse of process and res judicata.  Period.  We lost.   So what would you have KW to do??.......just let us walk away?
> 
> Many of us believed MG.  It was presented as us vs KW.  The big challenge now is to take a look at the FACTS.  Remove emotions (I know it is hard).  Remove “opinions” and personal bias, assumptions, what we were told and “believed” to be true.  Logic and facts should take center stage.
> 
> Perhaps my frustration now comes taking a look objectively at the path I went down with MG.  I have read, done research, chatted with people, sought additional legal advice and tried to look objectively at the situation in hindsight. I wish I knew then what I know now.  I believe I was lied to on several occasions, by my own legal counsel – someone I placed trust in, paid and looked to guidance for.
> 
> For those who say MG didn't lie?  What about the last whopper promise "Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms"?  Did anyone actually receive a copy for final input?  Or just some formula for the financial part, plus, plus but no terms?  Minutes of the meeting?  I know that I specifically asked MG for the minutes on multiple occasions and to this date, have not received them.  For me, this was one of the biggest lies in the process.
> 
> I can say that KW never lied to me.  He is a business man hired to run a resort and take care of the owners.  He has been litigated against over several years and won and has not been proven guilty in a court of law of doing anything wrong.  He has been demonized and faced many unproven accusations.  There have been “theories” of fraud, collusion and “corruptness”.   None of these theories have been proven with hard facts.  I have read much name calling, assumptions, opinions, personal biases….but come on, we need FACTS and rationale.  As the old saying goes, anything short of facts can be assumptions….and that makes one look like an ass___
> 
> Do I feel financially abused?  Most definitely!!  I am financially devastated over this.  Ironically, the FACTS do not primarily point to the hands of KW/Northmont.
> 
> If you feel the need to respond or comment, please keep it FACTUAL and real.   I think it is fair to say that we have all been touched through this situation by inaccurate information, assumptions, perception……just read many posts here and emails received.  Keep it FACTS based and in reality.


----------



## newname

Well said Lost and confused


----------



## ecwinch

There is the saying "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". 

In regard to MG's actions, I think it is more true than not.


----------



## Palms to pines

Yeah, not happy that I was paying for stupid for four years either.


----------



## GypsyOne

Palms to pines said:


> Yeah, not happy that I was paying for stupid for four years either.



Once you have a court system that is at best biased and at worst corrupt, then everything else is irrelevant. You could have The Almighty herself defending the case and you would still get a bad decision from a loaded court. We got a bad decision, but to properly assess blame you have to look at the system within which we and our team were working.


----------



## ecwinch

Dont get me wrong - what happened here is grossly unfair. But given the long litigation history of this case and the number of judges who reviewed the legal issues presented, I do not think the facts support that conclusion. 

Consider for a moment what your decision would have been four years ago if you clearly knew the legal status of your rights. Or if MG had clearly explained what could happen if court did not see the legal issues the way he thought they should.


----------



## GypsyOne

ecwinch said:


> Dont get me wrong - what happened here is grossly unfair. But given the long litigation history of this case and the number of judges who reviewed the legal issues presented, I do not think the facts support that conclusion.
> 
> Consider for a moment what your decision would have been four years ago if you clearly knew the legal status of your rights. Or if MG had clearly explained what could happen if court did not see the legal issues the way he thought they should.



It is the unanimity of a number of judges in several courts on all points that makes this decision highly questionable. First, Justice Loo of the BC Supreme Court played her role by incorrectly, ruling that tenants are responsible for capital structure of the property; that capital costs are included in the list of maintenance expenses; that a timeshare Owners Association need not be provided despite what the lease says; that the default buy-back clause in the leases could be ignored; that lease agreements could be modified without approval of the lease holders. In other words, the Courts completely trampled on the only document protecting us, which was our lease agreements. Then Justices of the BC Court of Appeal circled the wagons and fell unanimously in line with Justice Loo's interpretation and decision. That a number of Justices in several levels of courts could rule unanimously and identically on ALL points defies logic. One would think there would be somewhere in deliberations and rulings a dissenting voice on something in our favor. That is why I can't help but conclude that the court system is at best biased and at worst corrupt.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

GypsyOne said:


> It is the unanimity of a number of judges......That is why I can't help but conclude that the court system is at best biased and at worst corrupt.



Hi GypsyOne  ,
As you may know from Canadian news reports (Nov 1 / 2 -2018) - the province of Newfoundland lost it’s case to reopen the contract with Hydro Quebec on revenue split of profits from the Churchill Falls Electic Generating Dam & facilities . The ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada basically said - a contract is a contract - no matter how unfair to one of the signees .

I think all the timeshare owners got screwed by the courts . 
Newfoundland thinks it got screwed too.

I am not sure that anything will be rectified in either case .


----------



## ecwinch

GypsyOne said:


> It is the unanimity of a number of judges in several courts on all points that makes this decision highly questionable. First, Justice Loo of the BC Supreme Court played her role by incorrectly, ruling that tenants are responsible for capital structure of the property; that capital costs are included in the list of maintenance expenses; that a timeshare Owners Association need not be provided despite what the lease says; that the default buy-back clause in the leases could be ignored; that lease agreements could be modified without approval of the lease holders. In other words, the Courts completely trampled on the only document protecting us, which was our lease agreements. Then Justices of the BC Court of Appeal circled the wagons and fell unanimously in line with Justice Loo's interpretation and decision. That a number of Justices in several levels of courts could rule unanimously and identically on ALL points defies logic. One would think there would be somewhere in deliberations and rulings a dissenting voice on something in our favor. That is why I can't help but conclude that the court system is at best biased and at worst corrupt.



Unfortunately you misstate the key finding that every court has reached - that the legal nature of your contract is not a lease, and you are not a tenant. That you entered into a "right to use" timeshare estate.


----------



## GypsyOne

ecwinch said:


> Unfortunately you misstate the key finding that every court has reached - that the legal nature of your contract is not a lease, and you are not a tenant. That you entered into a "right to use" timeshare estate.



And therein lies the problem -  the proactive courts decided they would favor the Developer and re-interpret the ordinary meaning of the word lease.  Words should have meaning, and in my simple world a lease is a lease is a lease with common everyday definition applying. In our case, we are leasing time in a resort facility, we do not own the facility, nor are we responsible for its capital structure. 15,000 timeshare owners thought similarly. Proactive courts should not be ruling that  they all got it wrong, that, in fact, a lease means something else.


----------



## GypsyOne

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> Hi GypsyOne  ,
> As you may know from Canadian news reports (Nov 1 / 2 -2018) - the province of Newfoundland lost it’s case to reopen the contract with Hydro Quebec on revenue split of profits from the Churchill Falls Electic Generating Dam & facilities . The ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada basically said - a contract is a contract - no matter how unfair to one of the signees .
> 
> I think all the timeshare owners got screwed by the courts .
> Newfoundland thinks it got screwed too.
> 
> I am not sure that anything will be rectified in either case .[/QUOTE)
> 
> 
> The difference between the two cases is that with the Labrador Churchill Falls case the Supreme Court ruled that the contract applies whether its favorable or not. The BC courts took the position that they could ignore clauses in the contract and, in fact, modify parts of the contract to favor the property developer and owner.


----------



## ecwinch

GypsyOne said:


> Words should have meaning, and in my simple world a lease is a lease is a lease with common everyday definition applying.



Yes, words should have meanings. But the general idiom is that "actions speak louder than words". 

So courts rely both on the verbiage in the contract and the conduct of the parties in determining their legal rights. Here the court(s) found both the words in the terms of the agreement and the conduct of the parties reflected a contract to enter into a right to use timeshare estate. 

There is a cause of action in regard to Fairmount mis-representing the nature of the contract. But MG not only failed to assert that claim, but virtually waived it early in the proceedings.


----------



## GypsyOne

ecwinch said:


> Yes, words should have meanings. But the general idiom is that "actions speak louder than words".
> 
> So courts rely both on the verbiage in the contract and the conduct of the parties in determining their legal rights. Here the court(s) found both the words in the terms of the agreement and the conduct of the parties reflected a contract to enter into a right to use timeshare estate.
> 
> There is a cause of action in regard to Fairmount mis-representing the nature of the contract. But MG not only failed to assert that claim, but virtually waived it early in the proceedings.



We're back to the point that the BC courts were trying to find a way to favor the developers over the timeshare owners, probably because the Province of BC did not want a popular tourist destination to fail nor have to prop it up with public money. And when you are looking for something, usually you will find it. Among other things, the Courts decided that a lease was not really a lease it was something else that favored the Developers. And so far as "actions speaking louder than words", the whole point of having words recorded in contract form is to define the rights of each party and prevent actions from abusing the intent of the agreement. Once again, the BC courts in this case were somewhere between highly biased and corrupt.


----------



## Floyd55

Totally agree with your interpretation on this Gypsy One. If only we had competent legal representation that would have warned us of what was happening early on rather than slogging ahead defeat after defeat promising that things would get better if we just hung in there a little longer! What a crock that turned out to be!


----------



## Spark1

Floyd55 said:


> Totally agree with your interpretation on this Gypsy One. If only we had competent legal representation that would have warned us of what was happening early on rather than slogging ahead defeat after defeat promising that things would get better if we just hung in there a little longer! What a crock that turned out to be!


There is a lot going on Facebook do not miss the conversation. Richard Gotfried is now part of our group. Check on YouTube and Richard apparently is explaining how you can join the Sunchaser Group


----------



## owner1

GypsyOne said:


> [/QUOTE
> You who thinks I am KW too.  You accused someone on this site of being me.  You think judges are corrupted.  You thought your lawyer was amazing.  You say 15,000 owners agree with you.  Where did you get that information from.  Your group and others did not even represent 5%.  Any more conspiracy theories you want to tell. Every timeshare in America is the same.  You sign a contact for a lease hold.  You really think your being treated unfairly. You think you should be able to walk away and some other owner can pay your share for the rest of your contract.    How fair is that. You attack anyone who doesn’t tell you what you want to hear.


----------



## GypsyOne

Owner1, I'm calling BS on you. No conspiracy theory; I just want my lease agreement to actually mean something, and for the courts to protect the integrity of my lease  agreement if such is necessary. The courts did not protect my rights under the lease agreement, and for that I blame corruption in high places. Not conspiracy theory, just opinion.
My lease agreement was violated in four main ways:
1. I am a lessee, not a lessor or owner of real estate. I am not responsible for capital costs. Capital costs are the responsibility of the real estate owner.
2. Timeshare owners were promised a Timeshare Owners Association. They did not get it.
3. Clause 13 of the lease agreement, which gives a formula in the event of default, was completely ignored. Instead the developer (Northmont) went to court to obtain and got the Great Canadian Timeshare Cash Grab.
4. With the blessing of the Courts, lease agreements were unilaterally amended without the concurrence of timeshare owners.
These BC Court decisions have to be about the strangest outcome of Court action in the history of Canadian jurisprudence. How the courts could find everything in favor of the developer Northmont and nothing compelling at all from the timeshare owners' case defies logic. I have to ask why.


----------



## Spark1

GypsyOne said:


> Owner1, I'm calling BS on you. No conspiracy theory; I just want my lease agreement to actually mean something, and for the courts to protect the integrity of my lease  agreement if such is necessary. The courts did not protect my rights under the lease agreement, and for that I blame corruption in high places. Not conspiracy theory, just opinion.
> My lease agreement was violated in four main ways:
> 1. I am a lessee, not a lessor or owner of real estate. I am not responsible for capital costs. Capital costs are the responsibility of the real estate owner.
> 2. Timeshare owners were promised a Timeshare Owners Association. They did not get it.
> 3. Clause 13 of the lease agreement, which gives a formula in the event of default, was completely ignored. Instead the developer (Northmont) went to court to obtain and got the Great Canadian Timeshare Cash Grab.
> 4. With the blessing of the Courts, lease agreements were unilaterally amended without the concurrence of timeshare owners.
> These BC Court decisions have to be about the strangest outcome of Court action in the history of Canadian jurisprudence. How the courts could find everything in favor of the developer Northmont and nothing compelling at all from the timeshare owners' case defies logic. I have to ask why.


Ignore this guy. He would even get upset if you called him one of the bond holders. The truth of the matter is whoever fell for the cancellation right away also paid the renovation fee as well and many paid the gag order scam and they are not released. This is a lease. On April 12,2013 we all received the Freedom To Choose,reason to stay. When you read this document Kirk Wankels directive under DECISION NECESSITY said this if any of our invoiced Timeshare Members (Biennial Even members have not been invoiced) have not chosen a payment option for the RPF or chosen the Freedom to Choose Option by May 31,2013, they will be in DEFAULT of their maintenance fees and subject to the default Provisions outlined in their  Vacation Interval Agreement. The provisions Kirk Wankel listed under this Paragraph are not listed under item number 13/ Default of the Lessee in any payment required under this LEASE: He is telling us we are in Default even before there is one court case and keeping us out of the resort. This means our contracts have been terminated. We have been in DEFAULT for 51/2 years. Owner #1 read Default Of The LEESEE IN ANY PAYMENT REQUIRED UNDER THIS (LEASE The 16 months is gone. The same story every one had to pay the 26.8% interest not true JUSTICE YOUNG ruled No more than 5% in a year. Justice Gill will not change because Northmont wants him too. Our member of Parliament RICHARD GOTFRIED says we own nothing. The reason a lot of this happened the way it did is the Service Alberta Minister should of acted using the FAIR TRADING ACT. This is WHY Bill 31 was passed Dec.13, 2017 Prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts, unless the Consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract. This is covered under my contact under items 37 and 38.


----------



## Rider Nation Rocks

Long time passing for Justice Gill.  Two months and still no ruling. Is the whole BC and Alberta justice system about to be thrown under the bus or will the status quo of incompetent foul smelling questionable decisions continue. Anyone know what was really on the table. I get that the  Oct 10th hearing dealt with the 5% vs loan shark interest rates,  but were there appeal arguments related to the original Judge Young decision from a year ago also presented that day as well. After five years I guess a couple extra months may not  be significant but it seems like a long time, unless Justice Gill is attempting to revisit the entire five year cluster*&^%($$$. i mean ordeal. I sort of have lost interest after five years but still check in on occasion and sure am curious if there is really only 72 or whatever who still have skin in the game.


----------



## lost and confused

Justice Gill's decision on the appeal and cross appeal was filed today.  Attached is the PDF.


----------



## torqued

Now what??  I’m sure they will pull some sort of crap to ruin Christmas


----------



## servemeout

The decision concerning the interest rate has been given by the court.  In the last communication the following was stated: "We expect an outcome soon and as always will respect the authority of the court".  It is YOUR responsibility to adjust your illegal interest rate.  Would anyone else call this action contempt of court?  Northmont lost!! 

In keeping with the rest of the false and misleading statement, building 100 and 200 will not be renovated and none of Hillside will be renovated as the land/cash grab has been done.  Remember that the amount charged was for* ALL of the resort to be done*.  The NAFR is half gone but the bill stayed the same.  Something very wrong with this scenario.  Please don't call me an OWNER, we only rented time.


----------



## GypsyOne

What is wrong is that we are dealing with dishonest /opportunistic people, an illegal release fee, a bogus renovation project, and corrupt courts.


----------



## Bill4728

So will Northmont be allowed to charge 24%  or have to charge 5%?


----------



## servemeout

Contracts signed before 2003 are only allowed 5% per year,  which is keeping within the Interest Act for Canada.


----------



## Floyd55

So where does that leave all of those who were unfairly strong armed by our own counsel to pay the ransom to these thieves before the issue of interest was able to be addressed? This whole affair stinks!


----------



## GypsyOne

Tis the season of fellowship and goodwill. Yet we read many stories on social media of people paying hard-earned money, often at great hardship, to get away from nefarious individuals who would use the system to take our money. No Goodwill there, but an egregious miscarriage of justice. How this could happen in a civilized country that operates under the rule of law is both astonishing and sad.


----------



## servemeout

Sorry for duplicate


----------



## servemeout

Floyd55, I agree that this whole affair stinks.  If you paid the settlement(aka ransom)  your money will not be returned.  The last line on the second paragraph of the latest pack of lies is that any interest previously paid is not affected.  I personally have never seen a snake with pockets.  Which pocket did the sale of Hillside go into?  Did any "owner"  get a share?  How about the ransoms -which pocket was that put into?  The original amount of the RPF was given without three quotes and we were all told that it would be the stated amount.  What upfront and honest business does not get more that one quote?  We were not asked, we were told, the amount we would pay, and it you did not like it we will sue you A-- off.  Very sad situation.
Quote from the 2019 MF communication:  Second, the Resort continues to deal with ongoing delinquency from the residual actively disputing Owners.. ongoing issues and we will manage it as reasonable as we can."  Any new legal case can present items not considered in other court actions and would not be_ res judicata_. Did the group of judges know that Hillside would be sold off and Riverside would not all be renovated?    They bought into the given amount for the whole resort to be renovated. 

And Gypsyone tis the season, and if I recall it was very close to this time last year that the Excellent settlement agreement was reached without pre -consultation.  Looking forward to next Christmas!


----------



## MarcieL

Nothing will change by next Christmas, with the exception of having more recovery time, enabling us to put this mess in the rear view mirror.   Many law suits in the works apparently, let us hope that those that are continuing this battle, have competent counsel with some restitution being realized.


----------



## Tanny13

Anyone know what's happening at Lake Okanagan?  I can see from this site that they've been given a deadline of January 15 and it looks and smells very similar to what we've been through...


----------



## Disappointed Canadian

Yes it is very similar but not as well executed.  No payment payment plan, no real information except for “give us your money”.  I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them.  These people are so shady and such crooks.

I have been following this for a few years now but never posted.  ‘We got suckered into the lawsuit after seeing it here, lost and are paying.  Such a waste of money that it sometimes keeps me awake at night.  I wish I had never seen there was a lawsuit but thought we would win.  Our lawyer was either the worst lawyer alive or just someone who got bought by Wankel.  We will probably never know but I hope we do someday.

Any news on the people fighting?  Even though it is too late for us, I am hoping they win.  Someone has to win against them.  Why is this not on one of those news TV shows?  This is a very interesting story I feel and affects so many Canadians and Americans.

Just a side note, we were in Mexico at a Vadanta resort in Riviera Maya in November and my husband met another couple that got caught up in this mess.  Unfortunately I wish I had been there because they were as upset as us and I would have loved to have had a chat them them just for consoling purposes if nothing else.  I guess they have followed her and fell for the lawsuit scheme.  I just can’t get around how our government is so corrupt and inept.


----------



## GypsyOne

I don't think the BC Government was inept so much as opportunistic. They did not want a popular tourist destination to fail nor have to prop it up with public money. So they were able to have capital costs of a failing building structure, which should have been the responsibility of the Developer, off-loaded to the timeshare owners/lessees. 15000 timeshare owners thought their lease agreements protected their interests; 15000 timeshare owners were wrong. I don't blame our legal team nor JEKE, who were also blindsided, but I do blame Kirk Wankel and the Northmont gang, the opportunistic BC Government, and a compliant court system that did the Government's wishes. The timeshare owners were completely victimized by a corrupt system in favor of the BC Government and the Developer.


----------



## Disappointed Canadian

GypsyOne, I agree but how in this day and age can our government be this way.  They are always giving away money, apologizing to someone and then they let this happen.  I want an apology from them letting this happen.  I do have to say Kirk Wankel and his band of lawyers are smart cookies to have planned all this but our government or law makers need to stop this kind of thing happening or it will just continue. They have seen where the pot at the end of the rainbow is.  I am just so bitter about it.  We really got taken because we had both Fairmont and Lake OKANAGAN and to top it all off we did the Legacy scheme.  We must be huge suckers.


----------



## GypsyOne

Don't expect an apology from the BC government; they were part of the problem. To make this institutionalized scam work it took some degree of collusion between three entities. Firstly, the schemers at Northmont who recognized a lucrative opportunity when they saw it; secondly, the BC government who have long had a reputation for "pay-to-play" and did not want a popular tourist destination to fail nor have to prop it up with public money; thirdly, a compliant justice system that knows which side its bread is buttered on.  The Fairmont site is a beautiful property with considerable potential for tourist development. Future development would be more profitable if they could evict the timeshare owners, preferably have them pay to leave, thus also being a huge source of funds for real estate development. The province could easily be cajoled / rewarded into playing ball with the developer, particularly since it was in their own best interest to do so. The courts I don't trust; quite likely they could be influenced by the Province to make the right decision, and all they had to do was to couch the decision in judicial legalese. You can call the timeshare owners suckers, or you can say that we were innocent victims of an institutionalized scam affecting around 15,000 timeshare owners. Disclaimer: I don't know for sure if it happened this way. I'm speculating, but there's lots of supporting evidence.


----------



## J's Garage

So this is mostly unrelated.  Just kind of skimming through the web today and unlike post 5410, I do blame our legal team.

Reading about a scheduled hearing on a citation (related only due to it being BC Law Society.)

Here's an excerpt on the citation; "In or about February 2017, in the course of representing your client MB in family law proceedings, you advised your client contrary to one or more of rules 2.1-1(a), 2.1-3(e), or 5.6-1 of the _Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia_ to withhold $200 from each spousal support payment, *when you knew or ought to have known that if your client followed your advice*, he would be in breach of his Separation Agreement dated March 15, 2016." (emphasis added.)

I guess all I am drawing from this is some hope in that the advice, counsel, and pressure we were given also exemplifies the subsequent harm that followed.

Now the above is now at the stage of "disciplinary action".


----------



## GypsyOne

Re: Blaming our legal team:
I don't think we were going to win this pre-ordained legal action no matter how much our lawyers changed their approach, or even if we had a different legal team. It was in the best interests of the Northmont Schemers and the Province of BC that the timeshare owners would provide the capital to save a failing and poorly constructed facility, and they knew how to make that happen. The courts went along with the Schemers and the Province and ignored the fact that the timeshare owners were tenants leasing time in a facility not owners providing the facility. The timeshare owners were victimized by an institutionalized scam and there's not much our Defenders could do about it.


----------



## Palms to pines

I agree with the above and there are so many places for blame in this fiasco it is absolutely sickening. If ever lambs were led to the slaughter, it was us. However, when our “ defender “ straight up lies to us and then becomes our opposition’s bill collector, that’ s about as bad as it gets. I am so appalled by the lawyers, the justice system, the government agencies and ruthless WOW worshipping CFO’s. Retirement is not that far off for us and because of this situation it is going to be nothing like we once thought it would be. We will never recover from the financial loss of the payout to Northwynd. There is also the loss of trust in the “ system” and this country. And, that feeling of being victimized that never really goes away. It’s our new normal and I hate it.


----------



## Tacoma

Although I agree Northwynd is the main company to blame I am not nearly as kind to our lawyer as you are Gypsy One. Any lawyer worth his licence would have known when we lost this and not kept giving us hope (and taking our payments) for several more years.  Can't go to trial on the same issue and throw everything at it but the kitchen sink I believe was used to describe his style of litigation. Plus his advice to not pay the maintenance fees cost me personally thousands extra and I only "owned" one week. I almost took the deal the April before for around $14000 just to be done but then Geldert came on and said he had a plan and I foolishly held on to the tune of another $10000. Was supposed to be retired by now but I'm still working. Like you Palms to Pines it's the lack of trust in a system that can let this happen that really hurts.


----------



## J's Garage

I'm quite torn.  As much as I'd like to see MG stripped of his license to practice law, I'd feel uneasy for everyone that he would end up selling cars to.


----------



## Spark1

Tacoma said:


> Although I agree Northwynd is the main company to blame I am not nearly as kind to our lawyer as you are Gypsy One. Any lawyer worth his licence would have known when we lost this and not kept giving us hope (and taking our payments) for several more years.  Can't go to trial on the same issue and throw everything at it but the kitchen sink I believe was used to describe his style of litigation. Plus his advice to not pay the maintenance fees cost me personally thousands extra and I only "owned" one week. I almost took the deal the April before for around $14000 just to be done but then Geldert came on and said he had a plan and I foolishly held on to the tune of another $10000. Was supposed to be retired by now but I'm still working. Like you Palms to Pines it's the lack of trust in a system that can let this happen that really hurts.[/





Tacoma said:


> Although I agree Northwynd is the main company to blame I am not nearly as kind to our lawyer as you are Gypsy One. Any lawyer worth his licence would have known when we lost this and not kept giving us hope (and taking our payments) for several more years.  Can't go to trial on the same issue and throw everything at it but the kitchen sink I believe was used to describe his style of litigation. Plus his advice to not pay the maintenance fees cost me personally thousands extra and I only "owned" one week. I almost took the deal the April before for around $14000 just to be done but then Geldert came on and said he had a plan and I foolishly held on to the tune of another $10000. Was supposed to be retired by now but I'm still working. Like you Palms to Pines it's the lack of trust in a system that can let this happen that really hurts.


I received an email a few weeks ago saying Thought I’d let you know I received my invoiced calculated at 26.825% interest. Said I needed to call the resort for the new adjusted rate. Why did it take so long to tell the time Lease owners that 5% number and why so long for the appeal. Interest compounding at 26.825% and Geldert and Wankel’s Threat of 162%. Northmont should have to pay that money they extorted from Lease owners back with interest. Because of the planned bankruptcy you are paying money for something that has no value. This timeshare has as much value as what the promissory note that Wankel sent to the bond holders, it was Zero. The bond holders have now filed a second class suit against the Scammers. Talk to Richard Gotfried and ask him is there any way to sue these crooks using a independent Judge that is not connected with this scam. Every appeal is res judicata. Why waste your money. If Northmont is charging this kind of money the value has to be there. Take that value and use it to get a loan from the bank and see what happens. Justice Romaine allowing this bankruptcy and she is an Alberta Judge automatically means this is a Service Alberta Case therefore they are responsible for  the Consumer Protection ACT. There was no protection from this NDP Service Alberta. Tell them to pay for something that is worthless. Take this to your Ombudsman in each province it would be safer than going in front of these one sidedjudges. When the judge ruled on the appeal this is where it ended as far as I am concerned. That judge felt that $6000.00 plus maintenance fees was ridiculous to expect from time Lease owners and here  the Judges are letting the extorters To take millions from many that can not even afford their monthly bills. I believe these judges are part of this. Geldert is a back stabber. Say what you want but what i see is this was all planned by him and Wankel. Nov03/2017 he sends me the this MLT AIKINS this 9 page $38000.00 document. This was the document he said he would be using to get Northmont to the table. It totally was all about The illegal Unilateral Amendments and modification of our contracts. It also talked about the trustees investigatory Authority, Northmont’s Liability for operating costs,conditions Precedent to action by Corporation/Trustee, the Trustee Must Excercise its Direction to Investigate Northmont,s Request and the Petition Proccding. This was done by a very good lawyer which Geldert told me was his friend. WHY Did they not use this document to get Wankel to the table. Why did Geldert Lie to me and tell me he got them to the table and now they are going to have to pay the 25.4 Million they owe the resort for maintenance of buildings they took over because of cancellations. He also told me they will not be able to remove buildings out of the timeshare and this will bankrupted them. What is Wankel paying Geldert and why did Geldert and David Wotherspoon not use the MLT AIKINS document?


----------



## GypsyOne

More questions than answers. One thing is certain, it's a tangled mess; and maybe that's by design. Who has the time, the resources, and the will to sort out this mess?


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Hello Everyone,

It's been awhile since my last post but like a lot of you I am watching in the background hoping some good will come our way.

Some of us who have been affected by Geldert's deceit have now filed their own claims against him but of special interest is that Geldert has just replied to these claims and both the claim and associated reply are available to view / download on the BC Court website https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/searchPartyResult.do?serviceId=50617112 for a small fee (to do the search put in last name "Geldert" and initial "M").

This is what you should see after you put in the search criteria:




I paid $12 to view and download one of the Claims which gives a bit of insight as to what Geldert thinks he provided as value added services to us, which in my opinion, there is a lot of failings based on what he says he provided versus what we received especially surrounding the final negotiation with Northwynd that truly failed us all even those that were  effectively forced removed by Geldert to fend for themselves.

What I find most interesting in the reply is that there are actual disclosures of settlement amounts made by Geldert - the Claimant was very careful not to specify specific amounts as to not put them in breach of the confidentiality clause but at least to a layman like me Geldert has not given the same consideration to the confidentiality terms which I believe may constitute a breach of the actual settlement agreement.

Now another thing that appears to aggravate matters as part of the great negotiated settlement was the 27% interest penalty incorporated against all of us who were forced into the settlement but there are a number of people who were forced into their settlements or into a consent judgement with pre-2004 contracts that now have more reason to make a Claim against Geldert.  The statuary rate of the Interest Act rate is 5% for these contracts as ruled on by the courts in Dec 2018 - this also means if there are people out there who have yet to settle with a pre-2004 contract they need to ensure to immediately reduce their penalty amount and negotiations should start at the proper amount after interest adjustments, not an inflated interest amount.

Attached is the Interest Act ruling for those that don't have a copy.


----------



## Frustrated YEG

Excellent information and news.  Thank you for this.  Hopefully we can make Mr. Geldert feel the financial pain that we have all had to endure.
However, I also feel some of his cohorts such as Vincent Tong and Barry King from Strathcona Law should bear some responsibility for their lack of knowledge in not bringing this up and allowing this case to continue ad nauseam.  Every lawyer associated with the Geldert Team bears responsibility and should not walk away unscathed.


----------



## J's Garage

At times I do meditate on how much better off (or at least less worse off) we could have been if Geldert had removed the fairy glitter and added some substance to his "comprehensive" updates.  The amount of time he billed the group for repeatedly but individually asking/addressing the near same questions.

Seems there are parallels that could come into play since he charged some pretty pennies to be "resolving" issues he created due to what (IMHO) seems like a Messiah complex.

Here's an interesting read I found that I wonder if we could draw some parallels to: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/lawyer-billing-hours-complaint-family-1.4575847


----------



## MarcieL

Several comments in the above article, leaves little confidence with internal investigations!


----------



## MarcieL

Palms to pines said:


> I agree with the above and there are so many places for blame in this fiasco it is absolutely sickening. If ever lambs were led to the slaughter, it was us. However, when our “ defender “ straight up lies to us and then becomes our opposition’s bill collector, that’ s about as bad as it gets. I am so appalled by the lawyers, the justice system, the government agencies and ruthless WOW worshipping CFO’s. Retirement is not that far off for us and because of this situation it is going to be nothing like we once thought it would be. We will never recover from the financial loss of the payout to Northwynd. There is also the loss of trust in the “ system” and this country. And, that feeling of being victimized that never really goes away. It’s our new normal and I hate it.



We are retired and have no means of recouping the $$.  Holidays and the little luxuries we once had,  are now non existent.  I left my exercise coffee group last week amid tears, as they discussed their cruise holidays.  This experience, has left me an angry, bitter person, with an absolute loss of trust in our legal system.


----------



## Spark1

MarcieL said:


> We are retired and have no means of recouping the $$.  Holidays and the little luxuries we once had,  are now non existent.  I left my exercise coffee group last week amid tears, as they discussed their cruise holidays.  This experience, has left me an angry, bitter person, with an absolute loss of trust in our legal system.





MarcieL said:


> We are retired and have no means of recouping the $$.  Holidays and the little luxuries we once had,  are now non existent.  I left my exercise coffee group last week amid tears, as they discussed their cruise holidays.  This experience, has left me an angry, bitter person, with an absolute loss of trust in our legal system.


Yes it is not just about the money it is about the stress it has caused and stress is a killer. What I would like is all of you to go back to page #96 on Tug and go to Punters Post. Now click on https://offshore leaks and a Sunchaser Resorts INC .lICI Offshore Leaks Database will come up. Go down to the bottom of the page and you will see Murray Moore Director 31-March-2009. This was the date he took over from Collin Knight. Collin Knight started the Bankruptcy of FRPL. Than Murray Moore was replaced by Patrick Fitzsimonds on. 07-July-2010. What this means is Collin Knight set up these accounts before he did his planned bankruptcy. A lady by the name Judy Parkin used wiki leaks to dig up this information. This is what Sandy N Lee Merriman had to say I take it you are referring to Sunchaser Resorts INC that turned up in the Panama Papers through Wiki Leaks, whereby Collin Knight resigned as a director on the day Fairmont declared bankruptcy March 30/2009. Was replaced by none other than Murray Moore,the person given control of Fairmont through bankruptcy. And on the exact day it emerged as Northwynd on July 07,2010, Murray Moore was replaced by Patrick Fitzsimonds. One rarely gets to see a sitting Judge ....Justice Romaine made a fool out of with an orchestratrated Bankruptcy she bought hook,line and sinker, but there it is signed ,sealed, and delivered in the Alberta Queens Bench and because it is nine years old, nothing any of us can do about it. 
    Judy reported this to the CRA .
Sandy asks Judy hopefully you brought this to the CRA’s attention the 89 million dollars of deferred income Fairmont was to declare as income at a rate of 1/40 per year. However instead of reporting any of it, they buried it all in the fake bankruptcy. While the CRA generally can only go back 3 years due to statute barring, they can go back as far as they want when Fraud is involved. I would think a fake bankruptcy  qualifies as fraud, therefore, the tax plus interest on 89 million would bury these guys. My thoughts they should all go to jail. Also was this Judge also connected with these bandits? You have to wonder.


----------



## Spark1

The other fraud that went on was FRPL selling Legacy for Life when they were insolvent. Every one that bought this should check the dates and year and who you bought it from. If the document is Stamped FRPL make sure they were still in business.


----------



## Jack0123

We phoned the Calgary office three weeks ago, they were very polite until they found out we were delinquent owners, we questioned the 5% interest as we are pre 2003, we were told to contact customer care via email and the would be in touch, almost for weeks later and  no response to date, not sure if we should follow up or let sleeping dogs lie, have not paid them any money since 2013


----------



## Spark1

Every one should Google      Federal Corporation information-618114-7-Online Filing Centre-Corporations Canada-Corporations-Innovation,Science and Economic Development Canada
    Go to Corporate History
    Corporate Name History
     2004-01-13 to 2006-03-02.        Sunchaser Resorts INC.
     2006-03-03 to present.               SUNCHASER RESORTS (CANADA) INC.
You have to ask did the Judges Know Collin Knight had these Sunchaser Resort Offshore Accounts.
Did the Judges Know what Resorts in Canada they are talking about?
Did the Judges Know Collin Knight was replaced as director of this Offshore Account on the day Fairmont declared bankruptcy March,2009 by Murray Moore?
Did the Judges Know that Murray Moore was replaced as director by Patrick Fitzsimonds on-07-JUL-201 when Northwynd was created?
 Would the Judges ruled against us Knowing This? Or did they Know and felt that we would never find this information? 
 Every one should take this information to the RCMP or your Politician and show them what a scam this is. I feel we have to get rid of this useless NDP government And Trudeau Government and find out what now with the new governments. Richard Gotfried is receiving all this information. It would be nice to hear from others what we should do now that we know how we all were scammed.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

Spark1 said:


> Every one should Google      Federal Corporation information-618114-7-Online Filing Centre-Corporations Canada-Corporations-Innovation,Science and Economic Development Canada
> Go to Corporate History - Corporate Name History.  - 2004-01-13 to 2006-03-02.        Sunchaser Resorts INC. .........
> 
> Every one should take this information to the RCMP or your Politician and show them what a scam this is. I feel we have to get rid of this useless NDP government And Trudeau Government and find out what now with the new governments. Richard Gotfried is receiving all this information. It would be nice to hear from others what we should do now that we know how we all were scammed.



i hope you are able to get a response .
Good Luck .


----------



## Jack0123

Spark1 said:


> I received an email a few weeks ago saying Thought I’d let you know I received my invoiced calculated at 26.825% interest. Said I needed to call the resort for the new adjusted rate. Why did it take so long to tell the time Lease owners that 5% number and why so long for the appeal. Interest compounding at 26.825% and Geldert and Wankel’s Threat of 162%. Northmont should have to pay that money they extorted from Lease owners back with interest. Because of the planned bankruptcy you are paying money for something that has no value. This timeshare has as much value as what the promissory note that Wankel sent to the bond holders, it was Zero. The bond holders have now filed a second class suit against the Scammers. Talk to Richard Gotfried and ask him is there any way to sue these crooks using a independent Judge that is not connected with this scam. Every appeal is res judicata. Why waste your money. If Northmont is charging this kind of money the value has to be there. Take that value and use it to get a loan from the bank and see what happens. Justice Romaine allowing this bankruptcy and she is an Alberta Judge automatically means this is a Service Alberta Case therefore they are responsible for  the Consumer Protection ACT. There was no protection from this NDP Service Alberta. Tell them to pay for something that is worthless. Take this to your Ombudsman in each province it would be safer than going in front of these one sidedjudges. When the judge ruled on the appeal this is where it ended as far as I am concerned. That judge felt that $6000.00 plus maintenance fees was ridiculous to expect from time Lease owners and here  the Judges are letting the extorters To take millions from many that can not even afford their monthly bills. I believe these judges are part of this. Geldert is a back stabber. Say what you want but what i see is this was all planned by him and Wankel. Nov03/2017 he sends me the this MLT AIKINS this 9 page $38000.00 document. This was the document he said he would be using to get Northmont to the table. It totally was all about The illegal Unilateral Amendments and modification of our contracts. It also talked about the trustees investigatory Authority, Northmont’s Liability for operating costs,conditions Precedent to action by Corporation/Trustee, the Trustee Must Excercise its Direction to Investigate Northmont,s Request and the Petition Proccding. This was done by a very good lawyer which Geldert told me was his friend. WHY Did they not use this document to get Wankel to the table. Why did Geldert Lie to me and tell me he got them to the table and now they are going to have to pay the 25.4 Million they owe the resort for maintenance of buildings they took over because of cancellations. He also told me they will not be able to remove buildings out of the timeshare and this will bankrupted them. What is Wankel paying Geldert and why did Geldert and David Wotherspoon not use the MLT AIKINS document?


----------



## Jack0123

I call the Calgary office four weeks ago regarding the 5% interest and was told to contact Customer Care via email and to date have not had any response.


----------



## servemeout

Here is the link advertising the sale of "condo units" which was part of Sunchaser timeshares.  http://www.ownmountainview.ca/  Interesting to note the difference in the reno amount and what will be done.  The initial RPF amount was for all of the resort to be renovated, which was never done and according to this web site will not be done until the units are sold.  Also interesting to note that the 5% interesting rate ruling has not been posted to the Sunchaser web site.   Hillside units are for sale again, so much for the 40 year lease.  Where did the judges have their heads?


----------



## J's Garage

well if we are posting "jokes" today.  There's this -  (wouldn't it have been nice to have the level of service other's alleged they received)

https://www.google.com/search?q=gel...8#lrd=0x548673d58ae4692f:0x3ace772f3b02f374,1,,,


----------



## Spark1

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> It's been awhile since my last post but like a lot of you I am watching in the background hoping some good will come our way.
> 
> Some of us who have been affected by Geldert's deceit have now filed their own claims against him but of special interest is that Geldert has just replied to these claims and both the claim and associated reply are available to view / download on the BC Court website https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/searchPartyResult.do?serviceId=50617112 for a small fee (to do the search put in last name "Geldert" and initial "M").
> 
> This is what you should see after you put in the search criteria:
> View attachment 10307
> 
> I paid $12 to view and download one of the Claims which gives a bit of insight as to what Geldert thinks he provided as value added services to us, which in my opinion, there is a lot of failings based on what he says he provided versus what we received especially surrounding the final negotiation with Northwynd that truly failed us all even those that were  effectively forced removed by Geldert to fend for themselves.
> 
> What I find most interesting in the reply is that there are actual disclosures of settlement amounts made by Geldert - the Claimant was very careful not to specify specific amounts as to not put them in breach of the confidentiality clause but at least to a layman like me Geldert has not given the same consideration to the confidentiality terms which I believe may constitute a breach of the actual settlement agreement.
> 
> Now another thing that appears to aggravate matters as part of the great negotiated settlement was the 27% interest penalty incorporated against all of us who were forced into the settlement but there are a number of people who were forced into their settlements or into a consent judgement with pre-2004 contracts that now have more reason to make a Claim against Geldert.  The statuary rate of the Interest Act rate is 5% for these contracts as ruled on by the courts in Dec 2018 - this also means if there are people out there who have yet to settle with a pre-2004 contract they need to ensure to immediately reduce their penalty amount and negotiations should start at the proper amount after interest adjustments, not an inflated interest amount.
> 
> Attached is the Interest Act ruling for those that don't have a copy.


Are there Albertan’s in this group? And is there Albertan’s that are going after the 5%. I know of some lease owners that would like to take Geldert to court or maybe join the B.C. Lease owners. Keep in mind that Wankel put every one in default 2 years before the trustee petitioned the Supreme Court and also they started the extortion in 2013 of 26.825% from day one April30/2013 therefore if you feel you should pay I do not but if you do I would not allow them to charge any interest because you knew the Interest was much less and they extorted right away in 2013. I still have not seen Freedom To Choose in my Contract or the Northwynd Cancellation Agreement. They will not accept the Default Clause item number 13 when it comes to cancellation why should we accept something that is not in our contract. Please let me know if there is a case started in Alberta and a contact they can talk to.
     Look up   The Free Dictionary By Farlex.   And go down the page and you will see on the left side of page Mention In.   Click on Gag Order.  Geldert has no right to do a gag order against you and he is abusing your rights, do not allow him to do this. It shows just government and a Judge can do this not a lawyer. He was a bill collector not a lawyer also block billing is not legal. Fight for your rights.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

J's Garage said:


> well if we are posting "jokes" today.  There's this -  (wouldn't it have been nice to have the level of service other's alleged they received)
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=gel...8#lrd=0x548673d58ae4692f:0x3ace772f3b02f374,1,,,



I hope more of those affected can post reviews


----------



## J's Garage

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> I hope more of those affected can post reviews



Yes,  Weren't these reviews a riot. "Most law firms make things so complicated and expensive that you end up worse off than when you started. Mr. Geldert always provides humble, honest & accurate services." & "One of the most hard working, straight forward professionals in the game. He's a straight shooter and won't lead you to believe anything but the truth of the situation. Extremely reliable and fair. Incredibly knowledgable(sic) and encouraging. Overall, amazing lawyer. I have had nothing but great experiences with him time after time and will ALWAYS use and recommend him."

A bunch of damn liars anyway


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

J's Garage said:


> Yes,  "Overall, amazing lawyer. I have had nothing but great experiences with him time after time and will ALWAYS use and recommend him."



Yes an amazing lawyer - like the Amazing Kreskin - made thing$  disappear / your money .

Looks like a family & friends forum for posts - surprised he has those .
Perhaps like twitter - you can buy “followers”.


----------



## Lostmyshirt

anyone know how Savageau made out suing them?  Vultures vs vultures?


----------



## LilMaggie

Lostmyshirt said:


> anyone know how Savageau made out suing them?  Vultures vs vultures?


Excellent question!


----------



## LilMaggie

Thanks for the valuable info UB!
Has anyone heard anything more about the BC Law Society looking into MG?  Also, because I am several months out of the loop...does anyone know if people are taking MG to small claims for the over 5% (eg. paid 27%, but should have paid 5%) interest, for all the interest we paid as he was primarily responsible for our having to pay $10,000 ish to the Wankster, for legal fees we paid for poor counsel or for the whole nine yards??


----------



## Spark1

LilMaggie said:


> Thanks for the valuable info UB!
> Has anyone heard anything more about the BC Law Society looking into MG?  Also, because I am several months out of the loop...does anyone know if people are taking MG to small claims for the over 5% (eg. paid 27%, but should have paid 5%) interest, for all the interest we paid as he was primarily responsible for our having to pay $10,000 ish to the Wankster, for legal fees we paid for poor counsel or for the whole nine yards??


What I can not believe is many do not express their feelings about Collin Knight having bank accounts ser up over seas. If you look at that document you will see the change of the director on the day they Bankrupted FRPL and the change of director the day Northwynd was created. So Sunchaser Resorts(Canada)INC was in place from 2006 to now. These people that run Northmont are the same people as FRPL. How can you go Bankrupted when you have offshore Accounts and how can FRPL have bond money left if they went bankrupted.
     Check page 217 item 5420 and you will see who is suing Geldert.


----------



## J's Garage

Well from the bankruptcy documents. "FRP was incorporated on February 9, 1979 in the Province of Alberta and is currently carrying business in the Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia."

Outside Service Alberta's jurisdiction...  yeah BS


----------



## Real World

Where exactly are the overseas bank accounts set up?


----------



## Spark1

Real World said:


> Where exactly are the overseas bank accounts set up?


Use your little finger and you will see the little arrow on this page numbered 1 to 2018. Push on that arrow between 1 and 213 until you get to page 96 of this forum. Now look for Punters post No. 2377 which will be http://Offshoreleaks.icijorg/nodes/101722595 click on this. It will show Offshore Leaks Database at the top and on the bottom page it will show the directors from 09-July-2003 to 31-March-2009. These dates are important Murray Moore replaced Collin Knight the director on 31-March-2009. This date is the day FRPL went Bankrupted. The other important Date is 07-JUL-2010 Murray Moore was replaced by PATRICK J FITZSIMONDS ,this date is when Northwynd was created.
       To find Sunchaser Resorts (Canada)INC all you have to do is Google this.   Federal Corporation Information-618114-7.     And you will bring up 4 pages pertaining to these accounts. You will see 
Sunchaser Resorts INC was Amended to the new corporate name  2006-03-03 Sunchaser Resorts (Canada) INC.  Justice Romaine gave the resort to people that already had accounts set up for this great gift.


----------



## Real World

Spark1 said:


> Use your little finger and you will see the little arrow on this page numbered 1 to 2018. Push on that arrow between 1 and 213 until you get to page 96 of this forum. Now look for Punters post No. 2377 which will be http://Offshoreleaks.icijorg/nodes/101722595 click on this. It will show Offshore Leaks Database at the top and on the bottom page it will show the directors from 09-July-2003 to 31-March-2009. These dates are important Murray Moore replaced Collin Knight the director on 31-March-2009. This date is the day FRPL went Bankrupted. The other important Date is 07-JUL-2010 Murray Moore was replaced by PATRICK J FITZSIMONDS ,this date is when Northwynd was created.
> To find Sunchaser Resorts (Canada)INC all you have to do is Google this.   Federal Corporation Information-618114-7.     And you will bring up 4 pages pertaining to these accounts. You will see
> Sunchaser Resorts INC was Amended to the new corporate name  2006-03-03 Sunchaser Resorts (Canada) INC.  Justice Romaine gave the resort to people that already had accounts set up for this great gift.



After carefully reading your post it is apparent that you don't know where the overseas bank accounts are set up or even if they exist.

Directors are added and deleted from corporations and their recorded business addresses have nothing to do with bank accounts.

Corporations are created and dissolved and their recorded business addresses have nothing to do with bank accounts.

Why don't you post where the overseas bank accounts are so everyone has this important information?


----------



## Spark1

Real World said:


> After carefully reading your post it is apparent that you don't know where the overseas bank accounts are set up or even if they exist.
> 
> Directors are added and deleted from corporations and their recorded business addresses have nothing to do with bank accounts.
> 
> Corporations are created and dissolved and their recorded business addresses have nothing to do with bank accounts.
> 
> Why don't you post where the overseas bank accounts are so everyone has this important information?


Paradise Papers-Barbados corporate registry. I gave you the instructions how to download the documents so I see you know more about this than I do so now you can tell us whether this information can lead to bank accounts. Remember social media is our condo association and I welcome your input to this research. I can tell you Lee Merriman felt this was totally connected to FRPL because of the changing of directors on those two dates. Reading your post looks like you did not download these documents. This is why we post this information so we all can get involved. You brought up good information and hopefully you can find out why the changing of directors on those two dates that pertain to the date of the bankruptcy and the date Northwynd was created.


----------



## Real World

I agree 100% that we post information so we all can get involved.
The most important word in the preceding sentence is the word "information".
A common definition of "Information" is "Facts provided or learned about something or someone".
The facts you are providing relate to the registration of corporations and their directors in a foreign jurisdiction.
There are no facts provided related to bank accounts in a foreign jurisdiction so there is no information about bank accounts.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but they should make it clear that it is an opinion.

it is my opinion that passing off opinion as fact can be extremely dangerous.


----------



## Spark1

Real World said:


> I agree 100% that we post information so we all can get involved.
> The most important word in the preceding sentence is the word "information".
> A common definition of "Information" is "Facts provided or learned about something or someone".
> The facts you are providing relate to the registration of corporations and their directors in a foreign jurisdiction.
> There are no facts provided related to bank accounts in a foreign jurisdiction so there is no information about bank accounts.
> 
> Everyone is entitled to their opinion but they should make it clear that it is an opinion.
> 
> it is my opinion that passing off opinion as fact can be extremely dangerous.


Are you being [comment removed by moderator] I gave you all the information needed to search this material. This can be connected to this bankruptcy of FRPL. It can envolve bank accounts and tax invasion. [Comments removed by moderator]

*MOD NOTE: Play nice people. We can disagree without profanity or making things personal. This goes to all parties.

*


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> Are you being [comment removed by moderator] I gave you all the information needed to search this material. This can be connected to this bankruptcy of FRPL. It can envolve bank accounts and tax invasion. [Comments removed by moderator]
> 
> *MOD NOTE: Play nice people. We can disagree without profanity or making things personal. This goes to all parties.
> *


This is my last Post.


----------



## LilMaggie

Thank you Moderator.


----------



## Huckleberry

I realize this has been a disaster, but losing our heads and attacking each other only serves to harm ourselves.

Yes. Wankel, and the Northwynd (etc) organizations screwed us all over and played the system perfectly.  There is a mountain of evidence around unethical and quite possibly illegal practices.  It appears only Richard Gotfried seems to care about what happened outside of the people affected, and only a UCP government in Alberta will have any probability of any justice coming from this.  It is unfortunate we live in such times where apathy or victim hood is stronger than a sense of fairness in society and current Government today.

But I doubt any money will ever be recovered here from anyone who was a time share owner.  It tastes like acid in my mouth to say it, but they have completely won.  They have taken the mountain of our money and buried it likely overseas, and then wildly profited from the free real estate windfall.  They have screwed over the timeshare owners, the investors ,and apparently even their lawyer and have made hundreds of millions of dollars for their unconscionable behaviour with zero accountability.

If you have been paying attention, there is starting to crop up a small handful of lawsuits against Geldert in small claims court.  A few people have lead the way and as it was pointed out for a few dollars you can download the lawsuit and claims.  If you feel that Geldert has wronged you and caused damages to you financially or otherwise by his actions, this would seem to be an avenue for you to consider.  It will be interesting to see if people are individually willing to step up for themselves and realize all the pieces resulting from hundreds of hours of work from others that is available at their fingertips.  But everyone also has to realize they have to do at least some of the work themselves.

I am personally surprised the number of lawsuits isn't currently in the hundreds or even a thousand against Geldert. But maybe everyone is still under the false hope that some shining knight will swoop in and make this all better, or perhaps most people don't feel that Geldert caused them harm with his actions.

I would caution anyone considering this to realize there is some time sensitivity due to time limitations for initiating a lawsuit.  If you are going to act, now would be a good time to get digging in.  There is nothing wrong with grouping together with others who desire a similar action plan and outcome but filing individual lawsuits.

Whatever your decision, good luck to everyone and I wish you the best.   But please stop hoping for some white knight to ride in and hit the reset button.  It's just simply not going to happen.

If your last name is Wankel or Geldert, I can only say I hope you get everything that you deserve.

- Huck


----------



## MarcieL

Perhaps many are suffering from timeshare exhaustion, and as for me i don't have any remaining $$ to launch law suits, due to a hefty invoice of nearly 40 grand, in our 70's.  I think it is presumptuous on your part to state, that we are hoping for a white knight to ride in and save us, most realize that isn't going to happen.  As for the hundred of hours of work put in by others, that was their choice and for their own benefit, kudos to them.  Many of us have lives outside of this ongoing saga, and sadly would like to move on, for our remaining years.


----------



## Jack0123

MarcieL said:


> Perhaps many are suffering from timeshare exhaustion, and as for me i don't have any remaining $$ to launch law suits, due to a hefty invoice of nearly 40 grand, in our 70's.  I think it is presumptuous on your part to state, that we are hoping for a white knight to ride in and save us, most realize that isn't going to happen.  As for the hundred of hours of work put in by others, that was their choice and for their own benefit, kudos to them.  Many of us have lives outside of this ongoing saga, and sadly would like to move on, for our remaining years.


We have not paid any money since 2013, except to Geldert whish was a disaster, which we all know, We are in the 5% interest group and have been speaking to Karen at Northwynd, she has asked us to make a proposal that she can take to management, I assume that the price is not up to negotiate but perhaps some kind of payment plan. Just curious if anyone else has had the same discussion with Northwynd
Just want for this nighmare to pass, we are in our late 70ies and this is something we can afford, Jack


----------



## Jack0123

We are still technical owners at Fairmont, have not paid any monies since 2013, we are in the 5% Interest rate which has dropped us for about 35,000 owing down to 20,000. Have spoke to Northwynd and they was us to submit an offer to get out of this mess. Has anyone negotiated with Northwynd directly, We are attempting an offer but do not want to leave any money on the table..any advise would be appreciated.. Thanks   Jack


----------



## servemeout

Jack0123, most times the person that mentions money first, sets the negotiations.  The first person to set an amount set both the minimum and the maximum depending on if you are selling or buying.   Ask them to give you a settlement amount.  Keep in mind that the five percent rate ruling is Only 5% per year not compounded.  We did a spread sheet on what we would owe.  The Fees in 2014 were $949.80 with the interest being $47.49 for the year.  In 2015 MF were $1004.45 with interest being $50.23.  It is not uncommon for lending institutions to accept as low as 10 -15% on the dollar.  Like it or not they have done what they wanted to do, grab the land and sell it off.  We still have the opinion that what we had left in lease years was worth something and it was, just not to us, only Wankel got the benefit.  Hope this may help.


----------



## truthr




----------



## truthr




----------



## truthr




----------



## Palms to pines

Thank you for your time Truth! I hope you share it with the Law Society of British Columbia! I do feel duped and embarrassed , ashamed and victimized. We paid out so much money to this scam that we will never recover from it. Our previous  experience with lawyers was limited but positive. I still believe we had a great case, just the absolute bottom of the barrel representation. Geldert is incompetent and a liar. I’m still hoping he gets what he deserves.


----------



## truthr

Palms to pines said:


> Thank you for your time Truth! I hope you share it with the Law Society of British Columbia! I do feel duped and embarrassed , ashamed and victimized. We paid out so much money to this scam that we will never recover from it. Our previous  experience with lawyers was limited but positive. I still believe we had a great case, just the absolute bottom of the barrel representation. Geldert is incompetent and a liar. I’m still hoping he gets what he deserves.


Thanks Palms to pines 

My time has been taken up with going to Edmonton to work with new lawyers to defend Judge Young's 5% interest ruling for pre2004 contracts that Northmont appealed in addition to researching as to whether an appeal of her original decision was viable.  Fortunately we won the cross appeal, due to sound advice from our new lawyers we did not proceed with the appeal.

In as much as I would love to file an official report with the Law Society of BC and AB I only have so much time and energy and right now I am focused on revealing/exposing as much accurate information as I can for anyone and everyone.  There have been many complaints filed and to my knowledge it is being investigated so again I am focusing my time and energy on this.  The Law Society of BC know who I am and how to reach me should they need anything.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have shared with, worked with and provided support to me and continue to do so.
I would also like to thank all those who have filed a report with either and/or both of the Law Societies.

This is not over.


----------



## Fuxtor

Hello, I'm new to the forum. We are unfortunately caught in this scam as well. We are very curious if anyone has actually been taken to court yet for overdue fees? We never have given a dime since the poop hit the fan!


----------



## truthr




----------



## J's Garage

just another viewpoint here.  it looks like it's been referred to before.  but I'm listening if someone wants to explain this to us.

Code of Professional Conduct - BC Law Society

Section 6.1-4 (Suspended or disbarred lawyers)

Without the express approval of the lawyer’s governing body, a lawyer must not retain, occupy office space with, use the services of, partner or associate with or employ in any capacity having to do with the practice of law any person who, in any jurisdiction,

(a)     has been disbarred and struck off the Rolls,

(b)     is suspended,

(c)     has undertaken not to practise,

(d)     has been involved in disciplinary action and been permitted to resign and has not been reinstated or readmitted,

(e)     has failed to complete a Bar admission program for reasons relating to lack of good character and repute or fitness to be a member of the Bar,

(f)     has been the subject of a hearing ordered, whether commenced or not, with respect to an application for enrolment as an articled student, call and admission, or reinstatement, unless the person was subsequently enrolled, called and admitted or reinstated in the same jurisdiction, or

(g)     was required to withdraw or was expelled from a Bar admission program.

amended Apr 2013

"*The rules in this Code should guide the conduct of lawyers, not only in the practice of law, but also in other activities."*

https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/suppor...of-professional-conduct-for-british-columbia/


----------



## truthr

J's Garage said:


> just another viewpoint here.  it looks like it's been referred to before.  but I'm listening if someone wants to explain this to us.
> 
> Code of Professional Conduct - BC Law Society
> 
> Section 6.1-4 (Suspended or disbarred lawyers)
> 
> Without the express approval of the lawyer’s governing body, a lawyer must not retain, occupy office space with, use the services of, partner or associate with or employ in any capacity having to do with the practice of law any person who, in any jurisdiction,
> 
> (a)     has been disbarred and struck off the Rolls,
> 
> (b)     is suspended,
> 
> (c)     has undertaken not to practise,
> 
> (d)     has been involved in disciplinary action and been permitted to resign and has not been reinstated or readmitted,
> 
> (e)     has failed to complete a Bar admission program for reasons relating to lack of good character and repute or fitness to be a member of the Bar,
> 
> (f)     has been the subject of a hearing ordered, whether commenced or not, with respect to an application for enrolment as an articled student, call and admission, or reinstatement, unless the person was subsequently enrolled, called and admitted or reinstated in the same jurisdiction, or
> 
> (g)     was required to withdraw or was expelled from a Bar admission program.
> 
> amended Apr 2013
> 
> "*The rules in this Code should guide the conduct of lawyers, not only in the practice of law, but also in other activities."*
> 
> https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/suppor...of-professional-conduct-for-british-columbia/



Yup pretty much sums it up.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## truthr

Huckleberry said:


> I realize this has been a disaster, but losing our heads and attacking each other only serves to harm ourselves.
> 
> Yes. Wankel, and the Northwynd (etc) organizations screwed us all over and played the system perfectly.  There is a mountain of evidence around unethical and quite possibly illegal practices.  It appears only Richard Gotfried seems to care about what happened outside of the people affected, and only a UCP government in Alberta will have any probability of any justice coming from this.  It is unfortunate we live in such times where apathy or victim hood is stronger than a sense of fairness in society and current Government today.
> 
> But I doubt any money will ever be recovered here from anyone who was a time share owner.  It tastes like acid in my mouth to say it, but they have completely won.  They have taken the mountain of our money and buried it likely overseas, and then wildly profited from the free real estate windfall.  They have screwed over the timeshare owners, the investors ,and apparently even their lawyer and have made hundreds of millions of dollars for their unconscionable behaviour with zero accountability.
> 
> If you have been paying attention, there is starting to crop up a small handful of lawsuits against Geldert in small claims court.  A few people have lead the way and as it was pointed out for a few dollars you can download the lawsuit and claims.  If you feel that Geldert has wronged you and caused damages to you financially or otherwise by his actions, this would seem to be an avenue for you to consider.  It will be interesting to see if people are individually willing to step up for themselves and realize all the pieces resulting from hundreds of hours of work from others that is available at their fingertips.  But everyone also has to realize they have to do at least some of the work themselves.
> 
> I am personally surprised the number of lawsuits isn't currently in the hundreds or even a thousand against Geldert. But maybe everyone is still under the false hope that some shining knight will swoop in and make this all better, or perhaps most people don't feel that Geldert caused them harm with his actions.
> 
> I would caution anyone considering this to realize there is some time sensitivity due to time limitations for initiating a lawsuit.  If you are going to act, now would be a good time to get digging in.  There is nothing wrong with grouping together with others who desire a similar action plan and outcome but filing individual lawsuits.
> 
> Whatever your decision, good luck to everyone and I wish you the best.   But please stop hoping for some white knight to ride in and hit the reset button.  It's just simply not going to happen.
> 
> If your last name is Wankel or Geldert, I can only say I hope you get everything that you deserve.
> 
> - Huck



Disaster is an understatement.

Yes there are a small handful of lawsuits cropping up.  Unfortunately, for whatever reason, they are not sharing any details to assist others in a pursuit of possible restitution.

Yes there are statute of limitations for initiating a lawsuit which I will be addressing in an upcoming blog post.  I encourage anyone who is even contemplating initiating a lawsuit to do precisely what Huck has said - start forming groups.  You can do that by doing a shout out here to start gathering people with similar interest and/or who are in your area so you can get together in real life; toss around ideas, divvy up the research and information gathering and support each other.


----------



## truthr

Fuxtor said:


> Hello, I'm new to the forum. We are unfortunately caught in this scam as well. We are very curious if anyone has actually been taken to court yet for overdue fees? We never have given a dime since the poop hit the fan!



My suggestion is to read at least the past few pages of this thread.  As you will see there has been a few judgments against the "Geldert Group" which you can view on CanLii, just go to the site and search Northmont in the provinces of AB and BC to view the rulings - doesn't cost any money just your time.  Good luck


----------



## truthr




----------



## truthr




----------



## truthr




----------



## truthr




----------



## truthr




----------



## truthr




----------



## heydynagirl

truthr said:


>


Many thanks Truth for all the time and effort you are putting in to this debacle.  Finally, I am beginning to understand this whole mess.


----------



## truthr

heydynagirl said:


> Many thanks Truth for all the time and effort you are putting in to this debacle.  Finally, I am beginning to understand this whole mess.


You are welcome and thanks for taking the time to let me know your appreciation.  On days when I feel overwhelmed by the amount of paperwork I read  trying to decipher it all and what to share it is comments like this that keep me keeping on.


----------



## dotbuhler

Many of us still stand by our principles and refuse to pay the ransom. We get our annual invoices from whatever they are calling themselves this week and dispose of them in file 13. Because we quietly continue to safeguard our Serenity and our Sanity we compartmentalize this as another example of the Injustice System at work in Canada in the present day and age. But we always Hope that at some point things will improve. We warn others against investing in timeshares...Once bitten, Twice shy...My heartfelt sympathy goes out to everyone who paid because fear and paranoia, as much as Wankel and Geldert, had become their worst enemy.


----------



## truthr

dotbuhler said:


> Many of us still stand by our principles and refuse to pay the ransom. We get our annual invoices from whatever they are calling themselves this week and dispose of them in file 13. Because we quietly continue to safeguard our Serenity and our Sanity we compartmentalize this as another example of the Injustice System at work in Canada in the present day and age. But we always Hope that at some point things will improve. We warn others against investing in timeshares...Once bitten, Twice shy...My heartfelt sympathy goes out to everyone who paid because fear and paranoia, as much as Wankel and Geldert, had become their worst enemy.



I understand what you are saying Dot but principles alone do not pay the bills and as you know the group is a mixture of young families and senior citizens.  Not paying a court judgment could and would have devastating affects on - young families, some still trying to establish a good credit score and seniors wanting to hang on to whatever assets they have accumulated over the years. 

Each and every person has their own personal reason for the when and why they did what they did.  This whole situation has taken a toll on everyone - financially, emotionally and physically.  Bankruptcies, divorces, heart attacks and strokes to name a few.

So although you say fear and paranoia I would add stark reality.


----------



## Cheemo

dotbuhler said:


> Many of us still stand by our principles and refuse to pay the ransom. We get our annual invoices from whatever they are calling themselves this week and dispose of them in file 13. Because we quietly continue to safeguard our Serenity and our Sanity we compartmentalize this as another example of the Injustice System at work in Canada in the present day and age. But we always Hope that at some point things will improve. We warn others against investing in timeshares...Once bitten, Twice shy...My heartfelt sympathy goes out to everyone who paid because fear and paranoia, as much as Wankel and Geldert, had become their worst enemy.


As an owner who finally settled, I would like to point out that “fear and paranoia” were not factors in my decision.  It was finally accepting the fact that we lost.  We tried every possible means at our disposal (with a tremendous amount of work  by and support from Truth) ...we lost  (albeit with the help of our esteemed lawyer) our legal battles .  The simple fact is - - you lose, you pay.  I accepted the fact that we lost and I paid. I would like to think that my principles were not compromised by my decision.


----------



## dotbuhler

truthr said:


> I understand what you are saying Dot but principles alone do not pay the bills and as you know the group is a mixture of young families and senior citizens.  Not paying a court judgment could and would have devastating affects on - young families, some still trying to establish a good credit score and seniors wanting to hang on to whatever assets they have accumulated over the years.
> 
> Each and every person has their own personal reason for the when and why they did what they did.  This whole situation has taken a toll on everyone - financially, emotionally and physically.  Bankruptcies, divorces, heart attacks and strokes to name a few.
> 
> 
> The sole reason I posted this was to put to rest the rumour that I was part of a negotiation handled by you and about 40 others with Wankel. Everyone chooses their own path and what works for them. But, as I have reiterated "NOT ONE RED CENT"!


----------



## dotbuhler

Cheemo said:


> As an owner who finally settled, I would like to point out that “fear and paranoia” were not factors in my decision.  It was finally accepting the fact that we lost.  We tried every possible means at our disposal (with a tremendous amount of work  by and support from Truth) ...we lost  (albeit with the help of our esteemed lawyer) our legal battles .  The simple fact is - - you lose, you pay.  I accepted the fact that we lost and I paid. I would like to think that my principles were not compromised by my decision.


Because I heard that my name was being bandied about as taking part in a group negotiation with Wankel, led by Truth, I needed to set the record straight here. If you felt defensive by my comment, I am sorry, but this was just a statement regarding myself and my actions. I am glad that you now have Serenity and Peace of mind at whatever cost.


----------



## truthr

dotbuhler said:


> Because I heard that my name was being bandied about as taking part in a group negotiation with Wankel, led by Truth, I needed to set the record straight here. If you felt defensive by my comment, I am sorry, but this was just a statement regarding myself and my actions. I am glad that you now have Serenity and Peace of mind at whatever cost.


Dot - I had no idea that your name has been associated with me - that certainly did not come from me.
So for the record to whomever bandied Dot with me - did not happen, as a matter of fact, to my knowledge Dot has not ever been part of any group led by me.


----------



## truthr

Get out the popcorn and your favorite beverage and get comfortable because what I am about to share with you is NOT all in the document provided on my blog post.


----------



## ecwinch

Good job in sleuthing out Belfry and Wankel were in undisclosed participants in the Super Conference - despite the Judge directly asking that all participants identify themselves. 

And great point about Geldert not informing his clients that they could use of their intervals by paying dues. That point is critical as payment of those dues would have significantly reduced the basis that interest% was applied to.

You might consider that Geldert's was only actually being truthful when he responded that he was in Edmonton after he said he was in Vancouver. Because he made that same slip on pg 16, line 39. 

And while you might not be a lawyer, you certainly could be. Keep up the good work.


----------



## truthr

ecwinch said:


> Good job in sleuthing out Belfry and Wankel were in undisclosed participants in the Super Conference - despite the Judge directly asking that all participants identify themselves.
> 
> And great point about Geldert not informing his clients that they could use of their intervals by paying dues. That point is critical as payment of those dues would have significantly reduced the basis that interest% was applied to.
> 
> You might consider that Geldert's was only actually being truthful when he responded that he was in Edmonton after he said he was in Vancouver. Because he made that same slip on pg 16, line 39.
> 
> And while you might not be a lawyer, you certainly could be. Keep up the good work.


Thanks Eric 

You are so correct on page 4, line 12 - Madam Justice Loo asks:  _Who else is on the phone?
_
That is when Mr. Sauvageau identifies his two employees that are present.

Personally, I think it is disrespectful for anyone who is present in that type of proceeding to not identify themselves as being privy to it and even more when they are with their legal counsel.  So kudos to Mr. Sauvageau for having some degree of decorum.

With such a lengthy document, with so much to cover and cross reference to connect the dots, it was challenging to pick out what to highlight in a video.

Thanks for your words of encouragement.


----------



## J's Garage

Wonder if the group was invoiced for his trip to Edmonton.  

It just seems like a weird slip.  I guess if he spent a lot of years or had recently moved from there he could have succumbed to habit.


----------



## truthr




----------



## icequeen59

How many of you saw that okanagan resort has declared bankruptcy? What a surprise...not...we are almost seniors.. my husband is on disability and we fight each month to keep our heads above water..we continuously receive notices from northwynd or whomever they are calling themselves this week... we are devastated.. this was to be something we could enjoy after we quit working..instead they are ruining our credit and our health...we dont know what to do..


----------



## Fuxtor

icequeen59 said:


> How many of you saw that okanagan resort has declared bankruptcy? What a surprise...not...we are almost seniors.. my husband is on disability and we fight each month to keep our heads above water..we continuously receive notices from northwynd or whomever they are calling themselves this week... we are devastated.. this was to be something we could enjoy after we quit working..instead they are ruining our credit and our health...we dont know what to do..


Funny, we  only seem to get the overdue notices around every Christmas??  I'm still curious as to who has been taken to court for overdue fees??


----------



## dotbuhler

Fuxtor said:


> Funny, we  only seem to get the overdue notices around every Christmas??  I'm still curious as to who has been taken to court for overdue fees??


2016 I got whacked, under the Belfy ruling, but only court costs indicated. Have not, will not pay one red cent. They can send the notices, I dispose of them unopened. The B.C. courts have never invoiced me, there are no liens against my property, no sheriff has come calling at my door. But as a senior on a fixed income with aging assets...lol..and living in SK, the system here is very generous with the ceiling for property and finances that they are not allowed to touch. It is different in every province, however, and I suspect the more well-heeled of my peers may not be as lucky.


----------



## LilMaggie

truthr said:


>


truthr,
Thank you so much for all the time and energy you are putting into helping those of us left to understand some of the legal wrangling. Although we are aware that we had been played, it is fascinating to see in what ways and when and by whom!  Keep up the awesome work!


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Okay – Christmas in September, I’m in!!!

A new Statement of Claim has recently been filed in the Supreme Court of BC against Geldert that also includes the other lawyers in our litigation defense seeking damages in excess of $40,000,000 and the best part is it is being structured as a Class Action!!!!

Here is a quick exert from the attached:

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.       The Representative Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members at various times between 2013 to 2017 were represented by the Defendants in response to actions initiated by Philip K. Matkin, Northmont Resort Properties Ltd" and their subsidiaries.
2.       The Plaintiff and Class Members assert that during the course of these representations, the Defendants were negligent in a number of areas; and as a result of that negligence, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered financial loss.
3.       The Plaintiff and Class Members assert that. due to a breach of duties of care that was owed to the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendants did not meet the standard of care required. Applicable standards relate to:
(a) competence,
(b) judgment,
(c) reasonable application of the relevant law;
(d) duty to fully inform and warn of risks, and
(e) further particulars as this action proceeds.​

Why am I excited, if this becomes a full-fledged Class Action and a win occurs as a Class Action this will not cost me anything and I may even see a small return from my loss.  To say I am gun shy about this costing me more stress and money is an understatement, but I still want justice for the colossal failure our litigation with Geldert turned out to be.

If you aren’t familiar with what a Class Action is I found a very easy to understand FAQ through a web search for you to have a look at https://www.clg.org/Class-Action/FAQ or https://dialalaw.peopleslawschool.ca/class-actions/ for the basics.

For a Class Action to become a Class Action it will need to be certified by the courts and once it is certified there is a higher degree of oversight which, in my opinion, due to the lack of oversight is why Geldert was able to string us along for so long and it just became the Geldert Show which collectively cost us all millions after so many missteps and the misalignment of objectives (ours was to cost effectively be done with the resort while many others were making huge money prolonging our departure from it).

My interpretation of why the other lawyers are listed, is the other lawyers in the Geldert Club directly shared in how inept the strategy and defense was and also had a duty of care to protect us but failed to exercise this duty of care so also now will get to share a seat at the defendants table.  (I am envisioning 10 lawyers with no life jackets in a row boat that is taking on water whose only objective is to save their own bacon – my bet is at least one of them will quickly come forward for a lifeline in exchange for useful information they are motivated to share).

YES – Christmas in September, without the snow and cold!!!


----------



## CleoB

That is great news Ultimate.  Do you know who the lawyer is?  Do we have to contact the lawyer to let them know that we want to be part of this suit?


----------



## Timesharepain

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Okay – Christmas in September, I’m in!!!
> 
> A new Statement of Claim has recently been filed in the Supreme Court of BC against Geldert that also includes the other lawyers in our litigation defense seeking damages in excess of $40,000,000 and the best part is it is being structured as a Class Action!!!!
> 
> Here is a quick exert from the attached:
> 
> STATEMENT OF FACTS
> 1.       The Representative Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members at various times between 2013 to 2017 were represented by the Defendants in response to actions initiated by Philip K. Matkin, Northmont Resort Properties Ltd" and their subsidiaries.
> 2.       The Plaintiff and Class Members assert that during the course of these representations, the Defendants were negligent in a number of areas; and as a result of that negligence, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered financial loss.
> 3.       The Plaintiff and Class Members assert that. due to a breach of duties of care that was owed to the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendants did not meet the standard of care required. Applicable standards relate to:
> (a) competence,
> (b) judgment,
> (c) reasonable application of the relevant law;
> (d) duty to fully inform and warn of risks, and
> (e) further particulars as this action proceeds.​
> 
> Why am I excited, if this becomes a full-fledged Class Action and a win occurs as a Class Action this will not cost me anything and I may even see a small return from my loss.  To say I am gun shy about this costing me more stress and money is an understatement, but I still want justice for the colossal failure our litigation with Geldert turned out to be.
> 
> If you aren’t familiar with what a Class Action is I found a very easy to understand FAQ through a web search for you to have a look at https://www.clg.org/Class-Action/FAQ or https://dialalaw.peopleslawschool.ca/class-actions/ for the basics.
> 
> For a Class Action to become a Class Action it will need to be certified by the courts and once it is certified there is a higher degree of oversight which, in my opinion, due to the lack of oversight is why Geldert was able to string us along for so long and it just became the Geldert Show which collectively cost us all millions after so many missteps and the misalignment of objectives (ours was to cost effectively be done with the resort while many others were making huge money prolonging our departure from it).
> 
> My interpretation of why the other lawyers are listed, is the other lawyers in the Geldert Club directly shared in how inept the strategy and defense was and also had a duty of care to protect us but failed to exercise this duty of care so also now will get to share a seat at the defendants table.  (I am envisioning 10 lawyers with no life jackets in a row boat that is taking on water whose only objective is to save their own bacon – my bet is at least one of them will quickly come forward for a lifeline in exchange for useful information they are motivated to share).
> 
> YES – Christmas in September, without the snow and cold!!!


Yes..feel out of the loop..is there a class action that we can be part of.. We are in BC and not paid..would like to contact group or lawyer involved .. Thank you to so many that have worked hard to try and solve this nightmare


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

CleoB said:


> That is great news Ultimate.  Do you know who the lawyer is?  Do we have to contact the lawyer to let them know that we want to be part of this suit?


Unfortunately, at this time I do not have a lot of details as the info I have came from the BC Law civil registry using a search for actions against Geldert.


To initiate litigation there are processes in place a plaintiff must follow and one of these is related to date limitations to file a claim.  From the date injury has occurred you have 2 years to file – here is a link to some info on starting a notice of claim https://www.supremecourtbc.ca/sites...arting-an-Action-by-Notice-of-Civil-Claim.pdf.

There are many dates this could be related to the Geldert litigation and when we should have know that the steps he was taking put us in harms way – I believe they are filing well ahead of the most glaring time frame of when we were forced to be Option 1 or Option 2 clients which if I recall happened in late October or early November before the notice of non-sanctioned concluded negotiations in mid December of 2017 which is for sure when we knew the harm.  There are a lot of other parts to this based on when the courts handed down various rulings and the date of injury may be also related to these or possibly it could have something to do with the other actions already registered against Geldert – I am not 100% sure.

The important thing is that the claim has been registered in BC which makes BC residents automatic members if it does certify as a class action and once the ball gets rolling Alberta residents should be able to join in by registering in the future.

The content of what has been filed is very limited and does not have all the evidence associated with the filing but only states the very basic grievances – this can also be modified in the future to include more people affected or changing the dollar amount.  The defendants to the best of my knowledge have not been served and there are a lot of moving parts this is only initiating.

The ball is only starting to roll and this can literally take years but the 1st step is filing to preserve the date - at this point it is fantastic to see someone is taking direct action that can benefit the entire group of people who were harmed by Geldert and company!!!


----------



## MgolferL

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Unfortunately, at this time I do not have a lot of details as the info I have came from the BC Law civil registry using a search for actions against Geldert.
> 
> 
> To initiate litigation there are processes in place a plaintiff must follow and one of these is related to date limitations to file a claim.  From the date injury has occurred you have 2 years to file – here is a link to some info on starting a notice of claim https://www.supremecourtbc.ca/sites...arting-an-Action-by-Notice-of-Civil-Claim.pdf.
> 
> There are many dates this could be related to the Geldert litigation and when we should have know that the steps he was taking put us in harms way – I believe they are filing well ahead of the most glaring time frame of when we were forced to be Option 1 or Option 2 clients which if I recall happened in late October or early November before the notice of non-sanctioned concluded negotiations in mid December of 2017 which is for sure when we knew the harm.  There are a lot of other parts to this based on when the courts handed down various rulings and the date of injury may be also related to these or possibly it could have something to do with the other actions already registered against Geldert – I am not 100% sure.
> 
> The important thing is that the claim has been registered in BC which makes BC residents automatic members if it does certify as a class action and once the ball gets rolling Alberta residents should be able to join in by registering in the future.
> 
> The content of what has been filed is very limited and does not have all the evidence associated with the filing but only states the very basic grievances – this can also be modified in the future to include more people affected or changing the dollar amount.  The defendants to the best of my knowledge have not been served and there are a lot of moving parts this is only initiating.
> 
> The ball is only starting to roll and this can literally take years but the 1st step is filing to preserve the date - at this point it is fantastic to see someone is taking direct action that can benefit the entire group of people who were harmed by Geldert and company!!!


Let us know what steps we need to take in AB to keep the ball rolling now that it started. Great work to all of you that have stuck with it.


----------



## Spark1

This is interesting now the useless lawyers are being sued.


MgolferL said:


> Let us know what steps we need to take in AB to keep the ball rolling now that it started. Great work to all of you that have stuck with it.


----------



## Spark1

Spark1 said:


> This is interesting now the useless lawyers are being sued.


----------



## Spark1

.   Kirk Wankel  is now being sued.


----------



## Spark1

The new Service Alberta Rule in favour of the Timeshare Lease Owners.


----------



## Spark1

If it looks like I do not know what I am doing you are right. I have posted all these on Facebook our Sunchaser Northwynd Class Action Lawsuit.  Group there you can open up the files and read. The Wankel one is 17 pages and very interesting how he used us as his bank. All the files are interesting, the Service Alberta shows breaches of our Lease Contracts. The other one is great suing of these crooked lawyers and some of them become crooked Judges. I tried opening these files and if you can let me know.


----------



## CleoB

Timesharepain said:


> Yes..feel out of the loop..is there a class action that we can be part of.. We are in BC and not paid..would like to contact group or lawyer involved .. Thank you to so many that have worked hard to try and solve this nightmare


May I ask why you think you need to get involved when you haven't been to this point?


----------



## CleoB

Spark1 said:


> .   Kirk Wankel  is now being sued.


Do you know what the date of the Service Alberta document is?


----------



## servemeout

Bill 31 passed Dec 13,2017.


----------



## truthr




----------



## Les Butler

truthr said:


>



My name is Leslie Butler, and I endorse this message.


----------



## truthr




----------



## DaveO

@Les Butler - FYI it was the Jim Belfry group that had initially sought out and recommended Geldert to represent us. I'm unsure of the link but in past emails when they were trying to find a lawyer, he pushed us towards Geldert instead of Hamiltion. I can only assume why that was and what he benefited from this as his company JEKE was the one used at the test trial. I'm also going to assume the money we paid Geldert paid all court costs due for JEKE when they lost.


----------



## truthr




----------



## truthr




----------



## truthr

truthr said:


>



As you can see the video I posted yesterday is unavailable and so is the blog post that went with it.
My apologies - I truly believed that I had double and triple checked my lists, but alas I hadn't checked enough and after noticing that I had made a couple of errors I have spent today re-checking and it turns out I had made more than a couple so I have deleted the video and posts so as not to have incorrect information circulating.
Again my apologies but no fear I will continue to share information.


----------



## truthr




----------



## LilMaggie

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Unfortunately, at this time I do not have a lot of details as the info I have came from the BC Law civil registry using a search for actions against Geldert.
> 
> 
> To initiate litigation there are processes in place a plaintiff must follow and one of these is related to date limitations to file a claim.  From the date injury has occurred you have 2 years to file – here is a link to some info on starting a notice of claim https://www.supremecourtbc.ca/sites...arting-an-Action-by-Notice-of-Civil-Claim.pdf.
> 
> There are many dates this could be related to the Geldert litigation and when we should have know that the steps he was taking put us in harms way – I believe they are filing well ahead of the most glaring time frame of when we were forced to be Option 1 or Option 2 clients which if I recall happened in late October or early November before the notice of non-sanctioned concluded negotiations in mid December of 2017 which is for sure when we knew the harm.  There are a lot of other parts to this based on when the courts handed down various rulings and the date of injury may be also related to these or possibly it could have something to do with the other actions already registered against Geldert – I am not 100% sure.
> 
> The important thing is that the claim has been registered in BC which makes BC residents automatic members if it does certify as a class action and once the ball gets rolling Alberta residents should be able to join in by registering in the future.
> 
> The content of what has been filed is very limited and does not have all the evidence associated with the filing but only states the very basic grievances – this can also be modified in the future to include more people affected or changing the dollar amount.  The defendants to the best of my knowledge have not been served and there are a lot of moving parts this is only initiating.
> 
> The ball is only starting to roll and this can literally take years but the 1st step is filing to preserve the date - at this point it is fantastic to see someone is taking direct action that can benefit the entire group of people who were harmed by Geldert and company!!!


Please let us know if there is anything this group can do to help. I understand that there is the possibility of "owners" who reside outside of BC. to opt in at some point.  I am hoping and praying that someone in his or her infinite wisdom will certify this as a class proceeding in BC. This is the most promising news we've had for years!  Cheers to you truthr and Les Butler for your tireless efforts.
PS Has anyone heard back from the BC law society about complaints we made against MG?


----------



## LilMaggie

DaveO said:


> @Les Butler - FYI it was the Jim Belfry group that had initially sought out and recommended Geldert to represent us. I'm unsure of the link but in past emails when they were trying to find a lawyer, he pushed us towards Geldert instead of Hamiltion. I can only assume why that was and what he benefited from this as his company JEKE was the one used at the test trial. I'm also going to assume the money we paid Geldert paid all court costs due for JEKE when they lost.


I have correspondence with Jim dating back to May of 2013. Reportedly, he had several conversations with MG and was clearly "much more impressed by the responses from Michael Geldert" and that "Mr. Geldert presented himself in a much more professional manner" than Ms. Hamilton.(In his opinion of course)  According to Jim Belfry, the group had already retained Geldert's services.  He obviously could not pressure an individual lessee to follow the plan of action as outlined by the group of owners acting as the steering committee, however he did ask that a person respond at his/her earliest convenience because "time is of the essence". Jim noted the "risk if owners decide to wait until the results of the June 20 hearing". Perhaps a slight push towards MG?
I truly believed that a group of timeshare lessees' had vetted MG and found him to be knowledgeable re:contract law, etc... hindsight and all!!


----------



## truthr




----------



## truthr




----------



## truthr




----------



## LilMaggie

truthr said:


>


Why indeed?!


----------



## J's Garage

Why would "the lawyer" want us to have needed information?
"Control the narrative - control the world" 

But more accurately in this case:

control the narrative - manipulate the client


----------



## J's Garage

Truth,

Whenever I spend some time immersing myself with the content you are providing, I usually spend a few moments remembering the portrait that played out during the waiting period of the Judge Young decision.

Geldert kept feeding us the portrayal of the class action discussions.  (Was there even real discussion of the sort? We certainly don't have any legitimate correspondence referencing any active ongoing discussions with Mr. Docken).  Then he sends us a letter from Wotherspoon that was destined to impart on the audience feelings of empowerment and the image of positional reinforcement.)

All while the "letter" was negated because the decision was already released.  He couldn't be bothered to take the ethical and moral approach and inform his clients about decision in a timely matter, (must have went against the gameplan to keep blowing sunshine....)  I hope he was a little uncomfortable when you broke the news that the decision was released and what was it (10 days or so) before he was able to formulate another spin letter.


----------



## truthr

J's Garage said:


> Truth,
> 
> Whenever I spend some time immersing myself with the content you are providing, I usually spend a few moments remembering the portrait that played out during the waiting period of the Judge Young decision.
> 
> Geldert kept feeding us the portrayal of the class action discussions.  (Was there even real discussion of the sort? We certainly don't have any legitimate correspondence referencing any active ongoing discussions with Mr. Docken).  Then he sends us a letter from Wotherspoon that was destined to impart on the audience feelings of empowerment and the image of positional reinforcement.)
> 
> All while the "letter" was negated because the decision was already released.  He couldn't be bothered to take the ethical and moral approach and inform his clients about decision in a timely matter, (must have went against the gameplan to keep blowing sunshine....)  I hope he was a little uncomfortable when you broke the news that the decision was released and what was it (10 days or so) before he was able to formulate another spin letter.



So true, the continual "false hope" that we paid for dearly, over and over again.


----------



## truthr

My message to all of you today:

https://truths2cents.blogspot.com/2019/12/second-anniversary-message.html


----------



## whose your daddy

truthr said:


> My message to all of you today:
> 
> https://truths2cents.blogspot.com/2019/12/second-anniversary-message.html


I am still receiving invoices from Northwynd for non-payment of maintenance, renovation and interest. I have never been part of the court cases and have never been served with any legal documents.  Would like to know if anyone in my situation has been taken to court.


----------



## Disappointed Canadian

We settled with Northmont for the Fairmont property after signing up with our inept lawyer and lost and now making payments.  I wanted it over with.  I couldn’t take it any longer.  I wish I had ignored it and seen where it went from the very beginning Or even paid the ransom at the beginning.  It would have been much cheaper but you don’t know.  I believed in our court system.   Now Lake Okanagan is sending the credit company after us.  We only owned every other year and only owe for two payments but they had asked for a renovation fee.  Why would I pay that if they want to tear it down.  I just don’t understand this whole scenario.  I do know I won’t get a lawyer involved.  I will just say we don’t use it, they wouldn’t let us use it with RCI after the Fairmont thing went sideways so I will have to see.  I am getting older so maybe I will die before this is over.  Shouldn't then be paying us for what we own Not the reverse?  Who else got sucked into Lake Okanagan as well?  We paid very little for it but it isn’t worth much.  It just upsets me that I again have Credit people against me when I paid Northmont for the Fairmont place.  I don’t belong to the Facebook place because I don’t have a Facebook account but I hope that lawsuit is going good.  Anyone know without giving anything away that would hurt them.  I thought of joining that group but I just have no faith in our courts Now.


----------



## Fuxtor

whose your daddy said:


> I am still receiving invoices from Northwynd for non-payment of maintenance, renovation and interest. I have never been part of the court cases and have never been served with any legal documents.  Would like to know if anyone in my situation has been taken to court.


We continue to receive our yearly invoice from them too. We haven't paid a dime since the whole maintenance shit went down. I was made aware this morning that they are selling individual units from the building now?? Anyone have any info about this??


----------



## Fuxtor




----------



## Tacoma

They've been selling these for about 2 years now. Last time I heard there still had been no renovations done. Amazing how those dangerous pipes are OK to sell to a whole new set of victims.


----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

Well I had a very pleasant email this afternoon from the lawyer who is investigating the complains filed with the BC Law Society related to the conduct of Michael Geldert and just wanted to let everyone know who filed a complaint to probably expect an email from them.

In the event you have changed email addresses you may want to get in touch with the Law Society to have them update your contact info as I think there was a lot of us who made complaints.

What they are looking for will be a lot of work but I believe this is just part of the validation / documentation process to assist in substantiating our claims made in the complaints we submitted.

Either way there is now some personal lawsuits (believe 6) already before the courts where Michael lost the ruling to move them out of small claims, a potential class action being worked on, and now finally some feedback from the BC Law Society.

My day just got brighter but now I have lots of work to do


----------



## Doug

Not sure where to post, new to this. But I received a email this morning from Sunchaser stating effective immediately they have withdrawn from RCI points and all the points I accumulated in 2019 and 2020 have been canceled. No one answering the phone today.
I tried to cancel my trip to Vegas yesterday to get at least a partial refund on the trip but was told my account has been blocked since Nov. 27, 2019.

Anyone else experienced this?

Sent from my SM-N975W using Tapatalk


----------



## LilMaggie

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Well I had a very pleasant email this afternoon from the lawyer who is investigating the complains filed with the BC Law Society related to the conduct of Michael Geldert and just wanted to let everyone know who filed a complaint to probably expect an email from them.
> 
> In the event you have changed email addresses you may want to get in touch with the Law Society to have them update your contact info as I think there was a lot of us who made complaints.
> 
> What they are looking for will be a lot of work but I believe this is just part of the validation / documentation process to assist in substantiating our claims made in the complaints we submitted.
> 
> Either way there is now some personal lawsuits (believe 6) already before the courts where Michael lost the ruling to move them out of small claims, a potential class action being worked on, and now finally some feedback from the BC Law Society.
> 
> My day just got brighter but now I have lots of work to do


I’m still waiting for that email. 
Is there anything we can do to help this process??  I think many of us have been waiting for someone to listen to our concerns for years!


----------



## LilMaggie

I believe that Sunchaser has sold off the old “Hillside” villas.
You are certainly correct Tacoma, that no upgrades or obvious renovations have been completed.  The villas are for sale or you can reserve a suite like you would a hotel room.  I went to the Sunchaser check in office in January 2020 to ask how to check into the new so-called Mountain View Villas and the ladies at the desk seemed to have no idea where/what I was talking about. I said it’s the old Hillside villas that were a part of Sunchaser...still crickets...anyone know if Sunchaser sold off Hillside and for how much? I can’t remember if that was ever part of the resort restructuring plan. Probably...


----------



## Tanny13

Has anyone received any kind of information re the current virus situation, cancellations, etc. re Fairmont?  Does anyone even have any reservations?


----------



## truthr




----------



## Ultimate_Betrayal

truthr said:


>


Truth - this is horrible 

Hearing this makes me ill for the people that Geldert forced into a closed door settlement with Northmont based on his unapproved negotiations that didn't accept his inflated ransom if my math is even close to correct.

So to keep this simple and non adjusted, what is happening is lets say the maintenance fee is $1,200 year 1 and you finally settle with Northmont about 4 years later but never payed your new maintenance fees in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 so very simply the cost to settle may look something like this:
(just guessing at what the maintenance fees are but they were going up every year when I was there so I just kept the going up with nothing being paid year over year)
Year 1 after consent judgement $1,200 maintenance fee (plus year 1 interest (26%) $312 +year 2 interest $312 + year 3 interest $312 = year 1 total $2136
Year 2 after consent judgement $1350 maintenance fee (plus year 2 interest (26%) $351 + year 3 interest $351 = year 2 total $2052
Year 3 after consent judgement $1425 maintenance fee (plus year 3 interest (26%) $370 = year 3 total $1795
Now you decide to settle with Northmont directly and they offer you a release for $2,500 (# pulled out of the air) plus you must bring your account up to date which includes another year of maintenance $1500 so you settle thinking you got a deal and are in the clear for $9,983  (2136 + 2052 + 1795 + 2500 + 1500) when you are thinking this also includes the Geldert negotiated settlement of $24,000 (again just a guess).

Then along comes someone like Francois Sauvageau & Associates who got, bought, or maybe even settled with Northmont for the consent order debt as they did do all the work for Northmont and already have extensive files on all of us who now takes the $24,000 Geldert arranged consent judgement and as they are in the business of debt collecting easily puts a lien on your property or estate which needs to be satisfied 1st before disbursements of funds can occur so the money you think you have is just gone.  

In the same 4 years it took to finally settle with Northmont this $24,000 is now stewing in the background but is something like $42,000 (basically at the completion of every 4 years the initial debt doubles because of the 26% interest which we are going into now but the overall total compounds so in 10 years to something like $86,400 and is 100% legal).
(26% consent interest, year one interest on $24000 - $6240 + year two interest $6240 + year three interest $6240 + ...)

There is no incentive for a debt collector to inform anyone of this debt - it is already approved by the courts and were else can you invest and get guaranteed returns of 26% annually.  All you need to do is watch and wait to ensure a lien is put on at the right time and with a consent judgement in place there is nothing else needed legally required just patients (and the more of them you have the better the return).

This is truly terrible!!! 

I hope this is not correct


----------



## truthr

Ultimate_Betrayal said:


> Truth - this is horrible
> 
> Hearing this makes me ill for the people that Geldert forced into a closed door settlement with Northmont based on his unapproved negotiations that didn't accept his inflated ransom if my math is even close to correct.
> 
> So to keep this simple and non adjusted, what is happening is lets say the maintenance fee is $1,200 year 1 and you finally settle with Northmont about 4 years later but never payed your new maintenance fees in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 so very simply the cost to settle may look something like this:
> (just guessing at what the maintenance fees are but they were going up every year when I was there so I just kept the going up with nothing being paid year over year)
> Year 1 after consent judgement $1,200 maintenance fee (plus year 1 interest (26%) $312 +year 2 interest $312 + year 3 interest $312 = year 1 total $2136
> Year 2 after consent judgement $1350 maintenance fee (plus year 2 interest (26%) $351 + year 3 interest $351 = year 2 total $2052
> Year 3 after consent judgement $1425 maintenance fee (plus year 3 interest (26%) $370 = year 3 total $1795
> Now you decide to settle with Northmont directly and they offer you a release for $2,500 (# pulled out of the air) plus you must bring your account up to date which includes another year of maintenance $1500 so you settle thinking you got a deal and are in the clear for $9,983  (2136 + 2052 + 1795 + 2500 + 1500) when you are thinking this also includes the Geldert negotiated settlement of $24,000 (again just a guess).
> 
> Then along comes someone like Francois Sauvageau & Associates who got, bought, or maybe even settled with Northmont for the consent order debt as they did do all the work for Northmont and already have extensive files on all of us who now takes the $24,000 Geldert arranged consent judgement and as they are in the business of debt collecting easily puts a lien on your property or estate which needs to be satisfied 1st before disbursements of funds can occur so the money you think you have is just gone.
> 
> In the same 4 years it took to finally settle with Northmont this $24,000 is now stewing in the background but is something like $42,000 (basically at the completion of every 4 years the initial debt doubles because of the 26% interest which we are going into now but the overall total compounds so in 10 years to something like $86,400 and is 100% legal).
> (26% consent interest, year one interest on $24000 - $6240 + year two interest $6240 + year three interest $6240 + ...)
> 
> There is no incentive for a debt collector to inform anyone of this debt - it is already approved by the courts and were else can you invest and get guaranteed returns of 26% annually.  All you need to do is watch and wait to ensure a lien is put on at the right time and with a consent judgement in place there is nothing else needed legally required just patients (and the more of them you have the better the return).
> 
> This is truly terrible!!!
> 
> I hope this is not correct



Thanks for responding to my video Ultimate Betrayal.

Just to be clear on a couple of points:

One - this affects not only those who were in "Option 1" - the closed door settlement who did not pay and have a consent judgment filed against them, but also anyone who was a Geldert client who had not settled and been properly released prior to the BC Consolidated Supplementary Decision of Justice Branch and the AB Consolidated Supplementary Decision of Judge Young.

If you are still receiving statements from the resort that means you have not been released and if the amount owing on the statement has lowered, that is the red flag that your debt (which is probably registered with the courts and enforceable) has probably been sold to a debt collector.

If you negotiated to settle and be released, please ensure that your release papers have your "individual" court file number on those settlement/release papers.

Two - interest is compounded, meaning:  Compound interest is interest calculated on the initial principal, which also includes all of the accumulated interest from previous periods.  So year two interest would be higher than year one and so on and so on.

So it could be even worse.


----------



## whose your daddy

I was under the opinion the Justice Gill decision upheld the Justice Young decision that pre-2004 agreements with Northwynd were subject to a maximum 5% interest rate on monies owed. I have not been involved in any of the court actions but have been assuming my risk was less at 5% than at 26% so I felt comfortable in not paying these crooks a dime. Not sure if I would seek a settlement if I am burdened with a 26% penalty but it would help to know. 
Also has anyone who has stayed out of the legal actions and not paid anything been subject to any legal action?  I would appreciate any feedback.


----------



## Fuxtor

We have not given them a dime ever since the renovations were introduced.... I still shake my head! Why on earth would a leasee have to pay any building maintenance??? Anyways, they had the court send out a notice but apparently they had so many individual claims they were thrown away? Haven't heard back since..... But I do keep getting a yearly statement showing how much I still owe.....


----------



## truthr




----------



## Donsterama

So, I'm an executor for an estate for my parents and going through some old mail, and looks like there is a demand for many years of unpaid maintenance fees etc.  related to their timeshare.   Not a nice surprise. Reading the message board there seems to have been a judgement back in 2016.  I'm trying to get the lay of the land on what to do with this very large invoice.   I know I should talk to a lawyer, but I expect people on this message Board have a perspective on where this stands.  Do I settle?  Ignore?  Appreciate anyone's perspective.


----------



## Tacoma

Donsterama this post is pretty much done now so I would post this question on the buying, selling, exchangeing section of this website to ask for advice. Yes the fact that this is Northwynd and all of the drama that occured around this timeshare may make it a bit more difficult but ultimately the people who owned this timeshare are dead and you do not own it. I'm not a lawyer but whatever you do do not let them put this in your name, What can they do to your parents now? Good luck getting advice, I was one of the several hundreds who paid thousands of dollars to get out of this debacle.


----------



## truthr

It has certainly been awhile since anyone has posted anything on this thread.

Update: If you are someone who was a Geldert client that paid out the last settlement or have paid out since please visit my Truths2Cents Facebook page.

Just click on the link below where it says: Like and follow me on Facebook.


----------



## LilMaggie

Hello truthr!  I haven't read or posted anything on this thread for a very long time because I have become so discouraged with the whole affair.  I have not heard a word from the BC Law Society and I am going to contact them again to see it they are completing their inquiry.
I paid the settlement and just renewed my interest in Geldert and Northwynd since the Pandora Papers came out and it got me thinking about this whole fiasco again.  I'm not on Facebook, however I was able to watch your video. Is there any way to contact you regarding what your group is doing now?


----------



## teedeej

TUBBS
Michael Geldert spend $3 million dollars of our money to obtain a “most excellent settlement” (his words) which cost each of us tens of thousands of dollars in maintenance/renovation fees and overdue interest costs so why aren’t there over 1000 negative reviews on social media condemning his lackluster performance? Where’s the outrage??
There are only 21 reviews on Google for the Geldert Law Corporation, of which only 6 are negative.  Overall Michael gets an average rating of 3.9 out of 5!   Why haven’t Geldert’s former Sunchaser clients posted more reviews? Everyone lost a large portion of their savings.
POST A REVIEW!
It is not to late to post a review about Geldert so please do so.


----------



## truthr

Did you file a complaint with the Law Society of BC?


----------



## truthr

I haven't posted here for awhile and don't plan to in the future.
For anyone who is still interested in information about what happened and is happening please visit my blog and/or public Facebook page.
Links below.


----------



## Tanny13

Interesting reading here.   Class action lawsuit has been approved by the courts for the Fairmont bondholders in the amount of $85 million.   This includes the approximately $36 million collected from the timeshare owners.   Class action suit claims that Wankel transferred the funds to a numbered company he controls, along with the remaining real estate.   Although it won't put any money back in our pockets, justice may still prevail...


----------

