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

[melamike]

Here is the list for all the MLA’S in BC. Let’s not limit the contact to your own representative. People are being hurt all over the province and you never know which MLA will step up to take action
https://www.leg.bc.ca/content-committees/Pages/MLA-Contact-Information.aspx

Can someone post these MLA contacts to the master list and re-fresh it for all to see and use in sending out letters? Sorry I don't know how to do that

 

[MarcieL]

That is not true we never ever signed our Vacation Villa Lease over to Michael Geldert or any one. Those are legal Documents and the courts can not do this. The courts will have to show me where I agreed to sign over our Lease contract. Geldert Law was dealing with all kinds of clients with different contracts. Read item 38 Modifications to Lease. We had a right to the only Lawyer that would take this case on but that does not mean they can screw around with our contracts.

Michael argued as I've stated before we were all mirrors of the Jeke contract, courts accepted this. This is why when Barry King tried to introduce our contracts back in at the Edmonton Prov. Court, Judge Young declared it was re litigation of matters already covered within Jeke. They unilaterally amended our contracts, and the judges approved. The courts did it so what do you see as the solution?

 

[MarcieL]

so then, give up? give in? hand over the extortion amount demanded? I only pay 2.5% interest annually on my mortgage I'd like it to go back to court to negotiate fair costs. I don't want to pay for weeks I did not use, and another 26.82% annually on those fees. Somebody has to be able to stop them. If we were screwed since Jeke should we not have bowed out at that point? After all I was under the impression I was contributing to an end goal of a class action suit, not to a singular defense.

How could we bow out when for years we were given false promises? We were all under the impression we were contributing to an end goal in fact M.G. referenced in an email something to the affect if I cannot at least get a 50% reduction in the invoices we will be considering a class action, this is not a quote. I have no intention of giving up we have a settlement bordering on 40,000.00 as seniors in our late 70's, the injustice makes me ill to my stomach. I'm just saying we cannot litigate the contracts again as per Judge Young. We need a new case, before the court with a competent lawyer.

 

[melamike]

Filing a complaint with the law society of BC - IMPORTANT!

As I was filling out the form and referencing back to the SIF we signed to have MG negotiate for us, I noticed something interesting. The form give MG permission to sign on our behalf if the settlement is reached by mediation or arbitration - no question there. However he clarified this in an email to us on Nov 6, ''Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.'' So he had 3 options. Negotiate and come back to us for input. Use a mediator. Use an arbitrator. Those are the conditions under which we signed the agreement. I don't believe he had the authority to sign for us (under the circumstances he did) and therefore do we really have a deal with Northmont? This will be a big part of my complaint to the law society. Please join in!!

 

[Joe Holland]

I think first someone needs to find a lawyer in WA that is willing to talk to us. We have tried local ones and a couple of Western WA ones that specialize in Timeshares & they all said they couldn't help us. If anyone can find a lawyer, let us know.

I am in Spokane and have been referred to a couple of attorneys that I have left messages for. I will keep you posted as I am able to talk to them, keeping our fingers crossed!

 

[Bewildered]

Michael argued as I've stated before we were all mirrors of the Jeke contract, courts accepted this. This is why when Barry King tried to introduce our contracts back in at the Edmonton Prov. Court, Judge Young declared it was re litigation of matters already covered within Jeke. They unilaterally amended our contracts, and the judges approved. The courts did it so what do you see as the solution?

In part but what she didn’t have the courage to do and left totally in the air was the interest issue and any cost to get out. I think you are most likely right that M.G. did a poor enough job that we are most likely left to only battle on these points but they are expensive points.
I believe justice is not served when a judge is more worried about multiple cases coming to Alberta than ruling on a 26.8% interest charged and being charged maintenance fees on years we never received.

 

[ecwinch]

I don't believe he had the authority to sign for us (under the circumstances he did) and therefore do we really have a deal with Northmont? This will be a big part of my complaint to the law society. Please join in!!

In the US the answer is generally no, but apparently that does not hold true in Canada. But I thought I saw a post where he provided the option to opt out of his representation.

http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/lawyer-create-binding-claim-settlement-consent

 

[JeffinWA]

I would like to talk to you further. My number is 5099530749 we live in spokane washington

I too live in Eastern Washington down in the Tri-Cities and would be interested in participating in any group from Washington. I have not yet decided what I am going to do. We are completely at a loss how this has spiraled so out of control. I can remember sitting in a sales pitch back in 2000 and what I was sold is no where near what I'm now being told I bought.

 

[DisgustedinWA]

I am in Spokane and have been referred to a couple of attorneys that I have left messages for. I will keep you posted as I am able to talk to them, keeping our fingers crossed!

Joe, please let us know if you get a response from attorney. I would participate $$ to get some answers to: Can we withdraw from MG "settlement"? Can we wait until NW files suit on us and then argue our position individually? In BC or US? Can we wait til they get judgement then argue the collection in US? Can we get WA consumer protection involved to protect us as WA residents? Not to mention all the other relevant questions. Thanks

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

Filing a complaint with the law society of BC - IMPORTANT!

As I was filling out the form and referencing back to the SIF we signed to have MG negotiate for us, I noticed something interesting. The form give MG permission to sign on our behalf if the settlement is reached by mediation or arbitration - no question there. However he clarified this in an email to us on Nov 6, ''Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.'' So he had 3 options. Negotiate and come back to us for input. Use a mediator. Use an arbitrator. Those are the conditions under which we signed the agreement. I don't believe he had the authority to sign for us (under the circumstances he did) and therefore do we really have a deal with Northmont? This will be a big part of my complaint to the law society. Please join in!!

Okay I was having a no Tug's night but this topic is a real hot button for me and I love the fact "meamike" brought this up!!!

The SIF is a very contentious document for everyone but some people have been more betrayed by it.

Many people (me included through a friend) submitted a modified version which was posted on one of the private Facebook group pages and many people submitted this modified document with changes limiting Michael's abilities to only negotiate a settlement but required approval from the individual who signed the SIF for final acceptance of a settlement (face it the SIF gave Michael the blank check which by him cashing it created this prejudicial settlement).

People who submitted this modified version immediately caused Michael to fire back through emails and phone calls that they could not modify the document in any way and if they did then it was as if they had selected option 2.

This scared the crap out of people and forced them into believing there was no alternative and combined with following their instincts that, built over the past 4 years, a trust exited that Micheal's advice was safe to follow and allowed them to drop their natural instincts, let their natural guards down, and did as instructed.

Through coercion, the original document option 1 was endorsed and re-submitted replacing the one that protected them with the threat they would be abandoned so near to the end which created it's own extortion pf all of us.

On my phone call with Micheal I was empathized with and told this was a required formality to enter into the negotiation but ultimately I would have the final approval to accept or decline any negotiated agreement if it was reached. With the conversation followed up with the the written statement below in the November 6th update I felt it was safe to drop my guard and re-submit:

“Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.”

This is my biggest mistake and now motivation to fight as this is 100% not the spirit of why I signed the SIF - by being betrayed in this manner it can be manipulated to appear I willingly signed the original SIF and possibly interpreted he had my consent in a legal context to sign a binding settlement agreement on my behalf.

Do these same tactics remind you of anyone else? Looks to me like someone has learned something from the oppositions playbook!!

 

[J's Garage]

Ultimate

I completely agree.

A question I plan to look at from the minutes of the settlement meeting (which we probably won't see) - Was this strictly negotiation? Was it through mediation (mediator)? Was it binding arbitration (arbitrator)? Who was the third party in the negotiations? We asked but it was never revealed.

Therefore do we not essentially have an if/then logic statement. If (IF) these negotiations proceed by mediation (condition) or binding arbitration (alternative condition),..., we have instructions to sign minutes of settlement on your behalf.

Maybe for readability we can reverse the statement at the comma. We have instructions to sign minutes of settlement on your behalf IF these negotiations proceed by mediation or binding arbitration,....

In logic programming - If condition A or B are met, then proceed to outcome. we got the outcome, but were conditions met. Was there an unbiased professional 3rd party managing the negotiations.

Additionally, Option 1 also stated "You support responding to the Petition before the court...." If that direction cannot be met, how is option 1 fulfilled?

 

[truthr]

In the US the answer is generally no, but apparently that does not hold true in Canada. But I thought I saw a post where he provided the option to opt out of his representation.

http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/lawyer-create-binding-claim-settlement-consent

Yes, however the Judge's ruling made it very clear that it included all the defendants' listed (some 700+).
This legal team has continually made out to the courts that they are following client instructions wherein all client instructions have been obtained through "my way or the highway" which really is not an option if opting out of his representation prejudices the client.

Also from the link you provided:

[11] While I realize that this creates an unfortunate situation for the plaintiffs, there is no doubt that (their lawyer) settled this matter before the court by the plaintiff agreeing to withdraw and discontinue their action and the defendants waiving their costs. The plaintiffs’ recourse now is against (their lawyer) for failure to follow instructions, if that indeed is the case.

I would really hate to see it get to this point and lawyers should take care to not have situations escalate to this point when the client(s) have clearly voiced their concerns and/or discontent.

Again this situation is very complicated and not the norm at all.

 

[ecwinch]

If you were successful in rejecting the settlement, what would you do next? NM has a disincentive to negotiate separate terms with each party.

 

[truthr]

If you were successful in rejecting the settlement, what would you do next? NM has a disincentive to negotiate separate terms with each party.

NM is not really at liberty to negotiate separately with anyone who is attached to the group decisions by the Judge and she has given her instructions. In other words those who have rejected the settlement outright have to have representation to go before the judge again, but she is ruling on a group, not individuals. Then there are those who signed the SIF because they were scared not to and are now rejecting the little they know about the "settlement".

But then again neither side of this issue is playing by the rules.

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

In the US the answer is generally no, but apparently that does not hold true in Canada. But I thought I saw a post where he provided the option to opt out of his representation.

http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/lawyer-create-binding-claim-settlement-consent

Hi Eric - thanks for joining us.

There was an opt out option in the SIF document that I refer too in my recent post but there are some issues with opting out at this time:

1. two options were presented in this doc - sign a blank check with the assurance it would never be cashed as it was stated to us as being required to enter the negotiation or be fired as a client and be cast out of the group on your own
2. this one is something I am learning about so forgive me if I am not 100% accurate - if a client releases or is released the lawyer on record must submit paperwork to the courthouse to reflect this to finalize the parting of the ways. Given the timeline there is potentially a risk for anyone who select option 2 (release the lawyer or was released) that they will be still be bound by the settlement as they will still be considered part of the group. Also the judge stated in their decision they wanted the entire group to settle and not to fracture the group to force individual claims (wrap everything up in one package)

Hope this makes sense

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

Ultimate

I completely agree.

A question I plan to look at from the minutes of the settlement meeting (which we probably won't see) - Was this strictly negotiation? Was it through mediation (mediator)? Was it binding arbitration (arbitrator)? Who was the third party in the negotiations? We asked but it was never revealed.

Therefore do we not essentially have an if/then logic statement. If (IF) these negotiations proceed by mediation (condition) or binding arbitration (alternative condition),..., we have instructions to sign minutes of settlement on your behalf.

Maybe for readability we can reverse the statement at the comma. We have instructions to sign minutes of settlement on your behalf IF these negotiations proceed by mediation or binding arbitration,....

In logic programming - If condition A or B are met, then proceed to outcome. we got the outcome, but were conditions met. Was there an unbiased professional 3rd party managing the negotiations.

Additionally, Option 1 also stated "You support responding to the Petition before the court...." If that direction cannot be met, how is option 1 fulfilled?

Hi J

From what I have read and was indicated by Michael only he and David Wotherspoon completed and endorsed the negotiation on our behalf

 

[truthr]

Hi Eric - thanks for joining us.

There was an opt out option in the SIF document that I refer too in my recent post but there are some issues with opting out at this time:

1. two options were presented in this doc - sign a blank check with the assurance it would never be cashed as it was stated to us as being required to enter the negotiation or be fired as a client and be cast out of the group on your own
2. this one is something I am learning about so forgive me if I am not 100% accurate - if a client releases or is released the lawyer on record must submit paperwork to the courthouse to reflect this to finalize the parting of the ways. Given the timeline there is potentially a risk for anyone who select option 2 (release the lawyer or was released) that they will be still be bound by the settlement as they will still be considered part of the group. Also the judge stated in their decision they wanted the entire group to settle and not to fracture the group to force individual claims (wrap everything up in one package)

Hope this makes sense

I will add to this, when the judge stated she wanted the entire group to settle she was referring to settling on the amount of interest and costs related to the Statement of Claims.
To my knowledge a release settlement is a separate issue beyond the scope of what she was ruling on or will rule on for judgments, which would mean that person would still be a VIA holder and not be released.

 

[ecwinch]

Hi Eric - thanks for joining us.

There was an opt out option in the SIF document that I refer too in my recent post but there are some issues with opting out at this time:

1. two options were presented in this doc - sign a blank check with the assurance it would never be cashed as it was stated to us as being required to enter the negotiation or be fired as a client and be cast out of the group on your own
2. this one is something I am learning about so forgive me if I am not 100% accurate - if a client releases or is released the lawyer on record must submit paperwork to the courthouse to reflect this to finalize the parting of the ways. Given the timeline there is potentially a risk for anyone who select option 2 (release the lawyer or was released) that they will be still be bound by the settlement as they will still be considered part of the group. Also the judge stated in their decision they wanted the entire group to settle and not to fracture the group to force individual claims (wrap everything up in one package)

Hope this makes sense

It does make sense.

In terms of the SIF options presented - NM clearly did not want to enter into negotiations with a party (MG) powerless to agree to terms. So that part is natural.

And in terms of counsel withdrawing from case, your recollection is correct.

IMHO - as truthr mentioned, this is a complicated situation. And while I see potential for continued litigation - based on the judges decision to bind all of MG's clients to her decision - I just keep coming back to "What it will accomplish?". The trial strategy appears to have gone "all in" on the hope the court would find capital costs are the responsibility of the lessor, and three different judges have affirmed that (reasonable) capital costs are responsibility of the lessee/owners. So the primary question at law seems pretty clear and settled, and that creates a very high bar to overcome.

And while I understand that there are multiple versions of the VIA (contract) in play here, it seems like they are very similar to the JEEK VIA on the key provisions the court has ruled on.

Said another way - if you had not joined the legal group, nor signed off to cancel or stay, what would then do? Almost every issue I have seen raised here was ruled on in the JEEK case, and upheld on appeal. Leaving very little ground for a new legal strategy to gain traction.

Again - not a lawyer - and this is my personal opinion.

 

[Spark1]

There are many of us who are being invoiced for much more than 24000.00 our total is close to 40,000.00 by M.G.'s latest "approximation" of 26.8% of the Nov. /16 invoice plus another 20%. Like most we are seniors in our 70's and on a fixed income, so this means a bank loan! I am incensed that we engaged a lawyer for 4 years and this is the result. We could've arrived at this conclusion on our own. M.G. and his cohorts argued convincingly only one point, at the original B.C. trial for a test case, thus all our contracts mirror Jeke! Our counsel gave up our rights to our individual contracts in order to have the court recognize their arguments. M.G. had promised us a test case was the way to proceed, he then failed to prove mismanagement, giving NM justification in charging us whatever they chose. Barry King tried to submit the contract issue, at the Edmonton court hearing, but Judge Young ruled it was re-litigation of matters already covered at the Jeke trial.

They can not do that. You have to deal with modification rules according to the lease contracts. MG did not pay for that timeshare and he did not sign the documents nor did we verbally give him permission to do this. It would be like us saying Justice Loo you lost the appeal now this case is over,we win. Do the right thing and send this information to the Law society in BC and Alberta. A test is not letigation. I was surprised when I read about the Reid case that the front page said we were all VIA’S. You know why they did this it almost mirrors the CO-Owners contract. I do nor care what the Judge said this is a cover up again because of mistakes. When my name is on there as a VIA I am being tried using a different contract instead of being a VACATION VILLA LEASE. I was never notified that Northmont made modification to my contract and I sure the hell never signed a VIA contract and never would. I already made a complaint with this Judge and now because of this we are writing again,

 

[Palms to pines]

The truly sad thing about this is I only know what my contract signed in 1997 with Fairmont Resort Properties. I do not know what the contracts morphed into by 2010; if that is indeed when Jim Belfry signed his. MG knew about all the different types of contracts but when he allowed them all to be the same as Jeke it was the beginning of the end right there. If only he had told us we were doomed then.stringing us along for years has lead to severe stress and now severe financial hardship as well. Sure, now we are pouring over documents , but we are not lawyers. MG is and I think people have an expectation that they know how to handle legal matters just as you expect a dentist can properly check your teeth and an accountant can fill out your tax form.

 

[gilker]

It does make sense.

In terms of the SIF options presented - NM clearly did not want to enter into negotiations with a party (MG) powerless to agree to terms. So that part is natural.

And in terms of counsel withdrawing from case, your recollection is correct.

IMHO - as truthr mentioned, this is a complicated situation. And while I see potential for continued litigation - based on the judges decision to bind all of MG's clients to her decision - I just keep coming back to "What it will accomplish?". The trial strategy appears to have gone "all in" on the hope the court would find capital costs are the responsibility of the lessor, and three different judges have affirmed that (reasonable) capital costs are responsibility of the lessee/owners. So the primary question at law seems pretty clear and settled, and that creates a very high bar to overcome.

And while I understand that there are multiple versions of the VIA (contract) in play here, it seems like they are very similar to the JEEK VIA on the key provisions the court has ruled on.

Said another way - if you had not joined the legal group, nor signed off to cancel or stay, what would then do? Almost every issue I have seen raised here was ruled on in the JEEK case, and upheld on appeal. Leaving very little ground for a new legal strategy to gain traction.

Again - not a lawyer - and this is my personal opinion.

Thank you for your honest observations. I'm wishing we would have had some opinions like this a few years ago.
Obviously we have a legal system, not a justice system, and we have been beaten up legally. There are only 2 entities that are coming out ahead with all this, and unfortunately its not the 'owners' (us leaseholders)
It seems we own nothing but the liability.

I am not sure who is driving this train wreck. I believe it started with JB and a few 'owners' and the legal team of the day. But after that, I don't know who is 'leading that charge' so to speak. Is it simply MG who we followed with his opinions that this was not fair and we deserve a better outcome? And we bought in to that hoping he was right?

A question I have is do very many timeshares these days have 'owner associations' for the Timeshare they are a part of. According to our original lease there was to be such an association for us but it was never set up. And this association had the power with a vote to remove the management, who in fact is I thought to be managing the resort in the favour of the timeshare 'owners'. Such an association brings a level of accountability that we have not had. But we as the 'owners' are handcuffed with the ability to contact others and set this up.

 

[Scammed!]

Thank you for your honest observations. I'm wishing we would have had some opinions like this a few years ago.
Obviously we have a legal system, not a justice system, and we have been beaten up legally. There are only 2 entities that are coming out ahead with all this, and unfortunately its not the 'owners' (us leaseholders)
It seems we own nothing but the liability.

I am not sure who is driving this train wreck. I believe it started with JB and a few 'owners' and the legal team of the day. But after that, I don't know who is 'leading that charge' so to speak. Is it simply MG who we followed with his opinions that this was not fair and we deserve a better outcome? And we bought in to that hoping he was right?

A question I have is do very many timeshares these days have 'owner associations' for the Timeshare they are a part of. According to our original lease there was to be such an association for us but it was never set up. And this association had the power with a vote to remove the management, who in fact is I thought to be managing the resort in the favour of the timeshare 'owners'. Such an association brings a level of accountability that we have not had. But we as the 'owners' are handcuffed with the ability to contact others and set this up.

We are not handcuffed. We are victims yes, and I am alone to right now. We need to trust that we will ALL fight as a team. If you don't reach out and send letters to everyone then yes you are handcuffed.
Also I don't own this timeshare. I just leased it for 40 years and have to walk away in the end. My name is on no title of ownership or owner by my own doing.

 

[melamike]

The truly sad thing about this is I only know what my contract signed in 1997 with Fairmont Resort Properties. I do not know what the contracts morphed into by 2010; if that is indeed when Jim Belfry signed his. MG knew about all the different types of contracts but when he allowed them all to be the same as Jeke it was the beginning of the end right there. If only he had told us we were doomed then.stringing us along for years has lead to severe stress and now severe financial hardship as well. Sure, now we are pouring over documents , but we are not lawyers. MG is and I think people have an expectation that they know how to handle legal matters just as you expect a dentist can properly check your teeth and an accountant can fill out your tax form.

Report him to the law society. If they get hundreds of complaints it will be hard to ignore. It only takes a half hour out of your life to fill in the form and provide a description of your complaint and copy a few supporting docs.

 

[gilker]

We are not handcuffed. We are victims yes, and I am alone to right now. We need to trust that we will ALL fight as a team. If you don't reach out and send letters to everyone then yes you are handcuffed.
Also I don't own this timeshare. I just leased it for 40 years and have to walk away in the end. My name is on no title of ownership or owner by my own doing.

Yes what i meant by handcuffed was in regard to setting up the association. We don't have access to all the leaseholders to set it up. In regards to ownership I agree with you, we don't own it. But this seems to be lost somehow in our case.

 

[Tacoma]

I am more than willing to file a complaint against our lawyer. I am however staying in and paying to get out (I know my costs this way and will finally have closure) so I am worried about filing a complaint before I have my get out of jail card for only $25000 (aprox). Is anyone else in a similar situation? I have actively sent letters to people in AB/BC government and at the federal level so don't think I'm meek or mild. Only one response so far- not her problem- but she did forward it to someone else. When I contact MG I will be stating how I feel I was lead like a lamb to the slaughter because of his false promises. I almost paid the $13800 in March but because of this advice directly from my lawyer I changed my mind.

"I consider the payment of the Scaled Settlement Fee a reasonable option only where the individual VIA Owner has determined that they prefer to pay their way out of this Resort, can afford to do so prior to May 9, 2017, and do not want to risk being responsible for future Resort costs. Where the individual VIA Owner is not in a position to afford to pay the price Northmont requires or where they prefer to have the managerial decisions made by Northmont scrutinized before making a decision, I consider the Scaled Settlement Fee wholly unreasonable." MG's e-mail of Mar 13th

Sorry I don't know how to correctly format this but it is advice from MG on Mar 13th about whether we should settle or not. Then on Mar 22nd we received an update that can only be seen as an attempt to convince us to move forward with the court case. I do not want to copy it all (if you are members of the litigation group I hope you saved your emails) where there were statements made that lead myself (and probably many others) to believe we still had a very strong case. It mainly discussed the fact that Northmont had to pay their share of the fees and they own 50% of the resort.

Before signing the SIF (option 1) our lawyer stated "Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. " I maintain this is absolutely false as the previous e-mails continued to give us false hope (to keep us in the group) and he deliberately mislead Northmont as to how many clients were actually taking the settlement offered in March. I remember his glee at the fact that he had led them to believe the numbers paying to get out would be much higher so they had to frantically serve new documents before our court case in Edmonton in April. He acted like a kid who had pulled a great joke over on everyone.

Then as you know the group was reassured that by signing option 1 on the SIF we would still have an opportunity to reject it before an agreement was finalized. This promise also has not been kept.

So I guess my comment is I am willing to file a complaint but am nervous to do so until after I have my release. It seems that because of the way this case was dealt with we have "no moral currency left" to negotiate a better deal. Unless the judge or someone decides this is wrong and acts quickly to save us I fear things will only get worse.

Tacoma