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

[melamike]

I have two comments - I'll do two posts

A lady from the facebook group suggested applying for an injunction to hold of the collection of this money until a reasonable settlement can be reached at least on the interest rate issue. A judge would hopefully be empathetic to a plea that there was not enough time allowed to seek legal advise or to ponder the decision of whether to join the MG settlement group or go out on our own. I don't know if this could be done as a group or after the fact ( getting the invoice from MG, not paying it and then applying for an injunction and try to get a reasonable settlement at least for the interest charged.) Thoughts?

 

[melamike]

I did some research into interest rates, what can be charged, what is enforceable etc. The laws in Canada state that for particular interest to be enforceable the contract must state the annualized amount of the interest charged not just a monthly, daily or weekly amount. If this annualized amount is not on the contract then the standard rate that can be charged (and enforced) according to law is 5% per annum. My lease agreement that I signed in 1994 states 2% per month but there is no annualized rate. I'm guessing many of you are in the same boat.
So I think the best move is this:
Receive the invoice from MG
Remove the RPF - that KM said under oath we do not have to pay
Pay your maintenance fees owed with the rate of 5% per annum, not compounded
Send in your cheque and wait for the fan to start spinning and see what hits it.
Cheers
Mike

 

[CleoB]

I have been following this thread since inception. It takes all the courage I have in me to finally post after all these years.

If I sound naive and unversed regarding this entire situation, it's because I am. (I would like to place that blame on my legal counsel, alas, it's too late to point fingers now. I thought I hired him to educate me and keep me well informed throughout this entire process ).
Unfortunately we all had the opportunity to walk away from this litigation group, I chose not to. MG advised that we had a chance, it was worth staying the course. So I stayed the course, funny, I had a bad feeling in my gut way back then even. The feeling is much worse now.

So here I sit, between this rock and this hard place with a gut ache that's been festering for years....
I have decided the best option for me at this point is to settle and walk away once and for all (at least I HOPE it's once and for all, I don't really know who to trust or believe anymore).
If I've learned anything throughout this entire debacle, it's that it has only gotten more costly for me as time has dragged on.
What has made this difficult decision resolute in my mind is a brief conversation I had with MG. He only had five minutes to spare for me...only five.
I want to share. Words of wisdom in response, or any guidance to offer would be appreciated.

MG advised (this is NOT worded verbatim) that if we were NOT going to agree to this "blind faith settlement" (as I call it) that essentially Northwynd would be able to charge us whatever they wished as an exit fee in the future. Our only guarantee to a "cap" on the cost to walk away is this "settlement offer". Otherwise Northwynd has free reign to charge whatever they wish as an exit fee. Unfortunately the courts sided with Northwynd and have agreed to as much. I don't like that risk. Is it a risk? Or is it a "scare tactic"?

MG also hinted (strongly) that NO judge would want to hear this case again as it's already been tried and adjudicated. No point in trying to "go it on our own" and seek alternative legal counsel. This was discouraging to hear (and was also backed up by guidance we obtained from alternative legal counsel).
This same lawyer we sought out, also advised that it would be almost impossible for us to find any lawyer that would be willing to take this case on. Even if we did, the cost to employ a lawyer to research this entire litigation and pour over years of documents and trial transcripts to prepare a proper defense would be astronomical.

One more thing, (and this is for you Spark1).
I signed up for a Lease.
Similar to your lease...I think. (I purchased mine in 2007).
I did not know I became an "Owner" or a "VIA Holder". I had never been advised as such. (I think maybe my legal counsel "forgot" to tell me this a LONG time ago . It just might have altered my "legal path" years ago. Imagine the dollars I could have saved!!!.....)
I found out only last week, that I was indeed an owner.
I asked MG how this was possible?? My contract states I am a lessee, NOT an owner!! His response? The courts have ruled that as a lessee you are an owner, you are the owner of ..."the right to use". (Those words ARE verbatim).

Anyways, my five minutes was up....I didn't get an explanation...


Y'all keep sending your emails, and I'll keep sending mine!! Someone will listen.

Yes we are owners of a "right to use" which is called a lease. Something the judges didn't understand.

 

[CleoB]

What was MG's advice on paying your m/f - dues during the period the legal action was running?

He recommended we "NOT" pay them.

 

[Spark1]

I have been following this thread since inception. It takes all the courage I have in me to finally post after all these years.

If I sound naive and unversed regarding this entire situation, it's because I am. (I would like to place that blame on my legal counsel, alas, it's too late to point fingers now. I thought I hired him to educate me and keep me well informed throughout this entire process ).
Unfortunately we all had the opportunity to walk away from this litigation group, I chose not to. MG advised that we had a chance, it was worth staying the course. So I stayed the course, funny, I had a bad feeling in my gut way back then even. The feeling is much worse now.

So here I sit, between this rock and this hard place with a gut ache that's been festering for years....
I have decided the best option for me at this point is to settle and walk away once and for all (at least I HOPE it's once and for all, I don't really know who to trust or believe anymore).
If I've learned anything throughout this entire debacle, it's that it has only gotten more costly for me as time has dragged on.
What has made this difficult decision resolute in my mind is a brief conversation I had with MG. He only had five minutes to spare for me...only five.
I want to share. Words of wisdom in response, or any guidance to offer would be appreciated.

MG advised (this is NOT worded verbatim) that if we were NOT going to agree to this "blind faith settlement" (as I call it) that essentially Northwynd would be able to charge us whatever they wished as an exit fee in the future. Our only guarantee to a "cap" on the cost to walk away is this "settlement offer". Otherwise Northwynd has free reign to charge whatever they wish as an exit fee. Unfortunately the courts sided with Northwynd and have agreed to as much. I don't like that risk. Is it a risk? Or is it a "scare tactic"?

MG also hinted (strongly) that NO judge would want to hear this case again as it's already been tried and adjudicated. No point in trying to "go it on our own" and seek alternative legal counsel. This was discouraging to hear (and was also backed up by guidance we obtained from alternative legal counsel).
This same lawyer we sought out, also advised that it would be almost impossible for us to find any lawyer that would be willing to take this case on. Even if we did, the cost to employ a lawyer to research this entire litigation and pour over years of documents and trial transcripts to prepare a proper defense would be astronomical.

One more thing, (and this is for you Spark1).
I signed up for a Lease.
Similar to your lease...I think. (I purchased mine in 2007).
I did not know I became an "Owner" or a "VIA Holder". I had never been advised as such. (I think maybe my legal counsel "forgot" to tell me this a LONG time ago . It just might have altered my "legal path" years ago. Imagine the dollars I could have saved!!!.....)
I found out only last week, that I was indeed an owner.
I asked MG how this was possible?? My contract states I am a lessee, NOT an owner!! His response? The courts have ruled that as a lessee you are an owner, you are the owner of ..."the right to use". (Those words ARE verbatim).

Anyways, my five minutes was up....I didn't get an explanation...


Y'all keep sending your emails, and I'll keep sending mine!! Someone will listen.

This is according to the Canadian Consumer Handbook. They are talking about Timeshares-Entire Collection. 1 was deeded timeshares and 2. You can also have the “right-to-use” timeshare,which refers to a Lease-like Agreement agreement. In this type of timeshare your lease expires after a specified time and you have no Property ownership rights in the property. A right to use property can include Floating timeshare Lock,points-based programs.

 

[CleoB]

I found an attorney who would at least talk to me. I should have more particulars next week. He was at least considering helping me with the payment situation. He has dealt with NM before so has experience in this matter. He is a timeshare attorney. I expect an email from him this coming week. I will keep you posted. I would be interested in what the Washington state folks come up with. I was in Montana when I bought this nightmare (maybe Stephen King would like to use this as a back drop to a new book).
Would appear to me that the courts screwed all the unfortunates in timeshares across Canada and the industry as a whole. As word gets out about the how the courts have ruled to give timeshares a blank check with your name on it, who in their right mind would ever want to buy into a timeshare. Even if we go down fighting, at the very least I'm hopeful the legislators in Canada will regulate these crooks so others don't have t go thru what we have. I'm feeling like a lost dog in the street right now. This will all come around and some lost dog(s) bite Wankel and his buddies at some point in the butt. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Justice will be served, just hope I will be around to witness it though may not be able to benefit from it. As for Gildert, if he won he would be a hero, he lost so he's a zero. Well I am starting to question his integrity as an attorney. There are so many questions lingering out there which makes one really question whether he has done his job because if he has done his job we wouldn't be pounding away on this forum looking for answers. Its his job to give us answers isn't it? Were we just lead along so he could belly up to the $$ trough time and time again?? As a surgeon friend of mine once said, "you will always be judged by your last failure." Well Mr. Gildert you will have to tuck this one way back in your portfolio of accomplishments in order to save face as an attorney. He and Witherspoon really lost my trust in the settlement negotiations. I emailed him and asked him what exactly he thought he gained with this settlement as most are not able to afford it. His response was NM was initially not willing to let us out of the timeshare, but at least with this settlement they are willing to charge us to get out. Really??! Back to my original point, most can't afford it so what's the point. He said ones obligation to pay and ones ability to pay are often at odds. Then again, how can you even come to us with this as a so called "settlement??" I have always heard the sign of a successful negotiation is when neither side is happy with the result. That is certainly not the case here!! NM got him at the table and said Mikey boy you and your group of hold outs are screwed. Here's what we want....period. Any leverage we may have had as a group, he let go as he suffered one loss after another in the courts. If he some how turns this around so the settlement is reasonable, I will eat every word and send him a written apology. Hard to be a loser, but even harder when you know have been LEGALLY taken advantage of. Gods speed to this group!!

Torqued, the courts could only decide based on what our lawyer provided. He hung us all when he said all our contracts were a mirror of JEKE's contract, which of course, wasn't true. So that opened the door to Northmount. Since then Geldert has been trying to correct his mistake and in the end we will be paying for his mistake.

 

[Scammed!]

He recommended we "NOT" pay them.

On that note we were instructed not to pay, and then he misinformed the judges, mislead us, did not inform us, or consult us. Now were being convicted like criminals that we are not. Charged for money we don't owe. I'm now someone the judges think that I am not.. a OWNER. We own to lease nothing more. It's like losing one's identity. This is no different then being in a framed movie, and I HATE those!...I never excepted to be one of the characters. But the endings are awesome................................

 

[aden2]

Further to the comments about an injunction till a reasonable settlement can be reached on interest rates, I would like to see included maintenance fees. Why should there be a 100% charge on these fees when we were not using the timeshare? A cell phone contract has no cancellation fees after two years!

 

[Spark1]

This is according to the Canadian Consumer Handbook. They are talking about Timeshares-Entire Collection. 1 was deeded timeshares and 2. You can also have the “right-to-use” timeshare,which refers to a Lease-like Agreement agreement. In this type of timeshare your lease expires after a specified time and you have no Property ownership rights in the property. A right to use property can include Floating timeshare Lock,points-based programs.

Sorry I wanted to add this . I emailed MG and I explained this to Michael Using the Canadian Handbook on timeshares on Dec/8. 2017 and he had no comment and this was not the first time I talked to him about Lease Agreements. I feel these are the same people that screwed the timeshare people in the other countries connected with the Trustee of this resort. I also feel MG did no research eg. This Canadian Consumer Handbook

 

[Spark1]

I did some research into interest rates, what can be charged, what is enforceable etc. The laws in Canada state that for particular interest to be enforceable the contract must state the annualized amount of the interest charged not just a monthly, daily or weekly amount. If this annualized amount is not on the contract then the standard rate that can be charged (and enforced) according to law is 5% per annum. My lease agreement that I signed in 1994 states 2% per month but there is no annualized rate. I'm guessing many of you are in the same boat.
So I think the best move is this:
Receive the invoice from MG
Remove the RPF - that KM said under oath we do not have to pay
Pay your maintenance fees owed with the rate of 5% per annum, not compounded
Send in your cheque and wait for the fan to start spinning and see what hits it.
Cheers
Mike

Good idea.

 

[torqued]

Torqued, the courts could only decide based on what our lawyer provided. He hung us all when he said all our contracts were a mirror of JEKE's contract, which of course, wasn't true. So that opened the door to Northmount. Since then Geldert has been trying to correct his mistake and in the end we will be paying for his mistake.

Our contracts were a mirror of Jeke entirely or just in regard to having to pay for capital expenses which was what was being litigated?

 

[torqued]

Good idea.

Certainly seems reasonable to me

 

[justiceisajoke]

What was MG's advice on paying your m/f - dues during the period the legal action was running?

I was advised by MG not to pay the m/f's as this would essentially be a conflict of interest in a sense. I did not pay them.
In saying this, I knew by not paying the fees, there was a risk involved.

I was well aware of the fact that if I opted not to ante up, and chose to remain a part of this group that the maintenance fees would be accruing and the interest on the missed payments would also be accruing during the course of the litigation. (What I NEVER anticipated back then, was that this would drag on for years). There was only a 50% chance of us ever winning this case. I was informed that if the courts sided with Northmont (I was shocked to find out there was an individual judgement passed against me, I thought this was a test case???...but that's a whole new topic) there was a chance based on a judge's findings, that Northmont could potentially have the right to charge us the missed payments and the interest on top of it.
I cannot remember if Northmont told me this and I passed it off as scare tactics at the time, or if MG told me this and I felt he was being honest and up front, doing what a good and competent lawyer would do.
Either way, it doesn't matter now. I remember thinking at the time that it was a risk worth taking. Again, no one could have guessed that this would have lasted in the courts as long as it did.
This is only what I personally was aware of, I cannot speak for anyone else.

Hindsight is such a cruel thing...

 

[justiceisajoke]

Yes we are owners of a "right to use" which is called a lease. Something the judges didn't understand.

A very sad fact I am well aware of...I wanted MG to explain to me how this happened. How was it possible that the judges were not provided the evidence to MAKE them understand?
But, as I mentioned before, he did not have time to discuss further.
Once again, I hung up the phone with more questions than answers.

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

I did some research into interest rates, what can be charged, what is enforceable etc. The laws in Canada state that for particular interest to be enforceable the contract must state the annualized amount of the interest charged not just a monthly, daily or weekly amount. If this annualized amount is not on the contract then the standard rate that can be charged (and enforced) according to law is 5% per annum. My lease agreement that I signed in 1994 states 2% per month but there is no annualized rate. I'm guessing many of you are in the same boat.
So I think the best move is this:
Receive the invoice from MG
Remove the RPF - that KM said under oath we do not have to pay
Pay your maintenance fees owed with the rate of 5% per annum, not compounded
Send in your cheque and wait for the fan to start spinning and see what hits it.
Cheers
Mike

Related to this,

Michael is not done billing us individually and will use the next part of the settlement arrangement to collect additional revenues as part of the January 9th release docs to force payment for his services at his determination as to what he wants to charge.

If you don't pay - you don't get a release and then you immediately fall in the 162% default category.

Like I said before - using the other teams playbook can be profitable.

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

I was advised by MG not to pay the m/f's as this would essentially be a conflict of interest in a sense. I did not pay them.
In saying this, I knew by not paying the fees, there was a risk involved.

I was well aware of the fact that if I opted not to ante up, and chose to remain a part of this group that the maintenance fees would be accruing and the interest on the missed payments would also be accruing during the course of the litigation. (What I NEVER anticipated back then, was that this would drag on for years). There was only a 50% chance of us ever winning this case. I was informed that if the courts sided with Northmont (I was shocked to find out there was an individual judgement passed against me, I thought this was a test case???...but that's a whole new topic) there was a chance based on a judge's findings, that Northmont could potentially have the right to charge us the missed payments and the interest on top of it.
I cannot remember if Northmont told me this and I passed it off as scare tactics at the time, or if MG told me this and I felt he was being honest and up front, doing what a good and competent lawyer would do.
Either way, it doesn't matter now. I remember thinking at the time that it was a risk worth taking. Again, no one could have guessed that this would have lasted in the courts as long as it did.
This is only what I personally was aware of, I cannot speak for anyone else.

Hindsight is such a cruel thing...

It was actually Northmont offering the advice when they were allowed to actually present something to us.

MG also indicated part of this strategy was to limit the cash flow and force a quicker more reasonable settlement arrangement at the time and it was a very long time ago so easily was pushed out of our minds (I forgot about this as well).

The game plan should have been revisited, risks re-assessed and identified, communicated, and a new game plan strategy communicated to us.

By having the failures accrue MG should have re-iterated the risk expressed by Northmont as he strictly limited all their communications and ours to solely go through his office so our warnings were very few and far between.

Yes - Hindsight is truly cruel but not limited us entirely as we may still have options and we will need to re-assess, strategize, and realign our focus at a new target - MG may have thrown us under the bus but I think there is room for one more to join us.

 

[Bewildered]

If somebody knows of how an injunction could occur it would only be beneficial before anybody starts paying the ransom as many (including me) are very much afraid of what results may occur opting out of the ransom at this point. M.G. will have to send me some legal document saying that I am free and clear forever of this albatross before he gets one nickle from me, as I hear people paid in March and didn’t get anything verifying they are out. That’s scary.

 

[teedeej]

My lease agreement that I signed in 1994 states 2% per month but there is no annualized rate. I'm guessing many of you are in the same boat.

I have a friend who is a lawyer and I asked him about that. He confirmed that there is no annual rate stated but in Alberta that is only required for loans, which this is not

 

[CleoB]

I have a friend who is a lawyer and I asked him about that. He confirmed that there is no annual rate stated but in Alberta that is only required for loans, which this is not

You should ask your lawyer friend to refer to the Judgement Interest Act of Alberta.

 

[CleoB]

I was advised by MG not to pay the m/f's as this would essentially be a conflict of interest in a sense. I did not pay them.
In saying this, I knew by not paying the fees, there was a risk involved.

I was well aware of the fact that if I opted not to ante up, and chose to remain a part of this group that the maintenance fees would be accruing and the interest on the missed payments would also be accruing during the course of the litigation. (What I NEVER anticipated back then, was that this would drag on for years). There was only a 50% chance of us ever winning this case. I was informed that if the courts sided with Northmont (I was shocked to find out there was an individual judgement passed against me, I thought this was a test case???...but that's a whole new topic) there was a chance based on a judge's findings, that Northmont could potentially have the right to charge us the missed payments and the interest on top of it.
I cannot remember if Northmont told me this and I passed it off as scare tactics at the time, or if MG told me this and I felt he was being honest and up front, doing what a good and competent lawyer would do.
Either way, it doesn't matter now. I remember thinking at the time that it was a risk worth taking. Again, no one could have guessed that this would have lasted in the courts as long as it did.
This is only what I personally was aware of, I cannot speak for anyone else.

Hindsight is such a cruel thing...

Actually if Geldert would have used the FTA (Fair Trade Act) of Alberta we probably wouldn't have had to pay the maintenance fees. The FTA stated that a person did not have to pay for products or services not rendered and Northmount denied people access unless they paid the RPF. The FTA has now been revised to Bill 31.

 

[CleoB]

Our contracts were a mirror of Jeke entirely or just in regard to having to pay for capital expenses which was what was being litigated?

I believe he said all the contracts mirrored JEKE, so if JEKE was a legacy for life the judges decided he was an "owner", hence so were we all.

 

[CleoB]

What was MG's advice on paying your m/f - dues during the period the legal action was running?

Moderator, why do you ask?

 

[CleoB]

Is there anyone here that is not part of the "secret" FB group? Anyone that isn't a client of Geldert that can take up the fight against Northmount based on the Fair Trade Act (now Bill 31)?

 

[Imout]

If somebody knows of how an injunction could occur it would only be beneficial before anybody starts paying the ransom as many (including me) are very much afraid of what results may occur opting out of the ransom at this point. M.G. will have to send me some legal document saying that I am free and clear forever of this albatross before he gets one nickle from me, as I hear people paid in March and didn’t get anything verifying they are out. That’s scary.

We did receive notification that we were released. Two letters from Wankel to the trustee stating our VIA’s were terminated and that we complied with The relinquishment agreement. I have not heard from them since.

 

[ecwinch]

Just trying to wrap my head around why the dollar amounts being mentioned are so high. Now I am scratching my head on what outcome MG promised to secure. I understand from the JEKE filing that JEKE wanted to invalidate the contract and walk away.

But is that true of everyone? No one wanted to stay and just wanted to stop the realignment?

Also what has been going on at the resort during all this mess? Has NM started the refurbishments?