YES. It is pretty much true of everyone. They wanted to invalidate their contract and walk away. A significant number, something north of 40%, is reputed to have paid to walk away. An injunction by Justice Clarkson in Alberta Provincial Court forced Northmont to allow VIAs to use the property if, they had paid their m/f but not their RPF. Few knew of this decision. Thanks, Mr. G. There were those who were still paying for their purchase, and they felt if they ever wanted annual vacations, they had no choice but to stay with the property. I do not know of one person who said, “…be a darn fool to walk away from all this.” I could go on, but then I would just be repeating someone else on this board, ITS NOT A RESORT: Plastic patio furniture, cheap BBQs, poor and undersized common facilities, poor service, poor maintenance, poor cleaning, poor utensils, poor disposables in the units, bathroom tissue, soap, detergent, etc. On its best day, I would give it 3-stars. On average, I would give it 2-stars. Please remember, they promised a 5-star resort. As a trade on Interval International, it became virtually worthless.
Justice Loo, in the JEKE trial, did make mistakes. A better legal argument would have helped her see clearly. First, the failure to establish an owners association was a material breach. It was material because at the CCAA proceedings, Bankruptcy here in Canada, they directly lied saying that the VIA holders were in favor of the Renovation Plan. They weren't. They didn't even know about the proceedings. They didn't know the Property was in bankruptcy. At least three times owners were thwarted in their attempts to form an owners association. This was contrary to Northmont's contractual obligations. And, why didn't the VIAs know about the bankruptcy proceedings? No, owners association.
If you read the VIA, it does not contemplate a multi-year renovation project as part of the maintenance fees. Nowhere in the listing of what could be included as maintenance fees is there anything that could be construed as or is anywhere near similar in context to a $40-miliion multi-year renovation. Because it is not specifically excluded does not mean it is included within the scope of the agreement.
The illest informed utterance I have ever heard from a judge is, "If not the VIA holders then who is going to pay for the Renovation.?" Oh, I don't know, how about the party that built it originally? The party that pocketed the original purchase payments? The party that pocketed $20-million people paid to leave?
This is a scheme or a scam. It purports to be one thing but is actually something different. It operates on a different mechanism but is exactly as deceiving as a Ponzi scheme. Costa Maya, Rancho Banderas, Mahaka in Hawaii, Vegas, Lake Okanagan, House Boats, Fairmont Vacation Villas, all bankrupt or extremely distressed demonstrably prove that these people are not in the business of operating vacation resorts.
They convinced the Bankruptcy Court to support the Renovation Plan by saying they were going to ramp-up marketing. Instead, they closed sales. That alone indicates they aren't in the resort business. What did they say was their most valuable asset? Selling Cancelations. If closing sales didn't say they aren't in the resort business, monetizing cancelations sure does.
