I do not appreciate having to pay additional maintenance fees to cover for those who are in arears and to possibly pay for some of the legal costs associated with litigation process. Nor do I appreciate and do not agree with the litigants group opposition to the realignment of the resort, this is being obstructionist and mischievous.
The rude and personal remarks do not make your plight any easier to resolve. The matter is legal and factual and will be resolved by Judge Young.
"...legal and factual..." Sorry, you've been inconvenienced by the Geldert Group seeking a legal affirmation of their Lease Agreement. But this is Canada and while justice doesn't always prevail, we do retain the right to seek resolution of commercial disputes through the courts of law.
Northmont won their BC Court case because they were lucky. They couldn't have imagined that Michael Geldert would swing and miss at the capital cost / operating cost issue in court
(Jeke, 262-265). Actually, He didn't even swing. He stood in the dugout watching, oblivious to what was of fundamental importance. Michael Geldert doesn't understand the
'inside baseball' of litigation. From the transcripts, it appears he failed even to notice the Judge pointing to where he should take his case. Failing to establish that the lease agreements restrict the expenses to be covered by Maintenance Fees to: repairs, maintenance and other 'operating costs' necessary to execute ONLY the annual operation of the property
(remember its a property, #NAFR) as validated by past operating practice was, in my opinion, complete incompetence. Not to mention failing to pursue other aspects of the CCAA, Northmont's disregard for Judge Loo's directions, and failing to establish how the RPF was not a commercially viable solution to Fairmont's problems.
When I bought in 1999, not a single Director of Fairmont, not a manager for Fairmont, not a sale person for Fairmont and certainly not a lessee imagined the contract would be interpreted to allow for lessees to pay for repairs and renovations that cost into the tens of millions and spanned multiple years to complete. Not a one.
What we have here is some Wonk, ignoring the cooperative spirit of the lease, parsed it down to fragments of clauses, seized upon and exploited the Lease's vague wording. All this came years after it was written and, despite years of operation wherein the cooperative spirit, two parties working toward a common goal, of the lease and the operation of the property (
#NAFR) were aligned.
I'll tell you what is not factual. The whole darn thing. The statements of claim, from $20,000 to $100,000 payable to Northmont, are not compensating Northmont for money they could have earned. It's not compensating Northmont for money they were forced to spend. The statements are mostly interest charges. Some of that interest is based on a trumped-up estimate of work that in its entirety never was intended to be and will never be completed. Besides interest on a project that was never to be completed, there is the arbitrary exit fee. The actual Maintenance Fee is a small part. Northmont is getting their money for nothing.
Know what else is factual? Its a fact Northmont failed to do as they committed to do while negotiating under the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act.
Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to establish a lessees association as they were instructed to and committed to doing while negotiating under the CCAA and, again by Judge Loo.
Know what else is factual? Northmont failed to pay their share of Maintenance Fees as directed by Judge Loo. Not just for one year, but all years.
Know what else is factual? Most of this money will not go to the benefit of the property (
#NAFR). That's right Judge Loo; it will only line the pockets of Developers. It will go to Wankel and Sunchaser in Barbados. I mean,
"IF NOT THEM THEN WHO?", am I right?
If Northmont were truly in the resort business they would drastically lower the statements of claim to levels that are reasonable and that people can afford to pay and, they would work to rebuilding the public's trust of and confidence in timeshare developers. The second they closed their sales department their motives were obvious. The second they charged people to leave their motives were obvious. Seriously, what is to be gained by a corporation (its just Wankel I know but a corporation nonetheless) invoicing people for amounts of money they know they will never collect anyway? Why? What is to be gained by ruining these lives? What kind of person wants this on their conscience? And, Judge Young, are you really going to let this gross misconduct, this gross abuse of the judicial system, to happen in your courtroom?
This is a final act. Wankel will go away and Northmont will go away. Having perpetrated this heinous injustice they do not have the moral Freedom to Choose to Stay. They have to leave the Columbia Valley, Western Canada, the entire Country most likely. This is a naked, unabashed covetous craven cash grab, that signals what's to come next for the TSWOWs. I can hear the call now:
"Hello this is Diamond Resorts." "Hello, this is Kirk Wankel, have I got a deal for you, ..."
Unfortunately for all of us, TSWOW included, that appears
"legal and factual."
#
NAFR
