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

truthr · Jan 26, 2018

MgolferL said:
This is the letter I am sending to the Law Society again

Feel free to copy and paste and/or change it ...but regardless SEND SOMETHING...

January 26, 2017

Law Society of British Columbia

Request for Intervention and Investigation

Northmont Resort Properties v. Brian Golbert and Collette Goldberg
No. S159447, Vancouver Registry (the "Goldbert Action")
Decision of Mr. Justice Branch

I have been a client of Geldert Law through the process of Northmont Resort Properties (aka Sunchaser) seeking and being awarded judgements against some 1400 time share contracts. Unfortunately, as this case has been totally skewed and misrepresented on many levels however, we are now coming down to the final days to having to pay the “settlement” that was “negotiated” by Mr. Geldert. Both are in quotations as the “settlement” was supposed to be approved by the clients that retained Mr. Geldert, to which that never happened, and the “negotiation” was considerably higher that the statement Northmont had issued several weeks prior.

Concerns that I have regarding this include, but are not limited to:

1. ALL clients were told not to pay statements we received. Consequently we never did, nor paid the money in trust. The result of this was that Northmont has charged us interest individually on these accounts at 26% interest. This means that the interest on all statements is more than the base amounts owing.

2. Supplied fragmented, incomplete information throughout the process on the auspices of guarding information from Northmont, however prevented a collective forum of over several hundred clients to discuss our options.

3. Did not allow us to see the "negotiated" agreement and vote on it, and accepted it on our behalf, knowing the financial hardship could incur on many people.

4. Imposed an unrealistic time-frame in which to interpret the potential agreement as this was done over Christmas. People were on vacation, travelling, etc and only had a couple of days in which to respond.

5. Agreed to an unrealistic time-frame to complete agreements.

6. Dropped an ongoing appeal without agreement from the group, and in essence eliminated any negotiating opportunity.

7. Complaints from many clients of no response to pertinent questions has been a common theme.

We are now bound by the agreement we are being forced to pay, or accept additional fees in the amount of 162% as also "negotiated" by Mr. Geldert. Consequently, I will be following the settlement instructions as outlined by Geldert Law because I cannot risk further liability in this matter. I am concerned however that when I submit these funds, that I will actually receive a Release and that the money will be allocated as indicated. Consequently, I would submit that an Intervention by the Law Society to ensure the funds are allocated in the correct manner, and appropriate releases are sent to clients would be warranted and in order to prevent further injustice in this case.

I am aware that you should have received other letters of concern from other clients of Geldert Law that are dealing with the same issues and mistrust of the handling of this matter on our (and their) behalf. I would suggest that an investigation by the Law Society should be held as this entire matter has been a travesty of justice on many levels, and I have retained ALL documentation that can substantiate the above claims and comments.

Thank you.

Just to clarify #6 - it was the Petition Hearing to be held December 15th, 2017 that they dropped out of without our instructions/permission to do so.

NotWhatIPaidFor · Jan 26, 2018

MgolferL said:
This is the letter I am sending to the Law Society again

Feel free to copy and paste and/or change it ...but regardless SEND SOMETHING...

January 26, 2017

Law Society of British Columbia

Request for Intervention and Investigation

Northmont Resort Properties v. Brian Golbert and Collette Goldberg
No. S159447, Vancouver Registry (the "Goldbert Action")
Decision of Mr. Justice Branch

I have been a client of Geldert Law through the process of Northmont Resort Properties (aka Sunchaser) seeking and being awarded judgements against some 1400 time share contracts. Unfortunately, as this case has been totally skewed and misrepresented on many levels however, we are now coming down to the final days to having to pay the “settlement” that was “negotiated” by Mr. Geldert. Both are in quotations as the “settlement” was supposed to be approved by the clients that retained Mr. Geldert, to which that never happened, and the “negotiation” was considerably higher that the statement Northmont had issued several weeks prior.

Concerns that I have regarding this include, but are not limited to:

1. ALL clients were told not to pay statements we received. Consequently we never did, nor paid the money in trust. The result of this was that Northmont has charged us interest individually on these accounts at 26% interest. This means that the interest on all statements is more than the base amounts owing.

2. Supplied fragmented, incomplete information throughout the process on the auspices of guarding information from Northmont, however prevented a collective forum of over several hundred clients to discuss our options.

3. Did not allow us to see the "negotiated" agreement and vote on it, and accepted it on our behalf, knowing the financial hardship could incur on many people.

4. Imposed an unrealistic time-frame in which to interpret the potential agreement as this was done over Christmas. People were on vacation, travelling, etc and only had a couple of days in which to respond.

5. Agreed to an unrealistic time-frame to complete agreements.

6. Dropped an ongoing appeal without agreement from the group, and in essence eliminated any negotiating opportunity.

7. Complaints from many clients of no response to pertinent questions has been a common theme.

We are now bound by the agreement we are being forced to pay, or accept additional fees in the amount of 162% as also "negotiated" by Mr. Geldert. Consequently, I will be following the settlement instructions as outlined by Geldert Law because I cannot risk further liability in this matter. I am concerned however that when I submit these funds, that I will actually receive a Release and that the money will be allocated as indicated. Consequently, I would submit that an Intervention by the Law Society to ensure the funds are allocated in the correct manner, and appropriate releases are sent to clients would be warranted and in order to prevent further injustice in this case.

I am aware that you should have received other letters of concern from other clients of Geldert Law that are dealing with the same issues and mistrust of the handling of this matter on our (and their) behalf. I would suggest that an investigation by the Law Society should be held as this entire matter has been a travesty of justice on many levels, and I have retained ALL documentation that can substantiate the above claims and comments.

Thank you.

Hey, make sure you add that we were guaranteed verbally that MG would allow us to see the agreement before approval. Not just that we didn't get to see it ahead of time but that he told us verbally we would be able to see it first.

truthr · Jan 26, 2018

NotWhatIPaidFor said:
Hey, make sure you add that we were guaranteed verbally that MG would allow us to see the agreement before approval. Not just that we didn't get to see it ahead of time but that he told us verbally we would be able to see it first.

Actually not only verbally but in writing.

aden2 · Jan 26, 2018

It is official, just received a register that I am not being represented by a Lawyer anymore...

OK_Calm_Down · Jan 26, 2018

WARNING - (difference between being released and not being released)
-----------

OK, I've been on here reading, trying to understand, get direction and the release / cancellation questions are a big concern. Sorry for my board name, don't mean to insult people. There's little trust on here so I don't expect people to blindly trust me. Please confirm for yourselves.

I hope this helps some people here. I can't speak towards Ultimate_Betrayal's comment about are we released from Resort Villa Management's debt or only NM's debt, maybe someone can ask Michael about this. But as far as NM what we've negotiated is a release, that's what we gave up the petition for. If you went on your own (Option 2) then you're on your own as far as getting a release. If you're Option 1 and you don't pay when you're supposed to then not only are you paying the higher amount....you WON'T get a release.

That's what we are getting here, a full release. By all means, get everything answered about the release (like the Resort Villa Management concern) so we can all be sure. Also, if the topics I covered are wrong please let me know.

For those not settling, this is your danger. You may get a better decision on costs from the Judge and if your original number is high it might be worth it for the chance to cut your bill in half or so on the interest. But will you get a release? I hope you do.

If you're Option 1 you won't just be hunted down for more cash you'll lose your release. THIS IS IMPORTANT, I imagine we could have got a better deal on the interest / costs but what you're paying for is the release. It would be horrible to be in this group and not pay. You are charged more to get the release, you don't make the payment, now your bill goes way up....not just on the hypothetical lower amount you would have paid without the release but you'll be charged a percentage of the amount you paid to be released (ie. charged again for the release)...AND THEN you LOSE THE RELEASE.

The situation sucks for sure. I hope this helps a few people.

MarcieL · Jan 26, 2018

A few people on the face book site have consulted seperate counsel who have verified the release looks fine, one suggested we add a note saying we understand this to be a final release with our signatures. This is not a quote but of similar meaning .

Ultimate_Betrayal · Jan 26, 2018

NeverNeverAgain said:
Hello Unltimate_Betrayal,

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that we are about to be scammed yet again by our lawyer, correct? Do you have third party opinions to support this (that you can mention?) There is no way I can afford to not be out of this and need to know. I have written many, many letters, some replied, most not. Most replies saying there is nothing they can do. It should be noted that there are some positive responses still going, so everyone please continue doing everything you know to do, everyone get involved to the end. What else can be done so we can get away from this?

It sounds like you believe the money all have paid, and are going to pay, has had and will have no benefit to the resort. It is not required by the courts to be spent on the resort, correct? Wow! So were is the money going and how can it be proved? Again, this must be illegal, but maybe there is still more to be learned by us about our rights. If what you are saying is true, how can any of those who paid to stay not get involved in the fight, as this would seem to be proof positive that NM is not looking for the overall good of the resort. This should invalidate every court decision. It also would imply that those who stayed will, in the future, be in the same situation we are in.

Hi NeverNeverAgain

My interpretation of the Settlement Agreement has been confirmed that it is correct so yes there is potential for a double hit on all of us to have to pay for the "past" obligation. There are several other parts written into the Settlement Agreement that also make more sense if you think of this scenario being applied this way for example read Schedule "D" section 2.

Moving forward if this is not defined prior to the Feb 15th deadline when we initiate the signing of the Settlement Agreement it will become a Sealed Settlement Document within the courts once it is accepted by the courts. This means if you are then called upon by Resort Villa Management to pay your outstanding statement you could be on the hook to have to do so and not have a timeshare to enjoy as you sold it to NM to assume your future timeshare liability.

This debt which will continue to grow exponentially given the 26.8% interest rates and in your defense you will not be able to use the Settlement Agreement with its attached a gag order and further bond as a Sealed Settlement Document to say you you have satisfied the debt (NM and Resort Villa Management are two separate legal entities). It remains as an asset within Resort Villa Management so even if the resort is sold the value of the debt remains.

This is our own individual debt that is accrued with Resort Villa Management and you have only sold your timeshare liability interest to NM - NM is not going to assume the debt on your behalf with the transfer and there is no provision in the Settlement Agreement to state otherwise it will be expunged.

Since there are no true Minutes of the Negotiation or a neutral 3rd party all the courts will have is MG and MN intended interpretation to relay on and how many years will that take to figure out. With no written documentation as to the true intent or a 3rd party it will come down to who presents the best case in the future.

Alternately in writing from MG and endorsed by NM as part of the Settlement Agreement in very simple and clear terms paying the Settlement Agreement amount sought is in exchange for any past, current, and future liabilities that exist are in exchange for our timeshare leases.

This needs to be endorses and binding to both sides - if it is only endorsed by MG is it worthless as it NM needs to agree this is the intent of the settlement.

Unfortunately our lawyer is NOT protecting us and these steps must be taken to ensure our release is done with no strings attached.

Sheeptoslaughter · Jan 26, 2018

Perhaps a list of questions for MG are due with an expectation of a group email answers as per what was always done prev. The release and its wording is a huge concern. What is resort villa managents role to northmont?? I spoke with someone who paid last spring to get out and has not received any form of a release??? Mg needs!!! To address the concerns of the large group he single handedly made this decision that will annihilate 100's of ppl. I also had asked would we be able to review it and he said yes. We needed that option and the petition should have been heard. I want an immediate release !! in my mind mg should have signed paperwork releasing lessees from all named company and any individuals from any further claims and be able to give it to us instantly upon receipt of payment??? I would be willing to hand deliver it in order to get my release. I am beyond angry at this whole mess. I recall a comment mg made years ago. To kw its only money, its not personal. Wow.

MarcieL · Jan 26, 2018

Ultimate_Betrayal said:
Hi NeverNeverAgain

My interpretation of the Settlement Agreement has been confirmed that it is correct so yes there is potential for a double hit on all of us to have to pay for the "past" obligation. There are several other parts written into the Settlement Agreement that also make more sense if you think of this scenario being applied this way for example read Schedule "D" section 2.

Moving forward if this is not defined prior to the Feb 15th deadline when we initiate the signing of the Settlement Agreement it will become a Sealed Settlement Document within the courts once it is accepted by the courts. This means if you are then called upon by Resort Villa Management to pay your outstanding statement you could be on the hook to have to do so and not have a timeshare to enjoy as you sold it to NM to assume your future timeshare liability.

This debt which will continue to grow exponentially given the 26.8% interest rates and in your defense you will not be able to use the Settlement Agreement with its attached a gag order and further bond as a Sealed Settlement Document to say you you have satisfied the debt (NM and Resort Villa Management are two separate legal entities). It remains as an asset within Resort Villa Management so even if the resort is sold the value of the debt remains.

This is our own individual debt that is accrued with Resort Villa Management and you have only sold your timeshare liability interest to NM - NM is not going to assume the debt on your behalf with the transfer and there is no provision in the Settlement Agreement to state otherwise it will be expunged.

Since there are no true Minutes of the Negotiation or a neutral 3rd party all the courts will have is MG and MN intended interpretation to relay on and how many years will that take to figure out. With no written documentation as to the true intent or a 3rd party it will come down to who presents the best case in the future.

Alternately in writing from MG and endorsed by NM as part of the Settlement Agreement in very simple and clear terms paying the Settlement Agreement amount sought is in exchange for any past, current, and future liabilities that exist are in exchange for our timeshare leases.

This needs to be endorses and binding to both sides - if it is only endorsed by MG is it worthless as it NM needs to agree this is the intent of the settlement.

Unfortunately our lawyer is NOT protecting us and these steps must be taken to ensure our release is done with no strings attached.

Have you addressed your concerns with MG time is of the essence.

Lostmyshirt · Jan 26, 2018

Northmont/Northwynd/Resort Villa Management. They should ALL be named on the release, or perhaps? there is a chance to go back to the courts against Northwynd....... or Resort Villa Management??? I just don't trust any of it anymore........

FairSun · Jan 26, 2018

OK_Calm_Down said:
WARNING - (difference between being released and not being released)
-----------

OK, I've been on here reading, trying to understand, get direction and the release / cancellation questions are a big concern. Sorry for my board name, don't mean to insult people. There's little trust on here so I don't expect people to blindly trust me. Please confirm for yourselves.

I hope this helps some people here. I can't speak towards Ultimate_Betrayal's comment about are we released from Resort Villa Management's debt or only NM's debt, maybe someone can ask Michael about this. But as far as NM what we've negotiated is a release, that's what we gave up the petition for. If you went on your own (Option 2) then you're on your own as far as getting a release. If you're Option 1 and you don't pay when you're supposed to then not only are you paying the higher amount....you WON'T get a release.

That's what we are getting here, a full release. By all means, get everything answered about the release (like the Resort Villa Management concern) so we can all be sure. Also, if the topics I covered are wrong please let me know.

For those not settling, this is your danger. You may get a better decision on costs from the Judge and if your original number is high it might be worth it for the chance to cut your bill in half or so on the interest. But will you get a release? I hope you do.

If you're Option 1 you won't just be hunted down for more cash you'll lose your release. THIS IS IMPORTANT, I imagine we could have got a better deal on the interest / costs but what you're paying for is the release. It would be horrible to be in this group and not pay. You are charged more to get the release, you don't make the payment, now your bill goes way up....not just on the hypothetical lower amount you would have paid without the release but you'll be charged a percentage of the amount you paid to be released (ie. charged again for the release)...AND THEN you LOSE THE RELEASE.

The situation sucks for sure. I hope this helps a few people.

Some people have questioned whether our lawyer has confirmed in writing that Option 1 secures for us a full release. Perhaps rereading the letter dated December 19, 2017 from lawyer David Wotherspoon of MLT Aikins law firm in Vancouver to "Geldert Group Member", which was included as an attachment to the email from Michael Geldert sent on Dec. 19th, may provide further reassurance. The stated purpose of the letter was to explain the rationale for settlement that our lawyers, David Wotherspoon and Michael Geldert, negotiated on behalf of Geldert Group members who committed to Option 1. At least three times in that letter Mr. Wotherspoon confirms payment of the settlement "includes all retroactive fees, registry update fee, interest and costs;" "[relinquishes] you from your VIA(s), including all associated fees and costs;" "will be released from their VIA in return for the payment described above, with payment due February 15, 2018."

OK_Calm_Down · Jan 26, 2018

Ultimate_Betrayal please tell us if you plan on contacting MG about this immediately. If not the rest of us need to.

FairSun · Jan 26, 2018

Lostmyshirt said:
Northmont/Northwynd/Resort Villa Management. They should ALL be named on the release, or perhaps? there is a chance to go back to the courts against Northwynd....... or Resort Villa Management??? I just don't trust any of it anymore........

If you reread the Release Agreement, you'll see it states at Clause 3 that the Parties to the agreement "release, remise and forever discharge each of the other Parties and Related Parties of and from the Claims..." Note that the Release Agreement defines "Claims" as "means all claims, proceedings, liabilities, obligations, demands, costs, and expenses whatsoever, including legal fees, known or unknown, which any of the Parties now has or may hereafter have in law or in equity, whether jointly or separately, with respect to anything arising directly or indirectly from or by reason of or related to the VIAs or the subject matter of the VIAs or the Litigation;"

Ultimate_Betrayal · Jan 26, 2018

FairSun said:
Some people have questioned whether our lawyer has confirmed in writing that Option 1 secures for us a full release. Perhaps rereading the letter dated December 19, 2017 from lawyer David Wotherspoon of MLT Aikins law firm in Vancouver to "Geldert Group Member", which was included as an attachment to the email from Michael Geldert sent on Dec. 19th, may provide further reassurance. The stated purpose of the letter was to explain the rationale for settlement that our lawyers, David Wotherspoon and Michael Geldert, negotiated on behalf of Geldert Group members who committed to Option 1. At least three times in that letter Mr. Wotherspoon confirms payment of the settlement "includes all retroactive fees, registry update fee, interest and costs;" "[relinquishes] you from your VIA(s), including all associated fees and costs;" "will be released from their VIA in return for the payment described above, with payment due February 15, 2018."

Unfortunately that letter is not part of the settlement agreement and is only an opinion to help the Settlement Agreement sell better by someone who didn't sign the Settlement Agreement document paid for by our Trust money at Michael's need to make the Settlement Agreement appear legit - as far as I am concerned if it is not in the agreement it is not part of the agreement.

This experience has taught me to ensure the "i" is dotted and "t" is crossed.

Remember the SIF - there was an email Nov 6th that relaxed everyone into signing that document that landed us here today that was not included in the original SIF.
“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.”

Please feel free to call Michael and discuss, do let us know what he says if you don't mind.

truthr · Jan 26, 2018

The Casualties

Ultimate_Betrayal · Jan 26, 2018

OK_Calm_Down said:
Ultimate_Betrayal please tell us if you plan on contacting MG about this immediately. If not the rest of us need to.

This was brought up along with other questions over a week ago and that evening I got a call from his office but didn't take it as I want everything in writing - I still have not seen an email reply that satisfies my inquiry as this seems to be the norm for everyone.

Definitely more voices the better - my voice on future matters related to Geldert are going to the Law Society.

FairSun · Jan 26, 2018

Ultimate_Betrayal said:
Unfortunately that letter is not part of the settlement agreement and is only an opinion to help the Settlement Agreement sell better by someone who didn't sign the Settlement Agreement document paid for by our Trust money at Michael's need to make the Settlement Agreement appear legit - as far as I am concerned if it is not in the agreement it is not part of the agreement.

This experience has taught me to ensure the "i" is dotted and "t" is crossed.

Remember the SIF - there was an email Nov 6th that relaxed everyone into signing that document that landed us here today that was not included in the original SIF.
“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.”

Please feel free to call Michael and discuss, do let us know what he says if you don't mind.

I've already discussed that exact point with him. I was satisfied that KW/NM were serious about 162% had MG walked away without signing. Thanks to court decisions, they held the power. Should MG have played chicken on our behalf? Would we have a better deal today had he walked away? Certainly at least a few people think so and I don't blame them for that. There is nothing black and white about this matter. I know I have wrestled at length numerous times in 5 years over what was the right thing to do.
Note too that the Release Agreement includes the same definition of "Claims" as David Wotherspoon detailed in his letter. The Release Agreement also defines "Related Parties" as "current and former directors, officers, employees, agents, principals, representatives, partners, insurers, administrators, shareholders, members, subsidiaries, affiliates, related corporations, predecessors, successors and assigns."

Bewildered · Jan 26, 2018

MarcieL said:
A few people on the face book site have consulted seperate counsel who have verified the release looks fine, one suggested we add a note saying we understand this to be a final release with our signatures. This is not a quote but of similar meaning .

Sorry to completely disagree with you , had an opinion from both a lawyer and a experienced contract negotiator. Both say it’s less than stellar and in fact possibly leaves us open to future issues

CorruptionExtortion · Jan 26, 2018

Kirk Wankel is becoming an expert at insolvency at no expense to him. Timeshare contracts around the world appear to be vague in the courts. I had one friend that bought a timeshare and the company went bankrupt before they booked their first week. It appears KW may have found his niche with high returns, no recourse for timeshare owners and sociopathic tendancies beneficial only to him. Kirk Wankel was involved and named in 2007 court documents as CFO with a bankruptcy involving Fairsky Resources vs Canadian Western Bank. This bankruptcy left creditors with a loss of over SEVEN MILLION dollars. He promotes himself on Linkedin as successfully winning in the Supreme Court of BC and successfully business turn-around payed shareholders their investment back (I am paraphrasing). Good business practices and financial success are not made off the backs of others with what we thought was a lawful contract.

Kirk Wankel is a member of the Chartered Accountants/Chartered Professional Accountants of Alberta. There is a very strict code of ethics that come with that designation.

Anyone interested in contacting CPA Alberta:
Chartered Professional Accountants of Alberta
800-444 7 Avenue SW
Calgary Alberta, T2P 0X8
T: 403 299 1339

truthr · Jan 26, 2018

I have not read through the entire document yet but was just made aware of this regarding the December 15, 2017 Petition hearing, here is a link to Oral Reasons for Judgement
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/d...tocompleteStr=philip matkin&autocompletePos=3

Bewildered · Jan 26, 2018

NotWhatIPaidFor said:
Ultimate_Betrayal is bang on. The way this payment is being handled is concerning and we all know what happened last time MG told us to "trust him". He's a lawyer, we shouldn't have to "trust him", it should be handled properly with our safety absolutely guaranteed. Do what Ultimate_Betrayal said and make those calls. The insurance company cares about their liability.

Please tell me more about the insurance company and liability not getting what this is relating to?

Ultimate_Betrayal · Jan 26, 2018

FairSun said:
If you reread the Release Agreement, you'll see it states at Clause 3 that the Parties to the agreement "release, remise and forever discharge each of the other Parties and Related Parties of and from the Claims..." Note that the Release Agreement defines "Claims" as "means all claims, proceedings, liabilities, obligations, demands, costs, and expenses whatsoever, including legal fees, known or unknown, which any of the Parties now has or may hereafter have in law or in equity, whether jointly or separately, with respect to anything arising directly or indirectly from or by reason of or related to the VIAs or the subject matter of the VIAs or the Litigation;"

Yes it directly relates to a claim NM would have over me - Resort Villa Management is it's own entity and their is no mention of subsidiaries of NM being part of the release so my obligations to them related to "claims, proceedings, liabilities, obligations, demands, costs, and expenses" have not been absolved based on this clause.

It's pretty easy to fix if parties agree to it and add it to the settlement agreement.

Ultimate_Betrayal · Jan 26, 2018

Bewildered said:
Please tell me more about the insurance company and liability not getting what this is relating to?

Have a look at this article - our circumstances are not the same but for a case gone wrong provisions are in place to make people whole again in the event a lawyer has acted improperly - by notifying the insurance company they already have a team of litigators as any insurance company has and will try and mitigate their losses if they can.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-pleads-guilty-to-40m-mortgage-fraud-1.832540

aden2 · Jan 26, 2018

The advice I had received was "if you had been scammed or had fraudlent sales tactics, and Nm had not made any attempt to correct their fraudlent actions, then FRAUD still exists. The only time Fraud does not exists is when a retribution has taken place, and that is not the case with NM.

Tanny13 · Jan 26, 2018

truthr said:
I have not read through the entire document yet but was just made aware of this regarding the December 15, 2017 Petition hearing, here is a link to Oral Reasons for Judgement
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc2478/2017bcsc2478.html?autocompleteStr=philip matkin&autocompletePos=3

So even though MG dropped this petition on our behalf as "leverage" for our "great" settlement, JY did not explicitly say the realignment can go through. She specifically states that Par. 8 and 10 have to be relied upon - Par. 8 states that 66 2/3% of VIA owners have to approve the realignment and Par. 10 - that the realignment is not inconsistent with the rights of the owners. For those who will remain owners, I'm hoping we still have some fight left.