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

[Punter]

These issues were raised with court. The court ruled that it was reasonable for NM to take out inventory that they held and to convert the building into a condo under the Resort Realignment Plan. Decision was upheld on appeal.

Para. 382: that Northmont was in breach of its obligation to pay its portion of the Renovation Project Fee. Para. 381: No merit

[384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements). [385] In my view, it is within the discretion of the Manager to do so in an appropriate fashion. Further, I consider that this is a reasonable approach until it is determined whether Step 4 of the Resort Realignment Plan will come to pass. JEKE’s counsel makes the somewhat vague assertion that if Northmont had paid its portion of the Renovation Project Fee, “we would not be here”. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, to the extent that the renovations have been completed by the Resort using the Renovation Project Fee, this has allowed time share owners, including JEKE, to use these renovated units, just as contemplated by the VIAs.

Please offer your opinion on how/why NM can charge the RPF in this ‘settlement’, along with 26% compounded interest (interest alone in our case is 18k$) for something they have admitted in court has not been, and will never be, completed.

 

[Been Around Awhile]

And I think you need a dose of reality. You can live in that echo chamber, but it clearly did not help you in the numerous court proceedings.

You're just posting to hear yourself.

 

[Just Looking Around]

These issues were raised with court. The court ruled that it was reasonable for NM to take out inventory that they held and to convert the building into a condo under the Resort Realignment Plan. Decision was upheld on appeal.

Para. 382: that Northmont was in breach of its obligation to pay its portion of the Renovation Project Fee. Para. 381: No merit

[384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements). [385] In my view, it is within the discretion of the Manager to do so in an appropriate fashion. Further, I consider that this is a reasonable approach until it is determined whether Step 4 of the Resort Realignment Plan will come to pass. JEKE’s counsel makes the somewhat vague assertion that if Northmont had paid its portion of the Renovation Project Fee, “we would not be here”. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, to the extent that the renovations have been completed by the Resort using the Renovation Project Fee, this has allowed time share owners, including JEKE, to use these renovated units, just as contemplated by the VIAs.

Please answer Punter"s question.

 

[NeverNeverAgain]

These issues were raised with court. The court ruled that it was reasonable for NM to take out inventory that they held and to convert the building into a condo under the Resort Realignment Plan. Decision was upheld on appeal.

Para. 382: that Northmont was in breach of its obligation to pay its portion of the Renovation Project Fee. Para. 381: No merit

[384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements). [385] In my view, it is within the discretion of the Manager to do so in an appropriate fashion. Further, I consider that this is a reasonable approach until it is determined whether Step 4 of the Resort Realignment Plan will come to pass. JEKE’s counsel makes the somewhat vague assertion that if Northmont had paid its portion of the Renovation Project Fee, “we would not be here”. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, to the extent that the renovations have been completed by the Resort using the Renovation Project Fee, this has allowed time share owners, including JEKE, to use these renovated units, just as contemplated by the VIAs.

Are you serious? Is there no limit to what you will do or say to justify the Courts' decision? So they decide they don't have to pay and thats ok with you? Please moderate but, we don't need your capitulation with the Justices. If you've no skin in the game we'd prefer you didn't play.

I assume ecwinch is just pointing out where we no longer have legal standing, not specifically if he agrees with the decision. I hope he does continue to post as it helps me understand this mess from the courts point of view and might make clear where there is still valid legal standing.

As stated in previous posts, the settlement is based on our bill which includes:
1. The renovation fee, which is not being done on our units since we are leaving.
2. Maintenance fees, for services we were denied.
3. Interest at 27% on these amounts, when they did not spend the money.
4. Plus an added amount, presumably an exit fee for our lease agreement.

They are double dipping or worse, and there is no way the damages could be this much. Also, I think the court did rule that they were responsible for their share of the Maintenance fees, which is likely what was being referred to. If their share of maintenance fees had been paid, the bill would have been less (half) for that portion.

It has been said that we are not actually paying for the above items, it is just an amount. My question still remains, does anyone know where this money is legally suppose to go? Does it need to be spent on the resort? From a previous post, it looks like it will not be going to the REIT investors. Shouldn't it show as income on the books and then have to be shown as an expense when the money is spent? Someone please help me understand this from the legal perspective. If the money is spent on the resort, it is in great shape. If not, things are not going to be looking good for the resort going forward or those still involved.

 

[terminator]

What???? Please explain otherwise I call BS especially on the police file (well the $40G Visa too). Had too many discussions with RCMP all dead ends for this to now be happening.

The first and last time I will reply to you. This is a criminal case - fraud! The civil case was lost, at least the first one. The court is as guilty as NM. For the most part I don't get involved in these scrums...I don't need the crap from people like you, after investing hours upon hours on this. Seldom cohesive and organized is
forum content, that's why NM gets away with this. You think I come here to brag? Better things to do. The point I was making was I (with some help from other victims) took on fraudsters and proved our case. It can be done if you know what the hell you're talking about. Actually, it was more than 40,000. Then again, I don't need to prove anything to you. Hasta luego!

 

[ecwinch]

The RPF was based on renovating all the units. Why then wasn't the RPF reduced to reflect those units that were removed?

The short answer is it was reduced, but since the number units decreased also, the amount each unit week pays remains the same.

As example, as I understand it the resort has/had a total of 250 units. I dont know the exact amount of the total RPF originally, but lets say $52million covering 250 units or $208k per unit. If you remove 128 units from the timeshare plan, the total amount of the RPF then goes down to $25.376 million covering 122 units. So the total cost of the project has decreased, but so has the number of units paying the RPF.

So your individual bill is still same.

 

[Stung]

My name is Lorene Keitch, I'm the editor of the Columbia Valley Pioneer newspaper in Invermere, British Columbia. I'm looking to do a story on the latest court decision and am looking for reaction from timeshare owners and / or lawyers representing your interests. Can someone please direct me to who I could phone for further information? Thank you for your time.

Please do us justice with your (our) story and make it count! Certainly contact Truth-renaissance. You can also get a summary here http://truths2cents.blogspot.ca/search/label/Northmont Sunchaser Scandal

 

[ecwinch]

Please offer your opinion on how/why NM can charge the RPF in this ‘settlement’, along with 26% compounded interest (interest alone in our case is 18k$) for something they have admitted in court has not been, and will never be, completed.

Where do you find that they admitted in court that the work will not be completed?

 

[ecwinch]

You're just posting to hear yourself.

You are entitled to your opinion. But based on the PM's I have received thanking me for helping people understand the court rulings, it is clear that is not all I am doing.

If you find it so difficult to hear facts that do not align with your belief system, please use the ignore feature to ignore my posts and you will not be subjected to that information.

 

[Petus@18]

 

[Punter]

Where do you find that they admitted in court that the work will not be completed?

[384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements).

The settlement is to get out - to cancel. Why would NM renovate units that have no "Lessees"?

 

[ecwinch]

How does what you are quoting differ with this example:

250 units
Total Reno budget = $52 million
Reno budget per unit = $208k
Reno budget per unit week = $4k

Remove 128 units from the RFP

Total Reno Budget has to decrease, as you avoid having to renovate entire buildings as NM retires those weeks from the timeshare plan. So the number cannot be $52 million anymore.

The court fully understood that certain buildings were not to be renovated at owners expense. But why should NM pay RFP on units that will not be renovated under the RFP? What is the legal basis for arguing that?

EDIT: If MG had his eye on the ball he would have suggested you band together to get the same deal that NM was taking - the ability to take a entire building out of the timeshare plan. Then just sell the building or bulldoze it. With 1400 owners in the group that would seem to translate to at least one building at the resort.

 

[wagga2650]

Question for someone smarter than me.We are in option 1 but we were duped into thinking we could review before accepting.Can we join the option 2 as it sits now?

 

[Spark1]

Question for someone smarter than me.We are in option 1 but we were duped into thinking we could review before accepting.Can we join the option 2 as it sits now?

Ihave talked to the RCMP and explained to them what is happening and they said they can not see this being legal. Talk to your RCMP and explain every thing with them. I can not see this being legal There is so much going on with this case that I feel is Fraud

 

[CleoB]

These issues were raised with court. The court ruled that it was reasonable for NM to take out inventory that they held and to convert the building into a condo under the Resort Realignment Plan. Decision was upheld on appeal.

Para. 382: that Northmont was in breach of its obligation to pay its portion of the Renovation Project Fee. Para. 381: No merit

[384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements). [385] In my view, it is within the discretion of the Manager to do so in an appropriate fashion. Further, I consider that this is a reasonable approach until it is determined whether Step 4 of the Resort Realignment Plan will come to pass. JEKE’s counsel makes the somewhat vague assertion that if Northmont had paid its portion of the Renovation Project Fee, “we would not be here”. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, to the extent that the renovations have been completed by the Resort using the Renovation Project Fee, this has allowed time share owners, including JEKE, to use these renovated units, just as contemplated by the VIAs.

I think our side should have argued that the units/building shuttered were actually from the timeshare owners that paid to leave so would not be responsible for maintenance fees or RPF. If they could use the agreement so should we.

 

[CleoB]

Please offer your opinion on how/why NM can charge the RPF in this ‘settlement’, along with 26% compounded interest (interest alone in our case is 18k$) for something they have admitted in court has not been, and will never be, completed.

Can you please point me to the document, page and paragraph that indicates NM "never will complete the renos"? Thanks

 

[aden2]

Question for someone smarter than me.We are in option 1 but we were duped into thinking we could review before accepting.Can we join the option 2 as it sits now?[/
This is why I changed from option one, because MG would not disclose how much I would have to pay before hand even though I had it in writing that he would never agree to something without the VIA's knowing what he wanted to agree on. I told MG he was playing games and was not getting my money without knowing his agreement!

 

[aden2]

Question for someone smarter than me.We are in option 1 but we were duped into thinking we could review before accepting.Can we join the option 2 as it sits now?

Send a letter to MG with your thoughts! I opted out of option one......

 

[CleoB]

Here's the latest decision on the appeal in B.C. https://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-conte...t-Resort-Properties-Ltd.-v.-Golberg-01-31.pdf

 

[truthr]

Here's the latest decision on the appeal in B.C. https://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-conte...t-Resort-Properties-Ltd.-v.-Golberg-01-31.pdf

To my knowledge the appeal was squashed in November 2017.

From the looks of this document it is the BC Supplementary Reasons for Judgment
I haven't read it all the way through yet but from I read it looks like it is dealing with the issue of cost and interest for the BC defendants

 

[Jjareed]

Here's the latest decision on the appeal in B.C. https://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-conte...t-Resort-Properties-Ltd.-v.-Golberg-01-31.pdf

So do you have exhibit B and C. I would like to know the total damages for the 370 defendants. B below works out to $900, but I don't know what a and c are?



IV. CONCLUSION


[57] I make the following orders:

a) the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the amounts set out in Exhibit "B" of the Wankel Affidavit #3, plus interest;

b) the plaintiff is entitled to special costs in a total fixed amount of $333,000 to be divided severally across the defendant actions in proportion to the interim statements of account for fees set out in Exhibit "C" to the Wankel Affidavit #3; and

c) the plaintiff is entitled to disbursements in the amounts set out in Exhibit "C" to the Wankel Affidavit #3, save that any disbursements attributable to the Rule 9-5 application shall be divided severally and in the same manner as the special costs award.

 

[Jjareed]

To my knowledge the appeal was squashed in November 2017.

From the looks of this document it is the BC Supplementary Reasons for Judgment
I haven't read it all the way through yet but from I read it looks like it is dealing with the issue of cost and interest for the BC defendants

This is dated 1-31-18

 

[NeverNeverAgain]

Here's the latest decision on the appeal in B.C. https://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-conte...t-Resort-Properties-Ltd.-v.-Golberg-01-31.pdf

Wow, only read part so far. Anyone know how to get the Exhibits?

 

[MgolferL]

I assume ecwinch is just pointing out where we no longer have legal standing, not specifically if he agrees with the decision. I hope he does continue to post as it helps me understand this mess from the courts point of view and might make clear where there is still valid legal standing.

As stated in previous posts, the settlement is based on our bill which includes:
1. The renovation fee, which is not being done on our units since we are leaving.
2. Maintenance fees, for services we were denied.
3. Interest at 27% on these amounts, when they did not spend the money.
4. Plus an added amount, presumably an exit fee for our lease agreement.

They are double dipping or worse, and there is no way the damages could be this much. Also, I think the court did rule that they were responsible for their share of the Maintenance fees, which is likely what was being referred to. If their share of maintenance fees had been paid, the bill would have been less (half) for that portion.

It has been said that we are not actually paying for the above items, it is just an amount. My question still remains, does anyone know where this money is legally suppose to go? Does it need to be spent on the resort? From a previous post, it looks like it will not be going to the REIT investors. Shouldn't it show as income on the books and then have to be shown as an expense when the money is spent? Someone please help me understand this from the legal perspective. If the money is spent on the resort, it is in great shape. If not, things are not going to be looking good for the resort going forward or those still involved.

I agree with everything you have said...and in reading your post along with every other post several times again this morning, I just wanted to throw out a few points....I may be incorrect but as this mess is evidence, it wouldn't be the first time.
Regarding your Point #1...
1. The RFP (renovation fee) IS this "term" what has and is causing us all this grief? In going thru things this morning, yet once again...including my 2007 "Vacation Experience Lease" it occurred to me that there was no "EXIT" clause, with the exception that if you were 90 days in arrears (Section 13), they could in essence terminate the Lease. I can't find it, but I also think if they changed things around and kicked anyone out, they would have even been required to pay for that decision.
2. When Fairmont went "broke" and Northmont picked it up, they received our leases in the "purchase". In other words, they bought (very cheaply) upwards of 14000 leases and wanted to get rid of half or more.
3. Had they just announced they were going to downsize the resort, and/or sell off buildings, people would have screamed bloody blue murder.
4. Consequently, they came up with the RFP, and told us our share was $$$. They just wanted people to leave, hence the POS Stay/Go Program. Thinking people weren't going to pay for repairs, the assumption may have been...a lot of people would just pay and go, but they also underestimated the amount that thought it was unfair...aka...us.
5. Perhaps by continually fighting and focusing on the "renovation battle" knowing that they are Not going to renovate and Never intended to renovate" we missed opportunity to fight the "they are kicking us out battle" , so in other words NOT fighting the changes they made to our contracts.
6. My thought in this is that the reno battle can't and will not be won (appears to be obvious at this point). The strategy was poor from the start. In going into the next round, perhaps the strategy has to change significantly.
7. BTW, everyone questions interest which has escalated our invoices to what they are...(Thanks MG)...the original 07 contract (Section 11), it shows that interest rate, which we never read because we were so excited to start making memories. I doubt that is something that can be fought.

To sum it up...we went to a "gunfight" with a "knife". I was so majorly focused on why I was not going to pay for renovations, and so minor focused on my "exit" cost my bill is 84% higher that it was in '13 due to interest and other costs...as I followed MG down the garden path.

I may not have worded this entirely coherently, but think i think the contract battle may be the one to fight. My original one shows it was a "Vacation Experience Lease" and I never received a new one with the "new owners" and being lumped in with JEKE screwed us ALL...also thanks for that MG. In other words, I am being punished based on a piece of paper that I have NEVER seen, signed or have been made aware of.

I am Option 1 and still deciding what to do, but there are a couple of lawyers in Edmonton that are looking at fighting a "new" fight. That fight (in my opinion only) has to take a new direction if it can...just throwing it out there...and lastly...DON't let anyone who is not up to speed on this do ANY interviews. The CTV one which could have major...was an example of a waste of time. Let Truth Renaissance speak for the group.

 

[Shake Down]

I am being punished based on a piece of paper that I have NEVER seen, signed or have been made aware of.

Yes I agree!