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

[truthr]

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

Something maybe our lawyer should be providing as he receives them??? And the one the judge is referring to is dated September 30, 2017.

 

[Lorene Keitch]

If your not up to speed on the legal then you would be doing this group a dis-service. Your also new and have little input to this group. I agree Truth-renaissance seems to have a good handle and probably the background required.

But Stephen is the only one who has reached out to me to comment. Truth is unavailable to speak to me at this time. If anyone else would like to go on record with their comments about this situation, please feel free to call me at 250-341-6299 ext. 110

 

[MarcieL]

Anyone have a link for the facebook group?

 

[MarcieL]

https://globalnews.ca/news/3957452/danielle-smith-timeshare-laws-need-to-change/

 

[Tanny13]

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.

The settlement amount is to leave the resort. ALL the settlements include the RPF. Can you explain that with logical reasoning? And the original amount per unit was ridiculous, as it continues to be.

 

[truthr]

The settlement amount is to leave the resort. ALL the settlements include the RPF. Can you explain that with logical reasoning? And the original amount per unit was ridiculous, as it continues to be.

The settlement dollar amounts may be based on the RPF, past maintenance, interest, costs, etc. but I wonder if the resort itself will ever see the monies collected from the "settlement" agreements.

 

[Machete]

The basis for an appeal in res judicata, are limited to discovery of fraud, error in fact or important new facts, not reasonably discoverable by due diligence at the time the case was argued. Other basis include judicial error or judicial bias. The judge must be seen to have empathy towards the aggrieved parties.

1. Error in fact: the timeshare interest owners were stated as the "owners" of the resort for purposes of capital costs.
In Jeke v Northmont, paragraph 17 "Vacation interval owners are sometimes referred to as owners or lessees depending on the type of their respective interests. As I will describe below, Jeke's interest is as a lessee. I will refer to them as owners." REALLY!?
Note in the same case, paragraph 45; "...Fairmont's operations at the resort continued until mid-2010 when the CCAA proceedings resulted in Fairmont's secured creditors through a new ownership structure, which included Northmont taking over the assets of Fairmont. These assets included Fairmont's interests under the Jeke VIA's."

Timeshare owner interests form only a small portion of Northmont's assets at Sunchaser, about 38.5% including Northmont's reversionary interests.

Note paragraph 47, "Northmont inherited a resort with significant maintenance and structural issues." So again, Northmont LP is stated as the primary owner of the resort. NW has made millions from the resort as they have done in other resorts around the world. They did this through sales of Legacy for Life, through firesale timeshares in 2010, through management fees of 15%, through RVM, through income from NP REIT secured against Sunchaser properties, as well as numerous fees and commissions on the REIT sales. There is no question that Sunchaser under NW LP is a for profit business and not a break even cost recovery operation like a strata property. So in summary, who are the real owners?! NOT the timeshare lessees. This was error in fact, judicial error, and in the background, significant fraud.

How on earth did the judge view the lessees as the only owners responsible for capital renovations. I'm not just talking about cancelled timeshare interests reverting to NM, but the fact they owned all the assets of the resort and will still profit from the sale of units removed from the resort in the downsizing.

One more argument to judicial bias and/or error;
Paragraph 273, "...the logical question that arises is - if the owners are not required to pay for these types of costs, whether they are in the nature of capital or not, then who is?" The right answer is ALL the owners!

She goes on in paragraph 287 to argue , "There is nothing in the prospectus that imposes an obligation on any other person to pay such capital costs..."
The judge shows bias or error in her conclusion that absence of a contract statement about who shares costs means ONLY the timeshare owners. Contract interpretation is not the only factor the judge needed to consider. A more logical conclusion is that the developer and true owner of the resort should be responsible for at least the portion of the renovations that are over and above normal repairs and maintenance. Who wouldn't want to run a for profit business where the owner gets all the profits yet gets to pass off all his expenses onto someone else?! The judge is flip flopping throughout between between strata and non strata type arguments to favour NM's side. Judicial bias.

Just throwing this out there as possible fodder to those still fighting this battle. My fight is over. Good Luck!

 

[FairSun]

The basis for an appeal in res judicata, are limited to discovery of fraud, error in fact or important new facts, not reasonably discoverable by due diligence at the time the case was argued. Other basis include judicial error or judicial bias. The judge must be seen to have empathy towards the aggrieved parties.

1. Error in fact: the timeshare interest owners were stated as the "owners" of the resort for purposes of capital costs.
In Jeke v Northmont, paragraph 17 "Vacation interval owners are sometimes referred to as owners or lessees depending on the type of their respective interests. As I will describe below, Jeke's interest is as a lessee. I will refer to them as owners." REALLY!?
Note in the same case, paragraph 45; "...Fairmont's operations at the resort continued until mid-2010 when the CCAA proceedings resulted in Fairmont's secured creditors through a new ownership structure, which included Northmont taking over the assets of Fairmont. These assets included Fairmont's interests under the Jeke VIA's."

Timeshare owner interests form only a small portion of Northmont's assets at Sunchaser, about 38.5% including Northmont's reversionary interests.

Note paragraph 47, "Northmont inherited a resort with significant maintenance and structural issues." So again, Northmont LP is stated as the primary owner of the resort. NW has made millions from the resort as they have done in other resorts around the world. They did this through sales of Legacy for Life, through firesale timeshares in 2010, through management fees of 15%, through RVM, through income from NP REIT secured against Sunchaser properties, as well as numerous fees and commissions on the REIT sales. There is no question that Sunchaser under NW LP is a for profit business and not a break even cost recovery operation like a strata property. So in summary, who are the real owners?! NOT the timeshare lessees. This was error in fact, judicial error, and in the background, significant fraud.

How on earth did the judge view the lessees as the only owners responsible for capital renovations. I'm not just talking about cancelled timeshare interests reverting to NM, but the fact they owned all the assets of the resort and will still profit from the sale of units removed from the resort in the downsizing.

One more argument to judicial bias and/or error;
Paragraph 273, "...the logical question that arises is - if the owners are not required to pay for these types of costs, whether they are in the nature of capital or not, then who is?" The right answer is ALL the owners!

She goes on in paragraph 287 to argue , "There is nothing in the prospectus that imposes an obligation on any other person to pay such capital costs..."
The judge shows bias or error in her conclusion that absence of a contract statement about who shares costs means ONLY the timeshare owners. Contract interpretation is not the only factor the judge needed to consider. A more logical conclusion is that the developer and true owner of the resort should be responsible for at least the portion of the renovations that are over and above normal repairs and maintenance. Who wouldn't want to run a for profit business where the owner gets all the profits yet gets to pass off all his expenses onto someone else?! The judge is flip flopping throughout between between strata and non strata type arguments to favour NM's side. Judicial bias.

Just throwing this out there as possible fodder to those still fighting this battle. My fight is over. Good Luck!

Wish I had deep pockets to argue your excellent points with a scary-good lawyer!!!

 

[MFD]

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.

I don't understand your logic. The RPF was based on each "Owner" paying their portion of renovating 250 units, which will cost $52 million. Let's say 14000 Owners had to pay their share of the $52 million RPF. If the Owner paid the RFP to leave, that money should still go towards renovating all 250 units, because that's how the RPF was calculated. If Northmount decides to remove some units from the renovations, now they are only renovating 128 units at $25 million. 14000 Owners now pay their portion of $25 million. So your individual bill is not the same, it's almost half the amount. Do the math, it's pretty basic.

 

[MarcieL]

I don't understand your logic. The RPF was based on each "Owner" paying their portion of renovating 250 units, which will cost $52 million. Let's say 14000 Owners had to pay their share of the $52 million RPF. If the Owner paid the RFP to leave, that money should still go towards renovating all 250 units, because that's how the RPF was calculated. If Northmount decides to remove some units from the renovations, now they are only renovating 128 units at $25 million. 14000 Owners now pay their portion of $25 million. So your individual bill is not the same, it's almost half the amount. Do the math, it's pretty basic.

Everything is complex in this case to confuse the hell out of us.

 

[truthr]

Everything is complex in this case to confuse the hell out of us.

Does this sound familiar?:
"Play on the weaknesses of the sucker, take them through the twists and turns of meaningless distractions that go nowhere, then grab their cash".

Not my words but so appropriate. Not that we are weak or suckers, just regular, innocent people seeking answers, trusting our lawyer and following his instructions which were suppose to protect and benefit all of us.

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

Whether you are in BC or AB and particularly if you are Option 2 people there are documents you are entitled to and really should not have to ask for that give you incredible insight to what you have paid for and you need to move forward!!

Here is a list documents you are entitle too I am aware of:

Notice of Appeal
Status of said Appeal
Transcripts from the Judge Branch (BC) or Judge Young (AB) hearings
Any accompanying documents, ie., Affidavits with schedules related to the hearings and appeals
Arguments from both sides for quantum (interest and costs)

Remember, these documents should have a court seal/stamp showing what day they were actually filed with the appropriate court.

These are part of what you paid for already and you are entitled to have all of these documents for your personal files as they affect all Geldert clients.

I guess in MG eyes some of us get preferential treatment as they have been provided to some people but not all.

 

[teedeej]

Something maybe our lawyer should be providing as he receives them??? And the one the judge is referring to is dated September 30, 2017.

Geldert is too busy getting glowing reviews posted on Yelp to offset the negative ones.

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

Geldert is too busy getting glowing reviews posted on Yelp to offset the negative ones.

Well I am sure we can all help him get those huge 5 STAR reviews he is looking for to get his next client feeling the warm and fuzzies by saying how much we appreciated what he was able to do for us:
https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info


Let's let everyone know he has 5 thumbs up from us


Take some time and share your experience so everyone knows how you feel

https://www.yelp.ca/biz/geldert-law-vancouver

https://www.fyple.ca/company/geldert-law-3thwj8q/

http://www.lawyerlookup.review/british-columbia-vancouver/business/189809/Geldert-Law.html

https://www.facebook.com/GeldertLaw/

https://ca.lynkos.com/company/geldert-law/reviews

http://www.bigreddirectory.ca/geldert-law-vancouver

https://www.canlisting.com/firm/geldert-law-865917

https://www.capointfinder.com/index.php/listing/geldert-law/

https://www.canadapages.com/geldert-law-vancouver-bc-7783307775/

https://www.bubblemortgage.com/geldertlaw.com

 

[truthr]

Well I am sure we can all help him get those huge 5 STAR reviews he is looking for to get his next client feeling the warm and fuzzies by saying how much we appreciated what he was able to do for us:
https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info


Let's let everyone know he has 5 thumbs up from us


Take some time and share your experience so everyone knows how you feel

https://www.yelp.ca/biz/geldert-law-vancouver

https://www.fyple.ca/company/geldert-law-3thwj8q/

http://www.lawyerlookup.review/british-columbia-vancouver/business/189809/Geldert-Law.html

https://www.facebook.com/GeldertLaw/

https://ca.lynkos.com/company/geldert-law/reviews

http://www.bigreddirectory.ca/geldert-law-vancouver

https://www.canlisting.com/firm/geldert-law-865917

https://www.capointfinder.com/index.php/listing/geldert-law/

https://www.canadapages.com/geldert-law-vancouver-bc-7783307775/

https://www.bubblemortgage.com/geldertlaw.com

I see on one of review sites that some reviews/comments/ratings did not get approved because they violated the sites rules so be sure you follow the sites rules.

 

[Petus@18]

Well I am sure we can all help him get those huge 5 STAR reviews he is looking for to get his next client feeling the warm and fuzzies by saying how much we appreciated what he was able to do for us:
https://www.citheownersgroup.org/jra-info


Let's let everyone know he has 5 thumbs up from us


Take some time and share your experience so everyone knows how you feel

https://www.yelp.ca/biz/geldert-law-vancouver

https://www.fyple.ca/company/geldert-law-3thwj8q/

http://www.lawyerlookup.review/british-columbia-vancouver/business/189809/Geldert-Law.html

https://www.facebook.com/GeldertLaw/

https://ca.lynkos.com/company/geldert-law/reviews

http://www.bigreddirectory.ca/geldert-law-vancouver

https://www.canlisting.com/firm/geldert-law-865917

https://www.capointfinder.com/index.php/listing/geldert-law/

https://www.canadapages.com/geldert-law-vancouver-bc-7783307775/

https://www.bubblemortgage.com/geldertlaw.com

Sending messages......Thanks UB

 

[CleoB]

The basis for an appeal in res judicata, are limited to discovery of fraud, error in fact or important new facts, not reasonably discoverable by due diligence at the time the case was argued. Other basis include judicial error or judicial bias. The judge must be seen to have empathy towards the aggrieved parties.

1. Error in fact: the timeshare interest owners were stated as the "owners" of the resort for purposes of capital costs.
In Jeke v Northmont, paragraph 17 "Vacation interval owners are sometimes referred to as owners or lessees depending on the type of their respective interests. As I will describe below, Jeke's interest is as a lessee. I will refer to them as owners." REALLY!?
Note in the same case, paragraph 45; "...Fairmont's operations at the resort continued until mid-2010 when the CCAA proceedings resulted in Fairmont's secured creditors through a new ownership structure, which included Northmont taking over the assets of Fairmont. These assets included Fairmont's interests under the Jeke VIA's."

Timeshare owner interests form only a small portion of Northmont's assets at Sunchaser, about 38.5% including Northmont's reversionary interests.

Note paragraph 47, "Northmont inherited a resort with significant maintenance and structural issues." So again, Northmont LP is stated as the primary owner of the resort. NW has made millions from the resort as they have done in other resorts around the world. They did this through sales of Legacy for Life, through firesale timeshares in 2010, through management fees of 15%, through RVM, through income from NP REIT secured against Sunchaser properties, as well as numerous fees and commissions on the REIT sales. There is no question that Sunchaser under NW LP is a for profit business and not a break even cost recovery operation like a strata property. So in summary, who are the real owners?! NOT the timeshare lessees. This was error in fact, judicial error, and in the background, significant fraud.

How on earth did the judge view the lessees as the only owners responsible for capital renovations. I'm not just talking about cancelled timeshare interests reverting to NM, but the fact they owned all the assets of the resort and will still profit from the sale of units removed from the resort in the downsizing.

One more argument to judicial bias and/or error;
Paragraph 273, "...the logical question that arises is - if the owners are not required to pay for these types of costs, whether they are in the nature of capital or not, then who is?" The right answer is ALL the owners!

She goes on in paragraph 287 to argue , "There is nothing in the prospectus that imposes an obligation on any other person to pay such capital costs..."
The judge shows bias or error in her conclusion that absence of a contract statement about who shares costs means ONLY the timeshare owners. Contract interpretation is not the only factor the judge needed to consider. A more logical conclusion is that the developer and true owner of the resort should be responsible for at least the portion of the renovations that are over and above normal repairs and maintenance. Who wouldn't want to run a for profit business where the owner gets all the profits yet gets to pass off all his expenses onto someone else?! The judge is flip flopping throughout between between strata and non strata type arguments to favour NM's side. Judicial bias.

Just throwing this out there as possible fodder to those still fighting this battle. My fight is over. Good Luck!

The other arguable point is that the Federal Court of Appeal judged Club Intrawest timeshare owners as merely owning a right of occupancy in exchange for their resort points. The Federal decision could be held up as point out the mistake the B.C. and AB judges made. https://www.newswire.ca/news-releas...deral-court-of-appeal-decision-635276573.html

 

[So sick of this mess]

Have any of the US people contacted the Attorney General's office of their state to see if these rulings have merit in their particular state. If so, what did you find out?

Yes I have and they responded that all they could do is reach out to Northmont with the complaint and see if they respond. They did, however, forward the complaint on to the Federal Trade Commission. I think anything that happens will be too late to help us, but the complaints are on record now so hopefully some other poor souls won't fall for this travesty in the future.

 

[Tanny13]

The basis for an appeal in res judicata, are limited to discovery of fraud, error in fact or important new facts, not reasonably discoverable by due diligence at the time the case was argued. Other basis include judicial error or judicial bias. The judge must be seen to have empathy towards the aggrieved parties.

1. Error in fact: the timeshare interest owners were stated as the "owners" of the resort for purposes of capital costs.
In Jeke v Northmont, paragraph 17 "Vacation interval owners are sometimes referred to as owners or lessees depending on the type of their respective interests. As I will describe below, Jeke's interest is as a lessee. I will refer to them as owners." REALLY!?
Note in the same case, paragraph 45; "...Fairmont's operations at the resort continued until mid-2010 when the CCAA proceedings resulted in Fairmont's secured creditors through a new ownership structure, which included Northmont taking over the assets of Fairmont. These assets included Fairmont's interests under the Jeke VIA's."

Timeshare owner interests form only a small portion of Northmont's assets at Sunchaser, about 38.5% including Northmont's reversionary interests.

Note paragraph 47, "Northmont inherited a resort with significant maintenance and structural issues." So again, Northmont LP is stated as the primary owner of the resort. NW has made millions from the resort as they have done in other resorts around the world. They did this through sales of Legacy for Life, through firesale timeshares in 2010, through management fees of 15%, through RVM, through income from NP REIT secured against Sunchaser properties, as well as numerous fees and commissions on the REIT sales. There is no question that Sunchaser under NW LP is a for profit business and not a break even cost recovery operation like a strata property. So in summary, who are the real owners?! NOT the timeshare lessees. This was error in fact, judicial error, and in the background, significant fraud.

How on earth did the judge view the lessees as the only owners responsible for capital renovations. I'm not just talking about cancelled timeshare interests reverting to NM, but the fact they owned all the assets of the resort and will still profit from the sale of units removed from the resort in the downsizing.

One more argument to judicial bias and/or error;
Paragraph 273, "...the logical question that arises is - if the owners are not required to pay for these types of costs, whether they are in the nature of capital or not, then who is?" The right answer is ALL the owners!

She goes on in paragraph 287 to argue , "There is nothing in the prospectus that imposes an obligation on any other person to pay such capital costs..."
The judge shows bias or error in her conclusion that absence of a contract statement about who shares costs means ONLY the timeshare owners. Contract interpretation is not the only factor the judge needed to consider. A more logical conclusion is that the developer and true owner of the resort should be responsible for at least the portion of the renovations that are over and above normal repairs and maintenance. Who wouldn't want to run a for profit business where the owner gets all the profits yet gets to pass off all his expenses onto someone else?! The judge is flip flopping throughout between between strata and non strata type arguments to favour NM's side. Judicial bias.

Just throwing this out there as possible fodder to those still fighting this battle. My fight is over. Good Luck!

Thank you for this!

 

[ecwinch]

The settlement amount is to leave the resort. ALL the settlements include the RPF. Can you explain that with logical reasoning?

That short answer is because that what your attorney has negotiated. The court is not directing the terms of the settlement, they only ruled that the NM is entitled to a judgement to collect the RFP. That represents a starting point, where you end up is entirely up to your lawyer and NM. The court has been explicitly clear they are willing to hear arguments if the parties cannot reach an agreement. MG is apparently making the decision to give up rather than go back before the judge again. Given his 0% success rate in the trial cases and since he is not paying any part of the settlement, I can understand his motivation on that point.

FROM NM v. Reid - Alberta Court:

[87] Given the foregoing, the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against each Defendant in the SLG Actions for the amount set out in each Amended Civil Claim (the “Judgments”), except as to interest and costs, for which I am prepared to hear argument from the parties if they cannot agree, and also subject to one issue which has been raised by the Defendants. That issue is one of “expired Claims.” The Defendants argue that some of the Plaintiff’s Civil Claims have expired in the SLG Actions because they were not served within one year from the date of issuance of the Civil Claim. [28] There was no argument on this issue during the application proceedings before the Court. Consequently, this issue must be specifically addressed before me, unless the parties come to agreement on it, and that is to occur when the parties come before me to argue the interest and costs to be payable to the Plaintiff with respect to the Judgments.

 

[ecwinch]

I don't understand your logic. The RPF was based on each "Owner" paying their portion of renovating 250 units, which will cost $52 million. Let's say 14000 Owners had to pay their share of the $52 million RPF. If the Owner paid the RFP to leave, that money should still go towards renovating all 250 units, because that's how the RPF was calculated. If Northmount decides to remove some units from the renovations, now they are only renovating 128 units at $25 million. 14000 Owners now pay their portion of $25 million. So your individual bill is not the same, it's almost half the amount. Do the math, it's pretty basic.

If the unit weeks (what you call owners) remained that same and the total project cost was reduced, that would be correct math.

But a sizable chunk of owners paid the termination fee to exit the timeshare plan, and NM took over those unit weeks. NM intends to take out all those unit weeks plus ones they held. So there are no longer 14000 unit weeks.

 

[J's Garage]

If I knew how to display the file within the message itself, I would. But please have a look at the attached pdf

 

[Machete]

The other arguable point is that the Federal Court of Appeal judged Club Intrawest timeshare owners as merely owning a right of occupancy in exchange for their resort points. The Federal decision could be held up as point out the mistake the B.C. and AB judges made. https://www.newswire.ca/news-releas...deral-court-of-appeal-decision-635276573.html

Excellent point! Should definitely be part of any strategy going forward. Obviously the judge in the Intrawest case didn't follow the poor precedent set by the judges in our cases.

 

[CleoB]

Excellent point! Should definitely be part of any strategy going forward. Obviously the judge in the Intrawest case didn't follow the poor precedent set by the judges in our cases.

Oh, but the lawyer that represented Club Intrawest was M. Geldert, and the judges "judge" based on what's presented to them.

 

[CleoB]

That short answer is because that what your attorney has negotiated. The court is not directing the terms of the settlement, they only ruled that the NM is entitled to a judgement to collect the RFP. That represents a starting point, where you end up is entirely up to your lawyer and NM. The court has been explicitly clear they are willing to hear arguments if the parties cannot reach an agreement. MG is apparently making the decision to give up rather than go back before the judge again. Given his 0% success rate in the trial cases and since he is not paying any part of the settlement, I can understand his motivation on that point.

Yes, he's not paying any part of the settlement, plus.............MG wants nothing more to do with us.....yet he's so surprised that he's had complaints filed against him with the B.C. Law Society.