-
The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!
Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day! -
TUG started 31 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!
Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 31st Birthday TUG! -
TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!
Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!
Visit TUG on Youtube! -
TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $23,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!
Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $23 Million dollars -
Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!
Tens of thousands of subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners! -
Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!
All T-shirt options here!
[ 2012 ] Fairmont / Sunchaser / Northwynd official thread with lawsuit info!
- Thread starter htusa2002
- Start date
Ultimate_Betrayal
newbie
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2017
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 315
- Resorts Owned
- Fairmount
Hi J's Garage
Thanks for this - thought it was worth putting it out there in an easy to read format for everyone:
Barristers' and Solicitors' Oath
Do you sincerely promise and swear (or affirm)
that you will diligently, faithfully and to the best
of your execute the offices of Barrister and
Solicitor; that you will not promote suits upon
frivolous pretences; that you will not pervert the
law to favour or prejudice anyone; but in all
things conduct yourselves truly and with
integrity; and that you will uphold the rule of law
and the rights and freedoms of all persons
according to the laws of Canada and of the
Province of British Columbia.
dotbuhler
newbie
Solicitors of Record: Tetrault and Drouin Don't see M.Geldert anywhere.
Petus@18
newbie
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2017
- Messages
- 164
- Reaction score
- 300
From FB
If we all reread Sandy N Lee Merriman's posts, you would notice that they are trying to help us all. They already have a class action suit filed and ready for court. Why don't we join them? This is the best scenario we could have ever dreamed for. Option 1 will need to decide to relinquish the settlement and everyone else without a lawyer could join forces in a real class action suit with them.
To all those who say "1st time aware of this", from the beginning there were 4 distinct groups that went before Judge Loo way back in 2013. 2 of them did a lot of talking, while 2 did not. Without reliving the history or pointing fingers, a CLASS action is for the benefit of ALL the members of a group or class. Where this fell off the rails from the outset was that this group with MG who hailed itself a "class action" was in truth a special interest group created for only those that had held their leasehold interest for a period of time and wanted "out". Mistake #1 as now the group was fractionalized and motivated to get behind and spend money on a lawyer that was destined to lose when NOT serving the entire class of 15,000 leaseholds (all of us). This special group went on to be fractionalized more than once after that - always creating more division and weakness while mysterious 50 to 80 vested interested parties of Northwind REIT (a TRUST not a corporation so it could hide its identity) got stronger. It even hired professionals like Kirk Wankel and Doug Frey and Jud Virtue to kick our asses. Ranting at Mr Wankel for doing the job he was paid to do is pointless ... I myself would not take on scumbag clients like Northwind, but if I lacked a moral code and ethics, I would surely do my job just as well as he did and is doing. YES, we did a lot of research and spent a lot of time ($10,000 out of pocket and in excess of 200 hours that I would bill my clients for had I been working for them instead of this). On June 25, 2013, you can find S-134766 still listed as an active court filing (Lee Merriman V Northmont et al). Admittedly this filing was not well written by Kellie Hamilton (limited time) on behalf of myself, my wife, and perhaps the smartest man I know, Adam Hedayat. BUT at least it laid out the issues we ALL faced and formed the requisite information to BE A CLASS ACTION as we cared about ALL of you, not just some of you. Since Riverview is already a registered Strata property and our lease was exclusive to Riverview, the best course of action then and now was to ALL band against Northwind REIT, take our resort back, set up a Board, and manage it ourselves - allowing folks to buy in and out of it like a Strata / Condo property should. What I think is simply this ... when you folks can quit fighting amongst yourselves and going in multiple directions, we would be willing to help out with an already put together Corporate structure that will blow your socks off. This "deception" by lawyers started way back in 1994 with a Firm called McLeod Dixon that is now TWO Firms .. Norton Rose and Shinnour Matkin ... yes thats right .. our "trustee" and the Northmont lawyers have slept in bed together way back in 1994. Another little tidbit of information for you folks ... PRE Bankruptcy .. Our good old Trustee Philip Matkin had his wife and 2 other wives of his Firm owning 75% of Farimont thru a Company called 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Right again folks, our own Trustee had his wife PUT Fairmont into bankruptcy by calling a loan that was backed by our very own "capital investments" (ours was $35,000 paid in full) that were never recorded as income in Fairmont as they were funneled out to the FRPL Companies owned by 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Accordingly, you ALL have heard this before as I have posted more than once ... you just just chose to ignore it while riding the JEKE/MG train into oblivion. I was even aware that JEKE was a shell company that held only 1 thing, the Belfrey family leasehold interst and accordingly bore no financial risk that you all did. Even directors liability wouldn't apply as the debt would not be a CRA witholding debt. As Sandy has mentioned, we are out of the Country Feb 4 to 18 (we are every year). Upon our return, IF this group can UNITE, we will be glad to help as best we can however, I am aware that by letting JEKE waste our time and your money, this is an even more uphill battle than it would have been had we all united 4 years ago.
Remember you can't file a claim if you don't have evidence to backup your statements.
If we all reread Sandy N Lee Merriman's posts, you would notice that they are trying to help us all. They already have a class action suit filed and ready for court. Why don't we join them? This is the best scenario we could have ever dreamed for. Option 1 will need to decide to relinquish the settlement and everyone else without a lawyer could join forces in a real class action suit with them.
To all those who say "1st time aware of this", from the beginning there were 4 distinct groups that went before Judge Loo way back in 2013. 2 of them did a lot of talking, while 2 did not. Without reliving the history or pointing fingers, a CLASS action is for the benefit of ALL the members of a group or class. Where this fell off the rails from the outset was that this group with MG who hailed itself a "class action" was in truth a special interest group created for only those that had held their leasehold interest for a period of time and wanted "out". Mistake #1 as now the group was fractionalized and motivated to get behind and spend money on a lawyer that was destined to lose when NOT serving the entire class of 15,000 leaseholds (all of us). This special group went on to be fractionalized more than once after that - always creating more division and weakness while mysterious 50 to 80 vested interested parties of Northwind REIT (a TRUST not a corporation so it could hide its identity) got stronger. It even hired professionals like Kirk Wankel and Doug Frey and Jud Virtue to kick our asses. Ranting at Mr Wankel for doing the job he was paid to do is pointless ... I myself would not take on scumbag clients like Northwind, but if I lacked a moral code and ethics, I would surely do my job just as well as he did and is doing. YES, we did a lot of research and spent a lot of time ($10,000 out of pocket and in excess of 200 hours that I would bill my clients for had I been working for them instead of this). On June 25, 2013, you can find S-134766 still listed as an active court filing (Lee Merriman V Northmont et al). Admittedly this filing was not well written by Kellie Hamilton (limited time) on behalf of myself, my wife, and perhaps the smartest man I know, Adam Hedayat. BUT at least it laid out the issues we ALL faced and formed the requisite information to BE A CLASS ACTION as we cared about ALL of you, not just some of you. Since Riverview is already a registered Strata property and our lease was exclusive to Riverview, the best course of action then and now was to ALL band against Northwind REIT, take our resort back, set up a Board, and manage it ourselves - allowing folks to buy in and out of it like a Strata / Condo property should. What I think is simply this ... when you folks can quit fighting amongst yourselves and going in multiple directions, we would be willing to help out with an already put together Corporate structure that will blow your socks off. This "deception" by lawyers started way back in 1994 with a Firm called McLeod Dixon that is now TWO Firms .. Norton Rose and Shinnour Matkin ... yes thats right .. our "trustee" and the Northmont lawyers have slept in bed together way back in 1994. Another little tidbit of information for you folks ... PRE Bankruptcy .. Our good old Trustee Philip Matkin had his wife and 2 other wives of his Firm owning 75% of Farimont thru a Company called 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Right again folks, our own Trustee had his wife PUT Fairmont into bankruptcy by calling a loan that was backed by our very own "capital investments" (ours was $35,000 paid in full) that were never recorded as income in Fairmont as they were funneled out to the FRPL Companies owned by 1287069 Alberta Ltd. Accordingly, you ALL have heard this before as I have posted more than once ... you just just chose to ignore it while riding the JEKE/MG train into oblivion. I was even aware that JEKE was a shell company that held only 1 thing, the Belfrey family leasehold interst and accordingly bore no financial risk that you all did. Even directors liability wouldn't apply as the debt would not be a CRA witholding debt. As Sandy has mentioned, we are out of the Country Feb 4 to 18 (we are every year). Upon our return, IF this group can UNITE, we will be glad to help as best we can however, I am aware that by letting JEKE waste our time and your money, this is an even more uphill battle than it would have been had we all united 4 years ago.
Remember you can't file a claim if you don't have evidence to backup your statements.
Last edited:
Roxanne
newbie
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2018
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 11
- Resorts Owned
- Fairmont, Sunchaser
We are Option 1 as well and now wondering if it's possible and how to relinquish the settlement obligations....Any help on this?
Petus@18
newbie
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2017
- Messages
- 164
- Reaction score
- 300
You probably already have this information, but I thought I should share it with Option 1 people
The BC branch of the Canadian Bar Association has a Lawyer Referral Service which offers an initial 30 minute consultation with a lawyer for $25 plus taxes. If you are interested in finding a lawyer in BC to represent you, you could get in touch with them:
Tel: 604.687.3221
Toll Free: 1.800.663.1919
http://cbabc.org/For-the-Public/Lawyer-Referral-Service
Alternatively, if you are looking for a lawyer in Alberta you can contact the Alberta branch of the CBA:
Phone: 403 263 3707
Email: mail@cba-alberta.org
http://www.cba-alberta.org
The BC branch of the Canadian Bar Association has a Lawyer Referral Service which offers an initial 30 minute consultation with a lawyer for $25 plus taxes. If you are interested in finding a lawyer in BC to represent you, you could get in touch with them:
Tel: 604.687.3221
Toll Free: 1.800.663.1919
http://cbabc.org/For-the-Public/Lawyer-Referral-Service
Alternatively, if you are looking for a lawyer in Alberta you can contact the Alberta branch of the CBA:
Phone: 403 263 3707
Email: mail@cba-alberta.org
http://www.cba-alberta.org
Ultimate_Betrayal
newbie
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2017
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 315
- Resorts Owned
- Fairmount
Please have a look at the MG update of March 8, 2017.
This relates to a scaled relinquishment agreement NM presented to MG and MG presented to us strongly advocating it was not acceptable and far from a fair deal.
MG did have clients from our group who did decide to accept this relinquishment agreement, paid as directed by MG, and have yet to receive their release. The couple who I am talking about sent in their relinquishment payment in April of 2017.
The typical way any release needs to be done and has been done through other lawyers representing people like us is you pay your relinquishment fee in trust and the money is held until NM completes and sends the signed release paperwork back. At this point the money in trust is then released once everything is 100% in place to satisfy both parties involved. If it is not done this way there is no incentive or reason for NM to provide the release until they want to complete the release.
If you participated in this March 2017 relinquishment agreement and have not received your NM release please send me an email and I will be using this info to following up with the BC Law Society related to a file I have already opened with them. This is additional proof that goes to the heart of the my complaint that MG will not handle the 1285 releases properly after we have provided $45,000,000 for this to end based on the Michael Geldert settlement agreement.
Please email me at back123@shaw.ca if you are one of these people who have paid and not received their release or if you are someone who has paid money into trust with another lawyer and received your release before the money was released to NM is also an important part of this argument.
If you are a person who paid MG to be released in the past and has not received your release you should also put in your own written complaint with the BC Law Society professionalconduct@lsbc.org right away so a file can be opened on your behalf – if the money was or wasn’t sent in by MG to NM already for your release and you have not received it, a breach exists for the trust account MG has on our behalf and a breach of the trust account is a reason for the Law Society to intervene on all our behalves. The increased numbers of complaints related to the MG trust account will aid in the Law Society expediting an audit of the MG trust account.
I for one have no trust MG can handle any type of release properly as a result of his constant lies, failing to represent us properly going back to the 1st BC Jeke trial where he suddenly withdrew the prepared evidence), administratively, or having any incentive to do the required work promptly. He has seen to it that we are the ones at risk based on a Settlement Agreement Michael Geldert alone committed us to without our consent that prejudices and penalizes us far beyond what a reasonable settlement would have looked like if he truly negotiated in our best interests.
This relates to a scaled relinquishment agreement NM presented to MG and MG presented to us strongly advocating it was not acceptable and far from a fair deal.
MG did have clients from our group who did decide to accept this relinquishment agreement, paid as directed by MG, and have yet to receive their release. The couple who I am talking about sent in their relinquishment payment in April of 2017.
The typical way any release needs to be done and has been done through other lawyers representing people like us is you pay your relinquishment fee in trust and the money is held until NM completes and sends the signed release paperwork back. At this point the money in trust is then released once everything is 100% in place to satisfy both parties involved. If it is not done this way there is no incentive or reason for NM to provide the release until they want to complete the release.
If you participated in this March 2017 relinquishment agreement and have not received your NM release please send me an email and I will be using this info to following up with the BC Law Society related to a file I have already opened with them. This is additional proof that goes to the heart of the my complaint that MG will not handle the 1285 releases properly after we have provided $45,000,000 for this to end based on the Michael Geldert settlement agreement.
Please email me at back123@shaw.ca if you are one of these people who have paid and not received their release or if you are someone who has paid money into trust with another lawyer and received your release before the money was released to NM is also an important part of this argument.
If you are a person who paid MG to be released in the past and has not received your release you should also put in your own written complaint with the BC Law Society professionalconduct@lsbc.org right away so a file can be opened on your behalf – if the money was or wasn’t sent in by MG to NM already for your release and you have not received it, a breach exists for the trust account MG has on our behalf and a breach of the trust account is a reason for the Law Society to intervene on all our behalves. The increased numbers of complaints related to the MG trust account will aid in the Law Society expediting an audit of the MG trust account.
I for one have no trust MG can handle any type of release properly as a result of his constant lies, failing to represent us properly going back to the 1st BC Jeke trial where he suddenly withdrew the prepared evidence), administratively, or having any incentive to do the required work promptly. He has seen to it that we are the ones at risk based on a Settlement Agreement Michael Geldert alone committed us to without our consent that prejudices and penalizes us far beyond what a reasonable settlement would have looked like if he truly negotiated in our best interests.
Ultimate_Betrayal
newbie
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2017
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 315
- Resorts Owned
- Fairmount
This is exactly what I am trying to do with my complaint into the BC Law Society - they have a lot of power and trying to get their intervention based on the way the SIF was manipulated and that other people who MG was to help settle have not been released only shows there is a serious problem within his practice.
Everyone affected by this needs to put pressure on the Society next week to intervene - we all know the circumstances and tones of information exists for you to make a submission within these pages that are factual and the truth.
The BC Lawyers insurance people are another great spot to reach out to
Petus@18 - thanks for the new avenue as I had not thought of this group.
Everyone affected by this needs to put pressure on the Society next week to intervene - we all know the circumstances and tones of information exists for you to make a submission within these pages that are factual and the truth.
The BC Lawyers insurance people are another great spot to reach out to
Petus@18 - thanks for the new avenue as I had not thought of this group.
qb_bc
TUG Member
I have been following this thread with interest because a friend was involved in this scheme. The comments I am making are just thoughts, and should be asked of lawyer.
My heart goes out to each of you, It is a travesty when a contract is written so that legality supersedes morality.
1. It appears that there are two sets of judgements, one in Alberta and one in BC that will impact people. The lists of people are likely different, and one should find out which, or even if you are affected by one of these lists.
2. The BC list appears to apply to about 370 people, and in J. Branch's judgement from January 31, 2018 the costs are identified in the Exhibits which were not included with the document I saw. I suspect that people on this list are not impacted by the SIF, unless somehow the SIF is less (how could that be?) than the court judgement.
3. The people that are on the Alberta SLG list before J. Young have already had a decision against them, and are just waiting for a decision on interest and costs (this has already been given in the BC case before J. Branch). Separation from the lawyer does not remove you from the decision, but it does remove you from the SIF that will be presented to J. Young.
4. When the SIF settlement is presented, J. Young will have a decision to make. She may decide to apply the settlement to everyone, she may accept the larger settlement (162%) and apply it to those outside of the SIF, or she may choose to use a lower settlement for those on the list not included in the SIF. However, a judgement will probably be issued against everyone on the SLG list regardless of which option was chosen (ask a lawyer for clarification). It appears to be so for the 370 on the BC list.
5. A question for those that have not accepted the SIF is whether it is possible to have a new lawyer, or representative, present at the hearing regarding cost and interest.
6. It is possible that whichever path you choose to go forward, you will still have a judgement against you as a result of either the BC or Alberta cases.
There is so much wrong.
My heart goes out to each of you, It is a travesty when a contract is written so that legality supersedes morality.
1. It appears that there are two sets of judgements, one in Alberta and one in BC that will impact people. The lists of people are likely different, and one should find out which, or even if you are affected by one of these lists.
2. The BC list appears to apply to about 370 people, and in J. Branch's judgement from January 31, 2018 the costs are identified in the Exhibits which were not included with the document I saw. I suspect that people on this list are not impacted by the SIF, unless somehow the SIF is less (how could that be?) than the court judgement.
3. The people that are on the Alberta SLG list before J. Young have already had a decision against them, and are just waiting for a decision on interest and costs (this has already been given in the BC case before J. Branch). Separation from the lawyer does not remove you from the decision, but it does remove you from the SIF that will be presented to J. Young.
4. When the SIF settlement is presented, J. Young will have a decision to make. She may decide to apply the settlement to everyone, she may accept the larger settlement (162%) and apply it to those outside of the SIF, or she may choose to use a lower settlement for those on the list not included in the SIF. However, a judgement will probably be issued against everyone on the SLG list regardless of which option was chosen (ask a lawyer for clarification). It appears to be so for the 370 on the BC list.
5. A question for those that have not accepted the SIF is whether it is possible to have a new lawyer, or representative, present at the hearing regarding cost and interest.
6. It is possible that whichever path you choose to go forward, you will still have a judgement against you as a result of either the BC or Alberta cases.
There is so much wrong.
truthr
newbie
The following link is interesting information about a Class Action. As for the Merrimans I have a copy of their filed Class Action from back in 2013 - question is was it ever certified? If not can it still be? If yes would the Geldert Clients be able to be part of it?
https://www.mckenzielake.com/assets/pdf/Steps_in_a_Class_Action.pdf
Petus@18
newbie
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2017
- Messages
- 164
- Reaction score
- 300
Well that is your opinion and since you don't stand in our shoes, it does not matter. If the purpose of your comments is to scare those who are undecided as to what to do, you are probably doing a good job. We still have evidence of MG's professional misconduct and we will ensure the Law Societies know about it. We have now a class action suit in place, so yes, we have now options to appeal in court. Really, we don't need your thoughts/comments. Thanks
Petus@18
newbie
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2017
- Messages
- 164
- Reaction score
- 300
The Class Action has been opened for almost 5 yrs. It is valid and ready for Court. I understand that Mr and Mrs Merriman want to help everyone, it doesn't matter what group you belonged to. Just contact them and let them know you wish to join them.
Last edited:
truthr
newbie
Thanks for chiming in however you definitely have a lot of the FACTS incorrect which hey even some who are directly impacted by this don't fully understand because there are so many moving parts and unclear information to distract us from those FACTS.
But for starters the SIF is not the same as the "settlement", it was the form that led up to people either being included in the settlement or proceeding on their own (either by choice or default).
Both courts have made their decision - Judge Branch has now ruled on cost and interest and we are awaiting Judge Young to rule on interest and cost as well which then will give NM the ability to proceed to Judgments on the Statement of Claims (some have already been amended and some not).
To my knowledge neither Judges have any say in the Settlement Agreement because this is not a Class Action and does not require the courts approval for the parties to enter into what is called "Consent" or "Settlement" Judgment, just both lawyers have to sign off on it for their respective clients.
Regarding having a new lawyer, again to my knowledge, both sides have presented their arguments regarding cost and interest and the BC has been ruled on and we are awaiting the AB one. The Geldert Group has been "shackled" together since the JEKE trial and because of our "legal" team's strategy/actions we may be pretty much stuck with that. Again this is just to my knowledge and I am awaiting clarification with regards to whether the Option 2 people can move forward separately.
Last edited:
Ultimate_Betrayal
newbie
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2017
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 315
- Resorts Owned
- Fairmount
Hi qb_bc
We are very happy that people outside our group are seeing our plight that the business of Timeshares selling now has a new revenue opportunity where the resort owner / manager can manipulated things to create an environment where people need to buy an expensive release of their timeshare - that's what this is all about!!!
To comment on your comments above:
1. Unfortunately for a lot of people the MG Settlement Agreement will circumvent any decisions made by the AB or BC Courts as it does not have to be sanctioned by the Courts - it will be shown as an amical agreement reached between the two parties for people bond to it by Michael Geldert without their consent. Anyone not part of this settlement are being maneuvered to deal with things moving forward on their own.
2. The SIF was put in place prior to the ruling so there is no benefit from the ruling
3. Yes and no - given the timing of the SIF binds you even if you don't accept the terms even though they were only provided about a month after the deal was done but you were already bond to the agreement
4. JY will not ever see the Settlement Agreement - no lawyer in BC or AB want to have their name associated with this shipwreck so it has been almost impossible to find one to offer any help other than a paid for option
5. This is in the works but again non of the lawyers contacted appear to want any Geldert clients
6. Michael Geldert has handed his clients over to Northmont as a gift wrapped package with a bow - the options available are so limited it is hard to conceive this was not some part of a bigger plan
Last edited:
torqued
newbie
Please correct me with a willow stick if you feel I’m wrong but even my very superficial understanding of law would lead me to believe that the judgement I just muddled thru by Justice Branch implies we the defendants (every time the word defendant was used I substituted MG’s name) abused the court by pushing this issue forward in the courts without any legal merit behind it thereby wasting the precious resources of the courts and all involved. If I’m reading this correctly then does this judgement with its explainations basically state MG is in fact incompetent and without a doubt due to his actions led this group to the edge of a legal cliff. It seemed that Branch was pissed off at Gelderts group and as a result was more than happy to side with NM. And it would appear that Barry King rides the same horse Geldert does as he basically had no argument for interest costs other than it was too much. My dog could have argued that! Lord help us all!
qb_bc
TUG Member
Thank you for your comments. Following this fiasco, I realize now how fortunate I was when a time share I owned here in BC went bankrupt and I was given the option to walk away or to join VI. Losing what I paid originally was a good option to me.
After reading JY's decision I would have though the agreement (SIF - settlement in full?) would need to be presented to her according to;
[89] The Plaintiff is entitled to costs of this application and if the parties cannot agree on those costs, then they can be spoken to when the parties appear before me with respect to the other issues. The Clerk of the Court will not be preparing Certificates of Judgment until the outstanding issues have been resolved.
whatever the other issues were. I would also have expected the other party to appear against those who have not settled, to request judgement on the costs.
Realizing how tender the subject is, I apologize if my comments caused upset. I was only attempting to suggest some contexts to consider, correct or incorrect, within the present court situation that might cause issues going forward.
Henceforth, I will quietly watch and pray that this group arrives at a correct result. This abuse of contract language, while maybe legal, is a travesty and is frightening to all of us that do not understand legal vocabulary. I know I will not be naïve in signing contracts in the future.
FairSun
newbie
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2018
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 57
- Resorts Owned
- Sunchaser in Fairmont
A familiar name I assume to some early on in this debacle, Clint Docken, is principal counsel with Higgerty Law. If you look at the last invoice from MG you'll note MG consulted him on this matter and re research into a possible class action. https://www.higgertylaw.ca/about/clint-docken/
sad_world
newbie
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2017
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 4
For a couple years now I've been wanting to put a face to the monster Kirk Wankel, but had never seen this globalnews.ca report before. https://globalnews.ca/news/596669/thousands-of-timeshare-owners-face-unexpected-repair-bill/
I desperately want Kirk Wankel to become a pariah in his community, for everyone who sees him in public to know what a monster he is and how he's destroying so many lives because of his greed. Please use this screenshot whenever you post publicly so he cannot remain comfortably anonymous, thank you.
I desperately want Kirk Wankel to become a pariah in his community, for everyone who sees him in public to know what a monster he is and how he's destroying so many lives because of his greed. Please use this screenshot whenever you post publicly so he cannot remain comfortably anonymous, thank you.
truthr
newbie
For Geldert clients SIF refers to Sunchaser Instruction Form wherein we were given two options at the end of October 2017.
Option 1 - give Geldert carte blanc to reach some type of settlement agreement to release the clients without any of the clients present and we were not privy to who when this meeting would take place, who would be there, what the starting or ending points would be, etc., etc.
Option 2 - proceed on your own (which was directly contrary to what the two Judges ordered for working out the interest and costs for the Statement of Claims leading to a Judgment of said Statement of Claims (these clients would not be released)
I see no where in either the BC or AB Judgement/Decision directing a Settlement Judgement releasing anyone from the resort.
truthr
newbie
check this out on their website - fairly new on their website. In just the past week or so they had been looking for Option 2 Geldert Clients but have since said no to all Geldert clients
https://www.higgertylaw.ca/class-action-lawsuits/sunchaser-vacation-villas-class-action/
Bewildered
newbie
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2017
- Messages
- 84
- Reaction score
- 116
- Resorts Owned
- Sunchaser
Hey truthr, you have done a lot of work for this group, much appreciation, can’t think of anybody else that could do justice with the Invermere reporter? Not interested or is it not legit?
And does anybody know if there was any traction made in Edmonton at the townhall meeting?
truthr
newbie
Thanks. As far as the reporter - just not the right time for now and she understands why.
But this atrocity is far from over.
