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

[dotbuhler]

Skookum and 2OldFarts - we who have joined Geldert receive regular, detailed updates about what's happening - but of course we are not allowed to share those.

I've read it ALL. Hundreds of pages. And while I don't always understand all the legalities of everything, it's actually fairly clear to anyone who does read it. And the more I learn, the more I am SO glad that we joined Geldert. The way Fairmont/Northmont/Sunchaser/Northwynd was all set up - it's pretty complicated for even the experts to sort out. I cannot imagine anyone seriously believing they can fight this on their own.

Realistically, on your own - you either pay to stay or pay to go. And yes, that 26% interest has been adding up fast for all of us.....but you knew that before May 31, 2013. You've had 19 months since then of dithering and hoping for the best?

It really does not matter to me what you choose to do, because there are so many of us with Geldert that I feel very comfortable. It was an end of the stress to be able to tell Sauvageau that we were represented and that was the end of the phone call. No more. And no stress when we were finally served - just turn it over to Geldert. Yes, on my own I could read the instructions and run around and pay all the fees - but what comes next? Instead, I'm stress-free and know that we are in good hands. Of course there are no guarantees of how things will turn out in the end, but I do feel confident of a WAY better result from a lawyer who's been with this since the beginning, knows what he's doing, and has the resources to do it right when he's working for over 1000 people.

I only take the time to promote joining Geldert because I feel so badly for people who are trying to go it on their own. I've heard some really sad stories, and especially feel for people who are not computer-savvy. They don't even know this group exists and that they do NOT have to go it alone.

Incidentally, people contacted "by the law firm representing Northmont saying...." - I have the feeling you don't realize you are talking to a clerk at Sauvageau and Associates, a collection agency, which has a lawyer attached to it. And that their only interest is in collecting the money Northmont has contracted them for. For the legal fight, Northmont is using Norton Rose Fulbright.

Is this someone who is working for Michael Geldert. ....perhaps with the first name of "Patricia? ...last name "Mateo"????

 

[dotbuhler]

I read that act before, and I re-read again. I cannot see where it says that.

Sentimental Lady, I read your posts going back to June 2014. You were REALLY pushing Micheal Geldert just like Jim Belfry (JEKE). I am wondering if you are on here on behalf of him to find out what our defense will be when we see you and your husband at the next Court date. Or maybe I should refer to you by the name Patricia Mateo? Any relation to "Lamplit"???

 

[dotbuhler]

Update

For a short time in the 90's, I sold these timeshares. I was taught to tell people that each unit was sold 51 times. 1 week per year was set aside for maintenance that could not be done when people are in the units. I am quite sure these places are used 52 weeks per year. As I sit here and look around my unit, nothing has been changed or upgraded since they were built. Same pictures, same furniture, same crappy hide-a-beds, same crappy bent up shades on all the windows, etc. There is bubbled wallpaper, cracked window sills, poor lighting, old TV's, baseboards that need replacing, etc. Our fridge and freezer don't work very well. We put water in the ice tray the night we got here and the next morning there was a small layer of ice on top but mostly still water.
I do realized they they are well used and livable, but I guarantee you that our maintenance fees have not been used as intended.
They did upgrade the WiFi and it is much better.
I was here the first week of July last year and it is not near as busy this year. Last year you couldn't get a lounger by the pool unless you got there early. Yesterday 3/4 of the chairs were empty at 1:30 in the afternoon.
Most people I have talked to have chosen to buy their way out. There are a lot of bitter people and most who paid thought they had no choice. They didn't know about this site and didn't do any research. Thus Northwynds claim as to how many have paid.
FRP/Northwynd management must have learned their business management skills from the government, collect all the money, and then expect that the people who paid the taxes/fees just trust that the money is used wisely, even though we all know that is not the case.
I have signed up with Docken and have given his name and number to a few people although I dont know if he or any of the other lawyers are still taking clients.

Looking back and came across this gem.....

 

[dotbuhler]

Hmmmmm

Do not own at Fairmount but everytime I get a new and improved program at work it either costs me more time and effort or it costs me money out of my pocket. This does not sound good either....good luck owners, I hope I am wrong.





EDITED BY MODERATOR
SINCE THIS POST AS OF JULY 2014 IS OVER 64 PAGES AND 1600 POSTS HERE IS THE BACKROUND

...this is definitely worth a read, go to the post on page 1 and read the synopsis that is posted there...

 

[Petus@18]

Is this someone who is working for Michael Geldert. ....perhaps with the first name of "Patricia? ...last name "Mateo"????

OMG, you may be absolutely right! 'The first lady' Patricia-Maiato Geldert!!!

 

[Petus@18]

Its ironic that Geldert eventually joined the Northmont team as he mentioned at the ‘townhall’ meeting in Edmonton that he had rejected a job offer to join Northmont/Sauvignon. Knowing how Geldert’s survival instincts operate, I’m sure he didn’t slam the ‘door’ on Northmont’s offer. In the end MG was only concerned about himself during the rushed negotiations.
Thanks Michael, for throwing us under the bus to save your hide.

Thanks for reminding us of all of this!. We have sent a follow-up message to the LS to ensure they have this information again. "Collusion with Wankel" very possible. We have also made the LS aware that Geldert has not provided us with true copies of the documents we need for the appeal (apparently electronic copies have a price that he will determine closer to March 8th!). Geldert has violated so many rules and all the wrong actions he has taken upon himself; hopefully the LS will intervene sooner than later and rectify this situation, but can't hold our breath for very long.

 

[torqued]

I’m tellin ya right now you can’t make this stuff up!!!. Like the country song says “God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy!!

 

[CleoB]

Consumer protection changes
Changes to Alberta's consumer protection legislation include:

• a new name - Alberta’s primary legislation to protect consumers from unfair practices and businesses from unfair competition was renamed to the Consumer Protection Act
• a new preamble to the Act – a plain language preamble was added to the Consumer Protection Act to further explain the intention and purpose of the act, and to help the courts interpret any provisions that may be unclear
• an authority for the Minister-responsible to make publically available a Consumer Bill of Rights
  • as required by the new legislation, a Consumer Bill of Rights will be established as a general guideline to recognize and protect consumer rights and to help consumers understand their rights and make well-informed decisions
• enhanced fairness between consumers and businesses – new provisions that are now in place include:
  • prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts, unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract
  • prohibiting businesses from including clauses in contracts that prevent consumers from posting negative reviews of the business or transaction, provided the negative review is not malicious or vexatious
  • protection for consumers who file complaints in good faith, and are not vexatious or malicious, with a right of defense against lawsuits or other actions intended to coerce consumers to withdraw or not make complaints or publish reviews
  • prohibiting suppliers from enforcing mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts
  • expanded right to sue when a consumer has suffered a loss from a breach of the Act or regulations beyond unfair practices
  • allowing the government to act in the public interest by enabling the release of information about charges, convictions, and other enforcement actions taken under the Act

One would have to ask a lawyer if the trial outcome overrides this "right to cancel the contract". However this may not cancel the amount we owe for maintenance fees and RPF.

 

[Huckleberry]

I would add.... To protect his relationship with his next “client”.

The court has taken him task multiple times. He wants to put this one to bed as to not endanger his next engagement with the Club Intrawest Owners Group.

https://www.citheownersgroup.org/single-post/2017/10/31/Next-Steps

On October 24th, Michel Berthiaume updated members on behalf of the Volunteer Coordinating Committe (VCC), about what our group had been doing since Konrad's election to the board in June. My purpose today is to give members some insight as to our "next steps" for the coming weeks.

The VCC has a full-day meeting planned for the end of November. One of the highlights of the day is expected to be a conference call with Michael Geldert to discuss his legal opinion / litigation proposals. This will allow the VCC to develop an Operational Plan based on his findings.

I think you hit the nail on the head Ecwinch. I think Geldert is trying to sweep this under the rug as quickly as possible to move on to start milking his next cash cow. He's happy to leave this one stuck in the mud flailing in its death twitches.

 

[Huckleberry]

Thank you.

The key word is company. Geldert allowed the judges to amend our contract, which is why were are all so screwed the second he told he judges that all contracts can be considered the same as JEKE. This is the key mistake that was made that lead down the road to here.

 

[tssuck]

The key word is company. Geldert allowed the judges to amend our contract, which is why were are all so screwed the second he told he judges that all contracts can be considered the same as JEKE. This is the key mistake that was made that lead down the road to here.

I just read Page 1. When our friends in the US received papers from NM after they took over and sent out the "modified" contract, what they received was so poorly printed off with the majority of it unreadable. In "good faith" they signed the papers without realizing the full ramifications of what they had signed because they could not read the majority of it. They fully expected to get a copy back with all signatures on it. This did not happen. Something MG did not address or even look into. At this point in time, the "modified contract" is not worth the piece of paper it was written on as the writing was not readable. They had no full knowledge of what they had signed.

 

[Jack0123]

Is this someone who is working for Michael Geldert. ....perhaps with the first name of "Patricia? ...last name "Mateo"????

I think Particia is his wife and the only other person who is working in the office, which is there own condo

 

[SentimentalLady]

Is this someone who is working for Michael Geldert. ....perhaps with the first name of "Patricia? ...last name "Mateo"????

No. And if you'd read all my posts, that would be clear to you. What I wrote then was the truth at the time - he WAS giving us very detailed updates. That changed drastically. And back then I DID feel very comfortable with our choice of action, or I would not have continued. And apparently you must have felt equally comfortable at the time too, as you also stayed with him? Until things changed drastically and the truth came out at the end.....

 

[SentimentalLady]

Sentimental Lady, I read your posts going back to June 2014. You were REALLY pushing Micheal Geldert just like Jim Belfry (JEKE). I am wondering if you are on here on behalf of him to find out what our defense will be when we see you and your husband at the next Court date. Or maybe I should refer to you by the name Patricia Mateo? Any relation to "Lamplit"???

See also my reply in #4538. Not pushing him - like the rest of the group, I was at that time happy with him and was simply trying to help an uncertain person to gain some peace of mind. Now, to the point - your reply is really just deflecting from the simple question I asked. I have read and re-read that Act and cannot find the part you are referring to. I know that the updated Act no longer allows unilateral changes to contracts without agreement - but I hardly think they'll be backdating that to contracts signed way back in 1992. Though they certainly should. And I notice somebody else has been pressing you on this, too. If you have some public knowledge facts we should know about, quit acting like you know it all and just give us the details.

 

[Petus@18]

ERW -- you appear to be out of the loop. . . .perhaps you're not a member of the Sunchaser litigation group?

If not, I STRONGLY suggest you sign up to (1) stay informed on the matters such this, and (2) be represented in the courts should your lucky number be drawn! Otherwise you're really on your own.

Contact Geldert Law as it's not too late. . . . yet!

By reading some of the earlier messages this person "Late2Game" posted (like the one quoted above), I'm realizing more and more that Geldert was most likely behind all of this. He has had many 'cheerleaders' posing as one of us trying to convince more people in retaining Geldert and fight Northmont since the beginning. This person was not alone, there were and are others still amongst us. Their motives are not different now than they were before, trying to stop us from talking and confusing our statements. No wonder why this person was bullying me not very long ago; his purpose was to make me angry; others like Lamplit are trying to inject fear. I almost let them get away with this cyberbullying! So this message is for our former lawyer, your threats and intimidation tactics will not work against the facts.

 

[LilMaggie]

See also my reply in #4538. Not pushing him - like the rest of the group, I was at that time happy with him and was simply trying to help an uncertain person to gain some peace of mind. Now, to the point - your reply is really just deflecting from the simple question I asked. I have read and re-read that Act and cannot find the part you are referring to. I know that the updated Act no longer allows unilateral changes to contracts without agreement - but I hardly think they'll be backdating that to contracts signed way back in 1992. Though they certainly should. And I notice somebody else has been pressing you on this, too. If you have some public knowledge facts we should know about, quit acting like you know it all and just give us the details.

As for backdating our contracts from the early 1990's for Bill 31 to apply is not impossible as we have/had ongoing 40 year contracts with Fairmont/Northmont, or whomever. Ongoing contracts might have different rules that apply...I don't know. I need a good lawyer to explain this all to me please!

 

[dotbuhler]

See also my reply in #4538. Not pushing him - like the rest of the group, I was at that time happy with him and was simply trying to help an uncertain person to gain some peace of mind. Now, to the point - your reply is really just deflecting from the simple question I asked. I have read and re-read that Act and cannot find the part you are referring to. I know that the updated Act no longer allows unilateral changes to contracts without agreement - but I hardly think they'll be backdating that to contracts signed way back in 1992. Though they certainly should. And I notice somebody else has been pressing you on this, too. If you have some public knowledge facts we should know about, quit acting like you know it all and just give us the details.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."
If you have a different contract than mine (from 1994) and you can not make this work for you, then that may be the problem. There may be up to 8 or more different contracts over the years, and let us not even get into the "leg irons for life" (shudder). This is, therefore, not a 'one size fits all'. Aden2 has outlined specifically what applies to his contract, I have found my reason to file a Notice of Dispute as well. It is not up to me to seek to convince anyone on this forum. None of us are lawyers and therefore we can only offer friendly advice. After lots of research I have decided what fits MY case. I am self-litigating. That means that the onus is on me, with courage and conviction and passion, to convince the person who will make a decision in the Court. I am willing to put money on the fact that won't be you. That being said, however, it does not mean that you won't find an answer on here. You just have to keep looking.

 

[dotbuhler]

No. And if you'd read all my posts, that would be clear to you. What I wrote then was the truth at the time - he WAS giving us very detailed updates. That changed drastically. And back then I DID feel very comfortable with our choice of action, or I would not have continued. And apparently you must have felt equally comfortable at the time too, as you also stayed with him? Until things changed drastically and the truth came out at the end.....

I fired him on Dec.29, 2017 and laid a Complaint with the B.C. Law Society? Have you done either of those things? Because that may be something you want to be able to prove in Court when you Appeal or Dispute.

 

[LilMaggie]

Happy Sunday all! Here's your Bible verse for the day...
1 Peter 3:8 Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.
Can we please all just get together to get this done. Dot said it...we are not legal professionals. We are all doing our best to explain this mess and try to rectify it for the benefit of everyone. We need to unite and conquer.

 

[CleoB]

I fired him on Dec.29, 2017 and laid a Complaint with the B.C. Law Society? Have you done either of those things? Because that may be something you want to be able to prove in Court when you Appeal or Dispute.

If you were a client of Geldert's then good luck in court. The judges have decided that our contracts are all the same as Jeke's and may find you are trying to re-litigate. BTW there are/were 9 different timeshare contracts.

 

[Petus@18]

Reminder

Don't forget to leave your reviews at
LawyerRatingz.com

Reviews can also be posted in Google's Maps.

Happy Posting!!!!

 

[Roxanne]

Reminder

Don't forget to leave your reviews at
LawyerRatingz.com

Reviews can also be posted in Google's Maps.

Happy Posting!!!!

DONE!

 

[Frau Blucher]

Reminder

Don't forget to leave your reviews at
LawyerRatingz.com

Reviews can also be posted in Google's Maps.

Happy Posting!!!!

Don’t forget these sites too!!


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

 

[J's Garage]

Legal counsel is available with Mr. Geldert for $275/hourly or $1000 "All in"

I have emailed Mr. Michael Geldert. Please see the response below, as well as the email address:
<info@geldertlaw.com>
Thank you for your email. As you know, many time-share owners are working together to contest the efforts being made by Northwynd. Many of those have either retained Mr. Geldert for an all-in amount of $1,000 CAD or are being advised on an ad-hoc basis as they represent themselves at his hourly rate of $275. You may choose either option. There is not a class-action against Northwynd at this time but this will be discussed moving forward.



At Mr. Geldert's request, the following is for your review:



Your legal obligations are covered exclusively by the contract(s) you have signed. To that end, owing to the vague language in the various time-share contracts, Northwynd has initiated a court application in an attempt to confirm its ability to do two things:


1.Unilaterally amend the time-share agreements to allow them to charge owners/lease-holders for their desired renovations; and,


2.To unilaterally transfer portions of the properties currently available to owners/lease-holders outside of the Resort.



What this is really about then is their attempt to obtain court sanctioned permission to effect unilateral changes to their contractual relationship with each owner/lease-holder. It is a risky proposition however, because should they fail to do so they will not have the legal standing to effect what they are currently proposing to do.



Mr. Geldert is advising every owner/lease-holder to prepare submissions in reply to this court application. He is also advising that our firm be provided an opportunity to review those submissions to ensure they are ready to be filed with the court and served on Northwynd. Full copies of the associated court documents can be obtained on the Sunchaservillas.ca website should you wish to review the entire package of documents.



Should you retain Mr. Geldert, he will assist you in preparing, filing and serving the necessary submissions. He will also canvas the legal arguments that are available, including, most readily, that what Northwynd is proposing to do fundamentally alters the Agreement(s) and prejudices the rights of the owners/lease-holders.



If you are interested in retaining Mr. Geldert please complete and return the attached information sheet to me by email to (patricia@geldertlaw.com) along with copies of (2) pieces of government issued identification. We would ask that you also provide us with a copy of your time-share agreement and the most recent correspondences that relate to it. Once in receipt of these documents I will schedule a time for you to speak with Mr. Geldert on the phone to confirm the foregoing.





Kind Regards,






Patricia Maiato, Legal Assistant




T: 778.330.7775 | F:778.330.7774 | W: www.geldertlaw.com

2704A - 930 Seymour, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 1B4

From the BC Law Society: Code of Professional Conduct

3.6-4 If a lawyer acts for two or more clients in the same matter, the lawyer must divide the fees and disbursements equitably between them, unless there is an agreement by the clients otherwise.

So how many clients knew (to even agree) about different fees. Did these original clients remain at the all-in $1000 for the duration.

 

[J's Garage]

While we are near that section how about:

3.6-6 If a lawyer refers a matter to another lawyer because of the expertise and ability of the other lawyer to handle the matter, and the referral was not made because of a conflict of interest, the referring lawyer may accept, and the other lawyer may pay, a referral fee, provided that:

(a) the fee is reasonable and does not increase the total amount of the fee charged to the client; and

(b) the client is informed and consents.


Were the clients informed prior (or even afforded opportunity to give consent) to the other lawyers brought on board?