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

[J's Garage]

Of course it just keeps getting murky waters:

3.6-7 A lawyer must not:

(a) directly or indirectly share, split or divide his or her fees with any person other than another lawyer; or

(b) give any financial or other reward for the referral of clients or client matters to any person other than another lawyer.

There was information posted (link below) a few days ago about section 6 in regards to a payments to a disbarred lawyer. But (a) seems to indicate another section that shows a breach of that payment. (b) this might be well worth a discussion since a client (Belfry) reportedly had his fees covered both during the trial and the appeal. He was ultimately rewarded with a lot different settlement than some or the rest of us received.

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

 

[Petus@18]

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 give consent) to the other lawyers brought on board?

Yes, we were never consulted. We were not expecting Geldert would be subcontracting other lawyers to do ALL the work! I believe Geldert was only collecting our money and monitoring our behavior online. One more wrong to add to the list. Did he ever do anything right?

 

[CleoB]

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.

What?????? $1000 all-in..........we paid around $2100 in total. How did some get in at $1000? We were told that anyone joining late or after the trials started would have to pay the same as those that started with him to "catch up" to what we paid.

 

[J's Garage]

Yes, we were never consulted. We were not expecting Geldert would be subcontracting other lawyers to do ALL the work! I believe Geldert was only collecting our money and monitoring our behavior online. One more wrong to add to the list. Did he ever do anything right?

Monitoring our behavior.. What a crock - and we bought it

The spin was that we should not be discussing the updates so that the opponent would not know our strategy (Another crock since every initiated action in litigation is allowed a rebuttal anyway) Nope. Not that.

No, the instruction to avoid the discussion of updates would seem intended to keep the clients in the dark. So they didn't know what was going on or become aware of the mis-steps that were happening.

 

[dotbuhler]

Regardless of how often Northwynd declares that it is not Fairmont, and takes no responsibility for what transpired under Fairmont's management; the leases or contracts were established with Fairmont. When Collins Barrow finally completed audits that were in breach of the timelines established in the contracts their disclaimer stated: "risks of material misstatement of financial statements, whether due to fraud or error...etc. etc." A material breach (which is serious), let alone a criminal offence of fraud, voids the contract. Therefore if the contracts/leases were already voided by Fairmont's actions, there was no further liability regardless of Northwynd taking ownership. Taking possession of invalid contracts does not make them viable just because you make all kinds of promises to take care of things and make it all better (which never happened anyway). Unless a new agreement was struck that would require your approval and authorization, they are no better than two ply!

One of Northwynd CC's misconception claims refers to breach of contract. Their suggestion is that minor or repairable breaches are not grounds for a contract to be voided. This is far from minor and definitely not repairable, and the status of the contracts in this regard was never brought to any Justice attention. Including that with the original CCAA arrangement and more recently with Justice Loo.

You know it will be front and centre with the appeal!!!

I remember how helpful ClanMac was to the forum until certain parties caused him so much frustration that he ended up totally withdrawing. But these words are as true today as they were when first posted. That's why, if you are not Appealing Judge Young's Decision, you should be filing a Dispute Note. Go to the Alberta Law Courts website and look under Civil Claims...If You Are Being Sued....for more information. It will cost you $125.00, well worth it IMHO!

 

[CleoB]

I remember how helpful ClanMac was to the forum until certain parties caused him so much frustration that he ended up totally withdrawing. But these words are as true today as they were when first posted. That's why, if you are not Appealing Judge Young's Decision, you should be filing a Dispute Note. Go to the Alberta Law Courts website and look under Civil Claims...If You Are Being Sued....for more information. It will cost you $125.00, well worth it IMHO!

Was it ever proven, what Colin Barrow stated.....that there was material misstatement of financial statements due to fraud? If you're going to appeal it had better be proven or at least can be proven now, right?

 

[dotbuhler]

Was it ever proven, what Colin Barrow stated.....that there was material misstatement of financial statements due to fraud? If you're going to appeal it had better be proven or at least can be proven now, right?[/QUOTE
Since I don't know what will happen with the filed Appeal due to the Reid's settlement, I took Aden2's advice and am filing a Dispute Note. It is quite different from an Appeal.

 

[aden2]

"We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained in our audits is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our qualified audit opinion.
Basis for Qualified Opinion
For the flrst six months of the year ended December 31, 2010, the Resort was managed by a different property manager than the current manager. We were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in respect of the completeness of related party transactions with the previous property manager due to a lack of information in respect of entities related to it. Consequently, we are unable to determine whether any adjustments to these disclosures are necessary.
Due to a change in property manager and accounting systems changes, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence about the recorded values of deferred revenue and accounts receivable as at December 31,2010 and 2009. As a result, there may have been a misclassification of bad debt expense between the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years, and the deficit as at December 31, 2009. We were unable to determine whether any adjustments to the amounts reported in these years were necessary.
Qualified Opinion
ln our opinion, except for the possible effects of the matters described in the Basis for Qualified Opinion paragraph, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the receipts and expenditures and deficit of The Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Riverside, Hillside and Riverview for the years ended December 31,2011 and December 31, 201A in accordance with the receipts and expenditures basis of accounting described in note 2.
Basis of Accounting
Without modifying our opinion, we draw attention to note 2 to the financial statements, which describes the basis of accounting. The financial statements are prepared to provide information to the Leaseholders of The Sunchaser Vacation Villas at Riverside, Hillside and Riverview. As a result, the statements may not be suitable for other purposes. 6ll; g"-,,*, cfu.uf
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
Calgary, Canada February 12,2013" from Collin Barrow audit report....

 

[aden2]

Lessee's obligation for payment #11 .."For payments received after 30 days, a late charge of 10% of the amount past due or (2%) per month (being 26.824% per year) of the amount past due (which ever is greater) will be assessed."
There is no mention or referral to compound interest. Is NM charging compound interest?

 

[Sunchaser Barbados]

Geldert allowed the judges to amend our contract,

Where can I read that a judge changed or allowed for the change in all the VIA leases?

I understand that Northmont, Kirk Wankel, acts and talks as if all leases have been changed. I understand that those who paid to stay, the sheep waiting to be shorn, actually agreed to have their leases changed. I understand the Trustee petitioned in BC for this change to apply to all leases. But I cannot find a decision or ruling that confirms all leases have been changed.

I cannot even find a court decision that #NAFR has been realigned. If Sunchaser/Northmont sent out new leases or a notification of the change to the leases, I've not received it. This bears a striking resemblance to Geldert's updates, in that I've also have not received these. Did Patricia learn her office management skills while working summers at #NAFR? No, probably not but, it's a rumor worth starting. It wouldn't be a bigger lie or exaggeration than those Michael spun himself, as the Managing Partner of his Full Service, International Law Firm, from his Head Office - I wonder if its a one bedroom or a two bedroom head office - in downtown Vancouver. Given he lives in his office, do you think there is any sex in the workplace at Geldert Law? It's just a question. Hey, I just paid tens of thousands of dollars, don't expect me to be politically correct. It's fun to imagine Patricia spanking Michael and saying, "Michael's been a very bad lawyer. Bad lawyer."

Also, in light of this (not the spanking, the previous stuff about the change in the leases), it is interesting that Judge Young alluded to differences in the leases in her decision. On the surface, it would seem she intends on taking these differences into consideration when she makes her final determination on interest and costs, which hopefully will be sometime before The Second Coming (insert your own joke here). This suggests that Judge Young at least, either isn't aware of the change or is choosing not to recognize the change or, the leases have not been changed.

It is particularly interesting that Savageau did not draw Judge Young's attention to a court having changed the leases.

 

[Been Around Awhile]

If I ever meet him I will have to say, "Michael you bad lawyer. Bad lawyer."

After you finished laughing at the above post, do yourself a favor and go back and read page 1 of this thread. Yes, 182-pages back. It really does simplify and put all these deceiving twists and turns into context. Read especially post #16 by Jjareed - yes, maybe those Reeds. "...meaning she implied that they can do what they want."

 

[Frau Blucher]

Someone has been politely posting ads on Craigslist to warn Vancouverites about Geldert Law but someone has been busy flagging them for removal (probably Michael or his wife Patricia). Judging by the latest rant, I think the person is really pissed ...

 

[truthr]

WOW some people!
I get that we are all frustrated and angry.

But seriously?? Character assassinations and lewd comments which have nothing to do with his performance as a lawyer?

Seriously??

Don't we have enough facts and evidence about our legal team's missteps?

Come on people - we are better than this. Or at least most of us are - aren't we??

 

[teedeej]

WOW some people!
I get that we are all frustrated and angry.

But seriously?? Character assassinations and lewd comments which have nothing to do with his performance as a lawyer?

Seriously??

Don't we have enough facts and evidence about our legal team's missteps?

Come on people - we are better than this. Or at least most of us are - aren't we??

It seems that MG wants to be known as the “successful negotiator in representing 3200 individuals in a class action”. I saw one of the craiglist postings that warned people to stay away from Geldert Law but it was quickly flagged by someone.
MG doesn’t want “the facts and evidence about our legal team's missteps” known

 

[teedeej]

I just checked Craigslist’s and the original ad was back up, at least for now

 

[servemeout]

MG is yesterday's horse race. We need to move forward. Is there anyone that know how to check to see if you name is on the list of people that MG, or that should be SLG represented? Yes there were too many items that were not presented by any of the lawyers. We did do a consult with another lawyer - he couldn't stop shaking his head in disbelief. However, we are still shaking our heads in disbelief and with age it get harder to shake anything.

 

[Frau Blucher]

MG is yesterday's horse race. We need to move forward.

Unfortunately a lot of MG’s former clients are out of options thanks to him, except for one: suing MG

 

[Appauled]

Unfortunately a lot of MG’s former clients are out of options thanks to him, except for one: suing MG

The other option is personal Bankruptcy.

 

[Hotpink]

I would suggest that personal bankruptcy is not a real good solution here is a quote from the bankruptcy page
In plain language, the concept behind personal bankruptcy in Canada is this: you assign (surrender) everything you own to a Licensed Insolvency Trustee in exchange for the elimination of your debts. Certain exceptions that vary by province allow you to keep some minimum necessities.

That means if you own your home you must give it up to the trustee. Mortgages and collateral based loans are exempt for the most part.
You must look long and hard before you take that step, because KW would be considered a creditor ( albeit alleged) and would be in line with his hand out and if he was the only creditor ( albeit alleged) you had, then he would be in line for the his pound of flesh.

Not a step I could take; when there are so many other ways that KW will ultimately lose his waxed on wings as he flies closer to the sun. Remember Icarus falling into the sea.

 

[torqued]

Do you physically have to go to the court house to file a dispute note and what potential gain is there in doing so.

 

[aden2]

Do you physically have to go to the court house to file a dispute note and what potential gain is there in doing so.

Then your Dispute note has the civil court stamp on it, there is not much time to get a dispute note filed.

 

[Frau Blucher]

Dr Evil (KW) and the gag order


Dr. Evil: Let me tell you a little story about a man named Sh! Sh! even before you start. That was a pre-emptive "sh!" Now, I have a whole bag of "sh!" with your name on it.

 

[Timesharepain]

Unfortunately a lot of MG’s former clients are out of options thanks to him, except for one: suing MG

How can he refuse to release these documents if your attorney is requesting them?

 

[Timesharepain]

Even though the transcripts have been filed for the appeal, the 'appeal book' has not. After obtaining some legal advice, they informed me that an appeal book or a trial book would have to be filed indicating the case/statutory laws and precedents the lawyers intended to argue on our behalf. But SLG has no intention of pursuing the appeal and have made it unclear as to how we can proceed without the Reids involvement due to the fact that they have already settled. The advice they gave me was that each of us who plan to appeal Judge Young's decision needs to be in court that day so that we can be heard. A large group of numbers will show the court that something has gone awry and we may be able to get an extension to file a new appeal (without SLG or Geldert's involvement) or more time to prepare the appeal that has already been filed. I cannot stress this enough; if we want any chance of proceeding with the appeal, we need to show up in force on that day. Do not let the lawyers steam roll the conversation with the Judge b/c they no longer represent us. We need to stand up and articulate to the judge the circumstances of the appeal (not being properly notified of it, how to proceed, withdrawal of lawyer on record, ask the judge for direction, etc).

This event is also a good time for all of us to meet up in person and actually discuss our case and how to move forward. We also need to discuss which legal firm we can use to represent us. Geldert has mislead us too many times to believe anything he says or sends out in an email; many people think that we are now 2 groups or even 3, but the reality is that we are still one group. If you have no intention of paying the settlement, then you need to move forward with the appeal regardless of which option you signed. In one of Geldert's last emails, he states that you can no longer opt out of the settlement agreement because you could have opted out at any time up until December 29th. In reality, the December 28th email was the only reference of opting out of the settlement after Geldert negotiated it without the group's input. The same email is also the first time (2 weeks after negotiation) that he mentioned how to "calculate' what you owe; which only works if Northmont sent you out a November 2016 statement. All in all, there are too many discrepancies with what he was said/written and what he has done to enforce his settlement.

We need to contact everyone that was a part of the group to make sure they will be present in court that day; spread the word through social media, other websites, etc. In one of the actions filed under Northmont vs. Reid, it lists over 650 Alberta members that are part of the Geldert group, it also lists which city they live in; however, it doesn't list their phone numbers. Over the course of the next 2 weeks I am going to try and search for their numbers and contact them about the appeal. If anyone wants to help with this endeavor, they can send me a PM. Remember March 8, 2018 @ 10am at the Edmonton Law Courts.

 

[Timesharepain]

We sent letter to Gelert saying we did not need him any longer, the settlement was ridiculous and felt he did not represent our interests, ( we had chose option 1) He sent email back asking why we did t fill out hardship form and then sent consent claim naming us and Northmont for $12,000 more than original settlement...We are in BC and can't find where our Orignal claim is ...we were never served..I looked in court services and civil claims...Any ideas or suggestions??