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

[MarcieL]

You did what it was best for your family. No worries, we will sue Geldert and company and we may get back what it was taken from us by force and illegally.

Please let me know when you plan this.

 

[Petus@18]

Today I found information I didn't realize i had.
Turns out we all have each others names already.
Burred in a barrage of attachments in the Aug 18/2016 update are 2 lists of names, Court application Cranbrook (all the BC defendants 475) and court application Edmonton ( all the Alberta defendants 753). Adds up to 1228 defendants.
And surprise surprise on the list is a friend of mine who builds websites. He said its possible to build a site that people could access only with permission of an administrator. If your name's not on one of those lists you wouldn't get in.
Please give me some feedback on if you think this could be a tool.

Please let me know when you plan this.

Plus454's quote above, he is trying to setup a website where we can all join and pursue a claim against Geldert. I think this is a great idea!! Just give him your feedback. The sooner we can get in we could start making decisions to go forward. I am looking forward to start rightaway! For now let's see what happens on Thursday.

 

[MarcieL]

Have there been people that have received (and signed) termination to their VIA's that are option 2 people? I think option 2 is hoping to get in there and change things according to the contract. Change the manager, set up a homeowners association (which is what NM said they would do in the CCAA hearings) and just basically make NM life a living hell.

Good luck with that.

 

[aden2]

Regarding the Northmont v Reid with Judge Young, during a break a remark was made to KW/Sauvgeau, which delayed the hearing because Judge Young had to deal with their complaint. It appeared that Judge Young took a dislike towards us from that point.
So if we pay what KW claims we owe are we released from this nightmare?

 

[servemeout]

There are some VERY interesting statement that NM has included in their communications. April 12,2013 " Enclosed, you will find your Renovation Project Fee("RPF") invoice for your share of the renovation project and the deficit of the resort." There are a few issues here
1. Why would we be responsible for any company's deficit?
2. The amount was for ALL of the resort to be done.
3. The interest for the RPF is based on that amount for ALL of the resort to be done. 55% of units have been removed, hence the RPF is an grossly inflated amount. How much of the amount was RPF and how much was to cover deficit?
4. NM did not pay their share. Wankel stated in court it was because they did not send themselves an invoice.
5. The finial ruling of the appeal was Jan. 25 2017concerning the RPF. So why are we being charged interest of 26.82% starting the announcement date of April 12,2013.
6. Having "X" number of years left on leases - why is not some credit due to the persons that paid for the use of that time. Using the 20 years in this "Freedom" document you would have had to purchase in 1993. What was the freedom in that communication? We do not call 5 years of litigation freedom.

"In order to allow Timeshare Members to cancel their Vacation Interval Agreements, we developed a cancellation option that fairly compensates the Developer for the lost property management fees, ensures the deficit is properly recovered, and recovers some of the administrative and trustee costs of the process." FAIR? Sorry this is not FAIR as you now get to sell the land. Fair means that both parties benefit and there is only one party that will rake in $$$$. Why are we responsible of YOUR cost of doing business.

Also on page 2 is discussed the Current operating deficit. The 7000 is given as part of the problem. Was this not part of the CCAA ruling? Also stated was the Limited Subsidy Agreement between Northmont and RVM. The arrangement between parts of the same company is not our problem.

We will not be in court tomorrow, but feel free to use any of the above items. Photos of the #NAFR need to be included. Every time I read what NM has sent to us I find something else that was misrepresented to us. I have also kept copies of the ACE inspection of the dump which have now been removed from the Sunchaser web site.

 

[CleoB]

Regarding the Northmont v Reid with Judge Young, during a break a remark was made to KW/Sauvgeau, which delayed the hearing because Judge Young had to deal with their complaint. It appeared that Judge Young took a dislike towards us from that point.
So if we pay what KW claims we owe are we released from this nightmare?

What was the remark? Did you hear it? If she was influenced by the remark then she wasn't unbiased in her decision and it could be appealed.

 

[aden2]

What was the remark? Did you hear it? If she was influenced by the remark then she wasn't unbiased in her decision and it could be appealed.

A VIA told KW/Sauvgeau something to the effect that he would rather spend time in jail then give them any money.

 

[Hotpink]

One needs to understand the definitions of some of the terms that we use in thus instance. Depending on the source where we find them.
In looking at the Devils Dictionary we find the following.

Litigant -A person about to give up his skin for the hope of retaining his bones.

Litigation -A machine which you go into as a pig and come out as a sausage.

Lawyer- One skilled in circumvention of the law.

What we all have been thru since KW came on the scene, I'm sure many of us believe those definitions may be more accurate than those found
in either the Oxford or Webster versions

 

[CleoB]

A VIA told KW/Sauvgeau something to the effect that he would rather spend time in jail then give them any money.

Well, quite frankly, I don't understand why KW/Sauvgeau complained about that type of comment. It's not like this person threatened to harm either KW/Sauvgeau.

 

[Sunchaser Barbados]

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

... 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.

No one answered my question until Judge Young answered it. Her answer is, the leases have not been changed by any court or judicial body that she recognizes.

 

[torqued]

Anyone understand how your interest on what you owe actually is since BC court and Alberta court have ruled differently. My contract is pre-2004. Does it depend on what province you were served in??

 

[Notwhatweweresold]

Does this apply to everyone? Regardless of whether you chose option 1 or 2? Is there anything that can be done if we've already paid?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

No, those who chose option 1 settled out of court so this decision by Judge Young has no impact. However, as I understand things, those who did not choose option 1 and NM filed a claim against them in Alberta, will be ordered to pay the principal amount owing as presented to Judge Young, plus annual interest at either 5% (pre-2004 lease) or 26.82% to the date they pay up, plus court costs, and then they will still owe the 2018 maintenance fee plus interest until that's paid, plus they continue to be subject to the terms of their VIA lease/contract and the whims of NM et al. No idea what NM will charge to be released from the VIA/contract once the claim has been paid up - IF NM will even agree to release them. Big bucks either way, sadly, as far as I can tell, and extreme stress. Hard to believe! Of course the above doesn't address the potential outcome of the appeal of Judge Young's decisions. More twists and turns (sigh).

 

[servemeout]

If you were included in the BC group, BC and if in Alberta it will be Alberta. If you live in Virginia the collection of the debt may become more difficult. In Alberta collection agencies must be licensed by Alberta. F Sauvageau may not be allowed to act as a collection agency in your state.
I have done some calculations on the interest that RVM is charging. Judge Young's ruling greatly reduces the amount due. The difference in 2013 is $1487.40 vs $262.27. Her ruling will reduce the interest only by $2,598.22 for the years 2013/14/15/16/17. That amount of interest is a far cry from the settlement amount. Yet we were told that it was a "good deal" - NOT

 

[aden2]

Well, quite frankly, I don't understand why KW/Sauvgeau complained about that type of comment. It's not like this person threatened to harm either KW/Sauvgeau.

I think it was an attempted to make us all look bad, and that we were picking on them!

 

[LilMaggie]

Kind of sad to be penalized so much for wanting this nonsense to be over with . Carry on brave ones!!!

 

[Notwhatweweresold]

If you were included in the BC group, BC and if in Alberta it will be Alberta. If you live in Virginia the collection of the debt may become more difficult. In Alberta collection agencies must be licensed by Alberta. F Sauvageau may not be allowed to act as a collection agency in your state.
I have done some calculations on the interest that RVM is charging. Judge Young's ruling greatly reduces the amount due. The difference in 2013 is $1487.40 vs $262.27. Her ruling will reduce the interest only by $2,598.22 for the years 2013/14/15/16/17. That amount of interest is a far cry from the settlement amount. Yet we were told that it was a "good deal" - NOT

Those who settled under option 1 and had a pre-2004 VIA do pay a lot more in interest, but their charges stop as of Nov. 30, 2017 and they are fully released from the terms of their VIA. The alternative to settling under option 1 means the interest clock is still ticking and 2018 maintenance fees are due and accruing interest, on top of the continued stress of trying to fight this horrible fight and/or stave off the actions of the ruthless debt collectors. No easy decisions or answers for any of us

 

[LilMaggie]

I think it was an attempted to make us all look bad, and that we were picking on them!

Clearly. We must have come across as a bunch of dullards. It is also clear that some lawyers are much more sophisticated than others!

 

[LilMaggie]

Those who settled under option 1 and had a pre-2004 VIA do pay a lot more in interest, but their charges stop as of Nov. 30, 2017 and they are fully released from the terms of their VIA. The alternative to settling under option 1 means the interest clock is still ticking and 2018 maintenance fees are due and accruing interest, on top of the continued stress of trying to fight this horrible fight and/or stave off the actions of the ruthless debt collectors. No easy decisions or answers for any of us

Very well stated. There are no easy answers. We all will do and have done what seemed best in our minds at the time.
Thankfully we have a cohesive group that support each other's decisions!!

 

[Frau Blucher]

I’m mad as hell at Geldert. He essentially threw in the towel and bailed on us. Sure we had to pay the RPF and overdue maintenance fees plus 27% interest plus at least we’ll be rid of KW and the NAFR.

 

[LilMaggie]

Its Appeal Day! Best of luck team

 

[MarcieL]

Who is appealing what?

 

[dotbuhler]

Who is appealing what?

Justice Young's Decision. 10:00 a.m. Edmonton Law Courts.

 

[aden2]

The presiding Judge at the hearing in Edmonton with Northmond permitted all VIAs present to express their views before the courts. KW and Jud virtue were also present for the hearing. there 76 persons who have not signed the release papers. The next date for hearing is May 10, 2018 @9:00 A.M.

 

[dotbuhler]

The presiding Judge at the hearing in Edmonton with Northmond permitted all VIAs present to express their views before the courts. KW and Jud virtue were also present for the hearing. there 76 persons who have not signed the release papers. The next date for hearing is May 10, 2018 @9:00 A.M.

Thank you Aden2 for telling us the great news! Maybe for a change things will start looking up for those of us who are continuing this crazy journey!

 

[tssuck]

Thank you Aden2 for telling us the great news! Maybe for a change things will start looking up for those of us who are continuing this crazy journey!

Thank you very much for the information. Glad that our side of the truth is being heard. No more BS from MG.
By 76 not signed the release papers, does that mean there are 76 of us who have not paid?