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

[Spark1]

I remembered that Mr. Wenkel refered to us as "Dissenting Owners". I wasn't sure if I liked that terminology - but when I looked up that term relating to business - I thought the following quote was applicable:

How to Deal with the Dissedent - "The majority Shareholder or Partners must take great care to play everything by the book to avoid unnecesary claims against them. This means that they must continue to observe statuatory rules governing the management of the Company, procession of financial information and voting procedures. Otherwise the dispute that could have been reasonably quickly sorted out becomes difficult."

Sounds like good advise!

Northwynd hates timeshare owners. they made a bad investment with FRPL and they are trying to get rich off of us. this is what we got to look forward to if you get sucked into the reno fee. Type this in google NORTHWYND RESORT PROPERTIES LTD SCAMMERS FRAUD and read. They act like they are going to build you the perfect resort but they will have to down size and then they will over sell the resort and you will not get into the resort and watch out for maintenance fees they are going to sky rocket. I would not even drive into this resort because i hate this management they can not be trusted. I wonder if justice loo was a bond holder? Hire michael@geldertlaw Ph 17783307775

 

[GypsyOne]

Northwynd hates timeshare owners. they made a bad investment with FRPL and they are trying to get rich off of us. this is what we got to look forward to if you get sucked into the reno fee. Type this in google NORTHWYND RESORT PROPERTIES LTD SCAMMERS FRAUD and read. They act like they are going to build you the perfect resort but they will have to down size and then they will over sell the resort and you will not get into the resort and watch out for maintenance fees they are going to sky rocket. I would not even drive into this resort because i hate this management they can not be trusted. I wonder if justice loo was a bond holder? Hire michael@geldertlaw Ph 17783307775

JustFacts says this about the good Justice's decision:

"Owners who have read Justice Loo's ruling in full should be thanking her for the level of detail she provided. Justice Loo has gone to great lengths to explain two things to the owners:

1) Pursuing further justice through a breach of contract argument would result in unnecessary litigation, be timing consuming, and expensive.

2) If you try, you'll lose.

Justice Loo included everything you could possibly need in her ruling to realize the futility of the breach of contract argument."

So according to JF we owe JLoo a great debt of gratitude because:

- She showed such patience and restraint in communicating in detail to we the dullard timeshare owners why sending more money to Northwynd for their benefit would only be the reasonable thing to do.
- That pointing out how resisting the money grab will be so annoying to the Companies and a waste of our time and money.
- That she shared with us her superior insight that further search for justice will yield the same results.

You mean she could see no merit whatsoever in the timeshare owners action, other than for simplifying her job? "The owners must be commended for selecting three representatives..........."

I thought judges were supposed to be impartial adjudicators, not water-carriers for one side. Me thinks the provincial Justice knows on which side her bread is buttered.

 

[Spark1]

JustFacts says this about the good Justice's decision:

"Owners who have read Justice Loo's ruling in full should be thanking her for the level of detail she provided. Justice Loo has gone to great lengths to explain two things to the owners:

1) Pursuing further justice through a breach of contract argument would result in unnecessary litigation, be timing consuming, and expensive.

2) If you try, you'll lose.

Justice Loo included everything you could possibly need in her ruling to realize the futility of the breach of contract argument."

So according to JF we owe JLoo a great debt of gratitude because:

- She showed such patience and restraint in communicating in detail to we the dullard timeshare owners why sending more money to Northwynd for their benefit would only be the reasonable thing to do.
- That pointing out how resisting the money grab will be so annoying to the Companies and a waste of our time and money.
- That she shared with us her superior insight that further search for justice will yield the same results.

You mean she could see no merit whatsoever in the timeshare owners action, other than for simplifying her job? "The owners must be commended for selecting three representatives..........."

I thought judges were supposed to be impartial adjudicators, not water-carriers for one side. Me thinks the provincial Justice knows on which side her bread is buttered.

Here is another resort that Northwynd owned and operated and keep in mind that this is the biggest fraud and scam timeshare company in North America, this is where our platinum club money went and i would bet our Fairmont maintenanace fees. Type in Google COSTA MAYA REEF AMBERGRIS CAYE FORUM. Make sure you read at least 50 forums so you get the idea what we have to look forward to. When i read this i come to the conclusion that these timeshare owners are just complainers and why did they want to take NORTHWYND TO COURT ,these are honest people just like their honest sales people and if you believe this you probability believe there is OCEAN Front property in Arizona.

 

[freetime]

not much talk on the subject what is all the owners doing

 

[Rider Nation Rocks]

@Freetime

Tried to stimulate some conversation or input on the weekend but seems like most have surrendered. Appears most have given up the fight or left it up to the lawyers. The lack of feedback is telling me that most will just drink the Kool-Aid. Those that stay will no doubt get to enjoy more refreshments down the road.

 

[DarkLord]

Tried to stimulate some conversation or input on the weekend but seems like most have surrendered. Appears most have given up the fight or left it up to the lawyers. The lack of feedback is telling me that most will just drink the Kool-Aid. Those that stay will no doubt get to enjoy more refreshments down the road.

I never know one person who surrendered and I've talked to 5 of them. 2 will fight, 3 just ignored the letter or procrastinated. The lack of feedback is normal for this kind of thing. After the shock is over, people move on with more important things in life.

 

[Hotpink]

Contract language

Our Vacation Villa Lease from 1998 clearly states in Section 13 on page 3
" Default of the Lessee in payment required under this lease
In the event that the Lessee should default in making any payment required to be made by the Lessee hereunder, within the time stipulated for payment , then the lessee agrees that the Lessee agrees that the Lessee's right to occupy a Villa shall be suspended until such time as all payments due have been duly paid
In the event that default in payment is not remedied within sixteen (16) months from the date of such default, then the Lessee shall be deemed to have offered to sell the Lessee's leasehold interest to the Lessor for an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of
(a) one-fortieth(1/40th) of the Purchase Price for an annual lease or
(b) one twentieth(1/20th) of the Purchase Price for an biennial lease
each as the case may be, multiplied by the number of lease years then remaining in this lease, less all monies owing under this Lease to the Lessor. If the lessor accepts the deemed offer as aforesaid, the Lessor shall be entitled to the Lessee's lease hold for the duration of this Lease and upon presentation of proof of payment to the Trustee, shall be entitled to be recorded as the registered holder of this Lease

Seeing as we bought in 1998 and our lease expires in 2039 at the discounted price of $17,000.00 plus GST, then in 2015 (16) sixteen months from now they will owe us $8,500/ 40 = $212.50 x 25 years = $5312.50 NOT INCLUDING INTEREST and when they pay that we will celebrate BUT NOT WITH KOOL-AID .

 

[Timeshare Cold]

Quiet for too long!

We also wondered why this site was so quiet, then decided it was because of owners like us, who have been quietly observing and trying to make a decision. Once we received the new invoice with the increase for the "get out of jail" fee, plus 2014 Maintenance fee, we made a decision.

Originally when we contacted Northmount/Northwynd last May, we were told the "cancellation fee" was to cover the maintenance fees of the owners who left so that the owners who stayed, would not have such a huge financial burden in the future! So it seems absurd that I now also have to pay 2014 maintenance fees. The invoice put us over the edge and the decision was made to join a group represented by one of the lawyers suggested on this site.

Thank you to those on this site who have given such good information. The ethics of this timeshare company is beyond our comprehension. We are now sleeping much better knowing that we have not sent a cheque to Northwynd.

 

[pdoff]

Appeal Period

I think that some folks are waiting for the appeal period with our lawyers (Dec 15) to see how many people are going to appeal - I think lots!

 

[Hotpink]

More Wenkel Creative language Skills

Item 20 of our contract

Removal of the Manager The lessee in conjunction with other holders of leasehold interest in the Project totalling not less than fifty-one (51%) of all leaseholders of Villas shall be entitled to terminate the services of the lessor as manager, provided that… We just need a list of owners from the Trustee whom hopefully can be trusted

Why is the management company not taking steps to reduce the costs? How about a reduction in salaries, for Mr. Wankel et all, decrease the amount paid for the lease on the Water Park, which is leased from themselves, to name a couple. According to the posted Notes to financial Statements December 31,2011, the replacement reserve had a deficiency of ($1,671,318.)
Our contract states the following:
10. As compensation for its services the manager shall be entitled to an annual fee (the ‘Management Fee’) equal to fifteen per cent (15%) of aggregate of the Replacement Reserves and the Operating Costs assessed in each calendar year with respect to the Project.

Management fees in 2011 were $1,435,217. Are the management fees accurately reflecting an aggregate amount?
Especially if they are losing money

Also in the posted Notes under Replacement Reserve “Historically, the Resort has not had a replacement reserve.” The Financial Statements from Year Ended December 31, 2003, the replacement reserve fund balance for the year 2003 was $987,424. and for 2002 $566,255 for the Replacement Reserve. I have a copy of that report, making the statement in the posted notes an absolute false hood. .If there are others who have kept copies of financial statements perhaps we need to share

Our Contract also states under item 10 (g) open two separate bank accounts, one entitled ”Operating Trust Account” and the other entitled “Replacement Reserve Trust Account”, and all monies received relative to Operating Costs shall be placed in the Operating Trust Account and all monies received in connection with Replacement Reserves or collected as described in paragraph 9 (d)(ii) of this lease shall be placed in the Replacement Reserve Trust Account; and…
Would like to see that bank book
Is this being done? If not the management is in breach of our contract
They epitomize the Ultimate in Creative accountants

 

[no_more]

their house of cards is collapsing

Foreclosure lawsuit filed against northwynd for their makaha resort in Hawaii ... northwynd was unable to secure additional financing ... gee, nobody willing to lend them money - I wonder why ???

Leeward Coast Real Estate – Foreclosure Lawsuit Filed Against Makaha Resort

Posted on March 2, 2013 by Jeff and Cathi

Northwynd Resort Properties Ltd., a Canada based company, owns the Makaha Resort on the Leeward Coast of Oahu. In April 2011, Northwynd had partnered Pacific Links Hawaii, a golf course operator, to help upgrade the hotel and convert the 173 rooms into timeshares. Pacific Links purchased the 18-hole golf course which was part of the Makaha Resort for $2.5 million and spent $3 million upgrading the golf course. Pacific Links also agreed to loan Northwynd $6.8 million to help renovate the hotel. However, Northwynd was unable up secure additional financing and closed the hotel in October 2011. Northwynd claimed at that time that they would secure financing at a later date, upgrade the property and then reopen the Makaha Resort.

Pacific Links has recent filed a foreclosure lawsuit against Northwynd and hopes to repossess the currently closed hotel that was used to secure the loan. Chief operating officer for the Pacific Links Hawaii, Micah Kane, stated, “It is very unfortunate that Makaha Hotel and Resort was unable to secure the financing to reignite hotel operations. However, we will use this as an opportunity to pursue a more comprehensive, community-based approach to developing a truly sustainable economic plan for Makaha Valley.”


link to the article is below ...
http://hawaiirealestatenewsandblog....eclosure-lawsuit-filed-against-makaha-resort/

don't give these people a cent - their house of cards is collapsing ... they've had to give up their resorts in mexico and belize after leaving a trail of abandoned and unhappy timeshare owners where they jacked up the maintenance fees, refused exchanges, breached contract terms and tried to pressure them for collections - sound familiar ? ... same with the worthless oasis resort in Nevada which is about to be demolished ... the lake Okanagan resort which is in worse shape than sunchaser and is on the block for a reduced price ... and ... they owe their RI REIT investors a bundle - who are threatening to sue them also ...

this B.C. judge has had rulings overturned before and made news when she was publicly rebuked by the higher court for ignoring evidence ( do a web search on judge linda loo and see for yourself )

 

[GypsyOne]

I think that some folks are waiting for the appeal period with our lawyers (Dec 15) to see how many people are going to appeal - I think lots!

My observation is similar to others who have posted about the number of timeshare owners who are continuing the fight. The owners I have talked to are unanimous that they are not going to be extorted by this unscrupulous company. The large number signing on to the appeal also means the cost per owner is minimal - far less than the ransom demanded and/or the ongoing request for funds that are sure to come.

The Notice of Appeal was served on the Trustee and Northmont today by our two law firms Geldert Law and Cox Taylor. As expected, the appeal is representing a large number of owners. In my opinion, the appeal is a step in the process. If we win, fine; if we don't, it is a necessary step in the quest for justice.

There is a time to turn the other cheek and there is a time to fight. The time to fight for justice is now. The Special Case allowed very narrow evidence and argument. Once we are allowed to present numerous misrepresentations and breaches of contract, the odds in our favour go up considerably.

 

[GypsyOne]

Hotpink, you make some good points. I also wonder about that Clause 13 in the lease which gives a formula for paying out the timeshare owners in the event of default. Basically, the Agreement stipulates that they will take back the remaining time on the lease at a discount of 50% (or 25% in later ones) of cost for the remaining time on the lease. From that figure is subtracted outstanding maintenance, thus you would probably have to subtract one year's maintenance fee. Still a far cry from Northwynd's extortion demand.

Clause 13 received almost no attention in the Special Case because of the narrow parameters of the hearing. Northwynd dismissed the clause summarily by taking the position that it is a permissive clause - that they have the option to accept or reject the formula. But I'm not so sure. The buyout of remaining time at a discount still loads the figure in favour of the Lessor, which is to be expected, but it is a perfectly logical way of settling a default. Why would the formula be included in the lease in such detail if it is meaningless? Would not the average prospective timeshare buyer reading the lease not assume the clause was a formula for handling default? If the prospective buyer asked the salesman what it meant, would not the salesman say it was a formula for remedying default? The answer to these questions I think is obvious - Clause 13 was intended to be applied in the event of default.

The validity of Clause 13 also takes us into the area of consumer protection. Leases should not be worded such that meaningless clauses are added that in essence deceives a party to the lease, or lulls the party into a false sense of security in order to close the sale. If consumers have rights, and particularly when the layperson/consumer is up against the timeshare industry with their vast resources, then Clause 13 should not be considered meaningless, it should be the formula for remedying default.

 

[pdoff]

My observation is similar to others who have posted about the number of timeshare owners who are continuing the fight. The owners I have talked to are unanimous that they are not going to be extorted by this unscrupulous company. The large number signing on to the appeal also means the cost per owner is minimal - far less than the ransom demanded and/or the ongoing request for funds that are sure to come.

The Notice of Appeal was served on the Trustee and Northmont today by our two law firms Geldert Law and Cox Taylor. As expected, the appeal is representing a large number of owners. In my opinion, the appeal is a step in the process. If we win, fine; if we don't, it is a necessary step in the quest for justice.

There is a time to turn the other cheek and there is a time to fight. The time to fight for justice is now. The Special Case allowed very narrow evidence and argument. Once we are allowed to present numerous misrepresentations and breaches of contract, the odds in our favour go up considerably.

Yes we have the same lawyer - it is "just a fact" that we will not pay this bunch of crooks!

 

[CindyD]

Appeal Process Question

We have already spent $ 615.00 to this point with 2 different lawyers, the last being the Cox Taylor Law Firm for the last court proceedings. With one of the options from both lawyers being pay the choose to leave and be done with it. My question is how many people are going through with the appeal? How much in the end will it cost? Being on a fixed income the bottom line is a concern.

 

[freetime]

In our Promissory note and installment sales contact 3. Remedies on Default
The rights of usage under the vacation lease will be suspended in favour of FRP when an account is 30 days in arrears. In the event that any money owing hereunder are past due 90 days. the lessee hereby agrees to relinquish all rights and respondsibilities of the lessee and hereby irrevocably appoints FRP, its successors and assigns, as its attorney to transfer ownership of the vacation lease in such event. All moneys paid under this contract will be retained by FRP as liquidated damages, and no refund of any nature will be made to the lessee. In the event of any dispute this contract will be interpreted and enforced under the laws and courts of British Columbia.

What I read into this is that if we don't pay our time share goes back to them anyone know anything about this clause. if this is the case they can have the lease

 

[Hotpink]

Remedies on Default

In our Promissory note and installment sales contact 3. Remedies on Default
The rights of usage under the vacation lease will be suspended in favour of FRP when an account is 30 days in arrears. In the event that any money owing hereunder are past due 90 days. the lessee hereby agrees to relinquish all rights and respondsibilities of the lessee and hereby irrevocably appoints FRP, its successors and assigns, as its attorney to transfer ownership of the vacation lease in such event. All moneys paid under this contract will be retained by FRP as liquidated damages, and no refund of any nature will be made to the lessee. In the event of any dispute this contract will be interpreted and enforced under the laws and courts of British Columbia.

Freetime what you have quoted comes from the Promissory Note and Installment Sales Contract that we also signed in 1998 as we chose to pay them in installments. If we had reneged on any payments we promised to pay them then this clause would have come into effect. We have ours with a PAID IN FULL stamp and signature on it. If you are still paying installments for your original purchase then this clause would come into effect and you would need to make a decision as what to do.
However if you are paid in full then the contract you signed will be in effect
http://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/bc-supreme-court-petition/

We suggest you go to this website and review the Matkin affidavit of last April and carefully review Exhibits B1,B2,B3 and B4. These are the contracts that are currently in effect and depending on which one you signed. B1( section 12) And B2( section 13) ( are specific in the handling of defaults by the Lessee ( us) but B3( section 15) and B4( section 14) are far more nebulous .

As far as I can tell B1( four pages) was in effect from the start up to late 97 or early 98. B2 was in effect from 98 to the About 2009. B3 was used ( 11 Pages)until FRP sold to Northmont in 2010 . B4 ( 11 Pages) Came into effect after Northmont acquired the property.

Also note the different names used
B1 VACATION LEASE
B2 VACATION VILLA LEASE
B3 VACATION EXPERIENCE LEASE AND CO-OWNERSHIP AGREEMENT
B4 VACATION INTERVAL AGREEMENT

B1 & B2 have the same Fairmont Address for Service
B3 & B4 have the same Calgary Address for Service

While not a Lawyer I would say any one with a B3 or a B4 contract have a deep ditch to get out of

Happy Reading

 

[freetime]

Our Vacation Villa Lease from 1998 clearly states in Section 13 on page 3
" Default of the Lessee in payment required under this lease
In the event that the Lessee should default in making any payment required to be made by the Lessee hereunder, within the time stipulated for payment , then the lessee agrees that the Lessee agrees that the Lessee's right to occupy a Villa shall be suspended until such time as all payments due have been duly paid
In the event that default in payment is not remedied within sixteen (16) months from the date of such default, then the Lessee shall be deemed to have offered to sell the Lessee's leasehold interest to the Lessor for an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of
(a) one-fortieth(1/40th) of the Purchase Price for an annual lease or
(b) one twentieth(1/20th) of the Purchase Price for an biennial lease
each as the case may be, multiplied by the number of lease years then remaining in this lease, less all monies owing under this Lease to the Lessor. If the lessor accepts the deemed offer as aforesaid, the Lessor shall be entitled to the Lessee's lease hold for the duration of this Lease and upon presentation of proof of payment to the Trustee, shall be entitled to be recorded as the registered holder of this Lease

Seeing as we bought in 1998 and our lease expires in 2039 at the discounted price of $17,000.00 plus GST, then in 2015 (16) sixteen months from now they will owe us $8,500/ 40 = $212.50 x 25 years = $5312.50 NOT INCLUDING INTEREST and when they pay that we will celebrate BUT NOT WITH KOOL-AID .

Reading this seems like Northmont will not have a leg to stand on if we don't pay the fee did I read this correctly

 

[GypsyOne]

Reading this seems like Northmont will not have a leg to stand on if we don't pay the fee did I read this correctly

Unfortunately, not quite that cut and dried, Freetime. Northmont is saying the Clause is permissive - that they have the option of accepting the clause or not, and they hang their hat on the phrase, "If the lessor accepts the deemed offer....", or more specifically on one word, "If". But, that does not necessarily mean the Companies are correct in their interpretation because you then get into issues of misleading contracts and consumer protection. (See my post above #1063 for another interpretation.) There are certainly issues here upon which to sue for breaches of contract.

 

[Hotpink]

Lessee or Owner

As written by Gypsy one in post 1017

Northmont/Northwynd fixed that little problem of the timeshare owners being tenants and not owners in a very clever way. About 2009 they blitzed the timeshare owners with a campaign to convert lease agreements to ownership agreements, or from lessees to owners in fee simple. A number of timeshare owners were convinced they were better off to be owners in perpetuity than to have a 40-year fixed lease. But they were duped. As well as now being implied owners, the contracts were amended to include being responsible for capital improvements. Clause 9 (now Clause 11) was expanded to add capital costs to operating costs. ie. ".....and to pay the costs of capital improvements that may from time to time be required." Adding insult to injury, the timeshare owners paid $6,000 or so for the privilege of having their rights weakened.

Contracts entered into prior to 2009 and are exhibits B1 & B2 in Matkins affidavit call us lessees through out. In the contracts following which are the exhibits B3 & B4 in Matkins Affidavit the word lessee is replaced with Buyer and in section 23 of B3 and section 22 of B4 buyers become part of an Owners association NOT a Lessees Association. The latter two contracts also grew from 4 pages to 11 pages and that is normally bad for those who are paying.

So if you are a Co-owner /Buyer as in the latter one of two contracts the word capital is now included as quoted by Gypsyone .
One should read the letter to Matkin from Wenkel in the aforementioned affidavit as to what Northmonts intent is and form your own conclusion
The next dubious question that arise is " WHAT CONSTITUTES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS" .
Is the renovation project a Capital Improvement?
Happy researches

 

[freetime]

media coverage

Has anyone out there been in contact with the Media again telling our side of the story
Would this bring attention to Northmont showing how they are trying to rip off people, seems like they just make up rules to suit them.
1. outrages interest, not even sure this is legal to charge this rate
2. now making the owners pay the 2014 maintenance
I think it would help to get the message out there for owners that are sitting on the fence, to show that there are still owners trying to fight these bandits.

 

[Hotpink]

Wankels Law

you need to read this

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Wankel-Affidavit-sworn-April-15-2013.pdf

Note item 20 which is very erroneous

Our contract which is pre 2009( signed in 98) is in section 38 an in the pre 97 is in section 37 but are
"MODIFICATIONS TO LEASE; The lessor reserves the right to adjust or modify this Lease from time to time for the benefit of existing or future lessees, provided that any such adjustment or modification will not in any way materially prejudice the rights of existing lessees. If any such adjustment or modification is effected, the Lessor will provide notice to each lessee setting out the nature of the adjustment or modification , the reasons giving rise to such adjustment or modification and the effects thereof "

Does not read like it is in their favour

The others are similar in wording except they use their names and call us owners and added a provision to build more villas. you can read these for yourselves

We can only assume Mr Wankel is looking after our Lessees' /owners' interests
as would a Weasel guard the chicken coop

We did listen to the first pitch outlining the Legacy For Life program and if we bought that day we would get it for a bargain of only $9,000.00. We said we will look into selling our lease first and he laughed and said as it stood the lease was worthless. We asked why it would be worth something if we paid him another 9K and needless to say we were not satisfied with the response.

Perhaps we should have smelled a member of the weasel family then . We said when it is free we will join up.
Was the Brochure in late 2012 outlining "Exciting changes are coming to your resort in 2013...." considered notice of a change to Our contract
No mention of Pay more for a shrinking resort That shoe did not drop until early April . Perhaps he believes by giving us notice to pay more to go or pay much more to stay as notice of change.

These people ( at least one of them) appear to believe that the magic of a Harry Potter character and coming from the house of Slytherin will create a New Look . a New feel , a New Sunchaser

 

[Spark1]

you need to read this

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Wankel-Affidavit-sworn-April-15-2013.pdf

Note item 20 which is very erroneous

Our contract which is pre 2009( signed in 98) is in section 38 an in the pre 97 is in section 37 but are
"MODIFICATIONS TO LEASE; The lessor reserves the right to adjust or modify this Lease from time to time for the benefit of existing or future lessees, provided that any such adjustment or modification will not in any way materially prejudice the rights of existing lessees. If any such adjustment or modification is effected, the Lessor will provide notice to each lessee setting out the nature of the adjustment or modification , the reasons giving rise to such adjustment or modification and the effects thereof "

Does not read like it is in their favour

The others are similar in wording except they use their names and call us owners and added a provision to build more villas. you can read these for yourselves

We can only assume Mr Wankel is looking after our Lessees' /owners' interests
as would a Weasel guard the chicken coop

We did listen to the first pitch outlining the Legacy For Life program and if we bought that day we would get it for a bargain of only $9,000.00. We said we will look into selling our lease first and he laughed and said as it stood the lease was worthless. We asked why it would be worth something if we paid him another 9K and needless to say we were not satisfied with the response.

Perhaps we should have smelled a member of the weasel family then . We said when it is free we will join up.
Was the Brochure in late 2012 outlining "Exciting changes are coming to your resort in 2013...." considered notice of a change to Our contract
No mention of Pay more for a shrinking resort That shoe did not drop until early April . Perhaps he believes by giving us notice to pay more to go or pay much more to stay as notice of change.

These people ( at least one of them) appear to believe that the magic of a Harry Potter character and coming from the house of Slytherin will create a New Look . a New feel , a New Sunchaser

Let's not forget about audited statements. Conrad MacNeil writes
I do not know why everyone is focused on appealing Justices Loo's decision. The focus should be on a breach of contract (section C (10) (c) (I) ), as Northwynd failed to provide audited financial statements in accord with the standards of timeline that were set forth.When an accredited firm finally did complete an audit we'll past the deadline,and was retrospective by including the two previous two years where an accredited audit not occurred,the information they requested was incomplete,and the fore they issued a disclaimer stating that they could not rule out fraud.
This is more sufficient grounds to make a case in contract law towards rendering the contract void. Therefore if the contract was essentially voided prior to Justice Loo's ruling,the implications of said ruling are essentially irrelevant. Her ruling would apply, unbeknownst to her, to an invalid contract.
I addressed this with Northwynd specifically and frankly was surprised that Wankel let K wetland respond. He won't reply to any communications I have sent to him directly, including a statement of claim delivered by registered mail. He acknowledges that the conditions set out in Sect C (producing audited financial statements on the due date) were violated, but tried to argue that it is a matter of interpretation. When I responded that there are no conditions set forth in the contract that require interpretation, it is very specific,there was no further response. He is also aware that I am a forensic specialist by profession,have been involved with a legal team,and have also involved with the commercial crimes unit of the Calgary detachment of the RCMP.

 

[GypsyOne]

Unfortunately, not quite that cut and dried, Freetime. Northmont is saying the Clause is permissive - that they have the option of accepting the clause or not, and they hang their hat on the phrase, "If the lessor accepts the deemed offer....", or more specifically on one word, "If". But, that does not necessarily mean the Companies are correct in their interpretation because you then get into issues of misleading contracts and consumer protection. (See my post above #1063 for another interpretation.) There are certainly issues here upon which to sue for breaches of contract.

Further to Clause 13 of the lease and Northmont claiming that the clause is permissive, that they don't have to accept the "deemed offer." But they ARE accepting the deemed offer (to take back the remaining leasehold interest). They are taking back the remaining time on the lease, thus they are accepting the deemed offer, its just that they don't want to pay up according to the terms of the lease. And to add insult to injury, they are not only taking back remaining time on the lease, they think the timeshare owner should also pay THEM money. Money which they think they deserve for managing the timeshare unit for us that we no longer own. The timeshare industry really is an Alice in Wonderland kind of existence.

 

[GypsyOne]

Capital costs

Hotpink: "The next dubious question that arise is " WHAT CONSTITUTES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS" .
Is the renovation project a Capital Improvement?"

As a property appraiser I can say that that is not always obvious. Operating or maintenance costs are short term in nature. Examples would be paint or replacing a broken window. Capital costs are long term in nature and relate to the basic structure of the building. A quick scan of the $40.8 million proposed expenditures reveals a mix, with a preponderance towards long term capital. These are expenditures that are needed to bring the building up to what should have been the original construction standard. Well constructed buildings should have a lifetime of at least 60 years with only normal maintenance required. These buildings are from nine to twenty-three years old and are showing major construction deficiencies. The fact that $40.8 million expenditure is now required to bring them up to standard reveals two things. 1) That the buildings were poorly constructed, thus implying misrepresentation of what we were buying into. 2) That an expenditure of that magnitude goes far beyond normal maintenance, which is all lessees are obliged to pay.