Northwynd CC
newbie
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 0
Thank you no_more.
-
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 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!
Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th 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!
60,000+ 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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
[ 2012 ] Fairmont / Sunchaser / Northwynd official thread with lawsuit info!
- Thread starter htusa2002
- Start date
Thank you no_more.
Spark1
newbie
Thank you for this post GypsyOne. We have struggled to understand why you believe that Justice Loo has been influenced by the BC government, but now we see it is an innocent misconception.
Justice Loo is not a provincially appointed judge. Superior court judges, like the BC Supreme Court and the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench are federally appointed by Cabinet just like the court of appeal.
If you would like more information on the Supreme Court of British Columbia, we suggest you review the wikipedia entry which includes this information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_British_Columbia
We hope this helps with your misconception. We will add it to our list as Misconception #20 to help others.
When is Northwynd sending out new agreements to us vacation villa lease owners because i do not see a cancellation part in this lease and i do not see where Northwynd can charge a huge lump sum all at once for renovations. Can Northwynd do this again next year?Do timeshare owners have any rights at all or are we suppose to shut up and just pay. In this new agreement that you will be sending out will you be listing what breaches are and will you be explaining to us that there is no way Northwynd can breach us but us lease holders can breach them. I look at this lease agreement of ours and realize that it is obsolete and it is not what we expected and i have to be careful here because that is another breach. Northwynd feels that we lease holders that hire lawyers to protect our rights are delinquents and they have everything covered. They have the money,they hire the biggest lawyer firm,the best accountants,they have justice loo on their side and the Alberta government on their side and they question us about trusting them. I said before that the Alberta Government should quite wasting the Alberta tax payers money and what a waste writing off 44 million dollars for a resort that is located in BC. Who did Colin know in Govt? The next stupid thing they did is give 800 broke bond holders a licence to take over the resort. Just because they are in government does't mean they are the brightest light bulbs on the planet. They waste the tax payers money. I said this before,i do not invest with BBB F rated companies but our Alberta Government does. Northwynd you could save a lot of money buy getting rid of us smart lease holders that do not want anything to do with you. Your reputation is following you.
great comment by spark1
"Do timeshare owners have any rights at all or are we suppose to shut up and just pay ". that comment from spark1 puts it best and is the crux of many people's concerns, including mine.
my concerns, and why I chose to join one of the legal firms appealing this ...
1. we had no input on the scope, cost or timing of the renovation - it was sprung on us with no warning a year ago, and tight deadlines to decide with little information. and then when we asked questions we were stonewalled. I have no doubt the renovation is genuine based on what I've seen on the website and heard from people visiting the resort , but ...
2. the work was not bid out to multiple contractors via a request for proposal, so how do we know the work is being done for a competitive price. there are no controls or oversight on what northwynd is doing ... with my professional background and experience, I can only think the worst in the absence of information ...
3. the controls and oversight by owners / lessees over northwynds operation are poor - an annual audit published within 3 months after the calendar year is over, I'm sorry that's not an effective control.
4. no owners association in place to represent our interests and foster understanding between both parties
5. the choose to leave contract is so complicated, why ? can't it just say an unconditional release of all obligations by both parties in exchange for a fee? am I missing something here ?
Northwynd, comments please ?
6. no clarity on how the resort downsizing would work, which buildings would be remediated, what are the criteria for selection ... would this come out in the next petition to the court ?
Northwynd, comments please ?
7. how are the interests of the bondholders balanced against the interests of the timeshare lessees / owners ? It sure looks like we are being used to fund improvements to the resort and increase its value, for the benefit of the bondholders. and ... if I was a bondholder, I'd sure be wanting some return on my original investment which went into bankruptcy proceedings.
Northwynd, comments here ?
and ... another bankruptcy is not going make the problem go away - I think most people with some business knowledge knows that ... somebody will own the resort ...
sincerely, no_more
"Do timeshare owners have any rights at all or are we suppose to shut up and just pay ". that comment from spark1 puts it best and is the crux of many people's concerns, including mine.
my concerns, and why I chose to join one of the legal firms appealing this ...
1. we had no input on the scope, cost or timing of the renovation - it was sprung on us with no warning a year ago, and tight deadlines to decide with little information. and then when we asked questions we were stonewalled. I have no doubt the renovation is genuine based on what I've seen on the website and heard from people visiting the resort , but ...
2. the work was not bid out to multiple contractors via a request for proposal, so how do we know the work is being done for a competitive price. there are no controls or oversight on what northwynd is doing ... with my professional background and experience, I can only think the worst in the absence of information ...
3. the controls and oversight by owners / lessees over northwynds operation are poor - an annual audit published within 3 months after the calendar year is over, I'm sorry that's not an effective control.
4. no owners association in place to represent our interests and foster understanding between both parties
5. the choose to leave contract is so complicated, why ? can't it just say an unconditional release of all obligations by both parties in exchange for a fee? am I missing something here ?
Northwynd, comments please ?
6. no clarity on how the resort downsizing would work, which buildings would be remediated, what are the criteria for selection ... would this come out in the next petition to the court ?
Northwynd, comments please ?
7. how are the interests of the bondholders balanced against the interests of the timeshare lessees / owners ? It sure looks like we are being used to fund improvements to the resort and increase its value, for the benefit of the bondholders. and ... if I was a bondholder, I'd sure be wanting some return on my original investment which went into bankruptcy proceedings.
Northwynd, comments here ?
and ... another bankruptcy is not going make the problem go away - I think most people with some business knowledge knows that ... somebody will own the resort ...
sincerely, no_more
Last edited:
fairmontlvr
newbie
Repost from June
Now that someone from Northwynd is responding, I would like to hear a response to a previous post I made back in June. A lot of us owners see through your intentions and can only equate that the driving factor is greed and trying to squeeze money out of us owners of time. If greed is not the underlying factor as so many of us on here feel it is, please answer the following questions:
1. Why not default the automatic 15% "management fee" from all funds received for the renovation project so that the owners are seeing each and every dollar going towards the renovation project rather than 85 cents on the dollar?
2. Why not let just let whoever wants to walk away, walk away at no cost or penalty? It would be their loss, downsize the resort for those that want to pay for the renovation and the investors of Northmont could do as they please with the remaining inits.
3. How can you justify charging an interest rate of 26.82% for those who have not paid the renovation project for a project that may take 5 to 10 years to complete? Some of us owners bought in to either Hillside or Riverview units and are quite content with the shape and condition of these units. Only two units have been renovated in the original Riverside units and another has started. My only answer to your actions thus far is...... Greed!
Now that someone from Northwynd is responding, I would like to hear a response to a previous post I made back in June. A lot of us owners see through your intentions and can only equate that the driving factor is greed and trying to squeeze money out of us owners of time. If greed is not the underlying factor as so many of us on here feel it is, please answer the following questions:
1. Why not default the automatic 15% "management fee" from all funds received for the renovation project so that the owners are seeing each and every dollar going towards the renovation project rather than 85 cents on the dollar?
2. Why not let just let whoever wants to walk away, walk away at no cost or penalty? It would be their loss, downsize the resort for those that want to pay for the renovation and the investors of Northmont could do as they please with the remaining inits.
3. How can you justify charging an interest rate of 26.82% for those who have not paid the renovation project for a project that may take 5 to 10 years to complete? Some of us owners bought in to either Hillside or Riverview units and are quite content with the shape and condition of these units. Only two units have been renovated in the original Riverside units and another has started. My only answer to your actions thus far is...... Greed!
I think a lot of people on here are failing to see the business side of things.
How did Fairmont Resort Properties prosper to where they were? It was the vision to become big, and bigger and biggest. The money and margins are not in managing a complex, the money and margins are in growth and sales of timeshares. Or coming up with schemes for the existing owners to squeeze more money out of them.
They sold timeshares to people promising them a holiday opportunity at a fraction of a cost of ownership. The profits and margins were great as long as they could continue selling to these people. Hmmm how can we squeeze a few extra dollars out of these people? How about sign them up to something called a Platinum Club, and let them think they are getting preferential treatment and can book resorts or houseboats within the Fairmont chain without having to use II.
How does Fairmont Resort Properties continue to make money as the timeshares fill in? How about something called a management fee, sure that is it, a management fee of 15% of all the Maintenance fees collected, skim this off the top, great idea!
Next, as the property is filling in, the potential buyers are drying up, the realization that the Riverview project, although fresh and new, is quite the distance from the Rec center and the waterpark/slides up at Hillside and people are not really buying into the new Riverview project, guess we scrap the idea of another Riverview building as initially planned.
How about set up another company called FRPL Finance, we will use our collateral in our property thus far to obtain additional funds to continue our growth and develop other projects in Mexico, Hawaii, Belize and so on, we will grow and grow, because there is little money in managing a resort we want more money and the money is in the growth of other resorts. Darn the banks will not loan us money on our collateral, because we are committed to our owners that they have the right to use these places and the banks don't want to end up owning a timeshare resort. How about offer large rate of return to investors?
Things begin to turn, the economy drops, how do we now get more money? Wait, how about changing the idea of the 40 year leases to something called perpetual ownership, we will call it Legacy for Life, we will switch them over to RCI and use the point system to win them over. Great, another $5k to $8K from these people.
Things are not going according to plan, we cant pay our bills, or pay those creditors which just happen to be many of the original owners of FRP, lets declare bankrupcy, no assets, and change company names and have a plan in place to try and get our money back. Lets call it Northwynd.
Oh oh, we have raised the maintenance fees too high, people are bailing, they are realizing that the economics of owning are not as rosy as when we first hooked them. People are not paying their maintenance fees, people are dumping them on ebay for $1. What are we going to do? Hey wait a minute how about a scheme to charge them a one time fee, promising to renovate some of the units, and for those that want out, well heck lets just charge them also to get out. One way or another we will get more money. If we have to drop half our inventory, so be it, but perhaps with the inventory we drop, we can sell these units, or maybe level some of them and build new and start all over again. Afterall, that is where the money is.
You see, it is a business, Fairmont Reosrt Properties or Northwynd are trying to do nothing more than any other business, and that is to make money. As much money as possible. Somehow, I do think the majority of people have caught on to their scheme, and are seeing through them for what they truly are.
Greed is fine but you have to keep the tribe happy. I think this tribe of owners has spoken and you are seeing the results.
Last edited:
disillusioned
newbie
I too have read all the posts
I have read everything from the beginning and many other items as well so I am a little offended at having my questions swept under the carpet like they don't matter.
Does the get-out contract actually set us free or does it still keep us obligated in some way? Someone posted awhile back that they showed the cancellation document to their lawyer and was told it was ambiguous. Is that true?
The fact that the trustees and Northwynd are in fact dishonest and crook-like does not mean that they will not get what they demand. That is how big money is made in North America. The whole timeshare business is crooked. I think any judge will say "If you are stupid enough to buy a timeshare you will have to pay whatever they want." There really isn't agreement that helps us owners. They are crooks but according to the legalese they can do whatever they want. They might be proven to be embezzlers and poor managers but according to our contracts that aren't "worth the two-ply paper it is written on" we are responsible for whatever they decide we are responsible for. The only robbers that go to jail in our country are the ones that rob 7-11's! To explain further, a contractor can really make a mess of your home but as long as he put an effort in he is not responsible for how poor a job he did because who can judge one person's ability against another? Everyone has different standards. At least he tried!
Can clanman address whether the cancellation actually cancels my involvement with Northwynd? Can he tell me if those owners who let there timeshare go back to Northwynd over the last few are actually free or could Northwynd take them to court when and/or if they take others for failure to pay? Thank you
When I paid last years maintenance fee the lady in the office said the maintenance fee had gone up because so many owners had refused to pay it. She said it was difficult to get the money from people. It seemed like there must have been a substantial number of people not paying their fees over several years. I am concerned about every angle of this situation. If they didn't bother going after people then is there a need to worry about not paying either the freedom to choose or the reason to stay amount now? All the people that didn't pay maintenance fees and thought they had effectively let their timeshare go do they actually still own it and could they still be taken to court? How do we know that we are actually cancelling anything if we decide to pay to get out? Maybe there will be some loophole whereby we are always responsible for whatever they ask of us! My purchase contract says that if I don't make a payment for more than six months the timeshare goes back to them. Why would I be taken to court for being in arrears for "maintenance fees" if in fact I no longer own it as my contract says! I am tired of paying lawyers (because let's face it...everyone involved in this is a lawyer). Does anyone have a response to my diatribe?
I have read everything from the beginning and many other items as well so I am a little offended at having my questions swept under the carpet like they don't matter.
Does the get-out contract actually set us free or does it still keep us obligated in some way? Someone posted awhile back that they showed the cancellation document to their lawyer and was told it was ambiguous. Is that true?
The fact that the trustees and Northwynd are in fact dishonest and crook-like does not mean that they will not get what they demand. That is how big money is made in North America. The whole timeshare business is crooked. I think any judge will say "If you are stupid enough to buy a timeshare you will have to pay whatever they want." There really isn't agreement that helps us owners. They are crooks but according to the legalese they can do whatever they want. They might be proven to be embezzlers and poor managers but according to our contracts that aren't "worth the two-ply paper it is written on" we are responsible for whatever they decide we are responsible for. The only robbers that go to jail in our country are the ones that rob 7-11's! To explain further, a contractor can really make a mess of your home but as long as he put an effort in he is not responsible for how poor a job he did because who can judge one person's ability against another? Everyone has different standards. At least he tried!
Can clanman address whether the cancellation actually cancels my involvement with Northwynd? Can he tell me if those owners who let there timeshare go back to Northwynd over the last few are actually free or could Northwynd take them to court when and/or if they take others for failure to pay? Thank you
disillusioned
newbie
sorry! I misread... To ClanMac
Sorry. I misread your name. I mean to ClanMac
I have read everything from the beginning and many other items as well so I am a little offended at having my questions swept under the carpet like they don't matter.
Does the get-out contract actually set us free or does it still keep us obligated in some way? Someone posted awhile back that they showed the cancellation document to their lawyer and was told it was ambiguous. Is that true?
The fact that the trustees and Northwynd are in fact dishonest and crook-like does not mean that they will not get what they demand. That is how big money is made in North America. The whole timeshare business is crooked. I think any judge will say "If you are stupid enough to buy a timeshare you will have to pay whatever they want." There really isn't agreement that helps us owners. They are crooks but according to the legalese they can do whatever they want. They might be proven to be embezzlers and poor managers but according to our contracts that aren't "worth the two-ply paper it is written on" we are responsible for whatever they decide we are responsible for. The only robbers that go to jail in our country are the ones that rob 7-11's! To explain further, a contractor can really make a mess of your home but as long as he put an effort in he is not responsible for how poor a job he did because who can judge one person's ability against another? Everyone has different standards. At least he tried!
Can clanman address whether the cancellation actually cancels my involvement with Northwynd? Can he tell me if those owners who let there timeshare go back to Northwynd over the last few are actually free or could Northwynd take them to court when and/or if they take others for failure to pay? Thank you
Sorry. I misread your name. I mean to ClanMac
Misconception # 10
Quote from Northwynd Misconception #10: Northwynd has “done this before” at other resorts.
"This misconception is an unfortunate result of Northwynd’s foreclosure of Fairmont’s assets. It is true that when Northwynd was created it became owner of Fairmont’s other resorts. It is also true Northwynd no longer has any real involvement in some of those resorts.
However, each of those resorts had their own specific issues resulting from Fairmont’s ownership that have nothing to do with Sunchaser or its operation."
Unfortunately we will never know the actual story of what occurred at the time share resorts in question.
Calling the reactions of the owners of a time share lease a simple issue of “white noise” is an insult. The history of the resort with regards to Mexico, Belize, & Hawaii in not simply “white noise”. I would call these skeletons. when the wind blows hanging skeletons make white noise
Here is part of the decision made by Justice Romaine
“It was also noteworthy that the roughly 5000 registered time-share
owners in the Fairmont Group would not be affected by the offer
and would continue to have the rights granted to them under their
original timeshare agreements (other than with respect to certain
alleged inducements or undocumented additional rights that were
repudiated during the course of CCAA proceedings). Many of the
full time employees would be retained by Northwynd;
(c) Timeshare operations and the management and administration of
the Fairmont, Lake Okanagan, Belize and Mexico resorts operated
by Fairmont would also continue without interruption; and
(d) Northwynd would take the responsibility for the repair of a key
facility which required foundation and structural repairs expected
to cost more than 2.5 million in excess of funds currently held in a
trust account on behalf of timeshare owners. The repair was
essential for the continued use of that facility.” Unclear as to what facility is specifiedWith Lake Okanagan now on the sales block Northwynd is down to just one (1) Cash Cow and the udder may be shriveling.
Our 1998 Contract does not make us responsible for renovations unless you have changed it without our agreement and knowledge . Thanks to the decision by Justice Loo, we have now gone with a lawyer. This is a definite breach in our contract.
Gee, where is the reserve fund? There was one in 2002/2003 now there is none-another breach of contract??
As to going through a period of “being mad”, please be aware of the saying “don’t get mad, get even”. You also state that we have a low chance of success - not buying that, It has used oats in it.
I do hope you cure your own misconceptions, do you really think that you will retain a position, after Northmont goes under? Fairmont = Northmont, same players.
My understanding is that there is a owners group and they have not had concerns addressed and there has been little reply to have an open dialog. I would love to talk to the thousands you claim to have talked to, send us the list.
As you have stated - no company is perfect, however Northwynd is not on the scale at least not with the BBB.
Why are you now posting? Does it have something to do with your Jan 15th deadline?
In the words of Uncle Remus is Brer Fox ( Northwynd ) trying to make a Tarbaby( BAIT/ Scare tactics) to catch Brer Rabbit (Lessees) Remember Brer Fox ultimately lost
I have no misconception concerning who has signing authority on our bank account.
Quote from Northwynd Misconception #10: Northwynd has “done this before” at other resorts.
"This misconception is an unfortunate result of Northwynd’s foreclosure of Fairmont’s assets. It is true that when Northwynd was created it became owner of Fairmont’s other resorts. It is also true Northwynd no longer has any real involvement in some of those resorts.
However, each of those resorts had their own specific issues resulting from Fairmont’s ownership that have nothing to do with Sunchaser or its operation."
Unfortunately we will never know the actual story of what occurred at the time share resorts in question.
Calling the reactions of the owners of a time share lease a simple issue of “white noise” is an insult. The history of the resort with regards to Mexico, Belize, & Hawaii in not simply “white noise”. I would call these skeletons. when the wind blows hanging skeletons make white noise
Here is part of the decision made by Justice Romaine
“It was also noteworthy that the roughly 5000 registered time-share
owners in the Fairmont Group would not be affected by the offer
and would continue to have the rights granted to them under their
original timeshare agreements (other than with respect to certain
alleged inducements or undocumented additional rights that were
repudiated during the course of CCAA proceedings). Many of the
full time employees would be retained by Northwynd;
(c) Timeshare operations and the management and administration of
the Fairmont, Lake Okanagan, Belize and Mexico resorts operated
by Fairmont would also continue without interruption; and
(d) Northwynd would take the responsibility for the repair of a key
facility which required foundation and structural repairs expected
to cost more than 2.5 million in excess of funds currently held in a
trust account on behalf of timeshare owners. The repair was
essential for the continued use of that facility.” Unclear as to what facility is specifiedWith Lake Okanagan now on the sales block Northwynd is down to just one (1) Cash Cow and the udder may be shriveling.
Our 1998 Contract does not make us responsible for renovations unless you have changed it without our agreement and knowledge . Thanks to the decision by Justice Loo, we have now gone with a lawyer. This is a definite breach in our contract.
Gee, where is the reserve fund? There was one in 2002/2003 now there is none-another breach of contract??
As to going through a period of “being mad”, please be aware of the saying “don’t get mad, get even”. You also state that we have a low chance of success - not buying that, It has used oats in it.
I do hope you cure your own misconceptions, do you really think that you will retain a position, after Northmont goes under? Fairmont = Northmont, same players.
My understanding is that there is a owners group and they have not had concerns addressed and there has been little reply to have an open dialog. I would love to talk to the thousands you claim to have talked to, send us the list.
As you have stated - no company is perfect, however Northwynd is not on the scale at least not with the BBB.
Why are you now posting? Does it have something to do with your Jan 15th deadline?
In the words of Uncle Remus is Brer Fox ( Northwynd ) trying to make a Tarbaby( BAIT/ Scare tactics) to catch Brer Rabbit (Lessees) Remember Brer Fox ultimately lost
I have no misconception concerning who has signing authority on our bank account.
CCAA proceedings
Attached is the link to the site regarding the sale to Northwynd of the Fairmount properties
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb_new/public/qb/2003-NewTemplate/qb/Civil/2012/2012abqb0039.pdf
Items related to money that Northwynd has not directly addressed are in sections 6 ,11,16, 18 and 24( e) section 11 is as follows
"The Northwynd REIT proposed to distribute at least 90% of the net income generated by these assets to holders of trust units, as well as proposing a return of capital distributions as cash became available. Bondholders were advised that, if the Fairmont Group’s projections were correct, they potentially
could recover cash distributions over the following five years equal to or
greater than their original investment."
I take that to mean that the Northwynd Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) would pay to their investors about $40-$50 mil( accurate numbers are unclear in this document)from net proceeds within five years from only net proceeds.
Now this is going to be done while they collect about 40 Mil in renovation fees and or walk away fees plus maintenance fees ( lets say 10,000 lessees x $1000.00 = $1,000,000.00 per year from us lessees in 2013/2014 and continue to pay for day to day operations plus a 15 % management fee and create a reserve fund as they are required to do by my contract and they will shrink the resort while accomplishing this. Maybe the 10.15 mil from Lake Okanagan sale can accomplish a stop gap to pay some of the obligation to their investors or whatever. Then they will have to pay a collection agency a very high fee to try and collect unpaid fees from us delinquent lessees on top of regular expenses
I wish I could conjure up the faith to put my trust and money into this dream .
And I thought Ponzi schemes were complex. WOW Give the CFO an A+ in creative accounting.
Attached is the link to the site regarding the sale to Northwynd of the Fairmount properties
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb_new/public/qb/2003-NewTemplate/qb/Civil/2012/2012abqb0039.pdf
Items related to money that Northwynd has not directly addressed are in sections 6 ,11,16, 18 and 24( e) section 11 is as follows
"The Northwynd REIT proposed to distribute at least 90% of the net income generated by these assets to holders of trust units, as well as proposing a return of capital distributions as cash became available. Bondholders were advised that, if the Fairmont Group’s projections were correct, they potentially
could recover cash distributions over the following five years equal to or
greater than their original investment."
I take that to mean that the Northwynd Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) would pay to their investors about $40-$50 mil( accurate numbers are unclear in this document)from net proceeds within five years from only net proceeds.
Now this is going to be done while they collect about 40 Mil in renovation fees and or walk away fees plus maintenance fees ( lets say 10,000 lessees x $1000.00 = $1,000,000.00 per year from us lessees in 2013/2014 and continue to pay for day to day operations plus a 15 % management fee and create a reserve fund as they are required to do by my contract and they will shrink the resort while accomplishing this. Maybe the 10.15 mil from Lake Okanagan sale can accomplish a stop gap to pay some of the obligation to their investors or whatever. Then they will have to pay a collection agency a very high fee to try and collect unpaid fees from us delinquent lessees on top of regular expenses
I wish I could conjure up the faith to put my trust and money into this dream .
And I thought Ponzi schemes were complex. WOW Give the CFO an A+ in creative accounting.
14,500 Fools?
An interesting flurry of posts over the past few days. . . amazing what a deadline can do!
So which door will YOU choose? Door #1, Door #2 or Door #3?
Door #1: Pay the renovation fee and stay obligated to Northwynd for another 2 or 3 decades, allowing them to rape and pillage as they see fit. Remember, there’s no termination provisions in your lease; they can modify the terms of the lease as they see fit; they will most certainly continue to escalate maintenance fees forever; and who would rule out the possibility of future cash calls for renovations and enhancements at your cost?
Door #2: Pay the cancellation fee and put this thing behind you, for once and for all. But does this really rid you of all future obligations? And if so, at what cost? The costs are every bit as ambiguous as those cited in the original lease document. "any outstanding balances related to the VIA, including but not limited to outstanding maintenance fees,interest, and any payments related to acquisition of the VIA on a promissory note or security agreement, but specifically excepting balances related to the Renovation Project Maintenance Fee, with the total amount to be determined by Northmont concurrent with execution of this Agreement.” (emphasis mine)
Door #3: Let this mess go to the courts for settlement. The first round went in favor of Northwynd, but appeals are routinely filed, heard and WON in courts across Canada! I believe the courts would readily see through the shady business dealings and deception of Fairmont/Northwynd and rule in favor of the leaseholders. We 14,500 leaseholders did NOT sign up for 40 years of booking hassles, ongoing grief, and ever-rising maintenance fees. ONLY A FOOL WOULD! We signed up for 40 years assurance of a quiet, relaxing vacation at a well-maintained resort, at a fraction of the cost of staying elsewhere in a hotel . . . .THAT is what was represented to us!
So, which door will you choose?
(Note to Northwynd: perhaps if you tightened up some of the language in your cancellation agreement you’d find a bit more appetite amongst leaseholders for that option. The way it stands now, many are very reluctant to simply write you a blank cheque.)
.
An interesting flurry of posts over the past few days. . . amazing what a deadline can do!
So which door will YOU choose? Door #1, Door #2 or Door #3?
Door #1: Pay the renovation fee and stay obligated to Northwynd for another 2 or 3 decades, allowing them to rape and pillage as they see fit. Remember, there’s no termination provisions in your lease; they can modify the terms of the lease as they see fit; they will most certainly continue to escalate maintenance fees forever; and who would rule out the possibility of future cash calls for renovations and enhancements at your cost?
Door #2: Pay the cancellation fee and put this thing behind you, for once and for all. But does this really rid you of all future obligations? And if so, at what cost? The costs are every bit as ambiguous as those cited in the original lease document. "any outstanding balances related to the VIA, including but not limited to outstanding maintenance fees,interest, and any payments related to acquisition of the VIA on a promissory note or security agreement, but specifically excepting balances related to the Renovation Project Maintenance Fee, with the total amount to be determined by Northmont concurrent with execution of this Agreement.” (emphasis mine)
Door #3: Let this mess go to the courts for settlement. The first round went in favor of Northwynd, but appeals are routinely filed, heard and WON in courts across Canada! I believe the courts would readily see through the shady business dealings and deception of Fairmont/Northwynd and rule in favor of the leaseholders. We 14,500 leaseholders did NOT sign up for 40 years of booking hassles, ongoing grief, and ever-rising maintenance fees. ONLY A FOOL WOULD! We signed up for 40 years assurance of a quiet, relaxing vacation at a well-maintained resort, at a fraction of the cost of staying elsewhere in a hotel . . . .THAT is what was represented to us!
So, which door will you choose?
(Note to Northwynd: perhaps if you tightened up some of the language in your cancellation agreement you’d find a bit more appetite amongst leaseholders for that option. The way it stands now, many are very reluctant to simply write you a blank cheque.)
.
promises promises made during restructuring proceedings
in their restructuring proposal from 2010, Northmont, aside from the co-ownership scheme legacy for life, also discussed selling off unsold non-prime vacation weeks to existing owners, and building 2 new buildings (8200 and 8300) next to riverview, which they had approval for. all this was estimated to raise $40+ million, obviously they have fallen far short of that.
this proposal is found in the 6th report to the monitor on the Ernst and young website ...
I quote here from page 15 of this report ...
Northwynd's principal capital and revenue initiatives and strategies include:
• Maximize revenues from the Remainder / Conversion Program
• Monetize the two 24 condominium buildings at Lake Okanagan Resort. One will be developed as normal course time share inventory. The second will be monetized through the normal course sale of whole ownership strata interests
• Monetize existing time share inventory at Lake Okanagan Resort and Fairmont Vacation Villas
Commence development and monetization of development lands at Lake Okanagan Resort
• Develop and sell new time share product on existing development lands at Fairmont Vacation Villas. This would be financed through normal course project financing
• Develop an expanded marina at Lake Okanagan Resort, financed through pre-sale of marina slips
If successfully executed, Northwynd management expects the Northwynd Plan to produce a cumulative payout to the Northwynd Unitholders of $43.6 million over the forecast period as shown in the following analysis.
end quote ...
hmmm ... these numbers sound pretty close to HotPink's numbers in the previous post .. and Ponzi scheme analogy works for me ...
... the plans listed above in the monitor's report didn't raise near the projected amount of funds , so next onto to the renovation plan to extract more funds from the timeshare lessees, and get some money to the trust unit holders ... and eventually take over the entire resort by forcing the remaining timeshare holders out after you have shrunk the resort ... once you have made them pay for the privilege likely with another "freedom to choose" program
I'll keep beating this drum - don't pay these folks another cent ... only thing worse than paying to leave, is paying to stay, cause I have mapped out your future above ... contact Geldert Law in Vancouver or Cox Taylor in Victoria and join the people fighting this ...
in their restructuring proposal from 2010, Northmont, aside from the co-ownership scheme legacy for life, also discussed selling off unsold non-prime vacation weeks to existing owners, and building 2 new buildings (8200 and 8300) next to riverview, which they had approval for. all this was estimated to raise $40+ million, obviously they have fallen far short of that.
this proposal is found in the 6th report to the monitor on the Ernst and young website ...
I quote here from page 15 of this report ...
Northwynd's principal capital and revenue initiatives and strategies include:
• Maximize revenues from the Remainder / Conversion Program
• Monetize the two 24 condominium buildings at Lake Okanagan Resort. One will be developed as normal course time share inventory. The second will be monetized through the normal course sale of whole ownership strata interests
• Monetize existing time share inventory at Lake Okanagan Resort and Fairmont Vacation Villas
Commence development and monetization of development lands at Lake Okanagan Resort
• Develop and sell new time share product on existing development lands at Fairmont Vacation Villas. This would be financed through normal course project financing
• Develop an expanded marina at Lake Okanagan Resort, financed through pre-sale of marina slips
If successfully executed, Northwynd management expects the Northwynd Plan to produce a cumulative payout to the Northwynd Unitholders of $43.6 million over the forecast period as shown in the following analysis.
end quote ...
hmmm ... these numbers sound pretty close to HotPink's numbers in the previous post .. and Ponzi scheme analogy works for me ...
... the plans listed above in the monitor's report didn't raise near the projected amount of funds , so next onto to the renovation plan to extract more funds from the timeshare lessees, and get some money to the trust unit holders ... and eventually take over the entire resort by forcing the remaining timeshare holders out after you have shrunk the resort ... once you have made them pay for the privilege likely with another "freedom to choose" program
I'll keep beating this drum - don't pay these folks another cent ... only thing worse than paying to leave, is paying to stay, cause I have mapped out your future above ... contact Geldert Law in Vancouver or Cox Taylor in Victoria and join the people fighting this ...
disillusioned
newbie
freedom to choose
Can anyone explain to me what happens when you don't pay and it goes to collections and I continue to refuse to pay? If it goes to court and I'm sued and I don't pay it, what will happen?
Thanks.
PS Will I eventually have to pay?! If not now, later and much more? Is it inevitable?!
Spark1 do you still feel the same way about the freedom to choose option? Is it a no win situation?Save your money. The cancellation form they are using is not a cancellation. I showed service Alberta this form and they read it and told me that this will not cancel you until they decide and you will pay until they turn you loose.
Mr Wankel said 7000 timeshare owner paid cancellation or reno fees. So 2805 paid reno and 4195 paid cancellation. So cancellation money goes to the bond holders and 15% goes off the reno money. there is not a lot left to do the 40million + reno job. The other 7500 should save their money because this reno plan will never collect 40 million to complete this major reno job.
Can anyone explain to me what happens when you don't pay and it goes to collections and I continue to refuse to pay? If it goes to court and I'm sued and I don't pay it, what will happen?
Thanks.
PS Will I eventually have to pay?! If not now, later and much more? Is it inevitable?!
Disillusioned and more!
Sorry if you felt insulted by my suggestion that you read the posts/threads disillusioned; I honestly thought you had missed some things, and your questions were not taken lightly. The Cancellation Agreement Northmont has made available is complicated in some areas, and as I understand one lawyer who reviewed it referred to it as ambiguous. That would imply that it is not clear and subject to interpretation. Northmont has definitely set it up so that if one part is deemed to be unenforceable it does not render the remainder so, and in signing the agreement you will no longer be able to take any further action against them for virtually anything; including that which may arise from third party action (including litigation). It does fairly clearly state that with full payment of the cancellation fees and any outstanding maintenance fees and accrued interest, and your sigaiture, Northmont agrees to cancel and no longer hold you liable to the conditions of your lease/ownership/Vacation Interval Agreement. I can't see them coming back at you afterwards unless they claim that billing for next year's maintenance fees and/or other expenses were to be included and were not paid. You can take care of this by contacting Vacation Ownership Services and having them state in writing what it is specifically that you owe (an e-mail would do it). I can't remember what other questions you may have posed, but I will go back and take a look. In a nutshell I think they will be happy to take your money and run, and when it is all said and done I don't think they will be around long enough to do much of anything.
It is very interesting to see posts from Northmontcc. I did make the statement that the contract wasn't worth the two ply it was written on, and regardless of what arguments are being made with respect to what constitutes a voidable breach, and Justice Loo addressed all that was necessary with respect to such; it doesn't hold any water. Same as for all the bull implying that Northwynd isn't responsible for what Fairmont left them with. It was a name change with virtually the same management, and a restructuring proposal designed to pay back the debt owed the first mortgage bond holders. There was not only illegal dealings within the trust after the so called restructuring, there were a lot of Debt Security Transactions that were not sufficiently asset-backed that could withstand the dilution that occurred with an unlimited amount of LP units being sold to investors who were misinformed and told they could expect a 12% rate of return over three years through to 2013. NPREIT was clearly in violation of the Alberta Securities Commission's regulations. A good example is 60.2(a), which states that it is necessary to maintain books and records...necessary to record properly its business transactions and financial affairs and the transactions it executes on behalf of others. Trustees of NPREIT have the power to effect payments and distributions from the trust to unit holders. Where do you think the money is coming from? Other than from investors who did not informed of the dwindling asset value, losses and accrued debt, who else???
There is a lot more, however I find it interesting that NorthmontCC, JustFacts or whomever else wants to address these concerns aren't talking about these issues. You want to talk about what constitutes an acceptable breach and illegal/criminal behaviour by those representing the contractor in the 'same breath', please fill me in Mr. Northwynd; I would like to be amused. I am talking about a different type of Justice proceeding; and that doesn't include what the Securities Commissions and Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada might want to take a look at!
Sorry if you felt insulted by my suggestion that you read the posts/threads disillusioned; I honestly thought you had missed some things, and your questions were not taken lightly. The Cancellation Agreement Northmont has made available is complicated in some areas, and as I understand one lawyer who reviewed it referred to it as ambiguous. That would imply that it is not clear and subject to interpretation. Northmont has definitely set it up so that if one part is deemed to be unenforceable it does not render the remainder so, and in signing the agreement you will no longer be able to take any further action against them for virtually anything; including that which may arise from third party action (including litigation). It does fairly clearly state that with full payment of the cancellation fees and any outstanding maintenance fees and accrued interest, and your sigaiture, Northmont agrees to cancel and no longer hold you liable to the conditions of your lease/ownership/Vacation Interval Agreement. I can't see them coming back at you afterwards unless they claim that billing for next year's maintenance fees and/or other expenses were to be included and were not paid. You can take care of this by contacting Vacation Ownership Services and having them state in writing what it is specifically that you owe (an e-mail would do it). I can't remember what other questions you may have posed, but I will go back and take a look. In a nutshell I think they will be happy to take your money and run, and when it is all said and done I don't think they will be around long enough to do much of anything.
It is very interesting to see posts from Northmontcc. I did make the statement that the contract wasn't worth the two ply it was written on, and regardless of what arguments are being made with respect to what constitutes a voidable breach, and Justice Loo addressed all that was necessary with respect to such; it doesn't hold any water. Same as for all the bull implying that Northwynd isn't responsible for what Fairmont left them with. It was a name change with virtually the same management, and a restructuring proposal designed to pay back the debt owed the first mortgage bond holders. There was not only illegal dealings within the trust after the so called restructuring, there were a lot of Debt Security Transactions that were not sufficiently asset-backed that could withstand the dilution that occurred with an unlimited amount of LP units being sold to investors who were misinformed and told they could expect a 12% rate of return over three years through to 2013. NPREIT was clearly in violation of the Alberta Securities Commission's regulations. A good example is 60.2(a), which states that it is necessary to maintain books and records...necessary to record properly its business transactions and financial affairs and the transactions it executes on behalf of others. Trustees of NPREIT have the power to effect payments and distributions from the trust to unit holders. Where do you think the money is coming from? Other than from investors who did not informed of the dwindling asset value, losses and accrued debt, who else???
There is a lot more, however I find it interesting that NorthmontCC, JustFacts or whomever else wants to address these concerns aren't talking about these issues. You want to talk about what constitutes an acceptable breach and illegal/criminal behaviour by those representing the contractor in the 'same breath', please fill me in Mr. Northwynd; I would like to be amused. I am talking about a different type of Justice proceeding; and that doesn't include what the Securities Commissions and Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada might want to take a look at!
Northwynd CC
newbie
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 0
We have reviewed the posts from the weekend and will do our best to address the concerns raised.
For the most part, the posts are the expected “yeah but” rehashing items specifically addressed or slightly altering them and confirming Misconception #19.
To address specific items:
Spark1 raised the suggestion of the “Alberta government” making a bad decision by allowing Northwynd to be created. Firstly, this is the same as Misconception #20. The CCAA is a federal act and Fairmont’s was done in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench which is overseen by federally appointed justice’s. Secondly, it made perfect sense to “allow” Northwynd to be created because it was necessary to allow 800 investors a chance to recover some of their investment and the thousands of owners who want the resort to continue the ability for the resort to do so.
We want to address this right away because it seems to be the lost part of this process.
There are three groups in this process:
1) Timeshare owners who want the resort to continue
2) Timeshare owners who no longer want their timeshare
3) Northwynd unitholders who want their investment back
Each groups optimal outcome would result in damage to one or more of the other groups. The timeshare owners who want the resort to continue could have legally demanded every owner pay their renovation fee and they could have rejected the resort realignment.
The timeshare owners who no longer want their timeshare naturally would like to walk away with no consequences, or better, be able to sell their timeshare.
Northwynd’s unitholders could have legally demanded cancelling owners to pay the full damage to Northwynd which would be the cost of remediating the unit (the renovation fee), the foregone management fees, legal fees, and the interest on the renovation fee. All of which would currently make an annual cancellation about $8,200.
Each group represents a corner of a triangle. There is a saying in negotiations that you know you’ve reached a good deal when every party is unhappy. Which means everyone has given up something from their best outcome in order to make the deal.
We created the Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay program as a compromise. We know, because we have talked to some of them, that if we asked every timeshare owner who wants the resort to continue, 2-3% of them would say “screw the other owners, they signed a contract, make em pay.” We also know, because we’ve talked to them as well, if we asked every Northwynd unitholder, some of them would say “screw the other owners, they signed a contract, make em pay.”
This website represents the 2-3% of timeshare owners who want to walk away from their timeshare who are willing to say “screw the other owners and the Northwynd unitholders, I don’t care that I signed a contract, I shouldn’t have to pay anything.”
We created the compromise because we knew that outside the 2-3% in each group, the vast majority understood compromise was necessary. It was not our job to help someone “win” at the expense of everyone else. This is why the majority of the resort has already made a decision and hundreds more are doing so on a daily basis now.
No matter how “right” anyone feels their position is and which of the three groups they are a part of, the reality is that the only fair alternative is a compromise in the middle. The question everyone should be asking is not “is this fair to me?” Rather, it is “is this fair to everyone?”
Perhaps it was our mistake by presenting the compromise cancellation option as part of the renovation process. Maybe if we had offered no cancellation until now or had only offered an $8,000 cancellation, when the compromise was presented it would have seemed more reasonable because it would have made the alternative more clear.
No_more raises concerns about the renovation process. First, the absence of input by the timeshare owners. We would have loved to be able to have an effective input mechanism, but it was entirely impractical. We had 14,500 timeshare owners, half of whom would rather cancel than renovate. Some of whom would rather do no renovation and stay, regardless of the impracticality of that option. We had thousands of owners who did not believe they were legally responsible for the renovation costs.
We actually had a meeting with a group of upset timeshare owners back in April. Even those owners acknowledged that if they walked out of that meeting and issued a release to other owners saying “we support this” that they would just get yelled down as “puppets” or that they were “bought off”.
Lastly, the job of the property manager is much like that of an elected official. Our responsibility is to operate the resort reasonably in accordance with the contract. In some instances, that means doing things even if the owners do not want us to.
Even if we could have gotten consensus over time, the timeline would have been impossible or the costs excessive. The resort is not a condo building that everyone lives in. We cannot just hold a meeting and have everyone show up. We either have to send mail to 14,500 people or we have to wait for them all to go to the resort which would take two years. Even then, things would have to go back and forth, votes held, alternatives presented. We struggle to believe any practical timeline with fair and balanced owner input that would have taken less than several years. All the while, the poly-b pipe issue would be getting worse and the deficit remaining unaddressed.
No_more further goes on about the contracting and controls process. All of this has been provided before but we will reiterate it for those who have not read the past information.
We can tell you the general contractor was a tender process and we evaluated multiple bidders. We can tell you we hired multiple professional engineering firms to evaluate the resort and those evaluations led to the budget scope. We can tell you that we put a trust agreement in place with Norton Rose to hold the renovation funds and only distribute them in accordance with the trust conditions. Lastly, we can tell you we have a third party cost consultant, LTA, that evaluates the renovation monthly and signs off on the work completed.
We think we have gone above and beyond to ensure the work is effective and controlled.
Lastly, no_more suggests the timeshare owners are being used to fund improvements for the benefit of the Northwynd unitholders. This is not true. The improvements are for the benefit of the timeshare owners who stay. The shortest remaining leases at the resort expire in 17 years and these renovations will be quite old by then. The units that are being cancelled are not being renovated.
Fairmontlvr raises concerns about “greed”. Firstly, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that Northwynd’s unitholders expect us to try and make them money. That’s business. Secondly, the Northwynd unitholders have compromised significantly in this process. They have been anything but greedy. If they were greedy, they would have not allowed any cancellation option at all or at a substantially higher number.
As for Fairmontlvr’s specific examples:
15% management fee: This is part of the contract. If Northwynd disappeared tomorrow, does anyone believe you could hire a new property manager to do the renovation for free?
Walking away without cost: In actuality, it is the people wanting to walk away with cost who are greedy. They are asking every other timeshare owner to pick up their legal responsibilities. It is not only the most unfair option in this situation, it is also the option that isn’t a legal right.
Charging interest: The interest fee is part of the contract and consistent with similar no credit rating interest rates. Most credit cards are at least 19%. If someone feels the rate is unfair, they have two options. Do not enter into the agreement in the first place, or make sure to pay their bills on time.
If we are “greedy” for expecting people to honor a contract they entered into in good faith, or accepting a substantial compromise for those who want out, then we graciously accept the label of greedy.
Dissillusioned raises a concern about the cancellation agreement. We have seen a few of these “I heard…” posts that suggest the cancellation agreement is ambiguous.
However, whomever the supposed law firm is that has called the agreement ambiguous, they have never contacted us so we cannot say what they think is ambiguous or what they think should change. On the other hand, we have had dozens of law firms send in paperwork on behalf of owners without questioning the cancellation agreement or requesting it be altered. In addition, we have already processed thousands of cancellations that have all been finalized through the trustee who is independent. There is no legal way we could come back later.
Having said that, it appears from the posts that the confusion is because of clause 3.b which says "the total amount to be determined by Northmont" and a belief this allows us some ability to change our mind or phone a year later and say you haven't paid the next maintenance fee so it isn't finalized yet. The reason 3.b is not a specific number is because each timeshare owner can owe different amounts depending on if they have outstanding maintenance fees, a loan, etc.
If an owner wishes to be 100% secure, they could ask us to email the "final amount" under clause 3.b so they have it documented, or they could cross out and initial 3.b (to remove it from the agreement) if they have already paid everything else. We have had a few owners do the latter and we have no issue accepting the agreement that way once all the non-cancellation fee costs have been paid.
Building on the above. As we said, we have dealt with dozens of law firms through this process without issue. Only two think there is a “fight” here. It is something to think about.
The remainder of the posts simply reject our statements and reiterate past conspiracies that have been clearly addressed by Misconception #1, #4, #5, #6 and #8. While unfortunate, we accept a small minority will reject any reason we provide and that we will have to deal with them through statements of claim.
For the most part, the posts are the expected “yeah but” rehashing items specifically addressed or slightly altering them and confirming Misconception #19.
To address specific items:
Spark1 raised the suggestion of the “Alberta government” making a bad decision by allowing Northwynd to be created. Firstly, this is the same as Misconception #20. The CCAA is a federal act and Fairmont’s was done in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench which is overseen by federally appointed justice’s. Secondly, it made perfect sense to “allow” Northwynd to be created because it was necessary to allow 800 investors a chance to recover some of their investment and the thousands of owners who want the resort to continue the ability for the resort to do so.
We want to address this right away because it seems to be the lost part of this process.
There are three groups in this process:
1) Timeshare owners who want the resort to continue
2) Timeshare owners who no longer want their timeshare
3) Northwynd unitholders who want their investment back
Each groups optimal outcome would result in damage to one or more of the other groups. The timeshare owners who want the resort to continue could have legally demanded every owner pay their renovation fee and they could have rejected the resort realignment.
The timeshare owners who no longer want their timeshare naturally would like to walk away with no consequences, or better, be able to sell their timeshare.
Northwynd’s unitholders could have legally demanded cancelling owners to pay the full damage to Northwynd which would be the cost of remediating the unit (the renovation fee), the foregone management fees, legal fees, and the interest on the renovation fee. All of which would currently make an annual cancellation about $8,200.
Each group represents a corner of a triangle. There is a saying in negotiations that you know you’ve reached a good deal when every party is unhappy. Which means everyone has given up something from their best outcome in order to make the deal.
We created the Freedom to Choose, Reason to Stay program as a compromise. We know, because we have talked to some of them, that if we asked every timeshare owner who wants the resort to continue, 2-3% of them would say “screw the other owners, they signed a contract, make em pay.” We also know, because we’ve talked to them as well, if we asked every Northwynd unitholder, some of them would say “screw the other owners, they signed a contract, make em pay.”
This website represents the 2-3% of timeshare owners who want to walk away from their timeshare who are willing to say “screw the other owners and the Northwynd unitholders, I don’t care that I signed a contract, I shouldn’t have to pay anything.”
We created the compromise because we knew that outside the 2-3% in each group, the vast majority understood compromise was necessary. It was not our job to help someone “win” at the expense of everyone else. This is why the majority of the resort has already made a decision and hundreds more are doing so on a daily basis now.
No matter how “right” anyone feels their position is and which of the three groups they are a part of, the reality is that the only fair alternative is a compromise in the middle. The question everyone should be asking is not “is this fair to me?” Rather, it is “is this fair to everyone?”
Perhaps it was our mistake by presenting the compromise cancellation option as part of the renovation process. Maybe if we had offered no cancellation until now or had only offered an $8,000 cancellation, when the compromise was presented it would have seemed more reasonable because it would have made the alternative more clear.
No_more raises concerns about the renovation process. First, the absence of input by the timeshare owners. We would have loved to be able to have an effective input mechanism, but it was entirely impractical. We had 14,500 timeshare owners, half of whom would rather cancel than renovate. Some of whom would rather do no renovation and stay, regardless of the impracticality of that option. We had thousands of owners who did not believe they were legally responsible for the renovation costs.
We actually had a meeting with a group of upset timeshare owners back in April. Even those owners acknowledged that if they walked out of that meeting and issued a release to other owners saying “we support this” that they would just get yelled down as “puppets” or that they were “bought off”.
Lastly, the job of the property manager is much like that of an elected official. Our responsibility is to operate the resort reasonably in accordance with the contract. In some instances, that means doing things even if the owners do not want us to.
Even if we could have gotten consensus over time, the timeline would have been impossible or the costs excessive. The resort is not a condo building that everyone lives in. We cannot just hold a meeting and have everyone show up. We either have to send mail to 14,500 people or we have to wait for them all to go to the resort which would take two years. Even then, things would have to go back and forth, votes held, alternatives presented. We struggle to believe any practical timeline with fair and balanced owner input that would have taken less than several years. All the while, the poly-b pipe issue would be getting worse and the deficit remaining unaddressed.
No_more further goes on about the contracting and controls process. All of this has been provided before but we will reiterate it for those who have not read the past information.
We can tell you the general contractor was a tender process and we evaluated multiple bidders. We can tell you we hired multiple professional engineering firms to evaluate the resort and those evaluations led to the budget scope. We can tell you that we put a trust agreement in place with Norton Rose to hold the renovation funds and only distribute them in accordance with the trust conditions. Lastly, we can tell you we have a third party cost consultant, LTA, that evaluates the renovation monthly and signs off on the work completed.
We think we have gone above and beyond to ensure the work is effective and controlled.
Lastly, no_more suggests the timeshare owners are being used to fund improvements for the benefit of the Northwynd unitholders. This is not true. The improvements are for the benefit of the timeshare owners who stay. The shortest remaining leases at the resort expire in 17 years and these renovations will be quite old by then. The units that are being cancelled are not being renovated.
Fairmontlvr raises concerns about “greed”. Firstly, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that Northwynd’s unitholders expect us to try and make them money. That’s business. Secondly, the Northwynd unitholders have compromised significantly in this process. They have been anything but greedy. If they were greedy, they would have not allowed any cancellation option at all or at a substantially higher number.
As for Fairmontlvr’s specific examples:
15% management fee: This is part of the contract. If Northwynd disappeared tomorrow, does anyone believe you could hire a new property manager to do the renovation for free?
Walking away without cost: In actuality, it is the people wanting to walk away with cost who are greedy. They are asking every other timeshare owner to pick up their legal responsibilities. It is not only the most unfair option in this situation, it is also the option that isn’t a legal right.
Charging interest: The interest fee is part of the contract and consistent with similar no credit rating interest rates. Most credit cards are at least 19%. If someone feels the rate is unfair, they have two options. Do not enter into the agreement in the first place, or make sure to pay their bills on time.
If we are “greedy” for expecting people to honor a contract they entered into in good faith, or accepting a substantial compromise for those who want out, then we graciously accept the label of greedy.
Dissillusioned raises a concern about the cancellation agreement. We have seen a few of these “I heard…” posts that suggest the cancellation agreement is ambiguous.
However, whomever the supposed law firm is that has called the agreement ambiguous, they have never contacted us so we cannot say what they think is ambiguous or what they think should change. On the other hand, we have had dozens of law firms send in paperwork on behalf of owners without questioning the cancellation agreement or requesting it be altered. In addition, we have already processed thousands of cancellations that have all been finalized through the trustee who is independent. There is no legal way we could come back later.
Having said that, it appears from the posts that the confusion is because of clause 3.b which says "the total amount to be determined by Northmont" and a belief this allows us some ability to change our mind or phone a year later and say you haven't paid the next maintenance fee so it isn't finalized yet. The reason 3.b is not a specific number is because each timeshare owner can owe different amounts depending on if they have outstanding maintenance fees, a loan, etc.
If an owner wishes to be 100% secure, they could ask us to email the "final amount" under clause 3.b so they have it documented, or they could cross out and initial 3.b (to remove it from the agreement) if they have already paid everything else. We have had a few owners do the latter and we have no issue accepting the agreement that way once all the non-cancellation fee costs have been paid.
Building on the above. As we said, we have dealt with dozens of law firms through this process without issue. Only two think there is a “fight” here. It is something to think about.
The remainder of the posts simply reject our statements and reiterate past conspiracies that have been clearly addressed by Misconception #1, #4, #5, #6 and #8. While unfortunate, we accept a small minority will reject any reason we provide and that we will have to deal with them through statements of claim.
Misconceptions
It was very nice of Northmont cc to clear up all the misconceptions that seem to have plagued the malcontents that misinformed all the good TS owners/leaseholders who suffered the tragedy of having an umbrella contract with FRPL; and who didn't know the benefits of simply paying the > %400 increase in maintenance fees and approx. the $2000 to get out. What a relief it is to know that Northmont/Northwynd is actually concerned for our welfare and as upset as we are by the travesty that was FRPL; and that they truly had no control over what has happened. In this day and age it tends to restore one's faith that a business such as this has a heart and acts benevolently on our behalf.
It would even be more heartwarming to have perhaps these misconceptions cleared up, and I can write my cheques with a smile on my face.
There were three trustees that were appointed during the restructuring process that occurred in March, 2010; well after the period of bad bond selling which was claimed to have ended by 2009. They became trustees of NPREIT and held the power of managing the investments and affairs of the trust; including transactions involving the exempt securities (LP units) that had been 'swapped' for the first mortgage bonds formerly held by FRPL. Further loans had occurred and were again secured on the trust assets (Fairmont properties), and the unit transactions that occurred subsequently were in essence debt securities transactions; therefore very high risk as a result of the dwindling value of the assets and the dilution that had occurred with an "unlimited" amount of units being made available for sale to investors.
One of these trustees for certain engaged in securities transactions illegally, and another was/is also a director of the General Partner (Fairwynd Resort Properties Ltd./interesting two FRLP's) that provides internal management services to the trust that involves the loans and securities; and with a primary commitment to return at least 90% of all revenue to the unit holders. Is it to be said that NPREIT/Fairwynd was unaware that this trustee was engaging in such activity, and that he had made clear misrepresentations to investors regarding the rate of return they could expect and the security of their investments; and paid him huge commissions for doing so?
Is it also not true that Olympia Trust RRSP investments suffered a similar fate, a class action law suit was filed against a specific number of senior managers for Northwynd in the summer of 2013, and by Dec. of last year Olympia's transfer agency and corporate trust assets were sold to the largest unit holder of NPREIT and there doesn't seem to a law suit pending any longer?
Could any of these and other misleading, negligent and/or illegal transactions been unaccounted for within the trust and therefore led to the accounting problems by the auditor that were encountered during their review of activities through to the end of 2010; after the restructuring?
Is it also not true that the former CEO of FRPL carried through in his new appointment as CEO for Northwynd, and much of the proposed revenue that was to be generated was predicated on TS sales and RCI conversion of the existing leaseholders; but as with what had formerly occurred with other resorts under FRPL the entire plan fell apart and the Fairmont assest deteriorated accordingly?
Can specific accounting documentation be made available that definitively shows that the TS maintenance fees were never in any way used to pay off debt or provide returns on exempt security investments into the trust?
There may be more, but would you be so kind as to clear these possible misconceptions up Northmont cc.
Thanks for all your concern for our welfare.
It was very nice of Northmont cc to clear up all the misconceptions that seem to have plagued the malcontents that misinformed all the good TS owners/leaseholders who suffered the tragedy of having an umbrella contract with FRPL; and who didn't know the benefits of simply paying the > %400 increase in maintenance fees and approx. the $2000 to get out. What a relief it is to know that Northmont/Northwynd is actually concerned for our welfare and as upset as we are by the travesty that was FRPL; and that they truly had no control over what has happened. In this day and age it tends to restore one's faith that a business such as this has a heart and acts benevolently on our behalf.
It would even be more heartwarming to have perhaps these misconceptions cleared up, and I can write my cheques with a smile on my face.
There were three trustees that were appointed during the restructuring process that occurred in March, 2010; well after the period of bad bond selling which was claimed to have ended by 2009. They became trustees of NPREIT and held the power of managing the investments and affairs of the trust; including transactions involving the exempt securities (LP units) that had been 'swapped' for the first mortgage bonds formerly held by FRPL. Further loans had occurred and were again secured on the trust assets (Fairmont properties), and the unit transactions that occurred subsequently were in essence debt securities transactions; therefore very high risk as a result of the dwindling value of the assets and the dilution that had occurred with an "unlimited" amount of units being made available for sale to investors.
One of these trustees for certain engaged in securities transactions illegally, and another was/is also a director of the General Partner (Fairwynd Resort Properties Ltd./interesting two FRLP's) that provides internal management services to the trust that involves the loans and securities; and with a primary commitment to return at least 90% of all revenue to the unit holders. Is it to be said that NPREIT/Fairwynd was unaware that this trustee was engaging in such activity, and that he had made clear misrepresentations to investors regarding the rate of return they could expect and the security of their investments; and paid him huge commissions for doing so?
Is it also not true that Olympia Trust RRSP investments suffered a similar fate, a class action law suit was filed against a specific number of senior managers for Northwynd in the summer of 2013, and by Dec. of last year Olympia's transfer agency and corporate trust assets were sold to the largest unit holder of NPREIT and there doesn't seem to a law suit pending any longer?
Could any of these and other misleading, negligent and/or illegal transactions been unaccounted for within the trust and therefore led to the accounting problems by the auditor that were encountered during their review of activities through to the end of 2010; after the restructuring?
Is it also not true that the former CEO of FRPL carried through in his new appointment as CEO for Northwynd, and much of the proposed revenue that was to be generated was predicated on TS sales and RCI conversion of the existing leaseholders; but as with what had formerly occurred with other resorts under FRPL the entire plan fell apart and the Fairmont assest deteriorated accordingly?
Can specific accounting documentation be made available that definitively shows that the TS maintenance fees were never in any way used to pay off debt or provide returns on exempt security investments into the trust?
There may be more, but would you be so kind as to clear these possible misconceptions up Northmont cc.
Thanks for all your concern for our welfare.
Northwynd CC
newbie
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 0
the unit transactions that occurred subsequently were in essence debt securities transactions; therefore very high risk as a result of the dwindling value of the assets and the dilution that had occurred with an "unlimited" amount of units being made available for sale to investors.
Misconception #6. Northwynd has never sold units.
and paid him huge commissions for doing so?
Misconception #6. No one has been pay ANY commissions, let alone huge commissions for selling Northwynd units because none have ever been sold.
Is it also not true that Olympia Trust RRSP investments suffered a similar fate, a class action law suit was filed against a specific number of senior managers for Northwynd in the summer of 2013, and by Dec. of last year Olympia's transfer agency and corporate trust assets were sold to the largest unit holder of NPREIT and there doesn't seem to a law suit pending any longer?
100% false. No existing senior manager is the subject of any lawsuit. To the best of our knowledge, no prior senior manager is subject of a lawsuit either.
You seem to misunderstand who Olympia Trust and Computershare are. We are providing you both of their websites so that you may do some research:
http://www.olympiatrust.com/
http://www.computershare.com/ca-en/Pages/default.aspx
Both organizations are large companies with numerous lines of business. Olympia is a large Canadian company and Computershare is a multi-billion dollar multinational company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. The transaction between Olympia and Computershare had absolutely nothing to do with Northwynd.
In addition, Computershare is not our largest unitholder. In fact, it is not our unitholder at all. If you review Computershares business, it is the “name of record” for stocks to facilitate public trading. Everything you think they own is on behalf of the actual investors. If you look at the public stock holdings of almost any public Canadian company, you will see Computershare or another similar entity owning the vast majority of shares.
Could any of these and other misleading, negligent and/or illegal transactions been unaccounted for within the trust and therefore led to the accounting problems by the auditor that were encountered during their review of activities through to the end of 2010; after the restructuring?
No. Not only are they not misleading, negligent or illegal transactions in the first place because they are not transactions at all, but if they were, the auditors would have disclosed them or denied their opinion. The issues in 2010 were a direct result of poor records received from Fairmont for which, as per Misconception #9, we are not responsible.
Can specific accounting documentation be made available that definitively shows that the TS maintenance fees were never in any way used to pay off debt or provide returns on exempt security investments into the trust?
Absolutely and it already has. That is what an audit does. The fact that the statements have been audited and are not materially misstated answers your concern. See Misconception #1.
Rider Nation Rocks
newbie
@northwynd cc
Seeing as you have almost turned this into a chat room can we get an update on how many are in and how many are out.. Somehow this number would still have an impact on those of us still deliberating as the deadline APPROACHES. I see no reason why this should be classified information if as you say we are all in this together.
Also is X over 14500 with X being those choosing to stay an accurate representation of what will be left of the resort?
Seeing as you have almost turned this into a chat room can we get an update on how many are in and how many are out.. Somehow this number would still have an impact on those of us still deliberating as the deadline APPROACHES. I see no reason why this should be classified information if as you say we are all in this together.
Also is X over 14500 with X being those choosing to stay an accurate representation of what will be left of the resort?
Northwynd CC
newbie
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 0
Seeing as you have almost turned this into a chat room can we get an update on how many are in and how many are out.. Somehow this number would still have an impact on those of us still deliberating as the deadline APPROACHES. I see no reason why this should be classified information if as you say we are all in this together.
Also is X over 14500 with X being those choosing to stay an accurate representation of what will be left of the resort?
Thanks for the question RNR (was that intentional? if not, funny coincidence).
Easy question, bit of a tricky answer.
The Biennial Even owners were not billed until November. Plus there were thousands of owners who chose to wait for the Justice Loo's ruling. Both of which mean X over 14,500 doesn't really work until March when we have a better idea of final numbers.
With the large volume of work we have had since January 2nd and only growing through the two deadlines, we really won't be able to accurately "stop and count" until we come up for air. It took us until about the 10th of July to process all of the May paperwork because the downside of deadlines is the majority tend to wait till the last minute. We expect the same thing here.
As we noted in the misconceptions thread, about 7,000 (or for simplicity half the resort) owners have made a decision to date. It has been split fairly evenly between cancellation and renovation fees.
Is this a fair expectation of the end result? Hard to say for a couple more months. It is probably a fair expectation for the Biennial Evens. It may not be a fair expectation for those who were waiting on Justice Loo or those who wait for us to file a statement of claim because they are different demographics (they waited for a reason).
We hope that helps.
Reply to Northwynd CC
Thanks Northwynd CC for your reply, and allow me to respond.
I am disappointed that you could not have provided something more substantive for the purpose of providing clarity than a list of what amounts to little more than talking points or public relations statements. (TUG Canada site Misconception #1 to Misconception #22). For the most part you gave only examples of fringe “misconceptions” that serious owners may have heard in the general scuttlebutt but are not really serious issues on which to dispute the claims. Some are little more that strawman issues where you take a fringe statement, build it up into something big, and then spend a lot of time tearing it apart, thus questioning the credibility of the resisting TS owners. You did not comment on one substantive issue such as might be found in affidavits owners lodged with the court in disputing the two fees.
An example is Misconception #1 where you describe a conspiracy theory allegedly believed by TS owners that involves eleven different major organizations. Well, cool it. No responsible TS owner is seriously alleging a conspiracy of that magnitude, and you wasted about two pages of ink debunking it. Which is not to minimize the possibility of malfeasance, but that is a different issue.
I will reply within the context of two premises:
1. That my comments refer to my type of contract which is a Vacation Villa Lease signed in year 2000. This is important because as you know there are two classes of contract, the original lease contract where the TS owners are lessees or tenants, and the later or the conversions to Legacy for Life contracts where the TS owners are co-owners or owners in fee-simple. Strangely, Justice Loo in her decision noted the two types of contracts and then proceeded to treat them as synonomous. In fact they are far from equals as tenants have quite different rights and obligations than do owners.
As you are aware, all the early TS owners were lessees or tenants. The agreement was pretty much a basic lease arrangement and operated well for the first ten years or so. We got what we bargained for, which was a one or two week vacation at a quality resort, and we paid our proportionate share of operating expenses. The lease was for fourty years, which seemed safe enough because well constructed buildings should easily last sixty years with only routine maintenance. As tenants we were entitled to the standard right of quiet enjoyment and the implied warranty of habitability (the units must meet a certain standard of livability). Then things started to unravel. Buildings that should have lasted 60 years were showing major deficiencies after only nine to twenty-three years. Between 2005 to 2007, $41.5 million of funds disappeared, and shortly after in 2009 Fairmont defaulted and went into bankruptcy. Not to worry - not our problem. We’re tenants and not responsible for building construction or building re-construction. We’ll let the lawyers and the investors fight over ownership because we have our timeshare leases to protect our rights. Furthermore, the lease agreement specifies we are responsible only for maintenance or operating expenses. There are no references to capital costs or costs to restore capital structure. If we were responsible for capital costs, such a major item would not have been left to chance in the lease or buried in with a long list of operating expenses. It would have been very clearly stated and probably given separate paragraph status.
We can only assume that in about 2009 Northmont, wondering how they can saddle the TS owners with reconstruction of a failing resort and reward the REIT investors for a bad investment, realized they were on shaky grounds in asking tenants for capital funds to restore the resort for the benefit of the real owners. So they cleverly blitzed the TS owners to convert lease agreements to co-ownership agreements to which they added the phrase to Paragraph 11 “.....and to pay the costs of capital improvements that may from time to time be required.” That wording would not have been added if capital costs were clearly included in the original lease agreements. To add insult to injury, the new co-owners were charged something in the vicinity of $6,000 to $9,000 for the privilege of being owners and responsible for capital reconstruction.
Bottom line, there are two distinct classes of TS owners - lessees or tenants, and lessors or co-owners. How Justice Loo could lump them together in one decision is one of the mysteries of the Special Case hearing. But it certainly seems like it’s a point that could be contested. Or perhaps you could shed some light on the matter.
2. My second premise is that my lease is a valid contract from inception of the agreement to the present. Timeshare owners don’t really care if there were one or fifteen owners of the resort for the term of the lease. A contract is a contract and the rights and responsibilities pass from one lessor to the next. I know, Wyndy, you will claim that as part of the CCAA proceedings, Justice Romaine transferred all the assets including the VIA agreements to Northwynd free of liability. But me residing our here in Logicville, I’ll say two things about that. One is that another judge at another court level might see it differently. Two is that even if we concede on the “free of liability,” that could be interpreted to mean we are unable to sue for damages, but does not preclude us from voiding the contracts for numerous breaches of contract and misrepresentations. In other words we simply hand back the timeshare and walk away from a breached contract. TS owners are having a hard time understanding how rights and protection provided under the contract can be voided by the CCAA, but the obligation to pay maintenance and special assessments remain intact. Perhaps you can explain that slight of hand to we the dullard TS owners.
To cut to the chase, I’d be pleased if you would comment specifically on these issues:
1. How can you justify the lessees or tenants being responsible for capital costs? To use an analogy, if you were a tenant in an apartment block and the owner came to you for funds to replace the foundation, what would you tell him? Right, your answer would be a short and sweet negative. On the other hand if you were residing in a condominium in which you have ownership in fee simple, you would be obligated to contribute toward the capital cost of replacing the foundation. And that basically is the difference between being a lessee and being a co-owner.
2. How can you justify attributing ownership responsibility to the TS owners, but the TS owners never having had a voice in management. Paragraph 19 spells out creating a Lessee’s association, yet one was never established, which is just one more breach of contract. The result being that TS owners never had a voice or an ear in management deliberations. Again, using the condo analogy, if I was an owner in a condo complex I would have the opportunity to sit on the board of directors and attend all directors and annual meetings.
3. Why does Northwynd think they have the right to ignore Paragraph 13 of the lease which provides a formula in the event of default. As you know, basically the formula says that after a period of default the lessor can take back the timeshare and reimburse the lessee at 25% (or 50%) of the original cost for the remaining time on the lease. The formula weighs the numbers in favour of the lessor, which is to be expected, but at least there is a fair and logical way of settling a default. I know, you will say that the clause is permissive and that the lessor doesn’t have to accept the “deemed offer” of giving back the remaining timeshare. But in fact you ARE accepting the deemed offer. You are accepting the deemed offer once you agree to take back the timeshare as does happen in your cancellation proposal. Its just that you don’t want to pay up according to the terms of the lease. I have to believe that paragraph 13 was included in the lease for a reason. In fact there are consumer protection laws that prohibit the use of deceptive marketing practices and misleading contracts that could lull prospective purchasers into a false sense of security and have them think they have some protection when in fact the one party to the agreement can just arbitrarily change the rules to suit their interests.
The cancellation fee agreement you have devised results in the ridiculous situation that I pay about $16,000 to acquire the timeshare, then I pay you another about $4,000 to take it back from me, plus another year of maintenance for which I get no value, for a total cost of about $21,000 and I am conned out of about 27 years of timeshare. It would be like if I bought a car for $16,000 cash and for some reason I have to return it to the dealer. But I not only have to return the car for no reimbursement, I also have to hand over $4,000 as well. But we’re not done yet. I also have to pay $1,000 for the next year’s gas, oil, and repairs on the car I no longer have. Tell me, if someone offered you that deal, what would be your response? Yeah, me too.
4. Why do you think the Fairmont CCAA proceedings have voided the TS owners rights under the lease agreement as it relates to breaches of contract, such as “to manage and maintain the Project in a prudent and workmanlike manner,” but retained the responsibility to pay maintenance and special assessments? I touched on this question above and I would like your response, as it seems to me that you are wanting your cake and eating it too. I don’t want a response that amounts to “because it is in our best financial interest and Justice Loo said we could.” Greed doesn’t count. I’m looking for logical principles to justify me shelling out hard earned money.
5. Am I right that funds from the cancellation fee go to the REIT investors and the RPM funds less management fee go toward resort renovations?
6. Miscon #3: Okay, there are several levels of breach of contract. I’ll say minor, material, repudiatory, and anticipatory. Why do you think that modifying the interpretation of a simple lease agreement into Northwynd’s and the REIT investors personal money machine is not a repudiatory breach? Seems to me that is right up there with your example of the hairdresser reopening as a massage parlor.
7. Miscon #11: You say that whether or not Northwynd lives or dies, the resort will survive. Even if Northwynd goes bankrupt, the resort carries on and the judge transfers the contracts and management of the resort to a new property manager and life goes on. I presume you are also saying the courts would have extinguished the lessees right of legal recourse for breaches of contract (free of liability), but have retained the lessee’s obligation to pay maintenance and special assessments. In other words, no matter how egregious the breaches, no matter how badly we are treated, we are obliged to send in our money on demand by the owners for evermore or 40 years, whichever comes first. You say that even if we win, we lose. I find that not only strange but bizarre. If that were true, no person in their right mind would ever enter into a contract with a timeshare resort owner. Or for that matter enter into any contract. Parties to contracts should not have their rights legally extinguished so easily. You’d better rethink that “misconception.”
8. Your three-legged stool includes approval of the renovation fee, the cancellation fee, and downsizing the resort. Justice Loo approved the two fees but no mention of the downsizing. Where does downsizing stand? If your answer is that approval for downsizing is included in the renovation agreement, my next question is - how many TS owners have agreed to the renovation fee to date?
9. The British Columbia Real Estate Association requires that its members complete a Property Disclosure Statement for real estate transactions. Among the questions are the following:
G. Are you aware of any structural problems with any of the buildings?
J. Are you aware of any problems with the heating and/or central air
conditioning system?
K. Are you aware of any moisture and/or water problems in the walls, basement
or crawl space?
L. Are you aware of any damage due to wind, fire or water?
M. Are you aware of any roof leakage or unrepaired roof damage? (Age of roof
if known: ____________ years)
O. Are you aware of any problems with the plumbing system?
Was a Property Disclosure Statement completed for all Vacation Villa Leases, Vacation Interval Agreements (co-ownership agreements), and conversion to Legacy for Life Agreements?
Thanks in advance for your response.
GypsyOne
Thanks Northwynd CC for your reply, and allow me to respond.
I am disappointed that you could not have provided something more substantive for the purpose of providing clarity than a list of what amounts to little more than talking points or public relations statements. (TUG Canada site Misconception #1 to Misconception #22). For the most part you gave only examples of fringe “misconceptions” that serious owners may have heard in the general scuttlebutt but are not really serious issues on which to dispute the claims. Some are little more that strawman issues where you take a fringe statement, build it up into something big, and then spend a lot of time tearing it apart, thus questioning the credibility of the resisting TS owners. You did not comment on one substantive issue such as might be found in affidavits owners lodged with the court in disputing the two fees.
An example is Misconception #1 where you describe a conspiracy theory allegedly believed by TS owners that involves eleven different major organizations. Well, cool it. No responsible TS owner is seriously alleging a conspiracy of that magnitude, and you wasted about two pages of ink debunking it. Which is not to minimize the possibility of malfeasance, but that is a different issue.
I will reply within the context of two premises:
1. That my comments refer to my type of contract which is a Vacation Villa Lease signed in year 2000. This is important because as you know there are two classes of contract, the original lease contract where the TS owners are lessees or tenants, and the later or the conversions to Legacy for Life contracts where the TS owners are co-owners or owners in fee-simple. Strangely, Justice Loo in her decision noted the two types of contracts and then proceeded to treat them as synonomous. In fact they are far from equals as tenants have quite different rights and obligations than do owners.
As you are aware, all the early TS owners were lessees or tenants. The agreement was pretty much a basic lease arrangement and operated well for the first ten years or so. We got what we bargained for, which was a one or two week vacation at a quality resort, and we paid our proportionate share of operating expenses. The lease was for fourty years, which seemed safe enough because well constructed buildings should easily last sixty years with only routine maintenance. As tenants we were entitled to the standard right of quiet enjoyment and the implied warranty of habitability (the units must meet a certain standard of livability). Then things started to unravel. Buildings that should have lasted 60 years were showing major deficiencies after only nine to twenty-three years. Between 2005 to 2007, $41.5 million of funds disappeared, and shortly after in 2009 Fairmont defaulted and went into bankruptcy. Not to worry - not our problem. We’re tenants and not responsible for building construction or building re-construction. We’ll let the lawyers and the investors fight over ownership because we have our timeshare leases to protect our rights. Furthermore, the lease agreement specifies we are responsible only for maintenance or operating expenses. There are no references to capital costs or costs to restore capital structure. If we were responsible for capital costs, such a major item would not have been left to chance in the lease or buried in with a long list of operating expenses. It would have been very clearly stated and probably given separate paragraph status.
We can only assume that in about 2009 Northmont, wondering how they can saddle the TS owners with reconstruction of a failing resort and reward the REIT investors for a bad investment, realized they were on shaky grounds in asking tenants for capital funds to restore the resort for the benefit of the real owners. So they cleverly blitzed the TS owners to convert lease agreements to co-ownership agreements to which they added the phrase to Paragraph 11 “.....and to pay the costs of capital improvements that may from time to time be required.” That wording would not have been added if capital costs were clearly included in the original lease agreements. To add insult to injury, the new co-owners were charged something in the vicinity of $6,000 to $9,000 for the privilege of being owners and responsible for capital reconstruction.
Bottom line, there are two distinct classes of TS owners - lessees or tenants, and lessors or co-owners. How Justice Loo could lump them together in one decision is one of the mysteries of the Special Case hearing. But it certainly seems like it’s a point that could be contested. Or perhaps you could shed some light on the matter.
2. My second premise is that my lease is a valid contract from inception of the agreement to the present. Timeshare owners don’t really care if there were one or fifteen owners of the resort for the term of the lease. A contract is a contract and the rights and responsibilities pass from one lessor to the next. I know, Wyndy, you will claim that as part of the CCAA proceedings, Justice Romaine transferred all the assets including the VIA agreements to Northwynd free of liability. But me residing our here in Logicville, I’ll say two things about that. One is that another judge at another court level might see it differently. Two is that even if we concede on the “free of liability,” that could be interpreted to mean we are unable to sue for damages, but does not preclude us from voiding the contracts for numerous breaches of contract and misrepresentations. In other words we simply hand back the timeshare and walk away from a breached contract. TS owners are having a hard time understanding how rights and protection provided under the contract can be voided by the CCAA, but the obligation to pay maintenance and special assessments remain intact. Perhaps you can explain that slight of hand to we the dullard TS owners.
To cut to the chase, I’d be pleased if you would comment specifically on these issues:
1. How can you justify the lessees or tenants being responsible for capital costs? To use an analogy, if you were a tenant in an apartment block and the owner came to you for funds to replace the foundation, what would you tell him? Right, your answer would be a short and sweet negative. On the other hand if you were residing in a condominium in which you have ownership in fee simple, you would be obligated to contribute toward the capital cost of replacing the foundation. And that basically is the difference between being a lessee and being a co-owner.
2. How can you justify attributing ownership responsibility to the TS owners, but the TS owners never having had a voice in management. Paragraph 19 spells out creating a Lessee’s association, yet one was never established, which is just one more breach of contract. The result being that TS owners never had a voice or an ear in management deliberations. Again, using the condo analogy, if I was an owner in a condo complex I would have the opportunity to sit on the board of directors and attend all directors and annual meetings.
3. Why does Northwynd think they have the right to ignore Paragraph 13 of the lease which provides a formula in the event of default. As you know, basically the formula says that after a period of default the lessor can take back the timeshare and reimburse the lessee at 25% (or 50%) of the original cost for the remaining time on the lease. The formula weighs the numbers in favour of the lessor, which is to be expected, but at least there is a fair and logical way of settling a default. I know, you will say that the clause is permissive and that the lessor doesn’t have to accept the “deemed offer” of giving back the remaining timeshare. But in fact you ARE accepting the deemed offer. You are accepting the deemed offer once you agree to take back the timeshare as does happen in your cancellation proposal. Its just that you don’t want to pay up according to the terms of the lease. I have to believe that paragraph 13 was included in the lease for a reason. In fact there are consumer protection laws that prohibit the use of deceptive marketing practices and misleading contracts that could lull prospective purchasers into a false sense of security and have them think they have some protection when in fact the one party to the agreement can just arbitrarily change the rules to suit their interests.
The cancellation fee agreement you have devised results in the ridiculous situation that I pay about $16,000 to acquire the timeshare, then I pay you another about $4,000 to take it back from me, plus another year of maintenance for which I get no value, for a total cost of about $21,000 and I am conned out of about 27 years of timeshare. It would be like if I bought a car for $16,000 cash and for some reason I have to return it to the dealer. But I not only have to return the car for no reimbursement, I also have to hand over $4,000 as well. But we’re not done yet. I also have to pay $1,000 for the next year’s gas, oil, and repairs on the car I no longer have. Tell me, if someone offered you that deal, what would be your response? Yeah, me too.
4. Why do you think the Fairmont CCAA proceedings have voided the TS owners rights under the lease agreement as it relates to breaches of contract, such as “to manage and maintain the Project in a prudent and workmanlike manner,” but retained the responsibility to pay maintenance and special assessments? I touched on this question above and I would like your response, as it seems to me that you are wanting your cake and eating it too. I don’t want a response that amounts to “because it is in our best financial interest and Justice Loo said we could.” Greed doesn’t count. I’m looking for logical principles to justify me shelling out hard earned money.
5. Am I right that funds from the cancellation fee go to the REIT investors and the RPM funds less management fee go toward resort renovations?
6. Miscon #3: Okay, there are several levels of breach of contract. I’ll say minor, material, repudiatory, and anticipatory. Why do you think that modifying the interpretation of a simple lease agreement into Northwynd’s and the REIT investors personal money machine is not a repudiatory breach? Seems to me that is right up there with your example of the hairdresser reopening as a massage parlor.
7. Miscon #11: You say that whether or not Northwynd lives or dies, the resort will survive. Even if Northwynd goes bankrupt, the resort carries on and the judge transfers the contracts and management of the resort to a new property manager and life goes on. I presume you are also saying the courts would have extinguished the lessees right of legal recourse for breaches of contract (free of liability), but have retained the lessee’s obligation to pay maintenance and special assessments. In other words, no matter how egregious the breaches, no matter how badly we are treated, we are obliged to send in our money on demand by the owners for evermore or 40 years, whichever comes first. You say that even if we win, we lose. I find that not only strange but bizarre. If that were true, no person in their right mind would ever enter into a contract with a timeshare resort owner. Or for that matter enter into any contract. Parties to contracts should not have their rights legally extinguished so easily. You’d better rethink that “misconception.”
8. Your three-legged stool includes approval of the renovation fee, the cancellation fee, and downsizing the resort. Justice Loo approved the two fees but no mention of the downsizing. Where does downsizing stand? If your answer is that approval for downsizing is included in the renovation agreement, my next question is - how many TS owners have agreed to the renovation fee to date?
9. The British Columbia Real Estate Association requires that its members complete a Property Disclosure Statement for real estate transactions. Among the questions are the following:
G. Are you aware of any structural problems with any of the buildings?
J. Are you aware of any problems with the heating and/or central air
conditioning system?
K. Are you aware of any moisture and/or water problems in the walls, basement
or crawl space?
L. Are you aware of any damage due to wind, fire or water?
M. Are you aware of any roof leakage or unrepaired roof damage? (Age of roof
if known: ____________ years)
O. Are you aware of any problems with the plumbing system?
Was a Property Disclosure Statement completed for all Vacation Villa Leases, Vacation Interval Agreements (co-ownership agreements), and conversion to Legacy for Life Agreements?
Thanks in advance for your response.
GypsyOne
Spark1
newbie
Spark1 do you still feel the same way about the freedom to choose option? Is it a no win situation?
Can anyone explain to me what happens when you don't pay and it goes to collections and I continue to refuse to pay? If it goes to court and I'm sued and I don't pay it, what will happen?
Thanks.
PS Will I eventually have to pay?! If not now, later and much more? Is it inevitable?!
This is the time for all timeshare owners,whether you are legacy for life or the original timeshare owners to hire a good lawyer. I have been told buy a lady that bought into legacy for life,that they asked what the buildings were like and how was the replacement reserve fund doing and the sales person said the reserve fund had lots of money and the buildings were in great shape. There are also people who bought legacy for life just before the resort was foreclosed on. This is a very corrupt business and I said it before, it is time for the federal and provincial gov'ts to do better regulations on this industry or better yet shut timeshare down.
Northwynd CC
newbie
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 0
GypsyOne post 1143
Apologies if any of our paraphrasing is inaccurate. "G1" is shorthand for GypsyOne.
G1: Premise one: The two types of contracts (leasee versus co-owner) effect this process.
We already answered this for you at post #1121. The contract types do not matter. The leasee's have always been responsible for all costs of the resort which was confirmed by Justice Loo.
This is very common in triple net leases. Notwithstanding, a lease can say anything (provided its legal of course). You could even have a lease where you paid zero costs but a huge up front fee.
Using a really simple home rental example, you can have a lease that includes utilities or a lease that does not.
With this issue, we ask people to answer the question "if not you, then who?" There is nothing in the agreement that says the leasee is responsible for "all these costs BUT not these ones" and then also "because they are paid by" someone else.
G1: Premise two: You can still terminate the agreement for Fairmont's breaches.
We already addressed this as Misconception #9. CCAA law allows a Justice discretion to have parts of a contract to survive and others to not, or in this case to have the contract survive "as is" except any liability stays with the previous owner. A contract is a contract unless the courts modify the contract.
You still have the right to sue Fairmont for breach of contract. It just would be pointless because they have no money.
The protection provided by the contract continues to exist. Northmont is liable if we do something wrong. We are simply not responsible for what Fairmont did.
As for "another judge at another court level." This is flawed. Justice Romaine is at the Alberta Court of Queen's bench. Under CCAA law, an appeal of her ruling was required three years ago. Both of which mean two things:
1) Even if you could appeal (which you can't), it would have to be to the Supreme Court of Canada.
2) Another Justice cannot change her ruling. In Canada, a lower court cannot overturn or change the ruling of a higher court. If you are sued for default in small claims court, it would extraordinary for them to even consider touching Justice Romaine's decision.
Your specific issues:
G1: 1) You are responsible under the terms of your contract.
Your analogy is flawed because you are not a renter. When you rent an apartment, your rent pays two things: operating costs of the apartment, and an additional fee to the landlord which they use for capital costs and profit. Whether you realize it or not, the tenant is always paying for capital costs. Otherwise, nobody would make money renting buildings.
The difference between a renter and a direct cost recovery manager is only in who takes the risk and gets the reward related to capital costs. If the landlord charges you $300/month buried in your rental for anticipated capital costs, the landlord wins if the capital costs are lower and loses if they are higher, but if they have budgeted correctly, you have paid all the costs.
In the case of a timeshare resort where you are billed all costs, risk is with leasee.
G1: 2) TS owners have "never had a voice in management":
If you review the written arguments we presented in the special case, you would see that condo boards have just as much trouble dealing with the different interests of members and they are very small. It is impractical to effectively gain consensus in an effective and efficient fashion when you have 14,500 different voices.
G1: 3) The paragraph 13 buy-back clause in some contracts:
This was addressed in the special case and you have already stated the answer. It is a deemed offer which we are under no obligation to accept.
Though we think it is a straight forward permissive clause, even if a Justice determined it was misleading, that would only entitle you to sue Fairmont, not terminate your agreement.
G1: 4) The CCAA has voided our responsibility.
Your statement is faulty. We have never said the CCAA voided our responsibility. If you reviewed our written arguments in front of Justice Loo, we specifically acknowledged our responsibility to manage the resort in a prudent and workmanlike manner and believe we have done so.
The CCAA left Fairmont's responsibility with them. In other words, for any breach until July 6, 2010 you can sue Fairmont. For any breach (though there aren't any) after July 6, 2010, you could sue us.
G1: 5) Where do the fees go?
With a typical annual cancellation fee, at this time roughly 20% of the fee goes to the resort to cover your share of the outstanding deficit and a reasonable accounting for the interest on your outstanding renovation fee. The remainder stays with Northwynd as our right as developer.
100% of the renovation fee goes to the resort of which 15% is paid to us as manager for managing the renovation.
G1: 6) Why isn't modifying the interpretation of the agreement a breach?
Because we aren't. The agreements have always said what they say.
G1: 7) Bankruptcy effect.
We stand by our statement. You are looking at the issue from your point of view as someone who no longer wants their timeshare. There are thousands of owners who disagree with you. Allowing the resort to collapse when it is perfectly capable of continuing would be hugely unfair to them.
The resort remains a reasonable cost if you are using your time. A two bedroom, sleep 8 condo in a resort town would not be out of line at $250/night or $1,750 a week. You can get a hotel room cheaper, but the equivalent isn't on hotel room, but three.
G1: 8) Status of realignment:
See our response to RNR. We cannot comment on the legal proceedings.
G1: 9) Were disclosure statements in place?
Yes. They existed and they disclosed the information known to the resort during the various time periods.
More
Looking forward to reading Northmont cc's responses to GypsyOne's well articulated and important questions; thanks G1!
As a rejoinder to Northmont cc's responses re: Northwynd never selling any units within the trust; are you saying that after Mr. Cavalli was appointed as trustee during the restructuring his dealings with exempt securities investments had nothing to do with NPREIT?
How can you argue that the missing financial data and the problems Collins Barrow had with their audit were due to FRPL management, when the CCAA's 6th report on the plan of arrangement (March 15, 2010) clearly stated that the financial statements of FRPL were part of the disclosure documents; and if there were missing data (i.e. missing money!!!) how could the reorganization plan be approved without clear statements of where everything went and what the current financial status was at that time. It would be like wiping the books clean, stating what the debt was and to engage in "exploitation" of the assets.
There was a change in CFO's within approx. 7 months after NPREIT took control, the CEO remained in place for two years until the last CFO replaced him as the CEO. There was much said at that time how mismanagement had led to these changes, and all the proposed plans to raise capital via TS sales and the conversion to fee simple tenure were dropped. So which management do you refer to when you talk about having inherited this mess?
Further, lets move away from the sale of exempt securities and just talk about investments into the trust. Any way you look at it there was outside investment into the trust in addition to the investments the original bond holders (now unit holders) have made. This brings up perhaps the most important question:
Are you stating that there have been no debt securities transactions involving NPREIT; and if there have been, have those involved in the transactions on behalf of NPREIT acted in accord with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada's "Rules Notice" dated Feb. 20/13?
One last thing (for now), those of us that bought the lease don't owe any money towards a mortgage of the property that has been leased; so if I read you correctly none of the money that has come from the lessees or TS owners under any circumstances has gone to the unit holders. Where is the money coming from then?
Looking forward to reading Northmont cc's responses to GypsyOne's well articulated and important questions; thanks G1!
As a rejoinder to Northmont cc's responses re: Northwynd never selling any units within the trust; are you saying that after Mr. Cavalli was appointed as trustee during the restructuring his dealings with exempt securities investments had nothing to do with NPREIT?
How can you argue that the missing financial data and the problems Collins Barrow had with their audit were due to FRPL management, when the CCAA's 6th report on the plan of arrangement (March 15, 2010) clearly stated that the financial statements of FRPL were part of the disclosure documents; and if there were missing data (i.e. missing money!!!) how could the reorganization plan be approved without clear statements of where everything went and what the current financial status was at that time. It would be like wiping the books clean, stating what the debt was and to engage in "exploitation" of the assets.
There was a change in CFO's within approx. 7 months after NPREIT took control, the CEO remained in place for two years until the last CFO replaced him as the CEO. There was much said at that time how mismanagement had led to these changes, and all the proposed plans to raise capital via TS sales and the conversion to fee simple tenure were dropped. So which management do you refer to when you talk about having inherited this mess?
Further, lets move away from the sale of exempt securities and just talk about investments into the trust. Any way you look at it there was outside investment into the trust in addition to the investments the original bond holders (now unit holders) have made. This brings up perhaps the most important question:
Are you stating that there have been no debt securities transactions involving NPREIT; and if there have been, have those involved in the transactions on behalf of NPREIT acted in accord with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada's "Rules Notice" dated Feb. 20/13?
One last thing (for now), those of us that bought the lease don't owe any money towards a mortgage of the property that has been leased; so if I read you correctly none of the money that has come from the lessees or TS owners under any circumstances has gone to the unit holders. Where is the money coming from then?
What will they do next?
I completely agree with GypsyOne on the last post. Our contracts read as he/she has described and we feel we are being duped over the last several months. The two ( 2 )contracts prior to 2009 are not the same as the two ( 2) contacts following that date regardless of what Miss Loo has stated. How do you compare a four (4) page document to one that mushroomed to an eleven (11) page document. Perhaps magic mushrooms enable that to happen or is the used oats they are grown in.
If you think they are finished fleecing lessees, owners and potential buyers take a look at the sale of the Lake Okanagan facility. I have not been able to figure out exactly what they are selling. Is it only the hotel portion and not the time share groupings. It has gone from 14.95 mil in August of last year to $10.15 Mil as of to-day. If you can figure out what they are selling please let us know.
All we know is we now have a maintenance fee request for our biennial timeshare which used to divided into two very distinct line items
1) Maintenance fees for current year
2) Replacement reserve fund about 20% of MF
plus GST.
Now it just has one item called 2014 Maintenance Fee
Perhaps Northwynd is breaching that contact as well. As per Article V Annual use fees, section 5.7 of the Vacation Villa Lease agreement we entered into in 2002 where it states unequivocally that it must set up a separate account for a Replacement Reserve Account.
The 2014 budget includes an item for Refurbishment at $49,383 which is about 10% of the total Budget; but nothing specified as Replacement Reserve Account. I don't believe these are interchangeable terminologies and if they are the amount is about one half of what it used to be prior to Northwynds ownership.
I'll bet a donut hole there will be a call for a renovation project to get this once very nice resort back into saleable condition
Read the attached link on Lake Okanagan
http://www.specializedassets.ca/pro...ort-price-reduced/pages/operational-structure
I completely agree with GypsyOne on the last post. Our contracts read as he/she has described and we feel we are being duped over the last several months. The two ( 2 )contracts prior to 2009 are not the same as the two ( 2) contacts following that date regardless of what Miss Loo has stated. How do you compare a four (4) page document to one that mushroomed to an eleven (11) page document. Perhaps magic mushrooms enable that to happen or is the used oats they are grown in.
If you think they are finished fleecing lessees, owners and potential buyers take a look at the sale of the Lake Okanagan facility. I have not been able to figure out exactly what they are selling. Is it only the hotel portion and not the time share groupings. It has gone from 14.95 mil in August of last year to $10.15 Mil as of to-day. If you can figure out what they are selling please let us know.
All we know is we now have a maintenance fee request for our biennial timeshare which used to divided into two very distinct line items
1) Maintenance fees for current year
2) Replacement reserve fund about 20% of MF
plus GST.
Now it just has one item called 2014 Maintenance Fee
Perhaps Northwynd is breaching that contact as well. As per Article V Annual use fees, section 5.7 of the Vacation Villa Lease agreement we entered into in 2002 where it states unequivocally that it must set up a separate account for a Replacement Reserve Account.
The 2014 budget includes an item for Refurbishment at $49,383 which is about 10% of the total Budget; but nothing specified as Replacement Reserve Account. I don't believe these are interchangeable terminologies and if they are the amount is about one half of what it used to be prior to Northwynds ownership.
I'll bet a donut hole there will be a call for a renovation project to get this once very nice resort back into saleable condition
Read the attached link on Lake Okanagan
http://www.specializedassets.ca/pro...ort-price-reduced/pages/operational-structure
Northwynd CC
newbie
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 0
are you saying that after Mr. Cavalli was appointed as trustee during the restructuring his dealings with exempt securities investments had nothing to do with NPREIT?
For the third time, yes. Mr. Cavalli's dealings had nothing to do with Northwynd and Northwynd has never sold any exempt securities.
Mr. Cavalli's investigation is a matter of public record and easily googlable. You can read it here:
http://www.mfda.ca/enforcement/cases12/201259.html
The documents show the investigation relates to actions that pre-date Northwynd.
How can you argue that the missing financial data and the problems Collins Barrow had with their audit were due to FRPL management, when the CCAA's 6th report on the plan of arrangement (March 15, 2010) clearly stated that the financial statements of FRPL were part of the disclosure documents; and if there were missing data (i.e. missing money!!!) how could the reorganization plan be approved without clear statements of where everything went and what the current financial status was at that time. It would be like wiping the books clean, stating what the debt was and to engage in "exploitation" of the assets.
It isn't an argument. It is the truth and clear from the audit opinion.
The records of Fairmont and the records of the resort are two different things. Notwithstanding, your logic is flawed. By your logic, someone could avoid paying their creditors by having terrible records. How do you think Visa would react if you told them you don't have to pay your bill because you didn't keep a copy of your receipt?
There is a process in a CCAA for creditors to step up and make a claim. That claim is then evaluated by the justice. A debtor could have no records whatsoever and still be reorganized in a CCAA.
Further, lets move away from the sale of exempt securities and just talk about investments into the trust. Any way you look at it there was outside investment into the trust in addition to the investments the original bond holders (now unit holders) have made.
For the fourth time, no there wasn't.
Are you stating that there have been no debt securities transactions involving NPREIT; and if there have been, have those involved in the transactions on behalf of NPREIT acted in accord with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada's "Rules Notice" dated Feb. 20/13?
As we cannot know what you think "debt securities transactions" means, we cannot answer. A promissory note on a timeshare sale could be a debt security transaction. However, we can say there have been no transactions that qualify as investments that would be governed by securities legislation.
One last thing (for now), those of us that bought the lease don't owe any money towards a mortgage of the property that has been leased; so if I read you correctly none of the money that has come from the lessees or TS owners under any circumstances has gone to the unit holders. Where is the money coming from then?
You are correct. No money, other than management fees, related to the operation of the resort ends up in Northwynd for the benefit of unitholders. The remainder of your inquiry is inappropriate and has no bearing on your lease. The landlord renting your house would not respond if you asked them how they make money other than renting your house.
Northwynd Customer Care AKA NorthwyndCC
When we first saw the posts starting by our Customer Care Representative herein after referred to as (CCR) we felt perhaps we may see some truthful and honest information. They did not appear to be hiding their intent as they appeared to be forthright regarding where they were going with their musings.
We have in the past had great service from the CCRs we dealt with over the years especially the ones located in Fairmount. Since the closure of those we have had to deal with voices based in Calgary who for the most part have been pretty informative and willing to help especially when taking credit card information for payment of some form or other.
We now hear from the other side of the mouth
"We already answered this for you at post #1121. The contract types do not matter. The leasee's have always been responsible for all costs of the resort which was confirmed by Justice Loo."
Her ruling is being challenged so let us wait and see.
Unless you can prove that all the leases entered into prior to 2009 were modified upon the conclusion of the CCAA to be equivalent to the latter two(2) versions, you are SOL
Here is part of the decision made by Justice Romaine
'
"It was also noteworthy that the roughly 5000 registered time-share
owners in the Fairmont Group would not be affected by the offer
and would continue to have the rights granted to them under their
original timeshare agreements (other than with respect to certain
alleged inducements or undocumented additional rights that were
repudiated during the course of CCAA proceedings). Many of the
full time employees would be retained by Northwynd]"
If you can as our CCR who's salary is paid by 15% of lessees fees show us delinquent owners that these leases had either alleged inducements or undocumented additional rights that were repudiated during the course of the CCAA proceedings. Please come up with proof that the original contracts were modified during that conclusion.
You have modified your tune since you first started posting from offering salient and helpful information as a CCR to now being one of calling us delinquent and taking a approach of an intolerant mentor.
You may wish to answer the questions without your newly acquired sarcastic verbiage.
When we first saw the posts starting by our Customer Care Representative herein after referred to as (CCR) we felt perhaps we may see some truthful and honest information. They did not appear to be hiding their intent as they appeared to be forthright regarding where they were going with their musings.
We have in the past had great service from the CCRs we dealt with over the years especially the ones located in Fairmount. Since the closure of those we have had to deal with voices based in Calgary who for the most part have been pretty informative and willing to help especially when taking credit card information for payment of some form or other.
We now hear from the other side of the mouth
"We already answered this for you at post #1121. The contract types do not matter. The leasee's have always been responsible for all costs of the resort which was confirmed by Justice Loo."
Her ruling is being challenged so let us wait and see.
Unless you can prove that all the leases entered into prior to 2009 were modified upon the conclusion of the CCAA to be equivalent to the latter two(2) versions, you are SOL
Here is part of the decision made by Justice Romaine
'
"It was also noteworthy that the roughly 5000 registered time-share
owners in the Fairmont Group would not be affected by the offer
and would continue to have the rights granted to them under their
original timeshare agreements (other than with respect to certain
alleged inducements or undocumented additional rights that were
repudiated during the course of CCAA proceedings). Many of the
full time employees would be retained by Northwynd]"
If you can as our CCR who's salary is paid by 15% of lessees fees show us delinquent owners that these leases had either alleged inducements or undocumented additional rights that were repudiated during the course of the CCAA proceedings. Please come up with proof that the original contracts were modified during that conclusion.
You have modified your tune since you first started posting from offering salient and helpful information as a CCR to now being one of calling us delinquent and taking a approach of an intolerant mentor.
You may wish to answer the questions without your newly acquired sarcastic verbiage.
Last edited:
darklord700
newbie
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2008
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
Justice Loo's decision is fools gold as she made so many factual errors in it. It will very likely be overturned by the appeal judge. And to Northwynd, the type of contracts don't matter, long as they got your name and address you'll hit you up for money.