GypsyOne, I have always respected and appreciated your previous posts, however this recent one, I find slightly disappointing. Some of us, that have also signed on with the lawyers to fight this are also co-owners, and not by choice. Whether it happened because we bought our timeshares after Northwynd took over, or through the Legacy for Life scam (from what I've learnt, these contracts were converted from leases to co-ownership as well?), we are all in this together. To say that those of us who have co-ownership are responsible and that the lessees aren't, only separates us, when we should stay united. I think we can all agree that Northwynd has deceived us all, lessees and co-owners alike, making comments like this may also discourage other co-owners still sitting on the fence from joining us in this fight for what is right.
I also have concern about how defending our case from the point of view of the lease agreements might affect the timeshare owners with co-ownership agreements. I probably didn't word my previous post as well as I might have. I covered my concerns more fully in my January 8, 2014, post #1164, which I will re-post here:
One of the side effects of pointing out the two types of Vacation Villa Agreements, namely lease agreement and co-ownership agreement, is that the owners with the Legacy for Life co-ownership agreements may feel they are being thrown under the bus. Those with the lease agreements have no choice but to vigorously point out that there is no possible way that responsibility for paying capital costs is included in the lease agreements. As much as Northwynd would try to convince you otherwise, there is not one word mentioning capital costs or capital replacement in the lease agreements. On the other hand, those who bought into the Legacy for Life agreements had the phrase “to pay the costs of capital improvements” added to the new agreements. And of course, that is the very reason for the blitz to convert to the co-ownership agreements. Northwynd knew they were on shaky ground in asking the leaseholders for reconstruction money. The legacy for life, by the way, is a legacy of paying for the re-construction of failing buildings for life.
The Legacy For Life owners would seem to have a different challenge, and that is to prove misrepresentation in the lease to ownership conversion. I did not attend the sales session so I don’t know exactly how they were conducted, but I’ve heard from several who did attend. They report variously: No information given about changes to the expense obligation; no verbal information given about the state of the buildings, Poly B plumbing, etc.; some report that CD’s were given to take home to view that may have had disclosure information; chatty salespersons who distract you with conversation when you try to read the agreement; pressure to sign immediately in order to get the “sweetheart” deal.
The British Columbia Real Estate Association requires that its members complete a Property Disclosure Statement for real estate transactions. The questionnaire asks very specific questions about structural problems of various components of the building. Holders of Legacy for Life Agreements should check to see what disclosures they were given and whether any consumer protection laws were violated. (end of post #1164)
The point I'd like to emphasize is that with the exception of that one difference between a lease and a co-ownership agreement, I assume our lawyers will argue our case on essentially the same issues. Namely, numerous instances of misrepresentation and breaches of contract. A win for one should be a win for all, regardless of the type of agreement. But the only way to have one's case represented is to lodge affidavits with the court and to sign on with one of the lawyers.
Just a comment on the concern raised previously by Anxiety123 about timeshare owners sitting on the sidelines. Those that think they can get a free ride are fooling themselves. If we win, owners will need a lawyer to see that we get a complete and unconditional discharge. A settlement negotiated by the lawyers is always a possibility, in which case owners will need to be clients of a law firm to get the benefits. Because of the large number of timeshare owners on board the cost per owner is minimal. There is strength in numbers and the more timeshare owners we have on our side the greater our chance for success.
