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

[RandyCDK]

Time to Move On

Xplor I do have to agree with you – anyone that was part of the fight with Geldert got their butts handed to them based on the decision that has been handed down and justifiably so if the whole Geldert case was based on conjecture instead of evidence. Northwynd won because they used the Law to validate their interests and have done a phenomenal job ensuring every action they take or have taken right from 2010 could attain a judgement in their favour that ultimately ensures a positive return for their investors (Capitalism is only a bad word when it costs you money and in this world someone is always out there to take your money and they will because they have a plan and know how to use the system to get it).

I was part of the Geldert fight and even though I feel very let down and pissed off that the judgement doesn’t work in my favour I will get over it as other options exist – clarification has been provided and definitively spells things out in the judgement that the renovation assessment is validated along with any future expenses are now the responsibility of Time Share participants. In my opinion the judgement went way over the top and has broad implications to be used to manipulated other Canadian timeshare interest and costs associated with capital expenses or just what expenses are valid.

Two choices exist – continue with the dissention and have Timeshare owners who have decided to stay pick up the legal tab as Northwynd now has an unlimited bank account to draw from as they don’t have to pay for things themselves but if that is the choice play the game properly, real evidence needs to be attained which has the added burden of repealing the comments in the current judgement that has been handed down (which by the way spells out the rules of the game and tells you what was lacking) or take a really large pill and negotiating a settlement so everyone can move on either as a Time Share Owner or someone who has forfeited their Time Share to Northwynd so in the near future they can sell us a Fairmount condo (by the time I sum up my Timeshare purchase and the renovation assessment I probably would have had a pretty good deposit for a unit already) .

I have asked Geldert as part of the trial summary that he is to be sending out shortly if settlement terms will be put forward for discussion (which I am reluctant I will see) as I would expect out of the current 1000 dissenting Fairmount Time Share owners (such as myself) there are some out there that are ready to move on (such as myself).

Personally I am not sorry I took a risk to validate my position that I should not be paying for capital expenses – THAT IS MY RIGHT – and accept my fate as I kind of had my day in court through this action. Now I just want to know my options as Northwynd’s invoices are not written in stone and there is no legal judgment against me, so what is it going to cost to walk away and how do I initiate getting on with it?

Maybe Northwynd can comment or someone else may have insight as I bet there are others out there besides myself who would like to know!!!

 

[xplor]

Xplor I do have to agree with you – anyone that was part of the fight with Geldert got their butts handed to them based on the decision that has been handed down and justifiably so if the whole Geldert case was based on conjecture instead of evidence. Northwynd won because they used the Law to validate their interests and have done a phenomenal job ensuring every action they take or have taken right from 2010 could attain a judgement in their favour that ultimately ensures a positive return for their investors (Capitalism is only a bad word when it costs you money and in this world someone is always out there to take your money and they will because they have a plan and know how to use the system to get it).

I was part of the Geldert fight and even though I feel very let down and pissed off that the judgement doesn’t work in my favour I will get over it as other options exist – clarification has been provided and definitively spells things out in the judgement that the renovation assessment is validated along with any future expenses are now the responsibility of Time Share participants. In my opinion the judgement went way over the top and has broad implications to be used to manipulated other Canadian timeshare interest and costs associated with capital expenses or just what expenses are valid.

Two choices exist – continue with the dissention and have Timeshare owners who have decided to stay pick up the legal tab as Northwynd now has an unlimited bank account to draw from as they don’t have to pay for things themselves but if that is the choice play the game properly, real evidence needs to be attained which has the added burden of repealing the comments in the current judgement that has been handed down (which by the way spells out the rules of the game and tells you what was lacking) or take a really large pill and negotiating a settlement so everyone can move on either as a Time Share Owner or someone who has forfeited their Time Share to Northwynd so in the near future they can sell us a Fairmount condo (by the time I sum up my Timeshare purchase and the renovation assessment I probably would have had a pretty good deposit for a unit already) .

I have asked Geldert as part of the trial summary that he is to be sending out shortly if settlement terms will be put forward for discussion (which I am reluctant I will see) as I would expect out of the current 1000 dissenting Fairmount Time Share owners (such as myself) there are some out there that are ready to move on (such as myself).

Personally I am not sorry I took a risk to validate my position that I should not be paying for capital expenses – THAT IS MY RIGHT – and accept my fate as I kind of had my day in court through this action. Now I just want to know my options as Northwynd’s invoices are not written in stone and there is no legal judgment against me, so what is it going to cost to walk away and how do I initiate getting on with it?

Maybe Northwynd can comment or someone else may have insight as I bet there are others out there besides myself who would like to know!!!

Agree 100% on all points. It was more about conjuring than evidence and many and nearly me got caught up in it. I am really hope a good as can be outcome for everyone. Since we took a different route, I am not sure if Northmont will send a specific letter to the TS owners in respect to this of not. Whatever happens, I am hoping for a good conclusion for everyone.

 

[Anxiety123]

Agree

Well said RandyCDK and Xplor thanks for your last statement. I feel that if Northmont could come up with some kind of buyout for those who still haven't paid, meaning a payment that is not out of reach for those folks that do not have the kind of money that Northmont is wanting, there will be a smoother finish to all of this. If something cannot be worked out and Northmont pushes for as much money as they can get out of us all including the 26 percent interest rate, many will default as they are in poor financial situations and Northmont will not get their money from us in the long run. I am assuming that Northmont will want all of us to pay up and move on so that they can sell the land which is worth oh so much money but many won't as the payment will too high to reach. I know that if the original amount to buy out wasn't so high in our situation, we would have sadly paid it but would have still missed going there every year. These vacations were priceless for our family, but money is money and when you don't have a lot of it, it hurts to pay to give something up. We purchased the TS when our kids were little and the salesman (Pat) sold it to us by stating that when money was tight, that at least we could have one vacation a year that we could drive to and then just relax and enjoy. That we didn't have to worry about anything as the family that owned the resort was well establish and well respected in the community and they have money in reserves for any large maintenance issues. Our maintenance payments would rise very slowly as each year maintenance will be done to keep the resort in pristine condition. Well that upstanding family failed us and walked away with their personal money in their pockets.


I am just so sad that we have lost the great vacations we once so loved. I have many great memories of our family vacations there. I wish the Family that owned the resort before Northmont would have followed through on there promise to us to have 40 years of fun at their resort and that all the money that was supposedly put in accounts for the very reasons of the assessment would have followed through on their promises. I am sure that Fairmont Family is living happy and fine on the backs of us TS owners.

As for Northmont, they are very much in it for money, their track history shows it so I can understand why everyone is scared to deal with them. Some business people do think of their employees, co-owners and their clients when doing business with them, I know of businessmen personally that try never to step on the little guy to make a buck and are very successful but most groups like Northmont are in it for the money and that is how they proceed in any business dealing no matter who it hurts along the way. They are not millionaires by playing nice guy. But fortunately there are those businessmen out there that do run very sound business, make a lot of money and don't need to hurt the little guy along the way. I am now hoping to see some fairness in Northmont with dealing with us that still owe and many of us would have paid one way or another if the amounts were not so steep. Hard to pay if you then have large bank debts that haunt you forever.

I don't think it was unreasonable for us to question the validity of the assessment fee and have the court decide if it was fair, so hoping Northmont isn't going to hold this process against all of us.

Waiting to see if Northmont can show the fair businessmen side to all of this and come up with a reasonable way out for us folks so as to not drag out the process. And I am hoping Northmont can see its way to being reasonable. Thanks

 

[Makai Guy]

I have spent much time going through the more recent posts in this thread and editing out personally directed comments and insults. Eventually I just gave up and deleted any post in its entirety containing personally directed comments.

Posting here is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the operators of this site -- a privilege that can be removed at any time for those who abuse it.

I am serving direct notice to all participants in this thread. Either play nice or don't play at all. Discuss the issues, not each other.

 

[xplor]

Well said RandyCDK and Xplor thanks for your last statement. I feel that if Northmont could come up with some kind of buyout for those who still haven't paid, meaning a payment that is not out of reach for those folks that do not have the kind of money that Northmont is wanting, there will be a smoother finish to all of this. If something cannot be worked out and Northmont pushes for as much money as they can get out of us all including the 26 percent interest rate, many will default as they are in poor financial situations and Northmont will not get their money from us in the long run. I am assuming that Northmont will want all of us to pay up and move on so that they can sell the land which is worth oh so much money but many won't as the payment will too high to reach. I know that if the original amount to buy out wasn't so high in our situation, we would have sadly paid it but would have still missed going there every year. These vacations were priceless for our family, but money is money and when you don't have a lot of it, it hurts to pay to give something up. We purchased the TS when our kids were little and the salesman (Pat) sold it to us by stating that when money was tight, that at least we could have one vacation a year that we could drive to and then just relax and enjoy. That we didn't have to worry about anything as the family that owned the resort was well establish and well respected in the community and they have money in reserves for any large maintenance issues. Our maintenance payments would rise very slowly as each year maintenance will be done to keep the resort in pristine condition. Well that upstanding family failed us and walked away with their personal money in their pockets.


I am just so sad that we have lost the great vacations we once so loved. I have many great memories of our family vacations there. I wish the Family that owned the resort before Northmont would have followed through on there promise to us to have 40 years of fun at their resort and that all the money that was supposedly put in accounts for the very reasons of the assessment would have followed through on their promises. I am sure that Fairmont Family is living happy and fine on the backs of us TS owners.

As for Northmont, they are very much in it for money, their track history shows it so I can understand why everyone is scared to deal with them. Some business people do think of their employees, co-owners and their clients when doing business with them, I know of businessmen personally that try never to step on the little guy to make a buck and are very successful but most groups like Northmont are in it for the money and that is how they proceed in any business dealing no matter who it hurts along the way. They are not millionaires by playing nice guy. But fortunately there are those businessmen out there that do run very sound business, make a lot of money and don't need to hurt the little guy along the way. I am now hoping to see some fairness in Northmont with dealing with us that still owe and many of us would have paid one way or another if the amounts were not so steep. Hard to pay if you then have large bank debts that haunt you forever.

I don't think it was unreasonable for us to question the validity of the assessment fee and have the court decide if it was fair, so hoping Northmont isn't going to hold this process against all of us.

Waiting to see if Northmont can show the fair businessmen side to all of this and come up with a reasonable way out for us folks so as to not drag out the process. And I am hoping Northmont can see its way to being reasonable. Thanks

Hey AnxieyOne, we purchased when the original developer (wilder Family) owned and operated it and share your sentiments about going there then. However, he sold all the properties on the west side of the highway (ours side)years ago (I think in the late 90's) to one of his salesmen Collin Knight. That is when those properties started to head south. Lots of good intentions for rapid expansions, lots of new ideas, new programs and a huge rush to sell, sell, sell and build and obviously cheap. It was this period when there was money, TS's were a hot thing to have, lots of people bought into them. His success boomed to properties away from Fairmont, like Kelowna, Mexico, Belize, Hawaii, Nevada and Florida. Way over extended himself, many bad decisions, bad deals and our properties were not being well managed and questionable management of our maint. funds. It all caught up to him in 1999 when he went into CCAA creditor protection. All the small bond holder, ordinary investor people, many TS owners bought bonds in the finance company FRPL who held the property in trust for these bondholders. The head of FRPL came up with a plan after bankruptcy to apparently save these bond holders called Northwynd, which would become the bondholders company and take over the remain left overs, multi millions of outstanding bills to pay and our property and eventually the management of our TS's

There was a lot on the internet during this period of time on this bankruptcy and one could probably still find it. I thought we TS owners were going to be effected by this, but our TS agreements are registered as our deeded property and would remain so. Northwynd (the new owners/old bond holders) understood eventually how poorly Knight has managed everything including our TS's. Lots of band aides to fix things up, there where leaking pipes from the substandard plumbing material causing tens of thousands of dollars to fix on going from previous ownership that was now bankrupt and had not been getting the repairs that should have been happening. The bondholders took it on to keep ahead of the repairs, with their own money but realized it would take much more to properly bring this resort back to it better days. One of the tactics used by likely every TS developer such as Knight, is to under value to maint. fee to new owners in order to sell the TS's. Thus, with much mishandling of our maint fees by his operators (Colombia) at the time and the chronic short fall of money to replace furniture, paint, repair whatever, by the time the bondholders had to take over this mess in CCAA creditor protection, it was progressively worse and would likely cease to operated if proper repairs and updating wasn't done over the next number of years. I know some of these bondholders that are TS owners as well and they are anything but flush and millionaire businessmen as indicated.

No sure how Northmont came up with the figures they did, the court transcript stated they had professional help to assess the repairs and reno's. Knowing what I have learned from speaking to a few of these previous bondholders/TS owners I know, that are now Northmont, they are not the result of the lack of maint and spent their own money doing the repairs. They happen to only be the messengers to report this mess to the TS owners that we all are, the actual condition of the resort and a plan to restore it. It is my understanding that these small previous bond investors and now forced to take over Knight's leftovers could get their hands on knight, they would. But like any wise slim, he protected himself behind his other company and the bankruptcy protection. Some estimate that millions in most of the internation properties where Canadian law doesn't exist, there where planned and conveniently mismanaged losses in the 3 years prior to his bankruptcy.

There is a perception here that Northmont is responsible for the damages. Until one knows the full story, Northmont just happened be the one who had to have to takeover the mess Knights and crew left and where the messengers of this mess to the TS owners and tried to solve the problem. I believe, if they had not stepped in and started the repairs after taking over this mess and had the plan which included these fees. Fairmont/Sunchasers would no doubt be closed today and everyone would own worthless worn down buildings. unable to use That is why I paid the fees because I 'co owned' the TS with thousands of other TS owners. I felt I had a responsibility to all of them as a co owner. Others obviously thought the company who 'manages' only (maint. renos, repairs) should come up with the money to repair 'our' property. That is why the judge said there was no merit in this case, because the contract says we are all the co owners and in the repairs, and in retrospect, we should have been questioning the band aide repairs and shoddy maint. when Knight was managing it and auditing the maint fund we were paying him.

These are my observations and feel they are as close to correct as they are. Some will continue to dispute that someone should fix their TS's up.

I too wish the Wilder Family still managed the TS's. Knight was the demise of our resort condition through mismanagement, questionable use of our maint fees and under charging the real costs of the maint fees to be able to sell his TS's. Northwynd/Northmont has been picking up the pieces since the Knight/Fairmont Properties bankruptcy and trying to return and update our property to what it should have been under Knight. And as bad as the news was, we still wanted to shoot the messenger and forget about the real story why this all happened.

From what I heard, Knight is enjoying life in Palm Springs CA.

 

[GypsyOne]

This is looking more and more like a scam with the TS owners being used as the most convenient source of funds to keep a poorly constructed resort complex from failing. I always wondered if it was possible to get justice in a BC court when winning would probably mean a major BC resort and tourist attraction failing. Appeal may be our best option, just as it was with the first Case Hearing, unless a very attractive settlement is offered.

 

[xplor]

This is looking more and more like a scam with the TS owners being used as the most convenient source of funds to keep a poorly constructed resort complex from failing. I always wondered if it was possible to get justice in a BC court when winning would probably mean a major BC resort and tourist attraction failing. Appeal may be our best option, just as it was with the first Case Hearing, unless a very attractive settlement is offered.

Your saying the supreme court of Canada is crooked and makes judgements based on a tourist attraction failing. Are you serious ?? This is keeping your deeded property/resort from failing. who do you think owns the TS's ?

 

[Disheartened]

We purchased in 2009. We were taken to the show room of the new building and loved it. We also had a tour of the houseboats. The houseboat is what sealed the deal for us.....
2011 rolls around and we bring family with us. We phoned the office to see if we could have a tour of one of the boats so the family could see why we were so excited to plan the next trip. What? No house boats!
If I am a co owner where is my share of the revenu from the sale of these boats or the other resort properties?
How can I be held liable for an old building that I have never set foot in?
When Northmont bought them out of receivership why was I not offered my pennies on the dollar?
This has been compared to a vehicle lease. O.K., so before I even have the nubs worn off the tires there is a manufacturers defect. Not my problem. The neibours down the street don't pay their bills would mine go up? The company I lease from change the deal. The crappy little car I was leasing is being upgraded on my dime and on top of that the payments will go up.

 

[xplor]

We purchased in 2009. We were taken to the show room of the new building and loved it. We also had a tour of the houseboats. The houseboat is what sealed the deal for us.....
2011 rolls around and we bring family with us. We phoned the office to see if we could have a tour of one of the boats so the family could see why we were so excited to plan the next trip. What? No house boats!
If I am a co owner where is my share of the revenu from the sale of these boats or the other resort properties?
How can I be held liable for an old building that I have never set foot in?
When Northmont bought them out of receivership why was I not offered my pennies on the dollar?

Because you still owned your TS as per your contract I would assume. Nothing changed with the TS's as a result of the bankruptcy because they are deeded/registered to you and all TS owners. The bankruptcy was the company that was maintaining your TS and owned TS inventory that was still at that time for sale, not the TS owners, . Does your contract indicate you are a co owner of the boats or is it have use trade into using the boats ?? I am not aware if they sold boat TS on an individual basis aside from the condo TS's.

 

[Anxiety123]

Xplor ....Interesting

Information is interesting. I have friends that have a timeshare across the road and yes they are enjoying their resort. They were the ones that invited us down to listen to the presentation and urged us to buy. No we didn't need out arms twisted, we were intrigued. We are still friends and will be forever but we are all upset about this mess. You stated that the Wilder's just decided to sell but I believe they saw the writing on the wall and decided to bail when the getting was good. Knight was a shyster and some say a bad manager, but I believe a very very smart scammer. He knew how to move money around and is enjoying his life on our backs. Now I think both the Wilder family and Knight knew of the faulty buildings and did what they needed to do to walk away with money in their pockets. Now for Northmont, they knew what they were getting into unless the are not very good businessmen, and were coming into rescue us, but rescue us with our own money, not theirs. I would have rather seen the resort fail, at least I would have walked away without my resort, not like now losing my resort and paying money to do so. Do you think that Northmont would have purchased the failed resort knowing that they would have to use their own money to rebuild? No way, they saw a good way to make money using other peoples money and took it. That is the way of business these days. Now that this case is over, I am hoping that Northmont and the defaulted TS owners can come to some reasonable amount to settle this as if not, everyone will lose with many not being able to afford large payouts if Northmont wants to sock it to us. I would hate to see us all going though an appeal process. There are also many folks that were not part of the test group (as I know of three couples personally...that didn't want to help pay for the test case but were really hoping it would go their way, there are always THOSE kind of friends, ha ha) that also will need to come to some reasonable resolution. Many may default and go bankrupt. For me, I just want to enjoy my life and stop worrying about all of this. Hoping for some peace soon.

 

[Anxiety123]

Xplor..one more question.

You seem to know a bit about all of this so I have one question that no one seems to be able answer. So when Fairmont went into receivership and Northmont decided to take over, the judge, Fairmont and Northmont all got together and came up with this settlement. Northmont would take over resort with all it flaws BUT it was decided that they would get all the assets, being us, and no liabilities. So by getting us to bankroll the adventure they entered into, all is good. But was there at any time a thought that if the TS owners were to bankroll everything, that maybe they should have been considered in the decision making at the time of the receivership hearing, at least to have a decision to stay or leave at that time? I don't understand the judicial system very well but to someone like me this doesn't seem to be very fair. That these three groups, Fairmont who wants to get out, Northmont that want a resort to make money and a judge can decide the TS owners fate without one word from us. If you have any background or knowledge in this process can you enlighten me. I just can wrap my head around it and just feel "Slapped Silly" right now! Thanks

 

[GypsyOne]

Your saying the supreme court of Canada is crooked and makes judgements based on a tourist attraction failing. Are you serious ?? This is keeping your deeded property/resort from failing. who do you think owns the TS's ?

The case was heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, not the Supreme Court of Canada.

I don't have a deeded property, I have a Lease Agreement for a fixed term and I am a lessee. If I have a lease agreement in an apartment building, I do not have to repair the roof if it is faulty. My obligation as a lessee is to pay rent, not maintain the capital structure.

 

[Anxiety123]

GypsyOne..I agree

I agree with you, I didn't think I was an owner but a lease or renter, I just don't get it. Man!! I wish I would have understood my obligations before entering into this. It's somewhat like owning a Condo. If the roof leaks everyone pays. That is not what I thought I was buying, that is not how Pat our salesman explained it to us. Smooth talkers, trust people, should of had a lawyer look at contract...get burned. Live and learn. Too bad this happened so late in life for us, harder to recover from.

 

[GypsyOne]

Anxiety 123

I don't think giving the lease agreement to a lawyer to read would have made a difference. About 14,500 people bought timeshares, then after the bankruptcy, the new owners changed the rules. So far as similarities to a condo complex, it is not. With a condo you have community sharing of capital costs, but you are also an owner in fee simple, which means that when you sell your condo you get the proceeds. Also with a condo complex, each owner has a management vote in major decisions. With the timeshare, a TS owners association was never formed. Thus, we were unaware of some of the problems that were occurring and some of the steps that were being taken. With our timeshares, those of us that have lease agreements are being asked to share in capital costs, but when our 40-year leases expire we have no residual value. We just walk away. This leads to the ridiculous situation that in say, year 39 of the lease agreement, we could be asked to share in a $10 million upgrade of which we will get no benefit. The court has ruled we have to pay. Some of us TS owners have lease agreements (earlier buyers) and some of us have co-ownership agreements (later buyers). Strangely, the Judge made no distinction between the two. She just assumed we were all owners and thus all responsible for capital costs. Very strange assumption!!

 

[xplor]

Information is interesting. I have friends that have a timeshare across the road and yes they are enjoying their resort. They were the ones that invited us down to listen to the presentation and urged us to buy. No we didn't need out arms twisted, we were intrigued. We are still friends and will be forever but we are all upset about this mess. You stated that the Wilder's just decided to sell but I believe they saw the writing on the wall and decided to bail when the getting was good. Knight was a shyster and some say a bad manager, but I believe a very very smart scammer. He knew how to move money around and is enjoying his life on our backs. Now I think both the Wilder family and Knight knew of the faulty buildings and did what they needed to do to walk away with money in their pockets. Now for Northmont, they knew what they were getting into unless the are not very good businessmen, and were coming into rescue us, but rescue us with our own money, not theirs. I would have rather seen the resort fail, at least I would have walked away without my resort, not like now losing my resort and paying money to do so. Do you think that Northmont would have purchased the failed resort knowing that they would have to use their own money to rebuild? No way, they saw a good way to make money using other peoples money and took it. That is the way of business these days. Now that this case is over, I am hoping that Northmont and the defaulted TS owners can come to some reasonable amount to settle this as if not, everyone will lose with many not being able to afford large payouts if Northmont wants to sock it to us. I would hate to see us all going though an appeal process. There are also many folks that were not part of the test group (as I know of three couples personally...that didn't want to help pay for the test case but were really hoping it would go their way, there are always THOSE kind of friends, ha ha) that also will need to come to some reasonable resolution. Many may default and go bankrupt. For me, I just want to enjoy my life and stop worrying about all of this. Hoping for some peace soon.

I think most of the buildings in question were built by Knight after he purchased the property. really don't think Wilder's have the same issue at Mountainside. The bondholders were brought together in a meeting by FRPL Finance months after the bankruptcy, that wanted to unload their responsibility they had with the bondholders and offered them a 'pie in the sky' solution and a bunch of BS to make them believe taking over the ashes of Fairmont/Knight and crew was the only way to get their money back. Much like Belfrey did to TS owners. A vote was taken since this was 'the only way to get their money invested with this crook back' and voted to form Northwynd in the same meeting. In some ways, they really had no other option than to fire sale everything left over. Desperate people like the TS owners were/are accepting someone else's solution, which happened to be a well connected guy from the Knight gang, Ed Nycholat. So the bondholders were as nieve as the TS owners were with Belfrey and gave up their bonds for a mess and paying off multi millions of Knights bills and loans that they didn't see coming.

Your right, right now it is water under the bridge, history of desperate people following bad advice.

 

[xplor]

You seem to know a bit about all of this so I have one question that no one seems to be able answer. So when Fairmont went into receivership and Northmont decided to take over, the judge, Fairmont and Northmont all got together and came up with this settlement. Northmont would take over resort with all it flaws BUT it was decided that they would get all the assets, being us, and no liabilities. So by getting us to bankroll the adventure they entered into, all is good. But was there at any time a thought that if the TS owners were to bankroll everything, that maybe they should have been considered in the decision making at the time of the receivership hearing, at least to have a decision to stay or leave at that time? I don't understand the judicial system very well but to someone like me this doesn't seem to be very fair. That these three groups, Fairmont who wants to get out, Northmont that want a resort to make money and a judge can decide the TS owners fate without one word from us. If you have any background or knowledge in this process can you enlighten me. I just can wrap my head around it and just feel "Slapped Silly" right now! Thanks

As mentioned in the previous post, Fairmont/knight was history after the bankruptcy. FRPL Finance that the bondholders had their agreements with had the meeting. The TS's are registered leases and not owned by Fairmont or after the 'meeting' and Northmont was formed, they are owned/leased by the registered owner/lease holders. That is why I was concerned I would loss out TS, but checked it out at the time and it was safe. However, like so many owners, mostly always trade out and hadn't been to Fairmont since 2003 and I as well was aware of these issues as many of the TS owner/bondholders were.
Northmont is the arm of Northwynd that looks after the resort, and nothing more. Most of this can be found researching on google or friends who are TS owners and were bondholders. It seems they went mostly after TS owners to become bondholders in Knight's Fairmont mess.

 

[xplor]

The case was heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, not the Supreme Court of Canada.

OK, Supreme Court of BC not Canada. Room for appeal on this and throw more money in this when the appeal court review the 'not merit' judgement she gave. and maybe they will find 'merit' or maybe TS owners will be further in the hole they are in today.

I don't have a deeded property, I have a Lease Agreement for a fixed term and I am a lessee. If I have a lease agreement in an apartment building, I do not have to repair the roof if it is faulty. My obligation as a lessee is to pay rent, not maintain the capital structure.

It all is spelled out in the contract the judge make her ruling/judgement on. It is obviously different than renting an apartment and see your rational. Why are we called TS owners and everyone uses that term ?? Ironic, its a term used across this industry, because we really are registered 40 yr. lessors. It sure makes me read the contracts I sign since this has happened, because many are in the favor of whoever you are making it with and I have so been there, done that before. Painful and costly lessons.

 

[GypsyOne]

It all is spelled out in the contract the judge make her ruling/judgement on. It is obviously different than renting an apartment and see your rational. Why are we called TS owners and everyone uses that term ?? Ironic, its a term used across this industry, because we really are registered 40 yr. lessors. It sure makes me read the contracts I sign since this has happened, because many are in the favor of whoever you are making it with and I have so been there, done that before. Painful and costly lessons.

To be correct, we are lessees in a 40-year fixed term lease. We are owners of a vacation leasehold interest, not owners of real estate.

There are two basic vacation interval agreements: 1. Lease agreements; and 2. Co-ownership agreements (or Legacy for Life agreements).

All the early agreements were of the lease type ,approximately up until the 2009 bankruptcy. These lease agreements did not include responsibility for paying capital costs or resort reconstruction. Realizing this could be a problem with having the TS owners paying for capital reconstruction, the new owners sought to have the lease holders convert to co-ownership agreements, with the added clause that TS owners were responsible for paying for capital costs and reconstruction, in addition to regular maintenance. Some listened to the "exciting new plan" and took the bait. Most did not. But all sales of time shares after 2009 were of the co-ownership type that included the added clause of paying for capital costs. Turns out it was not necessary to have the "responsible for capital costs" clause added to the VIA's. All you need is a friendly judge to rule that maintenance costs include capital costs. Which begs the question, why then was it necessary to convert the lease agreements to co-ownership agreements and add the capital cost clause?

The injustice of having lessees (TS owners) pay for capital costs and reconstruction is that our lease agreements are for a 40-year fixed term with no residual value. Example of the injustice: Year 39 the lessees are asked to participate in a $20 million reconstruction that effectively adds, say, 30 years to the life of the complex. The court has ruled we have to pay our proportional share. The real owners, managers, and/or developers benefit from the reconstruction to the tune of about $20 million capital value, plus revenue for another 30 years. The lessees walk away in a year's time with nothing to show for their capital investment. Now is that fair or logical?

By the way, as about 14,500 purchasers found out, it does little good to read the contract (lease) if the rules are going to be changed upon bankruptcy and the takeover by new questionable owners.

So far as Judge Fitzpatrick's ruling being "absolute truth" that is not the case. It is her interpretation of the issues that are law until and unless her ruling is overturned on appeal, as happened with the earlier Judge Loo's ruling.

 

[xplor]

To be correct, we are lessees in a 40-year fixed term lease. We are owners of a vacation leasehold interest, not owners of real estate.

There are two basic vacation interval agreements: 1. Lease agreements; and 2. Co-ownership agreements (or Legacy for Life agreements).

All the early agreements were of the lease type ,approximately up until the 2009 bankruptcy. These lease agreements did not include responsibility for paying capital costs or resort reconstruction. Realizing this could be a problem with having the TS owners paying for capital reconstruction, the new owners sought to have the lease holders convert to co-ownership agreements, with the added clause that TS owners were responsible for paying for capital costs and reconstruction, in addition to regular maintenance. Some listened to the "exciting new plan" and took the bait. Most did not. But all sales of time shares after 2009 were of the co-ownership type that included the added clause of paying for capital costs. Turns out it was not necessary to have the "responsible for capital costs" clause added to the VIA's. All you need is a friendly judge to rule that maintenance costs include capital costs. Which begs the question, why then was it necessary to convert the lease agreements to co-ownership agreements and add the capital cost clause?

The injustice of having lessees (TS owners) pay for capital costs and reconstruction is that our lease agreements are for a 40-year fixed term with no residual value. Example of the injustice: Year 39 the lessees are asked to participate in a $20 million reconstruction that effectively adds, say, 30 years to the life of the complex. The court has ruled we have to pay our proportional share. The real owners, managers, and/or developers benefit from the reconstruction to the tune of about $20 million capital value, plus revenue for another 30 years. The lessees walk away in a year's time with nothing to show for their capital investment. Now is that fair or logical?

By the way, as about 14,500 purchasers found out, it does little good to read the contract (lease) if the rules are going to be changed upon bankruptcy and the takeover by new questionable owners.

So far as Judge Fitzpatrick's ruling being "absolute truth" that is not the case. It is her interpretation of the issues that are law until and unless her ruling is overturned on appeal, as happened with the earlier Judge Loo's ruling.

True ... 'its not over until the fat lady sings'. Your right, it could drag on and one would have to ask themselves 'where is my tolerance or line in the sand' to go on to make another long shot with an appeal or conclude this and move on. She must have seen something there that made her come to that conclusion of 'no merit' and did give a lot of case law rulings that would back up her judgement. I would think these reasons and case laws will be looked at by any appeal court for validity. If the group tries it again, hopefully they are and better prepared to make their arguments against the rulings, otherwise everyone is really screwed with much a higher bill to pay and likely less tolerance from Northmont to work something out.

Interesting question is to define what is the 'capital' items they want us to pay and what is 'repairs'?? Capital items are normally new construction which I am not aware of. Everything was repairs and reno'ing from the lack of it being done by knight and short falls in the amount of the maint. fees being charged.

 

[ERW]

This is looking more and more like a scam with the TS owners being used as the most convenient source of funds to keep a poorly constructed resort complex from failing. I always wondered if it was possible to get justice in a BC court when winning would probably mean a major BC resort and tourist attraction failing. Appeal may be our best option, just as it was with the first Case Hearing, unless a very attractive settlement is offered.

I think that if you want to appeal, you had better be sure the lawyer has his/her ducks in a row. Based on the decision handed down, that was not the case unfortunately.

 

[ERW]

As mentioned in the previous post, Fairmont/knight was history after the bankruptcy. FRPL Finance that the bondholders had their agreements with had the meeting. The TS's are registered leases and not owned by Fairmont or after the 'meeting' and Northmont was formed, they are owned/leased by the registered owner/lease holders. That is why I was concerned I would loss out TS, but checked it out at the time and it was safe. However, like so many owners, mostly always trade out and hadn't been to Fairmont since 2003 and I as well was aware of these issues as many of the TS owner/bondholders were.
Northmont is the arm of Northwynd that looks after the resort, and nothing more. Most of this can be found researching on google or friends who are TS owners and were bondholders. It seems they went mostly after TS owners to become bondholders in Knight's Fairmont mess.

I understand where you are coming from but there is one thing I do not understand. Maybe I have missed something but hope you can offer a reasonable explanation. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge regarding this situation but you also mentioned that you do not know who Wankel is. You stated this after you read the 200 page decision where his name is mentioned numerous times. Am I missing something here?

 

[Anxiety123]

Contracts

I agree with GypsyOne in that "what good is reading a contract" if it can be changed after the fact. I have one of the older contracts that do not state Capital Costs anywhere in it just responsbile for maintenanc fee for yearly maintennace to the resort. These contracts were changed just by using the words "in the best interest of all TS Owners" This change was in the best interest of Northmont. But I wish I could trust them again and continue on with the lovely vacations I had with the Resort. But I am afraid of that very fact as stated by GypsyOne that if after only having three or four years left on my contract I get another large bill for renos and then I have to pay and then give it up. Or possibily in just a few years get another large bill for more renos that they would like to do....not knowing when it will end.

Not understanding the legal system that can look at how us TS Owners have been screwed over and over in this deal and morally think it is ok to just let Northmont have everything their way. Both sides should have taken a little loss from what Knight and his crew did and from the Wilder Family allowing this to happen to folks that trusted in them, Northmont from what I read and see how they opperate are not taking any of the hit but will come out of this with loads of money in their pockets. That is the way of big business now, no integity. Everyone looks out or themselves.

 

[xplor]

I understand where you are coming from but there is one thing I do not understand. Maybe I have missed something but hope you can offer a reasonable explanation. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge regarding this situation but you also mentioned that you do not know who Wankel is. You stated this after you read the 200 page decision where his name is mentioned numerous times. Am I missing something here?

Your right.... I never connected his name when reading the judgement transcript and I guess the name was irrelevant to me because it didn't stand out to me. Paid more attention to the meat of the judgement than names I wasn't familiar with. I do know who he is now through a posting of Quadmaniac that explained he went to his lawsuit against a friends on one of this TS's. If I took the time now to re read, I guess I would see and notice who he is in this judgment.

All TS owners should have known about all this back in 2009 and been concerned then. I was and followed it through the bankruptcy and with some research that is there for everyone can find. It was only after we all got the 'letter' to stay in or leave, is when 99% of the TS owners got involved. I started to be concerned in 2009 about my TS.

 

[Disheartened]

I purchased in June 2009 how was that even legal?

 

[xplor]

I purchased in June 2009 how was that even legal?

I think Fairmont went into bankruptcy late in the fall of 2009. I am sure the big rush to sell was on TS's was on in 2009. Knight very likely knew what was coming and took every dime and sale he could.