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

[Hotpink]

that was then has anything changed

I suggest you all read the following article

http://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=16969

Kirk Wankel was not yet in the drivers seat . He had just come out of a bankruptcy with Fair Sky resources.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[xplor]

A full 25% have not paid. That amounts to over 3600 people. 43% paid to leave which is over 6000 people. Northmont now owns 45% of the resort.

Where did you get these figures ??

 

[Hotpink]

numbers

25% is from Justice Fitzpatrick ruling on Page 4 which is highlighted in pink on the Sunchaser web page under the "owners" section

 

[Just Looking Around]

Paid to Stay but regretting it.

I own a week's use each year at this Resort. My wife paid for us to keep our week, only after she received a phone call. We never did receive anything by mail.
At the time, I didn't pay attention to what was happening at the Resort. That's as generous as I will be to the Developer and Management, calling it a Resort. It's no longer a resort. It's not a resort by any standard by which one would measure a resort: Facility, Amenities, Activities at the Property, Customer Service, Recreational Activities in the Area, the Units themselves.
It hasn't always been this way. At the outset, when I purchased in the early 90's, it was a resort. They tried. They went bankrupt trying. They have a different plan now. I don't know what it is but, they have one.
A common thread runs through the Developers, Investors and Management from the beginning until now. All those name changes and all those company-to-newly minted company sales, they served the Developers, Investors and Management, not the TS Owners. It’s all just subterfuge. The names of the Companies change but the faces within those Companies stay much the same.
Capital Costs don't exist according to this judgement. If they do, they are synonymous with operating expenses. Any outlay of money can be charged back to the TS Owners. If this truly were the case, not a single prospective TS Owner would have bought at this Property. Not one, not ever. That's the real test. It's not a viable enterprise.
It's impossible for it to end with this judgement. The timeshare industry in Canada will collapse. Reputable TS Developers and Managers will want this judgement to be overturned on appeal. I want it overturned. I'm not stupid. I didn't win. Someone in management could right now be buying something frivolous and unrelated to the operation of the property and, I am paying my proportional share of that expense. It could be a resort in Mexico. It could be a houseboat. The Maintenance Fees are going to increase geometrically.
The only party who would welcome this judgement is the Developer, Investor or Manager. No TS Owner is happy.

 

[Punter]

25% is from Justice Fitzpatrick ruling on Page 4 which is highlighted in pink on the Sunchaser web page under the "owners" section

Yup - that's where they came from. I thought that since XPLOR has read the judgement not once but twice those figures would be familiar.

 

[Hotpink]

Where did you get these figures ??

Suggest you read the following it is on page 2

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2016-RVM-Communication-Final.pdf

 

[Punter]

Summed up Perfectly

I own a week's use each year at this Resort. My wife paid for us to keep our week, only after she received a phone call. We never did receive anything by mail.
At the time, I didn't pay attention to what was happening at the Resort. That's as generous as I will be to the Developer and Management, calling it a Resort. It's no longer a resort. It's not a resort by any standard by which one would measure a resort: Facility, Amenities, Activities at the Property, Customer Service, Recreational Activities in the Area, the Units themselves.
It hasn't always been this way. At the outset, when I purchased in the early 90's, it was a resort. They tried. They went bankrupt trying. They have a different plan now. I don't know what it is but, they have one.
A common thread runs through the Developers, Investors and Management from the beginning until now. All those name changes and all those company-to-newly minted company sales, they served the Developers, Investors and Management, not the TS Owners. It’s all just subterfuge. The names of the Companies change but the faces within those Companies stay much the same.
Capital Costs don't exist according to this judgement. If they do, they are synonymous with operating expenses. Any outlay of money can be charged back to the TS Owners. If this truly were the case, not a single prospective TS Owner would have bought at this Property. Not one, not ever. That's the real test. It's not a viable enterprise.
It's impossible for it to end with this judgement. The timeshare industry in Canada will collapse. Reputable TS Developers and Managers will want this judgement to be overturned on appeal. I want it overturned. I'm not stupid. I didn't win. Someone in management could right now be buying something frivolous and unrelated to the operation of the property and, I am paying my proportional share of that expense. It could be a resort in Mexico. It could be a houseboat. The Maintenance Fees are going to increase geometrically.
The only party who would welcome this judgement is the Developer, Investor or Manager. No TS Owner is happy.

Agree on all points.

 

[Just Looking Around]

I suggest you all read the following article

http://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=16969

Kirk Wankel was not yet in the drivers seat . He had just come out of a bankruptcy with Fair Sky resources.

Draw your own conclusions.

I see that.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-re...d-directors-senior-tsx-venture-fsk-800537.htm

Wish I knew then what I know now. We'd have joined the litigation group. We'd have joined because we don't think it's over. That was just a battle, not the war.

 

[xplor]

I see that.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-re...d-directors-senior-tsx-venture-fsk-800537.htm

Wish I knew then what I know now. We'd have joined the litigation group. We'd have joined because we don't think it's over. That was just a battle, not the war.

Since you are apparently not part of this group and standing on the sidelines without paying into it and waiting for the judgement, 'Do it', I am sure there is an appeal case in the 'no merit' judgment.

 

[GypsyOne]

I see that.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-re...d-directors-senior-tsx-venture-fsk-800537.htm

Wish I knew then what I know now. We'd have joined the litigation group. We'd have joined because we don't think it's over. That was just a battle, not the war.

Ain't it sweet to be part of Kirk Wankel's financial comeback. All he needed was a company with a large cash flow, many diverse suckers under contract, a bankruptcy and nerve to alter the contracts, weak consumer laws, and a compliant judge unwilling or incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. Looks like appeal is the way to go.

 

[Hotpink]

Kirk's predecessor

Ain't it sweet to be part of Kirk Wankel's financial comeback. All he needed was a company with a large cash flow, many diverse suckers under contract, a bankruptcy and nerve to alter the contracts, weak consumer laws, and a compliant judge unwilling or incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. Looks like appeal is the way to go.

To quote Parick Fitzsimonds (Kirk's predecessor)from his letter of Dec. 7 2011" Unfortunately, the line between legal and illegal is a lot farther away than the line between ethical and unethical. but it appears that he was talking about those other guys from Columbia Villa Management the former manager of the resort

Northmont entered into an 'Amended and Restated Developers Use of Inventory and Payment Agreement with RVM on November 2, 2012. This gave them considerable flexibility in managing the inventory

We received the new SunChaser update dated Dec 10, 2012 ( 5 pages) lauding Kirk's accomplishments and applauding his change of focus for the resort including the yet to be determined details of the program to renovate the resort. All in all it sounded like this might be a good plan and we wouldn't get any invoice until April of 2013. again it sounded plausible. But we did not know about the Amended Agreement at that time. Nor did we know or even foresee the ramification it would have on the developers expanded inventory once the RPF was implemented.

The amended agreement became known only during the recent trial and it was noted that Northmont did not have to pay their proportionate share of maintenance fees on the 43% of the units that were returned to them.

It appears that this was done in anticipation of several lessees opting to pay to get out of Dodge for a rather large fee and Northmont would then have at their disposal and not be responsible for the maintenance fees. Great gig and perhaps that may be considered part of a financial comeback.

Section 8 of the amended agreement is most revealing.


How does this tie in to the Fitzsimonds quote?

 

[xplor]

To quote Parick Fitzsimonds (Kirk's predecessor)from his letter of Dec. 7 2011" Unfortunately, the line between legal and illegal is a lot farther away than the line between ethical and unethical. but it appears that he was talking about those other guys from Columbia Villa Management [COLOR="blue[COLOR="Blue"]"](WHICH WERE CROOKS[ and a big part of the slide in maint. and skimming our maint funds in creative ways that should have kept our resort up,and eventually became a part of the Fairmont bankruptcy)/ There are lots of stories behind these guys because they were one arm of Colin Knight's empire and he took as much as he could from everywhere within Fairmont before going into bankruptcy. Pat Fitzsimonds was hired by Knight and a part of the Knight empire Fairmont long before Wankel arrived with Northmont.[/COLOR] COLOR])the former manager of the resort

Northmont entered into an 'Amended and Restated Developers Use of Inventory and Payment Agreement with RVM on November 2, 2012. This gave them considerable flexibility in managing the inventory

We received the new SunChaser update dated Dec 10, 2012 ( 5 pages) lauding Kirk's accomplishments and applauding his change of focus for the resort including the yet to be determined details of the program to renovate the resort. All in all it sounded like this might be a good plan and we wouldn't get any invoice until April of 2013. again it sounded plausible(it was and it is). But we did not know about the Amended Agreement at that time. Nor did we know or even foresee the ramification it would have on the developers expanded inventory once the RPF was implemented.

The amended agreement became known only during the recent trial and it was noted that Northmont did not have to pay their proportionate share of maintenance fees on the 43% of the units that were returned to them.

It appears that this was done in anticipation of several lessees opting to pay to get out of Dodge for a rather large fee and Northmont would then have at their disposal and not be responsible for the maintenance fees. Great gig and perhaps that may be considered part of a financial comeback. (With 43% (if that is the figure) not being used, there isn't the same maint. required in housekeeping, unit wear and tear repairs etc. so seems reasonable to me these costs are not there. Only costs of units that are being used should be paid to up keep them. None of this should be relevant to you as you apparently haven't being paying ??? But a good theory that supports your 'everything is crooked and against 'all TS owners'. There are many quite happy owners enjoying their TS's.)
Section 8 of the amended agreement is most revealing.


How does this tie in to the Fitzsimonds quote?

Whatever works for you, go for it....

 

[Hotpink]

numbers

May I suggest you read what Kirk wrote in the 2016 maintenance update

http://sunchaservillas.ca/owners/maintenance-fees/

He is very clear at the bottom of page 2 what he expects to happen.

Thus when the dust settles he says the resort will continue to operate at between 35-40% of original capacity and are planning accordingly.
This was basically the same statement found in the 2015 maintenance statement.
However in the 2015 statement he is saying that and I quote" we will have to include some form of delinquency/ litigation fee to provide the resort sufficient cash flow to weather the delay until recovery from delinquent owners is achieved"

Does that mean the 32% that are staying get to pay that fee because as Xplor says the resort is not using any inventory so they won't have to pay just the 32% who are using their time. I could estimate some numbers but I will leave that to Chartered Accountant that is at the helm

Does this sound any where close to the grandiose plans we were given in print on December10, 2012 or again in April 2013 with the freedom to choose options

I did not make up any numbers and all numbers come from the written communications supplied by the architect of this RPF aka the Chief Executive Officer, Northwynd Resort Properties.
I do keep hard copies of all correspondence

What do they call the person who comes in last in medical school ?
DOCTOR. The same statement applies to all professions

 

[Punter]

Quote : Originally posted by Xplor
With 43% (if that is the figure) not being used, there isn't the same maint. required in housekeeping, unit wear and tear repairs etc. so seems reasonable to me these costs are not there. Only costs of units that are being used should be paid to up keep them. None of this should be relevant to you as you apparently haven't being paying ??? But a good theory that supports your 'everything is crooked and against 'all TS owners'. There are many quite happy owners enjoying their TS's.

Using your logic, if Northmont doesn't have to pay maintenance fees (MF) on the unused units because there is no expenses incurred then why would the TS owners have to pay MF's on the units they are not using? And why did Northmont not only charge people to relinquish their TS but they added a year's maintenance fees for a unit that wasn't going to be used.

43% is correct. Kirk Wankle should know, it's stated on his website.

 

[Just Looking Around]

Since you are apparently not part of this group and standing on the sidelines without paying into it and waiting for the judgement, 'Do it', I am sure there is an appeal case in the 'no merit' judgment.

Right. We're glad you agree. This judgement has no merit.

We only found out about this after friends of ours send us a link to the judgement. We didn't join the plaintiff's' legal group because we didn't even know it existed. We will try to join.

 

[xplor]

Right. We're glad you agree. This judgement has no merit.

We only found out about this after friends of ours send us a link to the judgement. We didn't join the plaintiff's' legal group because we didn't even know it existed. We will try to join.

I am sure


Great, do it. The ' no merit judgment' was the judgment of the court ruling. It had 'no merit' at all to it's case and not that there was no merit in this judgement aa you tried to word smith it to be. Read the judgment and you will find that it is the judgement of the court 'not merit case'. Lost case terribly.

 

[Just Looking Around]

Quote : Originally posted by Xplor
With 43% (if that is the figure) not being used, there isn't the same maint. required in housekeeping, unit wear and tear repairs etc. so seems reasonable to me these costs are not there. Only costs of units that are being used should be paid to up keep them. None of this should be relevant to you as you apparently haven't being paying ??? But a good theory that supports your 'everything is crooked and against 'all TS owners'. There are many quite happy owners enjoying their TS's.

Using your logic, if Northmont doesn't have to pay maintenance fees (MF) on the unused units because there is no expenses incurred then why would the TS owners have to pay MF's on the units they are not using? And why did Northmont not only charge people to relinquish their TS but they added a year's maintenance fees for a unit that wasn't going to be used.

43% is correct. Kirk Wankle should know, it's stated on his website.

You've made a very logical argument, and that leads to the essential question you've posed.

A friend who is a lawyer, not involved in this case, says one problem lies in the bankruptcy proceedings. He says that the court tried to allow those who loaned money to Fairmont to recover their money, which Fairmont had lost through bad investments. In doing so, it disregarded the interests of the leaseholders (TS unit holders). In the end, the plan after the bankruptcy proceedings was simple. Those who loaned Fairmont money can get their money back by charging, you guessed it, the leaseholders who had no say and no way out.

The leaseholders have no association, and that leaves them with no voice.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I swear the governments and courts are run by the construction industry and developers. They build a substandard building, road, or a condo and whistle all the way to the bank.

 

[GypsyOne]

You've made a very logical argument, and that leads to the essential question you've posed.

A friend who is a lawyer, not involved in this case, says one problem lies in the bankruptcy proceedings. He says that the court tried to allow those who loaned money to Fairmont to recover their money, which Fairmont had lost through bad investments. In doing so, it disregarded the interests of the leaseholders (TS unit holders). In the end, the plan after the bankruptcy proceedings was simple. Those who loaned Fairmont money can get their money back by charging, you guessed it, the leaseholders who had no say and no way out.

The leaseholders have no association, and that leaves them with no voice.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I swear the governments and courts are run by the construction industry and developers. They build a substandard building, road, or a condo and whistle all the way to the bank.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist, you just have to be a realist and to have observed too frequently how the system works. Where there are $multi-millions at stake, there will be influence, favors, and politics. Influence, favors, and politics can be very subtle. A word here, a suggestion there, a lunch meeting, a benefit for the right result, a veiled threat. The B.C. government does not want a major tourist attraction to fail and be sitting idle. The obvious solution is to tap into the TS owners. It is beyond comprehension that TS owners would be held responsible for fixing obviously flawed buildings not built to code. The proof is self-evident. Properly constructed buildings should have a useable lifetime of 50-60 or more years, not rendered un-useable in fifteen or so years.

 

[xplor]

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist, you just have to be a realist and to have observed too frequently how the system works. Where there are $multi-millions at stake, there will be influence, favors, and politics. Influence, favors, and politics can be very subtle. A word here, a suggestion there, a lunch meeting, a benefit for the right result, a veiled threat. The B.C. government does not want a major tourist attraction to fail and be sitting idle. The obvious solution is to tap into the TS owners. It is beyond comprehension that TS owners would be held responsible for fixing obviously flawed buildings not built to code. The proof is self-evident. Properly constructed buildings should have a useable lifetime of 50-60 or more years, not rendered un-useable in fifteen or so years.

I can see it now, those who jump on this litigation wagon. Everyone is corrupt, politicians, judges, building code inspectors, benefiting the tourist industry all played a role in the judgment. There will be followers of this theory and others that will start to question the theorists and that a democratic govt and unbiased courts decisions doesn't work, more so in their case. People are smarter than building a story around this and believe the judgment.

 

[ERW]

You've made a very logical argument, and that leads to the essential question you've posed.

A friend who is a lawyer, not involved in this case, says one problem lies in the bankruptcy proceedings. He says that the court tried to allow those who loaned money to Fairmont to recover their money, which Fairmont had lost through bad investments. In doing so, it disregarded the interests of the leaseholders (TS unit holders). In the end, the plan after the bankruptcy proceedings was simple. Those who loaned Fairmont money can get their money back by charging, you guessed it, the leaseholders who had no say and no way out.

The leaseholders have no association, and that leaves them with no voice.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I swear the governments and courts are run by the construction industry and developers. They build a substandard building, road, or a condo and whistle all the way to the bank.

I wouldn't go as far to say that the courts are run by the construction industry but they do have the money to pay for the best lawyers and accountants. Makes a huge difference when going to court.

Further to that, I think in many cases judges will side with the little guy but you have to also have to prove you have a legitimate case. Unfortunately in this case the judge did not appear to see it that way.

 

[Just Looking Around]

I can see it now, those who jump on this litigation wagon. Everyone is corrupt, politicians, judges, building code inspectors, benefiting the tourist industry all played a role in the judgment. There will be followers of this theory and others that will start to question the theorists and that a democratic govt and unbiased courts decisions doesn't work, more so in their case. People are smarter than building a story around this and believe the judgment.

Is your position that there has never been anything wrong with the buildings? Are you saying the Developer didn't get away with selling Timeshare units in buildings grievously misrepresented as having a normal useful life?

You must be the only leaseholder who is happy. No one is satisfied with the Sunchaser experience. No one is comfortable with the consequences of this Judgement.

My conclusion is you must be an individual in a unique position in this dispute.

I would like you to help me. Tell why I should be happy. I spent $20,000 on a Timeshare unit. I paid my Maintenance Fees. Now I have to pay another 40% of my original investment plus, the annual Maintenance Fees. The Maintenance Fees are being calculated differently because they can be. There's no attempt at justification. It benefits the Manager so the Manager does it. That doesn't bode well for future budgets does it?

For each of the last half-dozen years, we arrive at Sunchaser and it feels like the day after a disaster. It's lonely and cold. You can see the disrepair. The staff isn't even friendly. Calling the place is like calling your kids' school when the grade six students are answering the phones.

I never signed up to take on the onerous responsibility of backstopping a reckless Developer and incompetent Managers. Accountants like our CEO call them sunk costs and when they prove to have been ill advised you don't chase sunk costs gone bad with good money. I am not bargaining for our original investment back. But I certainly should have had the opportunity to exit.

I accept full responsibility for having made a bad investment at Sunchaser. What I don't accept responsibility for is the buildings. I also don't accept any liability for the stupid boats or any of the other ideas Fairmont gambled on with bond-holders money. That's on the bond-holders. They should have liquidated the assets when Fairmont went bankrupt rather than extort money from lease-holders who had no choice and no options. The 'pay to leave' has rightly been identified in a previous post as the tipping point. That's when this all became worthless.

When you used the metaphor of not having a 'horse in this race', you were more open than you meant to be.

 

[xplor]

Is your position that there has never been anything wrong with the buildings? Are you saying the Developer didn't get away with selling Timeshare units in buildings grievously misrepresented as having a normal useful life?

You must be the only leaseholder who is happy. No one is satisfied with the Sunchaser experience. No one is comfortable with the consequences of this Judgement.

My conclusion is you must be an individual in a unique position in this dispute.

I would like you to help me. Tell why I should be happy. I spent $20,000 on a Timeshare unit. I paid my Maintenance Fees. Now I have to pay another 40% of my original investment plus, the annual Maintenance Fees. The Maintenance Fees are being calculated differently because they can be. There's no attempt at justification. It benefits the Manager so the Manager does it. That doesn't bode well for future budgets does it?

For each of the last half-dozen years, we arrive at Sunchaser and it feels like the day after a disaster. It's lonely and cold. You can see the disrepair. The staff isn't even friendly. Calling the place is like calling your kids' school when the grade six students are answering the phones.

I never signed up to take on the onerous responsibility of backstopping a reckless Developer and incompetent Managers. Accountants like our CEO call them sunk costs and when they prove to have been ill advised you don't chase sunk costs gone bad with good money. I am not bargaining for our original investment back. But I certainly should have had the opportunity to exit.

I accept full responsibility for having made a bad investment at Sunchaser. What I don't accept responsibility for is the buildings. I also don't accept any liability for the stupid boats or any of the other ideas Fairmont gambled on with bond-holders money. That's on the bond-holders. They should have liquidated the assets when Fairmont went bankrupt rather than extort money from lease-holders who had no choice and no options. The 'pay to leave' has rightly been identified in a previous post as the tipping point. That's when this all became worthless.

When you used the metaphor of not having a 'horse in this race', you were more open than you meant to be.

If I were you, I'd be going after the guy who signed your contract without knowing everything you included here. Have him pay your way out, if out is what you want to do. my horse paid his fees.

 

[Just Looking Around]

If I were you, I'd be going after the guy who signed your contract without knowing everything you included here. Have him pay your way out, if out is what you want to do. my horse paid his fees.

I don't understand what you are trying to say; It's my fault? I said that. I signed the contract. I took full responsibility for making the bad decision to sign a lease at Sunchaser. I kissed my $20,000 Goodbye.

Do you have to ask if I want to leave? Maybe it's me or maybe it's you, but I'm surprised I haven't made myself clear.

Let me try to make this clear. I've lived up to my part of the bargain. The Developer and the Managers didn't live up to their part of the bargain. It's that simple. This fact has been lost in the myriad of details created by the litany of corporate maneuverings. Each single move taken by itself has just enough semblance of sense. But, when you look at them together, in their entirety over time, they lose their disguise, a very thin veneer of well-intentioned purpose. What's being disguised is a progressive erosion of the interests of the lease-holders in favor of the Developer and Managers. It's a continuous exploitation of the lease-holders by holding them for ransom, for as long as this fantasy role-playing game of Northmont's is allowed to continue.

Way more people have paid to leave or not paid at all, than have paid to stay. One doesn't have to be a Supreme Court Judge to understand: "THE VOTES ARE IN, SUNCHASER SUCKS!" It's conclusive; Northmont cannot successfully manage a resort property. It's self-evident in the numbers. No explanation or interpretation is necessary.

They have a contractual obligation, a fiduciary responsibility, to serve the interests of the lease-holders. They abrogated their contractual obligation. Tell me how that isn't a material breach of the contract? That is the definition of a prima facie case.

Don't feel the need to reply. I already know what you are going to say, "You won, they lost." "Read the VIA's. Read the Judgement. The Litigation Group's Lawyer did a bad job. One in four lease-holders is a lay-about just looking for a free ride." That's all you have said.

The CEO of Northmont is an accountant. It's an old joke among the squints I know; you are only one entry away from balancing. Northmont would do well to remember that. Balance and justice can be just that close.

 

[xplor]

I don't understand what you are trying to say; It's my fault? I said that. I signed the contract. I took full responsibility for making the bad decision to sign a lease at Sunchaser. I kissed my $20,000 Goodbye.

Do you have to ask if I want to leave? Maybe it's me or maybe it's you, but I'm surprised I haven't made myself clear.

Let me try to make this clear. I've lived up to my part of the bargain. The Developer and the Managers didn't live up to their part of the bargain. It's that simple. This fact has been lost in the myriad of details created by the litany of corporate maneuverings. Each single move taken by itself has just enough semblance of sense. But, when you look at them together, in their entirety over time, they lose their disguise, a very thin veneer of well-intentioned purpose. What's being disguised is a progressive erosion of the interests of the lease-holders in favor of the Developer and Managers. It's a continuous exploitation of the lease-holders by holding them for ransom, for as long as this fantasy role-playing game of Northmont's is allowed to continue. (If this is your case, I guess it is like paying anything else, buyer beware what you are buying and signing)Way more people have paid to leave or not paid at all, than have paid to stay. One doesn't have to be a Supreme Court Judge to understand: "THE VOTES ARE IN, SUNCHASER SUCKS!" (your opinion)It's conclusive; Northmont cannot successfully manage a resort property.(these issue started long before Northmont took over the mess. They were simply the deliverer of the news of the resort and the solutions only. It seems to me it is them that are managing the issues properly and well as should have been before they took in bankruptcy.) It's self-evident in the numbers. No explanation or interpretation is necessary.[/COLOR]

They have a contractual obligation, a fiduciary responsibility, to serve the interests of the lease-holders. They abrogated their contractual obligation. Tell me how that isn't a material breach of the contract? That is the definition of a prima facie case. (tell me how it is, the judge didn't think it was)
Don't feel the need to reply. I already know what you are going to say, "You won, they lost." "Read the VIA's. Read the Judgement. The Litigation Group's Lawyer did a bad job. One in four lease-holders is a lay-about just looking for a free ride." That's all you have said. (you said it, I didn't have to)The CEO of Northmont is an accountant. It's an old joke among the squints I know; you are only one entry away from balancing. Northmont would do well to remember that. Balance and justice can be just that close.

...............................

 

[xplor]

I don't understand what you are trying to say; It's my fault? I said that. I signed the contract. I took full responsibility for making the bad decision to sign a lease at Sunchaser. I kissed my $20,000 Goodbye.

Do you have to ask if I want to leave? Maybe it's me or maybe it's you, but I'm surprised I haven't made myself clear.

Let me try to make this clear. I've lived up to my part of the bargain. The Developer and the Managers didn't live up to their part of the bargain. It's that simple. This fact has been lost in the myriad of details created by the litany of corporate maneuverings. Each single move taken by itself has just enough semblance of sense. But, when you look at them together, in their entirety over time, they lose their disguise, a very thin veneer of well-intentioned purpose. What's being disguised is a progressive erosion of the interests of the lease-holders in favor of the Developer and Managers. It's a continuous exploitation of the lease-holders by holding them for ransom, for as long as this fantasy role-playing game of Northmont's is allowed to continue. (If this is your case, I guess it is like paying anything else, buyer beware what you are buying and signing)Way more people have paid to leave or not paid at all, than have paid to stay. One doesn't have to be a Supreme Court Judge to understand: "THE VOTES ARE IN, SUNCHASER SUCKS!" (your opinion)It's conclusive; Northmont cannot successfully manage a resort property.(these issue started long before Northmont took over the mess. They were simply the deliverer of the news of the resort and the solutions only. It seems to me it is them that are managing the issues properly and well as should have been before they took in bankruptcy.) It's self-evident in the numbers. No explanation or interpretation is necessary.[/COLOR]

They have a contractual obligation, a fiduciary responsibility, to serve the interests of the lease-holders. They abrogated their contractual obligation. Tell me how that isn't a material breach of the contract? That is the definition of a prima facie case. (tell me how it is, the judge didn't think it was)
Don't feel the need to reply. I already know what you are going to say, "You won, they lost." "Read the VIA's. Read the Judgement. The Litigation Group's Lawyer did a bad job. One in four lease-holders is a lay-about just looking for a free ride." That's all you have said. (you said it, I didn't have to)The CEO of Northmont is an accountant. It's an old joke among the squints I know; you are only one entry away from balancing. Northmont would do well to remember that. Balance and justice can be just that close.

...............................