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

[Real World]

Timeshare FAQ

The following is copy of a Timeshare FAQ.

"What is the downside to owning a timeshare?

You must continue to pay the yearly maintenance fee, which can increase over the lifetime of the resort, whether you use it or not.

You could be required to pay additional "special assessments" arising from unexpected costs of maintaining or repairing the resort.

Some people feel that owning a timeshare requires excessive advanced planning in attempts to reserve a popular floating week or to obtain a good exchange week. Planning a timeshare vacation a year in advance is not unusual.

The majority of concerns with timeshare ownership seems to center around dealing with cost and interaction with exchange companies. It's often not the straightforward process the timeshare sales staff would have you believe."

Can any TS owners outside of Sunchaser comment on what their TS Agreements say regarding "special assessments"?

 

[GypsyOne]

The following is copy of a Timeshare FAQ.

"What is the downside to owning a timeshare?

You must continue to pay the yearly maintenance fee, which can increase over the lifetime of the resort, whether you use it or not.

You could be required to pay additional "special assessments" arising from unexpected costs of maintaining or repairing the resort.

Some people feel that owning a timeshare requires excessive advanced planning in attempts to reserve a popular floating week or to obtain a good exchange week. Planning a timeshare vacation a year in advance is not unusual.

The majority of concerns with timeshare ownership seems to center around dealing with cost and interaction with exchange companies. It's often not the straightforward process the timeshare sales staff would have you believe."

Can any TS owners outside of Sunchaser comment on what their TS Agreements say regarding "special assessments"?

My Lease agreement makes no mention of special assessments, except for when me or my guests negligently damages the property. My lease says only that I am proportionately responsible for maintenance and repair (the Operating Costs). My lease along with all the other early agreements, makes no mention of capital costs, or costs associated with replacement of deteriorating capital structure, whether due to faulty construction, not following building code, not following generally accepted industry standards for construction, or for any other reason. Northmont, realizing the lease agreements were problematic to having the TS owners rebuild the failing buildings, had a campaign shortly after they took over to convert all the leases to co-ownership agreements (Legacy for Life) in which they added the clause "responsible for capital costs." Clearly they were worried about the lease agreements not including capital costs, so they offered the "exciting new plan" (at a price) which on the surface looked good, only if you didn't realize you were now on the hook for capital reconstruction of failing buildings. And as you were now a co-owner, that responsibility would last into perpetuity. In other words, from now on and for evermore, you are responsible for replacement of the buildings to keep the complex a functioning modern resort facility. But, you do not share in the revenue of the complex, you do not own a share in the event of sale of the complex, and you do not have a voice in management. You are an owner only for financial responsibility, not for financial benefit. Those that took the bait and converted, claim misrepresentation and that critical information was omitted.

My lease agreement is for a fixed forty-year term. At the end of forty years I walk away with no residual value. But Fitzpatrick's flawed ruling says that if the managers ask me for a proportionate share of, say, a $20 million upgrade in year 39, I have to pony up, even though I will get no value.

Fitzpatrick makes no distinction between the lease agreements and the co-ownership agreements. She makes her ruling on the basis of the Agreement that is most favourable to Northmont, which is the converted co-ownership agreements, and jumps to the conclusion that all you TS owners are in the same boat. And she is the one who regularly says you must follow the wording of the contract. Fitzpatrick regularly confuses the rights and responsibilities of lessees with the rights and responsibilities of owners (or co-owners). How many people in the civilized, everyday, work-a-day world think if you are a lessee, or tenant, that you are responsible for replacing the roof on the apartment block? I would say about zero. The lessee is responsible only for paying rent, and the lessor has an implied contractual responsibility to provide habitable accommodation. Fitzpatrick seems to live in an alternate universe.

My lease provides a formula for settlement in the event I default on paying maintenance. Basically, the formula says that on default I forfeit my timeshare and I am reimbursed for 25% of my original cost for the remaining time on the lease. Of course, Northmont says that that is a permissive clause, that they do not have to use that formula, but instead they rule that the defaulting TS owner not only forfeits remaining time on the lease, but also pays an arbitrarily determined lump sum of money. And of course Fitzpatrick says in effect, "yeah I'm good with that, sounds reasonable to me." Seems that there is, or there should be, consumer protection legislation that protects the consumer against misleading clauses in contracts. Every TS owner that bought a timeshare and read the contract would say that that clause provides the remedy in the event of default. Every timeshare salesman, if asked, would have confirmed the same thing. Where is the consumer protection?

Sort of like if you bought a new car for say $20,000, and shortly after purchase the wheels start falling off, nothing works, the electronics are all screwed up. In a normal world, it's easy to draw the conclusion that it was a faultily built car, that the purchaser did not get what was contracted for, that the remedy is to give the purchaser the option of returning the car for a full refund, or providing the purchaser with a car built to normal contractual standards. But in the Northmont/Fitzpatrick Alice in Wonderland world, you give the faulty car back, plus a sum of money to bring the car up to standard so the dealership can resell the car to another client at full price.

Fitzpatrick has in effect awarded Northmont a blank cheque to have the TS owners reconstruct, upgrade, and remodel faulty buildings forever more. A hundred years from now, those or their heirs with a co-ownership agreement could be asked to pay for resort infrastructure reconstruction. Mercifully, those with a forty-year lease agreement will only be screwed for the remaining term of their forty-year leases.

I wondered from the beginning whether we could get justice in a B.C. court. I am still wondering. The B.C. government does not want a failed major tourist attraction on their hands. So much easier to hit up the TS owners, who may live well beyond the B.C. borders, for the capital required to keep the resort functioning.

Going by the previous successful appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal, we stand a better chance in the higher court. This case screams out for justice. Court sanctioned scams should not be allowed to stand in Canada.

 

[pdoff]

Right on GypsyOne - we have the some issues exactly

 

[T-Dot-Traveller]

HOW ABOUT STARTING A CROWD SOURCING FUNDRAISER - for legal appeal

*************

HERE ARE MY COMMENTS AS A NON - OWNER
HOW ABOUT CROWD SOURCING - to help pay for the legal appeal


I have followed this thread occasionally / and more often since the judge's
ruling. It interests me as a Canadian and as a TS owner of RTU - non deeded
contracts.

I would suggest a crowd sourcing fundraiser - with TUG Brian' input
via either a link or some other format to publicize to the TS community .

an additional thought - since the product. ( a timeshare ) was marketed to a North American customer base is it possible that legally it must "comply" with NAFTA etc.
We have seen / heard in Canada that the Great Lakes water and agriculture marketing boards must comply to NAFTA and other international trade laws .

I certainly would contribute a small amount to help fund a legal case that helps to make sure some Mexican judge does not decide that my RTU TS / my choice to renew and a pay on use only MF - does not become a "in perpetuity TS with mandatory MF "

Thanks

 

[Just Looking Around]

*************

HERE ARE MY COMMENTS AS A NON - OWNER
HOW ABOUT CROWD SOURCING - to help pay for the legal appeal


I have followed this thread occasionally / and more often since the judge's
ruling. It interests me as a Canadian and as a TS owner of RTU - non deeded
contracts.

I would suggest a crowd sourcing fundraiser - with TUG Brian' input
via either a link or some other format to publicize to the TS community .

an additional thought - since the product. ( a timeshare ) was marketed to a North American customer base is it possible that legally it must "comply" with NAFTA etc.
We have seen / heard in Canada that the Great Lakes water and agriculture marketing boards must comply to NAFTA and other international trade laws .

I certainly would contribute a small amount to help fund a legal case that helps to make sure some Mexican judge does not decide that my RTU TS / my choice to renew and a pay on use only MF - does not become a "in perpetuity TS with mandatory MF "

Thanks

That's is a great idea. My first thought is the litigation group's lawyer. They can handle any subsequent account and he would be the logical focus point of contract and dissemination of information relevant to this litigation group. And, that would really annoy xplor.

 

[mmchili]

Here is an interesting read about time shares that appeared in the New York Times. There are some similarities to Sunchaser. Just hope that Diamond does not end up buying Sunchaser when Northmont decides to sell it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/b...using-hard-sell-to-push-time-shares.html?_r=1

 

[Real World]

Thanks for your thoughts GypsyOne but I was wondering what Timeshare Agreements from resorts other than Sunchaser say in regards to 'special assessments"

Was the appeal of the Justice Loo decision successful based on procedural grounds as opposed to errors in decisions?

 

[Just Looking Around]

Nice Try.

Thanks for your thoughts GypsyOne but I was wondering what Timeshare Agreements from resorts other than Sunchaser say in regards to 'special assessments"

Was the appeal of the Justice Loo decision successful based on procedural grounds as opposed to errors in decisions?

I'm not sure you can distinguish why Justice Loo's decision was overturned on Appeal. Wouldn't a procedural error invalidate any subsequent judgement? Fruit of a poisoned tree, so to speak.

Excuse my suspicious nature but this thread consists of basically two types of Posters. One is a TS Owner at Sunchaser who is outraged at Northwynd's management of the property; and, since the bankruptcy proceedings, their failure to respect the TS Owners' interests and the implied intent of the Property to profit off of those TS Owners. The other is ostensibly Northwynd itself. At least, they might as well be, based on their posts.

I am suspicious when a frequent poster who continually sides with Northwynd's position is suspended and, on the heels of that, a new Poster joins the group. A new Poster who, asks an innocuous question that clearly belongs on another thread. The Poster then asks a question displaying detailed knowledge of the history of this case.

If you are going to say a lot of timeshare leases at other properties have Special Assessment Clauses and, we are obligated to pay our maintenance fees and assessment for the life of our lease, save it. If you are going to say that Justice Loo was right, her decision was only overturned on Appeal because of a technicality, save that too.

Now that's in the open, welcome. At least, your grammar is much improved over the last Northwynd sympathiser. If that is the case. We'll see soon enough.

 

[Punter]

[/COLOR

At least, your grammar is much improved over the last Northwynd sympathiser.

That's almost as good as the "grade 6 kids answering the phones at Sunchaser" comment. Well done! I'm glad you found this forum.

 

[Quadmaniac]

Thanks for your thoughts GypsyOne but I was wondering what Timeshare Agreements from resorts other than Sunchaser say in regards to 'special assessments"

Was the appeal of the Justice Loo decision successful based on procedural grounds as opposed to errors in decisions?

It doesn't really matter what other resorts say in their agreements, the only relevance is what is this agreement. Bottom line it was overturned and so will this last decision.

 

[Real World]

I'm not sure you can distinguish why Justice Loo's decision was overturned on Appeal. Wouldn't a procedural error invalidate any subsequent judgement? Fruit of a poisoned tree, so to speak.

Excuse my suspicious nature but this thread consists of basically two types of Posters. One is a TS Owner at Sunchaser who is outraged at Northwynd's management of the property; and, since the bankruptcy proceedings, their failure to respect the TS Owners' interests and the implied intent of the Property to profit off of those TS Owners. The other is ostensibly Northwynd itself. At least, they might as well be, based on their posts.

I am suspicious when a frequent poster who continually sides with Northwynd's position is suspended and, on the heels of that, a new Poster joins the group. A new Poster who, asks an innocuous question that clearly belongs on another thread. The Poster then asks a question displaying detailed knowledge of the history of this case.

If you are going to say a lot of timeshare leases at other properties have Special Assessment Clauses and, we are obligated to pay our maintenance fees and assessment for the life of our lease, save it. If you are going to say that Justice Loo was right, her decision was only overturned on Appeal because of a technicality, save that too.

Now that's in the open, welcome. At least, your grammar is much improved over the last Northwynd sympathiser. If that is the case. We'll see soon enough.

If you don't know why Justice Loo's decision was successfully appealed that is ok Just Looking Around. I will track down the Appeal decision and review it.

I do think you are being a little paranoid with your suspicions and would hope you would wait for a controversial post before getting your pitchfork out.

Telling someone what comments are acceptable "save that too" is also a little rude I think.

I am glad though you approve of my grammar.

 

[Real World]

It doesn't really matter what other resorts say in their agreements, the only relevance is what is this agreement. Bottom line it was overturned and so will this last decision.

Thanks for your assistance Quadmaniac. Hopefully I can get my answers elsewhere.

 

[GypsyOne]

Thanks for your assistance Quadmaniac. Hopefully I can get my answers elsewhere.

Nice try, but it's not working.

 

[Quadmaniac]

Thanks for your assistance Quadmaniac. Hopefully I can get my answers elsewhere.

Let's say other resorts allow for special assessments, are you able to use this in court even though it's contract has nothing to do with from Sunchasers ? Let's say it doesn't, again is this applicable in court against another contract ? Both cases no, as you have to go by what the terms of the contract is in this situation specifically and how it is spelled out. Its like saying in some jurisdictions you can talk on your cell phone while driving and some you can't. This one disallows it, but since it is acceptable in other parts, I'm going to appeal my ticket for distracted driving based upon another jurisdiction's rules. Makes no sense, as the court are going to rule based upon what is applicable under your jurisdiction.

Justice Loo errored in procedure as she did not apply the law as it was supposed to be and made a judgement without considering all the moving parts and the requirements as specified for procedural proceedings as defined by the courts as what proceedings are used in what applications. Again, how does that impact the present ?

My question is if you have these answers, how does that change the current situation one way or another ? Of what strategic significance is either of these two questions for what is occurring now ?

 

[Real World]

Let's say other resorts allow for special assessments, are you able to use this in court even though it's contract has nothing to do with from Sunchasers ? Let's say it doesn't, again is this applicable in court against another contract ? Both cases no, as you have to go by what the terms of the contract is in this situation specifically and how it is spelled out. Its like saying in some jurisdictions you can talk on your cell phone while driving and some you can't. This one disallows it, but since it is acceptable in other parts, I'm going to appeal my ticket for distracted driving based upon another jurisdiction's rules. Makes no sense, as the court are going to rule based upon what is applicable under your jurisdiction.

Justice Loo errored in procedure as she did not apply the law as it was supposed to be and made a judgement without considering all the moving parts and the requirements as specified for procedural proceedings as defined by the courts as what proceedings are used in what applications. Again, how does that impact the present ?

My question is if you have these answers, how does that change the current situation one way or another ? Of what strategic significance is either of these two questions for what is occurring now ?

I asked the questions solely for my benefit and the answers do not change the current situation at all. There is no strategic significance for what is occurring now but I think the issues will surface down the road.

In any event the weather is great and it is time for me to focus on golf.

Take care.

 

[ERW]

Let's say other resorts allow for special assessments, are you able to use this in court even though it's contract has nothing to do with from Sunchasers ? Let's say it doesn't, again is this applicable in court against another contract ? Both cases no, as you have to go by what the terms of the contract is in this situation specifically and how it is spelled out. Its like saying in some jurisdictions you can talk on your cell phone while driving and some you can't. This one disallows it, but since it is acceptable in other parts, I'm going to appeal my ticket for distracted driving based upon another jurisdiction's rules. Makes no sense, as the court are going to rule based upon what is applicable under your jurisdiction.

Justice Loo errored in procedure as she did not apply the law as it was supposed to be and made a judgement without considering all the moving parts and the requirements as specified for procedural proceedings as defined by the courts as what proceedings are used in what applications. Again, how does that impact the present ?

My question is if you have these answers, how does that change the current situation one way or another ? Of what strategic significance is either of these two questions for what is occurring now ?

I agree with you on the first point - other contracts from other timeshares have no bearing in this case as other contracts will likely be worded differently and cannot be compared directly. However, some judges will look at the "spirit" of the contract to determine the ultimate meaning of it.

However, as far as Justice Loo's decision and subsequent overturning of that decision, I think what the poster was trying to say is that even though the decision was overturned, the decision itself was not in favour of the timeshare owners. The decision was overturned because of a procedural issue, not because of her final decision. That being said, this most recent decision was not in favour of the timeshare owners as well. So two Justices have, in essence, ruled in favour of Northmont (despite one decision having been overturned).

My only suggestion then is that some (to help spread the cost of that review) of the participating timeshare owners should perhaps take all the info you have (contracts and other documents) as well as the most recent decision and get another lawyer's opinion before pushing ahead with an appeal. I hate to see people jumping on a bandwagon and doing something that is just going to cost more money and ultimately, if the appeal is lost or not even heard, having to still pay Northmont what is owed plus interest or having their credit affected to their detriment. Another point to consider is that if an appeal is heard and found in Northmont's favour again, this time the Justice will likely award costs to Northmont as well. Northmont's lawyers will not be cheap and that cost could be significant.

And before someone accuses me of being a Northmont supporter, please reconsider. I am trying to be objective in this and proceeding cautiously with eyes open would be a wise move. All of this legal crapola can be a spider web which most of us do not fully understand.

 

[Quadmaniac]

My only suggestion then is that some (to help spread the cost of that review) of the participating timeshare owners should perhaps take all the info you have (contracts and other documents) as well as the most recent decision and get another lawyer's opinion before pushing ahead with an appeal. I hate to see people jumping on a bandwagon and doing something that is just going to cost more money and ultimately, if the appeal is lost or not even heard, having to still pay Northmont what is owed plus interest or having their credit affected to their detriment. Another point to consider is that if an appeal is heard and found in Northmont's favour again, this time the Justice will likely award costs to Northmont as well. Northmont's lawyers will not be cheap and that cost could be significant.

Nothing wrong with getting a second opinion but I don't think you are looking at the other side of the coin. If you let this go the way it is, these thieves get millions of dollars and can sell the resort for even more to line their pockets. In the event that we do nothing, Northmont has a blank cheque to take whatever they want as the judge is giving them free reign.

Even if it is a losing battle, I would rather spend the money fighting and tying it up in court than give them one dime. They are crooks pure and simple.

Lets just do simple math, the reno fee was $4000 per annual deed x 52 weeks is $208,000 per unit. I can buy a 1000 sq ft two bedroom condo brand new. How can a reno cost more than a brand new condo when they are not rebuilding the whole thing and they aren't paying for the land ? Come on....

Even if it costs a bit of money, I'm going to do what is RIGHT to protect myself and others from this injustice. Sometimes its worth fighting for PRINCIPLES.....Are you going to lie down and be steamrolled by a bully ? I'm not.

 

[SentimentalLady]

We can't let them get away with this

I see we have a few new people joining our group of disgruntled lessees. Some only recently found this page on behalf of their parents - who are not internet-savvy, and others – who paid to stay and now are NOT happy to read in the decision that they will be on the hook for all capital costs for 40 years. I’m not sure that ‘Welcome’ is the appropriate term, but you know what I mean.

It has troubled me greatly that Northmont used our inability to communicate with one another against us. I asked about forming a lessees’ group right after they took over and the manager said they hoped to do that. And nothing happened. I asked 20 years ago, too. And both those times were before there were problems.

I wonder if any paid-to-stay people might feel up to agitating for Northmont to form a group NOW. If they will form a group, all lessees can at least be made aware of the existence of our litigation group and make their own choice about joining us or not. If Northmont deliberately chooses again to not form a group, I can think of why that would be all kinds of a wrong decision – and one that could be used against them.

Here’s the math…..at the end of October 2015, of about 14,500 families involved:
32% paid (4640)
43% cancelled (6235)
25% delinquent/objecting (3625)
It sure says something when fewer than 1/3 of lessees supported Northmont’s proposal of how to move forward. Some ongoing direct communication among lessees would have been desirable in the years leading up to this mess.

So if we take away the 43% who cancelled, because they are gone and FINISHED, that means the current crop of lessees is made up of the following:
56% paid to stay (4640)
44% delinquent/objecting (3625)

Those of us with the Geldert litigation group know how large a proportion we make up of that 3625 delinquent/objecting. And now we even have some joining us from the ‘paid to stay’ group!

I’d sure like to see another public push made to find the rest of the ‘delinquent’ lessees….those who think they are alone in fighting Northmont’s plans that are to the detriment of all lessees.

Maybe put it out there on social media…. “Do you know someone – maybe your parents – who bought a timeshare at Fairmont and are now unhappy? If they are not internet-savvy, they may not know about the litigation group. Have them contact me (yourself) for information about this option.”

 

[ERW]

Nothing wrong with getting a second opinion but I don't think you are looking at the other side of the coin. If you let this go the way it is, these thieves get millions of dollars and can sell the resort for even more to line their pockets. In the event that we do nothing, Northmont has a blank cheque to take whatever they want as the judge is giving them free reign.

Even if it is a losing battle, I would rather spend the money fighting and tying it up in court than give them one dime. They are crooks pure and simple.

Lets just do simple math, the reno fee was $4000 per annual deed x 52 weeks is $208,000 per unit. I can buy a 1000 sq ft two bedroom condo brand new. How can a reno cost more than a brand new condo when they are not rebuilding the whole thing and they aren't paying for the land ? Come on....

Even if it costs a bit of money, I'm going to do what is RIGHT to protect myself and others from this injustice. Sometimes its worth fighting for PRINCIPLES.....Are you going to lie down and be steamrolled by a bully ? I'm not.

Our opinions don't differ a great deal, just our approach. And I'm not saying throw in the towel and give up. Just consider every option available to you. While principles are worth fighting for, if you are fighting a losing battle, sometimes you have to reconsider your options. All I am saying is consult a different lawyer to see if an appeal is worth pursuing. If you don't like that lawyer's opinion, seek out another opinion if you like. But at a certain point you need to put some logic into the argument and decide how much your principles are worth.

I went through a similar situation with a former employer. After 5 years, we settled out of court. Got most of what I was owed but by then a good portion went to my lawyer in fees. If I had stuck to my principles, I would have gone to court. My lawyer, however, explained court is always a gamble.

I wish you luck but please consider all the options. And don't let a lawyer get you all gung-ho and tell you that you will win. No one, absolutely no one, can make that claim with any certainty.

 

[Quadmaniac]

Our opinions don't differ a great deal, just our approach. And I'm not saying throw in the towel and give up. Just consider every option available to you. While principles are worth fighting for, if you are fighting a losing battle, sometimes you have to reconsider your options. All I am saying is consult a different lawyer to see if an appeal is worth pursuing. If you don't like that lawyer's opinion, seek out another opinion if you like. But at a certain point you need to put some logic into the argument and decide how much your principles are worth.

I went through a similar situation with a former employer. After 5 years, we settled out of court. Got most of what I was owed but by then a good portion went to my lawyer in fees. If I had stuck to my principles, I would have gone to court. My lawyer, however, explained court is always a gamble.

I wish you luck but please consider all the options. And don't let a lawyer get you all gung-ho and tell you that you will win. No one, absolutely no one, can make that claim with any certainty.

I'm fully aware of the risks and yes it is absolutely worth the risk. I work with lawyers on a regular basis on business deals and I've had to take people to court before as well, so I'm very well versed with what goes on in court. Here is the thing in this case specifically, with the number of people in the suit, our actual cost is minimal to fight it and even if we theoretically lose, it will also deplete Northmont's resources over time both from the lack of revenue and expenditures in fighting the case. We know they can't fight it forever either as they want to bail as soon as possible while there is still money in the coffers to steal before declaring bankruptcy.

After the case, they would have to chase each leaseholder in small claims court to get a judgement against each individual, which takes more time and the courts will not allow for their interest penalties so already it will a lot less than what they are trying to claim as the balance. You cannot claim 30% interest as they are. If you've ever gone to court and tried to collect, you would know that it is difficult to collect from people even if you have a judgement. I would guarantee you I would not make it easy for them to collect as they will have to beat it out of me. For me, the battle is well worth the effort

 

[Quadmaniac]

FYI - this is IF they are able to win the appeal and they come after someone in small claims court, these are the interest rates that would apply to any debt that is owed to them. They can not charge whatever interest they want to try and force you to settle with them.

ALBERTA REGULATION 215/2011
Judgment Interest Act
JUDGMENT INTEREST REGULATION
Calculation of interest
1 For the purposes of section 4 of the Judgment Interest Act,
(a) the interest rate from January 1, 1993 to December 31,
1993 is prescribed at 6% per year;
(b) the interest rate from January 1, 1994 to December 31,
1994 is prescribed at 4.5% per year;
(c) the interest rate from January 1, 1995 to December 31,
1995 is prescribed at 5.25% per year;
(d) the interest rate from January 1, 1996 to December 31,
1996 is prescribed at 5.5% per year;
(e) the interest rate from January 1, 1997 to December 31,
1997 is prescribed at 3.5% per year;
(f) the interest rate from January 1, 1998 to December 31,
1998 is prescribed at 3.5% per year;
(g) the interest rate from January 1, 1999 to December 31,
1999 is prescribed at 4% per year;
(h) the interest rate from January 1, 2000 to December 31,
2000 is prescribed at 6.25% per year;
(i) the interest rate from January 1, 2001 to December 31,
2001 is 6.25% per year;
(j) the interest rate from January 1, 2002 to December 31,
2002 is prescribed at 5.25% per year;
(k) the interest rate from January 1, 2003 to December 31,
2003 is prescribed at 4.5% per year;
(l) the interest rate from January 1, 2004 to December 31,
2004 is prescribed at 3.75% per year;
(m) the interest rate from January 1, 2005 to December 31,
2005 is prescribed at 3.40% per year;
Section 2 AR 215/2011
JUDGMENT INTEREST REGULATION
2
the interest rate from January 1, 2006 to December 31,
2006 is prescribed at 3.50% per year;
(o) the interest rate from January 1, 2007 to December 31,
2007 is prescribed at 4% per year;
(p) the interest rate from January 1, 2008 to December 31,
2008 is prescribed at 4.25% per year;
(q) the interest rate from January 1, 2009 to December 31,
2009 is prescribed at 2.75% per year;
(r) the interest rate from January 1, 2010 to December 31,
2010 is prescribed at 0.825% per year;
(s) the interest rate from January 1, 2011 to December 31,
2011 is prescribed at 1.85% per year;
(t) the interest rate from January 1, 2012 to December 31,
2012 is prescribed as 1.20% per year;
(u) the interest rate from January 1, 2013 to December 31,
2013 is prescribed at 1.40% per year;
(v) the interest rate from January 1, 2014 to December 31,
2014 is prescribed at 1.10% per year;
(w) the interest rate from January 1, 2015 to December 31,
2015 is prescribed at 1.05% per year;
(x) the interest rate from January 1, 2016 to December 31,
2016 is prescribed at 0.55% per year.

 

[Anxiety123]

Quadmaniac - Very Interesting....and Thank You

You know I did wonder if they could actually charge for the reno interest at a rate of 29 percent from 2013 when the judgement on whether they could charge us the reno fee at all was in 2016. Many said NO. That equates to around $2900 in my case. So with this information you have given us just confirms information I was given from another source about the interest being charged as a whole and what the courts will actually allow them to charge. And if we do get a judgement that they are not allowed to charge reno interest until 2016, this would be a great savings. Thank you so much for it. My decision is starting to sway strongly to continuing fighting them for a reasonable settlement.

 

[Quadmaniac]

You know I did wonder if they could actually charge for the reno interest at a rate of 29 percent from 2013 when the judgement on whether they could charge us the reno fee at all was in 2016. Many said NO. That equates to around $2900 in my case. So with this information you have given us just confirms information I was given from another source about the interest being charged as a whole and what the courts will actually allow them to charge. And if we do get a judgement that they are not allowed to charge reno interest until 2016, this would be a great savings. Thank you so much for it. My decision is starting to sway strongly to continuing fighting them for a reasonable settlement.

It's a long long hard road before Northmont will ever see money and people have to see that.

1. They have to fight and win the appeal which I estimate will take 3 years till a decision will be rendered

2. They would have to then sue each deed owner one by one and win there. If they do the judgement will be for far less than the amount "owed"
a) Interest is not 30%, its 1%
b) In the case, Northmont argues that they can charge themselves a reduced rate as they would not be using the units they own. By that same argument, those who did not pay should have that same option as Northmont DECIDED that if you don't pay the reno fee, you can't use your unit, so essentially depriving you of the ability to use your unit. As they have control over it and there is no way an owner could have used it, it cost the resort less and maintenance fee should be the same as what they allowed themselves. Read the portion of the case where Wankel says no owner had asked for a reduced fee. In this case they KNEW it would not be used as they were not allowing it so they did not have the same expenses of maintaining the unit during those years.
c) I would even advance the argument that I should not be responsible for the MF as THEY prevented me from using my unit even though I was willing to pay and use the resort during this disagreement. As they withheld the usage, it frustrated the situation and they did not mitigate their losses by allowing me to pay and use the unit when that could have been done. As a result I did not get 3 years usage when there is no reasonable reason why I could not if I paid the MF and used it while we dispute the reno fee. As they deprived me of usage, if I paid for it, I still would not get the 3 yrs usage that I would paid for.

These would be the items I would be pointing out to a judge and it would impact any decision in small claims court. The lower courts are not obligated to go by the decision of the upper court if they feel the upper court did not have the ruling right.

AFTER all of this, if they are successful through all of these hurdles, they still have to collect.

The problem is that too many are thinking it is "a slam dunk" for Northmont, they won this battle but they haven't won the war. Settlement is not even in my radar at this point, it is still on appealing the idiotic decision. Just as Loo's decision was overturned, so can this one.

 

[SentimentalLady]

All REALLY good points, and I particularly like 'C'.

When this all started, we had already paid the maintenance fee and booked for June - and they put it in writing that if people hadn't paid to stay or paid to go, they risked being turned away at check-in.

First, that was not fair to everyone who had already paid their maintenance fee, but had not used their time yet that year, nor deposited it with Interval. Anyone who did so before May 31 was fine.

Second, while Northmont may claim that they did not turn people away (I don't know.....did they turn anyone away who had already paid that year's fees?), they clearly threatened to do so.

I don't know about the rest of you, but we had a family gathering planned for our first week, and had given the unit to friends for the second week. We couldn't afford two days of travel, only to risk being turned away at check-in! And then what to do with the rest of our week off work? There was no money for a week at another resort - even if we could find one! Same with all the rest of the family! And our friends who were going the second week?!

We were bullied into doing what Northmont wanted, with such short notice that there were no good choices for us. And it never even would have occurred to me to make the 'C' argument in the following years, because it was clear that they had all the power and we were at their mercy.

 

[Just Looking Around]

However, as far as Justice Loo's decision and subsequent overturning of that decision, I think what the poster was trying to say is that even though the decision was overturned, the decision itself was not in favour of the timeshare owners. The decision was overturned because of a procedural issue, not because of her final decision.

That is categorically not correct. It was not a mere procedural error.

I am very suspicious of any mention of the Litigation Group needing a new lawyer. First of all, remember there are two law firms involved. That's what, probably 5 or 6 lawyers? Despite your view that this legal team lost two decisions that's not an indictment of their abilities. You cannot blame them for Loo's decision, that was overturned.
I believe the problem is legislation hasn't caught up to the ways of timeshare developers and management companies. Plus, courts having a difficult time understanding the myriad of issues and the subtle impacts the Developers and Management Companies legal manoeuvres have had cumulatively on TS Owners.
Fitzpatrick's decision is pathetically devoid of any consideration whatsoever of the interests of the TS Owners. "If not them, then who?" WTF!!! She didn't hold the Lessor accountable for any obligations they originally brought to the contractual relationship.
My quick review tells me the real problem for us was born out of the bankruptcy proceedings. Again, there, the interests of TS Owners was completely ignored. Northmont said in those proceedings they were going to make money for the Trust. If I remember they said 90% of the revenues were going to go to the Trust. Who were they going to make that money from? Only one possible source, TS Owners. The assets should have been liquidated. TS Owners were given no opportunity to express their desires. Northmont had an obligation then, under our contract (VIAs) to do things that were in the collective interests of the TS Owners.

Don't forget as one reads over this thread there were at least four law firms involved originally. Why these two prevailed, I don't know. But they did and that speaks loudly for their background knowledge and understanding of the issues, the legislation and the law. Bringing a new law firm up to speed would be virtually impossible for a group as widely dispersed as the Litigation Group. Too much time and too much money would be necessary.

No siree. Like grandpa said, "You dance with who brung ya." Glad he's no longer around, by-the-way. He'd just consider them horse thieves, as he did anyone who crossed him. He'd have had his justice by now. Ours will take a little longer, that's all.