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

[Anxiety123]

Maint Paid but Use Denied

Yes, I have a friend that definitely paid her Maint. for that summer but was not going to pay either of the fees to stay or leave until she found out if they were able to charge them legally and she "DID" get denied use of her week. She always paid a year in advance and booked her week early, all set to go but was told not until she pays to stay or leave.

Can someone tell me where in the contracts is there a provision for if a timeshare owner wanted to cancel their
contract. What formula was used to calculate what would be owed. Or were we always and forever tied to the resort for the 40 years? For as much as I don't want to pay Northmont another penny, if I was offered the rate of 2013, I would probably cut my losses and get out. But by making the offers excessive and in this economy out of reach for many, they are forcing our hand to continue on fighting. No other way out.

 

[Tacoma]

I also want to thank Quadmaniac for the information on interest rates. I have been ill over the bill I was presented with. If it is true that once a settlement comes down this is the interest rate we may actually pay less than the extortion they are requesting now. I do know that I do not want this group to get any more money from the TS owners. My bill was over $14000 because of how they are charging interest and of course the maintenance fees of all years this has been disputed. They don't pay maintenance fees but those of us who are not able to use the resort keep getting billed for all years. Wow!

Like many of us I don't need much credit at this stage in my life. If they were ever attempting to be fair this bill with this interest rate must prove that they are only in it for one thing. It will be a very long time until they get money from me. I also stay strong through my belief in Karma. I have paid the lawyer from the very start. Money spent to keep this group from getting access to cash is money well spent.

:annoyed:

 

[ERW]

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

I don't know what you are reading but the basic reason for the reversal of the decision was that Justice Loo has allowed the litigation to be considered as a "special case", while the appeals court reversed that. There was no mention that Justice Loo's decision was not sound. So unfortunately, you are categorically incorrect.

 

[Quadmaniac]

As I said, it's still a long road and if they can jump the hurdles and get to small claims court, they won't get their interest nor their maintenance fees in my opinion. Worse case if we theoretically lose an appeal, they will have to justify their bill and it won't be what they have brought forward.

I'm staying the course and going with our legal team. Northmont benefits by creating doubt in the group hoping to divide and conquer with suggesting she of changing legal teams, rethinking appeal,etc etc. It's pretty evident, even with a "judgement at hand" they're acting pretty desperate to get things settled.

 

[mmchili]

Quadmaniac - Interest

I'm not accepting what you seem to be implying. Firstly, the TS Agreement specifically spells out the interest that can be charged when in arrears. Secondly, it is wrong to take one section of a regulation or one section of an Act by itself. Here are portions of the Act that are relevant to the charging of interest when a judgment has been obtained.

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/J01.pdf

JUDGMENT INTEREST ACT
Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000
Chapter J-1

Current as of January 1, 2002

Award of interest

2(1) Where a person obtains a judgment for the payment of money
or a judgment that money is owing, the court shall award interest in
accordance with this Part from the date the cause of action arose to
the date of the judgment.

Calculation of interest
4(2) Interest awarded under this Part on pecuniary damages and in
debt or other actions shall be calculated, for each year or part of a
year included in the period in respect of which the interest is payable,
at the prescribed rate applicable to that year.

 

[ERW]

Quadmaniac - Interest

I'm not accepting what you seem to be implying. Firstly, the TS Agreement specifically spells out the interest that can be charged when in arrears. Secondly, it is wrong to take one section of a regulation or one section of an Act by itself. Here are portions of the Act that are relevant to the charging of interest when a judgment has been obtained.

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/J01.pdf

JUDGMENT INTEREST ACT
Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000
Chapter J-1

Current as of January 1, 2002

Award of interest

2(1) Where a person obtains a judgment for the payment of money
or a judgment that money is owing, the court shall award interest in
accordance with this Part from the date the cause of action arose to
the date of the judgment.

Calculation of interest
4(2) Interest awarded under this Part on pecuniary damages and in
debt or other actions shall be calculated, for each year or part of a
year included in the period in respect of which the interest is payable,
at the prescribed rate applicable to that year.

This pdf document also states:

2 (2) The court shall not award interest under this Part:
(h) where there is an agreement between the parties
respecting interest;

If your contract states a specific interest amount on outstanding accounts, that clause may override interest calculations previously referred to. Again, this is one of those things that a lawyer might be required to comment on.

 

[Just Looking Around]

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

I don't know what you are reading but the basic reason for the reversal of the decision was that Justice Loo has allowed the litigation to be considered as a "special case", while the appeals court reversed that. There was no mention that Justice Loo's decision was not sound. So unfortunately, you are categorically incorrect.

You used the word procedural as if Justice Loo were playing Jeopardy and forgot to formulate her answer as a question.

Justice Loo failed to qualify properly the dispute as eligible for consideration as a 'Special Case'. She was willing to expedite the judgement without ensuring the facts were not disputed. She didn't consider if the contract had been breached before making her decision. This is not the stuff of procedure. This is a fundamental lack of respect for due process and the law. Her decision was overturned on Appeal because she made errors in interpretation and judgement. In rushing to that judgement, she did not error simply in procedure.

"Held: appeal allowed; the question before the court was not appropriate for a special case. The underlying facts were in dispute and the question put to the court was based on hypothetical circumstances. The result was that the special case did not lead to a just, speedy or efficient determination of the issues."

"[36] The prejudice to the Owners is, in our view, obvious. Their obligations have been decided on the basis of a procedure in which there were no pleadings, no particulars, and no exchange of expert reports."

 

[ERW]

You used the word procedural as if Justice Loo were playing Jeopardy and forgot to formulate her answer in the form of a question.

Justice Loo failed to qualify properly the dispute as eligible for consideration as a 'Special Case'. She was willing to expedite the judgement without ensuring the facts were not disputed. She didn't consider if the contract had been breached before making her decision. This is not the stuff of procedure. This is a fundamental lack of respect for due process and the law. Her decision was overturned on Appeal because she made errors in interpretation and judgement. In rushing to that judgement, she did not error simply in procedure.

"Held: appeal allowed; the question before the court was not appropriate for a special case. The underlying facts were in dispute and the question put to the court was based on hypothetical circumstances. The result was that the special case did not lead to a just, speedy or efficient determination of the issues."

"[36] The prejudice to the Owners is, in our view, obvious. Their obligations have been decided on the basis of a procedure in which there were no pleadings, no particulars, and no exchange of expert reports."

Ultimately the decision was overturned not on the merits of the case but on the fact that Justice Loo did not follow the proper procedure. It should have never been allowed to be reviewed as a "Special Case". Had it not been heard as a Special Case, the outcome may or may not have been the same.

 

[Quadmaniac]

This pdf document also states:

2 (2) The court shall not award interest under this Part:
(h) where there is an agreement between the parties
respecting interest;

If your contract states a specific interest amount on outstanding accounts, that clause may override interest calculations previously referred to. Again, this is one of those things that a lawyer might be required to comment on.

Actually that is in reference to loan/mortgage agreements where the interest is established. I have sued people where we write down 2% monthly interest on overdue invoices and the court does not allow for it.

 

[James Hildec]

feeling oppressed

I've felt for a few years now that we were being cheated. I'm very thankful for this forum and the ability to hear from others in our situation. This is the first time in my life I haven't paid a bill, but it just seems to me that the company is extorting money from people, and if I pay them they will use that money to instill fear into others and take money away from those who can ill afford to lose it.

The "Blank Check" issue was what put me over the edge. Can one group unilaterally require anything they want from another? What if they came back next year and asked for my right arm? No, it didn't feel right. If there was any doubt, the recent bill for $12,000 based on 20+% interest, 85% US exchange rate had to erase it. These guys are not being fair.

I believe this is a moral decision. I am willing to spend money on legal fees, and to deal with creditors and the loss of a credit rating. I think I might prefer to go bankrupt than to aid their attempts to bully others. I am part of the Geldhert group and will continue on.

I certainly hope that justice will be given to us in the courts. If not, It seems also very possible that Northwynd/Sunchaser will go out of business before they are able to collect. Selling cancellations is a strategy that can only work so long. If, in fact, more than a third cancelled, and another quarter are objecting, their income stream should be declining.

Nope, I think they are criminals. And I'm glad so many are fighting.

p.s. I've wondered if we should get other time share companies to join us, this company is giving them a terrible name and must be hurting their business.

 

[pdoff]

I was wondering about the smae thing James (other Time Shares) even the one up the hill which is not connected with Northwynd. Also I thought that I heard something about one of the TV investigative reports being interested?

 

[Southcom]

I have every confidence in the lawyers that the group has hired and I am not surprised there are more owners signing on. I like the angle where some investigative journalism is done by either Go Public or the Fifth Estate and everything is brought forward. I like others have an older contract and am painted with the same brush as the newer ones. Mine is a 40 year lease and thankfully I am not putting a financial burden on my kids because at least there is a termination to this nightmare. I wish there was a way I could counter sue for the stress and lost family holidays that were promised when I purchased my lease.

 

[Quadmaniac]

Got more propaganda BS email from Northmont whining how owners are going down the wrong road and that they are in the right. If they are that confident, there is no need to send out a message particularly in regards to the appeal. If I was that confident, I would let the other party do what they want.

Anyways, as always, the war is not over.

 

[Just Looking Around]

Anyways, as always, the war is not over.

I agree with you, not just that the war is not over but, that Northmont is desperately trying to convince people to abandon the appeal; and, to pay to leave.

I wish that people weren't so irrational about being involved in legal action. There is no need to panic, be fearful and most certainly, there is no need to pay.

It's not over. Keep the resolve to fight and let's stand our ground against Northmont's tactics, threats and maneuverings.

 

[NotWhatIPaidFor]

Did you happen to note the unprofessional wording? He takes some cheap shots but protects himself by saying it's what owner's are thinking, ie. more or less that "some owner's might think it's the lawyer's desperate attempt to save it's reputation...also some owner's might think it's just continued arrogance".

And then actually pretends to take the high road, ie. more or less that "we are not willing to draw those conclusions yet and assume legal advice and logic is being followed and not emotion."

I find it hard to believe that many TS lessees/owners have confidence with this group, regardless of stay/leave/protest.

 

[GypsyOne]

The latest self-righteous ramblings and weak metaphor from Northwynd are more of the same propaganda attempting to sway our resolve. Do they really think the settlement offer was "fair and reasonable"? That's $16,000 to acquire the time share plus $12,500 to give it back - total $28,500 and screwed out of a timeshare. Institutionalized scam I'd say! I'd take this to the Supreme Court of Canada it that's what it takes to prevent this white-collar gang from making us their own personal money machine. Other timeshare owners and timeshare resorts should join our litigation because if this gang has their way it will decimate the timeshare industry in Canada, if not in North America. What potential timeshare buyer in their right mind would buy a timeshare if they are immediately on the hook for evermore to replace the depreciating buildings, without a voice in management, and at the whim of the developers, real owners, and managers?

 

[Punter]

Northmonts Ramblings

Is it possible for someone to post the latest "ramblings" from Northmont? We haven't received any communication from them since 2011, other than having been 'served in person' with the lawsuit. Apparently even a stamp is too costly of an expenditure.

 

[Quadmaniac]

Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner:

As we updated you on March 18, 2016, the Resort was successful on all issues in the JEKE (the plaintiff) v. Northmont “test-case” for the benefit of all owners. With the helpful guidance of the British Columbia Supreme Court, all owners now have a clear understanding of their contractual obligations and should be resolving their delinquency.

Unfortunately, the plaintiff has chosen to appeal the action. While we had hoped to avoid this step to save delinquent owners from further cost and the Resort from unnecessary delay, it is all part of the process despite the fact that, in our opinion, it has no reasonable chance of success.
There are a few conclusions one could draw from the unnecessary appeal. We can appreciate owners who think the plaintiff‘s appeal is a desperate attempt to save its reputation and avoid lawsuits from owners they advised to default on their contractual obligations on the basis of allegations it ultimately couldn’t produce evidence in support of, let alone prove. We can also appreciate owners who think the plaintiff’s appeal is just continued arrogance and the refusal to accept a position other than its own no matter how overwhelming the evidence.

However, we are not willing to draw those conclusions yet. The plaintiff is acting on legal advice and therefore we presume the decision making is based more on logic than emotion. Legal counsel’s role is to prevent emotional decisions and to ground their clients in the legal practicalities of a situation. Further, the plaintiff’s legal bills are being paid by the delinquent owners so we expect the appeal is being driven by the collective.

As such, our position at this time is that the appeal is a negotiating tactic. The delinquent group knows that if it did not file an appeal, it would have zero leverage and summary judgments against each member were inevitable. By filing an appeal, they believe they add uncertainty back into the process to force a more favorable outcome.
The strongest evidence of this is that the appeal was not filed by their lead counsel, but by the law firm that lost the test-case in January. Based on the feedback we have seen and received, the delinquent group is livid the law firm they hired did not argue the test-case. Though in reality the test-case was lost on the facts and merits and had nothing to do with legal counsel, in their mind it is the sporting equivalent of benching their high-priced star player for the championship game.

Both sides know the lead law firm has to argue the appeal. The delinquent owners are not going to let their star player be benched again. Nor will they accept the lead law firm is acting reasonably if they lose a third time with the legal firm that argued the test-case while the lawyer they paid for watches from the sidelines.

So the appeal is a negotiating tactic and we will address it accordingly. However, it has been our position throughout this process that any fair settlement will protect our owners who honored their contractual obligations from the costs of those who did not. We have already made a fair and reasonable settlement offer that owners should accept and the filing of the appeal does not change our position.

On the positive side, the appeal provides us two great opportunities to highlight the abuse of process this entire exercise has been by the delinquent group. First, the plaintiff is forced to obtain and disclose the entire transcript of the trial in 60 days. As soon as it does so, we will be putting a copy of the transcript or at least the critical elements on the Resort website for all owners to see just how unwarranted the legal action has been. Second, if they do not settle prior to the appeal, it will give us another impenetrable judgment in our favor.
While we continue to hope for a reasonable settlement and continue to seek an alternative that is fair for all parties, we look forward to arguing the appeal if necessary because we have the fullest confidence we will be victorious.

Does the appeal alter operations?

For the most part it does not. A judgment remains in effect during an appeal unless the appellant obtains a stay (a standstill) of the judgment from the Court of Appeal. They have not attempted to do so and it is highly unlikely they would succeed given the absence of merit to their appeal. As appeals work on fairly regimented timelines, we are confident that if the appeal does get heard, judgment will be received before the 2017 maintenance fees are issued.
We will operate with the guidance provided by the test-case judgment. This will include pursuing summary judgment against owners in their individual claims and working towards a commonality of contractual rights as contemplated by the agreements. As more information becomes available, we will update owners.

Once again, we want to thank our owners who have patiently let this process work its way through the system. While we are disappointed with the possibility we may have to fight an unnecessary appeal, our resolve to defend the Resort and our owners from unwarranted legal action remains high. We look forward to another successful judgment for the Resort to bring this process to its end.

Should you have any general questions with this communication, please do not hesitate to contact our Vacation Ownership Services (VOS) team at 1-877-451-1250. Should you have any questions of a legal nature, please seek appropriate legal advice.

 

[mmchili]

Here are some links for all owners to be aware of and take advantage of to keep up to date with the situation at Sunchaser.

Firstly, all owners should ensure that their contact information is up to date/current so that they receive all communications issued by Northmont/Sunchaser.

http://sunchaservillas.ca/owners/update-owner-info/

Next, anyone (which includes current, past, delinquent and non-owners) can access Sunchaser's website to to apprise themselves of the Supreme Court decisions.

http://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/bc-supreme-court/

Next, anyone (which includes current, past, delinquent and non-owners) can access Sunchaser's website to to apprise themselves of Northmont's communications regarding their "Litigation Update".

http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Litigation-Update-031816.pdf

 

[pdoff]

Gee thanks Mr. World of Warcraft..

 

[Just Looking Around]

What I find most offensive in the pathetically self-serving, self-indulgent, and self-important rambling is the suggestion that the property will operate as it has. No doubt that's true. It will. But what defies all reason is the implication that that would somehow be welcome. That we'd be relieved to hear, the property's operations won't be affected.

I don't need a tired and retired Justice to recite esoteric legal doublespeak. I don't need Wankle or any of his witting or unwitting agents posting here to remind me to be a good citizen. I know when a contract I've made has been broken.

I know this because:
1. The Property isn't a resort. I've gone over this, but it warrants repeating. Posters have taken issue with things I've said but, the only defense to the criticism it's not a legitimate resort to which one would want to escape is, "That's your opinion." (Well, mine and thousands and thousands of others.) What does that say about your ability to manage a vacation property?

Right at check-in it starts. You go to a real resort and you are welcomed upon eye-contact by someone in a uniform that represents all the attributes of the resorts' brand that you can take to the bank. You check-in at Sunchaser and you are acknowledged by someone who'll get to you as soon as they've loaded the printer with paper; and, looks like they drove someone to school before they came to work and is right now thinking about what to make for supper when they can finally get out of there. She wouldn't bother me so much if her teenage son hadn't miscalculated the chemicals in the hot tub and bleached my families' trunks.

2. They hired an accountant to run the place. A person trained in how to represent assets and transactions. A person who, I want to remind you, if they can represent it, they can also misrepresent it. They hired an account because the financial and corporate maneuverings are more important to them than creating a lasting guest experience for their TS Owners. Again, they took this property out of bankruptcy so they wouldn't lose money because they didn't provide the proper oversight of their investment, thereby insuring the buildings were as represented. They took it out of bankruptcy without consulting the TS Owners to rebuild the entire resort at TS Owners' expense. Now, it appears to me; they are trying to chase those owners away so they can resell it again at a huge profit.

They don't care about me as a TS Owner; I don't care about them. I'm not paying them a dime.

 

[Just Looking Around]

Its more obscure than Real World

Gee thanks Mr. World of Warcraft..

but obviously not obscure enough. Good catch.

 

[NotWhatIPaidFor]

Well, I think this will soon die down, ie. the bad rhetoric, as the long appeal process begins. Who's going to pay the offer when they're asking for insulting interest rates and payment on maintenance for unusable units when they're avoiding paying maintenance on all of their unusable units. Not to mention cancellation fees to give up your lease, lol, whereas Fairmont paid you to take your week back.

Everything's raw and fresh right now but we'll all fall into the haze that will be more waiting for the legal process.

 

[owner1]

Another point of view

You think you are getting a raw deal? The owners that paid to leave are not being treated unfairly? If you sign a contract and you want out you will always pay a penalty. Try and cancel your house mortgage or your lease on your vehicle. Of course Northmont is taking the cancellation fee, they own those leases now and will have to pay for the property tax on them until they are sold, demolished or whatever they decide to do with them. The renovations have gone along all under budget and the resort will be downsized. I will be finish paying my renovation fees in 6 months. As an owner who has stayed I am very happy with the renovations. The cost will not be as much as not all buildings will be renovated. We will be downsized according to our numbers. You complain about the increase in maintenance fees but they are comparable to all the other resorts in BC. You complain that you cannot get an exchange. I have never had a problem exchanging my resort. Now you are appealing again!!! The judgment went against you, as a matter of fact it was thrown out as not having any basis at all and Northmont was awarded all the legal costs. Delinquent owners involved with the law suit have to pay not only their legal cost but also Northmont’s costs. Now you want to add to your cost with another appeal. The owners that honored their contracts would be the ones getting the raw deal if you got your way. Who do you think will pay for your default? Not I if I have a say. I have no intention of paying for any legal cost incurred trying to get you to pay your fees. You complain about your bill and how Northmont will have to make a better deal with you. They will not! They have an obligation to all the owners not just the ones that choose to be delinquent. You are not helping yourselves or any of the parties involved by dragging this out.

 

[GypsyOne]

Disagree with "another point of view"

Owner1, I wonder if you'll think the same thing as time goes on, your maintenance fees continue to esculate higher than alternative vacation experiences, and you continue to be billed for deteriorating resort assets. Not just one-time reconstruction costs on shoddily built buildings, but the cost of replacing buildings from normal ageing. That will go on forever if you have a co-ownership agreement and for forty years if you have a lease. Year 39 of your lease, you may be asked to contribute toward, say, a $40 million construction project, but in one year's time you will walk away with nothing.

You have to agree that what you have now is not even close to what you contracted for. That is called fundamental breach of contract and misrepresentation. Responsible people resist being conned by opportunists and hustlers.

- My lease agreement does not say I pay for deteriorating buildings and infrastructue, either shoddily built or normal replacement. The co-ownership agreements that they convinced many to convert to does have the "cost of capital improvements" clause added. Now you know why they pushed so hard to convert leases to the "exciting new plan for Fairmont," and that all new agreements after the bankruptcy were co-ownership.
- My lease says there will be a TS Owner's association, which there is not. Having major financial responsibility without representation is unconscionable.
- The court ruling is that I am an owner for financial responsibility, but not for financial benefit. That is an institutionalized scam.
- Her Ladyship ruled that our TS leases are not like ordinary commercial leases. Well, she got that one right. But when I signed a lease, should I and thousands of other laymen have known a lease is not really a lease? There is consumer protection (or should be) to safeguard the general public against shysters changing the ordinary meaning of terms in a contract.
- My lease agreement has a formula for settling in the event of my financial default. Basicall, it says I will forfeit my timeshare and will be paid 25% of my cost of the timeshare for remaining time. Of course, the new owners say that is a permissive clause which they don't need to follow, but rather they will charge me for giving back the timeshare. In other words, I pay twice - once when I acquire the timeshare and once when I give it back; and I am screwed out of remaining vacation time. If they can ignore the clause, why is it in the contract if not to once again mislead the consumer?

Owner1, if you want to be a partner with this white collar band of opportunists that is your choice. Thousands of other TS owners have chosen to fight for justice.