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

[ERW]

ERW did you pay the renovation fee after Justice Loo's decision? I feel because of her decision timeshare lease owners panicked. Would 43% pay the cancellation and 27% Pay the renovation if they knew Gildert Law would when the appeal. Once you paid up now you are hoping the rest of us will have to pay. It is to late for this resort. These crooks have screwed every timeshare owner from all the resorts that they owned and would sell them off. They have made millions doing this. They never wanted a resort there,all they wanted is the money then they would bankrupt it which is easy to do in Canada. The bond holders also lost millions. Do you smell a rat.

It would be interesting to know how many of the 43% and 27% that you quote paid before or after Justice Loo's decision. I have a feeling most likely decided before her decision was made. And I think you have to keep in mind that Geldert's appeal was won based more on a point of procedure versus Loo's decision not being correct. And yes, I would like to see this all settled - by paying the fees while others have not, Northwynd will have added costs that will ultimately be passed on to people like myself. And without the revenue they are expecting to collect, renovation of the units will be slowed down if not stopped completely.

But it is what it is. Ultimately the courts will decide what will happen, whether we are in favour of the outcome or not. My biggest fear if the decision is allowed to stand is that Northwynd will be given carte blanche to just bill all the lease holders whenever they want. As far as those who bought into the Legacy for Life, I don't know. As an "owner" they may not have a leg to stand on. I did not buy into that dog and pony show thankfully but that was a rat if there ever was one. Not sure why anyone would have gone that route but it was interesting to see people line up after the presentation here in Winnipeg to sign up even after people in the audience brought up very good questions which could not be answered.

 

[NotWhatIPaidFor]

What about there being no sales office? Instead of adding more lessees/owners it's just shut down. Any potential financial support for the resort there is being ignored completely. Why wouldn't they keep sales going?

More financial stress on the existing lessees/owners, faster spiral down to the end game.

 

[ERW]

What about there being no sales office? Instead of adding more lessees/owners it's just shut down. Any potential financial support for the resort there is being ignored completely. Why wouldn't they keep sales going?

More financial stress on the existing lessees/owners, faster spiral down to the end game.

I agree, there should be a sales office but I'm not sure how many units they have to sell considering the building/units not available due to the renos. There might not be much of a market as well, considering the controversy that has surrounded the resort in recent years. All things considered, I would not consider Sunchasers at this point in time if I were looking to buy into or lease a unit at a resort and I'm guessing there are a lot of people that feel the same way.

 

[aden2]

In reference to EWR's comment of Legacy for Life I did not find out until 2013 that I was scammed, and that was when I asked for an unconditional release because of FRAUD. I was completely ignored. I was given very good advice regarding Alberta's Fair Trading Act, and that is all I want to say at this time.

 

[GypsyOne]

Appeal

I am considerably more confident we will get a fair hearing and a favourable ruling from a panel of three judges from the B.C. Court of Appeal than we got from one judge from the B.C. Supreme Court. Seems the Lessee group of TS owners have a case for fundamental breach of contract that a panel of fair-minded judges could hardly ignore.

 

[ERW]

I am considerably more confident we will get a fair hearing and a favourable ruling from a panel of three judges from the B.C. Court of Appeal than we got from one judge from the B.C. Supreme Court. Seems the Lessee group of TS owners have a case for fundamental breach of contract that a panel of fair-minded judges could hardly ignore.

I think the lessees may have more of a case than those that went for the Legacy for Life program (unfortunately). I think they are looked upon as "owners".

Can someone clarify a question for me? Do those that went the route of "Legacy for Life" actually "own" their properties forever? Or was there a time limitation? When the presentations were made way back when, I didn't look very closely at the conditions because it seemed like a weird deal at the time.

 

[servemeout]

We attended a Legacy session after being hounded for some time. Every time they wanted us to attend, I asked was it free, I was told no and I said no. We did attend one session and the seedy looking sales person was trying to get us to spend $9,000. I made the statement that we may "sell" the remaining time we had left. We were then told by the same sales person that the unit was worth nothing. Items we were Not told, Legacy only started after your lease expired. If it only started after the leased years, why are they on the hook for costs now? Not told that our contract would be changed and we would become forever joined by a shared umbilical cord for additional costs. The only change that was discussed was moving from weeks to points with RCI. We have rented from RCI for less than the annual fees. Renting at Sunchaser will be more difficult with half of the Hillside buildings being closed and boarded up from the inside and some of the Riverside buildings also closed. Did you pay for ALL of the resort to be renovated? Please read the conflicting information that Northwynd has posted. Pay for the whole resort to be renovated, but the resort can only exist if it is "shrunk". Which is it?

IMO this is a land grab. Thirty four acres will bring in a lot of cash, without timeshare leaseholders. Will Rogers said "buy land, they ain't making any more." I am unaware of anyone recommending that you pour your money down a rat hole!

 

[GypsyOne]

Servemeout, are you sure the co-ownership agreement starts only after the lease expires? I didn't attend the sales pitch, but I assumed the Legacy For Life was a conversion from the lease agreement and was effective immediately. In any case, one would think the legal obligation of a co-ownership agreement would be quite different than that of a lease agreement, and the two should be litigated separately, because the defense of each would be different. Seems pretty basic that the lessees do not own the buildings and are therefore not responsible for their construction or re-construction. The co-owners may have to prove misrepresentation in the conversion from lessee to co-owner.

 

[Hotpink]

lease / co-0wnership documents

One needs to read the exhibits attached to the affidavit of Phillip K Matkin dated April 15 of 2013.
Exhibit B1 and B2 are almost identical except for a few more or less cosmetic changes and these lease agreements where utilized from the early 1990's thru to about July 2009. These where called Vacation Lease and Vacation Villa Lease
respectively.

Lets look at Exhibit B3 and B4 on the aforesaid affidavit.
B3 is entitled Schedule "D"
Disclosure Statement Amendment July 3 2009
Vacation interval Agreement

Vacation Experience Lease
And Co-ownership Agreement

This was entered into by FRP and the buyer and became an eleven page document from the original 4 Page lease.
This change was made after FRP had requested court approval in March 2009 for credit protection but that is a subject for another time.

On page 4 of exhibit B3 one must paragraph 2 and 6 to understand how Legacy for life turns into LEG IRONS FOR LIFE. Paragraph 2 says at the last day of the lease FRP will convert the leasehold interest into simple co-ownership.
Paragraph 6 says the lease portion is for forty(40) years and further says that at the "completion of the Term of the lease this agreement shall continue to govern the relationship of the co-owners and FRP with respect to the co-ownership interests of the buyer for as long as the buyer remains an owner"
Also under paragraph 11 they have changed operating costs from the earlier leases which read " a yearly assessment shall be made of the furnishings and fixtures to permit replacement as required"
It now reads "a yearly assessment shall be made FOR CAPITAL RESERVES for replacements of the furnishings and fixtures to permit replacement as required and to pay the COSTS OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT MAY FROM TIME TO TIME BE REQUIRED"
If we look at Exhibit B4 under the aforesaid affidavit which came into effect after Northmont took over control there is NO mention of a Lease or a term just a SIMPLE CO-OWNERSHIP INTEREST and is CONDITIONAL UPON THE OWNER PERFORMING ALL THE OBLIGATIONS PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT
The term is now defined as "The rights of the buyer as a fee simple owner shall continue for the period of time that the buyer continues to hold his co-ownership interest" There are No changes to the terms in the operating costs segment.
There is an interesting addition in B3 and B4 where they have added a provision for the DEATH OF A BUYER as long as the beneficiary agrees to the LEG IRONS for Life document
I as a lay person cannot understand how a learned judge can say all of the agreements are the same.
They did not have to say anything in the presentation about the time lines as they were spelt out in B3 and completely ignored in B4
The sales agent had to sign ( for what it is worth) that he didn't tell you anything that is not in writing in the agreement that is contained in B3 and B4
I am very concerned for those that bought the conversion from FRP or the outright fee simple co-ownership from Passing Wind as I doubt that there will be a resort as we know it within 10 or so years.

As Will Rogers said " If stupidity got us in this mess, how come it can't get us out"

 

[pdoff]

lease/co-ownership documents

Good one - Will Rogers also said "the best way out of difficulty - is through it"

Hope he is right - we are sure going through it!

 

[GypsyOne]

Members of the litigation group should note on the recent Statement of Account from Geldert Law the virtually daily cost of "phone and email discussions with members of the litigation group." Members should be aware that satisfying their curiosity on some legal point is not only taking up Michael's time but is costing us all money. Nor is it likely advancing our legal case. Let's let Michael do his job, and it is quite likely his regular email updates is all the information we need at this point.

 

[Meow]

Thanks for saying that GypsyOne

 

[pdoff]

More legacy from Fairmont/Northmont etc.


http://cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/rafter-six-ranch-demolition-1.3759346

 

[aden2]

and the new owners of Rafter Six is .....Fairmont/Northmont!

 

[LynnW]

and the new owners of Rafter Six is .....Fairmont/Northmont!

And they tore it down. Wonder what their plans are.

 

[pdoff]

Rafter Six

If Fairmont/Passing Wind took over Rafter Six after causing it to go bankrupt - that is a double whammy for the Cowley's.
They are nice folks and don't deserve what these ruthless people have done to them!

Keep Developers and skunks at a safe distance!!

 

[den403]

Rafter 6

http://frplfinance.blogspot.ca/2010/02/status-of-rafter-six-investment.html?m=1

 

[aden2]

Appeal dates October 24 - 25 2016

Chambers: MacKenzie, JA - Fitch, JA - Bennett, JA

10:00 am Division 1 Courtroom 50

Bauman, CJBC,; Smith, D,; Goepel, JJA

CA43568 JEKE ENTERPRISES LTD. (A) v. NORTHMONT

RESORT PROPERTIES LTD.

Hearing of Appeal From: Fitzpatrick, J.

Day 1 of 2

The appellant appeals the court's interpretation of a time share contract.

 

[ERW]

Anything new on the horizon with the hearing?

 

[GypsyOne]

Well, the B.C. courts handed Northmont a cash cow with a win in the B.C. Court of Appeal. The Province of British Columbia will also be very happy since they won't have a failing major tourist attraction and resort on their hands. The big loser is consumer protection in Canada and all timeshare owners who bought timeshare in good faith that they were lessors who bought just time in a resort and not bought the resort itself. The timeshare users will now have to maintain the capital asset for the benefit of the real owners and investors in the resort. Some timeshare owners, the timeshare owners who took the bait and paid to convert to co-ownership, will be paying to perpetuity; those that didn't convert to co-ownership will pay for the remainder of their 40-year lease. Can you imagine a business where the users are mandated to pay the operating costs of the business, without representation, but worse, to pay for maintaining the capital value of the business itself? That's exactly what the B.C. Courts awarded Northmont for their Fairmont investment. By awarding capital costs, the owners and managers of the resort can now hit up the timeshare users for renovations or capital reconstruction to the resort whenever they want for whatever they want. And the timeshare users have no legal or moral recourse. The court has ruled the timeshare users have to pay, even without having a voice in that decision, and regardless that they were sold a timeshare in a facility with a lot of construction faults. If the timeshare users don't like it and sue, they will be fighting the resort owners with the timeshare owners own "maintenance" money that was intended to pay day to day operating expenses. Anyone that now buys a timeshare in Canada is crazy or very badly informed.

 

[ERW]

Wow, that is very surprising. I was not sure if those that signed up for the Legacy deal would squeak by but I thought those with the original leases would not be looked upon as having the same responsibilities as so-called owners.
Would you have a link to the decision?

 

[GypsyOne]

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/17/00/2017BCCA0038.htm

 

[Spark1]

Well, the B.C. courts handed Northmont a cash cow with a win in the B.C. Court of Appeal. The Province of British Columbia will also be very happy since they won't have a failing major tourist attraction and resort on their hands. The big loser is consumer protection in Canada and all timeshare owners who bought timeshare in good faith that they were lessors who bought just time in a resort and not bought the resort itself. The timeshare users will now have to maintain the capital asset for the benefit of the real owners and investors in the resort. Some timeshare owners, the timeshare owners who took the bait and paid to convert to co-ownership, will be paying to perpetuity; those that didn't convert to co-ownership will pay for the remainder of their 40-year lease. Can you imagine a business where the users are mandated to pay the operating costs of the business, without representation, but worse, to pay for maintaining the capital value of the business itself? That's exactly what the B.C. Courts awarded Northmont for their Fairmont investment. By awarding capital costs, the owners and managers of the resort can now hit up the timeshare users for renovations or capital reconstruction to the resort whenever they want for whatever they want. And the timeshare users have no legal or moral recourse. The court has ruled the timeshare users have to pay, even without having a voice in that decision, and regardless that they were sold a timeshare in a facility with a lot of construction faults. If the timeshare users don't like it and sue, they will be fighting the resort owners with the timeshare owners own "maintenance" money that was intended to pay day to day operating expenses. Anyone that now buys a timeshare in Canada is crazy or very badly informed.

 

[Spark1]

The new owners should of had the BC inspection department doing all the different inspections. If they did not, that is their responsibility to repair the resort not ours. When you are new owners you start from day one it is now yours. Collin Knight was responsible for the resort before Northmont and how can anyone dispute poor management of the resort.

 

[servemeout]

In the opening line of the appeal decision was the statement "of two time share units in a large development in the beautiful Columbia Valley of this province", yes the valley is beautiful, however, the resort has become an eye sore. I now feel that we have been trapped in some nightmare or some fairytale. If I had the ability I would ask Northmont to stick their head in the oven and close it like Gretel did. That would get rid of the wicked witch & all of the others. Northmont have asked to rezone the land that buildings 1000 to 5000 are standing. The buildings are boarded shut. How long will it be before Hillside becomes "Mudslide Slim & the Blue Horizon" and ends up at the bottom of the hill washed away by the eroding property. How did any judge miss the fact that timeshare lessee were asked to pay for ALL of the resort to be renovated, but that will never happen. The rezoning request makes it clear that maintaining the resort was not the plan and never has been. The plan has always been get all of the money out of the suckers (lessees) however they can. The resort will become a blight on the landscape of the "beautiful Columbia Valley". There has been no protection for the consumer. Northmont will claim that they won, but there are no winners in this ridiculous situation. We all have lost. We have lost the years remaining in our leased time of vacations. Sunchaser will never be the NEW resort, just the falling down, leaking, crumbling skeleton of what used to be and eventually they will do what they have done with any of the other timeshares they have owned, take the money and run.
This decision does not assure that they will be able to collect. We have been is some of the court rooms during this legal process and the outstanding statement is never paying another penny to the crooks. I do not agree with this statement as we would give the penny, which is no longer legal tender. Many of the members of the litigation group are seniors living on pensions. Our understanding is that only CRA can collect debts from pensions. So when Northmont comes to check to see if Hansel is fat enough to eat, stick a bone out and not your finger. The fat lady has not sung yet!