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

[Punter]

The recent letter sent by Northmont to owners is misleading. They state that the proposed settlement is both fair and reasonable and that it is an agreement. It is neither.
Why would Northmont think that those who refused to pay the initial 4-7k for the RPF will pay the 14-20k they are now asking?
Furthermore, they declare that this proposal removes the future maintenance fees associated with each VIA taken back. They continue to refuse to accept that they are responsible for those maintenance fees.
Don't hold your breath that this recent proposal will resolve the financial disaster of Sunchaser.

 

[servemeout]

Who is responsible for the financial disaster? Ask TSWOW, or is that Time Share World of Warcraft? You have stated too many stats concerning the HOA survey and the results. Wankel = World of Warcraft.

 

[Just Looking Around]

Northmont sent a survey in the fall of 2011 and, amongst other items, asked owners about a HOA. The response was minimal; only 3,310 responses were received by Northmont from a total of 14,500 owners, with 25% of responses in favour of a HOA, 34% in disagreement and 40% neutral. Now there are 4,640 paid-to-stay owners and 3,625 delinquent owners, I would not agree to a HOA until the matter of the delinquent owners is resolved. In my opinion they already have a an HOA of sorts in the litigation group.

Not one of the ten VIA Holders with whom I have had discussions can remember this survey. I do not believe there ever was a survey. You say it was distributed in 2011 well, that's more than a decade late by any measure. Management was obligated to form an association. What you present above is nothing more than a very belated and feeble attempt to camouflage the intentional efforts of Northmont to take advantage of and marginalize the Lessees. It is also an indication of Northmont's and their successor's general mismanagement. This includes but is not limited to their failure to operate the Property in the manner of 'Vacation Resort'. It can't be interpreted any other way.

Your opinion that a litigation group, which is clearly adversarial, is equivalent to an association of Lessees who would have the opportunity for constructive input through regular and direct face-to-face discussions with Management about the past, present and future of the Property is ridiculous.

 

[Just Looking Around]

Why would Northmont think that those who refused to pay the initial 4-7k for the RPF will pay the 14-20k they are now asking?

BINGO! Let's not pay them a dime. Stay the course and keep litigating.

 

[Spark1]

BINGO! Let's not pay them a dime. Stay the course and keep litigating.

You are right let's not pay them a dime. How many have contacted service Alberta and Service BC. Every one should and I do not have to tell you how to write your email. Do mention that this is not a strata property. Tell them the whole story. I read on face book there is very good news from Service Alberta but please email both better than phone calls. Print off the email and keep a file. You will be pleased and please do not pay anything.

 

[Just Looking Around]

and please do not pay anything.

That can't be said too loudly or too frequently. Do No Pay Anything.

 

[Spark1]

GOOD MORNING....PLEASE READ THIS.....ITS VERY IMPORTANT.

Your inquiry into the rules governing Time Shares was forward to my attention. The Time Share and Points Based Contracts and Businesses Regulations has regulated Time Share sales that have occurred in Alberta since 2009. Prior to the previous Time Share Contracts regulation established a very limited set of minimum disclosure standards for Time Share sales occurring in Alberta.
With both regulation, only the initial sales is regulated. The operation of the Time Share after the sale is governed by the terms of the Time Share Contract. If the Time Share operator breaches the terms of the contract, then you may have a civil case. You would need to discuss your case with legal council and determine if the issues you have identified would be a breach of the contractual rights and obligations under your contract and what options may be available to you to pursue redress or resolution. If you do not have legal counsel, the Law Society of Alberta offer a lawyer referral service that includes a free consultation.
For more information on Lawyer Referral, please visit:
Lttp://www.law society.ab.ca/public/lawyer_referral.aspx.
Darren Thomas
Director of Fair Trading (as delegated) Service Alberta.
Phone (780)422-8046
Cell (780)918-2690
E-mail: Darren.thomas@gov.ab.ca/

This information has been forwarded to Service Protection BC and they have promised to contact me.

 

[Spark1]

GOOD MORNING....PLEASE READ THIS.....ITS VERY IMPORTANT.

Your inquiry into the rules governing Time Shares was forward to my attention. The Time Share and Points Based Contracts and Businesses Regulations has regulated Time Share sales that have occurred in Alberta since 2009. Prior to the previous Time Share Contracts regulation established a very limited set of minimum disclosure standards for Time Share sales occurring in Alberta.
With both regulation, only the initial sales is regulated. The operation of the Time Share after the sale is governed by the terms of the Time Share Contract. If the Time Share operator breaches the terms of the contract, then you may have a civil case. You would need to discuss your case with legal council and determine if the issues you have identified would be a breach of the contractual rights and obligations under your contract and what options may be available to you to pursue redress or resolution. If you do not have legal counsel, the Law Society of Alberta offer a lawyer referral service that includes a free consultation.
For more information on Lawyer Referral, please visit:
Lttp://www.law society.ab.ca/public/lawyer_referral.aspx.
Darren Thomas
Director of Fair Trading (as delegated) Service Alberta.
Phone (780)422-8046
Cell (780)918-2690
E-mail: Darren.thomas@gov.ab.ca/

This information has been forwarded to Service Protection BC and they have promised to contact me.

Do you believe that your original agreement has been breached after reading this I do. Because of freedom to choose Northmont is breaching items 9and10 used for figuring out next years maintenance fees. Also the cancellation is being breached and what about audited statements and the condo association. Do you feel it is our responsibility to replace the resort and the leaking grey pipes who's responsibility was that and the Justice System in BC says it was mansged properly sure is was. To me there seams to be a cover up here and they call it justice no way

 

[mmchili]

Spark, I definitely would like you to post a copy of your Cancellation Agreement that you took to Service Alberta and when you do, highlite the area in fine print that you refer to. Also try using your foul and profane language at a court of law. This type of expression does not impress me nor intimidate me, just shows the quality of your character.

Interesting that there is a question about how I have a cancellation form. The forms, etc. were posted on Sunchaser’s web site which I downloaded for my review before making my final decision. I believe it is prudent to review and analyse all relevant information before making a decision. I did not make my decision haphazardly, I deliberated long and hard because I did not like having to pay either the-pay-to-stay or go fee.

Obviously, I decided to pay-to-stay fee. I spent a lot of time researching the issue on TUGBBS and other internet sites, talked to many other owners and a couple of lawyers, reviewing my lease and other relevant information and reluctantly made my decision. In hind sight, I’m happy with my decision. 4,600 owners decided to stay and 6,200 decided to go. All that is needed to accommodate the paid-to-stay are the Riverside and Riverview buildings. The rest of the buildings, that is Hillside, can be separated. I’m glad not to be part of the 3,600 delinquent owners, some of whom did not pay their maintenance fees during Fairmont’s control and did not decide to stay or go. I say, take your case to the Supreme Court and get this matter resolved. On second thought, if the case is decided in Northmonts favour, I doubt the delinquent owners would accept the decision. Then what? Continue to try to get your issues resolved thru the court of public opinion? To date, two decisions have been in favour of Northmont. Perhaps you should use different lawyers in your third appeal since you are so sure of your interpretation of the VIA.

Regarding clause 13 of the VIA, my agreement says “if the Lessor accepts the deemed offer”, the key word is “if” versus the modified VIA which says “---the Lessor may terminate---“, the key word being “may”. Neither of these words are “mandatory”, such as shall or, must. How does your lawyer interpret their meaning?

I think the delinquents should place their soap box at Hillside. As far as I am concerned, they have chosen to abandon their timeshare by not paying their fees. All they want is not to take any financial responsibility according to their VIA agreement. They want a gift from Northmont and the paid-to-stay owners who have paid extra in maintenance fees to cover for the delinquent owners.

Have you reviewed the maintenance budget for the years 2013 to 2017? Have you done a simple calculation that would show the number of timeshare weeks has decreased from 9,668 in 2013 to 5,133 in 2017. Compare the 5,133 weeks to the 8,265 delinquents. A simple calculation shows that there are 2,001 annual owners and 3,132 bi-annual owners. Also, that is significantly different from the number of weeks in 2010 and 2011 at 12,581 weeks. I believe these numbers show that Northmont has accounted for the 6,235 owners who chose to cancel their contracts (paid-to-go).

 

[SentimentalLady]

What has not been provided are the details of Northmont’s offer; is interest being charged during the payment period and if so at what rate, etc. From a business perspective and what has been stated, the offer appears to be fair and reasonable. Is it expected that no interest charges should be charged and/or the principal amount owing should be reduced? If so, that would be a gift from Northmont.

Northmont has revealed their business decision; to renovate the buildings to accommodate the paid-to-stay owners, to sell off/dispose of the buildings not required and collect the delinquent maintenance fees and pay-to-go fees. From the outset Northmont committed to renovate that part of the resort required to accommodate the paid-to-stay owners, not renovate all of the buildings. The buildings not required would be separated from the resort and sold/disposed. Regardless of the size of the resort, each paid-to-stay owner would continue to enjoy their timeshare.

I am fully aware of the situation at Sunchaser and the events that lead to the bankruptcy of Fairmont, the takeover by Northmont, the subsequent litigation and the posts on TUGBBS. I paid-to-stay $3,775 and in looking back, am glad that I did. I only had to sacrifice 3 months of my CPP and OAS rather than the 6 to 10 years had I not paid-to-stay or had I not chosen to-go, I would be facing a hefty outstanding balance and would feel despondent. There may be another court case which will add to the legal cost and if the decision is made against the litigation group (for the third time), I would expect Northmont to be reimbursed for their legal costs. The winners in this legal tug of war are the lawyers at the expense of the litigation group and paid-to-stay owners.

I would be interested in receiving a written reply from Service Alberta regarding their interpretation of the “freedom to choose cancellation form”. My form does not have any small print on the bottom of the page.

It did not take any bravery on my part to make my decision. I saw thru the rhetoric of the delinquent owners, which continues till this day, and realized that I did not want to part of the litigation group. Bullying, making hateful remarks, making erroneous statements, etc. are discouraging remarks. I do not like being a part of an angry and bombastic group.

Northmont sent a survey in the fall of 2011 and, amongst other items, asked owners about a HOA. The response was minimal; only 3,310 responses were received by Northmont from a total of 14,500 owners, with 25% of responses in favour of a HOA, 34% in disagreement and 40% neutral. Now there are 4,640 paid-to-stay owners and 3,625 delinquent owners, I would not agree to a HOA until the matter of the delinquent owners is resolved. In my opinion they already have a an HOA of sorts in the litigation group.

I fully expect Northmont to pursue the collection of monies owing and expect them to collect their legal costs from the litigation group. The opposition to Northmont has not been favoured by the courts; the courts do not agree with the litigation group that what Northmont is doing is wrong.

huh......no response to my specific question. How about this one:

Like most of the "delinquents", we were always fully pre-paid with our obligations. Until this scam-without-end came along. Nope. Nope. Nope.

You never had a problem with the fact that Northmont/Northwynd did not meet their own obligations to pay the fees on behalf of the returned/unsold/delinquent weeks - not back then, and not now?

 

[Spark1]

Spark, I definitely would like you to post a copy of your Cancellation Agreement that you took to Service Alberta and when you do, highlite the area in fine print that you refer to. Also try using your foul and profane language at a court of law. This type of expression does not impress me nor intimidate me, just shows the quality of your character.

Interesting that there is a question about how I have a cancellation form. The forms, etc. were posted on Sunchaser’s web site which I downloaded for my review before making my final decision. I believe it is prudent to review and analyse all relevant information before making a decision. I did not make my decision haphazardly, I deliberated long and hard because I did not like having to pay either the-pay-to-stay or go fee.

Obviously, I decided to pay-to-stay fee. I spent a lot of time researching the issue on TUGBBS and other internet sites, talked to many other owners and a couple of lawyers, reviewing my lease and other relevant information and reluctantly made my decision. In hind sight, I’m happy with my decision. 4,600 owners decided to stay and 6,200 decided to go. All that is needed to accommodate the paid-to-stay are the Riverside and Riverview buildings. The rest of the buildings, that is Hillside, can be separated. I’m glad not to be part of the 3,600 delinquent owners, some of whom did not pay their maintenance fees during Fairmont’s control and did not decide to stay or go. I say, take your case to the Supreme Court and get this matter resolved. On second thought, if the case is decided in Northmonts favour, I doubt the delinquent owners would accept the decision. Then what? Continue to try to get your issues resolved thru the court of public opinion? To date, two decisions have been in favour of Northmont. Perhaps you should use different lawyers in your third appeal since you are so sure of your interpretation of the VIA.

Regarding clause 13 of the VIA, my agreement says “if the Lessor accepts the deemed offer”, the key word is “if” versus the modified VIA which says “---the Lessor may terminate---“, the key word being “may”. Neither of these words are “mandatory”, such as shall or, must. How does your lawyer interpret their meaning?

I think the delinquents should place their soap box at Hillside. As far as I am concerned, they have chosen to abandon their timeshare by not paying their fees. All they want is not to take any financial responsibility according to their VIA agreement. They want a gift from Northmont and the paid-to-stay owners who have paid extra in maintenance fees to cover for the delinquent owners.

Have you reviewed the maintenance budget for the years 2013 to 2017? Have you done a simple calculation that would show the number of timeshare weeks has decreased from 9,668 in 2013 to 5,133 in 2017. Compare the 5,133 weeks to the 8,265 delinquents. A simple calculation shows that there are 2,001 annual owners and 3,132 bi-annual owners. Also, that is significantly different from the number of weeks in 2010 and 2011 at 12,581 weeks. I believe these numbers show that Northmont has accounted for the 6,235 owners who chose to cancel their contracts (paid-to-go).

I would but I am out of the country right now. Not all of them have been released. My position on this is freedom to choose is a breach against all the contracts. Show me in my contract of 2001 where they can extort money from time owners. We pay maintenance fees.

 

[Just Looking Around]

...We pay maintenance fees.

Exactly, "Maintenance Fees".

Every single person who purchased a VIA believed that they would be responsible for only the costs of maintaining the Property. They believed that the Capital Replacement, a very commonly used and universally understood accounting concept, was the responsibility of the Developer, the Lessor. It's only because the VIA was not clearly worded that Northmont has subsequently exploited it and used it to extract ridiculous amounts of money from the Lessees for one reason, to enrich themselves.

My contract specifically says Operating Costs. Operating costs has no meaning or context if one doesn't recognize Capital Costs.

 

[mmchili]

Regarding Northmont not paying fees on returned/unsold/delinquent weeks. What evidence do you have to support your allegation? Obviously you did not read my last post, but I challenge you to support your position.

The reply from Service Alberta says it well. Standing on your soap box and making your claims does not solve your issues. I quote from Service Alberta:

“The operation of the Time Share after the sale is governed by the terms of the Time Share Contract. If the Time Share operator breaches the terms of the contract, then you may have a civil case. You would need to discuss your case with legal council and determine if the issues you have identified would be a breach of the contractual rights and obligations under your contract and what options may be available to you to pursue redress or resolution.” (Emphasis are mine)

With the claims and allegations you have made, it appears that Service Alberta has given you the path to obtain “redress and resolution”. It appears that you should proceed post-haste to have your legal council proceed to next court.

 

[Punter]

Do NOT pay anything. Any money we pay they will use in the fight against us. Do not pay a single dime.

 

[Spark1]

BINGO! Let's not pay them a dime. Stay the course and keep litigating.

That survey is a survey. Many time owners could of taken it as this is great Northwynd is doing huge capital expenditures on the resort being new owners and all time owners looked at was maintenance fees,painting,repairing decks,etc not a 4100.00 bill for every 2bedroom timeshare. It is their fault they should of had a condo association. That is a breach. Do you know in the USA cases are won by the time owners just with one breach. Our problem we do not have many lawyers in Canada that understand timeshare contracts. I have received an email from both Service Alberta and BC protection and they are quite similier ,they only protect the original contract that you sign. Freedom to Choose is not part of those contracts. If it was they did not have to petition the Courts. Every one should contact these two consumer affairs departments in BC and Alberta and let them know how our contracts are being breached. This case is really not about our time share it is about how much money they can extort from us and they will bankrupt it or sell it off just like all the other resorts. We have had no litigation just test cases.

 

[SentimentalLady]

Regarding Northmont not paying fees on returned/unsold/delinquent weeks. What evidence do you have to support your allegation? Obviously you did not read my last post, but I challenge you to support your position.

The reply from Service Alberta says it well. Standing on your soap box and making your claims does not solve your issues. I quote from Service Alberta:

“The operation of the Time Share after the sale is governed by the terms of the Time Share Contract. If the Time Share operator breaches the terms of the contract, then you may have a civil case. You would need to discuss your case with legal council and determine if the issues you have identified would be a breach of the contractual rights and obligations under your contract and what options may be available to you to pursue redress or resolution.” (Emphasis are mine)

With the claims and allegations you have made, it appears that Service Alberta has given you the path to obtain “redress and resolution”. It appears that you should proceed post-haste to have your legal council proceed to next court.

QUOTE - Regarding Northmont not paying fees on returned/unsold/delinquent weeks. What evidence do you have to support your allegation?


How about the 2011 Financial Statement? Which was over a year late.

2011 4(i) Maintenance fees and unit rentals charged to developer $ -
2012 makes no mention of it.
2013 makes no mention of it. (2014 has it again - and shows 2013 as $ - )
2014 4(j) The Developer is responsible for maintenance fees on developer owned inventory provided such inventory is online and available for use by the Developer. As such, Developer maintenance fees are calculated as follows:

2014 Gross maintenance fees - Developer $ 3,360,250
Less: cost reductions associated with inactive inventory owned by the developer (2,661,457)
_________
$ 698,793

The operating costs reductions associated to inactive inventory owned by the Developer are credited to the Developer due to the change in active inventory usage per the Agreements. Included in operating costs credited are the following: operating wages and benefits, offsite wages, non-wage staff costs, direct operating, contracted services, repairs and maintenance, general and administrative, utilities, insurance, refurbishment and management fee expenditures. This calculation is prepared by the Property Manager and agreed by the Developer, an entity related by virtue of common control. These transactions are in the normal course of operations and are measured at the exchange amount which is the amount of consideration established and agreed to by the related parties.

2015 4(i) (i) The Developer is responsible for maintenance fees on developer owned inventory provided such inventory is online and available for use by the Developer. Where inventory is inactive, the Developer is credited to reflect the cost savings of the Resort. Developer maintenance fees after credits are as follows:

2015 Developer maintenance fees $ 582,057

So for 2015, they're not even going to tell us the amount of the credits? hmmmm.....

2016 No financial statements yet. Kind of late again.....



These are all easily found on the Sunchaser site. And you can dig back into your previous statements to see the rest.

Odd, don't you think, that they were never accounted for before - even though it was stated in our contracts?

Then there's the on-again, off-again accounting of the last few years since our troubles began.

Then there's the interesting way they take all the cost reductions for themselves instead of sharing them equally among all lessees - and only paying the difference.



You see, if Sunchaser/Northmont/Northwynd had been paying their fair share all along, they would have had some incentive to manage things properly, keep the Timeshare Sales operating, maximize rentals of empty units, etc. But it turns out that running it properly for the good of the lessees was never their intention - or they wouldn't have killed all goodwill and rendered future Timeshare sales and resales impossible. They've made it so our leases have zero value to us now - worse, they are a liability to lessees.

But if Sunchaser/Northmont/Northwynd succeeds in bullying us into walking away - we've given away 20 or 30 or - in too many sad, sad cases - 38 years of our vacation investments. And we're supposed to be grateful for that - and even pay for the privilege?!

Sunchaser/Northmont/Northwynd will thus re-acquire a massive inventory of properties
FOR FREE - WITH BONUS PAYMENTS that they can simply do with as they will - sell off whole buildings, sell off as condos, convert to hotels, rent out to long-term tenants, etc. The few lingering timeshare lessees will find their vacation experiences massively altered once Sunchaser is no longer a timeshare resort.[/QUOTE]

They have deliberately misled everyone and never had any intention of honouring their side of the deal.

 

[truthr]

QUOTE - Regarding Northmont not paying fees on returned/unsold/delinquent weeks. What evidence do you have to support your allegation?


How about the 2011 Financial Statement? Which was over a year late.

2011 4(i) Maintenance fees and unit rentals charged to developer $ -
2012 makes no mention of it.
2013 makes no mention of it. (2014 has it again - and shows 2013 as $ - )
2014 4(j) The Developer is responsible for maintenance fees on developer owned inventory provided such inventory is online and available for use by the Developer. As such, Developer maintenance fees are calculated as follows:

2014 Gross maintenance fees - Developer $ 3,360,250
Less: cost reductions associated with inactive inventory owned by the developer (2,661,457)
_________
$ 698,793

The operating costs reductions associated to inactive inventory owned by the Developer are credited to the Developer due to the change in active inventory usage per the Agreements. Included in operating costs credited are the following: operating wages and benefits, offsite wages, non-wage staff costs, direct operating, contracted services, repairs and maintenance, general and administrative, utilities, insurance, refurbishment and management fee expenditures. This calculation is prepared by the Property Manager and agreed by the Developer, an entity related by virtue of common control. These transactions are in the normal course of operations and are measured at the exchange amount which is the amount of consideration established and agreed to by the related parties.

2015 4(i) (i) The Developer is responsible for maintenance fees on developer owned inventory provided such inventory is online and available for use by the Developer. Where inventory is inactive, the Developer is credited to reflect the cost savings of the Resort. Developer maintenance fees after credits are as follows:

2015 Developer maintenance fees $ 582,057

So for 2015, they're not even going to tell us the amount of the credits? hmmmm.....

2016 No financial statements yet. Kind of late again.....



These are all easily found on the Sunchaser site. And you can dig back into your previous statements to see the rest.

Odd, don't you think, that they were never accounted for before - even though it was stated in our contracts?

Then there's the on-again, off-again accounting of the last few years since our troubles began.

Then there's the interesting way they take all the cost reductions for themselves instead of sharing them equally among all lessees - and only paying the difference.



You see, if Sunchaser/Northmont/Northwynd had been paying their fair share all along, they would have had some incentive to manage things properly, keep the Timeshare Sales operating, maximize rentals of empty units, etc. But it turns out that running it properly for the good of the lessees was never their intention - or they wouldn't have killed all goodwill and rendered future Timeshare sales and resales impossible. They've made it so our leases have zero value to us now - worse, they are a liability to lessees.

But if Sunchaser/Northmont/Northwynd succeeds in bullying us into walking away - we've given away 20 or 30 or - in too many sad, sad cases - 38 years of our vacation investments. And we're supposed to be grateful for that - and even pay for the privilege?!

Sunchaser/Northmont/Northwynd will thus re-acquire a massive inventory of properties
FOR FREE - WITH BONUS PAYMENTS that they can simply do with as they will - sell off whole buildings, sell off as condos, convert to hotels, rent out to long-term tenants, etc. The few lingering timeshare lessees will find their vacation experiences massively altered once Sunchaser is no longer a timeshare resort.

They have deliberately misled everyone and never had any intention of honouring their side of the deal.[/QUOTE]

So Well Stated. Thanks SentimentalLady

 

[teedeej]

I am another dissatisfied Sunchaser owner. It seems to me that there are one or two members on here ("I have seen the light and now love Northwynd") that are nothing more than company plants.
Northwynd agreed to purchase Fairmont Resort Properties,
Lk Okanagan Resort, and other assets after Fairmont filed for bankruptcy in 2008. Northwynd should have know about the villas' problems, including the Poly-B piping. If they didn't, they neglected doing their homework. Building maintenance had been minimal for years. To force villa owners to pay for major renovations is scandalous. This is not maintenance or refurbishing.
Northwynd kept the Sunchaser Villas and sold off it's other assets, like the Lake Okanagan Resort, which was purchased by a Chinese buyer in 2014. LOR's selling price wasn't published but the listing was for $10.1 million.
Northwynd has a very creative accounting department; they own half the villas but they wouldn't have to pay a cent for renovations if all the time share owners payed the $4195 renovation fee.
Clause 13 in my Fairmont lease agreement refers basically to the lessor's (Northwynd) compensation to the lessee (me) if I renege on my fees; besides my contract was with Fairmont Resort Properties, not Northwynd. At this point I don't care if I get a nickel in return. No auto dealership would refuse a returned paid-in-full vehicle if there was no expectation of compensation. But then the Sunchaser Villas are basically worthless so you can't blame Northwynd for not accepting them.

 

[Spark1]

Spark, I definitely would like you to post a copy of your Cancellation Agreement that you took to Service Alberta and when you do, highlite the area in fine print that you refer to. Also try using your foul and profane language at a court of law. This type of expression does not impress me nor intimidate me, just shows the quality of your character.

Interesting that there is a question about how I have a cancellation form. The forms, etc. were posted on Sunchaser’s web site which I downloaded for my review before making my final decision. I believe it is prudent to review and analyse all relevant information before making a decision. I did not make my decision haphazardly, I deliberated long and hard because I did not like having to pay either the-pay-to-stay or go fee.

Obviously, I decided to pay-to-stay fee. I spent a lot of time researching the issue on TUGBBS and other internet sites, talked to many other owners and a couple of lawyers, reviewing my lease and other relevant information and reluctantly made my decision. In hind sight, I’m happy with my decision. 4,600 owners decided to stay and 6,200 decided to go. All that is needed to accommodate the paid-to-stay are the Riverside and Riverview buildings. The rest of the buildings, that is Hillside, can be separated. I’m glad not to be part of the 3,600 delinquent owners, some of whom did not pay their maintenance fees during Fairmont’s control and did not decide to stay or go. I say, take your case to the Supreme Court and get this matter resolved. On second thought, if the case is decided in Northmonts favour, I doubt the delinquent owners would accept the decision. Then what? Continue to try to get your issues resolved thru the court of public opinion? To date, two decisions have been in favour of Northmont. Perhaps you should use different lawyers in your third appeal since you are so sure of your interpretation of the VIA.

Regarding clause 13 of the VIA, my agreement says “if the Lessor accepts the deemed offer”, the key word is “if” versus the modified VIA which says “---the Lessor may terminate---“, the key word being “may”. Neither of these words are “mandatory”, such as shall or, must. How does your lawyer interpret their meaning?

I think the delinquents should place their soap box at Hillside. As far as I am concerned, they have chosen to abandon their timeshare by not paying their fees. All they want is not to take any financial responsibility according to their VIA agreement. They want a gift from Northmont and the paid-to-stay owners who have paid extra in maintenance fees to cover for the delinquent owners.

Have you reviewed the maintenance budget for the years 2013 to 2017? Have you done a simple calculation that would show the number of timeshare weeks has decreased from 9,668 in 2013 to 5,133 in 2017. Compare the 5,133 weeks to the 8,265 delinquents. A simple calculation shows that there are 2,001 annual owners and 3,132 bi-annual owners. Also, that is significantly different from the number of weeks in 2010 and 2011 at 12,581 weeks. I believe these numbers show that Northmont has accounted for the 6,235 owners who chose to cancel their contracts (paid-to-go).

What you do not want to do is call me a liar. I would be more than happy to meet you any where you would like and stuff that cancellation form down your throat. I will get the name of the RCMP that the material that I took to Service Alberta was sent to and have them run you off a copy. Give me your mailing address and I will have Geldert Law send it out to you. If you are not a owner of a Time Share any more why are you so interested in what is going on and coming up with all these stupid numbers. Do not treat us like criminals and try to make us believe that Northwynd has a right to all this extortion money just because these liberal judges are protecting their own being Justice Loo. The justice system is totally wrong doing this when they think they have the right to over ride our contracts that we all signed and had witnessed. Northwynd takes over the resort knowing the condition of the resort and comes up with a way to legally steal money from time owners that paid their maintenance fees yearly calculated according to our agreements. They feel they do not have to live up to our agreements and use extortion to steal money. Their freedom to Choose had great chooses,get sucked in with that phoney cancellation form or pay that renovation fee and now they own you and Norton Rose already has a new drafted up contract for them called Northwynd's Legacy for Life. Now if we want marble floors you time owners will pay the bill and replace our resort. I believe you are one of them.

 

[servemeout]

Spark1 - Tswow is pushing you buttons! DO NOT LET THAT HAPPEN. I am very pleased he/she has taken to the soapbox idea. In the words of Oscar Wilde "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness" I may consider starting a new business and produce soapboxes for use by Northmont and their supporters. I will call them "you've been had" or some other such name. I will NOT name them "roll over and show your belly" As to the price - how about equating that to a years' MF? After reading all of the update to the delinquent owners this morning, I would suggest that Tswow follow something said by Mark Twain " Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please" The biggest delinquent owner is not our litigation group.

 

[Real World]

The Service Alberta Email posted by Spark1 outlines the relevant aspects for Service Alberta getting involved.

"The Time Share and Points Based Contracts and Businesses Regulations has regulated Time Share sales that have occurred in Alberta since 2009. Prior to the previous Time Share Contracts regulation established a very limited set of minimum disclosure standards for Time Share sales occurring in Alberta.
With both regulation, only the initial sales is regulated. The operation of the Time Share after the sale is governed by the terms of the Time Share Contract. If the Time Share operator breaches the terms of the contract, then you may have a civil case. You would need to discuss your case with legal council and determine if the issues you have identified would be a breach of the contractual rights and obligations under your contract and what options may be available to you to pursue redress or resolution."

Maybe someone should take their contract to a lawyer for review.

It probably would be a good idea to mention the BC litigation to the lawyer doing the review.

 

[servemeout]

On Sept. 16/2016 ACJ Young of the Alberta provincial court instructed the lawyers on both sides of the litigation to present the differences in the NINE contracts of timeshare leases that have been signed. This case was adjourned until April 11,2017, when it will go back in front of her. We do not need another lawyer for review and she is very aware of the BC litigation.

 

[truthr]

On Sept. 16/2016 ACJ Young of the Alberta provincial court instructed the lawyers on both sides of the litigation to present the differences in the NINE contracts of timeshare leases that have been signed. This case was adjourned until April 11,2017, when it will go back in front of her. We do not need another lawyer for review and she is very aware of the BC litigation.

April 11th?? It is my understanding that it is scheduled for April 7th in Edmonton.

 

[servemeout]

April 11th?? It is my understanding that it is scheduled for April 7th in Edmonton.

You are correct - April 7, 2017

 

[aden2]

Spark, I definitely would like you to post a copy of your Cancellation Agreement that you took to Service Alberta and when you do, highlite the area in fine print that you refer to. Also try using your foul and profane language at a court of law. This type of expression does not impress me nor intimidate me, just shows the quality of your character.

Interesting that there is a question about how I have a cancellation form. The forms, etc. were posted on Sunchaser’s web site which I downloaded for my review before making my final decision. I believe it is prudent to review and analyse all relevant information before making a decision. I did not make my decision haphazardly, I deliberated long and hard because I did not like having to pay either the-pay-to-stay or go fee.

Obviously, I decided to pay-to-stay fee. I spent a lot of time researching the issue on TUGBBS and other internet sites, talked to many other owners and a couple of lawyers, reviewing my lease and other relevant information and reluctantly made my decision. In hind sight, I’m happy with my decision. 4,600 owners decided to stay and 6,200 decided to go. All that is needed to accommodate the paid-to-stay are the Riverside and Riverview buildings. The rest of the buildings, that is Hillside, can be separated. I’m glad not to be part of the 3,600 delinquent owners, some of whom did not pay their maintenance fees during Fairmont’s control and did not decide to stay or go. I say, take your case to the Supreme Court and get this matter resolved. On second thought, if the case is decided in Northmonts favour, I doubt the delinquent owners would accept the decision. Then what? Continue to try to get your issues resolved thru the court of public opinion? To date, two decisions have been in favour of Northmont. Perhaps you should use different lawyers in your third appeal since you are so sure of your interpretation of the VIA.

Regarding clause 13 of the VIA, my agreement says “if the Lessor accepts the deemed offer”, the key word is “if” versus the modified VIA which says “---the Lessor may terminate---“, the key word being “may”. Neither of these words are “mandatory”, such as shall or, must. How does your lawyer interpret their meaning?

I think the delinquents should place their soap box at Hillside. As far as I am concerned, they have chosen to abandon their timeshare by not paying their fees. All they want is not to take any financial responsibility according to their VIA agreement. They want a gift from Northmont and the paid-to-stay owners who have paid extra in maintenance fees to cover for the delinquent owners.

Have you reviewed the maintenance budget for the years 2013 to 2017? Have you done a simple calculation that would show the number of timeshare weeks has decreased from 9,668 in 2013 to 5,133 in 2017. Compare the 5,133 weeks to the 8,265 delinquents. A simple calculation shows that there are 2,001 annual owners and 3,132 bi-annual owners. Also, that is significantly different from the number of weeks in 2010 and 2011 at 12,581 weeks. I believe these numbers show that Northmont has accounted for the 6,235 owners who chose to cancel their contracts (paid-to-go).