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

[Palms to pines]

You’re right. Pay to stay or pay to go. The consistent part of all of it is : we pay

 

[Hotpink]

Yes the New act does that , but the old act also applies It is an UNFAIR PRACTICE
"to charge a fee for an estimate for goods or services unless the consumer (i) is informed in advance that a fee will be charged and informed of the amount of the fee and (ii)expressly consented to charged the fee."
we must remember that we all received the glossy flyer in late 2012 outlining Exciting changes coming to the resort in 2013. There is a mention of funds being held in a segregated trust account, but no mention or even an innuendo that a fee would be charged. However in a letter to us dated Dec 10,2012 there is mention on page two(2) there will be an option to pay through a $100.00 /month with no interest but no total amount.
Clearly that is in contravention of part (i)
Shame on me I didn't see a weasel waiting out side the door so did nothing

Next section from the old act which moves us to the present
"(3)it is an unfair practice for a supplier (a) to enter into a consumer transaction if the supplier knows or ought to know the consumer is unable to receive any reasonable benefit from the goods or services;
(b) to enter into a consumer transaction if the supplier knows or ought to know that there is no reasonable probability that the consumer is able pay the full price for the goods or services; (c) to include in consumer transaction terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one -sided;(d) to make representation that a consumer transaction involves or does not involve rights, remedies or obligations that is different from the Fact "

look at the other part of section2 and it says
"It is an unfair practice for a supplier, in a consumer transaction or proposed transaction, (a)to exert undue pressure or influence on the consumer to enter into the consumer transaction; (b)to take advantage of the consumer as a result the consumers inability to understand the character, nature, language or effect of the consumer transaction or any matter related to the transaction"

Northmont is saying we each owe a certain amount based on their calculations and they are going to try and coerce as many of us to fork out extraordinary and inflated amounts. We won't and I to do not want to advise others as to hat to do. We feel they have been acting and continue to do so in contravention of the Alberta Fair Trading Act under the old rules never mind the new Act which has more teeth.

If you don't pay they must get a judgement in court against you. Even if they got a ruling that you must pay something it is still just a piece of paper and they are very restricted as to what they can have seized and sold. Please check with your banker , MLA or even another lawyer to verify their restrictive abilities.

Our advice is to contact the minister in charge of this portfolio and if you are a senior also play that card ( understand it is the same Department)

Non Illigitimi carborundum

 

[Bewildered]

Will be speaking to new legal counsel this week, but the plan is to pay what’s owed - RPF and outstanding maintenance fees and the legal maximum interest allowed (4 or 5%). Costs are included in our maintenance fees so I will fight to not pay any additional costs. This total will be substantially less than what we have been invoiced. The difference is yes, we are still in, but how can Northmont ever charge any additional fees when they’ve just collected over $30 million. Then we will focus our efforts on Northmont...

Actually sounds good but where I am struggling is Geldert never seemed to make any headway in the BC courts or Alberta, other than Justice Youngs concern on the interest rate, so where does the 4 or 5% interest come from? If from an original contract you realize that Wankel and Northmont have unilaterally change the contracts and again the Courts never seemed to shut that illegal move either.

 

[den403]

Does anyone have anything generic, written you can send me?
I am on vacation and have no documents with me but want to send letters today but dont know where to start

 

[Pynecone]

Unfortunately, geldert has ensured we have functionally no time to react. Within weeks the settlement will be literally signed, sealed and delivered (except for those who either cannot or will not pay). As much as it sickens me, these are the facts.

I am hopeful some last minute intervention happens through mla's, rcmp, prime minister etc.

A lot of roads to go down with no time.

Gelderts option 1 and option 2 strike me as similar to options northmont gave us when this all started.

I will be contacting the media with our situation at the following email addresses :
1) gopublic@cbc.ca
2) marketplace@cbc.ca
3) fifthtips@cbc.ca

If global news and ctv news have similar news type investigators I will be contacting them as well.

I encourage you to do the same as it's easy for them to ignore 1 person.

This gross miscarriage of justice needs to be exposed.

I will also be contacting the Canadian Anti Fraud Center.

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

Does anyone have anything generic, written you can send me?
I am on vacation and have no documents with me but want to send letters today but dont know where to start

I can you something if you have access to email - back123@shaw.ca

 

[Tanny13]

Actually sounds good but where I am struggling is Geldert never seemed to make any headway in the BC courts or Alberta, other than Justice Youngs concern on the interest rate, so where does the 4 or 5% interest come from? If from an original contract you realize that Wankel and Northmont have unilaterally change the contracts and again the Courts never seemed to shut that illegal move either.

I have a contract, with interest expressed illegally. I will get proper legal advice on “unilateral amendments” to our contract. It is also my understanding that maximum interest that can be charged while case is in the courts is 4%. Again, need proper legal opinion. Not being forced into a corner when everyone is on vacation.

 

[JAM DOWN]

Will be speaking to new legal counsel this week, but the plan is to pay what’s owed - RPF and outstanding maintenance fees and the legal maximum interest allowed (4 or 5%). Costs are included in our maintenance fees so I will fight to not pay any additional costs. This total will be substantially less than what we have been invoiced. The difference is yes, we are still in, but how can Northmont ever charge any additional fees when they’ve just collected over $30 million. Then we will focus our efforts on Northmont...

I agree with where Tanny13 is going with this...both the illegal interest and the unilateral amendments seem to make the most sense to me as well...interested in what legal counsel has to say.

Spoke with Darren at FTA before the holiday and he was aware of our situation and unfortunately was not hopeful. He felt that the FTA could help people that recently purchased a timeshare...not us...Curious whether the changing of our agreements unilaterally can be retroactively applied to the New Consumer Protection Act and more specifically to our situation.

 

[Punter]

With option 1, you are paying both to stay and to go.

They are charging the RPF and an exit fee of 20% despite what KW states below.

The following is from the BC Trial, statements from Kirk Wankel under oath:

Q Do you admit that the manager is treating Northmont differently by not requiring that part of the section 9 payment called the RPF to be paid?
KW. It is treating Northmont the same as anyone who wants to terminate their lease and participate in the resort
realignment plan to exit. Any owner who chooses to cancel does not have to pay the RPF.
Q Do you admit they have not been paid?
KW. Yes.
Q Are you prepared to admit that if Northmont is responsible to pay to the resort account the RPF, that Northmont is in default to the extent of approximately a $20 million payment?
KW. No.
Q Why not?
KW. Because you can't be in default until you have been invoiced and the bill is overdue.
Q And who decided whether or not to invoice Northmont?
KW The manager.
Q Who is the manager?
KW. Northmont.
Q So the only reason Northmont doesn't have a bill is that it has decided not to bill itself?
KW. The manager has not billed Northmont.
Q Do you admit the reason that Northmont has not billed Northmont is that Northmont expects to get some kind of approval for some kind of resort realignment in the future?
KW. Yes.

 

[ecwinch]

Not to take away from the on-going discussion, but for those of us watching this from the sidelines, I have a couple of questions:

1) Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.

2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?

3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?

Just curious.

 

[Palms to pines]

I know. The reason NM is not in arrears is because they haven’t sent themselves a bill.It has got to be one of the most absurd statements any judge has ever heard. It blew my mind when I read it originally. It would be laughable in any other circumstance.

 

[Scammed!]

I know. The reason NM is not in arrears is because they haven’t sent themselves a bill.It has got to be one of the most absurd statements any judge has ever heard. It blew my mind when I read it originally. It would be laughable in any other circumstance.

There's so much conflict of interest it's ridiculous!............................

 

[easy prey]

There are rules on how a plaintiff can collect. I believe they are:

First the plaintiff must obtain judgement. As far as I know Northmont has only obtained judgements on Alberta and bc residents so far. Those in other jurisdictions will have an opportunity to dispute an application for judgement.

Then they have to seek a remedy through the courts. Things like seizure of assets, garnishee, etc.

Then they can proceed with attempting to collect through the remedies the court has approved.

They cannot leave you penny less and in the street. I am not saying that if you don't pay your mortgage the bank can't foreclose. That's very different. I don't believe northmont can take your primary residence. The plaintiff (northmont) cannot garnishee all of your earnings. They have to leave you money to live on pursuant to rules of the court. There is also things plaintiff's cannot seize and sell such as leases assets amongst other things.

Those who have few assets and limited income are the hardest to collect from.

I may be wrong on some of these points, I'm not a lawyer.

I believe that especially for the people who have few assets and limited income to seek out legal advice as to exactly what northmont can and cannot do to them. It may help you in making your decisions.

You can't get blood from a stone.

Some of us may be forced to pay but not all of us.

 

[Bewildered]

Yes the New act does that , but the old act also applies It is an UNFAIR PRACTICE
"to charge a fee for an estimate for goods or services unless the consumer (i) is informed in advance that a fee will be charged and informed of the amount of the fee and (ii)expressly consented to charged the fee."
we must remember that we all received the glossy flyer in late 2012 outlining Exciting changes coming to the resort in 2013. There is a mention of funds being held in a segregated trust account, but no mention or even an innuendo that a fee would be charged. However in a letter to us dated Dec 10,2012 there is mention on page two(2) there will be an option to pay through a $100.00 /month with no interest but no total amount.
Clearly that is in contravention of part (i)
Shame on me I didn't see a weasel waiting out side the door so did nothing

Next section from the old act which moves us to the present
"(3)it is an unfair practice for a supplier (a) to enter into a consumer transaction if the supplier knows or ought to know the consumer is unable to receive any reasonable benefit from the goods or services;
(b) to enter into a consumer transaction if the supplier knows or ought to know that there is no reasonable probability that the consumer is able pay the full price for the goods or services; (c) to include in consumer transaction terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one -sided;(d) to make representation that a consumer transaction involves or does not involve rights, remedies or obligations that is different from the Fact "

look at the other part of section2 and it says
"It is an unfair practice for a supplier, in a consumer transaction or proposed transaction, (a)to exert undue pressure or influence on the consumer to enter into the consumer transaction; (b)to take advantage of the consumer as a result the consumers inability to understand the character, nature, language or effect of the consumer transaction or any matter related to the transaction"

Northmont is saying we each owe a certain amount based on their calculations and they are going to try and coerce as many of us to fork out extraordinary and inflated amounts. We won't and I to do not want to advise others as to hat to do. We feel they have been acting and continue to do so in contravention of the Alberta Fair Trading Act under the old rules never mind the new Act which has more teeth.

If you don't pay they must get a judgement in court against you. Even if they got a ruling that you must pay something it is still just a piece of paper and they are very restricted as to what they can have seized and sold. Please check with your banker , MLA or even another lawyer to verify their restrictive abilities.

Our advice is to contact the minister in charge of this portfolio and if you are a senior also play that card ( understand it is the same Department)

Non Illigitimi carborundum

I can you something if you have access to email - back123@shaw.ca

Does anyone have anything generic, written you can send me?
I am on vacation and have no documents with me but want to send letters today but dont know where to start

Does anyone have anything generic, written you can send me?
I am on vacation and have no documents with me but want to send letters today but dont know where to start

 

[Bewildered]

i will be sending a generic letter for anyone that wants to use In whole or in part and also all the contacts to send to. Your MLAs in your Province maybe the Alberta/BC Justice Ministers are probably the only hope at this short of time and somehow if the media would catch wind of this. You think they would be interested in a 30 million dollar scam but according to Geldert there was no interest?

 

[Petus@18]

While sending more letters and noticed that:

I signed option one but checked the 2nd paragraph supporting the petition and not the settlement on my behalf without any opportunity to voice my concerns before Mr. Geldert's accepting the so called 'great cancellation offer'.

Option one, in my opinion, was misleading. I signed to proceed with the petition and not for a settlement on my behalf without even knowing the amount of what I am supposed to be settling for. Who does that? In my opinion, it looks as if Mr. Geldert wrote option 1 in a way that he cannot be found liable of breaching any relationship with his clients, he acted in bad faith and now we are paying for the consequences of signing a document he created covering his unethical tactics to get more clients to sign this option.


- Do you feel the same? is this legal?

 

[Palms to pines]

It is my understanding that Albertans were sued in Alberta. All others were sued in BC.

 

[Petus@18]

Will be speaking to new legal counsel this week, but the plan is to pay what’s owed - RPF and outstanding maintenance fees and the legal maximum interest allowed (4 or 5%). Costs are included in our maintenance fees so I will fight to not pay any additional costs. This total will be substantially less than what we have been invoiced. The difference is yes, we are still in, but how can Northmont ever charge any additional fees when they’ve just collected over $30 million. Then we will focus our efforts on Northmont...

Will be speaking to new legal counsel this week, but the plan is to pay what’s owed - RPF and outstanding maintenance fees and the legal maximum interest allowed (4 or 5%). Costs are included in our maintenance fees so I will fight to not pay any additional costs. This total will be substantially less than what we have been invoiced. The difference is yes, we are still in, but how can Northmont ever charge any additional fees when they’ve just collected over $30 million. Then we will focus our efforts on Northmont...

Who is your new lawyer? could you provide us with his/her contact details?

 

[Tanny13]

Who is your new lawyer? could you provide us with his/her contact details?

Don't have one yet. Working on it this week.

 

[Tanny13]

Not to take away from the on-going discussion, but for those of us watching this from the sidelines, I have a couple of questions:

1) Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.

True.

2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?

True. Unless the RPF AND maintenance fees were paid, owners were unable to use the resort.

3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?

Yes.

Just curious.

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

Not to take away from the on-going discussion, but for those of us watching this from the sidelines, I have a couple of questions:

1) Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.

2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?

3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?

Just curious.

Hi Eric

I will try my best to answer with some history for contest:

1. Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.

I guess it has not been “well-litigated” for our side but there has been a lot of time and money spent on both sides legally disputing the matters – costs for some of the trials have already been assessed and as far as I am aware paid.

Too much time has been used to go no-where and I reserve my opinion as to why but you hinted at it above related to representation.


2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?

That is correct. Once you are 30 days in arrears on your statement of accounts you can no longer use the resort until it is paid in full and this rule was also applied to renovation fee that had been applied to all timeshare owners statements (believe there were about 14,000).

In 2013 everyone was surprised to see their yearly Maintenance invoice plus an invoice for a complete overhaul that was called a RPF Maintenance Fee which composed of capital upgrades payable within a month (my cost was $7000 + $2000 in maintenance). An alternate option was also presented for you to give back you timeshare to resort’s owner manager for about a $3500 fee per timeshare as they had plans to realign the resort and sell off buildings/property (the buy back fee collected went directly to the owner/manager along with the timeshare lease) – myself I paid about $35,000 in 2007 for a yearly and biannual 40 year timeshare leases.

Now being most of the timeshares are 40 year leases most people did not want to pay for capital improvements as a result of various other history the owner/manager has. These include but there may be more:

• Bankrupting and closing resorts in Mexico, Hawaii, Belize, another very popular 100 year old ranch property in Alberta, and their houseboat division (people please add if I missed anything)
• Selling a sister resort in Kelowna BC (I believe the new owner is already using this same tactic there)
• Closing down there sales office and eliminating their prime revenue source
• Few years ago basically giving weeks of timeshare away to existing timeshare holders
• Introducing and selling a “Legacy of Life” program which turned your lease into an ownership right at the end of your lease for quite a large sum of money
• Introduced a program to convert leaseholders from Interval to RCI also at a fee
• As part of the maintenance fee management charges a management fee of 15% for their yearly cut. This 15% was also applied to the capital improvements money collected in the year payment was made even though the project was to possibly take years to complete – estimated value of the project was in the $40 million dollar range (remember these are leases – when you are done the lease is over so all improvements made are now to the benefit of the owner).

3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?
Just curious.

Honestly we are still trying to figure all that out as we have not been given all the details related to what the lawyer has agreed to with the resort owner / manager without our involvement or consent – this is why thing are exploding right now and the timelines given we believe strategically over Christmas (the 1300 of us received a basic summary of details December 19th and had till Dec 27th to agree for huge amounts – mine is $35,000 plus the relinquishment of the timeshare).

There is more but the biggest blow is how the lawyer used unethical tactics to finalize a deal with the owner / manager of the resort.

 

[Broke Mama]

Hi Eric

I will try my best to answer with some history for contest:

1. Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.

I guess it has not been “well-litigated” for our side but there has been a lot of time and money spent on both sides legally disputing the matters – costs for some of the trials have already been assessed and as far as I am aware paid.

Too much time has been used to go no-where and I reserve my opinion as to why but you hinted at it above related to representation.


2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?

That is correct. Once you are 30 days in arrears on your statement of accounts you can no longer use the resort until it is paid in full and this rule was also applied to renovation fee that had been applied to all timeshare owners statements (believe there were about 14,000).

In 2013 everyone was surprised to see their yearly Maintenance invoice plus an invoice for a complete overhaul that was called a RPF Maintenance Fee which composed of capital upgrades payable within a month (my cost was $7000 + $2000 in maintenance). An alternate option was also presented for you to give back you timeshare to resort’s owner manager for about a $3500 fee per timeshare as they had plans to realign the resort and sell off buildings/property (the buy back fee collected went directly to the owner/manager along with the timeshare lease) – myself I paid about $35,000 in 2007 for a yearly and biannual 40 year timeshare leases.

Now being most of the timeshares are 40 year leases most people did not want to pay for capital improvements as a result of various other history the owner/manager has. These include but there may be more:

• Bankrupting and closing resorts in Mexico, Hawaii, Belize, another very popular 100 year old ranch property in Alberta, and their houseboat division (people please add if I missed anything)
• Selling a sister resort in Kelowna BC (I believe the new owner is already using this same tactic there)
• Closing down there sales office and eliminating their prime revenue source
• Few years ago basically giving weeks of timeshare away to existing timeshare holders
• Introducing and selling a “Legacy of Life” program which turned your lease into an ownership right at the end of your lease for quite a large sum of money
• Introduced a program to convert leaseholders from Interval to RCI also at a fee
• As part of the maintenance fee management charges a management fee of 15% for their yearly cut. This 15% was also applied to the capital improvements money collected in the year payment was made even though the project was to possibly take years to complete – estimated value of the project was in the $40 million dollar range (remember these are leases – when you are done the lease is over so all improvements made are now to the benefit of the owner).

3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?
Just curious.

Honestly we are still trying to figure all that out as we have not been given all the details related to what the lawyer has agreed to with the resort owner / manager without our involvement or consent – this is why thing are exploding right now and the timelines given we believe strategically over Christmas (the 1300 of us received a basic summary of details December 19th and had till Dec 27th to agree for huge amounts – mine is $35,000 plus the relinquishment of the timeshare).

There is more but the biggest blow is how the lawyer used unethical tactics to finalize a deal with the owner / manager of the resort.[/QUOTE

Has anyone tried Timeshare exit team? Or is it too late for that? Since we are in lawsuit.

 

[Broke Mama]

Has anyone talked to Timeshare exit team? Or is it too late since we are in a lawsuit?

 

[Bewildered]

Not to take away from the on-going discussion, but for those of us watching this from the sidelines, I have a couple of questions:

1) Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.

2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?

3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?

Just curious.[/QUOTE

Not to take away from the on-going discussion, but for those of us watching this from the sidelines, I have a couple of questions:

1) Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.

2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?

3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?

Just curious.

Hi Eric

I will try my best to answer with some history for contest:

1. Is it true that this issue has been "well-litigated" - in the context that there have been numerous filings and judicial proceedings? I understand that there is some dispute on how effective the legal representation has been and/or if the court fully understands the salient issues. But in terms of time in the judicial process - this is not a case where the court has not heard the various arguments.

I guess it has not been “well-litigated” for our side but there has been a lot of time and money spent on both sides legally disputing the matters – costs for some of the trials have already been assessed and as far as I am aware paid.

Too much time has been used to go no-where and I reserve my opinion as to why but you hinted at it above related to representation.


2) That the "vacation interval" owners have not been able to use the resort since these proceedings started?

That is correct. Once you are 30 days in arrears on your statement of accounts you can no longer use the resort until it is paid in full and this rule was also applied to renovation fee that had been applied to all timeshare owners statements (believe there were about 14,000).

In 2013 everyone was surprised to see their yearly Maintenance invoice plus an invoice for a complete overhaul that was called a RPF Maintenance Fee which composed of capital upgrades payable within a month (my cost was $7000 + $2000 in maintenance). An alternate option was also presented for you to give back you timeshare to resort’s owner manager for about a $3500 fee per timeshare as they had plans to realign the resort and sell off buildings/property (the buy back fee collected went directly to the owner/manager along with the timeshare lease) – myself I paid about $35,000 in 2007 for a yearly and biannual 40 year timeshare leases.

Now being most of the timeshares are 40 year leases most people did not want to pay for capital improvements as a result of various other history the owner/manager has. These include but there may be more:

• Bankrupting and closing resorts in Mexico, Hawaii, Belize, another very popular 100 year old ranch property in Alberta, and their houseboat division (people please add if I missed anything)
• Selling a sister resort in Kelowna BC (I believe the new owner is already using this same tactic there)
• Closing down there sales office and eliminating their prime revenue source
• Few years ago basically giving weeks of timeshare away to existing timeshare holders
• Introducing and selling a “Legacy of Life” program which turned your lease into an ownership right at the end of your lease for quite a large sum of money
• Introduced a program to convert leaseholders from Interval to RCI also at a fee
• As part of the maintenance fee management charges a management fee of 15% for their yearly cut. This 15% was also applied to the capital improvements money collected in the year payment was made even though the project was to possibly take years to complete – estimated value of the project was in the $40 million dollar range (remember these are leases – when you are done the lease is over so all improvements made are now to the benefit of the owner).

3) That when this is all said on done - that the owners will still be on the hook for all the legal costs for both sides?
Just curious.

Honestly we are still trying to figure all that out as we have not been given all the details related to what the lawyer has agreed to with the resort owner / manager without our involvement or consent – this is why thing are exploding right now and the timelines given we believe strategically over Christmas (the 1300 of us received a basic summary of details December 19th and had till Dec 27th to agree for huge amounts – mine is $35,000 plus the relinquishment of the timeshare).

There is more but the biggest blow is how the lawyer used unethical tactics to finalize a deal with the owner / manager of the resort.

Excellent overview, agree that the lawyer has been less than forthcoming and that none of us agreed on any settlement amount, how in the world could he assume he had carte blanch to make a 30 million dollar decision without discussing with his clients. Absolute hogwash and BC legal society should be looking into many of his actions.

 

[ecwinch]

Too much time has been used to go no-where and I reserve my opinion as to why but you hinted at it above related to representation.

Thanks for the response. I was not hinting at anything - just recognizing that some have mentioned inadequate legal counsel.

Typically when a issue like this hits TUG, it is in formative stage when posters are trying to get things organized. There is a lot of initial activity, and then the conversation goes dark without any indication that the matter is resolved. So not much in terms of legal review of the contracts involved. This thread is a little different as it spans more of the entire process.