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

[Timesharepain]

We did but had not paid

K

 

[Spark1]

That me

Not only are they obligated, but under the Unfair Practices and Other Offenses of the Time Share and Points-Based Contract Regs is required to notify us AND GET OUR CONSENT IN WRITING ...

That means we have no contract. This is Law in Alberta on Dec17/2017. When we fight this in 2018 it is now law That they have to talk to us first or there is no contract. Who cares if it is 2016 or now. They tried to hide this by calling it a modification.

 

[LilMaggie]

Does anyone know exactly what were the unilateral changes to our contracts and where to find them?

Also, does anyone have or know where to find Jeke's original timeshare contract?

Who is Mr Alexander that was part of the super conference?

Mr. Alexander was counsel for the plaintiff.
https://www.coxtaylor.ca/our-lawyers/john-alexander

J.B purchased his timeshare in 2004, so this may or not have been in his contract. It was not in mine.

Over the years the forms of agreements have changed slightly. By the time of the April 3, 2004 Vacation Experience Lease, para. 13 had changed to provide:

13 DEFAULT OF THE LESSEE IN ANY PAYMENT REQUIRED UNDER THIS LEASE: In the event that the Lessee should default in making any payment required to be made by the Lessee hereunder, within the time stipulated for payment, then the Lessee agrees that the Lessee’s right to occupy a Vacation Property shall be suspended until such time as all payments due have been duly paid.

If a default in any payment required to be paid according to this lease has not been remedied within 90 days from the date of such default, and the Lessee has been given a minimum of one written notice of such default, the Lessor may terminate this Lease upon written notice to the Lessee, and from the date of such notice all of the Lessee’s rights to the Vacation Property pursuant to the provisions of this Lease shall be terminated. Furthermore, from the date of such notice of termination, the Lessor shall be entitled to the full and exclusive right to use and occupy the Vacation Property free and clear of all rights of the Lessee pursuant to this Lease or otherwise and Lessor may grant the right to use the Vacation Property during the week period to which the Lessee is entitled hereunder to another person or may retain it for any other purpose. The monies received by Lessor on account of rights of occupation or otherwise following such default or termination shall be retained by the Lessor as its sole and exclusive property as liquidated damages and not as a penalty. In the event of termination or hereinbefore provided, the Lessee shall, following such termination, be released from all obligations hereunder except for any monies then owing to the Lessor, or any other liabilities then outstanding of the Lessee, under this Lease.

 

[dotbuhler]

That me

That means we have no contract. This is Law in Alberta on Dec17/2017. When we fight this in 2018 it is now law That they have to talk to us first or there is no contract. Who cares if it is 2016 or now. They tried to hide this by calling it a modification.

This is PRIOR to the amendment of 2017 December. It was already the law while they were trying to modify our contracts. Make sure you file a Dispute Notice if you are not Appealing the Decision. It costs $125.00 at the Edmonton Law Courts and is for a counterclaim of up to $50,000.00.

 

[Spark1]

Mr. Alexander was counsel for the plaintiff.
https://www.coxtaylor.ca/our-lawyers/john-alexander

J.B purchased his timeshare in 2004, so this may or not have been in his contract. It was not in mine.
Over the years the forms of agreements have changed slightly. By the time of the April 3, 2004 Vacation Experience Lease, para. 13 had changed to provide:

13 DEFAULT OF THE LESSEE IN ANY PAYMENT REQUIRED UNDER THIS LEASE: In the event that the Lessee should default in making any payment required to be made by the Lessee hereunder, within the time stipulated for payment, then the Lessee agrees that the Lessee’s right to occupy a Vacation Property shall be suspended until such time as all payments due have been duly paid.

If a default in any payment required to be paid according to this lease has not been remedied within 90 days from the date of such default, and the Lessee has been given a minimum of one written notice of such default, the Lessor may terminate this Lease upon written notice to the Lessee, and from the date of such notice all of the Lessee’s rights to the Vacation Property pursuant to the provisions of this Lease shall be terminated. Furthermore, from the date of such notice of termination, the Lessor shall be entitled to the full and exclusive right to use and occupy the Vacation Property free and clear of all rights of the Lessee pursuant to this Lease or otherwise and Lessor may grant the right to use the Vacation Property during the week period to which the Lessee is entitled hereunder to another person or may retain it for any other purpose. The monies received by Lessor on account of rights of occupation or otherwise following such default or termination shall be retained by the Lessor as its sole and exclusive property as liquidated damages and not as a penalty. In the event of termination or hereinbefore provided, the Lessee shall, following such termination, be released from all obligations hereunder except for any monies then owing to the Lessor, or any other liabilities then outstanding of the Lessee, under this Lease.

This explains why they wanted to do their illegal unilateral ammendments to the contracts prior to 2003. We never seen their new ammendments or do we care. We have never signed anything with this new owner and we never will. You can not deal with people like this and they can not be trusted. Talk to the time owners that got taken at the Rancho Banderas. Timeshare is in the Canadian Consumer Protection Handbook and let’s demand from all politicians how are we protected. I got this from a Judge that is connected to Justice Young and he said the only way to change this is get after all politicians they have to change this to prevent White Collar Crime. I believe there has been many mistakes made and the ones in power are passing the buck. It is great MG is no longer part of this. If he was as bad as the Judges say than that is proof that we never got Justice. I do not believe the judges expected MG to collect up to $140000.00 off of a real old man. Did MG tell the man that I have known for years the truth or was that a scare tactic? This will hurt timeshare and lease contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. Did this company or the company that went bankrupted ever have a problem with the majority of us time owners paying maintenance fees before the Trustee’s Freedom To Choose no they did not? Freedom to Choose was not in our Lease Contract and that is what MG was to protect.

 

[Shake Down]

looking into a few related news stories Re: Class Action/Breach of contract etc. found this one interesting.

Caravanserai Beach Resort- St Maarten, Endless Vacation NV (the timeshare company)

The resort got into financial trouble, Scotiabank held the mortgage on the resort, and eventually foreclosed on it. The bank was left owning the resort and continuing to run the operations. As time went by, conditions deteriorated. The elevators were broken for months, the hot water was unreliable, and the AC was sometimes out of service. In August 2014, Scotiabank sold the Caravanserai Beach Resort to Alegria at a public auction. Alegria paid $14 million US for the property.

After Alegria purchased the property, they said that Endless Vacation NV (the timeshare company) was no longer involved in the hotel and timeshare operations. They further stated that Alegria would not be bound by any of the timeshare agreements that Endless Vacation made.

The new owner Alegria sent about 2,200 timeshare owners at the resort a letter, saying their ownership rights were nullified!

Alegria denied any responsibility for this loss of ownership, but said they sympathised with the owners. They offered disenfranchised owners "a hotel room usage agreement, which would allow usage of a hotel room and facilities at the resort against an annual fee to cover part of the operational cost of the resort." (The Alegria offer sounds a lot like a timeshare, so what's the difference between this and what the owners had before?)

One client stated..."in November we received an e-mail from new owner Sidholm/Alegria telling us our timeshare rights were null and void. He plans to "tear down" the existing facilities and build a luxury hotel - oh, and too bad for the 2,200 timeshare owners"

In 2014 The owners quickly created a group called TOCA (Timeshare Owners at Caravanserai Beach Resort) hastily filed an injunction just days before the deadline, to try to protect their rights. However, the court sided with the new owner, Alegria, because the timeshare owners' agreements were not with Alegria, or with the former property owner, but with Endless Vacations NV. The judge said that Alegria was not bound by any agreements that Endless Vacation made and was entitled to nullify the people's ownership rights like they did.

After losing a previous injunction in November 2014, the association TOCA filed a new case in July 2015 in a renewed effort by timeshare owners to get their units back. TOCA deemed the immediate annulment of clients' timeshare agreements unjust, as these constituted a breach of contract. The association is of the opinion that timeshare agreements are, in fact, rental agreements that, as such, should be legally protected.

This time, the Court ruled in the timeshare owners' favour, as it held their agreements closed with the resort's former owner Kildare, its subsidiary company Endless Vacation, or any other, to be rental agreements, which are protected by law. The Court ordered Alegría to allow timeshare owners access to their properties within five days, providing they pay the required maintenance fees. In case of non-compliance, Alegría would have to pay a daily fine of US $1,000 per TOCA-member, to a maximum of $25,000 per member.

The resort owner also was ordered to pay each of the individual owners the amount of $27,589, with interest. Alegría also will have to pay the cost of the legal proceedings.

* Interesting how the rental agreement came into play on this one..

 

[tssuck]

The lett

I just got an email from the Geldster tonight saying he hadn't gotten my signed papers,
( the option 1 stuff) and that now there is another NEW Deadline, you guessed it, it is TOMORROW! According to the registered mail tracking, he received it on the morning of the 16th..... It looked like a shotgunned mailing out to everyone, just wondering if anyone else got one of these. I told him he better look again, and I said it nicely!

The letter he sent out not only gave us less than 24 hours to get everything in to him, he also wanted our financial information sent along as well.
No way in h--l is he getting any of my money as well as my financial info so they can they can continue to scam us. Without a contract that tells us exactly what changes NM made to our contracts, as far as I am concerned, there is no contract and no liability, therefore no money to be paid out by me. Both NM and MG screwed up by not sending us the amended contracts. They knew that the amended contracts would be invalid.

 

[Just Looking Around]

December 8, 2017 2018 MAINTENANCE FEE COMMUNICATION
Dear Sunchaser Vacation Villas Owner: MAINTENANCE FEE UPDATE 2017 update:
... the Resort reached settlement with a small percentage of the delinquent Owners to offset some of the legal costs incurred on your behalf. ...

Geldert isn't the only one good a 'colouring' the truth. Wankel, who if you were paying attention to Punter's post earlier (#3902), is the sole owner of the #NAFR adds some shading to the truth by suggesting this legal dispute is him defending leasees from the leasees.

 

[Jack0123]

I still have trouble understanding how anyone can change a contract with out advising the other parties involved. try that on a residential lease, a vehicle lease on any other type and it could not pass the courts.

 

[Petus@18]

Was the trustee responsible for sending the notification of Fairmont's bankruptcy? Or was it NM? NM did not notify any of us of its ownership of the resort after the bankruptcy. We only knew of these changes when we received their BS letter with the freedom to choose, right ?

 

[torqued]

I did get a letter notifying me of their take over of the resort.

 

[Appauled]

I still have trouble understanding how anyone can change a contract with out advising the other parties involved. try that on a residential lease, a vehicle lease on any other type and it could not pass the courts.

Break it down a bit more, on a car lease you are responsible for scheduled maintenance costs, HOWEVER on a residential lease such as a house or condo, if the roof or the POLY B pipes, etc. needed to be repaired or replaced, then it is the responsibility of the PROPERTY OWNER to repair, not the leaser. And in both cases, IF you wanted to exit the lease and were unable to find someone to take over, the most you would be bound to and responsible for, would be the balance of the lease for the monthly/annual cost remaining for the term of the lease without any penalties or interest charges.
HOW in blazes does this not apply in this timeshare?????

 

[dotbuhler]

I did get a letter notifying me of their take over of the resort.

But the Act specifically states that you must agree to it in writing. Did you do that?

 

[Sunchaser Barbados]

Break it down a bit more, on a car lease you are responsible for scheduled maintenance costs, HOWEVER on a residential lease such as a house or condo, if the roof or the POLY B pipes, etc. needed to be repaired or replaced, then it is the responsibility of the PROPERTY OWNER to repair, not the leaser. And in both cases, IF you wanted to exit the lease and were unable to find someone to take over, the most you would be bound to and responsible for, would be the balance of the lease for the monthly/annual cost remaining for the term of the lease without any penalties or interest charges.
HOW in blazes does this not apply in this timeshare?????

It certainly should.

Unfortunately whatever Northmont did the Courts approved of it. The Courts are wrong in that. How could the Courts have said, 'If not the VIAs then who is going to pay for it.' without it ever crossing their mind that the Developer, the Owner of the Buildings and Land, has paid zero? How could the Courts have said, 'Can't blame a business for wanting to make money.' We don't blame Northmont for wanting to make money. They had a contract that described exactly how they are to make their money. We blame Northmont for making money outside the provisions of the contract.

Oh, I'm still on it.

The Courts were wrong. Geldert et. al. screwed-up but that was compounded by the Courts. How, how, could Loo and Fitzpatrick not asked the simple question, "Who pocketed the money from timeshare sales?" Or, how about this question, "If, as the Courts call it, it's a timeshare. Then if this timeshare chooses willfully to stop selling vacation intervals, is it still a timeshare?" Because God knows they had the inventory. Then, then, the Courts accepts that they have to reduce the number of buildings because ... too much inventory, like it's not the result of Northmont's actions. Well, Northmont stopped sales. That's what happens when you operate a #NAFR and fully 75% of the Leasees choose to pay-to-leave or not pay at all.

I can see Loo and Fitzpatrick eating salads in their chambers saying,
"25% chose to stay that sounds like it's a decent place."
"Oh, unhuh, we stayed at this place last summer that had a four-star rating on Tripadvisor and it was crap. So, you can't really tell by percentages and numbers and such."
"Oh ya, that Kirk fella he looks like he didn't have any friends I feel kinda bad for him."
"I hear ya, he is an accountant you know. They're good with those numbers and that long-division."
"Lordy, I had trouble with that in school. Good thing Daddy was tight with the former Premier or who knows what I'd be doing now."
"You'd probably be staying in some shabby timeshare."
...both laugh.

And, and, why did the Courts not scrutinize the overall behaviour of Northmont and their failures to comply with the Bankruptcy provisions? Don't know, well, neither do I.

 

[torqued]

Nope. The letter was a warm fuzzy introduction by the CEO Patrick Fitzgerald that they obtained the resort from Fairmont. Nothing else. No mention of contracts etc

 

[Petus@18]

Nope. The letter was a warm fuzzy introduction by the CEO Patrick Fitzgerald that they obtained the resort from Fairmont. Nothing else. No mention of contracts etc

We never received this letter? I wonder why? But what about the bankruptcy? We were not told of this? Didn't the Trustee have to let all leaseholders know?

 

[torqued]

The trustee wouldn’t want us to know. Wasn’t it the trustee that called up a note and put the resort in bankruptcy so they could funnel off our lease money to a shell Corp and then hand the scam off to NW to put the icing on the ?​

 

[servemeout]

Any personal information even your name belongs to you under the Personal Information Protection Act. (PIPA) The rule in the act is it "reasonable" to share information with others. Excuse me, no one at the #NAFR needs to have my visa information or anything else. The PIPA investigators take privacy complaints seriously. Can you imagine the backlash from the people that paid to stay, when they can not get "time" in their own TS. How much trading power are they going to have? Remember the hog wash we have been handed over the years. Here is a quote from Dec 12,2012. "Kirk has completely changed the focus of our organization with a simple vision:if we provide our owners value for their money, everyone wins". It continues on with the negative aspects of the timeshare industry. Now I know the negative aspect, it was the person with the simple vision. Or is that the blurred myopic vision of GRAB the lands and GRAB their money. Also in the same Sunchaser love letter is removal of shackles of the traditional timeshare model. Does anyone want to place the shackles on someone else? Did anyone say include cement boots at no additional charge ? We do not feel like "winners" and I'm sure that most of the people that paid do not feel like they won.

 

[CleoB]

But the Act specifically states that you must agree to it in writing. Did you do that?

I suspect that no reply to it would mean one approved. Not sure though if one didn't receive notice if that would apply.

 

[CleoB]

Break it down a bit more, on a car lease you are responsible for scheduled maintenance costs, HOWEVER on a residential lease such as a house or condo, if the roof or the POLY B pipes, etc. needed to be repaired or replaced, then it is the responsibility of the PROPERTY OWNER to repair, not the leaser. And in both cases, IF you wanted to exit the lease and were unable to find someone to take over, the most you would be bound to and responsible for, would be the balance of the lease for the monthly/annual cost remaining for the term of the lease without any penalties or interest charges.
HOW in blazes does this not apply in this timeshare?????

It does but Geldert didn't bring this information (along with other info given him) to the judges attention. They can only rule on what is presented to them. Face it, Geldert was in over his head. He should never have taken this case on. I think he watched to many tv shows about lawyers bring in "surprise" evidence and in real life judges don't like that.

 

[dotbuhler]

Nope. The letter was a warm fuzzy introduction by the CEO Patrick Fitzgerald that they obtained the resort from Fairmont. Nothing else. No mention of contracts etc

Then you did not sign anything agreeing to the new owners, ergo your contract is void under the Act.

 

[dotbuhler]

I suspect that no reply to it would mean one approved. Not sure though if one didn't receive notice if that would apply.

NO! "you must agree in writing", you did not do that!

 

[CleoB]

But the Act specifically states that you must agree to it in writing. Did you do that?

Would you please provide me to the link on this? I'd like my new lawyer to check this out.

 

[Frau Blucher]

Here’s a better picture of ol’ KW come moneyday

 

[LilMaggie]

looking into a few related news stories Re: Class Action/Breach of contract etc. found this one interesting.

Caravanserai Beach Resort- St Maarten, Endless Vacation NV (the timeshare company)

The resort got into financial trouble, Scotiabank held the mortgage on the resort, and eventually foreclosed on it. The bank was left owning the resort and continuing to run the operations. As time went by, conditions deteriorated. The elevators were broken for months, the hot water was unreliable, and the AC was sometimes out of service. In August 2014, Scotiabank sold the Caravanserai Beach Resort to Alegria at a public auction. Alegria paid $14 million US for the property.

After Alegria purchased the property, they said that Endless Vacation NV (the timeshare company) was no longer involved in the hotel and timeshare operations. They further stated that Alegria would not be bound by any of the timeshare agreements that Endless Vacation made.

The new owner Alegria sent about 2,200 timeshare owners at the resort a letter, saying their ownership rights were nullified!

Alegria denied any responsibility for this loss of ownership, but said they sympathised with the owners. They offered disenfranchised owners "a hotel room usage agreement, which would allow usage of a hotel room and facilities at the resort against an annual fee to cover part of the operational cost of the resort." (The Alegria offer sounds a lot like a timeshare, so what's the difference between this and what the owners had before?)

One client stated..."in November we received an e-mail from new owner Sidholm/Alegria telling us our timeshare rights were null and void. He plans to "tear down" the existing facilities and build a luxury hotel - oh, and too bad for the 2,200 timeshare owners"

In 2014 The owners quickly created a group called TOCA (Timeshare Owners at Caravanserai Beach Resort) hastily filed an injunction just days before the deadline, to try to protect their rights. However, the court sided with the new owner, Alegria, because the timeshare owners' agreements were not with Alegria, or with the former property owner, but with Endless Vacations NV. The judge said that Alegria was not bound by any agreements that Endless Vacation made and was entitled to nullify the people's ownership rights like they did.

After losing a previous injunction in November 2014, the association TOCA filed a new case in July 2015 in a renewed effort by timeshare owners to get their units back. TOCA deemed the immediate annulment of clients' timeshare agreements unjust, as these constituted a breach of contract. The association is of the opinion that timeshare agreements are, in fact, rental agreements that, as such, should be legally protected.

This time, the Court ruled in the timeshare owners' favour, as it held their agreements closed with the resort's former owner Kildare, its subsidiary company Endless Vacation, or any other, to be rental agreements, which are protected by law. The Court ordered Alegría to allow timeshare owners access to their properties within five days, providing they pay the required maintenance fees. In case of non-compliance, Alegría would have to pay a daily fine of US $1,000 per TOCA-member, to a maximum of $25,000 per member.

The resort owner also was ordered to pay each of the individual owners the amount of $27,589, with interest. Alegría also will have to pay the cost of the legal proceedings.

* Interesting how the rental agreement came into play on this one..

If only Canadian courts were as intelligent as the Dutch when it comes to understanding what renting property entails!