Browse Tag

CLA

Friday’s Letter from America

This week’s Friday’s Letter from America is not the one we originally planned from Michael Kosor, this will be published in due course.

First a little news from Europe, only last week we told of the calls from HMRC informing people that they have money from the Spanish courts, one reader has sent us this information.

They were called by a Kipp Stuart from HMRC Accounting, this was with reference to a ruling at the Malaga courts, Kipp informed them that they were holding over £22,000 on their behalf, unfortunately as there was no paperwork then the funds could not be released. They were given reference numbers along with the following telephone numbers:

08713 581033 to confirm with HMRC

0034 602489947 for the Malaga Court

Wonderful, only problem, the 08713 number is not used by HMRC and also carries rather hefty charges.

The 0034 number is a Spanish mobile number and no court will issue mobile numbers for confirmation.

As we published before

HMRC DO NOT CALL PEOPLE WITH NEWS THEY ARE HOLDING MONEY ISSUED BY THE SPANISH COURTS!

On the subject of courts, it has been a rather busy, that lot at CLA have announced six more wins. There have been five in Tenerife, four of these against Silverpoint, with one of the largest awards we have seen for sometime. In this case the client was awarded over 67,000€ including legal interest and second instance legal fees with the contract being declared null & void.

The other case involved European Coast & sun Holidays SL, the judge of the Court of First Instance declared the client’s contract null & void, along with the return of over 15,000€, then as a double whammy he also ordered back payment of over 16,000€  double the deposit paid.

Then in Fuengirola at the High Court the judges reaffirmed a sentence from the Court of First Instance against Petchey Leisure, by awarding over 14,000€ plus interest and legal fees.

Back to Gran Canaria and the Court of First Instance in Maspalomas once again declared an Anfi contract null & void with the return of 21,000€ plus legal interest.

These are just some of the cases announced this week, it is certainly an expensive one for those companies.

Now on with this week’s letter.

The Deep, Dark, Dank, Obscured From View, But Very Lucrative Timeshare Developer Revenue Stream: Are Its Days Numbered?

money tree

By Mike Finn, Finn Law Group

Originally published by Inside the Gate

https://www.finnlawgroup.com/learning-center/timeshare-developer-revenue-stream-days-numbered

Clarifications in blue added by Irene Parker for non-legal minds (like mine)

September 14, 2017

We as consumers, with a certain level of understanding of business, probably attribute the lion’s share of timeshare resort revenue to two central factors: timeshare sales and timeshare rentals. As it turns out, there is a third major revenue stream that’s related to sales, but is an entirely separate source of revenue, and it’s a significant one. Depending on the nature of the initial purchase, whether it was a deeded interest, or more commonly over the past fifteen years or so, a “right to use” amalgamation of points, this shrouded revenue source may indeed also be in violation of certain state consumer rights statutes, including the Uniform Commercial Code.

I’m speaking to the universally accepted resort practice of the resort retaining every dollar received from a defaulting purchaser, even if the entire purchase price or an amount close to the total was paid over to the resort prior to the owner’s default. This would include a cessation of paying the purchase price, maintenance fees or capital assessments.

It’s not considered relevant, at least if one believes the purchase contract, to factor in the sometimes quite significant amount paid in up to the moment of default, in terms of any form of accounting back to the sum of money paid by the defaulting purchaser. It’s all retained by the resort pursuant to the purchase contract, as “liquidated damages”.

In other words, an unwitting purchaser could have paid in say $18,000 of his/her $20,000 purchase price (not to mention the additional payments of interest and annual maintenance fees), defaulted for any number of reasons and still be pursued by the resort as a debtor for the unpaid balance! Well, isn’t that appropriate, you may retort! After all, the purchaser has defaulted on a perfectly legal (on its face) promissory note obligation of $20,000 when only $18,000 has been paid? Well maybe, but let’s examine what happens next.

Foreclosure of real property and disposition of personal property are governed by different bodies of law. Real property foreclosure sale varies dramatically among the states. Personal property disposition is governed by each state’s versions of Article Nine commercially reasonable disposition.

I found this explanation of the difference in real property foreclosure compared to personal property distribution in Texas helpful:

Texas Real Property Foreclosure

Section 51.002, et seq. of the Texas Property Code defines the minimum statutory procedure that must be satisfied to properly foreclose upon real property. In addition to the minimum statutory requirements, the deed of trust executed by the debtor-mortgagor details the agreed contractual terms and conditions for foreclosure of real property.

Personal Property Disposition in Texas

Article Nine of the Texas Business and Commerce Code defines the minimum statutory procedures that must be satisfied to foreclose upon personal property. In addition to the Article Nine requirements, the security agreement executed by the debtor-mortgagor defines the contractual terms and conditions for foreclosure of personal property. Generally, personal property disposition must be commercially reasonable.

Commercially reasonable is the key concept here. We can all relate to selling a car. According to NOLO, there is no hard and fast rule on what “commercially reasonable” means. What is commercially reasonable depends on a number of factors.

The procedure, not the price, ultimately determines whether the sale is commercially reasonable. Whether a sale is commercially reasonable depends on four factors, the:

  • manner
  • time
  • place
  • terms of the sale.

Perhaps Mike’s concern as it pertains to timeshare foreclosure being commercially reasonable, as it applies to car sales, also applies to timeshare.

“There are times, however, when a private or “dealer only” sale may not be commercially reasonable”, such as in the following instances provided by NOLO. Two of the six points they mention seem to apply to timeshare:

  • the creditor has the ability to sell the car on the retail market
  • the creditor buys back the vehicle then resells it a significantly higher price.

What If I Believe the Sale Was Not Commercially Reasonable?

If you can demonstrate that the creditor did not sell your car in a commercially reasonable manner, you can raise that as a defense against any lawsuit brought by a creditor looking to collect on the deficiency balance. In some instances, if you can prove the sale was not commercially reasonable, the court may reduce or even eliminate your obligation on the deficiency balance.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/car-repo-sale-was-commercially-reasonable.html

Back to Texas

Comparison of Texas Foreclosure Procedures for Real property and Personal Property

Real property and personal property foreclosures are dramatically different. Real property foreclosures are conducted on the first Tuesday of each month between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. at the courthouse door in the county in which the real property is located, with a notice posted at the courthouse door, personal notice to the debtor, and filing of the notice with the county clerk, all 21 days before the foreclosure sale. These requirements are defined by § 52.001 of the Property Code and are unique to Texas law. Personal property foreclosures are conducted under § 9.504 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, which generally requires a commercially reasonable sale. The requirements of Article Nine of the Texas Business and Commerce Code are followed, with some minor variations, by all states except Louisiana.

Thus, real property foreclosures in Texas are very defined and structured procedures unique to Texas law which do not require the sale to be commercially reasonable. On the other hand, personal property foreclosure sales are not structured by statute, but they must be commercially reasonable as to every aspect of the disposition, including method, manner, time, place, and terms. The apparent conclusion is that although the legislature has specifically defined the procedures that must be followed to dispose of real property, personal property may be disposed of in any manner the secured party elects, as long as the sale is in all respects commercially reasonable.

The differences between real and personal property foreclosure procedures and requirements have had interesting effects upon lenders and borrowers. The notice provisions for real property foreclosures mandate procedures known to both the lender and the borrower. The procedures provide certainty as to the mechanics of the sale. Both lender and borrower are offered an opportunity to dispose of property, with each fully understanding when, where, and how the sale or purchase will occur.

In contrast, the nebulous standard of a commercially reasonable sale leaves both the lender and the borrower uncertain as to the ultimate and satisfactory sale or purchase procedure for personal property. Article Nine attempts to place the burden on the secured lender seeking a deficiency to sell in a commercially reasonable manner, whatever that may be in the particular circumstances found by the lender. Likewise, the debtor has no knowledge of how the lender will proceed with foreclosure and has the burden of proof, if attacking the sale, to show that the sale was not commercially reasonable. The more certain real property foreclosure procedures seem to work more effectively for both the lender and the borrower.

http://www.lenders360blog.com/2008/10/real-estate-foreclosure-vs-ucc-personal-property-commercially-reasonable-disposition/

Commercially reasonable according to Cornell Law School: A disposition of collateral is made in a commercially reasonable manner if the disposition is made:

(1) In the usual manner on any recognized market;

(2) At the price current in any recognized market at the time of the disposition; or

Wait a minute here!

face

“At the price current in any recognized market at the time of disposition” means my Diamond Resorts points should be sold for nothing. Not one of the 64 members of the Licensed Timeshare Resale Broker Association will even accept a DRI listing and even Howard Nusbaum, CEO of the timeshare lobby ARDA, has been quoted as saying modern timeshare is a right to use product so the member should not expect any value back. I think Mike really is onto something!  

Other timeshare companies may argue that they do have a secondary market, but even those fortunate to be able to sell their timeshare, frequently sell them for pennies on the dollar of their original investment.

(3) Otherwise in conformity with reasonable commercial practices among dealers in the type of property that was the subject of the disposition.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-627

Now on the edge of my seat, we continue with Mike’s narration:

In our original example, is the developer out the missing $2,000?  Ask what happened to the object of the $20,000 purchase? Well look at that, the actual property never, even for a moment, left the possession of the developer! My goodness, the developer just re-sold the interest to another brand-new buyer for a fresh new $20,000! So now are you still comfortable with the original purchaser being pursued for the missing $2,000? Perhaps sued, almost definitely having derogatory credit reporting, not to mention harassment from bill collectors? So what exactly happened to the first purchaser’s $18,000 paid to the resort? Is any of it accounted for with maybe a portion returned to the guy who ended up with nothing except perhaps a lawsuit?

Not a chance in Hades! The so-called ‘extra revenue stream’ is now actually an extension of the existing stream to the developer from sales, and sales, and maybe still more sales. How many times can the same unit interest (or bloc of points) be resold over the life of the project?

The distinction (and thus a portion of the reason for my overly dramatic title) is that typically sales revenue in say a condominium project is recorded once, and the revenue is, of course, offset by the cost of acquisition of land, construction costs, marketing costs, etc. and the net amount remaining after those costs is the developer’s profit. However, in the case of the timeshare developer, the original buyer covered those costs in their initial transaction, therefore the new additional piggy-back to back transactions didn’t come with any more land acquisition or construction costs, and therefore essentially came only with very little new or fresh costs of sale beyond the re-marketing costs.

light bulb

Well wait, you might say, this can’t be right! You sure this practice is universal? Yes? Well then, are you sure this unconscionable practice is even legal? Good question, and one wherein the answer to that question may be evolving and it’s not necessarily the laws in place that are changing, it’s the timeshare product changeover, the newer form of the property that is being marketed by the developer that is creating a change in which already existing laws are now perhaps becoming relevant to the timeshare purchase, and by doing so may be enforced by the previously out of luck defaulting purchaser. In fact, it may well be that the same old existing law pendulum may be swinging back in favor of the consumer!

I reference the fact that over the past decade plus a few years, there has been a change in the product that the timeshare industry is selling. Just after the turn of the century, the industry has backed off of selling of the deeded weekly timeshare product, which was indisputably a real estate product, in favor of a product they tout as being more user flexible: a product called a “right to use” product. Setting aside the differences in the actual ability to use the two very different types of timeshare “ownership,” the focus of this article is on the migration of the timeshare product from a real estate based product, morphing into what we attorneys refer to as “personalty”.

In our lawyer’s world, everything not legally defined as real estate is personalty (the only other option in the law). Presumably a ‘right to use’ timeshare product (points based) is not considered by the law as real estate, (if it no longer possesses any attributes of real estate and therefore as ‘personalty’, is subject to differing state laws particularly including the universally adopted, in some form in every state, Uniform Commercial Code).

Additionally, state laws regulating the real estate within its boundaries, do vary from state to state. Personalty, however, is a commodity of a different color. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), as its title suggests, is nearly uniform in its textual content, and from an applicability standpoint, every state in the Union has adopted, with minimum exceptions not applicable to this article, a version of the UCC almost identical with its neighboring states. In other words, as we discuss the law of personality (again, all that is not deemed real estate) we can speak to it across the board. These laws apply everywhere within the USA.

As a Florida lawyer, you may have seen other articles where I either cite specific Florida statutes or have issued a cautionary statement that the principles I was espousing may not apply in other jurisdictions. Contrast this article where I do not constrain my statements. Also, rather than cite state specific portions of the UCC, I, in places, simply refer to Articles within the UCC and in others the ‘pure code provision’.

Further, this article is not intended for an audience of lawyers or jurists. It’s intended for consumers to get a grasp of a relatively new set of laws, including the Uniform Commercial Code, that now may begin to play a much greater role in the laws governing timeshare projects and correspondingly, the developers who operate these projects.

I would like to ask Mike at this point about another universally accepted practice – advising borrowers to go home after purchasing their dream vacation plan and arrange financing with their bank or credit union. Perhaps it’s the subject of another article, but the majority of complaints received by Inside Timeshare say their sales agent advised them to seek a home equity loan to lower timeshares usury type timeshare lending rates. Many have done just that. My husband and I were told we could get lower rate financing, “No one should finance at our rates,” warned Donna. (Grand Beach, FL July 2015) I guess buyers that follow that advice are just out of luck, like Sylvia Saldana, now stuck with a $30,000 home equity loan after Diamond Resorts “took back” $60,000 worth of timeshare points. To make matters worse, Sylvia said she was aggressively encouraged to open Barclaycards, told buying more points would lower their maintenance fees. Had she succumbed to that suggestion, Sylvia and her husband would have lost even more money.

http://insidetimeshare.com/irene-parker-write-barclay-card-usa/

Back to Mike

Consumer rights may also get a major boost by the applicability of the UCC as well, since, to the extent that a contract provision contradicts an applicable statute, that contractual provision will be rendered null and void.

So, for example take the typical contractual provision that, “all monies paid will be retained by the developer as ‘liquidated damages.’’’ Essentially, the amount of damages fixed must be reasonable ‘in light of actual or anticipated harm’ and a term fixing an ‘unreasonably large amount’ is void as a penalty.

Therefore taking a contract, say with a 10% down payment and then adding subsequent monthly payments, the sum total could easily become ‘unreasonably large’, particularly in light of the quick turnaround on the “use rights” for which there has been a default, assuming which I think is fair with on-site sales team (ARDA’s Mr. Nusbaum calls them forever sales centers), that the interest will be promptly re-sold.

Another example of a UCC provision that may well change the way defaulted buyers are treated is as follows. The included reference to the specific UCC provision is the actual textbook unadulterated Code provision number, and may well differ from numbered state specific statutes. The developer or secured party is under a duty to notify debtors of the disposition of collateral under UCC Section 9-611. Further, the disposition must be done in a commercially reasonable manner.

Of particular importance, the secured party/lender is required to apply proceeds of any disposition to the underlying debt once expenses have been taken.

Is this where we end up with money back to the debtor? Can we go back to our original example?

I paid $20,000 and default at $18,000. For sake of discussion I am current on maintenance fees (which is probably not the case). The developer sells to the next hamster my forfeited points for $20,000. I am relieved of the $2,000 still owed, but if the developer sells for $23,000, I will be relieved of the $2,000 owed plus get $3,000 from the surplus amount? This next sentence sounds like the answer?

Also of notable significance is the duty of the secured party to pay the debtor any surplus which results from the disposition of collateral.

Additionally, the secured party/developer is liable for any damages caused by its failure to comply with Article 9.

In summary, a new day in the life of an unhappy timeshare owner is dawning. Existing laws never before applied to timeshare purchases may well now apply and particularly those timeshare interests that are non-real estate based like the ‘right to use’ interests that are now the mainstream of the timeshare community! Stay tuned for future developments on our website as we begin to apply the theories and applicable state statutes referenced hereinabove.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael D. Finn, Esq.

www.finnlawgroup.com

[email protected]

work desk

Whew! That was exhausting. It’s a good thing we have legal eagles to figure these things out because Charles Thomas and I get pretty depressed at times listening to “Nightmare on Timeshare Street” stories. We have heard enough to fund a series. The question I am most frequently asked is, “How can they sleep at night?”

Thank you to Mike Finn for the chance to publish this and also to Irene to add her clarifications for those without legal minds.

It now only remains to say be careful who you do business with, check and check again, if you need help, then contact Inside Timeshare. Have a good weekend.

weekend02

Friday’s Letter from America

Here we are again, another Friday and another letter from America, yes, this week we are back with our cousins across the great lake. Irene Parker gives us another article in the series Nightmare on Timeshare Street. Irene and her Husband have evacuated from their coastal home due to Hurricane Irma, which is set to hit over the weekend, we hope that you all remain safe.

nightmare

Now on with some news from Europe, as we have shown in the past there are many types scams to rob you of your hard earned cash, this is the latest we have been informed about.

It begins with a telephone call supposedly from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, from a Mr D Clarke, he informs the timeshare owner they have received from the Spanish courts several million pounds, which is to be divided up and paid to owners. In this case the lucky owner is to receive over £24,000, but as it is over the £10,000 limit the owner has to ring the number given and quote the supplied reference number.

The numbers supplied by our reader are 003460209896 which is a Spanish mobile number and 033558663 (the reader has missed out some numbers).

No doubt the next phase is when you do call, there will some “tax” that you need to pay first, once this is paid then you will get the money. Well, we have heard that one before!

hmrc

Firstly, HMRC will not make telephone calls or send emails, they will contact by post, they will also not be working for the Spanish courts to hand out “compensation” especially for timeshare. If you have employed a lawyer or law firm to take legal action in Spain, then once your case has been heard and the court awards you payment, this will be dealt with directly from the court. The court will pay you through a bank transfer direct to your account. They will not be sending it to HMRC or any other third party.

CLA have also published a letter from one of their Norwegian clients, in this case they purchased from Anfi 2 floating weeks in 2005, for around 34,000€. They explained that after 4 years they found what they had purchased was not for them, it wasn’t working in their interest. They also found out that it was difficult to get out of the contract, selling would not get them anywhere near what they paid.

They came across CLA who then took on their case, their case was heard at the Supreme Court, their contract was declared null & void on the basis of the illegality of the floating weeks and the taking of deposits within the cooling off period. Eventually, in June this year the awarded amount was transferred to their bank by the court. This does show that contrary to claims made by Anfi that no one gets paid out, clients do eventually get their money.

So, now on with our Friday’s article from Irene.

Triple Nightmares on Timeshare Street!

Diamond Resorts says Marjorie Menacker’s claim is without merit

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring Closes Case

A Victory for the Oral Representation Clause

back hander

By Irene Parker

September 8, 2017

Marjorie, Ann and Marcia share their experience

Inside Timeshare has received 130 Diamond Resorts complaints from US members. The following three timeshare dream vacations nightmares are allegations, but with 119 out of 130 complaints alleging deceit and bait and switch, in our opinion, a compelling and compounding pattern seems to have developed.

As in any industry, the bad apples make things difficult for timeshare sales agents trying to compete honestly in a world where Master Closers earn $1 to $2 million a year working at sales centers that can book $10 million a month. I have interviewed nine former and current timeshare sales agents and managers who assure me “pitching heat” is endorsed and encouraged top down and industry wide by sales agents that hop from resort to resort as they make their way up the ranks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/business/my-soul-feels-taller-a-whistle-blowers-20-million-vindication.html?mcubz=3

This came as a shock to me. I built my business as a stockbroker, myself hopping from timeshare resort to resort in Hawaii, signing up timeshare sales agents for retirement and stock trading accounts. Back then many sales agents were independent contractors. “So we’re the units!” they would jokingly say. They were good people and one of those sales agents is still a close friend today. She too is shocked by the escalation in aggressive tactics, assigning buyers to a perpetual contract, often with no secondary market.

Today’s Triple Nightmare on Timeshare Street includes Marjorie, Marsha, and Ann. Marsha called me on the eve of what would been her 51st wedding anniversary, attempting to file a Mark Herring Virginia Attorney General complaint online. Marsha told me she was literally having Diamond Resort nightmares. All three direct their complaints against Diamond’s Virginia sales centers. Inside Timeshare has received twelve complaints against Virginia sales agent. Six of the members have reported a positive outcome feeling Diamond, after many rebuttals, listened and took appropriate action. Diamond Resorts Advocacy Department has resolved issues for a total of 31 out of a total of 74 formal complaints filed by our readers. Ann and Marjorie’s complaints are against the same Virginia sales agent.

Inside Timeshare has reached out to AG Herring and to Diamond Resorts for comment. To date they have not responded. Diamond has introduced a program called CLARITY ™ which they say offers transparency, accountability and respect for members.

I will call the following nightmares allegations, but Marjorie, Ann and Marsha would argue this is what really happened. Ann and Marsha have asked not to be identified, but they want to show Marjorie their support, having experienced up-sells similar to what Marjorie alleges.

3 women

Marjorie’s story

Elle and I purchased an additional 6000 Diamond points December 26, 2015 having been told about an exciting one day promotion if we purchased that day. The sales agents said we would not have to pay maintenance fees for 2016 or beyond. We had been struggling to keep up with rising fees as a result of medical expenses. Our contract lists a William Humphries as our sales agent, although we spoke to Brian and his supervisor Jeff at Diamond’s Greensprings Plantation Resort. We were encouraged to open two Diamond Barclaycards to finance the purchase. The finance rate is 25.74%.

The  sales presentation was very high pressure. We repeatedly stated that we could not afford anything that would require a loan, and did not like the difficulty we encountered finding availability. Maintenance fees were rising faster than we expected.

Brian repeatedly assured us that if we took advantage of the promotion offered that day, we would not have to worry about any maintenance fees ever again. He illustrated in chart form on paper how this program would save us money by trading in part of our total points each year. He said the remaining points would actually get “treated as double points.”

We were told this promotion would have been offered to us had we participated in dinner meeting offers over the previous year. I’ve learned almost all Diamond presentations begin with, “You should have been invited to a dinner meeting.” Out of our sight, Brian obtained special permission from his supervisor Jeff to extend the offer only for the day (12/26/2015).

http://insidetimeshare.com/another-nightmare-timeshare-street-client-experience-diamond/

Ann S

First, last January, when meeting with Brian Humphries at an ‘Owner Update’ in Virginia, we were told FLAT OUT  that if we bought 7500 more points we would now be part of an ‘ELITE’ group of Platinum owners who are credited 30 CENTS PER POINT when ‘recycling’ annual points back to Diamond so that Diamond can bring in potential owners. We were told that the conversion at 30 cents per point would be more than enough with all our points to pay our annual fees and still have points on which to travel. We restated the claim back to Brian several times to make sure we understood correctly. Brian now denies that he made any such promise. When I called Diamond and even the Platinum Department no one had ever heard of such a program and kept referring us back to Brian. He had even told us “When you get your bill and it’s time to pay your maintenance fees just contact me and I’ll explain how you do this.”  We would NEVER have purchased that day had that not been our understanding. But then nothing was ever given to us in writing (they even somehow took our personal notes from us and did not return them) and repeated emails and phone requests only ended in denials or flat out ignoring of our questions. After hearing what happened to Marjorie, I will be filing a complaint with the Virginia Attorney General’s office.

Marsha Y

I only purchased additional points because the sales agents at Diamond’s Powhatan Resort in Williamsburg said the maintenance costs would go down if I purchased more points. I have since learned this was not true. I had told the agents I could not afford the rising maintenance fees. I was also not told a $7,100 charge would be charged to a Barclay card for a down payment. The same thing happened in Hawaii. I was not told a Barclay card was being opened to charge a Sampler. I later learned the agent in Hawaii was later fired for this.

The hospitality agent in Williamsburg, when I told her about how I had been deceived previously, told me she understood and that is why sales were stopped at the Williamsburg center for a while until the CLARITY ™ program was put in place. Still, when I attended the Williamsburg presentation, I was charged $7,100 on a Barclaycard without my knowledge.

My husband (now deceased) and I originally owned three deeded weeks. We had no complaints about the agents that sold us those weeks. Up until this point, what I owned was within my budget. The additional charges have caused a great hardship. I am a widow on a teacher’s pension. The actions of these agents have taken away my financial security. I feel trapped. My credit score has dropped from over 800 to the 700s. I had no intention to buy points as it is not as easy or enjoyable to travel without my husband. I can still travel with friends and would be able to remain a Diamond customer if I would be returned to Silver status.

Will the timeshare industry ever admit to deception on the front end of the timeshare sale? Are these customers really not to be believed, along with so many other identical complaints? All three attended the presentations with their families and are adamant what they heard was what they were told.

The following Facebook pages consist of members helping members. Contact Inside Timeshare or join with others members working towards reform if you have a timeshare story, positive or negative, to share, or need help with a timeshare concern. After this Attorney General’s ruling, it really does seem the only court available is the court of public opinion. We posted below “Do you know your Consumer Rights?” Are there any Consumer Rights?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/DiamondResortsOwnersAdvocacy/

https://www.facebook.com/timeshareadvocategroup/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/180578055325962/

consumer rights 1

Thank you Irene, Marjorie, Ann and Marcia for your contribution to this week’s article, as you can see, timeshare can become a nightmare, it all sounds so great in the presentation.

It just leaves us to say have a good weekend, and for those of you in the path of Irma, stay safe.

weekend cat

Timeshare In the Press

Following on from some of the previous articles regarding court cases and the fact that many of the timeshare companies are denying they have taken place, El Diario, a Spanish newspaper has published an article which confirms these cases are genuine.

(Bring up the link below, right click on the article and choose translate)

eldiario

http://www.eldiario.es/canariasahora/tribunales/sentencias-Supremo-contratos-timesharing-Tenerife_0_677182619.html

In their article entitled “Eight Supreme Court rulings annul in one month `timesharing´ contracts in Tenerife for more than 400,000 euros”, they explain the cases against Silverpoint. El Diario explain that the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court issued in the space of 10 days, between Monday 10 July and Thursday 20 July, a total of eight judgements against Silverpoint.

They go on to state that since the start of the year Canarian Legal Alliance has accumulated 18 rulings from the Supreme Court against this one company alone. Many of these cases had been won at the Court of First Instance, were then taken to the High Court on appeal and eventually to the Supreme Court, which returns a verdict in favour of the customer.

Silverpoints contention that these consumers are “investors” has in the past been accepted by the High Court in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, with the Supreme Court overturning that verdict. Silverpoint still contend that they sold a product which consumers eventually would sell and return a “profit”, making them “investors”.

What the Supreme Court has stated is these “consumers” for a substantial amount of money have purchased the right to use with annual maintenance fees, along with the addition of the possibility of resale. The court believes that this firmly brings the product into the scope of the law 42/98 on timeshare, and therefore they are afforded the full protection of the law as consumers.

The difference between what Silverpoint have been selling and that sold by other companies is quite simple, Silverpoint have on their presentations sold the product with the express promise of a sale in two years, in which the consumer will make at least a 15% profit. We all know that part of the sales pitch is “when you no longer want to use it you can sell it”, “that it will go up in value”. The fact is, according to the EU directives on timeshare it should not be sold as an investment.

Silverpoint have stated that they will take these cases to the High Court of Justice of the European Union and the Constitutional Court of Spain. From our understanding, the Constitutional Court only deals with matters regarding the constitution and not civil matters, which the timeshare law is. As for the EU High Court of Justice, will they not be bound to uphold the Timeshare Directives issued by the European Union?

Another publication to highlight the rulings of the Supreme Court, is the English language newspaper The Canary News. Last Friday 18 August, they published a translated version of the article in La Provincia, another Spanish newspaper.

the-canary-news-views-sunshine-logo-2016-250

http://thecanarynews.com/supreme-court-ruling-continues-to-tempt-thousands-of-timeshare-clients-to-file-lawsuits-for-fraud/

It starts with a recap of the groundbreaking case of Mrs Tove Grimsbo against Anfi, brought by the CLA lawyer Miguel Rodriguez Ceballos. This case opened the door for thousands of timeshare owners to annul their contracts and seek justice, following years of flouting the law by the timeshare companies.

miguel1
Miguel Rodriguez Ceballos

So once again we have to ask the question “who is telling the truth, do you believe the timeshare companies who have for years misled consumers, or do you believe the news from the courts published in various journals”?

We know who we believe, the evidence is there in black and white, not just published in newspapers but by the courts themselves in the official bulletins which make the rulings public. The timeshare companies have only themselves to blame for their present predicament, for too long they have believed they were above the law, by continuing their denial of these facts they are just destroying for good a once decent product.

http://insidetimeshare.com/supreme-court-rules-silverpoint-twice-one-week/

http://insidetimeshare.com/truth-what-is-truth/

If you have any questions about this subject, or want to know if you have an illegal contract and are eligible to bring a case and how to do so, contact Inside Timeshare and we will point you in the right direction.

Do you have a story about your experiences and would like to share, then we would like to hear from you. This is your forum to be heard, with your contributions we can publish the truth about what is going on in the world of timeshare.