Today we have a look at the latest news to come from the courts and as expected Anfi seems to be the focus of attention. This is not surprising considering their tactics of delaying proceedings with frivolous appeals when they lose in the Court of First Instance, a tactic designed in an attempt to avoid paying what the courts have ordered. Inside Timeshare has published numerous articles on this subject which has also caught the attention of the Provincial Prosecutors Office. The investigation which has been launched may result in criminal charges against Anfi and the Board of Directors, which as we know is in the control of the Cazorla Group. Even though there is an investigation underway, the High Court (appeals) are consistently finding in favour of the clients and confirming the sentences issued by the lower courts.
Even though Anfi is attempting to delay or even avoid paying out when ordered to do so, clients are actually receiving what they are due. This is a result of all the “provisional execution of sentence” actions as soon as the lower courts issue their sentence. This then saves a lot of time once the High Court confirms the original order.
In a case brought by Canarian Legal Alliance on behalf of a German Client, who has now received 34,381€ into their own bank account.
In the original trial at the Court of First Instance Number 1 of San Bartelomé de Tirajana, the judge declared the contract null and void and the return of the full purchase price plus double any amount paid within the statutory cooling-off period.
As usual, Anfi launched an appeal, which delayed proceeding for some considerable time, unfortunately for Anfi, this was just another pointless exercise as the High Court dismissed and rejected the appeal. They confirmed the original order and sent it back for the execution of sentence.
The client’s lawyers have for some time been identifying “potential” sources of income in order to refute the Anfi claim that they have no money to pay out to the clients. The court has now acknowledged that income from all of Anfi’s activities should be made available to reimburse the clients.
This income derives from rental income from all the bars and restaurants, rental income from unsold inventory and fees from their golf course along with other income. In this case, the payment was from the rental income which the court ordered that Anfi declare.
This is obviously a huge blow to Anfi and especially the Cazorla’s, it surely now leaves clients in a much stronger position.
In another case held at the Court of First Instance, Number 4 of SBT, a Norwegian client represented by CLA has had their contract declared null and void with the return of 39,651€ plus legal interest. This award also includes double the amount taken illegally as a deposit within the statutory cooling-off period.
Although the case has been won, it is expected that Anfi will as they always do launch an appeal, well, we can guess with near certainty what the outcome of that appeal will be!
It is not only CLA which is having this trouble with Anfi, the Independent Timeshare Lawyer Javier Correa is also battling the same problem with these appeals.
His case was won at the Court of First Instance number 3 of SBT, with this court declaring the contract null and void with the repayment of 35,552€ plus legal interest and legal costs.
The original judgement was made in September 2019 and Anfi immediately launched their appeal with the High Court of Las Palmas. They are still awaiting a date for the appeal hearing, but Javier has already placed a “provisional execution of sentence” order to ensure that time is saved and his client receives what they are entitled to.
We now move to M1 Legal, although they have yet to publish the most recent cases they have published a resume of cases since the end of 2020 to the beginning of this year.
In total these seven cases have accumulated a massive £164,230 for their clients.
M1 Legal has also been very busy with “jurisdictional” cases, as we have reported in the past, many timeshare operators have used UK Limited companies for their sales, which in the past have been rejected by the courts on jurisdictional grounds. The timeshare companies have claimed that their contracts are subject to UK law and the Jurisdiction of UK courts. This has now been soundly rejected by many cases heard in the High Courts.
Out of the eleven cases brought by M1 Legal, one was against Silverpoint, two against Diamond and eight against Club la Costa. In all these “jurisdictional” cases the courts have found in favour of the clients and that Spanish law and courts take precedence and jurisdiction in these cases.
This is yet another blow to the timeshare industry which has sought for years to avoid the laws of the countries they operate in with the use of the jurisdictional clause. Bad news for them but great news for the consumer.
That is all for today, if you have any questions on this or any other article or if you would like to know if you have a valid and viable case against your timeshare company, then please use our contact page and Inside Timeshare will get back to you.