Browse Tag

Supreme Court Rulings

Anfi: The Story Behind the News Part Three

Welcome to Part Three of Anfi: The Story Behind the News. So far, we have given the early story of Anfi and the dream that was to turn sour. Events and decisions made in the boardroom would in the future have serious repercussions not just for Anfi, but the entire timeshare industry. Today we look at one event which has changed things forever and made Spanish Legal History, the first Supreme Court Rulings that changed the timeshare laws. It was a long-running battle as when the Timeshare Law 42/98 was enacted on 5 January 1999, the timeshare industry did not change its practices in accordance with the new laws. These were put into place as a result of various EU Timeshare Directives which sought to protect consumers of malpractice and lay down regulations on the sale of timeshare, which previously had been totally unregulated. The timeshare industry believed they were “untouchable”, that they were too big and strong and the law was wrong. As you will see this was not to be the case.

When the Timeshare Laws were enacted in 1999, the timeshare industry was given the opportunity to get their act together and adapt their contracts to comply with the law. They were also allowed what was known as a “deed of adaptation”, this allowed those contracts sold before the enactment of Law 42/98 to remain legal as they were sold before the law was put into place, but new contracts must comply.

Many timeshare companies saw this in a different light, they interpreted the law differently, they believed that the “deed of adaptation” meant that if the resort was running before the law came into force then that meant all contracts remain the same.

As with any new laws, these must be tested in the courts and placed into jurisprudence, which means they are now “set in stone”. In the beginning, very few cases ever got to court and those which did tend to be found in favour of the timeshare companies. Many lawyers would not take these cases on, it was a new law and they did not understand it. Also, they believed the timeshare companies were too big, powerful and had plenty of money, they actually believed that they would never stand a chance of winning.

All this changed on 1st April 2015 when the Supreme Court ruled on the very first timeshare case to be brought before Spain’s Highest Court.

The story begins in 2001 When a Norwegian lady, Mrs Tove Grimsbo and her husband attended a presentation at the Anfi Resort in Gran Canaria. At the time this was a relatively new resort which was the dream of the Norwegian entrepreneur Bjorn Lyng (here was the element of trust & validity) and it was also still under development. It eventually turned into one of the flagship resorts in the timeshare world.

At the time, anyone who attended a presentation was impressed with the quality of the resort and the plans that were also in place for expansion, Mr & Mrs Grimsbo were themselves impressed and they were persuaded to purchase. They duly signed the contract and paid a deposit of 700€ by credit card, this, along with the fact the contract was “in perpetuity” and not limited to the maximum of 50 years allowed by the new law made this contract illegal.

But at the time this did not seem to bother them, after all, they would have been totally unaware of the law and the fact that Anfi had disregarded it. It was not until Mr Grimsbo passed away and Mrs Grimsbo was left with ever-increasing maintenance fees and no foreseeable way out of the contract, that things changed. As they had been told during the presentation that Anfi would “buy back” their “weeks” for the same price they paid, Mrs Grimsbo approached Anfi. It is no surprise that Anfi told her that they did not “buy back weeks”, but they could place it on the resale market. Until then she was stuck with a timeshare she did not want or wanted to use. This is not surprising considering she did not want to return to Anfi because of the memories of her late husband.

She eventually decided to speak with a local lawyer, Miguel Rodriguez Cabello, a native of Arguineguin and one of the founding lawyers of Canarian Legal Alliance. He and other lawyers worked tirelessly to research the law and eventually found that Mrs Grimsbo did indeed have a very good case. This would now make legal history.

After some time, the case went in front of the Court of First Instance of San Bartelomé de Tirajana, this court found in favour of Mrs Grimsbo and declared the contract null and void plus the return of the full purchase price. Anfi immediately appealed to the High Court of Las Palmas Gran Canaria. This court confirmed the ruling and sentence of the Court of First Instance, another win for the lawyers.

Anfi did not accept this decision, they still believed that the law was wrong, that their contract was legal because they had the “deed of adaptation”, so they took the case to the Supreme Court. This belief is the basis for Anfi and the Industry Trade Body, the RDO (Resorts Development Organisation), in their appeals and statements that the “Courts have misinterpreted the law”.

The Supreme Court Madrid

After much debate between the panel of Judges they unanimously ruled that the case of Mrs Grimsbo v Anfi was in favour of Mrs Grimsbo and that the rulings and sentences of the previous courts were confirmed. Legal history had been made, the very first timeshare case had its first major test.

The court’s ruling would have a profound effect on timeshare and would open the gates for many more claims and cases to be taken to court. In their ruling, the Judges declared that the taking of any payment even by a third party within the Statutory 14 days cooling-off period was illegal. Taking payments within this period they believed had the effect of cancelling out the cooling-off period which was designed to give consumers the chance to read the contract, terms and conditions and also reflect on whether they made the right decision.

In their ruling on the “perpetuity” side of the contract, the Judges ruled that Law 42/98 clearly stated that all contracts be limited to a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 50 years. The Supreme Court upheld the rulings from the lower courts and confirmed the contract was illegal.

Since that momentous decision by the Supreme Court, the floodgates have opened, not just against Anfi but the whole of the timeshare industry that operated in Spain. Today we see the repercussions of just one decision made in a boardroom, to ignore the advice to change the contracts to comply with the law but continue to sell the original contracts in blatant contravention of that law.

Just this week alone there has been a steady stream of news from the High Court of Las Palmas, every appeal they have heard recently have been rejected, dismissed and the original sentence confirmed.

But this is not the only legal battle that Anfi is engaged in, another very serious controversy has been raging in Gran Canaria and finding its way to the courts, it is the debacle that is the Tauro Beach Project.

Not quite what was planned!

Tomorrow we revisit our previous articles on Tauro Beach, as it is a story that is still unfolding and has had and will undoubtedly have some very heavy repercussions, we have already seen one conviction and we believe there will be many more before this story is put to bed.








SHOCK: Diamond Resorts Europe Comply With Court Order

Welcome to the start of another week with Inside Timeshare and as you can see from the title it begins with some news that has amazed everyone. We all know the problems timeshare companies are facing in the Spanish Courts, yet, many continue to cause as much delay to the final outcome as possible. For some reason, for which we have yet to find an answer, they are really just delaying the inevitable, we have consistently published the decisions of the incessant appeals to the High Courts and the rush of Supreme Court Rulings, the outcome is always the same!

Most cases against Diamond are centered on the Island of Tenerife, which as we know from the past was a hotbed of timeshare sales activity, this case is one of those fairly rare cases to be heard in Fuengirola, Malaga. We do know there are many cases being heard involving Diamond in that region’s courts, we have published enough news items on the legal wranglings over “Jurisdiction”.

All of these, we can only say “frivolous” moves, have caused significant delays to the clients and their long wait for conclusion.

So the word “SHOCKED” in our title will come as no surprise with the latest news.

Fuengirola Court

In December 2020, at the Court of First Instance of Fuengirola, a judgement was made against Diamond Resorts Europe Ltd Sucursal en España, the court awarded the client €17,572.50 along with the usual declaration of the contract being null & void.

Usually, there is one hell of a fight to get the payment, again we have seen this with other timeshare companies as well, most notably Anfi, only one springs to mind who complies voluntarily, Marriott.

Then in a written judgement from the court on 8 September 2021, in which the relevant parties have been duly informed, the court formally ordered the payment of the awarded funds. The PDF below is the Spanish version with an English translation between paragraphs.

Usually, when the original judgements are issued, the client’s lawyers activate the “Provisional Execution of Sentence” order. This is a procedure that begins the legal seizure of the funds by the court. Sometimes this can be a rather lengthy process and has the potential to cost the timeshare company considerable financial penalties. We have seen one High Court penalise one transgressor over €100,000 more than the client originally paid for the timeshare.

Within hours of the order being issued and made public, the court announced that the funds had been credited to the court’s account before an embargo could be fully enforced. So it would appear that the “Provisional Execution” order had the desired effect, but, Inside Timeshare has to ask, could it also be a result of pressure from Hilton to Diamond to desist in their delaying tactics and play ball?

Hilton Grand Vacations paid $1.4 Billion in order to purchase Diamond Resorts, this news was officially announced in March 2021, and it did create quite a stir. Speculation was rife as to how it would affect Diamond members the world over, concerns were also raised by members of HGV.

No one knew how this would all pan out, especially the lawyers working on legal cases in Spain.

One and the Same

The completion of the acquisition of Diamond Resorts was announced on 2 August 2021, so it is quite feasible that the Hilton buyout has influenced at least Diamond Resorts in Europe. It is very much hoped that it will mean a faster road to a conclusion for the clients. After all, as Hilton’s Grand Vacation Club Inc is a public company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, this was following a spin-off from Hilton on 4 January 2017. This means just as we have seen with Marriott, they are responsible to their shareholders.

This case was presented on behalf of an English client by Canarian Legal Alliance, as we have come to expect from their team of lawyers, they have worked in the best interests of the client ensuring that all legal possibilities are covered.

Links to the Hilton acquisition of Diamond

Did you purchase in Spain and want to know if your contract is indeed in breach of Spain’s Timeshare Laws and therefore illegal?

Would you like to know what your rights are and what options are open to you?

Then contact Inside Timeshare either by email or using our contact page, we will then get back to you with the correct information.

Maintenance Arrears and Debt Collectors.

Further to Fridays Article 10 June 2016, Inside Timeshare has been doing a little digging. The TCA published a list in August 2015 of timeshare companies that have threatened legal action to force payment of the maintenance fees. The first part of the list are those that have threatened legal action using either debt collectors or solicitors, in some cases even bogus lawyers.

tca logo

The above companies have made the threats, but as far as can be ascertained have never actually taken any case to court.

The following companies have taken legal action but what the success rate has been is at present unknown.

So where do you the owners actually stand?

Keep Reading