In today’s article we would like to share with our readers a recent court decision obtained by our firm. At the end of 2019, we filed before the Court of First Instance of Palma, a court claim against Son Antem complex related to a timeshare contract. In 2021, the judge ruled in favour of our clients. This court decision was appealed to the Provincial Court, which has once again ruled in favour of our clients.
What does a timeshare contract consist of?
In short, timeshare contracts basically consist of a sort of turn-based use of a property, without acquiring its ownership. In other words, in exchange for an economic amount (and usually, an annual maintenance fee) a person acquires the right to use, for a determined period of time a year (weeks, fortnights, etc.) a property, apartment, etc. This formula is very common in vacation areas. It is a little more expensive than a normal rental, but at the same time, it is cheaper than staying in a multi-star hotel.
The court case: Claim against Son Antem complex.
Our clients signed a timeshare contract with the company MCVI in 2002. The contract did not respect most of the requirements demanded by the law that regulates this type of contract (Law 42/1998). The characteristics of the property were not specified, the purchasers were not informed of their rights to “back out” and withdraw from the contract, etc. In addition, the contract did not respect the maximum duration established in the law, of 50 years (in the contract, the duration was 77 years).
Our law firm filed a claim against Son Antem complex, and the judge of First Instance, ruled in favour of our clients. The contract was declared null and void and the company MCVI was ordered to pay the legal costs and to reimburse our clients 7.522,67€.
Appeal in the higher court. (Palma Provincial Court).
MCVI lodged an appeal against the court decision, based on the following arguments. Firstly, they disputed the nature of the contract, arguing that it was not a timeshare contract, but a personal right of use on a part-time basis. As for the duration, they maintained that, if the limit for these contracts is 50 years, the judge should have simply reduced the term (from 77 years to 50) and not declare the contract null and void. Furthermore, the company considered that the refund of the amounts paid was unfair, since our clients had enjoyed the complex for several years. Our law firm opposed to all these arguments, as they were not in accordance with the law, nor with the well-established case law of the Supreme Court on this issue.
The court ruling handed down by the Provincial Court has proved us right.
The Provincial Court has rejected the appeal filed by the company MCVI and has ruled in favour of our clients, again. Therefore the court decision of First Instance is confirmed. Our clients will get their money back and the legal costs incurred in the appeal, will be paid by the opposing party. You can check the Spanish court decision by clicking this link.
If you have a timeshare contract, in the complex of Son Antem, Marriot, Ogisaka Garden, Anfi Beach, Parque Denia, etc. do not hesitate to contact us. We will study your case and offer you expert legal advice so that you can get your money back.
The information provided in this article is not intended to be legal advice, but merely conveys information relating to legal issues.
Carlos Baos (Lawyer)
White & Baos.
Tel: +34 966 426 185
White & Baos 2023 – All Rights Reserved.