Timeshare without long term

aprovechamiento por turnos


What are the consequences of the failure to prescribe long-term contracts of timeshare?

Cuando se celebra un contrato de aprovechamiento por turnos de bien inmueble, it is possible that it was not determined duration. Perhaps the customer did not notice at the time of signing the contract, lo advierte con posterioridad, during the execution of the contract. What happens in these cases?

This question is resolved by the judgment of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court 14/09/2016 (STS 4086/2016). The factual background were the following:

María Rosa y José Pablo celebraron dos contratos de aprovechamiento por turnos de bienes inmuebles en las fechas 21/02/2000 and 17/10/2000 con Tasolan SL, for amounts, respectively, of 109.000 SEK more 16.500 SEK as advance amount, and 100.000 SEK more 20.000 SEK as advance amount. En ninguno de ellos se fijó la duración de los mismos.

After 9 years from the conclusion of contracts, José María Rosa and Paul brought proceedings against Tasolan SL requesting that those contracts were declared null, or alternatively resolved, and Tasolan SL be ordered to return 282.000 SEK, for all amounts paid on account of such contracts, including both Duplo and prepayments in accordance with Article 11 Law 42/1998, amount which would add more interest from the filing of the complaint. Tasolan SL replied requesting that the suit was dismissed in its entirety.

The Court of First Instance No. 5 San Bartolome de Tirajana delivered judgment on 18/10/2010 en el que estimaba parcialmente la demanda y condenaba a Tasolan SL a pagar a los demandantes 73.000 SEK.

Contra dicha Sentencia tanto la parte demandante como la demandada interpusieron appeal. Dichos recursos fueron resueltos mediante Sentencia de la Sección 4ª de la Audiencia Provincial de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, of 30/04/2014, which it overturned the judgment of first instance and sentenced Tasolan to pay the plaintiffs the amount of 36.500 SEK.

Contra dicha Sentencia, and the embroidery, tanto la parte demandante como la parte demandada interpusieron appeal. The applicant, also, I filed an appeal for procedural infringement, based on lack of motivation by reference and error in assessing the evidence, and it was dismissed by the Supreme Court in the judgment we are commenting. Having said that, we refer to the appeals, which they are what most interest for our purposes.

With regard to the appeal of the applicant, it is based on infringement of Article 9 in conjunction with Article 1.7, both of Law 42/1998, and Article 6.3 Civil Code, todo ello por falta de señalamiento de la duración del régimen en el contrato. The Supreme Court, with quote from his Judgment of the Plenum of the Civil Chamber No. 192/2016, of 29 March (No.. Rec. 793/2014), recalls that el plazo de duración es un elemento esencial de un contrato de aprovechamiento por turnos, and its absence or lack thereof determines the invalidity. Accordingly, considers the appeal of the applicant, but condemns the defendant to repay the amount proportional to the time subtract effective (setting in 50 years old, since it is the legal maximum allowed, since they lack such determination in the contract), representing a total of 209.000 SEK to be returned.

On the other hand, the defendant founded its appeal in breach of Article 11.2 Act 42/1998, understanding that, according to that article, "Action can only apply for refund of the deposit when the acquirer has exercised the claim of withdrawal or resolution within the period of ten days and three months" and, therefore, not fit to be condemned to duplicate reimbursement of the amounts paid prior to this date. El Tribunal Supremo desestima este motivo declarando que el cobro de una cantidad anticipada es un acto nulo de pleno derecho en cuanto que contraviene directamente una norma imperativa (article 11.2 Act 42/1998), as such is not subject to term, and involves a consequence, not subject to term, which it is to return the double of both, as "civil penalty".

And ultimately to end: the lack of determination in a timeshare contract will determine the invalidity thereof, as the temporal duration -elemento- It is a fundamental component of the contract, without which there can not be. On the other hand, the return of twice the advance payment both in the field of timeshare contracts is a civil penalty tied to the invalidity of the act itself, and it is not subject to term.

Consult your case now

Leave a Reply


Set as default language
 Edit Translation

Subscribe to receive a book PDF

Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter

Subscribe me

* This field is required