[ MERGED ] Michigan family jailed in Mexico over timeshare dispute

[Roger830]

IDK, sounds like advice given on TUG all the time - stop paying MFs as "the only sure way to get out of a timeshare". Seems like a novel definition of fraud to me. It also sounds like when I read that screenshot it was only to stop future payments.

This still really confuses me - the reason Christy says she stopped paying is Palace stopping them from using the paid for weeks. ably all Mexico timeshare systems.

Why advise reporting the cards lost or stolen after charges? Just cancel the cards.

They didn't use all of the 1570 booking, they were renting them to others and receiving bonus weeks.

Yesterday there was a Facebook post on Wyndham Timeshare Owners where in the discussion a member had rented from them and posted screen shots of their explanation for Palace's action. Apparently they went to far. At one point they were told not to use their own photos in their sales promotions because they're using intellectual property to profit off of the resort. She said, "my husband works for the MI police and we know what intellectual property is." lol
Palace demanded that they give up their Unlimited Referral Program or they will cancel all of their reservations.

It's my take that they played hard ball and the claw back of $116,000 might have been out of line because they used the system the prior year.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[jp10558]

Not the same advice as given on TUG.
This was not just about the individuals stopping future payments. The successfully got the previous charges on their card reversed (a total of 13 charges totalling over 100k).

As far as I and CalGalTraveler understand, this was for future bookings charges that Palace cancelled, either AI on blocked stays or the ongoing MF when they wouldn't be able to use it because of Palace refusing them. There doesn't appear to be any attempt to claw back the 1.4 million purchase price OR MFs for the trips they actually took.

On TUG, we usually recommend two things:

1. For a person who is still under the cancellation window and has followed the contractual procedures to cancel the contract but did not receive their money, they should pursue a charge back with their card.
2. For a person who is outside the cancellation window, stopping any future payments will effectively end the contract.

So it seems very similar to the above - her posting (which is what I was referring to) was for everyone in the #2 situation.

 

[Roger830]

So far there doesn't appear to be anything wrong in what was stated here in this post. Did they maximize Palaces generous sales referral program for bonus weeks? Yes but that was in their contract and Palace acknowledges that below. If I spent over a million I would want my money's worth. And the Sales Reps in the office probably encouraged the use of bonus weeks - we know how they work. So far nothing wrong here.

View attachment 108353

The AMEX charges appeared to be from AI charges from upcoming bookings that Palace cancelled for her son's bachelor party. That appears legitimate.

Perhaps I am missing something. They state that she was encouraging others on Facebook for unhappy customers to stop paying and charge back their credit card . That is not much different than advice I see here on TUG for people to get back their original payment if they have not used their unit - no service rendered.

That does not mean that the jailed buyers did this themselves. Unless there is other evidence, this is not a crime. People (especially politicians) post lies in the Internet and press all of the time. And certainly does not rise to the leve4l of jailing someone for 6 months without evidence to prove that fraudulent postings were made.

I know there is flight risk but Palace does have an office in the USA...

I explained some of this in my prior post before I saw your post.

As I said in the prior post apparently They had rented units in the past, then clawed back the cost for those rentals.
If they just stopped autopay without the claw back, it's not likely that they would be in jail now.

 

[Makai Guy]

Closed at request of original poster. See existing thread here: https://tugbbs.com/forums/threads/michigan-family-jailed-in-mexico-over-timeshare-dispute.372823/

 

[jp10558]

Why advise reporting the cards lost or stolen after charges? Just cancel the cards.

I think that's what she thought you had to do to cancel the cards. It's not like there's any indication they're that up on terminology of these things.

They didn't use all of the 1570 booking, they were renting them to others and receiving bonus weeks.

Which, as I understand, was explicitly allowed in their contract, in fact the renting them to others is why Palace gave them bonus weeks, so it doesn't even seem to be the old "Salesman lied" - no it was in writing and why they got the bonus weeks.

Yesterday there was a Facebook post on Wyndham Timeshare Owners where in the discussion a member had rented from them and posted screen shots of their explanation for Palace's action. Apparently they went to far. At one point they were told not to use their own photos in their sales promotions because they're using intellectual property to profit off of the resort.

She said, "my husband works for the MI police and we know what intellectual property is." lol

Yes, this is unclear if they're breaking a law - at least to my layperson's knowledge they probably should have consulted a Mexican Intellectual Property Lawyer before doing so - especially for a commercial use. I guess this could be what they're actually being arrested for, though then IDK why fraud is in all the reporting and other posts. Then again, it does seem strange that the Mexican government would find it worthwhile to arrest them for wrongly using pictures of the buildings as a criminal matter - even my limited research says most of the Architecture IP provisions are around building a copy of the building, not preventing people taking pics of the building. But it seems a grey area under fair use. Still feels like in most situations it would be a civil matter though.

Palace demanded that they give up their Unlimited Referral Program or they will cancel all of their reservations.

It's my take that they played hard ball and the claw back of $116,000 might have been out of line because they used the system the prior year.

It seems like if they can show the $116,000 was for reservations that Palace cancelled and refused to honor, it would be reasonable. I guess it depends on if the MF payments are for the next year or the previous year, but I always understood it was for the next/current year in US systems.

 

[Roger830]

It seems like if they can show the $116,000 was for reservations that Palace cancelled and refused to honor, it would be reasonable. I guess it depends on if the MF payments are for the next year or the previous year, but I always understood it was for the next/current year in US systems.

In the Wyndham the mf for udi points is for the current year.
Therefore if a member used all points for rentals in January, then canceled autopay and clawed back 13 months mf, there could be 24 months rental income with no cost to the member.

The details of the situation are not known to us, but the judge has given Palace 6 months to present their case so there must be some substance to their claims.

 

[WorldT]

As far as I and CalGalTraveler understand, this was for future bookings charges that Palace cancelled, either AI on blocked stays or the ongoing MF when they wouldn't be able to use it because of Palace refusing them. There doesn't appear to be any attempt to claw back the 1.4 million purchase price OR MFs for the trips they actually took.

So it seems very similar to the above - her posting (which is what I was referring to) was for everyone in the #2 situation.

I don't really see how stopping payment for trip that has not been taken and for which the resort has cancelled the reservation can be considered fraud.
Their situation is as simple as that. Add to that, we do not have all the details. Everyone is presenting what makes them look good. We will have to wait. The one thing I have a problem with at this stage is putting them in jail while the private party is allowed to gather evidence for six months. I really want to see how that bail hearing went down.

 

[WorldT]

In the Wyndham the mf for udi points is for the current year.
Therefore if a member used all points for rentals in January, then canceled autopay and clawed back 13 months mf, there could be 24 months rental income with no cost to the member.

The details of the situation are not known to us, but the judge has given Palace 6 months to present their case so there must be some substance to their claims.

I have no problem with giving Palace six months to present their case or gather evidence. I have a problem with holding a person in jail for six months while a private company who filed the complaint in the first place is given six months. What kind of threat are they to the society?

 

[rpennisi]

Has it been mentioned at all anything about the folks that they gave Palace weeks to use as part of their business of selling AI week usage to others? Did those given AI weeks include mandatory presentations? Did a fair share of those AI week users purchase their own Palace weeks as a result? My guess would be a significant percentage purchase their own memberships during the weeks they were given by the defendants. I'm not on FB, but has any of that been posted on the FB site mentioned above in previous posts?

 

[ondeadlin]

Whatever the real story is there seems little question to me that Palace has lost more in goodwill and business reputation than they ever would have lost in MFs. That's the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario, of course, is they turned a business dispute into a criminal prosecution by alleging a false conspiracy AND then also lost more in goodwill and business reputation than they ever would have lost in MFs.

My default position in life has always been "avoid Mexican timeshares." It has served me well and will continue. Other folks obviously have positive experiences. But it seems like one of those situations where it's great until it's not, and when it's not, it's real bad.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

+1 @ondeadlin says. This story has hit US mainstream national news and the US travel blogger sites which will affect Mexican esp. Cancun tourism and timeshares beyond Palace.

What is interesting is the following statement from the blog below. (Yellow emphasis mine).

So here is the link for the "common hotel tactic in Cancun" which I was never aware of before.

‘They Refused Medical Help Unless I Signed’: Cancun Marriott Demands NDAs From Guests Over Holiday Illnesses - View from the Wing

Marriott Autograph Collection properties in Mexico seem to take the autograph part seriously, and love NDAs. The Royalton Splash Riviera Cancun reportedly required non-disclosure agreements by guests before “allowing medical assistance or letting them leave” the property over Christmas, after...

viewfromthewing.com

Won $116K Amex Dispute—Now U.S. Couple Is Jailed In Mexico As Timeshare Demands $250K For Release - View from the Wing

A Michigan couple was arrested at Cancun International Airport on March 4. When they arrived in Mexico for spring break, customs flagged their passports due to outstanding criminal fraud charges. They were immediately detained and incarcerated without bond in a maximum-security prison. That's...

viewfromthewing.com

 

[PamMo]

There is a LOT of speculation in these threads, based almost entirely on what the Akeo family and their lawyer have put out in the media. I don’t want to read about it, but darn it, I feel like a moth drawn to a flame!!!!

I haven’t been in a long going dispute with Palace Resorts over being a user/mega renter of 1,570 weeks, who clawed back over $100K of past payments on my AMEX, so I don’t have any concern about getting arrested by customs when I arrive in Mexico for vacation.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

...This story brings new meaning to "Timeshare Body Snatchers"

 

[jbman]

No. Not even close in your thought experiment. First of all, they didn’t have the intent to defraud at the time they took the vacations, which is what would be required to make it criminal, but honestly, even if they did, no US based law enforcement agency or prosecutor is ever filing a case like that. That’s what we have civil courts for.

Respectfully I disagree.

Someone walks into an electronics store and steals a laptop.

Someone else orders a laptop online and pays with a credit card. Laptop is delivered, but the person contacts the credit card company and falsely claims the laptop was never delivered. Credit card company sides with them and reverses the charge.

First example is theft, the second is fraud, but it's basically the same crime, they took a laptop without paying for it.

The fraud is a lot harder to prove, but if the person went on Facebook to explain what they did and encouraged others to get their own free laptop, then ...

 

[daviator]

I think customs found them on the list and retained them as a matter of operations. However they should have been released immediately once they determined this was a civil contract dispute.

If there is something else that they did then it is not revealed in this story. However the story says "6 months to allow Palace to gather evidence." Really? You can put someone on an Interpol list and not have evidence to support this? Something is fishy about this story. So perhaps there is something else beyond the Timeshare dispute.

The point here is that' at least allegedly, this is not a civil contract dispute. What has been alleged is fraud, which is a criminal matter. People go to prison for fraud in the United States every day. If you enter into a contract with the intent to commit fraud, that’s a crime in the U.S., and apparently in Mexico too. I’m not saying this couple did or did not commit fraud, but that is certainly what is alleged.

 

[Shiba]

have no problem with giving Palace six months to present their case or gather evidence. I have a problem with holding a person in jail for six months while a private company who filed the complaint in the first place is given six months. What kind of threat are they to the society?

The’re a flight risk. They have no ties to Mexico other than their time share. They don’t have to be a threat to society. Mexico is trying to make sure they will be present for their court date.

I think a lot of us need to be mindful when we travel out of the country that we cannot apply US Law if issues arise.

 

[jbman]

The’re a flight risk. They have no ties to Mexico other than their time share. They don’t have to be a threat to society. Mexico is trying to make sure they will be present for their court date.

I think a lot of us need to be mindful when we travel out of the country that we cannot apply US Law if issues arise.

Even if you did apply US Law, does anyone think that if a Mexican National was in the US and they were charged with a six-figure fraud against an American company that there is any chance they would be released on bail?

 

[CalGalTraveler]

The point here is that' at least allegedly, this is not a civil contract dispute. What has been alleged is fraud, which is a criminal matter. People go to prison for fraud in the United States every day. If you enter into a contract with the intent to commit fraud, that’s a crime in the U.S., and apparently in Mexico too. I’m not saying this couple did or did not commit fraud, but that is certainly what is alleged.

...And the timeshare salesperson never allegedly committed fraud by misrepresenting timeshare contracts to unsuspecting buyers who realized what they bought was not as promised. Should the sales person be locked up for 6 months while buyers gather evidence as well?

 

[Ckhawaii]

https://riviera-maya-news.com/ameri...n-hotel-out-of-more-than-100000-usd/2025.html

Here is a local English site. A little bit different take.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

AFAIK we are hearing several different stories. Still a mystery. Which one is true?

1) They prepaid AI and got the AMEX clawback when the rooms were cancelled by Palace for son's bachelor party. Not fraud IMO and consistent with why AMEX would support this because AI services were not rendered.

2) They disputed with AMEX for regular MFs after using said MF for stays. Consistent with fraud (I am not a lawyer) but wouldn't it be AMEX who should care about this because they were defrauded by the buyer into clawing this back and Palace can sue AMEX for recovery?

3) Buyer disputed MF after finding that Palace cancelled and changed the contract terms to which they were entitled. Was this prepaid MF? Did they use the MF for services? or were they walking and they made the mistake of trying to recover prepaid MF? If MF not used for stays, this could be considered breach of contract; a civil dispute.

4) Encouraging others to commit alleged fraud. It would be interesting to see what they said in their FB stream that Palace is alleging. Is there proof they actually did what they talked about? or were they just yakking on the Internet - as you know "Just because you heard it on the Internet it must be true." Did they officially organize others to commit this as revenge "conspiracy" (intent) or was this simply anger over their changed contract situation online (opinion) - as we hear on TUG?

 

[jp10558]

Respectfully I disagree.

Someone walks into an electronics store and steals a laptop.

Someone else orders a laptop online and pays with a credit card. Laptop is delivered, but the person contacts the credit card company and falsely claims the laptop was never delivered. Credit card company sides with them and reverses the charge.

This raises an interesting question for me - it would seem like this is more fraud against the credit card company?

First example is theft, the second is fraud, but it's basically the same crime, they took a laptop without paying for it.

The fraud is a lot harder to prove, but if the person went on Facebook to explain what they did and encouraged others to get their own free laptop, then ...

I get that it's some evidence the laptop person committed fraud, but encouraging others to do so seems like that's not fraud but some other potential crime.

 

[jp10558]

The point here is that' at least allegedly, this is not a civil contract dispute. What has been alleged is fraud, which is a criminal matter. People go to prison for fraud in the United States every day. If you enter into a contract with the intent to commit fraud, that’s a crime in the U.S., and apparently in Mexico too. I’m not saying this couple did or did not commit fraud, but that is certainly what is alleged.

It's just so unclear from the Palace side what they're saying the intent was. Like, is there any evidence that in 2016 when they entered the contract they intended to defraud Palace 7ish years later? I'm still back to how you make it criminal before a court decides if the contract was breached by Palace or by the family. If Palace breeched the contract it sure seems weird to me to hold the family liable for stopping payments after that date of breech. If the family was found to be the one breeching the contract then it still doesn't seem like fraud to me, but they would then be liable civilly for what they would have owed anyway.

I suppose if the family was found to breech the contract and owed the money, then you could claim fraud there.

I'm still trying to figure out what the fraud would be if you didn't get paid for a service you declined to provide. It would seem more like Palace is trying to defraud the family.

I'm guessing no one can get the actual charge sheet from Mexico where it lays out the actual claims?

 

[jp10558]

The’re a flight risk. They have no ties to Mexico other than their time share. They don’t have to be a threat to society. Mexico is trying to make sure they will be present for their court date.

I think a lot of us need to be mindful when we travel out of the country that we cannot apply US Law if issues arise.

This is very true, and I'm mindful of it. It makes me not go to Mexico cause their laws seem very bad IMO from this case.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Someone else orders a laptop online and pays with a credit card. Laptop is delivered, but the person contacts the credit card company and falsely claims the laptop was never delivered. Credit card company sides with them and reverses the charge.

First example is theft, the second is fraud, but it's basically the same crime, they took a laptop without paying for it.

This is not what happened here though. Again, it’s the intent at the time they made the purchase that matters. They didn’t intend to dispute the transactions at the time of the purchase, that’s a thing they did much later after a contract dispute arose. That is the difference between criminal fraud and a civil case.

 

[jp10558]

AFAIK we are hearing several different stories. Still a mystery. Which one is true?

1) They prepaid AI and got the AMEX clawback when the rooms were cancelled by Palace for son's bachelor party. Not fraud IMO and consistent with why AMEX would support this because AI services were not rendered.

This makes me wonder if there's any way that would get held as fraud on the family side.

2) They disputed with AMEX for regular MFs after using said MF for stays. Consistent with fraud (I am not a lawyer) but wouldn't it be AMEX who should care about this because they were defrauded by the buyer into clawing this back and Palace can sue AMEX for recovery?

I thought this too, but I'm left wondering how the laws work here.

3) Buyer disputed MF after finding that Palace cancelled and changed the contract terms to which they were entitled. Was this prepaid MF? Did they use the MF for services? or were they walking and they made the mistake of trying to recover prepaid MF? If MF not used for stays, this could be considered breach of contract; a civil dispute.

This also seems reasonable to me - again it seems likely to me just because what the heck is the long game to defraud Palace of $100k after 7 years of spending over 1.4 million? Very strange as an argument.

4) Encouraging others to commit alleged fraud. It would be interesting to see what they said in their FB stream that Palace is alleging. Is there proof they did this or were they just yacking on the Internet. Did others commit this based on what they said?

Isn't this a different "crime"? Another reason to avoid Mexico if "ranting on the Internet" can lead to a jail stay. I wonder if you can get arrested if you leave a bad review of Palace?

The other thing that just confuses the heck out of me is - why does Palace need 6 months to gather evidence. What evidence could they be gathering they didn't have over the couple years leading up to this? And why would a private company be gathering anything for a criminal case brought by the government?