[ MERGED ] Michigan family jailed in Mexico over timeshare dispute

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Sorry, didn’t’ See the other thread. Feel free to merge.

 

[easyrider]

oh come on, they literally tell you over and over again that they will give you a gift at the end of the presentation just for attending.

Indeed they do and it's totally fine to accept them. My point is this follows the same pattern of unconstrained self interest as the people in jail.

Bill

 

[dioxide45]

FYI...I never heard of Palace Resorts so here is a table from Co-Pilot. YMMV this is AI. I see these often in exchanges but avoided because many had mandatory AI which added significantly to the cost.

View attachment 108259

Doesn't Palace Resorts also operate the Hard Rock Hotel in Cancun?

 

[daviator]

Indeed they do and it's totally fine to accept them. My point is this follows the same pattern of unconstrained self interest as the people in jail.

Bill

I think I’m beating a dead horse, but I don’t understand the connection you are trying to make between those two things.

Going to a presentation in exchange for an incentive gift, there is an implied contract which is fulfilled by both parties. The developer gives you the gift after you show up and subject yourself to sitting through the presentation. That’s a completed contract. Both parties did what they agreed to do. It doesn’t matter whether you intended to buy something after the presentation or not, because intent to buy was not a requirement or an expectation.

Vs

Signing a literal contract to buy which you have no intention of fulfilling – at least reportedly that’s what the couple later said they did – receiving value for signing the contract, and then refusing to pay as agreed and disputing the credit card charges. In this case you clearly have a broken contract and one which was entered with fraudulent intent. One party cheated the other one.

I don’t see any similarity or commonality between those two situations.

Now I’m sure the actual situation in Mexico is more complicated and nuanced than my simplistic example above, but what I fail to understand is how you can say that the second situation is somehow similar to the first.

But I’ll stop beating the horse now, lol.

 

[easyrider]

I think I’m beating a dead horse, but I don’t understand the connection you are trying to make between those two things.

Going to a presentation in exchange for an incentive gift, there is an implied contract which is fulfilled by both parties. The developer gives you the gift after you show up and subject yourself to sitting through the presentation. That’s a completed contract. Both parties did what they agreed to do. It doesn’t matter whether you intended to buy something after the presentation or not, because intent to buy was not a requirement or an expectation.

Vs

Signing a literal contract to buy which you have no intention of fulfilling – at least reportedly that’s what the couple later said they did – receiving value for signing the contract, and then refusing to pay as agreed and disputing the credit card charges. In this case you clearly have a broken contract and one which was entered with fraudulent intent. One party cheated the other one.

I don’t see any similarity or commonality between those two situations.

Now I’m sure the actual situation in Mexico is more complicated and nuanced than my simplistic example above, but what I fail to understand is how you can say that the second situation is somehow similar to the first.

But I’ll stop beating the horse now, lol.

The people in jail say they did nothing wrong. They claim that they only took advantage of a deal offered to them. In this case it might be considered unfettered greed instead of greed. Their credit card company sided with them is what we know and that they are in jail.

Going to a presentation is taking advantage of a deal offered to buyers and could be considered in a persons self interest to attend but when that buyer has been to the same presentation many times with no intention of buying it might be considered unfettered greed.

Both scenarios are examples of greed.

I'm not implying it's wrong to go to presentations for the perks. Even to the same resorts with no intention of ever buying anything. I don't think it's wrong to cancel a contract and to keep the perks either. I do think taking advantage of a resort sales teams offer multiple times, year after year, with no intention of buying does border on unfettered buyer greed in some cases.

Bill

Bill

 

[dioxide45]

Their credit card company sided with them is what we know and that they are in jail.

A successful credit card dispute doesn't necessarily remove any legal liability. A company or business can still sue for a breach of contract.

 

[PPAES]

When you are in Mexico…you are on your own…completely on your own…I wish the couple good luck.

They were wanted by Interpol. Mexico did nothing wrong except check that this couple had outstanding charges.

 

[tananth]

So it sounds like they spent $100k, thought they could rent out bonus weeks (probably encouraged by a sales rep, and it was reportedly in the written contract) and when they pushed the limits and it did not work as planned, they rescinded their payment via AMEX and posted negatively on social media.

I don't believe AMEX would have reversed if they hadn't been presented with contracts in writing.

Both sides have issues. Regardless this is a civil matter and jailing still sounds extreme.

Not good optics for Mexico tourism; this will kill all Mexican timeshare sales not just Palace with U.S. tourists.

I have always avoided Mexican timeshare presentations, and this episode - right or wrong - confirms that I will never attend one in the future unless it is sponsored by a US brand name like HGVC or Westin. I will still travel to Mexico though.

Indeed, the couple says they sent Amex copies of the contract, but it is not clear if Amex bothered to read it, since the Palace Company did not respond to Amex. Instead Palace Company filed a dispute of the chargeback with Santander Bank (the Bank in Mexcio which processes their credit card charges), but Santander Bank after looking at the evidence provided by Amex (presumably forwarded from the cardholders) ruled in favor of Amex/Cardholder !

To be fair to Mexican timeshare companies, US timeshare companies at times also change terms. Wyndham famously shutdown the so called MegaRenters (who were similarly abusing some loopholes in the rules to get extra weeks and renting them out) in both their own timeshare and the Worldmark system (using different methods, but basically making it hard to rent out weeks and in some cases shutting down online access to the Worldmark accounts and challenging those owners to sue Wyndham or accept their offer to surrender the timeshare contract along with payment for any past MF and borrowed points), but the changes are typically legal because terms can be changed by majority vote of the timeshare owners and the developer (Wyndham in this case) often controls the voting via proxys that many timeshare owners unthinkingly assign to the developer. Indeed, the Michigan couple admits that they were contacted by the Palace Company and told that the terms had changed and that going forward bonus weeks could only be used by the owner. The Palace Company told them their existing bonus weeks would be honored under the previous terms and they were OK with that, but then the next day all their existing guest reservations were cancelled.

Even HGVC imposed limitations on guest certificates : You can still have guests for any reservation in the HGVC system, but can only charge your guest rent for the home week reservation. This has been the case for some time, but even now HGVC sales agents tell prospective buyers that they can make a profit by booking desirable weeks and renting them out, often saying that they do that themselves. In the meantime HGVC questions guests at check in to try to figure out if they paid the owner, and if so they can cancel the reservation or (more commonly) disable all future guest reservations as punishment.

 

[dioxide45]

There seems to be a lot of statements being made in this thread about what happened without any sources to back it up?

 

[PPAES]

I thought I saw a thread on this already, but I can't find it. If there is one, point me to it.

I guess we should stop telling people there are no repercussions to skipping out on their Mexican timeshare?

'Americans being held hostage'; Daughter decries Michigan parents jailed in Mexico

It has been an international nightmare for two American citizens who are stuck in a Mexican jail for a dispute over a time-share for 21 days.

www.fox2detroit.com

Fraudsters. They were wanted by Interpol.
Mexico did nothing wrong except check that this couple had outstanding charges. It’s important to deal with these things and not assume they just go away just because it’s Mexico. The Mexican court gave Palace Resorts, a US company and not a “Mexican timeshare”, six more months to gather evidence and denied the Akeo's request for house arrest, ordering them to remain in jail until then.

 

[am1]

Disputing a credit card charge does not release one from the contract. If it was a legal contract in the eyes of Mexican law then what they did could be fraud and if so being held in jail is the way it is. It they are released I am sure would be a flight risk and seek out the us embassy or border.

St the moment no love lost between the two countries.

 

[amycurl]

I think there are currently three threads on this situation. Could a mod please merge these? @TUGBrian?

 

[LannyPC]

oh come on, they literally tell you over and over again that they will give you a gift at the end of the [90-minute] presentation just for attending.

There, I corrected it for you.

 

[daviator]

The people in jail say they did nothing wrong. They claim that they only took advantage of a deal offered to them. In this case it might be considered unfettered greed instead of greed. Their credit card company sided with them is what we know and that they are in jail.

Going to a presentation is taking advantage of a deal offered to buyers and could be considered in a persons self interest to attend but when that buyer has been to the same presentation many times with no intention of buying it might be considered unfettered greed.

Both scenarios are examples of greed.

I'm not implying it's wrong to go to presentations for the perks. Even to the same resorts with no intention of ever buying anything. I don't think it's wrong to cancel a contract and to keep the perks either. I do think taking advantage of a resort sales teams offer multiple times, year after year, with no intention of buying does border on unfettered buyer greed in some cases.

Bill

Bill

Thanks, I now understand your point even if I don't 1000% agree with it.

If a company wants to pay me hundreds of dollars for 90 minutes of my time, I'm often willing to make that deal. Is that greed? I see it as a simple barter... their money for my time. Sometimes I learn something new. Occasionally I even spend some money!

I suspect this couple found, or thought they found, a profitable loophole they were going to exploit, and then the loophole was closed, to their unhappiness. That I could more easily call greed, or at least a profit motive. We live in an economic system based around profit motive, so I have no problem with someone wanting to profit, but if you plan to do so by exploiting a vacation plan in some sort of unexpected way, you probably shouldn't be surprised when the loophole gets closed. Better to earn your money the old fashioned way.

 

[easyrider]

If a company wants to pay me hundreds of dollars for 90 minutes of my time, I'm often willing to make that deal. Is that greed?

We do attend presentations but only for a substantial reward because basically I'm greedy, lol. We do the presentations year after year and you can spin it any way you like but it's our greed, not need, that we are satisfying. We do learn a thing or two along the way. We do see resorts that we might exchange to.

You may be the unicorn, lol. I doubt you need the cash perk, I know I don't, but it is nice to get.

Bill

 

[daviator]

We do attend presentations but only for a substantial reward because basically I'm greedy, lol. We do the presentations year after year and you can spin it any way you like but it's our greed, not need, that we are satisfying. We do learn a thing or two along the way. We do see resorts that we might exchange to.

You may be the unicorn, lol. I doubt you need the cash perk, I know I don't, but it is nice to get.

Bill

If you put it that way... no, I don't need the cash perk, but my time has value, so I am sometimes willing to trade it for some cash. Is that greed?

But that's different from reneging on a contract because the loophole I was hoping to exploit got closed.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

A successful credit card dispute doesn't necessarily remove any legal liability. A company or business can still sue for a breach of contract.

True. What makes this story so bizarre though is the imposition of criminal liability. This wouldn’t be a huge news story if the resort had just sued them.

 

[cheech]

Doesn't Palace Resorts also operate the Hard Rock Hotel in Cancun?

No, not anymore. They split some years ago. From what I understand, the 2 brothers were given control of the palace resorts from daddy, they had a falling out, and they split the properties between the two of them. Hard Rock Riviera Maya, Hard Rock Cancun, Hard Rock Punta Cana, Los Cabos and Vallarta all went to one brother, the other kept the palace resorts.

 

[dioxide45]

Here is another article with not a lot of new information but indirectly supports some of the claims made in this thread. It includes a statement from the defendant's attorney.

https://www.wlns.com/news/resort-breached-spring-arbor-couples-contract-first-lawyer-says/

 

[WorldT]

Fraudsters. They were wanted by Interpol.
Mexico did nothing wrong except check that this couple had outstanding charges. It’s important to deal with these things and not assume they just go away just because it’s Mexico. The Mexican court gave Palace Resorts, a US company and not a “Mexican timeshare”, six more months to gather evidence and denied the Akeo's request for house arrest, ordering them to remain in jail until then.

Imagine if you are held in a jail for six months just so a company can "gather evidence". I am sure you will want your day in court the same day.
I am not supporting either party as I don't know enough to form an opinion. However, I find it strange that your tone seems to imply that it is okay to be locked up in jail for six months while a private company goes evidence hunting. If indeed that statement is true, it would be strange in any country in the world.

Another strange aspect is this is a criminal case which is handled by Mexican prosecutors. So keeping an opposing party in jail while giving the other private party six months to gather evidence is crazy. Shouldn't they have provided enough evidence before Mexican prosecutors went to interpol in the first place.

 

[dioxide45]

Fraudsters. They were wanted by Interpol.
Mexico did nothing wrong except check that this couple had outstanding charges. It’s important to deal with these things and not assume they just go away just because it’s Mexico. The Mexican court gave Palace Resorts, a US company and not a “Mexican timeshare”, six more months to gather evidence and denied the Akeo's request for house arrest, ordering them to remain in jail until then.

Interpol isn't an agency that has warrents out for anyone's arrest. They are an international intergovernmental police organization that is really just about information sharing. They issue notices so those with warrants issued in member countries can be picked up by any other member country. Their charges are in Mexico, the warrant was issued in Mexico and they were wanted on charges in Mexico. Though they could have been detained my any member country of Interpol. Also, where is this information about Palace Resorts being a US based company?

I do find the detainment to be excessive given non violent crimes, but this is Mexico and it's their country and their laws. It is also possible that if released and returned to the USA, they would never be returned to Mexico to face the charges.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Fraudsters. They were wanted by Interpol.
Mexico did nothing wrong except check that this couple had outstanding charges. It’s important to deal with these things and not assume they just go away just because it’s Mexico. The Mexican court gave Palace Resorts, a US company and not a “Mexican timeshare”, six more months to gather evidence and denied the Akeo's request for house arrest, ordering them to remain in jail until then.

At worst this is a dispute over a debt and an interpretation of a contract. People do not go to jail for debt. That was abolished in the 1800's in free countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors'_prison

This is a civil matter. The fact that Palace is supporting such overreach in the way they do business with their customers speaks volumes about this company. Avoid.

 

[pierrepierre]

It is one thing to be locked up for drunk driving or writing bad checks....however not paying a contact you signed and with intent to defraud - being in our own criminal system (police man)...well, they are guilty . For exactly what, the court will decide. Not our country...not our ball and bat. I think the amount of money involved is also an issue, as it would be here in the USA. We left a Timeshare here in states, paid the company more than $3,000 to close our account. We DID NOT just bail on them with no reason.......Time for all to think about WHAT YOU SIGN and are responsible for.

 

[PigsDad]

but this is Mexico and it's their country and their laws.

That is the key statement that most people seem to be forgetting. It doesn't matter one iota that Amex sided with the Michigan couple. Or the fact that in the US they would not be held while evidence was gathered. It doesn't matter that this would not be considered criminal fraud in other countries. Or that people don't go to jail in other countries in a dispute over debt.

It's Mexico and by all accounts, they are following Mexican laws. Foreigners can't just waltz into another country thinking the laws of that country don't apply to them because they don't live there. It just doesn't work that way. This couple found out the hard way the old saying, "you f--- around, you find out".

Kurt

 

[iftravel]

Here is another article with not a lot of new information but indirectly supports some of the claims made in this thread. It includes a statement from the defendant's attorney.

https://www.wlns.com/news/resort-breached-spring-arbor-couples-contract-first-lawyer-says/

“The Palace Company subsidiary, Palace Elite, filed a criminal complaint with Mexican authorities after Paul and Christy Akeo fraudulently disputed legitimate credit card charges and publicly encouraged others to do the same.”

Jailed for alleged dispute?! Why didn’t they go after AMEX if it’s so “legitimate”?

It’s way wrong and I’m sure it will be settled just like the man being hauled off a United flight. But no I’m not going there…