Rechtspraak

  • Bijzonderheden van de zaak
    • Nationaal ID: Supreme Court, Judgement 19/01351
    • Lidstaat: Nederland
    • Gangbare benaming:N/A
    • Soort beslissing: Beslissing hooggerechtshof
    • Datum beslissing: 25/09/2020
    • Gerecht: Hoge Raad
    • Onderwerp:
    • Eiser:
    • Verweerder:
    • Trefwoorden: timeshare contract
  • Richtlijnartikelen
    Timeshare Directive, link
  • Koptekst

    ECLI:NL:HR:2020:1499


    In the terms and conditions of the mortgage contract (for the construction of flats, lease and sale in timeshare), the bank included a so-called lease clause, according to which lease contracts entered into after the mortgage was publicly registered would not be honoured by the bank when publicly auctioning the property, unless they were approved by the bank. When the flats were sold in timeshare, there was no legislation providing for timeshare, so they were considered leases. When after a few years the bank reclaimed the loans and put the property up for auction, the buyer was able to terminate all the contracts, as the bank had not approved them and they were considered leases. This issue was brought to the Supreme Court, which confirmed that the termination of the contracts was valid.

  • Feiten

    In 1996 Kildare obtained rights of emphyteusis (rights in rem) to three lots of land on the island of Sint Maarten in the Caribbean Sea. On these lots, a beach resort was developed. Hotel and hospitality services were to be exploited by Island Hotel, whereas Endless Vacation would intermediate and advise in the lease and sale of timeshares. A bank financed the project, in exchange for which Kildare established a mortgage on the property and Kildare, Island Hotel and Endless Vacation transferred all their income and claims for security purposes to the bank. In the terms and conditions for the mortgage contract, the bank included a so-called lease clause (in Dutch: huurbeding), according to which lease contracts concluded after the mortgage was publicly registered would not be respected by the bank when publicly auctioning the property unless these were approved by the bank. From 1996 to 2013 more than 2,000 apartments in the resort were sold on the basis of timeshare to consumers. Under the law of the island of Sint Maarten, no specific legislation regarding timeshare existed at the time; timeshare contracts were regarded as lease contracts.

    In 2013, the bank reclaimed the loans, and ultimately the rights of emphyteusis and the rights to the apartments were sold through a public auction. The potential buyers were informed of the existence of lease contracts, which consisted of timeshares and commercial contracts. The winner of the auction, Alegria, obtained the rights of emphyteusis and the rights to the apartments by 15 September 2014. Alegria then informed the timeshare-owners that Kildare, Island Hotel and Endless Vacation would no longer be involved in the beach resort and that since the bank had not approved of the lease contracts, Alegria was entitled to annul the individual timeshare/lease contracts.

  • Juridische kwestie

    Are timeshare owners protected against the transfer of the property on which their timeshare lots are built if the seller of the property is not the same legal entity as the party with whom they have concluded the timeshare agreement?

  • Uitspraak

    The Dutch Supreme Court held that it follows from the text of Article 7:226 of the Dutch Civil Code and the corresponding provision in the Civil Code of Sint Maarten that this provision only relates to cases in which the lessor (here: the party concluding the timeshare agreements with the consumers) transfers the leased property. There is no room for an extensive interpretation of Article 7:226 of the Dutch Civil Code on this point. As a result, Alegria is not bound by the timeshare agreements concluded with the consumers.

    URL: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2020:1499&showbutton=true&keyword=ECLI%3aNL%3aHR%3a2020%3a1499

    Integrale tekst: Integrale tekst

  • Verwante zaken

    Geen resultaten

  • Rechtsleer

    Geen resultaten

  • Resultaat

    The Supreme Court quashes the decision of the Court of Appeal and refers the case back to the Court of Appeal to decide the case on the facts.