By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Paul and Christy Akeo, a Michigan couple, were released from a Mexican prison after nearly a month of detainment following a dispute with Palace Resorts over timeshare payments. Mexican prosecutors initially accused the Akeos of fraud related to disputed credit card charges totaling over $116,000, but the charges were dropped after a reparation agreement was reached. This agreement involved the Akeos paying damages, which will be donated to Mexican charities. The Akeos’ family maintained the allegations were false, stemming from Palace Resorts’ failure to provide promised services. The couple’s release followed intervention by US officials, including Congressman Barrett and President Trump.
Read the original article here
A Michigan couple recently spent nearly a month in a Mexican prison due to a payment dispute with a timeshare company. The situation highlights the significant legal differences between the US and Mexico, particularly regarding contract disputes and the repercussions of fraudulent activity. The couple’s actions involved more than a simple disagreement over payment.
Their troubles began with a timeshare arrangement that offered substantial benefits, including discounted resort stays and the ability to generate free nights and flights through referrals. This referral system, though seemingly beneficial, became the source of their problems. The couple actively utilized the referral program, often booking multiple stays each month and even operating a Facebook group dedicated to selling these referrals.
However, when the timeshare company limited the unlimited referral scheme, the couple reacted by disputing charges with their credit card company, claiming fraud. This action, coupled with their subsequent boasting online about successfully evading payment, set the stage for their legal nightmare.
This wasn’t merely a matter of disgruntled customers; it was a deliberate action taken to avoid financial responsibility. The couple actively worked to circumvent their contractual obligations and then publicly bragged about their actions. This blatant disregard for their commitments proved to be a significant miscalculation.
Their decision to return to Cancun after the chargebacks added another layer of complexity. They seemed to believe that the consequences of their actions would not extend beyond the US, a misunderstanding that landed them in a Mexican jail cell. This highlights the crucial point that legal jurisdiction extends beyond national borders; actions taken abroad are subject to the laws of that particular nation.
The couple’s actions were arguably illegal, regardless of how they perceived their relationship with the timeshare company. Their methods, from initially abusing the referral system to fraudulently disputing charges and flaunting their defiance online, suggest a pattern of disregard for both the law and ethical conduct.
It’s interesting to consider the role of American Express in the situation. While they reversed the charges based on the couple’s fraud claim, this action doesn’t erase the original contract. The timeshare company still had the right to pursue legal recourse for the outstanding payment, and the couple’s actions directly contributed to the severity of the situation. American Express’s involvement certainly complicates the narrative and underscores how a seemingly simple act of reversing a charge can have far-reaching, unforeseen consequences.
The contrast between the couple’s perception of their actions and the Mexican legal system’s response serves as a cautionary tale. The notion of casually disregarding contractual obligations and gloating about it online, perhaps acceptable (or at least unpunished) within the US context, had vastly different implications in Mexico.
The couple’s experience underscores the importance of understanding the legal landscape in foreign countries. What might be viewed as a civil dispute in one nation can have considerably more severe repercussions in another. The “American laws end at the border” phrase is a simplification, but it touches upon the core issue: actions with legal implications in one country carry the same, or even greater, implications abroad.
While the couple’s release from prison is a positive outcome, it doesn’t erase the underlying issues. They still owe the timeshare company money, and their actions have resulted in a month-long stay in a foreign prison. Their ordeal serves as a potent example of the potentially severe consequences of engaging in deceitful financial practices and failing to understand the legal ramifications of these actions in different jurisdictions. The story offers a valuable, albeit harsh, lesson about responsible financial conduct and the importance of adhering to contracts, regardless of personal opinions of their fairness. Their actions, despite their eventual release, are not without consequences. The debts remain, and a valuable lesson about international legal ramifications has been learned—though at a significant personal cost.