This time Room 5 of the Court of Appeals (Audiencia Provincial) confirms the first instance judgment in its entirety. I didn't publish this first decision when I should, but I'll do it after this as it'll make more sense of this post.
There is an aspect that I want to highlight in this judgement which is the way the Court of Appeals resolves an allegation that Anfi repeats from time to time. Indeed Anfi on many occasions alleges, and this allegation it's normally accepted by Court No. 4 of San Bartolomé de Tirajana, that they have sent, prior to the filing of our lawsuit, a formal request of membership cancellation due to non-payment of maintenance fees. Consequently they think that our claim must be rejected because the contract didn't exist on the starting date of the claim for the alleged cancellation.
This could be correct in sight of certain eyes, but, before proceeding, a technical legal precision must be made, and this is, if a contract is declared void it means that it never existed, so it cannot be canceled (as Anfi claims) something that never existed in the first place. Therefore, the first thing the Court of Appeals has to ask itself is whether the contract is void or not, and only if it finds that it is NOT, will it wonder if Anfi's cancellation is correct. It goes without saying that the Court of Appeals has found the contract to be null and void (floating and perpetual) and therefore Anfi's allegations had to be rejected. Very interesting legal point.
It also confirms the return of the anticipated monies paid and orders to pay the legal costs of the appeal.
