The Supreme Court of Spain, in its decision 1524/2025 dated October 30, has radically changed the approach to regulating timeshares, known as multipropiedad, in the format of ‘floating weeks.’ The highest judicial body has revised its previous, much stricter doctrine, citing legislative changes, social realities, and the principle of upholding the validity of contracts. This ruling sets clear criteria for interpreting the legal regimes that existed before the enactment of Law 42/1998 and those adapted to it.
For a long time, judicial practice tended to annul such agreements, but the situation has now changed. The court recognized that flexible property usage systems at resorts can be entirely legal under certain conditions, bringing long-awaited clarity to a sector that has suffered for years from legal uncertainty and numerous lawsuits.
A new perspective on ‘floating weeks’
The key change introduced by the Supreme Court is as follows: contracts based on the floating week system are considered valid if they originate from a pre-existing regime that was properly adapted and registered in the Land Registry in accordance with the aforementioned law. The most important requirement is that the notarial act of adaptation must explicitly indicate the retention or transformation of the original regime. Therefore, the legality of the contract directly depends on the adaptation option that has been chosen and registered.
This clarification also confirms that such contracts can be valid for more than 50 years, provided that the adaptation deed explicitly preserved or transformed the original system. Previously, many courts automatically declared floating week contracts invalid, regarding their subject as uncertain or their duration as excessive. The Supreme Court has revised this approach, stating that the floating week system itself is not grounds for annulment, provided that usage can be determined through an objective procedure, such as a clear and verifiable booking system.
The key to legality is adaptation
The court emphasizes that the main focus should not be on the individual contract with the consumer, but on how the entire timeshare regime was adapted after Law 42/1998 came into effect. The fifty-year limit is mandatory only in cases where the adaptation scenario required full application of the new law. If the registered deed opted to maintain the original regime, then both the nature of the right and its duration remain unchanged.
The ruling recalls the three adaptation paths that were available to pre-existing timeshare systems:
1. Full preservation of the original regime, including its indefinite duration or a term exceeding 50 years.
2. Establishment of a mixed regime, combining elements of the old system with the requirements of the new legislation.
3. Complete transformation of the regime while maintaining the original term of the right, even if it was indefinite.
The Supreme Court points out that the decisive factor is not the date each individual right was transferred, but rather the adaptation scenario recorded and entered in the Property Registry. This criterion eliminates disputes that arose due to conflicting interpretations by various provincial courts.
Flexibility and legal certainty
For years, floating week contracts have been under scrutiny due to alleged uncertainty regarding their subject matter. Now, the Supreme Court is taking a more functional approach: if the contract provides a clear procedure (such as a reservation system) to determine the accommodation and the period of use, the subject is deemed valid. The Court also clarified that it is not necessary for the contract to specify the registration details of each villa, as long as the resort, type of accommodation, and booking procedures are properly described.
This interpretation aligns with the evolution of regulations and case law in the field of consumer protection, which recognize the validity of usage rights as long as they are clearly defined and backed by transparency. The Court also referred to a fundamental principle of civil law—the preservation of legal transactions—emphasizing that if a contract can be upheld through interpretation of its terms, this route should be chosen over annulment.
Implications for the market
The Supreme Court’s decision creates a more predictable environment for all timeshare market participants. Thanks to the new doctrine, the uncertainty that hung over numerous old contracts—triggering endless legal battles—is reduced. Tour operators now have a more stable legal framework for selling floating weeks, without the constant fear of automatic annulment.
For consumers, this ruling means a more comprehensive and consistent interpretation of their rights and obligations, increasing confidence in these types of vacation products. At the same time, the court made it clear that transparency of information remains a key element. Users must continue to receive accurate and clear details about how the system works, the terms of use, and the actual limitations of each contract. This ensures that the flexibility of the model does not come at the expense of consumer rights.
Incidentally, timeshare (multipropiedad) became popular in Spain in the 1980s and 1990s, especially in resort areas. The concept involved purchasing the right to use an apartment or villa for a specific period each year. However, the sector quickly gained a bad reputation due to aggressive sales tactics, lack of transparency, and weak legal protection for buyers. In response, a special law was adopted in 1998 to establish order and protect consumers. The legislation set strict requirements for contracts, including a maximum duration and mandatory information disclosure for clients.
