Michigan couple released after nearly a month in Mexican prison over payment dispute with timeshare company
Paul Akeo, a 58-year-old Navy veteran, and his wife Christy, 60, were taken into custody shortly after their plane landed in Cancun on March 4, according to their family.
Prosecutors in the Mexican state of Quintana Roo, where Cancun is located, accused the Akeos of defrauding a hospitality company.
The case stems from a 2021 timeshare agreement between the Akeos and Palace Elite, a subsidiary of The Palace Company, John Manly, an attorney for the Akeo family, previously told CNN.
The couple's family has said the allegations against them are false. Through their attorneys, the Akeos say they successfully disputed charges with their credit card from a resort company they claim breached their contract by failing to provide services.
The couple is traveling back to the US and are expected to land in Michigan shortly before midnight, Gordon said.
Manly also confirmed that the couple has been released and were heading home Thursday. He thanked Congressman Barrett, calling him a 'hero in my book,' as well as Adam Boehler and President Donald Trump.
'President Trump, I know he personally got involved with this and wanted them home, so I give him a lot of credit,' Manly said to CNN Thursday night. 'No American should have to endure what these people have endured. But for these three men, I think they'd still be sitting there.'
A spokesperson for The Palace Company did not immediately respond to questions about the status of the case Thursday following the Akeos' release.
Manly told CNN in a March statement that the couple was being 'held captive in a hell hole of a Mexican maximum-security prison.'
Barrett decried the prison's 'horrific conditions' on X after he visited the couple there on Wednesday.
Lindsey Hull previously told CNN she was concerned about her parents' health in prison.
'Their lives are in danger. Their health is declining. We need to get these people home,' Hull said, referring to her parents. 'We just don't have another option. They're not going to be sitting in prison indefinitely.'
The US State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the couple's release. A State Department spokesperson previously told CNN it's 'aware of reports of the detention of two U.S. citizens in Mexico' but declined to offer specifics.
Lindsey Hull said last month her parents were taken into custody and told arrest warrants had been issued for them in Mexico after a criminal complaint was filed by The Palace Company alleging fraud.
'We're assuming it has something to do with the timeshare with Palace Resorts,' she recalled her stepfather telling her in a call the day her parents were arrested.
Prosecutors in Mexico allege in a March 15 statement that in 2022, the Akeos canceled 13 credit card payments to a hotel chain totaling more than $116,500. Prosecutors did not elaborate on possible evidence but said the activity constitutes fraud.
Through their attorneys, the Akeos say Palace failed to provide promised services a few months into their timeshare contract. The couple then filed a complaint with their credit card company seeking a refund of nearly $117,000 in Palace payments.
The couple argued the resort company breached their contract. Manly said in a statement last week the Akeos were held 'because they successfully disputed Palace' [sic] charges and failure to deliver services with American Express, criticized the Company on Facebook and alerted others who felt wronged by Palace.'
Manly added the company was retaliating against the couple for challenging the charges.
A spokesperson for The Palace Company and attorneys for the Akeos both provided CNN with documentation showing an extended dispute about the couple's use of membership benefits and what could be considered breaches of contract.
The Palace spokesperson told CNN in statements last week that they filed a complaint with Mexican authorities in August 2023 after the Akeos 'fraudulently disputed legitimate credit card charges and publicly encouraged others to do the same.'
'The Akeos began disputing their membership charges with their credit card companies,' Palace said in a statement last week. 'These disputes – despite relating to services they had actively used – were granted,' the company said in a statement.
Palace claims the couple later took to Facebook and 'bragged about these chargebacks and encouraged others to follow suit.'
Last September, attorneys for Palace sent a cease-and-desist letter to Christy Akeo claiming that her Facebook posts were unlawful because she had instructed members on how to end their agreements 'using illegal and fraudulent means,' according to a copy of the letter the company provided to CNN.
Separately, in announcing the fraud charges last month, Mexican prosecutors pointed to social media posts, alleging Christy Akeo used them 'to inform how said fraud was committed against the hotel chain.'
Palace said it has also filed a related civil suit seeking financial damages and that 'all of its actions are in full accordance with Mexican law.'
'The bottom line is this is a civil dispute which can be easily litigated,' Manly told CNN in a Friday statement. 'Palace has no right to force a settlement by having the Akeos arrested and thrown into a dangerous Mexican prison.'
Hull previously told CNN her family received no notice of criminal charges that she is aware of and said her mother did take to social media to share her negative experience with fellow Palace patrons. However, she's baffled at why social media activity may have contributed to the arrest.
'My mom was very clear about that in this Facebook group where people were seeking information on what to do when you get in these memberships,' Hull said. 'If there's 8,000 people dealing with the same thing, and the same disappointments with Palace Resorts, and how they treat their members, maybe you should look in the mirror and make a change.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US appeals court strikes down SEC rule on 'audit trail' funding
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A federal appeals court on Friday struck down 2023 regulations adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on funding a comprehensive market surveillance system, finding that Wall Street's top regulator had not provided a sufficient basis for allowing stock exchanges to pass on its costs to their members, court papers showed. The unanimous decision represented another blow to SEC regulations adopted under the previous Biden administration, which faced concerted opposition from industry and Republican lawmakers. It was also a setback for the Consolidated Audit Trail, a repository of investor and transaction data meant to give regulators overarching visibility into U.S. market operations, but which has faced delays and obstacles for more than a decade. The American Securities Association and Citadel Securities, which brought the lawsuit, both hailed the outcome. The ruling "prevents a tax hike on every American investor who buys or sells a share of stock," ASA President Chris Iacovella said in a statement. The SEC did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Over the objections of its Republican members, the SEC in 2023 split the operating costs among buyers, sellers, and exchanges. Officials said at the time this would divide costs evenly but also allow exchanges several years to recoup hundreds of millions already spent. This drew stiff objections from the investment industry, which said it could be left paying an unfairly large share. The two Republicans are now part of the five-member commission's controlling majority. In an opinion for a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 11th Circuit, Circuit Judge Andrew Brasher said that, because the SEC had not advanced a sufficient justification in deciding how the system's cost would fall on different actors in the marketplace, "we conclude that the 2023 Funding Order is arbitrary and capricious" and therefore in violation of federal laws governing the crafting of regulations. The appeals court sent the rule back to the SEC for further processing in line with the court's decision. The SEC mandated the CAT's creation in 2012 as a response to the "flash crash" of 2010 when major Wall Street indexes temporarily erased nearly $1 trillion in market value in a matter of minutes. Officials say it can allow regulators to spot market manipulation and have cited its data in enforcement actions.
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Defends 'Weak Dollar,' Economic Analysts Respond
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump defended the weakening U.S. dollar during a conversation with reporters Friday. "Well, you know, I'm a person that likes a strong dollar, but a weak dollar makes you a hell of a lot more money," Trump said in a media Q&A. Newsweek spoke with financial experts about the matter. Why It Matters While the U.S. dollar gained ground Friday, it still set for a weekly drop amid ongoing tariff negotiations and The Fed's bank meeting scheduled for next week. This week marks the greatest drop in a month, with the dollar index standing at 97.448. That shows a 1 percent weekly decline, while the euro stayed at $1.1754, close to its four-year high of $1.183. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs the White House on July 15, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs the White House on July 15, 2025 in Washington, To Know During Trump's conversation with reporters, he defended the declining value of the U.S. dollar, arguing that there were actually some benefits to the currency losing value. "When we have a strong dollar, one thing happens," Trump said. "It sounds good, but you don't do any tourism.... You can't sell anything. It is good for inflation. That's about it." Trump went on to say the U.S. has wiped out inflation. "I will never say I like a low currency, but you remember the battles I China, with Japan... They always wanted a weak currency. They're trying to get a weak currency now." However, economists have warned that the weakening U.S. dollar is likely to spark a price hike on everyday items while also forcing U.S. travelers to pay more when abroad. "A weaker dollar does have certain benefits—particularly for multinational corporations and U.S. exporters. It makes American goods more competitive abroad and can boost earnings when foreign profits are converted back into dollars," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "But let's be clear: the U.S. is a consumer-driven, import-heavy economy. A weaker dollar makes imports more expensive, which can drive inflation. So while there are benefits on the corporate side, it also hurts households by increasing the cost of everyday goods." Thompson also said Trump's comments on inflation were incorrect, as consumers are still facing price increases in many areas. "He's dead wrong," Thompson said. "We're still seeing elevated prices in areas like energy, particularly piped gas, and in household essentials. Food costs continue to climb, especially meat, and many families are seeing higher utility bills. Disinflation doesn't mean prices are falling—it just means they're rising more slowly, but they're still rising." In June, the consumer price index for all urban consumers climbed 0.3 percent, seasonally adjusted. Meanwhile, food was up 3 percent year-over-year, not seasonally adjusted. So far this year, the dollar has dropped more than 10 percent in value relative to foreign currencies from many of America's trading partners. Thompson said the U.S. dollar's weakness stems from a mix of concerns over U.S. fiscal policy. "Continued deficit spending and ballooning debt levels have led to questions about long-term economic stability. Since the dollar is the world's reserve currency, its strength is tied to global trust in our economy," Thompson said. Trump's ongoing tariff negotiations have also signaled alarm amongst some economists, who say that the heightened tariffs could be passed along by importers via higher prices. What People Are Saying Peter Schiff, chief economist and global strategist at wrote on X: "Trump said he wants a strong dollar but he also wants a weaker dollar. He says a strong dollar makes you feel better, but a weak dollar makes you richer. He also claimed he crushed inflation. His policies are highly inflationary. Trump's weak dollar dream will be a nightmare." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "A weaker dollar can have some benefits, namely in the form of cheaper exports which can boost demand for our goods and services internationally. However, the cons can easily outweigh the pros. A weaker dollar equates to higher prices on many items for American consumers, particularly on imports." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Despite no rate cuts yet this year, the dollar has weakened due to shifting interest rate expectations and a broader macroeconomic backdrop. Historically, higher U.S. interest rates attract capital, strengthening the dollar—but even with relatively high rates, the dollar is off to one of its worst starts in decades." What Happens Next For everyday Americans, the declining U.S. dollar could continue to impact their wallets after years of inflationary pressures, experts say. "Inflationary pressures have already left a sizable dent in many Americans' wallets in the years since the pandemic. Further weakening of the dollar could just prolong this effect," Beene said.
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
Ivy League colleges face a reckoning after Columbia's Trump deal
Other prestigious universities, from Harvard to Penn, have taken vastly different approaches to dealing with pressure from the White House. WASHINGTON – It's a rough time to be the president of an Ivy League university. Although President Donald Trump graduated from one, he's made it clear he won't tolerate the liberal slant he sees at America's most prestigious colleges – and that he intends to reshape them accordingly. His administration's unprecedented deal with Columbia University in New York City has put many of its Ivy League peers in a tough spot. To shake the target off its back and unpause research funding, Columbia agreed on July 23 to pay fines of more than $220 million (and signed on to a sprawling list of other concessions related to admissions, academics and hiring practices). The accord has unnerved leaders at college campuses across the country. "This has opened up a Pandora's box," said Scott Schneider, an attorney and expert in higher education law. Read more: The details of Columbia's extraordinary $220 million deal with Trump, explained Trump, who has halted billions in research grants to a slew of schools, has said he envisions the Columbia deal as the first of many such agreements. His education secretary, Linda McMahon, called it a blueprint for other institutions to follow. Read more: After $220 million Columbia deal, Trump promises more to come "Columbia's reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public," she said in a statement. While it's unclear whether the agreement has set a new precedent, the Trump administration is pushing for other colleges to pay similar types of fines, a White House official confirmed to USA TODAY. Some onlookers, including Larry Summers, a former president of Harvard, have lauded the deal. He called it an "excellent template" for resolutions with the administration. But critics such as Brendan Cantwell, a higher education professor at Michigan State University, believe the short-term benefits of conceding to broad demands from the Trump administration are not worth the long-term implications of redefining the relationship between the federal government and higher education. Still, he understands the arguments of people like Summers. When colleges choose to fight, he acknowledged, "individual people are going to be hurt." "And maybe that's an unacceptable cost," he said. Trump's other deal: the University of Pennsylvania Columbia isn't the only Ivy League school to strike a deal with the Trump administration this summer. On July 1, the University of Pennsylvania, the president's alma mater in Philadelphia, entered into an agreement ending a civil rights investigation brought by the U.S. Department of Education. In February, the agency accused Penn of violating Title IX, the primary sex discrimination law governing schools, when it allowed Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer, to compete in 2022. By March, professors were told their research projects had lost funding. The school's president said $175 million in grants and programs had been jeopardized. As part of the deal, the White House said it would restore Penn's research funding. In return, the university apologized to cisgender athletes who swam against Thomas. The university also agreed to ban transgender women from sports. (Trans women athletes have been banned from competing on women's teams at National Collegiate Athletic Association schools since February, when new rules were imposed, although the NCAA's policy permits trans men to compete in men's sports.) Read more: Lia Thomas, Title IX and $175M — why Penn struck a deal with Trump Weeks after the deal was announced, many Penn faculty members remain in limbo, unsure about which grants have been revived. "Nobody really knows what was cut and what was restored," said Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor who studies the history of education at the university. "It feels like the theater of the absurd." Harvard keeps fighting Harvard, unlike the other Ivy League campuses immersed in similar conflicts, has continued to battle the Trump administration in court. At a key hearing in Boston on July 21, the university's lawyers urged a federal judge to force the White House to restore billions in funding for the school. Harvard has asked the judge to reach a decision by Sept. 3. But the White House's attacks on Harvard have extended far beyond financial issues: The Trump administration has threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status, tried to ban its ability to enroll international students, warned its accreditor, and considered placing a lien on the university's assets. All the while, Trump has hinted he believes Harvard may still be open to striking a deal. Other colleges in limbo Of the eight schools that make up the Ivy League, only two – Dartmouth College in New Hampshire and Yale University in Connecticut – have avoided targeted federal funding freezes. At Cornell, the government paused more than $1 billion. At Brown, it froze $510 million, and at Princeton stopped more than $210 million. Asked whether their university leaders were negotiating with the Trump administration to restore their funding, spokespeople for Brown, Cornell and Princeton declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment. Additional agreements with those schools (and others) could happen before the start of the year, according to Robert Kelchen, a higher education professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The Trump administration, plagued by heightened attention to the president's reported ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, may be looking for ways to change the narrative, Kelchen said. And some schools might feel incentivized to resolve funding problems before students – and protests – return to campus for the fall. "The whole Epstein thing really has the potential to swamp the administration," he said. "They want victories they can point to." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
