Alvarez, Edmundo v. Sucn De Wilfredo Torres Ramos
KLAN202400318
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Jul 16, 2024Background
- Edmundo Álvarez Cruz sued the heirs and succession of Wilfredo Torres Ramos for recovery of a business loan originally totaling $38,194.44 (later claimed as $48,857.88) given for sand extraction operations in Puerto Rico.
- The court had previously issued a partial summary judgment against all heirs except Myrna Torres Barreto, who was protected from proceedings due to bankruptcy at that time.
- After the bankruptcy case was dismissed, Álvarez Cruz sought summary judgment against Torres Barreto as well, arguing no material facts were in dispute and relying largely on findings from the prior partial summary judgment.
- Torres Barreto argued she was not properly included in earlier proceedings due to bankruptcy stay, that necessary parties were not properly notified/served (especially a minor heir), that interest and attorney fees were improperly awarded, and that factual disputes remained about the total amount claimed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment against Torres Barreto, ordering joint payment of $48,857.88 plus costs and fees. She appealed, arguing errors regarding due process, absence of proper party service, and unresolved material facts.
- The Appellate Court reversed the summary judgment, finding procedural defects and unresolved factual disputes, and remanded for a full trial on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper despite past bankruptcy | Facts were established in prior summary judgment; no dispute now | Prior summary judgment did not bind Barreto due to bankruptcy stay | Not proper; bankruptcy stay excluded Barreto from prior judgment |
| Whether all required parties had been properly served/notified | Service was sufficient | Minor heir and others not served per law, affecting jurisdiction | Not all parties were served as required; summary judgment invalid |
| Amount in controversy (owed vs. claimed) | Amount due is $48,857.88 based on interest and agreement | Only $38,194.44 agreed/acknowledged; unclear calculation of final claim | Factual dispute exists; must be resolved at trial |
| Award of interest and attorney fees | Entitled to both from date of default | No legal basis for pre-judgment interest/fees; no temerity shown | Error to award; reversed by court below |
Key Cases Cited
- Segarra Rivera v. Int’l Shipping et al., 208 DPR 964 (P.R. 2022) (standard for summary judgment requires no genuine material factual dispute)
- Serrano Picón v. Multinational Life Ins., 212 DPR 981 (P.R. 2023) (process and rule for summary judgment under PR law)
- Alicea Pérez v. Coop. Seg. Múlt. et al., 210 DPR 71 (P.R. 2022) (burden on party moving for summary judgment and opposition duties)
- Roldán Flores v. M. Cuebas, Inc., 199 DPR 664 (P.R. 2018) (judgment cannot be entered if material facts are in dispute)
- Marrero Rosado v. Marrero Rosado, 178 DPR 476 (P.R. 2010) (definition and standard for awarding attorney’s fees on grounds of temerity)