Banco Popular De Puerto Rico v. Velázquez Grau, José A., KLCE202400686

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico filed a lawsuit against José Ángel Velázquez Grau, Eileen Ruiz Fernández, and their marital community, seeking to collect and enforce several overdue mortgage debts.
The parties entered into a settlement agreement in December 2013 to pay off the debts through a structured payment plan; this settlement was adopted as a judgment by the court in January 2014.
The defendants defaulted under the agreement, leading Banco Popular to seek execution of the judgment, including public auction of mortgaged properties.
After several procedural incidents (including a failed bankruptcy filing by defendants and multiple subasta proceedings), the case became focused on whether the claimed deficiency amount post-foreclosure was accurately liquidated and enforceable.
The trial court held a new evidentiary hearing (as ordered by the appellate court) to determine the exact deficiency amount owed.
After the hearing, the trial court found the defendants owed $276,685.91 to Banco Popular. Velázquez Grau challenged this via certiorari, alleging procedural and evidentiary errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court improperly admitted evidence and made factual findings in error	Banco Popular contends evidence was proper and due process granted	Velázquez Grau alleges improper evidentiary rulings and findings	Court held process was correct and no legal error occurred
Whether the deficiency judgment was for a liquid and due debt	Banco Popular asserts the debt is liquid, due, and enforceable	Velázquez Grau argues the amount is not liquid or due, and constitutes unjust enrichment	Court found the debt was properly determined and enforceable
Whether the court abused its discretion in reaching conclusions based on record evidence	Banco Popular claims all findings were reasonably supported	Velázquez Grau argues the court relied on evidence not properly presented	Court found no abuse of discretion or error in the process
Whether the defendant's counterclaims and objections should affect the enforceability of the judgment	Banco Popular asserts waivers/preclusive effect on counterclaims	Velázquez Grau claims his rights and objections were not properly addressed	Court upheld that prior waivers and process bar further claims

Mun. de Caguas v. JRO Construction, 201 DPR 703 (P.R. 2019) (certiorari is discretionary and only warranted on showing of clear abuse of discretion)
IG Builders et al. v. BBVAPR, 185 DPR 307 (P.R. 2012) (clarifying standards for review of trial court discretionary decisions)
García v. Asociación, 165 DPR 311 (P.R. 2005) (definition of judicial discretion and standards for appellate intervention)
Zorniak Air Services v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 132 DPR 170 (P.R. 1992) (appeal deference to trial court unless plain error or abuse)
SLG Zapata-Rivera v. JF Montalvo, 189 DPR 414 (P.R. 2013) (appellate court only intervenes if abuse of discretion shown)