Bautista REO PR Corp. v. Estate of Roberto Maldonado-Morales
3:16-cv-01041
D.P.R.Aug 15, 2017Background
- Bautista Cayman Asset Co. (Bautista) acquired loan documents and mortgage-backed notes originally issued by Doral Bank and purchased from the FDIC; Bautista is the holder in due course.
- On Sept. 1, 2011 Roberto Maldonado-Morales and Carmen Nieves executed promissory notes and related security instruments (pledge, eight mortgage notes/deeds) securing commercial loans.
- Roberto Maldonado-Morales died in Jan. 2014; his estate (named defendants) inherited the mortgaged property and were sued in foreclosure.
- Defendants defaulted when the loan matured on Sept. 1, 2014 and failed to pay; Bautista sought judicial enforcement.
- As of Sept. 30, 2016 Bautista claimed $1,562,211.83 due (principal, interest, late charges, fees, and attorney’s fees) with contractual interest accruing at $382.62/day.
- Defendants did not oppose Bautista’s summary judgment motion; the court deemed Bautista’s factual statements admitted and supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Bautista have standing/possession of the loan and security? | Bautista acquired the loan and all related collateral from FDIC and holds the endorsed promissory and mortgage notes. | No timely opposition denying ownership was filed. | Yes; court treated ownership as admitted and supported by record. |
| Are defendants liable for unpaid loan amounts after default and acceleration? | Defendants defaulted; loan matured and contract permits acceleration; amount due is specified. | Defendants did not raise a genuine factual dispute. | Yes; liability established and judgment entered for specified amount. |
| Are the mortgages and pledge valid and properly registered as security? | Mortgages II–VIII are registered in the Property Registry; pledge requirements satisfied. | No timely challenge to validity or registration was raised. | Yes; court found mortgages and pledge valid liens securing the debt. |
| Is summary judgment appropriate when defendant fails to oppose? | Rule 56 and local rules permit treating movant’s facts as admitted and grant judgment when no genuine dispute exists. | Defendants offered no opposing evidence. | Yes; summary judgment granted as a matter of law for Bautista. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Diaz-Garcia, 852 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 2017) (unopposed summary judgment may be treated as admitted)
- Velez v. Awning Windows, Inc., 375 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2004) (district court may consider a summary-judgment motion unopposed)
- Ruiz Rivera v. Riley, 209 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2000) (failure to present disputed facts justifies deeming movant’s facts admitted)
- McCarthy v. Northwest Airlines, 56 F.3d 313 (1st Cir. 1995) (purpose of summary judgment is to avoid trials when no genuine dispute exists)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for determining genuine issue of material fact for summary judgment)
- Soto-Rios v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 662 F.3d 112 (1st Cir. 2011) (mortgage registration constitutive; without registration, creditor has only unsecured personal claim)