Caribbean Adjusters International, LLC v. Rodriguez Nazario, Maria
KLAN202400751
| Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue... | Aug 30, 2024Background
- Caribbean Adjusters International, LLC filed a money collection lawsuit against the Consejo de Titulares (Council of Unit Owners) of Condominio Ponciana and its board members, alleging non-payment of agreed service fees for assisting with earthquake-related insurance claims.
- Caribbean Adjusters claimed a valid contract existed, under which it was owed 10% of the insurance payout from Multinational Insurance Corporation, totaling $496,280.24.
- The Consejo de Titulares contested the validity of the contract, arguing it was executed under duress during a traumatic period and therefore void, and counterclaimed for damages.
- The marriage of Carlos Cabrera Colón and Lourdes Peña Santiago ("matrimonio Cabrera Peña"), unit owners, sought intervention in the litigation as individual owners, claiming the outcome would affect their proprietary interests.
- The trial court (TPI) allowed the intervention based solely on their status as unit owners, over the opposition of the Consejo de Titulares, which argued their interests were already represented.
- The Consejo de Titulares sought certiorari to overturn the intervention order; the Appellate Court issued a writ and reversed the lower court's decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cabrera Peña may intervene as of right | Cabrera Peña: Proprietary interests as unit owners are directly affected by the case outcome | Consejo: Interests of unit owners are already represented by the Consejo de Titulares; intervention is unnecessary | Intervention not justified; proprietary interest alone insufficient where representation is adequate |
| Whether overlap in interests makes additional intervention redundant | Cabrera Peña: Direct financial impact justifies individual representation | Consejo: Allowing all owners to intervene would complicate and prolong litigation | Allowing intervention would make litigation unnecessarily complex and redundant |
| Whether the Council adequately represents all owners | Cabrera Peña: Council may not protect every owner's interests | Consejo: Council's actions show vigorous defense benefiting all owners, including intervenors | Record shows Council is actively defending all owners' interests |
| Whether lower court applied correct legal standard for intervention | Cabrera Peña: Proprietary impact suffices | Consejo: Must also show inability of existing parties to protect interest and potential prejudice | Court erred; intervention denied absent special circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- S.L.G. Ortiz-Alvarado v. Great American, 182 DPR 48 (2011) (defines criteria for intervention and interest requiring protection)
- IG Builders et al v. BBVAPR, 185 DPR 307 (2012) (clarifies intervention is a procedural mechanism, not a source of substantive rights)
- Chase Manhattan Bank v. Nesglo, Inc., 111 DPR 767 (1981) (sets pragmatic standard for evaluating intervention requests)
- Bravman, González v. Consejo de Titulares, 183 DPR 827 (2011) (discusses authority and duties of the council of unit owners under Puerto Rico law)