Consejo de Titulares del Condominio La Torre Miramar v. Ramos Vázquez
186 P.R. 311
| Supreme Court of Puerto Rico | 2012Background
- Condominium La Torre Miramar’s penthouse PH-A includes access to the roof and roof terraces via a hole and interior stairs; prior owners installed a concrete structure, jacuzzi, planters, tiles, and guardrails over the roof/azotea without condominium-wide approvals.
- In 2009 the condominium board filed suit against Ramos Vázquez for unauthorized occupation of the roof/azotea and alterations, seeking injunctions and restoration to original condition.
- The trial court granted injunctive relief in 2010 and ordered cessation and removal of nonconforming work; on appeal, the majority held that actions by the past owners were subject to Art. 42(c) prescription, except for the jacuzzi construction which continued.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve (i) whether Art. 42(c) applies to actions by a Council/Board against a Titular, and (ii) whether laches can bar equitable relief, given a decade of inaction.
- The Court ultimately held that (a) Art. 42(c) does not apply to actions by Titulares against Titulares; (b) but in this case, due to inaction and lack of diligence, the proper equitable remedy falls on the Council to bear some remediation costs, and Ramos Vázquez must remove the jacuzzi; (c) the azotea/techo remain generally common elements and may be adjusted only with unanimous consent or appropriate board action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Art. 42(c) applies to actions by the Council against a Titular | Ramos Vázquez contends 42(c) applies to all impugnments of Titulars’ actions and omissions | La Torre Miramar contends 42(c) only applies to actions by the Council/Junta against Titulares, not the reverse | Art. 42(c) does not apply to actions by the Titulares against Titulares; not applicable to unilateral actions by a Titular against the regime. |
| Whether modifications to common elements by a Titular are subject to 42(c) | The Council argues these changes fall within 42(c)’s two-year prescription window | Modifications by a Titular that affect common elements may be permissible with unanimous consent or board majority approval, not automatically barred by 42(c) | 42(c) does not apply to unilateral changes by a Titular; but changes to common elements require unanimous consent or majority approval under the Condominium Law. |
| Whether laches/incuria bars equitable relief given ten years of inaction by the Council | Council argues timely action was impractical and inaction should not prejudice it | Ramos Vázquez argues the delay harmed him and is inequitable to order removal | Laches applies; inaction by the Council is unjustified and precludes broad equitable relief; some removal remedies remain to protect private rights. |
| What is the proper remedy for the disputed roof/azotea after balancing interests | Remedies should reflect council’s ownership and defendants’ reliance; removal of structures at Council’s cost | Hydra-like remedy would deprive Ramos Vázquez of usable improvements acquired with the unit | Order removal of the hole and structures on the roof at Council’s expense; jacuzzi removal by Ramos Vázquez; other alterations to be removed or adjusted as equity requires. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pereira Suárez v. Jta. Dir. Cond., 182 D.P.R. 485 (2011) (discusses Art. 42(c) purpose and two-year period; distinguishes actions vs. allowed actions under law)
- Bravman, González v. Consejo Titulares, 183 D.P.R. 827 (2011) (describes Council’s role and limitations; copropiedad de elementos comunes; prescripción/impugnación)
- Consejo de Titulares v. Vargas, 101 D.P.R. 579 (1973) (defines azotea as general voluntary element; access and safety considerations; dynamic of flight (overlevación))
- Batista, Nobbe v. Jta. Directores, 185 D.P.R. 206 (2012) (discusses authority of boards vs. titulares; implications for changes to common elements)
- Rivera Rodríguez v. Junta Dir. I y II, 173 D.P.R. 475 (2008) (articulates proper balance between individual use of private property and common elements; unanimity vs. majority rule)