Consejo Titulares Condominio Los Corales v. Perez, Rafael
KLAN202400726
| Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue... | Sep 25, 2024Background
- The case arises from the transition between the outgoing and incoming Board of Directors at Condominio Los Corales, a property governed under Puerto Rico's horizontal property regime.
- The Council of Owners (Consejo de Titulares) alleged that Rafael Pérez (outgoing president and administrator through PMI Central) failed to adequately transfer administrative and financial information as required by law.
- The Council filed suit seeking damages and sanctions under Article 49 of the Puerto Rico Condominium Law (Ley 129-2020), specifically for improperly handled board transitions.
- After defendants failed to file a responsive pleading, the trial court entered default and issued a partial judgment in favor of the Council, finding the defendants had breached their transition obligations. The quantum of sanctions and damages was reserved for later adjudication.
- A subsequent hearing determined that the transition was incomplete for 514 days. The trial court imposed a $50 per day sanction (solidarily) and rejected the Council’s damages claim for insufficient evidence. Defendants appealed.
- The appellate panel largely affirmed the trial court (with one dissent), upholding both the liability for improper transition and the ongoing sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 49’s transition requirements were met | Perez/PMI Central failed to conduct transition | Transition partially fulfilled via document exchange, not adequate | Outgoing board failed to meet legal obligations; liability found |
| Appropriateness of $50/day per diem sanction | Sanction justified per ongoing breach | Sanction excessive; obligations were partially met | Sanction upheld within statutory and factual bounds |
| Whether damages for anguish/patrimonial loss warranted | Sought compensation for harm to Council | No solid proof of damages | Damages denied; claim not proven |
| Scope of appellate review on partial judgments in default | Default judgment should stand as law of case | Partial judgment not appealable until final judgment entered | Partial judgment was final; review limited to errors in sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Cacho Pérez v. Hatton Gotay y otros, 195 DPR 1 (P.R. 2016) (explains "law of the case" doctrine in Puerto Rico—final decisions on issues in a case bind future proceedings in that case)
- Berkan et al. v. Mead Johnson Nutrition, 204 DPR 183 (P.R. 2020) (reiterates principles regarding finality and reconsideration of judgments)
- García Morales v. Padró Hernández, 165 DPR 324 (P.R. 2005) (distinguishes between a final judgment and an interlocutory order for procedural purposes)
- First Federal Savings Bank v. Nazario González, 138 DPR 872 (P.R. 1995) (clarifies when a judgment becomes final for appeal)
- Falcón Padilla v. Maldonado Quirós, 138 DPR 983 (P.R. 1995) (further authority on finality of judgments)