Delgado Philippi, Flor v. Consejo De Titulares Cond Sol Y Playa
KLRA202500174
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...May 7, 2025Background
- The Council of Titulares for Condominio Sol y Playa approved a special assessment in 2019 to fund the reconstruction of recreational areas, having obtained a construction permit later annulled by a court order in 2022.
- The court ordered demolition of the unauthorized structures and restoration of the affected area, prompting a new assembly and approval of a $500,000 assessment in July 2023 to finance compliance.
- Flor Philippi, Flor Delgado, and Haydee Delgado ("recurrente") are apartment owners in the condominium but did not attend nor were represented at the July 2023 assembly.
- Recurrente challenged the new assessment, arguing exemption based on the prior annulment and that her absence at the assembly was justified by a hostile environment.
- The Department of Consumer Affairs (DACo) dismissed her complaint, finding she failed to meet statutory requirements for impugning assembly decisions, particularly lack of justified absence.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed DACo's application of the Condominium Law and affirmed the agency’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did recurrente satisfy requirements to challenge the July 2023 assessment and assembly? | Philippi: She should be exempt because the previous assessment was annulled; her non-attendance was due to a hostile climate. | Council: She neither attended nor justified her absence at the assembly as required by law. | DACo properly found absence was unjustified and requirements were unmet. |
| Is the new assessment equivalent to a penalty or fine exempting the plaintiff from payment? | Philippi: The assessment functions as a penalty, and she is exempt. | Council: It is a lawful assessment to comply with a court order, not a penalty. | Assessment was not a penalty; exemption does not apply. |
| Did DACo err by not entering default (rebeldía) against defendants for late response? | Philippi: Default should have been entered for delayed response. | Council: Responded as soon as notified; no undue delay. | No mandatory default; even if entered, default wouldn’t guarantee relief. |
| Was DACo’s dismissal arbitrary or unsupported by the administrative record? | Philippi: Agency misapplied the law; her circumstances justified absence. | Council: DACo acted reasonably and based on the record. | DACo's decision was reasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and should be affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katiria’s Café, Inc. v. Municipio Autónomo de San Juan, 215 DPR __ (Puerto Rico 2025) (deference due to administrative agency decisions unless arbitrary or illegal)
- Jusino Rodríguez v. Junta de Retiro del Gobierno de Puerto Rico, 215 DPR __ (Puerto Rico 2024) (standards for judicial review of administrative determinations)
- Otero Rivera v. USAA Fed. Savs. Bank, 214 DPR __ (Puerto Rico 2024) (definition and application of ‘substantial evidence’ review)
- Hernández Feliciano v. Mun. Quebradillas, 211 DPR 99 (Puerto Rico 2023) (parameters for deferring to agency fact-finding)
- Batista, Nobbe v. Jta. Directores, 185 DPR 206 (Puerto Rico 2012) (burden of proof in challenging agency findings)