Estrella Homes III, LLC v. Olmeda Quiñones, Mariely
KLAN202500192
| Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue... | May 27, 2025Background
- Mariely Olmeda Quiñones contested an Order of Eviction (Orden de Lanzamiento) after her home was adjudicated in a foreclosure auction to Estrella Homes III LLC.
- The auction took place on October 1, 2024, and the Bayamón Superior Court allowed Estrella Homes to take possession within 20 days, without further procedure.
- Olmeda claimed she had not been notified of the auction date and sought to annul the eviction order.
- The initial motion to set aside the eviction was filed on February 20, 2025.
- Olmeda filed an appeal (certiorari) late, on March 6, 2025—after the statutory 30-day period had expired—and without proper notification to Estrella Homes or compliance with appellate procedural rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Filing | Appeal timely due to lack of notice | Filed after strict 30-day deadline; no just cause explained | Untimely; dismissed |
| Notice to Opposing Party | No argument provided | Olmeda failed to notify them of appeal | Required; failure is grounds for dismissal |
| Compliance with Appeal Rules | Rule relaxation due to pro se status | Rules strictly apply regardless of self-representation | Pro se status does not excuse noncompliance |
| Jurisdiction | Court should address merits | Lack of procedural compliance deprives court of jurisdiction | Court lacks jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- IG Builders v. BBVAPR, 185 DPR 307 (certiorari is discretionary and for review of post-judgment matters)
- McNeil Healthcare v. Mun. Las Piedras I, 206 DPR 391 (certiorari as an extraordinary remedy)
- Torres Martínez v. Torres Ghigliotty, 175 DPR 83 (discretionary review and court's prudent exercise of judgment)
- Soto Pino v. Uno Radio Group, 189 DPR 84 (term for filing certiorari is strictly enforced)
- Córdova v. Larín, 151 DPR 192 (strict compliance with terms for certiorari and no exceptions for inadvertence)
- Febles v. Romar, 159 DPR 714 (pro se appearance does not excuse from procedural rules)
- Allied Mgmt. Group v. Oriental Bank, 204 DPR 374 (absence of jurisdiction renders court action null)