Garcia-Monagas v. Garcia-Ramirez de Arellano
674 F.3d 45
1st Cir.2012Background
- Intra-family dispute over Puerto Rico estate and property (St. Laurent) linked to Cabassa Texidor and Eureka/Westernbank lineage.
- 1904 death of García St. Laurent; Cabassa Texidor acquires vast estate via sale/possession, including Santa Ana Farm and Sugar Mill.
- Early 20th century transfers from Cabassa Texidor to her children and to entities (Central Eureka, Inc.; Westernbank) seed later corporate and ownership disputes.
- 1968 Commonwealth court held Cabassa Texidor lawfully acquired contested property via acquisitive prescription; 1974 review denied; subsequent actions (1990, 1998, 2004) further asserted ownership but were dismissed as res judicata.
- 2004 Commonwealth action asserted Widow's Reserve rights; the 2004 judgment precludes similar claims; 2007 federal action asserted Widow's Reserve and federal fraud theories; district court dismissed as res judicata; appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the federal action | García-Monagas argues exceptions apply and facts differ | Appellees contend final Commonwealth judgments preclude all claims | Yes; res judicata bars all claims (claim and issue preclusion) |
| Whether the Widow's Reserve claim is precluded | Widow's Reserve rights stem from Cabassa Texidor's acquisitions | Prior judgments bar the claim under Puerto Rico res judicata | Precluded by claim preclusion against those named or in privity |
| Whether federal fraud claims survive the preclusion analysis | Alleges fraud in acquiring and maintaining the property | Claims fall within res judicata and are inadequately pled under Rule 9(b) | Dismissed; fraud claims barred by claim preclusion/issue preclusion; securities fraud failed Rule 9(b) specificity |
| Whether any Puerto Rico law exceptions apply (fraud/public policy) | Fraud/public policy exceptions should permit relitigation | No exception applies given multiple prior opportunities and lack of demonstrated fraud/irregularities | Fraud/public policy exceptions do not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- R.G. Fin. Corp. v. Vergara-Nuñez, 446 F.3d 178 (1st Cir. 2006) (defines claim and issue preclusion under Puerto Rico law)
- Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank, 474 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1986) (full faith and credit requires state-law preclusion effects in federal court)
- Cruz v. Mendez, 204 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2000) (final judgment renders preclusion in Puerto Rico context when no further appeal)
- Boateng v. InterAmerican Univ., Inc., 210 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2000) ( Puerto Rico functional equivalence of state for preclusion analysis; final judgments have preclusive effect)