Legacy Mortgage Asset Trust 2019-Pr1 v. Gonzalez Castillo, Eugenio Enrique
KLAN202200898
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Jan 31, 2023Background
- Legacy Mortgage Asset Trust 2019-PR1 sued for money owed and to foreclose a mortgage on property allegedly securing a promissory note signed by González Castillo and the late Irma Marie De León Soto.
- De León Soto died; Legacy moved to substitute heirs (including Eugenik González De León) and later obtained authorization to serve some defendants by edict after searches for personal service.
- After service, Legacy moved for and obtained a default judgment (sentencia en rebeldía) and judicial sale; judgment was published by edict.
- Eugenik González moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing the trial court never ordered the compulsory mediation required by Law 184-2012 (preservation of the principal residence), claiming that mediation is jurisdictional and its absence voids the foreclosure judgment.
- The trial court denied relief; petitioner sought relief under Rule 43.1 and filed for certiorari to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals exercised discretion and declined to grant certiorari, denying the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Law 184-2012 compulsory mediation is a jurisdictional requirement that bars entry of foreclosure judgment absent a mediation hearing | González: Failure to hold the compulsory mediation required by Law 184 rendered the foreclosure judgment void for lack of jurisdiction (relying on Santander v. Correa García) | Legacy: Mediation does not apply because all defendants were in default; Art. 3 of Law 184 excludes cases where defendants are in rebeldía, and petitioner did not show the property was her principal residence | Court of Appeals declined to reach the merits via certiorari and denied relief (did not overturn trial court) |
| Whether the Court of Appeals should exercise certiorari to review the trial court’s denial of post-judgment relief under Rule 43.1 | González: Exceptional circumstances warrant interlocutory review to correct a jurisdictional error and protect the principal residence | Legacy: Procedural defaults and posture of the case do not justify interlocutory review; existing trial-court resolutions and appeals/reconsideration opportunities were not exhausted | Court of Appeals exercised its discretion to abstain from reviewing and denied the certiorari petition |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeil Healthcare v. Mun. Las Piedras I, 206 D.P.R. 391 (2021) (certiorari is a discretionary vehicle for higher-court review)
- 800 Ponce de León v. AIG, 205 D.P.R. 163 (2020) (the exercise of certiorari is governed by a reasonableness standard; discretion is not absolute)
- Banco Santander de Puerto Rico v. Correa García, 196 D.P.R. 452 (2016) (interpreting Law 184’s mediation requirement in foreclosure contexts)
- IG Builders v. BBVAPR, 185 D.P.R. 307 (2012) (discussion of certiorari and appellate discretion)
- Medina Nazario v. McNeil Healthcare LLC, 194 D.P.R. 723 (2016) (principles on applying discretionary review reasonably)