Longo Marrero, Monica v. Pr Alpha Investments LLC
KLAN202401093
| Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue... | May 15, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, Mónica Longo Marrero and her mother, owned property #395 in Dorado Beach East and alleged that PR Alpha Investments, LLC and Rick Shrotri (neighbors of property #394) constructed a concrete wall that damaged their property.
- Plaintiffs sued for damages and injunctive relief, also naming the Dorado Beach East Homeowners Association and José Velázquez, who allegedly did not prevent the wall’s construction.
- The disputed wall was constructed without written approval from the Association or its Architectural Committee, as is required by the community’s restrictive covenants.
- Defendants (Alpha/Shrotri) claimed they had verbal approval, or at least a reasonable belief that approval had been granted for emergency works, including the wall.
- The Association and Velázquez moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine dispute: no permission was granted, and required procedures were not followed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Association and Velázquez, dismissing claims against them with prejudice. Alpha/Shrotri appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a material factual dispute existed about Association authorization for the wall | Association implicitly or verbally approved, or failed to object, thus consenting | No authorization sought or given; proper procedures not followed | No dispute of material fact; no approval given; summary judgment affirmed |
| Applicability of restrictive covenants (servidumbres) and the doctrine of estoppel | Association waived restrictions by allowing wall construction without objection | Restrictions and approval process existed and were not followed | Covenants are binding; procedures not followed; no waiver or estoppel established |
| Proper procedural basis for summary judgment | Dispute of fact precludes summary judgment | No real dispute; only permissible inference is lack of approval | Summary judgment appropriate due to lack of real factual dispute |
| Association and Velázquez’s responsibility for damages | Their non-objection or verbal acts caused or contributed to improper construction | No causation; they neither approved nor were obligated to act further | No causal connection to alleged damages; dismissal of claims against these defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Serrano Picón v. Multinational Life Ins., 212 DPR 981 (P.R. 2023) (summary judgment standard in civil litigation)
- Meléndez González v. M. Cuebas, 193 DPR 100 (P.R. 2015) (procedural and substantive requirements for summary judgment)
- Fernández Martínez v. RAD-MAN San Juan III-D, LLC, 208 DPR 310 (P.R. 2021) (enforceability and notice of restrictive covenants)
- Asociación Playa Húcares v. Rodríguez, 167 DPR 255 (P.R. 2006) (restrictive covenants as contractual obligations)