Pérez Riera, Marimar v. Consejo De Titulares Cond Marymar
KLRA202300480
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Oct 30, 2023Background
- Marimar Pérez Riera, owner of PH at Condominio Marymar, requested a payment plan on May 27, 2021; the Board denied it and she filed a DACO complaint on August 12, 2021 challenging the denial.
- DACO records show Pérez Riera had previously prevailed in multiple complaints seeking access to condominium financial/administrative information.
- On November 17, 2021 the Council of Unit-Owners held an Ordinary Assembly; the Board president barred Pérez Riera from speaking and voting, citing arrears of more than three months.
- DACO issued a Summary Resolution (July 20, 2023) finding the exclusion unlawful, declaring the November 17, 2021 assembly null ab initio, ordering a new assembly to re-vote the same matters, compelling production of all unit owners’ payment histories, and exempting Pérez Riera from contributing to the condominium’s legal fees.
- Condominio Marymar sought reconsideration and appealed to the Tribunal de Apelaciones arguing academicity, statutory conflict (Art. 51 vs Art. 65), evidentiary error and ultra vires action; the Tribunal affirmed DACO on October 30, 2023.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Marymar) | Defendant's Argument (Pérez Riera) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dispute is academic/moot | Remedy is futile: assembly acts executed, results wouldn't change | Exception of recurrence applies; annual assemblies likely to repeat issue and evade review | Not academic: recurrence exception applies; review appropriate |
| Whether the November 17, 2021 assembly should be nullified and re-held | Assembly results were effective; nullification unnecessary | Exclusion from voice and vote was unlawful and tainted the assembly’s legitimacy | Affirmed nullification; ordered new assembly because Pérez Riera was unlawfully deprived of participation |
| Whether Art. 65’s protections for a challenger of a debt override Art. 51’s voting disqualification for arrears | Art. 51 permits barring units owing 3+ installments; Art. 65 should not displace that rule | Art. 65’s exception (no-debt requirement suspended when challenging the debt) protects right to participate while impugnation is pending | DACO’s interpretation sustained: Art. 65 protects a unit-owner who timely challenges the debt, and thus prevailed over application of Art. 51 in this context |
| Whether DACO properly ordered production of payment histories and exempted Pérez Riera from fee contribution | Condo had provided some material and disputes DACO reliance on other proceedings; DACO exceeded scope | Sought payment histories to detect selective treatment; prior noncompliance justifies relief and fee exemption | Affirmed: DACO reasonably ordered production (given past refusals and enforcement) and applied statutory fee exemption to prevailing querellante |
Key Cases Cited
- The Sembler Co. v. Mun. de Carolina, 185 DPR 800 (2012) (courts must give substantial deference to administrative agencies’ expertise and fact findings)
- Pacheco v. Estancias, 160 DPR 409 (2003) (where multiple reasonable interpretations exist, courts sustain the agency’s choice)
- Tit. Centro Int’l Torre II v. PRCI, 210 DPR 403 (2022) (statutory condominium regime prevails over conflicting by-laws or internal rules)
- Pueblo v. Díaz, Rivera, 204 DPR 472 (2020) (articulates the recurrence exception to the academicity doctrine and factors to assess it)
- Bhatia Gautier v. Gobernador, 199 DPR 59 (2017) (overview of the academicity doctrine and judicial self-restraint)
- D.A.Co. v. Cond. Castillo del Mar, 174 DPR 967 (2008) (recites the mandatory duty of unit-owners to contribute to common expenses and effect of nonpayment on governance rights)