Rodríguez Rivera v. Bahía Park S.E., 180 P.R. 340

Petitioners seek review of an appellate ruling affirming a trial court summary dismissal of a damages and contract claim against Bahía Park and related parties based on a real estate brokerage dispute.
The central issue is whether Article 31(9) of Puerto Rico Law 10 requires every brokerage contract to have an expiration date, rendering the March 17, 1998 letter contract void if it lacks one.
The March 17, 1998 letter set the price per meter, identified a 5% commission, and memorialized preexisting negotiations.
The sale of Bahía Park’s Cataño property to Supermercados Amigo in 1999 prompted Rodríguez Vélez to claim a 5% commission; Bahía Park and associates argued the contract was not exclusive, had no expiration, and thus was void under Law 10.
Lower courts granted summary judgment for Bahía Park and García Muñiz, relying on Law 10 and its amendment Law 271; the appellate court affirmed.
The Supreme Court revokes the prior rulings, holds that all brokerage contracts must have an expiration, and remands for factual resolution on whether the contract had a term of six months and on the appropriate quantum of compensation through either procuring cause or related theories.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Art. 31(9) require expiration dates for all brokerage contracts, including open contracts?	Rodríguez Vélez argues open contracts are not governed by Art. 31(9).	Bahía Park argues all brokerage contracts must have a fixed term per Law 10 and its amendments.	All brokerage contracts must have an expiration; open contracts fall within the same requirement.
If a contract lacks expiration, can the broker still recover via procuring cause or related theories?	Rodríguez Vélez contends he procured a ready, willing, and able buyer and thus earned a commission.	Recurridos argue no commission if contract void for lack of expiration; any recovery must be under other doctrines.	Remand to resolve whether six-month term existed and, if so, who procured the sale; otherwise, testimony on fraudulent/culpable conduct may yield quantum meruit.
Was summary judgment appropriate given factual disputes on contract terms and commission rate?	There were material disputes over contract terms and percentage of commission.	The contract was allegedly a(n) open contract with no expiration, a purely legal issue.	Not appropriate to grant summary judgment; case should be remanded for factual development.

Torres v. Arbona, Jr., 72 D.P.R. 769 (1951) (ready, willing and able doctrine; broker entitled to commission when buyer ready and contract ready to close)
Col. Int’l Sek P.R., Inc. v. Escribá, 162 D.P.R. 88 (2004) (procuring cause / commission rights; preserving broker's entitlement when contract consummates or party responsible for non-consummation)
Unisys v. Ramallo Brothers, 128 D.P.R. 842 (1991) (principles of contract law and remedies in Puerto Rico real estate brokerage)