Zule Beauty, LLC. v. the Tower at Condado, LLC.
KLAN202500079
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Mar 31, 2025Background
- Zule Beauty LLC, run by Zuleika Díaz Reyes, entered into a commercial lease with The Tower At Condado LLC for space in a building’s first floor, later amending the agreement to include additional space and a rent increase.
- A dispute arose when Zule Beauty made unauthorized modifications and occupied space beyond the agreed areas, leading The Tower to attempt termination of the lease and file a summary eviction action (desahucio).
- Zule Beauty countered by filing a sworn complaint seeking a possessory injunction (interdicto posesorio) to stop The Tower from disturbing its possession of the leased premises.
- The first instance court granted the injunction in favor of Zule Beauty after a hearing, at which The Tower did not appear, citing improper service of process.
- The Tower appealed the partial judgment granting the injunction, arguing lack of adequate notice and due process violations because the service window before the injunction hearing was too short under local civil procedure rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of process for the injunction hearing complied with statutory requirements | Zule Beauty claimed that they did their best to notify The Tower in time. | The Tower argued that notice was insufficient (only 4 days, including a weekend, not 8 days as required). | The court agreed with The Tower; service was insufficient. |
| Whether failure to properly notify the defendant deprived them of due process | Claimed The Tower was avoiding service; urgency justified proceeding. | Argued lack of notice violated due process and prevented attendance and defense. | Court held due process was violated; lack of proper notice invalidated judgment. |
| Whether the trial court erred in consolidating the possessory injunction case with eviction proceedings | Supported consolidation as both cases concerned the same subject matter. | Objected, claiming premature and improper consolidation. | Issue not directly decided; main ground for reversal was notice/service. |
| Whether the possessory injunction can be adjudicated ex parte or without proper service | Urgency and summary character warranted quick action. | Argued injunction should not proceed without jurisdiction over defendant via proper service. | Summons must comply with statutory timelines; court cannot skip due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pe a v. Federaci n de Esgrima de P.R., 108 DPR 147 (P.R. 1978) (Describes discretionary, urgent nature of possessory injunctions and prerequisites for their issuance.)
- Mun. de Loíza v. Sucns. Suárez, 154 DPR 333 (P.R. 2001) (Discusses irreparability of harm, adequacy of remedy at law, and likelihood of success for injunctions.)
- Soc. de Gananciales v. García Robles, 142 DPR 241 (P.R. 1997) (Explains appeal standards and the scope of review of trial court fact findings.)
- Ross Valedon v. Hosp. Dr. Susoni et al., 213 DPR 481 (P.R. 2024) (Emphasizes that service of process is essential to jurisdiction and validity of any judgment against a party.)