Roosevelt Cayman Asset Company v. Oquendo-Robles et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting 31 motion for summary judgment. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Silvia Carreno-Coll on 8/25/2016. (VCC)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

ROOSEVELT CAYMAN ASSET
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
CIV. NO.: 15-1268 (SCC)
v.
JORGE LUIS OQUENDOROBLES, ET AL.,
Defendant.

ORDER
Before the court is plaintiff Roosevelt Cayman Asset
company’s (“Roosevelt”) unopposed Motion for Summary
Judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is granted.
I. Background
This summary of the facts is taken from plaintiff's
Memorandum of Law.1 See Docket No. 31.

1.

Local Rule 56 requires parties at summary judgment to supply brief,
numbered statements of facts, supported by citations to admissible
evidence.

ROOSEVELT CAYMAN V. OQUENDO-ROBLES

Page 2

On July 12, 2001, defendants received a mortgage loan from
Doral Bank, which repayment was guaranteed by a mortgage
note in the amount of $114,660.00. Docket No. 31-5.
As guarantee for the repayment obligations, Defendants
also executed a mortgage deed No. 271, before Notary Public
Pedro A. López Villafañe, in favor of Doral Bank. Docket No.
31-6.
The note was secured by a property located in Juncos, and
described in the Spanish language as follows:
RUSTICA: Solar número seis (6). Predio de
terreno radicado en el barrio Ceiba Sur del
término municipal de Juncos, Puerto Rico, con
una cabida superficial de mil cero veinte punto
tres mil ochocientos treinta y cinco metros
cuadrados (1020.3835 mc), equivalentes a cero
punto dos mil quinientos noventa y seis (0.2596)
cuerdas; en lindes por el NORTE, en distancia de
veintitrés punto ochocientos noventa y ocho
metros (23.898 m)y en veinticinco punto
cuatrocientos treinta y nueve metros (25.439 m)
con los lotes cuatro (4) y cinco (5)del plano; por el
ESTE, en veinte punto seiscientos cuarenta y ocho
metros (20.648m) con faja “B” camino dedicado a
uso público; por el SUR, en distancia de
veinticuatro punto seiscientos cuarenta y ocho
metros (24.648 m) y veinticuatro punto seiscientos

ROOSEVELT CAYMAN V. OQUENDO-ROBLES

Page 3

cuarenta y ocho metros (24.648 m) con los solares
siete (7) y ocho (8) del plano y por el OESTE, en
veinte punto seiscientos noventa y cuatro metros
(20.694 m)con propiedad de Juan Martínez
García.
Property #12740, recorded at page 197 of volume 338 of
Juncos. Second Section, Registry of Property of Caguas.
Docket No. 31-6.
Plaintiff Roosevelt is now the owner and holder of the
mortgage note in the amount of $114,666.00 that had originally
been issued to the order of Doral Bank. Roosevelt notified
defendants of the transfer of the loan and the mortgage note.
See Docket No. 31-2.
Defendants did not comply with the terms and conditions
of the loan, for which reason Roosevelt filed this action on
March 20, 2015. Prior to filing the action, Roosevelt sent a
Default Notice to Defendants. See Docket No. 31-3.
As of January 8, 2016, Defendants owed $116,195.20 in
principal, plus accrued interest in at the annual interest rate of
7.125%, accrued late charges in the amount of $1,513.02 and
attorney’s fees and legal costs in the amount of $11,466.00, for
a total of $129, 174.22. Docket No. 31-4.

ROOSEVELT CAYMAN V. OQUENDO-ROBLES

Page 4

II. Legal Standard
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2) provides for summary disposition of
an action if the moving party shows that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and the undisputed facts show that
the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The
moving party has the burden of identifying the portions of the
pleadings, depositions, and other documents, that demonstrate
the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Borges ex re.
S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2010). If the
motion is unopposed, the court may take as uncontroverted
the evidence presented with the motion, but must still conduct
an analysis in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. 56. See Pérez-Cordero
v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, 440 F.3d 531, 533-34 (1st Cir. 2006) and
Aguiar-Carrasquillo v. Agosto-Alicea, 445 F.3d 19. 25 (1st Cir.
2006)(quoting Mullen v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 972
F.2d 446, 452 (1st Cir. 1992)(“the district court [is] still obliged
to consider the motion on its merits, in light of the record as
constituted, in order to determine whether judgment would be
legally appropriate.”)
III. Analysis
Because this is a diversity action, Puerto Rico law controls.
Under Puerto Rico law, “obligations arising from contracts

ROOSEVELT CAYMAN V. OQUENDO-ROBLES

Page 5

have legal force between the contracting parties, and must be
fulfilled in accordance with their stipulations.” P.R. Laws Ann.
tit. 30, § 2994. Furthermore, mortgages are governed by the
Civil Code and the Mortgage Law of Puerto Rico. See P.R.
Laws Ann. tit. 31, §§ 5001-5006 and P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 30 §
2551 et seq. In a collection of monies and foreclosure of mortgage action, such as this one, the plaintiff must show that
defendants have an outstanding obligation that has not been
paid, and that the property in question secures that debt.
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Sotomayor, 394 F.Supp.2d 452, 460-61
(D.P.R. 2005).
After reviewing plaintiff’s pleadings and accompanying
documentation, it is undisputed that defendants have failed to
fulfill their payment obligations under the mortgage note. In
such situations, a mortgage creditor may seek foreclosure of
the property that secures the debt. Treco, Inc. V. Marina de
Palmas, Inc., 626 F.Supp.335, 342 (D.P.R. 1986)(citing P.R. Laws
Ann. tit. 30, § 2701 and tit. 31, § 3061)(“Having a mortgage
debtor defaulted on the payment of any accrued payment of
principal or interests the mortgage creditor may seek foreclosure.”)

ROOSEVELT CAYMAN V. OQUENDO-ROBLES

Page 6

IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, Roosevelt’s motion for summary
judgment in granted, and judgment will be entered against
defendants in the amount of $129,174.22, as of January 8, 2016,
plus the interest accrued at the contracted rate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 25th day of August, 2016.
S/ SILVIA CARREÑO-COLL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE