Roosevelt Cayman Asset Company v. Diaz Montaez et al
Filing
87
OPINION AND ORDER granting 82 motion for summary judgment. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Silvia Carreno-Coll on 2/11/2020. (mcv) Modified title and document type on 2/12/2020 (idg).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
ROOSEVELT CAYMAN ASSET COMPANY
Plaintiff,
v.
CIV. NO.: 15-1949 (SCC)
OLGA DÍAZ MONTAÑEZ, ET AL.
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is an action for collection of monies and foreclosure
of mortgage. Plaintiff Roosevelt Cayman Asset Company
(“RCAC”) moved for summary judgment alleging that there
are no controversies of material fact regarding the loan
documents signed by Defendants and the amounts owed to
RCAC. See Docket No. 82. The motion stands unopposed.
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s pleadings and supporting
documentation, we find that summary judgment against
ROOSEVELT CAYMAN ASSET COMPANY.
v. DIAZ-MONTAÑEZ
Page 2
Defendants is proper.
I. Background
RCAC sued Defendants to collect certain amounts owed
pursuant to a Mortgage Note (the “Note”) payable to Doral
Bank, or to its order, for the principal amount of $240,000 See
Docket No. 83-1. The Note encumbers a property located in
San Juan, Puerto Rico.
II. Standard
Summary judgment may be granted when “the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
P.
56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23
(1986) (explaining that if a party “fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to
the party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden
of proof at trial,” summary judgment is proper). The court
ROOSEVELT CAYMAN ASSET COMPANY.
v. DIAZ-MONTAÑEZ
Page 3
must examine the record in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant and indulging all reasonable inferences in the
nonmovant’s favor. Maldonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodríguez, 23
F.3d 576, 581 (1st Cir. 1994).
In its review of the record, the court must refrain from
engaging in an assessment of credibility or weigh the
evidence presented. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 135 (2000). “Credibility determinations, the
weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate
inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a
judge.” Id., at 150 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 250–251 (1986)).
Finally, as this is a diversity case, the court is bound to
apply Puerto Rico law to all substantive matters. VázquezFilipetti v. Banco Popular, 504 F.3d 43, 48 (1st Cir. 2007).
III. Factual Findings
In accordance with Local Rule 56, the court credits only
facts properly supported by accurate record citations. See
ROOSEVELT CAYMAN ASSET COMPANY.
v. DIAZ-MONTAÑEZ
Page 4
Local Rule 56(e). The court has disregarded all conclusory
allegations, speculation, and improbable inferences disguised
as facts. See Forestier Fradera v. Municipality of Mayaguez, 440
F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 2006); Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990). The following factual
findings are taken from RCAC’s Statement of Uncontested
Material Facts (“SUMF”) and supporting documentation.
1. RCAC is a Cayman Islands corporation, with address
of: c/o Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, 221 Ponce
De León Avenue, Suite 1600, San Juan, Puerto Rico 009171802. RCAC is in good standing under the laws of Cayman
Islands. RCAC’s principal place of business in New York.
2. Defendants are domiciled in Puerto Rico with the
following residential and mailing address: Urb. La Vista B-2
Vía Panorámica, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00924-4462.
3. On March 1, 2006, for value received, Defendants
subscribed, signed and delivered the Note payable to Doral
Bank, for the principal amount of $240,000 with interest at the
ROOSEVELT CAYMAN ASSET COMPANY.
v. DIAZ-MONTAÑEZ
Page 5
rate of 6.5/8 % per annum. See Note at Docket No. 83-1.
4. As guarantee of the Note, Defendants executed and
delivered a Mortgage constituted by deed number 246,
executed in San Juan, Puerto Rico on the same date, before
Notary Public Luis A. Archilla Díaz. See Mortgage at Docket
No. 83-2. On October 22, 2012, the mortgage deed was
modified, pursuant to deed number 258 executed in San Juan,
Puerto Rico, before Notary Public Magda V. Alsina Figueroa,
increasing balance to $241,948.62. See Mortgage at Docket No.
83-3.
5. The Mortgage was executed upon the following
property, which is described in Spanish as follows:
URBANA: Parcela de terreno identificada como el Solar
número dos (2) del Bloque “B” de la Urbanización La
Vista, radicada en el Barrio Sabana Llana del término
municipal de San Juan, Puerto Rico, con una cabida de
Trescientos Setenta Punto Veitnisiete (370.27) metros
cuadrados. En lindes por el Norte, en veinticinco punto
cero cero (25.00) metros, con el Solar número uno (1); por
el Sur, en veinticuatro punto veintisiete (24.27) metros, con
el Solar número tres (3); por el Este, en una distancia en
ROOSEVELT CAYMAN ASSET COMPANY.
v. DIAZ-MONTAÑEZ
Page 6
arco de diecisés punto cero cero (16.00) metros, con la
Calle númer uno (1); y por el Oeste, en doce punto setenta
y cinco (12.75) metros yen uno punto sesenta y cuatro
(1.64) metros, con los Solares número veinte (20) y número
veintiuno (21). Encalva una casa.
Inscrita al folio cincuenta y siete (57) del tomo mil tres
(1,003) de3 Sabana Llana, Registro de la Propiedad de
Puerto Rico, Sección V de San Juan, finca número
veintinueve mil cuatrocientos setenta y uno (29,471).
7. The Mortgage that secures the Note is duly recorded in
the Registry of Property Fifth Section of San Juan, at page 57
of volume 1,003 of Sabana LLana. The modification deed is
presented at entry 1363 of daily book 903.
8. The Defendants are the owners of the mortgaged
property according to the Registry of Property. Id.
9. RCAC is the party entitled to enforce the Note. See
Docket No. 83-4.
10. On September 10, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to
the complaint. Defendants failed to raise controversies as to
the existence of the loan documents or the debt. See Docket
ROOSEVELT CAYMAN ASSET COMPANY.
v. DIAZ-MONTAÑEZ
Page 7
No. 60.
IV. Analysis
Given the uncontested facts listed above, it is evident that
no dispute of material fact exists as to Defendants
indebtedness. The parties entered into a binding loan
contract, pursuant to Article 1631 of the Puerto Rico’s Civil
Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 4511. Plaintiff has attached all
the necessary documentation to establish that it is the secured
party of record for the Note guaranteeing the Mortgage.
Plaintiff has also established that Defendants failed to make
payment as agreed upon in the loan documents. Plaintiff also
duly notified Defendants of their indebtedness.
As of February 1, 2014, Defendants owe RCAC a total of
$416,753.85 in principal, plus accrued interest payments in the
amount of $69,316.85, which continues to accrue until full
payment of the debt at the rate of 6.625% per annum; accrued
late charges of $4,289.22; escrow advances of $5,573.22; and
any other advance, charge, fee or disbursement made by
ROOSEVELT CAYMAN ASSET COMPANY.
v. DIAZ-MONTAÑEZ
Page 8
Plaintiff on behalf of Defendants, in accordance with the
mortgage deed in the amount of $3,903.69, plus costs, and ten
(10) percent attorney’ fees.
In view of the record before us, Plaintiff is entitled to
receive from Defendants the payment of the amounts owed
and is entitled to foreclose on the property encumbered by the
Mortgage Deed constituted through Deed Number 246 of
September 15, 2010. In the absence of full payment, Plaintiff
has the right to execute all the collateral that secures
Defendants outstanding debt.
V. Conclusion
Because I find that Plaintiff has successfully established
that Defendants are in default of their loan obligations, I grant
summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and order as follows:
1. Defendants must pay Plaintiff the sum of $ 416,753.85
in principal, plus accrued interest payments in the
amount of $69,316.85, which continues to accrue until
full payment of the debt at the rate of 6.625% per
annum; accrued late charges of $4,289.22; escrow
ROOSEVELT CAYMAN ASSET COMPANY.
v. DIAZ-MONTAÑEZ
Page 9
advances of $5,573.22; and any other advance, charge,
fee or disbursement made by Plaintiff on behalf of
Defendants, in accordance with the mortgage deed in
the amount of $3,903.69, plus costs, and ten (10)
percent attorney’ fees.
2. In default of the payment of the sums hereinbefore
specified or of any part thereof, within thirty (30) days
from the date of entry of this judgment, the mortgaged
property described above shall be sold at public
auction to the highest bidder therefor.
3. Upon Plaintiff’s compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, the
court may appoint a Special Master to conduct the sale,
but the Special Master shall not proceed to carry out
said sale, or do anything in connection with it, until
further order by this Court and under the form and
conditions to be directed by the Court.
4. The sale to be conducted by the appointed Special
Master shall be subject to the confirmation of the
Court, and the purchaser of the property shall be
entitled to receive its possession. The minimum bid to
be accepted at the first public sale will be in accordance
ROOSEVELT CAYMAN ASSET COMPANY.
v. DIAZ-MONTAÑEZ
Page 10
with the mortgage deed.
5. Any funds derived from the sale to be made in
accordance with the terms of this judgment and such
further orders of this Court shall be applied as follows:
a) To the payment of all proper expenses attendant
upon said sale, including the expenses, outlays and
compensation of the Special Master appointed herein,
after the said compensation and expenses shall have
been fixed and approved by the Court, all said
expenses to be deducted from the sum provided in the
deed
of
mortgage
for
costs,
charges
and
disbursements, expenses and attorney's fees.
b) To the payment of all expenses or advances made by
Plaintiff. 416,753.85 in principal, plus accrued interest
payments in the amount of $69,316.85, which
continues to accrue until full payment of the debt at the
rate of 6.625% per annum; accrued late charges of
$4,289.22; escrow advances of $5,573.22, and any other
advance, charge, fee or disbursement made by Plaintiff
on behalf of Defendants, in accordance with the
mortgage deed in the amount of $3,903.69; plus costs,
ROOSEVELT CAYMAN ASSET COMPANY.
v. DIAZ-MONTAÑEZ
Page 11
and ten percent attorney’ fees.
6. If after making all the above payments there shall be a
surplus, said surplus shall be delivered to the Clerk of
this Court, subject to further orders of the Court.
7. If after making all those payments there is a deficiency,
Plaintiff may seek further orders by the Court to collect
the deficiency from Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 11th day of February, 2020.
S/ SILVIA CARREÑO-COLL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?