Artiles-Posada et al v. Rivera Siaca et al
Filing
33
OPINION AND ORDER granted 11 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Carmen C. Cerezo on 3/7/2017. (mld)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
ZENAIDA ARTILES-POSADA, in her
widow’s share as heirs of JOSE
RUBEN CAMACHO-CAMACHO;
MARI ANGELA CAMACHO; JOSE
RUBEN CAMACHO; VIVIANA
CONNER
Plaintiffs
vs
HECTOR RIVERA-SIACA, LUISA
ESTRELLA CLAVEROL-SIACA
Defendants
CIVIL 16-1832CCC
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a diversity lawsuit brought by Zenaida Artiles-Posada
(“Artiles-Posada”), as widow and heir of José Rubén Camacho-Camacho
(“Camacho-Camacho”), Mari Angela Camacho, José Rubén Camacho and
Viviana Conner as heirs of Camacho-Camacho against Héctor Rivera-Siaca
(“Rivera-Siaca”) and Estrella Claverol-Siaca (“Claverol-Siaca”). The Complaint
(d.e. 1) makes general reference to a litigation which commenced in the
late 80s before the Superior Court of Puerto Rico which, according to the
information provided in the introductory paragraph, ended in a favorable
judgment against co-defendant Rivera-Siaca and in favor of co-plaintiff
Artiles-Posada and her husband Mr. Camacho-Camacho, who passed away
on February 14, 2010.
The core allegations in this case are that after obtaining this favorable
judgment against Rivera-Siaca, the latter made a fraudulent transfer of his
primary asset, a house in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico to his former spouse, now
co-defendant Claverol-Siaca. Plaintiffs refer to that Commonwealth case as
“an odyssey in the civil justice system of Puerto Rico” which spilled over to the
CIVIL 16-1832CCC
2
federal jurisdiction by way of the Complaint filed by the widow and heirs of
Mr. Camacho-Camacho.
Co-defendant Claverol-Siaca1 filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (d.e. 11) on August 16, 2016. Although movant
incorrectly stated that Mr. Camacho-Camacho died in Puerto Rico,2 the
fundamental grounds in support of her jurisdictional challenge lie on its
Exhibit A, a Value Certificate issued by the CRIM, a Spanish acronym for the
Centro de Recaudación de Ingresos Municipales or Municipality Collection
Center, issued on November 7, 2016 (d.e. 11-1) and relevant provisions of the
law on Municipal Property Tax, 21 L.P.R.A. §§ 5001(a) and (b) and 5002.
Section 5001 (a) provides that:
[m]unicipalities are hereby authorized to levy, through municipal
ordinances approved to that effect for Fiscal Year 1992-93 and for
each subsequent fiscal year, a basic tax of up to four percent (4%)
per annum on the appraised value of all personal property and of
up to six percent (6% ) per annum on the appraised value of all real
property not exempted or exonerated from taxes, located within
their territorial limits, which will be in addition to any other tax levied
by virtue of other laws in effect.
21 L.P.R.A. § 5001(a). Section 5001(b) states that “[t]he Collection Center
shall assess and collect said tax in accordance with the same procedures and
subject to the same limitations and rights provided by this part for the
assessment and collection of property taxes in Puerto Rico.” 21 L.P.R.A.
§ 5001(b). Section 5002 refers to exoneration from payment of property taxes
by the municipality stating:
1
Co-defendant Rivera Siaca has not filed a responsive pleading. There
are serious concerns that have not been resolved regarding his mental
competency to stand trial.
2
The Death Certificate for Mr. Camacho-Camacho reflects that he died
in New Haven, Connecticut.
CIVIL 16-1832CCC
3
The owners of property for residential purposes are hereby
exonerated from the payment of the special surtax and the basic
tax levied by virtue of § 5001 of this title and this section and the
property taxes levied by the municipalities of Puerto Rico
corresponding to Fiscal Year 1992-93 and to each subsequent
fiscal year in an amount equal to the tax levied on said properties
up to fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) of the appraised value of
the property, subject to the provisions of § 5007 of this title.
21 L.P.R.A. § 5002. Section 5007 in turn provides that “[t]he tax release or
exemption provided by § 5002 of this title on residential properties cannot be
eliminated or reduced.” 21 L.P.R.A. § 5007. Against that statutory backdrop
and based on the Value Certificate issued by CRIM on November 7, 2016
(Exhibit A of the Motion to Dismiss) movant challenges the diversity jurisdiction
claimed stating that plaintiffs have been enjoying tax exoneration on a real
property located at Apt. 6D Candina 3, Cond. Coral Inn, San Juan, Puerto
Rico – an exoneration that is only granted to a property being devoted by its
owners for residential use.
Section 5002 provides that in the case of properties for residential
purposes both husband and wife shall be deemed owners and beneficiaries of
this exemption and in the event of death, the surviving spouse shall
continuously keep the exemption. 21 L.P.R.A. § 5002. Applying this provision,
both plaintiff Artiles Posada and her husband, the late Camacho-Camacho, are
deemed to be owners and beneficiaries of the exemption on the property
located in San Juan, Puerto Rico which according to the Value Certificate was
in effect January 1, 1997 and until its issuance on July 11, 2016. The plaintiffs’
Opposition filed on September 28, 2016 (d.e. 16) does not at all address this
factor as an indicator that Artiles-Posada as owner of the property benefitted
and continues to benefit from this exemption only because that property was
CIVIL 16-1832CCC
4
used as her residence.3 The plaintiffs incorrectly state that the only allegation
made in the motion challenging diversity jurisdiction was the statement that
Camacho-Camacho died in Puerto Rico.
Having completely ignored the
evidence of the widow’s ownership of a property in Puerto Rico exempted
because it is devoted for residential use, plaintiffs then request that the Court
dismiss the widow’s claims without prejudice and avers that “[w]ithout
Ms. Artiles- Posada in the case, there can be no dispute that there is complete
diversity among the parties, so defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be
denied.” (d.e. 16). However, diversity of citizenship must be determined at the
time of filing the suit which was on April 27, 2016. Dropping out of the case by
way of voluntary dismissal does not affect the determination to be made by the
Court regarding its diversity jurisdiction.
Once the jurisdiction is challenged, plaintiff has the burden of proof to
overcome such challenge. Plaintiffs have not met that burden, nor even
attempted to do so. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction (d.e. 11) filed by co-defendant Claverol-Siaca is GRANTED.
The action is dismissed without prejudice. Judgment to be entered.
SO ORDERED.
At San Juan, Puerto Rico, on March 7, 2017.
S/CARMEN CONSUELO CEREZO
United States District Judge
3
“Any taxpayer who has presented the certification referred to in this
paragraph shall be bound to notify, as provided below, any changes in his/her
qualifications for enjoying the tax exemption granted herein, and any transfer
and modification of the domain on the property regarding that over which said
certification was filed.” 21 L.P.R.A. § 5002.
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?