Over the past years, Bellver Espinosa Law Firm prevailed in hundred of cases and appeals. However, among the most important cases that the Firm have participated are the followings:

1. Juan Jiménez v. BPPR (former Doral Bank), AC2013-0065 (unpublished opinion). In this case, Plaintiff filed a tort claim against Doral Bank. During the claim, Doral Bank was extinguished through FDIC and bought by BPPR. Before referring the case to our attention, the Court of First Instance, entered Judgment in plaintiff’s favor which was confirmed on appeal. BPPR referred this case while on appeal. BPPR filed a Writ of Certiorari before the PR Supreme Court. The Supreme Court entered Judgment in BPPR’s favor dismissing all claims and reversing Court of First Instance and Court of Appeals’ decision. Supreme Court solved that pursuant to FIRREA, Courts have no subject matter jurisdiction if claimant failed to exhaust administrative remedies before FDIC. 

2. Ramos González v. First Bank of PR, BPPR, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144525. BPPR filed a motion to dismiss stating that Plaintiff lack a cause of action under RESPA, 38 CFR §36 and should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The Federal District Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint against BPPR.

3. Bautista Cayman Asset Co v. Reliance Mfg, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8375, dismissed a counterclaim filed by defendants for failure to comply with FIRREA.

4. González Camacho v. BPPR, 2018 WL 1605946. Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against BPPR, Operating Partners and other banks. They alleged that they “have been subject to illegitimate foreclosures or sought modifications of payment on their individual mortgage loans through their mortgage servicers of Defendants. Plaintiffs contacted Defendants in an attempt to reduce their loan payments due to a reduction of job hours which affected their payment capacity. They continued alleging that the Defendants allegedly explained to Plaintiffs that they would submit Plaintiffs to a loss mitigation process which would make Plaintiffs eligible to make reduced monthly payments during a three-month trial period. Plaintiffs alleged they complied with the reduced payments but were still harassed by Defendants for delinquency of their payments. Plaintiffs assert that their rights under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) were not acknowledged. The HAMP program provided a mechanism to stay any foreclosure proceedings and help Plaintiffs fulfill the promise of smaller loan payments. Plaintiffs thus claimed that Defendants' failure to honor the HAMP program provisions left them “financially devastated.” We filed on behalf of Operating Partners a motion to dismiss mainly based on the following allegations: Plaintiffs' failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted; OPC was improperly joined under Rule 20(a)(1); there is no standing to bring a claim against OPC; and Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint failed to comply with Rule 8(a)(2), Rule 9(b), 10(b). Furthermore, OPC claimed, that while it was included in the caption as a Defendant, Plaintiffs failed to state a single fact to support a claim against OPC. The Court entered an Opinion and Order granting our motion to dismiss and other motion from different defendants and dismissed the whole case.

5. PRAPI v. Ramón Negrón Falcón, KLAN2014-01313. The Court of Appeals confirmed the lower court’s judgment solving that rebus sic stantibus does not apply.

6. Condado 3 CFL, LLC v. Luis Ramón Reyes Trinidad, Civil No. 17-1104 (FAB). Condado filed a complaint for collection of monies and execution of mortgage. Condado filed a motion for summary judgment and the PR Federal Court entered an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff’s motion and solved that Condado has standing to sue, the mortgage note is duly endorsed, BPPR is not an indispensable party and ordered the foreclosure of the property.

7. Blanca Ortíz Escribano v. Nevesem Inc., CC2018-0380 (unpublished judgment). In this case, defendants filed a motion to dismiss Complaint for failing to interrupt tolling period. The Court of First Instance, denied defendants’ request and the Appeal Court’s confirmed. However, the Supreme Court issued the Certiorari and entered Judgment dismissing in part and confirming in part. Supreme Court solved that Plaintiff’s termination claim was not timely interrupted the prescriptive period, since filings before UAD do not interrupt. On the other hand, the Supreme Court confirmed the inferior Courts’ decision solving that the extrajudicial claims tolled the prescriptive period. 

SelectionFile type iconFile nameDescriptionSizeRevisionTimeUser
View Download
  1514k v. 1 Oct 11, 2019, 8:29 AM Administrator Bellver