The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals recently upheld a ruling that requires homeowners Ulises Velasco Pacheco and Yadieliz Rivera Marcano to pay $56,560 to Windmar P.V. Energy, Inc. for a solar energy system. The court's decision, issued on May 12, 2026, confirms that the homeowners did not cancel their contract within the specified timeframe, which is a significant ruling for consumers and businesses involved in renewable energy agreements.
This case centers around a dispute between Windmar, a company specializing in renewable energy systems, and the homeowners, who entered into a contract for the installation of a solar energy system. The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to contract terms and the consequences of failing to act within specified time limits.
The dispute began on August 12, 2024, when Windmar filed a lawsuit against Velasco and Rivera for payment related to their solar energy system. According to Windmar, the homeowners signed a lease agreement on March 30, 2023, for a solar energy system and a storage battery. The agreement included a cancellation notice that allowed the homeowners to cancel the contract within seven days without penalty. Windmar argued that the homeowners failed to cancel the agreement within this period and were responsible for the total cost of the system.
Windmar claimed that it attempted to install the system on June 21, 2023, but the installation was delayed due to the homeowners not removing necessary equipment from the installation site. Windmar stated that the installation was rescheduled multiple times, and it was not until July 16, 2024, that the homeowners requested to cancel the contract. Windmar maintained that once the installation process began, the homeowners were liable for the total cost of the system.
The homeowners contested Windmar's claims, arguing that they were not aware of the cancellation terms and that the installation could have been completed without delays. They also claimed that their legal representation faced medical issues that impacted their ability to respond to the lawsuit in a timely manner.
The case progressed through the courts, and on January 26, 2026, the Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Windmar, granting a summary judgment. This decision was based on the fact that the homeowners did not contest the majority of Windmar's claims and failed to respond to requests for admissions, which were deemed admitted by the court.
The homeowners appealed this ruling, asserting that they were denied a fair opportunity to present their case and that there were genuine disputes over material facts. They argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment without allowing them to fully respond to the motion.
The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Pagán Ocasio, reviewed the case and ultimately upheld the lower court's ruling. The court found that the homeowners had ample opportunity to contest the claims but failed to do so adequately. The ruling stated, "The court concluded that the appellants owe Windmar the amount of $56,560 as claimed in the lawsuit due to their failure to cancel the agreement within the stipulated time frame."
This ruling has significant implications for consumers and businesses in Puerto Rico. It underscores the importance of understanding contract terms, especially in agreements related to renewable energy systems, which are becoming increasingly popular. Homeowners must be aware of their rights and obligations when entering into such contracts to avoid potential financial liabilities.
Furthermore, this case highlights the judicial system's approach to summary judgments, emphasizing that parties must actively engage in the legal process and respond to requests for information. The court noted that the homeowners' failure to respond to Windmar's requests for admissions contributed to the court's decision to grant summary judgment.
Looking ahead, the ruling could set a precedent for similar cases involving contracts for renewable energy systems. It sends a clear message that parties must adhere to contractual obligations and timelines to avoid financial repercussions. Consumers should take note of this ruling and ensure they fully understand the terms of any agreement they enter into, particularly those involving significant financial commitments.
As for the homeowners, they may consider further legal options, including potential appeals to higher courts. However, details regarding any future actions by Velasco and Rivera were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in legal agreements and the importance of timely communication and action in contractual relationships.