The Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico recently dismissed a legal dispute involving the installation of a generator at the Puerto Paseos Condominium. The ruling affects the condominium's board and residents, highlighting the complexities of governance within shared living spaces. The decision underscores the importance of proper procedures in condominium management and the legal implications of administrative orders.
The case, titled Anibelle Sloan Altieri, Yohanna De Jesús BerrÃos, and Rolando Román Pérez v. Rafael Aponte, Daniel Torre, Consejo De Titulares Del Condominio Puerto Paseos, and Rogelio Muñoz, was filed under docket number TA2025RA00102 on May 14, 2026. The dispute arose after residents raised concerns about a decision made during a condominium assembly regarding the installation of a second generator.
The plaintiffs, Anibelle Sloan Altieri and Rolando Román Pérez, filed a complaint on October 24, 2024, challenging the assembly held on September 24, 2024. They argued that the assembly approved a special assessment for improvements without unanimous consent from all owners and withdrew funds from the reserve account for the generator installation. They claimed these actions violated the Condominium Law and the condominium's governing documents.
Yohanna De Jesús BerrÃos later joined the complaint, asserting that the generator project constituted an alteration to the building that required permits and was contrary to existing plans. The board of the condominium, represented by Rafael Aponte and Daniel Torre, countered that the generator was a necessary common element and did not require unanimous approval.
The case escalated when BerrÃos filed an urgent motion to halt the construction of the generator on May 14, 2025. The Department of Consumer Affairs (DACO) ruled in favor of BerrÃos on May 27, 2025, ordering the condominium board to stop the installation, warning that failure to comply could result in fines of up to $10,000.
In response, the condominium board filed a request for judicial review on July 23, 2025, arguing that DACO had erred by issuing the order without a hearing and failing to consider necessary evidence. The board contended that the generator was essential for the condominium's energy needs and that the assembly had followed proper procedures.
On December 18, 2025, DACO dismissed the complaints, stating that the board had complied with the law in convening the assembly and approving the generator installation. This resolution effectively resolved the dispute over the generator.
The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Barresi Ramos, reviewed the case and determined that the matter had become academic due to DACO's resolution. The court stated, "the facts have changed; and there is an absence of a genuine controversy between the parties." Consequently, the court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to address the appeal.
The court's decision to dismiss the case on the grounds of academic nature means that the issues raised by the condominium board were no longer relevant, as the underlying dispute had been resolved. This ruling emphasizes the importance of timely legal action and the need for parties to ensure that their disputes remain active and justiciable.
This ruling has implications for condominium governance in Puerto Rico, as it highlights the necessity for boards to follow proper procedures when making decisions that affect all residents. The case serves as a reminder for condominium associations to ensure transparency and compliance with legal requirements to avoid disputes.
Moving forward, the dismissal of this case does not appear to set a new legal precedent, but it does reinforce existing laws regarding condominium governance and the importance of following proper protocols. Residents and boards alike may take this ruling into consideration when navigating future disputes.
As for the future of this case, it is unclear whether the condominium board plans to appeal the decision. However, given that the court has ruled on the matter, it may be challenging to pursue further legal action. There are no related cases pending at this time, but the outcome of this case may influence how similar disputes are handled in the future.