The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of a consumer, Ariel J. Freije Ortiz, in a case against Union Auto Group Usados San Juan LLC and iDrive Auto Group. The court's decision to revoke a lower court's dismissal allows Freije Ortiz to continue pursuing his claims regarding a breach of contract and damages related to a vehicle purchase. This ruling is significant for consumers seeking justice in similar disputes.
The case, filed under docket number TA2026AP00206, began when Freije Ortiz bought a 2024 BMW M2 for $99,000 from the dealership. As part of the deal, he traded in his 2021 BMW M235XI, receiving a trade-in credit of $29,890. The dealership was supposed to pay off the remaining balance of $20,890 owed on the traded vehicle. However, Freije Ortiz alleged that the dealership failed to fulfill this obligation, leading to ongoing monthly charges.
Frustrated by the dealership's inaction, Freije Ortiz sought help from the Department of Consumer Affairs (DACO). After reaching a settlement with the dealership, which was approved by DACO, the dealership still did not comply with the agreement. Consequently, Freije Ortiz requested DACO to enforce its order, but the agency did not act promptly. This led him to file a lawsuit in the Bayamón Superior Court, seeking an injunction to enforce the agreement and recover improperly made payments.
On January 23, 2026, the Bayamón Superior Court dismissed Freije Ortiz's case, stating that DACO had jurisdiction over the matter and that the consumer did not demonstrate imminent harm that warranted the court's intervention. Freije Ortiz disagreed with this decision and filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the dismissal was premature and that he had exhausted available remedies.
On February 26, 2026, Freije Ortiz appealed to the Court of Appeals, claiming that the lower court erred in declaring it lacked jurisdiction to hear his case. The Appeals Court found that the lower court was mistaken in its ruling. It stated, "the forum of instance had the jurisdiction necessary to attend the Demand of epÃgrafe," meaning the court could hear the case because DACO had issued a final determination.
The court emphasized that the administrative agency, DACO, does not have the coercive power to enforce its orders, and thus individuals like Freije Ortiz can seek judicial assistance to enforce such determinations. The Appeals Court concluded that the lower court had incorrectly dismissed the case and ordered it to be sent back for further proceedings.
This ruling is important for consumers in Puerto Rico, as it clarifies the ability of individuals to seek judicial remedies when administrative agencies fail to enforce their decisions. It reinforces the notion that consumers can pursue legal action to protect their rights and interests.
Moving forward, this case may set a precedent for similar disputes involving consumer rights and the enforcement of agreements with dealerships. It highlights the importance of judicial intervention when administrative remedies are insufficient or slow to address consumer grievances.
The court's decision allows Freije Ortiz to continue his pursuit of justice against the dealership, potentially leading to a resolution of his claims. It remains to be seen how the lower court will proceed with the case following the Appeals Court's ruling.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding the possibility of further appeals or related cases. However, the ruling opens the door for consumers to seek enforcement of their rights in situations where they feel wronged by businesses.