The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal in a family inheritance case that involved the partition of property among heirs. The court ruled on April 24, 2026, that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by Deyanira Brand Echeverry against a lower court's decision. This ruling affects the parties involved in the inheritance dispute, which has been ongoing since 2013, and highlights the importance of procedural compliance in legal matters.
The case, identified by docket number TA2026AP00329, began when Alberic ColĂłn SolĂs, Celmarie ColĂłn SolĂs, and Alberic ColĂłn Sambrana (collectively referred to as the “Recurridos”) filed a lawsuit against Echeverry and other family members regarding the partition of an inheritance. The Recurridos alleged that Echeverry had withdrawn funds from the estate of Alberic ColĂłn BermĂşdez without returning them, and they sought to liquidate the community property.
Over the years, the case saw multiple legal proceedings. In May 2023, the lower court ordered the registration of a specific apartment in the name of the estate and mandated its sale for at least $200,000. Echeverry contested this ruling, claiming she had purchased the property in question before her marriage and that the court had violated her rights by ordering the transfer of ownership without due process.
Echeverry filed motions seeking to amend the lower court's judgment, arguing that the court had acted without jurisdiction and that the ruling violated her constitutional rights. However, the lower court denied her motions, stating that it lacked jurisdiction to consider them. Echeverry then appealed to the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn the lower court's decisions.
The Appeals Court, led by Judge Monge GĂłmez, reviewed the case and ultimately ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Echeverry's appeal. The court noted that jurisdiction is a fundamental requirement for any court to hear a case. It stated, "The absence of jurisdiction cannot be remedied by the parties, and issues related to jurisdiction must be prioritized and resolved before any other matters."
In its ruling, the court highlighted that Echeverry's appeal was filed outside the required time limits. The court found that the lower court's order was not subject to appeal because Echeverry failed to file her motions within the designated timeframe. The court explained, "A party adversely affected by a judgment has the right to file a motion for additional findings of fact or conclusions of law within a strict deadline, and failing to do so deprives the court of the authority to consider such requests."
The court also addressed Echeverry's claims regarding the violation of her rights and the alleged nullity of the lower court's judgment. It concluded that since Echeverry did not comply with the procedural requirements, the court could not entertain her arguments. Therefore, the Appeals Court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the principle that strict adherence to procedural rules is essential for the proper functioning of the legal system.
This ruling has significant implications for the parties involved in the inheritance dispute. It emphasizes the necessity for timely and proper filings in legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving family inheritance and property disputes. The decision also serves as a reminder to individuals engaged in legal actions to be vigilant about deadlines and procedural requirements.
Moving forward, the dismissal of Echeverry's appeal means that the lower court's ruling stands, and the inheritance case will continue without her input on the appeal. The court's decision may discourage similar future appeals that do not meet jurisdictional requirements.
As of now, it remains unclear whether Echeverry plans to pursue further legal action or if there are related cases pending. The court's ruling effectively closes this chapter of the inheritance dispute, but it may not be the end of legal battles among the family members involved.