The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court's ruling in a case involving a loan repayment dispute between the Cooperativa de Ahorro y Crédito de Florida (Florida Coop) and José Maldonado López and others. The court confirmed that Maldonado and his associates owe over $21,000 to Florida Coop, plus additional legal fees. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the obligations of borrowers under loan agreements and the discretion courts have in determining legal costs.

The case, Cooperativa De Ahorro Y Crédito De Florida v. José Maldonado López Y Otros, was filed under docket number TA2026AP00757. It began on December 7, 2025, when Florida Coop filed a lawsuit against Maldonado and his co-defendants for failing to repay a loan. The dispute centers around a promissory note signed by Maldonado on October 20, 2020, for a principal amount of $30,000 at an interest rate of 12.75% per year. Florida Coop claimed that Maldonado had defaulted on the loan payments for over three months and owed $21,828.05 as of December 3, 2025.

After the initial filing, the court issued a judgment on June 15, 2026, ordering Maldonado and his co-defendants to pay the owed amount along with $2,000 in legal fees and costs. Florida Coop argued that the court's decision on legal fees was insufficient, as the promissory note stipulated that they could claim up to 30% of the owed amount for legal costs in case of a lawsuit. They sought to modify the ruling to reflect this higher amount.

The court's ruling confirmed the lower court's decision, stating, "the imposition of $2,000.00 for costs, expenses, and attorney's fees was within the margin permitted by the promissory note and in the exercise of its discretion." The panel of judges included Hernández Sánchez, Rivera Torres, and Marrero Guerrero, with Marrero Guerrero writing the opinion.

The court explained that the language of the promissory note did not guarantee a fixed amount of 30% for legal fees but allowed for a maximum of that percentage. The term "up to" indicated that the court had the discretion to award a lesser amount. The appellate court found no evidence of abuse of discretion by the lower court in determining the legal fees.

This ruling has implications for future loan agreements and legal disputes in Puerto Rico. It reinforces the idea that while borrowers may have obligations to pay certain fees, the courts retain discretion in how much to award in legal costs. This decision may influence how lenders draft their contracts and how they approach collections in the future.

Looking ahead, the parties may have the option to appeal this ruling to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, but details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The case highlights the importance of clear contractual language and the role of judicial discretion in financial disputes.