A recent ruling from the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals has denied a request for attorney fees in a case involving a construction dispute. The decision affects the parties involved, particularly Andrés Ruiz MartÃnez and Michael Casciano Nieves, and sets a precedent for how attorney fees are handled in similar cases in the future.
The case, Andrés Ruiz MartÃnez v. Michael Casciano Nieves Y Otros, was filed under docket number TA2026CE00772. It arose from a dispute over construction permits in Humacao, Puerto Rico. The court's ruling, issued on June 26, 2026, clarifies the conditions under which attorney fees can be awarded in cases involving the challenge of construction permits.
Background
The parties in this case include Andrés Ruiz MartÃnez and Lourdes T. Soto Alvarado, who filed a lawsuit against Michael Casciano Nieves and Judith Kotick González regarding construction activities on a property adjacent to theirs. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were constructing structures without the necessary permits, violating local regulations.
On February 20, 2025, the defendants sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing they had a valid construction permit. The plaintiffs countered that the permit was invalid because it had not undergone the required public hearing process. After several procedural developments, including the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrawing their case due to the unavailability of an expert witness, the primary court dismissed the case without prejudice on January 20, 2026.
The Ruling
On March 6, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking attorney fees of $9,496.95, arguing that the defendants' late withdrawal from the case was unreasonable and resulted in unnecessary expenses. However, on April 28, 2026, the primary court denied the request for attorney fees but awarded $90 for costs related to court filings.
In their ruling, the Court of Appeals stated, "the imposition of attorney fees is an extraordinary sanction for reckless or obstinate conduct, and the late withdrawal or failure to prevail in the case does not automatically imply a penalty." The panel, consisting of Judge Bonilla Ortiz, Judge MartÃnez Cordero, and Judge Robles Adorno, emphasized that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the defendants acted frivolously or without merit.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future litigation in Puerto Rico, especially concerning construction disputes and challenges to permits. The court's decision reinforces the idea that simply withdrawing a case does not automatically warrant the imposition of attorney fees. It also underscores the discretion that courts have in determining whether a party's actions warrant penalties.
Legal experts suggest that this ruling may discourage parties from seeking attorney fees in similar situations unless there is clear evidence of frivolous conduct. The court's emphasis on the need for substantial justification before imposing such fees may lead to more cautious litigation strategies in future cases.
What's Next
The decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, but details on whether the plaintiffs intend to pursue this option were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling.