The Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico recently ruled in favor of Patillas House LLC and John Teague, allowing them to present expert testimony in their property dispute against Donald Craig Furness and Jannis Henning Furness. This decision, issued on September 18, 2026, is significant as it reinstates crucial evidence that could impact the outcome of the case regarding alleged hidden defects in a property sold to the plaintiffs.

The case, docket number TA2026CE01096, arose from a complaint filed by Patillas House and Teague in March 2024. They alleged that the Furnesses knowingly sold them a property with hidden defects, including structural issues and questions regarding the legality of an adjacent dock. The court's ruling allows the plaintiffs to introduce expert testimony that was previously excluded by a lower court.

Background

Patillas House LLC and John Teague filed a lawsuit against Donald Craig Furness, Jannis Henning Furness, and others, claiming damages related to the sale of a property on March 5, 2022. They argued that the Furnesses sold them a property with undisclosed defects. After Hurricane Fiona, the dock adjacent to the property was destroyed, and an engineer later indicated that it might be illegal. The plaintiffs also discovered various structural issues, including termite damage and mold.

In their lawsuit, Patillas House and Teague sought to have the sales contract annulled, claiming that the property was not as represented. They requested compensation for damages totaling $310,000. The Furnesses responded with a counterclaim, alleging that the plaintiffs owed them money from the sale and sought damages for abuse of rights.

The case progressed through the lower court, where a key issue arose regarding the admissibility of expert testimony from an engineer. The plaintiffs had intended to present a report from the engineer, Rolando García González, but the lower court excluded this testimony, citing its timing as it was submitted three to four years after the property purchase.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court had erred in excluding the expert testimony. The judges noted that the exclusion was based on the timing of the report rather than its relevance to the case. The court stated, "The trial court exceeded its discretion in denying the proposed expert testimony, as the report is pertinent to the hidden defects alleged by the plaintiffs."

The ruling emphasized that in cases involving hidden defects, expert testimony is essential to establish that the defects were not visible prior to the sale. The court found that the plaintiffs had not committed any procedural missteps that would warrant the exclusion of their expert's testimony.

The panel of judges included Rodríguez Casillas, Rodríguez Flores, and Díaz Rivera, with Rodríguez Flores serving as the lead judge. The court determined that the expert's testimony should be allowed, stating that the evidence was relevant and timely presented.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Patillas House and Teague as it allows them to present critical evidence that could support their claims against the Furnesses. The decision underscores the importance of expert testimony in property disputes, particularly when hidden defects are involved. It also clarifies the standards for admissibility of expert evidence in Puerto Rican courts, suggesting that timing alone should not be a basis for exclusion if the evidence is relevant to the case.

Going forward, this ruling could influence similar cases involving property sales and hidden defects, as it reinforces the notion that plaintiffs should be allowed to present expert opinions that can substantiate their claims. The decision may encourage other property buyers who have encountered similar issues to pursue legal action, knowing that their expert evidence may be admissible.

What's Next

The case will return to the lower court for further proceedings, where the expert testimony will be allowed. It remains to be seen how this evidence will affect the outcome of the case. Additionally, there is no indication that the ruling will be appealed, but the parties may continue to engage in settlement discussions as the case progresses.