The Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico recently issued a ruling in the case of José M. Marxuach Fagot Y Otros v. Sucesión De Pedro Remberto Fagot Bigas Y Otros, docket number TA2026CE00311. The court addressed two main issues: the legality of a judicial deposit order and the disqualification of an attorney representing one of the parties. This decision affects the parties involved in the inheritance dispute and clarifies procedural requirements for similar cases.
The case began on January 24, 2024, when José M. Marxuach Fagot and others filed a lawsuit against the estate of Pedro Remberto Fagot Bigas. The plaintiffs sought a partial nullification of a will, liquidation and partition of inheritance, appointment of an administrator, and damages. The defendants, representing the estate, denied most of the allegations and claimed that the plaintiffs had not responded to a prior interrogatory, thus hindering their ability to defend themselves. They also argued that the lawsuit was frivolous and requested sanctions against the plaintiffs.
After several procedural incidents, the plaintiffs sought a court order to identify bank accounts related to the estate to access necessary financial information. The defendants opposed this request, arguing that the information was not pertinent to the case. However, the court ruled that the information was relevant and ordered the banks to provide it.
On September 30, 2025, the lower court ordered a judicial deposit of funds from the estate's bank accounts, which the defendants contended was an illegal seizure of assets. They argued that this action violated their due process rights. The defendants subsequently filed a petition for certiorari, claiming that the lower court had made significant legal errors.
The Court of Appeals, composed of Judges Cintrón Cintrón, Rodríguez Flores, and Díaz Rivera, reviewed the case and issued its ruling on April 15, 2026. The court determined that the lower court had erred in ordering the judicial deposit without adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in the civil procedure rules. The court stated, "the order issued by the lower court... had the practical effect of depriving the defendants of control and disposition of the deposited funds." Thus, the court ruled to revoke the lower court's order for the judicial deposit and remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings, including a hearing to determine if the requested remedy was appropriate.
Additionally, the Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision not to disqualify attorney Joanna Bocanegra Ocasio from representing the plaintiffs. The defendants had argued that her close relationship with the plaintiffs created a conflict of interest. However, the court found no basis for disqualification, emphasizing the discretion of the lower court in managing attorney conduct and the proceedings.
This ruling has significant implications for the parties involved, particularly as it clarifies the procedural requirements for judicial deposits in inheritance cases. The decision reinforces the necessity for courts to adhere to due process when ordering such deposits, ensuring that parties are given proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. It also affirms the discretion of lower courts in determining attorney disqualifications, provided that no clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated.
Moving forward, the case will return to the lower court for further proceedings regarding the judicial deposit and any other remedies that may be warranted. The parties may still seek to appeal certain aspects of the ruling, but the immediate focus will be on the next steps in the inheritance dispute.